Showing posts with label State Dept. Show all posts
Showing posts with label State Dept. Show all posts

Wednesday, May 2, 2007

Rice loses another top aide

Rice loses another aide as top Arab-American diplomat resigns

15 minutes ago

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice lost yet another senior aide on Wednesday when Dina Habib Powell, the highest-ranking Arab-American in the US government, announced her resignation to join a Wall Street investment bank.

The departure of Powell, key architect of a Rice initiative to improve the United States' image abroad, was the third senior diplomat to quit in the past five days and the sixth so far this year -- an exodus that is expected to continue in the final 20 months of the Bush administration.

Powell, who at 33 is also one of the youngest senior State Department diplomats, is taking up a job at Goldman Sachs Group, department spokesman Tom Casey said. She is due to leave her State Department job in about two months.

Powell, whose parents emigrated from Egypt to Texas when she was a child, followed Rice to the State Department two years ago from the White House, where she directed the presidential personnel office.

As the assistant secretary of state for educational and cultural affairs, Powell also served as the deputy to Undersecretary of State Karen Hughes, President George W. Bush's former media guru who has been leading a "public diplomacy" campaign to counter anti-Americanism in the Arab world since the US invasion of Iraq.

Powell said her decision to leave government at this time was personal.

"It's the right time for me and my family," Powell told The Washington Post.

"I'm really sorry to lose her. She is fantastic," Rice told the Post of Powell's resignation.

"She had so many ideas. There are people who have ideas but can't execute them. She really executed them," Rice said.

Powell was notably instrumental in creating public-private partnerships to help fund relief efforts, notably in Lebanon following the July-August 2006 war between Israel and the Lebanese militia, Hezbollah -- a conflict which fuelled anger in the region against the United States for its backing of Israel.

"Dina's really done a remarkable job for us in helping to build and expand our educational and cultural programs, particularly in working on developing public and private sector partnerships," Casey said.

Powell also managed to resurrect people-to-people exchanges with Iran at a time of high tension between the two states due to Tehran's nuclear program and alleged support for militants in Iran, Lebanon and the Palestinian areas.

"She restarted exchanges with Iran in ways that I thought not possible," Rice said, pointing to programs that saw Iranian doctors visit the United States and a US wrestling team travel to Iran.

News of Powell's resignation followed that of Barry Lowenkron, assistant secretary of state for democracy, human rights and labor, who announced on Monday that he was quitting to join a private charitable foundation.

Friday, one of Rice's two deputies, foreign aid director Randall Tobias, quit after being named in the media as a client of a Washington DC call-girl ring.

Since the start of the year, Rice has also lost her private counselor, Philip Zelikow, planning director Stephen Krasner, former UN ambassador John Bolton and non-proliferation chief Bob Joseph.

A senior State Department official indicated that the spate of resignations could continue as Bush nears the end of his mandate in January 2009.

"It's only natural as you get towards the end of the second term that people are going to be moving on," he said. "The secretary understands."

Saturday, April 28, 2007

Cheney has it exactly backwards; Terror attacks up, Rice considered hiding the data

Related
Terror attacks up, Rice considered hiding the data
---

Saturday, April 28, 2007

Saudi Terror Plot Averted
State Dept.: Terrorism up 30%


Condi Rice wanted to delay the news, but it has broken on two fronts.

Warren Strobel and Jonathan S. Landay of McClatchy report that the annual State Department on terrorism will report a nearly 30% rise over the previous year, most of it accounted for by attacks in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In other words Cheney has it exactly backwards. The US military presence in Iraq and Afghanistan is feeding terrorism, not preventing or lessening it. "They" won't follow us home if we leave. But they might if we don't.

Top Bush official admits hooker link, resigns

Rice Deputy Quits After Query Over Escort Service

Randall Tobias Oversaw U.S. Foreign Aid Programs

By Glenn Kessler

Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, April 28, 2007; A01

Randall L. Tobias, the deputy secretary of state responsible for U.S. foreign aid, abruptly resigned yesterday after he was asked about an upscale escort service allegedly involved in prostitution, U.S. government sources said.

Tobias resigned after ABC News contacted him with questions about the escort service, the sources said. ABC News released a statement last night saying Tobias acknowledged Thursday that he had used the service to provide massages, not sex.

Tobias has been Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's point man in an ambitious effort to overhaul how the U.S. government manages foreign aid, a key part of her "transformational diplomacy" agenda. Just two days ago, President Bush lauded Tobias for his work in the administration leading "America's monumental effort to confront and deal with the HIV/AIDS epidemic on the continent of Africa."

In an unusual statement issued at 5 p.m., State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said Tobias informed Rice "today that he must step down as Director of U.S. Foreign Assistance and U.S. Agency for International Development Administrator effective immediately. He is returning to private life for personal reasons."

Contacted last night at his home in the District, Tobias, a former chief executive of pharmaceutical giant Eli Lilly & Co., declined to discuss the circumstances of his resignation, saying he would "stick with the statement the State Department released today."

According to ABC News, Tobias said he contacted the escort service "to have gals come over to the condo to give me a massage" and that there had been "no sex" involved.

In a memo yesterday to the USAID staff, James R. Kunder, acting deputy USAID administrator, called the resignation "shocking news" and urged workers not to be "distracted from our developmental and emergency work."

Within minutes of McCormack's announcement, Tobias's biography was removed from the USAID Web site.

State Department officials declined to comment further on the reasons for Tobias's resignation.

"I'm sad today," said one person close to Tobias. "The president loves him and Condi absolutely loves him."

White House officials said Rice briefed Bush on the matter early yesterday before he met with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe. The president "was saddened and disappointed and wished Dr. Tobias and his family well," spokeswoman Dana Perino said.

Deborah Jeane Palfrey, who operated the escort service, was indicted on federal racketeering charges in February and has threatened to expose her high-profile client list.

Palfrey has contended that her escort service provided clients with college-educated women who engaged in legal, sexual game-playing for $275 per 90-minute session in their homes or hotel rooms. Prosecutors allege she ran a prostitution ring.

Palfrey's attorney, Montgomery Blair Sibley, said yesterday that he has been contacted in the past few days by five lawyers asking whether their client's phone numbers are on Palfrey's list of 10,000 to 15,000 customers from 2002 to 2006. Some have also asked about whether an accommodation can be made to avoid identifying their clients, which Sibley said he is not able to promise. ABC's "20/20" is mining that database of phone numbers, Sibley said, for a news report on the more notable of Palfrey's customers.

"I presume '20/20' crews running around with cameras has led to this flurry of activity," Sibley said. "That may cause some people to worry."

ABC reporters interviewed Palfrey last week, Sibley said, and asked her about specific customers by name. Sibley declined to identity them or speculate about Palfrey's clients whose identities may be revealed in coming days. He said that in many cases, he and Palfrey did not have the investigative resources to identify them from their phone numbers, but that ABC did.

ABC is grappling with the question of whether to air a report or identify some of those on the list. "We can't comment on ongoing reporting," ABC News spokesman Jeffrey Schneider said.

After a long career in the corporate world, including stints not only at Eli Lilly but also as AT&T vice chairman, Tobias joined the administration in 2003 to be the first global AIDS coordinator, with the rank of ambassador. He was responsible for a start-up program designed to spend $15 billion over five years, with the largest share going to 12 African and two Caribbean countries that account for roughly half the world population with HIV/AIDS.

Last year, Rice tapped Tobias to be the first director of U.S. foreign assistance, with the rank of deputy secretary, giving him the task of both running USAID and coordinating all foreign aid so that the delivery of aid would more closely follow the administration's policy goals. Under Tobias, for the first time, the State Department produced documents showing exactly how much aid was going to each country. He has proven so essential to Rice's plans that she had refused to let him leave even though officials said he had wanted to resign from the high-pressure job for at least six months.

The ambitious effort has been controversial on Capitol Hill, where Tobias's style and performance have come under attack. At a hearing last month, Rep. Tom Lantos (D-Calif.), chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, accused Tobias of "tycoonitis," which he described as "people who come from the top of the corporate ladder who consider congressional suggestions, requests for information and participation in decision-making as intruding on their turf."

Staff writers Michael Abramowitz, John Solomon, Carol D. Leonnig, Howard Kurtz and Martin Weil and researcher Julie Tate contributed to this report.

Wednesday, April 18, 2007

Cupid and Cupidity: MAUREEN DOWD - Wolfie and Shaha

THE COMPLETE ARTICLE
THE NEW YORK TIMES

OP-ED COLUMNIST

Cupid and Cupidity

By MAUREEN DOWD
Published: April 18, 2007

Never has a star-crossed romance so perfectly illuminated a star-crossed conflict as the unfolding saga of Wolfie and Shaha.


There have been many tender love stories in war.

Ike and Kay. Pamela Harriman and Edward R. Murrow. Aeneas and Dido. Achilles and his tent temptation, Patroclus.

But my favorite is the unfolding saga of Wolfie and Shaha. Never has a star-crossed romance so perfectly illuminated a star-crossed conflict.

The weekend meetings of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund were consumed with the question of how the bank chief could fight corruption while indulging in cronyism. Who could focus on a weak yen when you had a weak Wolfie with a strong yen for Shaha?

In addition to the story about Paul Wolfowitz’s giving his girlfriend, Shaha Ali Riza, a promotion and a $60,000 raise because he felt guilty that she had to be transferred from the World Bank to the State Department when he took over, The Times reported yesterday on more imperialist hanky-panky.

Steven Weisman and David Sanger wrote that in 2003, when Wolfie was No. 2 at the Pentagon, the office of his consigliere, Douglas Feith, directed a private contractor to hire Ms. Riza, then at the World Bank, to spend a month traveling in Iraq to study ways to set up the new government.

(It was simple to get the contractor, the Science Applications International Corporation, to play along. As Vanity Fair reported, the Pentagon awarded SAIC seven contracts valued at more than $100 million before the war, without competitive bidding. Mr. Feith’s deputy was Christopher Henry, a former SAIC senior vice president.)

Wolfie and Shaha did not let a little thing like World Bank rules — which barred the bank from providing economic assistance to an area under military occupation — keep them from pushing the neocon delusions.

--MORE--

Saturday, April 14, 2007

US Spent $35m on Foundation Where Wolfowitz Lover Worked -- but State Department Does Not Know Where Office is

April 14, 2007
America Spent $35 million on Foundation for the Future Where Wolfowitz Lover Worked -- but State Department Does Not Know Where the Office is Located

wolfowitz hmm.jpg

Beyond the question of what Shaha Riza's compensation was and how she got it -- is what she has been doing and for whom. She was reportedly seconded to the multi-nationally supported "Foundation for the Future," which was really a part of America's public diplomacy game plan.

For those interested, this is a pdf of the "Chair's Summary" from the "Third Forum for the Future" held November 30-December 1, 2006 at Dead Sea, Jordan.

The roster of donors to the Foundation for the Future, launched with $56 million, included a seed grant from the U.S. for $35 million:

United States: $35 million

European Commission: 1 million euros

Spain: $1 million

United Kingdom: $1 million

Switzerland: $1 million

Denmark :$2 million

Netherlands: $1 million

Greece: $1.5 million

Turkey: $500,000

Italy: TBD

Hungary: In kind

Jordan: $1 million

Qatar: $10 million

Bahrain: TBD

But strangely, few seem to know much about the Foundation for the Future at the State Department. To be fair, maybe some do -- but in this interesting exchange between a journalist and State Department Deputy Press Spokesman Tom Casey, it is clear that the Foundation for the Future is not a high priority at State.

Here is the interesting exchange highlighting that no one seems to know how to make a call to the Foundation for the Future -- (does Shaha Riza have an office or phone extension wherever this office may be?):

QUESTION: I wanted to ask you something kind of on the margins of the whole World Bank Shaha Riza matter, and that is that, as you remember, Secretary Rice announced the formation or at least the launch of this Foundation for the Future in, I think, November of 2005.

And at least as far as -- well, it's very hard to find this foundation. You go to their website. They have a website but there's no phone numbers, there's no address. They appear to have not given out any grants.

They haven't set up office, that at least one can find. And considering it was launched with some fanfare at the time, I'm just curious if you could bring us up to speed a little bit as to what this foundation consists of and where you -- where it seems to be going. I don't even -- it's hard to see how much money it is that the U.S. has put into this, for one.

MR. CASEY: Neil, I actually haven't, unfortunately, briefed myself on the latest activities from the Foundation. Look, as you know, this was something that has emerged out of the Forum for the Future process.

t has an international board of directors representing -- with representatives from most of the participating regional countries there as well as an executive directorate. In terms of the amount of money involved at this point and some of the specific grant programs, I'll have to look into it for you. I just don't have that at my fingertips. Sorry.

QUESTION: Are you taking the question?

MR. CASEY: Yes, I'm taking the question.

QUESTION: But is Ms. Shaha a consultant or a fulltime employee of the board? What is her status?

MR. CASEY: My understanding is she is an individual seconded by the World Bank as an advisor to the board of directors of the Foundation for the Future.

QUESTION: But she's not on the board?

MR. CASEY: No.

QUESTION: So her official title is advisor or consultant?

MR. CASEY: My best understanding is advisor to the board, yeah.

QUESTION: So what does she do as the advisor? I mean, does she help advise on grants, or do you know what her job is?

MR. CASEY: I do not have a job description for her, no. Again, I think that's a question you could ask some of the board members.

QUESTION: Do you know where the office is?

MR. CASEY: No, but I don't know where the office is for a number of parts of the State Department offhand, Matt. So I will get you -- I will get you guys more information.

QUESTION: Isn't there an agreement for the office to be based in Beirut?

MR. CASEY: I'd have to check. I honestly don't know the details on the specifics of the foundation.

One question beyond the Wolfowitz-Riza Scandal is how many "consultants" does the Department of State (or other Departments like DoD, DoE, and others) have along these lines?

Remember the odd case of Matthew Freedman working under then Under Secretary of State John Bolton's office? Few knew what he did or what his responsibilities were justifying his six figure consultant's salary -- which he maintained while consulting private firms that had business with the government.

How much of this is happening throughout the government?

-- Steve Clemons

(Ed Note: Thanks to PGS for sending much of this material.)

More Material for the Wolfowitz World Bank Scandal

Here is some material to help those following the Wolfowitz scandal.

First, here is a great article by Emad Mekay and Jim Lobe, "Top Wolfowitz Postings Went to Iraq War Backers."

Here is a fascinating piece on Paul Wolfowitz's family roots and early days at Cornell.

Here is a copy of the "Ad Hoc Group" report -- a rough equivalent to an Inspector General's report -- on the Wolfowitz-Riza scandal. It is interesting to note that the Ethics Committee essentially instructed Wolfowitz to resolve the conflict-of-interest matter himself.

Shaha Riza's comments that she was an unwilling "victim" in the decision to second her out of the World Bank to the U.S. Department of State's operations. (I suppose that in that context, some might understand why her compensation surged and was actually higher than Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's. . .well, maybe not.)

Financial Times lead editorial (13 April 2007), "Why Bush Should Let a Damaged Wolfowitz Go"

More soon.

-- Steve Clemons

ADVERTISEMENT:

April 13, 2007
Express Your Views on Why Wolfowitz Must Resign

wolfowitz 2.jpg

A TWN reader has done a nice job of assembling key email addresses for World Bank officials who may have some influence on whether the corrupt actions of Bank President Paul Wolfowitz on behalf of his girlfriend and others justifies his resignation/firing.

For those of you who need a quick primer on Wolfowitz's self-inflicted problems and moral lapses, see Sebastian Mallaby's superb piece today, "The World Bank, Stuck in the Mud." I also wrote on the Kevin Kellems and Robin Cleveland parts of this story long ago here -- and had a reprise yesterday.

I just sent this note of my own to the following addresses -- and you should feel free to as well:

Dear World Bank Official:

I am a writer and public policy practitioner in Washington, DC and blog at www.TPMCafe.com www.HuffingtonPost.com and www.TheWashingtonNote.com.

I have blogged about Paul Wolfowitz's situation here:

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/002058.php

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-clemons/paul-wolfowitzs-hours-_b_45726.html

I want to express my dismay and regret that he has not had the personal strength to recognize that his nepotism has undermined whatever trust he held from those both within the bank and those outside who care about the Bank's role and function in the developing world.

Wolfowitz's campaign of anti-corruption measures within the bank is now a farce. For him to keep his job sends a signal to those inside the bank and to clients that pushing a deal for a brother, a friend, someone who scratches my back while he scratches theirs is something OK, worth doing at least until getting caught. And even then, no consequences.

Wolfowitz is a smart man. While I don't agree with his foreign policy views, I do know that he has the ability to see that there is no alternative to this situation but resignation. His trying to wrestle against that reality may be evidence of a further corruption -- real and in spirit -- of Wolfowitz's tenure at the World Bank.

You should play a role in calling for him to resign now.

Sincerely,

Steven Clemons
www.TheWashingtonNote.com

Here are the World Bank email addresses:

feedback@worldbank.org; dtheis@worldbank.org; cmuller@worldbank.org; hbridi@worldbank.org; osiemens@ifc.org; Jingram@worldbank.org; Yyoshimura1@worldbank.org; nmohammed@worldbank.org; Yduvivier@worldbank.org; Dvarela@worldbank.org; Acraig@worldbank.org; Schitale@worldbank.org; Rreinikka@worldbank.org; Jowen@worldbank.org; Achuecamora@worldbank.org; Avantrotsenburg@worldbank.org; Rrobinson@worldbank.org; Xzhu1@worldbank.org; Fbelhaj@worldbank.org; Cwallich@worldbank.org; Kgeorgieva@worldbank.org; Fkaps@worldbank.org; Dgaye@worldbank.org; Cluff@worldbank.org; Lgiovine@worldbank.org; Dreinermann@worldbank.org; Cbruce@worldbank.org; Jbriscoe@worldbank.org; Vturbat@worldbank.org; Nagrawal@worldbank.org; Orazzaz@worldbank.org; mrepnik@worldbank.org; DDollar@worldbank.org; mlopez@worldbank.org; Jhappi@worldbank.org; Mibrahima@worlbank.org; Mdia@worldbank.org; Aseth1@worldbank.org; Mkarlsson@worldbank.org; Embi@worldbank.org; Aalmansi@worldbank.org; Mgbetibouo@worldbank.org; Zbadr@worldbank.org; Idiwan@worldbank.org; Afaiz@worldbank.org

But the single most important address you can write to is Deputy Secretary of the Treasury Robert Kimmitt -- a very good guy in my view -- but he holds many of the cards on whether Wolfowitz goes or stays:

Robert.Kimmitt@do.treas.gov

Be respectful. Kimmitt is first class and won't be thrilled with the calls for action from the public -- but he needs to hear from people about this.

While Bob Kimmitt is a moderate Republican and his brother, Mark Kimmitt, an accomplished General, his father -- J. Stanley Kimmitt was a powerful Democrat in the country and was Secretary of the Senate. Bill Clinton in his youth met Stan Kimmitt and encouraged Clinton's aspirations and career.

Years later, Stan Kimmitt did the same for me in a several hours long chat at the Biltmore Hotel in Los Angeles when I had helped organize a meeting with former Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield.

Members of the Kimmitt clan are deeply embedded with a code of dedicated public service -- and my hunch is that Wolfowitz's conduct violates every fiber of what "a Kimmitt" believes a public servant should represent.

-- Steve Clemons

08:43 AM | Permalink | Comments (41)

Thursday, March 29, 2007

Monarch's remarks provoke rare US retort

March 29, 2007, 3:40PM

By LEE KEATH and DONNA ABU-NASR Associated Press Writers
© 2007 The Associated Press

RIYADH, Saudi Arabia — King Abdullah's harsh — and unexpected — attack on the U.S. military presence in Iraq could be a Saudi attempt to signal to Washington its anger over the situation in Iraq and build credibility among fellow Arabs.

The kingdom has taken an aggressive leadership role to quiet Mideast troubles, and wanted to show other Arabs it was willing to put their interests above its close ties to the United States.

The White House, in a rare public retort Thursday, rejected the king's characterization of U.S. troops in Iraq as an "illegitimate foreign occupation," saying the United States was not in Iraq illegally.

"The United States and Saudi Arabia have a close and cooperative relationship on a wide range of issues," White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said. "And when it comes to the coalition forces being in Iraq, we are there under the U.N. Security Council resolutions and at the invitation of the Iraqi people."

"We disagree with them," Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns told senators. "We were a little surprised to see those remarks."

The king made his remarks Wednesday at the opening session of the two-day Arab summit his country hosted in Riyadh. It was believed to be the first time the king publicly expressed that opinion.

"In beloved Iraq, blood is flowing between brothers, in the shadow of an illegitimate foreign occupation, and abhorrent sectarianism threatens a civil war," said Abdullah, whose country is a U.S. ally that quietly aided the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.

The next day, Iraqi President Jalal Talabani bristled at the comment in his speech to the summit, saying the term occupation has "negative implications" and is "in contradiction" to the vision of "Iraqi patriotic and national forces."

A Saudi official said the king was speaking as the president of the summit and his remarks reflected general frustration with the "patchwork" job the Americans were doing to end violence in Iraq.

The king also wanted to send a message that Iraq is an issue that Arabs cannot turn their back on, the official said. He spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue.

It was not clear what kind of diplomatic fallout could result — but the comments did nothing to help bring Arab nations closer to the government of Iraq's Shiite prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki.

The summit has taken a tough line on Iraq, demanding it change its constitution and military to include more Sunnis and end a program of uprooting former members of Saddam Hussein's Baath party.

The Sunni-led governments of the Arab world have long been suspicious of Iraq's Shiite leadership, blaming it for fueling violence by discriminating against Sunni Arabs and accusing it of helping mainly Shiite Iran extend its influence in the region.

Abdullah's remarks came at a time when the kingdom is taking a more public role in efforts to defuse crises threatening to engulf the Middle East.

Saudi Arabia sponsored a reconciliation accord between Palestinian factions, has engaged Iran about its nuclear program, and has tried to settle simmering tensions in Lebanon. And the kingdom has been talking to various factions in Iraq.

Writers in some Arab media suggested before the summit that Saudi Arabia would seek solutions that would cater to U.S. interests.

"The king's remarks are the biggest proof that those accusations were false," said Dawood al-Shirian, a Saudi analyst. "In the issue of Iraq, Saudi Arabia went far beyond most other Arab countries. It went beyond the details and right to the cause."

Al-Shirian said he expected other Arab countries to take Saudi Arabia's lead in considering the presence of U.S. troops an illegal occupation.

"If Saudi Arabia didn't blame the occupation, the blame would fall on the Iraqis, who are victims. How can you blame the victim?" he asked.

The U.S. called its presence in Iraq an occupation until the June 2004 handover of sovereignty to the Iraqis. U.S. troops remained in Iraq with permission from the Iraqi government and a mandate from the United Nations.

Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal stood by the king's remarks Thursday — and his defense had hints of the Arab nation's attitude that the Shiite-led government doesn't have the legitimacy to approve the U.S. presence.

"If that country had chosen to have those troops, then it's something else. But any military action that is not requested by a specific country — that is the definition of occupation," al-Faisal told reporters.

____

Donna Abu Nasr reported from Beirut, Lebanon.

Sunday, March 25, 2007

Report: US State Dept. official to meet Haniyeh

The Jerusalem Post Internet Edition

As US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice conducts meetings with Israeli and Palestinian officials this week, another senior official in the US State Department is expected to meet secretly with Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh, the Saudi newspaper Al-Biyan reported Saturday.

According to the report, Saudi Arabia initiated the meeting together with a Hamas official in the PA.

Friday, March 23, 2007

Breaking barriers to peace

From the Baltimore Sun

By Ori Nir

March 23, 2007

As she makes another effort to create a "political horizon" for Israelis and Palestinians, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice would be well advised to take a good look at their states of mind. The picture that Ms. Rice is trying to draw, illustrating ways to resolve the core points of disagreement between the two peoples, cannot be an abstraction. It must be a vision that would reverse the confrontational dynamic.

Most Israelis and Palestinians have experienced only a relationship of bloody conflict. A majority on both sides has not tasted a different reality.

Consider the following figures, which Americans for Peace Now recently received from Fafo, the Norwegian Institute for Labor and Social Research, widely considered the most credible authority on Palestinian demographics. According to Fafo's most recent polling data, 51.3 percent of the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza are 20 years or younger. That means that more than half of the Palestinians in these territories were born into a milieu of on-again-off-again warfare with Israel that started with the outbreak of the first Palestinian intifada in 1987.

An even more striking figure is that the overwhelming majority of the Palestinian population, 80.3 percent, is less than 40 years old. That means that four out of every five Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza have lived their entire lives under Israeli occupation, which began after Israel's victory in the 1967 war with the Arabs.

Israel's population is significantly older. However, more than one-seventh of Israel's population arrived in the country after 1990, mainly because of the large influx of immigration from the former Soviet Union. Accounting for the 1,010,900 immigrants who arrived in the past 17 years, Israel's Central Bureau of Statistics data show that 52 percent of Israelis were not around 24 years ago (there are no available data for 1967) and 84 percent were not around 44 years ago.

These figures help explain some long-standing features of the Israeli-Palestinian stalemate, including the perception, in both societies, that the stalemate is chronic, unavoidable and, worse, irreversible.

Because most on both sides have been socialized within the reality of ongoing armed conflict, they have come to accept an adversarial relationship as normal, as default. They lack the personal frame of reference to imagine any other relationship. Recent polls of Israelis and Palestinians show that although majorities in both societies support a two-state solution, majorities of the same proportions think this desired solution is unattainable.

Both sides demonize the other. Most, on both sides, have never interacted with members of the other community in situations that are not adversarial. Most Palestinians are too young to have ever visited Israel.

Certainly, most Israelis have never seen the Arab towns, villages and refugee camps of the West Bank or Gaza. Indeed, most Israelis don't even know where Israel ends and the West Bank starts. Israel's minister of education is now fighting to have the 1967 "Green Line" border between Israel and the West Bank marked on maps in schoolbooks.

Scarred by a generation of alienation and violence, both societies are awash with hatred and vengeance. Both are cynical. Many in both societies have despaired of ever living in peace with the other.

It will not be easy to change the mindset of two populations that are to such a large extent a product of occupation and conflict. It will require a reversal in attitudes and values, which means dedication and commitment over time - perhaps over a long period of time.

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas consistently say that they have not despaired. And although Israel has refused to deal with the Palestinians' new unity government because of the militant group Hamas' refusal to recognize the Jewish state, Ms. Rice is pushing ahead to get the Israeli-Palestinian peace process moving again. She leaves for the Mideast today.

The degenerative nature of the status quo necessitates strong, decisive leadership. The status quo, bleak as it may be, should not suggest, however, that leadership and effort would not pay off. Palestinians and Israelis yearn for hope. And a promising glimmer of hope, resulting from Ms. Rice's trip, could dramatically transform the gloomy atmosphere on both sides.

Copyright © 2007, The Baltimore Sun

Sunday, March 18, 2007

A Few things about Iraq You Probably Have never Been Told: Former State Dept Advisor to Iraq Govt

Mar 18, 2007
Generally speaking

By Marshall Adame

1.In the United States Embassy in Iraq there are a couple of hundred Iraqi workers. They are badged and vetted. No hostile incident has ever occurred in the US Embassy executed by an Iraqi employee of the U.S. Embassy. In fact, the Iraqis working for and in the US Embassy have turned out to be great assets to the operation as a whole and have contributed more than expected and have gone the extra mile to help achieve stability in Iraq. Most are risking there very lives every day by working for the US Embassy, but through various forms of cloak and dagger secrecy they are able to make their way to the Green Zone to work on behalf of the Coalition and their country. (Most Iraqis are not the enemy).

2.In contrast to the above paragraph, the US military are prohibited from employing any Iraqi citizen (with a few exceptions). Any Iraqi who is employed by the US military in Iraq is accompanied by a US soldier every minute they are at work.

3.The US Military and Halliburton have brought in thousands of third world employees from Europe and Asia to fill thousands of jobs that could have went to Iraqi citizens. Basically, all Iraqi citizens have been considered, or are treated as a potential enemy. Planned and formulated widespread efforts to create relationships and alliances with the Iraqi population at large have never been carried out in Iraq.

4.I am told Halliburton employs and pays most of its American and foreign employees in Iraq through a company in Saudi Arabia. By doing so, they do not pay any US taxes related to Medicare, social security, income tax (federal or State) etc.

What many of the American employees discover, usually after they return form Iraq, is that they are still liable for paying their share of Social Security, Medicare and State taxes and obligations. They are also responsible for income taxes for all income in excess of the first 82K dollars per year which is exempt under US law.

5.The Iraq Reconstruction Management Office (IRMO) which oversees all contracts in Iraq and the US Army have funded and built or re-built dozens of Muslim Mosques throughout Iraq, but has not re-built, or built a single Christian Church that I am aware of, although a couple of dozen have been battle damaged or destroyed.

6.When the Commander of the Multi-National Corp-Iraq suggested that we begin to utilize some funds to restart State owned Enterprises, which were many, to re-employ the Iraqis, open micro-finance offices in the critical cities to allow Iraqis to begin restructuring their own existence, and build a few highways as a way of re-employing thousands of Iraqi men, he was denied. Formally or informally, I do not know, but I do know the subject was dropped at the subsequent meetings.

7.Coalition? Somebody needs to ask who paid for the salaries, transportation, housing, food, offices, and other amenities for most of the "Coalition" members in Iraq. With the exception of the British, Italians, Japanese and very few others, we (YOU) pretty much paid for everybody else.

For example; What was the cost of supporting the Polish, Check Slovakian, Romanian and other contingents? KBR Halliburton has provided much of the support for these contingents. Isn’t that sort of like "paying" them to be with us? If we did not offer to pay, would they have been there at all?

8.Many of the "elected" Iraqi Government officials, although still being paid, have left Iraq and are living in neighboring Arab countries, France and England. Most are connected to rivaling militias.

9.From 2003 until late 2006 there existed no joint "Iraqi-American" working groups to determine structure, design, civil planning, priorities, requirements or civil "Rule of Law" plans. If they did exist, no-one I knew was aware of their existence. We (IRMO) decided what would be built and then we would inform the Iraqis. Iraqi civil servants and elected officials had no input. (The single exception is the PRTs which allow the Provincial councils to submit preferences for reconstruction). On many occasions we built things the Iraqis did not even want and told us so prior to construction. One example would be the "Highway Patrol" Station we built. The Iraqis do not have a Highway Patrol.
US Logistics units MNST-I/CPATT insisted on its construction.

10.The State Department Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs), which exist all over Iraq to bring Rule of Law, City Planning, reconstruction planning, etc to the Provincial governments do not have a single professional Iraqi citizen on the teams. No Iraqi city planners, no Iraqi engineers, no Iraqi Lawyers. There are thousands of unemployed, qualified Iraqi Engineers, Attorneys, City planners, etc., etc. etc..

11.About eight-thousand brand new SUVs and Pickup trucks were delivered to the Iraqi Police under a program called "Project Daytona". In the beginning the State Department had oversight of the project.
The pace was methodical and sure, but not fast enough for the US Military Commander, Maj. Gen. D.P. (Yes, the same D.P. who runs our Military in Iraq today). The DOS personnel were relieved of their primary responsibility of oversight and the Army began the hasty issue of the 8,600 SUVs and Pick-up trucks. With almost no accountability, no spare parts and no maintenance plan,the vehicles were issued.

Last time I check in late 2006, almost none could be accounted for and the Iraqi Police were telling us that the vehicles were destroyed. What a coincidence that SUVs and Pickups, just like the ones the America Taxpayers bought, are all over Baghdad and the Iraqi finance Minister, who used to control the Iraqi police, has dozens at his disposal now. We also delivered dozens of Brand New Factory armored Mercedes Benz sedans which cannot be account for now.

The governments of Japan and Korea had sent the Iraqi Minister of Interior over three thousand SUVs and Pickups. Those delivery numbers were never shared with IRMO although the Iraqis had agreed to share that information. We never formally asked them to explain their behavior.

  1. A bridge construction project in Ramadi, approved by the IRMO/PCO and thoroughly briefed and signed off on by the Military Commanders in Baghdad was stopped by a single Colonel who had no authority to cancel the project. The thirteen million dollars was stilled paid out to the contractors, who were prevented from entering the construction area. (The Ramadi Governor and his Provincial council insisted that the bridge was critical to Ramadi and its future). The original bridge had been blown up by order of a Marine commander AFTER the Marines had already secured the immediate area.
  1. Iraqi citizens are, more or less, prone to trust the average American soldier who walks their streets. They genuinely see the American soldier and Marine as a protector and shield against the violence. In contrast, the average Iraqi citizens, I have known, have a profound mistrust of many of the American commanders and civilian authorities they encounter. They know the Iraqi Police, for the most part, make up a large part of the Shia Militias. In Basrah, Iraq’s second largest city, the situation is different. In Basrah, where the British reign, there is a pronounced contempt and suspicion about even the average soldier. On many occasions the Provincial Governor of Basrah has simply refused to talk with the British authorities. The Shia Militias there have, to a great degree, dissuaded the British Army from being too active in the city of Basrah. British patrols in the actual city of Basrah are few.
  1. With few exceptions, all the construction and assistance to the Iraqis in Southern Iraq, where the British have complete control and oversight, has been funded by the United States.
  1. The costs for US Army Corps of Engineer controlled projects through the PCO in Iraq are more than double that of other US Government sanctioned contracting units such as the Air Force Contracting group in Iraq known as AFCEE.

The average advertised cost of performing a contract with through AFCEE is about 5% of the whole contract and usually ends up under that figure.
With the Corp of Engineers, the average advertised cost of the total contract dollar is about 8%. In many cases those contracts end up exceeding 22% to 30% of the total contract dollar. Lots of overhead, lots of "other" expenditures.

AFCEE is managing over three Billion dollars of contracts in Iraq with an
American staff of between nine and twelve people physically in Iraq. The US Corps of Engineers has roughly hundreds of American staff in Iraq.
Somebody needs to be shown the number of project "starts" by the Corps of
Engineers and the numbers of "fully completed" projects by them. I think that number would be of interest to the American population.

Somebody needs to ask how many projects have been "de-scoped" in order to
recover contract funds to pay "other" costs.

  1. Many of the Military Base facilities the United States built for the Iraqi Military, were looted and stripped of anything of value, i.e., air conditioning, copper wire, bathroom fixtures, furniture, etc., very shortly after being formally turned over to the Iraqi Military.

The average American Soldier, Airman, Sailor and Marine in Iraq is dedicated and faithful to his/her service and leadership. They see some of the good and most of the bad to be seen in Iraq. They want to believe that they are there for a great purpose, a purpose that transcends tangible accomplishment.

Our Soldiers and Marines want the Iraqi people to know what we know in America, freedom, liberty and peace. They want the Iraqi to understand that we do not want to change their religion, or their culture and that we do not need to control the precious oil which lays in abundance under the Iraqi soil. The soldier in Iraq believes he/she came to help, to do a good work. Their Military and Civilian leadership has failed them.

Although there is great turmoil happening throughout Iraq everyday, our military soldiers, occasionally, are given the moment in time when an Iraqi man puts out his hand in friendship, or an Iraqi kid kicks the ball over to a soldier or Marine who happily joins into the game. An Iraqi mother glances with a grateful "thank you" in her expression to a passing soldier.

There is the snapshot in time, where a Marine holds the limb body of a dead child in his arms and cries from the senselessness of it all. At that moment, there is no politics, or good reason for what is happening, only a dead child, a life gone before it’s time. How do we compensate that Marine for that moment in his life? We don’t. We can’t. God help us.

There is no questioning the bravery, courage and compassion of the US Airmen, Sailors, Soldiers and Marines. That has never been the issue. America loves them and they know it. Right Wing, Left Wing, Conservative, Liberal, Cut "n" run, Stay the Course, or the Bomb the hell out of Iran group. We all love our men and women in uniform. They and the first responders of 9/11 have given America the real life heroes we have needed for so long.

Many Corporations and business people, American, Iraqi, British, Iranian, Kuwaiti, Jordanian and others have financially profited greatly from this war. Many of the Iraqi government officials, having arrived after Saddams fall, back in Iraq paupers, are now millionaires thanks to the American taxpayer, the President of the United States and the failed leadership of Donald Rumsfield and Paul Bremer. Those very same Iraqi government officials who now are associated with the very militant elements responsible for the senseless murder of thousands of Iraqi and US Soldiers and Marines. My own son was wounded battling these terrorist, criminal and murderous elements who are the friends of many of the Iraqi officials we support.

We owe the American Soldier, Sailor, Airman and Marine, who without question, has carried out his/her mission, and rightly performed his/her duty to their God, Service and Country without reservation. It was so discouraging to me when I heard about the Walter reed Medical scandal wherein our wounded soldiers were being subjected to terrible treatment. What was our President and Republican Congress thinking over the past four years?

This disgrace upon our Military wounded was totally avoidable. How did we have the money to pour Billions into the pockets of the Corporations and the Iraqi government officials, but could not find the funding to care for our wounded? The President surely understood business for the Corporations, but failed in the business of leading our Military and serving the people of America.

Iraq can only be stabilized by the Iraqis themselves. Yes we can and should support, train, advise and provide technical assistance to their economic and commercial development, but our combat role in Iraq must be ended immediately. Our combat forces need to be redeployed to areas where there is availability without exposure.

We have paid the price, we have gone the extra mile while the entire Middle East has sat out the turmoil. The Arab league needs to help Iraq, financially, commercially, and militarily.

America needs to allow the countries of the Middle East to begin the healing process in Iraq. The war against terrorism is not in Iraq. Enough is enough.

God bless the suffering people of Iraq. God bless America.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Marshall is a retired US Marine Vietnam veteran who became an Aviation Management/Logistics consultant in 1992.
Marshall worked in the Kuwait recovery of 1992-93.
He the Senior Aviation Logistics Manager for Kaman Aerospace in Egypt US Government programs for four years.
Marshall was in Iraq from mid-2003 until late-2006 where:
In 2003 he was the US Coalition Airport Director for Basrah Int'l Airport in Iraq.
In 2004 he was VP for Aviation Development with The Sandi Group Int’l, Iraq.
In 2005 Marshall was a Department of State US Advisor to the Iraqi Ministry of Interior and with the Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRT) where he was on the staff of the National Coordination Team (NCT) in Baghdad.

Marshall returned to the USA from hi diplomatic assignment in Iraq in September 2006 and is currently on staff as a Senior Analyst for a DOD project.
Marshall and his wife Becky (3rd grade teacher) have been married for 37 years and have four children, Paul, Veronica, William and Benjamin, and eleven grandchildren.
Their sons William and Benjamin, served in Iraq in the US Army. William was wounded in action on July 2nd 2006.
Marshall and Becky reside in Jacksonville North Carolina. marshall_adame@yahoo.com
Note: Marshall Adame will be a 2008 Democratic candidate for Congress in NC and is a supporter of John Edwards for President

Tuesday, March 6, 2007

Meet Eliot Cohen, Condi's New Deputy: "As Extremist a Neocon and Warmonger as It Gets"

March 6, 2007

By GARY LEUPP

Afghanistan constitutes just one front in World War IV, and the battles there just one campaign. . . . First, if one front in this war is the contest for free and moderate governance in the Muslim world, the U.S. should throw its weight behind pro-Western and anticlerical forces there. The immediate choice lies before the U.S. government in regard to Iran. We can either make tactical accommodations with the regime there in return for modest (or illusory) sharing of intelligence, reduced support for some terrorist groups and the like, or do everything in our power to support a civil society that loathes the mullahs and yearns to overturn their rule. It will be wise, moral and unpopular (among some of our allies) to choose the latter course. The overthrow of the first theocratic revolutionary Muslim state and its replacement by a moderate or secular government, however, would be no less important a victory in this war than the annihilation of bin Laden [emphasis added].

The guy who wrote that, in a Wall Street Journal op-ed on November 20, 2001, was Eliot Cohen, a professor at the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) at Johns Hopkins University. As the Director of the Strategic Studies department at SAIS, he has been called "the most influential neoconservative in academe."

More recently (April 5, 2006) Prof. Cohen published a prominent op-ed in the Washington Post attacking the scholarship of Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government Academic Dean Stephen M. Walt and University of Chicago Political Science Professor John J. Mearsheimer and their academic paper The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy.

The study, Cohen contended in his "Yes, It's Anti-Semitism" piece, betrayed "obsessive and irrationally hostile beliefs about Jews," accusing Jews of "disloyalty, subversion or treachery, of having occult powers and of participating in secret combinations that manipulate institutions and governments." It collected "everything unfair, ugly or wrong about Jews as individuals or a group" while ignoring "any exculpatory information." This from a man who almost immediately after 9-11 declared that "the obvious candidate" as a regime to "target" was Iraq, which had "helped al Qaeda"---and thereby unfairly and wrongly, and oblivious to exculpatory information, linked Saddam Hussein to 9-11.

(You can write stuff like that in the Wall Street Journal, and never have to say you're sorry afterwards when sober investigation shows what you'd written was total bullshit. The 9-11 hijackers and Saddam were all Arabs, so what's wrong with connecting them and exploiting ignorance and bigotry to get the war you want against Iraq?)

And now this man who thinks we're in the middle of World War IV (against the Muslim world), and who's written a book entitled The Supreme Command arguing that presidents need to control their sometimes reluctant generals, has been appointed by Condoleezza Rice as the new Counselor of the State Department. The meaning of the move isn't yet clear, given some recent indications that the U.S. might be willing to talk with Iran. But given the military buildup in the Persian Gulf; the appointment of Admiral William Fallon to head Central Command; the intensifying disinformation campaign about Iran conducted by the Bush administration and its embedded reporters and reports of significant opposition within the military towards an attack on Iran; the appointment at least signals the continuing vitality of the neocon movement within the U.S. government whose current urgent project is the Iran attack.

According to the official definition, "The Counselor of the Department is a principal officer who serves the Secretary as a special advisor and consultant on major problems of foreign policy and who provides guidance to the appropriate bureaus with respect to such matters. The Counselor conducts special international negotiations and consultations, and also undertakes special assignments from time to time, as directed by the Secretary." The post was vacant from 2001 to 2005. Cohen was preceded by Philip Zelikow, another academic, who is not considered a neocon but a "realist" occupied with trade matters. On the other hand Salon's Glen Greenwald calls Cohen "as extremist a neoconservative and warmonger as it gets."

The man wants the "overthrow" of the Iranian regime. He wants the president to (Churchill-like) force his hesitant generals to do the right thing and attack Iran. (His Supreme Command book is especially significant in light of reports that high-ranking officers have threatened resignations if the U.S. launches an assault on Iran, and that the president has actually read the book.)

So here's a man to watch, as Bush/Cheney policy towards Iran evolves. Others are Elliott Abrams (Deputy National Security Advisor for Global Democracy Strategy), and Abram Shulsky (head of the Pentagon's "Iran Directorate"), both students of Leo Strauss and comfortable proponants of using "noble lies" to manipulate public opinion to generate support for more imperialist wars. They may be desperate men at this point, when they read, for example, the recent Washington Post/ABC poll that shows 63% of Americans do not trust the Bush administration "to honestly and accurately report intelligence about possible threats from other countries."

They may well fear that if they can't "take the current when it serves"---by their use of noble lies, their ongoing paid, corrupt, discrete if obvious presence in the mainstream press--they will lose their ventures. Their usefully ignorant, manipulable cruel cowboy has less than two years left in the saddle, and great deeds cry out to be done!

The neocon agenda is plain enough. If only the dissident generals can be silenced! If only the assailants of the Israel Lobby can be quieted by bullying accusations of anti-Semitism! If only the war-weary American people can be made to understand that it's "moral and wise" to attack Iran! Because it's planning genocide! Because it's planning what Hitler couldn't do---wipe out the Jews! Then we can defeat the Evil which is Iran! And Syria! And the Shiite population of southern Lebanon!

The antiwar movement's agenda should be equally plain. Expose this agenda, its sensationalism and illogic, and the key figures working overtime towards its fulfillment. Question all reports by "unnamed government sources" and reporters like the New York Times' Michael R. Gordan (once---as a coauthor with Judith Miller---a vehicle for the dissemination of lies about Iraq) that charge Iran with supporting attacks on U.S. forces in Iraq. (47% of Americans polled think the Bush administration has "solid information" the Iranian government is doing so, while 44% disagree. That latter figure needs to grow.) Challenge politicians like Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton who, bending over backwards to please the Lobby, criticize the Iraq War while competing with Bush to embrace a hawkish stance towards Iran. Having never really challenged the essentialist anti-Muslim straight-of-hand that linked 9-11 to Iraq, they embrace the notion that Muslim Iran constitutes an "existential threat" to Israel (if not to the U.S.) and tell applauding AIPAC audiences that they agree "no option should be off the table" in dealing with Iran.

The neocons determined to reconfigure the "Greater Middle East" through the use of "shock and awe" military force may be down as a result of public revulsion at the results of their initial criminal ventures. But they aren't out, as Cohen's appointment dramatically shows. That's a big problem for the future of this country and the planet.

Gary Leupp is Professor of History at Tufts University, and Adjunct Professor of Comparative Religion. He is the author of Servants, Shophands and Laborers in in the Cities of Tokugawa Japan; Male Colors: The Construction of Homosexuality in Tokugawa Japan; and Interracial Intimacy in Japan: Western Men and Japanese Women, 1543-1900. He is also a contributor to CounterPunch's merciless chronicle of the wars on Iraq, Afghanistan and Yugoslavia, Imperial Crusades.

He can be reached at: gleupp@granite.tufts.edu

Monday, March 5, 2007

Neoconservative Eliot Cohen's new position at the State Department Signals Iran Regime Change

Monday March 5, 2007 07:38 EST

Neoconservative Eliot Cohen's new position at the State Department

On Friday, Condoleezza Rice announced that Eliot Cohen has been chosen to be the new Counselor of the State Department. It is not hyperbole to say that Cohen is as extremist a neoconservative and warmonger as it gets. Even The New York Sun's Eli Lake -- in an article claiming that Cohen's replacement of Philip Zelikow signals a more militaristic approach for the administration -- points out that Cohen " intellectually is neoconservative" and that "he was an early supporter of the military intervention in Iraq and came out against recommendations from the Iraq Study Group in December to launch negotiations with Iraq's neighbors," i.e., Iran and Syria -- especially Iran.

But Cohen's record is far more extremist than just that. In a November, 2001 Wall St. Journal Op-Ed, Cohen criticized the attempts up to that point to name "The new War" -- all the names chosen were far too limiting and unglorious. Rejecting all the possibilities, Cohen insisted that "a less palatable but more accurate name is World War IV." Even back then, look at what was on Cohen's mind:

Afghanistan constitutes just one front in World War IV, and the battles there just one campaign. . . . First, if one front in this war is the contest for free and moderate governance in the Muslim world, the U.S. should throw its weight behind pro-Western and anticlerical forces there. The immediate choice lies before the U.S. government in regard to Iran. . . . The overthrow of the first theocratic revolutionary Muslim state and its replacement by a moderate or secular government, however, would be no less important a victory in this war than the annihilation of bin Laden.
Cohen's second priority -- after Iran -- was changing the government of Iraq, and he showcased what would be the false war-justifying propaganda before Don Rumsfeld, Doug Feith and Paul Wolfowitz began the process of feeding it to the President:
The U.S. should continue to target regimes that sponsor terrorism. Iraq is the obvious candidate, having not only helped al Qaeda, but attacked Americans directly (including an assassination attempt against the first President Bush) and developed weapons of mass destruction.

Cohen was most worried that Afghanistan would be the only real Churchillian war we would fight, rather than getting on with World War IV in all its glory: "if after the Afghan campaign ends, the government lapses into a covert war of intelligence-gathering, arrests, and the odd explosion in a terrorist training camp, it will be a sign that it would rather avoid calling things by their true name."

Over the next several years, Cohen became one of the most militant advocates of expanded regional war in the Middle East. A 2003 Asia Times article by Ahmad Faruqui called him "the most influential neoconservative in academe":

Cohen refers to the war against terrorism by a chilling name: World War IV (citing the Cold War as the third world war). . . . Cohen claims that America is on the good side in this war, just like it has been in all prior world wars, and the enemy is militant Islam, not some abstract concept of "terrorism".

Cohen argues that the US should throw its weight behind pro-Western and anticlerical forces in the Muslim world, beginning with the overthrow of the theocratic state in Iran and its replacement by a "moderate or secular" government. After September 11 he was one of the first neoconservatives to call for an attack on Iraq, even though there was no credible evidence linking Iraq with the attacks on the US or al-Qaeda.

It likely goes without saying by now that the reason Iraq was so quickly at the forefront of Cohen's mind in the aftermath of 9/11 was because invading Iraq and changing its government was long one of Cohen's dreams, and the 9/11 attacks became the pretext dressed up as the "justification" for Cohen's dream to come true.

This continues to be the most astounding, significant, and alarming trend -- as the recognition grows even in Beltway elite media circles that the people who designed and sold the Iraq war to the American public are completely untrustworthy and discredited figures, they are exactly the ones who continue to exert the most influence, by far, on the President, and their influence seems only to be growing. Here is a question which Tim Russert asked Lindsay Graham this weekend -- a question that is three years overdue but nonetheless welcome -- after Graham kept insisting that Americans give the Great Surge Plan " a chance" to succeed:

MR. RUSSERT: But many Americans will say that those who supported the war are saying, "Trust us, see this through," the same people who said, "There are weapons of mass destruction. General Shinseki's wrong, we don't need hundreds of thousands of troops. We will be greeted as liberators."

SEN. GRAHAM: Mm-hmm.

MR. RUSSERT: "The cost of the war," according to Lawrence Lindsey, "won't be more than $200 billion."

SEN. GRAHAM: Yeah.

MR. RUSSERT: "There won't be any sectarian violence." All those judgments were wrong. Why should the American people continue to believe in those same people who had so many misjudgments leading up [to] and executing the war?

The premise of Russert's question is exactly right, and it is one of the most crucial propositions to emphasize -- "Why should the American people continue to believe in those same people who had so many misjudgments leading up to and executing the war?" They should not, of course. And we know exactly who "those same people" are. Eliot Cohen is not just one of them, but he is one of their leaders. He has been wrong about everything. If he had his way, we would have far more wars than we have already.

The Cohen appointment is clearly another instance where neoconservatives place a watchdog in potential trouble spots in the government to ensure that diplomats do not stray by trying to facilitate rapproachments between the U.S. and the countries on the neoconservative War hit list. In that regard, behold the head-patting reaction to the Cohen appointment from one of the country's most radical Iran obsessives:

Michael Ledeen, a former government official and conservative scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, said Cohen's appointment was good news.

"You want your leaders to hear disagreements," he said. "You don't want monotonous conformity."

Unlike the more political neoconservatives, who are very careful about what they say and go to great lengths to conceal their ultimate goals, Cohen has been an academic and thus more explicit about the theoretical underpinnings of his worldview. In a 1998 essay in (fittingly enough) The New Republic, Cohen called for the U.S. to build up and modernize its military capabilities faster and more aggressively, and to "justify" that plan, he laid out his neoconservative vision of the role of the United States in the world:
Another way to put it is that the United States needs an imperial strategy. Defense planners could never admit it openly, of course, and most would feel uncomfortable with the idea, but that is, in fact, what the United States at the end of the twentieth century is--a global empire.

Talk of "cooperative security" masks the reality that in any serious military confrontation, the central question is whom the United States asks to cooperate. . . . One cannot separate the so-called "soft power" of the United States--the global dominance of its culture, beginning with its language--from its military strength.

Rock fans around the world listen in English; so do fighter pilots. The same information technologies that make the Internet a decidedly American phenomenon provide the nervous systems of American military power. Free trade rests on common consent, to be sure, but would it exist absent America's military dominance?

Even Cohen recognized what a profound departure from America's founding principles it is to call for America to dominate the world as The Great Imperial Power:
The United States is today by far the most powerful state on the planet. If it chooses to remain so, citizen and soldier alike must brace themselves for the occasional imperial fiasco. More important, they will have to accept the uncomfortable notion that they are wielding military power in a way that is historically unusual for a country that has long viewed empires with proper republican suspicion. America's strategic vision will thus have to peer inward, as well as out, if we are to play our new role in the world successfully.
These are the radical principles laid out unabashedly by the Bush State Department's new Counselor, which are the same principles still driving the administration. We are in the middle of World War IV. We have numerous countries against whom we must wage war. The highest strategic priority is to change the government of Iran, with whom we can never negotiate. And the ultimate goal is to rule the world with our military force as the Supreme Imperial Power.

That is the neoconservative vision at its core. And the untold damage it has wreaked on our country has not diminished their influence in any way in this administration. They are still in control, particularly in the area they care about most -- the Middle East. And they have dealt with their greatest fear -- war-avoidance with Iran prior to regime change -- by installing one of their very own extremists to scrutinize and check the State Department.

This is really the debate America needs most, but is also the one we are furthest away from being able to conduct -- is the goal of the U.S. really to maintain and expand imperial world domination? The dangers to our country from that pursuit are grave and obvious. They are precisely the ones about which, among others, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Dwight Eisenhower most urgently warned, and Jefferson similarly emphasized continuously that the most important obligation a country has is to avoid war except when the nation's security is directly attacked.

But that, more than anything, accounts for the current predicament of America. We have ceased adhering in these matters to the principles of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and Dwight Eisenhower, and have instead become a nation of Dick Cheneys, Victor Davis Hansons, Richard Perles, and Eliot Cohens.

These are -- to use Russert's phrase -- "those same people" who caused the Iraq disaster and have their sights set on further damage still. They do not want to avoid war at all, but instead believe that it's glorious and elegant and empowering. They want to ensure a state of Permenant War, complete with all of the internal constrictions of liberty which wars inevitably entail, because they view the United States not as a republic, but as an empire which -- in order to fulfill all sorts of agendas -- can, should and must rule the world with superior military force. There is a temptation to dismiss "those same people" as irrelevant extremists, but as Cohen's Friday-announced appointment reflects, they are anything but irrelevant.

UPDATE: Over at This Modern World, Jonathan Schwarz cites an anecdote from Gen. Wesley Clark which reflects both the radicalism and (one must never forget) the sheer ineptitude that has driven this administration's Cohenesque War project from the start.

-- Glenn Greenwald

Saturday, March 3, 2007

The Talented Mr. Cohen

Related
Rice Picks Neo-Con Champion of Iraq War as Counselor
---
by Ximena Ortiz


03.02.2007

“You’ve done one heck of a job, Eliot”, is clearly the ascendant sentiment within the Bush Administration regarding Eliot A. Cohen, tapped, according to The Washington Post today, by Secretary Rice to become one of her top advisors. Cohen, after all, is long due for administration commendation—in the Brown-Tenet tradition—after having so tirelessly, and on such very noteworthy basis—agitated for the war in Iraq before that inferno began to so voraciously consume U.S. lives, treasure and geopolitical strength.

There is much that distinguishes Cohen. After the U.S. military had scarcely tipped its toe into Afghanistan, some of a less dogged temperament may have advocated assessing the progression of that war over a period of time. Not Cohen. In a November 20, 2001 Op-Ed in the Wall Street Journal, Cohen looked unflinchingly past the horizon—and the brink—advocating not only the Iraq War but also regime change in Iran.

And given Cohen’s tireless advocacy of the Iraq War, some observers may have been tempted to conclude that he would either continue his past support of the war in the face of escalating consequences, or concede an error in backing the war in the first place. Again, not Cohen. This scholar of note demonstrates far greater intellectual dexterity, arriving at an altogether different posture. In a July 10, 2005 Op-Ed in The Washington Post, Cohen poses questions to himself regarding the Iraq War and deigns to provide the reader with his insights.

In that Op-Ed, Cohen professes “Alarm at our continuing failure to promote at wartime speed the colonels and generals who have a talent for fighting it, while also failing to sweep aside those who do not.” He goes on to note his “Incredulity at seeing decorations pinned on the chests and promotions on the shoulders of senior leaders—both civilians and military—who had the helm when things went badly wrong.”

Cohen gets it altogether right on this important point. The administration has seen fit to decorate those with demonstrated incompetence with medals, promotions—even prestigious appointments. Cohen does not see fit to chronicle in that Op-Ed the details and mechanics of that incompetence but his willingness to point it out has won him praise in many corners for candor. (More on this below.)

And Cohen is quite correct that policymakers—and one can even extend the argument to policymakers to be—should be held to account. In this spirit, it seems appropriate to briefly peruse Cohen’s own competence of judgment and foresight.

Flashback to Cohen’s November 2001 Wall Street Journal Op-Ed. In it, he counsels: “the U.S. should continue to target regimes that sponsor terrorism. Iraq is the obvious candidate, having not only helped Al-Qaeda, but attacked Americans directly (including an assassination attempt against the first President Bush) and developed weapons of mass destruction.” Even the Bush-decorated George Tenet—who Cohen presumably makes indirect reference to in his 2005, self-generated Q&A session—stopped short of suggesting Iraq’s hand in the attacks on America.

But perhaps even more remarkable were Cohen’s observations regarding Afghanistan. The “U.S. must mobilize in earnest. The Afghan achievement is remarkable—within two months to have radically altered the balance of power there, to have effectively destroyed the Taliban state and smashed part of the Al Qaeda—is testimony to what the American military and intelligence communities can do when turned on to a problem.” Mission Accomplished, anyone? Indeed, to not only account for a war’s success in just two short months but to also counsel the taking on of another front in that time frame requires a predisposition that is nothing short of remarkable.

And of resounding significance today, given Cohen’s recent appointment, is the position he outlined on Iran in that same Op-Ed piece. Although he advocates the strengthening of civil society in Iran, he upholds regime change as the ultimate goal: “The overthrow of the first theocratic revolutionary Muslim state and its replacement by a moderate or secular government, however, would be no less important a victory in this war than the annihilation of bin Laden.”

Equally as noteworthy as his policy counsel has been the tenor of his punditry. While State Department officials have said they selected Cohen out of a desire for a more open debate, Cohen does not restrain himself by such conventional objectives. In responding to a much-commented opinion paper published last year on the impact of the Israeli lobby on U.S. policy by scholars Stephen M. Walt and John J. Mearsheimer (who is on the advisory council of The National Interest), Cohen did not restrict himself to voicing his rejection of the argument and detailing his thinking for doing so. Again, not Cohen. Instead, he took his criticism in a far more unique direction, accusing both scholars of anti-Semitism.

Regrettably, The Washington Post article today announcing Rice’s selection of Cohen as her incoming counselor—in replacement of Philip D. Zelikow—failed to take a retrospective of Cohen’s past policy recommendations and predictions. Cohen is described, in the headline, as a “Critic of Iraq Policy”, and there is no mention of his past advocacy of the war. Indeed, the article quotes from Cohen’s 2005 Q&A Op-Ed—in which Cohen is more than willing to name the names of the “incompetent”, and point to “cockamamie schemes”, but is altogether more circumspect on what precisely was done wrong and what would have improved matters.

It might have been useful for the Post article to have juxtaposed Cohen’s criticism of the administration’s handling of Iraq with his unqualified argument for the war’s unmistakable necessity, such as his testimony before a House committee in the run-up to the war, in October 2002: “the choice before the United States is a stark one, either to acquiesce in a situation which permits the regime of Saddam Hussein to restore his economy, acquire weapons of mass destruction and pose a lethal threat to his neighbors and to us, or to take action to overthrow him. In my view, the latter course, with all of its risks, is the correct one. Indeed, the dangers of failing to act in the near future are unacceptable.” In billing such a long-time advocate of the Iraq War as a “critic”, The Washington Post has demonstrated a newfound flair for satire—on its news pages.

In Cohen’s 2005 Washington Post Op-Ed, he remarks: “The scholar in me is not surprised when our leaders blunder, although the pundit in me is dismayed when they do." Cohen’s appointment can be taken with similar feeling, a strange convergence of lack of surprise, and dismay. While the reader may detect in the preceding words some hints of sarcasm, Cohen’s appointment is a serious matter. In that aforementioned Wall Street Journal Op-Ed of 2001, Cohen heralds the dawn of WWIV, the Cold War being WWIII. With the rise of more like Cohen in the administration, he may be proven uncharacteristically prescient.


Ximena Ortiz is editor of National Interest online.

Rice Picks Neo-Con Champion of Iraq War as Counselor

Jim Lobe, Electronic Iraq, 3 March 2007

WASHINGTON (IPS) - In a move that has surprised many foreign policy analysts here, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has appointed a prominent neo-conservative hawk and leading champion of the Iraq war to the post of State Department Counselor.

Eliot A. Cohen, who teaches military history at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) here and has also served on the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board (DPB) since 2001, will take up the position next month that was left vacant late last year by Rice's long-time confidant and "realist" thinker, Philip Zelikow.

A close friend and protege of former Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz and advisory board member of the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), Cohen most recently led the harsh neo-conservative attack on the bipartisan Iraq Study Group (ISG), co-chaired by former Secretary of State James Baker and former Democratic Rep. Lee Hamilton.
Some analysts here said they thought the appointment was designed to reduce or pre-empt criticism from neo-conservatives and other hawks in and outside the administration for the direction she hopes to take U.S. policy, particularly in the Middle East.

Like his fellow-neo-cons, he was particularly scathing about its recommendations for Washington to directly engage Syria and Iran and revive the Israeli-Palestinian peace process -- recommendations which Rice herself has explicitly endorsed in the last few weeks.

"This is a group composed, for the most part, of retired eminent public officials, most with limited or no expertise in the waging or study of war," Cohen wrote in column entitled "No Way to Win a War", published by the Wall Street Journal the day after the ISG released its report in early December.

"A fatuous process yields, necessarily, fatuous results," he went on in a wholesale dismissal of the relevance of what he called the "Washington establishment whose wisdom was exaggerated in its heyday, and which has in any event succumbed to a kind of political-intellectual entropy since the 1960s..."

"Eliot brings a lot to the table in terms of being a counselor, being somebody who can be an intellectual sounding board for her [Rice]," said State Department spokesman Sean McCormack in confirming Cohen's appointment Friday.

Some analysts here, however, said they thought the appointment was designed instead to reduce or pre-empt criticism from neo-conservatives and other hawks in and outside the administration for the direction she hopes to take U.S. policy, particularly in the Middle East. With no operational responsibilities, the State Department Counselor can be used -- or ignored -- at the secretary's discretion.

"Condi may feel she needs to have a neo-con right next to her to protect her flanks," said Chris Nelson, editor of the widely read Washington insider newsletter, The Nelson Report. "And, if she's really planning to put her foot down on the Israelis, which (Washington) will have to do if it wants to get a real process with the Palestinians underway as part of a bigger regional deal with the Saudis and Iranians, then a guy like Cohen up there on the (State Department's) seventh floor who is in on it and can claim influence on the outcome can help."

"Bringing on Cohen could help inoculate her from criticism by the Cheney camp," agreed Steven Clemons, director of the American Strategy Program at the New America Foundation in a reference to the vice president and the neo-conservatives and other hawks who surround him. "One of the things that's been consistent is that Rice never takes Cheney head-on and is very careful not to take on people who might antagonise him."

In that respect, Cohen is a nearly ideal choice. Like Cheney, Cohen was a founding member in 1997 of the Project for the New American Century whose positions on how to prosecute the "war on terror" -- including the invasion of Iraq and cutting ties to the Palestinian Authority (PA) under Yassir Arafat -- he has consistently endorsed.

Although lacking in any regional expertise or policy-making experience, Cohen has written prolifically in recent years on U.S. policy in the Middle East.

Cohen first gained national prominence shortly after the 9/11 attacks when he published a Wall Street Journal column entitled "World War IV" -- a moniker quickly adopted by hard-line neo-cons like former CIA director and fellow-DPB member James Woolsey, former Commentary editor Norman Podhoretz, and Center for Security Policy president Frank Gaffney (on whose board Cohen also sits) -- to put Bush's "war on terror" in what he considered to be the appropriate historical context and to define its enemy as "militant Islam".

After defeating the Taliban, he argued, Washington should not only "finish off" Iraq's Saddam Hussein, whom he accused of having "helped al Qaeda", but also seek to overthrow "the mullahs" in Iran whose replacement by a "moderate or secular government would be no less important a victory in this war than the annihilation of (Osama) bin Laden."

In another Journal article in April 2002 when the second Palestinian intifada was at its height, Cohen, who had just signed a PNAC letter which called for severing ties to the PA and asserted that "Israel's fight against terrorism is our fight," argued that proposals to send an international force that would separate Israeli forces from the Palestinians were "not serious". "(T)here are times when well-intentioned measures can only make matters worse," he warned.

Cohen has also been quick to label critics of Israel and the so-called "Israel Lobby" in the U.S. as anti-Semites.

"Only a reshuffling of the deck -- through the disappearance of Arafat, or an event, such as the overthrow of Saddam Hussein) that profoundly changes the mood in the Arab world -- will make something approaching truce, let alone peace, possible," he argued in a favorite pre-Iraq war neo-conservative theme.

The following summer, Cohen achieved new fame when Bush was photographed carrying Cohen's just-published book, "Supreme Command", which argued that the greatest civilian war-time leaders, such as Abraham Lincoln and Winston Churchill, had a far better strategic sense than their generals. It was a particularly timely message in the months that preceded the Iraq war when a surprising number of recently military brass here were voicing strong reservations about the impending U.S. invasion.

He also became a charter member of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq (CLI), an administration-supported group both to lobby for war in Iraq, largely on behalf of Ahmad Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress (INC). Indeed, Cohen, like his friend Wolfowitz, was already arguing publicly for Washington to rely heavily on the INC in any effort to overthrow Hussein in December 2001.

After the Iraq invasion, however, Cohen became progressively more critical of the way in which the subsequent occupation and counter-insurgency were being carried out, although, after a Pentagon-sponsored tour of Iraq that featured interviews with top U.S. military commanders there, including Gen. George Casey, last February, he became briefly more optimistic.

"After a wretched start, we have the right people at the top and the right policies in effect -- and even more importantly, the right philosophy behind it all," he wrote in yet another Journal article entitled "Will We Persevere?"

Just nine months later, however, he had changed his mind. In the same article in which he attacked the ISG, he described U.S. difficulties as "stem(ming) not so much from failures to find the right strategy, as from an astounding and depressing inability to implement the strategic and operational choices we have nominally made" - an inability, for example, "as personal as picking the wrong people for key positions"

Still, while admitting in a Vanity Fair interview late last year that U.S. choices in Iraq range between "bad and awful," Cohen has called for perseverance and played a key role in selling AEI-hatched plan to add some 30,000 troops to the 140,000 soldiers in Iraq to Bush with whom he met personally as part of a small group of "surge"-boosters at the White House in mid-December.

If the surge should fail, however, Cohen's preferred and "most plausible" option, which he laid out in an October 2006 Journal column titled 'Plan B', would be a coup d'etat ("which we quietly endorse") that would bring to power a "junta of military modernizers", a development which, as he noted himself, would call into question the administration's and Rice's avowed goal of democratization.

In any event, he argued in the same column, "American prestige has taken a hard knock (in Iraq); it will probably take a harder knock, and in ways that will not be restored without a considerable and successful use of American military power down the road."

"The tides of Sunni salafism and Iran's distinct combination of messianism and power politics have not crested, and will not crest without much greater violence in which we too will be engaged," he asserted.

In a Vanity Fair interview last fall, Cohen said, "I'm pretty grim. I think we're heading for a very dark world, because the long-term consequences of this are very large, not just for Iraq, not just for the region, but globally -- for our reputation, for what the Iranians do, all kinds of stuff."

If Rice's intent was to reassure Cheney and the neo-conservatives that she is not a captive of the ISG and the "Washington establishment", that passage alone should do the trick.

All rights reserved, IPS - Inter Press Service (2007). Total or partial publication, retransmission or sale forbidden.