In the Name of Improving People's Lives

Editor's note: I m posting at the other blog(also see Sunday articles below).
---
March 17 / 18, 2007

Mounting Civilian Deaths in Afghanistan and Iraq

By BRIAN CLOUGHLEY

"On a trip to the market, Haji Lawania says he drove into a hail of US gunfire that shattered his windshield and killed his father, nephew and a village elder. In three separate incidents Sunday and Monday, Afghan witnesses and officials said US military action may have killed up to 20 civilians."

- AP Afghanistan, March 7, 2007

"US forces opened fire on an unarmed Iraqi family's car and killed a father and his two young daughters, the man's wife told AFP on Saturday . . . 'They just opened fire randomly on us,' said Akhlas Abduljabbar, a Sunni housewife . . . 'They killed my husband and two daughters and my three-year-old boy was wounded in the head'."

- AFP Iraq, March 10, 2007

"I don't think America gets enough credit for trying to help improve people's lives."

- George W Bush, March 9, 2007

Bush has lost his wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The world condemns the gulags operated by his secret agencies that are accountable to the laws of neither man nor God. The peoples of Iraq and Afghanistan dread and detest the foreign troops who occupy their country. The lives of few on earth have been improved by America, and those are mainly the already obscenely rich (the "haves and the have-mores", in the words of the vulgar Bush). And the United States, that wonderful country, is now regarded round the world as an aggressive barbaric empire whose soldiers and pilots kill at will.

Give credit where it's due.

Not so many years ago infantry soldiers lived by the principle that their duty was to "close with and kill the enemy in any weather, in any terrain, by day or by night" (or words to that effect). Nowadays it seems that soldiers live by the principle that they can kill anyone who might get in their way, either by random blazing away at civilian cars carrying kids or by calling in airmen daremen who just love slamming 2000 pound bombs onto the planet.

These pilots, these video-game warriors, are experiencing what Tom Wolfe called "fighter jock heaven". They love this ultra-modern warfare against ragheads (just like the old days of gooks, dinks, slopes and so forth), because they have war joy without the danger. These bombing and rocketing pilots face no enemy threat. There is not a chance of them facing an enemy aircraft that could meet them on equal terms. They never see blood unless they cut themselves shaving. They take off, like in the simulator, and zoom along to blast and shatter whatever the army wants to target and it doesn't matter a damn if there are kids down there.

There has not been a US strike aircraft shot down or had its paint job scratched in this century, except by friendly fire. And after the Air Force or Navy jet jocks kill kids with 2000 pound bombs they can go back and relax over a beer, because they never see (so cannot think about), the deaths so far below them. They mean nothing to them, because they are the Lords of the skies. Their job is to kill and question not. They are the nearest thing, so far, to living robots. These poor, soulless, happy savages are androids, and in a way we should pity them.

The spokesman for North Atlantic Treaty Organization forces in Afghanistan, the Alice-in-Wonderland Colonel Tom Collins, told the world why two thousand pound bombs thunder down on Afghan houses. He explained that "It would seem to me that the enemy benefits when forces take what we consider appropriate action against threatening behavior . . . Nonetheless, the enemy is able to gain from that because there is this perception that we're shooting people, civilians."

Of course your troops are "shooting people, civilians" you booby. And your pilots and their bombs and rockets are killing civilians like there's no tomorrow, thereby creating ever more hatred of Americans.

In the bombing Collins referred to it was said that two men ran into a house after an incident in which it was alleged that they had fired at US soldiers. Well, let's accept that this is fact. So what should the US soldiers have done? It was what Colonel Collins describes as "threatening behavior". So why were the men not pursued by the soldiers they shot at?

Nobody knew, nobody could have known, who else was in the house into which the men fled. But the immediate action was to obliterate it with a two thousand pound bomb which killed lots of people. This was "appropriate action" according to Collins who said that "We didn't know who was in that building, but we saw fighters move into that area who were legitimate targets. The building was struck and, as we all know, unfortunately civilians were killed."

The officer ultimately responsible for calling in the airstrike, LtCol Brian Mennes, commanding officer of the paratroop battalion that was shot at, went to the graves of three of the children killed by the bomb and gave some cash to the families, which isn't as crass as it might appear because this is what is expected in Afghanistan in such circumstances. What was insensitive was the statement by Mennes that "I doubt many countries in the world, particularly that have been fighting here, go to these lengths to show the people we're sorry when bad things happen, even in very complex situations when you have the enemy fighting among the people". This is an inane set of observations, not least because he was denigrating US allies in Afghanistan such as the UK and Canada. (He meant the former Soviet Union, apparently.) And of course he wasn't going to any extraordinary "lengths" : he was doing the least that should be done in Afghanistan by people who kill kids with 2000 pound bombs or any other weapon.

Do people like Collins, Menes and the jet jockey bombers manage to sleep at night? Probably they do, with smiles on their lips. Because they are not normal human beings. To them it is "unfortunate" that civilians are killed. Three little boys in their graves are an example of "bad things happening". Do they have children, these bright-eyed and bushy-tailed kid-killers and apologists for kid-killing? Perhaps they do. No doubt if one of their kids was killed they would consider it an unfortunate bad thing. Or something. And probably they imagine, like their commander-in-chief, that they are "improving people's lives".

In shattering people's lives around the world, the Bush Administration is hurtling downwards to even murkier depths. Week by week there are more revelations of hideous incidents in which blameless citizens of Iraq or Afghanistan have been killed during military operations, drive-by shootings, or in acts of willful murder. No-one knows how many rapes, killings and beatings have taken place because it is only when the most horrible of them bobs, scum-like, to the surface that the media can take notice. The fetid bubbles that burst explosively on the public are disgusting. But they are only part of the evidence of deep-lying putrefaction.

Last month President Putin summed up America's position by saying that "Today we are witnessing an almost uncontained hyper-use of military force in international relations ; force that is plunging the world into an abyss of permanent conflicts . . . We are seeing a greater and greater disdain for the basic principles of international law. One country, the United States, has overstepped its national borders in every way."

Washington's actions, said President Putin, "have caused new human tragedies and created new centers of tension. Judge for yourselves : wars as well as local and regional conflicts have not diminished. And even more are dying than before. Many more."

But it's all in the cause of helping to improve people's lives.

Brian Cloughley is a former army officer who writes on political and military affairs. His website is www.briancloughley.com

Israel gearing up for large Gaza operation

Last update - 16:58 04/02/2007

Peres: Israel must not intervene in Palestinian infighting in Gaza

By Amos Harel and Avi Issacharoff, Haaretz Correspondents, Haaretz Service and AP

Vice Premier Shimon Peres on Sunday said Israel must not intervene in the internal Palestinian fighting in the Gaza Strip, saying that to do so would risk uniting the feuding Palestinians against it.

Since Thursday, 27 Palestinians have died in Gaza fighting between the ruling Hamas party and Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah party.

Some Israeli officials, concerned that the conflict could boil over into a fresh spate of attacks on Israel, advocate a major ground offensive to strike the militants first.

"We need to leave Gaza to the Gazans," Peres told Army Radio. "Our intervention will not help, on the contrary, it will draw all the fire toward Israel. We need to leave the Gazans to deal with it and hope that it settles itself."

Peres' comments came in response to reports of the Israel Defense Forces' accelerated planning of a possible extended military operation in Gaza.

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert told his Cabinet on Sunday that Israel was not involved in violence in Gaza, according to a participant in the meeting.

"We have no hand, no involvement in the Palestinian fighting. It is an internal matter about which we are not happy," Plmert said, according to the participant.

Top military sources said Sunday that the escalation of internecine violence was liable to extend to anti-Israel violence. They said no operation was slated to take place immediately, but that IDF activity in Gaza - similar to the 2002 Operation Defensive Shield in the West Bank - may become necessary.

Foreign Ministry Director-General Aharon Abramovich said "there is no doubt we are in the midst of a difficult period."

He said Israel was watching the violence and was concerned at continued weapons smuggling into Gaza as well as rocket fire into Israel despite a November 26 truce.

"It is very important to us to be able to achieve dialogue rather than a military confrontation with the Palestinians. This is what Israel and the international community aim for and I hope this is the line that triumphs," Abramovich said.

The IDF and Shin Bet security service are particularly concerned by the possibility that Hamas will resume suicide bombings or other attacks on Israel, possibly due to accusations that Israel is supporting Fatah, which it is not overtly doing.

Hamas is also accumulating large quantities of Qassam rockets, whose range, accuracy and strength have improved since Israel's withdrawal from Gaza in the summer of 2005. Hamas and Islamic Jihad are thought to have rockets with a range of 15 to 16 kilometers.

27 Palestinians were killed in clashes on Friday and Saturday, most of them affiliated with Fatah, and at least eight were wounded on Saturday. Ten Fatah and Hamas operatives were kidnapped in Gaza and the West Bank over the weekend. Fatah torched Islamic University buildings Friday, and Hamas torched buildings at the Fatah-affiliated Al-Quds Open University.

Meanwhile, Abbas and Khaled Meshal, the head of Hamas' political bureau in Damascus, agreed Friday on an immediate cease-fire in the Gaza Strip, but it was not immediately implemented and the fighting continued over the weekend.

Abbas and Meshal are slated to meet in Mecca, Saudi Arabia on Tuesday to discuss the establishment of a national unity government. Senior officials in Hamas and Fatah said that despite the recent violence between the two groups, an agreement might be reached Tuesday that would leave Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh in his post and would give three portfolios to members of neither organization. Fatah officials said they were worried that the violence would escalate if no agreement is reached Tuesday.

Israel currently has no plans to get involved in the fighting between Fatah and Hamas. The violence there has not yet negatively affected the security situation on the Gaza-Israel border, and there has even been a decrease in the number of Qassam rockets that Palestinians have fired at the Negev. Although Islamic Jihad is continuing to plan terror attacks against Israelis, Hamas and Fatah appear to be too occupied with their conflict to attack Israel.

Fatah and Hamas officials agreed in principle on Friday to renew the cease-fire reached the day before, and Haniyeh on Saturday called on all armed men to withdraw from the streets of Gaza. The Palestinian interior minister, a Hamas member, said the groups had agreed to get the gunmen off the streets, remove roadblocks and stop the incitement against each other. However, the roadblocks were not removed and the militants who had been abducted during the fighting were not returned immediately after the truce was renewed.

Fatah allegedly arrests Iranian experts
Israeli security officials on Saturday were having difficulty ascertaining the credibility of Fatah allegations that the group had arrested seven Iranian terrorism experts who had been assisting Hamas.

Fatah said Thursday that it had arrested the Iranians during a raid of the Islamic University, a Hamas stronghold in Gaza City. Hamas has denied the allegation, and Fatah spokesmen would not confirm the report on Friday.

Israeli officials believe Fatah is making an effort to play down the story, either because the initial report was wrong, or because it is true and Fatah is concerned that the capture of the Iranians will get it entangled with the Iranian government.

Israeli security officials said Iranian experts, along with Hezbollah operatives and Palestinians who underwent terrorism training in Iran or Lebanon, have entered the Gaza Strip through Rafah in the last few months. Some arrived via underground tunnels, while others came in through the Gaza-Egypt border.

Inquest told of deliberate US attack on British convoy

Inquest told of 'rogue' US attack on British convoy

Matthew Taylor
Wednesday January 31, 2007
The Guardian

A group of British soldiers yesterday described their frantic attempts to stop an attack on their convoy by "rogue" US warplanes that left one dead and four injured.

Oxfordshire coroner's court heard that two US A10 planes opened fire on a patrol in southern Iraq in March 2003, killing Lance Corporal of Horse Mattie Hull three days before his 26th birthday.

Yesterday his colleagues told the court that the "friendly fire" incident had happened on a clear day as they patrolled an area about 30 miles north-west of Basra.

---

---

Staff Corporal Ashley Bell said there had been a flash as the first attack started. He had immediately radioed forward air control with the "Stop, stop, stop" instruction but had been told the planes were being flown by "rogue US pilots".

"[The controller] could not contact the US pilots because they had switched frequencies and were talking to each other."

Soldiers in the five-vehicle convoy released smoke canisters to identify them to friendly pilots. The smoke was visible as one of the planes returned at low level and attacked a second time.

L/Cpl Steven Gerrard said: "Something exploded, there was just a massive flash ... I just shouted to everyone to get out."

L/Cpl Chris Finney, 19, who was awarded the George Cross, went back to the burning wreckage twice in an attempt to rescue his colleagues. He said: "At first there were sparks everywhere and the vehicles stopped, they obviously had been stopped by something. I couldn't actually see what had hit us or where from." He realised there were still people inside as he took cover. He said: "I looked back at my vehicle to see my gunner trying to get out."

The Oxfordshire assistant deputy coroner, Andrew Walker, said the gunner was suffering from a large leg wound. L/Cpl Finney, then a trooper with just one year's experience, pulled him out of the burning vehicle and gave him medical treatment.

As he did so, he was aware that a type of smoke used by coalition forces to indicate a friendly fire incident had been released. "I was still with my gunner on the floor at this point, and the plane came back into view to start its second run."

The inquest heard that although he had been injured he went back to L/Cpl Hull's tank to try to save whoever was inside, but flames forced him back.

Despite requests by the coroner and the British government, the pilots of the US planes that shot Corporal Hull have never been publicly named and will not attend the inquest.

The inquest continues.

Waste, Fraud, and Abuse: Another Day at the Pentagon

by Chris Townsend

When I was a teenager apprenticing at being a trade unionist and a left winger both, two of my favorite books were Labor's Untold Story and History of the Great American Fortunes. I recommend them to any readers desiring a review of our own history as working people here in the United States. Both are monuments to working-class scholarship as well. Way back then, I was introduced to dog-eared copies by union old-timers who figured that a young militant like me might benefit from their contents. I sure did.

It was in the pages of these two volumes where I first discovered that -- over the course of U.S. history -- countless unscrupulous businessmen made instant and often massive fortunes by bilking and defrauding our government. More often than not, this meant our armed forces. Back in the 1800s, millions were made selling inedible foodstuffs to the Army, providing ships to the Navy that were not seaworthy, and selling arms and munitions at top-dollar prices that were so poor in quality as to be useless, even dangerous to soldiers in the field. Every imaginable kind of fraud was perpetrated by these incipient Robber Barons, who all systematically took advantage of whatever conflict was underway or looming as a means to get rich quick at taxpayers' expense.

The last 100 years has seen this criminal phenomenon grow exponentially. The overcharging and stealing is often done more professionally than in the past, but the price paid by our government is larger than ever. But, that said, nothing could have prepared any of us for the kleptomaniacal bonanza that has followed on the heels of September 11th and the Iraq invasion. For the sheer size and scope of the fraud and looting, no moment in human history can compare to what is happening today. The schemers and stealers of past years were small-time operators by today's standards. Every expensive restaurant around the Pentagon is jammed on a daily basis with operators in the pay of today's Robber Barons, all looking to coax lucrative and do-nothing contracts out of their armed forces procurement staff lunch guests.

Working here in Washington, D.C. has provided me with a front-row seat to the crime of robbing the Pentagon. In addition to our uniformed armed forces service members -- now quite visible as their enlarged numbers go to-and-from their daily duties here in the D.C area -- one can see the steady growth of every conceivable kind of military contractor, service provider, vendor, hardware or software salesman, equipment peddler, consultant, etc. Never in the history of the world has a military agency -- our Pentagon -- had so much money to spend in so short a time. This is what a "money for nothing" moment looks like, I am sure.

My observations and disgust in this regard multiplied when I opened the pages of the defense industry publication Defense News back in November of last year. Their November 6th issue contained an editorial entitled "U.S. Defense Funding -- Budget? What Budget?" This gem went on to lambaste Republicans for their reckless defense spending, and to skewer the armed forces for going before Congress proposing big increases in funding requests that were nothing but "WAGs." That's military speak for "Wild Ass Guesses." The publishers of this military business magazine seemed to understand that, if the stealing and robbing and just plain sloppiness of Pentagon spending got any more out of hand, the gravy train would someday soon come to a crashing end. The sober business elements get nervous when their good thing gets a little too good for too many and begins to make headlines and draw the attention of the politicians.

That editorial in Defense News was but the tip of an iceberg, however. When acting Pentagon Inspector General (IG) Thomas Gimble testified before the Readiness and Management Support Subcommittee of the Senate Armed Services Committee on January 17th, the lid blew off. Gimble is the "acting" IG because his predecessor bailed out to go to work for the Prince Group, which has as one of its subsidiaries Blackwater USA, a private security contractor doing big business with the Pentagon in Iraq and elsewhere. Acting IG Gimble unloaded an astonishing report on the Senate panel. The average Senate hearing is pretty boring, but I can assure you that no one slept during this one. And remember; the IG is the in-house guy who is supposed to -- or at least try -- to safeguard the integrity and honesty of the agency, its staff, and its processes.

Here are just some of the nuggets revealed at the hearing by acting IG Gimble, in no particular order: the Pentagon has so much money pouring in that it cannot spend it fast enough. In fact, the Defense Department has set up a scheme where other federal agencies are now spending vast sums of monies appropriated to the Pentagon. Billions of dollars under tens of thousands of contracts, in fact. Laws governing the procurement process are routinely ignored. Competition, price limits, and oversight have been "abandoned." Auditing of contracts and contractors is either non-existent or so slow and superficial as to be ineffective. The Pentagon has so much money left over at the end of the year that it has concocted yet another scheme to hide billions of dollars at other federal agencies. I think my favorite was the case of a rookie Navy contracting staffer who was allowed as a beginner to let contracts with a maximum combined value of $5 million dollars. He spent $135 million. Get the picture?

Our friends at Defense News did a story on this hearing and its bombshell testimony by acting IG Gimble: William Matthews, "Pentagon IG: Procurement Laws Are Routinely Broken: Blames DoD for Hiring Other Agencies To Help Spend Funds" (January 22, 2006). See it at the Defense News Web site. If you want to review the full report by IG Gimble, see it online at <www.dodig.osd.mil/Audit/reports/FY07/07-044.pdf>.

This out-of-control shenanigans is transpiring at the Pentagon, right here in Northern Virginia, and within sight of the U.S. Capitol. I think we are all fully aware of the equally bad -- or even worse -- situation regarding the waste, fraud, and theft which have been rampant since the first boot hit the ground in Iraq four years ago. The "legitimate" cost of maintaining the world's most massive military machine is staggering. The exorbitant costs of an illegal adventure like Iraq adds to this expense exponentially. Last, when profit-driven companies milk the corrupt and broken procurement and contracting system to the extent that is apparent, then the military budget grows into the malignant and parasitic growth on the national body that it has become. No nation in the history of the world has ever endured for long under such pressures.

Such colossal fraud and theft should add to our resolve to bring the Iraq war to an end as fast as possible. It should serve as notice to our new Democratic Party Congressional majority that its work is cut out for them in this regard. Vast budget cuts at the Pentagon are in order, in fact required. A complete top-to-bottom audit of expenditures and those doing the spending and those cashing the checks is next. Third, it is obvious that a special federal court will need to be improvised in order to prosecute what is likely several tens of thousands of criminals -- both Pentagon and private-sector -- who have engineered this massive disregard of the law and subsequent robbery of U.S. government funds. This must go all the way up the command chart, to the ousted Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, to Vice President Dick Cheney, and to President George W. Bush.

Don't expect any of this to happen, however. But so as to add something practical to my advice, try downloading this article for starters. Then whip it out the next time you are talking to a Republican or Democrat politician who starts on the "We Can't Afford National Health Care" or "Everyone Has to Sacrifice a Little" Baloney. We have plenty of money to fix our problems. What we lack are civilized and sane priorities, the political will to implement them, and the motivation to prosecute those white-collar hoodlums who are carting away public money by the truckload. You'll feel better if you do this, even if we are headed to the poorhouse because of the Pentagon.

---

Chris Townsend is the Political Action Director of the United Electrical Workers Union (UE).

---

The Three U.S. Armies in Iraq

Zia Mian | January 22, 2007 Editor: John Feffer, IRC
Foreign Policy In Focus
The Iraq War is coming up on its fourth anniversary. Increasingly embattled, even desperate, President Bush has decided to send another 21,500 American troops into the fight. They will join over 150,000 U.S. soldiers already deployed in Iraq. In the speech on January 10 explaining his decision, President Bush argued in almost apocalyptic terms that “failure in Iraq would be a disaster for the United States.” The echoes of America’s war in Vietnam are hard to miss. In March 1967, President Lyndon Johnson declared, “As our commitment in Vietnam required more men and more equipment, some voices were raised in opposition. The administration was urged to disengage, to find an excuse to abandon the effort… But if we faltered, the forces of chaos would scent victory and decades of strife and aggression would stretch endlessly before us. The choice was clear. We would stay the course. And we shall stay the course.” American forces in Iraq are still far short of the military deployment the United States had in Vietnam. U.S. troop numbers in Vietnam increased from less than 20,000 in early 1964 to more than half a million by 1969. But the difference between the force levels – and the two situations -- is a lot less than most people think. There is, after all, not just one U.S. army in Iraq. U.S. Army #2 In December 2006, according to the Washington Post, “There are about 100,000 government contractors operating in Iraq, not counting subcontractors, a total that is approaching the size of the U.S. military force there, according to the military's first census of the growing population of civilians operating in the battlefield.” These contractors, many founded and staffed by former American soldiers, provide essential services for the U.S. military, including interpreters who go out with military patrols, intelligence analysis, security guards, interrogating prisoners (including during the torture at Abu Ghraib), maintaining and even operating military equipment, constructing military bases, and cooking and cleaning for soldiers. Soldiers would ordinarily perform these jobs. Many contractor employees live with U.S. troops on military bases. At least 650 have been killed. These numbers suggest that the effective U.S. military commitment to Iraq is already about 250,000 strong and may be significantly larger. While private military contractors are paid for by the U.S. government, and are an increasingly important part of the U.S. occupation in Iraq (and its military activities elsewhere), they have been subject neither to local law nor U.S. military law. To take but one example, a U.S. military court tried and sentenced some of the American soldiers involved in torture at Abu Ghraib, but the civilian interrogators involved, employed by U.S. contractors, faced no punishment. According to Peter Singer, an expert on U.S. private military contractors, “Not one contractor of the entire military industry in Iraq has been charged with any crime over the last three and a half years, let alone prosecuted or punished. Given the raw numbers of contractors, let alone the incidents we know about, it boggles the mind.” This may be about to change. A little noted clause in the 2007 Defense Bill, enacted last October, placed contractors under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the military laws that govern the U.S. armed forces. U.S. Army #3 The third American army in Iraq is an invisible army, driven not by duty, or greed, but by need. An investigation by the Chicago Tribune revealed some of the ugly truth about the sub-contractors that are paid to do the menial work for the bigger U.S. and other military contractors. An international network of such companies has apparently brought thousands of laborers to Iraq. The Tribune reporters found that “subcontractors and brokers routinely seized workers' passports, deceived them about their safety or contract terms and, in at least one case, allegedly tried to force terrified men into Iraq under the threat of cutting off their food and water.” The U.S. military has confirmed that laws banning human trafficking have been violated and has ordered contractors “to return passports that have been illegally confiscated from laborers on U.S. bases.” It is hard to see how adding a few tens of thousands of soldiers will make much difference to an American force of at least a quarter of million already in Iraq. It is likely only to make things worse, and many people see that. Recent polls show that a clear majority of Americans oppose Bush's decision to send yet more troops to Iraq – a CNN poll found 66% of American opposed. About half (53%) of Americans think the new Congress should block the Bush plan. It should come as no surprise. More than half of Americans (57%) now think that the United States is losing the war in Iraq (up from 34% in December 2005). The Bush decision has also attracted a lot of opposition and criticism from insiders. The highest levels of the U.S. military, the officers who make up the Joint Chiefs of Staff, representing the Army, Navy, Marines, and Air Force, were opposed. The Washington Post reported that “White House officials [are] aggressively promoting the concept over the unanimous disagreement of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.” Colin Powell, who served as National Security Adviser and earlier as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff before serving as Bush’s Secretary of State from 2001-2005, said that “I am not persuaded that another surge of troops into Baghdad for the purposes of suppressing this communitarian violence, this civil war, will work.” Another former national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski passed an even harsher verdict. Writing in the Washington Post, Brzezinski described the Bush plan for a military “surge” in Iraq as “a political gimmick of limited tactical significance and of no strategic benefit. It is insufficient to win the war militarily. It will engage U.S. forces in bloody street fighting that will not resolve with finality the ongoing turmoil and the sectarian and ethnic strife, not to mention the anti-American insurgency.” For Brzezinski, the war in Iraq was always doomed. He has argued that “America is acting like a colonial power in Iraq. But the age of colonialism is over. Waging a colonial war in the post-colonial age is self-defeating. That is the fatal flaw of Bush's policy.” America’s three armies in Iraq exceed a quarter of a million. It is a commitment of people and money that is comparable to the Vietnam war. But it has not proved to be enough. The experience of Vietnam showed that adding more troops (or changing the local leadership, which may be the next US policy initiative in Iraq) cannot rescue a doomed mission. America’s imperial adventure in Iraq has failed. The choice is now whether the United States will accept defeat and withdraw quickly or, as in Vietnam, become more ruthless, turn against the very people it once claimed to protect, and seek to widen the war. As the violence grows, politics will fall silent and hasten an end that is becoming more pitiless, bloody, and bitter. Zia Mian is a physicist with the Program on Science and Global Security at the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University and a frequent contributor to Foreign Policy In Focus (online at www.fpif.org). This report is a slightly revised version of an article published in Economic and Political Weekly on January 20, 2007.

Beware of Child Predators

by Laurence M. Vance

There is a new breed of child predator on the loose. You won’t find him featured on America’s Most Wanted or appearing on the FBI’s Ten Most Wanted list. Up until now parents who were concerned about child predators could check their state’s Sex Offender Registries or the Child Predator Watch List. But now we can thank Ladies Home Journal magazine for informing parents about this dangerous new predator in an article that appears in the latest issue (February 2007) called "This Man Wants Your Children."

I don’t normally read Ladies Home Journal. In fact, I don’t think I had ever read a single copy until I happened recently to look through the latest issue. Unfortunately, Ladies Home Journal has enlisted in the service of the state. The purpose of its thirteen-page child predator article was not to warn parents about predators at all – it was to promote them.

You see, "This Man Wants Your Children" was not about sex offenders – even though some of them are sex offenders – it was about Army recruiters; specifically, Sergeant First Class Chad Christenson, one of the top Army recruiters in the country. Indeed, Sgt. Christenson was the Army’s "Recruiter of the Year" in 2005.

We learn a number of things in this article about recruiters and recruiting. The 2005 military recruiting budget was about $4 billion. Since the recruiting numbers were way down in 2005, "the Army added 1,000 new recruiters, doubled the maximum sign-in bonus from $20,000 to $40,000, relaxed standards and raised the maximum-age limit." Then there was the new $200 million ad campaign for 2006. We are also told that "in 2005 the Army officially investigated 836 allegations of recruiter misconduct." The Army now accepts lower entrance scores on aptitude tests, grants more "moral waivers" to allow convicted criminals to enlist, and allows non-citizens to gain their citizenship after only one year of active duty. The enlistment age has been raised from 35 to 40 to 42. Older women who want to enlist will find that the physical fitness requirements are now less rigorous – they must now be able to do three push-ups. Oh, and the Army now has a MySpace profile.

Thanks to the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, which mandates that "public high school administrators are required to allow military recruiters access to students or risk losing federal funding," Christenson preys on high school students. He is stationed in Texas, "the state that contributed more 2005 and 2006 Army enlistees than any other." He is paid about $64,000 to "show young Texans how the Army can enrich their lives." I know public high school teachers that make half of that and private high school teachers who make less than half of that. Christenson says the Army changed his life – "It made me who I am." But who he is?

We read in this article about some of the people Christenson persuades to join the Army. One recruit tells him that he wants to serve in the infantry. His reason: "It’s a moral thing with me. After what happened on 9/11, I can’t live with myself if I don’t go to war." Does Christenson tell the young man that the war in Iraq has nothing to do with 9/11? Why not? "We have no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th," said Christenson’s commander in chief in answer to a reporter’s question on September 17, 2003, after hundreds of U.S. soldiers had already died for a lie. Another recruit is a forty-one-year-old mother of five. Does Christenson tell her that it would better if she stayed home with her family? Does he tell her about the female U.S. soldiers who have been killed in Iraq? Why not? I have posted their names and pictures here.

What else is Christenson not telling young men and women about the U.S. military? Is he telling them that the military does very little to actually defend the country? Is he telling them that the military is not defending our freedoms? Is he telling them that the military is protecting the shores, guarding the borders, and patrolling the coasts of other countries instead of our own? Is he telling them that the military is garrisoning the planet with its military bases? Is he telling them that the war in Iraq has lasted longer than the war against Nazi Germany? Is he telling them that the military has troops in over 150 different regions of the world?

Why not?

Sgt. Christenson is supposed to be an honest man. We are told in the Ladies Home Journal article that he is "familiar with the dark side of recruiting, of course – the improprieties brought on by the pressure to meet quotas," but that "he scrupulously avoids the sorts of ethical lapses – such as misleading potential recruits (or their parents) about the chances of going to Iraq – that have tripped up other recruiters." This means that he doesn’t tell students that the war in Iraq is over in order to get them to enlist – like some Army recruiters did. So why doesn’t he tell young men and women the whole story?

I wonder how many people would join the Army if the gentleman in this picture were a recruiter? Since he left his legs in Iraq – or what was left of them – for what will go down in history as the lie of the century, perhaps he would be more inclined to give a little more information to potential recruits than Sgt. Christenson. Instead of talking about the amount of a sign-in bonus, he could talk about the more than 3,000 U.S. soldiers that have been killed in Iraq. Instead of speaking about the free health care that the military provides, he could speak about the hundreds of disabled soldiers who are missing body parts like he is. Instead of discussing the amount of money available from the military for college, he could discuss the costs of the war in Iraq – now over $200 million a day. Instead of mentioning the structure and stability that the military provides, he could mention the tens of thousands – and perhaps hundreds of thousands – of Iraqis who have been killed since the U.S. invaded Iraq almost four years ago. Instead of conversing about how the military has lowered enlistment standards, he could converse about the evils of an interventionist U.S. foreign policy that sends young men to die for a lie. And instead of informing potential soldiers about the variety of positions available in the military, he could inform them about the animosity that exists between the Sunni and Shiite Muslims that has now erupted – thanks to the United States – into a civil war.

Perhaps some disabled soldiers who now realize that they gave their limbs in vain should sue the U.S. military under the Americans with Disabilities Act for the right to be a recruiter. I wonder what employing handicapped soldiers would do for enlistment quotas?

Protect your children and the children of everyone you know: Warn them about child predators – and especially those in uniform.

January 29, 2007

Laurence M. Vance [send him mail] is a freelance writer and an adjunct instructor in accounting at Pensacola Junior College in Pensacola, FL. He is also the director of the Francis Wayland Institute. He is the author of Christianity and War and Other Essays Against the Warfare State. His latest book is King James, His Bible, and Its Translators. Visit his website.

Copyright © 2007 LewRockwell.com

Settlers defile Palestinian graves under IDF watch

11:17 , 01.25.07

Jewish settlers desecrate graves, wreak havoc in Palestinian village

Ronny Shaked

"Death to Arabs" was just one of the hateful messages left by Jewish settlers on Muslim graves after a destructive rampage on a cemetery and village near Nablus Tuesday.

The defilement was carried out, according to residents of the village, under the IDF's watch.

The settlers destroyed graves, slashed tires of some 20 cars and smashed the windshields of five other cars after carrying out an annual ceremony in the village.

Each year, with Israel Defense Force protection, settlers arrive at the West Bank village of Awarta to hold a celebration for the sons of Aharon, Moses' brother, who are buried there according to Jewish tradition.

According to Central Command sources, only a small group of the 500 settlers attending the celebration was responsible for the destruction, which included graffiti saying "Kahane" (the leader of extreme right-wing Kach movement who advocated the expulsion off all Arabs from the area) and "Death to Arabs".

"We couldn’t pray in the morning because of the settlers. They have destroyed tombstones in the cemetery and we are afraid that next time their actions may be more severe," said Awrata resident Muhammad Abd A-Salam.

According to Abd A-Salam, no one from the IDF has shown up to investigate the matter, despite being notified.

In response to a Ynetnews inquiry, an official IDF announcement said that as soon as the soldiers noticed what was going on, they removed the settlers from the site and prevented them from causing further damage.

"The IDF views such incidents very severely," said the announcement.

Troops died after, not in, sneak attack: Military lied

Posted on Fri, Jan. 26, 2007
STEVEN R. HURST and QASSIM ABDUL-ZHARA Associated Press BAGHDAD, Iraq - Contrary to U.S. military statements, four U.S. soldiers did not die repelling a sneak attack at the governor's office in the Shiite holy city of Karbala last week. New information obtained by The Associated Press shows they were abducted and found dead or dying as far as 25 miles away. The brazen assault 50 miles south of Baghdad was launched Jan. 20 by a group of nine to 12 militants. They traveled in black GMC Suburban vehicles - the type used by U.S. government convoys, had American weapons, wore new U.S. military combat fatigues and spoke English. In a written statement, the U.S. command reported at the time that five soldiers were killed while "repelling the attack." Two senior U.S. military officials as well as Iraqi officials now say three of them were found dead and one mortally wounded in locations as far as 25 miles east of the governor's office. The U.S. officials said they could not be sure if the soldiers were killed as the attackers drove them to the place where they abandoned the Suburbans or afterward. Iraqi officials said the men were killed just before the vehicles were abandoned. The daring commando team also took an unclassified U.S. computer with them as they fled with the four soldiers and left behind an American M-4 automatic rifle, senior U.S. military officials said. For more than a week, the U.S. military in Baghdad declined comment on reports that began emerging from Iraqi government and military officials which suggested a major breakdown in security surrounding U.S. forces in Karbala.

Warner says U.S. military has been misleading Congress

The Associated Press

Jan 25, 2007 8:56 PM (12 hrs ago)
Current rank: # 4,969 of 16,427 articles

WASHINGTON - U.S. military commanders have "misled" senators on the Iraqi military's ability to oversee security operations, an unusually combative Republican Sen. John Warner said at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing Thursday.

Warner questioned why there are so few Iraqi troops in Baghdad - despite years of training and repeated assurances from U.S. military leaders that more American troops would not be needed.

"I think we, this committee and the Congress, have been misled," Warner told retired General John Keane, the former vice chief of staff of the Army.

"Because time and time again, military officers have sat there and said, 'Here's the number of battalions and they're growing, they're training, and the status of their equipment and so forth,'" he said. "I had placed a high degree of confidence in the representations that this army was up and standing and ready to work. Now, I've got to move along here."

Keane replied that "growing and developing an army from scratch" takes time and that newly trained Iraqis need to get operational experience.

Warner also said he would write to General John Abizaid, the head of Central Command, and ask him why too few Iraqi troops are able to take the place of U.S. forces.

Virginia's senior senator on Monday joined two Republicans and one Democrat in introducing nonbinding legislation expressing disagreement with President Bush's plan to send 21,500 more U.S. troops to Iraq.

The president should consider "all options and alternatives" involving a smaller force, the measure said.

Warner, a former Navy secretary who was chairman of the Armed Services Committee until Democrats took power this month, was initially a strong supporter of the war.

But in October, he returned from a visit to Iraq and said the country was "drifting sideways."

Hebron Occupied, And Deserted

MIDEAST:

Nora Barrows-Friedman

HEBRON (Occupied Palestinian West Bank), Jan. 22 (IPS) - As the illegal Israeli occupation grinds on, the daily situation for Palestinians worsens by the day. Hebron presents a vivid picture of the cumulative face of this colonial project.

Hebron, about 35km south of Jerusalem in the occupied West Bank, has historically existed as a mixed Muslim-Jewish city, but over the last few decades the Israeli authorities have been choking its 150,000 Palestinians while supporting the settler movement.

Approximately 650 radical right-wing settlers have taken over parts of the old city, destroyed Palestinian neighbourhoods and the economic infrastructure, and are free to terrorise Palestinians at whim.

Hebron is divided into two parts called H1 and H2, drawing a line between the settlements and the rest of the city. Today, most Palestinians are not allowed anywhere near H2.

Once a bustling marketplace and residential neighbourhood, that part of the city has become essentially a ghost town inhabited by settlers who are protected by the occupation soldiers and the Israeli police force.

Graffiti is sprayed all over the closed metal shop doors and mosques, with Stars of David and slogans such as 'Kill the Arabs', 'God will take revenge on the non-religious', 'Arabs to the gas chambers'.

Hani Abu Akker was born in his house 40 years ago in the Tel Rumeida neighbourhood, now a part of H2, at the top of a steep hill that overlooks the old city of Hebron. Here, the cacophony of the lively Palestinian market below blends with the shouts and sounds of children playing soccer against the walls of apartments near Hani's home.

"See this street? My father built it with his own hands in 1945, before there was anything called Israel," he told IPS, standing near the house where he now lives at the bottom of the hill.

Abu Akker cannot enter his home through the front door. Barbed wire and steel bars enclosing his home are only minimal protection against the ongoing attacks and harassment he and his family of ten face almost daily. To come and go from home, Abu Akker must use the backdoor, cross a small, muddy meadow and circumvent the neighbourhood from the back.

Abu Akker's house is in the middle of a colonial war zone, and the Israeli soldier behind a small pillbox barrack mandates who comes and goes up and down his street. Jewish settlers roam the streets often carrying firearms.

Israeli Yehuda Shaul knows too well the structure of policy and law enforcement in Hebron. Co-founder of the left-wing activist group Breaking the Silence, Shaul earlier spent his mandatory military service as commander of a battalion stationed in the H2 district.

"All you need to know about the occupation you can see in this 5-kilometre square area inside Hebron," Shaul tells IPS, standing in the middle of an open space that was once a lively meat market but is now completely destroyed and abandoned, with garbage and twisted metal littering the ground.

"It's all here. This is a microcosm of what's happening in Israel-Palestine...here, 650 settlers run the town, and 150,000 Palestinians pay the price. There is a policy here, and I know because it was told to me, and I was expected to pass it on to my unit, that we are not to interfere against the settlers."

Palestinians living in this area have been attacked and harassed for years. Many families have left the area after years of torment, and the rain of garbage, faeces, oil, car batteries, used diapers, old furniture and large rocks thrown onto their homes and through their windows.

Palestinian children have been the target of serious physical attacks in recent years. International human rights workers have stationed themselves near the elementary school specifically to escort children to and from school during the day.

Last week Efrat Akobi, a settler in Tel Rumeida, was questioned by the Israeli police after B'Tselem, an Israeli human rights group, released film footage where Akobi was seen verbally harassing a teenaged member of a Palestinian family in the neighborhood.

In the footage, Akobi taunts the young girl, telling her to "get back in your cage", while hurling insults at her.

Israeli Defence Minister Amir Peretz said he was "shocked" by the footage and announced he would ask for a full investigation. But Palestinians in Hebron say this is not an isolated incident, and that many more shocking incidents come daily in this small area.

B'Tselem said in a statement published last week: "The attacks in Hebron are carried out in full view of Israeli soldiers, who are unable or unwilling to stop them. The Hebron police, who receive hundreds of complaints about settler violence, are also well aware of the situation."

The statement added: "The fact that the Defence Minister and the security establishment feign ignorance and mobilise to respond to the problem only following the public controversy generated by this video is outrageous."

Meanwhile, as press coverage waxes and wanes, Hani Abu Akker recalls something that happened almost two years ago, that he says still keeps him up at night.

"My father at the time was very sick. We negotiated (with the Israeli military) for the ambulance to come to our house. It took over 48 hours for the ambulance to pass. My father went to the hospital, and slipped into a coma. My father told me two weeks before that he wanted to die in his house and that I should make arrangements when it was time.

"After a few weeks, the doctor said my father should go back to the house to die according to his wishes. After another two days of negotiations with the Israeli military, they let us pass to our home. My father eventually passed away.

"When my father's body was transferred to the ambulance, the settlers made a circle and surrounded it. They began dancing and throwing sweets and candies at the ambulance. They cheered, 'Your old man is dead. We hope all of you will be dead too.'

"I saw an Israeli soldier standing alone, tears streaming down his face. He was sad and frustrated that he could not stop this from happening. I realised that I was not the only one bothered by this. Even the soldiers that are here to protect the settlers could not believe what was happening.

"Before this happened, I tried to make contact with the Israeli settlers; to talk with them, to say that we should try peace -- we live in the same neighbourhood, so we should live together and live our lives in peace. But instead, on that day, I understood that they came not just to live here but they came to move the Palestinians from their neighbourhoods; to remove them without discussion."

Two years on, all that has not changed in Hebron.

Residents describe life as ‘hell’ in Haifa Street

Hayder Amran

Azzaman, January 20, 2007

Life is turning into ‘hell’ for residents of Haifa Street and the surrounding quarters.

Residents said the area was under siege by Iraqi and U.S. troops and scores of innocent civilians have been either killed or injured as a result of the ongoing clashes.

U.S. and Iraqi troops have besieged the street and several other adjacent districts. The operation is seen as a prelude to a massive military push against Baghdad by Iraqi and U.S. troops.

“The area has become hell for its inhabitants. We have become hostages of the armed groups and Iraqi and U.S. troops,” said Saad Jassem, a resident Rahmaniya district close to Haifa.

Haifa Street is lined with modern high rises which former leader Saddam Hussein built to ease the city’s housing crisis.

But it is situated amid slum-like quarters mainly inhabited by low-income people.

Armed men have fortified themselves in some of these high rises as well as the streets of the impoverished districts of Fahama, Sheik Ali and Al-Fadhl.

“Many innocent people have been killed and it is dangerous to move around. Several passers-by have died also as a result of fighting,” added Jassem.

Analysts say Iraqi and U.S. troops are using Haifa Street as a test to assess the effectiveness of their imminent campaign to retake Baghdad.

But the drive against Haifa which started almost a week ago has failed to regain the area and drive out the fighters.

Snipers are still present in several high rises and armed groups mount daily attacks on Iraqi and U.S. military personnel.

The areas where the fighting is taking place are the closet to the U.S.-protected Green Zone the only place with relative safety in Baghdad.

U.S. military commanders and civil administrators as well members of the Iraqi government reside there.

Mohammed Saadi said U.S. helicopter gun ships and war planes are sent it to support the troops.

“Shops are closed and people are afraid to leave their homes.

“Sometimes fighting is so intense that it becomes very dangerous to go out and collect the corpses of armed groups, military personnel or innocent civilians,” he said.

Stop the Next War

January 19, 2007

Before it starts. Support H. J. Resolution 14.

by Justin Raimondo

The times, they sure are a-changin'! Why, I remember when you could count congressional opponents of the war on the fingers of one hand. Back then, it was just the likes of Ron Paul and Neil Abercrombie who were introducing resolutions trying to get us out of the Iraqi quagmire, but today there are no less than eleven such resolutions vying for attention. The great problem with most of them is that they are either unconstitutional – such as the Kennedy bill, that would prohibit the spending of war funding on Bush's "surge" – or non-binding resolutions, which have no effect except to distance Democrats who initially voted for the Iraq war from their own handiwork. All these legislative initiatives deal with Iraq, with only one – House Joint Resolution 14 – confronting the key issue on the war-and-peace front: Iran. This is a binding resolution that forbids the President from ordering an attack on Iran absent military action against U.S. forces, or a demonstrably imminent threat of attack. Authored by Rep. Walter B. Jones, of North Carolina – the formerly pro-war Republican who did a dramatic turnaround long before it became fashionable to do so – the resolution has an impressively bipartisan list of co-sponsors, including GOPers John Duncan (Tennessee), Wayne Gilchrest (Maryland), and Ron Paul, the libertarian Republican congressman from Texas whose announcement of a presidential exploratory committee is causing much excitement in antiwar circles. If H.J. Res. 14 ever sees the light of day on the House floor, it will be a miracle. Yet miracles have been known to happen. On the other hand, of all possible Speakers, Nancy Pelosi seems one of the least likely to let it come to a vote, let alone throw her support behind it. I had a call into her office early this [Thursday] morning, but, as we posted this piece – some 10 hours later – I had yet to hear from her representatives as to their position on the Jones resolution. The likely answer – given Pelosi's past position – is that she's opposed, just as she opposed a previous resolution by Lynn Woolsey (D-California), calling for a phased withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq (now the official Democratic majority position). Can the Speaker be persuaded to evolve, as it were, and go with the flow, California-style, of her own party, the grassroots of which are undoubtedly opposed to war with Iran? There is reason to doubt it. Madam Speaker, after all, co-sponsored a bill during the last session of Congress, introduced by Rick Santorum and Ileana Ross-Lehtinen, both Republicans, that not only tightened sanctions on Iran, but also made "regime change" in Tehran official U.S. policy. The measure was originally opposed by the President, and the Republican leadership, on the grounds that it would interfere with efforts to negotiate with Tehran, but the AIPAC lobby, in a show of bipartisan strength, forced the White House to accept a compromise bill, which was eventually passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the President. Last year, the Israel lobby in the U.S. launched a major campaign to demonize the Iranians and ramp us up for a showdown with Tehran. The last AIPAC national convention, held in Washington, D.C., featured lurid exhibits detailing the horrors – and imminence – of a nuclear-armed Iran. Here is what Pelosi had to say about Iran to the 2006 AIPAC conference: "The greatest threat to Israel's right to exist, with the prospect of devastating violence, now comes from Iran. For too long, leaders of both political parties in the United States have not done nearly enough to confront the Russians and the Chinese, who have supplied Iran as it has plowed ahead with its nuclear and missile technology. Proliferation represents a clear threat to Israel and to America. It must be confronted by an international coalition against proliferation, with a commitment and a coalition every bit as strong as our commitment to the war against terror." As the Israelis, and their American lobby, push Washington to take action against Tehran, Pelosi and her fellow Democrats are meekly going along, just as they went along with the President in the run-up to war with Iraq. The Democrats are trying to cover up their co-responsibility for the Iraq disaster by offering up all kinds of symbolic, non-binding resolutions disdaining the "surge," and calling for "phased redeployment" (which, one gathers, is distinct from simple withdrawal). This is pure show-boating. The only resolutions that matter are H.J. Res. 12, and H.R. 413, introduced by Rep. Sam Farr, which repeals the Iraq war resolution of 2002 outright, and requires the President to start withdrawing the troops. This one has zero co-sponsors – and that ought to tell us everything we need to know about our elected representatives' seriousness when it comes to stopping this war. The irony is that the Farr legislation would have the plurality of votes if the various "antiwar" bills were submitted to a popular referendum. The Democrats, however, are not about to ride this horse, perhaps for fear it might throw them. The greater danger, however, is that they'll be trampled in the general stampede to get ahead of the issue as popular opposition to our crazed foreign policy increases by leaps and bounds. The Farr resolution embodies what needs to be done as far as Iraq is concerned: it corrects the big mistake of 2002, and counterposes a course diametrically opposed to the escalation favored by the administration. If the Democrats had any brains, they would immediately embrace it – yet they are still stuck in the 2002 zeitgeist, which prevented them from halting or even delaying the rush to war. The Jones resolution has the best chance of passing, and it is, at the same time, the most pressing. Iraq, after all, was yesterday: Iran is tomorrow. The time to stop a war is before it starts: the most we can do, at this particular moment, is to prevent the current war from spreading. And that is precisely what is behind the "surge," as I pointed out the other day: it's no accident that the "new" strategy being pushed by the President was announced in tandem with fresh provocations directed at the Iranians. The groundwork for forcible "regime change" in Iran was laid by both parties: plans even now being hatched in the Pentagon were funded by Pelosi and her fellow Democrats, in alliance with the most pro-war Republicans. Now that the Democrats are in power, at least in Congress, they have no intention of reversing their stance. Democratic party chairman Howard Dean asserts that the great "tragedy" of our involvement in Iraq is that we aren't free to go after "the real enemy," which, says the Screamer, is Iran. And Hillary Clinton, the party's leading contender for the presidential nomination, out-neocons many Republicans when it comes to Iran: "Let's be clear about the threat we face now: A nuclear Iran is a danger to Israel, to its neighbors and beyond. The regime's pro-terrorist, anti-American and anti-Israel rhetoric only underscores the urgency of the threat it poses. U.S. policy must be clear and unequivocal. We cannot and should not – must not – permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons. In order to prevent that from occurring, we must have more support vigorously and publicly expressed by China and Russia, and we must move as quickly as feasible for sanctions in the United Nations. And we cannot take any option off the table in sending a clear message to the current leadership of Iran – that they will not be permitted to acquire nuclear weapons." For those Kossacks and antiwar Democrats who have placed their hopes in Barack Obama, the supposed anti-Hillary expresses his view on the Iran war question in eerily similar language, averring that all options, including war with Iran, are "on the table." The leading Democrats are expending all their political capital on opposing Bush's "surge," and yet Michael Moran, in a piece posted on the Council on Foreign Relations website, identifies a "surge" of an entirely different sort than the one named in the Democrats' toothless resolutions. It is a surge "in the direction of Iran." According to Moran, the USS Stennis, an aircraft carrier, and its attendant battle group, will meet the USS Eisenhower and its flotilla in the Arabian Sea in the first weeks of February. The Brits, too, have built up their naval forces in the area. Yet it isn't just the gathering of this armada that lends support to the view that the Bush administration means to attack Iran. Moran underscores the turnabout of newly-installed SecDef Robert Gates, who now opposes dealing with Iran and/or Syria in order to secure a political settlement for the entire region. "Gates agreed with that premise in 2004 when he co-chaired a CFR Independent Task Force on Iran," Moran notes. "CFR President Richard N. Haass reiterated it this summer in a CFR.org interview." As the diplomatic option is being rapidly foreclosed by an apparent policy shift in Washington, the military option seems in the ascendancy. The movements of American and British forces, in tandem with the ratcheting up of the administration's bellicose rhetoric, are seen in the region as preparations for war with Iran, and Tehran is not sitting idly by. The War Party hopes the mullahs can be lured by some provocation into making the first move, and Rep. Ron Paul has rightly warned against another "Gulf of Tonkin incident." Not a single Democratic, or Republican, presidential candidate, aside from Paul, has come out against the administration's warmongering when it comes to Iran. Yet the American people, in their overwhelming majority, oppose another war in the Middle East. Isn't democracy wonderful? So, you thought you voted for a new era of diplomacy as opposed to perpetual war? You've been bamboozled, and badly – so what are you going to do about it? What's needed is a popular outpouring of support for H. J. Res. 14 – and you can do your part by calling the office of La Pelosi, urging her to let the House vote on the Jones resolution, and urging her to support it. That number is: 202-225-4965.

U.S. drone attack? It was us, says Pakistan army

1 hour, 51 minutes ago

Defending its credibility, Pakistan's military on Friday rebutted claims that a U.S. Predator drone aircraft carried out the initial attack on a suspected Al Qaeda hideout earlier this week.

On Tuesday, its spokesman said army helicopter gunships struck a cluster of compounds where up to 30 Taliban and al Qaeda fighters were based in South Waziristan, a rugged tribal area where support for the Afghan insurgency runs deep.

Not true, according to villagers at Salamat Ghundi.

They said a U.S. drone's missiles destroyed the compounds, and Pakistan helicopter gunships mopped up by firing rockets.

"This is wrong. We have already denied it. This is usual that such things are said on such occasions but these are wrong," Pakistan's military spokesman Shaukat Sultan said in response.

Though Pakistani intelligence officials, speaking anonymously, reckon that up to 20 militants were eliminated, there were no troops on the ground to see who had been killed.

Villagers said they found just eight bodies -- all belonging to men from a team of wood-cutters, who made a living selling charcoal to surrounding towns.

"No foreigner or Afghan was killed in this attack. Only labourers from Mehsud and Salmanzai tribes were killed," said Awaz Khan, whose son and nephew were among the dead.

UNRELIABLE WITNESSES?

To back their story, the villagers dragged an unexploded missile in front of the journalists, who reached the village in the Zamzola area of the Shak Toi mountains on Thursday.

Getting watertight independent corroboration of anything that happens in Pakistan's tribal badlands is, however, a tall order.

The journalists had only reached the spot with an escort from armed militants, and there was no way of knowing whether the militants had told people what to say.

"This attack was basically carried out with five missiles fired by a Predator. The helicopters came in later and attacked," Jalindar Khan Kikari, a villager, told the visiting journalists.

"The missiles were fired from a distant place, maybe from a spy plane, but I did not see that," said another called Bashir, who went on to describe how the Pakistani helicopters arrived minutes later and blasted the place with rockets.

Another villager, Mohammad Ali, told Reuters on the day of the attack that he had seen a drone circling overhead, while a Reuters journalist saw helicopter gunships take off from the army base at Miranshah before the attack and return soon after.

That villagers should know a Predator when they see one is hardly surprising. The spy planes have become a common sight in recent years as U.S. forces kept up aerial surveillance of a border area Osama bin Laden was believed to have passed through.

The missile proudly displayed, however, appeared rather old.

Just under two meters (about five feet) long, and marked MFP AMF YORK 0873, its casing looked far more weathered than the U.S. missile fragments found after past attacks in Waziristan.

SOVEREIGNTY

Under mounting pressure to confront Taliban in Pakistan, President Pervez Musharraf constantly risks a backlash over his alliance with the United States.

He has said no violation of territorial sovereignty by forces operating in Afghanistan will be permitted.

But over the past year, people in the tribal areas have challenged the official version of similar attacks in their lands, saying the United States was involved. Verifying the circumstances of such incidents is extremely difficult.

Militants have chased almost all journalists out of South Waziristan, along with anyone they think is pro-government.

Journalists also fear Pakistan's security agencies, particularly after the execution-style killing of a colleague, Hayatullah Khan, whose body was found last year.

Khan had disappeared after he reported the death of a al Qaeda member, Abu Hamza Rabia, in Waziristan in December, 2005.

Pakistan's military said Rabia died when explosives housed in the building he was staying in blew up. The dead journalist, Hayatullah Khan, however, had shown U.S. missile fragments to photographers at the attack site.

Stopping the Iran War - after it starts

Jan 18, 2006
By Everest42

The big question on everyone's mind these days seems to be "when are we gonna go to war with Iran?"

It's kinda scary that we seem to be moving beyond the mere "will we go to war?" and breezing quickly past the "why should we go to war" to:

Who: Iran
What: Attack them
Where: In their country
Why: Islamofacism / WMD / because their former neighbor tried to kill my daddy / because historically we oppose Aryan nations / because Osama once visited Qom / because of Tehran’s scheduled opening of the Iran Oil Bourse on March 20, 2006 / because either Jesus or Frederick Kagan or my dog Barney told Dick and me to / classified, but trust me.
How: With good ol' American gumption (translation: we don't have the resources, but don't tell the American people that)

So that leaves
When: UNDETERMINED

Let's set aside the known unknowns (hah! And you thought Rummy was gone from the American consciousness! Hell no!).

Hey, let's also set aside all of those things we aren't even sure are unknowns. (The unknown unknowns).

And let's pretend all of the things we can discern are acknowledged (the known knowns).

Simply put: AFTER the war has started, and AFTER we've begun impeaching the relevant people, AFTER, perhaps, we've closed the purse strings in congress....how do we stop the war? How do we effectively back up and achieve a separation of forces? Will Iran let us back out after we begin wreaking havoc? Will they simply agree that it was the will of a single political creature, and not the will of the American people, who led us all down this insane path? And, even if they reach that point of agreement, will they allow for a separation of forces...will they allow us to just walk away?

Historically, Iran doesn't seem to be that kind of country:

FROM THE WIKIPEDIA ENTRY ON IRAN:

Although Saddam Hussein's forces made several early advances, by 1982, Iranian forces managed to push the Iraqi army back into Iraq. Khomeini refused a cease-fire from Iraq, demanding huge reparation payments, an end to Saddam's rule, and that he be tried for crimes against humanity. Khomeini also sought to export his Islamic revolution westward into Iraq, especially on the majority Shi'a Arabs living in the country. The war then continued for six more years until 1988, when Khomeini, in his words, "drank the cup of poison" and accepted a truce mediated by the United Nations.

I don't think the Iranians are looking for that particular cup to runneth over. They know we are militarily at our breaking point, and may press for the advantage.

So how do you end a war that has already begun? Hell, I don't know.

How did we do it in Vietnam?

Stephen Bergman wrote a piece entitled From Vietnam to Iraq: How to stop the war back in November of 2005 where he analyzed how we ended the war:

The student resistance movement and the draft. The fact that every male student was eligible to be drafted and sent to Vietnam created great anxiety and, with time, organized resistance to the war.

The media. TV newscasts at that time showed an incontrovertible truth: Real bleeding bodies were brought into everyone's living room. Screams of the wounded were heard. Dead bodies were seen sprawled in the graceless horror of death. Both American and Vietnamese casualties were shown. There was a nightly tally of the dead and wounded.

Leaders. Both within and outside of Congress there were great leaders who spoke to the link between racism and classism and the obscene images on the TV and in the papers.

Bergman, of course, was talking about the current imbroglio in Iraq.

Stopping a war is difficult, especially given the hubris, spin, and tragic incompetence of the Bush-Cheney administration. Yet even Kissinger and Nixon were able to manage it, however clumsily and with a great cost of lives on both sides. We Americans can stop it in time to save many thousands of wounded and dead. Now.

He goes on to evaluate each of the three categories (from his quote above) as a feasible means of stopping the war:

The draft. Introduce legislation to institute the draft. At once, no exceptions, not even gender. Mothers, fathers, and their children would be in the streets. There might be a violent response. The resistance to the war would focus. Many returning soldiers and their families and loved ones would join in.

The media. Corporate controlled, it is probably beyond repair. Some of the alternative and foreign media are often more reliable truth-tellers. But there is one question for the TV commanders to which we must demand an answer: Why are you not showing the bloody bodies of the wounded and dead Americans and Iraqis?

Leaders. The only leader of national note is a dead soldier's mother, Cindy Sheehan. The Congress, with few exceptions -- Maxine Waters, Barbara Lee, Russ Feingold, and now John Murtha -- is as quiet as 500 invertebrates. In this silence is opportunity. Most Americans see Iraq as a mistake. If a leader of some stature stands up and asks, again, ''How do you ask someone to be the last person to die for a mistake?" there will be an audible sigh of national relief. A simmering movement will ignite. This requires courage, probably from someone outside of Congress -- Wes Clark or John Edwards come to mind. It may seem risky to take that stance, but that person might well be elected president in 2008.

Obviously, leaders have stepped up since the article was written a year ago. But the President seems inclined to ignore them when convenient.

And you have to factor in the other side, when you speak of ending the conflict. And you have to factor in the Rah-Rah Go-USA mentality that we can infuse ourselves with. It took several years and over two thousand dead before the tide shifted here at home against Iraq. If the evil Iranians are killing our soldiers, we want them to pay, dammit! The self-fulfilling war machine.

So again, I ask the question: how do we stop the war once the shooting starts? Go on, flame away.

"Never, never, never believe any war will be smooth and easy, or that anyone who embarks on the strange voyage can measure the tides and hurricanes he will encounter. The statesman who yields to war fever must realize that once the signal is given, he is no longer the master of policy but the slave of unforeseeable and uncontrollable events."
Sir Winston Churchill (1874 - 1965)

History is not preordained: a new cold war can be averted: Mikhail Gorbachev

US military arrogance has led to a global crisis. But there is still time to change course and build a democratic world order

Mikhail Gorbachev
Thursday January 18, 2007
The Guardian

A watershed in international relations has occurred in recent months. Indeed, the past year may well have seen the end of an entire era in world affairs - the post-cold war period of unilateralism and missed opportunities.

When the cold war ended, avenues opened up for progress toward a better world. Major powers, particularly the United States, the Soviet Union and China, were working constructively together in the United Nations security council. International conflicts, including those in Angola, El Salvador, Nicaragua and Cambodia, were brought to an end. Nuclear and conventional arms control agreements were concluded, and democratic changes were under way in dozens of countries in Asia, Latin America and central and eastern Europe.

The Charter of Paris for a New Europe, signed in 1990, marked the beginning of a process that was expected to lead to a new, peaceful and democratic world order. But the movement in that direction soon stalled. The break-up of the Soviet Union was followed by changes in the political elites of the United States and other countries. The Charter of Paris was forgotten. Instead of moving towards a new security architecture, it was decided to rely on the tools inherited from the cold war. The United States - and the west as a whole - succumbed to the "winner's complex".

Europe was shaken by the tragedies in the Balkans. Waves of instability swept through the former Yugoslavia, the Middle East and Africa as the struggles for spheres of influence, resources and markets gathered momentum.

Nato's promise to evolve into a primarily political organisation was not kept. Instead, it moved to increase its membership and expand its zone of operations. A new arms race is now under way. The problems of nuclear weapons and non-proliferation have taken on a new urgency, with the original members of the nuclear club bearing much of the blame for it.

There is a real danger of a new division of the world; the possibility of a new cold war is being widely discussed. Without regard for the security council or for the opinion of other countries, including its partners and allies, the United States invaded Iraq with disastrous consequences. The arrogance of military power has led to a grave crisis - and to a decline of the United States' role and influence.

Another consequence of unilateralist policies and attempts to claim exclusive leadership is that most international institutions have not been able to address effectively the new century's global challenges - the environmental crisis and the problem of poverty. The unprecedented scale of international terrorism and the proliferation of ethnic and religious conflicts are disturbing signs of troubles to come.

Americans have also felt the effects of the administration's flawed foreign policies. In November the voters made their verdict known, delivering a defeat for the Republicans in the midterm elections. Yet that is a challenge to the entire US political establishment, for Democrats as well as Republicans. There is a need for a correction in the superpower's policies. Is the administration of George Bush capable of such a correction?

Both in the United States and elsewhere, the prevailing view is often negative. The administration gives ample reason for this view, because it seems to prefer the inertia of the old course. It would appear that all the Bush administration wants is to persuade the world that it is still firmly in the saddle. The president's recent statements and the plans being discussed in his administration are cut from the old cloth.

The Republican leadership clearly wants to leave to the next president a legacy that would tie him to its policies and make a change of course impossible. If so it is not just a tactical blunder but a recipe for an even greater disaster.

And yet I think the possibility of change is still there. The administration and Congress still have the time to forge it. They should begin with the Middle East. Not only should America start pulling itself out of the Iraqi quagmire, but it also needs to return to a constructive policy in the region. It is essential that the Middle East peace process be resumed, along with a serious dialogue with Iraq's neighbours.

If America's leaders have the foresight and the courage to look at the world as it really is, they would choose dialogue and cooperation rather than force. What is needed is not a worldwide web of military presence and intervention, but a restraint and a willingness to solve problems by political means.

After all, the world has changed dramatically even when compared to the early 1990s. It has become even more interconnected and interdependent. New giants - China, India and Brazil - have entered the world arena, and their views can no longer be ignored. Europe is uniting, and its economic and political influence is bound to grow.

Although the Islamic world is finding it difficult to adapt to new realities, its adjustment will continue and this great civilisation will insist on being treated with respect. Finally, the democratic transition of Russia (as well as the other former Soviet republics), for all its considerable problems, is bringing a new, strong player to the international scene.

During the 1990s, which were a difficult time for my country, I said that Russia's troubles would pass, that it would rise to its feet and forge ahead. This is what is happening now.

Russia's resurgence, its insistence on protecting its interests, and its ability to play a proper role in the world, are not to everyone's liking. Strangely enough, when Russia was mired in crisis, the west applauded it; today Russia is accused of rejecting democracy and of having imperial ambitions.

Still, there are no real reasons to fear Russia. My country is facing many problems. Learning new ways and building democratic institutions is indeed hard work. But Russia will never go back. The most difficult part of the road is already behind us.

I have always said that in this day and age we cannot afford to be pessimists. There are many reasons to be concerned and even alarmed. But history is not preordained. A new division of the world, a new confrontation, is not inevitable. A democratic world order is not mere rhetoric. It can be built.

· Mikhail Gorbachev is former president of the Soviet Union
presidentgorbachev@nytimes.com