Last Updated: Tuesday, 5 December 2006, 16:03 GMT
Robert Gates has revealed little so far about his thinking on IraqUS Defence Secretary nominee
Robert Gates has told a Senate committee that the US is not winning the war in Iraq.
Mr Gates told a confirmation hearing he was open to new ideas on Iraq but warned the situation there would shape the Middle East for years to come.
He is set to be confirmed to replace Donald Rumsfeld, who quit last month amid criticism of his Iraq policy.
The next chairman of the committee said Mr Gates would face a "monumental challenge" in Iraq if he got the job.
Senate hearings on Mr Gates's nomination began a day before the Iraq Study Group - of which Mr Gates was a member - publishes its findings.
The start of the hearings also came on another violent day in Iraq.
More than 30 people were killed in shootings and car bomb attacks in Baghdad, Iraqi officials said. At least 30 more died in violence in northern and south-western Iraq.
'Broken policies'
Mr Gates told the Senate Armed Services Committee that all options remained on the table for Iraq.
Profile: Robert Gates
"Our course over the next year or two will determine whether the American and Iraqi people and the next president of the US will face a slowly but steadily improving situation in Iraq or will face the very real risk and possible reality of a regional conflagration," he said at the start of the hearing.
The next chairman of the committee, Democratic Senator Carl Levin, said he would face "the monumental challenge of picking up the pieces from broken policies and mistaken priorities".
Asked by Mr Levin if he believed the US was currently winning in Iraq, Mr Gates replied: "No, Sir."
If the panel approves his nomination, the 63-year-old is likely to appear before the full Senate for a confirmation hearing later this week.
Democratic senators are thought unlikely to oppose Mr Gates's nomination not least because they are keen to see Mr Rumsfeld leave the role quickly.
Mr Gates met Mr Bush for breakfast at the White House before his questioning.
The president said Mr Gates was the right man for the job.
"Those who wear the uniform will know they'll have a friend in Bob Gates," he said.
"He's going to do an excellent job for us. "
Phased withdrawal
Mr Gates stood down from the bipartisan Iraq Study Group - which has been asked to recommend ways of tackling the problems the US faces in Iraq - after President George W Bush picked him to replace Mr Rumsfeld.
The group's recommendations are widely expected to include a gradual phased withdrawal of US troops over the next 18 months.
It is also thought to favour the idea of holding a regional conference on Iraq that would involve Syria and Iran, with whom Washington has refused to negotiate directly.
Mr Bush has indicated he will look closely at, but not necessarily follow, the group's suggestions.
Tuesday, December 5, 2006
Census Counts 100,000 'Contractors' in Iraq Census Counts 100,000 "Contractors" in Iraq
Census Counts 100,000 Contractors in Iraq
Civilian Number, Duties Are Issues
By Renae Merle
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, December 5, 2006; D01
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.
The survey finding, which includes Americans, Iraqis and third-party nationals hired by companies operating under U.S. government contracts, is significantly higher and wider in scope than the Pentagon's only previous estimate, which said there were 25,000 security contractors in the country.
It is also 10 times the estimated number of contractors that deployed during the Persian Gulf War in 1991, reflecting the Pentagon's growing post-Cold War reliance on contractors for such jobs as providing security, interrogating prisoners, cooking meals, fixing equipment and constructing bases that were once reserved for soldiers.
Official numbers are difficult to find, said Deborah D. Avant, author of the 2005 book "The Market for Force: The Consequences of Privatizing Security," but an estimated 9,200 contractors deployed during the Gulf War, a far shorter conflict without reconstruction projects. "This is the largest deployment of U.S. contractors in a military operation," said Avant, an associate professor at George Washington University.
In addition to about 140,000 U.S. troops, Iraq is now filled with a hodgepodge of contractors. DynCorp International has about 1,500 employees in Iraq, including about 700 helping train the police force. Blackwater USA has more than 1,000 employees in the country, most of them providing private security. Kellogg, Brown and Root, one of the largest contractors in Iraq, said it does not delineate its workforce by country but that it has more than 50,000 employees and subcontractors working in Iraq, Afghanistan and Kuwait. MPRI, a unit of L-3 Communications, has about 500 employees working on 12 contracts, including providing mentors to the Iraqi Defense Ministry for strategic planning, budgeting and establishing its public affairs office. Titan, another L-3 division, has 6,500 linguists in the country.
The Pentagon's latest estimate "further demonstrates the need for Congress to finally engage in responsible, serious and aggressive oversight over the questionable and growing U.S. practice of private military contracting," said Rep. Janice D. Schakowsky (D-Ill.), who has been critical of the military's reliance on contractors.
About 650 contractors have died in Iraq since 2003, according to Labor Department statistics.
Central Command, which conducted the census, said a breakdown by nationality or job description was not immediately available because the project is still in its early stages. "This is the first time we have initiated a census of this robustness," Lt. Col. Julie Wittkoff, chief of the contracting branch at Central Command, said in an interview. Those figures do not include subcontractors, which could substantially grow the figure.
In June, government agencies were asked to provide data about contractors working for them in Iraq, including their nationality, a description of their work and locations where they were working. The information was provided by more than a dozen entities within the Pentagon and a dozen outside agencies, including the departments of State and Interior, Wittkoff said. The count increased about 15 percent from about 87,000 since Central Command began keeping a tally this summer, she said, though the increase may reflect ongoing data collection efforts. The census will be updated quarterly, Wittkoff said.
Three years into the war, the headcount represents one of the Pentagon's most concrete efforts so far toward addressing the complexities and questions raised by the large numbers of civilians who have flooded into Iraq to work. With few industry standards, the military and contractors have sometimes lacked coordination, resulting in friendly fire incidents, according to a Government Accountability Office report last year.
"It takes a great deal of vigilance on the part of the military commander to ensure contractor compliance," said William L. Nash, a retired Army general and a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. "If you're trying to win hearts and minds and the contractor is driving 90 miles per hour through the streets and running over kids, that's not helping the image of the American army. The Iraqis aren't going to distinguish between a contractor and a soldier."
The census gives military commanders insight into the contractors operating in their region and the type of work they are doing, Wittkoff said. "It helps the combatant commanders have a better idea of . . . food and medical requirements they may need to provide to support the contractors," she said.
Staff writer Griff Witte contributed to this report.
Civilian Number, Duties Are Issues
By Renae Merle
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, December 5, 2006; D01
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.
The survey finding, which includes Americans, Iraqis and third-party nationals hired by companies operating under U.S. government contracts, is significantly higher and wider in scope than the Pentagon's only previous estimate, which said there were 25,000 security contractors in the country.
It is also 10 times the estimated number of contractors that deployed during the Persian Gulf War in 1991, reflecting the Pentagon's growing post-Cold War reliance on contractors for such jobs as providing security, interrogating prisoners, cooking meals, fixing equipment and constructing bases that were once reserved for soldiers.
Official numbers are difficult to find, said Deborah D. Avant, author of the 2005 book "The Market for Force: The Consequences of Privatizing Security," but an estimated 9,200 contractors deployed during the Gulf War, a far shorter conflict without reconstruction projects. "This is the largest deployment of U.S. contractors in a military operation," said Avant, an associate professor at George Washington University.
In addition to about 140,000 U.S. troops, Iraq is now filled with a hodgepodge of contractors. DynCorp International has about 1,500 employees in Iraq, including about 700 helping train the police force. Blackwater USA has more than 1,000 employees in the country, most of them providing private security. Kellogg, Brown and Root, one of the largest contractors in Iraq, said it does not delineate its workforce by country but that it has more than 50,000 employees and subcontractors working in Iraq, Afghanistan and Kuwait. MPRI, a unit of L-3 Communications, has about 500 employees working on 12 contracts, including providing mentors to the Iraqi Defense Ministry for strategic planning, budgeting and establishing its public affairs office. Titan, another L-3 division, has 6,500 linguists in the country.
The Pentagon's latest estimate "further demonstrates the need for Congress to finally engage in responsible, serious and aggressive oversight over the questionable and growing U.S. practice of private military contracting," said Rep. Janice D. Schakowsky (D-Ill.), who has been critical of the military's reliance on contractors.
About 650 contractors have died in Iraq since 2003, according to Labor Department statistics.
Central Command, which conducted the census, said a breakdown by nationality or job description was not immediately available because the project is still in its early stages. "This is the first time we have initiated a census of this robustness," Lt. Col. Julie Wittkoff, chief of the contracting branch at Central Command, said in an interview. Those figures do not include subcontractors, which could substantially grow the figure.
In June, government agencies were asked to provide data about contractors working for them in Iraq, including their nationality, a description of their work and locations where they were working. The information was provided by more than a dozen entities within the Pentagon and a dozen outside agencies, including the departments of State and Interior, Wittkoff said. The count increased about 15 percent from about 87,000 since Central Command began keeping a tally this summer, she said, though the increase may reflect ongoing data collection efforts. The census will be updated quarterly, Wittkoff said.
Three years into the war, the headcount represents one of the Pentagon's most concrete efforts so far toward addressing the complexities and questions raised by the large numbers of civilians who have flooded into Iraq to work. With few industry standards, the military and contractors have sometimes lacked coordination, resulting in friendly fire incidents, according to a Government Accountability Office report last year.
"It takes a great deal of vigilance on the part of the military commander to ensure contractor compliance," said William L. Nash, a retired Army general and a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. "If you're trying to win hearts and minds and the contractor is driving 90 miles per hour through the streets and running over kids, that's not helping the image of the American army. The Iraqis aren't going to distinguish between a contractor and a soldier."
The census gives military commanders insight into the contractors operating in their region and the type of work they are doing, Wittkoff said. "It helps the combatant commanders have a better idea of . . . food and medical requirements they may need to provide to support the contractors," she said.
Staff writer Griff Witte contributed to this report.
Rumsfeld's Last Stand
Tomgram: Biking with Donald Rumsfeld
By Tom Engelhardt
Last week, someone slipped New York Times reporters Michael R. Gordon and David S. Cloud the secret memo finished by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld just two days before he "resigned." It was the last in a flurry of famed Rumsfeldian "snowflakes" that have fluttered down upon the Pentagon these past years. This one, though, was "submitted" to the White House and clearly meant for the President's eyes. In it, the Secretary of Defense offered a veritable laundry list of possible policy adjustments in Iraq, adding up to what, according to Gordon and Cloud, is both an acknowledgement of failure and "a major course correction."
Think of this last zany, only semi-coherent Rumsfeldian document -- part of Washington's grim ongoing silly season over Iraq -- as Rumsfeld's last stand. In it, he quite literally cycles (as in bicycles) back to the origins of the Bush administration's shredded Iraq policy. It is, in a pathetic sense, that policy stripped bare.
Here are just three last-stand aspects of the memo that have been largely or totally overlooked in most reporting:
1. "Begin modest withdrawals of U.S. and Coalition forces (start ‘taking our hand off the bicycle seat'), so Iraqis know they have to pull up their socks, step up and take responsibility for their country."
From the early, carefree, "stuff happens" period of the occupation comes the wonderfully patronizing image embedded in this mixed metaphor of a passage -- though I suppose Iraqis perched on bike seats could indeed have crumpled socks. The image of the Iraqi (child) learning how to ride the bike of democracy -- or whatever -- with the American (parent) looming behind, hand steadying the seat, was already not just a neocolonial, but a neocon classic by the time the President used it back in May 2004. (In fact, in an even more infantilizing fashion, he spoke of taking the "training wheels" off the Iraqi bike.)
Many others in the administration proudly used it as well. Rumsfeld in his rococo fashion elaborated wildly on the image in a speech to U.S. troops that same year:
"Getting Iraq straightened out… was like teaching a kid to ride a bike: ‘They're learning, and you're running down the street holding on to the back of the seat. You know that if you take your hand off they could fall, so you take a finger off and then two fingers, and pretty soon you're just barely touching it. You can't know when you're running down the street how many steps you're going to have to take. We can't know that, but we're off to a good start.'"
And now, long after kids stopped riding bikes in Iraq and started ending up dead in ditches, our nearly former Defense Secretary just couldn't help cycling back to the good old days.
2. "Conduct an accelerated draw-down of U.S. bases. We have already reduced from 110 to 55 bases. Plan to get down to 10 to 15 bases by April 2007, and to 5 bases by July 2007."
Talk about cycling back to the beginning, Rumsfeld's "major course correction" takes us right to the original basing plans the Pentagon had on entering Iraq. As the New York Times reported in a front-page piece on April 19, 2003 (and then no one, including reporters at the Times, paid much attention to again), the Pentagon entered Iraq with plans already on the drawing board to build four major bases well beyond urban areas. These were to be permanent in all but name and, from them, the Bush administration planned to nail down the oil heartlands of the planet (while making up for the loss -- thanks to Osama bin Laden's efforts -- of our bases in Saudi Arabia).
Now, here we are, over three and a half catastrophic years later, back to those four bases (built to the tune of multibillions of American taxpayer dollars) plus one -- undoubtedly the former Camp Victory, the huge American base that grew up on the edge of Baghdad International Airport (as well, of course, as the new, almost finished billion-dollar U.S. embassy with its "staff" of thousands inside Baghdad's Green Zone).
3. "Aggressively beef up the Iraqi MOD [Ministry of Defense] and MOI [Ministry of the Interior], and other Iraqi ministries critical to the success of the ISF [Iraqi Security Forces] -- the Iraqi Ministries of Finance, Planning, Health, Criminal Justice, Prisons, etc. -- by reaching out to U.S. military retirees and Reserve/National Guard volunteers (i.e., give up on trying to get other USG Departments to do it.)"
This mad suggestion, hardly noticed by anyone, cycles us back to the attitude with which Bush & Co. first entered Iraq. Iraqi sovereignty? Who ever heard of it? Just do what you want. Flood any ministry with a bunch of U.S. military retirees, all of whom can have their heavy hands on untold Iraqi bureaucratic bike seats. This is an idea just about as brilliant as every other one initiated by this administration in Iraq.
And why do I have a sneaking suspicion that all those "U.S. military retirees" and other "volunteers" might just not rush to offer their services to Iraq's death-squad infiltrated Ministries of the Interior and Defense? If you biked around that corner without those training wheels -- and some body armor -- I suspect you'd be likely to find yourself in the Baghdad morgue in no time at all.
In this way was Rumsfeld's last stand remarkably like his first pedal. If only, after September 11, 2001, someone had left the training wheels on when the Bush administration went pedaling off on its merry, shock-and-awe way.
Tom Engelhardt, who runs the Nation Institute's Tomdispatch.com ("a regular antidote to the mainstream media"), is the co-founder of the American Empire Project and, most recently, the author of Mission Unaccomplished: Tomdispatch Interviews with American Iconoclasts and Dissenters (Nation Books), the first collection of Tomdispatch interviews.
Copyright 2006 Tom Engelhardt
Another Bloodbath in Lebanon?
Dec 5, 2006
By Mike Whitney
The Lebanese government has nearly doubled the size of its security forces in recent months by adding about 11,000 mostly Sunnis and Christian troops, and has armed them with weapons and vehicles donated by the UAE, a Sunni state.” (“Lebanon Builds Up Security Forces, Megan Stack, LA Times) “The army’s conclusion is that a war in the near future is a reasonable possibility….the IDF’s operative assumption is that during the coming summer months, a war will break out against Hezbollah and perhaps against Syria as well.” Ha’aretz editorial
When Hezbollah puts a million people on the streets of Beirut, it doesn’t appear on the front page of the New York Times. That spot is reserved for Bush’s “made-in-Washington” extravaganzas like the Cedar, Orange or Rose revolutions. Those bogus revolutions were cooked up in American think tanks and engineered by US NGOs; that’s why they got headline coverage in the Times. The Beirut demonstrations don’t promote the political agenda of the America’s ruling elite, so they’re stuck on page 8 where they’ll be ignored.
Some things never change.
But the demonstrations are an important part of the drama which is currently unfolding in the region. They signal the shifting of power away from Washington and Tel Aviv to a new Shiite-dominated Middle East. The American-backed government of Fouad Siniora is the next domino on the list which could fall in a matter of weeks. Time appears to be running out for Siniora and there’s nothing Bush or Olmert can do about it.
Hezbollah leader, Hassan Nasrallah, is moving Lebanon towards "democratization" by demanding greater representation for the country’s majority, the Shi’ites. So far, he’s decided to take the peaceful route, but the massive protests are an impressive “show of force” that could be a sign of things to come. If the situation deteriorates, Hezbollah will do what is necessary to defend its people and its interests. Siniora knows that Nasrallah has the power to bring down the government or to plunge the country into civil war. So, it's all a matter of who blinks first.
Ironically, Nasrallah’s tactics mirror those that were used during the so-called Cedar Revolution which put Siniora in office and forced the Syrian troops out of Lebanon. Now, the situation has reversed itself and tens of thousands of mostly poor Shi’ites have set up camp in Bierut’s main square, the Riad el Soloh, and are hunkering-down for the long haul. There defiance is as much an indication of class struggle as it is a rejection of the Siniora government. Megan Stack of the LA Times clarifies this point:
“Some of the poorest and most marginalized people in the country, Shiite Muslims, have abandoned their homes in suburban slums to camp out on the nation's priciest bit of real estate. Though they often have trudged through Lebanese history as war refugees, now they have managed to displace Lebanon's wealthiest shop owners. They also have surrounded Prime Minister Fouad Siniora, barricaded in his office.”
“Class struggle” is a big part of the present confrontation. The media has tried to emphasize the religious differences to promote their theory of a “clash of civilizations”; the ongoing struggle between modernity and Arab reactionaries. It’s all the same gibberish Americans read every day in op-ed columns by Tom Friedman, David Brooks or the other neocon scribes.
The “clash of civilizations” theory is a great boon to those who would like see war in the Middle East continue into perpetuity or at least until every Arab country is broken up into little defenseless statlets.
But the truth is that the Shiites are mostly poor and underrepresented and are entitled to a bigger place at the political table. Does that mean they would have the right to “veto” legislation? (which seems to be the main bone of contention)
Yes, of course, if they are in the majority, but that doesn’t imply that the Lebanon is destined to become an Islamic theocracy. Nasrallah has already dismissed the idea of an Iranian-type “Mullahocracy”, run by Ayatollahs who strictly apply Sharia Law. Nasrallah is fiercely nationalistic despite his clerical robes. His main objective is to remove the US-Israeli agents, like Siniora, from the government and reestablish Lebanese sovereignty. Remember, Siniora refused to even deploy the Lebanese army to fight the Israelis when they invaded his country and killed 1300 Lebanese nationals. For the hundreds of thousands of victims in the south, there’s no doubt as to where Siniora’s true loyalties lie.
Siniora is Washington’s man. In fact, he even kept the lines of communication open with Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, while his country was being bombed with American ordinance dropped from Israeli planes. After the war he quickly reopened the US embassy even though his country’s infrastructure was still in ruins from Israel’s 34 Day rampage. He has been a great asset to US-Israeli plans to create a “New Middle East”, but utterly useless for the great body of poverty-stricken and homeless Lebanese civilians.
Michel Chossudovsky summarized the administration’s goals in Lebanon this way:
“Washington’s objective is to transform Lebanon into a US protectorate. The Lebanese people are demanding the resignation of a government which is acting on behalf of the US and Israeli invaders of their country. They are demanding the formation of a national unity government which will defend the Lebanese homeland against US-Israeli aggression.”
Chossudovsky adds:
“The Beirut government is taking orders directly from the US embassy. The Siniora government has allowed the deployment of NATO forces on Lebanese territory under the pretext of UN-sponsored peace-keeping operation. NATO warships under German command are stationed off the country’s eastern Mediterranean coastline. NATO has a military cooperation agreement with Israel.” (“Mass Demonstrations against the US-backed Lebanese Government” Michel Chossudovsky; Global Research)
The US and Israel are working feverishly behind the scenes to destabilize Lebanon as part of their broader plans for the entire region. The assassination of Lebanese Industry Minister, Pierre Gemayel can only be understood in this larger context. The assassination strengthened the US-Israel position vis a vis Syria and increased the likelihood of a confrontation between Hezbollah and government forces. This is precisely what Israel wants. It allows Tel Aviv to stay uninvolved while their 34 Day War resumes via their Lebanese proxies.
Megan Stack of the LA Times reports that, “The Lebanese government has nearly DOUBLED the size of its security forces in recent months by adding about 11,000 mostly Sunnis and Christian troops, and has armed them with weapons and vehicles donated by the UAE, a Sunni state.” (“Lebanon Builds Up Security Forces, LA Times)
The dramatic increase in the Interior Ministry troops, including the creation of a controversial intelligence unit and the expansion of a commando force, is meant to counter the growing influence of Iran and Hezbollah, its Shiite ally in Lebanon….The quiet, speedy buildup indicates that Lebanon’s anti-Syria ruling majority, has been bracing for armed sectarian conflict since the withdrawal of Syrian forces in the spring of 2005. It also reflects growing tensions across the region between US-allied Sunnis Muslims who hold power in most Arab nations and the increasingly Shiite-ruled Iran and Hezbollah.” (LA Times)
The Siniora government has actually moved troops out of the army into the Internal Security Forces (ISF). The implication is clear. Siniora has no interest in defending his country from foreign (Israeli) invasion; he’s simply getting ready to fight his own people. Clearly, the weapons from the United Arab Emirates are being provided under Bush’s authority to help Siniora in a future confrontation with Hezbollah.
Mark Mackinnon of the Globe and Mail confirms much of what appeared in the LA Times. Mackinnon says, “Since the Syrian army’s departure from Lebanon in early 2005, the US and France have been providing money and training to the Internal Security Forces (ISF). With the political situation souring further in recent weeks, the UAE stepped in to provide the unit with an emergency “gift” of thousands of rifles and dozens of police vehicles.” (“West helps Lebanon build Militia to fight Hezbollah”; Globe and Mail)
Even though Siniora’s troops have been armed and trained by western powers, Israel is still not confident that they can prevail. In fact, Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz reported:
“The mounting crisis threatening the Siniora government in Lebanon, and the specter of a Hezbollah takeover, have spurred senior Israeli government officials in Jerusalem to raise several proposals in recent days aimed at strengthening Siniora….(They are) increasingly concerned that Siniora’s government will fall, resulting in a Hezbollah takeover that would turn the country into what an Israeli government official source termed ‘the first Arab state to become an Iranian protectorate’”.
But Israeli fears may be unwarranted. While Hezbollah receives military assistance from Iran, it certainly does not compare to the high-tech weaponry and foreign aid that Israel gets from the US. Nor is there any indication that Hezbollah is merely a puppet of the Iranian Mullahs. This is just more baseless scaremongering. In fact, a strong nationalist government in Beirut could serve to stabilize the region by developing a more credible deterrent to Israeli aggression. (Israel has invaded Lebanon 4 times in 25 years) That might undermine Israel’s regional ambitions but, it would be infinitely better for the Israeli citizens who simply want peace and security.
Nevertheless, Israel is preparing for any eventuality; especially since it is unlikely that Bush will be able to commit any American troops if war breaks out. Ha’aretz summarized the somber mood of the Israeli high-command in an editorial earlier in the week:
“The army’s conclusion is that a war in the near future is a reasonable possibility. As Amir Oren reported several weeks ago, the IDF’s operative assumption is that during the coming summer months, a war will break out against Hezbollah and perhaps against Syria as well.”
But there is room for optimism. By summer, the Bush administration should be winding down in Iraq. This is bound to have a profound effect on the entire region. Israel will be less likely to restart its war with Lebanon if the administration is engaged in fragile negotiations with the neighboring states. And, who knows; a phased withdrawal of troops in Iraq might force a compromise in the Israel-Palestine standoff? (Olmert has already begun talking to Saudi Arabia about a comprehensive peace plan modeled on the Road Map)
So far, only one thing seems certain; that US-Israeli influence will steadily decline just as Shiite power continues to rise. Another bloodbath in Lebanon won’t change that reality.
By Mike Whitney
The Lebanese government has nearly doubled the size of its security forces in recent months by adding about 11,000 mostly Sunnis and Christian troops, and has armed them with weapons and vehicles donated by the UAE, a Sunni state.” (“Lebanon Builds Up Security Forces, Megan Stack, LA Times) “The army’s conclusion is that a war in the near future is a reasonable possibility….the IDF’s operative assumption is that during the coming summer months, a war will break out against Hezbollah and perhaps against Syria as well.” Ha’aretz editorial
When Hezbollah puts a million people on the streets of Beirut, it doesn’t appear on the front page of the New York Times. That spot is reserved for Bush’s “made-in-Washington” extravaganzas like the Cedar, Orange or Rose revolutions. Those bogus revolutions were cooked up in American think tanks and engineered by US NGOs; that’s why they got headline coverage in the Times. The Beirut demonstrations don’t promote the political agenda of the America’s ruling elite, so they’re stuck on page 8 where they’ll be ignored.
Some things never change.
But the demonstrations are an important part of the drama which is currently unfolding in the region. They signal the shifting of power away from Washington and Tel Aviv to a new Shiite-dominated Middle East. The American-backed government of Fouad Siniora is the next domino on the list which could fall in a matter of weeks. Time appears to be running out for Siniora and there’s nothing Bush or Olmert can do about it.
Hezbollah leader, Hassan Nasrallah, is moving Lebanon towards "democratization" by demanding greater representation for the country’s majority, the Shi’ites. So far, he’s decided to take the peaceful route, but the massive protests are an impressive “show of force” that could be a sign of things to come. If the situation deteriorates, Hezbollah will do what is necessary to defend its people and its interests. Siniora knows that Nasrallah has the power to bring down the government or to plunge the country into civil war. So, it's all a matter of who blinks first.
Ironically, Nasrallah’s tactics mirror those that were used during the so-called Cedar Revolution which put Siniora in office and forced the Syrian troops out of Lebanon. Now, the situation has reversed itself and tens of thousands of mostly poor Shi’ites have set up camp in Bierut’s main square, the Riad el Soloh, and are hunkering-down for the long haul. There defiance is as much an indication of class struggle as it is a rejection of the Siniora government. Megan Stack of the LA Times clarifies this point:
“Some of the poorest and most marginalized people in the country, Shiite Muslims, have abandoned their homes in suburban slums to camp out on the nation's priciest bit of real estate. Though they often have trudged through Lebanese history as war refugees, now they have managed to displace Lebanon's wealthiest shop owners. They also have surrounded Prime Minister Fouad Siniora, barricaded in his office.”
“Class struggle” is a big part of the present confrontation. The media has tried to emphasize the religious differences to promote their theory of a “clash of civilizations”; the ongoing struggle between modernity and Arab reactionaries. It’s all the same gibberish Americans read every day in op-ed columns by Tom Friedman, David Brooks or the other neocon scribes.
The “clash of civilizations” theory is a great boon to those who would like see war in the Middle East continue into perpetuity or at least until every Arab country is broken up into little defenseless statlets.
But the truth is that the Shiites are mostly poor and underrepresented and are entitled to a bigger place at the political table. Does that mean they would have the right to “veto” legislation? (which seems to be the main bone of contention)
Yes, of course, if they are in the majority, but that doesn’t imply that the Lebanon is destined to become an Islamic theocracy. Nasrallah has already dismissed the idea of an Iranian-type “Mullahocracy”, run by Ayatollahs who strictly apply Sharia Law. Nasrallah is fiercely nationalistic despite his clerical robes. His main objective is to remove the US-Israeli agents, like Siniora, from the government and reestablish Lebanese sovereignty. Remember, Siniora refused to even deploy the Lebanese army to fight the Israelis when they invaded his country and killed 1300 Lebanese nationals. For the hundreds of thousands of victims in the south, there’s no doubt as to where Siniora’s true loyalties lie.
Siniora is Washington’s man. In fact, he even kept the lines of communication open with Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, while his country was being bombed with American ordinance dropped from Israeli planes. After the war he quickly reopened the US embassy even though his country’s infrastructure was still in ruins from Israel’s 34 Day rampage. He has been a great asset to US-Israeli plans to create a “New Middle East”, but utterly useless for the great body of poverty-stricken and homeless Lebanese civilians.
Michel Chossudovsky summarized the administration’s goals in Lebanon this way:
“Washington’s objective is to transform Lebanon into a US protectorate. The Lebanese people are demanding the resignation of a government which is acting on behalf of the US and Israeli invaders of their country. They are demanding the formation of a national unity government which will defend the Lebanese homeland against US-Israeli aggression.”
Chossudovsky adds:
“The Beirut government is taking orders directly from the US embassy. The Siniora government has allowed the deployment of NATO forces on Lebanese territory under the pretext of UN-sponsored peace-keeping operation. NATO warships under German command are stationed off the country’s eastern Mediterranean coastline. NATO has a military cooperation agreement with Israel.” (“Mass Demonstrations against the US-backed Lebanese Government” Michel Chossudovsky; Global Research)
The US and Israel are working feverishly behind the scenes to destabilize Lebanon as part of their broader plans for the entire region. The assassination of Lebanese Industry Minister, Pierre Gemayel can only be understood in this larger context. The assassination strengthened the US-Israel position vis a vis Syria and increased the likelihood of a confrontation between Hezbollah and government forces. This is precisely what Israel wants. It allows Tel Aviv to stay uninvolved while their 34 Day War resumes via their Lebanese proxies.
Megan Stack of the LA Times reports that, “The Lebanese government has nearly DOUBLED the size of its security forces in recent months by adding about 11,000 mostly Sunnis and Christian troops, and has armed them with weapons and vehicles donated by the UAE, a Sunni state.” (“Lebanon Builds Up Security Forces, LA Times)
The dramatic increase in the Interior Ministry troops, including the creation of a controversial intelligence unit and the expansion of a commando force, is meant to counter the growing influence of Iran and Hezbollah, its Shiite ally in Lebanon….The quiet, speedy buildup indicates that Lebanon’s anti-Syria ruling majority, has been bracing for armed sectarian conflict since the withdrawal of Syrian forces in the spring of 2005. It also reflects growing tensions across the region between US-allied Sunnis Muslims who hold power in most Arab nations and the increasingly Shiite-ruled Iran and Hezbollah.” (LA Times)
The Siniora government has actually moved troops out of the army into the Internal Security Forces (ISF). The implication is clear. Siniora has no interest in defending his country from foreign (Israeli) invasion; he’s simply getting ready to fight his own people. Clearly, the weapons from the United Arab Emirates are being provided under Bush’s authority to help Siniora in a future confrontation with Hezbollah.
Mark Mackinnon of the Globe and Mail confirms much of what appeared in the LA Times. Mackinnon says, “Since the Syrian army’s departure from Lebanon in early 2005, the US and France have been providing money and training to the Internal Security Forces (ISF). With the political situation souring further in recent weeks, the UAE stepped in to provide the unit with an emergency “gift” of thousands of rifles and dozens of police vehicles.” (“West helps Lebanon build Militia to fight Hezbollah”; Globe and Mail)
Even though Siniora’s troops have been armed and trained by western powers, Israel is still not confident that they can prevail. In fact, Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz reported:
“The mounting crisis threatening the Siniora government in Lebanon, and the specter of a Hezbollah takeover, have spurred senior Israeli government officials in Jerusalem to raise several proposals in recent days aimed at strengthening Siniora….(They are) increasingly concerned that Siniora’s government will fall, resulting in a Hezbollah takeover that would turn the country into what an Israeli government official source termed ‘the first Arab state to become an Iranian protectorate’”.
But Israeli fears may be unwarranted. While Hezbollah receives military assistance from Iran, it certainly does not compare to the high-tech weaponry and foreign aid that Israel gets from the US. Nor is there any indication that Hezbollah is merely a puppet of the Iranian Mullahs. This is just more baseless scaremongering. In fact, a strong nationalist government in Beirut could serve to stabilize the region by developing a more credible deterrent to Israeli aggression. (Israel has invaded Lebanon 4 times in 25 years) That might undermine Israel’s regional ambitions but, it would be infinitely better for the Israeli citizens who simply want peace and security.
Nevertheless, Israel is preparing for any eventuality; especially since it is unlikely that Bush will be able to commit any American troops if war breaks out. Ha’aretz summarized the somber mood of the Israeli high-command in an editorial earlier in the week:
“The army’s conclusion is that a war in the near future is a reasonable possibility. As Amir Oren reported several weeks ago, the IDF’s operative assumption is that during the coming summer months, a war will break out against Hezbollah and perhaps against Syria as well.”
But there is room for optimism. By summer, the Bush administration should be winding down in Iraq. This is bound to have a profound effect on the entire region. Israel will be less likely to restart its war with Lebanon if the administration is engaged in fragile negotiations with the neighboring states. And, who knows; a phased withdrawal of troops in Iraq might force a compromise in the Israel-Palestine standoff? (Olmert has already begun talking to Saudi Arabia about a comprehensive peace plan modeled on the Road Map)
So far, only one thing seems certain; that US-Israeli influence will steadily decline just as Shiite power continues to rise. Another bloodbath in Lebanon won’t change that reality.
Fed court to hear 'landmark torture case' vs. Rumsfeld
12/04/2006 @ 11:09 pm
Filed by RAW STORY
In a press release issued today, the American Civil Liberties Union announces that a "landmark" case against Donald Rumsfeld will be heard in federal court this week.
Advertisement
The ACLU and another legal rights organization, Human Rights First, are to appear in court here on Friday "to argue that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld is directly responsible for the torture and abuse of detainees in U.S. military custody," said the release.
"The hearing will be the first time a federal court will consider whether top U.S. officials can be held legally accountable for the torture scandal in Iraq and Afghanistan," the release continues, adding that the lawsuit was first filed in 2005 "on behalf of nine Iraqi and Afghan former detainees."
The men were reportedly held in U.S. detention where the ACLU asserts that "they were subjected to abuse, torture ... cruel and degrading treatment, including severe and repeated beatings, cutting with knives, sexual humiliation and assault, mock executions," and threats of death, among other things. "None of the men was ever charged with a crime," the release says, and "all have been released."
The ACLU adds that it also brought related suits against military officers tied to the Abu Ghraib prison scandal.
More information on the ACLU's case is available here.
Filed by RAW STORY
In a press release issued today, the American Civil Liberties Union announces that a "landmark" case against Donald Rumsfeld will be heard in federal court this week.
Advertisement
The ACLU and another legal rights organization, Human Rights First, are to appear in court here on Friday "to argue that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld is directly responsible for the torture and abuse of detainees in U.S. military custody," said the release.
"The hearing will be the first time a federal court will consider whether top U.S. officials can be held legally accountable for the torture scandal in Iraq and Afghanistan," the release continues, adding that the lawsuit was first filed in 2005 "on behalf of nine Iraqi and Afghan former detainees."
The men were reportedly held in U.S. detention where the ACLU asserts that "they were subjected to abuse, torture ... cruel and degrading treatment, including severe and repeated beatings, cutting with knives, sexual humiliation and assault, mock executions," and threats of death, among other things. "None of the men was ever charged with a crime," the release says, and "all have been released."
The ACLU adds that it also brought related suits against military officers tied to the Abu Ghraib prison scandal.
More information on the ACLU's case is available here.
Fiji's military takes control of nation
By RAY LILLEY, Associated Press Writer 1 hour, 37 minutes ago
Fiji's military commander said Tuesday that he had seized control of the country and dismissed the elected prime minister after a weeks-long standoff between the two leaders rooted in tension between the South Pacific nation's indigenous people and its ethnic Indian minority.
Commodore Frank Bainimarama told a news conference that he was using special powers under the constitution to assume the powers of the president and replace Prime Minister Laisenia Qarase.
He said he would soon return the powers to President Ratu Josefa Iloilo, who he expected to appoint a full interim government. Elections to restore democracy would follow, he said.
Qarase said he was under effective house arrest, and that he was powerless to stop the military takeover, which came after troops surrounded his house, set up checkpoints in the capital, Suva, and seized official vehicles from government ministers.
Bainimarama and Qarase are both ethnic Fijians but Bainimarama, who considers himself as a protector of the rights of all Fijians including ethnic Indians, began threatening in recent weeks to "clean up" the government after it proposed legislation that critics said unfairly benefited the native majority.
One bill would have granted amnesty to Fijian nationalists who stormed the parliament six years ago and deposed the country's first Indo-Fijian Prime Minister, who was eventually replaced by Qarase. Qarase has since won two elections.
Another bill would have transferrred ownership of valuable coastal property to indigenous Fijians.
Bainimarama demanded the government kill the disputed legislation or be forced out. As the standoff intensified after Bainimarama issued a deadline, Qarase offered to suspend the contentious bills but said he could not agree to demands that went outside the law.
The commander's threats to take over the government were internationally condemned.
Tuesday's coup is the nation's fourth in 19 years for Fiji, which, with about 900,000 people, is among the richest and most developed nations in the South Pacific, attracting up to 400,000 tourists a year to resorts built on idyllic beaches mostly in the country's west, away from Suva.
New Zealand Prime Minister Helen Clark announced in Parliament Tuesday that defense ties with Fiji were being severed and officers and their families from that country would be banned. Bainimarama is believed to have children studying in New Zealand.
"This is an outrage what is happening in Fiji today," she told reporters in Wellington, the capital.
Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer said Australia would impose similar conditions if it was confirmed Qarase had been removed, adding that two international groups — the Commonwealth of Britain and its former colonies and the South Pacific Forum — would consider suspending Fiji.
Australian Prime Minister John Howard said Qarase had asked Canberra to send troops to try to prevent the coup, but that he had rejected the request.
"The possibility of Australian and Fijian troops firing on each other in the streets of Suva was not a prospect that I for a moment thought desirable," Howard told a news conference in Canberra.
Bainimarama has warned any foreign intervention would be fiercely opposed by the Fiji military.
About a half-dozen ministers were holed up with Qarase in his house. Outside, about 70 supporters gathered to sing hymns and say prayers.
"Forgive these people for their deeds," they prayed.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061205/ap_on_re_au_an/fiji_coup
Fiji's military commander said Tuesday that he had seized control of the country and dismissed the elected prime minister after a weeks-long standoff between the two leaders rooted in tension between the South Pacific nation's indigenous people and its ethnic Indian minority.
Commodore Frank Bainimarama told a news conference that he was using special powers under the constitution to assume the powers of the president and replace Prime Minister Laisenia Qarase.
He said he would soon return the powers to President Ratu Josefa Iloilo, who he expected to appoint a full interim government. Elections to restore democracy would follow, he said.
Qarase said he was under effective house arrest, and that he was powerless to stop the military takeover, which came after troops surrounded his house, set up checkpoints in the capital, Suva, and seized official vehicles from government ministers.
Bainimarama and Qarase are both ethnic Fijians but Bainimarama, who considers himself as a protector of the rights of all Fijians including ethnic Indians, began threatening in recent weeks to "clean up" the government after it proposed legislation that critics said unfairly benefited the native majority.
One bill would have granted amnesty to Fijian nationalists who stormed the parliament six years ago and deposed the country's first Indo-Fijian Prime Minister, who was eventually replaced by Qarase. Qarase has since won two elections.
Another bill would have transferrred ownership of valuable coastal property to indigenous Fijians.
Bainimarama demanded the government kill the disputed legislation or be forced out. As the standoff intensified after Bainimarama issued a deadline, Qarase offered to suspend the contentious bills but said he could not agree to demands that went outside the law.
The commander's threats to take over the government were internationally condemned.
Tuesday's coup is the nation's fourth in 19 years for Fiji, which, with about 900,000 people, is among the richest and most developed nations in the South Pacific, attracting up to 400,000 tourists a year to resorts built on idyllic beaches mostly in the country's west, away from Suva.
New Zealand Prime Minister Helen Clark announced in Parliament Tuesday that defense ties with Fiji were being severed and officers and their families from that country would be banned. Bainimarama is believed to have children studying in New Zealand.
"This is an outrage what is happening in Fiji today," she told reporters in Wellington, the capital.
Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer said Australia would impose similar conditions if it was confirmed Qarase had been removed, adding that two international groups — the Commonwealth of Britain and its former colonies and the South Pacific Forum — would consider suspending Fiji.
Australian Prime Minister John Howard said Qarase had asked Canberra to send troops to try to prevent the coup, but that he had rejected the request.
"The possibility of Australian and Fijian troops firing on each other in the streets of Suva was not a prospect that I for a moment thought desirable," Howard told a news conference in Canberra.
Bainimarama has warned any foreign intervention would be fiercely opposed by the Fiji military.
About a half-dozen ministers were holed up with Qarase in his house. Outside, about 70 supporters gathered to sing hymns and say prayers.
"Forgive these people for their deeds," they prayed.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061205/ap_on_re_au_an/fiji_coup
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)