The RoundUp - Birthday edition

You know I didn't even realize it was my birthday until my brother reminded me around noon haha. Nothing planned, I'm still sick anyways so I have to keep resting today but I got some time for this today.

So, I'm siting here eating a couple homemade tortilla and ham-slice taco (you make due with what's available...) and I realize as I look at the tons of articles on my computer that I have to blog on: I need to blog more than once every 3 days! It takes too long to do large roundups.

So, starting tomorrow it will return to a daily or every-other-day affair (if not alot is going on). So lets start this thing already.

Iran/Senator Joe Liberman

Prominent "Independent" Senator Joe Lieberman thinks aggressive military action in Iran is what we need:

If the Iranians don't stop what they are doing that we should strike them militarily? And accomplish what exactly. There are a lot of reasons to criticize the "moderate" and "centrist" Senator from Connecticut (btw when did warmongering hawk become centrism?)

But I'll let Glenn Greenwald do the heavy lifting in his criticisms of Senator Lieberman, his supposed "centrism" and the irresponsability of his ideas

The very idea of starting a new war with Iran is so obscenely irrational -- to say nothing of its morality -- that it is difficult to put into words.

A vast consensus of military experts across the ideological spectrum have all been warning for several years that no viable option exists for the military glory which the great and serious Churchillian warrior, Joe Lieberman, seeks.

Just fathom how quickly and how completely whatever lingering shreds of moral credibility America has left would disappear if we commenced a military attack on that country.

Joe Lieberman cares about none of that -- issues of American credibility and American security could not be any less important to Lieberman -- and the same is true for his fellow band of warmongering ideologues who have long been hungry for war with Iran as the next step in their grand vision that brought us the invasion of Iraq. Over the last year, they have been gradually increasing the explicitness with which they urge a war with Iran, and yet they are treated with as great a respect as ever.

In the American political framework, one can never lose credibility by urging on new wars. That is an inherently respectable position.

Only opposing new wars, or the continuation of old ones, can result in a loss of credibility.

Yet both the views and the underlying motives of warmongers like Lieberman are as radical -- and as deceitful and corrupt -- as can be.

Pure and simple, Senator Liberman is an unabashed neoconservative warhawk. Although he sometimes payed lip-service to his constituents and made gestures of criticising the conduct of the war, it was mostly because he had a difficult re-election battle against Ned Lamont. He has always been for it and continues to this day to go on about its virtues and (incredibly) how successful it it going now. Give the whole Greenwald piece a read.

General Wes Clarke ALSO has something to say about Senator Lieberman's warmongering

After wrongly supporting George W. Bush's strategic blunder of attacking Iraq, and continuing to support Bush's failed policies after the invasion, Senator Joe Lieberman made irresponsible comments this weekend regarding military action against Iran....

Senator Lieberman's saber rattling does nothing to help dissuade Iran
from aiding Shia militias in Iraq, or trying to obtain nuclear capabilities. In fact, it's highly irresponsible and counter-productive, and I urge him to stop.

This kind of rhetoric is irresponsible and only plays into the hands of President Ahmadinejad, and those who seek an excuse for military action. What we need now is full-fledged engagement with Iran. We should be striving to bridge the gulf of almost 30 years of hostility and only when all else fails should there be any consideration of other options. The Iranians are very much aware of US military capabilities. They don't need Joe Lieberman to remind them that we are the militarily dominant power in the world today.

Only someone who never wore the uniform or thought seriously about national security would make threats at this point. What our soldiers need is responsible strategy, not a further escalation of tensions in the region. Senator Lieberman must act more responsibly and tone down his threat machine.

Counterproductive indeed. By ratcheting up the war rhetoric it increases tensions in the region and makes Iran more suspicious and defensive about the US. The reason Iran has been going full-speed in its nuclear program has NOT been for peaceful energy purposes (despite Iranian claims) it has always been about having a deterrent against what it views as a hostile United States.

Rhetoric like this only serves to legitimize and confirm these fears among the Iranian leadership and to confirm the correctness of their drive for the "nuclear deterrent". All that warhawks do is confirm for Iranian decision makers that "Yes, we need to develop these weapons as soon as possible"

When right now we need to convince Iran that its safe enough to come to the bargaining table and negotiate some kind cessation to its programs.

Warmongering rhetoric - ironically (or not) - helps to bring about the very crisis situation that hawks need in order to justify its aggressive military solutions. Also, some of you might be surprised that President Ahmedinejad is not all that popular as a president due to his lack of economic success and the problems with the US are not something the people really want. But, as is the case during many attacks on ones homeland, a US attacks will likely galvanize support for Ahmedinejad among the Iranian people and further strengthen the Iranian regime.

Kind of like 9/11 rallied the American people around the Bush (who's approval ratings were tanking prior to 9/11). Ask your self, no matter how much you hate Bush now: How would you if a foreign country attacked our nation?

Here's some more interesting articles or posts on the subjects of Liberman and/or Iran:

Neocon Little Ahmedinejad's (good read and pretty short)

And in the case of war with Iran, Iran "subtly" reminds us that it can hurt us

Iran has warned that US military bases in the Middle East are within the range of its missiles, amid increasing tensions with Washington over the Iranian nuclear programme, media reported Sunday.

"All the American bases in the region are within the reach of our weapons," said Mohammad Baqer Zolghadr, the deputy interior minister in charge of security issues.

I might also add that its likely a response to US attacks will not only be of a conventional military nature. It will likely try and interrupt oil and gas shipments across the vital Straights of Hormuz. And it can unleash unconventional terrorist-like attacks across the globe against US interests in the Middle East and in Europe. War should not be done lightly here because, unlike Iraq, Iran has the capacity to hit back - and make it hurt.

And - surprise surprise - Dick Cheney and his loyal neoconservative cabal of warmongers is trying to constrain President Bush's choices regarding Iran in order to make bring the US close to war with Iran

Cheney Attempting to Constrain Bush's Choices on Iran Conflict: Staff Engaged in Insubordination Against President Bush ...

There is a race currently underway between different flanks of the administration to determine the future course of US-Iran policy.

On one flank are the diplomats, and on the other is Vice President Cheney's team and acolytes -- who populate quite a wide swath throughout the American national security bureaucracy.

The Pentagon and the intelligence establishment are providing support to add muscle and nuance to the diplomatic effort led by Condi Rice, her deputy John
Negroponte, Under Secretary of State R. Nicholas Burns, and Legal Adviser John
Bellinger. The support that Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell,
Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, and CIA Director Michael Hayden are providing Rice's efforts are a complete, 180 degree contrast to the dysfunction that characterized relations between these institutions before the recent reshuffle of top personnel.

However, the Department of Defense and national intelligence sector are also preparing for hot conflict. They believe that they need to in order to convince Iran's various power centers that the military option does exist.

But this is worrisome. The person in the Bush administration who most wants a hot conflict with Iran is Vice President Cheney. The person in Iran who most wants a conflict is Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Iran's Revolutionary Guard Quds Force would be big winners in a conflict as well -- as the political support that both have inside Iran has been flagging.

I've noted that Dick Cheney still holds tremendous sway in the administration but that it was a little different because Robert Gates at Dept. of Defence is on the same side as Secretary of State Rice urging for more diplomatic solutions. I wouldn't underestimate the Vice President and his allies though.

This is disturbing though...

Multiple sources have reported that a senior aide on Vice President Cheney's national security team has been meeting with policy hands of the American Enterprise Institute, one other think tank, and more than one national security consulting house and explicitly stating that Vice President Cheney does not
support President Bush's tack towards Condoleezza Rice's diplomatic efforts and
fears that the President is taking diplomacy with Iran too seriously.

This White House official has stated to several Washington insiders that Cheney is
planning to deploy an "end run strategy" around the President if he and his team lose the policy argument.

The thinking on Cheney's team is to collude with Israel, nudging Israel at some key moment in the ongoing standoff between Iran's nuclear activities and international frustration over this to mount a small-scale conventional strike against Natanz using cruise missiles (i.e., not ballistic missiles).

This strategy would sidestep controversies over bomber aircraft and overflight rights over other Middle East nations and could be expected to trigger a sufficient Iranian counter-strike against US forces in the Gulf -- which just became significantly larger -- as to compel Bush to forgo the diplomatic track that the administration realists are advocating and engage in another war.

In other words, if they cannot convince Bush to listen to the hawks, they will nudge Israel (who wants strikes against Iran) to provoke Iran into lashing out at Israel and the US forces in the region (who Iran will see as "greenlighting" the strikes).

Iran's counterstrikes will then force Bush to strike Iran: Effectively tying the hands of the administration into a war.

Who knows how correct the "administration official" is but it certainly is plausible. And it definitely fits in with habit of warmongers to ratchet up the war rhetoric. A possible explanation is that diplomacy is exactly what they are trying to sabotage. Something to think about...

In my previous post I cited an article that mentioned how some Sunni insurgency groups are splitting with al-Qaeda and working with the US in a "marriage of convenience" to get rid of al-Qaeda.

I also mentioned (and quoted our new "ally") that the insurgent group was ready to resume hurting the US as soon as it reduced the threat of Al-Qaeda in Iraq - unless the US left.

Well, I remarked that it just wasn't going to happen, that there were long-term goals for troops in Iraq, and here is further proof:

US eyes long-term presence in Iraq

The United States is considering a long-term military presence in Iraq, which will not have the scope of the current occupation but will still be capable of mounting independent operations, The Washington Post reported Sunday.

Citing US military officers and other unnamed officials, the newspaper said the plan is based on assessments that a sharp drawdown of troops is likely to begin by the middle of next year, with roughly two-thirds of the current force of 150,000 moving out by late 2008 or early 2009.

I'll add that US government forecasts for reducing the numbers of troops "by next year" is a "forecast" that they've been making for just about every year since the occupation started in 2003. Even then, the reduced presence is going to be enough to raise the ire of those Sunni insurgent "allies" we are dealing with. When this marriage of convenience is over, those arms we gave our former enemies is going to be used on US troops again.

Israel/Palestine

General who helped redraw the border of Israel says 'road map' to peace is a lie

Immediately after the Six Day War, 40 years ago, Shlomo Gazit was put in
charge of Gaza and the West Bank. Today, the retired general is in favour of
talks with Hamas, describes the road map as a "pretext" for Israel not to
negotiate with the Palestinians, and thinks the idea that the US can or should
veto a peace process between Jerusalem and Damascus is a "nonsense".

At first sight Mr Gazit could be a classic military hawk. A tough, unsentimental
man with 37 years in the Israeli Defence Forces behind him, he has never been
slow in condemning Palestinian attacks on Israeli civilians. Yet he enjoys the
unique distinction of having, from the heart of the Israeli military, proposed
in writing a Palestinian state exactly 40 years ago yesterday - 24 hours before the war had even ended.

And he has never been more convinced than now that such a state, its negotiated borders based on those that preceded the war, and involving withdrawal from most of the West Bank Jewish settlements, remains the only answer to the conflict.

Give it a read, he's an interesting man with interesting ideas. And I agree with his sentiments about the absolute necessity of the US and Israel to deal with the Hamas-led Palestinian Authority.

I told you it would be long today but hopefully someone found something of interest in this post.

Goodnight.