RoundUp - For the past 2 weeks (Part I)

It's such a drag when I put off posting for so long. Usually, it means I have a ton of articles open as separate tags. I had a lot I though might be interesting but I had to cut somethings out for my sake. And that's the reason for the RoundUp style...there will be little substance and analysis on certain links, but at least I'll get all links out for interested people to follow up if they are interested.

That's what happens when you buy a new video game (Legend of Zelda DS in case you're wondering :-) )

So, without further ado, I'll start this Roundup with Iran
------
Iran
Now, this first article (despite its Oct. 8 date) is at least a week old so it's possible some of you have seen or at least heard about this new Seymour Hersh article in the New Yorker.

Anyways, in this article Hersh (among other things) details how the Bush Administration has shifted its case for war [the PR part] from the threat of nuclear weapons to emphasizing and exaggerating Iran's role in Iraq, especially when it comes to the deaths of US soldiers . It is a long article but full of great information but I'll highlight some of the parts that caught my attention.

The President’s position, and its corollary—that, if many of America’s problems in Iraq are the responsibility of Tehran, then the solution to them is to confront the Iranians—have taken firm hold in the Administration. This summer, the White House, pushed by the office of Vice-President Dick Cheney, requested that the Joint Chiefs of Staff redraw long-standing plans for a possible attack on Iran, according to former officials and government consultants. The focus of the plans had been a broad bombing attack, with targets including Iran’s known and suspected nuclear facilities and other military and infrastructure sites. Now the emphasis is on “surgical” strikes on Revolutionary Guard Corps facilities in Tehran and elsewhere, which, the Administration claims, have been the source of attacks on Americans in Iraq. What had been presented primarily as a counter-proliferation mission has been reconceived as counterterrorism.

The shift in targeting reflects three developments. First, the President and his senior advisers have concluded that their campaign to convince the American public that Iran poses an imminent nuclear threat has failed (unlike a similar campaign before the Iraq war), and that as a result there is not enough popular support for a major bombing campaign. The second development is that the White House has come to terms, in private, with the general consensus of the American intelligence community that Iran is at least five years away from obtaining a bomb. And, finally, there has been a growing recognition in Washington and throughout the Middle East that Iran is emerging as the geopolitical winner of the war in Iraq.

Look at the first bolded part: The US shifted its focus to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard and this ties quite well (and ominously) to a recent action by the Administration. A few weeks back it decided to label the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, which is essentially a military organization, a terrorist organization.

That is unprecedented...labeling another nations military a terrorist organization is unprecedented. But that's not the why this is ominous. The reason for alarm is that in 2002, Congress gave the President an Authorization to Use Force (AUF) to do all it could to combat terrorist groups in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. The fear is that the Administration, having labeled the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization, will go back and use that 2002 AUF as its legal justification for striking Iranian targets. And without having to go to Congress.

Making matters worse is the fact that the Senate recently passed a "Sense of the Senate" (non-binding) resolution designating the same group a terrorist organization...an amendment that Hillary Clinton supported like a stupid child who failed to learn her lesson the first time she voted to give the administration the authorization to go to war in Iraq and now she helps the administration in its attempts to go to Iran...stupid. Thankfully the other top tier candidate who could vote on the issue did not vote for it: Barack Obama.

Now for the second bolded part of the excerpt: It's attempts to strike at Iran are heavily motivated by the increased geopolitical position that Iran is now. But do you get it?

The war in Iraq is precisely what strengthened Iran...and now they want to go to another costly and disastrous war to...that's right...make up for the consequences that their first costly and disastrous war has wraught!

The Republicans, Bush, and the Neocons. Their motto really is: "When you find yourself in a whole (that you created), dig deeper."

Other interesting excerpts:

At a White House meeting with Cheney this summer, according to a former senior intelligence official, it was agreed that, if limited strikes on Iran were carried out, the Administration could fend off criticism by arguing that they were a defensive action to save soldiers in Iraq. If Democrats objected, the Administration could say, “Bill Clinton did the same thing; he conducted limited strikes in Afghanistan, the Sudan, and in Baghdad to protect American lives.” The former intelligence official added, “There is a desperate effort by Cheney et al. to bring military action to Iran as soon as possible. Meanwhile, the politicians are saying, ‘You can’t do it, because every Republican is going to be defeated, and we’re only one fact from going over the cliff in Iraq.’ But Cheney doesn’t give a rat’s ass about the Republican worries, and neither does the President.”

Wow. In an administration known both for its extreme of politics and warmongering...its seems that the warmongering nature of these people is much more powerful than it's concern for the political future of the Republicans. As much as I would like to see Republicans completely eliminated as a national party...I'd much rather that the President not strike Iran and cause a new disaster. Besides, the Republicans are already on the verge of another crushing defeat in the Presidential, Senate, and House elections in 2008 so it really doesn't matter.

Unless that's part of the calculation at the White House: They see a crushing defeat for Republicans who will not control any level of power in 2009, so they want to saddle Democrats with Iraq for 2009, and they want to bring on a conflict with Iran while they can because they know that Democrats will not do so. BTW, this is all speculation so don't look to deep into it...but it has an element of logic to it.

Another one: Apparently our own allies are so afraid of Cheney and Bush using any intelligence as a pretext for war with Iran that...they are afraid sometime to pass it on!!

Vincent Cannistraro, a retired C.I.A. officer who has worked closely with his counterparts in Britain, added to the story: “The Brits told me that they were afraid at first to tell us about the incident—in fear that Cheney would use it as a reason to attack Iran.” The intelligence subsequently was forwarded, he said.

The retired four-star general confirmed that British intelligence “was worried” about passing the information along. “The Brits don’t trust the Iranians,” the retired general said, “but they also don’t trust Bush and Cheney.”

I think they have good reason to be afraid.

The Iranian Foreign Minister apparently is quite confident that the US can't attack Iran (Oct.3) -

Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said on Wednesday the United States was in no position to start a war against Tehran against the wishes of its taxpayers, given its military commitment in Iraq

I've said this before to a similar statement from the Iranian President himself. Do NOT get to confident about that. Any other President, any other Vice President and you might just be right but this administration has shown such a single-minded dedication to an aggressive and unilateral foreign policy and to warmongering that you cannot rule out a strike. And do you think they care about the US taxpayer or about US public opinion? Hell no!! They have continued unpopular policies in Iraq despite the fact that vast majorities are against our presence there. And as the previous Hersh article highlights, they can also give a rats ass about what Congress thinks, nor do they care about the fallout will be for the Republican party.

Does this seem like an administration that has the sense to not attack? They just don't care about anything but their goals...so I say to the Iranian President, and to the Foreign Minister: Don't delude yourselves!

-------
The War on Terror

Report says War or Terror is Fueling Al-Qaeda -

Six years after the September 11 attacks in the United States, the "war on terror" is failing and instead fuelling an increase in support for extremist Islamist movements, a British think-tank said on Monday.

A report by the Oxford Research Group (ORG) said a "fundamental re-think is required" if the global terrorist network is to be rendered ineffective.

"If the al Qaeda movement is to be countered, then the roots of its support must be understood and systematically undercut," said Paul Rogers, the report's author and professor of global peace studies at Bradford University in northern England.

"Combined with conventional policing and security measures, al Qaeda can be contained and minimized but this will require a change in policy at every level."

He described the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq as a "disastrous mistake" which had helped establish a "most valued jihadist combat training zone" for al Qaeda supporters.

The report -- Alternatives to the War on Terror -- recommended the immediate withdrawal of all foreign troops from Iraq coupled with intensive diplomatic engagement in the region, including with Iran and Syria...(snip)

"Going to war with Iran", he said, "will make matters far worse, playing directly into the hands of extreme elements and adding greatly to the violence across the region. Whatever the problems with Iran, war should be avoided at all costs."

I tried for the life of me a couple days ago to find the report on the Oxford Research Group Website but couldn't, so the news accounts are all I got to run on

The reason is that the report takes a comprehensive look at what an alternative to the current war on terror would look like. And from what I've read so far about 'looking at underlying causes of of support', its recognition that the war in Iraq has been a counterproductive disaster that we must leave from in order to start containing the damage, and its advising 'intensive diplomatic engagement in the region including Iran and Syria' and that we only make things worse if we go to war in Iran.....The tenor of the prescribed alternative to the war on terror seems to mirror my own views and stances. I'd love to read the report itself but dammit I can't find it!!

And for you International Relations majors out there, in a related note, I came across an interesting new phrase that encompasses this new alternative, as well as a more balanced and sane broader foreign policy: Sustainable Security. Take a look, its interesting.

------

Blackwater/Mercenaries/Iraq

Much in the news lately about Blackwater and mercenary organization in general due to the recent high profile incidents in which Blackwater mercenaries killed and wounded dozens of Iraqi's in Nisour Square. But incident's like these, nor even incidents of mercenaries that are out of control, are quite common if not often publicized.

I'm still reading the book "Blackwater: The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army" by Jeremy Scahill, in which the history of the organization is detailed. [BTW if you read the Publisher's Weekly review of the book, please note that they are completely off base. "A cosnpiracy by neocons to subvert democracy", please. The author never said that!!]

And believe me, alot of this stuff is scary. In addition you get a sense of the sheer brutality, lawlessness of these mercs. They are immune to prosecution in Iraq, and are not held accountable by the military, so they literally can (and have!!) gotten away with murder. Their wanton brutality over the years has made the US attempts to win Iraqi hearts and minds that much more difficult, and they already were doing a pretty bad job. I will not do much analysis, I'll just introduce the following Blackwater related links for those interested.

Senior US Military Officials Fault Blackwater in the shooting of 11 Iraqi civilians - Tough choice for Republicans: Will they side with Mercenaries they've so steadfastly defended and carried water for, or will they side with the military?

Here are a few more details, but about the same military report (Washington Post)

Iraqi PM Nouri al-Maliki is calling it "murder" - The Iraqi's and the military reeeeally don't like mercenaries and they have good reason not to.

In fact, Iraq wants Blackwater out of the country and to arrest those involved in the recent Nisoor Circle incident:

Iraqi authorities want the U.S. government to sever all contracts in Iraq with Blackwater USA within six months and pay $8 million in compensation to each of the families of 17 people killed when the firm's guards sprayed a traffic circle with heavy machine gun fire last month...

It said the compensation — totaling $136 million — was so high "because Blackwater uses employees who disrespect the rights of Iraqi citizens even though they are guests in this country."....

It said Blackwater's license to operate in Iraq expired on June 2, 2006, meaning it had no immunity from prosecution under Iraqi laws set down after the fall of Saddam Hussein in 2003.

The government report also challenged the claim that a decree in June 2004 by then-Iraqi administrator L. Paul Bremer granted Blackwater immunity from legal action in incidents such as the one in Nisoor Square. The report said the Blackwater guards could be charged under a criminal code from 1969.

U.S. Embassy spokeswoman Mirembe Nantongo said the diplomatic mission would have no comment on the report. Iraq's Interior Ministry spokesman, Abdul-Karim Khalaf, said the document was in American hands.

The report found that Blackwater guards also had killed 21 Iraqi civilians and wounded 27 in previous shootings since it took over security for U.S. diplomats in Baghdad after the U.S. invasion. The Iraqi government did not say whether it would try to prosecute in those cases.

The State Department has counted 56 shooting incidents involving Blackwater guards in Iraq this year. All were being reviewed as part of the comprehensive inquiry ordered by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

A this is just Blackwater. There are may more mercenary outfits in Iraq who act just as reckless.

The problem for the US is that, frankly, it cannot function any longer without the thousands of mercenaries it hired. The US military is stretched to the breaking point as it is and it would only get worse if Blackwater and its band of thousands were removed. So its stuck in a quandry:

The Iraqis are pissed at us, yet if we allow Blackwater to be prosecuted, we only open up the rest of the mercenary firms to similar action. If we boot Blackwater, we lose thousands of boots. In the end I do not think Blackwater will be forced out.

We can't even be in Iraq without all these damn mercs, and those mercs are not making things better. If we have to rely so heavily on these goons just to maintain the horrible status quo, what the hell are we still doing there? We need to leave.

----------

I decide to split this roundup into two posts due to length. The next post will have more to do with Iraq in the sense of in the context of the ongoing civil war, and in the context of the violence statistics of General Petraeus.

Peace folks