Preparing the Battlefield: The Bush Administration steps up its secret moves against Iran

Bombshell reporting from Seymour Hersh from the New Yorker, making it seem as if a war with Iran is, once again, imminent. Hersh has obviously been wrong in his reporting about the timing of a US attack on Iran in the last few years, which unfortunately for the venerable journalist who broke the story of the My Lai massacre during the Vietnam war, has given him the image of the boy who cried wolf.

More coverage on this story from the Washington Post and in these two blog posts at War and Piece.

The Return of Gunboat Diplomacy in Latin America?

Larry Birks, director of the Council on Hemispheric Affairs (Coha) discusses the Pentagon's recent move to revive the Navy's Fourth Fleet and its patrolling of Latin American and Caribbean waters. According to a brief written by Birks for Coha at the beginning of the month: "The return of the Fourth Fleet, largely unnoticed by the US press, appears to represent a policy shift that projects an image of Washington once again asserting its military authority on the [Latin American] region."

Discussing Washington's decision to relaunch the Fourth Fleet after years of dormancy - along with almost a decade of Washington ignoring the region both diplomatically and militarily - from a geopolitical point of view, Coha notes that the revival of the Fourth Fleet may "do little more than attempt to introduce a quick fix to Bush’s failed US policy towards Latin America." In his report, Birks argues that the Fleet’s rebirth implies that the Bush administration's "gun boat diplomacy" represents a "new call to arms."

The U.S. may again be prepared to use the prospect of military force if it is found necessary to protect US national interests in Latin America. In particular, the possibility of using the Fourth Fleet already seems to be involved in a calculated and provocative move against Washington’s current bete noir, Hugo Chávez. As Admiral Gary Roughead, chief of naval operations, stated, “this change increases our emphasis in the region on employing naval forces to build confidence and trust […] through collective maritime security efforts that focus on common threats and mutual interests.”

The most ominous observation in this brief report, however, is the fact that given the Pentagon’s recent track record of setting and achieving its strategic objectives (in particular, during the tenure of Defense Secretary Rumsfeld) in particular attempting to improve ties with militaries throughout the Americas by regularly organizing joint “ministerials,” could inadvertently encourage Latin American militaries to "initiate similar scenarios of expansion, modernization, and the revival of their dangerous central roles plagued by past military juntas in their respective societies."

The Spence Commission on Growth, and the unveiling of a new "Washington Consensus"

Harvard development economist and blogger Dani Rodrik seems quite pleased with the emerging consensus on what practices and theories policy-makers should follow in attempting to bring economic growth to developing countries, especially with the idea the answers to lasting, sustainable and meaningful local economic development ought to be looked for . . . locally.

Evaluating the report from the Spence Commission on Growth (see here for more information), Rodrik concludes in his latest Op-Ed for Project Syndicate that the result is nothing less than a new (and better) Washington Consensus.

Quote of the Day: "Shrunken Sovereign"

From political theorist Benjamin Barber, author of the excellent Jihad Vs. McWorld, writing in World Affairs Journal:

[I]n the name of abstract personal liberty, libertarians and privatizers actually pervert and undermine real autonomy, given that as Hannah Arendt argued, “political freedom, generally speaking, means the right ‘to be a participant in government,’ or it means nothing.” The tension between private choice and public participation is clearly embodied in the tension between the consumer as private chooser and the citizen as public chooser. Citizens cannot be understood as mere consumers because individual desire is not the same thing as common ground; public goods are something more than a collection of private wants. A republic is by definition public, and what is public cannot be determined by aggregating private desires. Asking what “I want” and asking what “we need” are two different things: the first question is ideally answered by the market, the second by the community. When the market is encouraged to do the work of democracy, our culture is deformed and the character of our commonwealth undermined.

How Bloomberg failed the homeless

I have a lot of good things to say about New York City's billionaire mayor Michael Bloomberg, but his five-year plan to reduce homelessness in the five boroughs has been and abject failure.

Maybe he needs to spend less money on lavish corporate retention deals (AKA lavishing taxpayer-funded cash at investment banks like JP Morgan and Goldman Sachs to keep them in the city) and more time focusing on the very serious work that needs to be done on social policy for the poor and middle class.

(h/t the Village Voice blog Runnin' Scared)


The homeowners insurance gurantee is that it comes with free insurance quotes just like car insurance, life and health insurance and smaller deals like pet insurance.

IFC's "Doing Business" Index is a misleading measurement

The World Bank Group's International Finance Corporation (or IFC - for additional background, see here and here) publishes an annual report it refers to as the Doing Business index (DB). This index purports to evaluate and rank business conditions in Developing countries - looking at a jurisdiction's regulatory environment and how it affects the relative "ease of doing business" there for multinational corporations. Importantly, the DB index is meant to measure regulations directly affecting businesses and does not directly measure more general conditions such as a nation's proximity to large markets, quality of infrastructure, inflation, or crime.

As you might expect from a World Bank study, the underlying philosophy steering the index's methodology here is straight up neoliberalism. For instance, the countries that by design will score highest on the index have strong legal protections for international investors, make sure it is easy for an entrepreneur to raise funds to start up and run a new business . . and will have very weak or even non-existent legal protections for workers. According to the IFC, labor regulations and the codification of workers rights are in practice antithetical to a country being considered by the institution as a good place to do business.

But interestingly enough, as reported earlier this month by IPS News, none other than the World Bank Group's own Internal Evaluation Group has concluded that the index is counterproductive and seriously flawed both conceptually and methodologically.

From the article by IPS News (published on June 16):

The World Bank's flagship effort to promote business-led economic growth is ideologically stilted and of little practical use, says the bank's Internal Evaluation Group (IEG). . . the IEG said the Doing Business (DB) survey is prejudiced in favour of deregulation, overstates its conclusions, and shows "no statistically significant relationship" between its indicators and broader economic growth, much less improvements in national well-being.

At issue is the Doing Business Index, in which the bank's private unit, the International Finance Corporation (IFC), ranks 178 countries on how conducive they are to private enterprise. Those that make it easiest to start and run a private enterprise, as measured by 10 indicators, earn the highest marks.

( . . . )

Even so, developing and former Soviet economies in particular perform legal and political contortions to improve their ranking in hopes of boosting foreign investment and with the expectation - stoked by the bank - that increased business activity will translate into faster economic growth.

The bank's Internal Evaluation Group (IEG), in a report released late Thursday, said the Doing Business (DB) survey is prejudiced in favour of deregulation, overstates its conclusions, and shows "no statistically significant relationship" between its indicators and broader economic growth, much less improvements in national well-being.

In addition, see this critique of the DB index from the largest trade union federation in the world - the ITUC - here (.pdf). It provides a detailed analysis of how the World Bank is actually encouraging developing countries to make it easier for the private sector to fire people en mass, as long as capital has free reign for cross-border investment. This is yet another sad reminder of the moral and intellectual bankruptcy of neoliberalism and the legacy of the Washington Consensus - a lesson that the World Bank and other multilaterals seem intent on not learning.

Is al Qaeda beating Pentagon for "hearts and minds" of Iraqis?

The answer to this tantalizing question appears to be: Yes.

This correspondence from Washington Post reporter Craig Whitlock wins the inagural prize for this blog's troubling but unsurprising news item of the day. Check out the transcript and both articles by Whitlock on how the US is managing to lose the pitched Middle East public relations battle against al Qaeda, despite this country's huge expenditure of resources in the process.

For an example of this expenditure, an interesting discussion of the US-broadcast television station al Hurra, which is a tool of "US diplomacy" (i.e.: propaganda campaign) for the Middle East region where it is broadcast, can be found in the transcript here.

Additionally, for a radically different perspective on how the US is doing in the "war" against al Qaeda, see this article by James Fallow's published by The Atlantic back in September 2006 here. Fallows' argument boils down to: "America has won the media war against al Qaeda already . . . therefore, we should simply declare victory and get out."

Democratic and Republican lawmakers vote for a permanent National Surveillance State

Scott Horton, writing in Harper's Online, makes an eloquent and well-reasoned case as to why not only is the administration's continued illegal use of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act - or FISA - (which may have been going on even before 9/11, possibly as far back as 2000) an abomination, but so too is the House Democratic leadership's proposed "compromise" legislation.

On top of the House and Senate Democrats' utter collapse on attaching a timeline for withdrawal from Iraq, it appears as if the party that won the 2006 midterm elections on the mantle of change will soon be selling out the American public on their constitutionally-protected civil liberties.

For more on the FISA "compromise" and how the Democratic party has completely sold out, be sure to check out "Democrats Have Legalized Bush's Crimes" by journalist Robert Parry here, as well as this article in The American Prospect fittingly enough entitled "Democrats Capitulate on FISA."

Update (6/27): For more depressing news on the Democratic party's utter sellout on the Uraq war, see this dispatch from Reuters: "Congress passes new Iraq war funds."

The U.S. Senate on Thursday approved $161.8 billion in new funds to continue fighting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan for the next year, without timetables for withdrawing combat troops.

The House of Representatives passed an identical bill last week. President George W. Bush is expected to promptly sign the measure into law once he receives it from Congress.

The Senate's 92-6 vote to pass the war-funding bill marked a victory for Bush, who has vigorously opposed any move by Congress to impose timetables for ending the Iraq war, now in its sixth year.

Democrats, who are the majority party in Congress, repeatedly had tried to set such dates, most recently with a House vote in May calling for troop withdrawals to be completed by December 31, 2009.

The new war money could last through mid-2009, well past Bush's departure from office on January 20.

Obama disappoints, backpedals on opposition to NAFTA

During the primary season, Barack Obama made a lot of noise aimed at the Democratic party's powerful liberal base that he was for reforming NAFTA and other US neoliberal "free" trade deals. It also helped him score points off of his chief rival, Hillary Clinton, whose husband ushered in the US-Mexico-Canada trade agreement in the early 1990s which has since been responsible for hundreds of thousands or possibly millions of manufacturing jobs disappearing from midwest batleground states like Ohio.

But now that he has secured the party's nomination, he's suddenly pro-"free trade" and pro-NAFTA, which is not only a depressing flip-flop but also a really stupid move politically, as John Nichols explains.

New housing bill regulating industry, written by lenders

The usually execrable columnist Jeff Birenbaum actually has a revealing, and important expose in the Washington Post today.

He reports that:

A key provision of the housing bill now awaiting action in the Senate -- and widely touted as offering a lifeline to distressed homeowners -- was initially suggested to Congress by lobbyists for major banks facing their own huge losses from the subprime mortgage crisis, according to congressional staff members and bank officials.

Credit Suisse, a large investment bank heavily invested in mortgage-backed securities, proposed allowing hundreds of thousands of homeowners to refinance their mortgages with lower-cost government-insured loans, relieving financial institutions of the troubled debt.

After the bank proposed this to Congress in January, it became known as the "Credit Suisse plan" among congressional staffers and lobbyists. It later formed the basis of housing provisions in both the House and Senate.

Bank of America, which is acquiring Countrywide Financial, the country's largest mortgage lender, followed with a similar and more detailed proposal, principal negotiators on the legislation said.

While Birenbaum doesn't present much cynicism or skepticism about the outsized role investment banks like Credit Suisse have been given in the drafting of key federal legislation regulating their industry. I suppose the fact that he is at least providing column inches to this scandal is something to be somewhat happy about.

For some actual critical analysis of this massive conflict of interest scandal, you have to get to page two of the article and read the quote from economist Dean Baker from the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington: "It is ironic that Congress, responding to a crisis that was created in large part by irresponsible lending, would produce a bill, the main beneficiaries of which are likely to be those lenders. There are aspects that work hugely to the banks' advantage."

It looks like Barney Frank is being let completely off the hook for his part in this whole affair, though.

How Bush's energy policy led to soaring gas prices

Two stories from Alternet (this by energy expert Michael T. Klare and this by Harvey Wasserman) discussing the huge role the Bush administration's pathetic excuse for an coherent energy policy has played in the rising cost of gas.

Hint: The big energy companies are still raking in record profits, thanks to the impressive largess of the Executive Branch.

The political fallout from declining purchasing power

In one of his typically brilliant editorials, Le Monde diplo editor Serge Halimi notes the continuously widening gulf between what policymakers none other than former US Treasury Secretary Summers referred to as "a growing recognition by workers that what was good for the global economy and its business champions was not necessarily good for them.” As Halimi points out, this is a wholesale admission by political elites of a "decoupling" of the interests of business and citizens as a result of corporate globalization, fiscal policy and other causes. In other words, while it is important to note that trends such as the current global food crisis - marked by runaway price inflation - and declining purchasing power due to wages failing to keep up with inflation is destroying the credibility of governments worldwide in the eyes of its people; it is necessary to take the next step logically.

As Halimi points out (and what bears repeating): "Stagnation or a decline in purchasing power was the natural result of political choices taken after a war on workers, in the good cause of increasing competitiveness and reducing the cost of labour." He refers in the quote above specifically to EU-member nations such as Italy and Spain, although in context it is clear other industrialized nations such as the UK and the US are equally implicated.

Gazing toward the Iranian front

From the Christian Science Monitor today:

Pressure is building on Iran. This week Europe agreed to new sanctions and President Bush again suggested something more serious – possible military strikes – if the Islamic Republic doesn't bend to the will of the international community on its nuclear program.

But increasingly military analysts are warning of severe consequences if the US begins a shooting war with Iran. While Iranian forces are no match for American technology on a conventional battlefield, Iran has shown that it can bite back in unconventional ways.

Iranian networks in Iraq and Afghanistan could imperil US interests there; American forces throughout the Gulf region could be targeted by asymmetric methods and lethal rocket barrages; and Iranian partners across the region – such as Hezbollah in Lebanon – could be mobilized to engage in an anti-US fight.

Iran's response could also be global, analysts say, but the scale would depend on the scale of the US attack. "One very important issue from a US intelligence perspective, [the Iranian reaction] is probably more unpredictable than the Al Qaeda threat," says Magnus Ranstorp at the Center for Asymmetric Threat Studies at the Swedish National Defense College in Stockholm.

"I doubt very much our ability to manage some of the consequences," says Mr. Ranstorp, noting that Iranian revenge attacks in the past have been marked by "plausible deniability" and have had global reach.

Of course, it really is unfathomable, at least to me, that the US would actually attack Iran with airstrikes, etc given the tinderbox the Middle East / West Asian region currently is with US troops occupying Iraq and Afghanistan to either side of our next prospective target. The likelihood that such an attack - even in the form of very "limited, targeted" strikes on hardened military position - is near zero for 2008, but a Neoconservative oriented McCain administration could perceivably pull the trigger some time next year.

Beyond the mortal carnage such an assault would inevitably lead to, it really is questionable how the US could afford to pay for what would more than likely end up as a long-term military campaign and occupation, complete with guerilla attacks that really would make the Iraqi front to the west look like a cakewalk.

Although, its been five years since we've fulfilled the Ledeen Doctrine and thrown a defenseless Third World country against the wall to remind the world community that we "mean business."

On the other hand, the Pentagon's MO is always to attack only countries that cannot legitimately fight back in order to ensure a short and decisive destruction and a propaganda victory for mass media consumption.

Reviewing the oil factor and the invasion of Iraq

Liberal blogger Matthew Yglesias gets it very wrong in his most recent post. Linking to an article from today's New York Times, and excerpting these graphs in particular:

Exxon Mobil, Shell, Total and BP — the original partners in the Iraq Petroleum Company — along with Chevron and a number of smaller oil companies, are in talks with Iraq’s Oil Ministry for no-bid contracts to service Iraq’s largest fields, according to ministry officials, oil company officials and an American diplomat. [...]

The no-bid contracts are unusual for the industry, and the offers prevailed over others by more than 40 companies, including companies in Russia, China and India. The contracts, which would run for one to two years and are relatively small by industry standards, would nonetheless give the companies an advantage in bidding on future contracts in a country that many experts consider to be the best hope for a large-scale increase in oil production.

There was suspicion among many in the Arab world and among parts of the American public that the United States had gone to war in Iraq precisely to secure the oil wealth these contracts seek to extract. The Bush administration has said that the war was necessary to combat terrorism. It is not clear what role the United States played in awarding the contracts; there are still American advisers to Iraq’s Oil Ministry.

He makes several startling points - assumptions really - for a self-described "liberal interventionist" pundit regarding the motivations for the war in Iraq and the critical geopolitical role control of the Middle East region's oil resources played

These strange arguments consist of these sage observations (from a liberal who just wrote a book on the war in Iraq and US foreign/military power in general:

I think the evidence is clear that the Bush administration went to war in Iraq because it's run by crazy people. The oil money more plausibly comes into play in explaining the desire to stay at war forever. After all, these companies (or their corporate ancestors) had oil contracts in Iraq in the past and now they're getting them back "36 years after losing their oil concession to nationalization as Saddam Hussein rose to power." Nationalization, you see, is a substantial risk of doing business -- especially natural resource business -- in unstable countries. But a given government is much, much, much less likely to nationalize western countries' assets if it's dependent on external U.S. military support and especially if its security services are nicely enmeshed with the U.S. military.

Our troops can "curb Iranian influence" and provide "stability" all of which is good for business. But don't call it imperialism, we're there to help!

So many things wrong here. Even the noxious Alan Greenspan has recognized the fact that, yes, oil was a huge factor behind the 2003 invasion (or "should have been".)

From comments to the post:

Oil is currently the lifeblood of the world economy whether or not we wish this to be true. A stable supply is crucial in determining whether we'll have a long glide path to alternate energy sources, or a world depression with associated wars and chaos. This is why countries like South Korea and Japan along with most of the other important industrialized democracies supported the invasion to overturn Saddam, and even autocracies like Russia and China were prepared to go along before France, much to their bemusement, decided to pull the plug. Of course, the giant deal Saddam signed with Total/Fina/Elf to develop fully one third of Iraq's vast reserves might have had something to do with that.

It is far less important who participates in the development of Iraq's reserves than that they be developed and put on the world market, where attentive readers may note that they are purchased rather than "grabbed".

and . . .

Nationalization, you see, is a substantial risk of doing business -- especially natural resource business -- in unstable countries.

Not true, historically. A Strongman who nationalizes oil brings relative stability to an unstable region, and buying into a cartel ups the profit. When Iraq (or anyone else) nationalized oil, did they just hire their own people to get the job done or bring in Bigass Oil Countries?

For more on the role Middle East oil supply is playing for the global economy, see this article by Robert Weissman (and this one from last September, too).

Update: Perhaps Yglesias should check out this editorial by Tom Engelhardt.

Senate Intel Committee completely drops the ball on WHIG investigation

What a sad state of affairs. Raw Story reports that the White House Iraq Group scandal was found by a Senate Intelligence Committee report (which can be viewed as two separate .pdf files here and here) which:

Examin[ed] the pre-war speeches and public statements of President Bush, Vice President Cheney and other administration officials, the first two speeches presenting the case for war were not vetted by intelligence analysts, and generally concluded that administration officials overstated the case for war. Unexamined by the committee were the behind-the-scenes machinations of the White House Iraq Group, a collection of Bush loyalists and political experts tasked with presenting the case for war.

Apparently, because Chairman Jay Rockefeller saw the WHIG as merely a "public relations group", it consequently fell outside the scope of the Committee's jurisdiction.

Huh? I guess if I were an reporter, I would be curious as to which Senate committee would have jurisdiction over this crime?

On vacation in Cape May, NJ

I'll be out of town through June 22, so posting will be sporadic (or non-existent) while I enjoy the beach.

The problems with Free Trade Agreements between the West and MENA nations

The center-left Washington-based foreign policy research center the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace has a new report out this month entitled "EU and U.S. Free Trade Agreements in the Middle East and North Africa" written by visiting scholar and economist Riad al Khouri. The complete, 24 page document can be read here (as a .pdf file).

I have taken the liberty of condensing the gist of the report into a few paragraphs as a favor to readers with a disinclination toward reading the whole document in its entirety:

• According to the author, even though so-called "Free Trade" agreements (also known as FTAs) between the West (primarily the US and members of the EU) and Middle East / North African (MENA) countries, can be considered to have some beneficial elements toward the target countries and their citizens, the agreements have more importantly had the effect of strengthened the negatively-held perceptions among the citizens of these developing countries of “western-led globalization,” because they "benefit unpopular elites and impose serious short term economic adjustment."

• Trade activity between the US and MENA countries grew in a "relatively balanced manner", while those FTAs between EU-member nations and the Mediterranean region favored the EU.

• Bilateral security cooperation between the United States and MENA countries strengthened after signing free trade agreements.

• The US is seen as being more supportive overall of "full" trade agreements with MENA countries; Agreements between EU nations and Middle East / North African countries in contrast do not include agriculture and immigration provisions
.
Al Khouri concludes that:

The current US and EU initiatives are a step in the right direction, but they alone cannot lead to robust, sustainable growth in the [MENA] region or create regional stability. The overall growth and precarious stability that the region has been able to achieve still has little to do with bilateral economic links with the US or the EU. Nevertheless, FTAs and similar agreements show signs of increasing importance for both the West and the MENA region, with implications for EU and US trade relations with other regions as well.

According to the analysis, the US’s free trade efforts in the MENA region differ radically from those initiated by EU governments, even if both can be seen as being increasingly vigorous. Al Khouri argues that there can be "no doubt that all the Western trade efforts aim to promote growth as a way to reduce poverty and hence migration and security concerns" from the Developing world. Thus, even if international trade can not by itself directly affect the macro conditions which can lay the eventual groundwork for war or peace, this bilateral activity does in fact promote economic growth. Noting the fact that in general "increased levels of economic development tend to reduce the propensity for conflict", al Khouri argues that "there is a positive correlation between increased [volume of] international trade and long-term stability" for Developing countries.

Although that appears to be obviously contradicted by tragic news stories in many of these cases, it is argued that "the tension in the Middle East related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, the situation in Iraq, and non participatory governments might mask the long-term stabilizing effect of economic development." How one could go about attempting to either prove or disprove the validity of this theory is far from obvious, however.

Finally, taken directly from the report's conclusion section:

It remains unclear whether the U.S. accords will ultimately enhance American national security as they promote trade. Meanwhile, American bilateral security cooperation continues to grow stronger with the MENA countries that have signed FTAs with the United States. At the same time, economic relations between the United States and individual MENA states have expanded in a relatively balanced manner.

Conversely, the [ . . . ] multilateral approach to security has not succeeded from the MENA region’s perspective, and trade between the Mediterranean region and the EU remains one-sided. In 2000, Euro–Med was to produce a charter of peace and stability, but the effort was stifl ed because of the Israeli–Palestinian and Western Sahara conflicts. Security agreements with MENA states did not progress at the level of EU institutions, though at the bilateral level there has been some movement.

( . . . )

The balance of EU trade with the MENA region, without oil, has worsened from the southern perspective. This has not helped MENA economies to grow stronger, with negative consequences for their societies. If the EU could open up to the MENA region’s agricultural products and controlled immigration, the economic benefits for the southern Mediterranean would be very substantial.

Though that may well happen in the end, for the time being, the former step remains politically diffi cult, while the latter has a negative security component. For the United States, agriculture and immigration are not pressing issues in
relations with the MENA region, partly due to geographical distance. Thus, the United States is keen on full trade treaties with MENA countries, in contrast to the EU agreements, which leave agriculture aside.

US plans for "permanent military occupation" of Iraq revealed

Jonathan Taplin writes in TPMCafe about the previously-secret Bush administration's machinations regarding US military bases and a de facto expansion of the Pentagon's occupation of Iraq into an arrangement approximating out into the realm of "permanency." The scandal, dubbed by the US media as "Bush's Secret Iraq Base Deal" has all of the hallmarks of the current administration's contempt for democratic policymaking and ultimately serves as further evidence attesting to the fact that the Pentagon's recent forays into the Middle East have less to do with democracy-building and discrete, limited military objectives like removing an autocratic regime from power . . . and more to do with establishing a permanent beach-head in the oil rich region to further US geopolitical and resource acquisition goals.

Taplin relates to us that as reported by The Independent (UK), Bush is brazenly attempting to "rush through a deal with the Iraqi government before his term ends that would have major long term effects and will become an issue in the Obama v. McCain campaign."

According the report from the Independent (written by the generally credible journalist Patrick Cockburn) "A secret deal being negotiated in Baghdad would perpetuate the American military occupation of Iraq indefinitely, regardless of the outcome of the US presidential election in November. The terms of the impending deal, details of which have been leaked to [the paper], are likely to have an explosive political effect in Iraq. Iraqi officials fear that the accord, under which US troops would occupy permanent bases, conduct military operations, arrest Iraqis and enjoy immunity from Iraqi law, will destabilize Iraq's position in the Middle East and lay the basis for unending conflict in their country. (emphasis added)

Taplin also points out that significantly, this secretive accord also threatens to "provoke a political crisis in the US." President Bush wants to push it through by the end of next month so he can declare a military victory and claim his 2003 invasion has been vindicated.

For additional background on the Pentagon's plans for constructing "permanent" military bases in Iraq - conceived in part to serve as a replacement for the many bases previously located in Saudi Arabia but subsequently closed due to political pressure from Islamic regimes, be sure to see some of these other reports from the media: "Digging In", "A Permanent Basis for Withdrawal", "A Permanent Military Empire" and "Operation: Enduring Presence."

Update: Not surprisingly, AP reports that "tens of thousands" of Iraqis are protesting the "veil of secrecy" shrouding these security deals being negotiated between the Pentagon and the Iraqi nation's fledgling government. Blindly trusting in either the Iraqi government or their US masters is no longer par for course for Iraqi civilians - many of whom don't believe the military presence is going to go away peaceably or any time in the near future.

Update #2: Matthew Yglesias has more on the US deciding to hold hostage "[S]ome $50bn (£25bn) of Iraq’s money in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York to pressure the Iraqi government into signing an agreement seen by many Iraqis as prolonging the US occupation indefinitely."

As liberal blogger Matthew Yglesias from The Atlantic wisely observes that:

This exemplifies the Bush/McCain madness. To the majority of people, whatever they think about the details of getting out of Iraq, being in Iraq isn't desirable. What we need to do is create conditions where leaving is viable. But to the people running our country, the goal is to stay in Iraq forever. It's insane.

Blackwater’s Private Spies

Blackwater Worldwide (formerly known as Blackwater USA) expert journalist Jeremy Schahill (who wrote the definitive book investigating the mercenary-for hire company) writes in today's issue of The Nation entitled "Blackwater's Private Spies" that even in the wake of several well-publicized scandals, the firm is even today quite busy receiving no-bid Pentagon contracts and planning for the future.

Senate Intel Committee Confirms: Bush Used Iraq Intel He Knew Was False

Seth Colter Walls, writing in the Huffington Post, reports that some five years after the Bush administration's illegal, so-called "preventive" military invasion of Iraq, the Senate Intelligence Committee has finally stated on the record that the Bush administration in fact "misused, and in some cases disregarded, intelligence which led the nation into war."

Walls further reports that the two final sections of this eagerly-anticipated "Phase II" report on the administration's use of prewar intelligence, eentially charges that senior White House officials "repeatedly misrepresent[ed]the threat posed by Iraq," and harshly criticizes a Pentagon office for executing "inappropriate, sensitive intelligence activities" without the proper knowledge of the State Department and other agencies.

This "Phase II" report conclusively reveals to the American public that "there was no operational relationship between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein, that Bush officials were not truthful about the difficulties the United States would face in post-war Iraq and that their public statements did not reflect intelligence they had at the time, and, specifically, that the intelligence community would not confirm any meeting between Iraqi officials and Mohamed Atta": a claim that was repeated ad nauseumby the President's Neoconservative advisors both before and after the military intervension.

According to a public statement issued by Committee Chairman Senator Jay Rockefeller, "In making the case for war, the Administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when in reality it was unsubstantiated, contradicted, or even non-existent. As a result, the American people were led to believe that the threat from Iraq was much greater than actually existed. ... There is no question we all relied on flawed intelligence. But, there is a fundamental difference between relying on incorrect intelligence and deliberately painting a picture to the American people that you know is not fully accurate."


Some specific, particularly egregious revelations put forward by Senator Rockefeller include:

¶ Statements and implications by the President and Secretary of State suggesting that Iraq and al-Qa'ida had a partnership, or that Iraq had provided al-Qa'ida with weapons training, were not substantiated by the intelligence.

• Statements by the President and the Vice President indicating that Saddam Hussein was prepared to give weapons of mass destruction to terrorist groups for attacks against the United States were contradicted by available intelligence information.

• Statements by President Bush and Vice President Cheney regarding the postwar situation in Iraq, in terms of the political, security, and economic, did not reflect the concerns and uncertainties expressed in the intelligence products.

• Statements by the President and Vice President prior to the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate regarding Iraq's chemical weapons production capability and activities did not reflect the intelligence community's uncertainties as to whether such production was ongoing.

• The Secretary of Defense's statement that the Iraqi government operated underground WMD facilities that were not vulnerable to conventional airstrikes because they were underground and deeply buried was not substantiated by available intelligence information.

• The Intelligence Community did not confirm that Muhammad Atta met an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague in 2001 as the Vice President repeatedly claimed.

More coverage on the release of the Senate report from McClatchy's DC news bureau (6/5).

Understanding the risks of declining US military power

Institute Policy Studies scholar Phyllis Bennis writes over at the think tank the Transnational Institute that the while the US is losing the war in Iraq (or more accurately, the military occupation has failed to curb violence or establish a political negotiation for power-sharing in the new Iraqi government), the Middle East is very much "still at war":

In a period of rapid decline of American power around the world, the danger of choosing military force to assert US global reach becomes more, not less likely, and nowhere is that more clear than in the Middle East.

This is a period of rapid and dramatic decline of American economic power around the world, and that, along with massive anger directed at U.S. policies around the world, has resulted in a precipitous drop in U.S. diplomatic and political influence. As a result, for those committed to maintaining Washington's superpower status, choosing military force to assert U.S. global reach becomes more, not less likely. Forcing a real end to the U.S. occupation of Iraq is more difficult than ever. U.S. military support to Israel is higher than ever. And the danger of a U.S. military strike on Iran remains as high as ever.

Despite and because of its huge military presence and the continuing horror of the occupation and war in Iraq, there is no question that Washington has lost significant influence in the Middle East. U.S. efforts to dominate and control the region's governments, resources, and people are failing. U.S.-backed governments and movements across the Middle East are rejecting the Bush administration's demand that they isolate, sanction, and threaten the other governments and movements that Washington deems the bad guys - those linked to Iran. Instead the U.S.-backed governments are themselves launching new bi-, tri-, and multi-lateral negotiations with "the bad guys" outside of U.S. control, and often in direct contradiction to U.S. wishes.

McCain and Obama do AIPAC

Journalist and blogger Jim Lobe analyzes John McCain's campaign speech to AIPAC earlier this week and draws out the foreign policy implications contained within. This isn't exactly like reading tea-leaves, of course; the Neoconservative Senator has long hoped to capitalize on Democratic nominee's perceived "weakness" on Israel security among the disproportionately wealthy and conservative Jews who comprise the leadership of the Washington-based political action group.

Basically, candidate McCain is promising his likely voter base four more years of Bush-style foreign policy for the Middle East region, pledging to "maintain the Bush administration's hard line against Iran and expressed strong scepticism about the ability of the current Palestinian leadership to reach a peace accord with Israel." In other words, there's no room for diplomacy or the "Peace Process" in a McCain administration - a conceited and flawed assumption that has already led to eight years of growing anger, instability, impoverishment and bloodshed in the tragic region.

Lobe reports that in his speech, he called for "much tougher international sanctions against Iran", and a brutal dismissal of bilateral talks between the US and Iran - an idea proposed by Obama which has met with popular approval.

As if seeking to reinforce the message that he stands shoulder to shoulder with Bush on Iran, he argued that diplomacy would "harm Iranian moderates and dissidents . . . as the radicals and hardliners strengthen their position and suddenly acquire the appearance of respectability." By this line of reasoning, how could the negotiations between the US and the new nuclear-powered North Korea have been countenanced?

As the article goes on to note:

The anti-engagement tone of the conference contrasted strongly with the results of a new poll released by Gallup Monday. Conducted May 19-21, the survey found that two-thirds of the more than 1,000 respondents, including 79 percent of Democrats, 48 percent of Republicans, and 70 percent of Independents, favoured presidential meetings with "leaders of foreign countries considered enemies of the United States".

And, while Iran leads the list of top U.S. enemies in the world, according to the latest poll, 59 percent of respondents said it would be a good idea if the U.S. president met with his counterpart.

* * *



Also, Obama wins over the AIPAC crowd with a speech that hit all the right notes (transcript from NYT here.)

How Iraq became the US media's new forgotten war

Today's must-read article from the American Journalism Review entitled "Whatever Happened to Iraq? How the media lost interest in a long-running war with no end in sight." Referring to a scathing article by the Sacramento Bee's public editor Armando Acuna, the AJR article notes how the mainstream media (including Acuna's own employer) allowed "the third-longest war in American history to slip off the radar screen," and analyzes how the media has failed in its duty to report the conflict honestly.

As I've argued on this blog over two years ago, the American people deserve their share of blame for allowing this tragedy to continue for the past five-plus years - even after it had become transparently clear that our attack on Iraq had nothing to do with US security, humanitarianism or democracy promotion but instead oil and Neocons' long-standing obsession with geopolitical control of the Middle East region - and AJR notes that Acuna's article targets the public as having abdicated their share of responsibility.

See also: "McClellan’s Missile: Media Crimes As War Crimes" by Danny Schechter.

US is buying influence from foreign press

Another day, another depressing revelation which serves to make me even more cynical than I already am:

Domestic propaganda campaigns like the "Pentagon Pundits" fiasco have been exposed and decried. Mainstream media outlets hired high-ranking military officers to provide "analysis" about the war in Iraq. Turns out they had ties to military contractors with a vested interest in continuing the war.

Below the radar, another journalism scandal is brewing: the U.S. government is secretly funding foreign news outlets and journalists. Government bodies -- including the State Department, the Department of Defense, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) and the U.S. Institute for Peace (USIP) -- support "media development" in more than 70 countries. In These Times has found that these programs include funding hundreds of foreign nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), journalists, policy-makers, journalist associations, media outlets, training institutes and academic journalism faculties. Grant sizes can range from a few thousand to millions of dollars.

Kudos to Jeremy Bigwood and In These Times.

Controversial US-Iraq security pact proposed

Bush wants to pass a new US-Iraqi "security pact" that would allow an indefinite military occupation of the Middle Eastern nation, the Democrats in Congress want Bush to seek their approval before any deal is finalized, and Iraqi PM Maliki wants the US to set a timetable for withdrawal. While it will be interesting to see how all of this shakes out, it seems pretty obvious to me that Maliki is going to put his foot down at some point. That is, if he truly heads a soverign government.

CFR reports on Hezbollah's "shadow war"

Looks like Hezbollah was the big winner from 2006's Israel-Lebanon war, and now in control of the latter Middle East country. From the Council on Foreign Relations (no left-wing terrorist sympathizers, they):

If politics were its principle yardstick, Hezbollah's new ability to veto the decisions of the Lebanese government might seem conclusive. After clashes in west Beirut last month, some analysts declared Hezbollah the victor of the internecine crisis (NYT). Others, including Daily Star opinion editor Michael Young, see the resolution as more of a draw. Either way, Hezbollah's leaders want more. As Hassan Nasrallah said on May 26, the true measure of Hezbollah's worth remains its ability to wage armed resistance against Israel.

Measuring Hezbollah's capabilities on that count has long been a focus of Israeli military analysts, and the mass and sophistication of Hezbollah's missile arsenal in the 2006 summer war with Israel raised eyebrows beyond the region, too. The missile barrages that struck deep into Israeli territory, even in the final days of the three-week conflict (al-Jazeera), changed international perceptions of the group from an organization focused primarily on guerrilla and terrorist capabilities to one which can project power, perhaps on behalf of Iran, well beyond its Lebanese base.

How the US's Neoliberal "Free" Trade and market liberalisation agendas contributed to the global food crisis

"Free" trade doesn't just destroy millions of jobs and depress workers' wages in the US and in the Third World: It is responsible for the looming global food crisis. Longtime activist and writer Walden Bello explains why, and presents the moral bankruptcy for neoliberalism for all to see.

Iraqi sovereignty watch

Here are just a few articles worth reading today about the state of affairs over in the US vassal-state of Iraq: From the Washington Post, the Real News, the blog Arab Links and The Age (Australia).

(Thanks to Cursor for the links!)

Must Read: Soros interview on The Financial Crisis

Great, detailed and far-ranging interview with hedge fund king George Soros on the US financial crisis (coming soon to a continent ner you!) from the New York Review of Books. Soros notes the tragic cost of what he calls "market fundamentalism" and argues that we are in the midst of a financial crisis "the likes of which we haven't seen since the Great Depression."

The interview really does cover a lot of ground. Enjoy!

McCain, spying and executive power

Blogger Glenn Greenwald provides us with another reason why a McCain win in November would be very bad for the Republic: The supposed "maverick" Senator's unsurprisingly Right Wing positions on how expendable the Bill of Rights is during wartime with the entire Muslim world.

Quick, someone alert the media: The Straight Talk Express has derailed!

AIPAC still calling the shots in presidential race?

Pepe Escobar says that whether Obama, Clinton or McCain become President of the United States in January, the Israeli Lobby (i.e. the DC-based Right wing-Likudnik AIPAC) will be well-positioned for the next four years.

To which I would respond: Duh. The US isn't going to suddenly foresake Israel, the single most important ally - some would say client state - this country has in the Middle East region. Rational supporters of the State of Israel realize that through Republican and Democratic administrations, as well as Republican and Democratic-controlled Congresses, over the last sixty years, the US has consistently supported the Jewish State both financially, and even more crucially, militarily.

And that's not going to change with a President Obama in 2009. (I don't think anyone would seriously argue that it is even a concern with McCain or Clinton!) On the other hand, an Obama administration might provide some much-needed pushback against the Likudnik AIPAC agenda for Middle East domination, perhaps in favor of following the advice of a J Street and other progressive pro-Zionist organizations.

That's my hope, at least.

Should the media be held to account for "promoting" war?

Media critic Danny Schecter asks a very provocative question: should the media that promoted the 2003 US invasion of Iraq bear some sort of moral (or other) responsibility for their negligent acts? I would go further and argue that the American people - including your humble correspondent - who supported the invasion during its run up are culpable as well.

Greg Mitchell from Editor & Publisher largely agrees with Schecter's take. What do you think?

Bill Clinton under the microscope (yet again)

Todd Purdum has a very unflattering portrait of Bill Clinton in next month's issue of Vanity Fair, and if his reporting is accurate, the former President has been busy losing friends and alienating people while stumping on the campaign trail for his wife. The story is titled "The Comeback Id", which should give readers some indication as to the, uh, tone of the piece.

Update: Bill strikes back in the pages of the Huffington Post!

So why is questioning the US defense budget off limits?

Robert Scheer asks why the press corp are so reluctant to make runaway - and ineffective - Pentagon spending into a viable campaign issue for the presidential candidates. A good question, although I think the answer is that they are afraid George Bush will label them terrorists and ship them off to Camp Gitmo.