‘America’s Outrageous War Economy!’

Pentagon can’t find $2.3 trillion, wasting trillions on ‘national defense’

By Paul B. Farrell, MarketWatch

Yes, America’s economy is a war economy. Not a “manufacturing” economy. Not an “agricultural” economy. Nor a “service” economy. Not even a “consumer” economy.
Seriously, I looked into your eyes, America, saw deep into your soul. So let’s get honest and officially call it “America’s Outrageous War Economy.” Admit it: we secretly love our war economy. And that’s the answer to Jim Grant’s thought-provoking question last month in the Wall Street Journal — “Why No Outrage?”

There really is only one answer: Deep inside we love war. We want war. Need it. Relish it. Thrive on war. War is in our genes, deep in our DNA. War excites our economic brain. War drives our entrepreneurial spirit. War thrills the American soul. Oh just admit it, we have a love affair with war. We love “America’s Outrageous War Economy.”
Americans passively zone out playing video war games. We nod at 90-second news clips of Afghan war casualties and collateral damage in Georgia. We laugh at Jon Stewart’s dark comedic news and Ben Stiller’s new war spoof “Tropic Thunder” … all the while silently, by default, we’re cheering on our leaders as they aggressively expand “America’s Outrageous War Economy,” a relentless machine that needs a steady diet of war after war, feeding on itself, consuming our values, always on the edge of self-destruction.
Why else are Americans so eager and willing to surrender 54% of their tax dollars to a war machine, which consumes 47% of the world’s total military budgets?

Why are there more civilian mercenaries working for no-bid private war contractors than the total number of enlisted military in Iraq (180,000 to 160,000), at an added cost to taxpayers in excess of $200 billion and climbing daily?
Why do we shake our collective heads “yes” when our commander-in-chief proudly tells us he is a “war president;” and his party’s presidential candidate chants “bomb, bomb, bomb Iran,” as if “war” is a celebrity hit song?
Why do our spineless Democrats let an incompetent, blundering executive branch hide hundreds of billions of war costs in sneaky “supplemental appropriations” that are more crooked than Enron’s off-balance-sheet deals?
Why have Washington’s 537 elected leaders turned the governance of the American economy over to 42,000 greedy self-interest lobbyists?
And why earlier this year did our “support-our-troops” “war president” resist a new GI Bill because, as he said, his military might quit and go to college rather than re-enlist in his war; now we continue paying the Pentagon’s warriors huge $100,000-plus bonuses to re-up so they can keep expanding “America’s Outrageous War Economy?” Why? Because we secretly love war!

We’ve lost our moral compass: The contrast between today’s leaders and the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence in 1776 shocks our conscience. Today war greed trumps morals. During the Revolutionary War our leaders risked their lives and fortunes; many lost both.
Today it’s the opposite: Too often our leaders’ main goal is not public service but a ticket to building a personal fortune in the new “America’s Outrageous War Economy,” often by simply becoming a high-priced lobbyist.
Ultimately, the price of our greed may be the fulfillment of Kevin Phillips’ warning in “Wealth and Democracy:” “Most great nations, at the peak of their economic power, become arrogant and wage great world wars at great cost, wasting vast resources, taking on huge debt, and ultimately burning themselves out.”
‘National defense’ a propaganda slogan selling a war economy?
But wait, you ask: Isn’t our $1.4 trillion war budget essential for “national defense” and “homeland security?” Don’t we have to protect ourselves?
Sorry folks, but our leaders have degraded those honored principles to advertising slogans. They’re little more than flag-waving excuses used by neocon war hawks to disguise the buildup of private fortunes in “America’s Outrageous War Economy.”
America may be a ticking time bomb, but we are threatened more by enemies within than external terrorists, by ideological fanatics on the left and the right. Most of all, we are under attack by our elected leaders who are motivated more by pure greed than ideology. They terrorize us, brainwashing us into passively letting them steal our money to finance “America’s Outrageous War Economy,” the ultimate “black hole” of corruption and trickle-up economics.
You think I’m kidding? I’m maybe too harsh? Sorry but others are far more brutal. Listen to the ideologies and realities eating at America’s soul.

1. Our toxic ‘war within’ is threatening America’s soul

How powerful is the Pentagon’s war machine? Trillions in dollars. But worse yet: Their mindset is now locked deep in our DNA, in our collective conscience, in America’s soul. Our love of war is enshrined in the writings of neocon war hawks like Norman Podoretz, who warns the Iraq War was the launching of “World War IV: The Long Struggle Against Islamofascism,” a reminder that we could be occupying Iraq for a hundred years. His WW IV also reminded us of the coming apocalyptic end-of-days “war of civilizations” predicted by religious leaders in both Christian and Islamic worlds two years ago.
In contrast, this ideology has been challenged in works like Craig Unger’s “American Armageddon: How the Delusions of the Neoconservatives and the Christian Right Triggered the Descent of America — and Still Imperil Our Future.”
Unfortunately, neither threat can be dismissed as “all in our minds” nor as merely ideological rhetoric. Trillions of tax dollars are in fact being spent to keep the Pentagon war machine aggressively planning and expanding wars decades in advance, including spending billions on propaganda brainwashing naïve Americans into co-signing “America’s Outrageous War Economy.” Yes, they really love war, but that “love” is toxic for America’s soul.

 
2. America’s war economy financed on blank checks to greedy

Read Nobel Economist Joseph Stiglitz and Harvard professor Linda Bilmes’ “$3 Trillion War.” They show how our government’s deceitful leaders are secretly hiding the real long-term costs of the Iraq War, which was originally sold to the American taxpayer with a $50 billion price tag and funded out of oil revenues.
But add in all the lifetime veterans’ health benefits, equipment placement costs, increased homeland security and interest on new federal debt, and suddenly taxpayers got a $3 trillion war tab!

3. America’s war economy has no idea where its money goes

Read Portfolio magazine’s special report “The Pentagon’s $1 Trillion Problem.” The Pentagon’s 2007 budget of $440 billion included $16 billion to operate and upgrade its financial system. Unfortunately “the defense department has spent billions to fix its antiquated financial systems but still has no idea where its money goes.”
And it gets worse: Back “in 2000, Defense’s inspector general told Congress that his auditors stopped counting after finding $2.3 trillion in unsupported entries.” Yikes, our war machine has no records for $2.3 trillion! How can we trust anything they say?

4. America’s war economy is totally ‘unmanageable’

For decades Washington has been waving that “national defense” flag, to force the public into supporting “America’s Outrageous War Economy.” Read John Alic’s “Trillions for Military Technology: How the Pentagon Innovates and Why It Costs So Much.”
A former Congressional Office of Technology Assessment staffer, he explains why weapon systems cost the Pentagon so much, “why it takes decades to get them into production even as innovation in the civilian economy becomes ever more frenetic and why some of those weapons don’t work very well despite expenditures of many billions of dollars,” and how “the internal politics of the armed services make weapons acquisition almost unmanageable.” Yes, the Pentagon wastes trillions planning its wars well in advance.
Comments? Tell us: What will it take to wake up America, get citizens, investors, anybody mad at “America’s Outrageous War Economy?”

Why don’t you rebel? Will the outrage come too late … after this massive war bubble explodes in our faces?

Link

The Role of Israel in the Georgian War

Two airfields in southern Georgia had been earmarked for the use of Israeli military aircraft, intended to launch an attack on identified targets relating to Iranian atomic energy projects. This attack was approved by President Bush in an undertaking with the government of Israel signed in Washington, D.C., on July 4, 2006 it is now believed that the Russian special forces have captured, intact, a number of the Israeli drones and, far more important, their radio controlling equipment… , units of the Russian air force bombed the Israeli bases in central Georgia and in the area of the capital, Tbilisi. They also severely damaged the runways and service areas of the two Georgian airbases designed to launch Israeli sir force units in a sudden attack on Iran.

By this manner, Israel could claim that it had a very small number of IDF people in Georgia “mainly connected with our Embassy in Tiblisi.” The Russians, however, were not fooled by this and their own intelligence had pinpointed Israeli surveillance bases and when they went after the Georgians who invaded South Ossetia, units of the Russian air force bombed the Israeli bases in central Georgia and in the area of the capital, Tbilisi. They also severely damaged the runways and service areas of the two Georgian airbases designed to launch Israeli sir force units in a sudden attack on Iran.

Israel is currently a part of the Anglo-American military axis, which cooperates with the interests of the Western oil giants in the Middle East and Central Asia.

Israel is a partner in the Baku-Tblisi- Ceyhan pipeline which brings oil and gas to the Eastern Mediterranean. More than 20 percent of Israeli oil is imported from Azerbaijan, of which a large share transits through the BTC pipeline. Controlled by British Petroleum, the BTC pipeline has dramatically changed the geopolitics of the Eastern Mediterranean and the Caucusus:

“[The BTC pipeline] considerably changes the status of the region’s countries and cements a new pro-West alliance. Having taken the pipeline to the Mediterranean, Washington has practically set up a new bloc with Azerbaijan, Georgia, Turkey and Israel, ” (Komerzant, Moscow, 14 July 2006)

While the official reports state that the BTC pipeline will “channel oil to Western markets”, what is rarely acknowledged is that part of the oil from the Caspian sea would be directly channeled towards Israel, via Georgia. In this regard, an Israeli-Turkish pipeline project has also been envisaged which would link Ceyhan to the Israeli port of Ashkelon and from there through Israel’s main pipeline system, to the Red Sea.

The objective of Israel is not only to acquire Caspian sea oil for its own consumption needs but also to play a key role in re-exporting Caspian sea oil back to the Asian markets through the Red Sea port of Eilat. The strategic implications of this re-routing of Caspian sea oil are far-reaching

What has been planned, is to link the BTC pipeline to the Trans-Israel Eilat-Ashkelon pipeline, also known as Israel’s Tipline, from Ceyhan to the Israeli port of Ashkelon.

The Isreali unmanned surveillance drones

The unmanned Israeli clandestine surveillance drones are a favorite of intelligence agencies world-wide. Their most popular drone is the Hermes 450 drone aircraft.

The Hermes 450 is a large, capable 450 kg spy drone manufactured by Elbit Systems of Israel. Able to stay airborne for a maximum of 20 hours, it has a 10.5 metre wingspan and is 6.1 metres long. It can carry a variety of different surveillance packages, including the CoMPASS (Compact Multi-Purpose Advanced Stabilised System), which is a combined laser marker and infrared scanner.

Elbit also offers Hermes with the AN/ZPQ-1 TESAR (Tactical Endurance Synthetic Aperture Radar) from Northrop Grumman of the US, a ground-sweeping radar which can detect objects as small as one foot in size and pick out those which are moving from those which aren’t. Radars of this type are essential for full bad weather capability, and help a lot with scanning large areas of terrain. Electro-optical scanners such as CoMPASS tend to offer a “drink-straw” view of only small areas in detail. The TESAR is the same radar used in the hugely successful “Predator” drone, in service for several years now with the US forces.

The U.S. Army has a drone trainng school located at Ft. Huachuca, Arizona, an intelligence center located 10 miles from the Mexican border and the home of massive telephonic intelligence intercept units, aimed at Central and South America. At present there are 225 soldiers, reservists, and National Guardsmen training at this school. And on the faculty are three Israeli specialists. This unit is not destined for the middle east or even Pakistan; it has been set up to conduct surveillance of northern Mexico. There are two reasons for wanting to watch our southern neighbor. The first is to watch for great treks of illegal aliens but the second, and most important, is to conduct reconnaissance of territory over which American military units might be traversing in any punitive actions that could very, very well be triggered by the growing political instability in Mexico, caused by a growing struggle between the central government and the very powerful Mexican-based drug lords, who are wreaking havoc in that very corrupt country.

If a highly irate CIA employee, complaining of “excessive Israeli influence” in his agency, had not passed on files of information to the Russians late last year in Miami, in all probability, we would be reading about a stunning Israeli attack on Tehran. Now, the Iranian anti-aircraft missile batteries, supplied and manned by Russian “technicians,” have the probable coordinates of such an Israeli surprise attack, from the north, which would give the defenses of Tehran a vital heads-up.

———————————————–

This is a tale of US expansion not Russian aggression

War in the Caucasus is as much the product of an American imperial drive as local conflicts. It’s likely to be a taste of things to come

The Guardian

A couple of hours to the west, in the town of Senaki, it’s the same picture. A flagship military base, home to the Second Infantry Brigade, is in Russian hands. And down on the Black Sea coast, the radars and installations for Georgia’s sole naval base at Poti have been scrupulously pinpointed by the Russians and destroyed.

Gori and Senaki are not ramshackle relics of the old Red Army of the type that litter the landscape of eastern Europe. “These bases have only recently been upgraded to NATO standard,” said Matthew Clements, Eurasia analyst at Jane’s Information Group. “They have been operationally targeted to seriously degrade the Georgian military.”

“There is a presence of our armed forces near Gori and Senaki. We make no secret of it,” said the general staff in Moscow. “They are there to defuse an enormous arsenal of weapons and military hardware which have been discovered in the vicinity of Gori and Senaki without any guard whatsoever.”

The “enormous arsenals” are American-made or American-supplied. American money, know-how, planning, and equipment built these bases as part of Washington’s drive to bring NATO membership to a small country that is Russia’s underbelly.

The American “train and equip” mission for the Georgian military is six years old. It has been destroyed in as many days. And with it, Georgia’s NATO ambitions. “There are a few countries that will say ‘told you so’” about the need to get Georgia into NATO,” said Andrew Wilson, Russia expert at the European Council on Foreign Relations. “But many more will want to walk away from the problem. And for the next few years, Georgia will be far too busy trying to pick itself up.”

If Georgia and NATO are the principal casualties of this week’s ruthless display of brute power by Vladimir Putin, the consequences are bigger still, the fallout immense, if uncertain. The regional and the global balance of power looks to have tilted, against the west and in favour of the rising or resurgent players of the east.

In a seminal speech in Munich last year, Putin confidently warned the west that he would not tolerate the age of American hyperpower. Seven years in office at the time and at the height of his powers, he delivered his most anti-western tirade

As the Russian officers sat on the American stockpiles of machine guns, ammunition, and equipment in Gori, they were savouring a highly unusual scenario. Not since the Afghan war had the Russians seized vast caches of US weaponry. “People are sick to the stomach in Washington,” said a former Pentagon official. And the Russians are giddy with success.

Celebrating the biggest victory in eight years of what might be termed Putinism, the dogged pursuit by whatever means to avenge a long period of Russian humiliation and to deploy his limited range of levers – oil, gas, or brute force – to make the world listen to Moscow, the Russian prime minister has redrawn the geopolitical map.

In less than a week, Putin has invaded another country, effectively partitioned Georgia in a lightning campaign, weakened his arch-enemy, President Mikheil Saakashvili, divided the west, and presented a fait accompli. The impact – locally, regionally, and globally – is huge.

“The war in Georgia has put the European order in question,” said Alexander Rahr, one of Germany’s leading Russia experts and a Putin biographer. “The times are past when you can punish Russia.”

That seems to be the view among leading European policymakers who have been scrambling all week to arrange and shore up a fragile ceasefire, risking charges of appeasing the Kremlin.

“Don’t ask us who’s good and who’s bad here,” said Bernard Kouchner, the French foreign minister, after shuttling between Tbilisi and Moscow to try to halt the violence. “We shouldn’t make any moral judgments on this war. Stopping the war, that’s what we’re interested in.”

His boss, President Nicolas Sarkozy, went to the Kremlin to negotiate a ceasefire and parade as a peacemaker. Critics said he acted as Moscow’s messenger, noting Putin’s terms then taking them to Tbilisi to persuade Saakashvili to capitulate. Germany also refused to take sides while Italy warned against building an “anti-Moscow coalition”.

That contrasted with Gordon Brown’s and David Milliband’s talk of Russian “aggression” and Condoleezza Rice’s arrival in Tbilisi yesterday to rally “the free world behind a free Georgia”.

The effects of Putin’s coup are first felt locally and around Russia’s rim. “My view is that the Russians, and I would say principally prime minister Putin, is interested in reasserting Russia’s, not only Russia’s great power or superpower status, but in reasserting Russia’s traditional spheres of influence,” said Gates. “My guess is that everyone is going to be looking at Russia through a different set of lenses as we look ahead.”

In Kiev certainly. Ukraine’s pro-western prime minister, Viktor Yushchenko, Saaksahvili’s fellow colour-revolutionary, is chastened and wary. His firebrand anti-Russian prime minister, Yuliya Tymoshenko, has gone uncharacteristically quiet.

Invasion of the Ukraine?

“An invasion of Ukraine by ‘peacekeeping tanks’ is just a question of time,” wrote Aleksandr Sushko, director of Kiev’s Institute of Euro-Atlantic Cooperation. “Weimar Russia is completing its transformation into something else. If Russia wins this war, a new order will take shape in Europe which will have no place for Ukraine as a sovereign state.”

All around Russia’s rim, the former Soviet “captive states” are trembling. Even Belarus, the slavishly loyal “last dictatorship in Europe”, went strangely silent, taking days before the regime offered Moscow its support. “Everybody’s nervous,” said Wilson.

The EU states of the Baltic and Poland are drumming up support for Georgia, with the Polish president Lech Kaczynski declaring that Russia has revealed “its true face”. That divides the EU since the French and the Germans refuse to take sides and are scornful of east European “hysteria” towards Russia. Rahr in Berlin says the German and French governments are striving to keep the Poles and the Baltic states well away from any EU-led peace negotiations. It was the Germans and the French who, in April, blunted George Bush’s drive to get Georgia into NATO. They will also resist potential US moves to kick Russia out of the G8 or other international bodies.

There are many who argue that Putin’s gamble will backfire, that he has bitten off more than he can chew, that Russia remains weak, a “Saudi Arabia with trees” in the words of Robert Hunter, the former US ambassador to NATO.

Compared to the other rising powers of China, India or even Brazil – the companions referred to as the BRIC – Russia does indeed appear weak. Its economy struggles to develop goods or services, depends on raw material exports and on European consumption and the price of oil for its current wealth.

Resources

But Putin’s talent is for playing a weak hand well, maximising and concentrating his limited resources, and creating facts on the ground while the west dithers.

“There is a lack of a clear and unified European policy towards Russia,” said Clements. In the crucial contest over energy “the Russian strategy of keeping control of exports and supply is outpacing any European response”.

Putin may now calculate he can call off the dogs of war, having achieved his aims and able to pocket his gains very cheaply. The Georgia campaign becomes the triumphant climax of Putinism.

“In politics, it is very important to know one’s measure,” wrote Aleksey Arbatov, director of Moscow’s International Security Centre. “If Russia continues to inflict strikes on Georgian territory, on facilities, on population centres, we may lose the moral supremacy we have today.”

But Wilson and many in eastern Europe worry that rather than being the climax of Putinism, the Russians in Georgia signal the start of something else. “This may not be a culmination, but only step one,” said Wilson. “If you don’t stop this kind of behaviour, it escalates.”

Arab world sees Bush’s response to Georgia-Russia crisis as hypocritical

The U.S. president should be ‘too ashamed to speak about the occupation of any country, he is already occupying one,’ one observer says.

By Jeffrey Fleishman, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer 

CAIRO — President Bush’s condemnation of Russia as a bullying intimidator in the Georgian conflict struck a hypocritical note in a Middle East that has endured violent reverberations from the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, and where the sharp White House rhetoric against Moscow echoes what many Arabs feel in turn about the U.S.

Many in the region are angered by what they see as the president’s swaggering style and frequent veiled threats of military force. His administration has been accused of alienating Muslims and instigating turmoil in a misguided war on terrorism.

Now Bush’s spirited criticism of Russia’s invasion of neighboring Georgia has raised derisive smirks among Arab commentators, who say the U.S. president is condemning the same power politics he practices.

Bush should be “too ashamed to speak about the occupation of any country, he is already occupying one,” said Mohammed Sayed Said, editor in chief of the Egyptian independent daily Al Badeel. “U.S. forces have been in Iraq for five years and they still fight in an unacceptable manner that violates human rights conventions. Bush had better talk about his own occupation of Iraq.”

Bitterness and suspicion toward Washington are easily summoned, from Cairo to Beirut to Baghdad. The Iraq war, the sense of drift over the Palestinian question, and Washington’s perceived failure to pay more than lip-service to promoting democracy and human rights have all undermined American standing.

The conflict in Georgia is Russia’s largest military engagement outside its borders since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. Read more > > >

• Comparative size of Russian, Georgian armed forces
Details of how Georgian and Russian armed forces compare. Read more > > >

• Complete coverage of the Conflict in the Caucasus • Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili helped oust former Soviet Foreign Minister and Georgian President Eduard Shevardnadze in the 2003 to became Europe’s youngest leader.

• Russian President Dmitry Medvedev is the 3rd and current president of Russia. He won the presidential election held on March 2, 2008 with about 70% of the vote.

• Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, an intelligence officer and politician, served as the country’s president from 1999 to 2008.

It is also widely noted here that Washington stood by uncritically during Israel’s military incursion into southern Lebanon in its 2006 war with Hezbollah.

So when Bush declared Friday that “bullying and intimidation are not acceptable ways to conduct foreign policy in the 21st century,” many dismissed his statement as a double standard.

“The U.S. administration is stumbling in the Middle East without considering any horizons for the future,” said Sateh Noureddine, political analyst and columnist at the Lebanese daily As Safir. “It is totally obsessed with the idea of its war against terrorism and this makes it lose even in the simplest political sense.

“The U.S. administration has done more harm to its allies in Georgia and the Middle East than to its enemies.”

But the Arab view is not solely driven by what goes on in the region. Some see a game of disingenuous revisionism in the administration’s backing of an independent ethnic-Albanian Kosovo — part of Serbia until this year — and its anger at Russia for sending troops into the Georgian separatist regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Moscow says its tanks and battalions entered the former Soviet republic to stop atrocities committed by Georgian troops and paramilitaries against Russian sympathizers.

“Bush did not realize that by intervening heavily in other countries’ affairs, he would give the same right to other players,” said Gamal Abdel Gawad, an analyst with Al Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies in Cairo. “The U.S. had no problem to interfere and separate provinces from bigger states like it did with Kosovo.

“This is exactly what Russia is doing now: intervening to prevent the annexation of certain provinces to Georgia. Russia is using the same logic that the U.S. used.”

Others have a nuanced view of Bush’s motivations. Iraqi Deputy Foreign Minister Labeed Abbawi said there was no comparison between Russia’s actions in Georgia and the U.S. assault on his country.

“In Iraq we were dealing with a fascist government, which was hated by all Iraqis because of the suffering that was inflicted on them,” he said. “Saddam Hussein’s regime threatened regional stability and made war with neighboring countries.”

But the prevailing street-level opinion is simply that this is how big powers behave, with Russia acting the same way the U.S. would.

“Why should Bush care what Russia does to Georgia unless he or his administration has an interest in the issue to start with?” said Mohammed Abdullah, an Iraqi electrician. “The news is saying that the Americans trained the Georgians and apparently wanted them to join NATO. I can’t blame the Russians for doing what they’re doing. There’s a threat in their immediate vicinity and they decided to take care of it.

“What would the United States do if suddenly Mexico became an Iranian or Russian ally? They’d crush every last Mexican one way or another.”

jeffrey.fleishman

Link

The American Military Crisis

All you really need to know is that, at Robert Gates’ Pentagon, they’re still high on the term “the Long War.” It’s a phrase that first crept into our official vocabulary back in 2002 but was popularized by CENTCOM commander John Abizaid in 2004 – already a fairly long (war-)time ago. Now, Secretary of Defense Gates himself is plugging the term, as he did in April at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, quoting no less an authority than Leon Trotsky:

“What has been called the Long War is likely to be many years of persistent, engaged combat all around the world in differing degrees of size and intensity. This generational campaign cannot be wished away or put on a timetable. There are no exit strategies. To paraphrase the Bolshevik Leon Trotsky, we may not be interested in the Long War, but the Long War is interested in us.”

The Long War has also made it front and center in the new “national defense strategy,” which is essentially a call to prepare for a future of two, three, many Afghanistans. (“For the foreseeable future, winning the Long War against violent extremist movements will be the central objective of the U.S.”) If you thought for a moment that in the next presidency some portion of those many billions of dollars now being sucked into the black holes of Iraq and Afghanistan was about to go into rebuilding American infrastructure or some other frivolous task, think again. Just read between the lines of that new national defense strategy document where funding for future conventional wars against “rising powers” is to be maintained, while funding for “irregular warfare” is to rise. The Pentagonization of the U.S., in other words, shows no sign of slowing down. Here, by the way, is the emphasis in the new Gates Doctrine – from a recent Pentagon briefing by the secretary of defense – that should make us all worry. “The principal challenge, therefore, is how to ensure that the capabilities gained and counterinsurgency lessons learned from Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as the lessons relearned from other places where we have engaged in irregular warfare over the last two decades, are institutionalized within the defense establishment.” Back to the future?

And here’s a riddle for our moment: How long is a Long War, when you’ve been there before (as were, in the case of Afghanistan, Alexander the Great, the imperial Brits, and the Soviets)? On the illusions of victory and the many miscalculations of the Bush administration when it came to the nature of American military power, no one in recent years has been more incisive than Andrew Bacevich, who experienced an earlier version of the Long War firsthand in Vietnam. His new book, The Limits of Power: The End of American Exceptionalism, has just been published. Short, sharp, to the point, it should be the book of the election season, if only anyone in power, or who might come to power, were listening. (The following piece, the first of two parts this week at TomDispatch, is adapted from section three of that book, “The Military Crisis.”) But if you want the measure of our strange, dystopian moment, Barack Obama reportedly has a team of 300 foreign policy advisers – just about everyone ever found, however brain-dead, in a Democratic presidential rolodex – and yet Bacevich’s name isn’t among them. What else do we need to know? Tom

Illusions of Victory

How the United States did not reinvent war… but thought it did
by Andrew Bacevich

“War is the great auditor of institutions,” the historian Corelli Barnett once observed. Since 9/11, the United States has undergone such an audit and been found wanting. That adverse judgment applies in full to America’s armed forces.

Valor does not offer the measure of an army’s greatness, nor does fortitude, nor durability, nor technological sophistication. A great army is one that accomplishes its assigned mission. Since George W. Bush inaugurated his global war on terror, the armed forces of the United States have failed to meet that standard.

In the aftermath of Sept. 11, 2001, Bush conceived of a bold, offensive strategy, vowing to “take the battle to the enemy, disrupt his plans, and confront the worst threats before they emerge.” The military offered the principal means for undertaking this offensive, and U.S. forces soon found themselves engaged on several fronts.

Two of those fronts –- Afghanistan and Iraq – commanded priority attention. In each case, the assigned task was to deliver a knockout blow, leading to a quick, decisive, economical, politically meaningful victory. In each case, despite impressive displays of valor, fortitude, durability, and technological sophistication, America’s military came up short. The problem lay not with the level of exertion but with the results achieved.

In Afghanistan, U.S. forces failed to eliminate the leadership of al-Qaeda. Although they toppled the Taliban regime that had ruled most of that country, they failed to eliminate the Taliban movement, which soon began to claw its way back. Intended as a brief campaign, the Afghan War became a protracted one. Nearly seven years after it began, there is no end in sight. If anything, America’s adversaries are gaining strength. The outcome remains much in doubt.

In Iraq, events followed a similar pattern, with the appearance of easy success belied by subsequent developments. The U.S. invasion began on March 19, 2003. Six weeks later, against the backdrop of a White House-produced banner proclaiming “Mission Accomplished,” President Bush declared that “major combat operations in Iraq have ended.” This claim proved illusory.

Writing shortly after the fall of Baghdad, the influential neoconservatives David Frum and Richard Perle declared Operation Iraqi Freedom “a vivid and compelling demonstration of America’s ability to win swift and total victory.” Gen. Tommy Franks, commanding the force that invaded Iraq, modestly characterized the results of his handiwork as “unequaled in its excellence by anything in the annals of war.” In retrospect, such judgments – and they were legion – can only be considered risible. A war thought to have ended on April 9, 2003, in Baghdad’s al-Firdos Square was only just beginning. Fighting dragged on for years, exacting a cruel toll. Iraq became a reprise of Vietnam, although in some respects at least on a blessedly smaller scale.

A New American Way of War?

It wasn’t supposed to be this way. Just a few short years ago, observers were proclaiming that the United States possessed military power such as the world had never seen. Here was the nation’s strong suit. “The troops” appeared unbeatable. Writing in 2002, for example, Max Boot, a well-known commentator on military matters, attributed to the United States a level of martial excellence “that far surpasses the capabilities of such previous would-be hegemons as Rome, Britain, and Napoleonic France.” With U.S. forces enjoying “unparalleled strength in every facet of warfare,” allies, he wrote, had become an encumbrance: “We just don’t need anyone else’s help very much.”

Boot dubbed this the Doctrine of the Big Enchilada. Within a year, after U.S. troops had occupied Baghdad, he went further: America’s army even outclassed Germany’s Wehrmacht. The mastery displayed in knocking off Saddam, Boot gushed, made “fabled generals such as Erwin Rommel and Heinz Guderian seem positively incompetent by comparison.”

All of this turned out to be hot air. If the global war on terror has produced one undeniable conclusion, it is this: Estimates of U.S. military capabilities have turned out to be wildly overstated. The Bush administration’s misplaced confidence in the efficacy of American arms represents a strategic misjudgment that has cost the country dearly. Even in an age of stealth, precision weapons, and instant communications, armed force is not a panacea. Even in a supposedly unipolar era, American military power turns out to be quite limited.

How did it happen that Americans so utterly overappraised the utility of military power? The answer to that question lies at the intersection of three great illusions.

According to the first illusion, the United States during the 1980s and 1990s had succeeded in reinventing armed conflict. The result was to make force more precise, more discriminating, and potentially more humane. The Pentagon had devised a new American Way of War, investing its forces with capabilities unlike any the world had ever seen. As President Bush exuberantly declared shortly after the fall of Baghdad in April 2003, “We’ve applied the new powers of technology … to strike an enemy force with speed and incredible precision. By a combination of creative strategies and advanced technologies, we are redefining war on our terms. In this new era of warfare, we can target a regime, not a nation.”

The distinction between regime and nation was a crucial one. By employing these new military techniques, the United States could eliminate an obstreperous foreign leader and his cronies, while sparing the population over which that leader ruled. Putting a missile through the roof of a presidential palace made it unnecessary to incinerate an entire capital city, endowing force with hitherto undreamed-of political utility and easing ancient moral inhibitions on the use of force. Force had been a club; it now became a scalpel. By the time the president spoke, such sentiments had already become commonplace among many (although by no means all) military officers and national security experts.

Here lay a formula for certain victory. Confidence in military prowess both reflected and reinforced a post-Cold War confidence in the universality of American values. Harnessed together, they made a seemingly unstoppable one-two punch.

With that combination came expanded ambitions. In the 1990s, the very purpose of the Department of Defense changed. Sustaining American global preeminence, rather than mere national security, became its explicit function. In the most comprehensive articulation of this new American Way of War, the Joint Chiefs of Staff committed the armed services to achieving what they called “full-spectrum dominance” – unambiguous supremacy in all forms of warfare, to be achieved by tapping the potential of two “enablers” – “technological innovation and information superiority.”

Full-spectrum dominance stood in relation to military affairs as the political scientist Francis Fukuyama’s well-known proclamation of “the end of history” stood in relation to ideology: Each claimed to have unlocked ultimate truths. According to Fukuyama, democratic capitalism represented the final stage in political economic evolution. According to the proponents of full-spectrum dominance, that concept represented the final stage in the evolution of modern warfare. In their first days and weeks, the successive invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq both seemed to affirm such claims.

How Not to “Support the Troops”

According to the second illusion, American civilian and military leaders subscribed to a common set of principles for employing their now-dominant forces. Adherence to these principles promised to prevent any recurrence of the sort of disaster that had befallen the nation in Vietnam. If politicians went off half-cocked, as President Lyndon Johnson and Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara had back in the 1960s, generals who had correctly discerned and assimilated the lessons of modern war could be counted on to rein them in.

These principles found authoritative expression in the Weinberger-Powell Doctrine, which specified criteria for deciding when and how to use force. Caspar Weinberger, secretary of defense during most of the Reagan era, first articulated these principles in 1984. Gen. Colin Powell, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the early 1990s, expanded on them. Yet the doctrine’s real authors were the members of the post-Vietnam officer corps. The Weinberger-Powell principles expressed the military’s own lessons taken from that war. Those principles also expressed the determination of senior officers to prevent any recurrence of Vietnam.

Henceforth, according to Weinberger and Powell, the United States would fight only when genuinely vital interests were at stake. It would do so in pursuit of concrete and attainable objectives. It would mobilize the necessary resources – political and moral as well as material – to win promptly and decisively. It would end conflicts expeditiously and then get out, leaving no loose ends. The spirit of the Weinberger-Powell Doctrine was not permissive; its purpose was to curb the reckless or imprudent inclinations of bellicose civilians.

According to the third illusion, the military and American society had successfully patched up the differences that produced something akin to divorce during the divisive Vietnam years. By the 1990s, a reconciliation of sorts was under way. In the wake of Operation Desert Storm, “the American people fell in love again with their armed forces.” So, at least, Gen. Colin Powell, one of that war’s great heroes, believed. Out of this love affair a new civil-military compact had evolved, one based on the confidence that, in times of duress, Americans could be counted on to “support the troops.” Never again would the nation abandon its soldiers.

The all-volunteer force (AVF) – despite its name, a professional military establishment – represented the chief manifestation of this new compact. By the 1990s, Americans were celebrating the AVF as the one component of the federal government that actually worked as advertised. The AVF embodied the nation’s claim to the status of sole superpower; it was “America’s Team.” In the wake of the Cold War, the AVF sustained the global Pax Americana without interfering with the average American’s pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness. What was not to like?

Events since 9/11 have exposed these three illusions for what they were. When tested, the new American Way of War yielded more glitter than gold. The generals and admirals who touted the wonders of full spectrum dominance were guilty of flagrant professional malpractice, if not outright fraud. To judge by the record of the past twenty years, U.S. forces win decisively only when the enemy obligingly fights on American terms – and Saddam Hussein’s demise has drastically reduced the likelihood of finding such accommodating adversaries in the future. As for loose ends, from Somalia to the Balkans, from Central Asia to the Persian Gulf, they have been endemic.

When it came to the Weinberger-Powell Doctrine, civilian willingness to conform to its provisions proved to be highly contingent. Confronting Powell in 1993, Madeleine Albright famously demanded to know, “What’s the point of having this superb military that you’re always talking about, if we can’t use it?” Mesmerized by the prospects of putting American soldiers to work to alleviate the world’s ills, Albright soon enough got her way. An odd alliance that combined left-leaning do-gooders with jingoistic politicians and pundits succeeded in chipping away at constraints on the use of force. “Humanitarian intervention” became all the rage. Whatever restraining influence the generals exercised during the 1990s did not survive that decade. Lessons of Vietnam that had once seemed indelible were forgotten.

Meanwhile, the reconciliation of the people and the army turned out to be a chimera. When the chips were down, “supporting the troops” elicited plenty of posturing but little by way of binding commitments. Far from producing a stampede of eager recruits keen to don a uniform, the events of 9/11 reaffirmed a widespread popular preference for hiring someone else’s kid to chase terrorists, spread democracy, and ensure access to the world’s energy reserves.

In the midst of a global war of ostensibly earthshaking importance, Americans demonstrated a greater affinity for their hometown sports heroes than for the soldiers defending the distant precincts of the American imperium. Tom Brady makes millions playing quarterback in the NFL and rakes in millions more from endorsements. Pat Tillman quit professional football to become an army ranger and was killed in Afghanistan. Yet, of the two, Brady more fully embodies the contemporary understanding of the term patriot.

Demolishing the Doctrine of the Big Enchilada

While they persisted, however, these three illusions fostered gaudy expectations about the efficacy of American military might. Every president since Ronald Reagan has endorsed these expectations. Every president since Reagan has exploited his role as commander in chief to expand on the imperial prerogatives of his office. Each has also relied on military power to conceal or manage problems that stemmed from the nation’s habits of profligacy.

In the wake of 9/11, these puerile expectations – that armed force wielded by a strong-willed chief executive could do just about anything – reached an apotheosis of sorts. Having manifestly failed to anticipate or prevent a devastating attack on American soil, President Bush proceeded to use his ensuing global war on terror as a pretext for advancing grandiose new military ambitions married to claims of unbounded executive authority – all under the guise of keeping Americans “safe.”

With the president denying any connection between the events of Sept. 11 and past U.S. policies, his declaration of a global war nipped in the bud whatever inclination the public might have entertained to reconsider those policies. In essence, Bush counted on war both to concentrate greater power in his own hands and to divert attention from the political, economic, and cultural bind in which the United States found itself as a result of its own past behavior.

As long as U.S. forces sustained their reputation for invincibility, it remained possible to pretend that the constitutional order and the American way of life were in good health. The concept of waging an open-ended global campaign to eliminate terrorism retained a modicum of plausibility. After all, how could anyone or anything stop the unstoppable American soldier?

Call that reputation into question, however, and everything else unravels. This is what occurred when the Iraq War went sour. The ills afflicting our political system, including a deeply irresponsible Congress, broken national security institutions, and above all an imperial commander in chief not up to the job, became all but impossible to ignore. So, too, did the self-destructive elements inherent in the American way of life – especially an increasingly costly addiction to foreign oil, universally deplored and almost as universally indulged. More noteworthy still, the prospect of waging war on a global scale for decades, if not generations, became preposterous.

To anyone with eyes to see, the events of the past seven years have demolished the Doctrine of the Big Enchilada. A gung-ho journalist like Robert Kaplan might still believe that, with the dawn of the 21st century, the Pentagon had “appropriated the entire earth, and was ready to flood the most obscure areas of it with troops at a moment’s notice,” that planet Earth in its entirety had become “battle space for the American military.” Yet any buck sergeant of even middling intelligence knew better than to buy such claptrap.

With the Afghanistan War well into its seventh year and the Iraq War marking its fifth anniversary, a commentator like Michael Barone might express absolute certainty that “just about no mission is impossible for the United States military.” But Barone was not facing the prospect of being ordered back to the war zone for his second or third combat tour.

Between what President Bush called upon America’s soldiers to do and what they were capable of doing loomed a huge gap that defines the military crisis besetting the United States today. For a nation accustomed to seeing military power as its trump card, the implications of that gap are monumental.

Andrew Bacevich, professor of history and international relations at Boston University, retired from the U.S. Army with the rank of colonel. This piece is adapted from his new book, The Limits of Power: The End of American Exceptionalism (Metropolitan Books, 2008). He is also the author of The New American Militarism, among other books. His writing has appeared in Foreign Affairs, the Atlantic Monthly, the Nation, the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, and the Wall Street Journal.

http://www.antiwar.com/engelhardt/?articleid=13289

How 888 Is Beating 666

By Benjamin Fulford

Historians are certain to write that 2008 08 08 was the date when Western rule of the world came to an end.

The Beijing Olympic opening ceremonies were attended by 80 heads of state and watched by 4 billion people. This ceremony formalized a transition that is already a statistical reality, The West controls 40% of world GDP and 17% of the world’s population. Asia now accounts for a fast growing 40% share of world GDP , 63% of global financial assets and 65% of the world’s population., In addition China is about to end the US’s 100 year rule as the worlds largest manufacturing nation.

More important than these statistics, however, is the moral dimension. The G8 summit held this July in Japan was proof of how far the West has fallen from its former position as a moral beacon for the world. If you read the transcripts of the press conferences held by the 22 world leaders who were at that summit, you will see that the Zionist controlled nations: Canada, Germany, the US, England and France have become isolated from the rest of humanity. World leaders were disgusted to hear of the suppressed World Bank report that proved these countries were subsidizing world starvation by paying farmers to grow fuel instead of food.

Furthermore, the world now is fully aware that it is the Zionist powers who are responsible for almost all terrorism in the world. The world knows the Taleban, Al CIA Duh, the Tibetan “freedom fighters” etc. are funded and set up by the petroleum and military lobbies that control the West.

The cornered Zionists are now trying, in their last desperate ploy, to start WW3. They are hoping to provoke a war with Iran and get Russia and China involved. However, the people of the world know that no matter how brainwashed the Western majority may be, they are not brainwashed enough to start a war that could kill billions on behalf of a few thousand plutocrats. Furthermore, China and Russia are not stupid enough to fall into the Zionist trap in Iran.

This is not how a transition from Western elite rule to rule by the human majority was supposed to be. It is not too late for the West to marshal all its resources for a massive campaign to end environmental destruction, poverty and war before handing over a pristine planet to the future generations of humanity.

We must not let the cornered beasts have any excuse to carry out their planned genocide. They suffer from collective insanity and so we need to help them escape from their nightmare reality of eternal warfare, disease, starvation and mass slavery. The West must show the world what it is really made of. It is now or never.

Benjamin Fulford

If we are honest about who is actually murdering and abusing

people, it is the US, Israel, and the UK.

There’s your “axis of evil“

By Paul Craig Roberts

Now that military officers selected by the Bush Pentagon have reached a split verdict convicting Salim Hamdan, a onetime driver for Osama bin Laden, of supporting terrorism, but innocent of terrorist conspiracy, do you feel safe?

Or are we superpower Americans still at risk until we capture bin Laden’s dentist, barber, and the person who installed the carpet in his living room?

The Bush Regime with its comic huffings and puffings is unaware that it has made itself the laughing stock of the world, a comedy version of the Third Reich.

Hamdan was not defended by the slick lawyers who got O.J. Simpson off, and he most certainly did not have a jury of his peers. Hamdan was defended by a Pentagon appointed US Navy officer, and his jurors were all Pentagon appointed US military officers with an eye on their careers. Even in this Kangaroo Court, Hamdan was cleared of the main charge.

The US Navy officer who was Hamdan’s appointed attorney is certainly no terrorist sympathizer. Yet even this United States officer said that the rules Bush designed for the military tribunals were designed to achieve convictions. He also said that the judge allowed evidence that would not have been admitted by any civilian or military US court. He said that the interrogations of Hamdan, which comprised the basis of the Bush Regime’s case, were tainted by coercive tactics, including sleep deprivation and solitary confinement. Split verdict in first Guantanamo war-crimes trial, AP, August 6, 2008

Does this make you a proud American?

Do you think you are made more safe when you stand there while “your” government implements its own version of Joseph Stalin’s show trials?

The trial and conviction of Hamdan has made every American very unsafe.

The one certain fact about US law is that it is expanded until it applies to everyone. Consider RICO, for example, the asset freeze law that was intended only in criminal cases involving the Mafia; it wasn’t long before RICO found its way into civil divorce proceedings.

Bush’s multi-year, multi-billion dollar “War on Terror” has been reduced to railroading a low level employee, a driver, for “terrorism.”

One would hope that the Hamdan verdict would be enough shame and ridicule for the US in one day. But no, Bush didn’t stop there. On his way to the Beijing Olympics, President Bush expressed “deep concerns” for the state of human rights in China.

But not in Guantanamo, nor in Abu Ghraib, nor in the CIA’s torture dungeons used for “renditions,” nor in Iraq and Afghanistan where the US is expert at bombing weddings, funerals, children’s soccer games, and every assortment of civilians imaginable.

As the good book says, clean the beam from your own eye before pointing to the mote in your brother’s eye.

But Americans, the salt of the earth, have neither beams nor motes. We are the virtuous few, ordained by God to impose our hegemony on the world. It is written, or so say the neocons.

What would President Bush say if, heaven forbid, the Chinese were as rude as he is and asked Mr. Superpower why the land of “freedom and democracy” has one million names on a watch list. China with a population four times as large doesn’t have a watch list with one million names.

What would President Bush say if China asked him why the US, with a population one-fourth the size of China’s has hundreds of thousands more of its citizens in prison? The percentage of Americans in prison is far higher than in China and is a larger absolute number.

What would President Bush say if China asked him why he used lies and deception to justify his invasion of Iraq. China, unlike Bush, is not responsible for 1.2 million dead Iraqis and 4 million displaced Iraqis.

China’s human rights policy is not perfect. China’s greatest human rights failing is that China is the Bush Regime’s prime enabler of its war crimes and human rights abuses in Iraq and Afghanistan. By financing Bush’s budget deficit, China is financing Bush’s gratuitous wars. Indeed, China can be said to finance the weaponry that the US gives Israel to enable the suppression of the Palestinians and with which to bomb the civilian population of Lebanon.

China is a serious human rights abuser, because China is complicit in Bush’s human rights abuses.

If we are honest about who is actually murdering and abusing people, it is the US, Israel, and the UK. There’s your “axis of evil.”

Paul Craig Roberts email him was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury

http://www.vdare.com/roberts/080806_war.htm

Iran ends cooperation with UN nuclear arms probe 

GEORGE JAHN
AP News 

Iran signaled Thursday that it will no longer cooperate with U.N. experts probing for signs of clandestine nuclear weapons work, confirming the investigation is at a dead end a year after it began.

The announcement from Iranian Vice President Gholam Reza Aghazadeh compounded skepticism about denting Tehran’s nuclear defiance, just five days after Tehran stonewalled demands from six world powers that it halt activities capable of producing the fissile core of warheads.

Besides demanding a suspension of uranium enrichment — a process that can create both fuel for nuclear reactors and payloads for atomic bombs — the six powers have been pressing Tehran to cooperate with the International Atomic Energy Agency’s probe.

Iran, which is obligated as a signer of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty not to develop nuclear arms, raised suspicions about its intentions when it admitted in 2002 that it had run a secret nuclear program for nearly two decades in violation of its commitment.

The Tehran regime insists it halted such work and is now only trying to produce fuel for nuclear reactors to generate electricity. It agreed on a “work plan” with the Vienna-based IAEA a year ago for U.N. inspectors to look into allegations Iran is still doing weapons work.

At the time, IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei hailed it as “a significant step forward” that would fill in the missing pieces of Tehran’s nuclear jigsaw puzzle — if honored by Iran. He brushed aside suggestions Iran was using the deal as a smoke screen to deflect attention from its continued defiance of a U.N. Security Council demand for a halt to uranium enrichment.

The investigation ran into trouble just months after being launched. Deadline after deadline was extended because of Iranian foot-dragging. The probe, originally meant to be completed late last year, spilled into the first months of 2008, and beyond.

Iran remains defiant. It dismisses as fabricated the evidence supplied by the U.S. and other members of the IAEA’s governing board purportedly backing allegations that Iranians continue to work on nuclear weapons.

Officials say that among the evidence given to the IAEA are what seem to be Iranian draft plans to refit missiles with nuclear warheads; explosives tests that could be used to develop a nuclear detonator; and a drawing showing how to mold uranium metal into the shape of warheads. There are also questions about links between Iran’s military and civilian nuclear facilities.

On Thursday, Aghazadeh appeared to signal that his country was no longer prepared even to discuss the issue with the IAEA.

Investigating such allegations “is outside the domain of the agency,” he said after meeting with ElBaradei. Any further queries on the issue “will be dealt with in another way,” he said, without going into detail.

Britain, one of those suspicious of Iran’s nuclear activities, was critical.

“We are concerned by reports that Iran is refusing to cooperate with the IAEA on allegations over nuclear weapons,” the British Foreign Office said in a statement. “The IAEA has raised serious concerns over Iran’s activities with a possible military dimension. If Iran is serious about restoring international confidence in its intentions, it must address these issues.”

The IAEA asked in vain for explanations from Iran, and its last report in May said Iran might be withholding information on whether it tried to make nuclear arms. Reflecting ElBaradei’s frustration, the report used language described by one senior U.N. official as unique in its direct criticism of Tehran.

Aghazadeh’s comments Thursday appeared to jibe with those of diplomats familiar with the probe who told The Associated Press that the IAEA had run into a dead end.

A senior diplomat on Thursday attributed Tehran’s intransigence in part to anger over a multimedia presentation by IAEA Deputy Director-General Olli Heinonen to the agency’s 35 board members based on intelligence about the alleged weapons work. The diplomat, like others, agreed to discuss the matter only if not quoted by name because his information was confidential.

Tehran dismisses the suspicions of the U.S. and allies, and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Wednesday again vowed that his country would not “retreat one iota” from pursuing uranium enrichment.

On Saturday, a U.S. diplomat had participated in talks with Iran held in Geneva, raising expectations that a compromise might be reached under which Iran would agree to temporarily stop expansion of enrichment activities. In exchange, the six world powers — the U.S., Germany, Britain, France, Russia and China — would hold off on adopting new U.N. sanctions against Iran.

But participants at Geneva said Iranian negotiators skirted the freeze issue despite the presence of U.S. Undersecretary of State William Burns.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on Monday accused Iran of not being serious at the Geneva talks. She warned that all six nations were serious about a two-week deadline for Iran to agree to freeze suspect activities and start negotiations or else be hit with a fourth set of U.N. penalties.

Aghazadeh, who is also head of Iran’s atomic agency, played down the international complaints, but he also evaded a direct answer on whether Tehran would give any ground on an enrichment freeze.

“Both sides are carefully studying the concerns and expectations of both sides,” he told reporters.

___

http://wiredispatch.com/news/?id=266738

Iran Isolation Attempts Backfire

by Hannes Artens

Iran’s provocative missile tests 10 days ago again fueled the debate on the likelihood of aerial strikes against Iran. Since last week’s thaw, however, an attack on Iran by the end of President Bush’s tenure no longer appears in the offing. Moreover, the narrow, exclusively military focus of the debate misses the broader picture. The overall U.S. strategy of containing Iran has failed in principle. And the attempt to impose a sanctions regime on Iran has led to an erosion of U.S. strategic influence in Asia and the Middle East. Over the long term, Washington’s shortsighted containment policy will only hurt Western business in the region. It will also play into the hands of China, drive crucial allies away, and render Iran untouchable.

At the eleventh hour, even the Bush administration seems to have realized, albeit in a limited way, the inherent failure of the containment approach. In an important about-face, the White House not only agreed to direct talks between U.S. and Iranian officials in Geneva this weekend but also held out the prospect of soon opening an American interest section in Tehran. This sea change suggests that the realists around Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates have finally gained the upper hand over the faction around Vice President Dick Cheney in the intra-administration feud. The reversal also acknowledges that the dual approach of sanctions and military threats has produced nothing but America’s own isolation. The far-reaching repercussions of these counterproductive sanctions against Iran and America’s increasing isolation in Asia are best illustrated by this month’s breakthrough on the Iran-Pakistan-India pipeline.

The Iran-Pakistan-India pipeline (IPI) is a $7.5 billion project designed to supply Indian mega-cities with natural gas from Iran’s Persian Gulf fields via a 1,700-mile-long pipeline across Pakistan. The project has been repudiated and boycotted by one project partner or the other uncounted times since its conceptualization. But on July 3, Indian Oil Minister Murli Deora affirmed on the sidelines of the World Petroleum Congress in Madrid that India expects to finally sign the deal next month. This long-time-in-coming breakthrough constitutes a crucial step toward energy security for India.

For the United States, on the other hand, it deals a resounding blow to the fragile international sanctions front the Bush administration has crafted to contain Iran. What is more, with China keen on joining the project, a new geo-strategic axis – Tehran-Islamabad-New Delhi-Beijing – is about to emerge. This axis will radically reshuffle the power structure in Asia and, with it, the global balance of power.

Despite the Cheney faction’s saber-rattling, the Bush administration has banked on economic sanctions strangling investment and beating a technology-dependent Tehran into submission. This strategy of tightening the economic corset choking Iran and thus forcing it to renounce its nuclear ambitions, however, has isolated the United States and its allies more than Iran. For the time being, Washington has succeeded in cajoling French Total SA, Anglo-Dutch Shell, and Spanish Repsol to withdraw their bids to exploit the Iranian South Pars field, the world’s largest gas field, and the EU approved freezing the assets of a major state-owned Iranian retail bank, Bank Melli, last month.

But Iran’s countermeasures have been in the works for quite a while. After all, the country has long suffered from the effects of sanctions and the reluctance of Western companies to invest in its energy sector. So it has increasingly looked eastward for new financiers and partners. The most striking example is Iran’s March 24 bid for membership in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), the Central Asian security group dominated by Russia and China.

This new “looking east” – negahe be shargh – policy concept is the brainchild of Bangalore-educated Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki. While an Iranian SCO membership is still in the future, Asian dominance over the Iranian market is a current reality. China already ranks as the number-one foreign investor in Iran. Malaysian Petronas and LG Korea feature prominently in the exploitation of South Pars. The new IPI would be a final nail in the coffin of the sanctions regime.

The United States has fought hard against the new pipeline linking Iran, India, and Pakistan. As recently as July 15, Senators Christopher Dodd (D-Conn.) and Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) threatened to strengthen the Iran and Libya Sanctions Act of 1996 that allows for the litigation of foreign firms investing in sanctionable business in Iran – a clear warning signal to India. Meanwhile, since the three countries could not bear the projected costs of $7.5 billion on their own, Washington has also used its considerable influence at the World Bank in the person of former president Paul Wolfowitz. He bluntly informed Pakistan that the bank would not allow any international institution to finance the project.

In its attempts to destabilize Iran and disrupt the possible route of the pipeline, the United States is allegedly supporting Jundallah. This militant insurgency in the Iranian Sistan and Balochistan province has suspected links to the Taliban and the Baloch Liberation Army (BLA), which has been fighting a guerilla war against the Pakistani army since 2000. This clandestine Baloch connection – recently exposed by Seymour Hersh in The New Yorker – undermines America’s fragile, always-on-the-brink-of-a-coup ally Pakistan. Washington is also pushing for the alternative of a Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India pipeline (TAPI), the construction bids for which, as a side benefit, would go to U.S. companies. This alternative scheme is strikingly similar to the pipeline deal Unocal struck with the Taliban in 1996.

U.S. obstruction is not the only problem facing the IPI project. Iran is asking for a lot of money; India and Pakistan have notorious difficulty cooperating. But this cluster of American threats and coercion proved until recently to be pivotal in preventing the project from getting off the ground. Former Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns cited preventing IPI as one of his greatest accomplishments at a conference at Harvard University in March.

India, however, desperately needs energy for its growing economy. And it will risk its relationship with the United States to get this energy. Moreover, its heavily subsidized low gas prices are no longer sustainable, especially now before an election year. After all, with oil around $140 per barrel and a global recession looming on the horizon, the United States no longer has the ability to pressure countries to sever energy ties with Iran, as it did when a fire-breathing John Bolton forced Japan to withdraw its bid to exploit the Iranian Azadegan oil field. It is now every country for itself in the new energy environment.

Despite U.S. opposition, then, the IPI pipeline is back on line. The last commercial difficulties between Pakistan and India concerning transit fees have been cleared away, and only minor technical details remain for a trilateral meeting in Tehran scheduled for the coming weeks. If an agreement is reached this summer, construction could commence in 2009 and be completed by 2012. Pakistan is eager to expand its new role as the energy corridor of the future. It expects an annual $600 million in transportation fees from IPI and is vigorously politicking for China to join the project in order to increase those revenues. Until Indian consent was secured, Pakistan used the Chinese wild card as a bargaining tool to force a wavering India’s hand. But now it seems that Islamabad and Tehran can have it both ways. If World Bank financing is off the table, China can step in to foot the bill.

Finalization of IPI in the coming weeks would be more than a slap in the face for President Bush. After all, in 2006 he personally fought for a nuclear cooperation pact with India designed to meet India’s energy needs while tying it closer to the United States as a counterweight against a rising China. Now however, not only has the Indian government so far failed to get the pact ratified in the Indian parliament, but India is about to collaborate with China in undermining America’s sanctions on Iran. Pakistan, beefed up with more than $10 billion in military aid by the Bush administration, is also giving the cold shoulder to Washington. And Iran, soon to be the number-one energy supplier for East Asia, becomes more untouchable by the day.

The Bush administration’s lofty design to keep Iran in the box and use the Indian tiger to tame the Chinese dragon runs the risk of collapsing in the last months of his presidency. In fact, the American sanctions regime is driving Iran into China’s arms and facilitating a Sino-Indian rapprochement. Even worse, America is facing the rise of a new strategic axis in Asia that stretches from Tehran to New Delhi to Beijing, with Islamabad as a central hub, and is financed by petrodollars. Then again, the Bush policy, by giving a lift to this new strategic energy alliance, may ultimately strengthen support in Washington for a military strike against Iran, to accomplish what containment failed to do.

Reprinted courtesy of Foreign Policy in Focus.

http://www.antiwar.com/orig/artens.php?articleid=13182

US to Iran: You have two weeks

Washington says Tehran has two weeks to decide between suspending its uranium enrichment program and facing ‘further isolation’, PressTV reported.

In a Saturday statement, State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said time has come for Tehran to choose between confrontation and meeting Western demands over its enrichment program.

“We hope the Iranian people understand that their leaders need to make a choice between cooperation, which would bring benefits to all, and confrontation, which can only lead to further isolation,” said McCormack.

The release of the statement followed nuclear talks in Geneva on a package of incentives recently presented to Iran requiring the country to suspend uranium enrichment in exchange for political and economic benefits.

EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana had said earlier that Iran did not give a ‘clear answer’ during the talks as to whether it would accept the G5+1 package.

Solana termed his talks with Secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council Saeed Jalili as constructive and hoped that both sides would reach a consensus in the upcoming weeks.

Jalili, for his part, said that despite the common ground between Iran and the five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany (G5+1), some differences of opinion still remain that must be further discussed.

Link

Saudis Bribe Russia Against Iran? No

Are the Saudis trying to buy of Russia? That is what Kommersant reported yesterday:

Currently the well known Saudi weapon dealer Prince Bandar is in Moscow and is said to have specified the offer to pay Russia for distancing itself from Iran.

A Kremlin spokesperson denies the rumors:

In this case I tend to believe the Kremlin spokesperson. The rumor might fit U.S. or Israeli intentions but it does not fit the real releations.

The weapon deal in preparation between the Saudis and Russia has a volume of some $2.3 billion over several years. That is less in financial volume than two days of oil production each for Saudi Arabia and for Russia. Such a modest bribe is certainly not big enough for Russia to give up on a strategic partnership with Iran. For comparison, the recent Saudi deal with Britain to buy Eurofighter planes is worth some $20 billion.

The Saudis will buy some weapons from Russia, T-90 tanks, BMP infantry carriers and helos, to have fun driving around and flying over their dunes. The helicopters may be useful for this or that ride of a prince to some foreign whorehouse but not for war. The Saudis don’t fight their wars. They pay others to fight for them.

This small weapon deal is a simply a mild snub to the U.S. by the Saudis with the additional value of getting some access to Russian thinking. Russia has no reason to give up its good relations with Teheran. Iran is their direct land access route to the Gulf. For several reasons such access might be very useful in the future.

The Saudis are more or less under U.S. control since Roosevelt signed a pact with King Ibn Saud 63 years ago. Unless the U.S. gives up fighting in Afghanistan, Iraq and Pakistan against those radical Salafi movements instead of going against their Saudi Wahabbi financiers the Saudis are safe and the old pact will hold.

The Kremlin is certainly able to understand that.

http://www.moonofalabama.org/2008/07/saudis-bribe-ru.html