View from the Loft

Boycott, Divest, Sanction: Israel out of Gaza. Take action!

Naomi Klein writes:

It's time. Long past time. The best strategy to end the increasingly bloody occupation is for Israel to become the target of the kind of global movement that put an end to apartheid in South Africa.

Amen to that.

The carnage in Gaza should appall anyone with a conscience, and yet, as Free Learner points out, our own Senate--on a voice vote, so there's no record of who voted which way--passed a resolution expressing unequivocal support of the Israelis. 

The Israelis have shelled ambulances, schools, and hospitals. They have refused to let humanitarian aid through to the wounded in Gaza. They have rounded people up into a single house and then shelled the house. Humanitarian workers have found emaciated children left for days, without food or water, near the corpses of their parents. The Israelis have used white phosphorus, which burns deep into tissue and, because the phosphorus is absorbed by the body, can cause multi-organ failure.

Yet Hamas is to be condemned as entirely at fault and Israel is to be lauded for "defending" itself.

Claims of genocide are said to be inappropriate, yet there is evidence that Israel's intentions are nothing short of genocidal. Yet we are never to say the word, never to levy the charge; there is a collusion of silence on this topic. John Pilger on the silence of "the Anglo-American intelligentsia":

They know that the horror now raining on Gaza has little to do with Hamas or, absurdly, "Israel's right to exist." They know the opposite to be true: that Palestine's right to exist was canceled 61 years ago and the expulsion and, if necessary, extinction of the indigenous people was planned and executed by the founders of Israel. They know, for example, that the infamous "Plan D" resulted in the murderous depopulation of 369 Palestinian towns and villages by the Haganah (Jewish army) and that massacre upon massacre of Palestinian civilians in such places as Deir Yassin, al-Dawayima, Eilaboun, Jish, Ramle and Lydda are referred to in official records as "ethnic cleansing." Arriving at a scene of this carnage, David Ben-Gurion, Israel's first prime minister, was asked by a general, Yigal Allon, "What shall we do with the Arabs?" Ben-Gurion, reported the Israeli historian Benny Morris, "made a dismissive, energetic gesture with his hand and said, ‘Expel them'. The order to expel an entire population "without attention to age" was signed by Yitzhak Rabin, a future prime minister promoted by the world's most efficient propaganda as a peacemaker. The terrible irony of this was addressed only in passing, such as when the Mapan Party co-leader Meir Ya'ari noted "how easily" Israel's leaders spoke of how it was "possible and permissible to take women, children and old men and to fill the roads with them because such is the imperative of strategy … who remembers who used this means against our people during the [Second World] war … we are appalled."

Pilger quotes Israeli historian Ilan Pappe, who wrote on January 2:

It seems that even the most horrendous crimes, such as the genocide in Gaza, are treated as desperate events, unconnected to anything that happened in the past and not associated with any ideology or system … Very much as the apartheid ideology explained the oppressive policies of the South African government, this ideology – in its most consensual and simplistic variety – has allowed all the Israeli governments in the past and the present to dehumanize the Palestinians wherever they are and strive to destroy them. The means altered from period to period, from location to location, as did the narrative covering up these atrocities. But there is a clear pattern [of genocide].

So, as Naomi Klein says, the time has come--or came quite a while back--for boycott, divest, sanctions. 

(As I was writing this, I just saw a diary on Daily Kos that says Israel has now banned Arab parties from running in next month's election. So much for any idea that Israel is a democracy.)

In fact, the Palestinians called for BDS back in 2005. Israel has ignored UN resolutions and the rulings of the International Court of Justice, building a wall to sequester the Palestinians, refusing them food, fuel, and humanitarian aid, and condemning the Palestinians to misery and death.

Visit this site to endorse the call for BDS and for more information.

Go here to find out how you, personally, can boycott Israeli-made products. A barcode of 729 indicates that the product comes from Israel. In addition, you can learn more about what companies draw on Israeli technology and components. In addition, some Western companies manufacture equipment used by the Israeli military against the Palestinians. It's time we educated ourselves about how we are complicit in the slaughtering of the Palestinians.

According to Naomi Klein, support for BDS is growing worldwide. The recent events in Gaza should intensify this movement. I hope my readers will do their part to join in this movement to make Israel understand that the enormity, unacceptability, and immorality of its actions have consequences.

 

[UPDATE] There's still time to nuke Iran!

[See below for additional information supplied in Comments by freelearner.]

Yes, one can imagine all too well Dick Cheney urging this line of thought around town with only nine months left until the next presidential inauguration.

I've been planning to write a blog post about all the predictions I've made that have turned out to be wrong, and no one could be happier than I to be wrong about the reinstatement of the draft, avian flu, immigration as a winning issue for the GOP, and most of all, a U.S. attack on Iran. Unfortunately, it's too soon to tell about some of these things, and particularly in the case of Iran, recent events have made a lot of people wonder whether military aggression against that nation in the near future is still very much a possibility:

• Joint Chiefs Chairmans Says U.S. Preparing Military Options Against Iran
• Israeli attack on Syria a prelude to Arak, Iran?
• Petraeus has been named to replace Admiral Fallon as CENTCOM head; Fallon repeatedly had said there would be no attack on Iran on his watch, while as we all know, Petraeus is nothing if not George Bush's lackey--or should I say Cheney's?--who never voices a dissenting word.

The ostensible reason for "preparing military options against Iran" is that Iran is meddling in Iraq and endangering our forces there. But the real reason is Iran's heavy-water nuclear reactor in Arak, Iran. There is some speculation that Israel may be planning a strike on that reactor. If that were to happen, there would certainly be retaliation by iran followed by counterattacks backed up by U.S. military power. Or, perhaps the U.S. would have to "soften up" Iran to make an Israeli strike possible. Iran does have some sophisticated anti-aircraft weaponry.

The reactor's start-up date is scheduled for 2009, so time is of the essence. Israel has not been shy about voicing its outrage over Iran's reactor, fearing that it will be used to make nuclear weapons. And in March, we discovered that

The Pentagon is looking into the possibility of Israel launching a strike against Iran's nuclear facilities. In the past months there were several working-level discussions trying to map out the possible scenarios for such an attack, according to administration sources who were briefed on these meetings.

Moreover (from the same source):

Israeli and US sources have said in the past weeks that the US did not convey any message to Israel in which it asked to refrain from an attack and has not raised the issue in bilateral discussions with the Israelis. Both countries share intelligence on the situation in Iran and the advance of the nuclear program, but do not discuss - according to sources who took part in bilateral talks - the possibility of using military force to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

Of course the U.S. didn't tell the Israelis to "refrain from an attack." There's nothing dearer to the heart of Cheney (what's left of it) than the thought of more carnage, blood, and destruction, and if nuclear fallout could be a part of all that, so much the better!

One of my fears is that some sort of terrorist or other act will be manufactured ( a la the Gulf of Tonkin) by the U.S. and blamed on Iran to justify an attack. Then would it be post-9/11 all over again, with the country deciding it needed a Bush clone and electing McCain by a landslide?

Do you really think they haven't thought about this? These are people for whom power and power alone gives life meaning. Nothing they could do would surprise me.

UPDATE from freelearner (moved here from Comments):

In an April 18th article (http://tinyurl.com/3qsvtr), Paul Craig Roberts cited other information suggesting a coming attack on Iran, from two sources:

-----
On March 30, the Russian News & Information Agency, Novosti, cited "a high-ranking security source: "The latest military intelligence data point to heightened US military preparations for both an air and ground operation against Iran." 1 According to Novosti, Russian Colonel General Leonid Ivashov said "that the Pentagon is planning to deliver a massive air strike on Iran's military infrastructure in the near future."

The chief of Russia's general staff, Yuri Baluyevsky, said last November that Russia was beefing up its military in response to US aggression, but that the Russian military is not "obliged to defend the world from the evil Americans." 2.
-----

And you've probably heard the gist of the second source:

-----
On March 29, OpEdNews cited a report by the Saudi Arabian newspaper Okaz, which was picked up by the German news service, DPA. The Saudi newspaper reported on March 22, the day following Cheney's visit with the kingdom's rulers, that the Saudi Shura Council is preparing "national plans to deal with any sudden nuclear and radioactive hazards that may affect the kingdom following experts' warnings of possible attacks on Iran's Bushehr nuclear reactors." 3.
-----

I think they will have to engineer a false-flag terrorist or insurgent attack on a fairly massive scale against US troops in Iraq or against a Navy ship in the Gulf. Or, if anything happens to the Strait of Hormuz (like we bomb the shipping channel and blame the Iranians), we might attack to try and keep the oil lines open.

Don't let your gas tank get below half, I guess-- and a 5-gallon jug of gas in the garage isn't a bad idea either.

Hersh on Iran and the "redirection" of Middle East policy

Yes, another dreary--and frightening--Iran post. Before or after reading this, provided you can take more stomach-churning news, you might want to sign this petition or go here to take action against this insane plan.

Seymour Hersh has written yet another article detailing ongoing activities already being undertaken by the US in Iran, particularly clandestine activities directed by the office of the Vice President. The "redirection" of American policy in the US seems designed to foment a Sunni-Shiite Cold War:

Some of the core tactics of the redirection are not public . . . The clandestine operations have been kept secret, in some cases, by leaving the execution or the funding to the Saudis, or by finding other ways to work around the normal congressional appropriations process, current and former officials close to the Administration said.

*    *    *    *    *    *

The key players behind the redirection are Vice-President Dick Cheney, the deputy national-security adviser Elliott Abrams, the departing Ambassador to Iraq (and nominee for United Nations Ambassador), Zalmay Khalilzad, and Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the Saudi national-security adviser. While Rice has been deeply involved in shaping the public policy, former and current officials said that the clandestine side has been guided by Cheney.

And that clandestine activity goes back to Iran-Contra. Hersh points out the similarities between the secrecy of the Reagan administration in the Iran-Contra scandal, when the administration tried to fund the Contras illegally through arms sales to--ironically--Iran. Most troubling of all is this:

Iran-Contra was the subject of an informal “lessons learned” discussion two years ago among veterans of the scandal. Abrams led the discussion. One conclusion was that even though the program was eventually exposed, it had been possible to execute it without telling Congress. As to what the experience taught them, in terms of future covert operations, the participants found: “One, you can’t trust our friends. Two, the C.I.A. has got to be totally out of it. Three, you can’t trust the uniformed military, and four, it’s got to be run out of the Vice-President’s office”—a reference to Cheney’s role, the former senior intelligence official said.

Congress is being deliberately kept in the dark about clandestine activities--and their funding. According to a former National Security Council aide,

Congress was not being briefed on the full extent of the U.S.-Saudi operations. And, he said, “The C.I.A. is asking, ‘What’s going on?’ They’re concerned, because they think it’s amateur hour.”

The key players in such operations don't learn the lessons that people with moral sensibilities wish they would learn; instead, they learn how to better cloak their criminal activities in secrecy. Here's another such instance, which also has a historical parallel:

American military and special-operations teams have escalated their activities in Iran to gather intelligence and, according to a Pentagon consultant on terrorism and the former senior intelligence official, have also crossed the border in pursuit of Iranian operatives from Iraq.

Cambodia, anyone? Those of us old enough to remember the Vietnam War will recall, as Chuck Hagel did during Condi's appearance before the Senate in January, that our government lied to us, saying we did not cross over into Cambodia, when in fact we did. Well, it's deja vu all over again ...

While all this clandestine activity goes on outside of Congressional oversight, there's also the public side of our increasingly confrontational actions in regard to Iran. Hersh reports the arrest of hundreds of Iranians in Iraq. According to a former senior intelligence official,

“They had five hundred locked up at one time. We’re working these guys and getting information from them. The White House goal is to build a case that the Iranians have been fomenting the insurgency and they’ve been doing it all along—that Iran is, in fact, supporting the killing of Americans.” The Pentagon consultant confirmed that hundreds of Iranians have been captured by American forces in recent months. But he told me that that total includes many Iranian humanitarian and aid workers who “get scooped up and released in a short time,” after they have been interrogated.

"Working" these guys. "Interrogated." Given US policy, I think we can assume that we're talking about torture here, at least in some cases.

Propaganda about the dangers Iran poses is taking on an increasingly aggressive tone. Just as in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, alarming reports are being circulated about Iran's weapons capability and its nuclear program. Most intelligence experts have said that Iran is five to ten years away from being able to manufacture a nuclear weapon, yet the administration insists repeatedly that this is an imminent threat. We are also being told that Iran now has

a three-stage solid-fuelled intercontinental missile capable of delivering several small warheads—each with limited accuracy—inside Europe.

This information--which comes from Israeli agents working in Iran--is of debatable validity. Israel is desirous of a strike against Iran, so this rumor is, to my mind, questionable and very much in need of verification if we are to take it seriously.

Hersh also says that

a special planning group has been established in the offices of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, charged with creating a contingency bombing plan for Iran that can be implemented, upon orders from the President, within twenty-four hours.       

In the past month, I was told by an Air Force adviser on targeting and the Pentagon consultant on terrorism, the Iran planning group has been handed a new assignment: to identify targets in Iran that may be involved in supplying or aiding militants in Iraq. Previously, the focus had been on the destruction of Iran’s nuclear facilities and possible regime change. [my bold]

Hersh's article has a wider scope than the possibility of war with Iran, discussing administration policies throughout the Middle East and clandestine operations that seek to undermine Shiite governments and groups such as Hezbollah. It's worth reading in its entirety, although here I am interested mainly in what he has to say about the increasing possibility (or probability) of war with Iran. Policy toward Iran, however, cannot be taken out of the context of the administration's sweeping plans for a completely rearranged Middle East. The arrogance, the sheer hubris, of this decision to arrange the entire region according to the desires of a group of neocons is breath-taking--and frightening. They would like nothing better, apparently, than to see the entire region become a conflagration, and if in the process they ensure that the Muslim world interprets US actions as a war on Islam, so be it.

Let's never forget that this is all about the oil, about securing enough oil in the near future:

On Fox News on January 14th, Cheney warned of the possibility, in a few years, “of a nuclear-armed Iran, astride the world’s supply of oil, able to affect adversely the global economy, prepared to use terrorist organizations and/or their nuclear weapons to threaten their neighbors and others around the world.” [my bold]

For these people, of course, diplomacy is out of the question as a means to ensuring energy security (again, for the near future; Peak Oil is a reality). Endless war is the only solution the neocons can imagine, for to engage in diplomacy is to show weakness. They envision the United States as the sole superpower of the world forever, a mighty empire that will rule the globe and have its way with countries large or small that impede its exertion of power.

That thousands or perhaps millions will die is of no consequence. These are the madmen who are running the show. Why are we allowing them to stay in power?

Plans complete for attacking Iran

Writing in The New Statesman, Dan Plesch reveals just how much military power is being amassed against Iran. It's frightening.

American military operations for a major conventional war with Iran could be implemented any day. They extend far beyond targeting suspect WMD facilities and will enable President Bush to destroy Iran's military, political and economic infrastructure overnight using conventional weapons.

*    *    *    *    *    *

The US army, navy, air force and marines have all prepared battle plans and spent four years building bases and training for "Operation Iranian Freedom". Admiral Fallon, the new head of US Central Command, has inherited computerised plans under the name TIRANNT (Theatre Iran Near Term).

The Bush administration has made much of sending a second aircraft carrier to the Gulf. But it is a tiny part of the preparations. Post 9/11, the US navy can put six carriers into battle at a month's notice. Two carriers in the region, the USS John C Stennis and the USS Dwight D Eisenhower, could quickly be joined by three more now at sea: USS Ronald Reagan, USS Harry S Truman and USS Theodore Roosevelt, as well as by USS Nimitz. Each carrier force includes hundreds of cruise missiles.

Then there are the marines . . .

*    *    *    *    *    *

Today, marines have the USS Boxer and USS Bataan carrier forces in the Gulf and probably also the USS Kearsarge and USS Bonhomme Richard. Three others, the USS Peleliu, USS Wasp and USS Iwo Jima, are ready to join them. Earlier this year, HQ staff to manage these forces were moved from Virginia to Bahrain.

There is in place a "Global Strike" plan that means that "any US general planning to attack Iran can now assume that at least 10,000 targets can be hit in a single raid, with warplanes flying from the US or Diego Garcia."

There is no point in Iran more than an hour's flying time from an American base or carrier. Three bases have been built in Azerbaijan; there are also rumors that bases in Bulgaria and Romania could be used in an attack. There may also be in Bulgaria new facilities for refuelling Stealth bombers, which would spearhead any attack on Iran.

Let's not forget that Seymour Hersh's claim last year that special forces were already in Iran conducting secret missions there. Further,

The regime in Tehran has already complained of US- and UK-inspired terror attacks in several Iranian regions where the population opposes the ayatollahs' fanatical policies. Such reports corroborate the American journalist Seymour Hersh's claim that the US military is already engaged in a low-level war with Iran. The fighting is most intense in the Kurdish north where Iran has been firing artillery into Iraq. The US and Iran are already engaged in a low-level proxy war across the Iran-Iraq border.

And that the USAF has been flying an increasing number of aggressive patrols along that border.

All of this indicates that there are those in the Bush administration--including Bush and Cheney themselves--who are setting up situations that make confrontation much more likely.

Is anyone in charge thinking about the carnage? Of the fact that real people will die in such an attack? Does anyone care that the entire infrastructure of Iran will be destroyed? More children orphaned, more human beings killed and maimed?

No, because as Tom Englehardt has written,

The belief in air power's ability to fell regimes and change the political essentials, to bring whole peoples to their knees, is long-lasting and deep-seated. Since well before World War II, we've been living with a belief system in which bombing others, including civilian populations, is a "strategic" thing to do; in which air power can, in relatively swift measure, break the "will" not just of the enemy, but of that enemy's society; and in which air power is the royal path to victory.

Too bad about that collateral damage, eh?

You might want a little refresher on signs of an impending attack on Iran.

"Let our children live"

Read this.

It is heartbreaking, but the writing of it and the reading of it are necessities. We do not take to heart enough the reality of the ongoing Palestinian crisis.

Just read it.

Bush's speech brings us closer to war with Iran

When I heard Bush's speech last night, I was struck by his threats against Syria and Iran. And so were many others, including Glenn Greenwald, who gives an excellent summary of the administration's increasingly bellicose words and actions against Iran over the past weeks and months.

In yesterday's post, I mentioned three events that have been worrying me in regard to US relations with Iran: the sending of naval and air power to the Persian Gulf; the appointment of a Navy man to head CENTCOM, despite the fact that CENTCOM currently oversees two ground wars; and the "dress rehearsals" Israel is carrying out should it deem necessary a tactical nuclear strike against Iran. Greenwald mentions several other events that also seem to point toward eventual war with that nation.

Bush's speech contained threats against Syria and Iran that seem to promise a wider war in the Middle East. He said,

Succeeding in Iraq also requires defending its territorial integrity - and stabilizing the region in the face of extremist challenges. This begins with addressing Iran and Syria. These two regimes are allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq. Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops. We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We will interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq.

We are also taking other steps to bolster the security of Iraq and protect American interests in the Middle East. I recently ordered the deployment of an additional carrier strike group to the region. We will expand intelligence sharing - and deploy Patriot air defense systems to reassure our friends and allies. We will work with the governments of Turkey and Iraq to help them resolve problems along their border. And we will work with others to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons and dominating the region.

"Seek out and destroy the networks"? That sounds like military action to me.

And what about those Patriot missiles? A Kos diarist points out that

You don't use a 17 foot long surface launched missile with large radars and other trucks that tracks incoming aircraft, helicopters and long range missiles in an urban street battles.   You would use it to defend against incoming Iranian aircraft and Scud missiles. 

He also wonders:

Could there be deployment orders for Patriot Air Defense units that would have to be publicly announced in the coming days?  If Bush didn't mention the Patriot deployments tonight then the news of these air defense unit deployments in the coming days in addition to the expected deployment orders for Army and Marine ground combat units might have raised questions then...

This morning I awoke to news that US forces had stormed the Iranian consulate in Irbil (in the north of Iraq) and had raided the building and seized five staff members. This follows on the heels of the  arrest  last month of high-level Iranian officials in Iraq, two of whom had to be released because they had diplomatic immunity.

With this sort of provocation going on--not to mention Iran's outrage at the President's speech last night--it doesn't take a crystal ball to foresee some incident occurring that sets into motion all the military plans that have now been finalized. Add to that the crowded conditions in the Gulf, with two carrier groups to be in place; how convenient for the neocons and the mad, incompetent fools in the administration if even accidentally a collision or some other event were to occur (indeed, on January 8, a US nuclear submarine and a Japanese oil tanker collided in the Gulf). That could be the beginning of war against Iran.

I don't think that there will ever be a dramatic announcement that we are going to strike Iran (although given the chutzpah of this administration, I suppose we can't rule it out). Instead, there will be a period of provocation, probably on the part of both sides; increased muscle-flexing; belligerent words; and finally, something like incursions of US forces into Iranian territory (seeking out and destroying those networks and supply routes, don't you know), a Gulf-of-Tonkin-style event, or some other circumstance that provides an excuse for attacking Iran. Along with that will come the propanda fed to the American people to get them to accept this wider war (remember the Kuwaiti babies in their incubators?).

And because our military is also extremely stretched and nearly broken, I fear that tactical nuclear weapons will be used.

Few voices are being raised against making war on Iraq. Democrats are as likely as Republicans to support taking military action. It's time to make our elected officials aware of the stakes here and to voice opposition to this widening of the war. With military operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and now Somalia, the US can ill afford another war, in terms of bloodshed and of dollars spent. To strike Iran is sheer madness.

But when has that ever stopped George W. Bush and the madmen he listens to?

 

The "surge": a distraction from the real war plans?

As many have pointed out, Bush's planned "surge" of forces in Iraq makes no sense: the proposed additional troops will be unlikely to effect any difference in the equation of violence, retribution, and bloodshed that characterizes Iraq today. Indeed, the likelihood is that additional American troops will exacerbate the explosive situation.

While I agree with those who say that Bush's ego and his refusal to see reality underwrite much of this certainly doomed misadventure, I have also been made very uneasy by some other events of the past few weeks, to wit:

• the sending of more warships and air power to the Persian Gulf
• the appointment of Admiral Fallon to replace Abizaid as head of CENTCOM
• the training of Israeli assault squadrons for a tactical nuclear attack on Iran

Paul Craig Roberts shares these concerns in an article on Antiwar.com:

Bush’s proposed surge appears to have no real military purpose. The US military  opposes it as militarily pointless and as damaging to the US Army and Marine Corps. The surge can only be accomplished by keeping troops deployed after the arrival of their replacements. Moreover, the increase in numbers that can be achieved in this way are far short of the numbers required to put down the insurgency and civil war.

The only purpose of the surge is to distract Congress while plans are implemented to widen the war.

How might Bush and his neocon advisors manipulate US citizens to get behind a wider war in the Middle East? I've thought myself that we will soon witness a Gulf of Tonkin maneuver; Roberts goes a bit further:

Two US carrier task forces or strike groups will certainly congest the Persian Gulf. On January 9, a US nuclear sub collided with a Japanese tanker in the Persian Gulf. Two carrier groups will have scant room for maneuver. Their purpose is either to provide the means for a hard hit on Iran or to serve as sitting ducks for a new Pearl Harbor that would rally Americans behind the new war.

Whether our ships are hit by Iran in retaliation to an attack from Israel or suffer an orchestrated attack by Israel that is blamed on the Iranians, there are certainly far more US naval forces in the Persian Gulf than prudence demands.

He argues that it's now or possible never for the Israelis to take down Iran:

Since the danger, if any, is years away, why is Israel so determined to attack Iran now?

The answer might be that Israel has the chance now. The Bush administration is in its pocket. The White House is working with neoconservatives, not with the American foreign policy community represented by the Iraq Study Group. Neoconservative   propagandists are in influential positions in the media. The US Congress is intimidated by AIPAC. The correlation of forces are heavily in Israel’s favor.

[snip]

Israel has two years remaining to use its American resources to achieve its aims in the Middle East. How influential will Israel and the neoconservatives be with the next president in the wake of a US defeat in Iraq and Israeli defeat in Lebanon? If the US withdraws its troops from Iraq, as the US military and foreign policy community recommend and as polls show the American public wants, the only effect of Bush’s Iraq invasion will have been to radicalize Muslims against Israel, the US, and US puppet governments in the Middle East. Extremist elements will tout their victory over the US, and the pressures on Israel to accept a realistic accommodation with Palestinians will be overpowering.

Now is the chance – the only chance – for Israel and the neoconservatives to achieve their goal of bringing Muslims to heel, a goal that they have been writing about and working to achieve for a decade.

And in order to do that, Americans must rally behind yet another war. I doubt that Americans are chomping at the bit for another war of choice, for a "pre-emptive" war, so I believe that something will be done to create the appearance that we will be fighting a war of defense. I believe the pieces are being put into place for that to happen.

From the US point of view, the issue of oil and guaranteed access to oil should never be forgotten (witness the recent windfall for Western oil companies with the imminent passage of an unprecedented law to allow those companies to exploit Iraq's oil reserves). In addition, the US is alarmed by the increasing desire of various nations to use the Euro, rather than the dollar, as their preferred currency of commerce.

As Global Research points out,

The oil fields are encircled: NATO war ships stationed in the Eastern Mediterranean (as part of a UN "peace keeping" operation), US Carrier Strike Groups and Destroyer Squadrons in the Persian Gulf and the Arabian deployed as part of the "war on terrorism".

Indeed, let us not forget about the militarization of the Easter Mediterranean. Ostensibly a peacekeeping operation following the Israeli war in Lebanon, the military buildup there can be seen by those cynics among us as the placing of war personnel and materiel where they can be used in a wider war. From Global Research:

In September, Germany dispatched a fleet of eight ships including 2 frigates, with up to 2,400 personnel aboard. The German navy will be in charge of the multinational naval force, which has, under its official UNIFIL mandate "to prevent arms shipments to Hezbollah". The German naval force will operate out of the Cyprus port of Limassol, located within less than 100 km. from the Lebanon-Syria coastline. The Cyprus based multinational naval force could eventually be used to encroach on maritime trade with Syria.  In early October, Turkey dispatched several warships, which will join the multinational naval force under German command. While Turkey is formally part of the UN international force (UNIFIL), it is also a close military ally of Israel. Greek, Bulgarian and Italian warships have also been dispatched to the Lebanese coast.

France has dispatched armored vehicle and infantry units. (Chars Leclerc see below). 

The nature of the military equiipment and weapons systems being deployed has little to do with "peace-keeping". Moreover, NATO established a close military partnership with Israel in 2005, which in practice binds NATO member countries involved in Lebanon to fully cooperate with Israel.

So keep in mind that Bush's proposed "surge," while it will surely result in many more deaths and much more misery (along with further raids on the US Treasury, such as it is), isn't really the big fish here. While everyone debates tactics in Iraq, other storm clouds may be gathering.

Once again, I very much wish to be wrong on this. I had worried about a strike against Iran before the election, and that didn't happen. I'd rather be paranoid than right.

[Other posts on Iran may be found here.]

 

How bad is Iraq? This bad

Wow, I thought at first I was reading an Onion piece when I read DarkSyde's post on Kos, but it was actually from the Telegraph:

Security in Iraq has collapsed so dramatically that Saudi Arabia has ordered the construction of a 550-mile high-tech fence to seal off its troubled northern neighbour.

The huge project to build the barrier, which will be equipped with ultraviolet night-vision cameras, buried sensor cables and thousands of miles of barbed wire, will snake across the vast and remote desert frontier between the countries.

The article goes on to state:

The fence is a fresh sign that key allies of the United States in the Middle East are resigned to worsening violence and the possible break-up of Iraq, where American intelligence agencies said this week that the continuing conflict fuelled global terrorism. The National Intelligence Estimate, a report compiled by 16 spy agencies, concluded that the Iraq war had become a cause célèbre for Islamic extremists and was cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement

For Saudi Arabia, whose nationals have been accused of playing a key role as foreign fighters in the Iraq insurgency, the deterioration in its northern neighbour is a security nightmare.

Saudi officials are worried about so-called "blowback", in which Saudi insurgents in Iraq bring jihad back to the streets of Riyadh and Jeddah. But they are mostly concerned that an Iraqi civil war will send a wave of refugees south, unsettling the kingdom's Shia minority in its oil-producing east.

Heckuva job, Bushie.

Caution on the recent NIE

Robert Dreyfuss makes an interesting point in his warning about getting too excited about the recent leaks concerning the National Intelligence Estimate on terrorism. (Emphasis added in the passage below.)

But is the war in Iraq producing more terrorists? I don’t think so. And until I read the whole text of the NIE—which hasn’t been released—and until I sort out the politics of how it was produced, I’m not convinced that the U.S. intelligence community think so, either.

It’s important to remember that the NIE, begun in 2004, took two years before it was published, in its current classified version. It went through several iterations, pushed and pulled by Bush administration politicos. The Times, in breaking the story, reported that “some government officials were unhappy with the structure and focus of earlier versions of the document.” According to my sources, those unhappy with the document were mostly at the Pentagon, and centered around the neoconservatives, who undoubtedly used their influence with the White House, Vice President Cheney, and intelligence czar John Negroponte—who approved the final version of the NIE—to make changes they wanted. It’s not as if an NIE is a pristine, values-free report. Instead (remember the bogus NIE on Iraq’s WMD in 2002) it is often a highly politicized document, especially in the Bush administration.

He goes on to say that, while the war in Iraq has increased anti-Americanism around the world and has damaged US interests, it is not at all clear to him that there has been an escalation in terrorism, and he worries that

In their eagerness to knock down Bush’s war in Iraq by using reports about the NIE, the Democrats risk giving another boost to the president in the “other” war, namely, the so-called war on terrorism. By embracing the NIE’s reported conclusion that the war in Iraq has made the threat of terrorism worse, the Democrats play into Bush’s strong suit. While most Americans think that the war in Iraq is wrong and not worth fighting, polls continue to show that support for President Bush as the commander in chief of the Global War on Terror. Ironically, by endorsing the idea that radical Islamist terrorism is a major threat to the United States, the Democrats could end up driving U.S. voters into the arms of the president once again.

The more credence is given to the necessity of a "war" against terrorism, the more this plays into BushCo's fear-generating tactics in the service of garnering votes. There is thus a utilitarian value for the Bushies in claiming that we face increased threats of terrorist acts, even if such an increase comes from the war BushCo itself wanted and executed.

Dreyfuss leaves us with a bit of advice for Democrats:

The use of the word “terrorist” instantly dehumanizes the other side, making it into something devilish, or insane, or maniacal. The Bush administration has perfected this technique to a fine art. Rather than joining in, the Democrats need to stop talking about terrorism at every turn and refuse to join the Republicans in their facile use of the demon-word, terrorism. It’s time to change the subject.

Voices from Lebanon

The war crimes being committed by Israel in Lebanon continue, as churches, hospitals, aid convoys, residential areas, bridges, and other infrastructure are ruthlessly bombed.

I have not written on this topic for several reasons, not the least of which is that countless pieces could be written, each with a different focus. Where to begin? I feel fear and despair as I watch U.S. warhawks urge attacks on Syria and Iran. I wonder what will happen next: the WWIII (or IV, or whatever the neocons are calling it) Gingrich seems so happy about? a terrorist attack against U.S. and Israeli interests, as Iran's Hizbollah has threatened? al-Qaeda getting back onto the stage?

And I wonder whether Israel is trying to force the hand of the US, to urge us into attacking Iran. Surely the Israelis understand our Likudnik warhawks better than anyone. They had to know that their actions would spur calls for a wider war.

In the end, I decided to link to some voices from the besieged country of Lebanon itself. Here in America we don't hear much from that country. Our reporters are in Israel. Our political leaders and the administration constantly repeat Israeli propaganda. What do those suffering from Israel's overkill have to say?

First I saw this letter from Rasha on Juan Cole's blog. A bit of Googling brought me to Electronic Intifada, a rich source for articles, commentary, diaries, and news about the siege of Lebanon. No, of course it isn't unbiased. But adults with reasonable critical thinking skills know this. I think it's important to get more than one side of a story.

You can also find news, blog links, and other info such as how to send donations to Lebanon, on the Lebanese Blogger Forum. Another blog worth checking out is the Lebanese Political Journal.

There is a new blog called War on Lebanon: Take II, which I offer with the warning that there has not been a post since Monday.

A passionate Lebanese blog, Lebanon My Beautiful Country, features some photos of the destruction wrought by the Israeli attacks.

The Wizard of Beirut has been running a Beirut Diary. I find this kind of on-the-spot writing fascinating.

You might also check out Beirut Spring.

I urge anyone reading this to check out some of these sites. Rasha, in particular, is articulate and vivid in her evocation of life in Lebanon at this time, but each site has something to contribute to our knowledge of the situation there. I can't emphasize enough how important I think it is to hear voices that do more than echo the US administration line or the Israeli narrative.

If you find a site I haven't mentioned--and I know my list isn't comprehensive--please bring it to my attention and I'll link to it.