Foreign policy... contradictions, hidden intent, or hidden in plain view?

[salin]

Contradictions – or “hidden intentions” – or hidden in plain view

Several news items caught my eye, and in light of Ritter’s comments per US preparation to bomb Iran it seems that it is worthy of looking at these items together. If the neocons are so crazy as to pursue an Iran campaign, then we need to be better prepared to push counter information – especially when it comes from the neocons own lips – into the media long before they start doing that “drumbeat” (remember CNN’s awful prewar coverage – something along the lines of “Countdown to Iraq.”)

Item one: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3385601

U.S. to create list of 25 countries deemed candidates for intervention

Mind you, the US has intervened on “humanitarian reasons” intermittently – we ignored the Kmer Rouge and Rwanda, but we did (briefly) intervene in Somalia and later in the Balkans. Where there is an ongoing slaughter of civilians occurring, I can understand intervention. That said, is that really what this list is about? As I read it I seemed to recall one of the themes underlying the work of PNAC… that US dominance as the sole Super Power could and should be maintained by constant instability around the globe. Seems that keeping an eye on this “list” would be important… oh, but it’s a secret list, to be updated every six months.

That alone should be alarming.

Especially now, that Bush has all but stated for public consumption that “Pre-emptive” is no longer needed in his new foreign/military policy. How did he do this? By creating a “Bush Doctrine” of Pre-emptive Strike (that the US should strike where there is a threat, before that threat becomes active), and then declaring (during the election) that even “had he known the intelligence was wrong” he would still have invaded Iraq, because it was the right thing to do. Now, most reading this at DU probably think he did know (I do), but the public didn’t – and his statements during the election essentially said – a first strike – even in absence of any national security issues (that is … threat) is legitimate.

But isn’t this list purported to encourage stability via intervention?

That is what is stated. However, consider Condi’s recent rhetoric – that was not received warmly even by reformists in the Middle East.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1349869

Rice Alarms Reformist Arabs with Stability Remarks

From the linked article:
CAIRO (Reuters) - Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has alarmed many reformist Arabs with comments suggesting a new U.S. approach that promotes rapid political change without regard for internal stability.

Rice said in an interview with the Washington Post last week the Middle East status quo was not stable and she doubted it would be stable soon. Washington would speak out for "freedom" without offering a model or knowing what the outcome would be.

And:

Rice's remarks went one step further, suggesting the United States was willing to take a gamble on "democratic institutions" having a "moderating influence" in the region.

I had just read the first article – and had the flash back to PNAC goals when I got to this statement (esp the second paragraph)….

Helena Cobban, a writer on Middle East affairs based in the United States, said: "She (Rice) reveals a totally cavalier attitude to the whole non-trivial concept of social-political stability in Middle Eastern countries."

"So it looks as though Arc of Instability may now actually be the goal of U.S. policy, rather than its diagnosis of an existing problem," she added.

Now go back to the Ritter assertions that a plan to bomb Iran in the makings. Note he does not say that it is absolutely going to happen – but that a plan is in the works.

There are two parts of my head – the rational/pragmatist part… the “there is no way that they would do this (bomb Iran) when our military is already strained and our international integrity so widely questioned”. This is the same part of me that reacts to the “draft” threads as … “that would be political suicide.” But then I remember … these folks just nominated to the UN a man who was thrown out of negotiations with North Korea because of his hostile rhetoric that the North Koreans refused any negotiations if he were involved (e.g., there was no “good faith” in any negotiations he had a hand in). These folks do not seem to be constrained by any reality. And frighteningly they keep lurching forward regardless of that disconnect.

Please let us not only be aware of each story on this front that emerges – but keep linking those stories together. Keep creating a broader picture. News does get out there in this current age – it is just often only part of the story and in disparate news sources so it is very difficult to the quilt together to see the emerging patterns.

Any thoughts?

[salin]

1. No thoughts?

Not even a "good analysis"? Or a "they aren't going to do more interventions because they are too strapped?" Anything?

[Beam Me Up]

2. Great analysis, IMO. Recommending.

And you are absolutely right about the community not paying attention.

This thread needs more attention. Let's see what we can do.

BMU

[FreedomAngel82]

11. I agree

I think to the average person they wouldn't put two and two together unless they've studied Bush and know how these people are. I wouldn't be surprised if they do put out little clues here and there. Definietly keep an eye out.

[Beam Me Up]

3. Could it be they WANT "anarchy" in the Middle East?

Destabilization of nations and governments IN PREPARATION FOR THE COMING GLOBAL WAR? With internal chaos, nations cannot ally with others?

Just guessing here. I'm not an expert in these foreign policy issues--but that is the way it is beginning to look to me.

THEY ARE ANTICIPATING A GLOBAL WAR.

Actually, more than 'anticipating'; creating the preconditions FOR.

Edit: This is apropos your link above:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1349869

[salin]

4. Orwellian - or foreshadowing... the "list" of 25

countries targeted for possible "intervention" due to instability? Really something screwy going on.

[H2O Man]

5. Very interesting.

This is a very important topic, and I am happy to nominate it. It deserves more attention than some of the other issues being debated in the past week.

I would suggest that the Bush administration, in particular a sub-group we know as the neocons, are working with a couple other countries in an attempt to establish a "new world order." A large part of that includes access to Middle Eastern resources. Because the Middle East has oil, it will be a focus of the neocons. Further, because the area fits into their religious frame of reference, we must see their actions in a different light than say United Fruit's in Latin America in the 1950s.

Thus said, US intervention is a given. There is no way that the Bush administration will not intervene in, for but one example, Iran. Zero chance of non-intervention, even if there was a democratic administration .... because the republicans/neocons/oil interests have their own agenda, their own relationships, their own policies, their own I.C., and even their own para-military forces.

The only question becomes: how far are they willing to go in an attempt to destabilize? How far will they go in their intervention? Will international treaty/law restrict their actions? Will they stop at lying? Does their own violence cause them to pause, when it injures and kills tens of thousands of innocent people?

[salin]

9. Those are great questions

worthy of discussion on their own merits.

Per your comment of the relgious frame of reference... I don't think it is the neocon frame of reference (even bush, for his delusions of grandeur - seems to use those religious convictions opportunisitically and ignoore other tenants for a more 'realism' approach) - I think the neocons recognize, however, the confluence of interests if they get the rel right on board - and that with the rel right on board they greatly extend their sphere of interest and ability to go forward with their schemes.

That last question, I think has been answered by their own actions. The level of violence does not bother them -they work to keep it at a threshhold that the american public (who enable/empower them) will not become resistant to. Hence the tight rein on the media.

[H2O Man]

13. Per the religious question:

look at the neocon plan for a "Greater Israel," and tell me if you can find a single difference between this and Pat Robertson's ideas on what is best for Israel. Could be coincidence, I suppose, if there were such a thing as coincidence.

This is a great thread, and I hope it continues to draw attention.

[salin]

16. I think it is more confluence

rather than coincidence or shared vision/intent/goal.

Pat is pitching some kind of end times vision that is rooted in that region (you know... panic panic people and send me money quick!)

Neocons are focusing on access to resources, domination of regions with key resources, all as means of detering the advent of anyother military or economic "super power". They have no interest in seeing Israel flattend and the Jewish Israeli's converted or saved- that's Pat's Gig. But ... focusing on raising the interests of Israel to a parallel as the interests in the US in terms of foreign policy/national security - they both agree.. and use each other... because although their agendas are different... this step on the road has the same next step. Or at least that is how I view it at this moment in time.

Thanks for the comp on the thread... haven't had the time to track news and do deep thinking (and connecting stories) together for awhile. But this morning - I read the "intervention list" - thought of PNAC, then read the Condi Story - which sorta looped back to that PNAC theme... and noticed how many other little dribs and drabs of related themes were out there. Sometimes I fear we drop the ball when our daily lives get too hectic (or Ishould say I rather than we...in terms of trying to get discussions going and tie stories together that lead us to be more collectively knowledgeable, aware and thus able to contribute in different ways.

[Clark2008]

39. Do you have a link handy for the PNAC's "Greater Israel" plan?

Or is it just on their website somewhere?

[H2O Man]

46. I do not have a link

for an internet site. I'm thinking of the description from "Imperial Hubris" by Anonymous (Michael Scheier) on pages 12-14.

[clem_c_rock]

6. Hold this one at the top

[G_j]

7. kicked & nominated..

[bloom]

8. They say "Democracy" - they mean "Anarchy"

Naomi Klein was saying recently how the B**h Admin. has distorted the idea of Democracy in Iraq. That democracy is what the people want - but it's like the "Clear (Dirty) Skies Initiative" or the "Death (Wealth) Tax" - It's like people don't even know what language they are speaking anymore.


"George W. Bush likes to say that democracy has the power to defeat tyranny. He's right, and that's precisely why it is so very dangerous for history's most powerful emancipatory idea to be bundled into an empty marketing exercise. Allowing the Bush Administration to fold the liberation struggles of Lebanon, Egypt and Palestine into its own "story" is a gift to authoritarians and fundamentalists. Freedom and democracy need to be liberated from Bush's deadly embrace and returned to the movements of the Middle East that have been struggling for these goals for decades. They have a story of their own to finish."

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20050328&s=klein

[salin]

10. Powerful quote.

I would take note, that it is more than empty rhetoric marketing... it is, as suggested withthe orwellian reference, a marketing to make acceptable - constant instability.

They seem to believe that they are omniscient and omnipotent - in that they can create ... and then control (since they originally direct) the chaos created. That is foolishness. Our might is not endless and all powerful - and full chaos when released.. is by definition... not controllable.

[salin]

12. Crafty Powell - today in Stern

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=1352784

Feigns discontent with the volume and manner in which "we" went to Iraq... but still affirms that it was the right thing to do (ala Iraq is better without Saddam).

Subtle way of trying to give legitimacy to this approach of "creating discord for the greater good" that seems to be building?

[salin]

14. another lbn item... US scatters troops around eurasia

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1353816

from the asiatimes.

I hadn't been paying as close attention as I once did to the scads of items - printed here and there and rarely collected together into bigger stories - that do keep leaking out that are related to our next fp moves. I do hope that we keep paying attention - and linking these stories together. No other way to try to get a sense of the bigger picture. As I said in the beginning of this thread...

part of what they do is the "hidden in plain view" thing - or so I would contend.

[unhappycamper]

15. let's tie Scott Ritter's June 2005 Iran action

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=103&topic_id=116349

and the Novak heads up that our troops will be home in 18 months into the mix.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=3380405

What does that do for your crystal ball?

[salin]

17. gives me the creeps

the Ritter item was in my mind when I wrote the original post.

Read the Novak (and some other items) a little later.

I fear that on a front which has seemed stalled for a little while... something is moving and shifting - and need to get back to paying better attention and putting the pieces together.

Thanks for adding the links to the thread - they are part of the tapestry.

[G_j]

18. me too, something is cooking

and it smells BAD!
:scared::think:

[salin]

19. I don't normally go on gut feelings

but .... this weekend I had a very ominous feeling... attributed it to the whipped up folks in florida and the atmosphere that could lead the unhinged into violence.

Wondering if the sense of dread was real - but not for the surface reason.

Reminds me of the feeling I had when bush made his first public appearance after 911. Amidst all of his rhetoric that on the surface appeared to be pointed at the taliban... the choice of words kept making it broader... "all countries that harbor...." turned to my mother, with whom I was watching and said... omg he's going to take us to Iraq. That was Sept 17 2001, I believe.

But I don't know that they are really nuts enough to go after Iran. "Strategic bombing" - perhaps. Earlier folks speculated that either this rhetoric or the rhetoric about Syria was setting up cover for Israeli strikes at possible weapons facilities. Maybe.

Can't see it yet. But sending Bolton to the UN certainly indicates that whatever we do next, we will not be seeking allies or coalitions via persuasion.

And aren't we "trying" to get talks going again with NK?

And is there more to letting Pakistan "pardon" Khan (sp?) - the person responsible for exporting nuke technology to "rogue states" - on the surface... appeared to be just trying to prop up our ally Musharef (who really did risk a lot to let us stage afghanistan through Pakistan). But is there more? And we are abetting a new arms race of a sort between Pakistan and India? Is that just to prop up US business - or is there something going on there as well?

[G_j]

20. still a mystery but

I couldn't agree with you more that we better pay very close attention in the future.

I might add the little bit about undermining NK talks and the trust of friends (as the US lied about NK selling nuke materials)
go figure..

[salin]

21. They tried for a two-fer with that one

discredit NK while on the surface calling for more talks... while...

obscuring the role of Pakistan in said proliferation of nuke technology.

The thing is - who was the intended audience for that little bit of attempted discredit/disinfo? Much of their rhetoric is targetted at the US population - but we didn't hear much about it. So not us. And the international audience (eg govts and diplomats) have been paying attention so the whole line was very transparent and easily disproven. So what was the point? Or was it bungling?

Because they have gotten away with so much, it is easy to forget that the bumble a lot as well. In some ways as successful as they have been they have also been as spectacularly clumsy and error prone. Very dangerous mix.

[salin]

22. great blog post on that very issue

http://www.warandpiece.com/blogdirs/001808.html

Rosen's excellent website is among my must reads.

Take that last line in the piece... add John Bolton (who was thrown out of a previous rounds of talks with NK) to the UN... and therein lies the creepiness. It doesn't matter to them if we are discredited per the issue of claims of nuclear proliferation. The very claim that they are most apt to make per the need for our next incursion - wherever that might be.

[G_j]

23. wow, great site

I'm getting ready to do some reading.
thanks!

[salin]

27. It is an excellent source

found it sometime last summer. Even had the honor of passing on an item or two to her that she included and followed up with. :D

Thanks for trying to help this conversation continue. Great to have the opportunity to converse with you an a thread :hi:

[G_j]

28. thanks for wrapping together these various stories

so as to explore the possibilities of what we may be looking at.
I think it is important, and we need to be seriously prepared.
I suppose much of the admin policies can be seen as the PNAC bottom line, but I think they have blundered enough that there is plenty of confusion. For one thing, they don't have enough troops and recruitment is down, down, down. We also sold more fighter jets to Israel in the last year so, as you mentioned, perhaps it could be they who attack Iran or Syria.
I sure hope not! The world may not be able to handle ANOTHER war now. No more wars as "problem solvers" That is a complete lie!

thanks for the great conversation also :hi:

[salin]

29. My time is about to dry up

to a few minutes in the early, early morning and an hour or so in the evening - but if you are up for it... let's try to get a fairly regular thread going that ties related issues to these together as the break on LBN or show up elsewhere. If we know to look for such a thread, even if it drops far off the front page - we can keep it going and add to it - getting a little exposure each time. I haven't committed to an issue for quite some time (given that my time - except the last week - is almost nonexistent) - but I think it is time to do so. Up for it?

[G_j]

30. It sounds like a worthy experiment

Though the times I am on are rather erratic, that may work too.
So we are talking about, in a sense, continuing this thread as the general subject?
BTW, I think that your thread title here is quite apt.

[salin]

31. perhaps we should start

with this thread.. add to it for a couple of days... when on line and find an article that fits.

Let's see how that goes first (if with our sporadic time - we really can add items and keep it alive). Then we can continue with the theme.

Thanks for the comp on the title. As I saw the contradictory stories ... it just sorta struck me... "just what are we looking at?" and the title articulated that question.

Thanks :D !

[G_j]

42. makes sense

to keep this thread going.

I was thinking of terms that describe what we are doing and the world "anticipate" came up. As scary as the idea of anticipating Bush foriegn policy may be, I suppose it could approached with a bit of Sherlock Holmesian 'fun' also. Anyway, that is part of why I liked the thread title.

[salin]

43. and apt... in terms of what is going on

they sure do love both obfuscation - and bits of bluster that give indication.

[Beam Me Up]

24. Imperial Intrigues

Imperial Intrigues
http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/articleview/836/1/84/

By Gerald Horne
3-23-05, 10:17 am

With every passing day it becomes increasingly apparent that the crisis of US imperialism is deepening. There were those who assumed blithely that the re-election of George W. Bush would give US imperialism a longer lease on life but it seems the opposite is occurring. Indeed, Washington seems to be falling victim to the malady that ultimately undermined its immediate predecessor, the once heralded British Empire: "imperial overstretch," to use the term coined by Yale historian, Paul Kennedy, i.e. the resources of US imperialism are stretched to the limit in a vain attempt to keep the lid on the planet’s majority which is yearning for deep-seated change.

Writing in London’s Guardian on January 27, 2005, former Clinton aide Sidney Blumenthal cited the sobering words of Lt. General James Helmly, chief of the US Army Reserve, who lamented that as a result of the quagmire in Iraq, his units were "‘in grave danger of … rapidly degenerating into a broken force.’" More than 40 percent of US forces in Iraq are composed of these "volunteer" units who did not contemplate such onerous duties when they enlisted; thus, "re-enlistment is collapsing." The US has a "military in extremis," says Congresswoman Ellen Tauscher.

US fatalities in this war have increased fivefold since May 1, 2003 when President Bush declared an end to major combat operations. The number of wounded has increased seven fold. At the close of 2003 the US authorities estimated that the number of insurgents were a mere 5,000. Yet recently General Mohammed Abdullah Shahwani of Iraqi intelligence has estimated that this number has mushroomed to over 200,000, confirming the dire words of CIA Director Porter Goss, who told Congress recently, that Iraq has become a magnet for "jihadists" from all over the world. Though it was argued in the LA Times on November 30, 2004 that Washington has intentionally inflated the size of Al Qaeda and the forces beholden to Osama bin Laden for its own malevolent reasons, it can hardly be denied that the illegal invasion of Iraq has been a shot in the arm for so-called "Islamic fundamentalism."

Scrambling for answers, US imperialism has veered toward science fiction of late. How else to explain the February 16, 2005 report in the New York Times that the Pentagon is investing heavily in developing military robots to fight their future wars of aggression. "They don’t get hungry," said Gordon Johnson of the Joint Forces Command at the Pentagon. "They’re not afraid. They don’t forget their orders. They don’t care if the guy next to them has just been shot. Will they do a better job than humans? Yes," he added emphatically. Perhaps. Yet this macabre scheme ultimately only reveals the desperation of US imperialism in crisis.

[salin]

25. There was an impression that they had played out as far as they could go

per imperial overreach. But have they? Do they recognize when there are real limitations? We can only hope so - but to hope so and stop paying attention - after what we have learned about them... would be foolish.

[Beam Me Up]

32. I would never recommend we "stop paying attention"

quite the contrary.

I think they see the writing on the wall and have for some time now. More from the above article:

A startled New York Times reported on December 6, 2004 that by 2034, "bank assets in China would surpass those in the United States…from steel to oil to cars to credit cards, China is poised to become the world’s biggest producer and market for many goods and services." China, it was said nervously, "has come to terrify many foreign business executives."

China’s enormous footprint is remaking the global economy and is stretching its tentacles to these shores. Appliance manufacturer, Haier, has set up shop in South Carolina and is a major employer of labor in the conservative Palmetto State. China International Marine Containers, a large shipping company based in Shenzen, recently bought a bankrupt manufacturer of trailers in Monon, Indiana. It is the largest private employer in the town.

Bold Beijing has moved into the so-called backyard of US imperialism, investing heavily in nickel production in socialist Cuba and supplying consumer goods, e.g. televisions. In February 2005 Chinese Vice President Zeng Quinghong and several of his fellow leaders, made an impressive swing through the Caribbean doling out cash for investment projects. Thus, in Trinidad – birthplace of the late great US communist leader, Claudia Jones – which contains the region’s largest and most prosperous economy, Beijing approved a $25 million soft loan allowing business-persons there to buy Chinese products and machinery. The interest rate? A mere two percent. This budding Asian superpower also agreed to buy additional amounts of asphalt from Trinidad. In Guyana China is building a multi-million dollar conference center adjacent to the secretariat of the Caribbean Community.

Most controversial from the viewpoint of US imperialism are the deals China inked with Venezuela. The 125 strong Chinese delegation signed 19 agreements covering agriculture, technology – and oil. The deals involved the construction of a railroad in eastern Venezuela and the purchase of radar to tighten security on its border with Colombia – where US "advisors" have decamped in growing numbers.

My GUESS is that there is a whole other level to this. ALL THE SMART MONEY HAS ALREADY BEEN MOVED TO CHINA. They WANT to bring the US down. That IS their agenda.

[salin]

36. Yikes...

I have long thought that China starting to work in tangent with Russia is not a good sign for us - and suprising that the old Cold Warriors were not screaming up and down warnings as this has started to happen. Your line of thought takes this to the next level - one I have heard from others... that the corporatists and financiers pulling the strings have no allegiance to a country and that these other alliances are part of the plan.

I do not think that the neocons workng in DC are part of that - back to the "confluence of interests" that is going on right now. It is very possible that the neocons are being used, while doing the using and manipulations of others - for those seeking greater and greater economic/material wealth and power with no concern for the US or its citizens. Frightening prospect....

[kineneb]

37. so, we have China & Russia chatting

plus, Russia is "chatting" with Iran to supply them with arms...and never mind that every other country out there hates us...hey, we will take your F-16s, but don't be surprised if we use them on you...

Interesting thought about the neocons being used by the corps. It has become obvious to me that who ever is running the show does not give a damn about the Constitution or the citizens...just look at the goodies they are getting: "reforms" of bankruptcy, air quality, public education, etc. Every single "reform" hits the little guy hard and helps the corps. I get the feeling their goal is to have the US look more like Bangladesh or the boarder region of Texas...hmmm, no wonder they used Shrub...he has the perfect "I don't give a shit" attitude.

then there is the whole dollar business...are they going to let it collapse, and who benefits from a massive depression? and how long can BushCo be in denial about the deficit?

just trying to string the random thoughts and facts together to get a whole item

I keep wondering who is using whom...

[salin]

38. So many "whos"

that it is hard to tell which who is pulling which strings. I really believe that we are in a moment of confluence... confluence of (malevolent) interests of different power blocks that are using one another to achieve various gains... which is why, I think, it is moving so fast on so many fronts - different groups with different agendas who have been planning for years (oft through different think tanks, or policy groups, or corporate planning groups), that now find conditions "go" in this country that are using other groups to get the power and momentum for their agendas. If it were just a group of global financiers - there would be some breaks on the momentum - as a fast collapse of economies would hurt them as well.

For now I am interesting in trying to discern the fp moves - at least in term of using limited time to try to track and combine stories to try to get a better sense of the bigger picture of where things are tyring to be pushed to go. However I think that the financial/economic international front is exceptionally important as well.

To your last question - a heck of a lot of who is using whom is going on at this moment. The left over questions are where are things being pushed - and whose interests will dominate in the end.

[G_j]

26. kick

[paineinthearse]

33. great work

Sorry I had not seen earlier. Got lost in the TS forest, I guess. My brain is tired now, I will ponder and add something rational tomorrow.

[paineinthearse]

34. Read the Feith transcript

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=1686257#1686440

[salin]

35. I completely missed this (Feith transcript)

brain is tired - so will read in the am - and add thoughts at that point. Curosry read suggests very important. Fieth may leave the DoD but after the purges (read Kiatowski for any questions on that point), he can only be replaced by like minded ideologues.

[salin]

44. Key points from Fieth - link it back to the "Instability/Intervention list

With respect to the National Defense Strategy, three of the main ideas are the need to deal with strategic uncertainty; the value of early measures, early action to prevent problems from becoming crises, or crises from becoming wars; and third, the importance of building partnership capacity so that we can work with other countries and get things accomplished in the world that we can't do by ourselves or we can't do as well or as efficiently by ourselves as we can through working with other countries.


Now, the National Defense Strategy defines four strategic objectives. The first is securing the United States from direct attack. The second is securing strategic access and retaining freedom of action for key regions and lines of communication and the global commons. The third is strengthening alliances and partnerships, and that's where this building partnership capacity idea is so important. And the fourth is establishing security conditions conducive to a favorable international order. And that's where we deal with the issues of key countries that are at, as we put it, strategic crossroads, or at points where they're making decisions of an important strategic nature.

The thing with the intellectual type neocons - is that they really do believe their ideology - and at times like to lay it out there for others to "come around to their thinking". The trick is to put it together with real actions and then one can begin to see a picture. So just which countries are targetted on the first super secret "watch" list?

[G_j]

47. neocons

Can we safely assume now that all moderating voices have been purged?
I continue to hear references to 'divisions' over NK policy. But at this point is there anyone in the loop who is not a neocon?

[H2O Man]

49. Safe to assume that that.

There are likely more moderates in the Iranian government than in the Bush administration.

[G_j]

50. well said

and not a joke... what you say is true

[H2O Man]

51. Right.

After I wrote it, I realized it sounded like a stupid joke, but it's not. It is sad that it is true.

[Al-CIAda]

40. PNAC -eom

[salin]

41. Thursday morning ...news items on Iran

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1355777
US calls Iran tour a media stunt (BBC News)

From within the article:
But US Deputy State Department spokesman Adam Ereli said: "If Iran were really serious about demonstrating transparency in its nuclear program, it should answer all of the International Atomic Energy Agency's outstanding questions.

"The point here is that if there is a commitment to transparency, there are real effective, meaningful ways to demonstrate that commitment, beyond a staged media event like is being reported."

He said Iran should allow give inspectors from the IAEA "full and unrestricted access to suspicious sites", and allow its senior nuclear officials to be interviewed



Now, I have heard that Iran, always, was much more of a serious issue than Iraq ever was. We completely dismiss that point at our own danger, imo. However, this sure does sound familiar. Heck through most of 2002 I had a quote in my tag line that I found hugely ironic. Bush, at a little press moment in Alaska said something about needing transparency and not trusting where there wasn't transparency. He was just beginning the propaganda/marketing blitz against Saddam. Meanwhile they were blocking the Cheney's energy papers and many other things (eg Enron contacts, etc.)

But here is that exact rhetoric... along with a call for international inspectors.


Followed by:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1355920
Behind diplomacy, Iran sees a fight coming

Note that this item is from USAToday - that touts itself as moderate (and is often viewed as the 'People Magazine' of the news paper world.

USAToday was also one of the only major papers that expressed questions from its editorial board during the buildup to Iraq - that kept questioning even after others had moved to tow the admin line.

So are they trying to broadcast a little more overtly to the public that isn't really paying close attention that the admin is sounding the same lines off again - and that it is time for the pubic to notice?

The linked article begins with this:

TEHRAN, IRAN — From Washington, the rhetoric calls for diplomatic solutions to the nuclear standoff with Iran. But Tehran also hears a growing drumbeat for war that echoes the build-up to U.S. invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.


and the purported response by Iran
"They see a fight coming, regardless of what they do, so they are getting ready for it," says a European diplomat in Tehran, referring to ideologues who think a U.S. invasion is a "very real prospect." Even moderate conservatives fear the "Iraqization of the Iran dossier," says the diplomat. The result is that Iran is "constantly trying to project strength" and is developing a new doctrine of asymmetric warfare.



Nervous hardliners. Nervous and better armed hardliners. Then later in the article note the 'check list' of 'resources' that Iran has to protect itself. And ask... is this a warning to the commuter reading the paper (ala... dang I hope the admin isn't that crazy)... or... is it part of a propaganda campaign of the sort alluded to (ala the 'dossier') in this same article? I think a case could be made in either direction. murky, murky.

[G_j]

45. murky indeed

good analysis though. It seems pretty obvious that the admin. intends to continue to intimidate with threats (spoken or unspoken)even when it says it believes in diplomacy as a first choice, so I understand why Iran expresses a certain sense of inevitability. ("They see a fight coming, regardless of what they do..")
We know that there are ppl in the admin whose idea of diplomacy is to bully and threaten.
Unfortunately I'm afraid the admin's plans for building mini-nukes etc. may be part of their overall thinking towards Iran and Syria.
Fortunately they haven't 'manifested' yet.

[SheepyMcSheepster]

48. kick

:kick:

[Just Me]

52. They will have to create another catalytic crisis.

:scared:

I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that they will do whatever necessary to achieve the world dominance they seek.

They MUST have another catalytic crisis though. They know they cannot possibly sustain the world war they are trying to incite with the military they have. A draft will be necessary.

[G_j]

53. Iraq Parliament Chaos

(potential civil war?)

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0330-12.htm

Iraq Parliament Chaos Exposes Deep Rifts


BAGHDAD -- The chaotic breakdown of a key Iraqi parliament meeting raised fears of a delay in drawing up a permanent constitution because of the failure of Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis to agree on a government.

As the political players squandered momentum generated by Iraq's January 30 elections, violence raged as six civilians, including an elderly woman and a child, died in a firefight between rebels and US soldiers in Mosul.

Iraq's ethnic and religious groups were huddled in meetings as they attempted to resuscitate a political process that has been dogged by infighting two months after the country's first free vote in 50 years.

Unable to decide on a cabinet or parliament speaker, questions abounded whether the country's volatile communal mix could write a permanent legal charter by mid-August, the deadline set in the interim constitution (TAL).



====
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1447551,00.html

Iraqi assembly descends into chaos

James Sturcke and agencies
Tuesday March 29, 2005

The meeting of Iraq's national assembly descended into chaos today as politicians failed to agree on a candidate for speaker.
Amid acrimonious scenes, the new governing body convened briefly, for only the second time since national elections in January, and admitted defeat in its efforts to nominate a Sunni candidate for the role.

The bickering exposed tensions in the newly formed parliament, with the outgoing interim prime minister, Ayad Allawi, storming out of the session, followed by the interim president, Gazi al-Yawar

"What are we going to tell the citizens who sacrificed their lives and cast ballots on January 30?" asked Hussein al-Sadr, a Shia cleric and member Mr Allawi's coalition.

..more..

=========
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0328-06.htm

Sunnis' Exclusion from Political Process Stokes Fears of Civil War
by Tom Lasseter

BAGHDAD, IRAQ -- While American officials point to the bargaining among Shiite Muslim and Kurdish politicians over an interim Iraqi government as evidence that democracy is taking hold in Iraq, some Iraqi analysts and politicians are increasingly worried about the group that's missing from the equation: Sunni Muslims.

Almost two months after national elections, Iraq's Sunni minority remains fragmented and largely alienated from the horse-trading. If that continues, the group that's long dominated Iraq could find itself shut out of December's prime ministerial election as it was on Jan. 30, when Sunnis won only a few seats in Iraq's new parliament.

Lawmakers had planned to meet this weekend to form a coalition government that's expected to be dominated by Shiites and Kurds, but the session was postponed at least until Tuesday.

On Sunday, Shiite and Kurdish leaders said that many of the key decisions about the new government had been made. Both groups stand to receive most of the key positions - prime minister, president and the major cabinet posts - leaving the Sunnis further estranged.

..more..

====
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A9778-2005Mar29?language=printer

Bush Plays Down Iraq Political Disputes

By TERENCE HUNT
The Associated Press
Tuesday, March 29, 2005; 12:23 PM

WASHINGTON - President Bush, on a day of political turmoil in Baghdad, acknowledged Tuesday that Iraqis are divided over the future of their country but said the differences "will be resolved through debate and persuasion instead of force and intimidation."

"The free people of Iraq are now doing what Saddam Hussein never could: making Iraq a positive example for the entire Middle East," Bush said in remarks in the Rose Garden. He spoke to an audience of Iraqi law students, members of the religious community and others.

..more..

[Just Me]

54. There must be a reason for establishing a permanent military presence.

However, I believe the U.S. will remain a common target/enemy as opposed to the situation escalating into a civil war.

But, that is merely MHO.

[G_j]

55. I certainly hope

there is not a "civil war" in Iraq!
The Iraqi ppl have suffered more than enough.
Did you see the recent report on how Iraqi children were much better off before the invasion? (and that was under the sanctions too)
shame!

[H2O Man]

56. I suspect that

there is a civil war occuring in Iraq now. I think that what is occuring fits that definition in every way.

I think that it is also extremely important that we keep in mind that we are not done in Afghanistan. Although the citizens of the USA tend to view "current events" as having a short shelf-life, the rest of the world moves at a different pace.

[G_j]

58. actually I think you are right

there does seem to be a civil war going on in Iraq already.
You are also correct to remind us that Afghanistan is not stable either. :-(

[H2O Man]

61. It seems to me

that Afghanistan is slowly becoming less "stable." I do not think it is likely that the generals from Pakistan are going to remain idle while a government that is establishing stronger relations with India sets in. I do not believe that the administration has recognized the long-term potential for violence in Afghanistan. As the region adjusts to more stress from the Bush agenda, I think that we will see Afghanistan come back as a serious problem.

[salin]

68. I don't think they realize or don't realize it... our policy has been

to not care - as long as Kabul can be held and give an appearance of control. That was evident early on, when the allied forces wanted to get involved in more wide spread Peace Keeping in areas such as Kandahar (sp?)... and - yes to do the rebuilding of infrastructure that we had promised in our prewar rhetoric (which we later learned was rhetoric that had been prewritten as the rationale for Iraq, and conveniently applied to Afghanistan - remember... Afghanistan in its rebuilding and rebirth as a democracy would serve as a beacon and inspiration for stabilit throughout the region... but in the first bush budget after the invasion - there was ZERO dollars budgeted for rebuilding afghanistan... something that so embarrassed the house leadership (we were already using the rhetoric for Iraq, afterall) that they inserted a line item for those purposes.) We have long stopped caring about, let alone planning one way or the other for any kind of stability in Afghanistan. As long as it doesn't erupt into a fire ball (would have to be that big before we would care. Increased violence, reemergence of the taliban in some areas - doesn't even make the news here), things seem to be deemed to be okay.

Sorry about that - a personal rant of mine since the days we began to use the rhetoric used first for Afghanistan - as a rationale to go into Iraq... while not putting the manpower or resources onto the ground in Afghanistan.

[H2O Man]

69. Right.

We "control" one city. Our media doesn't cover what occures in that city, much less the country-side.

[salin]

70. Instead there is still

some drumbeating for future adventures in some media. However, while ignoring the situation in Afghanist (and in Iraq - to some extent), there is more skepticism to the rhetoric than we saw two years ago. Therein is a tiny, glimmer of hope.

[G_j]

78. of course now they are on the "can't blame the WH" bandwagon

with Pat Roberts' Committee covering up and the new 'report' ignoring the role the OSP and the WH in the WMD 'lies'.
Still, there are obviously dots to be connected within the various investigations.

below is a good article:

http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=5423

'Dead Wrong'
– or Outright Deception?
Iraqi WMD: someone threw us a curveball
by Justin Raimondo

So many investigations, so little time – that's a major problem these days for anyone intent on keeping up with the various scandals that plague this administration's foreign policy.

There's the recently-released 500-page-plus report <.pdf> on how we were bamboozled into believing that Saddam Hussein had "weapons of mass destruction," which concluded that the intelligence community was "dead wrong" – about everything.

We have the "Fitzgerald report" <.pdf> issued by the United Nations on the assassination of Rafik Hariri, which was trumpeted as conclusive proof that Syria was behind the Lebanese leader's death – at least, if you don't read beyond the headlines, and cherry-pick only what fits this theory from the actual text.

However, the Fitzgerald report was overshadowed by another UN report, one detailing the shenanigans that went on in the UN's "oil for food" program, in which Kofi Annan's son loomed large. Again, the headlines were misleading: Annan was not "cleared," but merely excused. Oddly, his "Hell no!" response to calls for him to step down as secretary general was fully supported by the supposedly anti-UN Bush administration. More about that later.

Finally, we have the news that the investigation into the role of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), one of the most powerful lobbies in Washington, is reaching a crossroads, with charges about to be filed. The investigation, which has been going on for at least two years, has all kinds of implications, political as well as criminal. It may well provide us with important clues about the mystery of how American foreign policy is created and conducted.

..much more..

[salin]

79. Difference is, multiple sources have pointed out

a) that Roberts didn't allow the second part of the investigation to go on (the politicization part); and b) that what is missing from the report is significant. Just read a headline to that effect on Googlenews (i'll go back to see what the media source was) and heard it discussed on NPR yesterday (which over the past three years has gotten much more blanched to support admin line without that much critical analysis.) There wasn't but one days worth of coverage pointing out some of the holes - before - except perhaps around the "16 words". But still.... I wonder if the OSP will ever penetrate the public psyche?

Just found one: USAToday oped of all places. Doesn't go to the point of OSP but does make some points: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=679&e=3&u=/usatoday/20050401/cm_usatoday/whatthereportdidntsay

[G_j]

80. come to think of it, it was originally on NPR

that I heard a fairly informative report (there was a brief mention of the OSP) about Roberts ending his committes investigations.
I suppose that is more than we might have heard from MSM a year or so ago.

[salin]

81. they were slapped back a bit

with the Rather situation and the CNN big wig (name escaping me) - though in the latter - certain unfolding and recurring events suggest that he may not have been wrong when speaking. Thus they are again a little more cautious (they were getting more bold last summer).... but even in this cautiousness - they are also seeming to say more than they did, say two years ago.

[G_j]

82. and there is too much 'out there' now

people can do their own 'connecting'and research.
This is very positive I think.

[G_j]

84. Afghanistan: 'One Huge US Jail'

speaking of Afghanistan, this is quite disturbing. :-(

Afghanistan: 'One Huge US Jail'
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/040105C.shtml

'One Huge US Jail'
By Adrian Levy and Cathy Scott-Clark
The Guardian UK

Saturday 19 March 2005

Afghanistan is the hub of a global network of detention centres, the frontline in America's 'war on terror', where arrest can be random and allegations of torture commonplace. Adrian Levy and Cathy Scott-Clark investigate on the ground and talk to former prisoners.

Kabul was a grim, monastic place in the days of the Taliban; today it's a chaotic gathering point for every kind of prospector and carpetbagger. Foreign bidders vying for billions of dollars of telecoms, irrigation and construction contracts have sparked a property boom that has forced up rental prices in the Afghan capital to match those in London, Tokyo and Manhattan. Four years ago, the Ministry of Vice and Virtue in Kabul was a tool of the Taliban inquisition, a drab office building where heretics were locked up for such crimes as humming a popular love song. Now it's owned by an American entrepreneur who hopes its bitter associations won't scare away his new friends. Outside Kabul, Afghanistan is bleaker, its provinces more inaccessible and lawless, than it was under the Taliban. If anyone leaves town, they do so in convoys. Afghanistan is a place where it is easy for people to disappear and perilous for anyone to investigate their fate. Even a seasoned aid agency such as Médécins Sans Frontières was forced to quit after five staff members were murdered last June. Only the 17,000-strong US forces, with their all-terrain Humvees and Apache attack helicopters, have the run of the land, and they have used the haze of fear and uncertainty that has engulfed the country to advance a draconian phase in the war against terror. Afghanistan has become the new Guantánamo Bay.

Washington likes to hold up Afghanistan as an exemplar of how a rogue regime can be replaced by democracy. Meanwhile, human-rights activists and Afghan politicians have accused the US military of placing Afghanistan at the hub of a global system of detention centres where prisoners are held incommunicado and allegedly subjected to torture. The secrecy surrounding them prevents any real independent investigation of the allegations. "The detention system in Afghanistan exists entirely outside international norms, but it is only part of a far larger and more sinister jail network that we are only now beginning to understand," Michael Posner, director of the US legal watchdog Human Rights First, told us.

When we landed in Kabul, Afghanistan was blue with a bruising cold. We were heading for the former al-Qaida strongholds in the south-east that were rumoured to be the focus of the new US network. How should we prepare, we asked local UN staff. "Don't go," they said. None the less, we were able to find a driver, a Pashtun translator and a boxful of clementines, and set off on a five-and-a-half-hour trip south through the snow to Gardez, a market town dominated by two rapidly expanding US military bases.

..more..

[salin]

59. what an interesting set of headlines

chaos
walkout

Bush down plays political "disputes".

Telling, isn't it.

[G_j]

57. Draft may be needed in a year, military analysts warn

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0330draft30-ON.html

Draft may be needed in a year, military analysts warn

Bob Dart
Cox News Service
Mar. 30, 2005 03:24 PM

WASHINGTON - If American forces aren't pulling out of Iraq in a year, a draft will be needed to meet manpower requirements, military analysts warned Wednesday.

With recruitment lagging and no end in sight for U.S. forces in Iraq, the "breaking point" for the nation's all-volunteer military will be mid-2006, agreed Lawrence Korb, a draft opponent and assistant defense secretary in the Reagan administration, and Phillip Carter, a conscription advocate and former Army captain.

"America's all-volunteer military simply cannot deploy and sustain enough troops to succeed in places like Iraq while still deterring threats elsewhere in the world," Carter concluded in the March issue of "Washington Monthly." advertisement


Korb is a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank, and a senior adviser to the Center for Defense Information. Carter is attorney who writes on military affairs for Slate.com and other media. They debated at a symposium on the draft Wednesday.

..more..

[salin]

62. Funny thing this issue

who is disconnected from reality, now? Realists who recognize that we can not even maintain our current level of involvements without significant change in "recruitment" - or the repubs who spout: "We would never do that!" - but who don't change our commitments or FP which can not be sustained.

[H2O Man]

64. Good point.

I'm pleased that my younger son has a social studies teacher who speaks out frankly on these issues. I had to sign a paper okaying my boy watching MM's "F/9-11" in class tomorrow. I'll send in some CO information with my son.

[salin]

66. Good thing to do

locally several years ago the Quakers had some meetings with folks from the Vietnam era who went the CO route, and others who tried but failed, and others - inspite of the nonviolence (and accepted view by the govt per Quakers) who decided to go. The lessons from during the draft in the Vietnam War:

Some draft boards never accepted CO status.

Those draft boards that did required a long record (documentation) that demonstrated religious beliefs against killing and being able to act in combat positions. Letters from pastors, writings, things that are dated and show that it isn't just a sudden bout - the moment before getting a draft notice.

Folks need to remember that CO status often requires some kind of service, just not involved in combat. Sometimes it was service stateside in state institutions (mental health and other) - and other times it was in the military - but in ancilary positions not involved nor directly supporting combat.

Good for young people to get this information long in advance - so if they fall into this category, they can begin to create the documentation paper trail that might lead to their securing CO status.

[H2O Man]

60. Have either of you read

"Longitudes and Attitudes: the world in the age of terrorism" by Thomas L. Friedman? I bought it today, and it looks interesting. I haven't started it yet, but thought it might be good.

[salin]

63. Hadn't heard of it... but am not a big Friedman fan

he seems at time to have a bit of disconnect... Would be interested how balanced/informative/academic it reads as opposed to a bit rosy per "first strike okay if it is for democratization" view. (That is, excepting the later given rationale for the war in Iraq per democratization - without recognizing that to ratify this position in light of knowing the lack of preemptive need... by definition okays first strike with no threat in the cause of "democracy".)

[H2O Man]

65. Yep.

I've never particularly been interested in his work. To be honest, there were few choices at the bookstore that I don't already have. I've been re-reading some older books from the library .... this week, "The Education of a Public Man," by Hubert H. Humphrey. I need to get to a bigger city with a better selection of books! But there are times when reading a Friedman pans out .... and something pops up that I would not come across otherwise. (There is redemption in unearned suffering, so to speak. I hope the book has something of value!)

[salin]

67. It is true

even if one does not agree with some of the author's presuppositions, there are often thoughts, items, facts that are worth discovering from the writing.

I have to admit that after two people gave me the book, The Closing of the American Mind, by Allen Bloom - for Christmas the year it came out... I realized that there are some writers I can not make myself read. If I read five to ten pages that introduce the premise of the rest of the work - and it is unadulturated BS (as that was - premise after premise was so absurt... just couldnt read it).. then I just don't have the patience to wade through it. Good on ya if you can still make yourself do it. You are probably wiser for it - I admit this is a shortfalling of mine. I can do it on articles (eg I can't stand Diane Ravitch - but will read some of her articles because sometimes there is useful information - and it is always helpful to see the direction that the rwers in ed policy are getting ready to try to hijack things towards.) But whole books... just can't seem to make myself do it.

[H2O Man]

71. Every year I stock up

at area library sales. I end up with plenty of books I would not normally read. In the past couple weeks, I've read a couple books Nixon wrote. He was such an odd character. Of course, even in these books, he cannot be trusted to tell the truth. But he is interesting.

I'll read almost anything, including Bill O'Reilly. I draw the line with thugs like Hannity and Coulter. They have nothing of value to offer.

[G_j]

72. Washington accused of training Kyrgyz opposition

(I can imagine Kyrgyz being on the 'list' of "unstable" countries)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1448989,00.html

Ousted president blames US for coup

Washington accused of training Kyrgyz opposition

Nick Paton Walsh in Moscow
Thursday March 31, 2005
The Guardian

The ousted Kyrgyzstan president, Askar Akayev, last night accused the US of being behind the "anti-constitutional coup" which forced him to flee the country last week, and said he would only resign if given sufficient a guarantee of his personal safety.
In his first interview with the western media since he was driven from the central Asian state he had ruled for 15 years, Mr Akayev said "foreign interference" was "unconditionally an important aspect" in the dramatic events that culminated in his flight last Thursday.


"I think that their influence was prevailing," he said when asked of US government involvement in the mayhem that is becoming known as the daffodil revolution. He added that the opposition was "supported by the the National Democratic Institute, Freedom House, and other organisations ... They were providing training and finance," he said. The US has maintained an airbase near the capital, Bishkek, ever since it persuaded Kyrgyzstan to host its Afghanistan campaign in 2001.

[kineneb]

73. BushCo shopping for base locations

According to Chalmers Johnson, the idea is to surround the Middle East with a ring of bases, while pulling troops out of non-stratigic locations (=not near oil/other resourses). Also to be in central asia to "influence" neighbors of Russia and China. If B.Co. is so into "freedom" why else would they put a base in Uzbekistan, where the leader boils his enamies to death?

And a larger question, why does the US gov'mt keep backing nasty dictators over popularly elected officials? (Pinochet, etc.)

[H2O Man]

74. Democracy on the march ......

This is clearly establishing a pattern that is beyond any created by an empire in world history.

In an attempt to answer the wonderful "larger question" -- which is the question we really need to examine -- my feeling is it because very few non-"nasty dictators" will stand for the economic relationships that Uncle Sam requires, in order to acess their natural resources/raw materials. Even a fellow like Tony Blair, who I had admired to an extent, has since 2000 become a repulsive figure. He has gone from respected and admired to hated, and not only by me.

[salin]

75. National Democratic Institute, and Freedom House

it isn't clear whether he is saying that these are US orgs that were active in Krgyzstan, or whether these or Krgyz organizations - supported by the US. Wonder what or who they are.

Funny, and given "the list" - it is very possible (probable - we do have a history of such tinkering, but the US govt has created a situation where even the worst actor, if overthrown legitimately, will claim US interference.. and probably most of the world would accept it as fact, given our track record, esp under bushco.

[G_j]

76. similar to accusations made in the Ukraine

you are right, hard to know the truth about these accusations.

& We haven't really touched upon the Venezuelan coup attempts..

[salin]

77. Rhetoric is starting to boil on that front, again.

seems to peak as a certain resource price peaks (implied pun intended)

[G_j]

83. US calls on help to contain Venezuela’s “destabilizing role”

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=1360067&mesg_id=1360067

US calls on help to contain Venezuela’s “destabilizing role”


<clips>

The United States government asked Venezuela's neighbouring countries to take into account the "destabilizing role" the Caracas government is playing in the region.

Replying to a question about Venezuelan arms purchases, State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said Washington had "called attention to Venezuela's destabilizing role in the region”.

”In the various reports and events ... whether it's buying arms ...or some of the people who have been taking refugee (there) ...we’ve seen that Venezuela ... is playing a destabilizing role".

President Bush administration openly objects to Venezuela's plans to purchase assault rifles and military helicopters from Russia as well as to the deal announced this week involving Spanish naval patrol vessels and transport aircraft.

Mr. Boucher also reiterated U.S. criticism of the Chavez administration domestic “populist” policies.

http://www.falkland-malvinas.com/Detalle.asp?NUM=5380