Tag: Military

Topic Header

Actions Show U.S. Doesn’t Believe Its Iran Lies Either

Trish

Think about it: if the United States really believed Iran had nuclear defense capability, would we be so belligerent and overbearing toward it? Or, as with North Korea, would we call upon others to help us take the diplomatic route? Our behavior tells me we’re lying.

A story in the L.A. Times reports that with regard to Iran, everyone else thinks we’re lying too.

IAEA officials remain suspicious of the information in part because most of the papers are in English rather than Persian, the Iranian language

“Since 2002, pretty much all the intelligence that’s come to us has proved to be wrong,” a senior diplomat at the IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency] said. Another official here described the agency’s intelligence stream as “very cold now” because “so little panned out.”

…American officials privately acknowledge that much of their evidence on Iran’s nuclear plans and programs remains ambiguous, fragmented and difficult to prove.

The IAEA has its own concerns about Iran’s nuclear program, although agency officials say they have found no proof that nuclear material has been diverted to a weapons program.

Another way of stating that last sentence is, “The objective international agency that has been investigating Iran for five years has never found a single thing to indicate the country is building nukes.”

On the other hand, there’s plenty of evidence the United States is making crap up again.

Diplomats here were less convinced by documents recovered by U.S. intelligence from a laptop computer apparently stolen from Iran. American analysts first briefed senior IAEA officials on the contents of the hard drive at the U.S. mission here in mid-2005.

The documents included detailed designs to upgrade ballistic missiles to carry nuclear warheads, drawings for subterranean testing of high explosives, and two pages describing research on uranium tetrafluoride, known as “green salt,” which is used during uranium enrichment. IAEA officials remain suspicious of the information in part because most of the papers are in English rather than Persian, the Iranian language.

Oh please! They were written in English? Does that not have the mark of Rover and Dirty Dick all over it?

Iran’s representative to the IAEA, Ali Asghar Soltanieh, dismissed the laptop documents as “fabricated information.” Iran, he said, has produced 170 tons of “green salt” at a uranium conversion facility in Esfahan that is monitored by the IAEA.

“We are not hiding it,” he said in an interview. “We make tons of it. These documents are all nonsense.”

All anyone can prove the Iranians guilty of is the same thing Hussein actually did — scoffing at inspectors and resisting cooperation with what they view as coercion. And while I wish no one had nuclear weapons — including us, Russia, China, Israel, and North Korea — I can’t follow our reasoning about who can and who can’t.

Where is this all going, anyway? The countries that do not today have nuclear weapons can easily have them tomorrow. The only way we’ll ever be safe is if we focus on moving the world away from conflict, not on stacking the deck so we can always win the wars we keep starting. That strategy hasn’t worked in Iraq or Afghanistan and it’s doubtful it will work in Iran. It’s time to try something else.

Times of London: U.S. Military Leaders Threaten to Resign if Bush Attacks Iran

Jon Ponder

Finally, a glimmer of hope for our country:

Some of America’s most senior military commanders are prepared to resign if the White House orders a military strike against Iran, according to highly placed defence and intelligence sources.

Tension in the Gulf region has raised fears that an attack on Iran is becoming increasingly likely before President George Bush leaves office. The Sunday Times has learnt that up to five generals and admirals are willing to resign rather than approve what they consider would be a reckless attack.

“There are four or five generals and admirals we know of who would resign if Bush ordered an attack on Iran,” a source with close ties to British intelligence said. “There is simply no stomach for it in the Pentagon, and a lot of people question whether such an attack would be effective or even possible.”

Unfortunately, these military officers are now marked men.

Cheney Digs His Hole Deeper; Carter Hands Him Shovel

Trish

If he said it once, he’ll say it again. And he did. Dick Cheney wants us to know he really meant it when he said Nancy Pelosi and the members of the House who voted to dial down on Iraq are on the side of al Qaeda.

Carter says Dick is no better at assessing foreign affairs than he is at recognizing quail

“My statement was that if we adopt the Pelosi policy, is that we will validate the strategy of al Qaeda,” Cheney said. “I said it, and I meant it.”

By “the Pelosi policy,” Dirty D must mean anything that involves transitioning from military to political solutions in Iraq. Or Iran, for that matter.

But former president Jimmy Carter says Dick hasn’t been right yet. In an interview to be aired on ABC’s This Week, Carter says Dick is no better at assessing foreign affairs than he is at recognizing quail.

“If you go back and see what Vice President Cheney has said for the last three or four years concerning Iraq, his batting average is abysmally low. He hasn’t been right on hardly anything, in his prediction of what was going to happen; reasons for us going over there; the status of the situation to have a good result. So he’s been almost completely wrong on just about everything he’s said.

“And obviously, this is not playing into the hands of Al Qaida or the people who are causing violence and destruction over there, to call for a change in policy in Iraq.”

Former Bush Official Says Admininstration Is Deliberately Provoking Iran

Jon Ponder

This one is on the record:

“They intend to be as provocative as possible and make the Iranians do something [America] would be forced to retaliate for,” says Hillary Mann, former Bush national security official.

Some view the spiraling attacks as a strand in a worrisome pattern. At least one former White House official contends that some Bush advisers secretly want an excuse to attack Iran. “They intend to be as provocative as possible and make the Iranians do something [America] would be forced to retaliate for,” says Hillary Mann, the administration’s former National Security Council director for Iran and Persian Gulf Affairs.

U.S. officials insist they have no intention of provoking or otherwise starting a war with Iran, and they were also quick to deny any link to Sharafi’s kidnapping. But the fact remains that the longstanding war of words between Washington and Tehran is edging toward something more dangerous.

A second Navy carrier group is steaming toward the Persian Gulf, and NEWSWEEK has learned that a third carrier will likely follow. Iran shot off a few missiles in those same tense waters last week, in a highly publicized test.

With Americans and Iranians jousting on the chaotic battleground of Iraq, the chances of a small incident’s spiraling into a crisis are higher than they’ve been in years.

Putin Not Feeling the Love for W Anymore

Trish

Russian President Vladimir Putin’s blast at Bush policies is going largely ignored in this country, what with more urgent subjects for Americans to debate. You know, like who is Anna Nicole Smith’s baby daddy?

Still, we enjoyed Putin’s unique perspective at the Munich Conference on Security Policy, in which he said the White House should examine its own responsibility for Iran and others not trusting us.

“Nobody feels secure anymore because nobody can hide behind international law,” Putin told the gathering.

Putin said it was “the almost uncontained hyper-use of force in international relations” that was forcing countries opposed to Washington to seek to build up nuclear arsenals.

“It is a world of one master, one sovereign. … It has nothing to do with democracy. This is nourishing the wish of countries to get nuclear weapons,” he said.

“This is very dangerous. Nobody feels secure anymore because nobody can hide behind international law,” Putin told the gathering.

Putin did not mention the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan, but he voiced concern about NATO’s expansion plans as possible challenges to Russia.

“The process of NATO expansion has nothing to do with modernization of the alliance or with ensuring security in Europe,” Putin said. “On the contrary, it is a serious factor provoking reduction of mutual trust.”

John McCain, who was at the conference looking presidential, rushed to condemn Putin’s speech, nearly falling over as his knee jerked out from under him.

Oddly, new Secretary of Defense Robert Gates was more circumspect and actually waited a day to respond. When he did, he focused on the United States’ need for help in Afghanistan, which is going almost as badly as Baghdad.

He struck a familiar theme — one he pressed during a NATO defense ministers meeting this week, when he urged the allies to follow through on their promises to help secure and rebuild Afghanistan.

“It is vitally important that the success Afghanistan has achieved not be allowed to slip away through neglect or lack of political will or resolve,” Gates said. Failure to muster a strong military effort combined with economic development and a counternarcotics plan “would be a mark of shame,” he said.

Bring shame on a neocon initiative? Sounds like a job for George W!

George Bush is Not Our Commander in Chief

Trish

You might have missed Garry Wills’ recent brilliant reality check, so we are excerpting it here as a public service.

We hear constantly now about “our commander in chief.” The word has become a synonym for “president.” It is said that we “elect a commander in chief.” It is asked whether this or that candidate is “worthy to be our commander in chief.”

But the president is not our commander in chief. He certainly is not mine. I am not in the Army.

Dwight Eisenhower, a real general, knew that the salute is for the uniform, and as president he was not wearing one. An exchange of salutes was out of order.

…The president is not the commander in chief of civilians. He is not even commander in chief of National Guard troops unless and until they are federalized. The Constitution is clear on this: “The president shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States.”

…The glorification of the president as a war leader is registered in numerous and substantial executive aggrandizements; but it is symbolized in other ways that, while small in themselves, dispose the citizenry to accept those aggrandizements. We are reminded, for instance, of the expanded commander in chief status every time a modern president gets off the White House helicopter and returns the salute of marines.

That is an innovation that was begun by Ronald Reagan. Dwight Eisenhower, a real general, knew that the salute is for the uniform, and as president he was not wearing one. An exchange of salutes was out of order. (George Bush came as close as he could to wearing a uniform while president when he landed on the telegenic aircraft carrier in an Air Force flight jacket).

…Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s prescient last book, “Secrecy,” traced the ever-faster-growing secrecy of our government and said that it strikes at the very essence of democracy — accountability of representatives to the people. How can the people hold their representatives to account if they are denied knowledge of what they are doing? Wartime and war analogies are embraced because these justify the secrecy. The representative is accountable to citizens. Soldiers are accountable to their officer. The dynamics are different, and to blend them is to undermine the basic principles of our Constitution.

Disaster: Bush Says He’ll Continue Meddling in Middle East After His Presidency

Jon Ponder

George Bush has informed his inner circle that after he leaves office he plans to invite Middle East leaders to his think tank in Texas, where he will school them in the finer points of democratic governance.

If Bush really is allowed to continue meddling in the Middle East after he leaves office, there could soon be nuclear bomb craters dotting the landscape from Tel Aviv to Teheran.

Too bad no one in his inner circle has the cojones to tell him that the rest of the world views his efforts in the region to date as having done more harm than good. His approach — bombing Iraq back to the Stone Age and then installing a weak-as-treacle democracy among the ruins — has supplanted the Vietnam War as the biggest foreign policy disaster in U.S. history.

Meanwhile, here at home, not since the Federalists passed the Alien and Sedition Acts in the Adams administration has a gang in government done more to assault the U.S. Constitution. Through his actions — from wiretapping U.S. citizens to creating “signing statements” that abrogate the bills he signs into law — Bush has demonstrated an aristocrat’s disdain for the institutions of democracy.

The president’s sad bluster about staying involved in Middle East politics would be funny if it weren’t so fraught with danger. Allowing him to meddle in the Middle East could easily result in nuclear-bomb craters dotting the landscape from Tel Aviv to Teheran.

‘Realists’ Pull Iran Report Because Neo-con Claims Went Too Far

Jon Ponder

It is interesting to learn that Sec. of State Condoleeza Rice felt empowered to withdraw a report on Iran’s weapons dealings because she and Sec. Defense Bob Gates thought some of its neo-con claims were too outlandish, but what we know about the neo-cons is that they always come out on top in this administration:

The big briefing planned by the Bush administration on supposed Iranian weapons shipments to Iraq had to be postponed because the presentation was judged exaggerated and unsubstantiated by Secretary of State Condi Rice and by Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates. So that raises the question of who was spearheading this presentation inside the Bush administration? Getting Iran is an obsession of the Neoconservatives at the American Enterprise Institute and their plants inside the administration, such as Iran-Contra felon Elliot Abrams in the National Security Council and David Wurmser and John Hannah on Cheney’s rump Veep national security council. Many Neoconservatives and other sorts of wingnut have a secret alliance with the Marxist Islamist MEK terrorist organization, which feeds them allegations about Iran in Iraq just as Ahmad Chalabi used to with regard to the Baath regime in Iraq.

So have the Cheney Neoconservatives been at least somewhat reined in by a new Rice-Gates axis of Realists?

ISG Chair James Baker to Senate: ‘Give War a Chance’

Jon Ponder

The Iraq Study Group recommended ramping up diplomacy and putting more responsibility for patrolling the streets on Iraqi forces. It pointedly did not reccomend escalating the war. And yet, here is its co-chairman, the Republican operative and former Sec. of State under Bush’s daddy, testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee yesterday:

James Baker, the co-chairman of the Iraq Study Group, on Tuesday endorsed President Bush’s troop surge in Iraq, urging the Senate to “give it a chance.”

“The president’s plan ought to be given a chance,” Baker told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. “Just give it a chance.”

At which point all the Republican senators stood up, held hands and started singing the John Lennon song, “All we are saying is give war a chance!”

Most U.S. Soldiers Killed in Iraq Come from Rural Areas

Buck Banks

IED fodder: Due to local economic conditions, lack of educational and employment opportunities, and other pretty obvious reasons, most of the U.S. volunteer army comes from the hinterlands, not the cities. It’s not an uncommon story — young men and women from small towns getting their asses shot off while rich Republicans get richer off the spoils of war.

This might be considered part of a long-term White House strategy of fighting two significant wars abroad while demobilizing the population at home.

Demographer William O’Hare and journalist Bill Bishop, working with the University of New Hampshire’s Carsey Institute, which specializes in the overlooked rural areas of our country, have actually crunched the numbers in an important study that has gotten too little attention. Matching a data set from the Department of Defense listing the dead and their hometowns against information from the White House Office of Management and Budget on which counties in this country are metropolitan, they found that the American dead of the Iraq and Afghan Wars do indeed come disproportionately from rural America. Quite startlingly so.

According to their study, the death rate “for rural soldiers (24 per million adults aged 18 to 59) is 60 percent higher than the death rate for those soldiers from cities and suburbs (15 deaths per million).” Of rural areas, Vermont has the highest rate of casualties, followed by Delaware, South Dakota, and Arizona. Only eight of our states have higher urban than rural death rates.

Demographer O’Hare, who himself grew up in the small Michigan town of Flushing, tells Tomdispatch:

“We know that soldiers from rural America are dying at higher rates than those from urban America, strikingly higher, 60 percent higher. We know, from other research, that the rural young join the military at higher rates than those from metropolitan areas. The dearth of opportunity in rural areas simply leaves more young people there with fewer alternatives to the military.

“Dozens of case studies show that opportunities are moving away, part of a long-term shift. The opportunity differential between rural and urban America is probably higher now than at any time in the past. Our study highlights the price some young folks and their families are paying for lack of opportunity in rural America.”

What does this mean? Just over 3,000 Americans have died in Iraq. If the U.S. population is 300 million, then that’s just 0.001 percent of it. Add into this the fact that the American dead come disproportionately from the most forgotten, least attended to parts of our country, from places that often have lost their job bases; consider that many of them were under or unemployed as well as undereducated, that they generally come from struggling, low-income, low-skills areas. Given that we have an all-volunteer military (so that not even the threat of a draft touches other young Americans), you could certainly say that the President’s war in Iraq — and its harm — has been disproportionately felt. If you live in a rural area, you are simply far more likely to know a casualty of the war than in most major metropolitan areas of the country.

No wonder it’s been easy for so many Americans to ignore such a catastrophic war until relatively recently. This might, in a sense, be considered part of a long-term White House strategy, finally faltering, of essentially fighting two significant wars abroad while demobilizing the population at home. When, for instance, soon after the 9/11 attacks the President urged Americans to go to Disney World or, in December 2006, to go “shopping more” to help the economy, he meant it. We were to go on with our normal lives, untouched by his war.