|
|
|
| Iraq + war on terrorism + Middle East conflict + critical perspectives |
 Death on the beach: seven Palestinians killed as Israeli shells hit family picnicBy Chris McGreal, The Guardian, June 10, 2006 A barrage of Israeli artillery shells rained down on a busy Gaza beach yesterday, killing seven Palestinians, three of them children. The attack put further strain on the 16-month truce between Israel and the governing Hamas movement. Witnesses described several explosions that also injured dozens of other people who lay on the beach, screaming and pleading for help. Some ran into the sea for fear of more shells hitting the sands at Beit Lahia, in the north of the Gaza strip. Among the dead were three children, aged one, three, and 10. Their sister was swimming and survived. The beach was packed with picnicking families enjoying the Muslim day of rest, and the explosions landed among them, scattering body parts along the dunes. Television footage showed a woman and a child laying dead on the sand, and another child screaming in agony while a lifeless man was carried away by an ambulance crew. [complete article] Ghalia family lost six members in shelling, in 2005 they lost fourAP (via Haaretz), June 10, 2006 The hardest hit in the Israel Defense Forces artillery strike on a Gaza beach Friday was the Ghalia family, which lost six members, among them the father, one of his two wives, an infant boy and an 18-month-old girl. Less than two years ago, four members of the family were killed when IDF shell hit the family farm in the northern Gaza town of Beit Lahia. The military had been targeting the area in response to Palestinian mortar fire. Ali Ghalia, a Palestinian farmer, had taken his two wives and nine children on a trip to the beach, and the family was enjoying a picnic when the IDF artillery shell hit them. [complete article] Hamas fires rockets at Israel after calling off truceBy Steven Erlanger, New York Times, June 10, 2006 The ruling Hamas group fired a barrage of homemade rockets at Israel on Saturday, hours after calling off a truce with Israel in anger over an artillery attack that killed seven civilians at a beachside picnic in the Gaza Strip, according to Associated Press reports. The end of the truce raised the prospect of a new wave of bloodshed and the resumption of suicide attacks that Hamas had suspended since reaching the cease-fire in February 2005. The Islamic militant group claimed responsibility for at least 15 of the rockets fired after midnight, as well as a barrage of mortar bombs. The attacks caused no casualties, and the Israeli army said nearly all of them appeared to land inside Gaza. [complete article] Abbas says will call referendum despite 'bloody massacre' on Gaza beachBy Mijal Grinberg and Assaf Uni, Haaretz, June 10, 2006 Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas was determined to push ahead with plans Saturday to call a referendum on a statehood proposal that implicitly recognises Israel, despite seven civilian deaths the day before when a Israel Defense Forces shell struck a Gaza beach, PA officials said. [complete article] Olmert rejects Abbas plan to boost negotiationsBy Donald Macintyre, The Independent, June 10, 2006 The Israeli Prime Minister has dismissed as "meaningless" the referendum that the Palestinian President, Mahmoud Abbas, plans to call today and rejects the document that Palestinians will vote on as a basis for negotiations. In terms that cast doubt on prospects for the negotiations with Mr Abbas being urged by European governments, Ehud Olmert used his first British newspaper interview to declare that the document, drawn up by a group of Fatah and Hamas prisoners, is "far behind" the principles for such negotiations defined by Israel and the international community. [complete article] He was more symbol than sweeping leaderBy Megan K. Stack, Los Angeles Times, June 9, 2006 His somber face, fiery invective and bloody legend helped lure foreign volunteers and cash to fuel the insurgency in Iraq. He taunted his enemies, stirred sectarian rage and took credit for some of the most shocking acts in the annals of modern terrorism. But Abu Musab Zarqawi was mostly a looming image, a man whose contribution to the war derived largely from his symbolic value. As a military commander, he held sway over just a fraction of a fraction of the fighters who daily sow bloodshed in Iraq. [complete article]  Comment -- Zarqawi's death fits on a trend line. Unfortunately for the Bush administration and the Iraqi government this isn't a trend of increasing success in quelling the insurgency. On the contrary, it seems to reflect a growing hostility between native and non-native Sunni insurgents. Zarqawi's loss may be a blow to foreign jihadists, but many Iraqi Sunni insurgents may now be quite comfortable seeing him "promoted" yet operationally sidelined as a jihadi emeritus.As for turning points, they can only be discerned clearly with hindsight. The one such moment this year came on February 22. For the demolition of the golden dome at Samarra's Al Askari Mosque, American and Iraqi officials still claim they regard Zarqawi as a prime suspect. Yet the calculation to destroy a symbol rather than create yet another scene of indiscriminate mass carnage, seems intimately connected in design to the ruthlessly systematic sectarian killings that have followed. Much as Shia and Sunni political leaders might want to claim that foreigners have been trying to foment civil war, all the evidence now indicates that this has indeed become first and foremost a power struggle within Iraq. Figures such as Zarqawi would inevitably be peripheral to such a conflict, however much they -- or the U.S. -- might want to magnify their importance.  The short, violent life of Abu Musab al-ZarqawiBy Mary Anne Weaver, Atlantic Monthly, July-August, 2006 On a cold and blustery evening in December 1989, Huthaifa Azzam, the teenage son of the legendary Jordanian-Palestinian mujahideen leader Sheikh Abdullah Azzam, went to the airport in Peshawar, Pakistan, to welcome a group of young men. All were new recruits, largely from Jordan, and they had come to fight in a fratricidal civil war in neighboring Afghanistan -- an outgrowth of the CIA-financed jihad of the 1980s against the Soviet occupation there. The men were scruffy, Huthaifa mused as he greeted them, and seemed hardly in battle-ready form. Some had just been released from prison; others were professors and sheikhs. None of them would prove worth remembering -- except for a relatively short, squat man named Ahmad Fadhil Nazzal al-Khalaylah. He would later rename himself Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. Once one of the most wanted men in the world, for whose arrest the United States offered a $25 million reward, al-Zarqawi was a notoriously enigmatic figure -- a man who was everywhere yet nowhere. I went to Jordan earlier this year, three months before he was killed by a U.S. airstrike in early June, to find out who he really was, and to try to understand the role he was playing in the anti-American insurgency in Iraq. I also hoped to get a sense of how his generation -- the foreign fighters now waging jihad in Iraq -- compare with the foreign fighters who twenty years ago waged jihad in Afghanistan. [complete article] Six-week hunt led to ZarqawiBy Bryan Bender, Boston Globe, June 9, 2006 A methodical six-week manhunt aided by local tipsters, spy drones, and informers from his own terrorist network finally led to the demise of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi , the leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq, in US airstrikes Wednesday night, US officials said yesterday. The 39-year-old Zarqawi, who had recruited hundreds of Arab militants to launch suicide attacks and became the public face of the insurgency that has rocked Iraq for three years, died when US special forces guided a pair of Air Force F-16s to the isolated safehouse near Baqubah, north of Baghdad, where he was meeting with his spiritual adviser. The adviser and four others, including an unidentified woman and child, were also killed. [complete article] Conventional Trident missiles will aid terror warBy Paul X. Rutz, American Forces Press Service, June 8, 2006 Arming submarines with nonnuclear intercontinental ballistic missiles will give America a necessary quick-strike weapon in the war on terror, the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said here yesterday. The proposal, part of the Defense Department's 2007 budget request, aims to remove two nuclear missiles from each of the Navy's 14 ballistic missile submarines, or SSBNs, and replace them with two conventionally armed Trident missiles, said Navy Adm. Edmund P. Giambastiani at the Naval Submarine League's annual symposium. The move would put about 22 such missiles into operational deployment, he said. "It's meant to be a very niche capability," Giambastiani told about 400 retired officers, businessmen and fellow submariners. "We're not talking a lot of missiles here. So this really is a small, quick-strike capability. "Why would you want it?," the vice chairman, whose career spans many submarine assignments and commands, asked. "So that you can respond within 60 minutes or so to something at very long ranges, very precisely, assuming you have very precise knowledge." [complete article] Comment -- Yesterday's successful bombing in Baqubah will no doubt fire up the supporters of conventionally-armed Tridents. Is it just a matter of time before one or two are fired at a compound somewhere in Waziristan? But setting aside doubts about the precision about which Adm. Giambastiani seems confident, what about the issue of sovereignty? Is this not the definition of a rogue nation: one that unilaterally claims the right to fire missiles anywhere on the planet?
Zarqawi's death not a severe blow to al-Qaida, experts sayBy Warren P. Strobel, Jonathan S. Landay and John Walcott, Knight Ridder, June 8, 2006 The death of terrorist leader Abu Musab al Zarqawi, while a major tactical success, is unlikely to have a significant impact on the struggle against al-Qaida and its far-flung terrorist network of spin-offs and imitators, current and former U.S. counterterrorism officials said Thursday. President Bush termed Zarqawi's death in a strike coordinated by U.S., Iraqi and Jordanian security forces "a severe blow to al-Qaida." But a half-dozen officials, who have decades of experience tracking and analyzing Islamic militants, offered a more cautious view. [complete article] Taliban leader: 'more Zarqawis to come'The Guardian, June 9, 2006 A statement believed to be from the Taliban leader Mullah Omar has mourned the "martyrdom" of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and vowed to continue the "struggle against crusaders". In the statement, released today, Omar expressed sadness over the death of the al-Qaida leader in Iraq in a US air strike on Wednesday, but said it "would not weaken the resistance" in the country. He said there were many young men willing to take Zarqawi's place. "It is the people's resistance, and every youth can become Zarqawi," the statement said. "Many, many more young men can become Zarqawi. The successors ... can be even stronger than him. "No one knew Zarqawi three years ago, but his continued struggle against invasion made him a leader. He has trained thousands of people in his three years of struggle. He sacrificed his life in accordance with his wish to die while fighting against Americans." [complete article]  Politics and war by other meansBy Tony Karon, TomDispatch, June 8, 2006 I have a pretty good idea where Osama bin Laden will be on June 14 -- and June 19, and again on June 23. Not his exact location, but it's a safe bet he'll be in front of a TV tuned in to Saudi Arabia's World Cup soccer matches with, respectively, Tunisia, Ukraine, and Spain. Legend has it that soccer is one of bin Laden's guilty pleasures. He's unlikely to miss the spectacle of the men from the land of the Prophet taking on the infidels of al-Andalus. He probably has a soft spot for Tunisia too, that country being the only one on record thus far to see one of its professional soccer players attempt to join al Qaeda's martyrs. Nor will bin Laden be alone among America's enemies in spending June engrossed in the quadrennial spectacle of the World Cup, staged this time in Germany. Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmedinajad has even threatened to show up if Iran progresses beyond the first round. Seeking to burnish his populist credentials at home, Ahmedinajad recently allowed himself to be photographed in sweats kicking a ball around with the Iranian team during a training session. You can bet Kim Jong-il will watch, too, even though it is South Korea that represents his nation's hopes this year. [complete article] Only a provocateurBy Jonathan Steele, The Guardian, June 9, 2006 The success of any insurgency always depends on the degree of its popular support. In a country occupied by foreign troops and where the government is not perceived as independent, the most powerful source of that support is nationalism. The occupiers are the insurgents' best recruiting tool. These basic truths have never been taken on board sufficiently by the Bush administration or the UK government in their dealings with Iraq. Ignoring them was the biggest blunder in the pre-invasion period, when it was falsely assumed most Iraqis would welcome the arrival of western troops. Since the invasion, US commanders and politicians have continued to underrate the extent of nationalist resentment and resistance. [complete article] Face of the enemyBy Christopher Dickey, Newsweek, June 8, 2006 Conceivably, the effect will be to weaken the insurgency as a whole. But it's also possible that the homegrown Iraqi rebels, now free of Zarqawi's evil image, may actually grow in political power and military strength. Following the classic pattern established by many other guerrilla groups in history, they may work through "peaceful" front organizations that actually take part in the Parliament, while also continuing to attack in the field. "Fight and talk" is often a successful strategy for guerrillas looking to assure their people's rights. Zarqawi made talking almost impossible. With the Jordanian terrorist now out of the way, the Bush administration may be forced to recognize that there are other faces in the opposition, potentially equally dangerous to Washington's grand designs but politically smarter and less easy to caricature. They, too, will have to be taken into account. [complete article] Zarqawi is dead, but weary Iraqis fear the violence won't subsideBy Sabrina Tavernise, New York Times, June 9, 2006 As news of Mr. Zarqawi's death settled into homes across the country, Iraqis at lunch tables and in living rooms found themselves wondering what, if anything, would be different. A relentless stream of killings and kidnappings has choked the routines of life to a trickle, and the death of Mr. Zarqawi, while welcome, did not seem likely to stop the violence. [complete article] In the Mideast, not sure what to thinkBy Anthony Shadid, Washington Post, June 9, 2006 Sheik Fathi Yakan is not one to be faint of heart. A 50-year veteran of Islamic politics in a city growing ever more religious, he has adorned his office with the iconography of jihad. "Victory or martyrdom," reads one slogan, emblazoned on a calendar. He celebrates what he calls America's defeat in Iraq and embraces a never-ending struggle against the United States. But when it came to the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in a U.S. airstrike in Iraq on Wednesday, Yakan's language of absolutes melted into ambiguity. Martyr or villain? Like many in the Arab world, he shook his head, unsure what to say. "I don't know him well enough to say whether in the end he was good or bad," said Yakan, 73, a long gray beard falling over his tie, his thick gray hair combed back. "I myself couldn't determine his intentions." [complete article] Iraq orders driving ban to prevent attacksBy Kim Gamel, AP (via Boston Globe), June 9, 2006 Iraq's prime minister imposed a daytime driving ban in Baghdad and in the province where Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was killed by American bombs, fearing insurgents will seek to avenge the death of the al-Qaida in Iraq leader. As Iraqi and U.S. leaders cautioned that al-Zarqawi's death was not likely to end the bloodshed in Iraq, an American general said another foreign-born militant was already poised to take over the terror network's operations. Maj. Gen. William Caldwell said Egyptian-born Abu al-Masri would likely take the reins of al-Qaida in Iraq. He said al-Masri trained in Afghanistan and arrived in Iraq in 2002 to establish an al-Qaida cell. [complete article] See also, At least 26 killed in Baghdad bomb attacks (The Guardian) and Gunmen kidnap senior Iraq oil official in Baghdad (Reuters). Our strategy for a democratic IraqBy Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, Washington Post, June 9, 2006 The completion of the national unity government Thursday in Iraq marks the starting point for repaying Iraqis' commitment to and thirst for democracy. We are at this juncture thanks to the bravery of the soldiers, police and citizens who have paid the highest price to give Iraq its freedom. Our national unity government will honor these sacrifices by pursuing an uncompromising agenda to deliver security and services to the Iraqi people and to combat rampant corruption. This government will build on the additional momentum gained from the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in order to defeat terrorism and sectarianism and to deliver on the Iraqi people's hope of a united, stable and prosperous democracy by following a three-pronged strategy: [complete article] Condolence payments to Iraqis spikeBy Bryan Bender, Boston Globe, June 8, 2006 The amount of cash the US military has paid to families of Iraqi civilians killed or maimed in operations involving American troops skyrocketed from just under $5 million in 2004 to almost $20 million last year, according to Pentagon financial data. The dramatic spike in what's known as condolence payments - distributed to Iraqi families whose loved ones were caught in US crossfire or victimized during US ground and air assaults - suggests that American commanders made on-the-spot restitution far more frequently, according to congressional aides and officials familiar with a special fund at the disposal of military officers in Iraq. Defense Department officials maintain that the payments - which officials said range from a few hundred dollars for injuries such as a severed limb to $2,500 for the death of a relative - mirror a local custom commonly known as "solatia," in which families receive financial compensation for damages or human losses. They stressed that the payments shouldn't be seen as an admission of guilt or responsibility. But amid reports that US Marines paid $2,500 per victim after dozens of civilians were killed on Nov. 19 in the town of Haditha - an incident now engulfed by allegations of a massacre - the fourfold increase in condolence payments raises new questions about the extent to which Iraqi civilians have been the victims of US firepower. [complete article] Troop cuts in Iraq won't meet goal this year, officials sayBy Thom Shanker and David E. Sanger, New York Times, June 9, 2006 Senior administration and military officials now acknowledge that there is little chance the United States can reach the milestone of reducing American troop levels in Iraq to 100,000 by December, a goal that earlier in the year had seemed within reach. The subject of future troop levels is certain to be an important part of President Bush's two-day war cabinet meeting, which will start Monday at Camp David. Senior American commanders in Iraq will take part by a video link. In preparation, military planners in Iraq and at the Pentagon have been refining troop-rotation proposals that, in the best case, would reduce levels to 110,000 to 120,000 troops by the end of December, from current levels of about 130,000, administration and military officials said. [complete article] Tehran boosts hopes of end to nuclear standoffBy Robert Tait, The Guardian, June 9, 2006 Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, boosted hopes of a breakthrough in the international standoff over his country's suspected nuclear weapons programme yesterday by backing talks over "mutual concerns and misunderstandings". The Iranian president responded after it emerged that Washington would allow the Islamic regime to keep some capacity to enrich uranium if a deal was reached over its nuclear programme. Europe and the US had previously insisted that Iran permanently cease uranium enrichment, a process that can be used to produce an atomic bomb. That has now been diluted to a demand that it be suspended during renewed negotiations over an improved incentives package. In a televised speech, Mr Ahmadinejad seized on the U-turn to claim a victory that put Iran in a powerful negotiating position: "International monopolists have been defeated in the face of your resistance and solidarity and have been forced to acknowledge your dignity and greatness," he told an audience in the north-western city of Qazvin. [complete article] Iran restarted nuclear activities, atomic agency saysBy Elaine Sciolino, New York Times, June 8, 2006 Iran restarted important nuclear activities on the same day this week that six world powers offered it incentives aimed at encouraging the complete suspension of the nuclear work, the International Atomic Energy Agency reported on Thursday. On Tuesday, Iran restarted the pouring of a raw form of uranium into a set of 164 centrifuge machines to produce enriched uranium, the I.A.E.A., the nuclear monitoring agency based in Vienna, said. That same day, Javier Solana, the European Union's foreign policy chief, was in Tehran, where he presented Iranian leaders with an international package of incentives to help resolve the crisis caused by the country's nuclear program. There was no explanation for Iran's decision. But it seemed to underscore Tehran's often-stated determination not to be bullied into accepting any deal requiring the country to suspend activities related to uranium enrichment. [complete article] Don't forget those other 27,000 nukesBy Hans Blix, IHT, June 8, 2006 During the Cold War, it proved possible to reach many significant agreements on disarmament. Why does it seem so impossible now, when the great powers no longer feel threatened by one another? Almost all the talk these days is about the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction to states like Iran and North Korea, or to terrorists. Foreign ministers meet again and again, concerned that Iran has enriched a few milligrams of uranium to a 4 percent level. Some want to start waving the stick immediately. They are convinced that Iran will eventually violate its commitment under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty to forego nuclear weapons. [complete article] Palestinian unity means Hamas must deal with IsraelBy Ghassan Rubeiz, Daily Star, June 9, 2006 Little is known about a community of several thousand Palestinian political prisoners being held in Israeli jails. These prisoners follow the news and discuss politics. A West Bank commentator, Daoud Kuttab, has explained that political prisoners are highly esteemed by Palestinian society. They do not have to prove their patriotism. Recently, imprisoned Palestinian leaders issued a document calling for talks with Israel and (implicitly) recognizing its legitimate existence. The prisoners were united in calling for moderation and in accepting the June 1967 borders as the boundaries for a future Palestinian state. In so many words, these leaders, among whom was a Hamas official, endorsed a two-state solution. Their document reflected the sentiments of most Palestinians and was based on earlier secretive negotiations between various factions. [complete article] Israeli airstrike kills high Hamas commanderBy Steven Erlanger, New York Times, June 9, 2006 In an airstrike against a militant training camp in southern Gaza on Thursday night, Israeli forces killed Jamal Abu Samhadana, a senior commander in the Hamas government, but said he was not the target of their attack. The attack occurred just hours after Prime Minister Ehud Olmert of Israel promised King Abdullah of Jordan that he would make every effort for progress on a negotiated settlement before moving unilaterally to remove some Israeli settlers from the West Bank. [complete article] Hezbollah's disarmament dilemmaBy Michael Young, International Herald Tribune, June 8, 2006 Last week, Lebanon's Hezbollah showed it had zero tolerance for satire. A political comedy show depicted its secretary general, Hassan Nasrallah, setting outlandish conditions for the party's disarmament, as demanded by the United Nations. In response, Hezbollah sympathizers took to Beirut's streets, burning tires and, most ominously, marching on Sunni and Christian neighborhoods, where fighting broke out. The situation was brought under control, but it highlighted how potentially explosive is the matter of Hezbollah's weapons. Hezbollah is caught between conflicting loyalties - to Lebanon and the consensus between its religious communities, to Iran and to Syria. Its inability to resolve this by surrendering its arms and becoming solely a Lebanese political organization may provoke more sectarian friction in the months to come. [complete article] Somali factions begin talksBy Mohamed Olad Hassan, AP (via WP), June 9, 2006 Islamic militia leaders who seized Somalia's capital this week started discussing the future of the lawless country Thursday with its largely powerless U.N.-backed government. A government spokesman, Abdirahman Nur Mohamed Dinari, said two ministers from the interim administration were meeting with "top leaders of the Islamic Courts Union" in Mogadishu. [complete article] Warlords regroup in fight for MogadishuBy Guled Mohamed, The Guardian, June 9, 2006 Warlords driven out of Mogadishu by Islamist militia were yesterday advancing back towards the Somali capital from their stronghold of Jowhar. Residents contacted by telephone told Reuters that Islamists were pulling back towards the town of Balad, which fell on Sunday and is on the road to the capital. [complete article] Annan soothes Bolton turmoilBy Mark Turner and Quentin Peel, Financial Times, June 8, 2006 ...analysts were uncertain how the high-profile row would play out. On the one hand, they feared that Mr Bolton might use the [Malloch Brown] speech to rally anti-UN sentiment in Congress, especially as the Republican party seeks to energise its base. On the other, pro-UN lobbyists hoped the controversy might raise a greater awareness in Washington of what many see as destructive negotiating strategies by Mr Bolton. Munir Akram, Pakistan's ambassador to the UN, said he hoped the dispute would "not blow out of all proportion" but did endorse some of Mr Malloch Brown's sentiments. "Obviously some people would have said it differently but the fact that there is a need for greater US engagement and US support is well known," he said. At the same time, he claimed that in recent days there had been "positive signs of US engagement". Dumisani Kumalo, the South African ambassador who chairs the G77 group of developing countries, said he was not surprised by the dispute. "Everybody has to be aware that we are going into three weeks that are going to be very intense, very emotional and very difficult for the UN," he said. "It will be one of those defining moments for the organisation in terms of its direction." He said the G77 was inviting the US, Japan and the European Union to hold talks next Wednesday, and urged them to drop the mid-year budget cap. Speaking in London on Thursday night, Mr Bolton returned to the attack. "It is illegitimate for an international civil servant to criticise what he sees are the inadequacies of the people of a member state," he said. "This is a classic mistake. I do not think we have seen the end of it." [complete article] The politics of indignationBy Mark Perry and Alastair Crooke, Asia Times, June 8, 2006 The foundational belief of the "war on terrorism" is that militant Islam is hollow. We are not fighting a credible movement with a set of core beliefs, but "evildoers" - people who have nothing to say, who are without values, who hate our freedoms and who want to return their societies to the 7th century. Militant Islam is much like worldwide communism, an empty shell that, if confronted with overwhelming power, will crumple like burned paper. Not coincidentally, neo-conservatives aver, the evildoers of militant Islam, a new class of post-Soviet religious Bolsheviks, have taken root in a region that suffers from the same maladies that fueled the "evil empire": state-engineered poverty, endemic corruption, political oppression, access to weapons of mass destruction, and a failed ideology. For America's neo-conservatives, the past victory over the Stalinist state and its Warsaw Pact allies points the way to the future. All that needs be done to triumph over this evil is to replicate the late US president Ronald Reagan's strategy of confrontation with the USSR: increase defense spending, deploy Western armies to troubled regions, undermine collaborationist societies, spread democracy, and counter the evildoers' propaganda with political toughness. Those who counsel caution (Colin Powell, Brent Scowcroft, George H W Bush - those who called a halt to the first Gulf War after 100 hours and so saved Saddam Hussein) do not understand that "managing" Middle Eastern extremists, particularly in an era of benevolent US military hegemony, is to signal a surrender against the forces of evil. Ronald Reagan had it right: a little nudge and Islam's Nicolae Ceausescus will be hunted in the streets. This "implosion of tyrannies" belief is now a central tenet of neo-conservative doctrine. Yet as a result of the Iraq debacle and the seeming incoherence at the center of US and European policies, even some of neo-conservatism's core believers are beginning to have doubts. [complete article] See also, parts one, two, three, and four, of "How to lose the war on terrorism." Insurgent leader al-Zarqawi killed in IraqBy Ellen Knickmeyer and Jonathan Finer, Washington Post, June 8, 2006 Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the mastermind behind hundreds of bombings, kidnappings and beheadings whose leadership of the insurgent group al- Qaeda in Iraq made him the most wanted man in the country, was killed Wednesday evening by an air strike near Baqubah, north of Baghdad, U.S. and Iraqi officials said Thursday. The stated aim of the Jordanian-born Zarqawi, in addition to ousting U.S. and other forces from Iraq, was to foment bloody sectarian strife between Sunni and Shiite Muslims, a prospect that has become a grim reality over the past several months. Zarqawi, a Sunni, was killed along with seven aides, officials said. His killing is the most significant public triumph for the U.S.-led coalition since the 2003 capture of Saddam Hussein, although analysts warned that Zarqawi's killing would not stem the tide of insurgency and violence in Iraq any more than Hussein's capture did. [complete article] See also, Analysis: Threat will outlive Al-Zarqawi (AP), Al-Zarqawi now a martyr, his brother says(AP), and U.S. officials cautiously hopeful about impact of al-Zarqawi's death (AP). Comment -- So, the kingpin of the insurgency is dead. But even President Bush seems in a less than celebratory mood: "We can expect the terrorists and insurgents to carry on without him. We can expect the sectarian violence to continue."Maybe the war is really reaching a turning point: the point at which Bush administration officials finally give up claiming that a big news item will have any lasting positive significance in the fate of Iraq. The war they wanted, the lies they neededBy Craig Unger, Vanity Fair, June 6, 2006 For more than two years it has been widely reported that the U.S. invaded Iraq because of intelligence failures. But in fact it is far more likely that the Iraq war started because of an extraordinary intelligence success -- specifically, an astoundingly effective campaign of disinformation, or black propaganda, which led the White House, the Pentagon, Britain's M.I.6 intelligence service, and thousands of outlets in the American media to promote the falsehood that Saddam Hussein's nuclear-weapons program posed a grave risk to the United States. The Bush administration made other false charges about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (W.M.D.) -- that Iraq had acquired aluminum tubes suitable for centrifuges, that Saddam was in league with al-Qaeda, that he had mobile weapons labs, and so forth. But the Niger claim, unlike other allegations, can't be dismissed as an innocent error or blamed on ambiguous data. "This wasn't an accident," says Milt Bearden, a 30-year C.I.A. veteran who was a station chief in Pakistan, Sudan, Nigeria, and Germany, and the head of the Soviet–East European division. "This wasn't 15 monkeys in a room with typewriters." In recent months, it has emerged that the forged Niger documents went through the hands of the Italian military intelligence service, SISMI (Servizio per le Informazioni e la Sicurezza Militare), or operatives close to it, and that neoconservative policymakers helped bring them to the attention of the White House. Even after information in the Niger documents was repeatedly rejected by the C.I.A. and the State Department, hawkish neocons managed to circumvent seasoned intelligence analysts and insert the Niger claims into Bush's State of the Union address. By the time the U.S. invaded Iraq, in March 2003, this apparent black-propaganda operation had helped convince more than 90 percent of the American people that a brutal dictator was developing W.M.D. -- and had led us into war. [complete article] Key Iraq ministers get approvalBBC News, June 8, 2006 The Iraqi parliament has approved Prime Minister Nouri Maliki's nominees for the key government posts of defence and interior ministers. The two posts had remained vacant for nearly three weeks due to wrangling between the main parties in the governing Shia alliance. Jawad Bulani, a Shia, is the new interior minister and Abdul Qadir Obeidi, a Sunni, the defence minister. [complete article] For the women of Iraq, the war is just beginningBy Terri Judd, The Independent, June 8, 2006 The women of Basra have disappeared. Three years after the US-led invasion of Iraq, women's secular freedoms - once the envy of women across the Middle East - have been snatched away because militant Islam is rising across the country. Across Iraq, a bloody and relentless oppression of women has taken hold. Many women had their heads shaved for refusing to wear a scarf or have been stoned in the street for wearing make-up. Others have been kidnapped and murdered for crimes that are being labelled simply as "inappropriate behaviour". The insurrection against the fragile and barely functioning state has left the country prey to extremists whose notion of freedom does not extend to women. In the British-occupied south, where Muqtada al-Sadr's Mehdi Army retains a stranglehold, women insist the situation is at its worst. Here they are forced to live behind closed doors only to emerge, concealed behind scarves, hidden behind husbands and fathers. Even wearing a pair of trousers is considered an act of defiance, punishable by death. [complete article] Top Marine 'gravely concerned'By Thomas E. Ricks and Josh White, Washington Post, June 8, 2006 The commandant of the Marine Corps said yesterday that he is "gravely concerned" about allegations that Marines killed more than two dozen civilians in two separate incidents in Iraq, but declined to offer any details about the cases while investigations are ongoing. Gen. Michael W. Hagee appeared before reporters to discuss how seriously the Marines are taking the investigations into civilian deaths in Haditha and Hamdaniya, but shed no new light on what might have happened or where the investigations stand. During about 10 minutes of questioning, Hagee said he is waiting for investigations to conclude before making any judgments. [complete article] Middle East wars flare up at YaleBy Liel Leibovitz, The Jewish Week, June 2, 2006 Juan Cole, one of the country's top Middle East scholars, was poised for the biggest step of his career. A tenured professor at the University of Michigan, Cole was tapped earlier this year by a Yale University search committee to teach about the modern Middle East. In two separate votes in May, Cole was approved by both the sociology and history departments, the latter the university's largest. The only remaining hurdle was the senior appointments committee, also known as the tenure committee, a group consisting of about a half-dozen professors from various disciplines across the university. Last week, however, in what is shaping up as the latest in a series of heated battles over the political affiliations of Middle Eastern studies professors, the tenure committee voted down Cole's nomination. Several Yale faculty members described the decision to overrule the votes of the individual departments as "highly unusual." [complete article] Comment -- I don't know Juan Cole and whether he'd been successful in moving up the academic ladder to a professorship at Yale didn't particularly concern me -- neither did the campaign against his appointment surprise me. Nevertheless, Yale's reversal makes it evident -- yet again -- that the Israel Lobby exerts a pernicious influence on public life in America. (See, New York Sun, Joel Mowbray American Thinker, and Campus Watch.)The Yale search committee's recommendation to appoint Cole was clearly based on academic merit. (One of the above article's Yale sources exposed his/her own ignorance in suggesting that "most of Cole's scholarship pertains to the Baha'i faith.") Yet The Jewish Week reports that "Several faculty members said they had heard that at least four major Jewish donors, whose identity the faculty members did not know, have contacted officials at the university urging that Cole's appointment be denied." I can only assume that these donors have no academic credentials themselves and that at Yale, the bottom line is the bottom line -- money talks. Unfortunately, Yale also seems to be sending out another message to the academy: If you value your career, don't venture into the murky world of the blogosphere! Heaven forbid that an academic's work might actually exert some influence on public opinion. Iraqi ties to Iran create new risks for WashingtonBy Michael Slackman, New York Times, June 8, 2006 The single most influential man in Iraq today, the Shiite religious leader Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, provides cash, free housing and medical care to tens of thousands of religious students and operates hundreds of religious Web sites across the globe. Yet this is all going on not in Iraq, but here in the religious capital of Iran. As the Bush administration seeks simultaneously to stabilize Iraq, in part by empowering its Shiite majority, and contain Iran, it must carefully navigate the complex relationship between the countries. It is not just Iran's influence in Iraq that the United States must confront, but Iraq's connection to Iran, as well. [complete article] Iran 'ready for nuclear talks'BBC News, June 8, 2006 Iran is ready to discuss "common concerns" about its nuclear programme but pledged not to negotiate what technology to use, its president says. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad did not say if Iran accepted a Western proposal to restart negotiations and offer incentives if Tehran suspended uranium enrichment. "The Iranian nation will never hold negotiations about its definite rights," he said in a speech in Qazvin. [complete article] New concession to Iran as west presses for nuclear dealBy Ian Traynor, The Guardian, June 8, 2006 In a major western concession, Iran is to be allowed to retain some uranium enrichment activities if it reaches agreement with the US, Russia, Europe, and China on its nuclear programme. Diplomats said yesterday that the terms of a new package of proposed rewards delivered to Tehran on Tuesday by Javier Solana, the EU foreign policy chief, state that Iran must freeze uranium enrichment activities before and during the talks. Once "confidence is restored in the peaceful nature of Iran's nuclear programme", it would be allowed to resume enrichment on a scale to be determined. "Those are rights under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty," said a diplomat. [complete article] Germany urged to bar Iran leaderBBC News, June 8, 2006 The newly elected leader of Germany's main Jewish body has said the Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, should be barred from the World Cup. Charlotte Knobloch described him as "a second Hitler". "He denies the Holocaust - that is illegal in Germany," she told the newspaper Bild. Mr Ahmadinejad has said he might go and support the Iranian team in Germany. Germany has already granted a visa to an Iranian Vice President, Mohammad Aliabadi, to attend the World Cup. [complete article] Secret U.S. 'web' of prisons allegedBy Colin Nickerson, Boston Globe, June 8, 2006 The head of an investigation into alleged CIA secret prisons charged yesterday that 14 European nations collaborated with the United States to create a "spider's web" of clandestine flights and detention centers across the continent and beyond. Dick Marty, a Swiss senator who led the Council of Europe's investigation, offered little in the way of hard evidence for what he called serious violations of the human rights of at least 17 terrorist suspects allegedly shunted around the globe by CIA interrogators. But the long-awaited report issued by the council -- which monitors human rights issues -- signaled the outrage felt by many Europeans over America's alleged use of the continent's air space and landing ports in prosecuting its war against Islamic terrorism. "It is now clear -- although we are still far from having established the whole truth -- that authorities in several European countries actively participated with the CIA in these unlawful activities," Marty said at a news conference in Paris. The 67-page report specifically accused Poland and Romania of allowing the CIA to use their territory to transfer secret prisoners from plane to plane. At least 12 other European nations allowed refuel ing stops, "pickup points," or "staging centers" for controversial CIA undertakings, the report stated. [complete article] See also, Air traffic logs show secret night flights from Kabul and Baghdad, says report (The Telegraph) and Rendition 'massively damaging' to counter-terrorism effort (The Guardian). Doctors must be healers, not interrogatorsBy Robert Jay Lifton and Stephen N. Xenakis, Los Angeles Times, June 8, 2006 For several years, the Bush administration argued that it was ethically acceptable for psychiatrists and psychologists to participate in interrogations of terrorism detainees. As long as they acted "humanely" -- as defined by the Pentagon -- the administration suggested, there was no reason that mental health professionals shouldn't participate, both at the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and elsewhere. Much of the world disagreed. On May 19, for instance, the U.N. Committee Against Torture urged the administration to fully restore the absolute ban on psychological torture required by international treaty. Shortly afterward, the American Psychiatric Assn. officially prohibited psychiatrists from participating in the interrogation of prisoners and detainees. But the administration refuses to back down. In fact, on Tuesday, the Pentagon adopted a new policy that, although putting some minimal limits on how mental health professionals may be used, still allows them -- delicately referred to as "behavioral science consultants" -- to assist interrogators. This is a full frontal assault on the most basic values of health professionals. [complete article] The dark stain of GuantanamoBy Julia E. Sweig, Baltimore Sun, June 8, 2006 ...Guantanamo is now permanently a symbol of malignant U.S. power, not only in Latin America but well beyond America's historic sphere. In a chapter of history pregnant with irony and meaning that even the most anti-American of observers could not have hoped to invent, a strategically useless military base on a strategically insignificant island in a region of the world that only a few years ago was poised to embrace U.S. leadership and values has become - for Latin Americans, the international community and, increasingly, U.S. citizens - a Jungian archetype of what's gone wrong with America. [complete article] Washington fury over U.N. attack on Bush 'hypocrites'By Oliver Burkeman, The Guardian, June 8, 2006 The deputy secretary-general of the United Nations was last night accused of making "a very, very grave mistake" after calling the Bush administration hypocrites who were feeding a right-wing anti-UN frenzy in middle America. Washington's ambassador to the UN responded with undisguised fury to a speech by Mark Malloch Brown, the deputy secretary-general, in which he accused Washington of using the international body "almost by stealth as a diplomatic tool" while failing to defend it at home. "Much of the public discourse that reaches the US heartland has been largely abandoned to its loudest detractors, such as Rush Limbaugh and Fox News," Mr Malloch Brown said in a speech in New York on Tuesday. Depending on the UN while tolerating "too much unchecked UN-bashing and stereotyping" was "simply not sustainable", he said. "You will lose the UN one way or another." John Bolton, the US envoy and an outspoken critic of the UN, called the comments "a very, very grave mistake". He said he told the secretary-general, Kofi Annan, yesterday morning: "I've known you since 1989, and I'm telling you, this is the worst mistake by a senior UN official that I have seen in that entire time." He called on the secretary-general to repudiate the speech. Tensions between the UN and George Bush's White House have been simmering since the war in Iraq, but they also encompass deep splits over the international criminal court and the new human rights council, whose formation the US was one of only four states to oppose. But the diplomatic tradition according to which UN officials do not publicly attack specific member states has a longer history still. Washington was angered by Mr Malloch Brown's references to middle America, and the influence upon it of conservative commentators such as Mr Limbaugh. Mr Bolton said the speech demonstrated a "condescending, patronising tone about the American people. Fundamentally and very sadly, this was a criticism of the American people, not the American government, by an international civil servant. It's just illegitimate." [complete article] See also, Bolton struggles to steer U.N. toward change (USA Today). Comment -- Let's see if I've got this straight. Brown's remarks were "condescending," "patronising," and amounted to "a criticism of the American people," because it would be an insult to the intelligence of most Americans to suggest that they could easily be influenced by Fox News or Rush Limbaugh?
What a bizarre overseas encounter reveals about American foreign policyBy Fred Kaplan, Slate, June 7, 2006 George W. Bush and his team came to office believing that, because America had emerged from its Cold War victory as the world's sole superpower, they could do whatever they please, shout orders and receive obedience, respect alliances and treaties when they were useful and disregard them when they weren't. But in fact, the dissolution of the Soviet Union also meant the disappearance of a common threat whose very presence had bolstered American power. As long as there was this second, opposing superpower, the nations in between felt compelled to choose sides and often had to pay fealty to the superpower's interests, even when they somewhat differed from their own. Now, ironically, in a unipolar world, there's no fulcrum of pressure -- no common looming enemy -- to keep the bloc in line. Many countries, once formally allied with the United States, remain allied, whether out of shared values, shared interests, or a desire for security. But they are also free to go their own way, pursue their own interests, form their own alliances, without regard to America's thoughts on the matter, to a degree that wasn't possible when the Bear was at the door. Things might have been otherwise if the United States had been disposed to behave like a grand imperial power -- if, in the wake of Cold War victory, we had, say, tripled the military budget, expanded naval and air forces, revived the draft -- in short, set out to conquer the world. But, thankfully, we didn't. We don't have the resources for this sort of enterprise, and we're not really cut out for it, either. We can't even maintain 130,000 troops in Iraq -- or one-fifth that many in Afghanistan. Being the world's sole superpower doesn't mean we're superpowerful. [complete article] Taliban take the fight to the countryBy Syed Saleem Shahzad, Asia Times, June 9, 2006 The Taliban movement has evolved beyond its guerrilla struggle into an organized widespread rebellion. It has fully matured in southern Afghanistan and is heading north toward Kabul and beyond, all the way drawing on growing popular support. "Don't consider the present [insurgency] movement as Taliban only. This is a mass mutiny against the foreign presence, and all common Afghans are solely responsible for that," Gul Mohammed, a Taliban commander, explained to Asia Times Online in an interview in Qalat, the capital of Zabul province in Afghanistan. Gul Mohammed's views are not exaggerated. They confirm exhaustive ATol on-the-ground-investigations and reports over the past few months. And this week, the Senlis Council, a London-based international security and policy advisory think-tank, reached a similar conclusion. [complete article] NATO vows to pursue Afghan mission as violence growsBy Mark John, Reuters, June 8, 2006 NATO vowed on Thursday to go ahead with a plan to nearly double its peacekeeping troops in Afghanistan despite escalating violence there, but called on donors to do more to help rebuild the shattered country. The 26-nation body has approved plans to increase troops to about 17,000 from 9,000 and expand into the insurgent-troubled south by late July, taking the alliance into what could be its toughest ground combat since its creation in 1949. [complete article] Afghans raise toll of dead from May riots in Kabul to 17By Carlotta Gall, New York Times, June 8, 2006 Nine days after the worst riots here in the Afghan capital in years, officials raised the death toll to 17 from 12 on Wednesday, and said that 140 people remained in detention, accused of involvement in the rioting. [complete article] Elders losing to extremists in PakistanBy David Montero, Christian Science Monitor, June 8, 2006 To be a tribal elder in Pakistan's Waziristan region once meant unquestioned power and respect. These days it connotes title to a way of life ruptured by the modern world. Increasingly, it also carries a death sentence. Some 150 tribal elders have been killed in Waziristan in the past three years. No arrests have been made; no prosecutions handed down. But most of the whispers point to the Taliban, who have publicly condemned many elders for supporting the military's war against radical militants. Without the authority of the elders, there is little to stop the growing power of radical mullahs and the Taliban they support in a troubled land where top Al Qaeda figures have been thought to hide. Government efforts to clean up the region have only backfired, pushing the tribal system to the verge of collapse, observers contend. What is happening in Waziristan, they add, is a wake-up call for the rest of the tribal belt along the border with Afghanistan. [complete article] Efforts by CIA fail in Somalia, officials chargeBy Mark Mazzetti, New York Times, June 8, 2006 A covert effort by the Central Intelligence Agency to finance Somali warlords has drawn sharp criticism from American government officials who say the campaign has thwarted counterterrorism efforts inside Somalia and empowered the same Islamic groups it was intended to marginalize. The criticism was expressed privately by United States government officials with direct knowledge of the debate. And the comments flared even before the apparent victory this week by Islamist militias in the country dealt a sharp setback to American policy in the region and broke the warlords' hold on the capital, Mogadishu. The officials said the C.I.A. effort, run from the agency's station in Nairobi, Kenya, had channeled hundreds of thousands of dollars over the past year to secular warlords inside Somalia with the aim, among other things, of capturing or killing a handful of suspected members of Al Qaeda believed to be hiding there. [...] Some Africa experts contend that the United States has lost its focus on how to deal with the larger threat of terrorism in East Africa by putting a premium on its effort to capture or kill a small number of high-level suspects. Indeed, some of the experts point to the American effort to finance the warlords as one of the factors that led to the resurgence of Islamic militias in the country. They argue that American support for secular warlords, who joined together under the banner of the Alliance for the Restoration of Peace and Counterterrorism, may have helped to unnerve the Islamic militias and prompted them to launch pre-emptive strikes. The Islamic militias have been routing the warlords, and on Monday they claimed to have taken control of most of the Somali capital. [complete article] Muslim women don't see themselves as oppressed, survey findsBy Helena Andrews, New York Times, June 8, 2006 Muslim women do not think they are conditioned to accept second-class status or view themselves as oppressed, according to a survey released Tuesday by The Gallup Organization. According to the poll, conducted in 2005, a strong majority of Muslim women believe they should have the right to vote without influence, work outside the home and serve in the highest levels of government. In more than 8,000 face-to-face interviews conducted in eight predominantly Muslim countries, the survey found that many women in the Muslim world did not see sex issues as a priority because other issues were more pressing. When asked what they resented most about their own societies, a majority of Muslim women polled said that a lack of unity among Muslim nations, violent extremism, and political and economic corruption were their main concerns. The hijab, or head scarf, and burqa, the garment covering face and body, seen by some Westerners as tools of oppression, were never mentioned in the women's answers to the open-ended questions, the poll analysts said. [complete article] Proposal would let Iran enrich uraniumBy Karl Vick and Dafna Linzer, Washington Post, June 7, 2006 The confidential diplomatic package backed by Washington and formally presented to Iran on Tuesday leaves open the possibility that Tehran will be able to enrich uranium on its own soil, U.S. and European officials said. That concession, along with a promise of U.S. assistance for an Iranian civilian nuclear energy program, is conditioned on Tehran suspending its current nuclear work until the U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency determines with confidence that the program is peaceful. U.S. officials said Iran would also need to satisfy the U.N. Security Council that it is not seeking a nuclear weapon, a benchmark that White House officials believe could take years, if not decades, to achieve. But the Bush administration and its European allies have withdrawn their demand that Iran abandon any hope of enriching uranium for nuclear power, according to several European and U.S. officials with knowledge of the offer. The new position, which has not been acknowledged publicly by the White House, differs significantly from the Bush administration's stated determination to prevent Iran from mastering technology that could be used to develop nuclear weapons. [complete article] Those were the days, when reform was in flowerBy Michael Slackman, New York Times, June 7, 2006 Many people here are now realizing that real reform in Iran, such as it is, will be driven from the bottom up, slowly, stubbornly, no matter how repressive or punitive the rulers choose to be. It is a cliché, for sure, but the phrase on the lips of weary Iranians in Tehran is "evolution, not revolution." No one seems to have the stomach for starting over again. The change is glacial in pace but forward moving. Political analysts here say the hard-liners of today are promoting ideas introduced by the reform camp two decades ago. "It is not possible to make a very big jump," said Emadedin Baghi, director of a prisoners' rights group, who studied religion for many years. "Some reformers thought that they could make a big jump. But it is an evolution that will proceed millimeter by millimeter." [complete article] Gulf widens between U.S. and sheikhdomsBy Trita Parsi, Asia Times, June 7, 2006 Amid increasing tensions between Tehran and Washington over Iran's nuclear program, the administration of US President George W Bush is courting the Gulf monarchies with the same proposal it offered them 15 years ago after the first Gulf War - purchase US weapons worth billions, and Washington will protect you against your Persian nemesis. But today, the Arab monarchies are less than enthusiastic about putting their security solely in the hands of the United States. With China's dependence on Gulf energy increasing and with the inevitable rise of Iran, the Arabs are eyeing other alternatives. After the Gulf War, the US was in a unique position to construct an inclusive security architecture for the region. This would have been in line with United Nations Security Council Resolution 598, which put an end to the Iran-Iraq War and explicitly called for the Security Council to address - together with regional states - the question of security in the Persian Gulf. But the United States' continued presence in the Gulf depended on its military protection of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states against external threats, that is, Iran and Iraq. The administration of president George H W Bush feared that a common security arrangement that included Iran could lessen the Arab states' dependence on Washington, give the leadership in Tehran undue influence and undermine the justification for Washington's military presence in the Gulf. [complete article] Is political Islam on the march?By Fawaz A. Gerges, Christian Science Monitor, June 6, 2006 Since the Sept. 11 terror attacks nearly five years ago, Americans have come increasingly to believe that political Islam is a mortal threat to the West, an aggressive and totalitarian ideology dedicated to random destruction and global subjugation. Fueling Western fears is the migration of political Islam into tiny, but important, communities of Muslims living in Europe. The victory by Hamas in Palestinian parliamentary elections and the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt reinforced perceptions that political Islam is inexorably on the march. Some American commentators have called for an all-out war against all manifestations of political Islam. Disentangling myth from reality about this movement, whose goal is to establish governments based on sharia, Koranic law, is an intellectual challenge fraught with difficulties. Here are five facts to consider: Fact 1: The political Islamist movement is highly complex and diverse. It encompasses a broad spectrum of mainstream and militant forces. Mainstream Islamists - that is, Muslim Brothers and other independent activists - represent an overwhelming majority of religiously oriented groups (in the upper 90th percentile, whereas militants or jihadists are a tiny but critical minority); they accept the rules of the political game, embrace democratic principles, and oppose violence. [complete article] Britain is the fall guy for the U.S. retreat from AfghanistanBy Simon Jenkins, The Guardian, June 7, 2006 Last week an American military convoy on a road into Kabul crashed in a traffic jam. What happened next is confused. It appears the American soldiers, whose drug consumption is reputedly prodigious, lost their heads and fired into the crowd. The result was half a dozen deaths and the worst riot Kabul has seen since the occupation four and a half years ago. This lost city in the mountains is, compared with Baghdad, relatively peaceful and is recovering well from the Taliban trauma in the 1990s. Security is good and money is spent on infrastructure. But frustration among the three million inhabitants is growing at the inability of the large foreign community to do anything but admonish them for not doing what they are told. Last week's riot was aimed largely at that community, which reacted by withdrawing its workers from the provinces and gating them in its compounds. In a walk round the old city on Monday I saw not a single westerner. The downtown Serena hotel, built by the Aga Khan as a symbol of normality, ceded victory to the rioters by bricking up its ground-floor windows, Baghdad-style. Afghanistan is facing probably the last attempt by outsiders to give it a western political economy. Nato's international security and assistance force (Isaf) comes under the nine-month command of an extrovert British general, David Richards. He is running a sort of peacekeeping Olympics, with soldiers from some 36 nations - from Luxembourg to Mongolia - all out to prove their new-world-order spurs. He must somehow do what has defied the Americans for four years: curb the resurgent Taliban, impose government on the provinces and persuade local rulers to pay allegiance and taxes to Kabul - for the first time in their history. [complete article] See also, 'Southern Afghanistan in state of war' (AFP). Britons begin to turn away from alliance with AmericaBy Peter Riddell, The Times, June 7, 2006 The British public has become increasingly cool towards American policy and critical of its role in the world after the sustained violence in Iraq. A Populus opinion poll in The Times indicates that fewer than half the public believe that America is a force for good in the world, and nearly two thirds believe that Britain’s future lies more with Europe than with the US. There is also evidence of a longer-term shift in views about the US. However, while President Bush and his Administration remain unpopular in Britain, Americans as a people remain popular. [complete article] For one month every four years, a new world order leaves America on touchlineBy Simon Tisdall, The Guardian, June 7, 2006 The United States always feels challenged by the World Cup. Unlike the Olympics, where Americans tend to dominate, the US has rarely shone in the tournament, although it famously defeated England in 1950. It is an 80-1 long shot this time and may struggle to overcome group stage opponents Ghana and the Czech Republic, let alone Italy. For Americans used to winning, there is something vaguely shocking about this. But US soccer-related insecurity is political and cultural, too. For four weeks, the world shows its back to the number one nation. The usual hierarchies of power are turned upside-down; the agenda is no longer Washington's to command. It is not often that old enemies, such as Mexico, or relatively new ones, such as Iran, get the chance to "beat" the US. But either ma |