Author Archives: News Sources
How most of the dead in Iraq disappeared
Muhammad Idrees Ahmad writes: ‘So many’, wrote TS Eliot, reflecting on the waste land left by the First World War. “I had not thought death had undone so many.”
This notion is unlikely to cross the minds of those surveying the devastation left by the 2003 invasion of Iraq. The most frequently quoted fatality figure – about 115,000 Iraqis killed – is shocking. But compared to major conflicts of the past century, it is a relatively modest toll. The 1916 battle of the Somme alone killed three times as many. More than that were killed by a single atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima during the Second World War.
Former British prime minster Tony Blair, and then-US vice president Dick Cheney, were perhaps conscious of this when they expressed “no regrets” on the 10th anniversary of the war last month.
That the perpetrators of an aggressive war should accept the lowest costs for their folly is unsurprising. What is less explicable is why so many supposed critics of the war are crediting the same estimate. Brown University’s Costs of War project and the Centre for American Progress’s Iraq War Ledger use it as their main source.
This is particularly puzzling when there are two peer-reviewed epidemiological surveys that give a far more comprehensive accounting of the war’s human cost. A Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health Survey published in the Lancet, and the Iraq Public Health Survey published in the New England Journal of Medicine, gave figures of 655,000 and 400,000 excess deaths respectively. (Both were concluded in June 2006, a month before the violence peaked, suggesting the actual toll is even higher).
It is odder still that when epidemiological surveys have come to be accepted as the standard method for estimating conflict fatalities – the method has been used without controversy in Congo, Bosnia and Darfur – an exception is made in the case of Iraq. [Continue reading…]
Video: Economics, the environment and our common wealth
Interview with James K Boyce, author of Economics, the Environment and Our Common Wealth:
Part Three:
Part Two:
Part One:
Obama’s big BRAIN project
Kas Thomas writes: President Obama’s kickoff of the BRAIN initiative was a major news item the other day. Widely lauded as the kind of program that can keep America at the forefront of science, Brain Research through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies (or, if you prefer, Big Ridiculous Acronyms Inspired by Nonsense) was compared to the Apollo moon program, which “gave us CAT scans” (the President said) and to the Human Genome Project, which altered economic reality as we know it by creating $140 in return for every dollar invested.
The President hailed BRAIN as “a bold new research effort to revolutionize our understanding of the human mind and uncover new ways to treat, prevent, and cure brain disorders like Alzheimer’s, schizophrenia, autism, epilepsy, and traumatic brain injury.”
And for all this great knowledge, we’re going to pay just $100 million (first year).
Thomas goes on to spell out why that amount is nothing more than pocket change, but small as the funding is, it also seems worth noting that half of it is going to DARPA — the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, the research wing of the Pentagon.
“DARPA hopes to build tools that can view, measure and control the brain from the cellular and neuronal to the macroscopic levels,” reports the Army Times.
How Eric Harroun, the American fighter in Syria, was duped by the FBI
Robert Young Pelton writes: On April 8, Eric Harroun will appear with his public defender in an Alexandria, Virginia, court to answer charges that he conspired to use a weapon of mass destruction outside the United States. While such legal wording may suggest that he was looking to get his hands on a chemical or nuclear weapon, Harroun’s alleged crime is actually much more mundane: He stands accused of using a rocket-propelled grenade launcher while fighting with rebels who aim to topple Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s regime.
If this story sounds familiar, it should: The 30-year old Harroun has joined a small but controversial club: young Americans who decided to fight in foreign jihads. And I’ve met a lot of them. In 1999, I traveled with the red-haired, blue-eyed Irish-American Aukai Collins on his journey to fight against the invading Russians in Chechnya. In December 2001, I met John Walker Lindh, an American who joined up with the Taliban, who insisted that he was fighting a pre-9/11 war against brutal warlords, not a jihad against the United States. But even when these freelance soldiers join the same side that the U.S. government is supporting, they also often run afoul of the U.S. legal system — and Harroun is now the latest to face punishment for his adventure overseas.
On March 11, I contacted Harroun via Facebook to interview him for my new magazine, Dangerous. He replied “R U A Zionist?” Three days later, I finally reached Harroun on Skype. He had left Syria, and was staying in the upscale Istanbul neighborhood of Taksim. He said he had visited the American consulate in Istanbul.
Harroun had just finished an interview with an editor from the Times of Israel. He explained that the interview was combative, including numerous insults and even shouting matches with the Israeli reporters. When the article was published on Fox News, it highlighted Harroun’s statement that he had fought alongside the Syrian rebel group Jabhat al-Nusra, which the State Department has labeled an alias for al Qaeda in Iraq.
The article rattled Harroun. He decided to check in with the American consulate, with the aim of telling U.S. officials exactly what transpired while he was in Syria. He was surprised to see a print out of the Fox News story sitting on the desk of the FBI agent when he walked in for what turned out to be a four-hour interview.
Harroun told me that he insisted to the FBI and CIA that he joined the “Amr ibn al-‘As Brigade.” According to the Institute for the Study of War, a Washington think tank, the brigade is a faction of the rebel Free Syria Army formed under the command of Col. Abdul-Jabar Mohammed Egeydi.
But the consulate also had evidence that Harroun had been in contact with Jabhat al-Nusra. A video shot by Harroun and uploaded to Youtube on Jan. 26 showed him in a truck loaded with his jihadist friends, driving toward a recently downed Syrian military helicopter.
When I reached Harroun, he described his association with Jabhat al-Nusra as accidental. “I was separated from my unit in the fighting. I found these guys,” he said. “I didn’t even know they were al-Nusra until later. I said, ‘I need a ride back to my commander.’ It took 25 days to get them to give me a ride.”
“When they would go out and fight, I’d go along with them. What was I supposed to do?” he asked. “We are all fighting for the same thing. We’re trying to kill the same people. It’s not like I chose to fight with al-Nusra.” [Continue reading…]
Saudi Arabia’s expanding foothold in Texas
The New York Times reports: It is hard to imagine the desert sands of the Persian Gulf being any farther away than from this swampy refinery port known for Cajun food, sport fishing and being the birthplace of Janis Joplin.
But right in the middle of town stands a strategic outpost for Saudi Arabia’s global ambitions, although one that the Saudis appear loath to publicize.
The giant Motiva oil refinery, which just completed a $10 billion expansion that makes it the largest processor of gasoline, diesel and other petroleum products in the United States, is owned by Saudi Aramco and Royal Dutch Shell in a 50-50 partnership.
Saudi Aramco’s investment in the refinery expansion is meant to ensure that Saudi Arabia will retain an important market for its crude in the United States at a time when American politicians are declaring their intention to wean the country off imported oil. Adding to the urgency for the Saudis is the fact that the United States is vastly increasing its production and replacing OPEC crude with that from oil sands in Canada.
The expansion of the Port Arthur refinery comes during a particularly complicated period in United States-Saudi relations, as the two countries try to manage changes sweeping the Arab world. While Riyadh has cracked down on dissent and generally resisted efforts to spread democracy in the region, the Obama administration has been less resistant to the changes.
But the Saudis have helped the United States and the global economy by increasing exports to moderate oil prices and top up worldwide supplies as the West applies sanctions against Iran. Saudi Arabia has been able to tap into its spare capacity, mostly lower-quality heavy sour crudes, to stretch its exports. Most refineries cannot easily process those crude oils, but the expanded Motiva refinery here can, freeing other Saudi grades for other markets.
“The Saudis are securing a home for their heavy crude,” said Fadel Gheit, a senior oil analyst at Oppenheimer & Company. “But there is no question that security is also part of the equation. In Saudi Arabia, oil and politics always mix.” [Continue reading…]
Saudi paralysis sentencing ‘grotesque’, says UK govt
BBC News reports: The UK has urged Saudi Arabia not to carry out a reported sentencing of paralysis for a Saudi man as punishment for paralysing another man.
A Foreign Office spokesperson said London was “deeply concerned” by the sentence, describing it as “grotesque”.
Such punishment was “prohibited under international law”, the official added.
Saudi media reports earlier said the 24-year-old man could be paralysed from the waist down if he could not pay his victim £250,000 in compensation.
Ali al-Khawahir was 14 when he stabbed a friend in the back in the Eastern Province town of al-Ahsa. He has been in prison for 10 years.
The judge in the case has reportedly interpreted the Islamic law of qisas, or retribution, that Saudi Arabia follows as meaning that he in turn could face being paralysed.
Amnesty International has described this as tantamount to torture.
The sentencing is the latest example of Saudi Arabia’s fundamentalist interpretation of Islamic law attracting international criticism.
BBC diplomatic correspondent Jonathan Marcus says the Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s comments mark an unusually strong plea to the Saudi authorities in what is, by any standards an unusual and disturbing case.
Successive British governments have struggled at times to harmonise their concerns about human rights in Saudi Arabia with the fact that the Kingdom remains a key ally and a major customer for British weaponry, he adds.
And the response from the U.S. government? Thus far — as far as I’m aware — none.
I guess since the U.S. is the last remaining Western country to use capital punishment and does so with a frequency not far behind Saudi Arabia’s, along with the fact that U.S. places prisoners in indefinite solitary confinement, detains suspects indefinitely without charge, and also conducts extrajudicial executions, all makes American officials reticent to pass judgement on the practices of its close Saudi allies.
Re-elected Hamas chief says will work for unity
AFP reports: The newly re-elected chief of Hamas, Khalid Mashaal, pledged on Thursday to work to end a rift with his West Bank rival, President Mahmoud Abbas.
Mashaal, speaking at a pro-Palestinian conference in Cairo, “affirmed his movement’s solicitude for ending the division with its negative effects,” the Safa news agency quoted his as saying.
But he hinted that Hamas would not renounce its opposition to Israel’s existence nor its use of violence, conditions for Israel and the United States to accept it as a partner in a Palestinian government.
“The (Israeli) occupation exploits the division and placed hurdles before a reconciliation (with Fatah),” he said. Hamas would work for unity “but that does not mean abandoning fixed positions.”
Mashaal’s reelection was confirmed on Tuesday, drawing a cautious welcome from his Fatah rivals.
Meanwhile, AFP also reported: Hamas on Friday urged the United Nations to reconsider its suspension of food aid for Palestinian refugees, imposed after protesters stormed a UN depot.
The UN Relief and Works Agency, or UNRWA, stopped food deliveries after dozens of Gazans forced their way into the field office on Thursday, demanding reinstatement of a monthly cash allowance to poor families which was halted from April 1 due to budget cuts.
“This is an unjustified step from UNRWA,” Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri said.
“There is a right of peaceful protest for Palestinian refugees,” he said, adding: “We call on UNRWA to reevaluate its position and not to overreact to residents’ protest.”
Cear signs that China is losing patience with North Korea
The Telegraph reports: There are clear signs that China is losing patience with North Korea, America’s former top diplomat in Asia has said.
For several decades, China has been North Korea’s closest ally, largest trade partner and primary source of aid.
However, Kurt Campbell, the former head of the State department in Asia, said there are signs that a relationship once described by Chairman Mao to be “as close as lips and teeth” is wearing thin.
“There is a subtle shift in Chinese foreign policy. Over the short to medium term, that has the potential to affect the calculus in north east Asia,” Mr Campbell said at a forum at John Hopkins university.
“You have seen it at the United Nations (Security Council). We have seen it in our private discussions and you see it in statements in Beijing,” he added.
Mr Campbell, who left the State department in February to found his own consultancy firm, was one of the architects of the US diplomatic and military “pivot” towards Asia.
Mali insurgency endangers French pull-out plan
Reuters reports: France wants to cut its forces in Mali sharply by the year-end and is urging its ex-colony to hold elections in July, but an Islamist insurgency is threatening that timetable.
Many people in northern Mali who lived under the rebels’ brutal form of Islamic law last year are apprehensive about French plans to leave just 1,000 of the current 4,000 troops in the country by December, with U.N. peacekeepers filling the gap.
“The Islamists are waiting for the French to leave to open the gates to hell. Let’s hope the U.N. will take over quickly because the Malian army alone cannot face the terrorism threat,” said Alhassane Maîga, a teacher in the ancient trading post of Timbuktu.
Last weekend Islamist militants launched their second attack on Timbuktu in a fortnight, shortly after French President Francois Hollande insisted the elections must take place as scheduled and unveiled the plan to slash troop numbers.
Launched in January, the French-led offensive quickly succeeded in pushing a mix of Islamists out of their northern strongholds and remote mountain bases, hitting the local leadership of the al Qaeda-linked groups.
But new clashes have followed a handful of suicide attacks and raids on towns won back from the rebels, underscoring the task of securing the country as France prepares to hand over to the Malian army and a 7,000-strong regional African force.
The nightmare scenario is that of a repeat of the Afghan war, where Taliban insurgents have prevented a full pull-out of NATO-led troops after a 13-year conflict that has cost tens of thousands of lives.
What war on the Korean peninsula would look like
Dr. Patrick M. Cronin writes: The Korean Peninsula is on a knife’s edge, one fateful step from war. While Koreans are accustomed to periodic spikes in tensions, the risk of renewed hostilities appears higher than at any time in the past 60 years, when American, North Korean, and Chinese generals signed an armistice agreement. Far more than 1 million people died in the Korean War, with at least that many troops and civilians injured over the course of the three-year campaign.
The exact leadership dynamics at play in Pyongyang remain mysterious, but the domestic survival of the Kim family dynasty appears to hinge on maintaining a credible nuclear and missile threat — backed up by a local great power, China. To achieve the former, Kim Jong Un appears willing to risk the latter. His regime’s unrelenting verbal threats are intended to rally domestic support, and its reckless brinksmanship is aimed at forcing the outside world to back down and back off. In the past days and weeks — adding to the tension created by its recent nuclear and missile tests — Pyongyang has severed a hotline with Seoul, renounced the 1953 armistice, conducted cyberattacks, and, against its own financial interests, closed down the Kaesong Industrial Complex, which is the only economic thread holding together relations with the South.
There is no single red line that, when crossed, would trigger war, but the potential for miscalculation and escalation is high. North Korea has a penchant for causing international incidents — in 2010 alone it used a mini-submarine to sink the South Korean naval vessel Cheonan and shelled South Korea’s Yeonpyeong Island. The brazen and unprovoked killing of military personnel and civilians shocked many South Koreans, some of whom faulted then-President Lee Myung Bak for a tepid response. The new president, Park Geun Hye (South Korea’s “Iron Lady”) is determined not to echo that weakness and has vowed a strong response to any direct provocation. Meanwhile, the United States, via the annual Foal Eagle and Key Resolve exercises, has many troops, ships, and planes on maneuvers in the region and, as an additional show of resolve, flew long-range B-2 stealth bombers from Missouri to Korea and dispatched F-22 fighter jets as well.
The desire to show strength, the fear of looking weak, and the presence of tons of hardware provides more than enough tinder that a spark could start a peninsula-wide conflagration. [Continue reading…]
The internationalization of the war in Syria
View Internationalization of Syria’s Civil War in a larger map
Foreign Policy: Last week, on March 25, unnamed foreign and U. S. government officials revealed to the Associated Press that the United States has been secretly training Syrian rebels in Jordan, and the New York Times reported that U.S. intelligence services facilitated large arms purchases for rebel forces by Saudi Arabia. It marked a milestone in the militarization of Syria’s bloody civil war: Barely a week before, Secretary of State John Kerry told reporters, “[T]he United States does not stand in the way of other countries that have made a decision to provide arms, whether it’s France or Britain or others.”
The disclosures are a departure from public U.S. policy on Syria, which has attempted to regulate the distribution of arms through a “security coordination committee” without getting embroiled in the conflict. But the U.S. training program and role in procuring arms for rebels are just the latest instances of the internationalization of Syria’s civil war.
In this map, we’ve tried to track some of the international incidents and influences of the Syrian civil war. It is not comprehensive, and suggestions are welcome. It shows an uprising that increasingly travels like an electric current across filaments of ethnic and sectarian identity, regardless of borders. As the power vacuum grows, so will the opportunities for foreign countries to interject themselves further into the conflict. [Continue reading…]
North Korea ‘moves mid-range missile’
BBC News reports: North Korea has shifted a missile with “considerable range” to its east coast, South Korea’s foreign minister says.
Kim Kwan-jin played down concerns that the missile could target the US mainland, and said the North’s intentions were not yet clear.
Pyongyang earlier renewed threats of a nuclear strike against the US, though its missiles are not believed to be capable of carrying nuclear warheads.
The US is responding to North Korea by moving missile defence shields to Guam.
The Pentagon said the shield on its Pacific island territory would be ready within weeks, adding to warships already sent to the area.
The North has previously named Guam among a list of possible targets for attack that included Hawaii and the US mainland.
Japanese and South Korea reports had suggested the missile being moved by the North was a long-range one with a capability of hitting the US west coast.
However, experts believe the North’s most powerful rocket, which it test-fired last December, has a range of 6,000km (3,700 miles) and can reach no further than Alaska.
Today’s tunes from North Korea
First, a family-favorite, “We are ready for nuclear war,” followed by the six-year-old Ko Pyong Sim performing “Footsteps.”
How the Obama administration ignored North Korean offers to relinquish its nuclear fuel stockpile
Joel Wit writes: [I]n November 2010, senior North Korean Foreign Ministry officials made it very clear that they were willing to relinquish thousands of fuel rods in their possession that could have been used by the reactor, rods that could help produce as many as eight nuclear bombs. That would have been a first step toward permanently disabling the facility, making sure the reactor would never again be a threat. Of course, the North Koreans wanted compensation — standard practice in the international nuclear fuel industry — and they wanted more than the rods were worth. But that was clearly their opening position. The offer was repeated during meetings in March 2011 in Berlin and once again in Pyongyang at the end of that year.
Each time, the North Korean proposal was dutifully reported to the Obama administration in briefings for the White House, the State Department, the Department of Defense, and the intelligence community. The Lee Myung-bak administration was familiar with the offer, as they would have been intimately involved in any effort to shut Yongbyon down because Lee’s predecessor had been willing to pay for the rods to take them off North Korea’s hands.
The North Korean initiative was duly noted, but the United States and South Korea failed to take advantage of the opportunity to ensure that North Korea wasn’t able to restart the reactor and turn the rods into new nuclear bombs. [Continue reading…]
North Korea warns U.S. of approval for ‘lighter’ nuclear attack
Bloomberg reports: North Korea’s military escalated its threats, citing a law ratified this week as authorizing plans for “counter-actions” against U.S. aggression, including use of a “cutting-edge smaller, lighter and diversified nuclear strike.”
Kim Jong Un’s regime, which hasn’t demonstrated it has a nuclear weapon or a missile capable of delivering one to the U.S. mainland, didn’t elaborate on the armaments it claimed to have in a statement today by a military spokesman, which was distributed by the state-run Korean Central News Agency.
The warning was presented as a response to what North Korea called an “ever-escalating U.S. hostile policy,” citing moves including the use of long-range bombers in a U.S.-South Korea exercise being conducted this month. While tensions have escalated over North Korea’s nuclear weapons program and United Nations sanctions against it, U.S. officials have emphasized this week that they have seen no unusual troop movements by North Korea.
U.S. dials back on Korean show of force
The Wall Street Journal reports: After a high-visibility display of military power aimed at deterring North Korean provocations, the White House is dialing back the aggressive posture amid fears that it could inadvertently trigger an even deeper crisis, according to U.S. officials.
The U.S. is putting a pause to what several officials described as a step-by-step plan the Obama administration approved earlier this year, dubbed “the playbook,” that laid out the sequence and publicity plans for U.S. shows of force during annual war games with South Korea. The playbook included well-publicized flights in recent weeks near North Korea by nuclear-capable B-52 and stealth B-2 bombers, as well as advanced F-22 warplanes.
The U.S. stepped back from the plans this week, as U.S. officials began to worry that the North, which has a small nuclear arsenal and an unpredictable new leader, may be more provoked than the U.S. had intended, the officials said.
“The concern was that we were heightening the prospect of misperceptions on the part of the North Koreans, and that that could lead to miscalculations,” a senior administration official said.
Scientific racism, militarism, and the new atheists
After briefly reviewing the history of scientific racism, Murtaza Hussain writes: In the present atmosphere, characterised by conflict with Muslim-majority nations, a new class of individuals have stepped in to give a veneer of scientific respectability to today’s politically-useful bigotry.
At the forefront of this modern scientific racism have been those prominently known as the “new atheist” scientists and philosophers. While they attempt to couch their language in the terms of pure critique of religious thought, in practice they exhibit many of the same tendencies toward generalisation and ethno-racial condescension as did their predecessors – particularly in their descriptions of Muslims.
To be utterly clear, Islam itself does not denote a race, and Muslims themselves come from every racial and ethnic grouping in the world. However, in their ostensibly impartial critiques of “religion” – and through the impartation of ethno-cultural attributes onto members of a religious group – the most prominent new atheists slide with ease into the most virulent racism imaginable.
That this usefully dovetails with government policies promoting the military subjugation of Muslim-majority countries is telling with regard to what purpose these contemporary scientist-philosophers serve.
While one could cite Richard Dawkins’ descriptions of “Islamic barbarians” and Christopher Hitchens’ outright bloodlust towards Muslims – including lamentations of the ostensibly too-low death toll in the Battle of Fallujah and his satisfied account of cluster bombs tearing through the flesh of Iraqis – these have been widely discussed and are in any case not the most representative of this modern phenomena.
Indeed, the most illustrative demonstration of the new brand of scientific racism must be said to come from the popular author and neuroscientist Sam Harris. Among the most publicly visible of the new atheists, in the case of Muslims Harris has publicly stated his support for torture, pre-emptive nuclear weapons strikes, and the security profiling of not just Muslims themselves, but in his own words “anyone who looks like he or she could conceivably be Muslim”. [Continue reading…]
