Author Archives: Paul Woodward

NEWS: Myanmar crackdown continues

Burma sources: Between 200-300 monks killed in crackdown
Haaretz, October 4, 2007

Sources in Burma’s opposition party NDL said Wednesday that, to date, between 200 and 300 monks have been killed in protests in a deadly crackdown on monks and civilians protesting steep price hikes and 45 years of brutal military rule.

The sources said some of the monks were buried alive, while the bodies of others were burned in an open area some 25 kilometers from the capital Rangun.

According to the party sources, over 160 of its senior leaders have been arrested throughout the country. [complete article]

Burmese troops carry out nighttime arrests; monks put to flight
AP, October 4, 2007

After crushing the democracy uprising with guns, Burma’s military junta switched to an intimidation campaign Wednesday, sending troops to drag people from their homes in the middle of the night and letting others know they were marked for arrest.

People living near the Shwedagon Pagoda, Burma’s most revered shrine and a flash point of unrest during the protests, reported that police swept through several dozen homes about 3 a.m., dragging away many men for questioning. [complete article]

India cuts to the chase with Myanmar
By Siddharth Srivastava, Asia Times, October 5, 2007

There is international pressure on India not to engage with the military junta in Myanmar that severely cracked down on pro-democracy protestors recently. But it seems New Delhi has other ideas.

Betraying its soft approach towards Myanmar, New Delhi has advised the United Nations Security Council against imposing sanctions, which should only be used as a “last resort”, on Myanmar. Instead, India has told the military regime to consider launching a probe into the protests. [complete article]

Facebooktwittermail

NEWS: Hezbollah will avoid war; increases in popularity

Hezbollah won’t go into war with Israel if Syria, Iran attacked
Ya Libnan, October 2, 2007

Hezbollah stressed that it would not go into war with Israel if Syria and Iran were attacked by the Jewish state or the United States.

The stand was outlined by Hezbollah MP Hussein Hajj Hassan( right) in an interview with Naharnet.

Hajj Hassan also said reaching consensus on a presidential candidate is “the destiny of the Lebanese people and not a choice,” noting that Hezbollah has not announced its “official Candidate for the presidential office.” [complete article]

Hezbollah Regains Strength in Lebanon
AP, October 3, 2007

When 30,000 U.N. and Lebanese troops deployed across southern Lebanon at the end of last year’s Israel-Hezbollah war, the Islamic militant group’s presence shrank in the zone bordering Israeli and its influence seemed likely to diminish as well.

But more than a year later, Hezbollah appears to again be solidly entrenched across Lebanon’s south — looking, in fact, as if its fighters never really left but merely went underground.

The Shiite militia’s banners hang everywhere, boasting of the “divine victory” over Israel and thanking its chief sponsor, Shiite-majority Iran, for helping with post-war reconstruction. Villagers report the militia’s recruitment of young men is booming and its popularity is firm. [complete article]

Facebooktwittermail

NEWS & EDITOR’S COMMENT: North Korea’s proliferation hiccup doesn’t stall deal

Nuclear deal reached with North Korea
By Graham Bowley and Helene Cooper, New York Times, October 4, 2007

North Korea has endorsed an agreement to disable all of its nuclear facilities by the end of the year, according to a joint six-nation statement released by China in Beijing today, the state-run Xinhua News Agency reported.

The agreement sets out a timetable for North Korea to disclose all its nuclear programs and disable all facilities in return for 950,000 metric tons of fuel oil or its equivalent in economic aid.

Negotiators reached agreement on a draft plan in Beijing on Sunday after four days of six-nation talks. The United States had said on Tuesday that it endorsed the plan but was waiting for approval from other nations involved in the negotiations. [complete article]

Editor’s Comment — Well, you have to hand it to the North Koreans when it comes to multitasking. While busy trying to set up a nuclear program in Syria, they were still able to cut a deal with the Bush administration.

We are informed though that a “senior administration official said the United States has told North Korea that one of the things it must disclose are details of whatever nuclear material it has been supplying to Syria.” Absolutely. And then of course this information can be passed along to Israel’s military censors and then maybe, finally, we’ll get all the details about Israel’s September attack “deep” inside Syria, striking as-yet unidentified targets.

The Bush administration must be applauded for not having allowed this little proliferation escapade to stand in the way of an important agreement.

Then there’s the issue of getting off the list of nations that sponsor terrorism. From what I can tell, this seems to be a bit like cleaning up a bad credit rating. In an exchange this morning, Assistant Secretary Hill made it clear that the United States will try to streamline the process to get the North Koreans back in good standing:

Question:How quickly will you be able to get them off the terrorism list and what have you told Congress about how quickly that’s going to happen?

Hill: Well, first of all, we’re beginning some congressional consultations tomorrow, so I haven’t been up to talk to members yet, but we will be doing that and we will be explaining how we think the terrorism list issue should proceed. First of all, I think any time you can sit down with a country and work out details of why they were on the terrorism list and how to get them off the terrorism list, this is important because it’s in our interest to get countries off the terrorism list because, by definition, countries that are on the terrorism list pose a threat. And so when you take them off, it’s because you believe you’ve diminished this threat. So we think this is in our interest to do this.

As yet, no mention on when they can expect to get removed from the Axis of Evil. Based on the most recent State Department overview of state sponsors of terrorism, it sounds like North Korea might actually have honorary membership on the list by virtue of being a member of the Axis of Evil. This is what the report says:

The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) was not known to have sponsored any terrorist acts since the bombing of a Korean Airlines flight in 1987.

That’s a clean record for twenty years and they’re still on the list. Let’s not forget that the United States shot down and killed everyone on board Iran Air Flight 655 in 1988 — an Airbus carrying 290 passengers that the US Navy “mistook” for an F-14 Tomcat — and the US has managed to never even get on the terrorism list. I know — authorship confers its privileges.

Facebooktwittermail

FEATURE: Israel’s attack on the USS Liberty

New revelations in attack on American spy ship
By John Crewdson, Chicago Tribune, October 2, 2007

The Johnson administration did not publicly dispute Israel’s claim that the attack [on June 8, 1967, the fourth day of what would become known as the Six-Day War,] had been nothing more than a disastrous mistake. But internal White House documents obtained from the Lyndon B. Johnson Presidential Library show that the Israelis’ explanation of how the mistake had occurred was not believed.

Except for McNamara, most senior administration officials from Secretary of State Dean Rusk on down privately agreed with Johnson’s intelligence adviser, Clark Clifford, who was quoted in minutes of a National Security Council staff meeting as saying it was “inconceivable” that the attack had been a case of mistaken identity.

The attack “couldn’t be anything else but deliberate,” the NSA’s director, Lt. Gen. Marshall Carter, later told Congress.

“I don’t think you’ll find many people at NSA who believe it was accidental,” Benson Buffham, a former deputy NSA director, said in an interview.

“I just always assumed that the Israeli pilots knew what they were doing,” said Harold Saunders, then a member of the National Security Council staff and later assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern and South Asian affairs.

“So for me, the question really is who issued the order to do that and why? That’s the really interesting thing.” [complete article]

See also, USS Liberty Memorial.

Facebooktwittermail

OPINION & NEWS: Blackwater’s Prince of Death

The man from Blackwater, shooting from the lip
By Dana Milbank, Washington Post, October 3, 2007

…when [Blackwater CEO Erik] Prince made a rare public appearance before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee yesterday, he acted as if the lawmakers were wasting his time.

How much does Blackwater, recipient of $1 billion in federal contracts, make in profits? “We’re a private company, and there’s a key word there — private,” Prince answered.

What about the 2004 crash of a Blackwater plane in Afghanistan, when federal investigators said the pilots acted unprofessionally? “Accidents happen,” Prince explained.

The lack of prosecution for a drunken Blackwater worker who shot and killed a security guard to an Iraqi vice president? “We can’t flog him,” Prince said. [complete article]

From errand to fatal shot to hail of fire to 17 deaths
By James Glanz and Alissa J. Rubin, New York Times, October 3, 2007

It started out as a family errand: Ahmed Haithem Ahmed was driving his mother, Mohassin, to pick up his father from the hospital where he worked as a pathologist. As they approached Nisour Square at midday on Sept. 16, they did not know that a bomb had gone off nearby or that a convoy of four armored vehicles carrying Blackwater guards armed with automatic rifles was approaching.

Moments later a bullet tore through Mr. Ahmed’s head, he slumped, and the car rolled forward. Then Blackwater guards responded with a barrage of gunfire and explosive weapons, leaving 17 dead and 24 wounded — a higher toll than previously thought, according to Iraqi investigators.

Interviews with 12 Iraqi witnesses, several Iraqi investigators and an American official familiar with an American investigation of the shootings offer new insights into the gravity of the episode in Nisour Square. And they are difficult to square with the explanation offered initially by Blackwater officials that their guards were responding proportionately to an attack on the streets around the square. [complete article]

Guards in Iraq cite frequent shootings
By Steve Fainaru, Washington Post, October , 2007

Most of the more than 100 private security companies in Iraq open fire far more frequently than has been publicly acknowledged and rarely report such incidents to U.S. or Iraqi authorities, according to U.S. officials and current and former private security company employees.

Violence caused by private security guards in Iraq has come under scrutiny since a Sept. 16 shooting in Baghdad involving employees of Blackwater USA. The company’s chairman, Erik Prince, told a congressional committee Tuesday that Blackwater guards opened fire on 195 occasions during more than 16,000 missions in Iraq since 2005.

However, two former Blackwater security guards said they believed employees fired more often than the company has disclosed. One, a former Blackwater guard who spent nearly three years in Iraq, said his 20-man team averaged “four or five” shootings a week, or several times the rate of 1.4 incidents a week reported by the company. The underreporting of shooting incidents was routine in Iraq, according to this former guard. [complete article]

Facebooktwittermail

OPINION & NEWS: The British withdrawal from Iraq

Brown should listen to the military and quit Iraq now
By Jonathan Steele, The Guardian, October 3, 2007

Justice, as the cliche has it, must not only be done, but be seen to be done. By the same token, policy decisions must not just be taken – they must be declared. Otherwise their benefit is reduced or lost. As Gordon Brown visited Iraq yesterday to prepare for Monday’s formal announcement to parliament on Britain’s troop presence, he should ponder these truths. Some 42% of the public want Britain’s involvement in Iraq to end as soon as possible, and another 22% by the end of next year, according to a BBC poll last month. The prime minister talked yesterday of a reduction of a thousand troops by Christmas, but if he says nothing specific about a full withdrawal, he will be disappointing millions of people, as well as the troops themselves.

There is an overwhelming desire among the country’s military commanders for an end to the British adventure in Iraq. However professionally they acted, they were given a mission that was unnecessary and wrongly conceived. Along with the much more decisive role of the United States, this mission has helped to plunge Iraq into political turmoil and the largest human emergency in today’s world. [complete article]

In visit to Iraq, Brown says 1,000 more British troops to be withdrawn by year’s end
AP, October 2, 2007

Iraq will take over security from British troops in Basra province within two months, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki told reporters Tuesday after meeting with Britain’s Prime Minister Gordon Brown, who said 1,000 more British troops would be withdrawn from Iraq by year’s end.

Brown was on an unannounced visit, which also was to include a session with U.S. Commander David Petraeus before the British leader flies to Basra to meet with his forces and military leaders in the oil-rich region in the deep south of Iraq.

“We are prepared to take over security of Basra within two months and we will,” al-Maliki said, after the meeting in his Green Zone office. “Basra will be one of the provinces where Iraqi forces will completely take over security.” [complete article]

Iraqis say Basra quieter after British troop pullout
By Aref Mohammed, Reuters, October 1, 2007

Rresidents of Iraq’s southern city of Basra have begun strolling riverfront streets again after four years of fear, their city much quieter since British troops withdrew from the grand Saddam Hussein-era Basra Palace.

Political assassinations and sectarian violence continue, some city officials say, but on a much smaller scale than at any time since British troops moved into the city after the 2003 U.S.-led invasion.

Mortar rounds, rockets and small arms fire crashed almost daily into the palace, making life hazardous for British and Iraqis alike in Iraq’s second-largest city. To many Basrans the withdrawal of the British a month ago removed a proven target. [complete article]

Facebooktwittermail

FEATURE: Roadside bombs

About left of boom: the fight against roadside bombs
By Rick Atkinson, Washington Post, October , 2007

Rick Atkinson describes the effort by the U.S. military to combat the improvised explosive devices used by insurgents in Afghanistan and Iraq from 2002 until now.

The series is drawn from more than 140 interviews over the past six months with military and congressional officials, contractors, scientists and defense analysts in Iraq, Afghanistan, Washington and elsewhere. Most agreed to speak candidly only on the condition of anonymity. Ten senior officers or retired officers, each of them intimately involved in the effort to combat IEDs, were asked to review the findings for accuracy and security considerations.

Part one
Part two
Part three

Facebooktwittermail

OPINION: The occupation that Israel has learned to ignore

Where is the occupation?
Haaretz editorial, October 3, 2007

The occupied territories and the Palestinians living there are slowly becoming virtual realities, distant from the eye and the heart. Palestinian workers have disappeared from our streets. Israelis no longer enter Palestinian towns for shopping. There is a new generation on each side that does not know the other. Even the settlers no longer meet Palestinians because of the different road systems that distinguish between the two populations; one is free and mobile, the other stuck at the roadblocks.

While the politicians argue over dividing the land between two peoples, the public is apathetic. The people feel that the division has already taken place. The disengagement from the Gaza Strip, the evacuation of Gush Katif, the construction of a separation barrier – the problem is solved to our satisfaction. The settlers are conducting a settlement policy of their own, taking over new areas, expanding settlements, anything to prevent a permanent solution. They are also satisfied with the status quo that relies on the Shin Bet security service and the Israel Defense Forces.

The de facto separation is today more similar to political apartheid than an occupation regime because of its constancy. One side – determined by national, not geographic association – includes people who have the right to choose and the freedom to move, and a growing economy. On the other side are people closed behind the walls surrounding their community, who have no right to vote, lack freedom of movement, and have no chance to plan their future. [complete article]

A peace to begin all peace
By Daniel Levy, The Guardian, October 2, 2007

Is there a winner in the siege policy being enacted against Gaza? Some claim that the punishment being meted out on Gaza’s residents will lead them to turn against and throw off the Hamas regime. Others contend that, under the circumstances prevalent in Gaza, the population will likely further turn to religious escapism and blame its obvious adversaries in Israel and the west.

Calibrating the effects of collective punishment is not an exact science. It is though, an utterly vile way to treat human beings. An Israel-Hamas ceasefire, in parallel to negotiations with the Abbas government, must become a priority. [complete article]

Facebooktwittermail

NEWS: Myanmar – crushing the revolution

Burmese junta opens door to talks with Suu Kyi
By Peter Popham, The Independent, October 3, 2007

The UN envoy to Burma, Ibrahim Gambari, finally got to see the regime’s two top generals yesterday, after days of delays and diversions.

He had flown to the country on Saturday as the army threatened overwhelming force to stifle weeks of peaceful protest against the junta and its catastrophic economic policies. He met Senior General Than Shwe and Deputy Senior General Maung Aye together at their hideaway capital of Nay Pyi Daw, 350km (217miles) north of Rangoon.

Nothing leaked out about the content of the meeting. It was expected that the generals would have sought to justify their crackdown on the protesters, which left many dead and thousands in detention, in the name of state security and stability.

But in a surprise coda to the visit, one which raised a flicker of hope, Mr Gambari then flew back to Rangoon for a second, brief meeting with the democracy leader Aung San Suu Kyi, whom he had met for more than an hour on Sunday. The most optimistic supposition was that he was bringing a message of some sort from the generals to the woman who, as leader of the opposition which won a landslide election victory in 1990, one that was never honoured, has been the principal thorn in their side ever since. [complete article]

Myanmar troops stage nighttime arrests
AP, October 3, 2007

After crushing the democracy uprising with guns, Myanmar’s junta switched tactics Wednesday, sending troops to drag people from their homes in the middle of the night and letting others know they were marked for arrest.

People living near the Shwedagon Pagoda, Myanmar’s most revered shrine and a flash point of unrest during the protests, reported that police swept through several dozen homes about 3 a.m., dragging away many men for questioning. [complete article]

Facebooktwittermail

OPINION & EDITOR’S COMMENT: The Democrats’ failure to challenge Bush’s Mideast policies

How the Democrats blew it
By Gary Kamiya, Salon, October 2, 2007

The fact that Democrats have eagerly participated in Bush and the neocons’ campaign to demonize Iran shows that they have learned nothing from Iraq. The Democrats know that Bush lives in his own world outside the “reality-based community,” one in which rational behavior is not a given. They know that the neocon nut jobs in Dick Cheney’s circle want another war. They know that Bush is engaging in exactly the same kind of propaganda campaign against Iran that he did against Iraq, with “explosively shaped charges” replacing the “mushroom clouds” that Saddam Hussein was going to release from a secret chain of demonic falafel stands located in the “east, west, north and south” of the country. And they know that war with Iran would be a disaster. That’s why last March the Democratic leadership proposed a resolution that would prevent Bush from attacking Iran without congressional authorization. But when what the neoconservative New York Sun called “a group of conservative and pro-Israel Democrats” objected, the Democrats caved — in effect, putting the decision on whether to launch a third Mideast war in Bush’s capable hands.

While they abet Bush’s Iran madness, the Democrats treat the Israeli-Palestinian crisis, which is by far the greatest cause of anti-American sentiment in the Arab-Muslim world, as if it were a municipal garbage-jurisdiction dispute in Peoria. The Bush administration is doing almost nothing to prepare the ground for the November peace summit, a window-dressing exercise destined to go nowhere. But none of the major Democratic candidates seem to care. None have insisted that Washington and Tel Aviv must put final-status issues on the table, even though without that stipulation the talks are doomed to fail, with potentially grave consequences for Israel, the Palestinians, the region and U.S. interests. Certainly none have dared join that raving radical, Colin Powell, in suggesting that Hamas must be a part of the negotiations. No one endorses Hamas’ use of terrorism — but just as after 9/11, the fetishization of terrorism as pure evil is preventing America from acting in its own interests. From the ANC’s guerrilla struggle with South Africa to the IRA’s urban war against the British in Northern Ireland, the lesson of history is that peace can only be attained by talking to the men with the guns.

Ironically, reality has forced the Bush administration to accept this moral relativism in Iraq. We are in a looking-glass world, where Bush befriends Sunni Baathists in Iraq who yesterday were blowing up American troops, but the Democrats, who are supposedly less prone to moralistic myopia than Bush, rule out talking to Hamas, which took office in elections the U.S. insisted on, and sing from Bush’s far-right song sheet on Iran. Indeed, the only issue on which congressional Democrats are routinely more conservative than Bush is the Israeli-Palestinian crisis. In 2006, the House overwhelmingly approved a sanctions bill against the Palestinians that was opposed by the White House. [complete article]

Editor’s Comment — As Taylor Marsh recently noted, “There’s only one thing Clinton and others who voted in favor of Lieberman’s Iran amendment fear more than Iran’s possible involvement in Iraq, or them going nuclear, and that’s standing up to the Israel lobby at large. It’s not going to happen.”

Even so, now that Clinton has made a course correction and announced the she will co-sponsor the Webb legislation prohibiting the use of funds for military operations in Iran, Taylor describes this as a “critically important and a progressive move.” It is no such thing.

Why? Because it is increasingly clear that action against Iran will not start with a fanfare. All the administration needs is a pretext for opening fire and in its original form, the Webb legislation provides Bush with all the room for maneuver he needs:

Specifically, the amendment requires that the President seek congressional authorization prior to commencing any broad military action in Iran and it allows the following exceptions: First, military operations or activities that would directly repel an attack launched from within the territory of Iran. Second, those activities that would directly thwart an imminent attack that would be launched from Iran. Third, military operations or activities that would be in hot pursuit of forces engaged outside the territory of Iran who thereafter would enter Iran. And finally, those intelligence collection activities that have been properly noticed to the appropriate committees of Congress.

I can already hear the presidential address:

In the early hours of this morning, I was informed by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mullen, that our intelligence services had discovered that Quds forces in the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, operating close to the Iraqi border, were at the advanced stage of launching a stealth attack on a United States military base in Iraq. I therefore ordered U.S. naval and air forces to take all necessary measures to thwart this imminent attack and we have informed the Iranian government that we will not hesitate to take any further necessary action to defend American soldiers who are currently serving their country in Iraq.

Would we get to see the intelligence? Almost certainly not. Would Congress be shouting out in protest? Fat chance! Because if this was to happen, the president would of course be acting in strict compliance with the Webb legislation — in the extremely unlikely event that he had actually signed it into law.

The war against Iran won’t start with shock and awe; it will start with an incident. And while the commentariat is still arguing over who started it, one incident will have led to another and in the unfolding escalation the MSM will be wringing their hands as they earnestly ask: is this war?

But for now, don’t expect the Democrats to take any meaningful action that might help avert this war — they’ll be too busy playing strong and cautious, fishing for the antiwar vote without antagonizing the Israel lobby.

Facebooktwittermail

SPEECH & EDITOR’S COMMENT: Together we can do the hard work to seek a new dawn…

Courage against convention, then and now
By Barak Obama, October 2, 2007

We need to change our nuclear policy and our posture, which is still focused on deterring the Soviet Union – a country that doesn’t exist. Meanwhile, India and Pakistan and North Korea have joined the club of nuclear-armed nations, and Iran is knocking on the door. More nuclear weapons and more nuclear-armed nations mean more danger to us all.

Here’s what I’ll say as President: America seeks a world in which there are no nuclear weapons.

We will not pursue unilateral disarmament. As long as nuclear weapons exist, we’ll retain a strong nuclear deterrent. But we’ll keep our commitment under the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty on the long road towards eliminating nuclear weapons. We’ll work with Russia to take U.S. and Russian ballistic missiles off hair-trigger alert, and to dramatically reduce the stockpiles of our nuclear weapons and material. We’ll start by seeking a global ban on the production of fissile material for weapons. And we’ll set a goal to expand the U.S.-Russian ban on intermediate-range missiles so that the agreement is global.

As we do this, we’ll be in a better position to lead the world in enforcing the rules of the road if we firmly abide by those rules. It’s time to stop giving countries like Iran and North Korea an excuse. It’s time for America to lead. When I’m President, we’ll strengthen the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty so that nations that don’t comply will automatically face strong international sanctions. [complete article]

See also, A world free of nuclear weapons (George P. Shultz, William J. Perry, Henry A. Kissinger, Sam Nunn, Wall Street Journal, January 8, 2007).

Editor’s Comment — To say, “America seeks a world in which there are no nuclear weapons,” is a fine thing. Reagan said the same thing, but what he left behind was missile defense — the fanciest boondoggle the military-industrial complex ever dreamed up.

If Obama is actually serious — in other words, if he isn’t merely trying to conjure up a narrative of light contrasting with the era of Bush-Cheney darkness — then he needs to add some substance to his declaration.

A plan is a dream with a deadline.* Kennedy didn’t just say that America would send a man to the moon as soon as it would be feasible. He said that it would happen before the end of the decade. Likewise the dream of a nuclear weapon-free world is no use if it’s off on a horizon that we never reach. Obama’s “long road” sounds like one that goes on forever.

And if Obama really wants to give his declaration some punch, he must do better than this: “It’s time to stop giving countries like Iran and North Korea an excuse. It’s time for America to lead.”

Instead, how about acknowledging that in a world of nuclear-haves and nuclear-have-nots, there is not a single nation that can claim a right to nuclear arms and that it is this inequity more than anything else that is the driving force behind nuclear proliferation.

Nuclear power confers political power and everyone wants it.

This isn’t about good boys protecting the world from bad boys. A path towards nuclear disarmament requires that the members of the nuclear club be willing to disavow a form of power that they have hitherto regarded as their entitlement.

(*Since I never knowingly plagiarize, I must give credit where it’s due. That line comes from a fortune cookie.)

Facebooktwittermail

OPINION: Negotiating with Iran

Sanctions won’t stop Tehran
By Selig S. Harrison, Washington Post, October 2, 2007

Suppose that the Bush administration abandons its campaign for economic sanctions, tones down talk of war and opens direct negotiations with Iran about its nuclear program. Suppose also that it drops its insistence on the suspension of uranium enrichment as a precondition for dialogue.

Would Iran accept the terms for denuclearization accepted by North Korea in the direct negotiations that led to the Feb. 13 agreement with Pyongyang and that are now being implemented in fits and starts: a no-attack pledge, normalized economic and diplomatic relations, economic aid, and removal from the U.S. list of terrorist states?

Based on a week of high-level discussions in Tehran recently and on previous visits during earlier stages of the nuclear program, my assessment is that Iran would demand much tougher terms, including a freeze of Israel’s Dimona reactor and a ban on the U.S. use of nuclear weapons in the Persian Gulf. [complete article]

Facebooktwittermail

NEWS & EDITOR’S COMMENT: The Israeli attack on Syria. Revealed: nothing

Israeli army begins to release details on Syrian air raid
AP, October 2, 2007

Israel on Tuesday eased a strict news blackout on an airstrike in Syria last month, allowing the first publication of reports it struck an unspecified “military target” deep inside Syrian territory.

Israel’s military censor had imposed a total blackout on coverage of the Sept. 6 airstrike. But Tuesday, the office allowed preliminary details to be published after Syria’s president, Bashar Assad, confirmed the airstrike in a televised interview.

“Israeli air force planes attacked a military target deep inside Syria on Sept. 6, the military censor allowed for publication today,” Israel’s Army Radio reported. The headline on the web site of the Maariv newspaper was, “Now it can be revealed: Israel attacked in Syria,” while the Haaretz newspaper led with the military’s permission to publish “the fact” of Israel’s attack. [complete article]

Editor’s Comment — The AP ready-made headline for this piece is, “Israel Releases Details on Syrian Raid.” The IHT editor inserted the small qualification “begins to.” Either way, the truth is that now that the veil of censorship has been lifted, it has revealed nothing. Not one detail. To speak of an unspecified military target deep inside Syria is to announce that there is nothing to announce. And to place that informational empty space under a headline referring to the release of details is Orwellian.

Facebooktwittermail

NEWS: Blackwater’s drive-by gunmen

Report says firm sought to cover up Iraq shootings
By John M. Broder, New York Times, October 2, 2007

Employees of Blackwater USA have engaged in nearly 200 shootings in Iraq since 2005, in a vast majority of cases firing their weapons from moving vehicles without stopping to count the dead or assist the wounded, according to a new report from Congress.

In at least two cases, Blackwater paid victims’ family members who complained, and sought to cover up other episodes, the Congressional report said. It said State Department officials approved the payments in the hope of keeping the shootings quiet. In one case last year, the department helped Blackwater spirit an employee out of Iraq less than 36 hours after the employee, while drunk, killed a bodyguard for one of Iraq’s two vice presidents on Christmas Eve.

The report by the Democratic majority staff of a House committee adds weight to complaints from Iraqi officials, American military officers and Blackwater’s competitors that company guards have taken an aggressive, trigger-happy approach to their work and have repeatedly acted with reckless disregard for Iraqi life. [complete article]

See also, Blackwater chief defends guards’ actions in Iraq (WP), Email shows State officials doing Blackwater damage control (TPM), and Other killings by Blackwater staff detailed (WP).

Facebooktwittermail

OPINION: Supporting peace requires action

Democracy is more than going to the polls
By Amira Hass, Haaretz, October 2, 2007

“The protest wave has calmed down,” some Israeli journalists said Friday of the Burmese military junta’s success in driving thousands of demonstrators off the streets, using excessive violence.

Despite the natural sympathy for the uprisers, several editors chose the word “calm,” which embodies the rulers’ point of view: The norm is “calm,” even if it means constant government violence. The mass protest against the oppression is a disruption of order and calm.

The word “calm” was an automatic reflection of how most Israeli Jews and their media see the constant, 40-year Israeli oppression of the Palestinians. This is the norm one thinks of when the Palestinians disrupt the calm. [complete article]

Facebooktwittermail

NEWS: Staying on the straight and narrow — really narrow

McCain: No Muslim president, U.S. better with Christian one
By Helen Kennedy, NY Daily News, September 29, 2007

GOP presidential candidate John McCain says America is better off with a Christian President and he doesn’t want a Muslim in the Oval Office.

“I admire the Islam. There’s a lot of good principles in it,” he said. “But I just have to say in all candor that since this nation was founded primarily on Christian principles, personally, I prefer someone who I know who has a solid grounding in my faith.” [complete article]

“Amen” for Israel, say Christian Zionists
By “Amen” for Israel, say Christian Zionists, Reuters, October 2, 2007

7,000 mostly evangelical Christians from across the world flocked to the Holy Land this week to celebrate the Jewish festival of Sukkoth and to show support for Israel.
[…]
Not all Christians back Israel. The Vatican’s envoy in the Holy Land and bishops from three other churches last year accused the Christian Zionist movement of promoting “racial exclusivity and perpetual war.”

While pilgrims in Israel this week were keen to visit Jewish towns and settlements, few appeared to venture into Palestinian towns, or meet many Arabs during their stay.

“We dare not go into the Palestinian areas and anyway they are not open to us,” said Elizabeth Lee, a Pentecostal Christian from Malaysia who has been to Israel 40 times.

Many pilgrims saw the Israeli conflict with the Palestinians as an extension of U.S. President George W. Bush’s “War on terror,” and talked about a clash between good and evil.

Mark Burns is an ardent Israel supporter who runs Christian radio stations in Illinois and brings groups every year to the Holy Land to donate blood and money.

“Christians who read the Hebrew scriptures know God made a promise with Israel,” he said. “People who are clueless about the Old Testament can be persuaded to support the other side.” [complete article]

Editor’s Comment — And there I was thinking this web site might help a few folks understand the Middle East better when I should have been studying the Old Testament. Dang!

Facebooktwittermail

NEWS: Korea – North meets South

A crack opens in the Korean wall
By Donald Kirk, Asia Times, October 3, 2007

The big question on the opening Tuesday of the North-South Korean summit in Pyongyang was whether or not North Korean leader Kim Jong-il would condescend to welcome South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun in person, or whether he would delegate that ceremonial chore to his much lower-ranking No 2.

Actually, second-ranking Kim Young-nam, who as chairman of the presidium of the Supreme People’s Assembly is titular head of state, was the first to receive Roh, standing beside him in an open limousine as they waved at the crowds on the way to the red carpet stretched across the wide avenue in front of the cultural hall in the heart of the North Korean capital.

Minutes before, Kim Jong-il answered the question as pool television, live from Pyongyang, caught him getting out of the back seat of his own black limo, walking around an honor guard and standing at the end of the carpet. Television anchors and correspondents were appropriately impressed. In Hong Kong, a pair of CNN anchors spoke in hushed voices, as if they were right there, fearful of interrupting an event they repeatedly called “historic” as they began referring to Kim Jong-il by one of his favorite and oldest titles, “Dear Leader”. [complete article]

Facebooktwittermail

OPINION & EDITOR’S COMMENT: Prevent a future war with Iran

Iraq will have to wait
By Scott Ritter, Truthdig, September 27, 2007

The highest priority for the antiwar movement in America today must be the prevention of a war with Iran. The strategic objectives should include getting Congress to repeal the war-powers authorities currently on the books, thereby forcing the president to seek new congressional approval for any new war. Likewise, a concerted effort must be undertaken to counter the disinformation being spread by the Bush administration and others about the nature of the Iranian threat. Every action undertaken by the antiwar movement must be connected to one or both of these strategic objectives. This is not the time for one-off sophomoric newspaper advertisements, but rather for sustained action focused on generating congressional hearings and public debate across the entire spectrum of American society. From the colleges and universities to the churches and on to the public square of small-town America, public information talks, presentations and panels must be held. Communities should flood local media outlets with requests for coverage and appeal to regional media to run stories. Mainstream media will follow. Demonstrations, if useful at all, must be focused events linked to an overall campaign designed to facilitate a strategic objective.

We all should remember the fall of 2002. Many felt that there was no chance for a war with Iraq, especially once U.N. inspectors made their return. In March 2003, everyone who thought so was proved wrong. The fall of 2007 is no different. There is a sense of complacency when one speaks of the potential for a war with Iran. But time is not on the side of those who oppose conflict. If nothing is done to change the political situation inside America regarding Iran, there is an all too real possibility for a war to break out in the spring of 2008.

Sadly, there really is no alternative for the antiwar movement: Put opposition to the war in Iraq on the back burner and make preventing a war with Iran the No. 1 priority, at least until the national election cycle kicks in during the summer of 2008. If a war with Iran hasn’t happened by then, it probably won’t. And the national debate on Iraq won’t be engaged until that time, anyway. A war with Iran would make the current conflict in Iraq pale by comparison, and would detrimentally impact the whole of America, not just certain demographics. As such, it is critical that we all put aside our ideological and political differences and focus on the one issue which, if left unheeded, will have devastating consequences for the immediate future of us all: Prevent a future war with Iran. [complete article]

See also, Richardson says war with Iran is unwise (AP).

Editor’s Comment — A Democratic-led Congress has already demonstrated how ineffectual it is when it comes to challenging this administration on its Iraq policy. There seems even less reason to imagine that Congress will prevent military action against Iran. To do that, Congress would have to defy the Israel lobby — that simply won’t happen. Just look at how obediently 76 senators clicked their heals as they passed the Kyle-Lieberman amendment just a week ago.

Above all, this is an administration that has persistently shown how little interest it has in the views of its critics. The president and vice-president are apparently not even concerned how much damage they will do to the GOP. As Seymour Hersh quotes a former senior intelligence official saying, “Cheney doesn’t give a rat’s ass about the Republican worries, and neither does the President.” Nevertheless, none of this makes war inevitable.

Three men (and maybe others) can pull the plug on this operation: Defense Secretary Gates, incoming Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Michael Mullen, and Centcom commander, Admiral William Fallon. The fact that two naval commanders now hold pivotal positions in the Pentagon has been interpreted by some as an indication that preparations are already underway for a naval-led attack on Iran. But these were Gates’ choices — not Bush and Cheney’s — and I seriously doubt that any of them accepted their positions in order to help rescue the president or vice-president.

It is worth recalling an exchange from Secretary Gates’ confirmation hearings when he was being questioned by South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham:

GRAHAM: Do you believe the Iranians would consider using that nuclear weapons capability against the nation of Israel?

GATES: I don’t know that they would do that, Senator. I think that the risks for them, obviously, are enormously high. I think that they see value.

GRAHAM: If I may?

GATES: Yes, sir.

GRAHAM: The president of Iran has publicly disavowed the existence of the Holocaust, has publicly stated that he would like to wipe Israel off the map. Do you think he’s kidding?

GATES: No, I don’t think he’s kidding, but I think there are, in fact, higher powers in Iran than he, than the president. And I think that, while they are certainly pressing, in my opinion, for nuclear capability, I think that they would see it in the first instance as a deterrent.

They are surrounded by powers with nuclear weapons: Pakistan to their east, the Russians to the north, the Israelis to the west and us in the Persian Gulf.

Clearly, Gates had no interest in pandering to a Congressional panel who themselves wanted to please their donors by regurgitating bilge meant to imply that Iran is a suicidal and genocidal nation.

As for the incoming chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Michael Mullen, this is how he was recently described:

Mullen, a tough-minded and hard-nosed conservative, is known for his scoffing (if private) dismissal of Washington’s neo-conservatives, though sometimes he can barely keep it under wraps. During a recent Washington reception, he was asked by a reporter whether he would oppose an attack on Iran: “It’s your job to convince the politicians just how stupid that would be,” he said, “not mine.”

Gates, Mullen, and Fallon, may all serve at the pleasure of the president, but if they witness that the press is failing to convince the administration how stupid a war with Iran would be, they must then consider exercising their own veto power: they should be willing to resign.

If preventing a war with Iran depends on the education of America, the resuscitation of the Fourth Estate, and courageous action from Congress, I’m less than optimistic about the outcome. But if it simply depends on the willingness of three men to act in accordance with their conscience and do what they believe is right for their country, then maybe there’s a chance that after the unmitigated folly of a war in Iraq, America will not soon stumble into a much larger disaster.

Facebooktwittermail