Turkey threatens Iraq invasion

Am I the only one who sees the irony of President Bush calling for restraint from Turkey regarding military action in Iraq? I'm guessing not.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7049348.stm

Turkey's parliament has given permission for the government to launch military operations into Iraq in pursuit of Kurdish rebels.

The vote was taken in defiance of pressure from the US and Iraq, which have called on Turkey for restraint.

Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has said the motion does not mean a military operation is imminent.

But he said Turkey needed to be able to respond to a recent rise in bomb attacks blamed on PKK rebels from Iraq.

Turkish MPs backed him overwhelmingly, by 507 votes to 19.

As the vote was being counted, US President George W Bush strongly urged Turkey, a key ally, not to carry out the threatened action.

White House sacrifices national security for political gain

I know, this is sort of a "water is wet" variety of statement, but here's the latest outrage:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/08/AR2007100801817.html?hpid%3Dtopnews&sub=AR

The founder of the company, the SITE Intelligence Group, says this premature disclosure tipped al-Qaeda to a security breach and destroyed a years-long surveillance operation that the company has used to intercept and pass along secret messages, videos and advance warnings of suicide bombings from the terrorist group's communications network.

"Techniques that took years to develop are now ineffective and worthless," said Rita Katz, the firm's 44-year-old founder, who has garnered wide attention by publicizing statements and videos from extremist chat rooms and Web sites, while attracting controversy over the secrecy of SITE's methodology. Her firm provides intelligence about terrorist groups to a wide range of paying clients, including private firms and military and intelligence agencies from the United States and several other countries.

As ever, political considerations take priority over security considerations. Nothing surprising, but perhaps people need to be reminded that Bush actually does care what people think, just not as much as he cares about money:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/08/AR2007100800685.html?sub=AR

Now, Bush is trying to reach out to the party's base and re-establish his credentials as a fiscal conservative, beginning with his veto of a bill that would boost federal spending for the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) by $35 billion over five years. Bush called the legislation part of an effort to "federalize health care."

Bush also has threatened to veto nine of the 12 appropriations bills that make up the federal budget.

"One of the big lessons from the 2006 election loss was that Republicans have let spending get out of control," said GOP consultant Scott Reed. "I think the White House is focused on a Bush legacy that includes getting spending back under control."

Still, said Reed, "In some states, especially in the Senate races, running against the president on specific issues like this will help the Republican candidate."

Economic and libertarian-minded Republican conservatives suggest Bush's overtures are too little too late to help a despondent Republican party bracing for the possibility that the White House will end up in Democratic hands.

Bush's veto of the SCHIP expansion and other veto threats ring hollow because of Bush's past support for expensive programs like the Medicare prescription drug benefit and his failure to wield his veto pen, said Bruce Bartlett, an economist who was an adviser to Ronald Reagan and a Treasury official during the elder George Bush's presidency.

"Because he was so lax earlier in his term, he has no choice but to overcompensate," said Bartlett. "At the White House, they understand belatedly that they have destroyed the Republican party's reputation for fiscal responsibility. And they are trying to play catch-up."

I've come to the conclusion that Republicans don't consider military spending (whether in Iraq or elsewhere) to be actual "spending", despite the fact that we're rampantly wasting money overseas on these adventures (and while I consider the entire fiasco to be a huge waste of money, I've seen money wasted at unbelievable rates on a more practical level, e.g., buying quick release blades for computer technicians -- my shop purchased these blades for each of us, and we got to take them home. They're nice knives, but we really didn't need them. This type of thing happens over there with alarming regularity. "Fraud, Waste, and Abuse" is a punchline over there.) Pretty much any money that goes straight to American businesses is considered "investment", and any money that goes toward making the lives of poor or middle class Americans is considered "run-away spending". They buy into the supply-side theory that any money pumped into businesses will come straight back to the government in the form of increased tax revenues... and then they cut taxes to compensate, figuring that the money lost on the tax cuts will come back in the form of increased tax revenues. Basically, no critical thought goes into their economic theories at all, and the Democrats somehow can't seem to counter that.

No fireworks on the Fourth of July

Today I remarked to one of my fellow service members, “I wonder if the Iraqis will shoot off fireworks for us.” He said, “I hope they don’t shoot fireworks for us.” I retorted, “Oh, did I say ‘for’? I meant ‘at’.”

This is what passes for humor in a war zone.

There were no fireworks today, save for a very large controlled detonation by our Explosives Ordinance Disposal (EOD) unit. Generally EOD sends out a notification before they have a controlled det, but if I happen to be in my trailer (read: asleep) when they make the announcement, I don’t generally catch it. Today was one of those days, and I stopped for a second when I heard it, then kept walking. The crusty old Master Sergeant, who was in the Army a long time back, didn’t even flinch or break his stride. I’m sure he laughs at all of us “newcomers” (I’ve “only” been in the service for seven years) who still jump at every little explosion.

No fireworks, but there were festivities. The KBR-operated DFAC served BBQed chicken, ribs, and some other summer grill staples. There was a “fun run” in the morning and a few other things I didn’t participate in. The main thing I saw was the “pie in the face” contest. Everybody laughs at the pie in the face contest for the obvious reasons, but I find it amusing for its poetic irony. It’s a rather apt metaphor for what the people who run this country are doing to us on a daily basis.

An old Vietnam veteran I worked with back at home station died. He and I had several conversations about war, the Air Force, the Army, how the squadron was run, and how I felt about going to Iraq. We talked about the Iraq War itself and how it only served to line the pockets of the powers that be. He was one of the few people around me who shared my point of view on these things, and I feel like the latent wisdom that he possessed was lost on the people he worked with. He was at a point in his life where such things no longer bothered him, however. He had accepted it as the way of things, and he had accepted that people will generally not listen to people whose world view clashes with their own, especially when they say things that trouble them or force them to think. Somehow, I feel like he knew his time was coming after all these years. When one’s mortality is shoved in one’s face like it is in a war zone, you begin to become much more in tune with your life line.

Do I feel like I learned anything from the time that I knew him? I learned that wise old birds are not heeded by the people who could benefit most from their experience. They are mocked, ignored, shunned. Pretty much the way young people with differing world views are treated. Things never change, and people don’t take you more seriously with age. They believe what they want to believe no matter what anybody else has to say.

War no longer makes any sense to me. The tripe about “defending freedom” and such are complete nonsense. We are defending no such thing out here. We’re not defending anything. We’re invading and conquering another sovereign nation. The use of military force in the past usually bore at least a pretense of a genuine threat to our country. With the initial line about weapons of mass destruction in ashes, they fall back to a sort of reverse domino theory about democracy in Iraq spreading to other Muslim nations. It’s an even weaker case than the one presented to the American people during the Vietnam War. It’s all built on lies, and I’ve come to the conclusion that this is the case with every war. The people who make the decision to go to war bear no cost, offer no sacrifice; that is left to those they can convince to fight for them. For a powerful nation like America, the decision to go to war comes easily for leaders with no conscience. Victory is assured and they will be hailed as brave heroes by the people at home. The soldiers who bear the actual cost are, and always will be, anonymous faces to the power brokers who push this on us.

I understand why politicians in this country so readily go to war. What I don’t understand is why the people put up with it anymore. Why are people incapable of saying no to war? Do people even believe that they have a say in the matter, or do they simply accept war as the inherent way of things? Do they just not think about it, with it being “over there” rather than in their own back yards? Do they care? About their lives, the lives of their children, the type of world their children and grandchildren are destined to grow up in, without any say as to the gigantic mess that’s been created in all of our names, the hundreds of thousands of corpses and martyrs and family members swearing revenge against the Americans for killing loved ones who, to us, are nameless and faceless unpersons, completely disposable when held against the discomfort and inconvenience of actually fucking doing something about it?

And what of us on the ground? Why do we continue to agree to perform these tasks? Are we incapable of seeing that which is plain when we look at it honestly rather than through the rose-colored propaganda glasses provided to us by our dearly beloved leaders in Washington? Are these glasses glued to our eyes such that we’re incapable of seeing the giant fucking pie in our face that they tell us is our reward for a job well done when it’s really just for their amusement?

Is this the land of the free? The home of the brave? Is it really?

As I was walking back to my trailer at the end of the night, the band that was playing as part of the Independence Day festivities called their area to attention and proceeded to play the Star Spangled Banner. Normally when it begins to play, I snap to attention and salute the flag until it’s done playing. But instead, I kept walking away from the street lights and into the shadows. As I took a few steps, I could no longer hear the National Anthem playing. All I could hear were attack helicopters and gun fire….

Police station attacked in E Turkey

This ties to Iraq, as well:

Two suspected Kurdish separatists have rammed an oil-filled lorry into a police station in eastern Turkey in a suicide attack, army sources have said.

After the explosion late on Saturday, the station in Tunceli province was attacked by other members of the outlawed Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) and the army counter attacked, the sources said.

The two separatists in the lorry were killed but no other details were available on the death toll.

Hours earlier, thousands of Turks had protested against the PKK on the streets of Istanbul, after a call by the army for a public show of opposition to separatist violence.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/1C4B0BCB-6E17-4D30-BBBA-2042DE384E42.htm

Violence in Turkey from Kurdish separatists. Again, how long before Turkey gets dragged into this Iraq conflict? The Kurdish separatists see an opportunity for an independent Kurdish state in Iraqi Kurdistan, and that borders right on Turkish Kurdistan. The Turks have opposed an independent Kurdistan in Iraq for just this reason. Now that their fears have come to fruition, will they make good on their word to use military force to defend their borders?

Lebanon fighting spreads to Tripoli

Lebanese troops have clashed with armed men in the northern city of Tripoli, near the Nahr al-Bared refugee camp.

The fighting began after troops raided a house belonging to a suspected member of the Fatah al-Islam group shortly before midnight on Saturday, security sources said.

The Lebanese army has been fighting Fatah al-Islam for more than a month in Nahr al-Bared.

Again, this is why I've started reading Al Jazeera. I've barely heard about this in the American press.

Hospital sources said 12 soldiers from the force that stormed the flat were wounded, including at least one seriously.

Lebanese army units blocked off roads leading to the area and brought in reinforcements, including armoured troop carriers.

The shooting eased some 30 minutes later and sources said the gunmen were holed up inside a building.

It follows a day of more heavy shelling and street to street fighting in the Nahr al-Bared camp.

Four Lebanese soldiers died despite the defence minister's claims of victory two days ago.

At least 176 people have been killed in the fierce fighting between the army and Fatah al-Islam at Nahr al-Bared refugee camp.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/9573B7D8-74B0-42CA-8CAA-25D42EFF0D0A.htm

This is bad, bad, bad. This kind of in-fighting in Lebanon could easily spill over into Israel, and we could potentially see a repeat of last summer's excitement between the two countries.

More on this as it continues to develop.

FOX News: Former insurgents helping U.S.

BAGHDAD — Two months ago, a dozen Sunni insurgents — haggard, hungry and in handcuffs — stepped tentatively into a U.S.-Iraqi combat outpost near Baqouba and asked to speak to the commander: "We're out of ammunition, but we want to help you fight Al Qaeda."

Now hundreds of fighters from the 1920s Revolution Brigades, an erstwhile Sunni insurgent group, work as scouts and gather intelligence for the 10,000-strong American force in the fifth day of its mission to remove Al Qaeda gunmen and bomb makers from the Diyala provincial capital.

Little so well illustrates the Middle Eastern dictum: "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."

And as it struggles in the raging heat and violence of central Iraq, the U.S. military appears to have bought into the tactic in its struggle to pull what victory it can from the increasingly troubled American mission in Iraq, under congressional pressure for a troop pullout and a presidential election campaign already in the minds of voters.

Because that's what it's all about, right? Anyway....

The American decision to bring insurgents into the mission has angered Shiite Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki who told visiting Defense Secretary Robert Gates last week that the tactic — getting too cozy with former enemies — would backfire.

But U.S. officials defend the strategy, first tested in Iraq's once-volatile western Anbar province, where U.S. officials tout success in turning Sunni tribal leaders against Al Qaeda.

"We've given them a little ammo, some flares, but mostly humanitarian aid. We're not arming these guys, we're just changing the direction they're pointing their guns in," said Lt. Gen. Raymond Odierno, the U.S. ground forces commander, who made a one-day visit to the Baqouba battlefield this week.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,286408,00.html

One might think that we would be a little skeptical about bringing guys who were shooting at us a few months ago onto our team, but things really have gotten that dire out here. Our leadership is doubtless growing desperate to find something that might help end this conflict, even if it means accepting help from our enemies.

Also, this should outline for those who don't understand that this is a multi-faction conflict, with many different sides pursuing many different ambitions. Clearly, the Sunni insurgents are interested in rooting out Al Qaeda so they can duke it out with the Shi'ites in earnest. And, you know, if they play nice with us re: Al Qaeda, maybe we'll help them out against their Shi'ite enemies. And, you know, maybe if we do that then the eventual ruling Sunni minority (or perhaps majority if we spill enough Shi'ite blood) will let us stick around and keep our hands in the petroleum cookie jar and strategically dominate the region the way the neo-cons have always wanted? I suppose one can dream; it's all the Bush administration has done since the beginning of this conflict.

But I'll give FOX News credit for even running this story, albeit with a positive spin.

Gitmo: Kangaroo courts

Excuse me, but off the record, Gitmo is a complete sham.

SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico (AP) -- An Army officer who played a key role in the "enemy combatant" hearings at Guantanamo Bay says tribunal members relied on vague and incomplete intelligence while being pressured to rule against detainees, often without any specific evidence.

His affidavit, submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court and released Friday, is the first criticism by a member of the military panels that determine whether detainees will continue to be held.

Lt. Col. Stephen Abraham, a 26-year veteran of military intelligence who is an Army reserve officer and a California lawyer, said military prosecutors were provided with only "generic" material that didn't hold up to the most basic legal challenges.

Despite repeated requests, intelligence agencies arbitrarily refused to provide specific information that could have helped either side in the tribunals, said Abraham, who said he served as a main liaison between the Combat Status Review Tribunals and the intelligence agencies.

"What were purported to be specific statements of fact lacked even the most fundamental earmarks of objectively credible evidence," Abraham said in the affidavit submitted on behalf of a Kuwaiti detainee, Fawzi al-Odah, who is challenging his classification as an "enemy combatant."

Abraham's affidavit "proves what we all suspected, which is that the CSRTs were a complete sham," said a lawyer for al-Odah, David Cynamon.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/06/23/guantanamo.ap/index.html

But I'm sure FOX News has something to say about that:

A teenage girl who was banned by her school from wearing a "purity ring" is taking her case to the High Court.

Lydia Playfoot, 16, is a member of a Christian group called the Silver Ring Thing and one of a number of students at the Millais School in Horsham, West Sussex, who wears a silver ring engraved with a Biblical reference — "1 Thes 434," a reference to St. Paul's Letter to the Thessalonians — as a sign of their belief in abstinence from sex until marriage.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,286395,00.html

Or, you know, not (note: I was originally going to just ignore FOX News, but I find it much more gratifying to mock them).

But back to the topic at hand, CNN International has this story:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Bush administration is nearing a decision to close the Guantanamo Bay detention facility and move the terror suspects there to military prisons elsewhere, The Associated Press has learned.

Both the Pentagon and the White House denied Thursday evening there were any plans to close the facility.

President Bush's national security and legal advisers are expected to discuss the move at the White House on Friday and, for the first time, it appears a consensus is developing, senior administration officials said Thursday.

The advisers will consider a new proposal to shut the center and transfer detainees to one or more Defense Department facilities, including the maximum security military prison at Fort Leavenworth in Kansas, where they could face trial, said the officials. They spoke on condition of anonymity because they were discussing internal deliberations.

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/06/21/guantanamo.ap/index.html

This is huge, if true. Moving terror suspects from Gitmo to Leavenworth would eliminate the legal cover for torture and the sort of kangaroo courts we've been seeing from them so far. I'll make sure to keep tabs on this story as it develops.

Kansas City Shuffle

Something has always struck me about "the surge". It's so up front, so brazen, so blatant. Quite simply, any time the Bush administration wants us to be watching something, I immediately question what it is that we're not supposed to be watching. Their forte is the Kansas City Shuffle. While everybody looks left, they move right. Sure enough....

Karzai Decries Civilian Death Toll

The Afghan president has condemned civilian casualties caused by "indiscriminate and unprecise" Nato and US-led operations, which also have resulted in dozens of Taliban deaths in the last 24 hours.

Hamid Karzai said on Saturday that at least 90 civilians had been killed in just over a week, including 52 people in the southern Uruzgan province.

"Attacks causing civilian casualties, as I have said before, is not acceptable for us. It is no longer tolerated," he said in Kabul.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/5A5450B1-620F-487A-AA93-A93D31E88AF8.htm

Then there's the Iraq Oil Law pressing ahead that I've only read about on Al Jazeera. Nobody in the west wants us to read about that.

Lesson the first in dealing with international affairs: don't rely on the American press. They're usually the first to fall for the Kansas City Shuffle.

Case in point:

Searchers scour fields, woods, for missing woman

UNIONTOWN, Ohio (AP) -- About 1,000 volunteers turned out to search for a pregnant mother Saturday, the third straight day searchers picked through rural areas of eastern Ohio.

Ned Davis, the father of 26-year-old Jessie Davis, begged volunteers to continue their efforts.

"Please help," he said Saturday in an interview with MSNBC. "Please don't quit. Please don't quit until we find Jessie."

Searching on Thursday and Friday of an area near Davis' home yielded nothing more than a marijuana patch.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/06/23/missing.woman.ap/index.html

My heart goes out to the family of the missing woman, but... honestly. This is local news, not national news. And certainly not the headline story on CNN's main website.

What about FOX News, you say? Glad you asked:

Illegal immigrants are being given Red Bull energy drinks and ephedrine to give them a boost as they scurry across the U.S. border, according to a radio report.

Smugglers are reportedly giving immigrants what is known as a “triple stacker” — an ephedrine pill and aspirin, with a can of Red Bull to wash it all down, U.S. Border Patrol agents told WOAI news radio station in Texas.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,286392,00.html

Honestly, I wish I was making this up. But here's the Kansas City Shuffle, right before your eyes.

Look! Over there! It's Paris Hilton!

Paying Paris

We all want to know about the hotel heiress’s time in jail. The question is whether news organizations should give her money to tell us. A media-ethics expert weighs in.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19378627/site/newsweek/


Actually, we don't all want to know. Those of us who are out here in Iraq are all sickened by the obsessive press coverage she and other celebrity-types have received lately. The American press is a joke.

But to the topic at hand: what is Bush concealing from us now? The Iraq Oil Law seems like the most obvious one, given the dearth of coverage in the American press, but that can't be all. I honestly don't think most Americans would think twice about the law. Besides, it's 33 pages long and full of legalese that I haven't even sorted all the way through. No, there has to be something else. Could it be the vote caging issue that Greg Palast has been covering and Rep. Conyers has been inquiring about? Possibly. Could it be upcoming plans to attack Iran, as Sy Hersh has alleged? It almost seems too obvious, too right in front of our faces. But that's how a Kansas City Shuffle works; the answer is right in front of you -- you're just looking the wrong way.

Gen. (ret) Wesley Clark is working to prevent a war with Iran, which I fear may be our next step on Bush's Excellent Adventure. Obviously, I've no desire to see a further loss of life, so avoiding needless war should be a top priority. Wesley Clark's organization is StopIranWar.com. Pay them a visit to learn a bit about the background behind the push to war with Iran, as well as the push back to avoid it.

NATO strike kills 25 civilians

KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) -- Suspected Taliban militants attacked southern Afghanistan police posts, triggering clashes and NATO airstrikes that left 25 civilians and 20 militants dead, a senior police officer said Friday.

The militants attacked police and used civilian houses for cover in Helmand province's Gereshk district late Thursday, said provincial Police Chief Mohammad Hussein Andiwal.

NATO responded by calling in airstrikes that killed 20 suspected militants -- but also 25 civilians, including nine women, three babies and the mullah of a local mosque, Andiwal said.

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/06/22/afghan.violence.ap/index.html

Al Jazeera provides a bit more in-depth coverage:

In the afternoon, de Hoop Scheffer privately met Stephen Harper, the Canadian prime minister, in Ottawa, as well as Peter MacKay, the foreign affairs minister and Gordon O'Connor, the defence minister.

Canada has deployed 2,500 troops in southern Afghanistan, fighting the Taliban and al-Qaeda.

Harper's minority Conservative government has refused to say if it is considering an extension, but managed to scuttle an opposition motion in the House of Commons in April demanding a fixed withdrawal date.

De Hoop Scheffer's request to extend the mission comes one day after three Canadian soldiers died in a roadside blast in the Kandahar region.

Ninety-one foreign soldiers have now died in Afghanistan this year, most of them in combat and about half of them from the US which has the most soldiers in the international operation in Afghanistan.

Wednesday's attack brought Canada's death toll in Afghanistan since 2002 to 60. A senior Canadian diplomat was also killed in an attack.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/71BDE8A6-2FEC-4DC6-905D-30351F06977C.htm

Things appear to be heating up on both fronts, and this whole two-front war we've been in may be coming to a head. Unless things improve significantly by next year, I don't see these wars dragging on too much longer.

What? Did I just say that? Yeah, I did. I can't see how any President, regardless of party affiliation, can possibly let this continue. It has been a drain on President Bush's legacy, and I know full well that whomever gets elected will want to get re-elected. Regardless of what they think now, once they're in the hot seat, presiding over a war that likely 80% or more of the American public will oppose out-right by the time they get in, they'll want to get this heat off of their backs, no matter what it takes.

The question is: how long will it take said President to realize that it's not salvageable and that we need to cut our losses? Lives depend on the answer to that question.

Maybe I'll feel differently later, but the fact that this is all a complete cluster-fuck has become such a consensus with friggin' everybody that the politicians will have to notice at some point.

Here's hoping.

Discussion at BCF:

Throgg says:

So we'll mark you down for 2 Freidman Units.

All the prominent GOP candidates are pro-war so I don't see how it'll help them to pull out before the election. That would just pull the rug out from under them and leave them scrambling to come up with post war plans on short notice. If anything, Smirk has to stay for thier sake if nothing else. The GOP is locked into this and there's no way out for them before election time.

After that they can do whatever they have to. It won't matter anymore, and if it stands everything they've been saying on it's head so what, it'll be what the people want and they'll be forgiven.

Of course the war itself will make it that much harder for any of them to get elected, but that's the box they've put themselves in.

I clarify my point:

I didn't intend to imply that this administration would pull the plug on it, just that any future administration will have little choice but to withdraw completely within the first two years of their administration. Also, unless "the surge" is the smashing success that none of us expects it to be, Congress is going to incrementally make it more difficult for the President to continue escalating matters. Even a GOP candidate is going to want an "out".

Bush is "staying the course" right now, but I think his intention is to get the oil law passed before he leaves office. That way his potential GOP successor can declare victory and withdraw, and his potential Democratic successor can't screw up his plans for the Big Oil Grab. Naturally, not all of them would screw it up for him, but it's a long primary season and anything can happen.

We're not going to have the strategic military location that this administration wanted, but we can still maintain control of the oil flow. That will constitute victory in of itself.

If a Democrat is elected, I'm sure Bush will do anything he can to piss in the punch bowl before he leaves. Attack Iran, something like that. Legislation putting a leash on him will be necessary to prevent that, but we'll need some significant Republican support in order to pull it off. That or an impeachment if he tries it. Maybe legislation that will give commanders enough wiggle room to refuse the order? They'll know that he's on his way out and that they'll will have to answer to his Democratic successor soon enough. That's our only hope, I think.

But again, maybe I'll feel differently tomorrow.

To add: I don't find any scenario by which the Democrats restrain Bush to be terribly likely, but it's the only way I can envision us not starting something with Iran. Attacking Iran at this point in the game would be stupid, but when has that every stopped these guys?

Draft Iraq oil law makes headway

A draft oil law has been submitted to Iraq's parliament after the government and the Iraqi Kurdistan regional authority resolved differences on the sharing of the country's oil reserves, officials have said.

A spokesman for Iraq's oil minister said he expected politicians to begin debating the draft law in the next few days.

"A deal has been reached and the draft has been delivered to parliament to be discussed... in the coming days. An agreement has been reached covering all disputes," Asim Jihad said.

An official in the Kurdish regional government said an agreement had been made, but did not give further details.

Oil wealth sharing

The draft oil law is crucial in regulating how wealth from Iraq's huge oil reserves will be distributed between sectarian and ethnic groups.

The bill was approved by the cabinet in February but many Kurds opposed it.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/84EA016C-410C-4A74-BF92-18C3CF8AC3FB.htm

The real reason we're still here, naturally.

Article 9: Grant of Rights

A- The rights for conducting Petroleum Operations shall be granted on the basis of an Exploration and Production contract. The contract shall be entered between the Ministry (or the Regional Authority) and an Iraqi or Foreign Person, natural or legal, which has demonstrated to the Ministry or the Regional authority the technical competence and financial capability that are adequate for the efficient conduct of Petroleum Operations according to the guidelines of the Federal Oil and Gas Council and as mentioned in Article 5C Fifth, and in accordance with the mechanisms of negotiations and contracting stated in Article 10 of this Law.

....

Fourth: All model contracts shall be formulated to honour the following objectives and
criteria:
1- National control;
2- Ownership of the resources;
3- Optimum economic return to the country;
4- An appropriate return on investment to the investor; and
5- Reasonable incentives to the investor for ensuring solutions which are optimal to the
country in the long-term related to
a- improved and enhanced recovery,
b- technology transfer,
c- training and development of Iraqi personnel,
d- optimal utilisation of the infrastructure, and
e- environmentally friendly solutions and plans.

....

Sixth: Only pre-qualified companies by the Ministry or the Regional Authority shall be considered in any licensing round. The criteria for prequalification shall be specified in the invitation to bidding according to the regulation and instructions issued by the Federal Oil and Gas Council.

Seventh: Evaluation of pre-qualified applicants shall aim at establishing a short list of successful candidates for negotiations.

http://web.krg.org/uploads/documents/Draft%20Iraq%20Oil%20and%20Gas%20Law%20English__2007_03_09_h17m2s47.pdf

Control the flow of oil, get our oil companies a piece of the pie through a rigged bidding process, and let the Iraqi people rot once it's done. We'll stay here until the oil law is passed, and not much longer.

Discussion at BCF:

MadSatyrist says:

Somewhat, yes, somewhat no. Like a lot of things, its mixed.

As far as I'm concerned, the whole Iraq war was about modernizing the oil infrastructure in Iraq. That's why we won't pull out until the country is either peaceful or dead.

Saddam wasn't upgrading, and why should he? He was under low production caps, and the old infrastructure was adequate for that purpose.

So getting rid of Saddam was step one. The second step was putting up a contract process where an outside company would step in and put say 5,000,000,000 up for production and development on a single part of the fields, and that means security of contracts and a guarantee of no nationalization or sudden tax increases. Incremental injections of money over time is different, the huge funds needed to rebuild Iraqi oil fields mean some kind of security. So Bush used the military to provide that security.

France or Russia would have done it under Saddam, and the US would not have controlled the oil. That was intolerable to Bush (and Clinton was ready to invade Iraq several times - this I know for a fact) and to most of our Congress, so they acted on the first excuse for a war.

A nasty business, but not that far outside our common practice in the past. Anyone from South America would recognize the pattern. That we took it on the road to the MidEast is the only unique part of this particular adventure.

More at the link.

One of the most stupid and pointless endeavors....

...I have ever engaged in. I thought it was stupid before, but now....

The saying by some, that we just "sit around waiting to get attacked" is the best way to describe our current situation. Our big projects tend to be the morale server and a wireless gaming network we're trying to set up. Then, once in a while, we get rockets fired at us. We recover from that, do whatever needs to be done, and go back to our daily affairs.

It is unclear to me what we're fighting for. There was a time I could see that we were fighting to establish a permanent military presence in the region so as to assert military dominance over a resource (oil) that will be key to China's developing economy, but given the on-going and perhaps semi-permanent sectarian violence in the region, I don't see how permanent bases are going to be sustainable without a continued loss of life. Perhaps Bush is simply willing to pay any price in other people's blood to assert dominance over the oil which will eventually be sold to the Chinese at inflated values. Perhaps he is trying to save face. Whatever the case may be, it has become increasingly clear that the price of this occupation is higher than it's worth, never mind the moral reasons for not invading in the first place. That's almost beside the point, now.

The point is that this was our last ditch effort to maintain the dream of the Holy American Empire. Control the oil and you keep a leash on the biggest potential rival in the world. It made sense in an amoral, greed and glory-driven sort of way. We have, however, failed. Our bases in Iraq are under constant attack, even with the ridiculous amount of manpower and resources dedicated to securing them. No one is safe here, and what good is the centralized launching point for operations in the region if we're spending all of our time and money defending our position?

We don't want Iraq to fall into the hands of Islamist extremists. I get that. But there are other ways to ensure that such a government never becomes a threat to us or to its neighbors. Besides, we still have enough carrots left in the garden to entice Syria and Iran to come around and help provide some sense of stability to their ailing neighbor. It certainly couldn't cost us any more money than we've already spent, and we certainly couldn't lose any more face than we already have.

The American Empire has peaked and must now recede in order to survive. Let the Arab states control their own oil. Use whatever economic strength we still have to leverage favorable deals. Work with Chavez to secure a better source to feed our petroleum addiction than this part of the world. GET OFF OF OIL. Let the Chinese fall into the trap that we have (they will need that oil just as badly as we do now) and institute some of the clean tech we've developed. No, it's not enough yet. But we're getting there, and the sooner we become self-sustaining, the sooner we can stop having to bully the entire world.

Here's a thought: the U.S. is capable of producing enough food to feed the entire world. Why don't we? We spend so much money on the military to secure oil to produce... what again? We're importing friggin' food from China, for fuck's sake. Why? Instead of being the world's leading destroyer of nations, why don't we try becoming their grocer? Will people bomb their source of food? I highly doubt it.

Agriculture needs to be big on our next President's priority list. It should be so big that the Secretary of Agriculture will be as important an appointment as the Secretaries of State and Defense.

I got off point, but the absolute stupidity of our current policies has really hit home when I start seeing the costs up close and personal. I also understand why so many troops buy into the propaganda: it's the only way that any of this makes any sense. Who wants to sacrifice themselves for nothing? We're fighting just to fight at this point.

Let the Iraqis sort their shit out themselves. That's how it's going to go down in the end, anyway. Get off the oil addiction; it's the only reason any of this matters to us.

Sy Hersh's profile on Maj Gen Taguba

If there was a redeeming aspect to the affair, it was in the thoroughness and the passion of the Army's initial investigation. The inquiry had begun in January, and was led by General Taguba, who was stationed in Kuwait at the time. Taguba filed his report in March. In it he found:

Numerous incidents of sadistic, blatant, and wanton criminal abuses were inflicted on several detainees ... systemic and illegal abuse.
Taguba was met at the door of the conference room by an old friend, Lieutenant General Bantz J. Craddock, who was Rumsfeld's senior military assistant. Craddock's daughter had been a babysitter for Taguba's two children when the officers served together years earlier at Fort Stewart, Georgia. But that afternoon, Taguba recalled, "Craddock just said, very coldly, 'Wait here.' " In a series of interviews early this year, the first he has given, Taguba told me that he understood when he began the inquiry that it could damage his career; early on, a senior general in Iraq had pointed out to him that the abused detainees were "only Iraqis." Even so, he was not prepared for the greeting he received when he was finally ushered in.

"Here ... comes ... that famous General Taguba - of the Taguba report!" Rumsfeld declared, in a mocking voice. The meeting was attended by Paul Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld's deputy; Stephen Cambone, the Under-Secretary of Defense for Intelligence; General Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (J.C.S.); and General Peter Schoomaker, the Army chief of staff, along with Craddock and other officials. Taguba, describing the moment nearly three years later, said, sadly, "I thought they wanted to know. I assumed they wanted to know. I was ignorant of the setting."

In the meeting, the officials professed ignorance about Abu Ghraib. "Could you tell us what happened?" Wolfowitz asked. Someone else asked, "Is it abuse or torture?" At that point, Taguba recalled, "I described a naked detainee lying on the wet floor, handcuffed, with an interrogator shoving things up his rectum, and said, 'That's not abuse. That's torture.' There was quiet."

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0706/S00229.htm

A worthy read. It's a fascinating portrayal of a general officer getting the shaft for doing the job he was assigned to do, as well as our "leaders'" reaction to having the truth exposed.

Iranian crackdown

Iranian students and professors say an unprecedented number of disciplinary cases have been brought against students in the last month.

They say 29 have been arrested in the last two months for political activism and 207 were taken before disciplinary committees in the last 40 days alone.

By comparison, just four students were disciplined a month on average under the last government.

University professors who criticise the government are also losing their jobs.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6761663.stm

The right wing fervor sweeping the world isn't going to just end when Bush leaves office. It will take a strong progressive leader to stem that tide. Is anybody up to the task?

Oxfam leaves Darfur refugee camp.

Oxfam is to permanently withdraw from Sudan's largest refugee camp.

The decision is because staff at Gereida in Darfur remain unsafe, the British aid agency announced on Saturday.

In attacks on three aid bases in the camp in December, an aid worker was raped, an Oxfam staff member beaten and others subjected to mock executions.

Since then, most operations have remained suspended in the area controlled by the former rebel faction of Minni Minnawi - the only leader to sign a May 2006 peace deal with the government.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/0B508D11-0252-45FF-A551-E8F4B75F76CD.htm

Suicide bombers in Afghanistan; U.S. troops fire on civilians?

A suicide car bomber has attacked a convoy believed to be carrying soldiers and civilians in a busy residential area of Kabul, killing at least three civilians and wounding five others, the interior ministry said.

In another suicide attack in the northern city of Mazar-i-Sharif, a civilian was killed and six others wounded.

Saturday's blast in Kabul was the third suicide bombing targeting the Nato-led forces in Afghanistan in two days.

.......

Following the attack, foreign soldiers shot dead a civilian and wounded three more, police said.

It was not clear why the US soldiers had fired on the crowd that gathered at the site of the suicide car bombing.

Zalmai Oriakhil, Kabul deputy police chief, said the shooting led hundreds of people to mob soldiers before Afghan elders and police intervened.

Nato and the US-led coalition could not confirm the shooting.

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/3F926F06-F25B-466B-9A27-3316451999D9.htm

CNN makes no mention of the shooting allegations:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/06/15/afgan.suicidebomb.reut/index.html

BBC alludes to civilian casualties without mentioning specifics:

A US-led coalition service member was also killed during a clash in the east of the country on Friday, the coalition said in a statement.

Correspondents say that the south of Afghanistan has been the centre of the Taleban's insurgency, with daily attacks on Afghan and foreign forces.

Civilians are often caught up in the fighting.

Meanwhile, Nato defence ministers meeting in Brussels have been discussing the high number of civilian casualties in the war in Afghanistan.

The BBC's defence correspondent says that although the ministers are concerned about civilian deaths, they are not expected to make any major changes to military tactics.

Around 2,000 Afghans - civilian, military and insurgent - are estimated to have been killed in Afghanistan so far this year.

The defence ministers said they would try to improve co-ordination between Nato, US-led and Afghan forces, but they laid the blame for civilian casualties on the Taleban, who they say deliberately draw fire into civilian areas.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6755779.stm

Yes, I've started reading Al Jazeera. They really aren't any more biased than any of the U.S. networks, and they offer a vastly different perspective.

No news is good news, I guess.

From my perspective, I've very little to report. People largely seem to be going through the motions. To hear people talk, it seems the majority think that this is a lost cause not worth fighting, and all they really want is to go home. They still want to do some good, but they know that the window of opportunity for that has long since closed. We sit here, wait to get attacked, strafe the guys that hit us, and wait to get attacked again. That's it. As far as I know, that's our whole reason for being here. Pretty lame, huh?

Given my lack of a huge, compelling story to tell, I'm going to cover news events around the globe. I'll compile from multiple sources to try to pull together something resembling a compelling story of worldwide struggle. I know that my own story is anything but.

Random thoughts

First thought:

U.S. Sen. Barack Obama's (D-IL) run for the Presidency has caught the nation's imagination. A black President? Could it be? And he might pull it off. He's the son of a Kenyan immigrant and a Kansas farm girl who happens to be a relative of Jefferson Davis. How's that for irony? A descendant of Jefferson Davis becomes President... but he's black.

All very storybook. Well, I have a story of my own about him. Not very long, not very compelling, but it gave me an impression of the man that I can't shake. Certainly, it won't be enough to shake his supporters' confidence in him (nor should it; it's purely anecdotal), but I still feel compelled to share it.

I went to a town hall meeting he was holding while I was stationed at Scott AFB, IL. I was an Illinois resident, and thus a constituent of the newly-elected senator. I sat, listened to him speak, and listened to him answer questions. He was impressive in front of a crowd. Seemed to know what he was talking about at all times. Seemed to say all the right things. Afterwards, I wanted to go shake his hand, as I had just voted for him the previous fall by absentee while I was deployed to the Middle East (Qatar).

He was walking toward the door, and a crowd and gathered. I stood and waited, and then he walked right by me. Hm, must not have seen me. Walked a little further down, he walked by me again. Walked down one more time, and finally he extended his hand, gave me a wet fish (seriously the weakest handshake and the softest hands I've ever felt on a man) and kept looking forward. Not so much as a nod and a "hi, how are you". Nothing.

Thing is, I was in my service dress, which even an insincere politician would recognize as a photo op, and yet he still chose to blow me off. I honestly don't know what to make of that, except that maybe people need to step back and stop projecting what they want to see onto him and try to figure out who he actually is. I haven't, yet.

Second thought: 9/11 has become the new "Remember the Maine". Perhaps not coincidentally, the sinking of the Maine prefaced one of the most disgraceful periods in our nation's history: the Spanish-American War. So too did 9/11 preface one of our nation's most disgraceful periods: this whole goddamn war we have going right now. So here I sit on Guam, one of our spoils from the Spanish-American War, ready to deploy to Iraq, our major spoil from this war. Interesting times....

DynCorp: From pandora

pandora from the BCF Treehouse provided me with some material, making for an easy day, as I do a copy and paste of her post:

...
Under fire: Hired hands training foreign police
By Renae Merle
The Washington Post

...
Hired by DynCorp International, of Falls Church, Va., they will join the contractors who are the mainstay of the U.S. government's attempt to help Iraq and Afghanistan establish functional police forces.

Operating under a $1.75 billion contract - the largest the State Department has managed - DynCorp trains more police officers than any other U.S. company in these countries.

The firm says it has 700 trainers in Iraq, where it helped train 198,000 Iraqis, and more than 500 in Afghanistan, where it helped train 93,000 Afghans.

...
In December, the Iraq Study Group expressed concern about how the program is run, and in January the special inspector general for Iraq reconstruction found that oversight was lax, leading to unnecessary costs. The special inspector found that the lone officer supervising the Iraq program, who had been overseeing DynCorp's police contracts for more than 10 years, had not received proper training.

...
DynCorp has had to pay the U.S. government $600,000 after a subcontractor in 2003 siphoned fuel from a DynCorp police-training academy in Jordan.

Meanwhile, the House Armed Services oversight and investigations subcommittee is investigating DynCorp's performance as part of its examination of Iraq's security forces. "Private contractors playing a role in reconstruction and in training needs to be evaluated. We need data on what works and what doesn't," said Rep. Martin Meehan, D-Mass., subcommittee chairman.
.....
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003628384_dyncorp21.html


but never fear, Waxman is ON IT:

...
The stakes are high for the private contractors and their lobbying, legal, and PR teams. For example, Bowen's recently completed 579-page audit contains strong allegations about Virginia-based DynCorp, which has a $1.8 billion contract from the State Department for police-related projects in Iraq.

One controversy centers on allegations that DynCorp spent about $4.2 million on 20 VIP trailers and an Olympic-size swimming pool that was requested by some Iraqi officials but that lacked the necessary authorization from the U.S. government. Further, a training camp for DynCorp workers built with the lion's share of the money from a $43.8 million contract had never been used.

Bowen's audit report also raised questions about some $36.4 million for armored vehicles, body armor, and other equipment that DynCorp billed to the government but that the State Department hasn't been able to adequately account for. According to the audit, DynCorp invoices were "frequently ambiguous and lacked the level of detail necessary to identify what was procured."

In 2005, State Department officials raised concerns about "potential fraud" in a DynCorp billing for 500 trailers that may not have been constructed, the audit said. Bowen's office has indicated that a probe into the billing is continuing.

A DynCorp spokesman has said that the company hasn't been contacted about the audit but that it has acted responsibly and would cooperate fully with any inquiry.

Meanwhile, DynCorp has hired PR shop Qorvis to help the company with its media image and to broaden the marketing of its contracting work into areas other than Iraq. Qorvis partner Don Goldberg said his firm is working with DynCorp on "messaging" and is helping to "position them in the government market."
....
http://www.govexec.com/story_page.cfm?articleid=36312&dcn=todaysnews


and now:

...
DynCorp Hired for Somalia Peacekeeping

The State Department has hired a major military contractor to help equip and provide logistical support to international peacekeepers in Somalia, giving the United States a significant role in the critical mission without assigning combat forces.

DynCorp International (nyse: NCP - news - people ), which also has U.S. contracts in Iraq, Bosnia, Afghanistan and Iraq, will be paid $10 million to help the first peacekeeping mission in Somalia in more than 10 years.
.....
http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/03/07/ap3494302.html

Homeless vets

America's Private Army

Contrary to popular belief, Britain is not the second largest player in the U.S.-led coalition in Iraq. That honor belongs to Blackwater USA the increasinly well-known "private military contractor"firm. Blackwater has 48,000 private soldiers in Iraq, about six times the number of soldiers provided by the Brits. The use of the term "mercenary" is disputed by Blackwater:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/062fxarf.asp?pg=2

Blackwater objects to the use of the m-word for its employees, preferring the term "private military contractors." For one thing, "mercenary" is not accurate. Private military contractors in Iraq do not execute offensive operations--they only provide security, and their rules of engagement are to use proportionate force only when attacked.

....

In fact, Blackwater objects to its personnel being tarred as mercenaries mainly because they regard it as an assault on their character and their professionalism. "We're in nine different countries," says Chris Taylor, "probably have about 2,300 people deployed today, another 21,000 in our database, and these are people the majority of whom have already had a career in public service, either military or law enforcement, who are honorably discharged, who have any number of medals for heroism. Yet we still have to face critics who say everybody is a mercenary--they're only out for a buck."

One might question why they felt the need to leave the military for Blackwater if they were motivated by pure idealism as Taylor tends to imply. It's also hard to ignore that Blackwater contractors make $100,000 during the six months out of the year that they deploy to Iraq. But the Weekly Standard article offers assurances of Blackwater's good intentions:

He hardly fits the soldier of fortune archetype. He is a staunch Christian--his father helped James Dobson found Focus on the Family--and his politically conservative views are well known in Washington, where Prince supports a number of religious and right-leaning causes. He attended Hillsdale College in Michigan, a font of conservative ideology, where he is remembered for being the first undergraduate at the small liberal arts school to serve on the local volunteer fire department. (The only book on the shelf in the boardroom of Blackwater's Northern Virginia offices is a copy of the eminent conservative historian Paul Johnson's A History Of The American People.)

Nobody can say Prince is in it for the money, either. His father Edgar started a small die-cast shop in Holland, Michigan, in 1965. Along the way he patented the now-ubiquitous lighted vanity mirror in automobile visors; a year after his 1995 death, the family company sold for over $1 billion, an enormous inheritance for Erik and his sisters.

So he's a right-wing fundamentalist Christian multi-millionaire? Why is this left-leaning working class atheist not comforted by the thought of a guy like that commanding his own private army of former Navy SEALs and Marine infantrymen? Must be something in the water.

Perhaps the Weekly Standard was playing to its audience a bit, but fundamentalist Christians who get into positions of power (see: George W. Bush) tend to believe that their power is due to divine will, and thus that they are above the laws of man in how they use that power. And what sort of power does Mr. Prince have? According to the same article:

* A burgeoning logistics operation that can deliver 100- or 200-ton self-contained humanitarian relief response packages faster than the Red Cross.

* A Florida aviation division with 26 different platforms, from helicopter gunships to a massive Boeing 767. The company even has a Zeppelin.

* The country's largest tactical driving track, with multi-surface, multi-elevation positive and negative cambered turns, a skid pad, and a ram pad for drivers learning how to escape ambushes.

* A 20-acre manmade lake with shipping containers that have been mocked up with ship rails and portholes, floating on pontoons, used to teach how to board a hostile ship.

* A K-9 training facility that currently has 80 dog teams deployed around the world. Ever wondered how to rappel down the side of nine stacked shipping containers with a bomb-sniffing German shepherd dog strapped to your chest? Blackwater can teach you.

* A 1,200-yard-long firing range for sniper training.

* A sizable private armory. The one gun locker I saw contained close to 100 9mm handguns--mostly military issue Beretta M9s, law enforcement favorite Austrian Glocks, and Sig Sauers.

* An armored vehicle still in development called the Grizzly; the prototype's angular steel plates are ferocious-looking. The suspension is being built by one of Black water's North Carolina neighbors--Dennis Anderson, monster truck champion and the man responsible for the "Grave Digger" (the ne plus ultra of monster trucks).

Some might be concerned that Prince, or perhaps one of his successors, might one day have an axe to grind with a future administration, especially after the Iraq War ends and their fat contracts go away, and all these "private military contractors" still have families to feed. For a guy with helicopter gunships, armored personnel carriers, and tens of thousands of highly trained ex-Marines and SEALs at his beck and call, all of whom were "willing to drink the Blackwater Kool-aid", as Blackwater's vice president for strategic initiatives Chris Taylor put it, the step from "CEO" to "war lord" is rather short. The checks and balances that prevent the President of the United States from becoming a military dictator don't apply to CEOs of "private military contractors". And while Blackwater USA may not currently engage in offensive operations, they are more than capable of carrying them out in the future. If there was a militia out there with an armory this big, the ATF would have raided them by now. Or more accurately, the ATF would have tried to raid them by now.

All of this as the Iraq War weakens our actual military.

But it's not just soldiers who are crossing over to Blackwater:

http://www.harpers.org/sb-revolving-door-blackwater-1158094722.html

A number of senior CIA and Pentagon officials have taken top jobs at Blackwater, including firm vice chairman Cofer Black, who was the Bush Administration's top counterterrorism official at the time of the 9/11 attacks (and who famously said in 2002, “There was before 9/11 and after 9/11. After 9/11, the gloves came off.”) Robert Young Pelton, author of the new book, Licensed to Kill, says that an early Blackwater contract—a secret no-bid $5.4 million deal with the CIA—came in 2002 after Prince placed a call to Buzzy Krongard, who was then the CIA's executive director.

A CIA source with whom I spoke said that Prince is very tight with top agency officials and has a “green badge,” the security pass for contractors who have access to CIA installations. “He's over there [at CIA headquarters] regularly, probably once a month or so,” this person told me. “He meets with senior people, especially in the D.O.” (The D.O., or Directorate of Operations, runs covert operations; last year, it was absorbed by the newly created National Clandestine Service.)

Some have speculated that Blackwater USA is actually a CIA front. That would probably be a best-case scenario, unless one takes Mr. Prince at his heart-of-gold word.

Last year, I discussed the Army recruiting gangbangers and neo-Nazis to fight in Iraq, as well as American cities' lack of preparedness for a major disaster. Urban warfare in the U.S. combating gangs or hate groups who've received training in heavy weaponry from our military might be the next logical step for Blackwater USA after the Iraq War ends. Best case, they'll be training U.S. law enforcement personnel. Worst case, they'll be duking it out with the gangbangers and skinheads themselves... for a price.

In short, there are a lot of potentially disastrous after-effects that spring out from a private army like Blackwater building up inside of the U.S. The time to curtail its exponential growth would appear to be now, before their military capabilities outmatch our own. While we try to fight al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Sunni insurgents in Iraq, we may be feeding the single-greatest existential threat to the U.S. right here at home, much like we did with Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein back in the 80s.

I recognize the value in having a company available to provide training to military and law enforcement personnel, and in that regard, Blackwater USA could be a major asset. My concern lies with any company or person maintaining a private army this large. Congress should be concerned, as well. Blackwater is not sworn to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. Their loyalty lies with the almighty... dollar.

New UN sanctions on Iran

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/25/world/middleeast/25sanctions.html?ref=middleeast

UNITED NATIONS, March 24 — The United Nations Security Council unanimously agreed Saturday to impose new, more stringent sanctions to press Iran to suspend uranium enrichment and rejoin negotiations over its nuclear program.

All 15 members of the Security Council adopted the sanctions, Resolution 1747, which focus on constraining Iranian arms exports, the state-owned Bank Sepah — already under Treasury Department sanctions — and the Revolutionary Guard Corps, an elite military organization separate from the nation’s conventional armed forces.

Iran is defiant, of course. It really strikes me that they're not doing everything they could to prevent a war with the U.S. Hugely irresponsible, on its face.

The Iranian representative to the session denounced the action as unlawful and unjustifiable — and vowed it would have no impact on what Tehran describes as a peaceful nuclear energy program.

The Council acted after months of increasing tensions between the United States and Iran, not only over its nuclear program, concerns that many Western and Middle Eastern countries share. The United States in recent weeks has publicly accused Iran of supplying new and powerful explosives to insurgents in Iraq.

And the Council voted one day after naval forces under the command of Revolutionary Guards seized eight British sailors and seven British marines in waters off the coast of Iraq.

Well, let's talk about outside nations providing support to insurgents in Iraq:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2006-12-08-saudis-sunnis_x.htm

CAIRO (AP) — Private Saudi citizens are giving millions of dollars to Sunni insurgents in Iraq and much of the money is used to buy weapons, including shoulder fired anti-aircraft missiles, according to key Iraqi officials and others familiar with the flow of cash.

Saudi government officials deny that any money from their country is being sent to Iraqis fighting the government and the U.S.-led coalition.

But the U.S. Iraq Study Group report said Saudis are a source of funding for Sunni Arab insurgents. Several truck drivers interviewed by The Associated Press described carrying boxes of cash from Saudi Arabia into Iraq, money they said was headed for insurgents.

And the U.S. has been providing support to organizations linked to Al Qaeda:

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/03/05/070305fa_fact_hersh

To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush Administration has decided, in effect, to reconfigure its priorities in the Middle East. In Lebanon, the Administration has coöperated with Saudi Arabia’s government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations that are intended to weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite organization that is backed by Iran. The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda.

One contradictory aspect of the new strategy is that, in Iraq, most of the insurgent violence directed at the American military has come from Sunni forces, and not from Shiites. But, from the Administration’s perspective, the most profound—and unintended—strategic consequence of the Iraq war is the empowerment of Iran.

There's a lot more in that article, so I recommend reading the whole thing. Here's something that ties back to the briefing I received back in December:

The new American policy, in its broad outlines, has been discussed publicly. In testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in January, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said that there is “a new strategic alignment in the Middle East,” separating “reformers” and “extremists”; she pointed to the Sunni states as centers of moderation, and said that Iran, Syria, and Hezbollah were “on the other side of that divide.” (Syria’s Sunni majority is dominated by the Alawi sect.) Iran and Syria, she said, “have made their choice and their choice is to destabilize.”

In that briefing, we were told basically just that: Sunnis are moderate, Shi'ite are extremist. The Sergeant Major made no mention of the fact that Saddam Hussein was Sunni. We have always been at war with Eastasia, after all. But wait! There's more!

Martin Indyk, a senior State Department official in the Clinton Administration who also served as Ambassador to Israel, said that “the Middle East is heading into a serious Sunni-Shiite Cold War.” Indyk, who is the director of the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution, added that, in his opinion, it was not clear whether the White House was fully aware of the strategic implications of its new policy. “The White House is not just doubling the bet in Iraq,” he said. “It’s doubling the bet across the region. This could get very complicated. Everything is upside down.”

Again, this goes back to what I was saying in August: the only path to Bush-style victory in the Iraqi civil war is to pick sides, heedless of the blood that will be spilled in the process. Bush has chosen the side of the Sunnis, despite the fact that Sunni insurgents account for the vast majority of U.S. casualties. But it's not about protecting troops in Iraq. It's about protecting the national security interests of Saudi Arabia and Israel, two of our biggest allies in the region. In other words, nothing we do in Iraq is done with the goal of a peaceful Iraq in mind. It's all done with the goal of undermining Iran and protecting Israel's and Saudi Arabia's interests. If a Sunni-Shi'ite Cold War is dawning, we need to be ahead of the curve and start planning. Our oil interests are at stake, and to hell with the troops.

I'll follow up on this some more later. And no, it won't be another month and a half before I post again.

Input from a friend of mine:

A friend of mine read my critique of Sen. Clinton's Iraq plan and sent me this e-mail:

Whilst I do appreciate your position in all this...I'm not sure that
your plan to stimulate the local economy with US contracts would work
out as well in practice as it does in theory. Not to feed the
stereotype, but rampant corruption is kind of a way of life in both of
the Middle Eastern Nations I've been to, so giving them money doesn't
really help. Although I have to admit that you make a valid point
regarding those mercenaries. At the very least they probably have a lot
more experience training the locals into some semblance of a viable
police force than we do, but we probably need to have someone shadow
them so we can get a little of that experience (I think someone has been
grumbling about Iran again).



They talk about the Mahdi "infiltrating" the local Iraqi Police, but it
seems inaccurate. In some of the IP stations I've heard about, the Mahdi
don't even bother to hide the fact that they run the place. They
actually put up Mahdi propaganda posters and everything. What these
people need is a sense of identify tied to the IP. Remember what it was
like when you first got out of basic? You felt an unaccountable sense of
pride in the Air Force and the US. It can fade fairly quickly, but the
memory remains. I extremely doubt that we are effectively instilling
these poor IPs with the same sense of awe and wonder that we give the
rawest Trainee in the AF. [CarbonDate], these people don't even have a
uniform. They are required to wear "some kind of blue shirt" (which they
are never issued), ID cards (even for Police) are spotty at best, and
people come and go as they please based on who they know.



Someone posted a link to a milblog entry on one of my forums the other
day. In this entry, a Marine described his daily working conditions, and
commented on an incident, in which, two men attempted to gain entry to
the Iraqi Police Station he was guarding, with hidden AK-47s and
something like six clips of ammo hidden under one of their shirts. It
turns out that they weren't IP, but they worked as bodyguards for an IP
officer, who normally passed them through the security checkpoint on his
authority. Said officer wasn't working that day, and they wouldn't give
an explanation for why they required entry.

I was going to do an analysis of each plan.

I was going to focus on Obama's today.

But I just found out that I'm going to Baghdad in May. I'm going to allow that to sink in for tonight. Then tomorrow, I'll be back with my analysis of Obama's plan, and possibly with my own plan for salvaging Iraq.

For now, I'm drinking wine tonight.

Addressing the substance of Sen. Clinton's Iraq plan.

http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/details.cfm?id=268851&&

I will be introducing legislation that I think offers a better alternative. First, my legislation will cap the number of troops in Iraq as of January 1, and will require the Administration to seek Congressional authorization for any additional troops. The President has finally said this is not an open-ended commitment in Iraq, but he is providing the Iraqis with an open-ended presence of American troops.

I think this is a bare minimum measure. Of course, President Bush is so accustomed to doing whatever he wants with troop levels that he might think that that is his right, but Congressional oversight, especially in the absence of a formal declaration of war, ought to be the norm, not the exception.

Second, as a means to increase our leverage with the Iraqi government and to clearly send a message that there are consequences to their inaction, I would impose conditions for continued funding of the Iraqi security forces and the private contractors working for the Iraqis.

This is silly. It's not like they want us there to begin with, and the private contractors are there to pull a tidy profit for the Bush administration's buddies.

Here's my proposal: cancel the sweetheart deals Bush made with his buddies like Halliburton and hire out Iraqi businesses who are hiring Iraqi workers, instead. You stimulate the Iraqi economy and instead of taking money from Al Qaeda to blow their infrastructure up, Iraqi civilians will be taking American money to build it up. It's a win-win, unless you're Dick Cheney. Solve the unemployment problem and the ease the insurgency problem all in one fell swoop.

Also, instead of hiring Blackwater USA to pull security details for $100,000 a year while our military train Iraqi forces, have the Blackwater mercs train the Iraqi forces. The Blackwater mercs really are very well qualified for this particular mission and it would allow our military to return to the mission they were trained for.

My legislation would require certification that the security forces were free of sectarian and militia influence and were actually assuming greater responsibility for Iraqi security along with other conditions. We must not let US funds, taxpayer funds, be used to train members of sectarian militias who are responsible for so much of the violence in Iraq.

This raises an interesting question: what about the potential for sectarian violence in the United States when the gang-bangers and skinheads who've been training in urban warfare tactics over in Iraq return home? Our cities aren't prepared for that. Why is nobody talking about that in Washington?

Unfortunately, it appears that our funds to Iraqi security forces may be going to the people we are trying to restrain. A news report last week in an article entitled, "Mahdi Army Gains Strength Through Unwitting Aid Of US," reported that the U.S. military drive to train and equip Iraq security forces has unwittingly strengthened anti-American, Shiite Muslim cleric Muqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army militia, which has been battling to take over much of the capital city as American forces are trying to secure it. According to this news report, U.S. Army commanders, and enlisted men who are patrolling east of Baghdad said al-Sadr's militia's had heavily infiltrated the Iraqi police and Army units that they've trained and armed. Said one soldier, "they'll wave at us during the day and shoot at us during the night."

Well, that's called "moonlighting". Refer back to my point about the unemployment problem in Iraq.

We need to inform the Iraqi government in no uncertain terms that there are consequences -- terms that there are consequences, that we will take funds away from their troops, not from our troops, many of whom still lack armored vehicles and counterinsurgency measure devices and communications equipment. And we will not fund the Iraqis if our troops are going to enter into sectarian battles where some of the participants have received American training and support.

Why even be there then if we're not going to train them to take care of themselves? Pack our bags and go home if that's going to be our approach.

Third, I would hold the Administration accountable for their empty promises as well. My bill requires the Bush Administration to certify that Iraq has disarmed the militias;

...because their word means so much....

has ensured that a law has finally been passed for the equitable sharing of oil revenues;

...among whom? Between U.S. companies and the U.S. government? Iraqi oil revenues should go to Iraq. Any money we do take should go directly to contracting out IRAQI companies to rebuild their infrastructure.

that the Iraqi government, under American influence and even pressure, has made the constitutional changes necessary to ensure rights for minority communities;

Unfortunately, they're going to do what they want after we leave. Nothing we can do about that.

that the de-Baathification process has been reversed to allow teachers, professionals, and others who join the Baath party as a means to get a job to serve in the Iraqi government. I would also require the Administration to engage in a regional diplomatic initiative including all of Iraq's neighbors to address Iraq's future and to understand and convey clearly that the United States expects Iraq's neighbors in the stability and security of the new Iraqi state.

Hey, something I agree with. I even proposed this back in, like, August:

http://carbondate.blogspot.com/2006/08/red-alert-red-alert-woop-woop-woop.html

Glad Sen. Clinton thinks the CarbonDate Plan is worth endorsing.

If these conditions are not met or are not on their way to being met within six months, a new Congressional authorization requirement would be triggered.

Requirement for what?

Finally, I would prohibit any spending to increase troop levels unless, and until, the Secretary of Defense certifies that our American troops will have the proper training and equipment for whatever mission they are ordered to fulfill.

Again, because their word means so much....

Yesterday I read the classified report outlining the findings by the Department of Defense's Inspector General about the problems that have been faced by our troops getting the equipment they desperately need in combat areas like Iraq. The Inspector General did not have the full cooperation of the Department of Defense and it is heartbreaking that the Inspector General could conclude that the U.S. military still has failed to equip our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan, especially for the kind of warfare that they are confronting with IEDs and insurgents who are attacking them in asymmetric, unconventional warfare.

They're equipped pretty well, from what I've been briefed. This is how the insurgents do their business:

They video tape every attack they make against U.S. forces. If a particular IED successfully takes out an armored humvee, they share that information with other insurgents so they know what will work against us. If it doesn't, they take the tape back to their supplier and tell him that the bomb didn't work and show him exactly what went wrong. They then adapt accordingly. Information sharing and adaptation are huge.

Another thing they'll do: randomly fire mortar rounds into the green zone. They know that they type of mortar rounds they use are impossible to aim, so they don't try to go for a particular target. A fellow NCO who was over there not too long ago said that one round hit the DRMO dump. That's where the Air Force sends busted or outdated computer equipment. Basically, they hit a landfill. The strategic purpose here is to be a nuisance to U.S. forces. Their 30 minute operation results in a four hour clean-up on our end. The 1300 mortar round bunker runs became routine. This lulls people into complacency and fatigue, and eventually somebody slips up and provides the insurgents with an opening to do some real damage. Psy ops is huge.

What's my point here? My point is that it's not a question of keeping our troops completely safe from harm so they can endure a long-term occupation. It's a question of having a clearly-defined mission so that the troops can get in, get it done, and then leave. Protracted warfare benefits nobody; Sun Tzu wrote that.

Follow up to 500 year war.

Admiral William J. Fallon, PACOM/CC, will be replacing Gen. John Abizaid as CENTCOM/CC.

CSM William T. Kinney, PACOM Senior Enlisted Advisor, answers directly to Admiral Fallon.

CSM Kinney told us we were going into a 500 year war. His boss is now going to be running that war.

Any questions?

Caliphate, Bush's timeline, and the 500 year war.

As a few of you may know, I'm an active duty NCO in the USAF. I don't like to bring that up much, since it might seem that I'm trying to argue from authority rather than making my point through analysis of facts. But in this case, it's a crucial detail to what I'm writing about today.

Yesterday we had an "all hands call" here at Andersen AFB for junior NCOs (E-5 & E-6) to be briefed by the senior enlisted advisor of USSTRATCOM, Command Master Chief William N. Nissen and the senior enlisted advisor of USPACOM, Command Sergeant Major William T. Kinney (USMC) about long term strategy. Cool, I thought. Maybe I might learn something here.

Boy did I, but not the way I expected. The first half with CMCPO Nissen was informative, if a bit dry. He talked about how DoD structure worked in times of war vs. times of peace and what the functions of braches are vs. the functions of combatant commands. It was interesting, but I was getting a bit drowsy toward the end of it.

The second half was a different story. CSM Kinney got up and spoke, and his speech could not have been more blatantly partisan if he'd been wearing a GOP button. He mentioned "uneducated liberals", talked about Democrats as "quitters" and said that the enemy had influenced the election in their favor this past November. He said that people who voted for Democrats were voting from emotion vice intellect and that we needed to "educate" our loved ones back home or people we ran into in the airport about the nature of our enemy. He had a number of doozies, like referring to Saudi Arabia as a "moderate Muslim country", referring to people telling Israel to give up Jerusalem, and stating that the Iraq War is nothing like the Vietnam War because "when we left Vietnam, it ended! This is gonna keep going!" I still don't know what a "state-sponsored country" is, and I snickered out loud when he at his Freudian slip when he said that the terrorists had already gotten rid of a secular government in "Iraq... er, Iran".

He talked about how the Taliban said that we may have all the weapons, but they have all the time. That struck me as obvious, since it's sort of their fucking country and we're going to have to leave some day. Then he went into the Caliphate and how this apparently is the greatest threat to mankind since Nazi Germany. The Caliphate is a pipe dream of some Islamists to form a unified Muslim nation and institute Islamic law over half the eastern hemisphere. Frankly, most of the countries covered are already Muslim nations, and if it gets them to stop blowing each other (and us) up, I'm all for it. But that presumes that these Islamists have the means of carrying their dream out, which they don't. Philosophical views aside, most Muslims (like most Americans) simply want to be left the fuck alone to live their lives and only engage in terrorism under extreme duress or desperation. It hardly seems like the sort of thing around which we should be forming our long-term foreign policy and military strategy.

And how long term is it? Sgt Maj Kinney told us about the "Long War", which is what the Bush Administration now calls the Global War on Terror (GWOT). They've never offered a timeline in the past, but they apparently do have one. Sgt Maj Kinney let it slip with this one:

"We're entering into a 500 year war here, people."

Let that sink in for a bit. It took me almost a day before I said, "Wait, what!?" I initially ignored the remark because so much else of what he said was just complete bullshit, but he said this in the context of talking about how this was going to be a long war that Americans don't have the patience for because it's not the kind of short war that our MTV generation (and Sun Tzu, if you've ever read Art of War; he wrote, "No country has ever profited from protracted warfare." But I digress.) prefer. He was saying that we have to have the "will" to outlast them. On top of that, he's in a very influential position as the senior enlisted advisor for PACOM.

So it's not that the administration doesn't have a timeline. They do. It's just that they don't want to tell anybody what it is:

500 years.

I'm going to write some letters. I suggest you do the same.