Bernie-
You can't look at everything. And there are bigger pictures. There are other tools besides the military.
The book got a decent review in the Sunday Times' Culture Section.
georgeob1 wrote:I believe old europe's citation of statistics concerning current participation in UN police and peacekeeping activities deliberately creates a very deceptive impression, one of which I am quite sure he is well aware.
UN military interventions go a long way back - the resistance to the unprovoked invasion of South Korea by the North was perhaps the largest, and in that one the largest shares of the troops and casualties were borne by South Korea and the United States. I doubt very much that the cumulative statistics of casualties and costs borne exclusively in UN peacekeeping activities would show that the United States is behind (say) Germany in paying its share of the blood price.
Over the past twenty years UN use of the military forces of members to staff its "peacekeeping" efforts (usually so watered down by the irresolution of the Security Council and the UN Secretariat itself) has degenerated to a revenue-producing effort for the third-rate armies of third world countries. None of the major European countries has done its share of staffing these endeavors either - and for the same reason as applies to us. The United States has very frequently provided the transportation and logistic support to sustain these operations, and, overall, has paid more than its fair share of the financial cost.
old europe appears to imply that the United States has been unwilling to expose its military forces to hazard in support of peace and freedom in the world. Putting this idea into words, stating the proposition clearly and directly, instead of merely implying it in a cute set of out-of-context statistics, makes the absurdity of the proposition, and the deceptive intent of its author, rather obvious.
old europe should apologize.
I should apologize for the conclusions you draw from the numbers I posted in reply to McGentrix's claim that the US cannot be the sole supplier of UN forces? That's cute.
What you seem to get from my post is that I somehow want to smear the US. What you also seem to get from my post is, for some reason, that I would see Europe superior to the US.
I think I should clarify. I am absolutely annoyed by statements such as McGentrix's about how the United States do oh so much for the United Nations, but the UN never gets it right. That's such a common stereotype in the US, but it is absolutely out of touch with reality.
Yes, the US does something for the United Nations. As a nation, the USA spend the highest amount of money for the UN regular budget. Looking a bit closer at this figure, it turns out that this amounts to US$1.22 per year for every citizen of the United States. I don't know if you or McGentrix think that's too much money, and that the UN don't deserve that much money. And while we're at it, we might as well have a look at the Top 10 per capita contributors to the UN regular budget, 2005:
Luxembourg US$ 3.49
Switzerland US$ 3.31
Japan US$ 3.06
Liechtenstein US$ 3.03
Norway US$ 3.01
Denmark US$ 2.69
Iceland US$ 2.38
Qatar US$ 2.14
Austria US$ 2.13
Netherlands US$ 2.10
No United States there. No Germany (US$ 1.51) either, for that matter.
In total numbers, the US pay for 22 percent of the UN budget. Japan was assessed some 19.5 percent, the 25 members of the European Union together contribute some 37.5 percent of the budget.
The UN system spends some $15 billion a year, taking into account the United Nations, UN peacekeeping operations, the programmes and funds, and the specialized agencies. Just for the sake of comparison: US military expenditures - US$ 518 plus annually - would pay for the entire UN system for 35 years.
At the moment I just don't see how exactly the USA are working so hard on improving the UN, on transforming the UN into a truly effective power, on furthering the UN's mission. The US are contributing, but they are contributing less than their share (profiting from the 22 percent cap on contributions to the regular budget). At the same time, the loudest complaints about the UN seem to come from the USA rather than from countries who are contributing more.
It's 27%
and who gives a **** about per capita expenditure? That's what people do when they try to make statistics say something they want them to say. I believe that is what you are attempting to do here and it's not working.
...
This is the actual deaths per month for January through May from the IBC data
January 06 min/max 1186 ... 1267
Feb 06 ................. 1236 ... 1287
March 06 ............ 1423 ... 1538
April 06 ................. 1199 ... 1287
May 06 ................. 1659 ... 1814
Jan through May now all include the morgue figures. If you do the math you will find that the totals don't relate to your claim for monthly average because I am using date of incident and not the date posted to IBC database. The average per month for the first 5 months is min/max 1340.6 1438.6. The biggest reason for this change is the recent addition of 595-691 morgue figures.
June, July and August figures don't yet include the morgue data but by adding the equivalent of morgue data from the other months you will see the an increase from the average from Jan - May.
June, July and August totals don't include morgue figures yet. Those totals at present are
June .... 740 ... 804
July .... 1108 ... 1180
August ... 629 ... 670 (August is far from done as it can take weeks for incidents to be reported and confirmed by IBC)
Based on the May morgue figures from Baghdad, roughly half were added to the totals on IBC.
June Baghdad morgue totals were roughly 1500. So expect another 500-750 added to June totals
July Baghdad morgue had just over 1800 so add another 700-900 to that figure.
August figures appear to be down but no official ones reported yet that I have seen.
OK! Until and unless IBC subsequently shows otherwise, I'll go with your "max" numbers for January thru May . For June and July, I will add your larger morgue estimates to your present numbers. For August I'll use my estimates.
January 06 .. = 1267
Feb 06 ........ = 1287
March 06 ..... = 1538
April 06 ....... = 1287
May 06 ........ = 1814
June 06 ....... = 804 + 750 = 1554
July 06 ........ = 1180 + 900 = 2080
August 06 .... = 875 + 800 = 1675
McGentrix, I've posted the numbers. Those numbers make the actual contributions of the member countries comparable, and they're showing that the United States are not "the sole supplier of UN forces", as you put it.
The Islamic Republic Is The Only Legitimate Nation on Earth
Setpember 1, 2006
Amir Taheri, Asharq Alawsat <http> :
What do citizens of Japan, Pakistan, Switzerland, and Canada have in common? The answer is that they, along with the citizens of all but one of the 198 member states of the United Nations, live under illegitimate governments . Wow! And, which is the sole country with the only legitimate government on earth? According to one Ali-Akbar Meshkini the answer is simple: the only country with a legitimate government is the Islamic Republic of Iran.
According to Meshkini the only " bright spot" in the world is Iran which accounts for just under one per cent of the earth. The rest of humanity live in "utter darkness", under regimes that are both " oppressive and tyrannical" ( jaber and ja'er)
You might wonder who this Meshkini is and where he gets the authority to make such outlandish claims.
To his critics, Meshkini is a semi-literate mullah who was plodding along in Qom until the Khomeinist revolution brought the mullahs to power in Tehran in 1979.
To his admirers, Meshkini is an Ayatollah (Sign of God), and the all-powerful President of the Assembly of Experts, the organ which can select and, if need be, dismiss the Wali al-Faqih (The Clerical Custodian) also known as " The Supreme Guide", that is to say the man who rules the Islamic Republic with limitless powers. READ MORE <http>
Meshkini made his remarks at a meeting of the assembly last week - its first full session since the election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as President of the Islamic Republic last year.
Here is what Meshkini said: " Among all the governments in the world, the only legitimate government endorsed by the Almighty is the Islamic Republic of Iran."
To back his claim Meshkini said the Islamic Republic was the only regime blessed by God and the Fourteen Infallibles, that is to say the Prophet (PBUH), his daughter Fatimah, his son-in-law Ali and 11 of his direct male descendants who became imams.
Meshkini took his claims further.
He said: "The Islamic Republic is an extension of God , its Leader is appointed by God, its Revolutionary Guard is God's Army, and all its citizens are members of the Party of God (Hezbollah)."
As far as we could make out none of the 92 members of the Assembly of Experts took issue with Meshkini's outrageous remarks. And, the state-controlled media in Tehran reported them with a mixture of awe and deference.
According to the Constitution of the Islamic Republic, the Assembly of Experts is the highest organ of state. This is because it chooses and can dismiss the man who exercises "Divine Power", including ordering a suspension of Islamic practices if deemed necessary.
The late Ayatollah Ruhallah Khomeini often claimed that there had never been a legitimate government in Islam since the assassination of Ali Ibn Abi-Talib, until the advent of the Islamic Republic in Iran. But Khomeini never claimed that non-Muslim states were also illegitimate because they were not ruled by " Walayat al-Faqih". He admitted that, to cite one example, the Swiss had no idea what " Walayat al-Faqih" was about and , therefore, could not be expected to adopt it as their system of government. Also, Khomeini, although a fantasist in his own way, was not brazen enough to claim that his government was " an extension of God".
Meshkini, and mullahs like him, however, have no such scruples. Isolated in their cocoon and unaware of what is going on outside, they have persuaded themselves that they can attack and insult every nation under the sun with impunity.
Had Meshkini been a simple village mullah his bizarre remarks would have mattered little. But he is the second highest-ranking mullah of the regime after the "Supreme Guide" Ali Khamenehi.
What conclusions should the rest of the world draw from Meshkini's remarks , especially at a time that the Islamic Republic's nuclear ambitions are provoking an international crisis?
The first conclusion is that the Islamic Republic does not consider any other government on earth as equal in terms of legitimacy and divine endorsement. That, in turn, means that the Islamic Republic is under no obligation to respect the laws and obey the rules drawn by regimes that have always been and remain illegitimate. Indeed, the United Nations itself, an organ all but one of whose members are illegitimate, has no authority to demand any standards of behaviour from the only legitimate government since 7th century AD.
Translated into practical politics, the Meshkini Doctrine means that whatever agreement the Islamic Republic might reach with any or all of the illegitimate regimes on earth would be automatically invalid. It also means that the Islamic Republic as "an extension of God" has the mission to overthrow all other governments before uniting the whole of mankind under the rule of "Walayat al-Faqih". Once again, the Islamic Republic is returning to its original ambition of "exporting" the Khomeinist revolution - this time, in Khamenehi's words, as "a gift to mankind."
Some self-styled Western Khomeinologists might dismiss the statements by both Meshkini and Khamenehi as typical clerical hyperbole.
"Ah, they don't mean what they say," our Khomeinologists would say. "They are just talking for their domestic audiences."
The Khomeinologists might mean their analysis as a prop to get the mullahs off the hook. In reality, however, their analysis is an insult to mullahs like Meshkini and Khamenehi, because it presents them as men who speak with a forked tongue, which means that they cannot be trusted, or as politicians caught in the cobweb of their deception.
Logic, however, requires us to take Khamenehi and Meshkini seriously and assume that they mean what they say.
And that leads us to one crucial conclusion: as long as the Islamic Republic does not believe in the equality of all nation-states in the context of international law, regardless of race, religion, type of regime, size, and system, it can never be a sincere party to any bilateral or international agreement.
This is why, leaving aside commercial issues, negotiations between the Islamic Republic and other nations never produce concrete and lasting results. There cannot be give-and-take between "an extension of God" and an "illegitimate and oppressive regimes" that keep the whole of mankind, outside Iran of course, in "utter darkness."
It is important that those who recommend endless talks with the mullahs, including United Nations' Secretary-General Kofi Annan who is visiting Tehran, keep that in mind.
Biopiracy and GMOs: The Fate of Iraq's Agriculture
by Ghali Hassan
December 12, 2005
GlobalResearch.ca
While the Iraqi people are struggling to end the U.S. military Occupation and its associated violence, the fate of their food sources and agricultural heritage is being looted behind closed doors. Unless the colonisation of Iraq ends, the U.S. Occupation of Iraq will continue to have lasting and disastrous effects on Iraq's economy and Iraq's ability to feed its people.
Iraq is home to the oldest agricultural traditions in the world. Historical, genetic and archaeological evidence, including radiocarbon dating of carbon-containing materials at the site, show that the Fertile Crescent, including modern Iraq, was the centre of domestication for a remarkable array of today's primary agricultural crops and livestock animals. Wheat, barley, rye, lentils, sheep, goats, and pigs were all originally brought under human control around 8000 BCE. Iraq is where wild wheat was once originated and many of its cereal varieties have been exported and adapted worldwide. [1] The beginning of agriculture led inexorably to the development of human civilization. [2]
Since then, the inhabitants of Mesopotamia have used informal seed supply systems to plant crops, suited to their particular environment. The saving and sharing of seeds in Iraq has always been a largely informal matter. Local varieties of grain and legumes have been adapted to local conditions over the millennia. While much has changed in the ensuing millennia, agriculture remains an essential part of Iraq's heritage. Despite extreme aridity, characterised by low rainfalls and soil salinity, Iraq had a world standard agricultural sector producing good quality food for generations.
According to the Rome-based UN Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO), 97 percent of Iraqi farmers in 2002 still used saved seed from their own stocks from last year's harvest, or purchased from local markets. This despite the criminal sanctions -- maintained by the U.S. and Britain for dubious reasons -- which destroyed Iraq's agricultural sector. The 1997 FAO report found that "Crop yields . . . remain low due to poor land preparation as a result of lack of machinery, low use of inputs, deteriorating soil quality and irrigation facilities' and the animal population has declined steeply due to severe shortages of feed and vaccines during the embargo years."
Unlike other Middle Eastern countries, Iraq has both water and oil. In addition, Iraq has one of the most educated societies in the region. Iraq was once self-sufficient in agriculture and was also the world's number one exporter of dates. About 27 percent of Iraq's total land area is suitable for cultivation, over half of which is rain-fed while the balance is irrigable. Wheat, barley, and chickpeas are the primary staple crops, and traditionally wheat has been the most important crop in the country. Prior to the U.S. war on Iraq, average annual harvests were 1.4 million tonnes for cereals, 400,000 tonnes for roots and tubers, and 38,000 tonnes for pulses. [3] The U.S. war and the US-Britain sponsored sanctions have devastated Iraq's agricultural sector. Only half of the irrigable area is now properly utilised. Food shortages and malnutrition were less of problem before the war and the criminal sanctions.
After the 1991 U.S. war, Iraq was denied its right to rebuild its war-shattered economy and infrastructure. U.S.-Britain used the criminal sanctions to destroy what was left of Iraq and kill its children. In plain language, the sanctions were used as a vehicle to terrorise Iraqi civilians.
"I went to Iraq in September 1997 to oversee the UN 'oil for food program'. I quickly realized that this humanitarian program was a Band-Aid for a UN sanctions regime that was quite literally killing people. Feeling the moral credibility of the UN was being undermined, and not wishing to be complicit in what I felt was a criminal violation of human rights, I resigned after thirteen months," Denis Halliday, former humanitarian aid coordinator for Iraq, told an audience at Harvard University on 5 November 1998. Mr. Halliday called the sanctions "genocidal," because of the number of Iraqi children killed.
Following the illegal Occupation of Iraq, the suffering of the Iraqi people has increased. A recent report by the United Nations World Food Programme (WFP), which monitors the distribution of rations, found the majority of the Iraqi population lack the required daily calories to survive and remain healthy. The new WFP Emergency report revealed that "there are significant country-wide shortfalls in rice, sugar and milk and infant formula." It added; "Some governorates continue to report serious shortfalls of nearly every commodity." Another report prepared by UN Human Rights rapporteur, the reputed Swiss professor of Sociology, Mr. Jean Ziegler, reveals that acute malnutrition among Iraqi children between the ages of six months and 5 years has increased from 4% before the invasion to 7.7% since the US invasion of Iraq. And more than a quarter of Iraqi children do not get enough food to eat. Indeed, Mr. Ziegler accused the U.S. and British forces of using food and water as weapons of war in besieged Iraqi cities.
Just before announcing his departure from Iraq and handing "power" to the U.S.-installed band of discredited quislings (the so-called "transfer of [fake] sovereignty"), U.S. proconsul and head of the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA), Paul Bremer issued "100 Orders" to transfer Iraq's economy and legal ownership of Iraqi resources into the private hands of U.S. corporations. Then, to encourage the looting of Iraq's wealth and increase the suffering of the Iraqi people, the Bush administration issued an "executive order" to indemnify not only the corporate looters from prosecution, but also provides protection to soldiers and private security guards committing crimes against Iraqis. A closer examination of these "100 Orders" and U.S. policy in Iraq shows that the war on Iraq had nothing to do with WMD, terrorism, "democracy" and "liberation," but to colonise Iraq and enrich U.S. corporations at the expense of the Iraqi people.
Order 81 deals specifically with Plant Variety Protection (PVP) because it is designed to protect the commercial interests of corporate seed companies. Its aim is to force Iraqi farmers to plant so-called "protected" crop varieties 'defined as new, distinct uniform and stable', and most likely genetically modified. This means Iraqi farmers will have one choice; to buy PVP registered seeds. Order 81 opens the way for patenting (ownership) of plant forms, and facilitates the introduction of genetically modified crops or organisms (GMOs) to Iraq. U.S. agricultural biotechnology corporations, such as Monsanto and Syngenta will be the beneficiaries. [4] Iraqi farmers will be forced to buy their seeds from these corporations. GMOs will replace the old tradition of breeding closely related plants, and replace them with organisms composed of DNA from an altogether different species, e.g., bacterium genes into corn. In the long run, there won't be a big enough gene pool for genetic viability.
Upon purchasing the patented seeds, farmers must sign the company's technology agreement (Technology User Agreements). This agreement allows the company to control farmers' practices and conduct property investigation. The farmer becomes the slave of the company. Like U.S. farmers, Iraqi farmers will be "harassed for doing what they have always done." For example, Iraqi farmers can be sued by Monsanto, if their non-GMO crops are polluted by GMO crops planted in their vicinity. [5] The health and environmental consequences of GMO crops are still unknown. GMO-based agriculture definitely encourages monoculture and genetic pollution. Moreover, this will further increase the already polluted Iraqi environment as a result of tens of thousands of tons of 'depleted' uranium dust, napalm, chemical weapons, and phosphorous bombs.
Farmers will also be required to buy fertilisers, herbicides and insecticides, against plants disease. Iraqi farmers will be required to pay royalties for the new seeds and they will be forbidden from saving seeds. In other words, Iraqi farmers will become agricultural producers for export, a recipe for the introduction of hunger in Iraq, not unknown in many developing countries. Unless an independent sovereign Iraqi government repeals these edicts, they will override Iraq's original patent law of 1970, which, in accordance with the Iraqi constitution, prohibited private ownership of biological resources.
Furthermore, Order 81 ignores Iraqi farmers' old traditions of saving seeds, and using their knowledge to breed and plant their crops. It also brutally disregards the contributions which Iraqi farmers have made over hundreds of generations to the development of important crops like wheat, barley, dates and pulses. If anybody owns those varieties and their unique virtues, it is the families who bred them, even though nobody has described or characterized them in terms of their genetic makeup. If anything, the new law -- in allowing old varieties to be genetically manipulated or otherwise modified and then "registered" -- involves the theft of inherited intellectual property, the loss of farmers' freedoms, and the destruction of food sovereignty in Iraq.
Iraqi traditional plant varieties, which were kept in Iraq's gene bank at the town of Abu Ghraib -- the town where the Bush administration used the prison to abuse, torture and murder Iraqi prisoners and detainees --may have been looted and lost during the invasion. There is hope that the Syria-based Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) and the affiliated International Centre for Agricultural Research in Dry Areas (ICARDA) still holds accessions of several Iraqi varieties in the form of germplasm. Evidence shows that Western "bio-prospectors" have been using indigenous genetic material taken from their traditional owners. [6] It is this kind of looting or "biopiracy" that is contributing to the destruction of farmers in the developing world, because they have lost control of what they sow, grow, reap and eat.
The man who is in charge of dismantling Iraq's agriculture is Daniel Amstutz, formerly an executive of the Cargill Corporation. Cargill is well known for having the reputation of being one the worst violators of the rights and independence of family farmers throughout the world. Amstutz appointment is designed to undermine Iraqi farmers and destroy Iraq's ability to produce food to feed its people. His service has been to advance U.S. agribusiness corporations. [8] For his task, Amstutz will be assisted by no others than Cargill, Monsanto, Dow and Texas A & M's Agriculture Program and its subsidiary the Arizona-based agriculture research firm, World Wide Wheat Company. All are known to have innately unjust records doing business in developing countries and enslaving farmers there.
According to Focus on the Global South and GRAIN report: "Iraq has the potential to feed its people. But instead of developing this capacity, Washington is shaping the future of Iraq's food and farming to serve the interests of U.S. corporations." [7] The aim of the U.S. is to undermine Iraq's food security, and remove all the contributions Iraqi farmers have made to development of agriculture and important crops like wheat, and barley. [9] Iraq's agriculture will be re-engineered to produce high yields agricultural products for export, and force Iraq to depend on importing food, and on Western "aid."
"If Iraq's new administration truly wanted to re-establish Iraqi agriculture for the benefit of the Iraqi people it would seek out the fruits of their knowledge. It could scour the country for successful farms, and if it miraculously found none could bring over the seeds from ICARDA and use those as the basis of a programme designed to give Iraq back the agriculture it once gave [to] the world," writes Jeremy Smith. [6]
Consistent with agricultural research, what Iraqi farmers need urgently is not GMOs and chemicals, but the opposite. Iraq needs ways to better control pathogens and pests by greater use of natural enemies and crop diversity. As accurately described by Vandana Shiva, "The miracle varieties displaced the diversity of traditionally grown crops, and through the erosion of diversity the new seeds became a mechanism for introducing and fostering pests." Shiva added; "Indigenous varieties are resistant to local pests and diseases. Even if certain diseases occur, some of the strains may be susceptible, but others will have resistance to survive." [10] Diversity of seeds is the best natural defence. Without diversity, plants are very susceptible to disease.
Finally, the U.S. and its allies, including the UN are illegally transforming Iraq's law and the Iraqi economy. The US action in Iraq is in breach of The Hague Regulations of 1907, the 1949 Geneva Conventions -- both ratified by the United States -- as well as the U.S. Army's own code of war as stated in the Army field manual, The Law of Land Warfare. Article 43 of The Hague Regulations requires that an occupying power "re-establish and insure, as far as possible, public order and safety, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country." Resolution 1483 of the UN Security Council issued in May 2003, specifically instructs the occupying powers to follow The Hague Regulations and the Geneva Conventions in Iraq. In fact, the British attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, was very clear about the illegality of the Iraq's invasion and rightly warned Tony Blair that "the imposition of major structural economic reforms would not be authorized by international law." [11]
Any new Iraqi government is obliged to repeal the illegally enacted Bremer's 100 Orders, including Order 81 and demand that the US pays compensation for the criminal damages that resulted from the Occupation. Iraq will never be sovereign and independent, unless its wealth and resources are protected and the sole property of the Iraqi people. The end of U.S. Occupation and colonisation of Iraq must be total and immediate.
Resources:
[1] GM Free Cymru, "Iraq's Crop Patent Law: A threat to food Security," Countercurrents.org (03 March 2005).
[2] Jared Diamond, "Guns, Germs and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies," Norton, 1997.
[3] U.S. Department of Commerce, "Overview of Key Industry Sectors in Iraq" (July 2004).
[4] CPA, "Patent, Industrial Design, Undisclosed Information, Integrated Circuits and Plant Variety Law" Order 81 (26 April 2004).
[5] Centre for Food Safety, "Monsanto vs. U.S. farmers," percyschmeiser.com (2005).
[6] Jeremy Smith, "Order 81," The Ecologist 35(1) (2005). Article available on GlobalResearch.ca.
[7] Focus on the Global South and GRAIN, "Iraq's New Patent Law: A declaration of War against Farmers," (November 2000).
[8] Heather Gray, "Home Grown Axis of Evil," Counterpunch.org (22 July 2005).
[9] Ghali Hassan, "Undermining Iraq's food Security," Newmatilda.com, (23 February 2005).
[10] Vandana Shiva, "Biopiracy - the plunder of nature and knowledge," Between the Lines, 1997.
[11] Antonia Juhasz, "The Economic Colonization of Iraq: Illegal and Immoral," (8 May 2004); Global Policy Forum, "International Law Aspects of the Iraq War and Occupation," (2003-2005). The Forum includes several reports related to U.S. war crimes committed against the Iraqi people.
Global Research Contributing Editor Ghali Hassan
lives in Perth, Western Australia.
Bin Laden Gets a Pass from Pakistan
September 05, 2006 5:41 PM
Brian Ross and Gretchen Peters Report:
Ht2_pakistan02_060524_nr
Osama bin Laden, America's most wanted man, will not face capture in Pakistan if he agrees to lead a "peaceful life," Pakistani officials tell ABC News.
The surprising announcement comes as Pakistani army officials announced they were pulling their troops out of the North Waziristan region as part of a "peace deal" with the Taliban.
If he is in Pakistan, bin Laden "would not be taken into custody," Major General Shaukat Sultan Khan told ABC News in a telephone interview, "as long as one is being like a peaceful citizen."
Bin Laden is believed to be hiding somewhere in the tribal areas of Pakistan, near the Afghanistan border, but U.S. officials say his precise location is unknown.
In addition to the pullout of Pakistani troops, the "peace agreement" between Pakistan and the Taliban also provides for the Pakistani army to return captured Taliban weapons and prisoners.
"What this means is that the Taliban and al Qaeda leadership have effectively carved out a sanctuary inside Pakistan," said ABC News consultant Richard Clarke, the former White House counter-terrorism director.
The agreement was signed on the same day President Bush said the United States was working with its allies "to deny terrorists the enclaves they seek to establish in ungoverned areas across the world."
The Pakistani Army had gone into Waziristan, under heavy pressure from the United States, but faced a series of humiliating defeats at the hands of the Taliban and al Qaeda fighters.
"They're throwing the towel," said Alexis Debat, who is a Senior Fellow at the Nixon Center and an ABC News consultant. "They're giving al Qaeda and the Taliban a blank check and saying essentially make yourselves at home in the tribal areas," Debat said.
Click here for Brian Ross & Investigative Team's Homepage
September 5, 2006 in Osama bin Laden | Permalink | User Comments (115)
"What this means is that the Taliban and al Qaeda leadership have effectively carved out a sanctuary inside Pakistan," said ABC News consultant Richard Clarke, the former White House counter-terrorism director.
The agreement was signed on the same day President Bush said the United States was working with its allies "to deny terrorists the enclaves they seek to establish in ungoverned areas across the world."
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan (AP) _ Pakistan's top army spokesman on Wednesday vehemently denied saying in a news report that Osama bin Laden would not be taken into custody if he agreed to live peacefully in Pakistan.
"This is absolutely fabricated, absurd. I never said this," Maj Gen Shaukat Sultan told The Associated Press, referring to an ABC News broadcast aired hours earlier.
The ABC report cited Sultan as saying in a telephone interview that al-Qaida chief bin Laden "would not be taken into custody" if found, "as long as one is being like a peaceful citizen." Sultan's recorded comments were included in the report, but it was not immediately clear whether he understood that bin Laden was the specific subject of discussion at that point in the interview. Sultan told the AP by phone that "what they are saying on Osama is absolutely fabricated."
"Pakistan is committed to its policy on the war on terror, and Osama, caught anywhere in Pakistan, would be brought to justice," he said.
Asked for a response, Jeffrey Schneider, senior vice president of ABC News, told the AP by phone, "We simply played his comments as we recorded them."
The ABC report also featured former White House counterterrorism official Richard Clarke saying a peace accord, signed Tuesday by Pakistan's government and pro-Taliban militants in the country, meant that "the Taliban and al-Qaida leadership have effectively carved out a sanctuary inside Pakistan."
"I reject this comment," Sultan said Wednesday. Clarke is a news consultant with ABC.
In Washington, Pakistan's Ambassador Mahmud Ali Durrani issued a statement late Tuesday night saying Sultan "has been grossly misquoted in a section of U.S. media today."
"Pakistan is on the hunt for Osama Bin Laden and his associates. If he is in Pakistan, today or any time later, he will be taken into custody and brought to justice."
Pakistan, a one-time supporter of neighboring Afghanistan's authoritarian Taliban regime, switched to join the U.S.-led campaign against terror after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on the United States.
On Tuesday, Pakistan's government and pro-Taliban militants signed a peace agreement aimed at ending years of violence in the country's North Waziristan tribal region bordering Afghanistan. Under the deal, the militants are to halt attacks on Pakistani forces in the region and stop crossing into Afghanistan to attack U.S. and Afghan forces hunting al-Qaida and Taliban. Pakistani troops are to stop their hugely unpopular military campaign in the area, where more than of its 350 soldiers have died, along with hundreds of militants and scores of civilians. Some observers have said the pact highlights the Pakistani military's inability to crush a violent pro-Taliban insurgency on its own soil.
"The military was not in a position to defeat the tribes," said Pakistani political analyst Rusul Basksh Rais.
Pakistani Ambassador Durrani's statement said his country's army "will continue to stay in Waziristan for as long as the security situation demands."
It's 27% and who gives a **** about per capita expenditure? That's what people do when they try to make statistics say something they want them to say. I believe that is what you are attempting to do here and it's not working.
Does it matter what Meshkini of Iran says?
Quote:The Islamic Republic Is The Only Legitimate Nation on Earth
Setpember 1, 2006
Amir Taheri, Asharq Alawsat <http> :
What do citizens of Japan, Pakistan, Switzerland, and Canada have in common? The answer is that they, along with the citizens of all but one of the 198 member states of the United Nations, live under illegitimate governments . Wow! And, which is the sole country with the only legitimate government on earth? According to one Ali-Akbar Meshkini the answer is simple: the only country with a legitimate government is the Islamic Republic of Iran.
According to Meshkini the only " bright spot" in the world is Iran which accounts for just under one per cent of the earth. The rest of humanity live in "utter darkness", under regimes that are both " oppressive and tyrannical" ( jaber and ja'er)
You might wonder who this Meshkini is and where he gets the authority to make such outlandish claims.
To his critics, Meshkini is a semi-literate mullah who was plodding along in Qom until the Khomeinist revolution brought the mullahs to power in Tehran in 1979.
To his admirers, Meshkini is an Ayatollah (Sign of God), and the all-powerful President of the Assembly of Experts, the organ which can select and, if need be, dismiss the Wali al-Faqih (The Clerical Custodian) also known as " The Supreme Guide", that is to say the man who rules the Islamic Republic with limitless powers. READ MORE <http>
Meshkini made his remarks at a meeting of the assembly last week - its first full session since the election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as President of the Islamic Republic last year.
Here is what Meshkini said: " Among all the governments in the world, the only legitimate government endorsed by the Almighty is the Islamic Republic of Iran."
To back his claim Meshkini said the Islamic Republic was the only regime blessed by God and the Fourteen Infallibles, that is to say the Prophet (PBUH), his daughter Fatimah, his son-in-law Ali and 11 of his direct male descendants who became imams.
Meshkini took his claims further.
He said: "The Islamic Republic is an extension of God , its Leader is appointed by God, its Revolutionary Guard is God's Army, and all its citizens are members of the Party of God (Hezbollah)."
As far as we could make out none of the 92 members of the Assembly of Experts took issue with Meshkini's outrageous remarks. And, the state-controlled media in Tehran reported them with a mixture of awe and deference.
According to the Constitution of the Islamic Republic, the Assembly of Experts is the highest organ of state. This is because it chooses and can dismiss the man who exercises "Divine Power", including ordering a suspension of Islamic practices if deemed necessary.
The late Ayatollah Ruhallah Khomeini often claimed that there had never been a legitimate government in Islam since the assassination of Ali Ibn Abi-Talib, until the advent of the Islamic Republic in Iran. But Khomeini never claimed that non-Muslim states were also illegitimate because they were not ruled by " Walayat al-Faqih". He admitted that, to cite one example, the Swiss had no idea what " Walayat al-Faqih" was about and , therefore, could not be expected to adopt it as their system of government. Also, Khomeini, although a fantasist in his own way, was not brazen enough to claim that his government was " an extension of God".
Meshkini, and mullahs like him, however, have no such scruples. Isolated in their cocoon and unaware of what is going on outside, they have persuaded themselves that they can attack and insult every nation under the sun with impunity.
Had Meshkini been a simple village mullah his bizarre remarks would have mattered little. But he is the second highest-ranking mullah of the regime after the "Supreme Guide" Ali Khamenehi.
What conclusions should the rest of the world draw from Meshkini's remarks , especially at a time that the Islamic Republic's nuclear ambitions are provoking an international crisis?
The first conclusion is that the Islamic Republic does not consider any other government on earth as equal in terms of legitimacy and divine endorsement. That, in turn, means that the Islamic Republic is under no obligation to respect the laws and obey the rules drawn by regimes that have always been and remain illegitimate. Indeed, the United Nations itself, an organ all but one of whose members are illegitimate, has no authority to demand any standards of behaviour from the only legitimate government since 7th century AD.
Translated into practical politics, the Meshkini Doctrine means that whatever agreement the Islamic Republic might reach with any or all of the illegitimate regimes on earth would be automatically invalid. It also means that the Islamic Republic as "an extension of God" has the mission to overthrow all other governments before uniting the whole of mankind under the rule of "Walayat al-Faqih". Once again, the Islamic Republic is returning to its original ambition of "exporting" the Khomeinist revolution - this time, in Khamenehi's words, as "a gift to mankind."
Some self-styled Western Khomeinologists might dismiss the statements by both Meshkini and Khamenehi as typical clerical hyperbole.
"Ah, they don't mean what they say," our Khomeinologists would say. "They are just talking for their domestic audiences."
The Khomeinologists might mean their analysis as a prop to get the mullahs off the hook. In reality, however, their analysis is an insult to mullahs like Meshkini and Khamenehi, because it presents them as men who speak with a forked tongue, which means that they cannot be trusted, or as politicians caught in the cobweb of their deception.
Logic, however, requires us to take Khamenehi and Meshkini seriously and assume that they mean what they say.
And that leads us to one crucial conclusion: as long as the Islamic Republic does not believe in the equality of all nation-states in the context of international law, regardless of race, religion, type of regime, size, and system, it can never be a sincere party to any bilateral or international agreement.
This is why, leaving aside commercial issues, negotiations between the Islamic Republic and other nations never produce concrete and lasting results. There cannot be give-and-take between "an extension of God" and an "illegitimate and oppressive regimes" that keep the whole of mankind, outside Iran of course, in "utter darkness."
It is important that those who recommend endless talks with the mullahs, including United Nations' Secretary-General Kofi Annan who is visiting Tehran, keep that in mind.
ican711nm wrote:Does it matter what Meshkini of Iran says?
Quote:The Islamic Republic Is The Only Legitimate Nation on Earth
Setpember 1, 2006
Amir Taheri, Asharq Alawsat <http> :
What do citizens of Japan, Pakistan, Switzerland, and Canada have in common? The answer is that they, along with the citizens of all but one of the 198 member states of the United Nations, live under illegitimate governments . Wow! And, which is the sole country with the only legitimate government on earth? According to one Ali-Akbar Meshkini the answer is simple: the only country with a legitimate government is the Islamic Republic of Iran.
According to Meshkini the only " bright spot" in the world is Iran which accounts for just under one per cent of the earth. The rest of humanity live in "utter darkness", under regimes that are both " oppressive and tyrannical" ( jaber and ja'er)
You might wonder who this Meshkini is and where he gets the authority to make such outlandish claims.
To his critics, Meshkini is a semi-literate mullah who was plodding along in Qom until the Khomeinist revolution brought the mullahs to power in Tehran in 1979.
To his admirers, Meshkini is an Ayatollah (Sign of God), and the all-powerful President of the Assembly of Experts, the organ which can select and, if need be, dismiss the Wali al-Faqih (The Clerical Custodian) also known as " The Supreme Guide", that is to say the man who rules the Islamic Republic with limitless powers. READ MORE <http>
Meshkini made his remarks at a meeting of the assembly last week - its first full session since the election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as President of the Islamic Republic last year.
Here is what Meshkini said: " Among all the governments in the world, the only legitimate government endorsed by the Almighty is the Islamic Republic of Iran."
To back his claim Meshkini said the Islamic Republic was the only regime blessed by God and the Fourteen Infallibles, that is to say the Prophet (PBUH), his daughter Fatimah, his son-in-law Ali and 11 of his direct male descendants who became imams.
Meshkini took his claims further.
He said: "The Islamic Republic is an extension of God , its Leader is appointed by God, its Revolutionary Guard is God's Army, and all its citizens are members of the Party of God (Hezbollah)."
As far as we could make out none of the 92 members of the Assembly of Experts took issue with Meshkini's outrageous remarks. And, the state-controlled media in Tehran reported them with a mixture of awe and deference.
According to the Constitution of the Islamic Republic, the Assembly of Experts is the highest organ of state. This is because it chooses and can dismiss the man who exercises "Divine Power", including ordering a suspension of Islamic practices if deemed necessary.
The late Ayatollah Ruhallah Khomeini often claimed that there had never been a legitimate government in Islam since the assassination of Ali Ibn Abi-Talib, until the advent of the Islamic Republic in Iran. But Khomeini never claimed that non-Muslim states were also illegitimate because they were not ruled by " Walayat al-Faqih". He admitted that, to cite one example, the Swiss had no idea what " Walayat al-Faqih" was about and , therefore, could not be expected to adopt it as their system of government. Also, Khomeini, although a fantasist in his own way, was not brazen enough to claim that his government was " an extension of God".
Meshkini, and mullahs like him, however, have no such scruples. Isolated in their cocoon and unaware of what is going on outside, they have persuaded themselves that they can attack and insult every nation under the sun with impunity.
Had Meshkini been a simple village mullah his bizarre remarks would have mattered little. But he is the second highest-ranking mullah of the regime after the "Supreme Guide" Ali Khamenehi.
What conclusions should the rest of the world draw from Meshkini's remarks , especially at a time that the Islamic Republic's nuclear ambitions are provoking an international crisis?
The first conclusion is that the Islamic Republic does not consider any other government on earth as equal in terms of legitimacy and divine endorsement. That, in turn, means that the Islamic Republic is under no obligation to respect the laws and obey the rules drawn by regimes that have always been and remain illegitimate. Indeed, the United Nations itself, an organ all but one of whose members are illegitimate, has no authority to demand any standards of behaviour from the only legitimate government since 7th century AD.
Translated into practical politics, the Meshkini Doctrine means that whatever agreement the Islamic Republic might reach with any or all of the illegitimate regimes on earth would be automatically invalid. It also means that the Islamic Republic as "an extension of God" has the mission to overthrow all other governments before uniting the whole of mankind under the rule of "Walayat al-Faqih". Once again, the Islamic Republic is returning to its original ambition of "exporting" the Khomeinist revolution - this time, in Khamenehi's words, as "a gift to mankind."
Some self-styled Western Khomeinologists might dismiss the statements by both Meshkini and Khamenehi as typical clerical hyperbole.
"Ah, they don't mean what they say," our Khomeinologists would say. "They are just talking for their domestic audiences."
The Khomeinologists might mean their analysis as a prop to get the mullahs off the hook. In reality, however, their analysis is an insult to mullahs like Meshkini and Khamenehi, because it presents them as men who speak with a forked tongue, which means that they cannot be trusted, or as politicians caught in the cobweb of their deception.
Logic, however, requires us to take Khamenehi and Meshkini seriously and assume that they mean what they say.
And that leads us to one crucial conclusion: as long as the Islamic Republic does not believe in the equality of all nation-states in the context of international law, regardless of race, religion, type of regime, size, and system, it can never be a sincere party to any bilateral or international agreement.
This is why, leaving aside commercial issues, negotiations between the Islamic Republic and other nations never produce concrete and lasting results. There cannot be give-and-take between "an extension of God" and an "illegitimate and oppressive regimes" that keep the whole of mankind, outside Iran of course, in "utter darkness."
It is important that those who recommend endless talks with the mullahs, including United Nations' Secretary-General Kofi Annan who is visiting Tehran, keep that in mind.
Who rules Iran.
Quote:
SOURCE
IRAQ:
U.S. Losing Control Fast
Dahr Jamail and Ali Al-Fadhily
RAMADI, Sep 5 (IPS) - The U.S. military has lost control over the volatile al-Anbar province, Iraqi police and residents say.
The area to the west of Baghdad includes Fallujah, Ramadi and other towns that have seen the worst of military occupation, and the strongest resistance.
Despite massive military operations which destroyed most of Fallujah and much of cities like Haditha and al-Qa'im in Ramadi, real control of the city now seems to be in the hands of local resistance.
In losing control of this province, the U.S. would have lost control over much of Iraq.
"We are talking about nearly a third of the area of Iraq," Ahmed Salman, a historian from Fallujah told IPS. "Al-Anbar borders Jordan, Syria and Saudi Arabia, and the resistance there will never stop as long as there are American soldiers on the ground."
Salman said the U.S. military is working against itself. "Their actions ruin their goal because they use these huge, violent military operations which kill so many civilians, and make it impossible to calm down the people of al-Anbar."
The resistance seems in control of the province now. "No government official can do anything without contacting the resistance first," government official in Ramadi Abu Ghalib told IPS.
"Even the governor used to take their approval for everything. When he stopped doing so, they issued a death sentence against him, and now he cannot move without American protection."
Recent weeks have brought countless attacks on U.S. troops in Haditha, Ramadi, Fallujah and on the Baghdad-Amman highway. Several armoured vehicles have been destroyed, and dozens of U.S. soldiers killed in the al-Anbar province, according to both Iraqi witnesses and the U.S. Department of Defence.
Long stretches of the 550km Baghdad-Amman highway which crosses al-Anbar are now controlled by resistance groups. Other parts are targeted by highway looters.
"If we import any supplies for the U.S. Army or Iraqi government, the fighters will take it from us and sell it in the local market," trader Hayder al-Mussawi said. "And if we import for the local market, the robbers will take it."
Eyewitnesses in Ramadi say many of the attacks are taking place within their city. They say that the U.S. military recently asked citizens in al-Anbar to stop targeting them, and promised to withdraw to their bases in Haditha and Habaniyah (near Fallujah) soon, leaving the cities for Iraqi security forces to patrol.
"I do not think that is possible," retired Iraqi police Brigadier-General Kahtan al-Dulaimi from Ramadi told IPS. "I believe no local unit could stand the severe resistance of al-Anbar, and it will be the last province to be handed over to Iraqi security forces."
According to the group Iraq Coalition Casualty Count, 964 coalition soldiers have been killed in al-Anbar, more than in any other Iraqi province.. Baghdad is second, with 665 coalition deaths.
Residents of Ramadi told IPS that the U.S. military has knocked down several buildings near the government centre in the city, the capital of the province.
In an apparent move to secure their offices, U.S. Army and Marine engineers have started to level a half-kilometre stretch of low-rise buildings opposite the centre. Abandoned buildings in this area have been used repeatedly to launch attacks on the government complex.
"They are trying to create a separation area between the offices of the puppet government and the buildings the resistance are using to attack them," a Ramadi resident said. "But now the Americans are making us all angry because they are destroying our city."
U.S. troops have acknowledged their own difficulties in doing this. "We're used to taking down walls, doors and windows, but eight city blocks is something new to us," Marine 1st Lt. Ben Klay, 24, said in the U.S. Department of Defence newspaper Stars and Stripes.
In nearby Fallujah, residents are reporting daily clashes between Iraqi-U.S. security forces and the resistance.
"The local police force which used to be out of the conflict are now being attacked," said a resident who gave his name as Abu Mohammed. "Hundreds of local policemen have quit the force after seeing that they are considered a legitimate target by fighters.."
The U.S. forces seem to have no clear policy in the face of the sustained resistance.
"The U.S. Army seems so confused in handling the security situation in Anbar," said historian Salman. "Attacks are conducted from al-Qa'im on the Syrian border to Abu Ghraib west of Baghdad, all the way through Haditha, Hit, Ramadi and Fallujah on a daily basis."
He added: "A contributing factor to the instability of the province is the endless misery of the civilians who live with no services, no infrastructure, random shootings and so many wrongful detentions."
According to the new Pentagon quarterly report on Measuring Security and Stability in Iraq, Iraqi casualties rose 51 percent in recent months. The report says Sunni-based insurgency is "potent and viable."
The report says that in a period since the establishment of the new Iraqi government, between May 20 and Aug. 11 this year, the average number of weekly attacks rose to nearly 800, almost double the number of the attacks in early 2004.
Casualties among Iraqi civilians and security forces averaged nearly 120 a day during the period, up from 80 a day reported in the previous quarterly report. Two years ago they were averaging roughly 30 a day.
On Aug. 31 the Pentagon announced that it is increasing the number of U.S. troops in Iraq to 140,000, which is 13,000 more than the number five weeks ago.
At least 65 U.S. soldiers were killed in August, with 36 of the deaths reported in al-Anbar. That brought the total number killed to at least 2,642. (FIN/2006)
Iraq: The Policy Dilemma
September 05, 2006 21 01 GMT
By George Friedman
U.S. President George W. Bush now has made it clear what his policy on Iraq will be for the immediate future, certainly until Election Day: He does not intend to change U.S. policy in any fundamental way. U.S. troops will continue to be deployed in Iraq, they will continue to carry out counterinsurgency operations, and they will continue to train Iraqi troops to eventually take over the operations. It is difficult to imagine that Bush believes there will be any military solution to the situation in Iraq; therefore, we must try to understand his reasoning in maintaining this position. Certainly, it is not simply a political decision. Opinion in the United States has turned against the war, and drawing down U.S. forces and abandoning combat operations would appear to be the politically expedient move. Thus, if it is not politics driving him -- and assuming that the more lurid theories on the Internet concerning Bush's motivations are as silly as they appear -- then we have to figure out what he is doing.
Let's consider the military situation first. Bush has said that there is no civil war in Iraq. This is in large measure a semantic debate. In our view, it would be inaccurate to call what is going on a "civil war" simply because that term implies a degree of coherence that simply does not exist. Calling it a free-for-all would be more accurate. It is not simply a conflict of Shi'i versus Sunni. The Sunnis and Shia are fighting each other, and all of them are fighting American forces. It is not altogether clear what the Americans are supposed to be doing.
Counterinsurgency is unlike other warfare. In other warfare, the goal is to defeat an enemy army, and civilian casualties as a result of military operations are expected and acceptable. With counterinsurgency operations in populated areas, however, the goal is to distinguish the insurgents from civilians and destroy them, with minimal civilian casualties. Counterinsurgency in populated areas is more akin to police operations than to military operations; U.S. troops are simultaneously engaging an enemy force while trying to protect the population from both that force and U.S. operations. Add to this the fact that the population is frequently friendly to the insurgents and hostile to the Americans, and the difficulty of the undertaking becomes clear.
Consider the following numbers. The New York Police Department (excluding transit and park police) counts one policeman for every 216 residents. In Iraq, there is one U.S. soldier (not counting other coalition troops) per about 185 people. Thus, numerically speaking, U.S. forces are in a mildly better position than New York City cops -- but then, except for occasional Saturday nights, New York cops are not facing anything like the U.S. military is facing in Iraq. Given that the United States is facing not one enemy but a series of enemy organizations -- many fighting each other as well as the Americans -- and that the American goal is to defeat these while defending the populace, it is obvious even from these very simplistic numbers that the U.S. force simply isn't there to impose a settlement.
Expectations and a Deal Unwound
A military solution to the U.S. dilemma has not been in the cards for several years. The purpose of military operations was to set the stage for political negotiations. But the Americans had entered Iraq with certain expectations. For one thing, they had believed they would simply be embraced by Iraq's Shiite population. They also had expected the Sunnis to submit to what appeared to be overwhelming political force. What happened was very different. First, the Shia welcomed the fall of Saddam Hussein, but they hardly embraced the Americans -- they sought instead to translate the U.S. victory over Hussein into a Shiite government. Second, the Sunnis, in view of the U.S.-Shiite coalition and the dismemberment of the Sunni-dominated Iraqi Army, saw that they were about to be squeezed out of the political system and potentially crushed by the Shia. They saw an insurgency -- which had been planned by Hussein -- as their only hope of forcing a redefinition of Iraqi politics. The Americans realized that their expectations had not been realistic.
Thus, the Americans went through a series of political cycles. First, they sided with the Shia as they sought to find their balance militarily facing the Sunnis. When they felt they had traction against the Sunnis, following the capture of Hussein -- and fearing Shiite hegemony -- they shifted toward a position between Sunnis and Shia. As military operations were waged in the background, complex repositioning occurred on all sides, with the Americans trying to hold the swing position between Sunnis and Shia.
The process of creating a government for Iraq was encapsulated in this multi-sided maneuvering. By spring 2006, the Sunnis appeared to have committed themselves to the political process. And in June, with the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and the announcement that the United States would reduce its force in Iraq by two brigades, the stage seemed to be set for a political resolution that would create a Shiite-dominated coalition that included Sunnis and Kurds. It appeared to be a done deal -- and then the deal completely collapsed.
The first sign of the collapse was a sudden outbreak of fighting among Shia in the Basra region. We assumed that this was political positioning among Shiite factions as they prepared for a political settlement. Then Abdel Aziz al-Hakim, the head of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), traveled to Tehran, and Muqtada al-Sadr's Mehdi Army commenced an offensive. Shiite death squads struck out at Sunni populations, and Sunni insurgents struck back. From nearly having a political accommodation, the situation in Iraq fell completely apart.
The key was Iran. The Iranians had always wanted an Iraqi satellite state, as protection against another Iraq-Iran war. That was a basic national security concept for them. In order to have this, the Iranians needed an overwhelmingly Shiite-dominated government in Baghdad, and to have overwhelming control of the Shia. It seemed to us that there could be a Shiite-dominated government but not an overwhelmingly Shiite government. In other words, Iraq could be neutral toward, but not a satellite of, Iran. In our view, Iraq's leading Shia -- fearing a civil war and also being wary of domination by Iran -- would accept this settlement.
We may have been correct on the sentiment of leading Shia, but we were wrong about Iran's intentions. Tehran did not see a neutral Iraq as being either in Iran's interests or necessary. Clearly, the Iranians did not trust a neutral Iraq still under American occupation to remain neutral. Second -- and this is the most important -- they saw the Americans as militarily weak and incapable of either containing a civil war in Iraq or of taking significant military action against Iran. In other words, the Iranians didn't like the deal they had been offered, they felt that they could do better, and they felt that the time had come to strike.
You noticed that the Iranians saw this weakness. We can thank Bush/Rumsfeld for this show of weakness.
A Two-Pronged Offensive
When we look back through Iranian eyes, we can now see what they saw: a golden opportunity to deal the United States a blow, redefine the geopolitics of the Persian Gulf and reposition the Shia in the Muslim world. Iran had, for example, been revivifying Hezbollah in Lebanon for several months. We had seen this as a routine response to the withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon. It is now apparent, however, that it was part of a two-pronged offensive.
First, in Iraq, the Iranians encouraged a variety of factions to both resist the newly formed government and to strike out against the Sunnis. This created an uncontainable cycle of violence that rendered the Iraqi government impotent and the Americans irrelevant. The tempo of operations was now in the hands of those Shiite groups among which the Iranians had extensive influence -- and this included some of the leading Shiite parties, such as SCIRI.
Second, in Lebanon, Iran encouraged Hezbollah to launch an offensive. There is debate over whether the Israelis or Hezbollah ignited the conflict in Lebanon. Part of this is ideological gibberish, but part of it concerns intention. It is clear that Hezbollah was fully deployed for combat. Its positions were manned in the south, and its rockets were ready. The capture of two Israeli soldiers was intended to trigger Israeli airstrikes, which were as predictable as sunrise, and Hezbollah was ready to fire on Haifa. Once Haifa was hit, Israel floundered in trying to deploy troops (the Golani and Givati brigades were in the south, near Gaza). This would not have been the case if the Israelis had planned for war with Hezbollah. Now, this discussion has nothing to do with who to blame for what. It has everything to do with the fact that Hezbollah was ready to fight, triggered the fight, and came out ahead because it wasn't defeated.
The end result is that, suddenly, the Iranians held the whip hand in Iraq, had dealt Israel a psychological blow, had repositioned themselves in the Muslim world and had generally redefined the dynamics of the region. Moreover, they had moved to the threshold of redefining the geopolitics to the Persian Gulf.
This was by far their most important achievement.
A New Look at the Region
At this point, except for the United States, Iran has by far the most powerful military force in the Persian Gulf. This has nothing to do with its nuclear capability, which is still years away from realization. Its ground forces are simply more numerous and more capable than all the forces of the Arabian Peninsula combined. There is another aspect to this: The countries of the Arabian Peninsula are governed by Sunnis, but many are home to substantial Shiite populations as well. Between the Iranian military and the possibility of unrest among Shia in the region, the situation in Saudi Arabia and the rest of the Peninsula is uneasy, to say the least. The rise of Hezbollah well might psychologically empower the generally quiescent Shia to become more assertive. This is one of the reasons that the Saudis were so angry at Hezbollah, and why they now are so anxious over events in Iraq.
If Iraq were to break into three regions, the southern region would be Shiite -- and the Iranians clearly believe that they could dominate southern Iraq. This not only would give them control of the Basra oil fields, but also would theoretically open the road to Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. From a strictly military point of view, and not including the Shiite insurgencies at all, Iran could move far down the western littoral of the Persian Gulf if American forces were absent. Put another way, there would be a possibility that the Iranians could seize control of the bulk of the region's oil reserves. They could do the same thing if Iraq were to be united as an Iranian satellite, but that would be far more difficult to achieve and would require active U.S. cooperation in withdrawing.
And guess who's responsible for this potentially disasterous situation; George Bush and his invasion of Iraq, a country that was of no threat to America but whose dictator was a counterbalance to Iran. Good old dumb George Bush has removed Iran's greatest enemy and threat and has delivered Iraq into Iran's hands. And how do we prevent this from happening? Easy, we keep American troops in Iraq indefinately, have their lives sucked out of them and pour hundreds of billions of our dollars into the great hole of Iraq.
We can now see why Bush cannot begin withdrawing forces. If he did that, the entire region would destabilize. The countries of the Arabian Peninsula, seeing the withdrawal, would realize that the Iranians were now the dominant power. Shia in the Gulf region might act, or they might simply wait until the Americans had withdrawn and the Iranians arrived. Israel, shaken to the core by its fight with Hezbollah, would have neither the force nor the inclination to act. Therefore, the United States has little choice, from Bush's perspective, but to remain in Iraq.
George Bush has put us into a quagmire. We can't win and we can't leave. We will just have to keep sacrificing American lives of about two per day indefinitely.
The Iranians undoubtedly anticipated this response. They have planned carefully. They are therefore shifting their rhetoric somewhat to be more accommodating. They understand that to get the United States out of Iraq -- and out of Kuwait --they will have to engage in a complex set of negotiations. They will promise anything -- but in the end, they will be the largest military force in the region, and nothing else matters. Ultimately, they are counting on the Americans to be sufficiently exhausted by their experience of Iraq to rationalize their withdrawal -- leaving, as in Vietnam, a graceful interval for what follows.
Options
Iran will do everything it can, of course, to assure that the Americans are as exhausted as possible. The Iranians have no incentive to allow the chaos to wind down, until at least a political settlement with the United States is achieved. The United States cannot permit Iranian hegemony over the Persian Gulf, nor can it sustain its forces in Iraq indefinitely under these circumstances.
The United States has four choices, apart from the status quo:
1. Reach a political accommodation that cedes the status of regional hegemon to Iran, and withdraw from Iraq.
2. Withdraw forces from Iraq and maintain a presence in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia -- something the Saudis would hate but would have little choice about -- while remembering that an American military presence is highly offensive to many Muslims and was a significant factor in the rise of al Qaeda.
3. Halt counterinsurgency operations in Iraq and redeploy its forces in the south (west of Kuwait), to block any Iranian moves in the region.
4. Assume that Iran relies solely on its psychological pre-eminence to force a regional realignment and, thus, use Sunni proxies such as Saudi Arabia and Kuwait in attempts to outmaneuver Tehran.
None of these are attractive choices. Each cedes much of Iraq to Shiite and Iranian power and represents some degree of a psychological defeat for the United States, or else rests on a risky assumption. While No. 3 might be the most attractive, it would leave U.S. forces in highly exposed, dangerous and difficult-to-sustain postures.
Iran has set a clever trap, and the United States has walked into it. Rather than a functioning government in Iraq, it has chaos and a triumphant Shiite community. The Americans cannot contain the chaos, and they cannot simply withdraw. Therefore, we can understand why Bush insists on holding his position indefinitely. He has been maneuvered in such a manner that he -- or a successor -- has no real alternatives.
There is one counter to this: a massive American buildup, including a major buildup of ground forces that requires a large expansion of the Army, geared for the invasion of Iran and destruction of its military force. The idea that this could readily be done through air power has evaporated, we would think, with the Israeli air force's failure in Lebanon. An invasion of Iran would be enormously expensive, take a very long time and create a problem of occupation that would dwarf the problem faced in Iraq. But it is the other option. It would stabilize the geopolitics of the Arabian Peninsula and drain American military power for a generation.
Sometimes there are no good choices. For the United States, the options are to negotiate a settlement that is acceptable to Iran and live with the consequences, raise a massive army and invade Iran, or live in the current twilight world between Iranian hegemony and war with Iran. Bush appears to be choosing an indecisive twilight. Given the options, it is understandable why.
