Civil Defense

Mid East Doesn't Matter

Tue, 09 Feb 2010 06:58:15 GMT

The Middle East No Longer Matters

Posted By Jay Hatheway On February 8, 2010 @ 11:00 pmAs the Obama administration gears up for additional commitments to Afghanistan and elsewhere in the Middle East, it is good to remind ourselves that in spite of the overheated rhetoric of the past few years, the region is of very little, if any, strategic value to the United States. Although we have sacrificed our national honor, our fortune, and the lives of our military personnel to bring security and stability from Lebanon to Pakistan, the fact remains that our presence is as ill-conceived as it is unnecessary: ill-conceived because the interjection of American power feeds the anger of those who would harm us, and unnecessary because there is nothing there we need. While it may be the case that portions of the Middle East are of significant humanitarian interest, such is not synonymous with our strategic national interests except in the very broadest terms that humanitarian help implies.

Indeed, one can make the argument that the primary destabilizing influence in the region is the American military, with its continued arming of any number of factions across the entire arc from Israel to India. This is exemplified most recently by the plans to place Patriot missile systems in the UAE, Bahrain, Qatar, and Kuwait in addition to those in Israel aimed, it seems, at Iran. This is not to suggest that there are no threats; it is to suggest instead that those which do exist are seriously overblown in comparison to the Cold War between 1945 and 1989. Ironically, it is the heavy presence of this past that now cripples our ability to discern regional concerns from those that have a broader impact.

Although Americans have been interacting with the Middle East since the founding of our Republic, it was only in the 1930s that the United States found itself reflecting upon its strategic importance. To the dismay of the British, the U.S. courted the king of Saudi Arabia for rights to explore for oil, which would be found in 1938. World War II put further exploration on hold, but not American interests. With the express consent of the British and the Iranians, the U.S. moved into southern Iran in 1942 in order to develop a Persian corridor to assist the Russians in the aftermath of Operation Barbarossa, the Nazi invasion of the USSR.

Fearful of impending defeat at the hands of the Germans, the Russians also pressed the U.S. to open up a second front somewhere in Western Europe. Ill prepared as we were in the aftermath of Pearl Harbor, the most the U.S. was willing to do was enter the war in Morocco and Algeria in November 1942 and assist the British roll back German advances. As the war wound down, our ties were further cemented when FDR on his way back from Potsdam in February 1945 met with the Saudi king on an American boat in the Suez Canal. The purpose of this meeting was simple: American protection for Saudi oil, an agreement that has lasted until today.

During the Cold War, the Middle East was of enormous strategic interest to the United States. We wanted to protect our oil supplies and prevent the USSR from making inroads into the region. To accommodate these goals, we gradually filled the power vacuum created by the retreat of the British in the aftermath of the war and developed the seemingly contradictory policies of supporting Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Israel as bulwarks against the spread of communism. All might have remained relatively stable and predictable but for the Iranian Revolution and the Russian invasion of Afghanistan in 1979.

The advent of the Islamic Revolution and the invasion of Afghanistan at virtually the same time rattled Washington to the core: one pillar of our Middle East policy was lost to a virulently anti-American regime while the Russians were believed to be on the move to capture the oil fields. Threatened by this doomsday scenario, Washington panicked. When Iraq invaded Iran, we supported both, to the detriment of each. We also increased our covert aid to jihadists fighting against the USSR in Afghanistan. With the end of the Iran-Iraq war and the withdrawal of the USSR from Afghanistan and the Soviet collapse shortly thereafter, it seemed the U.S. stood victorious: the Cold War was over, the Russian Empire was gone, and the U.S. was unassailable as the most powerful country in the world.

Yet victory was short-lived in view of the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. The introduction of American forces into Saudi Arabia in 1990-91 provided the justification for Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda�s war against the United States that culminated in the attacks of 9/11. In response, the U.S. launched its multi-country attacks and began to gradually redirect its oil purchases away from the Gulf to other potentially more secure sources such that by 2009, only around 18 percent of oil imports came from the region [.pdf]. The bulk of our imported oil comes from Canada, Mexico, Venezuela, Nigeria, Angola, Brazil, Algeria, Colombia, Russia, Ecuador, Equatorial Guinea, and Libya, essentially abnegating any security rationale for an American presence in the Middle East. Absent threats from the USSR and freed from dependence upon Middle East oil, the U.S. has absolutely no strategic interests in the region.

Why then is the United States fixated with an area of the world that is of only marginal importance to our security? The answer, I suspect, has as much to do with the inertia of almost 70 years of political engagement as it does with muddleheaded attempts to control the distribution of the region�s supply of oil and, more importantly, the economic growth of potential economic competitors. Both of these goals are unreasonable and do little to contribute to American national security; indeed, our continuous meddling does just the opposite, as bin Laden and his supporters have made so evident.

Some will argue that an American retreat will lead to chaos and catastrophe � but honestly, how much worse could it be than the unmitigated disaster that is currently the case? At some point, we must realize we cannot continue to fight wars that have absolutely nothing to do with our actual national interests but instead reflect a rather perverse attachment to �tradition.� With the U.S. (and USSR) gone from the region, al-Qaeda, Iran, and others will have lost the objects of their resentments. Threats of a lesser sort to American security there will be, but with good oversight, vigilance, and selective, mutually agreed-upon political engagement, we can keep them to a minimum. The implication is that the regional powers will have to confront their differences without the presence of the U.S., and that includes the ever present Arab-Israeli conflict. No matter how intractable that issue remains, it is, after all, a regional concern to which we may become a party only when asked. To elevate the ongoing Middle East conflicts to the level of existential threat is simply wrong, and a profound misreading of the regional conflicts themselves. It is time to bring everyone home.

Article printed from Antiwar.com Original: http://original.antiwar.com

URL to article: http://original.antiwar.com/jay-hatheway/2010/02/08/the-middle-east-no-longer-matters/

Franken Rips Obama

Fri, 05 Feb 2010 16:10:50 GMT

EU LEADER FED UP WITH OBAMA ONE ISSUE AT A TIME LEADERSHIP

Sarkozy pointed to Obama's made health care reform his sole focus."I didn't see that that made things simpler," he said. "Obama has been in power for a year, and he has already lost three special elections. Me, I have won two legislative elections and the EU election. What can one say I've lost?" Sarkozy is quoted as asking.
The piece also quotes a Sarkozy advisor, Alain Minc, expressing what it claims is Sarkozy's true view of Obama in Le Parisien: "He's a charmer, a conciliator, but I am not sure that he's a strong leader in a crisis."
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0210/Sarko_goes_negative.html?showall

AL FRANKEN BLASTS OBAMA HEALTH CARE MESS: NO CLARITY, NO DIRECTION

Franken said he was shocked the one issue that came before the economy and Afghanistan is leaderless

Sen. Al Franken ripped into White House senior adviser David Axelrod this week during a tense, closed-door session with Senate Democrats. Five sources who were in the room tell POLITICO that Franken criticized the administration�s failure to provide clarity or direction on health care and the other big bills it wants Congress to enact. The sources said Franken was the most outspoken senator in the meeting

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0210/32561.html

XMas Attack Shocker

Wed, 03 Feb 2010 19:35:22 GMT

THE SHARP DRESSED MAN WHO AIDED MUTALLAB ONTO FLIGHT 253 WAS A U.S. GOVERNMENT AGENT.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/pr/haskell-truth-flight253.html

"where others see conspiracy, I see gross incompetence".

Iran Plans Feb.Blow

Mon, 01 Feb 2010 07:50:37 GMT

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says the nation will deliver a harsh blow
to the "global arrogance" on this year's anniversary of the Islamic Revolution,Feb 11
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/117545.htm?sectionid=351020101

Tension between the US and Iran heightened dramatically today with the
disclosure that Barack Obama is deploying a missile shield to protect American
allies in the Gulf from attack by Tehran.The US is dispatching Patriot defensive
missiles to four countries � Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Kuwait �
and keepin...g two ships in the Gulf capable of shooting down Iranian missiles.
Washington is also helping Saudi Arabia develop a force to protect its oil
installations.American officials said the move is aimed at deterring an attack
by Iran
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jan/31/iran-nuclear-us-missiles-gulf

Taliban secret talks

Fri, 29 Jan 2010 16:55:28 GMT

UN officials are claiming that outgoing UN Special Representative for Afghanistan Kai Eide was in Dubai January 8 to hold a secret meeting with the so-called Quetta Shura, a leadership council of members of the Afghan Taliban.

Eide refused to comment on whether or not the meeting took place, and so far the Afghan Taliban haven't confirmed it either. Never the less, it seems this meeting is what spurred the sudden talk of reconciliation with the Taliban.

http://news.antiwar.com/2010/01/28/report-taliban-in-secret-meeting-with-un/

No wonder this jerk, John Edwards, finally admitted he has a love child! He knew this ABC special was coming out! The story the mainstream press tried to suppress, the Enquirer had the guts to follow. Why isn't Edwards in jail?

Andrew Young was a hero of mine. He got kicked out of politics in Georgia for speaking out against the Vietnam War, and came and spoke to a class I was in. In military school! Many of the students were angry at him, but he got a standing ovation after he spoke. He became Edwards' pimp. Trying to talk his gal pal into an abortion, telling the press Edwards wasn't seeing anyone, hiding a sex tape. He's not my hero anymore.

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/John_Edwards_Scandal/john-edwards-made-sex-tape-abortion-plea-aide/story?id=9680626&nwltr=2020_features_hed

When presidential contender John Edwards decided he had to hide his mistress and her pregnancy from his wife -- and from the voters -- he concocted an elaborate scheme to keep the scandal a secret, according to the once-loyal aide who helped smuggle the woman through a series of luxurious hideaways. Wealthy benefactors were called on and their sizable contributions funded the lavish life on the lam.

"I know of at least a million dollars. And there was much, much more," said Andrew Young of the scheme that brought him to testify in front of a grand jury. "We were living in mansions, flying around in jets. ... Money was no object."

The Iowa caucuses were just two weeks away in December 2007, when Young falsely claimed he was the father of his boss's love child.

"We knew we were going to have to leave town as soon as this hit the Enquirer," Young recalled of the bombshell that broke in the supermarket tabloid the National Enquirer.

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/John_Edwards_Scandal/edwards-aide-million-spent-cover-pregnant-mistress/story?id=9687954&nwltr=2020_topstory_hed

Osama bin Laden, the leader of Al Qaeda, blamed the United States and developed countries for not halting climate change and said that the global economy should immediately abandon its reliance on the American dollar, according to an audiotape released Friday by the broadcaster Al Jazeera.

"Talk about climate change is not an ideological luxury but a reality," Mr. bin Laden was quoted as saying in a report on Al Jazeera's English-language Web site. "All of the industrialized countries, especially the big ones, bear responsibility for the global warming crisis."

The authenticity of the tape could not be immediately confirmed, and Al Jazeera, which is based in Qatar, did not say how it had obtained the message

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/30/world/middleeast/30binladen.html

The number of words that President Obama expended on the war in Afghanistan during the much anticipated State of the Union address last night: exactly 92. Considering that the President's entire speech was 7,308 words, you could have missed his fleeting reference to the foreign land for which some 100,000 American men and women are pledged to fight if you decided at that very moment to say, sneeze, and then run to the bathroom quickly for a tissue.

Here are the 92 words (and no, quality in this case, does not make up for quantity):

And in Afghanistan, we're increasing our troops and training Afghan security forces so they can begin to take the lead in July of 2011, and our troops can begin to come home. We will reward good governance, work to reduce corruption and support the rights of all Afghans � men and women alike. We're joined by allies and partners who have increased their own commitments, and who will come together tomorrow in London to reaffirm our common purpose. There will be difficult days ahead. But I am absolutely confident we will succeed.

The reason why Obama wanted to whistle by the reference to "London" like a man by the graveyard seems obvious. A year ago, Obama pledged to fight "the good war," committing more troops and a "civilian surge" to rebuild Afghan institutions. Less than two months ago, Obama stood before an audience of West Point cadets and rambled through a "comprehensive" war strategy that involved, again, a commitment of more troops and a (somewhat vague) notion of a reconstruction component. He also added an 18-month "soft" timeline for withdrawal, signaling that the "good war" had its limitations. Now, in all reports leading up to "London," or today's confab of U.S and international partners over what to do about Afghanistan, the buzz is all about how to raise the dough to pay off the Taliban so we can all get the hell out.

Suddenly, the talk over freeing the Afghan people from the clutches of the Taliban has given way to parsing out or "peeling off" the so-good good Taliban from the bad � the U.S has already been successful in lifting U.N sanctions on 15 members of the former (that happened on Tuesday, in case no one noticed). In the meantime, the latest news is that the 65 member countries in attendance at the London conference could raise upwards of $1 billion for an elaborate "reintegration program" or "international trust fund," as announced hours ago. The price of admission? Apparently, interested Taliban need only to pledge allegiance � maybe toss in a few conscripts � to Karzai's government, which everyone knows is as crooked as a dog's hind leg.

The whole idea is fraught with pitfalls and potholes and not just the antiwar types are saying so. Even the Army's own social scientists on the ground have warned against the rush to win over "tribes" of which we know nothing about after eight years of war with money and promises. Afghan leaders are already questioning the plan. Taliban are rejecting it out of hand. But the most obvious flaw at this point is that we are initiating these deals from a position of weakness. Everyone knows it.

http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2010/01/28/the-reason-obama-dissed-the-afghan-policy-last-night/

Tony Blair's long-awaited appearance at the Iraq inquiry looked set to be hampered last night after the Government refused to declassify crucial documents relating to his decision to take Britain to war.

The failure to release the papers led to calls yesterday for the inquiry to be suspended. While Sir John Chilcot's team have been handed all the documents, they are unable to quote from classified material and may have to restrict questioning.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/vital-documents-remain-secret-1882561.html

Will China's Bubble Burst?

Tue, 26 Jan 2010 04:50:34 GMT

IT'S DEJA VU ALL OVER AGAIN:

Western banks like Morgan Stanley and Deutsche Bank helped them raise oodles of cash!

Another Warning Sign: China-Based, Singapore-Listed Firms Rapidly Collapsing Amidst Debt And Fraud

Here's a fascinating, just-out artcile in Hong Kong's South China Morning Post (sub req'd) about the collapse of Singapore-listed, mainland China-based firms that have collapsed amidst an inability to repay debt and fraud.

Since late 2007, a spate of so-called S-chips - mainland companies listed on the Singapore exchange - have borrowed money then failed to repay the debts, with some becoming mired in fraud scandals.

Of the 11 S-chips that issued convertible bonds between 2005 and 2008, six have declared themselves unable to repay. Two of those six - steel group Delong Holdings and property developer Sunshine Holdings - have successfully restructured their finances while the rest remain locked in talks with creditors.

Convertible bonds are debt instruments that investors can convert into shares at a later date.

Another five S-chips failed to repay bank loans during 2008-9. The effects on their share prices have been, predictably, crushing.

Not surprisingly, global investment banks have been involved in pushing the S-chips' debt onto investors

http://www.businessinsider.com/another-warning-sign-china-based-singapore-listed-firms-collapsing-amidst-debt-and-fraud-2010-1

The Haitian's We Kill

Thu, 21 Jan 2010 07:00:08 GMT

One thing slipped under the radar over the Haitian crisis.

Like FDR with the Jews who tried to come to this country when Hitler came to power, we have made it clear we will not allow them to enter the U.S.. The Jews had a quota, for the Haitians- it's zero can come here.

Whether they need health care because they are coming from a nation where most of the hospitals are destroyed, or a place to meet up with family members- they have been ordered to not leave.

Those needing hospital attention, will die.

http://www.fff.org/blog/jghblog2010-01-20.asp

A Really Bad Idea

Sun, 17 Jan 2010 07:01:42 GMT

Oh yeah, like this won't get out of hand. KEEP AWAY FROM THESE PEOPLE!

Cass Sunstein it seems loved the idea of government paid "objective journalists
and medical people" backing Obama's original now long gone health care plan,
without telling people they were government paid experts. Now he is calling for
government infiltration of 911 conspiracy theory groups to use them to spread
"even... more confusing theories" than the nonsense they came up with. Question
- WHAT THE HELL ARE WE DOING? Oh yeah, giving these idiots made up scenarios won't come back to bite us on the ass. This is a horrendous idea.

In World War 2 our best Intel was in telling other nations the true news. Not adding
to the propaganda out there by Goebbels and the other nazis. Germans and Japanese learned our broadcasts told the truth of thier situation, as the government run news lied to them.

The entire reason we can discuss the true story of Joe McCarthy, Raoul Wallenberg, Soviet infiltration of our government in the 1930's and 1940's with declassified files is that we live in the first era in human history where the public can read those files.

Even if sadly, the press and historians are confused by them.

Now we are supposed to feed these people's anti- American hatred to put out confusing ideas? Replace the KGB in twisting our history? And this won't get out of hand?

You got away with it on health care, Mr. Obama. Do not risk the security of this nation to play games with the truth. The truth remains our best weapon. Don't give keys to the asylum.

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/01/15/sunstein

Obama doesn't like Haitians

Sat, 16 Jan 2010 05:33:25 GMT

The title of this piece sounds silly doesn't it? Or does it?
Before I took off for the play tonight, on National Public Radio they were interviewing a man in charge of the relief effort.

The announcer was concerned because over these next 15 hours tens of thousands trapped in schools, buildings, hospitals are going to die for not having water. The man in charge stated we had 2 teams on the ground who are at the airport. When asked about others, 20 teams from Germany, 20 teams from France. they are out trying to reach people and avoiding machete armed gangs.

Two teams. He said they were waiting for a formal request of what Haiti needed, and 41 tons of food and medicine are now sitting in America waiting for that request.

Does anyone remember when Bush made that comment? About Katrina?

As you are reading this, we have 2 teams at the airport. Tens of thousands are dying. And this was going to show us how Obama responds correctly to disaster.

Women are being raped on the streets. Men with machetes are looting and taking revenge on other gangs. Because people can't buy guns, they are powerless to protect themselves.

And we wait for a formal request.

Let's add it up folks. We kept Gates after Obama won. The military campaigns have actually expanded in the Middle East. We are bailing out corporations as people lose their jobs. Obama refused to call for reform of our Intel, now after a known terrorist was able to board a plane he tells them to fix things- but doesn't say how.

And even though countries with far less than ours can send in instantly more people - we can't.

How much more state, and bureaucracy and rules do we need, until we can't move at all?

al- Qaeda Has Airline! WHAT!?!

Thu, 14 Jan 2010 05:26:30 GMT

While we were busy securing our airports, al-Qaeda created their own airline.

TIMBUKTU, Mali (Reuters) - In early 2008, an official at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security sent a report to his superiors detailing what he called "the most significant development in the criminal exploitation of aircraft since 9/11."

The document warned that a growing fleet of rogue jet aircraft was regularly crisscrossing the Atlantic Ocean. On one end of the air route, it said, are cocaine-producing areas in the Andes controlled by the leftist Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia. On the other are some of West Africa's most unstable countries.

The report, a copy of which was obtained by Reuters, was ignored, and the problem has since escalated into what security officials in several countries describe as a global security threat.

The clandestine fleet has grown to include twin-engine turboprops, executive jets and retired Boeing 727s that are flying multi-ton loads of cocaine and possibly weapons to an area in Africa where factions of al Qaeda are believed to be facilitating the smuggling of drugs to Europe, the officials say.

Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) has been held responsible for car and suicide bombings in Algeria and Mauritania.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE60C3E820100113