At least one person is talking about the huge military expenditures in Obama's budget. So many other programs could be funded if this was slashed. But of course the defense budget is pretty much untouchable. In a way, the whole discussion about where to cut is misplaced, as obvious large areas of spending are just off limits.
Income inequality has increased dramatically in the US over the last three decades: the richest 1% took home 9% of the country's total income in 1980 and by 2007 were taking over 22%--and further, even as their incomes increased, their tax rate decreased: they paid a total federal tax rate of 37% three decades ago, which has dropped to 31% now.
Robert Reich says in his excellent article that Obama's budget "represents the biggest redistribution of income from the wealthy to the middle class and poor this nation has seen in more than forty years... It's about time a presidential budget unequivocally redistributed income from the very rich to the middle class and poor. The incomes of the top one percent have soared for 30 years while median wages have slowed or declined in real terms. As economists Thomas Piketty and Emanuel Saez have shown, the top-earning one percent of Americans took home eight percent of total income in the 1970s; as recently as 1980, they took home nine percent. After that, total income became more and more concentrated at the top. By 2007, the top one percent took home over 22 percent. Meanwhile, even as their incomes dramatically increased, the total federal tax rates paid by the top one percent dropped. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the top one percent paid a total federal tax rate of 37 percent three decades ago; now it's paying 31 percent."
Reich also says that "By allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire, the marginal income tax on the highest earners goes back to 39.6 percent (from 35 percent, now), and capital gains rates to 20 percent (from 15, now). The budget also limits the amount highest earners can claim for mortgage-interest and charitable deductions (from 35 percent now down to 28 percent), raising an estimated $318 billion over ten years. Finally, wealthier Medicare beneficiaries will have to pay higher premiums for prescription drugs." And that "Although we don't have details as yet, the President's health-care proposal is likely to include substantial subsidies for lower-income families."
Saturday, February 28, 2009
Friday, February 27, 2009
Afghanistan Taliban
Juan Cole distinguishes between 5 "Taliban" groups:
"What we now call the "Taliban" are actually 5 distinct groups and movements: 1) The Old Taliban of Mulla Omar, now based in Quetta, Pakistan; 2) the Hizb-i Islami [Islamic Party] of former prime minister and warlord, Gulbadin Hikmatyar; 3) the followers of warlord Jalaluddin Haqqani; 4) the Taliban Movement of Pakistan in that country's tribal agencies; and 5) disgruntled Pushtun villagers who object to foreign troops on their soil or whose poppy crops were forcibly eradicated, leaving them destitute. Hikmatyar and Haqqani at one time or another were opposed to the Old Taliban, but have now allied with them. According to the Pajhwok News Network, a joint US and Afghan patrol targeted a militant of the Haqqani group near Khost on Thursday, capturing 6 militants and some light arms."
"What we now call the "Taliban" are actually 5 distinct groups and movements: 1) The Old Taliban of Mulla Omar, now based in Quetta, Pakistan; 2) the Hizb-i Islami [Islamic Party] of former prime minister and warlord, Gulbadin Hikmatyar; 3) the followers of warlord Jalaluddin Haqqani; 4) the Taliban Movement of Pakistan in that country's tribal agencies; and 5) disgruntled Pushtun villagers who object to foreign troops on their soil or whose poppy crops were forcibly eradicated, leaving them destitute. Hikmatyar and Haqqani at one time or another were opposed to the Old Taliban, but have now allied with them. According to the Pajhwok News Network, a joint US and Afghan patrol targeted a militant of the Haqqani group near Khost on Thursday, capturing 6 militants and some light arms."
1000 overseas US military bases
Very good article saying there are about 1,000 US military bases overseas. But that won't be cut of course...
Obama's budget
Obama just presented his budget.
Paul Krugman discusses its main positive points, such as investments in health care reform. Krugman is very upbeat about the budget and says it's much more progressive than ender Bush. But it remains to be seen how much of this Obama will be able to pass through Congress.
The NYT notes that Obama is raising taxes to reduce the deficit, but that "all of the proposed [tax] increases apply to couples making more than $250,000 ($200,000 for single taxpayers) — about the top 3 percent of taxpayers." Further, "To combat deficits, Mr. Obama proposes to let Mr. Bush’s high-end tax cuts expire in 2011, raising the top rate from 35 percent to as high as 39.6 percent. He would also impose a 20 percent rate on investment income, up from the current super-low 15 percent. And he would reinstate a tax provision enacted by the first President Bush, but undone by his son, that limited tax write-offs by high-income taxpayers for dependents and other expenses, like mortgage interest on vacation homes."
NYT again notes that taxes will be raised for the rich and reduce taxes for everyone else: "The Obama budget — a bold, even radical departure from recent history, wrapped in bureaucratic formality and statistical tables — would sharply raise taxes on the rich, beyond where Bill Clinton had raised them. It would reduce taxes for everyone else, to a lower point than they were under either Mr. Clinton or George W. Bush. And it would lay the groundwork for sweeping changes in health care and education, among other areas.More than anything else, the proposals seek to reverse the rapid increase in economic inequality over the last 30 years."
It also makes a significant point about the rise of inequality in the US over the last 30 years: "Over the last three decades, the pretax incomes of the wealthiest households have risen far more than they have for other households, while the tax rates for top earners have fallen more than they have for others, according to the Congressional Budget Office... Before becoming Mr. Obama’s top economic adviser, Lawrence H. Summers liked to tell a hypothetical story to distill the trend. The increase in inequality, Mr. Summers would say, meant that each family in the bottom 80 percent of the income distribution was effectively sending a $10,000 check, every year, to the top 1 percent of earners."
The tax code will therefore become more progressive: "Budget experts were still sorting through the details on Thursday, but it appeared that various tax cuts and credits aimed at the middle class and the poor would increase the take-home pay of the median household by roughly $800.
Paul Krugman discusses its main positive points, such as investments in health care reform. Krugman is very upbeat about the budget and says it's much more progressive than ender Bush. But it remains to be seen how much of this Obama will be able to pass through Congress.
The NYT notes that Obama is raising taxes to reduce the deficit, but that "all of the proposed [tax] increases apply to couples making more than $250,000 ($200,000 for single taxpayers) — about the top 3 percent of taxpayers." Further, "To combat deficits, Mr. Obama proposes to let Mr. Bush’s high-end tax cuts expire in 2011, raising the top rate from 35 percent to as high as 39.6 percent. He would also impose a 20 percent rate on investment income, up from the current super-low 15 percent. And he would reinstate a tax provision enacted by the first President Bush, but undone by his son, that limited tax write-offs by high-income taxpayers for dependents and other expenses, like mortgage interest on vacation homes."
NYT again notes that taxes will be raised for the rich and reduce taxes for everyone else: "The Obama budget — a bold, even radical departure from recent history, wrapped in bureaucratic formality and statistical tables — would sharply raise taxes on the rich, beyond where Bill Clinton had raised them. It would reduce taxes for everyone else, to a lower point than they were under either Mr. Clinton or George W. Bush. And it would lay the groundwork for sweeping changes in health care and education, among other areas.More than anything else, the proposals seek to reverse the rapid increase in economic inequality over the last 30 years."
It also makes a significant point about the rise of inequality in the US over the last 30 years: "Over the last three decades, the pretax incomes of the wealthiest households have risen far more than they have for other households, while the tax rates for top earners have fallen more than they have for others, according to the Congressional Budget Office... Before becoming Mr. Obama’s top economic adviser, Lawrence H. Summers liked to tell a hypothetical story to distill the trend. The increase in inequality, Mr. Summers would say, meant that each family in the bottom 80 percent of the income distribution was effectively sending a $10,000 check, every year, to the top 1 percent of earners."
The tax code will therefore become more progressive: "Budget experts were still sorting through the details on Thursday, but it appeared that various tax cuts and credits aimed at the middle class and the poor would increase the take-home pay of the median household by roughly $800.
The tax increases on the top 1 percent, meanwhile, will most likely cost them $100,000 a year.
“The tax code will become more progressive, with relatively higher rates on the rich and relatively lower rates on the middle class and poor,” said Roberton Williams, a senior fellow at the Tax Policy Center in Washington. “This is reversing the effects of the Bush policies,” he added, and then going even further."
On the military spending side, Obama is increasing expenditures relative to Bush (believe it or not): as this good article mentions: " Total spending on the Pentagon and the wars would reach nearly $664 billion in fiscal 2010, if the plan is approved by Congress, up slightly from $656.3 billion in 2009." However, this remains to be seen, as the costs of the Iraq and Afghanistan campaigns will most probably be adjusted depending on what happens there.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Abuses increasing at Guantanamo under Obama
Claims were made that abuses against detainees had been increasing since the inauguration.
Will Obama really withdraw from Iraq?
There are signs that Obama will leave as many as 50,000 troops in Iraq after the "withdrawal", some of which would be involved in combat.
Muslim opinion poll
PIPA has a poll of opinion in Muslim countries to find out their ideas about the US and Islam.
The main finding:
-Very large majorities of Muslims reject terrorism/violence to achieve political goals, but at the same time agree with Al-Qaeda's goals of kicking US troops out of Muslim countries.
But there is more in the survey.
The main finding:
-Very large majorities of Muslims reject terrorism/violence to achieve political goals, but at the same time agree with Al-Qaeda's goals of kicking US troops out of Muslim countries.
But there is more in the survey.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Iraq oil contracts in preparation
There are currently two rounds of bidding going on for energy contracts in Iraq.
From Reuters:
The Iraqi oil ministry was expected to announce the winners of the first round by the middle of this year, while contracts for the second round would be finalised by the end of 2009.
The first bidding round was announced in June for 8 oil and gas fields. Some 35 companies qualified in the first bidding round after around 120 applied, and 32 were still in the race for deals.
Iraq announced a second-bidding round for oil and gas fields at the end of December, naming 11 fields it would open up for bidding for service contracts. Iraq has received submissions from 38 international energy companies to qualify for a second round of bidding for contracts; Iraq will decide by the end of March which of those companies were qualified to bid.
The excellent Iraqi Oil Report also mentions that Iraq would like to speed up cooperation on energy with Syria; for instance a pipeline could link Kirkuk oil field to the Mediterranean through Syria.
Also IOR notes that A leading international union group has called on Iraq’s government to break away from Saddam Hussein-era regulations that prevent free association for workers.
From Reuters:
The Iraqi oil ministry was expected to announce the winners of the first round by the middle of this year, while contracts for the second round would be finalised by the end of 2009.
The first bidding round was announced in June for 8 oil and gas fields. Some 35 companies qualified in the first bidding round after around 120 applied, and 32 were still in the race for deals.
Iraq announced a second-bidding round for oil and gas fields at the end of December, naming 11 fields it would open up for bidding for service contracts. Iraq has received submissions from 38 international energy companies to qualify for a second round of bidding for contracts; Iraq will decide by the end of March which of those companies were qualified to bid.
The excellent Iraqi Oil Report also mentions that Iraq would like to speed up cooperation on energy with Syria; for instance a pipeline could link Kirkuk oil field to the Mediterranean through Syria.
Also IOR notes that A leading international union group has called on Iraq’s government to break away from Saddam Hussein-era regulations that prevent free association for workers.
Iraqi political dynamics
Asia Times online has a very good article on the political alliances built and rebuilt in Iraq.
In outline, the main points are that the Kurdish political group centered around President Talabani (the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK)) is disintegrating, or at least there are serious internal disagreements; some important PUK officials resigned a few days ago.
Also, Maliki and Muqtada are now negotiating to form an alliance together, after their recent distancing.
In outline, the main points are that the Kurdish political group centered around President Talabani (the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK)) is disintegrating, or at least there are serious internal disagreements; some important PUK officials resigned a few days ago.
Also, Maliki and Muqtada are now negotiating to form an alliance together, after their recent distancing.
Monday, February 23, 2009
Another war in Iraq between Kurds and Arabs?
Another good article by Patrick Cockburn on Iraq. He explains that violence is going on between Kurds and Arabs in Iraq, now that the US is planning to leave and that the Iraqi military is reconstituting itself.
IAEA report on Iran
A good critique of mainstream reporting on nuclear Iran and the latest IAEA report.
The forgotten part of Cambodia's genocide
John Pilger reminds us that before the genocide under Pol Pot, about 600,000 Cambodians died under US bombing. That's not going to be part of the current trials of former Khmer Rouge.
US special forces training Pakistanis in Pakistan
NYT reports that "More than 70 United States military advisers and technical specialists are secretly working in Pakistan to help its armed forces battle Al Qaeda and the Taliban in the country’s lawless tribal areas, American military officials said." This is a much larger effort than either Pakistan or the US had earlier reported and it started last summer.
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Obama sides with Bush again
AP reports that "The Obama administration, siding with former President George W. Bush, is trying to kill a lawsuit that seeks to recover what could be millions of missing White House e-mails."
Saturday, February 21, 2009
Obama expands Bagram prison
Al-Jazeera reports, as others have done, that Obama is expanding Bagram prison in Afghanistan.
Geographers
Tom Gillespie and John Agnew (UCLA geography) published a paper using biogeography models to find out where bin Laden is. For instance, they say that because he is tall, he would probably look to hide in tall buildings.
A comment from Juan Cole's blog:
[pdf] Gillespie et al. Finding Osama Bin Laden : An application of biogeographic theories and satellite imagery. MIT International Review. Feb 17, 2009.
Dear Editors and founders of the MIT International Review:
Professors Gillespie et al. while writing in MIT International Review have not only identified Parachinar, the town where Osama Bin Laden may have been hiding, but they have also pinpointed the three buildings that they think are likely to be Bin Laden's hideout. Since I am from the Northwest Frontier Province, I find it a little odd that Osama may be hiding in the only Shiite majority town in the entire tribal region of Pakistan.
The geography professors at UCLA may have used spatial analysis to determine the probable hideout of Osama; they certainly overlooked history and anthropology, which would have explained the gory sectarian rivalries between the Shiites of Parachinar and the Sunni supporters of Osama bin Laden. This is yet another example of technical analysis devoid of any understanding of the local socio-cultural and political contexts.
Parachinar is a small town of approximately 20,000 individuals, who are almost exclusively Shiites and belong to Turi and Bangash tribes. The Sunni tribesmen from North Waziristan agency along with other militants from Arab countries and the Caucasus have been attacking the Shiites over the past two years, which has resulted in the death of hundreds of Shiites. In addition, since the Sunni tribesmen control the ground access to Parachinar from Peshawar, the supply of food, medicines, and other necessities to Parachinar have been interrupted for months, forcing the doctors to operate without anesthesia. The power and water supply, which have been restored only recently, also remained suspended.
I find it hard to believe that after having hundreds, if not thousands, of Shiites murdered by the followers of Osama bin Laden, the Shiites of Parachinar would like to aid and abet Osama bin Laden.
It is sad to see that the press in North America has largely ignored this tragedy that has been unfolding in Parachinar over the past two years. It took faculty and students from UCLA to put Parachinar on the map, but only for the wrong reasons.
Professors Gillespie et al. assert that "One of the most important political questions of our time is: Where is Osama Bin Laden?" Even when the crisis in Darfur has killed hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians; the relentless bombing by American drones and the fighting in the Pakistan’s tribal areas has forced half a million civilians to live in deplorable conditions in refugee camps; and the hunger and disease faced daily by the global poor, the authors still believe that locating Osama is “one of the most important political questions of our time.” Even if Osama Bin Laden is found, what answers could he provide that would make the world become a better place?
Lastly, I am concerned that if the UCLA professors are taken seriously by the trigger-happy NATO forces, who certainly lack ground intelligence in the tribal areas and cannot tell friend from foe, the Shiites of Parachinar may have to fend off bombs dropped from American drones, while they are fighting for their survival against the Taleban on the ground.
Sincerely,
Murtaza Haider
Ryerson University
A comment from Juan Cole's blog:
Haidar: Bin Laden is not, either, Hiding Out in Shiite Parachinar
Murtaza Haidar shares with IC his letter to the editor of the MIT International Review
[pdf] Gillespie et al. Finding Osama Bin Laden : An application of biogeographic theories and satellite imagery. MIT International Review. Feb 17, 2009.
Dear Editors and founders of the MIT International Review:
Professors Gillespie et al. while writing in MIT International Review have not only identified Parachinar, the town where Osama Bin Laden may have been hiding, but they have also pinpointed the three buildings that they think are likely to be Bin Laden's hideout. Since I am from the Northwest Frontier Province, I find it a little odd that Osama may be hiding in the only Shiite majority town in the entire tribal region of Pakistan.
The geography professors at UCLA may have used spatial analysis to determine the probable hideout of Osama; they certainly overlooked history and anthropology, which would have explained the gory sectarian rivalries between the Shiites of Parachinar and the Sunni supporters of Osama bin Laden. This is yet another example of technical analysis devoid of any understanding of the local socio-cultural and political contexts.
Parachinar is a small town of approximately 20,000 individuals, who are almost exclusively Shiites and belong to Turi and Bangash tribes. The Sunni tribesmen from North Waziristan agency along with other militants from Arab countries and the Caucasus have been attacking the Shiites over the past two years, which has resulted in the death of hundreds of Shiites. In addition, since the Sunni tribesmen control the ground access to Parachinar from Peshawar, the supply of food, medicines, and other necessities to Parachinar have been interrupted for months, forcing the doctors to operate without anesthesia. The power and water supply, which have been restored only recently, also remained suspended.
I find it hard to believe that after having hundreds, if not thousands, of Shiites murdered by the followers of Osama bin Laden, the Shiites of Parachinar would like to aid and abet Osama bin Laden.
It is sad to see that the press in North America has largely ignored this tragedy that has been unfolding in Parachinar over the past two years. It took faculty and students from UCLA to put Parachinar on the map, but only for the wrong reasons.
Professors Gillespie et al. assert that "One of the most important political questions of our time is: Where is Osama Bin Laden?" Even when the crisis in Darfur has killed hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians; the relentless bombing by American drones and the fighting in the Pakistan’s tribal areas has forced half a million civilians to live in deplorable conditions in refugee camps; and the hunger and disease faced daily by the global poor, the authors still believe that locating Osama is “one of the most important political questions of our time.” Even if Osama Bin Laden is found, what answers could he provide that would make the world become a better place?
Lastly, I am concerned that if the UCLA professors are taken seriously by the trigger-happy NATO forces, who certainly lack ground intelligence in the tribal areas and cannot tell friend from foe, the Shiites of Parachinar may have to fend off bombs dropped from American drones, while they are fighting for their survival against the Taleban on the ground.
Sincerely,
Murtaza Haider
Ryerson University
Obama disappoints again on detainees and legal issues
Obama run on a platform of change but has disappointed many by upholding some Bush policies. NYT reports that: "The Obama administration, siding with the Bush White House, contended Friday that detainees in Afghanistan have no constitutional rights. In a two-sentence court filing, the Justice Department said it agreed that detainees at Bagram Airfield cannot use U.S. courts to challenge their detention. The filing shocked human rights attorneys."
Also:
" The case now in federal appeals court in San Francisco offers the opportunity to remake state secrets law. Mohamed v. Jeppesen DataPlan, Inc. was brought by five foreign nationals who claim they were arrested abroad under our rendition program, moved incommunicado and tortured in various other countries, where they had been taken by a private CIA contractor. In 2006, a representative of that contractor, Jeppesen DataPlan, admitted to a reporter for the New Yorker magazine, "We do all of the extraordinary rendition flights -- you know, the torture flights. Let's face it." But the CIA introduced an affidavit from agency director Michael V. Hayden stating that disclosing any details would violate the state secrets doctrine, and the trial judge dismissed the lawsuit. The new U.S. Attorney General, Eric H. Holder Jr., had the chance to change the government's position and renounce the claim of privilege. His decision not to do so is both startling and disappointing, in view of the Obama administration's position on the need for openness in government."
Also:
"It's not the first time that the Obama administration has used a Bush administration legal argument after promising to review it. Last week, Attorney General Eric Holder announced a review of every court case in which the Bush administration invoked the state secrets privilege, a separate legal tool it used to have lawsuits thrown out rather than reveal secrets.
The same day, however, Justice Department attorney Douglas Letter cited that privilege in asking an appeals court to uphold dismissal of a suit accusing a Boeing Co. subsidiary of illegally helping the CIA fly suspected terrorists to allied foreign nations that tortured them.
Letter said that Obama officials approved his argument."
Washington Post has more on this specific case:" The case now in federal appeals court in San Francisco offers the opportunity to remake state secrets law. Mohamed v. Jeppesen DataPlan, Inc. was brought by five foreign nationals who claim they were arrested abroad under our rendition program, moved incommunicado and tortured in various other countries, where they had been taken by a private CIA contractor. In 2006, a representative of that contractor, Jeppesen DataPlan, admitted to a reporter for the New Yorker magazine, "We do all of the extraordinary rendition flights -- you know, the torture flights. Let's face it." But the CIA introduced an affidavit from agency director Michael V. Hayden stating that disclosing any details would violate the state secrets doctrine, and the trial judge dismissed the lawsuit. The new U.S. Attorney General, Eric H. Holder Jr., had the chance to change the government's position and renounce the claim of privilege. His decision not to do so is both startling and disappointing, in view of the Obama administration's position on the need for openness in government."
Obama widens war on Pakistan
The NYT reports that missile strikes on Pakistan have increased with Obama.
The drones missile strikes attacked the Baitullah Mehsud group, whose actions have been directed mostly at the Pakistani government, not US troops in Afghanistan. Under Bush, that group had not been targeted (the Taliban and Al Qaeda were). This is why the recent strikes represent a broadening of the US offensive in Paksitan.
The CIA has carried out more than 30 strikes since September.
The drones missile strikes attacked the Baitullah Mehsud group, whose actions have been directed mostly at the Pakistani government, not US troops in Afghanistan. Under Bush, that group had not been targeted (the Taliban and Al Qaeda were). This is why the recent strikes represent a broadening of the US offensive in Paksitan.
The CIA has carried out more than 30 strikes since September.
Friday, February 20, 2009
Iran nuclear report
A new nuclear report has been issued by the IAEA. The NYT once again is propagating fear about Iran's actions, maintaining that Iran now has enough uranium to make one bomb. That's if they process it further, so it doesn't mean much, but is a good way to scare people.
The problem with Iran is that it faces Israel and the US, which have nuclear weapons and refuse to eliminate them. But that's not a problem apparently for the mainstream press.
The problem with Iran is that it faces Israel and the US, which have nuclear weapons and refuse to eliminate them. But that's not a problem apparently for the mainstream press.
Afghanistan
A detailed historical analysis by Stephen Zunes of how the US has supported extremists in Afghanistan as opposed to more progressive groups and individuals.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Google Earth on US base in Pakistan
Google Earth maps apparently show the Shamsi air base in Pakistan where it was recently alleged that the CIA flies drones out to bomb Pakistan insurgents.
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
US base in Pakistan for drones
A Times (London) investigation found that the US is using bases in Pakistan for its drones that attack insurgents, a nice follow-up from Senator Feinstein's comments a few days ago. The Times writes:
"The Times has discovered that the CIA has been using the Shamsi airfield — originally built by Arab sheikhs for falconry expeditions in the southwestern province of Baluchistan — for at least a year. The strip, which is about 30 miles from the Afghan border, allows US forces to launch a Drone within minutes of receiving actionable intelligence as well as allowing them to attack targets further afield."
That's not the only base that has been used by the US in Pakistan:
"Americans were also using another airbase near Jacobabad, 300 miles northeast of Karachi, for logistics and military operations.
"The Times has discovered that the CIA has been using the Shamsi airfield — originally built by Arab sheikhs for falconry expeditions in the southwestern province of Baluchistan — for at least a year. The strip, which is about 30 miles from the Afghan border, allows US forces to launch a Drone within minutes of receiving actionable intelligence as well as allowing them to attack targets further afield."
That's not the only base that has been used by the US in Pakistan:
"Americans were also using another airbase near Jacobabad, 300 miles northeast of Karachi, for logistics and military operations.
Pakistan gave America permission to use Shamsi, Jacobabad and two other bases — Pasni and Dalbadin — for the invasion of Afghanistan in October 2001. US Marine Special Forces were based at Shamsi and, in January 2002, a US Marine KC130 tanker aircraft crashed close to its runway, killing seven Marines on board."
"The latest strike on Monday — the fourth since Mr Obama took office — killed 31 people in the tribal agency of Kurram, and another on Saturday killed 25 people in South Waziristan, according to Pakistani officials."NATO's claims on Afghanistan absurd
As mentioned on this blog previously, a new UN report noted that civilian deaths in Afghanistan were up 40% in 2008 (for a total of 2,118) compared to 2007. 55% of those deaths were attributed to the Taliban and other insurgents and 39% to US and Afghan government troops (and both those numbers could rise by about 6% if we count the deaths attributed to cross fire). See the nice graph by NYT.
The UN report undermines NATO's report of last month, which had claimed that about 973 cilivians had been killed in 2008 by the Taliban and insurgents, and that only 97 were by NATO. So that's about half the total deaths reported by the UN, and about 8 times fewer deaths attributed to NATO (97 vs. 828)!
The UN report undermines NATO's report of last month, which had claimed that about 973 cilivians had been killed in 2008 by the Taliban and insurgents, and that only 97 were by NATO. So that's about half the total deaths reported by the UN, and about 8 times fewer deaths attributed to NATO (97 vs. 828)!
Obama sends 17,000 more troops to Afghanistan
Obama sends 17,000 more troops to Afghanistan, his first deployment of troops overseas. It's important to note that Obama here is acting against the wishes of the Afghan and American populations as recent polls show. Only 34% of Americans and 18% of Afghans said the US should send more troops, while the rest said troops should stay at the current level or be reduced in number:
In the US, barely more than a third, 34 percent, said the number of U.S. military forces in that country should be increased. About as many would opt for a decrease (29 percent) or no change at all (32 percent).
In the US, barely more than a third, 34 percent, said the number of U.S. military forces in that country should be increased. About as many would opt for a decrease (29 percent) or no change at all (32 percent).
In Afghanistan, public opinion is even more unwelcoming. In a recent ABC-BBC-ARD poll of Afghans, just 18 percent said the United States and NATO should increase their troop levels, and more than twice that number, 44 percent, wanted fewer outside forces.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Israel attacks Iran covertly
The Telegraph reports an important news: Israel has launched a covert campaign against Iran in an effort to prevent Tehran from developing their nuclear energy facilities. Israel is said to have assassinated Iranian scientists working on nuclear matters.
Excerpts:
Excerpts:
It is using hitmen, sabotage, front companies and double agents to disrupt the regime's illicit weapons project, the experts say.
The most dramatic element of the "decapitation" programme is the planned assassination of top figures involved in Iran's atomic operations.
Reva Bhalla, a senior analyst with Stratfor, the US private intelligence company with strong government security connections, said the strategy was to take out key people.
"With co-operation from the United States, Israeli covert operations have focused both on eliminating key human assets involved in the nuclear programme and in sabotaging the Iranian nuclear supply chain," she said.
"As US-Israeli relations are bound to come under strain over the Obama administration's outreach to Iran, and as the political atmosphere grows in complexity, an intensification of Israeli covert activity against Iran is likely to result."
Mossad was rumoured to be behind the death of Ardeshire Hassanpour, a top nuclear scientist at Iran's Isfahan uranium plant, who died in mysterious circumstances from reported "gas poisoning" in 2007.
Other recent deaths of important figures in the procurement and enrichment process in Iran and Europe have been the result of Israeli "hits", intended to deprive Tehran of key technical skills at the head of the programme, according to Western intelligence analysts.
"Israel has shown no hesitation in assassinating weapons scientists for hostile regimes in the past," said a European intelligence official, speaking on condition of anonymity. They did it with Iraq and they will do it with Iran when they can."
Double standards with Israel's nukes
El Baradei, Director General of the IAEA, said Israel's nuclear weapons posed a problem for non proliferation. It is an important point, as other countries in the Middle East, most notably Iran, are asked to clarify their nuclear programs but Israel is not--even if Israel has nuclear weapons and hasn't even signed the NPT, the main international treaty on those matters.
Civilian deaths up 40% in Afghanistan in 2008
The UN reported that civilian deaths were up 40% in Afghanistan in 2008, to a record 2,118. The report said militants were responsible for 55 percent of the deaths, but that U.S., NATO and Afghan forces killed 829 civilians, or 39 percent. U.S., NATO and Afghan troops killed 31 percent more civilians in 2008 than in 2007, when the U.N. said those forces killed 629 civilians.
Israel plans to expand settlements in West Bank
Washington Post reports:
"Plans to expand a West Bank settlement by up to 2,500 homes drew Palestinian condemnation Monday and presented an early test for President Obama, whose Middle East envoy is well known for opposing such construction.
Israel opened the way for possible expansion of the Efrat settlement by taking control of a nearby West Bank hill of 423 acres. The rocky plot was recently designated state land and is part of a master plan that envisions the settlement growing from 9,000 to 30,000 residents, Efrat Mayor Oded Revivi said."
"Plans to expand a West Bank settlement by up to 2,500 homes drew Palestinian condemnation Monday and presented an early test for President Obama, whose Middle East envoy is well known for opposing such construction.
Israel opened the way for possible expansion of the Efrat settlement by taking control of a nearby West Bank hill of 423 acres. The rocky plot was recently designated state land and is part of a master plan that envisions the settlement growing from 9,000 to 30,000 residents, Efrat Mayor Oded Revivi said."
Selig Harrison On North Korea
Harrison has an op-ed on how to deal with North Korea. He's one of the good mainstream analysts.
Monday, February 16, 2009
Cockburn on Iraq reconstruction fraud
Patrick Cockburn reports on the NYT story about theft and fraud by US military officials during Iraq reconstruction.
He writes: "In what could turn out to be the greatest fraud in US history, American authorities have started to investigate the alleged role of senior military officers in the misuse of $125bn (£88bn) in a US -directed effort to reconstruct Iraq after the fall of Saddam Hussein. The exact sum missing may never be clear, but a report by the US Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction (SIGIR) suggests it may exceed $50bn, making it an even bigger theft than Bernard Madoff's notorious Ponzi scheme."
Further, an American businessman active in Iraq since 2003 said: "I believe the real looting of Iraq after the invasion was by US officials and contractors, and not by people from the slums of Baghdad"--good point.
He writes: "In what could turn out to be the greatest fraud in US history, American authorities have started to investigate the alleged role of senior military officers in the misuse of $125bn (£88bn) in a US -directed effort to reconstruct Iraq after the fall of Saddam Hussein. The exact sum missing may never be clear, but a report by the US Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction (SIGIR) suggests it may exceed $50bn, making it an even bigger theft than Bernard Madoff's notorious Ponzi scheme."
Further, an American businessman active in Iraq since 2003 said: "I believe the real looting of Iraq after the invasion was by US officials and contractors, and not by people from the slums of Baghdad"--good point.
Donate to UNICEF for children in Gaza
Juan Cole makes an appeal to give to UNICEF to help Gaza's children wounded during Israel's attack:
"the Palestinian children wounded and charred by Israeli bombings are still screaming, their physicians unable to get hold of enough pain killers to still their yelps of pain. Some 5300 Palestinians, most of them children, women and noncombatants, were wounded in Israel's savage war on the Gaza population."
Donate: UNICEF link.
"the Palestinian children wounded and charred by Israeli bombings are still screaming, their physicians unable to get hold of enough pain killers to still their yelps of pain. Some 5300 Palestinians, most of them children, women and noncombatants, were wounded in Israel's savage war on the Gaza population."
Donate: UNICEF link.
Israeli elections
Uri Avnery gives a good analysis of the elections in Israel. He talks about possible coalitions and which groups voted for whom.
Sunday, February 15, 2009
Iraq buys $5 bn in US arms
Iraq will buy $5 billion on US weapons, military equipment and training.
That's one reason why the US wants to dominate the Middle East and is related to control over oil resources: if friendly regimes are put in power where there's a lot of oil, then the oil revenues (petrodollars) will be invested in the US/Western countries, either in the form of weapons purchases or investment. Those maintain the close relationship between the US and friendly governments in the Middle East.
So that's one reason why the US invaded Iraq because of oil.
That's one reason why the US wants to dominate the Middle East and is related to control over oil resources: if friendly regimes are put in power where there's a lot of oil, then the oil revenues (petrodollars) will be invested in the US/Western countries, either in the form of weapons purchases or investment. Those maintain the close relationship between the US and friendly governments in the Middle East.
So that's one reason why the US invaded Iraq because of oil.
Senior US military involved in corruption in Iraq
The NYT reports that Federal authorities examining the early, chaotic days of the $125 billion American-led effort to rebuild Iraq have significantly broadened their inquiry to include senior American military officers who oversaw the program.
For instance:
"In one case of graft... Maj. John L. Cockerham of the Army pleaded guilty to accepting nearly $10 million in bribes as a contracting officer for the Iraq war and other military efforts from 2004 to 2007, when he was arrested. Major Cockerham’s wife has also pleaded guilty, as have several other contracting officers."
For instance:
"In one case of graft... Maj. John L. Cockerham of the Army pleaded guilty to accepting nearly $10 million in bribes as a contracting officer for the Iraq war and other military efforts from 2004 to 2007, when he was arrested. Major Cockerham’s wife has also pleaded guilty, as have several other contracting officers."
Halliburton and KBR fined $579 million
Halliburton and KBR agreed to pay $579 million in fines to settle criminal and regulatory charges of having bribed foreign officials to win billions in construction contracts. Hallburton, run by Dick Cheney before he became Vice-President, has also reaped multibillions as the Bush administration’s most favored no-bid contractor.
Saturday, February 14, 2009
US Special Operations forces in 60+ countries
UPI reports that US Special Operations forces are engaged in more than 60 countries around the world at the moment. They conduct overt and covert operations, of the counter-insurgency type. For instance, they were involved in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as the invasion of Panama in 1989 among others.
Afghans caught in between warlords and Taliban
This article from TIME magazine explains how Afghans are caught in between warlords and the Taliban, neither of which are liked by the population, both having committed extensive atrocities. The problem is that the US/international community put the warlords back in power in the wake of the 2001 invasion, so the warlords now are big players in Afghanistan and many of them or their supporters are in Parliament and control powerful militias that rule many areas in the country.
The problem is that the US does not support progressive groups in Afghanistan, or at least that's clearly not the priority. There are many progressive groups and individuals who could receive such support and improve things in Afghanistan (such as Malalai Joya and the RAWA organization) but they are essentially ignored by the US.
Then the official line becomes something like "we don't have the choice to deal with the warlords as they are the ones who control militias, and if we remove the warlords then a power vacuum could ensue and lead to more violence"... That makes no sense--progressive groups would just need to be empowered and more aid sent to Afghanistan and things would improve.
The problem is that the US does not support progressive groups in Afghanistan, or at least that's clearly not the priority. There are many progressive groups and individuals who could receive such support and improve things in Afghanistan (such as Malalai Joya and the RAWA organization) but they are essentially ignored by the US.
Then the official line becomes something like "we don't have the choice to deal with the warlords as they are the ones who control militias, and if we remove the warlords then a power vacuum could ensue and lead to more violence"... That makes no sense--progressive groups would just need to be empowered and more aid sent to Afghanistan and things would improve.
US drones attacking Pakistan flying out of Pakistan?
Three drones missile strikes on Pakistan have been carried out since Obama took power. Every time this happens, Pakistan lodges a formal complaint. However, Senator Diane Feinstein declared that the drones were flying out of military bases located in Pakistan, not Afghanistan. That would mean that Pakistan is in fact teaming up with the US to a greater extent to target extremists (and civilians). As the LA Times reported:
"At a hearing, Feinstein expressed surprise over Pakistani opposition to the campaign of Predator-launched CIA missile strikes against Islamic extremist targets along Pakistan's northwestern border.
"As I understand it, these are flown out of a Pakistani base," she said.
The basing of the pilotless aircraft in Pakistan suggests a much deeper relationship with the United States on counter-terrorism matters than has been publicly acknowledged. Such an arrangement would be at odds with protests lodged by officials in Islamabad, the capital, and could inflame anti-American sentiment in the country.
The CIA declined to comment, but former U.S. intelligence officials, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the information, confirmed that Feinstein's account was accurate."
"At a hearing, Feinstein expressed surprise over Pakistani opposition to the campaign of Predator-launched CIA missile strikes against Islamic extremist targets along Pakistan's northwestern border.
"As I understand it, these are flown out of a Pakistani base," she said.
The basing of the pilotless aircraft in Pakistan suggests a much deeper relationship with the United States on counter-terrorism matters than has been publicly acknowledged. Such an arrangement would be at odds with protests lodged by officials in Islamabad, the capital, and could inflame anti-American sentiment in the country.
The CIA declined to comment, but former U.S. intelligence officials, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the information, confirmed that Feinstein's account was accurate."
Friday, February 13, 2009
Obama and Iran
The Obama administration is currently accusing Iran of pursuing nuclear weapons.
This whole nuclear crisis is the latest pretext the US has found to punish Iran for challenging US hegemony in the Middle East by toppling the Shah in 1979.
The International Atomic Energy Agency has gone to Iran multiple times since the nuclear crisis started in 2002 and has issue many reports, which all say the same thing: there is no evidence Iran is working on nuclear weapons.
Second, it's the US (and UK, France, Russia, China) which are in clear breach of international law because they need to eliminate their own nuclear weapons, as the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which they signed, says. Well the NPT came into force like 40 years ago, and the US still hasn't done what it's supposed to do, so that's clear breach. Western officials don't care about this obligation, as several of them told me in interviews. That would be the first step in dealing with nuclear issues. Another step would be to eliminate Israel's nuclear weapons, which for some reason we never hear about--it's all about Iran, which doesn't even have the weapons.
This whole nuclear crisis is the latest pretext the US has found to punish Iran for challenging US hegemony in the Middle East by toppling the Shah in 1979.
The International Atomic Energy Agency has gone to Iran multiple times since the nuclear crisis started in 2002 and has issue many reports, which all say the same thing: there is no evidence Iran is working on nuclear weapons.
Second, it's the US (and UK, France, Russia, China) which are in clear breach of international law because they need to eliminate their own nuclear weapons, as the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which they signed, says. Well the NPT came into force like 40 years ago, and the US still hasn't done what it's supposed to do, so that's clear breach. Western officials don't care about this obligation, as several of them told me in interviews. That would be the first step in dealing with nuclear issues. Another step would be to eliminate Israel's nuclear weapons, which for some reason we never hear about--it's all about Iran, which doesn't even have the weapons.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Obama's Guantanamo
Obama announced he would close Guantanamo within a year. That's good if he does it. But there are two issues he needs to deal with if he really wants to accomplish something durable on that front:
1) How will he deal with the 242 prisoners now in Guantanamo? Plans are to send them to other prisons, for example in prisons on military bases in the US, or in other countries (European countries are debating at whether or not they will accept detainees from Guantanamo). Related, what kind of legal system will be used to deal with those prisoners? Is it going to be the same as Bush but under another name? Or is it going to be fairer? That remains to be seen.
2) While Obama is saying he will close Guantanamo, another similar prison, Bagram in Afghanistan, is being used by US forces and holds more than 600 detainees. And that's not all, efforts are under way to expand it to hold about 1,100. Further, legal protections for detainees at Bagram are deficient, as reported by the Christian Science Monitor: "Unlike the Guantánamo detainee cases, lawyers in the Bagram case have never been permitted to meet or communicate with their clients. Bagram detainees are not entitled to the combat status review tribunals and other safeguards set up at Guantánamo."
1) How will he deal with the 242 prisoners now in Guantanamo? Plans are to send them to other prisons, for example in prisons on military bases in the US, or in other countries (European countries are debating at whether or not they will accept detainees from Guantanamo). Related, what kind of legal system will be used to deal with those prisoners? Is it going to be the same as Bush but under another name? Or is it going to be fairer? That remains to be seen.
2) While Obama is saying he will close Guantanamo, another similar prison, Bagram in Afghanistan, is being used by US forces and holds more than 600 detainees. And that's not all, efforts are under way to expand it to hold about 1,100. Further, legal protections for detainees at Bagram are deficient, as reported by the Christian Science Monitor: "Unlike the Guantánamo detainee cases, lawyers in the Bagram case have never been permitted to meet or communicate with their clients. Bagram detainees are not entitled to the combat status review tribunals and other safeguards set up at Guantánamo."
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Women's situation in Afghanistan
An article reporting on the evolving situation of women in Afghanistan, which got better when the Taliban were overthrown in 2001, but more recently worsened:
"The lives of Afghan women improved dramatically in the first few years after the fall of the Taliban. They were allowed again to leave home unaccompanied, without the burqa, and to go to school and work. However, the struggle for change has faltered, as old attitudes -- fueled by the worsening conflict and resurgent Taliban -- attempt to quash these new freedoms."
"Afghan women have suffered tumultuous changes over the past three decades. Prior to Soviet rule, women -- primarily affluent urbanites -- enjoyed basic rights, access to education and employment. It was a time when fashionable women walked around Kabul in miniskirts. Then came decades of political instability and civil war, followed by the Taliban takeover in 1996. For the next five years, the Taliban beat women on the streets, publicly executed those accused of adultery and denied them a life outside the home. After the Taliban, a number of women's liberties were restored, but since early 2006 a Taliban comeback-accompanied by attacks against women and girls-has renewed fears among women and their families."
"The lives of Afghan women improved dramatically in the first few years after the fall of the Taliban. They were allowed again to leave home unaccompanied, without the burqa, and to go to school and work. However, the struggle for change has faltered, as old attitudes -- fueled by the worsening conflict and resurgent Taliban -- attempt to quash these new freedoms."
"Afghan women have suffered tumultuous changes over the past three decades. Prior to Soviet rule, women -- primarily affluent urbanites -- enjoyed basic rights, access to education and employment. It was a time when fashionable women walked around Kabul in miniskirts. Then came decades of political instability and civil war, followed by the Taliban takeover in 1996. For the next five years, the Taliban beat women on the streets, publicly executed those accused of adultery and denied them a life outside the home. After the Taliban, a number of women's liberties were restored, but since early 2006 a Taliban comeback-accompanied by attacks against women and girls-has renewed fears among women and their families."
40,000 Afghans die every year of hunger and poverty
40,000 Afghans die every year of hunger and poverty (that's 25 times more than those who die of violence), according to the FAO and a UN Security Council report of December 2008. Part of the problem is that Afghanistan has faced a drought which reduced agricultural production; but war and the neglect of agriculture and aid in general by the United States and other countries doesn't help either. The 40,000 people who die every year of hunger and poverty are collateral damage in Afghanistan's violence.
Some of the main points:
-The percentage of the population unable to meet its minimum food requirements has risen by 5 per cent since 2005, to 35 per cent.
-The World Food Programme (WFP) assesses 8.8 million Afghans as being vulnerable to food
shortages.
-The numbers of those who cannot meet their minimum dietary needs in Afghanistan is on the rise, growing from 30 percent to 35 percent between 2005 and 2008. The crisis is expected to worsen over the next few months as the impact of local drought and high global food prices push more Afghans into food insecurity.
-Part of the problem is drought. Last year, the country received less than 24 percent of the rainfall level of 2007, resulting in an 85 percent drop in wheat production. Overall, there occurred a 30 percent drop in cereal harvest over the previous year countrywide. Today, on average, an Afghan family spends 77 percent of its income on food, compared to 56 percent in 2005.
-Despite the urgency, and awareness among international monitors, concern has not translated into relief. A Joint Emergency Food Appeal launched in July 2008 by the Afghan government and the UN, calling for $404 million to "feed Afghanistan’s most vulnerable people who are in desperate need of food aid," was dismally under-funded. Despite repeated appeals, it has only been half-funded.
-According to Oxfam, the health of over a million young children and half a million women is at serious risk due to malnutrition. One out of every two Afghan children under five is stunted and 39 percent are underweight, the humanitarian agency says.
-Though 80 percent of Afghanistan’s population is dependent on agriculture, the sector has been one of the most under-funded, receiving only $500 million out of the $15 billion spent on non-security related reconstruction in this country. The country’s leading donor, the United States, is estimated to have spent less than 5 percent of USAID’s budget for Afghanistan since 2002 on agriculture. In 2007, US spending on agriculture amounted to less than 1 percent of what it spent on security.
In general, this shows again that the US and world powers are not committed to improving quality of life in Afghanistan; their goals are first military. This is shown directly by looking at how they spend their money: every day, total international aid to Afghanistan is $7 million, against $100 million spent on the military by the US alone every day:
Reconstruction assistance is a fraction of military spending. Since 2001 the United States has appropriated $127 billion for the war in Afghanistan and the US military is currently spending nearly $100 million a day in the country, some $36 billion a year. Yet the average volume of international aid provided by all donors since 2001 is woefully inadequate at just $7 million per day.
There is an aid shortfall of $10bn: donors committed to give $25bn aid since 2001 but have only delivered $15bn.
One problem is that an estimated 40% of aid goes back to donor countries in corporate profits and consultant salaries – some 6bn since 2001. (From Matt Waldman, "Falling Short: Aid effectiveness in Afghanistan", ACBAR Advocacy Series, March 2008).
Some of the main points:
-The percentage of the population unable to meet its minimum food requirements has risen by 5 per cent since 2005, to 35 per cent.
-The World Food Programme (WFP) assesses 8.8 million Afghans as being vulnerable to food
shortages.
-The numbers of those who cannot meet their minimum dietary needs in Afghanistan is on the rise, growing from 30 percent to 35 percent between 2005 and 2008. The crisis is expected to worsen over the next few months as the impact of local drought and high global food prices push more Afghans into food insecurity.
-Part of the problem is drought. Last year, the country received less than 24 percent of the rainfall level of 2007, resulting in an 85 percent drop in wheat production. Overall, there occurred a 30 percent drop in cereal harvest over the previous year countrywide. Today, on average, an Afghan family spends 77 percent of its income on food, compared to 56 percent in 2005.
-Despite the urgency, and awareness among international monitors, concern has not translated into relief. A Joint Emergency Food Appeal launched in July 2008 by the Afghan government and the UN, calling for $404 million to "feed Afghanistan’s most vulnerable people who are in desperate need of food aid," was dismally under-funded. Despite repeated appeals, it has only been half-funded.
-According to Oxfam, the health of over a million young children and half a million women is at serious risk due to malnutrition. One out of every two Afghan children under five is stunted and 39 percent are underweight, the humanitarian agency says.
-Though 80 percent of Afghanistan’s population is dependent on agriculture, the sector has been one of the most under-funded, receiving only $500 million out of the $15 billion spent on non-security related reconstruction in this country. The country’s leading donor, the United States, is estimated to have spent less than 5 percent of USAID’s budget for Afghanistan since 2002 on agriculture. In 2007, US spending on agriculture amounted to less than 1 percent of what it spent on security.
In general, this shows again that the US and world powers are not committed to improving quality of life in Afghanistan; their goals are first military. This is shown directly by looking at how they spend their money: every day, total international aid to Afghanistan is $7 million, against $100 million spent on the military by the US alone every day:
Reconstruction assistance is a fraction of military spending. Since 2001 the United States has appropriated $127 billion for the war in Afghanistan and the US military is currently spending nearly $100 million a day in the country, some $36 billion a year. Yet the average volume of international aid provided by all donors since 2001 is woefully inadequate at just $7 million per day.
There is an aid shortfall of $10bn: donors committed to give $25bn aid since 2001 but have only delivered $15bn.
One problem is that an estimated 40% of aid goes back to donor countries in corporate profits and consultant salaries – some 6bn since 2001. (From Matt Waldman, "Falling Short: Aid effectiveness in Afghanistan", ACBAR Advocacy Series, March 2008).
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Israeli elections
Juan Cole has a very good summary of the Israeli elections, with footage from Aljazeera showing reports of Israelis' and Palestinians' perceptions of the stakes.
US-Iran
Muhammad Sahimi has an excellent article on the history of US-Iran relations up to this day. He goes through the main events in this relationship, such as the Iran-Iraq war and current nuclear crisis, showing that the latter is the latest pretext to isolate Iran, punishing it for overthrowing the US-friendly Shah in 1979.
One-state and two-state solutions in Israel/Palestine
Shimon Peres, Israel's president, argues in favor of the two-state solution; contrast with Muammar Qaddafi, Libya's leader, who calls for a one-state solution.
Afghanistan
The just released Afghan opinion poll is covered in WP.
John Kerry has a piece in the Washington Post on Afghanistan strategy. It's important since he's chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
Kerry is arguing for sending more US troops to Afghanistan and says that "Our goal has never been to dominate Afghanistan but... to empower Afghans to govern their country in line with their best interests and our national security."
There's a potential contradiction in there: the US goal is to have Afghans govern in line with their interests and US national security. So what happens if what Afghans want is not the same as what US national security requires? It seems the latter trumps the former: indeed, in the just released poll, only 18% of Afghans want an increase in US troops, a quite small percentage. But Kerry is going against that, calling for 30,000 more troops. Goodbye governing according to Afghans' best interests; US government interests are what counts.
Opposition between US government interests and the wishes of other countries' populations has been a recurring theme in postwar history. Once again, in this specific case, the US is weak politically (if a vote was taken in Afghanistan on the surge, it would never be accepted by Afghans, so the poll tells us)--therefore, to achieve its goals, it needs to bypass democratic methods.
John Kerry has a piece in the Washington Post on Afghanistan strategy. It's important since he's chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
Kerry is arguing for sending more US troops to Afghanistan and says that "Our goal has never been to dominate Afghanistan but... to empower Afghans to govern their country in line with their best interests and our national security."
There's a potential contradiction in there: the US goal is to have Afghans govern in line with their interests and US national security. So what happens if what Afghans want is not the same as what US national security requires? It seems the latter trumps the former: indeed, in the just released poll, only 18% of Afghans want an increase in US troops, a quite small percentage. But Kerry is going against that, calling for 30,000 more troops. Goodbye governing according to Afghans' best interests; US government interests are what counts.
Opposition between US government interests and the wishes of other countries' populations has been a recurring theme in postwar history. Once again, in this specific case, the US is weak politically (if a vote was taken in Afghanistan on the surge, it would never be accepted by Afghans, so the poll tells us)--therefore, to achieve its goals, it needs to bypass democratic methods.
Monday, February 9, 2009
New Afghanistan opinion poll 2009
An important poll surveying Afghans' attitude towards their country's development and foreign forces has been released. This is the fourth such poll carried out since 2005 and jointly commissioned by the BBC, ABC News of America and ARD of Germany. One good thing about this is that it is possible to look at the change of opinion over time since the questions asked are the same or similar from one poll to another. The BBC website has released the results in full and some commentary/analysis.
This snapshot of national opinion took answers from more than 1,500 people. The sample was divided equally between men and women and taken from all of the country's 34 provinces. Continuing violence in Helmand Province in southern Afghanistan limited the sample size there and views there seemed different.
Some of the main points I take from the survey's results:
-Afghans increasingly think their country is going in the wrong direction (38% today as opposed to 6% in 2005). This seems to correlate with a perception of decreasing quality in various aspects of their lives.
-Karzai seems to enjoy less popular support than previously.
-The role of the US in Afghanistan is seen in increasingly negative terms: only 5% see it as "excellent" today, as opposed to 20% in 2005.
-The Taliban are increasingly disliked and are seen, by far, as the biggest danger to Afghanistan.
-About US forces in Afghanistan: 63% strongly support or somewhat support their presence in Afghanistan, although this is decreasing, from 78% in 2006.
-Perhaps the two most important questions regarding foreign forces and their withdrawal are the following:
1) "Do you think the number of U.S. and NATO/ISAF forces in Afghanistan should be increased, decreased or kept at the current level?"
18% said the forces should be increased, 44% decreased, and 29% kept at current level.
This shows that the Obama administration is going against the Afghans' wishes as he is planning for about 30,000 additional US troops in Afghanistan.
2) "When do you think such forces should withdraw from Afghanistan?"
51% said they should leave within 2 years or faster, up from 26% in 2005.
This reflects a clear pattern over the last few years: the Afghan population increasingly thinks foreign forces should leave the country sooner rather than later. It is the first time that more than 50% say so.
Some important implications I see about the question of withdrawal, which has been a disputed issue within progressive circles and the peace movement: the first thing to remember is that what anybody outside Afghanistan thinks is not so relevant--what counts more is what the Afghans think, as they are the ones who have to live with the occupation. Today it seems that a majority among them would like to see the troops leave within 2 years, and only a relatively small number (18%) say their numbers should be increased. However, it seems that there are not yet calls from a majority of the population for the troops to leave immediately. This doesn't necessarily mean that Afghans love the troops, but most probably that they fear that if the troops leave, more violence could result, in particular from fighting among the Taliban and the warlords, many of the latter being currently in power thanks to strong US support since the 2001 invasion (all warlords have been on the CIA payroll at one point or another since 2001, as Ahmed Rashid reports in his recent book, Descent into Chaos). The Taliban and the warlords have a proven record of committing atrocities, since the time of the Soviet occupation in the 1980s and then during factional fighting in the 1990s. That's why Afghans are worried that if foreign troops leave immediately and those groups are left in power, this violence could increase.
I think the best solution is to withdraw troops gradually and as soon as possible, and to combine this with policies such as disarmament of warlords and Taliban, while empowering progressive groups in Afghanistan (many NGOs like RAWA, Malalai Joya, etc.). Huge reparations should also be paid to Afghanistan by the US and Russia for having wrecked the country.
This snapshot of national opinion took answers from more than 1,500 people. The sample was divided equally between men and women and taken from all of the country's 34 provinces. Continuing violence in Helmand Province in southern Afghanistan limited the sample size there and views there seemed different.
Some of the main points I take from the survey's results:
-Afghans increasingly think their country is going in the wrong direction (38% today as opposed to 6% in 2005). This seems to correlate with a perception of decreasing quality in various aspects of their lives.
-Karzai seems to enjoy less popular support than previously.
-The role of the US in Afghanistan is seen in increasingly negative terms: only 5% see it as "excellent" today, as opposed to 20% in 2005.
-The Taliban are increasingly disliked and are seen, by far, as the biggest danger to Afghanistan.
-About US forces in Afghanistan: 63% strongly support or somewhat support their presence in Afghanistan, although this is decreasing, from 78% in 2006.
-Perhaps the two most important questions regarding foreign forces and their withdrawal are the following:
1) "Do you think the number of U.S. and NATO/ISAF forces in Afghanistan should be increased, decreased or kept at the current level?"
18% said the forces should be increased, 44% decreased, and 29% kept at current level.
This shows that the Obama administration is going against the Afghans' wishes as he is planning for about 30,000 additional US troops in Afghanistan.
2) "When do you think such forces should withdraw from Afghanistan?"
51% said they should leave within 2 years or faster, up from 26% in 2005.
This reflects a clear pattern over the last few years: the Afghan population increasingly thinks foreign forces should leave the country sooner rather than later. It is the first time that more than 50% say so.
Some important implications I see about the question of withdrawal, which has been a disputed issue within progressive circles and the peace movement: the first thing to remember is that what anybody outside Afghanistan thinks is not so relevant--what counts more is what the Afghans think, as they are the ones who have to live with the occupation. Today it seems that a majority among them would like to see the troops leave within 2 years, and only a relatively small number (18%) say their numbers should be increased. However, it seems that there are not yet calls from a majority of the population for the troops to leave immediately. This doesn't necessarily mean that Afghans love the troops, but most probably that they fear that if the troops leave, more violence could result, in particular from fighting among the Taliban and the warlords, many of the latter being currently in power thanks to strong US support since the 2001 invasion (all warlords have been on the CIA payroll at one point or another since 2001, as Ahmed Rashid reports in his recent book, Descent into Chaos). The Taliban and the warlords have a proven record of committing atrocities, since the time of the Soviet occupation in the 1980s and then during factional fighting in the 1990s. That's why Afghans are worried that if foreign troops leave immediately and those groups are left in power, this violence could increase.
I think the best solution is to withdraw troops gradually and as soon as possible, and to combine this with policies such as disarmament of warlords and Taliban, while empowering progressive groups in Afghanistan (many NGOs like RAWA, Malalai Joya, etc.). Huge reparations should also be paid to Afghanistan by the US and Russia for having wrecked the country.
Iranian presidential elections, June 2009
Iran plans to hold presidential elections this June 2009. Those elections are important since they will affect US-Iran relations, and may decide whether or not military strikes will be averted. Ahmadinejad, the current president, will run again, but Khatami, a former more liberal president, announced he would also run.
Juan Cole has an excellent discussion of the issues involved and Khatami's and Ahmadinejad's records (See Cole's blog entry for February 9 2009). Among the main points:
-Khatami studied Jurgen Habermas and then applied Frankfurt School critical theory to his analysis of the need for a more open society in Iran (not sure if this is so reassuring).
-Ahmadinejad has given a poor economic performance, especially regarding inflation, which now runs at 24%.
-Ahmadinejad has been more antagonistic toward the US than Khatami, so the latter would be better poised to reduce tensions in that field, which could be an opportunity with Obama. But the US and Western Europe have such a poor record of lies and disinformation regarding this issue, that changing the Iranian president won't solve everything--but it might reduce significantly the likelihood of an Israeli attack.
Hopefully Khatami will win the elections.
Juan Cole has an excellent discussion of the issues involved and Khatami's and Ahmadinejad's records (See Cole's blog entry for February 9 2009). Among the main points:
-Khatami studied Jurgen Habermas and then applied Frankfurt School critical theory to his analysis of the need for a more open society in Iran (not sure if this is so reassuring).
-Ahmadinejad has given a poor economic performance, especially regarding inflation, which now runs at 24%.
-Ahmadinejad has been more antagonistic toward the US than Khatami, so the latter would be better poised to reduce tensions in that field, which could be an opportunity with Obama. But the US and Western Europe have such a poor record of lies and disinformation regarding this issue, that changing the Iranian president won't solve everything--but it might reduce significantly the likelihood of an Israeli attack.
Hopefully Khatami will win the elections.
Iraq's debt
Sami Moubayed summarizes the state of, and stakes with Iraq's debt. He writes that Iraq has so far paid half of the reparations imposed on it in the wake of the first Gulf War to compensate other countries, most notably Kuwait, for the invasion. Iraq has so far paid Kuwait $11 billion. However, Maliki has asked the UN to cancel Iraq's debt:
"This weekend, Maliki forcefully asked United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon to cancel all accumulated penalties forced on Iraq after the invasion of Kuwait in 1990. In 1991, the UN passed resolution 687, forcing Iraq to pay an approximate US$50 billion in compensation to Kuwait and other Arab countries. This money would be deducted in 5% from oil revenue in Iraq. To date, Iraq has paid $25 billion, much to the displeasure of all Iraqis - Sunnis, Shi'ites and Kurds."
"This weekend, Maliki forcefully asked United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon to cancel all accumulated penalties forced on Iraq after the invasion of Kuwait in 1990. In 1991, the UN passed resolution 687, forcing Iraq to pay an approximate US$50 billion in compensation to Kuwait and other Arab countries. This money would be deducted in 5% from oil revenue in Iraq. To date, Iraq has paid $25 billion, much to the displeasure of all Iraqis - Sunnis, Shi'ites and Kurds."
Sunday, February 8, 2009
New call for military spending in Obama's stimulus package
In an article in the Washington Post, Tom Donnelly and Gary Schmitt, both from the American Enterprise Institute, call for inclusion of $20-25 billion in military spending in Obama's stimulus package. They say it would revive the economy and do so quickly. That's mostly true, and has been done by US administrations vigorously since World War II. The main problem is that it builds weapons as opposed to civilian goods and services. But politically, it's easier to enact defense spending than civilian expenditures, since the population can be scared and convinced there is a need for the latest jet fighter or some other weapon system. When the government spends on the civilian/social sectors, then the population gets involved in politics (discussing things like, where and on what should our community spend the money?), and that directly attacks the establishment's prerogatives and privileged position (since for instance, people will call for income redistribution instead of spending on futuristic military projects that have no value in increasing people's quality of life).
It will be important to keep an eye on Obama's spending policies in the next few months. The current stimulus package involves very little military spending, but if another stimulus package is needed, then it could well include much defense spending (like JFK did in the early 1960s).
It will be important to keep an eye on Obama's spending policies in the next few months. The current stimulus package involves very little military spending, but if another stimulus package is needed, then it could well include much defense spending (like JFK did in the early 1960s).
Saturday, February 7, 2009
Biden's aggressive Foreign Policy speech in Munich
Joe Biden gave a foreign policy speech in Munich outlining the Obama administration's thinking on some important issues, notably, a hard line on Iran and the continuing encirclement of Russia.
A few to note:
-NATO expansion will be pursued: Biden said that the US "would continue to press NATO to seek “deeper cooperation” with like-minded countries."
-Missile shield will be pursued: Biden said that "the Obama administration would continue to pursue a planned missile-defense system that has angered the Kremlin"--this is needed to “counter a growing Iranian capability.”
Obama therefore clearly rejected an opportunity to reduce tensions with Russia, which had explicitly stated the day before that it would not deploy its own missiles if the US dropped its missile-shield plans: as the NYT reported, "Mr. Biden’s speech came a day after Deputy Russian Prime Minister Sergey Ivanov told the same group that Moscow would not deploy its own missiles on the Polish border if the United States reviewed its missile defense plan"; indeed, Reuters reported from Munich that "President Medvedev from the very start said very clearly and unequivocally that if there are no interceptors in Poland and the Czech Republic as was planned by the previous administration, clearly, there will be no Iskanders in Kaliningrad".
Further, claims that the missile shield in Poland and the Czech Republic is in reaction to Iran's "growing capability" is ridiculous. First, Iran won't attack Europe. Second, even if that was the case, why not just put the interceptors in Turkey?
-Kyrgyzstan base: Chances of a US-Russia rapprochement were further reduced when the Obama administration saw Russia's hand behind the loss of the US base in Kyrgyzstan--so the US is still pursuing the encirclement of Russia.
A few to note:
-NATO expansion will be pursued: Biden said that the US "would continue to press NATO to seek “deeper cooperation” with like-minded countries."
-Missile shield will be pursued: Biden said that "the Obama administration would continue to pursue a planned missile-defense system that has angered the Kremlin"--this is needed to “counter a growing Iranian capability.”
Obama therefore clearly rejected an opportunity to reduce tensions with Russia, which had explicitly stated the day before that it would not deploy its own missiles if the US dropped its missile-shield plans: as the NYT reported, "Mr. Biden’s speech came a day after Deputy Russian Prime Minister Sergey Ivanov told the same group that Moscow would not deploy its own missiles on the Polish border if the United States reviewed its missile defense plan"; indeed, Reuters reported from Munich that "President Medvedev from the very start said very clearly and unequivocally that if there are no interceptors in Poland and the Czech Republic as was planned by the previous administration, clearly, there will be no Iskanders in Kaliningrad".
Further, claims that the missile shield in Poland and the Czech Republic is in reaction to Iran's "growing capability" is ridiculous. First, Iran won't attack Europe. Second, even if that was the case, why not just put the interceptors in Turkey?
-Kyrgyzstan base: Chances of a US-Russia rapprochement were further reduced when the Obama administration saw Russia's hand behind the loss of the US base in Kyrgyzstan--so the US is still pursuing the encirclement of Russia.
Friday, February 6, 2009
Pentagon propaganda increasing
A good story from an AP investigative report describing how the Pentagon's resources for PR and propaganda have increased. It "found that over the past five years, the money the military spends on winning hearts and minds at home and abroad has grown by 63 percent, to at least $4.7 billion this year, according to Department of Defense budgets and other documents. That's almost as much as it spent on body armor for troops in Iraq and Afghanistan between 2004 and 2006. This year, the Pentagon will employ 27,000 people just for recruitment, advertising and public relations — almost as many as the total 30,000-person work force in the State Department."
The Pentagon has a news service called "Hometown News Service" which distributes stories to newsrooms across the country, but not mentioning to readers the affiliation of the authors (Pentagon staff). For instance, "In 2009, Hometown News plans to put out 5,400 press releases, 3,000 television releases and 1,600 radio interviews, among other work — 50 percent more than in 2007."
Also see this story that gives more information on the Pentagon's increase in its TV programs, internet websites, etc.
The Pentagon has a news service called "Hometown News Service" which distributes stories to newsrooms across the country, but not mentioning to readers the affiliation of the authors (Pentagon staff). For instance, "In 2009, Hometown News plans to put out 5,400 press releases, 3,000 television releases and 1,600 radio interviews, among other work — 50 percent more than in 2007."
Also see this story that gives more information on the Pentagon's increase in its TV programs, internet websites, etc.
Thursday, February 5, 2009
US-Iran
Juan Cole has a good post on US-Iran relationship and what to expect with Obama. He writes that Dennis Ross, who might play an important role with Iran in the new administration, heads WINEP, which has adopted a hard line on Iran:
"Meanwhile, it is rumored that among the main shapers of Obama's Iran policy will be Dennis Ross, the head of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, the think tank of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. During Ross's tenure there, the WINEP website carried a call to bomb Iran; a paper arguing that nothing bad would happen if the US did bomb Iran; and it listed as a WINEP associate Daniel Pipes, who spent most of his waking hours during the past year decrying Barack Obama as a stealth Muslim and an apostate (which was it?) and who has repeatedly said racist things about Muslims. Turning Iran policy over to the Israel lobbies, the major agitators for a US war on Iran, is a very bad idea, and if this goes forward Obama will be signalling that there will not in fact be a new US-Iran relationship."
"Meanwhile, it is rumored that among the main shapers of Obama's Iran policy will be Dennis Ross, the head of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, the think tank of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. During Ross's tenure there, the WINEP website carried a call to bomb Iran; a paper arguing that nothing bad would happen if the US did bomb Iran; and it listed as a WINEP associate Daniel Pipes, who spent most of his waking hours during the past year decrying Barack Obama as a stealth Muslim and an apostate (which was it?) and who has repeatedly said racist things about Muslims. Turning Iran policy over to the Israel lobbies, the major agitators for a US war on Iran, is a very bad idea, and if this goes forward Obama will be signalling that there will not in fact be a new US-Iran relationship."
Hillary Clinton calls on Iran to cooperate
Hillary Clinton says Iran must cooperate with the IAEA and the UN Security Council over its nuclear program.
There are at least two problems with this: 1) Iran is not in breach of its international legal obligations, and 2) the US is in breach and has been for about 4 decades since it still has not eliminated its nuclear weapons, as required by the NPT. The US still holds about 5,000 nuclear warheads. Russia, UK, France and China are also in breach for the same reason.
There are at least two problems with this: 1) Iran is not in breach of its international legal obligations, and 2) the US is in breach and has been for about 4 decades since it still has not eliminated its nuclear weapons, as required by the NPT. The US still holds about 5,000 nuclear warheads. Russia, UK, France and China are also in breach for the same reason.
More on Obama's defense budget increase
Jim Lobe points to more (neo)conservative commentators calling for more military spending on Obama's part. Some of them are again saying Obama will decrease military spending, contrary to the fact that he's going to increase it.
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Iraqi Elections
See Patrick Cockburn's analysis of the Iraqi provincial elections. He says, as others have based on preliminary reports, that secular and nationalist parties should be the winners in this election. In particular, Prime Minister Maliki's Dawa party is expected to make big gains, strengthening his rule. On the other hand, ISCI is expected to have lost a good part of its power.
Cockburn writes that many Iraqis blame the religious parties for fostering the civil war that raged in Iraq in 2005-07.
Iyad Allawi, the US pick who had not done so well in 2005, is said to have fared much better this time (he's a nationalist).
Cockburn writes that many Iraqis blame the religious parties for fostering the civil war that raged in Iraq in 2005-07.
Iyad Allawi, the US pick who had not done so well in 2005, is said to have fared much better this time (he's a nationalist).
Obama plans to increase defense spending
Glenn Greenwald's excellent article shows that Obama is planning to increase defense spending, to $527 billion for FY 2010 (excluding Iraq and Afghanistan). This is equal to what the Bush administration had planned for FY 2010, and is an increase of $14 billion over FY 2009 ($513 billion).
But conservative commentator Robert Kagan is labeling the increase as a 10% decrease as he writes:
"Pentagon officials have leaked word that the Office of Management and Budget has ordered a 10 percent cut in defense spending for the coming fiscal year, giving Defense Secretary Robert Gates a substantially smaller budget than he requested."
How does he reach that misleading number? Simply by comparing the Obama budget to what the Joint Chiefs of Staff had requested earlier:
"Some Pentagon officials and congressional conservatives are already trying to portray the OMB number as a cut by comparing it to a $584 billion draft fiscal 2010 budget request compiled last fall by the Joint Chiefs of Staff."
So the point is that by using the highest requests that were made as a benchmark, whatever Obama plans to spend appears as a decrease, even though it's an increase.
But conservative commentator Robert Kagan is labeling the increase as a 10% decrease as he writes:
"Pentagon officials have leaked word that the Office of Management and Budget has ordered a 10 percent cut in defense spending for the coming fiscal year, giving Defense Secretary Robert Gates a substantially smaller budget than he requested."
How does he reach that misleading number? Simply by comparing the Obama budget to what the Joint Chiefs of Staff had requested earlier:
"Some Pentagon officials and congressional conservatives are already trying to portray the OMB number as a cut by comparing it to a $584 billion draft fiscal 2010 budget request compiled last fall by the Joint Chiefs of Staff."
So the point is that by using the highest requests that were made as a benchmark, whatever Obama plans to spend appears as a decrease, even though it's an increase.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)