Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
Demonstrate that (in summary!).

Why are they doing that? What do they hope to gain? For who?

by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Fri Feb 17th, 2006 at 06:33:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Good thing we have a weekend coming up.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Feb 17th, 2006 at 06:33:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Let's start with the policy the intelligence and facts are being fixed around.
Project for a New American Century: Rebuilding America's Defenses (PDF, September 2000)

I'll digest it this weekend as it relates to Iran. But meanwhile there's this summary (my emphasis).
Information Clearinghouse: "Rebuilding America's Defenses" - A Summary (05/06/03)

Individuals who now belong to PNAC have been influencing White House policy since the Reagan era, calling for coups in Central America and claiming that a nuclear war with Russia could be "winnable." Richard Perle is one of their most prominent spokesmen. He and Michael Ledeen (of the American Enterprise Institute), who is currently lobbying for war with Syria and Iran, have adopted a stance that they call "total war" -- the ability to wage multiple simultaneous wars around the globe to achieve American ends. Recently Perle commented on America's war on terrorism: "No stages," he said, "This is total war. We are fighting a variety of enemies. There are lots of them out there. All this talk about first we are going to do Afghanistan, then we will do Iraq . . . this is entirely the wrong way to go about it. If we just let our vision of the world go forth, and we embrace it entirely and we don't try to piece together clever diplomacy, but just wage a total war . . . our children will sing great songs about us years from now."

Members of PNAC are so self-assured they are advancing America's best interests that they publish policy papers specifically outlining their plans, plans that many fear may be laying the groundwork for a third world war. Their ideas are peculiarly atavistic, considering the friendly ties that have been forged between most of the major nations during the past ten years.

Their central policy document is entitled "Rebuilding America's Defenses (RAD)," published on their website at http://newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf. It outlines a plan for American hegemony in the coming years, pinpointing "problem areas" of the world and suggesting regime change of unfavorable governments so that eventually the whole world will be unified under the banner of American democracy.

Already we are seeing evidence of PNAC influence on U.S. policy. For instance, the concept of "Homeland Defense" comes straight from "RAD." Iran, Iraq and North Korea, nations that George Bush calls the "Axis of Evil", are listed together in "RAD" several times as possible military threats to the U.S. There is a suggestion that military spending be increased to 3.8 percent of the GDP, exactly the amount (over and above present expenses for the Iraqi campaign) Bush has proposed for next year's budget. Its basic statement of policy bespeaks and advocates the very essence of the idea of preemptive engagement.

Bush's National Security Strategy of September 20, 2002, adopted PNAC ideas and emphasized a broadened definition of preemption. Since we are already hearing accusations against regimes in Iran and Syria, will they be slated next for invasion?

"RAD" takes the posture that only the U.S. should manipulate international relations and points out "trouble spots" that may cause future problems, like Iraq, Iran, Korea and all of East Asia. There is concern that several nations might come together to challenge U.S. interests. Consequently any nation that produces nuclear weapons or engages in significant arms build-up will be viewed as a potential threat. (p.5)
"After eight years of no-fly-zone operations, there is little reason to anticipate that the U.S. air presence in the region should diminish significantly as long as Saddam Hussein remains in power. Although Saudi domestic sensibilities demand that the forces based in the Kingdom nominally remain rotational forces, it has become apparent that this is now a semi-permanent mission. From an American perspective, the value of such bases would endure even should Saddam pass from the scene. Over the long term, Iran may well prove as large a threat to U.S. interests in the Gulf as Iraq has. And even should U.S.-Iranian relations improve, retaining forward-based forces in the region would still be an essential element in U.S. security strategy given the longstanding American interests in the region" (p. 17).
"It is now commonly understood that information and other new technologies - as well as widespread technological and weapons proliferation - are creating a dynamic that may threaten America's ability to exercise its dominant military power. Potential rivals such as China are anxious to exploit these transformational technologies broadly, while adversaries like Iran, Iraq and North Korea are rushing to develop ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons as a deterrent to American intervention in regions they seek to dominate" (p. 4).

"The current American peace will be short-lived if the United States becomes vulnerable to rogue powers with small, inexpensive arsenals of ballistic missiles and nuclear warheads or other weapons of mass destruction. We cannot allow North Korea, Iran, Iraq or similar states to undermine American leadership, intimidate American allies or threaten the American homeland itself. The blessings of the American peace, purchased at fearful cost and a century of effort, should not be so trivially squandered" (p. 75).

"...of all the elements of U.S. military force posture, perhaps none is more in need of reevaluation than America's nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons remain a critical component of American military power but it is unclear whether the current U.S. nuclear arsenal is well-suited to the emerging post-Cold War world. Today's strategic calculus encompasses more factors than just the balance of terror between the United States and Russia. U.S. nuclear force planning and related arms control policies must take account of a larger set of variables than in the past, including the growing number of small nuclear arsenals - from North Korea to Pakistan to, perhaps soon, Iran and Iraq - and a modernized and expanded Chinese nuclear force. Moreover, there is a question about the role nuclear weapons should play in deterring the use of other kinds of weapons of mass destruction, such as chemical and biological, with the U.S. having foresworn those weapons' development and use. It addition, there may be a need to develop a new family of nuclear weapons designed to address new sets of military requirements, such as would be required in targeting the very deep under-ground, hardened bunkers that are being built by many of our potential adversaries" (p. 8).


A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Feb 17th, 2006 at 06:56:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]
"Iran has nukes" is barely even a issue in the bigger picture.

The bigger picture is that Iran has oil. The nuclear talking point seems to be just that - a talking point.

Yes people, it's WMDs all over again.

As for Migeru's looting point - that's pretty much how I see it. They want to make sure they're top of the heap as everything unravels. This also explains Blair's fascination with 'terrorists' and attempts to set up universal monitoring of location, movement, communications and ID in the UK. It's not the terrorists they're worried about. It's what the rest of us are going to do when we (collectively) work out what's been going on.

Unfortunately with proper government, a soft landing could easily be possible and the current looming train wreck could at least have been mitigated - perhaps even avoided.

For all anyone knows they're all members of a Satanic Cult that thrives off death, fear, lies and torture. Of course that's paranoid, but if you look at the facts and try to find evidence that this isn't a reliable MO - just a small counterexample demonstrating truth, integrity, emapthy or honesty would do - it really is depressingly hard to do that.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Fri Feb 17th, 2006 at 09:21:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

As for Migeru's looting point - that's pretty much how I see it. They want to make sure they're top of the heap as everything unravels. This also explains Blair's fascination with 'terrorists' and attempts to set up universal monitoring of location, movement, communications and ID in the UK. It's not the terrorists they're worried about. It's what the rest of us are going to do when we (collectively) work out what's been going on.

Unfortunately with proper government, a soft landing could easily be possible and the current looming train wreck could at least have been mitigated - perhaps even avoided.

bingo!

'The history of public debt is full of irony. It rarely follows our ideas of order and justice.' Thomas Piketty

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Sat Feb 18th, 2006 at 05:17:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Then, how are they fixing the intelligence and facts? By second-guessing, undermining and politicizing the CIA Directorate of Intelligence (i.e., the analysts, as opposed to the Directorate of Operations).

We know about the office of special plans, we know about Plamegate, we know Cheney was going to the CIA to prod analysts with leading questions instead of letting them come to him with independent reports. We know Porter Goss, who once as a member of the House Intelligence Committe said he would not be competent enough to head the CIA, was appointed CIA director to purge it of analysis not politically loyal to Bush... I recommend reading articles by Ray McGovern on behalf of "Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity". For instance, this last one from Tuesday.

Counterpunch: Who Will Blow the Whistle About Iran? (February 14, 2006)

The question looms large against the backdrop of the hearing on whistle blowing scheduled for the afternoon of Feb. 14 by Christopher Shays, chair of the House Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats and International Relations. Among those testifying are Russell Tice, one of the sources who exposed illegal eavesdropping by the National Security Agency, and Army Sgt. Sam Provance, who told his superiors of the torture he witnessed at Abu Graib, got no satisfaction, and felt it his duty to go public. It will not be your usual hearing.
Next Challenge: Iran

Anyone who has been near a TV in recent weeks has heard the drumbeat for war on Iran. The best guess for timing is next month.

Let's see if we cannot do better this time than we did on Iraq. Patriotic truth tellers, we need you! In an interview last year with US News and World Report, Republican Senator Chuck Hagel said that on Iraq, "The White House is completely disconnected from reality...It's like they're just making it up as they go along."

Ditto for an adventure against Iran. But the juggernaut has begun to roll; the White House/FOX News/Washington Times spin machine is at full tilt. This is where whistleblowers come in. Some of you will have the equivalent of the Gen. Abrams cable, shedding light on what the Bush administration is up to beneath the spin. Those of you clued into Israeli plans and US intelligence support for them, might clue us in too. Don't bother this time with the once-independent congressional oversight committees; you will have no protection, in any case, if you choose that route--CIA Director Porter Goss' recent claims to the contrary notwithstanding. Nor should you bother with the once-independent New York Times. Find some other way; just be sure you get the truth out--information that will provide the oxygen for democracy.



A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Feb 17th, 2006 at 07:43:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I've read some alarming things on BoomanTrib in the last day or so. People are claiming that "terrorist experts now consider" that the USS Cole and some African embassy operations were not Al-Qaeda acts, but financed from Tehran. This sudden reversal of attitude makes me suspicious, both in the content and timing.
by Metatone (metatone [a|t] gmail (dot) com) on Fri Feb 17th, 2006 at 09:24:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Where'd you see that?
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Fri Feb 17th, 2006 at 11:16:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]
An example here. The point is not that any of this is real or backed up (although you'll see I asked for clarification in this case) but that susanhu is no right wing shill AFAIK and thus this kind of thing indicates the pebbles before the misinformation avalanche.

These rumours were around linking al-Qaeda to Iraq before the tame analysts jumped in to lie their way into PNAC's good books by constructing "think tank reports and evidence" for the big propaganda machine...

by Metatone (metatone [a|t] gmail (dot) com) on Fri Feb 17th, 2006 at 11:28:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]
the tame analysts
We wish they were tame. They are the same rabid analysts.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Feb 17th, 2006 at 11:30:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Finally, we know they've done it before. If I had come out in 2002 and claimed that the intelligence and facts on Iraq were being fixed around the policy I could have been accused of paranoia. Not any more.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Feb 17th, 2006 at 07:48:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]
When in 2002? I think from August on, that was pretty much the received wisdom in circles I moved in.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Fri Feb 17th, 2006 at 08:00:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]
But, I hasten to add, this view solidified greatly only towards and during the showdown at the UN in early 2003, when I watched US/UK claims serially debunked in days or hours. In fact, up until early March, I believed that Iraq could have some ABC weapons - altough not ones kept since 1991 but ones made after 1998.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Fri Feb 17th, 2006 at 08:03:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Well, yes, but we had no way to prove it. You were paranoid, too.

Remember what a White HOuse official said in September 2002 to justify suddenly talking about invading Iraq? From a marketing point of view, you don't introduce new products in the Summer. It was then that I suspected it was all bullshit, but I didn't know until I listened to the UN Security Council session where the "evidence" was presented in early 2003.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Feb 17th, 2006 at 08:12:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Well, yes, but we had no way to prove it. You were paranoid, too.

Cheney1s pre-emptive dismissal of UN/IAEA inspectors and war call (which provoked Schröder's rebellion). "Saddam threw out the inspectors in 1998".

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Fri Feb 17th, 2006 at 05:55:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The CIA infiltrated the inspectors, and then the US forced the UN to recall them in order to get them out of the way of bombing raids. All this was reported by the US press back in 1998, but by 1992 everyone had forgotten who did who, and the newspapers didn't bother being consistent with what they published back then.

You would think propaganda and rewriting history would be a little harder.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Feb 18th, 2006 at 06:17:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The only question I can't even give an answer for is for whom. I have no idea who the puppet master is.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Feb 17th, 2006 at 07:49:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Who benefits?
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Fri Feb 17th, 2006 at 07:55:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]
No f-ing clue.

They are looting the US treasury, have the US economy on the brink of depression, the US military on its knees, the UN reduced to "irrelevance", and are doing all they can to turn the middle east into the flare to start WWIII (except that they call it WWIV).

I suspect some very powerful people know the current world order is unravelling (peak oil, global climate change, end of US economic hegemony) and they are looting what thay can in preparation for what will come next. In the process of looting, they may be instrumental in bringing about a crisis faster, but what do they care? They have Blackwater to defend them.

When the system does unravel, they are laying the groundwork to use the apparatus of the state to defend themselves from the angry mob.
Stan Goff: The Global Battlefield: We Are Standing Oon It (8/10/05)

The Evolution of the Bush-Rumsfeld War Doctrine - Roadmap to Martial Law

It's also what allows some of the most mediocre political and military intellects in the last century (and that is a highly competitive claim) to create one of the most dangerous and decisive historical conjunctures we may ever witness... and hopefully survive.

It appeared in the most arcane of headlines, this desperate new phase in the empire that had been gestating in the tense womb of the Pentagon-White House nexus.

"US military rethinking the two-war strategy"

It wasn't actually the military as a whole reconsidering anything, we find upon reading the article. This is a leak from high-level Pentagon insiders to the press, and more than one insider. There is an artful rebellion taking place among generals.

The first line of the article reads: "The U.S. military, under stress from fighting in Iraq and protecting America from terrorism, is debating whether it can remain ready to fight two big wars at once, according to defense officials." Further along, we find out that the "civilian and military officials, who asked not to be identified, confirmed a report in Tuesday's New York Times that top Defense Department planners were challenging longstanding strategy that requires the armed forces to be prepared to fight two major wars at once."

Officials, plural. If the leak were a felony, like the Plame case, this would add conspiracy to the charge.

So what is going on, and why did this leak come at the same time that the Department of Defense published its strange and alarming "Strategy for Homeland Defense and Civil Support"? To answer that rhetorical question, I will have to go to the strategy document itself, hot off the presses.

Department of Defense, Washington, D.C., June 2005 - Strategy for Homeland Defense and Civil Support. From the Executive Summary:

"We now confront an enemy who will attempt to engage us not only far from US shores, but also at home. Terrorists will seek to employ asymmetric means to penetrate our defenses and exploit the openness of our society to their advantage. By attacking our citizens, our economic institutions, our physical infrastructure, and our social fabric, they seek to destroy American democracy. We dare not underestimate the devastation that terrorists seek to bring to Americans at home.

"To defeat 21st Century threats, we must think and act innovatively. Our adversaries consider US territory an integral part of a global theater of combat. We must therefore have a strategy that applies to the domestic context the key principles that are driving the transformation of US power projection and joint expeditionary warfare."

The declaration of martial law after Katrina was a rehearsal. I suppose the DKosopedia would be the place to go for that.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Feb 17th, 2006 at 08:07:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Blackwater was in New Orleans.

I smell the stink of praetorians on this hired killers.

And I'll give my consent to any government that does not deny a man a living wage-Billy Bragg

by ManfromMiddletown (manfrommiddletown at lycos dot com) on Fri Feb 17th, 2006 at 09:07:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Did you think I didn't notice?

Another detail: first they hijack the National Guard for duty in Iraq, for which they are neither trained nor equipped. Then they claim the NG is ill equipped and undermanned to take care of disaster management in NOLA, and that "maybe the federal government and the military should take over disaster relief in the future".

Remember, in a hypothetical scenario in which states rebel against the federal government, on whose side is the loyalty of the National Guard (mostly Police and Firefighters looking for an extra buck)?

But now they have planted it in everyone's psyche that the NG is incompetent and that the Army (and Blackwater) should be in charge of disaster relief.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman

by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Feb 17th, 2006 at 09:26:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Indeed, in general, the idea left to hang in the air post-Katrina is that federal government services are a total wash-out and only the military can be trusted. Which corresponds to the small-government view that security and enforcement capacities, at home and abroad, are the essential preoccupation of government.
by afew (afew(a in a circle)eurotrib_dot_com) on Fri Feb 17th, 2006 at 11:00:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series