Venezuelan reforms

Below is an article from venezuelanalysis.com, reprinted from here.

So much of the American media is consumed with hatred of Chavez. Oddly, they support the programme and actions of an American president who governs with less than 30% approval. Chavez governs with 60-70% approval. The recent uproar about the changes to the Venezuelan Constitution seem to gloss over one thing: these changes must be voted on by the citizens of Venezuela. It is strange that Republicans who seek to add Constitutional Amendments against abortion or flag desecration to our Constitution find the prospect of another nation amending their Constitution so frightening and dangerous. Of course, it's even stranger that Republicans feel free to allow the President to ignore so much of the Constitution, but that's another matter.

The media in Venezuela has been in the hands of the opposition for as long as Chavez has been in office. Of course, before Chavez took office, these people were not known as the "opposition", but they still reflected the will of Washington. Despite being labeled as a 'dictator", Chavez has put up with a continuous shrill and obviously treasonous media that no true dictator would have tolerated, even those that Bush loves. Would Bush allow the broadcast networks to call for his assassination, as the Venezuelan networks have? Would he allow our national networks to call for a foreign country to invade us, overthrow the elected government, and install a dictatorship that favoured a foreign government? Not bloody likely. Here in the U.S, the Republicans and their media outlet, Fox News, have accused those who merely criticise the President out loud as guilty of treason and acting as if they "hate America". Others, such as Ann Coulter, have gone so far as to dismiss the entire Democratic Party as traitors, and reminded us that treason is a capital offence.

So, when the Bush Administration sponsored the brief overthrow of Chavez in 2002, did their puppet move to establish democracy? No. Hell, no. The new, pro-U.S. usurpers announced the Carmona Decree, which dissolved the National Assembly and Supreme Court, created an unelected "advisory council" to act as Cabinet, replaced the National Electoral Council with their cronies, and allowed the new president to replace all state, local and national office-holders with their own unelected stooges. 400 politicians signed the Decree, most of whom now claim they were 'tricked". They cast aside their own Constitution. The Bush Administration quickly recognised the new government, but was forced to denounce it as they were just as quickly put down without a shot being fired.

Prior to Chavez, elections in Venezuela were "managed" by the Punto Fijo accords, which let the two main parties alternate in power while locking out all others. This is "democracy"?

In election after election, the pro-U.S. "opposition" was defeated by wide margins. Somehow this is proof that Chavez was an unpopular dictator. The media is in the hands of the wealthy elite, which is the "opposition". Before Chavez, this elite was educated in the U.S. at taxpayer expense, and upon their return were moved into cushy, highly-paid positions in the petroleum industry or government by the equivalent of the Old Boy Network. Refusing to accept defeat, they staged a strike within the oil industry demanding that Chavez step down. Can you imagine what would happen here in the U.S. if a union demanded that Bush step down in order to end a strike? The strikers were replaced, and these elites lost their cushy jobs when the strike failed, which is further "proof" that Chavez is a dictator somehow. They gambled and lost but, much like Bush, they were unprepared to accept such a situation. So they called on the Decider to overthrow Chavez and restore their positions. Since the oil still flowed, Bush declined.

Chavez is often a crude loudmouth, and is a soldier rather than a politician or diplomat. But he is not a dictator. Fifty years of following the the U.S. script had done nothing for the Venezuelan people, so it is fair to say that we blew our chance. Chavez has instituted free education and a strong co-op movement. This "dictator" is lowering the voting age to 16. Chavez can be voted out of office, but the has no term limits under the proposed reforms. That is not a "President for life" scenario.

Will it be difficult for the opposition, signatories to the Carmona Decree, to turn back the clock and force the vast majority of the population to go back to bleak poverty and a life without civil rights? Yes. Simply because a political party espouses an unpopular agenda and fails to get elected is not proof of "dictatorship". I know and understand the the American media and Bush Administration in particular thinks that democracy automatically yields pro-American administrations, but this has been proven wrong.

Venezuela: Still A Democracy

November 22nd 2007, by Mark Weisbrot - New Statesman

On 2 December Venezuelans will vote on a number of amendments to their constitution. Generally speaking the proposals have been portrayed in the media as the next step on the road to dictatorship.
That's because the mainstream media generally abandons quaint notions of balance and objectivity when reporting on Venezuela. Curiously, this often extends to left-of-centre newspapers not known to slavishly follow the Bush administration's lead when reporting on other oil states where regime change is either sought, Iran, or in process, Iraq.
The biggest fuss this time seems to be the amendment that would abolish term limits for the presidency.
Perhaps it is because I am from Chicago, and had only one mayor from the time I was born until I graduated college, that I am unable to see this as the making of a dictatorship.
Not to mention that if Hillary Clinton is elected next year, we will have Bushes and Clintons as heads of state for a full consecutive 24 years, and possibly 28.
President Lula da Silva of Brazil defended Venezuela last week, asking why "people did not complain when Margaret Thatcher spent so many years in power". He added: "You can invent anything you want to criticise Chavez, but not for lack of democracy." Lula has repeatedly defended Venezuela's government as democratic, but these comments are never reported in the English language media.
Chavez is also castigated for proposing to get rid of the independence of the Central Bank, which is inscribed in the 1999 constitution. This is portrayed as just another "power grab." However, there are sound economic reasons for this amendment.
Central Banks that are not accountable to their elected governments are not altogether "independent" but tend to represent the interests of the financial sector. In the trade-off between growth and employment versus inflation, the financial sector will always opt for lower inflation, even if it means stagnation and unemployment.
The increasing independence of central banks, and the resultant overly-tight monetary policy is very likely one of the main reasons for the unprecedented long-term growth failure in Latin America over the last quarter-century.
There is also an amendment that would provide Social Security pensions to workers in the informal sector, which would be a major anti-poverty measure, given that this includes about 41 percent of the labour force.
Another would reduce the working week to 36 hours. This is being reported in the media as a 6-hour day, but more likely it will be interpreted as four eight-hour days plus four hours on Friday.
There are also amendments that would ban discrimination based on sexual orientation or physical health; provide for gender parity for political parties; guarantee free university education; make it more difficult for homeowners to lose their homes during bankruptcy. It is hard to argue that these are punishing or repressive measures.
Another amendment would reverse the 1999 constitutional provision protecting intellectual property. This would not abolish patents or copyrights but would allow more flexibility for the government in addressing the enormous economic inefficiencies caused by state-protected monopolies, e.g. in areas such as patented pharmaceutical drugs. This is difficult to argue against on economic grounds.
There are other amendments that are more controversial, most of them added not by Chavez but by the National Assembly (Chavez cannot veto amendments added by the Assembly; these have to go to the voters).
For example, one amendment would allow the government to suspend the "right to information" (but not due process, as reported in the international media) during a state of national emergency. Another would allow the President and the National Assembly to create new federal districts and provinces.
Some of these provisions have drawn opposition even among Chavez's supporters. If they are approved, it will likely be because the majority of voters trust Chavez and the government not to abuse their powers.
And there is some basis for this trust: the National Assembly earlier this year gave Chavez the power, for 18 months, to enact certain legislation by executive order. The pundits screamed about Chavez "ruling by decree," but in fact this power has not been used much at all, except in dealings with foreign corporations.
In any case, the voters will decide, with a far stronger opposition media than exists in the United States proselytising against the government. Venezuelans have not lost civil liberties the way people in the U.S. (or even the UK) have in recent years, and ordinary citizens continue to have more say in their government, and share more in its oil wealth, than ever before. It is doubtful that the referendum will reverse these changes, regardless of the outcome.
Mark Weisbrot is co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, D.C. He received his Ph.D. in economics from the University of Michigan and has written numerous research papers on economic policy.

Source:

New Statesman

Taliban now controls half of Afghanistan

Is this why Bush is so optimistic about Afghanistan? Or is it because unfounded optimism is his trademark strategy in dealing with all problems?

Six years after the invasion of Afghanistan, reconstruction money has largely gone into profits for contractors that use mysterious accounting practises like their counterparts in Iraq. Six years after the invasion, the puppet government of Karzai is irrelevant, impotent, and wholly dependent on foreign troops to stay in power. Six years after the invasion, the federal tribal areas in Pakistan are now a de-facto mini-state beyond the control of the Pakistani government. Six years of fighting has brought the British military to a crisis. Now half of Afghanistan is controlled by the Taliban, and Bush is still talking about girls being able to go to school. It's a "dog's dinner", indeed.

story from Spiegel

Over Half of Afghanistan under Taliban Control

Six years ago coalition forces headed into Afghanistan to eradicate the Taliban. Now an international think tank says more than half of the country is under the Taliban's thumb. Meanwhile, an Oxfam report sharply criticized US-led development efforts in the region.

In war-torn Afghanistan, the Taliban is gaining ground again as it continues its insurgency. A report released Wednesday by the Senlis Council, an international security and development policy think tank, concludes that more than half the entire country is now under Taliban control.
"The Taliban's ability to establish a presence throughout the country is now proven beyond doubt," the report says, adding that "54 percent of Afghanistan's landmass hosts a permanent Taliban presence, primarily in southern Afghanistan, and is subject to frequent hostile activity by the insurgency."
The report, entitled "Stumbling into Chaos: Afghanistan on the Brink," is not merely a litany of depressing statistics. It also offers ideas to halt the spread of Taliban influence including a troop "surge." NATO forces, for example, should be doubled from 40,000 to 80,000 "as soon as logistically possible." It also recommends that all present caveats constraining troop deployment be removed and that Muslim countries should supply an additional 9,000 troops to supplement Western forces. And military efforts against the Taliban should extend their reach into Pakistan, with that country's permission.
More than 6,000 people have been killed in insurgency-related violence in 2007 as NATO forces continue to battle against the Taliban, particularly in the volatile south. On Thursday Secretary General Japp de Hoop Scheffer, in Kabul for talks with the Afghan government, admitted that the alliance needed to provide more troops for Afghanistan and more trainers for Afghan forces.
Some members of NATO's coalition forces disagree with the assessment set forth by the Senlis Council. Canada's Defense Minister Peter Mackay told reporters on Wednesday that the report was simply "not credible."

The report was released on the same day as an Oxfam assessment critical of the spending efforts inside Afghanistan by Western powers. "As in Iraq," the report claims, "too much aid is absorbed by profits of companies and subcontractors, on non-Afghan resources and on high expatriate salaries and living costs."
Both reports are grim. Oxfam notes that "the absence of community participation, or association with the military, has led to projects which are unsuitable, unused or targeted by militants." And the Senlis report concludes that "it is a sad indictment of the current state of Afghanistan that the question now appears to be not if the Taliban will return to Kabul, but when this will happen and in what form."
Meanwhile on Thursday Afghan President Hamid Karzai said that Taliban leaders were increasingly contacting him to try to find ways of making peace. "We are willing to talk," he told reporters in Kabul. "Those of the Taliban who are not part of al-Qaida or the terrorist networks, who do not want to be violent against the Afghan people ... are welcome."
rjm/ap/reuters

British Army facing "manpower crisis"

A few days ago we saw a report saying that the British military was running out money. Now we see they are running out of troops, as well. The U.S. military, already forced to use stop-loss and lower its recruiting standards, is depending more and more on the allies to pick up the slack.

Meanwhile, Bush's ally in Australia, Howard, may not survive the next election. Australia may very well join the list of nations that have abandoned the Decider's quest for endless war.

Could it be that that the world, along with the U.S. public, has turned its back on Bush's vision of a decades-long conflict known as the Long War? Or has it merely found it impossible to sustain?

Army crisis as number of troops leaving soars

By Thomas Harding, Defence Correspondent

Last Updated: 2:37am GMT 23/11/2007

The Army is facing a major shortfall in manpower after the latest figures released today showed that the number of troops leaving had increased by 50 per cent in the last year.

The difficulty in finding troops for the frontline has become evident after the Ministry of Defence admitted it was short of 4,500 soldiers - the equivalent of almost an entire brigade.

With most of the Army on continuous operations for the last four years in Iraq and Afghanistan the strain on soldiers and their families has been immense.

In the last two years the manning shortage of soldiers excluding officers has more than quadrupled from 1,000 to the most recent figure making the Army short of nine battalions in manpower.

The MoD's requirement for soldiers is 88,450 but yesterday the figure stood at 83,860 which includes almost 7,000 men recruited from Commonwealth countries.

More worryingly the number of people resigning from the Army has increased by 10 per cent in the last year to 12,500.

The figures come after former head of the Army Gen Sir Mike Jackson warned that the Armed Forces are facing a cash "crisis" raising doubts over whether the military will be able to pay for future operations.

Bernard Jenkin, a Tory member of the Commons Defence Committee, said the latest figures were "absolutely appalling".

"The problem of retaining soldiers in the Army is not just about very modest pay and conditions this is about the strain of operations and the stress on family life caused by long periods of separation.

"There comes a point where people feel forced to choose and the family inevitably comes first – after all, what we are fighting for is for our families and children."

Derek Twigg, the defence minister, said the MoD was "addressing manning challenges" by adjusting policies and "using long-term strategies" to recruit and retain people.

There was positive news that, perhaps attracted by media reports of fighting on the front in Afghanistan, there has been a 25-per-cent increase in young men signing up for the infantry in the last year.

But overall the Armed Forces are now lacking almost 7,000 personnel out of a total required force of 181,000.

The MoD said it hoped to improve the manning figures under its Service Personnel Plan which will take into account the demands of family life.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Liberal Democrats' acting leader Vincent Cable said criticism had been "personalised" against Gordon Brown because, as chancellor: "He signed the cheque for 5bn for the war in Iraq at a time when the armed forces were already overstretched.

"That is why the troops are under-equipped, they are not properly housed, they are not cared for when they are injured - and they are very angry."

Organisations like the Royal British Legion say the armed forces are over-stretched and under-funded, and say that while 4.4% of GDP was spent on defence in the early 1980s, today it is about 2.3%.

The BBC's defence correspondent Caroline Wyatt said the real question, was whether the armed forces were being asked to do too much on the available resources.

Long-term defence planning failed to predict that Britain would be fighting two medium-sized campaigns on two fronts simultaneously, and facing lengthy ongoing commitments as a result.

The last full review, which tried to match the armed forces to the threats they expected to counter, was carried out in 1998.

"The overstretch in the budget has led to calls from some for a new strategic defence review, which would outline exactly what military role and aims Britain wants to pursue - and how much it's prepared to pay for that," she said.

China turns away U.S. naval flotilla

I don't want to read too much into this, but there's not much Bush can do about it. 4 ships and a sub get turned away from a Chinese-controlled port. Bureaucratic mix-up or political message?

China has a rapidly-growing naval force with a growing number of submarines, a few of them nuclear and modern. Many of their naval weapons systems are domestically developed, and they have modern shipyards capable of producing dozens of ships of various classes each year.

U.S. warships refused entry to Hong Kong

CASSIE BIGGS

Associated Press

November 21, 2007 at 11:59 PM EST

HONG KONG — A flotilla of U.S. warships carrying as many as 8,000 American sailors heading for a four-day Thanksgiving holiday visit to China's port of Hong Kong has been refused entry, the U.S. Navy said Thursday.
It was not immediately clear why the USS Kitty Hawk aircraft carrier and its support vessels were barred Wednesday. Port officials said they had not been notified of the previously scheduled visit. But the incident added an unusual twist to China-U.S. relations, strained in recent months by disputes over trade and Iran's nuclear program.
In the past, China has banned all U.S. ships from the former British colony during times of tense relations. But current relations are not too bad, said David Zweig, a professor of China relations at the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology said.
“This is a surprise,” Mr. Zweig said. “I haven't heard of ships being turned away like this before. I'm also disappointed and saddened for the families who have flown here expecting to see their relatives and are not now going to have their reunions.”
The Kitty Hawk and five support vessels including a nuclear fast attack submarine were expected to dock in Hong Kong's deep water port Wednesday morning.
But the group was refused entry, Lt. Cmdr. Amy Derrick-Frost told The Associated Press by telephone from the U.S. Navy's Pacific Command headquarters in Hawaii.
“There is no information as to why they were not allowed to pull into the port for the scheduled visit,” she said.
The group of vessels were on their way to home ports, she said.
Hong Kong has long been a favoured port of call for the U.S. military but Beijing's approval has been required since July 1, 1997, when Britain handed this former colony back to China.
Hong Kong's Marine Department, which handles logistic arrangements for ships docking in Hong Kong's deep-water port, said Thursday it had not received the documentation it normally would receive from other agencies clearing the arrival of foreign military ships.
The Hong Kong office of China's Ministry of Foreign Affairs said it would look into what happened.
China banned U.S. ships entering Hong Kong waters in 1999 when NATO planes bombed the Chinese embassy in Belgrade during the Kosovo crisis and refused port calls for several months after a U.S. spy plane collided with a Chinese fighter jet in April, 2001.
Plans for many of the sailors to spend Thanksgiving with American families living in Hong Kong have had to be cancelled, said Shirlee Algire, a volunteer who organizes the home meals. Some 47 families had offered to host 202 sailors on Thursday, Friday and Saturday, Ms. Algire told the AP.
The 46-year-old Kitty Hawk, which is based in the Japanese port city of Yokosuka, is the only U.S. aircraft carrier permanently deployed abroad.
The diesel-powered ship will be decommissioned next year and replaced by the nuclear-powered USS George Washington.
Relations between China and the United States have improved in recent years, but the two powers are at odds over how to resolve Iran's failure to halt enrichment of uranium and the growing trade deficit in the U.S.

Cholera remains a threat in Iraq

Cholera has been an issue in Iraq for months now. It would seem that all of that "progress" in Iraq doesn't include having drinking water that won't kill you. Now, a lot of Third World countries seem to be able to provide potable water, and they haven't had $500 billion poured into them by the U.S.

What does it say when "six governmental hospitals" have water that is "unsafe"? It says that Iraq is a failed state and that the Bush Administration's claims of improvement are selective and misleading, to say the least. According to Bush, these kind of issues are the U.N's problem.

Once again, I feel compelled to point out the utter hypocrisy of the Republicans who voice "concern" for the "average, innocent Iraqi" should we withdraw, but who shrug at their suffering while we are there.

full story from Reuters

>

Iraq sees "catastrophe" with new cholera cases
Thu Nov 22, 2007 10:19am EST

By Aseel Kami

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Iraq is facing a health "catastrophe" in the capital Baghdad, with reports of cholera rising sharply over the past weeks to more than 80 new cases, the Health Ministry said on Thursday.

Most of the new cases have been reported in the eastern part of Baghdad, especially in poor areas routinely deprived of water and other basic services, an official at the ministry said.

One cholera death was recorded in November, in addition to another death in September, said the official, who asked not to be named. "We have a catastrophe in Baghdad," she said.

In western Baghdad, six people at a government home for the disabled were confirmed to have the disease, she said. Another girl at the al-Hanan Institute for the Severely Disabled died from the disease.

The Health Ministry official blamed a lack of proper sanitation for the cholera cases at the institute.

Cholera, which is normally caused by consuming water or food containing the Vibrio cholerae bacterium, causes diarrhea and can swiftly kill its victims.

The official said that six governmental hospitals suffer from unsafe water supplies, including Yarmouk, one of Baghdad's chief hospitals.

A November 13 report from the United Nations reported 22 deaths from cholera this year, and 4,569 laboratory-confirmed cases, almost exclusively in northern Iraq.

But the United Nations also warned that the illness is on the rise in Baghdad. It reported 49 laboratory-confirmed cases in the capital as of November 11.

The ministry spokeswoman said that Kirkuk province in northern Iraq was the epicenter of this year's outbreak, with 3,006 cases and five deaths.

In neighboring Sulaimaniya province, 14 people have died and 1,234 cases have been recorded. Arbil province, also in the north, has seen 275 cases, she said.

Annapolis conference looks like a joke

Three different takes on the upcoming Annapolis conference.
Nobody even knows who is coming yet. Nothing has been worked out in advance.
This is turning out to be a show for the Arab allies to convince them that Bush is serious about resolving the Palestinian situation. But apparently not serious enough to do his homework or line up any kind of agenda or framework ahead of time. I guess optimism is enough.

And the Palestinian Authority may not even attend. Israel is making "gestures", but there's no way they are going to allow the Palestinians to be an independent state, and even less chance of any part of the Golan Heights being returned to Syria. It's all on Israel, with Olmert at low single digits in domestic popularity polls. I guess Bush is hoping that all of the Arab states will just smile and fold.
We're reduced to hoping for a miracle, which is Bush's main strategy on pretty much everything these days.
If a fistfist doesn't break out, it will probably be considered a success.

40 Countries Invited to Annapolis

(IsraelNN.com) 40 countries, among them Syria and Saudi Arabia, have received invitations to attend the Annapolis conference. Foreign ministers from Arab League nations will meet on Thursday to discuss whether or not to attend the conference, and under what conditions. Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas has said that the PA will not attend the conference if representatives from the Arab League are not present.

Abbas has repeatedly expressed ambivalence towards the conference and has threatened not to attend without a promise from Israel to establish a PA state within a certain time frame. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has made several "good-will gestures" in an effort to placate the PA, including a decision earlier this week to release 431 terrorist prisoners and to allow Russia to supply the PA with armored vehicles and 1,000 guns.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Blair arrived in the Saudi capital after leaving Egypt on Wednesday, and was planning to hold talks in Riyadh with King Abdullah in efforts to persuade Arab states to attend the Annapolis peace conference next week, government sources reported.

"He was in Cairo with Mubarak ... he is trying to pull together a better picture from the Quartet's perspective of who's going to be in attendance," a European diplomat said.

"Whether it will have an impact on the Saudi position is debatable," he added.

The United States is inviting 49 countries, groups of nations, financial institutions and individuals to Annapolis.

Israel and the Palestinians received their invitations Tuesday, and the U.S. State Department said embassies elsewhere were notifying the others, asking them to send their foreign ministers or other appropriate officials to the event, aimed at relaunching negotiations for the creation of a Palestinian state.

Palestinian and Egyptian sources said Tuesday that Syria and Saudi Arabia would attend the U.S.-hosted meet.

Syria and Saudi Arabia are expected to announce their level of representation at the conference within a few days, following the Arab foreign ministers' meeting at the Arab League headquarters in Cairo on Friday.

Observers believe that Syria will try to take advantage of the Annapolis summit in order to strengthen its hand internationally. "Syria will not refuse an American invitation," said a Palestinian source in Cairo. Mubarak, after meeting with Olmert on Tuesday, also said that he expects Syria to attend the conference.

Syria's Foreign Minister, Walid Moallem, paid a visit to Tehran on Tuesday. The Iranian news agency IRNA reported that Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, criticized the Annapolis summit during his meeting with Moallem, saying that the summit organizers - the Americans - "aim to connect all the Arab countries to the Zionist regime," and that the summit will only hurt the Palestinian cause. Syria's news agency reported that Iranian and Syrian officials agreed on every topic on the table, but did not elaborate.

Syria has stated that it will not attend the summit unless an Israeli withdrawal from the Golan Heights is placed on the agenda. It is still not clear how the issue will be dealt with at the summit, but one proposal involves mentioning the matter either in the summit's opening declaration or its concluding statement. Also not yet finalized is the level of Syrian representation at the summit.

Moallem's visit to Iran comes one day after a historic meeting between Syria's president Assad and King Abdullah of Jordan, the first between the two leaders. Abdullah is considered a friend of the West, in stark comparison with Assad, who has been isolated for his ties to terrorism and Iran. Arab sources in Cairo emphasized that the significance of this meeting lies in its timing, just days before the Annapolis summit and elections in Lebanon. "Abdullah is the closest Arab figure to the United States and to Israel. By meeting with him, Assad is sending a message," one source said.

Some theorize that Syria withdrew its opposition to choosing a Lebanese presidential candidate in exchange for an invitation to Annapolis. The Lebanese election will be held Thursday, the last possible date to choose a president in accordance with the country's constitution. Lebanon's political rivals have not been able to agree on a candidate yet.

If no president is selected on Friday, it could create a political vacuum, and a subsequent crisis.

Both Egypt and Saudi Arabia have emphasized their desire for Syria to be invited to Annapolis. Both states have had tense relations with Syria, in part due to the Second Lebanon War between Israel and the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah. Assad insulted Arab leaders across the Middle East as "half men" for their hands-off stances during the fighting

---------------------------------------------------------

"I fear that Annapolis and the way that Annapolis is framed still suffers from same problems of the previous peace process," said New America Foundation fellow and former Israeli negotiator Daniel Levy, referring to the last round of U.S.-led negotiations in 2000 at Camp David and calling the latest talks "ill-conceived and ill-prepared".

The Annapolis talks were originally announced to make substantive progress towards a detailed peace agreement that would include specifics about the "final status" of a Palestinian state and include broad participation from neighbouring Arab states. But recent disagreements between Israel and Palestine and vagueness about who will attend the conference call into question the viability of these goals.

Participation by Israel's Arab neighbours is considered paramount in effective talks as their implicit recognition of Israel gives the politically-weakened heads of both principal negotiators political cover for selling compromises to their citizens.

None of the neighbours -- including Syria and Saudi Arabia, which have no diplomatic relations with Israel -- are expected to respond to the invitations until after meetings of the Arab League that start this Thursday in Egypt. Syria has said it would not attend unless there was discussion about the Golan Heights -- captured by Israel in 1967 -- which appears doubtful.

With such a short period left before the meeting, it looks increasingly unlikely that the two main parties will be able to draft any statement of joint purpose before next week -- a central aim of the ever-diminishing expectations for the talks.

"Success entails some sort of a process," said David Wurmser, a former Middle East advisor to Vice President Dick Cheney, at an Israel Project panel on the upcoming talks. "I would set a low bar -- success means that no damage is done."

Wurmser focused much of his opening remarks on the threats of North Korea, Venezuela and particularly Iran. He views the Israeli-Palestinian peace process as a low priority, but which gets a disproportional amount of attention from the George W. Bush administration -- noting that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is "almost wearing a hole in the atmosphere" with all her travel to the Middle East as part of the planning of the summit.

Conversely, Levy said that the U.S. was using an increased push for a solution to the Palestinian problem as a show of good faith to Arab nations to try to garner their support in opposition to the regional goals of Iran. This, said Levy, is consistent with the findings of the Iraq Study Group which took an "outside-in approach" to alleviating anti-U.S. sentiment and tensions due to the U.S. presence in Iraq by making some of the Arab states' priorities come to life in U.S. foreign policy.

With expectations so drastically lowered for any concrete steps forward in the peace process, it appears that the meeting in Annapolis could be reduced to a public relations campaign for many of the involved parties -- even U.S. participants.

"I think it goes back to why [Secretary Rice] was so eager to announce this conference," said Phyllis Bennis, a fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies. "Her legacy now is that she is known as the person who stood in front of the world and said 'we don't want a ceasefire yet' when Israel was bombing Lebanon in the summer of 2006. She wants a photo-op that will give her a legacy as a peace-maker."

U.S. aid used by Pakistan against India

In another ally-on-ally conflict reminiscent of the Turk-Kurd conflict, it now is becoming clear that much of the military aid Bush gave to Pakistan for the Global War on Terror has instead gone into arms purchases designed to prepare Pakistan for a war against India. Somehow, arming one side of two nuclear-armed nations that have fought previous wars makes us safer, though I honestly can't say how.

It's abundantly clear that whatever alliance Bush made with Pakistan was simply one of convenience on Musharraf's part. Once again, Bush got taken for a ride, to the tune of $10 billion. For years, Musharraf did little or nothing to evict the Taliban from the federal tribal areas, while they built camps and hid Bin Laden. Finally, in the past two months, the Taliban have made the federal tribal areas a de-facto independent state and the rebellion has spread beyond the frontier into Swat Valley. Then our ally, Musharraf, boldly sprung into action. He declared martial law and threw the democratic opposition into jail. Then he got some of his troops that had been taken hostage in the tribal areas released, while continuing his winning policy of doing nothing about the rebellion on the frontier. This is what we got for $10 billion. Unless, of course, Musharraf throws in a war with India as part of the deal for his "support".

Bush seems to have no other card up his sleeve but military force and huge arms shipments. Reconstruction won't take place without security, and you can't get security without reconstruction. Meanwhile, the bill just gets bigger every day, and war becomes more likely in every area Bush's magic was worked. Russia and China get more powerful as we blow huge amounts of borrowed cash on two wars that increase regional instability. If another crisis erupts, Bush has few legions left to throw at it. His base speaks glowingly of the Long War, an endless series of conflicts across the globe in which we grind our heel into the face of any nations that fail to repeat our talking points. We will be "safe" only when we can dominate the world and dictate who takes power where. Those nations friendly to us, such as Israel, can have nuclear weapons (and already do), but those who are not under our hegemony are a danger to the world. Pakistan itself was once classified by the U.S. as a rogue state for its possession of nukes and failure to sign the NPT. But when the Global War On Terror was dreamed up, all that went by the wayside. Democracy is the goal and the watchword, unless it produces governments that don't bow to our whim, such as in Palestine, Venezuela, or Russia.

Even worse, pointing out this arrogance and hypocrisy earns you the label "America Hater" from Republicans. This Long War, if it is carried out, will cost this country multiple trillions of dollars and result in a military draft and national insolvency. It will cost us our allies and create new wars which we have no control over.

In a war between India and Pakistan, the big winners will be China and Russia. Money spent on goading one side into such a war is absolutely counter to our national interests, yet this is what "patriotic" Republicans are doing. Russia controls the energy supplies for our allies in Europe, and China has the ability to create economic collapse for us at the drop of a hat, at a far cheaper cost to them than war with us. At the same time, we are committed to defending Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea, no to mention Israel. If Republicans would stop their incessant cheerleading and flag-waving for a moment and look at the big picture, they might very well put down the Kool-Aid. It has nothing to do with patriotism; it's delusion versus reality. Every nation that we defeated in the past "wanted to win", but that was not enough. Republicans seem to think that's all that is required to prevail. They are sadly deluded.


full story from ExpressIndia

Pak spent bulk of US aid on arming against India

Posted online: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 at 12:00:00
Updated: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 at 09:58:02

Silicon Valley, November 21: Pakistan has used a significant portion of the US aid since September 11 attack to arm itself for a confrontation with India instead of conducting war on terrorism, according to a strategic think tank.
Most of the USD 10 billion US aid is supposed to compensate the Pakistani government for sending its 80,000 or so soldiers to the Northwest Frontier Province and providing support to the US war in Afghanistan.
However, the money has been used for procuring high-tech weaponry to arm the military for its confrontation with India, the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) has said.
"We found that that the Pakistani military has been using that money and the majority of our direct military assistance for the purchase of high-tech weaponry such as the F-16 fighters," senior adviser in the CSIS Frederick (Rick) Barton said.
"It appears that the Pakistan military is continuing to arm more for its confrontation with India than it is for the war on terror because these weapons really don't have that much application for the kinds of low-grade persistent Taliban fighters and al-Qaeda fighters that you find in the Northwest part of Pakistan," Barton told the National Public Radio.
Urging Washington to make a more strategic use of the money it gives Pakistan, Barton said "If we had wise approach to war on terror, we would have found ways to align ourselves more with the Pakistan people. Because the only way you can deal this kind of insurgency is to have the people on your side and to not have the people harboring the insurgents."
One of the key points that the CSIS study pointed out was that the US needs to re-establish a whole new kind of relationship with Pakistan, Barton said in an interview with the public radio.
In 1990s, the US stayed away from Pakistan for 10 years, following Pakistan's nuclear weapons development.
He said Pakistan deserved a great deal of attention which the US has never done.
"We constantly flush them with money, then head for exits and none of those approaches really work."
He said only 10 per cent of the aid had gone to education and humanitarian causes and the majority of that went in response to the earthquake where tens and thousands of people were killed.
The US gave direct humanitarian assistance and military assistance and as a result the US public support in Pakistan went up from about 25 per cent to well over 50 per cent.
"None of these polls mean that much, but part of what we want to do as a country is to make it clear that we are on the side of the people, not just the powerful," said Barton.
He said America's second-largest area of humanitarian expense was in education, but there again the US is trying to do a million different things rather than focusing on particular areas where it might have higher impact.

British Army running out of money

It would seem that senior British military leaders have realised, and are starting to voice, the costs of following Bush's trail on the War On Terror. The War On Terror seems to be little more than a war on nations that don't kiss Bush's ass sincerely enough, and it's only diminishing America's respect in the world.

In Iraq, we essentially went after a loudmouth dictator and implied he was responsible for 9/11. Despite the majority of the hijackers of the 9/11 attacks being Saudis, we instead cozied up to Saudi Arabia. Now another loudmouth, albeit elected, is being portrayed as dangerous and an invasion is being scheduled.

Meanwhile, the federal tribal areas of Pakistan (where Bin Laden is believed to be - remember him?) is even more chaotic and more sympathetic to the Taliban than it was before Bush launched his overly-optimistic effort there. The man continually plans for only the best outcomes, and never thinks of formulating a "Plan B", because everything always goes our way in the movies, I guess.

Now the British public is going to have to come up with the cash to finance the endless wars. Unlike the dollar, the pound is not the world's reserve currency and borrowing money to finance wars is very expensive. None of these wars promise to make any money for the participants. In fact, in Iraq the plan was to let the multinational oil companies buy the oil for cheap and sell it back to us at huge profits. These aren't 'American" or British" companies; they are huge conglomerates with no loyalty to any nation. How much are Britons willing to pay to keep the Decider from having to admit his incompetence?

Armed forces 'are running out of money'

By Thomas Harding Defence Correspondent

Last Updated: 1:48pm GMT 20/11/2007

The former head of the Army has warned that the Forces are facing a cash crisis with it becoming unlikely that the military will be able to pay for future operations.

Gen Sir Mike Jackson said recent spending commitments by the Chancellor Alistair Darling were likely to prove insufficient to pay for future operations.

The officer, who has been critical of the Government since retiring as Chief of the General Staff, told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "I fear there is some sort of crunch on the horizon."

He added: "I detect, I fear, some crisis ahead in defence spending, if things go on as they are in terms of what we do, what we might have to do and the money allocated."

Despite the Government announcing an extra £400 million for operations in last month’s pre budget report on top of a 1.5 per cent increase in the defence budget, Gen Jackson said this was still not enough.

The MoD is currently battling with the Treasury over funding of equipment projects and payment for vehicles being used in Iraq and Afghanistan.

There are significant worries that without proper funding the military are going to continue to lose substantial numbers of troops fed up with poor pay, accommodation and constant operations.

The Treasury’s offer of extra funding was still unlikely to prove enough for the fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan or for potential future engagements.

Gen Jackson suggested that what people “never really grasped” was there would not be enough funding “to do the things which we do now and the things which we may have to do in the future".

The officer, who was replaced by Gen Sir Richard Dannatt after he retired last year, acknowledged British defence spending was already above the European average.

But he insisted such a comparison risked ignoring Britain’s "strategic" needs and suggested that Britain's influence in the world could wane.

"The analysis must start in logic from what it is that the UK thinks is its part to play in a very uncertain and difficult world," he went on.

"You've got to get that analysis right because from that then flows the tools you need... to do the job."

Since resigning, Gen Jackson has criticised the M0D's treatment of soldiers, particularly in the standards of pay and living accommodation.

He said today there was a widespread recognition that the conditions of service for army personnel were "not how they should be".

Bush got taken for a ride on Iran intelligence

It seems as if the Bush Administration went shopping for what it wanted to hear once again. This time it was an Iranian armed opposition group (no possible bias there) that gave Bush lousy intelligence, which Bush fell for wholeheartedly and acted on. One can only wonder how much these people were paid, or what acts were winked at, in exchange for this worthless information.

In the build-up to the Iraq invasion, the White House employed a stable of Iraqi exiles who provided the exact "information" Bush wanted on a regular basis. While a lot of these "sources" hadn't been in Iraq for decades, their opinions were taken as authoritative. They were asked leading questions that indicated the answers that were desired, and then given time to concoct lies, either elaborate or clumsy, that fit the situation. They got rewarded if they gave the "right" answers; if they didn't, they weren't called on again and their "intelligence" was discarded. This is how we got all kinds of "valuable intelligence" on Saddam's WMDs.

Bush wanted proof that Iranians (and the Iranian government) were bringing armour-piercing weapons and explosives into Iraq. The problem was that all of the reliable people told them they were off base, so they went to some folks who knew how to play ball. Sure, they had every interest in promoting an invasion and making the regime in Teheran look bad. Yes, you may say that these members of an outlawed armed resistance group were hardly the kind of "insiders" one would consult about the secret workings of a government they sought to overthrow. And, of course, these 'experts' knew exactly what their marks wanted to hear. Still, none of this is any reason to be suspicious of their credibility, or means that any of their "intelligence" should be independently verified. Yes, let's act on it immediately, since it matches our agenda and pre-conceived notions. What could possibly go wrong?

So they did. They arrested a bunch of Iranians, "interrogated" them, and now they are letting them go.
You must be shocked to hear that the source of the "intelligence" had played the Pentagon. There was no evidence. Sadly, in Bush-speak, this is the evidence. The lack of evidence merely shows that we are dealing with highly cunning and dangerous people. Sure, some people who don't want to win in Iraq might suggest that Bush's assumptions about Iranian involvement were unfounded, but those are just the type of people who think that a few thousand jihadists aren't going to overthrow the U.S. government and force us to bow down to Allah, make your daughter wear a burqua, and behead your dog. The key is to never change your mind, no matter what the facts may say, or question the wisdom of your course. Besides, some secret informant told us we were going to "win" any day now. In fact, he's helping us link the Loch Ness Monster to secret North Korean bio-weapons that came from Atlantis.

POLITICS-US: Seizure of Iranians Failed to Validate Bush Line
Analysis by Gareth Porter*

WASHINGTON, Nov 17 (IPS) - The George W. Bush administration's campaign to seize and detain Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) officials in Iraq, presented by Bush himself last January as a move to break up an alleged Iranian arms smuggling operation in Iraq, appears to have run its course without having been able to link a single Iranian to any such operation.

Despite administration rhetoric suggesting that the U.S. military had solid intelligence on which to base a campaign to break up Iranian-sponsored networks supplying armour-piercing weapons, what is now known about the kidnapping operations indicates that the actual purpose was to obtain some evidence from interrogations that would support the administration's line that the IRGC's elite Quds Force is involved in assisting Shiite forces militarily.

None of the six Iranians now held by the U.S. military, however, has provided any evidence for the administration's case despite many months of very tough interrogation usually employed on "high value" detainees.

Wayne White, former deputy director of the Bureau of Intelligence and Research Office of Analysis for the Near East and South Asia, told IPS he believes the administration badly wanted to get information from the Iranian detainees that they could use to make their case, but has been unable to do so.

"I'm convinced that they haven't gotten anything out of them," he said in an interview. "They haven't come up with anything they can shop around."

The programme has also been a political embarrassment in relations with U.S. allies in Iraq. U.S. military seizures of Iranians who the U.S. military claimed were IRGC Quds Force officers have been condemned not only by the Shiite government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki but by Kurdish leaders as well. The U.S. military apologised in August for "a regrettable incident" in which eight Iranians were arrested in Baghdad, and then freed after Iraqi protests.

The U.S. quietly released nine Iranian detainees last week, two of whom were seized in the Kurdish city of Erbil in January, saying they were "of no continuing intelligence value". The others do not appear to have been part of the deliberate targeting of Iranian officials.

What was later learned about the U.S. raids on Iranian officials in Kurdistan last January and again in September and in Baghdad last December shows that the U.S. military was targeting Iranians merely on the basis of their affiliation with the IRGC, while claiming publicly to have intelligence of their involvement in weapons trafficking.

The Jan. 10 raid was on an Iranian liaison office that had been operating in the Kurdistan capital of Erbil for 10 years with official Iraqi government approval. The U.S. military issued only a vaguely-worded rationale for kidnapping the five Iranians, saying they were "suspected of being closely tied to activities targeting Iraqi and coalition forces..."

That was a thinly-veiled allusion to their suspected membership in the Revolutionary Guard Corps.

Iraq's Kurdish foreign minister Hoshyar Zebari, who demanded the release of the five Iranians, explained that they were not part of a "clandestine network" but were working on visas and other paperwork for travel by Iraqis to Iran. Zebari pointed out that the men were working for the Revolutionary Guard Corps because that institution has the responsibility for controlling Iran's borders.

It is also common for IRGC officers to be given positions in a wide range of non-military Iranian government agencies. That was the case with Mahmoud Farhadi, the Iranian official kidnapped by U.S. military from a hotel in Soleimanieh, Kurdistan Sep. 20.

U.S. military spokesman Rear Adm. Mark Fox told reporters that Farhadi was a member of the "Ramadan Corps" of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard command responsible for all Iranian operations inside Iraq and the "linchpin" behind the smuggling of "sophisticated weapons" into Iraq by the Quds Force.

But officials of the Kurdistan regional government and the Kurdish president of Iraq, Jalal Talabani, publicly confirmed the Iranian government's assertion that Farhadi was a civilian official of the Kermanshah province governor-general's office on a "commercial mission with the knowledge of the federal government in Baghdad and the government of Kurdistan."

Again, Kurdish authorities did not contest the fact that Farhadi had been in the IRGC. The governor of Suleymaniye, Dana Majeed, acknowledged his IRGC membership to National Public Radio a week after the U.S. kidnapping, but insisted that his job was to expedite trade and transit across the border.

The U.S. military was apparently operating on the basis of information from the Iranian armed opposition group Mujahideen E Khalq (MEK) that was badly out of date. The political arm of the MEK, the National Council or Resistance of Iran, which had been providing information to U.S. intelligence on the Iranian nuclear programme and on Iranian officials operating in Iraq, published a detailed article on Farhadi Sep. 25 which claimed that he was the commander of the Quds Force Zafar Base and said nothing about his having working for the province on cross-border trade.

But an article in a local Kurdish language daily in Soleminiye on Sep. 24 reported that an "informed source" belonging to unnamed "Iranian opposition group -- obviously the MEK -- had used the past tense in regard to Farhadi's role as Quds Force commander and acknowledged that Farhadi was now working in a commercial delegation.

In December 2006, two accredited Iranian diplomats were kidnapped from the Embassy car on the way from praying at a mosque and later had to be released. But four other Iranian officials were kidnapped in the compound of Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, the head of the Shiite political party called SCIRI, who had visited Bush three weeks earlier. They were in the home of the chairman of the Parliamentary security committee and head of the Badr organisation.

The official explanation was that they were being detained on "suspicion of carrying out or planning attacks against Iraqi security forces". But the Iraqi interlocutors are part of the Iraqi government which supports the occupation and opposes the Madhi army. If the Iranian officials detained were actually plotting with their hosts to attack Iraqi security forces, it would have meant that the SCIRI and the Badr Group were planning to attack their own government.

U.S. military officials claimed to the Washington Post that they had captured maps of Baghdad delineating Sunni Shiite and mixed neighbourhoods that would be useful for militias, lists of weapons systems and "information about importing modern, specially shaped explosive charges into Iran".

But Laura Rozen of the National Journal quoted a U.S. official as saying that the evidence was far less conclusive than was claimed. "They are trying to walk this back," said the official. "There are no smoking guns about Iran in Iraq."

None of the allegedly damning evidence was mentioned in the Feb. 11 military briefing to the U.S. media on the alleged Quds Force EFP smuggling, indicating that these claims were vastly exaggerated.

*Gareth Porter is an historian and national security policy analyst. His latest book, "Perils of Dominance: Imbalance of Power and the Road to War in Vietnam", was published in June 2005.

Poland calls it quits

Bowing to popular opinion, Poland has announced it will get its troops out of Iraq.
Watch for the Bush Administration to be making snide and derogatory remarks about the Polish military in the near future. Mysterious obstacles will also crop up to Poland's membership in NATO as well.

Yeat another one of Bush's puppets, Kaczynski, joins Abe and Blair in the rubbish heap. How long until Howard takes his place in the seat reserved for foreign leaders that followed the Decider blindly?

Poland to pull troops from Iraq

The new Polish defence minister has said his country will withdraw its 900 troops deployed in Iraq next year.

The previous government of Jaroslaw Kaczynski, the former prime minister, had extended the deployment of its 900-strong force until the end of 2007 and planned to send more troops in 2008.

But Bogdan Klich, the new defence minister from the Liberal government, told the public radio station Jedynma: "I can confirm that in 2008, the Polish military contingent in Iraq will be withdrawn."

Klich said on Saturday that the details of the withdrawal would be announced next Friday when Donald Tusk, Poland's new prime minister, outlines his government's policies in parliament.

Warsaw had previously been one of most vocal supporters of the US policy in Iraq.

Polish troops took part in the invasion in 2003, sparking a bitter verbal confrontation with anti-war European Union members, notably France.

US-Polish ties strengthened after the election in 2005 of the previous Law and Justice party administration.

The conservative government of prime minister Kaczynski, the identical twin of the current Polish president, Lech Kaczynski, had said it was planning to send a new group of soldiers in 2008.

Snap win

Tusk's Civic Platform, which won October's snap general elections, had earlier pledged a swift pull-out of Polish armed forces from Iraq.

Tusk said in November it was important that Washington recognise that his Civic Platform had won power with a pledge to "end the mission in Iraq at least in its current form, in 2008".

In October, Edward Pietrzyk, Poland's ambassador to Iraq, was seriously injured and his driver killed by a roadside bomb in Baghdad.

A total of 22 Polish soldiers have been killed in Iraq since 2003.

The current 900-strong Polish contingent is stationed in the Diwaniyah region of Iraq, where 2,600 were deployed in 2003.

A public opinion poll last June found that 81 per cent of Poles were opposed to their soldiers' deployment alongside US troops in Iraq, with only 15 per cent in favour.

British military in crisis

Once again, a senior commander in the British military is saying that the service is in danger of collapse.
Boldly following the Decider into a two-front military effort is pushing the military to the limit. Blair's yes-man mentality is slowly fading from prominence among senior commanders, and the truth is coming out about what poor condition the services are really in.

Of course, Britain's steadfast ally, the Bush Administration, has seen fit to show its gratitude by implying the the British military is full of cowards and pansies. Meanwhile, Bush asks for more troops and money for the Afghan campaign from exhausted and reluctant allies. Remember, the Afghan effort was supposed to be a walk in the park - primarily peacekeeping, training, and reconstruction. At the end was a pat on the head from the Decider for all the allies' hard work, while Bush would take the credit for his "vision".

Like Iraq, the reconstruction never came. Desperate farmers are now forced to grow drug crops and pay the Taliban for protection. The perpetually-broke puppet, Karzai, can't even pay his civil servants. Areas that were fiercely won seem to slip back into militants' control almost as soon as the Coalition leaves. Air strikes have produced high-profile civilian casualties, and the Coalition shows a callous, arrogant, and dismissive view of these casualties. Some allies have opted out of combat altogether, and Bush can't seem to browbeat them as effectively as he once did. Coalition troops are finding increasing reluctance and resistance among the Afghan population.

American politicians, such has Rep. Lantos, have hardly helped by telling our allies that they owe us big-time for WW2 and letting them know that we expect a lot more help from them. At what point does an ally become an enabler for an incompetent leader that sees bombings and bullets as the solution to every problem?

With Bush now building up the charge for yet another war with Iran, one wonders how this exhausted British military will be able to handle a third front. Nothing has gone as the Decider said it would in either Iraq or Afghanistan, but somehow our allies are supposed to believe that Bush has it all figured out with Iran.

With Pakistan's tribal areas becoming a de-facto independent state, the challenge only increases for the British military. Thumbs-up, smiley-faced assessments may be good for domestic consumption, but are worthless for planning military campaigns. It remains to be seen if Gordon Brown will continue to be led by the nose into presiding over the collapse of his country's army.

See also here, here, here and here for more stories on the British military's disaster.

Our forces can't carry on like this, says General Sir Richard Dannatt

By Sean Rayment, Defence Correspondent

Last Updated: 1:30am GMT 18/11/2007

The head of the Army has warned that years of Government under-funding and overstretch have left troops feeling "devalued, angry and suffering from Iraq fatigue", The Sunday Telegraph can reveal.

General Sir Richard Dannatt, the Chief of the General Staff, reveals in a top-level report that the present level of operations is "unsustainable", the Army is "under-manned" and increasing numbers of troops are "disillusioned" with service life.

Gen Dannatt states that the "military covenant is clearly out of kilter", and the chain of command needs to improve standards of pay, accommodation and medical care.

"We must strive to give individuals and units ample recuperation time between operations, but I do not underestimate how difficult this will be to achieve whilst under-manned and with less robust establishments than I would like."

The report, a copy of which has been seen by this newspaper, reveals for the first time the general's concerns on virtually every aspect of the Army, from levels of pay to the quality of food in canteens.

Gen Dannatt came to public prominence last year when, within weeks of taking over as head of the Army, he said the Iraq war was causing security problems in Britain.

In the new report, he says that operations on the two fronts of Iraq and Afghanistan are putting soldiers and their families under "great pressure", and that the long-term impact of operations is "damaging" and is "mortgaging the goodwill of our people".

In terms of "overstretch", the report says, "the tank of goodwill now runs on vapour; many experienced staff are talking of leaving".

Last week, Lt Col Stuart Tootal, 42, who commanded the Parachute Regiment in Afghanistan, resigned from the Army over the "shoddy" treatment of injured troops. In a letter to defence chiefs, he was reported to have criticised levels of pay, a lack of training equipment and the appalling housing - all issues raised in Gen Dannatt's report.

The report lays bare how a lack of funding, resources and manpower are forcing defence chiefs into making decisions once considered unthinkable.

One such move includes sending "medically downgraded" or injured troops and soldiers as young as 17 to guard the Falkland Islands to release fit troops for operations - a move Gen Dannatt says he wholly supports.

The report adds:

• Delays to military inquests are a disgrace

• Military housing estates are unsafe and being overrun by immigrant families

• Poor food quality is creating a "pot-noodle and sandwich" culture among junior soldiers

• Work-life balance is an increasing concern

• Soldiers are "going sick" to get out of the Army

• Leave is often cancelled or constrained because of operational overstretch

• Harmony guidelines - the time between operational tours - are becoming meaningless

• The Army is no longer fun

• Fitness in the Army is tailing off and more soldiers are medically downgraded

The report's findings follow months of interviews with thousands of soldiers and their families from 47 units.

Entitled Chief of the General Staff's Briefing Team Report (2007), the findings are described by Gen Dannatt as a "comprehensive, vivid and accurate" picture of Army life.

He writes that "improvements need to be made in accommodation, pay and medical services" and that the "chain of command must still improve things" if more soldiers are to be recruited.

The general accepts the view that delays in holding military inquests are a "disgrace" and writes: "I share the frustration and know that many families feel let down by the process. The delays are unacceptable and I will continue to press for improvements."

Military housing is an area singled out for criticism. "Estates are becoming less safe and more run down. Some are degenerating - in Germany it is reported that many of the neighbouring areas are occupied by immigrant families with hordes of children.

This is of particular concern for wives when their husband is deployed [on operations]." In Britain, some service families' accommodation areas have "ex-married quarters owned by housing associations, and disruptive civilian families have moved in, causing concerns over vandalism and theft".

The report strongly criticises the "Pay As You Dine" policy of making soldiers pay for what they eat, which many in the Army call a "disaster".

It says: "There are real concerns about the new eating habits of some soldiers due to Pay As You Dine. A "pot noodle and sandwich" culture is being created and soldiers are cooking rations over gas burners in their rooms. There are apocryphal stories of soldiers flaking during PT sessions from a lack of nutrients".

The report adds: "Pay As You Dine was sold as a strap line of new restaurants, better choice and good quality. The reality is very different - for most, the only investment has been a till."

There is a growing problem of troops "going sick" to get out of the Army.

There is a lack of "training areas, range availability, shortages of ammunition, spares and manpower - which is limiting the amount of meaningful training that can be undertaken. There are insufficient serviceable aircraft for parachute training. Apache flying hours are limited by lack of serviceable aircraft".

Patrick Mercer, a Tory MP and former infantry commander, said: "These problem areas existed 10 years ago. Now we have a crisis and it is a disgrace that senior officers and ministers have allowed this to happen. I am staggered that the head of the Army thinks it acceptable to send kids and those medically unfit for war to guard the Falklands."

Billions evaporate in Iraqi corruption

Ah, yes, Diyala. The shining star of neocons, the proof that Bush can "win" in Iraq and that all we need are more bullets and air strikes to bring Bush's dreams to fruition.

$7 billion disappeared in the first year of the occupation. All of those neocons cheering about Bush hanging tough on "pork" should be asking where it went. But that's okay; it went to "making us safer" somehow.

Diyala is also the place where senior police commanders create hundreds of false names of policemen under their command, while collecting the salaries of all of these false officers. How does this make us safer? How does this help stabilise Iraq? If you ask these questions, however, you are a traitor, a socialist, and you don't "want us to win". Paying for imaginary police officers in a foreign country is money well spent, in the view of Republicans, but actually making disability payments to wounded and traumatised vets is just "wasteful".

Republicans who vote against rebuilding the bridge in Minnesota that collapsed in early August (it's pork, you know), are apparently okay with forking over the cash for contractors in Iraq to pay bribes and not even complete the work they were paid for.

As multiple billions seep away into government officals' pockets, Republicans brag about the "stunning success" in a country that barely fuctions. Nobody looks at where the money is going and what is actually being done with it. It's all secret, but incompetent investigators whose primary qualifications are contributions to Republican candidates are on the job, studiously ignoring the problems and vigourously shrugging their shoulders in a patriotic manner. Let's not look too close, okay? The system is working, so let's look at how many kids might be going to the doctor on our dime. That's the real scandal, and the GOP is on it.

story from IPS

IRAQ: Corruption Adds to Baquba's Problems
By Ahmed Ali*

BAQUBA, Nov 15 (IPS) - Facing violence, unemployment and poverty, the capital city of Iraq's volatile Diyala province now finds itself confronting also corruption.

This follows the failed promises of reform, reconstruction and rehabilitation at the beginning of the U.S. occupation of Iraq. Billions of dollars of U.S. and Iraqi funds were set aside for rebuilding Iraq, ruined by four years of occupation, 12 years of sanctions, and 30 years of dictatorship. There is little to show for these vast amounts of aid money.

The infrastructure is clearly worse on all measurable levels than it was pre- invasion.

Under the Coalition Provisional Authority, more than 7 billion dollars went "missing" in the first year of occupation alone. Now Iraqi authorities are blamed for adding to the corruption.

Contractors in Baquba told IPS they believe the governor's office is directly involved in the corruption.

"I'm not quite sure about the governor (Ra'ad Hameed al-Mula Jowad al- Tamimi) himself," the owner of a security contracts company, speaking on condition of anonymity, told IPS. "What is certain is that his protection group plays a big role in taking the money using his name."

"In contrast to all the contractors, a large number of projects go to the governor's nephew," contractor Abu Ahmed told IPS. "This contractor often tries to influence the monitoring committee to sign his invoice even if it is inconsistent with the specifications of the job."

Payments for roads and bridges have been made even when the job was badly done or left incomplete, he said.

Companies and contractors submit their bids to the government committee. The committee as a whole is then supposed to examine the tenders according to the terms announced. But in Diyala province, contractors say the committee divides the projects among its members.

"Every committee member takes a number of projects, and makes deals with contractors," co-owner of the al-Khadra company for general contractors, who did not wish to give his name, told IPS. "If the contractor does not pay them a bribe, he won't get the contract."

The usual rate, he said, is 10 percent of the value of the contract to be paid to the one who awards it. The company owner said he had seen this process first-hand.

"Imagine, in a project of one million dollars, the contractor should pay 100,000 dollars to be awarded the project to begin with," he added.

Governor al-Tamimi was nearly killed Sep. 27 by a suicide bomber outside a mosque in Shifta village nearby Baquba. He was injured, but 24 people were killed, and 37 others wounded.

A city official told IPS that a senior member of the department of planning in the governor's office has been accused of blackmailing contractors, "and his name is on the list of the minister's council for investigation."

Abu Shaima, who has worked for some of the companies that have been awarded contracts, said there are four contact persons "in the north" who make deals with contractors. Local workers, most of whom are now jobless, told IPS that government employment is itself affected by corruption.

"You have to pay to be a policeman," former policeman Abu Qassim told IPS. "You bring your CV, with a few hundred dollars." Or, he said, "the first salary will be for the officer who is in charge of nominating volunteers."

There are all sorts of variations. "Sometimes, there are hundreds of false names whose salaries go to the senior officers. Or, one may be told that he can have half of the salary without coming to the office." Meanwhile, basic infrastructure, from water to electricity to security, barely functions.

On Oct. 25, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was questioned by lawmakers over claims that Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki was shielding top ministers from corruption probes.

Senator Henry Waxman said Maliki had issued a decree requiring his approval before any minister or official in the presidential office was brought before a court on corruption charges.

Rice refused to respond directly, and instead claimed that U.S. officials took all allegations of corruption in Iraq seriously.

(*Ahmed, our correspondent in Iraq's Diyala province, works in close collaboration with Dahr Jamail, our U.S.-based specialist writer on Iraq who travels extensively in the region) (END/2007)

Pakistan is beginning to crumble

So I guess throwing democratic opponents, lawyers, and judges in jail hasn't helped Musharraf deal with the radical Islamist insurgency in Pakistan. Are we surprised?

The Pakistani Army has already lost the federally-administered tribal areas on the border with Afghanistan, and the Swat Valley. Now the insurgents are moving east, further into Pakistan proper, and they aren't meeting with much resistance. In Bush-speak, this means that the militants are "desperate". In the language that the rest of the world uses, they are in ascendance.

Meanwhile Bush wrings his hands in a most powerful manner. He is willing to escalate to finger-crossing if it comes to that, however.

story from the New York Times

Militants Gain Despite Decree by Musharraf

By JANE PERLEZ and ISMAIL KHAN

Published: November 16, 2007

PESHAWAR, Pakistan, Nov. 15 — Gen. Pervez Musharraf, the Pakistani president, says he instituted emergency rule for the extra powers it would give him to push back the militants who have carved out a mini-state in Pakistan’s tribal areas.

But in the last several days, the militants have extended their reach, capturing more territory in Pakistan’s settled areas and chasing away frightened policemen, local government officials said.

As inconspicuous as it might be in a nation of 160 million people, the takeover of the small Alpuri district headquarters this week was considered a particular embarrassment for General Musharraf. It showed how the militants could still thumb their noses at the Pakistani Army.

In fact, local officials and Western diplomats said, there is little evidence that the 12-day-old emergency decree has increased the government’s leverage in fighting the militants, or that General Musharraf has used the decree to take any extraordinary steps to combat them.

Instead, it has proved more of a distraction, they said, forcing General Musharraf to concentrate on his own political survival, even as the army starts its first offensive operation since the Nov. 3 decree.

The success of the militants in Swat has caused new concern in Washington about the ability and the will of Pakistani forces to fight the militants who are now training their sights directly on Pakistan’s government, not only on the NATO and American forces across the border in Afghanistan, Western officials said.

After several weeks of heavy clashes, the militants largely control Swat, the mountainous region that is the scenic jewel of Pakistan, and are pushing into Shangla, to the east. All of the sites lie deeper inside Pakistan than the tribal areas, on the Afghan border, where Al Qaeda, the Taliban and assorted foreign and local militants have expanded a stronghold in recent years. In Alpuri, the administrative headquarters of Shangla, a crowd of militants easily took over the police station, despite the emergency decree, Mayor Ibad Khan said.

“They came straight to the police station; it was empty,” he said in a telephone interview. The district police officer had run away. “I am still searching for him,” Mr. Khan said. Asked why the police station was empty, he said, “I am asking myself the same question.”

--------------------------------------------------------

Even though the militants numbered only in the hundreds, they would give “a tough time to the army, and they will cost the army a lot,” said Hasan-Askari Rizvi, a military analyst in Lahore.

He said the army would probably be able to expel the militants from the cities and towns. But the militants would take shelter in the mountains, and could survive the winter unscathed.

The soldiers, almost all of whom do not come from the region and feel like outsiders there, are unprepared for what could amount to a guerrilla war, he said.

Another problem was the intense barrage of propaganda from the religious clerics in the region. The messages exhorting soldiers not to fight a “foreigners war,” meaning a war on behalf of the United States, had undermined the morale of the government paramilitary forces that were leading the fight, he said.

“The army has never faced such a serious challenge in the tribal areas or in Swat before,” Mr. Rizvi said.

Iraq occupation still unpopular

I came across this war-supporter's blog and was surprised by two of his assertions about the Iraq occupation:

• public opposition to the war is not high
• being "opposed to the war" means you want to lose the war

So, it took me a few seconds to find the latest Gallup Poll. Surprisingly, it says the public is still opposed to the war, and have been for some time.

Only about one-third of Americans say the recent U.S. troop surge is making the situation in Iraq better, and the majority of Americans continue to say it was a mistake to send troops there in the first place. Although Americans are pessimistic about progress in the war, a slim majority still believe the United States is likely to win -- a slight improvement since mid-January, but similar to measures in early January and in 2006.

So I guess the issue is if you think that someone who says it was mistake to go into Iraq in the first place is "opposed" to the "war" (which is really an occupation at this point). However you slice the semantics of it, it sure isn't enthusiasm. People can't stop it, but they think it's a bad idea. And these people also think (by a slim majority, that is) that we will "win", so they obviously don't 'want to lose'.

Let's take a look at those numbers:

The public's assessment of the surge has not shown much change since August, but in April and July polls, Americans were slightly more negative in their assessments.

Hmmm. So 64% either think the surge isn't making much difference or think it's making things worse. But they somehow don't "oppose" it. And things have been this way for a while now.

Gallup has asked this question six times since the start of the war. Immediately after the United States invaded Baghdad in April 2003, more than 9 in 10 Americans said it was likely that the United States would win the war. When the question was next updated, in March 2006 -- three years after the start of the war -- opinions had become less positive, with just 54% saying victory was likely or certain. The results have been stable since that time.

Now, we all know that, to Republicans, any kind of rational, sober, objective assessment of the the Iraq effort is really just another way of saying that you want terrorists to kill your family and our soldiers to die in a bloodbath. Maybe that's why they are polling so low, by the way. Either way, I look at only 19% of the public being "certain we will win" as pretty lukewarm support. And that number isn't swinging upward, either.

When Petraeus made his report in September, Republicans expected a big swing in favour of the Iraq occupation and the surge. Right-wing blogs crowed that this was the proof America finally needed, and that Bush would be vindicated. The truth is that there is virtually no change at all in opinion:

28. In view of the developments since we first sent our troops to Iraq, do you think the United States made a mistake in sending troops to Iraq, or not?

	Yes	No	No opinion
	%	%	%
2007 Nov 2-4	58	39	3
2007 Oct 12-14	60	37	2
2007 Sep 14-16	58	41	1
2007 Sep 7-8	54	44	2
2007 Aug 3-5	57	42	2

As you can see, the Republicans picked up a statistically-insignificant 2% who merely said that it wasn't a mistake to go into Iraq. Not that they like how it's been handled, or are happy how it's going, but just that it wasn't a mistake. A statistically-significant 19% more think that it was a mistake to go into Iraq in the first place, and that number seems stable.

The surge was supposed to disarm the militas and bring political stability to Iraq. That's what the public bought, anyway. Instead we are arming the "good" terrorists and the political situation is unchanged. Provincial elections are still unscheduled. Basra is floundering. Kurdistan is not only seeing increasing violence, but Turkey is threatening an invasion. Corpses showing signs of torture show up on Baghdad streets every day. The country is segregated into walled communities. The water, health care, and electricity infrastructres have collapsed. Malnutrition is a serious crisis. Syria is kicking out Iraqis and they are returning to become homeless. Huge amounts of oil are disappearing without being accounted for. Iraqi prisons are places where torture is common. It's not only a mess, it's an insanely expensive mess.

So we see that the right-wing blogger alluded to at the start of the post is living in his own little world.

Let's look at Bush's approval numbers. From the Washington Post/ABC News poll (11/4):

1. Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling his job as president? Do you approve/disapprove strongly or somewhat?

-------- Approve --------   ------- Disapprove ------     No
           NET   Strongly   Somewhat   NET   Somewhat   Strongly   opinion
11/1/07      33       17         16      64       13         50        3
9/30/07      33       15         18      64       14         49        3
9/7/07       33       16         17      64       15         49        3 

The guy has strong disapproval from half of the country. Only half of his supporters are strong supporters. Almost four times as many strongly disapprove than "somewhat disapprove".

2. Do you think things in this country (are generally going in the right direction) or do you feel things (have gotten pretty seriously off on the wrong track)?

                 Right     Wrong     No
             direction   track   opinion
11/1/07           24        74        2
6/1/07            25        73        2
1/19/07           26        71        3 

...and Republicans are just offering to continue Bush's policies.