Al-Qaeda presence in Iraq is overblown

In the vast and constantly shifting reasons why we must remain in Iraq, the old reliable standard that gets most of the play is that if we were to leave, Al-Qaeda would take over Iraq and make it a base.

The second most-employed 'reason' is that we have to stabilise the government of Iraq so that it can be "a strong ally in the War On Terror". This reason is slowly being abandoned, at least in practise, by betting everything on the "Awakening". By building a parallel military force that is not loyal to the Iraqi government, the Administration is effectively throwing the government, the National Police, and the Iraqi Army to the wolves. The idea seems to be that they can control the Sahwa more easily, rout Al-Qaeda, and then manipulate them into bringing the Iraqi government 'into line' or even overthrowing them in favour of a more puppet-like regime.

While there are a lot of problems with this approach, a stupid, risky, and expensive plan has never stopped the Administration before. But the premise of this scheme, the rout of Al-Qaeda, is profoundly weak. As John Cole notes in the post below, there are no more than a few hundred AQ. Nearly every day, the military posthumously dubs any number of corpses "Al-Qaeda". Basically, we 'know' they are AQ because we killed them, and we wouldn't have killed them unless they were AQ, or so the circular logic goes. Our "Awakening" buddies that have been killed by friendly fire have even been dubbed AQ until this little "mixup" was corrected later by the Sahwa.

In the post below, Mr. Cole is taking McCain to task over his utterly mistaken attack on Obama when he responded to a hypothetical scenario. McCain falls over himself in a knee-jerk reaction in which he adamantly speaks of a tremendous Al-Qaeda threat in Iraq.

post from John Cole's Informed Comment:

Moreover, the allegation that he makes about there being 'al-Qaeda in Iraq' that could well take over the country is part lie and part insanity. The Sunni Arabs are no more than 20% of the Iraqi population. How could a tiny minority from within them take over the whole?

The technical definition of al-Qaeda is operatives who have sworn fealty to Usama bin Laden. There were only a few hundred of them. I doubt whether more than a handful of such individuals are in Iraq.

So there isn't any "al-Qaeda" in Iraq in the technical sense. There are "Excommunicating Holy Warriors" (Takfiri Jihadis), i.e. devotees of political Islam who are violent and willing to deploy terror for political purposes. They declare other Muslims who disagree with them "not Muslims,"-- thus the "excommunicating" bit. But there are only a few hundred foreign fighters. A small minority of Iraqis has associated with them. They don't call themselves 'al-Qaeda in Iraq.' The major such group is "The Islamic State of Iraq." And to say that they have "bases" in Iraq is pretty grandiose. They have some safe houses and try to take and hold neighborhoods, so far with indifferent success.

The idea that this small minority of violent Muslim fundamentalists could take over Iraq is completely crazy. They haven't even been able to keep their toehold in Baghdad-- the Sunnis have been largely ethnically cleansed from the capital by Shiite militias.

So the Shiites would not allow an "al-Qaeda" takeover of Iraq. Neither would the Kurds. Nor would most Sunni Arabs (as in al-Anbar Province, where the Dulaim tribe is at daggers drawn with the Excommunicating Holy Warriors).

Moreover, the neighbors would not allow the radical Sunnis to take over. Iran would sit on its hands while Shiites were massacred in Baghdad? Secular Turkey would allow this development? Baathist Syria? Hashemite Jordan (which played a major role in tracking down and killing Abu Musab al-Zarqawi)?

McCain's assertions that "al-Qaeda" has a strong position in Iraq or has any chance of taking over the country if the US leaves are both inaccurate. One is an error, the other is a dark but insubstantial fantasy.

Obama replied:

'“I've got some news for John McCain, that is there was no such thing Al Qaeda in Iraq until George Bush and John McCain decided to invade.

“I've got some news for John McCain. I've got some news for John McCain. He took us into a war, along with George Bush that should have never been authorized, never been waged. They took their eye off the people who were responsible for 9/11 and that would be Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, that is stronger now than at any time since 2001. I've been paying attention John McCain!

“John McCain may like to say that he wants to follow Osama bin Laden to the gates of Hell. But so far all he's done is follow George Bush into a misguided war in Iraq that's cost us thousands of lives and billions of dollars and that I intend to bring to an end so that we can actually start going after Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and in the hills of Pakistan, like we should have been doing in the first place. That's the news John McCain! '

Obama is correct that there was no al-Qaeda in Iraq before Bush overthrew the Iraqi government. I haven't been able to get anyone interested in it, but there is proof positive that the Baath authorities were very scared of al-Qaeda and that when Abu Musab al-Zarqawi showed up in Iraq, they put out an APB on him and branded him dangerous. (Dick Cheney told fairy tales about how Zarqawi was put up in fancy hotels by a solicitous Saddam.)

This is something that has always irked me about the neocon claims. This is the primary "link" used by wingnuts to tie Saddam to 9/11. Al-Zarqawi was in Iraq, so Al-Qaeda was allied with Saddam.
Hell, Al-Qaeda operatives were in the U.S, Britain, Spain, etc. Does that 'tie' the U.S. to Al-Qaeda? Does that mean we should invade Spain as "payback for 9/11"? Aren't we obligated to invade Britain, a country known to have WMD, to prevent it from being used by Al-Qaeda as a base?

The likely answer, if neocons were honest, to these questions is "only if the Decider says we need to".

Democrat ranks swell, Republican ranks dip

I know that, since the polls have all turned against them, Republicans dismiss any polling out of hand. The exception is any poll that shows Congress has low approval numbers, and even then they leave out the fact that the Republican members of Congress are considerably more unpopular than the Democratic members.

The tide has turned against Republicans so profoundly, yet since they live in a delusional world fueled by Fox News and talk radio, they still really believe that the public supports Bush. The Main Stream Media (MSM) is merely twisting the facts, or so they believe. Others are slightly more candid, and opine that the public has turned against them, but that people have simply been "misled" by the MSM, and that all it will take is exposure to 'the truth' and the public will rub their eyes and come out of their hypnotic state. The 'truth' is generally defined as talk about the "success" in Iraq, scary stories about an Islamic takeover of America, soldiers reading from scripts they rehearsed with their CO, and lots of flags and eagles. The unsaid 'truth' involves a copious amount of hatred, charges of treason, and bragging about torture. Another invasion (or possibly two) is also bandied about as a good way to bring the public around to the Republican view of things.

With the Decider slipping to 19% in polls, and national polls showing McCain losing to Obama at this stage, the usual dose of Republican Kool-Aid has been increased to alarming levels in order to fend off reality. Now, with the Gallup Poll shown below, they will need an IV for the stuff.

Despite the snarling neocon assertion that Americans despise the Democrats and everything they stand for (with those "things they stand for" being selectively defined by the aforementioned snarling neocon), the numbers of Americans describing themselves as Republicans has dropped over the past two months. This isn't the MSM defining people as Republicans, it's people themselves describing themselves as Republicans. On top of that, more than half of the country now has an unfavourable view of the GOP.

While the numbers of those who call themselves Independents have dropped substantially over the past few months, the major beneficiary has been the Democrats - or more precisely, those who call themselves Democrats.

40% of the American public now describe themselves as Democrats.
More than half of the country has a favourable view of the Democratic Party,
Likewise, more than half of the country feels that the Democrats "can bring about the changes this country needs", that they are "able to manage the federal government effectively", and that they have "mostly honest and ethical members in Congress".

The Presidential election, however, is not determined by popular vote. It is determined by the Electoral College (or by the Supreme Court, in Bush's case). The Republicans, by virtue of being the Party in power, still hold substantial sway over the MSM and the "punditocracy", but their message is having a declining effect. The divisions within the GOP, at the current time, also send "mixed signals" to the sheep. The vast majority of Democrats, however, would be happy with either candidate, at least according to exit polling in several primaries. Democratic turnout for the primaries has exceeded Republican turnout, even in the South. This is good news for Congressional elections, since they are not affected by the Electoral College. It is not outrageous to assume that nearly all of those who voted in the primary are likely to vote in the general election. As of right now, the Democrats hold the lead in potential electoral votes if the election were held today.

In one sense, at least, the continuing fight for the Democratic nomination is an advantage for the Democrats. By not having a single person to target, Republicans are forced to delay their slander campaigns. On the Republican side, McCain is increasingly associating himself with the stained and odious Bush legacy, which should hurt him over the coming months. The other sleeper factor is the economy. A declining economy virtually always works against the incumbent Party.

from the Gallup Poll

February 21, 2008

Democrats Have Significant Identification, Image Advantage

Percentage identifying as Democrats near Gallup high

by Frank Newport

PRINCETON, NJ -- Americans are now more likely to identify themselves as Democrats than at any time since 2000.

Forty percent of Americans in the Feb. 11-14 Gallup Poll -- in response to the question, "In politics, as of today, do you consider yourself a Republican, a Democrat, or an independent?" -- said they identified with the Democratic Party, while 26% identified with the Republican Party and 34% with neither (most of these considered themselves independents).

The 40% Democratic identification figure is unusually high. The last time 40% of Americans identified as Democrats was August 2000. Before that, there have been just a handful of Gallup Poll telephone surveys -- going back to 1985 -- in which 40% or more of Americans identified as Democrats. The highest Democratic identification in a Gallup telephone poll was 42% in July 1987.

The gap between Democratic and Republican identification -- now at 14 percentage points -- is also almost a record high. The gap was higher only in December 1998 -- immediately after President Bill Clinton had been impeached by the Republican-controlled House of Representatives -- when 41% of Americans identified as Democrats and only 20% as Republicans.

The highest level of identification with the Republican Party, 39%, has been reached at three points: in May 1991 (a few months after the first Persian Gulf War), December 2003 (in a poll in the field at the time of Saddam Hussein's capture), and September 2004 (after a successful Republican convention at which George W. Bush was nominated for a second term in office).

Last year, as often happens in a year in which there is no national election, Americans were increasingly likely to identify as independents. This year, as presidential election voting has begun in primaries and caucuses, the Democrats have been the beneficiary as Americans have become more likely to express identification with a party. As 2007 ended, an average of two Gallup Polls conducted in December showed 32.5% of Americans identifying as Democrats, 37.5% as independents, and 28.5% as Republicans. Now, the shift is evident. Identification with the Republican Party and with no party have slipped slightly, while identification with the Democratic Party has gained.

There are several other indications that the Democratic Party is riding high at the moment. First, the percentage of Americans with a favorable image of the Democratic Party (56%) is significantly higher than is the case for the Republican Party (41%).

In addition, a Feb. 8-10 USA Today/Gallup poll asked Americans to say whether three specific dimensions applied or did not apply to the two parties. The dimensions were: 1) can bring about the changes this country needs; 2) is able to manage the federal government effectively, and 3) has mostly honest and ethical members in Congress.

In each instance, the American public was more likely to say the characteristic applies to the Democratic Party than to the Republican Party. The biggest difference -- almost 20 points -- is on the dimension of bringing about change, perhaps not surprising given the strong emphasis on change in Barack Obama's campaign (and, to some degree, that of Hillary Clinton). Also, because there has been a Republican administration in the White House since 2001, it may be natural for Americans to say the Democratic Party would be most able to bring about change were its standard-bearer to move into the White House.

Bottom Line

The data reviewed here underscore the strong position of the Democratic Party at this point in the election year. A near-record number of Americans indicate that they currently identify as Democrats; the image of Democratic Party is much more favorable than that of the Republican Party; and Americans say the Democratic Party is better positioned to bring about change and is more likely to be able to manage the government effectively.

The Sunday Eel Pout

Well, it's Sunday, and that means it's time to trudge out on the ice, take a seat in the fish-house, bait our hook and reel another prize for this week's Sunday Eel Pout. The week's outrages, idiocies, and facile indignations will be compiled, and the most unworthy candidates will be awarded The Sunday Eel Pout. Your candidates are as follows:

• Richard Perle, one of the primary 'architects' of the Iraq invasion, wrote an article this week in The American Interest that offers several confusing and contradictory statements about the "success" of the Iraq invasion and subsequent occupation. The title of the article is "We Won Years Ago", in which he states that we have won because "Saddam will not be sharing WMD with anyone. Judged against that measure, we have already won in Iraq". Yes, Mr. Perle, (the deceased) Saddam will no longer be "sharing" (did he ever threaten this?) his non-existent WMDs. So we've "won" then, right? Not so, says Perle: "...despite the widely, if grudgingly, acknowledged progress of the surge, the war is far from over". So which is it, Mr. Perle? He also brags, by way of a quote from the reprehensible tool named Fouad Ajami, that the invasion has established "a Pax Americana [that] anchors the order of the region". Really? If anything, Bush has shattered the order of the region.
• Reuel Marc Gerecht, from the American Enterprise Institute and a former CIA officer, who proposes that we 'pretend' to negotiate with Iran as a pretext for bombing them. Negotiations are "something that must be checked off before the next president could unleash the Air Force and the Navy". We must, however, beware that talks "could bind the United States to meaningless, stalling discussions", so these negotiations must essentially be for show. After this, of course, "the military option would likely become convincing to more Americans".
• Alberto Gonzales, former Attorney General and Bush crony, who this week compared Bush with Lincoln. Bush also has presented himself as the contemporary Lincoln. This has been a recurring theme within neocon circles, with Karl Rove, Rudy Giuliani, and Newt Gingrich saying the same thing. Gonzales received $30,000 for his little speech, in which this scholarly figure would only answer pre-approved questions. He further offered that Bush's brilliance "will be revealed in years to come". Perhaps through multiple subpoenas, one would hope.
• President Bush, who this week in Africa presented a cut in funding for AIDS, TB, and malaria as an increase in funding. Congress gave Bush $841 million for the Global Project, but Bush reduced it to $500 million since, as one his stooges said, “You don’t want to pile up money.” So cutting $341 million is now considered an increase in Bush-speak.
• Arizona Senator John McCain, who this week criticised Obama as naive for saying he would take military action in Pakistan, even without the Pakistanis' permission if they wouldn't give it. As McCain further said, " I would not broadcast to the world that I am going to bomb a sovereign nation in order to accomplish my goal." So, Mr. McCain, weren't you the guy that broke out singing a reprise of "Barbara Ann" calling for the bombing of Iran? Isn't Iran a "sovereign nation"? Is that "naive", or is it only naive if someone else does it? Of course, the Bush Administration last month did exactly what McCain is criticising Obama for proposing. When asked about this, McCain said Obama was "wrong in speaking publicly about the option". So one must wonder if it was also wrong for McCain to speak publicly about bombing Iran. So much for "straight talk". Mc Cain is also eligible for a Sunday Eel Pout for his flip-flop on "taxes for the wealthy".

  “There’s one big difference between me and the others–I won’t take every last dime of the surplus and spend it on tax cuts that mostly benefit the wealthy.” [McCain campaign commercial, January 2000]

So, as we reel in another putative prize and lay it out on the Minnesota lake ice in disgust, the sense of anticipation builds. Which bozo will take this damn thing home?

The winner of Minnesota's absolutely unwanted, utterly uncoveted, dismally appropriate, shudder-inspiring, and completely ignominious Sunday Eel Pout is... John McCain for saying it's wrong to publicly talk about bombing a sovereign nation, unless he does it, but that it's okay to actually do it if you are in the Bush Administration, because it's talking about bombing a country that really bothers a sovereign nation, not the actual bombing. This is McCain's second Sunday Eel Pout.
No, you can't throw it back. It's against the law in Minnesota to throw a rough fish back in the water. You're stuck with it, like every other angler in the North Star State. Feed it to the dog, use it to symbolise what we are fighting for in Iraq, waterboard it until it "talks", but get it the hell out of my sight.

All of the idiots in this week's race were unquestionably deserving of the Sunday Eel Pout, but There Can Be Only One.

Well kids, the hissing of the eel pout can only mean one thing: this Sunday's Eel Pout award is over.

India waves the white flag on Chinese incursions

As I've noted before, China is creating a border conflict with India on India's NE frontier. Chinese forces are building roads, shelters, and camps both in India's Arunachal Pradesh and within Bhutan. Chinese Maoist proxies are moving into the Siliguri Corridor and the Chumba Valley to disrupt Indian and Bhutanese security forces. China openly claims ownership of Arunachal Pradesh, and India appears unwilling to go to war to defend it or Bhutan.

Remarkably, the Indian military is now saying, essentially, that it depends on how you look at it. "Maybe China really does own Arunachal Pradesh. Who are we to say who owns what?", seems to be the Indian Army's latest comment on the border incursions.

Or, as the Indian Army Chief would say, "the Chinese have a different perception" of the border than India does. Wow. Perhaps Pakistan has "a different perception of the LAC" in Jammu and Kashmir than India does, too. You have to look at from both sides, right? So if Pakistan invaded Kashmir, maybe the Indian Army would just shrug and leave. I mean, who put the Indian Army in charge of saying which country's military can or cannot come on to Indian soil? I simply have to wonder just what exactly Indian Army Chief Kapoor thinks the military is for? Parades?

If the Indian military doesn't want to go to war with China, that's one thing. Nobody likes war, especially when it marches to your doorstep. But for the Indian military to pretend this is all just some deep, dark philosophical mystery that has them baffled is just completely ridiculous. Just tell China that they can have everything east of the Siliguri Corridor. Maybe they won't go farther than that. If they do, the Indian military can always ponder some more on the artificial and ephemeral nature of borders. After all, if China is under the impression that an Indian state belongs to them, well, maybe they're right.

The issue is not the "number of incursions", but rather that these incursions now are backed up by thousands of Chinese troops encamped on the border.

story from ExpressIndia

Chinese incursions due to different perception: India

Agencies
Posted online: Saturday , February 23, 2008 at 07:25:57
Updated: Saturday , February 23, 2008 at 07:45:25


New Delhi, February 23: Noting that there were different perception of the Line of Actual Control (LAC) in Arunachal Pradesh, Army Chief Gen Deepak Kapoor has said India would be "as much blameworthy" as the Chinese side for incursions on the two sides.

He, however, said border infrastructure on Chinese side was better than that of India, giving them an "additional capability to bring additional troops", and the government here is "seriously looking" into this "disparity".

"I think a degree of misperception has been built on this issue of incursions. First and foremost, it is a matter of perception. The Chinese have a different perception of the LAC as do we. When they come up to their perception, we call it an incursion and likewise they do," Kapoor said in Karan Thapar's Devil's Advocate programme for CNN-IBN.

He said the level of total number of incursions in 2007 is "somewhat similar to what it has been in the past. So, the feeling that too many incursions have taken place into Indian territory is not right."

Asked whether Indian troops also incur into Chinese territory as often because of differences of perception about the LAC, the army chief replied: "that's right. Which they would call an incursion into their side. So, therefore, to that extent, we would be as much blameworthy for that kind of incursion up to our perceived LAC."

Kapoor dismissed media perception that Chinese incursion were a sign of muscle-flexing by Beijing indicating something worse to come.

Bush hits new low in national polling

Yes, the Decider has gone into a tailspin and dropped to 19% support among the American public.

Four polls show McCain at a disadvantage to Obama if the election were held today.
Fox: McCain loses 43/47
Diageo: McCain loses 40/48
Zogby: McCain loses 40/47
Gallup: McCain loses 46/50

Of course, we still have eight months of a declining economy, McCain sucking up to Bush, the Sahwa turning on the Iraqi government, and Afghanistan sliding into failed state mode. We have eight months for Norm Coleman to do his incredible chameleon act and temporarily transform into a Democrat. We still have eight months of Republicans striking poses and the public snickering at them. And we have eight months of Administration hacks putting a flashlight under their faces and telling very scary stories that only their base believes anymore. Uh-huh, the Muslims are going to take over the country and make your daughter wear a burqa. Heard that one already.

story from ARG

February 20, 2008

Concerns over Economy Push
George W. Bush's Overall Job Approval to New Low

George W. Bush's overall job approval rating has dropped to a new low in American Research Group polling as 78% of Americans say that the national economy is getting worse according to the latest survey from the American Research Group.

Among all Americans, 19% approve of the way Bush is handling his job as president and 77% disapprove. When it comes to Bush's handling of the economy, 14% approve and 79% disapprove.

Among Americans registered to vote, 18% approve of the way Bush is handling his job as president and 78% disapprove. When it comes to the way Bush is handling the economy, 15% of registered voters approve of the way Bush is handling the economy and 79% disapprove.

A total of 78% of Americans say the national economy is getting worse and 47% say the national economy is in a recession. A total of 42% of Americans, however, say they believe the national economy will be better a year from now, which is the highest level for this question in the past year. This optimism does not spread to improvements in household financial situations as 17% of Americans say they expect their household financial situations to be better a year from now, which is the lowest for this question in the past year.

The results presented here are based on 1,100 completed telephone interviews conducted among a nationwide random sample of adults 18 years and older. The interviews were completed February 16 through 19, 2008. The theoretical margin of error for the total sample is plus or minus 2.6 percentage points, 95% of the time, on questions where opinion is evenly split.

Overall, 19% of Americans say that they approve of the way George W. Bush is handling his job as president, 77% disapprove, and 4% are undecided.

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

Among Republicans (29% of adults registered to vote in the survey), 45% approve of the way Bush is handling his job and 50% disapprove. Among Democrats (43% of adults registered to vote in the survey), 1% approve and 99% disapprove of the way Bush is handling his job. Among independents (28% of adults registered to vote in the survey), 17% approve and 75% disapprove of the way Bush is handling his job as president.

Overall, 14% of Americans say that they approve of the way George W. Bush is handling the economy, 79% disapprove, and 7% are undecided. Among registered voters, 15% approve and 79% disapprove of the way Bush is handling the economy.

A total of 1% of Americans say that the national economy is getting better, 20% say it is staying the same, and 78% say the national economy is getting worse.

Meanwhile, the Fox News poll has Bush dropping one point since last month to 32% approval. Bush has not exceeded 38% in the Fox News poll in the past year. NBC/WSJ has seen Bush's "very favorable" ratings drop from 31% to 14% in the past year.

The last Gallup Poll early this month had 57% saying that the Iraq invasion was "a mistake".

These numbers are what the Republicans are running on. A "mistake" of a war, an economy that 1% says is improving, and continuation of policies that only 19% support. Yet, just as before the 2006 elections, we hear wildly delusional Republicans looking forward to a big victory. For fun, take a look at the predictions from those wacky folks over at Redstate.

Third District offers GOP ventriloquist dummy

From The Minnesota Monitor, a report comes in about the environmental scorecards for the state's congressional delegation. Democratic Rep. Keith Ellison scored 100% on environmental issues, and Democratic Sen. Klobuchar scored 83%.
Republican Reps. Kline and Bachmann both scored zero on the scorecard.
Interestingly, the Republicans were not washed out. Retiring Rep. Ramstad got a score of 95%. It's interesting because Ramstad is quite a moderate Republican, who is retiring because of what his Party has turned into. He's also my Representative. After denouncing him as a RINO, the Party later begged him to run again so that they would not have to spend money defending the seat. Apparently ideological purity isn't that important in election years.

While my district has been a solid Republican one for a long time, it is not a conservative district. Ramstad never got elected by claiming unswerving loyalty to the Bush Team, like Kline and Bachmann did.
The likely Republican candidate for the district, Erik Paulson, is pretty vague on the issues. He uses broad terms. On security, we need to "think globally" and "reduce our dependence on foreign oil". Pretty bold stuff, eh? On health care, we "need more choices", but not a choice of single-payer health care. Could you vague that up a little more, Erik? He says nothing about Iraq, but he has "traveled throughout Europe, Asia and the Middle East", no doubt encountering a wide assortment of hotel staff to give him insight into the world's issues. When I see Republicans talking like this, my first thought is that this a person waiting for the Party to hand him a script. He's a ventriloquist dummy for other people who you wouldn't vote for. My bet is that he'll continue to keep things extremely fuzzy in the campaign, because if he were to come out and explicitly support the neocon agenda he would lose. If elected, however, he will do precisely what he is told to do by the (highly unpopular) neocon base of the Party, and alienate his district. It would probably spell the end of Republican dominance for the district, but they would get their single-term shill. His real qualification for the Republican seal of approval is that he has been able to raise his own money, which means that the Party won't have to spend it's slender resources on the campaign. A free shill is the best kind of shill.

The Democrats are offering Hovland (a Republican-turned-Democrat), Bonoff (a state senator), and Madia (an Iraq war veteran) . All three take a position of getting our troops out of Iraq, with Hovland being a little vague and leaving a fair amount of wiggle room. Still, put that up against Paulson's "I'm waiting for the memo from my Party masters" line. The seat may very well go to the Democrats. Being annointed by the Republicans doesn't mean what it used to in this district anymore.

More border troubles in Bhutan

I've posted before on the situation in Bhutan here and here.
China is moving its military forces into Bhutan, which is in the way of their effort to take the Indian frontier in a border dispute. With neighbouring Nepal already under the control of Chinese-inspired Maoist forces, and similar insurgents in the Indian state of Assam for several years, Bhutan is in a three-front low-intensity conflict. If an outright border war betwen China and India should ensue, these proxies would become an effective Fifth Column, with Bhutan becoming "liberated" by China in the same way that Tibet was "saved".

As we see in the reports below, these things are already coming to pass. Bhutan is attempting to evict Chinese proxies from bases within their country, while security forces in Assam are struggling with their own proxies and trying to prevent those in Bhutan from setting up bases in Assam. Meanwhile, China continues unhindered in its build-up, as their proxies create a diversion.

story from Calcutta News

Maoist threat: security tightened along Assam-Bhutan border

Calcutta News.Net
Friday 22nd February, 2008 (IANS)

The Assam government has tightened security along its border with Bhutan and expressed serious concern over reports that Maoist rebels from Nepal were going through the state to enter Bhutan and set up bases in the Himalayan kingdom.

'We are aware of the recent developments regarding movement of Maoist rebels and are taking the reports very seriously. We are stepping up security measures,' Asasm Chief Minister Tarun Gogoi told IANS Friday.

Bhutan's security forces have busted two Maoist militant camps and have captured at least eight Communist rebels with weapons in a crackdown that began last week.

'Our security personnel have busted two Maoist rebel camps last week, one each in the districts of Serphang and Samdrup Jongkhar, and captured eight rebels with weapons and incriminating documents,' Bhutan's Deputy Chief of Police Kipchu Namgyel told IANS by telephone from capital Thimphu.

Namgyel said the rebels belong to the Nepal-based Communist Party of Bhutan (Marxist-Leninist), a little-known group that is said to have carried out five bomb explosions in the otherwise peaceful Himalayan nation in less than a month.

The busting of the two Maoist camps in southern Bhutan districts, bordering the northeastern Indian state of Assam, has concerned authorities in the Buddhist nation of 700,000 people that is getting ready for its first parliamentary elections March 24.

Paramilitary troopers of the Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB) have stepped up vigil along Assam's 262 km unfenced border with Bhutan in view of reports of cross-border movement of Maoist rebels.

'We are taking adequate steps in view of the reports to ensure that Maoists are not able to set up any bases in Assam,' the chief minister said.

The Royal Bhutan Police (RBP) has held the Communist Party of Bhutan (Marxist-Leninist) responsible for the Feb 4 bombing in the southwestern Samtse district and four other explosions in January.

One person was injured and some government and private buildings damaged in the serial blasts. The Communist Party of Bhutan has also threatened to disrupt the March 24 elections to Bhutan's National Assembly or the lower House of Parliament that would formalize the nation's transformation from an absolute monarchy to parliamentary democracy.

Bhutan had witnessed a pro-democracy agitation in the 1990s with a section of Nepali-speaking residents in its southern parts rising in revolt against the monarchy.

The crackdown that followed led thousands of Nepali-speaking people from southern Bhutan to flee to Nepal. Now an estimated 100,000 people are sheltered in relief camps.

There are reports that the Maoists are recruiting among aggrieved refugees now based in Nepal. Recent reports say that Maoists from eastern India may have forged links with a rag-tag Assam-based rebel group called the All Adivasi National Liberation Army (AANLA), whose cadres are drawn from the state's tea workers' community.

The Assam Police have claimed to have reports about some AANLA leaders based in the state of Jharkhand, known to be a Maoist stronghold.

The Maoists' entry into Bhutan and the trend of violence has caused much concern among observers in the placid nation, currently on the fast track to experiencing democracy.

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

story from The Telegraph

Bhutan purge worries Assam
- SSB alerted to passage of Maoists
OUR BUREAU

Guwahati/New Delhi, Feb. 21: The advent of democracy in Bhutan has triggered security concerns in Assam.

Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB) personnel stationed on the Indo-Bhutan border have launched an operation codenamed Night Dominance to prevent Maoists crossing over to escape a crackdown by the Royal Bhutan Army in the jungles of the Himalayan kingdom. The raids on Maoist camps is to pre-empt trouble during the March elections in Bhutan.

Sources in the SSB said that there was a danger of Maoists crossing from either side. “Maoists on the run in neighbouring Bhutan could cross over to the Indian side. Also, there is the possibility of Maoists belonging to the Communist Party of Bhutan (Marxist-Leninist-Maoist) trying to sneak into the Himalayan kingdom from the Indian side. The party is Nepal-based and there are reports that they have been using Indian border to cross over to Bhutan,” a senior official said.

Inspector-general H.C. Kharkwal confirmed that all SSB units were on maximum alert. “We have increased the level of troop deployment and arranged for modern equipment like night-vision devices and fast-moving vehicles. We need to be prepared to deal with any situation,” he said.

An intelligence official monitoring the Bhutan scene said at least three camps of the Bhutan Tiger Force — said to be the militant wing of the Communist Party of Bhutan — were busted and several Maoists arrested in the past few days. The rebels are believed to have sneaked into the Himalayan kingdom from Nepal through Assam.

Kharkwal said the SSB was focusing on the stretches through which infiltration was most likely, including the Bengal-Assam-Bhutan trijunction and Gossaigaon in Kokrajhar district.

Sources in the state home department said the increase in Maoist activity in Bhutan and along the border with Assam was discussed during a meeting on Tuesday between the king and the visiting Indian foreign secretary Shivshankar Menon and joint secretary (north) Preeti Saran.

The SSB’s special operation is likely to continue till the elections in Bhutan are over.

Militancy in Bhutan has been intrinsically linked to Assam and vice-versa ever since Ulfa and the National Democratic Front of Boroland set up camps in the Himalayan kingdom. Bhutan launched Operation All Clear in December 2003 to flush out the Assam militants.

Maoist elements in Assam, who became overly active after the episode in which a mob attacked Adivasi rallyists at Beltola in Guwahati last year, are believed to have established contact with their Nepal counterparts. “Bhutan will eventually turn into their meeting place if the situation is not handled immediately,” an intelligence official said.

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

story from Kuensel

Militant camp in Samdrup Jongkhar

16 February, 2008 - Two members of the Communist Party of Bhutan, based in Nepal, were apprehended from a militant camp in the forest at Nunai under Samdrup Jongkhar dzongkhag, which a Royal Bhutan army patrol came across on February 15.

The RBA patrol recovered two pistols, four rifles and 15 improvised bombs from the two militants, Sanman Gurung and Aitaraj Rai. An army spokesperson said that the two apprehended militants said that there were 18 militants in the camp.

This is the third camp detected inside Bhutan since January 2008, according to the army spokesperson.

British Foreign Office avoids angering Israel over nukes

The only Middle Eastern nation with nuclear weapons is Israel. Israel refuses to sign the NPT.
Yet the "real" threat is imaginary nukes in Iraq and Iran. Iran, at least, signed the NPT.
These are the facts that had to be left out of a British report, lest Israel get annoyed.

story from The Daily Star

UK 'suppressed' mention of Israeli nuclear arsenal in Iraq arms dossier

Compiled by Daily Star staff
Friday, February 22, 2008

LONDON: An early draft of a pre-war British weapons dossier on Iraq included concerns over Israel's nuclear capability, but the government fought to suppress the reference before publication, Britain's Guardian newspaper reported on Thursday. The daily said the Foreign Office convinced a tribunal to keep secret the handwritten mention of Israel in the margin of the dossier, which was drawn up to support the decision to go to war in Iraq.

The reference, suggesting Israel had disregarded the will of the United Nations like Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein in pursuit of weapons of mass destruction, was removed before the draft was released this week under Britain's Freedom of Information Act. Israel, seen as a key British government ally, is thought to have the Middle East's only atomic arsenal.

In a witness statement to the Information Tribunal, seen by The Guardian, a senior Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) official warned that any candid reference to Israel's nuclear arsenal would seriously damage bilateral relations.

"I interpret this note to indicate that the person who wrote it believes that Israel has flouted the United Nations' authority in a manner similar to that of the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein," the official said, according to The Guardian.

"Unfortunately, there is a perception already in Israel that parts of the FCO are prejudiced against the country," Foreign Office official Neil Wigan was quoted as saying.

He argued that the reference scrawled on the draft dossier "would therefore confirm this pre-existing suspicion and would increase the damage."

When asked about the Guardian report, a Foreign Office spokeswoman told Reuters: "We don't comment on leaked documents."

A spokeswoman for Premier Gordon Brown would not comment on the document itself, but said: "Our position in terms of encouraging all signatories of the [nuclear] Non-Proliferation Treaty [NPT] to abide by that remains the same." Israel, however, is not party to the treaty.

"But we also recognize Israel's position needs to be looked at in a regional context, bearing in mind they have neighbors such as Iran who deny the right of Israel to exist," she added.

Succumbing to three years of pressure from freedom of information campaigners, London released the once-secret draft document on Monday.

The 32-page dossier, written by a former communications director at the Foreign Office, cites intelligence sources saying Iraq had stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and could easily use them since it had done so before - during a domestic insurrection and in the devastating Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s.

The document, amended in the margins, makes no mention of Iraq being capable of launching weapons of mass destruction within 45 minutes, a false claim later used in another government dossier to make the case for going to war. - Reuters

Jobless in Iraq

Businesses are closing due to death threats, forcing thousands out a job. Former military people are imprisoned, and their families are left with no income. Reconstruction has stalled, and the construction jobs are gone. Discrimination is rampant; if you are the wrong religion, you stay jobless.

The Iraqi government, always willing to play with figures, admits to between 60 and 70% unemployment and says it has been at those levels for the past two years.
"Liberation" sure must appealing to all of the other Middle Eastern countries now. And the Administration still pushes the dream that Iraq will inspire the entire region towards "democracy and prosperity".

story from IPS

IRAQ: Unemployment Too Becomes an Epidemic
By Ahmed Ali and Dahr Jamail*

BAQUBA, Feb 21 (IPS) - For a few, salaries have soared. For the rest, unemployment has.

Many Iraqi workers enjoyed huge salary increases following the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003. But unemployment rose more sharply under policies introduced by the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA).

CPA head L. Paul Bremer decommissioned the Iraqi military, leading to overnight unemployment for hundreds of thousands of military personnel. And that was not all. The ministries of culture and information also saw drastic layoffs, some through privatisation.

Almost a year into the occupation, defence ministry employees, many of them ex-military, started to receive monthly payments of about 100 dollars as "donation of emergency".

"This payment does not meet 10 percent of the monthly needs of many families," ex-soldier in the previous Iraq army Muhsin Aboud told IPS in Baquba, 40 km northeast of Baghdad. "It's unfair to leave us without jobs."

Still, the unemployed are lucky. Many employees of the abolished offices were accused of being terrorists, and imprisoned.

"One day, a group of American soldiers stormed into my house while I and my family were sleeping," Abd al-Joburi, an officer in Iraq's former military told IPS. "They tied my hands and put a plastic bag on my head and forced me to lie with my face down. It was because I'm an ex-officer, and Sunni."

Al-Joburi was imprisoned for nine months after the raid that took place in March of last year. "Nobody asked whether my family have any salary or income. Since I was released, I have not had a job."

Now, the sectarian practices of politicians and the government are adding to unemployment for whole sections of people, particularly Sunni Muslims.

"I applied for a job in the directorate-general of police of Diyala province four times," a former intelligence officer told IPS. "All of my applications were rejected. All the Shia ex-officers' applications were accepted, regardless of their experience and specialisation. Now they are officers in the police and army."

The ex-officer added, "I am now working as a grocer."

Violence has made unemployment even worse; it has led large numbers of people to quit the jobs they had. Most people in Baquba are today either forced to stay at home, or to leave the city, and if they can, the country.

"I closed my restaurant," said a local businessman in Baquba. "Two militants came and killed the owner of the shop next to my restaurant. We had no choice."

"The owners of prominent shops, restaurants, car shops, rich people, heads of the offices, owners of buildings, traders, businessmen - all of them became targets of the militants," said a resident, who like many others, did not wish to give his name. "As a result, all of them quit. Just think how many people could be employed in all these fields."

Meanwhile, reconstruction and rehabilitation projects that could have employed some people have come to a standstill.

"I dismissed more than 50 employees in my company because of the stoppage of work," a manager with the Dolphin company for general contractors told IPS. "Work has stopped for more than two years."

The owner of a plastic pipes factory said threats forced him to close his factory. "I received a message asking me to pay 50,000 dollars, or I would be killed."

Unemployment in Iraq has been between 60-70 percent over the last two years, according to the government in Baghdad. This is nearly twice what it was in the period of the sanctions in the 1990s.

Most worrying is what is happening in the food business. The Diyala Food Company, the largest in the province, closed last year.

"A group of militants came to kidnap the owner's son," former employee Aziz Khamis told IPS. "The son and two of his bodyguards were killed, and the father was wounded. This big company has closed its doors, and thousands of employees are now stuck at home."

The reasons for losing jobs are endless. "I was fired for being a member of the Ba'ath party," Nasir Uwayid told IPS. "After a period of occupation, low ranking members were allowed to get their jobs again, but heads of offices who were members of the party were forced to retire or leave the city."

And sectarian displacement has brought its own unemployment. Tens of thousands of people have left their homes and jobs in Baquba because of the sectarian violence. Many have tried to start again in other cities, but few have been successful.

In 2002 Baquba had a population estimated at 280,000; in 2003, Diyala province had a population of roughly 1.2 million. Baquba is roughly 70 percent Sunni, while Diyala province is about 90 percent Sunni.

(*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/2008)

Israel worried about peace talks

The "basic principles" that Olmert seems to be discussing here are remarkably vague. Israel is moving ahead with settlements, but is employing semantics to say that, since they are not going to plan any settlements beyond those they are already planning in the Occupied Territories, that they have "halted" settlements. The collective punishment continues. Israel is essentially demanding that the Palestinians do all of their end of the bargain first, and then they will "talk" about what Israel will do. And this shabby pretext of negotiations is opposed in Israel as "giving away too much in advance".

And this sorry scene is supposed to be Bush's grand diplomatic achievement.

FM: Ending peace talks now would bolster Hamas
By Barak Ravid, Haaretz Correspondent and Reuters

Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni said on Monday that Israel would continue its negotiations with the Palestinian Authority despite ongoing rocket fire from the Gaza Strip, because ending the talks would only strengthen the position of Hamas.

Livni, who heads Israel's negotiating team, told the Knesset plenum after meeting with her Palestinian counterpart Ahmed Qureia that she was not "giving presents" to the Palestinians during talks: "I am not Santa Claus or some uncle that is giving out perks," she said.

The foreign minister added that some Israelis act "as though the negotiations are a kind of gift to the Palestinians or a present to the Americans," adding: "I don't accept that."

Meanwhile, Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas, countering Prime Minister Ehud Olmert on the issue of Jerusalem, was quoted on Monday as declaring that talks on the status of the city must not be postponed.

Speaking to a Jordanian newspaper, Abbas also said that the issue of Palestinian refugees must remain on the agenda of the talks, which he said were proceeding too slowly.

Olmert said on Sunday that Abbas had consented to hold off discussing Jerusalem until the end of the negotiating process, a move that could anger Palestinians but help the Israeli leader hold together his fragile coalition government for now.

But Nimer Hammad, Abbas's senior political advisor, said Monday "This is not true at all. The issue of Jerusalem is a fundamental issue and cannot be postponed. The president did not agree [with Olmert] to postpone it."

Abbas and Olmert planned to hold talks on Tuesday in Jerusalem. They have pledged to meet frequently to help advance Palestinian statehood negotiations that resumed after a U.S.-hosted Middle East peace conference in November.

The two sides, urged by U.S. President George W. Bush to reach a peace agreement before he leaves office in January 2009, have agreed to address core issues such as borders and the future of Jerusalem and Palestinian refugees.

But in a speech on Sunday, Olmert said the goal of peace talks with Abbas was to reach an understanding on "basic principles" for a Palestinian state by the end of 2008, rather than a full-fledged agreement.

"I don't know if we will be able to reach an understanding with the Palestinians. I hope we will. We'll do everything in our power to. But we will not start with the issue which is the most difficult," Olmert said of Jerusalem.

"We will postpone dealing with Jerusalem to the last phase of the negotiations," Olmert said, stressing that Abbas had "accepted" his suggestion.

Palestinian chief negotiatiator Saeb Erekat said Tuesday's meeting was not expected to deal with the final-status issues.

Instead, he expected the talks to focus on day-to-day areas of concern, such as Israeli construction in the West Bank and East Jerusalem and Palestinian rocket attacks on southern Israel from the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip.

Palestinian Information Minister Riad Malki said Abbas would also try to stave off an Israeli invasion of Gaza.

PM: No new settlements, but construction to go on

On Sunday, Olmert told visiting North American Jewish leaders that Israel will not construct any new settlements but will continue building in existing settlement blocs and Jerusalem.

Speaking in Jerusalem to a gathering of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, Olmert said that, "Jerusalem holds a special place and in its Jewish areas reality on the ground will change in the coming years. "Not one of my critics built more than me in Jerusalem or contributed more to its development," Olmert, a former mayor of the capital, added.

Whole lotta shakin' goin' on

I've been noticing a lot of earthquakes lately: Greece, Lebanon, Malaysia, Indonesia, West Sumatra, New Zealand, and even Nevada today.

Fortunately, a member of Israel's Parliament has made sense of this trend: gays exist, and this causes earthquakes. If I lived in Israel, I'd be a little worried that an earthquake could deal a blow to their nuclear reactor in Dimona, and possibly those nukes they have.

story from The Daily Star

Israeli legislator blames gays for earthquakes
By Agence France Presse (AFP)

Thursday, February 21, 2008

OCCUPIED JERUSALEM: An ultra-Orthodox member of Israel's Parliament on Wednesday blamed homosexuals for last week's earthquake that shook his country and the region.

Speaking at a parliamentary committee on preparedness for quakes, Shas MP Shlomo Benizri lashed out at homosexuality, considered an abomination under Jewish law and in its religious text, the Gemara.

"We are looking for earthly solutions, how to prevent them," Benizri said. "I have another way to prevent earthquakes. The Gemara says that one of the reasons earthquakes happen - which the Knesset [Parliament] legitimizes - is homosexuality."

"God says you shake your genitals where you are not supposed to and I will shake my world in order to wake you up," he added.

The Knesset decriminalized homosexuality in 1988, and has since passed several laws recognizing gay rights.

A tremor measuring 5.0 on the open-ended Richter scale rocked Lebanon, Israel and Syria on Friday, drawing new warnings by seismology experts of a major earthquake within years because of a major fault-line in the region.

Shas is known for its radically theocratic and Zionist agenda. The party's leadership has threatened to leave Premier Ehud Olmert's ruling coalition if Jerusalem is discussed in negotiations with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. - AFP

the eel pout in all it's glory

This what an eel pout looks like. Notice the head is much wider than the body. It is also slimier than it looks.
Like an eel, it will wrap it's slimy body around your wrist and arm.

The Sunday Eel Pout

Last week, John McCain was awarded the Sunday Eel Pout for his "diplomatic offensive" on NATO.
Sadly, the week just ended brought a new bundle of outrages and idiocies.
So, as we bait the hook and reluctantly face the prospect of pulling another eel pout out onto the Minnesota ice for this week's award, let's survey the candidates:

• Michael O'Hanlon is our first, who you may recall was one of the "critics" of the surge who was portrayed as coming 'round to Bush's side last year before the September report. Even a cursory examination of the facts quickly showed that O'Hanlon was a surge supporter all along, but the Administration still employed this shill. Now O'Hanlon is being employed again, publicly stating that both Obama and Clinton "fail on Iraq". Yet he gives the Decider a B+ for his "success". O'Hanlon said last March that we should give the surge "another six to nine months" before giving up on it. Time's up.
• Former White House spokesman Tony Snow, who decried the American media for its "failure narrative" with regard to the Iraqi occupation. Saying, "there's a disconnect between politics and the media and the rest of the country", Snow admitted that 80% of Bush advisers were opposed to the surge when it was proposed. Snow admires Bush for ignoring his advisers, even though Bush claimed in his 1/07 speech proposing the surge that "our military commanders reviewed the new Iraqi plan to ensure that it addressed these mistakes. They report that it does. They also report that this plan can work". The truth now seems to be the opposite. Snow deserves to be a candidate for the Sunday Eel Pout on the basis of implying that the American people still support the Iraqi occupation.
• Karl Rove, who this week endorsed John McCain's nomination. When Bush was running against McCain eight years ago, however, Rove denounced McCain's "combative style" as "not the mark of a leader who can unite the party and win the [White House]. Now he is pleased that Republicans are "already uniting behind" McCain. John McCain now terms Rove as "one of the smartest political minds in America".
• U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia for his defence of torture in a BBC interview this week. Once again the fictional premise of Jack Bauer is trotted out, only this time, the BBC interviewer calls him on it. Scalia essentially responds that its a matter of degree, and that if the fictional scenario were real, "we’re into a different game. How close does the threat have to be and how severe can an infliction of pain be?" His contorted logic seemingly dismisses the concept of presumption of innocence. How does one "know"that someone is guilty before it becomes "absurd" to refrain from torturing them? You simply torture someone until they admit their guilt, and that justifies the use of torture. Remember, kids, this guy is on the Supreme Court.
• Vice President Dick Cheney, who is trying to “block the release of video depositions by White House aides” in a lawsuit “by a man who was arrested after he allegedly touched Cheney at a Colorado shopping mall in 2006.” He is concerned that releasing the depositions could "embarrass and invade the privacy of [his] two aides". The "untouchable" Cheney is obviously not concerned about invading the privacy of millions of Americans on a daily basis with the Administration's warrantless wiretaps and data-mining, but revealing these depositions is just going a bit too far.
• Fox News, for it's portrayal of the FISA telecom immunity issue. The warrantless wiretapping was blithely described on Cavuto's show neatly and in summary this way: "The program began after 9/11 to help protect Americans." Yes, it's just that simple, except that this practise began even before 9/11. The Senate vote was described as "some good news for telecom companies". And that's what's really important, isn't it?

The winner of Minnesota's absolutely unwanted, utterly uncoveted, dismally appropriate, shudder-inspiring, and completely ignominious Sunday Eel Pout is Antonin Scalia for his deeply disturbing and offhand remarks that "it would be absurd" to refuse to torture people. Scalia's words will be quoted by repressive regimes throughout the world, and held up with contempt for decades by the rest of the world. Mr. Scalia, I am proud to present you with this writhing and hissing prize. No, you can't throw it back. It's against the law in Minnesota to throw a rough fish back in the water. You're stuck with it, like every other angler in the North Star State. Feed it to the dog, use it for fertiliser, wear it around your neck to frighten small children, but get it the hell out of my sight.

All of the idiots in this week's race were unquestionably deserving of the Sunday Eel Pout, but There Can Be Only One.

Well kids, the hissing of the eel pout can only mean one thing: this Sunday's Eel Pout award is over.

A troubled "Awakening"

A year after the surge began, nearly everything that was initially proposed has been abandoned or is stalled.
The crux of the surge, as proposed, was that Iraqi police and military forces would clamp down on the sectarian militias, disarming or killing those that resisted. The U.S. military was merely to act in a "support role". That idea was tossed out early on, and the "benchmarks" that the surge was supposed to allow the Iraqi government to achieve hadn't materialised by September, either.

The biggest putative success of the surge has come from something that was never proposed back in January 2007: the Awakening Councils, or the Sahwa, as they are called in Iraq. Also very helpful, but also not in the Decider's keen vision in 1/07, has been the freeze on militant activity by the Sadrists. The Mahdi Army's hope was that the other militias would exhaust themselves in the surge and the Sadrists would remain the most powerful after the smoke cleared. The U.S. repaid Sadr's restraint by spending months arresting Sadrists and consigning them to the black hole of the Iraqi prison system where torture is commonplace. Rather than the other militias exhausting themselves, they largely coalesced into the Sahwa and took their pay from the U.S. while openly expressing disloyalty to the Iraqi government.

Thus, the Bush Administration has created a huge parallel military within Iraq that circumvents the corrupt, ineffective, and thoroughly-infilitrated Iraqi National Police and Army. While the Sahwa are nominally allied with the U.S. forces, they are loyal to their own sectarian interests first and foremost. And the inherent weakness of this arrangement is becoming clearer. As the Sahwa become the real power in the areas where they have been the most effective, they are now challenging the Iraqi Police and Army for control. And the Administration's hopelessly optimistic scheme of "transitioning" the Sahwa into the regular Iraqi forces has stalled and is coming apart.

The (mostly Sunni) Sahwa have become the targets of the (mostly Shia) government forces. Both sides see the Americans as siding with the other party in this conflict. And we are now seeing weekly "friendly-fire" deaths of the Sahwa forces at the hands of the Americans. At some point, Bush will have to back one side or the other, and the "gains" of the surge will evaporate.

Since September, it's become more obvious that the Administration is chiefly interested in a fatal blow to Al-Qaeda, and the idea of a stable Iraqi government has been relegated to the very back of the back burner. Seemingly every day, multiple corpses are post-humously dubbed as "Al-Qaeda" simply by virtue of their deaths, based on nothing more than a senior officers desire to rack up numbers. For all of the "progress", provincial elections remain a mirage. That sacred act of voting that Bush invoked as one of his ever-shifting rationales for American forces to remain seems to have faded from importance. When Bush proposed the surge, the Iraqi government was expected to take control of all the provinces by last November. That became April, and now nobody is saying anymore when it will happen. Bush no longer is interested in a stable Iraqi government; it's all about Al-Qaeda now. And Al-Qaeda is somehow driven from Iraq, where will they go? Somalia or Afghanistan, one would suppose. Is that better? It doesn't matter, because Bush would be able to claim "victory" by creating the same situation someplace else.

story from IPS

IRAQ: A New Force Called Sahwa Shows Its Muscle
By Ahmed Ali and Dahr Jamail*

BAQUBA, Feb 13 (IPS) - The Awakening Councils in Diyala province are stepping up their protests against the government in Baghdad.

The Awakening Councils, or the Sahwa as they are called, are a mostly Sunni Muslim force set up by the U.S. to draw in resistance fighters into their ranks, and then to help U.S. forces fight other anti-U.S. groups.

The Sahwa have been engaged in growing conflict with the largely Shia Muslim forces of the Iraqi government.

The new conflict was sparked off by the rape and murder of two Sunni women, allegedly by members of Shia militia that are backed by the government. The Sahwa in Diyala province, just north of Baghdad, have been demanding dismissal of police chief Major General Ghanim al-Qureyshi.

"We demand the resignation of Qureyshi because he is sectarian, and every crime against Sunnis has been committed in his knowledge," Sahwa leader Abu Qutaiba told IPS. "We also want to put the issue of prisoners on the table of debate. Their cases should be reviewed by fair people. All prisoners were arrested on the basis of sectarian information."

Qutaiba added, "Prisons are filled with Sunnis while Shias enjoy jobs, power and authority. We blame Americans for relying on false Shia information, which serves the sectarian appeal and Iranian agenda. We want the truth to see the sun."

The government, far from rebuking the provincial police chief, has given him a promotion.

Following a demonstration led by Sahwa members Feb. 8, Qureyshi said people do not want to demonstrate. All that had happened was that some people carrying protest banners had joined others leaving a mosque in Tahreer district after prayers.

Following this, Sahwa members led another rally Saturday, hoisting banners that said 'Today is Saturday'. Other protest rallies followed.

On Feb. 11, hundreds of Sahwa fighters demonstrated again in Baquba, 40 km northeast of Baghdad, demanding dismissal of Qureyshi, a Shia. The protesters threatened they would quit their jobs as neighbourhood guards if this was not done. Many have already left their posts in protest. Sahwa members are paid 300 dollars monthly by the U.S. government.

The demonstrations have drawn in people from all around Iraq's volatile Diyala province. The streets have filled with people hoisting protest banners. The Sahwa here want to show they are a power that Baghdad cannot ignore.

A rally last Sunday led to armed clashes between Iraqi police and Sahwa members, in which three policemen were killed.

Abu Haider al-Katib, spokesman for the 1920s Revolution Brigades, the largest of the Sahwa components, told reporters that if their demands were not met, they would "take up arms" against the police "and U.S. troops if they support the police."

"We want jobs, that have been denied to Sunnis," Abu Haider, another Sahwa leader in the city told IPS. "Americans and the Prime Minister (Nouri al-Maliki) promised that members of the Sahwa would be included as permanent Iraqi security forces. People want us to be official forces because they trust our seriousness in protecting our province. We restored life to streets and made people feel safe again."

So far only 10 percent of nearly 80,000 Sahwa members have been admitted into training for police and army jobs.

A member of a local Sahwa, referring to himself as Abu Noor, told IPS that their demands also included "an end to the licentious behaviour of the sectarian police.

"From the time the militants left the streets, the police have behaved badly. We want the police and army to respect people. We want all Iraqis to feel that they are of great value in their country."

The police, he said, "do not show this bad behaviour in the Shia districts of Baquba like Khirnabat and Hwaider."

The Sahwa are clearly gaining respect and power in areas like Baquba -- a phenomenon which threatens the government, and its army and police forces.

"The majority of the new police and army are ignorant," retired teacher Abu Yarub told IPS. "They do not know how to read and write. The Americans will see how big a disaster they put us in when they allowed Iranians to establish the new police and army. This province refuses to be ruled by Iranians or their fellows."

(*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/2008)

Bolivia rebukes US Embassy spy recruiter

This is an update to my previous post about the U.S. Embassy in Bolivia ordering Peace Corps volunteers and at least one Fulbright scholar to spy for them.

After being caught ordering three PCVs (Peace Corps Volunteers) to spy on Venezuelans and Cubans providing free medical care in Bolivia, Vincent Cooper was told not to do again (allegedly) by the State Dept.
A few months later, however, he was reported doing the same thing to Fulbright scholar. Cooper justified his orders to the PCVs and scholars as "part of the war on terror". Providing free medical care to desperately poor people is terrorism?

At no time did Cooper see fit to mention that following his orders could land these people 30 years in the dismal, brutal, utterly abysmal Bolivian prison system. Were he not an Embassy official, Cooper himself would probably have been inside that prison system.

story from Xinhua

Bolivia declares U.S. diplomat undesirable person

Bolivian President Evo Morales declared U.S. embassy official Vincent Cooper an "undesirable person" Monday, citing charges that Cooper was trying to organize a spy ring, according to news reaching here.

"This man has not only violated the rights of his own citizens, but is also violating, offending and attacking a nation like Bolivia," Morales said during a speech to start the academic year at a school for sergeants in the Bolivian province of Cochabamba.

Morales said Cooper had asked scholarship holders and Peace Corps volunteers to spy on Cubans and Venezuelans living in Bolivia.

"From the moment that this mistake was discovered, he became an undesirable person for Bolivia and for the Bolivian government," he said.

Fulbright Foundation scholar Alexander Van Schaick told Bolivian Foreign Minister David Choquehuanca and a U.S. broadcaster that during a November meeting at the U.S. embassy, he had been asked to become a spy.

"They told me to give them the names, addresses and activities of any doctor or worker from Venezuela or Cuba that crosses my path during my stay here," Van Shaick said.

The U.S. embassy in the Bolivian capital La Paz said that a member of its security staff had met U.S. volunteers and made what it described as "an inappropriate suggestion." It added that more senior staff had immediately corrected the official.

Bolivia's armed forces have the obligation to safeguard the nation's integrity and image and also the nation's dignity, Morales said, adding that Bolivia would continue its foreign relations but was strongly opposed to those nations that use students and volunteers as spies.

Source: Xinhua

Minnesota's Congresspeople think Bush budget is lame

Passed on without comment from The Minnesota Monitor.

Minnesota's reps agree: Bush budget is bad news

by: Andy Birkey

Mon Feb 11, 2008 at 10:36:31 AM

President Bush released his proposed budget for fiscal year 2009 last Monday (you might have missed it with Super Duper Tuesday the following day), and not very many people are happy with what it contains.

Minnesota's congressional delegation could find very little positive to say about the proposal. Even staunch Bush supporter, Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., has some criticism to offer and Sen. Norm Coleman gave Bush some credit but backed away from supporting the proposal.

"It's a meaningless document," Rep. Betty McCollum, DFL-Minn., told The Star Tribune. "Congress will set a new course and determine next year's spending priorities based on the real needs of the American people."

Rep. James Oberstar, DFL-Minn., was equally critical. "The budget President Bush unveiled today promises to saddle our children and grandchildren with more debt, while offering fewer services to working families," said Oberstar in a press release.

"Cutting back on health care for the poor and elderly will only increase the numbers of uninsured and under-insured in our country," said Oberstar. "There were 40 million uninsured Americans when President Bush took office; today, there are 47 million, and that number will grow even larger if we enact this budget."

"Like the President's State of Union Speech last week, the Federal budget released by President Bush... contains no new ideas, wasteful spending and irresponsible cuts to hard-working families who most need it," said Rep. Keith Ellison, DFL-Minn., in a statement. "The President calls for $70 billion more for the war in Iraq, while pushing mean-spirited budget cuts that would slash over $12.5 million from Minnesota's Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, while jeopardizing over 35,000 Minnesota residents in public housing." Ellison continued, "Minnesotans are, like the rest of America, clamoring for change but not the kind of change that this President's misplaced priorities budget contain."

"From health care, to energy independence, to safety on our streets, this budget is out of touch with the values that I hear when talking to the people of Minnesota," Sen. Amy Klobuchar, DFL-Minn., told The Star Tribune.

While Sen. Norm Coleman said that the budget was a step in the right direction, he expressed concern over the cuts to programs aimed at low-income Minnesotans. "Clearly we need to take a hard look at entitlement spending," he said in a press release. "I am concerned, however, that the reductions proposed by the President's budget could result in diminished quality and quantity of healthcare for our most vulnerable populations..."

"At the same time, we need to be mindful of the impact of cutting programs that are crucial to Minnesotans," he continued. "I am concerned about the proposed reductions in programs that put food on the table for seniors in need, keep impoverished families warm during the winter months, and help urban and rural communities. I am particularly disappointed that once again the Administration is seeking to undercut the farm safety net, which ensures that we maintain the safest, most affordable food supply in the world."

Rep. Michele Bachmann, often loath to respond to requests for comment by non-right-leaning news outlets was candid about the Bush budget proposal during an appearance on Heading Right Radio.

Speaking of the Bush budget proposal she said, "It's an awful lot of money. It's $3.1 trillion. It's a lot of money. I think the main thing I'm concerned about right now is that it seems like it's too easy to spend other people's money."

Bachmann continued, "The greatest level of growth in the budget is with the entitlement [programs]. That's really were we need to begin [budget cuts]. Eventually, down the line, we could be looking at bankruptcy. It's far and away greater than any other aspect of the budget."

(Actually, the greatest level of growth in the budget is defense spending at a 5.5 percent increase after inflation is taken into consideration, according to the Washington Post. So-called "entitlement programs" such as Medicare and Medicaid will take cuts under the Bush proposal.)

"President Bush released a budget that is nothing more than an announcement to bounce the biggest check yet," said Rep. Tim Walz, DFL-Minn.,in a press release. "This budget is more of the same fiscal mismanagement that has characterized his time in office."

"We are all in this together, which is why I'd like to see a budget that puts people first," continued Walz. "In times of economic downturn, our first priority has to be the people who are barely making ends meet and the President's budget doesn't subscribe to those values.We can do better."

Europe's take on Nato's Afghan role

Rather than simply parroting the Bush Administration's increasingly hysterical line, I've been looking at the European position. Yesterday I posted about Spain refusing to send more troops. I've posted about why Germany, Britain, Canada, and the Netherlands won't send any troops. Italy is mired in parliamentary gridlock ahead of the April elections, and is reluctant to spend any more money on the disaster anyway. Belgium has made promises of a small temporary (4 month) deployment some months from now. That leaves everyone looking at France, who has made such a show of being Bush's best buddy of late. That's right, we're now depending on the French Army, the country whose military prowess got us into Vietnam, to save the day and cough up enough troops that Canada will stay in the fight until after Bush leaves office.

Bush is irritably demanding somebody in Europe come up with a thousand troops, and soon. Not that 1000 new troops will make any difference, but that is the number needed to keep Canada's 2500 troops in Kandahar or else they will withdraw in January 2009.

The European view of the NATO/Afghan crisis:

While Gates and the Harper government were pleading for more troops, the commander of the 40,000 NATO troops in Afghanistan, U.S. Gen. Dan McNeill, landed a bombshell. If proper U.S. military counter-insurgency doctrine were followed, McNeill admitted, the U.S. and NATO would need 400,000 troops to defeat Pashtun tribal resistance in Afghanistan.

When the Soviets occupied Afghanistan, they deployed 160,000 troops and about 200,000 Afghan Communist troops -- yet failed to crush the mostly Pashtun resistance. Now, the U.S. and NATO are trying the same mission with only 66,000 troops, backed by local mercenaries grandly styled the Afghan National Army.

The hunters are becoming the hunted. Cutting off invaders' supply lines is a time-honoured Pashtun military tactic. They used it againstAlexander the Great, the British and Soviets, and are at it again.

What angry Gates fails to see is that by pushing NATO into a distant Asian war without political purpose or seeming end, he is endangering the very alliance that is the bedrock of U.S. power in Europe.

Europeans increasingly ask why they need the U.S.-dominated military alliance, a Cold War relic, in which they continue to play foot soldiers to America's atomic knights, to paraphrase the late German statesman, Franz Josef Strauss.

Why does the rich, powerful European Union even need NATO any more? The Soviet threat is gone -- at least for now. Nuclear-armed France and Britain are quite capable of defending Europe against outside threats. Why can't the new European Defence Force take over NATO's role of defending Europe and protecting EU interests?

In short, most Europeans see no benefit in playing junior members in an alliance whose historic time has passed and that serves primarily as an instrument of U.S. power. Washington's sharpest geopolitical thinker, Zbigniew Brzezinski, calls NATO a "stepping stone" the U.S. uses to project power into Europe.

By pushing NATO towards a bridge too far, the Bush administration may end up fatally undermining the alliance and encouraging anti-American forces in Europe.

In fact, it's becoming evident that the cash-strapped U.S. needs the EU more than the EU needs the U.S.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Italy, one of the other nations being asked to send more troops to Afghanistan, is paralysed by the upcoming April 13 elections:

On the foreign policy front, the Prodi government was meanwhile reluctant to involve its troops in combat in Afghanistan due to pressure from left wing allies in parliament whose support provided Prodi with his majority.

“A Berlusconi government could be prepared to send more troops to Afghanistan, but not necessarily to spend more,” analyst Vecchio said. “Given the center-right’s recent record, Berlusconi’s return could be negative for spending.”

Spain balks at expansion of Afghan role

Both the Prime Minister and Defence Minister of Spain refused to be browbeaten into sending more troops to Afghanistan this week. The Bush Administration has used its very firmest frown, and even a menacing scowl, on the NATO allies to send more troops and money to Afghanistan to salvage the Decider's brilliant vision for rainbows, puppy dogs and ice cream (and possibly unicorns) for the population of Afghanistan since they held elections, after all.

It looks as if the NATO allies are exhausted, disinterested, irritated, and recalcitrant about escalating their role in Afghanistan. The Administration has tried cajoling, browbeating, sending angry letters, and even insulting our allies, but nothing seems to convince them to put their militiaries at the disposal of the U.S.

John McCain, however, thinks he can persuade Europe with a little "straight talk". Apparently "straight talk" is the same thing as what the Administration has already tried, only now it's McCain trying it, so for some reason it's supposed to work.

Surely, behind the scenes there is some ugly threatening going on. This makes the NATO allies' reluctance all the more surprising. The NATO alliance really only exists as a deterrent to Russian aggression, and with the U.S. tying up the bulk of its military in a pointless and intractable occupation of Iraq there is no obvious need for Europe to cater to Bush's whims any longer. Sadly, Bush has let a few thousand Al-Qaeda bankrupt us and render our military irrelevant on the world stage. Bring 'em on, indeed.

Thus far, Spain alone has spent $890 million on a campaign that was supposed to be quick, primarily involving reconstruction...and ostensibly a "peacekeeping" mission. Spain can't put these costs on the Chinese credit card that Bush uses; it's real money that has to come from somewhere. Over 7000 Spanish troops have rotated through the wonderland of Afghanistan, where, golly gosh, girls are going to school now. And working in the opium fields after school, but let's not mention that.

story from Xinhua

Spain not to dispatch more troops to Afghanistan

Spanish Defence Minister Jose Antonio Alonso said on Thursday that his country would maintain the size of its peacekeeping force in Afghanistan and would not send more troops there.

Alonso told a press conference that he had reaffirmed the Spanish government's stance on the issue at talks with NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer on Thursday morning.

He said the 690 troops Spain currently has stationed in Afghanistan was sufficient to help fulfil the peacekeeping and reconstruction mission, and it was not necessary to send more troops there.

The minister added that Spain would be in charge of the training for two battalions of Afghanistan's national defense force and would send four unmanned planes and more instructors to help the Afghan army.

Since Spain participated in the peacekeeping mission in Afghanistan in January 2002 it has spent a total of 685 million euros (890 million U.S. dollars) on the mission and deployed 7,247 soldiers in 15 batches.

In a bid to bolster an offensive against the Taliban strongholds, NATO on Thursday called for more troops contribution to the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan, a call resisted by several European allies.

Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero affirmed last week that his country would not send any more troops to Afghanistan.

Source: Xinhua