[Peace] News notes 2007-02-04

[C. G. Estabrook]

[The combination of the frigid cold, residual flu, and, ah, the football 
  game, may mean that I won't make it to tonight's meeting, so here are 
some news notes. Regards, CGE]

	    For this relief much thanks: 'tis bitter cold,
	    And I am sick at heart.
		--Hamlet 1:1

[1] THE THREAT OF PEACE. The USG's difficulties in protecting the 
cornerstone of its foreign policy, control of ME oil, multiplied this 
week as its clients and enemies in the region refused to stay put.  Our 
awkward puppet in Baghdad announced it had invited Syria and Iran to a 
conference there next month.  Meanwhile, "the head of Saudi Arabia's 
National Security Council, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, visited Tehran on 
Thursday for talks with his Iranian counterpart Ali Larijani. Riyadh has 
substantial influence among the region's Sunni community while Iran 
exercises leadership within West Asia's Shia fold ... growing clashes in 
the region ... have triggered an active dialogue between the two sides. 
Iran's Fars news agency quoting Lebanese sources said the two officials 
were working on an agreement that would end the Lebanese crisis" [The 
Hindu].  The US may have to attack Iran to prevent the growth of 
regional cooperation out from under US control.
	Finally, "Afghanistan's lower house of Parliament has approved a 
nonbinding resolution urging the government to grant immunity to all 
Afghans involved in the wars of the last 25 years, the New York Times 
reports. Lawmakers said the resolution was intended to include even the 
fugitive Taliban leader, Mullah Muhammad Omar, and the renegade 
mujahedeen leader Gulbuddin Hekmatyar." [JFP]
	Alive to the danger that peace might break out in Afghanistan, the US 
immediately took steps to keep the war going.. "Gen. Dan McNeill, the 
highest ranking U.S. general to lead troops in Afghanistan, took command 
of 35,500 NATO-led soldiers on Sunday ... after nine months of British 
command ... military officials said privately they expect McNeill to 
take a harder line with militants than his predecessor, Gen. David 
Richards ... One American military officer ... labeled McNeill a 
"warfighter to the bone" ... A senior Afghan military official, 
meanwhile, said the Defense Ministry expected McNeill to implement a 
policy of "strong military action." Other American officials said they 
expected a stronger approach under McNeill without specifying what that 
would be.  The appointment of McNeill, one of only 11 four-star generals 
in the Army, raises the profile of the American mission here two weeks 
after the Defense Department extended the tour of 3,200 10th Mountain 
Division soldiers. There are now 26,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan, the 
highest number ever." [AP]

[2] THE WAR ECONOMY. [To keep the killing going] President George W. 
Bush on Monday will seek $245 billion for the wars in Iraq and 
Afghanistan while boosting other military spending and curbing domestic 
programs [in the] fiscal 2008 budget.  [In addition] Bush will ask 
Congress for $100 billion more for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars for the 
fiscal year 2007 that ends in September ... The war spending for 2007 
will mark the highest annual level since the invasion of Iraq nearly 
four years ago. The total for this year of $170 billion includes the 
$100 billion request and $70 billion that Congress already appropriated 
... the president will seek to boost the Pentagon's regular budget by 
10.5 percent to $481 billion ... Bush is also proposing to squeeze tens 
of billions in savings from popular programs like the Medicare health 
program for the elderly, according to the official [Reuters]

[3] THE WAR AT HOME. Americans spent more than they earned last year ... 
pushing the personal savings rate to negative 1.0 percent, the deepest 
hole since the Great Depression of the 1930s. The figure, published last 
week by the US Commerce Department, means that not only did Americans 
spend all their income, they dug into savings and used credit to buy 
more. Over the past seven decades, the personal savings rate -- the 
difference between post-tax, or disposable, income and spending -- has 
been in negative territory only four times: 1932-1933, and 2005-2006. [AFP]

[4] WHAT CAN BE DONE. "The [American] people don't like the war but this 
doesn't mean it won't go on so long as there's money to fund it.  [The 
Democrats propose only] powder-puff nonbinding resolutions. On January 
26, even as Biden and the others were grandstanding about their 
rhetorical stance against the war, the Senate confirmed, 81 to 0, the 
nomination of General Petraeus-prime military booster of troop 
escalation-to command US troops in Iraq. Democrats voted for him, same 
as they voted to confirm Abizaid's successor, Admiral Fallon, same as 
they voted unanimously for Rumsfeld's successor, Robert Gates.
	"There are various bills put forward by Senators like Ted Kennedy and 
Representatives like Jerry Nadler calling for timetables, ceilings on 
spending and the like. The question here is what actual effect they 
could they have ... In September 2006 Congress passed the FY 2007 
Defense Appropriations Act, containing $70 billion for war, which Bush 
has been spending on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. That money will 
last at least until March, and after that, Defense can always shift 
money around in its existing budget till a new supplemental is passed. 
So for now Bush has money he needs to surge. But it's untrue that 
there's nothing effective Congress can do.
	"[Tomorrow] February 5 in considering the supplemental appropriation 
requested by the White House, Congress could decree no money for the 
surge and impose a ceiling on the number of US military in Iraq. The 
President could rotate the troops but not increase their number. To give 
this teeth, Congress could simultaneously decree that no money for 
surging could be used from previously appropriated funds. This is 
something the Defense Department can do, unless there is an express 
prohibition.
	"So a surge no-no in the supplemental appropriation is a legislative 
possibility. In the House, the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee is 
chaired by Jack Murtha, who wants to bring the troops home now. Murtha 
could put a ceiling on troop levels and other prohibitions in the bill, 
but then he'd have to get it through the full committee and onto the 
floor. A lot would depend on Nancy Pelosi, who could dispose of 
procedural tripwires. Then Murtha's bill would land in the Senate 
Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, chaired by Daniel Inouye, where 
it would be vulnerable to fiercer procedural attacks ... And of course 
the supplemental, altered by Congress, would have to survive a Bush veto.
	"It's easy for Bush to veto a one-page bill decreeing no money for any 
troops above, say, 140,000. [But tomorrow]  Congress also begins to 
consider the [more than] half-trillion-dollar FY 2008 Defense 
Appropriations bill. If Congress installs curbs on the war in Iraq 
there, Bush can only veto the entire bill." [CP]

[5] CANDIDATES SCRAMBLE. In a bid to become what the press is already 
calling him, "the major anti-war candidate," Sen. Barack Obama has filed 
"The Iraq War De-escalation Act of 2007." The WP notes the bill's huge 
loopholes.  It points out that Obama's bill "would leave a limited 
number of troops in place [As if we have an unlimited number there now?] 
to conduct counterterrorism activities [What are they doing now?] and 
train Iraqi forces [That's Petraeus' mantra, isn't it?]. And the 
withdrawal could be temporarily suspended [Ah, "temporarily"...] if the 
Iraqi government meets a series of benchmarks laid out by the Bush 
administration [That's the current policy!]."
	I frankly think that, with very few exceptions, all mainline US 
politicians know that the US has to continue to control Iraqi oil ("We 
cannot leave Iraq" --H. Kissinger), and that means some continuous 
American presence in Iraq.  What they're doing now is trying to find 
what modality of that presence can be sold to an increasingly anti-war 
public.  Obama -- who we know has had no moral objection to the war but 
only a prudential one ("It's stupid") -- has just got his snake-oil to 
the market first.

[6] SARTOR RESARTUS. At the trial of VP Cheney's aide Scooter Libby, the 
WP reports that "Testimony Points Out Cheney's Role in Trying to Dampen 
Joseph Wilson's Criticism."

[7] A HOPEFUL SIGN (PERHAPS). Buried in  today's Washington Post piece 
about President Bush's appearance before the Dems' annual retreat, we 
find this:  "Pelosi told her colleagues that if it appears likely that 
Bush wants to take the country to war against Iran, the House would take 
up a bill to deny him the authority to do so, according to Pelosi 
spokesman Brendan Daly."

[8] AN UNHOPEFUL SIGN.  The AP reports, rather laconically, "Life 
harsher in new Guantanamo unit."

[9] AN IRONIC SIGN. Former House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-TX) 
regrets voting for the Iraq War resolution in 2002:  "The resolution was 
a resolution that authorized the president to take that action if he 
deemed it necessary. Had I been more true to myself and the principles I 
believed in at the time, I would have openly opposed the whole adventure 
vocally and aggressively. I had a tough time reconciling doing that 
against the duties of majority leader in the House. I would have served 
myself and my party and my country better, though, had I done so."  (I 
think that's farther than Sen. Clinton has been willing to go.) [TPM]

	###