[Peace] News notes 2007-01-07: Institutions

[C. G. Estabrook]

[These notes on the "Global War on Terror" were prepared for the weekly 
meeting of AWARE, the Anti-War Anti-Racism Effort of Champaign-Urbana. 
Much of this material was discussed on the Saturday morning radio 
program, "News from Neptune," by me and Paul Mueth, with the assistance 
of producer J. B. Nicholson-Owens and research director Eric Sizemore. 
Archived programs and citations are at <www.newsfromneptune.com>.  Other 
references will be provided on request. --CGE]

Sunday 7 January 2007

"Just as it seemed beyond the realm of possibility a month ago that the 
US could contrive a situation in which Saddam Hussein would be 
resurrected as a martyr, so now it still seems incredible that two 
months after an election on November 7 in which the voters punished Bush 
for the Iraq disaster by giving Congress back to the Democrats, Bush 
should be pressing for an escalation, backed by almost daily doses of 
crackpot realism in the New York Times." --Alexander Cockburn, CounterPunch

[1] DEMOCRATS.  The anti-war movement continues to be severely hampered 
by the lack of an opposition party in the US.  House Speaker Nancy 
Pelosi on CBS' "Face the Nation" this morning indicated continued 
support for the war -- along with some surface criticism of the 
administration.  She said that Democrats will not cut off money for the 
US troops in Iraq, and that her party favors increasing the overall size 
of the Army.  She would not even say that Democrats would block money 
for additional troops in Iraq. She called upon the president "to justify 
any additional resources."
     In the Senate, Joe Biden, the goofy chairman of the Senate Foreign 
Relations Committee, said cutting off funds was not an option.  Biden 
added, amazingly enough, that it probably would be an unconstitutional 
violation of separation of powers if Democrats were to block Bush's 
efforts as commander in chief after Congress had voted to authorize 
going to war. (He did not mention simply rescinding the authorization.) 
  He seemed to be saying that it would be unconstitutional for the 
Congress not to vote for whatever money the administration wanted for 
the war.  He said, "There is nothing a United States Senate can do to 
stop a president from conducting his war."
     Since the attacks of September 11, 2001, Congress has approved 
about $500 billion for Iraq, Afghanistan and other "terrorism-fighting 
efforts."  The White House is working on its largest-ever appeal for 
more war funds -- a record $100 billion, at least. It will be submitted 
along with Bush's February 5 budget.  It seems clear that the Democrats 
will support it.
     Meanwhile, a real opponent of the war, rather than fake ones, went 
to Cuba to demonstrate outside the US concentration camp at Guantanamo. 
Cindy Sheehan was joined by 12 anti-war protesters in Cuba.  The group 
is planning a protest outside the gates of the prison.

[2] NAVY. In contrast to the Democrats, the effective political 
institution in the US this week seems to be the US Navy.  An Admiral, 
the head of the US Pacific Command, will replace Gen. Abizaid as head of 
the Central Command, the US military organization for the Middle East. 
Even the New York Times suggests that the appointment of a Navy 
commander, "reflects a greater emphasis on countering Iranian power," 
i.e., by naval power in the what Americans call the Arabian Gulf.  (The 
rest of the world calls it the Persian Gulf.)
     Another Admiral, who had retired from the CIA, where he was known 
for channeling intelligence work to private contractors (and then went 
out work for Booz Allen, a $4B/year business that is one of those 
contractors) will replace Reagan-era war criminal John Negroponte as 
DNI. (This week's advent of the navy so flustered one silly Princeton 
academic, formerly on Cheney's staff, that he referred to "Admiral 
Negroponte" on the PBS newshour.  Negroponte will move to the State 
Department -- for what purpose is not clear.  Is he (s Paul Mueth 
suggests) Cheney's man to watch that dangerous liberal, Condi Rice?
     Meanwhile the US Navy was blockading the coast of Somalia -- an act 
of war -- in support of the aggression that the US had arranged against 
the popular government of Somalia.  US weapons, money and encouragement 
sent the Ethiopian army into Somalia, which it now occupies, and the 
former recipients of American tax money, the thugs the press calls 
"warlords," are back in power.  In spite of its casual treatment by the 
media, the US war in Somalia is part of the administration's war plan. 
One of Donald Rumsfeld's last acts as Defense secretary was to create a 
new Africa Command, the motives being oil and competing with China, now 
that Chinese trade and investment in Africa rivals that of the US and EU.
     Gen. Wesley Clarke wrote that shortly after the 9/11 attacks he was 
told by the Pentagon that the planned hit-list included Iraq, then 
Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia and Sudan as part of a five-year 
campaign plan.  That's also why we continue to hear so much about the 
enormities in Darfur/Sudan and so little about the US destruction of 
Somalia.

[3] ARMY.  In the US Army there seems to have been a faction fight for a 
while between the present military command in Iraq, that doubts the 
usefulness of the much-advertised surge (what we used to call 
"escalation"), and a group of military philosophers led by Lt. Gen David 
Petraeus, a Princeton Ph.D. who wrote his dissertation on on "The 
American Military and the Lessons of Vietnam."  Apparently an 
incarnation of the adage that generals tend to fight the last war, 
Petraeus wants to replace the reliance on large battle tactics with 
counterinsurgency tactics in which small units "live among the people." 
  The Bush administration seems to agree: they're replacing the present 
army leadership in Iraq with Petraeus and asking for another billion 
dollars and 20,000 more troops for him.  (It now seems that Petraeus, in 
a move that caused some surprise at the time, was responsible for the 
recent full public release of the new army manual on counterinsurgency, 
part of his campaign for his new job.)
     Meanwhile US soldiers are losing confidence in the way the 
administration is running the Iraq war. According to a new poll 
conducted by the Military Times newspapers, "For the first time, more 
troops disapprove of the president's handling of the war than approve of 
it ... Barely one-third of service members approve of the way the 
president is handling the war," the newspaper said.

[4] ISRAEL. Israel threatens again, through an article in the Sunday 
Times of London, to use nuclear weapons against Iran.  Worried about 
their support from the USG, the Israelis probably aim to whet America's 
almost blunted purpose in attacking Iran.  Given how much the American 
invasion of Iraq has strengthened the Iranian position in the region, 
Slavoj Zizek writes in the NYT that, facing the right judge, President 
Bush could be "condemned as an Iranian agent."  Therefore it's not 
surprising that an Israeli general writes in the online version of 
Israel's largest paper that Israel must help Bush prepare to attack Iran 
by lobbying the Democratic Party, newspaper editors and Democratic 
presidential candidates.
     The Democrats immediately responded as wanted.  New House Majority 
Leader Steny Hoyer told The Jerusalem Post hours after entering the 
party leadership position, that Iran with nuclear weapons is 
unacceptable. The Maryland Democrat said the view is shared by his 
party, rejecting assertions that the Democrats would be weaker than the 
Republicans on Iran. He said that the use of force against Teheran 
"remained an option."
     Meanwhile, the Palestinian Authority pointed out on Friday that the 
US was attempting to promote a revolt against the Hamas government, 
after US documents showed that the Bush administration will provide 
$86.4 million to arm forces of Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud 
Abbas. And four Palestinians were killed in a major Israel army 
operation in the West Bank city of Ramallah, a contemptuous 
accompaniment to talks between PM Olmert an Egypt's Mubarrak.

[5] AFGHANISTAN. Afghanistan Taliban leader Mullah Muhammad Omar said he 
would  continue the war until foreign troops withdraw from Afghanistan, 
but he emphasized that his goal was the removal of US troops from 
Afghanistan, not the jihad advocated by Osama bin Laden.  It is worth 
recalling that after the 9/11 attacks his government offered to 
negotiate the delivery of Bin Laden for trial, but the USG rejected the 
offer because it preferred to launch a war.

     *    *    *

What then is to be done?  Alex Cockburn has a suggestion:

"In his syndicated column published January 2, Robert Novak reported 
that barely more than a dozen Republican senators favor escalation. The 
rest remain impressed by the November 7 verdict of the electorate and 
fearful of worse in 2008.  The Democrats' leaders in Congress -- Reid 
and Pelosi -- waver. One day they profess to oppose any escalation.  The 
next, they refuse to countenance any effort to cut off funds for the 
war.  They need 20,000 Cindy Sheehans in their faces, day after day, 
reminding them forcefully that they have one prime mandate: to bring the 
troops home."

     ###