[Peace] News notes for the AWARE meeting 2007-07-22

[C. G. Estabrook]

SUNDAY 22 JULY 2007
(On this day in 1916, a bomb explodes during a "Preparedness [for WWI] 
Day" parade in San Francisco, killing 10 & injuring 40; Tom Mooney, a 
labor organizer, & Warren K. Billings, a shoe worker, were framed & 
convicted by business & government interests; they were pardoned 23 
years later, on the eve of the next war.  See [4][i] below.)

[1]  "The United States' surge, the use of the American troop 
reinforcements to bring violence in Iraq under control, is bloodily 
failing across northern Iraq. The dispatch of 28,000 extra troops to 
Iraq starting in January, and the more aggressive deployment of the US 
army in the country is not working. At best it is moving violence from 
one area of Iraq to another. There are at least three different wars 
being fought in northern Iraq: Sunni against Americans; Shia against 
Sunni; Arabs against Kurds. Alliances can switch. The Kurds are the 
Americans' only sincere ally in Iraq but many of them are also convinced 
that the Americans in Kirkuk city have a tacit understanding with the 
Arab insurgents not to attack each other.  [And the matter is further 
complicated by the situation is Turkey, a difficult US ally in the midst 
of a presidential election.]  The US is caught in quagmire of its own 
making. Such successes as it does have are usually the result of tenuous 
alliances with previously hostile tribes, insurgent groups or militias." 
(Patrick Cockburn)
	As a sign of the times, a two-page cable to the State Department from 
US ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker has been leaked to the Washington 
Post.  (Who by? My guess is the Post's excellent CIA connections.)  He 
requests that all Iraqi employees of his mission be issued visas that 
would allow them to emigrate to this country in the event of an American 
withdrawal.

[2] In a response to this situation last Tuesday, the Senate Democrats 
pretended that the Republicans were blocking a Democratic plan "to tell 
Americans that a withdrawal [from Iraq] will soon be under way [while] 
denying meanwhile that they are building the structure of a permanent 
occupation. The amendment from the Democratic "leaders [called 
Levin-Reed] envisioned pulling back combat troops to bases on Iraq's 
periphery, leaving 'counterterrorism' and 'security' forces on the 
ground.  In other words, the withdrawal will not be a withdrawal at 
all." (Susan Davis)

[3] The Democratic party leaders and presidential candidates want to 
wrap themselves in the anti-war mantle because two-thirds of Americans 
are opposed to the war.  Even TIME Magazine admits what the parties are 
doing, for all they declare otherwise: TIME wrote a week ago last 
Thursday, "Though most Senate Democrats support a redeployment along the 
lines that Bush is describing, they are keen to give voters the 
impression that they are all for getting the U.S. out of Iraq ... both 
sides are portraying the gap between them as unbridgeable. Which, in 
turn, leaves the impression that the debate is between those who want to 
escalate the war and those who want to withdraw U.S. forces entirely ... 
[But] Nobody in the mainstream is looking to get out soon."

[4] The Bush administration, in pursuit of its war policy, took three 
notable unilateral actions this week:

	[i] While the Democrats were pulling their all-nighter, the White House 
issued an executive order "Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who 
Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq." I think the administration is 
actually worried about a major upsurge in anti-war demonstrations as 
their war policy  in Iraq and Iran becomes clear this fall.  Will we see 
federal police (FBI, Treasury) going after the property of anti-war 
groups or individuals on the grounds that their activities (in the words 
of the executive order) "pose a significant risk of ... an act or acts 
of violence that have the purpose *or effect* of ... threatening the ... 
stability of ... the Government of Iraq or undermining efforts to 
promote ... political reform in Iraq."  Guess whose efforts they don't 
want undermined?

	[ii] The White House ordered the Justice Department not to act on any 
contempt citations forthcoming from the Congress on the refusal of 
administration figures to testify; and,

	[iii] Finally, late Friday evening, in the news black hole, the White 
House issued another executive order reasserting the administration's 
torture policy and indemnifying CIA agents for practicing the policy. 
Perhaps significantly, the order did not mention the Pentagon.

[5] It has always been a mistake to see the administration's policy as 
simply stupid and unaware (sorry).  Before this week's posturing began, 
the White House set out exactly what it was going to do in a detailed, 
eight-page letter to the chairman of the Armed Service Committee, Sen. 
Carl Levin (D-MI), the author of the amendment the Democrats were 
touting.  Among other things, it said clearly that the administration 
would [1] simply veto any attempt to change the the habeas corpus and 
torture provisions of the Military Commissions Act, [2] veto any 
provision that sets an arbitrary date for beginning the withdrawal of 
American troops from Iraq, and [3] veto any attempt by the Congress to 
prohibit covert action or the use of the armed forces -- in Iran.

[6] "Is the United States provoking war with Iran, to begin while the 
Congress is conveniently on its August recess? One recalls that it was 
in August 1964, after the Republicans nominated Barry Goldwater, that 
the Tonkin Gulf incident occurred [an excuse to expand the air war in 
Vietnam]. As Congress prepares for its August recess, the probability of 
U.S. air strikes on Iran rises with each week. A third carrier, the USS 
Enterprise, and its battle group is joining the Nimitz and Stennis in 
the largest concentration of U.S. naval power ever off the coast of 
Iran.  In Baghdad, on July 1, Gen. Kevin J. Bergner charged that 
Iranians planned the January raid in Karbala, using commandos in 
American-style uniforms, that resulted in the death of five U.S. 
soldiers. Iran has denounced the charge as 'ridiculous.' But the Senate 
has voted 97-0 to censure Iran for complicity in killing the Americans. 
  Bush claims not only the right but appears to have the blessing of 
Congress to attack Iran. And he now has the naval and air forces at 
hand. What is stopping him?  Not Congress, which buried a resolution 
last spring declaring that Bush must come to Congress before taking us 
into a new war in the Middle East." (P. Buchanan)
	Congress (and the Iraqi parliament ) are going on vacation in August. 
How changed will the situation be in September?

[7] On Tuesday, as it prepared for its charade, the Senate passed the 
Cornyn Amendment.  It is a "sense of the Senate" resolution that Iraq 
not become "a failed state and a safe haven for terrorists." Introduced 
by Republican John Cornyn (R-TX), the Amendment was immediately given a 
strong endorsement by Sen. Carl Levin and was supported by all leading 
Democrats (Clinton, Obama et al.). The final vote was 94-3, with only 
Robert Byrd, Tom Harkin, and Russ Feingold voting "no."
	Since the administration says that all its actions in Iraq are against 
terrorists, such actions are supported by the Cornyn Amendment and 
included in the exceptions of the so-called withdrawal amendments, like 
Levin-Reed.  Meanwhile, there has been talk of a vote to "deauthorize" 
the war (including by Byrd and Clinton). Of course all the original 
rationales for the war have evaporated, so rescinding the original 
authorization might make sense.  The Cornyn Amendment reauthorizes the 
war under a new rationale -- preventing Iraq from becoming "a safe haven 
for terrorists." And the Democrats have signed on. Furthermore, if Iraq 
"must not become a failed state," U.S. troops must stay in Iraq until it 
is stable and can defend itself -- a prescription for indefinite 
occupation, endorsed overwhelmingly by the Senate.

--Carl Estabrook <www.newsfromneptune.com>