[Peace] News notes 2007-07-29

[C. G. Estabrook]

SUNDAY 29 JULY 2007
(On this day seventeen years ago, US Ambassador Glaspie implies to 
Saddam Hussein that the US would have no objection to his "rectifying 
the borders" with Kuwait.  His actions give the US a chance to expand 
its control of the Middle East.)

The events of the past week seem to indicate how the American wars in 
the Middle East will continue, and more than likely expand, regardless 
of the political views of most Americans, which are substantially to the 
left of those of the established parties, and regardless of the highly 
artificial politics of the United States, which exist primarily to 
remediate and channel those views.

1. WARS

*The Bush administration insists that it will make war in accord with 
the views of "the military and not politicians in Washington," and this 
week we had some more information on what those military views are. 
Michael Gordon, stenographer to the Pentagon and reporter for the NYT, 
writes that the American command in Iraq "has prepared a detailed plan 
that foresees a significant American role for the next two years ... The 
detailed document, known as the Joint Campaign Plan, is an elaboration 
of the new strategy President Bush signaled in January when he decided 
to send five additional American combat brigades and other units to 
Iraq. That signaled a shift from the previous strategy, which emphasized 
transferring to Iraqis the responsibility for safeguarding their 
security." Gordon parrots the Bush administration line, writing of 
"Iranian and Syrian neighbors who have not hesitated to interfere in 
Iraq’s affairs." He describes the current strategy as follows: "The 
previous plan, developed by Gen. George W. Casey Jr., who served as 
General Petraeus’ predecessor before being appointed as chief of staff 
of the Army, was aimed at prompting the Iraqis to take more 
responsibility for security by reducing American forces, [but] Iraqi 
security forces showed themselves unprepared to carry out their expanded 
duties, and sectarian killings soared.  In contrast, the new approach 
reflects the counterinsurgency precept that protection of the population 
is best way to isolate insurgents, encourage political accommodations 
and gain intelligence ... the United States can use force to create the 
conditions in which political reconciliation is possible."
	Gordon writes that "General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker assembled a 
Joint Strategic Assessment Team, which ... included officers like Col. 
H. R. McMaster, the field commander who carried out the successful 
'clear, hold and build' operation in Tal Afar and who wrote a critical 
account of the Joint Chiefs of Staff role during the Vietnam War..." 
But McMaster has just been passed over for promotion for a second time, 
suggesting that the deep divisions within the Pentagon continue.

*In spite of its sweeping assertions that America's enemy in the "global 
war on terrorism" is radical Islam, the Bush administration let it be 
known this week that it is planning a huge series of arms deals worth at 
least $20 billion to Saudi Arabia and five other oil-rich Muslim states. 
  The US clients in addition to SA are Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar and 
the United Arab Emirates.  But to illustrate the shape of US policy, 
America's chief client, Israel, will receive even more -- $30 billion in 
additional military aid, while Egypt will receive $13 billion. The Bush 
administration, which needs the continuing threat of war in the ME to 
establish its control, continues outsourcing the job, to the delight of 
"defense contractors.'

*British troops are withdrawing from Basra to a nearby airbase, which 
the NYT and WP think is a prelude to withdrawal from Iraq. New UK PM 
Gordon Brown arrives today for talks with Bush, and the papers think he 
will  wait till September to announce a larger pullout.

2. AMERICANS' VIEWS

*A CBS/NYT poll taken on July 20-22 showed that only 25 percent of 
Americans now approve of the president's handling of Iraq while 69 
percent disapproved of it; "two-thirds of those polled said the United 
States should reduce its forces in Iraq, or remove them altogether."

*But Bush administration propaganda showed some success: the same poll 
indicated that "Americans’ support for the initial invasion of Iraq has 
risen ... 42 percent of Americans said that ... taking military action 
in Iraq was the right thing to do, while 51 percent said the United 
States should have stayed out of Iraq ... Support for the invasion had 
been at an all-time low in May, when only 35 percent of Americans said 
the invasion of Iraq was the right thing and 61 percent said the United 
States should have stayed out."

3. US POLITICS

*The presidential campaign, brought hugely forward in time to defuse and 
contain American's dismay with the war -- which is by far the leading 
issue, in spite of all the politicians can do -- showed evidence this 
week of having difficulty with the job.  The Los Angeles Times says 
today that among the presidential candidates, the Democrats now want to 
talk about getting out of Iraq, but not about Al Qaeda or terrorism, 
while the Republicans want to talk about terrorism, but not Iraq -- the 
threat of radical Islam vs. ending the war.  A new think tank, the 
Center for New American Security -- Clinton's State Department in 
waiting -- naturally wants to "bridge the gap."  Meanwhile, Paul Street 
writes a mordant piece on Obama as a "Running Dog Lackey of U.S. 
Imperialism."

*The Republicans are chewing the scenery. "Some people have said we 
ought to close Guantanamo; my view is that we ought to double 
Guantanamo," former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney said at a debate in 
May. "I want them in Guantanamo where they don't get the access to 
lawyers they get when they're on our soil." The Bush administration has 
said it wants to close the military prison. Arizona Sen. John McCain, 
who has long advocated increasing U.S. troop strength in Iraq, has said, 
"I would rather lose a campaign than lose a war," he often says. And mad 
Rudy Giuliani says, "I'm for victory," dismissing Democrats as "the 
party of losers."

*The Democrats have have tried to introduce some product 
differentiation, as they say in B-school, with Clinton, who emphasizes 
military strength, closest to the center of the foreign policy elite 
(not the popular center); former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, who 
has said "The war on terror is … a bumper sticker, not a plan," on the 
left; and Obama trying to practice his charming equivocation.  Clinton 
talks about terrorism as a priority, and she was the last of the three 
anointed Democratic candidates to say she was against the war in Iraq. 
Edwards has called for an immediate withdrawal of at least 40,000 troops 
from Iraq, and a complete withdrawal within a year, and he has said it 
is time to abandon the idea of a "war on terror." In a May speech, he 
said, "The worst thing about the global-war-on-terror approach is that 
it has backfired — our military has been strained to the breaking point 
and the threat from terrorism has grown" [incidentally denying the LAT 
thesis]. He continued: "By framing this as a 'war,' we have walked right 
into the trap that terrorists have set — that we are engaged in some 
kind of clash of civilizations and a war against Islam."

*The LAT quotes the usual political experts as saying, "Whichever 
Democrat wins the nomination is going to have to move a little bit 
toward the center in the general-election campaign." Note that the 
papers working definition of the "center" refers to the narrow US 
political elite, not to the center of US popular opinion, which is far 
to the left of that. Under that definition, Clinton will have "the least 
distance to move," the LAT's expert said.  And American liberals think 
there's no place else to go. The Times/Bloomberg poll found Clinton 
leading among liberals with 51%, compared with 27% for Obama and 18% for 
Edwards.
	And Clinton's think tankers are confident that real public opinion can 
be neutralized.  In an amazing phrase, one said, "Once we get past the 
election and reach the governing phase, I believe there will be 
substantial consensus around many issues including our alliances, the 
need for a strong military, and importance of backing up diplomacy with 
military force." For example, he noted, most of the candidates, 
Democrats as well as Republicans, have called for increasing the Army 
and Marines by 92,000 or more people.  What we see now is what the 
Democrats are willing to say in order to "reach the governing phase."

*Finally, while the US media continue to treat only official candidates 
as serious -- i.e., those that support some continuation of the war -- 
and make fun of peace candidates like Kucinich and Gravel, the Guardian 
(UK) profiles Republican peace candidate Ron Paul, although they had to 
get an American Libertarian to do it.

	--Carl Estabrook <www.newsfromneptune.com>