NeoCon Warmongering: Beware!

As Jim Lobe signals in Antiwar.com of July 18, 2006 (Energized Neocons Say Israel's Fight Is Washington's by Jim Lobe), a concerted spinning effort is deployed by the usual suspects, to lure the U.S. into a new Middle East military adventure.

Few people took seriously Richard Perle's appeal for an attack on Iraq, some 9 days after 9/11. It looked like an outrageous proposal, made by a nut who took the Project for a New American Century for a roadmap. Well, we were wrong. Perle and consorts got their Iraq invasion and all that went by it.

In order to be not fooled twice, I propose to take the recent appeals for an American attack on Syria and Iran, very seriously. The more so, as president Bush seems to follow this neocon scenario.

Jim Lobe has the best summary of the situation, I think:

Energized Neocons Say Israel's fight is Washington's

Seeing a major opportunity to regain influence lost as a result of setbacks in Iraq, prominent neoconservatives are calling for unconditional U.S. support for Israel's military offensives in Gaza and Lebanon and "regime change" in Syria and Iran, as well as possible U.S. attacks on Tehran's nuclear facilities in retaliation for its support of Hezbollah.

In a Weekly Standard column entitled "It's Our War," editor William Kristol Sunday called Iran "the prime mover behind the terrorist groups who have started this war," which, he argued, should be considered part of "the global struggle against radical Islamism."

He complained that Washington recently has done a "poor job of standing up and weakening Syria and Iran" and called on President George W. Bush himself to fly directly from the "silly [Group of Eight] summit in St. Petersburg … to Jerusalem, the capital of a nation that stands with us, and is willing to fight with us, against our common enemies."

"This is our war, too," according to Kristol, who is also a founder and co-chairman of the recently lapsed Project for the New American Century (PNAC).

"All of us in the free world owe Israel an enormous thank-you for defending freedom, democracy, and security against the Iranian cat's-paw wholly-owned terrorist subsidiaries Hezbollah and Hamas," echoed Larry Kudlow, a neoconservative commentator, at the Standard's right-wing competitor, National Review."

"They are defending their own homeland and very existence, but they are also defending America's homeland as our front-line democratic ally in the Middle East," according to Kudlow who, like Kristol and other like-minded polemicists, also named Syria, "which is also directed by Iran," as a promising target as the conflict expands.

The two columns are just the latest examples of a slew of commentaries that have appeared in U.S. print and broadcast media since Israel began bombing targets in Lebanon in retaliation for Hezbollah's fatal cross-border attack last Wednesday. They appear to be part of a deliberate campaign by neoconservatives and some of their right-wing supporters to depict the current conflict as part of global struggle pitting Israel, as the forward base of Western civilization, against Islamist extremism organized and directed by Iran and its junior partner, Syria.

This view was perhaps most dramatically expressed by former Republican Speaker of the House, Newt Gingrich, in an appearance on NBC's Meet the Press Sunday when he described the conflict as "the early stages of … the Third World War."

The effort to frame the current round of violence as part of a much larger struggle – and Israel's role as Washington's most loyal front-line ally – recalls the neoconservatives early reaction to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on New York and the Pentagon.

Just nine days after 9/11, Kristol and PNAC – whose charter members included Vice President Dick Cheney, Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld, and half a dozen other senior Bush administration officials – released an open letter to Bush that called for the U.S. to retaliate not only against al-Qaeda and Afghanistan, but also against Israel's main regional foes, beginning with Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) chairman Yasser Arafat.

In addition, the letter advised, "any war against terrorism must target Hezbollah. We believe that the administration should demand that Iran and Syria immediately cease all military, financial, and political support for Hezbollah and its operations. Should Iran and Syria refuse to comply, the administration should consider appropriate measures of retaliation against these state sponsors of terrorism."

"Israel has been and remains America's staunchest ally against international terrorism, especially in the Middle East," the letter asserted. "The United States should fully support our fellow democracy in its fight against terrorism."

While the Iraqi and Palestinian components of PNAC's agenda were soon adopted as policy and essentially achieved, neoconservative hopes that Bush would move on Hezbollah – as well as Syria and Iran – eventually stalled as U.S. military forces became bogged down in an increasingly bloody and costly counter-insurgency war in Iraq.

As the situation in Iraq worsened, neoconservative influence in and on the administration also declined to the benefit of "realists" based primarily in the State Department who favored a less aggressive policy designed to secure Damascus' and Tehran's cooperation in stabilizing Iraq and strengthen the elected Lebanese government of which Hezbollah was made a part.

In that context, the current conflict represents a golden opportunity for the neoconservatives to reassert their influence and reactivate their Israel-centered agenda against Hezbollah and its two state sponsors.

"Iran's Proxy War" blazed the cover of this week's Standard, which also featured no less than three other articles, besides Kristol's editorial, underlining Iran's sponsorship of Hezbollah and Hamas and the necessity of the U.S. standing with Israel, if not taking independent action against Tehran and/or Damascus as recommended by Kristol himself.

A major theme of the new campaign is that the more-conciliatory "realist" policies toward Syria and Iran pursued by the State Department have actually backfired by making Washington look weak.

"They are now testing us more boldly than one would have thought possible a few years ago," wrote Kristol. "Weakness is provocative. We have been too weak, and have allowed ourselves to be perceived as weak," he went on, adding that, "[T]he right response is renewed strength," notably "in pursuing regime change in Syria and Iran [and] consider[ing] countering this act of Iranian aggression with a military strike against Iranian nuclear facilities."

The notion that U.S. policy in the region has become far too flaccid and accommodating is echoed by a number of other neoconservatives, particularly Michael Rubin, a prolific analyst at the hard-line American Enterprise Institute (AEI) and protégé of Cheney confidante and former Defense Policy Board chairman Richard Perle.

In a companion Standard article, Rubin qualified recent State Department policy as "All Talk and No Strategy" that had emboldened enemies, especially Iran, to challenge Washington and its allies.

In another article for National Review Monday, bluntly titled "Eradication First," he elaborated on that theme, arguing diplomacy in the current crisis will only be successful "if it commences both after the eradication of Hezbollah and Hamas, and after their paymasters pay a terrible cost for their support."

"If … peace is the aim, it is imperative to punish the Syrian and Iranian leadership," he wrote.

Above all, according to the neoconservatives, the U.S. position in the region is now inextricably tied to the success or failure of Israel's military campaign.

In yet another Standard article, titled "The Rogues Strike Back: Iran, Syria, Hamas, and Hezbollah vs. Israel," Robert Satloff, executive director of the hawkish, pro-Israel Washington Institute for Near East Policy, argued that "defeat for Israel – either on the battlefield or via coerced compromises to achieve flawed cease-fires – is a defeat for U.S. interests; it will inspire radicals of every stripe, release Iran and Syria to spread more mayhem inside Iraq, and make more likely our own eventual confrontation with this emboldened alliance of extremists."

(Inter Press Service)

"Eradication", "punishment": terms that make me think of "Ausradierung", "Endlösung" - nonsensical illusions of power-drunk agitators.
How can it be, that the Iraqi lesson has not been learned?
Palestinian citizens, inhabitants of Southern Libanon, millions of Iraqis - whatever "targeted killings" may be applied: they will continue their resistence.
Stop Bush and his neocon madmen!

Afghanistan:Coalition of the Killing

Boeing Apache AH-64D gunship in action. (FAS website).

Operation "Mountain Thrust" is the farewell gift of the American-led "Enduring Freedom" coalition operation to the Afghan people.

It is also a poisoned gift to the NATO-allies in the ISAF Coalition of the Willing, who are to replace most of them in Southern Afghanistan. Turning them into a willy-nilly Coalition of the Killing.

Watch the Apaches coming!

Sources:

• New York Times, July 8, 2006: A Drive to Root Out the Resurgent Taliban,
• The Guardian (London), July 4, 2006: Commanders begin to Balk at Mission Impossible, and "Minister says Afghan mission will be 'very, very difficult and dangerous' " (July 7),
  
• Federation of American Scientists: The AH-64D Apache Military Aircraft.
• Dutch publications (to be translated), see posts in DLL: Uruzgan-missie: Onverantwoord (July 7) and De Tik van Kamp (Uruzgan) (July 8) and in IET: Uruzgan-missie: Een Europees probleem. (July 8)
  

1. The New York Times article by an embedded correspondent:

July 8, 2006
A Drive to Root Out the Resurgent Taliban
By TYLER HICKS

American and allied troops are engaged in their biggest operation against Taliban forces in Afghanistan since they drove the fundamentalist movement from power in 2001. These photographs were taken over two weeks in June with Charlie Company, Fourth Brigade, 10th Mountain Division, near Hazarbuz, in Zabul Province.
(American miltary arriving at mountain village - photo Hicks/NYT)

The Americans face the hard job of trying to tell local farmers from Taliban insurgents, who have gained strength across southern Afghanistan. The Americans set up a base, then probed into villages. They were soon ambushed. The Taliban can easily persuade or coerce villagers to assist them. They arm the villagers or equip them with radios. Almost any man is suspect.

During one raid, which was typical, the Americans separated the men. Homes were searched, and the men were marched to the base for questioning.

The Americans feel the hands of those who claim to be farmers, to make sure they are rough.
- The men from the village are led away, photo Hicks/NYT -

They check under the men's shirts for calluses from carrying rifle clips, or for bruises from firing rocket-propelled grenades. As often is the case, almost all are released for lack of evidence.

Col. Tom Collins, the American military spokesman in Kabul, said, "We have intelligence that leads us to a certain village where there are antigovernment elements and we take in those we find, screen them, and some are then let go immediately, but they still have to be questioned."

The day after the raid, the Americans were ambushed again, this time at their base. Automatic rifle fire sprayed just inches above a row of soldiers as they lay resting.
- On the road to the American camp, photo Hicks/NYT -

On the final day of the operation, a raid on a village sent several men fleeing for the mountains. They were met by American Ranger Scouts. Three men were captured. They confessed to being Taliban fighters and were brought back to the base to be handed over to the Afghan authorities.

[To be commented]

2. The UK debate on disastrous strategies (The Guardian, July 8 and 4, 2006)

UK has boosted Taliban, admits defence chief

Minister says Afghan mission will be 'very, very difficult and dangerous'
Patrick Wintour and Declan Walsh in Camp Bastion, Afghanistan
Saturday July 8, 2006

Guardian
Des Browne, the defence secretary, conceded yesterday that the deployment of 3,300 British forces into the Taliban heartland of southern Helmand has "energised" the Taliban.

His sombre assessment came after a week in which a sixth British soldier was killed in the province, and as he prepares to announce next week the dispatch of reinforcements to the country, including extra air cover and engineers.

Lieutenant Colonel Stuart Tootal, the officer in charge of British troops in the region, also admitted the resistance was proving unexpectedly tough. He said: "If we were honest, we didn't expect it to be quite so intense. But at the same time, we have trained for it. "

In an interview with the Guardian, Mr Browne said: "It is certainly the case that the very act of deployment into the south has energised opposition, and the scale of that opposition and the nature of that opposition became apparent when we were deploying". But he insisted the attacks on British troops were foreseen, and the original package had been an impressive fighting force, including artillery, Apache helicopters and paratroopers.

In the first sign of a crack in the effective all-party consensus on the Afghan deployment, the former defence minister Doug Henderson called for British troops to be confined to barracks until the purpose of the mission was clarified.
He told GMTV: "I think until a political strategy has been worked out and agreed ... then in some senses there should be a withdrawal of British troops to barracks". He claimed troops did not know what they were doing or for how long.

But in an interview with the Guardian, Mr Browne warned: "Some opposition politicians cannot resist the temptation to exploit an alleged confusion for short-term gains, but they put at risk our troops on the ground. If the message of confusion, or suggestion that in fact we are there to do something entirely different as a primary purpose, is played back by the Taliban into local communities, and then they think the British troops are coming to starve them or attack them, then that is putting our soldiers at a level of unnecessary risk".

"The objective is clear. It is to let the writ of the Afghan government run in the south, against a background that these provinces have been largely lawless for three decades, leaving the Taliban, drug warlords and militia to act with impunity and brutalise local communities ...

"We have always explained this was going to be very, very difficult and dangerous, and we have also explained that the purpose was to create the security space for reconstruction of the country. People who criticise us have to ask themselves whether they want us to do it at all. There is overwhelming support internationally for this mission. We are doing this not just to secure Afghanistan ... but also to deny that space for al-Qaida to deliver violence back to our communities."

Colonel Tootal denied that troops had been deployed prematurely into remote areas. "We are taking the campaign into the backyard of the Taliban. We are having an effect just by being there. We show support for the government, guarantee security and will be hopefully be at the leading edge of development.

"We came here not wanting to take casualties, but were prepared for the fact that they were likely. That does not mean to say it's not tragic when you lose a soldier, but its part of the business we are in."
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006

And:

Commanders begin to balk at mission impossible

Richard Norton-Taylor
Tuesday July 4, 2006

Guardian
British commanders raised concerns about the deployment of 3,300 troops to the hostile, opium poppy-growing area of Helmand in southern Afghanistan even before the force had touched ground. They were worried about the confused messages coming from their political masters and their Nato allies about the objectives of the mission.

They were also worried about the optimistic noises from ministers who, military sources say, did not appreciate, or did not admit, the dangers involved. Visiting Helmand in April, the then defence secretary, John Reid, said that ideally British troops would get out "without a shot being fired".

British troops were engaging in fierce and bloody clashes with Taliban fighters within days of their deployment last month. The government says the deployment of British troops has three objectives: to build up the country's own army and security forces; to prevent Taliban and al-Qaida fighters from taking over the country again; and to eradicate the opium poppies which account for 90% of the heroin on British streets.

Military commanders have said that this has led to confusion. For them, the first priority was to set up camp and promote a campaign for hearts and minds. Instead, British troops set up forward bases and searched out Taliban leaders as the US asserted its priorities.

As Lt Gen Sir David Richards, head of the Nato international forces in Afghanistan, said last week: "We've stretched ourselves too far." British commanders in the field have told London they are concerned about the vulnerability of their Land Rovers and a shortage of helicopters for a campaign they appear to have been unprepared for. General Sir Mike Jackson, head of the army, has said that eradicating the poppy harvest now would make the task of British troops even harder.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006

[Comments upcoming]

< Coalition partners: Join the Team!

Le Locataire Futé au Soleil du Nord 6.7.06 [FR]

Bruxelles, 6 juillet 2006.

J'arrive à l'endroit où le secteur flamand des prestigieux Beaux Arts de Bruxelles s'occupe (pendant les vacances d'été) des enfants prometteurs en arts. Dont ma fille.

C'est le "Soleil du Nord", bâtiment un peu perdu entre les grands développements de bureaux autour de la Gare du Nord et les quartiers au nord de cette activité fébrile et fragile, dix-neuvième siècle, appartements populaires, commune de Schaerbeek. 

Pendant une semaine, les lieux sont investis par un groupe de 20 petits enfants, accompagnés par trois filles académiciennes adorables d'une vingt-cinquième d'années.

 

Normalement, à ce que je comprends, le "Soleil du Nord" sert à l'accompagnement des habitants des quartiers de Schaerbeek, qui doivent déménager, trouver un nouvel appartement, à cause des travaux de rénovation. 

La première photo montre les instructions du centre aux locataires qui cherchent un nouvel appartement. Il faut éviter de mentionner si on a une allocation (du CPAS), mais essayer de rencontrer le propriétaire en personne.

C'est ainsi qu'on s'occupe ici des habitants, des locataires, qui sont obligés de quitter leur habitation à cause d'un urbanisme qui les laisse pour compte. Ce n'est pas la faute aux animateurs du centre: Ils n'ont simplement pas assez de moyens à assister aux locataires en difficultés. 

N'empêche que c'est scandaleux. Le droit des habitants chassés de leurs lieux, à trouver en priorité des appartements qui leur conviennent, aurait dû être inscrit dans le Plan urbaniste qui est en vigueur ici.

The Coalition of the Billing

Iraq: KBR & Co.