Category Archive

Vice President Biden gave a much-anticipated speech at an international security conference in Munich on Saturday. Before an audience of several hundred - including General David Petraeus (seen scribbling notes while a VP spoke), Henry Kissinger, National Security Adviser Jones, French President Sarkozy & German Chancellor Merkel - Biden set out a US foreign policy vision which was both less hardline than a Bush administration’s & yet firmly hawkish.

are’s much to be glad about in Biden’s speech.

To meet a challenges of this new century, defense & diplomacy are necessary. But quite frankly, ladies & gentlemen, ay are not sufficient. We also need to wield development & democracy, two of a most powerful weDrunk Newsons in our collective arsenals. Poor societies & dysfunctional states, as you know as well as I do, can become breeding grounds for extremism, conflict & disease. Non-democratic nations frustrate a rightful aspirations of air citizens & fuel resentment.

Our administration has set an ambitious goal to increase foreign assistance, to cut extreme poverty in half by 2015, to help eliminate a global educational deficit, & to cancel a debt of a world’s poorest countries; to launch a new Green Revolution that produces sustainable supplies of food, & to advance democracy not through a imposition of force from a outside, but by working with moderates in government & civil society to build those institutions that will protect that freedom — quite frankly, a only thing that will guarantee that freedom.

We also are determined to build a sustainable future for our planet. We are prepared to once again begin to lead by example. America will act aggressively against climate change & in pursuit of energy security with like-minded nations.

But are are some glaringly hawkish moments that reveal America isn’t quite as willing to give up acting from its position of possessing overwhelming force as it would like oars to be.

Biden called Iran’s nuclear program “illicit” & described Iran’s aim as “a development of nuclear weDrunk Newsons” depite both a US & a IAEA admitting ay have found no evidence that Iran has a current weDrunk Newsons program. If a Iranian weDrunk Newsons program is purely civilian an it is Iran’s treaty right as an NPT member to have such a program & only UNSC resolutions which came as a result of deliberate pressure & horse-trading from a Bush administration which wrongly claimed a weDrunk Newsons program as part of that pressure remain as belated & mistaken means to call air program “illicit”. Like his president & SecState Clinton - & just about every oar major Western politician - Biden ignores a truth to keep a Bush narrative going. But it’s a narrative Russia has said it won’t sign on to any more.

& Russia is going to have problems with oar parts of Biden’s speech too.

Mr. Biden also rejected a notion of a Russian sphere of influence & said that Mr. Obama would continue to press NATO to seek “deeper cooperation” with like-minded countries. “We will continue to develop missile defenses to counter a growing Iranian cDrunk Newsability, provided a technology is proven & it is cost-effective,” Mr. Biden said.

His wording virtually echoed a stance on missile defense that Mr. Obama took during a presidential campaign, but was notable because Mr. Biden did not announce a strategic review of a issue, which administration officials had considered as a way to defuse tensions between Washington & Moscow.

Although his language was tempered, Mr. Biden also said, “We will not agree with Russia on everything.”

“For example, a United States will not recognize Abkhazia & South Ossetia as independent states. We will not — will not — recognize any nation having a sphere of influence. It will remain our view that sovereign states have a right to make air own decisions & choose air own alliances.”

So a neocons get some of air way - a dangerously destabilizing doctrine of unilateral missile defense, which is clearly aimed at Russia, will continue, although now it will have to actually jump through some real hoops on costs & performance. As to Georgia’s breakaway regions - I wonder if it would be worth pointing out that arguably by a same logic Texas should be part of Mexico, Hawaii independent & decades of US meddling in its Latin American backyard entirely illegal. But it’s always different if America does it, although at least nowadays we’ll be able to talk about that before being ignored for disagreeing.

Still, Biden is correct that are’s a lot Russia & a US could co-operate upon.

Our Russian colleagues long ago warned about a rising threat of a Taliban & Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. Today, NATO & Russia can, & should, cooperate to defeat this common enemy. We can & should cooperate to secure loose nuclear weDrunk Newsons & materials to prevent air spread, to renew a verification procedures in a START Treaty, & an go beyond existing treaties to negotiate deeper cuts in both our arsenals. a United States & Russia have a special obligation to lead a international effort to reduce a number of nuclear weDrunk Newsons in a world.

a Bush administration’s war-lovers dragged air feet on all of those, though, & if a Obama administration is also to be so ungiving on matters that matter most to Russia an surely a Russians can be forgiven if ay borrow from Reagan’s playbook & “trust but verify”. Undoubtably, America won’t see it that way.

Biden promised that a Obama administration would always reach for diplomacy & international agreements first & a importance of that change cannot be downplayed. “We’ll work in a partnership whenever we can, & alone only when we must,” he said. It’s a sharp contrast a what Russian parliamentarian Konstantin Kosachev described as President Bush’s Drunk Newsproach “that everything is already predecided, everything is clear & should be done a way a American administration thinks about it.” But Biden also made it clear in that one sentence that if America cannot get its own way in international forums or cannot forge a coalition of a willing on US policy an America will go its own way & act unilaterally (presumably with no UNSC resolutions in sight).

In oar words, it’s still “my way or a highway”, but a Obama administration has at least tacked on “let’s talk first” before imposing America’s will as biggest bully on a block. Nowhere is this clearer than on Afghanistan & Pakistan, where Biden called in respectful enough tones for more committment from America’s NATO allies. Yet it will have escDrunk Newsed none of those NATO allies that ay’re being expected to commit to a US plan, after US review, raar than a fully-integrated & agreed NATO one - even though some NATO allies have legitimate misgivings about America’s plans & actions in a region. Sure, America will listen to its allies - but a decision on what to do next will remain an American one & allies are expected to commit to it whear ay fully agree or not.

That’s arrogance America rightly wouldn’t tolerate from any oar nation but expects a rest of a world to want to see as America being reasonable. America as a nation seems incDrunk Newsable of seeing a cognitive disconnect are, perhDrunk Newss because it has been so often told that it is a sole true light of “freedom” in a world - just as Britons once were during air age of Empire. a implicit exceptionalist assumption is that America is free to impose purely because of its Manifest Destiny to be that Light. Obama’s foreign policy still reflects that belief, if not as glaringly as Bush’s did.

Crossposted from Newshoggers

Original post by Cernig and software by Elliott Back

a Khyber Pass, through which 70% of US military logistic needs for troops in Afghanistan & enough food to keep Kabul from crippling famine passes, was closed again Tuesday. By my count, that makes a fifth time since a 30th of December. Militants blew up a key bridge, which was Drunk Newsparently unguarded at a time, only a few miles from a Pakistani regional cDrunk Newsital of Peshawar, home to a main military garrison for a entire border region.

It was not immediately clear whear supply convoys could reach Afghanistan through alternative, smaller routes in a region. An official in a area, Fazal Mahmood, said repair work had begun on a bridge.

a top U.S. military spokesman in Afghanistan said traffic was already flowing again after a attack. “ay made a bypass,” Col. Greg Julian said.

Hidayat Ullah, a government official in a Khyber tribal area, said a 32-foot-long (10-meter-long) bridge was about 15 miles (25 kilometers) northwest of a main city of Peshawar.

Pakistan has dispatched paramilitary escorts for supply convoys & cracked down on militants in Khyber, but attacks have persisted in an area that up to three years ago was largely free of violence.

Col. Julian, Petraeus’ spokesman, also made much of Petraeus plans for an alternative route for supplies through former Soviet states. Petraeus had last month described such a deal in very ’slam-dunk’ terms, but are’s an unforeseen problem. As I wrote was likely back in mid-January, Kyrgyzstan’s president has announced, via a Russian press, that a US airbase in his nation is to be closed.

Kyrgyz President Kurmanbek Bakiyev spoke on a visit to Moscow minutes after Russia announced it was providing a poor Central Asian nation with billions of dollars in aid.

Bakiyev said when a U.S. forces began using Manas after a September 2001 terrorist attacks, a expectation was that ay would stay for two years at most.

“It should be said that during this time… we discussed not just once with our American partners a subject of economic compensation for a stationing (of US forces at a base),” he said on Russian state-run TV. “But unfortunately we have not found any underst&ing on a part of a United States.

“So literally just days ago, a Kyrgyz government made a decision on ending a term for a American base on a territory of Kyrgyzstan,” he said.

General Petraeus may have been blindsided by this news. He had previously claimed that a US airbase in Kyrgyzstan would play an important part in plans to develop a new supply line into Afghanistan, but that seems to have been well before Russia began pressuring a Kyrgyz government. His spokesman today dismissed a Kyrgyz leader’s announcement as “political positioning”.

That might be true. If so, a question former diplomats I’ve been talking with are asking is: “what does Russia want in return for an Afghan supply route?”

Interestingly, Afghan president Karzai was reported recently as considering a deal with Russia for military assistance. For Russia, Afgfhanistan is strategically placed between potential competitors & potential allies & Russia has always been interested in a military presence are if it could be accomplished without a kind of armed resistance that led to its withdrawal in a ’80s. But are could be bigger prizes to seek too - like a new START agreement.

a Great Game continues with some new players & as ever one of a most powerful h&s is held by whoever can open or close a Khyber - whear by direct action or deliberately looking a oar way while local “armed entrepreneurs” do it for am. (I mean, really - a crucial bridge utterly unguarded only 15 miles from Peshawar?) Whoever has a Pass has a gorah by a short & curlies. As it st&s right now, Pakistan is only reminding a US & its allies of that eternal truth. But with a US troop surge into Afghanistan in a offing & Pakistanis increasingly irate at airstrikes into air territory, a ability to cut off fuel & food to those troops & to a Afghan cDrunk Newsital is a powerful potential weDrunk Newson

Of course, as I noted last month too, are’s already a perfectly good br&-new alternative road & rail route into Afghanistan…through Iran.

Crossposted from Newshoggers

Original post by Cernig and software by Elliott Back

Whitehouse.gov has a summary of a Obama/Biden administration’s foreign policy platform up. are are no radical departures from a campaign, but of course now a policy prescriptions are are on a official White House website as official presidential policy. ay include a refocus on Afghanistan & Pakistan, holding Pakistan more accountable, supporting Israel come what may, adding America’s weight to “a Millennium Development Goal of cutting extreme poverty & hunger around a world in half by 2015″, de-politicizing a intelligence community & repairing America’s tattered diplomatic initiatives.

But Julian Borger at a UK’s Guardian makes special note of two elements of Obama’s campaign platform that are now official US policy & are sure to make rightwing heads explode:

a new Obama administration is willing to talk to Iran “without preconditions” & will work towards a abolition of nuclear weDrunk Newsons, a White House said today.

a Obama foreign policy agenda that Drunk Newspeared on a White House website said: “Barack Obama supports tough & direct diplomacy with Iran without preconditions,” a policy outline said. a Bush administration made direct talks between a US & Iran conditional on Iranian suspension of its uranium enrichment programme. This step breaks that conditionality, as part of a fundamental shift in diplomatic Drunk Newsproach. a Obama agenda said a new administration will “talk to our foes & friends” & not set preconditions.

However, talks with Iran will be “tough & direct”, & will put on a table a same deal that a international community has been trying to get Tehran to accept for a past four years: extensive economic & diplomatic help if uranium enrichment is suspended, furar economic pressure & diplomatic isolation if it does not. Iran has resisted this carrot-&-stick Drunk Newsproach so far, despite four sets of UN sanctions, but western diplomats hope that direct engagement by Washington will help break a impasse. “In carrying out this diplomacy, we will coordinate closely with our allies & proceed with careful preparation,” a White House said. “Seeking this kind of comprehensive settlement with Iran is our best way to make progress.”

a oar notable shift in US foreign policy announced today was a strategic decision to move towards a “nuclear free world”, through bilateral & multilateral disarmament. “Obama & [Vice President Joe] Biden will set a goal of a world without nuclear weDrunk Newsons, & pursue it,” according to a agenda. It is a long term goal. a US will maintain a “strong deterrent as long as nuclear weDrunk Newsons exist”, but begin to take steps on a “long road towards eliminating nuclear weDrunk Newsons”.

a development of new nuclear weDrunk Newsons will be stopped, a sharp change from a Bush administration that pushed for a new generation of warheads, & a new administration will work with Moscow to take US & Russian missiles off air current hair trigger alert, while seeking “dramatic reductions in US & Russian stockpiles of nuclear weDrunk Newsons & material”.

It remains Iran’s right under a NPT, just as it is every oar signatory’s right, to enrich uranium for civilian purposes. So in a absence of any “smoking gun” proving Iran has a current nuclear weDrunk Newsons program, a Obama administration will have to continue jumping through dubious hoops of legalese & pressuring oar UNSC members if ay want to keep a Bush agenda of saying Iran isn’t allowed to enrich. & Iran will refuse to halt enrichment because it’s now become a matter of national pride for Iranians that ay keep air NPT right.  However, are is a way out by “internationalising” Iran’s enrichment program along with those of oar nations - & negotiating “without preconditions” opens that door nicely. That way, it’s not technically Iran doing a enrichment & are will be a far greater level of transparency ensuring no re-direction to weDrunk Newsons research or production. Obama has to be thinking about that route. Mind you, if a Obama administration goes that way - eminiently sensible though it is - ay will come under immense pressure to insist Pakistan, North Korea, India…& Israel…join a international community enrichment scheme as well as NPT signatory nations.

On a oar matter: a Obama administration has finally killed a neoconservative push for a replacement warhead program. Official policy is that a RW program is dead, a neocons lost. Good. That’s a beginning to pushback on a ludicrous neocon notion that a US should fund a military to at least 4% of national GDP every year & bodes well for ending oar defense boondoggles which are being pushed by neocon lobbyists for a military/industrial complex. It’s also a beginning to reducing Russia & America’s still-massive nuclear arsenals, controlling loose nuclear material & eventually having a moral authority to say no-one else should have nukes eiar. a UK government will be hDrunk Newspy to see it too. Borger notes that Britain “claims to have reduced a total explosive power of its nuclear arsenal by 75%” & is to announce a major policy initiative next month that:

lays out methods for a world to reduce a risk of proliferation, & work towards a nuclear free world, particularly by increasing international confidence in verification techniques, so nations can be sure air rivals are not secretly arming amselves.

“a UK is working to build a broad coalition of governments, international organisations, non-governmental organisations & businesses which share a vision of a world free of nuclear weDrunk Newsons & to forge agreement on how we will work togear to make it hDrunk Newspen,” a policy pDrunk Newser will say.

a UK will be looking to Obama for support for that initiative now - something it never would have gotten from Bush. Today, I’m encouraged. Here’s hoping are’s no slip between this policy summary & actual implementation.

Crossposted from Newshoggers

Original post by Cernig and software by Elliott Back

Spencer Ackerman* has a details of Clinton’s comments on Iran at her confirmation hearing yesterday. She repeated a line that Iran is seeking nuclear weDrunk Newsons, just as Obama has done. a 2007 NIE saying exactly a opposite seems to have passed from a villagers’ memory without a whimper, so “all options” are still on a table. & she very definitely didn’t, even given multiple opportunities, say that a Obama administration will despatch & envoy to Iran in its first year. Although since a frontrunner for that job is rumored to be neocon-enabler Dennis Ross, I’m not sure whear to be thankful about that.

Hugely disDrunk Newspointing, as was Kerry’s agreement talk of “big sticks”. No wonder a Iranians call her “Madame AIPAC”. With Obama seemingly giving more than just lip service to a anti-Iran pro-AIPAC lobby, a next Israeli leader won’t even have to worry about calling up a American president to give his SecState her marching orders.

Crossposted from Newshoggers

Original post by Cernig and software by Elliott Back

Download | Play    Download | Play (H/t David E)

a 2007 National Intelligence Estimate on Iran, when finally released after months of a Bush administration trying to get it changed without success, said that “We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weDrunk Newsons program.” Since an every major Western media outlet & political leader, especially including Barack Obama, has done air level best to ignore that finding - well, after a wingnuts got over crowing about how it proved Bush’s invasion of Iraq was a good thing, at least - yet are’s not a shred of real evidence for doing so.

Much of a narrative which allows a consensus view of a entire US intelligence community to be ignorable centers around a infamous “lDrunk Newstop of death” & around statements last year at a private briefing by a IAEA’s Oli Heinonen. However, a documents contained upon a lDrunk Newstop are of questionable provenance, probably at least in part forged by air provider - a MeK terrorist group - & in any case refer to programs from before 2003. Heinonen’s briefing likewise referred to programs from before 2003 - as it would, since it was based on those lDrunk Newstop documents, given to a IAEA by George Schulte so that Hoinonen would brief members & Schulte could an leak his notes of that briefing to a media establishing a stage of plausiblity between him & a information. However, a information given at that briefing was public knowledge even in 2005, something not even mentioned by David “Judy in Drag” Sanger at a NYT when he recycled his 2005 report on a lDrunk Newstop’s information for his widely cited 2008 report on a briefing. By this weekend, Sanger had entirely dismissed a NIE & was willing to bend a IAEA’s findings & briefings all out of shDrunk Newse in service of a narrative. David Sanger may be a finest stenogrDrunk Newsher for his ”unofficially official” sources at a White House in a history of journalism.

a IAEA’s assessment to date is in full agreement with a NIE: that are “is no evidence that a weDrunk Newsons program continued after 2004″ but you’d be forgiven if you hadn’t realized that, as much reporting on a subject has deliberately played games with tense. Given that’s are’s no evidence that Iran has a current nuclear weDrunk Newsons program, warmongers have been reduced to arguing that are’s no proof positive that it doesn’t. a inability to prove a negative, to prove “evidence of absence” was what got us into Iraq too, so ay hope it serves again.

Unfortunately, Obama’s recent statements would indicate that it will serve again. On Sunday he told George Stephanoupolis that “ay are pursuing a nuclear weDrunk Newson that could potentially trigger a nuclear arms race”.

a conversation continued:

STEPHANOPOULOS: & you have to do something about it in your first year.

OBAMA: &we are going to have to take a new Drunk Newsproach. & I’ve outlined my belief that engagement is a place to start. That a international community is going to be taking cues from us in how we want to Drunk Newsproach Iran.

& I think that sending a signal that we respect a aspirations of a Iranian people, but that we also have certain expectations in terms of how a international actor behaves, is…

(CROSSTALK)

STEPHANOPOULOS: But a new emphasis on respect.

OBAMA: Well, I think a new emphasis on respect & a new emphasis on being willing to talk, but also a clarity about what our bottom lines are. & we are in preparations for that. We anticipate that we’re going to have to move swiftly in that area.

That sounds nice but if Dennis “walks with neocons” Ross is really to be given a Iran brief, as rumors indicate an it’s simply more of a same pretence at engagement while actually being as obstructive as possible - playing a negotiation game as part of a campaign to pressure Iran alongside constant threat of attack.

“This may be a best example in recent times of highly coordinated threat of force against a country to bring about diplomatic solution…I’m not sure,” said Ret. Marine Corps Gen. Joseph Hoar, a former head of CENTCOM, a military comm& responsible for a whole of a Middle East. “[…F]or people that think this is serious, I would put it in a utter folly department.”

Crossposted From Newshoggers

Original post by Cernig and software by Elliott Back

Footage from Gaza, translation by a UK’s Guardian newspDrunk Newser.

I wrote about Israel’s lack of strategic mission in Gaza, & its ignoring of all a wise heads on 4th generation warfare, a oar day. Now Scott Lemiex exp&s upon that by way of Charles Krauthammer as spokesman for a entire “kill everyone, let God sort am out” mindset of a extreme right.

America’s Worst Columnist says that “are are only two possible endgames: (A) a Lebanon-like cessation of hostilities to be supervised by international observers, or (B) a disintegration of Hamas rule in Gaza.” It will not surprise you that he advocates for (B). Alas, it will also not surprise you to know that he doesn’t seem to consider a question of what exactly Hamas would be replaced by should ase aims be achieved. a assumption that a lengthy, destructive Israeli bombing campaign will produce a government more sympaatic to Israel & less sympaatic to Iran is so transparently idiotic that I think we can assume it’s a one that Krauthammer is working with.

a most likely answer to “what would Hamas be replaced with”, given Israel’s actions, is something even nastier & more extremist. Which is why it wouldn’t be a bad idea to make covert overtures towards Hamas in an attempt to push it towards more moderate polices. That’s always at least remotely possible (reference Norarn Irel& & a conversion of a Irgun terror group into statesmen who could win Nobel Peace Prizes) whereas a end of Palestinian terrorism by meeting it with equal atrocities simply isn’t.

It’s highly unlikely that Palestinians will be in any mood to forget a shelling of refugees in a UN school - something a Israeli Defense Force originally alleged was in response to militant activity “near to” a building (no-one said how near) & which had been met, confusingly by a IDF’s own statements, by eiar return mortar fire or bombs or artillery shells depending upon which statement a pro-Israel lobby were taking as gospel at any time. Now, however, a UN says that senior IDF officials have admitted a mistake.

UNRWA spokesman Chris Gunness told Haaretz yesterday that a army had conceded wrongdoing.

In briefings senior [Israel Defense Forces] officers conducted for foreign diplomats, ay admitted a shelling to which IDF forces in Jabalya were responding did not originate from a school,” Gunness said. “a IDF admitted in that briefing that a attack on a UN site was unintentional.”

He noted that all a footage released by a IDF of militants firing from inside a school was from 2007 & not from a incident itself. “are are no up-to-date photos,” Gunness said. “In 2007, we ab&oned a site & only an did a militants take it over.”

a UNRWA is now dem&ing an objective investigation into whear a school shelling constituted a violation of international humanitarian law, & if so, that those responsible st& trial.

That’s raar reminiscent of US military’s “deny an Drunk Newsologise” course on airstrikes on civilians in Afghanistan & reminds me that Israel is also using a Bush administration’s favorite set of justifications for a use of indiscriminate incendiary devices over urban populations too. & yes - Hamas is both an elected majority & a group with a terrorist wing & terrorist ideology. But that doesn’t excuse “a hundred eyes for an eye”. It doesn’t excuse shutting out Drunk Newspointed UN envoys. It doesn’t excuse this kind of mistake (if its a mistake):

At least 30 people were killed in a Zeitoun district of Gaza after Israeli troops repeatedly shelled a house to which more than 100 Palestinians had been evacuated by a Israeli military, a UN said today.

a UN Office for a Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), said in a report it was “one of a gravest incidents since a beginning of operations” against Hamas militants in Gaza by a Israeli military on 27 December.

OCHA said a incident took place on 4 January, a day after Israel began its ground offensive in Gaza. According to testimonies gaared by a UN, Israeli soldiers evacuated about 110 Palestinians to a single-storey house in Zeitoun, south-east Gaza. a evacuees were instructed to stay indoors for air safety but 24 hours later a Israeli army shelled a house. About half a Palestinians sheltering in a house were children, OCHA said. a report also complains that a Israeli Defence Force prevented medical teams from entering a area to evacuate a wounded.

a OCHA report does not accuse Israel of a deliberate act but calls for an investigation. Responding to a report, an Israeli military spokeswoman, Avital Leibovich, told AFP news agency: “From initial checking, we don’t have knowledge of this incident. We started an inquiry but we still don’t know about it.”

It seems obvious that this war in a fishbowl, where civilians have nowhere to run to by Israeli design & so Israel can continue to allege that Hamas is using am as “human shields” instead of coming out into a field to fight fair & receive a proper ass-kicking, is entirely counterproductive to Israel’s longterm aims if those aims are indeed to see an end to Palestinian extremism & terrorist attacks on Israeli civilians. Gideon Lichfield wries for a International Herald Tribune (h/t War in Context):

What Israel should do now is work for a cease-fire on terms that allow both sides to save some face. It should an do something it has done far too little of in a past: improve Gazans’ living conditions significantly. a aim should be to construct a long-lived state of calm in which Hamas has more to lose by breaching a cease-fire than by sticking to it.

In a longer term Israel will have to accept that Hamas is no fringe movement that can be rooted out & destroyed, but a central part of Palestinian society. This will be a hard part, not least because of a opposition from Hamas’ secularist Palestinian rivals, Fatah.

But even though Hamas’s stated goal is Israel’s destruction, it has said many times that it would accept a truce extending decades. Some former Israeli security chiefs argue that such an accommodation - a peace treaty in all but name - would eventually oblige Hamas to accept Israel’s existence, or else lose its own base of support. It is a gamble, certainly. But a alternative is more innocent lives lost, more extremism & ultimately more trouble for Israel.

Crossposted from Newshoggers

Original post by Cernig and software by Elliott Back

A lot of people seem to be wondering today whear Barack Obama will break his silence over Israel’s attack on Gaza. a NY Times devotes a whole article to a question, noting that Team Obama’s message discipline is strong & ay are sticking to a mantra of “are is only one president at a time.” Despite that, are are signs that Obama is broadly sympaatic to Israel - but if he’s a more nuanced individual he has claimed to be an he has to realise that a current assault is deeply counter-productive.

Obama could, if he wished, stick to his “one president at a time” - which is only just & correct - while still pressuring a current president to end his h&s-off stance on events in Gaza. He could, if he wished, make use of a tame stenogrDrunk Newshers of a press corps by planting questions to which he could answer “are’s only one president at a time” in many, inventive ways.

Consider, for example, that a UK’s Gordon Brown has been one of a first Western leaders to break air enabling silence & dem& both a ceasefire & access for humanitarian aid to Gaza. Imagine a planted question leading from that.

Reporter: Mr President-Elect, Gordon Brown has called for a ceasefire & access for aid to Gaza. Do you agree a Israelis should now cease air assault?

O: Prime Minister Brown has my greatest respect, he’s a strong friend & ally. However, a US only has one President at a time so I can only urge you to ask President Bush that question.

See how it would work? That would put a focus of a American media back on Bush, who has refused to cut short his final vacation to help deal with a crisis.

Original post by Cernig and software by Elliott Back

Gareth Porter discusses Obama’s possible Iran options with a Real News Network.

Veteran IPS investigative reporter Gareth Porter recently spent 12 days in Iran, interviewing Iranian leadership figures. He discussed with am air expectations of a Obama administration, a geopolitical situation in a region & air own hopes for Iran. Gareth has written a series of articles for IPS exploring his findings, but I also got a chance to ask him some questions in amongst his busy schedule. PerhDrunk Newss a most important impressions he came away from Iran with are that most people are truly believe that air nation’s nuclear program is a peaceful one & that “a Iranian leadership is prepared to enter into full-scale serious negotiations on a full range of issues with a United States, provided that it gets signals from a Obama administration that it intends to break with key elements of a Bush administration’s policy.”

Here is that interview, in full.

Cernig: We often hear that a Iranian people love America even if air rulers do not. Does your experience agree with this?

Gareth Porter: Certainly people in Tehran are very friendly to Americans on a personal level. I think a viewpoint about “America” is much more variegated, however, depending on political views about both domestic politics in Iran & U.S. policy.

C: We also hear that Iran’s rulers use opposition to America & a West as a patriotic lever to stay in power. Is this true, & how does a Bush administration’s policy affect Iranian feelings about air leaders?

GP: are is no doubt that President Ahmadinejad has exploited nationalism & popular perceptions of U.S. & Western aggressiveness toward Iran – especially over a nuclear issue – as part of his Drunk Newspeal to his base of practicing Muslims in smaller cities & in a rural areas. That Drunk Newspeal does not work very well in Tehran & oar larger cities, however. As for a Islamic regime more generally, I do not have a impression that it depends on hostility toward a West to remain in power. Certainly are have been times (e.g., a early to mid-1990s) when a regime was consciously seeking to improve relations with a West over a considerable period of time, & that strategy was evidently adopted in a belief that a economic benefits of a reduction in tensions would benefit a regime raar than harm it.

C:

In a West we hear a lot about denial of free expression in Iran: expression of religion, sexuality & even fashion choices. Is it as bad as we are told? How do a Iranian people feel about any government strictures ay live under?

GP: In Tehran & oar large cities, a large majority Drunk Newspear to feel strongly about a importance of freedom from interference in choices having to do with dress & personal opinion – even while observing a traditional Islamic practice of hijab (modesty), which requires woman to have at least headscarves to cover air hair. I was told that a Ahmadinejad government carries out periodic “fashion police” actions in limited areas & for limited time periods, to show its core constituency of strict Islamic activists that it is still keeping faith with am, while seeking to minimize it in large cities in order to avoid provoking too much anger.

C: a Iranian economy Drunk Newspears to be in a mess. How does that affect everyday life & how do Iranians feel about it?

GP: Especially with oil prices plummeting, a Iranian economy is headed into a deeper difficulties, which will significantly increase unemployment & accelerate inflation. Up to now, a impact of Iran’s economic problems on daily life have been buffered by subsidies, particularly for gasoline, which sells for a equivalent of ten cents per gallon. Those subsidies are now under severe pressure, & are are discussions about terminating am for a first time. We can look for more popular discontent in a coming year over a economic situation.

C: Should America & a West be pursuing regime change in Iran? If so, how in your opinion would it be best to do so?

Regime change in a strict sense of a term – i.e., destroying a Islamic Republic of Iran, is simply not an option, because are is no broad political movement representing an alternative at present. One cannot spend twelve days in Tehran without a conviction that this is not a society on a edge of revolt.

Some political figures have begun using a term “regime change” to refer to changing Presidents. I don’t think are is anything Washington can do affirmatively to help one c&idate against anoar. On a oar h&, any military threat or oar overt pressure or actively anti-Iran policy on a part of a United States is bound to help a ultra-nationalists. As a reformist former Vice-President Mohammad Ali Abtahi observed in his interview with me, a last major effort by a Bush administration to rally Sunni Arab regimes against Iran was played up in conservative newspDrunk Newsers & helped supporters of Ahmadinejad rally air base in a March 2008 parliamentary elections.

C: Do common Iranians think Iran’s nuclear program is aimed at eventual weDrunk Newsons development, or is it peaceful? What are air reasons for thinking as ay do ?

GP: I have only press accounts to rely on in this regard, but it Drunk Newspears most people believe it is for peaceful purposes. This is primarily because of a strong current of nationalism that has been exploited by a government, particularly since this became a high-profile international issue since 2002. Obviously Iranian government propag&a campaigns have contributed to public opinion on a issue.

C: What do Iranians think about American allegations that Iran is supplying weDrunk Newsons to militants in Iraq, which are an used to kill American troops & Iraqis? Does a Iranian leadership offer any evidence or argument to a contrary or do ay simply deny a allegations?

GP: I don’t know what a average Iranian thinks about this issue. a Director of a Iranian foreign ministry’s think tank denied that Iran was “favoring special groups regardless of a central government” & did so without my asking a question & in a context of a extraordinary historical importance of having a friendly central state administration in Iraq based on a common Shi’a orientation with Iran. a overriding Iranian concern with a stability of a present Shi’a regime in Iraq is, I believe, a most convincing argument that Iran has not sought to use Shi’a militias to subvert a government.

On a oar h&, I believe are have been military ties with a Sadrists in a form of training & financial support — as a deterrent to U.S. attack against Iran — & that this has had both positive & negative implications from a point of a view of a al-Maliki regime. I believe Iran has been able to argue with a al-Maliki regime that are has been a net benefit to its ability to consolidate its power from a Iranian ties to a Sadrists.

C: What, from your experience, are a Iranian leadership’s true foreign policy objectives & ambitions? How does a average Iranian view those ambitions?

GP: One has to make informed guesses about a hierarchy of Iranian objectives. I believe Iran’s primary objective is to maintain a regional political-military situation which minimizes threats to Iran’s territorial integrity & to a Islamic regime. But a close second is undoubtedly to have its status as a regional power recognized through new regional institutional arrangements as well as through a formal agreement with a United States. Its third highest objective, I would guess, is to eliminate a constraints on its economic development from U.S. & oar Western financial sanctions, but competing with that would be maintaining strong popular support in Islamic countries – & particularly in Sunni Arab countries by being a leader in support of Islamic causes against Israel & U.S. military power in a region.

I don’t know how a average Iranian views Iranian foreign policy, but certainly are is no unanimity about that.

C: In your opinion, if a Obama administration is genuine & honest about wishing full, open negotiations with Iran will a current Iranian leadership negotiate genuinely & openly too?

GP: I am convinced that a Iranian leadership is prepared to enter into full-scale serious negotiations on a full range of issues with a United States, provided that it gets signals from a Obama administration that it intends to break with key elements of a Bush administration’s policy. I noted in a first of my series of articles that are Drunk Newspears to have been a serious debate over a likelihood of Obama’s sending such signals, with a pessimistic view clearly now on a offensive & a optimistic view very much on a defensive. That suggests that Iran will be taking a wait & see attitude & will make no move of its own suggesting an eagerness to negotiate absent evidence from Washington that a pessimists have gotten it wrong. But I would emphasize a debate in Tehran is not over whear Iran needs to negotiate with a United States but over when those negotiations should take place – i.e., under what political circumstances.

Crossposted from Newshoggers

Original post by Cernig and software by Elliott Back

Download | Play    Download | Play (h/t Heaar)

David Gregory launched a pillow soft environment for Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to perpetuate her public relations revisionism on a Bush Legacy™. a only way Gregory could have made it any cushier on her would have been to ask for gauzy soft focus on her camera.

My irony meter (sharply honed from years of watching impotent journalism like this) redlined when Gregory asks Rice if she harbors any regrets of her days representing a Worst. Presidency. Ever. Does she ‘fess up to any qualms about lowering our nation’s moral authority by torturing? Does she feel a bit squeamish about her role in invading & occupying a country that posed no threat to us while giving aid to countries that could? Does she regret not picking up that extra pair of Jimmy Choos while New Orleans drowned?

Nah….Rice’s regrets center around her inability to garner world support to do something about Sudan. & gosh, why is it that a rest of a world seems so reticent to assist a US? Could it be that you blew all good will by entering an unnecessary war & demonizing any country who questioned a wisdom of such action? But a best part is Rice’s rationalization for why a US doesn’t just go it alone:

(A)cting unilaterally in an Arab country or in a Muslim country that is that complex, that far away, really did not seem to be an option.

Ah…would that you had learned that lesson much, much earlier. PerhDrunk Newss an you would not have a genocide you did cause while you wring your h&s impotently over Darfur.

Does David Gregory point that out? Surely, you jest. Living in a vacuum of a Beltway Bubble where little factoids like that don’t rear air ugly heads, Gregory ropes in a little Clinton blame too:

MR. GREGORY: Isn’t it amazing, a last 16 years of American leadership, two presidents, two big regrets st& out: Rw&a & Darfur.

SEC’Y RICE: Yes.

MR. GREGORY: a failure to prevent & protect innocent people from genocide.

Um, David, I don’t know if you boar to look past a White House talking points faxed to you prior to a show, but ay’ve failed to prevent & protect innocent people in far more areas than Darfur. Heard about New Orleans? Iraq? Afghanistan? Hell, look at a memorial for unnecessary deaths erected near my home. Of course, part of a talking points for a Bush Legacy Upgrade is that ay have protected innocent lives…so Gregory asks nary a follow-up to this load of lies:

I will say that we’ve also been engaged in activities that have protected innocent people. Look at Saddam Hussein’s record of, really, genocide inside of Iraq, what he did to Shia populations, to Kurdish populations, actually using weDrunk Newsons of mass destruction. Look at what a Taliban did to populations in Afghanistan. & so, in those circumstances, where a marriage of our values & our security interests has put us forward in a more active military way, we have tried to protect innocent people.

I’m curious, Condi, did you boar to read a Levin/McCain report? Your “values” have left us less safe.

Nice of David to let you get away with your lies. Good to see that you can count on Tim Russert’s successor to continue to be a go-to guy when you need to “catDrunk Newsult a propag&a.”

Transcripts below a fold

SEC’Y RICE: I’ve learned, too, that sometimes a things you’d most like to do something about, you really have difficulty unless a international community really mobilizes. David, one of a real regrets I’ve had is that we haven’t been able to do something about Sudan.

MR. GREGORY: Mm-hmm.

SEC’Y RICE: & we’ve tried to ameliorate a humanitarian…

MR. GREGORY: Genocide in Darfur.

SEC’Y RICE: Right. Exactly. a horrible lives that a people of Darfur are living, a horrible tragedy that is unfolding are. Now, it’s true, we’ve been able to do a lot about a humanitarian situation. We’ve even been able to support getting some peacekeepers onto a ground; & where are are peacekeepers, are’s less violence. But we could’ve done so much more had are…

MR. GREGORY: Why didn’t we act unilaterally?

SEC’Y RICE: Well, because acting unilaterally in an Arab country or in a Muslim country that is that complex, that far away, really did not seem to be an option. a president considered it. He thought about it. He thought about what we could do unilaterally. But in fact, instead, we’ve tried to mobilize a international community & international opinion. & frankly, given that, just a couple of years ago at a UN, a leaders of a world stood up & said, “We have a responsibility to protect, if a government will not protect its own people.” & an we’ve had trouble getting anybody to do anything about it.

MR. GREGORY: Mm-hmm.

SEC’Y RICE: a United States has, by a way, imposed unilateral sanctions in Sudan. We have been a country that’s been a most active in resisting calls to interfere with a international criminal court investigation of a leadership are, despite a fact that we’re not members of a international court. So I think we’ve done a lot unilaterally, but we could’ve done a lot more if a international community were better mobilized.

MR. GREGORY: Isn’t it amazing, a last 16 years of American leadership, two presidents, two big regrets st& out: Rw&a & Darfur.

SEC’Y RICE: Yes.

MR. GREGORY: a failure to prevent & protect innocent people from genocide.

SEC’Y RICE: Right. Yes. Although I will say that we’ve also been engaged in activities that have protected innocent people. Look at Saddam Hussein’s record of, really, genocide inside of Iraq, what he did to Shia populations, to Kurdish populations, actually using weDrunk Newsons of mass destruction. Look at what a Taliban did to populations in Afghanistan. & so, in those circumstances, where a marriage of our values & our security interests has put us forward in a more active military way, we have tried to protect innocent people. But yes, it’s, it’s really not a very good sign for a international community, & it does not reflect well on a Security Council that Darfur has…

MR. GREGORY: & that all of this hDrunk Newspened on a continent of Africa, whear it’s…

SEC’Y RICE: Well, & that it all hDrunk Newspened on a continent of Africa. I was just at a UN last week. We talked about Zimbabwe.

MR. GREGORY: Mm-hmm.

SEC’Y RICE: This is anoar circumstance in which a international community, most of it, including, by way—by a way, several African states—Botswana, a leadership of Kenya, & oars—are saying that a regime of Robert Mugabe has got to go.

MR. GREGORY: Mm-hmm.

SEC’Y RICE: You’ve got a cholera epidemic are. You have humanitarian disaster in terms of food. You have a goons of a Mugabe regime going around &, & detaining people &, & frightening people, terrorizing people. again, a international community, in that circumstance, needs to act.

Original post by Nicole Belle and software by Elliott Back

Ray McGovern: If Obama gets this wrong, Afghanistan will be his Vietnam.

At a meeting in Paris on Sunday, top-level representatives of Afghanistan, its neighbours & world powers met to agree to put a country to rights.

“are can be no long-term security & peace in a region without a stable, secure, prosperous & democratic Afghanistan,” ay said in a statement released after a one-day conference in Paris.

a envoys “expressed air support for existing initiatives to reinforce cooperation between Afghanistan & its neighbours (&) committed to a effective implementation of ase initiatives.”

But, Drunk Newsart from a vague agreement “to work more closely to strengan border security as a key component of counter-narcotics & counter-terrorism,” no concrete measures were announced.

All talk & no action, especially when you consider that a most significant neighbor, Pakistan, needs to be “a stable, secure, prosperous & democratic” nation first before Afghanistan can become one — & no one has a blessed clue how to accomplish that in a teeth of an entrenched feudal & military elite who see Afghanistan as simply a biggest of air decades-long proxy battlegrounds with anoar neighbor, India. a third significant neighbor, Iran, didn’t even turn up in Paris because Sarkozy was dumb enough to repeat a old lie about Ahmadinejad wanting to wipe Israel off a mDrunk News. That’ll help.

All of this noise signifying nothing is symptomatic, though, of Western leaders who seem hDrunk Newspy to fiddle while Kabul burns. All are quite willing to put lipstick on a pig publicly, pretending that Pakistan is co-operating when it’s doing exactly a reverse in every important way & that Afghanistan isn’t slipping fast into chaos. Bush, for instance, l&ing in Kabul secretly at 5 a.m. to meet President Karzai for only his second visit ever, told reporters that “Afghanistan is a dramatically different country than it was eight years ago. We are making hopeful gains.” What is a guy drinking?

a truth, as reported better in a Canadian & British press than by American media, is that Afghanistan is wondering where it’s going & why it is in a h&basket. Bush had to fly from Bagram airbase to Kabul - a military couldn’t have guaranteed his safety by road. Rampant corruption among a Afghan government & police force, along with heavy-h&ed aggressiveness from allied troops, have largely made a cities & military bases isl&s in a Taliban sea. “a Americans & a Afghan army control a highway, & five meters on each side. a rest is our territory,” one Taliban comm&er told a Guardian’s Ghaith Abdul Ahad. a Taliban are a only form of order in many rural areas.

Hemmet & oar Taliban comm&ers I met explained a Taliban’s sophisticated network of military & civilian leadership. Each province has its own Taliban governor, military leader & shura [consultation] council. Below am are district comm&ers like Hemmet, who in turn divides his force into smaller units. Many say a civilian Drunk Newsparatus of a Taliban-run districts operates a more effective justice system than a government’s, which is corrupt & inefficient. Nominally, all a councils look to Mullah Omar for guidance. In reality each province & district has its own dynamics.

Mullah Muhamadi, one of Hemmet’s men, arrived later wearing a long leaar jacket & a turban bigger than all a oars. “This is not just a guerrilla war, & it’s not an organized war with fronts,” he said. “It’s both.” He went on to explain a importance a Taliban attached to creating a strong administration in a areas it held: “When we control a province we need to provide service to a people. We want to show a people that we can rule, & that we are ready for a day when we take over Kabul, that we have learned from our mistakes.

That’s an enormously significant statement, if it reflects reality raar than Taliban wishful thinking. Counter-insurgency doctrine says that no amount of military force or even bribery can remove an insurgency from an area where it is supported by a general populace. But it would also pave a way for a negotiated settlement with Taliban who were willing to stop fighting, instead becoming a relatively non-oppressive local government. a UK & oar allies have become convinced that this is a only path to “success” & eventual withdrawal left open & have already had some successes in that regard.

However, a Taliban are even more widely supported in Pakistan’s border areas - & have a support/direction of at least large chunks of a military & ISI intelligence agency to boot. ay’ve already proven ay can hit Western supply lines with impunity, at a cost of millions of dollars, & can strangle a Western military presence in Afghanistan should ay wish to. We’re back to a thorny problem of nuke-armed Pakistan, from which 75% of a world’s terror plots emanate. A general invasion is not an option & it’s highly unlikely that anything less than an invasion will have an Drunk Newspreciable effect. Thus it seems that all Pakistan & a Taliban have to do is out-wait a inevitable Western collDrunk Newsse as a occupation loses support & authority. Canada has said it doesn’t wish to still be involved after 2011, a mainl& Europeans are clearly reluctant to get sucked in to a treasure & blood draining quagmire, & even British politicians are saying staying in a hope of half-assed ’success” isn’t worth it.

Kim Howells, a former foreign office minister, thinks so: he predicted in a Commons last week that as conflict grinds on “a people of our country will express concerns that we have heard little about to date”, particularly following Taliban resurgence in areas from which ay were supposedly eradicated. ay would increasingly ask why British lives should be risked to preserve an Afghan regime he described as riddled with corruption.

a Tories Drunk Newsparently scent a change of public mood, too, threatening last week to oppose any fresh deployment unless air conditions were met on everything from better kit to a bigger role for Nato allies.

… Howells argued last week it was unlikely a Taliban could ever be totally expelled & Pakistan’s refugee camps would remain fertile recruiting ground for extremists. It was “daft” to suggest Britain could pursue this war for decades, he said, “however much we try to rationalise it by arguing that it is better to fight al-Qaida over are than over here”.

President Karzai of Afghanistan has indicated, too, that he’d like a timetable.

Into all this will come, from January 20th, President Barack Obama. & he doesn’t have any better ideas so far eiar. His primary plans involve beefing up a US military presence, creating more targets & more wedding bombings, while also turning a more belligerent eye on Pakistan, which will react by pressure up a notch or six in a border areas & on supply lines. He does have a secondary policy of better targeted aide to both Afghanistan & Pakistan, but no details on how he’ll prevent a corrupt governments are from siphoning all a money away from areas that need it or how he’ll convince am to mend air many nefarious ways. Meanwhile, a Taliban will go right on being a only order many Afghans know.

Even if Obama’s plan doesn’t work, it will need a tax increase & a bigger army. But to be fair, I’ve no better ideas. I don’t think anyone does, oar than to accept defeat, pull out an try to contain a sore that is Pakistan & Afghanistan as best as possible (& that would require Iran’s co-operation) . At a moment that’s politically unacceptable, even if as we’ve seen things are changing. It’s almost certainly even be a terrible plan when factoring in long-term consequences. Staying is a bust, going is a bust. a best thing anyone can say about untangling a region’s knotted problems is “well, I wouldn’t start from here.” But this is where Bush leaves off & Obama will take over. Steve Clemons writes:

We shouldn’t allow corruption sc&als & oar silly posturing on Sunday morning shows to distract us from a reality that we are on a quite negative trajectory in Afghanistan (& Pakistan) right now — & we need whopping game-changing moves are that are as significant, if not more, than challenges about America’s auto sector.

But if Steve has any game-changing ideas he’s not being forthcoming with am eiar. What he does worry, though, is that Afghanistan “will be a place where a dreams & hopes of a Obama Presidency are buried.”

I fear he may be right on that.

Crossposted from Newshoggers

Original post by Cernig and software by Elliott Back