The Many Faces of US Politics...

[Tyrones own]

Fair play to McClintock stepping in to keep Calderon in check
cause Lord knows we've become accustomed to foreign leaders
coming to the US and dictating to Obama on how he should run the country
that best suits their needs without so much as a wimper in defense

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ldx8gZDwZWs&feature=youtube_gdata

[Hedley Lamarr]

US secret missions
The news that American special forces were from last September ordered to be deployed in both friendly and hostile countries within the Middle East in the campaign against international terror is both disturbing and puzzling.

Gen. David Petraeus, the head of US Central Command, has signed off the tasking of elite special forces troops to undertake surveillance missions and partner with local forces in the campaign against Al-Qaeda and its militant allies. Now while special forces around the world certainly do mount surveillance operations, these are generally a preparation for military action of some sort.

If that is what Washington is doing, then the US military simply cannot be acting outside its UN mandates in Iraq and Afghanistan. The imperative of countering terrorism cannot justify the infringement of any national sovereignty. Implicit in Petraeus' detailed seven-page instructions is the unacceptable reality that the US will send its special forces into a country without authorization, if the local military is either not trusted or if authorization for such an incursion would certainly be refused.

The order also speaks of cultivating local contacts to boost the surveillance missions. Signing up informers in an attempt to generate fresh flows of information is more associated with the cloak-and-dagger world of established intelligence agencies than special forces from the military.

And it is a high-risk strategy. Were a covert US mission to be caught and confronted by local troops, the diplomatic consequences could be dire. Once again, it seems that the means the US is choosing to combat terrorism could probably have the effect of boosting it, by reinforcing the notion that Washington is acting as a quasi-colonial power and bullying friendly states into doing what it wants in the same way that it has bullied post-invasion Iraqi governments.

However, the puzzling element to the leaking of this secret order is that it is absolutely the last thing that a commander would wish, because it immediately compromises any missions that are either under way or planned. However good soldiers in the US Delta Force, Navy Seal and Army Ranger units might be, their chances of success are much diminished if it is known they are coming.

And therein perhaps lies the explanation for the revealing of instructions which because they must have been tagged "Top Secret" could hardly have escaped from the Pentagon without some connivance by the US military. The Iranians are already paranoid about US interference in their country. Confirming their fears will stir Tehran into further efforts to counter US spies. It can be expected that the protection of sensitive facilities will be further improved. Yet Washington has more than enough satellite technology to watch the Iranians. It does not need to send special forces crawling around taking photographs.

Maybe therefore the Petraeus order is a bluff, designed to prompt the Iranians into showing where their key sites actually are. As Tehran increases its defenses, US satellites will watch and record the coordinates, which can be programmed into their weapons systems.

[Hedley Lamarr]

How soon will US pull out?
What is not often realized is how deep were the reservations by senior officers in both the US and UK armed services about going to war against Iraq.

Some felt that the process of discovering whether Saddam Hussein's Iraq did have weapons of mass destruction had not run its course.

Others felt that Saddam Hussein was pretty well contained already and that his military machine remained broken following his defeat in the first Gulf War.

The UN had done a very good job of disarming Iraq after the first Gulf War that ended in 1991. Nevertheless, true to Tennyson's poem of the Crimean War, "Ours not to reason why, ours but to do and die," the top officers went along with obeying the orders they were given.

The big question now is how to withdraw "with honor" from Iraq. That is important to the soldiers. President Barack Obama has promised to be out by next year. How he sees it today, given the post election infighting in Iraq, is unclear.

When he was a senator he told a Congressional hearing that if the US wanted to totally eliminate Al-Qaeda from Iraq and have a solid Iraqi state they would be there for decades but "if our criteria is a messy, sloppy status quo, but there's not huge outbreaks of violence, there's still corruption, but the country is struggling along but it's not a threat to its neighbors and is not an Al-Qaeda base, that seems to me an achievable goal within a measurable time frame."

The best book on the war in Iraq is "The Gamble" by The Washington Post's military correspondent, Thomas Ricks, who has interviewed almost everybody in senior positions. He concludes, "The quiet consensus emerging among many people who have served in Iraq is that we will likely have American soldiers engaged in combat until at least 2015."

In his penultimate paragraph he quotes former American Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker as saying, "The story of the new Iraq is going to be a very, very long time in unfolding ... What the world ultimately thinks about us and what we think about ourselves I think is going to be determined much more by what happens from now on than what's happened up to now."  Ricks' final sentence is unsettling: "In other words, the events for which Iraq war will be remembered probably have not yet happened."

If that is a sober judgment based on a great deal of research it is also a frightening one. As senior military men and diplomats have observed in Afghanistan, the US and NATO forces have often created more enemies than they've killed. Doesn't this apply to Iraq too? Won't it be even truer the longer the occupation goes on? It surely will be.

Iraqi voters may not demand leaders who insist on an instant US exit tomorrow but one can be sure that if Ricks' words were read to them they would throw up their hands in despair knowing that it is an untenable conviction and one that can only be counterproductive — enabling the politicians to put off the day of biting on the bullet of real compromise and giving Al-Qaeda a new lease of life in the country. (After all it doesn't need a base in Iraq in order to attack America and therefore would probably withdraw its cadres if the Americans were gone.)

When I talked to Zbigniew Brzezinski (a former US national security advisor and a mentor to Obama) I got a very different take on the subject.

He wants to see a political conclusion without too much delay, precisely because an ongoing conflict is inherently dynamic and in the internationally unstable conditions of the Gulf it could embroil us in a collision with Iran.

"We must start talking to Iraqi leaders, all of them, not just those in the Green Zone, about jointly settling a date for American disengagement.

"... (The president should) use the fact of an American-Iraqi dialogue termination date as the point of departure for approaching all of Iraq's neighbors about regional talks about assisting Iraqi security problems upon our departure. Every one of its neighbors, including Syria and Iran, has a stake in Iraq not exploding. And, beyond that, try to engage other Muslim countries — Morocco, Egypt, Algeria etc., — in being willing to assist post-occupied Iraq with some military security. And last, but not least, some major international effort, probably using the UN to that end, to undertake a really large-scale rehabilitation of Iraqis."

To my ears this proposal, in effect, is based on the template of a classic UN peacekeeping formation. Contrary to prejudiced myth it often works — as in the Congo today, in Liberia after the ouster of Charles Taylor who is now being tried by the UN War Crimes Tribunal and, in earlier years, in Lebanon, Cyprus and the Golan Heights.

President Obama should do what Brzezinski has advised. I have a feeling that once Obama forces them to reflect many US senior commanders would agree to a fairly fast withdrawal. After all, many of them never thought the US should be there in the first place.

[J70]

Hedley, unless they're your own, please post the authors and sources of these articles. And give your own views. Far more interesting for others than just posting article after article that probably won't be read by most.

[heganboy]

Hedley, unless they're your own, please post the authors and sources of these articles. And give your own views. Far more interesting for others than just posting article after article that probably won't be read by most.

+1

[Hedley Lamarr]

Hedley, unless they're your own, please post the authors and sources of these articles. And give your own views. Far more interesting for others than just posting article after article that probably won't be read by most.

J70 point taken, all are taken from Middle East newspapers.

As for my own views, well where do I start when it comes to America?

Basically it all comes down to their foreign policy, their double standards, their blind support of Israel, the mess they have created in Iraq and Afghanistan(no exit stategy).
The fact that some on here lay the blame at Obama's feet when he inherited most of the crap from warmonger Bush.
Just a few of my own views.

[Hedley Lamarr]

This article is from Middle East's Arab News


This is not about Iran
The debate is not about Iran's nuclear obsession but about justice, dignity and freedom. So which way does Obama go?

Great leaders see opportunities in challenges, rising to occasion whenever they have a chance to make history. Petty politicians refuse to see beyond their nose even as real opportunities pass them by.  I always thought — and still believe-US President Barack Obama belongs to the first category. If he is where he is today despite the formidable odds that were stacked against him, I believe it's because of his vision and natural leadership skills.

After years of war and confrontation under his predecessor, he has repeatedly reached out to Muslim world including Iran, offering a fresh start.

This is why I can't make sense of this administration's response to the Iran nuclear deal brokered by Turkey, Brazil and India.  It's not just absurdly hostile but totally dumb, defying all logic and common sense.

But then whoever said the US foreign policy was ever inspired by ephemeral things like logic and reason. If it had been, the US forces wouldn't be occupying Iraq and Afghanistan today even as the country blows up billions of taxpayer's dollars on a daily basis.

The US has been stuck in the two Muslim countries for so long that by now even our old friend Bush and his pals may find it hard to recall why they started these wars in the first place and why a million innocent people had to die. What for?

But if you thought the disasters in Afghanistan and Iraq would have cooled the hot heads on the Capitol Hill and satiated the neocon-Zionist lust for innocent blood, you'd better think again.

Incredibly, as if the total devastation of the two war ravaged countries and loss of over a million Iraqi and Afghan lives was not enough, not to mention the toll of nearly 5,000 US soldiers in Iraq, the US Right is once again pitching for fight with yet another Muslim country, this time with Iran.

More incredibly, the same mad rush to the hell that was seen in the run-up to the Iraq invasion is being re-enacted all over again against Iran.

Israel's powerful friends in the US political-military establishment and on both sides of the political divide are out with the knives for Iran of course with the powerful US media. And when it comes to "hit Iran" rhetoric, even highbrow biggies like the Washington Post and the New York Times are increasingly sounding like Israeli government's mouthpieces, perpetually prattling about the clear and present danger that Iran's nonexistent "nuclear weapons" pose to world peace, just as Iraq's yet to be found WMD not long ago did.

As though acting on the cue, leading lights of the administration Hillary Clinton and Robert Gates have ratcheted up the hysterics warning the Ayatollahs on a daily basis.

Haven't we been here before? And why Obama, if he really means what he says about a new way forward, is allowing the same forces that are responsible for most of America's current woes including its dangerous conflict with the Muslim world to dictate his agenda once again? Has this president drawn no lessons from his predecessor's mistakes and recent history?

If the US and its other Western allies had been really concerned about the Middle East peace, they would have heartily embraced the Iran nuclear deal and thanked Turkey and Brazil for persuading Tehran to cooperate with the world community.

I know Iran's Ahmadinejad cannot help himself whenever there's a chance to prove his histrionic skills. Bringing Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey and President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva of Brazil, not to mention India's S. M. Krishna, together in Tehran for the rare photo opportunity was a masterstroke by Iranians, who like all ancient civilizations set great store by grand ceremonies and small gestures making profound statements.

The diplomatic coup stunned the Americans, taking the wind out of their sails like whoosh! The Iranians timed the move well, unleashing it to check the US push for fresh sanctions against Iran.

Some red-faced US pundits have tried to paint the new uranium swap deal as a panicked Iran's reaction to the imminent punitive measures against Iran. But if the West once again thinks the threat of force or new sanctions has softened Iran, it's grievously mistaken. It certainly didn't work with Iraq; it's not going to work with Iran. Especially not with Iran. You'd think the Yanks would have realized it by now after their long and tumultuous relationship with Iran.

The Iranians are a very proud nation, who take immense pride in their rich past and culture. The talk of use of force and sanctions by nations with a long history of aggression and occupation only rankles them further.

By contemptuously rejecting Iran's reasonable offer to send its uranium abroad (to Turkey) in return for fuel rods from France a year later for use in medical research, the West is only reinforcing the suspicion in much of the Muslim world that it is once again looking for an excuse to annihilate yet another Muslim country.

Else, what excuse does Washington have to spurn the deal brokered by Turkey and Brazil?  Especially when it is little different from what Obama had offered to Iran last year in Geneva during the EU-Iran talks?

In fact, as Ahmed Davutoglu, the architect of Turkey's new foreign policy, revealed to The International Herald Tribune's Roger Cohen, Erdogan had stepped in to defuse the West-Iran showdown only after he was encouraged by Washington to do so.

Besides, the Iran deal has been widely welcomed by the world community including by Gulf Arab states. UAE Foreign Minister Sheikh Abdullah bin Zayed Al-Nahyan even sent a congratulatory message to the Iranian leadership.

In opinion polls by some European television networks, 60 percent of respondents supported the arrangement.

These small gestures betray a growing unease over the Iran-West confrontation. The world has grown weary of the kind of cynical, divisive politics big powers have been playing in the Middle East.

The Turkey-Brazil initiative not just shows the way forward to the rest of the world — wonder why Arab states didn't think of it? — but suggests the shape of things to come.

The US may have snubbed Turkey and Brazil for taking the plunge, upsetting the Western game plan but people around the world have sat up and are taking note of the new movers and shakers on world stage.

The times, they are a-changing. After centuries of Western dominance of the world, the balance of power is shifting with the emergence of new players like China, India, Turkey and Brazil. The West would ignore these winds of change at its cost.

Obama has an opportunity to make history. Or allow himself like his predecessors to be waylaid by the forces that have bankrupted his country and put it on a collision course with the world. 

For this is not about Iran or its nuclear obsession. This is about justice, dignity, freedom and equality. Why are there two sets of rules-one for the Palestinians and one for Israelis? Why do some have the right to steal, occupy, and plunder someone else's land as they please and others cannot even protest?

There will be total peace in the Middle East the day a US president treats Palestinians and Israelis equally.  The global arms race will end the day America opts to see no difference between Israel's nukes and Iran's nuclear ambitions. Can we ever see that day, Mr. President? I have a feeling if the Audacity of Hope does not prevail in your time, it will never ever do so.

— Aijaz Zaka Syed is a Dubai-based commentator. Write to him at mailaijaz@aol.com

[magickingdom]

Hedley, unless they're your own, please post the authors and sources of these articles. And give your own views. Far more interesting for others than just posting article after article that probably won't be read by most.

+1

or better still stop posting pages after pages of the stuff, if people want to read middle east newspapers they can. do you want me to start posting pages after pages of the ny times? maybe you could get a day job that would be productive...

[Hedley Lamarr]

Hedley, unless they're your own, please post the authors and sources of these articles. And give your own views. Far more interesting for others than just posting article after article that probably won't be read by most.

+1

or better still stop posting pages after pages of the stuff, if people want to read middle east newspapers they can. do you want me to start posting pages after pages of the ny times? maybe you could get a day job that would be productive...

You post whatever you want if going to help back your view/oinion.
You must have a very productive job given the number of posts...hero

[Puckoon]

Its pretty redundant to be posting those articles considering the sources are mostly middle eastern news papers.

It'd be like posting every article from an phoblact to highlight the problems with British presence in Ireland.

Everyone is aware of your opinion Hedley.

[Carmen Stateside]

I actually enjoy reading them Lamarr.  Keep it up.

[Minder]

Its pretty redundant to be posting those articles considering the sources are mostly middle eastern news papers.

It'd be like posting every article from an phoblact to highlight the problems with British presence in Ireland.

Everyone is aware of your opinion Hedley.

That wouldn't happen on this board.

Would it?

[give her dixie]

Its pretty redundant to be posting those articles considering the sources are mostly middle eastern news papers.

It'd be like posting every article from an phoblact to highlight the problems with British presence in Ireland.

Everyone is aware of your opinion Hedley.

Thats right Puckoon. What would Middle Eastern Newspapers know about events in the Middle East?

We should all stick to Fox News for the real truth in the Middle East.

[Puckoon]

Not at all Dixie, that's not the point. There should be a blanaced viewpoint, which is something that hedley, nor yourself, seem interested in putting forward. 

[Hedley Lamarr]

Not at all Dixie, that's not the point. There should be a blanaced viewpoint, which is something that hedley, nor yourself, seem interested in putting forward.

There are two sides to every story, I'm interested in the truth, and not accepting everything Uncle Sam says is true.

I see the truth here every day.