Sunday, July 13, 2008
Iraq: Giving Up on a Long-term Agreement? Conflicting stories in the media, with the majority voicing that al-Maliki has blocked such and forced an interim agreement to be drafted, one that would confirm the presence of U.S. troops only through 2009.
U.S. and Iraqi negotiators have abandoned efforts to conclude a comprehensive agreement governing the long-term status of U.S troops in Iraq before the end of the Bush presidency, according to senior U.S. officials, effectively leaving talks over an extended U.S. military presence there to the next administration.
In place of the formal status-of-forces agreement negotiators had hoped to complete by July 31, the two governments are now working on a "bridge" document, more limited in both time and scope, that would allow basic U.S. military operations to continue beyond the expiration of a U.N. mandate at the end of the year.
The failure of months of negotiations over the more detailed accord -- blamed on both the Iraqi refusal to accept U.S. terms and the complexity of the task -- deals a blow to the Bush administration's plans to leave in place a formal military architecture in Iraq that could last for years.
Although President Bush has repeatedly rejected calls for a troop withdrawal timeline, "we are talking about dates," acknowledged one U.S. official close to the negotiations. Iraqi political leaders "are all telling us the same thing. They need something like this in there. . . . Iraqis want to know that foreign troops are not going to be here forever." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/12/AR2008071201915.html
Afghanistan: Significant U.S. casualties: Thus, not surprising that buzz is being generated about troops being re-deployed from Iraq to Afghanistan.
The Nato-led effort to subdue the Taliban suffered one of its heaviest blows since the 2001 invasion yesterday when nine US soldiers were killed and 15 other Nato troops injured in a day-long battle in a region close to the Pakistan border.
The US troops died as their base came under attack in Kunar province, eastern Afghanistan. The news puts further pressure on Pakistan, where coalition forces believe many Taliban militants are based. It was among the biggest losses for the coalition since the start of the war. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jul/14/usforeignpolicy.afghanistan
Advantage Taliban and Pakistan The U.S. is boxed in, militarily and politically. Syed Saleem Shahzad:
The resilient Taliban have proved unshakeable across Afghanistan over the past few months, making the chances of a coalition military victory against the popular tide of the insurgency in the majority Pashtun belt increasingly slim.
The alternative, though, of negotiating with radical Taliban leaders is not acceptable to the Western political leadership.
This stalemate suits Pakistan perfectly as it gives Islamabad the opportunity to once again step in to take a leading role in shaping the course of events in its neighboring country.
… Pakistan's planners now see their objective as isolating radicals within the Taliban and cultivating tribal, rustic, even simplistic, "Taliban boys" - just as they did in the mid-1990s in the leadup to the Taliban taking control of the country in 1996. It is envisaged that this new "acceptable" tribal-inspired Taliban leadership will displace Taliban and al-Qaeda radicalism.
This process has already begun in Pakistan's tribal areas. http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/JG12Df01.html
Torture: Jane Mayer’s book sums up her previous work and more than confirms there’s been a well-established policy of torture. It notes that the Red Cross issued an explicit warning to the Bush-Cheney Administration that utilizing these techniques was a war crime which could result in criminal prosecution of U.S. leaders. The book provides case examples, tracks the development of the techniques and mentions an internal CIA investigation which had concluded that the program violated the Geneva Conventions and U.S. criminal law. Cheney intervened and the CIA report was blocked.
The book says Abu Zubaydah told the Red Cross that he had been waterboarded at least 10 times in a single week and as many as three times in a day.
The book also reports that Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the chief planner of the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, told the Red Cross that he had been kept naked for more than a month and claimed that he had been “kept alternately in suffocating heat and in a painfully cold room.”
The report says the prisoners considered the “most excruciating” of the methods being shackled to the ceiling and being forced to stand for as long as eight hours. Eleven of the 14 prisoners reported prolonged sleep deprivation, the book says, including “bright lights and eardrum-shattering sounds 24 hours a day.” http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/11/washington/11detain.html?_r=3&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=slogin
Frank Rich summarizes:
We can no longer take cold comfort in the Watergate maxim that the cover-up was worse than the crime. This time the crime is worse than the cover-up, and the punishment could rain down on us all," - http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/13/opinion/13rich.html?hp
FISA Chris Hedges explains how his job will be made difficult, as it will be harder to evade surveillance and garner access:
This law will cripple the work of those of us who as reporters communicate regularly with people overseas, especially those in the Middle East. It will intimidate dissidents, human rights activists and courageous officials who seek to expose the lies of our government or governments allied with ours.
....The reach of such surveillance has already hampered my work. I was once told about a showdown between a U.S. warship and the Iranian navy that had the potential to escalate into a military conflict. I contacted someone who was on the ship at the time of the alleged incident and who reportedly had photos. His first question was whether my phone and e-mails were being monitored.
What could I say? How could I know? I offered to travel to see him but, frightened of retribution, he refused. I do not know if the man's story is true. I only know that the fear of surveillance made it impossible for me to determine its veracity. http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-hedges11-2008jul11,0,1553314.story
Iran: Attack or not to attack: Up to the Israelis? No, of course.
We’re left to read the ‘tea leaves.’ Adding all sources together, it seems less than a 50% possibility, even with an Obama win... as of now.
President George W Bush has told the Israeli government that he may be prepared to approve a future military strike on Iranian nuclear facilities if negotiations with Tehran break down, according to a senior Pentagon official.
Despite the opposition of his own generals and widespread scepticism that America is ready to risk the military, political and economic consequences of an airborne strike on Iran, the president has given an “amber light” to an Israeli plan to attack Iran’s main nuclear sites with long-range bombing sorties, the official told The Sunday Times.
“Amber means get on with your preparations, stand by for immediate attack and tell us when you’re ready,” the official said. But the Israelis have also been told that they can expect no help from American forces and will not be able to use US military bases in Iraq for logistical support.
Nor is it certain that Bush’s amber light would ever turn to green without irrefutable evidence of lethal Iranian hostility. Tehran’s test launches of medium-range ballistic missiles last week were seen in Washington as provocative and poorly judged, but both the Pentagon and the CIA concluded that they did not represent an immediate threat of attack against Israeli or US targets. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article4322508.ece
Economy: We hope for a soft landing. The multiple warning signs leave most economists unable to predict how long and deep this “downturn” will be, whether it will involve hyperinflation or deflation, whether it has one more year or much more. Friday’s developments- the huge stock drop of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae shook many. The media, including Sunday’s business sections, generally sought to reassure, though some cautioned to secure your bank funds in view of the Indy bank failing late last week.
Freddie and Fannie triggered unusually aggressive federal action:
Alarmed by the sharply eroding confidence in the nation’s two largest mortgage finance companies, the Bush administration on Sunday asked Congress to approve a sweeping rescue package that would give officials the power to inject billions of federal dollars into the beleaguered companies through investments and loans.
In a separate announcement, the Federal Reserve said that it would make one of its short-term lending programs available to the two companies, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The Fed said that it had made its decision “to promote the availability of home mortgage credit during a period of stress in financial markets.”
An official said the Fed’s lending program was approved at the request of the Treasury, but that it was temporary and would probably end once Congress approved Treasury’s plan. Some officials briefed on the plan said Congress could be asked to extend the total line of credit to the institutions to $300 billion. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/14/washington/14fannie.html?hp=&pagewanted=print
Middle East: Optimism Reigns Multiple sources reflect the growing possibility of an accord
Israel will free Palestinian prisoners as a gesture to the Palestinian Authority unrelated to the prisoner exchange deals it is conducting with Hezbollah and Hamas, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert promised Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas on Sunday.
Olmert and Abbas on Sunday met for trilateral talks with French President Nicolas Sarkozy, on the sidelines of the first summit of the Union for the Mediterranean.
Israel and the Palestinians have never been as close to peace as they are now, Olmert said at a press conference during the French-initiated regional conference.
"It seems to me that we have never been as close to the possibility of reaching an accord as we are today," Olmert told reporters standing alongside Abbas and Sarkozy.
Leaders of 43 countries from the European Union and the Mediterranean region met in Paris on Sunday for the summit, a Sarkozy-led initiative. http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1001563.html
CAMPAIGN:
(1) Barack Obama is overwhelmingly Britain's choice to be the next US president, five times more popular than his Republican rival, John McCain, a Guardian/ICM poll shows today. Carried out ahead of the Democratic candidate's visit to Britain next week, the poll reveals that 53% feel certain he would make the best president, with only 11% favouring McCain; 36% declined to express an opinion.
Obama will soon set off on a marathon trip that will take in Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel, Jordan, Germany, France and, lastly, Britain. The exact timing of the visit to Iraq and Afghanistan is being kept under wraps for security reasons, but he is expected in Britain on July 25 or 26. His campaign team and the British government had originally discussed making the UK his first stop but, citing diary clashes, rescheduled it as the last. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jul/14/barackobama.johnmccain
(2) Are there differences between Obama and McCain? Well, of course, but a theme of the past 2 weeks in the media is to find voices who will say that there isn’t. Without revisiting 2000, Iraq / the economy / privacy / appointments to the Supreme Court, etc. make for a vivid contrast.
Yet, some look to downplay the differences and play up the areas of agreement. This from the front page of the LA Times:
For Amy Rick, the 2008 presidential election is a win-win situation. Both Barack Obama and John McCain support an expansion of stem-cell research that she has battled for in vain under President Bush.
“Both are very solid,” said Rick, president of the Coalition for the Advancement of Medical Research. “We are definitely looking forward with optimism to a change in policy in 2009.”
John Isaacs, an arms control advocate, feels the same way, because both candidates have made nuclear nonproliferation a priority. “We’ll have major progress on nuclear issues no matter who is elected,” said Isaacs, executive director of the Council for a Livable World.
Stem-cell research and nuclear weapons are just two examples of a surprising but little-noticed aspect of the 2008 campaign: Democrat Obama and Republican McCain agree on a range of issues that have divided the parties under Bush. http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-centrists13-2008jul13,0,4649817.story
Who is Obama?
NEWSWEEK’s Poll:
Twelve percent of voters surveyed said that Obama was sworn in as a United States senator on a Qur'an, while 26 percent believe the Democratic candidate was raised as a Muslim and 39 percent believe he attended a Muslim school as a child growing up in Indonesia. None of these things is true.
…while…
The Pew Poll found that 1% of Americans think Obama is Jewish. http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/archive/2008/07/10/barack-obama-secret-jew.aspx
-R
