Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

World’s Sole Military Superpower’s 2 Million-Troop, $1 Trillion Wars

By Rick Rozoff | December 21, 2009

With a census of slightly over 300 million in a world of almost seven billion people, the U.S. accounts for over 40 percent of officially acknowledged worldwide government military spending with a population that is only 4 percent of that of the earth’s. A 10-1 disparity.

In addition to its 1,445,000 active duty service members, the Pentagon can and does call upon 1.2 million National Guard and other reserve components. As many as 30% of troops that have served in Afghanistan and Iraq are mobilized reservists. The Army National Guard has activated over 400,000 soldiers since the war in Afghanistan began and in March of 2009 approximately 125,000 National Guard and other reserve personnel were on active duty.

The Defense Department also has over 800,000 civilian employees at home and deployed worldwide. The Pentagon, then, has more than 3.5 million people at its immediate disposal excluding private military contractors.

After allotting over a trillion dollars for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq alone and packing off more than two million of its citizens to the two nations, the U.S. military establishment and peace prize president have already laid the groundwork for yet more wars. Boeing, Raytheon and General Electric won’t be kept waiting.

In his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech on December 10 the president of the United States appropriated for his country the title of “the world’s sole military superpower” and for himself “the Commander-in-Chief of the military of a nation in the midst of two wars.”

This may well have been the first time that an American – and of course any – head of state in history boasted of his nation being the only uncontested military power on the planet and unquestionably the only time a Nobel Peace Prize recipient identified himself as presiding over not only a war but two wars simultaneously.

As to the appropriateness of laying such claims in the venue and on the occasion he did – accepting the world’s preeminent peace award before the Norwegian Nobel Committee – Barack Obama at least had the excuse of being perfectly accurate in his contentions.

He is in fact the commander-in-chief in charge of two major and several smaller wars and his nation is without doubt the first global military power which for decades has operated without constraints on five of six inhabited continents and has troops stationed in all six. United States armed forces personnel and weapons, including nuclear arms, are stationed at as many as 820 installations in scores of nations.

The U.S. has recently assigned thousands of troops to seven new bases in Bulgaria and Romania [1], deployed the first foreign troops to Israel in that nation’s history to run an interceptor missile radar facility in the Negev Desert [2], and last week signed a status of forces agreement with Poland for Patriot missiles (to be followed by previously ship-based Aegis Standard Missile-3s interceptors) and U.S. soldiers to be stationed there. The troops will be the first foreign forces based in Poland since the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact in 1991.

The U.S., whose current military budget is at Cold War, which is to say at the highest of post-World War II, levels, also officially accounts for over 41% of international military spending according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute’s report on 2008 figures: $607 billion of $1.464 trillion worldwide. On October 28 President Obama signed the 2010 National Defense Authorization Act with a price tag of $680 billion, including $130 billion for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

That figure excludes military spending outside of the Department of Defense. The American government has for several decades been the standard-bearer in outsourcing to private sector contractors in every realm and the Pentagon is certainly no exception to the practice. According to some estimates, American military and military-related allotments in addition to the formal Pentagon budget can bring annual U.S. defense spending as high as $1.16 trillion, almost half of official expenditures for all of the world’s 192 nations, including the U.S., last year.

The U.S. also has the world’s second largest standing army, over 1,445,000 men and women under arms according to estimates of earlier this year, second only to China with 2,255,000. China has a population of over 1.325 billion, more than four times that of America, and does not have a vast army of private contractors supplementing its armed forces. And of course unlike the U.S. it has no troops stationed abroad. India, with a population of 1.140 billion, has active duty troop strength smaller than that of the U.S. at 1,415,000.

The U.S. and Britain are possibly alone in the world in deploying reservists to war zones; this last February the chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Michael Mullen acknowledged that 600,000 reserves have been called up to serve in the area of responsibility of the U.S. Central Command, in charge of the Afghan and Iraqi wars, since 2001. In addition to its 1,445,000 active duty service members, the Pentagon can and does call upon 1.2 million National Guard and other reserve components. As many as 30% of troops that have served in Afghanistan and Iraq are mobilized reservists. The Army National Guard has activated over 400,000 soldiers since the war in Afghanistan began and in March of 2009 approximately 125,000 National Guard and other reserve personnel were on active duty.

The Defense Department also has over 800,000 civilian employees at home and deployed worldwide. The Pentagon, then, has more than 3.5 million people at its immediate disposal excluding private military contractors.

In the last 48 hours two unprecedented thresholds have been crossed. On the morning of December 19 the U.S. Senate met in a rare Saturday morning session to approve a $636.3 billion military budget for next year. The vote was 88-10, as the earlier vote by the House of Representatives on December 16 was 395-34. In both cases the negative votes were not necessarily an indication of opposition to war spending but part of the labyrinthine American legislative practices of trade-offs, add-ons and deal-making on other, unrelated issues, what in the local vernacular are colorfully described as horse-trading and log-rolling among other choice terms. A no vote in the House or Senate, then, was not automatically a reflection of anti-war or even fiscally conservative sentiments.

The Pentagon appropriation included another $101 billion for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq (Obama signed the last formal Iraq and Afghanistan War Supplemental Appropriations, worth $106 billion, in July), but did not include the first of several additional requests, what are termed emergency spending measures, for the Afghan war. The first such request is expected early next year, more than $30 billion for the additional 33,000 U.S. troops to be deployed to the war zone, which will increase the number of American forces there to over 100,000.

On the day of the Senate vote Bloomberg News cited the Congressional Research Service, which had tallied the numbers, in revealing that the funds apportioned for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have now pushed the total expenditure for both to over $1 trillion. “That includes $748 billion for spending related to the war in Iraq and $300 billion for Afghanistan, the research service said in a Sept. 28 report.”

The new Pentagon spending plan “includes $2.5 billion to buy 10 additional Boeing Co. C-17 transports that weren’t requested by the Pentagon. Chicago-based Boeing also would benefit from $1.5 billion for 18 F/A-E/F Super Hornet fighters, nine more than the administration requested.”

Funding for military aircraft not even requested by the Defense Department and the White House or for larger numbers of them than were is another curious component of the American body politic. That arms merchants (and not only domestic ones) place their own orders with the American people’s alleged representatives – the current Deputy Secretary of Defense, William Lynn, was senior vice president of Government Operations and Strategy for Raytheon Company prior to assuming his new post – is illustrated by the following excerpts from the same report:

“Defense Secretary Robert Gates recommended April 6 that the C-17 program be terminated once Boeing delivers the last of 205 C-17s in late 2010. Boeing, the second-largest defense contractor, has said its plant in Long Beach, California, will shut down in 2011 without more orders.

“The budget also includes $465 million for the backup engine of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. The engine is built by Fairfield, Connecticut-based General Electric Co. and London-based Rolls Royce Plc. The administration earlier threatened to veto the entire defense bill if it contained any money for the engine.” [3]

The Pentagon and its chief Gates may win battles with the Congress and even the White House when they relate to the use of military force abroad, but against the weapons manufacturers and the congressmen whose election campaigns they contribute to the military brass will come off the losers.

In addition to the nearly two-thirds of a trillion dollar annual Pentagon war chest, the ongoing trillion dollar Broader Middle East war is a lucrative boon to the merchants of death and their political hangers-on.

On December 18 a story was posted on several American armed forces websites that U.S. soldiers have been sent to Afghanistan and Iraq 3.3 million times since the invasion of the first country in October of 2001. The report specifies that “more than 2 million men and women have shouldered those deployments, with 793,000 of them deploying more than once.”

The break-down according to services is as follows:

More than 1 million troops from the Army.

Over 389,900 from the Air Force.

Over 367,900 from the Navy.

More than 251,800 Marines.

This past October alone 172,800 soldiers, 31,500 airmen, 30,000 sailors and 20,900 Marines were dispatched to the two war zones. [4]

The bulk of the U.S.’s permanent global war-fighting force may be deployed to Afghanistan and Iraq, but enough troops are left over to man newly acquired bases in Eastern Europe, remain in Middle East nations other than Iraq, be based on and transit through the Manas Air Base in Kyrgyzstan, take over seven new military bases in Colombia, run regional operations out of America’s first permanent base in Africa – Camp Lemonier in Djibouti, where 2,400 personnel are stationed – and engage in counterinsurgency campaigns in the Philippines, Mali, Uganda, Yemen and Pakistan.

Recently a U.S. armed forces newspaper reported in an article titled “AFRICOM could add Marine Air Ground Task Force” that “A 1,000-strong Marine combat task force capable of rapidly deploying to hot spots could soon be at the disposal of the new U.S. Africa Command.”

The feature added that a Marine unit previously attached to the newly launched AFRICOM has “already deployed in support of training missions in Uganda and Mali,” whose armies are fighting the Lord’s Resistance Army and Tuareg rebels, respectively. [5]

In Yemen, Houthi rebel sources “accused the U.S. air force [on December 15] of joining attacks against them, and killing at least 120 people in a raid in the north of the poor Arab state.”

Their information office said “The savage crime committed by the U.S. air force shows the real face of the United States.” [6]

According to ABC News “On orders from President Barack Obama, the U.S. military launched cruise missiles early Thursday [December 17] against two suspected al-Qaeda sites in Yemen,” [7] to complement mounting missile attacks in Pakistan.

The Houthi rebels are religiously Shi’ia, so any attempt at exploiting an al-Qaeda rationale for bombing their villages is a subterfuge.

At the same time the Commander of U.S. Air Forces in Europe and NATO Allied Air Component, General Roger Brady, fresh from a tour of inspection of the Caucasus nations of Azerbaijan and Georgia, was at the Adazi Training Base in Latvia to meet with the defense ministers of that nation, Estonia and Lithuania and plan “closer military cooperation in the security sector between the Baltic States and the USA which also included joint exercises in the Baltic region.” [9] All five nations mentioned above – Azerbaijan, Estonia, Georgia, Latvia and Lithuania – border Russia.

During the same week’s summit of the Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America (ALBA) in Havana, Cuba, the host country’s president Raul Castro said of the latest Pentagon buildup in Colombia that “The deployment of [U.S.] military bases in the region is…an act of aggression against Latin America and the Caribbean.” [9]

Less than a week later the government of Colombia, the third largest recipient of American military aid in the world, announced it would construct a new military base near its border with Venezuela. “Defense Minister Gabriel Silva said [on December 18] that the base, located on the Guajira peninsula near the city of Nazaret, would have up to 1,000 troops. Two air battalions would also be activated at other border areas….Army Commander General Oscar Gonzalez meanwhile announced [the following day] that six air battalions were being activated, including two on the border with Venezuela.” [10]

After allotting over a trillion dollars for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq alone and packing off more than two million of its citizens to the two nations, the U.S. military establishment and peace prize president have already laid the groundwork for yet more wars. Boeing, Raytheon and General Electric won’t be kept waiting.

Notes

1) Bulgaria, Romania: U.S., NATO Bases For War In The East
Stop NATO, October 24, 2009
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2009/10/25/bulgaria-romania-u-s-nato-bases-for-war-in-the-east
2) Israel: Forging NATO Missile Shield, Rehearsing War With Iran
Stop NATO, November 5, 2009
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2009/11/05/israel-forging-nato-missile-shield-rehearsing-war-with-iran
3) Bloomberg News, December 19, 2009
4) Michelle Tan, 2 million troops have deployed since 9/11
December 18, 2009
5) Stars And Stripes, December 16, 2009
6) Reuters, December 16, 2009
7) ABC News, December 18, 2009
8) Defense Professionals, December 14, 2009
9) Russian Information Agency Novosti, December 14, 2009
10) Agence France-Presse, December 19, 2009

Source

December 21, 2009 Posted by | Militarism, Progressive Hypocrite | 1 Comment

Where is the Palestinian Gandhi? In Israeli prison, of course!

By Jo Ehrlich | December 21, 2009

Palestinian Joke #134

Question: Where can Israel find the Palestinian Gandhi?

Answer: Exactly where they put him, in administrative detention.

Not that I’m in any way playing into the Palestinian Gandhi dialogue, I think its actually pretty diversionary/racist. But sometimes you have to laugh in order not to cry right?

Jamal Juma’, the director of the Anti-Apartheid Wall Campaign, also known as Stop the Wall, was summoned for interrogation on the night of December 15th. Jamal has been detained by the Israeli military and has not had access to a lawyer since the 16th of December. I was in the Stop the Wall Office on the 15th of December. I said hi to Jamal. I’ve met him on a couple of occasions. He is a quiet man with a commanding presence.

I read the news of his arrest last night, sitting in the home of another non-violent Palestinian activist, Musa Abu Maria of the Palestine Solidarity Project. He was not surprised to hear about Jamal’s arrest. He told me the story of his first arrest and time in prison. An IDF commander showed up at his home and asked him to come with him for a few hours to talk over a cup of tea. Musa asked if he could have a minute to say goodbye to his family. He knew what tea and talk were code words for. He was nineteen years old.

If past actions set precedence and they do. Jamal will likely not be charged with any crime (because he has not committed one) but will be held in prison for a long time (interrogated, tortured) without charges. Israel does this through a process called administrative detention that allows the state to hold Palestinians for periods of three months at a time (renewable indefinitely) without charges.

Mohammad Othman, another Stop the Wall executive member has been detained by Israel since September. His first administrative detention order expires this week. Jamal is set to be brought in front of a judge today.

Mohammad, Jamal and many of the scores of other Palestinian’s with orders of administrative detention, are in Israeli prisons not because they have committed a crime but because they are non-violent anti-occupation activists. Israel has begun to understand that non-violent activism in Palestine is a serious threat to the occupation. Those engaged in non-violent struggle often have an excellent analysis, they are determined and they are gaining traction domestically and platforms for spreading their message internationally. It scares the shit out of Israel so it is not surprising that they are responding with repressive military actions. This is a military occupation and it maintains itself by using the tactics military oppression.

Source

December 21, 2009 Posted by | Deception, Solidarity and Activism, Subjugation - Torture | 1 Comment

HEADLEY, THE CIA, NARIMAN HOUSE, FALSE FLAG OPS

Aangirfan – December 21, 2009
It could be argued that the Mumbai attacks of 2008 were carried out by the CIA and its friends. Attacks of this kind are normally the work of the security services. (False flag operations from Amman to Zambia)

1. On 20 December 2009, in the Hindustan Times, Vir Sanghvi wrote the following about the American called David Headley, who is suspected of planning the Mumbai attacks of 2008 (Did America keep mum on 26/11?):

“The only explanation that fits is this: he was an American agent all along.

“The US arrested him only when it seemed that Indian investigators were on his trail.

“He will be sentenced to jail, will vanish into the US jail system for a while and will then be sprung again — as he was the last time.”

2. Headley is reported to have visited Nariman House – a Jewish residential complex in Mumbai run by the Chabad-Lubavitch ultra-orthodox movement.

3. Some reports say that the ‘terrorists’ stayed at a guest house there for up to 15 days before the attacks.

It is unlikely that the ultra-orthodox Jews would have taken in Moslem fanatics.

The ‘terrorists’ inside the Nariman House Building were reported to have stocked up on supplies of alcohol.

This would suggest that the terrorists were not Moslems.
According to a witness interviewed by DNA INDIA “They had purchased around two crates of chicken and liquor worth Rs25,000 from two shops in Colaba.”

4. According to the Guardian:

“One police officer who encountered the gunmen as they entered the Jewish centre told the Guardian the attackers were “white.”

“I went into the building late last night,” he said. “I got a shock because they were white. I was expecting them to look like us.”

The BBC also reported witnesses as saying the Mumbai attackers were white:

Then, the “foreign looking, fair skinned” men, as Mr Mishra remembers them, simply carried on killing.

“They did not look Indian, they looked foreign. One of them, I thought, had blonde hair. The other had a punkish hairstyle. They were neatly dressed,” says Mr Amir.

5. What really happened at Nariman House may never be known. From: The India Telegraph:

“Israel has requested India not to conduct post-mortems on its nationals killed in the Nariman House siege, citing what it said were ‘privacy and religious reasons’.”

6. Do government spooks attack their own people?

In 1946, Jews bombed King David hotel in Israel, and blamed the atrocity on Arabs. Jews were killed in the hotel bombing. (aangirfan: THE REAL TERRORISTS)

The Jewish terrorist groups Irgun and the Stern Gang (known as Lehi in Hebrew) were active in Britain throughout the late 1940s. (BBC – Radio 4 Document – A Laudable Invasion aangirfan: An attempt to bomb the House of Commons)

The Jewish terrorists planned to bomb the House of Commons, and to murder members of the British armed forces. (BBC – Radio 4 Document – A Laudable Invasion)

The British Embassy in Rome was bombed.

In November 1944 Lord Moyne was murdered by members of the Stern gang in Cairo and there are reliable reports of the existence of plans to assassinate Government Ministers, including the Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevan.

In 1946 a female agent of Irgun planted a bomb at the Colonial Office in London.

Let us not forget that the US government tried to sink the USS Liberty

In 2002, it was reported that ‘al Qaeda’ had bombed the Israeli Paradise Hotel at Kikambala Beach near Mombasa. 13 Kenyans died. It looked like an Israeli false flag operation. (before bombings …)

In 2005, bombs went off in the Radisson hotel in Jordan. A number of Israelis staying at the Radisson were evacuated before the bombing by Jordanian security forces, apparently due to a specific security alert. (Israelis evacuated from Amman hotel hours before bombings …)

Odigo, the instant messaging service, says that two of its workers received messages two hours before the Twin Towers attack on September 11 predicting the attack would happen. (Odigo says workers were warned of attack)

It is suspected that the attacks on US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, which became the justification for US missile strikes against Afghanistan and Sudan, may have been the work of Mossad and the CIA. (Questions mount in Kenya, Tanzania bombings – US government …)

A documentary broadcast by German public television presented compelling evidence that some of the main suspects in the 1986 Berlin disco bombing, the event that provided the pretext for a US air assault on Libya, worked for American and Israeli intelligence. (German TV exposes CIA, Mossad links to 1986 Berlin disco bombing)

In 1954, Israeli Defense Minister Pinhas Lavon organized a terrorist attack on the U.S. Information Service library in Cairo.The idea was to give the USA an excuse for its policy of trying to undermine the Egyptian government of Gamal Abdel Nasser. (aangirfan: Dahab, King David, Lavon…)

December 21, 2009 Posted by | False Flag Terrorism, Wars for Israel | 4 Comments

Resistance fighters engage advancing IOF troops in Gaza

21/12/2009 – 10:52 AM

BEIT HANUN, (PIC)– Palestinian resistance fighters engaged special Israeli forces east of Beit Hanun town in northern Gaza Strip at dawn Monday, local sources told the PIC reporter.

They added that the Israeli occupation forces (IOF) infiltrated late Sunday night near the Beit Hanun (Erez) crossing amidst intensified over flights of warplanes.

The PIC reporter said that more than 20 IOF armored vehicles infiltrated into the area while similar moves were reported in eastern Gaza city.

Local sources noted that IOF tanks east of Gaza fired three shells at civilian homes that fell in cultivated land lots and inflicted only material damage.

In the West Bank, the IOF soldiers detained Hamas leader Sheikh Yousef Abul Rub, a teacher and preacher, in Jalbun village, east of Jenin, in a raid that lasted for a few hours.

Eyewitnesses said that IOF soldiers broke into the Sheikh’s home and remained there for two hours during which they interrogated its residents.

They added that the soldiers then took Abul Rub, 45, blindfolded in one of their vehicles as other soldiers combed the vicinity of his home for hours.

Abul Rub was only recently released from PA prisons in Jenin where he was detained on six separate occasions. He was also detained in Israeli jails on several occasions.

December 21, 2009 Posted by | Illegal Occupation, Militarism, Subjugation - Torture | 2 Comments

Hariri Sees New Page in Lebanon Ties with Syria

Batoul Wehbe | Al-Manar | December 20, 2009

20/12/2009 Lebanese Prime Minister Saad al-Hariri said on Sunday he agreed with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad on practical steps to open up “new horizons” in ties between the two Arab neighbors. Hariri was speaking at the end of a two-day visit to Syria that marked the end to nearly five years of animosity between Damascus and the political alliance led by Hariri.

“We want to open new horizons between the two countries,” Hariri told a news conference at the Lebanese embassy in Damascus. He said his three rounds of “excellent” talks with the Syrian leader were frank and based on clarity. “There will be serious steps from our side and on the part of President Bashar al-Assad to translate this cordial and serious relationship into steps on the ground in several fields,” Hariri said, without giving details.

Arab diplomatic sources told pan-Arab daily Asharq al-Awsat that Hariri carried with him to Damascus a program based on “openness and reconciliation.” The sources added that the premier seeks to set up “transparent relations” between the two countries.

Hariri had also told pan-Arab daily al-Hayat before his visit to Damascus that “there was mutual willingness to overcome the past and look to the future.” The PM stressed that he “spontaneously” decided to visit Damascus when he accepted to form the government. Syria “is the closest state to Lebanon and its only neighbor,” Hariri told al-Hayat.

On Saturday, Assad gave Hariri a warm welcome at the capital’s Tishrin palace. They met for three hours, stressing the need to set up “privileged and strategic ties” between the two countries to overcome years of tensions, officials said.

The meeting helped “dispel the past (differences),” Syrian presidential adviser Buthaina Shaaban told reporters after the talks. “There is no doubt that the ice has been broken between the two sides,” she said.

Shaaban also noted that Syria “broke with protocol” by inviting Hariri to stay at the Tishrin guest palace which is usually reserved for visiting monarchs and heads of state. The two leaders discussed plans to mark their porous common border as well as “the challenges facing the two countries due to Israel’s occupation of Arab land,” Shaaban added.

Syria’s state-run SANA news agency said Assad and Hariri discussed how to “bolster bilateral cooperation” and “ways of surmounting the negative effects which marred” ties in the past. It quoted Hariri as saying his government was determined “to establish real and strategic ties with Syria,” while Assad spoke of the need to promote “privileged and strategic ties between the two countries.”

December 20, 2009 Posted by | Solidarity and Activism | Leave a comment

One Palestinian family’s story illustrates the absurdity, and intention, of Israeli policy

By Mohammad Alsaafin | December 20, 2009

I am a Palestinian refugee, from the village of Fallujah which lies between Gaza, Hebron and Asqalan. I’ve never been allowed to visit Fallujah; my grandparents were exiled from there in 1949 (a year after the founding of Israel) and took refuge in the Gaza Strip. My father and I were both born in the Khan Younis refugee camp-he a few years before Gaza was occupied by Israel, and I in 1988, a month after the outbreak of the first intifada. My dad married a woman from the West Bank-they had met and fallen in love while they were both studying at Birzeit University, and when I was two years old we emigrated to the UK where he received his Phd.

Fourteen years later, in 2004, we all returned to Palestine to live in Ramallah. Now British citizens, my parents were determined that my three siblings and I would forge a stronger connection to our homeland than we ever could living abroad. At first, the transition was made easier by the fact that our foreign passports gave us the freedom of movement that was denied to other Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza. For me, this reality was shattered when in late 2005 I attempted to cross the River Jordan from the West Bank to visit my aunt in Amman. The Israeli border agents told me that I could not pass, because I had an Israeli issued Gaza ID. Under Israeli military rules, this meant that I could not ‘legally’ be present in the West Bank because the Israeli occupation had mandated that Palestinians from Gaza could not enter the West Bank, and Palestinians from the West Bank could not enter Gaza. This policy had been in force since the early 1990’s, but was applied with increasing severity after the outbreak of the second intifada.

I lived the next four years under constant fear of arrest by the Israeli military, because that would have resulted in almost certain deportation to Gaza, and isolation from my family. For those four years, I never left the confines of Ramallah, so as to avoid the Israeli checkpoints on every one of the town’s entrances-but even this couldn’t give me a sense of security because I had to commute daily to Birzeit University, on a route frequently patrolled by Israeli forces from the nearby settlement of Bet El.

In July of this year, after many pleas for assistance from the hapless Palestinian Authority, I asked the Israeli NGO Gisha to help me obtain permission from the Israeli occupation to leave the West Bank. I wanted to take part in an internship in the United States, but I would only be granted the permission to exit on the condition that I only return to the Gaza Strip, which had been under siege and total closure for the better of two years then. I accepted this impossible choice-after four years of imprisonment in Ramallah, I wanted to see the outside world and look for a job abroad.

During this entire period, my family had more or less been saved the travel restrictions imposed on me. As a foreign journalist, my dad frequently traveled between the West Bank, Gaza and inside the Green Line, and my mother and siblings would join him on day trips to Jerusalem, Umm al-Fahem, Acca and Haifa. But that all changed this August when he was entering Gaza through the Erez crossing as he had done many times before. On this day however, he was arrested by the Israeli military and had his press credentials revoked. He was told his British passport was worthless, because they had made a frightening discovery: My dad had been born and raised in a refugee camp in Gaza, and had a Gaza ID. They told him he would henceforth be treated not as a foreigner, but as a Gazan-he was sent into Gaza and told he could never cross the Green Line or enter the West Bank again.

My mother and siblings back in Ramallah were also informed that their British passports were worthless and that they would be issued Palestinian IDs by Israel. Despite being raised in the West Bank and still owning a copy of her old West Bank ID, my mother was actually issued with a Gaza ID. We assume this is because she married a Gazan 22 years ago, but nobody has given us a clear answer. This has put her in the same quandary I was in for the last four years. She cannot leave Ramallah for fear of arrest and deportation to Gaza, away from her children, her sister’s and the young children of her recently deceased brother. This situation was compounded by another perplexing development; my brother and sisters, all of whom were born in the UK, and whose parents and older brother had been issued Gaza ID’s, were issued West Bank IDs.

My dad spent the last few months trying to get permission to go back to the West Bank to see his wife and kids-even for a day to pick up his clothes. But whether it was through the British consulate or Israeli NGO’s, the Israeli occupation was adamant that he would not be allowed out of Gaza, unless it was to be deported from Ben Gurion airport. Eventually, in order to save his job, he left Gaza when Egypt opened the Rafah crossing in early December.

Now, my father is in one country and I am in another, while my mother is trapped in the West Bank, unable to travel for fear of never being allowed back. Thankfully, my brother and sisters are able to cross into Jordan, where we may see each other, but our family has been torn apart and separated under the most arbitrary occupation laws imaginable. Despite the continued attempts of Israeli and Palestinian NGO’s, we have found no recourse with the Israeli authorities, and the British consulate has proved useless. We even sent a letter to Tony Blair, the representative of the Quartet, imploring him to intervene on our behalf as British citizens (the letter is included below). Unsurprisingly, we were ignored.

I believe this story needs to be told not because our situation is so unique, but precisely because it isn’t; this is the result of a deliberate Israeli policy, one that has been in place since the early days of the Nakba and has been evolving ever since. It is a policy that has led to the dispossession of millions of Palestinians, and the separation and breakup of tens of thousands of families. The forcibly imposed separation between the West Bank and Gaza is illegal under international law, and through it Israel is succeeding in separating the Palestinian people, one family at a time.

This is the letter my father sent Tony Blair:

Dear Mr. Blair,

I write to you as a British citizen who has exhausted most of the options available to him in the pursuit of a basic human right – the right to see and be with my own family.

I was born in the Gaza Strip in 1962 and left to the UK in 1990 to pursue my PhD at the University of Bradford. In 2004, I moved with my wife and four children to the West Bank town of Ramallah. I was working as a foreign journalist, licensed by the Israeli Government Press Office and staying in the country along with my family on one year renewable work visas. In 2005 my eldest son Mohammad was turned back by Israel border agents as he attempted to cross into Jordan to visit his aunt. The agents told Mohammad that since he was born in the Gaza Strip in 1988, he had been issued a Gaza ID by the Israeli occupation, that his British passport was worthless and that he was not allowed to legally reside in the West Bank as per the Israeli occupation authority’s rules. For the next four years, he risked daily arrest by Israeli troops to get his university education at Birzeit University. This summer, he left the West Bank to find work abroad, and was told by the Israelis that once he left he would not be allowed to go back home.

Despite this clearly reprehensible situation, I and the rest of the family were thankfully spared such hardship. I was able to pursue my professional duties relatively unhindered in Israel, the West Bank and Gaza. This all changed very suddenly in August of this year when, on a routine trip to Gaza where I had several assignments and where I wanted to visit my ailing father, Israeli security detained me at the Erez checkpoint, harassed me, stripped me of my press credentials and told me that my British passport was worthless to them. I was told that I too have an Israeli-issued Gaza ID and thus would be treated as a Gazan; deprived of the most basic freedom of choice and movement. I was sent into Gaza and have not been allowed out since.

At the same time, my wife Manal and our children Linah and Ahmad, all still in Ramallah, were forced to accept their own Israeli-issued ID cards. Incredibly, Manal was given a Gaza ID despite being born abroad, raised in the West Bank and still owning a copy of her original West Bank ID. Like Mohammad before her, she has been told that Israel dictates that she cannot change her ID and lives in constant fear of arrest and deportation by Israeli troops. If she were to leave the country she would also be banned from returning to our family and home in Ramallah.

Meanwhile, Ahmad and Linah, who were both born in the UK and are new university students, have bizarrely been issued with West Bank ID cards, even though their parents and older brother were given Gaza IDs.

As a result of all of this, our family has been torn apart. I am stuck in Gaza, unable to travel freely between my sick father and wife and children. They are stuck in the West Bank, with my wife living in constant fear of deportation, while my oldest son is abroad, barred from entering the West Bank to see his mother, sisters and brother.

Israel has treated us like criminals for being Palestinians. We have been punished, displaced and deprived from each other’s company. The British Consulate has been trying to mediate with the Israeli authorities, but all it has managed to achieve is an Israeli offer to deport me if I decide to leave Gaza through Erez. I refuse to be a party to my own deportation, yet my livelihood is at stake, as is my children’s education. We cannot go on like this, and I appeal to your humanity to intervene and render this nightmare over.

Abdullah Alsaafin

Mohammad Alsaafin was born in the Khan Younis refugee camp and grew up in the UK and the US, before going back to Palestine for college at Birzeit.

Source

December 20, 2009 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism | 1 Comment

U.S. Companies Shut Out as Iraq Auctions Its Oil Fields

By Vivienne Walt  | Dec 19, 2009

Those who claim that the U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003 to get control of the country’s giant oil reserves will be left scratching their heads by the results of last weekend’s auction of Iraqi oil contracts: Not a single U.S. company secured a deal in the auction of contracts that will shape the Iraqi oil industry for the next couple of decades. Two of the most lucrative of the multi-billion-dollar oil contracts went to two countries which bitterly opposed the U.S. invasion – Russia and China – while even Total Oil of France, which led the charge to deny international approval for the war at the U.N. Security Council in 2003, won a bigger stake than the Americans in the most recent auction. “[The distribution of oil contracts] certainly answers the theory that the war was for the benefit of big U.S. oil interests,” says Alex Munton, Middle East oil analyst for the energy consultancy Wood Mackenzie, whose clients include major U.S. companies. “That has not been demonstrated by what has happened this week.”

In one of the biggest auctions held anywhere in the 150-year history of the oil industry, executives from across the world flew into Baghdad on Dec. 11 for a two-day, red-carpet ceremony at the Oil Ministry, broadcast live in Iraq. With U.S. military helicopters hovering overhead to help ward off a possible insurgent attack, Oil Minister Hussein Al-Shahrastani unsealed envelopes from each company, stating how much oil it would produce, and what it was willing to accept in payment from Iraq’s government. Rather than giving foreign oil companies control over Iraqi reserves, as the U.S. had hoped to do with the Oil Law it failed to get the Iraqi parliament to pass, the oil companies were awarded service contracts lasting 20 years for seven of the 10 oil fields on offer – the oil will remain the property of the Iraqi state, and the foreign companies will pump it for a fixed price per barrel.

Far from behaving like the war-ravaged, bankrupt country that it is, Iraq heavily weighted the contracts in its own favor, demanding a low per-barrel price and signing bonuses of up to $150 million. Only one U.S. company, Occidental Petroleum Corp., joined the bidding last weekend, and lost. (ExxonMobil had hoped to land the lucrative Rumaila field, but lost out to an alliance between the Chinese National Petroleum Company and BP because it declined the Iraqi government’s $2-a-barrel fee.)

Russia’s Lukoil, CNPC, and RoyalDutchShell accepted fees of between $1.15 and $1.40 for every barrel they produce – that’s about 2% of Friday’s oil futures price of $73 a barrel. “No one thinks it will be easy to make money on these contracts,” says Samuel Ciszuk, Middle East energy analyst at IHS Global Insight, an economic forecasting company in London. “Companies have been willing to come in very, very low just to get their foot in the door in Iraq.”

The lure is obvious: Iraq’s 115 billion barrels of known oil reserves are outmatched only by Saudi Arabia, Canada and Iran, and geologists believe vast amounts more lie unexplored in the Western Desert. With 2.4 million barrels a day in production, the country was until this week up for grabs for foreign oil companies, in contrast to other big oil nations, where Big Oil is shut out: Iran is off limits because of sanctions, and Saudi Arabia’s government controls its oil fields, as does Kuwait.

Full article

December 20, 2009 Posted by | Wars for Israel | 3 Comments

The Regime’s Heroic Border Guards in Action

By William Grigg on December 11, 2009

Crossing the border of a totalitarian state — in either direction — is an experience fraught with visceral anxiety.

Finding himself in the unwanted company of humorless, heavily armed goons of dubious competence and abysmal intelligence, the traveler is vividly aware that he can be arrested, imprisoned, beaten, or even shot at whim.

The best thing to do in such circumstances, travelers are told, is to assume a posture of utter servility, meekly and quietly enduring whatever indignity inflicted on them until they are safely through the border checkpoint.

Judging by the recent behavior of the valiant cadres of the  heroic Border Guards Directorate, it becomes clear that the U.S. is rapidly descending into undisguised totalitarianism.

Last Tuesday (December 8), Dr. Peter Watts, a Hugo-nominated science fiction author from Toronto, was severely beaten, pepper-sprayed, arrested, interrogated, and otherwise abused by Border Patrol agents.

“If you buy into the Many Worlds Interpretation of quantum physics, there must be a parallel universe in which I crossed the US/Canadian border without incident last Tuesday,” writes Dr. Watts. “In some other dimension, I was not waved over by a cluster of border guards who swarmed my car like army ants for no apparent reason; or perhaps they did, and I simply kept my eyes downcast and refrained from asking questions.”

“Along some other timeline, I did not get out of the car to ask what was going on,” Dr. Watts continues:

“I did not repeat that question when refused an answer and told to get back into the vehicle. In that other timeline I was not punched in the face, pepper-sprayed, sh*t-kicked, handcuffed, thrown wet and half-naked into a holding cell for three f*****g hours, thrown into an even colder jail cell overnight, arraigned, and charged with assaulting a federal officer, all without access to legal representation (although they did try to get me to waive my Miranda rights. Twice.). Nor was I finally dumped across the border in shirtsleeves: computer seized, flash drive confiscated, even my f****g paper notepad withheld until they could find someone among their number literate enough to distinguish between handwritten notes on story ideas and, I suppose, nefarious terrorist plots. I was not left without my jacket in the face of Ontario’s first winter storm, after all buses and intercity shuttles had shut down for the night.”

“In some other universe I am warm and content and not looking at spending two years in jail for the crime of having been punched in the face,” he concludes. “But that is not this universe.”

In the universe we’re sentenced to live in, Dr. Watts, like many, many other innocent people, has been charged with “assaulting” the sacred personage of a federal officer for the offense of being on the receiving end of a criminal assault by that officer and his cohorts (remember, the bold and brave “men” in law enforcement always operate in packs).

This kind of arbitrary, lawless violence can occur anytime anyone — including a U.S. citizen — encounters the Border Patrol. And the danger is not limited to the border: Witness the experience of Pastor Steven Anderson of Tempe, Arizona, who was tased, beaten, and arrested by Border Patrol agents at a checkpoint set up dozens of miles inside the southern border with Mexico.

Iris Cooper of Patagonia, Arizona recently had an unpleasant — if less violent — run-in with the Border Patrol. While driving to school at the Pima Medical Institute in Tucson, she realized that she had forgotten her books. Spying a Border Patrol checkpoint in the near distance, Cooper decided to take the risk of turning around to retrieve her books, knowing that this action might provoke suspicion.

Stop and think about what it says about our circumstances that avoiding a warrantless checkpoint is considered “probable cause” for the purpose of conducting a search.

Sure enough, Border Patrol agents and police pursued and stopped Cooper. She was pulled from her car, handcuffed, and detained for a half an hour while a K-9 unit conducted a warrantless search of her vehicle.

Despite being handcuffed and forbidden to leave, Cooper was told that she wasn’t under arrest. The handcuffs, she was told, were “part of the procedure.” This was a lie, of course: An arrest occurs any time a citizen is detained by any law enforcement officer. This includes traffic stops.

According to the Border Patrol, the increasingly theoretical protections offered by the Fourth Amendment are subject to “exceptions” for the purpose of border enforcement. This creates what some have called a “Constitution-free zone” within a 100-mile-wide strip surrounding the continental U.S. As the ACLU has pointed out, two-thirds of the U.S. population resides within that formal “Constitution-free zone.”

As I’ve noted before, the border enforcement regime supposedly intended to keep foreigners out can also be used to  pen us in. Many conservatives — including some who apparently despise foreigners more than they cherish freedom — forgot that principle during the reign of Bush the Dumber. Perhaps their perspective will change now that Barack the Blessed is on the throne, and the walls are closing in.

Source

December 19, 2009 Posted by | Civil Liberties, Full Spectrum Dominance, Subjugation - Torture, Timeless or most popular | , | 11 Comments

Turning Tricks, Cashing In on Fear

By ALEXANDER COCKBURN
December 18, 2009

In the early 1970s the UN spearheaded the progressive notion of a new world economic order, one that would try to level the playing field between the First World and the Third. The neoliberal onslaughts gathering strength from the mid-1970s on destroyed that project. Eventually the UN, desperate to reassert some semblance of moral leadership, regrouped behind the supposed crisis of climate change as concocted by the AGW lobby, behind which lurk huge corporate interests such as the nuclear power companies. Radicals from the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, putting forward proposals for upping the Third World’s income from its primary commodities, were displaced by climate shills in the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – the IPCC. The end consequence, as represented by Copenhagen’s money-grubbing power plays over “carbon mitigation” funding, has been a hideous travesty of that earlier vision of a global redistribution of resources.

Such is the downward swoop of our neoliberal era. In Oslo Obama went one better than Carter who, you may recall , proclaimed in 1977 that his crusade for energy conservation was “the moral equivalent of war.” Obama trumped this with his claim that war is the moral equivalent of peace. As he was proffering this absurdity, Copenhagen was hosting its global warming jamboree, surely the most outlandish foray into intellectual fantasizing since the fourth-century Christian bishops assembled for the Council of Nicaea in 325AD to debate whether God the father was supreme or had to share equal status in the pecking order of eternity with his Son and with the Holy Ghost.

Shortly before the Copenhagen summit the proponents of anthropogenic – human-caused – global warming (AGW) were embarrassed by a whistle-blower who put on the web over a thousand emails either sent from or received at the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia headed by Dr Phil Jones, who has since stepped down from his post – whether temporarily or permanently remains to be seen. The CRU was founded in 1971 with funding from sources including Shell and British Petroleum. At that time the supposed menace to the planet and to mankind was global cooling, a source of interest to oil companies for obvious reasons.

Coolers transmuted into warmers in the early 80s and the CRU became one of the climate modeling grant mills supplying the tainted data from which the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC ) has concocted its reports which have been since their inception – particularly the executive summaries — carefully contrived political initiatives disguised as objective science. Soon persuaded of the potential of AGW theories for their bottom line, the energy giants effortlessly re-calibrated their stance, and as of 2008 the CRU included among its financial supporters Shell and BP, also the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate and UK Nirex Ltd, a company in the nuclear waste business.

After some initial dismay at what has been called, somewhat unoriginally, “Climategate” the reaction amid progressive circles – 99 per cent inhabited by True Believers in anthropogenic global warming – has been to take up defensive positions around the proposition that deceitful manipulation of data, concealment or straightforward destruction of inconvenient evidence, vindictive conspiracies to silence critics, are par for the course in all scientific debate and, although embarrassing, the CRU emails in no way compromise the core pretensions of their cause.

Scientific research is indeed saturated with exactly this sort of chicanery. But the CRU emails graphically undermine the claim of the Warmers – always absurd to those who have studied the debate in any detail – that they commanded the moral high ground. It has been a standard ploy of the Warmers to revile the skeptics as intellectual whores of the energy industry, swaddled in munificent grants and with large personal stakes in discrediting AGW. Actually, the precise opposite is true. Billions in funding and research grants sluice into the big climate modeling enterprises. There’s now a vast archipelago of research departments and “institutes of climate change” across academia, with a huge vested interest in defending the AGW model. It’s where the money is. Skepticism, particularly for a young climatologist or atmospheric physicist, can be a career breaker.

By the same token magazines and newspapers, reeling amidst the deadly challenge of the internet to their circulation and advertising base have seen proselytizing for the menace of man-made global warming, as a circulation enhancer – a vital ingredient in alluring a younger audience. Hence the advocacy of AGW by Scientific American, the New Scientist, Nature, Science, not to mention the New York Times (whose lead reporter on this topic has been Andrew Revkin, who has a personal literary investment in the AGW thesis, as a glance at his publications on Amazon will attest.)

Many of the landmines in the CRU emails tend to buttress long-standing charges by skeptics that statistical chicanery by Prof Michael Mann and others occluded the highly inconvenient Medieval Warm Period, running from 800 to 1300 AD, with temperatures in excess of the highest we saw in the twentieth century, a historical fact which made nonsense of the thesis that global warming could be attributed to the auto-industrial civilization of the twentieth century. Here’s Keith Briffa, of the CRU, letting his hair down in an email written on September 22, 1999: “I know there is pressure to present a nice tidy story as regards ‘apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more in the proxy data’ but in reality the situation is not quite so simple…I believe that the recent warmth was probably matched about 1000 years ago.”

Now, in the fall of 1999 the IPCC was squaring up to its all-important “Summary for Policy-Makers” – essentially a press release – one that eventually featured the notorious graph flatlining into non-existence the Medieval Warm Period and displaying a terrifying, supposedly unprecedented surge in twentieth century temperatures. Briffa’s reconstruction of temperature changes, one showing a mid- to late-twentieth-century decline, was regarded by Mann, in a September 22, 1999, e-mail to the CRU, as a “problem and a potential distraction/detraction.” So Mann, a lead author on this chapter of the IPCC report, simply deleted the embarrassing post-1960 portion of Briffa’s reconstruction. The CRU’s Jones happily applauded Mann’s deceptions in an e-mail in which he crowed over “Mike’s Nature trick.” Like politicians trying to recover from a racist outburst, AGW apologists say the “trick” was taken out of context. It wasn’t.

Other landmines include particularly telling emails from Kenneth Trenberth, a senior scientist and the head of the climate analysis section of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo. On October 14, 2009, he wrote to the CRU’s Tom: “How come you do not agree with a statement that says we are no where close to knowing where energy is going or whether clouds are changing to make the planet brighter. We are not close to balancing the energy budget. The fact that we can not account for what is happening in the climate system makes any consideration of geo-engineering quite hopeless as we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not! It is a travesty!”

In other words, only a few weeks before the Copenhagen summit, here is a scientist in the inner AGW circle disclosing that “we are not close to knowing” whether the supposedly proven agw model of the earth’s climate actually works, and that therefore “geo-engineering” – global carbon-mitigation, for example — is “hopeless”.

This admission edges close to acknowledgment of a huge core problem – that “greenhouse” theory and the vaunted greenhouse models violate the second law of thermodynamics which says that a cooler body cannot warm a hotter body XX. Greenhouse gasses in the cold upper atmosphere, even when warmed a bit by absorbed infrared, cannot possibly transfer heat to the warmer earth, and in fact radiate their absorbed heat into outer space. Readers interested in the science can read mathematical physicist Gerhard Gerlich’s and Ralf Tscheuchner’s detailed paper published in The International Journal of Modern Physics, updated in January , 2009, “Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics”.

“For the last eleven years,” as Paul Hudson, climate correspondent of the BBC said on October 9, “we have not observed any increase in global temperatures.” In fact recent data from many monitors including the CRU, available on climate4you.com show that the average temperature of the atmosphere and the oceans near the surface of the earth has decreased significantly for the last 8 years or so. CO2 is a benign gas essential to life, occurring in past eras, long before the advent of man made emissions, at five times present levels. Changes in atmospheric CO2 do not correlate with those emissions of CO2, the latter being entirely trivial in the global balance of carbon.

As for the nightmare of vanishing ice caps and inundating seas, the average Arctic ice coverage has essentially remained unchanged for the last 20 years, and has actually increased slightly over the last 3 years. The rate of rise of sea level has declined significantly over the last 3 years, and its average rate of rise for the last 20 years is about the same as it has been for the last 15,000 years, that is, since the last glacial cooling ended and the earth, without help from mankind, entered the current interglacial warming period. The sea rise of that still on-going interglacial warm spell, among other things, flooded the land bridge between Siberia and Alaska to form the Bering Straits—without which we might be a province of Russia today. So much for the terrors of sea rise.

The battles in Nicaea in 325 were faith-based, with no relation to science or reason. seventeen centuries later, so were the premises of the Copenhagen summit, that the planet faces catastrophic warming caused by a man-made CO2 build-up and that human intervention – geo-engineering– could avert the coming disaster. Properly speaking, the Copenhagen dogmatism is a farce. In terms of distraction from cleaning up the pollutants that are actually killing people, they are a terrible tragedy.

Source

December 19, 2009 Posted by | Deception, Nuclear Power, Science and Pseudo-Science | 2 Comments