Archive for the ‘US policy’ Category

US to send secret military teams to Iran: NYT

May 25, 2010

Express India,  May 25, 2010 at 0954 hrs IST

David Petraeus

New York:
Top US Commander in Middle East, Gen. David H Petraeus, has signed a secret directive ordering that ‘Special Operations’ troops be sent to countries such as Iran for reconnaissance, a move that may lead to possible strikes against Tehran if tensions over its nuclear ambitions escalate. These military officials would be dispatched to nations in the Middle East, Central Asia and the Horn of Africa as well as Iran on intelligence gathering assignments, ‘The New York Times’ reported.

Citing unnamed officials, it said the order permitting reconnaissance could pave the way for possible military strikes in Iran if tensions over its nuclear ambitions escalate.

The document appeared to authorise specific operations in Iran, most likely to gather intelligence about the country’s nuclear programme or identify dissident groups that might be useful for a future military offensive, according to the daily.

“The Obama administration insists that for the moment, it is committed to penalising Iran for its nuclear activities only with diplomatic and economic sanctions,” the newspaper said.

“Nevertheless, the Pentagon has to draw up detailed war plans to be prepared in advance, in the event that President (Barack) Obama ever authorises a strike.”

The Defence Department “can’t be caught flat-footed,” said one Pentagon official.

The daily noted that while the previous Bush administration had approved some clandestine military activities, the present directive intended to make such efforts more systematic and long term.

Its goals are to build networks that could “penetrate, disrupt, defeat or destroy” al-Qaeda and other militant groups, as well as to “prepare the environment” for future attacks by American or local military forces, the document, which was viewed by the paper, said.

“The order, however, does not appear to authorise offensive strikes in any specific countries,” it said.

The daily reported that one of the reasons for broadening the secret activities was because the US military wanted to break its dependence on the CIA and other spy agencies.

Some officials, however, noted that the authorised activities could strain relationships with friendly governments like Saudi Arabia or Yemen, or incite the anger of hostile nations like Iran and Syria.

The directive, the Joint Unconventional Warfare Task Force Execute Order, was signed on September 30 last year, and reportedly may have been the cause for surge of US military activity in Yemen that began three months later.

US sets up missiles near Russian border

May 25, 2010

The Independent/UK, May 25, 2010

Associated Press

A battery of Patriot missiles has arrived in Poland, along with dozens of American soldiers who will spend the next two years teaching the Polish military to operate the advanced guided-missile system at a base just a few miles from the Russian border.

Though Russia had expressed its strong opposition to having a US military installation close to its border, there was no initial reaction from Moscow to the arrival of the missiles – perhaps an indication that it wants to play down the matter after failing to stop the deployment.

Continues >>

Why NATO Expansion Is a Mistake

May 25, 2010

By Ivan Eland, Consortium News, May 25, 2010

Editor’s Note: Despite budget crises confronting many Western nations, including the United States, the American foreign policy elite is eager to expand NATO — and Washington’s imperial umbrella — to more and more countries, including some on Russia’s doorstep.

In this guest essay, the Independent Institute’s Ivan Eland argues that this expansion means more drain on the U.S. taxpayer with few geopolitical benefits:

Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright recently led a panel of experts in coming up with a report, “NATO 2020,” which will be used to draft a replacement for NATO’s current strategic concept, adopted in 1999.

The report essentially advocates a continuation and expansion of NATO’s quest to be all things to all people.

Unfortunately, this effort resembles the “expand or die” mantra that was applied to NATO as its primary mission — countering the Soviet Union — was tossed into the dustbin of history. Instead of expanding in territory and mission after the Cold War ended, NATO probably should have died back then and may die — or be severely crippled — by its likely loss in Afghanistan.

Continues >>

Memorial Day 2010: Corporations Profit from Permanent War

May 25, 2010

Remember this Memorial Day that, while thousands have been laid in their graves and hundreds of thousands wounded, private military contractors are prospering and profiting as the business of war booms.

Bill Quigley, Information Clearing House, May 25, 2010

US law officially proclaims Memorial Day “as a day of prayer for permanent peace.”

However, the US is much closer to permanent war than permanent peace. Corporations are profiting from wars and lobbying politicians for more. The US, and the rest of the world, cannot afford the rising personal and financial costs of permanent war.

Number One in War

No doubt, the USA is number one in war. This coming year the US will spend 708 billion dollars on war and another $125 billion for Veterans Affairs – over $830 billion. In a distant second place is China which spent about $84 billion on its military in 2008.

The US also leads the world in the sale of lethal weapons to others, selling about one of every three weapons worldwide. The USA’s major clients? South Korea, Israel and United Arab Emirates.

Our country has 5 percent of the world’s population but accounts for more than 40% of the military spending for the whole world.

Harm

Our nation does not respect our soldiers by engaging in permanent war. War is grinding up our children. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have cost over 5000 US lives and tens of thousands more lives of people in those countries. Over 20% of those in our military who served in these two wars, 320,000 people, have war-related traumatic brain injuries. Suicide rates are up by 26 percent among 18 to 29 year old male veterans in the latest Veterans Administration study. Mental health hospitalizations are now the leading cause of hospital admissions for the military, higher than injuries. On any given night, over 100,000 veterans are homeless and living on our nation’s streets.

Rising Costs of War

Since 2001, the US has spent over $6 trillion (a trillion is a million millions) on war and preparations for war. That is about $20,000 for every woman, man and child in the US. Iraq and Afghanistan alone have cost the US taxpayer over a trillion dollars since 2001.

No End in Sight

Earlier this month, Marine General James Cartwright, the Vice-Chair of the military Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the Army Times that the US can expect continuing war “for as far as the eye can see.”

In the name of this perpetual war against terrorism the US still jails hundreds without trial in Guantanamo, holds hundreds more in prisons on bases and in secret detention world-wide, tries to avoid constitutional trials for anyone accused of terrorism, admits it is trying to assassinate an American citizen Muslim cleric in Yemen, and launches deadly drone strikes in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Yemen killing civilians and suspects whenever we decide.

Who benefits from permanent war?

One support for permanent war is that there are corporations in the US which openly lobby for more and more money to be invested in war. Why? Because they profit enormously from government contracts.

President Dwight Eisenhower, who believed in a strong military, warned the US about just this in his farewell address to the nation in 1961.

“In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes.”

War is Big Business

War is very big business. People know that private companies are doing much more in war. In January 2010, the Congressional Research Service reported that there are at least 55,000 private armed security contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan, and maybe many more – as many as 70,000 in Afghanistan alone.

But much bigger money is available to defense contractors. In 2008 alone, the top ten defense contractors received nearly $150 billion in federal contracts. These corporations spent millions to lobby for billions more in federal funds and hired ex-military leaders and ex-officials to help them profit off war.

For example, look at the top three defense contractors, Lockheed Martin, Boeing and Northrop Grumman. They demonstrate why perpetual war is profitable and part of the reason it continues.

Lockheed Martin

Lockheed Martin is the largest military contractor in the world with 140,000 employees, taking in over $40 billion annually, over $35 billion of which comes from the US government. Lockheed Martin boasts that they have increased their dividend payments by more than 10 percent for the seventh consecutive year – perfectly in line with the increase in war spending by the US. Its chairman, Robert Stevens, received over $72 million in compensation over the past three years.

Lockheed’s board of directors includes a former Under Secretary of Defense, a former US Air Force Commander of the U.S. Strategic Command, a former Deputy Director of Homeland Security, and a former Supreme Allied Commander of Europe. These board members receive over $200,000 a year in compensation. Its political action committee gave over a million dollars a year to federal candidates in 2009, and is consistently one of the top spending PACs in the US. They appeal to all members of Congress because they strategically have operations in all fifty states. And, since 1998, Lockheed has spent over $125 million to lobby Congress.

Northrop Grumman

Northrop Grumman is a $33 billion company with 120,000 employees. In 2008, it received nearly $25 billion in federal contracts. Its chairman, Ronald Sugar, received over $54 million in compensation over the past three years.

Northrop’s Board includes a former Admiral of the Navy, a former 20 year member of Congress, a former chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, a former commissioner of the Security and Exchange Commission and a former U.S. Naval officer. The members of its board of directors received over $200,000 each in 2009. Its Pac is listed as making over $700,000 in federal campaign donations in 2009. Since 1998, it has spent over $147 million lobbying Congress.

Boeing

Boeing has 150,000 employees and took in over $23 billion in federal contracts in 2008. With revenues of $68 billion in 2009, its chair, James McNerney, was paid over $51 million over the past three years. Its board members are paid well over $200,000 a year. Boeing’s directors include a former U.S. Secretary of Commerce, a former White House chief of staff, a former vice chair of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, and a former U.S. Ambassador and U.S. Trade Representative. It hosts the 10th largest political action committee, giving away more than one million dollars to federal candidates in 2009. Since 1998, it has spent $125 million lobbying Congress.

Time to Terminate the Permanent War

These corporations take billions from the government and profit from our perpetual state of war. They recycle some of that money back into lobbying the same people who gave it to them, and hire ex-military and government officials to help smooth the process. Their leaders make tens of millions off this work.

The trillions of dollars that it costs to wage permanent war are taxing the US economy. Yet where are the voices in Congress, Democrat or Republican, that talk seriously of dramatically reducing our military spending? President Obama and the Democrats are effectively continuing the permanent war policies of the Bush years. It is past time for change.

Remember this Memorial Day that, while thousands have been laid in their graves and hundreds of thousands wounded, private military contractors are prospering and profiting as the business of war booms.

The US should not only remember its dead but work to reverse the profitable permanent war that promises to add more names to the dead and disabled in this country and around the world.

Bill is Legal Director at the Center for Constitutional Rights and a law professor at Loyola University New Orleans. Quigley77@gmail.com

The Simplicity of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

May 25, 2010

By Jeremy R. Hammond, World Policy Journal, May 25,  2010


Israel-Palestine Map

0diggsdigg

This article was originally published at the Palestine Chronicle.

There is a general perception that the reason the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has continued for so long is because it is extremely complex. Nothing could be further from the truth. Placed in historical context, understanding the root cause of the conflict is simple, and in doing so, the solution becomes apparent.

During the late 1800s, a movement known as Zionism arose to establish a Jewish state in Palestine, then a territory under the Ottoman Empire. As a result of World War I, the Ottoman Empire was dissolved and Great Britain and France conspired to divide the territorial spoils of war between themselves. The British became the occupying power of Palestine. The League of Nations issued a mandate effectively recognizing Great Britain as such.

Continues >>

Book bares Israeli nuclear arms deals with apartheid regime

May 25, 2010

By Bill Van Auken, wsws.org, May 25, 2010

Israel negotiated with South Africa for the sale of nuclear-armed missiles to the apartheid regime in the 1970s, according to a book published today. The revelation has surfaced at an inconvenient time for Washington as it campaigns for increased sanctions against Iran over Tehran’s own nuclear program.

The new book, “The Unspoken Alliance: Israel’s Secret Relationship with apartheid South Africa,” was written by Sasha Polakow-Suransky, the senior editor at Foreign Affairs, a publication oriented to the American foreign policy establishment. It has provided the first documentary evidence of Israel’s nuclear weapons program. These documents also demonstrate that the Zionist state was prepared to sell these weapons to a pariah regime that had engaged in repeated military attacks on its neighbors, while oppressing and waging unceasing state violence against its own black majority population.

Continues >>

Can a Security Council ‘Coalition of the Unwilling’ Defy Washington’s Sanctions Crusade?

May 24, 2010

By Phyllis Bennis, ZNet, May 23, 2010
Change Text Size a- | A+

Phyllis Bennis’s ZSpace Page

Sanctions that don’t work vs. diplomacy that does

The U.S. crusade for new UN sanctions against Iran has been underway for a long time. But the new intensity, the new scurrying around to make sure China and Russia are on board, and the new scramble for an immediate public announcement all reflect Washington’s frustration with the new agreement with Iran brokered by Turkey and Brazil. That agreement requires Iran to send about half of its low-enriched uranium to Turkey in return for somewhat higher-enriched prepared fuel rods for use in its medical reactor, which is pretty close to what the U.S. and its allies were demanding of Iran just months ago.

Continues >>

President Obama defends escalation of Afghan war in address to 2010 West Point class

May 23, 2010
By Ben Geman, The Hill, May 22, 2010

President Barack Obama on Saturday used a speech to West Point cadets to defend his escalation of the war in Afghanistan.

Obama also placed a heavy emphasis on winning international cooperation and bolstering non-military sources of American power.

Obama’s remarks to the graduating class revealed both continuity with former President Bush’s hard stance against violent extremists and a break with the unilateralism that Bush critics called a defining feature of his presidency.

Continues >>

Pakistanis says US drone kill 12 civilians including kids

May 22, 2010
At least six people have been killed in a U.S. drone missile attack in Pakistan’s North Waziristan, Pakistani intelligence officials said.

At least six people have been killed in a U.S. drone missile attack in Pakistan’s North Waziristan, Pakistani intelligence officials said on Saturday.

But residents in the area said 12 people, including four women and two children, were killed. They said those killed were civilians and were from the same family.

The missiles struck a house around midnight in a village about 25 km (15 miles) west of Miranshah, the main town in North Waziristan, the officials said.

Six women and two children were also wounded in the attack and being treated at a hospital in Miranshah, one witness said.

More than 900 people have been killed in over 100 drone strikes in Pakistan since August 2008.

U.S. ally Pakistan officially objects to the drone strikes, saying they are a violation of its sovereignty, which complicates Pakistan’s efforts against militancy.

It was the fifth drone missile strike in northwest Pakistan, bordering Afghanistan, since a failed bid to set off a car bomb in New York’s Times Square on May 1.

Reuters

US: Court Ruling Revokes Protection for Bagram Detainees

May 22, 2010

Foreigners Arrested Outside Afghanistan Can’t Challenge Detention in US Courts

Human Rights Watch, May 21, 2010

People arrested outside of Afghanistan and detained at Bagram should have the same rights as those held at Guantanamo. This misguided ruling leaves them with no legal remedy against indefinite and unlawful detention.

Andrea Prasow, senior counterterrorism counsel at Human Rights Watch

(Washington, DC) – A US federal appeals court ruling today that bars the courts from hearing the claims of detainees arrested outside of Afghanistan and brought to Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan leaves them without legal recourse against unlawful detention and other abuses, Human Rights Watch said today.

In April 2009, a federal district court ruled that three men held at Bagram who were arrested outside of Afghanistan had the right to challenge their detention in US federal court. Citing the Supreme Court’s historic 2008 ruling in Boumediene v. Bush, the court found that the three men were similarly situated to detainees at Guantanamo Bay. Today’s ruling, issued by the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, reversed that decision, finding that because Afghanistan is “a theater of war,” detainees held at Bagram, regardless of where they were captured, have no constitutional right to challenge their detention in a US court.

“People arrested outside of Afghanistan and detained at Bagram should have the same rights as those held at Guantanamo,” said Andrea Prasow, senior counterterrorism counsel at Human Rights Watch. “This misguided ruling leaves them with no legal remedy against indefinite and unlawful detention.”

The three detainees in question – two Yemenis and a Tunisian – all claim they were captured outside of Afghanistan, far from any battlefield. Human Rights Watch has interviewed close relatives of one of the Yemenis, Amin al-Bakri. Al-Bakri’s father told Human Rights Watch that he had to hire a private detective to learn that his son, a gem trader and father of three, was picked up in late 2002 during a business trip to Thailand. He said he did not receive a letter from his son for a full year after his arrest.

The ruling will likely be appealed to the Supreme Court, although the court need not accept the case. The Supreme Court has rejected the DC Circuit’s reasoning in numerous other detainee cases, including Rasul v. Bush, Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, and Boumediene v. Bush, each time finding that the detainees had greater rights to judicial review than the DC Circuit had held.

In its ruling today, the court acknowledged that the review procedures available to the Bagram detainees “afford even less protection” than the procedures that were available at Guantanamo. Since Guantanamo detainees have been able to challenge their detention in court, the federal district courts have ordered the release of 35 detainees, while finding that the government was lawfully detaining only 13.

While holding that US courts do not have jurisdiction over Bagram, the appellate court rejected the government’s broader claim that all detainees held outside the United States and Guantanamo have no constitutional right of access to the courts.

Human Rights Watch expressed concern about the incentives created by the court’s ruling, noting that systematic and notorious detention abuses over the past decade have underscored the need for court scrutiny of detention of people apprehended outside of the United States.

“The appeals court holding means that people apprehended anywhere in the world can be whisked off to Bagram and hidden from court review,” Prasow said. “Just because the plane landed at Bagram instead of Guantanamo should not mean they can be held indefinitely without any court review.”

(Washington, DC, May 21, 2010) – A US federal appeals court ruling today that bars the courts from hearing the claims of detainees arrested outside of Afghanistan and brought to Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan leaves them without legal recourse against unlawful detention and other abuses, Human Rights Watch said today.

In April 2009, a federal district court ruled that three men held at Bagram who were arrested outside of Afghanistan had the right to challenge their detention in US federal court. Citing the Supreme Court’s historic 2008 ruling in Boumediene v. Bush, the court found that the three men were similarly situated to detainees at Guantanamo Bay. Today’s ruling, issued by the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, reversed that decision, finding that because Afghanistan is “a theater of war,” detainees held at Bagram, regardless of where they were captured, have no constitutional right to challenge their detention in a US court.

“People arrested outside of Afghanistan and detained at Bagram should have the same rights as those held at Guantanamo,” said Andrea Prasow, senior counterterrorism counsel at Human Rights Watch. “This misguided ruling leaves them with no legal remedy against indefinite and unlawful detention.”

The three detainees in question – two Yemenis and a Tunisian – all claim they were captured outside of Afghanistan, far from any battlefield. Human Rights Watch has interviewed close relatives of one of the Yemenis, Amin al-Bakri. Al-Bakri’s father told Human Rights Watch that he had to hire a private detective to learn that his son, a gem trader and father of three, was picked up in late 2002 during a business trip to Thailand. He said he did not receive a letter from his son for a full year after his arrest.

The ruling will likely be appealed to the Supreme Court, although the court need not accept the case. The Supreme Court has rejected the DC Circuit’s reasoning in numerous other detainee cases, including Rasul v. Bush, Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, and Boumediene v. Bush, each time finding that the detainees had greater rights to judicial review than the DC Circuit had held.

In its ruling today, the court acknowledged that the review procedures available to the Bagram detainees “afford even less protection” than the procedures that were available at Guantanamo. Since Guantanamo detainees have been able to challenge their detention in court, the federal district courts have ordered the release of 35 detainees, while finding that the government was lawfully detaining only 13.

While holding that US courts do not have jurisdiction over Bagram, the appellate court rejected the government’s broader claim that all detainees held outside the United States and Guantanamo have no constitutional right of access to the courts.

Human Rights Watch expressed concern about the incentives created by the court’s ruling, noting that systematic and notorious detention abuses over the past decade have underscored the need for court scrutiny of detention of people apprehended outside of the United States.

“The appeals court holding means that people apprehended anywhere in the world can be whisked off to Bagram and hidden from court review,” Prasow said. “Just because the plane landed at Bagram instead of Guantanamo should not mean they can be held indefinitely without any court review.”