From tompaine.com :
Hands On The Internet
Art Brodsky
August 07, 2006
Art Brodsky is communications director for Public Knowledge, a public interest group working at the intersection of information and technology policy.
Congress has left town for the rest of August, thankfully having done nothing to hinder the freedom of the Internet. They have done nothing to help, either. So as they do their town meetings and fundraisers, legislators—particularly those who take an active part in telecommunications—should take some time for inner reflection on how their perceptions of themselves diverge from reality.
I’ll go farther. The time has come to establish an IRA chapter on Capitol Hill.
This has nothing to do with the Irish, with retirement, with an army or an account. Rather, the Internet Regulators Anonymous organization will help legislators confront the tragic state of denial that afflicts many when the subject of telecommunications legislation is raised.
These poor members of Congress have said a thousand times in public that they have no desire to regulate the Internet. Yet, for each time they say it, they then go ahead and do it. It’s time for them to admit the truth. Regulating the Internet is a power unlike just about anything they else they can do. But we get ahead of ourselves.
There are many examples of the particular syndrome from which to choose. The most recent came during consideration of telecommunications legislation in the House of Representatives. During the debate, House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Joe Barton, R-Texas, said, “We don’t need anybody to be the first Secretary of the Internet.”
Rep. Spencer Bachus, R-Ala., said, “Mr. Chairman, this is not the time to start regulating the Internet,” while Rep. Ric Keller, R-Fla., said, “It seems like imposing regulations on the Internet is a case of Big Brother being a big pain in the behind.”
In an article in The Hill newspaper, Rep. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn, wrote , “Today there is a push on Capitol Hill to have government take a bigger role in the Internet’s basic functioning. That ought to concern us all.”
This isn’t a purely partisan issue, as Rep. Charlie Gonzalez, D-Texas, showed : “Mayors, regulators, and members of Congress simply do not know in advance how all of the revolutionary changes in telecommunications will turn out. For us to attempt to do so, whether under the guise of net neutrality or any other slogan, is both foolish and dangerous.”
All of those quotes came from a debate in the House in which the main topic was the so-called “net neutrality” issue—a terrible name except for its alliterative qualities. In short, it means that those who control the networks can’t discriminate in providing content.
It is time for the delusion to end, and it can happen in one of two ways. The first, and easiest, is to continue the denial. We don’t regulate the Internet, you tell yourselves. We regulate behaviors, like gambling. If that’s the case, however, then you have no basis to use the same argument when you decline to look at the net neutrality question. In this instance you aren’t regulating “the Internet.” You are regulating the behavior of telephone and cable companies that want to control the content online, and which have a history of anticompetitive behavior.
The other option, and the most difficult, is to admit the truth—to admit you do regulate. You regulate based on the social objective. That’s OK, but you should admit it. You regulate certain participants in the Internet ecosystem. That’s OK, but look reality in the face.
After all, the House recently passed legislation that orders the Federal Communications Commission to take four months to define what is a “social networking website” and what is a “chat room” for the purposes of administering a bill that would cut off Internet service discounts to schools and libraries. Your goal is noble, even if the details of the bill fall short, because not every school receives the “E-rate” funds. Face your demon and take responsibility. Ordering the FCC to define what MySpace.com is, clearly, regulation.
To protect children, President Bush on July 27 signed into law legislation that makes it illegal “to knowingly embed words or digital images into the source code of a website with the intent to deceive a person into viewing material constituting obscenity.” This is the government getting into source code. The House also recently passed legislation cracking down on Internet gambling .
The list could go on. This is not to say that the goals of Internet regulation aren’t worthy, because in many cases they are. We want to protect a child from being approached by a predator online. We want to protect a college student from ruining his life by gambling online.
In fact, there appears to be only one instance in which Congress doesn’t think Internet regulation is a good idea—protecting competition and preventing discrimination.
And so the final questions are, “Why don’t we want to protect an environment that produces Googles and Yahoos for the next Google and Yahoo!?” Why don’t want to listen to the more than one million people who have signed a petition in favor of net neutrality?
If the answer is because our legislators don't want to believe they regulate the Internet, then our IRA chapter meetings will help them overcome that anxiety by showing that Congress regulates the Internet all the time. It’s fine to admit it. Now you have to dismiss your denials and reckon with reality.
But, if the answer is Congress won’t pass net neutrality because the telephone and cable companies don’t want to maintain the Internet as the traditional neutral ground for content that it has always been, well, that’s different. No amount of meetings can solve that one.
Wrap...
Monday, August 07, 2006
About paper ballots...
From Greg Palast:
"WE DON'T NEED NO STINKIN' RECOUNT"
Mexico's Lesson In The Dangers Of The Paper Ballot
By Greg Palast for The Guardian
Monday August 7, 2006
In the six years since I first began investigating the burglary ring we call "elections" in America, a new Voting Reform industry has grown up. That's good. What's worrisome is that most of the effort is focused on preventing the installation of computer voting machines. Paper ballots, we're told, will save our democracy.
Well, forget it. Over the weekend, Mexico's ruling party showed how you can rustle an election even with the entire population using the world's easiest paper ballot.
On Saturday, Mexico's electoral tribunal, known as the "TRIFE" (say "tree-fay") ordered a re-count of the ballots from the suspect July 2 vote for president. Well, not quite a recount as in "count all the ballots" -- but a review of just 9% of the nation's 130,000 precincts.
The "9% solution" was the TRIFE's ham-fisted attempt to chill out the several hundred thousand protesting supporters of Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador who had gathered in the capital and blocked its main Avenue. Lopez Obrador, the Leftist challenger known by his initials AMLO, supposedly lost the presidential vote by just one half of one percent of the vote.
I say "supposedly" lost because, while George Bush congratulated his buddy Felipe Calderon on his victory, the evidence I saw on the ground in Mexico City fairly shrieks that the real winner was challenger AMLO.
President Bush should consider some inconvenient truths about the Mexican vote count:
First: The exit poll of 80,000 voters by the Instituto de Mercadotecnia y Opinion showed that AMLO bested Calderon by 35.1% to 34.0%.
Second: The precinct-by-precinct returns were quite otherworldly. I used to teach statistics and what I saw in Mexico would have stumped my brightest students.
Here's the conundrum: The nation's tens of thousands of polling stations report to the capital in random order after the polls close. Therefore, statistically, you'd expect the results to remain roughly unchanged as vote totals come in. As expected, AMLO was ahead of the right-wing candidate Calderon all night by an unchanging margin -- until after midnight. Suddenly, precincts began reporting wins for Calderon of five to one, the ten to one, then as polling nearly ended, of one-hundred to one.
How odd. I checked my concerns with Professor Victor Romero of Mexico's National University who concluded that the reported results must have been a "miracle." As he put it, a "religious event," but a statistical impossibility. There were two explanations, said the professor: either the Lord was fixing the outcome or operatives of the ruling party were cranking in a massive number of ballots when they realized their man was about to lose.
How could they do it? "Easy pea-sy," as my kids would say. In Mexico, the choices for president are on their own ballot with no other offices listed. Those who don't want to vote for President just discard the ballot. There is no real ballot security. In areas without reliable opposition observers (about a third of the nation), anyone can stuff ballots into the loosely-guarded cardboard boxes. (AMLO showed a tape of one of these ballot-stuffing operations caught in the act.)
It's also absurdly easy to remove paper ballots, disqualify them or simply mark them "nulo" ("null," unreadable).
The TRIFE, the official electoral centurions, rejected AMLO's request to review those precincts that reported the miracle numbers. Nor would the tribunal open and count the nearly one million "null" votes -- allegedly "uncountable" votes which totaled four times Calderon's putative plurality.
Mexico's paper ballot, I would note, is the model of clarity -- with large images of each party which need only be crossed through. The ruling party would have us believe that a million voters waited in line, took a ballot, made no mark, then deliberately folded the ballot and placed it in the ballot box, pretending they'd voted. Maybe, as in Florida in 2000, those "unreadable" ballots were quite readable. Indeed, the few boxes re-counted showed the "null" ballots marked for AMLO. The Tribunal chose to check no further.
The only precincts the TRIFE ordered re-counted are those where the tally sheets literally don't tally -- precincts in which the arithmetic is off. They refuse even to investigate those precincts where ballot boxes were found in city dumps.
There are other "miracles" which the TRIFE chose to ignore: a weirdly low turnout of only 44% in the state where Lopez Obrador is most popular, Guerrero (Acapulco), compared to turnouts of over 60% elsewhere. The votes didn't vanish, the ruling party explained, rather the challenger's supporters, confident of victory, did not bother to vote. Confident ... in Mexico?
In other words, despite the right to paper ballots, the election was fiddled, finagled and fixed.
Does this mean US activists should give up on the fight for paper ballots and give in to robo-voting, computerized democracy in a box. Hell, no! Lopez Obrador has put hundreds of thousands in the street week after week demanding, "vota por vota" -- recount every vote. But AMLO's supporters can only demand a re-count because the paper ballot makes a recount possible. Were Mexico's elections held on a Diebold special, there would be no way to recount the electrons floating in cyberspace.
Paper ballots make democracy possible, but hardly guarantee it. "Null" votes, not voters, have chosen Mexico's president. The only other nation I know of with such a poisonously high percentage of "null" votes is the "Estados Unidos," the USA.
And just as in Mexico, the "null" vote, the trashed, spoiled, rejected ballots, overrode the voters' choice, so it was north of the Rio Grande in 2000 and 2004. Ballot spoilage, not computer manipulation, stole Ohio and Florida in those elections -- and will steal Colorado and New Mexico in the 2008 election.
In other words, my fellow gringo activists, we'd better stop fixating on laptop legerdemain and pledge our lives and fortunes to stopping the games played with registration rolls, provisional ballots, absentee ballots, voter ID demands and the less glamorous, yet horribly effective, methods used to suppress, invalidate and otherwise ambush the vote.
*****
Greg Palast is the author of the just-released New York Times bestseller, "ARMED MADHOUSE: Who's Afraid of Osama Wolf?, China Floats Bush Sinks, the Scheme to Steal '08, No Child's Behind Left and other Dispatches from the Front Lines of the Class War." Go to www.GregPalast.com.See Palast's July 12 investigation of the Mexican election on Democracy Now!
Wrap...
"WE DON'T NEED NO STINKIN' RECOUNT"
Mexico's Lesson In The Dangers Of The Paper Ballot
By Greg Palast for The Guardian
Monday August 7, 2006
In the six years since I first began investigating the burglary ring we call "elections" in America, a new Voting Reform industry has grown up. That's good. What's worrisome is that most of the effort is focused on preventing the installation of computer voting machines. Paper ballots, we're told, will save our democracy.
Well, forget it. Over the weekend, Mexico's ruling party showed how you can rustle an election even with the entire population using the world's easiest paper ballot.
On Saturday, Mexico's electoral tribunal, known as the "TRIFE" (say "tree-fay") ordered a re-count of the ballots from the suspect July 2 vote for president. Well, not quite a recount as in "count all the ballots" -- but a review of just 9% of the nation's 130,000 precincts.
The "9% solution" was the TRIFE's ham-fisted attempt to chill out the several hundred thousand protesting supporters of Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador who had gathered in the capital and blocked its main Avenue. Lopez Obrador, the Leftist challenger known by his initials AMLO, supposedly lost the presidential vote by just one half of one percent of the vote.
I say "supposedly" lost because, while George Bush congratulated his buddy Felipe Calderon on his victory, the evidence I saw on the ground in Mexico City fairly shrieks that the real winner was challenger AMLO.
President Bush should consider some inconvenient truths about the Mexican vote count:
First: The exit poll of 80,000 voters by the Instituto de Mercadotecnia y Opinion showed that AMLO bested Calderon by 35.1% to 34.0%.
Second: The precinct-by-precinct returns were quite otherworldly. I used to teach statistics and what I saw in Mexico would have stumped my brightest students.
Here's the conundrum: The nation's tens of thousands of polling stations report to the capital in random order after the polls close. Therefore, statistically, you'd expect the results to remain roughly unchanged as vote totals come in. As expected, AMLO was ahead of the right-wing candidate Calderon all night by an unchanging margin -- until after midnight. Suddenly, precincts began reporting wins for Calderon of five to one, the ten to one, then as polling nearly ended, of one-hundred to one.
How odd. I checked my concerns with Professor Victor Romero of Mexico's National University who concluded that the reported results must have been a "miracle." As he put it, a "religious event," but a statistical impossibility. There were two explanations, said the professor: either the Lord was fixing the outcome or operatives of the ruling party were cranking in a massive number of ballots when they realized their man was about to lose.
How could they do it? "Easy pea-sy," as my kids would say. In Mexico, the choices for president are on their own ballot with no other offices listed. Those who don't want to vote for President just discard the ballot. There is no real ballot security. In areas without reliable opposition observers (about a third of the nation), anyone can stuff ballots into the loosely-guarded cardboard boxes. (AMLO showed a tape of one of these ballot-stuffing operations caught in the act.)
It's also absurdly easy to remove paper ballots, disqualify them or simply mark them "nulo" ("null," unreadable).
The TRIFE, the official electoral centurions, rejected AMLO's request to review those precincts that reported the miracle numbers. Nor would the tribunal open and count the nearly one million "null" votes -- allegedly "uncountable" votes which totaled four times Calderon's putative plurality.
Mexico's paper ballot, I would note, is the model of clarity -- with large images of each party which need only be crossed through. The ruling party would have us believe that a million voters waited in line, took a ballot, made no mark, then deliberately folded the ballot and placed it in the ballot box, pretending they'd voted. Maybe, as in Florida in 2000, those "unreadable" ballots were quite readable. Indeed, the few boxes re-counted showed the "null" ballots marked for AMLO. The Tribunal chose to check no further.
The only precincts the TRIFE ordered re-counted are those where the tally sheets literally don't tally -- precincts in which the arithmetic is off. They refuse even to investigate those precincts where ballot boxes were found in city dumps.
There are other "miracles" which the TRIFE chose to ignore: a weirdly low turnout of only 44% in the state where Lopez Obrador is most popular, Guerrero (Acapulco), compared to turnouts of over 60% elsewhere. The votes didn't vanish, the ruling party explained, rather the challenger's supporters, confident of victory, did not bother to vote. Confident ... in Mexico?
In other words, despite the right to paper ballots, the election was fiddled, finagled and fixed.
Does this mean US activists should give up on the fight for paper ballots and give in to robo-voting, computerized democracy in a box. Hell, no! Lopez Obrador has put hundreds of thousands in the street week after week demanding, "vota por vota" -- recount every vote. But AMLO's supporters can only demand a re-count because the paper ballot makes a recount possible. Were Mexico's elections held on a Diebold special, there would be no way to recount the electrons floating in cyberspace.
Paper ballots make democracy possible, but hardly guarantee it. "Null" votes, not voters, have chosen Mexico's president. The only other nation I know of with such a poisonously high percentage of "null" votes is the "Estados Unidos," the USA.
And just as in Mexico, the "null" vote, the trashed, spoiled, rejected ballots, overrode the voters' choice, so it was north of the Rio Grande in 2000 and 2004. Ballot spoilage, not computer manipulation, stole Ohio and Florida in those elections -- and will steal Colorado and New Mexico in the 2008 election.
In other words, my fellow gringo activists, we'd better stop fixating on laptop legerdemain and pledge our lives and fortunes to stopping the games played with registration rolls, provisional ballots, absentee ballots, voter ID demands and the less glamorous, yet horribly effective, methods used to suppress, invalidate and otherwise ambush the vote.
*****
Greg Palast is the author of the just-released New York Times bestseller, "ARMED MADHOUSE: Who's Afraid of Osama Wolf?, China Floats Bush Sinks, the Scheme to Steal '08, No Child's Behind Left and other Dispatches from the Front Lines of the Class War." Go to www.GregPalast.com.See Palast's July 12 investigation of the Mexican election on Democracy Now!
Wrap...
Sunday, August 06, 2006
Russia's Federal Security Service online...
From The Moscow Times:
Monday, August 7, 2006. Issue 3469. Page 8.
Security Service Surfing
By Richard Lourie
I have added the FSB's web site to my favorites. That the Federal Security Service, the successor to the KGB, even has a web site is something of a marvel in itself. At first glance, it's a bit like Samuel Johnson's remark about a talking dog -- it's not what it says that matters, but the very fact that it speaks. And yet in the case of the FSB's web site both its existence and its content are important.
The FSB, like the two-headed eagle symbolizing post-Soviet Russia, looks both forward into the future and back into the past to define its new role. In a speech on the 90th anniversary of the birth of Yury Andropov, who was head of the KGB from 1965-82 and of the Soviet Union from 1982-84, current FSB chief Nikolai Patrushev said: "In the Andropov era, an organization unique in the world of intelligence services was created: the KGB press office." So, the roots of the FSB's web site reach back to Andropov, the archetype of the intelligence chief who becomes national leader, and are thus hallowed as well as progressive.
The United States' FBI and CIA and Britain's MI5 have their own web sites, so why shouldn't the FSB? You can't be really in 21st century without one.
The New York Times recently reported that even the British MI6, "the secret intelligence service, which once denied its own existence, opened a web site to advertise for recruits."
Web sites reflect their country's culture. The FBI's has a children's page with fun interactive games: "Can you help Special Agent Bobby Bureau get in disguise for his undercover assignment? He's counting on you." The color scheme features a lot of red, white and blue.
The pages of the FSB's web site are in shades of dark blue that seem the very color of secrecy, yet the content of those pages reveals a lot about the minds of those inside today's Lubyanka. Aside from the information and propaganda sides, there is also a public service aspect to the web site. Four pages are dedicated to tips for surviving if you're taken hostage by terrorists. "Personal bravado" is not recommended. Don't grab any weapons dropped by terrorists. That could confuse the special forces, for whom what matters is "the life of the hostages, and not their own." There's precious little information, however, on how to survive the rescue operation, which, judging by the Dubrovka theater and Beslan school tragedies, is where the true danger lies.
The FSB is supposed to protect the state against its enemies, both foreign and domestic. Since Russia is now a democratic country, the reasoning goes, the FSB also protects Russia's nascent rights and freedoms. Terrorism, as a threat to both security and freedom, is, of course, the FSB's principal target. But today's Russia has other enemies than Chechen separatists and the international jihadists who support them. Intelligence gathering by foreign agencies did not end with the Cold War. It could even be argued that the new Russia needs more protection than the closed society of Soviet times. The new Russian society is more penetrable by foreign intelligence agencies working under the cover of businesses and NGOs. With all of these Orange Revolutions and Soros Foundations, who's kidding whom?
But the FSB has found a modern and efficient means of fighting back. It's not so much the traditional idea of the sword and shield as the web site and the hotline. One announcement, a Gogolesque mishmash of Soviet and post-Soviet elements, states: "Russian citizens, collaborating with foreign intelligence agencies, can make contact with the FSB on a secure line in order to become double agents. In that event, these people can keep in full any financial remuneration received from foreign intelligence services, and they will be able to work with top-notch FSB agents. Anonymity and confidentiality guaranteed."
The number is 914-2222. Operators, presumably, are standing by.
Richard Lourie is the author of "The Autobiography of Joseph Stalin" and "Sakharov: A Biography."
Wrap...
Monday, August 7, 2006. Issue 3469. Page 8.
Security Service Surfing
By Richard Lourie
I have added the FSB's web site to my favorites. That the Federal Security Service, the successor to the KGB, even has a web site is something of a marvel in itself. At first glance, it's a bit like Samuel Johnson's remark about a talking dog -- it's not what it says that matters, but the very fact that it speaks. And yet in the case of the FSB's web site both its existence and its content are important.
The FSB, like the two-headed eagle symbolizing post-Soviet Russia, looks both forward into the future and back into the past to define its new role. In a speech on the 90th anniversary of the birth of Yury Andropov, who was head of the KGB from 1965-82 and of the Soviet Union from 1982-84, current FSB chief Nikolai Patrushev said: "In the Andropov era, an organization unique in the world of intelligence services was created: the KGB press office." So, the roots of the FSB's web site reach back to Andropov, the archetype of the intelligence chief who becomes national leader, and are thus hallowed as well as progressive.
The United States' FBI and CIA and Britain's MI5 have their own web sites, so why shouldn't the FSB? You can't be really in 21st century without one.
The New York Times recently reported that even the British MI6, "the secret intelligence service, which once denied its own existence, opened a web site to advertise for recruits."
Web sites reflect their country's culture. The FBI's has a children's page with fun interactive games: "Can you help Special Agent Bobby Bureau get in disguise for his undercover assignment? He's counting on you." The color scheme features a lot of red, white and blue.
The pages of the FSB's web site are in shades of dark blue that seem the very color of secrecy, yet the content of those pages reveals a lot about the minds of those inside today's Lubyanka. Aside from the information and propaganda sides, there is also a public service aspect to the web site. Four pages are dedicated to tips for surviving if you're taken hostage by terrorists. "Personal bravado" is not recommended. Don't grab any weapons dropped by terrorists. That could confuse the special forces, for whom what matters is "the life of the hostages, and not their own." There's precious little information, however, on how to survive the rescue operation, which, judging by the Dubrovka theater and Beslan school tragedies, is where the true danger lies.
The FSB is supposed to protect the state against its enemies, both foreign and domestic. Since Russia is now a democratic country, the reasoning goes, the FSB also protects Russia's nascent rights and freedoms. Terrorism, as a threat to both security and freedom, is, of course, the FSB's principal target. But today's Russia has other enemies than Chechen separatists and the international jihadists who support them. Intelligence gathering by foreign agencies did not end with the Cold War. It could even be argued that the new Russia needs more protection than the closed society of Soviet times. The new Russian society is more penetrable by foreign intelligence agencies working under the cover of businesses and NGOs. With all of these Orange Revolutions and Soros Foundations, who's kidding whom?
But the FSB has found a modern and efficient means of fighting back. It's not so much the traditional idea of the sword and shield as the web site and the hotline. One announcement, a Gogolesque mishmash of Soviet and post-Soviet elements, states: "Russian citizens, collaborating with foreign intelligence agencies, can make contact with the FSB on a secure line in order to become double agents. In that event, these people can keep in full any financial remuneration received from foreign intelligence services, and they will be able to work with top-notch FSB agents. Anonymity and confidentiality guaranteed."
The number is 914-2222. Operators, presumably, are standing by.
Richard Lourie is the author of "The Autobiography of Joseph Stalin" and "Sakharov: A Biography."
Wrap...
Friday, August 04, 2006
Sounds like a Karen Hughes op....
From Secrecy News:
INFORMATION OPERATIONS IN IRAQ - WHAT WENT WRONG?
Information operations that are designed to influence the perceptions and conduct of enemy combatants and non-combatants can be a highly effective adjunct to military force, but theywere not effectively executed by the U.S. military in Iraq, a new U.S. Army monograph reports.
Information operations can include military deception, psychological operations, operations security, and electronic warfare.
The Army monograph investigates the role of information perations in Iraq and presents recommendations for changes in doctrine, training, resources and intelligence support.
See "Information Operations in Operations Enduring Freedom andIraqi Freedom -- What Went Wrong?" by Major Joseph L. Cox, US Army School of Advanced Military Studies, Fort Leavenworth, May2006 (134 pages, 3.6 MB PDF):
http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/cox.pdf
Wrap...
INFORMATION OPERATIONS IN IRAQ - WHAT WENT WRONG?
Information operations that are designed to influence the perceptions and conduct of enemy combatants and non-combatants can be a highly effective adjunct to military force, but theywere not effectively executed by the U.S. military in Iraq, a new U.S. Army monograph reports.
Information operations can include military deception, psychological operations, operations security, and electronic warfare.
The Army monograph investigates the role of information perations in Iraq and presents recommendations for changes in doctrine, training, resources and intelligence support.
See "Information Operations in Operations Enduring Freedom andIraqi Freedom -- What Went Wrong?" by Major Joseph L. Cox, US Army School of Advanced Military Studies, Fort Leavenworth, May2006 (134 pages, 3.6 MB PDF):
http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/cox.pdf
Wrap...
Snippets of news...
From American Progress:
Think Fast
A federal judge "lashed out" at Bush's EPA yesterday "for pursuing industry-friendly regulations at the same time it missed statutory deadlines to control toxic air pollution from small industrial plants." The judge ordered to EPA to finish it's clean air rules by 2009.
A Gallup poll released yesterday "revealed another upward bump in the number of Amercians (55 percent) who now want a complete U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq in the next 12 months."
Condoleezza Rice expressed support Thursday "for an immediate cease-fire in Lebanon as the first phase in ending the conflict between Israel and Hezbollah," the "most concrete signal yet that the U.S. may be willing to compromise on the stalemate over how to end the fighting."
Three Senate Judiciary Committee members will block the confirmation of Steven Bradbury, acting head of the Justice Department's office of legal counsel, to protest President Bush's move to squash a probe into the NSA wiretapping program by denying investigators security clearances.
"Heat waves like those that have scorched Europe and the United States in recent weeks are becoming more frequent because of global warming, say scientists," the Washington Post reports. "
The court fight to take Tom DeLay, the indicted former House majority leader, off the November ballot in Texas will be taken to the U.S. Supreme Court," GOP officials said yesterday.
"Eight months after former Rep. Randy 'Duke' Cunningham confessed to taking massive bribes in exchange for providing at least $230 million in questionable defense and intelligence contracts, the Defense Department inspector general still has not determined whether any of those projects were improper." "
Despite recurring speeches touting" President Bush's "ambitious $136 billion 'American Competitiveness Initiative' to boost the country's ability to stay abreast of global competitors," CongressDaily reports the effort "is becalmed in Congress and in danger of foundering as more U.S. jobs are moving abroad."
And finally: Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R-CA) will play a game of table tennis with an 80-year old pingpong champion "who said he would only donate to the governor's re-election campaign if he agreed to a match," the AP reports. "The odds appear to be stacked against the governor."
Wrap...
Think Fast
A federal judge "lashed out" at Bush's EPA yesterday "for pursuing industry-friendly regulations at the same time it missed statutory deadlines to control toxic air pollution from small industrial plants." The judge ordered to EPA to finish it's clean air rules by 2009.
A Gallup poll released yesterday "revealed another upward bump in the number of Amercians (55 percent) who now want a complete U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq in the next 12 months."
Condoleezza Rice expressed support Thursday "for an immediate cease-fire in Lebanon as the first phase in ending the conflict between Israel and Hezbollah," the "most concrete signal yet that the U.S. may be willing to compromise on the stalemate over how to end the fighting."
Three Senate Judiciary Committee members will block the confirmation of Steven Bradbury, acting head of the Justice Department's office of legal counsel, to protest President Bush's move to squash a probe into the NSA wiretapping program by denying investigators security clearances.
"Heat waves like those that have scorched Europe and the United States in recent weeks are becoming more frequent because of global warming, say scientists," the Washington Post reports. "
The court fight to take Tom DeLay, the indicted former House majority leader, off the November ballot in Texas will be taken to the U.S. Supreme Court," GOP officials said yesterday.
"Eight months after former Rep. Randy 'Duke' Cunningham confessed to taking massive bribes in exchange for providing at least $230 million in questionable defense and intelligence contracts, the Defense Department inspector general still has not determined whether any of those projects were improper." "
Despite recurring speeches touting" President Bush's "ambitious $136 billion 'American Competitiveness Initiative' to boost the country's ability to stay abreast of global competitors," CongressDaily reports the effort "is becalmed in Congress and in danger of foundering as more U.S. jobs are moving abroad."
And finally: Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R-CA) will play a game of table tennis with an 80-year old pingpong champion "who said he would only donate to the governor's re-election campaign if he agreed to a match," the AP reports. "The odds appear to be stacked against the governor."
Wrap...
Thursday, August 03, 2006
Kiss Social Security goodbye if GOP retains majority...
From American Progress:
SOCIAL SECURITY
HOUSE MAJORITY LEADER PLEDGES TO PRIVATIZE SOCIAL SECURITY:
In a interview this weekend with the Washington Times, House Majority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) promised to privatize Social Security.
"If I'm around in a leadership role come January, we're going to get serious about this," Boehner said.
Privatization plans championed by Boehner and others would sharply cut guaranteed benefits and are opposed by the overwhelming majority of Americans. Nevertheless, Boehner is just the latest prominent conservative to reaffirm his commitment to privatize Social Security in the months and years to come.
Last month, President Bush said, "If we can't get it done this year, I'm going to try next year. And if we can't get it done next year, I'm going to try the year after that," while House Ways and Means Social Security Subcommittee Chairman Jim McCrery (R-LA) argued that "Congress should make Social Security overhaul its top priority next year."
Wrap...
SOCIAL SECURITY
HOUSE MAJORITY LEADER PLEDGES TO PRIVATIZE SOCIAL SECURITY:
In a interview this weekend with the Washington Times, House Majority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) promised to privatize Social Security.
"If I'm around in a leadership role come January, we're going to get serious about this," Boehner said.
Privatization plans championed by Boehner and others would sharply cut guaranteed benefits and are opposed by the overwhelming majority of Americans. Nevertheless, Boehner is just the latest prominent conservative to reaffirm his commitment to privatize Social Security in the months and years to come.
Last month, President Bush said, "If we can't get it done this year, I'm going to try next year. And if we can't get it done next year, I'm going to try the year after that," while House Ways and Means Social Security Subcommittee Chairman Jim McCrery (R-LA) argued that "Congress should make Social Security overhaul its top priority next year."
Wrap...
DOPA bans blogs...today...if passed!
From Daily Kos site:
This story has been diaried already on dKos :
URGENT: House May Vote Today on DOPA ( by waitforthewordAnd then they banned the blogs - the DOPA Hotlist )
by jrm78Slashdot: House Passes Ban on Social Site Access ( by DocGonzoACTION ALERT: The War on The Internet
( by the choice is yours ACTION NEEDED: To Stop Congress From Banning MySpace And Other Social Networks
( by KingOneEye
Read 'em and fight!
Wrap...
This story has been diaried already on dKos :
URGENT: House May Vote Today on DOPA ( by waitforthewordAnd then they banned the blogs - the DOPA Hotlist )
by jrm78Slashdot: House Passes Ban on Social Site Access ( by DocGonzoACTION ALERT: The War on The Internet
( by the choice is yours ACTION NEEDED: To Stop Congress From Banning MySpace And Other Social Networks
( by KingOneEye
Read 'em and fight!
Wrap...
"Tipped Wage Fairness" my rear end!!!
From New Standard via truthout.org :
Tipped Workers Would Fall Through Proposed Wage Floor
By Michelle Chen
The NewStandard
Wednesday 02 August 2006
A bill approved last week in the House of Representatives promises to raise the federal minimum wage, but one obscure provision has some worried that the purported wage hike actually amounts to a backdoor pay cut for millions of low-income workers.
To curry votes in the House, Republican leaders tacked a minimum-wage increase onto the Estate Tax and Extension of Tax Relief Act of 2006, which aims to shrink taxes on the estates of wealthy deceased people. The bill would incrementally bring the minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25 an hour by 2009. But a new analysis by the progressive Economic Policy Institute (EPI) reveals that the last section of the bill specifically strips away existing wage protections from the country's tipped workers.
The so-called "Tipped Wage Fairness" provision would invalidate any state law that "excludes all of a tipped employee's tips from being considered as wages in determining if [the] employee has been paid the applicable minimum wage rate." In other words, the measure would extinguish state-level laws that entitle waitresses, barbers, cab drivers and other workers to a minimum wage regardless of what they make in tips.
Noting that the wage provision was intended to lubricate a major tax break for the ultra-rich, EPI Policy Director Ross Eisenbrey told The NewStandard: "It is bad enough that a wage increase for the poorest workers in America is being used as bait ... It is obscene and shameful that the inheritance tax cuts are being coupled with a provision that will drive wages down for waiters, waitresses, manicurists, hotel maids and other low-wage employees."
According to EPI, the House bill, which passed 230 to 180 last Saturday, would gut several state wage statutes and impose a less generous method of calculating tipped workers' income.
Currently, Alaska, California, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington exclude workers' tips from being counted toward the minimum wage that employers must pay. Under the House provision, the tipped workforce in these states would generally default to the weaker federal minimum-wage law, which provides a base wage of just $2.13 an hour. To meet the current national wage floor of $5.15, employers can count tips to make up the difference.
In an example of how the provision would affect workers at current federal wage standards, EPI found that employees in Washington State - where state law mandates that workers be paid a minimum of $7.63 per hour - a tipped worker's wage floor would drop to $5.15 including tips. In effect, since the employers' obligation would fall to the $2.13 federal baseline as long as the worker's tips put their take at or above the minimum wage, the employee would take home $5.50 less per hour.
The federal Fair Labor Standards Act defines a tipped worker as any employee taking in more than $30 per month in tips. Some 5 million workers nationwide fit this category, from housekeepers to parking attendants.
Conservative lawmakers, backed by interests in the restaurant business and other tip-heavy sectors, have advocated policies that let employers credit tips toward minimum wage requirements. The rationale is that since many employees make a substantial amount of their income in tips - sometimes far exceeding the minimum wage - applying the regular base wage could pose a needless economic burden for businesses.
EPI's analysis states that while the House proposal would bump up the wage floor overall, the move to upend state policies that build on federal provisions for tipped workers would mark "the first time in history that the federal government has acted to put a ceiling on minimum-wage levels."
Even groups that have generally supported initiatives to raise the wage floor, like the AFL-CIO and the low-income advocacy group ACORN, have decried the House's minimum-wage proposal as a political sham because of the attached estate-tax and tip provisions. Both House and Senate Democratic leaders have also expressed opposition. The Senate is expected to vote on the legislation as early as Friday.
Wrap...
Tipped Workers Would Fall Through Proposed Wage Floor
By Michelle Chen
The NewStandard
Wednesday 02 August 2006
A bill approved last week in the House of Representatives promises to raise the federal minimum wage, but one obscure provision has some worried that the purported wage hike actually amounts to a backdoor pay cut for millions of low-income workers.
To curry votes in the House, Republican leaders tacked a minimum-wage increase onto the Estate Tax and Extension of Tax Relief Act of 2006, which aims to shrink taxes on the estates of wealthy deceased people. The bill would incrementally bring the minimum wage from $5.15 to $7.25 an hour by 2009. But a new analysis by the progressive Economic Policy Institute (EPI) reveals that the last section of the bill specifically strips away existing wage protections from the country's tipped workers.
The so-called "Tipped Wage Fairness" provision would invalidate any state law that "excludes all of a tipped employee's tips from being considered as wages in determining if [the] employee has been paid the applicable minimum wage rate." In other words, the measure would extinguish state-level laws that entitle waitresses, barbers, cab drivers and other workers to a minimum wage regardless of what they make in tips.
Noting that the wage provision was intended to lubricate a major tax break for the ultra-rich, EPI Policy Director Ross Eisenbrey told The NewStandard: "It is bad enough that a wage increase for the poorest workers in America is being used as bait ... It is obscene and shameful that the inheritance tax cuts are being coupled with a provision that will drive wages down for waiters, waitresses, manicurists, hotel maids and other low-wage employees."
According to EPI, the House bill, which passed 230 to 180 last Saturday, would gut several state wage statutes and impose a less generous method of calculating tipped workers' income.
Currently, Alaska, California, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington exclude workers' tips from being counted toward the minimum wage that employers must pay. Under the House provision, the tipped workforce in these states would generally default to the weaker federal minimum-wage law, which provides a base wage of just $2.13 an hour. To meet the current national wage floor of $5.15, employers can count tips to make up the difference.
In an example of how the provision would affect workers at current federal wage standards, EPI found that employees in Washington State - where state law mandates that workers be paid a minimum of $7.63 per hour - a tipped worker's wage floor would drop to $5.15 including tips. In effect, since the employers' obligation would fall to the $2.13 federal baseline as long as the worker's tips put their take at or above the minimum wage, the employee would take home $5.50 less per hour.
The federal Fair Labor Standards Act defines a tipped worker as any employee taking in more than $30 per month in tips. Some 5 million workers nationwide fit this category, from housekeepers to parking attendants.
Conservative lawmakers, backed by interests in the restaurant business and other tip-heavy sectors, have advocated policies that let employers credit tips toward minimum wage requirements. The rationale is that since many employees make a substantial amount of their income in tips - sometimes far exceeding the minimum wage - applying the regular base wage could pose a needless economic burden for businesses.
EPI's analysis states that while the House proposal would bump up the wage floor overall, the move to upend state policies that build on federal provisions for tipped workers would mark "the first time in history that the federal government has acted to put a ceiling on minimum-wage levels."
Even groups that have generally supported initiatives to raise the wage floor, like the AFL-CIO and the low-income advocacy group ACORN, have decried the House's minimum-wage proposal as a political sham because of the attached estate-tax and tip provisions. Both House and Senate Democratic leaders have also expressed opposition. The Senate is expected to vote on the legislation as early as Friday.
Wrap...
Wednesday, August 02, 2006
Whistleblowers to Able Danger...
From Secrecy News:
The National Security Whistleblowers Coalition disclosed last weekthat former NSA employee Russell Tice had been summoned to appearbefore a grand jury investigating the unauthorized disclosure ofclassified information. See related background, including a copyof the grand jury summons, on the Coalition web site here: http://www.nswbc.org/
Mr. Tice and other national security whistleblowers testifiedbefore the House Committee on Government Reform last February, andthe record of that hearing has just been published.See "National Security Whistleblowers in the post-9/11 Era: Lost ina Labyrinth and Facing Subtle Retaliation," February 14, 2006: http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2006_hr/whistle.html
Wrap...
The National Security Whistleblowers Coalition disclosed last weekthat former NSA employee Russell Tice had been summoned to appearbefore a grand jury investigating the unauthorized disclosure ofclassified information. See related background, including a copyof the grand jury summons, on the Coalition web site here: http://www.nswbc.org/
Mr. Tice and other national security whistleblowers testifiedbefore the House Committee on Government Reform last February, andthe record of that hearing has just been published.See "National Security Whistleblowers in the post-9/11 Era: Lost ina Labyrinth and Facing Subtle Retaliation," February 14, 2006: http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2006_hr/whistle.html
Wrap...
Hero one day...in prison the next...
From ABC News via truthout.org:
The "Band of Brothers" Unravels
By Martin Bashir
ABC News
Wednesday 02 August 2006
Soldier accused of civilian murders defends actions.
Pfc. Corey Clagett believed that the matter had been resolved.
After two internal inquiries evaluating a mission that had taken place in northern Iraq on May 9, the 22-year-old and three other soldiers from the 3rd Battalion of the 101st Airborne Division expected to return to their duties without a stain on their characters.
Within a month, however, three of the four had been arrested, accused of premeditated murder, and placed in a US military jail in Kuwait.
On Tuesday, the four appeared before an Article 32 hearing that would determine whether they should be court-martialed. If found guilty, they could face the death penalty.
From "Hero" to Prisoner
Speaking by telephone from his prison cell, in an exclusive interview with "Nightline," Clagett defended his actions and expressed anger toward the military for pressing charges against him.
"I was trained to do the right thing," he said, "and I did do that. And it's like I was a hero one day - and I was being treated like that one day - and now I'm in a prison facility in Kuwait."
The transition became all the more astounding when it emerged that his accusers were not from the Iraqi populace, but from his own battalion - the tightly knit and fiercely loyal "band of brothers."
Clagett, along with Sgt. Raymond Girouard and Spc. William Hunsaker - all members of the Fort Campbell, Ky.-based 3rd Battalion - have been accused of deliberately releasing three Iraqi men they had captured, in order to kill them.
Another soldier, Spc. Juston Graber, has admitted to carrying out the "mercy killing" of one of the detainees after the initial shooting.
Clagett, Girouard and Hunsaker, however, vigorously deny the charges, saying that they only fired after the Iraqis broke free and started to attack them.
Rules of Engagement: "Kill All Military-Age Males"
The truth of what happened on that morning in May has become the subject of bitter dispute between former comrades who will find themselves on opposite sides of the ongoing military court proceedings.
The mission itself, like most combat tasks in remote areas of Iraq, was dangerous and intense.
According to Clagett, the briefing was clear.
"I was told that we were going into an al Qaeda and an anti-Iraqi force training area. And that when we were coming in, I was to expect fire.... Before we got on the ground, they were gonna shoot at the birds. They said we were gonna go in hot."
In their sworn affidavits, the three accused soldiers, along with others in the unit, say they received unusual but unequivocal rules of engagement for the task ahead. They say that they were given repeated and explicit orders to "kill all military-age males."
From his prison cell, Clagett explained how they prepared for the mission.
"We did rehearsals on the 8th of May and.... It got passed down to my lieutenant commander and he told us and then my platoon leader and my lieutenant he told us, then the platoon sergeant told us, then the squad leader told us. It was just relayed through chain of command."
What were they told?
"We were told that everybody on this island was hostile," Clagett said. "They were known al Qaeda insurgents, and we're going to kill all military-aged males, so be prepared."
Nightline: So you were told specifically to kill all military-age males?
Clagett: Correct.
Nightline: Were you ever told on any other mission that you were to kill all military-age males? Did that ever happen prior to this event?
Clagett: No.
Nightline: Never?
Clagett: Never.
When the soldiers first landed, close to the Syrian border, they encountered no resistance whatsoever - the place seemed empty.
Eventually they came upon a house where a man was looking out of the window. He was shot immediately.
They then advanced to a second property where they found three men hiding, using women and children as human shields.
According to Clagett, the male detainees were eventually separated. Zip ties were attached to their wrists. As Clagett tried to reinforce their cuffs, however, he says he was attacked by one of the detainees.
"I just got blindsided on my left side, and I just got hit in the face.... I spun around, staggered a little, spun around. I lost my vision.... Came back to and I saw this guy running and I just picked up right in between both of them and I just fired.... He did [have] hostile intent towards me."
"Because he just attacked me and all that ran through my head for those couple of seconds. So I engaged his target. With his hostile intent [this] gave me authorization to kill this guy. Then I know for Hunsaker, when I checked him out, he was cut on the face and on the arm and he received hostile action so that gave him [the] right to kill that guy."
For about four weeks after the killings in May, this was the account on record. Last month an entirely different version of events was given after three soldiers swore new affidavits.
One of them, Sgt. Leonel Lemus, a member of the 3rd Battalion, said that he had witnessed a deliberate plot to kill the three Iraqis and that the only cuts sustained by members of his division were self-inflicted in order to bolster their story.
In his statement he says that he didn't initially tell the truth because of "peer pressure, and I have to be loyal to the squad."
Lemus also recalled Clagett suffering a form of post-traumatic stress days after the killings.
"Three days later he told me he couldn't stop talking about it. As if it bothered him.... He was really stressed because when he slept the few hours he did, he dreamed about it over and over."
We put this to Clagett during our telephone interview.
Nightline: Do you recall telling him that you couldn't stop thinking about the shooting? And that you felt ill as a result?
Clagett: Yes, I did.
Nightline: Why did you tell him that?
Clagett: Well, I'm human. I'm not one of these guys who is like, 'Oh, I killed someone.' I felt bad because even though he did attack me and I had a right to shoot him, I still felt bad because I had to take two guys' lives and that affected me in my head because I am a really caring person. And with the thought of me killing two people that hurt me even though it was for the right reason, it hurt me.
Nightline: Is it possible that you are really feeling deeply guilty about it and that's why you couldn't stop thinking about it?
Clagett: No, I definitely did not feel guilty.... I did not feel guilty because [of] what he did. I just acted accordingly of what he did to me.... So I mean I just followed my original rule of engagement.
Other soldiers have also come forward to challenge Clagett's account.
Spc. Micah Bivins has said that "the cuts on Hunsaker's face were fishy and awkward. They could have been done with a paper clip," supporting the allegation that the injuries were self-inflicted and part of a conspiracy.
Graber, the fourth accused soldier, says Hunsaker told him that he wanted to "kill the detainees."
There is one aspect of the division's conduct that both sides appear to agree on: that there is a competition between battalions as to how many Iraqis can be killed.
Bivins, in his statement responding to a question about whether the rules of engagement had anything to do with the large number of killings, said, "Yes, because there is a list. The high value target list has persons on it who are confirmed bad guys and they are to be killed on sight, after confirmation it is actually them."
Again, we put the question to Clagett.
Nightline: Is it true that amongst certain divisions of American personnel in Iraq there is a list, a tally, of how many high value targets are killed in Iraq. Is that true?
Clagett: Yes. It is true.
Nightline: Do you think having a list like that is helpful? Doesn't that generate a sense of competition?
Clagett: Yes, it does. There pretty much was a competition. Everyone is saying there wasn't but there was.
The scene is now set for a legal showdown between men who, until recently, were comrades on the battlefield.
The tight cords that once maintained discipline and an absolute commitment to the division have begun to unravel among the "band of brothers."
Wrap...
The "Band of Brothers" Unravels
By Martin Bashir
ABC News
Wednesday 02 August 2006
Soldier accused of civilian murders defends actions.
Pfc. Corey Clagett believed that the matter had been resolved.
After two internal inquiries evaluating a mission that had taken place in northern Iraq on May 9, the 22-year-old and three other soldiers from the 3rd Battalion of the 101st Airborne Division expected to return to their duties without a stain on their characters.
Within a month, however, three of the four had been arrested, accused of premeditated murder, and placed in a US military jail in Kuwait.
On Tuesday, the four appeared before an Article 32 hearing that would determine whether they should be court-martialed. If found guilty, they could face the death penalty.
From "Hero" to Prisoner
Speaking by telephone from his prison cell, in an exclusive interview with "Nightline," Clagett defended his actions and expressed anger toward the military for pressing charges against him.
"I was trained to do the right thing," he said, "and I did do that. And it's like I was a hero one day - and I was being treated like that one day - and now I'm in a prison facility in Kuwait."
The transition became all the more astounding when it emerged that his accusers were not from the Iraqi populace, but from his own battalion - the tightly knit and fiercely loyal "band of brothers."
Clagett, along with Sgt. Raymond Girouard and Spc. William Hunsaker - all members of the Fort Campbell, Ky.-based 3rd Battalion - have been accused of deliberately releasing three Iraqi men they had captured, in order to kill them.
Another soldier, Spc. Juston Graber, has admitted to carrying out the "mercy killing" of one of the detainees after the initial shooting.
Clagett, Girouard and Hunsaker, however, vigorously deny the charges, saying that they only fired after the Iraqis broke free and started to attack them.
Rules of Engagement: "Kill All Military-Age Males"
The truth of what happened on that morning in May has become the subject of bitter dispute between former comrades who will find themselves on opposite sides of the ongoing military court proceedings.
The mission itself, like most combat tasks in remote areas of Iraq, was dangerous and intense.
According to Clagett, the briefing was clear.
"I was told that we were going into an al Qaeda and an anti-Iraqi force training area. And that when we were coming in, I was to expect fire.... Before we got on the ground, they were gonna shoot at the birds. They said we were gonna go in hot."
In their sworn affidavits, the three accused soldiers, along with others in the unit, say they received unusual but unequivocal rules of engagement for the task ahead. They say that they were given repeated and explicit orders to "kill all military-age males."
From his prison cell, Clagett explained how they prepared for the mission.
"We did rehearsals on the 8th of May and.... It got passed down to my lieutenant commander and he told us and then my platoon leader and my lieutenant he told us, then the platoon sergeant told us, then the squad leader told us. It was just relayed through chain of command."
What were they told?
"We were told that everybody on this island was hostile," Clagett said. "They were known al Qaeda insurgents, and we're going to kill all military-aged males, so be prepared."
Nightline: So you were told specifically to kill all military-age males?
Clagett: Correct.
Nightline: Were you ever told on any other mission that you were to kill all military-age males? Did that ever happen prior to this event?
Clagett: No.
Nightline: Never?
Clagett: Never.
When the soldiers first landed, close to the Syrian border, they encountered no resistance whatsoever - the place seemed empty.
Eventually they came upon a house where a man was looking out of the window. He was shot immediately.
They then advanced to a second property where they found three men hiding, using women and children as human shields.
According to Clagett, the male detainees were eventually separated. Zip ties were attached to their wrists. As Clagett tried to reinforce their cuffs, however, he says he was attacked by one of the detainees.
"I just got blindsided on my left side, and I just got hit in the face.... I spun around, staggered a little, spun around. I lost my vision.... Came back to and I saw this guy running and I just picked up right in between both of them and I just fired.... He did [have] hostile intent towards me."
"Because he just attacked me and all that ran through my head for those couple of seconds. So I engaged his target. With his hostile intent [this] gave me authorization to kill this guy. Then I know for Hunsaker, when I checked him out, he was cut on the face and on the arm and he received hostile action so that gave him [the] right to kill that guy."
For about four weeks after the killings in May, this was the account on record. Last month an entirely different version of events was given after three soldiers swore new affidavits.
One of them, Sgt. Leonel Lemus, a member of the 3rd Battalion, said that he had witnessed a deliberate plot to kill the three Iraqis and that the only cuts sustained by members of his division were self-inflicted in order to bolster their story.
In his statement he says that he didn't initially tell the truth because of "peer pressure, and I have to be loyal to the squad."
Lemus also recalled Clagett suffering a form of post-traumatic stress days after the killings.
"Three days later he told me he couldn't stop talking about it. As if it bothered him.... He was really stressed because when he slept the few hours he did, he dreamed about it over and over."
We put this to Clagett during our telephone interview.
Nightline: Do you recall telling him that you couldn't stop thinking about the shooting? And that you felt ill as a result?
Clagett: Yes, I did.
Nightline: Why did you tell him that?
Clagett: Well, I'm human. I'm not one of these guys who is like, 'Oh, I killed someone.' I felt bad because even though he did attack me and I had a right to shoot him, I still felt bad because I had to take two guys' lives and that affected me in my head because I am a really caring person. And with the thought of me killing two people that hurt me even though it was for the right reason, it hurt me.
Nightline: Is it possible that you are really feeling deeply guilty about it and that's why you couldn't stop thinking about it?
Clagett: No, I definitely did not feel guilty.... I did not feel guilty because [of] what he did. I just acted accordingly of what he did to me.... So I mean I just followed my original rule of engagement.
Other soldiers have also come forward to challenge Clagett's account.
Spc. Micah Bivins has said that "the cuts on Hunsaker's face were fishy and awkward. They could have been done with a paper clip," supporting the allegation that the injuries were self-inflicted and part of a conspiracy.
Graber, the fourth accused soldier, says Hunsaker told him that he wanted to "kill the detainees."
There is one aspect of the division's conduct that both sides appear to agree on: that there is a competition between battalions as to how many Iraqis can be killed.
Bivins, in his statement responding to a question about whether the rules of engagement had anything to do with the large number of killings, said, "Yes, because there is a list. The high value target list has persons on it who are confirmed bad guys and they are to be killed on sight, after confirmation it is actually them."
Again, we put the question to Clagett.
Nightline: Is it true that amongst certain divisions of American personnel in Iraq there is a list, a tally, of how many high value targets are killed in Iraq. Is that true?
Clagett: Yes. It is true.
Nightline: Do you think having a list like that is helpful? Doesn't that generate a sense of competition?
Clagett: Yes, it does. There pretty much was a competition. Everyone is saying there wasn't but there was.
The scene is now set for a legal showdown between men who, until recently, were comrades on the battlefield.
The tight cords that once maintained discipline and an absolute commitment to the division have begun to unravel among the "band of brothers."
Wrap...
When security isn't secure...
From Strategic Forecasting, Inc:
Corporate Security: The Technology Crutch
By Fred Burton
The Jewish Federation of Greater Seattle was the scene of a fatal shooting on July 28: One woman was killed and five were wounded by an apparent "lone wolf" gunman. The man arrested and charged in the incident, Naveed Afzal Haq, is an American of Pakistani descent who claimed to have acted because he was "angry at Israel." An act of violence targeting Jews in the United States as a result of the conflict in the Middle East was predictable. But aside from the human tragedy, one of the most troubling aspects of the shooting is that it occurred at a facility that had addressed safety considerations in the past.
The Jewish Federation of Greater Seattle uses cipher locks to restrict unauthorized access, external security gates, bullet-resistant windows and closed circuit television (CCTV) cameras that provide video coverage of the front lobby. Not surprisingly, employees believed themselves to be safe.
However, it is not uncommon for buildings or offices employing good physical security measures to become backdrops for workplace violence or domestic terrorism. Physical security is important, but it does not automatically transform a "soft" target into a "hard" target. In fact, physical security measures may become a kind of psychological crutch that induces a false sense of security or even complacency -- attitudes that add to, rather than reduce, one's vulnerabilities.
Defeating the System
Like any man-made constructs, physical security measures -- CCTV coverage, metal detectors, cipher locks and so forth -- have finite utility. They serve a valuable purpose in institutional security programs, but an effective security program cannot be limited to these. The technology cannot think or evaluate. It is static and can be observed, learned and even fooled. Also, because some systems frequently produce false alarms, warnings in real danger situations may be brushed aside. Given these shortcomings, it is quite possible for anyone planning an act of violence to map out, quantify and then defeat or bypass physical security devices.
However, elaborate planning is not always necessary. Consider the common scenario of a worker on a smoke break who props open an otherwise locked door with a rock or trash can as an example of "internal defeat" for security measures. Physical security devices require human interaction to be effective. An alarm is useless if no one responds to it, or if it is not turned on; a lock is ineffective if it is not locked.
CCTV cameras are used extensively in corporate office buildings and manufacturing centers, but any corporate security manager will tell you that in reality, they are far more useful in terms of investigating a theft or act of violence after the fact than in preventing one. This was amply illustrated in the London bombings last July; authorities were able to pull up CCTV footage of the bombers afterward, but the cameras by definition could not identify suspicious activity or key in on the bombers before they killed. Even businesses or government sites that have established elaborate command centers for monitoring CCTV coverage have found that security personnel can monitor only a limited number of screens effectively -- and only for a short time before boredom or distraction sets in.
And despite the use of software that helps to detect motion in sensitive areas, it is not possible for a single person to effectively monitor all the CCTV feeds from a typical corporate office building -- let alone an entire corporate campus -- for eight or 10 hours at a stretch.
Likewise, access control devices are great when they are monitored but can be easily defeated if they are not. Tailgating -- that is, following someone else through the door of a "secure" facility -- is very common in corporate America. This tactic is used frequently by thieves -- who make it a point to blend into the environment -- in gaining access to office buildings, where they steal computers and other valuables. In some cases, brazen tailgater thieves have been able to steal tens of thousands of dollars worth of equipment -- sometimes in one haul, sometimes by hitting the same targets repeatedly over time.
In case of the Jewish Federation, tailgating was used to gain access -- though reports have conflicted as to whether the suspect rushed through the door after an employee used her code to open it, or whether he held a gun to a young girl's head and forced her to open the door for him.
Aggressive tailgating has been used in other shootings as well: In February, a former postal worker in Goleta, Calif., followed another vehicle through the gates of a mail distribution center. Once in the parking lot, she got out of her car and shot three employees -- then took an ID card from one of her victims, using it to enter the building and continue her rampage. Though the woman in that case had insider knowledge about the distribution of physical security systems, this information can be gained by outsiders as well, using preoperational surveillance.
For instance, it is clear from the surveillance that al Qaeda suspects ran on several financial buildings in the United States that they took great interest in documenting details of the security measures that were in place -- including access control, security procedures and guard coverage and schedules.
In reality, all "attack cycles" -- even those used by lone-wolf assailants -- follow the same general steps. All criminals -- whether stalkers, thieves, lone wolves or militant groups -- engage in preoperational surveillance, but the length of this phase naturally varies depending on the actor and the circumstances; a purse snatcher might case a potential target for a few seconds while a kidnapping crew might conduct surveillance of a potential target for weeks.
The degree of surveillance tradecraft -- from very clumsy to highly sophisticated -- also will vary widely, depending on the training and street skill the operative possesses. Perhaps the most crucial point to be made about preoperational surveillance is that it is the phase when someone with hostile intentions is most apt to be detected -- and the point in the attack cycle when potential violence can be most easily disrupted or prevented.
But detecting the signs of preoperational surveillance is a uniquely human ability; it requires both cognition and intuition -- analysis, "gut feelings" and rapid responses -- for which technology is no substitute.
Heating Up the Environment
No matter what kinds of physical security measures may be in place for a building, office or other facilities, they are far less likely to be effective if a potential assailant feels free to conduct preoperational surveillance. The more at ease someone feels as they set about identifying the physical security systems and procedures in place, the higher the odds they will find ways to beat the system.
A truly "hard" target is one that couples access controls and cameras with an aggressive, alert attitude and awareness. An effective security program is proactive -- looking outward to where most real threats are lurking -- rather than inward, where the only choice is to react once an attack has begun to unfold. One very effective way to do this is to utilize countersurveillance as an element of a facility's (or executive protection) security plan.
Countersurveillance programs operate on a handful of principles -- for example, the concept of vantage points or "perches" and how they can be used by someone conducting surveillance. If "perches" around one's facility are identified and activities at those sites are monitored, potential assailants will be less able to conduct pre-operational surveillance at will -- and it is quite possible that attacks can be prevented.
Another technique that professionals use is "heating up perches" -- or directing attention from visible security assets there (for example, having roving guards drive past it periodically). The point of these and other security techniques is to make anyone who might be planning a crime to feel uncomfortable during the preoperational surveillance phase. If he or she believes they have been "burned" (or caught in the act) of surveillance -- even if they have not been -- they are likely to seek out an "easier" target, unless there is a compelling reason they are drawn to attack a specific person or facility.
Grassroots Awareness
Some companies have employed surveillance detection programs with great success. Programs employing specially trained, plain-clothes operatives have identified hostile surveillance by militant groups and prevented attacks. They also have helped companies in spotting and intercepting mentally disturbed people, sex offenders and others, such as "tailgating" building thieves and car thieves.
Uniformed guards who have been trained in surveillance detection for counterterrorism purposes also have proven skilled at detecting and catching criminals. However, corporate security officers and the uniformed guard force have only so many eyes and can be in only so many places at once.
Thus, proactive security programs also teach the importance of fostering broad security awareness among employees. The training should not leave workers scared or paranoid -- just more observant. They need to be trained to look for people who are out of place and who could be potential surveillants or criminals. They also need to be mindful of people who might be attempting to tailgate into a facility. Most importantly, employees need to know what to do if they see something suspicious and who to call to report it.
As a part of security training, companies should instruct workers on procedures to follow if a shooter enters the building. These "shooter" drills should be practiced regularly -- just like a fire, tornado or earthquake drill.
The Odds
The law of averages indicates that in all probability, most office buildings or companies will never fall victim to a terrorist attack or workplace violence. However, we strongly believe that the Israel-Hezbollah conflict is likely to spark more attacks like the one in Seattle -- and that a few scattered targets in the United States will be affected. Obviously, predicting precise locales or targets is impossible from a distance, but certain classes of likely targets can be identified -- such as Israeli diplomatic targets, high-profile organizations that are connected to Israel, prominent Jewish citizens, Jewish-owned businesses, community organizations and religious sites.
By the same token, retaliatory violence -- possibly targeting Muslim groups or mosques -- cannot be ruled out. For either group, we advise putting countermeasures into place, drafting emergency action plans and rehearsing react drills. As we have noted previously, organizations and businesses tend to increase their funding for security measures in the wake of attacks like that in Seattle. As more attention is devoted to security budgets, considered attention to the effectiveness of specific measures and the value of proactive security training possibly will follow.
Send questions or comments on this article to analysis@stratfor.com.
Wrap...
Corporate Security: The Technology Crutch
By Fred Burton
The Jewish Federation of Greater Seattle was the scene of a fatal shooting on July 28: One woman was killed and five were wounded by an apparent "lone wolf" gunman. The man arrested and charged in the incident, Naveed Afzal Haq, is an American of Pakistani descent who claimed to have acted because he was "angry at Israel." An act of violence targeting Jews in the United States as a result of the conflict in the Middle East was predictable. But aside from the human tragedy, one of the most troubling aspects of the shooting is that it occurred at a facility that had addressed safety considerations in the past.
The Jewish Federation of Greater Seattle uses cipher locks to restrict unauthorized access, external security gates, bullet-resistant windows and closed circuit television (CCTV) cameras that provide video coverage of the front lobby. Not surprisingly, employees believed themselves to be safe.
However, it is not uncommon for buildings or offices employing good physical security measures to become backdrops for workplace violence or domestic terrorism. Physical security is important, but it does not automatically transform a "soft" target into a "hard" target. In fact, physical security measures may become a kind of psychological crutch that induces a false sense of security or even complacency -- attitudes that add to, rather than reduce, one's vulnerabilities.
Defeating the System
Like any man-made constructs, physical security measures -- CCTV coverage, metal detectors, cipher locks and so forth -- have finite utility. They serve a valuable purpose in institutional security programs, but an effective security program cannot be limited to these. The technology cannot think or evaluate. It is static and can be observed, learned and even fooled. Also, because some systems frequently produce false alarms, warnings in real danger situations may be brushed aside. Given these shortcomings, it is quite possible for anyone planning an act of violence to map out, quantify and then defeat or bypass physical security devices.
However, elaborate planning is not always necessary. Consider the common scenario of a worker on a smoke break who props open an otherwise locked door with a rock or trash can as an example of "internal defeat" for security measures. Physical security devices require human interaction to be effective. An alarm is useless if no one responds to it, or if it is not turned on; a lock is ineffective if it is not locked.
CCTV cameras are used extensively in corporate office buildings and manufacturing centers, but any corporate security manager will tell you that in reality, they are far more useful in terms of investigating a theft or act of violence after the fact than in preventing one. This was amply illustrated in the London bombings last July; authorities were able to pull up CCTV footage of the bombers afterward, but the cameras by definition could not identify suspicious activity or key in on the bombers before they killed. Even businesses or government sites that have established elaborate command centers for monitoring CCTV coverage have found that security personnel can monitor only a limited number of screens effectively -- and only for a short time before boredom or distraction sets in.
And despite the use of software that helps to detect motion in sensitive areas, it is not possible for a single person to effectively monitor all the CCTV feeds from a typical corporate office building -- let alone an entire corporate campus -- for eight or 10 hours at a stretch.
Likewise, access control devices are great when they are monitored but can be easily defeated if they are not. Tailgating -- that is, following someone else through the door of a "secure" facility -- is very common in corporate America. This tactic is used frequently by thieves -- who make it a point to blend into the environment -- in gaining access to office buildings, where they steal computers and other valuables. In some cases, brazen tailgater thieves have been able to steal tens of thousands of dollars worth of equipment -- sometimes in one haul, sometimes by hitting the same targets repeatedly over time.
In case of the Jewish Federation, tailgating was used to gain access -- though reports have conflicted as to whether the suspect rushed through the door after an employee used her code to open it, or whether he held a gun to a young girl's head and forced her to open the door for him.
Aggressive tailgating has been used in other shootings as well: In February, a former postal worker in Goleta, Calif., followed another vehicle through the gates of a mail distribution center. Once in the parking lot, she got out of her car and shot three employees -- then took an ID card from one of her victims, using it to enter the building and continue her rampage. Though the woman in that case had insider knowledge about the distribution of physical security systems, this information can be gained by outsiders as well, using preoperational surveillance.
For instance, it is clear from the surveillance that al Qaeda suspects ran on several financial buildings in the United States that they took great interest in documenting details of the security measures that were in place -- including access control, security procedures and guard coverage and schedules.
In reality, all "attack cycles" -- even those used by lone-wolf assailants -- follow the same general steps. All criminals -- whether stalkers, thieves, lone wolves or militant groups -- engage in preoperational surveillance, but the length of this phase naturally varies depending on the actor and the circumstances; a purse snatcher might case a potential target for a few seconds while a kidnapping crew might conduct surveillance of a potential target for weeks.
The degree of surveillance tradecraft -- from very clumsy to highly sophisticated -- also will vary widely, depending on the training and street skill the operative possesses. Perhaps the most crucial point to be made about preoperational surveillance is that it is the phase when someone with hostile intentions is most apt to be detected -- and the point in the attack cycle when potential violence can be most easily disrupted or prevented.
But detecting the signs of preoperational surveillance is a uniquely human ability; it requires both cognition and intuition -- analysis, "gut feelings" and rapid responses -- for which technology is no substitute.
Heating Up the Environment
No matter what kinds of physical security measures may be in place for a building, office or other facilities, they are far less likely to be effective if a potential assailant feels free to conduct preoperational surveillance. The more at ease someone feels as they set about identifying the physical security systems and procedures in place, the higher the odds they will find ways to beat the system.
A truly "hard" target is one that couples access controls and cameras with an aggressive, alert attitude and awareness. An effective security program is proactive -- looking outward to where most real threats are lurking -- rather than inward, where the only choice is to react once an attack has begun to unfold. One very effective way to do this is to utilize countersurveillance as an element of a facility's (or executive protection) security plan.
Countersurveillance programs operate on a handful of principles -- for example, the concept of vantage points or "perches" and how they can be used by someone conducting surveillance. If "perches" around one's facility are identified and activities at those sites are monitored, potential assailants will be less able to conduct pre-operational surveillance at will -- and it is quite possible that attacks can be prevented.
Another technique that professionals use is "heating up perches" -- or directing attention from visible security assets there (for example, having roving guards drive past it periodically). The point of these and other security techniques is to make anyone who might be planning a crime to feel uncomfortable during the preoperational surveillance phase. If he or she believes they have been "burned" (or caught in the act) of surveillance -- even if they have not been -- they are likely to seek out an "easier" target, unless there is a compelling reason they are drawn to attack a specific person or facility.
Grassroots Awareness
Some companies have employed surveillance detection programs with great success. Programs employing specially trained, plain-clothes operatives have identified hostile surveillance by militant groups and prevented attacks. They also have helped companies in spotting and intercepting mentally disturbed people, sex offenders and others, such as "tailgating" building thieves and car thieves.
Uniformed guards who have been trained in surveillance detection for counterterrorism purposes also have proven skilled at detecting and catching criminals. However, corporate security officers and the uniformed guard force have only so many eyes and can be in only so many places at once.
Thus, proactive security programs also teach the importance of fostering broad security awareness among employees. The training should not leave workers scared or paranoid -- just more observant. They need to be trained to look for people who are out of place and who could be potential surveillants or criminals. They also need to be mindful of people who might be attempting to tailgate into a facility. Most importantly, employees need to know what to do if they see something suspicious and who to call to report it.
As a part of security training, companies should instruct workers on procedures to follow if a shooter enters the building. These "shooter" drills should be practiced regularly -- just like a fire, tornado or earthquake drill.
The Odds
The law of averages indicates that in all probability, most office buildings or companies will never fall victim to a terrorist attack or workplace violence. However, we strongly believe that the Israel-Hezbollah conflict is likely to spark more attacks like the one in Seattle -- and that a few scattered targets in the United States will be affected. Obviously, predicting precise locales or targets is impossible from a distance, but certain classes of likely targets can be identified -- such as Israeli diplomatic targets, high-profile organizations that are connected to Israel, prominent Jewish citizens, Jewish-owned businesses, community organizations and religious sites.
By the same token, retaliatory violence -- possibly targeting Muslim groups or mosques -- cannot be ruled out. For either group, we advise putting countermeasures into place, drafting emergency action plans and rehearsing react drills. As we have noted previously, organizations and businesses tend to increase their funding for security measures in the wake of attacks like that in Seattle. As more attention is devoted to security budgets, considered attention to the effectiveness of specific measures and the value of proactive security training possibly will follow.
Send questions or comments on this article to analysis@stratfor.com.
Wrap...
Why switch from Marriott to Hilton?
For at least five years, I've breakfasted every weekday morning on the patio of the Marriott Courtyard. Wonderful patio, wonderful staff. But come mid September when the Marriott goes totally non-smoking, I'll be gone. From then on, I'll be at the Hilton on their patio where I can enjoy a smoke with my coffee, as can other writers who join us. It's a damned shame that this smoking hysteria has spread so far. I seriously doubt that, sitting on a patio in the open air, anyone who gets a whiff of smoke from my cigarette is gonna fall over dead on the spot. That's just silly. More, it's stupid. Which is why I'll be voting for Arnold for CA gov this year. His Dem
opponent is a major mover when it comes to anti-smoking. Fine. But I don't react well to force. I'm perfectly willing to sit on a patio and never enter the inside of any public space with a cigarette, knowing that many people don't care for the smell of cigars or cigarettes. I would never knowingly light up near anyone with asthma, for instance, though I know people with asthma who smoke. But when summer comes and people who prefer a non-smoking area and so sit inside when the weather isn't nice, immediately want to sit on the patio...which is a smoking area...and then complain about smokers, that angers me. There's a limit to my tolerance. My dad often said two things: Spare me from the righteous, and Give 'em an inch and they'll take a mile. True. At the same time, none of these politicians and health nazis want to give up a single penny of the tax money or the jobs smokers provide. Therefore smoking remains legal...they just don't want smokers to smoke.
From USA Today:
Despite trend, there's room at many inns for smokers
Updated 8/2/2006 10:11 AM ET
By Gary Stoller, USA TODAY
Some hotels are beginning to buck the growing trend of going smoke-free.
Marriott said two weeks ago that all its 2,300 North American hotels would be smoke-free in September. It follows Westin, which started the move in January when it banned smoking at hotels in the USA, Canada and the Caribbean.
But more recently, at least four chains, including some industry giants, have said they'll continue to accommodate smokers.
Extended Stay Hotels, which owns 676 hotels in the USA, says consumers deserve a choice, and it will not shut out smokers. InterContinental Hotels Group, Hilton Hotels and Hyatt Hotels also said they would continue to offer rooms for smokers.
"Everybody's making a position statement now," says American Hotel & Lodging Association President Joe McInerney, who expects continuation of the smoke-free trend.
Extended Stay CEO Gary DeLapp says his company aims to deliver "a home-away-from-home experience" for guests. Customers at Extended Stay Hotels are typically business travelers who stay about 20 nights. The hotels accommodate many foreign guests who smoke, he says.
DeLapp, an "avid non-smoker and runner," says one-quarter of the five brands' rooms were set aside for smokers four years ago. Now, 10% to 15% are for smokers.
InterContinental Hotels Group, which has seven hotel brands, including Holiday Inn and Crowne Plaza, says customers are not complaining about smoke. All of the company's 3,600 hotels are required to set aside at least 75% of rooms for non-smokers, and 20 lodgings are entirely smoke-free, says spokeswoman Virginia Osborne.
Hilton spokeswoman Kendra Walker says the company, which has 10 brands and more than 2,800 hotels, continues "to offer a choice to guests, based on historic guest demand." Hilton's nine U.S. brands offer up to 15% of their rooms for smokers, she says.
Hyatt, which has 215 hotels worldwide, has no plans to go smoke-free, says spokeswoman Katie Meyer. About 1% of its North American hotel rooms are set aside for smokers, she says.
Frequent traveler James Collins, a smoker, says he "can't accept" hotels banning smoking. "I think much of this is due to the second-hand smoke hysteria, and their desire to look good to the public," says the health care consultant from Conover, N.C.
Robert Milk, who doesn't smoke and has stayed at hotels 160 nights this year, says he respects chains' decisions to accommodate smokers. But the health care consultant from Glen Allen, Va., says he will stay at their hotels only if no smoke-free hotel is nearby.
Wrap...
opponent is a major mover when it comes to anti-smoking. Fine. But I don't react well to force. I'm perfectly willing to sit on a patio and never enter the inside of any public space with a cigarette, knowing that many people don't care for the smell of cigars or cigarettes. I would never knowingly light up near anyone with asthma, for instance, though I know people with asthma who smoke. But when summer comes and people who prefer a non-smoking area and so sit inside when the weather isn't nice, immediately want to sit on the patio...which is a smoking area...and then complain about smokers, that angers me. There's a limit to my tolerance. My dad often said two things: Spare me from the righteous, and Give 'em an inch and they'll take a mile. True. At the same time, none of these politicians and health nazis want to give up a single penny of the tax money or the jobs smokers provide. Therefore smoking remains legal...they just don't want smokers to smoke.
From USA Today:
Despite trend, there's room at many inns for smokers
Updated 8/2/2006 10:11 AM ET
By Gary Stoller, USA TODAY
Some hotels are beginning to buck the growing trend of going smoke-free.
Marriott said two weeks ago that all its 2,300 North American hotels would be smoke-free in September. It follows Westin, which started the move in January when it banned smoking at hotels in the USA, Canada and the Caribbean.
But more recently, at least four chains, including some industry giants, have said they'll continue to accommodate smokers.
Extended Stay Hotels, which owns 676 hotels in the USA, says consumers deserve a choice, and it will not shut out smokers. InterContinental Hotels Group, Hilton Hotels and Hyatt Hotels also said they would continue to offer rooms for smokers.
"Everybody's making a position statement now," says American Hotel & Lodging Association President Joe McInerney, who expects continuation of the smoke-free trend.
Extended Stay CEO Gary DeLapp says his company aims to deliver "a home-away-from-home experience" for guests. Customers at Extended Stay Hotels are typically business travelers who stay about 20 nights. The hotels accommodate many foreign guests who smoke, he says.
DeLapp, an "avid non-smoker and runner," says one-quarter of the five brands' rooms were set aside for smokers four years ago. Now, 10% to 15% are for smokers.
InterContinental Hotels Group, which has seven hotel brands, including Holiday Inn and Crowne Plaza, says customers are not complaining about smoke. All of the company's 3,600 hotels are required to set aside at least 75% of rooms for non-smokers, and 20 lodgings are entirely smoke-free, says spokeswoman Virginia Osborne.
Hilton spokeswoman Kendra Walker says the company, which has 10 brands and more than 2,800 hotels, continues "to offer a choice to guests, based on historic guest demand." Hilton's nine U.S. brands offer up to 15% of their rooms for smokers, she says.
Hyatt, which has 215 hotels worldwide, has no plans to go smoke-free, says spokeswoman Katie Meyer. About 1% of its North American hotel rooms are set aside for smokers, she says.
Frequent traveler James Collins, a smoker, says he "can't accept" hotels banning smoking. "I think much of this is due to the second-hand smoke hysteria, and their desire to look good to the public," says the health care consultant from Conover, N.C.
Robert Milk, who doesn't smoke and has stayed at hotels 160 nights this year, says he respects chains' decisions to accommodate smokers. But the health care consultant from Glen Allen, Va., says he will stay at their hotels only if no smoke-free hotel is nearby.
Wrap...
Not lowering standards...Not much...Oh no...Ha.
From USA Today:
Army makes way for older soldiers
Posted 8/1/2006 11:49 PM ET
LIGHTER WORKOUT
Minimum physical requirements for recruits at the Army's age extremes:
Men
Age 17
Age 41
Sit-ups
47
29
Push-ups
35
24
2-mile run
16 minutes, 36 seconds
19 minutes, 30 seconds
Women
Sit-ups
47
29
Push-ups
13
6
2-mile run
19 minutes, 42 seconds
24 minutes, 6 seconds
Source: U.S. Army
By Tom Vanden Brook, USA TODAY
FORT JACKSON, S.C. — The Army has begun training the oldest recruits in its history, the result of a concerted effort to fill ranks depleted during the Iraq war.
In June, five months after it raised the enlistment age limit from 35 to just shy of 40, the Army raised it to just under 42.
To accommodate the older soldiers, the Army has lowered the minimum physical requirements needed to pass basic training.
The first group of older recruits is going through basic training here. So far, only five people 40 and older — and 324 age 35 and older — have enlisted, Army records show.
SOLDIER 'MOM' : 41-year-old joins her daughter in enlisting
The Army also hopes to attract more recruits by offering shorter active-duty periods for some recruits, signing bonuses and bonuses for soldiers who persuade others to join.
David Chu, undersecretary of Defense for personnel and readiness, says the improved health and fitness of middle-aged Americans makes it possible for them to enlist.
The Army has the military's highest age limit. The Air Force's and Marines' limits are 27, while the Navy's is 35.
Allowing older soldiers makes sense if done properly, says Loren Thompson, a military analyst at the Lexington Institute, a non-partisan think tank in Arlington, Va.
"For front-line combat troops, it's a bad idea," Thompson says. "But nobody is proposing putting 42-year-olds next to 18-year-olds on combat patrols. If it is correctly run, it could be a real boon."
The Army, which supplies most of the troops for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, is on track to meet its recruiting goal of 80,000 new soldiers this year.
In 2005, the Army missed its 80,000 goal by 8% when it recruited 73,373 new soldiers.
Wrap...
Army makes way for older soldiers
Posted 8/1/2006 11:49 PM ET
LIGHTER WORKOUT
Minimum physical requirements for recruits at the Army's age extremes:
Men
Age 17
Age 41
Sit-ups
47
29
Push-ups
35
24
2-mile run
16 minutes, 36 seconds
19 minutes, 30 seconds
Women
Sit-ups
47
29
Push-ups
13
6
2-mile run
19 minutes, 42 seconds
24 minutes, 6 seconds
Source: U.S. Army
By Tom Vanden Brook, USA TODAY
FORT JACKSON, S.C. — The Army has begun training the oldest recruits in its history, the result of a concerted effort to fill ranks depleted during the Iraq war.
In June, five months after it raised the enlistment age limit from 35 to just shy of 40, the Army raised it to just under 42.
To accommodate the older soldiers, the Army has lowered the minimum physical requirements needed to pass basic training.
The first group of older recruits is going through basic training here. So far, only five people 40 and older — and 324 age 35 and older — have enlisted, Army records show.
SOLDIER 'MOM' : 41-year-old joins her daughter in enlisting
The Army also hopes to attract more recruits by offering shorter active-duty periods for some recruits, signing bonuses and bonuses for soldiers who persuade others to join.
David Chu, undersecretary of Defense for personnel and readiness, says the improved health and fitness of middle-aged Americans makes it possible for them to enlist.
The Army has the military's highest age limit. The Air Force's and Marines' limits are 27, while the Navy's is 35.
Allowing older soldiers makes sense if done properly, says Loren Thompson, a military analyst at the Lexington Institute, a non-partisan think tank in Arlington, Va.
"For front-line combat troops, it's a bad idea," Thompson says. "But nobody is proposing putting 42-year-olds next to 18-year-olds on combat patrols. If it is correctly run, it could be a real boon."
The Army, which supplies most of the troops for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, is on track to meet its recruiting goal of 80,000 new soldiers this year.
In 2005, the Army missed its 80,000 goal by 8% when it recruited 73,373 new soldiers.
Wrap...
Heightened threat...
From Strategic Forecasting Inc:
Stratfor analysts continue to be on full alert, closely monitoring the conflict in the Middle East, and providing expanded 24/7 coverage on the current crisis and latest ground offensive.
Intelligence received by Stratfor in the past 24 hours indicates that Israel believes military operations against Hezbollah will soon be reaching a climax in Lebanon, and activity by both sides in the conflict since then has been intensifying. It has been our assessment that as Hezbollah fighters come under greater duress, there is a strong possibility that the organization will revert to employing terrorist tactics against Westerners that it used in the past - such as kidnappings, bombings or other acts of violence.
We have also taken note of a warden message issued yesterday, August 1st, that imposes a curfew on U.S. Embassy staff in Damascus - a precaution for their safety as emotions run high in Syria. We view this as further affirmation that, with military operations entering a crucial phase, the danger of terrorist activity is now ticking upward. We have no direct intelligence on this but we are clearly entering a period of heightened threat.
Wrap...
Stratfor analysts continue to be on full alert, closely monitoring the conflict in the Middle East, and providing expanded 24/7 coverage on the current crisis and latest ground offensive.
Intelligence received by Stratfor in the past 24 hours indicates that Israel believes military operations against Hezbollah will soon be reaching a climax in Lebanon, and activity by both sides in the conflict since then has been intensifying. It has been our assessment that as Hezbollah fighters come under greater duress, there is a strong possibility that the organization will revert to employing terrorist tactics against Westerners that it used in the past - such as kidnappings, bombings or other acts of violence.
We have also taken note of a warden message issued yesterday, August 1st, that imposes a curfew on U.S. Embassy staff in Damascus - a precaution for their safety as emotions run high in Syria. We view this as further affirmation that, with military operations entering a crucial phase, the danger of terrorist activity is now ticking upward. We have no direct intelligence on this but we are clearly entering a period of heightened threat.
Wrap...
Tuesday, August 01, 2006
Taylor and God...
From Voice of San Diego.org :
Honesty and God
By Keith Taylor
Wednesday, Aug. 2, 2006
Last week I used one of the two most opprobrious words in the English language to describe myself. It's the one that does not start with "F." I said I was an atheist. Folks have a terrible time with that word. An old friend expressed surprise that I could be both an atheist and compassionate. Other letters haven't even been that nice.Silly me! Here I thought standing up for a minority viewpoint and defending it with facts was in the highest tradition of American journalism, even American citizenship.
But, if it touches on religion, facts come in second! Tell most folks you believe dancing with rattlesnakes is a good way to salvation and they'll likely tell you "That's nice. Everybody should believe in something."Justify your belief with "Scientists don't know everything" and you'll be given plaudits for your sagacity, even by folks who have no idea of what sagacity (or science) means. Just don't dwell on the point that faith means accepting something without proof.
Still, being an out of the closet atheist isn't all bad. It gets you out of a lot of weddings, and most funerals except your own. Then someone will likely try to sneak in a preacher, "just in case."I gave up on religion long ago because I did believe in science and saw none of it in a discipline based on the idea that a woman talked to a snake. Before quitting though, it was a tussle trying to keep up with all the various ways I could displease the deity.
Once, years ago, I stood in line a good half hour to cash a Navy pay check. The teller was good. ZIP ZIP ZIP the stream of twenties fell neatly into a pile. Her ability to count money fast wasn't the only thing that fascinated me. Her patented motions caused an interesting jiggle barely inside her low cut dress. I didn't bother to try to think pure thoughts, not standing this close. The thoughts I was having were more interesting and while they were sins, they were likely only venial -- something that wouldn't consign me to everlasting torment but for which I'd have to pay a price.
I figured it was a cost/benefit thing.Then, I was sure she plopped two twenties down as one. Twenty bucks was a lot of money. I wasn't sure where the break point between venial and mortal lay, but it had to be less than a double sawbuck.I said, "I think you ought to count it again." She cut this gawking sailor off with a curt "Sorry, I'm very busy today."
I dutifully took the money, stood off in a corner and counted it. Yep. I was right. While I realized I could easily keep it, I had to return the money.
Back I went. When I finally made it to the head of the line I asked Jiggles to retrieve my check and accept my 20 so she could balance out. I had atoned myself, but felt a bit silly standing in line to return money to an institution that had more than I (and probably the teller) could count.
Maybe the bank had religion to thank for that 20 bucks. But I would have done it anyhow. Years earlier mom taught me that I should never take anything that wasn't mine. I bet she had no idea which commandment pertained. Mom was simply good at common sense.
Religion? Do we need it to be good? Of course not, but it comes in handy politically. And it works best when laced out with a bit of bravado. In 1997, when Duke Cunningham's suspicious enthusiasm for projects going to Brent Wilkes's companies was noted by the press, the congressman stated, "I'm on the side of the angels here." Anyone who questioned his intentions, said Duke, can "go to hell."Boy, did they cheer him for that! Duke never hid his religiosity behind a barrel, and it served him well -- until the evidence against him became overwhelming. Then he became very remorseful and cried.
And while all have feet of clay, why does repentance only follow being caught? I'm sure Jimmy Swaggart impressed the true believers when he blubbered over his sin of hiring a hooker to come to his room, but only after it was reported by the media. If a god was going to get mad at him for doing it, wouldn't he have been just as upset if he hadn't had to wait and read about it in the paper?And this hypocrisy is bipartisan. Clinton was so remorseful after his transgressions that that he brought in three clergymen to control his run amok desires, but not until DNA testing of a soiled dress nailed him.
The list goes on and on. I am hoping for a weeping plea for forgiveness for Tom DeLay's sins. But wouldn't it be nice if someone like him actually apologized for the cheap shots that aren't prosecutable? In DeLay's case I'd love to see him say he was sorry for his diatribe after the Columbine, Colorado massacre. He managed to tie in the teaching of evolution with the killings.
Even I can't see anything funny about that.
Keith Taylor is a retired Navy officer living in Chula Vista.
Send a letter to the editor.
Wrap...
Honesty and God
By Keith Taylor
Wednesday, Aug. 2, 2006
Last week I used one of the two most opprobrious words in the English language to describe myself. It's the one that does not start with "F." I said I was an atheist. Folks have a terrible time with that word. An old friend expressed surprise that I could be both an atheist and compassionate. Other letters haven't even been that nice.Silly me! Here I thought standing up for a minority viewpoint and defending it with facts was in the highest tradition of American journalism, even American citizenship.
But, if it touches on religion, facts come in second! Tell most folks you believe dancing with rattlesnakes is a good way to salvation and they'll likely tell you "That's nice. Everybody should believe in something."Justify your belief with "Scientists don't know everything" and you'll be given plaudits for your sagacity, even by folks who have no idea of what sagacity (or science) means. Just don't dwell on the point that faith means accepting something without proof.
Still, being an out of the closet atheist isn't all bad. It gets you out of a lot of weddings, and most funerals except your own. Then someone will likely try to sneak in a preacher, "just in case."I gave up on religion long ago because I did believe in science and saw none of it in a discipline based on the idea that a woman talked to a snake. Before quitting though, it was a tussle trying to keep up with all the various ways I could displease the deity.
Once, years ago, I stood in line a good half hour to cash a Navy pay check. The teller was good. ZIP ZIP ZIP the stream of twenties fell neatly into a pile. Her ability to count money fast wasn't the only thing that fascinated me. Her patented motions caused an interesting jiggle barely inside her low cut dress. I didn't bother to try to think pure thoughts, not standing this close. The thoughts I was having were more interesting and while they were sins, they were likely only venial -- something that wouldn't consign me to everlasting torment but for which I'd have to pay a price.
I figured it was a cost/benefit thing.Then, I was sure she plopped two twenties down as one. Twenty bucks was a lot of money. I wasn't sure where the break point between venial and mortal lay, but it had to be less than a double sawbuck.I said, "I think you ought to count it again." She cut this gawking sailor off with a curt "Sorry, I'm very busy today."
I dutifully took the money, stood off in a corner and counted it. Yep. I was right. While I realized I could easily keep it, I had to return the money.
Back I went. When I finally made it to the head of the line I asked Jiggles to retrieve my check and accept my 20 so she could balance out. I had atoned myself, but felt a bit silly standing in line to return money to an institution that had more than I (and probably the teller) could count.
Maybe the bank had religion to thank for that 20 bucks. But I would have done it anyhow. Years earlier mom taught me that I should never take anything that wasn't mine. I bet she had no idea which commandment pertained. Mom was simply good at common sense.
Religion? Do we need it to be good? Of course not, but it comes in handy politically. And it works best when laced out with a bit of bravado. In 1997, when Duke Cunningham's suspicious enthusiasm for projects going to Brent Wilkes's companies was noted by the press, the congressman stated, "I'm on the side of the angels here." Anyone who questioned his intentions, said Duke, can "go to hell."Boy, did they cheer him for that! Duke never hid his religiosity behind a barrel, and it served him well -- until the evidence against him became overwhelming. Then he became very remorseful and cried.
And while all have feet of clay, why does repentance only follow being caught? I'm sure Jimmy Swaggart impressed the true believers when he blubbered over his sin of hiring a hooker to come to his room, but only after it was reported by the media. If a god was going to get mad at him for doing it, wouldn't he have been just as upset if he hadn't had to wait and read about it in the paper?And this hypocrisy is bipartisan. Clinton was so remorseful after his transgressions that that he brought in three clergymen to control his run amok desires, but not until DNA testing of a soiled dress nailed him.
The list goes on and on. I am hoping for a weeping plea for forgiveness for Tom DeLay's sins. But wouldn't it be nice if someone like him actually apologized for the cheap shots that aren't prosecutable? In DeLay's case I'd love to see him say he was sorry for his diatribe after the Columbine, Colorado massacre. He managed to tie in the teaching of evolution with the killings.
Even I can't see anything funny about that.
Keith Taylor is a retired Navy officer living in Chula Vista.
Send a letter to the editor.
Wrap...
Iraq war: UNWINNABLE!!!
From truthout.org:
Sadly, the Plural of "Fiasco" Requires No "E"
By Ray McGovern
t r u t h o u t Perspective
Tuesday 01 August 2006
But the world desperately needs an "E" for EXIT from the march of folly toward a wider Middle East war that is increasingly likely to result from plural US foreign policy fiascos - in Iraq, Israel and Lebanon, for starters; in Syria and Iran for the next stage. Fortunately, Webster's does allow the insertion of an "E" and that's precisely what we must now do. We need to make a prompt exit from the endless string of fiascoes that have the Middle East marching to calamity.
If we do not take a sober look beyond the carnage of the last few weeks and weigh the reaction of still others in and outside the region, I fear there will be no exit. Perhaps it would be wise to start with a brief review: Who led our march into this modern-day Valley of Death?
Ideologues and Amateurs
Let's begin with the new people and policies that President George W. Bush brought in with him when he took office on January 20, 2001. Who urged on him what Michael O'Hanlon of Brookings calls "the huge mistake of giving Israel a blank check?" Who played the leading roles in encouraging Bush to let slip the dogs of war on Iraq?
Honors for the leading role in the category of fiasco goes, ex aequo, to Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld - the "Cheney-Rumsfeld cabal," as described by Colin Powell's chief of staff at the State Department, Col. Lawrence Wilkerson (USA, ret.). At an award ceremony, the cabal no doubt would offer copious thanks to key members of the cast - first and foremost, ideologues Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith. The Oscar for best actress in a supporting role goes to Condoleezza Rice.
It was five and a half years ago that Rice was formally initiated into the neo-conservative brotherhood as an auxiliary. Her most important service was greasing the skids for the brothers to try to shoehorn into reality their ambitious but naive dreams of using war to ensure total US/Israeli domination of the Middle East. At the new administration's first National Security Council meeting on January 30, 2001, then-national security adviser Rice stage-managed formal approval of two profound changes in decades-long US policy toward Israel-Palestine and Iraq. Thanks to Paul O'Neill, confirmed as treasury secretary just hours before the NSC meeting, we have a first-hand account.
The neo-cons had already gotten to the new president, for he began with the abrupt announcement that he was ditching the policy of past presidents who tried to honestly broker an end to the violence between Palestinians and Israelis. Rather, the president said the US would now tilt sharply toward Israel. Most importantly, Bush made it clear that he would let then-Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon resolve the conflict as he saw fit. The US would no longer "interfere."
Powell: Dead Man Walking
According to O'Neill, Secretary of State Colin Powell seemed "startled," and warned that US disengagement would unleash Sharon and the Israeli army. Bush shrugged dismissively, adding, "Sometimes a show of strength by one side can really clarify things."
After his requiem for the decades of US sweat and blood expended on the effort to work out a solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict, the president turned immediately to Iraq. Rice led off by reciting the received wisdom of the neo-cons (I still wonder how many of them actually believed it...) that, "Iraq might be the key to reshaping the entire region." Whereupon, at her request, then-CIA Director George Tenet displayed a grainy overhead image of a factory in Iraq that he happened to have with him. Tenet thought the factory "might" be associated with a chemical or biological weapons program, but that association could not be confirmed. No problem. The conversation immediately turned from this typically Tenet-ative "intelligence" to the question of which Iraqi targets to begin bombing.
O'Neill, just inducted into the cabinet but not into the neo-conservative brotherhood, was understandably nonplussed. He says he found it all quite curious and left the meeting convinced that, for reasons never fully explained, "getting Hussein was now the administration's focus."
The twin decisions of (1) To "tilt" more decidedly toward Israel and (2) to prepare to attack Iraq were right out of a blueprint drafted in 1996 by a small group of Americans and Israelis, including arch-neo-conservatives Richard Perle and Douglas Feith. Shortly after the January 30 NSC meeting, the two were given influential posts in the Department of Defense directly under Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his deputy, Paul Wolfowitz - Perle as chair of the powerful Defense Policy Board and Feith as undersecretary of defense for policy (#3 in the defense hierarchy). The policy's prescriptive blueprint, titled, "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm," had been prepared originally for Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, but it proved to be too extreme even for him. No matter. As the new Bush administration took shape, Perle and Feith retrieved the mothballed study, made an end-run around the hapless Powell, and sold it to Vice President Dick Cheney, Rumsfeld and Bush
Dr. Rice Becomes Dr. No
There is a certain poetic justice in the fact that Rice, now secretary of state, is reaping the whirlwind. She has been trapped in the extremely awkward position of having to say "No" to a cease-fire to stop the burgeoning violence, and then being mocked by the Israelis who openly violated the cease-fire they had promised her.
Still an innocent abroad, Rice has loyally played piano accompaniment for the neo-con hit song, "Reshaping the Entire Region." She has, for example, described the violence in Lebanon and Israel as "the birth pangs of a new Middle East." On Friday, President Bush declared, "This is a moment of intense conflict ... yet our aim is to turn it into a moment of opportunity and a chance for broader change in the region."
Bush's remark elicited uncharacteristically acerbic ridicule from Richard Haass, who served under Bush as head of policy planning at the State Department. (Yes, this is the same Haass who in July 2002 begged Rice for an appointment with the president, whom he wanted to warn of the folly of invading Iraq. Rice reportedly told him, "The decision's been made; don't waste your breath.") Referring to Bush's remarks on Friday, Haass, now head of the Council on Foreign Relations, laughed at the president's optimism, according to a report by Peter Baker in yesterday's Washington Post. "That's the funniest thing I've heard in a long time," said Haass. "If this is an opportunity, what's Iraq? A once-in-a-lifetime chance?"
It is far from funny. Rather, it is amateur-hour again at the White House, with Rice acting as the president's personal secretary under instruction to do what Cheney, Rumsfeld, and the neo-cons tell her to do. The results have been entirely predictable. Seldom before has Washington been so widely seen to be joined at the hip to an Israel on the rampage. Seldom has US stock in the region sunk to such depths as it did last week, with civilian casualties in Lebanon piling up (literally) and with Rice joining Israel in rejecting appeals for an immediate cease-fire on grounds that it must be "sustainable." Policy and performance alike have been myopic in the extreme, and have resulted in an embarrassing US setback from which it will take decades to recover. The ramifications are region-wide; but looking at Lebanon alone, one of my former CIA colleagues observed:
"The irony in all this is that Israel has an interest in a multicultural Lebanon and not an Islamist Lebanon, and the high hopes for the former are being dashed."
Meanwhile Back in Baghdad - More "Last Throes"
In terms of those killed, Iraq was even more violent than Lebanon over the past week, but Western media put Iraqi developments on the back burner.
-Last Tuesday, President Bush told the press, "Obviously, the violence in Baghdad is still terrible, and therefore there needs to be more troops." Bush observed that: "Conditions change inside a country. And the question is: Are we going to be facile enough (sic) to change with [them]." Some 4,000 US troops are being sent from elsewhere in Iraq to reinforce Baghdad. Senator Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) noted on July 28 that this "reverses last month's decision to have Iraqi forces take the lead in Baghdad ... and represents a dramatic setback for the US and the Iraqi government." Highly respected military analyst Anthony Cordesman has expressed the same view.
Secretary Rumsfeld approved General George Casey's request to extend the Iraq tour of a 3,700-strong Stryker brigade, which had been scheduled to return to the US this summer. And the Pentagon announced that the number of US troops in Iraq rose last week to 132,000 - the highest level since May. In a command performance in June, General Casey reportedly gave Bush a plan for withdrawing 7,000 troops before the mid-term elections - a plan that may now be overtaken by events.
Whether he intended to or not, National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley, also fielding questions from the press, virtually redefined the mission of US troops. Addressing what he called the "new challenge," Hadley said, "This isn't about insurgency. This isn't about terror. This is about sectarian violence." The number of sectarian killings has doubled since the start of the year. Press reports indicate that many Sunnis are even afraid to go out to retrieve the bodies of relatives in Baghdad's overflowing morgues, lest they too become prey to Shia militia. The very large unanswered question: Is that why our troops lie exposed in the middle - to stop Iraqis from killing one another?
Richard Armitage, who was Secretary Colin Powell's deputy at the State Department, warned that bringing in more troops at this late stage may prove to be "too little too late, and that the US will turn into a bystander in an Iraqi civil war it does not have sufficient resources to prevent." Western press reports suggest that this may already be the case; with virtually everyone below the rank of general admitting that lack of troops is a major problem. At the same time, it is universally recognized that requesting more troops would sound the death knell for one's career.
One key Shia leader has objected to the deployment of additional US forces to Baghdad, and Shia militias are increasingly clashing with US troops. The Shia militias are also using more effective, armor-piercing IUDs. US officers have expressed concern over what the Shia might do in reaction to the US green light for Israeli attacks on Lebanon. Colonel Patrick Lang (USA, ret.) has expressed grave concern over the vulnerability of US supply lines from Kuwait into the Iraqi heartland, and Iran's ability to stir up the Shia in that area.
Former adviser to the US occupation authority in Iraq, Michael Rubin of the American Enterprise Institute, has said, "The Shia-led Interior Ministry is out of control." There is a strong move afoot in the Iraqi Parliament to replace the interior minister.
Otherwise, all is going according to plan - or so the Bush administration and FOX News Channel would have us believe. It has become increasingly difficult to put a positive spin on all this. Now and again, out of desperation, a PR person will reach for the all-too-familiar chestnut: "We have not once been defeated in battle."
Many years ago, Army Colonel Harry Summers learned the hard way not to use this one. At the end of the war in Vietnam, Summers received orders to negotiate with North Vietnamese Army Colonel Tu the terms of the withdrawal of US forces from Vietnam. Summers could not resist reminding Tu, "You know you never beat us on the battlefield." Colonel Tu paused for a moment: "That may be so," he said. "But also irrelevant."
Many of us in Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) have been writing and shouting for 33 months that this war is UNWINNABLE. It is now time for Americans interested in justice, sanity and peace to draw the appropriate conclusions and summon the courage to stick our necks out. For it is simply not right to ask our troops in Iraq to play referee between factions and "stay the course" for us, on the off chance we might get lucky and "reshape the entire region."
--------
Ray McGovern is on the Steering Group of VIPS. He draws on his experience as an Army infantry and intelligence officer and a 27-year career as a CIA analyst. He now works with Tell the Word, the publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in Washington, DC.
Wrap...
Sadly, the Plural of "Fiasco" Requires No "E"
By Ray McGovern
t r u t h o u t Perspective
Tuesday 01 August 2006
But the world desperately needs an "E" for EXIT from the march of folly toward a wider Middle East war that is increasingly likely to result from plural US foreign policy fiascos - in Iraq, Israel and Lebanon, for starters; in Syria and Iran for the next stage. Fortunately, Webster's does allow the insertion of an "E" and that's precisely what we must now do. We need to make a prompt exit from the endless string of fiascoes that have the Middle East marching to calamity.
If we do not take a sober look beyond the carnage of the last few weeks and weigh the reaction of still others in and outside the region, I fear there will be no exit. Perhaps it would be wise to start with a brief review: Who led our march into this modern-day Valley of Death?
Ideologues and Amateurs
Let's begin with the new people and policies that President George W. Bush brought in with him when he took office on January 20, 2001. Who urged on him what Michael O'Hanlon of Brookings calls "the huge mistake of giving Israel a blank check?" Who played the leading roles in encouraging Bush to let slip the dogs of war on Iraq?
Honors for the leading role in the category of fiasco goes, ex aequo, to Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld - the "Cheney-Rumsfeld cabal," as described by Colin Powell's chief of staff at the State Department, Col. Lawrence Wilkerson (USA, ret.). At an award ceremony, the cabal no doubt would offer copious thanks to key members of the cast - first and foremost, ideologues Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith. The Oscar for best actress in a supporting role goes to Condoleezza Rice.
It was five and a half years ago that Rice was formally initiated into the neo-conservative brotherhood as an auxiliary. Her most important service was greasing the skids for the brothers to try to shoehorn into reality their ambitious but naive dreams of using war to ensure total US/Israeli domination of the Middle East. At the new administration's first National Security Council meeting on January 30, 2001, then-national security adviser Rice stage-managed formal approval of two profound changes in decades-long US policy toward Israel-Palestine and Iraq. Thanks to Paul O'Neill, confirmed as treasury secretary just hours before the NSC meeting, we have a first-hand account.
The neo-cons had already gotten to the new president, for he began with the abrupt announcement that he was ditching the policy of past presidents who tried to honestly broker an end to the violence between Palestinians and Israelis. Rather, the president said the US would now tilt sharply toward Israel. Most importantly, Bush made it clear that he would let then-Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon resolve the conflict as he saw fit. The US would no longer "interfere."
Powell: Dead Man Walking
According to O'Neill, Secretary of State Colin Powell seemed "startled," and warned that US disengagement would unleash Sharon and the Israeli army. Bush shrugged dismissively, adding, "Sometimes a show of strength by one side can really clarify things."
After his requiem for the decades of US sweat and blood expended on the effort to work out a solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict, the president turned immediately to Iraq. Rice led off by reciting the received wisdom of the neo-cons (I still wonder how many of them actually believed it...) that, "Iraq might be the key to reshaping the entire region." Whereupon, at her request, then-CIA Director George Tenet displayed a grainy overhead image of a factory in Iraq that he happened to have with him. Tenet thought the factory "might" be associated with a chemical or biological weapons program, but that association could not be confirmed. No problem. The conversation immediately turned from this typically Tenet-ative "intelligence" to the question of which Iraqi targets to begin bombing.
O'Neill, just inducted into the cabinet but not into the neo-conservative brotherhood, was understandably nonplussed. He says he found it all quite curious and left the meeting convinced that, for reasons never fully explained, "getting Hussein was now the administration's focus."
The twin decisions of (1) To "tilt" more decidedly toward Israel and (2) to prepare to attack Iraq were right out of a blueprint drafted in 1996 by a small group of Americans and Israelis, including arch-neo-conservatives Richard Perle and Douglas Feith. Shortly after the January 30 NSC meeting, the two were given influential posts in the Department of Defense directly under Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his deputy, Paul Wolfowitz - Perle as chair of the powerful Defense Policy Board and Feith as undersecretary of defense for policy (#3 in the defense hierarchy). The policy's prescriptive blueprint, titled, "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm," had been prepared originally for Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, but it proved to be too extreme even for him. No matter. As the new Bush administration took shape, Perle and Feith retrieved the mothballed study, made an end-run around the hapless Powell, and sold it to Vice President Dick Cheney, Rumsfeld and Bush
Dr. Rice Becomes Dr. No
There is a certain poetic justice in the fact that Rice, now secretary of state, is reaping the whirlwind. She has been trapped in the extremely awkward position of having to say "No" to a cease-fire to stop the burgeoning violence, and then being mocked by the Israelis who openly violated the cease-fire they had promised her.
Still an innocent abroad, Rice has loyally played piano accompaniment for the neo-con hit song, "Reshaping the Entire Region." She has, for example, described the violence in Lebanon and Israel as "the birth pangs of a new Middle East." On Friday, President Bush declared, "This is a moment of intense conflict ... yet our aim is to turn it into a moment of opportunity and a chance for broader change in the region."
Bush's remark elicited uncharacteristically acerbic ridicule from Richard Haass, who served under Bush as head of policy planning at the State Department. (Yes, this is the same Haass who in July 2002 begged Rice for an appointment with the president, whom he wanted to warn of the folly of invading Iraq. Rice reportedly told him, "The decision's been made; don't waste your breath.") Referring to Bush's remarks on Friday, Haass, now head of the Council on Foreign Relations, laughed at the president's optimism, according to a report by Peter Baker in yesterday's Washington Post. "That's the funniest thing I've heard in a long time," said Haass. "If this is an opportunity, what's Iraq? A once-in-a-lifetime chance?"
It is far from funny. Rather, it is amateur-hour again at the White House, with Rice acting as the president's personal secretary under instruction to do what Cheney, Rumsfeld, and the neo-cons tell her to do. The results have been entirely predictable. Seldom before has Washington been so widely seen to be joined at the hip to an Israel on the rampage. Seldom has US stock in the region sunk to such depths as it did last week, with civilian casualties in Lebanon piling up (literally) and with Rice joining Israel in rejecting appeals for an immediate cease-fire on grounds that it must be "sustainable." Policy and performance alike have been myopic in the extreme, and have resulted in an embarrassing US setback from which it will take decades to recover. The ramifications are region-wide; but looking at Lebanon alone, one of my former CIA colleagues observed:
"The irony in all this is that Israel has an interest in a multicultural Lebanon and not an Islamist Lebanon, and the high hopes for the former are being dashed."
Meanwhile Back in Baghdad - More "Last Throes"
In terms of those killed, Iraq was even more violent than Lebanon over the past week, but Western media put Iraqi developments on the back burner.
-Last Tuesday, President Bush told the press, "Obviously, the violence in Baghdad is still terrible, and therefore there needs to be more troops." Bush observed that: "Conditions change inside a country. And the question is: Are we going to be facile enough (sic) to change with [them]." Some 4,000 US troops are being sent from elsewhere in Iraq to reinforce Baghdad. Senator Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) noted on July 28 that this "reverses last month's decision to have Iraqi forces take the lead in Baghdad ... and represents a dramatic setback for the US and the Iraqi government." Highly respected military analyst Anthony Cordesman has expressed the same view.
Secretary Rumsfeld approved General George Casey's request to extend the Iraq tour of a 3,700-strong Stryker brigade, which had been scheduled to return to the US this summer. And the Pentagon announced that the number of US troops in Iraq rose last week to 132,000 - the highest level since May. In a command performance in June, General Casey reportedly gave Bush a plan for withdrawing 7,000 troops before the mid-term elections - a plan that may now be overtaken by events.
Whether he intended to or not, National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley, also fielding questions from the press, virtually redefined the mission of US troops. Addressing what he called the "new challenge," Hadley said, "This isn't about insurgency. This isn't about terror. This is about sectarian violence." The number of sectarian killings has doubled since the start of the year. Press reports indicate that many Sunnis are even afraid to go out to retrieve the bodies of relatives in Baghdad's overflowing morgues, lest they too become prey to Shia militia. The very large unanswered question: Is that why our troops lie exposed in the middle - to stop Iraqis from killing one another?
Richard Armitage, who was Secretary Colin Powell's deputy at the State Department, warned that bringing in more troops at this late stage may prove to be "too little too late, and that the US will turn into a bystander in an Iraqi civil war it does not have sufficient resources to prevent." Western press reports suggest that this may already be the case; with virtually everyone below the rank of general admitting that lack of troops is a major problem. At the same time, it is universally recognized that requesting more troops would sound the death knell for one's career.
One key Shia leader has objected to the deployment of additional US forces to Baghdad, and Shia militias are increasingly clashing with US troops. The Shia militias are also using more effective, armor-piercing IUDs. US officers have expressed concern over what the Shia might do in reaction to the US green light for Israeli attacks on Lebanon. Colonel Patrick Lang (USA, ret.) has expressed grave concern over the vulnerability of US supply lines from Kuwait into the Iraqi heartland, and Iran's ability to stir up the Shia in that area.
Former adviser to the US occupation authority in Iraq, Michael Rubin of the American Enterprise Institute, has said, "The Shia-led Interior Ministry is out of control." There is a strong move afoot in the Iraqi Parliament to replace the interior minister.
Otherwise, all is going according to plan - or so the Bush administration and FOX News Channel would have us believe. It has become increasingly difficult to put a positive spin on all this. Now and again, out of desperation, a PR person will reach for the all-too-familiar chestnut: "We have not once been defeated in battle."
Many years ago, Army Colonel Harry Summers learned the hard way not to use this one. At the end of the war in Vietnam, Summers received orders to negotiate with North Vietnamese Army Colonel Tu the terms of the withdrawal of US forces from Vietnam. Summers could not resist reminding Tu, "You know you never beat us on the battlefield." Colonel Tu paused for a moment: "That may be so," he said. "But also irrelevant."
Many of us in Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) have been writing and shouting for 33 months that this war is UNWINNABLE. It is now time for Americans interested in justice, sanity and peace to draw the appropriate conclusions and summon the courage to stick our necks out. For it is simply not right to ask our troops in Iraq to play referee between factions and "stay the course" for us, on the off chance we might get lucky and "reshape the entire region."
--------
Ray McGovern is on the Steering Group of VIPS. He draws on his experience as an Army infantry and intelligence officer and a 27-year career as a CIA analyst. He now works with Tell the Word, the publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in Washington, DC.
Wrap...
KPMG helps millionaires cheat on taxes....
From the NY Times:
Tax Cheats Called Out of Control
By DAVID CAY JOHNSTON
Published: August 1, 2006
So many superrich Americans evade taxes using offshore accounts that law enforcement cannot control the growing misconduct, according to a Senate report that provides the most detailed look ever at high-level tax schemes.
Senator Carl Levin discussed tax abuses at a briefing Monday in Washington. Cheating accounts for as much as $70 billion a year.
Among the billionaires cited in the report are the owner of the New York Jets football team, Robert Wood Johnson IV; the producer of the “Mighty Morphin Power Rangers” children’s show, Haim Saban; and two Texas businessmen, Charles and Sam Wyly, who the Center for Public Integrity found in 2000 were the ninth-largest contributors to President Bush.
Mr. Johnson and Mr. Saban, who are portrayed as victims in the report, are scheduled to testify today before the Senate Permanent Investigations subcommittee. They are expected to say that professional advisers assured them their deals to avoid taxes were more likely lawful than not. The Wyly brothers told the committee that they would invoke their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and thus were not called to testify. The report characterizes them as active participants in tax schemes.
Cheating now equals about 7 cents out of each dollar paid by honest taxpayers, as much as $70 billion a year, the report estimated.
“The universe of offshore tax cheating has become so large that no one, not even the United States government, could go after all of it,” said Senator Carl Levin, the Michigan Democrat whose staff ran the investigation.
Senator Norm Coleman, the Minnesota Republican who is chairman of the subcommittee, adopted the minority report on Sunday as the product of the full committee.
The report details how the Quellos Group, a tax shelter boutique based in Seattle, “concocted a tax shelter” using $9.6 billion “worth of fake securities transactions that were used to generate billions of dollars of fake capital losses.”
Senator Levin said that when investigators asked for trading records they were first told the trades were private, over-the-counter transactions. He said investigators asked for trading tickets or other evidence of who owned the $9.6 billion worth of stock and were told the stocks were never owned by the parties involved.
“They just wrote down numbers on paper and claimed losses,” he said. “It was just like fantasy baseball, except the taxes not paid were for real.”
Quellos, in a statement, said, “we fundamentally disagree with the report, which presents a one-sided view.” It said the transactions, which the Senate committee describes as fabrications, were real and involved “a significant possibility of economic gain and loss.”
The investigation, which took 18 months, involved 74 subpoenas, 80 interviews and the collection of more than two million documents, and yet Senator Levin said “the six cases we present are just examples, just a pinhole look.”
The 400-page report recommends eight changes, some of them aimed at going after the law and accounting firms, banks and investment advisers that the report says enable tax schemes that rely on complexity, secrecy and compartmentalizing information so that advisers can claim they had no idea that the overall transaction was a fraud.
“We need to significantly strengthen the aiding and abetting statutes to get at the lawyers and accountants and other advisers who enable this cheating,” Senator Levin said, adding that “we need major changes in law to stop the use of tax havens” by tax cheats.
It also recommends new rules that strip away the underlying legal presumptions that make offshore tax havens like the Cayman Islands, Nevis, the Isle of Man and Panama attractive places for Americans to hide assets and income from the Internal Revenue Service.
Senator Levin said the law “should assume that any transaction in a tax haven is a sham.”
He said that during the investigation he grew angry as he learned how common cheating had become and how existing government rules aided tax cheats. He said that complex schemes were broken into discrete pieces, allowing professional advisers working on each piece to assert that they had no idea that, taken as a whole, a scheme was improper.
“I get incensed by people who use tax havens to not pay their taxes while the average guy has to pay his taxes because they are taken out of his pay before he gets it,” he said.
Both Mr. Johnson, the football team owner and scion of the Johnson & Johnson health care fortune, and Mr. Saban, the television mogul, are portrayed in the report as victims.
The two men, through representatives, said yesterday that they relied on professional advisers who told them the transactions were lawful, and that they were now settling with the Internal Revenue Service.
Mr. Johnson, known as Woody, told Senate investigators two weeks ago that to buy the Jets in 1999 he had to sell assets, incurring the 20 percent tax on long-term capital gains in effect at the time. He said that a way to defer the tax was proposed by Larry B. Scheinfeld, who had been his accountant at KPMG until he joined Quellos, where he worked closely with Chuck Wilk, a tax lawyer.
The technique involved a complex set of circular transactions using what the Senate report characterized as sham corporations in the Isle of Man with shell corporations given names like Jackstones. Their ownership was kept secret.
“Ain’t capitalism great!” Mr. Wilk wrote to Mr. Scheinfeld in an e-mail message extolling the tax benefits of the Johnson deal. Three weeks later, when the deal was set, Mr. Scheinfeld wrote back: “I just hope Woody doesn’t get cold feet or have the I.R.S. select his return for an audit!”
The report details a scheme created for Mr. Saban to avoid more than $300 million in taxes from sale of his half interest in the Family Channel and related properties.
Mr. Saban told Senate investigators that he never understood the transactions but undertook them after asking two questions of Mr. Wilk and his personal tax lawyer, Matthew Krane.
Mr. Saban said he asked whether the deals were legal and whether a major law firm would certify them as proper. The two lawyers, Mr. Saban said, answered “yes to both,” so he went ahead.
Later, when Mr. Saban learned that he had paid $54 million in fees to Quellos; Cravath Swaine & Moore, a New York law firm; and others for what turned out to be what the report described as fake transactions, he said he felt “misled, lied to and cheated.”
Lewis R. Steinberg, who as a Cravath Swaine partner helped design the deal and wrote an opinion letter attesting that it was more likely than not to work as a tax shelter, told Senate investigators last week that he relied on assurances from Quellos and Mr. Johnson that real transactions took place, not fake trades. Mr. Steinberg, who is now at UBS Securities, another firm named in the report, is a prominent tax lawyer and in 2004 was chairman of the tax section of the American Bar Association.
The report also dissects deals by the Wyly brothers of Texas, showing how they made at least $190 million through stock option exercises offshore but had yet to pay taxes on most of the money. They then borrowed against their offshore accounts to buy jewelry, pay for portraits of family members, buy homes and operate properties named Rosemary’s Circle R Ranch, LL Ranch, Stargate Horse Farm, Cottonwood Galleries and 36 Malibu Colony.
Senator Levin said he might propose limiting or barring the transferring of executive stock options to others, as well as more disclosure when they are exercised.
The report says that Credit Suisse First Boston, Lehman Brothers and Bank of America “all knew that the offshore entities” for which they made trades were associated with the Wylys, but ignored rules requiring disclosure of these transactions and helped them hide the true ownership of the assets. Only when Robert M. Morgenthau, the New York District attorney, issued subpoenas in 2004 did Bank of America close the Wyly accounts.
William Brewer, a Dallas lawyer for the Wylys, said that while the Senate report “intends to present a balanced view, the committee report is reflective of a number of misunderstandings.”
“The Wylys believe they have paid all taxes due,” he added. “And in any event, as the report makes clear, the Wylys were counseled by an armada of lawyers, brokers, financial professionals and offshore service providers to ensure that they were at all times fully meeting their obligations.”
Wrap...
Tax Cheats Called Out of Control
By DAVID CAY JOHNSTON
Published: August 1, 2006
So many superrich Americans evade taxes using offshore accounts that law enforcement cannot control the growing misconduct, according to a Senate report that provides the most detailed look ever at high-level tax schemes.
Senator Carl Levin discussed tax abuses at a briefing Monday in Washington. Cheating accounts for as much as $70 billion a year.
Among the billionaires cited in the report are the owner of the New York Jets football team, Robert Wood Johnson IV; the producer of the “Mighty Morphin Power Rangers” children’s show, Haim Saban; and two Texas businessmen, Charles and Sam Wyly, who the Center for Public Integrity found in 2000 were the ninth-largest contributors to President Bush.
Mr. Johnson and Mr. Saban, who are portrayed as victims in the report, are scheduled to testify today before the Senate Permanent Investigations subcommittee. They are expected to say that professional advisers assured them their deals to avoid taxes were more likely lawful than not. The Wyly brothers told the committee that they would invoke their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and thus were not called to testify. The report characterizes them as active participants in tax schemes.
Cheating now equals about 7 cents out of each dollar paid by honest taxpayers, as much as $70 billion a year, the report estimated.
“The universe of offshore tax cheating has become so large that no one, not even the United States government, could go after all of it,” said Senator Carl Levin, the Michigan Democrat whose staff ran the investigation.
Senator Norm Coleman, the Minnesota Republican who is chairman of the subcommittee, adopted the minority report on Sunday as the product of the full committee.
The report details how the Quellos Group, a tax shelter boutique based in Seattle, “concocted a tax shelter” using $9.6 billion “worth of fake securities transactions that were used to generate billions of dollars of fake capital losses.”
Senator Levin said that when investigators asked for trading records they were first told the trades were private, over-the-counter transactions. He said investigators asked for trading tickets or other evidence of who owned the $9.6 billion worth of stock and were told the stocks were never owned by the parties involved.
“They just wrote down numbers on paper and claimed losses,” he said. “It was just like fantasy baseball, except the taxes not paid were for real.”
Quellos, in a statement, said, “we fundamentally disagree with the report, which presents a one-sided view.” It said the transactions, which the Senate committee describes as fabrications, were real and involved “a significant possibility of economic gain and loss.”
The investigation, which took 18 months, involved 74 subpoenas, 80 interviews and the collection of more than two million documents, and yet Senator Levin said “the six cases we present are just examples, just a pinhole look.”
The 400-page report recommends eight changes, some of them aimed at going after the law and accounting firms, banks and investment advisers that the report says enable tax schemes that rely on complexity, secrecy and compartmentalizing information so that advisers can claim they had no idea that the overall transaction was a fraud.
“We need to significantly strengthen the aiding and abetting statutes to get at the lawyers and accountants and other advisers who enable this cheating,” Senator Levin said, adding that “we need major changes in law to stop the use of tax havens” by tax cheats.
It also recommends new rules that strip away the underlying legal presumptions that make offshore tax havens like the Cayman Islands, Nevis, the Isle of Man and Panama attractive places for Americans to hide assets and income from the Internal Revenue Service.
Senator Levin said the law “should assume that any transaction in a tax haven is a sham.”
He said that during the investigation he grew angry as he learned how common cheating had become and how existing government rules aided tax cheats. He said that complex schemes were broken into discrete pieces, allowing professional advisers working on each piece to assert that they had no idea that, taken as a whole, a scheme was improper.
“I get incensed by people who use tax havens to not pay their taxes while the average guy has to pay his taxes because they are taken out of his pay before he gets it,” he said.
Both Mr. Johnson, the football team owner and scion of the Johnson & Johnson health care fortune, and Mr. Saban, the television mogul, are portrayed in the report as victims.
The two men, through representatives, said yesterday that they relied on professional advisers who told them the transactions were lawful, and that they were now settling with the Internal Revenue Service.
Mr. Johnson, known as Woody, told Senate investigators two weeks ago that to buy the Jets in 1999 he had to sell assets, incurring the 20 percent tax on long-term capital gains in effect at the time. He said that a way to defer the tax was proposed by Larry B. Scheinfeld, who had been his accountant at KPMG until he joined Quellos, where he worked closely with Chuck Wilk, a tax lawyer.
The technique involved a complex set of circular transactions using what the Senate report characterized as sham corporations in the Isle of Man with shell corporations given names like Jackstones. Their ownership was kept secret.
“Ain’t capitalism great!” Mr. Wilk wrote to Mr. Scheinfeld in an e-mail message extolling the tax benefits of the Johnson deal. Three weeks later, when the deal was set, Mr. Scheinfeld wrote back: “I just hope Woody doesn’t get cold feet or have the I.R.S. select his return for an audit!”
The report details a scheme created for Mr. Saban to avoid more than $300 million in taxes from sale of his half interest in the Family Channel and related properties.
Mr. Saban told Senate investigators that he never understood the transactions but undertook them after asking two questions of Mr. Wilk and his personal tax lawyer, Matthew Krane.
Mr. Saban said he asked whether the deals were legal and whether a major law firm would certify them as proper. The two lawyers, Mr. Saban said, answered “yes to both,” so he went ahead.
Later, when Mr. Saban learned that he had paid $54 million in fees to Quellos; Cravath Swaine & Moore, a New York law firm; and others for what turned out to be what the report described as fake transactions, he said he felt “misled, lied to and cheated.”
Lewis R. Steinberg, who as a Cravath Swaine partner helped design the deal and wrote an opinion letter attesting that it was more likely than not to work as a tax shelter, told Senate investigators last week that he relied on assurances from Quellos and Mr. Johnson that real transactions took place, not fake trades. Mr. Steinberg, who is now at UBS Securities, another firm named in the report, is a prominent tax lawyer and in 2004 was chairman of the tax section of the American Bar Association.
The report also dissects deals by the Wyly brothers of Texas, showing how they made at least $190 million through stock option exercises offshore but had yet to pay taxes on most of the money. They then borrowed against their offshore accounts to buy jewelry, pay for portraits of family members, buy homes and operate properties named Rosemary’s Circle R Ranch, LL Ranch, Stargate Horse Farm, Cottonwood Galleries and 36 Malibu Colony.
Senator Levin said he might propose limiting or barring the transferring of executive stock options to others, as well as more disclosure when they are exercised.
The report says that Credit Suisse First Boston, Lehman Brothers and Bank of America “all knew that the offshore entities” for which they made trades were associated with the Wylys, but ignored rules requiring disclosure of these transactions and helped them hide the true ownership of the assets. Only when Robert M. Morgenthau, the New York District attorney, issued subpoenas in 2004 did Bank of America close the Wyly accounts.
William Brewer, a Dallas lawyer for the Wylys, said that while the Senate report “intends to present a balanced view, the committee report is reflective of a number of misunderstandings.”
“The Wylys believe they have paid all taxes due,” he added. “And in any event, as the report makes clear, the Wylys were counseled by an armada of lawyers, brokers, financial professionals and offshore service providers to ensure that they were at all times fully meeting their obligations.”
Wrap...
Israel vs Hezbollah..Outcome in doubt....
From Strategic Forecasting, Inc:
Special Report: The Ground Offensive
By George Friedman
Israeli forces are well into their main ground offensive into Lebanon. It is difficult to hide a strategic offensive of this size, but Israel has made no attempt to hide this one at all. The three-week air offensive, followed by the pseudo cease-fire and disagreements in the Israeli Cabinet on strategy, made it necessary for Israel literally to announce its offensive. Ultimately, this gave Hezbollah little advantage. It might have wanted to halt fighting at this point, but it certainly knew that for precisely this reason Israel would have to intensify the fighting. There might be elements of tactical surprise, but strategic surprise is gone.
Hezbollah is now fighting the war it wanted and prepared for. Its forces are well-dispersed and dug into bunkers. Supplies for extended combat have undoubtedly been distributed in these strongholds so they require no re-supply. Certainly the Israelis will do everything they can to prevent it. Command has clearly devolved to the lowest possible unit, so contact with central headquarters is not necessary for fighting. Hezbollah is not going to be engaged in maneuver. It will fight where it stands. As we have said before, the strategy looks more like the way the Japanese defended Pacific islands against the U.S. Marines during World War II than anything else.
Hezbollah fighters are defending in depth from interlocking strong points. They have constructed these strong points in order to survive artillery and airstrikes. They are forcing the Israelis to close with the strong points and take them in close combat. The Japanese did not necessarily expect to survive the battles. Their goal was to inflict disproportionate casualties on the attacking troops in order to force reconsideration of the strategy of island-hopping and set the stage for a political settlement. The Japanese failed because they underestimated the U.S. capacity for absorbing casualties and the size of the force available. But the strategy, while ineffective, was based on a real confidence that their own forces would be willing to engage in battles of annihilation when it was their own annihilation that was certain, and when their mission was to delay and impose casualties on the enemy.
There are many differences here, but Hezbollah's core strategy appears to be the same. Its deployment has enormous value if its forces are prepared to fight to the end, imposing time penalties and casualties on Israel. If its strong points can hold out for extended periods of time, some of them firing missiles at Israel, then the Israelis have no option but to close and engage in intense sequential firefights that will take time and cost lives. If it can fight a battle of annihilation yet delay and hurt the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), Hezbollah might well force a political settlement. If not, it can still gain a political victory by being the first Arab force to force Israel into high attrition combat.
Therefore, Israel's strategy must be twofold. First, it must end the war with the catastrophic destruction of Hezbollah's military capability. It could survive as a political force, but its military strength, and therefore its coercive presence in Lebanon, must be ended.
Second, Israel must do this in a time frame and at a cost in casualties that does not allow Hezbollah to claim victory regardless of the consequences to its own forces.
Third, it must carry out this operation before U.S. political interests in the region (pressure from allies in Iraq, the Saudis and so forth) force the United States to compel Israel to agree to a genuine cease-fire, as opposed to the pseudo cease-fire engineered by U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that actually bought Israel more time.
In other words, Hezbollah's strategy is to force Israel to fight a war that takes as long as possible, using Israeli time urgency to force Israel to move rapidly against strong points incurring maximum casualties.
Israel's strategy is to use its greater mobility and firepower to break Hezbollah as quickly as possible with minimum casualties. The issue is how well-prepared Hezbollah's defenses actually are and how well-motivated its troops are after a three-week bombing campaign. How long can Hezbollah maintain its tempo of operations on a tactical level?
Israel's strength is in its firepower and its mobility. Its mobility has value primarily when fighting against a force with a substantial logistical tail. Cutting nonexistent supply lines against a force that has its supplies organically attached to it does not allow encirclement to take place. This limits the utility of dynamic mobile operations in most senses. There is one sense, however, that allows this to go on.
One of Israel's strategic goals, apart from crushing Hezbollah, is eliminating Hezbollah's ability to fire rockets and missiles into Israel, and particularly to Haifa and points south. It is difficult to know precisely the range of Hezbollah's rockets and missiles and how many they have, but it is clear that simply attacking Lebanon south of the Litani River will not solve that problem. To guarantee an end to rocket attacks, we estimate Israel will have to push Hezbollah back to Riyaq to end the threat from Zelzal-2 rockets, to Baalbek to protect Tel Aviv, and to Hermel to protect Haifa. To protect against the Fajr-5, Israel will have to push as deep as 10 miles north of the Litani along the coast. It is possible to bomb launchers and storage sites, and Israel can hit what it knows about, but the problem is it cannot have certain knowledge of what it knows unless it goes in on the ground. Intelligence is never as good as going and seeing.
This means if Israel wants to destroy all of Hezbollah's military force and destroy existing threats from rockets, it will have to do more than attack Lebanon south of the Litani. It will have to go deep into the Bekaa Valley and it will have to go north of the Litani along the coast. Logic has it that Israel would therefore attempt to encircle south Lebanon along the Litani and move into the Bekaa Valley and north along the coast to isolate Hezbollah from support before dealing with intense fighting in southern Lebanon.
This poses obvious logistical problems, since two armored thrusts would have to be supported by relatively few roads leading out of the Israeli panhandle in the north; Israel would want to capture roads in southeastern Lebanon near Metulla in preparation for such a thrust. It appears (and this is from far away) that is what Israel is doing. Israeli troops are engaged in four separate locations across southern Lebanon, and have reportedly pushed as deep as several miles past the Lebanese border. IDF units remain in Maroun al-Ras, although the town of Bent Jbail has reportedly been devastated and abandoned. Paratroopers are in Aita el-Shaab to the west, where Hezbollah has said there is house-to-house fighting; four Hezbollah fighters were reportedly killed. The Golani and Nahal brigades continue to battle Hezbollah in the villages of Al Adisa, Kfar Kila and Taibe, with reports of fighting as far north as Marjayoun.
Approximately 60 IDF D9 armored Caterpillar bulldozers are flattening abandoned Hezbollah positions across southern Lebanon. An Israeli airstrike targeted a westbound road out of Hermel with five air-to-surface missiles in the northern Bekaa Valley. The main border crossing from Beirut to Damascus at Masnaa was also struck.
These are fragmentary reports available by wire services. They are far from defining what is happening on the ground. But what seems to be happening is the IDF is engaging forces in the south carefully while action is taking place in the east and west. The remaining strategic question is whether Israel will focus on southern Lebanon and leave the missile threat and a large part of Hezbollah forces out of its plans, or whether it will drive into the Bekaa and up the coast to deal with Hezbollah in detail.
It would seem to us that this would give Israel the maximum advantage, dealing with Hezbollah more completely, taking advantage of its greater mobility and air power and using artillery and airstrikes to grind down Hezbollah and attempt to break its morale in the south. What is unknown, of course, is the disposition and capabilities of Hezbollah north of the Litani and in the Bekaa. We suspect the Israelis might find the same resistance in the Bekaa as in the border region.
In the long run, the correlation of forces dictates Israeli victory. But there are other variables.
Time and casualties could turn a military success into a political defeat for Israel. Moreover, if the outcome of the attack is that Israel is forced to occupy Lebanese territory for an extended period of time, then the cost of counterinsurgency operations mount. Israel's strategy is clear. Move in fast, deal a catastrophic blow to Hezbollah, withdraw leaving the Lebanese army or a European peacekeeping force in its place. Hezbollah has drawn Israel in. It expects a catastrophic blow but its intention is to impose tremendous costs on Israel and then create a situation in which peacekeeping forces will not deploy, forcing Israel into a counterinsurgency.
So, the questions now are whether Israel moves north of the Litani, how long Hezbollah will resist and what the cost will be to Israel. Gen. Dan Halutz, chief of staff of the IDF and architect of that air campaign, was hospitalized for the second time July 31, complaining of stomach pains. Should Halutz go out of commission, his deputy, Moshe Kaplinsky, will take command. Kaplinsky is drawn from army, having commanded the Golani Brigade, with long experience in Lebanon. This brings expertise on ground warfare to the top spot in the IDF, particularly in combined infantry-armored operations in Lebanon.
Israel has focused down on the main battle now. Hezbollah has been focused for a while. As the cliche goes, the outcome is in doubt, in large part because like all wars, the end of this one is political -- and the intersection of the political with the military complicates the war enormously.
Send questions or comments on this article to analysis@stratfor.com.
Wrap...
Special Report: The Ground Offensive
By George Friedman
Israeli forces are well into their main ground offensive into Lebanon. It is difficult to hide a strategic offensive of this size, but Israel has made no attempt to hide this one at all. The three-week air offensive, followed by the pseudo cease-fire and disagreements in the Israeli Cabinet on strategy, made it necessary for Israel literally to announce its offensive. Ultimately, this gave Hezbollah little advantage. It might have wanted to halt fighting at this point, but it certainly knew that for precisely this reason Israel would have to intensify the fighting. There might be elements of tactical surprise, but strategic surprise is gone.
Hezbollah is now fighting the war it wanted and prepared for. Its forces are well-dispersed and dug into bunkers. Supplies for extended combat have undoubtedly been distributed in these strongholds so they require no re-supply. Certainly the Israelis will do everything they can to prevent it. Command has clearly devolved to the lowest possible unit, so contact with central headquarters is not necessary for fighting. Hezbollah is not going to be engaged in maneuver. It will fight where it stands. As we have said before, the strategy looks more like the way the Japanese defended Pacific islands against the U.S. Marines during World War II than anything else.
Hezbollah fighters are defending in depth from interlocking strong points. They have constructed these strong points in order to survive artillery and airstrikes. They are forcing the Israelis to close with the strong points and take them in close combat. The Japanese did not necessarily expect to survive the battles. Their goal was to inflict disproportionate casualties on the attacking troops in order to force reconsideration of the strategy of island-hopping and set the stage for a political settlement. The Japanese failed because they underestimated the U.S. capacity for absorbing casualties and the size of the force available. But the strategy, while ineffective, was based on a real confidence that their own forces would be willing to engage in battles of annihilation when it was their own annihilation that was certain, and when their mission was to delay and impose casualties on the enemy.
There are many differences here, but Hezbollah's core strategy appears to be the same. Its deployment has enormous value if its forces are prepared to fight to the end, imposing time penalties and casualties on Israel. If its strong points can hold out for extended periods of time, some of them firing missiles at Israel, then the Israelis have no option but to close and engage in intense sequential firefights that will take time and cost lives. If it can fight a battle of annihilation yet delay and hurt the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), Hezbollah might well force a political settlement. If not, it can still gain a political victory by being the first Arab force to force Israel into high attrition combat.
Therefore, Israel's strategy must be twofold. First, it must end the war with the catastrophic destruction of Hezbollah's military capability. It could survive as a political force, but its military strength, and therefore its coercive presence in Lebanon, must be ended.
Second, Israel must do this in a time frame and at a cost in casualties that does not allow Hezbollah to claim victory regardless of the consequences to its own forces.
Third, it must carry out this operation before U.S. political interests in the region (pressure from allies in Iraq, the Saudis and so forth) force the United States to compel Israel to agree to a genuine cease-fire, as opposed to the pseudo cease-fire engineered by U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that actually bought Israel more time.
In other words, Hezbollah's strategy is to force Israel to fight a war that takes as long as possible, using Israeli time urgency to force Israel to move rapidly against strong points incurring maximum casualties.
Israel's strategy is to use its greater mobility and firepower to break Hezbollah as quickly as possible with minimum casualties. The issue is how well-prepared Hezbollah's defenses actually are and how well-motivated its troops are after a three-week bombing campaign. How long can Hezbollah maintain its tempo of operations on a tactical level?
Israel's strength is in its firepower and its mobility. Its mobility has value primarily when fighting against a force with a substantial logistical tail. Cutting nonexistent supply lines against a force that has its supplies organically attached to it does not allow encirclement to take place. This limits the utility of dynamic mobile operations in most senses. There is one sense, however, that allows this to go on.
One of Israel's strategic goals, apart from crushing Hezbollah, is eliminating Hezbollah's ability to fire rockets and missiles into Israel, and particularly to Haifa and points south. It is difficult to know precisely the range of Hezbollah's rockets and missiles and how many they have, but it is clear that simply attacking Lebanon south of the Litani River will not solve that problem. To guarantee an end to rocket attacks, we estimate Israel will have to push Hezbollah back to Riyaq to end the threat from Zelzal-2 rockets, to Baalbek to protect Tel Aviv, and to Hermel to protect Haifa. To protect against the Fajr-5, Israel will have to push as deep as 10 miles north of the Litani along the coast. It is possible to bomb launchers and storage sites, and Israel can hit what it knows about, but the problem is it cannot have certain knowledge of what it knows unless it goes in on the ground. Intelligence is never as good as going and seeing.
This means if Israel wants to destroy all of Hezbollah's military force and destroy existing threats from rockets, it will have to do more than attack Lebanon south of the Litani. It will have to go deep into the Bekaa Valley and it will have to go north of the Litani along the coast. Logic has it that Israel would therefore attempt to encircle south Lebanon along the Litani and move into the Bekaa Valley and north along the coast to isolate Hezbollah from support before dealing with intense fighting in southern Lebanon.
This poses obvious logistical problems, since two armored thrusts would have to be supported by relatively few roads leading out of the Israeli panhandle in the north; Israel would want to capture roads in southeastern Lebanon near Metulla in preparation for such a thrust. It appears (and this is from far away) that is what Israel is doing. Israeli troops are engaged in four separate locations across southern Lebanon, and have reportedly pushed as deep as several miles past the Lebanese border. IDF units remain in Maroun al-Ras, although the town of Bent Jbail has reportedly been devastated and abandoned. Paratroopers are in Aita el-Shaab to the west, where Hezbollah has said there is house-to-house fighting; four Hezbollah fighters were reportedly killed. The Golani and Nahal brigades continue to battle Hezbollah in the villages of Al Adisa, Kfar Kila and Taibe, with reports of fighting as far north as Marjayoun.
Approximately 60 IDF D9 armored Caterpillar bulldozers are flattening abandoned Hezbollah positions across southern Lebanon. An Israeli airstrike targeted a westbound road out of Hermel with five air-to-surface missiles in the northern Bekaa Valley. The main border crossing from Beirut to Damascus at Masnaa was also struck.
These are fragmentary reports available by wire services. They are far from defining what is happening on the ground. But what seems to be happening is the IDF is engaging forces in the south carefully while action is taking place in the east and west. The remaining strategic question is whether Israel will focus on southern Lebanon and leave the missile threat and a large part of Hezbollah forces out of its plans, or whether it will drive into the Bekaa and up the coast to deal with Hezbollah in detail.
It would seem to us that this would give Israel the maximum advantage, dealing with Hezbollah more completely, taking advantage of its greater mobility and air power and using artillery and airstrikes to grind down Hezbollah and attempt to break its morale in the south. What is unknown, of course, is the disposition and capabilities of Hezbollah north of the Litani and in the Bekaa. We suspect the Israelis might find the same resistance in the Bekaa as in the border region.
In the long run, the correlation of forces dictates Israeli victory. But there are other variables.
Time and casualties could turn a military success into a political defeat for Israel. Moreover, if the outcome of the attack is that Israel is forced to occupy Lebanese territory for an extended period of time, then the cost of counterinsurgency operations mount. Israel's strategy is clear. Move in fast, deal a catastrophic blow to Hezbollah, withdraw leaving the Lebanese army or a European peacekeeping force in its place. Hezbollah has drawn Israel in. It expects a catastrophic blow but its intention is to impose tremendous costs on Israel and then create a situation in which peacekeeping forces will not deploy, forcing Israel into a counterinsurgency.
So, the questions now are whether Israel moves north of the Litani, how long Hezbollah will resist and what the cost will be to Israel. Gen. Dan Halutz, chief of staff of the IDF and architect of that air campaign, was hospitalized for the second time July 31, complaining of stomach pains. Should Halutz go out of commission, his deputy, Moshe Kaplinsky, will take command. Kaplinsky is drawn from army, having commanded the Golani Brigade, with long experience in Lebanon. This brings expertise on ground warfare to the top spot in the IDF, particularly in combined infantry-armored operations in Lebanon.
Israel has focused down on the main battle now. Hezbollah has been focused for a while. As the cliche goes, the outcome is in doubt, in large part because like all wars, the end of this one is political -- and the intersection of the political with the military complicates the war enormously.
Send questions or comments on this article to analysis@stratfor.com.
Wrap...
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)