For BushCo, another black deed every day...

From truthout.org :

Michael Winship | Tomorrow's Just Another Word for Nothing Left to Lose

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/101707I.shtml

Michael Winship, writing for Truthout, says: "At 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, with each dawn seems to come some new passing perfidy, each day a bump in magnification of the one that went before. Blackwater contractors gunning down civilians in Iraq like the Dalton Gang shooting up Dodge City. The president's veto of increased funding for S-CHIP, the State Children's Health Insurance Program. Secret legal opinions essentially endorsing the torture of terrorism suspects."

[Use link above to continue reading]

Wrap...

Coming: All kinds of very interesting books....

From Publishers Lunch Weekly:

FICTION/DEBUT:

Pushcart Prize winner and philosopher Clancy Martin's HOW TO SELL, about two brothers embroiled in the shockingly fraudulent luxury jewelry business in Texas, and an untitled philosophy book, to Lorin Stein at Farrar, Straus, in a pre-empt, by Susan Golomb at the Susan Golomb Agency (NA).

John Niven's first novel KILL YOUR FRIENDS, set in the world of A&R in the late nineties, the story of a Machiavellian executive who will stop at nothing to pursue his ambitions and to get ahead, to Carrie Kania of Harper, in a nice deal, by Clare Conville of Conville & Walsh.

UK rights sold previously to Heinemann, and German rights to Heyne.

THRILLER:

Patrick Lee's two untitled Travis Chase thrillers, starring an ex-convict who's a combination of Jack Bauer and Jack Reacher, with supernatural suspense reminiscent of Dean Koontz and James Rollins, to Sarah Durand at William Morrow, in a pre-empt, by Janet Reid of FinePrint Literary Management (world).

WOMEN'S/ROMANCE:

Kayla Perrin's SINGLE MAMA DRAMA, in which a single mother in Miami tries to keep it together and real while working at an agency representing motivational speakers, to Susan Pezzack at Mira,in a two-book deal, for publication in January 2008, by Helen Breitwieser at Cornerstone Literary (World).

GENERAL/OTHER:

Doug Crandell's HAIRDOS OF THE MILDLY DEPRESSED, the story of two brothers, one trying desperately to stop his balding and another with a significant disability, who find love and forgiveness in the New South, to Ken Siman at Virgin, by Robert Guinsler at Sterling Lord Literistic (NA).

CHILDREN'S/YOUNG ADULT:

Gitty Daneshvari's SCHOOL OF FEAR, to Little, Brown Children's, for six figures, in a two-book deal, by Sarah Burnes at The Gernert Company (NA). Film rights to Graham King at GK Films and Warner Bros., by CAA.

UK:

Tama Janowitz's THEY IS US, a humorous vision of a future America, one family spirals into breakdown while the world around them fares even worse, to Scott Pack at The Friday Project, for publication in June 2008, by Betsy Lerner at Dunow, Carlson & Lerner (World).

Debra Adelaide's third novel, THE HOUSEHOLD GUIDE TO DYING, charting the final months in the life of a woman, diagnosed with terminal cancer, who decides to reclaim her past, right previous wrongs and finally, hopefully, ensure a future for her family, to Lynne Drew at Harper UK, in a pre-empt, for six figures, and Italian rights to Salani in a pre-empt. Auctions are currently ongoing in Holland and Germany, by Ania Corless at David Higham Associates. The US submission is underway through Phyllis Westberg at Harold Ober Associates.

NON-FICTION: ADVICE/RELATIONSHIPS:

Sidney Poitier's LIFE BEYOND MEASURE: Letters to My Great-Granddaughter, heartwarming stories and life lessons in the form of letters to his granddaughter, to Jane Friedman for Harper One, for publication in Mary 2008, by Mort Janklow at Janklow & Nesbit (world).

HISTORY/POLITICS/CURRENT AFFAIRS:

Henry Hudson: Dreams and Obsession author Corey Sandler's GREASY LUCK: The Republic of Nantucket, exploring the many parts of the world where Nantucketers traveled in their search for the 19th-century's most precious commodity and portraying the farflung business empire once ruled by a small group of wealthy Nantucket Quakers, to Peter Wolverton at Thomas Dunne Books, by Ed Claflin at Edward B. Claflin Literary Agency (NA). edclaflin@aol.com

MEMOIR:

Jerry Hall's "explosive" memoir, promising a candid look at her experiences as a young model from Gonzalez, Texas; her marriage to Mick Jagger and her life in the rock 'n roll fast lane, to Jonathan Burnham at Harper, and Belinda Budge at Harper UK, by Ed Victor at Ed Victor Ltd. (world English).

Benjamin Mee's WE BOUGHT A ZOO, the quirky story of buying and restoring a struggling private zoo in the west of England in the midst of a family crisis, to Rob Weisbach at Weinstein Books, in a pre-empt, by Patrick Walsh at Conville & Walsh (US).

Journalist William Lobdell's LOSING MY RELIGION: How Covering Faith in America Shattered a Journalist's Beliefs, written after spending 8 years covering religion for the Los Angeles Times, to Steve Ross at Collins, by Tricia Davey at Sanford J. Greenburger Associates (world English).

Children's author and illustrator (and multiple Caldecott winner) David Small's first work for adults, STITCHES, a graphic memoir about his 1950s childhood in a family where free expression was forbidden and where abuse was both emotional and physical in the most unusual of ways (the son of a radiologist, his exposure to x-radiation at the hands of his father gave him cancer at age 14; supposedly minor surgery left one of his vocal cords severed, leaving him virtually voiceless for ten years), to Robert Weil at Norton, at auction, for publication in fall 2009, by Holly McGhee at Pippin Properties (world, excl. Canada; already on offer at Frankfurt).

NARRATIVE:

Author of AMERICAN SHAOLIN, Matthew Polly's THE GOOD FIGHT, spending a year in the world of mixed martial arts, tracing the rise of the sport, profiling its biggest personalities, and training and competing in gyms from Brazil to St. Petersburg, to Patrick Mulligan at Gotham, by Joe Veltre at Artists Literary Group (world English).
jv@algmedia.com

Wrap...

Farm Subsidies...Cease and desist....

From International Herald Tribune:

FARM SUBSIDIES
Today's harvest of shame
By Dean Kleckner Published: October 15, 2007

RUDD, Iowa:

As Congress heads into final negotiations over the farm bill, let's hope U.S. elected officials are paying attention to the headlines: Brazil has scored yet another huge victory at the World Trade Organization over America's cotton subsidies; Mexico is likely to file a complaint with the global body over how we subsidize rice farmers; Canada may do the same over corn payments.

This is a troubling pattern, and there's a good chance America will lose more and more cases unless Congress makes changes in the farm bill, which expired last month. Washington simply must stop subsidizing farmers the way it does or risk reversing course on a half-century of steadily expanding trade opportunities.

I know all about subsidies. For years, I took them myself for my corn and soybean farm. I didn't really enjoy it, but they were available and I rationalized my participation: Other industries received payments and tax breaks - why shouldn't I? In addition, I spent 14 years as the head of the American Farm Bureau, the leading farmers' lobby and a prime player in the creation of the subsidy system.

In the 1990s, however, a trip to New Zealand made me realize that eliminating subsidies was not just a free-market fantasy, but rather a policy that could work in an advanced industrial nation. New Zealanders had stopped subsidizing their farmers, cold turkey, in 1984. The transition was controversial and not without its rough spots, yet it succeeded. On that visit and several later ones, I never met a farmer who wanted to go back to subsidies.

Today in Opinion
Seeking officers for an unpopular warA victory for clean air, but the war goes onExploring for oil spoils in Iraq
Today, it's obvious that we need to transform our public support for farmers. Many of our current subsidies inhibit trade because of their link to commodity prices. By promising to cover losses, the government insulates farmers from market signals that normally would encourage sensible, long-term decisions about what to grow and where to grow it.

There's something fundamentally perverse about a system that has farmers hoping for low prices at harvest time - it's like praying for bad weather. But that's precisely what happens, because those low prices mean bigger checks from Washington.

Moreover, these practices hurt poor farmers in the developing world who find themselves struggling to compete. It's one of the reasons why the World Trade Organization won't let these practices stand.

Now would be a particularly opportune time to change the system.

Food commodity prices are high, so a transition away from subsidies will hurt farmers less. Today's farmers enjoy much better marketing tools, crop protection and technology than they did only a decade ago.

The alternative is to put off the inevitable and risk a series of trade wars. When the United States loses a WTO case, our aggrieved trading partners gain the right to retaliate through punitive tariffs on many American-made products, not just agriculture.

For example, after the trade body ruled against the so-called Byrd amendment of 2000, which mandated that duties charged by Washington on imports deemed to be unfairly priced would go directly to American producers rather than to the Treasury, Canada and the European Union slapped sanctions on such imports as American paper, cigarettes and oysters.

Politicians are fond of sticking out their chests and declaring that America's farm policies will be written in Washington, not Geneva. That's a good applause line, but at the same time Congress has rightly determined that it makes sense to participate in a global organization that establishes trade rules.

American farmers depend upon the export market. For every two acres of wheat we grow, one is shipped abroad. The last thing we need is for our customers to quit buying because their governments are imposing tariffs with the approval of the World Trade Organization.

Yet Congress is getting in the way. It appears reluctant to approve bilateral agreements with Colombia, Panama and South Korea. With the Doha round of global trade talks having screeched to a halt, these accords are now the primary means for expanding export opportunities.

As for the farm bill, the answer isn't necessarily to get out of the subsidy business entirely (although it's preferable). The WTO permits certain types of subsidies. The European Union spends substantially more public money on farmers per acre than we do, but its methods of payment are more compatible with global rules because they're based on acreage and production history rather than on current crop production and prices. This makes them less disruptive to international markets.

Congress can change the farm bill to meet global rules while serving our public interests of a secure food supply, rural economic development and a cleaner environment. If it doesn't, it will reap us nothing more than a long losing streak at the World Trade Organization.
********************************************

Dean Kleckner is a farmer and the chairman of Truth About Trade and Technology, a nonprofit group that advocates free trade and biotechnology in agriculture. He was the president of the American Farm Bureau from 1986 to 2000.

Wrap...

Russia, Iran, and US policies...

From Strategic Forecasting:
www.stratfor.com

The Russia Problem
By Peter Zeihan

For the past several days, high-level Russian and American policymakers, including U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Russian President Vladimir Putin's right-hand man, Sergei Ivanov, have been meeting in Moscow to discuss the grand scope of U.S.-Russian relations. These talks would be of critical importance to both countries under any circumstances, as they center on the network of treaties that have governed Europe since the closing days of the Cold War.

Against the backdrop of the Iraq war, however, they have taken on far greater significance. Both Russia and the United States are attempting to rewire the security paradigms of key regions, with Washington taking aim at the Middle East and Russia more concerned about its former imperial territory. The two countries' visions are mutually incompatible, and American preoccupation with Iraq is allowing Moscow to overturn the geopolitics of its backyard.

The Iraqi Preoccupation

After years of organizational chaos, the United States has simplified its plan for Iraq: Prevent Iran from becoming a regional hegemon. Once-lofty thoughts of forging a democracy in general or supporting a particular government were abandoned in Washington well before the congressional testimony of Gen. David Petraeus. Reconstruction is on the back burner and even oil is now an afterthought at best. The entirety of American policy has been stripped down to a single thought: Iran.

That thought is now broadly held throughout not only the Bush administration but also the American intelligence and defense communities. It is not an unreasonable position. An American exodus from Iraq would allow Iran to leverage its allies in Iraq's Shiite South to eventually gain control of most of Iraq. Iran's influence also extends to significant Shiite communities on the Persian Gulf's western oil-rich shore. Without U.S. forces blocking the Iranians, the military incompetence of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Qatar could be perceived by the Iranians as an invitation to conquer that shore. That would land roughly 20 million barrels per day of global oil output -- about one-quarter of the global total -- under Tehran's control. Rhetoric aside, an outcome such as this would push any U.S. president into a broad regional war to prevent a hostile power from shutting off the global economic pulse.

So the United States, for better or worse, is in Iraq for the long haul. This requires some strategy for dealing with the other power with the most influence in the country, Iran. This, in turn, leaves the United States with two options: It can simply attempt to run Iraq as a protectorate forever, a singularly unappealing option, or it can attempt to strike a deal with Iran on the issue of Iraq -- and find some way to share influence.

Since the release of the Petraeus report in September, seeking terms with Iran has become the Bush administration's unofficial goal, but the White House does not want substantive negotiations until the stage is appropriately set. This requires that Washington build a diplomatic cordon around Iran -- intensifying Tehran's sense of isolation -- and steadily ratchet up the financial pressure. Increasing bellicose rhetoric from European capitals and the lengthening list of major banks that are refusing to deal with Iran are the nuts and bolts of this strategy.

Not surprisingly, Iran views all this from a starkly different angle. Persia has historically been faced with a threat of invasion from its western border -- with the most recent threat manifesting in a devastating 1980-1988 war that resulted in a million deaths. The primary goal of Persia's foreign policy stretching back a millennium has been far simpler than anything the United States has cooked up: Destroy Mesopotamia. In 2003, the United States was courteous enough to handle that for Iran.

Now, Iran's goals have expanded and it seeks to leverage the destruction of its only meaningful regional foe to become a regional hegemon. This requires leveraging its Iraqi assets to bleed the Americans to the point that they leave. But Iran is not immune to pressure. Tehran realizes that it might have overplayed its hand internationally, and it certainly recognizes that U.S. efforts to put it in a noose are bearing some fruit. What Iran needs is its own sponsor -- and that brings to the Middle East a power that has not been present there for quite some time: Russia.

Option One: Parity

The Russian geography is problematic. It lacks oceans to give Russia strategic distance from its foes and it boasts no geographic barriers separating it from Europe, the Middle East or East Asia. Russian history is a chronicle of Russia's steps to establish buffers -- and of those buffers being overwhelmed. The end of the Cold War marked the transition from Russia's largest-ever buffer to its smallest in centuries. Put simply, Russia is terrified of being overwhelmed -- militarily, economically, politically and culturally -- and its policies are geared toward re-establishing as large a buffer as possible.

As such, Russia needs to do one of two things. The first is to re-establish parity. As long as the United States thinks of Russia as an inferior power, American power will continue to erode Russian security. Maintain parity and that erosion will at least be reduced. Putin does not see this parity coming from a conflict, however. While Russia is far stronger now -- and still rising -- than it was following the 1998 ruble crash, Putin knows full well that the Soviet Union fell in part to an arms race. Attaining parity via the resources of a much weaker Russia simply is not an option.

So parity would need to come via the pen, not the sword. A series of three treaties ended the Cold War and created a status of legal parity between the United States and Russia. The first, the Conventional Armed Forces in Europe Treaty (CFE), restricts how much conventional defense equipment each state in NATO and the former Warsaw Pact, and their successors, can deploy. The second, the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START I), places a ceiling on the number of intercontinental ballistic missiles that the United States and Russia can possess. The third, the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF), eliminates entirely land-based short-, medium- and intermediate-range ballistic missiles with ranges of 300 to 3,400 miles, as well as all ground-launched cruise missiles from NATO and Russian arsenals.

The constellation of forces these treaties allow do not provide what Russia now perceives its security needs to be. The CFE was all fine and dandy in the world in which it was first negotiated, but since then every Warsaw Pact state -- once on the Russian side of the balance sheet -- has joined NATO. The "parity" that was hardwired into the European system in 1990 is now lopsided against the Russians.

START I is by far the Russians' favorite treaty, since it clearly treats the Americans and Russians as bona fide equals. But in the Russian mind, it has a fateful flaw: It expires in 2009, and there is about zero support in the United States for renewing it. The thinking in Washington is that treaties were a conflict management tool of the 20th century, and as American power -- constrained by Iraq as it is -- continues to expand globally, there is no reason to enter into a treaty that limits American options. This philosophical change is reflected on both sides of the American political aisle: Neither the Bush nor Clinton administrations have negotiated a new full disarmament treaty.

Finally, the INF is the worst of all worlds for Russia. Intermediate-range missiles are far cheaper than intercontinental ones. If it does come down to an arms race, Russia will be forced to turn to such systems if it is not to be left far behind an American buildup.

Russia needs all three treaties to be revamped. It wants the CFE altered to reflect an expanded NATO. It wants START I extended (and preferably deepened) to limit long-term American options. It wants the INF explicitly linked to the other two treaties so that Russian options can expand in a pinch -- or simply discarded in favor of a more robust START I.

The problem with the first option is that it assumes the Americans are somewhat sympathetic to Russian concerns. They are not.

Recall that the dominant concern in the post-Cold War Kremlin is that the United States will nibble along the Russian periphery until Moscow itself falls. The fear is as deeply held as it is accurate. Only three states have ever threatened the United States: The first, the United Kingdom, was lashed into U.S. global defense policy; the second, Mexico, was conquered outright; and the third was defeated in the Cold War. The addition of the Warsaw Pact and the Baltic states to NATO, the basing of operations in Central Asia and, most important, the Orange Revolution in Ukraine have made it clear to Moscow that the United States plays for keeps.

The Americans see it as in their best interest to slowly grind Russia into dust. Those among our readers who can identify with "duck and cover" can probably relate to the logic of that stance. So, for option one to work, Russia needs to have leverage elsewhere. That elsewhere is in Iran.

Via the U.N. Security Council, Russian cooperation can ensure Iran's diplomatic isolation. Russia's past cooperation on Iran's Bushehr nuclear power facility holds the possibility of a Kremlin condemnation of Iran's nuclear ambitions. A denial of Russian weapons transfers to Iran would hugely empower ongoing U.S. efforts to militarily curtail Iranian ambitions. Put simply, Russia has the ability to throw Iran under the American bus -- but it will not do it for free. In exchange, it wants those treaties amended in its favor, and it wants American deference on security questions in the former Soviet Union.

The Moscow talks of the past week were about addressing all of Russian concerns about the European security structure, both within and beyond the context of the treaties, with the offer of cooperation on Iran as the trade-off. After days of talks, the Americans refused to budge on any meaningful point.

Option Two: Imposition

Russia has no horse in the Iraq war. Moscow had feared that its inability to leverage France and Germany to block the war in the first place would allow the United States to springboard to other geopolitical victories. Instead, the Russians are quite pleased to see the American nose bloodied. They also are happy to see Iran engrossed in events to its west. When Iran and Russia strengthen -- as both are currently -- they inevitably begin to clash as their growing spheres of influence overlap in the Caucasus and Central Asia. In many ways, Russia is now enjoying the best of all worlds: Its Cold War archrival is deeply occupied in a conflict with one of Moscow's own regional competitors.

In the long run, however, the Russians have little doubt that the Americans will eventually prevail. Iran lacks the ability to project meaningful power beyond the Persian Gulf, while the Russians know from personal experience how good the Americans are at using political, economic, military and alliance policy to grind down opponents. The only question in the Russian mind pertains to time frame.

If the United States is not willing to rejigger the European-Russian security framework, then Moscow intends to take advantage of a distracted United States to impose a new reality upon NATO. The United States has dedicated all of its military ground strength to Iraq, leaving no wiggle room should a crisis erupt anywhere else in the world. Should Russia create a crisis, there is nothing the United States can do to stop it.

So crisis-making is about to become Russia's newest growth industry. The Kremlin has a very long list of possibilities, which includes:


Destabilizing the government of Ukraine: The Sept. 30 elections threaten to result in the re-creation of the Orange Revolution that so terrifies Moscow. With the United States largely out of the picture, the Russians will spare no effort to ensure that Ukraine remains as dysfunctional as possible.

Azerbaijan is emerging as a critical energy transit state for Central Asian petroleum, as well as an energy producer in its own right. But those exports are wholly dependent upon Moscow's willingness not to cause problems for Baku.

The extremely anti-Russian policies of the former Soviet state of Georgia continue to be a thorn in Russia's side. Russia has the ability to force a territorial breakup or to outright overturn the Georgian government using anything from a hit squad to an armored division.

EU states obviously have mixed feelings about Russia's newfound aggression and confidence, but the three Baltic states in league with Poland have successfully hijacked EU foreign policy with regard to Russia, effectively turning a broadly cooperative relationship hostile. A small military crisis with the Balts would not only do much to consolidate popular support for the Kremlin but also would demonstrate U.S. impotence in riding to the aid of American allies.

Such actions not only would push Russian influence back to the former borders of the Soviet Union but also could overturn the belief within the U.S. alliance structure that the Americans are reliable -- that they will rush to their allies' aid at any time and any place. That belief ultimately was the heart of the U.S. containment strategy during the Cold War. Damage that belief and the global security picture changes dramatically. Barring a Russian-American deal on treaties, inflicting that damage is once again a full-fledged goal of the Kremlin. The only question is whether the American preoccupation in Iraq will last long enough for the Russians to do what they think they need to do.

Luckily for the Russians, they can impact the time frame of American preoccupation with Iraq. Just as the Russians have the ability to throw the Iranians under the bus, they also have the ability to empower the Iranians to stand firm.

On Oct. 16, Putin became the first Russian leader since Leonid Brezhnev to visit Iran, and in negotiations with the Iranian leadership he laid out just how his country could help. Formally, the summit was a meeting of the five leaders of the Caspian Sea states, but in reality the meeting was a Russian-Iranian effort to demonstrate to the Americans that Iran does not stand alone.

A good part of the summit involved clearly identifying differences with American policy. The right of states to nuclear energy was affirmed, the existence of energy infrastructure that undermines U.S. geopolitical goals was supported and a joint statement pledged the five states to refuse to allow "third parties" from using their territory to attack "the Caspian Five." The last is a clear bullying of Azerbaijan to maintain distance from American security plans.

But the real meat is in bilateral talks between Putin and his Iranian counterpart, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and the two sides are sussing out how Russia's ample military experience can be applied to Iran's U.S. problem. Some of the many, many possibilities include:


Kilo-class submarines: The Iranians already have two and the acoustics in the Persian Gulf are notoriously bad for tracking submarines. Any U.S. military effort against Iran would necessitate carrier battle groups in the Persian Gulf.

Russia fields the Bal-E, a ground-launched Russian version of the Harpoon anti-ship missile. Such batteries could threaten any U.S. surface ship in the Gulf. A cheaper option could simply involve the installation of Russian coastal artillery systems.

Russia and India have developed the BrahMos anti-ship cruise missile, which has the uniquely deadly feature of being able to be launched from land, ship, submarine or air. While primarily designed to target surface vessels, it also can act as a more traditional -- and versatile -- cruise missile and target land targets.

Flanker fighters are a Russian design (Su-27/Su-30) that compares very favorably to frontline U.S. fighter jets. Much to the U.S. Defense Department's chagrin, Indian pilots in Flankers have knocked down some U.S. pilots in training scenarios.

The S-300 anti-aircraft system is still among the best in the world, and despite eviscerated budgets, the Russians have managed to operationalize several upgrades since the end of the Cold War. It boasts both a far longer range and far more accuracy than the Tor-M1 and Pantsyr systems on which Iran currently depends.

Such options only scratch the surface of what the Russians have on order, and the above only discusses items of use in a direct Iranian-U.S. military conflict. Russia also could provide Iran with an endless supply of less flashy equipment to contribute to intensifying Iranian efforts to destabilize Iraq itself.

For now, the specifics of Russian transfers to Iran are tightly held, but they will not be for long. Russia has as much of an interest in getting free advertising for its weapons systems as Iran has in demonstrating just how high a price it will charge the United States for any attack.

But there is one additional reason this will not be a stealth relationship.

The Kremlin wants Washington to be fully aware of every detail of how Russian sales are making the U.S. Army's job harder, so that the Americans have all the information they need to make appropriate decisions as regards Russia's role. Moscow is not doing this because it is vindictive; this is simply how the Russians do business, and they are open to a new deal.

Russia has neither love for the Iranians nor a preference as to whether Moscow reforges its empire or has that empire handed back. So should the United States change its mind and seek an accommodation, Putin stands perfect ready to betray the Iranians' confidence.

For a price.



Tell Peter what you think

Get your own copy

https://www.stratfor.com/services/freesignup.php


Distribution and Reprints
This report may be distributed or republished with attribution to Strategic Forecasting, Inc. at www.stratfor.com. For media requests, partnership opportunities, or commercial distribution or republication, please contact pr@stratfor.com.

Newsletter Subscription
To unsubscribe from receiving this free intelligence report, please click here.

© Copyright 2007 Strategic Forecasting, Inc. All rights reserved.

Wrap...

Bush IS a 9/11 all by himself....

From Information Clearing House:

In The Kingdom of Fear

By Sheila Samples

For six long years, Bush has "water-boarded" all who oppose him -- especially those in Congress -- with a steady stream of 9-11. Each speech is laced with visions of 9-11 -- 9-11 horror just over the horizon, 9-11 around each corner, 9-11 behind each tree.

"Fear Itself" is the only option on the Bush-Cheney table, and they have used it relentlessly, not only to wage genocidal war in order to gain control of the world's resources, but to seize dictatorial power and to control the quivering masses.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18569.htm

[Use link above to continue reading]

Wrap...

From "friendly" Bush to Cleveland Indians on wall....

From American Progress:

Think Fast....

During his town hall meeting in Arkansas yesterday, "not a single questioner criticized" President Bush. With polls showing Bush's disapproval at record highs, the White House is staging "let-Bush-be-Bush events" in front of "friendly audiences" with "increasing frequency."

Verizon Communications told congressional investigators that, from Jan. 2005 to Sept. 2007, the company provided customers' telephone records to federal authorities on an emergency basis 720 times. "Verizon also disclosed that the FBI, using administrative subpoenas, sought information identifying not just a person making a call, but all the people that customer called, as well as the people those people called."

Air America radio host Randi Rhodes was mugged on Sunday night while walking her dog nearby her Manhattan apartment. "According to Air America Radio late night host Jon Elliott, Rhodes was beaten up pretty badly, losing several teeth and will probably be off the air for at least the rest of the week."

The House Judiciary Committee is holding a hearing today on the Jena Six case, with Rev. Al Sharpton and others testifying. Panelists will urge Congress to "expand hate crime laws to deal more forcefully with noose-hanging incidents like the one in the Jena Six case in order to squelch what he called a sharp rise in racism."

The House GOP leadership "has held private discussions with Rep. John Doolittle (R-CA) in an effort to convince him to retire." But Doolittle, who is under federal investigation, is "promising to run for re-election."

"For the first time in more than 100 years, much of the Southeast has reached the most severe category of drought, climatologists said Monday, creating an emergency so serious that some cities are just months away from running out of water."

"Oil thundered towards $88 a barrel on Tuesday, hitting a new record and extending a rally that has added eight dollars in a week on tight supplies, strong demand and tension in northern Iraq. Oil is closing in on the inflation-adjusted high of $90.46 seen in 1980, the year after the Iranian revolution and at the start of the Iran-Iraq war."

$15 billion: Amount seniors and other taxpayers could have saved this year if the government had "slashed administrative costs in the Medicare drug program and negotiated the same kind of discounts it does for poor people under Medicaid."

And finally: While many Capitol Hill offices "proudly display their home-state" sports teams' gear, the walls of Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones's (D-OH) office are blank. They're hoping for the Cleveland Indians to go all the way, and remember the loss of the Cleveland Cavaliers in last season's NBA playoffs when their walls were decorated. "In the past it's been a jinx," spokeswoman Nicole Williams said. "We are diehard fans. We hope the Indians go all the way, and then we'll celebrate."

Wrap...

From "declaration of victory" to Rice on ice....

From American Progress:

Think Fast....

The U.S. military believes it has dealt a "devastating and perhaps irreversible blows to al-Qaeda in Iraq" in recent months, leading some generals to advocate a "declaration of victory" over the group. "I think it would be premature at this point," a senior intelligence official said of a victory declaration over AQI.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is sticking up for Donald Rumsfeld in a battle with students and professors at Stanford University. "Universities ought to be places where all views are welcomed," Rice told ABC News. "Stanford has always been a place that has been able to tolerate many different views."

"As the chief federal trial judge in Manhattan, Michael Mukasey approved secret warrants allowing government roundups of Muslims in the days after the Sept. 11 attacks." Confirmation hearings are set to begin on Wednesday, and detentions are likely to be a "hot topic."

On Friday, Justice Department officials indicated that they may hold "new hearings for some" Guantanamo Bay "detainees to decide whether they are being properly held." Lawyers for detainees say the move may be "a 'massive' repeat of the military's combatant-status hearings originally held in 2004 and 2005."

A new study by the Women's Campaign Forum finds that the number of top women aides on Capitol Hill is rising. The study found "that 23 percent of top Senate staffers and 31 percent of top aides in the House are women, compared with 16 percent of Senators who are women and 17 percent of House Members."

The Food and Drug Administration is "moving with unprecedented speed to launch a drug research center to be paid for by companies it regulates." Its goal is to "streamline and improve the development of drugs and medical devices, a goal long sought by regulators and the biggest players in the industry."

And finally: On Saturday, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice turned down the chance to "show off her ice-skating talents" during a visit to a rink in Russia. "There is this theory that ice skating is like riding a bicycle: you just get back on it, you immediately know how to do it," she said. "I'm not going to take that chance -- just in case it's not true!" Rice was a competitive ice skater between the ages of 12 and 17, but hasn't skated for the past 10 years.

Wrap...

Spying on us....

From Secrecy News:

IMPLEMENTING DOMESTIC INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE

Upon lawful request and for a thousand dollars, Comcast, one of the
nation's leading telecommunications companies, will intercept its
customers' communications under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
Act.

The cost for performing any FISA surveillance "requiring deployment of
an intercept device" is $1,000.00 for the "initial start-up fee
(including the first month of intercept service)," according to a newly
disclosed Comcast Handbook for Law Enforcement.

Thereafter, the surveillance fee goes down to "$750.00 per month for
each subsequent month in which the original [FISA] order or any
extensions of the original order are active."

With respect to surveillance policy, the Comcast manual hews closely to
the letter of the law, as one would hope and expect.

"If your [FISA intercept] request pertains to individuals outside the
U.S., please be sure you have complied with all the requirements in 50
U.S.C. sections 105A and/or 105B," the manual says, referring to
provisions of the Protect America Act that was enacted last month.
"Requests such as these can not be honored after one year and must be
dated prior to February 5, 2008, unless extended by Congress."

Comcast will also comply with disclosure demands presented in the form
of National Security Letters. However, the manual says, "Attention
must be paid to the various court proceedings in which the legal status
of such requests is at issue."

In short, "Comcast will assist law enforcement agencies in their
investigations while protecting subscriber privacy as required by law
and applicable privacy policies."

At the same time, "Comcast reserves the right to respond or object to,
or seek clarification of, any legal requests and treat legal requests
for subscriber information in any manner consistent with applicable
law."

A copy of the manual was obtained by Secrecy News.

See "Comcast Cable Law Enforcement Handbook," September 2007:

http://www.fas.org/blog/secrecy/docs/handbook.pdf

The role of telecommunications companies in intelligence surveillance
is under increased scrutiny as the Bush Administration seeks to shield
the companies from any liability associated with their cooperation in
what may be illegal warrantless surveillance.

Also, there are new indications that the unauthorized warrantless
surveillance program pre-dated 9/11. The Rocky Mountain News, the
Washington Post, and others reported allegations that the government
may have penalized Qwest Communications for refusing to participate in
a pre-9/11 National Security Agency surveillance program that the
company believed might be illegal.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/12/AR2007101202485.html

The Washington Post editorialized yesterday that the telecommunications
companies should indeed be immunized against liability, as the Bush
Administration desires. Even though it is not known exactly what the
companies did, the Post said, they "seem to us to have been acting as
patriotic corporate citizens in a difficult and uncharted environment."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/13/AR2007101301069.html

Writing in Salon.com, Glenn Greenwald disputed that view, arguing that
patriotism lies in compliance with the law, not in mere obedience to
executive authority.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/10/14/rule_of_law/index.html

[Use links above to continue reading]

Wrap...

Crisis coming for HIllary Clinton's campaign....

From International Herald Tribune:

Letter from Washington: Hillary Clinton's hold on the reins awaits a severe shake

By Albert R. Hunt Bloomberg NewsPublished: October 14, 2007

WASHINGTON: During the past 15 years, I've been to three small dinners with Hillary Clinton. As expected, her substantive command of whatever the topic was impressive.
More surprising was that each time I came away struck by her ability to charm, and even by her decent sense of humor. So did the others, including a cadre of hack political journalists like myself who attended two of the sessions.

It is surprising because this isn't the Hillary Clinton, the leading presidential candidate for 2008, who most Americans see out on the stump.

Her campaign has been brilliant. It is great at small stuff like bracket scheduling - making sure she or a surrogate appears right before and after a major appearance by an opponent.

It is equally good on big stuff. Eight months ago, Clinton, 59, was bedeviled by the party's antiwar base for her initial support of the Iraq conflict; today it's practically a nonissue.

The Clinton campaign is efficient, effective, disciplined and tough. It also seems to be joyless, humorless and lacking in heart and soul.

A take-no-prisoners, us-versus-them mindset has served her well. She has widened her lead in the race for the Democratic presidential nomination; most polls show her defeating any Republican in the general election.

Still, there is unusual hostility from neutral, and even some ostensibly pro-Clinton, people, and especially in the press. The media has its sights on Hillary, and scrutiny during the next month promises to be more vigorous than the relatively easy ride she has gotten so far.

That naturally happens to a front-runner. It will be with more vehemence in this case because of greater enmity.

It may not matter now. But invariably there will be a crisis - losing the Iowa caucuses, perhaps a general election upheaval, or some cataclysm early in her presidency - and the sharks will be in the water.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/10/14/america/letter.php?WT.mc_id=newsalert

[Use link above to continue reading]

Wrap...

Some Bush cronies have brothers....

From Information Clearing House:

By Wajahat Ali

"Isn't it interesting that the same government individual, who has been reported by one investigative committee to have made the initial decision for Blackwater to get its first contract, is the brother of the current State Department Inspector General, who was found, by the same committee, to have intervened in preventing an investigation into Blackwater's illegal activity?"

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18546.htm

[Use link to continue reading]

Wrap...

Blackwater...War Crimes....

From truthout.org :

Blackwater Faces War Crimes Inquiry

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/101207C.shtml

Anne Penketh, reporting for The Independent, writes, "The American firm Blackwater USA has been served notice that it faces investigations for war crimes after 17 unarmed Iraqi civilians were killed in a hail of bullets by its security guards in Baghdad."

[Use link above to continue reading]

Wrap...

Sharing Intelligence...

From Secrecy News:

INFORMATION SHARING, BY HOOK OR BY CROOK

The disclosure of a clandestine network of U.S. military officers that
diverted classified documents from military agencies and illegally
provided them to law enforcement agencies serves as a vivid reminder
that improved information sharing within the government is a goal that
has still not been achieved.

"Marine Gunnery Sgt. Gary Maziarz said patriotism motivated him to join
a spy ring, smuggle secret files from Camp Pendleton and give them to
law enforcement officers for anti-terrorism work in Southern
California," the San Diego Union-Tribune reported last Saturday.

Sgt. Maziarz and his men acted like Robin Hood in the forest of
national security information, taking classified documents from the
cleared and giving them to the uncleared.

"He knew his group was violating national security laws," the
Union-Tribune reported. "But he said bureaucratic walls erected by the
military and civilian agencies were hampering intelligence sharing and
coordination, making the nation more vulnerable to terrorists."

This is of course a self-serving story, and it doesn't explain the
stolen weapons or steroids found along with the pilfered documents by
military investigators.

But neither is there any evidence so far of espionage on behalf of a
foreign power, or any indication of a financial motive in stealing the
records.

Taken at face value, the rise of the interagency document smugglers
points to a continuing defect in government information policy. It
also suggests that the national security classification system may
break before it bends. In other words, it may fail catastrophically
before it can be substantially reformed.

See "Marine Took Files as Part of Spy Ring" by Rick Rogers, San Diego
Union-Tribune, October 6:

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/northcounty/20071006-9999-1n6spies.html

The story was also picked up today by the Los Angeles Times.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-laspy12oct12,0,1983331.story

The failure to achieve optimal information sharing is not in dispute.

"Institutional rules and legacy culture continue to hamper effective
information sharing," a report from the Office of the Director of
National Intelligence admitted yesterday.

"There are outdated policy, customs, and technical constraints on
information access and dissemination that impede the production of
finished products our customers require."

See "500 Day Plan: Integration and Collaboration," Office of Director
of National Intelligence, October 2007:

http://www.fas.org/irp/dni/500-day-plan.pdf

[Use links above to continue reading]

Wrap...

From the richest Americans to Radiohead...

From American Progress:

Think Fast...

The "richest Americans' share of national income has hit a postwar record," with the "wealthiest 1% of Americans earn[ing] 21.2% of all income in 2005, according to new data from the Internal Revenue Service. ... The bottom 50% earned 12.8% of all income, down from 13.4% in 2004."

The New York Times's Paul Krugman covers the right-wing smear of Graeme Frost and his family, calling it "a perfect illustration of the modern right-wing political machine at work, and in particular its routine reliance on character assassination in place of honest debate."

"A comprehensive global study of abortion has concluded that abortion rates are similar in countries where it is legal and those where it is not, suggesting that outlawing the procedure does little to deter women seeking it." Additionally, abortion was found to be more dangerous where it is outlawed.

The ethics watchdog Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) asked a federal judge yesterday to order the White House to preserve tapes used to back up its e-mail system. "The White House is refusing to confirm that they have maintained e-mail going back to the beginning of the administration as they are required by law to do," said Melanie Sloan, executive director of CREW.

In an "unusual" and "unprecedented" move, CIA director Michael Hayden has ordered an "internal inquiry into the work of the agency's inspector general," who has been responsible for "aggressive investigations" of the CIA's detention and interrogation programs.

Time magazine asks, "Who will be punished for Haditha?" While few dispute the fact that "women and children were killed in their homes alongside adult males by U.S. Marines" in Hadith on Nov. 19, 2005, "the likelihood is" that none of the soldiers involved will be charged for murder.

The Sept. 16 shootout in Baghdad by Blackwater guards was a "criminal event," according to a report by the first U.S. soldiers to arrive on the scene. "It had every indication of an excessive shooting," said Lt. Col. Mike Tarsa, who led the troops who responded to the incident.

And finally: Even the White House has noticed Radiohead's new album. Deputy Press Secretary Tony Fratto is reportedly a "big fan" of the group and plans to download "In Rainbows." National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe said that he is "90 percent sure" he has a few Radiohead songs on his iPod, but none from their 2003 album, "Hail to the Thief," which is considered a reference to President Bush.

Wrap...

Intel Contractors...can't do without them now...

From Secrecy News:

MANAGING INTELLIGENCE CONTRACTORS

For better or worse, contractors are now an indispensable part of the
U.S. intelligence workforce, and greater attention is needed to manage
them effectively, argues a recent study by a military intelligence
analyst.

The author presents criteria for evaluating contractor support to
various intelligence functions, and applies them in a series of case
studies.

"This study assesses the value of current commercial activities used
within DoD elements of the Intelligence Community, particularly dealing
with operational functions such as analysis, collection management,
document exploitation, interrogation, production, and linguistic
support."

In the best case, interactions with contractors can serve as a spur
towards modernization of the intelligence bureaucracy itself, suggests
the author, Glenn R. Voelz, a U.S. Army Major.

"Collaborative effort with nongovernmental entities offers a powerful
mechanism to diversify and strengthen the IC's collection and
analytical capabilities, but to fully realize the benefit of these
resources the management and oversight of commercial providers must
become a core competency for all intelligence organizations."

A copy of the study, published by the Joint Military Intelligence
College, was obtained by Secrecy News.

See "Managing the Private Spies: The Use of Commercial Augmentation for
Intelligence Operations" by Maj. Glenn J. Voelz, Joint Military
Intelligence College, June 2006:

http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/voelz.pdf

Also on the general subject of contractors, there is a January 2003
U.S. Army Field Manual entitled "Contractors on the Battlefield," FM
3-100.21:

http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/army/fm3-100-21.pdf

Among the more or less successful intelligence collaborations with
industry that were examined by Maj. Voelz, there is nothing quite like
the Bush Administration's use of telephone companies to support the
warrantless interception of domestic communications, a probable
violation of the law for which the Administration is now urgently
seeking retroactive immunity.

[Use links above to continue reading]

Wrap...

Well, well, well. The truth comes out...FINALLY!!!

Was listening to the Stacey Taylor Show on KLSD AM, San Diego, this morn. The subject of smoking came up and all the laws against it. So Stacey tells the story of 20 years ago when he interviewed the US Surgeon General, Everett Coop, on his show. And of course Coop was raving and ranting about the dangers of smoking...until they stepped outside during a break.

Coop then asked Stacey to never reveal what he was about to tell him, and Stacey promised not to...until now.

Coop told Stacey that 98% of lung cancers were genetic, and not from smoking at all.

So naturally Stacey asked him why he was making such a big deal out of it, and Coop replied, "Because they told me to."

Now comes the latest smoking news:

Passive smoking doesn't cause cancer

Passive smoking doesn't cause cancer - official By Victoria Macdonald, Health Correspondent THE world's leading health organisation has withheld from publication a study which shows that not only might there be no link between passive smoking and lung cancer but that it could even have a protective effect. The astounding results are set to throw wide open the debate on passive smoking health risks. The World Health Organisation, which commissioned the 12-centre, seven-country European study has failed to make the findings public, and has instead produced only a summary of the results in an internal report. Despite repeated approaches, nobody at the WHO headquarters in Geneva would comment on the findings last week. At its International Agency for Research on Cancer in Lyon, France, which coordinated the study, a spokesman would say only that the full report had been submitted to a science journal and no publication date had been set. The findings are certain to be an embarrassment to the WHO, which has spent years and vast sums on anti-smoking and anti-tobacco campaigns. The study is one of the largest ever to look at the link between passive smoking - or environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) - and lung cancer, and had been eagerly awaited by medical experts and campaigning groups. Yet the scientists have found that there was no statistical evidence that passive smoking caused lung cancer. The research compared 650 lung cancer patients with 1,542 healthy people. It looked at people who were married to smokers, worked with smokers, both worked and were married to smokers, and those who grew up with smokers.

http://www.forces.org/articles/files/passive1.htm

NOW they tell us!

Wrap...

Coal mining...This is evil...

From truthout.org :

The Government Sanctioned Blasting of Appalachia

http://www.truthout.org/issues_06/101007EC.shtml

Writing for AlterNet.org, Antrim Caskey says, "On a calm, clear morning in the forested mountains of southern West Virginia, 12-year-old Chrystal Gunnoe played outdoors in the green mountain valley where her family has lived for hundreds of years. It was Veterans Day and a school holiday. Chrystal's mother, Maria Gunnoe, 38, was inside when she heard her daughter yell for help."

[Use link above to continue reading]

Wrap...

All about Security Contractors in Iraq...

From Stratfor:

Security Contractors in Iraq: Tactical -- and Practical -- Considerations
By Fred Burton and Scott Stewart

As Stratfor CEO George Friedman discussed Oct. 9, some specific geopolitical forces have prompted changes in the structure of the U.S. armed forces -- to the extent that private contractors have become essential to the execution of a sustained military campaign. Indeed, in addition to providing security for diplomats and other high-value personnel, civilian contractors conduct an array of support functions in Iraq, including vehicle maintenance, laundry services and supply and logistics operations.

Beyond the military bureaucracy and the geopolitical processes acting upon it, another set of dynamics is behind the growing use of civilian contractors to protect diplomats in Iraq. These factors include the type and scope of the U.S. diplomatic miss ion in the country; the nature of the insurgency and the specific targeting of diplomats; and the limited resources available to the State Department's Diplomatic Security Service (DSS). Because of these factors, unless the diplomatic mission to Iraq is dramatically changed or reduced, or the U.S. Congress takes action to radically enlarge the DSS, the services of civilian security contractors will be required in Iraq for the foreseeable future. Those contractors provide flexibility in tailoring the force that full-time security officers do not.

Civilians in a War Zone

Although it is not widely recognized, the protection of diplomats in dangerous places is a civilian function and has traditionally been carried out by civilian agents. With rare exceptions, military forces simply do not have the legal mandate or specialized training required to provide daily protection details for diplomats. It is not what soldiers do. A few in the U.S. military do posses s that specialized training, and they could be assigned to the work under the DSS, but with wars going on in Iraq and Afghanistan, they currently are needed for other duties.

For the U.S. government, then, the civilian entity responsible for protecting diplomatic missions and personnel is the DSS. Although the agency's roots go back to 1916, Congress dramatically increased its size and responsibility, and renamed it the DSS, in 1985 in response to a string of security incidents, including the attacks against the U.S. embassies in Lebanon and Kuwait, and the security debacle over a new embassy building in Moscow. The DSS ranks swelled to more than 1,000 special agents by the late 1980s, though they were cut back to little more than 600 by the late 1990s as part of the State Department's historical cycle of security booms and busts. Following 9/11, DSS funding was again increased, and cur rently there are about 1,400 DSS agents assigned to 159 foreign countries and 25 domestic offices.

The DSS protects more dignitaries than any other agency, including the U.S. Secret Service. Its list of protectees includes the secretary of state, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations and the approximately 150 foreign dignitaries who visit the United States each year for events such as the U.N. General Assembly (UNGA) session. It also provides hundreds of protective details overseas, many of them operating day in and day out in dangerous locations such as Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Colombia, the Gaza Strip, Pakistan and nearly every other global hot spot. The DSS also from time to time has been assigned by presidential directives to provide stopgap protection to vulnerable leaders of foreign countries who are in danger of assassination, such as the presidents of Haiti and Afghanista n.

The DSS is charged by U.S. statute with providing this protection to diplomats and diplomatic facilities overseas, and international conventions such as the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations permit civilian agents to provide this kind of security. Because of this, there has never been any question regarding the status or function of DSS special agents. They have never been considered "illegal combatants" because they do not wear military uniforms, even in the many instances when they have provided protection to diplomats traveling in war zones.

Practically, the DSS lacks enough of its own agents to staff all these protective details. Although the highest-profile protective details, such as that on the secretary of state, are staffed exclusively by DSS agents, many details must be augmented by outside personnel. Domestically, some protective details at the UNGA are staffed by a core group of DSS agents that is augmented by deputy U.S. marshals and a gents from the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. Overseas, local police officers who operate under the supervision of DSS agents often are used.

It is not unusual to see a protective detail comprised of two Americans and eight or 10 Peruvian investigative police officers, or even a detail of 10 Guatemalan national police officers with no DSS agents except on moves to dangerous areas. In some places, including Beirut, the embassy contracts its own local security officers, who then work for the DSS agents. In other places, where it is difficult to find competent and trustworthy local hires, the DSS augments its agents with contractors brought in from the United States. Well before 9/11 and the U.S. invasion of Iraq, the DSS was using contractors in places such as Gaza to help fill the gaps between its personnel and its protective responsibilities.

Additionally, for decades the DSS has used contract security officers to provide exterior guard se rvices for U.S. diplomatic missions. In fact, contract guards are at nearly every U.S. diplomatic mission in the world. Marine Security Guards also are present at many missions, but they are used only to maintain the integrity of the sensitive portions of the buildings -- the exterior perimeter is protected by contract security guards. Of course, there are far more exterior contract guards (called the "local guard force") at critical threat posts such as Baghdad than there are at quiet posts such as Nassau, Bahamas.

Over the many years that the DSS has used contract guards to help protect facilities and dignitaries, it has never received the level of negative feedback as it has during the current controversy over the Blackwater security firm. In fact, security contractors have been overwhelmingly successful in protecting those placed in their charge, and many times have acted heroically. Much of the current controversy has to do with the size and scope of the contrac tor operations in Iraq, the situation on the ground and, not insignificantly, the political environment in Washington.

The Iraq Situation

With this operational history in mind, then, we turn to Iraq. Unlike Desert Storm in 1991, in which the U.S. military destroyed Iraq's military and command infrastructure and then left the country, the decision this time was to destroy the military infrastructure and effect regime change, but stay and rebuild the nation. Setting aside all the underlying geopolitical issues, the result of this decision was that the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad has become the largest U.S. diplomatic mission in the world, with some 1,000 Americans working there.

Within a few months of the invasion, however, the insurgents and militants in Iraq made it clear that they would specifically target diplomats serving in the country in order to thwart reconstruction efforts. In August 2003, militants attacked the Jordanian Embassy and the U.N. headquarters in Baghdad with large vehicle bombs. The attack against the U.N building killed Sergio Vieira de Mello, the U.N.'s high commissioner for human rights in Iraq. The U.N. headquarters was hit again in September 2003, and the Turkish Embassy was attacked the following month. The U.S. Embassy and diplomats also have been consistently targeted, including by an October 2004 mortar attack that killed DSS Special Agent Ed Seitz and a November 2004 attack that killed American diplomat James Mollen near Baghdad's Green Zone. DSS Agent Stephen Sullivan was killed, along with three security contractors, in a suicide car bombing against an embassy motorcade in Mosul in September 2005. The people being protected by Sullivan and the contractors survived the attack.

And diplomatic targets continue to be atta cked. The Polish ambassador's motorcade was recently attacked, as was the Polish Embassy. (The embassy was moved into the Green Zone this week because of the continuing threat against it.) The Polish ambassador, by the way, also was protected by a detail that included contract security officers, demonstrating that the U.S. government is not the only one using contractors to protect diplomats in Iraq. There also are thousands of foreign nationals working on reconstruction projects in Iraq, and most are protected by private security contractors. The Iraqi government and U.S. military simply cannot keep them safe from the forces targeting them.

In addition to the insurgents and militants who have set their sights on U.S. and foreign diplomats and businesspeople, there are a number of opportunistic criminal gangs that kidnap foreigners and either hold them for ransom or sell them to militants. If the U.S. government wants its policy of rebuilding Iraq to have any chance of success, it needs to keep diplomats -- who, as part of their mission, oversee the contractors working on reconstruction projects -- safe from the criminals and the forces that want to thwart the reconstruction.

Practical motivations aside, keeping diplomats safe in Iraq also has political and public relations dimensions. The kidnappings and deaths of U.S. diplomats are hailed by militants as successes, and at this juncture also could serve to inflame sentiments among Americans opposed to the Bush administration's Iraq policy. Hence, efforts are being made to avoid such scenarios at all costs.

Reality Check

Due to enormity of the current threat and the sheer size and scope of the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, the DSS currently employs hundreds of contract security officers in the country. Although the recent controversy has sparked some calls for a withdrawal of all security contractors from Iraq, such drastic action is impossible in practical term s. Not only would it require many more DSS agents in Iraq than there are now, it would mean pulling agents from every other diplomatic post and domestic field office in the world. This would include all the agents assigned to critical and high-terrorism-threat posts in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Lebanon; all agents assigned to critical crime-threat posts such as Guatemala and Mexico; and those assigned to critical counterintelligence-threat posts such as Beijing and Moscow. The DSS also would have to abandon its other responsibilities, such as programs that investigate passport and visa fraud, which are a critical part of the U.S government's counterterrorism efforts. The DSS' Anti-Terrorism Assistance and Rewards for Justice programs also are important tools in the war on terrorism that would have to be scrapped under such a scenario.

Although the current controversy will not cause the State Department to stop using private contractors, the department has mandated that one DSS agent be included in every protective motorcade.

Since 2003, contractors working for the DSS in Iraq have conducted many successful missions in a very dangerous environment. Motorcades in Iraq are frequently attacked, and the contractors regularly have to deal with an ambiguous opponent who hides in the midst of a population that is also typically heavily armed. At times, they also must confront those heavily armed citizens who are fed up with being inconvenienced by security motorcades. In an environment in which motorcades are attacked by suicide vehicle bombs, aggressive drivers also pose tactical problems because they clearly cannot be allowed to approach the motorcade out of fear that they could be suicide bombers. The nature of insurgent attacks necessitates aggressive rules of engagement.

Contractors also do not have the same support structure as military convoys, so they cannot call for armor support when their convoys are attacked. Although some private outfits do have light aviation support, they do not have the resources of Army aviation or the U.S. Air Force. Given these factors, the contractors have suffered remarkably few losses in Iraq for the number of missions they have conducted.

It is clear that unless the United States changes its policy in Iraq or Congress provides funding for thousands of new special agents, contract security officers will be required to fill the gap between the DSS' responsibilities and its available personnel for the foreseeable future. Even if thousands of agents were hired now to meet the current need in Iraq, the government could be left in a difficult position should the security situation improve or the United States drama tically reduced its presence in the country. Unlike permanent hires, the use of contractors provides the DSS with the flexibility to tailor its force to meet its needs at a specific point in time.

The use of contractors clearly is not without problems, but it also is not without merits.

Wrap...

https://www.stratfor.com/services/freesignup.php

Distribution and Reprints
This report may be distributed or republished with attribution to Strategic Forecasting, Inc. at www.stratfor.com. For media requests, partnership opportunities, or commercial distribution or republication, please contact pr@stratfor.com.


© Copyright 2007 Strategic Forecasting, Inc. All rights reserved.

Make $$$ with Blackwater USA?

From San Diego City Beat:

Good neighbor?
Blackwater keeps its eye on a tiny East County enclave.
By Pat Sherman 10/09/2007

Blackwater USA Vice President Brian Bonfiglio flashed a self-satisfied smile, gazing east across Round Potrero Road where, on Sunday, more than 200 Potrero residents and antiwar activists streamed onto an adjacent parcel of land. They had come-some from as far as Ventura-to protest the 824-acre paramilitary training facility the company hopes to open a mile down the snaky dirt road.
"I don't think the war profiteering signs are appropriate, quite frankly," Bonfiglio said. "At the end of the day, this will be determined as a land-use project by the [San Diego County] Board of Supervisors."

As the public face of the project-dubbed Blackwater West-it's Bonfiglio's job to sell the facility as a non-invasive windfall to the residents of Potrero, a rural hamlet 45 miles east of San Diego. Given his employer's image as a supplier of trigger-happy mercenary armies, unaccountable to neither the Iraqi nor American governments, wooing Potrero's 850 residents has been a dicey game. Five members of the Potrero Planning Board who voted in December to support the project are facing a recall election. Some 320 residents signed a petition opposing the project that was sent to the county Board of Supervisors and Congressman Bob Filner, the Democrat whose district includes Potrero.

Blackwater, whose private security guards are under fire for allegedly gunning down as many as 17 Iraqi civilians in Baghdad last month, has raked in more than $1 billion for its services in Iraq and Afghanistan since the start of the war.

Yet, the company maintains it's not a mercenary outfit. The Potrero facility, which will include 15 shooting ranges, an ammunition-storage armory, helicopter pad, 2.5-mile driving track and other military trappings, would be used only to train law enforcement and military personnel, Bonfiglio said.

"We will not train Blackwater independent contractors going to places like Iraq and Afghanistan," he said. "It's not in our proposal. We will not have facilities capable of training those people here in San Diego.... We have already discussed it and have made it known [to Filner], although we haven't submitted the letter yet."

Filner, who has introduced legislation requiring that mercenary training facilities be established only on military bases, told CityBeat he doesn't buy it.
"I don't trust whatever they say," Filner said. "I mean, they can be training cops who then become mercenaries.... They're not a good company. They've lied to the American people, they've lied to the state department, lied to the families of people who work for them. Unless it's ironclad, they'll change it the next day."

Communications consultant Terry Stephens, a Potrero resident of 22 years, is running for a seat on the planning board. Stephens said she is less concerned about Blackwater's alleged abuses than she is about the threat to her family's rural lifestyle.

"What we've come out here for is peace and quiet, the midnight skies and just less traffic and a place where you can raise your kids-and Blackwater doesn't fit any of that criteria," Stephens said.

"War from the beginning of time has always been about making money," she added. "Somebody's going to make money off of whatever war they're in. That's not my concern. My concern is my family and my community, and having a training camp, mercenary, pay-for-hire, whatever you want to call it, [in my backyard]."

Though Blackwater has been careful not to make concrete promises, it has intimated that the company would share its copious wealth with the community, as it has done for residents near its Moyock, N.C., training facility. Bonfiglio said Blackwater has provided "millions of dollars" in computers, recycling services, youth sports equipment, college scholarships and rental facilities there.

"We had a young child in Potrero whose mother works two or three jobs," Bonfiglio said. "This girl wrote a wonderful, wonderful essay, but her mother was afraid to take a donation from us, not because of Potrero residents, but outside groups potentially causing her unhappiness."


http://ww2.sdcitybeat.com/cms/story/detail/?id=6234

[ Use link above to continue reading]

Wrap...

Will Dems bend over again? to Colbert's 1st book...

From American Progress:

Think Fast ....

"Two months after vowing to roll back broad new wiretapping powers won by the Bush administration," the New York Times writes, "Congressional Democrats appear ready to make concessions that could extend some of the key powers granted to the National Security Agency." Glenn Greenwald suggests that "the picture is more complicated and less depressing than this NYT article suggests."

In a new report, the Iraqi government wants the United States to "to sever all contracts in Iraq with Blackwater USA within six months and pay $8 million in compensation to each of the families of 17 people killed when the firm's guards" opened fire in a Baghdad last month. The Iraqis also want the United States to hand over the guards involved in the incident for possible trial in Iraqi court.

Army chief of staff Gen. George Casey said the Army "will need three or four years to recover from the strains of repeated deployments to Iraq even with a planned drawdown of US forces next year."

"Almost 40% of the people displaced from New Orleans by Hurricane Katrina" lived "below the poverty line last year," according to a Census Bureau survey. The survey also found that "nearly a third of those who fled the hurricane could not find jobs last year, and thousands more weren't trying."

President Bush's SCHIP veto has caused "fresh divisions" among Senate Republicans. "Because the president and Republican leaders are not pushing a positive health care agenda, a lot of people are not comfortable opposing anything that has children in it," Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) told Roll Call that the "lack of a forceful positive agenda" has "sort of split our caucus."

"Americans are hearing much less from the Bush administration about democracy for the Middle East than they did a year ago. As Shiite Iran rises, the White House has muted its calls for reform in the region as it redirects policy to reembrace Sunni Arab allies -- who run, to varying degrees, authoritarian regimes."

Six years after 9/11, "the 'war on terror' is failing and instead fueling an increase in support for extremist Islamist movements," according to the Oxford Research Group, a British think tank. The group stated that a "fundamental re-think is required" if al Qaeda is to be rendered ineffective.

And finally: In the introduction of his new book, "I Am America (And So Can You!)," Stephen Colbert writes, "I AM NO FAN OF BOOKS. AND CHANCES ARE, IF YOU'RE READING THIS, YOU AND I SHARE A HEALTHY SKEPTICISM ABOUT THE PRINTED WORD. WELL, I WANT YOU TO KNOW THAT THIS IS THE FIRST BOOK I'VE EVER WRITTEN, AND I HOPE IT'S THE FIRST BOOK YOU'VE EVER READ. DON'T MAKE A HABIT OF IT."

Wrap...

Blackwater USA...Halliburton and KBR....

From Stratfor:

https://www.stratfor.com/services/freesignup.php

The Geopolitical Foundations of Blackwater
By George Friedman

For the past three weeks, Blackwater, a private security firm under contract to the U.S. State Department, has been under intense scrutiny over its operations in Iraq. The Blackwater controversy has highlighted the use of civilians for what appears to be combat or near-combat missions in Iraq. Moreover, it has raised two important questions: Who controls these private forces and to whom are they accountable?

The issue is neither unique to Blackwater nor to matters of combat. There have long been questions about the role of Halliburton and its former subsidiary, KBR, in providing support services to the military. The Iraq war has been fought with fewer active-duty troops than might have been expected, and a larger number of contractors relative to the number of troops. But how was the decision made in the first place to use U.S. nongovernmental personnel in a war zone? More important, how has that decision been implemented?

The United States has a long tradition of using private contractors in times of war. For example, it augmented its naval power in the early 19th century by contracting with privateers -- nongovernmental ships -- to carry out missions at sea. During the battle for Wake Island in 1941, U.S. contractors building an airstrip there were trapped by the Japanese fleet, and many fought alongside Marines and naval personnel. During the Civil War, civilians who accompanied the Union and Confederate armies carried out many of the supply functions. So, on one level, there is absolutely nothing new here. This has always been how the United States fights war.

Nevertheless, since before the fall of the Soviet Union, a systematic shift has been taking place in the way the U.S. force structure is designed. This shift, which is rooted both in military policy and in the geopolitical perception that future wars will be fought on a number of levels, made private security contractors such as KBR and Blackwater inevitable. The current situation is the result of three unique processes: the introduction of the professional volunteer military, the change in force structure after the Cold War, and finally the rethinking and redefinition of the term "noncombatant" following the decision to include women in the military, but bar them from direct combat roles.

The introduction of the professional volunteer military caused a rethinking of the role of the soldier, sailor, airman or Marine in the armed forces. Volunteers were part of the military because they chose to be. Unlike draftees, they had other options. During World War II and the first half of the Cold War, the military was built around draftees who were going to serve their required hitch and return to civilian life. Although many were not highly trained, they were quite suited for support roles, from KP to policing the grounds. After all, they already were on the payroll, and new hires were always possible.

In a volunteer army, the troops are expected to remain in the military much longer. Their training is more expensive -- thus their value is higher. Taking trained specialists who are serving at their own pleasure and forcing them to do menial labor over an extended period of time makes little sense either from a utilization or morale point of view. The concept emerged that the military's maintenance work should shift to civilians, and that in many cases the work should be outsourced to contractors. This tendency was reinforced during the Reagan administration, which, given its ideology, supported privatization as a way to make the volunteer army work. The result was a growth in the number of contractors taking over many of the duties that had been performed by soldiers during the years of conscription.

The second impetus was the end of the Cold War and a review carried out by then-Secretary of Defense Les Aspin under then-President Bill Clinton. The core argument was that it was irrational to maintain a standing military as large as had existed during the Cold War. Aspin argued for a more intensely technological military, one that would be less dependent on ground troops. The Air Force was key to this, while the Navy was downsized. The main consideration, however, was the structure of the standing Army -- especially when large-scale, high-intensity, long-term warfare no longer seemed a likely scenario.

The U.S. Army's active-duty component, in particular, was reduced. It was assumed that in time of war, components of the Reserves and National Guard would be mobilized, not so much to augment the standing military, but to carry out a range of specialized roles. For example, Civil Affairs, which has proven to be a critical specialization in Iraq and Afghanistan, was made a primary responsibility of the Reserves and National Guard, as were many engineering, military-intelligence and other specializations.

This plan was built around certain geopolitical assumptions. The first was that the United States would not be fighting peer powers. The second was that it had learned from Vietnam not to get involved in open-ended counterinsurgency operations, but to focus, as it did in Kuwait, on missions that were clearly defined and executable with a main force. The last was that wars would be short, use relatively few troops and be carried out in conjunction with allies. From this it followed that regular forces, augmented by Reserve/National Guard specialists called up for short terms, could carry out national strategic requirements.

The third impetus was the struggle to define military combat and noncombat roles. Given the nature of the volunteer force, women were badly needed, yet they were included in the armed forces under the assumption that they could carry out any function apart from direct combat assignments. This caused a forced -- and strained -- redefinition of these two roles. Intelligence officers called to interrogate a prisoner on the battlefield were thought not to be in a combat position. The same bomb, mortar or rocket fire that killed a soldier might hit them too, but since they technically were not charged with shooting back, they were not combat arms. Ironically, in Iraq, one of the most dangerous tasks is traveling on the roads, though moving supplies is not considered a combat mission.

Under the privatization concept, civilians could be hired to carry out noncombat functions. Under the redefinition of noncombat, the area open to contractors covered a lot of territory. Moreover, under the redefinition of the military in the 1990s, the size and structure of the Army in particular was changed so dramatically that it could not carry out most of its functions without the Reserve/Guard component -- and even with that component, the Army was not large enough. Contractors were needed.

Let us now add a fourth push: the CIA. During Vietnam, and again in Afghanistan and Iraq, a good part of the war was prosecuted by CIA personnel not in uniform and not answerable to the military chain of command. There are arguments on both sides for this, but the fact is that U.S. wars -- particularly highly politicized wars such as counterinsurgencies -- are fought with parallel armies, some reporting to the Defense Department, others to the CIA and other intelligence agencies. The battlefield is, if not flooded, at least full of civilians operating outside of the chain of command, and these civilian government employees are encouraged to hire Iraqi or other nationals, as well as to augment their own capabilities with private U.S. contractors.

Blackwater works for the State Department in a capacity defined as noncombat, protecting diplomats and other high-value personnel from assassination. The Army, bogged down in its own operations, lacks the manpower to perform this obviously valuable work. That means that Blackwater and other contract workers are charged with carrying weapons and moving around the battlefield, which is everywhere. They are heavily armed private soldiers carrying out missions that are combat in all but name -- and they are completely outside of the chain of command.

Moreover, in order to be effective, they have to engage in protective intelligence, looking for surveillance by enemy combatants and trying to foresee potential threats. We suspect the CIA could be helpful in this regard, but it would want information in return. In order to perform its job, then, Blackwater entered the economy of intelligence -- information as a commodity to be exchanged. It had to gather some intelligence in order to trade some. As a result, the distinction between combat and support completely broke down.

The important point is that the U.S. military went to war with the Army the country gave it. We recall no great objections to the downsizing of the military in the 1990s, and no criticisms of the concepts that lay behind the new force structure. The volunteer force, downsized because long-term conflicts were not going to occur, supported by the Reserve/Guard and backfilled by civilian contractors, was not a controversial issue. Only tiresome cranks made waves, challenging the idea that wars would be sparse and short. They objected to the redefinition of noncombat roles and said the downsized force would be insufficient for the 21st century.

Blackwater, KBR and all the rest are the direct result of the faulty geopolitical assumptions and the force structure decisions that followed. The primary responsibility rests with the American public, which made best-case assumptions in a worst-case world. Even without Iraq, civilian contractors would have proliferated on the battlefield. With Iraq, they became an enormous force. Perhaps the single greatest strategic error of the Bush administration was not fundamentally re-examining the assumptions about the U.S. Army on Sept. 12, 2001. Clearly Donald Rumsfeld was of the view that the Army was the problem, not the solution. He was not going to push for a larger force and, therefore, as the war expanded, for fewer civilian contractors.

The central problem regarding private security contractors on the battlefield is that their place in the chain of command is not defined. They report to the State Department, not to the Army and Marines that own the battlefield. But who do they take orders from and who defines their mission? Do they operate under the Uniform Code of Military Justice or under some other rule? They are warriors -- it is foolish to think otherwise -- but they do not wear the uniform. The problem with Blackwater stems from having multiple forces fighting for the same side on the same battlefield, with completely different chains of command. Indeed, it is not clear the extent to which the State Department has created a command structure for its contractors, whether it is capable of doing so, or whether the contractors have created their own chain of command.

Blackwater is the logical outcome of a set of erroneous geopolitical conclusions that predate these wars by more than a decade. The United States will be fighting multidivisional, open-ended wars in multiple theaters, and there will be counterinsurgencies. The force created in the 1990s is insufficient, and thus the definition of noncombat specialty has become meaningless. The Reserve/Guard component cannot fill the gap created by strategic errors. The hiring of contractors makes sense and has precedence. But the use of CIA personnel outside the military chain of command creates enough stress. To have private contractors reporting outside the chain of command to government entities not able to command them is the real problem.

A failure that is rooted in the national consensus of the 1990s was compounded by the Bush administration's failure to reshape the military for the realities of the wars it wished to fight. But the final failure was to follow the logic of the civilian contractors through to its end, but not include them in the unified chain of command. In war, the key question must be this: Who gives orders and who takes them? The battlefield is dangerous enough without that question left hanging.

**********************************************************

Tell George what you think

Get your own copy

Distribution and Reprints
This report may be distributed or republished with attribution to Strategic Forecasting, Inc. at www.stratfor.com. For media requests, partnership opportunities, or commercial distribution or republication, please contact pr@stratfor.com.

Newsletter Subscription
To unsubscribe from receiving this free intelligence report, please click here.

© Copyright 2007 Strategic Forecasting, Inc. All rights reserved.

Wrap...


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------