9/3/7 What Different Analyses of Global Situation Have in Common is Why They're All Wrong

Western “Values”
Lisa Karpova
It has been suggested by some haughty, arrogant westerners that Russia should adhere to or adopt "western values." What exactly are western values? Let’s take a good look. Since 1961, over eight million people from the Third World have died directly at the hands of the US military or indirectly via US-backed and funded regimes.
"They're fighting for our freedom." No crime is too unthinkable or great, it would appear, to ensure American "freedoms" and western values. The imperialists are dedicated to securing control and domination of the world’s resources and markets. All freedom loving people in the world need to struggle to defeat imperialism and give their support to all those nations and peoples who are resisting the empire and standing up to and defeating the most brutal military power in the world. Freedom loving people need to be educated and enlightened about who their enemies are: those who are sending workers to kill or be killed for this ever insatiable empire, an empire in which they have absolutely no stake, an empire which abuses and represses them and keeps them under thumb in a vacuum of deception, an empire which fails to provide for their basic needs and rights as human beings solely for the benefit and enrichment of corporate elitists.

"In the Middle East and Southwest Asia, our overall objective is to remain the predominant outside power in the region and preserve US and Western access to [read control of, as key to leveraging U.S. global dominance] the region's oil."
1992 U.S. "Defense Planning Guide" (Washington Post, March 11, 1992)


the following liberal -imperialist analyses with important data reflecting various views of US war for global domination all share the same flawed perspective of history being made 'from the top' by by 'great men' and their states... blind to reality even in the face of U.S. defeat by Iraqi anti-imperialist resistance and what is actually shaping a genuinely 'new world order' ...
The new 'NATO of the East' takes shape
By M K Bhadrakumar
In the past half-century, Sino-Russian relations haven't been as fraternal. But Sino-Russian relations have reached an almost unparalleled level of mutual understanding... from an editorial by The Financial Times, "... SCO is everything that Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger - who sought to keep Russia and China apart - tried to prevent."
In an overarching way the massive shift in the templates of great-power politics in recent years also has provided impetus for the SCO's growing clout.... Russia has resumed a practice that it had unilaterally suspended in 1992 with the collapse of the Soviet Union. It happened to be on the day the SCO's first ever military maneuvers concluded. Conceivably, the "new cold war" was like Banquo's ghost in Shakespeare's Macbeth, the unsolicited visitor at the SCO's summit meeting in the Kyrgyz capital Bishkek on August 16-17.
Where does the SCO fit in the "new cold war?" The question can take different forms. A variant would be, "Is the SCO turning into a NATO [North Atlantic Treaty Organization]-like military alliance?" The core issue is the extent to which Russia and China would have common concerns and shared interests in the period ahead as the chill continues to deepen in Russia's relations with the West....Briefing the Chinese journalists accompanying Hu, Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi gave an upbeat account of the strategic ties that exist between China and Russia. According to People's Daily, Yang identified "mapping out Sino-Russian ties and upgrading bilateral strategic coordination" as one concrete outcome of Hu's "major diplomatic maneuvering in the Eurasian region" ...
The US efforts to weaken the SCO will continue. The efforts may even be stepped up. By current indications, Washington is moving on the basis of the assessment that the SCO is still some way from becoming a strategic alliance and there is still time to weaken it before an opposition bloc actually takes shape. The US is focusing on Russia, while there is no immediate fear of a rising China. Whereas the strategic "threat" that Russia poses is a current one, the potential threat from China will be a matter at least 15-20 years away. Besides, the US estimates that it has sufficient leverage vis-a-vis China. On the other hand, Russian-US relations have touched a new low, especially as Russia's recovery is accelerating and, correspondingly, Russia's strategic might is reviving... Russia's post-Soviet transformation hasn't gone the way that Washington scripted. Again, to quote Fu, "Moscow no longer feels it has to behave in deference to the US ... Russians are now ready to say whatever they want, like what Putin did at the European security summit in Munich." Thanks to Putin's massive popularity - rating above 80% - Washington's hue and cry about "authoritarianism" isn't frightening the Kremlin. Russia is bent on rebuilding its traditional empirical power... On the whole, the US strategy is predicated on the assumption that there are fundamental contradictions in Russo-Chinese relations that can be exploited.... Therefore, the fundamental objective of the US regional strategy in Central Asia is to weaken Russian influence in a region, which constitutes Russia's "soft underbelly", no matter Russia's legitimate interests there. The strategy works on different planes vis-a-vis different protagonists. [...]

US wooing India
On the other hand, in New Delhi, for instance, which Washington increasingly sees as its junior partner in the pursuit of its Central Asia policy, US diplomacy harps on China's growing influence in Central Asia and the thickening strategic cooperation between Russia and China. This projection principally aims at playing on India's latent sense of rivalry with China... despite the pro-American tilt in India's foreign policy in the recent years, it is doubtful whether Delhi sincerely believes in the viability of the United States' "Great Central Asia" strategy. Delhi would know that thanks to a variety of factors, especially the perceived US defeat in Iraq and Afghanistan, US stock is very low in the Central Asian steppes. US diplomacy doesn't have any credibility with the Central Asian ruling elites. ...

SCO eyes Hindu Kush
The SCO has begun hitting back at the United States' Great Central Asia strategy. It is hitting back in Afghanistan, which Washington regards as the "hub" of its strategy to link Central Asia with South Asia. The SCO put the US on notice that it is quite capable of contesting the Anglo-American monopoly of conflict resolution in Afghanistan. The Bishkek declaration said, "The member countries are willing to participate in the efforts to normalize Afghanistan's political situation ... as well as improve the work of the SCO-Afghanistan Contact Group." ... The US counter-strategy toward any SCO role in Afghanistan will be by way of binding Pakistan even closer to NATO. Pakistan's "loyalty" becomes crucial because most of the supplies for the NATO forces go through Pakistani territory. But, in turn, this makes the United States' Afghan strategy even more heavily dependent on Pakistan's cooperation....

Energy war intensifies
Meanwhile, a new factor in the US regional policy has appeared in the nature of the likely membership of Iran and Turkmenistan in the SCO....
The SCO seems unprepared for the present to grant Iran full membership. Not surprisingly, the SCO doesn't want to get sucked into the Iran-US standoff with its potential ramifications for Russian-US and Sino-US relations if a military confrontation takes place, which cannot be ruled out....
Just ahead of the SCO summit, Daniel Sullivan, the US assistant secretary of state for economic, energy and business affairs, arrived in Ashgabat urging Berdymukhammedov to diversify Turkmenistan's energy export routes and promising deeper cooperation with US companies. "We believe that increased diversification of energy routes, buyers and suppliers are in Turkmenistan's long-term energy-security interest ... Nations should never be left with only one option, one market, one trading partner and one vital infrastructure link ... We are encouraging American companies to invest in Turkmenistan to help your country grow," Sullivan exhorted....contrary to earlier indications, the Bishkek summit put off Turkmenistan's admission, even though Berdymukhammedov attended as a special invitee. The day after the SCO summit concluded, coincidence or not, Washington announced that it was granting funds for undertaking a feasibility study for a trans-Caspian gas pipeline from Turkmenistan. Chinese President Hu Jintao and Kazakh President Nurusultan Nazarbayev agreed to build an oil pipeline from Turkmenistan's Caspian shore to China across Kazakhstan, which will be the second leg of the Atasu-Alashankou oil pipeline with a throughput capacity of 10 million tonnes annually and which is expected to come on stream in 2009.

Only three days before the Hu-Nazarbayev meeting, Kyrgyz and Tajik leaders had separately canvassed with Hu in Bishkek that a section of yet another planned Turkmenistan-China gas pipeline should be built on their territories. Both Russia and China would feel uneasy that Turkmenistan is coming under US influence...Moscow would count on the forthcoming summit of the Caspian littoral states to be held in Tehran on October 18 as an occasion for clarifying equations. Russia, Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan will take part in the summit. The Iranian hosts can be expected to lend a hand in dissuading the Turkmen leader from trading with the Great Satan in the overall interests of regional stability.
If Iran succeeds, the SCO's energy club will take a big step forward by getting Turkmenistan on board. In the process, Iran will have enhanced its case further as regards full membership in the SCO.
Amid all the variables of the volatile regional and international setting, the SCO needn't lack optimism[...]
M K Bhadrakumar served as a career diplomat in the Indian Foreign Service for more than 29 years, with postings including India's ambassador to Uzbekistan (1995-98) and to Turkey (1998-2001).

Rising powers have the US in their sights
The Sole Superpower in Decline: Rise of a Multipolar World
by Dilip Hiro
...With the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, the United States stood tall - militarily invincible, economically unrivaled, diplomatically uncontestable. and the dominating force on information channels worldwide. The next century was to be the true "American century", with the rest of the world molding itself in the image of the sole superpower.
Yet with not even a decade of this century behind us, we are already witnessing the rise of a multipolar world in which new powers are challenging different aspects of US supremacy - Russia and China in the forefront, with regional powers Venezuela and Iran forming the second rank. These emergent powers are primed to erode US hegemony, not confront it, singly or jointly.... other explanations for the current transformation in international affairs... include, above all, the tightening market in oil and natural gas, which has enhanced the power of hydrocarbon-rich nations as never before; the rapid economic expansion of the mega-nations China and India; the transformation of China into the globe's leading manufacturing base; and the end of the Anglo-American duopoly in international television news... soaring national hydrocarbon incomes - a factor draining US hegemony not just in imagery but in reality.
Under President Vladimir Putin, Russia has more than recovered from the economic chaos that followed the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. After in effect renationalizing the energy industry through state-controlled corporations, he began deploying its economic clout to further Russia's foreign-policy interests. In 2005, Russia overtook the United States to become the second-largest oil producer in the world. Its oil income now amounts to US$679 million a day. European countries dependent on imported Russian oil now include Hungary, Poland, Germany, and even Britain. Russia is also the largest producer of natural gas on the planet, with three-fifths of its gas exports going to the 27-member European Union. Bulgaria, Estonia, Finland and Slovakia get 100% of their natural gas from Russia; Turkey 66%; Poland 58%; Germany 41%; and France 25%. Gazprom, the biggest natural-gas enterprise on Earth, has established stakes in 16 EU countries. In 2006, the Kremlin's foreign reserves stood at US$315 billion, up from a paltry $12 billion in 1999. Little wonder that in July 2006, on the eve of the Group of Eight summit in St Petersburg, Putin rejected an energy charter proposed by the Western leaders.

Soaring foreign-exchange reserves, new ballistic missiles, and closer links with a prospering China - with which it conducted joint military exercises on China's Shandong Peninsula in August 2005 - enabled Putin to deal with his US counterpart, President Bush, as an equal, not mincing his words when appraising US policies. "One country, the United States, has overstepped its national boundaries in every way," Putin told the 43rd Munich Trans-Atlantic Conference on Security Policy in February. "This is visible in the economic, political, cultural and educational policies it imposes on other nations ... This is very dangerous."...

Hugo Chavez. While visiting Moscow in June, he urged Russians to return to the ideas of Vladimir Lenin, especially his anti-imperialism. "The Americans don't want Russia to keep rising," he said. "But Russia has risen again as a center of power, and we, the people of the world, need Russia to become stronger." Chavez finalized a $1 billion deal to purchase five diesel submarines to defend Venezuela's oil-rich undersea shelf and thwart any possible future economic embargo imposed by Washington. By then, Venezuela had become the second-largest buyer of Russian weaponry. (Algeria topped the list, another indication of a growing multipolarity in world affairs.) Venezuela acquired the distinction of being the first country to receive a license from Russia to manufacture the famed AK-47 assault rifle.
By channeling some of his country's oil money to needy Venezuelans, Chavez broadened his base of support. Much to the chagrin of the Bush White House, he trounced his sole political rival, Manuel Rosales, in a presidential contest last December with 61% of the vote. Equally humiliating to the Bush administration, Venezuela was by then giving more foreign aid to needy Latin American states than the US was.
After his re-election, Chavez vigorously pursued the concept of forming an anti-imperialist alliance in Latin America as well as globally. He strengthened Venezuela's ties not only with such Latin countries as Bolivia, Cuba, Ecuador, Nicaragua and debt-ridden Argentina, but also with Iran and Belarus. By the time he arrived in Tehran from Moscow (via Minsk) in June, the 180 economic and political accords his government had signed with Tehran were already yielding tangible results. Iranian-designed cars and tractors were coming off assembly lines in Venezuela. The "cooperation of independent countries like Iran and Venezuela has an effective role in defeating the policies of imperialism and saving nations", Chavez declared in Tehran.

Stuck in the quagmire of Iraq and lashed by the gusty winds of rocketing oil prices, the Bush administration finds its area of maneuver woefully limited when dealing with a rising hydrocarbon power.... The reason is the crippling dependence of the United States on imported petroleum, which accounts for 60% of the total it consumes. Venezuela is the fourth-largest source of US imported oil after Canada, Mexico and Saudi Arabia; and some refineries in the US are designed specifically to refine heavy Venezuelan oil...

In Chavez' scheme to undermine the "sole superpower", China has an important role. During a visit last August to Beijing, his fourth in seven years, he announced that Venezuela would triple its oil exports to China to 500,000 barrels per day in three years, a jump that suited both sides. Chavez wants to diversify Venezuela's buyer base to reduce its reliance on exports to the US, and China's leaders are keen to diversify their hydrocarbon imports away from the Middle East, where US influence remains strong. "The support of China is very important [to us] from the political and moral point of view," Chavez declared. Along with a joint refinery project, China agreed to build 13 oil-drilling platforms, supply 18 oil tankers, and collaborate with the state-owned company, Petroleos de Venezuela SA (PdVSA), in exploring a new oilfield in the Orinoco Basin.
So dramatic has been the growth of the state-run company PetroChina that, in mid-2007, it was second only to ExxonMobil in its market value among energy corporations. Indeed, that year three Chinese companies made it on to the list of the world's 10 most highly valued corporations. Only the US had more with five. China's foreign reserves of more than $1.3 trillion have now surpassed Japan's. With its gross domestic product soaring past Germany's, China ranks No 3 in the world economy. In the diplomatic arena, Chinese leaders broke new ground in 1996 by sponsoring the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, consisting of four adjoining countries: Russia and the three former Soviet republics of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan... Later, the SCO invited Uzbekistan to join, even though it does not abut China. In 2003, the SCO broadened its scope by including regional economic cooperation in its charter. That, in turn, led it to grant observer status to Pakistan, India and Mongolia - all adjoining China - and Iran, which does not. When the US applied for observer status, it was rejected, an embarrassing setback for Washington, which enjoyed such status at the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. ... the group conducted its first joint military exercises, code-named Peace Mission 2007, in the Russian Ural region of Chelyabinsk. "The SCO is destined to play a vital role in ensuring international security," said Ednan Karabayev, foreign minister of Kyrgyzstan.

Late last year, as the host of a China-Africa Forum in Beijing attended by leaders of 48 of 53 African nations, China left the US woefully behind in the diplomatic race for that continent (and its hydrocarbon and other resources). In return for Africa's oil, iron ore, copper and cotton, China sold low-priced goods to Africans, and assisted African counties in building or improving roads, railways, ports, hydroelectric dams, telecommunications systems and schools. "The Western approach of imposing its values and political system on other countries is not acceptable to China," said Africa specialist Wang Hongyi of the China Institute of International Studies. "We focus on mutual development."

To reduce the cost of transporting petroleum from Africa and the Middle East, China began constructing a trans-Myanmar oil pipeline from the Bay of Bengal to its southern province of Yunnan, thereby shortening the delivery distance now traveled by tankers. This undermined Washington's campaign to isolate Myanmar. (Earlier, Sudan, boycotted by Washington, had emerged as a leading supplier of African oil to China.) In addition, Chinese oil companies were competing fiercely with their Western counterparts in getting access to hydrocarbon reserves in Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan.

"China's oil diplomacy is putting the country on a collision course with the US and Western Europe, which have imposed sanctions on some of the countries where China is doing business," commented William Mellor of Bloomberg News. The sentiment is echoed by the other side. "I see China and the US coming into conflict over energy in the years ahead," said Jin Riguang, an oil-and-gas adviser to the Chinese government and a member of the Standing Committee of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Council. China's industrialization and modernization have spurred the modernization of its military as well. The test-firing of the country's first anti-satellite missile, which successfully destroyed a defunct Chinese weather satellite in January, dramatically demonstrated its growing technological prowess. An alarmed Washington had already noted an 18% increase in China's 2007 defense budget. Attributing the rise to extra spending on missiles, electronic warfare and other high-tech items, Liao Xilong, commander of the People's Liberation Army's general logistics department, said: "The present-day world is no longer peaceful, and to protect national security, stability and territorial integrity, we must suitably increase spending on military modernization."

China's declared budget of $45 billion was a tiny fraction of the Pentagon's $459 billion one. Yet in May, a Pentagon report noted China's "rapid rise as a regional and economic power with global aspirations" and claimed that it was planning to project military further afield, from the Taiwan Strait into the Asia-Pacific region, in preparation for possible conflicts over territory or resources. [...]

The sole superpower in the sweep of history
This disparate challenge to US global primacy stems from sharpening conflicts over natural resources, particularly oil and natural gas... national (and imperial) identity and history are at stake as well.
It is noteworthy that Russian officials applauding the swift rise of post-Soviet [digest: post-socialist SOCIAL- IMPERIALIST] Russia refer fondly to the pre-Bolshevik Revolution era when, according to them, czarist Russia was a great power. Equally, Chinese leaders remain proud of their country's long imperial past as unique among nations. When viewed globally and in the great stretch of history, the notion of US exceptionalism that drove the neo-conservatives to proclaim the Project for the New American Century in the late 20th century - adopted so wholeheartedly by the Bush administration in this one - is nothing new. Other superpowers have been there before, and they too have witnessed the loss of their prime position to rising powers.
No superpower in modern times has maintained its supremacy for more than several generations. And however exceptional its leaders may have thought themselves, the United States, already clearly past its zenith, has no chance of becoming an exception to this age-old pattern of history....

NATO or Shanghai?
It appears that a new cold war is brewing, though it will not be the same as the last, writes Gamil Mattar*
As if the Arab world did not have enough problems, it seems that Arabs now have to peer into a crystal ball over a question that conjures up the spectre of a tension-fraught political era, the causes and consequences of which remain contentious until today.

Now that the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) has become a political and military reality, and now that NATO has stretched to our regional borders and has exerted its influence in powerful ways within these borders, should not Arab governments begin to consider formulating a new foreign policy Should they not start thinking about which international camp to side with: the Russian-led Eastern one or the US-led Western one? Or, alternatively, should they plan on founding a third camp consisting of countries that do not wish to align with either the East or the West?
This is not as easy or straightforward a choice as some might imagine. Just as occurred in the Cold War era, both camps have aligned themselves on an ideological basis. Unlike in those days, the ideological battle line for any impending confrontation will have nothing to do with communism versus capitalism. We're all capitalists now. It is also clear that the two sides have passed that preparatory phase towards a new international confrontation, or the revival of an old confrontation beneath new ideological banners. Recent developments, such as Russia's reversion to that familiar Cold War ploy of sending its nuclear missile carrying warplanes over NATO bases, leave little doubt that President Vladimir Putin intends to keep true to the pledges he has made over the past seven years. The Russian president has pledged to revive Moscow's global status in a way that would ensure that his country would never have to serve as the "shoeshine boy" to Western politicians again. He pledged not to allow the expansion of NATO to Russia's borders and other Western defence and intelligence projects to encroach on Russia's influence with its neighbours. And he vowed that in order to achieve these objectives he would not stop short of igniting a second cold war, using the same means and strategies to which the Soviet Union had resorted. In short, Russia will at all costs prevent the West from fencing it off behind rings of military and political barbed wire.

It was extremely interesting to watch Russia, over the past seven years, patiently and steadfastly recuperating what it lost under Boris Yeltsin. In the two years before the end of Yeltsin's era, we observed Putin's meteoric rise through the KGB, the sole nationalist foundation to emerge relatively unscathed from the Western engineered assault of anarchy that overthrew most of the country's institutions. It was Putin who rescued Russia's petrochemical industries just as they were about to be transferred into foreign hands. We were then awestruck by the historical alliance with the Russian Orthodox Church, in accordance with which he pledged to protect it from waves of Western evangelism. And one could not help but be impressed with the superbly devised plans that he put into effect to slowly and carefully build his country up again.

Then we watched Putin suddenly throw down the gauntlet before the West in his famous speech before the security conference in Munich in February 2007. After this, Russia proceeded in bold and audacious steps towards the brink of inevitable confrontation. At one moment, it planted the Russian flag 4,000 metres beneath the surface of the polar icecap. At the next, Russian military aircraft breached Britain's airspace. Then it announced that it would stop abiding by existing conventional weapons agreements and that Kalingrad would become its largest existing antiballistic missile base. Before long, Russian long-range aircraft flew over America's Pacific military base in Guam and over British territorial waters. Soon afterwards, Russia asked Syria to consider giving the Russian fleet access to the Tartoos military base, signalling its determination to reassert the right of its navy to navigate the Mediterranean. Then it conducted joint military exercises with the other six SCO countries, officially inaugurating a new Russian-led military alliance that includes China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, and that India, Iran and Pakistan appear to be interested in joining.

On the other side, all indications point to the resolve to prolong a unipolar order and to perpetuate the US control of the helm. It is obvious that Western nations have busily combined their efforts towards another policy of military, political and economic containment. They are stirring up trouble in all the countries that neighbour Russia and are building military bases in Eastern European countries that have recently joined NATO, most of which border on Russia. They had promised Moscow that NATO would not exceed certain bounds if Russia agreed to allow the Baltic nations to join the Western alliance, only to renege on this promise. Already, they have made overtures to Ukraine and Georgia to sign up with NATO and the US has procured military facilities or access to bases in these countries, just as it had in other Central Asian countries, perhaps precisely in anticipation of the ascendance of the SCO.

Commentators in Russia and China believe that the US is attempting to capitalise on the chaos it has sewn in Afghanistan and Iraq and that it is working at breakneck speed to precipitate something similar in Iran in order to secure for itself, and the West in general, direct or indirect military presence beginning from Lebanon and Palestine and extending to the borders of Russia and China. Russia and China, for their part, are clearly striving to keep this scheme in check, as difficult as this task is due to the general deterioration in political conditions in the Middle East and most countries of the Islamic world.
The world has returned to the kind of situation Henry Kissinger likes best: the scramble for a new balance of power. Nor do I have the slightest doubt that the former US secretary of state will use every bit of influence he has to persuade Washington to do all in its power to forestall a closer bond between China and Russia, which was the very reason that he pursued policies of rapprochement towards both of these countries during the final phases of the Vietnam War.
We've returned to the type of situation that everyone says the Arabs like best: the opportunity to play both ends against the middle. But there's a significant difference this time. During the Cold War, the world was divided into three ideological/political spheres: the capitalist camp, the Marxist- socialist camp and the non-aligned camp. As reasonable as the non-aligned movement might appear to almost everyone today, the Americans at the time denounced it vehemently. To John Foster Dulles, secretary of state under Dwight D Eisenhower, the Marxist-socialist camp was such an evil that no one could remain neutral in the face of it. The Arabs were punished severely for having chosen not to take sides. Today, given that the capitalist-socialist dichotomy no longer exists, the groundwork is being laid for a new political/ideological antithesis.[...]
* The writer is director of the Arab Centre for Development and Futuristic Research.

This present imperialist terror war is based largely on the strategic analyses of Zbigniew Brzezinski, National Security Advisor to President Jimmy Carter (1977-81)

1997: THE GRAND CHESSBOARD: American Primacy & its Geostrategic Imperatives
publisher: Basic Books / 1998-10 / Paperback / 240 Pages/ isbn-10: 0465027261 / isbn-13: 9780465027262 / Edition: Reissue
"...The last decade of the twentieth century has witnessed a tectonic shift in world affairs. For the first time ever, a non-Eurasian power has emerged not only as a key arbiter of Eurasian power relations but also as the world's paramount power. The defeat and collapse of the Soviet Union was the final step in the rapid ascendance of a Western Hemisphere power, the United States, as the sole and, indeed, the first truly global power... (p. xiii)
"... But in the meantime, it is imperative that no Eurasian challenger emerges, capable of dominating Eurasia and thus of also challenging America. The formulation of a comprehensive and integrated Eurasian geostrategy is therefore the purpose of this book. (p. xiv)

"For America, the chief geopolitical prize is Eurasia... Now a non-Eurasian power is preeminent in Eurasia - and America's global primacy is directly dependent on how long and how effectively its preponderance on the Eurasian continent is sustained. (p.30)
"In that context, how America 'manages' Eurasia is critical. Eurasia is the globe's largest continent and is geopolitically axial. A power that dominates Eurasia would control two of the world's three most advanced and economically productive regions. A mere glance at the map also suggests that control over Eurasia would almost automatically entail Africa's subordination, rendering the Western Hemisphere and Oceania geopolitically peripheral to the world's central continent. About 75 per cent of the world's people live in Eurasia, and most of the world's physical wealth is there as well, both in its enterprises and underneath its soil. Eurasia accounts for 60 per cent of the world's GNP and about three-fourths of the world's known energy resources." (p.31)

"Two basic steps are thus required: first, to identify the geostrategically dynamic Eurasian states that have the power to cause a potentially important shift in the international distribution of power and to decipher the central external goals of their respective political elites and the likely consequences of their seeking to attain them;... second, to formulate specific U.S. policies to offset, co-opt, and/or control the above..." (p. 40)
"...To put it in a terminology that harkens back to the more brutal age of ancient empires, the three grand imperatives of imperial geostrategy are to prevent collusion and maintain security dependence among the vassals, to keep tributaries pliant and protected, and to keep the barbarians from coming together." (p.40)
"Henceforth, the United States may have to determine how to cope with regional coalitions that seek to push America out of Eurasia, thereby threatening America's status as a global power." (p.55)

"... [the Central Asian Republics] are of importance from the standpoint of security and historical ambitions to at least three of their most immediate and more powerful neighbors, namely Russia, Turkey and Iran, with China also signaling an increasing political interest in the region. But the Eurasian Balkans are infinitely more important as a potential economic prize: an enormous concentration of natural gas and oil reserves is located in the region, in addition to important minerals, including gold." (p.124) [Emphasis added]
"The world's energy consumption is bound to vastly increase over the next two or three decades. Estimates by the U.S. Department of energy anticipate that world demand will rise by more than 50 percent between 1993 and 2015, with the most significant increase in consumption occurring in the Far East. The momentum of Asia's economic development is already generating massive pressures for the exploration and exploitation of new sources of energy and the Central Asian region and the Caspian Sea basin are known to contain reserves of natural gas and oil that dwarf those of Kuwait, the Gulf of Mexico, or the North Sea." (p.125)
"Uzbekistan is, in fact, the prime candidate for regional leadership in Central Asia." (p.130)

"... an Islamic revival - already abetted from the outside not only by Iran but also by Saudi Arabia - is likely to become the mobilizing impulse for the increasingly pervasive new nationalisms, determined to oppose any reintegration under Russian - and hence infidel - control." (p. 133).

"For Pakistan, the primary interest is to gain Geostrategic depth through political influence in Afghanistan - and to deny to Iran the exercise of such influence in Afghanistan and Tajikistan - and to benefit eventually from any pipeline construction linking Central Asia with the Arabian Sea." (p.139)

"It follows that America's primary interest is to help ensure that no single power comes to control this geopolitical space and that the global community has unhindered financial and economic access to it." (p148)
"Without sustained and directed American involvement, before long the forces of global disorder could come to dominate the world scene. And the possibility of such a fragmentation is inherent in the geopolitical tensions not only of today's Eurasia but of the world more generally." (p.194)
"America is now the only global superpower, and Eurasia is the globe's central arena. Hence, what happens to the distribution of power on the Eurasian continent will be of decisive importance to America's global primacy and to America's historical legacy." (p.194"With warning signs on the horizon across Europe and Asia, any successful American policy must focus on Eurasia as a whole and be guided by a Geostrategic design." (p.197)
"That puts a premium on maneuver and manipulation in order to prevent the emergence of a hostile coalition that could eventually seek to challenge America's primacy..." (p. 198)
"The most immediate task is to make certain that no state or combination of states gains the capacity to expel the United States from Eurasia or even to diminish significantly its decisive arbitration role." (p. 198)

"The attitude of the American public toward the external projection of American power has been... ambivalent. The public supported America's engagement in World War II largely because of the shock effect of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor."
It is also a fact that America is too democratic at home to be autocratic abroad. This limits the use of America's power, especially its capacity for military intimidation. Never before has a populist democracy attained international supremacy. But the pursuit of power is not a goal that commands popular passion, except in conditions of a sudden threat or challenge to the public's sense of domestic well-being. The economic self-denial (that is, defense spending) and the human sacrifice (casualties, even among professional soldiers) required in the effort are uncongenial to democratic instincts. Democracy is inimical to imperial mobilization."

"In the long run, global politics are bound to become increasingly uncongenial to the concentration of hegemonic power in the hands of a single state. Hence, America is not only the first, as well as the only, truly global superpower, but it is also likely to be the very last."

"As America becomes an increasingly multicultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstances of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat."
Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard

[excerpt] 1997: A Geostrategy for Eurasia
Zbigniew Brzezinski
From Foreign Affairs, September/ October 1997
Zbigniew Brzezinski, Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs in 1977-81, is Counselor at the Center for Strategic and International Studies and Professor of Foreign Policy at the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies at The Johns Hopkins University. This article is adapted from his forthcoming book, The Grand Chessboard.

Seventy-five years ago, when the first issue of Foreign Affairs saw the light of day, the United States was a self-isolated Western hemispheric power, sporadically involved in the affairs of Europe and Asia. World War II and the ensuing Cold War compelled the United States to develop a sustained commitment to Western Europe and the Far East. America's emergence as the sole global superpower now makes an integrated and comprehensive strategy for Eurasia imperative.
Eurasia is home to most of the world's politically assertive and dynamic states. All the historical pretenders to global power originated in Eurasia. The world's most populous aspirants to regional hegemony, China and India, are in Eurasia, as are all the potential political or economic challengers to American primacy. After the United States, the next six largest economies and military spenders are there, as are all but one of the world's overt nuclear powers, and all but one of the covert ones. Eurasia accounts for 75 percent of the world's population, 60 percent of its GNP, and 75 percent of its energy resources. Collectively, Eurasia's potential power overshadows even America's.

Eurasia is the world's axial supercontinent. A power that dominated Eurasia would exercise decisive influence over two of the world's three most economically productive regions, Western Europe and East Asia. A glance at the map also suggests that a country dominant in Eurasia would almost automatically control the Middle East and Africa. With Eurasia now serving as the decisive geopolitical chessboard, it no longer suffices to fashion one policy for Europe and another for Asia. What happens with the distribution of power on the Eurasian landmass will be of decisive importance to America's global primacy and historical legacy.

A sustainable strategy for Eurasia must distinguish among the more immediate short-run perspective of the next five years or so, the medium term of 20 or so years, and the long run beyond that. Moreover, these phases must be viewed not as watertight compartments but as part of a continuum. In the short run, the United States should consolidate and perpetuate the prevailing geopolitical pluralism on the map of Eurasia. This strategy will put a premium on political maneuvering and diplomatic manipulation, preventing the emergence of a hostile coalition that could challenge America's primacy, not to mention the remote possibility of any one state seeking to do so. By the medium term, the foregoing should lead to the emergence of strategically compatible partners which, prompted by American leadership, might shape a more cooperative trans-Eurasian security system. In the long run, the foregoing could become the global core of genuinely shared political responsibility.
In the western periphery of Eurasia, the key players will continue to be France and Germany, and America's central goal should be to continue to expand the democratic European bridgehead. In the Far East, China is likely to be increasingly pivotal, and the United States will not have a Eurasian strategy unless a Sino-American political consensus is nurtured. [...]

Brownback: Iraq should be three states
Sen. Sam Brownback told high school students in this tornado-ravaged city Thursday that the United States needs a "political surge" in Iraq that will divide that country into three independent states with a weak federated government in Baghdad. Responding to a question from a student, the Republican presidential candidate drew in blue marker on a dry-erase board a rough sketch of Iraq divided into Kurdish, Sunni and Shiite regions. Amid the ruins of the students' own south-central Kansas town that was all but destroyed by a May 4 tornado, Brownback gave them an impromptu lesson on rebuilding Iraq. "Baghdad is the biggest problem of this right now," he told about two dozen juniors and seniors crowded into one of the modular classrooms that has become their school. The United States should "facilitate the movement" of people in that city into ethnic neighborhoods, he said. "It is the reality of what [U.S. STRATEGY] is on the ground...". Brownback said he is supporting a bipartisan bill to split Iraq, with a Kurdish region in the north and separate Shiite and Sunni regions in the south. "This is what it will ultimately look like," .... http://www.uruknet.de/?p=35925 http://www.kansas.com/news/state/v-print/story/162307.html

U.S. 2002 Pre-invasion Plan to Divide Iraq Into Three Separate States
U.S. Considers Dividing Iraq Into Three Separate States After Saddam Is Gone
October 1, 2002
:: Article nr. 34724 sent on 23-jul-2007 04:55 ECT

1. Stratfor's Latest Intelligence On Iraq.
2. Iraq Is Too Big For One New Government.
3. US Would Divide Into Three Separate States.
4. Central Iraq (Sunnis) Would Join With Jordan
5. The Shia Region Would Join With Kuwait.
6. The Kurds Get Their Own State In The North.
7. Iraq Ceases To Exist; Baghdad No Longer Capital.
8. Investment Market Implications.
Stratfor.com is one of the most respected geopolitical intelligence services in the world. Stratfor's high-level sources tell them that one of the leading long-term strategies being considered by US war planners is one that will DIVIDE Iraq into three separate regions. Under this plan Iraq would CEASE TO EXIST.
Stratfor believes the plan would divide Iraq as follows:
1. The central and largest part of Iraq that is populated by the Sunni Arabs would be joined with JORDAN to form one "United Hashemite Kingdom," which would be ruled by Jordan's King Abdullah. This area would include Baghdad, which would no longer be the capital.
2. The Kurdish region of northern and northwestern Iraq, including Mosul and the vast Kirkuk oilfields, would become its own autonomous state.
3 The Shia Region in southwestern Iraq, including Basra, would make up the third state, or more likely it would be joined with Kuwait....

Benefits To The US
According to Stratfor's sources and the Israeli media, the richest oil areas would go not to the Hashemite kingdom but to the autonomous Kurdish region in the north. To make sure the new Kurdish state is not seen as a threat to Turkey, our ally, the US would deploy armed forces and build new military bases in the area, not only to prevent any hostilities along the border, but also to insure the free flow of oil from this area.

As a part of this plan, it is believed that the Bush administration would also negotiate new deals to build US military bases in the Hashemite kingdom and in the Shia Region to the south. This would be a huge development in the War On Terror. With US military bases in the three new states, the US would be in an ideal position should it choose in the future to go after Iran, Saudi Arabia or other states in the region that are supporting terrorism.
With Iraq divided as described above, with US aid and military assistance, and not to mention, huge oil revenues going into government coffers (as opposed to Saddam's pocketbook), this region could become very prosperous very quickly.

Benefits For Israel And Jordan
Stratfor suggests that the division of Iraq, as described above, will reap big benefits for both Israel and Jordan. Iraq, arguably Israel's most determined enemy, would be eliminated. The end of Saddam's regime would also deprive the Palestinians of much financial and other assistance, which could reduce the effectiveness of their attacks against the Jewish state.

King Abdullah of Jordan would vastly expand his role and prominence in the region with a joint Hashemite state, becoming the second-most important US ally in the region after Israel. In addition to his huge territorial gains, he also would get a chunk of Iraqi oil. And Palestinians, who currently make up half of Jordan's population, would become a minority in the new state, with much less potential to stir up trouble.

Stratfor's sources indicate that the plan to divide (and thus eliminate) Iraq as described above is not the only plan under consideration, and it is also not finalized. Stratfor says that such a plan reportedly was discussed at an unusual meeting between Crown Prince Hassan of Jordan and pro-US Iraqi Sunni opposition members in London in July. Further, they say that in September, the Israeli newspaper, Yedioth Ahronoth, stated that the US goal in Iraq was to create a United Hashemite Kingdom that would encompass Jordan and Iraq's Sunni areas. Also, Israeli terrorism expert Ehud Sprinzak recently echoed this sentiment on Russian television on September 24. According to Stratfor, Sprinzak stated that the authors of the "Hashemite" plan are Vice President Dick Cheney and Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, both considered the most hawkish of Bush administration officials. [...]

[U.S.] Behind Allawi's Bid for Power
Over time, CIA officials pushed Allawi as a more acceptable and reliable potential successor to Saddam than Ahmed Chalabi, a rival Iraqi exile (and Allawi relative) whose ambitions to succeed Saddam were heavily promoted by neoconservative intellectuals and civilian Pentagon aides to former Defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18281.htm

Some see 'coup' as Iraq's best hope
Ex-premier Allawi building political bloc to challenge al-Maliki
By Liz Sly
In the lobbies of luxury hotels and the apartments of exiles, an assortment of Iraqi politicians has been spending the summer vacation plotting a new Iraqi coup -- a non-violent, parliamentary coup to be sure, but a coup nonetheless, that would oust Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, declare a state of emergency and install a new government. At the forefront of these efforts is former Prime Minister Ayad Allawi, a secular Shiite who was Washington's first choice to lead Iraq after the U.S. occupation authority ended. He now is being presented by his followers as the best hope of saving Iraq from what they say is certain catastrophe... Allawi's supporters are heartened by signs that Washington is coming round to the view that al-Maliki might not be a permanent figure. Two days before Bush spoke, Allawi signed a $300,000 contract with the Washington lobbying firm of Barbour, Griffiths and Rogers to represent his interests, according to a copy of the contract obtained by the Web site Iraqslogger.com and confirmed by Allawi on CNN. The head of the firm's international relations department is Robert Blackwill, a longtime adviser to Bush who served as his special envoy to Iraq... Allawi is pro-Western, an old Washington ally, who would seek to prise Iraq away from Iran's sphere of influence...
Though Allawi has flown from Amman, where he usually lives, to Kurdistan to try to woo Kurdish leaders, several previous efforts in the past have foundered on the Kurds' conviction that a Shiite-led government would better secure their interests in the new Iraq. Nonetheless, al-Maliki's failure thus far to deliver on almost all the key measures of progress set forth by the Bush administration and evidence that his coalition is falling apart suggest Washington may soon have to explore alternatives, said al-Mutlaq. "The Americans finally will support us because they don't have another solution," he said, sipping tea and chain-smoking in the coffee shop at one of Amman's top hotels as a steady stream of Iraqi exiles and members of parliament wandered in and out. "If all these things don't work out, it is the people who will make a coup. They will rise up, and there will be a coup all over Iraq. lsly@tribune.com

Kurds in the time of Cholera
Roads to Iraq
When Gabriel Garcia Marquez wrote Love in the time of Cholera, he dealt with poverty in the Caribbean, when cholera exist means that poverty and neglect exists. This was in the Caribbean, one of the highest humidity areas on Earth and warm climate and therefore this disease is frequent, flourishes in such conditions, but these are not the conditions in North Iraq or Sulaymaniyah to spread the epidemic except for the following reasons: Drinking water is contaminated and polluted, which means neglected by the authorities.
According to a report issued International Medical Corps only 30% of the population of Sulaymaniyah have drinking water supply, for two hours only, and now Kurdish authorities asked the world to intervene to prevent the spread of the epidemic and to address the situation.... Kurdish authorities in northern Iraq has been unable to supply the population with clean while its share of the annual State budget nearly seven billion dollars ... The oil money? www.roadstoiraq.com/2007/09/02/kurds-in-the-time-of-cholera/

For Kurds, it's drill now legislate later
Iraq region takes initiative during wait for oil law
By Liz Sly
TAQ TAQ, Iraq - The sticky-sweet smell of raw crude oil lubricates the dusty air as oilmen in orange overalls prepare to test one of the few new oil wells to be drilled in Iraq since the 2003 invasion. Then, with a gentle whoosh, a huge tongue of orange flame and dense black smoke shoots across the bare, undulating hills of this sparsely populated corner of northern Iraq. It's a sight for sore eyes in a country where such fires are usually the result of sabotage, where the gasoline queues still stretch for blocks on end and where fierce political squabbles are delaying enactment of a law to regulate Iraq's oil industry, one of the key benchmarks set by the Bush administration to measure Iraq's progress.
But this is Kurdistan, a world apart from the rest of Iraq, and Kurdistan isn't waiting for a political solution in Baghdad to get on with the job of tapping potentially vast oil reserves. While Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish politicians bicker over the new oil law, the Kurdish regional government has been busily promoting investment in northern oil fields, signing deals with foreign oil companies and moving ahead with an investor-friendly oil law in the regional legislature.
"Kurdistan is working," said Ashti Hawrami, the Kurdistan Regional Government's minister of oil and gas. "If we sit down and do nothing we are not doing our job. We are doing our job for the country." But whether Kurdistan is developing the oil resources for the sake of Iraq, or on its own behalf, is a question being asked by many Iraqis....
Kurds have emerged as the most vociferous opponents of the current draft of the oil law, because, they say, the version they had agreed to now has amendments that assign management of all newly discovered fields to a state-run oil company and restrict the ability of federal regions to make deals with foreign companies -- such as those already made with at least five foreign partnerships.
The Kurds' decades-old struggle against Saddam Hussein's regime left Kurdistan largely ignored in the race to develop Iraq's oil resources. Of Iraq's proven oil reserves of about 115 billion barrels, Kurdistan is known to have between 2 billion and 3 billion barrels... But Hawrami cited recent independent surveys that put the estimated, though still unproven, reserves higher, at nearly 25 billion barrels

Oil firms to submit $1bn Iraq development plan
Addax Petroleum and Genel Enerji expect to submit a $1 billion development plan within weeks to Iraq's Kurdish region for their joint venture TTopco's Taq Taq oilfield, a TTopco executive said Sunday. Output from the field could hit 200,000 barrels per day (bpd) by 2010, Les Blair, general manager of TTopco, told Reuters. "The production plateau is up to 200,000 bpd," Blair said. "In the coming weeks we'll submit the field development plan. Investment would be approximately $1 billion." The plan will go to Iraq's semi-autonomous Kurdish Regional Government (KRG) for approval. The blueprint requires access to an export route for the oil as output would exceed local demand, Blair said... http://www.uruknet.de/?p=35903

Religious Fatwa about Concerning Petroleum and Gas Law
Association of Muslim Scholars in Iraq (AMSI)
Recently Petroleum and Gas Law proposal was submitted to members of The Iraqi parliament, after a great pressure of American and British occupation forces for voting and confirming. The AMSI has issued the following fatwa in conformity with Islamic religion point of view after it has issued its declaration Nr. 382 on 06/03/2007 emphasizing that this law is being issued in context with occupation requirements...

Yazidis, The People of the Peacock Angel
Felicity Arbuthnot
...The latest slaughter for whom the occupiers are responsible (as occupying forces, all be it illegally, the American and British forces are responsible for the safety of and provision of essential services to the population) is that of at least five hundred Yazidis, in the north west Sinjar region, on 14th August. Four truck bombs left three settlements "looking as if a nuclear explosion" had occurred. At least fifteen hundred are estimated to have been injured, according to Dr Said Hakki of the Iraqi Red Crescent - and history has again repeated itself (...) how many "suicide bombings" are "false flag" operations? In Afghanistan, in ten years of war with the Soviet Union, they were unheard of, as in Iraq's previous invasion by the British. For anyone who cares to look, there are many reports of Iraqis being stopped at check points, being told to take documents to police or army station, coming out to find their vehicle driving differently... http://www.uruknet.de/?p=35856

'No elections if Hamas will win'
Israeli Interior Minister Avi Dichter Friday told Israeli army radio, "we will not approve of the elections until we can be sure that Hamas won't win."...So PLO elections are not in the cards, and neither are general Palestinian legislative and presidential elections

Osamah Khalil, The Electronic Intifada
Over the past two months a coalition has formed around Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas in an attempt to bolster his rule. Desperate to maintain his hold on power, Abbas has chosen to forgo national unity and rely on support from the U.S. and Israel to tighten his hold on the West Bank and target Gaza. Abbas and his benefactors have made it clear to the residents of Gaza that only by abandoning Hamas will the siege be lifted. In the interim, any deaths or starvation, while regrettable, are the requisite price to maintain Abbas' presidency and the position of his cronies. In pursuing this course, he and his appointed Prime Minister Salam Fayyad have tied their fate to American and Israeli officials in the mistaken belief that they will deliver an independent Palestinian state. In doing so, Abbas and Fayyad ignore the personal, professional, and ideological relationships uniting these officials, which, contrary to their public statements, serve to undermine Palestinian aspirations. The result of this delusional strategy will be a cage disguised as a country... http://www.uruknet.de/?p=35848

Blaming the lobby
Joseph Massad
As someone who has been facing the full brunt of the might of the pro-Israel lobby in the US, Joseph Massad* explains the deceit behind blaming the Israeli lobby for US policies towards the Palestinians and the Arab world

In the last 25 years, many Palestinians and other Arabs, in the United States and in the Arab world, have been so awed by the power of the US pro-Israel lobby that any study, book, or journalistic article that exposes the inner workings, the substantial influence, and the financial and political power of this lobby have been greeted with ecstatic sighs of relief that Americans finally can see the "truth" and the "error" of their ways.

The underlying argument has been simple and has been told time and again by Washington's regime allies in the Arab world, pro-US liberal and Arab intellectuals, conservative and liberal US intellectuals and former politicians, and even leftist Arab and American activists who support Palestinian rights, namely, that absent the pro- Israel lobby, America would at worst no longer contribute to the oppression of Arabs and Palestinians and at best it would be the Arabs' and the Palestinians' best ally and friend. What makes this argument persuasive and effective to Arabs? Indeed, why are its claims constantly brandished by Washington's Arab friends to Arab and American audiences as a persuasive argument? I contend that the attraction of this argument is that it exonerates the United States' government from all the responsibility and guilt that it deserves for its policies in the Arab world and gives false hope to many Arabs and Palestinians who wish America would be on their side instead of on the side of their enemies.

Let me start with the premise of the argument, namely its effect of shifting the blame for US policies from the United States onto Israel and its US lobby. According to this logic, it is not the United States that should be held directly responsible for all its imperial policies in the Arab world and the Middle East at large since World War II, rather it is Israel and its lobby who have pushed it to launch policies that are detrimental to its own national interest and are only beneficial to Israel. Establishing and supporting Arab and other Middle East dictatorships, arming and training their militaries, setting up their secret police apparatuses and training them in effective torture methods and counter-insurgency to be used against their own citizens should be blamed, according to the logic of these studies, on Israel and its US lobby. Blocking all international and UN support for Palestinian rights, arming and financing Israel in its war against a civilian population, protecting Israel from the wrath of the international community should also be blamed not on the United States, the studies insist, but on Israel and its lobby. Additionally, and in line with this logic, controlling Arab economies and finances, dominating key investments in the Middle East, and imposing structural adjustment policies by the IMF and the World Bank which impoverish the Arab peoples should also be blamed on Israel, and not the United States. Finally, starving and then invading Iraq, threatening to invade Syria, raiding and then sanctioning Libya and Iran, besieging the Palestinians and their leaders must also be blamed on the Israeli lobby and not the US government. Indeed, over the years, many pro-US Arab dictators let it leak officially and unofficially that their US diplomat friends have told them time and again how much they and "America" support the Arab world and the Palestinians were it not for the influence of the pro- Israel lobby (sometimes identified by the American diplomats in more explicit "ethnic" terms).

While many of the studies of the pro-Israel lobby are sound and full of awe-inspiring well- documented details about the formidable power commanded by groups like the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and its allies, the problem with most of them is what remains unarticulated. For example, when and in what context has the United States government ever supported national liberation in the Third World? The record of the United States is one of being the implacable enemy of all Third World national liberation groups, including European ones, from Greece to Latin America to Africa and Asia, except in the celebrated cases of the Afghan fundamentalists' war against the USSR and supporting apartheid South Africa's main terrorist allies in Angola and Mozambique (UNITA and RENAMO) against their respective anti-colonial national governments. Why then would the US support national liberation in the Arab world absent the pro-Israel lobby is something these studies never explain.

The United States has had a consistent policy since World War II of fighting all regimes across the Third World who insist on controlling their national resources, whether it be land, oil, or other valuable minerals. This extends from Iran in 1953 to Guatemala in 1954 to the rest of Latin America all the way to present-day Venezuela. Africa has fared much worse in the last four decades, as have many countries in Asia. Why would the United States support nationalist regimes in the Arab world who would nationalise natural resources and stop their pillage by American capital absent the pro-Israel lobby also remains a mystery unexplained by these studies. Finally, the United States government has opposed and overthrown or tried to overthrow any regime that seeks real and tangible independence in the Third World and is especially galled by those regimes that pursue such policies through democratic elections. The overthrow of regimes from Arbenz to Goulart to Mossadegh and Allende and the ongoing attempts to overthrow Chavez are prominent examples, as is the overthrow of nationalist regimes like Sukarno's and Nkrumah's. The terror unleashed on populations who challenged the US-installed friendly regimes from El Salvador and Nicaragua to Zaire to Chile and Indonesia resulted in the killing of hundreds of thousands, if not millions by repressive police and militaries trained for these important tasks by the US. This is aside from direct US invasions of South East Asian and Central American countries that killed untold millions for decades. Why would the US and its repressive agencies stop invading Arab countries, or stop supporting the repressive police forces of dictatorial Arab regimes and why would the US stop setting up shadow governments inside its embassies in Arab capitals to run these countries' affairs (in some cases the US shadow government runs the Arab country in question down to the smallest detail with the Arab government in question reduced to executing orders) if the pro-Israel lobby did not exist is never broached by these studies let alone explained.

The arguments put forth by these studies would have been more convincing if the Israel lobby was forcing the United States government to pursue policies in the Middle East that are inconsistent with its global policies elsewhere. This, however, is far from what happens. While US policies in the Middle East may often be an exaggerated form of its repressive and anti- democratic policies elsewhere in the world, they are not inconsistent with them. One could easily make the case that the strength of the pro-Israel lobby is what accounts for this exaggeration, but even this contention is not entirely persuasive. One could argue (and I have argued elsewhere) that it is in fact the very centrality of Israel to US strategy in the Middle East that accounts, in part, for the strength of the pro-Israel lobby and not the other way around. Indeed, many of the recent studies highlight the role of pro-Likud members of the Bush administration (or even of the Clinton administration) as evidence of the lobby's awesome power, when, i t could be easily argued that it is these American politicians who had pushed Likud and Labour into more intransigence in the 1990s and are pushing them towards more conquest now that they are at the helm of the US government. This is not to say, however, that the leaders of the pro-Israel lobby do not regularly brag about their crucial influence on US policy in Congress and in the White House. That they have done regularly since the late 1970s. But the lobby is powerful in the United States because its major claims are about advancing US interests and its support for Israel is contextualised in its support for the overall US strategy in the Middle East. The pro- Israel lobby plays the same role that the China lobby played in the 1950s and the Cuba lobby still plays to this day. The fact that it is more powerful than any other foreign lobby on Capitol Hill testifies to the importance of Israel in US strategy and not to some fantastical power that the lobby commands independent of and extraneous to the US "national interest." The pro-Israel lobby could not sell its message and would not have any influence if Israel was a communist or anti-imperialist country or if Israel opposed US policy elsewhere in the world.

Some would argue that even though Israel attempts to overlap its interests with those of the US, that its lobby is misleading American policy- makers and shifting their position from one of objective assessment of what is truly in America's best interest and that of Israel's. The argument runs as follows: US support for Israel causes groups who oppose Israel to hate the US and target it for attacks. It also costs the US friendly media coverage in the Arab world, affects its investment potential in Arab countries, and loses its important allies in the region, or at least weakens these allies. But none of this is true. The United States has been able to be Israel's biggest backer and financier, its staunchest defender and weapon-supplier while maintaining strategic alliances with most if not all Arab dictatorships, including the Palestinian Authority under both Yasser Arafat and Mahmoud Abbas. Moreover, US companies and American investments have the largest presence across the Arab world, most prominently but not exclusively in the oil sector. Also, even without the pathetic and ineffective efforts at US propaganda in the guise of the television station Al-Hurra, or Radio Sawa and the now-defunct Hi magazine, not to mention US-paid journalists and newspapers in Iraq and elsewhere, a whole army of Arabic newspapers and state-television stations, not to mention myriad satellite television stations celebrate the US and its culture, broadcast American programmes, and attempt to sell the US point of view as effectively as possible encumbered only by the limitations that actual US policies in the region place on common sense. Even the offending Al-Jazeera has bent over backwards to accommodate the US point of view but is constantly undercut by actual US policies in the region. Al-Jazeera, under tremendous pressure and threats of bombing from the United States, has for example stopped referring to the US occupation forces in Iraq as "occupation forces" and now refers to them as "coalition forces". Moreover, since when has the US sought to win a popularity contest among the peoples of the world? [...]
* The writer is associate professor of modern Arab politics and intellectual history at Columbia University. His recent book The Persistence of the Palestinian Question was published by Routledge.

Pentagon ‘three-day blitz’ plan for Iran
Sarah Baxter, Washington
THE Pentagon has drawn up plans for massive airstrikes against 1,200 targets in Iran, designed to annihilate the Iranians’ military capability in three days, according to a national security expert. Alexis Debat, director of terrorism and national security at the Nixon Center, said last week that US military planners were not preparing for “pinprick strikes” against Iran’s nuclear facilities. “They’re about taking out the entire Iranian military,” he said. Debat was speaking at a meeting organised by The National Interest, a conservative foreign policy journal. He told The Sunday Times that the US military had concluded: “Whether you go for pinprick strikes or all-out military action, the reaction from the Iranians will be the same.” It was, he added, a “very legitimate strategic calculus”. President George Bush intensified the rhetoric against Iran last week, accusing Tehran of putting the Middle East “under the shadow of a nuclear holocaust”. He warned that the US and its allies would confront Iran “before it is too late”.
One Washington source said the “temperature was rising” inside the administration. Bush was “sending a message to a number of audiences”, he said � to the Iranians and to members of the United Nations security council who are trying to weaken a tough third resolution on sanctions against Iran for flouting a UN ban on uranium enrichment.
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) last week reported “significant” cooperation with Iran over its nuclear programme and said that uranium enrichment had slowed. Tehran has promised to answer most questions from the agency by November...Israel, which has warned it will not allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons, has made its own preparations for airstrikes and is said to be ready to attack if the Americans back down....
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president, irritated the Bush administration last week by vowing to fill a “power vacuum” in Iraq. But Washington believes Iran is already fighting a proxy war with the Americans in Iraq. The Institute for the Study of War last week released a report by Kimberly Kagan that explicitly uses the term “proxy war” and claims that with the Sunni insurgency and Al-Qaeda in Iraq “increasingly under control”, Iranian intervention is the “next major problem the coalition must tackle”....

New Orleans After 24 Months: 'They wanted them poor niggers out of there.'
By Greg Palast
“They wanted them poor niggers out of there and they ain’t had no intention to allow it to be reopened to no poor niggers, you know? And that’s just the bottom line.”... Among the miles and miles of devastated houses, rubble still there today in New Orleans, we found dry, beautiful homes. But their residents were told by guys dressed like Ninjas wearing “Blackwater” badges: “Try to go into your home and we’ll arrest you.”
These aren’t just any homes. They are the public housing projects of the city; the Lafitte Houses and others. But unlike the cinder block monsters in the Bronx, these public units are beautiful townhouses, with wrought-iron porches and gardens right next to the tony French Quarter.
Raised up on high ground, with floors and walls of concrete, they were some of the only houses left salvageable after the Katrina flood...89,000 poor and working class families stuck in Homeland Security’s trailer park gulag while their good homes were guarded against their return by mercenaries. Two decades ago, I worked for the Housing Authority of New Orleans. Even then, the plan was to evict poor folk out of this very valuable real estate.[...]

Did the White House Rig the Stock Market?
"All of a sudden, around 2:00 or 3:00 some buyers stepped in and started buying up everything in sight. Before long it was 4:00 and the Dow was in positive territory. Who was the mysterious buyer? Perhaps it was the Plunge Protection Team averting a financial disaster...
Yes, the Plunge Protection Team is real, except its actual name is the President's Working Group on Financial Markets, or PWG. (The nickname comes from an old Washington Post headline.) After the 1987 stock market crash, President Reagan authorized the creation of the PWG—consisting of the Treasury secretary, the Fed chair, and the heads of the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, so that top regulators and economic policy chiefs could formally consult with one another in event of a financial crisis as well as prepare a plan of action in case of a financial markets meltdown.... it might advise the president to temporarily close the markets, as happened after the 9/11 terrorist attacks.But maybe Plunge Prevention Team would be a better moniker if you believe those who think the group's mandate goes far beyond acting as an information clearing house and instead actually directs large institutional investors—or maybe even foreign sovereign funds run by cash-rich nations in the Middle East and Asia—to buy stock index futures as a way of propping up the stock market and ending a panic. http://www.usnews.com/blogs/capital-commerce/2007/8/20/did-the-white-hou... http://tinyurl.com/2y55u3

Plunge Protection Team
By Brett D. Fromson
Sunday, February 23, 199
The chairman of the New York Stock Exchange has called the White House chief of staff and asked permission to close the world's most important stock market. By law, only the president can authorize a shutdown of U.S. financial markets.... quiet meetings of the Working Group are the financial world's equivalent of the war room. The officials gather regularly to discuss options and review crisis scenarios because they know that the government's reaction to a crumbling stock market would have a critical impact on investor confidence around the world.... In the event of a financial crisis, each federal agency with a seat at the table of the Working Group has a confidential plan. At the SEC, for example, the plan is called the "red book" because of the color of its cover. It is officially known as the Executive Directory for Market Contingencies. The major U.S. stock markets have copies of the commission's plan as well as the CFTC's. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/business/longterm/blackm/plunge.htm http://tinyurl.com/28463

Civilian prisons coming soon to U.S. Army base near you:
The U.S. Army is authorized to create civilian prison labor camps on military installations, according to a little-noticed regulation.

Arabic spoken -- Plane grounded:
A woman who complained that some fellow passengers spoke Arabic and "had odd behavior" prevented a Chicago-bound American Airlines flight from departing San Diego, police said..A Transportation Security Administration spokeswoman said it returned because of "suspicious activity on board the plane." The Associated Press reported Defense Training Systems had hired the men to train U.S. Marines at Camp Pendleton in California. http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/534860,CST-NWS-air30.article

Columbia University's [like most U's] Washington Post Company link and Newsweek magazine's historical links to the CIA
Sunday, September 2, 2007
Columbia University President Lee Bollinger currently sits between RAND Corporation Board of Trustees Chairman Ronald Olson and Coca-Cola Company board member Barry Diller on the Washington Post Company media conglomerate’s board of directors. Following is the fourth part of an article about the Washington Post Company and Newsweek magazine’s hidden history which first appeared in the February 17, 1993 issue of the now-defunct Lower East Side alternative newspaper, Downtown...
Next: Columbia University’s Washington Post Company/Newsweek Link and Newsweek Magazine’s Historical CIA Connection—Part 5 (The Meyer-Graham Dynasty Era)

American Airlines - "9/11 Didn't Happen"
WikiScanner discovered that American Airlines changed their Wikipedia entry to state that Flights 11 and 77 never flew on 9/11.

Wikipedia Propaganda Encyclopedia
Wikipedia is a magnet for the CIA and FBI, tasked with revising history and, no doubt as well, slamming the opposition, an effort with a long and sordid history.... Wikipedia is not only a magnet for CIA and FBI hacks, but for multinational corporations as well. “Among those [Virgil Griffith, a researcher at the California Institute of Technology] alleges have been updating their entries are Wal-Mart, the world’s largest grocer, AstraZeneca, the drugs giant, Britain’s Labour Party, the CIA and the Vatican,” reports Times Online. “In one example he gives, a computer linked to an IP address registered to the Dow Chemical company is seen to have deleted a passage on the Bhopal chemical disaster of 1984, which occurred at a plant operated by Union Carbide, now a wholly-owned Dow subsidiary.”
Read full article »

De Palma's Iraq war film stuns Venice festival
Anita Singh, http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=1391272007&format=p...
BRIAN De Palma, the director of Hollywood hits such as Mission: Impossible and Scarface, stunned the Venice Film Festival yesterday with a harrowing film about the Iraq war. Redacted, billed as a "fictional story inspired by true events", follows United States soldiers in Iraq who rape a teenage girl and slaughter her family. It is based on an incident in Mahmudiya, south of Baghdad, in which soldiers raped a 14-year-old girl before setting her body alight and shooting dead her parents and five-year-old sister. In one graphic scene shot in the style of an al-Qaeda[SIC] internet video, a US soldier is beheaded. The film ends with a montage of real-life photographs of Iraqi war victims, including maimed and dead women and children. The film's title refers to the process of editing out material for legal or other reasons and De Palma claimed censorship was stopping the US public from seeing the reality of the war. He said: "Unlike Vietnam, when we saw the destruction and sorrow of the people we were maiming and killing, we see none of that in this war. You can find it if you look for it, but it's not in the mainstream media."

9/11 Blame Game: CIA Falls on Its Sword Again
George TenetIf 3,000 people had not died on September 11, 2001, a report released by the CIA’s inspector general would be laughable. “A CIA report released Tuesday blames the top leadership of the agency for major lapses in fighting al-Qaida and outlines how intelligence officials missed numerous opportunities to thwart two hijackers prior to the Sept. 11 attacks,” reports NBC. “The 19-page executive summary, written by the CIA’s inspector general, finds extensive fault with the actions of former director George Tenet and other CIA leaders.” ... September 11, 2001. In fact, the CIA was squarely in the driver’s seat.
And what, pray tell, are these “major lapses” in “fighting al-Qaida,” the mostly smoke and mirrors terrorist organization named after a mujahideen database? ... The CIA would have us believe Tenet and “other CIA leaders” were clueless—and maybe they were. However, as Chossudovsky noted in November, 2003, the hospital mentioned above “is directly under the jurisdiction of the Pakistani Armed Forces, which has close links to the Pentagon. U.S. military advisers based in Rawalpindi. work closely with the Pakistani Armed Forces. Again, no attempt was made to arrest America’s best known fugitive, but then maybe bin Laden was serving another ‘better purpose’. Rumsfeld claimed at the time that he had no knowledge regarding Osama’s health…. Needless to say, the CBS report is a crucial piece of information in the 9/11 jigsaw. It refutes the administration’s claim that the whereabouts of bin Laden are unknown. It points to a Pakistan connection, it suggests a cover-up at the highest levels of the Bush administration.” ... Moreover, if the CIA was indeed interested in hunting down and smoking out Osama and his dour cave-dwelling patsy terrorists, they may have asked General Mahmoud Ahmad, head of Pakistan’s military intelligence, the ISI—responsible, at the behest of the CIA, for creating “al-Qaeda” in the first place—as he was in Washington at the time of the attacks, brunching it up with then Republican Congress critter Porter Goss and Democratic critter Bob Graham. It is said they were discussing Osama. In fact, as the Guardian reported at the time, Ahmad had a bagman, one Omar Sheikh, deliver $100,000 to Mohammed Atta, or somebody who claimed to be Atta[...]

Leuren Moret and Alfred Webre: call for International Citizen's 9/11 War Crimes Tribunal
Richard Kastelein
In order to prosecute the 9/11 perpetrators under the 9/11 Independent Prosecutors Act, Independent Scientist/DU Radiation Expert Leuren Moret and International Lawyer Alfred Webre will call for the establishment of an International Citizen's 9/11 War Crimes Tribunal, in a public announcement to be made at the Vancouver 9/11 Truth Conference on Sunday June 24, 2007. According to Moret and Webre, 9/11 was a False Flag Operation by an international War Crimes Racketeering Organization, to provide a pretext to engage in Genocidal & Ecocidal Depleted Uranium (DU) bombing of Central Asia (Afghanistan and Iraq) to secure vast oil and uranium reserves; to roll out a Terror-based National Security state-system world-wide; and to implement the final stages of a world Depopulation policy... http://www.uruknet.de/?p=35915