The Defining Moment?

Crossposted at Docudharma, They gave us a republic..., Daily Kos, and Edgeing

"The more you begin to investigate what we think we understand, where we came from, what we think we're doing, the more you begin to see we've been lied to, we've been lied to by every institution..."
-- Chögyam Trungpa Rinpoche, Zeitgeist

"The Edge... There is no honest way to explain it because the only people who really know where it is are the ones who have gone over.
-- Hunter S. Thompson

---

The entire global economy depends not just on politicians and economists and crooked financial industry executives who make decisions for the world, but on transportation; planes, trains, trucks, and automobiles.

Nothing gets delivered. Nothing gets anywhere. Not food, Not goods. Nothing. Anywhere. Without transportation.

And all of our transportation systems depend on oil and cannot function without oil.

Transportation is the heart that pumps the blood to drive the economy. Energy, oil, is the nourishment that enables the heart to keep on pumping.

What happens when the heart stops pumping? The body, the economy, dies.

Fatih Birol is the chief economist of the International Energy Agency (IEA), and each year publishes the World Energy Outlook, the forecasting report that governments all over the world use to know what energy supplies will be available when planning development of transportation strategies and systems to keep the economy humming along.

Systems that will use the energy Birol's report tells them will be available to power that development.

George Monbiot is the author of the best selling books Heat: how to stop the planet burning; The Age of Consent: a manifesto for a new world order and Captive State: the corporate takeover of Britain; as well as the investigative travel books Poisoned Arrows, Amazon Watershed and No Man’s Land. He writes a weekly column for the Guardian newspaper. He lives in mid-Wales with his daughter Hanna.

Britain's leading green commentator, George Monbiot, talks to Fatih Birol at the IEA in the Real News video below, who reveals for the first time a startling and worrying prediction for the date of peak oil.

And finds that the rate of decline of oil production that Birol and The International Energy Agency have been giving to governments around the world for the past few years has been simply an assumption - a guess - based on no research at all.

A guess. Based on no research at all. Until this year. This years World Energy Outlook 2008 is finally based on real research, and on real numbers.

And the numbers are not at all good. Not nearly as good as the projections that Birol and the IEA have been supplying to world governments for their transportation systems planning and strategy development for the past few years.

Which means, of course, that all of that planning and strategizing has been fantasyland planning and strategizing, based on assumptions, guesses, that energy supplies will be much higher that they will be.

Real News: December 18, 2008
George Monbiot questions Fatih Birol on peak oil
Guardian: International Energy Authority chief economist reveals startling prediction for peak oil date

There's more: "The Defining Moment?" >>

Real News: Iraq Events Moving Out Of US Control

July 21, 2008, 8 min 46 sec: Iraq events moving out of US control

Sabah al-Nasseri: Washington cannot dictate politics in Iraq

Sabah al-Nasseri: "They are instrumentalizing the internal resistance within the Iraqi Parliament, within the Iraqi societies, against the United States, against the presence of US troops in Iraq, and so on, to actually negotiate new deals concerning securities agreement, oil agreement, etcetera, by saying, "Look, we cannot signs all of these kind of agreements. Otherwise we'll commit political suicide."

Born in Basra, Iraq, Sabah al-Nasseri is Professor of Political Science (Middle East Politics) at York University, Toronto. Prior to that he was a Lecturer of Political Science at the J.W. Goethe University, Frankfurt. Currently he is working on an article, “Understanding Iraq.”



July 26, 2008, 6 min 49 sec: Who will determine Iraq's future?

Sabah al-Nasseri: The majority of US troops and private security firms will stay in Iraq

Sabah al-Nasseri: "He [Obama] did not talk about the occupation. He never mentioned a word about the occupation, so as if things in Iraq will be determined in Washington and not on the ground by the Iraqi people themselves. So my argument is that Obama will not withdraw the troops, US troops. He will move few brigades, probably, from Iraq to Afghanistan, but the majority of the US troops and the private security firms or military firms, companies, will stay in Iraq."

There's more: "Real News: Iraq Events Moving Out Of US Control" >>

"LEAVE IRAQI'S ALONE" -REPUBLICANS

.
LET THEM SWALLOW THE OIL DEAL WE'VE SHOVED DOWN THEIR THROATS

THE WAR WASN'T ABOUT OIL, YOUR CHECK IS IN THE MAIL, OH, AND ABOUT YOUR MOUTH...

"Commentator" Says Democrats Infringing On Iraqi Sovereignty By Objecting To Bushco's No-Bid Oil Deals

These Republicans would have made the Fuhrer so proud! They have cleverly infiltrated the press with agents pretending to be objective, so that they are able to immediately attack any truth before it gets too far. It's Wunderbar! Herr Goebbels spirit lives! Anything can be turned around, if you only lie big enough, lie loud enough, and lie often enough. Achtung, Baby!

Democrats are responsible for the escalation in oil prices, because they wouldn't allow Republicans to drill everywhere. Never mind that dozens and dozens of US government oil-leases are going unused by the oil companies. Never mind that there is no actual shortage of supply. Never mind that demand is going down. Never mind that this is an engineered "crisis." Lie about it, meine kinder!

Democrats are responsible for speculation in the oil markets, never mind why, but now they are trying to interfere with these free markets. This is socialism, and not the National kind. If prices are frozen at these historically high and incredibly profitable levels, the free market will simply impose an instantaneous worldwide freeze on supplies, as if by magic, not collusion. So, don't f*ck with us, or the invisible hand of the market will choke your loved ones to death, you leftist degenerates!

Democrats do not understand these things. They do not understand the delicate balance in Iraq: Negotiating, or pretending to negotiate a deal that was set in stone years ago, with whatever puppet government happens to be there today, requires great theatrical skill. Democrats do not have this kind of acting ability. That is why der Schwarzenegger is a Republican, and in favor of oiling, I mean drilling on the coast of Coll-ee-fah-nee-yah, no matter what the Jews and homosexuals and Democrats think.

As to those Iraqi's, of course they signed a sweetheart deal! We have them surrounded. If they say no, we just march them outside, and let them be shot. Meine herren, if only we could do that here! It would only require a small expansion of the Second Amendment. Houston Uber Alles!
.
REUTERS
"Senators seek to stop Iraq oil deals"

" The U.S. senators wrote a letter to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice urging her to ask the Iraqi government to put off signing any oil contracts until agreement is reached on a national oil law. 'We fear that any such agreements signed by Iraq's Hydrocarbon Ministry without an equitable revenue sharing agreement in place would simply add more fuel to Iraq's civil war,' the senators wrote. The deals would heighten tensions in Iraq 'at the same time that American service members are fighting night and day to reduce the levels of violence,' they said. The State Department said the United States, which has 146,000 troops in Iraq, has no say in the matter. 'Since the United States has had no involvement in this, I'm not sure on what basis the United States could 'block' the Iraqi government from contracting it the way it sees fit," said State Department spokesman Tom Casey. 'It's a decision for the Iraqis to make.' "

HOUSTON CHRONICLE
"Bush: U.S. won't interfere with Iraqi oil deals"

" 'Iraq is a sovereign country, and it can make decisions based on how it feels that it wants to move forward in its development of its oil resources,' said White House spokeswoman Dana Perino. 'And if that means that our companies here in the United States can compete and win business, then that's for them and the Iraqis to decide," Perino added. 'But I don't think the federal government of the United States needs to get involved.' Likewise, Perino dismissed the senators' concerns as illogical. 'I'm curious as to why the Democrats seem to, on the one hand, want Iraq to take over more control of their own country, but on the other hand, want to continue to meddle in their business,' she told reporters. "

UPI
"Congress pressing Bush to block, reverse Iraqi oil deals"

" In a separate letter to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Schumer and Kerry called for Iraq to pass legislation governing the oil sector first. 'We ask that you work with the (government of Iraq) to ensure that they do not sign any agreements relating to oil or gas until they have passed a fair, equitable and transparent hydrocarbon revenue sharing agreement that benefits the Sunni Arabs, Shia Arabs, Kurds and all other Iraqi citizens,' the senators wrote. Without a new law, Iraq is relying on regulations left over from Saddam. A draft oil law has been stalled in Parliament by internal Iraqi disputes over the extent foreign oil companies should be allowed into the national oil sector and how much control over the oil strategy will be given to local governments. Three companion laws -- revenue sharing, reconstituting the national oil company and reorganizing the Oil Ministry -- are further behind in the legislative process. Iraq is already splitting revenue by compromise between factions. Schumer, Kerry and McCaskill in a short press conference Tuesday said without a revenue sharing law the oil deals will cause more fractures. 'You can't blame Iraq for the desire to expand oil production,' Schumer said. 'However, signing oil contracts without a revenue sharing law is a recipe for disaster.' The three warned against possible perceptions that the war was fought to benefit international oil companies, and that no-bid contracts were not transparent. "

ATLANTA JOURNAL-CONSTITUTION
"Big Oil's slick no-bid contracts will keep us mired in Iraq "

" A consortium of Western oil companies — the very definition of Big Oil — is on the verge of receiving no-bid contracts in Iraq, giving them access to one of the most sought-after prizes in the petroleum industry, according to The New York Times. Can it be mere coincidence that the leading companies in the deal — ExxonMobil, Shell, BP and Total — are the very same companies that Saddam Hussein threw out when he nationalized the Iraqi oil industry more than three decades ago? The American public has been reassured, repeatedly, that petroleum had absolutely nothing to do with the Bush administration's decision to invade Iraq. President Bush, the oilman from Texas, has scoffed at the idea. So has Vice President Dick Cheney. When I raised the specter of 'petroleum wars' in a column dated Sept. 9, 2002, just as Bush was selling the idea that Saddam posed an imminent threat, I was assailed by critics, who called me 'naive,' among other choice descriptives. While I never believed that oil was the only reason for toppling Saddam, my critics weren't willing to concede petroleum played any role. ('The Bush administration is saturated with oil industry bigwigs. ... Their natural mindset is to assume that oil must be consumed ever more abundantly, even if that means going to war to preserve access to the supply,' I wrote.) Yet despite the vociferous denials, the four original partners of the Iraq Petroleum Co. (a misnomer, since all the companies are multinationals based in the U.S. or Western Europe) are about to receive contracts that allow them to service the fields in the country with the world's second-largest proven oil reserves. According to The New York Times, these are service contracts — paying the companies for their work — instead of the more lucrative licenses for oil deposits. But the contracts will give the global oil giants a leg up on more lucrative deals later on. To protect those oil fields, the U.S. would have to station troops in Iraq indefinitely. That may explain why Bush has been so determined to work out a deal for more or less permanent military bases before he leaves office. The war in Iraq has already lasted longer than U.S. involvement in World War II, and the projected cost is around a trillion dollars. That doesn't count the human toll — more than 4,000 U.S. troops dead and tens of thousands maimed and shattered, physically or mentally. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis dead and millions displaced. The U.S. government could have spent $500 billion on an Apollo mission-like search for alternative energy and still had about $500 billion to hand to Americans as gasoline subsidies. And we would have been well on the way toward freeing ourselves from the troubled Middle East. "

REMEMBER, LIEBCHEN: THIS WAR IS NOT ABOUT OIL! IT IS VERBOTEN TO BELIEVE THAT! HEIL DUBYA!

[Cross-posted at blog me no blogs.]
.
.

There's more: ""LEAVE IRAQI'S ALONE" -REPUBLICANS" >>

The Neocon's Solution to Our Dependency on Foreign Oil - The 51st State

Imagine a group of neocons gathered together brainstorming about our dependency on foreign oil. During this meeting, they write down a set of questions for which they discuss the possible answers. Here is one possible list they might develop and their conclusion:

Which country are we trying to remake in our own image?

Which country has more American military personnel than all of our current 50 states?

Which country is getting more money every month from our federal government than any of the current 50 states?

Which country might end up with more military bases than we have Army and Air Force bases in our current 50 states?

Which country now has all the major oil companies gaining a foothold in it's oil industry?

Which country could double our national oil reserves and make a truly big dent in our foreign oil dependency if it became our 51st state?

IRAQ

Iraq: The 51st State Of America

McCain Supports Making Iraq the 51st State

Bush Proposes Iraq As 51st State

Another 51st state

Iraq to Become 51st State in USA

10 Reasons why Iraq should become America's 51st State.



This article was originally posted on The WAWG Blog.

There's more: "The Neocon's Solution to Our Dependency on Foreign Oil - The 51st State" >>

What's Next? Redux

Why we are in Iraq. Why Democrats and Republicans are not listening to us.

Peak Oil could trigger meltdown of society
By: Energy Watch Group
Published: Oct 23, 2007

According to a newly published global oil supply report to be presented by the Energy Watch Group at the Foreign Press Association in London, world oil production peaked in 2006. Production will start to decline at a rate of several percent per year. By 2020, and even more by 2030, global oil supply will be dramatically lower. This will create a supply gap which can hardly be closed by growing contributions from other fossil, nuclear or alternative energy sources in this time frame.

"The most alarming finding is the steep decline of the oil supply after peak", warns Jörg Schindler from the Energy Watch Group. This result, together with the timing of the peak, is obviously in sharp contrast to the projections by the International Energy Agency (IEA). "Since crude oil is the most important energy carrier at a global scale and since all kinds of transport rely heavily on oil, the future oil availability is of paramount importance as it entails completely different actions by politics, business and individuals.", says Schindler.

This cautious energy outlook corresponds with statements made by former US Defense Secretary and CIA Director, James Schlesinger, who said at a recent oil summit in Cork: "The battle is over, the oil peakists have won. Current US energy policy and the administration's oil strategy in Iraq and Iran are deluded."

However, until recently the International Energy Agency denied that a fundamental change of energy supply is likely to happen in the near or medium term future. Hans-Josef Fell MP, a prominent member of the German Parliament, is clear: "The message by the IEA, namely that business as usual will also be possible in future, sends a diffusing signal to the markets and blocks investments in already available renewable energy technologies.

Remaining world oil reserves are estimated to be 1,255 Gb (Giga barrel) according to the industry database HIS (2006). For the Energy Watch Group (EWG), however, there are sound reasons to modify these figures for some regions and key countries, leading to a corresponding EWG estimate of 854 Gb. This oil supply outlook does not rely primarily on reserve data which in the past have frequently turned out to be unreliable. Hence the EWG analysis is based primarily on production data which can be observed more easily and which are more reliable.

Peak oil is now. "The oil boom is over and will not return. All of us must get used to a different lifestyle.", said King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, the largest global oil producer. For quite some time, a hot debate has been going on regarding peak oil. Institutions close to the energy industry, like CERA, are engaging in a campaign trying to debunk peak oil as a "theory". However, the EWG report shows that peak oil is real. The world is at the beginning of a structural change of its economic system. This change will be triggered by a sharp decline of fossil fuel supplies and will influence almost all aspects of daily life. Climate change will also force mankind to change energy consumption patterns by significantly reducing the burning of fossil fuels.

Anticipated supply shortages could easily lead to disturbing scenes of mass unrest as witnessed in Burma this month. For government, industry and the wider public just muddling through is not an option anymore as this situation could spin out of control and turn into a meltdown of society.

"My experience of debating the peak oil issue with the oil industry, and trying to alert Whitehall to it, is that there is a culture of institutionalised denial in government and the energy industry. As the evidence of an early peak in production unfolds, this becomes increasingly impossible to understand", says Jeremy Leggett, the Solarcentury CEO and former member of the British Government's Renewables Advisory Board.

This should give a clear picture of the reasons for the attempts at domination of the Middle East.

From the EWG Oil Report Executive Summary...

Figure 2: World oil reserves (EWG assessment)



Further information:

The Energy Watch Group was founded on joint initiative by Hans-Josef Fell MP, international parliamentarians and scientists. It is supported by the Ludwig-Bölkow-Foundation and produces reports on fossil and nuclear energy resources, scenarios for regenerative energy and also strategies for a long-term secure energy supply. The focus lies thereby on the analysis of economical and technological implications. Results of these studies are to be presented not only to expert audiences but also to the wider interested public.

There's more: "What's Next? Redux" >>

Provocation in the Strait of Hormuz

Cross Posted at Edgeing, at Docudharma and SanchoPress

If the Iranians attack a US ship in the gulf, or shut down the strait, it will be, in historical context, retribution and retaliation for US Foreign Policy and imperialism over the past century, and we will be as much or more to blame than they.

We get what we give. As we sow, so we reap.

Imperialism is coming home to bite us on the ass, bigtime. It has been coming for a long time...

In about a year, when there will probably be a Democratic President sitting in The White House, we're going to have the same "Foreign Policy" we've had for the past nearly a century.

Nothing more, nothing less, and nothing changing.

"Ancient History": U.S. Conduct in the Middle East Since World War II and the Folly Of Intervention

If the chief natural resource of the Middle East were bananas, the region would not have attracted the attention of U.S. policymakers as it has for decades. Americans became interested in the oil riches of the region in the 1920s, and two U.S. companies, Standard Oil of California and Texaco, won the first concession to explore for oil in Saudi Arabia in the 1930s. They discovered oil there in 1938, just after Standard Oil of California found it in Bahrain. The same year Gulf Oil (along with its British partner Anglo-Persian Oil) found oil in Kuwait. During and after World War II, the region became a primary object of U.S. foreign policy. It was then that policymakers realized that the Middle East was "a stupendous source of strategic power, and one of the greatest material prizes in world history."

Subsequently, as a result of cooperation between the U.S. government and several American oil companies, the United States replaced Great Britain as the chief Western power in the region.(5) In Iran and Saudi Arabia, American gains were British (and French) losses.(6) Originally, the dominant American oil interests had had limited access to Iraqi oil only (through the Iraq Petroleum Company, under the 1928 Red Line Agreement). In 1946, however, Standard Oil of New Jersey and Mobil Oil Corp., seeing the irresistible opportunities in Saudi Arabia, had the agreement voided.(7) When the awakening countries of the Middle East asserted control over their oil resources, the United States found ways to protect its access to the oil. Nearly everything the United States has done in the Middle East can be understood as contributing to the protection of its long-term access to Middle Eastern oil and, through that control, Washington's claim to world leadership. The U.S. build-up of Israel and Iran as powerful gendarmeries beholden to the United States, and U.S. aid given to "moderate," pro-Western Arab regimes, such as those in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Jordan, were intended to keep the region in friendly hands. That was always the meaning of the term "regional stability."

Provocation in the Strait of Hormuz
By Marc Ash, t r u t h o u t | Perspective, Tuesday 08 January 2008

Two separate news reports relying mostly on information provided by the Pentagon were picked up and disseminated by US mainstream media outlets Monday. The reports point to two separate instances involving US armed forces operating in the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz.

The first, typified by The New York Times, "US Describes Confrontation With Iranian Boats", and the second, tucked away from the features sections, "Navy Fighter Jets Crash in Persian Gulf", reported by the Associated Press, are not connected directly in the reports, but bear consideration side-by-side nonetheless.

The report in The Times, in fact, tells you everything you need to know, albeit in a conclusionless form. US Warships are in the Persian Gulf. The Strait of Hormuz, through which all warships must pass to enter the Gulf, is the same passage through which all oil-bearing ships must pass bringing oil to the US. And "Oil prices on world markets spiked briefly on the news, which was first reported by CNN." That pretty much says it all.

US Navy warships are parked a few miles off the coast of Iran. They are there, apparently, to protect oil shipping lanes into and out of the Persian Gulf. Tensions are mounting. If provocation is at issue, those facts must remain front and center. If Iranian warships ever made it as close to the American coastline as US warships now lie to Iranian shores, our military would in all likelihood attack them. Iran is not attacking our warships - parked on their doorstep.

The US State Department last year warned Iran, "not to interfere with US interests in the region." What the State Department did not explain to the American people is what interests average Americans have in the region. The answer to that question is, likely none. That leads to the next question: whose interests is the American Navy protecting in the Persian Gulf? The owners of the oil tankers, apparently. The American people are the end consumers; we pay what's marked on the pump. Bluntly stated, the United States Navy appears to be in the Persian Gulf to protect the interests of US-based oil businesses, not the interests of the American people. Incidentally, the second-largest deposits of oil in the world lie beneath the soil of Iraq, so the same formula applies there as well.

Could Iranian forces sink an American ship a few miles off the Iranian coast? Yes, although it is highly unlikely that they would say beforehand, "I am coming at you, and you will explode in a few minutes." Would such a sinking take the lives of many good American sailors? Yes, it would. Such a sinking and the attendant loss of life would affect the best interests of the American people. The American armed forces are the true interest of the American people. For too long, the American people have turned a blind eye to their interest: their service members. It's time to bring our soldiers home and let the gas station mind its own business.

*emphasis added

This cannot be taken out of historical context. To do so is the "neocon" way.

If anyone is doing any "provocatin'" in the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz, it has been successive US and British administrations, and oil companies, for nearly a century...

There's more: "Provocation in the Strait of Hormuz" >>

Senator Lindsay "DADT" Graham Advocates Overthrowing the Elected Gov't of Iraq

Just a few minutes ago Senator Graham, being interview by Wolf Blitzer on CNN, clearly stated that if the current government of Iraq cannot pull off political reconciliation of all the disparate groups of Iraq within 90 days, he will admit that the current government will never be able to do so, and then "we" will have to consider replacing the al-Maliki democratically elected government with a government that can achieve American goals in Iraq.

This is the very height of chutzpa, gall, arrogance, and stupidity that shows the world what total frauds comprise the American government. The very idea of overthrowing al-Maliki's government after all the flowery words of the phony bastids we have running our government about the "purple finger" elections, hailed at the time as the first and greatest step towards a functioning democracy, is repugnant beyond belief and shows America cares not one wit about democracy and everything about gaining control of Iraqi oil, for it is al-Maliki's failure to gain agreement on the draconian oil law written by Americans for American Big Oil that is spelling the doom of al-Maliki.

All that remains to be seen now is whether we enable internal political parties to stage a coup, or whether we just have an American sniper put a bullet in al-Maliki's head.

At this point I think my money is on the bullet, as bush has no compunctions at all with ordering the extra-judicial killing of anyone he so desires.

America, soon to be destroying a freely elected democracy near you.

Cross-posted at VidiotSpeak

There's more: "Senator Lindsay "DADT" Graham Advocates Overthrowing the Elected Gov't of Iraq" >>

General Pace's Wonderland

(Originally posted at The Motley Patriot)

The Charlotte (NC) Examiner has an article authored by Rowan Scarborough about General Peter Pace. This statement by General Pace shows just how large of a betrayal the Iraq war has been for both American and Iraqi:

“One of the mistakes I made in my assumptions going in was that the Iraqi people and the Iraqi army would welcome liberation, that the Iraqi army, given the opportunity, would stand together for the Iraqi people and be available to them to help serve the new nation,” Pace said.

He said the Iraqi army more or less “disintegrated.” The Bush administration made a much-criticized decision in 2003 to disband the army rather than reorganize it, beginning the long process of building a new force from scratch.

Pace said if he could have foreseen the Iraqi army’s lack of cooperation, “I probably would have made a different recommendation about the total size force going in.”

Rowan correctly notes that the Iraqi Army did not merely "disintegrate", but, in fact, it was disbanded by the Bush Administration and Paul Bremer in May, 2003; two months after our invasion.

General Pace was the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. He would be one of the few who would have known the Iraqi Army was being disbanded by Paul Bremer prior to the decision being made. He would have had to be informed so that the commanders on the ground could plan for it militarily. General Pace claims in February, 2004, that that wasn't so:

The Joint Chiefs of Staff were not consulted on the US decision to disband the Iraqi army shortly after the end of major combat operations in Iraq last May, General Peter Pace, the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs, said.

Pace said Paul Bremer, the head of the coalition provisional authority in Baghdad, ordered the army disbanded on his own authority.

"Those of us in Washington did not second guess those who were on point," he said at a question and answer session here at the Council on Foreign Relations. "We were not asked for a recommendation, or for advice."

Pace said he did not know what input Bremer received from military officials in the Iraq theater, but it was never specifically addressed by the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

So, according to General Pace in 2007, the Iraqi Army merely disintegrated in May, 2003, when Paul Bremer disbanded it despite the fact he placed the blame for disbanding the army on Bremer three years ago? So, according to General Pace in 2007, the Joint Chief's had zero input or even knowledge of the decision despite the fact that they would have had to coordinate our military response to such an action?

In the June 2003 statement to Congress given by General Pace, there was no mention of the disbanding of the Iraqi Army. In the July 2003 statement to Congress given by General Tommy Franks, there was no mention of the disbanding of the Iraqi Army, or, that there were adverse effects from that act. I bring this out to show that if our commanders had indeed been blindsided by the act of disbanding the Iraqi Army, if they indeed had been forced to rethink their entire plan at the last moment, there should have been some statement to this effect. There is not one that I can find.

It wasn't until February 2004 that suddenly, the disbanding of the Iraqi Army became an issue. Why would that be you ask? Days prior to General Pace blaming Bremer and disavowing all knowledge that the Iraqi Army would be disbanded, the center where new Iraqi officers were being trained was bombed killing 23 people and, suddenly, everyone magically realized there was no security in Iraq; something Iraqi's knew all to well.

So, not only do we know that the General has zero integrity, but, that he lives with Alice in Wonderland: he assumed that the Iraqi's would welcome liberation and that the Iraqi Army would cooperate prior to being disbanded!

In the September 2003 Congressional testimony given by Paul Bremer, he stated:

Most Iraqis welcomed us as liberators and we glowed with the pleasure of that welcome. Now the reality of foreign troops on the streets is starting to chafe. Some Iraqis are beginning to regard us as occupiers and not as liberators. Some of this is inevitable, but faster progress on reconstruction will help.

Of course, we know how well reconstruction went under Paul Bremer! But, Mr. Bremer did mention the disbanding of the Iraqi Army when he stated that the second key goal was Iraqi "National defense" and "—a new [Iraqi] army and civil defense system."

Now, if we put 2 and 2 together (Greenspan's statement on oil and Bremer's above statement) we see exactly why disbanding the Iraqi Army was a necessary goal for the Bush Administration; once Iraqi's realized we planned to occupy their country, the Iraqi Army would have been a major force used against us.

It is now September, 2007, and the Iraqi reconstruction effort abandoned. It is now almost five years after we invaded Iraq and the reconstitution of Iraqi security forces has been abandoned. The Iraqi people see exactly what our goal is, and was, when we invaded;

- destabilize their entire country
- disband their ability to defend themselves
- force Iraq to depend on the United States for security
- force Iraq to open the oil industry to private oil firms

The fact is that all of the the rats, like General Pace, are jumping ship and trying to blame everybody else for the Iraq war; meanwhile, our troops continue to die in Iraq for oil.

There's more: "General Pace's Wonderland" >>

We have been betrayed; again

(originally posted at The Motley Patriot and cross-posted at TalkLeft)

How does a man, or woman, betray their country? How does a person justify watching other people die for lies? What purpose can be called "noble" that it cannot be named outright, instead, lies are necessary in order to carry out that cause? America's involvement in Vietnam did not start with the "shock and awe" of invasion and it did not begin with the American public being fed lies by our President; that came later.

In 2005, Melvin Laird, former Secretary of Defense from 1969 to 1973 under President Nixon, wrote an article entitled, `Iraq: Learning the lessons of Vietnam`. In the article, he wrote:

They join their voices with those who claim that the current war is "all about oil," as though the loss of that oil were not enough of a global security threat to merit any U.S. military intervention and especially not "another Vietnam."

The problem with this assertion by Mr. Laird isn't that oil is a security issue to the world, but, that the United States could lose something that it clearly never owned; the oil in the Middle East.

In 1953, the CIA deposed a democratically elected leader in Iran. In 1979, the Iranian people took back their government. What "loss" did the United States suffer when the Shah of Iran was deposed? Did America lose access to the Iranian oil, or, did we merely lose the ability to control something that wasn't ours?

Mr. Laird states that when he took over as Secretary of Defense in 1969, America started a four-year withdrawal from Vietnam:

The memo had remained in limbo in the defense secretary's desk, neither approved nor rejected. As my symbolic first act in office, it gave me great satisfaction to turn down that request formally. It was the beginning of a four-year withdrawal from Vietnam that, in retrospect, became the textbook description of how the U.S. military should decamp.

The memo to which Mr. Laird refers is the memo authored by General Westmoreland requesting that U.S. troop levels be increased from 500,000 to 700,000. By 1968, the United States had 538,000 troops in Vietnam. 16,592 troops died in Vietnam in 1968 alone. From 1960 thru 1968, a total of 36,152 troops had died in Vietnam. During the four-year "withdrawal" from Vietnam that Mr. Laird cites, 20,863 additional troops were killed or declared dead. Mr. Laird wrote:

I cannot speak for the dead or the angry. My voice is that of a policymaker, one who once decided which causes were worth fighting for, how long the fight should last, and when it was time to go home. The president, as our commander-in-chief, has the overall responsibility for making these life-or-death decisions, in consultation with Congress. The secretary of defense must be supportive of those decisions, or else he must leave.

Mr. Laird is correct; he cannot speak for the dead. But then, who does? Who spoke up in 1969 for those who were going to die that year? Who spoke up in 1970 for those who were going to die the following the year? Who is speaking for the dead from Iraq? Who is speaking for the troops that will die tomorrow, next week, next month, and next year?

The most important lesson learned from Vietnam was that the American media had to be controlled, manipulated, and the true cost of war hidden. Today, our soldiers who are dying for a cause so "noble" that the public couldn't even be told the truth of it. Our soldiers are being flown back in coffins, not like heroes fighting for a "noble" cause; but in secrecy.

The American public knew why our forces were fighting in Vietnam; it was the reason to escalate that fight that was a lie. The Gulf of Tonkin incident, whether real or not (and there are still many contradicting accounts of it), was at best a gross mis-characterization of an incident to justify the escalation in Vietnam. It was that "incident" in 1964 that justified the escalation, that justified the continued fight, that justified the war that raged for another 5 years before we even began to withdraw from it. For Iraq, the lies to invade and occupy Iraq started from the beginning.

The lies were repeated for months by the administration and media with almost no fact checking at all. The justifications were changed over the years, until finally, the reason for the very war itself was lost.

Like Vietnam, we've had our "surge" and we've seen it fail. We have watched General after General enter and leave this fight in Iraq that has no clear mission, nor, a clear end to it. Like Vietnam, the American public is now tired of the war, tired of the rhetoric, tired of the dead piling up, and wants out. But, it is not 1969 and the withdrawal is not even beginning. It is, in relative terms, 1965, and the American public wants out only to know that more years of war, more years of dead, await us before a withdrawal begins in earnest.

After Vietnam, the American public, rightfully, was distrustful of our military leaders. After Vietnam, the American public, rightfully, was incensed by the fact that our government abandoned American soldiers. Once again, we are fed lies by our military leaders. Like Kent State, protesters are attacked, only this time with wooden dowels instead of real bullets. Yes, we have been betrayed, as a nation, as citizens, and as soldiers, once again, for the true lesson that was learned; that if you manipulate the media you can wage any war, at any time, for any pretext; that you can attack and smear anyone in the media without consequence; that you can torture and kill; and that nothing can stop you if you just refuse to listen. Mr. Laird wrote:

I didn't miss the fact that it was an ugly, mismanaged, tragic episode in U.S. history, with devastating loss of life for all sides. But there are those in our nation who would prefer to pick at that scab rather than let it heal.

And yet, even as he acknowledges that the Vietnam war was ugly, mismanaged, tragic and held devastating loss of life for everyone involved (except those who dodged the draft or got their daddy to get them cushy flying jobs in the Guard), he states:

The truth about Vietnam that revisionist historians conveniently forget is that the United States had not lost when we withdrew in 1973. In fact, we grabbed defeat from the jaws of victory two years later when Congress cut off the funding for South Vietnam that had allowed it to continue to fight on its own.

This is revisionist history at its finest. We had not lost in Vietnam when we started to withdraw our forces in 1969? We had four years of withdrawal, by his own account, and four years of soldiers continually dying as we withdrew; but we hadn't already been defeated? By his own words, President Nixon was elected, not because the Vietnam war was being won and needed another President to continue the war, but because the war was being lost and America said it was time to leave. This statement by Mr. Laird should sound familiar:

Over the four years of Nixon's first term, I had cautiously engineered the withdrawal of the majority of our forces while building up South Vietnam's ability to defend itself.

Yes, we were merely standing down as the South Vietnamese "stood up". Yes, and they stood up so well during that "cautious four year withdrawal" that, two years after the withdrawal, Saigon fell. But, it was those nasty people in Congress that "lost Vietnam"? If only we had not withdrawn our forces for 4 years, if only the South Vietnamese had 8 years instead of 6 years, they could have "stood up" enough?

This is the same rhetoric we hear today. We have heard since 2003 how we've progressed in Iraq despite all evidence to the contrary. We have heard how the insurgency was in its "last throes" as it only grew larger and more determined. We have heard how they will "stand up as we stand down" only to be told they cannot stand up in the time already allotted to them. We have already heard how we need our forces to remain in Iraq to protect Iraq because they, supposedly, cannot protect their own country. We continue to hear the same lies and rhetoric we heard during, and after, Vietnam.

What type of person does it take to betray their country, their military, and their own citizens? What type of person does it take to lie, over and over, about why our soldiers are dying while they sneak the coffins back into the country? What type of people use our military as backdrops and props, just to smear any veteran, any active duty person, who dares speak out against them?

No, it is not wrong to call it a betrayal, or, to call those who have betrayed us out for it. We do not own the Middle East or the oil in it. We could have invested in alternative energy sources for decades; but our government didn't. We could have found ways to avoid becoming so dependent on oil that it becomes a national security issue; but we didn't. No, it is not wrong to place the blame on our government for leading us into a war based on lies, or, to hold those in the military leadership accountable for supporting it.

There's more: "We have been betrayed; again" >>

An obvious Democratic strategy

The Democratic strategy for dealing with Iraq, especially given the importance given to withdrawal by the electorate in the 2006 elections, should have been obvious. The question is, why wasn't this strategy, or something like it, pursued?


First, put pressure on Bush himself and keep it there. Don't let up. Articles of impeachment, censure, special prosecutors, investigations, throw everything but the kitchen sink at the guy. This is the most unpopular and worst President that we've ever had. The Republicans and conservative Democrats will vote down or otherwise obstruct these measures, but keep the narrative simple: "The problems in Iraq are due to Bush's lies getting us involved and his incompetence in prosecuting the occupation. And he's gutting the Constitution in the process." Whatever happens in Iraq is Bush's fault, either directly or by virtue of the buck stopping at his desk. Keep the narrative focused on Bush himself; don't put the spotlight even on Cheney (except to impeach him as well).

Second, put pressure on the commercial media. Have press conferences and talk about every lie, every distortion, every misstep. The commercial media will probably back off and become more neutral, or they will be exposed indubitably as conservative shills.

Step 1: Fail dramatically; construct a narrative.

Introduce a bill asking for everything: "Here's $10 billion, get all the troops out in 90 days." Pelosi & Reid can force it out of committee, even if a Democrat doesn't support the bill: "Although I don't support this bill, because of its importance, Speaker Pelosi/Majority Leader Reid has asked me to release it from committee so the full House/Senate can debate its merits." It gets voted down, but now the progressives have a strong tool to use against conservative Democrats in the 2008 primaries. Let the Republicans blather, and keep the narrative simple: "We're trying to end the war in Iraq. Period. The illegal/immoral/incompetent occupation prevents any other means from achieving progress."

Step 2: Ju jitsu

When things get financially critical, use ju jitsu: Tell Bush he can have anything he wants for six months, let him write the bill, and make sure it passes without debate. The narrative is then, "We weren't willing to sacrifice the troops. Bush obstructed our efforts to end the war and forced this bill down our throats using our soldiers as hostages. Anything bad that happens is his fault." Once the bill passes, nitpick every fault in the conduct of the war, past and present.

Keep up the pressure on Bush personally. Use the narrative of "holding the troops hostage" to sway fence-sitting Democrats and moderate Republicans concerned about how their support of Bush will look. Who knows, Bush might stumble so badly writing his own bill that impeachment might actually happen, or, even better, force a resignation.

Step 3: End the war

Repeat step 1. Now the narrative is even more compelling: "We tried to stop the war, we were stymied only by Bush holding the troops hostage, we have to stop the war now and any bad consequences are Bush's fault." It'll pass. Keep up the pressure on Bush personally; even if Bush hasn't resigned, the pressure will have rendered him ineffective.

End result: The Republican party is marginalized. The right-wing commercial media is neutralized. Conservative pro-war Democrats are undermined. The war in Iraq ends early in 2008. The 2008 election gives us a Democratic president (whichever of Clinton or Obama who fought most strongly) and a solid progressive Democratic majority in the legislature, which outweighs the right-wing domination of the Supreme Court.

This is not rocket science. I'm writing this now instead of eighteen months ago just because I'm not a political analyst. It's still pretty obvious, Negotiation 101 stuff. So why didn't the Democrats pursue this strategy? Why is congress's ratings so low? Why is there still some chance that fascist Giuliani or yet another damn Republican actor might be elected President in 2008? Why are we talking about Edwards' haircut and Clinton's cleavage?

I can't do much more than speculate, but here are my speculations.

One reason is the historical structural disorganization of the Democratic Party. As Will Rogers said, "I don't belong to an organized political party: I'm a Democrat." The Republicans pick up most of the authoritarian, traditionalist sheep; The Democrats get the most of the splintered counter-cultural idiots and the people who use logic and reason. Logic and reason are much more difficult to sell than conservative, traditionalist dogma.

Another reason is the role the pro-Israel* lobby, such as AIPAC, has in the Democratic party. This lobby clearly wants a hot war with the Middle-Eastern Islamic nations, thinking (erroneously, I suspect, but at least a bit more rationally than Bush & Co.) that war will enhance Israel's status and power. No Democratic politician can mount an effective bid for President without their support, and if the Democratic candidates for President don't support a political strategy, it's doomed to failure.

*Unless Israel declares itself something other than a secular democracy, pro- or anti-Israel has absolutely nothing to do with pro- or antisemitism. Most Americans who are Jewish oppose the war in Iraq. I don't know about Israeli Jews, but last I heard the U.S. government doesn't represent them.

Another reason is the love that progressives, especially progressive political bloggers have for inside baseball. Strategy and tactics, demographics, the details of political horse trading; progressives love to talk about this stuff. The progressive movement is chock full of armchair quarterbacks. The rank-and-file Republicans, and the conservative, right-wing bloggers, on the other hand, push a moral narrative. It's a rotten moral narrative, full of lies, distortion and bullshit, but it's always about good and evil, not how to squeeze out a few more votes. Progressive moralists, such as Arthur Silber and Dennis Perrin are more or less marginalized. Compare and contrast the TLB "higher beings" and the difference is obvious.

Fundamentally, though, I think the biggest reason is that most Democratic politicians are supported by the same economic elite that owns the commercial media and supports the Republican party. This elite supports Democratic politicians so as to give the appearance of dissent, not to have them actually change anything.

And both Democrats and Republicans have their eyes on the second largest oil reserves in the world.

I'm appalled by the sheer evil and suffering in Iraq, and I'm very pessimistic about the political situation here. I think if a Republican candidate is not elected outright, Clinton or Obama will eke out a narrow victory, compromised by support for war against Iran and tepid opposition to the war in Iraq. Democrats will not obtain a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. At best, we'll withdraw half our troops from Iraq, leaving tens of thousands (and tens of thousands of mercenaries private contractors) acting as a permanent political irritant. Even a Democratic President will probably start yet another war in Iran, if Bush doesn't get there first.

There's more: "An obvious Democratic strategy" >>

Molly and Joe: Bush is an Idiot

... We return to our regularly scheduled program:

Joe: Sheeez, Bush, the cancer, is a frigg'n idiot.

Molly: No he's not. Bush, the cancer, has gotten his friends rich, and is about to corner Iraq's oil for them too. He's even gotten the damn Dismalcrats to spew his talking points: "Iraqi's have to meet benchmarks...".

Joe: Like signing a petroleum law...

Molly: ... that gives two-thirds of the Iraqi people's oil to foreign corporations. And, "We can't cut off funds to the troops."


Joe: OK, so, he's a corrupt idiot.

Molly: ... and the Dismalcrats are letting him get away with it. "Steaming pile of vulture droppings," maybe, but not an "idiot."

Joe: It's too hot out for vulture shit to steam.

Molly: You're missing my point.

Joe: No. I get it. Bush, the cancer, is an idiot.

Cross posted at GDAEman

There's more: "Molly and Joe: Bush is an Idiot" >>