[vodpod id=ExternalVideo.623867&w=425&h=350&fv=%26rel%3D0%26border%3D0%26]

Gen. Petraeus presided over an Independence Day re-enlistment ceremony in Iraq.  This year's event had more than double the number of soldiers committed to extending their service over last year's ceremony.

While most Americans probably slept, 1,215 Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines raised their right hands and committed to a combined 5,500 years of additional service during the largest reenlistment ceremony in the history of the American military. Beneath a large American flag which dwarfed even the enormous chandelier that Saddam Hussein had built for the Al Faw Palace, members of all services, representing all 50 states took the oath administered by Gen. David Petraeus, Commander of Multi-National Forces Iraq.

For two days the military members, flown in for the occasion from all across Iraq, have toured the elaborate palace where Saddam’s sons were said to have entertained friends lavishly and tortured enemies mercilessly in the basement dungeon. Following the ceremony, they were treated to Chicago deep dish pizza donated by Lou Malnati’s Restaurant and flown fresh by DHL for the occasion.

The Pentagon is preparing to order approximately 30,000 troops to Iraq early next year in a move that would allow the U.S. to maintain 15 combat brigades in the country through 2009, according to sources via the Associated Press. This deployments would replace troops currently there. This could all change quickly though is Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, decides in the fall to further reduce troop levels in Iraq.

Several officials familiar with the deployments spoke on condition of anonymity because the orders have not yet been made public.

According to the officials, three active-duty Army brigade combat teams, one Army National Guard brigade and two Marine regimental combat teams are being notified that they are being sent to Iraq in early 2009. Officials would not release the specific units involved because the soldiers and Marines and their families have not all been told except the Army National Guard unit who were told last October that they should be prepared to deploy to Iraq early in 2009. They are the 56th Brigade Combat Team, 28th Infantry Division from the Pennsylvania National Guard which is a large brigade with heavily armored Stryker vehicles.

Overall, there are about 146,000 forces in Iraq, and that number is expected to dip to about 142,000 by mid-July when that last unit is all out. That total is at least 7,000 more than the number of troops in Iraq before the buildup began early last year.

Petraeus told Congress in May that he is likely to recommend further troop reductions in Iraq, but he did not provide any details. If he decides in the Fall that fewer brigades will be needed in Iraq during the next year, there is the chance that brigades could simply be directed to the war in Afghanistan instead.

There is a broad consensus that more troops are needed in Afghanistan, to both train the security forces and fight the insurgents. Defense Secretary Robert Gates and President Bush, earlier this year, told NATO allies that they would increase troop levels in Afghanistan in 2009 in response to the growing violence.

Overall, as seems to be the plan of the current administration and its potential Republican successor, the war is not ending, the occupation is not ceasing, and troops are not coming home.

iNPLACENEWS

General David Petraeus, commander of US Central Command and leader of all US forces in the Middle East and Central Asia, has published a list of 23 "lessons learned" from the Iraq war.

Let's try for a moment to put ourselves in the mind of Brig. Gen. Qassem Soleimani, the commander of the Quds Force of Iran's Revolutionary Guard. For it is the soft-spoken Soleimani, not Iran's bombastic president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who plays a decisive role in his nation's confrontation with the United States.

Soleimani represents the sharp point of the Iranian spear. He is responsible for Iran's covert activities in Iraq, Lebanon, Afghanistan and other battlegrounds. He oversees the regime's relations with its militant proxies, Hezbollah and Hamas. His elite, secretive wing of the Revolutionary Guard is identified as a terrorist organization by the Bush administration, but he is also Iran's leading strategist on foreign policy. He reports personally to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and his budget (mostly in cash) comes directly from the supreme leader's office.

Soleimani is confident about Iran's rising power in the region, according to an Arab official who met recently with him. He sees an America that is weakened by the war in Iraq but still potent. He has told visitors that U.S. and Iranian goals in Iraq are similar, despite the rhetoric of confrontation. But he has expressed no interest in direct, high-level talks. The Quds Force commander prefers to run out the clock on the Bush administration, hoping that the next administration will be more favorable to Iran's interests.

"The level of confidence of these [Quds Force] guys is that they are it, and everything else is marginal," says the Arab who meets regularly with Soleimani.

Soleimani has been adept at turning up the heat in Iraq, then lowering the temperature when it suits Iran's interest. A good example was the Basra campaign in March, when Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki attacked the Mahdi Army, the Shiite militia headed by Moqtada al-Sadr. Though the Iranians had been backing Sadr, they made a quick switch to supporting Maliki. It was Soleimani himself who brokered the cease-fire that restored calm in Basra.

Read the rest:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp
-dyn/content/article/2008/06/06/
AR2008060603152.html

McCain Video 2

McCain: "The neighborhoods are safe - we walk down the streets with no body armor on."
Fact: McCain's delegation was guarded by more than 100 American Soldiers, with 3 Blackhawk Helicopters, and 2 Apache Gunships overhead. (And McCain was wearing armor). 

McCain: "General Petraeus goes out there almost every day in an unarmed Humvee."
Interviewer, the next day: I checked with General Petraeus's people last night and they said he never goes out in anything less than an up-armored humvee. 

These are all McCain:
"Of course those tax cuts have to remain permanent"
"I voted against the tax cuts"
"I voted to extend them"
"I voted against the tax cuts" (this is a different interview than above).
"I've always been for the tax cuts"

McCain Video 1

"The success will be fairly easy."

"I believe that we can win an overwhelming victory in a very short period of time."

"I knew it was probably going to be long and hard and tough and those who voted for it and thought that somehow it was gonna be some kind of an easy task, then I'm sorry that they were mistaken. Maybe they didn't know what they were voting for."

"The Confederate flag is offensive in many, many ways, as we all know. It's a symbol of racism and slavery."
3 days later: "Personally, I see the flag as a symbol of heritage."

Should gay marriage be allowed? (Chris Matthews)
"I think that gay marriage should be allowed."
11 minutes later: "I do not believe that gay marriages should be legal."
Are you against Civil Unions for gay couples? (Stephanopoulos)
"No, I am not."

What a hypocrite...
Video 2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEtZlR3zp4c

Video 1

Matthew d'Ancona | Spectator | Tuesday, 27th May 2008

The Dubai-based satellite TV channel Al Arabiya is reporting that Osama Bin Laden has been “located” by US intelligence in the Kararakoram – a mountain range that spans the borders of Pakistan, the Kashmir and China (K2 is one of its peaks). There was a high-level meeting last week in Doha including General Petraeus, the recently-nominated Commander of US Central Command, and it is reasonable to speculate that – if there is truth to the report – it flows from this piece of intelligence. Whether the latest rumours about the tracking down of OBL have foundation will quickly become apparent. If they do have substance, Al Arabiya will have scored a huge world scoop – and have its rival Al Jazeera spitting nails.

Bin Laden Is in Pakistan, AFP Says, Citing Afghan Intelligence

By Ed Johnson

May 28 (Bloomberg) -- Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden is hiding in Pakistan's northwestern Chitral region bordering Afghanistan, Agence France-Presse reported, citing an Afghan intelligence official.

Afghan authorities received information about bin Laden's whereabouts four or five months ago, the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, told AFP. He didn't elaborate, according to the report.

There have been no confirmed sightings of bin Laden since he escaped U.S.-led forces in the Tora Bora region of Afghanistan in December 2001. He has recorded at least four video and audio tapes since last September from his presumed hiding places on the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Pakistan's government has previously denied bin Laden is hiding in its tribal regions, and said he is in Kunar province in neighboring Afghanistan, according to the report.

WASHINGTON: CIA director: Al Qaeda won't stop, even without bin Laden

Detroit Free Press | May 28, 2008

The United States is making "a big and continual push" to capture or kill Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, but his demise won't end the organization's menace, CIA Director Michael Hayden said Tuesday.

The CIA is equally interested in those jockeying to replace bin Laden, Hayden said, predicting a "succession crisis."

Despite Al Qaeda's resilience, taking out bin Laden would be a psychological blow to the organization, Hayden said. "If there ever was a sense of invulnerability, I think killing or capturing him would shatter it once and for all," he said.

Bin Laden is thought to be hiding in the tribal areas of western Pakistan. The new Pakistani government is negotiating a peace agreement with the tribes that would have them expel extremists and police the region on their own. Hayden said he believes nothing is likely to change.

21stcenturycicero says: For Osama Bin Laden's true whereabouts

Hospital Worker: I Saw Osama

Accused Terrorist Said To Have Had Dialysis On Sept. 10

CBS News | Jan. 28, 2002

(CBS) Everyone remembers what happened on Sept. 11 and, reports CBS News Correspondent Barry Petersen, here's the story of what may have happened the night before.

In a tale as twisted as the hunt for Osama bin Laden, CBS Evening News has been told that the night before the Sept. 11 terrorists attack, Osama bin Laden was in Pakistan. He was getting medical treatment with the support of the very military that days later pledged its backing for the U.S. war on terror in Afghanistan.

Pakistan intelligence sources tell CBS News that bin Laden was spirited into a military hospital in Rawalpindi for kidney dialysis treatment.

"On that night," said a medical worker who wanted her identity protected, "they moved out all the regular staff in the urology department and sent in a secret team to replace them." She said it was treatment for a very special person and "the special team was obviously up to no good."

"They military had him surrounded," said a hospital employee who also wanted his identity masked, "and I saw the mysterious patient helped out of a car. Since that time," he said, "I have seen many pictures of the man. He is the man we know as Osama bin Laden. I also heard two army officers talking to each other. They were saying that Osama bin Laden had to be watched carefully and looked after."

Those who know bin Laden say he suffers from numerous ailments — back and stomach problems.

Ahmed Rashid, who has written extensively on the Taliban, said the military was often there to help before Sept. 11.

"There were reports that Pakistan intelligence had helped the Taliban buy dialysis machines and the rumor was that these were for wanted for Osama bin Laden," said Rashid.

Doctors at the hospital told CBS News there was nothing special about that night, but they declined our request to see any records. Government officials reached Monday night denied that bin Laden received any medical treatment that night.

A U.S. official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Tuesday the United States has seen nothing to substantiate the report.

It was Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf who said in public what many suspected: that bin Laden suffers from kidney disease, saying he thinks bin Laden may be near death.

His evidence — watching the most recent video, showing a pale and haggard bin Laden, his left hand never moving. Bush administration officials admit they don't know if bin Laden is sick or even dead.

"With respect to the issue of Osama bin Laden's health, I just am...don't have any knowledge," said Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.

The U.S. has no way of knowing who in Pakistan's military or intelligence supported the Taliban or Osama bin Lade, maybe up to the night before Sept. 11 by arranging dialysis to keep him alive. So the U.S. may not know if those same people might help him again — perhaps to freedom.

©MMII, CBS Worldwide Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Bush Administration knew the Whereabouts of Osama

by Michel Chossudovsky | www.globalresearch.ca | 16 November 2003 (revised 17 November 2003)

The URL of this article is: http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO311A.html

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

If the CBS report by Dan Rather is accurate and Osama had indeed been admitted to the Pakistani military hospital on September 10, 2001, courtesy of America's ally, he was in all likelihood still in hospital in Rawalpindi on the 11th of September, when the attacks occurred. In all probability, his whereabouts were known to US officials on the morning of September 12, when Secretary of State Colin Powell initiated negotiations with Pakistan, with a view to arresting and extraditing bin Laden.

A recent Reuters report (11/13/03; scroll down) quoting Labeviere's book "Corridors of Terror" points to alleged "negotiations" between Osama bin Laden and the CIA, which took place two months prior to the September 11, 2001 attacks at the American Hospital in Dubai, UAE, while bin Laden was recovering from a kidney dialysis treatment

Enemy Number One in hospital recovering from dialysis treatment "negotiating with CIA"?

The meeting with the CIA head of station at the American Hospital in Dubai, UAE was confirmed by a report in the French daily newspaper Le Figaro, published in October 2001. (See Alexandra Richard, at http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/RIC111B.html ,

For a virtual tour of the hospital click http://www.ahdubai.com/site/tour_1.htm

The "negotiations" between the CIA and Osama (a CIA "intelligence asset") is sheer disinformation. Even though the CIA has refuted the claim, the report serves to highlight Osama as a bona fide "Enemy of America," rather than a creation of the CIA. In the words of former CIA agent Milt Bearden in an interview with Dan Rather on September 12, 2001, “If they didn’t have an Osama bin Laden, they would invent one.”

Intelligence negotiations never take place on a hospital bed. The CIA knew Osama was at the American Hospital in Dubai. Rather than negotiate, they could have arrested him. He was on the FBI most wanted list.

According to the Reuters report: "At the time, bin Laden had a multi-million dollar price on his head for his suspected role in the 1998 bombings of two U.S. embassies in East Africa". So why did the hospital staff, who knew that Osama was at the American Hospital in Dubai, not claim the reward?

The Figaro report points to complicity between the CIA and Osama rather than "negotiation". (see excerpt below). Consistent with several other reports, it also points to the antagonism between the FBI and the CIA.

If the CIA had wanted to arrest Osama bin Laden prior to September 11, they could have done it then in Dubai. But they would not have had a the war on terrorism pretext for waging a major military operation in the Middle East and Central Asia.

According to Le Figaro:

"Dubai... was the backdrop of a secret meeting between Osama bin Laden and the local CIA agent in July [2001]. A partner of the administration of the American Hospital in Dubai claims that "public enemy number one" stayed at this hospital between the 4th and 14th of July. While he was hospitalized, bin Laden received visits from many members of his family as well as prominent Saudis and Emiratis. During the hospital stay, the local CIA agent, known to many in Dubai, was seen taking the main elevator of the hospital to go [up] to bin Laden's hospital room. A few days later, the CIA man bragged to a few friends about having visited bin Laden. Authorized sources say that on July 15th, the day after bin Laden returned to Quetta [Pakistan], the CIA agent was called back to headquarters. In the pursuit of its investigations, the FBI discovered "financing agreements" that the CIA had been developing with its "Arab friends" for years. The Dubai meeting is, so it would seem, within the logic of 'a certain American policy.'" (http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/RIC111B.html)

The Figaro report is confirmed by several other news reports including the London Times (1 Nov 2001 at http://www.unansweredquestions.org/timeline/2001/londontimes110101.html). During his 11-day stay in the American hospital, Osama received specialized medical treatment from a Canadian urologist Dr. Terry Calloway. (See http://www.ahdubai.com/site/ps18_2.htm )

Osama back in Hospital on September 10, 2001, one day before the 9/11 attacks

According to Dan Rather, CBS, Bin Laden was back in Hospital, one day before the 9/11 attacks, on September 10, this time, courtesy of America's indefectible ally Pakistan. Pakistan's Military Intelligence (ISI) told CBS that bin Laden had received dialysis treatment in Rawalpindi, at Pak Army's headquarters:

[transcript of CBS report, see http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CBS203A.html , see also http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/01/28/eveningnews/main325887.shtml ]

DAN RATHER, CBS ANCHOR: As the United states and its allies in the war on terrorism press the hunt for Osama bin Laden, CBS News has exclusive information tonight about where bin Laden was and what he was doing in the last hours before his followers struck the United States September 11.

This is the result of hard-nosed investigative reporting by a team of CBS news journalists, and by one of the best foreign correspondents in the business, CBS`s Barry Petersen. Here is his report.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) BARRY PETERSEN, CBS CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Everyone remembers what happened on September 11. Here`s the story of what may have happened the night before. It is a tale as twisted as the hunt for Osama bin Laden.

CBS News has been told that the night before the September 11 terrorist attack, Osama bin Laden was in Pakistan. He was getting medical treatment with the support of the very military that days later pledged its backing for the U.S. war on terror in Afghanistan.

Pakistan intelligence sources tell CBS News that bin Laden was spirited into this military hospital in Rawalpindi for kidney dialysis treatment. On that night, says this medical worker who wanted her identity protected, they moved out all the regular staff in the urology department and sent in a secret team to replace them. She says it was treatment for a very special person. The special team was obviously up to no good.

"The military had him surrounded," says this hospital employee who also wanted his identity masked, "and I saw the mysterious patient helped out of a car. Since that time," he says, "I have seen many pictures of the man. He is the man we know as Osama bin Laden. I also heard two army officers talking to each other. They were saying that Osama bin Laden had to be watched carefully and looked after." Those who know bin Laden say he suffers from numerous ailments, back and stomach problems. Ahmed Rashid, who has written extensively on the Taliban, says the military was often there to help before 9/11.

AHMED RASHID, TALIBAN EXPERT: There were reports that Pakistani intelligence had helped the Taliban buy dialysis machines. And the rumor was that these were wanted for Osama bin Laden.

PETERSEN (on camera): Doctors at the hospital told CBS News there was nothing special about that night, but they refused our request to see any records. Government officials tonight denied that bin Laden had any medical treatment on that night.

(voice-over): But it was Pakistan`s President Musharraf who said in public what many suspected, that bin Laden suffers from kidney disease, saying he thinks bin Laden may be near death. His evidence, watching this most recent video, showing a pale and haggard bin Laden, his left hand never moving. Bush administration officials admit they don`t know if bin Laden is sick or even dead.

DONALD RUMSFELD, DEFENSE SECRETARY: With respect to the issue of Osama bin Laden`s health, I just am -- don`t have any knowledge.

PETERSEN: The United States has no way of knowing who in Pakistan`s military or intelligence supported the Taliban or Osama bin Laden maybe up to the night before 9/11 by arranging dialysis to keep him alive. So the United States may not know if those same people might help him again perhaps to freedom.

Barry Petersen, CBS News, Islamabad.

(END VIDEOTAPE) END

It should be noted, that the hospital 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. (see CBS transcript above).

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.

Dan Rather and Barry Petersen fail to draw the implications of their January 2002 report. They fail to beg the question: where was Osama on 9/11? If they are to stand by their report, the conclusion is obvious: The administration is lying regarding the whereabouts of Osama.

Inpatient dialysis treatment tends to be longer than 24 hours in most American hospitals, which suggests that Osama would have been discharged from the Hospital on or "after" September 11.

If the CBS report is accurate and Osama had indeed been admitted to the Pakistani military hospital on September 10, courtesy of America's ally, he was in all likelihood still in hospital in Rawalpindi on the 11th of September, when the attacks occurred. In all probability, his whereabouts were known to US officials on the morning of September 12, when Secretary of State Colin Powell initiated negotiations with Pakistan, with a view to arresting and extraditing bin Laden.

These negotiations, led by General Mahmoud Ahmad, head of Pakistan's military intelligence, on behalf of the government of President Pervez Musharraf, took place on the 12th and 13th of September in Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage's office.

For further details, see: M. Chossudovsky, Cover-up or Complicity of the Bush Administration? The Role of Pakistan's Military Intelligence (ISI) in the September 11 Attacks, 2 November 2001 http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO111A.html , See also War and Globalization, the Truth behind September 11 , Global Outlook, Shanty Bay, 2003, http://globalresearch.ca/globaloutlook/truth911.html )

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

Kindly help to circulate this important article to as many interested people as possible.

The Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) at www.globalresearch.ca grants permission to post the above mentioned article in its entirety, or any portions thereof, so long as the URL and source are indicated, a copyright note is displayed, and, where excerpts are posted, the excerpt(s) is (are) indicated as such, and a link is provided to the full body of the text from which the excerpt(s) was taken. For publication of this article in print or other forms contact: editor@globalresearch.ca

Michel Chossudovsky is the author of War and Globalization, the Truth behind September 11, Global Outlook, Shanty Bay, Ont., 2003

CIA Rejects Claim It Sought Osama Deal Before 9/11

Reuters

PARIS (Reuters) - The CIA rejected as fantasy claims in a new book that it tried to negotiate a non-aggression pact with Osama bin Laden just two months before the September 11, 2001 airliner attacks against the United States.

Richard Labeviere, author of "The Corridors of Terror," released on Thursday, says the CIA's Dubai station chief approached bin Laden while the al Qaeda leader was being treated for a serious kidney complaint in the United Arab Emirates.

He said the meeting took place in the American Hospital in Dubai on July 12, barely eight weeks before al Qaeda militants slammed fuel-laden hijacked airliners into the Pentagon and New York's World Trade Center, killing almost 3,000 people. "Such an allegation is sheer fantasy, no such thing occurred," CIA spokesman Mark Mansfield said, echoing an earlier rebuttal by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency of French media reports in October 2001 about the alleged Dubai meeting.

Labeviere said he learned of an encounter from a contact in the Dubai hospital, and said the event was confirmed in detail during a separate interview in New York with a Gulf prince who presented himself as an adviser to the Emir of Bahrain.

The prince, who the author met in a Manhattan hotel in November 2001, appeared very well-informed about the CIA-bin Laden meeting.

Labeviere said the second contact told him the face-to-face had been arranged by Prince Turki al-Faisal, the head of the Saudi General Intelligence Department.

He quoted the second contact as saying:

"By organizing this meeting...Turki thought he could start direct negotiations between the Saudi millionaire (bin Laden) and the CIA on one fundamental point: that bin Laden and his supporters end their hostilities against American interests."

In exchange, the CIA and the Saudi (intelligence) services undertook to allow bin Laden to return to his native country, even though he was stripped of his Saudi nationality in July 1994. The Dubai meeting was a failure, Labeviere said.

The Saudi intelligence chief was sacked in the wake of the September 11 attacks.

Labeviere named Larry Mitchell as the CIA station chief who met bin Laden, describing him as a colorful figure well-known on the Dubai social circuit.

Mitchell left the Gulf state on July 15, 2001 and Labeviere said CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia, had told him the operative was unavailable for interview because he was on his honeymoon.

At the time, bin Laden had a multi-million dollar price on his head for his suspected role in the 1998 bombings of two U.S. embassies in East Africa that killed 224 people.

Bin Laden was treated between July 4 and July 14 in the urology department of a kidney specialist at the American Hospital, Labeviere said, adding that the hospital denied this.

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

© Copyright Reuters 2003 For fair use only/ pour usage équitable seulement .

From global research;

"An article in the French daily Le Figaro confirms that Osama bin Laden underwent surgery in an American Hospital in Dubai in July. During his stay in the hospital, he met with a CIA official. While on the World's "most wanted list", no attempt was made to arrest him during his two week stay in the hospital, shedding doubt on the Administration's resolve to track down Osama bin Laden."
-- Michel Chossudovsky, CRG. 11/2/01

The CIA met Bin Laden while undergoing treatment at an American Hospital last July in Dubai by Alexandra Richard
Translated courtesy of Tiphaine Dickson Le Figaro, 11 October 2001
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/RIC111B.html
-- Gregory F. Fegel

Iran, officially referred to as Islamic republic of Iran, is known as a country located in Middle East. Azerbaijan, Armenia, Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Oman, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Turkmenistan, Russia, and Kazakhstan, are its neighbors. Some of them have a direct land border with Iran but others are connected to it indirectly via sea from north and south.   

You probably are surprised because I started to introduce Iran from its geographical perspective. I don’t think it is strange. The reason I did that refers to my presuppositions and background knowledge of the people who want to read this and get some information on Iran.

You probably never teach literature and poetry to a person who doesn’t know English alphabet. So you build your steps according to your students’ knowledge. I am doing the same thing, though I am not a teacher.

Recently General David Petraeus, the US Commanding General of the Multi-National Forces in Iraq, pointed out that Iraq had "no desire to be the 51^st state of Iran!"

 This is a good example of what I say. I am sure –according to his statement- that this official doesn’t know that;

·         First of all, governmental system in Iran is not based on states. In Iran we always talk of provinces, not states. and,

·         Second, Iran does have 30 provinces. So how it is going to attach Iraq as 51^st?   

Now suppose this person is an American policy-maker on Iran issues. What happens? No need to say that he doesn’t know the a b c of Iran, so his decisions will be dramatically fall far short of conditions in Iran. This shows a true fact that most –don’t want to say all- US policy-makers make decisions on Iran based on their knowledge of the USA. Therefore, none of them work and now you can easily see that their policies do not fit in Iranian condition.

My example was one among many. In next parts I will write on Iran on the basis of this true presupposition.

Petraeus: Troops in Iraq help blunt Iran threat

Excerpt:

"WASHINGTON - Army Gen. David Petraeus, who is to assume control of U.S. forces in the Middle East, says that a continued U.S. presence in Iraq is more likely to blunt, rather than inflame, Iran's growing influence in the region.
In a 46-page question-and-answer document submitted in advance of his confirmation hearing on Thursday, Petraeus says the U.S. must work on developing more leverage — primarily diplomatic or economic — to pressure Tehran to abandon its nuclear program. But, he notes, the U.S. must retain military strike options as a "last resort."

I can't strongly enough recommend the "best of the left" podcast, from whom I take the above image. The music is fantastic, the radio clips great, and the mixing of music and dry congressional testimony regularly rousing. Give them your love, your clips, or at least an ear.

Just because many anti-American liberals oppose something, doesn't make it right. This war, like others, might be wrong for reasons pacifists and unpatriotic globalists don't appreciate. As Bacevich observes, the war is a strategic failure and will continue to murmur along without any real progress indefinitely:

The costs to the United States of sustaining this dependency are difficult to calculate with precision, but figures such as $3 billion per week and 30 to 40 American lives per month provide a good approximation.

What can we expect to gain in return for this investment? The Bush administration was counting on the Iraq War to demonstrate the viability of its Freedom Agenda and to affirm the efficacy of the Bush Doctrine of preventive war.

Measured in those terms, the war has long since failed. Rather than showcasing our ability to transform the Greater Middle East, Operation Iraqi Freedom has demonstrated just the opposite. Using military power as an instrument for imprinting liberal values in this part of the world has produced a failed state while fostering widespread antipathy toward the United States.

Rather than demonstrating our ability to eliminate emerging threats swiftly, decisively, and economically—Saddam Hussein’s removal providing an object lesson to other tyrants tempted to contest our presence in the Middle East—the Iraq War has revealed the limits of U.S. power and called into question American competence. The Bush Doctrine hasn’t worked. Saddam is long gone, but we’re stuck. Rather than delivering decisive victory, preventive war has landed us in a quagmire.

I would add that the absolute worst reason to stay in this war is for some emotional notion of national honor and commitment to the troops, impulses that undergird the very unstrategic thinking John McCain and numerous buck sergeants. We don't go to war to do the conquered a favor. We don't stay to avenge deaths like some armed camp of Zulus. A nation goes sends its army to war to accomplish foreign policy goals. This same nation can and should withdraw these troops when it's in our interests to do so, when those goals are out of reach, no longer important, or too costly. It's not like Iraq is sacred American soil; this is a foreign land, half way around the world, in a very bad neighborhood, populated mostly by uncivilized people whom we do not understand and who do not understand or appreciate our soldiers' sacrifices.

Sure, we can pig-headedly spend $20 or $30 trillion over another decade, but even if everything turns out for the best, it will be a strategic benefit worth some fraction of that. And then what? We'll still have al Qaeda to worry about. We'll still have North Korea. Our borders will be too porous. Our ranks of third world immigrants will remain too numerous. The Middle East will still have large numbers of pissed off young men who are given sanction to vent their anger by their religion.  The deterrent value of staying or leaving is a wash. Iran knows we won't easily commit to a similar adventure on its territory. Russia and China will still be ascendant in their spheres of influence. Oil will still be scarce and in the hands of unstable autocrats and their resentful subjects.

Vast swaths of people all around the world will not appreciate Iraq as a model, it ends up as stable as Pakistan or Indonesia when all is said and done. Instead of seeing idealistic U.S. sacrifices for democracy, most Arabs and Muslims will perceive a marginally successful bid for power and domination of Iraq's oil wealth. Most of the worlds peoples will continue to be more passionate about religion, nationalism, ideology, wealth, prosperity, and tribalism than democracy and the rule of law. Not only that, they'll treat these tangible goods as more desirable than democracy--whether originating from bloody revolutions at home, or imposed from without by an idealistic and ideological United States.

I.  See the seeds of inflation sprout and grow!

II.  Blood libel of the week

III.  A statement by General Petaeus  of the seldom said but blindingly obvious about occupying foreign nations

The quotes and links

I.  See the seeds of inflation sprout and grow!

"Inflation Dynamics", speech by William Poole, President of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, at Truman State University, Kirksville, MO (20 February 2008) -- Excerpt, bold emphasis added:

My general approach is to think about all the things that might happen, as best I can, and then try to determine what is actually happening.  My analysis includes my understanding of lessons from history.  With regard to inflation, we know that inflation is a more slowly moving process than is unemployment, but also more persistent and more difficult to turn around.  The seeds of an inflation problem are sown several years in advance, and it is not always easy to see the seeds as they sprout.

It is not always easy to see the seeds sprout, but it is getting easier every day.  I suspect Poole sees them quite clearly.

II.  Blood libel of the week

Rosie O'Donnell on the "Today" show, hour four (5 May 2008) -- Audio available here.

O'DONNELL: Here's what I think. There is a place in the world, an inspirational, liberational kind of preaching that Reverend Wright does that when you read something that sort of- I was not as offended as the people in the polls that I read. I listen to him, and frankly, it made sense to me. I totally understood what he was saying.

GIFFORD: Which part makes sense to you?

O'DONNELL: It made sense that-

GIFFORD: That we introduced AIDS into the black community?

O'DONNELL: But Kathy you know what it's like for someone to pull one quote out of context for you. He was comparing it to when the government did give syphilis to black Americans for 40 years. What he was saying is in his history, in his genetic memory, he knows what it's like for the government to infect his own people. Because he lived through those Tuskagee experiments.

The government's deliberate failure to treat them was a terrible crime, but this is more than a gross exaggeration.  The government did not inflect African-Americans with Syphilis in the Tuskegee study.  See the Wikipedia entry for details (follow the links for documentation), some of which contract the usual narrative of this event.  How astonishing that this pernicious lie is so widely believed, and that Americans listen so politely to such lies.

III.  A statement of the seldom said but blindingly obvious about occupying foreign nations

"King David", Spencer Ackerman, Washington Independent (6 May 2008) -- Fifth in a Series: The Rise of the Counterinsurgents.  Quoting General Petaeus:

"Every army of liberation has a half-life after which it turns into an army of occupation," he said. "You can extend that half-life by being considerate of the population, respectful of the population, understanding of it, doing what are clearly good deeds, being sensitive to the conduct of operations, and try to limit very, very much the collateral damage and so forth. But over time, again, you are not one of them. And inevitably there will be some friction as a result of that and some resentment as a result of that. No country wants, again, an occupying army on their soil."

Please share your comments by posting below, relevant and brief please. Too long comments will be edited down (very long ones might be deleted). Or email me at fabmaximus at hotmail dot com (note the spam-protected spelling).

His deep knowledge of history always seems to produce great insights. He is no thoughtless, reflexive anti-liberal conservative, though he has been a staunch supporter of the proactive Bush Doctrine, which, if you can recall, is based on the post-9/11 risk-based approach of pre-emption. In other words, the risk of another unprovoked attack like 9/11 from Islamic terrorists justifies our invasion of those "safe harbor" nations that do not root out terror cells within their own borders.

With all its negative and unintended consequences, this approach seems most faithful to the President's Constitutional calling as Commander-in-Chief to protect American citizens. I am no expert on these matters, but when dealing with active terrorists with no history of reasoning with the West to come to a place of peace, this seems the safest (if often hardest) approach.

If one accepts this line, then removing those conditions which tend to foster terrorism--in the lands wherein terrorists find a home--is also critical to American self-preservation.  Setting up a Democratic ally in Iraq, then, is not as misguided a goal as some may think, even if the execution has been off-track at times.

Of course, part of the greatness of America is that we can disagree about such things, and still be friends and work together toward common goals.

One of those common goals, according to VDH, should be to reduce our personal oil consumption. While one can support this assertion with environmental arguments, Hanson provides some historical insights on such economic self-discipline and its role in American military success:

In all our major wars — except the present one — Americans have won through a combination of military prowess, correctly identifying the enemy and economic savvy. In the Civil War, the south was blockaded and starved of its cotton revenues, an effort that proved every bit as important as Gettysburg and Sherman’s “March to the Sea.” Germany was blockaded in both World Wars and cut off from precious metals, oil, and food. The Soviet economy collapsed before its military could. Only in this war has our own profligacy empowered our enemies.

After years of learning how to fight an unfamiliar war in Afghanistan and Iraq, and to protect us at home, we are finally getting most things right. But if our soldiers and intelligence agencies have learned how to win, our politically-correct diplomats and the American consumer haven’t — and are doing as much at home to empower radical Islam as those on the front lines are to defeat it.

The full article is here at National Review Online.

Below is a summary of Petraeus' new duties, from an article with great analysis by Pete Hegseth:

General Petraeus' new role, overseeing Iraq, Afghanistan, and the broader Middle East, will give him an opportunity to holistically address problems in the region, including, but not limited to, Iranian influence in Iraq and their nuclear ambitions in the region; al-Qaeda havens in Pakistan; a resurgent Taliban in Afghanistan; and the regional flow of jihadists from country to country.

And he's got big problems.

1) The Economy. A gas tax holiday and extending the Bush tax cuts (beginning in 2011), isn't going to do much to ease what is the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. This is playing out in slow motion, but by the time November rolls around, it's going to be pretty ugly: housing, gas prices, inflation, poor or negative growth, and rising unemployment will all contribute to McCain's defeat. His admitted ineptitude (that famed straight talk is going to come back to haunt him) in economic matters makes him look ridiculous whenever he starts talking about the economy.

2) Iraq. Unless the Messiah comes and brings universal peace, this place is still going to be a mess. You can talk all you want about recent successes (and there have been many - Petraeus lives up to the hype and more; he's a true leader and a great American with a brilliant political future, if he wants it.), but they amount to nothing more than a temporary patch on an intractable problem. I'll write more about this in the future, but, for now, understand that Iraq will not be a plus on the McCain side of the ledger.

3) The Senate. McCain has been in the Senate for a long time. From Charles Keating and the Savings and Loan scandal to lobbyists and contributors, there's going to be a lot of dirt here. It is impossible for a politician to serve for any length of time without compromising principle and ethics, if not laws. Plus, McCain is a major league flip-flopper. Right now, I'd classify this as a Rumsfeldian known unknown. McCain is going use his military service to press a "how dare you question the honor of a war hero" defense, but it won't work like it would have in 2004.

4) Bigotry. Please see this earlier post. McCain has got serious race problems with an entire foul-mouthed career behind him, just waiting to see daylight. There are some known knowns here but I'm guessing there a lot more unknown unknowns in his past.

And I'm not even going to get into Bob Barr, age, and temperament, among other things. So, you see, there are a lot of reasons to be optimistic.

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama offer the same beguiling Democratic version of the global war on terrorism: Get out of Iraq and put more U.S. forces into Afghanistan to win that conflict decisively. Republicans are also increasingly urging President Bush to adopt an Afghanistan-first policy.

"The basic failure in priorities" in Bush's war on terrorism lies "in the fact that our monthly investment in Iraq is $10 billion a month and $2 billion a month in Afghanistan," writes David Abshire, a GOP elder statesman, in "A Call to Greatness," a new book intended to set the agenda for the next presidency. When a Republican White House loses a seasoned foreign policy thinker such as Abshire on a key issue, it has big problems.
.
So does the solution that is being pushed. A major shift in resources into Afghanistan may not significantly help in that battle in the near term. Decisions on drawing down forces in Iraq should be based on conditions there -- as Gen. David Petraeus argued to Congress this month -- and not on campaign-fostered illusions that troop numbers and money alone can turn the tide against terrorists in Afghanistan and elsewhere.
.
Bush's decision last week to put Petraeus in charge of the Pentagon's Central Command and thus of the wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan will intensify this Iraq vs. Afghanistan argument on Capitol Hill. Critics see the Petraeus promotion as a Bush ploy to keep Iraq the "central front" in the war on terrorism and to continue to shirk the war in Afghanistan .
.
That sells Petraeus short and ignores the reality that the war in Afghanistan will not be won or lost in Afghanistan alone. It must also be won inside Pakistan, where things go from bad to worse for U.S. policy, which has been a set of forlorn wishes that seem to boomerang.
.
President Pervez Musharraf, after a breathtaking exercise in compulsively and systematically destroying his own rule, sits by silently while a civilian-led, democratically elected government takes charge in Islamabad and narrows U.S. options....

Pakistan's President Pervez Musharraf (2nd L), Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani (C), Information Minister Sherry Rehman (R), chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee General Tariq Majeed (2nd R) and Chief of Army Staff General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani (L) attend a dinner hosted by the Gilani in honour of the formation Commanders in Islamabad April 24, 2008. REUTERS/Press Information department/Handout (PAKISTAN).

Pervez Musharraf پرويز مشرف

Read the rest:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/
wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/25/
AR2008042502781.html

United States Secretary of Defense Robert Gates announced recently that General Petraeus, currently the commander of Multi-National Forces Iraq (MNF-1,) has been selected to head United States Central Command (CENTCOM.) The position of CENTCOM commander was vacated last month when Admiral Fallon stepped down after causing “friction” with his superiors in Washington D.C. The selection of General Petraeus as the new commander of CENTCOM is, in my opinion, a wise choice. For understandable reasons, many people are skeptical regarding any plays made by the Bush Administration, particularly as it pertains to the Middle East. Despite this well deserved skepticism, here are five reasons why appointing Petraeus is a solid decision.

1) The CENTCOM Area of Responsibility (AOR) - United States Central Command is the U.S. military’s regional command of the greater Middle East and Central Asia. Its AOR spans from the Horn of Africa to the borders of China and Russia. (It used to include North Africa as well until the United States created AFRICOM last year.) The area CENTCOM is responsible for includes Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan. Obviously, the CENTCOM geographic area of responsibility is of vital interest to the U.S.’s War on Terror.

2) Low-Intensity Conflict - General Petraeus has demonstrated an acute knowledge of low intensity warfare, the kind of conflict which we currently face in Iraq and Afghanistan (and which Israel faced in the 2006 war with Hezbollah and currently in the Occupied Territories.) It is also the kind of conflict the world is most likely to see in third world countries in which adversaries can’t afford to compete with the U.S. in a high-intensity manner. (This just happens to include most of the countries and groups under CENTCOM’s umbrella.)

As a result of his academic focus, as well as other qualities, General Petraeus was chosen to co-author the new Army Field Manual on Counter-Insurgency Operations (FM-3-24.) This is a sharp contrast to most other senior military officers, who as a culture, are still focused on High-Intensity Conflict (such as Desert Storm.) The reasons for this are many, and certainly there is still a need for experts in this variety of warfare. However, given the region and the threat, it makes more sense to appoint someone such as General Petraeus considering the circumstances.

3) Academic Pedigree - His Masters in Public Administration and his PhD in International Relations, both from Princeton, gives him an academic pedigree far stronger than most of the alternative options for the post. These degrees were in the academic realm commonly known as the social sciences. Advanced degrees in social sciences are underrepresented amongst American senior officers. (This is due to a historical emphasis on more technical oriented degrees such as engineering.) This academic background likely gives him a tremendous leg up verse his peers when it comes to understanding the actions and motivations of peoples and processes. Though this might seem somewhat comical to civilians, it is a factor which can’t be underestimated.

4) Continuity - General Petraeus will bring continuity with him to the position of Commander of CENTCOM. Typically, Combatant Command positions, like the one which Gen. Petraeus will assume at CENTCOM, are two to three year appointments. This means that General Petraeus, unless forced to resign, will likely remain a key player on U.S. policy in South-West Asia until 2010 or later. Regardless of who is elected President in November, in General Petraeus they will have to deal with someone who is well acquainted with the harsher realities of the region and what U.S. interests there are.

So long as Gen. Petraeus continues to speak candidly and carefully (as he has during Congressional Hearings,) the next administration will have someone who will tell it like it is yet still follow orders. Hopefully, his realist perspective will temper any hasty actions which might be taken by the next administration, such as militarily engaging Iran or withdrawing from Iraq.

Aside from U.S. policy makers, General Petraeus will present continuity for regional players in the Middle East. Generals, Ambassadors, and heads of state which General Petraeus has made inroads with will be retained. Though his exact position in the American chain-of-command has changed, he will still likely be viewed as one of America’s chief diplomats in the region. His connections and acquaintance with regional players is vital, particularly considering the regions tendency of trusting individuals far more than institutions.

5) Morale – General Petraeus is probably the most respected individual serving in the military. No where does this respect emerge stronger than from the military. Those serving under him have consistently demonstrated their tremendous respect and admiration for him.

His appointment as head of CENTCOM sends a message to the ranks that the era of Rumsfeld is over. It shows that senior officers might be candid to their superiors (something Petraeus does consistently) without fear of getting fired from their job (something Rumsfeld did consistently.) It also demonstrates that those who are willing to take risks and make bold plays can get ahead in the military system. This is important, as the military traditionally tends to be a conformist society where trying new things is frowned upon. By promoting the individual most responsible for the execution of “The Surge” it shows the military community that their sacrifices made during its implementation cannot as yet be labeled a waste.

Tragically, the positive impact made by this appointment could be completely reversed if the next administration chooses to pre-maturely replace him. Regardless, considering the strain on American forces as a result of fighting “The Long War” as well as shoddy leadership in the recent past, this will undoubtedly improve morale.

The nation's top military officer said yesterday that the Pentagon is planning for "potential military courses of action" as one of several options against Iran, criticizing what he called the Tehran government's "increasingly lethal and malign influence" in Iraq.
.
Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said a conflict with Iran would be "extremely stressing" but not impossible for U.S. forces, pointing to reserve capabilities in the Navy and Air Force.
 
Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Michael Mullen gestures during a news conference at the Pentagon, Friday, April 25, 2008. (AP Photo/Haraz N. Ghanbari)
.
"It would be a mistake to think that we are out of combat capability," he said at a Pentagon news conference. Speaking of Iran's intentions, Mullen said: "They prefer to see a weak Iraq neighbor. . . . They have expressed long-term goals to be the regional power."
.
Mullen made clear that he prefers a diplomatic solution and does not expect imminent action. "I have no expectations that we're going to get into a conflict with Iran in the immediate future," he said.
.
Mullen's statements and others by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates recently signal new rhetorical pressure on Iran by the Bush administration amid what officials say is increased Iranian provision of weapons, training and financing to Iraqi groups that are attacking and killing Americans.
.
In a speech Monday, Gates said Iran "is hell-bent on acquiring nuclear weapons." He said war would be "disastrous" but added that "the military option must be kept on the table, given the destabilizing policies of the regime and the risks inherent in a future Iranian nuclear threat."

Read the rest:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/
article/2008/04/25/AR2008042501480.html

The top U.S. military officer yesterday said Iranian aid to Iraqi insurgents became "very, very visible" during the recent unrest in Basra, in violation of earlier promises to reduce support for terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told reporters at a Pentagon press briefing that evidence collected in Iraq shows Iran's dismissive attitude toward U.S. requests to stop supplying weapons and training to terrorists and insurgents in Iraq.

Admiral Mullen

"The Iranian government pledged to halt such activities some months ago. It's plainly obvious they have not. Indeed, they seem to have gone the other way," he said. "In these last couple years, you know, that tensions continue to rise, Iran does not respond, and in fact they seem to be ratcheting it up in terms of their support for terrorism."

The admiral said the fighting in Iraq's southern oil hub disclosed that Iran had a significant "level of involvement" in the insurgency.

"It became very, very visible in ways that we hadn't seen before," he said.

Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top commander in Iraq who was nominated this week to head Central Command and oversee the entire Middle East, is expected to give testimony in the upcoming weeks, at which he will reveal that Iran has not kept its word and continues to supply weapons to insurgent forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"In that regard, certainly there is an increasing amount of evidence that in fact [Iran] is going in the other direction," Adm. Mullen said.

A U.S. official told The Washington Times on the condition of anonymity that weapons captured in Basra were Iranian-made and had "recent manufacturing dates" on them.

Read the rest:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/
20080426/NATION/58333814/1001