FAIR USE NOTICE

A Bear Market Economics Blog Site

Follow Every Bear Market Economics blog post on Facebook here

FAIR USE NOTICE

This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. we believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law.

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml

If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

FAIR USE NOTICE FAIR USE NOTICE: This page may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. This website distributes this material without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for scientific, research and educational purposes. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C § 107.

Read more at: http://www.etupdates.com/fair-use-notice/#.UpzWQRL3l5M | ET. Updates
FAIR USE NOTICE FAIR USE NOTICE: This page may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. This website distributes this material without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for scientific, research and educational purposes. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C § 107.

Read more at: http://www.etupdates.com/fair-use-notice/#.UpzWQRL3l5M | ET. Updates

All Blogs licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 3.0

Saturday, January 29, 2011

US secretly backed Egyptian protest leaders

raw story

US secretly backed Egyptian protest leaders

By Nathan Diebenow
Friday, January 28th, 2011 -- 8:27 pm

egyptcopprotesterafp US secretly backed Egyptian protest leadersFor the last three years, the US government secretly provided aid to the leaders behind this week's social uprising in Egypt aimed to topple the government of President Hosni Mubarak, according to a leaked diplomatic cable.

One of the young Egyptian leaders who attended a summit for activists in New York with the help of the US embassy in Cairo was detained when he returned to Egypt, the memo released by Wikileaks said.

The Daily Telegraph reported Friday that it and the secrets outlet were both hiding the identity of this young Egyptian leader. He was arrested in connection with this week's demonstrations.

The leaked document indicates that the US government was publicly supporting Mubarak's government while privately backing opposition groups.

A plan concocted by the dissident groups to oust Mubarak and install a democratic government prior to the September 2011 elections was relayed to the American Embassy in Cairo.

Margaret Scobey, the US Ambassador in Cairo, said in the memo to the US Secretary of State in Washington D.C. that she questioned the likelihood that such an action would happen.

Other cables revealed, however, the US diplomats had sought out the opposition groups, one of whose members attended a youth summit in Washington organized by the State Department.

This week's protests in Egypt were instigated by a group of young, educated Egyptians known as the "April 6 youth movement," which has a presence on the social network site Facebook.

The Scobey memo was labeled "April 6 activist on his US visit and regime change in Egypt."

The Egyptian government has blacked out the Internet and other telecommunications in a move to quell the protester's organization.

in a brief television appearance Friday, US President Barack Obama called on President Mubarak to restore telecommunications to the Egyptian people and on both sides to refrain from violence.

Friday, January 28, 2011

US Supports Mubarak as Thousands Call For His Ouster

January 27, 2011 at 15:02:17

US Supports Mubarak as Thousands Call For His Ouster

By RealNewsNetwork (about the author)

opednews.com





More at The Real News

TRNN's Danya Nadar talks to Miret El Naggar, a Special Mclatchy Correspondent based in Cairo

TRANSCRIPT

DANYA NADAR (VOICE-OVER), TRNN: Inspired by the mass protests that brought down the Tunisian president Zine El Abidine Ben Ali on January 25, tens of thousands of Egyptians across the nation joined in protest of rising food prices, increasing joblessness, and calling for an end to 30 years of emergency law and President Hosni Mubarak's rule. According to Al Jazeera, one police officer in Cairo and two civilians in the eastern city of Suez died amidst the rallies. On the same day of nationwide demonstrations, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton reiterated her confidence in the Mubarak regime by stating, quote, "Our assessment is that the Egyptian government is stable and is looking for ways to respond to the legitimate needs and interests of the Egyptian people."

Since 1979, the United States has been providing Egypt with $1.3 billion in military aid, the second-largest after Israel. In a 2009 report by Ahmed El-Naggar from Al-Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies, a major Egyptian think tank, he says that this aid does not aim to strengthen Egyptian military power against any external threat, as this would be contrary to the declared US objective of ensuring Israeli security and maintaining Israeli military supremacy over its Arab neighbors, including Egypt. Instead, this aid is devoted mainly to strengthening the regime's domestic security and its ability to confront popular movements. The demonstrations calling for Mubarak's ouster continued throughout the day.

The Real News Network spoke to Miret El Naggar, special correspondent for McClatchy Newspapers in Cairo.

MIRET EL NAGGAR, MCCLATCHY NEWSPAPERS: These were the biggest demos Egypt has witnessed in decades. They were orchestrated by informal youth movements, as one called the April 6 Youth Movement, which urged Egyptians to join what they called a day of revolt. And they called on them on the social networking site Facebook to join this protest today. At first it started as a trickle, but then it really galvanized into thousands of people who marched down Cairo's downtown streets and in at least five other cities across Egypt, from the northern port city Alexandria on the Mediterranean to the southern tip in Aswan. It's hard to give a clear estimate of how many people attended. It was in the thousands, basically.

Today's revolt marked the Police Day, which is a national holiday. However, it was to remind the police that they should be protectors rather than harassers, as they have been, as the Egyptian public criticizes them of being for the past few years. Egyptians on the street today were demanding better wages, a dignified way of earning their bread and butter, and less torture by police.
So the grievances are very similar to those shared by the Tunisian people, and in effect by people across the Arab world. Egyptians have been making these demands for some while. They seemed -- the protests have lost a little steam in the past few years, but this Tunisian uprising, I think, gave them momentum again and reminded him of their grievances and made them actively ask for them again.

The police tolerated the demos for a while, but then, towards the afternoon, they dispersed the protesters with tear gas, rubber bullets, water hoses. However, the protesters managed to regroup again in side streets. Later in the day, the government interrupted access to online news sites and Twitter and jammed the cell phone signals in downtown Cairo, which are all measures that show the Egyptian government is perhaps more alarmed than it is admitting, since President Hosni Mubarak's regime generally allows such outbursts and venting, rather than giving real political concessions.

It'll take much, much more effort and many more protests to even shake the Egyptian regime, simply because the police and military are much more unified and supportive of Mubarak's regime, and they widely benefit from it as well [snip] said -- Tweets that said policemen were saying we'd like to join you but we can't. I don't think that is significant of the entire police corps. There are just so much more policemen than there are protesters. Tough, the protesters were outnumbered today; even today, when there were thousands on the streets, still they were outnumbered by black-clad policemen in anti-riot gear. I just believe that the policemen would be too afraid to even think of joining the protest.

I don't think the Muslim Brotherhood had anything to do with it, especially that I spoke to one of their members today, and they said, we are not formally endorsing this protest, but however, we allowed our young members to join if they felt like it, we allowed them to join in their own cities, but we're not officially behind these protests, despite what the interior minister said. He was trying to pin it on the Muslim Brotherhood. However, I don't believe this is true. The Muslim Brotherhood was not behind this protest.

NADAR: As night fell, thousands of demonstrators attempted to an all-night sit-in in Tahrir Square. Despite relative calm throughout the day, security forces violently dispersed those who remained.

This is Danya Nadar reporting for The Real News Network. End of Transcript

DISCLAIMER: Please note that transcripts for The Real News Network are typed from a recording of the program. TRNN cannot guarantee their complete accuracy.

Photo shot from realnews video earlier in article.

http://therealnews.com/t/

The Real News Network is a television news and documentary network focused on providing independent and uncompromising journalism. Our staff, in collaboration with courageous journalists around the globe, will investigate, report and debate (more...)

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Thursday, January 27, 2011

Hillary Backs Mubarak While Obama “Stands with the Tunisian People”

Dissident Voice: a radical newsletter in the struggle for peace and social justice


Hillary Backs Mubarak While Obama “Stands with the Tunisian People”

America has never met an Arab despot it couldn’t coddle. Before the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, Reagan and Bush had a nice working relationship with Saddam Hussein. In fact, when the Iraqi dictator invaded Iran, they went so far as to supply him with chemical weapons and intelligence. After ‘liberating’ Kuwait, the powers that be in Washington had no qualms about re-installing the Emir as the absolute ruler of his people.

Ben Ali counted on the enthusiastic support of Washington until the Tunisian people revolted and ran him out of town. The Tunisian dictator took refuge in Saudi Arabia – another one of those ‘moderate’ Arab oil plantations that Washington showers with affection.

In his recent State of the Union Address, President Barack Obama declared that “the United States stands with the people of Tunisia and supports the democratic aspirations of all people.” He should have qualified that by noting that exceptions would be made for Egyptians. A day earlier, Hillary Rodham Clinton was reassuring Mubarak’s regime that it would continue to support the Egyptian government in its confrontation with pro-democracy demonstrators. The way Hillary sees things: “Egypt’s government is stable and is looking for ways to respond to the needs of Egyptians.” I suppose those needs couldn’t possibly include democracy. After thirty years of dictatorship, Mubarak is feeding Egyptians subsidized bread. What more could they possibly ask for?

To be fair, America is not the only Western country that romances Middle Eastern despots. Three days before Ben Ali’s police state apparatus crumbled, France offered the Tunisian mafia chief assistance in putting down the uprising. So don’t just blame Washington; even the folks who invented liberty and egalitarianism don’t want the Arabs to be free.

Let it never be said that the gurus at the State Department and the National Security Council are inconsistent. The Washington foreign policy establishment cringes at the thought of Arabs lining up at ballot boxes. They’ve seen where that leads. Free elections in Algeria, Gaza, Lebanon, Turkey and Iraq have all resulted in victories for the dreaded Islamic parties.

Mindful of that, the neo-con wizards had a plan worked out to circumvent any democratic hassles after the ‘liberation’ of Iraq. To avoid the risks of free elections, they set up the Iraqi Governing Council as an interim government. All twenty-five members of the council were appointed by Paul Bremer, the newly crowned emperor of Baghdad. Many of his appointees were Iraqi exiles like the infamous Ahmed Chalabi, the man groomed to be Iraq’s velvet-gloved dictator. When queried about the democracy promised by the American invaders, Bremer was dismissive. He famously said “elections that are held too early can be destructive.”

Even after the events in Tunisia, it’s unlikely that we will see any changes in America’s hostility towards political reform in the Middle East. Take Hillary at her word. The United States will continue to support the despotic regimes in the Middle East. It’s not just a matter of habit or perceived strategic and economic interests. It goes much deeper than that. There is a political culture that is deeply entrenched in the State Department, The national security apparatus, the Washington think tanks and the media. Simply put, Washington’s political establishment despises Muslims in general and Arabs in particular and they distrust their electoral choices.

When it comes to the Middle East, Washington is a Stalinist echo chamber where anti-Arab rhetoric has its rewards. Part of the reason is that the State Department and Congress are Israeli occupied territories. Regardless of who occupies the White House, one has to pass a Likudnik loyalty test to land a job as doorman at Foggy Bottom.

Just take a look at the resume of Jeffrey Feltman, the American diplomat dispatched to Tunis to sort things out. He’s a protégé of Martin Indyk, the Israeli lobbyist who was recruited directly from AIPAC to serve as American ambassador to Israel but never failed to perform his duties as an Israeli envoy to the State Department. On any policy issue pertaining to the Middle East, Israeli lobby operatives have the last word.

It’s no secret that committed Likudniks like Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith were the driving force behind America’s trillion dollar misadventure in Iraq or that the same dark forces are braying for a confrontation with Iran. They even consider Turkey a mortal threat. American blood and treasure are of no consequence to these committed and disciplined Zionist ideologues. They march to the beat of an Israeli drum and as long as they remain entrenched in the State Department and the National Security Council, the essential acid test for American Foreign policy will be “Is it good for Israel?”

So take a moment and ponder what all the pundits and wizards in Washington have not lamented about the Tunisian revolt. Saddam could have very easily gone the way of Ben Ali. At the time of the invasion and due to the effectiveness of the no-fly zones, the Iraqi dictator’s security forces barely held sway over a third of the country and Saddam was so insecure about the sentiments of his people that he couldn’t risk sleeping in the same bed for two nights running. American and British planes bombed Iraq at will. I’m not only certain that Bush and Blair knew that Saddam had no WMDs; I’ve asserted before that if they really thought he had them, they wouldn’t have risked an invasion.

For all practical measures, Saddam was the mayor of Baghdad — a defanged delusional tiger who spent his last days in power penning love stories. Saddam was contained by brutal sanctions and the United States had already made contacts with Iraqi generals who agreed to stand down and offer no resistance. When he finally realized the end was near, Saddam used back channels and offered every conceivable concession to avoid an American invasion. Of course, after taking control of the country, the neo-cons stabbed the generals in the back and disbanded the army because of their obsession with de Ba’athication. Absent American military intervention, Iraqis might very well have managed to remove their despotic leader and resurrect a secular republic. It wouldn’t have been perfect but it would certainly not have turned into a failed theocratic state in Iran’s sphere of influence.

At the cost of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilian casualties, 4,500 American fatalities, two million refugees that include half of Iraq’s pre-war Christian population and a trillion dollars borrowed from the Chinese, George Bush rolled out the red carpet for Iranian allied sectarian parties. Why? Because his advisers — Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith — thought it would be good for Israel. The outcomes in Iraq obviously didn’t match the Likudniks’ wet dreams but had they removed their ideological blinders, the war party might have been more sober in doing their risk assessments and spared Americans a disastrous foreign policy fiasco and the enduring enmity of tens of millions of people in the Middle East and beyond.

So there should be no confusion about Hillary’s stand on Mubarak as opposed to Obama’s latent support of the Tunisian revolutionaries. The inconsistencies are in perfect harmony with the Israeli lobby’s traditional hostility towards the Arab people. It is a hostility that has very little to do with America’s national interests and everything to do with the Likudnik architects of America’s foreign policy in the region.

Make no mistake, the Arabs will soon reach the mountain top and taste the sweet wine of liberty but it will be not thanks to Hillary, Obama or the Israeli Lobby.

• Ahmed wrote this article in Cairo, Egypt “while inhaling the intoxicating scent of the Egyptian uprising in Cairo.”

Ahmed Amr is the former editor of NileMedia.com and the author of The Sheep and The Guardians - Diary of a SEC Sanctioned Swindle. He can be reached at: Montraj@aol.com. Read other articles by Ahmed.

This article was posted on Thursday, January 27th, 2011 at 8:01am and is filed under Democracy, Disinformation, Egypt, France, Iran, Iraq, Israel/Palestine, Kuwait, Obama, Saudi Arabia, The Lobby, Tunisia, Turkey.

Saturday, January 22, 2011

Historical Amnesia: The Nation's Number One Disease





January 22, 2011 at 16:58:04


Historical Amnesia: The Nation's Number One Disease

By John Grant (about the author)

opednews.com

<p>Your browser does not support iframes.</p>
Recent indicators suggest the US military mission in the Middle East and Southwest Asia is waning in influence, leaving us mired down with hundreds of thousands of soldiers and billions of dollars of equipment and bases. And a lot of face to save.

According to a New York Times analysis, Turkey and Iran are rising in regional influence as the United States is falling. And let's not forget, arguably the single-most important historical act that boosted Iran to this level of regional influence was the 2003 US invasion and occupation of Iraq.

"The jockeying might be a glimpse of a post-American Middle East," writes Anthony Shadid in the Times analysis.

Still, you have to admire US leaders for their talent and tenacity in never publicly recognizing the obvious. George Bush, of course, was an underestimated master at this.

He and his gang of cutthroats stumbled around in the world like drunken fat men knocking over furniture and vomiting on the couch. Then, at the press conference when a reporter asked if there was anything he could say had been a "mistake," he'd give us that famous vacant look

"Gee. I'm thinking," he'd say with an aw-shucks grin and a shy chuckle. "I'm trying but I just can't come up with anything right now." Another chuckle and a little shrug. Then: "I'll take it under advisement and get back to you in a couple decades."

In other words, "Buzz off and leave me alone. I'm the leader of the free world. I don't make mistakes. I make history."


Presidents Obama and Bush by unknown

Now, of course, we have a man in the White House who most everybody agrees is a smart guy -- even those who insist he's a Third World Manchurian Candidate.

Mr. Obama doesn't play the same coy public games Mr. Bush played. His game revolves around the idea that all the mistakes were made by Bush, but since they are now so institutionalized that they constitute The-State-Of-America-Today, to rock the boat would only damage the nation. And no American President can get very far -- like be re-elected -- by doing anything that might be characterized as hurting America.

What is "America" but the bright and shining accumulation of 235 years of decisions and campaigns that left a lot of death, wreckage and collateral damage in their wake? So Mr. Obama's modus operandi to stay afloat and get ahead in this great churning enterprise is to go with the flow, since those who try to dam the flow or swim against it only get battered and smashed by the flotsam and jetsam rushing down-river. Better to be forward-looking.

Frank Rich of The New York Times described this top-down, power-driven national process nicely. Specifically, he was speaking about how our government and media were addressing the aftermath of the Tucson shooting. Rich picks it up at the close of President Obama's beautiful speech in Tucson:

"As soon as the president left the podium Wednesday night, we started shifting into our familiar spin-dry post-tragedy cycle of the modern era -- speedy "closure,' followed by a return to business as usual, followed by national amnesia."

We certainly saw that cycle at work following the economic collapse in the middle of the 2008 election campaign. Greed has, maybe, been tempered ever-so-slightly -- but not enough to put a damper on the profit-driven market, which was, of course, bailed out (that "closure" thing) with many hundreds of billions of our tax dollars. The poor and the working middle class were left to struggle to keep their homes and their jobs, which was deemed good for their character.

Closure in this case applies to soothing the beast we might call "the American Street," to borrow a popular phrase from the Arab world. The Wall Street pundits are no doubt correct when they assure us that if the high-finance economy had been left to the whims of the worshiped free market the wreckage might have been much worse -- like of such destabilizing, revolutionary intensity that, while some hair would have been mussed, real change of some sort might have happened.

As it stands, the American Street is confused and divided and fighting amongst itself, which is no doubt just fine with those in the moneyed financial class.

The current street revolution in Tunisia seems quite instructive. We are told that Tunisia's 23-year-long tyranny led by President Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali was so tight a bunch of corrupt thugs that the well-educated nation with a healthy middle class was ripe for the bottom-up eruption we're now seeing.


Egypt and other North African and Middle Eastern nations with similar corrupt regimes out of touch with their people are less susceptible, we're told, because the corruption there is not so concentrated and exclusive, not so greedy and more spread out at the top, making such a massive street outpouring more complicated to spark.

Two things helped set off the Tunisian eruption. First, Mohamed Bouazizi, a poor, struggling fruit peddler was harassed by a government factotum to the point he set himself on fire before the governor's house in a poor province of the country.

Then once the street reaction grew, demonstrators became aware of cables released by WikiLeaks that showed US diplomats expressing disgust at the levels of corruption and greed they witnessed in the Ben Ali regime -- at the same time these diplomats made it clear the Ben Ali regime was working for US interests and was, thus, just fine with the United States.

An op-ed in The New York Times by the young Tunisian novelist Kamel Riahi shows how frightening it can be to be in the middle of a bottom-up social conflagration.

Right now, "the Tunisian Street" is in a confusing struggle for control of the nation with remnants of the Ben Ali regime, the police, the Tunisian army and the best and worst of human nature. How the decimated and banned Communist and Islamic parties factor into the mix is an open question.

The Islamic Al-Nahda party -- in English The Renaissance Party -- was crushed by the Ben Ali gang, its leaders murdered, exiled or tortured. One of those leaders, Ali Larayedh, was imprisoned and tortured for 14 years. He is now part of a true renaissance movement and the center of great popular interest, as is the founder of the party, now exiled in London. Larayedh says his party is a modern Islamic party that advocates free and fair democratic elections, women's rights and the selling of liquor.

"We are Muslim, but we are not against modernism," he told a Times reporter. "We are still against the political agenda of American interference in Arabic countries."

All eyes should be on Tunisia, since the current crisis is a chaotic and democratic experiment ripe for meddling. If Larayedh is right, it could become a model for moderate Islamic governance, something that, of course, terrifies many westerners who preach democracy but abandon that line and resort to military violence when Islam is involved.

As the Tunisian eruption was unfolding, Hillary Clinton weighed in last week with what The New York Times called "a scalding critique of Arab leaders" at a conference in Qatar in the Persian Gulf.


Hillary Clinton and the Tunisian Street by unknown

Clearly aware of the implications of unfolding crises in Tunisia, Lebanon, Afghanistan and Iraq, Clinton took the podium and ripped into Arab leaders. (In Lebanon the government had collapsed; in Afghanistan, Karzai and the Parliament were on a collision course; and in Iraq, a firebrand Shiite had returned from exile in Iran and over 50 Shiites were slaughtered in bomb blasts.)

"In too many places, in too many ways, the region's foundations are sinking into the sand," Clinton said. "The new and dynamic Middle East that I have seen needs firmer ground if it is to take root and grow everywhere."

She fulminated on corruption. To do anything in the Arab and Islamic world "you have to pass money through so many different hands," she said. Arab leaders' determination to hold onto the past and to keep those with power in power was killing future opportunities and future growth. The woman was on fire.

"Those who cling to the status quo may be able to hold back the full impact of their countries' problems for a little while, but not forever," she scolded. "If leaders don't offer a positive vision and give young people meaningful ways to contribute, others will fill the vacuum."

Of course, she was absolutely right, and the audience of Arab foreign ministers, business people and rights groups were "stone-faced," according to the Times reporter. In Tunisia, "others" were in fact filling the vacuum. And the Islamic Al-Nahda party in Tunisia was calling for real democracy, amnesty for exiles and social programs for the poor.

A performance like Clinton's always recalls for me the moment on the Rachel Maddow Show when, during a discussion on Afghanistan, Maddow asked former National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski about the corruption in Afghanistan.

Clearly charmed by Maddow, Brzezinski seemed caught off guard. He chuckled and said: "Yeh, Rachel. But what about the corruption in Washington?"

It was one of those moments when the fog momentarily clears and some kind of real truth is inadvertently revealed. They both chuckled knowingly and, then, Brzezinski answered her question: Sure, there was a lot of corruption in Afghanistan.

Everything Mrs. Clinton railed against in her Qatar speech applies on a much larger scale in Washington DC and the America of 2011. Arabs have bribes, and we have the "Citizens United" Supreme Court ruling that enshrined in law what a legendary crooked congressman from South Philly once said about Washington DC: "In this town money talks and bullshit walks."

Unless and until a critical mass of Americans (that "American street") begin to realize how damaging this state of affairs is and begin to do something about it -- here at home, in the United States -- no one in North Africa, the Middle East or Southwest Asia is going to pay much attention to fiery speeches like Mrs. Clinton's.

Everyone in that room in Qatar knew very well the history of US intervention that reached back long before the First Gulf War. They knew what really motivated the horrific attack of 9/11 and about the reactive US war in Afghanistan. They knew what the full-blown "shock and awe" invasion and occupation of Iraq was really about. Everybody in that room knew about the special operations assassination raids and the increased drone assaults and the civilian collateral damage in Afghanistan now spreading into Pakistan. Everyone in that room knew about the one-sided US defense of Israel's facts-on-the-ground militarist policies right down the line to the brutal assault into Gaza and the spread of Israeli settlements. And every Arab in that room didn't need Mrs. Clinton to tell them they lived in a corrupt world -- as they also completely understood Brzezinski's reference to Washington corruption.

Actually, the audacity of Mrs. Clinton's speech was amazing. You had to hand it to her; she was one tough iron lady. Up there in a class with Margaret Thatcher.

The problem was Mrs. Clinton's power in that speech in Qatar was not based on moral leadership. It was based on the blood on her hands. Which is something the Arab street also understands. To borrow her term, US moral leadership was sinking fast into the sand.

What was needed was not a scolding speech. What was needed was for the American people to get over their amnesia and come to terms with all the costly Bush era military blunders done in their name. Mrs. Clinton and President Obama could wash all that blood off their hands. It would increase their waning influence. It would save the nation a lot of squandered resources.

Finally, there's a great moral stink still emanating from our prison in Guantanamo, where the Obama administration, despite campaign pledges otherwise, is planning to pursue military tribunals for men like Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, who is accused of bombing the Cole in 2000.

Beyond the rarely-observed fact that we hold the Cuban base at gunpoint based on some bogus 1898 imperial contract, the military tribunal decision is an instance of national amnesia at its worst.

The reason for these military tribunals is legalistically shameful. One, they will allow hearsay evidence from US intelligence and military agents; and two, the water-boarding and other tortures men like al-Nashiri underwent by US agents or their proxies will be finessed away.

No one is demanding the US let down its guard or become an international chump. But it's time to prescribe serious medicine to heal America's epidemic of amnesia. The goal is a healthier nation, one able to cut back on expensive military boondoggles and to divert funds to creating jobs, improving education, encouraging alternative energies and fixing our crumbling infrastructure. The list is long.

Mrs. Clinton said it best in Qatar:

"Those who cling to the status quo may be able to hold back the full impact of their countries' problems for a little while, but not forever."

For the original essay, go to THIS CAN'T BE HAPPENING at: http://www.thiscantbehappening.net


I am a 62-year-old American who served in Vietnam as a 19-year-old kid who has been studying US counter-insurgency war ever since. I live outside of Philadelphia, where I am a photographer and a writer -- sometimes a video filmmaker. I have been a (more...)

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Monday, January 17, 2011

From Military-Industrial Complex to Permanent War State



January 17, 2011 at 13:50:34

From Military-Industrial Complex to Permanent War State

By Gareth Porter (about the author)


opednews.com



Ike giving his famous speech on the Military Industrial Complex-- youtube video of his speech at end of article.



Fifty years after Dwight D. Eisenhower's January 17, 1961 speech on the "military-industrial complex", that threat has morphed into a far more powerful and sinister force than Eisenhower could have imagined. It has become a "Permanent War State", with the power to keep the United States at war continuously for the indefinite future.

But despite their seeming invulnerability, the vested interests behind U.S. militarism have been seriously shaken twice in the past four decades by some combination of public revulsion against a major war, opposition to high military spending, serious concern about the budget deficit and a change in perception of the external threat. Today, the Permanent War State faces the first three of those dangers to its power simultaneously -- and in a larger context of the worst economic crisis since the great depression.

When Eisenhower warned in this farewell address of the "potential" for the "disastrous rise of misplaced power", he was referring to the danger that militarist interests would gain control over the country's national security policy. The only reason it didn't happen on Ike's watch is that he stood up to the military and its allies.

The Air Force and the Army were so unhappy with his "New Look" military policy that they each waged political campaigns against it. The Army demanded that Ike reverse his budget cuts and beef up conventional forces. The Air Force twice fabricated intelligence to support its claim that the Soviet Union was rapidly overtaking the United States in strategic striking power -- first in bombers, later in ballistic missiles.

But Ike defied both services, reducing Army manpower by 44 percent from its 1953 level and refusing to order a crash program for bombers or for missiles. He also rejected military recommendations for war in Indochina, bombing attacks on China and an ultimatum to the Soviet Union.

After Eisenhower, it became clear that the alliance of militarist interests included not only the military services and their industrial clients but civilian officials in the Pentagon, the CIA's Directorate of Operations, top officials at the State Department and the White House national security adviser. During the Kennedy and Johnson administrations, that militarist alliance succeeded in pushing the White House into a war in Vietnam, despite the reluctance of both presidents, as documented in my book Perils of Dominance .

But just when the power of the militarist alliance seemed unstoppable in the late 1960s, the public turned decisively against the VietnamWar, and a long period of public pressure to reduce military spending began. As a result, military manpower was reduced to below even the Eisenhower era levels.

For more than a decade the alliance of militarist interests was effectively constrained from advocating a more aggressive military posture.

Even during the Reagan era, after a temporary surge in military spending, popular fear of Soviet Union melted away in response to the rise of Gorbachev, just as the burgeoning federal budget deficit was becoming yet another threat to militarist bloc. As it became clear that the Cold War was drawing to a close, the militarist interests faced the likely loss of much of their power and resources.

But in mid-1990 they got an unexpected break when Saddam Hussein occupied Kuwait. George H. W. Bush " a key figure in the militarist complex as former CIA Director -- seized the opportunity to launch a war that would end the "Vietnam syndrome". The Bush administration turned a popular clear-cut military victory in the 1991 Gulf War into a rationale for further use of military force in the Middle East. Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney's 1992 military strategy for the next decade said, "We must be prepared to act decisively in the Middle East/Persian Gulf region as we did in Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm if our vital interests are threatened anew."

The Bush administration pressured the Saudis and other Arab regimes in the Gulf to allow longer-term bases for the U.S. Air Force, and over the next eight years, U.S. planes flew an annual average of 8,000 sorties in the "no fly zones" the United States had declared over most of Iraq, drawing frequent anti-aircraft fire.

The United States was already in a de facto state of war with Iraq well before George W. Bush's presidency.

The 9/11 attacks were the biggest single boon to the militarist alliance. The Bush administration exploited the climate of fear to railroad the country into a war of aggression against Iraq. The underlying strategy, approved by the military leadership after 9/11, was to use Iraq as a base from which to wage a campaign of regime change in a long list of countries.

That fateful decision only spurred recruitment and greater activism by al Qaeda and other jihadist groups, which expanded into Iraq and other countries.

Instead of reversing the ill-considered use of military force, however, the same coalition of officials pushed for an even more militarized approach to jihadism. Over the next few years, it to gained unprecedented power over resources and policy at home and further extended its reach abroad:

The Special Operations Forces, which operate in almost complete secrecy, obtained extraordinary authority to track down and kill or capture al Qaeda suspects not only in Iraq and Afghanistan, but in many more countries.

The CIA sought and obtained virtually unlimited freedom to carry out drone strikes in secrecy and without any meaningful oversight by Congress.

The Pentagon embraced the idea of the "long war" " a twenty-year strategy envisioning deployment of U.S. troops in dozens of countries, and the Army adopted the idea of "the era of persistent warfare" as its rationale for more budgetary resources.

The military budget doubled from 1998 to 2008 in the biggest explosion of military spending since the early 1950s " and now accounts for 56 percent of discretionary federal spending.

The military leadership used its political clout to ensure that U.S. forces would continue to fight in Afghanistan indefinitely, even after the premises of its strategy were shown to have been false.

Those moves have completed the process of creating a "Permanent War State" -- a set of institutions with the authority to wage largely secret wars across a vast expanse of the globe for the indefinite future.

But the power of this new state formation is still subject to the same political dynamics that have threatened militarist interests twice before: popular antipathy to a major war, broad demands for reduced military spending and the necessity to reduce the Federal budget deficit and debt.

The percentage of Americans who believe the war in Afghanistan is not worth fighting has now reached 60 percent for the first time. And as the crisis over the federal debt reaches it climax, the swollen defense budget should bear the brunt of deep budget cuts.

As early as 2005, a Pew Research Center survey found that, when respondents were given the opportunity to express a preference for budget cuts by major accounts, they opted to reduce military spending by 31 percent. In another survey by the Pew Center a year ago, 76 percent of respondents, frustrated by the continued failure of the U.S. economy, wanted the United States to put top priority in its domestic problems.

The only thing missing from this picture is a grassroots political movement organized specifically to demand an end to the Permanent War State. Such a movement could establish firm legal restraints on the institutions that threaten American Democratic institutions through a massive educational and lobbying effort. This is the right historical moment to harness the latent anti-militarist sentiment in the country to a conscious strategy for political change.





Gareth Porter (born 18 June 1942, Independence, Kansas) is an American historian, investigative journalist and policy analyst on U.S. foreign and military policy. A strong opponent of U.S. wars in Southeast Asia, and the Middle East, he has also (more...)

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Sunday, January 16, 2011

The Most Sophisticated Cyberweapon Ever Deployed is Changing Warfare



January 16, 2011 at 13:43:55

The Most Sophisticated Cyberweapon Ever Deployed is Changing Warfare

By Rob Kall (about the author)

opednews.com


The Stuxnet worm heralds a new way of thinking about war.

The New York Times is reporting that Stuxnet computer worm has destroyed 20% of the nuclear centrifuges in Iran, setting back their Nuclear bomb program by three years. (Other sources estimate 10 percent damaged.)

The article reports that, cooperating with the USA, Israel tested and developed the virus at the secret Dimona facility in the Negev, where Israeli's undiscussed nuclear weapons are developed and stored.

The Times article reported, " In recent days, the retiring chief of Israel's Mossad intelligence agency, Meir Dagan, and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton separately announced that they believed Iran's efforts had been set back by several years.," and, "It's like a playbook," said Ralph Langner, an independent computer security expert in Hamburg, Germany, who was among the first to decode Stuxnet. "Anyone who looks at it carefully can build something like it." Mr. Langner is among the experts who expressed fear that the attack had legitimized a new form of industrial warfare, one to which the United States is also highly vulnerable."

The Times article reports that the main focus, in development of the Stuxnet virus, was on computer controllers. These devices that are becoming more and more ubiquitous in all kinds of factory equipment, machinery, automobiles, even toys. Wikileaks collection of State Department cables included ones from 2009 expressing concern, as the Times article reports, " urgent efforts in April 2009 to stop a shipment of Siemens controllers, contained in 111 boxes at the port of Dubai, in the United Arab Emirates. They were headed for Iran, one cable said, and were meant to control "uranium enrichment cascades" -- the term for groups of spinning centrifuges."


Iranian Nuclear Facility


Mr Langner, head of a small German computer security company, discovered, after testing the Stuxnet virus, that it was widespread, but only caused damage when it encountered very specific configurations of controllers, ones found in a centrifuge plant. This was precision targeting.

To make the Stuxnet worm work as a precision industrial weapon, it was necessary to acquire some of the more than six foot tall centrifuges so they could be tested. This is where the Israeli Dimona facility played a key role.

Once the virus was deployed, it had partial, not complete success in damaging the Iranian nuclear effort.


In late November, Mahmoud Ahmadinejead reported,

" "[Iran's enemies] succeeded in creating problems for a limited number of our centrifuges with the software they had installed in electronic parts," Ahmadinejad said. "They did a bad thing. Fortunately our experts discovered that, and today they are not able [to do that] anymore."


it is estimated that almost 1000 of the centrifuges were damaged.

The times wrote, as the title states, this is "the most sophisticated cyberweapon ever deployed."

Ced Kurtz, of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette writes, "Taking out a tenth of the centrifuges at the Iranian facility is comparable to an air strike. Now that is war."

In the past, if a government attacked another nation's factory, that would be considered an act of war.

Now, we are faced with a situation in which the US collaborated with Israel to build a cyberweapon that caused millions, perhaps billions in damage to Iran.

Teheran knew in November that the Stuxnet worm had caused the destruction. Now, with the NY Times report, if not before, Iran is faced with a decision. Will it take the cyberattack as an act of war? If so, will it respond in kind? If so, it is likely that Iran will source cyberweapons where it can find them, as it has sourced weapons construction resources from places like Pakistan and North Korea.

One place Iran may seek powerful cyberweapons is China. There, the Chinese have access to tens of millions if not hundreds of millions of computers which have Green Dam software installed on them. While this is purportedly to protect the young from pornography, it provides a point of easy access to millions of computers, which COULD be used to initiate incredibly power denial of service attacks and other malevolent efforts. It is inconceivable that the US and G20 nation not know the cyberweapon potential of the combined installations of millions of Green Dam Software.

That reality suggests that the Stuxnet worm is a tiny tip of a massive, and fast growing iceberg of Cyberwarfare technologies. It is very likely that before long, tens of millions of computers, very likely including smart phones and notepads, in the US and throughout the world will, unknown to their users, include software code, lying silent, in wait for commands, that will be used to launch attack on targets the computer owners know nothing of, as is done with common computer virus mediated denial of service attacks. The difference will be that these attacks will be government or military initiated.

The question is, will these attacks be considered attacks that signal the start of wars?

Rob Kall is executive editor, publisher and site architect of OpEdNews.com, Host of the Rob Kall Bottom Up Radio Show (WNJC 1360 AM), President of Futurehealth, Inc, more...)

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

How the Pentagon and U.S. Warfare Inadvertently Became Obsolete

The Huffington Post


SECRET PROJECT TO SABOTAGE IRAN'S NUCLEAR PROGRAM




Israel Tests on Worm Called Crucial in Iran Nuclear Delay

Nicholas Roberts for The New York Times

Ralph Langner, an independent computer security expert, solved Stuxnet.


President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran toured the Natanz plant in 2008.

The Dimona complex in the Negev desert is famous as the heavily guarded heart of Israel’s never-acknowledged nuclear arms program, where neat rows of factories make atomic fuel for the arsenal.

Over the past two years, according to intelligence and military experts familiar with its operations, Dimona has taken on a new, equally secret role — as a critical testing ground in a joint American and Israeli effort to undermine Iran’s efforts to make a bomb of its own.

Behind Dimona’s barbed wire, the experts say, Israel has spun nuclear centrifuges virtually identical to Iran’s at Natanz, where Iranian scientists are struggling to enrich uranium. They say Dimona tested the effectiveness of the Stuxnet computer worm, a destructive program that appears to have wiped out roughly a fifth of Iran’s nuclear centrifuges and helped delay, though not destroy, Tehran’s ability to make its first nuclear arms.

“To check out the worm, you have to know the machines,” said an American expert on nuclear intelligence. “The reason the worm has been effective is that the Israelis tried it out.”

Though American and Israeli officials refuse to talk publicly about what goes on at Dimona, the operations there, as well as related efforts in the United States, are among the newest and strongest clues suggesting that the virus was designed as an American-Israeli project to sabotage the Iranian program.

In recent days, the retiring chief of Israel’s Mossad intelligence agency, Meir Dagan, and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton separately announced that they believed Iran’s efforts had been set back by several years. Mrs. Clinton cited American-led sanctions, which have hurt Iran’s ability to buy components and do business around the world.

The gruff Mr. Dagan, whose organization has been accused by Iran of being behind the deaths of several Iranian scientists, told the Israeli Knesset in recent days that Iran had run into technological difficulties that could delay a bomb until 2015. That represented a sharp reversal from Israel’s long-held argument that Iran was on the cusp of success.

The biggest single factor in putting time on the nuclear clock appears to be Stuxnet, the most sophisticated cyberweapon ever deployed.

In interviews over the past three months in the United States and Europe, experts who have picked apart the computer worm describe it as far more complex — and ingenious — than anything they had imagined when it began circulating around the world, unexplained, in mid-2009.

Many mysteries remain, chief among them, exactly who constructed a computer worm that appears to have several authors on several continents. But the digital trail is littered with intriguing bits of evidence.

In early 2008 the German company Siemens cooperated with one of the United States’ premier national laboratories, in Idaho, to identify the vulnerabilities of computer controllers that the company sells to operate industrial machinery around the world — and that American intelligence agencies have identified as key equipment in Iran’s enrichment facilities.

Seimens says that program was part of routine efforts to secure its products against cyberattacks. Nonetheless, it gave the Idaho National Laboratory — which is part of the Energy Department, responsible for America’s nuclear arms — the chance to identify well-hidden holes in the Siemens systems that were exploited the next year by Stuxnet.

The worm itself now appears to have included two major components. One was designed to send Iran’s nuclear centrifuges spinning wildly out of control. Another seems right out of the movies: The computer program also secretly recorded what normal operations at the nuclear plant looked like, then played those readings back to plant operators, like a pre-recorded security tape in a bank heist, so that it would appear that everything was operating normally while the centrifuges were actually tearing themselves apart.

The attacks were not fully successful: Some parts of Iran’s operations ground to a halt, while others survived, according to the reports of international nuclear inspectors. Nor is it clear the attacks are over: Some experts who have examined the code believe it contains the seeds for yet more versions and assaults.

“It’s like a playbook,” said Ralph Langner, an independent computer security expert in Hamburg, Germany, who was among the first to decode Stuxnet. “Anyone who looks at it carefully can build something like it.” Mr. Langner is among the experts who expressed fear that the attack had legitimized a new form of industrial warfare, one to which the United States is also highly vulnerable.

Officially, neither American nor Israeli officials will even utter the name of the malicious computer program, much less describe any role in designing it.

But Israeli officials grin widely when asked about its effects. Mr. Obama’s chief strategist for combating weapons of mass destruction, Gary Samore, sidestepped a Stuxnet question at a recent conference about Iran, but added with a smile: “I’m glad to hear they are having troubles with their centrifuge machines, and the U.S. and its allies are doing everything we can to make it more complicated.”

In recent days, American officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity have said in interviews that they believe Iran’s setbacks have been underreported. That may explain why Mrs. Clinton provided her public assessment while traveling in the Middle East last week.

By the accounts of a number of computer scientists, nuclear enrichment experts and former officials, the covert race to create Stuxnet was a joint project between the Americans and the Israelis, with some help, knowing or unknowing, from the Germans and the British.

The project’s political origins can be found in the last months of the Bush administration. In January 2009, The New York Times reported that Mr. Bush authorized a covert program to undermine the electrical and computer systems around Natanz, Iran’s major enrichment center. President Obama, first briefed on the program even before taking office, sped it up, according to officials familiar with the administration’s Iran strategy. So did the Israelis, other officials said. Israel has long been seeking a way to cripple Iran’s capability without triggering the opprobrium, or the war, that might follow an overt military strike of the kind they conducted against nuclear facilities in Iraq in 1981 and Syria in 2007.

Two years ago, when Israel still thought its only solution was a military one and approached Mr. Bush for the bunker-busting bombs and other equipment it believed it would need for an air attack, its officials told the White House that such a strike would set back Iran’s programs by roughly three years. Its request was turned down.

Now, Mr. Dagan’s statement suggests that Israel believes it has gained at least that much time, without mounting an attack. So does the Obama administration.

For years, Washington’s approach to Tehran’s program has been one of attempting “to put time on the clock,” a senior administration official said, even while refusing to discuss Stuxnet. “And now, we have a bit more.”

Finding Weaknesses

Paranoia helped, as it turns out.

Years before the worm hit Iran, Washington had become deeply worried about the vulnerability of the millions of computers that run everything in the United States from bank transactions to the power grid.

Computers known as controllers run all kinds of industrial machinery. By early 2008, the Department of Homeland Security had teamed up with the Idaho National Laboratory to study a widely used Siemens controller known as P.C.S.-7, for Process Control System 7. Its complex software, called Step 7, can run whole symphonies of industrial instruments, sensors and machines.

The vulnerability of the controller to cyberattack was an open secret. In July 2008, the Idaho lab and Siemens teamed up on a PowerPoint presentation on the controller’s vulnerabilities that was made to a conference in Chicago at Navy Pier, a top tourist attraction.

“Goal is for attacker to gain control,” the July paper said in describing the many kinds of maneuvers that could exploit system holes. The paper was 62 pages long, including pictures of the controllers as they were examined and tested in Idaho.

In a statement on Friday, the Idaho National Laboratory confirmed that it formed a partnership with Siemens but said it was one of many with manufacturers to identify cybervulnerabilities. It argued that the report did not detail specific flaws that attackers could exploit. But it also said it could not comment on the laboratory’s classified missions, leaving unanswered the question of whether it passed what it learned about the Siemens systems to other parts of the nation’s intelligence apparatus.

The presentation at the Chicago conference, which recently disappeared from a Siemens Web site, never discussed specific places where the machines were used.

But Washington knew. The controllers were critical to operations at Natanz, a sprawling enrichment site in the desert. “If you look for the weak links in the system,” said one former American official, “this one jumps out.”

Controllers, and the electrical regulators they run, became a focus of sanctions efforts. The trove of State Department cables made public by WikiLeaks describes urgent efforts in April 2009 to stop a shipment of Siemens controllers, contained in 111 boxes at the port of Dubai, in the United Arab Emirates. They were headed for Iran, one cable said, and were meant to control “uranium enrichment cascades” — the term for groups of spinning centrifuges.

Subsequent cables showed that the United Arab Emirates blocked the transfer of the Siemens computers across the Strait of Hormuz to Bandar Abbas, a major Iranian port.

Only months later, in June, Stuxnet began to pop up around the globe. The Symantec Corporation, a maker of computer security software and services based in Silicon Valley, snared it in a global malware collection system. The worm hit primarily inside Iran, Symantec reported, but also in time appeared in India, Indonesia and other countries.

But unlike most malware, it seemed to be doing little harm. It did not slow computer networks or wreak general havoc.

That deepened the mystery.

A ‘Dual Warhead’

No one was more intrigued than Mr. Langner, a former psychologist who runs a small computer security company in a suburb of Hamburg. Eager to design protective software for his clients, he had his five employees focus on picking apart the code and running it on the series of Siemens controllers neatly stacked in racks, their lights blinking.

He quickly discovered that the worm only kicked into gear when it detected the presence of a specific configuration of controllers, running a set of processes that appear to exist only in a centrifuge plant. “The attackers took great care to make sure that only their designated targets were hit,” he said. “It was a marksman’s job.”

For example, one small section of the code appears designed to send commands to 984 machines linked together.

Curiously, when international inspectors visited Natanz in late 2009, they found that the Iranians had taken out of service a total of exactly 984 machines that had been running the previous summer.

But as Mr. Langner kept peeling back the layers, he found more — what he calls the “dual warhead.” One part of the program is designed to lie dormant for long periods, then speed up the machines so that the spinning rotors in the centrifuges wobble and then destroy themselves. Another part, called a “man in the middle” in the computer world, sends out those false sensor signals to make the system believe everything is running smoothly. That prevents a safety system from kicking in, which would shut down the plant before it could self-destruct.

“Code analysis makes it clear that Stuxnet is not about sending a message or proving a concept,” Mr. Langner later wrote. “It is about destroying its targets with utmost determination in military style.”

This was not the work of hackers, he quickly concluded. It had to be the work of someone who knew his way around the specific quirks of the Siemens controllers and had an intimate understanding of exactly how the Iranians had designed their enrichment operations.

In fact, the Americans and the Israelis had a pretty good idea.

Testing the Worm

Perhaps the most secretive part of the Stuxnet story centers on how the theory of cyberdestruction was tested on enrichment machines to make sure the malicious software did its intended job.

The account starts in the Netherlands. In the 1970s, the Dutch designed a tall, thin machine for enriching uranium. As is well known, A. Q. Khan, a Pakistani metallurgist working for the Dutch, stole the design and in 1976 fled to Pakistan.

The resulting machine, known as the P-1, for Pakistan’s first-generation centrifuge, helped the country get the bomb. And when Dr. Khan later founded an atomic black market, he illegally sold P-1’s to Iran, Libya, and North Korea.

The P-1 is more than six feet tall. Inside, a rotor of aluminum spins uranium gas to blinding speeds, slowly concentrating the rare part of the uranium that can fuel reactors and bombs.

How and when Israel obtained this kind of first-generation centrifuge remains unclear, whether from Europe, or the Khan network, or by other means. But nuclear experts agree that Dimona came to hold row upon row of spinning centrifuges.

“They’ve long been an important part of the complex,” said Avner Cohen, author of “The Worst-Kept Secret” (2010), a book about the Israeli bomb program, and a senior fellow at the Monterey Institute of International Studies. He added that Israeli intelligence had asked retired senior Dimona personnel to help on the Iranian issue, and that some apparently came from the enrichment program.

“I have no specific knowledge,” Dr. Cohen said of Israel and the Stuxnet worm. “But I see a strong Israeli signature and think that the centrifuge knowledge was critical.”

Another clue involves the United States. It obtained a cache of P-1’s after Libya gave up its nuclear program in late 2003, and the machines were sent to the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee, another arm of the Energy Department.

By early 2004, a variety of federal and private nuclear experts assembled by the Central Intelligence Agency were calling for the United States to build a secret plant where scientists could set up the P-1’s and study their vulnerabilities. “The notion of a test bed was really pushed,” a participant at the C.I.A. meeting recalled.

The resulting plant, nuclear experts said last week, may also have played a role in Stuxnet testing.

But the United States and its allies ran into the same problem the Iranians have grappled with: the P-1 is a balky, badly designed machine. When the Tennessee laboratory shipped some of its P-1’s to England, in hopes of working with the British on a program of general P-1 testing, they stumbled, according to nuclear experts.

“They failed hopelessly,” one recalled, saying that the machines proved too crude and temperamental to spin properly.

Dr. Cohen said his sources told him that Israel succeeded — with great difficulty — in mastering the centrifuge technology. And the American expert in nuclear intelligence, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said the Israelis used machines of the P-1 style to test the effectiveness of Stuxnet.

The expert added that Israel worked in collaboration with the United States in targeting Iran, but that Washington was eager for “plausible deniability.”

In November, the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, broke the country’s silence about the worm’s impact on its enrichment program, saying a cyberattack had caused “minor problems with some of our centrifuges.” Fortunately, he added, “our experts discovered it.”

The most detailed portrait of the damage comes from the Institute for Science and International Security, a private group in Washington. Last month, it issued a lengthy Stuxnet report that said Iran’s P-1 machines at Natanz suffered a series of failures in mid- to late 2009 that culminated in technicians taking 984 machines out of action.

The report called the failures “a major problem” and identified Stuxnet as the likely culprit.

Stuxnet is not the only blow to Iran. Sanctions have hurt its effort to build more advanced (and less temperamental) centrifuges. And last January, and again in November, two scientists who were believed to be central to the nuclear program were killed in Tehran.

The man widely believed to be responsible for much of Iran’s program, Mohsen Fakrizadeh, a college professor, has been hidden away by the Iranians, who know he is high on the target list.

Publicly, Israeli officials make no explicit ties between Stuxnet and Iran’s problems. But in recent weeks, they have given revised and surprisingly upbeat assessments of Tehran’s nuclear status.

“A number of technological challenges and difficulties” have beset Iran’s program, Moshe Yaalon, Israel’s minister of strategic affairs, told Israeli public radio late last month.

The troubles, he added, “have postponed the timetable.”

Saturday, January 15, 2011

Change has No Meaning in Imperial America

Dissident Voice: a radical newsletter in the struggle for peace and social justice

Does “Change” Mean Anything?

What is government if words have no meaning?

— Jared Loughner

Two years ago Americans voted for change. Two years later Americans again voted for change. This voting ritual is generations old but the only change we’ve seen is in the skin tone, ethnicity, gender or sexuality of those selected by one minority to be elected by another. The word has no meaning. Absolutely nothing has changed about the substance of our problem.

A dysfunctional system is destroying democracy, faith, sanity, morality and the natural environment in which they all exist.

The recent tragedy in Arizona was a direct result of that social dysfunction but ignorance purveyors have used it to indict only that state, or small groups, or individual personalities, finding them guilty of creating a frustrating climate easily manipulated to bring angry division to the American public, thereby making that public easier to control.

The people at the top of a political economy that exports costly jobs while importing cheap labor remain secure while scapegoats are blamed for being unemployed natives, employed illegals or overburdened taxpayers. The wars that have cost thousands of lives, billions of dollars and created threats to Americans that never existed before are expanding to new nations. Those bloody actions are opposed by a majority, which also calls for tax increases on the richest Americans, but government consistently rules against them and for its minority owners.

The corporate state provides brainless entertainment to help control the national consciousness, and news and political commentary that make the entertainment seem brilliant by comparison. We are all but guaranteed misguided reaction at best, and homicidal lunacy at worst. If the Arizona terrorist had chosen broadcasting instead of violence, he might have had his own show on Fox, CNN or MSNBC.

The present congress will be even worse than the previous group that was of the ineffectual president’s own party. He no longer has the majority with which he did nothing but obey his corporate employers, so he can be even more bipartisan and further enrich billionaires and their servants who privately profit from all our public loss. No less a teacher of capitalist economics than Bernie Madoff reminded his investors that a profit on one side always means a loss on the other. He practiced what he preached to create fabricated billions and was sent to prison, but those who locked him up are still doing it to create fabricated trillions. Instead of being in jail, they are running the global empire. Their private profits are our social loss. Meanwhile, we are distracted by self-serving and often near imbecilic ravings that pass for political democracy as our society disintegrates while creating new billionaires. Is it any wonder that some people seem to be losing their minds?

The minority leading us to social degradation will maintain control until the majority creates a truly democratic state. In the short term that may seem as likely as visits from extra terrestrials, but there may not be a long term unless we transform the morally perverse and environmentally poisoned corporate empire that threatens all life on earth.

Right now we’re still attacking scapegoats within, or fighting outside forces non-existent until we create them. Mind managers label our problems as creeping socialism or stalking fascism, with little understanding of what those words mean. The bitterness of language is countered by attempts to make certain words criminal, with charges of “hate speech” leveled by supporters of alleged “free speech”. A nation committing hate crimes of mass murder all over the globe has its citizens despising one another and paying little attention to the systemic roots of their problem.

Just as corporate capital’s White House cheerleader has done nothing to change the economy, the new congress will do nothing to change the relationship of the USA to Israel. That sordid union with a racial supremacist nation held in contempt almost everywhere but in the American government has billions of our dollars and thousands of our lives expended in wars for its support. And the president and congress will continue raising the budget for private banking by cutting the budgets for public service. The problems that outrage millions are blamed on everything but their source and so distressed Americans helped elect the new congress. But the change they are offered by the right is as much language distortion as the change previously offered by what passes for a left. The problem is that politicians who supposedly represent competing parties are united as employees in support of the minority-controlled system. That system is what must be changed, not simply the hired hands administering its needs at public expense.

The popular big government versus small government argument disguises the reality of a corporate state owned by a tiny minority, with political factions fighting to share in its wealth. The overwhelming majority of Americans are not served at all but are, in fact, robbed in this false debate that results in continued damage inflicted no matter which faction operates on behalf of its wealthy minority controllers.

We suffer financial inequality so blatant it’s a full time public relations job for consciousness controllers to keep us dulled into believing their tales of outside terror and inside socialism. Looking at America objectively would make it easy to assume that most of us are ignorant, stoned, drunk and homicidal. But majorities oppose the wars and support taxing the rich, while a substantial minority is growing in resistance to the uncritical relationship with Israel. As soon as we stop blaming those below us and start dealing with those above us we may give real meaning to the words government and democracy. We are slowly joining the world in a global revolution to transform reality and not continue endlessly re-branding failure. We’re just not doing it fast enough to give it meaning. We need to speed up the process.

Frank Scott writes political commentary which appears in print in the Coastal Post and The Independent Monitor and online at the blog Legalienate. Read other articles by Frank.

This article was posted on Friday, January 14th, 2011 at 7:00am and is filed under Corruption, Democrats, Disinformation, Economy/Economics, Elections, Israel/Palestine, Media, Military/Militarism, Obama, Propaganda, Right Wing Jerks.

Thursday, January 13, 2011

Building the Genetically Perfect Soldier



JASONs Ponder Military Role in Gene Research

January 13th, 2011 by Steven Aftergood

The technology for sequencing human DNA is advancing so rapidly and the cost is dropping so quickly that the number of individuals whose DNA has been mapped is expected to grow “from hundreds of people (current) to millions of people (probably within three years),” according to a new report to the Pentagon (pdf) from the JASON defense science advisory panel. The Defense Department should begin to take advantage of the advances in “personal genomics technology” by collecting genetic information on all military personnel, the panel advised.

The cost of sequencing complete human genomes has been falling by about a factor of 30 per year over the last six years, the JASONs said. As a result, “it is now possible to order your personal genome sequenced today for a retail cost of under ~$20,000″ compared to around $300 million a decade ago. “This cost will likely fall to less than $1,000 by 2012, and to $100 by 2013.”

“At costs below $1,000 per genome, a number of intriguing applications of DNA sequencing become cost effective. For example, researchers will have access to thousands or even millions of human genomes to seek correlations between genotypes [i.e. the genetic makeup of individuals] and phenotypes [i.e, the expression of genetic information in observable traits].”

Currently, the understanding of “the linkages between the genotypes of individuals and their phenotypes is limited.” But “the explosion of available human genome sequence data will provide researchers from academia and industry with the genetic information necessary to conduct large-scale efforts to link genetic markers with human traits.”

For military purposes, it will be up to the Department of Defense “to determine which phenotypes… have special relevance to military performance and medical cost containment” and then presumably to select for those. “These phenotypes might pertain to short- and long-term medical readiness, physical and medical performance, and response to drugs, vaccines, and various environmental exposures…. More specifically, one might wish to know about phenotypic responses to battlefield stress, including post-traumatic stress disorder, the ability to tolerate conditions of sleep deprivation, dehydration, or prolonged exposure to heat, cold, or high altitude, or the susceptibility to traumatic bone fracture, prolonged bleeding, or slow wound healing.”

“Both offensive and defensive military operations may be impacted by the applications of personal genomics technologies through enhancement of the health, readiness, and performance of military personnel. It may be beneficial to know the genetic identities of an adversary and, conversely, to prevent an adversary from accessing the genetic identities of U.S. military personnel.”

What could possibly go wrong? Quite a few things, actually. Besides the risk of failing to maintain the privacy and security of genetic data, the data could be used in unethical ways or their significance could be misinterpreted. “Acting on genotype information that is not convincingly linked to specific phenotypes could lead to erroneous and detrimental decision making,” the JASONs said.

In any case, the JASONs advised the Pentagon, “The DoD should establish policies that result in the collection of genotype and phenotype data…. The complete diploid genome sequence for all military personnel should be collected” along with other related information.

A copy of the JASON report was obtained by Secrecy News. See “The $100 Genome: Implications for the DoD,” JASON Report No. JSR-10-100, December 2010.

Monday, January 10, 2011

Spinning Unemployment in a Collapsing Empire



January 10, 2011 at 00:06:09

Spinning Unemployment in a Collapsing Empire


By paul craig roberts
(about the author)





The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reported Friday that the economy gained only 103,000 new jobs in December -- not enough to keep up with population growth -- but the rate of unemployment (U.3) fell from 9.8% to 9.4%. If you are confused by the report, you are among the many.

In truth, what fell was not the number of unemployed people but the number of unemployed people who are actively looking for work. Those who have become discouraged and have ceased looking for work are not considered to be in the work force and are not counted as unemployed in the U.3 measure. The unemployment rate fell because discouraged workers increased, not because employment rose.

The BLS counts short-term discouraged workers (less than one year) in its U.6 measure of unemployment. That unemployment rate is 16.7%. When statistician John Williams (shadowstats.com) adds the long-term discouraged, the US unemployment rate as of December 2010 was 22.4%.

The question to ask yourself is: why does the media focus on the unemployment measure that does not count any discouraged workers? The answer is that the U.3 measurement only counts 42% of the unemployed and makes the situation appear to be a lot better than it is.

Where are the 103,000 new jobs? As I have reported for years, the jobs are in non-tradable domestic services: waitresses and bartenders, health care and social assistance (primarily ambulatory health care services), and retail and wholesale trade.

Today the United States has only 11,670,000 manufacturing jobs, less than 9% of total jobs. Yet, despite America's heavy dependence on foreign manufactures and foreign creditors, the idiots in Washington think that they are a superpower standing astride the world like a colossus.

John Williams reports that "the level of payroll employment still stands below where it was a decade ago, despite the U.S. population growing by more than 10% in the same period. The structural impairments to U.S. economic activity continue to constrain normal commercial activity, preventing any meaningful recovery in business activity."

Another way of saying this is that American corporations have taken American jobs offshore and given them to the Chinese. So much for big business patriotism.

Williams also reports that, unless it is finagled, next month's BLS benchmark revision of payroll employment data will lower the level of previously reported employment by more than 500,000.

Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke used his testimony before the Senate Budget Committee last Friday to warn that the U.S. government must get its budget deficit under control or "the economic and financial effects would be severe." Here Bernanke is acknowledging that the Federal Reserve cannot indefinitely print money in order to finance wars and bailouts of the mega-rich.

But how is the government to get its budget under control? The U.S. government, regardless of political party or president, is committed to American hegemony over the world. The Congress has just passed the largest military budget in history, and there is no indication that any of America's wars and military occupations are near an end.

The financial crisis is not over, with more foreclosures and more losses for the financial sector that will result in more taxpayer bailouts for those "too big to fail." John Williams says that the double-dip is already happening, just disguised by faulty statistics, and that the deficit implications are horrendous and are likely to result in hyperinflation as the Federal Reserve will have to monetize the otherwise un-financeable deficits.

The dollar is also in danger; its role as reserve currency undermined by the Federal Reserve's creation of more and more dollars. Temporarily, the dollar is buttressed by the grief that Wall Street's sale of fraudulent derivative financial instruments to Europe has caused the euro.

The Republicans will try to destroy Social Security and Medicare in order to pay for wars and bailouts. If Americans are capable of realizing that they are threatened on a much greater level by the Republicans' evisceration of the social safety net than they are by terrorists, the Republican assault on what they call "the welfare state" will fail.

The fallback target will be private pensions, assuming any survive plunder by the Wall Street investment banks. Pension funds could be required to invest in Treasury debt or they could face a levy. In the Clinton administration, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury Alicia Munnell proposed confiscating 15% of all pension assets on the grounds that they had accumulated tax free. Certainly Washington will steal Americans' pensions, just as Washington has stolen Americans' civil liberties, in order to continue the empire's wars of hegemony.

Increasingly, the rest of the world views America as the single source of its financial and political woes. While the superpower massacres Muslims in the Middle East and Central Asia, people in the rest of the world have learned from WikiLeaks that the U.S. government manipulates, bribes, threatens, and deceives other governments in order to have those governments serve the U.S. government's interest at the expense of the interests of their own peoples.

The American Imperial Empire rests on puppet governments that are increasingly distrusted and hated by the peoples under their rule. Like the Soviet Union's Eastern European empire, the American Empire is ruled not directly but through puppet states.

Puppet governments are caught between the empire's power and the power of the local population. To the extent that Europeans have a moral conscience, they will find America's foreign policy increasingly repugnant. To the extent that Muslim solidarity grows, the Muslim puppet governments that support America's and Israel's massacres of Muslims will find themselves threatened from within.

The American Empire is on the rocks, despite its vast arsenal of nuclear weapons and its control over the foreign and domestic policies of its subservient puppet states in Western and Eastern Europe, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, parts of Africa, the Middle East, Japan, Thailand, Indonesia, the Baltic states, Georgia, Kosovo, Mexico, Central America, Columbia, and, no doubt, others.

A country that is the font of war and oppression, whose dominance rests on the weak reed of puppet states, and whose economy is collapsing will not long remain dominant.

Paul Craig Roberts was an editor of the Wall Street Journal and an Assistant Secretary of the U.S. (more...)

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author
and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.