THE PERSIAN EMPIRE III

BUT WHERE WILL THE SOLDIERS COME FROM?

We don't have the infrastructure to sandbag the levys, and thus an American city

dies of neglect. We've used up our National Guard and Reserves. Wjhat soldiers

we have in the field are in Korea or in the *real* war against Islamist

terrorism in Afghanistan. Now President Bush, in an increasingly surreal

national nightmare, sounds about Iran a lot like he did about Iraq, before the

invasion. America has the will neither to resort to a military draft nor to the

dangerous precedent of unleashing our own nuclear arsenal. Yet talk of war with

Iran is in the air. The theocracy in Iran is an abomination. It would never

have come into being if we had had a more pragmatic view in the late 1970s.

Thank you, Jimmy Carter, exit the Shah , enter the

dragon of medievalist Islamo-fascism.

. But, here we are, post-Soviet, post 9/11

and, it seems, post reality. We have Bush. Night Falls. Henry_Allen

Don't try to solve serious matters in the middle of the night.
- Philip K. Dick



consortiumnews.com

Iran Clock Is Ticking

By Robert Parry
January 31, 2007

While congressional Democrats test how far they should go in challenging George

W. Bush’s war powers, the time may be running out to stop Bush from ordering a

major escalation of the Middle East conflict by attacking Iran.

Military and intelligence sources continue to tell me that preparations are

advancing for a war with Iran starting possibly as early as mid-to-late

February. The sources offer some differences of opinion over whether Bush might

cite a provocation from Iran or whether Israel will take the lead in launching

air strikes against Iran’s nuclear facilities.

But there is growing alarm among military and intelligence experts that Bush

already has decided to attack and simply is waiting for a second aircraft

carrier strike force to arrive in the region – and for a propaganda blitz to

stir up some pro-war sentiment at home.

One well-informed U.S. military source called me in a fury after consulting with

Pentagon associates and discovering how far along the war preparations are. He

said the plans call for extensive aerial attacks on Iran, including use of

powerful bunker-busting ordnance.

Another source with a pipeline into Israeli thinking said the Iran war plan has

expanded over the past several weeks. Earlier thinking had been that Israeli

warplanes would hit Iranian nuclear targets with U.S. forces in reserve in case

of Iranian retaliation, but now the strategy anticipates a major U.S. military

follow-up to an Israeli attack, the source said.

Both sources used the same word “crazy” in describing the plan to expand the war

to Iran. The two sources, like others I have interviewed, said that attacking

Iran could touch off a regional – and possibly global – conflagration.

“It will be like the TV show ‘24’,” the American military source said, citing

the likelihood of Islamic retaliation reaching directly into the United States.

Though Bush insists that no decision has been made on attacking Iran, he offered

similar assurances of his commitment to peace in the months before invading Iraq

in 2003. Yet leaked documents from London made clear that he had set a course

for war nine months to a year before the Iraq invasion.

In other words, Bush’s statements that he has no plans to "invade" Iran and that

he’s still committed to settle differences with Iran over its nuclear program

diplomatically should be taken with a grain of salt.

There is, of course, the possibility that the war preparations are a game of

chicken to pressure Iran to accept outside controls on its nuclear program and

to trim back its regional ambitions. But sometimes such high-stakes gambles lead

to miscalculations or set in motion dynamics that can't be controlled.

‘You Will Die’

The rapidly deteriorating situation in Iraq is seen as another factor pressing

on Bush to act quickly against Iran.

Other sources with first-hand knowledge of conditions in Iraq have told me that

the U.S. position is even more precarious than generally understood. Westerners

can’t even move around Baghdad and many other Iraqi cities except in armed

convoys.

“In some countries, if you want to get out of the car and go to the market,

they’ll tell you that it might be dangerous,” one experienced American cameraman

told me. “In Iraq, you will be killed. Not that you might be killed, but you

will be killed. The first Iraqi with a gun will shoot you, and if no one has a

gun, they’ll stone you.”

While U.S. war correspondents in most countries travel around in taxis with “TV”

taped to their windows, Western journalists in Iraq move only in armed convoys

to and from specific destinations. They operate from heavily guarded Baghdad

hotels sometimes with single families responsible for security since outsiders

can't be trusted.

The American cameraman said one European journalist rebelled at the confinement,

took off on her own in a cab – and was never seen again.

Depression also is spreading among U.S. intelligence officials who monitor

covert operations in Iraq from listening stations sometimes thousands of miles

away. The results of these Special Forces operations have been so horrendous

that morale in the intelligence community has suffered.

The futility of the Iraq War also is contributing to professional cynicism. Some

intelligence support personnel are volunteering for Iraq duty not because they

think they can help win the war but because the hazard pay is high and life in

the protected Green Zone is relatively safe and easy.

Once getting past the risks of the Baghdad airport and the dangerous road into

the city, U.S. civilian government personnel ensconce themselves in the Green

Zone, which amounts to a bubble of U.S. creature comforts – from hamburgers to

lounging by the pool – separate from the world of average Iraqis who are mostly

barred.

Cooks are brought in from other countries out of the unstated concern that

Iraqis might poison the food.

That American officials have come to view a posting in Iraq as a pleasant career

enhancer – rather than a vital national security mission for the United States –

is another sign that the war is almost certainly beyond recovery.

Another experienced observer of conflicts around the world told me that Bush’s

new idea of putting small numbers of U.S. troops among Iraqi government forces

inside police stations represents an act of idiocy that is sure to get Americans

killed.

Conditions in Iraq have so deteriorated – and animosity toward Americans has so

metastasized – that traditional counterinsurgency strategies are hard to

envision, too.

Normally, winning the hearts and minds of a target population requires a

commitment to move among the people and work on public action projects, from

building roads to improving the judicial system. But all that requires some

measure of political goodwill and personal trust.

Given the nearly four years of U.S. occupation and the devastation that Iraq has

suffered, not even the most talented American counterinsurgency specialists can

expect to overcome the hatred swelling among large segments of Iraqi society.

Bush’s “surge” strategy of conducting more military sweeps through more Iraqi

neighborhoods – knocking down doors, gunning down hostile Iraqis and dragging

off others to detention camps – is not likely to assuage hard feelings.

Wider War

So, facing slim odds in Iraq, Bush is tempted by the allure of escalation, a

chance to blame the Iranians for his Iraq failure and to punish them with air

strikes. He might see that as a way to buy time, a chance to rally his pro-war

supporters and a strategy for enhancing his presidential legacy.

But the consequences both internationally and domestically – from possible

disruption of oil supplies to potential retaliation from Islamic terrorists –

could be devastating.

Yet, there is a sense of futility among many in Washington who doubt they can do

anything to stop Bush. So far, the Democratic-controlled Congress has lagged

behind the curve, debating how to phrase a non-binding resolution of disapproval

about Bush’s “surge” of 21,500 troops in Iraq, while Bush may be opening an

entirely new front in Iran.

According to intelligence sources, Bush’s Iran strategy is expected to let the

Israelis take a lead role in attacking Iran's nuclear facilities in order to

defuse Democratic opposition and let the U.S. intervention be sold as defensive,

a case of a vulnerable ally protecting itself from a future nuclear threat.

Once American air and naval forces are committed to a new conflict, the

Democrats will find it politically difficult to interfere at least in the near

future, the thinking goes. A violent reaction from the Islamic world would

further polarize the American population and let Bush paint war critics as

cowardly, disloyal or pro-terrorist.

As risky as a wider war might be, Bush’s end game would dominate the final two

years of his presidency as he forces both Republican and Democratic candidates

to address issues of war and peace on his terms.

On Jan. 10, the night of Bush’s national address on the Iraq War, NBC Washington

bureau chief Tim Russert made a striking observation about a pre-speech briefing

that Bush and other senior administration officials gave to news executives.

“There’s a strong sense in the upper echelons of the White House that Iran is

going to surface relatively quickly as a major issue in the country and the

world in a very acute way – and a prediction that in 2008 candidates of both

parties will have as a fundamental campaign promise or premise a policy to deal

with Iran and not let it go nuclear,” Russert said. “That’s how significant Iran

was today.”

So, Bush and his top advisers not only signaled their expectation of a “very

acute” development with Iran but that the Iranian issue would come to dominate

Campaign 2008 with candidates forced to spell out plans for containing this

enemy state.

What to Do?

The immediate question, however, is what, if anything, can Congress and the

American people do to head off Bush’s expanded war strategy.

Some in Congress have called on Bush to seek prior congressional approval before

entering a war with Iran. Others, such as Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pennsylvania,

have asked Bush to spell out how expansive he thinks his war powers are.

"I would suggest respectfully to the President that he is not the sole decider,"

Specter said during a Senate hearing on war powers on Jan. 30. "The decider is a

shared and joint responsibility."

But Bush and his neoconservative legal advisers have made clear that they see

virtually no limits to Bush's "plenary" powers as Commander in Chief at a time

of war. In their view, Bush is free to take military actions abroad and to waive

legal and constitutional constraints at home because the United States has been

deemed part of the "battlefield."

Nothing short of a direct congressional prohibition on war with Iran and a

serious threat of impeachment would seem likely to give Bush more than a

moment’s pause. But congressional Republicans would surely obstruct such

measures and Bush might well veto any law that was passed.

Still, unless Congress escalates the confrontation with the President – and does

so quickly – it may be too late to stop what could become a very dangerous

escalation.

[For more on this topic, see Consortiumnews.com’s “Logic of a Wider Mideast

War.”]

Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the

Associated Press and Newsweek. His latest book, Secrecy & Privilege: Rise of the

Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq, can be ordered at secrecyandprivilege.com.

It's also available at Amazon.com, as is his 1999 book, Lost History: Contras,

Cocaine, the Press & 'Project Truth.'

IT LOSES SOMETHING IN TRANSLATION

UNDERSTANDING ARABIC LANGUAGE & CULTURE



FIGHTING FOR THE PERSIAN EMPIRE PART TWO

When U.S. troops fight and die for the "Iraqi Army" they are, in effect, fighting for a Persian Empire (read that "Iranian"), strethching from the borders of India to the Meditarranian Sea. It isn't our war, if it ever was. It is a deperate struggle for the distasteful Sunni Muslim more-or-less secular Arab Nationalism against the Theocractic Islamo-fascism of Iran, and their allies now in control of the Iraqi government we created, the increasingly pro-Iranianian Syrian government, and the terrorist allies of both in Lebanon, the Hezbollah. All of this would never have happened without the U.S. getting involved in a region it doesn't understand, under premises that are either lies or don't apply, in an inept manner that the courage and resourcesfulness of the American Military has been used to fight everybody except the real enemy, the Islamist cells and brainwashing schools spread all across the world. We need to draw-down, protect our allies the Israelis and Kurds, rething, learn proper intelligence and operational tactics in the new world of 'asymetical warfare' -- more accurately termed 4GenWar. Henry_Allen

US and Iraqi forces kill 250 gunmen in day-long battle,
Another U.S. Chopper Down in Sectarian Violence


Michael Howard and Sulamaniya Reuters in Najaf
Monday January 29, 2007
The Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,2001081,00.html
US and Iraqi forces killed 250 gunmen in a battle involving US tanks and helicopters on the outskirts of the Shia holy city of Najaf yesterday, a senior Iraqi police officer said.

The day-long battle was continuing after nightfall, Colonel Ali Nomas told Reuters, as tens of thousands of pilgrims converged on the nearby city of Karbala for the climax of the Ashura commemorations, one of the most important days in the Shia calendar. An American helicopter was shot down in the fighting, Iraq security sources said. The US military declined to comment. A Reuters reporter saw a helicopter come down trailing smoke.

Shia political sources said the gunmen appeared to be Sunni Arabs and Shias loyal to a cleric called Ahmed Hassani.

The governor of Najaf province said Iraqi troops fought a day-long battle with up to 200 Sunni gunmen, including foreign fighters, holed up in orchards on the northern outskirts of the city, seat of Iraq's most powerful Shia clerics. Governor Asaad Abu Gilel told Reuters the authorities had uncovered a plot to kill some of the clerics on Monday, to coincide with the climax of Ashura, which occurs today.

A Reuters reporter about a mile from the fighting said he heard intense gunfire and saw US helicopters attack groves sheltering militants. He saw smoke trailing from one helicopter before it came down in the midst of the fighting.

Meanwhile in Baghdad at least four mortar shells struck a girls' secondary school yesterday, killing five pupils and wounding 20.

Witnesses at al-Khaloud school said the shells thudded into the school's yard at about 11am, when many pupils were gathered for a break. Four girls died instantly while a fifth died later in hospital.

"They were just innocently talking to their friends when there was a whistling sound and then deafening blasts," said a parent outside the nearby Yarmouk hospital, where his daughter was being treated for severe leg wounds.

"The mortar rounds shattered the school's windows, spraying glass and shrapnel everywhere," said a police spokesman. He said it was not clear whether the school had been specifically targeted, but it lies in the mainly Sunni district of Adil in western Baghdad.

The area has been the focus of reprisal attacks against Sunni Arabs, following a week of bombings against targets in the east of the city that have killed at least 150 civilians, many of them Shia.

School attendance is down by as much as 60% in some areas amid the general violence in Baghdad and insurgent threats against schools and teachers.

Across the city yesterday another seven people were killed by bombs, while blasts in Falluja and the northern oil city of Kirkuk killed at least 13.

With the war raging in Iraq, America's anti-war movement delivered one of its greatest shows of strength since the invasion in March 2003, when tens of thousands converged on Washington at the weekend to protest against George Bush's decision to send 21,500 more troops to Baghdad and western Anbar province,.

Smaller protests were held in Los Angeles, Seattle, and other US cities.

"Silence is no longer an option," Jane Fonda told the crowd in what she said was her first appearance at an anti-war demonstration since her visit to Hanoi during the Vietnam war. The resulting furore kept her away from such protests for 34 years, she said. "I've been afraid that because of the lies that ... continue to be spread about me and that war that they would be used to hurt this new anti-war movement," she said.

Saturday's protest, organised by a coalition of 1,400 local organisations, straddled the generations of those two wars, with those old enough to remember the tumult of the Vietnam era marching along with younger demonstrators. Protesters arrived by bus from across America, carrying placards reading: "Bush bin lying" and "Civil war accomplished". For the first time since the beginning of the war, the demonstration also included a sizeable contingent of active duty soldiers as well as veterans of the fighting in Iraq. But while there was considerable representation from Hollywood, with Tim Robbins and Susan Sarandon addressing the rally, all but one of the contenders for the Democratic leadership in 2008 stayed away.

Sen. Biden: 'Failed policy' emboldening the enemy
Posted 1/28/2007 12:33 PM ET
USA TODAY
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman on Sunday dismissed criticism a resolution opposing a troop buildup in Iraq would embolden the enemy and estimated perhaps only 20 senators believe President Bush "is headed in the right direction."

"It's not the American people or the U.S. Congress who are emboldening the enemy," said Biden, D-Del., and White House hopeful in 2008. "It's the failed policy of this president — going to war without a strategy, going to war prematurely."

The Senate's top Republican, Mitch McConnell, cast doubt that a clear majority would be able to coalesce behind one of the many competing resolutions on Iraq. "I'm not certain any" will get the necessary votes, he said.

The Democratic-controlled Senate plans to begin debate this week on a non-binding resolution declaring that Bush's proposal to send 21,500 more troops to Baghdad and Anbar province is "not in the national interest."

Last week, Biden's committee approved the measure on a near party-line vote of 12-9.

In reaction, Bush challenged lawmakers not to prematurely condemn his buildup and Vice President Dick Cheney said the administration would proceed even if a non-binding resolution won Senate approval.

With the Senate having just confirmed a new top U.S. commander for Iraq, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said it was "pretty clear that a resolution that in effect says that the general going out to take command of the arena shouldn't have the resources he thinks he needs to be successful certainly emboldens the enemy and our adversaries."

Senate Republicans mostly oppose the committee-passed measure. They are lining up alternatives that express concern about a buildup or in other cases set performance benchmarks for the Iraqi government.

McConnell said Republican leaders would not seek to block a vote on the non-binding resolution with a filibuster. He called a proposed resolution that focuses on benchmarks "the best way to go."

"I think I can pretty well speak for virtually all Republican senators when I say this is the last chance for the Iraqis to step up and do their part," said McConnell, R-Ky.

Biden acknowledged that votes in Congress could splinter among several competing proposals but contended that Senate opposition to the buildup was widespread.

"We will have a full throated debate on this policy," Biden said. "I will make you a bet, you will not find 20% of the Senate standing up and saying the president is headed in the right direction."

Cheney said most Republicans "recognize that what's ultimately going to count here isn't sort of all the hurrah that surrounds these proposals so much as it's what happens on the ground on Iraq. And we're not going to know that for a while yet," according to a Newsweek interview released Sunday.

Cheney again cited "significant progress" in Iraq and said the war is part of a long-term fight against extreme elements of Islam.

"It's not something that's going to end decisively, and there's not going to be a day when we can, say, 'There, now we have a treaty, problem solved,"' Cheney said. "It's a problem that I think will occupy our successors maybe for two or three or four administrations to come."

Sen. Richard Lugar, the top Republican on the Foreign Relations committee, said the public's concern against the war was evident by the tens of thousands of demonstrators who turned out for a protest rally Saturday in Washington.

But he said a congressional resolution would not be constructive, expressing optimism that Lt. Gen. David Petraeus, the new U.S. commander in Iraq, can do a capable job.

"I don't believe that it's helpful right now to show there's disarray around the world as well as in our body at home," said Lugar, R-Ind. "We really need, at this point, to get on the same page."

Biden and Lugar appeared on ABC's This Week and McConnell spoke on Face the Nation on CBS.
Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-01-28-biden-iraq_x.htm?csp=34

OUR HAPPY CLIENTS

Thanks to our friend, author Brad Steiger-

ROSA BROOKS
Those ingrate Iraqis

President Bush is right: Americans deserve gratitude for cutting Iraqis' energy

consumption and tackling their overpopulation problem.

Rosa Brooks

January 19, 2007

'HOW SHARPER than a serpent's tooth it is to have a thankless child!" complained

Shakespeare's King Lear. But Lear didn't know from ingratitude. Think it stings

to have a thankless child? Just try the sting of a thankless occupied nation!

President Bush on Sunday shared his lamentations on "60 Minutes," the modern

equivalent of the storm-swept heath. Assuming the time-honored role of Fool,

CBS' Scott Pelley asked the president, "Do you think you owe the Iraqi people an

apology for not doing a better job?"

Bush retorted: "That we didn't do a better job, or they didn't do a better job?….

We liberated that country from a tyrant. I think the Iraqi people owe the

American people a huge debt of gratitude…. We've endured great sacrifice to help

them…. [Americans] wonder whether or not there is a gratitude level that's

significant enough in Iraq."

Well, yes. I have wondered about that. Frankly — I'm talking to you, Iraqis! — a

few flowers and ticker-tape parades wouldn't be amiss, even at this late stage.

Remember, we got rid of Saddam Hussein for you — with a little help from his

executioners, to be sure, who sent him to his death amid enthusiastic chants in

praise of Shiite militia leader Muqtada Sadr. But that's just a detail.

Anyway, that's not all we've done for Iraq. We also introduced the Iraqis to

basic principles of energy conservation. Before the U.S. invasion, the feckless

residents of Baghdad used 16 to 24 hours of electricity each day. Today, thanks

to us, they thriftily make do with about six hours of electricity a day. Under

our tutelage, the Iraqis are also conserving fossil fuels: Oil production is

still well below prewar levels! And — recognizing that auto emissions are a

major contributor to global warming — a symbolically important number of Iraqis

has gone from driving their cars to detonating their cars. Now that's

dedication.

We've also helped the Iraqis address the problem of urban overcrowding. With

34,452 Iraqi civilians killed in 2006 alone, according to the United Nations,

and another 2 million opting to leave the country, the war has reduced the Iraqi

population by nearly 10%!

OK. But you're probably still wondering: What constitutes the "great sacrifice"

we Americans have made to give these gifts to the Iraqis? After all, despite

those U.S. troops who've lost lives and limbs in Iraq (3,024 dead and 47,657

wounded, so far), it's not like the rest of us are being drafted, right? Don't

be so modest. They also serve who only stand and watch TV!

When Jim Lehrer of PBS' "NewsHour" suggested to Bush that "the volunteer

military … and their families [are] the only people who are actually sacrificing

anything at this point," the president demurred. "A lot of people are in this

fight," he insisted. "I mean, they sacrifice peace of mind when they see the

terrible images of violence on TV every night." Too true! I've given up so much

of my peace of mind for this war — yet no Iraqi has ever so much as sent me a

thank you note.

In addition to that, I've heeded the president's call to fight terrorism through

my "continued participation and confidence in the American economy." When my

president calls on me to "go shopping more," I hop to it! I've walked the malls

until my boots were as worn as those of any Marine after a hard slog through the

Iraqi desert.

Anyway, when he spoke of the great sacrifices we Americans have made for Iraq,

the president didn't say the half of it. Modest soul that he is, he didn't even

mention the $200-billion annual price tag of the war in Iraq.

If we weren't spending $200 billion a year to help the Iraqi people, we could —

for instance — be funding universal healthcare (at an estimated $100 billion a

year, according to a New York Times analysis) and a universal preschool program

($35 billion a year). With the $65 billion we'd have left over after that, we

could create a comprehensive national service program for young Americans, or

more than triple the foreign aid we provide to developing countries.

That's not all. By focusing on Iraq to the near exclusion of all other issues,

we're also sacrificing our own national security interests. We're virtually

ignoring the resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan, Russia's slide toward

repression, expanding regional conflicts in Africa and — ahem — the ongoing

activities of Osama bin Laden.

So don't be shy, my fellow Americans: Give yourselves some credit for the

sacrifices you're making for Iraq. Just as a soldier hit by an IED may at first

be too stunned to feel pain, it will take time for you to truly feel the depth

of your sacrifice. Rest assured: Though it may not hurt now, it will soon.

L.A. Times