The ability of the U.S. media to create storms in teacups is something truly to be admired. When its not Obama dressing up in a turban and traditional Kenyan dress, its the "revelation" that McCain went to topless bars when he was a younger...
Latest storm? Obama never mentioned in his biographies that he spent several weeks in Pakistan back in 1981. Add this to his Pakistani roomate at college and illegal immigrant Pakistani friend, and *gasp!* this all begins to smell of conspiracy!
In other news, Obama has launched a blog in hebrew in an attempt to reach out to the Israeli public, which, according to polls, feels his pro-Israeli crededentials are not as sound as the other two presidential candidates.
Someone asked me the other day if Benazir Bhutto could truly be considered a politician [I believe his point was that she was more a feudal princess than a modern politician]. I replied that I thought that she had been a very talented politician, and that the more pertinent question was, what was her political constituency? Its widely felt in Pakistani politics, that to be succesful, one has to be acceptable not only to the Pakistani people, but also to the American government. The American government, in other words, is an extra-national constituency of any leading Pakistani politician. In the same way, there seems to be the feeling in Washington, that the Israeli public is a key extra-national constituency for any American Presidential candidate.
Edit: So apparently I'm late with the 'breaking news' about Obama's Pakistan connection. Ali Khan blogs about it on the Dawn blog here.
Showing posts with label USA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label USA. Show all posts
Friday, 11 April 2008
Thursday, 22 November 2007
The Pot Calls the Kettle White...
"US President George W Bush said on Tuesday that President General Pervez Musharraf was a man of his word and truly believed in democracy." Thanks for that endorsement. Now I can sit back and relax. Its okay - Bush has reassured me about Musharraf's intentions and we know that Bush never lies.
"President General Pervez Musharraf on Wednesday introduced a set of seven constitutional amendments to give legal cover to his act of holding the constitution in abeyance, imposing emergency rule and issuing the Provisional Constitutional Order (PCO) on November 3." By now the constitution has been given so many face lifts in the space of a few years that, much like Michael Jackson's nose, it is now little but the fragile, crumbling structure perched atop an emaciated edifice no one believes in anymore. Why not dump it altogether?
In an article that claims that the opposition is falling into Musharraf's trap by taking part in upcoming elections, the News also gives "Full marks to our independent chief election commissioner, who in order to facilitate the government agenda [extended the deadline for Presidential candidates] to withdraw candidature but only few days to file the nomination papers" for parliamentary elections. Its great having an independent chief election commissioner.
Meanwhile speculation is rife that Musharraf's recent trip to Saudi Arabia was to discuss the rehabilitation of that other dinosaur of the previous decade's corrupt politics, Nawaz Sharif. Opinions seem to differ over whether or not Musharraf has consented to Nawaz's return, or whether negotiations are ongoing. However, Nawaz Sharif has announced he will soon be returning to Pakistan... again.
Its hardly worth mentioning that the newly assembled Supreme Court has now dismissed the final petition against Musharraf's candidature as President. I wonder if the CJ felt even a little sheepish at parroting the words dismissing the case before a world that knew they had been scripted in the Presidential house? Disgusting.
And as this article notes that while some media channels were shut down, "some private Pakistani news channels, including a channel owned by one of Musharraf's new ministers and another owned by his son's father-in-law, have been allowed back on the air during the emergency". Coincidence? No.
An article in the Daily Times, citing analysts at the London-based think tank, Chatam House observes that "Fragmented, outflanked by young militants and politically compromised, Pakistan’s mainstream Islamist leaders have only a side role to play in the crisis engulfing the country, analysts say." It goes on to predict a poor showing for the Islamists in upcoming elections. Now, my first observation on this article is that it is belaboring the obvious. The second is that it fails to draw the proper conclusion. The mullah establishment is deeply connected to the military establishment and depends upon it for its sustenance. Musharraf's government was promoting the mullahs to gain control of the provincial legislatures in Baluchistan and NWFP and for several years continued, foolishly, to believe that the mullahs would allow them to keep a handle on the militants - something they spectacularly failed to do. Once the sponsorship of the military is gone, they will subside to their rightful place on the fringes of Pakistani politics.
Perhaps I should say 'If the sponsorship of the military is gone'...
There has been much talk of a proposal floating around in America to arm the tribes of the NWFP against the Taliban. As this blogger notes, while discussing the plan, the idea is rubbish.
But the news also seems to be floating around that the U.S. will put in $350 million in training and rearm the Frontier Constubulary (FC) for a renewed campaign in Waziristan. It would seem as if this money is necessary because the previous $10 billion the U.S. government has provided Pakistan has gone against more immediate priorities in the war on terror, such as the threat of Al-Qaeda submarines attacking our ships, Al-Qaeda bombers bombing our cities, Al-Qaeda jamming our radar, Al-Qaeda stealing our nukes, and the lack of Barbecue restaurants in Islamabad. On a more serious note, training and arming the FC is a much better idea than training and arming the tribes. The FC is more likely to listen to the government about who to use their new weapons upon, and as the current heavy fighting between tribes from different sectarian groups in Parachinar the last few days shows, more weapons is not what they need at the moment. The country is still plagued by the effects of the last time the Tribes were armed and trained against the communists. I think we have learned our lesson on that issue by now.
"President General Pervez Musharraf on Wednesday introduced a set of seven constitutional amendments to give legal cover to his act of holding the constitution in abeyance, imposing emergency rule and issuing the Provisional Constitutional Order (PCO) on November 3." By now the constitution has been given so many face lifts in the space of a few years that, much like Michael Jackson's nose, it is now little but the fragile, crumbling structure perched atop an emaciated edifice no one believes in anymore. Why not dump it altogether?
In an article that claims that the opposition is falling into Musharraf's trap by taking part in upcoming elections, the News also gives "Full marks to our independent chief election commissioner, who in order to facilitate the government agenda [extended the deadline for Presidential candidates] to withdraw candidature but only few days to file the nomination papers" for parliamentary elections. Its great having an independent chief election commissioner.
Meanwhile speculation is rife that Musharraf's recent trip to Saudi Arabia was to discuss the rehabilitation of that other dinosaur of the previous decade's corrupt politics, Nawaz Sharif. Opinions seem to differ over whether or not Musharraf has consented to Nawaz's return, or whether negotiations are ongoing. However, Nawaz Sharif has announced he will soon be returning to Pakistan... again.
Its hardly worth mentioning that the newly assembled Supreme Court has now dismissed the final petition against Musharraf's candidature as President. I wonder if the CJ felt even a little sheepish at parroting the words dismissing the case before a world that knew they had been scripted in the Presidential house? Disgusting.
And as this article notes that while some media channels were shut down, "some private Pakistani news channels, including a channel owned by one of Musharraf's new ministers and another owned by his son's father-in-law, have been allowed back on the air during the emergency". Coincidence? No.
An article in the Daily Times, citing analysts at the London-based think tank, Chatam House observes that "Fragmented, outflanked by young militants and politically compromised, Pakistan’s mainstream Islamist leaders have only a side role to play in the crisis engulfing the country, analysts say." It goes on to predict a poor showing for the Islamists in upcoming elections. Now, my first observation on this article is that it is belaboring the obvious. The second is that it fails to draw the proper conclusion. The mullah establishment is deeply connected to the military establishment and depends upon it for its sustenance. Musharraf's government was promoting the mullahs to gain control of the provincial legislatures in Baluchistan and NWFP and for several years continued, foolishly, to believe that the mullahs would allow them to keep a handle on the militants - something they spectacularly failed to do. Once the sponsorship of the military is gone, they will subside to their rightful place on the fringes of Pakistani politics.
Perhaps I should say 'If the sponsorship of the military is gone'...
There has been much talk of a proposal floating around in America to arm the tribes of the NWFP against the Taliban. As this blogger notes, while discussing the plan, the idea is rubbish.
But the news also seems to be floating around that the U.S. will put in $350 million in training and rearm the Frontier Constubulary (FC) for a renewed campaign in Waziristan. It would seem as if this money is necessary because the previous $10 billion the U.S. government has provided Pakistan has gone against more immediate priorities in the war on terror, such as the threat of Al-Qaeda submarines attacking our ships, Al-Qaeda bombers bombing our cities, Al-Qaeda jamming our radar, Al-Qaeda stealing our nukes, and the lack of Barbecue restaurants in Islamabad. On a more serious note, training and arming the FC is a much better idea than training and arming the tribes. The FC is more likely to listen to the government about who to use their new weapons upon, and as the current heavy fighting between tribes from different sectarian groups in Parachinar the last few days shows, more weapons is not what they need at the moment. The country is still plagued by the effects of the last time the Tribes were armed and trained against the communists. I think we have learned our lesson on that issue by now.
Monday, 30 July 2007
The Arms Bazaar
"The Bush administration is preparing to ask Congress to approve an arms sale package for Saudi Arabia and its neighbors that is expected to eventually total $20 billion at a time when some United States officials contend that the Saudis are playing a counterproductive role in Iraq."
But just in case you were getting worried, the US also announced that it would be giving $30 billion in military aid to Israel over the next ten years. And the worth of arms sent to Egypt is also being upped to $13 billion.
Many might question the wisdom of continually pumping billions of dollars worth of weapons into a region as volatile as the Middle East, particularly when arming all sides in any potential conflict. But there is a historical reason for this. Since the mid 70s, the Middle East has acted as a massive subsidy for the American arms industry (and to a lesser extent the British arms industry). The United States invests hundreds of billions of dollars in weapons development and some of this cost is offset by the guarantees it receives from middle eastern countries like Saudi Arabia to purchase weapons - a subsidy by any other name. This deal has been more or less continual since the assassination of King Faysal in 1975 which brought the notoriously pro-American King Khalid to power. Some speculate that King Faysal's removal was blessed by the American government irked by the Saudi oil embargo for the U.S. during the 1973 Israel-Arab war.
In part this also helps to pay off the costs of military aid to countries like Israel and Egypt. A sweet deal all around.
IZ
But just in case you were getting worried, the US also announced that it would be giving $30 billion in military aid to Israel over the next ten years. And the worth of arms sent to Egypt is also being upped to $13 billion.
Many might question the wisdom of continually pumping billions of dollars worth of weapons into a region as volatile as the Middle East, particularly when arming all sides in any potential conflict. But there is a historical reason for this. Since the mid 70s, the Middle East has acted as a massive subsidy for the American arms industry (and to a lesser extent the British arms industry). The United States invests hundreds of billions of dollars in weapons development and some of this cost is offset by the guarantees it receives from middle eastern countries like Saudi Arabia to purchase weapons - a subsidy by any other name. This deal has been more or less continual since the assassination of King Faysal in 1975 which brought the notoriously pro-American King Khalid to power. Some speculate that King Faysal's removal was blessed by the American government irked by the Saudi oil embargo for the U.S. during the 1973 Israel-Arab war.
In part this also helps to pay off the costs of military aid to countries like Israel and Egypt. A sweet deal all around.
IZ
Oddness: Part 1
"I have never witnessed any spectacle as politically extreme, outrageous, or bizarre as the one Christians United for Israel produced last week in Washington. See for yourself."
IZ
IZ
Saturday, 28 July 2007
U.S.: Saudi Arabia Destabilising Iraq
Well I guess people in Washington are finally waking up to some of the realities of the Middle East. From the guardian: "U.S. Accuses Saudis of Telling Lies About Iraq"
IZ
The extent of the deterioration in US-Saudi relations was exposed for the first time yesterday when Washington accused Riyadh of working to undermine the Iraqi government.Would it be crass of me to say 'I told you so'?The Bush administration warned Saudi Arabia, until this year one of its closest allies, to stop undermining the Iraqi prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki.
IZ
Thursday, 19 July 2007
Foreign Fighters and Small Arms
If you blinked you may have missed the fact that the U.S. Senate unanimously voted 97-0 to declare that Iran was at war with the United States. Now it might strike one as a little odd that a country should declare that another country had declared war on it. But thus are the ways of American politics, where hype trumps reality and then all the resources of a hyper-power are used to twist and shape reality to conform to the hype.
The Senate saw fit to issue a declaration of war on behalf of Iran based on a dodgy newspaper article that itself was an unquestioning repetition of information given to the reporter by unnamed defence officials which attributed attacks on American forces in Iraq to Iran. Needless to say its another step closer to what is widely perceived as an inevitable American attack on Iran. Not that the United States hasn't already launched a major campaign of terrorism against Iran already.
All this hooplah came while U.S. military officials were busy pointing out that 45% of all foreign fighters in Iraq are Saudi, and most of the funding for the insurgents comes from Saudi Arabia as well. Most suicide bombers, whose deadly attacks have killed scores of Americans and thousands of Iraqis are also from Saudi Arabia. If the Time interview with a leading Iraqi bomb-maker was anything to go by, Saudi Arabia is also the source of high-tech gadgetry that the insurgents are using to defeat American mine-sweepers and IED detectors and neutralisers. And lets not forget that the recent report on insurgent media by Radio Liberty showed that the largest number of visitors to insurgent and Islamist websites come from Saudi Arabia.
To quote the LA Times in this excellent story:
So just to keep things in perspective about foreign fighters in Iraq, there are a big bunch of Saudis, a smaller bunch of Syrians and Lebanese, a few Jordanians and North Africans... also there are 160,000 Americans and 185,000 armed civilian contractors employed by the Americans. Number of Iranians? None?
At least the Americans have stopped blaming the Chinese for their woes in Iraq. Perhaps because it may have been too hypocritical even for the Americans to be calling on the Chinese to limit their arms sales while being the only country in the UN General Assembly to oppose a treaty to limit and monitor arms sales in a 139-1 vote last year. Still it shouldn't surprise us given that John Bolton, Bush's appointee to the UN first made his mark on the international stage as the Under Secretary of State for Arms Control by sinking the modest proposals of the 2001 UN Conference on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms while declaring that gun ownership was a national way of life in the U.S. and that the uninhibited production and export of weapons is a national right.
Incidentally Moinuddin Haider, the Pakistani representative at the same conference fawningly supported the American position and reiterated that carrying small arms was a proud cultural tradition in Pakistan, while paradoxically also saying that Pakistan was a victim of small arms proliferation and was trying to "stamp out" this threat to state stability (recent events have shown just how effective that has been).
IZ
The Senate saw fit to issue a declaration of war on behalf of Iran based on a dodgy newspaper article that itself was an unquestioning repetition of information given to the reporter by unnamed defence officials which attributed attacks on American forces in Iraq to Iran. Needless to say its another step closer to what is widely perceived as an inevitable American attack on Iran. Not that the United States hasn't already launched a major campaign of terrorism against Iran already.
All this hooplah came while U.S. military officials were busy pointing out that 45% of all foreign fighters in Iraq are Saudi, and most of the funding for the insurgents comes from Saudi Arabia as well. Most suicide bombers, whose deadly attacks have killed scores of Americans and thousands of Iraqis are also from Saudi Arabia. If the Time interview with a leading Iraqi bomb-maker was anything to go by, Saudi Arabia is also the source of high-tech gadgetry that the insurgents are using to defeat American mine-sweepers and IED detectors and neutralisers. And lets not forget that the recent report on insurgent media by Radio Liberty showed that the largest number of visitors to insurgent and Islamist websites come from Saudi Arabia.
To quote the LA Times in this excellent story:
Asked why U.S. officials in Iraq had not publicly criticized Saudi Arabia the way they had Iran or Syria, the senior military officer said, "Ask the State Department. This is a political juggernaut."
Last week when U.S. military spokesman Bergner declared Al Qaeda in Iraq the country's No. 1 threat, he released a profile of a thwarted suicide bomber, but said he had not received clearance to reveal his nationality. The bomber was a Saudi national, the senior military officer said Saturday.
So just to keep things in perspective about foreign fighters in Iraq, there are a big bunch of Saudis, a smaller bunch of Syrians and Lebanese, a few Jordanians and North Africans... also there are 160,000 Americans and 185,000 armed civilian contractors employed by the Americans. Number of Iranians? None?
At least the Americans have stopped blaming the Chinese for their woes in Iraq. Perhaps because it may have been too hypocritical even for the Americans to be calling on the Chinese to limit their arms sales while being the only country in the UN General Assembly to oppose a treaty to limit and monitor arms sales in a 139-1 vote last year. Still it shouldn't surprise us given that John Bolton, Bush's appointee to the UN first made his mark on the international stage as the Under Secretary of State for Arms Control by sinking the modest proposals of the 2001 UN Conference on the Illicit Trade in Small Arms while declaring that gun ownership was a national way of life in the U.S. and that the uninhibited production and export of weapons is a national right.
Incidentally Moinuddin Haider, the Pakistani representative at the same conference fawningly supported the American position and reiterated that carrying small arms was a proud cultural tradition in Pakistan, while paradoxically also saying that Pakistan was a victim of small arms proliferation and was trying to "stamp out" this threat to state stability (recent events have shown just how effective that has been).
IZ
Saturday, 7 July 2007
Shoddy Construction on the Imperial Mothership
The Washington Post reports on the embarrassing revelation that the $592 million U.S. embassy in Iraq is suffering not just from cost overruns, delays and Justice Department investigations over labour abuse, but might be virtually unusable due to shoddy construction. The fears arose after a contingent moved into the completed guards complex in the embassy compound:
This article from the American magazine MotherJones chronicles a few of the reconstruction "efforts" that have come to light. They include, amongst other things:
A bridge and oil pipeline that was destroyed in the American invasion in 2003. After a survey it was estimated that it could be repaired within five months at a cost of $5 million. An Iraqi construction company offered to do the job. (Note: Iraqi companies had repaired the fair more extensive infrastructure damage throughout the country after the first Gulf War within a year.) Instead it was decided that the pipeline should be made more secure and built under the ground. Halliburton was awarded a $75 million contract to do so (without bidding). 3 years later, all the money was spent and the job wasn't done. Investigations found that Halliburton knew their proposal was not technically possible - but they took the contract anyway. A new contract for $40 million was awarded to another American company. The bridge and pipeline have yet to be built.
The Parsons Corporation was given a $243 million no-bid contract to build 150 medical clinics. By January 2006 it was found that only 6 clinics were completed and only 14 more could possibly be completed before the money ran out. Parsons would "try" to complete them by April 2006 when it was leaving the country. This, by the way, was what the American Inspector General for Iraqi Reconstruction called the "most important program in the health sector".
But its not just private corporations which are burning money. Take this report from in the IHT:
The Congressional Committee on Oversight and Government Reform has launched an investigation into Iraqi reconstruction (you can check out their website here) but its safe to say that apart from a slap on the wrist here and a cluck of disapproval there, its not going to do much in terms of the damage that's been done.
Halliburton's stock just keeps on rising, as it grows bloated on the profits of the Iraqi war - money that ultimately comes from American taxpayers. To further rub insult into injury, Halliburton has now shifted its headquarters to the tax-haven of Dubai. Its no wonder that some Americans are beginning to feel that the entire Iraq War was a costly, bloody way of subsidising corporate America.
IZ
Indeed. The issue highlights the problems of the entire reconstruction effort in Iraq. Even while American politicians grow increasingly opposed to reconstruction spending and complain about how the United States is spending so much on an 'ungrateful' Iraqi public, reports have repeatedly shown how most "reconstruction" money is spent on private defence contractors, projects are allocated not through open public bidding, but to companies (such as Halliburton and its subsidiary Kellog Brown and Root) to which administration officials have rather dubious personal ties.The first signs of trouble, according to the cable, emerged when the kitchen staff tried to cook the inaugural meal in the new guard base on May 15. Some appliances did not work. Workers began to get electric shocks. Then a burning smell enveloped the kitchen as the wiring began to melt.
All the food from the old guard camp -- a collection of tents -- had been carted to the new facility, in the expectation that the 1,200 guards would begin moving in the next day. But according to the cable, the electrical meltdown was just the first problem in a series of construction mistakes that soon left the base uninhabitable, including wiring problems, fuel leaks and noxious fumes in the sleeping trailers.
"Poor quality construction . . . life safety issues . . . left [the embassy] with no recourse but to shut the camp down, in spite of the blistering heat in Baghdad," the May 29 cable informed Washington.
Such challenges with construction contracts inside the fortified enclave known as the Green Zone reflect the broader problems that have thwarted reconstruction efforts throughout war-torn Iraq.
This article from the American magazine MotherJones chronicles a few of the reconstruction "efforts" that have come to light. They include, amongst other things:
A bridge and oil pipeline that was destroyed in the American invasion in 2003. After a survey it was estimated that it could be repaired within five months at a cost of $5 million. An Iraqi construction company offered to do the job. (Note: Iraqi companies had repaired the fair more extensive infrastructure damage throughout the country after the first Gulf War within a year.) Instead it was decided that the pipeline should be made more secure and built under the ground. Halliburton was awarded a $75 million contract to do so (without bidding). 3 years later, all the money was spent and the job wasn't done. Investigations found that Halliburton knew their proposal was not technically possible - but they took the contract anyway. A new contract for $40 million was awarded to another American company. The bridge and pipeline have yet to be built.
The Parsons Corporation was given a $243 million no-bid contract to build 150 medical clinics. By January 2006 it was found that only 6 clinics were completed and only 14 more could possibly be completed before the money ran out. Parsons would "try" to complete them by April 2006 when it was leaving the country. This, by the way, was what the American Inspector General for Iraqi Reconstruction called the "most important program in the health sector".
But its not just private corporations which are burning money. Take this report from in the IHT:
Late Friday, the inspector general also released an audit report on a $147 million United States-led program to train and equip thousands of Iraqis to protect oil pipelines, electrical transmission lines and hundreds of key installations in both sectors. Begun in September 2003, the effort, called Task Force Shield, was so disorganized that the auditors were never able to determine basic facts like how many Iraqis were trained, how many weapons were purchased and where much of the equipment ended up, the report says.
The Congressional Committee on Oversight and Government Reform has launched an investigation into Iraqi reconstruction (you can check out their website here) but its safe to say that apart from a slap on the wrist here and a cluck of disapproval there, its not going to do much in terms of the damage that's been done.
Halliburton's stock just keeps on rising, as it grows bloated on the profits of the Iraqi war - money that ultimately comes from American taxpayers. To further rub insult into injury, Halliburton has now shifted its headquarters to the tax-haven of Dubai. Its no wonder that some Americans are beginning to feel that the entire Iraq War was a costly, bloody way of subsidising corporate America.
IZ
Friday, 6 July 2007
The Declaration of Independence
Another 4th of July has come and gone, celebrated by hysterical warnings of terrorist threats and elaborate fireworks displays. Amidst all this brouhaha its easy to lose sight of the actual document itself and the fact that it truly did have some interesting things to say - not least to for a Pakistani hoping for the restoration of democracy in the country.
Lets remind ourselves about some of the salient points in the Declaration:
- The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
- He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
- He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
- He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.
- For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury.
- For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:
- For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
Now replace the King of Britain with General Pervez Musharaf and what do you see?
IZ
Lets remind ourselves about some of the salient points in the Declaration:
- The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
- He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
- He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
- He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.
- For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury.
- For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:
- For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
Now replace the King of Britain with General Pervez Musharaf and what do you see?
IZ
Tuesday, 3 July 2007
Beware of Ray Gun
Came across this at this website where, amongst other things you can watch videos of it being used on journalists.
It's just bizarre.
IZ
It's just bizarre.
IZ
Saturday, 3 February 2007
We Have Proof! Just... Not Real Proof!
After all that chest-thumping by the Bush administration, a much-ballyhooed briefing that was going to reveal the evidence of Iran's role in attacks on U.S. troops is delayed... again. Apparently it was lacking "focus on the facts."
While Iranian involvement in Iraq can't be doubted, in most cases they are backing the same parties that the U.S.A is. So why the sabre-rattling? Well, apart from the fact that the neo-con agenda always included an attack on Iran ("the road to Tehran is through Baghdad" as one neo-con said), it also helps to ease pressure on both the administration and the military for their inability to bring things under control in Iraq. Why are things such a mess? It's Iran's fault!
With American credibility so low on the world stage after the hysteria over phantom WMDs, another war based on false allegations just isn't a good idea. Even some senators have voiced scepticism about the allegations and have urged caution. Might not be a bad idea.
IZ
While Iranian involvement in Iraq can't be doubted, in most cases they are backing the same parties that the U.S.A is. So why the sabre-rattling? Well, apart from the fact that the neo-con agenda always included an attack on Iran ("the road to Tehran is through Baghdad" as one neo-con said), it also helps to ease pressure on both the administration and the military for their inability to bring things under control in Iraq. Why are things such a mess? It's Iran's fault!
With American credibility so low on the world stage after the hysteria over phantom WMDs, another war based on false allegations just isn't a good idea. Even some senators have voiced scepticism about the allegations and have urged caution. Might not be a bad idea.
IZ
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
