Monday, January 9, 2012
World of NORTHCOM – After secret U.S. Military visit, Mexico deploys 8,000 troops to Texas border
Two weeks after a U.S. Military convoy was seen in the northern Mexican city of Matamoros, the local head of Mexico’s military police has been relieved of duty. After denying rumors that he was being relieved, Brigadier General David Mejia quietly stepped down and was transferred to another duty station due to a ‘promotion’ according the Matamoros Public Safety Office.
Did the U.S. Military Officials influence the Mexican Government in the decision to relieve the Chief of Military Police in Matamoros? According to NORTHCOM’s Colonel Wayne M. Shanks, U.S. Military officials traveled to Matamoros to hold a ‘routine meeting.’ In an interview with the Brownsville Herald, Colonel Shanks also mentioned that meetings between the U.S. and Mexican militaries take place regularly.
This would perhaps explain the reason why a Mexican military helicopter landed at the Laredo Texas airport just a few months ago. The difference this time is that the ‘military meeting’ took place on the Mexican side of the border. Are the U.S. and Mexican Governments allowing these military incursions to take place without informing their citizens?
Matamoros is one among many cities in the border State of Tamaulipas where the police departments have been dismantled and relieved by Mexican MP’s due to accusations of corruption and collaboration with the drug cartels.
Also, this week, the Mexican Government has deployed 8,000 troops to the border cities of Matamoros, Nuevo Laredo and Reynosa in addition to the 5,000 troops already stationed there. Was this perhaps another recommendation from the U.S. Military?
Did the U.S. Military Officials influence the Mexican Government in the decision to relieve the Chief of Military Police in Matamoros? According to NORTHCOM’s Colonel Wayne M. Shanks, U.S. Military officials traveled to Matamoros to hold a ‘routine meeting.’ In an interview with the Brownsville Herald, Colonel Shanks also mentioned that meetings between the U.S. and Mexican militaries take place regularly.
This would perhaps explain the reason why a Mexican military helicopter landed at the Laredo Texas airport just a few months ago. The difference this time is that the ‘military meeting’ took place on the Mexican side of the border. Are the U.S. and Mexican Governments allowing these military incursions to take place without informing their citizens?
Matamoros is one among many cities in the border State of Tamaulipas where the police departments have been dismantled and relieved by Mexican MP’s due to accusations of corruption and collaboration with the drug cartels.
Also, this week, the Mexican Government has deployed 8,000 troops to the border cities of Matamoros, Nuevo Laredo and Reynosa in addition to the 5,000 troops already stationed there. Was this perhaps another recommendation from the U.S. Military?
Muslim Brotherhood Strongest Contender in Libya’s Coming Elections
It appears, from interviews and discussions with a wide range of Libyans including students, lawyers, judges at the Ministry of Justice, shopkeepers and casual acquaintances that the Muslim Brotherhood currently has very little popular support among this pious conservative, Sunni Muslim society. Widely expressed opinion is along these lines: “The Brotherhood is different from how Libyans view Islam,” and “They represent outsiders and interference in our country”, “Our revolution was not about replacing one autocratic regime with another.
”That said, the Muslim Brotherhood is odds-on favorite to win the June elections, in the view of many observers here in Libya.he reason the MB is in such a relatively strong position is that is has the support of Qatar, assistance from the well-established MB organizations in Egypt, Tunisia, Morocco, Algeria, and Turkey. The flights arriving in Tripoli from Egypt are always full and some of the passengers are MB operatives according to Professor “Dr. Ali”, a pro-Gadhafi political scientist who has so far managed to keep his teaching post.
The MB is far more organized, well-funded and is working today in the neighborhoods of Libya’s main cities recruiting members and campaign organizers, while trying to keep a low profile. They have asked members to shave their beards, talk about clean government, avoid arguments, and remind anxious Libyans that “Libya is not Afghanistan” and all we want is security, domestic peace and no foreign interference.
Nonetheless, a new edict issued by General Guide of the Muslim Brotherhood organization in Egypt, Dr. Mohammad Badih, in which he writes about the possibility of his movement imposing an Islamic Caliphate in accordance with the principles laid out by the Muslim Brotherhood founder, Imam Hassan al-Banna, created wide controversy in political circles in Libya just as it did in Egypt.
”That said, the Muslim Brotherhood is odds-on favorite to win the June elections, in the view of many observers here in Libya.he reason the MB is in such a relatively strong position is that is has the support of Qatar, assistance from the well-established MB organizations in Egypt, Tunisia, Morocco, Algeria, and Turkey. The flights arriving in Tripoli from Egypt are always full and some of the passengers are MB operatives according to Professor “Dr. Ali”, a pro-Gadhafi political scientist who has so far managed to keep his teaching post.
The MB is far more organized, well-funded and is working today in the neighborhoods of Libya’s main cities recruiting members and campaign organizers, while trying to keep a low profile. They have asked members to shave their beards, talk about clean government, avoid arguments, and remind anxious Libyans that “Libya is not Afghanistan” and all we want is security, domestic peace and no foreign interference.
Nonetheless, a new edict issued by General Guide of the Muslim Brotherhood organization in Egypt, Dr. Mohammad Badih, in which he writes about the possibility of his movement imposing an Islamic Caliphate in accordance with the principles laid out by the Muslim Brotherhood founder, Imam Hassan al-Banna, created wide controversy in political circles in Libya just as it did in Egypt.
Saturday, January 7, 2012
Avoiding Another Long War
As professionals with collectively hundreds of years of experience in intelligence, foreign policy, and counterterrorism, we are concerned about the gross misrepresentation of facts being bruited about to persuade you to start another war.
We have watched the militarists represent one Muslim country after another as major threats to U.S. security. In the past, they supported attacks on Sudan, Somalia, Yemen, Iraq, Pakistan, Libya and Afghanistan, as well as Israel’s attacks on Syria and Lebanon — nine Muslim countries – and Gaza.
This time, they are using a new IAEA report to assert categorically that Iran is building a nuclear weapon that allegedly poses a major threat to the U.S. Your intelligence and military advisors can certainly clarify what the report really says.
As you know, the IAEA makes regular inspection visits to Iran’s nuclear facilities and has TV cameras monitoring those facilities around the clock. While there is reason to question some of Iran’s actions, the situation is not as clear-cut as some allege.
Mohamed ElBaradei, a Nobel Peace Prize recipient and former IAEA director-general, said recently, “I don’t believe Iran is a clear and present danger. All I see is the hype about the threat posed by Iran.” He is not alone: All 16 U.S. intelligence agencies concluded “with high confidence” in a 2007 National Intelligence Estimate that Iran had halted its nuclear-weapons program as of 2003.
We are seeing a replay of the “Iraq WMD threat.” As Philip Zelikow, Executive Secretary of the 9/11 Commission said, “The ‘real threat’ from Iraq was not a threat to the United States. The unstated threat was the threat against Israel.”
We have watched the militarists represent one Muslim country after another as major threats to U.S. security. In the past, they supported attacks on Sudan, Somalia, Yemen, Iraq, Pakistan, Libya and Afghanistan, as well as Israel’s attacks on Syria and Lebanon — nine Muslim countries – and Gaza.
This time, they are using a new IAEA report to assert categorically that Iran is building a nuclear weapon that allegedly poses a major threat to the U.S. Your intelligence and military advisors can certainly clarify what the report really says.
As you know, the IAEA makes regular inspection visits to Iran’s nuclear facilities and has TV cameras monitoring those facilities around the clock. While there is reason to question some of Iran’s actions, the situation is not as clear-cut as some allege.
Mohamed ElBaradei, a Nobel Peace Prize recipient and former IAEA director-general, said recently, “I don’t believe Iran is a clear and present danger. All I see is the hype about the threat posed by Iran.” He is not alone: All 16 U.S. intelligence agencies concluded “with high confidence” in a 2007 National Intelligence Estimate that Iran had halted its nuclear-weapons program as of 2003.
We are seeing a replay of the “Iraq WMD threat.” As Philip Zelikow, Executive Secretary of the 9/11 Commission said, “The ‘real threat’ from Iraq was not a threat to the United States. The unstated threat was the threat against Israel.”
The US-Iran economic war
A key amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act signed by United States President Barack Obama on the last day of 2011 - when no one was paying attention - imposes sanctions on any countries or companies that buy Iranian oil and pay for it through Iran's central bank. Starting this summer, anybody who does it is prevented from doing business with the US.
This amendment - for all practical purposes a declaration of economic war - was brought to you by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), on direct orders of the Israeli government under Prime Minister Benjamin "Bibi" Netanyahu.
Torrents of spin have tried to rationalize it as the Obama administration's plan B as opposed to letting the Israeli dogs of war conduct an unilateral attack on Iran over its supposed nuclear weapons program.
Yet the original Israeli strategy was in fact even more hysterical - as in effectively preventing any country or company from paying for imported Iranian oil, with the possible exceptions of China and India. On top of it, American Israel-firsters were trying to convince anyone this would not result in relentless oil price hikes.
Once again displaying a matchless capacity to shoot themselves in their Ferragamo-clad feet, governments in the European Union (EU) are debating whether or not to buy oil from Iran anymore. The existential doubt is should we start now or wait for a few months. Inevitably, like death and taxes, the result has been - what else - oil prices soaring. Brent crude is now hovering around $114, and the only way is up.
The bottom line is that average Iranians will suffer - as average, crisis-hit, indebted Europeans will also suffer. The US economy will suffer. And whenever it feels the West is getting way too hysterical, Tehran will keep reserving the right to send oil prices skyrocketing.
This amendment - for all practical purposes a declaration of economic war - was brought to you by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), on direct orders of the Israeli government under Prime Minister Benjamin "Bibi" Netanyahu.
Torrents of spin have tried to rationalize it as the Obama administration's plan B as opposed to letting the Israeli dogs of war conduct an unilateral attack on Iran over its supposed nuclear weapons program.
Yet the original Israeli strategy was in fact even more hysterical - as in effectively preventing any country or company from paying for imported Iranian oil, with the possible exceptions of China and India. On top of it, American Israel-firsters were trying to convince anyone this would not result in relentless oil price hikes.
Once again displaying a matchless capacity to shoot themselves in their Ferragamo-clad feet, governments in the European Union (EU) are debating whether or not to buy oil from Iran anymore. The existential doubt is should we start now or wait for a few months. Inevitably, like death and taxes, the result has been - what else - oil prices soaring. Brent crude is now hovering around $114, and the only way is up.
The bottom line is that average Iranians will suffer - as average, crisis-hit, indebted Europeans will also suffer. The US economy will suffer. And whenever it feels the West is getting way too hysterical, Tehran will keep reserving the right to send oil prices skyrocketing.
Obama’s Pentagon Strategy: A Leaner, More Efficient Empire
In an age when U.S. power can be projected through private mercenary armies and unmanned Predator drones, the US military need no longer rely on massive, conventional ground forces to pursue its imperial agenda, a fact President Barack Obama is now acknowledging. But make no mistake: while the tactics may be changing, the US taxpayer – and poor foreigners abroad – will still be saddled with overblown military budgets and militaristic policies.
Speaking January 5 alongside his Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, the president announced a shift in strategy for the American military, one that emphasizes aerial campaigns and proxy wars as opposed to "long-term nation-building with large military footprints." This, to some pundits and politicians, is considered a tectonic shift.
Indeed, the way some on the left tell it, the strategy marks a radical departure from the imperial status quo. "Obama just repudiated the past decade of forever war policy," gushed Rolling Stone reporter Michael Hastings, calling the new strategy a "[s]lap in the face to the generals."
Conservative hawks, meanwhile, predictably declared that the sky is falling. "This is a lead from behind strategy for a left-behind America," cried hyperventilating California Republican Buck McKeon, chairman the House Armed Services Committee. "This strategy ensures American decline in exchange for more failed domestic programs." In McKeon’s world, feeding the war machine is preferable to feeding poor people.
Unfortunately, though, rather than renouncing empire and endless war, Obama’s stated strategy for the military going forward just reaffirms the US commitment to both. Rather than renouncing the last decade of war, it states that the bloody and disastrous occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan – gently termed "extended operations" – were pursued "to bring stability to those countries."
Speaking January 5 alongside his Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, the president announced a shift in strategy for the American military, one that emphasizes aerial campaigns and proxy wars as opposed to "long-term nation-building with large military footprints." This, to some pundits and politicians, is considered a tectonic shift.
Indeed, the way some on the left tell it, the strategy marks a radical departure from the imperial status quo. "Obama just repudiated the past decade of forever war policy," gushed Rolling Stone reporter Michael Hastings, calling the new strategy a "[s]lap in the face to the generals."
Conservative hawks, meanwhile, predictably declared that the sky is falling. "This is a lead from behind strategy for a left-behind America," cried hyperventilating California Republican Buck McKeon, chairman the House Armed Services Committee. "This strategy ensures American decline in exchange for more failed domestic programs." In McKeon’s world, feeding the war machine is preferable to feeding poor people.
Unfortunately, though, rather than renouncing empire and endless war, Obama’s stated strategy for the military going forward just reaffirms the US commitment to both. Rather than renouncing the last decade of war, it states that the bloody and disastrous occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan – gently termed "extended operations" – were pursued "to bring stability to those countries."
Friday, January 6, 2012
Obama launches Bureau of Counterterrorism
President Obama's State Department announced, during a press briefing today, the creation of the Bureau of Counterterrorism, which will coordinate with United States entities such as the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and foreign governments to develop civilian counterterrorism strategies and operations.
"The mission of the new bureau will be to lead the [State] Department in the U.S. Government’s effort to counter terrorism abroad and to secure the United States against foreign terrorist threats," Ambassador Dan Benjamin told reporters. "The bureau will lead in supporting U.S. counterterrorism diplomacy and seek to strengthen homeland security, countering violent extremism, and build the capacity of partner nations to deal effectively with terrorism."
The bureau has previously operated on a smaller scale as an office under Benjamin. The upgrade comes as Obama has enjoyed foreign policy success due to the killing of Osama bin Laden, but also faced criticism over a quick withdrawal from Iraq, increasing aggression from Iran, and for negotiating with the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan. "I want to underscore we all know that there is no way to shoot our way out of this problem conclusively and forever," Benjamin said today, "and that’s why strengthening our engagement with others to support their civilian institutions so that they can actually hold that territory, police that territory, try people who want to carry out violent attacks either against people who live there or abroad, is an absolutely vital undertaking."
The bureau will focus on foreign terrorists, but their activities have some bearing on domestic security. It collaborates with "the Department of Homeland Security to work jointly to stop terrorist travel, to improve aviation security," for instance, but will focus more on "the bilateral kind of diplomacy that we do with others on a number of different issues, whether it has to do with how we reduce the space that terrorist groups have to fundraise, [or] to operate," Benjamin explained.
"The mission of the new bureau will be to lead the [State] Department in the U.S. Government’s effort to counter terrorism abroad and to secure the United States against foreign terrorist threats," Ambassador Dan Benjamin told reporters. "The bureau will lead in supporting U.S. counterterrorism diplomacy and seek to strengthen homeland security, countering violent extremism, and build the capacity of partner nations to deal effectively with terrorism."
The bureau has previously operated on a smaller scale as an office under Benjamin. The upgrade comes as Obama has enjoyed foreign policy success due to the killing of Osama bin Laden, but also faced criticism over a quick withdrawal from Iraq, increasing aggression from Iran, and for negotiating with the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan. "I want to underscore we all know that there is no way to shoot our way out of this problem conclusively and forever," Benjamin said today, "and that’s why strengthening our engagement with others to support their civilian institutions so that they can actually hold that territory, police that territory, try people who want to carry out violent attacks either against people who live there or abroad, is an absolutely vital undertaking."
The bureau will focus on foreign terrorists, but their activities have some bearing on domestic security. It collaborates with "the Department of Homeland Security to work jointly to stop terrorist travel, to improve aviation security," for instance, but will focus more on "the bilateral kind of diplomacy that we do with others on a number of different issues, whether it has to do with how we reduce the space that terrorist groups have to fundraise, [or] to operate," Benjamin explained.
Avoiding Another "Long War": Intelligence Officials Reveal "Dubious" IAEA Report on Iran's Alleged Nuclear Weapons Program
We have watched the militarists represent one Muslim country after another as major threats to U.S. security. In the past, they supported attacks on Sudan, Somalia, Yemen, Iraq, Pakistan, Libya and Afghanistan, as well as Israel’s attacks on Syria and Lebanon — nine Muslim countries – and Gaza.
This time, they are using a new IAEA report to assert categorically that Iran is building a nuclear weapon that allegedly poses a major threat to the U.S. Your intelligence and military advisors can certainly clarify what the report really says.
Defense Secretary [Leon] Panetta and other experts have stated that an air attack would only delay any weapons program for a year or two at most.
Former Mossad head Meir Dagan said that an air force strike against Iran’s nuclear installations would be “a stupid thing,” a view endorsed in principle by two other past Mossad chiefs, Danny Yatom and Ephraim Halevy. Dagan added that “Any strike against [the civilian program] is an illegal act according to international law.”
Dagan pointed out another reality: bombing Iran would lead it to retaliate against Israel through Hezbollah, which has tens of thousands of Grad-type rockets and hundreds of Scuds and other long-range missiles, and through Hamas.
Another Long War is not in America’s or Israel’s interests, whatever Israel’s apologists claim. Those are the same people who claim that [Iranian President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad said he would “wipe Israel off the map.” Persian specialists have pointed out that the original statement in Persian actually said that Israel would collapse: “This occupation regime over Jerusalem must vanish from the arena of time.”
This time, they are using a new IAEA report to assert categorically that Iran is building a nuclear weapon that allegedly poses a major threat to the U.S. Your intelligence and military advisors can certainly clarify what the report really says.
Defense Secretary [Leon] Panetta and other experts have stated that an air attack would only delay any weapons program for a year or two at most.
Former Mossad head Meir Dagan said that an air force strike against Iran’s nuclear installations would be “a stupid thing,” a view endorsed in principle by two other past Mossad chiefs, Danny Yatom and Ephraim Halevy. Dagan added that “Any strike against [the civilian program] is an illegal act according to international law.”
Dagan pointed out another reality: bombing Iran would lead it to retaliate against Israel through Hezbollah, which has tens of thousands of Grad-type rockets and hundreds of Scuds and other long-range missiles, and through Hamas.
Another Long War is not in America’s or Israel’s interests, whatever Israel’s apologists claim. Those are the same people who claim that [Iranian President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad said he would “wipe Israel off the map.” Persian specialists have pointed out that the original statement in Persian actually said that Israel would collapse: “This occupation regime over Jerusalem must vanish from the arena of time.”
Thursday, January 5, 2012
U.S.-Iran Tensions: Mideast Showdown Builds As United States Tightens Military Ties To Israel
Storm clouds darkening over the Middle East suggest a growing peril for the United States and the possibility of a new war that could embroil the U.S., Israel, Iran and others in a bloody, costly fight.
Behind this week's exchange of threats between Iran and the United States over access to the Persian Gulf, seasoned analysts see a perfect storm of factors that could trigger armed conflict.
Iran's work on nuclear weapons is fast approaching a "red line," the crossing of which both the United States and Israel say is unacceptable and may have to be halted by force. Washington and European capitals are preparing new sanctions that would sever Iran from the international banking system, a move that would cripple its economy and that Tehran has said it would consider a provocation to war. Growing violence in Syria threatens to spill over its borders with Israel, Lebanon and Turkey, a NATO ally.
Amid the saber-rattling rhetoric from Washington and Tehran, and Arab world upheaval from Egypt to Iraq to Yemen, the United States is planning an unprecedented escalation of military cooperation with Israel, including massive joint exercises this spring to practice joint command and maneuver of ground forces in combat.
And political campaigns, including a struggle between bitterly opposed factions in Iran's March parliamentary elections and the U.S. presidential contest culminating in the fall, are likely to keep all these tensions at a boil.
Behind this week's exchange of threats between Iran and the United States over access to the Persian Gulf, seasoned analysts see a perfect storm of factors that could trigger armed conflict.
Iran's work on nuclear weapons is fast approaching a "red line," the crossing of which both the United States and Israel say is unacceptable and may have to be halted by force. Washington and European capitals are preparing new sanctions that would sever Iran from the international banking system, a move that would cripple its economy and that Tehran has said it would consider a provocation to war. Growing violence in Syria threatens to spill over its borders with Israel, Lebanon and Turkey, a NATO ally.
Amid the saber-rattling rhetoric from Washington and Tehran, and Arab world upheaval from Egypt to Iraq to Yemen, the United States is planning an unprecedented escalation of military cooperation with Israel, including massive joint exercises this spring to practice joint command and maneuver of ground forces in combat.
And political campaigns, including a struggle between bitterly opposed factions in Iran's March parliamentary elections and the U.S. presidential contest culminating in the fall, are likely to keep all these tensions at a boil.
We Are All Humanitarian Interventionists
A “happy holidays” email from The Atlantic’s ubiquitous self-promoter Steve Clemons last week suggests that any unified right-left movement to end America’s wars of choice might be unattainable. Normally I do not read Clemons, but on this occasion I persevered and was rewarded with a bit of political folderol that was too deliciously bizarre not to share. Steve is a progressive who sees himself as a realist and who likes to suggest to his readers that he is a true Washington insider unafraid to challenge the status quo. He does so gingerly, however, never wanting to offend anyone who is really important. He is a fan of the late Richard Holbrooke, whom he describes as an “outstanding global policy practitioner,” presumably a tribute to his success at turning the Balkans into a festering sore before pissing the Pakistanis off. He also believes that Henry Kissinger is the greatest foreign policy genius to emerge since the Second World War.
Steve’s track record in predicting foreign policy developments is not good. Over a year ago at his website, The Washington Note, he recounted cornering an ostentatiously self-important though unidentified administration source and quizzing him regarding the Israel-Palestine peace process. Quoting himself in his article, he asked portentously, “My question then was, what next? And the response was incomplete but probably sound. ‘We are studying options.’” Relying on such brilliant though admittedly laconic insights, Steve then opined “that the door is open for new frames that could capture the day and change the current paralyzed standoff.” “Frames” is one of Steve’s favorite expressions. The frames have apparently not materialized in 2011 unless one considers a dressing-down of the U.S. president by the Israeli prime minister to be progress, but no matter. That was last year, which is now over, so it is possible to move on to new frames for 2012.
Steve’s happy holidays message cited a recent article by Charles Kupchan, a former Clinton administration National Security Council staffer, and quoted from it: “Progressive leadership at home is essential to the nation’s political and economic renewal, which in turn is the foundation for progressive leadership abroad. Since World War II, the United States has been dramatically successful in making the globe more stable, prosperous, and liberal. The recipe for ongoing success in this mission is no different than in the past: a solvent and centrist America reliant on a progressive combination of power and partnership to safeguard the national interest while improving the world.”
Steve approves. He “rides closely to Charles Kupchan’s thinking,” as he puts it, but he adds: “The dominant personality of the Republican and Democratic parties runs under two monikers — but is essentially tied to the notion that the U.S. has a moral responsibility to re-order the internal workings of other nations that constrain the freedoms and rights of their citizens. The liberal (or humanitarian) interventionist school dominates the progressive foreign policy establishment and more significantly populates the power positions of the Democratic Party today than its rivals; and in the Republican Party, various strains of neoconservatism (there is now competition among the heirs of Irving Kristol, Albert Wohlstetter, and other founding fathers) dominate.”
Steve’s track record in predicting foreign policy developments is not good. Over a year ago at his website, The Washington Note, he recounted cornering an ostentatiously self-important though unidentified administration source and quizzing him regarding the Israel-Palestine peace process. Quoting himself in his article, he asked portentously, “My question then was, what next? And the response was incomplete but probably sound. ‘We are studying options.’” Relying on such brilliant though admittedly laconic insights, Steve then opined “that the door is open for new frames that could capture the day and change the current paralyzed standoff.” “Frames” is one of Steve’s favorite expressions. The frames have apparently not materialized in 2011 unless one considers a dressing-down of the U.S. president by the Israeli prime minister to be progress, but no matter. That was last year, which is now over, so it is possible to move on to new frames for 2012.
Steve’s happy holidays message cited a recent article by Charles Kupchan, a former Clinton administration National Security Council staffer, and quoted from it: “Progressive leadership at home is essential to the nation’s political and economic renewal, which in turn is the foundation for progressive leadership abroad. Since World War II, the United States has been dramatically successful in making the globe more stable, prosperous, and liberal. The recipe for ongoing success in this mission is no different than in the past: a solvent and centrist America reliant on a progressive combination of power and partnership to safeguard the national interest while improving the world.”
Steve approves. He “rides closely to Charles Kupchan’s thinking,” as he puts it, but he adds: “The dominant personality of the Republican and Democratic parties runs under two monikers — but is essentially tied to the notion that the U.S. has a moral responsibility to re-order the internal workings of other nations that constrain the freedoms and rights of their citizens. The liberal (or humanitarian) interventionist school dominates the progressive foreign policy establishment and more significantly populates the power positions of the Democratic Party today than its rivals; and in the Republican Party, various strains of neoconservatism (there is now competition among the heirs of Irving Kristol, Albert Wohlstetter, and other founding fathers) dominate.”
The Eurozone’s Looming Credit Crunch
While EU policymakers make arrangements for their 14th summit in the last two years, Europe’s flagging economy continues to slip deeper into recession. On Monday, the Eurozone’s Manufacturing Purchasing Managers’ Index (PMI) reported that production and new orders had declined for a 5th straight month. According to a survey of economists by Reuters, “The euro zone economy is already stuck in a recession that will last until the second quarter of 2012….They forecast the economy will probably see no growth this year.” (Reuters)
The slowdown in manufacturing is just the latest sign that political gridlock is taking its toll on the broader economy. While politicians wrangle over the details of a proposed “fiscal union”, unemployment continues to rise and stagnation sets in across the continent. Insane adherence to budget-shrinking austerity measures have made a bad situation far worse. Instead of expansionist “counter-cyclical” policies, EU leaders have forced debt-stricken countries in the south to undergo internal devaluation and endless rounds of debt deflation to meet their budget targets. The belt-tightening has shrunk government revenues, increased the deficits and ignited widespread social unrest.
The deteriorating economic situation is further complicated by funding stresses in the banking system that foreshadow a severe credit crunch in the near future. EU banks are no longer able to fund themselves in the wholesale market and must depend almost entirely on the European Central Bank (ECB). New ECB president Mario Draghi has tried to prop up the faltering system by offering “limitless” 3-year loans at 1 percent on all types of collateral. In its first tender, the ECB issued 489 billion euros (nearly $600 billion) to EZ banks, but the banks immediately deposited 452 billion euros of that sum back at the ECB. The condition of the banks is considerably worse than anyone had imagined. They’re hoarding money to meet new capital requirements and in order to roll over their debts now that they’ve been locked out of the markets. Here’s the story from Reuters:
“Euro zone banks will continue to park their cash with the ECB in 2012 rather than lend it as recent cash injections offer little hope of thawing frozen interbank markets….
The slowdown in manufacturing is just the latest sign that political gridlock is taking its toll on the broader economy. While politicians wrangle over the details of a proposed “fiscal union”, unemployment continues to rise and stagnation sets in across the continent. Insane adherence to budget-shrinking austerity measures have made a bad situation far worse. Instead of expansionist “counter-cyclical” policies, EU leaders have forced debt-stricken countries in the south to undergo internal devaluation and endless rounds of debt deflation to meet their budget targets. The belt-tightening has shrunk government revenues, increased the deficits and ignited widespread social unrest.
The deteriorating economic situation is further complicated by funding stresses in the banking system that foreshadow a severe credit crunch in the near future. EU banks are no longer able to fund themselves in the wholesale market and must depend almost entirely on the European Central Bank (ECB). New ECB president Mario Draghi has tried to prop up the faltering system by offering “limitless” 3-year loans at 1 percent on all types of collateral. In its first tender, the ECB issued 489 billion euros (nearly $600 billion) to EZ banks, but the banks immediately deposited 452 billion euros of that sum back at the ECB. The condition of the banks is considerably worse than anyone had imagined. They’re hoarding money to meet new capital requirements and in order to roll over their debts now that they’ve been locked out of the markets. Here’s the story from Reuters:
“Euro zone banks will continue to park their cash with the ECB in 2012 rather than lend it as recent cash injections offer little hope of thawing frozen interbank markets….
Wednesday, January 4, 2012
The Zionist Caricature
Could it be that Zionist-caricature Alan Dershowitz has resorted to comedy as he desperately tries to win his battle against me and my book? What else could explain this intellectually retarded Zionist mouthpiece’s repetition of the same old lies? A few years ago Norman Finkelstein established that Dershowitz is a plagiarist, but now Dershowitz extends this infamous title – Now, he’s actually plagiarising his own phantasmic fibs!
Just a week before Hanukah, fancying himself as a bit of a music critic, Dershowitz described me as an ‘obscure saxophonist’. This was amusing enough, but yesterday Dershowitz elaborated on his notion of ‘obscurity’. In an embarrassingly unimaginative and vindictive article he called Chicago University Professor of Philosophy Brian Leiter a “relatively obscure professor of jurisprudence”. For a native English speaker (and a Harvard Professor) Dershowitz sure has a limited English vocabulary.
Professor Leiter’s crime was obvious enough: he stood up for freedom of expression and open debate. He defended Professor John Mearsheimer who has endorsed ‘The Wandering Who’ and refused to bow to vile and relentless Zionist pressure to withdraw his praise for the book.
To read Professor Leiter’s article click here.
Ethnic cleanser advocate Dershowitz writes. “Without bothering even to read Atzmon’s book, Leiter pronounced that Atzmon’s ‘positions [do not mark him] as an anti-Semite [but rather as] cosmopolitan.’ Leiter also certified that Atzmon ‘does not deny the Holocaust or the gas chambers.’ Had Leiter read the book, he could not have made either statement.”
Dershowitz sure has some chutzpah, since it’s actually he who didn’t read ‘The Wandering Who’. If he had, he would have seen that in the book and in all my writing I neither deny nor do I affirm any historical aspect of the Holocaust, gas chambers or the Judeocide in general. Instead, I insist that history cannot be sealed by laws. I also insist that intellectual curiosity and our knowledge of the past cannot be vetted or confined by anyone, let alone such morbid minds as that of Dershowitz himself. Open society is about the openness to think freely and to express those thoughts.
Just a week before Hanukah, fancying himself as a bit of a music critic, Dershowitz described me as an ‘obscure saxophonist’. This was amusing enough, but yesterday Dershowitz elaborated on his notion of ‘obscurity’. In an embarrassingly unimaginative and vindictive article he called Chicago University Professor of Philosophy Brian Leiter a “relatively obscure professor of jurisprudence”. For a native English speaker (and a Harvard Professor) Dershowitz sure has a limited English vocabulary.
Professor Leiter’s crime was obvious enough: he stood up for freedom of expression and open debate. He defended Professor John Mearsheimer who has endorsed ‘The Wandering Who’ and refused to bow to vile and relentless Zionist pressure to withdraw his praise for the book.
To read Professor Leiter’s article click here.
Ethnic cleanser advocate Dershowitz writes. “Without bothering even to read Atzmon’s book, Leiter pronounced that Atzmon’s ‘positions [do not mark him] as an anti-Semite [but rather as] cosmopolitan.’ Leiter also certified that Atzmon ‘does not deny the Holocaust or the gas chambers.’ Had Leiter read the book, he could not have made either statement.”
Dershowitz sure has some chutzpah, since it’s actually he who didn’t read ‘The Wandering Who’. If he had, he would have seen that in the book and in all my writing I neither deny nor do I affirm any historical aspect of the Holocaust, gas chambers or the Judeocide in general. Instead, I insist that history cannot be sealed by laws. I also insist that intellectual curiosity and our knowledge of the past cannot be vetted or confined by anyone, let alone such morbid minds as that of Dershowitz himself. Open society is about the openness to think freely and to express those thoughts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)