Private security contracts...

"WASHINGTON - Military contracts in the Iraq theater have cost taxpayers at least $85 billion, and when it comes to providing security, they might not be any cheaper than using military personnel, according to a report released Tuesday." (AP .. read more)

Iran Inanity...

According to a recent Seymour Hersh article in the New Yorker (as well as an interview on NPR), serious plans are afoot -- and have been for some time -- to attack Iran. The biggest proponent is Cheney, who not coincidentally is running his own special ops on the Iraq/Iran border BEHIND THE BACK of the U.S. Central Command Commander, Admiral Fallon (who is supposed to be in charge).

And I thought vice-presidents were figureheads .. I certainly never heard of letting one have his own specialized troops so that he can run real-time operations in one of the trickiest political hot spots in the world. But I suppose there is nothing quite like playing at soldier while avoiding any real physical danger to oneself -- especially for an old man who as a young man was too cowardly to serve a war in which he believed.

Back however to the subject of Iran. Now for some reason Israel (perhaps made nervous by a combination of Iranian Prime Minister Ahmadinejad's poseur threats of annihilation and feelings of obligation towards this administration) has been making sounds about going after Iran's nuclear facilities. Of course (according to Hersh) this would be a nearly insurmountable task, as Iran's nuclear facilities are for the most part buried deep underground.

What I conjecture this means is that "limited nuclear strike" weapons would have to be used -- and the U.S. would have to use them (a thing we have contemplated in the past) -- which would result in catastrophic loss of life, permanent contamination and possibly open the door to World War III (and at the least war crimes charges) .. and all for what? Old oil men's dreams of retaking Iran's oil fields, perhaps?

Regarding Israel's role, the first thought that occurs is that Israel made a similar error some 50 years ago, when they attempted to wrest control of the Suez canal from Egypt at the behest of the United States, France and Great Britain. The Suez Crisis was a debacle from a political point of view, the lesson being that there is rarely any benefit in doing other nations' dirty work.

The second thought is kind of convoluted and concerns Israel's recent bombing sortie against a Syrian factory. The latter was made suspicious by the fact that Syria made no real complaint. One cannot then help question Syria's possible complicity .. a thing truly hard to imagine as Syria has been actively supporting Hezbollah's attacks against Israel. But then again, Syria fears an expanded Iran and possibly Iran's hold on Hezbollah .. so was this attack a kind of bluff or practice run? Was it meant to increase the permissibility of foreign attack in the Middle East without obvious legal cause?

Anyway, here is Iran's top diplomat's response to the idea that Israel and possibly the United States are intending to hit their nuclear facilities:

"NEW YORK - Iran's top diplomat predicted Wednesday that the United States and Israel would not risk the "craziness" of attacking his country and possibly provoking a wider Middle East war or driving oil prices into uncharted heights.

Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said in an interview with The Associated Press that he does not believe a military strike is looming while the U.S. economy is suffering and it is bogged down in a seven-year-old campaign in Afghanistan and more than five years in Iraq.

His remarks come amid mounting speculation that Israel may be considering a unilateral strike on Iran's nuclear facilities — a contingency that could upend already volatile oil markets.

"We do not foresee such a possibility at the moment. The Israeli government is facing a political breakdown within itself and within the region, so we do not foresee such a possibility for that regime to resort to such craziness," Mottaki said through his translator. "The United States, too, is not in a position where it can engage in, take another risk in the region."

(Click here to read the whole article.)

The point is that it is more than a little worrisome when a spokesman for a hostile country sounds a great deal saner than we do. The one obvious benefit of such an attack is that rising oil prices would benefit oil interests, including our own. The downside is that our economy might fail and the average person suffer hideous consequences. But what the hell.

Hot Rummy Tommy ...

The army has just issued a 700-page history on the first 18 months in Iraq. It is based on hundreds of interviews by military historians with top military leaders.

According to the Times, "A big problem ... was the lack of detailed plans before the war for the postwar phase, a deficiency that reflected the general optimism in the White House and in the Pentagon, led by then-Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, about Iraq’s future, and an assumption that civilian agencies would assume much of the burden."

That optimism flew in the face of countless warnings -- at the time -- from top Middle East experts about the possibility of civil war and the difficulty of managing the occupation of a state as complex and large as Iraq.

Another problem was the decision by General Tommy Franks (the lone general who bought Cheney and Rummy's plan for going to war with half the recommended troop levels) to downsize military command as soon as Saddam was toppled, at what proved to be the start and not end of the war. “The move was sudden and caught most of the senior commanders in Iraq unaware,” states the history, which adds that the staff for the new headquarters was not initially “configured for the types of responsibilities it received.” (read article

While the report no doubt focuses on the more positive "lessons learned," it seems to also underscore the degree to which battle and postwar plans were dictated by men who had never themselves served -- or by the one and only general willing to put aside his experience and know-how in order to curry their favor.

Your private data is now open source...

The U.S. has just signed an agreement with Europe to allow all governments concerned handy access to the personal data -- including travel itineraries, credit card statements and internet browsing habits -- of their respective citizens (read article).

According to the NY Times "Europe generally has more stringent laws restricting how governments and businesses can collect and transfer such information." That statement doesn't say a great deal for our own privacy protections.

Unfettered access to private data is an open invitation to the abuse of power. Without protections (such as subpoenas), governments routinely will monitor and initimidate those whose political beliefs differ.

For example, under Reagan, sympathizers with Central American war/torture refugees were subjected to IRS audits as a means of intimidation. (Not half as bad an outcome as that faced by the refugees, who were often returned to their homelands to be summarily executed and/or imprisoned.)

Further consider how private data can be used to coerce the individual. The Stasi in East Germany, for example, used private data to blackmail huge numbers of its citizens into spying against each other. This proved a potent means of quelling public dissent.

It is bad enough our own government has access to far too much personal information about its citizens .. do we really want our government to share the same with foreign governments, unelected by us?

The NY Times further reports that: "the two sides are still at odds on several other matters, including whether European citizens should be able to sue the United States government over its handling of their personal data." In other words, somehow Europe -- and not the United States -- has ended up being the standard-bearer for civil liberty protections. Of course this agreement endangers civil liberties on both sides of the Atlantic.

Staying in Baghdad forever...

Did most of us believe that our occupation of Iraq was only meant to be temporary, i.e. just long enough to ensure the country is stabilized, that its oil wells are pumping at full production and that Al Qaeda's spidery tendrils are largely rooted out?

I am quite sure there are few Americans who would relish the idea of our establishing 58 military bases in Iraq in perpetuity, as well as taking over command of their airspace. Iraq is a country after all that has shown scant enthusiasm for foreign occupation.

Moreover, we are not discussing the permanent control of a little Pacific island atoll; we are discussing a large, complex 5,000-year-old civilization. Seems ill advised, no? This however is exactly what our current administration has in mind, according to leaks from members of the Iraqi parliament.

World Policy Journal editor Karl E. Meyer points out in a NY Times editorial today that a similar attempt by Great Britain in 1930 had the unintended consequence of producing a violent nationalist uprising and Axis-backed putsch in 1941. In other words, by attempting to ensure a permanent stranglehold on Iraq, both Great Britain and their allies lost out .. making it rather difficult for Great Britain to call any future favors. (read op ed)

Update on Libby-gate...

Former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan has just testified before Congress that the President and Vice-President pressured him to deny that Cheney Aide I. Scooter Libby had revealed CIA operative Valeri Plame's identity to the press. When questioned about Cheney's possible involvement in the cover-up, McClellan replied ""I do not know. There's a lot of suspicion there." (read article)

To recap, Plame's identity was leaked to the Press in an effort to discredit her husband, Joseph Wilson, who was on the outs with the Administration. Wilson had (under the aegis of the CIA and administration both) investigated an alleged attempt by Iraq to purchase uranium from Niger. He concluded that it never happened. When Bush later claimed Niger had sold uranium to Iraq to justify our entry into war, Wilson accused him of intentionally misleading the American public.

It turns out Bush may have chosen to ignore Wilson's report on the matter in favor of British intelligence (in particular the now discredited Butler Report). Unfortunately, British intelligence justifying entry into war proved as flawed as our own and for much the same reasons: "cherry-picked" facts were obtained from unreliable dissidents (who had their own political ends in mind) and subsequently not vetted, as is standard practice.

Returning to the Plame affair, Wilson has long alleged that Cheney was behind the leak to the press, which ruined her career, exposed her to possible danger and harmed the projects in which she had been involved. Note that Cheney has not in turn accused Wilson of liable.

Why we went to war in Iraq...

This tidbit was just announced in today's NY Times:

Deals With Iraq Are Set to Bring Oil Giants Back
BAGHDAD — Four Western oil companies are in the final stages of negotiations this month on contracts that will return them to Iraq, 36 years after losing their oil concession to nationalization as Saddam Hussein rose to power. ...

To read full article, click here.

Kellogg Brown Root rot...

The senior Pentagon official overseeing KBR's multi-billion-dollar contract for work in Iraq was forced out of his position in 2004 when he he tried to make KBR explain more than $1 billion in unverified charges. It seems the directive to back off of KBR came directly from the Secretary of Defense. (Don't forget too that our Vice-President was once CEO of their parent company at the time, Halliburton.)

Immediately following his dismissal, the government audit that had questioned the expenditures was shelved and a private firm was brought in to come up with a new audit and new cost estimates built upon KBR's allegedly questionable or "weak" data.

To read more click here.