SENATE TO HOLD CONFIRMATION HEARINGS FOR NEW US AMBASSADOR TO TURKEY

"It is said that power corrupts, but actually it's more true that power attracts the corruptible. The sane are usually attracted by other things than power."
~ David Brin.

It looks like there will be Senate confirmation hearings next Wednesday (24 September) for the next US ambassador to Turkey, James F. Jeffrey, from ANCA:

The Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA) has called on members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to closely scrutinize ten serious shortcomings in the Administration’s handling of the U.S. - Turkey relationship, during the September 24th confirmation hearing for James Jeffrey to serve as the next U.S. Ambassador to Turkey.

In letters to panel Chairman Joe Biden (D-DE) and other key Committee members, ANCA Chairman Ken Hachikian outlined the Administration’s failings, and encouraged strict scrutiny of the nominee in order to “ensure accountability for past errors, as well as to apply the lessons learned from these setbacks in charting a more productive and principled course for U.S.-Turkey relations.”

Who is James F. Jeffrey? You can get the official rundown of his career from the State Department:

James F. Jeffrey assumed the position of Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary in the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs on August 21, 2006.

Ambassador Jeffrey, in collaboration with the Assistant Secretary for Near Eastern Affairs, will lead the Bureau's Iran Policy Team and coordinate Bureau public diplomacy and internal management, serving as Acting Assistant Secretary when the Assistant Secretary is traveling.

A career member of the U.S. Foreign Service, James Jeffrey served as He served as Senior Advisor to the Secretary of State for Iraq from August 2005 to August 2006. Amb. Jeffrey served as Deputy Chief of Mission in Baghdad from June 2004 to March 2005. From March to June 2005 Ambassador Jeffrey was U.S. Charge d'affairs to Iraq. He served as Ambassador to Albania from 2002-2004. Previously he was Deputy Chief of Mission in Turkey and Kuwait. Other assignments have included Deputy Special Representative for Bosnian Implementation, postings in the Department's European and Near Eastern Bureaus, and overseas service in Turkey, Bulgaria, Germany and Tunisia.

But what about his real career? For starters, Jeffrey is involved with the administration's efforts to manufacture consent for a war with Iran, from the Boston Globe:

The existence of ISOG (Iran Syria Policy and Operations Group) reflects an intensification of the Bush administration's planning on Iran. Syria, which has linked itself to Iran through military pacts, is a lesser focus for the group. Its workings have been so secretive that several officials in the State Department's Near Eastern Affairs bureau said they were unaware it existed.

[ . . . ]

ISOG was modeled after the Iraq Policy and Operations Group, set up in 2004 to shepherd information and coordinate US action in Iraq. ISOG has raised eyebrows within the State Department for hiring BearingPoint -- the same Washington-based private contracting firm used by the Iraq group -- to handle its administrative work, rather than State Department employees.

[ . . . ]

ISOG is led by a steering committee with two leading hawks on Middle East policy as chairmen: James F. Jeffrey, prinicipal deputy assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern Affairs, who once headed Iraq policy, and Elliott Abrams, deputy national security adviser for "Global Democracy Strategy." Michael Doran, a Middle East specialist at the White House, steps in when Abrams is away. Elizabeth Cheney, the vice president's daughter, who was the former deputy assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern Affairs, served as cochairwoman before she took a maternity leave earlier this year.

Okay, right there we have Jeffrey linked with the Bush administration's efforts for regime change in Iraq, which were based on lies ranging from accusations that Saddam was behind the 9/11 attacks to the WMD lies and the Niger yellow cake forgeries.

We also have Jeffrey linked to BearingPoint which has some very shady history. From Sourcewatch:

* In July of 2003, BearingPoint was awarded a contract by USAID worth $79.5 million to facilitate Iraq's economic recovery with a two-year option worth a total of $240,162,688.[2][3] Responsibilities in this contract include:

1. Creating Iraq's budget

2. Writing business law

3. Setting up tax collection

4. Laying out trade and customs rules

5. Privatize state-owned enterprises by auctioning them off or issuing Iraqis shares in the enterprises.

6. Reopen banks and jump-start the private sector by making small loans of $100 to $10,000.

7. Wean Iraqis from the U.N. Oil-for-Food Program, the main source of food for 60% of the population.

8. Issue a new currency and set exchange rates. [4]


* In January 2003 BearingPoint won a $3.95 million contract financed by the World Bank to aid the Afghanistan government upgrade its accounting system.[5]

* In March of 2003, USAID awarded BearingPoint a $39.9 million contract to help rebuild the economy in Afghanistan.

[6] In November 2005, USAID awarded another contract, this three years and worth $45 million. [7] The overall worth of contracts in Afghanistan could be worth as much as $350 million. [8]

BearingPoint has also been involved in the drafting of the Iraq Oil Law for the benefit of Big Oil:

BearingPoint, a Virginia based contractor is being paid $240m for its work in Iraq, winning an initial contract from the US Agency for International Development (USAid) within weeks of the fall of Saddam Hussein in 2003. A BearingPoint employee, based in the US embassy in Baghdad, was hired to advise the Iraqi Ministry of Oil on drawing up a new hydrocarbon law.

BearingPoint employees gave $117,000 to the 2000 and 2004 Bush election campaigns, more than any other Iraq contractor.

The process of drafting the oil law has been particularly troubling. The timeline of which entities have seen the draft when suggests that Iraqi interests are not being considered first and foremost:

* Draft shown to US government and major oil companies – July 06

* Draft shown to the International Monetary Fund September 06

* Draft shown to Iraqi Parliament: February 07

The Iraq National Oil Company would have exclusive control of just 17 of Iraq’s 80 known oil fields, leaving two-thirds of known — and all of its as yet undiscovered — reserves open to foreign control.

Not surprisingly, the Iraqi Oil Workers' Union and the Electrical Utility Workers' Union opposed the law and protested BearingPoint's involvement in the drafting of it. Antonia Juhasz also mentioned BearingPoint's role in the drafting of the Iraq oil law at the time of the Baker-Hamilton report:

WHILE THE Bush administration, the media and nearly all the Democrats still refuse to explain the war in Iraq in terms of oil, the ever-pragmatic members of the Iraq Study Group share no such reticence.

Page 1, Chapter 1 of the Iraq Study Group report lays out Iraq's importance to its region, the U.S. and the world with this reminder: "It has the world's second-largest known oil reserves." The group then proceeds to give very specific and radical recommendations as to what the United States should do to secure those reserves. If the proposals are followed, Iraq's national oil industry will be commercialized and opened to foreign firms.

[ . . . ]

For any degree of oil privatization to take place, and for it to apply to all the country's oil fields, Iraq has to amend its constitution and pass a new national oil law. The constitution is ambiguous as to whether control over future revenues from as-yet-undeveloped oil fields should be shared among its provinces or held and distributed by the central government.

This is a crucial issue, with trillions of dollars at stake, because only 17 of Iraq's 80 known oil fields have been developed. Recommendation No. 26 of the Iraq Study Group calls for a review of the constitution to be "pursued on an urgent basis." Recommendation No. 28 calls for putting control of Iraq's oil revenues in the hands of the central government. Recommendation No. 63 also calls on the U.S. government to "provide technical assistance to the Iraqi government to prepare a draft oil law."

This last step is already underway. The Bush administration hired the consultancy firm BearingPoint more than a year ago to advise the Iraqi Oil Ministry on drafting and passing a new national oil law.

Plans for this new law were first made public at a news conference in late 2004 in Washington. Flanked by State Department officials, Iraqi Finance Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi (who is now vice president) explained how this law would open Iraq's oil industry to private foreign investment. This, in turn, would be "very promising to the American investors and to American enterprise, certainly to oil companies." The law would implement production-sharing agreements.

As for BearingPoint's Afghanistan contracts:

USAID’s own March 13, 2007 announcement of the five year $218.6 million contract that will run through January 2012 states that it is for the purpose of: strengthening “the performance of ministries, businesses, non-governmental organizations, universities and local governments; establish(ing) permanent, sustainable capacity in the public, private and high education sectors; and build(ing) the skills of key personnel in the Afghan public and private sectors, through scholarship.”

For a company that is still correcting, according to the Washington Business Journal, its financial reports for accounting errors, whose revenues rose by 10 percent to $2.65 billion in 2006 over the previous year, a contract worth even $218.6 million must seem like a drop in the bucket. Still it adds up for a company which reaches out at every opportunity to take advantage of swelling its bottom line from US government outsourcing as a result of the downsizing of the US Foreign and Civil Service after the Cold War. It doesn’t hurt in filling the company’s coffers that BearingPoint,Inc. is close to the current administration and contributes to the Republican Party particularly in election years.

It's quite obvious that BearingPoint has not accomplished anything in Afghanistan for which it was paid. And what about those "accounting errors"? Would that be "accounting errors" like those of Bear Stearns, Goldman Sachs, Lehman Brothers, Merrel Lynch, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and, perhaps soon to be Washington Mutual and Wachovia? Behold the American way of doing business! Behold the failure of capitalism!

Jeffrey's other interesting link from the Boston Globe article is his close association with Mr. Iran-Contra himself, Elliot Abrams. Abrams' big deal is the promotion of "freedom" and "democracy" abroad, particularly in the Middle East. Of course, "freedom" and "democracy" only apply to American ruling elites. From Sourcewatch:

Hours before Bush's second inauguration in January 2005, the White House announced that Abrams would serve as Bush's deputy assistant and as the deputy national security adviser for global democracy strategy under NSC Adviser Stephen Hadley, who had been Condoleezza Rice's deputy at the NSC when she was adviser. In his announcement of Abrams's new position, Hadley called Abrams one of the administration's strongest and most consistent advocates of American strength and the expansion of freedom worldwide.

Abrams is a key proponent of the "freedom and democracy" policy that Bush highlighted during his 2005 State of the Union Address, and has been an important figure in dealings with Israel. Prior to Rice's first trip to Israel as secretary of state, Abrams met with Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's top adviser, Dov Weisglass, to establish the parameters of the Rice-Sharon meetings.

[ . . . ]

While Bush's supporters are generally pleased with the administration's strong backing of Israel, many criticize the State Department and Rice. Leading the attack has been Perle, who along with Feith, a former Pentagon undersecretary for policy, has worked with Abrams since the mid-1970s, when both worked for [Senator Henry "Scoop", D-WA] Jackson. In a Washington Post op-ed that coalesced conservative forces against Rice, Perle wrote that, having moved from the NSC to State, Rice is "now in the midst of—and increasingly represents—a diplomatic establishment that is driven to accommodate its allies even when (or, it seems, especially when) such allies counsel the appeasement of our adversaries" (June 25, 2006).

There we have James F. Jeffrey not far removed at all from the Prince of Darkness and "the stupidest fucking guy on the face of the earth", both of whom are tightly linked to the American Turkish Council (ATC). In turn, the ATC is so tightly linked to AIPAC that it's been referred to as the "mini-AIPAC".

The other person of interest who was involved with Jeffrey's ISOG was Dick Cheney's daughter, Elizabeth. Even now that she's out of public service, she's still doing a lot of footwork for ISOG, from the WaPo:

. . . judging from her remarks at AIPAC, Liz is one Cheney unhappy with key elements of U.S. Mideast policy, from Lebanon and the peace process to how the White House dealt with elections in the Palestinian territories. She was also critical of Israel's performance in the 2006 war in Lebanon, citing "Israel's inability, unwillingness to do what was necessary . . . to fundamentally deal a blow to Hezbollah."

"I think that getting back to a situation where our enemies in the region understand that America will stand up for its friends, that America will stand up for its principles and that we have red lines is critically important," Cheney told the friendly audience at AIPAC. "When those red lines aren't there, when our enemies like Iran and Syria begin to believe that they can act with impunity, you see situations like you have got in Lebanon today -- where Hezbollah now has a veto over that government, where Hezbollah will be able, I fear, to significantly continue its efforts to rearm in southern Lebanon, continue to threaten Israel and allow Iran a real chokehold on the region."

The big problem with Liz Cheney's AIPAC comments is that the US has no friends and fewer principles.

We'll be watching the news for more on Jeffrey and his confirmation hearings, both of which have been flying under the radar of official American state propaganda organs (i.e. the media). That fact alone makes me suspect that Jeffrey's appointment is something the regime doesn't want anyone to pay attention to.

Given the methods of the Washington regime, especially as regards the Middle East, "freedom", and "democracy", we should be prepared to expect the worst out of this appointment.

LOCKHEED MARTIN IN BUSINESS WITH BAGHDAD

"Most people would die sooner than think; in fact, they do."
~ Aldous Huxley.

My good friend, Anonymous, dropped off a couple of URLs in the comments to the last post. The first is from Reuters:

The Iraqi government has asked for information about buying 36 F-16 fighter aircraft built by Lockheed Martin Corp, the U.S. Defense Department said on Friday.

The request, received Aug. 27, is being reviewed "in the normal course of business" as part of the U.S. government-to-government arms sale process, said Air Force Lt. Col. Patrick Ryder, a Pentagon spokesman.

Updated F-16s are among the world's most advanced multirole fighters and a powerful symbol of military ties to the United States.

Iraq's interest in the fighter jet, reported first by The Wall Street Journal, could spark concerns among neighbors worried about advanced arms in the hands of a country still facing major internal challenges.

[ . . . ]

Flush with billions of dollars from oil sales, Iraq is emerging as the biggest client for a wide range of U.S. weapons -- a shot in the arm for defense contractors such as Lockheed, Boeing Co, Northrop Grumman Corp, General Dynamics Corp and Raytheon Co.

Among other systems, Iraq is seeking more than 400 armored vehicles plus six C-130 transport planes built by Lockheed, the Pentagon's No. 1 supplier.

On July 30, the Pentagon notified Congress that Iraq also was seeking to buy 24 Textron Inc Bell Armed 407 or 24 Boeing AH-6 helicopters along with 565 120mm mortars, 665 81mm mortars, 200 AGM-114M Hellfire missiles and other arms that could be worth $2.4 billion.

More, from the WSJ:

There are potential pitfalls both for Iraq and U.S. officials in the move. A steady cadre of well-trained Iraqi pilots will need time to learn the planes' tactics and weapons, and ground crews will have to maintain them to high standards to avoid performance or safety problems. The U.S. currently uses a wide variety of planes for air support in Iraq, so it's unclear how big a role Iraqi F-16s could play.

The U.S. has previously seen weapons meant for fragile allies end up in unfriendly hands, as with Iran in 1979. The U.S. will have to consider how advanced F-16s and their weapons, such as satellite-guided bombs, should be.

The F-16 purchase must be reviewed by the Pentagon, Congress and the State Department. The F-16s would allow the Iraqis to carry out their own airstrikes on insurgent positions, something they currently need the U.S. to do for them. That shortcoming was a serious problem during the initial days of the Iraqi army's Basra assault in March, which didn't break in the Iraqis' favor until British and American warplanes bombed the positions of the Mahdi Army, Iraq's largest Shiite militia, throughout the city.

Air power is becomingly increasingly important in Iraq, where the amount of ordnance dropped by U.S. planes has jumped in recent months as U.S. and Iraqi forces press to eradicate the remnants of al-Qaeda in Iraq and other militant groups. Though the F-16 is a fighter designed to shoot down enemy aircraft, it can carry precision-guided bombs and missiles that can be used to support ground forces. The plane also is armed with a cannon that can be used for close air-support missions.

[ . . . ]

The F-16 would represent a significant upgrade for the Iraqi military, and -- depending on how the planes were outfitted with radar and other electronic systems -- could give it some of the most advanced fighter aircraft in the region. The planes can be equipped advanced missiles and bombs, and would give Iraq a more potent air force than it had under Saddam Hussein, when the Iraqi air force mainly consisted of Russian and French fighters.

With a fleet of U.S.-made fighters, Iraq would be able to better match up against neighbors like Iran, which relies on Russian and Iranian-made fighters and aging American jets. U.S. analysts cautioned, however, that Iraq would still have one of the weaker air forces in the region.

This is the same excuse used by the US to arm Saddam and encourage him in his war against Iran, with catastrophic consequences for the Kurdish people.

More, from the Dallas-Fort Worth Star-Telegram:

Rep. Kay Granger, R-Fort Worth, whose congressional district includes the Lockheed Martin plant, said the request signals the Iraqi government’s intent to take responsibility for its own security to hasten the timetable for phasing out the U.S. military presence.

"We keep saying that the Iraqis have to take care of their own security," Granger said. "If the request is approved, then it would help move them toward providing their own security."

Granger, who has made three trips to Iraq, said its air force "is very, very weak" because of lack of resources. But with Iraq’s expanding oil wealth, the government is increasingly capable of buying Western military technology and has made plans to purchase U.S. helicopters, tanks, armored vehicles and other weapon systems.

Under dictator Saddam Hussein, Iraq once had a formidable air force composed largely of Soviet aircraft. But the force was largely demolished in the 1991 Persian Gulf War and offered no resistance to U.S. air power during the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

So what should all this tell Kurds? It says: You're screwed! Again! Second URL from Anonymous, from the AFP:

The speaker of northern Iraq's regional parliament warned Baghdad on Monday about the purchase of high-tech US military hardware, amid concerns the weapons could be used against them.

"The Kurds demand guarantees from the countries selling weapons to Iraq that they will not be used against our people and other Iraqis," said Adnan al-Mufti in a speech to MPs in the regional capital of Arbil.

[ . . . ]

"We want the Iraqi government to be strong and able to defend the sovereignty of the country but our concern is related to the crisis that has happened in Khanaqin," Mufti said.

He was referring to tension that flared last month between Baghdad and Kurdish leaders when Iraqi forces ordered Kurdish political parties to vacate their offices in Khanaqin, a district in the central province of Diyala.

Khanaqin, which includes a string of villages and some of Iraq's oil reserves, is home to about 175,000 people, most of them Kurdish Shiites.

During the Arabisation policies of former dictator Saddam Hussein in the 1980s, a large number of Kurdish Shiites were displaced by force from Khanaqin. Villages came under fierce Iraqi air strikes.

Guarantees? Adnan al-Mufti wants guarantees? Is this guy for real?

Forget about seeking phony guarantees from backstabbers like the US or Baghdad and get ready for more airstrikes like those at Xanaqîn . . . or maybe like those at Helebçe. In those days, the US knew very well what Saddam's regime was up to, what it was using advanced weapons systems for, and it did nothing. Has everyone already forgotten that "covert action should not be confused with missionary work"?

The KRG and the two ruling families of South Kurdistan aren't concerned when Turkey uses the very same type of aircraft to bomb its regions, which it has done since December. They weren't concerned when Turkey dropped cluster bombs in the same regions last summer. Nor were they concerned when Lockheed Martin lobbyist, Joseph Ralston, was appointed "PKK coordinator" for Turkey.

No, the KRG and the two ruling families have forgotten all about covert action and missionary work. Is it hubris that convinces one to trust the one who's betrayed you so many times in the past?

It wouldn't surprise me at all to hear that The Cohen Group is coordinating Baghdad's efforts to buy all that sophisticated ordnance, especially the F16s. The Cohen Group was working on arming the region at the beginning of this year:

When Congress gets back to business in the new year, one of its priorities will be consideration of the Bush administration’s request for a massive arms sale - in the neighborhood of $20 billion - to Saudi Arabia and other Persian Gulf states.

Israel and Egypt also stand to gain billions more in U.S. weapons as part of the package Congress will review.

The proposed deal is controversial because of the Saudi component. Given the Saudi government’s questionable record on fighting terrorism and curtailing terrorism financing, its funding of extremist wahabbist mosques, its supply of foreign fighters into Iraq and a judicial system that recently ordered 200 lashes for a rape victim, some in Congress don’t believe the kingdom should be rewarded with top-of-the-line American weaponry.

[ . . . ]

One of the of the big names supporting the deal is William Cohen, the former senator and defense secretary under President Bill Clinton and regular commentator on CNN.

Cohen has opined on the cable network that the arms deal is good for the U.S. and good for Saudi Arabia.

“The issue really is, are we going to help them modernize their forces so they can be a force to contend with an expansionist Iran, with Iran trying to spread its Shia and revolutionary zeal,” Cohen said last summer when the administration first proposed the sale.



“I think it’s an important idea,” Cohen said on CNN. The Persian Gulf countries “are worried about Iran. In order to help them prepare for their defense capabilities, we should be the country supplying it, so it will be interoperable with our own forces.



“They can buy it from us, they can buy it from the French, the British, the Russians, the Chinese or other country, potentially,” said Cohen. “So the real issue is, are we going continue to solidify our own influence or have it undermined by other countries quite willing to move in and take over the position that we had to date.”



While Cohen cloaked the sale in terms of what is best for American interests, he left out that the weapons sale is good business for him personally.


As chief of the Cohen Group, a lobbying and consulting firm based in the nation’s capital, Cohen represents some of the country’s largest weapons manufacturers, companies that stand to benefit from the weapons sale.

Including, of course, Lockheed Martin, as well as a bunch of other corporate murderers. But the point around which Katil Cohen was talking was the Almighty Dollar. With the American economy already in the toilet, you'd be an idiot to think that Congress will not approve the sale of fighter aircraft and all the rest to Baghdad.

All that talk about being careful or having concerns or taking the sale seriously is propaganda.

And where's that so-called Kurdish president of Iraq in all this, or his son, the so-called lobbyist for Southern Kurdish interests in DC? How much of this deal is going to end up in their bank accounts?

For more than five years now, the Barzanîs and Talabanîs have been busy with a bunch of bullshit construction projects in South Kurdistan, consisting mostly of hotels, resorts, and shopping malls. They've wasted precious time and money on these fantasies, when they should have been arming themselves with more than small arms and peşmêrge. Instead of counting profits, they should have been looking to the future and investing in pilot training and air defense systems, among other things.

We also know for a fact that the US, Iraq, Iran, and Turkey have passed around US and Israeli-acquired intelligence that fueled recent attacks against the Kurdish Freedom Movement. They'll all cooperate with the same intel-sharing against Southern Kurdish peşmêrge, too.

Now what to do? Stop all cooperation. Look to the East. Look to the North. Send the best and brightest--not Barzanîs and Talabanîs--to Russia and China to be trained as pilots and in air defense systems. Then buy the weapons systems necessary to defend Kurdistan. Because, as always, the US is going to look right at you and say nothing when Baghdad bombs you with American weapons.

THE F WORD

"You're here because you know something. What you know, you can't explain. But you feel it. You felt it your entire life. That there's something wrong with the world. You don't know what it is, but it's there. Like a splinter in your mind -- driving you mad."
~ Morpheus, The Matrix.

Uh-oh! They used the "F" word and they mean it!

Scott Horton interviews Greg Palast about oil, Iraq, Georgia, and the "F" word. MP3 here. Run time just over 24 minutes.

I love the cynicism there. It's so refreshing.

Much more on corruption, fascism, and cynicism, and why there's no point voting--especially for McCain here. Run time, again, just over 24 minutes.

SIBEL EDMONDS AND THE VARIETIES OF TREASON

"Sometimes the things we have to do are objectionable in the eyes of others."
~ Richard Perle.

Luke Ryland adds to the discussion begun here in July, on the varieties of treason, looking at Richard Perle's involvement in a consortium of Kazakhistani and South Kurdistani oil. One interesting item to note is that the Prince of Darkness denied involvement in Doug Feith's lobbying company, International Advisors, Inc.(IAI). At the time, Feith was a registered foreign agent representing Turkey in matters having to do with "U.S.-Turkey defense industrial cooperation."

The time frame for IAI's existence coincided with the period leading up to the "Clean Break" strategy:

In 1996, a group of American neoconservatives participated in a study group organized by the Israel-based Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies. The group produced a paper entitled "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm," which advocated an ambitious set of policies aimed at ensuring Israel's security. Although originally directed at Israel's then-incoming Likud government led by Benjamin Netanyahu, the ideas discussed in the paper parallel to a remarkable degree U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East, which has resulted in disastrous consequences for American interests in and out of the region. It's time for the Bush administration to make a clean break with this flawed strategy and to implement a new policy that promotes peace and security in the Middle East.

Members of the "Clean Break" study group included Douglas Feith, Richard Perle, David Wurmser, Meyrav Wurmser, and several other like-minded ideologues, many of whom would later be given posts in the administration of President George W. Bush. Among the paper's more salient points was the argument that "Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq-an important objective in its own right-as a means of foiling Syria's regional ambitions." The authors also encouraged Israel to seize the initiative on its northern borders, "engaging Hezbollah, Syria, and Iran as the principal agents of aggression in Lebanon." If striking military targets in Lebanon proved insufficient, Israel should feel free to strike at "select targets in Syria proper." To justify the new policy, Israel was counseled to remind the world that "Syria repeatedly breaks its word" (emphasis in the original). Finally, the paper considered it "both natural and moral" for Israel to abandon the idea of a "comprehensive peace," move to contain Syria, draw attention to Syria's weapons programs, and reject "land for peace" deals on the Golan Heights.

Feith went on to become the number three civilian in the Department of Defense under Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz. Perle served as an assistant secretary of defense from 1981 to 1987, during which time he made himself conspicuous by his willingness to accept bribes and involve himself in conflicts of interest. From 2001 to 2003, Perle served as the chairman of the Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee. The Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee is supposed to:

. . . serve the public interest by providing the Secretary of Defense, Deputy Secretary and Under Secretary for Policy with independent, informed advice and opinion concerning major matters of defense policy. It will focus upon long-term, enduring issues central to strategic planning for the Department of Defense and will be responsible for research and analysis of topics, long or short range, addressed to it by the Secretary of Defense, Deputy Secretary and Under Secretary for Policy.

Conflict of interest appears to be Perle's middle name. No wonder that Perle distances himself from his business deals which, coincidentally--or not--benefit from the foreign policies that he's involved with pushing on the rest of the world. That is known as a conflict of interest.

Perle is consistent because, as with IAI, so now with Perle's business dealings in the Kazakhstani/South Kurdistani oil consortium. Perle denies any involvement with a business deal that sets him up to benefit from the very foreign policies he has been instrumental in implementing.

Now, I'll let Luke Ryland tell the rest of the story:

************

In 1989, the Wall Street Journal reported that Richard Perle and Douglas Feith had set up a lobbying company called International Advisors Inc [IAI] to lobby for "appropriation of U.S. military and economic assistance’ to Turkey."" When news of the $600,000 per annum contract got too hot to handle, Perle and Feith folded IAI and helped establish the American Turkish Council (ATC) to accomplish the same goals, but with a more respectable veneer.

Now, nineteen years later, the Wall Street Journal is reporting that Richard Perle is "exploring going into the oil business in Iraq and Kazakhstan" with a "consortium founded by Turkish company AK Group International... Potential backers include two Turkish companies as well as Kazakhstan."

Richard Perle issued a strange-sounding denial to the Wall Street Journal that he is involved with these latest oil projects, although he also issued a similarly "bizarre" denial to the 1989 WSJ article which reported on his consulting company IAI.

The WSJ continues:


"AK's chief executive is Aydan Kodaloglu, who, like Mr. Perle, has been involved with the American Turkish Council, an advocacy group in Washington."


In fact, according to her bio on the AK Group website, Kodaloglu "serves as a Board Member of the American Turkish Council." The ATC, established by Perle et al as a "sister organization" to AIPAC, was often caught on wiretaps heard by former FBI translator Sibel Edmonds. She described the ATC as a "front for criminal activity."

The ATC has been under surveillance by both the FBI and the CIA since at least 1996, in part because of suspected involvement in drug trafficking, public corruption and involvement in a nuclear black market procurement ring, but more importantly because of involvement in the 'great game' of the vast energy fields in Central Asia including Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan.

Investigative journalist John Stanton has written extensively about the connections between Central Asia and many of the 'associations' in the US, including the ATC, and others such as the American Azerbaijan Chamber of Commerce (AACC) and the US Kazakhstan Business Association (UKBA). Stanton argues that:


"While the ATC is an Association in name and in charter, the reality is that it and other affiliated Associations are the US government." (emphasis in original)


Perle's partner in this enterprise, the AK Group is an "international consulting" group whose two other directors are Murat Akay who works "Turkish companies interested in establishing joint ventures with U.S. and Israeli enterprises" and Fehmi Sait Hurol who is "involved in various cultural activities and exchange programs between Turkey and the U.S."

Interestingly, Sibel Edmonds has previously referred to "organization(s) supposed to be promoting the cultural affairs of a certain country within another country" as front groups for organized crime networks. Given the connections here, it would not be surprising if Mr Hurol and the AK Group are one such front group.

In my recent article "The Central Asia Islamization Cocktail: Mosques, Madrassas, Heroin & Terrorism" I quoted former FBI translator Sibel Edmonds describing the use of Turkish operatives and front groups to gain "control of Central Asia, particularly the oil and gas wealth, as well as the strategic value of the region." Sibel said:


"This started more than a decade-long illegal, covert operation in Central Asia by a small group in the US intent on furthering the oil industry and the Military Industrial Complex, using Turkish operatives, Saudi partners and Pakistani allies, furthering this objective in the name of Islam.

"This is why I have been saying repeatedly that these illegal covert operations by the Turks and certain US persons dates back to 1996, and involves terrorist activities, narcotics, weapons smuggling and money laundering, converging around the same operations and involving the same actors.

"And I want to emphasize that this is "illegal" because most, if not all, of the funding for these operations is not congressionally approved funding, but it comes from illegal activities.

"And one last thing, take a look at the people in the State Secrets Privilege Gallery on my website and you will see how these individuals can be traced to the following; Turkey, Central Asia, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia - and the activities involving these countries."


Richard Perle is listed in Sibel's State Secrets Privilege Gallery, and now we see him attempting to profit from his ATC connections by entering into an oil deal in Kazakhstan and Iraq, two decades after the WSJ first reported on the early phases of this criminal enterprise.

Meanwhile, the US media is mostly silent on the key issues again. Despite even the most mainstream WSJ reporting on Perle's recent dealings, including the importance of Turkey and the American Turkish Council, the rest of the media is asleep at the wheel, completely ignoring, or whitewashing, these important elements of the story.

Perhaps investigative reporter Joe Lauria said it best last week.


"Centrism is the philosophy of the American media - and that essentially backs the status quo, when you're a centrist, and this game of objectivity that they play is really limited by parameters that you're allowed to ask questions and to investigate and in a sense then you're transmitting these assumptions, and reinforcing every day that the US is really a functioning democracy, not even a representative democracy. And as we know of course there are oligarchic interests that buy off Congress, that puts the person in the Whitehouse that they need..."

************

The original can be read at Luke's place, Let Sibel Edmonds Speak, and at DailyKos

FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF THE GLARINGLY OBVIOUS

"The corporate grip on opinion in the United States is one of the wonders of the Western world. No First World country has ever managed to eliminate so entirely from its media all objectivity — much less dissent. . . Of course, it is possible for any citizen with time to spare, and a canny eye, to work out what is actually going on, but for the many there is not time, and the network news is the only news even though it may not be news at all but only a series of flashing fictions..."
~ Gore Vidal.

In case there was still any doubt in your mind about who the ringmasters really are:

Hidden behind that appearance of objectivity, though, is a Pentagon information apparatus that has used those analysts in a campaign to generate favorable news coverage of the administration’s wartime performance, an examination by The New York Times has found.

The effort, which began with the buildup to the Iraq war and continues to this day, has sought to exploit ideological and military allegiances, and also a powerful financial dynamic: Most of the analysts have ties to military contractors vested in the very war policies they are asked to assess on air.

Those business relationships are hardly ever disclosed to the viewers, and sometimes not even to the networks themselves. But collectively, the men on the plane and several dozen other military analysts represent more than 150 military contractors either as lobbyists, senior executives, board members or consultants. The companies include defense heavyweights, but also scores of smaller companies, all part of a vast assemblage of contractors scrambling for hundreds of billions in military business generated by the administration’s war on terror. It is a furious competition, one in which inside information and easy access to senior officials are highly prized.

Records and interviews show how the Bush administration has used its control over access and information in an effort to transform the analysts into a kind of media Trojan horse — an instrument intended to shape terrorism coverage from inside the major TV and radio networks.

[ . . . ]

Though many analysts are paid network consultants, making $500 to $1,000 per appearance, in Pentagon meetings they sometimes spoke as if they were operating behind enemy lines, interviews and transcripts show. Some offered the Pentagon tips on how to outmaneuver the networks, or as one analyst put it to Donald H. Rumsfeld, then the defense secretary, “the Chris Matthewses and the Wolf Blitzers of the world.” Some warned of planned stories or sent the Pentagon copies of their correspondence with network news executives. Many — although certainly not all — faithfully echoed talking points intended to counter critics.

[ . . . ]

Over time, the Pentagon recruited more than 75 retired officers, although some participated only briefly or sporadically. The largest contingent was affiliated with Fox News, followed by NBC and CNN, the other networks with 24-hour cable outlets. But analysts from CBS and ABC were included, too. Some recruits, though not on any network payroll, were influential in other ways — either because they were sought out by radio hosts, or because they often published op-ed articles or were quoted in magazines, Web sites and newspapers. At least nine of them have written op-ed articles for The Times.

The group was heavily represented by men involved in the business of helping companies win military contracts. Several held senior positions with contractors that gave them direct responsibility for winning new Pentagon business. James Marks, a retired Army general and analyst for CNN from 2004 to 2007, pursued military and intelligence contracts as a senior executive with McNeil Technologies. Still others held board positions with military firms that gave them responsibility for government business. General McInerney, the Fox analyst, for example, sits on the boards of several military contractors, including Nortel Government Solutions, a supplier of communication networks.

Several were defense industry lobbyists, such as Dr. McCausland, who works at Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney, a major lobbying firm where he is director of a national security team that represents several military contractors. “We offer clients access to key decision makers,” Dr. McCausland’s team promised on the firm’s Web site.

Dr. McCausland was not the only analyst making this pledge. Another was Joseph W. Ralston, a retired Air Force general. Soon after signing on with CBS, General Ralston was named vice chairman of the Cohen Group, a consulting firm headed by a former defense secretary, William Cohen, himself now a “world affairs” analyst for CNN. “The Cohen Group knows that getting to ‘yes’ in the aerospace and defense market — whether in the United States or abroad — requires that companies have a thorough, up-to-date understanding of the thinking of government decision makers,” the company tells prospective clients on its Web site.

Read it. This is also why both the Washington Post and the LA Times sat on the conflict of interest inherent in the appointment of Lockheed Martin's Joseph Ralston as "PKK coordinator". Then there was this, from Playboy:

[Robert J.] Stevens has boasted that Lockheed Martin not only creates the technology, it makes military policy as well. He told The New York Times in November of 2004 that Lockheed stands at "the intersection of policy and technology," which, he observed, "is really a very interesting place to be. We are deployed, entirely in developing daunting technology" that "requires thinking through the policy dimensions of national security as well as technology." He acknowledges "this is not a business where in the purest economical sense there's a broad market of supply and demand."

If there's not a "broad market of supply and demand," for your product, then what's a good capitalist to do? Create a market:

The Pentagon is paying Lockheed Martin to try to predict insurgencies and civil unrest like the weather. It's part of a larger military effort to blend forecasting software with social science that has some counterinsurgency experts cringing.

Lockheed recently won a $1.3 million, 15-month contract from the Defense Department to help develop the "Integrated Crises Early Warning System, or ICEWS. The program will "let military commanders anticipate and respond to worldwide political crises and predict events of interest and stability of countries of interest with greater than 80 percent accuracy," the company claims. "Rebellions, insurgencies, ethnic/religious violence, civil war, and major economic crises" will all be predictable. So will "combinations of strategies, tactics, and resources to mitigate [against those] instabilities."

Watch for a lot more false flag operations in the future.

In case you missed it, last month at Wired, there was a short report on a Pentagon study to "recruit or hire bloggers":

A study, written for U.S. Special Operations Command, suggested "clandestinely recruiting or hiring prominent bloggers."

Since the start of the Iraq war, there's been a raucous debate in military circles over how to handle blogs -- and the servicemembers who want to keep them. One faction sees blogs as security risks, and a collective waste of troops' time. The other (which includes top officers, like Gen. David Petraeus and Lt. Gen. William Caldwell) considers blogs to be a valuable source of information, and a way for ordinary troops to shape opinions, both at home and abroad.

This 2006 report for the Joint Special Operations University, "Blogs and Military Information Strategy," offers a third approach -- co-opting bloggers, or even putting them on the payroll. "Hiring a block of bloggers to verbally attack a specific person or promote a specific message may be worth considering," write the report's co-authors, James Kinniburgh and Dororthy Denning.

Lt. Commander Marc Boyd, a U.S. Special Operations Command spokesman, says the report was merely an academic exercise. "The comments are not 'actionable', merely thought provoking," he tells Danger Room. "The views expressed in the article publication are entirely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views, policy or position of the U.S. Government, Department of Defense, USSOCOM [Special Operations Command], or the Joint Special Operations University."

In light of the glaringly obvious, whole-hearted co-opting of the mainstream media with the Pentagon's Propaganda Plan, it's impossible to accept US Special Ops Command comments that the idea of recruiting bloggers as merely a "thought-provoking" academic exercise.

BLACKWATER, COFER BLACK, AND ANOTHER CONFLICT OF INTEREST

"But the flip side of it is you also have guys who are just straight-up thugs who go over there—they’re soldiers of fortune, you know, they’re making six, seven times what a regular U.S. soldier is making. They have much better equipment, much better body armor and they’re simply in it for a buck."
~ Jeremy Scahill on Blackwater USA.

Interesting addenda to the recent Blackwater atrocity:


MediaMatters rightly points out that several major US media have not made so much as a squeak about Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney's ties to Blackwater:

The CNN.com article, as well as reports by the Los Angeles Times, The New York Times, the Associated Press, and an additional segment during a later hour of CNN Newsroom, all failed to note the reported connection between Romney and Blackwater USA. On September 13, The Boston Globe reported that Romney "tapped" Black, "a former CIA official, who is now a top officer in a private security firm with widespread operations in Iraq, to head his counterterrorism policy advisory group."

From the Boston Globe article linked at MediaMatters:

Mitt Romney today tapped a former CIA official, who is now a top officer in a private security firm with widespread operations in Iraq, to head his counterterrorism policy advisory group.

Cofer Black, who also served as a top State Department counter-terrorism official, is now chairman of Total Intelligence Solutions and vice-chairman of Blackwater USA. That firm came to public attention in 2004, when four employees were ambushed, killed, and mutilated in Fallujah.

MediaMatters further notes that TIME only mentions the Romney-Blackwater connection on a blog on its website. The MoJoBlog included the information early yesterday.

Remember, a vote for Romney is a vote for Blackwater!


Wired's national security blog had a very enlightening post on Blackwater by a guy who's really dug into the question of the use of mercenary forces, P.W. Singer, and Jeremy Scahill, author of Blackwater: The Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army, was interviewed on CNN International for his take on the recent Blackwater atrocities. The interview can be viewed at Crooks and Liars.

The award for the biggest outright lie about the freaks at Blackwater comes from NROnline. Check this:

[T]he American military bureaucracy could learn a lot from Blackwater. Unlike the Pentagon, Blackwater has thought carefully since 2003 about how best to equip and protect its employees in the specific environment of Iraq, and has acted swiftly to buy appropriate vehicles, aircraft and weapons.

Now this makes one want to ask whether or not the author of that propaganda, Jonathan Foreman, is simply a very bad propagandist or if he's just an outright liar because Blackwater, as everyone ought to remember, sent its employees into Fallujah on 31 March, 2004 short the needed number of personnel with the needed amount of equipment. Hell, they didn't even have the proper maps.

After the families of the Blackwater victims brought a lawsuit against the company, Blackwater turned right around and sued the families. Maybe someone can explain to me exactly how those facts square with Foreman's trash talk about Blackwater thinking "carefully since 2003 about how best to equip and protect its employees in the specific environment of Iraq, and has acted swiftly to buy appropriate vehicles, aircraft and weapons."

I wonder if Cofer Black's previous relationship with the State Department had anything to do with Blackwater? I wonder if that might be another dirty little conflict of interest deal of which the State Department is so fond of? Kind of like State's cosy little appointment of Lockheed Martin director, ATC advisory board member, and The Cohen Group lobbyist, Joseph Ralston? From The Nation:

Government records recently obtained by The Nation reveal that the Bush Administration has paid Blackwater more than $320 million since June 2004 to provide "diplomatic security" services globally. The massive contract is the largest known to have been awarded to Blackwater to date and reveals how the Administration has elevated a once-fledgling security firm into a major profiteer in the "war on terror."

Blackwater's highly lucrative "diplomatic security" contract was officially awarded under the State Department's little-known Worldwide Personal Protective Service (WPPS) program, described in State Department documents as a government initiative to protect US officials as well as "certain foreign government high level officials whenever the need arises."

Oh, yeah. Smells like conflict of interest to me.

You gotta know Blackwater and the US Department of State aren't going to do squat for the Iraqis they've murdered. In the meantime, the Iraqi government now says it may back down on the ban of Blackwater, so I guess if you're ordinary folks and not a member of the ruling elites, or their SS-style protectors, you're just plain screwed.

IT'S ALL ABOUT FOREIGN POLICY

"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."
~ Mohandas K. Gandhi.

The most interesting thing to happen for many years in US politics. In decades, even. Maybe even in a century or two:

"The American people didn't go in. A few people advising this administration, a small number of people called the "neoconservatives" hijacked our foreign policy. They're responsible, not the American people. They're not responsible; we shouldn't punish them."

Well, actually, the American people have abdicated their civic responsibilities, so they are responsible. The media is also responsible, as the jackass Chris Wallace proves by his stupid comment about al-Q.

Ask yourself something: Which family of the American ruling elite has been very, very close to the bin Laden family for many, many years? Who is it that is a CIA asset from during the Afghan/Soviet war?

Wallace also acted as shill for the administration with his BS about bloodbath (like there's no bloodbath now) or about Iraqis that have assisted the Americans (like the US has welcomed Iraqi refugees with wide open arms). Those are all red herrings.

I suspect the hyena that's laughing throughout the debate is Giuliani the Freak.

"When we make a mistake it is the obligation of the people through their representatives to correct the mistake. No, we've dug a hole for ourselves and we've dug a hole for our party we're losing elections and we're going down next year if we don't change it. And it has all to do with foreign policy and we have to wake up to this fact."

Yes, foreign policy is the issue. It's all about foreign policy, so I'd like to know Ron Paul's position on the military-congressional-industrial complex, weapons give-aways (since the American taxpayer subsidizes weapons sales, the term is a huge misnomer) to genocidal and dictatorial regimes, and American participation in the Deep State.

Bush's arming of dangerous regimes and Dick Cheney's KBR-Halliburton war-profiteering are two examples of the foreign policy problem that the US must "wake up to".

Regarding honor, Governor Huckabee: You can't lose what you've never had.
There's more on this debate at Britain's Guardian.

Who won the debate on Rupert Murdoch's neoconservative channel?





Maybe it will be an interesting election year.

IN THE SPIRIT OF REVOLUTION AND UPRISING

"Single acts of tyranny may be ascribed to the accidental opinion of a day; but a series of oppressions, begun at a distinguished period and pursued unalterably through every change of ministers, too plainly prove a deliberate, systematic plan of reducing [a people] to slavery."
~ Thomas Jefferson.

Something on the MIC for you to think about on the 4th. Remember, where there's the MIC, there's the Deep State.

When will the American people rise up against these vermin? They have taken honorable values like democracy, liberty, and truth, have trampled them in the mud and perverted them into Newspeak for the service of their own power and greed.

Remember, Thomas Jefferson also said that every generation needs a new revolution.

WHY WE FIGHT.

For more on the documentary Why We Fight, visit the website.

A NEW DEFINITION OF FREEDOM

"The mantra, soon to be repeated in speech after speech by President Bush and his subordinates in the buildup to war was that his administration would be "trading in freedom." "Free trade" and "free markets" were synonymous with "freedom," and the United States was willing to implement this theory with military force. It was pure imperialism, which the advocates of the Bush Agenda had been waiting for decades to implement."
~ Antonia Juhasz, The Bush Agenda.

Lately I've had numerous conversations with friends about the real meaning of America's spreading of democracy throughout the world, and particularly now, in the Middle East. As events have unfolded over the last several months, it has become painfully clear to us that the US uses the idea of spreading democracy as the sugar-coating on its bitter pill of global warmongering-for-profit.

As regards the situation of the Kurdish people, this warmongering-for-profit has had a devastating effect for decades, resulting in the murders of hundreds of thousands of Kurds by such American allies as Saddam Hussein and the Turkish regime. Warmongering-for-profit is the sole reason why the US has rejected the PKK ceasefire and its proposal for a democratic resolution to the Kurdish situation under Turkish occupation.. Warmongering-for-profit is the sole reason why Saddam Hussein was executed for the murders of 148 Shi'a, instead of for the murders of 182,000 Kurds during Anfal. Warmongering-for-profit is the reason why the US is attempting to create further destabilization in "Iraq," by violating Kurdish territory in order to manufacture a crisis with Iran.

There are very few who actually benefit by this means, although there are many who are brainwashed into believing the marketing campaign which holds that the US only acts for the purposes of "spreading democracy," "creating regional stability," "liberating populations from dictators," or "furthering human rights." The few who benefit are leaders in the American corporate world and the American government. The people of the world, including Americans, are the ones who suffer for the benefit of these corporate and governmental parasites.

With yesterday's post about Lockheed Martin's warmongering-for-profit in mind, and remembering the role that Lockheed Martin is now playing in the continuation of Turkey's genocide of Kurds, there is a related BuzzFlash interview with Antonia Juhasz at Working for Change:

BuzzFlash: You believe our foreign policy is driven by economic interests, not spreading freedom, even though, as a public relations tool, the United States says we’re trying to fight for freedom or spread freedom. As I understand your argument, the rhetoric of freedom is a nice tool to justify foreign policy.

Antonia Juhasz: Right. As many administrations have done before him, the Bush Administration uses the word "freedom" as a master stroke -- a term to encapsulate everything good and warm and fuzzy that Americans like to think that they are about. But in fact, I would say that the Bush Administration is only interested in spreading freedom for U.S. corporate interests and removing barriers to corporate access to countries across the globe. In that way the Bush Administration is following a very standard agenda that other presidents have followed before him.

I argue in the book [The Bush Agenda] that what makes the Bush Administration unique is its fairly unprecedented hybrid of corporate executives running the government. The members of the Bush Administration, including the President, have long histories as corporate executives, as do the leading members of the President’s Cabinet and people throughout the administration. The hybrid of corporate and government executives also makes the Administration’s view of the government as simply an extended arm of U.S. corporate interests. What makes the Bush Administration unique beyond that is its willingness to overtly use the U.S. military to advance those interests.

[ . . . ]

. . . [W]hat I’m arguing is people throughout the world witnessing and experiencing U.S. policy -- economic, political and military -- is seen quite clearly as solely advancing the interests of the United States, and it creates anger and hostility.

. . . [E]conomic policies are witnessed by people and experienced by people around the world as tools of imperialism. Just as the presence of U.S. forces in Saudi Arabia is witnessed as a tool of imperialism, so is the occupation of Iraq. There’s a distinction that I’m making which is not, as I said, that poverty breeds terrorism, but rather imperial economic policies breed terrorism.

[ . . . ]

I believe that the scale of the [Iraq] invasion is unique because the economic goal is so much more profound in Iraq.

U.S. oil companies and U.S. administrations have wanted their hands on some of the world’s largest reserves of oil in Iraq for decades. Now, however, the war in Iraq has successfully altered and overturned Iraq’s economic infrastructure. I certainly believe that is the heart of this Administration’s agenda in Iraq, and this Administration’s agenda in the Middle East.

[ . . . ]

. . . [T]here are many definitions of "intervene." And there are many ways to be a good liberal or progressive and seek resolution of atrocities around the world that have nothing to do with military invasion or occupations. There are options that have everything to do with international negotiation, international pressure, international legal means of influencing other governments, and governments that are acting outside of the realm of accepted legal norms, which is what is happening in the Sudan.

Read the entire interview at the link above, and take a look at Antonia's book, The Bush Agenda. It's currently available as a hardback copy, but will be available as a paperback, according to Amazon, in May.

There are more interviews with Antonia Juhasz at her website.

Warmongering-for-profit is another reason why Kurdish forces--regardless of whether they are pêşmerge or Kurdish Iraqi Army units--should not go to Baghdad. There's more, from the LA Times:

Most of the fighting in Iraq is between Shiite and Sunni Arabs, but Kurds, most of whom are Sunni Muslims, fear that could change if they are seen as players in the country's main struggle.

"I don't think it's wise," said Mahmoud Othman, a Kurdish lawmaker in Baghdad. "This is a Sunni-Shiite conflict."

Most Kurdish troops are not acquainted with Baghdad, many speak neither Arabic nor English, and their participation could create an even deeper conflict between Kurds and Arabs, he said.

[ . . . ]

The idea of using Kurdish troops to quell violence in both Shiite and Sunni neighborhoods of Baghdad originated in backroom talks among the country's main power brokers. With a chance to live their dream of autonomy, Kurdish lawmakers were extremely reluctant to take part in the plan. But Iraqi officials as well as U.S. military and political officials argued that if they failed to participate, it would show their lack of commitment to the nation.

Word of the planned deployment took Kurds by surprise. In their small but prospering northern enclave, they shook their heads over the prospect of getting involved in a conflict that has bedeviled the most powerful army on Earth.

"If America and the Arabs aren't able to stop Sunnis and Shiites from killing each other indiscriminately, then what use will it be to send in our forces?" asked one Kurd in an online forum.

"We do not need to have our young men getting killed in a civil war between Sunnis and Shiites," read another posting. "They are both our enemies."

"[C]reat[ing] an even deeper conflict" is the entire purpose of sending Kurds to Baghdad, because a deeper conflict equals greater profits for US corporate interests. Furthermore, why doesn't someone stand up to these Arabs, and their American allies, and tell them point-blank that Kurds are not part of the Arab Nation, never have been, never will be, and that no, in fact, we don't have any commitment to their nation? It is a very simple thing to do.

Avoiding a "deeper conflict," making the world safer, and winning the war are not the points, as noted in Le Monde Diplomatique:

We know that militarily counterproductive tactics in civil wars may also bring political benefits: the continued existence of a reviled enemy — Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, Revolutionary United Front in Sierra Leone, interahamwe militia or Chechen terrorist/rebel — may help to justify the suppression of democratic freedoms and free speech. President Putin has tightened his control of NGOs in Russia in the name of defeating terrorism and subversion. Maintaining the enemy can be even more useful than defeating it.

In the global war on terror, too, making money has been a key aim. US interest in Afghanistan is inseparable from the oil and gas fields of the Caspian, just as US interest in Iraq is linked to the oil. Beyond that, fresh legitimacy has to be found for the vast US military-industrial infrastructure that burgeoned during the cold war (another profitable war in which the enemy was rarely directly engaged). The demon-du-jour has been redefined as fundamentalism, rogue states, drugs, narcoterrorists, al-Qaida, Hizbullah. The terrorist remains elusive but the targets for retaliation — Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran or Lebanon, Iran — are readily found on a map.

As Le Monde Diplomatique cites the Iraq War as a diversion from the war in Afghanistan in order to "maintain the appearance of winning," we should ask if the recent operations in Somalia, and the raid in Hewlêr are meant to create diversions to "maintain the appearance of winning" in Iraq? The raid in Hewlêr was an insult to the people of the only stable region in Iraq, although the intended target was not the Kurdish people per se. But by attempting to create a new diversion in South Kurdistan, the US indicates its eagerness to betray the Kurdish people yet again, for its corporate interests. The intended target of the Hewlêr was Iran. More from Le Monde Diplomatique:

That brings us to Iran. A recent Time magazine report highlighted reasons why the US might be expected to “reap a whirlwind” from attacking Iran: the likelihood that Iran would retaliate by fomenting terrorism, inciting Hizbullah, creating mayhem in Afghanistan and Iraq, and blocking oil from movement through the Persian Gulf. The feature added fatalistically: “From the State Department to the White House to the highest reaches of the military command, there is a growing sense that a showdown — over its suspected quest for nuclear weapons, its threats against Israel and its bid for dominance of the world’s richest oil region — may be impossible to avoid” (3). The message is that no one wants war, but it is coming anyway. We are invited to re-experience the sense of ominous inevitability that preceded the attack on Iraq.

Are we really so in love with destruction, so fond of our favourite nightmares that we cannot hold back from actions that we know will be self-defeating?

Are the Southern Kurdish leaders really so in love with destruction that they will proceed with the self-defeating program of sending Kurds to die in Baghdad for American corporate interests? Of course, just to make sure that this whole plan will become a major screw-up, let's not forget who's going to be in charge of the US military for the upcoming disaster. It will be none other than General Petraeus. As the Wall Street Journal softens up its readers to expect great things, a close reading should properly fill one with dread:

In 2004, a similar but broader effort at integration between U.S. and Iraqi forces was planned in Anbar province by Marine Maj. Gen. James Mattis. The Mattis plan is summarized in the middle of the Army's new Counterinsurgency Manual, released just last month. The manual's drafting was overseen by Gen. David Petraeus, who will now direct the U.S. military effort in the neighborhoods of Baghdad. It's not a coincidence. The manual describes in detail the purpose, theory, tactics and problems (including spikes in violence and casualties) likely to emerge during the new counterinsurgency strategy.

[ . . . ]

Whether the U.S. should have done this back when Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and his foreign suicide bombers emerged is a legitimate question. The point is this: The Iraq violence has not been running like an untended open hydrant. Some of our best and brightest have been thinking hard about how to shut the valve. Last month AEI released a plan reflecting similar counterinsurgency ideas by military specialist Fred Kagan and the Army's former vice chief of staff, Gen. Jack Keane.

The neocons at AEI are the ones who were behind this mess since before Day 1, and now the WSJ is saying that their plan is similar to the one in Petraeus' new counterinsurgency manual? Yikes! They should send Lockheed Martin's Board of Directors to Baghdad, and let them be supported in combat by a selection of Lockheed stockholders, and together they can end the Arab civil war. After all, it's about time that these parasites actually worked for their money instead of simply sucking their profits out of the blood of their victims. By the way, the Mehdi Army has already figured out how to deal with the "counterinsurgency".

Friday, there was another development in the case of Dr. Kristiina Koivunen's deportation from Turkey, from Helsingin Sanomat:

The Finnish Embassy in the Turkish capital Ankara has sent the Turkish Ministry for Foreign Affairs a sharply-worded diplomatic note concerning the arrest and inappropriate treatment of Finnish Kurdistan expert Kristiina Koivunen.

In the note, Finland protests the ban on entering the country that was imposed on Koivunen, and notes that the decision was not presented to her in writing, as required by international practice.

The Finnish Ministry for Foreign Affairs says that Koivunen should have been notified of the ban when she was entering the country, and not when she was already in Turkey.

Koivunen was also not given her deportation order in writing. Instead, she was flown out of the country on her own plane ticket, and not at the expense of the country from which she was being expelled.

Koivunen was arrested in mid-December in the Kurdish region of Turkey, where she was collecting material for a book on Kurdistan. Koivunen, who had written her doctoral thesis on Kurdistan, has published two other books on the region.

Somebody should tell the Finnish government that, when dealing with a Mickey Mouse country like Turkey, don't expect proper diplomatic or political procedures when they decide to deport one of your citizens. Besides, the Ankara regime rarely does anything for genuine purposes unless it has to do with genociding Kurds. Everything else is done for show because no one really lives in Turkey; they are just actors in a play. Hence the deportation of Dr. Kristiina was an act, designed to humiliate her and Finland. The problem is that such actions backfire because they underscore the fascism of the Turkish state.

Finally, Şîrvan at Kirmaşan has more on fuel cuts in Iranian-occupied Kurdistan. This is a very serious problem because, as the Amed Municipality website reports, this is the worst winter for the region in 77 years.

THE WAR ON TERROR, INC.

“Treason is like diamonds; there is nothing to be made by the small trader”
~ Douglas Jerrold.

On Friday, January 5, Joseph Ralston was the guest speaker at a meeting of the World Affairs Council in Anchorage, Alaska. There's a short report on the luncheon, by Nancy B. King:

I thoroughly enjoyed General Ralston's presentation. He's a good speaker. As Special Envoy to Turkey it is his task to work with Turkey and the Kurds to get Turkey to be less hostile to the Kurds and to try to get the small minority of Kurds to quit making terrorists forays from northern Iraq into Turkey. (The Kurds also make terrorists forays into Iran.) The Kurds want to create a Kurdish country by annexing the Kurd part of Iraq, Iran, and Turkey. Turkey is totally uninterested in this idea. General Ralston is trying to get the Kurdish government to squelch the terrorists. He thinks that if the Kurds are unwilling or unsuccessful in stopping their terrorists from going into Turkey, that by later this spring Turkey will invade northern Iraq to stop it.

The analogy that Ralston used was how would we feel if a band of terrorists kept regularly coming across the border from Mexico with car bombs, etc, and the Mexican government did nothing about it.

The analogy would be appropriate if the US were engaged in genocide of the Mexican people, and if the US had, I would support the Mexican people in their struggle for their right to life and dignity. I guess Ralston didn't mention that the US had been talking to PKK's eastern wing, PJAK, because the US would love nothing more at this moment than to make "terrorist forays" into Iran. That's what the raid in Hewlêr was all about.

Later, on the night of January 5, Rastî received a comment on this post, from Anchorage:

Gen. Joseph Ralston addressed a group here in Anchorage, Alaska today. He clearly was uncomfortable addressing the conflict as a member of the Lockheed Martin board of directors. We did not even address the issue of his status as a registered lobbyist for Lockheed Martin as part of the Cohen Group.

Gen. Ralston may indeed bring a positive force to the whole PKK issue...which appears at first blush to be a lose-lose situation. But the Lockheed connections really cloud the issue.

Here sits Gen. Ralston: Presidential Envoy; registered lobbyist for both the American Turkish Council and Lockheed Martin.

Hmmm. The f-16 deal is a done deal. Next on the dock is a $10 billion purchase of the new Lockheed Martin F-35 JSF aircraft.

hmmm.

Hmm. Yeah, that's a lot of money, isn't it? And money talks.

Joseph Ralston will never be a positive force for the situation of the Kurdish people under Turkish occupation or for their defense force, the PKK, because the American people are not interested in the lives of those thousands of miles away. They are not interested in democracy or human rights, or any of the other advertising gimmicks they use to engage in warfare. And let's be honest, shall we? The September 11 attacks only resulted in the deaths of some 3,000 people, a number that doesn't even register on the genocide scale, nor does it begin to approach the numbers of Kurds who have been slaughtered by America's allies, with American assistance, in the last three decades alone. I won't even venture to guess at the number of survivors who have been brutalized by torture at the hands of America's allies.

Nancy B. King is your average American and has the concerns of the average American. She writes books on how to invest in the stockmarket thinks about "investing in common stocks and living life in an ordinary way." In other words, average Americans don't give a damn about the fact that the returns on their investments is soaked in the blood of the Kurdish people and many others as a result of the War on Terror, Inc.

Think that my complaint is simply the reaction of an old malcontent Marxist, who would be anti-American no matter the situation? Think about the conflict of interest that the Ralston appointment as the "special envoy" to counter the PKK for American client state, Turkey, and then take a look at something written by Richard Cummings, at "Lockheed Stock and Two Smoking Barrels" from Playboy Magazine (sorry guys, the only photo there is of the Lockheed Martin F-35):

In November of 2002, Stephen J. Hadley, deputy national security advisor, asked Bruce Jackson to meet with him in the White House. They met in Hadley's office on the ground floor of the West Wing, not far from the offices of Vice President Dick Cheney and then-National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice. Hadley had an exterior office with windows, an overt indicator of his importance within the West Wing hierarchy.

This was months before Secretary of State Colin Powell would go to the United Nations to make the administration's case for the invasion of Iraq, touting the subsequently discredited evidence of weapons of mass destruction. But according to Jackson, Hadley told him that "they were going to war and were struggling with a rationale" to justify it. Jackson, recalling the meeting, reports that Hadley said they were "still working out" a cause, too, but asked that he, Jackson, "set up something like the Committee on NATO" to come up with a rationale.

Jackson had launched the U.S. Committee on NATO, a nongovernmental pressure group, in 1996 with Hadley on board. The objective of the committee, originally called the U.S. Committee to Expand NATO, was to push for membership in the NATO military alliance for former Soviet bloc countries including Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic.

What Bruce Jackson came up with for Hadley this time, in 2002, was the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq. The mission statement of the committee says it was "formed to promote regional peace, political freedom and international security by replacing the Saddam Hussein regime with a democratic government that respects the rights of the Iraqi people and ceases to threaten the community of nations." The pressure group began pushing for regime change -- that is, military action to remove Hussein -- in the usual Washington ways, lobbying members of congress, working the media and throwing money around. The committee's pitch, or rationale as Hadley would call it, was that Saddam was a monster -- routinely violating human rights -- and a general menace in the Middle East.

"I didn't see the point about WMDs or an Al Queda connection," Jackson says. In his mind the human rights issue was sufficient to justify a war.

Jackson had long been a proponent of unseating Hussein, and the committee dovetailed with his quite real sense of mission. In addition to his role in the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq and the U.S. Committee on NATO, he had also been president of the Project for Transitional Democracies, organized to "accelerate democratic reform" in Eastern Europe.

Still, there is another way to view Jackson's activities. As The New York Times put it in a 1997 article, "at night Bruce Jackson is president of the U.S. Committee to Expand NATO, giving intimate dinners for senators and foreign officials. By day, he is director of strategic planning for Lockheed Martin Corporation, the world's biggest weapons maker."

[ . . . ]

These "blow-dried Republican lobbyists," as one Washington district court judge calls them, wield far more power than most of the elected officials in town. Forget dime-a-dozen congressmen. It's these operatives who get the best tables at the Capital Grille, where the power brokers lunch and sup. The lobbyists have their own lockers there, with personalized nameplates, where they store their vintage wines, ports and whiskies. They dine on the fine aged beef you can see through a window that allows guests to gaze into the refrigerated meat storage area. These people make up the K Street oligarchy that, despite all the vituperative rhetoric in recent years about campaign finance reform and insidious special interests, run Washington.

[ . . . ]

Of course, all the frothing at the mouth about lobbyists, money and special interests can seem from outside the Beltway as much ado about nothing. The government hands out contracts. The beneficiaries or those who want to be beneficiaries buy steak dinners for the officials who hold the purse strings. Big deal. The problem, though, is that, upon closer scrutiny, this is not how the system works. It's actually much more sinister than that, allowing the interests of America to be subverted by the interests of corporate America. As you'll see here, your elected officials did not deliberate on how best to protect their constituents, decide bombing Iraq was the best way and then order some provisions and weapons. On the contrary, this is the story of how Lockheed's interests, as opposed to those of the American citizenry, set the course of U.S. policy after 9/11.

[ . . . ]

By the time the committee [for the Liberation of Iraq] had assembled, they had a number of contacts in the Bush administration -- many of whom also had connections. Bush had appointed Powell A. Moore assistant secretary of defense for legislative affairs serving directly under Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. From 1983 until 1998, when he had become chief of staff to Republican Senator Fred Thompson of Tennessee, Moore was a consultant and vice president for legislative affairs for Lockheed.

Albert Smith, Lockheed's executive vice president for integrated systems and solutions, was appointed to the Defense Science Board. Bush had appointed former Lockheed chief operating officer Peter B. Teets as undersecretary of the Air Force and director of the National Reconnaissance Office, where he made decisions on the acquisition of reconnaissance satellites and space-based elements of missile defense. Former Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta, the only Democrat appointed by Bush to his cabinet, worked for Lockheed, as did Bush's Secretary of the Navy, Gordon England. Haley Barbour, chairman of the Republican National Committee before becoming the governor of Mississippi, worked for a Lockheed lobbying firm. Joe Allbaugh, national campaign manager of the Bush-Cheney ticket and director of FEMA during the first two years of the Bush administration (he appointed his college friend Michael Brown as FEMA's general counsel), was a Lockheed lobbyist for its rapidly growing intelligence division.

Dick Cheney's son-in-law, Philip J. Perry, a registered Lockheed lobbyist who had, while working for a law firm, represented Lockheed with the Department of Homeland Security, had been nominated by Bush to serve as general counsel to the Department of Homeland Security. His wife, Elizabeth Cheney, serves as deputy assistant secretary of state for Middle Eastern affairs.

Vice President Cheney's wife, Lynne, had, until her husband took office, served on the board of Lockheed, receiving deferred compensation in the form of half a million dollars in stock and fees. Even President Bush himself has a Lockheed Martin connection. As governor of Texas, he had attempted to give Lockheed a multimillion-dollar contract to reform the state's welfare system.

Soon after taking office in 2001, Bush had also appointed Lockheed president and CEO Robert J. Stevens to his Commission on the Future of the United States Aerospace Industry. The future of that industry was, of course, in an expanding defense budget, and a war in Iraq wouldn't hurt Lockheed's bottom line.

The article also notes that Lockheed Martin provided the start-up funds for the ultra-conservative The Weekly Standard, and continued its support of that propaganda site by becoming one of its paid advertisers. The Weekly Standard editors, William Kristol and Fred Barnes, are permanent fixtures on FOX News. Stephen Hadley, deputy national security advisor in 2002 and Condoleeza Rice's replacement as national security advisor when she moved into the office of the Secretary of State in 2004; Stephen Hadley, the guy who got the ball rolling for the creation of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, worked for Shea & Gardner, a DC law firm that counted Lockheed Martin among its war contractor clients.

More on Hadley's work for Lockheed at Shea & Gardner, from VoltaireNet.org:

Unknown to the public at large, Stephen Hadley has carried on a brilliant career in the shadow of Brent Scowcroft and Condoleeza Rice. A business lawyer convicted of fraud, he became the lawyer of the largest arms manufacturer in the world, Lockheed Martin. He trained the candidate George W. Bush, wrote up the new nuclear doctrine, prepared the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, supervised new entries into NATO, and sold the invasion of Iraq. Ever faithful, he protected Bush the father from the Irangate scandal and Bush the son from the lies of the Iraq war.

[ . . . ]

As lawyer for Lockheed Martin, Hadley was in contact with the directors of the firm, notably Lyne Cheney (wife of Dick). He became close with Bruce P. Jackson, the vice-president of the firm in charge of conquering new markets. They developed together the US Committee to Expand NATO into which they brought Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz. The Committee steered the entry of the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland in 1999. Then that of Bulgaria, Estonia, Latonia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia. Each time, the leaders of the new member States were solicited to bring their armies up to the norms of NATO, that is to say, to purchase material from Lockheed Martin. The pressure was so strong that certain of them denounced "the racket" into which they were forced.

Obviously, the Committee on NATO was a front for pushing more Lockheed Martin product. Also note at the VoltaireNet article, that Hadley, like new Defense Secretary Robert Gates, is another protege (Read: lapdog) of the American Turkish Council's Brent Scowcroft. Hadley was also the guy behind the claim that Saddam's Iraq had acquired Nigerian yellowcake, again from Richard Cummings:

With the 2002 election over and Democrats increasingly hawkish on Iraq, Bush made his State of the Union address on January 29, 2003, uttering this now famous line: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." The threat of Saddam Hussein was established and the American people bought it. And the person claiming responsibility for leaving that line in was Hadley.

[ . . . ]

Yet when Colin Powell resigned as secretary of state and National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice took his place, Stephen Hadley was promoted to take her position as national security advisor. Hadley's "error" had enabled Bush to go to war, the big payoff for Lockheed Martin.

Cummings' article discusses how Lockheed Martin got the British on board as the other main ally in Iraq--by bailing out a sinking BAE Systems. According to Cummings, this allowed BAE to continue work on the Eurofighter Typhoon, which the Saudis purchased. However, Cummings doesn't go into the situation of Lockheed Martin's Joseph Ralston as the driving force behind the Turkish general staff's choice of the Lockheed Martin F-35, as the exclusive, new generation fighter aircraft for Turkey, overriding the Turkish civilian government's preference for a purchase that would include both the F-35 and the Typhoon. The wider implication here is that Lockheed Martin is meddling in Turkey's EU accession process and the creation of a truly democratic government in Turkey. The proper implementation of the Cophenhagen Criteria would see the ouster, once and for all, of the military dictatorship that has tyrannized the people in Turkey since 1923.

It is Lockheed Martin's Joseph Ralston who is enabling the continued existence of the Turkish military's control of the country. But, just as the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq was closed in 2003 because the "human rights rationale for the war had been abandoned," so the same thing is happening in Turkey. The revolving door between government officials and Lockheed Martin is still operating, thus proving to all of us who it really is that benefits from the "spread of democracy" in the Middle East.

The article closes, thusly:

In March of 2006, Lockheed Martin won the lion's share of a $20 billion contract by the U.S. Army to develop cutting-edge technology to support the Army's "reconnaissance, communications, surveillance and intelligence gathering in combat situations." According to Lockheed spokeswoman Wendy Owen this was a "major victory" for Lockheed Martin, which has been aggressively promoting its systems and information technology divisions, which account for half of its business. It already provides surveillance services for United States ports.

That night, March 16, when the local press announced the $20 billion contract, Cafe Citron, off Dupont Circle, was packed with revelers. Latin music throbbed as they laughed and shouted, partying with abandon, knocking down the drinks. For those in the war business, life is good.

There you have your average Americans, celebrating another deal that will increase Lockheed Martin's stock value. I suppose the idea that all of those involved with Lockheed Martin are guilty of treason and are deserving of a traitor's fate, in addition to their complicity with war crimes and crimes against humanity has never occured to the revellers. I hope that one day, they and their families will find themselves on the receiving end of Lockheed Martin's products, as have so many Kurds in Turkish-occupied Kurdistan.

Ax, March 16 . . . that is a date that anyone worthy of the name "Kurd" recognizes instantly. Does the significance of that date in this context indicate an example of irony or is it a a foretoken of the future?