Moon over Palestine

Buenas Dias companeros, should you have come by here via Alabama's Moon, herzlich willkommen. Since Lespeakeasy was torpedoed by some rotten moron, should you feel like grabbing a chair and hang here till a better site is found, I'd be more than flattered to have your company. Chairs and lounges are meant to be comfy and the fridge is over there next to the slightly worn out turn table on the left and the coffee machine on the right. Grab a coldie or pour yourself a cuppa and share your thoughts.

In case you feel like authoring a post, and let’s face it, this place would certainly benefit from some smart people adding to the scrawny list of posts I managed to accumulate over the past three years, please contact me via my profile below on the left. Once I’ve added your e-mail to the recognised author list you should be able to publish new posts.

In the meantime, as some food for discussion. As you can see from the blogroll, the Palestinian issue is close to my heart. I occassionally donate money to benevolent organisations trying to help the beleaguered and suffering population in Gaza, such as the IRC or the Free Gaza movement. And the latter had its boat, loaded with humanitarian supplies, seized by USraeli forces. Via Uruknet:

Bethlehem - Ma'an - A top United Nations official in a statement on Friday denounced Israel's seizure of a humanitarian aid ship bound for the Gaza Strip earlier this week.

The UN official, Special Rapporteur for human rights in the Palestinian territories Richard Falk, denounced what he called the unlawful naval seizure by an Israeli gunboat on Tuesday.

"This Israeli action implements its cruel blockade of the entire Palestinian population of Gaza, in violation of Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention that prohibits any form of collective punishment directed at an occupied people," Falk said.

The seized vessel was carrying medicine and reconstruction material to the blockaded people of Gaza, and was carrying a Nobel laureate and former US congresswoman when it was seized and towed to the Israeli port city of Ashdod. [...]

"Such a pattern of continuing blockade under these conditions amounts to such a serious violation of the Geneva Conventions as to constitute a continuing crime against humanity," the independent human rights expert added.

In a response to the official's remarks, Israeli Ambassador to the UN in Geneva Aharon Leshno-Yaar attacked Falk, saying he is "known for his bias against Israel and anti-Israel statements," and insisted that Israel is allowing aid into Gaza.

"Clearly the purpose of that ship was to create a buzz and serve as a propaganda vehicle against Israel," he reportedly added, according to Reuters.

The boat in question had been inspected in response to Israeli demands before departure by the port authorities in Cyprus to determine whether there were weapons on board. None were found, and Israeli authorities were so informed, according to the UN official and the Free Gaza Movement, which chartered the vessel.

Nonetheless, the 21 peace activists on the boat were arrested, held in captivity, and have been charged with "illegal entry" to Israel even though they insisted they had no intention of going to Israel. The group included an Irish winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, Mairead Maguire, and a former US congresswoman, Cynthia McKinney. [...]

In all seriousness, and Bernhard alluded to that in his posts, Israel’s behaviour of strangling its Palestinian neighbours into submission is almost on par with Nazi Germany’s Warsaw ghetto, a holding bin until the final solution can be enforced on any survivors. How can we, in full knowledge of whats going down, witness the atrocities dished out to the helpless people of Gaza and not feel like the Good Germans who all knew about the camps but didn’t act to stop their leaders crimes against their fellow humans?

p.s. Annie, should you read this, ever since I found out about your recent trip to Palestine have I been looking forward to reading your impressions of the tour and a first hand view on the situation there.

Greetings

New Year in Gaza, like the old

Seeing that it is still early in 2009, time to write my first post for the year. I know, I know, you've all been missing me badly, but as Benjamin Franklin once said, he that can have patience, can have what he will. Anyhow my esteemed readers, best wishes for the New Year. May this turn around the sun bring you & your loved ones inner peace and all the happiness you can handle.

It is however with sadness that I choose the topic for this year’s opening post, but as I write these lines, sitting at my computer, fully aware that I am witnessing today’s Nazis committing mass murder in our day, I can’t shake the feeling that by joining the line of bloggers expressing their grief about the casualties the Israeli dictatorship is raking up in Palestinian lands, I am wasting my and your time. Neither me writing this post nor you reading it will bring back the hundreds of innocent human lives lost so far in the latest episode of this seemingly never-ending drama. The same accounts for the fade of the survivors.

What a sorry affair this conflict around Palestine/Israel has become. It’s a game of Middle Eastern regional power politics being played, with Palestinian and Israeli civilians the pawns ordained to do the bleeding. Just by looking at the time-span this dispute has been allowed to go on for, we get an indication on how disingenuous and two-faced most parties involved really are.

Hamas, in a sense not unlike the Afghani Taliban, has become the genie that can’t be put back in the bottle. Palestine’s Islamic resistance movement, founded in the late eighties by Sheik Yassin, was initially welcomed if not cultivated and fed by US and Israeli clandestine services and their associated puppet regimes in the region. The idea was to help breed an inter-Palestinian rival to USrael’s public enemy number one at the time, Arafat’s PLO. Divide and conquer, tried, trusted, works every time.

Just like the many Arab dictatorships need Zionist Israel to provide the diversion needed to keep their own citizens under control, does Israel need Hamas and Fatah’s existence, their sporadic suicide bombs and mortar attacks. Without them, without the constant fighting, they’d have no more excuse to continue the illegal land grab they are engaged in, and are getting away with under the cover of war.

Instead of de-escalating the situation, Israel does the exact opposite – confining over a million Palestinian people to a penal ghetto, starving the locked up population of humanitarian aid and life’s basics – and then acts shocked when the ghetto inmates fling low-grade rockets at them, crying crocodiles tears and snivelling about the odd Israeli victim.

Israel is doing what it is for the same reason a dog licks its balls, because it can. They feel an itch and know that no-one cares enough to stop them. Israeli analysts have been studying the Palestinian resistance for more than half a century and by now have surely figured out that any military counter-insurgency measures against an opponent that actually lives in the warzone, is like punching your fist into a bucket of water - the moment you pull it out its back to how it was. My bet is that Israel's strategists know full well that the bloodshed will not bring about the end of Hamas, quite contrary, if anything their current onslaught will increase the groups popularity amongst the huddled up masses in Gaza’s basements. So why, if not to feed the flames, this gruesome Israeli military incursion?

Throughout all of this drama, Palestinians pretty much were, and are now, on their own. Their brothers in Egypt & the Arab league can’t come to the rescue, too convenient is the ever festering status of Palestine for Mubarak and his fellow totalitarian Arab leaders.

European powers, as always displaying no backbone when it comes down to standing up for the oppressed, are no hopers too. Merkel and her unconditional support for the Israeli murder spree is the prime example for what Palestinians can expect from the EU. Hollow words and a few shekels to rebuild the destroyed infrastructure - Israel needs new targets for future bombing raids.

And then there is Obama, already a write off, an AIPAC sleeper who got activated; his chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, who felt himself so obligated that he had to serve his time in the Israeli Oppression Force and whose father it seems was a member of the Jewish terror group Irgun, forget the US admin, bastards the lot of them.

All Obama had to do was come out of his ivory tower and tell the Israeli leadership that if they continue with their atrocious war crimes against defenseless civilians, it will spell the end of any US weapons and logistics support. Not a single bomb would have been dropped on Gaza. He didn't, and hence carries some responsibility for the deaths and injuries inflicted on the Palestinian civilians.

One thing is for sure, and after 40 years of Israel’s continued illegal occupation of Palestinian land one can be fairly certain, the ruling elites across the world will not lift a finger to bring this conflict to an end. They will do what they do best, squabble amongst them in some fancy conference room, only to emerge with a declaration that nothing can be done, calling on both sides to be more friendly to each other. The slow but steady theft of Palestinian land will continue, and so will the suffering.

Should you be so inclined, please contribute to Gaza’s aid.

On wars, banks and love

For years I've been dreaming of going to war with some poor country rich in petroil, you know, making sure there will be enough juice for me and my fleet of cars, but with being stuck in our economic boom times, my work schedule simply didn't allow me to start one up. Now that I finally got to the point in my life where I could take some time off, I find out that I also need shit loads of money. According to latest developments, wars need to be paid for.

Iraq, Afghan wars costing $US3 trillion: experts

With the fifth anniversary of the start of the Iraq war just days away, its cost is becoming clearer.

Ahead of that anniversary, two prominent US economists have come up with a new estimate on the cost to the economy of the wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan. That figure is $US3 trillion ($3.22 trillion)….

The estimated cost so far of Australia's involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan is roughly $3 billion. But Robert Ayson, the director of studies at the Australian National University's Strategic and Defence Studies Centre, says he expects that figure to rise significantly.

Damn, trillions.... thats how many zeros? I'd be mighty surprised should my master card allow me that much. Not with the current global lending crisis anyway, so I guess my war/invasion of target country X has to wait a while, at least until I manage to save up enough dough for a deposit.

I hope you understand that I can't give you exact details about which nation I have in mind. Chances are the country's spies would find out about my invasion plans, their armed forces then propping up their defenses, which would make my job so much harder when its finally time to strike. I can reveal though that it is on an axis of sort, which makes it a very dangerous country.

Lucky here in Australia we had 11 consecutive years of Liberal Party rule, and as every privately schooled kid knows, a Lib government means fat times. So saving up the necessary deposit for my war should be a breeze, with business roaring and interest rates as high as they are. The Australian consumers are loaded, cashed up with real estate equity to a degree that they need to be restraint with rising interest rates. Rivers of honey and milk flowing everywhere.

We don't have no bubble, we won't get no trouble, oh yeah yeah yeah
Let the good times roll, Resources 'R Us
From aluminum to zinc, we got every thing, oh yeah yeah yeah

Wouldn't want to save up for my war chest anywhere else but in Oz, least of all places in the USA. Across the ocean the cogs in the economic wheels are creaking, creating this distinct grinding sound investors dread. It comes therefore as no surprise that Lady Prosperity decided she'll move out for a while.

The other noise thats starting to deafen US Americans is that of chicken coming home to roost. No point in pretending that their dilemma isn't home made, pissing against the wind requires that one changes pants from time to time. In the case of the US this means the entire financial system needs a new outfit, probably even a nappy change.

From riches to rags, the ol' classic. Once the most affluent nation in the known universe, today a banana republic where the Federal Reserve Bank has to resort to having helicopters hovering above Wall Street dropping cash on the nearly bankrupt. Providing massive loans to troubled financial institutions in return for nearly worthless mortgage securities.

Economist Professor Steve Keen, from the University of Western Sydney, made the following observations in an interview on the ABC's World Today:

ELEANOR HALL: What's your view? Is the United States already in recession?

STEVE KEEN: I'm sure it's in recession right now. It's a question of how deep it goes down, and I expect an extremely deep recession. And I'm noticing that quite a few commentators are now coming around to their view. They also suspect a severe recession to occur in America, and we have similar forces afoot in Australia.

We are benefiting from the highest terms of trade in our history at the moment. We're simultaneously running an enormous current account deficit, which is really a crazy combination.

So, we're very heavily reliant upon those prices remaining at unprecedented levels, and they will fall if there... actually there'll have to be a fall in those prices if America goes into recession, and then feeds through to China's demand for our resources and so on. That'll be very problematic for our currency and for our economy.

ELEANOR HALL: When will that hit, do you think?

STEVE KEEN: It's got to be in the next two years. Timing that's any more accurately than that is simply impossible because the whole timing depends upon when we turn around from accepting more debt to trying to pay our debt levels down.

Uhh Lordy, if I understand him right then Keen suggests that Australia will face a similar carnage to what the US is experiencing at the moment, all within the next two years. A world wide economic downturn, triggered by the unfolding US economic collapse, will reduce global demand enough to send commodity prices to lows not seen for quite some time, hitting Australia right in the export eye.

But lucky Australian families were smart enough to stash away their hard earned cash during the fat years, handing it over to people they didn't really know, but who have slick haircuts so expensive looking that who ever sported one had to be a financial mastermind. They tend to work in multi-story high rises, the biggest buildings in town, Australian banks and finance companies.

The really smart bank employees, who not just have expensive haircuts but also wear posh suits and swishy shoes, who have proper titles on their office doors, are normally found from the fourth floor up. They need to be high enough above ground to escape the blaring masses, coz when you make difficult financial decisions - like how to invest your clients’ money – you want to be able to concentrate as much as possible.

Those men and women are pedigree financial planners, making sure Australian retirement eggs and people’s savings are safe and sound. Just how secure Australian banks and their investments really are was illustrated in The Australian last week, when Adele Ferguson wrote a noteworthy assessment titled “Gambles in the balance”. Here an excerpt:

All the banks play the derivatives market. The latest Reserve Bank bulletin reveals that the banks' derivative exposure has more than doubled from $5.4 trillion in 2002 to $13.2trillion in December last year. Given the banks' total shareholder value is less than $100 billion, if even 1 per cent of these $13.2trillion derivatives contracts default because third parties get into trouble, the whole shareholder wealth would be wiped out and our banks could be broke.

To put it into perspective, Australia's annual gross domestic product is just more than $1 trillion and the total budget estimate for federal government expenditure in 2006-07 is $200 billion. Remember the Reserve Bank in its quarterly bulletin estimates that the total risk is $140 billion which, again, is more than the banks' total shareholder value.

What do you say to that? The global economy tanking and Australian banks up to their eyeballs exposed to risky debts. Great, a lose/lose situation. With banks leveraged to the degree they are, fat chance of them giving me the credit I need to pull off my planned invasion. On top of that, should the nation's economy really go as pear shaped as the author of the above article assumes it will, I wouldn't even be able to save up the needed deposit. How on earth am I ever meant to pay for my war?

The new Joint Fighter F-35 Lightning II costs around $200 million a piece, and my military adviser told me I need at least three of them. Plus plenty of cash for rockets, guns and bribery. All these figures confuse the hell out of me, so I made an appointment with my accountant.

We met last week in his office and discussed the plans and strategy. He was quite fond of my idea to kick of the invasion with a big bang, followed by more bangs, and promised me he would have a look into the costings of such an operation. Today he e-mailed me an excel spreadsheet with a recommended budget.

Far out brussels sprout, my jaw dropped to knee height when I opened it. The bottom figure, the one that is double underlined, had so many zeros I have to assume it is a trillion. And then, the comedian he is, he left me a footnote telling me that he reckons that with the current liquidity crisis and all I will have a hard time financing my war. As if I wouldn't know.

Where is Prescott Bush when you need him? He'd love to help me out, I am sure.

The times they are a not changing

Hola amigos, wie gehts denn allderweil? It’s been a while so it’s time for another post it seems, and it might as well be about what is on everybody’s lips, the change in the Australian government. So here goes, bottoms up.

Hurray, the king is dead, long live the king.

Let us all rejoice for we are young and free of John Howard. No more Abbot, Andrews and Costello, no more Ruddock, just Rudd. And boy is he a fresh face or what?

Unlike Howard, Rudd plans to keep immigrants locked up in detention camps and is happy to have "seaworthy" refugee boats turned around before they reach Australian waters.

SIEV X all over. According to the SMH it’s a bit like this:

The measures bring Labor broadly into line with the coalition's policies.

"You would turn them back," Mr Rudd said of boats approaching Australia.

He said Labor believed in an orderly immigration system enforced by deterrence.

A Labor government would aim to deter asylum seekers by using the threat of detention and Australia's close ties with Indonesia.

Australia's close ties with Indonesia are indeed a threat. I am not sure about you, but to me that sounds like "we decide who will come to this country" in Mandarin. Following logic, in order for refugees to be deterred from trying to make it to Australian shores the conditions in the camps must be as unwelcoming as possible. Far more unwelcoming than a homeless shelter in Brisbane. Kevin Rudd as quoted in The Age:

He also declared himself passionate about tackling homelessness, after visiting three homeless shelters and spending several hours talking to residents there during the election campaign."I think we can do much, much better as a nation for people who don't have anywhere to stay or anywhere secure to stay," he said...

What a man. So hypocritically compassionate, so very Labor. If the human being who has nowhere save to stay is Australian, we can do so much more for her then provide shelter, if they are Non-Australian and got nowhere save to go, they can piss off. There is no other way says Kevin:

But, asked what was compassionate about turning back refugee boats or incarcerating asylum seekers on Christmas Island, Mr Rudd defended the immigration laws… "You've got to have an orderly migration system. The only way you have an orderly migration system is if you have an enforcement mechanism. What's the alternative? There isn't one," he said…

Lock'em up, the only way!!! Kids 'n all, in concentration camps with aggressive guard dogs waiting for a chance to bite. Reminds me of something else I've seen on 60 year old black and white footage taken in similar set ups. Kevin knows what I am talking about:

Citing the history of the refugee convention, forged after the horrors of the Holocaust during World War II in which millions of European Jews were murdered by the Nazi regime, Mr Rudd said: "This is deeply ingrained in my soul about what's important."

How do you reconcile the two statements? The plight of European Jews ingrained in his soul, but ready to lock up people for trying to flee to a secure country with a decent chance of survival.

Death by neglect. Just remember Kev, you now carry the license to kill. And the scary part is that he seems to have no qualms to use it. Following good old Labor tradition, he promised to snuggle up to the only country in the world openly threatening to use its nuclear arsenal, the mighty USA, but that’s probably because their flag looks a bit like ours and is sporting the ALP colours of red, blue and white.

Let me state unequivocally that America remains an overwhelming force for good in the world. Let me state equally unequivocally that America remains an overwhelming force for strategic stability in the region.

Not a word about how the USA has yet again invaded a foreign country and in no time killed upwards of 100'000 civilians and maimed many more. Not a syllable about how this big friend of ours is instigating military coups across the world, their "water-boarding is not torture" camps. Overwhelming force for good. My arse Kevin.

But then, what do I read, cheng beng in the middle of the new Prime Minister's ALP security policy:

...Australia’s participation in the war in Iraq represents the single greatest failure of national security policy since Vietnam...

How is that possible? The two greatest failures of our security policies were both times the result of following the overwhelming force for good into senseless wars, killing millions. My oh my, Kevin, Kevin, Kevin, your hypocrisy stinks to the heavens mate. An apologist if I've ever seen one.

Any schmonz coming from George Bush is regurgitated and presented as Australia's best interest, see also his stance on Iran:

Iran is now casting a longer shadow over the Persian Gulf and the wider Middle East. Iran’s influence in Iraq itself through the Shia majority adds to the overall picture of strategic destabilisation. And this emboldened Iran (a state which has long supported terrorist organisations like Hezbollah and Hamas) continues with its nuclear activities.

So then Kevin, are Australian troops on stand by to assist the US & Israel in any military actions taken against Iran? In which drawer is the pair of socks?

The Answer as per Robert H. Jackson

Hello people, thanx for stopping by. My last post was end of March, unreal how time seems to fly when you’re having fun. Been overseas on business for a week, moved into a new place, and then 9 days with my daughter Indiana (who turned eight a few weeks back), we had a ball. Can't wait to see her again in July.

Now, what really jolted me back into writing a post was a most interesting thread I've read on Moon of Alabama . It's titled In Favor of Killing American Troops. The gist of the original post is that the more US troops die in Iraq, the quicker the US regime will withdraw its troops. Of course, with the MoA's readership being largely left leaning US American, the ensuing discussion turned into a moral minefield.

How can it be right to wish for the death of US soldiers, who are only in Iraq because they were ordered to, and who, despite mistakes by their political puppeteers, are trying to be the good guys in the scenario.

Is it ethically alright to argue that the way out of the chaos in Iraq is more death and carnage?

As the post’s title clearly shows, the MoA’s author, the in Hamburg living Bernhard, takes the stance that it is. He got mega flak in various of the comments and the blog’s generally pretty united community took this home hitting opinion piece to reveal that when it comes down to it, like if it is desirable to see US soldiers killed to stop Iraq’s invasion, some of their viewpoints are actually worlds apart. Well written and imho quite valid arguments on both sides of the fence.

It really is a hard one. I understand Bernhard’s logic, it’s based on the assumption that the occupation itself is largely to blame for the bloodshed amongst Iraqis. The facts speak for themselves. The invasion of Iraq is a self-perpetuating disaster, brutally initiated and maintained by US forces. Every day since Invasion-day four years ago hundreds of innocent Iraqis had to die needlessly in the clashes, and, so the line of thought goes, the longer the US occupation of Iraq continues the more people will die. Hence, whatever helps to end the occupation is good for the Iraqi people.

And loosing steadily more instead of less US troops means the impact of the sheer numbers of GI’s killed will, as it did in Vietnam, finally ween the 30 or so percent left of the war supporting US public from any support for a continued large scale military presence in Iraq . The hope is that enough public outcry would eventually force the White House to bring the troops home. The more GI’s die in Iraq, the quicker that will happen.

On the other hand - and also quite plausible for people without crystal balls - a withdrawal of US troops could actually turn out to be the shifting from 2^nd to 3^rd on the ride down nightmare alley. Opposing militias and other violent elements could act with even less constraints, unleashing a civil war of unseen proportions, causing more hardship to the general populus than if the US troops were there.

Also, the majority of US voters, some 70% percent of the population is already in the "Bring’em Home"-camp, no more casualties needed to convince them. The remaining 30%, the ones who want to see the troops stay on till Christmas and Easter fall on the same day, are largely hardcore "USA Ueber Alles" punters, and more US deaths might not make a crumb of a difference to them.

And who’s to say that the US government, republican or not, would give in to increased public pressure. I certainly haven’t noticed any such inclination in the Bush/Cheney admin, and the current gang of leading Democrats haven’t shown the guts yet either to use the tools at their disposal to force the WH to start pulling out the troops. Be that Obama or Hillary, the political establishment in the US plans to have troops there for decades to come. The booty of having the finger on Iraq’s oil valves is simply too precious, too important is Iraq as a square on the strategic chess board to withdraw the troops in a hurry.

Now, many of the troops caught up in the Iraq quagmire are probably really nice people, citizens who joined the US, Polish, British or Australian Armed Forces for all the right motives, as in protecting their countries and people etc. However, they find themselves being used by their respective leaders to occupy foreign countries instead, fighting a civilian population. I understand that in many a soldier's case Iraq is not their war of choice, just people doing a job to feed their families back home. Is it right to hope for their deaths?

Hmmm, lets see. What are they guilty of? Lets ask a person with a bit of authority on the subject of war and guilt, Robert H Jackson, Chief United States prosecutor at the Nuremberg Trials 1945:

"We must make clear to the Germans that the wrong for which their fallen leaders are on trial is not that they lost the war, but that they started it. And we must not allow ourselves to be drawn into a trial of the causes of the war, for our position is that no grievances or policies will justify resort to aggressive war. It is utterly renounced and condemned as an instrument of policy."

"If certain acts of violation of treaties are crimes, they are crimes whether the United States does them or whether Germany does them, and we are not prepared to lay down a rule of criminal conduct against others which we would not be willing to have invoked against us." - Nuremberg Tribunal

Aha, according to the rules back then, they are part of a group of people who are committing what can be described as a war crime, the army conducting an aggressive war. The argument that the soldiers are simply following orders is in my eyes only mildly mitigating, they are still the ones committing the crime, the executioners. If you don’t want to be part of it, don’t be!! At least the soldier has a choice and a protective jacket, the many thousands of now dead Iraqis who died at their hands did have neither.

The Secret Carnage.

By SHERWOOD ROSS

An estimated 78,000 Iraqis were killed by U.S. and Coalition air strikes from the start of the war through June of last year, an article in "The Nation" magazine says.

The estimate is based on the supposition that 13 percent of the 601,000 Iraqis who met violent deaths reported by The Lancet study released last October "had been killed by bomb, missile, rocket or cannon up to last June," author Nick Turse writes in the June 11th issue of the weekly magazine...

With their decision to sign up with the military, in other words their expressed willingness to learn how to kill fellow humans as effectively as possible, their implied readiness to leave brains and hearts at the barracks gate, soldiers forfeit the entitlement to sympathy when KIA on foreign soil for no other reason than a decent pay cheque, owing it to the squad and family honour. They were dumb enough to let themselves be made lackeys of people with as little scruples as they can possibly get away with.

So, despite the harshness of it all, soldiers on the aggressor side are fair game. The laws established and applied in Nuremberg made sense then and do so today. Justice Jackson’s definition of war crimes does include what’s going on in Iraq and by inference legitimises the country’s resistance, at least in as much as it targets only occupation forces.

But the armed resistance doesn’t stop there, and that’s where the whole guilty and not guilty thing unravels. Nothing is as clear cut in Iraq.

Many of the same militias and insurgents who fight the occupiers are also engaged in atrocities amongst the civilian population, displaying a cruelty and indifference to innocent civilian lives which compares easily with the US brutality. These monsters also have to be stopped, if not brought to justice. Who’s gonna do that? Maliki’s goons? Blue Helmets? Hardly.

As the occupying force it is the US troops duty to provide security for the occupied nation’s population. Which requires and consequently legitimises their presence.

So, as twisted as it sounds, the resistance to the occupiers is legit, but so is the effort of the US to stop the resistance. How do you solve that one? A cat chasing its tail.

To conclude, imho the US and allied troops are guilty of instigating an armed conflict, causing the death of thousands of innocent people and wounding many thousands more, which by established measures can be classed as a war crime punishable with, depending on the degree of involvement, possibly even death (see Nuremburg). Should a US or allied soldier die in Iraq, he or she had it coming. Do I wish for their death? A slightly wavering No, on the grounds that I don’t wish for the death of anyone who isn’t really a vicious and savagely murderous person, which I don’t belief a great many of the soldiers are, such a blanket approach is idiotic.

I can’t really make up my mind if a complete withdrawal of US troops will benefit the general population. Despite my readings, I am too far removed from Iraq to make a really informed judgment, my prediction being though that the situation in Iraq - the current civil war between the various factions - will not change. It's hard to imagine that it could get much worse.

It is not that the US troops currently provide a great deal of security, if anything it’s the opposite. You don’t want to drive too close to a US army convoy. To an Iraqi hearing an Apache helicopter circling above is probably also not causing feelings of protection. I therefore believe that a withdrawal presents more a chance for the Iraqi people to come together and move forward as it does represent the loss of an effective and well-meaning guard of Iraqi rights and safety.

Naturally, the home coming soldiers should not be prosecuted, just as the ordinary German soldier wasn’t 60 years ago. But also just as 60 years ago, the leaders who orchestrated this war crime should be held accountable by some form of peoples court, maybe not to face the gallows like the Nazis back then, but at least with a decade of having to wear orange jumpsuits while living in a mesh cage the size of a single car garage, and if naughty (like talking without permission) being chained with both hands to the floor for hours on end.

Fat chance though guess, so the best I can realistically hope for is that as few as possible innocent Iraqis will have to pay with their lives the price levied by the parties involved in the process of the country finding its feet. At the same time I do hope that not more than necessary US and allied troopers will die in the time it takes for the WH to recognise the darkness of its decision to stay on, and issue the inevitable order to start with the occupation’s end.

I hope the goodwill left between the waring camps will be enough to allow a return to senses, particularly the one responsible for recognising that fishing for a positive way forward starts with throwing in a line.

Pakistan, Taliban & Iran v. USA

Today, as I was reading my daily dose of blogs, I came across a post by Henry on Crocked Timber , in which he quotes a Financial Times story on Pakistan and the precarious situation the country finds itself in at the moment. Dictating President General Musharraf just dismissed the chief justice of the Supreme Court, Iftikhar Chaudhary, a move which sparked widespread opposition and protests. The reason for his suspension are most likely some of the judge's recent court rulings, which have the potential to turn out uncomfortable for Musharraf. This was a political hatchet job, and the press / people smelled the roast.

The political climate in Pakistan has been shaky at best since General Musharraf's coup 8 years ago, pitching the pro-democracy civilians against the country's military rulers. This article on Asia Times Online tries to analyse the recent history in Pakistan and comes to the following conclusion:

The military establishment faces the choice of clamping down hard on opposition or allowing the protests to run their course.

"There is undoubtedly a political eruption after a prolonged political lull in the country, and if it is sustained it could go a long way. However, there is always a threat from the establishment that it will make some moves to divide the politicians and lawyers," commented retired Lieutenant-General Hamid Gul, a former head of the Inter-Services Intelligence.

"Musharraf created the situation where a clash of the military establishment and civil society seems to be imminent. There is .... anger among the masses towards the present military rulers," Gul said.

Militants feed off such anger, so once again Washington is pondering whether Musharraf may be more the problem than the solution.

From what I can gather, Musharraf has been walking on rather thin ice for quite a while. He was lucky to survive three assassination/coup attempts since taking over in 1999, the last one just recently was foiled and has shown that his own military is infiltrated by Al-Quaida supporters. Which sort of explains why he has no sympathy for them, catch 22 so to say, but demonstrates at the same time his weakness of being undermined from within his own supposed powerbase.

For the last 5 years Musharraf has found himself in a US - Taliban sandwich. It appears that he is trying to hedge his bets both ways.

With the Taliban as his proxy army he is trying to grind of the thorn of an India friendly Kabul. Pakistan is the vital logistics and hardware supplier the Taliban needs to have a fighting chance against the US & Nato forces in Afghanistan (which helps appeasing the Muslim Pakistani population at home). Afghanistan's mujaheddin have been receiving strong support from Pakistan during the Soviet days 20 years ago, an alliance which is still honored and deemed existing in sections of Pakistan's military and religious establishment.

At the same time he must continue to appease the US by giving Al-Quaida as hard a time as possible in its heartland in the Afghan/Pakistani border region. Since the relationships between Al-Quaida and the Taliban aren't as rosy anymore as they used to be, Musharraf seems to think he can solve the conundrum of how to support the force of Muslim guerilla warriors in Afghanistan whilst simultaneously keeping the US happy by fulfilling his role as reliable ally of the US administration's WoT, by sending his own army after their common foe, the Al-Quaida gang.

For instance, the alleged chief operations manager of AQ, who is currently in the news with his astounding admissions of having orchestrated if not even executed most of AQ's terrorist attacks, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, was hunted down and arrested in Pakistan 4 years ago.

Since Pakistan has also a border with Iran, its role as a US ally becomes even more important. With Pakistan being largely Sunni, one would think that not a great deal of sympathy exists between the people of these two countries, but quite contrary, according to this story from Asia Times large portions of the Pakistani population would not support any US attacks on its Shia neighbors. Unlike the man at the helm, General Musharraf, who sees Pakistan in matters Iran firmly on the West's side, in line with other Sunni leaders eg. the House Saud or Mubarak et al.

But Tehran probably has fresh grounds to reassess Musharraf's intentions. Or, it is running out of patience. Last month, terrorists killed 13 officials of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards in Zahedan. Last week, in another incident in the town of Negor in Sistan-Balochistan, four Iranian policemen were killed, one abducted and another wounded. The perpetrators fled across the border into Pakistan.

Iran last week announced its intention to erect a 3-meter-high concrete wall reinforced with steel rods along its border with Pakistan. Islamabad put on a brave face, with the Foreign Ministry maintaining, "The fence is on the Iranian side of the border, and we have no problem with that." But Tehran calculates that the sheer humiliation of being treated as an infectious gangrene by all its neighbors - Afghanistan, India and Iran - should eventually begin to tell on the Musharraf regime...

What I found most interesting though in the above quoted AT article were the the last 4 paragraphs, where the author, M K Bhadrakumar, a former Indian Foreign Service diplomat, is suggesting that the real issue for America in the US-Iran-Pakistan politics triangle is, surprise surprise, natural resources and their distribution, as in pipelines and US access to them:

...there is a sideshow to these happenings that is no less profound. US intelligence operatives must be laughing all the way to Washington that they could manage with such ease what their suave diplomats (and wily Congress members) have had a hard time achieving in recent years - arresting Islamabad and New Delhi from finalizing the $7 billion Iran-Pakistan-India gas-pipeline project. In geopolitical terms, the project holds the definite potential to forge a unified Asian energy market, with deep implications for US energy security.

Washington was increasingly finding it counterproductive to resort to arm-twisting New Delhi and Islamabad into putting the project on the back burner until such time as US-Iran relations were normalized and Washington, too, could dip into Iran's energy reserves.

Now, just as it was becoming clear that the three regional capitals were inching toward finalization of the project at a trilateral meeting in Tehran in June, the high volatility in the security situation in the Iran-Pakistan border region puts question marks on their energy dialogue. To be sure, the pipeline project is predicated on a climate of trust and confidence prevailing among the three parties.

There was much merit in US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's recent fulsome praise that "this has been a stalwart fighter, Pakistan's Musharraf, in this fight". Those in Washington who insinuated that he deserved "an unusually tough message" over the "war on terror" have since hastily beaten a retreat. They didn't know what they were saying.

Should Musharraf be ousted and Pakistan find its way back to a democratic system, the US would probably loose in the medium to long-term an important ally in the region. 90% of todays 165 million Pakistanis are Muslims (20 Shia, 70 Sunni), of whom many would certainly vote for parties which express the anti-western views many muslims hold.

The US can't afford to loose Pakistan's cooperation, thus any US plans to influence events and outcomes there are probably based on the switch module, replacing one dictator with another, one who'll be grateful for any assistance in overthrowing Musharraf. Straight after the motto "He might be a bastard, but he is our bastard."
.