Jaded Sage:

New information is being revealed in regards to America’s war against our true enemy, Al Qaeda. In one of those “The emperor has no clothes” moments, President Bush is apparently fuming from the fact this information has surfaced. It tells the story of President Musharaf cutting deals with the Taliban in the tribal areas of Pakistan, in essence appeasing the terrorists. Also revealed are inter-agency turf battles that left key strategic operations on the planning board. Highlighted in these latest reports is the impact the Iraq War had on the real “war on terror”. Key assets that were required to aggressively go against Al Qaeda and Taliban elements in Pakistan were sent to Iraq. Even CIA operatives were diverted to the Iraq War in the years following 2003. As a result the terrorist organization that was responsible for the death of 3000 US civilians has effectively reconstituted itself several hundred miles from where they planned the 2001 attacks. The following article details the facts of how the current administration has duped the American people into believing we are safer as a result of their leadership and how their use of fear as a reason to be elected is nothing short of a sham. George Bush has done very little since taking office in 2001. The engine of his presidency has been the Iraq War, and as it sucked out all the oxygen from the room, the real threat continues to burn brightly in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

INTERNATIONAL HERALD TRIBUNE

Amid policy disputes, Qaeda grows in Pakistan

By Mark Mazzetti and David Rohde

Monday, June 30, 2008

WASHINGTON: Late last year, top Bush administration officials decided to take a step they had long resisted. They drafted a secret plan to authorize the Pentagon’s Special Operations forces to launch missions into the snow-capped mountains of Pakistan to capture or kill top leaders of Al Qaeda.

Intelligence reports for more than a year had been streaming in about Osama bin Laden’s terror network rebuilding in the Pakistani tribal areas, a problem that had been exacerbated by years of missteps in Washington and the Pakistani capital, Islamabad, sharp policy disagreements, and turf battles between American counterterrorism agencies.

The new plan, outlined in a highly classified Pentagon order, was designed to eliminate some of those battles. And it was meant to pave an easier path into the tribal areas for American commandos, who for years have bristled at what they see as Washington’s risk-averse attitude toward Special Operations missions inside Pakistan. They also argue that catching Bin Laden will come only by capturing some of his senior lieutenants alive.

But more than six months later, the Special Operations forces are still waiting for the green light. The plan has been held up in Washington by the very disagreements it was meant to eliminate. A senior Defense Department official said there was “mounting frustration” in the Pentagon at the continued delay.

After the Sept. 11 attacks, President George W. Bush committed the nation to a “war on terrorism” and made the destruction of Bin Laden’s network the top priority of his presidency. But it is increasingly clear that the Bush administration will leave office with Al Qaeda having successfully relocated its base from Afghanistan to Pakistan’s tribal areas, where it has rebuilt much of its ability to attack from the region and broadcast its messages to militants across the world.

Read More

There is no more diverse state politically than Oregon. Portland is as liberal as any city in the US including San Francisco but if you go east you find yourself next to Idaho and conservatism breathes in these locales. But this election is unique and the winds of change favor Barack Obama. One GOP senator seems to understand the nature of this election and he has hitched his wagon to the Illinois Senator in a new ad.

It is unheard of for a candidate from one party to identify with the nominee from the other party but Oregon Senator Gordon Smith has done just that. His ad shows Senator Obama’s website and also refers to Oregon’s Democratic Governor Ted Kulongoski. The advertisement is intended to show Smith’s ability to be bipartisan but the message is much more than that. The waves sweeping on Oregon’s shores these days are much bluer than in the past and Senator Smith wishes not to drown in the high tide. The impact of this ad may very well work for Senator Smith but he won’t win any friends in his party for running it. But if he indeed wins and the scales tip favorably toward the Democrats in Congress, Senator Smith will be able to put his bipartisan experience to work.

There is another element to this tactic by Senator Smith. There is not a feeling of disdain about either Barack Obama or John McCain. This climate has allowed for the Oregon GOP senator to air his ad. The vitriol that has served as the sword of Damocles the past several decades has been tamped down in this election.  Thankfully, mouthpieces such as Michelle Malkin, Ann Coulter and Michael Moore have been marginalized and with the nature and depth of the problems that the new President must face this can only be a good sign for our country.

An Obamacan is a Republican who supports Barack Obama

Democrat, Republican, Conservative, Liberal, it doesn’t matter. On a day when oil prices rocketed to $140 a barrel based purely on speculation of future oil prices it is time to let your Congressmen know how you feel about this issue. You can guarantee I will be sending out some letters tonight.

From Wall Street Journal’s Marketwatch

Last update: 4:24 p.m. EDT June 23, 2008

Gas could fall to $2 if Congress acts, analysts say

Limiting speculation would push prices to fundamental level, lawmakers told

By Rex Nutting & Michael Kitchen, MarketWatch

WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) — The price of retail gasoline could fall by half, to around $2 a gallon, within 30 days of passage of a law to limit speculation in energy-futures markets, four energy analysts told Congress on Monday.

Testifying to the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Michael Masters of Masters Capital Management said that the price of oil would quickly drop closer to its marginal cost of around $65 to $75 a barrel, about half the current $135.

Fadel Gheit of Oppenheimer & Co., Edward Krapels of Energy Security Analysis and Roger Diwan of PFC Energy Consultants agreed with Masters’ assessment at a hearing on proposed legislation to limit speculation in futures markets.

Read More

There is a wind these days and it is coming straight out of the garbage dump. Everyone reading this has smelled this retched odor. Gas hovers at or above $4.00 a gallon, depending on where you live and what does the right wing do? They exploit the misery. You could smell it coming. Drill ANWR and drill offshore. Even John McCain, Mr. Global Warming, has gotten into the act. The oil companies are making record profits at the expense of the American people and what do these representatives want to do? Hand them their fantasy scenario on a platter. We all know the recent rise in gas prices are not caused by supply and demand but by speculation. Experts claim as much as 70% of current prices are driven by oil speculators.

Hey, if supply was the issue and drilling was the answer then there would be no debate from here. But drilling only extends the debate into the future. This is why the Bush Administration is calling for it. It allows the current prices to continue and allows the oil companies to drill with impunity, a win-win for big oil and a lose-lose for America. It does nothing to change the playing field. The answer is to change the entire nature of energy in this country and then if we need to tweak our oil reserves we do so from strength.

The issue of drilling has become the leading talking point for Republicans. President Bush stuck his head out of the White House today and pressed the issue. All the Right Wing mouthpieces on radio and TV are touting the message and then you have this character. This should show you more than anything how much big oil has its tentacles around the GOP. As Rep. Issa politicizes the death of Tim Russert, this will leave you shaking your head:

History is circuitous. Go back a hundred and ten years and you will find some eerie correlations with modern events.  Most who know their history will tell you the explosion of the USS Maine in Havana Harbor was the cause of the Spanish-American War. To a large extend it was the cause. But ask what caused the ship to explode and the the story gets muddier. The press certainly played a role in stoking the flames of war. William Randolph Hearst is believed to have wired the artist Frederick Remington in Cuba with the line, “You supply the pictures and I’ll supply the war.” Stories of Spanish atrocities there were popular in the “yellow press” of the day. The Cuban revolutionaries were seen in America as later day patriots.

When the US military used the destruction of the USS Maine as a causus belli against Spain, our cause seemed to be just. Not only were we shaking off the remnants of European tyranny in the Western Hemisphere but we were freeing an oppressed people a few short miles from our shore. Cuba Libre! The Spanish were easily routed from the last vestiges of their empire and their colonies became American spoils. The global political climate, however, did not involve altruism for altruism’s sake. Manifest destiny seemed to no longer be bound by the limits of seas and oceans. The Cubans (along with the Filipinos) soon realized that one colonizer had been replaced by another. Though tucked neatly in the Cuban Constitution like a thorn on a rose bush, the Platte Amendment set the stage for a long US commitment in Cuba, one in which the Cubans played a secondary role in ruling their own nation. The results of such heavy handedness are still being felt. A Fidel Castro would never had risen in an independent and democratic Cuba.

In recent weeks we have seen similar vestiges of century old polices reemerge. The Iraqi President Nuri Al-Maliki is currently negotiating a new security policy with the US over America’s long term commitment in Iraq. The current policy, as outlined within the UN, expires at the end of this year and the Iraqis are balking at the idea of an extended US presence in Iraq in its current form. One of the key sticking points is the number of bases that would be allowed to field US troops. Malaki wishes to scale down that number. Another issue is the extra-legality of US and mercenary forces in Iraq. Currently the members of the American military and their support forces are not bound by Iraqi legal jurisdictions. The Iraqis want to see a change in this policy. At odds, also, is the number of US combat troops that will be allowed to remain in Iraq and the free will of their commanders to initiate combat operations without consent of the Iraqi authorities.

On one hand these negotiations are good things. It shows the Iraqis are beginning to exert their political will. On the other hand, the fact the Bush Administration is butting heads with them over these issues leads one to wonder what intentions does the US have for Iraq and what was the real reason why we invaded. There used to be the mantra, “When they stand up, we will stand down.” If the Iraqis are calling for the draw down of US bases and forces, isn’t that what we have hoped for all along? The birth of the new Iraq was so tumultuous. Let’s not botch the end game as well and leave the nation bitter like Cuba in the wake of the Spanish-American War. A strong political will by the Maliki government is a gift and it is time the Bush Administration accepts it.

Death to America! It is the chant that is synonymous with Iran. With Saddam toppled and the North Koreans actively discussing stepping down from their nuclear program the final member of the "Axis of Evil" remains Iran. Their president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has called for the destruction of Israel. This in turn has led to statements out of Tel Aviv that caused a jolt to the markets on Friday. Recently a movie entitled Charlie Wilson’s War told the story of a Congressman who pulled for the arming of the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan during the Soviet invasion. The lessons from this movie tell only half the story.

Lost in all the debate about what to do about Iran is a forgotten component to the history of the region. For this we must go back over half a century. Up through WW II Iran had been controlled by England. Their vast oil assets were managed by the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (despite its name the company paid only a small pittance to the ruling elite of Iran and kept the huge profits in British hands). When Aramco (the Arab American Oil Company) was formed in Saudi Arabia the profits were shared 50-50. Following WW II the Iranian leadership and the multitude of Iranians wished for a similar deal with AIOC. When they were rebuffed by the British a new Iranian leader stepped forward. Mohammed Mossadeq was elected by the Iranian Parliament. Mossedeq was the leader of the Iranian National Front, a liberal, nationalist, social democratic organization that wished to bring democracy to Iran and strengthen itself by nationalizing its oil reserves.  Soon after being elected Prime Minister in 1951 Mossedeq and the Iranian Parliament passed the Oil Nationalization Act. The British protested vehemently, first to the UN and the World Court and then proceeded to pull their technicians out, leaving Iran with lots of oil but no specialists to extract and refine it. After much debate within Britain, they decided to initiate a coup d’etat but the Iranians caught wind of it and expelled all the English diplomatic corps which stopped the coup before it could begin. 1951 turned into 1952 and this was an election year in the US. The Truman administration refused to act alongside Britain. But the new Eisenhower administration was different. The Secretary of State was John Foster Dulles.  Dulles had been a lawyer for large multi-national corporations prior to joining the incoming administration and he was sympathetic to the British and the AIOC’s cause. Though democratic, the Mossadeq government with their oil nationalization program smelled of communism. Dulles (aided by his brother Allen) took on the cause of overthrowing the Iranian government. Code named Ajax, Dulles chose the great grandson of President Teddy Roosevelt, Kermit Roosevelt to initiate the coup. Hatched in the basement of the US embassy in Tehran, the overthrow of a democratic Iran succeeded and the Shah of Iran, Mohammed Reza was installed as the new dictatorship. The Shah of Iran ruled harshly until 1979 when the Islamic Revolution swept through the country led by the aging Ayatollah Khomeini. Among the acts initiated by the supporters of the fanatical religious leader; the takeover of the US embassy. Why? Because these new leaders believed the US would again try to oust the fledgling government from the basement of the embassy just as they did in 1953. The ramifications of Operation Ajax are profound. As the radical government of Iran takes hold in the months following the revolution, Saddam Hussein seizes the opportunity to invade Iran as he views incorrectly a weak oil rich neighbor. The Soviet Union, fearing a spread of radical Islam through their southern republics invaded Afghanistan to begin its halt there before it could infect its own possessions. The decade long war weakened the Soviet Union but in the process the US armed the mujahadeen, the very same militants which would become Al-Qaida and the Taliban. And now we are faced with a government in Iran that is politically hostile to the US and eyes a nuclear program. What would the climate be in the Middle East if we had just kept our grubby little hands to ourselves. Sometimes you must be weary of the unintended consequences. This seems to be a lesson that Americans have a tough time learning.

Last week we saw McCain, Clinton and Obama all speak before AIPAC (American Israeli Public Affairs Committee). As a Presidential candidate, no matter your true feelings about Israel, it is imperative to have the Jewish lobby on your side. It is very similar to the fact you must proclaim to be Christian to be President of the United States (or hold significant office anywhere in the US). So there they were, all three, telling the group before them their intent to protect Israel. Even Obama promised to maintain Jerusalem in Israeli hands, an issue the Palestinians (and all Muslims) have a tough time swallowing. Jerusalem is, after all, the third most holy place in Islam. I have always contended that our marriage with Israel is bad foreign policy. By no means do I believe we should abandon the Jewish nation, but our overt support of the state over the Palestinians makes us less safe. Other than regional intelligence provided by MOSAD (the Israeli version of the CIA) Israel doesn’t offer much in the way of a strategic advantage for our support.

The danger of our commitment can easily be seen with what happened on Friday. Friday was a nexus of events and history that renders it significant. First off Friday was June 6th and for anyone who is worth their salt knows the day has historical relevance. June 6th was D-Day, the date the Allies stormed the beaches of Normandy in 1944 which began the liberation of Western Europe. D-Day is perhaps a pertinent phrase for what happened in terms of the economy yesterday. I’ll let Steely Dan provide some appropriate background music.

Yesterday could be labeled a nouveau Black Friday. Gas prices shot up $10 per barrel on Friday in the wake of a $6 increase the day before as the price topped $138 at the end of trading Friday. This sent the stock market tumbling 400 points. What caused these events?

It was largely caused by a statement that came out of Israel.

Israeli Transport Minister Shaul Mofaz said, "If Iran continues with its program for developing nuclear weapons, we will attack it. The sanctions are ineffective." This statement along with the weakening dollar set Friday in motion.

This leaves us with a couple questions. First, what would be the results of an Israeli attack on Iran? And second, why are we, the most powerful nation on the planet, in a position where a second rate Israeli minister can affect the US economy in such a way?

The best quote of the night came from the brand spanking new Democratic nominee:

John McCain has spent a lot of time talking about trips to Iraq in the last few weeks, but maybe if he spent some time taking trips to the cities and towns that have been hardest hit by this economy—cities in Michigan, and Ohio, and right here in Minnesota—he’d understand the kind of change that people are looking for.

I only wish he would have worked in a rural component to that line since he will need to fight for these voters. He has the urban vote.

As the Democratic race nears its end and the economy takes its rightful place on the front burner of the 2008 Presidential campaign the sights and sounds of Iraq have largely faded from public view. It is a shame because we are seeing dramatic events unfolding there. Violence in that war torn land is way down and Patraeus’ counterintelligence (COIN) strategy which began with the surge in late 2007 is bearing fruit. Al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) exists only in small pockets and even those elements are finding life extremely difficult these days. For the most part AQI has overplayed their hand by murdering Iraqis in an effort to use fear to foment their grip on the nation. They are seen as enemies of the state by both Sunnis and Shias within Iraq.

The huge debacle perpetrated by L. Paul Bremmer at the onset of the occupation, the disbanding of the Iraq military, has largely been reversed and we are seeing more and more Iraqi forces (IA) take the lead in securing areas of Iraq once the domain of either AQI (who have been forced out) or sectarian militias (who have been forced to either lay down their arms or melt away). The most dramatic example of the IA playing a singular role is in Basra, a city near both the Iranian border and along the Persian Gulf. Basra was "seized" by IA troops two months ago and has since secured the city.  At the onset of the war Basra had been "occupied" by British forces but they recently left Iraq. Even when the British troops resided in the city, their hands off approach allowed for the city to devolve into power struggles between a multitude of Shiite militias, all vying to see who could be the most Islamic. As a result the region turned into a Taliban style, culturally restrictive enclave. All of this turmoil occurred in Iraqis most oil rich sector.

The progress in Basra comes on the heals of significant improvements first in Sunni dominated Al-Anbar Province and then in Baghdad. Sadr City, a lower class Shia neighborhood has been cleared of active militias by both US forces and IA. 

The best news of all is that Iraqi President Nouri al-Maliki has vast public support. The true test of this will occur in 2009 as Iraq is set to hold general elections next year.

There is no doubt Iraq has a long way to go, especially in terms of repairing its infrastructure but the signs are promising. As I have said all along, failure in Iraq would be horrible for the Iraqis and send an abysmal message to those in the region. Patreaus continues to prove his mettle. If the casualty rates continue to decline, the Iraq War will indeed no longer be a significant campaign issue. For all Americans and Iraqis, this could be the best possible result.