You'd think, like Osama, whose views NYT ed board generally shares on Iraq, they're talking about their dismay over the fact that the Americans, the Iraqi government and the Iraqi people are finally prevailing over terrorism, mass murder, chaos.
Not at all. NYT ed board is talking about business as usual in northern Iraq/southeastern Turkey. Kurds and Turks fighting with each other across the Iraqi border, as they were doing long before the United States invaded Iraq. . . .
What crime did Bush commit in Kurdistan? Stratfor lays it out. He destroyed the balance of oppression. Stratfor notes that the Kurds were once (more or less*) equally oppressed in Turkey, Syria, Iran and Iraq, and that as Saddam was put into the sanctions box after 1991, Turkey was compelled to impose a militarized buffer zone. Stratfor examines why the PKK is provoking Turkey now:
People tend to talk about the Kurds as a single national group -- and, linguistically and religiously, they are. But history and current reality have divided them in ways that have generated serious differences in interest and ideology. The territory they occupy is divided among several countries, including Turkey, Iraq, Iran and Syria. And for most of the 20th century, Kurds in all of those states were equally oppressed.
However, starting in 1991 and accelerating after 2003, the Iraqi Kurds' fate has diverged from that of the others. Represented in the Baghdad government, effectively autonomous in their region, protected by a special relationship with the United States, and increasingly prosperous through trade and important deals for developing oil in their region, the Iraq Kurds have become increasingly cautious and increasingly focused on their own interests rather than those of Kurds as a whole. The dream of united and independent Kurdistan isn't gone by any means, but negotiating oil leases has become a more immediate concern.
In other words, the bad thing the US did was to liberate the Iraqui Kurds! If we'd only kept them opporessed, things would be so much better.
Coming in tomorrow's NYT: why freeing the Marsh Arabs and restoring the ecosystem was another Bush/neocon blunder.
Footnote in original:
* Stratfor states "for most of the 20th century, Kurds in all of those states were equally oppressed." It's notable that immediately prior to international intervention in Iraqi affairs in the Gulf War, Saddam was doing his damndest to outpace the competition with poison gas attacks on Kurdish villages. By that measure, the current difficulties are minor, however, NYT ed board has already established that it prefers genocide to the difficulties and frustrations of instituting free, stable and secure societies in troubled regions.
Posted by: Mike ||
10/24/2007 08:27 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
NYT ed board has already established that it prefers genocide to the difficulties and frustrations of instituting free, stable and secure societies in troubled regions
I'll have to consult Dante to determine which circle of hell is awaiting the NYT ed board. However, I suspect, based upon their other acts, its probably the ninth, zone four.
#3
It never ceases to amaze me how far up their a$$es the NYT ed board has stuck their heads. No wonder everything is always so dark and gloomy to them.
Former Spook has some of the same speculation here
By Stanley Kurtz
If people had known how close we came to World War III that day there would have been mass panic. That is how a very senior British ministerial source recently characterized Israels September raid on what was apparently a Syrian nuclear installation. Whether matters were quite that grave is an open question. Yet it does seem clear that the full story of the Israeli raid has not been told, nor its full significance recognized. Now two key members of Congress have raised an alarm about this event, thereby throwing our nuclear agreement with North Korea into question.
Briefings
Peter Hoekstra and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, as senior Republicans on the House Intelligence and Foreign Affairs Committees, respectively, were among the mere handful of members of Congress briefed on the Israeli air strike. What they learned obviously dismayed them greatly, as is evident from What Happened in Syria? a Wall Street Journal opinion piece published by Hoekstra and Ros-Lehtinen this past Saturday.
In that piece, Hoekstra and Ros-Lehtinen protest the unprecedented veil of secrecy, thrown over the airstrike noting that the vast majority of foreign relations and intelligence committee members have been left in the dark on the details of the raid. Hoekstra and Ros-Lehtinen acknowledge that they have personally been sworn to secrecy, yet add that: ...based on what we have learned...it is critical for every member of congress to be briefed on this incident, and as soon as possible.
Hoekstra and Ros-Lehtinen obviously believe that Syria obtained nuclear expertise or material from outside state sources. And while they base their concern on press reports, it seems likely that their top-secret briefings confirmed this fact. Notable here is Hoekstra and Ros-Lehtinens repeated use of the phrase North Korea, Iran, or other rogue states when referring to Syrias possible nuclear collaborators. After their briefing, Hoekstra and Ros-Lehtinen seem just as concerned about Iranian involvement as North Korean.
Hoekstra and Ros-Lehtinen protest the administrations willingness to provide the press with anonymous information on background, to shape this story to its liking, while keeping members of Congress in the dark. We believe this is unacceptable, they say, noting that the administration has ignored numerous letters from Congress asking that all members be briefed. Hoekstra and Ros-Lehtinen specifically express concerns about two administration-influenced stories in the New York Times and one in The Washington Post. Finally, Hoekstra and Ros-Lehtinen threaten to oppose any nuclear deal with North Korea unless all members of congress are briefed on the reasons for the Israeli raid.
While the secrecy that surrounds this issue forces us to read between the lines, two broad factual questions emerge from Hoekstras and Ros-Lehtinens oped. First, in what sense has the administration been shaping (or misshaping) the Syria story to its liking? Second, is there more to this story than recent press reports have indicated?
North Koreas Role
Consider one of the articles singled out by Hoekstra and Ros-Lehtinen, an Oct. 14 New York Times story by David Sanger and Mark Mazzetti.
While this story confirmed that Israel had struck a partially completed nuclear reactor, apparently modeled on one North Korea has used to create its stockpile of nuclear weapons fuel, the article also raises doubts: ...American and foreign officials would not say whether they believed the North Koreans sold or gave plans to the Syrians, or whether the Norths own experts were there at the time of the attack. It is possible, some officials said, that the transfer of the technology occurred several years ago.
Yet the suggestion that North Korean personnel might not have been involved in the ongoing construction of the reactor contradicts a New York Times story of October 9, just a few days before, which said that within the administration there appears to be little debate that North Koreans frequently visited a site in the Syrian Desert that Israeli jets attacked Sept. 6. The story on October 9 was that the North Koreans were surely present at the Syrian installation, but that the nuclear nature of the site was less certain. Once nuclear activity at the site was confirmed by the Times on October 14, however, administration sources on background apparently did their best to foster uncertainty about North Korean involvement. In other words, if the Koreans are there, it might not be nuclear, and if its nuclear, the Koreans might not be there.
The point is that the administration is subtly attempting to cast doubt on any reported link between North Korea and the Syrian reactor (without directly denying such a link). Otherwise it would become obvious that North Korea is flagrantly violating its nuclear agreement with the United States. Apparently, their secret briefing has led Hoekstra and Ros-Lehtinen to believe that the administration is obfuscating the reality of North Korean proliferation, in order to preserve the six-party deal.
In fact, from the beginning until the present, press reports have given strong indications of ongoing North Korean involvement in the Syrian nuclear project. One of the first reports (and still arguably the most extensive and important report) on the raid, from the London Sunday Times of Sept. 16, quoted Andrew Semmel, who was the acting deputy assistant secretary of state for nuclear nonproliferation policy. Speaking of Syrias nuclear project, Semmel was asked if North Korean technicians were present there. Semmel replied, There are North Korean people there. Theres no question about that.
Another Sunday Times piece, of Sept. 23, offered further evidence of North Korean involvement. Israeli intelligence had suggested to the administration over the summer that North Korean personnel were at the Syrian site, said the Sunday Times. In fact, Israeli defense sources were said to have taken to referring to the target site as the North Korean project. The Sunday Times also noted the unusual stridency of North Koreas condemnations of an event so far from East Asia. In a sense, the North Koreans were outing themselves by their protests. The Sunday Times also reported that diplomats stationed in North Korea and China, based on intelligence reports reaching Asian governments, believed that a number of North Koreans had actually been killed in the raid.
More recent reports have taken up the same theme. On October 7, Washington Post columnist Jim Hoagland noted that a senior official with access to highly classified intelligence reports said that ...the Israelis destroyed a nuclear-related facility and caused North Korean casualties at the site.... And October 19, ABC News quoted a senior U.S. official claiming that the Syrians could not have built their reactor without North Korean expertise, meaning that the Syrians must have had human help from North Korea.
If these reports are true, Hoekstras and Ros-Lehtinens concerns about efforts by the administration to lead the press away from the North Korean connection (without explicitly denying it), is completely understandable. Again, Hoekstra and Ros-Lehtinen appear to fear that the administrations now dominant policy-making faction (led by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary Robert Gates) is trying to protect the six-party agreement by suppressing the reality of North Korean proliferation.
Irans Role
What about Iran? As noted, the persistent and strong emphasis Hoekstra and Ros-Lehtinen place on possible Iranian participation in the Syrian nuclear program cant help but make us suspect that their secret briefing contained reports of Iranian involvement. Yet Hoekstra and Ros-Lehtinen refer to press reports of an Iranian role, and there are some such reports.
Former U.N. ambassador John Bolton has expressed concerns that both North Korea and Iran may be outsourcing their nuclear programs in Syria. We know that Syria has served as a conduit for North Korean shipments of missile components to Iran, and there are concerns that North Korean nuclear material may have taken the same route (see Sunday Times, Sept. 16). On Sept. 12, a New York Times report said The Israelis think North Korea is selling to Iran and Syria what little [nuclear material] they have left. A useful recent overview of the Israeli raid titled How close were we to a third world war? adds an important bit of new information based on earlier reports in the Kuwaiti press. Ali Rheza Ali, a former Iranian deputy defense minister who defected several months ago, supplied intelligence sources in the West with information about the site targeted by the Israelis. Of course, that knowledge would imply close Iranian involvement in Koreas nuclear project. (For more on possible Iranian involvement, see my Deterrence Lost.)
Distress over North Korean and Iranian involvement in nuclear proliferation to Syria possibly as a way of hiding their own nuclear programs from the United States would certainly make sense of Hoekstras and Ros-Lehtinens public complaint. Yet there may be more at work. The American press reports cited by Hoekstra and Ros-Lehtinen have so far seemed to confirm only the existence of a nascent plutonium reactor modeled on North Koreas facility at Yongbyon, a construction project that could take as many as three to six years to complete (see NYT Oct. 14). While Syrian wrath at Israels destruction of even a nascent nuclear reactor could certainly have led to a retaliatory attack and general war in the Middle East, worries over a potential world war three caused by Israels destruction of a reactor three to six years from completion seem a bit overblown. These worries might make more sense if there is something more to this story than what American news sources have confirmed.
Warhead?
Several early and unconfirmed reports on the Israeli raid point to the possibility that in the days immediately before the airstrike, the North Koreans may have shipped a cache of fissile material possibly including a nuclear warhead to Syria. According to the Sept. 16 Sunday Times, preparations for the attack began when the head of Israels intelligence agency, the Mossad, presented Prime Minister Ehud Olmert with evidence that Syria was seeking to buy a nuclear device from North Korea. The fear was that the warhead would be fitted atop one of Syrias North Korean-made Scud-C missiles, already armed with North Korean designed chemical warheads. This was supposed to be a devastating surprise, said an Israeli source, Israel cant live with a nuclear warhead. The Sept. 16 Sunday Times goes on to connect the warhead story with a Washington Post report that the raid was linked to the arrival three days earlier of a ship carrying North Korean material labeled as cement but suspected of concealing nuclear equipment.
A nascent nuclear reactor, three-to-six years from completion, does not give off radiation. Yet the London Sunday Times reported on Sept. 23 that Israeli commandos seized samples of nuclear material and returned them to Israel for examination. A laboratory confirmed that the unspecified material was North Korean in origin. The Washington Posts Jim Hoagland reported on October 7 that a senior official with access to highly classified intelligence reports said that the Israelis provided the United States with physical material and soil samples from the site taken both before and after the raid. Soil samples are commonly used to confirm the presence of fissile material.
Here is where we begin to see potential contradictions, or at least difficulties. Some stories speak of nuclear material or even warheads, while other stories refer only to an incomplete reactor, and even deny that fissile material was present at all. For example, the ABC story of Oct. 19, claims that no fissionable material was found because the facility was not yet operating. The U.S. hesitated to approve the attack, according to this report, precisely because of the lack of fissionable material. While the ultimate nuclear intentions for the site were unmistakable, the U.S. apparently worried that it would be challenged without the sort of absolute proof provided by fissionable material.
Reactor and More?
Yet reports that fissionable material of some sort was involved in the raid persist, and there are a ways in which these reports could be reconciled with the ABC story. The October third edition of Britains Spectator carried a more detailed account of the fate of the North Korean shipment of cement than earlier reports. This is the same article, by the way, in which a very senior British ministerial source said wed come close to world war three that day.
According to the Spectator, the Israelis tracked the North Korean cement shipment to the same site that had already been under intense Israeli surveillance as a possible nuclear installation (i.e. the incomplete reactor). It was at this point, just days before the attack, that elite Israeli commandoes were dispatched to collect the soil samples that indicated the ship cargo had been nuclear (and, according to the London Sunday Times, of North Korean origin). So its possible that the ABC report and the report from the Spectator could both be correct. The U.S. may have worried through the summer months about attacking the nascent reactor because of the lack of fissile material (and also for fear of what a raid would do to the six-party talks). Yet the arrival of the North Korean shipment of cement three days before the attack, and the subsequent Israeli soil samples, may have turned the tide and led the U.S. to approve what the Israelis at that point surely felt compelled to do.
Conclusions
Our examination of diverse news accounts of the Israeli raid on the Syrian nuclear facility yields several conclusions. First, there is significant evidence of ongoing and recent North Korean involvement. Especially given the informed criticisms of Hoekstra and Ros-Lehtinen, apparent efforts by select administration sources to downplay North Korean involvement appear unconvincing. Second, especially in light of the informed concerns expressed by Hoekstra and Ros-Lehtinen, but also in light of press accounts, there is reason to fear significant Iranian involvement in Syrias nuclear program, either as a facilitator, as a destination for North Korean nuclear material transiting Syria, or both. Third, there is at least some significant evidence for direct North Korean transfer of fissile material perhaps even a nuclear warhead to Syria and/or Iran. That, of course, would constitute the most serious possible violation of the six-party agreement, and would be a grave threat to the security of the United States and the world.
In light of this evidence, should Congress now oppose Americas nuclear agreement with North Korea? And along with North Korea, should Iran be held to account in this affair? Perhaps. In any case, based on an analysis of press reports, and on the informed protests of Representatives Peter Hoekstra and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, its clear that we need more open information before we can confidently sign on to the six-party agreement. At a minimum, the scope of congressional briefings on the Israeli raid needs to substantially increase.
#2
Besides the alleged "reactor", there is also on-going Net speculat that Israel may had also targeted a possible nuclear bomb prototype = workable bomb design..
#3
In other words, if the Koreans are there, it might not be nuclear, and if its nuclear, the Koreans might not be there.
The point is that the administration is subtly attempting to cast doubt on any reported link between North Korea and the Syrian reactor
So, what gives? Bush had the courage to label Iran, Syria and North Korea as being the "Axis of Evil". Is this another casesimilar to the Palestinian issuewhereby too much political capital has been invested in making progress with North Korea whereby the Bush administration is willing to abandon the importance of outing Kim's treachery in favor of some meager showing with respect to the six party talks? Does Bush really think that such a pitiful display of "progress" with North Korea will buy the republicans any advantage in 2008?
Third, there is at least some significant evidence for direct North Korean transfer of fissile material perhaps even a nuclear warhead to Syria and/or Iran. That, of course, would constitute the most serious possible violation of the six-party agreement, and would be a grave threat to the security of the United States and the world.
All indications point towards this being the case. Otherwise, the USA would never have so tacitly green-lighted Israel's pre-emptive strike in such a conspicuous manner. Even the most remote possibility of Iran being able to short-circuit the lengthy development cycle for producing versus procuring a nuclear weapon should have set off all sorts of klaxons and alarms at the NSA, CIA and the Pentagon.
This would represent the last button on the coat in terms of initiating military intervention in Iran. Albeit, there is no way to know if there is reliable reconnaisance that precludes any successful transfer of a functional warhead or even bulk fissile material to Iran. However, the simple possibility of such a transshipment represents such a dire breach of national security that any lack of immediate reaction seems idiotic at best and suicidal at worst.
#4
TOPIX/WORLDNEWS/VARIOUS > SYRIAN REACTOR CLOSELY RESEMBLES NORTH KOREAN REACTOR.* JPOST > SYRIA WAS PREPARING FOR ISRAELI ATTACK. Jpost/Article Sources claim Syria received intel about pending = preemptive? Israeli attack.
#5
I was just struck by a crazy thought... My take: Plain evidence of axis-style alliance between NKor and Iran/Syria Islamists. Could the big secret be they found Russian fingerprints all over the NKor nuke transfer!?!? A Russ/Nkor/Iran axis of evil would be a BIG change in the geopolitical equation, one that plenty of powerful people might want to keep secret....
#6
P.S. Could the "Syrian" reactor actually have been owned an operated by Iran? I can see A-madman-ejad talking Assad into letting them put it in Syria so Iran can say "Reactor? What reactor? We ain't got no stinkin' reactors!"
By Abu Kais There should be no doubt that a strong Lebanese army, especially one aided by the US, is not welcomed by Hizbullah. The Iranian-armed "party" survives on claims that its "resistance" is better equipped to fight the enemy than the state's army.
Read Hizbullah's recent threats to the US in that context. Hizbullah threatened Monday that U.S. troops would be treated as "occupation forces" on Lebanese soil. Hizbullah official Nawaf Mussawi made the threat in a statement to Agence France Presse. He was commenting on alleged plans by the United States to set up a military base in Lebanon, a charge that has been made by as-Safir newspaper and denied both by the government and Army Commander Gen. Michel Suleiman. "It is impossible to accept such a project. American soldiers on Lebanese soil will be considered an occupation force and will be treated as such," Mussawi told AFP. "Let the Americans take (interpret) this message as they wish."
Finger-waving Naim Qassem delivered a similar threat:
On Sunday, Hizbullah Deputy Secretary General Sheikh Naim Qassem said the creation of U.S. military bases in Lebanon would be considered a "hostile act".
The report of an army base first surfaced on Debka, and was propagated by Iranian media, before landing in As-Safir. Denials by the Lebanese army, the US ambassador to Lebanon and the Lebanese cabinet did not stop Hizbullah from issuing the above threats. "Let them interpret this as they wish" means the Iranian-created party would not hesitate to kill American soldiers as they or their pals did in 1983. It remains to be seen whether Hizbullah's threat also applies to visiting US officials working with the Lebanese army on training missions.
Hizbullah's religious ally, Mohammad Hussein Fadlallah, sent a fax to AP laying down the "choice" before the Lebanese:
"We warn that the U.S. administration is offering the Lebanese a choice either to accept their country being turned into a (U.S.) military, security and political base, or to expect a new strife," Fadlallah said in a statement faxed to The Associated Press.
He said the Lebanese army was aware of attempts to link U.S. military aid to Lebanon to confronting the guerrilla group and was determined in "rejecting strife and rejecting any restrictions on its armament."
"The Lebanese, who have seen the American failure in Iraq and felt the American involvement with Israel in last year's war against Lebanon ... must be aware that what the administration of President Bush is aiming at is something else other than supporting the Lebanese army," Fadlallah said.
"It (U.S. Administration) is working to make Lebanon a new base for chaos and another position for NATO in order to exert pressure on regional and international powers which disobeyed its decisions and policies," the cleric added in a clear reference to Iran and Syria.
Unlike their Iranian counterparts, US defense officials have not been smuggling weapons or secretly building military structures in downtown Beirut. They also have not been shy about their feeling towards the Iranian-armed militia. They very well may be seeking to turn Lebanon into a strategic ally in the region. However, the rejection of this partnership is not based on a desire for an independent Lebanon. What Hizbullah wants is not a country free of American hegemony-- that is just a cover for their existential battle against March 14. They want an Iranian satellite state with a weak army and fertile ground for terrorists and their fixers.
For that, the real target of these threats is not just US-Lebanese military co-operation, but also any prospects of the Lebanese army gaining strength and a clear sense of purpose, which would come at the expense of the Iranian-funded militia. Hizbullah, after all, is used to the Syrian-run army of ushers, whose job was to clean beaches, put out forest fires, and turn a blind eye to arms smuggling and Syrian-sponsored terrorist attacks.
Perhaps Army Commander General Michel Suleiman, who denied the As-Safir report in a statement, can now pause and ponder about how the militia that grew under his blind eye is unashamedly calling him a liar and threatening the livelihood of his forces, and those of a supposedly friendly state.
This article starring:
Michel Suleiman
Mohammad Hussein Fadlallah
Naim Qassem
Hizbullah
Nawaf Mussawi
Hizbullah
Posted by: Fred ||
10/24/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under: Hezbollah
#1
It is not about what hezbollah wants. As KOS says "screw them".
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
There should be no doubt that a strong Lebanese army, especially one aided by the US, is not welcomed by Hizbullah. The Iranian-armed "party" survives on claims that its "resistance" is better equipped to fight the enemy than the state's army.
