PRAGUE — Five years ago, the European Union was on the verge of fulfilling one of the aspirations of the Velvet Revolutions that swept across Central and Eastern Europe by expanding from 15 to 25 members through the accession of several post-communist states. Yet, while the Berlin Wall and the Iron Curtain may have fallen into the dustbin of history, others vestiges of the Soviet era remain firmly in place. Certain areas of the world have been transformed for the better, even as others have been suspended in time to fend for themselves. One place that has not changed is Cuba, despite Fidel Castro's decision to retire and hand the reigns of power over to his brother Raul.
On March 18, five years ago, Castro's government cracked down on the Varela Project and other civil society initiatives rather than risk allowing a spark of democratic reform to spread across Cuba as it had in the former Soviet bloc. The 75 prisoners of conscience locked up were dissidents, independent journalists, leaders from civil society, and librarians, who had dared to speak the truth openly about what life is like in Cuba. Even though seven prisoners have recently been released, 52 of the 75 remain incarcerated in deplorable conditions. In general, the only reason that any of these prisoners were freed was because of how seriously their health had deteriorated.
Given how central the values of human rights, democracy, and the rule of law are in Europe, we feel it is our obligation to speak out against such injustices continuing unchecked. Less than 20 years ago there were political prisoners on the E.U.'s borders who were denied the basic rights of freedom of speech and expression, lived in constant fear of being denounced, and dreamed about enjoying what Europeans in the "West" took for granted.
Cuba's regime has remained in power, the same ways that communist governments did in the former Yugoslavia, Poland, the former Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Bulgaria, and Romania, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania — the last three as part of the Soviet Union — by using propaganda, censorship, and violence to create a climate of fear. Likewise, the solidarity that was expressed by those outside of these countries helped bring about the changes.
Cuba is the only country in the Western Hemisphere that has not embraced democracy and continues to repress all forms of political dissent. Today, Cuba is closer to making genuine democratic changes due to sacrifices made by dissidents and activists inspired by how other parts of the world have been transformed since the end of the Cold War.
We believe that the former communist Central and Eastern European countries are in a unique position to support the democracy movements in Cuba based on the similarities of their histories and experiences. Our intentions in pushing for democratization are based on friendship and cooperation, good will, and an understanding of the needs, expectations, and hopes of Cuban people.
We, the undersigned, believe that the E.U., as one of the driving forces in international politics, needs to speak out in unison against governments oppressing their own citizens. The E.U. should denounce human rights violations in Cuba and call for the immediate release of all prisoners of conscience. The ministers of foreign affairs from all E.U. member states should send a demarche on March 18 to their Cuban counterpart demanding their release as well.
The actions taken or not taken by the Cuban government should be used as a benchmark when the European Council reviews the E.U.'s Common Position on Cuba in June. Lastly, the E.U. should continue actively supporting peaceful democratic movements and civil society organizations in Cuba by taking advantage of the intrinsic knowledge some of its member states have about making a transition to democracy.
Five years ago the dream of several former Soviet satellites being members of the E.U. was becoming a reality. Dissidents and those committed to the spread of democracy had made this possible. The time has come for us to repay that debt by helping those in Cuba, whose dreams have already been deferred for too long.
Another opinion The departing head of Central Command was wrong about the surge.
By Max Boot
To see why Tuesday's "retirement" of Navy Adm. William "Fox" Fallon as head of U.S. Central Command is good news, all you have to do is look at the Esquire profile that brought about his downfall.
Its author, Thomas P.M. Barnett, a former professor at the Naval War College, presents a fawning portrait of the admiral -- a service he previously performed for Donald Rumsfeld. But evidence of Fallon's supposed "strategic brilliance" is notably lacking. For example, Barnett notes Fallon's attempt to banish the phrase "the Long War" (created by his predecessor) because it "signaled a long haul that Fallon simply finds unacceptable," without offering any hint of how Fallon intends to defeat our enemies overnight. The ideas Fallon proposes -- "He wants troop levels in Iraq down now, and he wants the Afghan National Army running the show throughout most of Afghanistan by the end of this year" -- would most likely result in security setbacks that would lengthen, not shorten, the struggle.
The picture that emerges of the admiral -- "The Man Between War and Peace," as the overwrought headline has it -- is not as flattering as intended. "He's standing up to the commander in chief, whom he thinks is contemplating a strategically unsound war [with Iran]," Barnett writes. And:"While Admiral Fallon's boss, President George W. Bush, regularly trash-talks his way to World War III ... it's left to Fallon -- and apparently Fallon alone -- to argue that, as he told Al Jazeera last fall: 'This constant drumbeat of conflict ... is not helpful and not useful. I expect that there will be no war, and that is what we ought to be working for. We ought to try to do our utmost to create different conditions.' "
What Fallon (and Barnett) don't seem to understand is that Fallon's very public assurances that America has no plans to use force against Iran embolden the mullahs to continue developing nuclear weapons and supporting terrorist groups that are killing American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is highly improbable that, as the profile implies, the president had any secret plans to bomb Iran that Fallon put a stop to. But there is no doubt that the president wants to maintain pressure on Iran, and that's what Fallon has been undermining.
By irresponsibly taking the option of force off the table, Fallon makes it more likely, not less, that there will ultimately be an armed confrontation with Iran.
Barnett writes further: "Smart guy that he is, Robert Gates, the incoming secretary of Defense, finagled Fallon out of Pacific Command, where he'd been radically making peace with the Chinese, so that he could, among other things, provide a check on the eager-to-please General David Petraeus in Iraq."
It's doubtful that this was why Bush and Gates appointed Fallon. Why would they want to "check" the general charged with winning the Iraq war? But it's telling that Barnett would write this; it may be a reflection of Fallon's own thinking. Even if he wasn't appointed for this reason, Fallon has certainly seen his job as being to "check" Petraeus. The problem is that Fallon is a newcomer to the Middle East and Iraq, while Petraeus has served there for years and is the architect of a strategy that has rescued the United States from the brink of defeat.
This is not, however, a strategy that Fallon favored. Not only was Fallon "quietly opposed to a long-term surge in Iraq," as Barnett notes, but he doesn't seem to have changed his mind in the past year. He has tried to undermine the surge by pushing for faster troop drawdowns than Petraeus thought prudent. ("He wants troop levels in Iraq down now.") The president wisely deferred to the man on the spot -- Petraeus -- thus no doubt leaving Fallon simmering with the sort of anger that came through all too clearly in Esquire.
Like a lot of smart guys (or, at any rate, guys who think they're smart), Fallon seems to have outsmarted himself. He thinks the war in Iraq is a distraction from formulating "a comprehensive strategy for the Middle East," according to the profile. The reality is that the only strategy worth a dinar is to win the war in Iraq. If we fail there, all other objectives in the region will be much harder to attain; if we succeed, they will be much easier.
That's something that Petraeus and Lt. Gen. Ray Odierno -- the architects of the surge -- understood, but that Fallon never seemed to get. Let's hope that his successor will have a better grasp of the region and of his role. This president, any president, deserves a Centcom commander who carries out his policies rather than undermines them.
#1
Fallon was a China dove at the Pacific Command. The most embarrassing statement he made there was about helping the Chinese build aircraft carriers if they behaved. (Shades of the British helping the Japanese build the Imperial Japanese Navy prior to WWII - something that helped the Japanese overrun British possessions in the Far East during WWII). I think he was booted sideways to a figurehead position at the Central Command. Fallon wasn't content to be a figurehead, so here he is today.
#2
Fallon and Petraeus replaced Casey and Abazaid at a time when the war was not going well. Bush appointed Petraeus because he had a strategy for winning the war in Iraq that Bush bought. Part of the cost for getting Petraeus approved and the defence appropriation approved was appointing Fallon to give peace a chance with Iran as well as to appease Pelosi and Reid while Petraeus pacified Iraq.
Well, Petraeus pacified Iraq as he said he would. Fallon, State, and the CIA had their opportunity to give peace a chance and they got Mookie in a Tehran sanatorium instead. Now that the carrots didn't work with the Mullahs, it's time to show some stick, and that's why Fallon was terminated. Just another signal to Nutjob that he's now in the crosshairs.
#3
Compare wid STRATEGYPAGE > Al QAEDA'S FADING VICTORY: THE MADRID PRECEDENT. Alludes to OBAMA appeaking to left-wing voetrs steeped in DEFEATISM, the 2008 POTUS elex, + the so-called "IRAQ PRECENDENT".
Yesterday's resignation of Admiral William Fallon as Centcom Commander is being portrayed as a dispute over Iran. Our own sense is that the admiral has made more than enough dissenting statements about Iraq, Iran and other things to warrant his dismissal as much as early retirement. But his departure will be especially good news if it means that President Bush is beginning to pay attention to the internal Pentagon dispute over Iraq.
A fateful debate is now taking place at the Pentagon that will determine the pace of U.S. military withdrawals for what remains of President Bush's term. Senior Pentagon officials -- including, we hear, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Joint Chiefs Chairman Mike Mullen, Army Chief of Staff George Casey and Admiral Fallon -- have been urging deeper troop cuts in Iraq beyond the five "surge" combat brigades already scheduled for redeployment this summer.
A spate of recent attacks -- including a suicide bombing Monday that left five GIs dead in Baghdad and a roadside bombing yesterday that killed 16 Iraqis -- is a reminder that the insurgency remains capable of doing great damage. An overly hasty withdrawal of U.S. forces would give it more opportunities to do so. It could also demoralize Iraq forces just when they are gaining confidence and need our help to "hold" the areas gained by the "clear, hold and build" strategy of the surge.
This ought to be apparent to Pentagon generals. Yet their rationale for troop withdrawals seems to have less to do with conditions in Iraq and more with fear that the war is putting a strain on the military as an institution. These are valid concerns. Lengthy and repeated combat deployments have imposed extraordinary burdens on service members and their families. The war in Iraq has also diverted scarce funds to combat operations rather than investment -- much of it long overdue -- in military modernization.
But these concerns are best dealt with by enlarging the size of the Army and Marine Corps and increasing spending on defense to between 5% and 6% of gross domestic product from the current 4.5% -- about where it was at the end of the Cold War. By contrast, we can think of few things that would "break" the military more completely -- in readiness, morale and deterrent power -- than to leave Iraq in defeat, or in conditions that would soon lead to a replay of what happened in Vietnam.
This Pentagon pressure also does little to help General Petraeus. The general is supposed to be fighting a frontal war against Islamist militants, not a rearguard action with Pentagon officials. That's why as Commander in Chief, Mr. Bush has a particular obligation to engage in this Pentagon debate so that General Petraeus can make his troop recommendations based on the facts in Iraq, not on pressure from Washington.
#1
Not only enlarge the military front line units, but withdraw the others from areas they are not needed. Korea, Germany, Macedonia, Italy, etc. That right there is another 20,000-30,000 front line and front line support (MPs and the like) units that can be used to relieve the others. Keep the air units in place in areas like Korea, but the ROKs are more than capable of driving the North Koreans back all the way to the Yalu with just our air support.
Without getting into all the unpleasant details, I think it's fair to say that Admiral Fallon was an object of scorn and sometimes contempt by a significant number of his immediate subordinates.
It had nothing to do with Iran, or for that matter even Iraq. Military officers have seen strategic disagreements throughout their careers.
Rather it had to do with the man himself, with his perceived competence, with the way he dealt with his underlings, and with his own quest for personal legacy rather than national victory.
I am sure that Gates was aware of at least some of that. Whether the president was, I cannot say. Since Armitage left the State Department it's hard to get inside information...
#3
The Goldwater-Nichols Act was specifically designed to put the theater commander in charge and those sitting home in the Pentagon in the support mode. If the President doesn't like what the combatant commander is doing, he fires/retires/reassigns them. Otherwise, that commander is the man in charge on the ground.
#4
Maybe I'm clueless but what was the logic of having an Admiral in charge of a theater that has two ground wars and the Navy is in a supporting role? He was in charge of the Pacific and that at least makes sense to me.
I agree with Darth Vader. We should have expanded the military after Sept 11. We also should have pushed for more local troops earlier. Perhaps the INC couldn't take out Saddam but we could have prepared them to take over after the invasion so we could move on to bases along the Iranian border and into Syria.
#6
If the Pentagon pencil pushers had any guts they'd got public and tell the populace and Congress that we need to increase spending in order to maintain our forces in this truly world-wide war.
The American peopel need to wake the hell up. Bush needs to put us on more of a war footing.
#7
Gents, for whatever reason I've seen more navy officers taking ground posts, Djibouti was Army or Marine and I know a navy captain that took that over for a year. I work in a joint command now and though I admire the professionalism of the navy officers I work for and with, as a Marine officer there are some cultural differences I'm still adapting to. The issues I have is when folks from the surface warfare or nuke community try to tell me about the ROE on the ground in Iraq, I can't help but scoff at them after being there twice. Bluntly put: I don't tell them how to drive a sub or run counter piracy ops in the indian ocean, don't tell me about dealing w/the local sunnis if you've never been boots dry on deck in al anbar.
#10
what was the logic of having an Admiral in charge of a theater that has two ground wars and the Navy is in a supporting role?
When he was nominated there were speculations that the US would go to war against Iran and that means
that the primary task would be to keep the Gulf open.
#11
He was the first admiral to have the command...
GEN Robert C. Kingston; Army; January 1, 1983- November 27, 1985
Gen George B. Crist; Marine Corps; November 27, 1985- November 23, 1988
GEN H. Norman Schwarzkopf; Army; November 23, 1988- August 9, 1991
Gen Joseph P. Hoar; Marine Corps; August 9, 1991- August 5, 1994
GEN J. H. Binford Peay III; Army; August 5, 1994- August 13, 1997
Gen Anthony C. Zinni; Marine Corps; August 13, 1997- July 6, 2000
GEN Tommy R. Franks; Army; July 6, 2000- July 7, 2003
GEN John P. Abizaid; Army; July 7, 2003- March 16, 2007
ADM William J. Fallon; Navy; March 16, 2007- March 31, 2008
LTG Martin Dempsey (acting); Army; March 31, 2008
#13
for whatever reason I've seen more navy officers taking ground posts, Djibouti was Army or Marine and I know a navy captain that took that over for a year.
Would a Navy officer know more about maintaining operational effectiveness for a long time at a distance from the base? I'm thinking submarine logistics, although really I don't know what I'm talking about. Just that they have to think of everything beforehand, because they're going to be underwater for months without resupply. If someone who knows what I really mean to ask -- and what the answer is -- would be so good as to help me out? Thanks!
As for Admiral Fallon's resignation, NPR takes credit for having broken the story and made those opinions a resignation issue.
#14
Be that as it may, Petraeus knows that the clock is ticking. Whatever we hope the Iraqis can do to sustain themselves in our absence, they had better be ready to do, and quickly. This includes an air force, a lot of Stinger SAMs, batteries of anti-missile missiles and anti-tank weapons. And probably a LOT of field artillery.
The major US combat units in Iraq need to be ready for withdrawl in as orderly a fashion as possible, and in such a way that they will not be easily attacked during that withdrawl.
The assumption *must* be that the next President will be utterly spineless, cowardly, and willing to commit forces to operations that will place them in reckless jeopardy.
This means that the further back our forces are from danger, the more opportunity they will have to plan and execute.
When the time comes, President G.W. Bush will have *exactly* from November 15th to January 20th to order them to leave Iraq. And possibly Afghanistan. And possibly Europe, South Korea, and heaven knows where all else.
I know it sounds ridiculous, but when the next President orders them to lay down their arms and surrender to whatever enemy is nearby, hopefully they will say that there isn't one.
#15
TW, this particular guy was a surface warfare type. Sub guys would be less effective methinks. They take everything with them afaik and don't push logistics to anyone. An Army or Marine logistician that's done time w/frontline grunts is best bet imho.
#2
of course, because Kashmir is number 1 on Pakistan's "ills" list. F*cking morons
Posted by: Frank G ||
03/12/2008 8:49 Comments ||
Top||
#3
They like their particular patches of dirt so much, we should install them permanantly in said patches, at a depth of 6 ft.
Posted by: M. Murcek ||
03/12/2008 9:25 Comments ||
Top||
#4
So I guess Majeed will have no issues with India responding in kind and turning Pakistan into smooth, green, glow in the dark glass?
C'mon, Majeed! Take one for Kashmir!
#7
Those who do not learn from history are destined to repeat it.
No clearer example can be made for the price of any people's learning their history only from the Koran.
Of course, no one's actually seen the consequences of the use of nuclear weapons in the last 60+ years so who's to say they'll still do the same thing? After all, the mighty Mo will stand by and preserve his people through the lies and propaganda distributed by the west (like that pesky "the world is round" stuff and that bit about "nukes are bad, just ask the Japanese" trivia). The Japanese aren't truly civilized anyway, not like the Lions of Islam.
#8
RIAN > RUSSIA MUST USE ITS NUCLEAR DETERRENT TO PROTECT ITSELF AND ALLIES, espec as per CSTO. Adjunct Article to earlier RIAN - RUSSIAN ARMY PREPARES FOR NUCLEAR ONSLAUGHT. Russ new ANTI-NUKE/WMD TERROR DOCTRINE.
Also KOMMERSANT > RUSSIA ARMED WITH REBEL REPUBLICS. Inside and Outside Russ proper.;
+ TOPIX > AZERI SEPARATISM + AZERIS MOVE TOWARDS SOVEREIGNTY IN RUSSIA, CENTRAL ASIA.
By ISI LEIBLER
Today we are threatened with two extremely dangerous situations that must be dealt with speedily and resolutely. The first, already far too advanced, is that the government seems to regard rocket attacks against our civilians as being part of an ongoing - and somehow manageable - war of attrition. Our enemies, for their part, appear to welcome the "martyrdom" of 100 or more Palestinian civilians and gunmen a week to promote their propaganda objectives.
In contrast, as the Mercaz Harav massacre exemplified, every Israeli casualty represents a cause for national grief. An ongoing war of attrition would therefore be disastrous. It would in time undermine our stamina and demoralize the nation.
#2
This guy sees the problem very clearly. It would be good if some Israeli government official in a position to act saw things the same way.
The Israeli government (both current and past) see the situation very clearly. There is no Palestinian-Israeli conflict. There isn't even any Arab-Israeli conflict. There is an Islam vs. Humanity conflict. Until the World (or, at least, USA) grasps that simple fact (insteed of engaging in the, IMHO idiotic, Nation Building) there isn't anything significant Israel can do.
#3
There is no Palestinian-Israeli conflict. There isn't even any Arab-Israeli conflict. There is an Islam vs. Humanity conflict.
That's a little over the top in the way it's said, but IMHO you're quite right in last analysis.
The Israeli government (both current and past) see the situation very clearly. Seeing this from an outsider pov, I have to ask : are you really certain of that? Since 1993?
#1
WAFF.com > WITHOUT FEAR OF REPRISAL [vv USA + NIE], IRAN TARGETS ISRAEL. Article indics HAMAS > iff Gaza rockets can target cities-towns deep in Israel, WHY NOT TEL AVIV - JUST KEEP IMROV THE ROCKET TECHS.
See akso RENSE > TRUTH BE KNOWN NEWS/TBK - ISLAM ONE DAY WILL DOMINATE THE WORLD, WHITE HOUSE. Iff convincing the Nation, Govt, Society or Community doesn't work, ITS EVERY TRUE MUSLIM'S DUTY TO PERSONALLY OR INDIVIDUALLY RISE UP AND EMPOWER ISLAM FORCIBLY, WITH VIOLENCE IFF NECESSARY OR AS PERTINENT.
#3
I found not only that I didn't trust the current government (that, to me, was no surprise), but that an impartial review revealed that the faults of this president—whom I, a good liberal, considered a monster—were little different from those of a president whom I revered.
Bush got us into Iraq, JFK into Vietnam. Bush stole the election in Florida; Kennedy stole his in Chicago. Bush outed a CIA agent; Kennedy left hundreds of them to die in the surf at the Bay of Pigs. Bush lied about his military service; Kennedy accepted a Pulitzer Prize for a book written by Ted Sorenson. Bush was in bed with the Saudis, Kennedy with the Mafia. Oh.
Seems he still can't quite let go of some of the liberal "Givens".
#6
I'm glad Mamet is leaving adolescence and recovering from his disorder. Most of these so-called liberals are self-aggrandizing, self-serving and narcissistic--they care little about anyone; ah but I am redundant in my praise.
#9
I starting reading this and it was so badly written I stopped. I'll take his word that he is no longer brain dead, but it hasn't made him clear-brained.
#10
I assume any faults in the logic or writing is because we are not the target audience. The left is. You need to make this kind of point in a way that won't make them scream bull$hit every third sentence and ignore the point.
#11
While I appreciate the sentiments, I also am surprised by the poor quality of the prose. I would have expected better from Mamet, who has always had a great reputation as a writer, whatever his politics.
#12
Breaking it up into five pages doesn't help. Try clicking on the print button and reading that.
Once he gets past his excess of commas in the beginning, the flow improves. It could have used a good editor.
What about the role of government? Well, in the abstract, coming from my time and background, I thought it was a rather good thing, but tallying up the ledger in those things which affect me and in those things I observe, I am hard-pressed to see an instance where the intervention of the government led to much beyond sorrow.
But if the government is not to intervene, how will we, mere human beings, work it all out?
I wondered and read, and it occurred to me that I knew the answer, and here it is: We just seem to. How do I know? From experience.
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.
