Al-Muhajabah's Sundries

so much for the delusions of grandeur

Slate

To put this in perspective: From December 1941 to August 1945, the U.S. government mobilized an entire nation; manufactured a mighty arsenal; played a huge role in defeating the armies, air forces, and navies of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan; and emerged from battle poised to shape the destiny of half the globe. By comparison, from September 2001 to December 2005, the U.S. government has advanced to the point of describing a path to victory in a country the size of California.

Unfortunately, the Bush Administration and their supporters have no concept of this reality. Eisenhower must be rolling over in his grave, lol.

Aside: Is this an allusion to the draft?

The persistence of the war - long beyond the point when its planners thought it would be over - is straining the U.S. military to the breaking point, in terms of recruitment, morale, troop rotation, and the operations, maintenance, and procurement of its weapons systems. This is the main reason many military officers have called for getting out of Iraq—because "staying the course" for much longer is physically impossible. Steps can be taken to remedy this situation, but they would require momentous political decisions, and President Bush has done nothing to prepare the public for any such measures.

It seems like it must be.

little Guantanamo in the Balkans

US ran Guantanamo-style prison in Kosovo - Council of Europe envoy

Previously mentioned in Guantanamos in Europe?; earlier torture allegations were reported in 2002 in KOSOVO 2002: GUANTANAMO BAY IN THE BALKANS

See also Satellites may aid 'secret prisons' probe

(via)

Later: So this ended up just being a staging place for the Clipboard, where I posted the Forbes article up as an entry. Now I find myself cited in a new Kos diary. D'oh (see the discussion in the comments about it being "all over the Muslim blogs").

Still later: This seems to confirm that Kosovo is indeed one of the locations.

The topic comes up in a Parliamentary question.

or is it Syria?

Rogue Syrians must be held to account, US says

Britain says UN to mull Syria sanctions

Is it Iran, or Syria? Both? With what Army?

Is the UN report reliable?

More fearmongering

Analysis: Wag the Damascus

More about regime change.

Has Bush been on the verge of bombing Syria? (via)

Uh oh. British Foreign Secretary: "A military strike against Syria is not on the agenda of any party". This usually means that military strikes are imminent. Will no one stop this madness?

Heh. Apparently Israel has cold feet. Considering the extent of their warmongering against Iran, this is a thankful sign of sanity.

I guess I didn't get that memo

A Scotsman columnist repeats a common canard of American conservatives:

the unimpressive Democrat party is increasingly in the grip of its left-wing activists and devoid of fresh ideas

Devoid of fresh ideas, yes (or at least, they aren't percolating upwards). But what evidence do they have that the party is "increasingly in the grip of its left-wing activists"? Apparently they didn't tell us that!

Seriously, where's the proof?

Bush totally out of touch

First it was announced that the "Global War on Terrorism" would be replaced by the "Global Struggle Against Violent Extremism" (I found this first being mentioned on May 28), it seems that Bush didn't know about that or didn't agree to it, so now it's Global War on Terrorism again (as noted here for lack of a better link).

Then, Rumsfeld and Casey announced withdrawal plans and a task force was set up. But Bush is saying there will be no early withdrawal.

Is he in touch with what's going on around him and what his people are doing? Or is he completely lost in the bubble now? Scary.

what's going on in Iran now?

Content moved here.

preparations underway for attack on Iran?

Link: Your Mission, If You Choose to Accept It.

Update: Apparently Wes Clark's sources say that the administration is planning to withdraw a large number of troops from Iraq during or by the end of the summer in preparation for an offensive against Iran next year and they also plan to use "shock and awe" again, that is an air bombing campaign to make up for lack of ground troops. This is the Bush administration's plan to have ground war with Iran without need of the draft.

If this is true, it explains why the push to hand over to Iraqi troops or at least to militias during the course of this year, something that has been going on since January, apparently. In this context, it is especially interesting to note that about the same time, the British are apparently planning to withdraw from Iraq - to Afghanistan for a NATO mission against the Taliban and al-Qa'ida (buried away in update 54 here). Is this their way of making sure they are not still in Iraq either left holding the bag or free to be used by the U.S. for the offensive against Iran?

Can anybody stop this madness? I hope it's true that the British are trying to escape it at least.

As to what's planned for this summer, that's still unclear, but it doesn't seem like they could possibly be ready for more than some air strikes right now (famous last words? with the Bush administration anything is possible, even things you would think no one sane would do)

Added: Just noticed looking back at this article that a neocon retired general is quoted as mentioning that aircraft carriers have already been moved into position (apparently the same thing noted in the original link that started this post) and he claimed that there was a 50-60% chance of air strikes on Iran, an up to 50% chance of a blockade on Iran (maybe that's what's coming next?) and only a 1% chance of "boots on the ground". Maybe he meant there's only a 1% chance right now?

More: This article discusses how the U.S. and UK started bombing Iraq from May 2002 in attempt to "goad Saddam into war". Why do I feel that history is about to start repeating itself? Lots more on the early bombing of Iraq here. Scott Ritter makes this comparison explicit, arguing that that is exactly what the U.S. is doing.

Update 2: Latest speculations at Iraqi Air Force Crash Prelude to Iran Invasion?

Meanwhile, Clark mentions the troop withdrawal alluded to before, to the media.

Note: Speculations carried on here, reserving this post for the Clark-inspired angle, whatever comes of it.

Update 3: Well, well, well. Does the man have sources or what? Plans for troop withdrawal by summer 2006, exactly as he said.

Much later: Back where we started, with naval carriers possibly moving into position.

sometimes it's hard to take them seriously

How many "number three man in al-Qai'da" are there? At least five, apparently.

Update: It's even worse than that: Captured al-Qa'ida kingpin is case of mistaken identity

THE capture of a supposed Al-Qaeda kingpin by Pakistani agents last week was hailed by President George W Bush as “a critical victory in the war on terror”. According to European intelligence experts, however, Abu Faraj al-Libbi was not the terrorists’ third in command, as claimed, but a middle-ranker derided by one source as “among the flotsam and jetsam” of the organisation...

...Bush called him a “top general” and “a major facilitator and chief planner for the Al- Qaeda network”. Condoleezza Rice, secretary of state, said he was “a very important figure”. Yet the backslapping in Washington and Islamabad has astonished European terrorism experts, who point out that the Libyan was neither on the FBI’s most wanted list, nor on that of the State Department “rewards for justice” programme.

Another Libyan is on the FBI list — Anas al-Liby, who is wanted over the 1998 East African embassy bombings — and some believe the Americans may have initially confused the two. When The Sunday Times contacted a senior FBI counter-terrorism official for information about the importance of the detained man, he sent material on al-Liby, the wrong man.

“Al-Libbi is just a ‘middle-level’ leader,” said Jean-Charles Brisard, a French intelligence investigator and leading expert on terrorism finance. “Pakistan and US authorities have completely overestimated his role and importance. He was never more than a regional facilitator between Al-Qaeda and local Pakistani Islamic groups.”

According to Brisard, the arrested man lacks the global reach of Al-Qaeda leaders such as Ayman al-Zawahiri, Bin Laden’s number two, Khalid Shaikh Mohammad, the mastermind of the September 11 attacks, or Anas al-Liby...

...Some believe al-Libbi’s significance has been cynically hyped by two countries that want to distract attention from their lack of progress in capturing Bin Laden, who has now been on the run for almost four years.

Even a senior FBI official admitted that al-Libbi’s “influence and position have been overstated”. But this weekend the Pakistani government was sticking to the line that al-Libbi was the third most important person in the Al-Qaeda network.

One American official tried to explain the absence of al-Libbi’s name on the wanted list by saying: “We did not want him to know he was wanted.”

Is this a farce?

rainbow coalition

Finally someone mentions what I've been thinking: The Non-Christian Coalition.

The Democrats had a majority of 60% or greater among just about every non-white and/or non-Christian group with some (blacks, Muslims) being close to 90%. This is also true among certain minorities like gays and lesbians. These groups are growing; the white Christian population is shrinking. No wonder Republicans are desparate.

The linked article is actually about something slightly different, arguing that the non-Christian demographic, which includes not only those who follow non-Christian religions but also the secular or those who have no religion are almost the same size as evangelical or born again Christians, and are growing. Bowers argues that pandering to the Christian right as some Democrats want to do may drive off the "non-Christian coalition" (you've got that right) which is stupid since it's the non-Christian coalition that's growing and is the future for the Democrats.

Added: More interesting analysis from Chris Bowers at Maybe it is a battle of civilizations and There is no national security gap.

Bush as supreme leader

I hadn't heard about this originally but came across it while researching something else at Wikipedia:

On October 24, 2002, the U.S. Secretary of Defense announced that the title of Commander-in-Chief would be reserved for the President, and that armed forces CINCs would shorten their title to "commander."

Um, excuse me, what the fcuk? Somehow we got along fine for a couple centuries without needing to do this. The Wikipedia entry has some commentary about this.

Frankly it sounds like all these "dear leader" and "supreme leader" and other ways that leaders in dictatorships are glorified in their cult of personality.