Saturday, September 27, 2008

Iraq hopes economic crisis won't affect US troops

By EDITH M. LEDERER, Associated Press Writer Sat Sep 27, 7:34 AM ET Iraq's foreign minister says "there is a new world now" because of the global financial crisis and he hopes it won't lead to an immediate withdrawal of the 146,000 American troops in his country. In an interview with The Associated Press, Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari said a precipitous withdrawal could have consequences for the country and the region that everyone would regret afterward. Zebari is due to meet Saturday with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in New York, where he was attending the U.N. General Assembly's annual ministerial meeting. He said he didn't have any indications that the U.S. administration was thinking about pushing for a speedier exit from Iraq, where it has spent more than $550 billion, because of the financial meltdown. "But this is the logic of the dance," Zebari told the AP on Friday. "Nobody anticipated this major crisis, and still there are ongoing efforts to overcome it, to contain its impact, bail out some of these companies with a huge infusion of cash. But the crisis is evident everywhere." "This has nothing to do with liking this administration or that administration, or this president or that president, something has landed uninvited," he said. "I think there is a new world now after this crisis, and one has to be realistic about changes in attitudes and policies due to this huge crisis that has affected the world economy." President Bush's administration is seeking a $700 billion bailout — the largest in U.S. history — which has raised widespread concern in Congress and fears that the United States is on the verge of a major recession. Asked whether he was concerned that the current financial crisis might lead the U.S. government to push for a speedier exit than Iraq might want, as a cost-saving measure, Zebari said: "I don't know." "We hope it would not have a dramatic impact to cause ... drastic and calculated decisions that everybody would regret afterwards," he said. By drastic and calculated, was he referring to an immediate withdrawal? "Exactly, immediate precipitous withdrawal irrespective of any consequences," Zebari said. "I think there is high stakes for everybody involved in the region, that every administration will take account of." Iraq's top diplomat said the government still hopes to sign a long-term security pact with the United States before the U.S. presidential election on Nov. 4. "We are talking, the Iraqi and American side, and I think the draft agreement is almost done. What needs to be done is some political decisions by the leadership," Zebari said. "The window time is closing because we were hoping to get this agreement by the end of July and now we are in September. We haven't given up hope at all, but really still there is no final agreement." The proposed agreement, which has been under negotiation for most of this year, would replace the U.N. mandate. Any agreement must be ratified by the Iraqi parliament. The main sticking points include Iraqi objections to blanket immunity for U.S. troops and private contractors and demands for oversight over American forces during raids and detentions. Zebari said that if it's not possible to reach agreement by the election the alternative is to go back to the U.N. Security Council to extend the mandate of the U.S.-led multinational force in Iraq, which expires on Dec. 31. Asked whether the U.S. election was playing into the long-term strategic framework agreement with the United States, Zebari chuckled and said "I think it's present. Even if it's not in person, its soul is there." Zebari said he told the two presidential candidates — Democratic Sen. Barack Obama and Republican Sen. John McCain — that "it would have been in our interest to conclude this agreement before the end term of this administration and that was the whole plan." He said he explained to both candidates that "as long as this agreement would not be binding for any future administration, that administration will benefit from having something at hand when it takes office." Zebari described the security situation in Iraq as "fragile." "We've turned the corner against terrorism, against preventing the country from falling into civil war or sectarian war or division. I think we've passed that," he said. But he said the security gains must be augmented by political reconciliation, economic benefits for the people, provision of services and better governance. "And the pace is slow, as you've seen in the past, so that's why people think they are not solid enough and they could be reversed."

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

The Bailout vs. the Defense Budget

Posted on Sep 28, 2008

By Chalmers Johnson

Editor’s note: This report was originally published on

There has been much moaning, air-sucking and outrage about the $700 billion that the U.S. government is thinking of throwing away on rich New York bankers who have been ripping us off for the past few years and then letting greed drive their businesses into a variety of ditches. In fact, we dole out similar amounts of money every year in the form of payoffs to the armed services, the military-industrial complex, and powerful senators and representatives allied with the Pentagon.
On Wednesday, September 24th, right in the middle of the fight over billions of taxpayer dollars slated to bail out Wall Street, the House of Representatives passed a $612 billion defense authorization bill for 2009 without a murmur of public protest or any meaningful press comment at all. (The New York Times gave the matter only three short paragraphs buried in a story about another appropriations measure.)

The defense bill includes $68.6 billion to pursue the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which is only a down-payment on the full yearly cost of these wars. (The rest will be raised through future supplementary bills.) It also included a 3.9% pay raise for military personnel, and $5 billion in pork-barrel projects not even requested by the administration or the secretary of defense. It also fully funds the Pentagon’s request for a radar site in the Czech Republic, a hare-brained scheme sure to infuriate the Russians just as much as a Russian missile base in Cuba once infuriated us. The whole bill passed by a vote of 392-39 and will fly through the Senate, where a similar bill has already been approved. And no one will even think to mention it in the same breath with the discussion of bailout funds for dying investment banks and the like.
This is pure waste. Our annual spending on “national security”—meaning the defense budget plus all military expenditures hidden in the budgets for the departments of Energy, State, Treasury, Veterans Affairs, the CIA, and numerous other places in the executive branch—already exceeds a trillion dollars, an amount larger than that of all other national defense budgets combined. Not only was there no significant media coverage of this latest appropriation, there have been no signs of even the slightest urge to inquire into the relationship between our bloated military, our staggering weapons expenditures, our extravagantly expensive failed wars abroad, and the financial catastrophe on Wall Street.
The only Congressional “commentary” on the size of our military outlay was the usual pompous drivel about how a failure to vote for the defense authorization bill would betray our troops. The aged Senator John Warner (R-Va), former chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, implored his Republican colleagues to vote for the bill “out of respect for military personnel.” He seems to be unaware that these troops are actually volunteers, not draftees, and that they joined the armed forces as a matter of career choice, rather than because the nation demanded such a sacrifice from them.
We would better respect our armed forces by bringing the futile and misbegotten wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to an end. A relative degree of peace and order has returned to Iraq not because of President Bush’s belated reinforcement of our expeditionary army there (the so-called surge), but thanks to shifting internal dynamics within Iraq and in the Middle East region generally. Such shifts include a growing awareness among Iraq’s Sunni population of the need to restore law and order, a growing confidence among Iraqi Shiites of their nearly unassailable position of political influence in the country, and a growing awareness among Sunni nations that the ill-informed war of aggression the Bush administration waged against Iraq has vastly increased the influence of Shiism and Iran in the region.
The continued presence of American troops and their heavily reinforced bases in Iraq threaten this return to relative stability. The refusal of the Shia government of Iraq to agree to an American Status of Forces Agreement—much desired by the Bush administration—that would exempt off-duty American troops from Iraqi law is actually a good sign for the future of Iraq.
In Afghanistan, our historically deaf generals and civilian strategists do not seem to understand that our defeat by the Afghan insurgents is inevitable. Since the time of Alexander the Great, no foreign intruder has ever prevailed over Afghan guerrillas defending their home turf. The first Anglo-Afghan War (1838-1842) marked a particularly humiliating defeat of British imperialism at the very height of English military power in the Victorian era. The Soviet-Afghan War (1979-1989) resulted in a Russian defeat so demoralizing that it contributed significantly to the disintegration of the former Soviet Union in 1991. We are now on track to repeat virtually all the errors committed by previous invaders of Afghanistan over the centuries.
In the past year, perhaps most disastrously, we have carried our Afghan war into Pakistan, a relatively wealthy and sophisticated nuclear power that has long cooperated with us militarily. Our recent bungling brutality along the Afghan-Pakistan border threatens to radicalize the Pashtuns in both countries and advance the interests of radical Islam throughout the region. The United States is now identified in each country mainly with Hellfire missiles, unmanned drones, special operations raids, and repeated incidents of the killing of innocent bystanders.
The brutal bombing of the Marriott Hotel in Pakistan’s capital, Islamabad, on September 20, 2008, was a powerful indicator of the spreading strength of virulent anti-American sentiment in the area. The hotel was a well-known watering hole for American Marines, Special Forces troops, and CIA agents. Our military activities in Pakistan have been as misguided as the Nixon-Kissinger invasion of Cambodia in 1970. The end result will almost surely be the same.
We should begin our disengagement from Afghanistan at once. We dislike the Taliban’s fundamentalist religious values, but the Afghan public, with its desperate desire for a return of law and order and the curbing of corruption, knows that the Taliban is the only political force in the country that has ever brought the opium trade under control. The Pakistanis and their effective army can defend their country from Taliban domination so long as we abandon the activities that are causing both Afghans and Pakistanis to see the Taliban as a lesser evil.
One of America’s greatest authorities on the defense budget, Winslow Wheeler, worked for 31 years for Republican members of the Senate and for the General Accounting Office on military expenditures. His conclusion, when it comes to the fiscal sanity of our military spending, is devastating:
“America’s defense budget is now larger in inflation-adjusted dollars than at any point since the end of World War II, and yet our Army has fewer combat brigades than at any point in that period; our Navy has fewer combat ships; and the Air Force has fewer combat aircraft. Our major equipment inventories for these major forces are older on average than any point since 1946—or in some cases, in our entire history.”

This in itself is a national disgrace. Spending hundreds of billions of dollars on present and future wars that have nothing to do with our national security is simply obscene. And yet Congress has been corrupted by the military-industrial complex into believing that, by voting for more defense spending, they are supplying “jobs” for the economy. In fact, they are only diverting scarce resources from the desperately needed rebuilding of the American infrastructure and other crucial spending necessities into utterly wasteful munitions. If we cannot cut back our longstanding, ever increasing military spending in a major way, then the bankruptcy of the United States is inevitable. As the current Wall Street meltdown has demonstrated, that is no longer an abstract possibility but a growing likelihood. We do not have much time left.
Chalmers Johnson is the author of three linked books on the crises of American imperialism and militarism. They are Blowback (2000), The Sorrows of Empire (2004), and Nemesis: The Last Days of the American Republic (2006). All are available in paperback from Metropolitan Books.

The Pentagon

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion. Editor, Robert Scheer. Publisher, Zuade Kaufman.
Copyright © 2008 Truthdig, L.L.C. All rights reserved.
Web site development by Hop Studios | Hosted by NEXCESS.NET