The American Century: Neoconservatism

[Armenian]

Re: The American Century: Neoconservatism

Just look at what Joe proposed last year: a war tax. These warmongers are already responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent people, not to mention several thousand American soldiers, now they want us goyim to directly fund their wars by paying a war tax. What else will they want? How much longer will the sheeple sleep? When will Americans wake up? Criminals will act like criminals. What I don't understand is how Americans allow themselves to be lead to the slaughter house like this.

Armenian

************************************************** **************

U.S. should weigh war on terrorism tax: Lieberman



Sen. Joseph Lieberman said on Tuesday that Congress should consider a tax to fund the U.S.-declared war on terrorism and reduce the need to cut domestic programs to pay for security spending. A former Democrat who supports the Iraq war and backs President George W. Bush's plan to send 21,500 additional troops to Iraq, Lieberman said the proposed increase in the Pentagon's budget for next fiscal year will squeeze funding for critical domestic programs. "I think we have to start thinking about a war on terrorism tax," the independent Connecticut lawmaker said. "I mean people keep saying we're not asking a sacrifice of anybody but our military in this war and some civilians who are working on it." "When you put together the (Pentagon) budget and the Homeland Security budgets, we need to ask people to help us in a way that they know when they pay more it will go for their security," he said during a Senate panel hearing on the defense budget request. Bush on Monday asked Congress to approve $700 billion in new military spending and to curb many domestic programs. The request includes $245 billion for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars between now and late 2008. If Congress approves the war funding, the United States will have spent $661.9 billion on combat in Iraq, Afghanistan and related activities. Increased defense spending since 2001 has come amid tax cuts that the Bush administration says were critical to keeping the U.S. economy strong after the September 11 attacks.

Source: http://today.reuters.com/news/articl...politicsNews-3

[Armenian]

Re: The American Century: Neoconservatism

Behold, a Neocon is born...

************************************************** **********

Mideast Hawks Help to Develop Giuliani Policy




Rudolph W. Giuliani’s approach to foreign policy shares with other Republican presidential candidates an aggressive posture toward terrorism, a commitment to strengthening the military and disdain for the United Nations. But in developing his views, Mr. Giuliani is consulting with, among others, a particularly hawkish group of advisers and neoconservative thinkers. Their positions have been criticized by Democrats as irresponsible and applauded by some conservatives as appropriately tough, while raising questions about how closely aligned Mr. Giuliani’s thinking is with theirs.

Mr. Giuliani’s team includes Norman Podhoretz, a prominent neoconservative who advocates bombing Iran “as soon as it is logistically possible”; Daniel Pipes, the director of the Middle East Forum, who has called for profiling Muslims at airports and scrutinizing American Muslims in law enforcement, the military and the diplomatic corps; and Michael Rubin, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute who has written in favor of revoking the United States’ ban on assassination.

The campaign says that the foreign policy team, which also includes scholars and experts with different policy approaches, is meant to give Mr. Giuliani a variety of perspectives. Based on his public statements, Mr. Giuliani does not share all of their views and parts company with traditional neoconservative thinking in some respects. But their presence has reassured some conservatives who have expressed doubts about Mr. Giuliani’s positions on issues like abortion and gun control, and underscored his efforts to cast himself as a tough-minded potential commander in chief.

And while Mr. Giuliani, like other New York mayors, liked to be seen as conducting his own brand of foreign policy from City Hall, he had little direct exposure to many of the specific issues the next president will confront and is still meeting for the first time with some of his advisers to develop detailed positions on particular subjects. Mr. Giuliani has taken an aggressive position on Iran’s efforts to build a nuclear program, saying last month it was a “promise” that as president he would take military action to keep the Iranians from developing a nuclear weapon. Warnings like that one and his reliance on advisers like Mr. Podhoretz, who wrote an article in June for Commentary magazine called “The Case for Bombing Iran,” have raised concerns among some Democrats.

Mr. Podhoretz said in an interview published Wednesday in The New York Observer that he recently met with Mr. Giuliani to discuss his new book, in which he advocates bombing Iran as part of a larger struggle against “Islamofascism,” and “there is very little difference in how he sees the war and I see it.” Asked in a recent interview if he agreed with Mr. Podhoretz that the time to bomb Iran has already come, Mr. Giuliani said: “From the information I do have available, which is all public source material, I would say that that is not correct, we are not at that stage at this point. Can we get to that stage? Yes. And is that stage closer than some of the Democrats believe? I believe it is.”

Like the neoconservatives, who played a major role in developing the Bush administration’s rationale for invading Iraq, Mr. Giuliani is a strong supporter of Israel who has expressed skepticism about how far the United States should go to back the creation of a Palestinian state. But Mr. Giuliani has distanced himself somewhat from what was once a central neoconservative tenet, the belief that the United States could spread democracy through the Middle East. Mr. Giuliani rejects the democracy effort as premature, and overly idealistic, noting that the policy led to the sweeping victory of Hamas in the Palestinian elections.

“Elections are necessary but not sufficient to establish genuine democracy,” Mr. Giuliani wrote in an article in Foreign Affairs, the policy journal. “Aspiring dictators sometimes win elections, and elected leaders sometimes govern badly and threaten their neighbors.” Neoconservatives said they were generally supportive of Mr. Giuliani’s positions and saw them as being in line with those taken by the other leading Republican presidential candidates.

“I would say, as a card-carrying member of the neoconservative conspiracy,” said William Kristol, editor of The Weekly Standard, “that I think Giuliani, McCain and Thompson are all getting really good advice — and Romney.” Mr. Kristol said that none of the leading Republican candidates “buy any of these fundamental criticisms that Bush took us on a radically wrong path, and we have to go to a pre-9/11 foreign policy.”

The emerging Giuliani doctrine, which is being created through conference calls, policy papers, and seminarlike meetings, contains a number of main elements. Mr. Giuliani calls for continuing the war in Iraq and building up the military by adding at least 10 combat brigades to the Army. He takes a dim view of the United Nations, which he sees as good for little other than humanitarian and peacekeeping missions, but wants to expand NATO and invite Israel to join it. He would continue the Bush administration’s efforts to fight AIDS and malaria in Africa, but would tailor policy toward Africa to emphasize trade over aid.

If there is a central tenet to his thinking, it may be that the United States must project strength to keep itself safe. “Weakness invites attack,” Mr. Giuliani warned to cheers in a speech he gave recently to the Republican xxxish Coalition. On the question of diplomacy, Mr. Giuliani makes it clear that he would impose a number of conditions before opening talks with unfriendly countries. In the Foreign Affairs article, he wrote that it might be advisable at times to hold serious diplomatic talks with the nation’s adversaries, but not with “those bent on our destruction or those who cannot deliver on their agreements.”

In a recent speech to the xxxish Coalition, he went further, accusing the Democrats of putting too much stock in diplomacy. “This is the great fallacy in this now very strong Democratic desire to negotiate, negotiate, negotiate and negotiate,” he said. “You’ve got to know with whom to negotiate and with whom you should not negotiate.” The foreign policy education of Mr. Giuliani, from former big-city mayor to would-be statesman, has played out in a series of briefings and papers and calls.

Aides to Mr. Giuliani dismiss any comparison to the briefings President Bush received when he was the governor of Texas, and a procession of experts — who called themselves Vulcans, after the Greek god of the forge — visited him in Austin to school him on policy. Mr. Giuliani, these aides said, already had a broad vision of what he wanted to do. One of Mr. Giuliani’s most important foreign policy tutors is Charles Hill, a career diplomat and former deputy to Secretary of State George P. Shultz in the Reagan administration. Mr. Hill had never met Mr. Giuliani when he was invited to a 45-minute meeting at Giuliani Partners in late February — a meeting that stretched to nearly three hours.

Mr. Hill went on to become the campaign’s chief foreign policy adviser, and to assemble a team that is united by its generally hawkish views and its belief in using American power to achieve its aims. Just days after the Sept. 11 attacks, Mr. Hill joined a number of foreign policy experts in signing an open letter to Mr. Bush urging that “even if evidence does not link Iraq directly to the attack, any strategy aiming at the eradication of terrorism and its sponsors must include a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq.”

Instead of talking about “the war on terror,” Mr. Giuliani speaks of “the terrorists’ war on us,” or, as he put it in a recent speech to a group of conservative Christians, the “Islamic terrorists’ war against the United States.” He sometimes faults Democrats for failing to mention that the terrorist threat comes specifically from Muslims. When Mr. Giuliani was asked in a recent interview if he could be viewed as an evenhanded broker when it came to Israeli-Palestinian issues, he questioned the premise of the question.

“America shouldn’t be evenhanded in dealing with the difference between an elected democracy that’s a government ruled by law, and a group of terrorists,” he said. “I think that was part of the mistake of the 1990s that led to the debacle that we saw in the Middle East in the way Clinton was handling it.”

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/25/us...=1&oref=slogin

[Armenian]

Re: The American Century: Neoconservatism

Neocon 'godfather' Norman Podhoretz tells Bush: bomb Iran



ONE of the founding fathers of neoconservatism has privately urged President George W Bush to bomb Iran rather than allow it to acquire nuclear weapons. Norman Podhoretz, an intellectual guru of the neoconservative movement who has joined Rudolph Giuliani’s 2008 presidential campaign as a senior foreign policy adviser, held an unpublicised meeting with Bush late last spring at the Waldorf Astoria hotel in New York. The encounter reveals the enduring influence of the neoconservatives at the highest reaches of the White House, despite some high-profile casualties in the past year. Karl Rove, who was still serving in the White House as Bush’s deputy chief of staff, took notes. But the meeting, which lasted 45 minutes, was not logged on the president’s schedule.

“I urged Bush to take action against the Iranian nuclear facilities and explained why I thought there was no alternative,” said Podhoretz, 77, in an interview with The Sunday Times. “I laid out the worst-case scenario – bombing Iran – versus the worst-case consequences of allowing the Iranians to get the bomb.” He also told Bush: “You have the awesome responsibility to prevent another holocaust. You’re the only one with the guts to do it.” The president looked very solemn, Podhoretz said.

For the most part Bush simply listened, although he and Rove both laughed when Podhoretz mentioned giving “futility its chance”, a phrase used by his fellow neoconservative, Robert Kagan, about the usefulness of pursuing United Nations sanctions against Iran. “He gave not the slightest indication of whether he agreed with me, but he listened very intently,” Podhoretz said. He is convinced, however, that “George Bush will not leave office with Iran having acquired a nuclear weapon or having passed the point of no return” – a reference to the Iranians’ acquisition of sufficient technical capability to produce a nuclear weapon.

“The president has said several times that he will be in the historical dock if he allows Iran to get the bomb. He believes that if we wait for threats to fully materialise, we’ll have waited too long – something I agree with 100%,” Podhoretz said The question of how to stop Iran has acquired renewed urgency after Mahmoud Ahma-dinejad, the Iranian president, declared at the United Nations last week that the dispute over his country’s nuclear programme was now “closed”.

He added that Iran would disregard any sanctions imposed by “arrogant powers” for pursuing peaceful nuclear energy. President Nicolas Sarkozy of France said flatly: “Everyone knows that this programme has military aims.” However, his call for stronger sanctions against Iran was ignored in favour of further delays. The UN security council, facing deadlock with Russia and China, agreed on Friday to give Iran until November to answer questions from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) about its nuclear programme. The National Council of Resistance of Iran, a controversial opposition group that first revealed the existence of the Natanz uranium enrichment plant, claimed last week that Iran was fooling the IAEA by constructing a secret underground military facility three miles south of Natanz under a granite mountain.

Kayhan, one of the most influential pro-regime newspapers in Iran, hinted in a recent editorial entitled “Why there won’t be a war” that there are more nuclear projects than have been disclosed. “Are Iran’s nuclear installations confined only to those places which have been declared?” it asked. “Can America be sure that if it destroys these it will have eradicated the whole of Iran’s nuclear programme, or at least set it back for a long time?” The paper, which is edited by Hossein Shariatmadari, a senior member of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards and a close adviser of Ayatollah Ali Khame-nei, Iran’s spiritual leader, concluded that the “hullaballoo” about American military action was “psychological warfare aimed only at frightening us”.

The editorial touched on several sore points, as US military and intelligence sources admit that not all Iran’s suspected nuclear facilities have been identified and others may be buried almost impenetrably deep in mountainous areas of the country. Admiral William Fallon, US commander in the Middle East, said last week that the “constant drumbeat of war is not helpful”. But he added that the pressure on Iran would continue: “We have a very, very robust capability in the region, especially in comparison to Iran. That is one of the things people might like to keep in mind.”

Podhoretz told Bush that he thought America could strike Iran militarily without nuclear weaponry. “I’m against using nuclear weapons and I don’t think they are necessary,” he said. He believes the British response to Iran’s seizure of Royal Navy hostages last spring will have convinced Tehran’s leaders that they will be able to act with even greater impunity if they became a nuclear power. Podhoretz has laid out his views in a new book, World War IV: The Long Struggle Against Islamofascism. He believes that it has a good deal in common with the cold war, an ideological battle lasting 42 years, which he describes as world war three. “The key to understanding what is happening is to see it as a successor to the previous totalitarian challenge to our civilisation,” he said.

Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran are merely different fronts of the same long war, he believes. Podhoretz, who described himself as a neoconservative before the term was invented, has seen the movement develop from a small band of “dissident intellectuals” to one of the intellectual forces behind Ronald Reagan and, later, the war in Iraq. Along the way, key people such as “Scooter” Libby, the senior aide to xxxx Cheney, the vice-president, and Paul Wolfo-witz, the former World Bank president, have fallen from grace. “Some of us have been picked off and others have lost heart,” Podhoretz said.

However, neoconservatives are helping to shape the foreign policy of Giuliani, the Republican frontrunner for the White House, who said in London recently that he would not tolerate a nuclear-armed Iran. Podhoretz has already explained his theory about Islamofascism to the former New York mayor. “He doesn’t call it world war four, but I know he thinks it is,” Podhoretz said. During the CNN Republican Presidential Debate, Giuliani said he would consider using nuclear weapons to destroy Iranian nuclear power (June 2007)

Source: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle2558296.ece

[skhara]

Re: The American Century: Neoconservatism

How much longer will the sheeple sleep? When will Americans wake up? Criminals will act like criminals. What I don't understand is how Americans allow themselves to be lead to the slaughter house like this.

Well what do sheeple do? They let themselves be slaughtered. I don't think Americans will wake up until America is ruined. Its been the case everywhere else, why not in America?

[Armenian]

Re: The American Century: Neoconservatism

Attacking Iran for Israel?

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is at her mushroom-cloud hyperbolic best, and this time Iran is the target. Her claim last week that "the policies of Iran constitute perhaps the single greatest challenge to American security interests in the Middle East and around the world" is simply too much of a stretch. To gauge someone's reliability, one depends largely on prior experience. Sadly, Rice's credibility suffers in comparison with that of the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Mohammed ElBaradei, who insists there is no evidence of an active nuclear weapons program in Iran.

If this sounds familiar, ElBaradei said the same thing about Iraq before it was attacked. But three days before the invasion, American nuclear expert xxxx Cheney told NBC's Tim Russert, "I think Mr. ElBaradei is, frankly, wrong." Here we go again. As in the case of Iraq, U.S. intelligence has been assiduously looking for evidence of a nuclear weapons program in Iran; but, alas, in vain. Burned by the bogus "proof" adduced for Iraq – the uranium from Africa, the aluminum tubes – the administration has shied away from fabricating nuclear-related "evidence." Are Bush and Cheney again relying on the Rumsfeld dictum, that "the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"? There is a simpler answer.

Cat Out of the Bag

The Israeli ambassador to the U.S., Sallai Meridor, let the cat out of the bag while speaking at the American xxxish Committee luncheon on Oct. 22. In remarks paralleling those of Rice, Meridor said Iran is the chief threat to Israel. Heavy on the chutzpah, he served gratuitous notice on Washington that effectively countering Iran's nuclear ambitions will take a "united United States in this matter," lest the Iranians conclude, "come January '09, they have it their own way." Meridor stressed that "very little time" remained to keep Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. How so? Even were there to be a nuclear program hidden from the IAEA, no serious observer expects Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon much sooner than five years from now. Truth be told, every other year since 1995 U.S. intelligence has been predicting that Iran could have a nuclear weapon in about five years.

It has become downright embarrassing – like a broken record, punctuated only by so-called "neoconservatives" like James Woolsey, who last summer publicly warned that the U.S. may have no choice but to bomb Iran in order to halt its nuclear weapons program. Woolsey, self-described "anchor of the Presbyterian wing of the xxxish Institute for National Security Affairs," put it this way: "I'm afraid that within, well, at worst, a few months – at best, a few years – they [the Iranians] could have the bomb." The day before Meridor's unintentionally revealing remark, Vice President xxxx Cheney reiterated, "We will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon."

That remark followed closely on President George W. Bush's apocalyptic warning of World War III, should Tehran acquire the knowledge to produce a nuclear weapon. The Israelis appear convinced they have extracted a promise from Bush and Cheney that they will help Israel nip Iran's nuclear program in the bud before they leave office. Never mind that there is no evidence that the Iranian nuclear program is any more weapons-related than the one Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld persuaded President Gerald Ford to approve in 1976 for Westinghouse and General Electric to install for the shah (price tag $6.4 billion). With 200-300 nuclear weapons in its arsenal, the Israelis enjoy a nuclear monopoly in the Middle East. They mean to keep that monopoly and are pressing for the U.S. to obliterate Iran's fledgling nuclear program.

Anyone aware of Iran's ability to retaliate realizes this would bring disaster to the whole region and beyond. But this has not stopped Cheney and Bush before. The rationale is similar to that revealed by Philip Zelikow, confidant of Condoleezza Rice, former member of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, and later executive director of the 9/11 Commission. On Oct. 10, 2002, Zelikow told a crowd at the University of Virginia: "Why would Iraq attack America or use nuclear weapons against us? I'll tell you what I think the real threat is – it's the threat to Israel. And this is the threat that dare not speak its name … the American government doesn't want to lean too hard on it rhetorically, because it is not a popular sell."

Harbinger?

The political offensive against Iran coalesced as George W. Bush began his second term, with Cheney out in front pressing for an attack on its nuclear-related facilities. During a Jan. 20, 2005, interview with MSNBC, just hours before Bush's second inauguration, Cheney put Iran "right at the top of the list of trouble spots," and noted that negotiations and UN sanctions might fail to stop Iran's nuclear program.

Cheney then added with remarkable nonchalance: "Given the fact that Iran has a stated policy that their objective is the destruction of Israel, the Israelis might decide to act first, and let the rest of the world worry about cleaning up the diplomatic mess afterwards." Does this not sound like the so-called "Cheney plan" being widely discussed in the media today? An Israeli air attack; Iranian retaliation; Washington springing to the defense of its "ally" Israel? A big fan of preemption, Cheney has done little to disguise his attraction to Israel's penchant to preempt, such as Israel's air strike against the Iraqi nuclear reactor at Osirak in 1981. Ten years after the Osirak attack, then-Defense Secretary Cheney reportedly gave Israeli Maj. Gen. David Ivri, commander of the Israeli air force, a satellite photo of the Iraqi nuclear reactor destroyed by U.S.-built Israeli aircraft. On the photo Cheney penned, "Thanks for the outstanding job on the Iraqi nuclear program in 1981."

Nothing is known of Ivri's response, but it is a safe bet it was along the lines of "we could not have done it without U.S. help." Indeed, though the U.S. officially condemned the attack (the Reagan administration was supporting Saddam Hussein's Iraq at that point), the intelligence shared by the Pentagon with the Israelis made a major contribution to the success of the Israeli raid. With Vice President Cheney calling the shots now, similar help may be forthcoming prior to any Israeli air attack on Iran. It is no secret that former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon began to press for an early preemptive strike on Iran in 2003, claiming that Iran was likely to obtain a nuclear weapon much earlier than what U.S. intelligence estimated.

Sharon made a habit of bringing his own military adviser to brief Bush with aerial photos of Iranian nuclear-related installations. More troubling still, in the fall of 2004, retired Gen. Brent Scowcroft, who served as national security adviser to President George H.W. Bush and as chair of the younger Bush's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, made some startling comments to the Financial Times. A master of discretion with the media, Scowcroft nonetheless saw fit to make public his conclusion that Sharon had Bush "mesmerized," that he had our president "wrapped around his little finger." Needless to say, Scowcroft was immediately removed from the advisory board.

An Unstable Infatuation

George W. Bush first met Sharon in 1998, when the Texas governor was taken on a tour of the Middle East by Matthew Brooks, then executive director of the Republican xxxish Coalition. Sharon was foreign minister and took Bush on a helicopter tour over the Israeli-occupied territories. An Aug. 3, 2006, McClatchy wire story by Ron Hutcheson quotes Matthew Brooks: "If there's a starting point for George W. Bush's attachment to Israel, it's the day in late 1998, when he stood on a hilltop where Jesus delivered the Sermon on the Mount, and, with eyes brimming with tears, read aloud from his favorite hymn, 'Amazing Grace.' He was very emotional. It was a tear-filled experience. He brought Israel back home with him in his heart. I think he came away profoundly moved."

Bush made gratuitous but revealing reference to that trip at the first meeting of his National Security Council on Jan. 30, 2001. After announcing he would abandon the decades-long role of "honest broker" between Israelis and Palestinians and would tilt pronouncedly toward Israel, Bush said he would let Sharon resolve the dispute however he saw fit. At that point he brought up his trip to Israel with the Republican xxxish Coalition and the flight over Palestinian camps, but there was no sense of concern for the lot of the Palestinians.

In Ron Suskind's Price of Loyalty, then-Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, who was at the NSC meeting, quotes Bush: "Looked real bad down there," the president said with a frown. Then Bush said it was time to end America's efforts in the region. "I don't see much we can do over there at this point," he said. O'Neill also reported that Colin Powell, the newly minted but nominal secretary of state, was taken completely by surprise at this nonchalant jettisoning of long-standing policy. Powell demurred, warning that this would unleash Sharon and "the consequences could be dire, especially for the Palestinians." But according to O'Neill, Bush just shrugged, saying, "Sometimes a show of strength by one side can really clarify things." O'Neill says that Powell seemed "startled." It is a safe bet that the vice president was in no way startled.

What Now?

The only thing that seems to be standing in the way of a preemptive attack on Iran's nuclear facilities is foot-dragging by the U.S. military. It seems likely that the senior military have told the president and Cheney: This time let us brief you on what to expect on Day 2, on Week 4, on Month 6 – and on the many serious things Iran can do to Israel, and to us in Iraq and elsewhere.

CentCom commander Adm. William Fallon is reliably reported to have said, "We are not going to do Iran on my watch." And in an online Q&A, award-winning Washington Post reporter Dana Priest recently spoke of a possible "revolt" if pilots were ordered to fly missions against Iran. She added: "This is a little bit of hyperbole, but not much. Just look at what Gen. [George] Casey, the Army chief, has said … that the tempo of operations in Iraq would make it very hard for the military to respond to a major crisis elsewhere. Beside, it's not the 'war' or 'bombing' part that's difficult; it's the morning after and all the days after that. Haven't we learned that (again) from Iraq?" How about Congress? Could it act as a brake on Bush and Cheney? Forget it.

If the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) with its overflowing coffers supports an attack on Iran, so will most of our spineless lawmakers. Already, AIPAC has succeeded in preventing legislation that would have required the president to obtain advance authorization for an attack on Iran. And for every Fallon, there is someone like the inimitable, retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney, a close associate of James Woolsey and other "neocons." The air campaign "will be easy," says McInerney, a Fox News pundit who was a rabid advocate of shock and awe over Iraq. "Ahmadinejad has nothing in Iran that we can't penetrate," he adds, and several hundred bombers, including Stealth bombers, will be enough to do the trick:

"Forty-eight hours duration, hitting 2,500 aim points to take out their nuclear facilities, their air defense facilities, their air force, their navy, their Shahab-3 retaliatory missiles, and finally their command and control. And then let the Iranian people take their country back." And the rationale? Since it will be a hard sell to promote the idea, against all evidence, of an imminent threat that Iran is about to have a nuclear weapon, the White House PR machine is likely to focus on other evidence showing that Iran is supporting those "killing our troops in Iraq." The scary thing is that Cheney is more likely to use the McInerneys and Woolseys than the Fallons and Caseys in showing the president how easily it can be done.

Madness

It is not as though we have not had statesmen wise enough to warn us against foreign entanglements, and about those who have difficulty distinguishing between the strategic interests of the United States and those of other nations, even allies: "A passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation facilitates the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, infuses into one the enmities of the other, and betrays the former into participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification."
- George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796

Source: http://www.antiwar.com/mcgovern/?articleid=11835

[Armenian]

Re: The American Century: Neoconservatism

Has anyone here wondered how can an American organization can get caught spying on the United States and still have the biggest names in politics eager to speak on their podiums?

Does anyone here still think that this is just another conspiracy theory? Or could there be more to this?

Armenian

************************************************** ***************

AIPAC: Still Spying, Still Tax-Exempt

Perhaps you will recall that the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee, also known as the "xxxish lobby," was exposed once again in yet another revelation concerning an ongoing FBI investigation, which should have been tantamount to a blockbuster headline news event. It was virtually suppressed by our friends in the big media. The event was almost completely crushed by the Zionist-owned and operated corporate mainstream establishment "press." The initial and timely reports documenting this second incident relating to AIPAC spying were conspicuously posted in the real press: the Internet.

It is once again necessary to examine the extensive power and control AIPAC demonstrates in order to put matters in their proper perspective. Fortune magazine once listed AIPAC as the second most powerful lobby, right behind that of the millions and millions of Americans who belong to the American Association of Retired Persons and the National Rifle Association. These two huge lobbies are virtually ineffectual when compared to the unbelievable and massive power of AIPAC. It is therefore the position of this writer that AIPAC is, and has been for a very long time, the most powerful lobby on Earth! What AIPAC lacks in strength as regards their paltry membership of only 60,000, not even enough members to fill an average NFL professional football stadium, it more than magnifies in unbelievable power due to its knack of applying the right political pressure at both the right time and the right place to astonishingly control all of American government. They follow this proven uncanny capability with lots and lots of cash for "our" representatives in Washington.

The recent Israeli spy activities involving Pentagon analyst Larry Franklin and AIPAC is a case in point. Generalizations are usually dangerous, so writing off the entire FBI, or for that matter, the CIA, is inviting, yet wrong. Not that either are necessary, or even constitutionally sanctioned; the intent here is to accept them only because they exist, not because they are in any way or form justified.

These alphabet agencies represent the most frightening aspect of Big Brother government, and are seen as such even the more due to their control by the politically appointed perfumed princes at the top who run them. Merit is not the basis for such appointments – it hardly ever is. It is political cronyism and patronage that establishes the leadership in such bureaucracies. Certain elements, usually at the lower "grunt" level desk analyst and agent echelon, operate at times in somewhat of a vacuum and are almost immune to the enforced deliberate incompetence from the top.

This lower level dedication on the part of some of the rank-and-file in these agencies explains why there are at times glitches and anomalies that buck the normal trend of political malfeasance. The Larry Franklin spy scandal is being covered up by the Bush administration in precisely the same fashion as that of the Johnson administration when it covered up Israel's attack on the U.S.S. Liberty. The attack was initiated by the Israeli Air Force and Navy, which attempted to sink the vessel because our Navy spy ship's crew caught and recorded the Israeli military murdering captive Egyptian POWs. The U.S.S. Liberty lost 34 crew members.

It may be recalled that the Franklin investigation was blown open by our Zionist mainstream press much to the chagrin of the FBI investigators who would have preferred continuing secrecy to complete a more in-depth investigation upon which to develop and present a much stronger case for federal prosecutors. It appears as though the press obtained information about the story from a sole source without corroboration from the FBI. Perhaps it is this that angered the FBI because the press releases effectively compromised the investigation. And if our Zionist press blew the lid off the investigation at the first hint of wrongdoing, then why are they avoiding and virtually spiking the story now?

To be sure, the best sources of information as to the latest development in the investigation are the Israeli newspapers Ha'aretz and The Jerusalem Post. The Associated Press also carried a watered-down account, which was briefly and inconspicuously carried on MSNBC.com. Ha'aretz's Nathan Guttman in his article, "FBI raids AIPAC offices once again," offers: "For the second time in 13 weeks, FBI agents raided the pro-Israel American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) offices yesterday [December 1st] searching for information against Larry Franklin, an analyst at the Middle East desk of the Pentagon."

[...]

Source: http://www.thepriceofliberty.org/04/12/10/lang.htm

AIPAC Spy Nest Exposed

The other shoe has finally dropped in the case of the spy scandal involving the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). In addition to five espionage-related charges filed against former Pentagon analyst Larry Franklin, two counts of conspiracy to communicate classified information to a foreign power have been lodged against former AIPAC foreign policy director Steve Rosen, and a single count of conspiracy against Rosen's assistant, former AIPAC Iran specialist Keith Weissman. The latest indictment [.pdf] reads like a spy thriller, and, while some of the elements were already known, there is much that is surprising, including the information that Rosen has apparently been under surveillance since at least 1999.

On April 13, 1999, Rosen had a conversation with someone identified as "Foreign Official 1" (FO-1): the AIPAC director told FO-1 that he (Rosen) had "picked up an extremely sensitive piece of intelligence" described by Rosen as "codeword protected intelligence." According to the indictment, "Rosen then disclosed to FO-1 national defense information concerning terrorist activities in Central Asia." While the identity of "Foreign Official 1" is not yet known, there is no doubt about what foreign country we're talking about: it is Israel, and without doubt the individuals being observed were officials of the Israel embassy. One of these has already been identified in the media as Naor Gilon, the embassy's chief political officer, recently recalled home; the FBI is seeking to interview him, and other Israeli officials who may have been part of the spy cell. Three are mentioned in the indictment.

What is striking is that the FBI – or whoever – was hot on the trail of AIPAC and "FO-1" even at this early date, listening in on their phone calls and following them around as they met for lunch over spilled beans. Yet in order to get authorization for wiretaps, especially of an American citizen, law enforcement must go to a federal judge for authorization – and, remember, this was before 9/11, when the legal bar was set far higher. So they had a good reason to be listening in on Israeli officials and their American sock puppets, and shadowing their movements. The discovery that AIPAC officials were in possession of highly classified top-secret information procured from U.S. government officials was apparently part and parcel of an ongoing investigation – but into what? Sparked by what?

We don't yet know the answers to those questions, but what we do know is this: the idea, floated by some writers on this subject, that the investigation was initiated by Condoleezza Rice in response to Israeli efforts to stop a proposed meeting between President George Bush and Yasser Arafat, is flat out wrong. The roots of this probe go much deeper. As I wrote in The American Conservative in June: "Like a dorsal fin poking just above the water, the Franklin spy trial promises us a glimpse of a creature much larger than appears at first sight."

However, not even I imagined the monstrous scale of this submerged giant: the earliest I could trace its movements was back to just before 9/11, based on the reporting of UPI's Richard Sale. But 1999? Who woulda thought? And it isn't just the timeline that's disturbing: it seems that a number of apparently senior U.S. government officials are about to be dragged into this imbroglio of trouble and treason. AIPAC was pretty busy that summer, particularly Rosen and Weissman; not only were they picking up "codeword protected" intelligence and passing it on to Israeli officials, but the latter was also telling "FO-1" about a "secret FBI, classified FBI report" (the indictment cites snippets of wiretapped conversations throughout) about the Khobar Towers bombing. Weissman was boasting to his Israeli handler that he had gotten the information from "three different sources, including United States government officials."

[...]

Source: http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=6890

[skhara]

Re: The American Century: Neoconservatism

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XD3k_FDYJss

[Armenian]

Re: The American Century: Neoconservatism

A geopolitical essay resurrected from the pre-9/11 world. The article below, concerning Russian-Iranian relations, was featured within a Neocon website, the Think Tank called - The Heritage Foundation: Leadership For America. This essay come to us from a time period when the terms "Neocon" and "War on Terror" were still unknown to the public. As the essay clearly highlights, however, even before it all began in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks in the United States, the grand agenda of the special interest groups working within Washington DC was there for all to see.

Armenian

************************************************** ******************

Countering Russian-Iranian Military Cooperation



Iranian President Mohammed Khatami's recent visit to Russia resulted in expanded strategic cooperation between the two states, particularly in the areas of weapons and nuclear and ballistic missile technology. Iran already is the third largest importer of Russian arms after China and India.1 A new de facto alliance between Russia and Iran that increases Tehran's military capabilities will make this sponsor of terrorism more of a threat to vital U.S. interests in the Persian Gulf as well as to the security of America's allies in the Middle East. Moreover, by gaining nuclear-tipped intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) and other advanced weapons systems, Iran could one day threaten the United States directly.

Nevertheless, Moscow has ignored Washington's repeated protests over the proliferation of its advanced weaponry and technology to Iran, particularly technology that could be used in producing weapons of mass destruction (WMD). For these reasons, Khatami's visit to Moscow on March 12-15 and the agreement by Iranian officials to buy state-of-the-art Russian surface-to-air missile defense systems have greatly increased concerns in Washington over this close relationship. On March 19, Secretary of State Colin Powell issued a warning to both Russia and Iran that the United States would closely watch their military cooperation and would take unspecified action if their activities threatened to destabilize the Middle East.2

Rhetoric alone will not be enough to deter cooperation between Iran and Russia. The Bush Administration will need to employ an array of military, diplomatic, and economic measures to slow Iran's strategic buildup of weapons, deal with its radical Islamic regime, and prevent further deterioration of U.S. relations with Russia. The Administration should proceed cautiously but deliberately to:

* Maintain a strong U.S. military presence in the Persian Gulf to deter and defend against Iranian aggression or terrorism;

* Ensure that no U.S. enterprises or government credits contribute to Iran's buildup of missiles or development of weapons of mass destruction;

* Prevent American investors from subsidizing Russian projects that generate revenue for the Iranian government that could be used to purchase advanced military technology;

* Task the interagency WMD working group at the National Security Council with designing a strategy for sanctioning Russia and Iran because of their proliferation activities;

* Support the rescheduling of Russia's $150 billion debt to the Paris Club only in exchange for Moscow's active cooperation in cutting the flow of advanced military technology to Iran and other states;

* Accelerate the development of sea-based missile defense systems to be deployed in the Mediterranean and the Persian Gulf;

* Strengthen U.S. military ties to the Gulf Cooperation Council, which includes Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates, and encourage the council's members to form a more effective military alliance; and

* Assist the Iranian people in their quest to achieve genuine democracy.

HOW RUSSIA HAS CONTRIBUTED TO IRAN'S MILITARY BUILDUP

Concerns over Russia's increasing military ties with Iran, especially in the area of weapons proliferation, have grown since 1994 when senior Iranian officials first took steps to establish relations with Russian bureaucrats in charge of nuclear and missile programs in the post-Soviet military-industrial complex. Up to $25 million changed hands to facilitate Tehran's access to Russian advanced technology.3

After intensive consultations, Vice President Al Gore and Russian Prime Minister Viktor Chernomyrdin on June 30, 1995, signed a confidential agreement that was supposed to limit Moscow's sales of arms to Iran. Russia agreed to supply only weapons specified under the 1989 Soviet-Iranian military agreements and promised not to deliver advanced conventional or "destabilizing" weapons to Iran. Finally, Russia agreed not to sell any weapons to Iran beyond December 31, 1999.4

With sales exceeding $4 billion between 1992 and 2000, however, Iran is now the third largest customer for Russian weapons. Among the systems Russia supplied to Iran in the 1990s are three Kilo-class attack submarines, which could be used to disrupt shipping in the Gulf; eight MiG-29 fighter bombers; 10 Su-24 fighter bombers; and hundreds of tanks and armored personnel carriers.5

In addition, the Russian Ministry of Nuclear Industry and affiliated firms may have transferred uranium enrichment technology to Iran while building a civilian nuclear reactor slated for completion in 2003 in the Gulf port of Bushehr.6 This technology is necessary in the development of nuclear bombs. Moscow has facilitated the sale of technology to Iran that is used in the manufacture of the Soviet-era SS-4 intermediate range ballistic missiles (IRBMs) and has helped Iran to develop its Shahab-3 IRBM, which has a range of 1,200 kilometers and is capable of hitting targets throughout the Middle East, including Saudi Arabia and Israel.7

Cooperation between Moscow and Tehran increased after the election of President Vladimir Putin last spring and Moscow's November 2000 renunciation of the 1995 Gore-Chernomyrdin Agreement.8 Anticipating lucrative arms sales, a large number of Russian hard-line politicians and generals have endorsed Russia's rapprochement with the Islamic Republic.9 For its part, Tehran sees Russia as a valuable source of military technology that Western states have declined to provide since Iran's 1979 revolution.10

A Boost from Official State Visits

Khatami's state visit to Moscow reciprocated the visit of Russian Defense Minister Marshal Igor Sergeev to Tehran in December 2000. Sergeev's visit, in addition to being a major breakthrough in the military relationship between the two governments, was the first visit by a Russian defense minister to the Islamic Republic since Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini seized power in 1979.

During his visit to Iran, the former commander of the Russian Strategic Rocket Forces toured Iranian aerospace, electronics, and missile facilities and consulted with top Iranian leaders on strategic cooperation in the Middle East and Central Asia.11 Sergeev and his Iranian counterpart discussed a 10-year arms and military technology program worth over $3 billion that would include training for Iranian military officers and engineers at Russian military academies. The representatives agreed that their governments would consult each other on "military doctrines, common challenges and threats," effectively bringing the status of their bilateral ties to that of an informal alliance.12 Sergeev bluntly rejected U.S. concerns about the relationship, telling the Iranian media upon his arrival in that state that "Russia...intends to pursue its own ends."13

During President Khatami's visit to Russia last month, Putin reiterated that stance, stating that Russia has the right to defend itself.14 Iranian officials toured a Russian missile factory and agreed to buy Osa and TOR-M1 surface-to-air missiles, which have missile defense capabilities. Khatami also toured a nuclear reactor plant in St. Petersburg and signaled that his country would buy another reactor from Russia. Since Iran already controls some of the world's largest natural gas reserves, the need for two nuclear reactors--at a cost of $1.8 billion--is questionable at best. The reactors could provide cover for a clandestine nuclear weapons program, which could make use of Iranian scientists who currently are studying nuclear physics and ballistic rocketry in Russia and the more than 500 Russian experts currently working in Iran on supposedly peaceful applications of nuclear science.

WHY RUSSIA IS DEALING WITH IRAN

Moscow has two strategic goals in pursuing a military relationship with Iran: keeping its own military-industrial complex solvent and building a coalition in Eurasia to counterbalance U.S. military superiority. Russia has found in Iran a large, oil-rich customer for its military-industrial complex, which supports over 2 million jobs. Russian leaders hoped the export revenues would allow them to save the research and development capabilities and technology base they inherited from the Soviet Union that could be used to develop new major weapons systems for the Russian armed forces and foreign customers. To achieve economies of scale, however, Russia needs access to large arms markets, such as China, India, and Iran.

The state-owned arms exporter, Rosoboronexport, is pursuing such former Soviet clients in the Middle East as Algeria, Libya, and Syria and is developing markets for arms in Latin America and East Asia, from Malaysia to Vietnam. Senior Russian officials reportedly have taken bribes from foreign customers anxious to gain access to Russia's sensitive technologies.15 Moreover, direct payments from foreign customers are often put in offshore bank accounts, from which some funds find their way into private pockets.

More worrisome for U.S. policy planners is the geopolitical dimension of Russian-Iranian rapprochement. In early 1997, then-Foreign Minister Evgeny Primakov and his Iranian counterpart, Ali Akbar Velayati, issued a joint statement calling the U.S. presence in the Persian Gulf "totally unacceptable." Primakov sought to build a Eurasian counterbalance to the Euro-Atlantic alliance, which would be based on a coalition that included Russia, China, India, and Iran.16 Such efforts make it likely that the United States and its allies will be the target of Russian-Iranian military cooperation in the future.

The Russian Federation and the Islamic Republic cooperate over a broad range of policy issues, with military ties being an important aspect of relations between the two countries. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, Iran has refrained from actively promoting its brand of Islamic radicalism in the former Soviet republics. Despite fashioning itself as defender of all Muslims, Tehran did little when the Russian military slaughtered tens of thousands of Muslim civilians in the first Chechen war (1994-1996), and it put forth only weak protestations against Moscow's excessive use of force in the second Chechen war (1999-2001). Moscow and Tehran also have cooperated against Afghanistan's radical Taliban regime by supporting the anti-Taliban Northern Alliance opposition coalition; support Armenia rather than the pro-Turkish, pro-Western Azerbaijan; and oppose a "western" route for exporting oil from the Caspian Sea basin through Georgia to Turkey.

Some Russian officials, however, recognize that cooperation with Iran has its limits. As arms control expert Alexei Arbatov, Deputy Chairman of the Duma Defense Committee, has warned, technology transfers to Iran may backfire. Within 10 to 15 years, he predicts, Russian technology could be used by radical Islamic terrorists or in Iranian, Algerian, Saudi, Egyptian, and Libyan missiles and other weapons aimed at Russia.17

THE THREAT TO U.S. INTERESTS

Iran's military buildup poses direct threats to U.S. interests in the Middle East.18 Iran has long aspired to play a dominant role in the Middle East and the Islamic world. Under the late Shah as well as the current radical Islamic leadership, Iran has sought to build its military capabilities and its ability to defend itself against Iraq. However, its aspirations go beyond legitimate self-defense. Islamic militants in Iran make little effort to hide the fact that they want to destroy the United States and its ally, Israel.

For example, senior Iranian officials, including the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamanei, repeatedly have denied Israel's right to exist. In a 1998 parade in Tehran, a Shahab-3 missile carrier prominently displayed an inscription that read, "Israel should be wiped off the map."19 By opposing Arab-Israeli peace negotiations and maintaining a militant anti-Israeli posture, Tehran hopes to build support for its leadership role in the Arab and Muslim world. Iran also backs the Hezballah (Party of God) terrorist organization that is based in Lebanon.

A more aggressive, nuclear Iran would cause further political instability that could lead to high oil prices, which would benefit both Russia and Iran as oil exporters. Moreover, a nuclear- and missile-armed Iran could well present a serious challenge to America's allies and major oil exporters in the Gulf. Iran could use its missile capabilities to blackmail the West, deter the United States and its allies from deploying forces to defend oil shipping routes, or deny the U.S. Navy access to the Gulf itself.

According to Admiral Thomas R. Wilson, Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, Tehran is "not unlikely" to re-export the sensitive Russian technology for weapons of mass destruction it obtains to militant Muslim regimes or terrorist groups in other countries, from Algeria to Sudan.20 If America's efforts to limit the proliferation of weapons and weapons technologies from China, Russia, and other countries to Iran fail, the United States will have little recourse but to impose sanctions on the violators and take other measures to punish countries that proliferate weapons of mass destruction.

[...]

Source: http://www.heritage.org/Research/Rus...sia/BG1425.cfm

[Armenian]

Re: The American Century: Neoconservatism

So, just prior to the September 11, 2001 attacks Washington DC's closest ally in the Middle East and the recipient of billions of USD in military aid warns of an Al-Qaeda attack on mainland USA and no one in Washington DC does anything? Several years later they do the same in London and no one in London does anything?

To reiterate a few points:

Ossama and company are said to be based in Pakistan.

Taliban is said to be based in Pakistan.

Islamic terrorists in Kashmir are said to be based in Pakistan.

Overwhelming majority of Islamic terrorists being apprehended in the West either are Pakistanis or have been training in Pakistan.

Saudi Arabia is said to be the number one benefactor of Islamic Madrasas worldwide.

Saudi Arabia is said to be the number one supporter Sunni Islamic extremism worldwide.

Most 9/11 terrorists were of Saudi Arabian decent.

However...

Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are the United States' most vital allies in the "War on Terror."

And...

Forces of democracy are protecting our freedom in USA by the bloody/illegal occupation of Iraq and planning the destruction of Iran...

Saudi Arabia and Pakistan receive multi-billions of USD in military aid from Washington DC. And the official reason why they get so much is: Pakistan and Saudi Arabia need to fight "Islamic terrorists," according to law makers in Washington DC. Yes, they need to fight Islamic terrorists in "tribal" areas with state-of-the-art jet fighters, early warning radar systems, cutting edge missiles technology, sophisticated tanks, modern warships...

You get the picture.

Instead of the current BS in Iraq and Iran had the forces of the "coalition of the willing" saturated the "tribal" areas of Pakistan I would have fully supported this so-called "War-on-Terror."

But we all know that this war has nothing to do with fighting Islamic terrorism.

Note: Regarding Musharaf, a lot of curious things are occurring in Islamabad. Although I'm not paying much attention to what is occurring there I have a feeling that Washington DC is gradually implementing a plan to replace its favorite dictator in the region. Benazir Bhutto suddenly and forcefully coming out of the London fog is by no coincidence. A lot of things seem to be getting orchestrated in Pakistan lately. For the sake of public approval they have to make it look good.

Armenian

************************************************** ****************

Saudis claim US ignored 'precise' 9/11 warnings



SAUDI Arabia could have helped the US prevent Al-Qaeda's 2001 attacks on New York and Washington if US officials had consulted Saudi authorities in a "credible" way, a former diplomat said in a documentary aired yesterday. CNN reported Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the former Saudi ambassador to the US, as saying that Saudi intelligence was "actively following" most of the 9/11 plotters "with precision". The comments are similar to the remarks this week by Saudi King Abdullah that suggested Britain could have prevented the July 2005 train bombings in London if it had heeded warnings from Riyadh, the network said. Speaking to the Arabic satellite network Al-Arabiya, Prince Bandar - King Abdullah's national security adviser - said if US security authorities had engaged their Saudi counterparts in a serious and credible manner, "in my opinion, we would have avoided what happened". Prince Bandar was the Saudi ambassador to Washington for nearly 22 years before he was replaced in 2005. A knowledgeable US official told CNN that Prince Bandar's comments should be taken "with a grain of salt". On Monday, King Abdullah told the BBC that Saudi Arabia had sent warnings to British authorities before the London subway bombings that killed 52 people - the city's bloodiest day since World War II.

[...]

Source: http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599...75-401,00.html

Saudi king criticizes U.K. on terror



King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia accused Britain on Monday of failing to act on information the Saudis provided that might have averted London's deadly July 7, 2005, suicide bombings, the British Broadcasting Corp. reported. Abdullah told the BBC that Britain was not doing enough in the war on terror. He made the comments hours before arriving in London for a state visit. "I believe that most countries are not taking this issue too seriously, including, unfortunately, Great Britain," he said through a translator. "We have sent information to Great Britain before the terrorist attacks in Britain, but unfortunately no action was taken and it may have been able to avert the tragedy." The king did not specify what information Saudi Arabia provided. However, the BBC reported Abdullah's remark was linked to a long-held Saudi leadership claim that it gave Britain information that might have averted the 2005 attack. Months before the July 7, 2005, attack in which four suicide bombers killed 52 people and wounded hundreds on London's transit network, Saudi Arabia told the British and U.S. governments that it had arrested a young Saudi man who confessed to raising money for a terrorist attack in crowded areas of the British capital, officials have told the Associated Press.

[..]

Source: http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2...udi-king_N.htm

Why U.S. sticks by Musharraf



The Bush administration is not likely to break with the Pakistani general, given his backing in the fight against Islamic extremism. America's safety and the demands of the war on terror trump immediate concerns about democracy in Pakistan. That Bush administration perspective explains why the US – as disturbed as it may be by Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf's declaration of a state of emergency – is expected to refrain from steps that could weaken Pakistan's leader. President Bush has regarded Mr. Musharraf as a major ally in the fight against Islamic extremism.

So while US officials talk about reviewing the billions of dollars in mostly military assistance Pakistan receives from the US, a break with Musharraf over his authoritarian turn is seen as improbable. Anything more than intensified diplomacy – calling for a restoration of rights and for holding scheduled elections as soon as possible – is unlikely, at least over the short term. Although most analysts agree that the US options for influencing Musharraf are limited, they also say the time has come for a new Pakistan policy that is less Musharraf-centric. The military ruler, they say, may not last long at the helm of a nuclear power in a volatile region. In addition, it is increasingly clear that US interests in a stable Pakistan, free of Al Qaeda's influence, have not advanced under Musharraf.

"We have to start by acknowledging that we don't have that many options in this relationship. And we should take our history with Pakistan into account, which shows that any sticks we've wielded or sanctions we've imposed haven't had direct impact on Pakistan's actions," says Karl Inderfurth, a former assistant secretary for South Asian affairs who is now at George Washington University. "But we need to be engaged with the Pakistanis in this time of crisis. Our action should be nuanced and broad-based, and we should be consulting the international community on this."

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice reiterated Monday the US view that "the best path for Pakistan is to quickly return to a constitutional path and then to hold elections." That came after earlier comments she made – echoed by the White House – that no US action would be taken to jeopardize the Pakistani military's battle with Al Qaeda insurgents and their supporters in remote tribal territories. "I would be very surprised if anyone wants [President Bush] to ignore or set aside our concerns about terrorism," Secretary Rice said shortly after Musharraf declared a state of emergency Saturday. A White House spokesman had a similar comment: "We're obviously not going to do anything that will undermine the war on terror," said Gordon Johndroe. Rice says Washington will review its aid to Pakistan, which has received about $11 billion in US assistance since it became a close ally in fighting terrorism after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

As it tries to influence Musharraf, the United States may seek to pressure the Pakistani military – and indeed is already showing signs of doing so. The US Embassy said that a US-Pakistan Defense Consultative Group meeting to be held in Islamabad this week has been postponed – awaiting "conditions [that] are more conducive to achieve the important objectives of the meeting." Such signals to the Pakistani military could indirectly influence Musharraf to step back from actions that he claims are directed at Islamic militants but have come across more as a personal power grab.

"The most important actions the US can take are those that will catch the attention of the Pakistani military, which has never liked being at loggerheads with the Americans," says Husain Haqqani, a former Pakistani government official now at Boston University's Center for International Relations. The US military may be focused on Pakistan's fight with extremists, he says, but the country's rising political instability does not necessarily mean US military officials will favor a kid-glove approach to Musharraf. "They will see that if Musharraf is going to commit more troops to controlling demonstrators and riots in the streets, that will mean less attention to the war on terror," says Mr. Haqqani.

Pentagon officials say that US review of aid to Pakistan includes current funding and what has been proposed under the 2008 budget request from the Department of State. That includes $300 million in foreign military financing, $2 million for international military education and training, and another $32 million for international narcotics and law-enforcement programs. Also, as part of the foreign military-sales program, Congress has approved the sale of 32 F-16 jet fighters, half of which are new. The aid package also includes about $10 million for the nonproliferation antiterrorism and demining and related programs, or NADR. All such funding requests are through the Department of State. "It's fair to say that we are reviewing all of our assistance programs," said Bryan Whitman, a spokesman at the Pentagon Monday.

Some observers have drawn attention to the differences in approach of the Bush administration to recent antidemocratic measures by the military junta in Burma (also known as Myanmar) and Musharraf's moves. Bush was quick to publicly condemn Burma's leaders and to push for international sanctions. He was initially silent on Pakistan, but was expected to make a comment Monday afternoon. The responses suggest both the difference in the two country's strategic importance to the US and the opportunity the US may have for influencing Pakistan, Haqqani says.

"Of course Pakistan has a central role in the international confrontation with terrorism that was not a factor in addressing Burma," he says. "But it is also true that Burma's military rulers are quite ready to dismiss outside pressures, but that is not the case with Pakistan's rulers or the people in general. Most sectors of Pakistani society wish to avoid isolation from the rest of the world."

Still, Mr. Inderfurth says almost any punitive action the US might consider against Musharraf could easily backfire and end up hurting US interests. Pointing to the sale of 32 F-16s that Congress has approved, Inderfurth says, "To cut off that [sale] might seem like a logical place to show our displeasure – until you consider that such a move would do more to jeopardize the broad Pakistani public's estimation of the US than to undermine the Pakistani military." Noting that the long-sought F-16s have become a public symbol of how "the US is not a true friend of Pakistan," Inderfurth says, "It's just another example of how complicated this crucial relationship is, and how much attention it's going to require over the coming months."

Source: http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1106/p01s07-usfp.htm

[Armenian]

Re: The American Century: Neoconservatism

Granddaddy of Neocons, an ardent Zionist J-ew, a proponent of war against Iran and an anti-Russian - US expert... what is America coming to?

Armenian

************************************************** *****************

US expert: USA must help out Saakashvili

“It is a complete buffoonery taking place in Georgia now,” said American political analyst, expert in the Russian-US relations Richard Pipes commenting on the recent events in Tbilisi to a REGNUM correspondent. “I am an honorary citizen of Georgia and an honorary consular of the country. I dislike what is going on there. It is a complete buffoonery taking place there, and I think the Russians are having their hands in it. I think the USA must help out Mikhail Saakashvili, because he is the president elected by the nation. Anyway, Moscow has a greater interest in Georgia than the United States does,” the expert believes. As REGNUM reported earlier, US officials announced that solution of the situation is Georgia’s own business. “If there are political differences within the political system in Georgia, they can — they should be worked out within the confines of that political system and also, they should be worked out in a peaceful manner,” US State Department Spokesman Sean McCormack said yesterday.

Source: http://www.regnum.ru/english/911876.html