Friday, June 16, 2006

Nonexistant Iranian Nuclear Weapons and the Coming War

Out came the news today that the Pentagon has created a new Iran directorate (http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Pentagon_confirms_Iranian_ directorate_as_intelligence_0615.html). This is being compared to the Office of Special Plans, the secret Pentagon group headed by Douglas Feith, that fed incorrect intelligence to the military and other intelligence agencies and covertly pushed for war with Iraq.

Because this administration had brought back so many Reagan and Nixon officials, it should come as no surprise that the same type of covert activity is being carried out. Michael Ledeen, a former Reagan official, recently met in Rome (according to Raw Story) with Manucher Ghorbanifar, the Iranian arms dealer who helped Ollie North sell weapons to Ayatollah Khomeini as part of the Iran-Contra operation. It is unknown what, exactly, Ledeen and Ghorbanifar discussed, as he has denied the meeting ever took place, citing a trip to Naples with his wife and plans to write a book.

So it's pretty clear, between the new Iran directorate, the secret meetings, and the posturing from the government about Iran's enrichment of uranium, that something is about to happen. One of the most serious claims is that the Iranian government is clandestinely enriching uranium, part of the process used in making a nuclear weapon.

However, recent reports indicate that Iran has a grand total of 164 centrifuges (http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0412/p01s02-usfp.html) that are capable of uranium enrichment. Iran would need thousands to produce enough uranium to make one nuclear weapon. Earlier in the year, the International Atomic Energy Agency determined that traces of uranium found in the centrifuges at one site came from Pakistan, from whom the centrifuges had been bought on the black market by the Iranian defense ministry.

So it is entirely possible that Iran is not attempting to develop nuclear weapons, but is in fact trying to create nuclear power stations, at the government claims. But let's, for a moment, entertain the possibility that Iran is trying to. After all, there are many reasons for them to want to develop such weapons, and not all suppose the Iranian government is preparing to go to war with America, Israel, or other enemies:

1) Iraq, a country with no nuclear capability, a fact which was known before March of 2003, was invaded by the United States.
2) North Korea, a nation which has declared that it has developed nuclear weapons, has not been attacked (of course, there is no reason to believe the DPRK is telling the truth).
3) Many of Iran's enemies, including the United States and Israel, have nuclear weapons. Neither of these countries allow UN inspectors to visit the sites, and neither Israel, Pakistan, or India, three allies of the US, have been pressed by our government to sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty, of which Iran pulled out, an action that country has been roundly criticised for.
4) The United States continues to develop nuclear weapons (bunker busters), in violation of the NPT, for reasons of "National Security".
5) The United States gives $4 billion dollars a year in aid to the government of Israel, an enemy of Iran.
6) For fifty years the US and USSR (and later China) had nuclear weapons, and not once did those countries engage in direct warfare with one another.

Surely we woudl be better off if no nation had nuclear weaponry. But in the absense of total disarmament, does not it at least make sense that the possession of nuclear weapons by enemy nations (otherwise disproportionately disadvantaged) creates a balance of power? After all, the United States does not go to war with nuclear states. But will the American people allow themselves to be lied into another war, one for which we cannot afford to pay for in dollars or in human lives?

Thursday, June 15, 2006

Right-Wing Amendment Batshittery

The right-wingers in Congress have been trying to push through two crazy amendments recently. The first of these is the gay marriage ban, which would write into the Constitution that marriage only exists between a man and a woman. Since when has the process of amending the Constitution been used to take rights away from people (other than Prohibition)? There is no evidence that children who grow up with straight families are better wel-adjusted than those who grow up with gay families. Not that the welfare of children is the only thing that should be considered in marriage. I'm awfully sick of hearing about how certain things should be done "for the children". Newsflash, right wing: Not all marriage is about children. I know it breaks your freaky little hearts to hear this, but not everyone was cut out to be breedstock for the Christian right.

Second on the list of ridiculous amendments is flag-burning. We realize it is distasteful to others to see the American flag burned in protest, but have they considered this: That most people who burn the flag are not doing so because they "hate America" or because they hate Americans. Rather, burning the flag is generally doen in response to some militaristic US policy. Because for all the talk about the American flag standing "for America" (which I do not deny that it does, Americans being very symbol-minded people), the flag also stands for American policy.

When the Pentagon bombs another country, do the flags on the fighters stand for America and all Americans, or in that case for the American policy that is being carried out by those planes? Americans have become far too attached to the flag, and they often forget that what looks like destruction to them of a symbol of America is not done in disrespect of Americans, but out of a desire to change foreign policy. None of us want to see the US military invade a country under false pretenses. None of us want to see America earn its reputation as a country that waves around its military power and threatens other nations. None of us want the United States to kill hundreds of thousands of civilians in some ill-defined war for "democracy", or against terrorism, or to find WMD, or for American business interests (which is really what most wars in the past 50 or so years have come down to).

There will always be the risk that someone is offended by your actions or remarks. And in the cases of those two insane amendments, both which would limit the freedoms of Americans (in their private lives and in their public speech), the best answer is "FUCK YOU!" Because some people ought to be offended, and on a regular basis.

The Kerry Amendment

John Kerry's recent call for a pullout from Iraq by 31 Dec 2006 has been hailed as adding one more voice to the number of those who have called for such an action already. However, the Kerry Amendment to the war spending bill for 2007 did not call for complete withdrawal from Iraq, it called for complete withdrawal of all US troops not necessary for training the Iraqi military.

The report by UPI says:
Under Kerry's plan, not all U.S. troops would leave Iraq. Those "essential to completing the mission of standing up Iraqi security forces would remain," the announcement said.


So the question remains: How many US troops are essential to completing this mission? It is plausible that we could see a situation in which the bulk of US soldiers are kept in Iraq, but as "military advisors", who officially do no fighting but supposedly train the Iraqi military (which has proven to be hopelessly inept).

There are reports to the effect that the United States is planning a massive air and ground assault on the city of Ramadi http://www.aljazeera.com/me.asp?service_ID=11465, and yet we are told that the situation in Iraq is improving, and that Iraqi forces will soon be able to control the country with minimal assistance from the US. If things are going so well, why did the Pentagon send 3,500 more troops to Iraq http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/world/3913864.html?

As the article cited above says,
The U.S. military said Monday it was deploying the main reserve fighting force for Iraq, a full 3,500-member armored brigade, as emergency reinforcements for the embattled western province of Anbar, where a surge of violence linked to the insurgent group al-Qaida in Iraq, has severely damaged efforts to turn Sunni Arab tribal leaders against the insurgency.


Does this signal an escalation of the war? Whoops, I think "escalation" is one of those unpatriotic left-wing crazy-talk words. But what else do you call sending more troops to quell and insurgency that was supposedly in it's "last throes" over a year ago?