Saturday, July 29, 2006

Any takers?

Any takers for a
proxy war for Israel?

EVERYONE else is wrong and only Israel is right. This is what the Israeli ambasador clearly stated on Thursday when he ruled on major UN involvement in any potential international force in Lebanon.
Dan Gillerman's declaration is an open slap on the face of the UN and underlines Israel's blatant defiance of the international conventions and legitimacy represented by the world body.
Of course, it is not the first time — nor would it be the last time — that Israel stand almost alone in the international community arguing against the very concept and principles that went into creating the world body.
An overwhelming majority of the UN members have always opted to side with justice, international legitimacy and code of conduct and that is why Israel has found itself at the receiving end of UN criticism. The almighty US to could always use its veto power block any meaningful action against Israel for its refusal to abide by mandatory UN Security Council resolutions. However, in the larger General Assembly, Israel has no such protective umbrella and has to take on transparent and unbiased criticism of its actions although the General Assembly is a toothless tiger when it comes to decisive and effection action not only in the Middle Eastern context but also anywhere else in the world. Israel has to grit its teeth and listen to truth as truth is and to criticism as harsh as criticism could be coming from the world community in the General Assembly (although that is the extent to which UN members could go within the context of the world body).
In the latest spat, Dillerman is arguing that the UN should not have any involvement in Lebanon and that more professional and better-trained troops should be deployed on the Israeli-Lebanese border. He has also vowed not to allow any UN role in investigating the Israeli attack on a UN post in Lebanon that killed four UN observers last week.
He made an interesting observation when he said that "I don't think that if anything happened in this country (the US), or in Britain or in Italy or in France, the government of that country would agree to a joint investigation." Again, no one pointed out to him that no other country he mentioned, with the exception of course of the US — which is occupying Iraq —  was/is running a military occupation of neighbour's territory and therefore forced to be subject to UN observers.
The Israeli ambassador made fun of the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL), which was deployed on the border following an Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1978.
"Interim in UN jargon is 28 years," he said.
Well, he was not asked nor did he volunteer any explanation as to why Israel remained in southern Lebanon for 18 of those 28 years. Was it an "interim" occupation? Is it not true that Israel had no option but to quit Lebanon only because the resistance put up by Hizbollah?
His summary assumption is that the UN force did not do the job, but he conviently overlooked that the very mandate of UNIFIL did not allow it to use force except in self-defence, and then the UN force would have to had take action against Israel in self-defence since the force had suffered the worst from the Israeli military and not from Hizbollah or any other group present in the area of its operations.
In sum, Dillerman was only alluding to the US-backed Israeli desire that any force to be deployed in Lebanon should come from Israel-friendly countries from Europe, it should be independent and should not only be armed with the mandate and weapons to fight Hizbollah and all other forces resisting Israel but also engage in action to "neutralise" the resistance.
More simply, Israel wants the Europeans to lead the Jewish state's fight its war to eliminate Arab resistance in Lebanon.
Any takers?

Alliance at stake?

Alliance at stake
or business as usual?
June 28 2006

ONE of the Israeli analyses of the ongoing offensive against Lebanon is that the US is disappointed that the Israeli armed forces did not live up to Washington's expectations that Hizbollah would be decimated in a matter of days.
This assumption, favoured by many so-called Israeli nationalists, has led to a warning to the Israeli leadership that they should not place Israeli interests at stake by seeking to realise the American objective.
The US hope, at the outset of the Israeli offensive, was that the structure of Hizbollah would be demolished and the group's leadership eliminated in a few days and this would have offered Washington a major victory in its drive to remove the Lebanese Shiites as a potential threat in the eventuality of a US-Iranian confrontation.
The so-called Israeli nationalists are suggesting that the US could help Israel win the conflict by landing American soldiers in north Lebanon and thus catching Hizbollah in a trap in central Lebanon, with the Israelis pushing the way from the south.
However, "this is not on the cards for the simple reason that America is willing to fight in Lebanon to the last Israeli soldier, just as Iran is ready to fight to the last Hizballah combatant," reads the "nationalist" analysis. The propagators of the theory warn that "Israel must beware of being hustled into taking imprudent steps by the proxy contest between the Washington and Tehran. Israel and its armed forces must pursue their own national agenda...."
Well, this posture is indeed befiting for the US, which invaded Iraq mainly upon Israeli insistence and has already lost more than 2,500 American soliders in the insurgency there.
US Secretary of State Condaleezza Rice, according to reports, left the Middle East this week after expressing her displeasure, in talks with Israeli leaders, that the Israeli military was doing badly in the assault against Hizbollah. It is believed that she had served an "ultimatum" to Israel to "finish off the job" before July 30, so that she could come back in the first week of August to continue efforts to build a "robust" multinational force to be deployed on the Lebanese-Israeli border authorised to use force to disarm Hizbollah.
However, it does not look as easy as that.
After two weeks of the brutal offensive, Israel does not have much to show (except of course the massive destruction of Lebanon's infrastructure and the untold suffering of the people of Lebanon). Some 80 Hizbollah fighters have been killed and dozens wounded and a few small arms and ammunition dumps were discovered and neutralised. So far the Israeli army could cripple only two multiple rocket launchers and one single barrel rocket launcher belonging to Hizbollah, which is believed to have a fighting force of at least 4,000.
It definitely promises to be a long, ardous and sustained campaign that Israel is facing in its push to demolish Hizbollah.
It is not as if the Israelis are not trying, but they face tactical difficulties in facing Hizbollah, which is fighting on two parallel tracks: Firing rockets at Israeli towns and using guerrilla war tactics and picking their own time to engage Israeli soliders combing southern Lebanon for underground bunkers and other concealed guerrilla bases.
It is clear that Hizbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah is determined to battle it out: He is retaining his option of firing rockets at Israeli towns and enlarge the range of the attacks whenever he fits fit until he scores a victory — an offer of compromise from Israel — or is eliminated.
This situation has caught Israel in a dilemma. It is largely aware that would not be able to meet the reported American deadline to bring the offensive to a successful conclusion, and also that if it does engage itself in an intensified effort then it would have to take much higher casualities than now. That would mean growing internal criticism that Israel was dumb enough to be trapped into waging an American war at the expense of Israeli lives (never mind that the US is waging an Israeli war in Iraq at the expense of American lives).
It is an interesting situation, and the region is watching closely to see whether Israel would live true to its "strategic alliance" with the US by risking high casualties or let the US do the job itself. Either way, it is a safe assumption that the shape of the US-Israeli alliance is placed at stake in the bargain. Then again, conventional wisdom based on the track record of the US-Israeli relationship also suggests that Washington might not get a chance to have its way with the Jewish state.

World failed Lebanon

World failed
the Lebanese
July 27 20065


AS expected, the top US and European officials gathered in Rome to discuss the Israeli war on Lebanon did not call for an immediate cease-fire but focused on the establishment of an international force to be stationed at the Lebanese-Israeli border.
By reaffirming that any cease-fire must be "sustainable" and that there could be "no return to the status quo ante," US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice warded off Arab and international pressure to twist Israel's arms into suspending its blitz against Lebanon. Again, that position is in line with the US goal to eliminate Hizbollah as a potential threat against Washington's interests in the event of a conflict with Iran, according to US analysts.
Granted that Israeli civilians are caught in the conflict and are living in fear of Hizbollah rockets. Going by what Hizbollah leaders have been saying, the group could now be expected to launch rockets beyond the range that they have been hitting in recent weeks. It is doubtful that the Israeli military would be able to check Hizbollah from carrying out its "promises of surprises" in the short term. As such, Israel's refusal to accept a ceasefire is in face exposing its own people as Hizbollah's targets.
In the meantime, the proposed international force, expected to be led by European countries, is designed to push Hizbollah away from the border and to disarm the group in a manner that would suit Israeli and American interests. By not providing details of the proposed force, the US and its allies gained more time for Israel to continue its devastating rampage against Lebanon.
It is in this context that Lebanese Prime Minister Fuad Siniora issued a dramatic appeal for peace because he knows only too well the suffering and agony that his people are already under and what could be in store if Israel continues to wreak havoc at will anywhere in Lebanon.
The questions that Siniora raised during the Rome meeting and later at a press conference should have hit the international conscience.
Are the war-cursed Lebanese were "children of a lesser God?" he asked.
"The country is really being cut to pieces .... to bring the country to its knees and that is what's happening," Siniora said.
Siniora asked "what future other than one of fear, frustration, financial ruin and fanaticism can stem from the rubble?"
"Is the value of human life less than in Lebanon than that of citizens elsewhere? Are we children of a lesser God? Is an Israeli teardrop worth more than a drop of Lebanese blood?" "Can the international community continue to stand by while such callous retribution by the state of Israel is inflicted upon us?"
"Is this what is called legitimate self-defence?"
The leaders gathered in Rome had the moral responsibility to answer these questions, but none did except speaking in terms of sympathy for the victims of the Israeli offensive.
Sympathy is not enough. The Lebanese mothers who had to flee their homes in southern Lebanon with their children and those who saw their homes in Beirut and elsewhere bombed out and now are sleeping in carparks and schools in the country cannot survive on sympathy. They needed concrete action that would address their plight. Every day, they are exposed to increasing dangers and suffering. Quite simply, the so-called civilised world gathered in Rome failed them.

Ignoring realities

Ignoring realities
— a dangerous game

"Bush Sees a Chance for Change to Sweep Mideast" — this was the headline in a New York Times report on Thursday's meeting between US President George W Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair.
On the face of it, it would imply that the US president was seeing the latest crises in Palestine and Lebanon as an opportunity to take the Arab-Israeli conflict by the horns with a firm commitment to finding an end to the nearly six-decades-old problem.That is part of what real "change" means in the Middle East.
However, it does not look that way in the American administration's interpretation of the situation in the Middle East. Instead of injecting new life into the overall effort for just, durable and comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace, Washington is following a piecemeal approach to the overall problem. Destroying Hizbollah as an effective group with military capabilities to challenge Israel and pose a potential threat to US interests in a US-Iran confrontation is Washington's main objective today.
The Palestinian Hamas group, which won fair and free elections and won power in Palestine, is also included in the agenda along with all other likeminded groups.
Once Israel feels satisifed that Arab resistance has been "weakened enough" for it to push through its unilateral agenda, then it would move, with support from the US, towards creating further fait accomplis on the ground that it would see as strengthening its hand in any further dealings with the Palestinians, the Lebanese and the Syrians. This is indeed the masterplan, but it overlooks or seeks to circumvent the realities on the ground which dictate that Israel's unilateralism would not work.
It is transparent that Washington's current effort is aimed at devising a new UN Security Council resolution that would focus only on Hizbollah and the group's armed status and dictate terms tailored to suit Israel's interests. That in itself is one of the gravest mistakes that Washington is making.
Hizbollah and all other "terrorist, militant, extremist" groups in the Middle East came to life as the direct result of Israel's occupation of Arab territories that started with the Jewish state's grabbing of major chunks of land that was set aside for a Palestinian state under the 1948 Partition Plan and continued with the subsequent wars in the region (An interesting but little noticed news item in the Israeli media has said that the Israeli army is now in control of Israel' ts main sources of water, the Wazani springs in the divided Ghajar village near the border, and is unlikely to let go of it. Israel's capture of the spring should be seen against its Defence Minister Amir Peretz’s statement his country would retain control of a security belt in southern Lebanon until a multinational force takes over).
Today, "eliminating" Arab and Palestinian resistance groups would serve only short-term goals. Those groups would spring up in the medium term and pose far more serious threats to US interests than today, and it really surprising that Washington does not seem to take this reality into consideration.
Bush and his administration aides repeatly affirm that Hizbollah is the "root cause" of the problem in Lebanon — likewise Hamas and Islamic Jihad in Palestine — but such affirmations do not make it a reality. The root cause for the problem, whether in Palestine or Lebanon, is Israel's occupation of Arab territories and its drive to legitimise its actions. The sooner the US reflects this truth in its actions, the better the prospects for "real change" in the Middle East.

Sunday, July 23, 2006

Surprises, but is there a miracle?

Surprises, but is there a miracle?



Israel, one of the top 10 military powers in the world and which boasts of "invinsibility" of its armed forces, has not been able to subdue Lebanon's Hizbollah — once called a ragtag militia — despite 12 days of intense fighting. Indeed, Israel has caused massive destruction in Lebanon and killed more than 350 civilians and wounded thousands in its latest assault. However, it is no longer near its stated goal of destroying Hizbollah or even forcing the release of its two soldiers kept captive by the group. Questions are slowly being raised within Israel about the wisdom of pursuing the offensive. Israeli politicians are putting up a brave face and defending the military action.
On the other hand, Hizbollah is maintaining calm. Pointedly, it has rejected demands for a ceasefire and continues to launch rockets at Israeli towns across the border, wreaking havoc among Israelis, although to a far less extent than what Israeli missiles and bombs are doing to the residents of Lebanon. The continuing barrage of Hizbollah rocket attacks on Israel is said to originate from sites close to the Lebanese-Israeli border, and this raises questions about Israel's stated aim of creating a "security zone" near the frontier to make sure Hizbollah fighters do not come anywhere near the border.
Obviously, Hizbollah has been preparing for an eventuality like the latest crisis for some time. It has played its cards too close to the chest and that has left Israel guessing as to the group's real military capabilities. Hizbollah leaders like Hassan Nasrallah have gone underground and it is almost certain that Israel has no clue to their whereabouts. The massive bomb attack on a mosque under construction in Sidon in south Lebanon over the weekend was reportedly prompted by a "tip-off" that Nasrallah and top Hizbollah leaders were meeting there. However, it transpired since then that the "tip-off" was deliberately "leaked" by Hizbollah in order to get some clues to the intelligence channels and spying routes of Israel in Lebanon.
Indeed, Israel is finding itself falling short of its expectations of a quick triumph over Hizbollah. The experience is not different from the lessons it learnt dealing with Hamas in the Gaza Strip.
So, what does it hope to achieve with continuing the offensive? Of course, destroying the Hizbollah structure is one of its stated aims, but, judging from what we saw in the last 12 days, the mighty Israeli army is far from achieving that goal.
The other stated Israeli aim is to secure the unconditional release of its two soldiers held by Hizbollah. Again, it is highly unlikely that Israel would be able to ensure an unconditional release. It will have to negotiate directly or indirectly with Hizbollah, and this in itself would be deemed as a Hizbollah victory, particularly if the deal includes the release of some of the most noted Arab prisoners in Israel.
Hizbollah need not win the military conflict. It only has to hold on for sometime more, and send occasional signals that it is not a spent power to prove its point. On the other hand, Israel has to score a victory on the military front. It cannot afford to be seen as unable to overpower Hizbollah. The political and military leadership of Israel cannot afford to retract their steps and agree to negotiate with the group since that would be the clearest signal that Hizbollah won the confrontation.
Someone, somewhere has to come up with a miraculous solution to the crisis or one of the two parties has to take a step back. Given the realities on the ground, neither Israel nor Hizbollah would step back.
No one has the magic wand to prduce a solution, and it means more brutality added to the Israeli military offensive and perhaps more "surprises" from Hizbollah.
In the meantime, the suffering and agony of Lebanon's residents would continue to grow, and this is one point that Israel counts in its favour. However, as a noted commetator put it, Israel may have the clock, but Hizbollah has the time.

Friday, July 21, 2006

Many 'firsts' but they won't be the 'lasts'

July 18, 2006

There are many firsts in the ongoing crises in Palestine and Lebanon. Among them are:
It is the first time that the Israeli armed forces are engaged in armed conflicts with Arab non-govermental forces, but the war has been taken into Israel as opposed to previous occasions when the military action was limited to the border areas and inside Israel's Arab neighbours — Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon.
It is for the first time that Israel is seemingly caught up in a no-win situation, at least in theory since it is highly unlikely that the Palestinians or Hizbollahis would succumb to military pressure and accept Israel's terms and conditions to end its assaults.
It is for the first time that rockets land in Israeli towns, killing and wounding people (During the 1991 war, Iraq fired around 40 long-range Scud missiles at Israel, and the only death was that of an Israeli who suffered a heart attack).
It is for the first time that Israelis feel that they are involved in a real war and have to take shelter in towns like Haifa and Tel Aviv.
It is for the first time that many Arabs feel elated and positive that the outcome of the crises would be in favour of the Arabs because they see geopolitical imperatives as a key factor in blocking the crises spilling over to the region and pushing Israel rather than the Palestinians or Hizbollah into a corner rather than the Palestinians or Hizbollah. Well, that is the way the thinking goes, wishful as indeed it might be.
And the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip and Hizbollahis in Lebanon have surprised the world with their resilience. They have stood fast, and Hizbollah has "promised" that more "surprises" are on the way.
For the Arabs on the street, the Palestinian and Hizbollah positions have boosted their morale. They are closely following what is going on in Palestine and Lebanon, perhaps with more attention on the Israeli-Hizbollah front than on Gaza if only because the Lebanese group seems to have the potential to keep the Israelis not only engaged but also on their toes.
Talk to any Arab on the street, and the first thing that comes up is the sense of Arab pride on Hizbollah and the Palestinians.
There are even those who are convinced (or are hoping against hope) that Hizbollah has long-range missiles and that the group would soon use them not only against Israel's nerve centres such as Tel Aviv and Beersheba, but also against the Jewish state's Dimona nuclear reactor in the southern desert.
We could only imagine the consequences of such attacks. But then, that is not the point for many who see the ongoing conflicts in Palestine and Lebanon as signalling a "make-or-break" point in the Arab-Israeli conflict.
Is that necessarily the case? Of course, the outcome of the Palestine and Lebanon crises would help reshape the geopolitics of the region, but that need not necessarily be in the Arab favour unless of course the Israeli psyche undergoes a 180-degree turn and comes to terms with the inevitability of having to accept the legitimate Arab and Palestinian rights as the basis for peace inthe Middle East.
However, in the meantime, the human suffering is untold in Gaza and Lebanon, and ending that should one of the top priorities for anyone who believes in fair justice for everyone in this world.
Israeli is mercilessly pounding Lebanon, targeting even civilians fleeing the frontline areas, as the death of more than 40 children travelling in open vehicles in the last two days proved, and yet its action is defined as exercising the "right to self-defence." Well, those children did not pose a threat to Israel's security, but their death would instill so much hardline feelings among their peers and they would run into hundreds and thousands who would join the ranks of resistance and pose real threats to Israel.
In the meantime, world powers are also committing a major crime by giving a carte blanche to Israel until it achieves its objectives of its current offensives in Palestine and Lebanon — whatever that might be. By the time they wake up to the realities, it might indeed be too late for many innocent human beings whose only crime was to hope for an end to life under foreign occupation and humiliation and for dignified life in freedom. The responsibility is on the world powers to put an immediate end to Israel's atrocities against the innocents of Palestine and Lebanon.

Media doing their job

July 1, 2006

WHEN the media do not do their job and carry not only uncritical but glorifyingly bloated accounts of successful government policies, they become the darlings of the establishment. But when they do their job i.e. carry objective reports with hard information supported by facts, authorities get upset and accuse them to undermining national interests. The latest episode in that never-ending cycle is a contention by a US commander in Iraq that the US could lose the war in Iraq if public support for it at home is sapped by negative media coverage.
What exactly, shall we ask, is "negative" media coverage? Does it include reports of what exactly is happening on the ground? Does it include portrayals of the reality?
In Iraq's case, there is definitely a shift in the mainstream media's approach towards the crisis there and the broader US-led war against terrorism. Some of them were indeed instrumental in building an American mindset that the invasion of Iraq was somehow tied to the security of the people of the US.
Now they have switched tracks and focusing more on actualities, and that is creating headaches for the administration and hence the complaint of "negative" coverage.
The shift is definitely the result of the media's realisation that the US is getting dragged deeper into quicksands in Iraq and, equally importantly, that Americans are becoming increasingly aware that there is something drastically wrong in their administration's policy not only in the Iraqi context but in the overall Middle Eastern conflict. Americans are no longer accepting at face value whatever the administration tells them. They are seeking media confirmation to establish the truth of what they are being told by their government.
Had it not been for the media, the world would not have known about the most degrading atrocities committed against prisoners in the US-run Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. We now know that top brass at the Pentagon had known about them all along and kept them under wraps, but they had to come clean when the goings on in Abu Ghraib hit headlines in the New Yorker.
Few would have known about the vengeful massacres carried out by American soliders — Haditha was only one of many places where innocent Iraqis were gunned down. No one would have known about the tens of billions of dollars being siphoned away by US corporations with close ties to the administration in the name of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Had it not been for the aggressive media approach, the latest case of the rape of an Iraqi women and murder of three members of her family, including a child, would never have reached the public.
We have also noticed that news agencies are now carrying pictures of coffins of American soldiers being brought home to grieving families. Indeed, that is a major switch from the ban that the government had imposed on media coverage of such events.
Obviously, those who matter in the US establishment have realised that they could no longer hope to conceal facts away from public scrutiny, and the situation becomes all the more worse when truth is brought out first by the media. Therefore, they have decided to go public themselves with affirmations of unacceptable behaviour by their ranks in order to pre-empt media exposures that could catch them unawares and would erode their credibility further. It has become a game of outguessing each other as to the timing of revelations.
A simple but very valid observation is that the media are accused of highlighting that the insurgency in Iraq shows no sign of abating despite massive security sweeps and crackdowns. What else are they expected to highlight? That the number of kidnapppings, ambushes, suicide bombings and killings has gone down after the new government of Prime Minister Nuri Al Maliki took power (whereas the reality is just the opposite)? That everything is working in clock-like precision along the plans chartered by the US military?

Brewing action on Iran front

July 2, 2006


THE spiralling crisis in Palestine is dominating international news, and it has drawn increased media focus while the other festering issue, the US-Iran stand-off over the Iranian nuclear programme, is sidelined. However, that has no bearing on the steady build-up towards a real crisis that would have negative repercussions on the entire Gulf region. It is as if the scenario is following a script written collectively by Washington and Tehran. That was indeed the case from the word go three years ago when it became known that Iran was pursuing a nuclear programme that it had not revealed to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). That immediately raised suspicion that Iran was bent upon developing nuclear weapons. However, neither the IAEA or any other agency or individual has not been able to establish beyond reasonable doubt that Iran does have a nuclear weapon programme. At the same time, it is widely held that Iran does have ambitions of possessing nuclear weapons that it could use as a deterrent as the case seems to be with North Korea. That is the crux of the problem as seen from Washington, whose first consideration in any Middle Eastern context is the interests of Israel, the only country in the region known to posses nuclear weapons. Iran does not pose a nuclear threat to US security, but Washington is going by what the pro-Israeli lobby plans and dictates.
Iran maintains that its nuclear programme is for peaceful purposes while the US insisted that the Iranians should not be allowed near nuclear technology of any nature. Tehran rejected the US call and insisted on its right to develop nuclear energy under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and resumed nuclear enrichment although of a level far from producing weapon-grade material.
A compromise was produced in the form of a US-backed offer that would severely curtail Iran's nuclear options but provide a series of incentives to Iran. Tehran says it has seen "some positive" points in the compromise offer and it will formally respond to it after mid-August.
In the meantime, Iran has also stood firm on its rejection of the pre-condition that it should suspend nuclear enrichment. The US says the package is offered on a take-it-or-leave-it in its entirety and would not be amended to suit the Iranians.
Washington has now set a July 5 deadline for Iran to make up its mind about the offer. Predictably, Iran has rejected the deadline and said its response would not be forthcoming before mid-August.
The US in bent upon imposing sweeping UN Security Council sanctions on Iran or at least clearing the way towards that this month.
Iran's insistence on more time to study the compromise offer has raised suspicion that it might be hoping to make a breakthrough by mid-August and arrive at position where the US would not be able to exercise its options even it wanted to.
Caught on the fringes of the stalemate is the Arab countries of the Gulf. They have made it clear that they do not want any nuclear activity in their neighbourhood and called for the entire Middle East be declared as a nuclear-free zone — meaning that Israel should be stripped of its nuclear arsenal and Iran or any other country in the area should indulge in nuclear activities.
Their concerns and genuine and real and whoever is involved in efforts to resolve the crisis should take them into consideration. Indeed, they might even be able to offer positive help to end the stalemate so that the region's people could breathe easily.

What the US does not want you to know

July 8, 2006

MODERN IRAQ was always known for repression of media freedoms. Permitting media freedoms meant challenges to the regimes (as in many parts of the world), and Iraq, since its creation in its present territorial shape in the 1920s, was no exception. Local papers, radio and television were state-owned and controlled and they sang the praise of the regime day in and day out. Foreign media working in Iraq were kept under tight check and surveillance throughout, and those present in the country often had to pay the price for critical reports that originated outside but carried by the newspapers or channels that they worked for.
The situation became all the more tight during the 1990s and early 2000s, starting with Saddam Hussein's military invasion and occupation of Kuwait, and all foreign journalists faced stricter restrictions on their movements in the country. It would not be an exaggeration that they were treated like prisoners, but VIP style.
First of all it was very difficult to obtain a visa to enter Iraq. Then journalists had to wait until the Iraqi consulate in Amman decided that it was time for them to enter Iraq.
They had to travel in a convoy from the Jordanian capital Amman and then escorted by Iraqi information ministry and security officials from the Iraqi border point at Trebil to the one and the only hotel designated for journalists — the famous Al Rashid in Baghdad — and back to the frontier when you leave after the assignment (Other hotels were added to the "approved list" in due course, but the rules of the game remained the same).
It was almost impossible for stray away on the trip up and down even if you tried because the convoy, of say 20-25 vehicles, would have several strategically positioned ministry vehicles just to make sure that no one got "lost" along the eight-hour journey and be in a position to talk to anyone or visit any place away from official sights.
And once you checked into Al Rashid, you could not leave the hotel unless accompanied by a "minder" — an Iraqi information ministry official who would keep a close eye on what you do, who you speak to and, more importantly, what you hear. Any time of day and night, there would be at least a dozen ministry officials hanging around in the Al Rashid lobby to intercept any non-Iraqi leaving the hotel. Half the time, you would be discouraged from going places they did not approve. The other half of the time, it would take up to two hours before the ministry officials "arrange" things. These included getting "clearance" for your foray outside the hotel and ensuring that the vehicle that carried you was an Iraqi taxi with and Iraqi driver (and not the Jordanian-licensed car/driver with which/whom you had entered the country), and that the "minder" was in the taxi before it left the hotel compound.
The presence of "minders" was indeed a reminder to any Iraqi that he/she would be immediately reported to the security authorities if he/she dared to criticise the government or say anything to the media that would indicate that the regime was not the most popular in the world. It was anyone's guess what could have happened to those who were reported.
The arrangement was almost water-tight. A few "minders" tended to be more co-operative — in return for a monetary consideration of course — and they deliberately stayed away from earshot when you asked Iraqis how they felt about the regime and other "sensitive" questions, but those "minders" risked being reported themselves by the taxi driver, who inevitably happened to be an informant.
On the other hand, the "minders" encouraged Iraqis to speak about their suffering under the UN sanctions — that were imposed when Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990 — and lambast the US administration.
Today, the "embedded" American journalists are facing a similar situation. Their freedom of movement is curtailed and they are prevented from reporting actualities from the ground in Iraq; they are denied information that could place the US in bad light, but are encouraged to report what a great job the US military is doing in Iraq.
One such account has come from Rod Nordland of Newsweek in an interview published in Foreign Policy.
According to Nordland, the US military — and by extension the Bush administration — has been largely successful in managing the news “to the extent that most Americans are not aware of just how dire it is and how little progress has been made” and revealed that some "embedded" reporters “have been blacklisted because the military wasn’t happy with (their) work.”
Another account has come from Ken Silverstein, Washington editor of Harper's Magazine (http://harpers.org/) and a former reporter of the Los Angeles Times, who says that "there are significant obstacles for even the best and most determined journalists" while working "embedded" with the US military in Iraq.
Silverstein quotes a former senior television producer for Reuters who worked in Iraq between 2003 and 2004 as recounting her experience of being "embedded" with the US military. Her summary statement: "I was a mouthpiece for the American military."
Her account is largely similar to the experience of foreign journalists in Iraq while the Saddam regime was in power — you were allowed to report on what the regime wanted you to and you were denied access to any information that the regime did not want you to have. Mind you, we are talking about an autocratic regime which believed in summary silencing of its people as one of its tools to ensure its survival. Compare its actions with the US, a democratic regime founded on the noblest principles of personal freedoms and the right to know among other things.
Silverstein writes: "When insurgents attacked civilians, she (the Reuters producer) told me, the American military would rush her to the scene so she could record the carnage and get shots of grieving Iraqis.
"When it came to other stories that were clearly sympathetic to the US side, such as funerals for American soldiers killed in combat, the US military was extremely helpful — indeed, encouraging. In such cases, she was granted full access and allowed to film speeches by officials honouring the dead, the posthumous awarding of medals, and other aspects of the ceremony.
"But when this producer wanted to pursue a story that might have cast the war effort in an unfavourable light, the situation was entirely different. Every few days, she said, she would receive a call from the  Reuters bureau in Baghdad and discover that reporters there had heard, via local news reports or from the bureau's network of Iraqi sources, about civilians being killed or injured by American troops. But when she asked to leave the compound to independently confirm such incidents, her requests were invariably turned down."
“Reuters had an armored car,” she told me, “and we wanted to go out on our own, but I would ask the PIO (public information officer) for permission and he would say he needed to get more information before we could go. Hours would pass, it would get dark — and in the end we were never able to get to the scene.” Even getting an on-camera comment from a military spokesman was impossible in such cases, she said.
No journalist was allowed to pursue any report that was not approved by the US military. "For example, on how the local population viewed the occupation and American troops — because she was not permitted to leave the base on her own. The height of absurdity came when the Tikrit compound came under serious attack one evening and the producer was asked by the Reuters bureau in Baghdad to phone in a report on the situation.
“We couldn't find out anything (from the US military),” she said, so Reuters had to cover the fighting from Baghdad, despite having a television producer and reporter on the ground at the compound in Tikrit.
During her 45 days in Tikrit, she told Silverstein, she didn't file a single story critical of the American project in Iraq. “There was no balance,” she said. “What we were doing wasn't real journalism.”
That could indeed not be the basis for a summary assumption for all journalists on assignments in Iraq. We have seen reports filed by "embedded" journalists that truly revealed the ugly face of the war in Iraq. It was a Time magazine report that exposed the November 2005 massacre in Haditha. Seymour Hersh's exposure of the torture and degrading treatment of detainees at Abu Ghraib was based on confidential reports available in Washington, but it was picked up and supported by most American journalists working in Iraq. There have been hundreds of reports that did fair justice to the profession, but fair justice is not enough when it comes to covering war, and that too as ugly as the one going on in Iraq.
What exactly is that Washington does not want the world to know about Iraq?
An intelligent guess, based on independent reports and bloggings from Iraq, would point to some of them, and these include:
— that demoralisation is slowly but surely creeping into the ranks of the American soldiers in Iraq as the insurgency shows no signs of fading away.
— that the actual figures of casualties among US military personnel, except deaths that could not be concealed, are played down.
— that everyone is an "enemy" in Iraq unless proven otherwise, but the followed policy is "shoot first and ask questions later."
— that women and children are no exception to the policy, and that Iraqis are treated worse than animals.
— that the rules of the game are often bent with implicit/explicit endorsement from the top echelons.
— that the insurgency is rooted among Iraqis rather then "international terrorist jihadists."
— that the people of Iraq resent the American military presence and could not wait to see the back of US soldiers.
— that US corporations are making a killing in billions of dollars in the name of the war in Iraq.
— that friends of the US, primarily Israel, are given a free hand in Iraq to realise their interests in the oil-rich country.
— that the US has no plans to leave Iraq since its presence in the country is part of a broader game plan that is part of Washington's global designs drawn up by hawks who believe in America's supremacy on this planet.

'Out of control?'!!!!!

June 29, 2006

WARNINGS after warnings are being issued that the situation in Palestine will spin out of control if the two sides involved do not exercise restraint in the crisis sparked by Sunday's Palestinian attack on an Israeli border post and capture of an Israeli soldier. Facts on the ground clearly show that the situation is already out of control.
Israel's arrest of eight ministers ofthe Hamas-led Palestinian cabinet and 20 members of the Palestinian parliament, and the Israeli seige of the Gaza Strip and destruction of infrastructure there that has heralded a humanitarian crisis are bad enough. Add to that Israel's
threat to kill Hamas leaders living in exile and "punish" Syria for harbouring them and the Israeli military flights over the home of the Syrian president coupled with a warning that any cross-border attack by Lebanon's Hizbollah would trigger military action against Syria. The sole world power which could make a real difference contends that Israel is only exercising its right to self-defence — meaning a carte blanche endorsement of whatever Israel finds fit to do. (Well, it should not be surprising since the US itself claims that the war it wages in Iraq is in exercise of its right to self-defence, although it beats common sense to figure out how Iraq posed a threat to the US in the first place).
On the other side, captors of an Israeli settler have already killed him. and those who have captured the Israeli soldier on Sunday are refusing to release him without Israel freeing Palestinian women and children in detention in return. Indeed, the decision is no longer in the hands of the captors because the families of the 8,000 plus Palestinian prisoners in Israel insist on their loved ones being freed in return for the Israeli soldier, a demand the Jewish state is highly unlikely to meet, particularly now that it has eight Hamas ministers in its custody who could be used as bargaining chips (not to mention the others detained in Thursday's sweep).
And we are still told the situation in Palestine "could spin out of control."
Whatever the explanation, the fear is high that Israel has found the conditions right to create a situation where it could dictate terms with help from the US. It seems a certainty that it would use this opportunity to corner the Palestinian and Arab side with a view to weakening resistance to its hegemony and military ambitions and imposing its will not only on the Palestinians but on the broader Arab and Muslim worlds. If that is indeed the case, then any solution to the crisis triggered by the capture of the Israeli soldier would only serve Israeli interests and objectives.
The need of the hour is for the Arabs to put their heads together and come up with a collective strategy aimed at dealing with Israel's broader agenda. Condemnations of Israel are not enough. Emergency meetings have to be called and urgent and sound decisions have to be taken. That is the real challenge facing the Arabs today.

'Moderates' into 'militants'

June 28, 2006


 ISRAEL, a country which rates itself among the top 10 military powers in the world, is reacting in an unprecedented manner to the crisis sparked by Sunday's Palestinian attack on a border post and abduction of an Israeli army soldier.
The massive military blockade of the Gaza Strip and destruction of infrastructure in the coastal territory coupled with threats that no one is immune to Israeli action — a minister has said even Palestinian ministers could be taken hostage — underlines an apparent determination to use the opportunity to deal a severe blow to Palestinian armed resistance.
More infrastructure would be destroyed as a message to everyone in Gaza that backing armed groups means severe hardships in daily life. There would be summary arrests of "suspects" who would be hauled off to Israeli prisons. Homes would be demolished and enough damage would be inflicted that Israel would want to use as a warning to the people against supporting armed resistance. Simply put, the message is: Ordinary people would suffer if they support groups like Hamas, Islamic Jihad and other factions which are waging armed resistance.
Such an approach could be expected in view of Israel's record of using collective punishment against the Palestinians under occupation.
Yet another reason for the high intensity of the Israeli action is the way Sunday's Palestinian attack was staged. The Israeli military's "pride" that it is as good as invincible was deeply hurt by revelations that the Palestinian assailants had dug a tunnel and used it successfully to carry out the attack. It meant serious breaches of Israel's security arrangements and this is something that the Jewish state's military psyche could not absorb. The Israeli military wants to hit back with utmost intensity and put up a massive show of power with a vengeance.
Indeed, Israel is pulling all the plugs. It has also threatened to kill Hamas leaders living in exile in Arab countries such as Syria.
Palestinians have responded to the Israeli moves with defiance, with many of them vowing to fight the Israeli army.
The overall mood among the Palestinians is that the situation could not get any worse and hence their resolve to confront the Israelis head on.
Whatever the outcome of the crisis, it marks a turning point for both sides. Israel would use the opportunity to inflict as much damage as possible to Palestinian resistance and Palestinians would respond with whatever they could. However, that is not the end of the story. Israel's incursion into Gaza would turn many "moderate" Palestinians into "militants," and this translates into that many more ready to sacrifice whatever they could to serve the cause of freedom and independence.

The real challenge

June 21, 2006
The real challenge

ANYWHERE else in the world, a gathering of Nobel laureates and celebrities discussing ways of transforming the world's "challenges into opportunities" would be expected to make a real difference to efforts to solve regional conflicts. Such hopes are also attached to this week's conference in the ancient Jordanian city of Petra attended by some 25 Nobel laureates in chemistry, economics, literature, medicine and peace along with 30 celebrities. They will seek, organisers say, to deal with some of the world's most intractable problems.
"In the 21st Century, humankind must find new ways of dealing with emerging threats and develop a deeper understanding about the connections between them," says a statement from the organisers.
"Petra II: A World in Danger, provides a forum to reflect on both old and new problems, and propose novel strategies for transforming challenges into opportunities," it says.
Participants will focus on non-proliferation of mass destruction weapons, education, health and poverty, and economic empowerment — key issues that are plaguing the Middle East region. Had the region's governments and people been unpreoccupied with fears and problems to security, then these issues would not have festered. The governments would have had the time and resources to launch projects and schemes designed to address and rectify problems in the education and health sectors and to uplift people living in poverty.
Instead, time and money are spent on security-related issues. Countries are being forced to spend billions on military equipment that are unlikely to be used at all, but are deemed to be — and portrayed as — a necessary part of national defence by those who peddle them around.
Such diversions owe their origins to the festering conflicts in the region being waged, at least in party, to serve vested interests. Therefore, any effort should take into consideration the root causes of insecurity and instability in the region, and one does not have to look far to identify them as Israel and its US-supported quest for regional domination and elimination of all challenges at whatever cost.
However, realism dictates that what the Nobel laureates and celebrities have to say about the Middle Eastern conflicts is not going to count much in practical terms if only because the players involved in the conflicts are very much a closed club, with little room for additional entrants.
The gathering is expected to host the first, albeit not very formal, meeting of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert under an initiative undertaken by King Abdullah II of Jordan. There is little at this point in time to give anyone any hope that the Abbas-Olmert meeting would lead to anything concrete in terms of reviving Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations. The best persuasive skills of the Nobel laureates and celebrities are not enough to make a difference, if only because the political imperatives deprive Olmert of a choice to embrace a just and fair option to end the conflict with the Palestinians, regardless of whether Abbas's Fatah or Hamas is in power.
Apart from Palestine, where hopes for peace is are all but disappeared, the Iraqi crisis is spinning out of control, regardless of whether the US and the US-backed government in Baghdad admit it.
We in this region are watching with trepidation the unfolding scenario in Iraq that is definitely pointing in the direction of disintegration of that country as it existed pre-March 2003. We had warned it would happen, but our words were summarily brushed aside. Indeed, what we are witnessing today in Iraq is the result of powers that matter ignoring the region's warnings.
Those participating in the Petra forum might not be directly affected by happenings in the Middle East, but they should be naive not to realise that the region's problems are not created by the region's players alone. External medding in their affairs is one of the key reasons for the region's current state of insecurity, instability and apprehension over the uncertainty of what lies ahead.
The gathering in Petra should serve as an eyeopener to the realities of the conflicts in the Middle East. It is not Hamas's refusal to recognise Israel or renounce armed resistance that has stalled efforts for peace. The root causes is Israel's occupation of Palestinian territories and refusal to return them to the Palestinians.
It is not the presence of "international jihadists" in Iraq that is worsening the crisis in that country. It is Iraqi resistance to foreign domination and the US refusal to give up its quest for indirect but absolute control of that country against the backdrop of Washington's biased policies that is behind the crisis.
It is not fears of Iranian threats to the US that is behind Washington's drive against Tehran. It is concerns that Iran might acquire a deterrent against the nuclear supremacy of Israel in the region and Iran's refusal to toe the American line that has sparked the crisis.
No doubt, the organisers of the forum are aware of the limitations. However, that has not dissuaded them from setting goals high.
They are calling on international community "to work in unison to counter mounting threats to peace and stability" — a reference the proliferation of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.
They are calling on the forum's participants to explore ways to develop education across the globe as "a tool in the fight against intolerance and hatred," and to improve the quality of education for boys and girls alike.
They are urging governments enhacing access to information via the Internet as part of efforts to close the knowledge gap between developed and developing countries and prepare students to compete in the modern world.
The forum is called upon to devise ways "to deal with global health pandemics caused by HIV/AIDS and the avian flu," and to ensure that the most vulnerable, namely children and women, are provided with adequate health care.
Participants also face the task of coming with realistic measn to alleviate the global scourge of poverty, which organisers say "is a source of instability, creating breeding grounds for fanaticism, radicalism and terrorism."
Simply put, the challenges facing the Petra conference are more complex that those facing the key players in regional conflicts around the world. That in itself should be an incentive to the intellectuals and celebrities gathered in the Nabataeen rose-red city of Petra to rake their brains and come up with recommendations addressed to world governments.
After all, international efforts have to be launched at some point towards at least understanding the real roots of the problems before attempting to solve them.
Hopefully, that is the best purpose that the Petra gathering would serve.

Smoke in Somalia, fire will follow

July 21, 2006



IT IS as if the Arab World did not have enough crises that the situation in Somalia is moving towards a military confrontation between the country's Islamist forces and the Ethiopian armed forces. Ethiopia has moved an unknown number of soldiers across the border into the town of Baidoa ostensibly to protect the weak interim goverment based there against the Islamist forces, which have taken control over much of southern Somalia after trouncing warlords.
For the Islamists, the Ethiopian move represents a challenge to their drive to spread their influence throughout the country. For Ethiopia, it is imperative that the interim government, which is endorsed by the United Nations, survive the Islamist challenge. Indeed, one could see a hidden external hand in the Ethiopian move. The US has made no secret of its hostility towards the Islamists, who Washington fears will enforce a Taliban-style rule in Somalia and turn the country into a haven for anti-US militants from around the world.
One could cite many reasons why exteral forces should or should not intervene in Somalia depending on contrasting perceptions. But there are certain constants. There is not much love lost in the Arab World or outside for the warlords and gunmen of Somalia who obey no law and opt to live by their own rules that have no human consideration.
The rampaging pirates off the coast of Somalia, intercepting commercial vessels and holding their crew for ransom are only one of the many examples of the chaos that have resulted from the power vacuum in the Horn of Africa country. Anyone who happens to be unfortunate enough to come across Somali gunmen on land or sea is fair game. If one is lucky of evade capture and kidnap by one group in one area of Somalia, then a similar group is waiting in the next area. Gunmen even demand "tax" from international and regional agencies seeking to offer relief to the suffering people of Somalia and the "collection" used to end up in the warlords' pockets, according to reports reaching the outside world. The situation had reached such a low point that trucks carrying relief supplies to distribution centres were intercepted and ordered to pay a "fee" for being allowed to proceed when the Islamists made their move.
When signs emerged a few weeks ago that the Islamist forces were gaining on the US-backed warlords, many heaved a sigh of relief with the belief that the Islamists, who were put together as a militia by the Islamic courts of the country, would be able to enforce law and order in the country. The people of Somalia were willing to overlook — at this point in time at least — that the Islamists had their own agenda as long as they were able to stabilise the country. That is the point of desperation of the people of Somalia. Since they captured the capital and trounced the warlords, the Islamists have been showing their real colour by imposing their own version of strict Sharia on the law. Their decision to stone to death five people if convicted of rape is only one example of their sense of justice.
It could not be predicted at this point who would have the edge if it comes to a military conflict between the Islamists and Ethiopian forces.
Ethiopia appeared to have sent the forces to Somalia reportedly in response to a specific request from the interim government. They have taken up positions in Baidoa and have secured the town's air strip. However, Addis Ababa has denied that its forces are present in Somali territory.
The Islamist forces were said to be some 20 kilometres away from Baidoa and moving ahead with an apparent view to challenging the interim government, but they pulled back on Thursday. Somali Prime Minister Ali Mohamed Gedi accused them of plotting to attack Baidoa and the transitional government in violation of a truce and mutual recognition deal.
Ethiopia has said it will defend the transitional government from attack by the Islamists
The Islamists are playing to the masses by highlighting that Addis Ababa had refused to help the Somalis when the country was being ravaged by warlords, who divided the country into unruly fiefdoms based on tribes and clans. The head of the he executive committee of the Supreme Islamic Council of Somalia (SICS), Sheikh Sharif Sheikh Ahmed, has vowed that "Somali people are ready to defend themselves from the acts of aggression by Ethiopia."
Well, as the Arab World grapples with the crises in Palestine and Lebanon, there might not be much the Arabs could do to check the situation in Somalia, which remains a member of the Arab League, from sliping to another round of violence and bloodshed, and there is no guarantee that any such effort would succeed either, given the record of Somalis' behaviour. Perhaps that might indeed be an added incentive to those who want to challenge and trounce the Islamists.
Haven't the people of Somalia suffered enough? Isn't there any compassion among the various parties involved, up in the front and those pulling the strings from behind the scene, to recognise the "red lines" in human suffering caused by political agendas?

As fake as a $3 bill

July 20, 2006
As fake as a $3 bill

AS is usual, the US is playing with words and acting naive when it says it has nothing to do with the Israeli military offensive in Lebanon and that it sees Israel as exercising its right to defend itself when Israeli artillery and warplanes are pounding civilian targets in its northern neighbour, inflicting death, injuries and devastation.
However, the US position would have a long-lasting impact on the Middle East by creating more of the kind of people that Washington varyingly describes as militants, extremists and terrorists who pose direct and indirect threats to American interests everywhere. That is and will indeed be one of the direct results of the misguided American approach.
While no one is accusing the US of playing a direct role in the Israeli aggression, Washington finds it fit to defend itself against a perceived charge that it is directing Israeli attacks in Lebanon.
On Thursday, White House press secretary Tony Snow denied the Bush administration is co-ordinating with Israel or "sitting around at the war map saying 'Do this, this and this'."
"We're not colluding, we're not co-operating, we're not conspiring, we're not doing any of that," said Snow. "The Israelis are doing what they think is necessary to protect their borders."
Well, we've heard the argument many times. It has become a catch phrase in Washington jargon when it comes to Israeli military actions directed against the Arabs.
We are aware that it is definitely not in US interests to allow the flare-up in Lebanon to spill over and drag in other countries like Syria and Iran, at least not at this point in time. The US military must be painfully aware that any Syrian involvement in the conflict would pull in Iran into the equation, and this means — among many other potential consequences — danger for the 130,000 and plus American soldiers deployed in Iraq and the 18,000 stationed in Afghanistan in the name of hunting Osama Bin Laden and Taliban leaders and ranks in the countryside.
One thing is clear: Whatever the US says and uses to justify its position — like citing Israel's right to defend itself — it is only deepening and widening the chasm between Washington and the Arabs and swelling the ranks of people ready to explode themselves if that serves their goal exacting revenge from the US and advance what they see as their cause.
There was some optimism a few weeks ago that the Bush administration had learnt its lesson from the insurgency in Iraq and realised that, in principle, its policy in the Middle East dictated by pro-Israeli forces is behind the troubles it has been and is continuing to face in the region. That realisation, many in the region hoped, would lead to a better balanced American approach to the Arab-Israeli conflict.
Indeed, no US administration, least of all the present one, would ever accept in public that its pro-Israeli policies and actions are behind its problems in the Arab and Muslim world. Even to say it in private is risky for administration officials since they would run afoul of the pro-Israeli forces and that means the end of their career sooner than later.
But the US, by maintaining its stand that it is up to Israel to do what it deems fit to defend itself, is only reaping more Arab and Muslim hostility — if indeed there is anymore room in that department.
The key flaw in the US argument is very visible: Had it not been for the almost unlimited US support in all aspects, Israel would not have come this far and be fortified with the military capability and political-diplomatic protection and immunity against international action to do what it is doing today in Lebanon and Palestine.
The US have very little credibility worth the description in the Middle East. It started losing it in the early 70s, and every action it took in the region further eroded its standing among the Arab and Muslim masses since then. Administration officials and spin-masters should know within themselves that they are kidding only themselves — and a diminishing number of American citizens — when they talk about their desire and commitment to see just, fair, honorable and comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace. The region's people know that the kind of peace that the US would like to see is the kind of peace Israel wants to have and impose on the Arabs and Palestinians. It has nothing to do with justice, fairness, honour and comprehensiveness, but simply based on Israel's military might which its leaders believe is the answer to all problems in the context of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Of course, many of the present administration officials would say so once they are out of office, but, today, that is not going to help anyone.
With the latest crisis in the Middle East, the US has clearly signalled that it is firmly entrenched on the Israeli side of the fence and helping the Jewish state achieve its strategic objectives (not that it needed any affirmation, but Washington did so by not only condoning the Israeli offensive but also preventing everyone else from doing anything to end the suffering of the victims of the Jewish state).
Again, the US is kidding only itself if it believes that things would be back to "normal" and it would be business as usual once the present crises in Palestine and Lebanon are settled (in Israel's favour of course).
No argument is going to help assuage the grief, fury and frustration of the people who lost their loved ones and suffered themselves and found their life shattered beyond repair as a result of Israeli action. For many, it might not even make anymore sense in continuing to live and they represent an ideal breeding and recruiting ground for extremists waging an all-out international war against the US.
It is not an exclusive American problem. The US might (or might not) be able to protect itself in its territory, but not only the Middle East but also the rest of the world will have to pay for fallout of extremism fuelled by American actions.
That is where the US has a responsibility towards the international community to do what it could to put an immediate end to the Israeli offensive. But that is not an end in itself. Washington also has the responsibility and obligation to the world community to launch an all-out, no-holds-barred effort to work out a negotiated settlement to the Arab-Israeli conflict.
It would be yet another grave mistake on the part of Washington if it continues to ignore the realities and truth and to feign positions that are as fake as a $3 bill.

Manipulated, yet again!!

July 19 2006



THE UN is said to propose deployment of Lebanese army soldiers and enlargement of an international force in southern Lebanon as the way to end the Israeli-Hizbollah fighting. Obviously, the idea represents the world body's effort to shift itself away from the real responsibility it faces in the crises — that is working towards a real solution to the root conflict of the crises in the region today.
Indeed, the idea is simple as simple could be. Under all normal circumstances, the authorised security forces of a country should indeed be in charge of the country's borders. Therefore suggesting that the Lebanese military should be in charge of Lebanon's borders is very much within the international norms.
But then, we know that international norms are selectively applied, particularly in the Middle East, with the UN being often turned into an unwitting pawn in the hands of big powers. And that is what we are witnessing today. That the situation in Lebanon has no comparison anywhere makes it all the more imperative that any proposal to address the crisis there should include a well-thoughtout strategy to pre-empt similar crises.
Whoever has thought of the idea of sending the Lebanese army to take charge of the country's borders should realise that it would only inflame the situaiton instead of calming it.
In political terms, critics are bound to describe the plan as the US way to have Lebanese soldiers protect Israeli borders and prevent cross-border attacks by Hizbollah. In simple terms, if the proposal is accepted and implemented, the Lebanese army would be actually replacing the now-defunct South Lebanon Army (SLA), which acted as a shield for Israel in southern Lebanon.
At this point in time, it cannot be denied that there is some form of co-ordination and understanding between Hizbollah and the Lebanese army. It is this relationship that is being targeted by the UN proposal (or whoever thought of it and cooked it). The moment the Lebanese army is deployed as a buffer between Hizbollah positions and the Israeli border, it would be branded as a traitor to the Arab cause. The army would become the target of attacks by Hizbollah, which has undertaken the self-assumed task of turning the situation into a make-or-break point in Arab resistance against Israel.
The UN is also suggesting that the existing UN Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) be expanded and given an expanded mandate — meaning authority to open fire as UNIFIL commanders deem fit and as situations warrant. Well, that is also a non-starter since there are many limitations on a UN peacekeeping force when it comes to military action. UNIFIL's history is particularly sad. A look at the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon and what followed in the more than two decades since then would clearly indicate the ineffectiveness of UN peacekeepers in situations of actual armed conflict.
It is not difficult to envisage the situation on the Lebanese-Israeli border if the UN proposal is adopted (and indeed if Hizbollah agrees to accept and abide by it). The Lebanese army would be in frontline positions on the border, followed by the UN force whose task would be to prevent Hizbollah fighters from reaching the frontline positions.
Of course, there could be many different scenarios on the ground, but there is little doubt that the UN is being manipulated, yet again.
The very fact that the mighty Security Council discussed the crisis in Lebanon for three days without issuing a statement speaks volumes of the politics at play in the corridors of the UN. Does it take any deliberation to call for an immediate end to military action that is targeting civilians on either side? Or is it that a UN Security Council for an immediate ceasefire does not suit Israeli interests?
No one could be blamed for assuming that the big powers want to give Israel enough time to achieve its goal of destroying Hizbollah by wreaking havoc in Lebanon, killing people at will and demolishing infrastructure to the point — as Israel hopes —  that Lebanese would start denouncing the Shiite group and distance themselves away from it.
We don't know what kind of support the reported UN proposal for Lebanon has in the Security Council or when it could come up for serious discussions and perhaps even adoption by the big powers. Indeed, it might not be adopted at all. However, what we do know is that the timing of debate on the proposal — or the absence of debate in itself — would be made suitable to give Israel enough leeway to accomplish whatever it seeks to accomplish in Lebanon. It is a different matter whether the realities on the ground in Lebanon would help Israel along the way.

Neocons fading out?

June 19, 2006

"The lazy-minded evangelico-romanticism of George W. Bush, the bureaucratic will to power of Donald Rumsfeld, the avuncular condescension of Dick Cheney, and the reflexive military deference of Colin Powell combined to get us into a situation we never wanted to be in, a situation no self-respecting nation ought to be in, a situation we don't know how to get out of. It's not inconceivable that, with a run of sheer good luck, we might yet escape without too much egg on our faces, but it's not likely."
That is how John Derbyshire, a one-time neoconservative who ardently pushed for the war against Iraq, presents a reformed view of the administration's approach to Iraq.
Derbyshire's description of the key players — Powell is out of the game though — apart, the summary he presented in a article in National Review accurately reflects the crisis that the US faces in Iraq.
It is not Derbyshire alone from the neocons who feels that way. Several others have spoken up before him and have quit the neocon camp, perhaps because they want to put as much distance as possible between them and the warmongers who they believe could be held to account at some point, sooner than later, for nudging their country to the abyss that is today's Iraq.
An overview of the neocon camp show that either they believe they have done completed their mission — US domination of Iraq — and are disbanding, or they are deserting the ship ahead of stormy waters. These are two theories attributed to the apparent inactivity of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), the core neoconservative group that planned, plotted and persuaded the Bush administration to go to war against Iraq as the first phase of a grandoise Israel-centric plan for the Middle East..
The PNAC was founded in 1997. The list of its founders and members reads like a "who's who in Washington" under the Bush administration. They could be better described as — in the words of Jim Lobe of the Inter Press Service — aggressive nationalists, Christian Zionists of the religious right, and Israel-centred neoconservatives.
The list includes William Kristol, Gary Schmitt, Robert Kagan, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, I. Lewis Libby, Paul Wolfowitz; Elliott Abrams, Zalmay Khalilzad; Peter Rodman, Richard Perle and Jeb Bush.
In 1998, members of the PNAC, including Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, wrote to then president Bill Clinton urging him to remove Saddam Hussein from power using US diplomatic, political and military power. The letter argued that Saddam would pose a threat to the United States, its Middle East allies and oil resources in the region if he succeeded in maintaining his stockpile of weapons of mass destruction. The letter also stated "we can no longer depend on our partners in the (1991) Gulf War to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections" and "American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council." The letter argued that an Iraq war would be justified by Saddam's defiance of the UN "containment" policy and his persistent threat to US interests.
In 2000, the group drew up a report — "America's Defences" — which said in part that "while the unresolved conflict in Iraq provides the immediate justification (for US military presence), the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein" and "over the long term, Iran may well prove as large a threat to US interests in the Gulf as Iraq has. And even should US-Iranian relations improve, retaining forward-based forces in the region would still be an essential element in US security strategy given the longstanding American interests in the region".
The war campaigners had to wait until 2001 — when George W Bush took over the White House — in order to set in motion the plan that they had drawn up: Invade Iraq, topple Saddam Hussein, instal a US-friendly regime in Baghdad that would take care of the people of Iraq, launch action — political, diplmatic and limited military strikes — against Iran, bring about "regime change" in Tehran, and consolidate American military presence in the Gulf in order to call the shots in the region.
In a letter sent to Bush on Sept.20, 2001, nine days after the aerial attacks in New York and Washington, called for the ouster of the Taliban from power in Afghanistan and elimination of Al Qaeda as well as waging a broader "war on terrorism" targeting the Palestinian liberation movement led by Yasser Arafat, destroying Lebanon's Hizbollah, bringing Syria and Iran to heel, and, most importantly, ousting Saddam regardless of whether he had any ties with Osama Bin Laden, Al Qaeda or the Sept.11 attacks.
"Israel's fight against terrorism is our fight. Israel's victory is an important part of our victory," the letter stated. "For reasons both moral and strategic, we need to stand with Israel in its fight against terrorism."
The letter was signed by Kristol, Kagan, Perle, Woolsey and Eliot Cohen, Centre for Security Policy president Frank Gaffney, former education secretary William Bennett, syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer, and Foundation for the Defence of Democracies director Clifford May among others.
While these planned moves were projected as aimed at strengthening American supremacy of the globe, the PNAC was mainly seeking to serve Israel's quest for domination of the Middle East by removing the Jewish state's strongest Arab and Muslim challengers.
Even those neocons who have jumped ship are steering clear of mentioning the Israeli element in the agenda for war against Iraq and Iran. Obviously, they are aware that running foul of Israel means ruining themselves. They have seen it inevitably happening to anyone and everyone of value in US politics.
The PNAC went on a decline when it became clear that its "recommendation" had placed the US is a precarious position: It was being sucked deeper into the Iraqi embroglio, with American casualties rising every day, and it was also rendered in a position not to advance the neocon plans for Iran.
Infighting started in the PNAC, with one group targeting Rumsfeld for bitter criticism for not having sent enough forces to Iraq to pre-empt the insurgency and for having placed too much faith in Iraqi exiles who had claimed they would have whole-hearted and unreserved support of the Iraqis in post-Saddam Iraq.
The internal fueds led to a debate on the group's future. Some argued that its "mission" was accomplished and therefore it is desired that the group is closed down, particularly in view of the fallout among its members.
According to reports in the US press, including the Washington Post, the PNAC has issued any official announcement since late last year. There is no one to answer the PNAC telephones in Washington since January.
The Post quoted one unidentified source as saying that the group was "heading towards closing" with the feeling of "goal accomplished."

The reality that US wants to shroud

June 18, 2006

THE US contends that foreign extremists are waging a hatred-based blind war against it in Iraq. It deliberately underplays the reality that it is the American and allied foreign military presence there is the main cause for the insecurity and instability that have become part of life in the beleaguered country.
Iraq did not go to the US. The US came to Iraq on its free will and now finds itself having caught a tiger by the tail. Washington is now hoping that something dramatic could happen that would ease the pressure it is finding itself under in Iraq. In the meantime, it continues to argue that international terrorists bent upon inflicting as much damage to the US for the sake of doing it are behind the insurgency in Iraq.
The US military has never released an accurate account of the insurgents killed and detained in the more than three-year guerrilla war, but experts accounts say that less than 10 per cent of them were non-Iraqi. That would clearly establish that it is a home-grown insurgency that is raging in Iraq against foreign presence.
Washington would never accept it. It would never agree that the people of Iraq no longer see the US forces there as liberators and are anxious to see the back of foreign soldiers. Instead, it would continue to insist that battling the insurgency is central to the US-led international war against terror and turning away from it would mean giving ground to terrorists.
Never mind that Iraq was never or is a breeding ground for terrorists going around the world staging or even threatening to carry out terror attacks.
Never mind that a large number of Iraqis resent the "jihadist" presence among them as much as they resent the foreign military presence in their country.
Never mind that the people of post-war Iraq have seen and are living through worse atrocities than they suffered under the Baathist regime.
Never mind that the people of Iraq are living in perpetual terror, and are scraping through adverse living conditions —  minimal supplies of water, food and power — and with little employment opportunities except in the security forces (with all the dangers the job carries).
Never mind that the people of Iraq could not step out of their homes without fear of getting shot or arrested for whatever reason, and they could not have peace at home since a military or extremist knock could come anytime. Their homes could be stormed anytime by gunmen in government uniforms, with men being taken away, only to be discovered tortured and murdered the next day in the streets The average for May was 45). They could even be shot to death for simply being Iraqis (as we have seen in Haditha, Ishaqi and other towns) or be hauled away and tortured under detention (as we have seen in Abu Ghraib and other US-run prisons in post-war Iraq).
Washington continues to argue that freeing Iraq from the Saddam Hussein regime in April 2003 and installing an elected government there more than three years later was the best thing that could ever happen to the people of Iraq and they should remain eternally grateful to the US; and they should also accep that whatever the US does is for their good, democracy, freedom, dignity and human rights — in whatever order Washington finds fit.
However, ending the US-led foreign presence at this point in time would only herald massive bloodshed and loss of life among the people of Iraq because rival groups would immediately engage each other in open warfare in a bitter battle for supremacy.
What impact did the death of Abu Musab Al Zarqawi have on the situation on the ground in Iraq?
Well, for one thing, experts agree, it is a relief for Iraqis since Zarqawi's departure from the scene could result in a scaling down of "jihadist" attacks targeting Iraqis. Most of Zarqawi-engineered attacks had targeted Iraqis. The number of Iraqis killed in the suicide bombings attributed to Zarqawi is at least 25 to 30 times more than the number of American soldiers who died in Zarqawi's operations.
However, hospital figures show that there has been no let-up in the number of dead bodies reaching them on a daily basis. Nor is there a decline in suicide bombings and ambushes.
As reports from Iraq indicate, Sunni groups are hoping that Zarqawi's elimination would expose to the world that the insurgency was limited to Al Qaeda.
The US, and indeed the Arab World and the broader world community find themselves in a catch-22 situation:
As long as the US military presence continues in Iraq, there would not be an end to the insurgency directed at creating instability and making the country ungovernable for the US-backed Shiite-majority government (The results of any election would not be much different to make a real difference than those of the polls held in December). And if the US quits Iraq (which is highly unlikely), then there would be open civil war in the country pitting the 17-to-20 per cent Sunnis against the 58-per-cent-to-60-per-cent Shiites, with external forces from within the region and afar seeking to exploit the chaos.
What is going on Iraq now is a civil war indeed but by any other name, given the number of daily deaths and frequency of attacks even in the face of a massive security crackdown launched last week. The US military presence is perhaps even a check against the situation degenerating into a free-for-all settling of scores in the streets, a definite possiblity if American and other foreign soldiers start leaving the country without firming up a popular system of governance and a strong security system with enough force to back up the system (Indeed, that is one of the justifications and reasons cited by the US to explain its continued presence in the country).
On the surface and under the geopolitical imperatives, there does not seem to be any way out except that dictated by the US at whatever cost to itself and the people of Iraq. However, ways could present themselves if there is a political will in Washington to accept without reservation that the neoconservative designs for Iraq have gone dreadfully wrong and that the US has to make compromises over its pre-war objectives in Iraq. More importantly, the US will have to agree to be transparent in all its future dealing with the crisis and accept a prominent role for the regional and international community in working out a solution. Simply put, the US has to let go of Iraq as a strategic prize and let the world take the lead in trying to solve the crisis in the interest of peace and stability not only in Iraq but in the region at large, and Washington should be ready to pay the costs of repairing the damage it did when it ordered its military into Iraq.
It is wishful thinking. The US will never be amenable to any such idea simply because the US believes in itself too much. However, that should not be a dampner for the rest of the world to come up with ideas — unprecedented and dramatic as they might be because the situation in Iraq is also unprecedented and dramatic —  and go public with them so that no one could argue they were not told there were ways out of the quagmire.

Leave the Somalis alone

June 17 2006

NOTWITHSTANDING all the reservations that are coupled with any group reported to be religiously overzealous, the consolidation of territorial control of Somalia by an Islamist group could be the next-to-best thing that could have happened to the Horn of Africa country in more than 15 years.
For the first time since 1991, a single group has gained control of most the country, with warlords supposedly backed by the US having fled for their life after several weeks of fighting that killed more tha 350. Two of the warlords are said to have been picked up by a waiting US military ship, and this strengthens the claim by the victorious Union of Islamic Courts that their groups were funded and supported by Washington.
Be that as it may, the Islamist forces seem to be proceeding with determination to restore calm and order to the country for the first time after the ouster of dictator Mohammed Siad Barre in 1991.
Lawlessness is the worst curse that Somalia is going through.
The country does have an interim government, which had to position itself in the town of Baidoa, some 150 kilometres from the capital Mogadishu, in view of its lack of muscle power to enforce its decisions.
Although the Union of Islamist Courts — which transcends tribalism and clan politics, the root cause for instability in the country — has imposed Islamic Sharia law in areas that fell into its control, it has said that it does not want to set up a government of its own and is open to work out an alliance with the UN-supported interim government.
They have declared that they are capable of securing Mogadishu to host the government but opposes its plan to deploy foreign peacekeepers in the country. They have called on the United Nations and African Union to let Somalis settle the situation themselves.
An indication of the group's confidence came in the form of an invitation to foreign journalists to visit Mogadishu for the first time since the Islamists trounced the so-called secular warlords.
The Islamists have also reached out to the diplomatic community after taking control in an obvious bid to allay fears that they harbour extremists — a charge levelled by the US administration.
They have announced plans to set up a police force, an authority to demobilise militias and a new administration "effective and accountable to its people."
These are positive indications of a turnaround in the country regardless of whatever ideology the Islamists profess.
The people of Somalia have paid a high price for their tribal politics which, more often than not, turns violent at the proverbial drop of a hat. Hopefully, the ascendence of the Islamists will herald an end to their suffering. In the meantime, foreign powers with their own agenda in the country should stay out and let the Somalis handle their affairs by themselves.

Indians should have the courage

July 13, 2006

Indians should have the courage

IT WAS definitely not any provocation that had triggered the series of bombings in India's commercial capital of Mumbai on Tuesday that killed nearly 200 people and injured over 600. Careful planning had gone into the seven blasts on suburban trains in a 12-minute span during the peak commuter hour. Some pundits suggest that those behind the bombings sought to exploit the unrest sparked by the desecration of a statue of the wife of militant Shiv Sena leader Bal Thackeray earlier in the week. They suggest that the bombings were aimed not only at sending the government a reminder of dissent among a certain community but also stoking Shiv Sena fury leading to communal riots in the city of more than 16 million people. That has not happened, and, by all accounts, the residents of Mumbai rose up in unity to deal with the aftermath of the bombings.
Thousands came out not only to help rush the victims of the blasts to hospital but also to extend a helping hand to those stranded in the streets as a result of the disruption of the suburban train system — Mumbai's lifeline that is used by more than six million people every day. People were there on the streets with water, refreshments and food for those who were stuck on traffic-clogged roads for hours. That is the greatness of a city like Mumbai where everyone is not only aware that he or she could be caught in a similar or even worse situation anytime but is also compassionate to step in and help each other in times of crisis. Equally importantly, they also realise that they are facing a common enemy who is trying to spark chaos in the society by fuelling communal sentiments. That is not limited to residents of Mumbai either. A majority of the people of India have come to accept that internal as well as external forces are working to undermine their dreams leading of a decent and dignified life if only because that achievement would help unleash the full potential of the country in the regional and international scenes.
Indian security and intelligence agencies have their jobs cut out for them. They might or might not be able to get the facts right and bust the case and bring the perpetrators to book. Terrorism has to be confronted ruthlessly whenever and wherever it occurs. So let them do their job, but we do hope that the end result of their work would not add fuel to the fire by targeting the wrong people.
Parallel to that, the Mumbai bombings must be seen in the wider context of the festering conflicts in the sub-continent.
India, a country of nearly 1.1 billion people which has emerged as a regional powerhouse — in all respects — is indeed a world leader in many aspects. It is a pity — to say the least — that the world's largest democracy has not been able to produce fair and just solutions to problems such as minority conflicts. In the absence of solutions, there are groups continuously plotting attacks and carrying them out whenever they determine that the time is opportune enough to do so. They do not need any specific incident or development to stage attacks.
That is a reality facing the country's leadership regardless of political or religious ideologies of those in legislative and executive power. There is little they could do about stopping militant groups which could spring up in any part of the country at any given point in time and inflict harm on the society as we saw on Tuesday in Mumbai. Those in power and in position of influence have to live with the truth that such attacks could happen anywhere anytime. The only way to counter the perpetual threat is to get to the roots of conflicts and problems that are breeding extremism and address them in a comprehensive and durable manner. Surely, India has enough intelligent and matured politicians and strategists to work out and pursue a course of action away from narrow political interests that block fair and just compromises that serve the broader national interests and help redivert precious human and material resources back into the development process. As long as the mindset to tackle the bull by the horns is missing in the circles that wield power as well as those who oppose them for the sake of opposition in the name of political expediency, they should be mentally prepared to confront repetitions of Tuesday's carnage in Mumbai.
At the same time, it is also our fervent hope that communal interests, from any part of the vast mosaic that is India, would open their eyes and refrain from throwing a spanner in the works of healing rifts and finding permanent solutions to the festering problems, whether in the north, south, east or west of the great nation.

Conflicting but intentional signals

July 19 2006



ISRAEL is sending conflicting signals about its intentions in Palestine and Hizbollah, but it should not be confusing at all to anyone. Military sources talking about ending the offensive in Lebanon by end of this week as well as reports preparations for a long drawn-out conflict are all deliberately placed with a view to allowing Israel to achieve its objective of demolishing organised resistance to its designs.
The ambiguity about whether US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice would travel to the region win order to help find a solution to the crises in Palestine and Lebanon also also seems to be deliberate.
One thing is clear: Israel does not have any plans to reoccupy the Gaza Strip or to set up a military presence in Lebanese territory. On both counts, Israel would be the loser. For many years, successive Israeli government had found it difficult to continue to occupy the Gaza Strip and had wanted to get rid of the territory from its control because of the high cost — in all aspects — of the coastal strip. Having withdrawn from Gaza last year, the Israeli army does not want to do anything with controlling the territory from within.
Similarly, Israel would not want to return to the status quo that prevailed before its withdrawal from south Lebanon in 1999 in the face of fierce and effective resistance from Hizbollah.
Given these realities, Israel's objective is to apply as much pressure as possible with a view to cornering Hizbollah, both politically and militarily, and forcing it to release the two captive Israeli soldiers. The same applies to the Palestinian Hamas group.
However, neither Hizbollah nor Hamas is willing to allow that to happen because they are aware that the outcome of the present conflicts would determine the course of the Arab-Israeli conflict. It is particularly so in the case of Lebanon. A perceived triumph for Hizbollah — Israel agreeing to negotiate a prisoner exchange — would boost Hamas and other Palestinian groups waging armed resistance in Palestine, and this would mean a hardening of positions in any future scenario.
On the other hand, Hizbollah succumbing to Israeli and Western pressure would weaken Palestinian resistance, and that is what the Jewish state is aiming for at this point in time.
Against the backdrop of the declared and perceived objectives of the Israeli offensives in the Gaza Strip and Lebanon, the civilians are paying a high price in both areas.
The international community — as represented by world governments —  is more preoccupied, quite understandably so from an external vantage point, with getting their people out of harm's way in Lebanon than giving prioritty to saving the civilians caught in the crossfire.
All justifications and explanations apart, it is as if the world has given a free hand for Israel to deal with the situation the way it finds fit, and its way is through gunbarrels and missile launchers.
Hizbollah and Hamas — plus of course Syria and Iran — are blamed for provoking the Israelis into military action. That might indeed be a just argument, but that is only a side view. Something had to happen in order to break the stalemate in the Middle East after Hamas came to power through the Palestinian ballot box early this year, and that is what has happened. The free world, which has little option to do what it should be doing in the face of the protective umbrella over Israel, could not be blamed for taking a ringside seat and watching the developments that have followed and are still to come. But the Arab World cannot do that. The Arabs have to take decisive action in order to ensure that the outcome of the ongoing crises would be tailored to suit Israeli interests and would instead lead to a collective international awakening to the reality that enough is enough in the Middle East. The crises may be resolved with short-term agreements — such as a stabilisation force in Lebanon — but that should not be an end in itself. Serious and determined action should be undertaken that would do away with any reason for similar crises to reoccur. The way to that goal is only through a just and fair Arab-Israeli peace agreement. The Arabs, with help from friendly countries, should work towards pressuring the world not only to take first steps on the long way but also to ensure that the international community remains with them all along. The present crises offers an opportunity to do so.

Monday, July 10, 2006

July 10, 2006

Scepticism overshadows
US reports of terror plots



US SECURITY agencies unveiled two major "terror plots" in the last one month — one that targeted the Sears Tower in Chicago and the other the Holland Tunnel New York City. While the US media as well as international newspapers, radio and television stations gave high prominence to both reports, many also voiced scepticism and implicitly suggested that both were cases where "evidence" was exaggerated for political purposes.
The critics' conclusion is that political hawks who indirectly but effectively control security and intelligence agencies grabbed at the slimmest of suggestions of terror plots against the US and blew them out of proportion with a view to telling the American people that they remained vulnerable to terrorism linked to the Middle East, but the Republican administration is capable of preventing them. The unveiling of the purported plots come ahead of mid-term elections, they point out.
The critics also note that the revelations of the purported plots coincided with a report that Alec Station, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) unit responsible for tracking Osama Bin Laden since before the Sept.11, 2001 attacks, had been disbanded.
Officials claimed the unit was disbanded in 2005 and therefore there could have been no link between the closure and the revelations of "terror plots." However, members of congress say they were not informed of Alec Station's closure, undermining the official claim that the unit was indeed closed more than one year ago.
"The alleged bomb plot (against the Holland Tunnel), sources suggest, may have been to alleviate Bush administration concerns that the Alec Station story would make them appear to be weak on terror," writes Larisa Alexandrovna on www.rawstory.com.
US security officials say they busted the plot after monitoring Internet chat rooms used by militants who had used coded language to discuss a possible attack. One American official said the members of the group had never met one another.
Critics counter that terrorists do not discuss their plans in public.

'Nothing more than chatter'

Alexandrovna quotes one former intelligence field officer as saying and two other CIA officials as confirming "that the alleged plot by Muslim extremists to bomb the Holland Tunnel in New York City was nothing more than chatter by unaffiliated individuals with no financing or training in an open forum already monitored extensively by the United States government."
"It is not clear this early on, however, how much of a real and immediate threat the bomb plot may have been," Alexandrovna writes.
She quotes Philip Giraldi, a former CIA officer and contributor to American Conservative magazine, as saying that "the so-called New York tunnel plot was a result of discussions held on an open Jihadi web site.”
Giraldi acknowledges that three suspects who have already been arrested in Lebanon and five others are being hunted elsewhere espouse extremist thinking, but "their on-line chatter is considerably overblown by allegations of an actual plot.'
“They are not professionally trained terrorists, however, and had no resources with which to carry out the operation they discussed," Giraldi says. "Despite press reports that they had asked Abu Musab Zarqawi for assistance, there is no information to confirm that. It is known that the members discussed the possibility of approaching Zarqawi but none of them knew him or had any access to him.”
Assem Hammoud who is also said to have used an alias, Amir Andalousli, is in detention in Lebanon along with two others — one is a Syrian and the other's nationality has not been revealed.
The five suspects at large are said to be a Saudi, a Yemeni, a Jordanian, a Palestinian, and an Iranian Kurd.
Experts also expose a major loophole in the assertion by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) that the suspects planned to attack the Holland Tunnel under the Hudson River using suicide bombers and backpack bombs. The alleged plan was to flood lower Manhattan by attacking the tunnels and cripple the heart of the US financial district. Experts point out the tunnel is below the water level and indeed Lower Manhattan, and hence it does not make sense to believe that flooding it would flood Lower Manhattan.
“In sum, the plot, if that is what we would call it, was not well conceived, and there was no possibility of flooding Wall Street," says Giraldi, the ex-CIA expert. "There was no connection to a cell in the US. Finally, professional terrorists generally do not discuss targeting on open channels. As it was being monitored from the beginning of the open discussion, there was little chance anything concrete would have developed."
The alleged plot was said to be in the planning stages, and the suspects had not purchased any explosives or visited the US as part of the scheme.
In the Miami case also, suspects were arrested "before" they collected weapons and finding or even figured out the logistics necessary to carry out their purported plot to bomb the Sears Towers in Chicago.
The suspects did not have written information on how to make explosives, details on the layout of the Sears Tower or any known link to a terrorist group.

'Pre-emptive action'

However, US security officials say that they need to take pre-emptive action.
"We don't wait until someone has lit the fuse to step in," Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said on Friday.
"It is a mistake to assume that the only terrorist that's a serious terrorist is the kind of guy you see on television, that's a kind of James Bond type," he said. "The fact of the matter is mixing a bomb in a bathtub does not take rocket science."
Asserting that someone plotted terror attacks is one thing, but proving it is yet another, legal experts point out.
In any event, scepticism is dominating the air as authorities in Lebanon and Washington reveal more details of the alleged plot, the plotters and their alleged connections with Al Qaeda.
Carl W. Tobias, a law professor at University of Richmond in Virginia who tracks terrorism cases, sums it up.
According to Tobias, quoted by Alexandrovna, the evidence disclosed so far in relation to the ability of the suspects to deliver on their threats has caused him to wonder if politics might be a factor.
He says: "There is some kind of public relations gained by making Americans on the one hand feel concerned that the Sears Tower in Chicago or some tunnel in Manhattan is targeted yet on the other hand feel comforted that the government is on top of it."