The Rag Blog

20/01/08 “ICH” — — A humanitarian crisis is underway as the Gaza Strip’s only power plant began to shut down on Sunday, and the tiny coastal territory entered its third full day without shipments of vital food and fuel supplies due to Israel’s punitive sanctions.

The Gaza Strip’s power plant has completely shut down on Sunday because it no longer has the fuel needed to keep running. One of the plant’s two electricity-generating turbines had already shut down by noon.

This will drastically reduce output to 25 or 30 megawatts, down from the 65 megawatts the plant produces under normal conditions. By Sunday evening the plant will shut down completely, leaving large swaths of the Gaza Strip in darkness.

Omar Kittaneh, the head of the Palestine Energy Authority in Ramallah, confirmed that by tonight, the one remaining operating turbine will be powered down, and the Gaza power plant will no longer be generating any electricity at all.

“We have asked the Israeli government to reverse its decision and to supply fuel to operate the power plant”, Dr. Kittaneh said. “We have talked to the Israeli humanitarian coordination in their Ministry of Energy [National Infrastructure]. We say this is totally Israel’s responsibility, and that reducing the fuel supplies until the plant had to shut down will affect not only the electrical system but the water supply, and the entire infrastructure in Gaza – everything.”

After months of increasingly harsh sanctions, Israel imposed a total closure on the Strip’s border crossings, even preventing the delivery of humanitarian aid. The Israeli government says the closure is punishment for an ongoing barrage of Palestinian homemade projectiles fired from the Gaza Strip.

“Famine”

180 fuel stations have shut down after Gaza residents to buy gas for cooking.

A Palestinian economist Hasan Abu Ramadan said the current humanitarian disaster in the Gaza Strip will be deepened by the blockade on fuel and food supplies. He warned that Gaza Strip could go from a situation of deep poverty to all out famine, disease, and malnutrition.

Abu Ramadan said that more than 80% of the Strip’s 1.5 million residents have been surviving with the help of food aid from international organizations such as UNRWA for Palestinian refugees.

International condemnation

Most international actors in the region believe there already is a humanitarian crisis in Gaza, including the UN’s Emergency Relief Coordinator, the Undersecretary-general for humanitarian affairs John Holmes, who said at a press conference at UNHQ in New York on Friday that “This kind of action against the people in Gaza cannot be justified, even by those rocket attacks”.

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon expressed particular concern, in a statement issued later on Friday through his spokesperson, about the “decision by Israel to close the crossing points in between Gaza and Israel used for the delivery of humanitarian assistance. Such action cuts off the population from much-needed fuel supplies used to pump water and generate electricity to homes and hospitals”.

The UN Human Rights Council’s Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the occupied territories, John Dugard, also issued a much sharper statement on Friday, saying that Israel must have foreseen the loss of life and injury to many nearby civilians when it targeted the Ministry of Interior building in Gaza City.

This, and the killings of other Palestinians during the week, plus the closures, “raise very serious questions about Israel’s respect for international law and its Commitment to the peace process”, Dugard said. He said it violates the strict prohibition on collective punishment contained in the Fourth Geneva Convention, and one of the basic principles of international humanitarian law: that military action must distinguish between military targets and civilian targets.

Tumult ruled, yet memories of the time are often more distortion than reality.

The coming year will be chock-full of 1968 commemorations. Deservedly so, because that was a pivotal year in which the convulsions of a decade converged and the country slouched over the edge of a precipice.

It was, after all, the year of the Tet offensive in Vietnam, Walter Cronkite’s televised farewell to victory in that wretched war, the My Lai massacre (unknown until the next year), Eugene McCarthy’s presidential run, Columbia University’s uprising, President Lyndon B. Johnson’s decision not to run for a second full term, Martin Luther King Jr.’s assassination, scores of subsequent riots, Robert F. Kennedy’s assassination, the Chicago Democratic Convention riots, the Miss America protest in Atlantic City, Richard Nixon’s “Southern Strategy” and election, and, for good measure, the first manned voyages in the Apollo program — not to mention Prague Spring, the French student uprising, the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia, and, in Mexico City, the massacre of protesting students and the black power salutes of Olympic athletes John Carlos and Tommie Smith.

All this happened and deserves the most sober reflection — and the repudiation of some commonplace errors.

First, the error of headline entrancement. One wrong way to remember 1968 is to see it as pure spectacle, nothing more than the star-studded sum of bright revolutionary lights and photogenic flames. It’s right to see the year as a sequence of shocks, but wrong to overlook what deserved to shock the nation but didn’t. Among less-heralded events worthy of recall, consider Feb. 8, when, in Orangeburg, S.C., two college students and one high-school student protesting outside a segregated bowling alley were shot dead by local police, and another 27 wounded. In the home state of Strom Thurmond, Gov. Robert E. McNair, evidence free, blamed “black-power advocates” and worried aloud that the state’s “reputation for racial harmony had been blemished.” The police were acquitted after a federal trial, but in another trial, a local jury sent civil-rights organizer Cleveland L. Sellers Jr., who had been present at the bowling alley two days earlier, to prison for “riot.”

Second, the error of overzealous revulsion, with the uprisings, protests, drugs and all-around freakiness of that year seen as so many passages to Gomorrah. In this cultural trope, a splendid, disciplined social order broke down under the pressure of such unbridled indulgences as LSD, unisex hair styles, open cohabitation and pornography. Flat factual errors escort this version. (To take but two examples: Violence in Chicago was said to be the fault of demonstrators, when it was far more the doing of police, including agents provocateurs; and, also contrary to myth, not a single bra was burned outside the pageant on the Atlantic City boardwalk, though under- and other garments were tossed into a “Freedom Trash Can,” and a living sheep was crowned Miss America.)

It is an even bigger distortion to condemn the sex, drugs and all-around weirdness of that year as “the indulgences of an elite few” — the words were Newt Gingrich’s at his moment of triumph in 1995. That position altogether mistakes the full dimension of a convulsion at work from coast to coast, in the armed forces and the community colleges and high schools as well as in the Ivy League, even on the assembly lines.

But 1968 was also a year of wishful thinking, rife with an error repeated even now in the shrines of the unreconstructed left: worship of the enemy’s enemy. Under the pressure of either/or thinking, the assumption grew that the baddest guys of the left must be the best. Darlings of the left, such as Che Guevara and the Black Panthers’ Huey Newton, were celebrated in blissful ignorance or willful denial of their harsh, authoritarian ways. All manner of drugs were extolled or condoned indiscriminately. Everything that had the look of arid establishment was condemned. When all intellectual standards were rejected as elitism, all professionalism as rank imposition, all institutions as prisons, all laws as oppression, rational thought was battered, and honorable men and women suffered unjustly.

The right way to remember the year 1968 is to give its complications their due. History is the most crooked of timbers. The egalitarianism of the civil-rights movement and a spirit of cultural adventure commingled with a whole melange of joyful and desperate reactions against white supremacy, senseless war, empty materialism and supine obedience. The result was a mutiny against all establishments, usually for good and sufficient reason, although ends were frequently violated by means.

Still, it remains true that many millions then, and in subsequent generations, freed themselves to become what they could and to restore the dignity of the American spirit. To appreciate the immensity of the upheaval is to give credit to the enduring power of the American Revolution, to its appeals for people to take control of their own lives to pursue both happiness and virtue. One may rue the overindulgences while still recognizing that the movements of the time were preludes to a necessary enlargement of democracy, freedom and moral seriousness. The good of this immense effort outweighs the bad, though — as with so many laudable efforts — it reminds us of unfulfilled promises.

In the thick of many vast differences, it’s early indeed in 2008 to tell what still reverberates 40 years on. But if nothing else, the caucus results from Iowa suggest that ideals are alive and that America strains to be reborn from the brink of calamity.

To amend one of William Blake’s proverbs, the road of excess, having trampled the ground of innocence, might yet lead to the palace of wisdom.

AHOMA, Calif. – A Pentagon office that claims to monitor terrorist threats to U.S. military bases in North America has just awarded a multi-million-dollar contract to a company that employs a top aide to former U.S. Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld. That aide, Stephen Cambone, helped create the very office that issued the contract.0119 01

The company winning the contract was QinetiQ (pronounced “kinetic”) North America (QNA), a major British-owned defence and intelligence contractor based in McLean, Virginia. On Jan. 7, QNA’s Mission Solutions Group, formerly Analex Corporation, signed a five-year, 30-million-dollar contract to provide a range of unspecified “security services” to the Pentagon’s Counter-Intelligence Field Activity office known as CIFA.Since 2003, CIFA has been the Pentagon’s lead domestic intelligence agency and is one of the largest employers of private contractors within the U.S. intelligence community. In 2004, it was reprimanded by Congress for spying on U.S. antiwar and religious activists opposed to the George W. Bush administration’s foreign policies.

QNA’s contract was awarded just two months after QinetiQ hired Stephen Cambone, the former undersecretary of defence for intelligence and a longtime Rumsfeld aide, as its vice president for strategy. Cambone is the most senior of a savvy group of former high-ranking Pentagon and intelligence officials hired by QinetiQ to manage its expansion in the 50-billion-dollar U.S. market for intelligence outsourcing services.

While he was at the Pentagon, Cambone oversaw CIFA and was deeply involved in the Pentagon’s most controversial intelligence programmes. It was Cambone, for example, who reportedly issued orders to Major General Geoffrey Miller to soften up Iraqi prisoners for intelligence interrogators in Abu Ghraib in 2003. With Rumsfeld, he also set up a special unit within the Pentagon that alienated the CIA and the State Department by running its own covert actions without seeking input from other agencies.

The new CIFA contract comes on the heels of a series of QinetiQ deals inked with the Pentagon in the booming new business of “network centric warfare” — the space-age technology-driven intelligence and warfighting policies established by Rumsfeld and Cambone during their six-year tenures at the Pentagon. Other Cambone-pioneered programmes that QinetiQ has won include military drones and robots, low-flying satellites and jamming technologies.

Cambone’s appointment at QinetiQ reflects the “incestuous” relationships that exist between former officials and private intelligence contractors, said Steven Aftergood, the director of the Project on Government Secrecy at the Federation of American Scientists and a long-time observer of U.S. intelligence.

“It’s unseemly, and what’s worse is that it has become normal,” he said in an interview. The problem, he added, “is not so much a conflict of interest as it is a coincidence of interests — the intelligence community and the contractors are so tightly intertwined at the leadership level that their interests, practically speaking, are identical.”

QinetiQ was created in 2001 when the British Ministry of Defence (MoD) split up the Defence Evaluation Research Agency (DERA), its equivalent to the U.S. Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). One part of the company remained inside the MoD, but the other half was sold to the private sector and became QinetiQ. In February 2003, 33 percent of QinetiQ’s shares were acquired by the Carlyle Group, the powerful Washington-based private equity fund with close ties to the Bush administration.

With the infusion of capital from Carlyle (which sold its shares in 2006), QinetiQ went on a U.S. buying spree. In November 2004, for example, it acquired Foster-Miller, which builds what it calls “mobile platforms” for the U.S. military, including the Talon robot, a battery-powered machine loaded with night-vision cameras and sensors that can fire both machine gun bullets and anti-tank weapons. The five other companies it acquired hold contracts with a range of U.S. intelligence agencies, including the National Reconnaissance Office, the super-secret agency that maintains the U.S. fleet of spy satellites, and the Department of Homeland Security.

With 1.5 billion dollars in defence revenue in 2006, QNA is now the 11th largest U.S. intelligence contractor. QinetiQ officials were not available for comment on Cambone’s appointment or any other matter. As for the former undersecretary of defence, “Stephen Cambone is not interested in an interview at this time,” said Sophie Barrett, QNA’s spokesperson.

QinetiQ’s main reason for hiring Stephen Cambone was the fact that he had the unprecedented job of commanding the full spectrum of defence intelligence agencies controlled by the Pentagon. He also oversaw CIFA, which he helped set up in 2003 and transformed into one of the U.S. government’s largest collectors of domestic intelligence. Despite occasional criticism from the U.S. Congress for spying on ordinary U.S. citizens, it has thrived at the Pentagon during the administrations of both Donald Rumsfeld as well as Robert Gates, the current secretary of defence.

Cambone was also deeply involved in Rumsfeld’s so-called “transformation” policies at the Pentagon, which fused data flowing from those agencies into the Pentagon’s high-tech war machine. The decisions he made greatly reduced the Pentagon’s acquisitions of large weapons systems like aircraft carriers and radically increased its purchases of space-age war technologies as communications systems, sensors, robots, low-flying satellites and unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs).

It is precisely these technologies that QinetiQ produces. Its work for CIFA, the company said in the release announcing the deal, reflects QinetiQ’s role “as a pioneer in planning and executing the protection of government personnel, critical infrastructure and sensitive defence programmes.”

QinetiQ is the largest supplier of UAVs and robots to the Pentagon and the U.S. intelligence community. It developed the Zephyr, the world’s most advanced UAV, a solar-powered drone that can transmit data and pictures continuously for periods up to three months. QinetiQ also specialises in a jamming technology (called “interference protection”) that protects satellite systems from outside activity. And the company is a major supplier of acoustic microsensors designed to track the movements of “insurgents” or “illegal immigrants”.

For QinetiQ and Cambone, therefore, this is a match made in heaven. Cambone’s insights into “national security affairs and priorities,” said CEO Duane Andrews, a former top Pentagon aide to Vice President Dick Cheney, will help shape QinetiQ’s ability “to rapidly deliver solutions to the complex challenges that face our defence and intelligence customers.”

In other words, there was a natural fit between QinetiQ’s products and Cambone’s inside knowledge of the future plans and strategies behind the U.S. intelligence enterprise.

Tim Shorrock (www.timshorrock.com) is a longtime contributor to IPS and has been writing about U.S. foreign policy for 25 years. His book on the outsourcing of U.S. intelligence will be published in May by Simon & Schuster.

FERNDALE- Scott Ritter, one of the former United Nations inspectors who didn’t find any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, denounced the Bush administration for going to war with WMDs as the primary rationale in March 2003.

Now he fears the United States is on the brink of war with Iran. Ritter points to a military buildup in the region, the so-called threats to the U.S. Navy from Iranian speed boats last week and a U.S. Senate resolution that labels elements of Iran as a terrorist organization.

“It’s like filling up a house with gasoline and flicking matches at the door,” Ritter said. “Sooner or later it will connect.”

Ritter spoke to the Daily Tribune via telephone Friday while on the road in Colorado. He and media critic Jeff Cohen were driving to meet with school and church groups in Boulder and Denver this weekend for U.S. Tour of Duty, a series of public forums aimed at starting a national dialogue about global engagement.

The tour will bring Ritter and Cohen, a former Detroit resident who refers to mainstream media as the “weapons of mass distraction,” to First United Methodist Church of Ferndale, 22331 Woodward Ave., from 2-4 p.m. Saturday, Jan. 26.

The local tour stop is sponsored by the Huntington Woods Peace, Citizenship and Education Project. Spokeswoman Linda Ashley said the church can hold 700 people and she urges area residents to attend.

“We think Iran and U.S. foreign policy is a real important topic,” Ashley said. “This is a unique forum that gives our community the chance to participate in a national discussion.”

Ritter said he will present factual data that the country is heading toward another military conflict in the Middle East.

“I draw heavily on the words of the Bush administration and people can draw their own conclusion,” he said.

To him, President George W. Bush has been waging a war of words with Iran for years. He points to the president saying “all options are on the table” regarding Iran and its alleged nuclear program in 2005 and then calling Iran “a threat to world peace” last week.

“The president isn’t talking about sending Condoleezza Rice to Iran as an option,” Ritter said. “We’re not on the path of peaceful resolution through diplomacy.”

His conclusion: “What’s really going on is a road map for global domination. The war in Iraq initiated a long-term strategy neo conservatives have been formulating to divide the world into spheres of influence and dominate them economically, militarily and diplomatically.”

Wouldn’t some savvy, headline hungry reporter be following the story if that were the case? Cohen says not if they work for corporate media.

A former on-air commentator and senior producer at MSNBC, Cohen was assigned to Phil Donohue’s show before it was canceled in February 2003. He says he obtained a memo criticizing Donohue for seeming to delight in presenting guests who were anti-war, anti-Bush and skeptical of the administration’s motives.

“It’s because we practiced journalism and had opposing views that were terminated,” Cohen said.

After the show’s cancellation, Cohen said MSNBC issued ordered that every anti-war guest needed to be countered by two pro-war guests.

“That was their quota system to shift the debate for pro-invasion forces,” according to Cohen, who has a book out called “Cable News Confidential: My Misadventures in Corporate Media.”

Where does he get his news? Cohen said his home page opens to www.commondreams.org, which bills itself as a news center for the “progressive community.”

“The good news in the realm of media is that amazing things are happening with independent journalists,” Cohen said. “They are filling a huge vacuum left by corporate media that practice jingoism when it comes to war and tabloidism in general.”

Cohen and Ritter scoffed at the USA Today headline in Friday’s edition proclaiming “75 percent of Baghdad secure.”

The article says data given by the military to the newspaper provides a clear snapshot of how security has improved in Baghdad since 30,000 additional American troops arrived in Iraq last year.

“The average citizen will say things are working, but the small print shows it’s a smoke and mirrors game,” Cohen said. “It’s really quieter in Baghdad because of ethnic cleansing, concrete walls, checkpoints and al-Sadr declared a cease fire. We haven’t defeated them or got them on our side. USA Today is a misrepresentation of reality.

BAGHDAD (AP) — In the depths of a strangely cold winter in the Middle East, Iraqis complain that the lights are not on, the kerosene heaters are without fuel and the water doesn’t flow — and they blame the government.

And with the war nearing its fifth anniversary, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is feeling the discontent as well from the most powerful political centers in the majority Shiite community.

It’s a pincer movement of domestic anger that yet again could threaten al-Maliki’s hold on his Green Zone office.

“Where’s the kerosene and the water?” asked Amjad Kazim, a 56-year-old Shiite who lives in eastern Baghdad. “We hear a lot of promises but we see nothing.”

Little kerosene is available on the state-run market at the subsidized price of $0.52 a gallon. But the fuel can be found on the black market, where it goes for more than $3.79 a gallon.

Overnight temperatures since the first of the year have routinely fallen below freezing when normally they only dip into the upper 30s Fahrenheit.

An average household needs at least 1.32 gallons a day to stay warm, which translates into a monthly expense of $150, or half what an average Iraqi earns.

“I have had no electricity for a week, and I cannot afford to buy it from neighborhood generators,” said Hamdiyah Subeih, a 42-year-old homemaker from Baghdad’s Shiite Baladiyat district. “I would rather live in Saddam Hussein’s hell than the paradise of these new leaders.”

Even during the shortages of last summer’s heat, most Iraqi’s were counting on electricity for air conditioners, fans and refrigeration about half the day. Now it’s off for days at a stretch in many areas and on only a few hours daily on average, residents say.

“My children are so happy when the power comes back on they dance,” said Marwan Ouni, a 34-year-old college teacher from Tikrit, Saddam’s hometown north of Baghdad. “For me, the nonstop power cuts have made my life tedious. It’s depressing.”

That’s the view from below, despite a considerable reduction in violence across the country. The view among those who hold power here is growing equally bilious.

Stinging criticism late last week from Abdul-Aziz al-Hakim, leader of parliament’s largest Shiite bloc, was a stark break with the past. And a threat by Muqtada al-Sadr, the maverick Shiite cleric who once supported al-Maliki, not to renew an expiring six-month cease-fire he imposed on his feared militia could upend recent security progress.

In admonishing tones, al-Hakim called on the government and parliament not to be “entirely focused on political rivalries at the expense of the everyday problems faced by Iraqis.” He also demanded that lawmakers quickly adopt key legislation divvying up the country’s oil wealth and setting the rules for provincial elections to be held later this year.

He spoke of administrative and financial corruption, saying Iraqis were now forced to pay bribes to get business done with ministries and government agencies.

“It makes one’s heart bleed … it’s a violation of man’s freedom and dignity,” he told tens of thousands of supporters in Baghdad on Friday.

Al-Hakim’s harsh words carry considerable weight because his party, the Supreme Iraqi Islamic Council, is al-Maliki’s most important backer after al-Sadr pulled ministers loyal to him from the Cabinet last year and took his 30 lawmakers out of the Shiite bloc.

Al-Hakim’s focus on the daily hardships of most Iraqis finds a ready audience among those struggling to keep warm through one of the coldest winters in years — it snowed across Baghdad for the first time in living memory on Jan. 11. And al-Sadr’s huge following among more radical Shiites could close the pincer on al-Maliki.

Don’t buy the hawks’ hype. The war may be off the front pages, but Iraq is broken beyond repair, and we still own it.

As the fifth anniversary of Operation Iraqi Freedom nears, the fabulists are again trying to weave their own version of the war. The latest myth is that the “surge” is working.

In President Bush’s pithy formulation, the United States is now “kicking ass” in Iraq. The gallant Gen. David Petraeus, having been given the right tools, has performed miracles, redeeming a situation that once appeared hopeless. Sen. John McCain has gone so far as to declare that “we are winning in Iraq.” While few others express themselves quite so categorically, McCain’s remark captures the essence of the emerging story line: Events have (yet again) reached a turning point. There, at the far end of the tunnel, light flickers. Despite the hand-wringing of the defeatists and naysayers, victory beckons.

From the hallowed halls of the American Enterprise Institute waft facile assurances that all will come out well. AEI’s Reuel Marc Gerecht assures us that the moment to acknowledge “democracy’s success in Iraq” has arrived. To his colleague Michael Ledeen, the explanation for the turnaround couldn’t be clearer: “We were the stronger horse, and the Iraqis recognized it.” In an essay entitled “Mission Accomplished” that is being touted by the AEI crowd, Bartle Bull, the foreign editor of the British magazine Prospect, instructs us that “Iraq’s biggest questions have been resolved.” Violence there “has ceased being political.” As a result, whatever mayhem still lingers is “no longer nearly as important as it was.” Meanwhile, Frederick W. Kagan, an AEI resident scholar and the arch-advocate of the surge, announces that the “credibility of the prophets of doom” has reached “a low ebb.”

Presumably Kagan and his comrades would have us believe that recent events vindicate the prophets who in 2002-03 were promoting preventive war as a key instrument of U.S. policy. By shifting the conversation to tactics, they seek to divert attention from flagrant failures of basic strategy. Yet what exactly has the surge wrought? In substantive terms, the answer is: not much.

As the violence in Baghdad and Anbar province abates, the political and economic dysfunction enveloping Iraq has become all the more apparent. The recent agreement to rehabilitate some former Baathists notwithstand ing, signs of lasting Sunni-Shiite reconciliation are scant. The United States has acquired a ramshackle, ungovernable and unresponsive dependency that is incapable of securing its own borders or managing its own affairs. More than three years after then-national security adviser Condoleezza Rice handed President Bush a note announcing that “Iraq is sovereign,” that sovereignty remains a fiction.

A nation-building project launched in the confident expectation that the United States would repeat in Iraq the successes it had achieved in Germany and Japan after 1945 instead compares unfavorably with the U.S. response to Hurricane Katrina. Even today, Iraqi electrical generation meets barely half the daily national requirements. Baghdad households now receive power an average of 12 hours each day — six hours fewer than when Saddam Hussein ruled. Oil production still has not returned to pre-invasion levels. Reports of widespread fraud, waste and sheer ineptitude in the administration of U.S. aid have become so commonplace that they barely last a news cycle. (Recall, for example, the 110,000 AK-47s, 80,000 pistols, 135,000 items of body armor and 115,000 helmets intended for Iraqi security forces that, according to the Government Accountability Office, the Pentagon cannot account for.) U.S. officials repeatedly complain, to little avail, about the paralyzing squabbling inside the Iraqi parliament and the rampant corruption within Iraqi ministries. If a primary function of government is to provide services, then the government of Iraq can hardly be said to exist.

Moreover, recent evidence suggests that the United States is tacitly abandoning its efforts to create a truly functional government in Baghdad. By offering arms and bribes to Sunni insurgents — an initiative that has been far more important to the temporary reduction in the level of violence than the influx of additional American troops — U.S. forces have affirmed the fundamental irrelevance of the political apparatus bunkered inside the Green Zone.

Rather than fostering political reconciliation, accommodating Sunni tribal leaders ratifies the ethnic cleansing that resulted from the civil war touched off by the February 2006 bombing of the Golden Mosque in Samarra, a Shiite shrine. That conflict has shredded the fragile connective tissue linking the various elements of Iraqi society; the deals being cut with insurgent factions serve only to ratify that dismal outcome. First Sgt. Richard Meiers of the Army’s 3rd Infantry Division got it exactly right: “We’re paying them not to blow us up. It looks good right now, but what happens when the money stops?”

In short, the surge has done nothing to overturn former secretary of state Colin Powell’s now-famous “Pottery Barn” rule: Iraq is irretrievably broken, and we own it. To say that any amount of “kicking ass” will make Iraq whole once again is pure fantasy. The U.S. dilemma remains unchanged: continue to pour lives and money into Iraq with no end in sight, or cut our losses and deal with the consequences of failure.

In only one respect has the surge achieved undeniable success: It has ensured that U.S. troops won’t be coming home anytime soon. This was one of the main points of the exercise in the first place. As AEI military analyst Thomas Donnelly has acknowledged with admirable candor, “part of the purpose of the surge was to redefine the Washington narrative,” thereby deflecting calls for a complete withdrawal of U.S. combat forces. Hawks who had pooh-poohed the risks of invasion now portrayed the risks of withdrawal as too awful to contemplate. But a prerequisite to perpetuating the war — and leaving it to the next president — was to get Iraq off the front pages and out of the nightly news. At least in this context, the surge qualifies as a masterstroke. From his new perch as a New York Times columnist, William Kristol has worried that feckless politicians just might “snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory.” Not to worry: The “victory” gained in recent months all but guarantees that the United States will remain caught in the jaws of Iraq for the foreseeable future.

Such success comes at a cost. U.S. casualties in Iraq have recently declined. Yet since Petraeus famously testified before Congress last September, Iraqi insurgents have still managed to kill more than 100 Americans. Meanwhile, to fund the war, the Pentagon is burning through somewhere between $2 billion and $3 billion per week. Given that further changes in U.S. policy are unlikely between now and the time that the next administration can take office and get its bearings, the lavish expenditure of American lives and treasure is almost certain to continue indefinitely.

But how exactly do these sacrifices serve the national interest? What has the loss of nearly 4,000 U.S. troops and the commitment of about $1 trillion — with more to come — actually gained the United States?

Bush had once counted on the U.S. invasion of Iraq to pay massive dividends. Iraq was central to his administration’s game plan for eliminating jihadist terrorism. It would demonstrate how U.S. power and beneficence could transform the Muslim world. Just months after the fall of Baghdad, the president declared, “The establishment of a free Iraq at the heart of the Middle East will be a watershed event in the global democratic revolution.” Democracy’s triumph in Baghdad, he announced, “will send forth the news, from Damascus to Tehran — that freedom can be the future of every nation.” In short, the administration saw Baghdad not as a final destination but as a way station en route to even greater successes.

In reality, the war’s effects are precisely the inverse of those that Bush and his lieutenants expected. Baghdad has become a strategic cul-de-sac. Only the truly blinkered will imagine at this late date that Iraq has shown the United States to be the “stronger horse.” In fact, the war has revealed the very real limits of U.S. power. And for good measure, it has boosted anti-Americanism to record levels, recruited untold numbers of new jihadists, enhanced the standing of adversaries such as Iran and diverted resources and attention from Afghanistan, a theater of war far more directly relevant to the threat posed by al-Qaeda. Instead of draining the jihadist swamp, the Iraq war is continuously replenishing it.

Look beyond the spin, the wishful thinking, the intellectual bullying and the myth-making. The real legacy of the surge is that it will enable Bush to bequeath the Iraq war to his successor — no doubt cause for celebration at AEI, although perhaps less so for the families of U.S. troops. Yet the stubborn insistence that the war must continue also ensures that Bush’s successor will, upon taking office, discover that the post-9/11 United States is strategically adrift. Washington no longer has a coherent approach to dealing with Islamic radicalism. Certainly, the next president will not find in Iraq a useful template to be applied in Iran or Syria or Pakistan.

According to the war’s most fervent proponents, Bush’s critics have become so “invested in defeat” that they cannot see the progress being made on the ground. Yet something similar might be said of those who remain so passionately invested in a futile war’s perpetuation. They are unable to see that, surge or no surge, the Iraq war remains an egregious strategic blunder that persistence will only compound.

Austin — Some 30 Austin activists, dressed all in black, stood in near-freezing drizzle in front of the Texas state capitol building for over an hour beginning at 5 p.m. Friday, Jan. 18, to express their disgust with George Bush’s War in Iraq. The event was part of Iraq Moratorium’s ongoing “Third Friday” demonstrations against the war.

The effort was organized by MDS-Austin, CodePink and Texas Labor Against the War. These three groups have emerged as an effective working coalition that has energized a dormant but wide-spread anti-war sentiment in the capital city of Texas. In December the three groups brought over 50 spirited Christmas carolers together at the same location to greet rush hour drivers with anti-war songs.

At the Jan. 18 event CodePink had planned to line the sidewalk with footwear symbolizing the Iraqi dead. The weather didn’t permit the “In Their Shoes” display, but it didn’t keep away the crowd.

The revitalization of the Austin movement began when MDS printed and began to distribute red and white yard signs saying “Peace. Bring the Troops Home Now.” Close to 3,000 of the signs have been distributed in the Austin area and are also used as placards at demonstrations, providing some visual continuity to the movement here.

MDS leader Alice Embree said, “The Iraq Moratorium has been extremely valuable in providing an on-going vehicle for the anti-war community to grow, to coalesce. And the visibility of MDS’ signs as you drive around the city provides a connection between the activists and the larger community.”

“In the last six years, Washington has stepped up its sales and transfers of high-technology weapons, military training, and other military assistance to governments regardless of their respect for human rights, democratic principles, or nonproliferation,” according to a report in the current(Jan.-Feb.) “Arms Control Today,” published online by the Arms Control Association (ACA). “All that matters is that they have pledged their assistance in the global war on terrorism.”

You read it right. The Bush regime has been using 9/11 as an excuse for the reckless sale of weapons around the globe, working $16.9 billion in new arms deals in 2006, 41.9 percent of the world’s total. This compares to runners-up Russia, $8.7 billion, and Great Britain, $3.1 billion, writes Rachel Stohl, a senior analyst at the Center for Defense Information (CDI), which tracks such data.

Despots once banned from getting U.S. weapons and training are being showered with both. “By providing military assistance with a disregard for human rights(HR) conditions, the U.S. is not only giving up the opportunity to use military assistance as leverage to improve (HR conditions), but is also rewarding abusive governments for their unconscionable actions,” Stohl writes.

Noting that U.S. aid is growing “at the same time as human rights conditions are worsening,” Stohl cites the example of Ethiopia, “which is carrying out a brutal counterinsurgency campaign within its own borders” and Nepal, whose security forces “opened fire on peaceful strikers and anti-government demonstrations.” Bush is also funneling millions into Uzbekistan, where thousands of Muslims have been imprisoned without due process and many tortured to death.

One headline-making scandal, of course, is the $10 billion in taxpayer’s money Bush has funneled to the Pakistan military since 9/11, where General Pervez Musharraf has habitually disappeared his political foes, and recently invoked emergency rule, suspended the constitution and jailed thousands. Bush okayed the multi-billion dollar sale to Musharraf of F-16 jet fighters that can pack nuclear warheads, just as he okayed their sale earlier to India, escalating the capability of these long-time antagonists to inflict dreadful atrocities if they go to war.

Since 2001, CDI has tracked skyrocketing U.S. military aid to the following 25 countries that “have a unique role in the war on terror’ through the strategic services they provide the U.S.”: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, India, Nepal, Pakistan, Indonesia, Philippines, Thailand, Bahrain, Oman, Yemen, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Algeria, Chad, Mali, Mauritania, Niger, Djibouti, Ethiopia and Kenya. CDI documented U.S. aid in foreign military, and direct commercial, sales to the 25 soared 400% over the five years prior to 9/11. This despite a 2006 U.S. State Department finding of “serious,” “grave,” or “significant” abuses committed by them against their own citizens.

CDI summarizes, “the U.S. is sending unprecedented levels of military assistance to countries that it simultaneously criticizes for lack of respect for human rights and, in some cases, for questionable democratic processes.”

According to reporter Stohl, what the U.S. is billing as “counterterrorism training” often is nothing more than “counterinsurgency training.” This results, she says, in the U.S. “involving itself in internal conflicts around the world and is in practice encouraging countries to continue their internal struggles that predate September 11, 2001.”

President Bush is just back from the Middle East where he preached the virtues of “democracy.” His arms sales, though, betray his forked tongue.

What’s the current price for a bag of weed? According to the latest figures from the FBI, the human cost is roughly 739,000 a year.

That’s the number of American citizens arrested in 2006 for possessing small amounts of pot. (Another 91,000 were charged with marijuana-related felonies.) The figure is the highest annual total ever recorded, and is nearly double the number of citizens busted for pot fifteen years ago.

Those arrested face a multitude of consequences, primarily determined by where they live. For example, most Californians charged with violating the state’s pot possession laws face little more than a small fine. By contrast, getting busted with a pinch of weed in Ohio will cost you your driver’s license for at least six months. Move to Texas–well, now you’re looking at a criminal record and up to 180 days in jail. Or if you happen to be a first-time offender, possibly a stint in court-mandated ‘drug rehab’ (one recent study reported that nearly 70 percent of all adults referred to Texas drug treatment programs for weed were referred by the courts), probation, and a hefty legal bill. And don’t even think about getting busted in Oklahoma, where a first time conviction for minor pot possession can net you up to one year in jail, or up to ten years if you’re found guilty of a second offense. Thinking of growing your own? That’ll cost you a $20,000 fine, and–oh yeah–anywhere from two years to life in prison.

Yes, you read that right–life in prison.

Of course, not everyone busted for weed receives jail time. But that doesn’t mean that they don’t suffer significant hardships stemming from their arrest–including (but not limited to): probation and mandatory drug testing, loss of employment, loss of child custody, removal from subsidized housing, asset forfeiture, loss of student aid, loss of voting privileges, and the loss of certain federal welfare benefits such as food stamps.

And yes, some offenders do serve prison time. In fact, according to a 2006 Bureau of Justice Statistics report, 12.7 percent of state inmates and 12.4 percent of federal inmates incarcerated for drug violations are incarcerated for marijuana offenses. In human terms, this means that there are now about 33,655 state inmates and 10,785 federal inmates behind bars for violating marijuana laws. (The report failed to include estimates on the percentage of inmates incarcerated in county jails for pot-related offenses.)

In fiscal terms, this means that taxpayers are spending more than $1 billion annually to imprison pot offenders.

Yet this billion dollar price tag only estimates the financial costs on the ‘back end’ of a marijuana arrest. The criminal justice costs to taxpayers–such as the man-hours it takes a police officer to arrest and process the average pot offender–on the ‘front end’ is far greater, with some economists estimating the financial burden to be in upwards of $7 billion a year. Naturally, as the annual number of pot arrests continues to increase (according to the latest FBI data, marijuana arrests now constitute 44 percent of all illicit drug arrests), these costs are only going to grow larger.

There are alternatives, of course–options that won’t leave this sort of human and fiscal carnage in its wake, and that won’t leave entire generations believing that the police are an instrument of their oppression rather than their protection.

‘Decriminalization,’ as first recommended to Congress in 1972 by President Nixon’s National Commission on Marihuana and Drug Abuse, called for the removal of all criminal and civil penalties for the possession, use, and non-profit distribution of cannabis. Such a policy, if adequately implemented, would eliminate the bulk of the human and fiscal costs currently associated with enforcing pot prohibition.

A second option, ‘regulation,’ would also significantly slash many of society’s prohibition-associated fiscal and human costs. Legalizing the commercial sale and use of cannabis in a manner similar to alcohol, with state-mandated age controls and pot sales restricted to state-licensed stores, could also potentially raise billions of added dollars in tax revenue while simultaneously bringing an end to the more egregious and adverse black-market effects of the plant’s criminalization – such as the production of pot by criminal enterprises and its clandestine cultivation on public lands.

Would either option be perfect? No, probably not. (‘Decriminalization,’ for instance, might indirectly encourage pot use; ‘regulation’ might not entirely eliminate the black market sales of pot.) But how can continue with the status quo? Since, 1990, law enforcement have arrested over 10 million Americans–more than the entire population of Los Angeles county–on pot charges. Yet, according to federal figures, both marijuana production and use are rising. Isn’t it time we began looking at ways to address the marijuana issue that move beyond simply arresting and prosecuting an inordinate amount of otherwise law-abiding Americans? Or must we wait until another 10 million citizens are arrested before our state and federal politicians find the courage to begin this discussion?

How humiliating.

The story begins with the shameful case of Maher Arar, a Syrian-born Canadian who was kidnapped by US agents as he changed planes in New York in 2002, and rendered to Syria, where he was tortured for a year on behalf of the Americans before being released.

Mr. Arar — who was awarded millions of dollars in compensation by the Canadian government in January 2007, but has yet to receive even an apology from the US administration — had been wrongly fingered by Canadian intelligence, and his case his one of many chilling examples of the damage caused by failed intelligence in the American’s program of “extraordinary rendition.”

In an attempt to prime diplomats about how to spot the signs of torture when they visit Canadians in foreign jails, the Canadian government’s Foreign Affairs Department instigated a “torture awareness workshop,” which also informed the diplomats of where they could expect to find what CTV in Canada described as “countries and places with greater risks of torture.”

The list, in a training manual issued by the Foreign Affairs Department, included traditional offenders — Afghanistan, China, Egypt, Iran, Mexico, Saudi Arabia and Syria — but also included some torturers that are not generally mentioned in polite Western company: Israel and the United States. Specific mention was made of Guantánamo Bay, where, to drive the point home, the manual noted specific “US interrogation techniques,” including “forced nudity, isolation, and sleep deprivation.”

Oops.

The manual was never supposed to have been publicly released, of course, but the Canadian government inadvertently released it to lawyers for Amnesty International as evidence in a court case relating to the alleged abuse of Afghan detainees, after they were handed over by Canadian soldiers to the local Afghan authorities. After realizing their mistake, government officials desperately tried to get the manual back, stating, as CTV put it bluntly, that they “wanted to black out sensitive parts that may anger allies.”

It’s too late for that, of course. While US ambassador David Wilkins declared, “We find it to be offensive for us to be on the same list with countries like Iran and China,” adding, “Quite frankly it’s absurd,” lawyers and human rights activists have seized upon the documents to insist, for the second time in only a few months, that the Canadian government is guilty of double standards in its refusal to act on behalf of Omar Khadr, the Canadian Guantánamo detainee who was just 15 years old when he was captured in Afghanistan in July 2002.

And they’re right to do so. The first set of double standards was highlighted in September, when, during a visit to Canada to publicize Mr. Khadr’s plight, his US military lawyer, Lt. Cmdr. William Kuebler, contrasted the Canadian government’s “leadership in international efforts to recognize child soldiers as victims in need of special protection and rehabilitation” with its “virtual silence” in the case of his client. Just two weeks ago, David Crane, the former US prosecutor for Sierra Leone’s war crimes trials, who is now a professor at Syracuse University, revived this argument, telling Michelle Shephard of the Toronto Star that he failed to understand how Canada and the United States “could be sympathetic to the plight of Africa’s child soldiers, who are forced to commit atrocious crimes,” but not to Khadr, whose circumstances were the same. “I’m just not sure why the Canadian government, which was tremendously important in my work in West Africa — they were incredibly supportive — is not making a bigger deal of this,” he said.

This latest revelation only adds to the government’s self-inflicted woes. As Amir Attaran, a law professor at the University of Ottawa, explained to CTV, the new developments cast doubt on the government’s assertion that Khadr is being treated fairly in US custody. “Canada has just admitted we believe torture is possible in Guantánamo Bay,” he told the broadcaster’s Canada AM show. “That clashes terribly with what Prime Minister Stephen Harper has said, that Mr. Khadr, who is in Guantánamo Bay and was a child at the time he was put there, is being given a (quote, unquote) appropriate judicial process. Torture is not an appropriate judicial process.” Attaran went on to suggest that the Canadian government’s refusal to demand Khadr’s release from Guantánamo was purely political. “Out of a desire to appear tough on the war on terror, Mr. Harper has put this set of considerations out the window, and that’s not appropriate,” he said, adding, “We have to obey the law.”

Lt. Cmdr. Kuebler also spoke to CTV, reinforcing Amir Attaran’s statement that the documents relating to the “torture awareness workshop” contradict Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s assurances that Khadr is receiving fair treatment. “Omar has been there for five and a half years,” he said, “and at some point in the course of [his] detention the Canadian government developed the suspicion he was being tortured and abused. And yet it has not acted to obtain his release from Guantánamo Bay and protect his rights, unlike every other Western country that has had its nationals detained in Guantánamo Bay.”

Kuebler added that the suspicions that his client has been tortured at Guantánamo undermined any claims that he could receive a fair trial in his Military Commission — the novel system of show trials invented by Dick Cheney and his advisors in November 2001, which are empowered to use evidence obtained through torture, and to prevent this evidence from being revealed to either the defendants or their lawyers.

He explained that he and the rest of his legal team want Khadr to be sent back to Canada to face justice there, and pointed out the absurdity of the Canadian government’s claims that they were waiting for the US judicial process to play itself out. “Omar has certainly been abused, his rights have been violated under international law, and apparently the Canadian government has reason to believe that’s true, and yet, they’ve acted not at all to assist him,” he told CTV.

While the Canadian government attempts to repair its relations with the United States and Israel, the next phase of Omar Khadr’s trial by Military Commission is scheduled to take place early next month, and several motions have already been filed on his behalf. One argues that the Commissions are unconstitutional because they are designed only for non-Americans, and another — relating specifically to Mr. Khadr — argues that they have no jurisdiction over him because trying a detainee who was 15 years old at the time of his capture would violate the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict, a United Nations measure ratified by the United States in 2002, which safeguards juveniles (those under 18 years old) from prosecution. As his lawyers have pointed out, “No international criminal tribunal established under the laws of war, from Nuremberg forward, has ever prosecuted former child soldiers as war criminals,” adding that, if Commission judge Col. Peter Brownback pursues Khadr’s case, he will be “the first in western history” to preside over a trial of alleged war crimes committed by a child.

Adding to the Canadian government’s embarrassment, at almost the same time that the contents of the Canadian government’s training manual were made public, it was revealed that 55 law professors and 22 members of Parliament, including Canada’s former attorney general, Irwin Cotler, had signed the defense lawyers’ motion, stating unequivocally, “It is a principle of customary international law that children are to be accorded special protections in all criminal proceedings, and in any prosecution for participation in warlike acts.”

In the pipeline, undoubtedly, are numerous references to the Canadian government’s latest gaffe, in documents to be filed by Omar Khadr’s lawyers, which would be laughable if the result of the government’s contradictions and cowardice were not so heartless.

You could ask Omar Khadr himself, if you could get anywhere near him.

Looking back now, I think it was around 3 AM on September 26, 1985, while lying on the floor of the Virginia Beach Convention Center, staring at the underside of a folding table, when my husband and I decided to move to higher ground. We had spent the previous day fastening plywood over windows, emptying shelves, closets and cabinets and then stacking our upholstered furniture, rugs, clothing, books and tools atop counters, tables and wooden chairs, trying to protect them from anticipated flood waters.

Hurricane Gloria, described at one point as the “Storm of the Century,” was swirling off the coast, predicted to make a direct hit on Virginia Beach on the morning of the 26th. Our suburban lot, set two blocks back from the Atlantic Ocean, was low-lying. A long-time resident told us that, during the famous Ash Wednesday Storm of 1962, flood waters had reached our front door knob. We had flood insurance but, studying the fine print while hurricane warnings sounded over the radio, we realized that the policy only covered the “depreciated value” of the contents of the house. Depreciated value on a ten year old television, twenty year old books and thirty year old sofa does not equal replacement value. Thus, the eight hour stacking, stashing and boarding up marathon.

And so, we decided to “be safe” and move to higher-much higher-ground in the Shenandoah Valley, two hundred miles inland. Ironically, six weeks after Hurricane Gloria decided to give Virginia Beach a pass and strike Long Island instead, a storm spawned in the aftermath of Hurricane Juan devastated West Virginia and parts of western Virginia, including the Shenandoah Valley. When we arrived there the following spring, we were greeted by the sight of a two story house, still wedged high in an oak tree overhanging the Middle River, where flood waters had left it months earlier.

We found the home of our dreams–a hundred year old “fixer-upper”– perched atop a hill surrounded by rolling countryside, framed to the east by the Blue Ridge Mountains and by the Appalachians to the west. No large bodies of water in sight. Safe at last, we thought.

We were taken aback, therefore, when a tornado struck the nearby town of Augusta Springs. It knocked a century-old wood frame church off its foundation, then skipped over a hill and reduced a trailer to a few scraps of aluminum and shreds of insulation. I commented to an elderly neighbor at what a freakish occurrence a tornado in these parts must be and he nodded, noting, however, that the last one he recalled had torn a path across his pasture before knocking the top off one of the massive oak trees that shaded our own house.

“Oh,” I said, swallowing, “I noticed that the tops of three of the oak trees were broken off. They all must have been damaged in that same storm.”

“Oh, no,” he replied. “The tornado only got one of them. Lightening strikes got the other two.”

One day we got word that my friend Lucy’s house had burned to the ground. My husband and I grabbed some crowbars and headed over to her place, thinking to help her shift the wreckage enough to recover some of her belongings.

“No”, she said, as we arrived to see the flat black ruins. “You don’t get it–there’s nothing left to move.”

Her big, solid house– like our own–had been built of chestnut-a hard wood that had been seasoning for a hundred years. You just can’t get better firewood than that.Twenty one years after our run-in with Hurricane Gloria, we passed through the eye of Typhoon Xangsane in our present home in Da Nang, Vietnam, two blocks from the South China Sea. We survived unscathed, but the City of Da Nang appeared devastated. The typhoon ripped off part, if not all, of everyone’s roof. Great trees that formerly lined the avenues downtown were uprooted; tree limbs and downed electric lines blocked most roads.

Yet, even as the winds were dying down that Sunday evening, Da Nang residents were out salvaging corrugated metal panels and fixing their roofs. Enterprising people quickly began chopping up and hauling away downed trees, leaving only leaves and the smallest twigs for the city trash trucks. Electrical service was restored in a matter of days.

Less than two weeks later, another typhoon lurked off-shore. Da Nang residents bought empty feed sacks and headed resolutely down to the beach. They filled their sacks with sand and then hauled them up atop their houses to ensure that their newly repaired metal roofs stayed in place. The second storm by-passed Da Nang but the sandbags remained in place until the bags degraded and the sand sifted back down to earth many months later.

This year, in lieu of typhoons, central Vietnam was pummeled with a series of extremely heavy rain storms. I’m talking about three days of continuous, horizontal, masonry-wall-penetrating rain! The storm drainage system of downtown Da Nang, for the most part, handled the run-off well-certainly much better than my old neighborhood in Virginia Beach. The Han River rose out of its banks, covering Bach Dang Street for one day. The nearby tourist town of Hoi An flooded, as it does every year. But, as soon as the flood waters receded, shops were mopped out, merchandize restocked and business resumed. Two days after river waters swept through a neighborhood on the outskirts of Da Nang, reaching a height of six feet within some houses, I traveled through to see freshly scrubbed houses, sleeping mats hung out to dry and people sipping coffee in the neighborhood shops.

My young friend Mieng confided that her grandmother’s house had washed away in the recent floods. Her grandmother lives in a bamboo hut by a river in Quang Ngai province.

“Oh, my God!” I said. “What will she do now?”

“The same thing she does every year,” said Mieng. “Stay at the community shelter until the flood waters recede and then rebuild her bamboo house with the help of her neighbors. My Dad wants her to move here, to Da Nang, and live with us, but she wants to stay in Quang Ngai with her friends and neighbors.”

My friend Tam tells me that, when she was a child in Da Nang, before the American War, all the houses in her neighborhood were made of bamboo. One day a fire swept through and burned them all down. I haven’t seen a fire engine in the year and a half that I’ve lived in Da Nang-but I haven’t seen a house on fire either. Da Nang houses now are made of brick and cement-impervious to both fire and flood. The walls are solid masonry; the floor is ceramic tile over concrete. There’s no carpet, no sheet rock, no insulation. If the roof blows off, they stick it back on. If the floor floods, they mop it. If the walls get wet . . . they get mildew.

Will we be able to avert the disastrous effects of global climate change? Maybe we will and maybe we won’t. But, even without that added complication, bad stuff happens. It always has and it always will. There is no safe place. Insurance policies and new technology are not the only possible responses to life in an unpredictable world. There’s a lot to be learned from cultures that have a history of weathering big storms and hard times.

A flexible reed may survive a storm that fells a mighty oak.