Month: September 2012

According to Jeffrey Lewis at Foreign Policy, “the United States is building a nuclear bomb that costs more than its weight in solid gold.”

There is now a furious debate about whether the United States needs to modernize the B61, which dates to Lyndon B. Johnson’s administration, making it the oldest design left in the stockpile. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), chair of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, recently revealed that the cost of the program to extend the bomb’s life has more than doubled: Modernizing the approximately 400 B61 gravity bombs in the stockpile will cost $10 billion. That is billions with a “B.” In case you were wondering, it would be less expensive to build solid-gold replicas of each of the 700-pound B61s, even at near-record gold prices.

So even though Washington has a nuclear arsenal that can obliterate much of the world’s population, somehow it’s necessary to “modernize” the warheads at a cost of $10 billion? This at a time when there is a virtual bipartisan consensus that defense budgets can’t be cut in order  address deficit issues. “In 2010,” Lewis continues, “the Government Accountability Office took a look at all these changes and noted, quite sensibly, that this looked like the sort of program that might fall behind schedule and go over budget. The project then fell behind schedule and went over budget.”

Normal people might look at this and ask “whether the B61 is worth it.” For the money? No, not worth it. For the security? Absolutely not. For politicians? Yeah, they need it.

Right now, the United States forward-deploys 180 B61s at air bases in five NATO countries. They are “tactical” nuclear weapons, deployed to help stop a Soviet thrust into Western Europe. (That there is no Soviet Union anymore is a mere detail.) If the life-extension program slips, there may be a gap during which the United States does not have B61s in Europe. Do we really need them? Senior military and civilian officials have repeatedly stated, in private and public, that the B61 has no military utility. One senior official with European Command told a task force created by the defense secretary, “We pay a king’s ransom for these things and … they have no military value.” There is no military mission for these weapons; they exist largely to fulfill political needs.

In June, the CIA declassified a heavily redacted 2006 review of the intelligence failure on Iraq’s WMD in the lead up to the Bush administration’s 2003 invasion. Thomas Blanton, director of the National Security Archive, writing in Foreign Policy describes it as a mea culpa:

This remarkable CIA mea culpa, just declassified this summer and published here for the first time, describes the U.S. intelligence failure on Iraq’s non-existent weapons of mass destruction as the consequence of “analytic liabilities” and predispositions that kept analysts from seeing the issue “through an Iraqi prism.”

In reality, the document is much less remarkable when you consider how little a role the intelligence community’s findings played in the decision to invade Iraq. Much is made of the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq’s WMD and how wrong it was, but as Paul Pillar – who was head of the CIA’s Mid East division during the march to war – has written, “the campaign to sell the war [emphasis in original] moved into high gear before the estimate was ever written.” And there is little in the document that speaks to the pressure the Bush administration heaped on the intelligence community to generate findings that would help justify the war, as opposed to ones that would get closer to the truth. Pillar also writes, “The interaction between Bush administration policymakers and the intelligence community about Iraqi weapons programs was entirely one of the administration’s pressing the community for juicier tidbits that would make more of an impression on the public when talking about Iraqi weapons programs.”

As Blanton notes, though, the document does acknowledge confirmation bias: “Analysts tended to focus on what was most important to us — the hunt for WMD — and less on what would be most important for a paranoid dictatorship to protect. Viewed through an Iraqi prism, their reputation, their security, their overall technological capabilities, and their status needed to be preserved.” This is a reminder of how analogous the case of Iraq is to Iran right now. The case for war against Iran rests on a number of falsehoods, all of which flow from an inability to recognize the Iranian government’s central aim of self-preservation –  that is, “their reputation, their security, their overall technological capabilities, and their status,” none of which they seem willing to give up by building nuclear weapons (thereby losing what international support and credibility they have) and adopting an offensive posture (which would immediately invite war and possibly regime change).

Blanton writes that “the CIA took almost six years to release the report,” from the date of the declassification request, and asks, “How many years to learn the lessons?”

Since the Egyptian revolution, Washington has been scrambling for leverage in Cairo. Losing longtime US puppet Hosni Mubarak was obviously a major blow to US imperialists who aim to have the policies of Arab states reflect American demands as opposed to the will of the people.

With the Islamist victory in Egypt’s slogging democracy, the leading Arab country wrested back some measure of independence. But Washington has one more trick up its sleeve: bribery. The Wall Street Journal:

American diplomats are closing in on an agreement to dole out $1 billion in debt relief to Egypt, part of a gilded charm offensive that Washington hopes will help shore up the country’s economy and prevent its new Islamist leadership from drifting beyond America’s foreign-policy orbit.

Ah, yes – we’re “charming” them. As Esam Al-Amin described current US policy towards Egypt: “the strategy is to give the Islamic rising powers a chance to govern as long as they agree to: keep the Americans in, the Chinese and Russians out, the Iranians down, and the Israelis safe.” If they don’t agree, America could rely on the use of force. But this could backfire if used too soon, the thinking goes. So one thing America can do to – ahem, nudge them in the right direction, is to throw money at them. Make them owe us.

Consider this ongoing subsidization of the Egyptian government a counter-measure to the Arab Spring. Jacob Hornberger:

Morsi’s election came under military rule, which obviously skews the vote, given that people have to factor in the possibility that the military was monitoring how they voted. Moreover, it’s becoming increasingly obvious that Morsi is simply assuming the same dictatorial powers exercised by military dictator Hosni Mubarak, leaving the military machine in its dominant and privileged position in Egyptian society and simply putting military officers who will be loyal to Morsi in charge. Morsi has also abrogated to himself legislative powers, especially since the military dissolved the legislature just before the elections.

It’s nothing less than what a Don Corleone or Tony Soprano might do to muscle themselves a more profitable outcome and generate leverage – backed up, of course, with an offer Egypt can’t refuse from the world’s leading merchant of military violence.

The news that the Obama administration covertly contacted the Iranian government to confirm that the US would not back an Israeli strike so long as Iran doesn’t attack US assets in the Persian Gulf is at once a dramatic development and utterly predictable. (The White House has denied the reports, which first surfaced in Israeli newspapers, but they’re probably true). On the one hand, it’s extraordinary that a sitting US president would momentarily lapse from the near-constant deference and subservience to the Israeli state. On the other hand, the administration simply reiterated what has clearly been their policy for more than a year.

Beneath all the bluster and war rhetoric from both Tel Aviv an Washington, what is by now established is that Iran presents no imminent threat, that its postures are defensive in nature, and that the nuclear weapons program everybody keeps getting hysterical over doesn’t even exist. Therefore, a military attack is entirely unjustified.

Given this, the grave consequences that a US or Israeli strike would generate aren’t worth it to Washington. Despite Obama’s overture, Iran might still attack US assets in the region – US troops in neighboring Afghanistan, the Navy’s Fifth Fleet in nearby Bahrain, etc. As Iranian-backed Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah said just yesterday, “If Israel targets Iran, America bears responsibility.” A declassified war simulation run by the Pentagon earlier this year forecasted such a “strike would lead to a wider regional war, which could draw in the United States” and would immediately get at least 200 Americans killed in Iran’s retaliation, not to mention heavy Iranian and Israeli casualties.

The Obama administration simply ain’t up for that – not when more valuable goods like “stability” and unchallenged control of oil flows from the most geo-strategically important region in the world are at play. As a Senate Foreign Relations Committee report reiterated in June, US interests lie in maintaining as much hegemony as possible in the Gulf, without provoking “popular backlash.” And the Obama administration has certainly considered what an unprovoked US-Israeli attack on Iran would do to the popular framing of the Arab Spring across the Muslim world. Overthrowing domestic regimes might go on the back burner as ousting the Imperial Crusader becomes priority.

This could present a bigger challenge to US hegemony even than an Iran that can deter a US attack.

As his first term has shown, Barack Obama is prone to violence and bloodshed, especially when it’s on the cheap and especially when it’s secret. But Bibi Netanyahu has no regulating feature in his ideological make-up. He is messianic and perfectly willing to disregard other core interests of the state in order to carry out some apocalyptic war. Obama, however, would rather maintain US hegemony, than destroy it with imperial hubris.

None of this is to praise Obama. To calculate that war should be held off because oil and hegemony are more important is to have really lost a piece of your humanity. The immense human costs of war on Iran should cast it out of the rational person’s consideration. Additionally, Obama’s cruel policy of economic warfare on the Iranian people is a policy of collective punishment, starvation, and deprivation that puts tens of thousands of lives at risk.

The following is authored by Chris Woods and Jack Serle at The Bureau of Investigative Journalism. Reprinted here with permission. 

Pakistan: August sees the highest number of CIA strikes in Pakistan since October 2011. A number of senior militants are killed along with at least two named civilians.

Yemen: At least 26 people are killed in five confirmed US drone strikes in Yemen. This is still less than the May peak. Civilian casualties are confirmed for the first time since May.

Somalia: For the fourth month no US military actions are reported in Somalia. In related news, three Ugandan helicopters crash-land prior to an anticipated assault on militant-held Kismayo.

Pakistan

July 2012 actions

All actions 2004 – August 31 2012

The CIA launched seven drone strikes in August, the highest recorded in any month since October 2011. The rate of strikes has continued to rise through the year.

Total CIA drone strikes in Pakistan, per month of 2012.

All seven attacks happened after Ramadan. Neither the CIA nor the Taliban seem to change their tactics in the month of fasting and the festival of Eid al Fitr. The Bureau’s data shows that since President Obama came to office there has been no let-up in the tempo of strikes during Ramadan and Eid. A CIA drone strike has never taken place on either Christmas or Easter Day.

The August barrage of strikes culminated with three coordinated attacks on August 24 that killed 13-18 people including several named militants, according to the Bureau’s field researchers. Four named Turkistani militants died along with three named members of the Pakistan Taliban (TTP).

For the first time in some months there were confirmed reports of civilian casualties in Pakistan. On August 18 the wife of Ahsan Aziz, a Kashmiri militant, died in a strike alongside her husband. Thirteen-year-old Osama Haqqani also reportedly died on August 21.  As many as 25 others died with the teenager, including his father Badruddin Haqqani, the third-in-command of the Haqqani Network. These were the first known names of civilians reported killed since October 31 2001, although other civilians have been reported killed in this period.

Pakistan responded to the onslaught of strikes by continuing with its vocal protests, calling in a senior US diplomat for an official reprimand. Washington in turn insisted that Islamabad pressure the Haqqani Network to stop cross-border attacks on Isaf and Afghan forces.

Yemen

August 2012 actions

All actions 2002 – August 31 2012*

Five of the six strikes in August were confirmed as US attacks by a variety of Yemeni officials.

The focus of US attacks has now moved to Hadramout in the eastern part of Yemen. Five strikes hit targets in the arid province, bearing out reports that al Qaeda has taken refuge there. This is a shift from Abyan province where most of the attacks occurred in July. Yemeni security forces and local militia drove the militants from their ‘Islamic Emirate’ in Abyan earlier this year.

The first named civilian casualties were reported since Red Cross worker Hussein Saleh was killed on June 20 in a possible US airstrike. Policeman Walid Abdullah Bin Ali Jaber and Salem Ahmed bin Ali Jaber, a mosque imam, were killed in a house in the eastern Hadramout province when a nearby car carrying alleged militants was destroyed.

While drone strikes seem to have plateaued, al Qaeda and its ally Ansar al Sharia have continued with their bloody insurgency against the government. In the most deadly attack this month, a suicide bomber targeted a funeral wake in Jaar where more than 150 people had gathered to mourn a local sheikh. His militia had first fought alongside al Qaeda in Abyan before siding with the government. At least 50 people were killed by shrapnel from the blast.

* All but one of these actions have taken place during Obama’s presidency. Reports of incidents in Yemen often conflate individual strikes. The range in the total strikes and total drone strikes we have recorded reflects this.

Somalia

August 2012 actions

All actions 2007 – August 31 2012

August was the fourth consecutive month in which there have been no reports of US strikes. Concerns remain that covert operations continue in the country, in support of African Union Mission in Somalia (Amisom) peacekeepers fighting al Shabaab.

In related news, in the build-up to Amisom’s long-touted advance on militant-held Kismayo, the UN allowed Uganda to dispatch air support for the assaulting troops. Catastrophically all but one of four helicopters sent by Kampala crashed into a Kenyan mountain. The losses cast doubt on the military capacity of African nations engaged in Somalia, and their ability to have carried out any of the 10 strikes recorded by the Bureau since 2007 that are not confirmed as US operations.

Kismayo is the last deep-water port in al Shabaab’s hands. Its fall could prove decisive in the battle with the militants in the south. The assault was intended to start before August 20, the day of long-awaited parliamentary elections. However those elections dragged on into the final week of August when a parliamentary speaker was finally voted in. This has cleared the way for parliament to choose a president and for the eight year life of the Transitional Federal Government to end.

Other conflicts: Israel and Egypt

The US and Israel are the only countries known to have carried out targeted killings with drones, with the Israeli Defence Force (IDF) reported to have carried out a strike as early as 2004. Until now all known Israeli strikes have been within Gaza.  On August 26 Ibrahim Owida Nasser Madan was killed in an explosion as he rode his motorbike through Egypt’s Sinai desert. It was later reported by Israeli media that Madan had died in an Israeli drone strike up to 15km inside Egypt. Both the IDF and Egyptian military denied the claims.

From the newest issue of Foreign Affairs, How China Sees America by Andrew J. Nathan and Andrew Scobell has some valuable insights. The diplomatic relationship between the US and China has soured recently, due especially to President Obama’s bellicosity in the Asia Pacific region and the indelible need to invent a Chinese threat that isn’t there.

As I’ve written, it’s important to see how China perceives the US generally and specifically regarding the Obama administration’s so-called “Asia-Pivot,”  an aggressive policy that involves surging American military presence throughout the region with the aim of containing China’s rise. According to Nathan and Scobell, the Chinese see the US “a revisionist power that seeks to curtail China’s political influence and harm China’s interests.” Chinese analysts see the US “as militaristic, offense-minded, expansionist, and selfish.” And more specifically to the Asia-Pivot, America’s “real purpose is not to protect so-called human rights but to use this pretext to influence and limit China’s healthy economic growth and to prevent China’s wealth and power from threatening [their] world hegemony,” according to Li Qun, “a member of the Shandong Provincial Party Committee and a rising star in the Communist Party.”

If this is how our policies are viewed, how do we expect Chinese policymakers to react? Washington has been building new military bases and refurbishing old ones in the region in order to lay the ground-work for an “air-sea battle” with China. The idea is to have enough US bases peppered throughout the region so that China would be too surrounded to safely attack. How might America react to such unprovoked bellicosity?

What is more revealing in the piece, I think, is how the US sees China. As Li Qun explained, US foreign policy is far removed from the rhetoric that offers it the pretext. According to Nathan and Scobell, “China is the only country widely seen as a possible threat to U.S. predominance. Indeed, China’s rise has led to fears that the country will soon overwhelm its neighbors and one day supplant the United States as a global hegemon.” They add that America “is the most intrusive outside actor in China’s internal affairs, the guarantor of the status quo in Taiwan, the largest naval presence in the East China and South China seas, the formal or informal military ally of many of China’s neighbors, and the primary framer and defender of existing international legal regimes.”

Washington doesn’t view China as an actual threat to the security of America or as some kind of rogue state that needs discipline. China’s big economy and growing influence are considered a threat to US dominance, and therefore cannot stand. Few areas of our foreign policy statecraft are as transparently vulgar as with China. And how could we blame the Chinese for being unwelcoming when US military forces have “massive firepower all around the Chinese rim”?

The U.S. Pacific Command (PACOM) is the largest of the United States’ six regional combatant commands in terms of its geographic scope and nonwartime manpower. PACOM’s assets include about 325,000 military and civilian personnel, along with some 180 ships and 1,900 aircraft. To the west, PACOM gives way to the U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM), which is responsible for an area stretching from Central Asia to Egypt. Before September 11, 2001, CENTCOM had no forces stationed directly on China’s borders except for its training and supply missions in Pakistan. But with the beginning of the “war on terror,” CENTCOM placed tens of thousands of troops in Afghanistan and gained extended access to an air base in Kyrgyzstan.

The operational capabilities of U.S. forces in the Asia-Pacific are magnified by bilateral defense treaties with Australia, Japan, New Zealand, the Philippines, and South Korea and cooperative arrangements with other partners. And to top it off, the United States possesses some 5,200 nuclear warheads deployed in an invulnerable sea, land, and air triad. Taken together, this U.S. defense posture creates what Qian Wenrong of the Xinhua News Agency’s Research Center for International Issue Studies has called a “strategic ring of encirclement.”

The China issue in US foreign policy is likely to develop gradually, but nobody should be surprised if, a few years down the line, this bellicosity produces grave consequences or even an open conflict in Asia-Pacific. The Middle East will remain the preeminent geo-political focal point of Washington’s imperial policy for the foreseeable future, but Asia-Pacific could be the next theater of war to feed America’s martial addiction.