2 - 2013 - Antiwar.com Blog

Sophisticated American Statecraft: Making Poor, Sick Iranian Civilians Suffer

From the beginning of the Obama administration’s savage economic sanctions on Iran, Antiwar.com has been highlighting the humanitarian costs of such policies. The sanctions are not only undermining the Iranian economy in the form of high unemployment, inflation, etc. They are also blocking the import of vital medicines for millions of sick Iranians who desperately need treatment for conditions like cancer, hemophilia, multiple sclerosis, and others.

This is the sophisticated tool Washington has employed to “solve” the (invented) Iranian problem: making impoverished, sick civilians suffer.

If you can bear it, disregard the extreme war propaganda at the beginning of this ABC News clip and see the faces of Iranians at the pharmacy being told they can’t medicate their cancer-stricken loved ones.

Amazingly, this joke of a journalist places the blame on Iran’s Supreme Leader. He made his way all the way over to Tehran and managed to report the exact opposite of the truth, that Iranians are suffering because of their own government’s intransigence on the nuclear issue. That – quite clearly – is simply untrue.

Budget Cuts May Impede Pentagon’s Ability to ‘Address WikiLeaks’

One unfortunate consequence of the heroic work of WikiLeaks to uncover government crimes was that it prompted the government to be even more radical in their classification procedures and their crackdown on whistleblowers.

The good news is that excessive secrecy is expensive. And the automatic, across-the-board budget cuts the Pentagon is facing could hinder post-WikiLeaks secrecy measures.

Secrecy News reports:

Zachary J. Lemnios, the assistant secretary of defense for research and engineering, was asked by Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) to describe the “most significant” impacts on cybersecurity that could follow from the anticipated cuts to the Pentagon’s budget.

Mr. Lemnios replied that “cuts under sequestration could hurt efforts to fight cyber threats, including […] improving the security of our classified Federal networks and addressing WikiLeaks.”

How tragic.

There are a million reasons to welcome the looming automatic cuts to defense budgets, not least of which is the fact that they are anything but “draconian,” despite what Pentagon spokesmen claim.

Inability to “address WikiLeaks” and keep more secrets could be another scare-story from this Pentagon official, an attempt to pressure Congress to fend off the sequester. But if it’s true, it’s just another reason to welcome it.

If only keeping Bradley Manning holed up for courageously leaking valuable public information were as prohibitively expensive.

Don’t Confirm Brennan, Torture AND Drone Assassinations Are Illegal

Senator Rand Paul is not the only one with serious questions about the nomination of John Brennan for CIA Director! Many people are rightly concerned that the CIA Nominee failed to provide a clear answer to Paul’s question: “Do you believe that the president has the authority to order lethal force, such as a drone strike, against a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil, and without a trial?”

This coming Wednesday, Feb. 27, the House Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing on “Drones and the War On Terror: When Can the U.S. Target Alleged American Terrorists Overseas?” Unfortunately, besides being framed in a completely leading way, the only witnesses that will testify — all four — were drawn from the same Lawfare blog. Lawfare co-founder Benjamin Wittes (who doesn’t even possess a law degree himself) gloats about it. Have you ever heard of a congressional hearing that calls all of its “experts” from one certain pro-war agenda-driven blog?! (Note how the Lawfare blog byline, “Hard National Security Choices”, masks how these blogging lawyers tend to come up with the very easy answer that the law of force is the answer instead of the rule of law. Clearly the aim of this “Judiciary Hearing” should be questioned as it does not appear it is to fairly consider the range of views about the illegality of drone assassination without judicial process.)

Additionally, we here in Minnesota have initiated meetings and letters signed now by over 200 members of different peace groups asking our Senators Amy Klobuchar and Al Franken, given their important Judiciary Committee assignments, to use their influence to seek answers. We’ve asked several other serious questions about Brennan’s background with CIA torture black sites as well as his role in drone assassinations (in this latest full letter to Sen. Klobuchar.)

Finally, our Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) group sent a letter Senator Feinstein warning her about endorsing Brennan, who cooperated with former CIA Director George Tenet as he helped fix the Bush administration’s case for war on Iraq. It would be her next-to-worst mistake of her tenure on the Senate Intelligence Committee, we told her. The worst – we hope she now concedes – was voting to authorize the Iraq War. Read the letter in full here.

Let me also mention something else that seems to be going on in the “legal” debate that is now distracting people as it devolves into party partisanship. A number of law professors and legal commentators, from both the Right and the Left (even most recently Georgetown Law Professor David Cole who wrote: “Laying Down the Law–Why Obama’s targeted killing is better than Bush’s torture“) have turned what should be a much wider real debate based on facts and law into the narrow, more partisan-driven question of “What’s worse? (Bush’s) Torture or (Obama’s) Drone Bombing?”

Some like Cole, at least have the decency to preface their comments with “well they are both wrong, but…..” while Bellinger III and others of his Lawfare ilk post their challenges on the other side of the partisan “divide,” that in fact killing is worse than torture, using such common sense arguments that it’s better to be alive with your fingernails torn out than to be dead.

Isn’t this partisan “divide” as to whether to prefer torture or assassination as the lesser evil a bit like counting how many demons can dance on the head of a pin? It’s certainly confusing to those of us who think torture AND drone assassination are wrong, wrong, wrong. The unfortunate result, however–and perhaps the goal of the two party kabuki theater–is that the entire red herring “debate” distracts the partisans of both parties, making both Republicans and Democrats more complacent about both torture & drone assassination. This is how so many people come to ignore the right and wrong of it all and turn it into a mere political difference of opinion.

(Cross-posted from Huffington Post.)

Why the Chinese Cyber Threat is a Bunch of Baloney

The Obama White House seems to be launching a public relations campaign against China, drumming up hatred and fear about alleged cyber-espionage activities of the Chinese government against the US. The President is reportedly even considering imposing economic sanctions on China.

This is absurd on several levels. First of all, economic sanctions are not a policy option aimed at resolving diplomatic antagonism. It is a tool of coercion with no utility except to project dominance and ratchet up hostility between nations.

Secondly, the economic ties between China and the US are unprecedented at the moment. Imposing sanctions on them now would inflict self-harm on a US economy that is already struggling.

Also keep in mind that recent reports about China’s cyber-warfare against us include no solid proof that it is condoned by the Chinese government. The US Computer Security firm Mandiant released a report identifying the city the cyber-attackers came from, but that’s all.

“What is surprising,” writes Haroon Meer at Al Jazeera, “is the unfaltering belief that since attacks come from IP addresses in the same geographic region as a [People’s Liberation Army] unit, ipso facto, the attacks are state sponsored and need some sort of government response.”

“For context,” Meer adds, “the area in question is about the size of Los Angeles and houses over 5 million people (making it roughly the equivalent of the second most populated US city). Claiming that attacks originating from anywhere in this city must imply the involvement of Unit 61398 is a stretch and ignores a raft of other possibilities.”

Even so, what if they were state-sponsored? Is this anything Washington should get on its high-horse about? The largest government-sponsored cyber-attack to date came out of Washington, aimed at Iran. And that’s not all: The US government routinely conducts cyber-warfare. Meer cites a European Parliamentary Session document from way back in 2001 that detailed some examples:

The NSA intercepted communication between Airbus and the Saudi Arabian government during contract negotiations and forwarded this communication to Boeing and McDonnell-Douglas (who went on to win the contract instead).
The NSA forwarded technical details of an engineering design to a US based firm (who then patented the design before the original inventors).
The CIA hacked into the Japanese Trade Ministry to obtain details informing their negotiation on quotas for US cars.
The NSA intercepted communications between VW and Lopez (and then forwarded this information to General Motors).
The NSA surveillance of the Thomson-CSF/Brazil negotiations (for a billion dollar contract) were forwarded to Raytheon (who were later awarded the contract instead).

Since 2001, technology has become exponentially more capable, so the US government undoubtedly has increased such operations, in number and severity.

So China is not alone in its cyber operations. But the Obama administration’s trumpeting of Beijing’s alleged behavior is not mere happenstance.

For at least two years now, the Obama administration has engaged in an explicit policy of military containment towards China, aggressively surging military presence and activities in the Asia-Pacific and bolstering China’s regional geo-political competitors with increased military and diplomatic backing. China’s economy is growing and Beijing is becoming a more powerful state. Washington can’t have that.

So, what better way to demonize non-threatening enemies of the state than to hypocritically highlight their alleged cyber-warfare? After all, the American people need to be fed a pretext for initiating aggression towards China; a bigger economy and more geo-political sway won’t do.

In sum, Washington’s charges against Beijing should be taken with a grain of salt, to say the least. But we can expect much more talk of it as Obama’s “Asia-Pivot” evolves.

Washington’s Brazen Hypocrisy

Over at the Lew Rockwell blog, Michael Rozeff makes a fine point on Washington’s skyrocketing hypocrisy:

Obama supports a UN treaty on what a US official terms “illicit arms trafficking and proliferation“. At the same time, the US and ally Saudi Arabia are sending heavier arms into Syria.

How could the government be so brazenly hypocritical? you might ask. George Orwell explains the logic of nationalism:

Actions are held to be good or bad, not on their own merits, but according to who does them, and there is almost no kind of outrage — torture, the use of hostages, forced labor, mass deportations, imprisonment without trial, forgery, assassination, the bombing of civilians — which does not change its moral color when it is committed by “our” side.

Stop doing what you’re not doing? AGAIN?

Iran’s imaginary nukes and other war-lies: Take 83 – – –

It’s the sort of bureaucratic lying-by-obfuscation below which caused the U.S. to unnecessarily nuke Japan twice in three days, attack North Vietnam for an incident which Defense Sec. Robert McNamara admits “didn’t happen,” and invade Iraq based on weapons of mass destruction it didn’t have — and at least 935 other documented lies – – –

You have said a couple of times that you did not believe the Iranians were pursuing a nuclear weapon … are you still confident they’re not pursuing a nuclear weapon? —Moderator Chuck TODD, Meet The Press, February 3, 2013

What I’ve said, and I will say today, is that the intelligence we have is they have not made the decision to proceed with the development of a nuclear weapon. —U.S. Defense Secretary Leon PANETTA, Meet The Press, February 3, 2013

The “innies” — like Mr. Panetta for example — know perfectly well Iran’s government has no nuclear weapons program. But almost certainly because the U.S. Government often marches to Israel’s drumbeat, it’s clear Mr. Panetta is reluctant to reveal that inconvenient truth. Chuck Hagel did reveal it. Which is one reason his appointment as Defense Secretary is being held up.

[PANETTA:] They’re developing and enriching uranium. …

TODD: Why do you believe they’re doing that?

MR. PANETTA: I think– I think the– it’s a clear indication they say they’re doing it in order to develop their own energy source. I think it is suspect that they continue to– to enrich uranium because that is dangerous, and that violates international laws… —Meet The Press, February 3, 2013

Mr. Panetta, apparently giving in to his political experience and training, is out-and-out lying. This does NOT “violate international laws” as Mr. Panetta asserts. Unlike Israel, for example, not only has Iran signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) — which allows the enrichment Iran is doing — but, despite Israel’s own clandestine nukes — and its intensive anti-Iran disinformation operations — Iran’s government has allowed much more stringent inspections than other NPT signatories.

And it’s no more dangerous for Iran to enrich uranium this way than for any other country which wants to produce nuclear-electric power. The U.S. for example.

TODD: And you do believe they’re probably pursuing a weapon, but you don’t– the intelligence doesn’t know what…

(Cross talk)

MR. PANETTA: I– no, I can’t tell you because– I can’t tell you they’re in fact pursuing a weapon because that’s not what intelligence says we– we– we’re– they’re doing right now. But every indication is they want to continue to increase their nuclear capability. And that’s a concern, and that’s what we’re asking them to stop doing. —Meet The Press, February 3, 2013

So, exposed to even the feeble light of U.S. Main Stream Media, Mr. Panetta had to tell the truth. Again. So he reluctantly admits, “I can’t tell you they’re in fact pursuing a weapon because that’s not what intelligence says.” That would be all 16 official branches of the U.S. Intelligence Community, including his own C.I.A. that are telling him that — with unanimous “high confidence.”

Which is why keeping Iran from producing a nuclear weapon may be Mr. Obama’s most easily kept campaign promise.

None the less, Mr. Panetta insists that “every indication is they want to continue to increase their nuclear capability?” So, Mr. Panetta, your HUNCH is better than the carefully evolved high confidence conclusions of all 16 U.S. intelligence agencies? Really?

And Mr. Panetta goes on, “that’s what we’re asking them to stop doing.” In other words, “we’re asking them to stop doing what we know they’re not doing.”

It’s this sort of obtuse double talk that gets politicians elected, bureaucrats like Mr. Panetta into lofty positions — and Chuck Hagel’s appointment as Defense Secretary held up by Senators Lindsey Graham, John McCain, and the rest of Israel’s Amen Corner.

As already suggested, it’s also this sort of bureaucratic lying-by-obfuscation that caused the U.S. to unnecessarily nuke Japan twice in three days, attack North Vietnam for an incident which Defense Sec. Robert McNamara admits “didn’t happen,” and invade Iraq based on weapons of mass destruction it didn’t have — and at least 935 other documented lies.

So, will “we the people” allow our public servants to once again lie us into war? Squeak up!