Category: News

Decorated CIA operative with extensive contacts in the Middle East, Robert Baer, declares:

There is almost “near certainty” that Netanyahu is “planning an attack [on Iran] … and it will probably be in September before the vote on a Palestinian state. And he’s also hoping to draw the United States into the conflict”, Baer explained.

It makes sense, from a strategic standpoint, that Israel would want to attack Iran before the Palestinian statehood vote. This would provide Israel with a huge distraction and more time to delay the crucial vote. Additionally, there is the whole transition period between Gates and Panetta as Secretary of Defense. Now that Gates has left his post as Secretary of Defense, some are worried that his influence of steering Obama and Bush away from attacking Iran could evaporate:

Masters asked Baer why the US military is not mobilising to stop this war from happening. Baer responded that the military is opposed, as is former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, who used his influence to thwart an Israeli attack during the Bush and Obama administrations. But he’s gone now and “there is a warning order inside the Pentagon” to prepare for war.

What’s even more frightening is that Baer sees the influential Iranian Revolutionary Guard as welcoming an attack by Israel and the United States in order to divert Iranian’s attention away from domestic problems:

It should be noted that the Iranian regime is quite capable of triggering a war with the United States through some combination of colossal stupidity and sheer hatred. In fact, as Baer explained, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard would welcome a war. They are “paranoid”. They are “worried about … what’s happening to their country economically, in terms of the oil embargo and other sanctions”. And they are worried about a population that increasingly despises the regime.

They need an external enemy. Because we are leaving Iraq, it’s Israel. But in order to make this threat believable, they would love an attack on their nuclear facilities, love to go to war in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia and Iraq and hit us where they could. Their defense is asymmetrical. We can take out all of their armored units. It’s of little difference to them, same with their surface-to-air missile sites. It would make little difference because they would use terrorism. They would do serious damage to our fleet in the Gulf. The frightening and enlightening article can be read in full here.

George Mason University economist Bryan Caplan (of the blog Econlog, author of the wonderful book The Myth of the Rational Voter) and his colleague in the Mason Law department Ilya Somin (of the Volokh conspiracy blog) debated pacifism and libertarian foreign policy this week.

Neither of these two professors focus in foreign policy, but it is nonetheless an interesting discussion relevant to Antiwar.com readers. My opinion is that the discussion centered too much on hypotheticals and thought experiments instead of the history of U.S. foreign policy, which would have added much weight and illustration to the arguments expressed. Further, Somin is a strange kind of libertarian, one that views the overall record of American imperialism over the last century as “pretty good.” I don’t see that as libertarian at all, so at points it makes for some difficult listening, but worth it nonetheless. The audio of the debate as well as the slides both of them used can be found here. Here is a collection of Caplan’s views on the subject.

Enjoy!

The Pentagon reiterated today what we’ve known for some time now: the freedom of the internet, and that freedom which we are afforded by it, is a threat to the government. That’s why they released their “cybersecurity plan” which designated the internet an “operational domain” for war. Nothing paves the way for unchallenged increases in government control like characterizing its endeavors as war.

The reports are decidedly mundane in describing what this actually amounts to:

The Pentagon plans to focus heavily on three areas under the new strategy: The theft or exploitation of data, attempts to deny or disrupt access to U.S. military networks, and any attempts to “destroy or degrade networks or connected systems.”

But we know from previous Pentagon reports, like the one our news editor Jason Ditz directs us to, that this substantially includes offensive operations over the internet:

Enhanced IO [information operations] capabilities for the warfighter, including: … A robust offensive suite of capabilities to include full-range electronic and computer network attack…

DoD’s “Defense in Depth” strategy should operate on the premise that the Department will “fight the net” as it would a weapons system.

Activist and journalist Rebecca MacKinnon explained in the New Yorker what kind of offensive capabilities might be in the bag:

Another camp believes that obstacles to free speech on the Internet go far beyond Internet filtering or blocking of Web sites—which is the only problem that circumvention tools solve. These obstacles include aggressive cyber-attacks that bring down Web sites of activists, N.G.O.s and small media organizations; spyware that causes Internet users’ computers to be compromised so that their activities can be easily monitored; hacking of influential Internet users’ social-media accounts; deletion of sensitive content, deactivation of accounts and tracking of user behavior by Internet companies at government behest; and so forth.

The logic used to justify government controls on the internet became easier post-9/11. In a CIA memorandum released by Wikileaks last year it was explained in a section with the title “American Freedoms Facilitate Terrorist Recruitment an Operations.”

Undoubtedly Al-Qa’ida and other terrorist groups recognize that Americans can be great assets in terrorist operations overseas because they carry US passports, don’t fit the typical Arab-Muslim profile, and can easily communicate with radical leaders through their unfettered access to the internet and other modes of communication.

[…] The ubiquity of internet services around the world and the widespread use of English on popular websites such as YouTube, Facebook, Myspace, Twitter and various blogs enable radical clerics and terrorist recruiters to bypass America’s physical borders and influence US citizens.

On the whole, the internet has been a force for enlightenment, liberation, and peaceful interaction. The U.S. government, and especially those within the national security state, regard those forces as threatening to their own domination and control. If the CIA regards “American Freedoms”  and the openness of the internet as prime facilitators of anti government sentiment or even terrorism, we can pretty well deduct what their preferences are regarding those two elements. That is, scale back American freedoms and restrict and the internet. The authoritarian Chinese government had very similar rationales for blocking citizen access to Twitter and Flickr in the lead up to the 20th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre and again imposing internet restrictions once Mubarak fell, hoping to stave off any domestic uprising. The internet provides avenues to communicate free speech and dissent which would be enlightening and liberating for Chinese citizens, but would undermine the state.

The newest and boldest manifestation of this threat of openness and freedom of the internet has come from Wikileaks. They and their collaborators who leak the information to them have committed the ultimate crime: introducing transparency in government. This is a step beyond the accumulating effects of the general freedom to dissent that the internet provides, and Washington knows it. If governments can no longer hide their activities from citizens, they lose the ability to maintain support from a preponderance of ignorance.

What is troublesome is that there isn’t much opportunity to prevent the government from stifling the enlightening and liberating power of the internet. If the national security state wants to do it (and they do: Bradley Manning said “approximately 85-90% of global transmissions are sifted through by NSA”) they simply will. This is especially the case if they continue to couch their justifications in national security rhetoric. What is encouraging is that the internet is so open, decentralized, and adaptive that it may always be evolving far ahead of government attempts to circumvent it.

“If you want to liberate a society just give them the internet.” –Wael Ghonim

“We need a broader and more sustained internet freedom movement.” –Rebecca MacKinnon

Update: One effort the Pentagon engages in vis-a-vis the internet that I did not mention: propaganda.

Glenn Greenwald yet again dismantles the lies and smears that were used against Bradley Manning by Adrian Lamo and Wired magazine. This must read piece really questions the journalistic integrity of Wired as well as the honesty of Lamo, both of which are being used to phonily solidify a case against Manning:

Yesterday — more than a full year after it first released selected portions of purported chat logsbetween Bradley Manning and government informant Adrian Lamo (representing roughly 25% of the logs) —Wired finally publishedthe full logs (with a few redactions).  From the start, Wired had the full chat logs and was under no constraints from its source (Lamo) about what it could publish; it was free to publish all of it but chose on its own to withhold most of what it received.

Last June — roughly a week after Wired‘s publication of the handpicked portions — I reviewed the long and complex history between Lamo and WiredEditor Kevin Poulsen, documented the multiple, serious inconsistencies in Lamo’s public claims (including ones in a lengthyinterview with me), and argued that Wired should “either publish all of the chat logs, or be far more diligent about withholding only those parts which truly pertain only to Manning’s private and personal matters and/or which would reveal national security secrets.”  Six months later, in December, I documented that numerous media reports about Manning and WikiLeaks were based on Lamo’s claims about what Manning told him in these chats — claims that could not be verified or disputed because Wired continued to conceal the relevant parts of the chat logs — and again called for “as much pressure as possible be applied to Wired to release those chat logs or, at the very least, to release the portions about which Lamo is making public claims or, in the alternative, confirm that they do not exist.”

Read the full piece here.

While you’re at it, do your part to free Bradley Manning.

 

A new expose from the Nation by Jeremy Scahill detailing the CIA’s same, old dirty tricks is certainly troubling. Candidate Obama assured the American public that extrajudicial actions by the CIA and Defense Department were a thing of the past. Transparency, much like hope and change, were buzz words that were constantly used to show everybody that the era of Bush was over. A new ethical era was to take hold in the White House, and would be anchored by Nancy Pelosi’s vow to oversee a Congress of integrity.

Just as Obama campaigned to make the most sweeping changes when it came to the realm of foreign policy (Guantanamo Bay, ending the war in Iraq, ending torture, etc.), it was in foreign policy that he became the most like Bush. In fact, many would argue that Obama has not only continued many of Bush’s odious practices, but has institutionalized all of these practices because of his refusal to change course.

While the secret prison that was discussed in length surely was troubling, it almost seems like the least of worries when compared to some of the statements made by officials concerning future plans for Somalia. And yes, that comparison still holds for a prison “infested with bedbugs and mosquitoes” that result in prisoners getting “rashes” prompting them to “scratch themselves incessantly.” These prisoners, who like at other covert rendition sites run a high chance of being completely innocent, “described the cells as windowless and the air thick, moist and disgusting.” Additionally, torture and perpetual interrogation are commonplace. Again, I don’t wish to trivialize the significance of yet another secret prison site, but there are much more troublesome plans in the future for Somalia:

During his confirmation hearings in June to become the head of the US Special Operations Command, Vice Admiral William McRaven said, “From my standpoint as a former JSOC commander, I can tell you we were looking very hard” at Somalia. McRaven said that in order to expand successful “kinetic strikes” there, the United States will have to increase its use of drones as well as on-the-ground intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance operations. “Any expansion of manpower is going to have to come with a commensurate expansion of the enablers,” McRaven declared. The expanding US counterterrorism program in Mogadishu appears to be part of that effort.

The neverending “War on Terror” knows no bounds or limitations. Wherever and whenever, if there is even so much as a perceived threat, then a new theatre in the war could be opened. Al-Shabaab is currently the aggressor du jour, competing for the spotlight with Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.

And just like enhanced interrogation was the Newspeak of yesteryear, so today is “kinetic.” No, drone strikes that kill dozens is not indicative of a war. Nor are recon missions and surveillance. It’s just the new style of diplomacy, albeit bloody, messy and in the dark.

What’s even more frightening is that McRaven is already talking about bringing in more diplomats (read: special ops, surveillance, and all different kinds of boots on the ground). The only way that such an operation would ever be able to take off, naturally, is with a little kickback to the military industrial complex in the form of “enablers.”

Later on, if a Congressional hearing is ever scheduled to review the covert operations in Somalia (don’t hold your breath), the chickenhawks and policymakers can use justification by quoting Abdulkadir Moallin Noor, the minister of state for the presidency, “We need more; otherwise, the terrorists will take over the country.” I hate to break it to Noor, but the 30 square miles that the Somali “government” controls in Mogadishu is hardly what I would call a sterling record.

It is this statement from Noor that succinctly summarizes everything that is wrong with American foreign policy. Surely, Al Shabaab is dangerous to Somalis. It would be foolish to deny that their hardline Islamism and ruthless attacks on innocent civilians is problematic. But why should the US be concerned? Why should more money be poured into a far off land only to achieve minimal, if any results?

The American public will continue to hear the trite justification that Somalia is becoming a safe haven for terrorists or that terrorism, no matter where, must be fought at all cost. But before the United States begins yet another doomed military adventure, Washington ought to remember that Al-Shabaab has only once launched an attack outside of Somalia.

The target: Uganda. The justification: foreign intervention.

Over at Econlog, Arnold Kling directs us to this interesting and much needed article arguing that the IMF has “outlived its purpose.” Excerpt:

The IMF’s business model sabotages properly functioning capitalism, victimizing ordinary people while benefiting the elites. Do we need international agencies to enable irresponsible–verging on immoral–borrowing and lending? Instead of dreaming up too-clever-by-half schemes to stumble through crises after they happen, why not just stop imprudent banks from accommodating foreign borrowing by feckless governments?

The piece is good in its entirety, so do read it.

One of the many reasons IMF/World Bank policies tend to exacerbate the problems that countries experiencing this Arab Spring face and have faced is because they help legitimate the state officials of Arab tyrannies (so long as the U.S. legitimates them too) by (1) implementing doomed Keynesian booster-programs and (2) orchestrating top-down policies that these tyrants then use to their advantage. I blogged a bit about this back in May, but here is Austin Mackell at the Guardian in the same month:

The new loans being negotiated for Egypt and Tunisia will lock both countries into long-term economic strategies even before the first post-revolution elections have been held. Given the IMF’s history, we should expect these to have devastating consequences on the Egyptian and Tunisian people.

[The IMF] would rather make backroom deals with Mubarak-appointed finance minister, Samir Radwan, and the generals currently running Egypt who are themselves members of an the economic elite that sees its privilege threatened by the approach of democracy.

Mackell discredits himself by citing the economically illiterate Naomi Klein later in the piece, but it is important to note the overlap here. Those opposed to the Western imperialism that has in many ways held back the entire region should rightly oppose the economic technocrats attempting to pull the levers from their outfits at the IMF and World Bank. And those who understand that economies free from the white-knuckled grip of these dictatorships (again, many propped up by the U.S.) would empower and improve the lives of these populations should oppose what these international economic agencies do, which is falsely branded as imposing free market policies.