Tim Arango | Baghdad | Feb 7

NYT - Less than two months after American troops left, the State Department is preparing to slash by as much as half the enormous diplomatic presence it had planned for Iraq, a sharp sign of declining American influence in the country.

Officials in Baghdad and Washington said that Ambassador James F. Jeffrey and other senior State Department officials were reconsidering the size and scope of the embassy, where the staff has swelled to nearly 16,000 people, mostly contractors.

The expansive diplomatic operation and the $750 million embassy building, the largest of its kind in the world, were billed as necessary to nurture a postwar Iraq on its shaky path to democracy and establish normal relations between two countries linked by blood and mutual suspicion. But the Americans have been frustrated by what they see as Iraqi obstructionism and are now largely confined to the embassy because of security concerns, unable to interact enough with ordinary Iraqis to justify the $6 billion annual price tag.

The swift realization among some top officials that the diplomatic buildup may have been ill advised represents a remarkable pivot for the State Department, in that officials spent more than a year planning the expansion and that many of the thousands of additional personnel have only recently arrived. Michael W. McClellan, the embassy spokesman, said in a statement, “Over the last year and continuing this year the Department of State and the Embassy in Baghdad have been considering ways to appropriately reduce the size of the U.S. mission in Iraq, primarily by decreasing the number of contractors needed to support the embassy’s operations.”

Mr. McClellan said the number of diplomats — currently about 2,000 — was also “subject to adjustment as appropriate.”

To make the cuts, he said the embassy was “hiring Iraqi staff and sourcing more goods and services to the local economy.”

After the American troops departed in December, life became more difficult for the thousands of diplomats and contractors left behind. Convoys of food that had been escorted by the United States military from Kuwait were delayed at border crossings as Iraqis demanded documentation that the Americans were unaccustomed to providing.

Within days, the salad bar at the embassy dining hall ran low. Sometimes there was no sugar or Splenda for coffee. On chicken-wing night, wings were rationed at six per person. Over the holidays, housing units were stocked with Meals Ready to Eat, the prepared food for soldiers in the field.

no comment ;)

Eric Schmitt & Declan Walsh | Feb 7

NYT - A senior American military commander is expected to travel to Pakistan this month in what Obama administration officials say is the first step toward thawing a strategic relationship that has been in effect frozen for more than two months.

Gen. James N. Mattis, the head of the military’s Central Command, will meet Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, the Pakistani Army chief of staff, to discuss the investigations of an exchange of fire at the Afghan border that killed 24 Pakistani soldiers, as well as new border coordination procedures to prevent a recurrence of the episode.

General Mattis’s visit, the first by a high-ranking American official since the cross-border confrontation in November, was to have begun Thursday, but has been postponed by at least a week pending what is expected to be a spirited debate in the Pakistani Parliament over a new security policy toward the United States.

Pakistani and American officials are quietly optimistic that both events will trigger a chain of public engagement and private negotiations that will reboot the two nations’ frayed strategic relationship, although along more narrowly defined lines than before.

Pakistani officials say they will probably reopen NATO supply lines running through their territory, which have been closed for more than two months. The State Department is supporting a proposal circulating in the administration for the United States to issue a formal apology for the deaths of the Pakistani soldiers in the Nov. 26 airstrike by American gunships.

“We’ve felt an apology would be helpful in creating some space,” said an American official who has been briefed on the State Department’s view and who spoke on the condition of anonymity as internal discussions continued.

sheesh,ya think?

** PAF receives 3 F-16 aircraft from US
** IP gas project: Alienating US, Pakistan and Iran signal firm resolve
** Chinese to be taught across schools in Pakistan
** Congressmen want US nationality for Dr Shakil

The Bureau of Investigative Journalism, By Chris Woods and Christina Lamb, February 4

The CIA’s drone campaign in Pakistan has killed dozens of civilians who had gone to help rescue victims or were attending funerals, an investigation by the Bureau for the Sunday Times has revealed.

The findings are published just days after President Obama claimed that the drone campaign in Pakistan was a ‘targeted, focused effort’ that ‘has not caused a huge number of civilian casualties.’

Speaking publicly for the first time on the controversial CIA drone strikes, Obama claimed last week they are used strictly to target terrorists, rejecting what he called ‘this perception we’re just sending in a whole bunch of strikes willy-nilly’.

‘Drones have not caused a huge number of civilian casualties’, he told a questioner at an on-line forum. ‘This is a targeted, focused effort at people who are on a list of active terrorists trying to go in and harm Americans’.

New York | February 4

AFP - Hundreds of protesters demonstrated Saturday in New York and pacifist groups took to the streets in dozens of other US and Canadian cities in a “Day of Mass Action” against a possible war with Iran.

About 500 protesters gathered in Manhattan’s Times Square and marched to the headquarters of the US mission to the United Nations and to the Israeli consulate.

“No war, no sanctions, no intervention, no assassinations,” read a banner leading the march.

The demonstrations came as Europe and the United States slapped tough new sanctions on Iran, and Israel this week launched new threats of military intervention if the Islamic republic fails to rein in its suspected nuclear development program.

Dan Trombly provides a much-needed and comprehensive takedown of the neoliberal wing of the Democrat foreign policy community and their incessant drumbeat for intervention in every country the U.S. doesn't have good relations with, in the name of saving the locals.

The problems begin with the premise of waging war after war, with our inability to predict the aftermath as we're seeing in Libya and saw in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and with the inconsistency with which "right to protect" is applied (c.f. Bahrain). But the problems don't end there. Read the whole thing.

Julian Borger | Washington | January 31

The Guardian - Washington openly blames Iranian supreme leader Ali Khamenei for first time over Saudi ambassador plot.

The head of US intelligence has warned that there is an increasing likelihood that Iran could carry out attacks in America or against US and allied targets around the world.

The warning from the director of national intelligence, James Clapper, reflects rapidly rising tensions over Iran's nuclear programme after the US and EU announced embargoes on the Iranian oil trade in the past few weeks, Israel leaked details of its preparation for a possible conflict and both the west and Iran boosted their military readiness in the Gulf.

Doha, Qatar | January 29

VOA - Taliban negotiators are meeting with U.S. officials in Qatar for a series of discussions aimed at building trust and preparing both sides for upcoming peace talks.

Former Taliban official Maulavi Qalamuddin, who once led the group's religious police, says about five Taliban negotiators are there for the preliminary talks. He says the talks include the possible release of Taliban prisoners from the U.S. military detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Qalamuddin says the Taliban delegation currently in Doha includes several former Taliban officials and a former secretary to the Taliban's leader Mullah Omar.

Abigail Hauslohner | | Jan 27

TIME - Egypt has banned at least six Americans, including the son of Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, from leaving the country. It’s the latest in a series of embarrassing blows dealt to the Obama Administration, which is also Egypt’s largest benefactor in military aid (at roughly $1.3 billion a year). Last month security forces operating under Egypt’s military-led government raided the offices of 17 non-governmental organizations, including the Washington-based International Republican Institute (IRI), National Democratic Institute (NDI), and Freedom House, confiscating computers and cash, and threatening NGO workers with arrest. On Thursday, officials said that Sam LaHood, who heads IRI, and at least five others had been added to a “no-fly list,” even as Michael Posner, the head of the state department’s Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor visited Egypt and met with officials. LaHood and his wife had tried to leave Egypt on Saturday but were stopped at the airport.Human rights and pro-democracy organizations were among the ex-regime’s favorite targets of censorship and harassment and activists have accused the ruling Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) of using similar tactics in the year since the ousting of President Hosni Mubarak. A near character assassination of the April 6th Youth Movement by Egyptian state media in recent months has stirred hateful rhetoric against the democracy activists in many of Cairo’s lower class neighborhoods. Many Egyptians were angered by the U.S. government’s close relationship with Mubarak’s authoritarian regime, as well as its perceived silence while Mubarak wielded repressive and often brutal tactics against his citizenry. State media has helped to stoke a rising tide of xenophobia and suspicion, particularly towards Americans, since Mubarak’s ouster.

Gareth Porter | Jan 27

Asia Times - Pakistan has said a United States Air Force report on the US helicopter assault along the Afghan border that killed 28 Pakistani soldiers merely deepens suspicions the strike was intentional. Dismissing findings the attack was "accidental" and down to a "misconfigured electronic map overlay", it asserts that soldiers were being picked off one-by-one by gunships almost an hour and a half after the US was warned.

And all three are inter-related:

Whether or not the U.S. is declining is the wrong question

Has Petroleum Production Peaked, Ending the Era of Easy Oil?

The Coming U.S.-India Train Wreck

Connections!

Now, let me preface this piece by saying I did not watch the State Of The Union address last night. I prefer reading the transcript. I can't abide the canned applause, and watching half of Congress look at their watches while the other half whoops and hollers.

And it doesn't matter: Republican or Democrat, no one is truly unifying the Congress behind a vision or goal. Even talk about Osama bin Laden's liquidation was only going to draw tepid polite applause from the Republicans, which is a goddamned shame.

So I read it the next day

One down, for now. One to go.

I have mixed feelings about this issue. On the one hand, as an original content provider, I'd like to think my rights are protected to do with my art and writing as I see fit.

Let me put this in an analogy to better sum up that sentiment. Say I buy a bowl for my breakfast at work. I store it in the communal kitchen so I can grab it anytime I want some soup or oatmeal.

. . . is a fucking moron.

I read this post a few days ago and have been pondering since. Hope to get a post up about it sometime in the next few days. Until then, give it a read if you are so inclined.

The Common Dreams staff has an article: US, Israel Split on Iran? Joint Military Drill Cancelled: Netanyahu deputy voices ‘disappointment’ with Obama on Iran.

So is it Netanyahu trying to force Obama's hand or is it cover for Obama? If Israel started a war with Iran Obama would have to protect our troops in the area. It doesn't matter if Obama agrees with Israel, as President he would be required.

Yer doin it rong:

The British government admitted today that a terrorist suspect whose case has drawn international attention was interrogated by U.S. officials and tortured during the two years he was held in Morocco.

The findings, resulting from an investigation by England's highest criminal prosecution agency, contradict the obfuscation, stonewalling, and denials by American officials about the case of the suspect, Binyam Mohamed.

At one point, the Obama Administration threatened to cut off intelligence sharing with the UK if a British court ordered the release of classified documents in the case.

Nice and extreme way to treat our BFF.

Jan 11 | NYT | Jonathan M. Hansen

IN the 10 years since the Guantánamo detention camp opened, the anguished debate over whether to shutter the facility — or make it permanent — has obscured a deeper failure that dates back more than a century and implicates all Americans: namely, our continued occupation of Guantánamo itself. It is past time to return this imperialist enclave to Cuba.

From the moment the United States government forced Cuba to lease the Guantánamo Bay naval base to us, in June 1901, the American presence there has been more than a thorn in Cuba’s side. It has served to remind the world of America’s long history of interventionist militarism. Few gestures would have as salutary an effect on the stultifying impasse in American-Cuban relations as handing over this coveted piece of land.

Tensions are on the rise with Iran, the US and Israel so I want to go back and highlight this post on Iran and the neocons and the debate on wat to do with Iran:

Bernard Finel, as quoted by the New Atlanticist Policy blog writes:

[T]he ship has sailed on this. It sailed in 1979, and has been sailing in the same direction for 30 years. If you are relying on convincing the public and decision-makers that Iran is not a threat, you are going to lose the debate. If you are arguing, in effect, that we should just ignore them and rely on deterrence, that is also going to lose the debate.

The reason the neocons won the debate on Iraq was precisely because they were proposing a solution to a widely recognized problem. It may have been the wrong solution, and the problem was not as severe as they claimed. But the reality is that in policy debates, those able to credibly argue for a “winning” strategy to a problem will always have the upper hand over those proposing muddling through or living with risk.

My reply to this is very easy: show me, don’t tell me. That is the only way a leader can get people to muddle through and live with risk: show people that it can be done and this is what has been missing in our Iran policy since 1979. Obviously, for the first several years after the revolution engagement was impossible for both countries domestically. And yes, the neocons have won the rhetorical debate because they have proposed a solution, if that’s what you want to call another war. It’s the hoary old case of defining yourself by standing for something, as opposed to standing against something, which never wins. So, what’s the solution? Leadership. You step up, take a risk and negotiate with the Iranians. Begin by negotiating on interests you have in common—and the US and Iran have interests in common. Don't start the negotiations by arguing what your are going to negotiate. That's the quickest way to failure. Make it very clear to your interlocutor that all issues are on the table. Don't get bogged down in stupid stuff like who is going to sit where. Build confidence. Give the little points away. Show flexibility.

After you’ve built some confidence tackle the harder issues. If necessary take a page from Chou En-lai’s brilliant negotiating strategy with Henry Kissinger: state your differences boldly and clearly in the negotiating document and let the momentum of the relationship moves those issues forward, just as the US and China did in the seventies.

Look, this stuff isn’t rocket science. It's been done before. And be patient. Negotiations take time. Don't sit down once and then leave, as it's been reported the Obama Administration did in the past with Iran. One thing I can guarantee about all this: if we don’t try we’re destined to fail. What’s worse, innocent lives will be lost. Of course, American policy-makers have made a high art of kicking the can down the road and pretending they're making the ‘tough decisions,' as if drifting to war were a hard choice. That's the choice of the insecure, thin-skinned and weak-willed.

Stuart asked me a week ago what I thought about the new defense budget. I replied briefly to him with a link to Col. Lang, so let's start with him. First, Col. Lang says it's a good start (and I agree):

A re-alignment in emphasis of this kind must be introduced in small doses. The political scene in the US demands that. The awkward truth buried in this strategy is that the suggested conventional force reductions will inevitably be a beginning and not an end. These reductions are a first step that will lead to much, much smaller ground forces.

And then Stephen Walt here explains why the US will continue to have an interventionist policy:

these changes do not herald a philosophical shift away from a highly interventionist outlook. The new DG says the United States will still "take an active approach to countering [terrorist] threats," meaning continued drone strikes, night raids, and various forms of covert action. The decision to "invest as required to ensure [our] ability to operate in anti-access and area denial environments" tells you that the U.S. intends to retain the capability to use force just about anywhere it decides it wants to. And although it declares that the U.S. "will continue to promote a rules-based international order," we will undoubtedly reserve the right to ignore any of those rules if they prove to be inconvenient.

He then goes on to discuss the difference between strategy and budgeting, which are, need I say, very different. Michael Brenner then makes a crucial comment regarding the new defense guidance:

The key is threat assessment, not numbers. The latter is a diversionary exercise that distracts from the compelling task of figuring out what our security objectives are. Budgeting is a lot less challenging intellectually than is devising strategy. After our triumph in the Cold War followed by the post-9/11 terrorism hysteria, we have done no serious strategizing. We may have forgotten how. It well nigh time to begin some remedial work in this domain.

I've been harping on strategy for a very long time here at The Agonist. Nations have interests and what we need more than any budgetary legerdemain is a serious conversation about strategy in which we settle on national priorities that balances desires, resources, capabilities and risks. Like all three commenters, however, I am not sanguine about the possibility of having that conversation. The United States foreign policy establishment, by and large, does not inhabit a reality-based universe. Yet.

Kevin Hechtkopf | Jan 8

CBS News - On Sunday's "Face the Nation," host Bob Schieffer asked the nation's top military leaders what worries them the most in the world.
"What is it right now in the world -- is it North Korea, is it Iraq, is it Iran -- what is it that worries you the most right now?" Schieffer asked Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and General Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

They both agreed: "All of the above."

Both Panetta and Dempsey also warned against thinking that the announcement this week of a new U.S. defense strategy with a smaller military would mean the U.S. military is in decline.

"I think that's what worries me is that, because the conversation that we're having, this year, about changing strategy and budget problems, that there may be some around the world who see us as a nation in decline, and worse, as a military in decline," Dempsey said. "And nothing could be further from the truth. And that miscalculation could be troublesome in, particularly in the three areas you describe, but... it could cause even our close partners to wonder what kind of partner are we? So what I'd like to say right now is we're the same partner we've always been, and intend to remain that way."

Panetta added: "I think the main message that the world needs to understand is: America is the strongest military power and we intend to remain the strongest military power, and nobody ought to mess with that."

Ars Technica, By Nate Anderson, January 6

Though a deeply divided Congress is currently considering Internet website censorship legislation, the US has no such official policy—not even for child porn, which is voluntarily blocked by some ISPs. Nor does the US have a government-backed "three strikes" or "graduated response" system of escalating warnings to particular users accused of downloading music and movies from file-sharing networks.

Yet here was the ultimatum that the US Embassy in Madrid gave the Spanish government in February 2008: adopt such measures or we will punish you. Thanks to WikiLeaks, we have the text of the diplomatic cable announcing the pressure tactics.

Jim Wyss | Jan 8

Miami Herald - Facing a new round of international trade sanctions, Iran President Mahmud Ahmadinejad is kicking off a four-nation Latin America tour that is raising concerns in Washington.

Under pressure at home and facing a fresh wave of economic sanctions, Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad is seeking the company of friends — in Latin America.

Starting Sunday, Ahmadinejad will be on a four nation tour that includes U.S. antagonists such as Venezuela, Nicaragua, Cuba and Ecuador.

The trip comes as the United States and the European Union are turning the screws on Iran in hopes of forcing it to halt its nuclear program. Iran insists its aims are peaceful, but many fear the regime has military ambitions. The sanctions come as Ahmadinejad’s party is facing parliamentary elections — the first vote since the 2009 presidential race that led to bloody protests.

“As responsible nations toughen sanctions on Iran and the regime becomes increasingly isolated, it makes sense that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would seek a helping hand from fellow dictators and human rights abusers,” said U.S. Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Miami, who has dubbed the visit the “Tour of Tyrants.”

LOL, pot meet kettle...

Kabul | January 7

BBC - Afghan investigators have accused the US Army of abusing detainees at its main prison in the country, saying inmates had reported being tortured and held without evidence.

The findings come days after President Hamid Karzai called for the facility at Bagram air base to be handed over to Afghan control within a month.

The move surprised the US, which had been working with the Afghans on a phased handover over two years.

The US says it will examine the claims.

Dec 31

AFP - Afghan President Hamid Karzai on Saturday welcomed US Vice President Joe Biden’s remarks that the Taliban “per se is not our enemy”.

Biden’s comments to Newsweek magazine last week caused uproar in the US, which has been fighting a 10-year war against the Taliban-led insurgency, but reflected an increasing focus on finding a political settlement.

“We are very happy that America has announced that Taliban are not their enemy. This will bring peace and stability to the people of Afghanistan,” Karzai said during a ceremony in Kabul.

Karzai has agreed that if the United States wants to set up a Taliban liaison office in Qatar to enable peace talks he will not stand in the way, as long as Afghanistan is involved in the process.

Paul Handley | Washington | Dec 31

AFP - US Somalis said Friday that a Minnesota bank group's decision to cut off their money transfer business would have a devastating impact on people in the war-torn African country.

Somalis were preparing to protest in Minneapolis, Minnesota after Sunrise Community Banks said they would shut down the accounts of money transfer shops handling Somalia-related business.

The move puts a stop to the main avenues for the largest US Somali community to send millions of dollars a year back to relatives in the eastern African country wrecked by years of war and famine.

But Sunrise said it needs the government to remove "legal obstacles" -- which Somalis say is the threat of prosecution if funds end up in the hands of designated terrorists -- before it can resume the service.

"The impact is really drastic. Almost all the Somalis here were relying on the Sunrise banks to send money to their loved ones in Somalia," said Saeed Fahia, executive director of the Confederation of Somali Community in Minnesota.

"Anybody who wants to do some work in Somalia has to use the 'hawala' (money transfer) system. People want to support schools, hospitals. There is no alternative."

Sunrise, an association of three banks, announced in early December that it would close the accounts of a dozen or so money transfer shops serving an estimated 30,000 Somalis in the region.