The Juggler | RedGage/CarolGee

When Senator Barack Obama was campaigning for his job as POTUS, he told his supporters that leaders should be capable of doing more than one thing at a time.  We all came away believing that he was that kind of leader.  After Mr. Obama received the Democratic nomination he got an almost immediate challenge.  The globe's financial system crashed.
The Bush administration , wisely, read him in on what they were doing to cope with it at every step of the way.  President-elect Obama was also read into the secret world of national intelligence with a daily briefing.  Coming to understand the risks and opportunities in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Israel, Palestine, Russia, China and North Korea, the President-to-be juggled thoughts and ideas about both foreign and domestic policy.  And he and his transition team began to choose the members of his new administration, people who could keep up with his intellect and his pace.
In January of 2009, InaugurationDay set the pattern of juggling a number of disparate agenda items and it has remained that way now for 9 months.  Almost from the beginning there were those who accused the President of trying to do too much.  Up to this point we do not know if that is the case.  Actually, in most cases it does not seem as if the administration has had the choice to demur or defer.  So the President scheduled a daily economic briefing as well as  intelligence briefing.
December saw the beginning of withdrawal from Iraq.  January was the beginning of withdrawal from Gitmo.  At the same time there began a full and complicated re-engagement with countries and peoples all around the globe.  The main focus was on Afghanistan and Pakistan (Af-Pak in 2009-speak).  And so it is that President Obama is juggling Wall Street, health care reform, and the war in Afghanistan.  Each issue gets attention and action every day.  But we are spoiled by now and criticize the administration because it might take until the end of the year to complete the new health care legislation.  And it might take until after the Afghanistan run-off election on November 7 to learn what the President's strategy for the future engagement in Af-Pak is to be.
W e live in a 24-hour cable news cycle that voraciously consumes the President's juggling act. Notice that jugglers do not hide anything, they just keep several balls in the air at once, there for all to see.  But magicians do not believe in transparency.  At no time was President Obama's leadership ever a magic act. His leadership skills seems to have elements of capacity to be fully present in the moment, talent for communication, bountiful intellect, and a willingness to listen and learn from what others have to say.
So juggling is the job.  As I have been learning how to use the Twitter application, it has always felt like juggling.  For example, TweetDeck gives me little notifications that blink on and off as I am writing or reading or searching.  If I am quick I can do something with each tweet -- true multi-tasking.  I stay informed about the news that way, though not deeply informed.  For that one must go to the story that is linked.

**********

The following set of "Af-Pak tweets," saved as favorites in recent weeks, might serve as a useful metaphor for the juggling style and pace of the current administration.  I have sorted them into the issues represented by the war and conflict in South Asia:
Developing an over arching regional strategy -- "New York Times: Military Establishment Frustrated With Pace Of Obama's Deliberations On Afghan War http://bit.ly/35lAfB ," is from The Huffington Post (10/19/09).   " Are Obama advisers downplaying Afghan dangers? http://bit.ly/4gy2Lz ," is from the New York Times (10/11/09).  " Surgical Strikes Shape Afghanistan Debate http://bit.ly/Et1Oa ," is from the New York Times (10/5/09).  " @chucktpolitical al q is an ideology. Taliban are a leadership structure in a particular region of the world that promotes the ideology," is from Marc Ambinder (10/5/09) .  " RT @attackerman : Gates: 'we are not leaving afgh. this discussion is about the next steps forward... no uncertainty '," is from Marc Ambinder (10/5/09 ).  " Obama repeatedly mentioned Pakistan's stability when asked about US interests in the region. Which means: India is the fulcrum," is from Marc Ambinder (9/20/09).
Politics -- "RT @attackerman : Prediction: the Karzai runoff deal is the moment Kerry clinched SecState when HRC leaves," is from Marc Ambinder (10/20/09) .  " Why Huffington Is Wrong on Biden http://bit.ly/aFxcJ ," is from The Nation Magazine (10/16/09).  " Afghanistan to lead discussions on [television] shows: President Barack Obama's options in Afghanistan will again be on the .. http://bit.ly/3kbpWg ," is from The Hill (10/10/09).  " Gates: Bush lacked Afghanistan strategy ; Obama's is 'first real' one: Robert Gates said that his former boss di.. http://bit.ly/2kJGQx ," is from The Hill (9/27/09).
Afghanistan elections -- "Wow This is big ||RT @jaketapper WP reports looks like ECC will reduce Karzai vote to about 47%, prompting runoff> http://bit.ly/4a7g4h ," is from Libby Spencer (10/15/09).  " Karzai’s Running Mate Poised for Return http://bit.ly/Vd3bs ," is from the New York Times (10/5/09). 
" RT @jeremyscahill : No US Interference in Afghan Elecs--Except James Carville and the US Occupation: http://bit.ly/9N32u ," is from The Nation Magazine (8/17/09 ).
Afghanistan development -- "Afghan economy stumbles amid election uncertainty http://bit.ly/j77Fs ," is from McClatchy (10/16/09).  "Civilian Goals Largely Unmet in Afghanistan http://bit.ly/GplzG ," is from the New York Times (10/11/09).
Afghanistan's internal conflict -- " A Dogged Taliban Chief Rebounds , Vexing U.S. http://bit.ly/13ilo9 ," is from the New York Times (10/10/09).

Pakistan's internal conflict and terrorism -- " Pakistani Police Had Warned Army About a Raid http://bit.ly/2jtZp ," is from the New York Times (10/11/09).  " Terrorists assault center of Pakistan's military HQ http://bit.ly/1P4plM ," is from McClatchy (10/10/09).   " C.I.A. Said to Use Outsiders to Put Bombs on Drones http://bit.ly/Avz8T ," is from The New York Times (8/20/09).
Military contracting -- "Oversight hearing next week on Obama administration contracting policies. Working on future Iraq contracting vs Afghnstn contracting hearing," is from Sen. Claire McKaskill (10/21/09).

People to people -- " Heartbreaking: Haunting eyes - Photos: The faces of Pakistan's children http://bit.ly/TRkQm ," is from Libby Spencer (10/11/09).

via redgage.com

This is a post from one of my regularly used websites. Red Gage is interesting because participants earn money for the material we post.
Check it out.

Posted via web from Southwest Postings

Questions about Afghanistan --

Is Afghanistan "going south?" Liberals are deserting President Obama on Afghanistan, according to Jeff Stein's "Spy talk" at CQ Politics. And I may join them. Now that we are leaving Iraq, things are not going well in President Obama's military or diplomatic efforts in the war that really matters to this administration. It is not yet clear what our true purpose is in the region. Where is NATO? And what happens when contractors outnumber the military?

The State Department was questioned Wednesday by reporters regarding a bizarre report about a contractor scandal in Kabul. It turns out that security at the U.S. embassy in Kabul is a cruel joke played on the State Department by a private contracting firm, ArmorGroup, evidently operating without supervision from anyone. Informed Comment's Juan Cole says it for us with this quote:

I can't understand why the US army isn't assigned to tasks like guarding the embassy; why farm that task out to geriatric frat boys? The cult of private contracting, which is promoted in the name of a free market but is actually a kind of socialism, is bankrupting the US government-- and we aren't even getting our money's worth.

Multiple questions remain about the recent elections in Afghanistan. Was it a fraud? Was it stolen? Who would be the rightful President? What can the United Nations do about it? Who will conrtol the provinces? Is the high level of corruption insurmountable?

A new question about Afghanistan was raised by a Reuters story Thursday from the GlobalPost: "Are U.S. taxpayers funding the Taliban?" To quote the intro, "The United States Agency for International Development has opened an investigation into allegations that its funds for road and bridge construction in Afghanistan are ending up in the hands of the Taliban, through a protection racket for contractors." Congressman Bill Delahunt (D-Mass.) promised to hold hearings in the fall.

Serious questions were raised by a current story in Mother Jones Magazine "A Few Good Kids?" written by David Goodman. Recruitment into the Armed Services is a well organized activity, too organized it seems. In summary: "How the No Child left behind Act allowed military recruiters to collect info on millions of unsuspecting teens." To quote further:

. . . the recruiters [know a student's] email address, Social Security number, or details about his ethnicity, shopping habits, or college plans. Yet they probably knew all that, too. In the past few years, the military has mounted a virtual invasion into the lives of young Americans. Using data mining, stealth websites, career tests, and sophisticated marketing software, the Pentagon is harvesting and analyzing information on everything from high school students' GPAs and SAT scores to which video games they play. Before an Army recruiter even picks up the phone to call a prospect . . . the soldier may know more about the kid's habits than do his own parents.

Questions regarding the future of the war in Afghanistan will not go away. Many of the problems are clearly leftovers from the Bush administrations mishandling of both wars in the Middle East and South Asia. But that is not an excuse that will hold forever. Congress and the President must decide reasonable foreign policy goals that are achievable and over which oversight can be done. The U.S. government does not have very long to answer these mounting questions.

[Post date - September 3, 2009]

See also Behind the Links, for further info on this subject.

Blogs: My general purpose/southwest focus blog is at Southwest Progressive. My creative website is at Making Good Mondays. And Carol Gee - Online Universe is the all-in-one home page for all my websites.

Technorati tags: news news and politics afghanistan state department war obama administration

The old "He-said/She-said" again, huh?

The feud between Congress and the CIA is back in the news. Today the House will take up an intelligence authorization bill that would do away with the administration's right to dictate the terms of how Congress is briefed on intelligence matters. Predictably, President Obama has threatened to veto a bill in that form.

Panetta vs. Congressional Oversight of Intel Community -- On June 24, CIA Director Leon Panetta testified before the House Intelligence Committee, chaired by Rep. Sylvestre Reyes (D-TX). According to CQ Politics (7/9/09), a couple of days later 7 Democrats on the Committee wrote a letter to Panetta asking him to " “correct” his statement from May 15 that “it is not our policy or practice to mislead Congress.” The article quoted a CIA spokesman who said "Panetta stood by his May remarks and believes Congress must be kept fully informed."

Dems vs Repubs -- Rep. Reyes wrote a letter on Wednesday to the Intelligence Committee ranking member Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-Mich.), telling him, to quote Politico (7/8/09):

. . . that he had obtained information that there were serious problems with the CIA’s briefing of lawmakers and that the CIA “affirmatively lied to” lawmakers.

“These notifications have led me to conclude this committee has been misled, has not been provided full and complete notifications, and (in at least one occasion) was affirmatively lied to,” Reyes wrote in his letter.

. . . Later, Reyes issued a more conciliatory statement that framed Panetta's alleged admission as an attempt to reform the agency, beginning:

“I appreciate Director Panetta’s recent efforts to bring issues to the Committee’s attention that, for some reason, had not been previously conveyed, and to make certain that the Committee is fully and currently briefed on all intelligence activities. I understand his direction to be that the Agency does not and will not lie to Congress, and he has set a high standard for truth in reporting to Congress."

The authorization bill that expands its oversight of the intelligence community, including the National Security Agency and the ODNI, was reported out of committee on June 18. Certain lesser officials would be subject to Senate confirmation, and would require videotaping of arrested detainees. According to the Washington Post (6/20/09), to quote:

The bill also would end the statutory authority of the executive branch to limit briefings on classified, covert action to the "Gang of Eight," the chairmen and ranking members of the House and Senate intelligence committees and the House and Senate senior leadership.

Together these measures, Democrats say, represent an attempt to make the intelligence agencies more accountable to Congress. In recent years, controversies including disclosures of the NSA's warrantless surveillance program and the CIA's use of harsh interrogation techniques have led to calls for greater oversight.

Bonus Backgrounders:

• "2010 Intelligence Authorization Pending," is by Steven Aftergood at Secrecy News (6/18/09).


• "Ending the Gang of Eight," is by emptywheel (6/15/09).
  


• "Congressional Access to National Security Information," is by Steven Aftergood at Secrecy News (6/10/09).


• "The Hill's Campfire Games on Intelligence Briefings," is by emptywheel (6/5/09).


• "CIA: Congress shouldn't get records of our crimes," is by emptywheel (5/31/09).


• "What Pelosi, Rockefeller & Harman Could have done," is by bmaz at emptywheel (5/27/09).


• "CIA Briefers regularly mislead Hill intelligence panels, ex-spy charges," is by Jeff Stein at Spy Talk-CQ Politics (5/26/09).


• "The terrorism intelligence and briefing schedule," is by emptywheel (5/16/09). Timeline period covered by documents/details: 9/21/01 -- 3/19/03.

Stay tuned, folks, because there will certainly be a lot more conversation about these separation of powers questions.

[Post date - July 9, 2009]

See also Behind the Links, for further info on this subject.

Blogs: My general purpose/southwest focus blog is at Southwest Progressive. And Carol Gee - Online Universe is the all-in-one home page for all my websites.

Technorati tags: news news and politics politics congress cia national intelligence

Middle East Developments

Image via Wikipedia

Vice President Joe Biden is in Iraq. He is there for meetings with military commanders, Ambassador Chris Hill, and Iraq's President Talibani and Prime Minister Malaki. His visit comes on the heels of the withdrawal of U.S. combat troops from the cities to the bases near the perimeters around metropolitan areas. Iraqis celebrated the transition to more control over their own destiny, and more risk of security breakdowns. But it was by their design and our that we are now implementing this formal Status of Forces agreement signed last December. And from the beginning of this year military operations have been refocusing on Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The US army says it has launched a major offensive against the Taliban in south Afghanistan's Helmand province. "Operation Strike of the Sword gets under way," according to today's BBC News. To quote further from the story:

The US military says about 4,000 marines as well as 650 Afghan troops are involved, supported by Nato planes. Brig Gen Larry Nicholson said the operation was different from previous ones because of the "massive size of the force" and its speed.

A Taliban spokesman said they would resist in various ways and that there would be no permanent US victory.

. . . It is the first such large-scale operation since US President Barack Obama authorised the deployment of 17,000 extra US troops to Afghanistan, as part of a new strategy for winning the conflict. Many of them are being redeployed from operations in Iraq, to help with training Afghan security forces and to tackle the insurgency.

A House Intelligence panel late last month reported out with a warning of emerging threats to the nation's security, according to a 6/29 story in CQ Politics. The report also "thinks spy agencies are behind in addressing cybersecurity, diversity and foreign language training, according to a committee report released Monday." The Democratic Intelligence Committee also approved the 2010 intel authorization bill that includes a provision that eliminated the administration's "right to control when the full intelligence panels are briefed as opposed to more limited 'Gang of Eight' briefings for panel and congressional leaders."

Countries mentioned that face security challenges include Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia and Mexico. Today's post focuses on Middle East developments. The Intel Committee Report says that the "political and military situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan continues to deteriorate." As an example, according to the Financial Times (6/23/09), "A tribal leader who vowed to lead an uprising against Pakistan's most notorious Taliban militants was killed, raising doubts over the success of a planned military offensive along the Afghan border." Qari Zainuddin, 26, was reportedly shot by one of his own guards in Dera Isamil Khan in northwest Pakistan. A BBC 6/24 report said, to quote:

at least 43 people have died in missile strikes by a US drone aircraft in a militant stronghold of Pakistan [in South Waziristan], a Taliban spokesman said. The people killed had been attending the funeral of a military commander killed in an earlier strike.

. . . There have been more than 35 US strikes since last August - killing over 340 people - and most have landed in the North and South Waziristan tribal regions. Pakistan has been publicly critical of drone attacks, arguing that they kill civilians and fuel support for militants like Baitullah Mehsud.

NATO partner, the United Kingdom, has intensified its fight in southern Afghanistan's Helmand province. Significant progress to hold territory was only made possible because of the arrival of additional U.S. troops to assist. Great Britain has lost 169 soldiers in Afghanistan since 2001. Also, "three German soldiers are killed in Afghanistan when their patrol came under fire, the defence ministry in Berlin says," to quote the BBC. The attack happened in the northern city of Kunduz, where the Germans have a military base where a 3,700 member German military force is stationed. The Germans have lost 35 troops since 2002.

In an interesting aside, Steven Aftergood of Secrecy News (6/15/09), wrote that the new U.S. Afghanistan Commander did not get complete support for his appointment to the post. To quote:

Gen. Stanley McChrystal was confirmed by the Senate last week to be the new commander of U.S. (and NATO) forces in Afghanistan, a role that he assumed today. But his nomination was opposed by Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) who objected to the General’s advancement on unspecified “classified” grounds.

“I oppose the nomination of LTG Stanley McChrystal to command U.S. forces in Afghanistan for two reasons,” Senator Feingold said on June 11. “The first relates to a classified matter about which I have serious concerns. I have conveyed those concerns in a letter to the President.”

The second reason cited by Sen. Feingold was McChrystal’s embrace of interrogation techniques that went beyond those authorized in the Army Field Manual on the subject.

News bites associated with the above items come from CQ Behind the Lines newsletter July 1, 2009, by David C. Morrison. To quote:

Courts and rights: The alleged shooter in the deadly Holocaust Memorial Museum assault, himself wounded, is still unfit to appear in court, CNN has a judge declaring — as Pakistan’s The Nation says a defense-hired shrink will testify in a New York courtroom today on the mental soundness of a terror-charged Pakistani neuroscientist. The foreman of the Florida jury that acquitted an Egypt-born student on terror charges is convinced that the defendant — now facing deportation on charges levied by ICE — is a victim of profiling, CNN, again, spotlights. A federal judge who authorized habeas challenges in U.S. courts for military detainees in Afghanistan ruled Monday that that right doesn’t apply to at least one Afghan prisoner, AP reports.

[Post date July 2, 2009]

See also Behind the Links, for further info on this subject.

Blogs: My general purpose/southwest focus blog is at Southwest Progressive. My creative website is at Making Good Mondays. And Carol Gee - Online Universe is the all-in-one home page for all my websites.

Technorati tags: news foreign policy middle east national security

Related articles by Zemanta

• U.S. launches 'major' Afghanistan operation (cnn.com)
• Marines launch major Afghan attack (msnbc.msn.com)
• Obama's First Op: U.S., Afghan Troops Close In on Taliban (abcnews.go.com)

A bit of perspective on Iran --

Today's post is a compilation of news items from mostly foreign sources covering the Iranian government's presidential election crisis. It begins with how things were before Iran's world turned upside down. I conclude with a bit of perspective on U.S. national security, that reminds us of how lucky we are to have our solid new president around when the Middle East's beset by chaos.

How fast things changed after the election -- On June 15th, Russia's Ria Novosti reported that "the director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency said on Monday he welcomed the U.S. initiative to begin direct talks with Iran without any preconditions and on the basis of mutual respect."

Violence escalates -- This rare information is from The Washington Note, "Guest Blog: Dispatches from Tehran," (6/22/09). Steve Clemons introduces the blogger: "An anonymous student in Tehran who has been writing and speaking in the media under the name, "Shane M." has just sent in some more dispatches." The BBC News of 6/22/09 says that details are emerging about how "hi-tech helped Iranian monitoring" of its citizens during the protests, with the help of Nokia Siemens. The world was galvanized on 6/23/09: Memeorandum headlined, "Family, friends mourn Iranian woman whose death was caught on video," taken from Borzou Daragahi of the LA Times In summary: "Neda Agha-Soltan, 26, ‘was a beam of light’ and not an activist, friends say. The video footage of her bleeding to death on the street has turned her into an international symbol of the protest movement." Next "Fresh street clashes in Tehran" outside of parliament were examined by the Financial Times on 6/24/09.

World leaders responded -- The 6/23/09 BBC News reports that the United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon was "urging Iran to end the violence." Summarizing: "United Nations chief Ban Ki-moon expressed his "dismay" at the use of force against civilians in the wake of Iran's disputed election." The Financial Times of London is of the opinion that President Obama "toughened his stance on Iran" after Monday, June 22. The BBC News (6/23/09) says that President Obama strongly condemned "unjust" violence of Iran clamping down on election protests, saying he respects Iran's sovereignty and that it was "patently false" of Iran to say the West was fomenting the unrest.

Calming worries -- President Obama's handling of the Iranian crisis has been right on point, in my opinion. His "heart broke" along with ours as young women, students and others who want freedom were murdered, beaten and imprisoned. But the deep unrest that might indicate a growing instability in the country is just that. It does not mean we confront a nuclear cloud as might have been the case in a Bush administration. David Morrison, who writes CQ Behind the Lines (6/25/09) said, to quote:

In pondering a nuclear-armed Iran, “no plausible scenarios come to mind where terrorism comes into play, or where Tehran ever would have any reason to share nuclear capability with a terrorist client,” an ex-CIA analyst writes in National Journal.

References -- from Tom Head who writes the About.com Civil Liberties Guide:

• Human Rights in Iran - Iranian Human Rights Abuses


• Shirin Ebadi - Iran's leading advocate for human rights


• Complete Guide to Iranian Politics, Elections and Government

[Post date - June 25, 2009]

My all-in-one Home Page of websites where I post regularly: Carol Gee - Online Universe

Technorati tags: news news and politics Iran foreign policy war and conflict Obama

The budget and foreign policy, no easy time of it for the White House --

Update: The supplemental bill is now in the Senate. Senator Judd Gregg (R-NH) made a point of order regarding the addition of the $1 billion+ for the "cash for clunkers" program. He lost that vote 60 to 36, by exactly the 2/3 majority required. There are times when 60 votes do matter.

The House approved the 2009 $105.9 billion supplemental war spending bill on Tuesday evening, but not with a big Democratic majority, Politico reports. The result was 226-202. Only 5 Republicans voted for it and 32 Democrats voted to oppose. House Minority Leader John Boehner claims that his "no" vote "protects the troops. " The bill included $5 billion in IMF credits, $32.5 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, $7.65 billion to prepare for the H1N1 flu expected this winter and $1 billion towards the new "cash for clunkers" program. Congress actually added to the President's original request, taking care of their local defense contractors. To quote Politico's conclusion:

The total defense spending is larger than Obama’s request and includes about $2.5 billion in new money to deal with personnel cost overruns in, especially, the Army and Army National Guard. Nearly $28.5 billion is provided for procurement, including billions added for the purchase of air transports and armored vehicles.

Eight Boeing C-17s would cost about $2.1 billion, and an additional $504 million would cover seven C-130s, manufactured by Lockheed. General Dynamics has a stake in $312.7 million for the purchase of Stryker armored vehicles for the Army — a $200 million increase over the administration’s request. And the bill adds $1.9 billion to the Pentagon’s requests for more heavily armored, mine-resistant MRAPs.

Total spending for State Department and foreign aid accounts is $9.7 billion; another $700 million is provided for food assistance overseas. Afghanistan and Pakistan are among the major recipients, including $225 million to help the Islamabad government deal with the refugee crisis triggered by recent fighting.

To an unusual degree, even routine foreign aid requests for Middle East countries such as Israel, Egypt and Jordan have been added to the mix. This is all part of a Democratic strategy to shift close to $2.5 billion from 2010 into 2009 and thereby leave more room under next year’s spending caps.

A wartime spending bill passed the House in mid-May but leadership lost 51 Democrats in the process. Anti-war House members opposed the President's new commitments in Pakistan and Afghanistan. This time Politico opines that "flu funds have been the cure for the war bill." In addition CQ Politics reported that "the White House cut a deal with Texas Democrats" who were holding back their votes in a dispute over the way that funds in the economic stimulus package are not being spent on public schools in the state. CQ explained that "the White House promised to use a future appropriations bill as a vehicle for language to block Texas from shifting the funds" to its "rainy day" general purpose fund.

Today in the U.S. House, ProPublica reports that there will be a hearing of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee on civilian contract workers injured in Iraq and Afghanistan. ProPublica is a nonprofit investigative journalism organization, who helped ABC News and the LA Times find out that AIG and others routinely denied claims by these injured civilians for medical care and disability benefits, under federal Workers Compensation. The Labor Department is supposed to oversee the program.

The 2009 Supplemental spending bill has been the most contentious issue between Congress and the President this year. Opposition by anti war liberals to the escalation of the war in Afghanistan has been steady and ever-present. Fiscally conservative Democrats are resistant to spending in somewhat the same way as Republicans, although they are certainly not as vocal. And Republicans seem to be dedicated to holding up their reputation as the "party of no," uncharacteristically in the national defense arena.

[Post date - June 18, 2009]

See also Behind the Links, for further info on this subject.

Blogs: My general purpose/southwest focus blog is at Southwest Progressive. My creative website is at Making Good Mondays. And Carol Gee - Online Universe is the all-in-one home page for all my websites.

Technorati tags: news news and politics national defense military obama administration U.S. House

War funding matters are high priority in Congress

The final version of the war supplemental spending bill is about to pass the House. Wednesday the Democrats have perhaps prevailed in their struggle against the Senate's efforts to block release of prisoner abuse photographs. There may be a "deal on the war supplemental near," according to CQ Politics (6/10/09). To quote:

House leaders were preparing to appoint conferees on the bill, setting up a joint session with Senate negotiators shortly thereafter, House Democratic Caucus Chairman John B. Larson , D-Conn., said. Floor action is likely Thursday.

Rep. Louise M. Slaughter , D-N.Y., chairwoman of the House Rules Committee, said the conference report will definitely not contain language, found in the Senate’s version, which would bar for three years the disclosure of images of U.S. war on terror prisoners taken from Sept. 11, 2001, to Jan. 22, 2009.

Sens. Joseph I. Lieberman , I-Conn., and Lindsey Graham , R-S.C., won adoption of the photo amendment in the Senate, and Tuesday *threatened to obstruct all Senate action if it was removed from the legislation. President Obama, like the two senators, has opposed release of the photos, which critics have sought under the Freedom of Information Act.

Traditional supplemental bills, it is important to remember, also contain provisions for budget items that are not war related. That is because it is an "emergency" supplemental designed to fund last minute things that came up unexpectedly. The current version of the "War bill tally could top $105B," according to Politico.com (6/9/09). To quote:

The White House’s ever-expanding wartime spending bill could soon exceed $105 billion even as President Barack Obama remains stymied by divisions in Congress and a set of terrorism-related issues that have strained relations in his own party.

Democrats said Tuesday that they now expect to add $5.8 billion to cope with the potential threat of H191 flu recurring next winter, and House Appropriations Committee Chairman Dave Obey (D-Wis.) told POLITICO he is trying to find room for another $800 million to fund the first year of a cash-for-clunkers initiative endorsed by the full House Tuesday

President Jimmy Carter "disagrees with President Obama's decision to block the release of photographs that depict U.S. use of torture and other harsh interrogation methods under the Bush administration." The story is from the ACLU Blog of Rights (6/2/09).Reference -- *Threatened: "Filibuster threatened over detainee photos," is from CQ Politics (6/9/09). To quote:

Sens. Joseph I. Lieberman and Lindsey Graham said Tuesday they would filibuster the supplemental spending bill unless it includes a provision blocking the release of detainee photographs.

“We’re not going to do anymore business in the Senate. Nothing is going forward until we get this right,” threatened Graham, R- S.C.

The Senate adopted the prohibition as an amendment to its version of the bill (HR 2346). However, many liberal Democrats in the House already opposed to spending more money on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, are bucking White House efforts to keep the photos from the public.

President Obama has been encouraging the Senate and House to settle their differences regarding paying for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. But it is not an easy thing to do. Liberals remain opposed to the war in Iraq, and some are even opposed to escalating the war in Afghanistan. And, typically, seemingly unrelated items found their way into this supplemental. This time it is the controversy over President Obama's policy reversal regarding the new set of CIA torture photos. National security hawks want to support it, transparency advocates oppose it. The next couple of days will see who wins.

[Post date: June 11, 2009]

See also Behind the Links, for further info on this subject.

Blogs: My general purpose/southwest focus blog is at Southwest Progressive. My creative website is at Making Good Mondays. And Carol Gee - Online Universe is the all-in-one home page for all my websites.

Technorati tags: news news and politics politics congress middle east

South Asia over Middle East

In the News -- With the "Trilateral" meetings at the White House yesterday, it seems apparent that the Obama administration's main foreign policy focus in on South Asia -- "Af-Pak," rather that Iraq or Israel-Palestine. That is not news, of course. These developments are right in line with the reality of events and with the President's priorities on diplomacy. The talks will have been successful if they get the Pakistani army to focus on the Taliban in country, rather than India. According to the report by Politico.com, President Obama says he is "pleased" by the Af-Pak meetings. The Financial Times (5/7/09) has a particularly good story on the talks. Quoting the FT summary:

Islamabad on Thursday intensified attacks against Taliban militants in the northern Swat valley after Barack Obama, US president, welcomed the leaders of Pakistan and Afghanistan to the White House.

Thousands of people took advantage of a break in a curfew in Swat on Thursday to get out of the region as government aircraft attacked Taliban positions. United Nations officials said the campaign against the Islamic militants in Swat had prompted 100,000 civilians to flee the area over the past two days. Mian Iftikhar Hussain, a senior official in North West Frontier Province, where Swat is located, warned that 500,000 people might flee the conflict.

If Iraq is secure enough for the oil groups to return by the end of the year, despite the lack of an oil law, things must be getting more stable in that war-torn country with one third of the world's oil reserves. According to the New York Times (4/19/09), Iraq's parliament chose a new speaker after months of political infighting that stalled several pieces of legislation. He is a critic of PM Malaki. The commander in Iraq, General Odierno is certain that U.S. troops will be out of Iraq by late 2011.

Clearly President Obama has turned his attention to South Asia, and it is none too soon. The years of a Bush administration distracted in Iraq are somewhat behind us. The current administration is about the business that should have been finished with al Qaeda a long time ago.

References:

1. Terror tech -- from CQ Behind the Lines, by David C. Morrison (5/6/09): “In the old days, we knew where the enemy was; the problem was we couldn’t kill them fast enough. Now it’s almost getting them person by person, and technology can help us do that,” National Intelligence chief Adm. Dennis C. Blair tells The Baltimore Sun. The advent of robotic weapons of “indiscriminate lethality” promises to “lead to less physical risk to the combatants deploying them but greater moral risk,” a Global Media Forum essay assesses — while The New York Times quotes a Taliban logistician judging as “very effective” the CIA’s drone attacks in Pakistan.


2. "Obama says Pakistan nukes in safe hands," from The Financial Times (4/29/09). Summary of an article that provides a lot of good answers to the questions I have had about Pakistan's nuclear arsenal:
   
   

   US president Barack Obama on Wednesday has backed assurances from Pakistan’s military, saying he believed the country’s nuclear arsenal of as many as 100 warheads was in safe hands.
   
   Speaking at a White House news conference late Wednesday night, Mr Obama said while he was “gravely concerned” about the overall situation in Pakistan, he added that Pakistan’s military recognised the hazard of the country’s nuclear weapons “falling in to the wrong hands”.



3. "Almost 1 in 10 Afghans see the U.S. as the biggest threat to Afghanistan," from The U.S. News and World Report (4/15/09).

[Post date May 7, 2009]

See also Behind the Links, for further info on this subject.

Carol Gee - Online Universe is the all-in-one home page for all my websites.

Technorati tags: news foreign policy pakistan afghanistan iraq obama trilateral meeting

On accountability: the chains that bind.

Committee Report -- A report released Tuesday by the Senate Armed Services Committee will prove to be a very important declassified document coming out of the work of Senator Carl Levin (D-Mich.), his staff and committee. To quote David Cloud's Politico article,

Newly declassified documents reveal how harsh military interrogation procedures approved for use at Guantanamo Bay prison by former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld also filtered down to war zones in Afghanistan and Iraq.

. . . The chairman, Carl Levin (D-Mich.), said the decision by Rumsfeld and other Bush administration officials to authorize the interrogation practices “set the tone” that led to prisoner abuses at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere.

“Authorizations of aggressive interrogation techniques by senior officials resulted in abuse and conveyed the message that physical pressures and degradation were appropriate treatment for detainees in U.S. military custody,” Levin said in a statement.

Levin said it was still a “question” whether senior Bush administration officials “should be held accountable.” He called for Attorney General Eric Holder to name a retired federal judge or some other “distinguished individuals” to look at “what steps, if any, should be taken” against high level officials.

. . . The report also documents how personnel from the Army’s Survival, Resisance, Evasion and Escape school, a military organization that trains U.S. soldier in resisting interrogation, traveled to Guantanamo and Iraq to train interrogators there in use of harsh methods.

Will the committee act? Senator Pat Leahy (D-VT), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, announced that, if Republicans can't back his idea of a truth commission to investigate the Bush torture program, he will launch a Judiciary Committee investigation. An investigation is already underway in the Senate Intelligence Committee, according to the story in Congressional Quarterly-Politics (4/22/09).

News Analysis: At Core of Detainee Fight: Did Methods Stop Attacks? - taken from the New York Times, April 23, 2009, written by Scott Shane. This is a relatively even-handed article that lays out the arguments for and against this justification. President Obama is mildly criticized in this piece. Summarized Shane said, "Starkly opposing narratives have arisen about what, if anything, was gained by the C.I.A.'s use of physical pressure to intimidate Qaeda operatives."

Fundamental disagreements -- "Torturers should be investigated, too," is what Roger Simon at Politico thinks today. Here is a bit of what he said:

. . . the president has stated on any number of occasions — and as he stated today — in saying, ‘I think we should be looking forward and not backward.’”

But justice often looks backward. That is what justice is largely about. We look back at actions and decide whether they were right or wrong, just or unjust, innocent acts or crimes against humanity.

. . . I thought we had gotten past all this. I thought we had established the fact that all people bear responsibility for their own actions and that saying, “I was just following memos” is not good enough.

Where are the prisoners? As it turns out, there are dozens of prisoners held by the CIA that are still missing and their fates remain unknown. Dafna Linzer, a reporter for the investigative journalism organization, ProPublica, reported this detailed information April 22. In response the CIA claimed that a list provided in the story is probably "flawed."

CQ - Behind the Lines excerpts:

President Obama yesterday left open the door for a “further accounting” on Bush administration use of harsh interrogation techniques, as well as possible prosecution of the federal lawyers who rationalized it, Reuters’ Caren Bohan recounts — as The New York Times’ Brian Knowlton sees a newly declassified Senate report shedding more light on high-level approval of the tactics. In releasing the Bush-era “torture memos,” Obama’s lawyers spilled the beans on the methods used, “but pulled out its black marker when it came to the details of what those interrogations achieved,” ex-Bush speechwriter Marc A. Thiessen complains in the Washington Post — as to which, see Alex Koppelman’s Salon critique. “The memos prove we didn’t torture,” David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee Casey, meantime, banner in The Wall Street Journal. (4/22/09)

Feds: President Obama visited CIA headquarters yesterday in a gesture of reassurance following his release of Bush-era torture memos, The Associated Press’ Pamela Hess reports — as The New York Times’ Peter Baker and Scott Shane find momentum for a torture probe mounting. (4/21/09).

Commission on Accountability.org. HT to Steve Clemons on Twitter for this very valuable resource. It is a way to sign on to a group effort by a number of heavy hitters in the human rights movement. It calls on the President to appoint a nonpartisan commission to investigate.

Reference:

• The Survival Evasion Resistance Escape (SERE) training - U.S. News and World Report
• "The Guantanamo Officers' Club," an outstanding essay about a real hero by Spy Talk's Jeff Stein.

[Post date: 4/23/09]

See also Behind the Links, for further info on this subject.

Carol Gee - Online Universe is the all-in-one home page for all my websites.

Technorati tags: news news and politics torture national security

Obama administration and detention -

Image by marc.benton via Flickr

"Obama and habeas corpus -- then and now," by Glenn Greenwald at Salon.com (4/11/09). The Supreme Court ruled in the Boumediene case that Guantanamo detainees have the right to a hearing to contest the accusations against them. After that the Bush administration took the detainees to the prison in Bagram, Afghanistan, where they did not have those same rights. The Obama administration also argued that military detainees (not necessarily captured in Afghanistan) have no right to challenge their imprisonment at Bagram. However, District Court Judge John Bates, a Bush appointee, ruled last month that "Boumediene applies every bit as much to Bagram as it does to Guantanamo." The Obama administration is appealing the decision. Even though candidate Obama said this after the original Boumediene decision came down:

Today's Supreme Court decision ensures that we can protect our nation and bring terrorists to justice, while also protecting our core values. The Court's decision is a rejection of the Bush Administration's attempt to create a legal black hole at Guantanamo - yet another failed policy supported by John McCain. This is an important step toward reestablishing our credibility as a nation committed to the rule of law, and rejecting a false choice between fighting terrorism and respecting habeas corpus. Our courts have employed habeas corpus with rigor and fairness for more than two centuries, and we must continue to do so as we defend the freedom that violent extremists seek to destroy.

Senator Obama's statement on the Senate floor (9/6/06), was also quoted by Greenwald. Senator Obama spoke for "an amendment to the Military Commission Act that would have restored habeas corpus rights to Guantanamo detainees. Greenwald laments in passionate terms, the President's apparent about face.

On April 2, 2009 a federal judge ruled that 3 prisoners being held at the Bagram AFB detention facility in Afghanistan can challenge their detentions in the U.S. courts. They were picked up outside of the country, are not Afghan citizens and have been held there for over 6 years. This is according to an ACLU Blog post. a related post discussed the increasing calls to "Move Gitmo Cases to U.S. Courts."

Other detainee cases are even more strange. For instance, What About the Uighurs? To quote from another ACLU Blog of Rights post in early April:

Remember the Uighurs? They are a group of 17 Chinese Muslims from Northwestern China that have been have been detained at Guantánamo for over seven years without charge. Last fall, the Bush administration conceded that the men are not enemy combatants, but since that time, the group has continued to remain in legal limbo.

Yesterday, lawyers representing the Uighurs asked the U.S. Supreme Court to order their release into the United States.

"Supreme Court vacates lower court decision in Al-Marri case," is the headline from the ACLU Blog of Rights (3/6/09). The court dismissed the case as moot because the Obama administration has decided to prosecute Al-Marri in federal court for providing material support to terrorism. Glenn Greenwald's (3/7/09) post explained that the effect was "preventing a judicial ruling on the power to imprison without charges." The critical question thus remains unresolved by the Supreme Court. Greenwald reminded that The Bush administration had used the same tactic (of finally charging a detainee with a crime) in the Jose Padilla case. Read the rest of this post to understand all the implications of these decisions.

There is some reason to believe, emptywheel states, that high value prisoners were often moved out of the facility at Guantanamo to keep them away from the purveu of the ICRC (see their report referenced below). And there is some reason to hope that a series of unnerving revelations and court decisions against the stances of the Obama Justice Department, after walking in the footsteps of the Bush administration's positions, will force the current administration to return to the rule of law. Keep hope alive.

For reference --

• "Red Cross Torture Report: What It Means," from The New York Review of Books (4/30/09).


• The Treatment of Detainees in U.S. Custody by Steven Aftergood, details and links to Senate hearings held June 17 and September 25, 2008.
• "Podcast: The 'Definitive List' of Guantanamo detainees" from the ACLU Blog of Rights (4/8/09). To quote:
  
  

  But for all the information that’s already out there, London-based journalist Andy Worthington has recently made available "Guantanamo: The Definitive Prisoners List." This online resource supplements Worthington’s 2007 book, The Guantanamo Files: The Stories of the 774 Detainees in America’s Illegal Prison, which chronicles, through information gleaned from the Pentagon’s own records released through the Freedom of Information Act, individual histories of each detainee who was imprisoned at Gitmo since it opened in January, 2002.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Holder At War (cbsnews.com)
• Guantanamo Bay Uighur prisoner release overturned (telegraph.co.uk)

Middle East in recent weeks -

[4/9/09]

Image via Wikipedia

The Middle East is one of the subjects regularly visited at this blog. Today the focus is on torture, the economic side of national security, help for Pakistan and Iraq, DoD contractors and ends with some assorted items about detainees.

Red Cross report -- "The CIA interrogation program was 'inhuman';" a headline made the headlines recently. The Red Cross reported on active participation of medical officers, who in some cases, participated in torture. The author wondered whether the release of the report (against the wishes of the Red Cross) will add to the pressure to investigate further. From TPMMuckraker I quote,

The journalist Mark Danner has obtained the entire report on torture by the International Committee of the Red Cross, which he published excerpts from last month. The report has been posted on the website of the New York Review of Books. Danner's new writeup of it is here.

Global Financial Crisis -- The "Pentagon prepares for economic warfare," an article by Eamon Javers in Thursday's Politico.com, discussed a two-day war game last month that looked at how hostile countries might try to cripple the U.S. economy. What could China do to harm us economically, for example? And how we should think about integrating any economic conflict with "kinetic" conflict. To quote further:

. . . instead of military brass plotting America’s defense, it was hedge-fund managers, professors and executives from at least one investment bank, UBS – all invited by the Pentagon to play out global scenarios that could shift the balance of power between the world’s leading economies.

. . . In the end, there was sobering news for the United States – the savviest economic warrior proved to be China, a growing economic power that strengthened its position the most over the course of the war-game.

Pakistan is problematic -- President Obama ruled out U.S. troop raids into Pakistan at the end of last month, according to Yahoo! News, saying that "he will consult with Pakistan's leaders before pursuing terrorist hideouts in that country." On CBS the President emphasized that Pakistan is a sovereign government. CQ Politics predicts "trouble ahead for the Pakistan aid Obama wants," if Oklahoma's Senator Tom Coburn renews his objections to the Kerry-Lugar bill that will be the vehicle for the increased aid appropriation. The WaPo reported recently that "Congress Moves to Set Terms for Pakistan Aid." Terms include benchmarks.

Iraq Refugees -- The Iraq Refugee problem persists, according to an April 1 article in ProPublica. "Only a fraction of Itaq refugees have begun returning home," the story says. To quote:

The number of Iraqis living outside of their homes remains in dispute; the U.N. places the figure at 4.7 million. How quickly they return is viewed by many as a bellwether of Iraqi stability, with implications for regional security and U.S. military efforts.

. . . Last month, the Obama administration announced additional funds to support displaced and conflict-affected Iraqis in Iraq, Jordan and Syria in the current budget year, bringing the U.S. commitment so far this year to roughly $150 million; in 2008 the U.S. contributed $400 million. Al-Tikriti said the U.S. has been criticized for failing to invest more robustly. "Much of the international community feels that this is primarily a U.S. crisis and the U.S. should be primarily responsible for dealing with it."

DOD Contractors -- As we know, spending for contract work surged markedly during the Bush administration. However we learned through ProPublica that, to quote:

Pentagon inspectors sent 76 percent fewer contracting fraud and corruption cases to prosecutors than those under President Clinton did, reports the Center for Public Integrity. A Pentagon spokesman blamed the drop partly on laws passed in the 1990s that require contractors to disclose less information, and IG reports have cited staffing shortages.

ProPublica's Alexandra Andrews also revealed this little blurb,

In 2005, four Blackwater guards in Iraq fired more than 70 shots at a car without justification, according to State Department investigators, and left the driver in unknown condition, reports USA Today. But in what the paper calls "another example of lax State Department oversight," documents show that the top security official at the U.S. Embassy in Iraq refused to punish them because he didn't want morale among contractors to suffer.

About Detainees --

• A National Geographic television documentary, "Explorer: Inside Guantanamo," premiered April 5. CQ-Politics'Jeff Stein reported on "the full treatment of the issues" by the documentary.


• Given the release of Legal Counsel memos by the DOJ, the ACLU called a couple of weeks ago for the administration to "release photos of other Abu Ghraibs." The ACLU points out that there are still-secret and mostly unknown pictures of U.S. personnel abusing detainees at overseas black sites other than Abu Ghraib. A FOIA lawsuit by ACLU is making its way through the courts.


• The legacy of Abu Ghraib remains. On March 10 a suicide blast killed at least 32 people at the Abu Ghraib marketplace in western Baghdad.


• Senator Sam Brownback (R-Kansas) is detaining the nomination of Christopher Hill to be the next ambassador to Iraq. The question will come up again following the spring recess of Congress.


• And finally, undersecretary of defense policy during the Bush administration, Douglas Feith told the New York Times that he is "shocked, simply shocked by possible torture charges" brought against him in Spain, according to TPMMuckraker (3/31/09).

The Middle East is a subject of fascination for me at this blog. Unfortunately I did not find much good news in recent days as I surveyed the blogosphere. National security will take a tremendous amount of our time and treasure as the Obama administration continues to face most everything head on. It will not be easy.

Reference: "You Can't Put Out Fire With Flames," by guest poster Amjad Atallah, is an important analysis of President Obama's major speech in Turkey when he was recently abroad. It comes from the April 6 Washington Note.

My all-in-one Home Page of websites where I post regularly: Carol Gee - Online Universe

Technorati tags: news news and politics middle east rule of law [foreign policy military

Related articles by Zemanta

• The Torture Report (andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com)
• Former Gitmo Guard Recalls Abuse, Climate of Fear (abcnews.go.com)
• Spain To Consider Torture-Related Charges Against Bush Administration Officials (crooksandliars.com)