The Empire 93

Anneke Auer uit Rotterdam mailde mij het volgende:

'TERROR FIGHT A WAR OF 100 YRS.

By ANDY SOLTIS

MARK SCHISSLER"Generational" struggle.

Americans have to be ready to fight a war with radical Muslims that may last 50 to 100 years, according to a top war-on-terror general.
"We're in a generational war," Air Force Brig. Gen. Mark Schissler told the Washington Times.
Like the 40-year Cold War, the struggle with fanatics seeking to create radical Islamic states will be fought around the world, he said.
"You can try and fight the enemy where they are and where they're attacking you, or prevent them and defend your own homeland," Schissler said. "But that's not enough to stop it. We've got to break the chain, and that's . . . the ideology.
"We really need to show the errors in Islamist extremist thinking."
Terrorists follow the concept of jihad or holy war, which makes it a religious duty to wage attacks on nonbelievers, he said.
He said Americans, used to wars that last three or four years, must be prepared "for a long fight."
"They're absolutely committed to the 50-, 100-year plan," Schissler said of Muslim extremists.
Schissler is the deputy director for the war on terrorism in the strategic plans office of the Pentagon's Joint Staff.
Al Qaeda has said its goal is to create a Muslim "caliphate" from western North Africa to southern Europe and across the Mideast to Southeast Asia.
mailto:andy.soltis@nypost.com

Zie:
http://www.nypost.com/seven/12142006/news/nationalnews/top_gen__

_anti_terror_fight_a_war_of_100_yrs__nationalnews_andy_soltis.htm

The Empire 93

'Despite a $168 Billion Budget, Army Faces Cash Crunch.

Fort Stewart, Georgia - With just six weeks before they leave for Iraq, the 3,500 soldiers from the Third Infantry Division's First Brigade should be learning about Ramadi, the insurgent stronghold where they will spend a year.
Many of the troops don't even know the basic ethnic makeup of the largely Sunni city. "We haven't spent as much time as I would like on learning the local culture, language, and politics - all the stuff that takes a while to really get good at," says Lt. Col. Clifford Wheeler, who commands one of the brigade's 800-soldier units.
Instead, the troops are learning to use equipment that commanders say they should ideally have been training with since the spring. Many soldiers only recently received their new M-4 rifles and rifle sights, which are in short supply because of an Army-wide cash crunch. Some still lack their machine guns or long-range surveillance systems, which are used to spot insurgents laying down roadside bombs. They've been told they'll pick up most of that when they get to Iraq.
The strains here at Fort Stewart - one of the busiest posts in the U.S. military - are apparent throughout the Army. They spotlight a historic predicament: The Iraq war has exposed more than a decade's worth of mistakes and miscalculations that are now seriously undermining the world's mightiest military force.
In the 15 years after the Cold War, senior military planners and civilian-defense officials didn't build a force geared to fighting long, grinding guerrilla wars, like Iraq and Afghanistan. Instead they banked on fighting quick wars, dominated by high-tech weapons systems.
The result: At a time when the war in Iraq is deepening, and debate over pulling out the troops is intensifying, the rising cost of waging the fight is outpacing even the Army's huge budget. The financial squeeze is leaving the Army short of equipment and key personnel.
The situation has the Army seeking billions more for next year, even as younger officers, frustrated with the pace of change, say that any improvements depend more on how the money is spent than on how much is spent.
From 1990 to 2005, the military lavished money on billion-dollar destroyers, fighter jets and missile-defense systems. Defenders of such programs say the U.S. faces a broad array of threats and must be prepared for all of them. High-tech weaponry contributed to the swift toppling of the regimes in Iraq and Afghanistan, but has been of little help in the more difficult task of stabilizing the two countries.
Of the $1.9 trillion the U.S. spent on weaponry in that period, adjusted for inflation, the Air Force received 36 percent and the Navy got 33 percent. The Army took in 16 percent, it says. Despite the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, both dominated by ground forces, the ratio hasn't changed significantly.'

Lees verder: http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/121706Z.shtml Of:
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06346/745523-84.stm

The Empire 92

'Puzzle for the Governor: Is Life in Prison Excessive for Smoking Pot?

The Drug War Chronicle reports that pressure is building for Texas Gov. Rick Perry to commute the sentence of Tyrone Brown, who was sentenced to life in prison for smoking pot. In 1990, when he was 17, Brown took part in a $2 robbery in which the victim was not physically injured, a crime for which he received 10 years of probation. A few weeks later, he tested positive for marijuana, and the judge not only revoked his probation but inexplicably resentenced him to a life term. Now, after local and national media attention triggered by the November Coalition, Perry has been urged to commute Brown's sentence not only by outraged citizens but by Dallas District Attorney Bill Hill, Sheriff Louie Valdez, and even the sentencing judge, Keith Dean, who is no longer in office. In addition to the sheer insanity of the sentence, there's a racial angle (which proved important in Perry's decision to release the Tulia residents nabbed for allegedly selling cocaine to discredited undercover cop Tom Coleman): The Dallas Morning News contrasted Dean's ridiculously harsh treatment of Brown, a poor black teenager, with the lenience he showed a wealthy white guy, John Alexander Wood, who received a 10-year suspended sentence for killing a prostitute. When Wood repeatedly tested positive for cocaine, Dean did not send him to jail, let alone give him a life sentence. Instead he arranged things so Wood didn't have to take drug tests anymore.'

Zie: http://www.reason.com/blog/show/117275.html

De Dollar Hegemonie 19

Der Spiegel:

'A CURRENCY IN DECLINE.
How Dangerous is the Dollar Drop?

Is an end of an era looming in the foreign exchange markets? The dollar has been depreciating against the euro for weeks. Currency experts and the German government don't yet see this as cause for alarm. The US currency's role as a lead currency isn't as important as it used to be, they say.

Like most central bankers, Jean-Claude Trichet, the president of the European Central Bank (ECB), has a penchant for cryptic comments. Injecting a certain degree of incomprehensibility is a signal to the professionals that he's competent. And when it comes to laymen, industry jargon has the desired effect of generating the necessary respect.

Last Thursday the public was treated to yet another example of Trichet's convoluted speaking style. A number of risks, the ECB president said, could jeopardize a generally favorable economic outlook in the euro zone. They included, according to Trichet, "concerns regarding possible uncontrolled developments triggered by global economic imbalances."

What Europe's most powerful protector of the currency was actually saying was this: The gradual decline of the dollar in the foreign currency markets in recent weeks could pose a threat to the economy. What Trichet was also trying to broadcast is that the ECB has recognized and is aware of the threat.

Nevertheless, the European Central Bank in Frankfurt again increased its key interest rate on Thursday by a quarter percentage point to 3.5 percent, which makes the euro more attractive to international investors. The central bankers had no choice but to take the step, having already announced their intentions weeks ago.

Experts have been predicting for some time that the dollar would eventually go into a nosedive, and now that time seems to have come. The US currency has lost five percent of its value against the euro since late October, and 13 percent since the beginning of the year. The euro is currently fluctuating around a value of $1.33, which is only 3 cents away from its all-time high in 2004. And yet Trichet's counterpart Ben Bernanke, the chairman of the US Federal Reserve, has done nothing but look on as the dollar plunges.

A sea change appears to be taking place on the international financial markets. For years, global capital flowed in only one direction, with $2 billion going into the United States every day. Investors viewed the world's largest economy not only as a bastion of stability, but also as a place that promised the best deals, the most lucrative returns and the highest growth rates.

The Americans, for their part, welcomed foreign investment. For them, it was almost a tradition to save very little and spend more than they earned -- essentially achieving affluence on credit. Foreigners financed the Americans' almost obsessive consumer spending, which spurred worldwide economic growth for years.

Because the US government was unable to fall back on the savings of its citizens, it too was forced to finance its budget deficit with foreign capital. Both consumer spending and the federal deficit kept the dollar high, because the rest of the world was practically scrambling to invest in the United States.

This phase seems to have come to an end, at least for the time being. "There are fundamental weaknesses in the American economy. This could not continue in the long term," says Alfred Steinherr, chief economist at the German Institute for Economic Research (DIW).

Investors pulling out.'

Lees verder: http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,453906,00.html

The Empire 91

'America Loses Another War Iraq: a shameful ass-whupping, or just a pathetic trouncing? Ugly disgrace? Choices, choices.

By Mark Morford, SF Gate Columnist.

The good news is, we're all back in harmony. All back on the same page. No more divisiveness and no more silly bickering and no more nasty and indignant red state/blue state rock throwing because we're finally all back in cozy let's-hug-it-out agreement: The "war" in Iraq is over. And what's more, we lost. Very, very badly.
Sure, you already knew. Sure, you sort of sensed from the beginning that we couldn't possibly win a bogus war launched by a nasty slew of corrupt pseudo-cowboys against both a bitterly contorted Islamic nation and a vague and ill-defined concept that has no center and no boundaries and that feeds on the very thing that tries to destroy it. It was sort of obvious, even if half the nation was just terrifically blinded by Bush administration lies and false shrieks of impending terror.
But now it's official. Or rather, more official. Now it's pretty much agreed upon on both sides of the aisle and in every Iraq Study Group and by every top-ranking general and newly minted defense secretary and in every facet of American culture save some of the gun-totin' flag-lickin' South. We lost. And what's more, we have no real clue what to do about it.
After all, it's not easy to accept. It's the thing we do not, cannot easily hear, the thing most Americans, no matter what their political stripe, just can't quite fathom because we're so damned strong and righteous and handy with a gun and we are the superpower and the God among men and the bringer of light to the world and therefore we never lose. Except, you know, when we do.
It's not like we were overpowered. We weren't outmanned or outgunned or outstrategized and hence we weren't defeated in any "traditional" kick-ass take-names sign-the-peace-accord way.
Nor was it because our beloved, undefeatable, can't-lose military doesn't have the latest and greatest killing tools of all time, the biggest budget, the most heroic of baffled and misled young soldiers sort of but not really willing to go off and fight and die for a cause no one could adequately explain or justify to them.
We still have the coolest, fastest planes. We still have the meanest billion-dollar technology. We still have the most imposing tanks and the most incredible weaponry and the badass night-vision goggles with the laser sights and the thermal heat-seeking readouts and the ability to track targets from two miles away in a dust storm. It doesn't matter.
What we don't have is, well, any idea what the hell we're doing, not anymore, not on the global stage. We lost this "war" and we lost it before we even began because we went in for all the wrong reasons and with all the wrong planning and with all the wrong leadership who had all the wrong motives based on all the wrong greedy self-serving insular faux-cowboy BS that your kids and your grandkids will be paying for until about the year 2056.'

Lees verder: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article15918.htm Of:
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/gate/archive/2006/12/13/notes121306.DTL&type=printable

The Empire 90

Reuters bericht:

'Pentagon Eyes $468.9 Billion Budget for 2008.
Washington - The White House has approved a $468.9 billion budget for the Pentagon in fiscal year 2008, a six-percent increase over last year's request, according to a Defense Department document obtained by Reuters.
It is also asking the Pentagon to cover some Army and Marine Corps war costs in Iraq and Afghanistan as part of the regular budget, rather than through emergency budget requests.
The 2008 budget request is $4.7 billion more than the level the Pentagon forecast in its 2007 budget documents.
Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England welcomed the increase in a letter to Rob Portman, director of the White House Office of Management and Budget.
But he strongly objected to OMB's orders that "costs to accelerate Army and Marine Corps combat and combat support units, Army Force Readiness and replacement of additional aircraft losses" should be funded as part of the 2008 budget.
England said that violated the Pentagon's earlier agreement with the White House that the extra spending would be used to cover Army budget shortfalls, and that war costs would continue to be funded through supplemental budgets.
The Bush administration is continuing to discuss budgets with various government agencies, including the Pentagon, and will submit a fiscal 2008 budget to Congress in February.
"The inconsistency ... is that adding war costs in the budget would effectively negate the prior agreement for a topline increase," England said in the December 14 memorandum.
Offsets proposed by White House budget officials would "significantly weaken the department's strategic position" and jeopardize the Pentagon's joint warfighting concept, he said.
England did not give details on the proposed offsets.
However, he said the Pentagon's initial budget proposal - before the suggested offsets - was based on thousands of hours of work, and the best judgment by senior military and civilian leaders.
"It is balanced and provides for our nation's defense at a time of diverse and dramatic threats," England said.'
Zie: http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/121606A.shtml Of: http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=politicsNews&storyID=2006-12-16T043904Z_01_N15422822_RTRUKOC_0_US-BUDGET-PENTAGON.xml&WTmodLoc=NewsArt-C2-NextArticle-2

Irak 133

De Washington Times bericht:

'Iraq unions against oil privatization.

Five Iraqi trade union federations have condemned federal oil law negotiations for being too corporation-friendly. The leaders of the five federations meeting in Amman released a statement Thursday urging a pause in negotiations over a law to govern Iraq's 115 billion barrels of oil reserves, the third largest in the world. Negotiations in some form have been ongoing since the invasion of Iraq, officially and earnestly since earlier this year. News reports and comments from those familiar with the talks say privatization of some form is a major component of a draft law. This was confirmed last week by Iraq's U.N. Ambassador Hamid Al Bayati, who told United Press International the "intention is to allow foreign companies to invest in all sectors, including oil." "The handling of control over oil to foreign companies, whose aim is to make big profits at the expense of the Iraqi people, and to rob the national wealth, according to long-term, unfair contracts, that undermine the sovereignty of the state and the dignity of the Iraqi people" is a "red line" not to be crossed, the unions said in a joint statement. They also shot at the context of negotiations, which happen behind closed doors and won't be made public until the Parliament votes, according to a release from the social and environmental issues group Platform. "This law has a lot of problems," said Hasan Jum'a, president of the Federation of Oil Unions. "It was prepared without consulting Iraqi experts, Iraqi civil society or trade unions. We reject this draft and demand more time to debate the law." Iraq's oil law is seen as a major hurdle and step for the country: Kurds and some Shiite factions favor more regional control than the Sunnis and other Shiites want, a major stalling factor in the talks. But oil revenue makes up nearly all of Iraq's budget, money that could go towards improving the oil sector specifically and security in the country as a whole, along with other reconstruction. A law is needed to decide how any of this takes place.'

Lees verder: http://www.washingtontimes.com/upi/20061214-042209-6267r.htm