The Empire 632

Soldier Who Found Rocket Launcher at WikiLeaks Scene Says No Attack Was Being Planned

Monday 16 August 2010

by: Ralph Lopez, t r u t h o u t | Report

The soldier in a now-famous WikiLeaks video, who found a rocket launcher at the scene of a controversial 2007 Apache helicopter attack, in Baghdad, said in a radio interview this week that he did not believe an ambush was imminent. The video shows 12 men, including two Reuters newsmen, standing on a street corner before being fired upon by the Apache's 30mm cannon, resulting in what appears to be an unprovoked massacre.

The video caused an international outcry after it was leaked to the media by the government watchdog WikiLeaks. The presence of the rocket launcher was seized upon by defenders of the attack as proof that the attack was justified and that this was evidence of an impending ambush.

The soldier, Ethan McCord, can be seen in the video as he runs with a wounded child in his arms to a Bradley armored vehicle, seeking to get the child to help.

"One thing I do need to make clear is that when I came onto the scene I did see an RPG and an AK-47, however, my experience in Iraq is when the locals see someone with a camera, maybe a photographer, someone with a news agency, is they always come out with their weapons, kind of like showing off ... look what I have, make me famous, put me in the magazine type of thing ... my personal belief is that I do not believe these guys had anything to do with the attacks we were facing earlier, from a few blocks away, these guys were walking around nonchalantly, they weren't gathering in any kind of formation to do anything to us ..."

McCord's remarks suggest a plausible alternative explanation for why would-be attackers would be standing so casually out in the open and with so little concern for the small, but visible, pair of Apaches so dreaded by insurgents. The remarks undermine the Pentagon's conclusion that the attack was justified.

At one point, McCord criticized media war analysts, whom he called "these supposed war analysts [who] were going over this video, who knew nothing of what happened that day ..."

In the wide-ranging interview with Cindy Sheehan on her weekly radio program "Cindy Sheehan's Soapbox," McCord also attested again to witnessing a high-level war crime, that of random execution of civilians in retaliation for an attack on US forces, the same type of crime successfully prosecuted after World War II. McCord's allegation was broadcast widely across the Internet two months after he first made it in an interview in April.

Read the full transcript of Cindy Sheehan's interview with Ethan McCord, here.

In that interview, McCord recounted that, in the middle of a particularly turbulent time when his battalion was being hit frequently by improvised explosive devices (IEDs), his battalion commander issued an order which was to be a new "SOP" or Standard Operating Procedure. McCord attests that the commander, a lieutenant colonel, gave the order to engage in "360 rotational fire" upon being hit by an IED. McCord recalls the commander saying, "If someone in your line gets hit with an IED, 360 rotational fire. You kill every motherfucker on the street."

Understanding this to mean civilians as well, including women and children, McCord has said previously, "many soldiers wouldn't do that" and agreed among themselves that they would shoot into rooftops rather than kill civilians. McCord goes on to say, however, that he witnessed the order being carried out many times and saw civilians shot indiscriminately following an IED attack. Two other soldiers in McCord's unit have stepped forward since that interview to corroborate his claims.

Can you donate to support good reporting? To ensure that Truthout can keep doing this important work, click here.

McCord said in the April interview: "I've seen it many times, where people are just walking down the street and an IED goes off and the troops open fire and kill them."

In 1944, German SS Obersturmbannführer Herbert Kappler ordered the execution of civilians in retaliation for a hidden bomb ambush of German soldiers. Kappler rounded up prisoners of war and civilians in the ratio of ten executions for every German soldier killed in a March 1944 attack by Italian partisans. Kappler stood trial for war crimes and was sentenced to life in prison. High level orders for the killing of civilians have also been documented as war crimes in the cases of Nanking 1937, Hankow 1938 and German Invasion of Poland 1939.

The WikiLeaks video shows men with cameras being mistaken by the Apache helicopter crew for men with weapons, although a man at one point does appear to be carrying a rifle. Rifles such as AK-47s are legal and common in Baghdad and are frequently carried by private bodyguards for protection against bandits in the generally lawless climate of the city.

The American crew whose radio chatter is captured in the video has been heavily criticized for the casual and sometimes callous tone of its banter, in which crewmembers are heard making remarks such as "nice shootin'," "you talk, I'll shoot," and at times laughing.

Upon discovering that two children have been wounded in an attack on a van in which the alleged insurgents were attempting to evacuate a wounded man, a crewmember is heard to say, "That's what they get for bringing kids into battle." The crewmembers and their ground controllers regularly use the word "engage" to mean "open fire." Although the word "engage" means "to enter into contest or battle with," the alleged combatants possess no weapons remotely capable of harming the helicopter.

McCord and his unit mate Josh Stieber have gained prominence as the authors of "Open Letter of Reconciliation and Responsibility to the Iraqi People," a statement which is gathering co-signers of soldiers and nonsoldiers alike at www.LetterToIraq.com. A portion of the letter reads:

"We did unto you what we would not want done to us. More and more Americans are taking responsibility for what was done in our name. Though we have acted with cold hearts far too many times, we have not forgotten our actions towards you. Our heavy hearts still hold hope that we can restore inside our country the acknowledgment of your humanity, that we were taught to deny...."

In his discussions of civilian casualties and atrocities in the combat zone, McCord insists on placing the lion's share of the blame on the systematic training implemented by the Army, which teaches soldiers to "dehumanize" the enemy, which easily extends to entire civilian populations.

McCord says:

"Instead of people being upset at a few soldiers in a video who were doing what they were trained to do, I think people need to be more upset at the system that trained these soldiers. They are doing exactly what the Army wants them to do."

McCord notes in the radio interview that in the Apache helicopter attack, upon hearing that children had been hit, a crew member first says, "Oh damn," but quickly recovers bravado, as perhaps trained to do so, with the remark. "that's what they get for bringing kids into battle." McCord relates a cadence taught in basic training, a song soldiers sing to keep time as they run or march:

we went to the market where all the hadji shop,
pulled out our machetes and we began to chop,

we went to the playground where all the hadji play,
pulled out our machine guns and we began to spray,

we went to the mosque where all the hadji pray,
threw in a hand grenade and blew them all away.

Although the focus of controversy over the WikiLeaks video has been almost exclusively on the legality of the initial attack on the group of men, it is the second attack on three good Samaritans, who attempt to evacuate a wounded man, which many experts put forth as a clear war crime.

McCord said that although he relives his experiences in Iraq, as do many veterans, every day, part of his healing process has come from speaking out and letting people know about the atrocities which take place in war so that people might "open their eyes." McCord said the kinds of events depicted in the video happen "almost every day" and that the only thing unusual about the events in the video is that "America got to see what happened."

The Army has charged Pvt. Bradley Manning with leaking the classified video to WikiLeaks. Manning is now being held in the military prison at Quantico, Virginia, awaiting charges of leaking classified information.

Click here for the WikiLeaks 2007 Apache attack video.

http://www.truth-out.org/soldier-who-found-rocket-launcher-wikileaks-scene-says-no-attack-was-being-planned62369

The Jewish Lobby 5

British Zionists join far-right organization to promote Islamophobia and racism in UK

---

By Gilad Atzmon

17 August 2010

Gilad Atzmon considers the background and significance of a newly-formed alliance between British Zionists and the far-right English Defence League, which has set up a “Jewish Division” led by a Jewish-Brazilian émigré called Roberta Moore.

I guess it shouldn’t take us by surprise that the Israeli flag has become a common feature at demonstrations and gatherings by the ultra-nationalist English Defence League (EDL).

The EDL is campaigning for action against what it regards as the "Islamization of Britain" and “Muslim fundamentalists”. It is a magnet for extreme right-wing activists and is driven by xenophobia and ethnocentrism.

“They [the English Defence League] think the league is exploiting us, while it is really we who initiated the Jewish Division. If anything, we are exploiting them.” Roberta Moore, leader of the EDL’s Jewish Division

Recently, the organization gained an “important” addition to its coalition of hatred, in the form of  "The EDL Jewish division". According to the Jewish Chronicle, “hundreds of [Jewish] followers” joined immediately. Supporters include a former Zionist Community Security Trust volunteer who claims “a lot of Jewish guys want to get stuck in”. Another follower wrote on Facebook: "We are all Shayetet 13", a reference to the barbarous Israeli navy commando unit that was directly responsible for the massacre and execution of peace activists on the Turkish ship, the Mavi Marmara. It is also noteworthy that this bloodthirsty Jewish “patriot” didn’t say “we are all SAS, British Navy or Royal Air Force”. For some reason he preferred to affiliate himself with a foreign navy, a naval unit that fights Jewish wars rather than so-called British ones.

I guess that the EDL’s leaders are not aware of the fact that their “Jewish Division” is there to exploit the new organization.

Roberta Moore, aged 39, the leader of the Jewish Division, admitted this week to Ha’aretzthat it is “actually the Jewish Division that exploits the EDL”.  In an interview with the Israeli newspaper on 13 July 2010, she said: “They [the EDL] think the league is exploiting us, while it is really we who initiated the Jewish Division. If anything, we are exploiting them.”

While we are trying to recover from the devastating influence of the infamous Labour Friends of Israel and becoming accustomed to the unethical policy impact of the Conservative Friends of Israel, who have already succeeded in amending British universal jurisdiction, we should also get used to seeing the Israeli flag being waved at us in extremist righ- wing demonstrations. On the other hand, this is anything but a big surprise. The continuum between apartheid Israel, European Islamophobia, Melanie Philips’s Londonistan and Nick Cohen's anti-Islam is both apparent and transparent.

I learned from Ha’aretz’s expose of the Jewish Division that Roberta Moore is a Brazilian Jew born in Rio de Janeiro. She once lived in Israel and now resides in north London. In this video, you can watch Moore preaching Islamophobia while covering her body with an Israeli flag.

Moore told Ha'aretz:

We believe that if we call the enemy by his name, we will be able to fight him. We single out organizations that discriminate against Jews and Zionist organizations, and try to explain there is no difference between anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism… The problem is that they [the Muslims] are being brainwashed and believe they are superior to everyone else. They have the right to think that, but don't try to force your opinions on me and tell me the clothes I wear or the music I listen to are bad. Or that my beliefs are inferior and I must not do this or that. Why do we women have to cover anything?

Interestingly enough, I also live in Britain, in London, probably not too far from Moore. I am a successful musician and a public figure and I can never recall Muslims trying to suggest to me what music to play or what clothes to put on. However, what I do recall is Jack Straw, the former British home secretary, suggesting to Muslim women what to wear and how to appear in public. Moreover, as far as I am aware, it was actually Jews – the  Board of Deputies of British Jews and the so-called “Jewish anti-Zionists” – who pathetically and unsuccessfully tried to block my music and writing. Also, it is Jews, not Muslims, who believe that they are “chosen”.

“If Jews like Moore believe themselves to be ordinary people, why don’t they join the EDL as ordinary members, on par with other members? If racist Jews are as ordinary as other bigots, why do they operate within a racially-orientated cell – ‘the Jewish Division’?”

If Jews like Moore believe themselves to be ordinary people, why don’t they join the EDL as ordinary members, on par with other members? If racist Jews are as ordinary as other bigots, why do they operate within a racially-orientated cell – “the Jewish Division”? The answer is simple: the Jewish Division is a continuation of Zionist supremacy and, as Moore admitted, it is there to “exploit the EDL” or just to take it for a little Zionist ride.

“Islam is not a religion, but a cult; it has all the features of a cult,” Moore emphasizes. She is obviously deluded. Not only is Islam a religion, but it is also driven by an aspiration for peace (salam) universalism and humanism. It is practised by a billion people. It cannot be a cult or considered as such. However, Jewishness (as opposed to Judaism), which Moore clearly succumbs to, has all the elements of a cult. Jewishness is a marginal ideology; it is a set of beliefs or practices that are reasonably considered strange from a universalist and humanist point of view. It is also a racially-orientated, supremacist ideology. It even has a set list of barbarous rituals known as Zionist practice.

Moore is obviously a shallow human being and I won’t spend any energy debating her. However, the fact that she is proudly and openly preaching hate in Britain under the Jewish banner and carrying the Israeli flag is very significant. I guess that we should encourage her never to stop. Not only does she expose the true face of Jewish tribal politics, but she also brings to light the true ideological impetus behind Islamophobia in Britain.

But there is another interesting aspect in Moore’s political attitude. Considering that she is an immigrant in this country, I find it slightly puzzling to hear her calling on Muslims to “get out of our land … go back to your home”. I guess that by “our land” she is referring to Britain. I wonder when did Britain become “her land”? And if it is her land, why is it her land more than the other millions of Muslim immigrants who settled in this country, as Moore and I have done?

Moore offers an answer: "They [the Muslims] are unwilling to respect the laws of the place”… It is actually Moore and her Jewish followers who fail to respect the British value system. She resorts to the most repulsive Zionist rhetoric: “Let them go back home. They have enough places [to go to].” I wonder how Moore would react if someone suggests that she consider going back to where she came from or where she belongs.

Interestingly enough, Moore has many lands. England is her land. She doesn’t want Muslims here. But she also considers Israel to be her land. "I don't understand why the Israeli flag doesn't fly over Al-Aqsa [Mosque in Jerusalem]," Moore remarks. "That mosque is on our land." Seemingly, Moore, like many other Diaspora Jews, “owns” very many lands.

I guess it will not be long before the EDL understands the true motivation behind the newly emerging Jewish phoney patriotism. The EDL claims to support the British armed forces. The EDL may want to find out what is the current representation of the Jewish community within the armed forces. The EDL had better also check out how many Jews have given their lives for Britain in Iraq, a criminal war that was enthusiastically cheered by Jewish Chroniclewriters such as David Aaronovitch and Nick Cohen.

If Roberta Moore and her followers within the Jewish Division of the English Defence League were slightly attentive to Jewish history, they would gather that Jewish tribal patriotism has always been exposed for what it is: Judaeo-centric tribalism.

---

Gilad Atzmon is an Israeli-born musician, writer and anti-racism campaigner. His latest jazz album, "In loving memory of America", was released on 1 March 2009 and can be purchased here.

http://www.redress.cc/zionism/gatzmon20100817

The Empire 631

They Can't Cage A Song

Punishing the WikiLeaker Misses the Point

By ERIC MARGOLIS, QMI Agency

August 15, 2010 "Toronto Sun" -- George Orwell wrote: “If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.”

A true journalist’s job is to expose government wrongdoing and propaganda, skewer hypocrites, and speak for those with no voice. And wage war against mankind’s two worst scourges: Nationalism and religious bigotry. Not to lick the boots of government.

I’ve always felt kinship for free thinkers, rebels, and heretics.

That’s why I am drawn to the plight of Pte. Bradley Manning who apparently believed Ernest Hemingway’s dictum: “Never think that war, no matter how necessary, nor how justified, is not a crime.”

The 22-year-old U.S. Army intelligence analyst caused a worldwide furor by releasing to WikiLeaks secret military logs that exposed ugly truths about the brutal conflict in Afghanistan, including widespread killing of civilians.

To again quote Orwell: “During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.”

Manning also released a suppressed tape of a U.S. Army helicopter gunship killing two Reuters journalists and a civilian.

A civilian hacker, employed by some shadowy U.S. government intelligence “contractor” spying on the Internet turned Manning in.

Revenge was swift.

Manning was thrown into solitary confinement and faces a long prison term.

His case recalls another courageous whistleblower, Israeli technician Mordechai Vanunu, who revealed Israel’s large nuclear arsenal, was kidnapped, served 17 years in solitary, and still remains a semi-prisoner.

WikiGate provoked a flood of bombastic pro-war propaganda from America’s mainstream (read: Government guided) media, its rent-a-journalists, and Canada’s wannabe Republican neocons.

Manning’s revelations were blamed on his being gay, a loner, or maladjusted.

The Soviets used to lock away such “anti-state elements” and dissenters in mental institutions.

The neocons tried to divert attention by trumpeting the plight of a wretched Afghan girl whose nose had been cut off by her backwards tribal in-laws.

She was turned into a pro-war martyr.

This crime was immediately blamed without evidence on Taliban and served up as the reason why the Western powers had to garrison Afghanistan.

No pictures of Afghans blown to bits or maimed by U.S. bombs were published. No mentions of oil and gas.

Uncoincidentally, a few months ago, in response to Europe’s growing opposition to the Afghan War, the CIA reportedly advised NATO the best way to keep marketing the Afghan War to the public was claiming it was a crusade to protect women’s rights.

Inconveniently, the U.S. and Canada’s Afghan allies — Tajiks, Uzbeks and Hazara — mistreat their women as badly as Taliban’s Pashtun.

When I served in the U.S. Army, we were taught it was our duty to report up the chain of command all violations of the Geneva Conventions and war crimes. These included killing civilians, torture, reprisals, and executions.

Manning reportedly sought to report to his superiors just such crimes committed in Afghanistan by some U.S. forces and their local allies and mercenaries.

He was ignored. Just as was the courageous Canadian diplomat Richard Colvin when he warned Ottawa that prisoners were being handed over to the brutal Afghan secret police for torture and execution.

Manning’s motivations for whistleblowing matter not. What does matter is he revealed to the public the brutal nature of the colonial war in Afghanistan and the bodyguard of lies protecting it from public scrutiny.

If Americans and Canadians really knew the truth of this resource-driven war, and its carefully concealed cost, they would end it very quickly.

---

After 27 years, this is my last Sun column. I am grateful to the Sun for allowing me to freely express my views even when it disagreed with them. My Sunday column continues at my website: ericmargolis.com and at the Huffington Post, LewRockwell.com, Bigeye.com and newspapers abroad.

Twitter @ericmargolis

Klimaatverandering 163

Eastern US Headed for Many More Extreme Heat Waves With Warming, Study Finds

Sunday 15 August 2010

by: Elizabeth McGowan  |  SolveClimate

(Photo: Humberto Moreno; Edited: Jared Rodriguez / t r u t h o u t)

Washington D.C. is projected to see 100 summer days above 90 degrees by 2050, if emissions continue unabated.

Washington - When "snowmageddon" buried the nation's capital in February, Sen. Jim Inhofe's grandchildren delved into the record-shattering drifts to construct an igloo near the U.S. Capitol.

They jokingly labeled it Al Gore's new home.

Six months later, the thought of taking refuge in an icy shelter is quite appealing to heat-weary Washingtonians. While the Oklahoma Republican senator used the igloo to tweak the former vice president and as a prop in his relentless crusade to prove global warming a hoax, climate scientists are once again emphasizing that current and upcoming weather extremes are no laughing matter.

Oppressive temperatures gripping Southern and Eastern U.S. states this summer will only worsen if little is done to curb greenhouse gases, according to an August report update from the National Wildlife Federation (NWF), a conservation group.

"2010 is a sample of what's to come," said Amanda Staudt, lead climate scientist for the report titled "Extreme Heat in Summer 2010: A Window on the Future."

"Global warming is bringing more frequent and severe heat waves, which will seriously impact vulnerable populations."

It is a supplement to the federation's 2009 report "More Extreme Heat Waves: Global Warming's Wake-Up Call."

This hot summer is a continuation of what the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration says is already the hottest January through June on record. New Jersey, Delaware and North Carolina have already recorded their hottest June ever and Rhode Island and Delaware have recorded their steamiest July, according to NOAA. Hundreds of daily temperature records were set across the country — with July being among the top five hottest on record for 10 Eastern states.

Through Aug. 11, Washington has already dripped its way through 51 days where temperatures were 90 degrees or higher; twenty of those days have been 95 degrees or higher, according to data published on the Washington Post's Capital Weather Gang.

Typically, Washington has 18 days through July 31 with temperatures above 90 degrees. This year, that number had more than doubled — to 39 — by the end of July.

And Washington is by no means alone. The federation's analysis of large cities on the Eastern seaboard shows most locations have had roughly twice as many days with temperatures exceeding 90 degrees than they typically would by the end of July. Cities in the south-central United States also are running hot.

"For each of these cities ... sweltering the last couple months, summer 2010 could be considered mild compared to the typical summers of the future," the report's authors state.

The report explains how summers such as this one could become the norm by mid-century if carbon dioxide emissions aren't brought under control.

For instance, Washington is projected to sweat through 100 summer days above 90 degrees by 2050 if emissions continue unabated. That number could hold steady at about 55 days, however, under a lower-emissions scenario.

The report's predictions in Philadelphia and St. Louis are equally alarming. Through the end of July, Philadelphia has had 25 days above 90 degrees and that number is predicted to grow to at least 55 by year's end. St. Louis is on track for 45 extremely hot days this year, about 10 above average.

By 2050, Philadelphia is projected to have 40 days above 90 degrees under a low-emissions scenario and 60 such days with high emissions. St. Louis is projected to have 60 days above 90 degrees under a low-emissions scenario and 80 such days if emissions are unabated.

Using maps from the U.S. Global Change Research Program, the report shows how end-of-the century climate predictions are even more dramatic if heat-trapping gases are unchecked. Days with temperatures above 90 degrees could double between now and 2099. That would leave much of the South almost unbearable for three or four months when temperatures rarely — or ever — dip below 90 degrees.

"We need to take these trends toward more extreme heat waves into account when designing urban areas and public health programs," Staudt said. "We can no longer plan based on the climate we used to have."

http://www.truth-out.org/eastern-us-headed-many-more-extreme-heat-waves-with-warming-study-finds62325

Iran 343

How Would Iran Respond to US Attack? The Illusion of a ‘limited war’ against Iran By Mahan Abedin  Guest editorial for Informed Comment August 12, 2010 "Information Clearing House" --  The frank admission by Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and America’s highest ranking officer, that the U.S. has plans to attack Iran to prevent that country from acquiring nuclear weapons, is being treated with the utmost seriousness in political, intelligence and military circles in Tehran. This is the first time that a high-ranking U.S. official has spoken about the existence of military plans to prevent the Islamic Republic from crossing the nuclear threshold. There is considerable evidence that Mullen’s frank statement, coupled with the Obama Administration’s increasingly hostile and dismissive attitude towards Iran, and reinforced by the fourth round of United Nations sanctions imposed in June (followed by even harsher unilateral sanctions imposed by both the European Union and the United States), has radically altered the Tehran regime’s strategic calculations on the possibility of a military confrontation with the United States. Hitherto the conventional wisdom amongst strategic policy makers in the Islamic Republic was that the U.S. would adhere to the ‘no war no peace’ policy, irrespective of the bellicose rhetoric of American leaders and officials. The policy of ‘no war no peace’ has characterized Iranian-American relations since the victory of the Islamic Revolution in February 1979. The basic premise of this policy is that at different stages Iran and America edge towards war or peace – depending on the prevailing strategic scenario in the region – but never quite actually achieve either. The result is that most of the time the two states are somewhere in the middle conducting a Cold War, in which leaders and officials from both sides trade insults and engage in ideological and political grandstanding, but stop well short of the point where further escalation of tensions might trigger a hot war. For the past thirty-one years this policy has benefited most of the key stakeholders, including hardline political factions in both countries, the regional Arab states, Turkey, Pakistan and Israel. All have benefited from this Iranian-American Cold War, insofar as the paucity of diplomatic and political relations between Iran and America has continuously opened up a wide range of strategic, political and economic benefits. By the same token, these stake holders would have much to lose if Iran and America actually engaged in real fighting. While this argument has manifold shortcomings, nonetheless it does capture a large part of the reality of Iranian-American relations since 1979. In any case it is what key Iranian strategic policy makers have believed all along. Until now that is. Despite the fact that a few days before Mullen’s statement, the supreme commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC—Sepah-e-Pasdaran in Persian), Brigadier General Mohammad Ali Jafari, dismissed U.S. threats, claiming that America “would not dare to attack Iran”, other IRGC leaders have in recent months continuously warned of the immediate and long-term fallout of any military confrontation. The head of the IRGC’s political-ideological unit recently warned of “dire” threats to regional security in the event of an American military attack. Meanwhile Ahmad Vahidi, Iran’s defence minister and a former commander of the IRGC’s elite Qods Force (responsible for special foreign operations), has pledged a “robust” response to any American military aggression against Iran. It has been clear for months that the mood of IRGC commanders has been changing and Mullen’s statement appears to lend credence to the strategic calculations of the Revolutionary Guard commanders. This development is of the utmost significance, since in the event of an Iranian-American military confrontation, the IRGC is expected to be at the forefront of containing the American assault and retaliating with military measures of its own. In fact, in the event of a military confrontation Iranian leaders are likely to relieve the regular Iranian military from fighting, so as to keep them out of harm’s way and maintain the integrity and fighting strength of the regular armed forces. There is another reason for this decision and that has to do with the depleted capabilities of the national military; in the past thirty years the national armed forces have insidiously lost power and prestige to the IRGC. It is worth noting that Iran is the only country in the world that operates two completely independent military commands; one centred on the regular armed forces, and the other on the IRGC, which operates its own ground forces, navy and air force, as well as a myriad of intelligence and security services. Moreover, the IRGC controls all of Iran’s strategic military assets, including mid-range ballistic missile capability. It has become fashionable to paint the IRGC as an economic conglomerate more interested in making money than fighting for the values of the Islamic Revolution. Much of the reporting on IRGC economic activity is inaccurate and disingenuous and is indicative of the faux-naif style of analysis often employed by Western journalists and analysts. The truth is that whilst the IRGC has a sizeable economic wing centred on the Khatam ol-Anbia complex (Qarargah-e Khatam ol-Anbia), its economic and financial activities are kept strictly separate from its fighting units. In any case, the IRGC is foremost an ideological army that is totally and unequivocally committed to the survival of the Islamic Revolution, and the political-religious system that emerged from that revolution. Even former reformist president (and now opposition leader) Mohammad Khatami referred to the IRGC as the “most ideological armed force in the world.” American political and military leaders would be mistaken if they believed they could get away with a “limited” military strike on Iran, designed to destroy that country’s nuclear infrastructure. Any military strike on Iran by the United States will be interpreted by Iran’s rulers, and their IRGC enforcers, as a direct assault on the integrity and the very existence of the Islamic Republic. From a strategic point of view, IRGC commanders will interpret any American strike as the beginning of an existential conflict, and will respond appropriately. A top priority for the IRGC high command is to respond so harshly and decisively so as to deter the Americans from a second set of strikes at a future point. The idea here is to avoid what happened to Iraq in the period 1991-2003, when the former Baathist regime was so weakened by sanctions and repeated small-scale military attacks that it quickly collapsed in the face of American and British invading armies. The range of predictable responses available to the IRGC high command include dramatic hit ad run attacks against military and commercial shipping in the Persian Gulf, the use of mid-range ballistic missiles against American bases in the region and Israel and a direct assault on American forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. All these options are likely to be used within 48 hours of the start of hostilities. What is less predictable is the response of the IRGC Qods Force, which is likely to be at the forefront of the Pasdaran’s counter-attack. One possible response by the Qods force is spectacular terrorist-style attacks against American intelligence bases and assets throughout the region. The IRGC Qods Force is believed to have identified every key component of the American intelligence apparatus in the Middle East, Afghanistan and Pakistan. They are likely to put this information to good use, especially since the Qods Force suspects that the CIA had a hand in last October’s Jundullah-organised suicide bombing targeting IRGC commanders in Iran’s volatile Sistan va Baluchistan province. The IRGC navy will also play a key asymmetrical role in the conflict by organising maritime suicide bombings on an industrial scale. By manning its fleet of speedboats with suicide bombers and ramming them into American warships and even neutral commercial shipping, the Pasdaran will hope to close the Strait of Hormuz, through which nearly 40 percent of world crude oil supplies pass. The combination of these asymmetrical forms of warfare with more conventional style missile and even ground force attacks on American bases in the region will likely result in thousands of American military casualties in the space of a few weeks. The IRGC has both the will and wherewithal to inflict a level of casualties on American armed forces not seen since the Second World War. Even if the United States manages to destroy Iran’s nuclear infrastructure and much of the country’s military assets, the IRGC can still claim victory by claiming to have given the Americans a bloody nose and producing an outcome not dissimilar from the Israeli-Hezbollah military engagement in the summer of 2006. The political effect of this will likely be even more explosive than the actual fighting. Not only will it awaken the sleeping giant of Iranian nationalism, thus aligning the broad mass of the people with the regime, it will also shore up Iran’s image in the region and prove once and for all that the Islamic Republic is prepared to fight to the death to uphold its principles. Suddenly Iran’s allies in the region – particularly non-state actors like Hezbollah and Hamas – would stand ten feet tall. Ironically U.S. military aggression will likely accelerate the actualisation of the very scenario that American political and military leaders insist they are determined to prevent, i.e. a nuclear armed Iran. Even if we accept the contentious proposition that Iran’s nuclear programme has a military dimension, the immediate reaction of Iran’s rulers to military aggression would be to start a crash programme to produce a nuclear weapon, as a means of deterring future aggression. Contrary to what Mike Mullen and other American military commanders appear to believe, a military attack on Iran really is the very worst option. Its consequences for Iran, the region and the United States are dangerously unpredictable, to the extent that any decision to attack would be nothing less than stunningly reckless and quite possibly the worst strategic mistake in American military history. Responsible actors in the international system should exert the maximum effort to avoid an Iranian-American War. Mahan Abedin is a Middle East analyst. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article26140.htm

Klimaatverandering 162

Dyer Prognosis: Mickey Z. Interviews "Climate Wars" Author Gwynne Dyer

Saturday 14 August 2010

by: Mickey Z., t r u t h o u t | Interview

(Photo: www.gwynnedyer.com)

While some humans choose todeny the existence of climate change, many have responded by changing the way they live. However, as freelance journalist and specialist on international affairs and geopolitics Gwynne Dyer warns, it's gonna take a lot more than recycled toilet paper to deal with the mess we've created. "We are heading for the brink very fast," he warns, and that's why his new book is required reading. "Climate Wars: The Fight for Survival as the World Overheats" has been called "a truly important and timely book," but I'd go much further than that. In fact, I'll declare that this may be the most important book you'll read this year.

To help spread the urgency, I recently spoke with Dyer and the results are below.

Mickey Z.: Just as it seems Americans are finally catching on about greener living, more and more folks like yourself are warning that CFL bulbs, recycled toilet paper and bringing your own bag to the store is not exactly going to turn things around. What do you feel an eco-minded person can learn from "Climate Wars"?

Gwynne Dyer: Most of the things people do to be eco-minded are useful in various way - fewer trees get cut down, less electricity is used, local pollution is cleaned up - but the problem of climate change is global and it can only be dealt with on the global scale. Changing the light bulbs reduces the amount of electricity you use, but if that electricity is coming from a coal-fired power plant you are still pouring carbon dioxide into the atmosphere every time you turn the light on. Unfortunately, there is a limit to the amount of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that we can put into the atmosphere before we reach the point of no return and we are getting close.

MZ: What do you mean by "point of no return"?

GD: The "point of no return" is where we lose control of the process and the warming goes runaway and most climate scientists reckon it is around +2 degrees C (+3.5 degrees F). Once the warming passes that point, the warmth itself triggers various natural "feedbacks" like the melting of the permafrost around the Arctic, which would release huge amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. So long as it is mainly our own carbon dioxide emissions that are causing the warming, we are in control, at least in theory, because we could stop the warming by stopping our emissions. Past the "point of no return," nature takes over and cutting our own emissions would no longer stop the warming. Stopping our own emissions is not easy, of course, because the fossil fuels we burn - coal, oil and gas - currently provide about 80 percent of the energy we use. Alternative energy technologies are available, but they are not being put into use fast enough to make much difference. At the moment, human greenhouse gas emissions are still RISING at between 2 and 3 percent a year, where they should actually be falling by about 4 or 5 percent a year if we are to have any hope of stopping before we hit runaway warming.

MZ: And governments seems unwilling to do anything, huh?

GD: All the world's major governments, including the US government, agreed last year that we must never let the warming exceed 2 degrees C (though they didn't tell the public exactly why that is so important). But they have absolutely no plan for how to achieve that goal and there is little chance that they will come up with one soon. The Obama administration's decision not to even try to get a bill on climate change through the Senate this year probably means, in practice, that the United States will not agree to any limits on its emissions for another three years. If the US won't do that, neither will China and between them they account for about half of the world's greenhouse gas emissions.

MZ: What do you see as the price for such inaction?

GD: There's another three or four years lost, at least and meanwhile we get closer each year to the point of no return. Once we have passed it, there is no obvious stopping point short of +5 or +6 degrees C (9 to 11 degrees F) and remember that that is a rise in average global temperature. Temperatures over land are typically a good deal higher than they are over the oceans, so increase those numbers by fifty percent or more for the interiors of the continents. At those temperatures things dry out and it becomes impossible to grow food in large parts of the world. There will be global food shortages, not just local ones, because the rising temperatures will be killing the crops in many places at once - and so there will be famines and waves of refugees and regional wars over what little water is left. That is the real problem we face and it can only be dealt with by switching from fossil fuels to other sources of energy. Changing the light-bulbs is not enough; you have to close down the coal-fired power plant and build something else in its place. Driving less is not enough; we have to find alternatives to oil for fueling our vehicles. We need deep cuts in fossil-fuel use right away and we must virtually eliminate fossil fuels in the next fifty years. That is technically and financially possible, but it is probably not politically possible. In which case we will pay a very high price for our failure.

MZ: I read where, despite the grim prognosis you lay out in this book, writing "Climate Wars" actually provoked a bit more optimism in you. Is that true? If so, please explain.

GD: I know a great deal more about the problem than I did three years ago, when I started the research and interview for this book and so I know that there are probably ways of getting through this without suffering massive losses in human lives. Even if we don't cut our emissions fast enough and deeply enough to stop short of the +2-degree limit, there may be ways of holding the actual temperature rise down (they're called geo-engineering) that would let us avoid runaway temperature rises and give us more time to work on the problem. We need to start doing research on these techniques now, because we may need them quite soon. We are in very deep trouble, because the fuels we built our civilization on are destroying the climate in which that civilization has flourished. But human beings are smart and tough and we are capable of cooperation on a global scale, which is what is needed to get us through this crisis. Success is not guaranteed, but we do have a chance.

http://www.truth-out.org/dyer-prognosis-mickey-z-interviews-climate-wars-author-gwynne-dyer62294

The Empire 630

Elites' Democratic Days Are Numbered

Saturday 14 August 2010

by: David Sirota, t r u t h o u t | Op-Ed

(Image: Lance Page / t r u t h o u t; Adapted:Bernard Pollack, Jeffrey Beall, Angela Wolf,DaveJackson)

Call me an '80s junkie, but when I saw the results of this week's closely watched Colorado election, I immediately thought of "Spaceballs." In that Mel Brooks masterpiece, a Darth Vader spoof named Dark Helmet says "evil will always triumph because good is dumb." Make it "dumb and broke," and you have a powerful explanation for incumbent Democratic Sen. Michael Bennet's narrow victory over former state legislator Andrew Romanoff (D).

In just the 20 months since being appointed to fill the vacated Senate seat of now-Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, Bennet became one of Congress' top recipients of corporate cash. A wealthy businessman who had never held elected office before, he ultimately raised and spent almost $6 million on his campaign -- more than any primary candidate in the history of Colorado. He was additionally aided by the Democratic National Committee and Organizing for America's phone-banking, by President Obama's full-throated endorsement and by the built-in advantages that come with a taxpayer-financed Senate office.

Romanoff, by contrast, swore off special-interest money from the beginning. As a former state House Speaker with a deep grassroots network throughout Colorado, he constructed a scrappy campaign on less than $2 million of mostly small-dollar, in-state contributions. In the relatively few ads he was able to afford, he juxtaposed his own progressive economic platform with Bennet's odious Senate votes to protect the big banks, oil firms and health insurance companies that Americans despise and that financed Bennet's campaign.

Alas, it wasn't enough. The Bennet campaign's ads obscured the incumbent's true record, and because those ads were backed with so much money, Romanoff's spots were like a pin dropping at a Metallica concert, and the challenger lost.

So it's true -- this particular political contest, like so many others, can indeed be summed up by paraphrasing Dark Helmet and noting that malevolent forces triumph because good is dumb and broke. The simple fact is, in elections across the country, many well-intentioned voters remain ill informed and many principled candidates are still too underfinanced to mount a winning campaign.

However, the longer view tells a different story -- one that may foreshadow the end of this "Spaceballs" axiom in the future.

Considering Bennet's wealth, corporate fundraising, incumbency and presidential support, it is astounding that a whopping 46 percent of this bellwether state's Democratic voters cast their ballots against him, against their own party's establishment and against their own party's president.

For those who care about a progressive economic agenda and about injecting democracy into the Democratic Party, this is encouraging when put next to the similarly impressive results of White House-thwarting Democratic primary challengers in Pennsylvania and Arkansas. And that trend explains the increasingly fierce pushback from Washington.

Yes, this is why President Obama's spokesman, Robert Gibbs, so vociferously berated the progressive movement on the eve of Colorado's primary, and why DNC powerbrokers moved so forcefully against Romanoff. He was the latest candidate to represent what those elites know to be an ascendant national progressive uprising inside the Democratic Party -- one that keenly understands money's corrosive effects on public policy and that, therefore, rejects the Beltway's corporatist model.

Seeing that this uprising threatens their power and their D.C. worldview, these elites are desperate to preserve Dark Helmet's principle -- so desperate, in fact, they have resorted to employing Obama's presidential campaign infrastructure to prop up more conservative candidates against progressive challengers in intra-party battles.

This unholy alliance managed to hold off the onslaught this time. But make no mistake -- Colorado is yet more evidence that the days of "Spaceballs" defining the Democratic Party are ending.

David Sirota is the author of the best-selling books "Hostile Takeover" and "The Uprising." He hosts the morning show on AM760 in Colorado and blogs at OpenLeft.com. E-mail him at ds@davidsirota.com or follow him on Twitter @davidsirota.


http://www.truth-out.org/primaries-show-elites-democratic-days-are-numbered62316