10/31/02
12:45:05 PM
SciTech Daily Review
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/021104/health/4sinus.htm
As researchers struggle to understand chronic sinusitis, a painful, debilitating and elusive infection that is quickly rising in incidence, whole new theories are emerging about how our bodies interact with the world
http://www.nature.com/nsu/021021/021021-6.html
Lines like 'spicy, buttery and hints of coriander' may be a pile of plonk. The man on the street is just as good at naming a smell as a wine expert, say New Zealand researchers
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/28/technology/28PATE.html
Designing a bra can pose engineering challenges as formidable as those encountered in building a bridge or a skyscraper. So what's the latest in bra technology? (registration required)
http://www.gristmagazine.com/books/books102102.asp
Environmentalists must resist writing-off agricultural regions, argue Dana and Laura Jackson in The Farm as Natural Habitat. Instead, they must build ties with farmers to create an ecologically sustainable food-supply system
http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2002/10/29/microsoft_media_one/
Microsoft's media monopoly: Bill Gates wants to control the delivery of digital entertainment into your home. And according to a lawsuit brought by a pioneering software company, he's prepared to crush anything that gets in his way
http://www.space.com/news/ufo_poll_021025.html
Call it a conspiracy (or savvy marketing), but a new poll released this week says a majority of Americans think the truth about unidentified flying objects is out there, yet the government is concealing it from them
http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/1029/p03s01-usgn.html
Thirteen years after the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Prince William Sound, Alaska, the ecological damage is far from healed
10/31/02
12:27:34 PM
Russia To Monitor American Elections
by Oliver Burkeman, The Guardian, October 31, 2002
Amid the worldwide outbreak of Schadenfreude that accompanied America's chaotic presidential showdown in 2000, senior members of the Russian Communist party sarcastically offered to send election monitors to Palm Beach to help the nascent democracy find its feet. Albanian politicians echoed the joke, as did President Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe.
But the line between jokes and reality in Florida has always been a blurred one: now, America has accepted the offer.
Yesterday, the first international delegation of poll monitors assigned to observe an American election arrived in the US, operating under the aegis of the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe. And representatives from Russia and Albania were among them.
The monitors are charged with assessing whether next Tuesday's mid-term elections in Florida meet international standards of democracy "with a focus on evaluation of the actions the authorities have undertaken to remedy the problems that were observed during the 2000 elections", OSCE spokesman Jens-Hagen Eschenbacher said in an interview with Radio Free Europe.
Two years ago voting machines malfunctioned and ballot papers left thousands of voters complaining that they had voted against their true intentions.
There were also reports of problems with the Democratic primary election for the governorship of Florida which was held last September.
"It is not the first time that a western democracy has been monitored," Mr Eschenbacher said. "We also assessed the ... presidential elections in France, and we are about to send an assessment team to Turkey as well."
But it is a first for the US, and an event likely to be received with some glee in countries lectured by Washington on their electoral processes.
Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,823026,00.html
10/30/02
9:47:08 PM
Dear world citizen,
Practically everything you buy in your local Supermarket has genetically engineered ingredients in it. Terrorism is no threat compared with what we are allowing 'them' to do our food source. This effects all of us - and every living thing on earth. And when the U.S. can't get rid of their genetically engineered food locally, they're trying to dump it on third world countries - but even African leaders with starving people are refusing to accept it, for more details surf
http://ngin.tripod.com/forcefeed.htm
Please read the following and take action now! Copy and paste this into 'new mail' and circulate it, AND write to your local supermarkets and the press... don't drop the ball on this one. In Europe, this kind of consumer action forced nearly the entire food industry away from GE food. Together, we can do the same here.
To join the free True Food Network go to http://www.truefoodnow.org, or call Greenpeace at 1-800-326-0959
With best wishes; Concerned fellow world citizen
10/30/02
9:45:13 PM
Greenpeace USA October 2002 Newsletter
What's New and Noteworthy at Greenpeaceusa.org
--Don't Buy ExxonMobil: Group of 600 International Protestors Shuts Down Every ExxonMobil Station in Luxembourg
--Lust For "Green Gold" Drives Amazon Destruction
--Labeling Foods with GE Ingredients in Oregon
--Bhopal Activists Confront Dow Chemical CEO Michael Parker
~~ Global Group of 600 Protestors Shut Down Every ExxonMobil Gas Station in Luxembourg
More than 600 activists from around the world shut down oil company ExxonMobil in the European country of Luxembourg in a Greenpeace protest against ExxonMobil's sabotage of international efforts to protect the climate. Seven Americans are involved in the protests. Activists from 31 countries were at every one of ExxonMobil's 28 gas stations in Luxembourg - including the biggest ExxonMobil station in the world on the Luxembourg/German border.
The Luxembourg protest took place as 178 countries meet in India for the next round of talks on the Kyoto Protocol - the only international agreement on protecting the climate. The U.S. is responsible for 25 percent of global warming pollution but, thanks to ExxonMobil and President Bush, will not be participating in the Kyoto talks.
Read More:
http://www.greenpeaceusa.org/exxonmobil/
Take Action!
Don't Buy ExxonMobil: Tell ExxonMobil to stop sabotaging efforts to halt global warming
http://www.greenpeaceusa.org/bin/actionframe.pl?action_id=130
Get Local! Download flyers and find ExxonMobil stations near you with our station locator:
http://www.greenpeaceusa.org/exxonmobil/stationlocator.htm
~~ Lust For "Green Gold" Drives Amazon Destruction International Mahogany Trade Reeks of Power, Corruption and Blood
The wood oozes glamour and prestige in the gleaming showrooms of the north. But its plunder drives the destruction of the Amazon rainforest, corruption and even murder.
The wood is mahogany, but it's also known as "green gold". For good reason. One log earns an astonishing $130,000 by the time companies like Stickley furniture transform it into the solid mahogany dining tables for sale in such places as family destination Colonial Williamsburg.
Read More:
http://www.greenpeaceusa.org/features/greengold.htm
Take Action!
Urge Brazilian President Fernando Cardoso, The White House Council on Environmental Quality, and the Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs to support the addition of mahogany to CITES appendix II. http://www.greenpeaceusa.org/bin/actionframe.pl?action_id=151
Take Action!
Tell Ethan Allen to stop buying timber that is illegally logged, stop buying timber from endangered forests, and commit to selling timber that is certified by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC).
http://www.greenpeaceusa.org/bin/actionframe.pl?action_id=117
~~ Oregon's Labeling Initiative: Measure 27 Will Oregon consumers be left in the dark?
More than 100,000 Oregonians signed petitions this year to get Measure 27 onto the ballot. The measure calls for the labeling of any product that contains genetically altered material consisting of more than one-tenth of 1 percent of its weight.
But will Oregon consumers be left in dark? Missouri-based biotech giant Monsanto Company and its coalition associates reportedly are planning to spend a record $6 million to try to defeat Measure 27. Monsanto licenses 90 percent of the foods that would be covered by the measure.
Read More:
http://www.greenpeaceusa.org/oregon/
~~ Bhopal Activists Confront Dow Chemical CEO Michael Parker
Activists interrupted a planned speech by Dow Chemical CEO Michael Parker, presenting him with authentic Indian brooms and a request that he take the symbolic gifts to show that he will responsibly clean up his company's liabilities in Bhopal, India.
Mr. Parker, a guest speaker at the Tenth Annual Houston Conservation Leadership Awards luncheon at the Hyatt Regency Hotel downtown, appeared shocked when approached by Bhopal activist, Houston resident and India native G Krishnaveni, who appeared at the luncheon in traditional Indian dress to offer Mr. Parker the brooms. Mr. Parker did not take the brooms and attempted to repeatedly interrupt Ms. Krishnaveni, while other activists passed out literature and held signs and banners inside the hotel.
Read More:
http://www.greenpeaceusa.org/media/press_releases/2002/10232002.htm
Help Greenpeace spread the word. Forward this e-mail on to other caring individuals.
Want to do more? Become a Greenpeace member today! To give online, go to:
https://www.greenpeaceusa.org/join2/list.htm
10/30/02
9:33:42 PM
Planet Ark World Environment News
Hungry Zambia rejects GM food aid, decision final - ZAMBIA http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/18394/story.htm
Gas, oil estimates in US West too high-green group - USA http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/18382/story.htm
US government-SUV with best gasoline mileage is Toyota - USA http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/18389/story.htm
British patients in CJD hospital scare - UK http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/18386/story.htm
INTERVIEW - New RSPCA chief puts WTO in her sights - UK http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/18391/story.htm
FEATURE - Africa's ivory war to dominate CITES meeting - SOUTH AFRICA http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/18387/story.htm
FEATURE - Kenya battles to keep ivory ban and save elephants - KENYA http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/18381/story.htm
New quakes, Mt Etna eruption rattle Sicily - ITALY http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/18388/story.htm
India rejects pressure to cut greenhouse gases - INDIA http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/18392/story.htm
INTERVIEW - EU's Prodi says he's banking on a hydrogen future - EU http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/18383/story.htm
Ontario introduces bill to ensure safe water - CANADA http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/18384/story.htm
TransAlta buys Vision Quest to add wind power - CANADA http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/18385/story.htm
Canadian PM wants to ratify Kyoto by end - December - CANADA http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/18393/story.htm
Weak lead prices hurting re-cyclers - BELGIUM http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/18390/story.htm
ENVIRONMENTAL NEWS PICTURES:
INDIA: A Greenpeace Activist Unfurls a Banner in New Delhi http://www.planetark.org/envpicstory.cfm/newsid/18400
PHILIPPINES: Filipino Protesters Show Genetically Modified Crops During a Rally in Manila http://www.planetark.org/envpicstory.cfm/newsid/18395
JAPAN:Honda Unveils Prototype Fcx Fuel Cell Vehicle at Tokyo Motor Show in Makuhari, Japan http://www.planetark.org/envpicstory.cfm/newsid/18396
ITALY: Mount Etna Spews Streams of Ash into the Sky Above Linguaglossa http://www.planetark.org/envpicstory.cfm/newsid/18397
INDIA: Elephants Graze at Sunset Kaziranga National Park http://www.planetark.org/envpicstory.cfm/newsid/18399
10/30/02
9:31:52 PM
''The History Of Hizbullah''
by Marc Sirois, YellowTimes.org Columnist (Lebanon), October 24, 2002
(YellowTimes.org) – The war between Israel and Hizbullah was not simply born. It was conceived in a seething cauldron of all the things that make the Middle East a snake pit of unending bloodshed, unrivaled bitterness, and unfathomable duplicity.
To understand how this violent relationship might evolve in the future, and how the international community can most effectively seek to keep it under control, it is best to start at the beginning - the real one, rather than the red herrings bred by a mainstream media that is alternately guilty of gross ignorance and shameless fabrication.
The beginning was not in 1985, when Israel declared a memorably ill-named "security belt" in southern Lebanon. It was not in 1982, either, when the Jewish state's then-defense minister, Ariel Sharon, sent his forces crashing all the way to Beirut in a bid to eliminate the Palestine Liberation Organization.
No, to truly understand why the water still running under this particular bridge is so heavy with blood and hatred, one has to go back to 1978. That was when Israel first occupied a strip of southern Lebanon in response to cross-border raids by Palestinian guerrillas fighting to regain lands lost during conventional wars in 1948 and 1967.
By 1978, Lebanon was three years into a civil war that would last until 1990 and kill approximately 250,000 people (something like 15 percent of the population). The war had many causes, but one of the main ones was the growing power and influence of Palestinian militant groups operating on Lebanese soil and drawing Israeli retaliation.
The PLO and other organizations came to Lebanon as a last resort. Egypt and Syria had long since prevented them from using their respective borders with Israel as staging grounds for attacks, and in 1970, Jordan had ruthlessly put down a Palestinian rebellion that resulted when it sought to ban operations from its territory as well.
The Palestinians were left with tiny Lebanon as a base, a situation that represented a double-edged sword of conspicuous lethality. On the one hand, Lebanon's government and military were too weak to keep the Palestinian movement from displacing their authority in selected areas, especially near the border. On the other, the very paucity of power that made possible such freedom of action also translated into extreme vulnerability to outside action: Israel might hesitate to invade Egypt to go after Palestinian militants operating from there, but there was nothing to stop it from running roughshod over Lebanon.
Lebanon was left with the Palestinians, too. Its own internal divisions made it impossible to put up a united front in the face of what amounted to the creation of a state within a state. For all the might amassed by PLO's armed wings, however, they were certainly incapable of repelling an Israeli onslaught if and when it came. To make matters worse, until the full-scale invasion did come, Lebanon and the Lebanese -especially those in the South - would be subjected periodically to punishment by the Jewish state's vastly superior military.
In effect, the Arab world's major players had abandoned two of its weakest links to one another. All that remained was for the Israelis to appreciate the gulf that had been opened up and dive in.
Before doing so, however, they wanted to test the waters, and so the border strip was occupied in 1978. Even this relatively small step radically altered the equation in the South: It meant that even more of the fighting between Israeli and Palestinian forces would take place on Lebanese soil rather than inside the Jewish state. This caused no small amount of resentment among the local population, exacerbating some differences between sects but causing others to become blurred.
There was, after all, a civil war going on that in broad strokes pitted Christians against Muslims. Certain camps in the former community saw the Israelis as potential allies against the latter. Little did they know how quickly the Israelis would discard them once their "usefulness" had expired, but that is another story.
On the Muslim side, a new split was shaping up. By 1978, Lebanon's Shiites, a badly neglected under-class, were probably the largest religious group in the country if not yet an outright majority. Heavily represented in the South, their towns and villages bore the brunt of Israeli reprisals for Palestinian attacks. In addition, once the border strip was taken over, the proximity of Israeli combat forces put the Palestinians under greater strain than ever. They reacted by implementing tougher security measures, eventually imposing a de facto government on what had become known as "Fatahland" after the PLO's dominant faction, Yasser Arafat's Fatah.
All through the Palestinian build-up in the South during the 1970s, entire families felt compelled to leave, many of them Shiite. The conjoined pressures applied by Palestinian militant groups and Israeli air and artillery strikes were too much to bear. Many of those who could afford to do so fled the country entirely, but the great majority of displaced Shiites ended up as illegal squatters in Beirut's southern suburbs, an overcrowded and squalid area known as Al-Dahhiyeh. Both those who left the South and those who tried to stay behind harbored tremendous resentment against the Palestinians, to whose presence they (often rightly) attributed, directly or indirectly, their misfortune.
The Christians had expected to be pushed around by the Palestinians, whose goals were different and whose forces they had been fighting in the civil war, but the Shiites felt betrayed. The last thing they expected was to be oppressed by another "have-not" group. The seeds of Shiite bitterness against the Palestinians had been planted.
Then came the infamous summer of 1982.
On June 3 of that year, militants working for the radical Palestinian group Abu Nidal gunned down the Israeli ambassador in London, Shlomo Argov. Despite the fact that Abu Nidal was a blood enemy of the mainstream Palestinian resistance movement and had assassinated several of its key leaders, Israel targeted its "retaliation" for the London hit by launching air strikes at PLO ammunition dumps and offices in Lebanon, including Beirut. An undeclared truce had reigned along the border for several months, and the PLO was not about to take the escalation lying down. Instead, it pounded northern Israel with artillery.
Then all Hell broke loose. On June 6, the Israeli Defense Forces rolled out of the area they already occupied and, despite a promise to the United States that they would advance no more than 40 kilometers, headed for Beirut. Given the rapidity with which a full-scale invasion was launched, the IDF had obviously been preparing for quite some time, and the shelling of Galilee offered the perfect pretext.
For the most part, the only resistance they met came from Palestinian fighters, who acquitted themselves far better than had been expected, and the Syrian military, whose performance was more of a mixed bag. The Lebanese Army was too much in disarray to contribute anything of value. Two of the militias nominally allied with the Palestinians stayed out of the fight. Both the Druze grouping (then led by Walid Jumblatt, who would later serve as a Cabinet minister) and the AMAL force (a Shiite group led by future parliamentary Speaker Nabih Berri) stood aside as Israeli troops and tanks slashed their way toward the capital. AMAL's formation and activities are a key part of Hizbullah's later emergence, but more on that later.
Given the firepower at the Israelis' disposal, it is not surprising that these militias elected to stay out of the way. What amazed Israeli soldiers and their officers was the way they were greeted by the Shiite population in the South. In village after village, the interlopers were welcomed as liberators and showered with flowers and rice. Some Palestinian groups had so badly mistreated their natural allies that people threw their arms open to invading troops.
It did not take long, though, for the Israelis to wear out their welcome. In short order, the Jewish state dispatched "experts" on civil administration in occupied areas who promptly replaced traditional village elders and other leadership figures with more "reliable" elements from among the local population. The result was anger at the Israelis and total distrust of the administrators they had installed.
Over the succeeding months, Israeli occupation forces steadily eroded whatever remained of the locals' respect for them via such tactics as draconian restrictions on movement that kept farmers from tending their fields and collective punishment that penalized hundreds of people for the actions of a single individual.
Just over six months after the Israelis arrived in the South, the kettle of rage among a community that had once invited them into their homes finally boiled over. On Nov. 11, a suicide bomber destroyed an eight-story building housing the IDF's headquarters in the occupied city of Tyre. At least 75 Israeli troops and members of its proxy militia, the South Lebanon Army, were killed.
Hizbullah did not yet exist as we know it today but the ingredients for a Shiite "awakening" were all on hand, and the catalyst of Israeli occupation was drawing them to the same place.
Like their co-religionists everywhere else in the Islamic world, their Sunni counterparts had long treated Lebanon's Shiites as second-class citizens. By the mid-1970s, despite being the country's most populous sect, they were tired of a political system that froze them out of key leadership positions. The set-up, based on the colonial model imposed by the French, guaranteed half of the country's parliamentary seats and Cabinet positions including key portfolios like the defense and interior ministries to Christians. The Presidency was reserved specifically for a Maronite Christian.
Shiites were denied even a proper share of the remainder, with Sunni representation among the ruling elite remaining unduly heavy and even the tiny Druze sect holding more than its share of influence. Those Shiites who were politically active were fragmented, operating under the banner of secular groupings like the Baathists, the Communists, and the Nasserites.
One man tried mightily to change all that. Musa Sadr, an Iranian cleric whose family is said to have originally come from Lebanon, was invited to lead the Lebanese Shiite community in 1959. Tall and exceedingly charismatic, he captured the imagination of his followers and eventually inspired them to demand their rights.
In 1974, Sadr founded the Harakat al-Mahroumeen (Movement of the Dispossessed), which, as the civil war approached, spawned a militia called the Afwaj al-Moqawama al-Lubnanieh (Lebanese Resistance Detachments), popularly known by the acronym AMAL, which means "hope."
Sadr established a political forum designed to communicate the Shiite community's concerns to the state. Chief among their demands were better infrastructure, increased representation in politics, more access to government employment, and steps to either end the fighting between Israel and the Palestinians or help keep Shiites from getting caught in the crossfire.
Once the war broke out, AMAL fought on the side of the Palestinians, the Lebanese Sunni and the Druze militias against the Christians. But eventually, Sadr concluded that the conflict was pointless and opted to back a Syrian-sponsored peace initiative. Shortly thereafter, he disappeared during a visit to Libya. He was last seen leaving a hotel in Tripoli for a meeting with Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi.
AMAL then fell under the sway of Nabih Berri, a secular lawyer-cum-warlord. Over the years, his uninspiring leadership, reputation for unabashed corruption, and tendency to shift loyalties at Syria's behest alienated many of the movement's cadres. When AMAL failed to help the Palestinians resist the Israeli offensive, many fighters quit in disgust. More left in 1985 after AMAL launched its bloody "War of the Camps" against Palestinian refugee communities.
Over the next few years, these militiamen and a group of Shiite clerics formed the core around which a new group congealed. Eventually it became Hizbullah, but along the way some of its members used other names such as Islamic AMAL, Islamic Jihad, etc. There were no less than 55 private "armies" operating in Lebanon at the time. It is, therefore, impossible to say with certainty which early actions taken against the Israelis and Western interests in Lebanon were the work of Hizbullah itself, which were committed by freelancers using the name, and which were carried out by actual members acting without authorization.
What is undeniable is that the Israelis had acquired a deadly new enemy, one whose adherents were neither afraid to die nor willing any longer to sit quietly while the international community let a foreign occupier dominate their homeland. It took until late 1983, however, for the Israelis and just about everyone else to realize that the rules of the game had changed forever.
On Oct. 16, 1983, the southern Lebanese town of Nabatieh was bustling with celebrations of Ashura, the Shiite holiday marking the assassination of Hussein at Karbala 13 centuries ago. Despite the Jewish state's subsequent claims that its units had orders not to interfere with the goings-on, an Israeli convoy proceeded to interrupt the procession so that its vehicles could pass through.
When the crowd of 50,000 worshippers became restless, then hostile, some of the Israelis opened fire. Two people were killed and about a dozen wounded. It was not the casualty toll that caused the ensuing explosions of vengeance, though: It was the timing of yet another humiliation on the very day when Shiites bemoan the original persecution of their faith.
One week later, a suicide bomber driving a truck packed with explosives destroyed the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut. The blast killed 241 American troops serving with the Multi-National Force, ostensibly on a peacekeeping mission. Almost simultaneously, a building housing the French MNF contingent was also brought down, killing 59 paratroopers. Ten days after that, the Israeli military intelligence headquarters in Tyre was demolished by yet another bomb, killing about 30 Israeli troops and a similar number of Palestinians and Lebanese prisoners.
Over the next few years, Lebanon became an exceedingly dangerous place for foreigners. Several Westerners were kidnapped and murdered, and despite what certain self-styled "experts" continually claim but fail to back up with evidence, the situation was too chaotic to identify those responsible for the vast majority of what qualified as terrorist attacks. Some were likely the work of Hizbullah in some shape or form, but others, for example, were "honor crimes" against Westerners who had abused positions of authority to seduce young women. In any event, before one deems that sufficient to condemn the group forever, one should understand the context of Lebanese hostility to the West.
For starters, the MNF's activities were simply not consistent with those of a peacekeeping force. This was especially true of the Americans, who took sides almost from the instant they came ashore and occupied an exposed position next to a Christian militia.
In August 1982, the MNF's job had been to supervise the evacuation by sea of PLO militants from West Beirut. The Israelis had laid siege to this mostly Muslim section of the city, cutting off food and water to combatants and civilians alike. Under an agreement brokered by the United States, the PLO agreed to have its fighters leave by boat. The Israelis agreed not to enter either the capital or camps in the area that were home to tens of thousands of Palestinian refugees and displaced Lebanese. The U.S. undertaking was to guarantee the security of Palestinian civilians left behind.
In mid-September, a powerful bomb ripped through a building in East Beirut, killing President-elect Bashir Gemayel, the man Israel had been counting on to serve as its viceroy in a new puppet state. Gemayel's Christian Phalangist supporters responded by entering the now-unprotected Palestinian camps of Sabra and Shatila and engaging in an orgy of violence. Estimates of the death toll vary from 800 men women and children to 3,000.
Whatever the precise figure, the Israeli military was responsible under international law for the security of noncombatants on territory it controlled. As for the United States, it had broken a solemn vow to ensure the safety of Palestinian civilians.
In addition, the Marines' proximity to Christian forces made it inevitable that when the latter exchanged shellfire with Muslim gunners, the former would be hit by errant rounds. Instead of telling the Christians to stop firing or move away, the Americans responded by using naval gunfire against Muslim positions.
Thus, the October 1983 bombings did not come out of the blue. Like the destruction of the U.S. Embassy in Beirut a few months earlier, their background lay in a deep-rooted sense that the United States was anything but a neutral party -either between Israel (whose invasion had killed as many as 20,000 civilians) and the Palestinians or among various Lebanese factions.
While these attacks were impossible to pin on any single group, from 1985 on, however, there was no mistaking the source of armed resistance to the Israeli occupation in the South. Armed, financed, and initially trained by Iran, Hizbullah began to come into its own. Coupled with logistical backing from Syria, the party eventually grew into a highly professional guerrilla army that by 2000 had fought the IDF and its South Lebanon Army allies to a standstill.
Along the way, there were actually precious few terrorist incidents in which Hizbullah was even a suspect, let alone a proven perpetrator. Among them were the bombings of the Israeli Embassy and a Jewish community center in Argentina in the 1990s - which together claimed more than 100 lives - but despite tireless propaganda to the contrary, no firm link has ever been established.
Instead, what Hizbullah did - day after day, year after year -in the South was to engage the IDF on the battlefield. It was not foolish enough to confront the U.S.-armed juggernaut in set-piece battles, but its guerrilla tactics grew increasingly bold and its preferred targets were always legitimate military ones.
When Hizbullah's operations did stray from IDF soldiers and facilities, it was in retaliation for Israeli and/or SLA attacks on Lebanese civilians. These were frequently preceded by several days of verbal warnings that the targeting of noncombatants on this side of the border had to stop or draw a response in kind. Typically, the warnings were ignored.
Hizbullah's usual "punishment" for Israeli attacks on Lebanese civilians was to lob antiquated Katyusha rockets across the border. Seeing as how these weapons have little range and poor accuracy, they are deemed to be of little military value. This has caused Israel to claim that the rocket salvoes were evil acts of terror, but nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, given that ample warning generally preceded them, most of the inhabitants of the areas they hit were in bomb shelters when the projectiles landed. That was the goal: to inconvenience and/or intimidate Israeli civilians into demanding that their government at least stop killing Lebanese civilians and at most withdraw altogether.
So there you have it. Hizbullah was not hatched as an evil plot to destroy Israel but rather as an almost begrudging attempt to defend a community whose patience for oppression -be it foreign or domestic- had finally run out. That Israel happened to be the primary target of this organization was due to the fact that its forces were on someone else's land and that the international community - led by the United States - did nothing to make Israel withdraw its forces under U.N. Security Council resolutions.
Thus it was that a combination of lopsided military power, undeserved diplomatic privilege, wholesale disregard for civilian casualties, and unbridled arrogance made the Jewish state suffer as badly as it did in Lebanon. Israel has every right to fear its long-time tormentors, but none to call them terrorists.
[Marc Sirois is a Canadian journalist who lives in Beirut, Lebanon, where he serves as managing editor of The Daily Star. The proud and fanatically protective father of three beautiful princesses, his opinionated writing style owes to the fact that he is never wrong along with his holding monopolies on wisdom, logic, morality, and justice. He is also exceedingly modest.]
Marc Sirois encourages your comments: mailto:msirois@YellowTimes.org
Source: http://www.yellowtimes.org/article.php?sid=804
10/30/02
9:11:50 PM
Predators, Snipers And The Posse Comitatus Act
by Kurt Nimmo, CounterPunch.org, October 17, 2002
If you live in Falls Church, Virginia, and you see a funny looking aircraft circling over your neighborhood don't be alarmed. It's just the Pentagon looking for the sniper. CNN says Rummy wants to help out, so he has approved "military reconnaissance" of undetermined origin to snoop around the Washington area. CNN says the Pentagon has not disclosed what kind of equipment will be used. Yet earlier in the day I saw a report indicating the military will use General Atomics Aeronautical Systems Predator UAV drones. They even showed video footage of the damn things.
Rummy just shot another big hole in the Posse Comitatus Act. It's looked like Swiss cheese for years, ever since the military was "enlisted" to combat evil drug dealers. You know, drug dealers who sell CIA certified heroin and cocaine on the streets of American cities. According to CNN, the Pentagon is not really trashing the Posse Comitatus Act because there is no "direct involvement" between the cops and the military.
Maybe the copywriters over at CNN need to read up on the Posse Comitatus Act. "Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both." Of course, Rummy does not need Congress to tell him what to do. His "guidelines," recently published in the New York Times, demonstrate what he thinks about Congress and the American people.
Predator drones are "part of the Army or the Air Force," even if guys in cammies and helmets toting M16s are not accompanying the cops as they look for the sniper. Well, a lot of cops are wearing cammies and helmets and toting M16s these days, so maybe the point is moot. I'm sure David Koresh didn't see a lot of difference between ATF agents and Nazi storm troopers. Or did the father of Elian Gonzalez. Or do a lot of dark skinned people in America's inner cities. But never mind. I'm digressing.
It's October. That means the Pentagon may have to fly its drones in bad weather -- and the Predator does not do well in rain, wind, snow, or cold temperatures. Predators crash, too, although the Pentagon does not release such embarrassing statistics. A French journalist reported a while back that a UAV drone was inadvertently thrown off course over Kosovo. It seems a French officer used the same radio frequency on which the UAV was operating. He interrupted the connection between the aircraft and its ground control station. The drone ended up in the hands of the Serbs, who were likely ecstatic. In 1998, the Pakistanis were thankful as well when two of Clinton's cruise missiles went off target and landed in their front yard unscathed. It was a benefit bestowed to Pakistan's missile program which, at the time, was under US embargo.
Think of all the air traffic over Washington. Think about all the telephone wires, high power lines, microwave towers and cell phone repeaters. Rummy's idea of catching the sniper with the help of a drone is an accident waiting to happen. Maybe Rummy didn't think this one through. Then again, maybe he did. Maybe this is yet another hole shot through the Swiss cheese that is the Posse Comitatus Act. Maybe if Dubya and Rummy keep blurring the lines a lot of us will no longer be able to tell the difference between cops and soldiers. Maybe we will finally believe this is what needs to be done to protect us from vicious terrorists. Maybe we will give up the fourth, fifth, and sixth amendments to the Constitution in order to fight terrorism. Maybe we will give up the third amendment for good measure--you know, the one prohibiting "peacetime quartering of troops in private dwellings without owners' consent" (well, the Pentagon will have to base those UAV stations somewhere). Then again, if Dubya has his way, peace will soon become a curious anachronism.
The absurdity of the whole sniper affair is stunning. For instance, last week Ari Fleischer remarked to reporters in the White House briefing room that "the cost of one bullet" was much preferable to war against Iraq. He was talking about taking out Saddam by way of assassination, something the CIA and military intel have done for decades -- from Pegasus to Phoenix and beyond. In 1997, responding to Freedom of Information Act requests, the CIA released its notorious "Operation PBSUCCESS" assassination manual, used in the 1954 coup to oust -- and kill -- the elected president of Guatemala. So-called conservatives have talked about assassination and mass murder for years -- killing people they disagree with by single bullet or multiple bunker-buster munitions. They now say the CIA must be allowed to get back into the murder and torture business. Some of us think they never got out of the business.
Dubya and clan have created a moral climate where murder is simply a political option -- and, lately, the preferred political option. Instead of negotiation and containment, they insist on "pre-emption," which is simply another word for killing the other guy before he even thinks about killing you -- or maybe before he can extend the dreaded olive branch. Perhaps most insane and irresponsible, Team Dubya has managed to demolish the taboo surrounding the unthinkable use of nuclear weapons in the name of geopolitical expediency. It seems Dubya and Crew want the entire world to believe America is a nation filled with Washington Beltway snipers. America has a rep known around the world - everywhere, that is, except in America. Corporate media generated distraction and deception is an artform in the good old U.S. of A. History, as Henry Ford opined, is bunk.
Fact is, US politicians like mass murderers. In the recent past, the US befriended and supported -- both overtly and covertly -- sundry murderers and demented thugs. Here's the short list -- Mohamed Suharto (2 million killed in Indonesia, 250,000 in East Timor), Ferdinand Marcos (not only killed thousands in the Philippines, but also looted more than $35 billion), Augusto Pinochet Ugarte (had the democratically elected president of Chile murdered; thousands of political opponents killed and disappeared; 250,000 people gaoled, tortured, or exiled), Anastasio Somoza Debayle (50,000 killed in Nicaragua; 120,000 exiled and 600,000 made homeless), and Pol Pot (3 million killed, or between a quarter and a third of Cambodia's population). Oh, and let's not forget Saddam Hussein, acquaintance and yes-man of various US presidents until 1990 when he misunderstood his marching orders. He has gassed and killed his own people with US assistance.
The Washington sniper is small potatoes. More people are killed each week from unsafe working conditions, uninspected food, medical malpractice, and entirely legal (and profitable) drugs such as tobacco and alcohol. But then, of course, those are mundane and wholly non-sensational crimes when compared to a sniper who it now appears received his training -- or, at least, his inspiration -- from the US military. All told, the Washington sniper may turn out to be yet another unexpected instance of blowback, if not politically at least culturally.
But never mind. I think I hear a Predator buzzing outside my window.
Kurt Nimmo is a photographer and multimedia developer in Las Cruces, New Mexico. He can be reached at: nimmo@zianet.com
Source: http://www.counterpunch.org/nimmo1017.html
10/30/02
9:09:28 PM
''A Recipe For Disaster''
by Doreen Miller, YellowTimes.org Columnist (United States), October 18, 2002
(YellowTimes.org) – 1. Take a bunch of self-righteous, egomaniacal, power-hungry individuals wrapped in a layer of morally bankrupt religious fanaticism.
2. Add the world's most extensive arsenal of weapons of mass destruction.
3. Toss in absolute, unchecked control over the deadliest of military forces.
4. Pour in some half-baked ideas about dominating and ruling the world.
5. Stir vigorously until thoroughly mixed up.
6. Keep the mixture at a steady boiling point over a constant, pseudo-patriotic flame of fear-mongering, and what have you cooked up?
Bush's latest recipe for disaster, otherwise known as "The National Security Strategy of the United States."
If you've ever wondered why the United States is a country that other countries just love to hate, this document lays the reasons out in full splendor for all to see.
This 30-plus page creation appears to have emanated from deep within the bowels of the PR spin machines of the White House. In keeping with the strategies of hard-core propaganda and public relations gimmicks, it is chock full of all the wonderful, democratic ideals and feel-good concepts that the United States, in its unquestionable goodness, so honorably champions as the world's one and only true savior. Who could possibly disagree with such nebulous and diversely interpreted concepts as "freedom," "liberty," "peace," "making the world safe," "justice," "human dignity," "international cooperation," "prosperity," or "cultural advancement"? Unfortunately, these noble words are being used to cloak the unacceptable, underlying aspirations of the current leaders of the United States.
Bush's National Security Strategy espouses a Pax Americana against which President Kennedy raised dire warnings back in the sixties. "The U.S. national security strategy will be based on a distinctly American internationalism that reflects … our national interest."
This document arrogantly outlines the goal of U.S. imperialism and supremacy, and the use of unsurpassed U.S. military power to protect U.S. interests throughout the world, extending even into the region of outer space. "Our forces will be strong enough to dissuade potential adversaries from pursuing a military build-up in hopes of surpassing, or equaling, the power of the United States." Reminiscent of the classic high school winning team chant, "We're number one," these words reflect a sophomoric attitude the United States is not about to relinquish. Quite clearly, the United States intends to maintain its position of absolute power over the rest of the world.
In a move that signifies a shift away from democracy and toward military dictatorship, the doctrine further asserts, "…the goal must be to provide the President with a wider range of military options to discourage aggression or any form of coercion against the United States…" The purpose of this vague terminology, which suspiciously echoes the wording and intent within the USA PATRIOT Act, is ultimately to promote and justify the use of the military against any and all individuals, groups, protesters, organizations, etc. who the President determines are acting against established U.S. interests and policies.
In fact, across this nation from Seattle, Washington to Portland, Maine to Washington, D.C., the level of both police brutality and unwarranted, unconstitutional arrests of peacefully assembled, non-violent protesters exercising their first amendment rights seems to be on a precipitous incline.
The Bush manifesto envisions a world dominated by U.S. interests where all nations are governed by "a single sustainable model for national success: freedom, democracy, and free enterprise." While Bush obviously believes the United States to be the perfect model thereof, nothing could be further from the truth.
While it may be true that U.S. Americans have more freedoms than much of the world, many of those precious civil rights and freedoms have, in essence, been made moot by the passage of the USA PATRIOT Act last year. Moreover, how free is someone who, from birth, is given a social identifying number and is forced to pay income taxes under the pains and penalties of having one's assets confiscated and/or of being sent to prison? Are U.S. citizens not, in a sense, nothing but indentured servants to their government system?
As for a democratic government "of, by, and for the people," a close look at how the U.S. government is presently run reveals a veritable plutocracy (or government ruled by the wealthy) in which faceless corporations enjoy the same rights as citizens. Only, the former has much greater buying power and, thus, undue influence on government policies and decision-making.
How democratic is a government where third party candidates, who have jumped all the hurdles, collected all the necessary signatures and legitimately made it onto election ballots, are time and again summarily excluded from televised election debates? It seems those in positions of power in the United States give mere lip service to the idea of democracy while quietly advocating a more "selective" version thereof where only the views and opinions of corporate-sponsored wealthy Democrats and wealthier Republicans are valid.
The third principle of "free enterprise," which Bush even goes so far as to equate with "a moral principle," is based upon nothing but purely mythological economic theory. The "free trade" and open borders that Bush and his CEO associates are pushing globally do not even exist in the United States. We boast some of the most highly subsidized businesses in the world. The amount of tax dollars that is doled out in corporate welfare (through subsidies, research grants, protective tariffs, tax breaks, etc.) to U.S. corporations is staggering.
In contrast, the version of "free trade" being forced on Third World countries by the IMF and World Bank prohibits all forms of protective tariffs, government subsidies and the like, along with demanding mandatory privatization of any and all government services and industries, even profitable ones. The consequences have been devastating in places like Jamaica, Haiti, Argentina, Bolivia, Zimbabwe, Kenya, Brazil, Colombia, and countless other nations around the globe.
Free and equal trade among countries with vastly unequal economies is impossible. Weaker economies are inevitably swallowed up by stronger ones, and the workers of these poor nations turned into slaves to the benefit of richer nations who do not play by the same rules. Bush promises to enforce the laws of free trade "in all regions of the world" to "ensure that the benefits of free trade do not come at the expense of American workers." Bingo. May the rest of the world take heed: the ultimate purpose of "free trade" is to benefit Americans.
Take NAFTA, which gives unprecedented power to corporations to successfully sue and overturn laws created by democratically elected governments if these laws interfere with a company's inalienable right to make a profit. Such unfettered corporate power over governments can only lead to one logical conclusion: free trade and democracy are diametrically opposed and cannot co-exist.
In a display of classic doublespeak, the Bush platform defines "a program to establish, finance and monitor a truly independent judiciary" in a future, reformed Palestinian government. Pray tell, how can a judiciary be "truly independent" if it is (1) beholden to the interests of outsiders who foot the bill and (2) being monitored?
A shining example full of contradictory statements, Bush's strategy, on the one hand, applauds the idea of building international cooperation, partnerships, coalitions, and alliances. "Coordination with European allies and international institutions is essential for constructive conflict mediation and successful peace operations. … We will respect the values, judgment, and interests of our friends and partners."
On the other hand, the United States reserves the right to pre-emptive, anticipatory strikes if it feels its interests are threatened, and it "will not hesitate to act alone. … We will take the actions necessary to ensure … Americans are not impaired by the potential for investigations, inquiry, or prosecution by the International Criminal Court (ICC), whose jurisdiction does not extend to Americans and which we do not accept."
There you have it - a prime example of speaking out of both sides of one's mouth. The United States exalts the idea of international cooperation and respect, yet vows to act unilaterally and simultaneously deems itself irreproachable, above and beyond the ICC and judgment of its international partners.
Then there is the idea of the U.S. establishing "new partnerships with former adversaries." This reflects one very troubling, flawed, schizoid foreign policy where we suddenly make allies of former enemies and mortal enemies of former allies. Both Saddam and Osama were once our trusted and supported friends, as long as they were serving U.S. interests, that is. Killing and murder are good only when they benefit the designs of the United States.
Interestingly enough, in this document, rogue states are defined as "[sharing] a number of attributes," namely, they "squander their national resources for the personal gain of the rulers; display no regard for international law, threaten their neighbors, and callously violate international treaties to which they are party; are determined to acquire weapons of mass destruction, along with other advanced military technology, to be used as threats or offensively to achieve the aggressive designs of these regimes; sponsor terrorism around the globe; reject basic human values..." Given the blood-soaked history of the United States, which includes the equally brutal, covert operations undertaken by the CIA, this definition could very easily apply to the U.S., making it the largest rogue nation in the world.
There are enough absurdities, double-standards, deceitful half-truths and outright lies contained in this National Security Strategy to fill a book. I invite you to read it and judge for yourself at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss.html
See if you don't agree with Senator Kennedy's evaluation thereof, "It is impossible to justify any such double standard under international law. Might does not make right. America cannot write its own rules for the modern world. To attempt to do so would be unilateralism run amok. … The Administration's doctrine is a call for 21st century American imperialism that no other nation can or should accept."
[Doreen Miller lived, studied, worked and traveled abroad for several years, and is currently a Senior Lecturer and educator of international students. She dedicates part of her time to serving the elderly and Alzheimer patients. Mother, musician and poet, she pursues an avid interest in Buddhist and Eastern philosophy. She advocates human rights, social justice, fair trade, and environmental protection. Doreen lives in the United States.]
Doreen Miller encourages your comments: mailto:dmiller@YellowTimes.org
Source: http://www.yellowtimes.org/article.php?sid=788
10/30/02
9:02:31 PM
''Pink Delusions''
by Gabriel Ash, YellowTimes.org Columnist (United States), October 16, 2002
(YellowTimes.org) – I'll merely state the obvious: The White House wants war badly, and none of the excuses it came up with makes much sense.
Saddam Hussein is the kind of ruler that comes straight from fairy tales: power crazed, narcissistic, ruthless, and viciously mean. His people live in fear. But Hussein is hardly alone in terrorizing his people. The new American lackeys, Karimov in Uzbekistan and Nazarbayev in Kazakhstan, come to mind. Hussein would love to have nuclear weapons. But fundamentalist nutcakes are much more likely to acquire nuclear weapons from Pakistan, which already has them. Hussein attacked his neighbors and ignored many Security Council resolutions. So did Israel, many times over.
The reasons for the war fever in Washington lie elsewhere, in a complex combination of factors.
Geopolitical strategies play an important role: Control of Iraqi oil is an obvious goal, and so is the consolidation of military access to the Caspian sea. Also crucial is the wish to restore U.S. "credibility" (as a ruthless bully) in the Middle East in response to September 11.
Electoral considerations are maybe even more important. First, there is the short term need to deflect attention from the worsening economy and the corporate scandals, including the shady corporate past of Bush, Cheney, White, and others in top positions. Second, there is the long term shadow cast by the bankruptcy of the Republican Party's domestic platform.
No doubt, an important contributing factor is the extreme right wing Zionist persuasion of a number of key Pentagon officers and advisors, including Wolfowitz and Perle. They want to destabilize the Middle East in order to undermine any potential pressure on Israel to withdraw from the Occupied Territories.
Add to these factors the legitimate welfare needs of U.S. defense contractors, along with the problem of providing some fast Keynesian anti-recession deficit spending, and you get a fair picture of the level of war desperation in the White House.
However, a number of liberal commentators have sought, and found, a silver lining in the war to remove Hussein from office, a war the U.S. has continued since 1991 with Iraqi civilians the almost exclusive victims so far. These arguments deserve close look.
But first, it is worth pointing out that one doesn't need to be against war to oppose the imperial manners with which war is approached by this White House. Before we export democracy to Iraq, shouldn't we keep enough of it here for local consumption? Wouldn't it be appropriate for the White House to show respect for the public by providing some best-case and worst-case scenarios of the war, including projected costs and casualties? After all, it's not that Hussein's storm troopers have already beached in Long Island. We still have some time for discussion!
One part of me finds it disturbing that none of the chicken-hawks came out against the undemocratic marketing campaign intended to discourage intelligent deliberations about such a crucial public issue as going to war. The other part of me chuckles, "what did you expect; didn't you know that love of war is almost always wedded to contempt for democracy?"
The last point illuminates the self-deception of those who hope for the spread of democracy on the wings of war. But some are more modest. Their argument is simple: Saddam Hussein is evil. The U.S. may have ulterior motives in deposing him, but who cares? Assuming it can be done with a limited cost in human life (a big assumption already), the net result will be positive: any regime will be less brutal than what Iraqis endure today. And there is even a possibility of real democracy taking root.
Sometimes, this argument degenerates into accusing anti-war voices of "realpolitk," namely, of favoring the stability of tyrannical regimes over the human rights of their victims.
I state for the record that I would love to see the tyrants of Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia and Jordan fall together with Saddam Hussein. It is quite possible that a U.S. attack will set in motion processes of democratization in the Arab world that could be described as positive in the long run, after tens, maybe hundreds of thousand are buried. That is most likely to happen in a scenario in which the U.S. is kicked out of the Middle East by popular opposition a few years after having defeated Hussein, the way it was kicked out of Vietnam.
Such a scenario, not totally implausible, could justify supporting Bush's war only under Lenin's revolutionary maxim of "the worse, the better."
I assume that the liberal proponents of "regime change" have something else in mind. They hope that a U.S. attack will bring democracy to Iraqis through a successful "regime change." This hope is based on two interconnected conceptual mistakes: first, seeing Middle Eastern tyranny as an historical misfortune, as if Saddam Hussein was a terrible thing that magically "happened" to Iraqis. Second, trying to measure the outcome of an American intervention with a one-off utilitarian calculus of costs and benefits.
A U.S. intervention in Iraq will not be a one-off affair. It will be one moment in a continuous history with a past and a future. It is impossible to guess the future shape of this intervention without examining its history.
This history reveals U.S. complicity in creating and strengthening tyrannical regimes in the region. The U.S. helped the Iraqi Baat party coup in 1963 - the reason: the current Qasim regime threatened to nationalize the Iraqi oil industry and even dared to favor land reform, the ultimate sin.
But no sooner the Baat party took power, it too turned against U.S. oil interests. Saddam Hussein enraged Washington by nationalizing the Iraqi oil industry in 1972. He was able to get away with it because of the rise of OPEC and the resulting oil crisis. But it certainly helped smooth the relations that Hussein used Iraq's new wealth to buy a huge quantity of arms from the U.S. military industry. Later on, Hussein received U.S. military support, including biological war agents, to counteract the Iranian revolution, which toppled another U.S. tyrannical regime in 1979. That other tyrant, the Shah of Iran, was that country's punishment for toying with the same sacrilegious idea of owning its own natural resources.
Examining this history of U.S. interventions reveals a strong bias in favor of undemocratic regimes and a longstanding effort to undermine movements favoring national independence. The reason is simple. Only tyrants can be counted upon to allow the natural wealth of their country, primarily oil, to be siphoned off to the U.S. Democratic, or even merely popular, governments have proven far too sensitive to the interests of their citizens and therefore less subservient to U.S. corporate interests.
That was then, when Iraqis did not understand America very well. What about now? Now, the whole Middle East considers the U.S. its public enemy number one. Iraqis share that outlook, having been on the receiving end of ten years of callous and lethal "sanctions" (better called "siege warfare").
Every single regime that came to power in Iraq as a result of Western meddling since the First World War was either overturned or became progressively anti-Western. Iraq has been the historical center of Arab anti-Imperialism long before Saddam Hussein came to power. What is therefore the likelihood that a new U.S. puppet regime less brutal than Hussein's will toe Washington's line for long?
Nil. Iraq's subservience to U.S. corporate interests would continue to depend on repression. The fall of Saddam might give Iraqis a short breathing break. But sooner or later - and given the current level of rage against American foreign policy, sooner - any pro U.S. government in Iraq will have to choose between becoming more repressive and becoming hostile.
Hence, the current war to depose Hussein will not lay the ground for democracy. It will lay the ground for the next war.
The idea of forcing democracy on Iraq finds support in the "Clash of Civilization" thesis. The argument goes something like: American imperialism is bad. The rise of Islamic fundamentalism is the product of misguided U.S. policies. But all that doesn't matter now because Islamic fundamentalism is a severe danger to the world. We ought therefore to close ranks and defend the values of the West, if necessary, imposing them on the Middle East by force. U.S. occupied Iraq, as Thomas Friedman suggests, could serve the whole Middle East as a badly needed example of a working Arab democracy.
The defeat of fundamentalism is indeed essential, but everything else in this argument is wrong.
First, Iraq is one of the most secular societies in the Middle East and the most hostile to fundamentalists. Second, as argued above, a Western occupation is simply unlikely to foster democracy in Iraq.
More importantly, the lack of democracy is not the result of a distinct Arab-Muslim "civilization." This claim is a new form of racism. It is the latest incarnation of the "white man's burden" - bringing democracy and Western "values" to the natives as an excuse for their enslavement and exploitation.
The Arab-Muslim world indeed failed to import Western ideas, in particular the ideas of national self-determination, socialist universalism, and citizenship. But it wasn't for lack of trying. On the contrary, it tried hard and often. While there were many local roots that contributed to that failure, it is obvious that the most important obstacle to the importation of Western ideas to the Middle East was the West itself.
Western governments have fought hard to defeat and undermine attempts to establish independent Middle Eastern regimes based on Western ideologies. Qasim in Iraq, Nasser in Egypt and Mossadeq in Iran are the most visible examples in a century of constant behind the scenes meddling: first by the British Empire, and, after 1945, increasingly by the American one.
Islamic fundamentalism has grown out of the failure of the West to wean itself of colonial exploitation. To say that the remedy is a new large-scale colonial conquest of the Middle East makes as much sense as curing alcoholism with a bottle of gin.
Islamic fundamentalism is not due to the absence of Western values. On the contrary, it is the result of the triumph of Western values. In particular, it is the result of the triumph of the Western value of putting profits above people. The popularity of fundamentalism is a response to the deep humiliation of the Islamic world and the failure of all other strategies to escape the iron fist of Western exploitation.
Instead of faulting Arabs for not getting rid of their dictators, Westerners should start "regime change" at home. As long as Western governments, and especially the U.S. government, are ruled by institutionalized greed and the rapaciousness of military-industrial complexes, the world will have no peace.
[Gabriel Ash was born in Romania and grew up in Israel. He is an unabashed "opssimist." He writes his columns because the pen is sometimes mightier than the sword - and sometimes not. Gabriel is the Middle East Editor of YellowTimes.org's News From the Front, located at the following URL: http://www.YellowTimes.org/nftf.html. He lives in the United States.]
Gabriel Ash encourages your comments: gash@YellowTimes.org
Source: http://www.yellowtimes.org/article.php?sid=783
10/30/02
9:00:20 PM
"Shallow Throat" Savages Dem Leaders And Reveals Bush Strategy
by Bernard Weiner, t r u t h o u t | Opinion/Satire, 16 October, 2002
So many of us were devastated after Congress rolled over and gave Bush his war on Iraq. We needed help in figuring it all out. So I set up the coded signal to "Shallow Throat," the high-ranking GOP mole in the White House who had been so helpful in pointing us in the right direction several times previously.*
We met in a nondescript bar in a suburb of Washington, D.C., Shallow Throat wearing a different wig and glasses than last time.
I didn't even get a chance to ask a question before Shallow Throat sneered at me with disgust and began raging. "You liberals are so clueless, no wonder you got reamed on the Iraq vote. You wanted to look reasonable to the American public, and not run the risk of looking 'unpatriotic' for the November election. But what you wound up doing was giving Bush cover. You got all the words into the war-resolution that Americans wanted to hear -- 'last resort,' United Nations, diplomacy, inspectors and so on -- but you, and Bush&Co., know that the attack juggernaut is rolling and Bush isn't going to pay the least attention, other than lip-service, to any of it. The war is on, and your lot were cowards, enablers with blood on their hands."
"That's not fair," I said, even though I was so angry at the Democrat leadership myself. "They probably figured that unless the Democrats win the election next month, any chance of stopping Bush on his march toward total control disappears."
"Yes, I'm aware that your Democratic friends didn't want to risk anything when they believed they might be able to take the House back and even pick up a seat or two in the Senate. I grant you it's a reasonable strategy to stick to the bread-and-butter issues the public cares most about -- the sinking economy, fear of losing jobs, prescription drug-coverage for the elderly, the need for educational reform, etc. -- but it misses the forest for the trees."
"I'm listening."
"Your Democratic friends are laughed at inside the White House. The Dems in Congress still want to play by the traditional rules -- give a little here, get a little there, compromise and scratch each others' backs, and so on -- but even after watching for nearly two years how Bush&Co. operate, playing real hardball, your friends still don't get it. Bush&Co. want it ALL, they want EVERYTHING, and they'll do whatever it takes to get it. You can't play nicey-nice with these guys. They'll lie, cheat, steal, promise one thing and do another once they've rolled you."
"Is that why you're revealing their secrets, even though you're a GOP stalwart?"
"I know now how Jim Jeffords felt before he resigned from the Republican Party and gave the Senate to the Democrats: I'm forced every day to play ball with sleaze and power-hunger and hypocrisy and uncompromising zealotry. I choose to stay on the inside, for whatever good I can do there and so that I can let you and your Democrat friends know what's really going on." There was a pause. "But it's getting worse and worse. It's like working in a charnel house, and the stench associated with rapacious greed and the lust for power and total control and running roughshod over the Constitution is getting to me. I don't know how long I can stick around. I take five showers a day just for the illusion that I'm clean."
I looked into Shallow Throat's eyes. "I haven't seen you like this before," I said. "You look totally disheartened. It's really that bad, huh?"
"You remember the flap when the German justice minister compared Bush's tactics with those of Hitler -- of mesmerizing the population with war-talk while the real issues are swept under the rug? The Bushies got enraged because she hit too close to the mark. The administration's propaganda policy is, who said it?, a weapon of mass distraction -- and it's working. Look at how the Congress caved, look at the absence of major coverage on the shaky economy and the various Bush&Co. scandals."
"You're not really comparing Bush to Hitler?"
"Of course not. But the Bush people learned a lot from The Third Reich, and other authoritarian regimes, in terms of how to organize and propagandize and frighten and slowly slice away at the veneer of democracy and rule of law. They also learned the value and techniques of bullying, especially with regard to foreign conquest and scaring their critics domestically. And this 'permanent-war' rationale isn't new either. In fact, there's a lot of recycling of nasty ideas and tactics these days."
"You're joking, right? You're just exaggerating because you're so frustrated working inside the belly of the beast."
"Think again, my friend. The hardright cabal at the heart of Bush&Co. for at least the past decade, ever since the collapse of communism (and even before that), have been thinking about and planning for, and writing about, what they would do if they ever got into power.** Your namby-pamby friends in the Democrat opposition chose to ignore those guys, thinking them far-right kooks, with all their talk about acting aggressively as a superpower, first-strike "pre-emptive" attacks, "benevolent hegemony," control of oil&gas reserves, making sure no other country ever could emerge to challenge the U.S., mangling the Constitution to get what they want, and so on. Now do you understand why the HardRight -- the politicians, the justices, the columnists, et al. -- have fought with so much venom and meanness to get into power? This is their time, as they see it, when they can Take It All -- around the globe, in this country -- and they will crush anyone in their way who tries to stop them. Iraq is just the tip of the iceberg."
"It can't all be that dark," I said, my skin beginning to crawl. "The fact that the American people, in poll after poll, for example, were way ahead of their elected representatives in Congress -- wanting U.N. inspectors in Iraq, not going in there without our allies and U.N. approval, and so on -- must count for something."
"Sure, thanks to the efforts of liberals and moderates, you've slowed them down a bit, forced them to alter their rhetoric -- once they said there was no need to go to Congress and the United Nations for authorization, but they were forced to bend in those directions. So, big deal. Let's be clear: If they don't get what they want by going the civilized way, they will take what they want anyway. Don't you understand? THESE...ARE...NOT...NICE...PEOPLE. They are playing for keeps. You're talking shadow forces unleashed, my friend."
"Isn't there anything that can be done to stop them?"
"Short of voting them out of power in 2004 -- or ruining them through investigations and impeachment before then as a result of all their scandals -- all you can hope for right now is to slow them down. If the Democrats take the House and hang on to the Senate, you'll be able to stick some good wood into their spokes -- maybe even get some tough investigations going; you'll force Bush&Co. to figure another way around.
But if the GOP loses in November, and the Democrats continue to behave like Bush lap-dogs, the game is over. The Democrats have to become a true opposition party and take it to Bush&Co. straight up. Power is the only thing these Bush guys understand. The Dems have to feel it and be willing to FIGHT, big time, for those things they believe in. I'm not sure your current Dem leaders understand that or have the courage to even try. The young people demonstrating in the streets, and the online political sites have that knowledge, but aren't strong enough yet to be taken seriously. As for the rest of the citizenry, thanks to September 11th and now the renewed terrorist attacks, they're too frightened to want anything but security and seem willing to go along with whatever the Bushies say is necessary."
"Up to a point," I interjected. "If Iraq turns out to be a disaster, and more terrorist attacks occur as a result of Bush&Co. policies, and more and more allies get turned off by U.S. arrogance and bullyboy behavior, and the economy continues to tank, and Americans' civil liberties continue to shrink, I think you'll see Americans getting really angry."
"Dream on," Shallow Throat said with a sad grin. "These guys are experts at ratcheting up the fear factor and keeping their permanent war going -- plus, don't forget there actually are genuine bad-guy terrorists out there."
"I refuse to believe that you can fool all of the people all of the time. The truth will out. And once the American people get angry at their leaders, watch out."
"Well," said Shallow Throat, "I'm glad that you and your Democrat friends still have that idealism, because that belief, and the willingness to do something to activate it, is the only thing right now that offers any hope. From inside the White House, it all looks too scary and awful to even want to think about...And speaking of that place, I've been away too long and someone might begin to wonder where I am. Don't forget: What happens now will determine America's, and the world's, future for a long time. Develop some backbone...quick."
And with that, Shallow Throat exited the bar. It took me a half-hour before my legs stopped trembling and I could get up to leave.
-------
* Also see "The 'Shallow Throat' Documents: A Pre-9/11 Bush&Co. Scenario," "'Shallow Throat' Reveals Bush&Co. Weak Spots," and "Advance Draft of Bush's Astounding 9/11-Anniversary Speech."
** A few days after our meeting, in a package sent by regular mail, I received the following books and articles from Shallow Throat, which chillingly laid it all out: "From Containment to Global Leadership? America & the World After the Cold War," by Zalmay M. Khalilzad (currently the U.S. special envoy to Afghanistan; published by Rand Corporation, 1995); Bill Kristol and Robert Kagan's "Towards a Neo-Reaganite Foreign Policy (Foreign Affairs, July-August 1996); Nicholas Lemann's "The Next World Order" (New Yorker, April 1, 2002); Jay Bookman's "The President's Real Goals in Iraq" (Atlanta Journal-Constitution, September 29, 2002) and "An Empire by Any Other Name" (Atlanta Journal-Constitution, October 10, 2002); "The National Security Strategy," issued by The White House ( www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nssall.html).
Bernard Weiner, a poet and playwright, was the San Francisco Chronicle's theater critic for nearly 20 years. A Ph.D. in government & international relations, he has taught at various universities and published in The Nation, Village Voice, The Progressive, and widely on the internet.
Source: http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/10.17C.bw.ST4.htm
10/30/02
8:57:43 PM
''Screw, Inc.''
by Paul Harris, YellowTimes.org Columnist (Canada), October 15, 2002
(YellowTimes.org) – Much of the world is rapidly deteriorating into the dark side of the 19th century. At a time in mankind's journey to, well, wherever it is that we're all going to end up, an age when we have the resources, skills, and abilities to eliminate most of the world's ills, we choose to revert to a happier and gentler time when the barons of finance ruled everything and the rest of us be damned.
We cheerfully elect government after government all around the world of people who wouldn't know their brass from their oboe but who surely know how to be the lickspittles of corporations. We have allowed ourselves to be conned into believing that what is good for business is good for society rather than the other way round; our governments have sold us down the proverbial river and have raped the resources that properly belong to the people; we have accepted the rule of merchants whose only goal is to make sure they get our money.
Globalization, in its modern incarnation, has been coming at us now for close to thirty years because it's about that long ago that it first grabbed hold of a national government. Turns out it was the Chilean government, but it has proved to be a rapidly spreading virus. It has all but supplanted democracy.
Democracy is not about abstract ideas and idealism; it is an extremely complex and concrete reality. It is about constantly seeking, selecting, refining, and developing practical options for achieving the common good. The modern world has developed what we call democracy today in less than 300 years and we developed it within the concept of the nation state. While nation states may not have been the best thing since the Garden of Eden, the positive thing we were developing was the idea of the citizen. With the advent of globalized economies and globalized rule, the power of citizens has been taken away.
On a superficial level, we can all agree there is more democracy now than there ever has been. There have never been so many countries that describe themselves as democratic but the reality is we have seen a steady depletion and weakening of the democratic dream. But consider this: The most powerful force possessed by an individual citizen is his own government. There are no other institutions or mechanisms that the individual can lay claim to as being his. In a democracy, the individual is the government; we are never General Motors or IBM or Krupp Steel. Yet, we are willingly giving away the only real power we have without getting anything in return.
One of the most insidious postures of those who favor globalization begins with the broad statement that government is too big, that government shouldn't be involved in things such as water and energy production because those can be managed better by private enterprises. So we buy into this argument and begin the process of surrendering our power to manage society.
We turn ourselves over to corporations who don't care a fiddler's fig about whether we get the best society we can have; these corporations care only about generating an extra few pennies for their shareholders. The amazing thing is that we do this willingly. We cheerfully choose to have artificial limits put on the only real power we have to order our lives. It seems that we do this because we have been convinced that government is the enemy of the people, despite our constant crowing that our governments are of, by, and for the people.
Over those 300 or so years that we developed our modern democracies, we have made many advances for the common good. It has taken us only a few years to begin seriously dismantling it. Democracies are led by people, not corporations, and the idea that any democratic society could be led by economics or by self interest demotes the citizenry to little more than a decoration. We have engaged in a form of unconscious suicide by allowing these enormously important powers to escape from our hands into the international arena where it is beyond our reach.
Another part of the disease that seems to have afflicted us is the rush to deregulate everything. As a citizen of Canada, I am personally regulated up the yingyang, along with many of the local businesses around me. But the international players which operate in Canada do so without even a hint that they should be controlled or constrained. In that regard, Canada is no different than any of the Western democracies because we have also bought into those international trade agreements whose sole purpose was to make our governments irrelevant.
Part of the deregulation movement has been to satisfy the worldwide taste for free trade. Western civilizations have known for 3,000 years that in order to have prosperity, you have to have extremely strict, but straightforward, regulations that will bring the kind of stability and long-term competition that can generate that prosperity. We know very well that without those regulations, we get horrible boom and bust cycles that end up in terrible depressions.
From searching the online databases of Forbes Magazine, the Globe & Mail Report on Business, and the Wall Street Journal, I have learned the following: five firms control 50 percent of the global markets in aerospace, electronic components, automobiles, airlines, and steel; five firms control about 70 percent of consumer durables; five control about 40 percent of oil, personal computers and media.
There are 200 companies representing about 28 percent of the world's GDP and less than 1 percent of the world's workforce. Even conservative capitalists should be horrified to realize that so much production is in the hands of people who provide so few jobs because it's that production which should provide the wages that people can use to consume those products. You don't have to be a leftist to see how dangerous this is.
And the scariest statistic: 51 percent of the largest economies in the world are companies, not countries.
Now isn't all of this a good thing? Isn't it true that countries who trade together don't go to war with each other? The answers are 'no' and 'no.' Most of the wars throughout history have been the result of trade disputes. I'm not going to iterate them all here; if you didn't pay attention in history class, you should have. What we are leading to now is war over the inability to control trade. When my country and your country are being savaged by some corporation that is in a third country over which neither of us has any control, how are we going to solve the problem? War. It's the easiest answer to the frustration of being irrelevant. You can't go to war against some corporation.
Societies have shapes. Ideally, diamond-shaped is what most democracies would hope to be: a little bit of rich at the top, a little bit of poor-that-you're-always-trying-to-deal-with at the bottom, and most everyone else in the middle. The pure capitalist model of the 19th century was a pyramid with a concentration of enormous wealth at the top rapidly dropping off to huge poverty at the bottom. By allowing business to take on the leadership role in our countries, we are moving away from the diamond and headed straight for the pyramid. We are moving away from the social victory that democracy brought us and heading straight back toward disaster.
Proponents of globalization and free trade accept the premise that markets are self-regulating. They are not, they never have been, and they never will be. We have thousands of years of history to prove that to us. Advanced societies understand that they prosper and progress by engaging in trade and by doing so in as diversified a way as possible. But in order to do that effectively, they need to have some kind of industrial development policy. For 3,000 years, societies have had industrial policies, trade policies, and regulations. No sophisticated society in the history of the world has existed without an industrial policy.
But we have moved rapidly to dismantle the policies, the agreements between nations, and give them over to the corporations who will be the only beneficiaries. We have moved to make governments irrelevant without having any sense that we are also making ourselves irrelevant. In other words, we have achieved, or are close to, a point where democracy no longer matters. Government can and should equal the practical expression of the common good. Without reversal of this mindless worship at the tomb of the unknown shareholder, we might as well surrender right now.
Democracy was built on the nation state and every power that is removed from the nation state without the granting of some compensating international power for the citizenry is anti-democratic. As a minimum, we need to work out an international control to force taxation on corporations. Fifty or so years ago, corporations in most developed nations paid somewhere in the vicinity of 40-50 percent of a nations total tax grab. Today, they pay about 6-7 percent. That's why we can't afford education, health care, and assistance for the disadvantaged that all our governments are taking away from us. This is not a left-wing argument: every decent conservative economist of the past 150 years believed that you had to tax the real sources of wealth in order to fund the real necessities of the democratic state.
Democracy requires putting economics and self-interest into a subsidiary position. That is the best recipe for stable prosperity. It is the best recipe for restoring democracy.
[Paul Harris is self-employed as a consultant providing Canadian businesses with the tools and expertise to successfully reintegrate their sick or injured employees into the workplace. He has traveled extensively in what we arrogant North Americans refer to as "the Third World," and he believes that life is very much like a sewer: what you get out of it depends on what you put into it. Paul lives in Canada.]
Paul Harris encourages your comments: mailto:pharris@YellowTimes.org
Source: http://www.yellowtimes.org/article.php?sid=775
10/30/02
8:34:11 PM
The Only Way To Stop Terrorism
by John McConnell, founder of Earth Day
"The Problem is Not the Evil People who do Evil, but the Good People who do Nothing."
CAMPAIGN AGAINST THE WAR ON TERRORISM
What is wrong with the "War On Terrorism"?
It is a total contradiction of the moral values claimed by President Bush and the world leaders who have been deceived by him.
The greatest irony is his claim to be a follower of Jesus Christ. Jesus said we should love our enemies. Love will seek a common cause and cooperation where you agree -- leaving room for differences. This has repeatedly brought peaceful progress in relationships.
In this day and age we should think globally. We have an amazing wonderful planet. Its time to wake up and for individuals and institutions to reject shortsighted greed that ignores right actions for the benefit of all.
Bin Laden saw America's awful exploitation of his country. He took action --the wrong action -- and Bush responded with WRONG ACTION!
In this age of global communications and easy access to diabolical weapons, you don't stop killing by killing.
There must be an all-out campaign to expose the hypocrisy and futility of the war on Terrorism. The only way to prevent repetition of terrorism is to eliminate its cause. The only way to do this is to accent the positive and apply the "faith that works by love."
This Campaign Against the War On Terrorism can tap the best in your religious faith and result in actions that will heal, build and unite the whole world in the ways of peace. Talk, write, think and act as a Trustee of Earth and you will help bring the global miracle of a peaceful, prosperous future.
John McConnell - The man who started Earth Day and its Earth Trustee way to a better future.
Source: http://www.EarthSite.org
10/30/02
8:29:49 PM
America's For-Profit Secret Army
by Leslie Wayne, October 13, 2002
With the war on terror already a year old and the possibility of war against Iraq growing by the day, a modern version of an ancient practice - one as old as warfare itself - is reasserting itself at the Pentagon. Mercenaries, as they were once known, are thriving - only this time they are called private military contractors, and some are even subsidiaries of Fortune 500 companies.
The Pentagon cannot go to war without them.
Often run by retired military officers, including three- and four-star generals, private military contractors are the new business face of war. Blurring the line between military and civilian, they provide stand-ins for active soldiers in everything from logistical support to battlefield training and military advice at home and abroad.
Some are helping to conduct training exercises using live ammunition for American troops in Kuwait, under the code name Desert Spring. One has just been hired to guard President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan, the target of a recent assassination attempt. Another is helping to write the book on airport security. Others have employees who don their old uniforms to work under contract as military recruiters and instructors in R.O.T.C. classes, selecting and training the next generation of soldiers.
In the darker recesses of the world, private contractors go where the Pentagon would prefer not to be seen, carrying out military exercises for the American government, far from Washington's view. In the last few years, they have sent their employees to Bosnia, Nigeria, Macedonia, Colombia and other global hot spots.
Motivated as much by profits as politics, these companies - about 35 all told in the United States - need the government's permission to be in business. A few are somewhat familiar names, like Kellogg Brown & Root, a subsidiary of the Halliburton Company that operates for the government in Cuba and Central Asia. Others have more cryptic names, like DynCorp; Vinnell, a subsidiary of TRW; SAIC; ICI of Oregon; and Logicon, a unit of Northrop Grumman. One of the best known, MPRI, boasts of having "more generals per square foot than in the Pentagon."
During the Persian Gulf war in 1991, one of every 50 people on the battlefield was an American civilian under contract; by the time of the peacekeeping effort in Bosnia in 1996, the figure was one in 10. No one knows for sure how big this secretive industry is, but some military experts estimate the global market at $100 billion. As for the public companies that own private military contractors, they say little if anything about them to shareholders.
"Contractors are indispensible," said John J. Hamre, deputy secretary of defense in the Clinton administration. "Will there be more in the future? Yes, and they are not just running the soup kitchens."
That means even more business, and profits, for contractors who perform tasks as mundane as maintaining barracks for overseas troops, as sophisticated as operating weapon systems or as secretive as intelligence-gathering in Africa. Many function near, or even at, the front lines, causing concern among military strategists about their safety and commitment if bullets start to fly.
The use of military contractors raises other troubling questions as well. In peace, they can act as a secret army outside of public view. In war, while providing functions crucial to the combat effort, they are not soldiers. Private contractors are not obligated to take orders or to follow military codes of conduct. Their legal obligation is solely to an employment contract, not to their country.
Private military contractors are flushing out drug traffickers in Colombia and turning the rag-tag militias of African nations into fighting machines. When a United Nations arms embargo restricted the American military in the Balkans, private military contractors were sent instead to train the local forces.
At times, the results have been disastrous.
In Bosnia, employees of DynCorp were found to be operating a sex-slave ring of young women who were held for prostitution after their passports were confiscated. In Croatia, local forces, trained by MPRI, used what they learned to conduct one of the worst episodes of "ethnic cleansing," an event that left more than 100,000 homeless and hundreds dead and resulted in war-crimes indictments. No employee of either firm has ever been charged in these incidents.
In Peru last year, a plane carrying an American missionary and her infant was accidentally shot down when a private military contractor misidentified it as on a drug smuggling flight.
MPRI, formerly known as Military Professionals Resources Inc., may provide the best example of how skilled retired soldiers cash in on their military training. Its roster includes Gen. Carl E. Vuono, the former Army chief of staff who led the gulf war and the Panama invasion; Gen. Crosbie E. Saint, the former commander of the United States Army in Europe; and Gen. Ron Griffith, the former Army vice chief of staff. There are also dozens of retired top-ranked generals, an admiral and more than 10,000 former military personnel, including elite special forces, on call and ready for assignment.
"We can have 20 qualified people on the Serbian border within 24 hours," said Lt. Gen. Harry E. Soyster, the company's spokesman and a former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency. "The Army can't do that. But contractors can."
For that, MPRI is paid well. Its revenue exceeds $100 million a year, mainly from Pentagon and State Department contracts. Retired military personnel working for MPRI receive two to three times their Pentagon salaries, in addition to their retirement benefits and corporate benefits like stock options and 401(k) plans. MPRI's founders became millionaires in July 2000, when they and about 35 equity holders sold the company for $40 million in cash to L-3 Communications, a military contractor traded on the New York Stock Exchange.
Within the military, the use of contractors is Defense Department policy for filling the gaps as the number of troops falls. At the time of the gulf war, there were 780,000 Army troops; today there are 480,000. Over the same period, overall military forces have fallen by 500,000.
Pentagon officials did not respond to many telephone calls and e-mail messages requesting interviews, but they have maintained that contractors are a cost-effective way of extending the military's reach when Congress and the American public are reluctant to pay for more soldiers.
"The main reason for using a contractor is that it saves you from having to use troops, so troops can focus on war fighting," said Col. Thomas W. Sweeney, a professor of strategic logistics at the Army War College in Carlisle, Pa. "It's cheaper because you only pay for contractors when you use them."
But one person's cost-saving device can be another's "guns for hire," as David Hackworth, a former Army colonel and frequent critic of the military, called them.
"These new mercenaries work for the Defense and State Department and Congress looks the other way," Colonel Hackworth, a highly decorated Vietnam veteran, said. "It's a very dangerous situation. It allows us to get into fights where we would be reluctant to send the Defense Department or the C.I.A. The American taxpayer is paying for our own mercenary army, which violates what our founding fathers said."
They are not mercenaries in the classic sense. Most, but not all, private military contractors are unarmed, even when they oversee others with guns. They have even formed a trade group, the International Peace Operations Association, to promote industry standards.
"We don't want to risk getting contracts by being called mercenaries," said Doug Brooks, president of the association. "But we can do things on short notice and keep our mouths shut."
That, some critics say, is part of the problem. By using for-profit soldiers, the government, especially the executive branch, can evade Congressional limits on troop strength. For instance, in Bosnia, where a cap of 20,000 troops was imposed by Congress, the addition of 2,000 contractors helped skirt that restriction.
Contractors also allow the administration to carry out foreign policy goals in low-level skirmishes around the globe - often fueled by ethnic hatreds and a surplus of cold war weapons - without having to fear the media attention that comes if American soldiers are sent home in body bags.
At least five DynCorp employees have been killed in Latin America, with no public outcry. Denial is easier for the government when those working overseas do not wear uniforms - they often wear fatigues or military-looking clothes but not official uniforms.
"If you sent in troops, someone will know; if contractors, they may not," said Deborah Avant, an associate professor of political science at George Washington University and author of many studies on the subject.
Only a few members of Congress have expressed concern about the phenomenon.
"There are inherent difficulties with the increasing use of contactors to carry out U.S. foreign policy," said Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont and the chairman of the foreign operations subcommittee. "This is especially true when it involves `private' soldiers who are not as accountable as U.S. military personnel. Accountability is a serious issue when it comes to carrying guns or flying helicopters in pursuit of U.S. foreign policy goals."
In the House, Representative Jan Schakowsky, an Illinois Democrat, led the battle against a Bush administration effort to remove the cap that limits the number of American troops in Colombia to 500 and private contractors to 300.
"American taxpayers already pay $300 billion a year to fund the world's most powerful military," Ms. Schakowsky said. "Why should they have to pay a second time in order to privatize our operations? Are we outsourcing in order to avoid public scrutiny, controversy or embarrassment? Is it to hide body bags from the media and thus shield them from public opinion?"
SUCH concerns are hardly slowing the pace across the Potomac, at MPRI in Alexandria, Va. The company may look like hundreds of other white-collar concerns that fill small office buildings in northern Virginia, but there are telltale signs to the contrary: the sword that serves as the corporate logo and conference rooms named the Infantry Room, the Cavalry Room and the Artillery Room. Its art consists of paintings of celebrated battles, largely from the Civil War.
It's hard to tell where the United States military ends and MPRI begins. For the last four years, MPRI has run R.O.T.C. training programs at more than 200 universities, under a contract that has allowed retired military to put their uniforms back on. It recently lost the contract to a lower bidder, but MPRI offset the loss with one to provide former soldiers to run recruitment offices.
The company, which has 900 full-time employees, helps run the United States Army Force Management School at Fort Belvoir. It also provides instructors for advanced training classes at Fort Leavenworth, teaches the Civil Air Patrol and designs courses at Fort Sill, Fort Knox, Fort Lee and other military centers.
The Pentagon has even hired MPRI to help it write military doctrine -including the field manual called "Contractors Support on the Battlefield" that sets rules for how the Army should interact with private contractors, like itself.
Overseas, MPRI is, if anything, more active. Under a program it calls "democracy transition," the company has offered countries like Nigeria, Bosnia, Saudi Arabia, Taiwan, Ukraine, Croatia and Macedonia training in American-style warfare, including war games, military instruction and weapons training.
In Croatia, MPRI was brought in to provide border monitors in the early 1990's. Then, in 1994, as the United States grew concerned about the poor quality of the Croatian forces and their ability to maintain regional stability, it turned to MPRI. A United Nations arms embargo in 1991, approve d by the United States, prohibited the sale of weapons or the providing of training to any warring party in the Balkans. But the Pentagon referred MPRI to Croatia's defense minister, who hired the company to train its forces.
In 1995, MPRI started doing so, teaching the fledgling army military tactics that MPRI executives had developed while on active duty commanding the gulf war invasion. Several months later, armed with this new training, the Croatian army began Operation Storm, one of the bloodiest episodes of "ethnic cleansing" in the Balkans, an event that also reshaped the military balance in the region.
The operation drove more than 100,000 Serbs from their homes in a four-day assault. Investigators for the international war crimes tribunal in the Hague found that the Croatian army carried out summary executions and indiscriminately shelled civilians. "In a widespread and systematic matter, Croatian troops committed murder and other inhumane acts," investigators said in their report. Several Croatian generals in charge of the operation have been indicted for war crimes and are being sought for trial.
"No MPRI employee played a role in planning, monitoring or assisting in Operation Storm," said Lieutenant General Soyster, the MPRI spokesman. He did say that a few Croatian graduates of MPRI's training course participated in the operation.
Yet what happened in Croatia gave MPRI international brand recognition and more business in that region. When Bosnian Muslims balked in 1995 at signing the Dayton peace accords out of fear that their army was ill-equipped to provide sufficient protection, MPRI was called in.
"The Bosnians said they would not sign unless they had help building their army," said Peter Singer, a foreign policy fellow at the Brookings Institution who is writing a book on contractors. "And they said they wanted the same guys who helped the Croatians."
That is who they got. Under a plan worked out by American negotiators, the Bosnian Muslims hired MPRI using money that was provided by a group of Islamic nations, including Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Brunei, the United Arab Emirates and Malaysia. These nations deposited money in the United States Treasury, which MPRI drew against.
"It was a brilliant move in that the U.S. government got someone else to pay for what we wanted from a policy standpoint," Mr. Singer said.
At the moment, MPRI is advertising for special forces for antiterrorist operations, is bulking up to train American forces in Kuwait and is looking for people with special skills like basic-training instruction and counterintelligence. Recently, however, it lost a $4.3 million contract to provide training to the army in Colombia when officials there complained about what they called the poor quality of MPRI's services.
In Africa, MPRI has conducted training programs on security issues for about 120 African leaders and more than 5,500 African troops. Most recently, it went toe to toe with the State Department, and won, gaining permission to do business in Equatorial Guinea, a country with a deplorable human rights record where the United States does not have an embassy.
After two years of lobbying at the State Department, and after being turned down twice on human rights grounds, MPRI was finally given approval last year to work with President Teodoro Obiang Nguema, whom the State Department describes as holding power through torture, fraud and a 98 percent election mandate. MPRI advised President Obiang on building a coast guard to protect the oil-rich waters being explored by Exxon Mobil off the coast.
More recently, when MPRI and President Obiang proposed that MPRI also help the country build its police and military forces, the State Department objected and the project is now dormant.
"We thought helping the coast guard would be pretty innocuous in terms of human rights," Lieutenant General Soyster of MPRI said. But Ms. Avant of George Washington University disagreed, saying any alliance with United States military contractors would strengthen President Obiang's power.
MPRI is not the only company to have run into problems overseas. DynCorp, a privately held company in Reston, Va., with nearly $2 billion in annual sales, has been tapped to provide protection for Mr. Karzai in Afghanistan. DynCorp also provides worldwide protective services for State Department employees.
In late September, DynCorp settled charges - for an undisclosed sum -brought by a whistle-blower the company had fired after he complained of a sex ring run by DynCorp employees in Bosnia. In August, a British court, meanwhile, ruled in favor of another former DynCorp employee in a separate whistle-blower case. DynCorp is appealing.
The two employees made similar accusations: that while working in Bosnia, where DynCorp was providing military equipment maintenance services, DynCorp employees kept underaged women as sex slaves, even videotaping a rape. Among the charges was that while the DynCorp employees trafficked in women -including buying one for $1,000 - the company turned a blind eye. Since the DynCorp employees involved were not soldiers, their actions were not subject to military discipline. Nor did they face local justice; they were simply fired and sent home.
In both cases, after complaining, the two employees who blew the whistle were fired. Ben Johnston, one of them, said last April in Congressional testimony: "DynCorp employees were living off post and owning these children and these women and girls as slaves. Well, that makes all Americans look bad. I believe DynCorp is the worst diplomat our country could ever want overseas."
A DynCorp spokesman, Chuck Taylor, said the company "felt horrible" and held its own internal investigation before firing the employees who operated the ring.
DynCorp also handles aerial anti-narcotics efforts for the United States government in the skies over Colombia and nearby countries - where several employees have been killed. Because of Congressional caps on the use of private military contractors, DynCorp has hired local citizens; two were recently killed.
Still, in its recruiting material, the company plays up the excitement of this type of work: "Being the best is never easy and when your office is the cockpit of a twin-engine plane swooping low over the Colombian jungle, the challenges can often be enormous."
Incidents like these - sex rings, deals with dictators, misused military training and tragic accidents - raise questions about the use of contractors. To whom are they accountable: the United States government or their contract? When such incidents occur, who bears the responsibility?
Moreover, while the general mantra about military privatization is that it saves money, there are few studies to prove the case - and in fact, reports exist to the contrary.
For instance, Kellogg Brown & Root, which was paid $2.2 billion to provide logistics support to American troops in the Balkans, was the subject of a General Accounting Office report entitled, "Army Should Do More to Control Contract Costs in the Balkans." The office found that the Army was not exercising enough oversight on Kellogg Brown & Root as contract costs rose, to the benefit of the company. Still, the company continues to pick up new business.
Questions about security and control are even more basic. In the battlefield, a commander cannot give orders to a contractor as he can a soldier. Contractors are not compelled by an oath of office, as soldiers are, but instead by an employment contract that provides little flexibility. Nor are contractors subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
Contractors cannot arm themselves - they risk losing their status as noncombatants if they do and, in the extreme, could be declared mercenaries and subject to execution if captured. Yet in the gulf war, contractors were in the thick of battle, providing maintenance to tanks and biological and chemical vehicles as well as flying air support.
Should there be a war in Iraq, the line could be even blurrier.
"There are no rear areas anymore," Colonel Sweeney of the Army War College said. With chemical and biological weapons, "no place is s