United States News Digest
Retired Generals Stick to Their Guns in Slamming Rumsfeld War Plans
Retired Army General Barry McCaffrey and retired Marine General Joseph Hoar are sticking to their criticisms of the Pentagon's war plan for Iraq; and the debate over the number of troops needed in Iraq for the war and for the occupation, is far from settled, says the May 18 Baltimore Sun.
"I don't think there's any question it was an inadequate ground force component and an unbalanced one," says McCaffrey. "I thought it was an unnecessary political, military risk to prove a point."
"There was great risk in shortchanging the ground force in Iraq," says Hoar. "The fact of the matter is, you need sufficient force for unrecognized eventualities and to exploit success."
Other analysts and Army officials are quoted pointing out that troops had to be diverted from the drive on Iraq to protect supply lines, and that there were not sufficient forces to handle anything more than the U.S. faced.
Also at issue is the number of troops needed for peacekeeping and occupation. McCaffrey says that more troops and a different mix, such as more military police, could have prevented the general lawlessness and the looting of museums and weapons sites.
"Peacekeeping has been a dirty word," says Hoar, "But the point is we're going to have to do it."
McCaffrey says that the U.S. will have to keep between 100,000 and 250,000 troops in Iraq for one to five years, to prevent Iraq from descending into chaos or civil war.
When Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki said earlier this year that it might require "several hundred thousand" troops for an occupation, Wolfowitz dismissed Shinseki's estimate as way off the mark (and Rumsfeld let it be known he agreed with Wolfowitz).
But now, even defense analyst Harlan Ullman, one of the authors of the "Shock and Awe" doctrine, who says that fewer troops are needed for warfighting than the Army thinks, admits that Shinseki was right about the postwar period. "The Administration has a problem," Ullman says. "They wanted a quick and rapid action to win the war. But in dealing with the peace you're going to need more people."
The Sun notes that the debate bears on the fundamental questions about the future composition of the U.S. military, particularly the Army, and it notes that Rumsfeld, emboldened by his "success" in Iraq, is now pressing ahead with his "transformation" program, despite the criticisms.
Grassley Threatens Mexico, Calls Agricultural Protection 'Unacceptable'
Senator Charles Grassley (R-Iowa), chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, sent an arrogant letter to Mexico's Secretary of Foreign Relations, with a copy to the Secretaries of Economics and Agriculture, and U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell, demanding that Mexico adhere not just to the letter, but to "the spirit," of NAFTA. Faced with an explosion in the countryside when the final stage of agricultural accords under NAFTA went into effect on Jan. 1, 2003, the Fox government in Mexico activated clauses within NAFTA which permit protection of national products, under certain circumstances, and placed tariffs on imports of certain U.S. products (corn, beans, high-fructose corn syrup, beef, rice, and apples, according to Grassley). All permitted by NAFTA, but according to Reforma of May 10, Grassley wrote that "the continuous pattern adopted by Mexico of not fulfilling its international trade obligations is unacceptable." Grassley warned the Mexican government to resist pressure to re-negotiate NAFTA.
'Four Horsemen of Armageddon' Call for Crushing Palestinians and Arab States
Four of Washington's top neo-conservative Likudniks, with close ties to the Bush Administration's "Chickenhawks," turned a May 18 afternoon session of the "Interfaith Zionist Leadership Summit," into a vicious attack on Arab and Islamic countries.
The session entitled, "A Palestinian State: U.S. National Interests and Israel's Future," featured four raving neo-con lunatics: Frank Gaffney of the neo-condom Center for Security Policy; Thomas Neumann, Executive Director of the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA); LaRouche slanderer Daniel Pipes of the Middle East Forum of "A Hippopotamus Tale" notoriety; and, finally, "universal fascist" Michael Ledeen.
Moderator Morton Klein, president of the Zionist Organization of America, said that Syria, Libya, and Iraq were all "barbarous states," and it was essential to crush the current leaderships of terrorist-sponsoring states, as must also be done with the Palestinian Authority and the idea of a Palestinian State in the Bible's "Torah Land." He said it would be a "religious war."
Ledeen's theme was that there can be no "peace process" (a term he said Kissinger had made up to keep Europeans out of his shuttle diplomacy), because this was a "war process" for "freedom from tyranny." He said that there is no such thing as "peace" in world history, just brief moments after wars, where the winner imposes a peace treaty on the vanquished. He said that Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Saudi Arabia are terrorist-sponsoring states, who have been led by tyrants, all of whom hate the United States. Thus, the U.S. must carry out regime change in Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia, before moving on to give the Palestinians a choice between unconditional "surrender" or war of the same sort.
Frank Gaffney, among others, made repeated reference to President Bush's June 24, 2002 speech, where he said there must be regime change in Palestine, and that installing Prime Minister Abu Mazen did not meet this criterion, since he had been a terrorist. Gaffney expounded upon his friendship with former Israeli Prime Minister "Bibi" Netanyahoo and Douglas Feith, with whom he admitted working on terrorist project. He lashed out at the Bush Administration for weakening Israel with the road map, and for reinserting the CIA to help the Palestinians crush (Sharon's) Hamas. Gaffney used the old saw that Israel must be allowed to do to the Palestinians, what the U.S. had done in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Pipes also denounced the granting of land for peace, stating that the Oslo Accords and this conception had just emboldened Palestinian terrorism. Either there is a sustained change of heart by the Palestinians, or the Bush Administration and all others should encourage the Israelis to defeat the Palestinianswho must be defeated unconditionally, as Ledeen had said.
The moderator for the afternoon session, Morton Klein of the ZOA, kept praising Ledeen for his "brilliance," perhaps because Ledeen's first book (influenced by the Venetian oligarchy) was entitled "Universal Fascism" and praised Benito Mussolini. When, during the question period, EIR's Scott Thompson asked Ledeen whether because of this he admired the man whom David Ben Gurion called "Vlad Hitler"namely, Vladimir Jabotinskyhe was shouted down by Klein, mainly, it would seem, because most speakers admired Jabotinsky.
Christian Zionists Want Congress To Legalize Israel's Seizing Temple Mount in Jerusalem
Although the Christian Coalition has been pushing it for over a month, Sen. Lindsey Graham and Rep. Joe Wilson's Holy Sites Concurrent Resolution has only eight sponsors for the Graham Resolution and 40 co-sponsors for Wilson's.
Last week, Roberta Combs, as well as members of the Christian Coalition, were lobbying Senators and House members to try to get them to sign onto this Resolution to open all the holy sites in "the state of Israel, nearby territory and elsewhere"i.e., Al-Haram Al-Sharif, the third most holy site in Islam, where a September 2000 visit by Ariel Sharon sparked the ongoing "Al Aqsa Intifada." However, these Darbyite Congressmen believe that they can dictate to nations and to the world how to treat religious sites.
Another new bill, the "Houses of Worship Free Speech Restoration Act," H.R. 235, is now being touted by the Christian Coalition to override a 1954 law that had been seen by some as a way potentially to remove tax-exempt status if ministers engage in politics. At present, Rep. Walter B. Jones has 120 co-sponsors and is gaining more. EIRNS will be following what precisely this piece of legislation means.
Bush Wants a Tax Cut Every Year He's in Office
According to the May 11 Washington Post, in an article by Dana Milbank and Dan Balz, not only is President Bush moving towards the third tax cut in three yearsas many as were passed in a generation before he came to officebut White House officials have told allies that they will attempt a new tax cut every year Bush remains in office, in order to unify Republicans and provide an issue against the Democrats.
"Coupled with the war on terrorism, which also is likely to continue indefinitely, the constant pursuit of tax reductions has the potential to give U.S. politics a new rhythm. With Bush perpetually fighting for lower taxes and constantly battling terrorists ... there is little room for government to discuss new spending programs that Democrats want....
"Paul Weyrich ... said he was told at a White House meeting that 'we intend to try to offer a new tax cut every year'... Grover Norquist, an anti-tax advocate who works closely with Bush aides, predicts: 'You'll have a tax cut each year. I state it that way in all of the [White House] meetings, and I never get an argument.'...
"Overall, the GOP is uncommonly unified by the tax cut strategy.... Even religious conservatives are enthusiastic about tax cuts because, as ... Gary Bauer put it, 'people see high taxes as being a growing burden on the typical American family. To the extent social conservatives are trying to get kids into Christian schools, they want more of their money to spend.'
"In the past, the various industries and taxpayer groups squabbled over which tax cuts were the priority. But Norquist said Bush has avoided such fights by promising future tax cuts. The White House 'made it clear that there was going to be a tax cut each year, and that if you weren't in this year's tax cut, you would be in subsequent years' tax cuts,' he said."
Bush Wanted To Blast Gingrich
According to Time.com, President Bush wanted to take a swipe at former House Speaker and current loudmouth Newt Gingrich, in the President's recent interview by NBC's Tom Brokaw, but Brokaw never asked him about Gingrich's recent tirade against the State Department.
So an unnamed Bush friend told Time magazine. According to this person, Bush's remarks were going to consign Gingrich to the cohort of "babbling, divisive people" who have criticized the war. "He wasn't going to mention [Gingrich] by name," says this person, "but it was going to be very clear."
No One Knows Who the Democratic Candidates Are...
A CBS News poll last week showed that 66% of all Americans, and fully 64% of Democrats, could not name a single Democratic Presidential candidate.
The highest recall was for Joe Lieberman10% of Democrats could remember his name. Kerry and Gephardt were tied for second place with 5%. Trailing behind that were Edwards, Kucinich, Graham, Mosley-Braun, Sharpton, and Dean. The poll, for what it's worth, also showed the public views the economy as the number-one priority for government to address, far surpassing terrorism, war, and other domestic concerns.
New Republic Flips at Strauss Exposé
The online edition of the New Republic posted May 14 features an old-fashioned, foaming-at-the-mouth freakout over the LaRouche movement's exposé of Leo Strauss and the Straussians. The New Republic piece relies totally on repetition of the word "conspiracy," to seek to discredit the exposé, all without naming LaRouche. "Conspiracies are all the rage in world politics these days. A majority of Arabs believe that Israel was responsible for the September 11 attacks.... Read Richard Hofstadter's classic essay, 'The Paranoid Style in American Politics.'... 'Cabal' has become the word of the day.... First, it was the neoconservatives in general who had taken over the American foreign policy apparatus. Now, it's Straussian neoconservatives.... But these conspiracy theories about neoconservatives suffer from multiple logical flaws. First, the ideologies involved don't mix well together. Neoconservatives are fundamentally optimistic about the futureStraussians are not...."
The internet article is linked to another TNR article by Franklin Foer.
It was Foer who had previously attacked Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol and his gang as followers of Leo Strauss in TNR. And ironically, an Internet search of TNR's archives for "Leo Strauss" turns up 50-odd pages of attacks upon Straussians.
|