Uncommon Thought Journal: critical analyses of a struggling world.

Hillary and Bill Clinton are probably drinking champagne and having the sweetest time since Bill won his first presidential election. Hillary must now bite her lip repeatedly and resist saying publicly that "I told you so!" Hillary in 2012 will reveal that she learned her lessons well.

All that Obama audacity of arrogance from the smiling, glib politician finally died the death it so richly deserved. Too many pundits will blame his loss on his blackness and racist voters. But the larger truth is that sufficient voters saw through the many lies and deceptions. Obama always had a hard time giving a simple, short straight answer to tough questions. He was always mentally calculating exactly how to game his answers so that he would achieve all the benefits he had his eyes on. He was simply too damn presumptuous and too smart for his own good. In the end, Americans do not want the smartest person in the presidency or endless nuancing. They want someone they can easily understand and trust, despite their skepticism. There were many reasons not to trust the calculating Obama to do anything he promised to do or, for some people, to fear he might.

And now the bloviating pundits will also blame third party presidential candidates for siphoning votes from Obama, as if Americans have no right to exercise their political freedom and vote for someone they honestly think has the best policy positions and would most help restore American democracy.

Jon Stewart and other late-night comics will feast on these election results, as they should. I can't wait to hear jokes about Obama's wife becoming a more vocal and militant critic of the good old USA, now that she has proof positive that so many Americans are stupid white racists.

Of course, now the nation must suffer through the ineptness, confusion and dementia-like dullness of the living-in-the-past John McCain, tough-talking but brain dead. Will the McCain presidency look like an extension of the incredible terrible George W. Bush White House? Of course.

Still living off a once-true characterization as a maverick, McCain must now surround himself with people who actually are smart and knowledgeable about myriad issues. Should be no problem finding enough lobbyists. Pundits will start speculating that McCain will be lucky just to stay alive for four years, but thankfully his vice-president seems more capable. One thing for sure: the power plutocracy that really runs the country will have little trouble pulling the strings behind the scenes and keep the puppet McCain dancing to tunes written by corporate interests.

Ralph Nader summed up this way: "A large fraction of Americans know that we need a Jeffersonian political revolution to fix our corrupt system. They were not fooled by the Obama rhetoric about change, not from someone that has been a product of and servant for the two-party plutocracy. Yes, all the votes for me and the other third-party presidential candidates spelled the difference between Obama winning and losing. Our voters correctly protested against the corrupt two-party system. They did not elect McCain. Only those who voted for McCain elected him, and that is something they must live with as they watch a McCain administration continue dismantling American democracy and budget-busting global warmongering."

Cynthia McKinney wisely noted that "It is time to stop saying God bless America, and begin repeating God save America. The good news is that we will build even greater public support for a true political revolution during the McCain presidency. All too often things must get much worse before they can get better. They will get worse."

As to Obama, half-jokingly he said: "I may come back as a third-party candidate." Or did that reflect a calculation that Democrats had learned their lesson? As to all the screaming from the left that the Republicans stole this election also, Obama immediately said "John won it fair and square." Thanks Barry, exactly what I expected from a phony change agent.

Once again, the important story that ought to matter the most -- that of a continually imposing and violent Israeli occupation -- is lost in favour of Palestinian-infused distractions, deliberate or not.

In Gaza, the story of the Israeli siege, which represents one of today's most catastrophic man-made disasters, is relegated in favour of renewed infighting between Hamas and Fatah, whether directly or by proxy. As always, the Gaza story is largely told with biased and presumptive undertones: to indict one party as terrorist and extremist and to hail another as a champion of liberty and a defender of democracy. Such nonsensical conclusions cannot be further from the truth as in the latest clashes between Palestinian police under the command of the deposed Hamas government and militants from the Helis family, concentrated mostly in Gaza City.

The Hamas-Helis clash of early August was immediately probed by news media and Palestinian officials themselves as an extension of ongoing Hamas-Fatah violence, which led in the summer of 2007 to a complete Hamas takeover of the Gaza Strip. The logic was simple: the Helis clan is largely loyal to Fatah, thus Hamas's violent storming of their neighbourhood 2 August was an attack on rival Fatah. Hamas, on the other hand, explained its crackdown on Helis militants as part of its hunt for those responsible for the murder of five of its members and a civilian in a massive blast that rocked Gaza beach 25 July.

Naturally, Hamas pointed the finger at militants affiliated with Fatah in Gaza -- even though it refrained from directly accusing its rival Fatah -- and at Israeli intelligence collaborators amongst Palestinians. Fatah denied any responsibility in the bombing, which was clearly orchestrated to destabilise the Gaza Strip. Gaza, despite the debilitating siege, has been enjoying relative security as a result of Hamas's firm control and a moderately successful truce, agreed on by both Israel and Hamas, with the consent of all Palestinian factions.

The truce with Israel, accompanied by hesitant but constant calls made internationally to "engage" Hamas, positive remarks about dialogue made by PA President Mahmoud Abbas, and recent efforts in Jordan to bring the ostracised movement back to mainstream Arab politics, have all helped lay the groundwork for an inescapable conclusion: that Hamas is not a fleeting phenomena, and that isolation and repression have proved an ingredient of strength to the Islamic movement in Gaza and elsewhere.

Just then, the Gaza blast went off. The nature of the beach bombing is a clear indication that it was not a random act of revenge. The high-profiled targets, the intensity of the blast, its precision and its timing all suggest an elaborate operation aimed at a conclusive political consequence. Some Arabic news reports, including Aljazeera.net, stated that the bombing was a suicide attack. If true, then the employment of such a tactic -- which had thus far targeted Israeli occupation soldiers, paramilitary settlers and civilians -- would reflect the state of urgency and desperation of the attackers. In other words, the bombing needed to achieve its political aim even if it compels such an extreme upgrade in tactics. And if the goal was to destabilise Gaza, further discredit the Hamas government, derail the possibility of reconciliation between Hamas and Fatah, and invite security chaos in the somewhat stable Strip, then the bombing was a considerable success.

Indeed, Hamas's subsequent criminal investigation led it to the Helis compound in Gaza. Demanding that the agreement between Hamas and Gaza's large clans be honoured, Hamas demanded the handing over of several Helis militants accused of perpetrating and carrying out the beach attack. The details of what followed remain blurry and narrated based on political affiliations. Helis clan members and Fatah officials say that Hamas attacked the compound with rockets and indiscriminate gunfire. Hamas contends that the militants fired at its officers first, compelling a gun battle that led to the death of 11 people, including on both sides, and the wounding of 90 more. To capitalise on another handy opportunity, Israel promised to deliver Fatah-Helles clan members, who fled Gaza to Israel, to the Palestinian Authority in Ramallah, in the West Bank, as it later did. According to one Israeli official, the move was part of Israel's commitment to fight Islamic extremism.

In reality, however, the beach bombing of 25 July was designed to provoke a violent Hamas reaction, which was preceded and followed by mass arrests of Hamas and Fatah members in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, and has ultimately aborted planned Egyptian mediation between the two main Palestinian factions, thus weakening an already fractured Palestinian political front.

More, the fact that Abbas had met with representatives of the Helis clan in the West Bank, as if they represent a political organisation, was a dangerous validation of clan militancy that has grown in Palestine after the Oslo Accords of 1993 due to the security vacuum and decided corruption that have afflicted the Palestinian police for years. Clan militants became a necessary phenomenon to protect each family's interests, and had replaced the underground United National Front, which managed Palestinian affairs, despite of the Israeli occupation, which has done its utmost to break down Palestinian society and create an inherent sense of insecurity.

The bombing of 25 July, the violence of 2 August, and the political repercussions they have generated have proved immensely harmful to Palestinian national interests and spoiled the prospects of political reconciliation, thus national unity, which in my opinion, was the very intent of the violence in the first place.

The dejure reference for the region of conflict is "South" Ossetia. North Ossetia lies within Russian boundaries and South within Georgian boundaries. However, this was one region, and they have voted for independence and to be joined. That joined nation is Ossetia-Alania. It was one region prior to the breakup of the Soviet Union. With that breakup came North and South Ossetia.

Georgia, on the other hand, would prefer to not do the North-South naming as it implies the historic (and ongoing) connection within the divided region. We get this explanation from the BBC Regions and Territories: South Ossetia (emphases mine):

As far as Georgia is concerned, the use of the word "north" in the title North Ossetia is misleading. In Tbilisi's eyes, the region of Russia which bears that name is the only Ossetia. It prefers to call South Ossetia, which is part of the Georgian province of Shida Kartli, by the ancient name of Samachablo or, more recently, Tskhinvali region.

Russia it would seem would prefer Ossetia - and North-South Ossetia.

The fact it is being almost universally referred to as South Ossetia would weight the naming bias towards the Russian side with perhaps a bias towards the people of Ossetia's side.

Naming aside, Ossetia is resource rich and strategically located. It is one of the few primary routes between Russia and Central Asia. Georgia's claiming of South Ossetia, and the efforts to enforce the boundary between Russia and Georgia, is rife with both resource and political conflicts. The U.S. backing (and hand in initiating the current conflict) of Georgia is clearly an effort to keep Russia on the political defensive (as with the so-called missile shield) and to combat Russian energy dominance in the region and Europe.

Seemingly lost in all the finger pointing is that Georgia attacked South Ossetia (watch Escobar report below). While I doubt that Russia responded out of great concern for the people of "South" Ossetia), they did respond to Georgia's aggression. While Georgia may claim that they attacked South Ossetia in an effort to stop a breakaway in the region, both Russia and Georgia are battling over resources and resource control.

Pepe Escobar of Real News Network:

The evidence seems to suggest that Georgia was motivated into the provocation by the U.S., which while supposedly trying to work with Russia has clearly been trying to hedge Russia's energy, economic, and political power. This has been clear with the bartering with Poland about the missile shield (now supposedly a done deal), and with the attempt to place further missile installations around Russia's borders. While the U.S. may have hoped that Europe and NATO nations would jump in on Georgia's side, Russia controls much of the natural gas energy resources of the region.

According to a 2007 Congressional Reporting Service (CRS) report, "... Russian gas represented 98% to 100% of the total natural gas consumed by Belarus, Bulgaria, Estonia, Finland, Georgia, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, and Slovakia." Further, Russian natural gas makes up 39% of the supply in Germany, 31% in Italy, 69% in Austria, and 43% in Poland. This dependence undermines U.S. influence - particularly with winter coming on. Russia has shown in the past that it is quite willing to shut down their exports to Europe for political reasons. This radically reduces U.S. influence in garnering cooperation in leashing the Russian bear. Given the reliance on Russian oil and gas, I don't understand why the U.S. thinks it can encourage Europe and former Soviet satellites to directly provoke Russia.

So while geopolitics wash back and forth over Alania, it is the people who are hurt. It is their homes bombed, and their families separated and decimated. They are ground zero in yet another resource war.

Related Articles
The South Ossetia case. Conciliation resources. 1999.

Conflict Escalates in Resource-Rich South Ossetia. The New Security Beat. 8/09/08.

Georgian-Ossetian conflict.Wikipedia.

The Republic of North Ossetia - Alania

North Ossetia-Alania. Wikipedia.

South Ossetia: Russian, Georgian...independent?. Walker. New Democracy. 11/15/06.

Regions and territories: South Ossetia . BBC.

Did the U.S. Prep Georgia for War with Russia?. Hodge. Wired. 8/08/08.

U.S. knew Georgia trouble was coming, but couldn't stop it. Landay. McClatchy. 8/11/08.

Roots of Georgia-Russia clash run deep. Weir. CSM. 8/12/08.

Russian Natural Gas: Regional Dependence. Bernard Gelb. CRS Report for Congress. 1/05/2007.

Russia-Georgia conflict raises worries over oil and gas pipelines. Douglas. LA Times. 8/13/08.

Russia's Strike Shows The Power Of the Pipeline. Pearlstein. WP. 8/13/08.

Starting with the always loathsome Dick Cheney "Russian aggression must stop..."No mention is made of the actual facts, and certainly no mention is made anywhere that I can find of the Georgian war crimes that inititated this confrontation. Georgia blew apart a small city and murdered civilians and destroyed, wantonly, property and shelters. Find me a mention of this in any Murdoch paper, or Time Warner outlet. If one only read the NY TImes and Washington Post, one would think Russia just invaded a peaceful democratic outpost run by a "pro-Western" president, who just happened to be a Columbia Law school grad.

Georgian warplanes and armor caused large scale destruction in Southern Ossetia's major cities, leveling much of its capital and not sparing its university grounds.

Here is the best coverage Ive found so far:

But this is good, too, http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article20489.htm

and this:

http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=13285

What is so telling, in an era of The Dark Knight and *24* and *The Kingdom* and *Iron Man* is the comic book and jingoistic level of the media created narrative. The eastward sweep of NATO has been a prolonged provocation for Putin, and as Kosovo was granted, ah, em, *independence*, one could see the pattern emerging in bold relief. The Israeli connection warrants more analysis as well, but again, you will find not a single mention in the corporate western press.

The coverage of Haiti, of the FRY [FED. REPUBLIC OF YUGOSLAVIA], of Rwanda, have all set the pattern for this massive propaganda, but perhaps the coverage of Georgia/Russia is the most blatant and jaw-dropping in its disregard for facts.

Whatever his faults, Putin is not a man to be shoved around by the hypocrites who constantly shed crocodile tears for democracy in "the West".

Predictably McCain has asked for Russia to *stand down*. Now it's worth noting that a top McCain advisor was a leading lobbyist for Georgia, that McCain's support of nuclear energy is tied directly to the weaponizing of space and the lucrative contracts attached to that enterprise. Obama is hardly better. The perception being created is pure cold war; it's as if those dirty commies were still in power, still out to humilate *us* with Sputnik, and to take over the world. I keep hearing of *Russian expansionism* from western commentators. No mention is made of what country in the world now occupies two previously sovereign nations, and who is pushing for military bases in every corner of the world. The NY Times has been an obscenity on this, but almost all major news outlets have dutifully followed the state department scenario. The comic book bogeyman is Putin, and/or the mythic *Russian Bear*, and Georgia is just a plucky innocent and new little democracy being assaulted by this big bad bear.

Pipeline construction in the Caspian [Caucasus] region. No wonder "the West" --as the American press so coyly calls America's naked projection of power across the globe--is interested in the area.

Saakashvilli is among the more repressive world leaders now in office. But the master narrative we are constantly fed would have us think it's actually Chavez who has shut down opposition news outlets. Or that it's Mugabe who is the corrupt tyrant stealing resources from his people. Facts just don't matter anymore. Not even a little.

Georgia spent 70% of its budget on US weapons and training. No wonder Cheney likes them so much.

Questions of how directly the US instructed Georgian actions remains to be revealed, but clearly enough Saakashvilli didn't do this without talking to his masters.

The US economy is bankrupt, the populace drugged and confused (although one does see signs of awakening in certain corners) and the war machine is all that keeps things spinning, and if Iraq and Afganistan can't use up enough munitions, well maybe Georgia can expend a few additional rounds and fuck up a few Humvees.

If ever there was a time to turn off CNN and the BBC and NBC, ABC and FOX, it's now. The NY Times is a grotesque toady to this US administration, and one should have realized this with the hiring of Bill Kristol, but of course none of the rest of these lapdog Quisling rodents are any better.

CNN: World's "news leader." Yeah. Right. Fancy conduit for 24/7 propaganda would be more apt. If the consequences of this type of "journalism" were not so tragic, the claim would be worth a hearty laugh.

A world of unreality, as Edward Said put it before his death. And so it is. But it's increasingly dangerous to accept even a single word from the mouths of the corporate talking heads as fact. Not a single word.

Senior Editor John Steppling currently teaches film in Lodz, Poland. Before transferring to The Greanville Journal, Steppling and co-editor Guy Zimmerman helmed VOXPOP, our special blog devoted to theater, culture, arts and politics.

During the night of August 7, coinciding with the opening ceremony of the Beijing Olympics, Georgia's president Saakashvili ordered an all-out military attack on Tskhinvali, the capital of South Ossetia.

The aerial bombardments and ground attacks were largely directed against civilian targets including residential areas, hospitals and the university. The provincial capital Tskhinvali was destroyed. The attacks resulted in some 1500 civilian deaths, according to both Russian and Western sources. "The air and artillery bombardment left the provincial capital without water, food, electricity and gas. Horrified civilians crawled out of the basements into the streets as fighting eased, looking for supplies." (AP, August 9, 2008). According to reports, some 34,000 people from South Ossetia have fled to Russia. (Deseret Morning News, Salt Lake City, August 10, 2008)

The importance and timing of this military operation must be carefully analyzed. It has far-reaching implications.

Georgia is an outpost of US and NATO forces, on the immediate border of the Russian Federation and within proximity of the Middle East Central Asian war theater. South Ossetia is also at the crossroads of strategic oil and gas pipeline routes.

Georgia does not act militarily without the assent of Washington. The Georgian head of State is a US proxy and Georgia is a de facto US protectorate.

Who is behind this military agenda? What interests are being served? What is the purpose of the military operation?

There is evidence that the attacks were carefully coordinated by the US military and NATO.

Moscow has accused NATO of "encouraging Georgia". Russia's Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov underscored the destabilizing impacts of "foreign" military aid to Georgia: .

"It all confirms our numerous warnings addressed to the international community that it is necessary to pay attention to massive arms purchasing by Georgia during several years. Now we see how these arms and Georgian special troops who had been trained by foreign specialists are used," he said.(Moscow accuses NATO of having "encouraged Georgia" to attack South Ossetia, Russia Today, August 9, 2008)

Moscow's envoy to NATO, Dmitry Rogozin, sent an official note to the representatives of all NATO member countries:

"Russia has already begun consultations with the ambassadors of the NATO countries and consultations with NATO military representatives will be held tomorrow," Rogozin said. "We will caution them against continuing to further support of Saakashvili."

"It is an undisguised aggression accompanied by a mass propaganda war," he said.

(See Moscow accuses NATO of having "encouraged Georgia" to attack South Ossetia, Russia Today, August 9, 2008)

According to Rogozin, Georgia had initially planned to:

"start military action against Abkhazia, however, 'the Abkhaz fortified region turned out to be unassailable for Georgian armed formations, therefore a different tactic was chosen aimed against South Ossetia', which is more accessible territorially. The envoy has no doubts that Mikheil Saakashvili had agreed his actions with "sponsors", "those with whom he is negotiating Georgia's accession to NATO ". (RIA Novosti, August 8, 2008)

Contrary to what was conveyed by Western media reports, the attacks were anticipated by Moscow. The attacks were timed to coincide with the opening of the Olympics, largely with a view to avoiding frontpage media coverage of the Georgian military operation.

On August 7, Russian forces were in an advanced state of readiness. The counterattack was swiftly carried out.

Russian paratroopers were sent in from Russia's Ivanovo, Moscow and Pskov airborne divisions. Tanks, armored vehicles and several thousand ground troops have been deployed. Russian air strikes have largely targeted military facilities inside Georgia including the Gori military base.

The Georgian military attack was repelled with a massive show of strength on the part of the Russian military.

In this image made from television, Russian military vehicles are seen moving towards the capital of South Ossetia, Tskhinvali, on Friday, Aug. 8, 2008. (AP / APTN). The Russians were quite aware of what was being planned, hence their prompt and resolute response, but the conflict is still a Western intrigue in a criminal game that seeks to encircle and provoke Russia.

Act of Provocation?

US-NATO military and intelligence planners invariably examine various "scenarios" of a proposed military operation- i.e. in this case, a limited Georgian attack largely directed against civilian targets, with a view to inflicting civilian casualties. ??The examination of scenarios is a routine practice. With limited military capabilities, a Georgian victory and occupation of Tskhinvali, was an impossibility from the outset. And this was known and understood to US-NATO military planners.

Georgia and the Ossetian disputed region. The entire caucasus is now a tinderbox, and the US and the NATO partners continue to stoke the fires. Meanwhile, the US media, as usual, continue to disinform shamelessly about the motives and objectives of the entire operation.

A humanitarian disaster rather than a military victory was an integral part of the scenario. The objective was to destroy the provincial capital, while also inflicting a significant loss of human life.

If the objective were to restore Georgian political control over the provincial government, the operation would have been undertaken in a very different fashion, with Special Forces occupying key public buildings, communications networks and provincial institutions, rather than waging an all out bombing raid on residential areas, hospitals, not to mention Tskhinvali's University.

The Russian response was entirely predictable.

Georgia was "encouraged" by NATO and the US. Both Washington and NATO headquarters in Brussels were acutely aware of what would happen in the case of a Russian counterattack.

The question is: was this a deliberate provocation intended to trigger a Russian military response and suck the Russians into a broader military confrontation with Georgia (and allied forces) which could potentially escalate into an all out war?

Georgia has the third largest contingent of coalition forces in Iraq after the US and the UK, with some 2000 troops. According to reports, Georgian troops in Iraq are now being repatriated in US military planes, to fight Russian forces. (See Debka.com, August 10, 2008)

This US decision to repatriate Georgian servicemen suggests that Washington is intent upon an escalation of the conflict, where Georgian troops are to be used as cannon fodder against a massive deployment of Russian forces.

US-NATO and Israel Involved in the Planning of the Attacks

In mid-July, Georgian and U.S. troops held a joint military exercise entitled "Immediate Response" involving respectively 1,200 US and 800 Georgian troops.

The announcement by the Georgian Ministry of Defense on July 12 stated that they US and Georgian troops were to "train for three weeks at the Vaziani military base" near the Georgian capital, Tbilisi. (AP, July 15, 2008). These exercises, which were completed barely a week before the August 7 attacks, were an obvious dress rehearsal of a military operation, which, in all likelihood, had been planned in close cooperation with the Pentagon. The war on Southern Ossetia was not meant to be won, leading to the restoration of Georgian sovereignty over South Ossetia. It was intended to destabilize the region while also triggering a US-NATO confrontation with Russia.

On July 12, coinciding with the outset of the Georgia-US war games, the Russian Defense Ministry started its own military maneuvers in the North Caucasus region. The usual disclaimer by both Tblisi and Moscow: the military exercises have "nothing to do" with the situation in South Ossetia. (Ibid)

Let us be under no illusions. This is not a civil war. The attacks are an integral part of the broader Middle East Central Asian war, including US-NATO-Israeli war preparations in relation to Iran.

The Role of Israeli Military Advisers

While NATO and US military advisers did not partake in the military operation per se, they were actively involved in the planning and logistics of the attacks. According to Israeli sources (Debka.com, August 8, 2008), the ground assault on August 7-8, using tanks and artillery was "aided by Israeli military advisers". Israel also supplied Georgia with Hermes-450 and Skylark unmanned aerial vehicles, which were used in the weeks leading up to the August 7 attacks. Georgia has also acquired, according to a report in Rezonansi (August 6, in Georgian, BBC translation) "some powerful weapons through the upgrade of Su-25 planes and artillery systems in Israel". According to Haaretz (August 10, 2008), Israelis are active in military manufacturing and security consulting in Georgia. Russian forces are now directly fighting a NATO-US trained Georgian army integrated by US and Israeli advisers. And Russian warplanes have attacked the military jet factory on the outskirts of Tbilisi, which produces the upgraded Su-25 fighter jet, with technical support from Israel. (CTV.ca, August 10, 2008)

When viewed in the broader context of the Middle East war, the crisis in Southern Ossetia could lead to escalation, including a direct confrontation between Russian and NATO forces. If this were to occur, we would be facing the most serious crisis in US-Russian relations since the Cuban Missile crisis in October 1962.

Georgia: NATO-US Outpost

Georgia is part of a NATO military alliance (GUAM) signed in April 1999 at the very outset of the war on Yugoslavia. It also has a bilateral military cooperation agreement with the US. These underlying military agreements have served to protect Anglo-American oil interests in the Caspian sea basin as well as pipeline routes.

Both the US and NATO have a military presence in Georgia and are working closely with the Georgian Armed Forces. Since the signing of the 1999 GUAM agreement, Georgia has been the recipient of extensive US military aid.

Barely a few months ago, in early May, the Russian Ministry of Defense accused Washington, "claiming that [US as well as NATO and Israeli] military assistance to Georgia is destabilizing the region." (Russia Claims Georgia in Arms Buildup, Wired News, May 19, 2008). According to the Russian Defense Ministry,

"Georgia has received 206 tanks, of which 175 units were supplied by NATO states, 186 armored vehicles (126 - from NATO) , 79 guns (67 - from NATO) , 25 helicopters (12 - from NATO) , 70 mortars, ten surface-to-air missile systems, eight Israeli-made unmanned aircraft, and other weapons. In addition, NATO countries have supplied four combat aircraft to Georgia. The Russian Defense Ministry said there were plans to deliver to Georgia 145 armored vehicles, 262 guns and mortars, 14 combat aircraft including four Mirazh-2000 destroyers, 25 combat helicopters, 15 American Black Hawk aircraft, six surface-to-air missile systems and other arms." (Interfax News Agency, Moscow, in Russian, Aug 7, 2008)

NATO-US-Israeli assistance under formal military cooperation agreements involves a steady flow of advanced military equipment as well as training and consulting services.

According to US military sources (spokesman for US European Command), the US has more than 100 "military trainers" in Georgia. A Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman "said there were no plans to redeploy the estimated 130 US troops and civilian contractors, who he said were stationed in the area around Tblisi" (AFP, 9 August 2008). In fact, US-NATO military presence in Georgia is on a larger scale to that acknowledged in official statements. The number of NATO personnel in Georgia acting as trainers and military advisers has not been confirmed.

Although not officially a member of NATO, Georgia's military is fully integrated into NATO procedures. In 2005, the Georgian president proudly announced the inauguration of the first military base, which "fully meets NATO standards". Immediately following the inauguration of the Senakskaya base in west Georgia, Tblisi announced the opening of a second military base at Gori which would also "comply with NATO regulations in terms of military requirements as well as social conditions." (Ria Novosti, 26 May 2006). The Gori base has been used to train Georgian troops dispatched to fight under US command in the Iraq war theater.

It is worth noting that under a March 31, 2006, agreement between Tblisi and Moscow, Russia's two Soviet-era military bases in Georgia - Akhalkalaki and Batumi have been closed down. (Ibid) The pullout at Batumi commenced in May of last year, 2007. The last remaining Russian troops left the Batumi military facility in early July 2008, barely a week before the commencement of the US-Georgia war games and barely a month prior to the attacks on South Ossetia.

The Israel Connection

Israel is now part of the Anglo-American military axis, which serves the interests of the Western oil giants in the Middle East and Central Asia.

Israel is a partner in the Baku-Tblisi- Ceyhan pipeline which brings oil and gas to the Eastern Mediterranean. More than 20 percent of Israeli oil is imported from Azerbaijan, of which a large share transits through the BTC pipeline. Controlled by British Petroleum, the BTC pipeline has dramatically changed the geopolitics of the Eastern Mediterranean and the Caucusus:

"[The BTC pipeline] considerably changes the status of the region's countries and cements a new pro-West alliance. Having taken the pipeline to the Mediterranean, Washington has practically set up a new bloc with Azerbaijan, Georgia, Turkey and Israel, " (Komerzant, Moscow, 14 July 2006)

While the official reports state that the BTC pipeline will "channel oil to Western markets", what is rarely acknowledged is that part of the oil from the Caspian sea would be directly channeled towards Israel, via Georgia. In this regard, a Israeli-Turkish pipeline project has also been envisaged which would link Ceyhan to the Israeli port of Ashkelon and from there through Israel's main pipeline system, to the Red Sea.

The objective of Israel is not only to acquire Caspian Sea oil for its own consumption needs but also to play a key role in re-exporting Caspian sea oil back to the Asian markets through the Red Sea port of Eilat. The strategic implications of this re-routing of Caspian Sea oil are far-reaching. (For further details see Michel Chossudovsky, The War on Lebanon and the Battle for Oil, Global Research, July 2006)

What is envisaged is to link the BTC pipeline to the Trans-Israel Eilat-Ashkelon pipeline, also known as Israel's Tipline, from Ceyhan to the Israeli port of Ashkelon.

"Turkey and Israel are negotiating the construction of a multi-million-dollar energy and water project that will transport water, electricity, natural gas and oil by pipelines to Israel, with the oil to be sent onward from Israel to the Far East,

The new Turkish-Israeli proposal under discussion would see the transfer of water, electricity, natural gas and oil to Israel via four underwater pipelines.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1145961328841&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

"Baku oil can be transported to Ashkelon via this new pipeline and to India and the Far East.[via the Red sea]"

"Ceyhan and the Mediterranean port of Ashkelon are situated only 400 km apart. Oil can be transported to the city in tankers or via specially constructed under-water pipeline. From Ashkelon the oil can be pumped through already existing pipeline to the port of Eilat at the Red Sea; and from there it can be transported to India and other Asian countries in tankers. (REGNUM)

In this regard, Israel is slated to play a major strategic role in "protecting" the Eastern Mediterranean transport and pipeline corridors out of Ceyhan. Concurrently, it's also involved in channeling military aid and training to both Georgia and Azerbaijan.

A far-reaching 1999 bilateral military cooperation agreement between Tblisi and Tel Aviv was reached barely a month before the NATO sponsored GUUAM agreement. It was signed in Tbilisi by President Shevardnadze and Israel's Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyu. These various military cooperation arrangements are ultimately intended to undermine Russia's presence and influence in the Caucasus and Central Asia.

In a pro forma declaration, Tel Aviv committed itself, following bilateral discussions with Moscow, on August 5, 2008, to cut back military assistance to Georgia.

Russia's Response

Russian armor on the move to defend Ossetia.

In response to the attacks, Russian forces intervened with conventional ground troops. Tanks and armored vehicles were sent in. The Russian air force was also involved in aerial counter-attacks on Georgian military positions including the military base of Gori.

The Western media has portrayed the Russians as solely responsible for the deaths of civilians, yet at the same time the Western media has acknowledged (confirmed by the BBC) that most of the civilian casualties at the outset were the result of the Georgian ground and air attacks.

Based on Russian and Western sources, the initial death toll in South Ossetia was at least 1,400 (BBC) mostly civilians. "Georgian casualty figures ranged from 82 dead, including 37 civilians, to a figure of around 130 dead.... A Russian air strike on Gori, a Georgian town near South Ossetia, left 60 people dead, many of them civilians, Georgia says." (BBC, August 9, 2008). Russian sources place the number of civilian deaths on South Ossetia at 2000.

A process of escalation and confrontation between Russia and America is unfolding, reminiscent of the Cold War era.

Are we dealing with an act of provocation, with a view to triggering a broader conflict? Supported by media propaganda, the Western military alliance is intent on using this incident to confront Russia, as evidenced by recent NATO statements.

Michel Chossudovsky is a senior editor at Global Research, an independent strategic think tank.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Centre for Research on Globalization. The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). The Centre for Research on Globalization will not be responsible or liable for any inaccurate or incorrect statements contained in this article.

www.globalresearch.ca contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of "fair use" in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than "fair use" you must request permission from the copyright owner.

For media inquiries: crgeditor@yahoo.com

© Copyright Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, 2008

What happened to us along the way? Where are we headed? Why do we frequently find ourselves between a rock and a hard place? If a civilian rule is the norm for most other nations, why does the Khaki intervene so regularly in Pakistani governance? If the Khaki does intervene, why doesn't it continue for good making it the rule rather than the exception? Why is it that people are, in the end, as fed up with the military rule as its civilian predecessor? If democracy is that universal cure-all medicine for all other contemporary nations, why doesn't it work in Pakistan?

What exactly is the problem?

Pakistan's problem, exactly, is: "The military intervenes regularly and interrupts the civilian governance with a disturbing frequency."

Why does the Pakistan Army intervene in civilian governance? The simplest answer to this question is because it can.

Pakistan Army has neither descended from Mars, nor sent in by the Chinese on loan, nor is raised from men reared in an incubator. It very much comprises of men drawn from a cross-section of Pakistani society cherishing the same ideals, having the same tastes, norms, mores, ethos, and morals.

One can find a banker, a businessman, a doctor, an army officer and, sometimes, even an odd politician in the same family. The Pakistan Army, therefore, values the same ideals, is inspired by the same issues, and in the same way, as the rest of the nation. It is, in short, a chip off the same block.

Furthermore, Pakistan Army is the largest single organization having its own transportation, communications, health, accommodation, and a host of other mini-systems. It is, in a way, a complete sub-society in its own rights. The only unique distinguishing factor is that of military discipline, a woefully lacking feature in the otherwise larger Pakistani society. It, therefore, tends to have a blowback effect on its larger parent body.

Like any other army, Pakistan Army too has been entrusted with the task of guarding its frontiers. This is sometimes taken to mean guarding all geographical and ideological frontiers...a debatable point at best. The thoroughly modern army is seen as the final saviours by the illiterate multitudes that inhabit this country. Over a period of time, the Pak army has not only started to believe in such a role for itself, it has started to relish it too.

Militaries the world over are essentially alarmists in nature. Pakistan Army is no exception. Yet due to the fully-believed final-saviours role, the swiftness with which it reacts to any real or imaginary internal threat to national security is singularly unique. Above all, Pakistan Army has the gun and their civilian counterparts have none.

So in a single sentence it can be said that Pakistan Army is the largest single, well disciplined, armed organization entrusted to guard the somewhat elusive frontiers of a nation whose pains and tribulations are shared by it.

Field Marshal Ayub Khan was the man who led the first intervention of Pakistan Army in the civilian governance of the time. There was a palpable sense of relief in a nation gone sick of the crafty politicians and their intrigues.

In the following four decades of intermittent military rule the Pak Army continued to draw a few lessons for itself. These are:

- All politicians without exception are cunning, greedy and corrupt to the bones. The governance of the country, therefore, could not be left to the politicians alone.

- The people of Pakistan look up to Pakistan Army as the final saviours. As that is the ultimate truth, the world opinion can cool its heels.

- It is good to be the kings.

Let us take a brief look at a typical political-military cycle of governance in Pakistan. The single most frequently cited raison d'être for the military intervention, save for the last time when the civilian rulers were blamed for criminal intent first, has been the ineptitude and corruption of politicians.

Even in this latest intervention, corruption of politicians ultimately came to ride in the forefront of all theories put forward as justifications. In the sporadic civilian rules, the politicians would tend to hit the gravy train with a vengeance. While the Khaki would wrap up its possibly objectionable activities in blankets of national security, there was no such luck for their civilian counterparts.

Devoid of a sacrosanct cover, and not sure of the time the khaki would give them, the in-power politicians would simply dive into the national coffers headlong and go berserk. This would be a frantic and highly visible activity on the otherwise placid national scene. To ward off the intervention of an army that can and will intervene, the politicians should have been focusing their energies on making and sustaining strong sturdy institutions.

Additionally, it is a universal fact that the militaries the world over, Pakistan Army being no exception, are interested only in strengthening their own institution. This reality should have further urged the politicians to, at the minimum, strengthen existing institutions if not model new ones - institutions that could act as bulwarks against military intervention. They, instead, ended up attacking these very institutions in the brief respites that they would give themselves from robbing the nation blind.

Stories of Zardaris and their cronies making sickeningly large fortunes in less time than one can say the word dollar would start doing the rounds in the army mess halls. The nation too would be abuzz with the dizzying tales of unbelievable gluttony and naked nepotism of these politicians. Truth would become a first casualty as usual and perceptions would be all that matter. People would start sending agitated signals to the military. Even the out of power sycophants amongst the politicians would start clamouring for military intervention.

The military, with the all-too-convenient self-drawn lessons etched on its mind, would willingly read much that is not there in these calls. It would watch for a while, let the stew bubble up to a point just below eruption, and then bring down the axe with a loud thud of moral righteousness. The scavengers would be caught with the gravy almost running down their chins. Accountability would become the prime exhortation of the saviours. A lot of fleeing, nabbing, and prosecuting would be seen by the galleries. Soon the dust would settle down. The Allah Dads and Gul Mohammads would once again get busy in search of three square meals. For a while it would be back to normalcy, or whatever its Pakistani equivalent.

Over time, the politicians too drew a few lessons for themselves. These are:

- The military can and will intervene. It is watching their each and every move with malicious intent. It is only a matter of time before they intervene again. So concentrate hard on refining the art of robbery. The institutions, in the meanwhile, can take a walk.

- The military has the biggest gun in the country. Hate it for that and off-set this vital shortfall by wile, cunning, fraud and subterfuge.

- It is good to be the kings but it is oh-so-short.

The military would get down to enjoying the pleasures of the King's role in real earnest. Along the way, and contrary to what the politicians do, they would add further muscle to their own institution with better arms, permanent placement of own men in strategic appointments, and insertion/deletion of vital clauses in the constitution for longevity of military rule.

Before long the military too would start suffering from a different kind of visibility problem. They would deluge the state machinery with a tidal wave of men in khaki. Railways, WAPDA, communications, transportation, media, sports, education, police, national financial institutions, municipalities, bureaucracy, town planning, various state administrative setups etc. etc. would be overflowing with serving and retired khakis.

Initially they would serve with a typical military zeal and spirit. Having essentially the same values as the rest of the nation, soon a similar ratio of rogues amongst them would start indulging in the very same activities they once blamed their civilian counterparts for. After a while, despite layers of secrecy, for every Zardari the military would start throwing up its own Mansoor-ul-Haq.

Likewise, the military too would be right on track in practicing the fine art of nepotism. The nation would spot their progeny gorging itself on the ill-gotten fruits in plain sight. Once again a wave of discontent would wash over the nation. International opinion too would start to make distracting noises for democracy.

At this stage the military would get into a standard dilemma. How to, or whether to, get back into the long vacant barracks? The military would start to thrash exit strategies with feverish urgency. It would then start bringing in the discarded, but willing, politicians as a façade for democracy. It would be afraid of dismounting the tiger that it rode because the tiger was not theirs to ride in the first place.

It would take a monumental misfortune like the loss of half a country or a major accident like the mid-air explosion of an airplane carrying the country's military ruler for it to withdraw. In their hasty and disorderly retreat, the military would leave behind a worse lot of politicians than the ones they booted out.

Each party would get back to its primary role for a short period of time and re-read their lessons. After a brief interval the whole cycle would, once again, start its sickening repetition. This is how a typical political-military governance cycle goes in Pakistan. Ironically, the nation in whose name this tug-of-war goes on is a silent bystander and figures nowhere in the scheme of things.

The root cause of the problem, then, is inept politicians and a heavily armed military that deeply mistrusts civilian governance. In the absence of strong institutions and an intrinsic check on the misrule of the politicians the military finds it only too easy to intervene whenever it wants to. As a matter of fact the Pak army has evolved as an alternate political force and woos the same very nation for approval that the politicians do.

Blame game notwithstanding, both the military and the politicians have contributed in equal measures to the present state of perfidy.

The Solution: No viable solution can be applied to an intractable problem unless the parties to the problem move from their stated positions. The contending parties are the politicians who are supposed to be representing the nation, but we know better than that. The army whose sole job should have been defense of the borders, but again we know better than that. The nation, of course, is a helpless on-looker.

For any solution to click, the prerequisites will have to be present. For an ideal democracy to work we should have politicians whose majority stands tall, upright and capable of delivering. We should also have educated citizenry able to use the power of vote for the societal good at large while spawning high caliber politicians in its womb in the meanwhile. As for upright politicians in our country, the pen wavers while putting two such words together and the present state of national literacy is a story foretold. As both prerequisites are non-existent at the moment, let us forget about the concept of ideal democracy for a while.

On the other hand, we could disband the army, take away their gun or carry out gene therapy on its governance taste buds. We cannot do without an army for the present and none has ever heard of an army minus the guns. While the penchant that the military has developed for governance in the last four decades may wane in time, there is no such hope for the immediate future. History cannot be undone and the old hands are still around. For a workable solution both the military and the politicians will have to move from their avowed position of reciprocal hatred and fixated postures.

A half way measure will have to be accepted as a stop-gap means. The concept of ideal Western style democracy will have to be put on the back-burner for a while. Both parties will have to accept mutual checks and balances; the politicians on their tendency to melt within the general vicinity of state treasuries and the military on its propensity towards intervention...the sole aim being the continuity of civilian governance so that it can formulate and pursue policies without fear of interruption. Policies with the aim of so educating the nation that it can in, let us say, 20 years time throw up a mass of educated electorate who can choose what is good for them and their society. And while that is happening each will have to unlearn, if that can be done, the self-drawn lessons.

The military will have to realize that military interventionism is in fact obsolete. That the present overtures of the world powers are pregnant with self-serving sycophancy. That the George Bushes of this world burst out laughing no sooner they close the doors after seeing off a visiting military tin pot ruler from the gates of the White House. They will have to learn that the ineptitude of politicians, and their love of greenbacks, is a universal phenomenon and not singularly unique to the Pakistani lot.

And that in their own ranks too there are villains who will match if not surpass the greed of these politicians. They will have to wash away the pleasant memories of the heady days of the Khaki Raj and dampen their enthusiasm of using the sledgehammer at the slightest of provocation. They will have to concentrate on the art of soldiery and realize that skills honed in developing housing societies and producing breakfast cereals are worthless in a battlefield.

Likewise, the politicians too will have to smarten up their act and catch up on the fact that the nation they wish to rule has no further patience for their antics. A capable, honest and delivering politician cannot be removed by even the highest caliber guns of the land as was proven not long back in Venezuela. President Chavez was carried on shoulders by his people and put back in his office despite the sole superpower openly backing the Venezuelan military putsch.

The politicians must hit the history books and remember what the French peasantry did to the people with soft hands at the gates of Paris in the French Revolution. They hung them by their necks from the nearest trees for never having put an honest day's labor with those hands.

No sooner did the life of the father of the nation end in dubious circumstances; we have been bandied about ad nauseam. From sick, debilitated politicians to greedy, power-hungry Generals it has been one nightmare of a journey for this ideological nation state.

In the Pakistani landscape, the dictators emerged in all colors ranging from Khaki to whites and in attires from Generals' tunics to sherwanis and pinstripe suits. They led this gullible nation down blind alleys waving banners of theocracy, democracy, basic democracy, peoples' empowerment, housing, clothing, and what you have. Some had no such patience for these verbal mirages and enforced plain despotic rules. We believed in them and their promises. They promised us better tomorrows. Sunny days in flowery gardens free of darkness and misery. Days when our progeny and we would live in a happy present with sights set squarely at a promising future.

In return, they only wanted a little more sacrifice from us. We went along with them. Merrily carrying our impoverished bodies to whatever altar of sacrifice was appointed for us. The promised sacrifices would always be exacted in full and then some more. The promised gardens, however, would be nowhere nor sunshine nor any silver lining on the dark horizons of our wretched existence. The messiahs would disappear into far off lands after having raped our innocence. The nation would lie prone bleeding profusely from wounds inflicted with a careless abandon. Time for other messiahs to appear? Are they here after all? Is there hope? Is any one listening?

Happy 61st year, Pakistan!

*****

Author's note:

Amen.

Reports on Moussa's death vary. The Anti- Apartheid Wall Campaign's report said that the boy was "sitting under a tree with his friends when a military jeep drove up and the army shot him -- a live bullet pierced his head. The boy died immediately."

Agency France Press's report, the day following his death, confirmed the nature of the death but said that the boy was killed during the demonstration. Nilin, one of the numerous villages losing land to the Israeli wall -- deemed illegal according to the International Court of Justice in 2004 -- holds regular protests against the confiscation and destruction of the village's farms. It's part of a sustained non- violent campaign that brings together Israeli, Palestinian and international peace activists.

"Moussa tried to run away but his sandal slipped off after he stumbled over a part of the fence," according to one of Moussa's friends.

The fact is, a young boy who should be at home enjoying the company of his family and friends, or attending a summer camp, or playing in the sunshine, is now dead. He is one of hundreds of Palestinian children killed by Israeli soldiers in recent years in a consistent pattern of deliberately targeting children.

Trying to make sense out of his tragedy, the father had this to say: "God gave me my son Ahmed, and he took him as a martyr."

Not an hour and a half drive away from Nilin, Bahloul is suffering from kidney failure. He is hooked up to a pitiable looking dialysis machine in a Gaza hospital. Aljazeera.net reported on Bahloul's case: for three months, said his mother, Nadia, he received no medication and no vitamins to strengthen his sickly body. "There isn't one door I didn't knock on, hoping to find medicine for Mohamed," said Nadia. In a place similar in many respects to a concentration camp, where 1.5 million people are subject to the most inhumane conditions, Bahloul's case is hardly the exception.

Despite the ceasefire between the Hamas government in Gaza and Israel that ensured that homemade Palestinian rockets are no longer fired at southern Israeli towns, there is no respite from poverty and siege in Gaza. UNRWA's head of Gaza operations, John Ging, said that the situation is getting "worse and worse" for the people in Gaza, who are largely aid- dependant. He promised that his office would do all it can to help "those poor people, as they continue to get poorer and poorer."

The extent of the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza has already passed many thresholds as poverty has rendered most Gazans dependant on food aid for survival. Hospitals are lacking equipment and medicine, and neither Israel nor Egypt allows Palestinians from Gaza suffering from life threatening illnesses to travel freely, and on a regular basis. Now even water in Gaza is polluted beyond foreseeable remedy.

The Christian Science Monitor reported 21 July that only one-sixth of Gaza's daily sewage -- estimated at up to 120 million litres a day -- is fully treated. The massive amount of untreated sewage finds its way into the sea, and into the Strip's water supply. "If there is a stronger word than catastrophe, I would use that word," said Nader Al-Khateeb, the Palestinian director of Friends of the Earth Middle East. The catastrophe is a "result of Gaza's dilapidated water and sewage infrastructure undermined by [Israeli] attacks and fuel blockades."

According to Monther Shoblak, director of the Gaza Emergency Waste Project funded by the World Bank, due to sewage seeping into the ground, the aquifer beneath Gaza, which provides water for drinking and washing, is now so polluted with nitrates that only 10 per cent currently meets World Health Organisation standards for safety. As a result, water-related diseases in Gaza are rife.

Gaza is experiencing devastation on so many levels that it is impossible to locate any positive health or economic indicators. Bahloul's mother's wrenching search for medicine to save her son is compounded by her husband having lost his job due to the Israeli siege and while there are other mouths to feed. Unemployment in Gaza is skyrocketing and children are often forced out of school to help bolster the meagre incomes of poor families. Selling tea in the street from giant teapots hauled by children often not old enough to enrol in school is a growing profession.

While Palestinian villagers in the West Bank are fighting eviction notices from their homes and lands to make space for Israel's projected 723 kilometre (454 miles) long wall, of which 57 per cent is already complete, Palestinians in Gaza are fighting for bare survival. Their plight is dreadfully similar. Despite the fact that the West Bank and Gaza were divided by occupation and self- seeking and wealthy politicians, they are united by grief, and by their common struggle.

Meanwhile, in a report released 30 July, Human Rights Watch claims that Hamas and Fatah have both carried out serious human rights abuses, including torture, against members of the opposing group. While Hamas is regularly derided for human rights violations reported in Gaza, which have been used to retrospectively justify the lethal siege, Mahmoud Abbas's party hardly receives any reprimand. The report faulted "the United States and other donors, which have bankrolled President Mahmoud Abbas's Palestinian Authority and Fatah-dominated security agencies", for "not paying adequate attention to the systematic abuses by those forces," reported Al-Bawaba in Jordan.

Media reports with titles such as "Palestinians torture Palestinians" quickly flooded newspapers. Hamas and Fatah members screamed obscenities against each other and the arrests and torture campaign, reportedly continued. The conflict seemed for a moment entirely Palestinian, with Israel an innocent observer.

Meanwhile, Moussa's father continues to seek "God's mercy" for his son's soul. Prayer and supplication are his only resort. In Gaza, death continues to hover over Bahloul's household.

There is something utterly cruel about all of this, utterly inhumane.

The Bush administration has told a lot of lies, but there are two clear truths that came out of the administration. One was Bush stating that the war on terrorism would be a multi-generational war, and as the world struggles this may ultimately be true. The second was Colin Powell advising Bush et al, regarding invading Iraq that if they broke it they had to buy it .

However, in the run up to the invasion, Wolfowitz stated that this would be war on the cheap. Iraq had oil wealth and they could pay for their own reconstruction. This perspective was stated various ways in various venues (see resources at end).

I resented the statement every time I heard it. Why would a nation - regardless of its wealth - pay for the destruction caused by an aggressor engaging in an invasion? Further, an invasion aimed largely at control of those very resources that were being promoted as the nation's source of wealth?

Now, Iraq supposedly has a multi-billion dollar surplus so the hew and cry is that they should being paying for their own reconstruction. Paying whom? The US gave out cost-plus contracts to largely U.S. corporations. A number of those corporations have done worse than a lousy job. Further, they did not hire Iraqi's. They brought in laborers from outside the country. And, with the aid of the U.S. have operated outside of any law. Is Iraq now supposed to start paying those contractors? As, their failed attempt to kick Blackwater out of Iraq proved, they can't just send those corporations packing. Are they supposed to pay out those contracts on the condition they stop work, AND hire Iraqi's to replace them?

Who "shock and awed" Iraq? Who continues to use massive artillery and bombing in an attempt to fight the various factions in Iraq? Who continues to renew cost-plus contracts for non-performing corporations? Who continues to protect those corporations?

Now, who owes whom? Who should pay for the mess? Who controls Iraq's wealth? Is it the Iraqi "government?" Or is it the U.S.?

So folks, including the McCain and Obama campaigns, can posture all they want about how Iraq should start picking up the tab. It sounds more like getting stuck with the bill to me.

Now we might crack down on those non-performing contractors. We might demand that they hire Iraqi's instead of bringing in "foreign" workers. We might start a transition that places Iraq in charge of reconstruction rather than ourselves.

For now, the U.S. needs to acknowledge that we "broke" Iraq, and then we set up a profiteering bonanza. Then we need to do the right thing and give Iraq back to the Iraqis'.

Miscellaneous Resources

Nightline, 1/22/08. False Statements Preceded War

Paul Wolfowitz's Happy Talk Five Years On

Cost of Iraq War and Nation Building

On Iraq - testimony of Paul Wolfowitz, Joshua Bolton and John Keane before Senate Foreign Relations Committee 7/29/2003.

Wright, Guardian. 6/04/2003. Wolfowitz: Iraq war was about oil

Washington Post, 3/20/2005. Wolfowitz Strives To Quell Criticism:

The clip showed Wolfowitz telling a congressional panel, "It's hard to conceive that it would take more forces to provide stability in post-Saddam Iraq than it would take to conduct the war itself," and "The oil revenue of that country could bring between 50 and 100 billion dollars over the course of the next two or three years. We're dealing with a country that could really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon."

Schmitt, NY Times, 2/28/2003, Pentagon Contradicts General on Iraq Occupation Force's Size:

Enlisting countries to help to pay for this war and its aftermath would take more time, he said. "I expect we will get a lot of mitigation, but it will be easier after the fact than before the fact," Mr. Wolfowitz said. Mr. Wolfowitz spent much of the hearing knocking down published estimates of the costs of war and rebuilding, saying the upper range of $95 billion was too high, and that the estimates were almost meaningless because of the variables. Moreover, he said such estimates, and speculation that postwar reconstruction costs could climb even higher, ignored the fact that Iraq is a wealthy country, with annual oil exports worth $15 billion to $20 billion. "To assume we're going to pay for it all is just wrong," he said.

We haven't cleaned up the mess in Viet Nam i.e. Agent Orange.

Maybe they are afraid that if we clean up Viet Nam it will cause a "domino effect"