Tuesday, 13 Jul 2010 11:04 AM
By: Arnaud De Borchgrave
There is no better illustration of the futility of the $1 trillion Iraq war than news photos of a long line of gasoline tankers lined up bumper to bumper as they leave Iraq to enter Iran.
The U.N. Security Council’s decision to strengthen economic measures against Iran and President Barack Obama’s signing into law draconian new legislative sanctions against Iran's nuclear weapons ambitions leave Iraq's defeated government unable to act.
The Iraq Study Group, led by Lee Hamilton, the prominent Democrat who heads the Woodrow Wilson International Center, and James Baker, whose Institute for Public Policy is at Houston's Rice University, warned in 2006 that Iran, now rid of erstwhile enemy Saddam Hussein, already was wielding more influence in Iraq than the United States.
The only sanction that would undermine the mullah's military regime seriously is a severe shortage of gasoline. Iran is awash in oil but lacks refining capacity and has to import 60 percent of its gasoline. A lack of governance in Baghdad has allowed Iran to strike a sub-rosa deal for gasoline imports.
Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's coalition government narrowly lost national elections (89 to 91 seats, both rivals short of the 163 seats needed to govern alone) in March. Endless palavers since then have failed to produce a new coalition. With suicide bombers trying to reignite a bloody trail of sectarian violence, Joe Biden flew into Baghdad over the Fourth of July weekend for his fifth visit since becoming vice president. He urged Iraq's political leaders to form an all-party coalition ASAP.
On his first night there, sirens wailed and a voice shouted over an extensive loudspeaker system: "Duck and cover." Five mortar rounds exploded in the Green Zone, a large maximum-security area in the heart of Baghdad that houses the $700 million, 100-acre U.S. Embassy, now the world's largest.
There was a time when Hussein, the dictator who was executed on Dec. 30, 2006, was the most effective barrier to Iran's regional ambitions. In 1980, he launched an invasion of Iran that led to a Mexican standoff that lasted eight years and caused 1 million deaths on both sides.
Iranian teenagers were pressed into service as "suicide volunteers" with a golden key around their necks — for the gates of paradise that would allow them to meet up with 72 virgins.
Until now those advocating military action against Iran's nuclear installations were found mostly in Israel and among the "neocon" lobby in Congress, and its sympathizers in think tanks and the media. In recent weeks, the ranks of those who now concede the inevitability of a military showdown with Iran's theocracy-cum-military regime have widened to include normally less bellicose politicians and their military friends.
Three former CENTCOM commanders have said on different occasions that we should learn to live with an Iranian bomb, much the way the United States adjusted to Russian leader Joseph Stalin’s breaking America's atomic and then nuclear monopoly. Later, China's Mao Zedong boasted that hundreds of millions of people would die in a nuclear war, and China would emerge victorious because it would still have several hundred million survivors. That was just as much of an existential threat for the United States as Iran is to Israel.
Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, also expressed reservations from time to time. The Joint Chiefs and former CENTCOM commanders know better than most experts that Iran has formidable asymmetrical retaliatory capabilities.
For example, all of these are vulnerable to Iranian sabotage or hundreds of Iranian missiles on the eastern side of the Gulf: from the narrow Straits of Hormuz, which still handles 25 percent of the world's oil traffic; to Bahrain, the U.S. Fifth Fleet’s headquarters where the population is two-thirds Shiite and the royal family is Sunni; to Dubai, where about 400,000 Iranians live, including many who are "sleeper agents" or favorable to Tehran; to Qatar, now the world's richest country with per-capita income at $78,000, which supplies the United States with the world's longest runway and sub-headquarters for CENTCOM, and whose LNG facilities are within short missile range of Iran's coastal batteries; to Saudi Arabia's Ras Tanura, the world's largest oil terminal, and Abqaiq, nerve center of Saudi's eastern oil fields.
Officially, all the Arab rulers of the Persian Gulf and other Arab leaders strenuously oppose any Israeli or U.S. airstrikes against Iran's nuclear facilities. But that opposition is eroding rapidly.
Speaking at the Aspen Institute in Colorado last week, United Arab Emirates Ambassador to the United States Yousef al-Otaiba said publicly — before denying it — "I think despite the large amount of trade we do with Iran, which is close to $12 billion, there will be consequences, there will be a backlash and there will be problems with people protesting and rioting and very unhappy that there is an outside force attacking a Muslim country. That is going to happen, no matter what."
And he added, "If you are asking me, 'Am I willing to live with that versus living with a nuclear Iran,’ my answer is still the same: 'We cannot live with a nuclear Iran.'"
A former Arab leader, in close touch with current leaders, speaking privately not for attribution, told this reporter July 6, "All the Middle Eastern and Gulf leaders now want Iran taken out of the nuclear arms business and they all know sanctions won't work."
In a joint Op-Ed, former U.S. Sen. Chuck Robb, D-Va., and retired U.S. Air Force Gen. Chuck Wald, the air commander in the opening stages of Operation "Enduring Freedom" in October 2001, say the time is now to credibly prepare for a U.S. military strike.
"Sanctions can be effective only if coupled with open preparation for the military option as a last resort . . . publicly playing down potential military options has weakened our leverage with Tehran, making a peaceful resolution less likely."
The temptation for Obama to double down on Iran will grow rapidly as he concludes that Afghanistan will remain a festering sore as far as anyone can peer into a murky future, hardly a recipe for success at the polls in November. With a war in Afghanistan that is bound to get worse and a military theater in Iraq replete with sectarian violence, the bombing of Iran may give Obama a three-front war — and a chance to retain both houses of Congress.
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
Afghanistan & The beginning of US Involvment
1978: CIA Begins Covert Action in Afghanistan The CIA begins covert action against the Communist government in Afghanistan, which is closely tied to the Soviet Union. Some time this year, the CIA begins training militants in Pakistan and beaming radio propaganda into Afghanistan. By April 1979, US officials are meeting with opponents of the Afghan government to determine their needs. [Blum, 1995, pp. 344] Robert Gates, who will become CIA Director in the early 1990s, will later recall that in a meeting on March 30, 1979, Under Secretary of Defense Walter Slocumbe wonders aloud whether there is “value in keeping the Afghan insurgency going, ‘sucking the Soviets into a Vietnamese quagmire.’” [Gates, 1996, pp. 145] In March 1979, there is a major revolt in Herat province, and in June and August there are large scale army mutinies. [Cooley, 2002, pp. 5] President Carter will formally approve covert aid to opponents of the government in July (see July 3, 1979), which will result in a Russian invasion in December (see December 8, 1979).
Entity Tags: Central Intelligence Agency, Robert M. Gates, Walter Slocumbe
Timeline Tags: Complete 911 Timeline, War in Afghanistan
July 3, 1979: President Carter Approves Covert Aid to Anti-Soviet Forces in Afghanistan President Carter authorizes covert aid for opponents of the Communist government in Afghanistan. Zbigniew Brzezinski, Carter’s National Security Adviser, will state in 1998, “According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the mujaheddin began… after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan… But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise: Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.… We didn’t push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.” [Le Nouvel Observateur (Paris), 1/15/1998] After Brzezinski’s confession, other US officials who denied US involvement prior to the Soviet invasion will change their story as well. For instance, Charles Cogan, who is head of the CIA covert aid program to Afghanistan at this time, will call Carter’s approval on this day a “very modest beginning to US involvement.” [Cooley, 2002, pp. 10] In fact, even this is not correct because the CIA had been aiding the rebels since at least the year before (see 1978 and 1973-1979). The Soviets invade Afghanistan by the end of 1979 (see December 8, 1979).
Entity Tags: Zbigniew Brzezinski, James Earl “Jimmy” Carter, Jr., Charles Cogan
Timeline Tags: War in Afghanistan
December 8, 1979: Soviet Forces, Lured in by the CIA, Invade Afghanistan
Soviet tanks entering Afghanistan in late 1979. [Source: Banded Artists Productions]The Soviet Union invades Afghanistan. The Russians were initially invited in by the Afghan government to deal with rising instability and army mutinies, and they start crossing the border on December 8. But on December 26, Russian troops storm the presidential palace, kill the country’s leader, Haizullah Amin, and the invitation turns into an invasion. [Blum, 1995, pp. 342] Later declassified high-level Russian documents will show that the Russian leadership believed that Amin, who took power in a violent coup from another pro-Soviet leader two months before, had secret contacts with the US embassy and was probably a US agent. Further, one document from this month claims that “the right wing Muslim opposition” has “practically established their control in many provinces… using foreign support.” [Cooley, 2002, pp. 8] It has been commonly believed that the invasion was unprovoked, but the Russians will later be proven largely correct. In a 1998 interview, Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Jimmy Carter’s National Security Adviser, will reveal that earlier in the year Carter authorized the CIA to destabilize the government, provoking the Russians to invade (see July 3, 1979). [Le Nouvel Observateur (Paris), 1/1998; Mirror, 1/29/2002] Further, CIA covert action in the country actually began in 1978 (see 1978), if not earlier (see 1973-1979). The US and Saudi Arabia will give a huge amount of money (estimates range up to $40 billion total for the war) to support the mujaheddin guerrilla fighters opposing the Russians, and a decade-long war will ensue. [Nation, 2/15/1999]
Entity Tags: United States, Saudi Arabia, Haizullah Amin, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Central Intelligence Agency
Timeline Tags: Complete 911 Timeline, 9/11 Timeline, War in Afghanistan
Entity Tags: Central Intelligence Agency, Robert M. Gates, Walter Slocumbe
Timeline Tags: Complete 911 Timeline, War in Afghanistan
July 3, 1979: President Carter Approves Covert Aid to Anti-Soviet Forces in Afghanistan President Carter authorizes covert aid for opponents of the Communist government in Afghanistan. Zbigniew Brzezinski, Carter’s National Security Adviser, will state in 1998, “According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the mujaheddin began… after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan… But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise: Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.… We didn’t push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.” [Le Nouvel Observateur (Paris), 1/15/1998] After Brzezinski’s confession, other US officials who denied US involvement prior to the Soviet invasion will change their story as well. For instance, Charles Cogan, who is head of the CIA covert aid program to Afghanistan at this time, will call Carter’s approval on this day a “very modest beginning to US involvement.” [Cooley, 2002, pp. 10] In fact, even this is not correct because the CIA had been aiding the rebels since at least the year before (see 1978 and 1973-1979). The Soviets invade Afghanistan by the end of 1979 (see December 8, 1979).
Entity Tags: Zbigniew Brzezinski, James Earl “Jimmy” Carter, Jr., Charles Cogan
Timeline Tags: War in Afghanistan
December 8, 1979: Soviet Forces, Lured in by the CIA, Invade Afghanistan
Soviet tanks entering Afghanistan in late 1979. [Source: Banded Artists Productions]The Soviet Union invades Afghanistan. The Russians were initially invited in by the Afghan government to deal with rising instability and army mutinies, and they start crossing the border on December 8. But on December 26, Russian troops storm the presidential palace, kill the country’s leader, Haizullah Amin, and the invitation turns into an invasion. [Blum, 1995, pp. 342] Later declassified high-level Russian documents will show that the Russian leadership believed that Amin, who took power in a violent coup from another pro-Soviet leader two months before, had secret contacts with the US embassy and was probably a US agent. Further, one document from this month claims that “the right wing Muslim opposition” has “practically established their control in many provinces… using foreign support.” [Cooley, 2002, pp. 8] It has been commonly believed that the invasion was unprovoked, but the Russians will later be proven largely correct. In a 1998 interview, Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Jimmy Carter’s National Security Adviser, will reveal that earlier in the year Carter authorized the CIA to destabilize the government, provoking the Russians to invade (see July 3, 1979). [Le Nouvel Observateur (Paris), 1/1998; Mirror, 1/29/2002] Further, CIA covert action in the country actually began in 1978 (see 1978), if not earlier (see 1973-1979). The US and Saudi Arabia will give a huge amount of money (estimates range up to $40 billion total for the war) to support the mujaheddin guerrilla fighters opposing the Russians, and a decade-long war will ensue. [Nation, 2/15/1999]
Entity Tags: United States, Saudi Arabia, Haizullah Amin, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Central Intelligence Agency
Timeline Tags: Complete 911 Timeline, 9/11 Timeline, War in Afghanistan
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
Bradley Manning, Soldier Tied To WikiLeaks Iraq Attack Video, Charged In Federal Court, and Pal "Lamo" is a Rat
BARBARA SURK | 07/ 6/10 02:37 PM | AP
BAGHDAD -
The classified video was taken from the cockpit during a 2007 fire fight and posted last April on the website Wikileaks.org. It was an unflattering portrait of the war that raised questions about the military's rules of engagement and whether more should be done to prevent civilian casualties.
Among those believed to have been killed in the attack were a Reuters photographer Namir Noor-Eldeen, 22, and his driver Saeed Chmagh, 40. Two children were wounded.
Hours after the military announcement, Wikileaks sent out a tweet complaining that while Manning was charged, the "trigger-happy Apache crew remain uncharged."
Manning, 22, from Potomac, Md., was detained in Baghdad in early June and is now being held in Kuwait.
A military version of a grand jury hearing will determine if Manning should face a trial by court-martial, the Army's statement said.
No date has been set for the hearing that will take place in Baghdad, Army spokesman Lt. Col. Eric Bloom told The Associated Press on Tuesday.
A criminal investigation is still open, the Army statement said, detailing charges against Manning including "transferring classified data onto his personal computer and adding unauthorized software to a classified computer system."
Manning was also charged with "communicating, transmitting and delivering national defense information to an unauthorized source" and with "disclosing classified information concerning the national defense with reason to believe that the information could cause injury to the United States."
An internal military investigation concluded that the troops in the helicopters acted appropriately. According to a last year's summary of the results of the inquiry, Reuters employees were likely "intermixed among the insurgents" and difficult to distinguish because of their equipment, the document states.
Former computer hacker Adrian Lamo of Sacramento, Calif., said he alerted the military after Manning confided in him online that he had leaked the video in addition to 260,000 classified diplomatic cables.
Lamo, who first provided his account to Wired.com, told The AP last month that he agonized over the decision.
"I turned him in because, for the rest of my life, I'd wonder if something he leaked would have cost a human life," Lamo said.
In 2004, Lamo had pleaded guilty to breaking into The New York Times' computer system and still owes $62,800 in federal restitution. He said he has received no financial benefit from turning in Manning and that the money he owes was never discussed.
BAGHDAD -
The classified video was taken from the cockpit during a 2007 fire fight and posted last April on the website Wikileaks.org. It was an unflattering portrait of the war that raised questions about the military's rules of engagement and whether more should be done to prevent civilian casualties.
Among those believed to have been killed in the attack were a Reuters photographer Namir Noor-Eldeen, 22, and his driver Saeed Chmagh, 40. Two children were wounded.
Hours after the military announcement, Wikileaks sent out a tweet complaining that while Manning was charged, the "trigger-happy Apache crew remain uncharged."
Manning, 22, from Potomac, Md., was detained in Baghdad in early June and is now being held in Kuwait.
A military version of a grand jury hearing will determine if Manning should face a trial by court-martial, the Army's statement said.
No date has been set for the hearing that will take place in Baghdad, Army spokesman Lt. Col. Eric Bloom told The Associated Press on Tuesday.
A criminal investigation is still open, the Army statement said, detailing charges against Manning including "transferring classified data onto his personal computer and adding unauthorized software to a classified computer system."
Manning was also charged with "communicating, transmitting and delivering national defense information to an unauthorized source" and with "disclosing classified information concerning the national defense with reason to believe that the information could cause injury to the United States."
An internal military investigation concluded that the troops in the helicopters acted appropriately. According to a last year's summary of the results of the inquiry, Reuters employees were likely "intermixed among the insurgents" and difficult to distinguish because of their equipment, the document states.
Former computer hacker Adrian Lamo of Sacramento, Calif., said he alerted the military after Manning confided in him online that he had leaked the video in addition to 260,000 classified diplomatic cables.
Lamo, who first provided his account to Wired.com, told The AP last month that he agonized over the decision.
"I turned him in because, for the rest of my life, I'd wonder if something he leaked would have cost a human life," Lamo said.
In 2004, Lamo had pleaded guilty to breaking into The New York Times' computer system and still owes $62,800 in federal restitution. He said he has received no financial benefit from turning in Manning and that the money he owes was never discussed.
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
Iran expects EU to rectify mistakes
IRNA - Islamic Republic News Agency
Tehran, July 6, IRNA -- Iran expects the European Union to rectify its mistakes consistent with national nuclear program, Secretary of the Supreme National Security Council Saeed Jalili said on Tuesday.
He said in his letter to EU foreign policy chief, Catherine Ashton, that the European states are expected to abandon double-standard policies and correct mistakes.
Jalili sent the letter in response to a request made earlier by Ashton to resume talks with the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Jalili said that Iranians have lost confidence in the EU policymaking.
"You need to win confidence of Iranian people more than ever."
"It is very interesting that despite of efforts made by Brazilian and Turkish foreign ministers for resumption of talks, you have been reluctant in the past three months, but, immediately after passing the resolution 1229 at the Security Council against Iran, you have voiced readiness to resume talks," Jalili said.
"Following your request for resumption of talks, the US government along with the European Union imposed a new series of sanctions which is in contradiction with your approach in the context of 'pressure and dialogue' which is totally out of question."
The international community regards dialogue under pressure as ‘dictatorship’, he said adding that resumption of dialogue for escalation of pressures or enmity with a nation is doomed to failure.
Jalili advised the EU foreign policy chief to avoid pursuing dual approach and do something to correct mistakes of the past by opting for true and rational culture of dialogue.
He criticized the European leaders for failure to focus on interaction and cooperation instead of confrontation.
"This time the European leaders are expected to make up their mind whether or not they prefer interaction with Iran or confrontation. The double track or the so-called 'dialogue and pressure' proved not helpful."
Recalling background of Iran-EU dialogue, Jalali said that the Islamic Republic of Iran in 2008, offered a package for negotiations on international concern about proliferation of nuclear weapons and during Geneva talks on June, 21, 2008 and September 24, 2009, the Islamic Republic of Iran explicitly declared that it is ready to hold talk on the package.
"The issue was raised in press conferences and in negotiations with former EU Foreign Policy chief Javier Solana. Therefore, adopting any different approach would be reactionary and non-constructive method which will be ruled out by Iranian nation.
"It is necessary to remind that this has already mentioned in the package offered by Iran that the Islamic Republic of Iran is ready to resume talks on expansion of mutual cooperation, Disarmament of nuclear weapons, non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction as well as studying the chance for collective cooperation of all members for peaceful nuclear energy.
"There is no doubt that to attain the goal all the negotiating sides should be remained committed to Non-Proliferation Treaty and express their concern about the illegal nuclear activities of the Zionist regime.
"The move could help materialize the mottos of Tehran Conference on 'Nuclear Weapons for None and Nuclear Energy for All' which got approval of representatives of all participating states. Active presence of those pursuing the same policy will be very constructive for resumption of talks."
“We are now witnessing that many countries have welcomed such initiatives and cooperation,” he said.
"Tehran Conference on Revision of Non-Proliferation Treaty and Disarmament in which some 189 countries actively took part, proved that many countries abide by NPT and Disarmament and call for the Zionist regime to sign up to NPT.
“If prospects of such dialogue are crystal clear, the Islamic Republic of Iran is ready to employ all its political, economic, regional and international capabilities and facilities to help promote constructive international cooperation consistent with NPT and Disarmament.
"Based on the aforesaid points as declared by Iranian president, you are required to answer the following questions prior to resumption of talks with Iran:
"1.The aim of talks will be expansion of mutual understanding and cooperation or continued hostility with Iran and opposition to the legitimate rights of Iranian nation.
"2. Will you remain committed to the logic of dialogue which requires to avoid exerting any pressures?
"3. Please explicitly define your principles in dialogue on Israeli stockpiling of nuclear weapons.
Tehran, July 6, IRNA -- Iran expects the European Union to rectify its mistakes consistent with national nuclear program, Secretary of the Supreme National Security Council Saeed Jalili said on Tuesday.
He said in his letter to EU foreign policy chief, Catherine Ashton, that the European states are expected to abandon double-standard policies and correct mistakes.
Jalili sent the letter in response to a request made earlier by Ashton to resume talks with the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Jalili said that Iranians have lost confidence in the EU policymaking.
"You need to win confidence of Iranian people more than ever."
"It is very interesting that despite of efforts made by Brazilian and Turkish foreign ministers for resumption of talks, you have been reluctant in the past three months, but, immediately after passing the resolution 1229 at the Security Council against Iran, you have voiced readiness to resume talks," Jalili said.
"Following your request for resumption of talks, the US government along with the European Union imposed a new series of sanctions which is in contradiction with your approach in the context of 'pressure and dialogue' which is totally out of question."
The international community regards dialogue under pressure as ‘dictatorship’, he said adding that resumption of dialogue for escalation of pressures or enmity with a nation is doomed to failure.
Jalili advised the EU foreign policy chief to avoid pursuing dual approach and do something to correct mistakes of the past by opting for true and rational culture of dialogue.
He criticized the European leaders for failure to focus on interaction and cooperation instead of confrontation.
"This time the European leaders are expected to make up their mind whether or not they prefer interaction with Iran or confrontation. The double track or the so-called 'dialogue and pressure' proved not helpful."
Recalling background of Iran-EU dialogue, Jalali said that the Islamic Republic of Iran in 2008, offered a package for negotiations on international concern about proliferation of nuclear weapons and during Geneva talks on June, 21, 2008 and September 24, 2009, the Islamic Republic of Iran explicitly declared that it is ready to hold talk on the package.
"The issue was raised in press conferences and in negotiations with former EU Foreign Policy chief Javier Solana. Therefore, adopting any different approach would be reactionary and non-constructive method which will be ruled out by Iranian nation.
"It is necessary to remind that this has already mentioned in the package offered by Iran that the Islamic Republic of Iran is ready to resume talks on expansion of mutual cooperation, Disarmament of nuclear weapons, non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction as well as studying the chance for collective cooperation of all members for peaceful nuclear energy.
"There is no doubt that to attain the goal all the negotiating sides should be remained committed to Non-Proliferation Treaty and express their concern about the illegal nuclear activities of the Zionist regime.
"The move could help materialize the mottos of Tehran Conference on 'Nuclear Weapons for None and Nuclear Energy for All' which got approval of representatives of all participating states. Active presence of those pursuing the same policy will be very constructive for resumption of talks."
“We are now witnessing that many countries have welcomed such initiatives and cooperation,” he said.
"Tehran Conference on Revision of Non-Proliferation Treaty and Disarmament in which some 189 countries actively took part, proved that many countries abide by NPT and Disarmament and call for the Zionist regime to sign up to NPT.
“If prospects of such dialogue are crystal clear, the Islamic Republic of Iran is ready to employ all its political, economic, regional and international capabilities and facilities to help promote constructive international cooperation consistent with NPT and Disarmament.
"Based on the aforesaid points as declared by Iranian president, you are required to answer the following questions prior to resumption of talks with Iran:
"1.The aim of talks will be expansion of mutual understanding and cooperation or continued hostility with Iran and opposition to the legitimate rights of Iranian nation.
"2. Will you remain committed to the logic of dialogue which requires to avoid exerting any pressures?
"3. Please explicitly define your principles in dialogue on Israeli stockpiling of nuclear weapons.
"Your reply to the above-mentioned questions could prepare grounds for resumption of talks and removal of common concerns of international community about proliferation of nuclear weapons in presence of representatives of other nations sharing the common concerns," Jalili said.
1430**1416
End News / IRNA / News Code 1215980
U.S., EU and U.N. sanctions on Iran
06 Jul 2010 11:32:31 GMT
Source: Reuters
July 6 (Reuters) - Iranian planes continued to refuel at airports around the world, an official said on Tuesday, a day after an Iranian news report that the country's aircraft had been denied fuel in Germany, Britain and a Gulf Arab state.
Iran has been hit by a new wave of international sanctions and the United States has also stepped up its push to isolate Tehran economically. On Thursday, President Barack Obama signed into law far-reaching sanctions that aim to squeeze the Islamic Republic's fuel imports and deepen its international isolation.
Following are some details of the sanctions imposed on Iran by the United Nations, the United States and the European Union:
* U.S. SANCTIONS:
-- Sanctions imposed after Iranian students stormed the U.S. embassy and took diplomats hostage in 1979 included a ban on most U.S.-Iran trade.
-- Goods or services from Iran cannot be imported into the United States, either directly or through third countries, with the following exceptions: gifts valued at $100 or less; information or informational materials; foodstuffs intended for human consumption; certain carpets and other textile floor coverings and carpets used as wall hangings.
-- In 1995, President Bill Clinton issued executive orders preventing U.S. companies from investing in Iranian oil and gas and trading with Iran. Tehran has looked for other customers.
-- The same year, Congress passed a law requiring the U.S. government to impose sanctions on foreign firms investing more than $20 million a year in Iran's energy sector. It was extended for five years in September 2006. No foreign firms have yet been penalised, though many have severely curtailed their operations in Iran.
-- In October 2007 Washington imposed sanctions on Bank Melli, Bank Mellat and Bank Saderat and branded the Revolutionary Guards a proliferator of weapons of mass destruction. In October 2009, the Treasury also sanctioned Bank Mellat in Malaysia and its chairman.
-- The Treasury this month added Post Bank of Iran to its list of specially designated proliferators of weapons of mass destruction. It is the 16th bank in Iran that Washington has sought to cut off from the international financial system.
-- The Treasury identified some 20 petroleum and petrochemical companies as being under Iranian government control -- an action that puts them off limits to U.S. businesses under a general trade embargo.
-- Congress approved on June 24 tough new unilateral sanctions aimed at squeezing Iran's energy and banking sectors, which could also hurt companies from other countries doing business with Tehran.
-- The legislation will sanction companies for supplying Iran with refined petroleum products with a fair market value exceeding $1 million or that during a 12-month period have an aggregate fair market value of $5 million or more. The companies that fail to abide by the sanctions will face tough penalties, such as being banned from the U.S. financial system or being denied US contracts.
-- The legislation also will sanction international banking institutions involved with Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, its nuclear programme or what Washington calls its support for terrorist activity.
-- It would effectively deprive foreign banks of access to the U.S. financial system if they do business with key Iranian banks or the Revolutionary Guards. -- U.S. sanctions against Iran can be found on the Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control website: http://www.treas.gov/offices/enforcement/ofac/programs/iran/iran.shtml
and http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h2194/textSource: Reuters
July 6 (Reuters) - Iranian planes continued to refuel at airports around the world, an official said on Tuesday, a day after an Iranian news report that the country's aircraft had been denied fuel in Germany, Britain and a Gulf Arab state.
Iran has been hit by a new wave of international sanctions and the United States has also stepped up its push to isolate Tehran economically. On Thursday, President Barack Obama signed into law far-reaching sanctions that aim to squeeze the Islamic Republic's fuel imports and deepen its international isolation.
Following are some details of the sanctions imposed on Iran by the United Nations, the United States and the European Union:
* U.S. SANCTIONS:
-- Sanctions imposed after Iranian students stormed the U.S. embassy and took diplomats hostage in 1979 included a ban on most U.S.-Iran trade.
-- Goods or services from Iran cannot be imported into the United States, either directly or through third countries, with the following exceptions: gifts valued at $100 or less; information or informational materials; foodstuffs intended for human consumption; certain carpets and other textile floor coverings and carpets used as wall hangings.
-- In 1995, President Bill Clinton issued executive orders preventing U.S. companies from investing in Iranian oil and gas and trading with Iran. Tehran has looked for other customers.
-- The same year, Congress passed a law requiring the U.S. government to impose sanctions on foreign firms investing more than $20 million a year in Iran's energy sector. It was extended for five years in September 2006. No foreign firms have yet been penalised, though many have severely curtailed their operations in Iran.
-- In October 2007 Washington imposed sanctions on Bank Melli, Bank Mellat and Bank Saderat and branded the Revolutionary Guards a proliferator of weapons of mass destruction. In October 2009, the Treasury also sanctioned Bank Mellat in Malaysia and its chairman.
-- The Treasury this month added Post Bank of Iran to its list of specially designated proliferators of weapons of mass destruction. It is the 16th bank in Iran that Washington has sought to cut off from the international financial system.
-- The Treasury identified some 20 petroleum and petrochemical companies as being under Iranian government control -- an action that puts them off limits to U.S. businesses under a general trade embargo.
-- Congress approved on June 24 tough new unilateral sanctions aimed at squeezing Iran's energy and banking sectors, which could also hurt companies from other countries doing business with Tehran.
-- The legislation will sanction companies for supplying Iran with refined petroleum products with a fair market value exceeding $1 million or that during a 12-month period have an aggregate fair market value of $5 million or more. The companies that fail to abide by the sanctions will face tough penalties, such as being banned from the U.S. financial system or being denied US contracts.
-- The legislation also will sanction international banking institutions involved with Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, its nuclear programme or what Washington calls its support for terrorist activity.
-- It would effectively deprive foreign banks of access to the U.S. financial system if they do business with key Iranian banks or the Revolutionary Guards. -- U.S. sanctions against Iran can be found on the Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control website: http://www.treas.gov/offices/enforcement/ofac/programs/iran/iran.shtml
* U.N. SANCTIONS:
-- The Security Council has imposed four sets of sanctions on Iran, in December 2006, March 2007, March 2008 and June 2010.
-- The first covered sensitive nuclear materials and froze the assets of Iranian individuals and companies linked with the nuclear programme. It gave Iran 60 days to suspend uranium enrichment, a deadline Iran ignored.
-- The second included new arms and financial sanctions. It extended an asset freeze to 28 more groups, companies and individuals engaged in or supporting sensitive nuclear work or development of ballistic missiles, including the state-run Bank Sepah and firms controlled by the Revolutionary Guards.
-- The resolution invoked Chapter 7, Article 41 of the U.N. Charter, making most of its provisions mandatory but excluding military action. Iran again ignored an order to halt enrichment.
-- The third measure increased travel and financial curbs on individuals and companies and made some of them mandatory. It expanded a partial ban on trade in items with both civilian and military uses to cover sales of all such technology to Iran, and added 13 individuals and 12 companies to the list of those suspected of aiding Iran's nuclear and missile programmes. In September 2008, the Security Council unanimously adopted a resolution again ordering Iran to halt enrichment. Iran again disregarded the order.
-- The Security Council resolution passed on June 9 called for measures against new Iranian banks abroad if a connection to the nuclear or missile programmes is suspected, as well as vigilance over transactions with any Iranian bank, including the central bank.
-- It also expanded a U.N. arms embargo against Tehran and blacklisted three firms controlled by Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines and 15 belonging to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. The resolution also called for setting up a cargo inspection regime similar to one in place for North Korea.
-- Annexed to the draft resolution was a list of 40 companies to be added to an existing U.N. blacklist of firms.
* EU SANCTIONS
-- The EU has imposed visa bans on senior officials such as Revolutionary Guards chief Mohammad Ali Jafari, former Defence Minister Mostafa Mohammad Najjar and former atomic energy chief Gholamreza Aghazadeh, and on top nuclear and ballistic experts.
-- Britain announced last October it was freezing business ties with Bank Mellat and Islamic Republic of Iran Shipping Lines, both of which have previously faced sanctions from the United States. Britain cited fears they were involved in helping Iran develop nuclear weapons.
-- New sanctions, which the EU agreed on Thursday and could come into force within weeks, will focus on trade, Iran's transport sector, and key sectors of the gas and oil industry.
-- Energy sector sanctions would prohibit "new investment, technical assistance and transfers of technologies, equipment and services related to these areas, in particular related to refining, liquefaction and liquefied natural gas technology".
AlertNet news
Friday, June 11, 2010
Blackwater up for sale
By Ed Brayton 6/10/10 10:17 AM
If you’ve got a few billion lying around and it’s always been your dream to have your own private army, you’re in luck. Blackwater, now known as Xe, is up for sale. But you might have to put up with a little sniping about things like, oh, extra-judicial killings of innocent people by your drunk and trigger-happy employees, which is what Erik Prince says is motivating him to sell.
NPR reports: Owner and founder Erik Prince, a right wing christian fundamentalist; http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jGoLr0X2GGT-Q71ueMw9WC1eMoEgD9G6N5601
NPR reports: Owner and founder Erik Prince, a right wing christian fundamentalist; http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jGoLr0X2GGT-Q71ueMw9WC1eMoEgD9G6N5601
History of Blackwater; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQiZvtuLl-k
said selling the company is a difficult decision, but constant criticism of Xe helped him make up his mind.
“Performance doesn’t matter in Washington, just politics,” Prince said in a further statement.
Yeah, those pesky politicians — always demanding an explanation when your guards open fire on unarmed civilians and kill 17 of them. Or when one of your employees gets drunk and kills the bodyguard of the Iraqi vice president. Or when you allegedly break the law to smuggle automatic weapons in and out of the country — maybe the ones you stole from the U.S. military when you signed for them as Eric Cartman. Or when company insiders blow the whistle and testify under oath that your company uses child prostitutes to keep their men happy when they’re out in the field and that you view yourself as a Christian crusader out to destroy Islam.
The good news is that Prince can now take the billions he earned from fat government contracts and go back on the lecture circuit to bash “big government.”
http://michiganmessenger.com/38656/blackwater-up-for-sale
“Performance doesn’t matter in Washington, just politics,” Prince said in a further statement.
Yeah, those pesky politicians — always demanding an explanation when your guards open fire on unarmed civilians and kill 17 of them. Or when one of your employees gets drunk and kills the bodyguard of the Iraqi vice president. Or when you allegedly break the law to smuggle automatic weapons in and out of the country — maybe the ones you stole from the U.S. military when you signed for them as Eric Cartman. Or when company insiders blow the whistle and testify under oath that your company uses child prostitutes to keep their men happy when they’re out in the field and that you view yourself as a Christian crusader out to destroy Islam.
The good news is that Prince can now take the billions he earned from fat government contracts and go back on the lecture circuit to bash “big government.”
http://michiganmessenger.com/38656/blackwater-up-for-sale
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
PNACs Plan for Continual Build Up of Our Military Industrial Complex and Quest for World Dominion
Below, PNACs "Mission Statement" as appears on their website; http://www.newamericancentury.org/index.html
June 3, 1997
American foreign and defense policy is adrift. Conservatives have criticized the incoherent policies of the Clinton Administration. They have also resisted isolationist impulses from within their own ranks. But conservatives have not confidently advanced a strategic vision of America's role in the world. They have not set forth guiding principles for American foreign policy. They have allowed differences over tactics to obscure potential agreement on strategic objectives. And they have not fought for a defense budget that would maintain American security and advance American interests in the new century.
We aim to change this. We aim to make the case and rally support for American global leadership.
As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world's preeminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievements of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?
We are in danger of squandering the opportunity and failing the challenge. We are living off the capital -- both the military investments and the foreign policy achievements -- built up by past administrations. Cuts in foreign affairs and defense spending, inattention to the tools of statecraft, and inconstant leadership are making it increasingly difficult to sustain American influence around the world. And the promise of short-term commercial benefits threatens to override strategic considerations. As a consequence, we are jeopardizing the nation's ability to meet present threats and to deal with potentially greater challenges that lie ahead.
We seem to have forgotten the essential elements of the Reagan Administration's success: a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States' global responsibilities.
Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power. But we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership or the costs that are associated with its exercise. America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership.
Our aim is to remind Americans of these lessons and to draw their consequences for today. Here are four consequences:
• we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global
responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;
• we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;
• we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;
• we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.
Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today. But it is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next.
Who is PNAC?
Elliott Abrams, a Bush appointed CROOK; Elliott Abrams (born January 24, 1948) is an American lawyer and politician who served in foreign policy positions for two Republican U.S. Presidents, Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. He is currently a senior fellow for Middle Eastern studies at the Council on Foreign Relations.[6]
During the Reagan administration, Abrams gained notoriety for his involvement in controversial foreign policy decisions regarding Nicaragua and El Salvador. During Bush's first term, he served as Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director on the National Security Council for Near East and North African Affairs. At the start of Bush's second term, Abrams was promoted to be his Deputy National Security Advisor for Global Democracy Strategy, in charge of promoting Bush's strategy of advancing democracy abroad. His appointment by Bush was controversial due to his conviction in 1991 on two misdemeanor counts of unlawfully withholding information from Congress during the Iran-Contra Affair investigation.
Gary Bauer,....Gary Lee Bauer (born May 4 1946)[1] is an American politician notable for his ties to several evangelical Christian groups and campaigns. Bauer received a bachelor's degree from Georgetown College in Georgetown, Kentucky and a law degree from Georgetown University. He served as Ronald Reagan's Undersecretary of Education from 1982 to 1987, and as an advisor on domestic policy from 1987 to 1988.[1] While serving under Reagan, he was named Chairman of President Reagan's Special Working Group on the Family. His report, "The Family: Preserving America's Future," was presented to the President in December 1986.
In Concord, New Hampshire during campaigning for the PresidencyBauer served as the president of the Family Research Council from 1988-1999.[3] He resigned from this position to run for the Republican Party nomination for President of the United States. He dropped out of the race after the primaries in February 2000. In 1996, he founded the Campaign for Working Families (CWF), a Political Action Committee dedicated to electing pro-family, anti-abortion and pro-free enterprise candidates to federal and state offices.[4] In addition to serving as the chairman of CWF, Bauer is also the president of American Values, a non-profit organization committed to defending life, traditional marriage, and equipping children with conservative values.[5]. He also serves on the Executive Board of Christians United for Israel, a lobby group headed by John Hagee.[6] Gary Bauer was one of the signers of the Statement of Principles of Project for the New American Century (PNAC) on June 3, 1997.
William J. Bennett,....Bennett is a member of the National Security Advisory Council of the Center for Security Policy (CSP). He was co-director of Empower America and was a Distinguished Fellow in Cultural Policy Studies at the Heritage Foundation. Long active in United States Republican Party politics, he is now an author, speaker, and, since April 5, 2004, the host of the weekday radio program Morning in America on the Dallas, Texas-based Salem Communications. In addition to his radio show, he is the Washington Fellow of the Claremont Institute. Further work at the Claremont Institute includes his role as Chairman of Americans for Victory Over Terrorism (AVOT). He is also a political analyst for CNN.
Jeb Bush,...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeb_Bush
Dick Cheney,....Cheney was selected to be the Secretary of Defense during the presidency of George H. W. Bush, holding the position for the majority of Bush's term. During this time, Cheney oversaw the 1991 Operation Desert Storm, among other actions.
Out of office during the Clinton presidency, Cheney was chairman and CEO of Halliburton Company from 1995 to 2000.
During the Viet Nam War, Cheny obtained 5 deferrments so he wouldnt have to go to no war. Guess he likes makin em but not fightin in em; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Cheney
Eliot A. Cohen,....Cohen was one of the first neoconservatives to publicly advocate war against Iran and Iraq. In a November 2001 op-ed for the Wall Street Journal, Cohen identified what he called World War IV and advocated the overthrow of Iran's government as a possible next step for the Bush Administration. Cohen claimed "regime change" in Iran could be accomplished with a focus on "pro-Western and anticlerical forces" in the Middle East and suggested that such an action would be "wise, moral and unpopular (among some of our allies)". He went on to argue that such a policy was as important as the then identified goal of Osama Bin Laden's capture: "The overthrow of the first theocratic revolutionary Muslim state and its replacement by a moderate or secular government, however, would be no less important a victory in this war than the annihilation of bin Laden."
Later in 2001, Cohen, in what was becoming a dominant theme of his writing, advocated war against Iraq once again and proceeded to outline how effortless such a military campaign would be: After Afghanistan, what? Iraq is the big prize... One important element will be the use of the Iraqi National Congress to help foster the collapse of the regime, and to provide a replacement for it. The INC, which has received bad, and in some cases malicious treatment, from the State Department and intelligence community over the years, may not be able to do the job with U.S. air support alone.As a result of his public statements on why a war against Iraq was necessary, Cohen was invited to appear on CNN Wolf Blitzer Reports and amongst other statements given in response to questioning from Blitzer offered the judgement (con't; )http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliot_A._Cohen
Midge Decter,.....Midge Decter (born July 25, 1927, in St. Paul, Minnesota) is an American neoconservative journalist and author of various books. With Donald Rumsfeld, Decter is the former co-chair of the Committee for the Free World and one of the original drivers of the neoconservative movement with her spouse, Norman Podhoretz. She is also a founder of the Independent Women's Forum, and was founding treasurer for the Northcote Parkinson Fund, founded and chaired by John Train.
Ms. Decter started her career in journalism as the secretary to the then-editor of Commentary, Robert Warshow. She resigned during her first pregnancy.
Among other positions, she was the executive editor of Harper's under Willie Morris, leaving the magazine in 1971. Her first job in publishing came as an editor at Basic Books. She is also a member of the board of trustees for the Heritage Foundation, an influential Washington, D.C.-based public policy research institute.She is one of the signatories to Statement of Principles for the Project for the New American Century.She is the mother of the conservative syndicated columnist John Podhoretz, the youngest of her four children, and the second by Norman Podhoretz. She is also the mother of Rachel Decter who married Elliott Abrams in 1980.(More:)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midge_Decter
Paula Dobriansky,....Paula Jon Dobriansky (born September 14, 1955) is an American foreign policy expert who has served in key roles as a diplomat and policy maker in the administrations of five U.S. presidents, both Democrat and Republican. She is a specialist in the areas of Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union as well as political-military affairs. She served as Under Secretary of State for Democracy and Global Affairs from 2001-2009, making her the longest-serving undersecretary in the State Department’s history. Currently, Dr. Dobriansky is a senior fellow at the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government. [1]
Background
Dobriansky graduated summa cum laude from Georgetown University’s School of Foreign Service and earned her master’s and doctoral degrees from Harvard University in political-military affairs. She is a Fulbright-Hays scholar and a member of Phi Beta Kappa. Her late father, Lev Dobriansky, was a Ukrainian-American economist and prominent anti-communist activist who initiated the Captive Nations Week during the Eisenhower Administration; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paula_Dobriansky
Steve Forbes,....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Forbes
Aaron Friedberg,....Aaron Louis Friedberg (born 1956) served from 2003 to 2005 in the office of the Vice President of the United States as deputy assistant for national-security affairs and director of policy planning.
After receiving his PhD in Politics from Harvard, Friedberg joined the Princeton University faculty in 1987 and was appointed professor of politics and international affairs in 1999. He has served as Director of Princeton's Research Program in International Security at the Woodrow Wilson School as well as Acting Director of the Center of International Studies at Princeton. Friedberg is a former fellow at the Smithsonian Institution’s Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, the Norwegian Nobel Institute, and Harvard University’s Center for International Affairs.[1] He also serves as Chairman of the Board of Counselors for the National Bureau of Asian Research's Pyle Center for Northeast Asian Studies.[2]
In September 2001, Friedberg began a nine-month residential appointment as the first Henry Alfred Kissinger Scholar at the Library of Congress. During his tenure he researched "the rise of Asia and its implications for America." Apart from many articles for Commentary magazine, Friedberg has written several books on foreign relations: In the Shadow of the Garrison State; Strategic Asia 2001-02: Power and Purpose; The Weary Titan: Britain and the Experience of Relative Decline, 1895-1905;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Friedbe
Francis Fukuyama,....Neoconservatism
As a key Reagan Administration contributor to the formulation of the Reagan Doctrine, Fukuyama is an important figure in the rise of neoconservatism. He was active in the Project for the New American Century think tank starting in 1997, and as a member co-signed the organization's letter recommending that President Bill Clinton support Iraqi insurgencies in the overthrow of then-President of Iraq, Saddam Hussein.[2] He was also among forty co-signers of William Kristol's September 20, 2001 letter to President George W. Bush after the September 11, 2001 attacks that suggested the U.S. not only "capture or kill Osama bin Laden", but also embark upon "a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq".[3][4]
In a New York Times article of February 2006, Fukuyama, in considering the ongoing Iraq War, stated: "What American foreign policy needs is not a return to a narrow and cynical realism, but rather the formulation of a 'realistic Wilsonianism' that better matches means to ends."[5] In regard to neoconservatism he went on to say: "What is needed now are new ideas, neither neoconservative nor realist, for how America is to relate to the rest of the world — ideas that retain the neoconservative belief in the universality of human rights, but without its illusions about the efficacy of American power and hegemony to bring these ends about."[5]
Fukuyama's current views
Beginning in 2002 however,[citation needed] he began to distance himself from the neoconservative agenda of the Bush Administration, citing its overly militaristic basis and embrace of unilateral armed intervention, particularly in the Middle East. By late 2003, Fukuyama had voiced his growing opposition to the Iraq War[dead link][6] and called for Donald Rumsfeld's resignation as Secretary of Defense.[7] He said that he would vote against Bush in the 2004 election,[8] and that the Bush administration had made three major mistakes:[citation needed]
They had overestimated the threat of radical Islam to the US.
They hadn't foreseen the fierce negative reaction to its benevolent hegemony. From the very beginning they had shown a negative attitude toward the United Nations and other international organizations and hadn't seen that this would increase anti-Americanism in other countries.
They had misjudged what was needed to bring peace in Iraq and had been overly optimistic about the success with which social engineering of western values could be applied to Iraq and the Middle East in general.
Fukuyama believes the US has a right to promote its own values in the world, but more along the lines of what he calls "realistic Wilsonianism", with military intervention only as a last resort and only in addition to other measures. A latent military force is more likely to have an effect than actual deployment. The US spends more on its military than the rest of the world put together, but Iraq shows there are limits to its effectiveness. The US should instead stimulate political and economic development and gain a better understanding of what happens in other countries. The best instruments are setting a good example and providing education and, in many cases, money. The secret of development, be it political or economic, is that it never comes from outsiders, but always from people in the country itself. One thing the US proved to have excelled in during the aftermath of World War II was the formation of international institutions. A return to support for these structures would combine American power with international legitimacy. But such measures require a lot of patience. This is the central thesis of his most recent work America at the Crossroads: Democracy, Power, and the Neoconservative Legacy (2006).
In an essay in the New York Times Magazine in 2006 that was strongly critical of the invasion,[9] he identified neoconservatism with Leninism. He wrote that neoconservatives: "..believed that history can be pushed along with the right application of power and will. Leninism was a tragedy in its Bolshevik version, and it has returned as farce when practiced by the United States. Neoconservatism, as both a political symbol and a body of thought, has evolved into something I can no longer support. "
*Fukuyama has announced the end of the neoconservative moment and argued for the demilitarization of the War on Terrorism: (one good-guy on PNAC)
[W]ar is the wrong metaphor for the broader struggle, since wars are fought at full intensity and have clear beginnings and endings. Meeting the jihadist challenge is more of a "long, twilight struggle" whose core is not a military campaign but a political contest for the hearts and minds of ordinary Muslims around the world.
Fukuyama endorsed Barack Obama in the 2008 US presidential election. He states:
"I’m voting for Barack Obama this November for a very simple reason. It is hard to imagine a more disastrous presidency than that of George W. Bush. It was bad enough that he launched an unnecessary war and undermined the standing of the United States throughout the world in his first term. But in the waning days of his administration, he is presiding over a collapse of the American financial system and broader economy that will have consequences for years to come. As a general rule, democracies don’t work well if voters do not hold political parties accountable for failure. While John McCain is trying desperately to pretend that he never had anything to do with the Republican Party, I think it would be a travesty to reward the Republicans for failure on such a grand scale." -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Fukuyama
Frank Gaffney,....Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. (born 1953) is the American founder and president of the lobbyist group Center for Security Policy
Gaffney is a 1975 graduate of the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service of Georgetown University.[citation needed] He holds a graduate degree from the Johns Hopkins University's Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies.[1]
Gaffney began his public service career in the 1970s, working as an aide in the office of Democratic Senator Henry M. Jackson, under Richard Perle. From August 1983 until November 1987, Gaffney held the position of Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Nuclear Forces and Arms Control Policy in the Reagan Administration, again serving under Perle. In April 1987, Gaffney was nominated to the position of US Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy. He served as the acting Assistant Secretary for seven months,[2] though his confirmation was ultimately blocked by the United States Senate.
In 1988, Gaffney established the Center for Security Policy (CSP), a conservative national security and defense policy organization. The CSP is subsidized by donors supportive of conservative causes, including the Sarah Mellon Scaife Foundation, the Shelby Cullom Davis Foundation and the William H. Donner Foundation.[3]
Gaffney appeared on FahrenHYPE 9/11, the conservative documentary that was intended as a rebuttal to Michael Moore's liberal film Fahrenheit 9/11. He is also a regular guest on MSNBC's "Hardball with Chris Matthews" show.
Gaffney was an executive producer for the documentary Islam vs. Islamists: Voices from the Muslim Center. The documentary was created to air as part of the America at a Crossroads series on PBS, but it has not been shown.[4]
Gaffney is the lead author of War Footing (Naval Institute Press, 2005), a collection of essays that "offer ten specific steps that Americans, as individuals and as communities, can take to ensure their way of life and safety and the future well-being of their children and grandchildren."[5]
He is a founding member of the Set America Free Coalition, dedicated to reducing dependence on foreign oil, as well as of the current iteration of the Committee on the Present Danger.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Gaffney
Fred C. Ikle,....Dr. Fred Charles Iklé (born August 21, 1924) was a United States Department of Defense official during the presidency of Ronald Reagan who is credited with a key role in increasing U.S. aid to anti-Soviet rebels in the Soviet War in Afghanistan. He successfully proposed and promoted the idea of supplying the rebels with anti-aircraft Stinger missiles, overcoming CIA opposition. Iklé was director for the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency in 1973-1977 and later Under Secretary of Defense for Policy. Iklé is a Distinguished Scholar with the Center for Strategic and International Studies.[1] Iklé's expertise is in defense and foreign policy; nuclear strategy; and the role of technology in the emerging international order. He is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and the International Institute for Strategic Studies.
June 3, 1997
American foreign and defense policy is adrift. Conservatives have criticized the incoherent policies of the Clinton Administration. They have also resisted isolationist impulses from within their own ranks. But conservatives have not confidently advanced a strategic vision of America's role in the world. They have not set forth guiding principles for American foreign policy. They have allowed differences over tactics to obscure potential agreement on strategic objectives. And they have not fought for a defense budget that would maintain American security and advance American interests in the new century.
We aim to change this. We aim to make the case and rally support for American global leadership.
As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world's preeminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievements of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?
We are in danger of squandering the opportunity and failing the challenge. We are living off the capital -- both the military investments and the foreign policy achievements -- built up by past administrations. Cuts in foreign affairs and defense spending, inattention to the tools of statecraft, and inconstant leadership are making it increasingly difficult to sustain American influence around the world. And the promise of short-term commercial benefits threatens to override strategic considerations. As a consequence, we are jeopardizing the nation's ability to meet present threats and to deal with potentially greater challenges that lie ahead.
We seem to have forgotten the essential elements of the Reagan Administration's success: a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States' global responsibilities.
Of course, the United States must be prudent in how it exercises its power. But we cannot safely avoid the responsibilities of global leadership or the costs that are associated with its exercise. America has a vital role in maintaining peace and security in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. If we shirk our responsibilities, we invite challenges to our fundamental interests. The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership.
Our aim is to remind Americans of these lessons and to draw their consequences for today. Here are four consequences:
• we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global
responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;
• we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;
• we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;
• we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.
Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today. But it is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next.
Who is PNAC?
Elliott Abrams, a Bush appointed CROOK; Elliott Abrams (born January 24, 1948) is an American lawyer and politician who served in foreign policy positions for two Republican U.S. Presidents, Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. He is currently a senior fellow for Middle Eastern studies at the Council on Foreign Relations.[6]
During the Reagan administration, Abrams gained notoriety for his involvement in controversial foreign policy decisions regarding Nicaragua and El Salvador. During Bush's first term, he served as Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director on the National Security Council for Near East and North African Affairs. At the start of Bush's second term, Abrams was promoted to be his Deputy National Security Advisor for Global Democracy Strategy, in charge of promoting Bush's strategy of advancing democracy abroad. His appointment by Bush was controversial due to his conviction in 1991 on two misdemeanor counts of unlawfully withholding information from Congress during the Iran-Contra Affair investigation.
Gary Bauer,....Gary Lee Bauer (born May 4 1946)[1] is an American politician notable for his ties to several evangelical Christian groups and campaigns. Bauer received a bachelor's degree from Georgetown College in Georgetown, Kentucky and a law degree from Georgetown University. He served as Ronald Reagan's Undersecretary of Education from 1982 to 1987, and as an advisor on domestic policy from 1987 to 1988.[1] While serving under Reagan, he was named Chairman of President Reagan's Special Working Group on the Family. His report, "The Family: Preserving America's Future," was presented to the President in December 1986.
In Concord, New Hampshire during campaigning for the PresidencyBauer served as the president of the Family Research Council from 1988-1999.[3] He resigned from this position to run for the Republican Party nomination for President of the United States. He dropped out of the race after the primaries in February 2000. In 1996, he founded the Campaign for Working Families (CWF), a Political Action Committee dedicated to electing pro-family, anti-abortion and pro-free enterprise candidates to federal and state offices.[4] In addition to serving as the chairman of CWF, Bauer is also the president of American Values, a non-profit organization committed to defending life, traditional marriage, and equipping children with conservative values.[5]. He also serves on the Executive Board of Christians United for Israel, a lobby group headed by John Hagee.[6] Gary Bauer was one of the signers of the Statement of Principles of Project for the New American Century (PNAC) on June 3, 1997.
William J. Bennett,....Bennett is a member of the National Security Advisory Council of the Center for Security Policy (CSP). He was co-director of Empower America and was a Distinguished Fellow in Cultural Policy Studies at the Heritage Foundation. Long active in United States Republican Party politics, he is now an author, speaker, and, since April 5, 2004, the host of the weekday radio program Morning in America on the Dallas, Texas-based Salem Communications. In addition to his radio show, he is the Washington Fellow of the Claremont Institute. Further work at the Claremont Institute includes his role as Chairman of Americans for Victory Over Terrorism (AVOT). He is also a political analyst for CNN.
Jeb Bush,...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeb_Bush
Dick Cheney,....Cheney was selected to be the Secretary of Defense during the presidency of George H. W. Bush, holding the position for the majority of Bush's term. During this time, Cheney oversaw the 1991 Operation Desert Storm, among other actions.
Out of office during the Clinton presidency, Cheney was chairman and CEO of Halliburton Company from 1995 to 2000.
During the Viet Nam War, Cheny obtained 5 deferrments so he wouldnt have to go to no war. Guess he likes makin em but not fightin in em; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Cheney
Eliot A. Cohen,....Cohen was one of the first neoconservatives to publicly advocate war against Iran and Iraq. In a November 2001 op-ed for the Wall Street Journal, Cohen identified what he called World War IV and advocated the overthrow of Iran's government as a possible next step for the Bush Administration. Cohen claimed "regime change" in Iran could be accomplished with a focus on "pro-Western and anticlerical forces" in the Middle East and suggested that such an action would be "wise, moral and unpopular (among some of our allies)". He went on to argue that such a policy was as important as the then identified goal of Osama Bin Laden's capture: "The overthrow of the first theocratic revolutionary Muslim state and its replacement by a moderate or secular government, however, would be no less important a victory in this war than the annihilation of bin Laden."
Later in 2001, Cohen, in what was becoming a dominant theme of his writing, advocated war against Iraq once again and proceeded to outline how effortless such a military campaign would be: After Afghanistan, what? Iraq is the big prize... One important element will be the use of the Iraqi National Congress to help foster the collapse of the regime, and to provide a replacement for it. The INC, which has received bad, and in some cases malicious treatment, from the State Department and intelligence community over the years, may not be able to do the job with U.S. air support alone.As a result of his public statements on why a war against Iraq was necessary, Cohen was invited to appear on CNN Wolf Blitzer Reports and amongst other statements given in response to questioning from Blitzer offered the judgement (con't; )http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliot_A._Cohen
Midge Decter,.....Midge Decter (born July 25, 1927, in St. Paul, Minnesota) is an American neoconservative journalist and author of various books. With Donald Rumsfeld, Decter is the former co-chair of the Committee for the Free World and one of the original drivers of the neoconservative movement with her spouse, Norman Podhoretz. She is also a founder of the Independent Women's Forum, and was founding treasurer for the Northcote Parkinson Fund, founded and chaired by John Train.
Ms. Decter started her career in journalism as the secretary to the then-editor of Commentary, Robert Warshow. She resigned during her first pregnancy.
Among other positions, she was the executive editor of Harper's under Willie Morris, leaving the magazine in 1971. Her first job in publishing came as an editor at Basic Books. She is also a member of the board of trustees for the Heritage Foundation, an influential Washington, D.C.-based public policy research institute.She is one of the signatories to Statement of Principles for the Project for the New American Century.She is the mother of the conservative syndicated columnist John Podhoretz, the youngest of her four children, and the second by Norman Podhoretz. She is also the mother of Rachel Decter who married Elliott Abrams in 1980.(More:)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midge_Decter
Paula Dobriansky,....Paula Jon Dobriansky (born September 14, 1955) is an American foreign policy expert who has served in key roles as a diplomat and policy maker in the administrations of five U.S. presidents, both Democrat and Republican. She is a specialist in the areas of Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union as well as political-military affairs. She served as Under Secretary of State for Democracy and Global Affairs from 2001-2009, making her the longest-serving undersecretary in the State Department’s history. Currently, Dr. Dobriansky is a senior fellow at the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government. [1]
Background
Dobriansky graduated summa cum laude from Georgetown University’s School of Foreign Service and earned her master’s and doctoral degrees from Harvard University in political-military affairs. She is a Fulbright-Hays scholar and a member of Phi Beta Kappa. Her late father, Lev Dobriansky, was a Ukrainian-American economist and prominent anti-communist activist who initiated the Captive Nations Week during the Eisenhower Administration; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paula_Dobriansky
Steve Forbes,....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Forbes
Aaron Friedberg,....Aaron Louis Friedberg (born 1956) served from 2003 to 2005 in the office of the Vice President of the United States as deputy assistant for national-security affairs and director of policy planning.
After receiving his PhD in Politics from Harvard, Friedberg joined the Princeton University faculty in 1987 and was appointed professor of politics and international affairs in 1999. He has served as Director of Princeton's Research Program in International Security at the Woodrow Wilson School as well as Acting Director of the Center of International Studies at Princeton. Friedberg is a former fellow at the Smithsonian Institution’s Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, the Norwegian Nobel Institute, and Harvard University’s Center for International Affairs.[1] He also serves as Chairman of the Board of Counselors for the National Bureau of Asian Research's Pyle Center for Northeast Asian Studies.[2]
In September 2001, Friedberg began a nine-month residential appointment as the first Henry Alfred Kissinger Scholar at the Library of Congress. During his tenure he researched "the rise of Asia and its implications for America." Apart from many articles for Commentary magazine, Friedberg has written several books on foreign relations: In the Shadow of the Garrison State; Strategic Asia 2001-02: Power and Purpose; The Weary Titan: Britain and the Experience of Relative Decline, 1895-1905;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Friedbe
Francis Fukuyama,....Neoconservatism
As a key Reagan Administration contributor to the formulation of the Reagan Doctrine, Fukuyama is an important figure in the rise of neoconservatism. He was active in the Project for the New American Century think tank starting in 1997, and as a member co-signed the organization's letter recommending that President Bill Clinton support Iraqi insurgencies in the overthrow of then-President of Iraq, Saddam Hussein.[2] He was also among forty co-signers of William Kristol's September 20, 2001 letter to President George W. Bush after the September 11, 2001 attacks that suggested the U.S. not only "capture or kill Osama bin Laden", but also embark upon "a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq".[3][4]
In a New York Times article of February 2006, Fukuyama, in considering the ongoing Iraq War, stated: "What American foreign policy needs is not a return to a narrow and cynical realism, but rather the formulation of a 'realistic Wilsonianism' that better matches means to ends."[5] In regard to neoconservatism he went on to say: "What is needed now are new ideas, neither neoconservative nor realist, for how America is to relate to the rest of the world — ideas that retain the neoconservative belief in the universality of human rights, but without its illusions about the efficacy of American power and hegemony to bring these ends about."[5]
Fukuyama's current views
Beginning in 2002 however,[citation needed] he began to distance himself from the neoconservative agenda of the Bush Administration, citing its overly militaristic basis and embrace of unilateral armed intervention, particularly in the Middle East. By late 2003, Fukuyama had voiced his growing opposition to the Iraq War[dead link][6] and called for Donald Rumsfeld's resignation as Secretary of Defense.[7] He said that he would vote against Bush in the 2004 election,[8] and that the Bush administration had made three major mistakes:[citation needed]
They had overestimated the threat of radical Islam to the US.
They hadn't foreseen the fierce negative reaction to its benevolent hegemony. From the very beginning they had shown a negative attitude toward the United Nations and other international organizations and hadn't seen that this would increase anti-Americanism in other countries.
They had misjudged what was needed to bring peace in Iraq and had been overly optimistic about the success with which social engineering of western values could be applied to Iraq and the Middle East in general.
Fukuyama believes the US has a right to promote its own values in the world, but more along the lines of what he calls "realistic Wilsonianism", with military intervention only as a last resort and only in addition to other measures. A latent military force is more likely to have an effect than actual deployment. The US spends more on its military than the rest of the world put together, but Iraq shows there are limits to its effectiveness. The US should instead stimulate political and economic development and gain a better understanding of what happens in other countries. The best instruments are setting a good example and providing education and, in many cases, money. The secret of development, be it political or economic, is that it never comes from outsiders, but always from people in the country itself. One thing the US proved to have excelled in during the aftermath of World War II was the formation of international institutions. A return to support for these structures would combine American power with international legitimacy. But such measures require a lot of patience. This is the central thesis of his most recent work America at the Crossroads: Democracy, Power, and the Neoconservative Legacy (2006).
In an essay in the New York Times Magazine in 2006 that was strongly critical of the invasion,[9] he identified neoconservatism with Leninism. He wrote that neoconservatives: "..believed that history can be pushed along with the right application of power and will. Leninism was a tragedy in its Bolshevik version, and it has returned as farce when practiced by the United States. Neoconservatism, as both a political symbol and a body of thought, has evolved into something I can no longer support. "
*Fukuyama has announced the end of the neoconservative moment and argued for the demilitarization of the War on Terrorism: (one good-guy on PNAC)
[W]ar is the wrong metaphor for the broader struggle, since wars are fought at full intensity and have clear beginnings and endings. Meeting the jihadist challenge is more of a "long, twilight struggle" whose core is not a military campaign but a political contest for the hearts and minds of ordinary Muslims around the world.
Fukuyama endorsed Barack Obama in the 2008 US presidential election. He states:
"I’m voting for Barack Obama this November for a very simple reason. It is hard to imagine a more disastrous presidency than that of George W. Bush. It was bad enough that he launched an unnecessary war and undermined the standing of the United States throughout the world in his first term. But in the waning days of his administration, he is presiding over a collapse of the American financial system and broader economy that will have consequences for years to come. As a general rule, democracies don’t work well if voters do not hold political parties accountable for failure. While John McCain is trying desperately to pretend that he never had anything to do with the Republican Party, I think it would be a travesty to reward the Republicans for failure on such a grand scale." -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Fukuyama
Frank Gaffney,....Frank J. Gaffney, Jr. (born 1953) is the American founder and president of the lobbyist group Center for Security Policy
Gaffney is a 1975 graduate of the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service of Georgetown University.[citation needed] He holds a graduate degree from the Johns Hopkins University's Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies.[1]
Gaffney began his public service career in the 1970s, working as an aide in the office of Democratic Senator Henry M. Jackson, under Richard Perle. From August 1983 until November 1987, Gaffney held the position of Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Nuclear Forces and Arms Control Policy in the Reagan Administration, again serving under Perle. In April 1987, Gaffney was nominated to the position of US Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Policy. He served as the acting Assistant Secretary for seven months,[2] though his confirmation was ultimately blocked by the United States Senate.
In 1988, Gaffney established the Center for Security Policy (CSP), a conservative national security and defense policy organization. The CSP is subsidized by donors supportive of conservative causes, including the Sarah Mellon Scaife Foundation, the Shelby Cullom Davis Foundation and the William H. Donner Foundation.[3]
Gaffney appeared on FahrenHYPE 9/11, the conservative documentary that was intended as a rebuttal to Michael Moore's liberal film Fahrenheit 9/11. He is also a regular guest on MSNBC's "Hardball with Chris Matthews" show.
Gaffney was an executive producer for the documentary Islam vs. Islamists: Voices from the Muslim Center. The documentary was created to air as part of the America at a Crossroads series on PBS, but it has not been shown.[4]
Gaffney is the lead author of War Footing (Naval Institute Press, 2005), a collection of essays that "offer ten specific steps that Americans, as individuals and as communities, can take to ensure their way of life and safety and the future well-being of their children and grandchildren."[5]
He is a founding member of the Set America Free Coalition, dedicated to reducing dependence on foreign oil, as well as of the current iteration of the Committee on the Present Danger.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Gaffney
Fred C. Ikle,....Dr. Fred Charles Iklé (born August 21, 1924) was a United States Department of Defense official during the presidency of Ronald Reagan who is credited with a key role in increasing U.S. aid to anti-Soviet rebels in the Soviet War in Afghanistan. He successfully proposed and promoted the idea of supplying the rebels with anti-aircraft Stinger missiles, overcoming CIA opposition. Iklé was director for the U.S. Arms Control and Disarmament Agency in 1973-1977 and later Under Secretary of Defense for Policy. Iklé is a Distinguished Scholar with the Center for Strategic and International Studies.[1] Iklé's expertise is in defense and foreign policy; nuclear strategy; and the role of technology in the emerging international order. He is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and the International Institute for Strategic Studies.
Iklé's war
As an under secretary of defense, Iklé led the effort to lobby for National Security Decision Directive 166 ("Expanded US Aid to Afghan Guerrillas"), signed by Reagan in March 1985.[2] When he visited Pakistan in April 1985, Iklé found that the CIA was still pursuing the war in a halfhearted manner; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Ikl%C3%A9
Donald Kagan,...Donald Kagan (born 1932) is an American historian at Yale specializing in ancient Greece, notable for his four-volume history of the Peloponnesian War. He was Dean of Yale College from 1989–1992. He formerly taught in the Department of History at Cornell University. In a review in The New Yorker, critic George Steiner said of Kagan's seminal four-volume history of the Peloponnesian War: "The temptation to acclaim Kagan's four volumes as the foremost work of history produced in North America in this century is vivid." Kagan is generally considered among the foremost scholars of Ancient Greek history at present.
Born into a Jewish family in Lithuania, Kagan grew up in the Brownsville section of Brooklyn, New York, where his family emigrated shortly after the death of his father. He graduated from Brooklyn College, then received an MA from Brown University and a PhD from the Ohio State University in 1958.[1]
Once a liberal Democrat, Professor Kagan changed his views by the 1970s and became one of the original signers to the 1997 Statement of Principles by the neoconservative think tank Project for the New American Century.[2] According to Jim Lobe, cited in The Fall Of The House Of Bush by Craig Unger (p.39, n.), Kagan's turn away from liberalism occurred in the late sixties when Cornell University was pressured into starting a Black studies program by protesting students: "Watching administrators demonstrate all the courage of Neville Chamberlain had a great impact on me, and I became much more conservative." On the eve of the 2000 presidential elections, Kagan and his son, Frederick Kagan, published While America Sleeps, a call to increase defense spending. The National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) awarded Donald Kagan the National Humanities Medal in 2002, and selected him to deliver the 2005 Jefferson Lecture, which the NEH calls "the highest honor the federal government confers for distinguished intellectual achievement in the humanities."[3] Kagan's Jefferson Lecture was entitled "In Defense of History";[4] he argued that history is of primary importance in the study of the humanities; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Kagan
Zalmay Khalilzad I,...Zalmay Mamozy Khalilzad (Nastaliq: زلمی خلیلزاد - Zalmay Khalīlzād) (born: 22 March 1951) is a counselor at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) and president of Khalilzad Associates. He was the United States Ambassador to the United Nations under President George W. Bush. He has been involved with U.S. policy makers at the White House since the early 1980s, and was the highest-ranking Muslim American in the Administration of U.S. President George W. Bush.[2] Khalilzad's previous assignments in the Administration include U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan and U.S. Ambassador to Iraq.
Early history and personal life
Zalmay Khalilzad was born in the city of Mazari Sharif in northern Afghanistan. Khalilzad's father (Khalilullah Khalilzad) was a government official under the monarchy of Mohammed Zahir Shah.[3] He is an ethnic Pashtun,[4][5] and his mother tongue is Persian (Dari).[6] He also speaks English, Arabic and Pashto.
Khalilzad began his education at the public Ghazi Lycée school in Kabul. He first visited the United States as a Ceres, California high school exchange student with AFS Intercultural Programs. Later, he attained his bachelor's and master's degrees from the American University of Beirut in Lebanon. Khalilzad received his Ph.D at the University of Chicago, where he studied closely with strategic thinker Albert Wohlstetter, a prominent nuclear deterrence thinker and a fierce supporter of the nuclear disarmament treaties, who provided Zalmay with contacts in the government and with RAND.[2]
Khalilzad is married to Cheryl Benard. They have two children, Alexander and Maximilian.
Career history
From 1979 to 1989, Khalilzad worked as an Assistant Professor of Political Science at Columbia University's School of International and Public Affairs. During that time he worked closely with Zbigniew Brzezinski, the Carter Administration's architect of the policy supporting the mujahideen resistance to the Soviet Union's invasion of Afghanistan.[2] (See also: Operation Cyclone.)
In 1984 Khalilzad accepted a one-year Council on Foreign Relations fellowship to join the State Department, where he worked for Paul Wolfowitz, then the Director of Policy Planning.
From 1985 to 1989, Khalilzad served in President Ronald Reagan's Administration as a senior State Department official advising on the Soviet war in Afghanistan and the Iran–Iraq War. During this time he was the State Department's Special Advisor on Afghanistan to Undersecretary of State Michael H. Armacost. In this role he developed and guided the international program to promote the merits of a Mujahideen-led Afghanistan to oust the Soviet occupation. From 1990-1992, Khalilzad served under President George H. W. Bush in the Defense Department as Deputy Undersecretary for Policy Planning.
Between 1993 and 2000, Khalilzad was the Director of the Strategy, Doctrine, and Force Structure at the RAND Corporation. During this time, he helped found RAND's Center for Middle Eastern Studies as well as "Strategic Appraisal," a periodic RAND publication. He also authored several influential monographs, including "The United States and a Rising China" and "From Containment to Global Leadership? America and the World After the Cold War." While at RAND, Khalilzad also had a brief stint consulting for Cambridge Energy Research Associates, which at the time was conducting a risk analysis for Unocal, now part of Chevron, for a proposed 1,400 km (890 mile), $2-billion, 622 m³/s (22,000 ft³/s) Trans-Afghanistan gas pipeline project which would have extended from Turkmenistan to Afghanistan and further proceeding to Pakistan. He acted as a special liaison between UNOCAL and the Taliban regime.[3] As one of the original members of Project for the New American Century, Khalilzad was a signatory of the letter to President Bill Clinton sent on January 26, 1998, which called for him to accept the aim of "removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power" using "a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zalmay_Khalilzad
Lewis Libby,....
Norman Podhoretz,....
Dan Quayle,....
Peter W. Rodman,....
Stephen P. Rosen,....
Henry S. Rowen,.....
Donald Rumsfeld,.....
Vin Weber,....
George Weigel,...
Paul Wolfowitz,....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
