PoliticalWarfare.org

No war for (Russian and Chinese) oil!

Irony of ironies - with American troops dying almost daily amid "No War for Oil" protests, it's odd that nobody's even saying boo about Iraq's decision to allow the Russians and Chinese bid to drill for the very petroleum that the Americans liberated.

Worse still is the Bush Administration's apparent assent to Baghdad's snub of the sacrifices that the US, Britain and a few other Coalition countries made to free Iraq. It's outrageous to let the Russians, Chinese and others who were not part of the Coalition - and who indeed opposed Operation Iraqi Freedom - to reap the benefits. For some reason the administration doesn't agree.

Nobody who opposed the liberation of Iraq should be allowed to profit from the nation's reconstruction. I have yet to hear a single politician in Washington make that statement.

Congressman Henry Waxman's latest headline grab has been about a Texas oil company's concessions in Kurdistan. He ought to be focusing on who in the State Department or elsewhere let in the Russians and Chinese. But then, maybe that's asking too much. Waxman has never really objected much to anything that Moscow or Beijing has ever done.

While we're at it, the Chinese are buying up Afghanistan right from under our noses. The administration, Congress and some enterprising journalists ought to look at the huge mineral deals the Chinese have been doing there, while the State Department either approves or looks the other way. Beijing is profiteering from America's military sacrifice.

Rice and Bush stand by Blackwater

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice quashed any idea that the troubled Iraqi Interior Ministry would dictate who would protect US diplomatic personnel in Baghdad.

As Rice praised private security contractor Blackwater USA for its work in Iraq, she announced an inquiry into diplomatic security in that country.

President George W. Bush said he wants to establish the facts about whether or not Blackwater guards broke any rules. Blackwater patrols resumed in Iraq.

"We have needed and received the protection of Blackwater for a number of years now, and they have lost their own people in protecting our people in extremely dangerous circumstances," Secretary Rice told reporters today. She has ordered a probe of diplomatic security in Iraq.

President George W. Bush said that he's saddened by the civilian deaths in the Sunday firefight, but added that he's going to wait for the facts to be established by an Iraqi-US commission. "The folks like Blackwater who provide security for the State Department are under rules of engagement. In other words, they have certain rules. And this commission will determine whether or not they violated those rules," the president said.

"Obviously to the extent innocent life was lost, I'm saddened. Our objective is to protect innocent life," added the president. "I want to find out the facts about exactly what took place there."

A top aide to Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki told CBS News that there's likely to be a face-saving way out of the problem.

Will Bush administration cave in to Iraqi corruption?

The whole world is watching how the Bush Administration will respond to the crooked Iraqi Interior Ministry's demand that the State Department fire the security company that has so effectively protected American diplomats, personnel and VIPs.

If the US government pulls Blackwater USA's contract to provide security in Iraq, it will be sending the following messages:

1. Extortion pays: If American security companies want to keep working for the US government in Iraq, they must pay bribes in the form of spurious "license fees" to the corrupt Iraqi Interior Ministry. (Blackwater, we are told, refused to pay such bribes.)

2. Terrorism pays: The US will reward terrorists - like Spain did after the Madrid bombings - by caving into demands that it change its policies in Iraq. If terrorists can goad Washington into removing its effective forces from the field, the terrorists win.

3. Political warfare pays: Foreign crooks and terrorists need only turn up the political heat on Washington to remove effective elements of the war effort from the fight.

4. The truth is worthless: Whether or not the Blackwater guards acted properly - initial US government reports say they did - means nothing. Cutting some kind of deal to appease inept Iraqi leaders is more important than establishing the facts.

5. Saving American lives doesn't pay: The administration will appear to be saying that US security companies might be better off financially if they protect their clients less aggressively and lose a few State Department officials once in a while.

6. When the chips are down, President Bush won't stand behind the Americans who risk all to protect his diplomats from terrorists in Iraq.

Stay the course, Mr. President. Ride this one out. Tell Prime Minister Maliki that his own Interior Ministry is a bigger threat to the Iraqi people than any American company could ever be. (Download iraq_interior_ministry_report.pdf .) The sooner he builds an honest, effective and service-minded army and security force, the sooner we Americans can leave. Until then, Blackwater and the others stay.

Shakedown gone bad?

Something reeks about the Iraqi Interior Ministry's announcement that it has pulled the permit of the Blackwater security company to operate in Iraq.

The Interior Ministry never issued such a permit to begin with. Blackwater and other firms have been providing security services in Iraq under terms set by the now-defunct Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA), and grandfathered in after the new Iraqi government took power. The operational item, CPA Order No. 17, became Iraqi law. The ministry has no say in the matter.

The controversy smells like political warfare-style retaliation after a failed shakedown. The spectacularly corrupt Iraqi Interior Ministry probably tried to get the company to pay millions in fake "license fees" and found that Blackwater doesn't pay bribes. Even Al Jazeera says in its Blackwater reporting that the Americans have no confidence in the Iraqi police, who are under Interior Ministry authority.

Time will tell about the exact circumstances of the September 16 attack on the State Department convoy and the subsequent shootout. But the versions coming from the Iraqi Interior Ministry and the US side differ markedly. The Interior Ministry says that Blackwater personnel shot people without provocation. A US government report obtained by Time magazine says otherwise.

According to the US report, gunmen ambushed the State Department motorcade "from several locations." The Blackwater security team "returned fire to several identified targets" and left the area after gunmen shot into the engine of one of its vehicles. Iraqi units then tried to prevent a second convoy from coming in and helping the stricken Blackwater team: the convoy was "blocked/surrounded by several Iraqi police and Iraqi national guard vehicles and armed personnel."

Now the Iraqi government is demanding that the US fire Blackwater and hire a new company for Iraq security.

Was the Interior Ministry's quick denunciation of Blackwater and its fake announcement that it had pulled a nonexistent permit simply retaliation against a company that won't pay off crooked officials? It sure looks that way.

That question should be part of any official and unofficial investigations.

Washington Post publishes paid Chinese propaganda

Now delivered to your driveway in time for breakfast: Paid Chinese propaganda. The Washington Post is the delivery system for “Reports from China,” a six-page Chinese Communist Party propaganda tract posing as an “advertising supplement."

The sheet, appearing under the rubric of China Daily, is designed to resemble a real newspaper. It appears to be modeled after the Washington Post’s ongoing Russian propaganda supplement paid for by the Kremlin’s semi-official Rossiyskaya Gazeta paper and Novosti “news” agency.

The first issue of “Reports from China” appeared as section H1 of the May 15 Washington Post. Don’t look for truth-in-labeling there. The Post does not carry a disclaimer to tell the reader that supplements are wholly-owned subsidiaries of the respective regimess in Beijing and Moscow.

Will Disney protect its copyright against Hamas?

For decades, the Walt Disney Company has unleashed its lawyers on those who violate its copyrights. And rightly so. Mickey Mouse and friends are Disney's intellectual property, and unlicensed reproduction of Disney characters - or reasonable facsimiles thereof - rip off Disney shareholders.

So as a Disney shareholder, I'm expecting the company's nasty lawyers to jump all over Hamas.

As part of its political warfare strategy to indoctrinate the next generation, Hamas has pirated Mickey Mouse and turned him into a TV mascot for Arab kids.

Palestinian Media Watch posted stills and video from the terrorist propaganda show and recently made them public (see photo). Will Disney CEO Robert Iger slap a lawsuit on Hamas? Disney shareholders want to know.

UPDATE: At about 2040 hrs EDT on May 9, the Associated Press reported from Ramallah that Hamas pulled the terrorist Mickey Mouse program off the air. The Walt Disney Corporation had no comment.

UPDATE #2: Reporting from Gaza City on June 30, the Associated Press announced that Farfour, the Hamas Mickey Mouse character, had beaten to death on the final episode of the children's program. Farfour was seen being bludgeoned by an actor playing a murderous Israeli official. A "teen presenter" named Sara told the audience, ""Farfour was martyred while defending his land."

Agitprop for corruption at the World Bank

The New York Times seemed not to notice the significance of its own reporting about corruption at the World Bank.

In covering World Bank President Paul Wolfowitz's defense against allegations that he abused his power on behalf of his girlfriend, the Times in an April 30 article makes reference to opponents within the Bank who are motivated by corruption and ideology. Correspondent Steven R. Weisman casually mentions that people are upset by the World Bank chief's anti-corruption drive, but adds no details.

A written statement that Wolfowitz issued on April 29 "appeared to show his recognition of the loss of confidence he has suffered among a growing number of officials, for several reasons," according to the Times. Then comes the big point in the article:

"Among those reasons have been his crackdown on corruption and his reliance on a small group of close aides brought from the Bush administration, where he had served as deputy defense secretary and an architect of the Iraq war.

"Mr. Wolfowitz has also come under fire as internal documents have surfaced indicating that his aides may have pressed for Bush administration policies downplaying the importance of global warming and opposing contraceptives and abortion in family planning programs."

OK, so World Bank employees don't like Bush and they want to promote condoms and abortions around the world. Nothing new there.

Let's take out the political motivations for the attacks on Wolfowitz and focus on the really big story that the Times reported but seemed not to notice: "The statement appeared to show his recognition of the loss of confidence he has suffered among a growing number of officials, for several reasons. Among those reasons have been his crackdown on corruption . . . ."

In other words, the New York Times is reporting that Wolfowitz is losing the confidence of "a growing number" of World Bank officials, first because he is challenging corrupt interests within the bank. And those corrupt interests appear to have launched a propaganda campaign to destroy his effectiveness. Let's see who picks up on this story.

Economic warfare a handy tool

by J. Michael Waller
Insight magazine, 29 October 2002

Al-Qaeda recently announced economic warfare against the United States and other Western countries. U.S. intelligence expects years of attacks on the economic infrastructure of the civilized world. For its part, the United States has an arsenal of economic weapons for this war, but critics fear it may have forgotten how to use them strategically — an important point, because proponents believe that strategic economic warfare thoughtfully applied by the United States could save innocent lives and avoid military conflict while achieving the same objectives as an all-out bombing or invasion.

Lessons of successful economic-warfare operations that hastened the collapse of the Soviet Union, veteran practitioners tell Insight, are valuable guideposts to help the Bush administration develop an integrated economic-warfare strategy. [Click here for full article]

Allies who arm our adversaries should receive no US business

by J Michael Waller
Providence (RI) Journal

WASHINGTON - The arms embargo recently announced by the U.S. against the revolutionary regime in Venezuela is long overdue. Venezuela's dictator, Hugo Chavez, has gone out of his way to align his country with terrorist regimes, aid extremist movements and break anti-terrorism treaty obligations.

But at least one of our North Atlantic Treaty Organization allies wants to ignore U.S. security concerns and sell military equipment to Venezuela - while competing to sell the same equipment to the U.S. Coast Guard and Pentagon.

Worse, that ostensible ally is collaborating with the dictator's propaganda campaign to trash the United States, while simultaneously lobbying Congress for billions of dollars to buy its military products.

In a globalized economy, it's no longer possible to procure defense systems that are 100-percent made in America. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, provided the suppliers are reliable allies who share U.S. security concerns. But in the Venezuela case, the suppliers - the Spanish government and the state-owned aircraft manufacturer CASA - are no longer reliable.

Until two years ago, Spain was a staunch ally in the global war on terrorists and their supporters. Most observers expected Spain's pro-U.S. government to win re-election until the al Qaeda bombings of the Madrid transit system propelled the Socialist Workers Party to power.

In one of his first acts in office, after pledging to pull Spain from the Iraq coalition, President Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero flew to Venezuela to sell military patrol boats and CASA CN-235 transport planes to the dictator Chavez.

The Bush administration, after fruitlessly voicing its concerns to Spain, invoked a 1992 law allowing the United States to veto other countries' sale of military hardware built with U.S.-made components.

Undeterred, CASA stripped out nearly five dozen U.S.-made parts to allow the sale to Chavez. From that point, the Spanish and Venezuelan governments conspired to rub it in America's face abroad, while CASA lobbied in Washington for U.S. tax dollars.

The game worked.

Last November, after CASA lobbyists had gotten Congress to spend $68 million on the first Coast Guard CN-235s, Spanish Defense Minister Jose Bono flew to Caracas "to stress what (Chavez) described as a 'defeat' of the United States," according to the major Madrid daily El Pais. In Caracas, Bono publicly criticized the United States as an "empire" as he stood with Chavez, who praised Spain for "confronting the hegemonic and imperialistic ambitions of the elite that now governs the United States (and is) massacring the people of Iraq."

While Chavez celebrated the deal with the Spanish defense minister, he refused entry to a bipartisan U.S. congressional delegation that had been cleared to visit Venezuela. In an act orchestrated to humiliate Congress, Chavez forced the lawmakers (led by 81-year-old House International Relations Committee Chairman Henry Hyde, R-Ill.) to sit in their plane for two hours without being allowed to disembark. Chavez then ordered the congressmen expelled from the country.

Meanwhile, Chavez - to his credit - has taken exception to CASA's and Spain's assurances to Washington that Chavez would use the aircraft exclusively within Venezuela and for peaceful purposes.

CASA and its socialist patrons in Madrid have played a double game, taking part in Chavez's anti-U.S. propaganda while lobbying Congress as valued members of the NATO security network.

Now, CASA is competing for its biggest contracts ever: more planes for the Coast Guard's Deepwater program and the new Army-Air Force Joint Cargo Aircraft, worth $3 billion to $4 billion in the short term, and as much as $30 billion over the decade ahead. Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., said recently, "national security cannot take a back seat to world trade." He's right. Congress should deny contracts to foreign companies that undermine U.S. national-security interests. Making an example out of the CASA aircraft deal would be an excellent place to start.

The U.S. arms embargo won't mean much if Washington continues to share military suppliers with the Venezuelan regime. Our diplomacy with Spain failed, but we needn't enrich the eurosocialists as they stab us in the back. They have chosen whose side they're on. Let them pay the price.

Related Links
When our allies arm our adversaries: What to do when diplomacy fails
Senators ask president for action based on IWP paper