[lbo-talk] Just Foreign Policy News, December 15, 2006

Robert Naiman naiman at justforeignpolicy.org
Fri Dec 15 14:07:01 PST 2006


Just Foreign Policy News December 15, 2006 http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/newsroom/blog/

Summary: U.S./Top News The Army may seek an injunction under the Taft-Hartley Act to force the United Steelworkers back to work at Goodyear to produce tires for the military in Iraq, the Topeka Capital-Journal reports. The United Steelworkers would send 200 striking workers back into the Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. plant in Topeka to build tires for the military if the company gets rid of replacement workers, a USW official said. "If Goodyear would dismiss the temporary workers in Topeka, within hours the company will have a crew of 200 experienced Steelworker tire builders in the plant to make sure the needs of the troops are met," the union said. "Goodyear declined the request, saying that it had an internal meeting and concluded that the situation was 'under control,' " the union said. The article seems to suggest that the company, the military, and other U.S. officials may be colluding to try to break the strike on the grounds of military need in Iraq.

Dennis Kucinich was a strong proponent in the 2004 race of pulling out of Iraq, notes the Washington Post's Howard Kurtz. That was then seen, at least by the media, as a fringe position. Now it is the majority position. In the latest WashPost poll 69% say we should withdraw all U.S. combat troops by early 2008, keeping only military training forces there. Kurtz notes that there was some objection on Huffington Post to the "snarky tone" of press reports on Kucinich's announcement of his candidacy for President.

National Public Radio reported yesterday that Democrats in Congress were not going to "cut funding for the troops," writes Robert Naiman on Huffington Post. What they meant to say was, Democrats are not going to cut funding for the war. Of course, nobody is going to cut funding "for the troops." What is the image being peddled here? That somehow Congress would cut the funding, but the troops would still be in Iraq. A soldier would run out of bullets, because Congress cut the funding. A soldier would go to the mess hall, but there would be no food, because Congress cut the funding. Jeeps and tanks would stop in the middle of the road. No gas. Congress cut the funding. Let's put this hoary lie to bed. Let's take $14 billion - a small fraction of what the Bush Administration wants to waste on more death in Iraq - and use it for "coming home bonuses" for returning U.S. troops, payable when the last one comes home. With each soldier getting $100,000, there wouldn't be any more question about who was for "supporting the troops."

The most serious fault of the Iraq Study Group was its warning a "precipitate withdrawal" would cause a "bloodbath" in Iraq, writes Gareth Porter on TomPaine. The cry of "bloodbath" will be used to against any attempt in Congress to advance a timetable for withdrawal. The same argument was used by Nixon to continue the Vietnam War for four more years. The bloodbath argument evades the central fact that the U.S. occupation has never been aimed at avoiding or reducing sectarian war between Sunnis and Shiites. On the contrary, the U.S. has used sectarian conflict for its own purposes.

Senator McCain said Thursday that American military commanders were discussing the possibility of adding as many as 10 more combat brigades - a maximum of about 35,000 troops, the New York Times reports. The article notes that American commanders are divided on the question, with some arguing against an increase in troops and in favor of reconciliation and economic development measures.

Secretary of State Rice yesterday rejected the ISG's recommendation that the US seek the help of Syria and Iran in Iraq, the Washington Post reports, saying the price might be too high, and that if it is in their interest, they will do it without being asked. This continues an apparent pattern of Administration officials of offering contradictory arguments for why the US should not talk to Iran and Syria (the price is too high, the price is zero), another sign that Administration policy is based on dogma rather than reason.

Senator John Kerry said Friday he was willing to go to Tehran to talk to Iranian leaders but would not have time during his current trip to Syria, Reuters reports. The Bush Administration has argued talks with Syria are pointless. Kerry said, "That's a mistake... It is nonsensical to set up not talking as some kind of reward/punishment barrier."

If there were a serious effort by the US for a comprehensive resolution of problems between Iran and the US, Iran would be more than ready to help, according to Iranian analysts cited by the Christian Science Monitor. But Iranian leaders will want assurances that the US will not double-cross them, obtaining their assistance with the quagmire in Iraq and then turning their guns on Iran, noting that weeks after Iran helped the US defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan in 2001 President Bush declared Iran to be part of an "axis of evil."

The White House said Thursday a Democratic senator's meeting with President Assad of Syria was inappropriate and undermined democracy in the region, while three more senators, including a Republican, made plans to visit Damascus in defiance of President Bush, the New York Times reports.

Attitudes towards the US reached new lows through most of the Arab world over the past year, according to the findings of a major new survey of five Arab countries, Inter Press Service reports.

The EU called Thursday for a Middle East free of weapons of mass destruction, AP reports, responding to comments by the Israeli prime minister acknowledging Israel's nuclear arsenal.

Iraq Sectarian divisions have delayed a proposed national oil law, the New York Times reports. The law has also been controversial because of the role it envisions for foreign companies, but the Times does not mention this. Dow Jones reports: "Iraqi trade unionists criticized the major role for foreign companies in the draft law, which specifies that up to two-thirds of Iraq's known reserves would be developed by multinationals, under contracts lasting 15 to 20 years." See "Iraqi Unions Attack Oil Privatization," Institute for Public Accuracy, 12/15/06, http://www.accuracy.org/newsrelease.php?articleId=1407

Harassment from U.S. forces is a greater threat to the work of the Iraqi Red Crescent, an affiliate of the Red Cross, than insurgent attacks, says its vice-president, AP reports.

Iran Iranians voted today for local councils and a powerful clerical body in elections that will give the first indication of President Ahmadinejad's popularity since he swept to office in 2005, Reuters reports.

Pakistan Pakistan will have to decide what to do about tribal authorities who have not been living up to their agreement to prevent Taliban and al-Qaeda fighters from moving back and forth across the border, says Director of National Intelligence Negroponte, the Washington Post reports. But Negroponte acknowledges that with elections coming, President Musharraf has a "political balancing act to perform."

Somalia There is fear that an all-out conflict in the Horn of Africa may be unavoidable, the Washington Post reports. Some observers, including Ethiopians opposed to war, are convinced that the US is tacitly giving a green light to Ethiopia to attack the Islamic Courts Union in Somalia. An Ethiopian opposition leader questioned a visit from Gen. John Abizaid last week. "If there is disapproval, you don't pay visits, right?" he said. "We used to see this call for restraint, but I have not seen that lately."

Venezuela Chávez never had a chance with the U.S. press, writes Steve Rendall in a special issue of Extra! devoted to Venezuela. Rendall notes that in April 2002, New York Times editors cheered a coup against Chávez, declaring that thanks to the overthrow of the elected president, "Venezuelan democracy is no longer threatened by a would-be dictator." For Pedro Carmona - the man who took power in the coup, declaring an actual dictatorship by dismissing the Venezuelan legislature, Supreme Court and other democratic institutions - Times editors had nicer language, calling Carmona "a respected business leader." Following Chávez's return to office a few days later, Times editors issued a grudging reappraisal of their coup endorsement, acknowledging that the forcible removal of a democratically elected leader "is never something to cheer."

Contents: http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/newsroom/blog/

- Robert Naiman Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list