|
03/06/06
- Le Pentagone accusé
de mensonge sur l'Irak par un des principaux expert US
Give
the Defense Department an F
By Anthony H. Cordesman, LATimes June 3, 2006
"ANTHONY H. CORDESMAN is a defense and intelligence
expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies
in Washington. He is the author of "The Iraq War:
Strategy, Tactics and Military Lessons
IF THE UNITED STATES is to win in Iraq, it needs an honest and
objective picture of what is happening there. The media and
outside experts can provide pieces of this picture, but only
the U.S. government has the resources and access to
information to offer a comprehensive overview.
But the quarterly report to Congress issued May 30 by the
Department of Defense, "Measuring Stability and Security
in Iraq," like the weekly reports the State Department
issues on Iraq, is profoundly flawed. It does more than simply
spin the situation to provide false assurances to lawmakers
and the public. It makes basic analytical and statistical
mistakes, fails to define key terms, provides undefined and
unverifiable survey information and deals with key issues by
omission. It deserves an overall grade of F.
The report provides a fundamentally false picture of the
political situation in Iraq and of the difficulties ahead. It
does not prepare Congress or the American people for the years
of effort that will be needed even under "best-case"
conditions nor for the risk of far more serious forms of civil
conflict. Some of its political reporting is simply
incompetent. For example, the report repeatedly states that
77% of the Iraqi population voted in the December 2005
election. Given that the CIA estimates that almost 40% of the
population is 14 or younger, there is no conceivable way that
77% of the population could have voted. The report says 12.2
million voters turned out. The CIA estimates Iraq's population
is 26.8 million. This means roughly 46% of the population
voted.
The far more serious problem, however, is the spin the report
puts on the entire Iraqi political process. Political
participation surely rose. But that wasn't because of
acceptance of the new government or an embrace of a democratic
political process; it reflected a steady sharpening of
sectarian divisions, as Sunnis tried to make up for their
decision to boycott earlier elections.
The report touts a "true unity government with
broad-based buy-in from major electoral lists and all of
Iraq's communities." But its own data tell a different
story. The one largely secular party won only 9% of parliament.
The sectarian Shiite party, the United Iraqi Alliance, got
47%. The equally sectarian Sunni Iraqi Accordance Front got
16%, and the Kurdish Coalition got 19%. That hardly adds up to
"unity."
The five-month delay in forming a government after the
elections, the failure to appoint ministers of defense or
interior and the fact that former Prime Minister Ibrahim
Jafari relinquished his post only after strong pressure from
the United States and from Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani are
signs that progress is likely to be slow in the future as well.
Sectarian conflict has become almost as serious a threat as
the insurgency.
It is scarcely reassuring to be told by the Defense Department
that the February attack on the Golden Mosque in Samarra
marked a defeat for the insurgents and Islamic extremists
because it did not instantly lead to all-out civil war. It is
hard to think of a worse definition of victory.
THE ECONOMIC section of the report contains useful data and
reflects some real progress in the Iraqi financial sector.
However, its analysis is flawed to the point of being actively
misleading. No meaningful assessment is provided of the
successes and failures of the U.S. aid effort, and no mention
is made of the massive corruption and mismanagement of U.S.
aid discovered by the special inspector general for Iraqi
reconstruction.
Nor is there meaningful analysis of oil developments, budget
and revenue problems or future needs for aid. More than $30
billion in U.S. funds and nearly $35 billion in Iraqi money is
involved, yet there is a serious risk that the Bush
administration will do more than omit the inspector general's
report. In fact, some State Department officials and
Republicans in Congress are trying to put the inspector
general out of business.
The report's handling of the key issue of Iraqi unemployment
is symptomatic of the victory of spin over content. The report
quotes vague national figures of 18% unemployment and states
that other estimates range between 25% and 40%. By saying that
unemployment and poverty "remain concerns" but that
there are "substantial difficulties in measuring them
accurately," it glosses over one of the most
destabilizing aspects of Iraq. It ignores the failure of the
aid program to create real jobs, especially for young men in
areas of high crime and insurgency. Unemployment is not a
casual macroeconomic factoid; it is central to bringing
stability and security and to defeating the insurgency.
The Defense Department's reporting on the Iraqi police forces
simply cannot be trusted. Death squads rampage in police
uniforms, but there is only passing mention of staff problems,
corruption, sectarian tensions or horrific prison abuses.
There is no meaningful analysis of problems so severe that the
U.S. has called for a "year of the police" and
Iraq's new prime minister, Nouri Maliki, is considering
reorganizing the entire force.
The United States is making real progress in some aspects of
building the Iraqi regular military. Yet there is still a
tendency to promise too much, too soon, to understate the risk
and the threat, and to disguise the fact that the U.S. must be
ready to support Iraq at least through 2008 and probably
through 2010.
The U.S. cannot afford to repeat the mistakes it made in
Vietnam. Among them was dangerous self-delusion. The strategy
President Bush is pursuing in Iraq is high risk. If it is to
have any chance of success, it will require bipartisan
persistence and sustained American effort. This requires
trust, and trust cannot be built without integrity. That means
credible reporting.
The American people and Congress need an honest portrayal of
what is happening, not half-truths by omission and spin."
03/06/06
- Massacres
ordinaires US en Irak
Civilians
killed 'daily'
Telegraph 03/06/06
"Iraq's new prime minister yesterday accused American
forces of killing civilians "just on suspicion".
Nouri al-Maliki said violence against civilians had become a
"daily phenomenon".
"They crush them with their vehicles and kill them just
on suspicion," he said. "This is completely
unacceptable."
His denunciation followed the implication of marines in the
killing of 24 civilians at Haditha."
 Lire, Read :
Third
claim of atrocity rocks US servicemen
Times 03/06/06
When
did Bush know?
Newsday 02/06/06
New
'Iraq massacre' tape emerges
BBC 02/06/06
U.S.
Military Denies New Abuse Allegations at Ishaqi
ABC News 02/06/06
Premier
Accuses U.S. of Attacking Civilians in Iraq
NYT 02/06/06
A
Town Awoke to Slaughter
LATimes 01/06/06
Military
Inquiry Is Said to Oppose Account of Raid
NYT 31/05/06
The
Shame Of Kilo Company
Time 28/05/06
"Sparked by a TIME report published in March, a U.S.
military investigation is probing the killing of as many as 24
Iraqi civilians by a group of Marines in the town of Haditha
last November. Several Marines may face criminal charges,
including murder. And new revelations suggest that their
superiors may have helped in a cover-up..."
03/06/06
- Vers des négociations
pré-conditionnelles USA-Iran ?
A
Talk at Lunch That Shifted the Stance on Iran
NYT 03/06/06
"On a Tuesday afternoon two months ago, Secretary of
State Condoleezza Rice sat down to a small lunch in President
Bush's private dining room behind the Oval Office and
delivered grim news to her boss: Their coalition against Iran
was at risk of falling apart.
A meeting she had attended in Berlin days earlier with
European foreign ministers had been a disaster, she reported,
according to participants in the discussion. Iran was neatly
exploiting divisions among the Europeans and Russia, and
speeding ahead with its enrichment of uranium. The president
grimaced, one aide recalled, interpreting the look as one of
exasperation "that said, 'O.K., team, what's the answer?'
"
That body language touched off a closely held two-month effort
to reach a drastically different strategy, one articulated two
weeks later in a single sentence that Ms. Rice wrote in a
private memorandum. It broached the idea that the United
States end its nearly three-decade policy against direct talks
with Iran.
Mr. Bush's aides rarely describe policy debates in the Oval
Office in much detail. But in recounting his decisions in this
case, they appeared eager to portray him as determined to
rebuild a fractured coalition still bearing scars from Iraq
and find a way out of a negotiating dynamic that, as one aide
said recently, "the Iranians were winning."
Mr. Bush gradually grew more comfortable with offering talks
to a country that he considers the No. 1 state sponsor of
terrorism, and whose president has advocated wiping Israel off
the map. Mr. Bush's own early misgivings about the path he was
considering came in a flurry of phone calls to Ms. Rice and to
Stephen J. Hadley, his national security adviser, that often
began with questions like "What if the Iranians do this,"
gaming out loud a number of possible situations.
Mr. Bush left open the option of scuttling the entire idea
until early Wednesday morning, three senior officials said,
speaking on the condition of anonymity because they were
describing internal debates in the White House. He made the
final decision only after telephone calls with President
Vladimir V. Putin of Russia and the chancellor of Germany,
Angela Merkel, led him to conclude that if Tehran refused to
suspend its enrichment of uranium, or later dragged its feet,
they would support an escalating series of sanctions against
Iran at the United Nations that could lead to a confrontation.
Even after Mr. Bush edited the statement Ms. Rice was
scheduled to read Wednesday before she flew to Vienna to
encourage Europe and Russia to sign on to a final package of
incentives for Iran — and sanctions if it turns the offer
down — Ms. Rice wanted to check in one more time. She called
Mr. Bush. Was he sure he was O.K. with his decision?
"Go do it," he responded..."
Lire, Read :
Iran
Guardedly Considers Offer
WaPo 03/06/06
Six
Powers Reach Accord On Iran Plan
WaPo 02/06/06
Rice's
Conditional Offer to Iran May Be Problematic
Jim Lobe, Antiwar 01/06/06
Europeans
hail US offer to Iran
BBC 01/06/06
Bolton:
‘This is Put Up or Shut Up Time For Iran,’ Unilateral
Military Action Is ‘On The Table’
ThinkProgress 01/06/06
World
powers close to Iran proposal
Guardian 01/06/06
Condi's
Iran Gambit
WSJ 01/06/06
Iran
cautious over US talks offer
BBC 01/06/06
Giving
Iran One Last Chance
by James Phillips, Heritage
31/05/06
Behind
Washington's Turnabout on Talks with Iran
Time 31/05/06
Russia,
China welcome U.S. offer on Iran
AP 31/05/06
U.S./IRAN:
Conditional Offer for Talks
Seen as a Gamble
Jim Lobe, IPS 31/05/06
U.S.
Accepts Draft on Iran That Omits Use of Force
NYT 31/05/06
Press
Conference on Iran
Secretary Condoleezza Rice, US Department of State 31/05/06
Parsi:
Iran Unlikely to Halt Nuclear Enrichment Unless the United
States Agrees to Direct Talks
CFR 31/05/06
The
Case for Bargaining With Iran
By Joschka Fischer, Washington Post 29/05/06
Talking
to Tehran, not at it
Jim Lobe, ATimes 27/05/06
U.S.
Is Debating Talks With Iran on Nuclear Issue
NYT 27/05/06
Carrots,
sticks and the isolation of Iran
ATimes 27/05/06
Kerr:
U.S. Should Offer Not to Seek Iran Regime Change
CFR 25/05/06
Russia
and the Iranian Nuclear Crisis
By Alexei Arbatov, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
23/05/06
2006
Soref Symposium: How to Deal with the Challenge from Iran
The Washington Institute for Near East Policy
Eye
off the dragon
Guardian 11/05/06
Iran
and the Bomb
By Christopher de Bellaigue, NYBooks 27/04/06
We
Do Not Have a Nuclear Weapons Program
By JAVAD ZARIF, NYT 06/04/06
Full
text of President Ahmedinajad's letter to President Bush
Council on Foreign Relations, May 9, 2006
Hassan
Rohani's proposals for resolving the crisis
TIME.com, May 9, 2006
Newest
IAEA report on Iran cites continued concerns in anticipation
of full UNSC consideration
CDI 03/03/06
03/06/06
- L'Iran avait proposé en
2003 "de faire la paix avec Israel"
Iran
offered 'to make peace with Israel'
By Gareth Porter, IPS/ATimes 26/05/06
"Iran offered in 2003 to accept peace with Israel and cut
off material assistance to Palestinian armed groups and to
pressure them to halt terrorist attacks within Israel's 1967
borders, according to a secret Iranian proposal to the United
States.
The two-page proposal for a broad Iran-US agreement covering
all the issues separating the two countries, a copy of which
was obtained by Inter Press Service (IPS), was conveyed to the
US in late April or early May 2003.
Trita Parsi, a specialist on Iranian foreign policy at Johns
Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies
who provided the document to IPS, says he got it from an
Iranian official this year but is not at liberty to reveal the
source.
The two-page document contradicts the official line of the
Bush administration that Iran is committed to the destruction
of Israel and the sponsorship of terrorism in the region.
Parsi says the document is a summary of an even more detailed
Iranian negotiating proposal that he learned about in 2003
from the US intermediary who carried it to the State
Department on behalf of the Swiss Embassy in late April or
early May that year. The intermediary has not yet agreed to be
identified, Parsi said.
The negotiating proposal indicated clearly that Iran was
prepared to give up its role as a supporter of armed groups in
the region in return for a larger bargain with the United
States. What the Iranians wanted in return, as suggested by
the document itself as well as expert observers of Iranian
policy, was an end to US hostility and recognition of Iran as
a legitimate power in the region..."
02/06/06
- Quelques prévisions
économiques pour 2006
Mid-Year
Review of my January 2006 forecasts for the US and Global
Economy This Year: My Bearish Call on Track to Be Right
Nouriel Roubini | May 25, 2006
02/06/06
-
Première évaluation européenne de la menace
des mafias
First
EU Organised Crime Threat Assessment presented to EU ministers
Europol 02/06/06
"...The main task of the OCTA is to identify and assess
emerging threats. Furthermore, it describes the structure of
organised crime groups and the way they operate as well as the
main types of crime affecting the European Union..."
Organised
Crime Threat Assessment 2006
02/06/06
- Une base navale russe
en Syrie ?
Russia
to Establish Naval Base in Syrian Port of Tartus
Mosnews 02/06/06
"Russia has begun works in the Syrian port of Tartus
seeking to built a full-scale naval base for the ships of the
Black Sea Fleet, currently based in Ukraine’s Sevastopol,
the Kommersant newspaper reported on Friday, quoting unnamed
sources in the Defense Ministry and the General Staff of the
Russian Navy.
The paper noted that this is the first time Russia is setting
up a military base outside the CIS since the fall of the USSR
and that the base will allow Moscow to pursue its own line in
the Middle East.
Russia has also started work in the port of Latakia in Syria,
the newspaper said. The base in Tartus and the new mooring in
Latakia will be able to serve the needs of the Black Sea Fleet
and possibly the North Sea Fleet as well.
The newspaper quoted its sources as saying that in the nearest
future the Russian Navy will form a squadron headed by the
Moskva missile cruiser which will permanently operate in the
Mediterranean, taking part in joint exercises with NATO
forces.
The sources said that the new base would allow Russia to
strengthen its positions in the Middle East and also enhance
Syrian security.
However, the Russian Defense Ministry has refuted the report.
Russia is not building a military base in Syria, spokesman for
the Ministry Colonel Vyacheslav Sedov was quoted by RIA
Novosti as saying."
30/05/06
- De nouvelles études
sur le renseignement
Studies
in Intelligence
CIA Center for Studies of Intelligence
30/05/06
- Nouvelles questions
sur les élections américaines de 2004
Was
the 2004 Election Stolen?
Rollingstone.com
"Republicans prevented more than 350,000 voters in Ohio
from casting ballots or having their votes counted -- enough
to have put John Kerry in the White House. BY ROBERT F.
KENNEDY JR.
Like many Americans, I spent the evening of the 2004 election
watching the returns on television and wondering how the exit
polls, which predicted an overwhelming victory for John Kerry,
had gotten it so wrong. By midnight, the official tallies
showed a decisive lead for George Bush -- and the next day,
lacking enough legal evidence to contest the results, Kerry
conceded. Republicans derided anyone who expressed doubts
about Bush's victory as nut cases in ''tinfoil hats,'' while
the national media, with few exceptions, did little to
question the validity of the election. The Washington Post
immediately dismissed allegations of fraud as ''conspiracy
theories,''(1) and The New York Times declared that ''there is
no evidence of vote theft or errors on a large scale.''(2)
But despite the media blackout, indications continued to
emerge that something deeply troubling had taken place in
2004. Nearly half of the 6 million American voters living
abroad(3) never received their ballots -- or received them too
late to vote(4) -- after the Pentagon unaccountably shut down
a state-of-the-art Web site used to file overseas
registrations.(5) A consulting firm called Sproul &
Associates, which was hired by the Republican National
Committee to register voters in six battleground states,(6)
was discovered shredding Democratic registrations.(7) In New
Mexico, which was decided by 5,988 votes,(8) malfunctioning
machines mysteriously failed to properly register a
presidential vote on more than 20,000 ballots.(9) Nationwide,
according to the federal commission charged with implementing
election reforms, as many as 1 million ballots were spoiled by
faulty voting equipment -- roughly one for every 100 cast.
The reports were especially disturbing in Ohio..."
Lire également, Read also :
New
Florida vote scandal
revealed
By Greg Palast, Reporting for BBC's Newsnight 26/10/04
30/05/06
- Quand l'Ambassadeur d'Israel à l'ONU révèle que
John Bolton est un
membre secret de sa propre équipe !
Israel's
UN ambassador slams Qatar, praises Bolton
Reuters 22/05/06
"Israel's U.N. ambassador, in unusually blunt comments,
criticized Russia, China and Qatar on Monday for disappointing
the Jewish state in their role as U.N. Security Council
members this year.
But Ambassador Dan Gillerman, addressing a New York meeting of
B'nai B'rith International, a Jewish humanitarian organization,
heaped praise on U.S. Ambassador John Bolton, jokingly
describing him at one point as a secret member of Israel's own
team at the United Nations.
Noting that just five diplomats worked in the busy Israeli
U.N. Mission, he told the group: "Today the secret is
out. We really are not just five diplomats. We are at least
six including John Bolton."
Israel's relations with the United Nations have generally been
stormy since the 1967 Middle East War, during which Israel
captured Gaza and the West Bank, and the 191-nation General
Assembly annually adopts dozens of resolutions criticizing it.
But things have taken a turn for the better in recent years,
Gillerman said, citing a General Assembly commemoration of the
Holocaust and an assembly resolution denouncing anti-Semitism,
among other breakthroughs.
The United States, for its part, often acts as Israel's lead
defender in the Security Council, using its veto power to kill
critical resolutions.
But Qatar, which started a two-year term on the council in
January and is currently its sole Arab member, "has
played a very counterproductive role so far as a member of the
Security Council," Gillerman said.
"It has shown a mixture of weakness and submission which
most people did not expect," he said, noting that Qatar
enjoys close ties to Israel's closest ally, the United States,
and is seeking to improve relations with the West.
"We feel that this is very unfortunate. We hope there
will be a change in the behavior, in the attitude which Qatar
is showing," Gillerman said.
He said Israel, which fears Iran is building nuclear weapons
to attack it, was "dismayed and disappointed" by the
role played by Russia and China in the council debate on
Iran's nuclear program.
Beijing and Moscow are "stalling and delaying" a
council resolution on Iran, he said.
Their opposition has prevented Western powers, who accuse
Tehran of pursuing civilian nuclear power as a cover for a
nuclear arms program, from pushing through the council a
legally binding resolution demanding that Iran curb its
nuclear ambitions or face possible sanctions, he said.
Gillerman warned Iran was "months rather than years away"
from acquiring the capability to make nuclear weapons.
"Time is running out," he said."
30/05/06
- Les anglo-saxons
à l'offensive sur EADS ! (suite)
EADS,
Clearstream, and the future of France's space industry
by Taylor Dinerman, Space Review Tuesday, May 30, 2006
"...Either he is telling the truth on this or he is nuts:
in either case it
makes EADS look really bad. In the most likely case-that he is
paranoid-the
question has got to be asked by investors and customers of the
conglomerate:
how did he get to the top of the organization? Could it have
something to do
with the fact that the French government owns a 15%
"Golden Share" of the
company? The company's customers and partners have got to be
asking
themselves how many others like him are in management.
For the space industry this means that two of Europe's most
important
satellite and launch vehicle manufacturers are now caught up
in an ugly
political scandal. The corrupt relationships between political
power and the
aerospace industry in France that have now been exposed will
have
repercussions worldwide. Anyone in a non-French government or
corporation
who wants to buy a ride on an Ariane 5, or a satellite or
space-qualified
component from Astrium, will have to be extremely careful not
to get caught
up in what promises to be a long and drawn-out affair..."
"...At the inter-governmental level this scandal will
force many of France's
international partners to reexamine their relationships with
French
government and industry if only to insure that they are not
being
manipulated for interior French political purposes. Foreign
involvement in
any aspect of this could involve years of investigations,
millions of
dollars in legal expenses, and do serious harm to any number
of business and
scientific relationships.
For the last two decades it has been obvious that the French
government has
a long-standing strategy to completely dominate Europe's arms
and aerospace
industry. To achieve this they are willing to sacrifice any
number of
things, not the least of which are huge sums of French
taxpayers' euros. Any
company that refuses to be "federated" into the
French schemes earns itself
a label of "Un-European", as BAE did a few weeks ago
when one French
commentator called them "A US company with its
headquarters in Farnborough".
The extraordinarily tight relationship between this industry
and the highest
levels of the French state apparatus make Washington DC's
"Iron Triangle"
look like a loose tribal confederation..."
30/05/06
- Drones : tout sur nEUROn
nEUROn
UCAV Project Rolling Down the Runway
Defense Industry Daily 25/05/06
|
