Russia Puts Pinch on North Korea

Breitbart: Russia warns North Korea over nukes 'threat'

Tiring of the games North Korea has played at the six-party talks over its nuclear program, Russia has finally had enough.

North Korea's nuclear weapons capability threatens Russian interests, Moscow's chief negotiator at international talks with Pyongyang said Wednesday.

Some think that this time Russia may back up its words with some action. Of the six parties (Russia, China, Japan, US, South Korea and North Korea) Russia has had the smallest part in the negotiations. All of the other countries have a larger interest in seeing North Korea give up its nuclear program. So for the most part, Russia has sat on the sidelines.

Viktor Kremenyuk, deputy director at the USA-Canada think tank, said that Losyukov's message indicated that Russia was cutting back on longtime diplomatic support for North Korea.

Why the change now? There obviously has been some behind the doors negotiations, but who are what that entailed is not known.

This possibility of the region sprouting nuclear weapons is one likely reason for Russias new stance against North Korea.

"If Korea continues its nuclear programme, that will push the region out of control. Japan will be next, then Taiwan, and so on. Russia and China are worried."

African Union Fails to Support Somalia

CSM: Will the African Union help Somalia?

But, perhaps most important, the AU needs a peace plan to enforce, says Richard Cromwell, a senior analyst at the Institute for Security Studies in Tshwane (as the South African capital city of Pretoria is now called.)

"There is no peace plan, and no political or diplomatic framework on which to hang a mission," says Mr. Cromwell. "If one looks at the context of the AU summit, it's nice to say you are going to send troops, but it's another thing to actually send them. Why would you devote rare African troops to a quagmire when you might need them for future conflicts?"

The war in Iraq has produced effects not yet understood around the world. If the most powerful country in the world cannot control a relatively simple insurgency in Iraq, what chance does a weak, underfunded African Union have against the multi-pronged clan warfare sprinkled with Islamic fanatics.

History has repeated itself. In 1991 the US ran over a far inferior Iraqi military, then jumped into Somalia in 1992 and ran with its tail tucked in 1994. After this blunder, most of the world stammered while in Rwanda extremist Hutus slaughtered over a half million Tutsis and moderate Hutus.

Why the world didn't want to get involved isn't clearly known. Political leadership around the world knew of the massacres, and evidently didn't want to get involved and hoped the whole incident would be over before too much press covered the event.

One possible reason why countries didn't want to get involved it because why suffer the same humiliating defeat the US did in Somalia.

This brings about the current situation. The US ran roughshod over the Taliban in Afghanistan in 2001. On the coattails of this military success, the US jumped into Iraq and after an initial military success, diplomatic failures fostered an insurgency the US cannot contain.

Meanwhile in Darfur, Sudan has been conducting ethnic cleansing while the US military is pinned down in Iraq.

Somalia is going to be hard pressed to get any relief from the African Union or anyone else.

The situation has no viable solution and has been made worse since 1994 because Islamic fanatics have grown in number in Somalia. Only after the Ethiopian Army chased them out of the country did the Islamic fanatic problem cede.

Currently the Somalian transformational government has the Ethiopian Army which is in the middle of withdrawing, and a weak government force. On the other hand clan warfare remains and as the Ethiopian Army withdraws, the Islamic fanatics will resurface.

Unfortunately the Somalis just want an end to the warfare no matter who is in charge. The only force that seems to be able, and more importantly, willing to do so is the Islamic fanatic force that Ethiopia just eradicated.

If the only chance for peace for the Somalis to succumb to Islamic fanaticism and live under a Taliban-like state, why wouldn't they choose this option. Especially when the rest of the world isn't willing to expend the effort required to establish a viable alternative.

Admitting to the Mistakes in Iraq Made by Rumsfeld

US may have to alter expectations for Iraq -Fallon

Earlier I posted what I thought the biggest error made in Iraq was that we didn’t have enough troops to win the war to begin with. Here is an except:

THE BIGGEST MISTAKE IN IRAQ was not clamping down hard immediately after reaching Baghdad. First of all there needed to be more troops in the initial push to Baghdad.

An Army officer informed me that when they discussed Iraq war plans, the army stated "for success in in Iraq we must do these ## missions. That will require ### troops."

Former Secretary of Defense said, you aren't going to get that many troops, you're going to get this much. What missions can you do with this number of troops.

Long story short, that is why you saw Military leadership stating precisely, "We have the troops to accomplish the missions we've been tasked with."

At least that is how the plans for Iraq were put together as I was told. I'm sure there is a former J5 person that would know more, and we'd love to have them place a comment here.

In short, Iraq should not be blamed on anyone other than former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.

If you remember then Secretary of State Colin Powell thought we needed more troops to get the job done along with a whole slew of other military leaders.

It appears the military leadership is getting its say now that Rumsfeld is out of office.

"Going back to 2003, we had hundreds of good ideas of things that we would like to see in Iraq that are more reflective of the kind of society and process that we enjoy here," Fallon said…And it seems to me that we probably erred in our [translation Rumsfeld’s] assessment of the ability of these people to take on all of these tasks [like patrolling the Syrian and Iranian border] at the same time," he told the committee, meeting to consider his nomination.

The question now is this change too little too late?

European Interests Stymie US Diplomatic Efforts in Iran

IHT: Europe resisting U.S. pressure on Iran

While the US is doing everything it can, with the notable exception of direct negotiations, to dissuade Iran from continuing its nuclear weapons program, Europe is dragging its feet.

European governments are resisting Bush administration demands that they curtail support for exports to Iran and that they block transactions and freeze assets of some Iranian companies, officials on both sides say. The resistance threatens to open a new rift between Europe and the United States over Iran.

The lesson the Bush administration learned from the Iraq war was to act in a multilateral front when dealing with the ‘axis of evil.’ Hence the Six-Party talks concerning North Koreas nuclear weapons program involving China, US, Russia, Japan, South Korea and North Korea.

So with Iran, the US has made military overtones by sending a carrier group to the Middle East as a show of force, but is being patient waiting for diplomacy to work.

Frustrating the US efforts in Iraq were the Oil for Food scandal where the UN was funneling money to Saddam illegally and the illegal contracts Russia, Germany and France had with Iraq. Saddam Hussein never felt the pinch of the years of sanctions, only the people of Iraq.

Europe is at it again with another rogue state in the Middle East. The US is putting diplomatic and economic pressure on Iran, but Europe is undercutting the US efforts.

Another European official said: "We are going to be very cautious about what the Treasury Department wants us to do. We can see that banks are slowing their business with Iran. But because there are huge European business interests involved, we have to be very careful."

When US lawmakers state, “We should use diplomatic efforts to confront Iran.” The words are hollow for the most part. Europe again is only interested in its self-serving interests.

The US does have one ally at least in the Iranian Cold War. Saudi Arabia is a strong US ally when it comes to Iran. Saudi Arabia is ruled by Sunnis, while Iran is Shia led. The thought of a nuclear Iran frightens Saudi Arabia almost as much as Israel.

Several European officials said in interviews that they believed that the United States and Saudi Arabia have an unwritten deal to keep oil production up, and prices down, to further squeeze Iran, which is dependent on oil for its economic solvency. No official has confirmed that such a deal exists.

Commodities and Environment Weigh on China Economy

The Economist: China's economy-Still roaring-China's economy grew by a dramatic 10.7% last year, but this year will be slightly quieter.

Have you heard the stories about copper being stolen from construction sites? It is happening quite frequently lately. Why? Because China is building at a sprinter’s pace and sending commodities prices upward.

Although it accounts for roughly 4% of global GDP (measured at market exchange rates), China consumes 30% of the world’s supply of minerals and other raw materials. This time around, the world has not only heard the sucking sound, but has also felt its effects, as the prices of commodities such as iron ore, copper and zinc have soared, doubling or tripling in just a couple of years.

Because of this China is on it way to Africa with an open check book. Africa’s abundance of natural resources has attracted China’s attention.

China’s problem is its poor efficiencies in production, not only in raw materials, but in energy consumption also.

China also wastes a lot. Take energy consumption. China required 4.3 times as much energy as America in 2005 to produce one unit of GDP, up from 3.4 times in 2002. It can be argued that much of China’s new investment has not yet reached optimal efficiency. That may be true, but it does not explain why things are getting worse: China consumed 15% more energy per unit of GDP in 2005 than it did in 2002. India, also a rapidly expanding economy, consumes only 61% as much energy as China per unit of GDP.

The inefficiencies could offset the cheap labor China has to offer on the global market. When you compare the global GDP share (4%) versus the consumption of commodities (30%), Chinas economy may have some stumbling blocks in the future. The higher commodities price will either cut into Chinas profits or show up in higher prices for the goods China produces using those commodities.

In response, demand will weaken for all goods produced from these commodities, not just from China, but worldwide. Since China’s economy is more dependent on these exports, it will feel more of the pinch.

China’s growth has become too expensive in many ways. Overinvestment pulls up prices of raw materials but, simultaneously, overcapacity depresses the prices of finished products. Whereas prices of imported raw materials rose sharply between 2003 and 2005, those of Chinese exports to America fell by 5.2%. As a net importer of raw materials and a net exporter of finished products, China is paying a high price for its growth, particularly to commodity-producing countries.

Finally, China is facing enormous environmental problems. The changes China will have to make in its manufacturing infrastructure will drain the economy eventually.

While the Chinese economy is still hot, it won’t be as nuclear as it has been.

China Offers Financial Aid to Africa Without Strings

VOA: Beijing Foreign Aid Package Paves the Way for Hu's Africa Visit

How much aid?

It’s pretty substantial. It’s grown from a hundred million dollars about a decade ago to over two and a half billion

And you know what they say? Money talks. This is important to remember when you consider where the some of the biggest oil producing countries are Nigeria, Algeria and Angola.

They tend to deliver their aid bilaterally, from government to government, rather than working with NGO’s or other actors. They’re still trying to figure out how to structure their aid programming. They don’t have a great sense of what they’re going to do with it. But they’re building infrastructure and doing a lot of things that the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund don’t do. But at the same time, they deliver their aid to governments, so there’s not much accountability for what happens to the aid.

Yes, as a matter of fact you could call it a bribe.

On top of that, the money doesn’t come with a demand for human rights or democracy.

Joshua Kurlantzik points out that China has been reluctant to press its African allies toward accepting difficult foreign policy demands from the world community.

China now has the financial ability to put the US on its heals diplomatically. Where will these countries feed their natural resources to first? The country that offered them money and waived debt without asking for anything in return politically. China just wants their natural resources and is willing to pay (or bribe) top dollar for it. If you want to kill off all the Christians in your country (Sudan) so be it. As long as China gets your oil, they don’t care.

The US is playing from behind and is pinned down in Iraq now both financially and militarily. So China has an open field to work with when it comes to Africa.

Taiwan Taunts Big Brother China with Text Books

New textbooks put space between Taiwan and China.

Taiwan has issued new text books that will put a wider divide between Taiwan and China. Mainland China will be referred to as “China,” instead of “my country,” “this country or “the mainland.”

In [another] change, Sun Yat-sen, father of the revolution that toppled China's last emperor in 1911, is no longer referred to as "father of the nation."

The timing of this is incredible. Just weeks after China flexes its military muscle with an anti-satellite weapon test, Taiwan releases this textbook that puts distance between the two countries.

Not that Taiwan timed it this way, but it is very interesting. It makes you think of the ESPN commercial of Eli and Peyton Manning antagonizing each other behind their parents as they are touring the ESPN facilities.

Before this, the Taiwan, China and US relationship was balanced very delicately on the One-China Policy.

From Wikipedia:

In the case of the United States, the One-China policy was first stated in the Shanghai Communiqué of 1972: "the United States acknowledges that Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain there is but one China and that Taiwan is a part of China. The United States does not challenge that position." Thus, the United States's One-China Policy is subtly different from the One China Principle that China imposes on the rest of the world in that Washington has not expressed an explicitly immutable statement regarding whether it believes Taiwan is independent or not. Instead, Washington simply states that they understand China's claims that the country claims Taiwan as its own. In fact, many scholars agree that US One-China Policy was not intended to please the Chinese government, but as a way for Washington to conduct international relations in the region, which Beijing fails to state.

Has Taiwan pushed the envelope too far this time? Probably not, China will come out with a statement condemning the new text books, and they may do some military posturing.

Nothing too significant will happen though because China’s economy is its greatest weapon right now and following a military course of action is not in China’s best interest at this point in history.

There will be fireworks, just filled with hot air though.

In the future though there may come a time when things are different. If the youth of Taiwan are told they are not part of China their entire academic year and then are later told they are part of China, it may be a hard pill to swallow. Only time will tell if this textbook issue will be the start of a revoluion.

How Much Will You Pay for Gas if the Saudis Get Their Way?

IHT: Saudis signal efforts to control oil prices

Saudi Arabia, which benefited immensely from record oil prices last year, has sent signals in the last two weeks that it is committed to keeping oil at about $50 a barrel — down $27 a barrel from the summer peak that shook consumers around the world.

While the rest of OPEC would like to see oil prices increase, the Saudis see the dangers of limiting oil production in order to increase oil prices.

Elevated oil prices make oil consuming countries look for alternate forms of energy, such as ethanol. See story on Chinese led summit of oil consuming countries.

It is simple economics, provide affordable oil, or we find alternate forms of energy.

When US President George Bush spoke last week at the State of the Union Address, Saudi Arabia listened.

Saudi Arabia doesn't grow much corn, so getting in on the ethanol cash cow that could come is going to be difficult for a country whose greatest natural resource besides oil is sand.

Even Bush, who began his presidency seeking to increase domestic oil production, called for cuts in gasoline consumption over the next decade in the State of the Union address last week.

There could be other forces at work though.

Sometimes, the uncertainty gives rise to more conspiratorial theories. Oil traders have been buzzing in recent weeks about whether Saudi Arabia was actively seeking to depress oil markets in hopes of crippling the Iranian economy, as a Saudi analyst — albeit not one from the government — suggested in an opinion article in The Washington Post last year. The Saudis quickly dismissed the suggestion, but given the tensions in the Middle East, oil and politics remain closely linked.

Keep in mind the Saudi royal family is Sunni and Iran in mostly Shia. Saudi Arabia is as uncomfortable with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's belligerence as the rest of the world. By keeping oil prices low, Saudi Arabia can put pressure on Ahmadinejad..

The hope is that the low prices will inspire the youth of Iran to rise up against the government much like the current leadership did in the 1970s.

What is ironic is that Ahmadinejad protested the Shah of Iran because he was corrupt, and now, the youth of Iran want to rise up against Ahmadinejad.

China Starts to Build a Social Elite from the MIddle Class

Washington Post: For China's Newly Affluent, Imported Wine Is De Rigueur

"More and more Chinese drink wines, because it's fashionable and a kind of social status," said Zhou Ning, market strategy manager of a Beijing-based real estate company whose ads often feature young couples drinking wine or beautiful women lounging with a glass of wine. "We include wine in our ads because we want to tell potential customers that people living in our apartments are elegant and cultivated, and they pay attention to quality of life."

The liberal elite would be proud of its asian brother. I can see the liberal elite raising an eyebrow and saying, "Hey, these are some people we can relate to."

So that begs the question, is China building a social elite? China is still labeled a "communist" country, although it was only socialist to begin with. But as China relaxes economic constraints the country is starting to take on a different look.

What would be terrifying for a cultural elite in China is if the political leadership turned and started going backwards to a more socialist state, effectively eliminating the middle class.

One question is how hard would the middle class fight? I don't imagine much. I see them fleeing the country.

But this scenario is unlikely because the Chinese political leadership isn't strong enough to stop the snowball of economic development the Deng Xiaping led Chinese government started.

The question facing the Chinese now is what will the next generation of China look like? I don't see too many hardline communists looking to replace Hu Jintao. There are some Peoples Liberation Army (PLA) leaders who are very xenophobic though. If the future of the Chinese political leadership is influence by the PLA the world could face a socialist hardliner.

The hope is that the leadership will be more influenced by the growing Chinese capitalist movement.

Hanoi Jane Back in the Saddle

Tens of Thousands Rally in D.C. for Troop Withdrawal

I strolled through the anti-war rally today near the capitol. One thing I noticed was a lot of Baby Boomers there with their grandkids. Jane Fonda showed up with her grandchildren. It was kind of funny to see the old heads reliving their Vietnam experience.

Barbara Abrams, 78, from Rochester, N.Y., waded into the crowd near the stage and helped hold up a banner saying "Raging Grannies."

It was just a couple years ago that the Baby Boomers were upset with the younger generation wouldn't protest.

Speaking of the over the hill gang though. Ol' Hanoi Jane thought she still had a little protest in her.

Fonda seemed to acknowledge her past role as a provocative figure. "I haven't spoken at an antiwar rally for 34 years," she told the crowd, adding that she had been afraid that lies about her past could undermine the antiwar cause. "Silence is no longer an option," she said.

It isn't the lies Jane Fonda should be worried about it is the truth that she should be terrified of. I imagine nowadays instead of consorting with the North Vietnamese, Jane will dine with Osama bin Laden himself.

Back during Vietnam, instead of "Tens" of Thousands of war protesters, there would have been "Hundreds" of thousands.

The crowd, exuberant but orderly, seemed substantially smaller than the half million people that organizers in the group United for Peace and Justice claimed were present. The throng filled much of the Mall between Third Street and Fourth Street NW, but thinned toward Seventh Street.

On a serious note, there were some at the rally that have earned the right to be listened to.

"My husband deployed last June to Iraq," she said. "He is an Army infantry officer currently patrolling the streets of Baghdad. And I just have to say I'm sick of attending the funerals of my friends. I have seen the weeping majors. I have seen the weeping colonels. I am sick of the death."

Anti-war rallies are more about people being seen than stopping the war. I feel sad for the people who truly have something to say about the war. Jesse Jackson, Jane Fonda and the Barbara Boxers of the world speak out against the war more to take a position and get something out of it than the people like the families of Fern Holland and Kevin Shea.

I talked about Fern Holland in a previous post.

Kevin Shea graduated from the Air Force Academy in 1989 and played Defensive Tackle. I also graduated from the Academy in 1989 and played Defensive Tackle opposite of Kevin.

The most powerful anti-war symbol in the country is in Arlington National Cemetery. It is called Faces of the Fallen. Seeing it in pictures doesn't do it justice. They are paintings of the fallen soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan (I think). I went and saw Kevin. After graduating from the Academy, Kevin cross-commisioned into the Marine Corps.

I don't think that Kevin and Fern would advocate leaving Iraq in a mess. I believe they would want to carry on their mission. But when you look at the smiling faces, and it is the smiling ones that hurt the most, you think very carefully about what should be done next.

As for Jane's Gang though? They do nothing constructive for this debate.

Shiites Sunnis Drawing Lines in Lebanon

Washington Post: Along Beirut's Line of Confrontation.

Although there are some signs of unity between the Lebanese Sunnis and Shias, lines are being drawn in parts of Lebanon that pit Sunnis against Shias, much like Iraq and other parts the the Middle East.

A banner commemorates former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein, a Sunni, who was executed by a Shiite-led government. "We will not forget you," it reads in red and black. Other posters celebrate the ongoing Shiite holiday of Ashura, "the victory of the aggrieved."

Is this what should have been expected when the US went into Iraq. THE BIGGEST MISTAKE IN IRAQ was not clamping down hard immediately after reaching Baghdad. First of all there needed to be more troops in the initial push to Baghdad.

An Army officer informed me that when they discussed Iraq war plans, the army stated "for success in in Iraq we must do these ## missions. That will require ### troops."

Former Secretary of Defense said, you aren't going to get that many troops, you're going to get this much. What missions can you do with this number of troops.

Long story short, that is why you saw Military leadership stating precisely, "We have the troops to accomplish the missions we've been tasked with."

At least that is how the plans for Iraq were put together as I was told. I'm sure there is a former J5 person that would know more, and we'd love to have them place a comment here.

In short, Iraq should not be blamed on anyone other than former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.

Or, is the chaos that is developing in Iraq part of a larger plan put forth by the US government?

From Hezbollah's leaders to Shiites in the street, many speculate that the United States is encouraging the Sunni-Shiite tension as a way to blunt the growing profile of largely Shiite Iran. But there is worry, too, that whatever the design, Lebanon is too divided, too weak, too reflexive in its loyalty to its clannish leaders to withstand the repercussions of sectarian strife

What will happen next? Will Saudi Arabia split into Shia and Sunni sects? What about other countries in the Middle East like Bahrain and others?

Lethal Force Required for US Military in Iraq War

Lethal-Force Order Justified, Bush Say

"It makes sense that if somebody's trying to harm our troops, or stop us from achieving our goal, or killing innocent citizens in Iraq, that we will stop them," Bush said in response to a question about the program, the details of which were first reported in yesterday's Washington Post.

Of course a lethal-force order is justified. In war you go after the bad guys, no matter what country they are from initially.

Reid said Bush should be engaged in direct diplomacy with Iran

If the US was to engage in direct diplomacy with Iran, it would unravel all the progress, the UN sanctions have made. Iranians are ready to get rid of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. By crawling to Ahmadinejad only makes his case stronger and will make him more defiant. What could we possibly say to Iran in direct negotiations that is going to stop its pursuit of the destruction of the US and Israel? Nothing.

At a Pentagon news conference yesterday, Gates told reporters that U.S. troops were not "simply going to stand by and let people bring sophisticated IEDs into the country that can disable an Abrams tank and give them a free pass."

Now that only makes sense. Go after the bad guys an stop them.

Change in ROE in Iraq War More Important than Troops

Washington Post: Troops Authorized to Kill Iranian Operatives in Iraq.

Changing the Rules of Engagement (ROE) in Iraq helps the troops out infinitely more than the "troop surge." There is very little more important on the battlefield than the ability to eliminate the enemy.

It is frightening how close the US government has played this war like the Vietnam War. The limited ROE is the latest in a string of how we allow world opinion handcuff our efforts in our ability to fight the jihadis in Iraq.

"There were no costs for the Iranians," said one senior administration official. "They are hurting our mission in Iraq, and we were bending over backwards not to fight back."

There is no hope of winning a war when you aren’t allowed to defeat the enemy. There is no good reason to treat Iran with kid gloves. Iran is already doing all it can to build a nuclear program, and an ability to send missiles into space. How can the relationship with Iran possibly get worse?

They can’t turn off their oil production, because Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is already on thin ice with the population and the Supreme Council upset with him for his belligerent statements. The Iranian population is upset because their economy and economic future looks bleak. Cutting off oil production now could get Ahmadinejad overthrown.

"Iran seems to be conducting a foreign policy with a sense of dangerous triumphalism."

And then there is US President George Bush’s plan of attack.

Senior administration officials said the policy is based on the theory that Tehran will back down from its nuclear ambitions if the United States hits it hard in Iraq and elsewhere, creating a sense of vulnerability among Iranian leaders. But if Iran responds with escalation, it has the means to put U.S. citizens and national interests at greater risk in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere.

Like I said previously, when it comes to President Bush and Iranian President Ahmadinejad, it is a game of chicken with two lame ducks.

But is attacking Iranians in Iraq that aggressive?

One official said Casey had planned to designate Iran's Revolutionary Guard as a "hostile entity," a distinction within the military that would permit offensive action.

Of course any member of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard in Iraq should be considered hostile. It isn’t like our troops are going across the Yalu, er, the Cambodian, I mean the Iranian border to attack these guys are they? The ROE similarities of the ROE limitations to the Korean War and Vietnam War are disgustingly vivid. Until the US is willing to do everything it can to win a war, including breaking a country to the point of 1945 Japan and Germany, it shouldn’t consider warfare an option. It makes the American public angry and frustrates the United States military.

Advocates of the new policy -- some of whom are in the NSC, the vice president's office, the Pentagon and the State Department -- said that only direct and aggressive efforts can shatter Iran's growing influence. A less confident Iran, with fewer cards, may be more willing to cut the kind of deal the Bush administration is hoping for on its nuclear program. "The Iranians respond to the international community only when they are under pressure, not when they are feeling strong," one official said.

Iran needs to be taught that interfering in Iraq is as perilous proposition for them as it is for the US.

Iran Able to Strike Anywhere in Europe and Soon the US with Nuclear Missile

Iran could be able to field a nuclear weapon by the end of the year with the help of North Korea.

Now Aviation Week is reporting that Iran could be able to launch a satellite into space, again with the help of North Korea.

Remember the movie and book, The Right Stuff by Tom Wolfe? Remeber the Washington staffer running down a hall to a crazed president or senator stating, "I will not go to bed by the light of a communist moon!" Well, it is time for the staffer to put on his running shoes again.

This time America will be going to bed by the light of a Iranian terrorist moon.

Iran has converted its most powerful ballistic missile into a satellite launch vehicle. The 30-ton rocket could also be a wolf in sheep's clothing for testing longer-range missile strike technologies, Aviation Week & Space Technology magazine reports in its Jan. 29 issue.

This means that the ability to strike Europe with a nuclear weapon is probably less than a year away.

I have a feeling that Europe will warm up to the idea of the US developing anti-ballistic missile (ABM) defense capabilities because they are going to be the first ones in line begging for it.

U.S. agencies believe the launcher to be a derivation of the 800-1,000-mi. range Shahab 3 missile. A Shahab 3 fired from central Iran could strike anywhere in Israel, Saudi Arabia, the entire Persian Gulf region and as far west as southern Turkey.

And it will only be a short time later that the US will be under the ICBM threat of Iran.

"A reconnaissance satellite of reasonable performance should weigh about 300 kg. [660 lb.] Once Iran learns how to put 300 kg. into earth orbit, it could adapt the satellite launcher into an ICBM that could drop more than 300 kg anywhere in the world.

So what happens next? Do we attack Iran? Does Europe? Israel? Or, do we place our bets on an ABM defense system that people enjoy criticizing?

Who is in Control of Lebanon? Shiites, Hezbollah, Christians, Sunnis or the Elected Government?

Riots in Lebanon pit Government Loyalists against Shiites, Hezbollah and Christians.

A campaign led by Shi'ite Hezbollah and Christian allies against the government, which is struggling to get over year's war with Israel, has raised tensions between Sunnis and Shi'ites in Lebanon, still recovering from a 1975-90 civil war.

How Hezbollah, which is mostly Shia, got Christians to going them in riot against government loyalists is a twist of political relations that only a contortionists could create. Hezbollah is a terrorist network funded by Iran through Syria. How Christians could take sides with Hezbollah is beyond comprehension. There must be some underlying forces at work in Lebanon favoring Hezbollah.

Which is ironic because Hezbollah is wearing out its welcome among the Lebanon population. One Imam preached at a mosque that they should "start collecting tires." This has concerned at least one 33 year old man who is wondering what has happened to his Islamic religion.

But the Lebanese population is tiring of the Hezbollah led rioting. After Hezbollah built up a positive image in the minds of the Lebanese, it is now destroying it.

When Hezbollah fought against the Israelis in the August 2006 war between the Lebanese Hezbollah and Israel, the Lebanese population fully supported Hezbollah. Now that Hezbollah has turned on its own government and rioted against Lebanon itself, people are having second thoughts about supporting Hezbollah.

Even the Hezbollah leadership, along with the Sunni leadership is trying to calm the Lebanese.

Hezbollah chief Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah issued a religious edict, or fatwa, urging supporters to leave the streets and stay calm. Sunni leader Saad al-Hariri urged supporters to show self-restraint and calm.

So who is in charge in Lebanon?

US Should Use Non-Lethal Technology on Mexican Border to Stop Illegal Immigration

US Military tests new non-lethal ray beam gun.

In Fixing the Illegal Immigration Policy in America, the solution to Illegal Immigration isn't that difficult.

But every bit of technology, military or otherwise, that can be used should be deployed to help the border patrol stop illegal immigration. Right now there are electronic sensors looking for illegal aliens. In the future, the predator UAV will hover overhead the Mexican-US border tracking illegal aliens and directing the border patrol.

The next generation of military technology that will help the border patrol will be non-lethal technology. Although non-lethal technology is still in its infancy, the future is very bright. Giving someone the feeling they are being cooked in a microwave is an excellent way of stopping the illegal aliens at the US border.

Which Lame Duck Will Win, President Bush or President Ahmedinejad

Who is less popular in their own country, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or US President George Bush

The only president whose popularity is dropping quicker than President George Bush is Iranian President Ahmadinejad's.e Bush?

Between the war in Iraq that is tying down the US and the UN sanctions that are frustrating the Iranian population, the duel between Ahnadinejad and Bush looks like a chicken fight between two lame ducks.

While Bush has been neutered by the new Democratic congress leadership, most notably Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, Ahmadinejad doesn't have free reign of Iran either. Any real power in Iran is held by the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khamenei, who is not a big fan of the west either, but doesn't see any point in belligerent talk of nuclear weapons and, "wiping Israel off the face of the earth."

Asia Times article on Iranian President Ahmadinejad and the Iranian nuclear program.

Any negotiations or sanctions put on Iran only infuriates them more and emboldens them to defy them. Iran will build a nuclear weapon. It may not be in the near future if Ahmadinejad is tempered by Khamenei.

"It is starting to look like a real tragedy," a Tehran political-science professor told the author, adding, "An inexperienced mayor [of Tehran, Ahmadiniejad] with no previous international exposure was put at the helm, and he brought in his aides who were equally novices in the realm of international politics, at a critical time in Iran's foreign relations. The result has been near-disastrous. But, hopefully, other leaders will put a stop to this nonsense."

All Iran has to do is sit quiet for a little bit and let the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) make their required inspections. Then temporarily suspend their nuclear program, and then start it up again once the spotlight of world opinion including the UN, US and other Western powers focus on some other region, perhaps the genocide in the Darfur Region of Sudan, and then quietly start up their nuclear program again. Iran will have a nuclear weapon of their own in no time.

In other words, no matter how insistent the United States and its European allies are on a permanent suspension, there is nothing in either the UN resolutions and/or the IAEA resolutions that would endorse their unreasonable demand, which lacks a legal basis. Also, a one-year suspension would deflect the US military threat and prevent "lame duck" US President George W Bush from initiating military action against Iran.

Bush’s State of Union Address Fails to Impress

The headline from SFGate.com states, “Candidates Praise Parts of Speech,” in reference to President George Bush’s State of the Union Address last night to the US Congress.

This translates to Bush is so lame at this point the Democrats have pity for him. He is like the old uncle you invite for Christmas because he doesn’t have anywhere else to go.

It also means that Bush doesn’t have the power to accomplish anything meaningful during his last two years of the presidency. So he will play it safe for the most part and go with the polling population says with the notable exception of the war in Iraq.

The Iraqi war is a battle area over which the lines are still being drawn between Republicans and Democrats. Most of the Democrats want out but don’t give any real way out. They want Bush to get out so that when the GOP loses the White House to the Democrats, the Democrats won’t look like they were the ones who cut and run.

For this the GOPers can be thankful, especially the ones who have joined the pollster mentality of the Democrats and jumped on the escape Iraq bandwagon. Bush will take the fall and they’ll be able to continue their political career while on the fence saying, “I told you so.”

As bad as Bush looked the Junior Senator from Virginia, Democrat (and former Republican) Jim Webb, looked worse. Bush looked to be at ease and the most comfortable ever while addressing the country (remember the 2004 debates?). Jim Webb, well, I won’t say much, but he looked awful. And the idea of “an immediate shift toward strong, regionally based diplomacy,” in the Middle East makes me think he doesn’t know much about what has been going on in the Middle East.

What does he plan to negotiate? Iran and Syria love the direction of the war. And they’d love it more if we got out.

There is nothing we can possibly offer Iran (under Ahmadinejad) that will change the direction of that nation. Iran is a done deal. They will get nuclear weapons, just like North Korea and we will sit back and negotiate and sanction them all the way to a nuclear power. Our best bet is to secure Kurdistan as a peaceful ally in the region.

The other subjects the President talked about were political softballs. Yes, climate change is a concern. Will this congress do anything about it? No, the lobbies of the companies they’d go after are too strong and the noble congressmen will still want to get elected next time.

Immigration, yes it is a problem; we need to do something about that too. But so was Social Security two years ago and we decided to wait for that to go bankrupt before we come to our senses over that issue.

No Child Left Behind, that was an easy one. Remember Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy and President Bush united as one pre 9/11? Of course that will get through congress.

Healthcare, again, good luck getting that past the lobbies. Not that any of the alternatives to the present are any better. Although the Health Savings Account was brilliant, the Medicare entitlements were a handout for the senior vote. Now we’re stuck paying for it. Everyone wants the best healthcare for free and someone else should pay for it.

Oh, and I almost forgot, alternate energy. Maybe he should have throw in, “save the whales” for good measure.

This congress with this president will get nothing done. But that could be a good thing.

Iran To Test Nuclear Bomb by End of 2007 with North Korea's Help

Axis of evil partners, North Korea and Iran, working hand in hand to accelerate Iranian nuclear weapons program.

North Korea is helping Iran to prepare an underground nuclear test similar to the one Pyongyang carried out last year.

Thanks to a weak response from the United Nations towards North Korea for its continued work on its nuclear weapons program, Iran has decided to accelerate its own nuclear weapons program.

In fact Iran and North Korea have joined forces. Iran is making visits to North Korea to study results of North Korea's October detonation of a nuclear weapon. Iranian scientists may have actually been in North Korea for the detonation.

There are major differences between the two nuclear programs of Iran and North Korea, not in the weapons themselves, but in the political surroundings of the two countries.

North Korea's Kim Jong Il is an eccentric, while Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad appears to be a suicidal-homicidal jihadi. Kim just wants his strange tastes pleased while oppressing his people, but Ahmadinejad sole purpose in life seems to be the destruction of Israel.

The world is taking its time to coerce North Korea into giving up its nuclear weapons program because other than the United States, Kim hasn't threatened anyone in earnest. Japan has a legitimate worry, but nothing like what Israel has to fear if Iran develops a nuclear bomb.

Additionally, Europe has shown greater concern with Iran's nuclear program because Iran has the capability of striking Europe with its missile force.

Therefore, Iran is mistaken to think it will get a free pass like North Korea did while developing its nuclear weapons program.

For one thing Israel is rumored to have eyes on a preemptive strike on Iran's nuclear program. And as always the US is a threat to launch a preemptive strike at any time.

Ahmadinejad also has political forces at home to worry about. The political leadership is angry with him for inciting the West. The youth of Iran are angry with the bleak economic future they will endure. Unlike North Korea, Ahmadinejad doesn't have a stranglehold on the leadership of Iran. He can be ousted if the political leadership (prodded by the realities the population faces) can remove Ahmadinejad from power.

In conclusion, the reaction Iran will receive if it detonates will be much more urgent than what North Korea received.

Iranian President Ahmadinejad Vows Annihilation to US and Israel...Again

For more on this post search:
yNet:  
Iran: Israel, US will soon die

Ahmadinejad: Be assured that the US and Israel will soon end lives

"Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad… assured that the United States and the Zionist regime of Israel will soon come to the end of their lives," the Iranian president was quoted as saying.

Ahmadinejad promises the eradication of America and Israel again.

But with rumors of North Korea guiding Iran to its own underground nuclear detonation the threat has more teeth.

This time he also has something to add about the war in Iraq.

"Sparking discord among Muslims, especially between the Shiites and Sunnis, is a plot hatched by the Zionists and the US for dominating regional nations and looting their resources," Ahmadinejad added, according to the report.

The irony here is that Ahmadinejad's own Iran is supplying plenty of Shias for the war against the Sunnis in Iraq. Ahmadinejad also seems to have forgotten about the near decade long war that Iran and Iraq fought all without the help of America or Israel.

Syria's Foreign Minister, Wailed Mualem, accused the US of attempting to carry out a "massacre of Muslims" and of sowing "discord among Islamic faiths in the region."

With all the different rhetoric coming from the middle east it is difficult to separate the lies from the fallacies.

Books on Iran

Reaction to China's Antisatellite Test

For more on this post search:
Houston Chronicle: China weapons test shakes up world view

The Chinese test "was an overtly military, very provocative event that cannot be spun any other way," said Rob Hewson, the London-based editor of Jane's Air-Launched Weapons. "So a bald assessment of that is that it's a big fat challenge."

Bold words from an England. The US political leadership has kept quiet for the most part, which is a smart move. The democrats don't want to have anything to do with this. When they inherit the White House and Iraq, the last thing they want to deal with is a space based arms race with China. The Bush administration doesn't want to admit it was asleep at the wheel and that it is pinned down financially by the war in Iraq.

The test is a shot across the bow of U.S. efforts to remain predominant in space and on the ground, where its military is heavily dependent on networks of satellites, particularly the low-altitude imaging intelligence models that help it find and hit targets.

China has been known to "light up" American satellites with lasers. What the point to the hostile display of military policy was for is unsure, but it may have been to see what the reaction of the US would be, or it could have been the preliminary stages of satellite target acquisition.

Japan, also seen as a regional rival, is similarly vulnerable, while any potential conflicts in space would put much of the industrialized world's economies at risk, given that satellites are used to relay phone calls and data and to map weather systems.

While China's act looked aggressive, some U.S. officials were skeptical that Beijing would do anything to attack the satellites of the United States or Japan — key trading partners. According to the CIA World Fact Book, China sold more to the United States in 2005 than any other nation — 21.4 percent of its exports. Hong Kong was second, with 16.3 percent, and Japan was third with 11 percent.

As stated in other posts, the economies of the United States and China doesn't permit a war as defined by the twentieth century.

Beijing has repeatedly pledged peaceful development of its army — the world's largest — but has caused unease among its neighbors by announcing double-digit military spending increases nearly every year since the early 1990s.

When the economy continues to grow at double digits, the military budget will grow at double digits. But that doesn't make the neighbors feel any better.

However, the Pentagon's budget is severely constrained by Iraq and Afghanistan and a drive to replace outdated planes and ships, making space programs a lower priority and prompting some to warn the U.S. could be losing ground in space.

Putting one more requirement into the US military budget could crack the system. If that is what China was after, it did timed the ASAT test perfectly. The war coffers are running dry and there isn't much in the US military budget to work on the Chinese ASAT problem now.

China's promotion of anti-satellite weapons is underpinned by its doctrine of "asymmetric warfare" that envisions defeating the U.S. or another powerful foe by knocking away key capabilities rather than through frontal assault.

"You could argue that China is getting ready to do a lot of things that the U.S. is now losing the ability to do," Hewson said. "So that in itself is a challenge to the U.S."

Unrestricted Warfare: China's Master Plan to Destroy America

Zawahiri Challenges Bush, Will He Challenge President Hillary Clinton Too?

For more on this post search:
Al Jazeera: Zawahri appears in new video, “mocks Bush’s plan”


Ayman Al Zawahiri can mock US President Bush all he wants, the foe for Bush lies in Washington DC. Ironically enough, so does Zawahiri's best ally.

Zawahiri can make these statements because the United States doesn't have the patience to win a protracted war against a weaker enemy that doesn't threaten the very existence of this country.

Although there have been some circumstances of The US winning a war of exhaustion (as opposed to annihilation or attrition) it is difficult to win with the current media and self loathing sentiment in the US. The US has always committed atrocities for its own good, just ask the Native Americans and there is that slavery issue too. But in the past there was an America first feeling in this country. Not that it was right, but that was the case.

I once read an article that discussed how seasoned photographers would go out of their way to ruin pictures that younger photographer tried to take of President Franklin Roosevelt during World War II, because it would hurt the war effort. Today, photographers would be crawling all over themselves to get a picture of President Bush choking on a pretzel.

When President Hillary Clinton takes the oath of office, what will her first move in Iraq be? Will she pull out and admit defeat? Of course she'll blame the defeat on Bush, but a good portion of the country will pin the loss on her for not finishing the job.

The next question is how will the media react?

How will Fox News Channel, The New York Post, and The National Review see the war? Will they all of a sudden condemn it? They will probably shift their views gradually as President Hillary Clinton changes strategy. The conservative media will attack those new strategies.

What about the liberal press?

How will the New York Times, The Washington Post, Hollywood and the Michael Moores of the world react. This is a tougher question. President Hillary Clinton will not pull out immediately and probably be harassed by left wing extremists like Cindy Sheehan, just like the Democratic congress was attacked on their first press conference. But the more mainstream liberal media will gradually support the war policies of the New President Hillary Clinton.

US Strikes Back at China with Caffeinated Internet Attack

Christian Science Monitor article on Starbucks in Beijing.

With the fallout of the antisatellite test still fresh in the heavens, THE CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR posts a story that has greater meaning, but probably less of a following.

The story is about Globalization. How a US company can create a scandal in the hidden city just by its presence. And furthermore it is HOW the Chinese protest that matters. Not since Tienanmen Square protest in 1989 has the Chinese population gathered in a mass protest.

The Internet is different though because it is hard to track the users.

The current flap began last week, when a well-known anchorman on Chinese state TV, Rui Chenggang, posted an entry on his personal blog calling for Starbucks to be evicted from its corner of the Forbidden City. The coffee shop's presence "tramples on Chinese culture," he fulminated, and constitutes "an insult to Chinese civilization."

Responses have been been xenophobic.

One, signed Shi Ershao, gives a flavor of the bitter dregs the site serves to America's favorite coffee roaster: "What a humiliation for China," the message reads. "Once it was military invasion, now it is economic invasion. Why can't they just drink tea?"

The American economic invasion of China is only a small part of the story. The important point is that the Chinese people are online and making things happening with the power of the Internet.

That power is growing. 123 million Chinese were online at the latest count, and 17.5 million of them maintain blogs that another 75 million netizens read, according to a survey last August by the official "China Internet Network Information Center."

The appeal of blogs in a country where the traditional media are strictly censored by the government which uses them to propagate approved information and opinions, lies in both the relative freedom they enjoy, and in their interactivity.

The freedom the Chinese population finds on the Internet doesn't put the Chinese government at ease though.

Freedom and interactivity have typically not been the Chinese government's favorite flavors, but cyberspace is never easy to police.

The power of the Internet in China has had political effects.

The blogosphere has even set the government agenda on occasion. An explosion of Internet outrage at the 2003 death of a young man in Guangzhou at the hands of the police prompted a change in the law governing the rights of homeless people, for example.

How the Chinese government will react in the future is part of the growing pains they will have to go through.

In the future when China shoots down a satellite or takes some other aggressive military action, it may just be a Chinese blogger that informs the world.


Unrestricted Warfare: China's Master Plan to Destroy America