Oh shit - look who the US have voted in now...

[butchersapron]

A little more on the economic team

Obama is looking more like Boris Yeltsin – a political umbrella for the kleptocrats to whom the public domain and decades of public wealth were given with no quid pro quo.

Obama's ties with the Yeltsin administration are as direct as could be. He has appointed as his economic advisors the same anti-labor, pro-financial team that brought the kleptocrats to power in Russia in the mid-1990s. His advisor Robert Rubin has managed to put his protégés in key Obama administration posts: Larry Summers, who as head of the World Bank forced privatization at give-away prices to kleptocrats; Geithner of the New York Fed; and a monetarist economist from Berkeley, as right-wing a university as Chicago. These are the protective guard-dogs of America's vested interests.

 

[ska invita]

theres more!

President-elect Barack Obama defended his decision yesterday to give a prominent role at his inauguration to an evangelical pastor who has campaigned strongly against abortion and gay marriage.

The invitation sparked outrage among gay and lesbian rights organisations and disappointed liberal and social activist groups across the country. They have questioned why, from all the pastors in the country, Obama chose Rick Warren, who took a prominent role in campaigning in California recently against gay marriage, and who has compared abortion with the Holocaust.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/19/obama-inauguration-antigay-pastor

As an aside, if you type in "abortion" into google images, it does give you some idea why people are so strongly anti-abortion. Of course, making it illegal doesnt stop abortion - far from it. But I do at least see where anti-abortionists are coming from.

But anti-gay marriage is just flat out bigotry. Obama's support from the 'black community' is also in part support from a church going community - not that unlike Bush in that respect. Hence an anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage representation shouldnt be too unexpected.

 

[ska invita]

Bush's Defense Secretary Robert Gates, an Iraq war loyalist and a hawk on nuclear weapons is now confirmed as Obama's Defense Secretary.

Today, Gates made his first announcement on behlaf of OBomber: 30,000 more troops to go into Afghanistan, and crucially an additional combat aviation brigade
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7793772.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7792899.stm

The 2,800-strong combat aviation brigade ordered to deploy by Mr Gates earlier this week, which includes Apache attack helicopters as well as Black Hawk and Chinook support aircraft,

So yep - arial bombardment is going to "win" the war in Afghanistan, according to Barack and Gates.

At least Afghani kids have something to play with

...according to Private Eye the Taliban controlled 90% of Afghanistan in 2000 - today they control 80%

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

...according to Private Eye the Taliban controlled 90% of Afghanistan in 2000 - today they control 80%

Except the nature of their 'control' has changed. They 'control' areas in that they can mete out violence, or their own justice in a lot of areas, but they don't keep the water running, aren't running the hospitals, etc. They 'control' in the way that guerillas have control.

 

[EddyBlack]

I think the Taliban have filled the vacuum for peace, order and a justice system. People are looking to the Taliban to provide some sort of government, because there isn't really one there. This report says that the Taliban are widespread throught the country, and that Kabul itself is all but surrounded.

I've been following it in this thread:
http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=265818&page=2

The International Council on Security and Development (ICOS) has released a report on the situation. It gives a bleak assessment:

'According to research undertaken by ICOS throughout 2008, the Taliban now has a permanent presence in 72% of the country. Moreover, it is now seen as the de facto governing power in a number of southern towns and villages. This figure is up from 54% in November 2007, as outlined in the ICOS report Stumbling into Chaos: Afghanistan on the Brink.'

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

I think the Taliban have filled the vacuum for peace, order and a justice system. People are looking to the Taliban to provide some sort of government, because there isn't really one there. This report says that the Taliban are widespread throught the country, and that Kabul itself is all but surrounded..'

Yes, they have a presence. But it's not like the local Council. They can't really get much done besides shooting you in the night for your transgressions.

 

[free spirit]

Yes, they have a presence. But it's not like the local Council. They can't really get much done besides shooting you in the night for your transgressions.

unfortunately from what I've been reading, in a lot of the country the Taliban pretty much are the local council, police force, courts system etc.

Hemmet and other Taliban commanders I met explained the Taliban's sophisticated network of military and civilian leadership. Each province has its own Taliban governor, military leader and shura [consultation] council. Below them are district commanders like Hemmet, who in turn divides his force into smaller units. Many say the civilian apparatus of the Taliban-run districts operates a more effective justice system than the government's, which is corrupt and inefficient. Nominally, all the councils look to Mullah Omar for guidance. In reality each province and district has its own dynamics.
The mullah

Mullah Muhamadi, one of Hemmet's men, arrived later wearing a long leather jacket and a turban bigger than all the others. "This is not just a guerrilla war, and it's not an organised war with fronts," he said. "It's both." He went on to explain the importance the Taliban attached to creating a strong administration in the areas it held: "When we control a province we need to provide service to the people. We want to show the people that we can rule, and that we are ready for the day when we take over Kabul, that we have learned from our mistakes."

[Guardian]

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

unfortunately from what I've been reading, in a lot of the country the Taliban pretty much are the local council, police force, courts system etc.]]

That's what I said. They mete out justice/violence if you transgress their rules. But you aren't going to a taliban hospital if your kid gets sick, and it isn't the taliban that gets water to the taps etc. ie, they aren't really 'in control'.

 

[free spirit]

That's what I said. They mete out justice/violence if you transgress their rules. But you aren't going to a taliban hospital if your kid gets sick, and it isn't the taliban that gets water to the taps etc. ie, they aren't really 'in control'.

well, maybe, but then the US / UK aren't doing too well on that front either outside of Kabul.

it really does beg the question of what the fuck we're doing there IMO, coz it's blatantly a bloody stalemate that will stay pretty much that way with the Afghan people caught in the middle of it getting fucked over until they get fucked off enough to kick out the latest bunch of bloodthirsty imperialists (ie us).

IMO there was a point immediately after the Taliban were first kicked out where we had the opportunity to really go in fast and start obviously transforming the Afghan peoples lives for the better before the Taliban could regroup, and the people had chance to become pissed off with the broken promises... we fucked that up by forgetting about Afghanistan for several years while we got on with the real agenda of invading Iraq. It's way too late now to do try and win the hearts and minds in Afghanistan, and winning militarily if the Afghan people have turned against us is just a fools mission.

erm, sorry for the derail.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

well, maybe, but then the US / UK aren't doing too well on that front either outside of Kabul..

That's not true. I have an idea what Canada is doing in Kandahar province, for instance.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

well, maybe, but then the US / UK aren't doing too well on that front either outside of Kabul.

it really does beg the question of what the fuck we're doing there IMO, coz it's blatantly a bloody stalemate that will stay pretty much that way with the Afghan people caught in the middle of it getting fucked over until they get fucked off enough to kick out the latest bunch of bloodthirsty imperialists (ie us).

IMO there was a point immediately after the Taliban were first kicked out where we had the opportunity to really go in fast and start obviously transforming the Afghan peoples lives for the better before the Taliban could regroup, and the people had chance to become pissed off with the broken promises... we fucked that up by forgetting about Afghanistan for several years while we got on with the real agenda of invading Iraq. It's way too late now to do try and win the hearts and minds in Afghanistan, and winning militarily if the Afghan people have turned against us is just a fools mission.

erm, sorry for the derail.

But it's propaganda to say that the taliban is 'in control', therefore the battle is lost. They aren't in control in any meaningful way, and to the extent that the current govt is able to provide services and infrastructure to some limited degree, all that would crumble, should NATO pull out, and the Taliban assume actual control.

 

[ska invita]

But it's propaganda to say that the taliban is 'in control', therefore the battle is lost. They aren't in control in any meaningful way, and to the extent that the current govt is able to provide services and infrastructure to some limited degree...

your joking right?

however, thanks to the new administration they may be about to be able to provide Afghanis with free AK-47s

U.S. will give free weapons to Afghan civilians
http://rawstory.com/news/2008/CNN_U.S._to_arm_Afghan_civilians_1226.html

One way to quell a violent and deteriorating situation, according to the U.S. military, is to flood the place with guns.

That's exactly what is planned for Afghanistan, where a rising tide of chaos is slowly pushing the country past Iraq as the most dangerous battlefield Americans tread upon.

"The U.S. military plans to help the Afghanistan government recruit, train and arm local Afghans to fight a resurgent Taliban," reported CNN's Barbara Starr.

Nice to see the new US created Afghan socialism alive and well!

 

[toblerone3]

I might have missed something or got this wrong. But I heard that Barack Obama was planning to make a major visit to an Islamic country early in his Presidency.

I am puzzled by this. Where is he going to visit? I have a way-out idea, but will not say what it is for the moment in case somebody has got the facts.

 

[toblerone3]

Will Obama talk to Iran?

Its the elephant in the room.

 

[ska invita]

Will Obama talk to Iran?

Its the elephant in the room.

Funny you should ask that, cos ive just got wind of who Obama is appointing as his Iran envoy...

...none other than arch nutter Dennis Ross:

Ross has been closely associated with a number of neoconservative-led organizations and policy initiatives. A consultant for the hawkish Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), Ross supported the advocacy efforts of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC),2 which played a key role advocating invading Iraq in response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

He also frequently promotes aggressive Mideast policies in his writings and congressional testimony, and regularly teams up with scholars from organizations like the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) to craft policy approaches toward Tehran’s nuclear program and other issues in the region.3
http://www.rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/4786.html

Picked up from here:
http://www.ips.org/blog/jimlobe/?p=215

Fuck Obama and all who sail in her

 

[toblerone3]

You might find this interesting on Denis Ross and his views on the Middle East.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1030931.html

 

[toblerone3]

Sorry I know its bad form to just post up a link. This is the most interesting part of the article I think.

"Regarding the peace process, I think this is an issue where engagement is also crucial, but, much like Iran, it is an engagement without illusions. When you engage, you do so without illusions. But when you don't engage, you leave the way open for your adversaries to actually gain more. The Bush administration wanted to disengage for its first six years in office. [By doing so] they actually strengthened Hamas' hand, because Hamas' argument is [that] there is no possibility for peace. The least you want to do is show that there could be an alternative answer."

What kind of engagement might it be? The Israeli government isn't fond of being under pressure, and some people are very sensitive about the idea of talking to Iran, especially since the Iranian leadership is saying nasty things about Israel.

"Sure, that's why I started by saying that it's an engagement without illusions. With regard to the Iranians, we know that by not talking to Iran the U.S. did not improve the situation. Today Iran is a nuclear power - it doesn't have nuclear weapons yet, but in 2001 it was not yet able to convert uranium or uranium gas, it didn't have a single centrifuge. Now it's stockpiling low-enriched uranium. So the current approach of not talking hasn't worked. There's no guarantee that if you talk you'll succeed, but if you don't talk you will fail."

 

[butchersapron]

In another indication that in this crucial foreign policy arena the former candidate of “change” will carry out a policy of essential continuity with that of his predecessor, it was announced Thursday that former US diplomat Dennis Ross has been tapped to serve as the Obama administration’s “ambassador at large” and chief adviser on the Middle East.

The announcement came first from Ross’s present employer, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), a pro-Israeli think tank that he joined after leaving the State Department in 2001. WINEP was founded by Martin Indyk, a research director for the American Israeli Political Action Committee who was later appointed US ambassador to Israel.

Ross also became a foreign affairs analyst for Fox News and a supporter of the Project for the New American Century’s campaign for a US war against Iraq in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks. He later joined the steering committee of the I. Lewis Libby Defense Fund, organized to support the former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney who was convicted in connection with the leaking of CIA agent Valerie Plame’s name in retaliation for her husband’s exposure of the Bush administration’s phony case for the Iraq war.

While Ross was a leading figure in US-brokered talks between Israel and the Palestinians, all of the so-called peace initiatives that he helped push through quickly failed. According to one Arab negotiator quoted in a book on these negotiations, “The perception always was that Dennis started from the Israeli bottom line, that he listened to what Israel wanted and then tried to sell it to the Arabs… He was never looked at … as a trusted world figure or as an honest broker.”
Ross’s role was essentially that of Israel’s attorney, justifying its every violation of previous agreements while demonizing Palestinian leader Yassir Arafat as wholly responsible for the breakdown of the Camp David negotiations.

Speaking at a synagogue in Maryland earlier this week, Ross took the same line as the Bush administration on the ongoing war against Gaza, declaring that the US should support a cease-fire only if it guarantees that Hamas “can’t rebuild.” The Jewish Telegraphic Agency, a New York-based news agency which reported the speech, wrote that Ross added that “Israel left Lebanon and Gaza, and in both instances, ‘things got a whole lot worse’—which doesn’t provide much confidence about a withdrawal from the West Bank.”

Link

 

[toblerone3]

Opinions differ. The Guardian this morning talks of a "definitive break with the Bush presidency's ....policy", the Fourth International Socialist website you quote above talks of "essential continuity".

I don't think you can necessarily assume that officials appointed by Obama are the 'powers behind the throne' and follow their own partisan agenda.

"The incoming Obama administration is prepared to abandon George Bush's *doctrine of isolating Hamas by establishing a channel to the Islamist organisation, sources close to the transition team say.

The move to open contacts with Hamas, which could be initiated through the US intelligence services, would represent a definitive break with the Bush *presidency's ostracising of the group. The state department has designated Hamas a terrorist organisation, and in 2006 *Congress passed a law banning US financial aid to the group."

 

[butchersapron]

I think that you can take their past actions as a reasonable guide, and you can also take the other appointments and Lord Obama's own pre-election pronouncements as further evidence. Have you seen the Democrat led senate resolution passed yesterday - if that's not continuity with past pro-Israel then i don't know what is (apols for big C&P but i can only find the full text on some right wing loon site):

Recognizing the right of Israel to defend itself against attacks from Gaza and reaffirming the United States’strong support for Israel in its battle with Hamas, and supporting the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.

Whereas Hamas was founded with the stated goal of destroying the State of Israel;

Whereas Hamas has been designated by the Secretary of State as a Foreign Terrorist Organization;

Whereas Hamas has refused to comply with the requirements of the Quartet (the United States, the European Union, Russia, and the United Nations) that Hamas recognize Israel’s right to exist, renounce violence, and agree to accept previous agreements between Israel and the Palestinians;

Whereas, in June 2006, Hamas crossed into Israel, attacked Israeli forces and kidnapped Corporal Gilad Shalit, whom they continue to hold today;

Whereas Hamas has launched thousands of rockets and mortars since Israel dismantled settlements and withdrew from Gaza in 2005;

Whereas Hamas has increased the range of its rockets, reportedly with support from Iran and others, putting additional large numbers of Israelis in danger of rocket attacks from Gaza;

Whereas Hamas locates elements of its terrorist infrastructure in civilian population centers, thus using innocent civilians as human shields;

Whereas Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said in a statement on December 27, 2008, that ‘‘[w]e strongly condemn the repeated rocket and mortar attacks against Israel and hold Hamas responsible for breaking the ceasefire and for the renewal of violence there’’;

Whereas, on December 27, 2008, Prime Minister of Israel Ehud Olmert said, ‘‘For approximately seven years, hundreds of thousands of Israeli citizens in the south have been suffering from missiles being fired at them.. . . In such a situation we had no alternative but to respond. We do not rejoice in battle but neither will we be deterred from it.. . .The operation in the Gaza Strip is designed, first and foremost, to bring about an improvement in the security reality for the residents of the south of the country.’’;

Whereas, on January 2, 2009, Secretary of State Rice stated that ‘‘Hamas has held the people of Gaza hostage ever since their illegal coup against the forces of President
Mahmoud Abbas, the legitimate President of the Palestinian people. Hamas has used Gaza as a launching pad for rockets against Israeli cities and has contributed deeply to a very bad daily life for the Palestinian people in Gaza, and to a humanitarian situation that we have all been trying to address’’;

Whereas the humanitarian situation in Gaza, including shortages of food, water, electricity, and adequate medical care, is becoming more acute;

Whereas Israel has facilitated humanitarian aid to Gaza with over 500 trucks and numerous ambulances entering the Gaza Strip since December 26, 2008;

Whereas, on January 2, 2009, Secretary of State Rice stated that it was ‘‘Hamas that rejected the Egyptian and Arab calls for an extension of the tahadiya that Egypt had negotiated’’ and that the United States was ‘‘working toward a cease-fire that would not allow a reestablishment of the status quo ante where Hamas can continue to launch rockets out of Gaza. It is obvious that that ceasefire should take place as soon as possible, but we need a cease-fire that is durable and sustainable’’; and

Whereas the ultimate goal of the United States is a sustainable resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that will allow for a viable and independent Palestinian state living side by side in peace and security with the State of Israel, which will not be possible as long as Israeli civilians are under threat from within Gaza: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate—

(1) expresses vigorous support and unwavering commitment to the welfare, security, and survival of the State of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state with secure borders, and recognizes its right to act in self-defense to protect its citizens against acts of terrorism;
(2) reiterates that Hamas must end the rocket and mortar attacks against Israel, recognize Israel’s right to exist, renounce violence, and agree to accept previous agreements between Israel and the Palestinians;
(3) encourages the President to work actively to support a durable, enforceable, and sustainable cease-fire in Gaza, as soon as possible, that prevents Hamas from retaining or rebuilding the capability to launch rockets and mortars against Israel and allows for the long term improvement of daily living conditions for the ordinary people of Gaza;
(4) believes strongly that the lives of innocent civilians must be protected and all appropriate measures should be taken to diminish civilian casualties and that all involved should continue to work to address humanitarian needs in Gaza;
(5) supports and encourages efforts to diminish the appeal and influence of extremists in the Palestinian territories and to strengthen moderate Palestinians who are committed to a secure and lasting peace with Israel; and (6) reiterates its strong support for United States Government efforts to promote a just resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict through a serious and sustained peace process that leads to the creation of a viable and independent Palestinian state living in peace alongside a secure State of Israel.

 

[ska invita]

Obama gives up on his act of foreing policy 'change'

As if bringing in a bunch of hawks to run his foreign policy wasnt bad enough (http://news.antiwar.com/2008/11/20/antiwar-groups-fear-hawkish-cabinet/) Obamas actions now speak louder than implications - here's what he's done of late:

• allowed the resumption of military tribunals against detainees at Guantanamo Bay
  
  
• reneged on his campaign promise to have all US troops out of Iraq in 16 months
  
  
• overruled the Pentagon’s decision that undisclosed photos of detainee abuse could be released. (these kind of photos http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Australian_TV_station_releases_new_Abu_0215.html )
  
  
• pledged to close Gauntanamo (at some distant time) only to replace it with a policy of holding many of the detainees on American soil indefinitely and without trial (ie. move 'Guantanamo' nearer home)

"This is the best way to protect our country, while upholding our deeply held values," says Obama
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/obama-risks-wrath-of-his-liberal-base-1685722.html

This is not to mention all out war in Afghanistan/Pakistan which has so far created 1,000,000 refugees and unknown casulaties. The timescale for this new offensive? Indefinite>>> http://www.thenews.com.pk/updates.asp?id=77745