May 07, 2005
Balkanalysis.com Analyzes Bush's Visits, to Rusia, Latvia
Balkanalysis.com Rapid Reactions has an informative commentary on President George W. Bush's trip to Russia, to commemorate the end of World War II and the defeat of Nazi Germany. Mr. Bush also put a side trip to Latvia and Georgia on his schedule. The editor of Balkanalysis.com said, in part: Things are heating up, er, cooling down, as yet another official WWII commemoration is about to get underway- this time marking the end of the war and the final defeat of Nazism. Presumably, this will be the last one on the calendar for another ten years, when we get to relive the ceremonies all over again.
Leave it to George Bush to ruin the party. Dubya is determined that this WWII memorial in Moscow will not be remembered for anything to do with the end of the war, but rather with how it instituted the Cold War- and that oh so evil empire of the Soviets.
The key strategy of this petty offensive seems to be in attacking Russia for invading the Baltic states. Until a few years ago, very few in America knew or cared anything about these three northern republics, except maybe for when the Grateful Dead donated jerseys to Lithuania's Olympic basketball teamBalkanalysis.com said, "But Bush is determined. And when Bush is determined, nothing can stop him. Now that almost all of Europe has turned its back on him, finding allies somewhere on the continent is vital. As usual, flattery helps. So when Bush swoops down on Latvia and incites the Baltics to demand an apology from Russia for their post-war inclusion in the Soviet state, while planning yet more grandiose democracy and freedom speeches, you just know things will get ugly." Here's more of "The Democracy Duel En Route to Russia."
Posted by Munir Umrani at 12:59 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
May 01, 2005
Analyst: Mass Attacks in Iraq Dims Euphoria in Washington Circles
Martin Sieff, UPI Senior News Analyst, says, "The new wave of mass attacks in Iraq has dimmed the euphoria in Washington circles since the January 30, [2005] elections. On Friday [April 30, 2005] alone 17 bombs exploded around the country including 13 in the capital Baghdad, killing at least 23 members of the Iraqi security forces and wounding 31 more," he wrote in an April 30, 2005 analysis of views in Washington on Iraq. "The attacks were clearly well coordinated, ambitious in their conception and all too lethally successful in their execution," he contends, adding. "At least six of them were suicide bomb operations showing that the insurgents are not running short of fanatical would-be martyrs." Read more here.
Posted by Munir Umrani at 03:24 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
April 30, 2005
Bush's Orders to the Iraqi Government
On April 29, 2005, Deep Blade over at Deep Blade Journal posted an insightful analysis of the impact that President George W. Bush's April 28, 2005 speech will have on Iraqi politics. He wrote: Last night in the national press conference, Bush issued some marching orders to the Iraqis, telling them in no uncertain terms who will design and control their "chain of command." These orders were given in the president's response to a question about when US troops might be withdrawn."BUSH: ...Thirdly, a fundamental problem has been whether or not there's an established chain of command, whether or not a civilian government can say to the military, here's what you need to do -- and whether the command goes from top to bottom and the plans get executed. And General Petreaus was telling me he's pleased with the progress being made with setting up a command structure, but there's still more work to be done.One of the real dangers, David, is that as politics takes hold in Iraq, whether or not the civilian government will keep intact the military structure that we're now helping them develop. And my message to the Prime Minister and our message throughout government to the Iraqis is, keep stability; don't disrupt the training that has gone on -- don't politicize your military -- in other words, have them there to help secure the people.
"Could the message be more stark?" Deep Blade asks, adding: "US troops will be in Iraq for a long, long time. The elected government can hardly be considered truly sovereign under this occupation." I agree. Bush is applying the so-called "Good imperialism" doctrine that's being pushed in some western quarters to justify 21st Century economic exploitation in Africa, Asia and the Middle East. Here's a link to Deep Blade's entire post.
Posted by Munir Umrani at 07:18 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
April 28, 2005
Marie Woolf Analyzes Goldsmith's Advice to Blair
Marie Woolf of The Independent analyzes Peter Goldsmith's legal advice to British Prime Minister Tony Blair cautioning him on joining President George W. Bush in invading Iraq in March 2003. Here's a link to her analysis.
Posted by Munir Umrani at 10:21 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
April 26, 2005
Did Bolton Politicize U.S. Intelligence on Syria?
In an April 25, 2005 article headlined "Bolton and the Politicization of US Intelligence on Syria," Joshua Landis, editor of Syria Comment.Com, asserts that: Nothing has done more harm to our confidence in US intelligence warnings than the willful politicization of intelligence by the ex-Under-Secretary of State John Bolton, whose nomination for the position of US Ambassador to the UN has now run into grave problems in the Senate.
Mr. Landis' assertion was made in the context of "posting an article on Syria's security network in Lebanon"... that "comes from intelligenceonline.com, a site I cannot find. It was sent to me by a reader who asked that I publish it even though he noted that "I feel it's too much talk, not enough facts." The assistant professor of Middle East Studies at the University of Oklahoma added: I post it, nevertheless, because there have been a number of articles reporting the same thing. One never knows about the truth of such unsubstantiated claims.
Currently a Fulbright Scholar in Syria and Lebanon for the 2005 academic year, Mr. landis told readers, "I never now how to pass on such articles. US intelligence agencies and institutes have been so damaged by their propensity to spin that one must take this sort of unverified news with a large grain of salt and remain skeptical until ones sees some facts." Here's more of his insightful post. Here's a link to Intelligence Online.
Posted by Munir Umrani at 06:41 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
March 16, 2005
Syria Comment Offers More on 'The Game is Up' on Resolution 1559
Joshua Landis at Syria Comment reported today that "a number of readers took exception with my 1559 is Finished - The Game is Up post of two days ago." Here's his insightful analysis of the diplomatic chatter surrounding Syria leaving Lebanon.
Posted by Munir Umrani at 10:44 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
March 01, 2005
Analyst: Mid-East's New Era Dawns Blood-red
Nicolas Rothwell of The Australian, in an analysis of political earthquake taking place in the Middle East, maintains that "with the fall of an old government in Beirut, the staging of a summit in London to set up a Palestinian state, and the announcement of multi-candidate presidential elections in Egypt, it is at last plain that a new era has dawned in the Middle East." Here's his analysis.
Posted by Munir Umrani at 06:42 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
February 27, 2005
Zvi Bar'el Analyzes the Use of 'Finger-pointing as Policy'
Zvi Bar'el of Haaretz says "Pointing the finger at Syria and/or Hezbollah for the weekend terrorist bombing in Tel Aviv conveniently moves the Israeli-Palestinian dispute beyond its local dimension - and is far from being an Israeli invention." He also wrote in the paper's February 28, 2005 edition:
Arab regimes often do it when they blame Al-Qaida or Iran or other "external" groups for terrorist attacks; the U.S. blames Iran and Syria for involvement in Iraqi terrorism and Russia prefers to blame external "Islamic terrorists" for terror in Chechnya or terror attacks conducted in Russia by Chechens.He said "the question is to what extent is Syria directly responsible for the execution of the terror attack? Is it only because it hosts Islamic Jihad and the other rejectionist groups on its territory, or is there firm proof that it ordered the attack or paid for it?" he asked. Read the answers here.
Posted by Munir Umrani at 11:27 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
