About a week ago, the Dutch newspaper De Volkskrant carried a story with a tantatalizing title, “Secret Plan: The U.S. to Stay in Iraq for Years.” The (translated) story, which can be read in its entirety at watchingamerica.com, starts out as follows:
“The Bush administration wants to use 50 military bases in Iraq for an indefinite period of time. Washington also wants to continue to control Iraqi airspace in the future. American military must be able to continue to conduct military operations in Iraq undisturbed and without approval from Iraq.”
And continues,
“The U.S. and Iraqi governments are presently secretly negotiating a treaty that will make all this possible. The agreement should be signed by the end of July. This is reported by the British newspaper The Independent on Thursday on the basis of anonymous sources who are knowledgeable of the negotiations.”
Well, what a difference a week makes. This Tuesday, Spain’s El Comercio carried a story interestingly titled “Cómo irse de Iraq y quedarse.” (How to Leave Iraq, and Stay There.”) The piece reports on what everybody knows by now, that:
“Such a plan consists of signing as far ahead as possible– if it can be done, in July–a security and cooperation agreement with the Iraqi government. One that will give the U.S. Army the possibility to stay in the country indefinitely and which will replace their role of occupier with that of partner, when the UN mandate regarding the American presence…expires at the end of the year.”
But, what is interesting about this piece, and as the “tongue-in-cheek” title promises, is the political spin and fallout that is now raging about this “secret treaty.” El Comercio:
“If all goes according to Washington’s plan, President Bush will be able to say, without lying, that the invasion of Iraq has ended well, in military and geo-strategic terms, which is what is most important to a superpower with global interests.”
On the political doubletalk, El Comercio continues:
“Nor is it reassuring to hear the U.S. Ambassador in Baghdad, Ryan Crocker, say that there will be no permanent bases in Iraq. This is resolved by placing such bases in a temporary “lease” status, as is the current model elsewhere.”
The angst that Iran has about this “secret treaty” is also widely reported. Iran’s leaders are afraid that the U.S. will use its military bases in Iraq, and the U.S.’ unrestricted use and control of Iraqi airspace, to launch an attack against Iran.
According to El Comercio:
“Yesterday [June 9], the Iraqi Prime Minister, Nuri al-Maliki, had to listen to Iran’s spiritual leader, Ayatollah Ali Jamenei, say that of all the problems facing Iraq, the major one is the U.S. interference in its affairs through its military and security power. Al-Maliki was ending a difficult three-day stay in Teheran, where he lived in exile for many years, and where he tried very hard—it seems in vain—to convince his Shiite neighbor that it has nothing to fear from such an agreement, and that he will never permit that Iraq be used as a base from which to launch an eventual U.S. attack—something that no one is ruling out today.”
The proposed agreement is politically very controversial, both in Iraq and in the U.S. A majority of the Iraqi parliament recently wrote to Congress rejecting a long-term security pact with the U.S. unless the proposed agreement includes a specific timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. military troops.
In the U.S., it has been soundly criticized by Democrats who are accusing the Bush administration of trying to tie the hands of the next president by committing to continue to protect Iraq with U.S. forces.
Yesterday, USA Today, discussed the not-so-secret treaty and confirmed that “The United States has requested long-term access to military bases, freedom of movement for U.S. troops, authority to detain suspects and immunity for U.S. personnel–including private contractors–from prosecution in Iraqi courts.”
Well, it appears that McCain’s “one hundred years in Iraq” may yet become a reality.
In addition to contributing pieces such as this one to TMV, I also translate Dutch news and opinion articles from the Dutch press for the web site “Watching America” (WatchingAmerica.com).
Perhaps I am naïve, but when a couple of months ago I came across a Dutch article in the Netherlands periodical Elsevier titled, “Hoe groot is kans dat Obama wordt vermoord?” I was shocked. Shocked to see such sinister, morbid, and scandalous words about one of our presidential candidates screaming at me from the opinion pages of a reputable international periodical.
After I calmed down, I had to decide whether to translate and post the article on an American web site at all. What kind of repercussions could such a story have? Would it be called sensationalism of the worst kind? Would my Editor even post it?
Finally, after I decided to go ahead with the translation, my next decision was how to translate the word “vermoord“? You see, the Dutch word vermoord has at least two meanings, “murdered” and “assassinated.” After consulting my trusted dictionary and thesaurus, I decided to go with “assassinated,” because according to my dictionary, to assassinate means “to kill (esp. a political or religious leader) for political, fanatical, or religious motives.”
(By the way, the word “Assassin,” derived from the name of the Hashshashin sect, has a fascinating–albeit disputed–linguistic, historical, religious and political etymology going back to the eleventh century.)
The Dutch people, as most Europeans, have traditionally been very close to and supportive of the United States and of Americans–politically, economically, militarily, philosophically and in just about every other manner. Especially after World War II, Americans were beloved, almost idolized. I know, because I lived in The Netherlands and its Antilles for seven years shortly after the War.
On 9/11, those ties grew closer and deeper and remained that way even after the United States attacked the terrorists responsible for the 9/11 tragedy and the Taliban in Afghanistan. But things changed when the U.S. invaded Iraq.
Today, over five years later, while the Dutch still have approximately 2,000 troops serving in Afghanistan under the NATO umbrella, most Dutch people consider the war in Iraq to be a big mistake and disapprove of President Bush’s Iraq war policies.
Even in Afghanistan, where the Dutch are fighting and dying, many feel that the Netherlands, albeit a small country, should have more influence in the strategy for that war and that the Netherlands has been too “subservient” to Washington.
At least that is what the well known Dutch journalist and columnist H.J.A. Hofland says in a recent article, in the Dutch newspaper NRC Handelsblad. According to him, “The Netherlands has, for more than five years, been the faithful, little follower of the most powerful man in the world, who has in the meantime actively proven to be the worst president.”
As the Dutch Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende, accompanied by his Minister of Foreign Affairs, Ben Bot. prepares to visit President Bush on June 5, Hofland is critical of both the Bush international policies and of the Dutch government’s “submissiveness“: “For more than five years now, we have been virtually uncritical of the most powerful nation in the world, which under President Bush’s administration is conducting two debilitating wars and in doing so has steadily lost power and respect.”
Hofland calls the upcoming visit to Washington, an “Expedition to Washington” and writes about it, and about the ongoing U.S. primaries, as follows:
By H.J.A Hofland
Translated by Dorian de Wind
May 21, 2008
In just about two weeks the Netherlands’ Prime Minister Balkenende and Minister Verhagen will visit President Bush in Washington to talk about world affairs. Six months later the American elections take place. Read the rest of this entry »
What’s poses the greatest danger to NATO’s effort in Afghanistan? According to Dutch Scholar Gunnar Heinsohn, the answer is clear: Afghanistan’s birth rate.
“In 2008, there are 4.5 million male Afghans within the traditional warrior age of 15 to 29 years. Out of that group come the insurgents that the approximately 35,000 NATO soldiers are now dug in to confront … and behind Read the rest of this entry »
After the failure of the 1980 U.S.-sponsored Olympic boycott, hadn’t the world learned its lesson about the ineffectiveness of such actions? According to this editorial from the Nederlands Dagblad, things have changed since then - not the least of which is the fact that unlike South Korea, which rapidly democratized in the run-up to the 1988 Games, Beijing has taken a different tack.
The Dutch newspaper opines, “Such wishful thinking has now given way to the harsh reality. Over the past decade, Chinese leaders have decided that capitalism and dictatorship make an excellent pair … The IOC’s pseudo religious rhetoric about the brotherhood of nations doesn’t work anymore, because that now equates with siding with the Beijing regime.”
Has the spectacle of the Olympic Torch relay, first introduced by Nazi Germany in 1936, hijacked the Olympic tradition? After the mass protesting in Paris, London and now San Francisco, and due to the ‘dubious’ Nazi origins of the Olympic torch relay, this editorial from the NRC Handelsblad of The Netherlands opines, “Four years ago, the torch, which had to go from Olympia to Athens, traveled 48,466 miles. And this year is no different. … This is megalomania. … IOC Vice President Gosper has called for the trip to be restricted to the direct route between Olympia and the organizing city. This won’t deter future demonstrators, but there is a lot to be said for a relay of more modest dimensions.” Read the rest of this entry »
“The Bucharest summit has shown that NATO - or Europe and the West in general, is in more difficulty that it at first appeared. … The well-concealed disagreements about the participation of NATO members in operations in Afghanistan demonstrate the failure of the military Alliance, and its ambiguous position as an accessory to the American war machine.”
What’s Europe’s perception of President Bush, now that he’s appearing at his last NATO Summit? From Le Figaro, France’s largest and most pro-American newspaper, comes this editorial. Written by Pierre Rousselin, the judgment of Bush’s legacy is a harsh one. Rousselin writes, “If the American president would take a sincere accounting of his actions, he would observe that he leaves a weakened Atlantic Alliance in military difficulty in Afghanistan, politically divided in the face of a more aggressive Russia, and ever-hesitant about its missions, its scope of activity and its raison d’être in the 21st century.”
Rousselin goes on to say, “Beyond the press releases glorifying painstaking compromise, the summit, which is to be followed on Friday by an unprecedented dialog with Vladimir Putin, highlights the lack of American “leadership” in the world at the end of a period marked by the Iraq War and the transatlantic crisis that it has unleashed. It is a sad result for a presidency that at its inception placed itself under the rubric of putting the use of force at the service of a conquering ideology.”
Editorial By Pierre Rousselin
Translated By Sandrine Ageorges
April 3, 2008
France - Le Figaro - Original Article (France)
The NATO summit in Bucharest is the final farewell of the allies to George W. Bush. If the American president would take a sincere accounting of his actions, he would observe that he leaves a weakened Atlantic Alliance in military difficulty in Afghanistan, politically divided in the face of a more aggressive Russia, and ever-hesitant about its missions, its scope of activity and its raison d’être in the 21st century. Read the rest of this entry »
Wonder how the NATO Summit in Bucharest is being covered in the Russian press? Russian concerns about the meeting, infighting over why President Putin isn’t being given a platform to speak at the summit, and the details of Thursday’s events are all covered in somewhat excruciating detail in this analysis from Russia’s Kommersant. Apparently, the Kremlin is upset that President Putin won’t be able to address the public at the conference, suspicious that the Alliance is trying to prevent a repeat of his Munich Speech of last year, in which Putin criticized the United States.
According to Dmitry Rogozin, Russian Ambassador to NATO, “The leadership of the Alliance is committed to curtailing most of the debate. The Russian President will be unable speak publicly on the most important questions of world politics. This is an ugly spectacle, and attempts to blame it on the rules are inappropriate.
By Mikhail Zygar and Vladimir Solovyev
Translated By Igor Medvidev
April 2, 2009
Kommersant - Russia - Original Article (Russian)
The NATO summit opens today in Bucharest, and it may be the most scandalous summit in the history of the organization. Ukraine and Georgia will attempt to obtain entry into the Alliance’s Membership Action Plan, while Russia and its key economic partners try to prevent this. The format of the Russia-NATO meetings won’t give Putin a chance to make another Munich speech. But the presidents of Georgia and Ukraine and former Russian Prime Minister Mikhail Kasyanov will be given a chance to speak.
[Editor’s Note: In his speech to the Munich Conference on Security Policy last year, President Putin said, among other things, “One state and, of course, first and foremost the United States has overstepped its national borders in every way. This is visible in the economic, political, cultural and educational policies it imposes on other nations. Well, who likes this? Who is happy about this? And of course this is extremely dangerous. The result of this is that no one feels safe. I want to emphasize this no one feels safe! Because no one feels that international law is like a stone wall that will protect them!” Read the rest of this entry »
Is the Bush Administration’s response to the previous recession at the root of the present global financial meltdown? Such is the verdict of the editorial board of the NRC Handelsblad, the main business daily of The Netherlands. According to the editorial, “In good measure, the current crisis has its roots in the tricks that were applied to deal with the previous recession six years ago: A growing deficit under the Bush Administration and a far too loose monetary policy with ultra-low interest rates. … For the rest of the year, the Americans will need all of their optimism.
Translated By Meta Mertens
EDITORIAL
March 29, 2008
The Netherlands - NRC Handelsblad - Original Article (Dutch)
Optimism is a proverbial American characteristic. Now that the economy of the United States is visibly deteriorating, this is being put to a serious test. Yesterday it became clear that the mood of American consumers, tracked by the University of Michigan, has dropped to its lowest level since the early nineties. Read the rest of this entry »
What do the Olympic Games and Steven Spielberg have to do with the U.S. elections? It all has to do with the calender. According to Pierre Rousselin, deputy editorial page editor of France’s Le Figaro, The rage of Steven Spielberg is not in itself conclusive. But it’s significant for what it announces. Spielberg is Hollywood. And Hollywood is an arm of the Democratic Party … The Chinese have no luck with the calendar. The Olympics open on August 8th, shortly before party conventions in the United States, when the political temperature across the Atlantic will be running very high.’
By Pierre Rousselin, Translated By Sandrine Ageorges February 15, 2008, France - Le Figaro - Original Article (French)
The Olympic Games is the greatest event of global sport and one of the human activities that can best bring together the races and the continents. This summer the event is taking place in Beijing, and marks China’s return as one of the world’s major powers. A boycott of the event would be like rejecting a quarter of humanity. Read the rest of this entry »
Why don’t some NATO members wish to send more of their troops into harm’s way in Afghanistan? According the editorial board of the NRC Handelsblad of The Netherlands, the issue is the ‘War on Terror’ itself. The editorial says in part, ‘The fact is that terrorism as an entity doesn’t exist. … contemporary terrorism is really just a fluid method of combat that one cannot bomb out of existence. … It’s even questionable whether in an analytical sense, one can place the Taliban in Afghanistan within the realm of international terrorism.’
EDITORIAL
Translated By Meta Mertens
February 11, 2008
The Netherlands - NRC Handlesblad - Original Article (Dutch)
According to the American Government, the future of NATO lies in Afghanistan. During the annual Conference on Security Policy in Munich, U.S. Secretary of Defense Gates rang the alarm bell. According to Gates, NATO mustn’t become a two-tiered alliance where first class members militarily pull the chestnuts out of the fire for second class member states, while the second class members stand idly by .
Unlike last month , Gates didn’t take aim at the partners for their inability to wage a guerilla war. This time the Secretary took Europe to task more broadly. In the U.S. after 9/11, Gates said everyone’s eyes were opened. But “many people on this Continent may not comprehend” the magnitude of the direct threat to European security. If Afghanistan falls, the dominoes will fall in Pakistan and beyond. According to Gates, if NATO triumphs over terrorism in Afghanistan, the victory of democracy will be on the horizon. The remarks of the American Secretary in Munich have been interpreted as an attempt to pressure the Federal Republic [of Germany]. Economically, Germany is the second largest NATO partner, but militarily it doesn’t bear a corresponding responsibility. That said, this doesn’t describe NATO’s deeper systemic problem.
Since 9/11, NATO has indeed been waging a war against terrorism. There is, however, more to it. The fact is that terrorism as an entity doesn’t exist. Terrorist groups like the People’s Will in 19th century Russia or the Red Army Faction in Germany didn’t keep accurate books either, but contemporary terrorism is really just a fluid method of combat that one cannot bomb out of existence.
It is even questionable whether in an analytical sense, one can place the Taliban in Afghanistan within the realm of international terrorism. The Taliban are also part of a regional guerrilla movement …
It seems that just about everyone, both here and abroad, have concluded that the Clintons have been wrongfully manipulating the issue of race. But according to this op-ed article by columnist Rik Kuethe of The Netherlands’ Elsevier, widespread realization of this is unlikely to stop this anti-Obama plot from working. Kuethe writes unapologetically, “the Clinton couple, one of the most powerful political machines America has ever seen, is making sure that Obama’s blackness gets rubbed into the electorate like its shoe polish.”
By Rik Kuethe
Translated By Meta Mertens
January 28, 2008
The Netherlands - Elsevier - Home Page (Dutch)
It’s not young Senator Barack Obama ensuring that race remains an election issue. That’s the work of the Clintons, as it suits them in view of Super Tuesday.
Barack Obama’s won a resounding victory in the South Carolina Democratic primary. He received 55 percent of the vote against his main opponent, Hillary Clinton, who won 27 percent. And at the start of the month [January], Obama scored his first win at their first showdown in White Iowa.
Americans are easily susceptible to something new. Many, including John F. Kennedy’s daughter Caroline, consider this “lemon-fresh man” to be in an excellent position to win the Democratic nomination.
Whether he succeeds will be decided on Tuesday, Feb. 5 - otherwise known as Super Tuesday - when 22 states hold their primaries simultaneously. The chances that Obama will come out the victor, however, are small.
SNOW WHITE
The young Senator from Illinois says time and again that these elections are not about race. Quite apart from the fact that he had a mother who was as white as Snow White, he certainly means what he says. He also has an interest in keeping it so.
But more recently, the Clinton couple, one of the most powerful political machines America has ever seen, is making sure that Obama’s blackness gets rubbed into the electorate like its shoe polish.
What does the rest of the world think of President Bush’s last State of the Union Address? Among a number of quite skeptical reactions on WORLDMEETS.US, this editorial from de Volkskrant of The Netherlands assures, ‘One thing is certain: he will not be remembered as a uniter.’
EDITORIAL
Translated By Meta Mertens
January 29, 2008
The Netherlands - de Volkskrant - Original Article (Dutch)
At the beginning of his first term in 2001, George W. Bush promised to work as a “uniter, not a divider.” Over the years, this pledge has become a shrill echo. The last word on the meaning of Bush’s presidency has yet to be uttered, if only because he still has nearly a year to go and in his remaining time he isn’t as much of a lame duck as is sometimes suggested. One thing is certain: he will not be remembered as a uniter.
Monday night, he delivered his last State of the Union speech to Congress WATCH . The President himself of course assured that the country is well-governed, but the reality is different. The nation is deeply divided over the ongoing war in Iraq, even though last year’s surge led to a decrease in sectarian violence. In addition to this divisive struggle, the United States has recently been struggling against a looming recession.
The manner in which Bush treated economic problems in his speech is indicative of his unwillingness to compromise with the Democratic majority in Congress. To save the economy from a recession, the White House has launched a stimulus plan that consists primarily of a tip to tax payers. This is too little too late …
January 29th, 2008 by DR. CLARISSA PINKOLA ESTÉS, TMV Columnist
In our family from the Swabian side, was told an ancient story about a dark and wicked force called the Erl König who lives in the hollow woods.
The Erl King is a soul stealer, a bloodless, malevolent and claw-handed creature who thieves the minds and hearts of humans so they become hollow like the withered woods… and the Erl King himself.
…. The Erl King makes certain that human beings can no longer think of the world, and can no longer consult with nor hear their rational souls,
but now, can only carry the most deadened and pretend ideas of pleasure, finery and false triumphs… these pursuits bringing all to dead and naught.
Listening to the current President’s ‘State of the Union’ Address last night, and seeing the applauders, was like listening to a naive child’s Wish List… after the Erl King had stolen everyone’s mind;
…The President’s speech Santa-Claused in every sugary, long range miracle imaginable– for the right here and right now. Full funding for all matters of wars. Cures for all economic, social, and physical ills. Laying of ghosts. Asking that old wins, some real, some dubious, be shined up bright, now and forever, in his own name.
And to seal that long scrolled list… the toy-soldier promise of Yahweh-like retribution in vetos… if the gifts he demands do not materialize. Right now.
In developmental psychology, we’d call a long wish list like the President’s… one that insists a perfected world can pretty much be created within the next few weeks ‘if Congress will only cooperate with him,’ … “magical thinking.”
“Magical thinking” is a kind of thought process, that when weighed against reality, makes the ‘thinker’ (when they are adults and no longer children) seem addled rather than insightful.
Many love and are loyal to the current President, and there is no doubt that he carries a certain Wild West kind of charm; there is no doubt he can be moved to tears; that he loves his family; and no doubt that he has had a plan.
All the more reason to be made sad by what ‘hollow woods’ it all has come to.
Those who are prescient say the Presidential election of 2008 is the most important of any, ever.
I’d agree and only add that we cannot afford to squander opportunity to elect a leader who can truly think, instead of mimicking our current leader… who too often appears to offer us what I’d call, ‘thinks he has never thought.’
Is there a new leader riding hard toward us who has successfully passed through the hollow woods? Is there one Read the rest of this entry »
What would someone from Italy think of the Hillary-Obama clash in the heart of the deep south? According to this account from La Stampa’s man in the United States, Mauritzio Maulinari, in addition to taking note of the continuing controversy over the Confederate flag, ‘When Hillary rises to speak, it’s impossible not to notice the difference; applause arrives, but it’s cold and short. … Hillary remains the best candidate, but the collective emotions are with Obama.’
Translated By Adrian Trevisan
January 22, 2008
Italy - La Stampa - Original Article (Italian)
At celebrations for Martin Luther King, there were boos for Hillary Clinton and standing ovations for Barack Obama. The crowd of thousands of Afro-Americans who filled the square in front of the South Carolina Assembly greeted the two challengers for the Democratic Presidential nomination. The crowd was transformed into a barometer of the electorate that will head to the polls on Saturday for the last primary before Super Tuesday. When “Martin Luther King Day” arrives, in every city in America, everyone - African-American and not - takes to the streets for a march in honor of the Reverend King, a symbol of the battle against segregation. And this year all eyes are on Columbia, stronghold of Southern nostalgia and theater for this bitter presidential duel. Obama raised the stakes against Bill Clinton on the TV screens of ABC by calling him “a partisan husband” and no longer “everyone’s leader” because of his “troubling” positions taken in favor of Hillary and his “unfounded attacks against me.”
The march began in front of the Zion Baptist Church, where hundreds of worshippers left a mass in memory of Reverend King, who was assassinated in Memphis in 1968. They then donned “Obama for President” T-shirts and pins with the images of Obama and King, and carried signs with “Barack’n’Roll” and “No Clinton Dynasty” written on them. Read the rest of this entry »
My childhood was haunted by the monster known to South Carolinians in that time and place as "the atom bum." I lay awake nights worrying about a nuclear strike the same way children of earlier generations worried about the monsters under their beds or the crazy son the mean old man up the road reputedly kept locked up in the attic. It was my Boo Radley, but one I would never really come to terms with. We heard—from whispered rumors on the
playground of things overheard on the evening news or from adult
conversations— that if it fell on our heads it would leave a crater
stretching to the next small town; we heard about shadows on walls in Japan;
we heard about radiation burns and radiation sickness and the poisoning of the air and water.
During a brief period—I don’t know what prompted it or why it
stopped—we used to have "bum" drills, where we’d hide under our
desks. What good would hiding under a desk do? I asked my teacher.
She told me to hush up and get back under the desk, but then admitted she didn’t know.
During the late seventies, when I was a teen-ager, post-apocalyptic fiction abounded. (The best were–if you’re
looking for something to read– were Walter Miller’s A Canticle for Leibowitz and Russell Hoban’s beautiful but challenging Riddley Walker.)
After the Cold War receded, people didn’t talk about it so much for awhile. But of course it’s never really gone away.
It’s with a certain sense of inevitability that I now read in The Guardian that "five of the west’s most senior military officers and strategists," have put together a manifesto warning NATO that it needs to face up to the nuclear option if it wants to be able to Read the rest of this entry »
While some of America’s NATO allies appreciate the candor of Defense Secretary Robert Gates about the mission in Afghanistan, they don’t necessarily agree with his conclusions. According to this editorial in the NRC Handelsblad of The Netherlands, while the Americans want Europeans to do more of the life-and-death fighting, the Dutch at least are more interested in preventing further ‘mission creep.’
“Gates read the riot act to his European allies … Even if Gates’ comments are counterproductive and invite jokes concerning Vietnam and other less-successful U.S. anti-guerilla operations, his observations are essentially true.”
EDITORIAL Translated by Jan de Nijs January 17, 2008
The Netherlands - NRC Handlesblad - Original Article (Dutch)
It’s not often that the Dutch Government summons the American Ambassador. That achievement goes to Defense Minister Van Middelkoop (of the conservative Christian Union Party). The reason? An interview with the American Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, in the Los Angeles Times . In the interview, Gates read the riot act to his European allies.
NATO troops in Southern Afghanistan are unable to effectively combat the Taliban. According to him, the Americans in eastern Afghanistan are much more effective. Gates said: “Most of the European forces, NATO forces, are not trained in counterinsurgency; they were trained for the Fulda Gap ,” referring to the German region where NATO once expected a Red Army invasion of Western Europe. Read the rest of this entry »
Now that Bush Administration is drawing to a close, is American influence irretrievably on the wane? According to this editorial from the NRC Handelsblad of The Netherlands, ‘Across the globe, America has lost its popularity and authority … the American century is coming to an end. Aspiring superpowers are hot on America’s heels.’
EDITORIAL
Translated By Jan de Nijs
December 27, 2007
The Netherlands - NRC Handlesblad - Original Article (Dutch)
The United States has hit a rough patch. Economically, the party is over. It confronts a crisis in the mortgage markets. The federal deficit continues to grow. The dollar has lost its leading position. London has overtaken New York as the world’s leading financial center. And European anti-trust laws are rapidly becoming the global standard, replacing American rules and regulations. In the meantime, the Iraq War is costing $275 million a day. The total estimated cost for the Iraq War at the end of 2008: $611 billion. And at the same time, the war in Afghanistan continues to grind on.
These are a few examples of “imperial overstretch”: America’s military might is being stretched beyond the limit. As a result, George W. Bush’s last year in office has been one of a “shrinking presidency.” In his home country, he has lost his authority. Officials from his government are being prosecuted and punished for abuses of power. On top of that, a judicial inquiry into the destruction of evidence of illegal interrogation procedures by the CIA has been launched. Read the rest of this entry »
![[NRC Handelsblad, The Netherlands]](http://www.nrc.nl/multimedia/archive/00218/De_oude_NAVO_bestaa_218822d.jpg)
![[Excelsior, Mexico]](http://www.exonline.com.mx/XStatic/excelsior/images/espanol/carton_gregorio_0502.jpg)
![[Het Parool, The Netherlands]](http://worldmeets.us/images/hillarybilldog_hetparool.gif)
![[Hep Parool, The Netherlands]](http://www.parool.nl/columnisten/joep_bertrams/beeld/011708-gates.jpg)
![[The Times, U.K.]](http://www.timesonline.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00261/car385_261741a.jpg)
