Has President Bush decided to send weapons to the newly-independent nation of Kosovo to keep NATO’s hands clean, as Albanians in the former Serbian province ‘cleanse’ Kosovo of Serbs? Tamara Zamyatina of Russia’s Novosti writes, ‘Arming the Kosovars is a kind of legalization of future action by the Albanian side to oust the Serb minority … In other words, to give the Kosovars a chance to complete what NATO started: To clear the non-Albanian population out of the province, but to have the job done by Albanians, so as not to cast a shadow on the NATO peacekeepers of KFOR - not to mention the United States.’
By Global Affairs Commentator Tamara Zamyatina
Translated By Igor Medvedev
March 25, 2008
Russia - Novosti - Original Article (Russian)
MOSCOW: Things the experts warned about even before Kosovo’s illegal declaration of independence are coming true - the territory seized from Serbia is gradually accruing all the attributes of a giant military base of NATO and the United States.
As far as the “basic accessories” required for the task, George W. Bush has ordered the flow of arms shipments to Kosovo to begin - something that Moscow is sure to focus on at an emergency session of the NATO-Russia Council - to be held in Brussels on March 28.
Incidentally, Bush issued this order two days after U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary Robert Gates visited Moscow to urge the Kremlin to strengthen cooperation, expand consultation and generally display more openness.
The haste with which the Pentagon is seeking to take the fledgling Kosovo under its wing says only one thing - that there is uncertainty in the West that peace will come to the Balkans after Kosovo’s cessation. But it was precisely this rhetoric - that there is an urgent need to end the Yugoslav crisis - that the West used to justify its support for the Kosovo separatists. As far as peace is concerned, there can be none when one side is being armed against the other. This is like taking a raging fire and pouring more fuel on top …
The Serbs have already gotten the message. In the town of Kosovska Mitrovica (in northern Kosovo), they began a doomed rush to defend their last refuge - the courthouse - where Serbian justice once ruled but which now is occupied by international lawyers planning to turn it over to their Albanian colleagues [Kosovo is largely Albanian]. Blood was spilled there during clashes with [NATO] peacekeepers - and Belgrade [capital of Serbia] continues to seethe with rallies in support of Kosovo’s Serbian minority.
The city [Kosovska Mitrovica], divided by the Ibar River into Albanian and Serbian halves, will long be a bone of contention between the two sided. Belgrade has already officially appealled to the U.N. demanding that Kosovo’s northern region adjacent to Kosovska Mitrovica, which contains a Serbian population of 100,000, be returned to Serbia. These people require basic physical protection, but this is unlikely to move advocates of Kosovo’s independence at the United Nations.
In the first half of the 1990s, Western countries closed their eyes to the expulsion of 300,000 Serbs from Croatia, so they’re unlikely to bother over a mere hundred thousand today. “If 300,000 birds suddenly leave a place, the world would be alarmed, but the tragedy of the Serbs, mankind hardly notices” - so they say in Belgrade.
America’s intention to begin arms shipments to Kosovo is not only due to a desire to hold on to Kosovska Mitrovica - this strategically important but recalcitrant Serbian city. There is a more important reason - to give the Kosovars carte-blanche to suppress the protest in Serb enclaves throughout the province [actually - it’s now a nation]. So says Yelena Guskova, director of the Balkans Crisis Center at the Russian Institute of Slavic Studies, Russian Academy of Sciences.
Arming the Kosovars - is a kind of legalization of future action by the Albanian side to oust the Serb minority from the province. In other words, to give the Kosovars a chance to complete what NATO started: To clear the non-Albanian population out of the province, but to have the job done by Albanians, so as not to cast a shadow on the NATO peacekeepers of KFOR - not to mention the United States.
READ ON AT WORLDMEETS.US, along with continuing translated foreign press coverage of the United States.
Is there any hope that the United States and Russia will be able to resolve at least some of their differences before President Bush leaves office? Fedor Lukyanov, editor-in-chief of the magazine Russia in Global Affairs writes for Kommersant, ‘The Bush Administration is one of the biggest lame ducks in history. Even if it wanted a historic achievement to crown its term with, it doesn’t have the political wherewithal: the world is openly preparing for the change of power in Washington.’ As far as the Russian side’s willingness to compromise, Lukyanov seems to hint at President-elect Medvedev’s lack of an electoral mandate by writing, “In terms of foreign policy, actions will be cautious, since the delicate balance between continuity and innovation must be kept. Both Russian leaders [Putin and Medvedev] will be looking to keep the other in mind as they confront the many domestic and foreign challenges.”
By Fedor Lukyanov*
Translated By Igor Medvedev
March 18, 2008
Kommersant - Russia - Original Article (Russian)
U.S.-Russian “two plus two” negotiations are always remarkable events. That’s no surprise, since it’s not every day that the ministers [and secretaries] responsible for both political and military strategy for the two nuclear superpowers get together. An awareness of the significance of these events generates high expectations, which then lead to disappointment. So it would be better for us now to identify the limits of the possible.
Can Russia and the United States make a breakthrough and resolve their differences? No they can’t, mainly because of the political situations in both countries.
The Bush Administration is one of the biggest lame ducks in history. Even if it wanted a historic achievement to crown its term with, it doesn’t have the political wherewithal: the world is openly preparing for the change of power in Washington. The ability of the United States to contribute to the stabilization of global currency and financial markets is very much in doubt.
In Moscow, there has been a de facto change in the system of power, and now the difficult process of configuring new mechanisms must begin. In terms of foreign policy, actions will be cautious, since the delicate balance between continuity and innovation must be kept. Both Russian leaders [Putin and Medvedev] will be looking to keep the other in mind as they confront the many domestic and foreign challenges. This is not conducive to revolutionary steps - and it will raise the suspicions of Russia’s partners.
The greatest challenge over the coming months will be to avoid open conflict, especially given the unfavorable situation that is now unfolding. The situation in and around Kosovo , the agenda for the upcoming NATO Summit in Bucharest , the construction of an anti-ballistic missile system in the post-Soviet countries and even in part, the situation in China in light of the tensions in Tibet – all could drastically worsen the atmosphere. As a result, new leaders “are tied” to the legacy of the previous period.
There are many disagreements between Moscow and Washington. But that’s not the main problem. In terms of generalities, no one disputes the fact that we live in a globalized world wherein all processes are interrelated, and all countries are mutually dependent. But as soon things get wrapped up in bilateral relations, globalization is forgotten and people behave as if this underlying reality no longer exists and mutual accusation becomes a goal in and of itself.
READ ON AT WORLDMEETS.US, along with continuing translated foreign press coverage of the United States.
How difficult will NATO’s upcoming annual summit be? According to this analysis from Russia’s Novosti news service, beyond the issue of getting more NATO troops to the danger zone in Afghanistan, there is the touchy subject of NATO expansion and the somewhat mysterious decision - made on March 6 - that neither Ukraine nor Georgia will be considered for admission this year. Novosti’s Andrei Fedyashin writes in part, “Germany could potentially ‘break lots of dishes’ … The U.S. and Britain have been unable to persuade Berlin to send German Army units to the south where there is a real war. … The Greeks are threatening to ruin the picture with an issue that seems extremely ridiculous … The Greeks are flatly refusing to permit Macedonia’s entry into NATO until it changes its name. Greece argues that Macedonia is part of northern Greece, is the birthplace of Alexander the Great, and that it won’t allow anyone to take that glorious name away from them!’
By Andrei Fedyashin
Translated By Igor Medvivev
March 3, 2008
Russia - Novosti - Original Article (Russian)
MOSCOW: So, NATO foreign ministers at a working meeting in Brussels decided - for the time being - not to add Georgia and Ukraine to the Membership Action Plan. The plan represents something like a formal “road map” for NATO. By following the road signs and landmarks, potential candidates should eventually reach the gates of alliance headquarters in Brussels. But Ukraine and Georgia haven’t made it to the roadside yet. That decision was taken at a NATO meeting on March 6, which was called to discuss the upcoming NATO summit in April in Bucharest.
NATO, it must be said, hasn’t given up on plans to bring Yushchenko’s Kiev and Saakashvili’s Tbilisi into the alliance. Rather, this is a postponement. In practice it means that they won’t be any closer to NATO for at least a year, and so can’t become members for at least another four years. The arithmetic is simple: implementing the plan’s requirements usually takes a year or two, so another two years pass before candidates receive official invitations to NATO, which is usually done at the annual summit.
There are several reasons for the decision in Brussels. Although the U.S. is pressing for early admission, NATO veterans like France and Germany strongly recommended this delay, in order - to quote a German diplomat, “not to further antagonize Moscow, with which relations are bad enough due to the ‘Kosovo precedent,’ quarrels over new [U.S.] missile defense systems in Poland and the Czech Republic and differences over conventional arms control in Europe.”
European diplomats of “old NATO” didn’t hide their views that to alienate Russia further in order to please Tbilisi and Kiev, would be a serious mistake. Especially when in Moscow a new President - Dmitry Medvedev — is taking the reins of power. For whatever reason, in Europe he is widely perceived to be pro-Western, unlike Putin. So it is thought that accession provide a “good opportunity” to revive relations with Moscow, which have greatly deteriorated over the past four years.
All of these lines of reasoning are valid. But, there’s one more issue that now seems to outweigh all other considerations. That is the forthcoming NATO summit in Bucharest in April. The allies head to the summit so heavy with differences, simply no one wanted to squeeze the ” Georgia-Ukraine trifles” onto the agenda.
The thing is that this summit simply must be a success. After all, it is slated to be the largest in the history of the alliance. Moreover, it will be attended by all 26 heads of state and government. The invited participants include all the non-NATO countries of the anti-terrorist coalition in Afghanistan, financial donors such as Japan, in addition to officials from the United Nations and the European Union. Also waiting in Budapest will be outgoing Russian President Vladimir Putin. The media are already emphasizing that this will be the first time that Russia will officially participate at a NATO summit.
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 …
Can the United States expect its NATO allies to step up and station more combat troops in Afghanistan’s more dangerous regions? Given the commentary in much of the European press with perhaps the exception of the French, that seems like an unlikely prospect. Burkhard von Pappenheim writes for Germany’s Frankfurter Rundschau, ‘U.S. Defense Secretary Gates’ terse words discredit the ISAF mission in Afghanistan, since he speaks much about war and very little about peace. As a result, permanently stationing German soldiers in the south would jeopardize their success in the north.’
By Burkhard von Pappenheim
Translated By Ulf Behncke
February 10, 2008
Germany - Frankfurter Rundschau - Original Article (German)
The denial by the Defense Minister is so feeble that it should count as a confirmation. The Federal Government would like to dispatch to Afghanistan more troops than the 3,500 soldiers already approved by Parliament. The mandate is exhausted. Therefore, when the mission is extended into next fall, the Great Coalition [the U.S. and its NATO allies] must debate an expansion at the same time. [After all], a military operation cannot be meaningfully led if commanders have to forever count their soldiers. The German Bundeswehr (Federal Defense Forces) needs a bit of room to maneuver in Afghanistan.
However: Anyone who sends more troops into the Hindu Kush must also consider how and when they will be withdrawn. This will decide whether this nation is debating a politically intelligent and helpful deployment, or a military adventure.
In their area, the Germans have been relatively successful. One reason is that militarily, they have it easier than their allies in the hard-fought south. But that’s not the whole story. Their approach - to help the country by working to stabilize it - is the right one. If the country needs to be better-secured, then the Bundeswehr must obtain additional authorization - because the hope has been growing that in the foreseeable future, the troops will be able to leave altogether.
Hans von Sponeck, former UN Human Rights Coordinator and deputy UN Assistant General Secretary responsible for the Iraq Oil for Food Program, said last weekend at the Munich Peace Conference: “You have to be either crazy or cold-hearted to see Iraq as a success.”
According to this article in Germany’s Neues Deutschland, Robert Gates should be heeding these words, especially in light of his visit recent surprise visit to Baghdad to congratulate the troops…
Apparently,
Human Rights Watch has just released a report where it was charged that the human rights situation has deteriorated in part due to the actions of US troops.
Perhaps worse still,
The supposed progress in Iraq will also be used as a pretext for redeploying military forces in the direction of southern Afghanistan. There, even the step-up in attacks attributed to al-Qaeda is explained as a sign of desperation for the terror network, as its macabre death throes.
In an odd juxtaposition, questions about bringing our troops home and how long Gen. David Petraeus himself will stay have become entwined in the Washington debate over Iraq.
Yesterday, Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced that he supports a pause in troop reduction after the drawdown to pre-Surge levels in July, reflecting doubts Petraeus has expressed while others in the Pentagon have been worrying about the strain of prolonged tours on the US military.
Two weeks ago, Gates tried to quiet rumors that Petraeus would be leaving Iraq for the top NATO command, saying “the president is pretty clear that he wants General Petraeus to stay right where he is at least through late fall and maybe the end of the year.”
As the symbol of “success” in Iraq for both the Bush Administration and John McCain’s candidacy, Petraeus is finding his own career path blocked…
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 »
For those of you breathlessly following the apparent standoff between Iranian fast boats and U.S. warships earlier this month in the Straits of Hormuz in the hopes that it would trigger a war, each succeeding revelation about the incident leaves the Pentagon – and by extension the White House – looking more and more like a bunch of smacked asses.
In the latest installment of The Keystone Kops Play Brinksmanship, it turns out that a heckling audio recording was spliced onto the now famous video of the fast boats, a decision made by no less a personage than Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and other Pentagon bigs.
The voice has been identified as that of “Filipino Monkey,” an equal opportunity heckler who frequently cuts into VHF ship-to-ship channels in the region to make threats or rude comments.
It is safe to say that Gates and Company were trying to put a fast one over on an American public – and our dear friends in the Persian Gulf as President Bush was about to set out for a trip there to shore up his . . . um, legacy.
Well, the ruse failed, so the red meat crowd will have to wait a little longer for another lame excuse to start a war.
A final thought or three:
* Am I the only one who continues to believe that the ability of the U.S. to gather intelligence, especially in an ostensibly grave situation like a naval showdown, is pretty awful?
* The goodwill that Gates has engendered since taking over from the draconian Donald “Stuff Happens” Rumsfeld goes poof as he is revealed to be just another shameless hack for the Leader of the Free World.
* This would be the would-be leader who prattled on his Mideast trip that he didn’t agree with the recent National Intelligence Estimate on Iran so he is going to pretty much ignore it and continue to pursue a policy Tehran that is predicated on saber rattling.
* I’m so freaking sick and tired of our brave men and women in uniform being used as political pawns, as well as being repeatedly lied to by my government over matters of national and global security.
Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates called for the US government to commit more money and effort to “soft power” tools, including communications, because the military alone cannot defend America’s interests around the world. The NY Times quotes Gates as saying:
“We are miserable at communicating to the rest of the world what we are about as a society and a culture, about freedom and democracy, about our policies and our goals,” he said. “It is just plain embarrassing that Al Qaeda is better at communicating its message on the Internet than America.”
Fred Kaplan asked his readers for ideas on how to improve America’s image in the world. He received 120 responses, “nearly all of them from foreigners or from Americans living abroad.” Kaplan summarizes them in an interesting article in Slate Magazine:
A few common themes emerge from these suggestions: Government-sponsored PR has its limits, mainly because people see it for what it is; the important thing is to change policy, and part of that involves aligning America’s approach to the world with the most attractive aspects of our culture (in the broadest sense of that word). One of those aspects is what the Bush administration constantly boasts about — our openness and our freedom. But those boasts ring hollow when the rest of the world sees us as closed down and locked shut. The first step, then, is to reopen the doors to the world.
Kaplan describes several suggestions from readers. Very popular are calls for expansion in the Peace Corps, in Fulbright fellowships, and, in student-exchange programs.
One readers also pointed out that “globalization has stripped pop culture of nationality.” Beyoncé, for instance, is very popular among young people, but they don’t associate her with America.” I found that interesting.
I wonder how much of the US image problem is bad policy and cannot be fixed with better public diplomacy. And how much could be fixed with better communication?
As a Fulbrighter, I instantly agree with Kaplan’s readers about the importance of personal exchanges. This is not controversial. Let’s focus on the Internet instead. Secretary Gates said that Al Qaeda is more successful on the Internet than the United States. Does that mean beheading videos are more popular with the target audience than Chocolate Rain and Evolution of Dance? Or are the West’s internet videos the problem? Perhaps it’s all Germany’s fault: Do Heidi Klum videos cause terrorism?
I wish the hugely popular Where the Hell is Matt? video would improve the image of the American tourist.
US bloggers are more authentic than PR firms. They could counter Al Qaeda’s internet propaganda. Have blogs changed the minds of Al Qaeda sympathizers? What could bloggers do better? (In addition to writing in Arabic.) Any ideas on how to reach out and win hearts and minds?
AP via MSNBC: State Dept. security chief to resign in aftermath of Blackwater shooting
WASHINGTON - The State Department’s security chief announced his resignation on Wednesday in the wake of last month’s deadly Blackwater USA shooting incident in Baghdad and growing questions about the use of private contractors in Iraq.
Richard Griffin, the assistant secretary of state for diplomatic security, announced his decision to resign at a weekly staff meeting, according to an internal informational e-mail sent to colleagues.
The data provided by Gen. Petraeus on sharply declining Iraqi casualty rates is certainly open to analysis, debate, and challenge. We plan to take a closer look at them in a future post. However, MoveOn.org does not provide adequate factual support for its larger assertion that Petraeus is “constantly at war with the facts” and is “cooking the books” for the White House. In the absence of fresh evidence, we award MoveOn.org three Pinocchios
August 31st, 2007 by JOE GANDELMAN, Editor-In-Chief
President George Bush wants $50 billion more for the Iraq war and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates reportedly did not even know about it.
This suggests some possibilities:
(1) Policy is being made by Bush and a very small group of people. And the link above also notes that the military is NOT solidly backing the Bush administration on Iraq anymore — because they fear the military could eventually be made scapegoats for Bush’s decisions. This is NOT the first time this theory has surfaced. It has occasionally popped up in written pieces or on some of the talk heads discuss-wink-and-nod Washington insiders talk shows on television.
(2) Gates is perhaps not totally trusted because he was a firm backer of the Iraq Study Group which Bush essentially brushed aside.
(3) Gates is perhaps not totally in the loop because he is actually considered more of a bigwig linked to Bush 41 than to Bush 43 and some key backers of the first President George Bush are not fans of the style, policies or policy making process of the current Bush administration.
The immortal words of Casey Stengel come to mind for the Bush Administration’s latest moves in the Middle East. Casey’s incompetent Mets were only losing baseball games. This bunch is playing with our country’s future.
The most recent tragi-comedy of errors is reported in today’s New York Times:
“The Bush administration is preparing to ask Congress to approve an arms sale package for Saudi Arabia and its neighbors that is expected to total $20 billion over the next decade at a time when some United States officials contend that the Saudis are playing a counterproductive role in Iraq.â€
Counterproductive is a euphemism for exporting radicals to car bomb our troops there while King Abdullah tells Arab heads of state that Americans in Iraq are “an illegal foreign occupation.â€
Next week, Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice and Defense Secretary Robert Gates will go to Saudi Arabia to ask the Saudis, please, to “make clear to Sunnis engaged in violence in Iraq that such actions are ‘killing your future.’â€
At the same time, to allay the fears of our most reliable ally, the Bush team is promising to increase military aid to Israel to $30.4 billion over the next decade. There is nothing like a little arms race to promote stability in a trigger-happy region.
There may be some devilishly clever, subtle master strategy in all this but, based on past performance, they might do well to consider Casey Stengel’s advice for managing tough situations: “The secret is to keep the guys who hate you away from the guys who are undecided.â€
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is reportedly losing the internal Bush administration “war” with Vice President Dick Cheney over whether “diplomacy” or military action is the best way to deal with Iran.
If the report in The Guardian is correct, it’s yet one more sign of Cheney’s enormous influence and clout over Bush administration policy, even at a time when opinion polls show Bush, Cheney and the war in Iraq have dwindling political support amid increasing public impatience and even ire:
The balance in the internal White House debate over Iran has shifted back in favour of military action before President George Bush leaves office in 18 months, the Guardian has learned.
The shift follows an internal review involving the White House, the Pentagon and the state department over the last month. Although the Bush administration is in deep trouble over Iraq, it remains focused on Iran. A well-placed source in Washington said: “Bush is not going to leave office with Iran still in limbo.”
The Guardian piece has a lot of info that will cheer those who firmly believe Iran can only be dealt with by a military action that short-circuits its growing threat, and will reaffirm the belief of those who believe Bush and Cheney believe they don’t have to take into account public, Congressional or even both political parties’ sentiments on further military action.
The White House claims that Iran, whose influence in the Middle East has increased significantly over the last six years, is intent on building a nuclear weapon and is arming insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan.
And reports do generally confirm that, although experts seem to vary on precisely when Iran would be ready to build an actual weapon.
The vice-president, Dick Cheney, has long favoured upping the threat of military action against Iran. He is being resisted by the secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, and the defence secretary, Robert Gates.
Note that Gates is considered more of a link to Bush 41 and the kind of diplomacy-driven foreign policy advocated by Colin Powell.
Last year Mr Bush came down in favour of Ms Rice, who along with Britain, France and Germany has been putting a diplomatic squeeze on Iran. But at a meeting of the White House, Pentagon and state department last month, Mr Cheney expressed frustration at the lack of progress and Mr Bush sided with him. “The balance has tilted. There is cause for concern,” the source said this week.
Nick Burns, the undersecretary of state responsible for Iran and a career diplomat who is one of the main advocates of negotiation, told the meeting it was likely that diplomatic manoeuvring would still be continuing in January 2009. That assessment went down badly with Mr Cheney and Mr Bush.
“Cheney has limited capital left, but if he wanted to use all his capital on this one issue, he could still have an impact,” said Patrick Cronin, the director of studies at the International Institute for Strategic Studies.
And here is the paragraph that should be VERY interesting to Americans of both or no political parties:
The Washington source said Mr Bush and Mr Cheney did not trust any potential successors in the White House, Republican or Democratic, to deal with Iran decisively. They are also reluctant for Israel to carry out any strikes because the US would get the blame in the region anyway.
“The red line is not in Iran. The red line is in Israel. If Israel is adamant it will attack, the US will have to take decisive action,” Mr Cronin said. “The choices are: tell Israel no, let Israel do the job, or do the job yourself.
So, if it’s true, the President and Vice President believe they are the only ones who can safeguard America.
No Democrats could do it properly, not even any Republicans who might follow them.
So if they opt for military action as this piece suggests, it would be against the advice of Rice and the Secretary of Defense, most likely against the sentiment of the bulk of the Congress, and most likely against public opinion. But there will likely be an increased effort to make public opinion more receptive, so any military strike (no matter when it takes place) won’t come out of the blue.
What can Americans expect? If Iraq is any indicator, a build up of unnamed source articles about the Iranian threat, lots of news items that are also sourced naming the Iranian threat, an increasing drum beat by conservative talk show hosts about the need for military action in Iran as they are influenced by their interview or other contacts by administration sources and blogger conference calls to bloggers who considered friendly who could help get the pro-military-action perspective out.
Nancy A. Youssef writes for McClatchy that “military planners have abandoned the idea that standing up Iraqi troops will enable American soldiers to start coming home soon and now believe that U.S. troops will have to defeat the insurgents and secure control of troubled provinces.”
Training Iraqi troops, which had been the cornerstone of the Bush administration’s Iraq policy since 2005, has dropped in priority, officials in Baghdad and Washington said.
No change has been announced, and a Pentagon spokesman, Col. Gary Keck, said training Iraqis remains important. “We are just adding another leg to our mission,” Keck said, referring to the greater U.S. role in establishing security that new troops arriving in Iraq will undertake.
But evidence has been building for months that training Iraqi troops is no longer the focus of U.S. policy. Pentagon officials said they know of no new training resources that have been included in U.S. plans to dispatch 28,000 additional troops to Iraq. The officials spoke only on the condition of anonymity because they aren’t authorized to discuss the policy shift publicly. Defense Secretary Robert Gates made no public mention of training Iraqi troops on Thursday during a visit to Iraq.
“In his first weeks as defense secretary�, the New York Times reports, “Robert M. Gates repeatedly argued that the detention facility at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, had become so tainted abroad that legal proceedings at Guantánamo would be viewed as illegitimate, according to senior administration officials. He told President Bush and others that it should be shut down as quickly as possible.�
![[Kommersant, Russia]](http://worldmeets.us/images/gatesputinrice_kommersant.gif)
![[NRC Handelsblad, The Netherlands]](http://www.nrc.nl/multimedia/archive/00218/De_oude_NAVO_bestaa_218822d.jpg)
![[Guardian Unlimited, U.K.]](http://worldmeets.us/images/afghanweightbush_guardian.gif)
![[Hep Parool, The Netherlands]](http://www.parool.nl/columnisten/joep_bertrams/beeld/011708-gates.jpg)
