Maliki, Bout and Petraeus - all translated into plain language

Three things this morning:

1) Iraq cancels a 4.2 billion dollars Russian arms deal, alleging that there are allegations of possible corruption.

2) US denies Russian request for the extradition of Viktor Bout.

3) David Petraeus resigns are Director of CIA following the FBI's discovery of his extra-marital affair.

Now in translation:

In the first case we have something totally unheard of: the cancellation of a major weapons deal only one month following its signature.  This is unheard of not only because no responsible country would ever act in such a flimsy way, but also because the excuse is particularly ridiculous: it is well-known every single major international arms deal involves kickbacks, and big ones at that, for some key players.  This does not depend on the countries involved - everybody plays by the same rules.  The same goes for any major energy deal, or major construction project.  What has really happened here is crystal clear: the USA has vetoed this arms deal and Maliki caved in.  What is remarkable here is that Russia (under Medvedev) agreed to cancel the same of S-300 SAMs to Iran under US pressure, only to be "thanked" now with this US veto.  Bottom line: the Obama administration seems to be hell-bent on making relations between Russia and the USA as bad as possible.

The second case, in stark contrast to the first one, is purely symbolic.  The entire "Viktor Bout the Merchant of Death" is a US fabrication cooked up with the sole purpose to show the planet (and Russia) that the USA can do whatever the hell it wants with a Russian citizen and that there is nothing Moscow can do about it.  It would have cost nothing to let the man go now, but instead Uncle Sam as thrown Victor Bout in a dungeon located as far as possible from any Russian consular representation (the United States Penitentiary in Marion, Illinois).  Yet another sign that the Obama administration seems to be hell-bent on making relations between Russia and the USA as bad as possible.

In the third case, we have a major development masquerading as some trivial extra-marital infidelity issue.  "The Director of the CIA is forced to resign because the FBI uncovered that he has had a lover".  Does that make sense to you?  Think about it: how does the FBI work for?  The Department of Justice or, in other words, for the Executive Branch, aka the White House and the Presidential administration.  For the FBI to dare investigate the emails of the DCIA without a direct Presidential order is unthinkable.  Thus, in reality, what happened is this: Obama kicked Petraeus out.  Why?  Well, I cannot say for sure, but I remember that Admiral Fallon - truly a top notch officer - called Petraeus "an ass-kissing little chickenshit" because the main characteristic of Petraeus was his abject subservience to his political bosses and his willingness to parrot whatever the hell the current administration would say.  Maybe now that he has been reelected Obama does not need a spineless sycophant in his corner?

It looks to me like the USA and Russia are both preparing for some type of confrontation and that they are both quite committed to what looks to me like a collision course.

Gen David Petraeus aka "ass-kissing little chickenshit" to head CIA

Hilarious news today, General David Petraeus aka "ass-kissing little chickenshit" has been selected by Barak "no we can't" Obama to become the next director of the CIA.

This is a hyper-Obamaesque decision, indeed.  Obama is, of course,  the ultimate "ass-kissing little chickenshit" himself and its not at all surprising that he would appoint somebody of the same "stature", shall we say.  Not only will the appointment of a a spineless sycophant bureaucrat like Petraeus send a powerful message to the CIA itself (stop analyzing facts - get with the program!) but it will also prepare the "heroic" figure of Petraeus for a future civilian job like, say, President of the USA!

Finally, the nomination of Petraeus also sends a clear message to all the folks currently working on the many intelligence estimates of the (imaginary) "secret nuclear weapons program": you better get the next one right or your career is over.

The US intelligence community has always been bloated, inept and highly politicized, in particular the CIA and there is a good reason to call the latter "The President's private army".  The appointment of a "form over substance" mediocrity like Petraeus as DCI will only further subordinate the CIA to the political interests of the various lobbies which own and run the USA.

The Saker

Petraeus's Iran Gaffe

By Amir Arfa, Press TV, Tehran

In a CNN interview after two days of Iran bashing before Congress and less than a month after "presumptive" Republican Presidential nominee, John McCain made himself butt of all media jokes by suggesting that [Shia] Iran was "taking [Sunni] al-Qaeda" into its soil "training them and sending them back."

US top commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus put his boot in it and suggested that Iraq had "no desire to be the 51st state of Iran".

For your information General, Iran has 30 not 50 provinces/Ostans and not states.

Nor did Iran invade and occupy Iraq in 2003.

Nor did it send an "administrator" to Iraq.

Nor did it draft Iraq's constitution.

Nor did it draft Iraq's oil law.

Nor does it have over 150,000 troops in Iraq.

Nor is it building a secret army outside Iraq's mainstream armed forces by arming hundreds of thousands tribesmen under the pretext of fighting Al-Qaeda all despite outspoken opposition by Iraq's "sovereign" government.

Nor is it signing "presence of forces", "strategic relationship" and "declaration of principles" agreements with Iraq's "sovereign" government.

Nor is it torturing Iraqis in Iraqi jails such as the notorious Abu Ghraib prison.

Nor is it giving carte blanche to trigger-happy "defense contractors" such as Blackwater to kill innocent Iraqi civilians.

Nor is it renewing the contract of these "defense contractors" outlawed by the "sovereign" Iraqi government.

Nor is it giving green light to its NATO allies to invade Iraq without even cluing in the Iraqi government.

Nor is it capturing diplomats invited by the "sovereign" Iraqi government and/or refuse to release them even after frequent calls by Iraq's "sovereign" president.

Nor is it pitting every one against every one and blaming everyone else for the mess in Iraq and
Nor…


Petraus's Freudian slip of tongue however does have a point. Iraq indeed has "no desire to be the 51st state of…" any country and that's why according to a recent poll conducted by The British ORB/Channel 4 News survey, more than two-thirds of Iraqis believe US-led occupation forces should leave their country; A stunning mirror figure of Americans who want their troops back home.

But who cares about the polls?

US president George W Bush has time and again uttered his sheer disdain for public opinion over 80 percent of which (over TWO HUNDRED FORTY MILLION Americans) according to a new CBS/New York Times poll are dissatisfied with the direction of their country under his leadership. 89 percent (TWO HUNDRED SEVENTY MILLION AMERICANS) see a direct link between the "3-trillion dollar war" and their morbid economy.

Vice President Dick Cheney couldn't be more frank when he said "So?" to ABC's Martha Raddatz's question about the 70 percent (over TWO HUNDRED TEN MILLION) popular opposition to the War in Iraq.

Seven months after earning the nickname General Betrayus by Moveon.org, the General is at it again and how!

The General's Iraq Progress report comes against the backdrop of unspeakable carnage, unemployment and starvation in Iraq.

Just a few days ago the United Nations launched an appeal for $265 million for Iraq aid in 2008 warning the country is still suffering from a humanitarian crisis; that as the Bush administration pumps a weekly 12 billion tax payer dollars into the so called "war effort".

According to David Shearer, the UN's humanitarian coordinator for Iraq, "Four million Iraqis need food assistance while only 40 percent of the population has reliable access to safe drinking water."

According to the UN refugee agency, 4.2 million Iraqis have been displaced since 2003, including 750,000 who found refuge in Jordan and 1.4 million in Syria. Another two million or so are displaced within the country.

And civilian Iraqi death toll since the beginning of the invasion is put anywhere between tens of thousands to the British polling agency ORB's over 1,000,000.

The report however paints a different picture. It's mostly roses and peaches in Iraq except the "I" word, "Iran".

The 4400-word-or-so report boils down to:

"Since Ambassador Crocker and I appeared before you seven months ago there has been significant but uneven security progress in Iraq."

"Al Qaeda-Iraq and a number of other extremist elements have been dealt serious blows, the capabilities of Iraqi Security Force elements have grown, and there has been noteworthy involvement of local Iraqis in local security."

Al-Qaeda is in "disarray" and "retreating", Sunni insurgents are now "sons of Iraq" 91000 of whom are on our payroll, even Shia militia have been disrupted, However " the progress made since last spring is fragile and reversible", If we leave hell breaks loose and Iraq fails and of course, "A failed state in Iraq would pose serious consequences for the greater fight against Al Qaeda, for regional stability, for the already existing humanitarian crisis in Iraq, and for the effort to counter malign Iranian influence."

In other words, it's all quiet along the MesS.o.po.ta.mi.a except for Iran and its "Malign" actions, so, we have no choice but to stay.

Iran Rhetoric;

-none of us earlier this year appreciated the extent of Iranian involvement in Iraq, something about which we and Iraq's leaders all now have greater concern.

-Malign actions by Syria and, especially, by Iran fuel that [ethno-sectarian] violence. Lack of adequate governmental capacity, lingering sectarian mistrust, and various forms of corruption add to Iraq's challenges.

The General's anti-Iran rhetoric was well embraced and echoed a day later by his boss at the White House.


Collocating Iran and Al-Qaeda as "two of the greatest threats to America in this new century" Bush told a small but friendly audience that included Vice President Dick Cheney, the secretaries of State and Defense and representatives of veterans' organizations, "The regime in Tehran also has a choice to make: They can live in peace with its neighbor, enjoy strong economic and cultural and religious ties, or it can continue to arm and train and fund illegal militant groups which are terrorizing the Iraqi people and turning them against Iran." Adding, "If Iran makes the right choice, America will encourage a peaceful relationship between Iran and Iraq. If Iran makes the wrong choice, America will act to protect our interests and our troops and our Iraqi partners."

Trite as it may sound such rhetoric still generates headlines about a possible US attack on Iran among them, Allen L Roland's "COUNTDOWN TO ATTACK ON IRAN BEGINS THIS WEEK" appearing in OpEdNews

According to Roland whose article predates Petraeus's appearance before Congress, "The stage is set. This is build up week for attacking Iran. General Patraeus will testify before Congress laying out the pretext for war with Iran. McCain will support him and Obama and Clinton will have to acquiesce or make a political stand to protect their base. Cheney has already briefed the region, Admiral Fallon has been relieved and three Navy carrier attack groups are on station, ready and awaiting Bush's orders ~ it's the final countdown and Congress will not stop Bush."

I bet Allen is now adding to his list the visit by Petraeus and Crocker to Saudi Arabia on their way back to Iraq.

From Seymour Hersh's "shifting targets" last year to L Roland's "COUNTDOWN" today the media world is full of speculations, reasons and counter reasons for a possible US attack.


On March 11, 2008 , shortly after US Centcom chief Adm. Fallon's resignation US news and world report published a highly sensational article titled" the 6 Signs the US May Be Headed for War in Iran"

The 6 signs were listed as:
1. Fallon's resignation
2. Vice President Cheney's peace trip
3. Israeli airstrike on Syria Israel's airstrike deep in Syria
4. Warships off Lebanon Two U.S. warships took up
5. Israeli comments
6.Israel's war with Hezbollah

Washington Post's William M. Arkin countered by, "Six Signs the US Is Not Headed for War in Iran"

Before giving his signs, William wrote, "There are a couple of military adages -- "An Army marches on its stomach" and "Amateurs talk about tactics, but professionals study logistics" -- that should adequately explain why the United States is not headed for war with Iran." Adding" There is no actual preparation for such a war going on. Moreover, the US military is not in a position to carry off such an operation.

I personally tend to agree with William Arkin except his premises are based on logic and rationality.

War Bosses Butting Heads

Wired news reports that France is preparing war plans in case an international coalition decides to force Iran to give up its alleged nuclear weapons program, according to Reuters "We must prepare for the worst," [Foreign Minister Bernard] Kouchner said in an interview, adding: "The worst, sir, is war."

Our Frankish friends across the sea aren't the only Western leaders focused on Iran, The Middle East Times reports:

The [U.S.] Centcom commander [Admiral William Fallon] believed the United States should be withdrawing troops from Iraq urgently, largely because he saw greater dangers elsewhere in the region. "He is very focused on Pakistan," said a source familiar with Fallon's thinking, "and trying to maintain a difficult status quo with Iran."

This runs counter to occupation boss General David Petraeus' recommendation that the U.S. maintain large numbers of troops in Iraq for potentially years more. Fallon and Petraeus don't just disagree on matters of policy, the article points out:

In sharp contrast to the lionization of General David Petraeus by members of the US Congress during his testimony this week, Petraeus's superior, Admiral William Fallon, chief of the Central Command (Centcom), derided Petraeus as a sycophant during their first meeting in Baghdad in March, according to Pentagon sources familiar with reports of the meeting.

Fallon told Petraeus that he considered him to be "an ass-kissing little chickenshit" and added, "I hate people like that."

-------
For the public though, as on this picture, Petraeus, Fallon and Bush are always happily pictured together, all smiles.

(Note: it should be remembered here that Admiral Fallon once promised that "an attack on Iran will not happen on my watch". While I would definitely not put it past Admiral Fallon to make that kind of statement as part of a strategic deception plan, I would recommend keeping an eye on his statements or for any sudden "promotion" of Admiral Fallon to a Pentagon desk job).

Superior Derided Petraeus as Suck-Up, Opposed the Surge

by Gareth Porter

In sharp contrast to the lionization of Gen. David Petraeus by members of the US Congress during his testimony this week, Petraeus' superior, Admiral William Fallon, chief of the Central Command (CENTCOM), derided Petraeus as a sycophant during their first meeting in Baghdad last March, according to Pentagon sources familiar with reports of the meeting.

Fallon told Petraeus that he considered him to be "an ass-kissing little chickens**t" and added, "I hate people like that," the sources say. That remark reportedly came after Petraeus began the meeting by making remarks that Fallon interpreted as trying to ingratiate himself with a superior.

That extraordinarily contentious start of Fallon's mission to Baghdad led to more meetings marked by acute tension between the two commanders. Fallon went on develop his own alternative to Petraeus' recommendation for continued high levels of US troops in Iraq during the summer.

The enmity between the two commanders became public knowledge when the Washington Post reported Sep. 9 on intense conflict within the administration over Iraq. The story quoted a senior official as saying that referring to "bad relations" between them is "the understatement of the century."

Fallon's derision toward Petraeus reflected both the CENTCOM commander's personal distaste for Petraeus' style of operating and their fundamental policy differences over Iraq, according to the sources.

The policy context of Fallon's extraordinarily abrasive treatment of his subordinate was Petraeus' agreement in February to serve as front man for the George W. Bush administration's effort to sell its policy of increasing US troop strength in Iraq to Congress.

In a highly unusual political role for an officer who had not yet taken command of a war, Petraeus was installed in the office of Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Republican from Kentucky, in early February just before the Senate debated Bush's troop increase. According to a report in the Washington Post Feb. 7, senators were then approached on the floor and invited to go McConnell's office to hear Petraeus make the case for the surge policy.

Fallon was strongly opposed to Petraeus' role as pitch man for the surge policy in Iraq adopted by Bush in December as putting his own interests ahead of a sound military posture in the Middle East and Southwest Asia – the area for which Fallon's CENTCOM is responsible.

The CENTCOM commander believed the United States should be withdrawing troops from Iraq urgently, largely because he saw greater dangers elsewhere in the region. "He is very focused on Pakistan," said a source familiar with Fallon's thinking, "and trying to maintain a difficult status quo with Iran."

By the time Fallon took command of CENTCOM in March, Pakistan had become the main safe haven for Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda to plan and carry out its worldwide operations, as well as being an extremely unstable state with both nuclear weapons and the world's largest population of Islamic extremists.

Plans for continued high troop levels in Iraq would leave no troops available for other contingencies in the region.

Fallon was reported by the New York Times to have been determined to achieve results "as soon as possible." The notion of a long war, in contrast, seemed to connote an extended conflict in which Iraq was but a chapter.

Fallon also expressed great skepticism about the basic assumption underlying the surge strategy, which was that it could pave the way for political reconciliation in Iraq. In the lead story Sep. 9, the Washington Post quoted a "senior administration official" as saying that Fallon had been "saying from Day One, 'This isn't working.'"

One of Fallon's first moves upon taking command of CENTCOM was to order his subordinates to avoid the term "long war" – a phrase Bush and Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates had used to describe the fight against terrorism.

Fallon was signaling his unhappiness with the policy of US occupation of Iraq for an indeterminate period. Military sources explained that Fallon was concerned that the concept of a long war would alienate Middle East publics by suggesting that US troops would remain in the region indefinitely.

During the summer, according to the Post Sep. 9 report, Fallon began to develop his own plans for redefine the US mission in Iraq, including a plan for withdrawal of three-quarters of the US troop strength by the end of 2009.

The conflict between Fallon and Petraeus over Iraq came to a head in early September. According to the Post story, Fallon expressed views on Iraq that were sharply at odds with those of Petraeus in a three-way conversation with Bush on Iraq the previous weekend. Petraeus argued for keeping as many troops in Iraq for as long as possible to cement any security progress, but Fallon argued that a strategic withdrawal from Iraq was necessary to have sufficient forces to deal with other potential threats in the region.

Fallon's presentation to Bush of the case against Petraeus' recommendation for keeping troop levels in Iraq at the highest possible level just before Petraeus was to go public with his recommendations was another sign that Petraeus' role as chief spokesperson for the surge policy has created a deep rift between him and the nation's highest military leaders. Bush presumably would not have chosen to invite an opponent of the surge policy to make such a presentation without lobbying by the top brass.

Fallon had a "visceral distaste" for what he regarded as Petraeus' sycophantic behavior in general, which had deeper institutional roots, according to a military source familiar with his thinking.

Fallon is a veteran of 35 years in the Navy, operating in an institutional culture in which an officer is expected to make enemies in the process of advancement. "If you are Navy captain and don't have two or three enemies, you're not doing your job," says the source.

Fallon acquired a reputation for a willingness to stand up to powerful figures during his tenure as commander in chief of the Pacific Command from February 2005 to March 2007. He pushed hard for a conciliatory line toward and China, which put him in conflict with senior military and civilian officials with a vested interest in pointing to China as a future rival and threat.

He demonstrated his independence from the White House when he refused in February to go along with a proposal to send a third naval carrier task force to the Persian Gulf, as reported by IPS in May. Fallon questioned the military necessity for the move, which would have signaled to Iran a readiness to go to war. Fallon also privately vowed that there would be no war against Iran on his watch, implying that he would quit rather than accept such a policy.

A crucial element of Petraeus' path of advancement in the Army, on the other hand, was through serving as an aide to senior generals. He was assistant executive officer to the Army Chief of Staff, Gen. Carl Vuono, and later executive assistant to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Gen. Henry Shelton. His experience taught him that cultivating senior officers is the key to success.

The contrasting styles of the two men converged with their conflict over Iraq to produce one of the most intense clashes between US military leaders in recent history.