_______ ____ ______
/ |/ / /___/ / /_ // M I D - E A S T R E A L I T I E S
/ /|_/ / /_/_ / /\\ Making Sense of the Middle East
/_/ /_/ /___/ /_/ \\© http://www.MiddleEast.Org
News, Information, & Analysis That Governments, Interest Groups,
and the Corporate Media Don't Want You To Know!
--------------------------------------------
IF YOU DON'T GET MER, YOU JUST DON'T GET IT!
To receive MER regularly and free - http://www.MiddleEast.Org/subscribe
-------------------------------------------
MER WEEKEND READING:
1) MESSAGE TO SAUDIS AND ARAFAT - COMPLY OR BE GONE
2) MESSAGE TO AFGHANIS - COMPLY OR BE DEAD
3) DANGER, WARNING: GENERAL POWELL WANTS TO BE A DIPLOMAT
4) PENTAGON BUYING UP THE EVIDENCE
MID-EAST REALITIES - MER - www.MiddleEast.Org - 10/20:
British MP (Member of Parliament) George Galloway calls it the "new imperialism" (his
article coming later today). On the whole the Anglo-British press is working up quite
a frenzy (with notable exceptions like The Guardian and The Independent in the UK,
sometimes The Nation in the U.S.). But leave it to The Times of London to front big
time for the "new war" -- first by telling the Saudis and Arafat to comply or else,
then by warning that General Colin Powell's diplomacy is the real danger to watch out
for -- and to The Times of New York which on its front page today has a major
journalistic assault on Saudi Arabia for decades of trying to "export fanatical
Islam".
1) END OF AN ERROR
[THE TIMES, London - Friday, 19 October]:
Saudi Arabia and Arafat must choose terrorism or survival
Conflict forces choices that leaders would rather not make. Arab
rulers, though appalled by the attacks on September 11, have tried
to avoid endorsing the US-led operations against the Taleban so
as not to inflame public opinion. But the appeasement of Islamist
militancy is proving a mistake. Countries that tolerate terrorist
networks put themselves at risk; and militant anti-Western
incitement now threatens virtually all established rulers in the
Middle East.
None is more exposed than the House of Saud. Its destruction is a
main aim of Osama bin Laden, whose al-Qaeda has vowed to
drive Western "crusader" forces from the Arabian Peninsula. Yet
the Saudi Royal Family rests its legitimacy on its role as the
guardian of Mecca and Medina, the upholder of Islamic values
and the guarantor of a paternalistic State. The Government has
tried to face both ways. It has indulged religiosity with
indiscriminate payments to Islamic causes and foundations, many
of which have fostered extremism and aided bin Laden, while also
promising America to use its power as a force for regional
stability.
Now the Saudis are forced to choose between survival as a
deeply conservative, pro-Western society or a capitulation to the
obscurantist mullahs who would establish a religious dictatorship
similar to the Taleban. The Government has, at last, chosen to
crack down on the Islamists. In an unprecedented warning to
security officials, Prince Nayef, the Interior Minister, denounced
the "sick" extremists who hid in caves, abused security in the name
of Islam and misled ordinary people.
No one would be allowed to "outbid us on Islam", he added, nor
would the Government tolerate dictation from outside. His words
were reinforced by the arrest of around 100 leading Islamist
activists, the violent dispersal of demonstrators in Mecca and the
ban on any cleric declaring jihad.
Yassir Arafat also is compelled to choose between decisive action
or likely overthrow. Ariel Sharon has given the Palestinian leader
seven days in which to hand over the assassins of Rehavam Zeevi.
Otherwise, the Israeli Prime Minister made clear that the Israelis
will reoccupy all the West Bank, deal with the killers themselves
and reimpose closures, curfews and iron rule in the occupied
territories. The killing, he said, changed everything. Israel has now
concluded that the Arafat era is over and that any further talks with
him are useless. Some Cabinet ministers are calling for his
expulsion from the Palestinian territories.
Mr Arafat knows that Israel has the military strength and
determination to carry out such a threat. No Arab state is able or
likely to respond for days, if at all. Tanks already ring Ramallah.
Israeli troops are firing on demonstrators.
Token arrests will not satisfy Israel. Mr Arafat, already branded
an Israeli puppet by Hamas and Islamic militants, may fear a knife
in the ribs if he hands over the assassins; but unless he does, not
even the West will have much faith in his ability to exercise power
within the Palestinian Authority. No Israeli, on the Left as much as
on the Right, will deal with a man who cannot deliver them up.
Among the Palestinians, democrats are disillusioned by the
corruption around Mr Arafat while militants increasingly ignore his
word. His back, as often, is to the wall; only then, on past form,
does he act. One of the hardest choices he has had to make faces
him now.
2) THE U.S. MESSAGE TO THE TALIBAN
By Julian Borger in Washington,
Rory McCarthy in Islamabad and
Richard Norton-Taylor
"Attention. You are condemned....You
will be attacked by land, sea and air...
Resistance is futile... Surrender now and
we will let you live."
[The Guardian - Saturday October 20, 2001]:
US electronic warfare planes were yesterday broadcasting
bloodcurdling warnings to Taliban soldiers, telling them how to
surrender and threatening them with certain death if they failed to
give themselves up.
The extraordinary propaganda campaign is one of a series of signs
that special forces combat operations in Afghanistan are imminent, as
helicopter-borne elite units gather on the Kitty Hawk aircraft carrier
in the Arabian sea.
The messages being broadcast from the EC-130E planes flown by the
Pennsylvania National Guard's 193rd special operations wing -
nicknamed Commando Solo - are brutally straightforward.
They warn that any Taliban soldiers who fail to hand themselves over
by the time the ground assault begins will be given no quarter.
"Attention, Taliban. You are condemned. Did you know that? The
instant the terrorists you support took over our planes, you
sentenced yourselves to death," the broadcasts say in Pashtu and
Dari.
"You will be attacked by land, sea and air... Resistance is futile,"
it continues. "When you decide to surrender, approach United States
forces with your hands in the air. Sling your weapon across your
back, muzzle toward the ground. Remove your magazine and expel
any rounds. Doing this is your only chance of survival."
The campaign is designed to minimise resistance from Taliban forces
protecting Osama bin Laden and his supporters once the ground
assault begins. The EC-130E plane can break into commercial or
military television and radio stations, swamping regions with
propaganda.
The Pentagon confirmed yesterday that special forces units were
already behind Taliban lines talking to warlords loosely allied to
the Islamist militia, and assisting a CIA operation aimed at
persuading them to switch sides before the shooting starts.
Preparations for the assault were reported to be complete yesterday.
The Kitty Hawk is loaded with night-flight helicopters ready to fly
small units of elite troops on "search-and-destroy" missions aimed at
the Taliban leadership and Bin Laden's al-Qaida organisation.
US military officials said the helicopter-borne assault missions would
stop off at Pakistani bases on their way into battle to refuel and to
pick up extra troops and equipment.
Pakistani police and soldiers have imposed a tight security cordon
around the small airport in Jacobabad, the southern town which is
likely to be a principal staging post but where support is strong for
one of Pakistan's most hardline religious parties, the Jamiat Ulema-e
Islam.
Pakistan is to let US forces use airports in Pasni and Dalbandin, close
to the Afghan border. Civilian flights to all three have been cancelled.
The military regime has said they will be used for "logistical support"
only.
The airborne broadcasts followed 12 days of intense bombing aimed
at destroying Taliban air defences. Yesterday, US air force F15 Strike
Eagle warplanes were in action in support of the Northern Alliance
opposition attempting to capture the northern town of Mazar-i-Sharif.
An eight-man team of special forces liaison officers was also reported
to be travelling with a Northern Alliance general.
Alongside the messages aimed at Taliban soldiers, US electronic
warfare planes were yesterday broadcasting gentler messages to
Afghan civilians. "Attention. People of Afghanistan, United States
forces will be moving through your area... Please for your own safety
stay off bridges and roadways and do not interfere with our troops or
military operations," they say.
US officials have said that the initial combat operations in
Afghanistan are likely to be "hit-and-run" helicopter raids involving
small teams of elite soldiers attempting to hunt down al-Qaida
members and the Taliban leadership, or direct missile attacks from
above by US strike aircraft. At some point, the US-led forces may
seize an airbase inside Afghanistan close to their targets.
Britain's contribution to the forthcoming ground campaign could
include marine commandos, gurkhas, and paratroopers, defence
sources said yesterday. Some 800 Royal Marines are based on HMS
Ocean which has ten Sea King helicopters on board. The helicopter
carrier is taking part in a large, pre-planned, exercise in Oman
which ends on November 1.
A squadron of about 50 SAS soldiers are also participating in the
exercise.
A decision on what British forces the US wants is likely to be made
before then.
3) DIPLOMACY IS NOW THE PROBLEM, NOT THE SOLUTION
By TIM HAMES
Colin Powell is attempting to
fight the war on terrorism on
too many fronts
[The Times, London, Friday 19 October]:
Assassination, Benjamin Disraeli said after the death of Abraham
Lincoln, "has never changed the course of history". That view, as
events in the Middle East will prove, was mistaken. The murder of
Rehavam Zeevi, Israel's Tourism Minister, on Wednesday does,
however, prove that assassination is a paradoxical business.
The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) is
dedicated to the destruction of the state of Israel and is hardly
sympathetic to American interests. Yet by its deeds it has
strengthened the political hand of Ariel Sharon and may have
saved the United States from a diplomatic initiative of
considerable folly.
There is no doubt which member of the Bush Administration is
currently the most uncomfortable. Colin Powell has set himself
three separate but interconnected tasks and is making minimal
progress on all of them. The Secretary of State has sought to
construct an alternative regime for Afghanistan acceptable to just
about everyone; to reassure India and Pakistan that both are held
with equal affection by the United States, which agrees with each
of them on Kashmir; and aspires to a new American approach to
the Middle East which could simultaneously placate Israeli and
Arab opinion. This strategy certainly does not want for ambition,
merely credibility.
The intervention of the PFLP has reduced the prospects of
outright political conflict between the United States and Israel. The
Secretary of State is due shortly to deliver a speech on the Middle
East peace process which, his aides insist, would be but an
"amplification" of an approach hammered out within the
Administration before the attacks on New York and Washington.
This address is ostentatiously scheduled to take place "before
Ramadan", thus leaving little doubt as to its intended audience. The
notion of "amplification" is only valid if one regards the difference
between Trappist monks and members of a heavy metal rock
band as simply a matter of volume.
The Administration had decided, tentatively, before terrorism
struck, that if Yassir Arafat could impose a ceasefire of any
duration then President Bush would hold a low-profile meeting
with him on the fringes of the United Nations General Assembly
meeting. This notion was propounded most enthusiastically by
George Tenet, the Director of the CIA first appointed by
President Clinton, who was dispatched to the region by Mr Bush
during the summer. Mr Powell was at that stage relatively cool
about the enterprise, preferring benign neglect to active
engagement.
In the aftermath of September 11, however, the Secretary of State
seized control of policy. An improbable alliance within Washington
emerged between the State Department bureaucracy, which had
always wanted the Bush White House to continue in the Middle
East where the Clinton Administration had left off, and some
crucial figures at the Pentagon who, while normally close to Israel,
believed that Egypt and Saudi Arabia needed to be brought onside
if they were to be able to convince the President that he should
take the military campaign to Baghdad. To the bemusement of
Israel, those who favoured both the most limited war and the most
assertive war against terrorism had become de facto allies of Mr
Arafat against Mr Sharon.
Mr Powell was, and perhaps still might be, poised to recast
American foreign policy. He intended to indicate that America
favoured the division, or "sharing", of Jerusalem and that he would
appoint a new envoy, probably General Antony Zinni, former
Commander in Chief of the US Central Command and a figure
well known to Arab leaders, as his representative to the region.
There might be some short-term advantages to such a statement.
But countries such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia would have needed
more than words from the Secretary of State to appease local
populations. The United States would have had to engineer a
peace settlement on this basis. And the impact of such a blueprint
in Israel would be absolutely explosive. While most Israelis believe
that Mr Sharon was intemperate when he asserted that his country
would not be "another Czechoslovakia", they were largely in
accord with his sentiments. A Powell peace plan in these
circumstances would have broken the current Likud-Labour
coalition and prompted fresh elections. And the man most likely to
emerge as Prime Minister, endorsed on a "not one more inch"
manifesto, would be Binyamin Netanyahu - an ironic and
unhelpful outcome.
The contraints imposed, and the contradictions inherent, in Mr
Powell's pursuit of Peter Pan policy are the real source of the
frustration which is building within the Pentagon. It is not the case,
as reported in some circles, that Donald Rumsfeld, the Defence
Secretary, is at war with his generals or vice versa. They are all
being driven to distraction by a political approach which, as one
official put it privately, smacks of a new version of St Augustine:
"Give me victory, but not just now."
The military aspect of Operation Enduring Freedom is supposed
to be "Gulf War plus", but the diplomatic dimension, at the
moment, is "Gulf War minus". Ten years ago the United States
announced its objective (the complete expulsion of Iraqi troops
from Kuwait) and then assembled an international coalition to
achieve it. That process appears to have been reversed a decade
later.
The real question that is haunting American commanders now is
not whether to expand the war to encompass Saddam Hussein but
when the State Department will allow it to be extended to Osama
bin Laden.
4) BUYING UP THE EVIDENCE
By Duncan Campbell
"The US military does not need the pictures for its
own purposes because it already has six imaging
satellites in orbit...(that)take photographic images
estimated to be six to 10 times better than...Ikonos."
[The Guardian - Wednesday October 17, 2001]:
The Pentagon has spent millions of dollars to prevent western media from
seeing highly accurate civilian satellite pictures of the effects of bombing
in Afghanistan, it was revealed yesterday.
The images, which are taken from Ikonos, an advanced civilian satellite
launched in 1999, are better than the spy satellite pictures available to
the military during most of the cold war.
The extraordinary detail of the images already taken by the satellite
includes a line of terrorist trainees marching between training camps at
Jalalabad. At the same resolution, it would be possible to see bodies lying
on the ground after last week's bombing attacks.
Under American law, the US defence department has legal power to exercise
"shutter control" over civilian satellites launched from the US in order to
prevent enemies using the images while America is at war. But no order for
shutter control was given, even after the bombing raids began 10 days ago.
The decision to shut down access to satellite images was taken last
Thursday, after reports of heavy civilian casualties from the overnight
bombing of training camps near Darunta, north-west of Jalalabad. Instead of
invoking its legal powers, the Pentagon bought exclusive rights to all
Ikonos satellite pictures of Afghanistan off Space Imaging, the company
which runs the satellite. The agreement was made retrospectively to the
start of the bombing raids.
The US military does not need the pictures for its own purposes because it
already has six imaging satellites in orbit, augmented by a seventh launched
last weekend. Four of the satellites, called Keyholes, take photographic
images estimated to be six to 10 times better than the 1 metre resolution
available from Ikonos.
The decision to use commercial rather than legal powers to bar access to
satellite images was heavily criticised by US intelligence specialists last
night. Since images of the bombed Afghan bases would not have shown the
position of US forces or compromised US military security, the ban could
have been challenged by news media as being a breach of the First Amendment,
which guarantees press freedom.
"If they had imposed shutter control, it is entirely possible that news
organisations would have filed a lawsuit against the government arguing
prior restraint censorship," said Dr John Pike, of Globalsecurity, a US
website which publishes satellite images of military and alleged terrorist
facilities around the world.
The only alternative source of accurate satellite images would be the
Russian Cosmos system. But Russia has not yet decided to step into the
information void created by the Pentagon deal with Space Imaging.
----------------------------------
MiD-EasT RealitieS - http://www.MiddleEast.Org
Phone: 202 362-5266
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Fax: 815 366-0800
To subscribe email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with subject SUBSCRIBE
To unsubscribe email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with subject UNSUBSCRIBE
