Susan's Views
International writer Susan Trevelyan-Syke on politics, media and economics.
BLOG.SUSANSVIEWS.COM

Right, Left and Center (Independents) vs Our Corporatist Ruling Class

          
                 
HAPPY NEW YEAR!



Talk to ordinary citizens of the USA and they will tell you how unhappy they are with the way national decisions are made in America and with policies they do not nor have ever supported.

It does not matter if the unhappy are Republicans, Democrats, Independents, Centrists, whatever.  They may not like policies of the opposition, but America has reached a point when many are deeply unhappy with their own choices of elected officials. 

We elect Presidents, Senators and Representatives based on the policies they put forward in their election campaigns not just for their party label. 

The largest percentage of Americans are Independents if we can believe the polls:  about 45% depending on the variable 22-28% tending Republican and the variable 33-38% tending Democratic.  Today, both parties are at their lowest levels.

True Independents tend toward one of the two main parties, but vote for policies and individuals who are more likely to represent their views.

Americans share the same fate with every country:  often voting for the lesser of two or more evils.

The elected win, because the majority of voters trust or, at least, take a chance that the elected will carry out their preferences and will or do the right thing for the country.  They don't. 

The elected always have many excuses for not supporting what the American people, especially their own supporters, want.

What most Americans want is a properly managed, safe and fiscally sound country with equal opportunities, jobs, homes, food, education, health care and some sort of security for their current lifestyles and future.

The most powerful country in history should be able to provide for every American with so much left over that they can help other less fortunate countries.

Yet we have record numbers of Americans with no jobs, losing their homes, living rough, not enough food or heat, children and animals abandoned and no hope that things will get better. 

We are in a Depression or Recession or what ever you want to call it with a record deficit.

How did we get there?  Why are we there?  Why have our elected representatives and officials done so little for ordinary people when they (actually the taxpayers) can bail out the very rich companies which caused the crash?  Why do they refuse to write new, stiffer regulations or enforce current law to prevent further crashes?

Why are we running wars all over the planet?  Why do we need over 800 military installations throughout the world?  Why are we the policemen of the world?

Why do the terrorists hate us so much?

The health-care-bill battle has exposed more than our Establishment realizes.  Senators especially showed us why nothing gets done that We the People want.

Senators are members of a privileged club constantly raising money for their next elections and cutting deals with each other to satisfy their contributors.  They are even too indebted to lobbyists to hire independent researchers; they hire specialists from the lobbies and spout lobbyist-prepared policy statements without attribution.  

So who are the real deciders of policy?  With such a setup, how could independent thinking survive?  And how could we get decisions that benefit ordinary citizens or the country?

In the end, the taxpayers (otherwise known as suckers) will pay the bills.  

Only citizen taxpayers could be on the verge of a grand revolt and they could succeed in time if they unite--unite and fight. 

Republicans already are in the process of redefining their party to reflect its more Conservative base.  They claim they will choose candidates who reflect the views of its base and will purge the party of those who do not--even currently elected officials.

This is their response to the Bush years of disillusionment ending in false Conservatism, wars, corporate bailouts, a record deficit, loss of power and fractured policies.  Bush just opened the kitty jar and let the neocons and corporates plunder.

Tea Parties and FreedomWorks, i.e., have grown from Conservatives' disillusionment with Bush's big government in an attempt to take the country back to basic values.

Democrats, on the other hand, thought they had taken the country and its government back to democratic, liberal and progressive principles and policies in the 2008 election.

Instead they got the brushoff from the President who prefers a new breed of politician--the New Dems (corporatists, neo-liberals and Democratic Leadership Council followers who were thought to have been defeated with Hillary Clinton).  He also likes Joe Lieberman (Independent) more than he likes regular Democrats, Progressives and Liberals.

The health-care bill debacle in the Senate has shown that the President is only interested in pleasing these few New Dems like Senators Bayh, Landrieu, Nelson along with Lieberman who claim to be moderate centrists. 

He has given up working with Republicans like Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins.

If the President had wanted a public option or a Medicare buy in, he would have put the bill through Congress by reconciliation when a simple majority of Democrats would pass the legislation. 

What the President wants is a deal, any deal. 

Though there are some benefits for the public in the Senate health-care bill which will probably pass, it is a massive giveaway to the health care industry corporations (20-30 million new, mandated customers and no cost controls).

Republicans are not the only ones furious about this bill.

The President himself has received almost $40 million in contributions from the health care industry as have all the New Dems and most of Congress.  

They are voting their pockets and not for the common good.  

We are not getting strong banking controls, because 14 freshman New Dems have been given unheard of privileged membership on the powerful House Finance Committee.  Why?  They vote with the Republicans to defeat every effort to control the wayward finance industry.

These New Dems are reaping the corporate contribution harvest that has been the preserve of corporatist Republicans.  The DNC under Obama's leadership prefers them.  

As far as raising campaign money, the New Dems and Obama have it made.  Since they are in power, they will outstrip the Republicans and drown the regular Democrats whom they see as useless wimps except when it comes to voting.

Progressives, Liberals, unions among a few are furious and could find the guts to revolt on the health care bill.  

Many of the great centrist moderates like Michael M Daley, Chairman of the Midwest Board of J P Morgan Chase/Bank One, have accused the "balky" of wrecking the Democratic party, splitting its majority (no mention of Bayh, Landrieu, Nelson or Lieberman of doing the same to benefit corporations), undermining the President and undermining his health care bill. 

Daley is the brother of Chicago's mayor Richard J Daley, a member of the boards of Boeing (defense), Merck (drugs) and Boston Properties.   He served as Secretary of Commerce under Clinton, managed Albert Gore's unsuccessful Presidential campaign and was Special Counsel in the formation of NAFTA (dear to union hearts). 

Yes, the Establishment is worried that the majority of the Democratic Party will stop being toadies.  They could even defeat the health care bill and make Obama's term even more difficult than the Republicans are.

And one of these days, the 99.99% of Americans who are not part of the Establishment or Ruling Class will realize that they are getting nothing back from the politicians they elect except more grief, death and taxes.

The country is almost completely socialized now to benefit big corporations at taxpayer expense.

What happened to the common good?

Political activists who are Republicans, Democrats, Centrists and Independents have decided that it is time to talk and perhaps pool resources to get power back to the people.  A good example is below:  



Libertarians on Establishment Demonization
by Jane Hamsher, Tuesday December 29, 2009, 1:15 PM, www.firedoglake.com

 

Libertarian Michael Ostralenk of the Campaign for Liberty helped put together the coalition that signed the December 2 CAF letter opposing the Bernanke reappointment until the Federal Reserve had been audited. It was signed by myself, Robert Borosage, Dean Baker, Chris Bowers, Adam Green, James Galbraith, Tyler Durden and Tiffiniy Cheng (who blogs over at the Seminal today).

It was also signed by Matt Kibbe of FreedomWorks, Duane Parde of the National Taxpayers Union, Larry Greenley of the The John Birch Society and yes, Grover Norquist.

He writes today of the hostility that greeted my letter with Norquist that called for an investigation before more funds were allocated to Freddie Mac (which happened the following day), and compares it to the response on the right that greeted anti-war libertarians:

At least the attacks on Jane from the left, which I will call the Establishment left are for the most part not as bad (yet) as the attacks by the establishment right against the libertarian and paleo-conservative right during the second gulf war. I have not seen her called a traitor or unpatriotic but its interesting to note that the establishment on both sides of the aisle share mostly the same perspectives on the ‘how’ of politics and they both have similar means of either dismissing voices outside of their mainstream or of attempting to co-op them.

>
The Obama Administration and their allies in Congress are not socialists as they are commonly derided as being by the right wing press. At least not in terms of the policies they have been promoting to date. If the medical reform bill that just passed the Senate is any indication of their political preferences, I would have to use the word ‘corporatists’ with a liberal bent to better describe them. They don’t call for State control of the means of production, and they obviously do not take kindly to a free market or even a freer market, but they support establishing significant government control over business and labor in collusion with labor and big business interests. It’s nothing new, it’s pretty much a continuation and expansion of the policies under Bush the Younger.

He’s right that the corporatist politicians who dominate both parties are equally hostile to grassroots activists on both sides who challenge the money train. But I would argue that Robert Cruickshank’s response to Glenn Greenwald was correct: the right, whose numbers are relatively small and whose views are generally far outside of the main stream, has dominated politics for the past 30 years because they made an alliance with the corporations. It’s only natural that Democrats have sought power by replicating that model, even at the price of destroying the illusion that they’re the “party of the people” and fracturing the support that put Obama in office.

The Democrats are trying to secure their political ascendance by tying up the money, no different than Tom DeLay did. But whereas the Democratic Party represented a net to collect and unite those disaffected with the kleptocracy of George Bush, the actions of the Democrats since securing the White House this time around have dimmed the hopes that the Democrats present a real alternative.

The Bush Republicans flogged social issues in order to obviate the need for populist economic measures. They satisfied the base by treating them to a banquet of God, guns and gays while they looted the taxpayer trough. The Democrats, however, are making a sacrifice play on social issues and enabling corporatism by triangulating against their own base. Thus, so-called “fiscally conservative” Blue Dogs can justify a radical vote forcing people to pay almost as much to private insurance companies as they do in federal taxes because it strikes a blow against pro-choice women. Likewise, the White House positioned themselves as “centrist” after the widely popular public option was dispensed with, simply because it was something “liberals” seemed to want too.

What they’re forcing, however, is a situation where there is no place for populist liberal discontent to rationally go. The Democrats assume that the “base” will stay with them because the President is popular and the GOP is worse, but the GOP was never able to achieve the kind of raid on the public sphere that the Democrats are enabling in the health care bill. Social Security privatization was defeated because the Democrats joined with unions, blogs and other liberal institutions to oppose it. The Republicans were never successful in channeling Social Security taxes into the coffers of Wall Street.

The annual individual contribution to Social Security is 6.2%, to a maximum of $6,621 per year for someone making $106,800. But the health care bill passed by the Senate mandates that 8% of your annual income be channeled to private insurance companies, and the cap is the cost someone is willing to pay for a policy. Thus, as Marcy notes, a family of 4 making $66,800 per year will be mandated to pay $5,243 for a policy that only covers 70% of their medical expenses. But the average cost of an insurance policy for a family of four right now is $13,375 per year.

The cost of that plan is not going to go down if the Senate bill passes — in fact, it will continue to increase at an average rate of $1,000 per year. The only difference this bill will make is that people from 130% to 400% of poverty level on the individual market (12% of the population) will get some assistance from the government in buying those policies in the form of subsidies. But that money will still go straight to insurance companies.

As Marcy noted the other day:

I understand the temptation to offer 30 million people health care. What I don’t understand is the nonchalance with which we’re about to fundamentally shift the relationships of governance in doing so.

George Bush couldn’t pull off the great Social Security robbery because of opposition from the left. But Obama has neutralized liberal institutional pushback by locking them in the veal pen, holding EFCA hostage to sideline the unions and relying on his own personal magnetism to keep member organizations like MoveOn or the Sierra Club from making a strong move without fracturing their own ranks.

With no place to go for refuge from corporatist entrenchment, populist opposition from the left and right will continue to have no choice but to work together in order to oppose it.

No doubt the demonization for doing so from party loyalists on both sides who don’t want their control of the kleptocracy to be challenged will only get more fierce.

Why the Public Option (or Medicare buy-in) Was Always Dead in the Water


Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D, ND) announced that he had 60 votes to prevent a filibuster on the ObamaCare health care bill and will call a Senate vote before Christmas--unless someone like Senator Joseph Lieberman (I, CT) changes his or her mind about supporting it.

Reid is optimistic that no one will defect from cloture as generous deals were cut with rebels like Senator Mary Landrieu (D, LA) who received $300 million in Medicaid funds for Louisiana in exchange for her vote and she is now a prime defender of ObamaCare.

Senator Ben Nelson (D, NV) will receive undisclosed millions in Medicaid subsidies for Nevada and he was allowed to further restrict women's access to abortions through insurance in the bill.
 
Pennsylvania, New York and Vermont were also big winners in receiving awards of undisclosed millions of Medicaid subsidies which explains their Senators' vehemence in attacking anyone who questions ObamaCare.

It appears that supporters of ObamaCare have made support for ObamaCare a "sanity" test leaving most Americans branded as "insane". 

That cannot surprise anyone given Landrieu's incoherent attack on America's majority who support the public option--as not being smart enough to know the public option is not free.

Medicaid benefits for only certain States could well become a very serious issue for the States that do not benefit. 

Accommodation to the current winners will cut into Medicaid's shaky budget.  Giving the same benefits to all States could well destabilize Medicaid or bankrupt it and the poorest of Americans depend on Medicaid.

Since most of the deals are secret, there are no accurate budget numbers yet. 

The bill mandates that, from 2014, 30 million Americans must buy health care insurance from private insurers or a limited non-profit policy managed by private insurance companies.  The latter option will only be available in States which permit it since States negotiate and award operation franchises to insurance companies for their States.

The standard argument for the admittedly-flawed bill is that 30 million uninsured will have health insurance.  No mention that they will pay for it or of the 20 million who will not be covered. 

Defenders of ObamaCare claim any problems can be tweaked later.

ObamaCare advocates (New Dems/Conservatives) and apologists (Progressives/Liberals) refuse to answer why they cannot or will not produce a good bill or pass the best parts in increments. 

They insist on an all-or-nothing NOW doomsday scenario.

Undeserving Republicans, who have contributed nothing positive to the debate, have been given a gift that will keep giving.  They expect to claim many Congressional seats and Governorships because of ObamaCare.

Whatever happens, Americans will have to pay for the bill with or without tweaking.  Americans are smart enough to understand that.

Americans are also smart enough to be angry.  They were asked to support health care reform and lured by the possibilities of a single-payer option, a public option or a Medicare buy-in with the qualifying age lowered to 55.

Many are still stunned by the exclusions and/or hope that the House will reinstate them.  That is not possible. 

They are smart enough to know there is NO REFORM in ObamaCare, but now 30 million citizens will be forced to buy insurance from private companies or be fined or go to jail.  Over 20 million are left uninsured.

Creator of the House's Stupak Amendment, Rep Bart Stupak (D, MI), has said he will NOT accept Nelson's cave in on abortions.  Planned Parenthood opposes both parts of the House and Senate versions and the Catholic Church want stronger anti-abortion legislation. 

The list of disputees grows.

Unions are unhappy, because the rich or health care industry companies will not be taxed (as in the Baucus bill); however their members will be taxed if they have the so-called "cadillac" insurance policies which include their families.

The rich and corporations avoid tax; workers and the middle class (if it still exists) pay it.

ObamaCare assures that no one with a pre-existing condition can be refused health care insurance or be dropped, but they and older Americans can be charged up to 300% of standard policies (3 to 1 or, i.e., $30,000 instead of $10,000). 

How much of an insurance gift is a 300% limit if there are no cost controls on base prices?  Prices will be set by an insurance industry committee.  

Senator Kent Conrad (D, ND) has already threatened that the House "had better return" the Senate version of ObamaCare after their joint negotiating conference committee meets or the Senate will NOT approve the final version. 

Then what is the point of negotiating the two bills?  Oh, I forgot.  Stupak wants more restrictions on women.

Evidently, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi will be wasting her time conferencing especially since there are four members on the committee, beholden to the insurance industry, and they have vetoes. 

Two things that are obvious to all from the Senate debacle is that our system is a mess and we are ruled by an indescribable lot of clowns in both parties.

Why was the public option (or Medicare buy-in) always dead in the water?

A clue might be in the fact that President Barack Obama has raised more health care contributions for himself than any other member of the 111th Congress, 1989-2009 (according to Jane Hamsher's research,
www.firedoglake.com). 

His grand total is $39,064,681.  His wife is a former Vice President of Community Affairs at the University of Chicago Hospitals and Clinics.  

Senator John McCain is second highest in health care contributions with a paltry $17,803,644; Senators John Kerry third and Arlen Specter fourth. 
 
The best write up on "How health lobbyists influenced reform bill (Former staffers of lawmakers from Harry Reid to Mitch McConnell push clients' agenda)" can be read on my 
Health Care page or at
www.chicagotribune.com/health/chi-health-lobbyists_bddec20,0,4862599.story.

Our rulers, the lobbyists and the health care providers have made out like bandits and the taxpayers will pay.

Taxpayers have no advocates in government.  We are on our own.

Unless the Tea Party and protest movements grow to include ALL Americans. 


Susan's Views http://www.susansviews.com  

ObamaCare: "the plan the President wanted all along", Senator Russ Feingold (D, WI)

All the recent independent polls taken show the American public does NOT favour the current (section changes yet to be written) Senate bill since it dropped both single-payer or public option and Medicare buy-in.  The public opposes mandated insurance purchases from private insurers.  Failure to buy is punished by a fine or jail.

The bill delivers a bonanza of 30 million mandated clients to the insurance industry and contains no cost controls.

The Brian J Dorgan (D, NV) bill, which would have allowed Americans to re-import drugs bought by the Canadian government under their lower negotiated rates, was defeated 51-49 after a vigorous White House campaign to prevent it reaching 60 which would have avoided filibuster. 

It is alleged that the White House was trying to protect the deal it negotiated in private with PhRMA to maintain pharmaceutical prices in return for its not opposing the health care bill.

Congressman Michael Burgess (R, TX), who is a doctor and founder/chairman of the House Health Care Caucus, has demanded the White House turn over any written contracts or data on its deal with PhRMA. 

Democrat Henry Waxman (CA), chairman of the House Committee of Oversight and Government Reform, also demanded to see any such documents.

Republican threats of time-consuming procedural moves and filibuster forced Senator Bernard Sanders (I, VT) to withdraw his single-payer bill from having a vote. 

The Republican Senators have opposed all health care reform in a solid block assisted by Senators Joseph Lieberman (I, CT) and Ben Nelson (D, NE).  Nelson demands absolute prevention of any funding for abortions.

Respected Progressive Dr Howard Dean, former Chairman of the Democratic National Committee, called for the bill to be killed or stripped down to its good parts and sent back to the House for conference revision.  He noted that the bill was in no way health care reform.

Representatives of the White House made serious mistakes in calling Dean "insane", "irrational" and a "spoiler" among other things.  Their strategy backfired among Democrats, the public and the media.

Unhappy Progressives who had fought hard for a single-payer or public option with a Medicare buy-in and without a mandate were galvanized into fighting the current bill which they feel conceded too much to the corporate New Dems and Conservative Democrats.

Two of America's largest unions concur with Dean and told President Obama to live up to his campaign promises and send the bill back to the House "or else".

The Senate health care battle has publicly broken open the Democratic Party disputes between the Progressives and the White House over multiple issues including the economy, healthcare, jobs, the Afghanistan war surge, etc.

Game playing and grandstanding in the Senate has soured voters on health care reform and lowered public respect for it to a new low--hard to believe it could have gone lower. 

People across the spectrum believe the system is broken and this Administration is not doing enough to fix it.

The public sees only corporations prospering and gaming the system.  Individuals are suffering without help.

The majority of Americans polled now say they want the current Senate bill killed and, since it is identified in the public mind as ObamaCare, Obama's ratings are suffering badly. 

Three other factors affecting Obama's plummeting ratings are the economy, budget deficit and no jobs--the very issues Obama promised to improve in his Presidential campaign.  

Progressives want solutions that help citizens and do not only benefit large corporations--the crux of their argument against the health care bill and Obama's policies.

It was interesting to see the amount of pressure put on all Senate Democrats to support the bill despite admissions that it is flawed by former President Clinton, the Democratic Leadership Council wing, New Dems, Conservative Dems and the White House spokespersons.

They urge passing it flaws and all as it is our last chance to get health care reform; the flaws can be tweaked later.

Even one of the major stumbling blockers Senator Mary Landrieu (D, LA), who opposed health care reform and received $300 million for her state from the White House to support the new bill, defended the bill by attacking the public. 

She claims that high poll ratings for the public option is simply that "They don't understand they have to pay for it.  They think is free."

In other words, the public is stupid and venal.

She could not explain why insurance and pharmaceutical stocks are skyrocketing since the ObamaCare modifications were leaked to the public since she claims the two industries are still battling against health care reform with a war chest of $600 million.

They are not still battling.  Both industries have exactly what they want with Obamacare--30 million new mandated clients and no cost controls.  Future billions of dollars for $600 million is a really good deal.   

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D, NV) plans on having a vote Christmas Eve on the bill, but lacks 60 Senators at this point to prevent a filibuster.  Lieberman and Nelson are still "no" voters and no Republican will support it.

White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel boasts that all Liberals are on board as they would not dare risk this last chance at health care reform.

If Reid does get the votes to pass the Senate bill, ObamaCare will be sent to the House of Representatives for Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D, CA) to meld it into the House bill early next year.  

The House bill is thought to be better by Dean, the unions and Progressives.  

At this point, Pelosi is the only person who can get an acceptable health care bill passed.  

She has also put the President on notice that he will have to "convince" her to support his requests for money to pay for the Afghanistan war surge. 

All Democrats are relying on Pelosi to get their programs through and Progressives/Liberals hope she will exact a price on their behalf. 

Fortunately, her political skills are growing and may match those of the sorely-needed late Speaker and President Lyndon Baines Johnson. 

The honeymoon is over for President Obama.



Susan's Views http://www.susansviews.com/

Lieberman, 'de facto' President of the USA

Living in London, I have clearly missed a critical national election or several extraordinary interim appointments of individuals empowered to act as President of the USA in his absence. 

Many reliable sources have verified that the White House (muscleman Rahm Emanuel) has ordered the Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (NV) to give Independent Senator Joseph Lieberman (CT) whatever he wants in the health care bill to get it passed. 

Giving Lieberman what he wants means removing any link to Medicare, a public option or, in fact, any health care bill which does not significantly increase the profits of the insurance industry which he represents.

This shameless senator and his wife openly tout their lobbying and contributions from the CT insurance industry.

Evidently, the Senate ethics rules do not apply to this Senator who gives "corruption" a new meaning. 

The Connecticutt Democratic Party purged Lieberman for not representing their state and party.  He ran as an Independent and was elected. 

Over 80% of 'polled' national Democrats want Lieberman removed from the Democratic Caucus and disciplined for his wrecking tactics.

The President has refused.  In fact, he appears to have appointed Lieberman the 'de facto' President of the USA.

And I thought Sarah Palin was our only "Being There"*.

Susan's Views http://www.susansviews.com

Abu Dhabi Relents and Loans Dubai World $10 Billion

During the weeks of uncertainty, Godolphin and Dubai representatives of Sheikh Mohammed assured the racing community that the problems of Nakeel (a subsidiary corporation of Dubai World) would not affect his racing operation nor would it affect MGM's bid to run Aqueduct's racino

It will not affect  the Emirates National Oil Company takeover of Dragon Oil, London-listed £2.3 billion Caspian Sea producer.

Citizens of Dubai and the UAE have been hurt and shocked at the media frenzy which exaggerated the liquidity problems of Dubai World and portrayed the country as being in free fall.

Much of that frenzy appears to have been generated by Rupert Murdoch's various international media operations.  The Times of London in particular skewed their reports to exclude positive reports from official international financial services organisations. 

Instead it published comments from dissident British former Dubai residents and Durham University professors who called for Sheikh Mohammed's removal from office.

Murdoch has several country leaders on his hit list and he is using his media against Barach Obama, Gordon Brown, Silvio Berlusconi and now Sheikh Mohammed. 

He published Sarah Palin's book and is financing her sales/political-campaign tour through his media enterprises, i.e., Fox News, and employees.

Dubai World had the $4.1 billion on hand which was due today for payment and is meeting with bank creditors to negotiate a standstill on debt.  It will eventually sell some of its foreign assets.

Abu Dhabi loaned Dubai World a further $10 billion to cover Dubai World's business needs until the end of April and bills owed to creditors and contractors.  

Confidence had returned to the Middle Eastern markets last week, but they jumped 10% yesterday after Abu Dhabi's announcement. 

The delay in making the loan and an odd, early announcement that Abu Dhabi would not temporarily cover the debt has damaged both Dubai's and the UAE's credit worthiness. 

One has to wonder why it took the oil-rich Emirate so long to change its mind. 
 

Susan's Views http://www.susansviews.com

"Obama's Chore"*

Worldwide coverage of President Obama's speech outlining his policy decisions on Afghanistan, Pakistan and terrorist movements in the Middle and Near East has almost-universally claimed that he now owned "Obama's War". 

*Bob Cesca, writing in the Huffington Post, disagreed and quite rightly called it "Obama's Chore".

How anyone could think the grey-faced Obama wanted to claim a war and set time lines for withdrawal to coincide with U.S. elections just so that he could be re-elected is beyond comprehension. 

Also beyond comprehension are Republican charges that Obama's announcing a targeted time line for withdrawal would both endanger U.S. forces and/or simply prompt the Taliban (they seem to have forgotten Al-Qaida and Osama Bin Laden in their attacks) to lay low and then move to Somalia or Yeman once the U.S. troops left the area.

Either U.S. troops will be endangered by a revitalized Taliban or they will have an easy time until they train Afghani police and militia before they depart.

As to the Taliban, they will not leave their homeland.  The departure of Al-Qaida and Bin Laden anywhere far away from the nuclear weapons in Pakistan would be very good news indeed.

Yeman is not a likely option for refuge given the pasting the Saudi forces just gave the Yemenis who invaded their southern borders.  Further, it has been rumoured that Bin Laden has an agreement with the Wahhabis to stay away from Saudi Arabia.

Another ridiculous charge is that a very inexperienced and naive Obama dangerously delayed his decisions so that the enemy would have the advantage to build up forces and U.S. troops would not be ready to depart for months.

Those of us Americans who live in Europe have heard for months of increased unmanned drone attacks in the border area of AfPak (Pashtun territory), 500 or more CIA agents arriving in Afghanistan and secret Blackwater "black opps" apparently doing or preparing for something.

Today, the Marines landed in operation "Cobra Anger" to support the beleagured British troops in Helmand province which is the Taliban's southern base.   

According to Lt. Col. Martin Wetterauer, their purpose is to "cut off enemy supply and communication lines to the north".
 
The President kept his election promises to escalate U.S. troop departures from Iraq and to do something about Afghanistan. 

It appears that the inexperienced and naive Obama has played a very successful game of cat and mouse with both the enemy in AfPak and the neocons of the Republican Party and New Dems who were so critical of his "dithering".

It appears that the "dithering" was actually fine tuning a surge with the support of 7,000 NATO troops (and more after the January NATO meeting).

Now he has to deal with those in his own Party who want the U.S. out of Afghanistan and those Democrats will have to deal with his cunning fait accompli.

Respected journalist Dan Rather, recently returned from Afghanistan which he visited many times, summed it up to the BBC:  "It's a gambol; it can work, but it's a gambol".  

If it can work, you can bet the Marines will make sure it does. 

Susan's Views http://www.susansviews.com

"The Wrecking Crew"

I fully endorse Mr Black's view of the Wrecking Crew in the following article and agree with his advice. 

I have the dubious honour of having had Milton Freidman as an advisor at the University of Chicago.  He fully explained his market-based model to me. 

My objection to the model, as I explained to him, was that there was no place for people except for the predators at the top of the market.  He did not deny it, but instead suggested I was a Keynesian. 

We have seen country after country brought to near destruction by supply-side economics, Freidmanomics, Reaganomics, Thatcheromics and the Clinton/Bush globalomics. 

George Herbert Walker Bush rightly called it "voo-doo economics" and he lived to see his son destroy America's economy and international standing with it. 

Is there any wonder that China will not pick up any more of U.S. debt?

William K. Black

Assoc. Professor, Univ. of Missouri, Kansas City; Sr. regulator during S&L debacle
Posted: November 23, 2009 10:43 AM on Huffington Post

Tom Frank's book, The Wrecking Crew explains how the Bush administration destroyed effective government and damaged our social fabric and our economy. The Obama administration has chosen to reward two of the worst leaders of Bush's crew -- Geithner and Bernanke -- with promotion and reappointment. Embracing the Wrecking Crew's most destructive members has further damaged the economy and caused increasing political and moral injury to the administration.

Last week was a bad one for Geithner and Bernanke. Senator Dodd said that Bernanke's confirmation was no longer a done deal. The House Financial Services Committee revolted against the administration, the Fed, and Chairman Barney Frank. It voted for a strong bill to audit the Fed. Senate Banking Chairman Schumer went to a conference at Columbia University -- where a generation of students salivated at the prospects of Wall Street wealth -- and was overwhelmed by an audience denouncing the continuing stranglehold of the finance industry over successive administrations and the Congress. Neither Barney's blarney nor Schumer's schmooze was any avail before an outraged public.

The administration promptly secured a column in the Washington Post claiming that the effort to fire Geithner "buoy[ed]" him because, as the subtitle to the article explained: "Even ex-Bush aides sympathetic, sources say." The article didn't note that Geithner is an "ex-Bush" senior official who, with his fellow "ex-Bush aides" (particularly Bernanke and Paulson) produced a chain of disasters: the bubble, an "epidemic of mortgage fraud" by lenders, the Great Recession, and the scandalous TARP and AIG bailouts. Of course they're "sympathetic" to a fellow member of the Wrecking Crew that destroyed effective regulation and turned the nation over to Wall Street. The craziest part of the story is that the anonymous Obama administration flack that spread this anecdote believes that we should support Geithner because his fellow members of the Bush Wrecking Crew empathize with him because they, too, have been criticized for wrecking the economy.

The Washington Post article then offers a metaphor that serves as an apology for the Bush Wrecking Crew. The metaphor is driving over a cliff: "'Secretary Geithner has helped steer the American economy back from the brink, and is now leading the effort on financial reform,' White House spokeswoman Jen Psaki said." Geithner pushed back against Republicans who questioned his performance, telling them, "you gave this president an economy falling off the cliff."

You? How about we? Bush's financial Wrecking Crew "gave this president an economy falling off the cliff." Geithner was President of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York from October 23, 2003 until President Obama chose him as his Treasury Secretary. He was supposed to be the lead regulator of many of the largest bank holding companies. His failures as a regulator were a major cause of the "economy falling off the cliff." Bernanke held prominent positions in the Bush administration from 2002 to the end of the administration and failed as a regulator an economist. Geithner and Bernanke failed to regulate even after the FBI publicly warned in September 2004 that (1) there was an "epidemic" of mortgage fraud and (2) it would lead to a financial crisis if it were not contained. Their refusal to take responsibility for the harm they inflicted on our nation as leaders of Bush's financial Wrecking Crew adds to their unsuitability. Rewarding their perennial failures with a promotion and reappointment represents a dereliction of duty by the Obama administration.

The administration apologists praise Geithner and Bernanke for "steer[ing] the American economy back from the brink." Greenspan, Paulson, Bernanke, and Geithner were the leaders of Bush's financial Wrecking Crew. They were the guys blinded by their pro-Wall Street ideology that drove the car 120 mph down an icy mountain road and lost control of it. They took us to the "brink" of running "off the cliff" and creating the Second Great Depression. The bizarre claim is that we should praise them because they, and Wall Street, only wrecked the economy -- they haven't (yet) utterly destroyed it. Under their metaphor, we're supposed to cheer Geithner and Bernanke because once they finally figured out that they were careening toward the cliff, they decided to sideswipe a row of trees in order to avoid going over the edge. They wrecked the car but they walked away from the crash without a scratch. If your teenager gets drunk, speeds, crashes into a school bus (injuring dozens of kids), and flips the Ford Focus -- but walks away from the crash -- you don't praise him, give him the keys to the family minivan, and have him drive the soccer team to practices. You take all the keys away from him and ground him.

The Obama administration promoted Bush's architects of the financial disaster and demands that we hail them as heroes. President Bush was ridiculed for saying: "Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job." FEMA administrator Michael Brown stood by while Hurricane Katrina reduced a single large city to ruin. Geithner and Bernanke stood by while scores of large cities were devastated. 

I suggest that we will build on the momentum we've achieved on the Fed audit by making the following issues our near term financial priorities:

Can the Wrecking Crew. Fire the senior leaders of Bush's and Clinton's financial Wrecking Crews and stopping treating them as financial experts. President Obama should not reappoint Bernanke as Fed Chairman. He should dismiss Geithner and Summers and cease to take any advise from Rubin. Replace them with the Reconstruction Crew -- people with a track record of getting things right and being effective economists, regulators, and prosecutors. Members of Bush's financial Wrecking Crew run far too many regulatory agencies, often as "Actings." They can, and should, be replaced promptly.

  1. End "too big to fail." These banks are "systemically dangerous institutions" (SDIs). They should not be allowed to grow. They should be shrunk to the point that they no longer pose systemic risk, and they should be subject to vigorous regulation while shrinking. They are too big to manage and too big to regulate. They are ticking time bombs that will cause recurrent global crises as long as they are SDIs.
  2. More white-collar watchdogs. Adopt Representative Kaptur's proposal to provide the FBI with at least 1000 additional white-collar specialists. Senator Durbin and (then) Senator Obama made a similar proposal several years ago.
  3. No more executive compensation looting. End the perverse executive compensation systems that reward failure and fraud. The private sector has made compensation worse since the crisis. Modern executive compensation creates a virtually perfect crime -- "accounting control fraud" (looting a company for personal profit). Until we fix the perverse incentives of executive compensation we will have recurrent epidemics of fraud and global financial crises.
  4. Kill TARP and PPIP. Use the funds to help honest homeowners that would otherwise lose their homes because of predatory loan terms.
  5. Make the Federal Reserve System public. It is a largely private structure that creates intense conflicts of interest and ensures that it is controlled by the systemically dangerous institutions. We have already decided that such a structure is inherently improper. The Federal Home Loan Bank System was set up along the same institutional lines and suffered from the same conflicts of interest. Congress ordered an end to these conflicts in the 1989 FIRREA legislation. It should end private control of the Fed.
  6. Defeat any proposal to make the Fed the "Uberregulator." The Fed, for inherent institutional reasons, is unsuited to be the "systemic risk regulator." The Fed has never cared about regulation. The Fed cares about monetary policy and (theoclassical) economic theory and research. Regulation is, at best, a tertiary concern. Its economists wrote frequently about systemic risk -- but missed the obvious, massive systemic risk of the financial bubble and the epidemic of accounting control fraud. Its policies intensified rather than restricting systemic risk. Theoclassical economists have no effective theories (or policies) to deal with bubbles or epidemics of accounting control fraud. Greenspan, Bernanke, and Geithner epitomize the Fed's inability to recognize or reduce systemic risk. Their policies consistently increased systemic risk. Greenspan didn't believe that the Fed should act against fraud. Geithner testified before Congress that he had never been a regulator (a true statement - but one that should have gotten him fired rather than promoted). Bernanke praised the subprime loans that caused the crisis and were so often fraudulent.
  7. Ensure a robust CFPA. Sever the Consumer Financial Product Agency portion from the broader (and deeply flawed) regulatory reform bills in the House and Senate and adopt it into law. Revise the broader bill to strip out its many anti-reform provisions.
  8. End the waste of long-term unemployment. Anyone able and willing to work should be employed by the government as an employer of last resort and should help repair our crumbling infrastructure. Paying people to do nothing or allowing them to become homeless (the status quo) is an insane system.
  9. Adopt a 250 billion revenue sharing program. American state and local governments are in economic crisis. They are slashing spending at the worst possible time when their services are most vital and when cutting spending is pro-cyclical and will delay our recovery from the Great Recession. Revenue sharing was a Republican initiative. Republicans and "Blue Dog" Democrats killed the revenue sharing provisions of the administration's proposed Stimulus bill. That was an enormous mistake. The federal government is not like a state government (or a household). It is a sovereign government with its own currency and a central bank. It can - and should - run large deficits during deep recessions, but the states and local governments cannot. Revenue sharing is the ideal answer to the crisis and it is an answer with an impeccable conservative pedigree. State and local governments should come together and demand a program to offset the state and local cutbacks - roughly250 billion. (The Obama administration's claim that reducing the deficit should be a priority - at a time when unemployment has reached tragic levels - is economically illiterate. It repeats the error that FDR made when he listened to conservative economic advisors and slashed the budget deficit during the Great Depression - causing a surge in unemployment and the extension of the depression. The large federal deficits of World War II reversed the policies of his conservative economic advisors and ended the Great Depression. 
    This piece originally appeared on
    New Deal 2.0.

Susan's Views http://www.susansviews.com


Updates on Dubai Debt

SECOND UPDATE:  The International Monetary Fund will monitor the financial negotiations which started November 30 and will help stabilise Dubai's debt situation. 

Surprising that no expert or journalist has mentioned that two of the multiple causes of Dubai's plight is that Arab countries are pegged to the much-devalued US$ and fluctuating oil/gas prices.

The Gulf Council considered changing from US$ to Euros, but did not after considerable pressure from the IMF.  They have all lost a lot of money

.

UPDATE:  Dubai World has lined up Deloitte and Rothschild to represent them next week in renegotiating loan contract payment terms with its lending banks. 

KPMG will represent the lead banks including HSBC, Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS), Lloyd's Banking Group and Standard Chartered.  They expect to form a steering committee of five to six banks to represent the lenders.

Since most of the exposed banks are British, the Financial Services Authority is requesting assurances that UK banks will not suffer huge losses.

The Central Bank of the UAE will monitor progress and has offered emergency aid to any bank needing it so that the nation's financial reputation is protected (which means Abu Dhabi will be involved).

Dubai World has steadfastly refused to be pressured into asset sales of their more valuable properties in the world's current low value climate to pay for the troubled Nakeel (latest word is that Nakeel will meet their December $3.5 billion bond payment).

UK banks have a poor case in some instances in that they made loans on properties which were government-related projects, but not guaranteed by the Dubai governement. 

Again, the banks expect to be bailed out for their greed, failure of due diligence and poor management.

Legally, Sheikh Mohammed or the Dubai government cannot be forced to pay them.  Nor can the National government.

Dubai and the UAE governments are proceeding in good faith to buy time and work out payment problems.

Susan's Views
http://www.susansviews.com

Abu Dhabi: NO Dubai Debt Bailout (Big UK Problem)

ANNOUNCEMENT:  The UAE's richest Emirate Abu Dhabi just announced that it would only back the Sovereign debt of its cousins in Dubai on a case-by-case basis.  This announcement has caused unnecessary panic.


Dubai has just lost the understood 'implicit guarantee' for its Sovereign debt by Abu Dhabi and that damages its credit worthiness as an Emirate.  Why has Abu Dhabi pulled the plug?    

Rumours that Dubai's debt was overextended, rampant over the last few years, have been confirmed by Dubai during the Thanksgiving and Eid holidays (US and Middle Eastern markets closed).

Dubai has asked for a debt moratorium on $50+ billion credit loans for Dubai World which is the government-owned holding company founded in March 2006 to manage four main arms of investment:  transport and logistics, drydocks and maritime, urban development, investment and financial services.

Economists say the first two categories are advanced in structure and in excellent financial condition.  They form the basis of a renewal of and support to Dubai's stature as an international trading hub.

Dubai, like much of the world, expanded its urban development and local financial investment at a time just before the international financial services' industry melted down.

Their debt is not high compared to other countries, but they could be forced to default at a time when many countries' Sovereign funds are under scrutiny.  The Ukraine is the top of the suspect list and the State of California (USA) is number 10.

Complicating matters is that the Ruler of Dubai, Sheikh Mohammed, holds a majority stake in Dubai World.  His personal (business-related) debt added on is said to extend the Dubai debt to $80+ billion.

Dubai has been criticised for a lack of transparency in not revealing the debt situation sooner.  Markets lost billions of dollars over the holiday with the 'shock' news.

'Shock' is disingenuous; it is just more mismanagement of international financial markets.

RBS, HSBC and the Standard Bank hold most of the debt which will mean that British taxpayers will be stung for the losses in these bailed-out banks if a solution is not found. 

Many of the top executives of Dubai-based companies are British and could lose their jobs.

Thousands of British jobs, especially in the racing industry, and a huge chunk of British gross national product are dependent on Dubai and its Royal Family.

In the end, Britain needs to be smart, agree to a moratorium and work with Sheikh Mohammed to sort the mess. 

Part of Dubai's problem is simply timing.  Prime Minister Gordon Brown is smart enough to understand that.  

Dubai is one of the most exciting country developments in the world engineered by a marketing genius.  It should NOT be allowed to fail. 

Susan's Views http://www.susansviews.com

"Being There"*

There are many things to worry about instead of the GOP's nuclear option Sarah Palin (better known as "Being There"*).
 
Though it is disturbing that she and her book are being "handled" or "run" by Rupert Murdoch's worldwide business/political empire (he is her publisher), there are many more important things to consider.

Yes, it is galling that Murdoch's neocon employees Kristol and Rove are scripting "Being There" to inflame disgrunted Americans and isolate middle and left voters through endless attacks in their determination to return to national power.

Yes, it is madness to destroy the Grand Old Party to purify it, marginalize it and leave no other option for those left out than to create a third party.
 
Yes, they are dangerous in encouraging sedition, secession from the Union, defiance of the Constitution and all law, violence, bigotry, racism, classism, elitistism, murder of doctors, undermining and assassinating the President, etc.

Yes, they and their media and blogs spew hate and venom on everyone who is not they especially the 2008 winner Obama.

So what is new?  This is the far right since Nixon's Southern strategy opened GOP arms to the KKK, Dixiecrats and Messianic Evangelicals devoted to the second coming of Christ in Israel, hence their total support of expansionist colonial Zionism (Likud). 

The two Bushes and their dynamic duo, Atwater and Rove, won the Vice Presidency and Presidencies by playing Americans off against other Americans.  It works.

"Divide and conquer."

Problem for them (and us) is that they don't know how to govern once they win elections. 

GWB ignored real Americans until Iraq and the economy fell apart.  He could no longer sustain his and neocon illusions with faith-based 'reality' and turned desperately to the incoming President to stave off U.S. bankruptsy.

President Obama has made successful trips to Japan and China to prevent their calling in our national debt (which they own). 

He has even reached a 'detente' with Russia and is trying to make the right decisions about Afghanistan and the nightmare Middle East. 

He has been left a mess of incomprehensible proportions.  Pity this man.

Despite these overwhelming problems, the most important one the Obama Administration needs to solve is the real suffering of good, ordinary people in America. 

No excuses for ignoring those Americans now that Wall Street and Washington's lobbyists have 'got theirs'. 

The military-industrial-security-oil complex (that President Dwight D Eisenhower warned of as he left the Presidency) seems permanently fixed to getting theirs.

There are many places to cut budgets, resolve debt and return Federal money to American taxpayers so that they can meet their needs. 

Start with the MISO described in TomDispatch's shocking report below:


Tomgram: Nick Turse, Out of Iraq, Into the Gulf

[Note for TomDispatch Readers:  As you undoubtedly have noticed, the TomDispatch website is in the process of being updated.  We're aware that it's a work in progress.  There will be glitches and we'll be correcting, adding, and filling in over the next couple of weeks.  Please be patient. 

Last Tuesday, this site ran an article by Pratap Chatterjee on the endemic nature of corruption and nepotism in Afghanistan, "Paying Off the Warlords."  A related piece by Chatterjee -- a fascinating case study of what a mess American reconstruction efforts are in that country -- has just appeared at the Corpwatch website. Check it out, and while you're at it, take a look at a striking new Corpwatch feature, its "Spies for Hire" database on the private security firms that do for-profit dirty work for the U.S. Intelligence Community. Tom]

So here's the mystery. You have a country that only recently had upwards of 300 military bases, monster to micro, in a single war-torn land, Iraq. It probably now has something like 300 bases combined in Iraq and Afghanistan (where base-building is on the rise). Outside of those war zones, it has perhaps 800 more "facilities" (as they're called) around the globe and thousands more at home. Some of them are absolutely enormous, the equivalent of small American towns with all the amenities of home.

Without a doubt, this represents an accomplishment of some sort. Historically speaking, it's news of the first order. No other great power, from the Han Chinese and the Romans to the British Empire, has ever built so many military outposts in such far-flung places.

So is this empire of bases a matter of pride at home? Hardly. It's rarely thought about. It's not a matter for general discussion or mainstream debate, nor is it news, except on the rarest of occasions (usually when the government threatens to shut down domestic bases and job losses loom). Changes in Pentagon global basing policy are for Washington policy wonks, not ordinary Americans, and certainly not American reporters. From the mainstream media, you get at best a kind of shrug on the subject. Yes, from time to time, you can find a decent piece on an American military base abroad, but normally they are places where American TV reporters can safely set up their cameras and discuss other matters entirely. News about U.S. military bases being built or upgraded in distant lands is usually left to websites like TomDispatch to keep track of.

When it comes to the Middle East, the building of Israeli settlements in East Jerusalem or the West Bank, or of secret nuclear facilities in Iran are major news subjects, but the building up of U.S. base infrastructure in the region?  Not so much. If, for the first time in its history, the U.S. Navy sets up a permanent strike force based in Bahrain in the Persian Gulf, Expeditionary Strike Group 5, remember to check the National, the English-language paper in the United Arab Emirates, for it, not your local rag or the Washington Post, New York Times, or Wall Street Journal. Mind you, we're talking about the U.S. Navy in the Persian Gulf, the unsettled oil and natural gas heartland of the planet, yet not a peep.

A basic principle taught to any young reporter is: "follow the money." A similar principle should apply to U.S. foreign policy reporting: follow the bases. As striking facts-on-the-ground, such bases tell us much about bedrock U.S. policy, whatever the policy debates in Washington. If the mainstream media ignores such bases, TomDispatch has long made it a policy of keeping an eye on them. Recently, Nick Turse, this site's associate editor and the award-winning author of The Complex: How the Military Invades Our Everyday Lives, reported on a story only modestly and partially covered here: the way the Pentagon has been pouring money into building up its base infrastructure in Afghanistan.

Now, he turns to the Persian Gulf region where the news is focused on a future U.S. withdrawal from Iraq. It turns out, however, that we're withdrawing into something -- that, in fact, there's been a massive, if hardly noticed, Pentagon build-up in this region, too. You'd think it might be news. Now, at TomDispatch, thanks to Turse, it is. Tom

The Pentagon Garrisons the Gulf

As Washington Talks Iraq Withdrawal, the Pentagon Builds Up Bases in the Region
By Nick Turse

Despite recent large-scale insurgent suicide bombings that have killed scores of civilians and the fact that well over 100,000 U.S. troops are still deployed in that country, coverage of the U.S. war in Iraq has been largely replaced in the mainstream press by the (previously) "forgotten war" in Afghanistan. A major reason for this is the plan, developed at the end of the Bush years and confirmed by President Obama, to draw down U.S. troops in Iraq to 50,000 by August 2010 and withdraw most of the remaining forces by December 2011.

Getting out of Iraq, however, doesn't mean getting out of the Middle East. For one thing, it's likely that a sizeable contingent of U.S. forces will remain garrisoned on several large and remotely situated U.S. bases in Iraq well past December 2011. Still others will be stationed close by -- on bases throughout the region where, with little media attention since the run-up to the invasion of Iraq in 2003, construction to harden, expand, and upgrade U.S. and allied facilities has gone on to this day.

Appearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee early this year, General David Petraeus, head of the U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM), stated: "The Arabian Peninsula commands significant U.S. attention and focus because of its importance to our interests and the potential for insecurity." He continued:

"[T]he countries of the Arabian Peninsula are key partners... CENTCOM ground, air, maritime, and special operations forces participate in numerous operations and training events, bilateral and multilateral, with our partners from the Peninsula. We help develop indigenous capabilities for counter terrorism; border, maritime, and critical infrastructure security; and deterring Iranian aggression. As a part of all this, our FMS [Foreign Military Sales] and FMF [Foreign Military Financing] programs are helping to improve the capabilities and interoperability of our partners' forces. We are also working toward an integrated air and missile defense network for the Gulf. All of these cooperative efforts are facilitated by the critical base and port facilities that Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, the UAE [United Arab Emirates], and others provide for US forces."

In fact, since 2001 the Pentagon has been pouring significant sums of money into the "critical base and port facilities" mentioned by the general -- both U.S. sites and those of its key regional partners. These are often ignored facts-on-the-ground, which signal just how enduring the U.S. military presence in the region is likely to be, no matter what happens in Iraq. Press coverage of this long-term infrastructural build-up has been remarkably minimal, given the implications for future conflicts in the oil heartlands of the planet. After all, Washington is sending tremendous amounts of military materiel into autocratic Middle Eastern nations and building-up bases in countries whose governments, due to domestic public opinion, often prefer that no publicity be given to the growing American military "footprint."

Given that the current conflict with al-Qaeda stemmed, in no small part, from the U.S. military presence in the region, the issue is obviously of importance. Nonetheless, coverage has been so poor that much about U.S. military efforts there remains unknown. A review of U.S. government documents, financial data, and other open-source material by TomDispatch, however, reveals that an American military building boom yet to be seriously scrutinized, analyzed, or assessed is underway in the Middle East.

Consider, then, what we can at present know now about this Pentagon build-up, country by country from Qatar to Jordan, and while you're reading, think about what we don't know -- and why Washington has chosen this path.

Qatar: The Pentagon's Persian Gulf Pentagon

In 1996, although it had no air force of its own, the Persian Gulf nation of Qatar built Al Udeid Air Base at a cost of more than $1 billion. The goal: attracting the U.S. military. In September 2001, U.S. aircraft began to operate out of the facility. By 2002, tanks, armored vehicles, dozens of warehouses, communications and computing equipment, and thousands of troops were based at and around Al Udeid.  In 2005, the Qatari government spent almost $400 million to build a cutting-edge regional air operations center.

Today, Qatar is all but indispensable to the U.S. military. Just recently, for example, Central Command redeployed 750 personnel from its Tampa, Florida headquarters to its new forward headquarters at Al Udeid to test its "staff's ability to seamlessly transition command and control of operations… in the event of a crisis in the CENTCOM area of responsibility or a natural disaster in Florida."

Qatar has not, however, picked up the whole tab for the expanding U.S. military infrastructure in the country. The Pentagon has also been investing large amounts of money in upgrading facilities there for the last decade. From 2001-2009, the U.S. Army, for example, awarded $209 million in contracts for construction in the energy-rich emirate. In August, Rizzani de Eccher, an Italian engineering and construction giant, signed a $44 million deal with the Pentagon to replace an unspecified facility at Al Udeid. In September, the Department of Defense (DoD) awarded Florida-based IAP Worldwide Services a $6 million contract for "construction of a pre-engineered warehouse building... warehouse bay and related site work and utilities" at the base.

Later in the month, American International Contractors, a global construction firm that specializes in "US-funded Middle East and African infrastructure projects," inked a deal for nearly $10 million to build a Special Operations Forces Training Range, complete with "a two-story shooting house, an indoor range, breach and storage facilities[,] a test fire bunker and bunker road" in Qatar. Just days after that, the Pentagon awarded a $52 million contract to Cosmopolitan–EMTA JV to upgrade the capacity of Al Udeid's airfield by building additional aircraft parking ramps and fuel storage facilities.

Bahrain Base's and Kuwait's Subways

In nearby Bahrain -- a tiny kingdom of 750,000 people -- the U.S. stations up to 3,000 personnel, in addition to regular visits by the crews of Navy ships that spend time there. Between 2001-2009, the Navy awarded $203 million in construction contracts for military projects in the country. One big winner over that span has been the engineering and construction firm Contrack International. It received more than $50 million in U.S. government funds for such projects as building two "multi-story facilities for the U.S. Navy" complete with state-of-the-art communication interfaces and exterior landscaping.

In September 2009, the company was awarded a new $27 million deal "for the design/bid/build construction of the waterfront development program, US Naval Support Activity, Bahrain." This facility will join the Navy's undisputed crown jewel in Bahrain -- a 188,000 square-foot mega-facility known as "the Freedom Souq" that houses a PX or Navy Exchange (NEX). The NEX, in turn, offers "an ice cream shop, bicycle shop, cell phone shop, tailor shop, barber and beauty shops, self-serve laundry, dry cleaning service, rug Souq, nutrition shop, video rental, and a 24/7 mini-mart," while selling everything from cosmetics and cameras to beer and wine.

Work is also going on in nearby Oman where, in the 1930s, the British Royal Air Force utilized an airfield on Masirah Island for its ventures in the Middle East. Today, the U.S. Air Force and members of other service branches do much the same, operating out of the island's Camp Justice. From 2001-2009, the Army and Air Force each spent about $13 million on construction projects in the sultanate. Contractor Cosmopolitan-EMTA JV is now set to begin work there, too, after recently signing a $5 million contract with the Pentagon for an "Expeditionary Tent Beddown" (presumably an area meant to accommodate a potential future influx of forces). Meanwhile, in the neighboring United Arab Emirates, the U.S. Army alone spent $46 million between 2001-2009 on construction projects.

In 1991, the U.S. military helped to push Saddam Hussein's army out of Kuwait. After that, however, the country's leader, Sheikh Jaber al-Ahmed al-Sabah, refused to return home "until crystal chandeliers and gold-plated bathroom fixtures could be reinstalled in Kuwait City's Bayan Palace." Today, about 30 miles south of the plush palace sits another pricey complex. Camp Arifjan grew exponentially as the Iraq War ramped up, gaining notoriety along the way as the epicenter of a massive graft and corruption scandal. Today, the base houses about 15,000 U.S. troops and features such fast-food favorites as Pizza Hut, Hardees, Subway, and Burger King.

Another facility in Kuwait that has become a major stopover point on the road to and from Baghdad is Camp Buehring. Located north of Kuwait City, near the town of Udairi, the installation is chock-a-block full of amenities, including three PXs, telephone centers, two internet cafes, Morale, Welfare and Recreation centers, a movie theater, chapel, gym, volley-ball court, basketball court, concert stage, gift shop, barber shop, jewelry store, and a number of popular eateries including Burger King, Subway, Baskin Robbins, and Starbucks.

Writing about the base recently, Captain Charles Barrett of the 3rd Infantry Division's 3rd Heavy Brigade Combat Team remarked, "There's a USO with computers and a Café. You know the café is good because it has that little mark over the letter 'e.' Soldiers are gaming on XBOX, Play Station and Wii. There are phone banks and board games and a place where parents can read to their kids and have the DVD mailed home."

The price tag for living the big-box-base lifestyle in Kuwait has, however, been steep. From 2003 to 2009, the U.S. Army spent in excess of $502 million on contracts for construction projects in the small, oil-rich nation, while the Air Force added almost $55 million and the Navy another $7 million. Total military spending there has been more massive still. Over the same span, according to U.S. government data, the Pentagon has spent nearly $20 billion in Kuwait, buying huge quantities of Kuwaiti oil and purchasing logistical support from various contractors for its facilities there (and elsewhere), among other expenditures.

In 2006, for example, the international construction firm Archirodon was awarded $10 million to upgrade airfield lighting at Al-Salem and Al-Jaber, two Kuwaiti air bases used by American forces. Recently, there has also been a major scaling up of work at Camp Arifjan. In September, for example, the Pentagon awarded CH2M Hill Contractors a nearly $26 million deal to build a new communications facility on the base. Just days later, defense contractor ITT received an almost $87 million contract for maintenance and support services there.

Saudi Base Building and Jordan's U.S. Army Training Complex

According to a recent Congressional Research Service report, "From 1950 through 2006, Saudi Arabia purchased and received from the United States weapons, military equipment, and related services through Foreign Military Sales (FMS) worth over $62.7 billion and foreign military construction services (FMCS) worth over $17.1 billion." Between 1946 and 2007, the Saudis also benefited from almost $295 million in foreign assistance funding from the U.S. military.

From the lead up to the First Gulf War in 1990 through the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the U.S. military stationed thousands of troops in Saudi Arabia. The American presence in the kingdom -- the location of some of the holiest sites in Islam -- was a major factor in touching off al-Qaeda's current war with the United States. In 2003, in response to fundamentalist pressure on the Saudi government, the U.S. military announced it was pulling all but a small number of trainers out of the country. Yet while many U.S. troops have left, Pentagon contracts haven't -- a significant portion of them for construction projects for the Saudi Arabian military, which the U.S. trains and advises from sites like Eskan Village, a compound 20 kilometers south of Riyadh, where 800 U.S. personnel (500 of them advisors) are based.

Between 2003-2009, the U.S. Army awarded $559 million in contracts for Saudi construction projects. In 2009, for example, it gave a $160 million deal to construction firm Saudi Oger Limited for the construction of facilities for a Saudi mechanized brigade based at Al Hasa, a $127 million contract to Saudi Lebanese Modern Construction Co. to erect structures for the Prince Turki Bin Abdul Aziz Battalion, and an $82 million agreement to top Saudi construction firm Al-Latifia Trading and Contracting Company to build ammunition storage bunkers, possibly at the Saudi Arabian National Guard's Khashm Al An Training Area.

Additionally, military weaponry has continued to flow into Saudi Arabia by way of the Pentagon and so, too, have contracts to provide support services for that materiel. For example, earlier this year, under a U.S. Air Force contract extension, Cubic Corporation was awarded a $9.5 million deal "to continue to operate and maintain the air combat training system used to support F-15 fighter pilot training for the Royal Saudi Air Force."

Like the Saudis, Jordan's leader, King Abdullah II, has long had a complex relationship with the U.S. shaped by domestic concerns over U.S. military action in the region and support for Israel. As with Saudi Arabia, none of that has stopped the U.S. military from forging ever closer ties with the kingdom.

Recently, after testing and evaluating various training systems at multiple U.S. Army bases, the Jordanian Armed Forces selected Cubic's combat training center system and under the auspices of the U.S. Army, the company was "awarded an $18 million contract to supply mobile combat training center instrumentation and training services to the Kingdom of Jordan."

The Pentagon has also invested in Jordanian military infrastructure. Between 2001-2009, the Army awarded $86 million in contracts for Jordanian construction projects. One major beneficiary was again Archirodon which, between 2006-2008, worked on the construction of the King Abdullah II Special Operations Training Center (KASOTC) -- a state-of-the-art military and counter-terrorism training facility owned and operated by the Jordanian government but built, in part, under a $70 million U.S. Army contract. In 2009, Archirodon was awarded two additional contracts for $729,000 and $400,000, by the Air Force, for unspecified work in Jordan.

When that 1,235-acre $200 million Jordanian training center was unveiled earlier this year, King Abdullah II himself gave the inaugural address, speaking "of his vision for KASOTC as a world-class special forces training center." Not surprisingly, General Petraeus was also on hand to give a speech in which he lauded Jordan as "a key partner... [which] has placed itself at the forefront of police and military training for regional security forces."

Garrisoning the Gulf

Even as it lurches toward a quasi-withdrawal from Iraq, the U.S. military has been hunkering down and hardening its presence elsewhere in the Middle East with little fanfare or press coverage. There has been almost no discussion in this country of a host of possible repercussions that might come from this, ranging from local opposition to the U.S. military's presence to the arming of undemocratic and repressive regimes in the region. With the sole exception of Iran, the U.S. military has fully garrisoned the nations of the Persian Gulf with air bases, naval bases, desert posts, training centers, and a whole host of other facilities, while also building up the military capacity of nearby Jordan.

The CIA efforts to topple Iran's government in the 1950s, Washington's support for Saddam Hussein's Iraq in the 1980s, the Pentagon's troop presence in Saudi Arabia in the 1990s -- all were considered canny geopolitical moves in their time; all had unforeseen and devastating consequences. The money the Pentagon has recently been pouring into the nations of the Persian Gulf to bulk up base infrastructure has only tied the U.S. ever more tightly to the region's autocratic, often unpopular regimes, while further arming and militarizing an area traditionally considered unstable. The Pentagon's Persian Gulf base build-up has already cost Americans billions in tax dollars. What the costs in "blowback" will be remains the unknown part of the equation.

Nick Turse is the associate editor of TomDispatch.com and the winner of a 2009 Ridenhour Prize for Reportorial Distinction as well as a James Aronson Award for Social Justice Journalism. His work has appeared in the Los Angeles Times, the Nation, In These Times, and regularly at TomDispatch. Turse is currently a fellow at New York University's Center for the United States and the Cold War. A paperback edition of his book The Complex: How the Military Invades Our Everyday Lives (Metropolitan Books) was published earlier this year. His website is NickTurse.com.

Copyright 2009 Nick Turse


*"Being There" is a Jerzy Kosinski book which he adapted to the screen in 1979 with Peter Sellers playing Chance, a simple-minded Washington, D.C. gardener who was made homeless when his employer died.  He had no education except from  television.  In his wanderings, he encounters powerful political insiders.  Since he only knows what he learned on television, he can only repeat what he heard over the years.  His comments are taken as profound and the political elite enlist his advice on national policies and strategies. 


Susan's Views http://www.susansviews.com