President Bush’s invasion has turned Iraq into a recruiting and training ground for anti-U.S. terrorists, according to CIA Director Porter Goss in testimony before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence on Feb. 16. Goss’ report was supported by Vice Admiral Lowell Jacoby, director of the the Defense Intelligence Agency. Jacoby told the committee that “our policies in the Middle East fuel Islamic resentment.” The Iraq insurgency, Jacoby reported, has grown “in size and complexity over the past year” with daily attacks increasing 240 percent.

The situation, in other words, is out of control. One hundred fifty thousand American troops are tied down by a few thousand lightly armed insurgents. The recent Iraq election was won by Shi’ites allied with Iran. U.S. casualties continue to mount, and our troops can seldom tell friend from foe.

Why isn’t Bush looking for a way out of the greatest strategic blunder in American history? Why, instead, are Bush and his government doing all they can to spread the conflict into Syria and Iran?

The neoconservatives’ goal is the same as Osama bin Laden’s – to spread instability in the Middle East. The neocons seek to foment instability in order to justify more U.S. invasions in an insane quest to remake the Middle East in the American image.

Paul Craig Roberts, Antiwar.com ( more. . .)

The relentless insurgency in Iraq, continuing threats of global terrorism and unsustainable budget deficits require us to end the war on terrorism as we know it. The wreckage of history shows us that you can’t stop violence with violence. As Gandhi said, “an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind.” Middle East wars lead to World Trade Center bombings lead to attacks on Iraq lead to armed resistance lead to assaults on Fallujah leads to insurgent car bombings leads to more crackdowns and assaults.

Staying the course means that we could be locked in the nebulous “war on terror” for the decades, and generations of young people will be pulled into battles that could have been avoided by more skillful means. Programs to help people at home and abroad will be cut further, adding to misery and to conditions that foster terrorism.

The United States should shift from being a superpower resented in many quarters for reckless use of overwhelming military force to become a superpower of compassion. The U.S. military, stretched beyond its limits despite astronomical funding, would have a vital role to play in this new paradigm.

John Friedrich, CommonDreams ( more. . .)

If John Ashcroft was right, then I was staring into the malevolent, duplicitous eyes of pure evil, the eyes of a man with the mass murder of Americans on his mind. But all I could really see was a polite, unassuming, neatly dressed guy who looked like a suburban Little League coach.

If Mr. Ashcroft was right, then Maher Arar should have been in a U.S. prison, not talking to me in an office in downtown Ottawa. But there he was, a 34-year-old man who now wears a perpetually sad expression, talking about his recent experiences - a real-life story with the hideous aura of a hallucination. Mr. Arar’s 3-year-old son, Houd, loudly crunched potato chips while his father was being interviewed.

“I still have nightmares about being in Syria, being beaten, being in jail,” said Mr. Arar. “They feel very real. When I wake up, I feel very relieved to find myself in my room.”

In the fall of 2002 Mr. Arar, a Canadian citizen, suddenly found himself caught up in the cruel mockery of justice that the Bush administration has substituted for the rule of law in the post-Sept. 11 world. While attempting to change planes at Kennedy Airport on his way home to Canada from a family vacation in Tunisia, he was seized by American authorities, interrogated and thrown into jail. He was not charged with anything, and he never would be charged with anything, but his life would be ruined.

Bob Herbert, New York Times ( more. . .)

It started when the government, in the midst of an economic crisis, received reports of an imminent terrorist attack. A foreign ideologue had launched feeble attacks on a few famous buildings, but the media largely ignored his relatively small efforts. The intelligence services knew, however, that the odds were he would eventually succeed. (Historians are still arguing whether or not rogue elements in the intelligence service helped the terrorist. Some, like Sefton Delmer - a London Daily Express reporter on the scene - say they certainly did not, while others, like William Shirer, suggest they did.)

But the warnings of investigators were ignored at the highest levels, in part because the government was distracted; the man who claimed to be the nation’s leader had not been elected by a majority vote and the majority of citizens claimed he had no right to the powers he coveted.

He was a simpleton, some said, a cartoon character of a man who saw things in black-and-white terms and didn’t have the intellect to understand the subtleties of running a nation in a complex and internationalist world.

Thom Hartmann, Common Dreams ( more. . .)

February 23, 2005 | It is quite ironic: only a decade or so after the idea of the United States as an imperial power came to be accepted by both right and left, and people were actually able to talk openly about an American empire, it is showing multiple signs of its inability to continue. And indeed it is now possible to contemplate, and openly speculate about, its collapse.

The neocons in power in Washington these days, those who were delighted to talk about America as the sole empire in the world following the Soviet disintegration, will of course refuse to believe in any such collapse, just as they ignore the realities of the imperial war in Iraq. But I think it behooves us to examine seriously the ways in which the U.S. system is so drastically imperiling itself that it will cause not only the collapse of its worldwide empire but drastically alter the nation itself on the domestic front.

Kirkpatrick Sale, CounterPunch ( more. . .)

The campaign against Social Security is going so badly that longtime critics of President Bush, accustomed to seeing their efforts to point out flaws in administration initiatives brushed aside, are pinching themselves. But they shouldn’t relax: if the past is any guide, the Bush administration will soon change the subject back to national security.

The political landscape today reminds me of the spring of 2002, after the big revelations of corporate fraud. Then as now, the administration was on the defensive, and Democrats expected to do well in midterm elections.

Then, suddenly, it was all Iraq, all the time, and Harken Energy and Halliburton vanished from the headlines.

I don’t know which foreign threat the administration will start playing up this time, but Bush critics should be prepared for the shift. They must curb their natural inclination to focus almost exclusively on domestic issues, and challenge the administration on national security policy, too.

Paul Krugman, NYTimes ( more. . .)

All warnings were given the back of the administration’s hand. Mr. Bush launched his invasion and many thousands died. Now fast-forward to last week’s testimony of top administration officials before the Senate Intelligence Committee. If the war in Iraq was supposed to stem the terrorist tide, the comments of these officials made it clear that it hasn’t worked.

Porter Goss, the C.I.A. director, told the committee, “Islamic extremists are exploiting the Iraqi conflict to recruit new anti-U.S. jihadists.” He added, “These jihadists who survive will leave Iraq experienced and focus on acts of urban terrorism.”

The war, said Mr. Goss, “has become a cause for extremists.” In his view, “It may only be a matter of time before Al Qaeda or another group attempts to use chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear weapons.”

Vice Adm. Lowell Jacoby, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, said: “Our policies in the Middle East fuel Islamic resentment. Overwhelming majorities in Morocco, Jordan and Saudi Arabia believe the U.S. has a negative policy toward the Arab world.”

An article in last Friday’s Washington Post said the radical group Ansar al-Islam, which has carried out dozens of suicide bombings in Iraq, is recruiting young Muslims across Europe to join the insurgency.

So tell me again. What was this war about? In terms of the fight against terror, the war in Iraq has been a big loss. We’ve energized the enemy. We’ve wasted the talents of the many men and women who have fought bravely and tenaciously in Iraq. Thousands upon thousands of American men and women have lost arms or legs, or been paralyzed or blinded or horribly burned or killed in this ill-advised war. A wiser administration would have avoided that carnage and marshaled instead a more robust effort against Al Qaeda, which remains a deadly threat to America.

Bob Herbert, nytimes.com ( more. . .)