Dis Information

Urban Terra Legend category:

WASHINGTON: Reversing itself, the Defense Department now acknowledges that a U.S. government espionage report it produced warning about Canadian coins with tiny radio frequency transmitters hidden inside was not true.

The Defense Security Service said it never could substantiate its own published claims about the mysterious coins. It has launched an internal review to determine how the false information was included in a 29-page report about espionage concerns.

The service originally had warned such coins were found planted on U.S. contractors with classified security clearances on at least three separate occasions between October 2005 and January 2006 as the contractors traveled through Canada.

"The allegations, however, were found later to be unsubstantiated following an investigation into the matter," the agency said in a statement published on its Web site.

Intelligence and technology experts were flabbergasted over the initial report, which suggested such transmitters could be used to surreptitiously track the movements of people carrying the coins...

The now-disavowed U.S. report never suggested who might be tracking American defense contractors or why. It also never described how the Pentagon discovered the purported ruse, how the transmitters functioned or even which Canadian currency allegedly contained them.

The service initially maintained that its report on the spy coins was accurate but said further details about the spy coins were classified.

The government's report was filled with other espionage warnings. It described unrelated hacker attacks, eavesdropping with miniature pen recorders and the case of a female foreign spy who seduced her American boyfriend to steal his computer passwords.

There's another legend that needs debunking out there [via Lambert, who does a great job deconstructing it too]. He has the ears of the Bu$h crime family, just like he served as Sith Lord under Tricky Dicky. He's reluctant about saying too much in public here at home, but he's quite willing to talk to the Royals in the United Arab Emirates. Read his words with care, because he should be treated with some sympathy, and some taste. Use all your well-learned polities or he'll lay your soul to waste:

PRESIDENT George W Bush’s bold decision to order a “surge” of some 20,000 American troops for Iraq has brought the debate over the war to a defining stage. There will not be opportunity for another reassessment. Lie. Every moment we're there we can and should reassess.

The Baker-Hamilton commission has powerfully described the impasse on the ground. It is the result of cumulative choices — some of them enumerated by the president — in which worthy (Lie- no, wait, worth about a trillion dollars so far) objectives and fundamental (as fundamental as the dollar) American values clashed with regional and cultural realities.

The important goal of modernising US armed forces led to inadequate troop levels for the military occupation of Iraq. The reliance on early rigged elections as the key to political evolutionof a puppet government, in a country lacking a sense of national identity that Junior and Poppy approved of, caused the newly enfranchised to vote almost exclusively for sectarian parties, deepening historic divisions into chasms. The understandable if you're doing 300 µgs of LSD-25 — but, in retrospect, premature i.e., dumb as a rock — strategery of replacing American with indigenous forces deflected US forces from a military mission; nor could it deal with the most flagrant shortcoming of Iraqi forces, which is to define what the Iraqi forces are supposed to fight for and under what banner. Whopper. So they didn't want to fight so Cheneyburton could run their oil wells. Encouraging Faith-based government is bound to cause problems when every city block has its own private hot line to God.

These circumstances have merged into an almost perfect storm of mutually reinforcing crises: Within Iraq, the sectarian militias are engaged in civil war or so close to it as to make little practical difference. The conflict between Shias and Sunnis goes back 1,400 years. In most Middle Eastern countries, Shia minorities coexist precariously with Sunni majorities. The civil war in Iraq threatens to usher in a cycle of domestic upheavals and a war between Shia and Sunni states, with a high potential of drawing in countries from outside the region. In addition, the Kurds of Iraq seek full autonomy from both Sunnis and Shias; their independence would raise the prospect of intervention from Turkey and possibly Iran. Perfect, that is, if you make money selling munitions and running private security concerns.

The war in Iraq is part of another war that cuts across the Shia-Sunni issue: the assault on the international order conducted by radical groups in both Islamic sects. Functioning as states within the states and by brutal demonstrations of the inability of established governments to protect their populations, such organisations as Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Mahdi army in Iraq and the Al Qaeda groups all over the Middle East seek to reassert an Islamic identity submerged, in their view, by Western secular institutions and values. But mostly they really seek that huge pile of cash King Abdullah sits on top of. Any enhancement of radical Islamist self-confidence therefore threatens all the traditional states of the region, as well as others with significant Islamic populations, from Indonesia through India to Western Europe. Of course, we've done an excellent job of that by listening to the PNAC, the AEI, and pompous asses like you, Henry. The most important target is the United States, as the most powerful country of the West and the indispensable component of any attempt to build a new world order, owned largely by major lienholders like King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia..

The disenchantment of the American public with the burdens it has borne alone for nearly four years has generated growing demands for some form of unilateral withdrawal, usually expressed in the form of benchmarks to be put to the Baghdad government which, if not fulfilled in specific time periods, would trigger American disengagement.

But under present conditions, withdrawal is not an option. Or so I, Henry Kissinger, apologist for the Mighty, hope. Without this lovely bloodshed I'd be staring at the walls of a retirement or maybe even a prison cell, thinking about the millions of deaths my bloated self-promotion has caused over the last 50 years. American forces are indispensable. They are in Iraq not as a favour to its government or as a reward for its conduct. They are there as an expression of the American national interest to prevent the Iranian combination of imperialism and fundamentalist ideology from dominating a region on which the energy supplies of the industrial democracies depend. Jackpot. Money quote. We didn't go in to topple Saddam. We went in to take the oil for our very own. Remember, he's talking to Sunni fundamentalists in the Emirates, and he wants to scare their robes off- and raid their Treasuries, too.

Now, for the Dominos, just like Southeast Asia in the '70s:

An abrupt American departure will greatly complicate efforts to help stem the terrorist tide far beyond Iraq; fragile governments from Lebanon to the Gulf will be tempted into pre-emptive concessions. It might drive the sectarian conflict within Iraq to genocidal dimensions beyond levels that impelled American intervention in the Balkans. Graduated withdrawal would not ease these dangers until a different strategy is in place and shows some progress. For now, it would be treated both within Iraq and in the region as the forerunner of a total withdrawal, and all parties would make their dispositions on that basis. See? I told you he was da Best

President Bush’s decision should therefore not be debated in terms of the “stay the course” strategy he has repeatedly disavowed in recent days. Rather it should be seen as the first step towards a new grand strategy relating power to diplomacy for the entire region, ideally on a nonpartisan basis. Every strategery Henry the K. ever dreamed up was Grand. It was inevitable and natural he would team up with Karl Rove and Big Time Dick. It would have happened sooner, but he and Darth Rumsfeld always got along like sodium metal and water.

The purpose of the new strategy should be to demonstrate that the US is determined to remain relevant to the outcome in the region; to adjust American military deployments and numbers to emerging realities; and to provide the maneuvering room for a major diplomatic effort to stabilise the region. Relevant. Henry, your '70s jargon is showing. But that's a fine fluff paragraph, isn't it?

Of the current security threats in Iraq — the intervention of outside countries, the presence of Al Qaeda fighters, an extraordinarily large criminal element, the sectarian conflict — the United States has a national interest in defeating the first two (in other words, we're going to dream up as many AlQaedaIranofascists as we possibly can, whether they're really there or not. And ignore any evidence that says all the civilians we're murdering are affiliated with neither Al Qaeda or the Iranian government); it must not involve itself in the sectarian conflict for any extended period, much less let itself be used by one side for its own sectarian goals. On the other hand, our Special Forces/ mercenaries death squads private security forces will be doing their best to divide and conquer along these lines.

The sectarian conflict confines the Iraqi government’s unchallenged writ to the sector of Baghdad defined as the Green Zone protected by American forces. In many areas the militias exceed the strength of the Iraqi national army. Appeals to the Iraqi government to undertake reconciliation and economic reforms are not implemented, partly because the will to do so is absent but essentially because it lacks the power to put such policies in place, even if the will to do so could suddenly be mobilised. If the influence of the militias can be eliminated — or greatly reduced — the Baghdad government would have a better opportunity to pursue a national policy. So let's avoid that, and instead use the militias for our own purposes, shall we?

The new strategy has begun with attempts to ethnically cleanse clear the insurrectional Sunni parts of Baghdad. But it must not appear to turn into ethnic cleansing or the emergence of another tyrannical state, only with a different sectarian allegiance. Side by side with disarming the Sunni militias and death squads, the Baghdad government must show comparable willingness to disarm Shia militias and death squads that we don't control, anyway. American policy should not deviate from the goal of a civil state, whose political process is available to all citizens.

As the comprehensive strategy evolves, a repositioning of American forces from the cities into enclaves should be undertaken so that they can separate themselves from the civil war and concentrate on the threats described above. Rock da Casbah, baby. The principal mission would be to protect the borders against infiltration, to prevent the establishment of terrorist training areas or Taleban-type control over significant regions. At that point, too, significant reductions of American forces should be possible. Such a strategy would make withdrawals depend on conditions on the ground instead of the other way around. It could also provide the time to elaborate a cooperative diplomacy for rebuilding the region, including progress towards a settlement of the Palestine issue.

For such a strategy, it is not possible to jettison the military instrument and rely, as some argue, on purely political means. A free-standing diplomacy is an ancient American illusion. History offers few examples of it. The attempt to separate diplomacy and power results in power lacking direction and diplomacy being deprived of incentives. Or like my old buddy Mao used to kid, Power issues from the barrel of a gun.

Diplomacy is the attempt to persuade another party to pursue a course compatible with a society’s strategic interests. Obviously this involves the ability to create a calculus that impels or rewards the desired direction. The outcome, by definition, is rarely the ability to impose one’s will but a compromise that gives each party a stake in maintaining it.

Few diplomatic challenges are as complex as that surrounding Iraq. Diplomacy must mediate between Iraqi sects which, though in many respects mortal enemies, are assembled in a common governmental structure. It needs to relate that process to an international concept involving both Iraq’s neighbours and countries further away that have a significant interest in the outcome.

Two levels of diplomatic effort are necessary:

(1) The creation of a contact group, assembling neighbouring countries whose interests are directly affected and which rely on American support. This group should include Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan. Its function should be to advise on ending the internal conflict and to create a united front against outside domination. You suckahs gotta sit down and lissen to me, ya hear?

(2) Parallel negotiations should be conducted with Syria and Iran, which now appear as adversaries, to give them an opportunity to participate in a peaceful regional order. Both categories of consultations should lead to an international conference including all countries that will have to play a stabilising role in the eventual outcome, specifically the permanent members of the UN Security Council as well as such countries as Indonesia, India and Pakistan. Recall his buddy Mao's statement again. He favors negotiation a la Bruce Willis.

Too much of the current discussion focuses on the procedural aspect of starting a dialogue with adversaries. The frakin' table will be round, beotches. In fact, a balance of risks and opportunities needs to be created so that Iran is obliged to choose between a significant but not dominant role (bottoms only!) or riding the crest of Shia fundamentalism. In the latter case, it must pay a serious, not a rhetorical, price for choosing the militant option. An outcome in which Iran is approaching nuclear status, because of hesitant and timid non-proliferation policies in the UN Security Council, coupled with a political vacuum in front of it in the region must lead to catastrophic consequences. And by all means, make 'em choose quick before they get rid of their pro-nuclear figure head.

Similar principles apply to the prospects for settlement in Palestine. Moderates in both the Arab countries neighbouring Israel and in Israel are evolving compromises unimaginable a decade ago. But if the necessary outcomes are perceived as the result of panic by moderates and an exit from the region by the United States, radicals could raise unfulfillable demands and turn the peace process against the moderates. He do love his Dominoes.

In all this, the United States cannot indefinitely bear alone the burden for both the military outcome and the political structure. At some point, Iraq has to be restored to the international community, and other countries must be prepared to share responsibilities for regional peace. Some of America’s allies and other affected countries seek to escape the upheavals all around them by disassociating from the United States. But just as it is impossible for America to deal with these trends unilaterally, sooner or later a common effort to rebuild the international order (i.e., the New World Order, beotches) will be imposed on all the potential targets. The time has come for an effort to define the shoals within which diplomacy is obliged to navigate and to anchor any outcome in some broader understanding that accommodates the interests of the affected parties. And believe it, this chump will navigate dragging his anchor to keep the war at sea.

[Henry A Kissinger, a former US secretary of state, is considered the architect of US foreign policy during the Cold War] That is, in keeping the Cold War bucks rolling on in.