EVERYTHING SHOULD BE UNDER THE SUN...
NO New Nuclear Weapons... NO New Nuclear Targets... NO New Pretexts For Nuclear War... NO Nuclear Testing...
NO Star Wars... NO Weapons In Space...
NO All Types Of Weapons, War & War Culture...
We have only one WORLD yet! If we destroy it, where else will we go?

Arms Trade Resource Center
Update - May 6, 2002


TABLE OF CONTENTS:

A. NOTES AND TIDBITS
I. POOR DICK CHENEY: Haliburton's War Bonanza
II. THE CRUSADE FOR THE CRUSADER
B. WAR WITHOUT END
I. IRAQ II: State of Invasion Planning
II. WAR ON TERRORISM IN THE PHILIPPINES: Expanding and Growing More Dangerous
A. NOTES AND TIDBITS
I. POOR DICK CHENEY: Haliburton's War Bonanza


He lost a lot of money last year and now he is missing out on his former company's big bonanza in the war on terrorism. According to his tax return, Vice President Dick Cheney collected an income of about $4.3 million in 2001, a far cry from the $36 million he earned the year before taking office.

While Haliburton and subsidiary Brown and Root rack in the big bucks in Pentagon and State Department contracts in Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, Guantanamo and just about every where else the war on terrorism is being waged, poor Dick is wallowing in an "undisclosed" location at his veep salary of $186,300 a year.

Investigative Journalist Pratap Chatterjee has a new article in the May 1 issue of the  San Francisco Bay Guardian "Soldiers of Fortune: Civilian employees of Dick Cheney's former company are carrying out military missions around the world - for profit." Surprise Surprise Surprise. www.sfbg.com/36/31/cover_soldiersoffortune.html


II. THE CRUSADE FOR THE CRUSADER

There is a huge storm brewing (or has it brewed already) over the Crusader artillery system. A week or so ago Defense Secretary Rumsfeld announced his plan to eliminate the $11 billion Crusader program, which has come under fire because it is outmoded (it was designed to fight a land war with the Soviet Union). On the campaign trail, George W. Bush called the crusader "too heavy" and "not lethal enough."

But the system might be hard to kill. It is made by United Defense, which is owned by the Carlyle Group, which is hand in glove with the Bush administration. The chairman of the group is Frank Carlucci, Reagan's Secretary of Defense and an old buddy of Donald Rumsfeld, the current Defense Secretary. The President's Dad, George Herbert Walker Bush and James Baker, former secretary of State are on the group's board. Rounding out the political clout of this singular company are retired generals and former cabinet secretaries.  So, between Baker and Carlucci and Dear Old Dad, the relationship between the President and this company is as tight and close as anyone could imagine.

A New York Times Sunday editorial (May 5, "A Rising Tide of Defense Dollars") makes no mention of the company's close connections to the executive branch, but does point out that "part of the problem lies with Congress, where fat defense contracts are too often viewed merely as job creation programs."

For more information, see the "Crusader: Fighting with Failure," from the Project on Government Oversight, www.pogo.org/mici/failures/crusader.htm 

B. WAR WITHOUT END

The war is not over. Despite the press' inability to use the present tense, the war rages on in Afghanistan. More than 7,000 U.S. troops are now deployed, and generals are now saying it is likely that they will stay through the summer. In fact, one senior official acknowledged that "we'll have some number of forces on the ground there for a couple years." And, even as the war continues in Afghanistan, it is expanding into the Philippines and plans are being laid for the invasion of Iraq.

I. IRAQ II: State of Invasion Planning

by Jonathan Reingold

Contrary to the conventional wisdom in Washington, a United States invasion of Iraq is by no means inevitable.  Tactical disputes within the administration, major reservations on the part of major U.S. allies, the political impossibility of launching a major attack while Israel and the Palestine Authority are still at war, and other U.S. military commitments around the world are among the factors holding back the Bush administration's march to war.  These factors should give  critics of intervention some time, and some political  traction, to make their case to the public.  Time is still of the essence, but an invasion of Iraq is not a foregone conclusion.

The Washington-based Center for Defense Information's recent report "Iraq: Washington Prepares for Another War" makes it clear that Pentagon planners have been busy indeed.  A U.S. invasion could take place as soon as mid-fall of this year or more likely, in early 2003, by CDI's estimate.  That is, if pesky  weapons inspections don't get in the way.  The CDI  report discusses several other political complications,  including Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Kurds in northern Iraq,  inspections, and U.S. military preparedness problems,  in addition to lingering operations in Afghanistan.

CDI maintains that there is not yet consensus within the Bush administration as to whether to go ahead with an attack, but the think tank cites three potential scenarios that would mute any in-house bickering:

1) if a major terrorist attack occurs against the U.S. or another country with hard evidence linking Iraq to the attack;

2) if a similar attack is uncovered and thwarted; 

3) if an inspection "crisis" precipitates a U.S. surgical strike on WMD

facilities or possibly the use of Special Forces to invade and conduct their own inspections to prove to the world what Saddam Hussein's regime has been  developing in secret for years. 

The report also presumes that because the U.S. is under no illusions that it will receive help from any other country, besides Britain, it will have to use overwhelming force and every asset in its inventory.  Because of logistical reasons and precisely because all conventional assets are needed, CDI argues that the U.S. needs more time to rebuild weapons reserves  that have been depleted in Afghanistan. 

For example, The Seattle Times reported in early April that Boeing is under contract to increase monthly production of its JDAM (Joint Direct Attack Munition),  which can convert "dumb" bombs into precision-guided munitions using a kit, increasing  their accuracy by up to 90%. Even with workers cranking out bombs 24 hours a day it will take until about September to produce enough for an extensive bombing campaign.  Also it will take time to amass the necessary manpower; 100,000 U.S. troops and 25,000 ground personnel would be required in the region for a large-scale invasion.  Already, CDI says U.S. Central Command has finished preliminary preparations, with commanders from each service stationed at their forward headquarters along with 1,000 war planners, logistical and support specialists.

And as veteran defense analyst William Arkin noted in an opinion piece in the Sunday, May 5th edition of the Los Angeles Times, there is considerable disagreement within the military services over Gen. Tommy Franks plan to put major ground forces into Iraq early on in a potential invasion, to create "shock and awe" among Iraqi forces.  Apparently Franks' plan, which has been cleared with Secretary  of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, was not fully discussed with the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The argument within the military is not whether to invade Iraq, but how to go about it. Airpower advocates suggest that a longer period of bombing prior to invasion could cut down the need for a massive troop commitment.  None of the military planners seems to have given much thought to what happens when and if Saddam Hussein is toppled -- what kind of  government would be established, and would U.S. troops have to occupy the country for the long haul (unlike the intervention in Afghanistan, the move against Iraq would like widespread support from other governments, thereby foreclosing the option of handing off post-war stability and peacekeeping chores to other nations).  

In additional to these tactical and strategic concerns, political hurdles there are also numerous political hurdles that could threaten jeopardize the success of a U.S. invasion, according to CDI.  For one, Saudi opinion believes sanctions on Iraq severely punish Iraqi citizens and that an attack on Iraq might provoke chaos in the entire region, in no small part due to the power vacuum left by Saddam's absence.  The Saudis are extremely reluctant to let the U.S. use its bases in the Kingdom to stage an attack. 

As for Turkey, home to the key NATO base at Incirlik,  the government remains wary of an invasion causing  trouble amongst its 12 million Kurdish minority.  The  Kurds in northern Iraq, for their part, are hesitant to trust the U.S. given the United States' history of betraying them along with Shi'ites in the south.  Several recent Wall Street Journal reports have  indicated that as a result of revenues provide through the UN's "oil for food" program, Kurds in Northern  Iraq have better living standards and a more stable way of life than they have enjoyed in many years, a situation that has resulted in considerable opposition to the idea of a U.S. invasion to dump Saddam Hussein.  CDI suspects the U.S. will have to promise  autonomy for the Kurds to secure their cooperation as well as a firm U.S. commitment to go all the way this time and unseat Saddam.

Given the past history of U.S. betrayal of the Iraqi Kurds, these assurances may not be enough to secure significant cooperation from groups beyond the Iraqi National Congress, which is ridiculed in Northern Iraq as being a group that exists to hold press conferences and hang out in hotel bars, not a serious opposition movement. Also, there is the problem of the majority Shi'ites in southern Iraq whom the U.S. and Saudis fear would take over any future Iraqi government and align the country with Shi'ite fundamentalists in Iran. 

What was not covered extensively in the CDI's April 30th report was the rift in the Bush administration over Iraqi policy between the State and Defense Departments.  Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz have both been vociferous in condemning the inspections as useless.  Rumsfeld has said he simply cannot imagine any inspection regime intrusive enough to alleviate everyone's fear of what the Iraqi dictator, Saddam Hussein is up to. 

Besides publicly lashing out against inspections, on April 20th the administration successfully led a bid to remove Jose Bustani, the Brazilian director-general of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons.  The administration accused Bustani of financial mismanagement and making politically motivated decisions contrary to the wishes of most members. 

Supporters of Bustani question the motives of the Bush administration and point out that Bustani oversaw the destruction of 2 million chemical weapons and two-thirds of the world's chemical weapons facilities during his tenure.  Not to mention, that due largely to his work, the number of countries that have signed the chemical weapons convention has increased from 87 to 145, and he was unanimously reelected in the U.N. two years ago. Bustani's principal "crime," from the Bush administration's skewed perspective, appears to be that he was in the process of negotiating a new inspection regime for suspected Iraqi chemical weapons sites, an undertaking which could have undercut U.S. efforts to portray an invasion as the only way to eliminate the threat of weapons of mass destruction being developed in Iraq.

In mid-April, the Washington Post reported that Wolfowitz had asked the CIA to investigate the key UN inspections official, Hans Blix, Swedish head of U.N. Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission, the replacement for UNSCOM.  Wolfowitz told the CIA to examine Blix's performance as chief of the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency, which inspected Iraq's declared nuclear power plants from 1981 to 1997.  The CIA reported to Wolfowitz in January that Blix's inspections were "fully within the parameters he could operate."  The Washington Post further noted that a former official at the State Department who knew of the CIA report said Wolfowitz, "hit the ceiling" presumably since it did not accomplish the mission of discrediting Blix and consequently the new UN weapons inspection program.

Secretary of State Colin Powell is on the record as favoring a more cautious approach to invading Iraq, supporting an invasion only after inspections fail.  For their part, the Vice President and the Defense  Department want to derail inspections and invade Iraq  as soon as possible, in part to avoid waiting until the end  of Bush's term when a war could prove more risky politically.

Another factor is the advice the administration is  receiving from conservative strategists such as Richard Perle, chairman of the Defense Policy Board; "We shouldn't wait. We should go after Iraq...The removal of Saddam would be a tremendous step forward for the [Middle East] peace process. We need to take decisive action, and when we do and are successful, it will greatly strengthen our ability to do other things in the region," Perle told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch last month.

Frank Gaffney's Center for Security Policy, another conservative think tank that has considerable clout with the Bush administration takes a different approach to same objective.  In a March decision brief, titled, "What Not to Do About Iraq: Send in Inspectors," CSP discussed Iraq's successful campaign to delay inspections.

The brief cites David Kay's testimony before Congress, the first chief inspector to enter Iraq after the Gulf War; "The Iraqi complaints concerning UNSCOM related to its insistence on unrestricted access to anything in Iraq it deemed relevant to determining the scope of Iraq's WMD program and an equal insistence that they would not accept any time limit on how long it might take to accomplish this objective. If UNMOVIC were to compromise on either of these, we might end up with Iraq begin declared free of WMD, when if fact all that would be certain is that UNMOVIC could not find any evidence of WMD."  CSP argues that the very act of allowing weapons inspections in Iraq will add to international opposition to an American invasion of Iraq. 

An important American ally that opposes invading Iraq is Saudi Arabia.  Terry Eastland, in the Weekly Standard last week underscored two ways in which the removal of Saddam could be detrimental to the House of Saud.  First, "A post-Saddam Iraq no doubt would return that nation's oil fully to market, thus reducing the Saudis' ability to set oil prices and upsetting its oil-dependent economy, which already is in a deep slump. With an ever worsening economy, the unemployment rate (30 percent) would grow--as would popular discontent with the regime itself," and second, "the very demise of Saddam Hussein, resulting as it would in greater freedom for the Iraqi people, would send a signal to the people of Saudi Arabia, as it would to citizens of other Muslim countries, that regime change is possible." (Although unless the  United States were to threaten to invade Saudi Arabia, its hard to see how U.S.-induced "regime change" in Iraq would offer hope to Saudi dissidents; nor is it automatically the case that a regime that  succeeded Saddam Hussein would be a model of freedom, democracy, or the rule of law).

From the plethora of conservative pundits, presidential advisers and competing departments all that is clear is that no final decision has been made yet to invade Iraq, although all necessary preparations are being made and many are in place.  War hawks are doing their best to avoid political entanglements, but the Middle East has a knack for providing just that.  Ultimately, President Bush will have to decide if the alleged benefits of an attack  on Iraq are worth the enormous potential costs. Of course that presumes that the administration does an balanced analysis of the risks involved, and doesn't simply adopt the policy platitudes of influential neo-conservatives like Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz.  Most importantly of all, the  American public must be heard before a decision with  such wide-ranging consequences is made on their behalf.

 

Resources:
http://www.cdi.org/terrorism/eye-on-iraq.cfm

See Tom Barry and Jim Lobe, "Attention, Right Face, March," Foreign Policy in Focus, April 2002, for an analysis of neo-conservative forces pressing the Bush administration to invade Iraq as part of a broader unilateralist approach to foreign policy; available at www.foreignpolicy-infocus.org.

II. WAR ON TERRORISM IN THE PHILIPPINES: Expanding and Growing More Dangerous

Frida Berrigan

On April 20th, the United States dispatched 2,700 more troops to the Philippines for joint military exercises. These troops will conduct three weeks of joint exercises with 2,900 Filipino troops on the main island of Luzon, in northern Philippines, joining 660 U.S. troops already conducting joint training operations on a southern island. These exercises represent a huge increase in the number of U.S. military personnel deployed in the region and raise serious questions about the level of U.S. engagement in the Philippines.

The official explanation for the joint exercises is that they are aimed at "improving defense and ability to participate in peacekeeping missions." But, the American military presence is having a greater impact than just that and the weaponry is the biggest indication that these are no ordinary training exercises.

The U.S. troops bring highly coveted weaponry and equipment with them, including 36 Blackhawk and Cobra helicopters, a Navy landing ship, huge C-17 transport planes, P-3 Orion surveillance aircraft, fighter jets and high tech gadgets like night vision goggles, modern communication and electronic surveillance equipment. Much of the weaponry and equipment will be left behind for the Filipino military when the exercises are over. In addition, the U.S. government offered $92.3 million worth of excess military equipment, including a C-130 transport plane, 8 UH-1H utility helicopters, a naval patrol boat, and 30,000 M-16 rifles plus ammunition.

"We can do the fighting," said Brigadier General Edilberto Adan, the chief military spokesman, "but the Americans are here with all the equipment. It is a multiplier we've never had- Chinooks, electronic sensors- these are things we've only dreamed of*. The pressure from the Americans is demoralizing the enemy."

According to New York Times reporter Raymond Bonner, the U.S. military presence in the Philippines "has all the earmarks of a combat operation." Unlike most training missions, this one is taking place in a war zone, not in simulated battle conditions. The time frame is six months, not the typical four weeks, and there is a real enemy and a real military objective. As Rodolfo Biazon, retired Philippine general said, the operation is using "live ammo," has a "live enemy," in short, it is a "live mission."

Despite the rhetoric to the contrary, Abu Sayyaf does not equal Al-Qaeda. In fact, General Edilberto Adan, spokesman Armed Forces of the Philippines, has described them as no more than "a kidnap-for-ransom group, trying to use religion to justify their cause." Links to Al-Qaeda, highlighted by the Bush administration, are widely thought to have "atrophied." Cracking down on Abu Sayyaf notes one Time Magazine reporter, "will likely have little impact on eradicating global terrorism."

Nonetheless, the Bush administration prepared to send in troops to battle Abu Sayyaf late last year. But the plan violated the 1987 Filipino constitution that says that not foreign troops are allowed in the Philippines without a treaty agreement. To circumvent this prohibition, Filipino military leaders conceived of the "training exercise" and U.S. and Filipino lawyers jointly developed the language of the agreement and the rules of engagement. While U.S. soldiers are restricted from firing first, they can fire in self-defense. And given the fact that they are operating in Abu Sayyaf territory, it is likely that they will draw fire and combat will ensue. In fact, American combat casualties are "bound to happen," says General Emmanuel Teodosin, commander of the U.S.-Filipino joint operations.

Both Washington and Manila benefit from the military operation. For the United States it is a way of regaining a foothold in the Pacific. Until forced out by the Filipino Congress in 1992, the U.S. operated twenty-three major military installations in the Philippines-the largest being Clark Air Base and Subic Bay Naval Complex. These bases served as a staging ground for a century of U.S. military aggression-- against China at the turn of the last century, Korea and Vietnam in the 1950s and 60s, to the Persian Gulf War in 1991.

It also serves a purpose for the Arroyo administration, allowing her to reap the benefits of U.S. political support, and economic and military aid. "$4.6 billion and counting" quipped Arroyo during her November 2001 meeting with President Bush, referring to the tally of aid from the U.S. In all, President Arroyo stands to gain millions in military and billions in economic aid. She also expects U.S. help in putting down the much more substantial threats to her power coming from Muslim secessionists and Maoist fighters.

The real prize for Bush and Arroyo would be putting down the Maoist New People's Army (NPA) and the Moro Islamic National Liberation movement. 

The NPA has been fighting the national government for political control and land reform since 1969, a struggled that has cost an estimated 25,000 combat-related deaths. It is estimated to have 6,000-8,000 fighters. 

On the island of Mindanao, where the Filipino army is fighting the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF), at least 100,000 people have died in the conflict, with some estimates exceeding 150,000 deaths.

Opposition to U.S. military presence is growing. There are daily demonstrations at the U.S. embassy in Manila and the backlash has already become with three deadly bomb attacks in recent weeks. These developments are deeply troubling, but a sign of hope is also emerging. The "Gathering for Peace," a coalition of a thousand organizations formed in mid February to oppose the U.S. military presence in Philippines, saying that they did not want their country to be the "second front of the so-called U.S. war on terrorism after Afghanistan."

Resources:

Gathering of Peace statement: www.ucc.uconn.edu/~ser00003/phil.html

US military plans for a long-term presence in the Philippines, John Roberts, WSWS, April 16, 2002 www.wsws.org/articles/2002/apr2002/phil-a16.shtml

Walden Bello, A 'Second Front' in the Philippines, The Nation, March 18, 2002. www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20020318&s=bello

Please click for Arms Resource Center - Update May 16, 2002

   
This issue dedicated to such distinguished author Karen ARMSTRONG &
The Arms Trade Resource Center for its essential role and mission.
This e-magazine is under the umbrella of The Light Millennium, Inc.,
which granted a NOT-FOR-PROFIT organization
status based in New York since July 17, 2001.

"YOU ARE THE SOUL OF THIS GLOBAL PLATFORM."
YES For The Global Peace Movement, YES Loving & Caring Each Other, YES Greatness in Humanity, YES Saving Our Unique Mother Earth,
YES Great Dreams For Better Tomorrows, YES Emerging Positive Global Energy, YES Global Transparency and YES Lighting Our Souls & Minds.
If you wish to receive The Light Millennium's media releases, announcements or about future events,
please send us an e-mail to:contact@lightmillennium.org

HOME PAGE

Publishing
Policy

@ The Light Millennium e-magazine created and designed by
Bircan ÜNVER
. 9th issue. Summer 2002, New York.
URL: http://www.lightmillennium.org
Thank you very much to all for being part of The Light Millennium.
Submissions any time. For recent updates please visit our new page TODAY.

The Light Millennium global e-platform produced on the Mac platform and Netscape Browser.