Voice of Revolution

U.S. Out of the Middle East!

No to Militarization and Use of Force
Against the Peoples

The government has announced a major arms deal for the Middle East, including $30 billion to Israel, $13 billion to Egypt and an unnamed amount, estimated to be at least $20 billion to Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states, over a ten-year period. The weapons are offensive ones, such as guided bombs and fighter jets. This increased militarization of the region is being done in the name of “peace and security,” although it has been repeatedly demonstrated that use of force by the U.S. against the peoples provides war, insecurity and solves no problem. Indeed it creates greater dangers and crimes against the peoples. Iraq certainly is witness to this reality. Just as in Iraq, so too for the region. The solution is all U.S. troops home now! No use of force! The path to security and peace is to defend the rights of the peoples in the region, including their right to determine their own affairs. The U.S. has no business in the region — U.S. Out of the Middle East Now!

In making the deal, the U.S. emphasized that it has been selling arms in the region for decades, and plans to remain there for the long term. For what purpose? There is not a single example in the many decades the U.S. has been in the region of assisting the peoples or providing security. On the contrary there has been a steady militarization of life, including arming Israel with nuclear weapons and inciting antagonisms between the various countries. And now the U.S. is threatening use of nuclear weapons against Iran and demanding that U.S. troops remain indefinitely, with a its military footprint “enhanced.”

The U.S. government is continuing to try and blame Iran for its failure in Iraq, and use it as the excuse for this militarization. Secretary of State Condolezzaa Rice said, “There is no doubt that Iran constitutes the single most important single-country strategic challenge to the U.S. and to the kind of Middle East that we want to see.” The experience of the U.S. orchestrating Zionist aggression, including billions a year in arms, and U.S. aggression, such as that against Iran in the 1950s and the current occupation of Iraq, all make clear that the Middle East the U.S. “wants to see,” is where it is free to rampage against the peoples, control all human and natural resources and crush all resistance.

This is not what the peoples here or in the region want to see and indeed all are refusing to submit to U.S. empire. Peoples here and worldwide want relations of mutual respect and benefit. They want the vast wealth being produced utilized to guarantee the rights of all and not for more weapons of destruction. Americans in particular have repeatedly expressed their demand for an end to the war in Iraq and to all U.S. aggression. Numerous organizations are active striving to block war against Iran. All are confronting a situation where since the government refuses to submit to the majority, the majority will have to take over the government! The 2008 elections are posing the possibility for anti-war candidates to run and give expression to this drive of the people to have their demands represented and to govern and decide themselves.

We want and need an anti-war government that respects sovereignty, ends use of force, brings all U.S. troops home, provides reparations for crimes past and present and supports the peoples’ movements for their rights here and abroad. Let all consider how to use the upcoming elections to take steps toward this aim of creating an anti-war government.

[TOP]

Billions More for War and Empire

U.S. Militarization of the Middle East

On July 30, just before leaving on a trip to the Middle East, Secretary of State Condolezzaa Rice announced plans to provide tens of billions in offensive military weapons for Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the Gulf states of Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates (UAE). As a reflection of the military character of the trip, Secretary Rice was accompanied by the Pentagon’s Secretary, Robert Gates. The funding includes $30 billion to Israel over ten years, $13 billion to Egypt, and unnamed billions (most estimates put the figure at $20 billion or more) to Saudi Arabia and the five other Gulf states. The militarization includes such offensive weapons as guided missiles, fighter jets and new naval vessels. Congress must approve these deals.

The government did not hesitate to emphasize that the aim of the trip was to guarantee the lasting U.S. military presence in the area and to “confront the threat of radicalism,” as Rice put it. The aim of the weapons and the trip, Rice said, is “to affirm to our allies and friends in the region the enduring commitment of the United States to security and stability and progress in the Middle East.” She said the U.S. “strategic interest in the Middle East” means maintaining “a very strong American presence and influence in the region,” over the long term. The more immediate objective, she added, is to “help bolster the forces of moderation and support a broader strategy to counter the negative influence of Al Qaida, Hizbollah, Syria and Iran.” Gates emphasized that the U.S. has been in the Gulf for 60 years and “We have every intention of being here a lot longer.” Gates added that the arms for the Saudis and others are to reassure them that “regardless of what happens in the near term in Iraq that our commitment in the region remains firm, remains steadfast and that, in fact, we are looking to enhance and develop it.”

Evidently Rice thinks just the mention of Al Quida together with Hizbollah and Iran will convince peoples here and abroad that the lies of the government about the conditions in the region, the source of problems and the threat of “terrorism,” are all true. Instead, what is clear is that the U.S.-Israeli occupations are indeed being threatened and the resistance is prevailing, in Lebanon, in Palestine, in Iraq, in Afghanistan. The U.S. is acting to use yet more force against the peoples, dragging other countries in the region into the U.S. quagmire. And all these actions are counter to the demand of Americans to bring all U.S. troops home now and to get out of the region so the peoples can determine their own affairs.

While announcing the packages, the government is not saying what the U.S. is getting in return. As Gates comments indicate, they are specifically denying that there was any “quid pro quo” in relation to Iraq. They did however indicate that “enhancing and developing,” the U.S. presence involves more bases and troop agreements with these countries by the U.S. military. During a press conference July 30, under-Secretary of State R. Nicholas Burns said that in addition to continuing our “decades-long military assistance policies toward the Gulf states,” the U.S. also has “basing agreements and status of forces agreements with all these countries.” He deferred to the Pentagon to announce any such agreements at a later date. Few have any doubt that a deal concerning longer-term basing and troops has been made.

While the government claims a main problem in the region is Iran, which even the U.S. admits does not have nuclear weapons, it is increasing funding to Israel, long the main aggressor in the region. Israel invaded and occupied Palestine and Lebanon, for example. Thanks to the U.S., Israel also has nuclear weapons. Its aggression and occupation, backed by the U.S. have long been a major source of instability and crimes against the peoples. Yet the arms deal will provide another $30 billion in military arms to Israel over a ten-year period. This is a 25 percent increase in funds and weapons for Israel, and is occurring at time when Israel is still engaged in criminal and brutal aggression against the Palestinians. Israel supports the deal with other states in the region with the same false hopes of the U.S. — that it will crush resistance

In addition, by law, U.S. weapons sold abroad cannot be used for offensive purposes or for conducting human rights abuses. It is well known that Israel does both. The increased military deal then is direct approval and funding by the U.S. for continued crimes in the region and directly contrary to U.S. law.

Clearly the government has yet to learn the lesson, despite repeated failures, that use of force and occupations of other countries solves no problem. However, it does serve to intensify resistance to U.S. militarization and empire-building.

[TOP]

Arms Deals Denounced

Iran Rejects U.S. Efforts to Incite Conflict

The Iranian government opposed the recent decision by the U.S. to flood the Middle East with yet more weapons, including $30 billion to Israel. Iran’s Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said “The U.S. knows quite well that the Middle East has suffered a lot from Washington’s one-sided and unfair support for the Zionist regime and for its war mongering and expansionist policies. He added that the U.S. plan “to sell billions of dollars worth of arms and prepare illusive scenarios in the region,” was adventurist. Another spokesman for the foreign ministry, Mohammad Ali Hosseii, added, “America has always considered one policy in this region and that is creating fear and concerns in the countries of the region and trying to harm the good relations between these countries.” Syria’s foreign minister Walid Muallem said, “He who wants to make peace does not start out with an arms initiative which is dangerous for the region.” The Iranians added that public opinion in the region is “troubled by the warlike policy of the U.S….Americans would be better off finding ways to get out of the Iraqi crisis.”

[TOP]

Take Action

Oppose $30 Billion Military Aid Package to Israel

Recent media reports suggest that the United States and Israel will sign in August a ten-year agreement for $30 billion in U.S. military aid to Israel. Full details of the package have yet to emerge; however, it is reported to include a new generation of F-35 fighter jets, advanced bombs, and laser-guided missiles.

This military aid package, amounting to $3 billion per year, represents a 25 percent increase over the current U.S. annual military aid appropriation to Israel of $2.4 billion. Israel is already the largest recipient of U.S. military aid before the proposed increase.

The U.S. Campaign to End the Israeli Occupation opposes this proposed increase in military aid to Israel. Instead of increasing military aid to Israel, the Campaign to End the Occupation calls on the Bush administration and Congress to sanction Israel by cutting off military aid to it for its continued violations of the U.S. Arms Export Control Act and U.S. Foreign Assistance Act.

Take action today and send a similar message to your elected officials.

The U.S. Arms Export Control Act prohibits foreign countries from using U.S. weapons against civilians or civilian infrastructure and limits their use to “legitimate self-defense” or for “internal security.”

The U.S. Foreign Assistance Act states that “No assistance may be provided under this part [of the law] to the government of any country which engages in a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights.”

Rather than use U.S. military aid for “legitimate self-defense” or “internal security,” Israel relies upon it to prosecute its illegal 40-year-old foreign military occupation of the Palestinian West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Gaza Strip. “Gross violations of internationally recognized human rights” against Palestinians living under Israel’s illegal military occupation have been well-documented by numerous Palestinian, Israeli, U.S., and international human rights organizations, as well as by the U.S. government.

During Israel’s attacks last summer upon civilians and civilian infrastructure in the Gaza Strip and Lebanon, the Campaign to End the Occupation documented many instances of Israel using U.S. weapons in violation of U.S. law and demanded that the Bush administration and Congress hold Israel accountable for these violations of law.

Thanks in part to your demand for accountability, the State Department in January 2007 sent a top-secret report to Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Senator Joe Biden, Chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, claiming that Israel may have violated the U.S. Arms Export Control Act by indiscriminately dropping cluster munitions in civilian areas in Lebanon during last year’s war. A final report with definitive conclusions has not yet been issued.

The Bush administration and Congress make a mockery of the rule of law by supporting an increase in military aid to Israel even before the government’s own investigation of Israel’s prior violations of the U.S. Arms Export Control Act is completed.

We urge everyone to oppose military aid to Israel and to sanction Israel by cutting off military aid for its prior violations of U.S. law.

[TOP]

Arms Deal to Saudi Arabia, Egypt

Fueling the Flames of U.S. War in the Middle East

Peace Action

The proposed $20 billion arms deal to Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates announced this week is only the tip of the warhead. This arms deal happens in conjunction with two additional military aid deals. Under the agreement, Israel will receive $30 billion and Egypt will receive an additional $13 billion. In total, the U.S. will inject air-to-air missiles, joint direct attack munitions, and other sophisticated weaponry worth $65 billion to the Middle East.

Will you help Peace Action expose these deals and stop them?

On Tuesday, a Peace Action representative was a panelist on a roundtable hosted by the Middle Eastern satellite news station Al Ahram. Also represented were a scholar from Iran, a U.S. weapons expert, and political officials from Beirut. All agreed, for various reasons that this was a deal that can only bring more violence. It is vital to continue the worldwide conversation on this issue.

Like a maniacal gas station attendant, his nozzle fixed to the flames, George Bush is once again fueling the fire of war in the Middle East. Peace Action opposes this transfer of U.S. weapons to the Middle East and when this deal comes before Congress, we will be there to oppose it. Between now and then we will track this deal, make people aware of what Bush is planning, and build opposition among our allies in Congress.

Help stop the war profiteers from increasing their profits at the expense of our common security. Your support will help make the case that selling weapons in the Middle East increases the prospects of war and make us all less secure.

[TOP]

Bush Executive Orders

Impunity Cannot Crush Resistance

President George W. Bush has issued yet another executive order aimed at resistance in the U.S., particularly against all who oppose the Iraq war. Titled “Blocking Property of Certain Persons Who Threaten Stabilization Efforts in Iraq,” it directly serves to criminalize the anti-war movement, its organizations, those that support them, as well as individuals. It gives the executive the sole power to decide who is guilty. Those branded by the government will have all assets taken, including funds, membership lists, equipment, buildings, and so forth.

As with previous executive orders and terrorism laws like the USA PATRIOT Act, the language of the order is so broad it could apply to anyone. Indeed, the language is “any person determined” by the executive, to pose “a significant risk of committing” acts of violence that threaten the “peace or stability of Iraq,” or economic reconstruction or political reform of Iraq. The order also targets those who “materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, logistical, or technical support for, or goods or services in support of, such an act.” The desperation of the government to stop resistance is such that one could simply know someone planning an action the government deems might have violence — which is pretty much any demonstration — to be targeted (see article below “New Executive Order Can Be Used Against Protests” for more specifics).

Resistance is a right that cannot be crushed with such orders. It is the government impunity such orders unleash that is criminal.

The significance of this particular order is that it is geared toward those opposing the Iraq war and that it so broadly sanctions impunity. It could for example, be used not only against the movement but against rival factions within the ruling class, such as at the upcoming Democratic convention. It is also coming at a time when Bush has systematically put in place other executive orders and directives allowing the president to usurp the power to declare a national emergency and then take over all governance. One such order states directly that “The President shall lead the activities of the Federal Government” in an emergency, declared again, by the president alone. As well Congress, far from rejecting these orders, adds to them. Last year’s Defense Authorization Act, for example, allows the president to use the military inside the country for law enforcement against Americans and to take over the National Guard of all 50 states without the approval of the governors, both illegal at that time.

These fascist arrangements must all be rejected as part of the struggle for rights.

[TOP]

New Executive Order Can Be Used Against Protests

Bill Minneman, Chicagoans Against War and Injustice

A little-noted Executive Order signed Tuesday, July 17, has the effect of criminalizing any activities opposing the U.S. occupation of Iraq or U.S. plans for that country’s economic and political restructuring. The order (available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070717-3.html) calls for the federal government to block the financial assets of:

“Any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense, (i) to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence that have the purpose or effect of: (A) threatening the peace or stability of Iraq or the Government of Iraq; or (B) undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people; (ii) to have materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, logistical, or technical support for, or goods or services in support of, such an act or acts of violence or any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order.” “Blocking” of assets under this order means a prohibition on their being “transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn, or otherwise dealt in.”

Note the following points in the language of this Executive Order:

1. The determination of whose assets are to be blocked is made strictly within the executive branch. No courts are involved.

2. The order authorizes actions not only against those determined to have committed the proscribed acts, but also against those determined — again, by the executive branch — to pose a risk of committing them. It thus authorizes preemptive actions against targeted persons.

3. The order also applies to anyone who has assisted or supported a person who has been declared subject to this order. Elsewhere, the order defines “person” to refer to an individual or an “entity,” which in turn is defined to mean any “partnership, association, trust, joint venture, corporation, group, subgroup, or other organization.”

Let us understand what this means. Let us say that Chicagoans Against War and Injustice (CAWI) sponsors or endorses an anti-occupation rally, and that in the course of that rally the Chicago police change their recent relatively permissive approach and decide to crack a couple heads. Well, we have “violence” in connection with that event, so the U. S. Treasury Department can freeze CAWI’s meager assets. But in fact there need not be any actual violence at that rally; the event itself might be determined to pose a risk of violence, so CAWI is subject to the order. In fact, there need not actually be a rally; just the planning of a protest — or indeed just talking about one, let alone such overt acts as maintaining a web site containing anti-occupation content, or managing a listserve that facilitates anti-occupation discussion — might be determined to present such a risk, and make CAWI subject to the order. And once that determination is made and CAWI’s assets are frozen, then any organization that has supported or participated in any CAWI activities is subject to having its own assets frozen for having “materially assisted, sponsored or provided...support for” an organization deemed subject to the order. And, oh yeah, any of us individuals who have contributed to CAWI directly or to a local United for Peace and Justice (UFPJ) affiliate or other group that has ever cooperated with CAWI in any way might then have all of their assets frozen as well.

It is not only the explicitly anti-war groups that could be subject to this order. Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) demands by groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) or Human Rights Watch for access to documents related to U.S. policy on Iraq could be determined to inflame passions that would pose the risk of violence that would interfere with the Iraqi occupation. That determination would put the assets of those organizations and subsequently of their members in jeopardy. Similar FOIA demands by news media could likewise jeopardize the assets of the parent corporation of a newspaper or broadcaster.

In fact, suppose there are anti-occupation protests outside the 2008 Democratic Convention, and the Treasury Department determines that those protests (a) pose a risk of violence, and (b) are prompted at least in part by speeches on the convention floor opposing administration policy on Iraq. In that situation, the language of this Executive Order could be construed to permit the freezing of the assets of the Democratic Party. Given an administration in which the Under Secretary of Defense, Eric Adelman, last week replied to an information request regarding Iraq from a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee (Senator Hillary Clinton, New York) with a letter claiming that mere discussion of the topic “reinforces enemy propaganda,” these scenarios may not be as much of a stretch as they might at first seem.

For anyone who thought that the series of post-9/11 U. S. government actions to freeze the assets of Muslim charities such as the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, the Global Relief Foundation and the Benevolence International Foundation were unfortunate but essentially a matter of concern only to the Muslim American community, this should be a wake-up call. The first application of this order will create a classic illustration of the Niemoeller lament about the Nazis, that, “First they came for..., and I did nothing.” In this case, the government has given themselves the ammunition to come for all of us.

[TOP]

Peoples Refusing to Pay the Rent
on “Planet Pentagon”

Nick Turse, Tomdispatch.com

Recently, the Wall Street Journal reported on a proposal, championed by Defense Secretary Robert Gates, to reduce the number of U.S. troops in Iraq in exchange for bipartisan Congressional support for the long-term (read: more or less permanent) garrisoning of that country. The troops are to be tucked away on “large bases far from Iraq’s major cities.” This plan sounded suspiciously similar to one revealed by Thom Shanker and Eric Schmitt in the New York Times on April 19, 2003, just as U.S. troops were preparing to enter Baghdad. Headlined “Pentagon Expects Long-Term Access to Four Key Bases in Iraq,” it laid out a U.S. plan for: “a long-term military relationship with the emerging government of Iraq, one that would grant the Pentagon access to… perhaps four bases in Iraq that could be used in the future: one at the international airport just outside Baghdad; another at Tallil, near Nasiriya in the south; the third at an isolated airstrip called H-1 in the western desert, along the old oil pipeline that runs to Jordan; and the last at the Bashur air field in the Kurdish north.”

Even with the enormous, multi-billion dollar, state-of-the-art Balad Air Base and Camp Victory thrown in, however, the bases in Gates’ new plan will be but a drop in the bucket for an organization that may well be the world’s largest landlord. For many years, the U.S. military has been gobbling up large swaths of the planet and huge amounts of just about everything on (or in) it. So, with the Pentagon’s latest Iraq plans in mind, take a quick spin with me around this Pentagon planet of ours.

Garrisoning the Globe

In 2003, Forbes magazine revealed that media mogul Ted Turner was America’s top land baron — with a total of 1.8 million acres across the U.S. The nation’s ten largest landowners, Forbes reported, “own 10.6 million acres, or one out of every 217 acres in the country.” Impressive as this total was, the Pentagon puts Turner and the entire pack of mega-landlords to shame with more than 29 million acres in U.S. landholdings. Abroad, the Pentagon’s “footprint” is also that of a giant. For example, the Department of Defense controls 20 percent of the Japanese island of Okinawa and, according to Stars and Stripes, “owns about 25 percent of Guam.” Mere land ownership, however, is just the tip of the iceberg.

In his 2004 book, “The Sorrows of Empire,” Chalmers Johnson opened the world’s eyes to the size of the Pentagon’s global footprint, noting that the Department of Defense (DoD) was deploying nearly 255,000 military personnel at 725 bases in 38 countries. Since then, the total number of overseas bases has increased to at least 766 and, according to a report by the Congressional Research Service, may actually be as high as 850. Still, even these numbers do not begin to capture the global sprawl of the organization that unabashedly refers to itself as “one of the world’s largest ‘landlords.’”

The DoD’s “real property portfolio,” according to 2006 figures, consists of a total of 3,731 sites. More than 20 percent of these sites are located on more than 711,000 acres outside of the U.S. and its territories. Yet even these numbers turn out to be a drastic undercount. For example, while a 2005 Pentagon report listed U.S. military sites from Antigua and Hong Kong to Kenya and Peru, some countries with significant numbers of U.S. bases go entirely unmentioned — Afghanistan and Iraq, for example.

In Iraq, alone, in mid-2005, U.S. forces were deployed at some 106 bases, from the massive Camp Victory, headquarters of the U.S. high command, to small 500-troop outposts in the country’s hinterlands. None of them made the Pentagon’s list. Nor was there any mention of bases in Jordan on that list — or in the 2001-2005 reports either. Yet that nation, as military analyst William Arkin has pointed out, allowed the garrisoning of 5,000 U.S. troops at various bases around the country during the build up to the war in Iraq. In addition, some 76 nations have given the U.S. military access to airports and airfields — in addition to who knows where else that the Pentagon forgot to acknowledge or considers inappropriate for inclusion in its list.

Even without Jordan, Iraq, Afghanistan, and the more than 20 other nations that, Arkin noted in early 2004, were “secretly or quietly providing bases and facilities,” the available statistics do offer a window into a massive organization bent on setting up franchises across the globe. According to 2005 documents, the Pentagon acknowledges 39 nations with at least one U.S. base, stations personnel in more than 140 countries around the world, and boasts a physical plant of at least 571,900 facilities, though some Pentagon figures show 587,000 “buildings and structures.” Of these, 466,599 are located in the United States or its territories. In fact, the Department of Defense owns or leases more than 75 percent of all federal buildings in the U.S.

According to 2006 figures, the Army controls the lion’s share of DoD land (52 percent), with the Air Force coming in second (33 percent), the Marine Corps (8 percent) and the Navy (7 percent) bringing up the rear. The Army is also tops in total number of sites (1,742) and total number of installations (1,659). But when it comes to “large installations,” those whose value tops $1,584 billion, the Army is trumped by the Air Force, which boasts 43 mega-bases compared to the Army’s 39. The Navy and Marines possess “only” 29 and 10, respectively. What the Navy lacks in big bases of its own, however, it more than makes up for in borrowed foreign naval bases and ports — some 251 across the globe. […]

All told, the Department of Defense admits to having “over $1 trillion in assets [and] $1.6 trillion in liabilities.” This is, no doubt, a gross underestimate given the DoD’s historic penchant for flawed book-keeping and the fact that, according to a study by its own inspector general, it cannot even account for at least $1 trillion dollars in money spent — or perhaps, according to former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, as much as $2.3 trillion. Cooking the books and stashing cash is fitting enough for an American organization, in the age of Enron, that thinks of itself not just as a government agency but, in its own words, as “America’s oldest company, largest company, busiest company and most successful company.” In fact, on its website, the DoD makes the point that it easily bests Wal-Mart, Exxon-Mobil, and General Motors in terms of budget and staff. […]

Global Bases Serving Occupation

To begin to grasp the Pentagon’s global immensity, it helps to look, again, at its land holdings — all 120,191 square kilometers which are almost exactly the size of the north Korea (120,538 square kilometers). These holdings are larger than any of the following nations: Liberia, Bulgaria, Guatemala, South Korea, Hungary, Portugal, Jordan, Kuwait, Israel, Denmark, Georgia, or Austria. […]

The U.S. military is exploring long-term options to dominate the planet as never before. Previously, the DoD has only maintained a moving presence on the high seas. This may change. The Pentagon is now considering — and planning for — future “sea-basing.” No longer just a ship, a fleet, or “prepositioned material” stationed on the world’s oceans, the sea-bases will be “a hybrid system-of-systems consisting of concepts of operations, ships, forces, offensive and defensive weapons, aircraft, communications and logistics.” The notion of such bases is increasingly popular within the military due to the fact that they “will help to assure access to areas where U.S. military forces may be denied access to support [land] facilities.” After all, as a report by the Defense Science Board pointed out, “[S]eabases are sovereign [and] not subject to alliance vagaries.” Imagine a future where the people of countries at odds with U.S. policies suddenly find America’s “massive seaborne platforms” floating just outside their territorial waters.

With a real-estate portfolio that includes the earth and the sea, the sky would, quite literally, be the limit for the DoD. According to Noah Shachtman, editor of Wired’s “Danger Room” blog, the “U.S. Air Force Transformation Flight Plan” of 2004 outlined what “analysts call the most detailed picture since the end of the Cold War of the Pentagon’s efforts to turn outer space into a battlefield. The report makes U.S. dominance of the heavens a top Pentagon priority in the new century.” As the U.S. military’s outer-space policy statement puts it, “Freedom of action in space is as important to the United States as air power and sea power.”

When you are focused on effectively controlling a planet, the idea of occupying Iraq, a country about the size of the state of California, for the next decade or five more, must seem like a small thing. In practice, however, the global landlord on the Potomac has found property values in Iraq steep indeed. As all now know, it has been fought to a standstill there by modest-sized bands of guerillas lacking air power, sea power, or high-tech spy satellites in outer space. The Pentagon may be landlord to massive swaths of the globe, but from Vietnam to Laos, Beirut to Somalia, U.S. forces have also found themselves evicted by neighborhood residents from properties they were prepared to consider their own. The question remains: Will Iraq be added to the list of permanently occupied territories and take on the look of long-garrisoned South Korea as Secretary of Defense Gates and President Bush have urged – or will it be added to a growing list of places that have effectively resisted paying the rent on Planet Pentagon?

Nick Turse is the associate editor and research director of Tomdispatch.com.

[TOP]

Bush Executive Orders • Impunity Cannot Crush Resistance • New Executive Order Can Be Used Against Protests - Bill Minneman, Chicagoans Against War and Injustice • Peoples Refusing to Pay the Rent on “Planet Pentagon” - Nick Turse, Tomdispatch.com

Bush Executive Orders
• Impunity Cannot Crush Resistance
• New Executive Order Can Be Used Against Protests - Bill Minneman, Chicagoans Against War and Injustice
• Peoples Refusing to Pay the Rent on “Planet Pentagon” - Nick Turse, Tomdispatch.com