A unit in the “FBI counterterrorism division” and FBI special agents across the US involved in “home-grown violent extremism” concluded that US foreign policy is the main motive behind terrorist attacks as a retaliation for the hundreds of thousands killed in the Middle East.
Wednesday, December 21, 2016
What triggers terrorism? Is it Islam, or rather US Foreign Policy and the west’s double standards?
US Northeastern University Political Science Professor Max Abrahms, a terrorism theorist, told Al-Rai: “The U.S. has inadvertently contributed to international terrorism through the failed policy of regime change (Iraq, Libya, Syria, Afghanistan) since the declared “war on terror”. Un-thoughtful change of regime in Iraq created a power vacuum that was filled by al-Qaida in Iraq and ultimately ISIS. Few Americans understand that removing Gaddafi in Libya created a similar power vacuum that has greatly benefited ISIS among other militant groups. Fewer Americans also understand that arming the “opposition” in Syria helped to significantly support ISIS and Jabhat al-Nusra and prolonged the so-called civil war. In these ways, the US counterterrorism strategy has backfired.
A unit in the “FBI counterterrorism division” and FBI special agents across the US involved in “home-grown violent extremism” concluded that US foreign policy is the main motive behind terrorist attacks as a retaliation for the hundreds of thousands killed in the Middle East.
A unit in the “FBI counterterrorism division” and FBI special agents across the US involved in “home-grown violent extremism” concluded that US foreign policy is the main motive behind terrorist attacks as a retaliation for the hundreds of thousands killed in the Middle East.
Friday, October 28, 2016
Monday, October 10, 2016
War College Podcast: Why nuclear war looks inevitable
By Jason Fields
Several developments have the potential to move the hands of the nuclear doom clock closer to midnight.
A new U.S. nuclear policy has a chance of destabilizing the balance of terror by creating a larger arsenal of smaller weapons.
Why?
Smaller weapons are more tempting to use. The argument for so-called "tactical" nukes is that they would destroy a smaller area and create less fallout, making them more "safe" to use than traditional many-megaton bombs. And that could lead to temptation to use them.
Just as importantly, that could give other nuclear-armed powers the impression that the U.S. would be more likely to use the weapons - a dangerous spiral that could culminate with...the end of the world, literally.
The United States is hardly the only nation adding stress to a system that is always a hands-breadth from tragedy.
Russia's President Vladimir Putin has rattled the nuclear sabre, even threatening to station missiles in annexed Crimea. Pakistan, another nuclear-armed country, is a divided nation with government agencies linked to Islamic extremism and a beef with India. India has a beef with Pakistan and territorial disputes with China.
North Korea is a wildcard with an accelerating nuclear program that may still be getting help from Pakistan - which denies it. Recent tests by North Korea and China's lack of overt response has set U.S. teeth on edge.
In the end, the basic question is whether humanity can have such dangerous toys and not use them.
Incredible as it may seem, at the height of the Cold War the world might actually have been safer, experts say. Neither the United States nor the Soviet Union had a death wish, and those were clearly the stakes.
And, of course, nihilistic militants have no such qualms.
Several developments have the potential to move the hands of the nuclear doom clock closer to midnight.
A new U.S. nuclear policy has a chance of destabilizing the balance of terror by creating a larger arsenal of smaller weapons.
Why?
Smaller weapons are more tempting to use. The argument for so-called "tactical" nukes is that they would destroy a smaller area and create less fallout, making them more "safe" to use than traditional many-megaton bombs. And that could lead to temptation to use them.
Just as importantly, that could give other nuclear-armed powers the impression that the U.S. would be more likely to use the weapons - a dangerous spiral that could culminate with...the end of the world, literally.
The United States is hardly the only nation adding stress to a system that is always a hands-breadth from tragedy.
Russia's President Vladimir Putin has rattled the nuclear sabre, even threatening to station missiles in annexed Crimea. Pakistan, another nuclear-armed country, is a divided nation with government agencies linked to Islamic extremism and a beef with India. India has a beef with Pakistan and territorial disputes with China.
North Korea is a wildcard with an accelerating nuclear program that may still be getting help from Pakistan - which denies it. Recent tests by North Korea and China's lack of overt response has set U.S. teeth on edge.
In the end, the basic question is whether humanity can have such dangerous toys and not use them.
Incredible as it may seem, at the height of the Cold War the world might actually have been safer, experts say. Neither the United States nor the Soviet Union had a death wish, and those were clearly the stakes.
And, of course, nihilistic militants have no such qualms.
Link here.
Saturday, October 8, 2016
Acceptable Losses - Aiding and abetting the Saudi slaughter in Yemen
By Andrew Cockburn
Just a few short years ago, Yemen was judged to be among the poorest countries in the world, ranking 154th out of the 187 nations on the U.N.’s Human Development Index. One in every five Yemenis went hungry. Almost one in three was unemployed. Every year, 40,000 children died before their fifth birthday, and experts predicted the country would soon run out of water.
Such was the dire condition of the country before Saudi Arabia unleashed a bombing campaign in March 2015, which has destroyed warehouses, factories, power plants, ports, hospitals, water tanks, gas stations, and bridges, along with miscellaneous targets ranging from donkey carts to wedding parties to archaeological monuments. Thousands of civilians — no one knows how many — have been killed or wounded. Along with the bombing, the Saudis have enforced a blockade, cutting off supplies of food, fuel, and medicine. A year and a half into the war, the health system has largely broken down, and much of the country is on the brink of starvation.
This rain of destruction was made possible by the material and moral support of the United States, which supplied most of the bombers, bombs, and missiles required for the aerial onslaught. (Admittedly, the United Kingdom, France, and other NATO arms exporters eagerly did their bit.) U.S. Navy ships aided the blockade. But no one that I talked to in Washington suggested that the war was in any way necessary to our national security. The best answer I got came from Ted Lieu, a Democratic congressman from California who has been one of the few public officials to speak out about the devastation we were enabling far away. “Honestly,” he told me, “I think it’s because Saudi Arabia asked.”
Link here.
Such was the dire condition of the country before Saudi Arabia unleashed a bombing campaign in March 2015, which has destroyed warehouses, factories, power plants, ports, hospitals, water tanks, gas stations, and bridges, along with miscellaneous targets ranging from donkey carts to wedding parties to archaeological monuments. Thousands of civilians — no one knows how many — have been killed or wounded. Along with the bombing, the Saudis have enforced a blockade, cutting off supplies of food, fuel, and medicine. A year and a half into the war, the health system has largely broken down, and much of the country is on the brink of starvation.
This rain of destruction was made possible by the material and moral support of the United States, which supplied most of the bombers, bombs, and missiles required for the aerial onslaught. (Admittedly, the United Kingdom, France, and other NATO arms exporters eagerly did their bit.) U.S. Navy ships aided the blockade. But no one that I talked to in Washington suggested that the war was in any way necessary to our national security. The best answer I got came from Ted Lieu, a Democratic congressman from California who has been one of the few public officials to speak out about the devastation we were enabling far away. “Honestly,” he told me, “I think it’s because Saudi Arabia asked.”
Link here.
War College - Why wars in the Middle East will cost the U.S. trillions more
The United States is at war and has been for more than a decade. Although major combat operations in Iraq in Afghanistan have ended, America still maintains a presence in both and will for years to come. It also funds Syrian rebels, bombs Islamic State strongholds in the region and runs drones from Afghanistan to the Horn of Africa. With America fighting on so many fronts, it’s hard to understand the Pentagon’s strategy or the endgame for the various conflicts. Retired U.S. Army Colonel Andrew Bacevich says it feels that way because it is that way. According to Bacevich, the American military is fighting a war that began decades before 9/11. This week on War College, Bacevich walks us through what he calls America’s War With the Greater Middle East and tells us how it started and why he thinks it must end.
Link here.
Link here.
Tuesday, September 20, 2016
The Continuing Retirement Savings Crisis
By Nari Rhee, PhD and Ilana Boivie
March 2015
The key findings of this report are as follows:
1. Account ownership rates are closely correlated with income and wealth. Nearly 40 million working-age households (45 percent) do not own any retirement account assets, whether in an employer-sponsored 401(k) type plan or an IRA. Households that do own retirement accounts have more than 2.4 times the annual income of households that do not own a retirement account.
2. The average working household has virtually no retirement savings. When all households are included— not just households with retirement accounts—the median retirement account balance is $2,500 for all working-age households and $14,500 for near-retirement households. Furthermore, 62 percent of working households age 55-64 have retirement savings less than one times their annual income, which is far below what they will need to maintain their standard of living in retirement.
3. Even after counting households’ entire net worth—a generous measure of retirement savings—twothirds (66 percent) of working families fall short of conservative retirement savings targets for their age and income based on working until age 67. Due to a longterm trend toward income and wealth inequality that only worsened during the recent economic recovery, a large majority of the bottom half of working households cannot meet even a substantially reduced savings target.
4. Public policy can play a critical role in putting all Americans on a path toward a secure retirement by strengthening Social Security, expanding access to lowcost, high quality retirement plans, and helping lowincome workers and families save. Social Security, the primary edifice of retirement income security, could be strengthened to stabilize system financing and enhance benefits for vulnerable populations. Access to workplace retirement plans could be expanded by making it easier for private employers to sponsor DB pensions, while national and state level proposals aim to ensure universal retirement plan coverage. Finally, expanding the Saver’s Credit and making it refundable could help boost the retirement savings of lower-income families.
Link here.
March 2015
The key findings of this report are as follows:
1. Account ownership rates are closely correlated with income and wealth. Nearly 40 million working-age households (45 percent) do not own any retirement account assets, whether in an employer-sponsored 401(k) type plan or an IRA. Households that do own retirement accounts have more than 2.4 times the annual income of households that do not own a retirement account.
2. The average working household has virtually no retirement savings. When all households are included— not just households with retirement accounts—the median retirement account balance is $2,500 for all working-age households and $14,500 for near-retirement households. Furthermore, 62 percent of working households age 55-64 have retirement savings less than one times their annual income, which is far below what they will need to maintain their standard of living in retirement.
3. Even after counting households’ entire net worth—a generous measure of retirement savings—twothirds (66 percent) of working families fall short of conservative retirement savings targets for their age and income based on working until age 67. Due to a longterm trend toward income and wealth inequality that only worsened during the recent economic recovery, a large majority of the bottom half of working households cannot meet even a substantially reduced savings target.
4. Public policy can play a critical role in putting all Americans on a path toward a secure retirement by strengthening Social Security, expanding access to lowcost, high quality retirement plans, and helping lowincome workers and families save. Social Security, the primary edifice of retirement income security, could be strengthened to stabilize system financing and enhance benefits for vulnerable populations. Access to workplace retirement plans could be expanded by making it easier for private employers to sponsor DB pensions, while national and state level proposals aim to ensure universal retirement plan coverage. Finally, expanding the Saver’s Credit and making it refundable could help boost the retirement savings of lower-income families.
Thursday, September 1, 2016
THE CIA AND THE MEDIA
BY CARL BERNSTEIN
How Americas Most Powerful News Media Worked Hand in Glove with the Central Intelligence Agency and Why the Church Committee Covered It Up
"Among the executives who lent their cooperation to the Agency were Williarn Paley of the Columbia Broadcasting System, Henry Luce of Tirne Inc., Arthur Hays Sulzberger of the New York Times, Barry Bingham Sr. of the LouisviIle Courier‑Journal, and James Copley of the Copley News Service. Other organizations which cooperated with the CIA include the American Broadcasting Company, the National Broadcasting Company, the Associated Press, United Press International, Reuters, Hearst Newspapers, Scripps‑Howard, Newsweek magazine, the Mutual Broadcasting System, the Miami Herald and the oldSaturday Evening Post and New York Herald‑Tribune.
By far the most valuable of these associations, according to CIA officials, have been with the New York Times, CBS and Time Inc.
The CIA’s use of the American news media has been much more extensive than Agency officials have acknowledged publicly or in closed sessions with members of Congress. The general outlines of what happened are indisputable; the specifics are harder to come by. CIA sources hint that a particular journalist was trafficking all over Eastern Europe for the Agency; the journalist says no, he just had lunch with the station chief. CIA sources say flatly that a well‑known ABC correspondent worked for the Agency through 1973; they refuse to identify him. A high‑level CIA official with a prodigious memory says that the New York Timesprovided cover for about ten CIA operatives between 1950 and 1966; he does not know who they were, or who in the newspaper’s management made the arrangements.
The Agency’s special relationships with the so‑called “majors” in publishing and broadcasting enabled the CIA to post some of its most valuable operatives abroad without exposure for more than two decades. In most instances, Agency files show, officials at the highest levels of the CIA usually director or deputy director) dealt personally with a single designated individual in the top management of the cooperating news organization. The aid furnished often took two forms: providing jobs and credentials “journalistic cover” in Agency parlance) for CIA operatives about to be posted in foreign capitals; and lending the Agency the undercover services of reporters already on staff, including some of the best‑known correspondents in the business."
"Among the executives who lent their cooperation to the Agency were Williarn Paley of the Columbia Broadcasting System, Henry Luce of Tirne Inc., Arthur Hays Sulzberger of the New York Times, Barry Bingham Sr. of the LouisviIle Courier‑Journal, and James Copley of the Copley News Service. Other organizations which cooperated with the CIA include the American Broadcasting Company, the National Broadcasting Company, the Associated Press, United Press International, Reuters, Hearst Newspapers, Scripps‑Howard, Newsweek magazine, the Mutual Broadcasting System, the Miami Herald and the oldSaturday Evening Post and New York Herald‑Tribune.
By far the most valuable of these associations, according to CIA officials, have been with the New York Times, CBS and Time Inc.
The CIA’s use of the American news media has been much more extensive than Agency officials have acknowledged publicly or in closed sessions with members of Congress. The general outlines of what happened are indisputable; the specifics are harder to come by. CIA sources hint that a particular journalist was trafficking all over Eastern Europe for the Agency; the journalist says no, he just had lunch with the station chief. CIA sources say flatly that a well‑known ABC correspondent worked for the Agency through 1973; they refuse to identify him. A high‑level CIA official with a prodigious memory says that the New York Timesprovided cover for about ten CIA operatives between 1950 and 1966; he does not know who they were, or who in the newspaper’s management made the arrangements.
The Agency’s special relationships with the so‑called “majors” in publishing and broadcasting enabled the CIA to post some of its most valuable operatives abroad without exposure for more than two decades. In most instances, Agency files show, officials at the highest levels of the CIA usually director or deputy director) dealt personally with a single designated individual in the top management of the cooperating news organization. The aid furnished often took two forms: providing jobs and credentials “journalistic cover” in Agency parlance) for CIA operatives about to be posted in foreign capitals; and lending the Agency the undercover services of reporters already on staff, including some of the best‑known correspondents in the business."
“One of the things we always had going for us in terms of enticing reporters,” observed a CIA official who coordinated some of the arrangements with journalists, “was that we could make them look better with their home offices. A foreign correspondent with ties to the Company [the CIA] stood a much better chance than his competitors of getting the good stories.”
Link here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)