(Politics) CIA: Agent Capture in Russia Tops off a Nightmare Few Weeks For Company

After letting the Boston Bombers "fall through the cracks" and have their secret bribes outed by it main recipients in Afghanistan, the CIA could have done without the embarrassing news of having probably the most incompetent spy in CIA history apprehended in Russia for trying to turn a Russian spy.

(Politics) CIA: CIA “ghost money” at the heart of why progress in Afghanistan is fleeting at best

For a clandestine organization, the CIA mistakes are well documented and way too frequent so there should be no surprise why Afghanistan president Hamid Karzai confirmed reports that the CIA had “given the Afghan National Security Council tens of millions of dollars in monthly payments delivered in suitcases, backpacks and plastic shopping bags”[1].

While comedy is to be found in the fact that a clandestine organization were outed by a man who they a played a role in bringing him into power in the first place , the real joke is Karzai’s explanation of  where the money went as he (with a wink and nod, I presume) said that the funds “were used to give assistance to the wounded and sick, to pay rent for housing and for other "operational" purposes”[2].

It’s needless to say but if Karzai explanation had a kernel of truth, why all the secrecy or not go through the normal channels to give funds? The answer is dead simple, its purposes are less media friendly than aiding the ‘wounded and the sick’. The suspicion of the money funding foul play were instant and were confirmed  in the past  as US officials claimed that  the funds have“has fueled corruption and empowered warlords, undermining Washington's exit strategy from Afghanistan"[3].

The real problem at hand is for all its efforts to buy influence, it has instead bought nothing but a hated and even uncooperative Afghan officials who have gone some way to make the country near terminal problems even worse. 

This revelation is part of a larger picture at the heart of why Afghanistan cannot progress as relies on contributions from foreign governments. Bernard Bajolet, France ambassador to Afghanistan, pointed to the heart of Afghanistan’s problems as he observed that Afghanistan are currently helmed by people who have “a lack of faith…in the future of the country”[4] .Bajolet also pointed saw corruption rather than Afghanistan very real security threat as a deterrent of foreign investment which could help the country wean itself off international funds[5].

In sum, the CIA supply of money is not news as simply they are not the only organisation playing the same game. It has bought them nothing but an increasingly obstinate president and a incredibly corruptible Afghan political class who have no real interest in the progress of the country they supposedly represent. All this is why Afghanistan will remain a country in crisis and conflict with problems as the people who can make the changes needed in the country have no faith in its future.    

If you want to find out about the CIA involvement in the Afghanistan and middle east in general, check out Steve coll's epic 'ghost wars' here.

(Politics) China Military and Energy Spending: A Cause for Concern?

Much has been made of China apparent rise and the factors, consequences and potential outcomes possible attached to its growth, but so far, much of it has been negative and with the rate that China is expanding it’s military capabilities and importing oil, pessimists towards China’s growth as a international player have a solid argument as to why the glass is half empty.

While China may be in a region where it is next door neighbor is a nuclear police state in North Korea and is less than pally with it’s even less than favorite neighbor in Japan, It safe to say that China are increasing their military prowess at a alarming pace with its navy “now second in size only to the US in terms of raw numbers”[1].  This is possible thanks to massive spikes in China’s defense budget with it’s leadership revealing a massive 11.2 percent boost in 2012 alone following “a long term trend of double digit percentage increases in annual spending” [2].

While it might not entirely clear just how much China is spending to build up its military power, according to Pentagon estimates, Security has no price in Bejing as spending could be “between $120 billion and $180 billion”[3]. While China massive defense spending hikes would send a shiver down any  neighboring nation's spine, China’s less than cordial behavior towards it’s  neighbors  does nothing to ease the real fears of how China will act when it completes it’s ascent to become the world’s foremost superpower.

China has been super assertive towards it’s neighbours, particularly Japan, over small disputed islands  which both sides claim to be theirs to the point that both sides have already named the island as China has named lands (currently in dispute with Japan) in the East China Sea ‘Diaoyu’ while Japan refer to the lands as ‘Senkaku’[4]. China, none to shy asserting itself, has land disputes with regional neighbours “Philippines and Vietnam, as well as Taiwan, Brunei and Malaysia, over territory in the South China Sea”[5]

While you may now be thinking why China would kick up such a fuss in its region over  minuscule islands you would struggle to locate with Google Earth ,  the fact that the islands are, wait for it, “resource-rich” may ease your  search for an answer. China are also trying out it’s naval power in the form of “patrols and exercises” in these “contested waters” because China will eventually seek to make the islands theirs and there will be little it’s neighbours can do about it.

The news of China surpassing Uncle Sam in oil imports may have come as a shock to most due to the US’s well documented reliance on middle east oil and the even better documented foreign policy implications of relying on oil from the Middle East, but it shouldn’t have to a shock to anybody.

China has a big oil demand due to it’s population size and a slowed but still growing economy but maybe  the  concern of China becoming the world’s foremost buyer of oil was over the historical  need for oil for nations to fight sustained wars. While there is no indication that China is looking for a military confrontation with anybody, when a nation buys oil at a rate China is, the political classes of all countries involved watch closely with trepidation as there is only two real reasons for such an influx, a growing economy with a big oil demand or the preparation and possible execution of sustained military campaign.

China’s oil buying, defence spending and it’s new assertiveness in the region has a number of nations spooked, especially Japan.  Japan uneasiness over China’s growth as a military threat had made Japan increase  it’s own defence budget increase (it’s first in over a decade) by a meagre (in comparison to China’s at least) 0.8 percent and its “coast guard budget” by 1.9 percent “ in response to  China’s “incursions”[6]. It might have been more but Japan are in no position to assert itself against China as Japan is hamstrung by it inability to “service  record debt “ and a “decades old informal military spending limit of 1 percent of gross domestic product”[7].

China’s other neighbour, India are also less than comfortable with it’s  rise signalled  by it’s recent nuclear show of force and an increase of its defence budget to the tune of  $37.7 billion[8] . Both India and Japan have sought to establish stronger ties with each other with Japan  being “the largest donor of official development aid to India” [9].

Both nations, encouraged by the US especially and more importantly, have been long looking to contain the rise of China with a conspicuous increase in trade between the countries as trade between India and Japan was only $6.5 billion in 2005 but jumped to $18.5 billion just six years later[10]. However, all this minor positioning and balancing on the part of China’s regional rivals is the work of  the United States, who see China as a threat to it’s previously unparalleled global dominance.

In Sum, China rise in military and economic might was always going to scare neighbours and concern rival but the pace over the thirty has been phenomenal  and now we are only now starting to see how the world responds to what now looks like  China are looking to assert themselves more as nation of their size and stature has, and as China’s political leadership might argue, should.

---

[1] D. Lague and T.Y. Jones, 2013, China Defence spending seen rising as territorial rows deepen,  http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/01/us-china-defence-idUSBRE9200HH20130301

[2] Ibid

[3] Ibid

[4] Ibid

[5] Ibid

[6] I. Reynolds, 2013, Japan Defense Budget to Increase for First Time in 11 Years, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-29/japan-s-defense-spending-to-increase-for-first-time-in-11-years.html

[7] Ibid

[8] S. Choudhury, 2013, India Increase Defense Budget to $37.7 billion, http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324662404578331762186925312.html

[9] T. Kitazume, 2013, Japan urged to help build India’s Infrastructure,                                                                               

[10] Ibid

(Politics) Marco Rubio: Saviour of the GOP?

Marco Rubio has quickly ascended to a major figure of the GOP and is seen as a potential candidate for the presidency in 2016 but will he really be the change that Republicans need in order to become electorally viable again? The Carnage Report doesn’t think so and here’s why. In lieu of President Obama’s re-election and convincing defeat of Mitt Romney, the penny had dropped for Republicans across the land; the GOP had to change in order become electorally viable. The party had long relied on the southern strategy to win the Whitehouse and the 2012 election put paid to classic republican election strategy of being hard where Democrats were soft.

Republicans for years ignored demographics the Democrats have learned to perfect their sales pitch to and have won lost presidential elections because of it. Taking stock of the Democrats appeal to a wider demographic and the fact that democrats and indeed the country is looking to see if the GOP can change its positions or at least be able to bargain with, with immigration reform sure to be the litmus test as it is clearly one of  the president’s key policy priorities.

There are signs that the GOP may be changing with Louie Gohmert, A Texas congressional republican who is as right wing as it gets and was against Affordable Healthcare, stating publicly that temporary workers (who are mostly immigrants) should have their healthcare paid for by their employers[1]. However, while it does represent some progress, Gohmert motivation for backing this measure was his anxiety over “immigrants benefiting from tax-payer funded health care programs” in knowledge of the fact that immigrants receiving state benefits are less than popular[2].

This kind of logic also informs the GOP sudden push for their members to embrace immigration reform in an attempt to attract Latino voters to the party. Marco Rubio popularity is fuelled by this need to make some progress on immigration despite the fact that Marco Rubio is quite conservative on the immigration reform. Upon the news of a leak of the Whitehouse’s draft immigration reform bill that would reportedly “offer more than 11 million undocumented immigrants a pathway to residency”, Marco Rubio stated empathically that should its bill reach the floor of congress “the bill would be “dead on arrival” and called the bill “half baked and seriously flawed”[3]. 

Rubio also implied that bill is unfair due to the bill allows for “special pathway” that favors illegal immigrants despite the fact that Rubio has proposed an immigration bill quite similar to the bill drafted by the Whitehouse. The bill mimics the Whitehouse draft bill as it supports the “pathway to residency” clause he outright criticised in the Whitehouse’s version[4].  It can easily be presumed that Rubio bowed to party pressure as fellow republicans publicly attacked the Whitehouse bill with Rand Paul seeing the plan as “untenable” stating that the “bill won’t pass”[5].

Rubio’s position on Israel is no real surprise but his commitment to Israel counterproductive plan to make Jerusalem it capital was confirmed when on a visit to the country, Rubio revealed he saw Jerusalem as “…the capital or Israel”[6].  Israel has made plans (‘E1 development’) to further encroach into the west bank by building new settlements on land that is seen by many that, if successful, it would make the two-state solution impossible as a policy choice[7].

Israel unveiling of it plans to increase settlements in the West Bank drew widespread criticism including from numerous member states of the EU, UN, and even the United States[8]. A spokeswoman from the US State Department expressed that the United States “was deeply disappointed that Israel insists on continuing this pattern of provocative action”[9]. The spokeswoman continued to point at the continued hypocrisy of Israeli Leadership as she rightly noted that “Israeli leaders continually say that they support a path towards a two-state solution, yet these actions only put that goal at further at risk”[10].

However in the face worldwide criticism of their expansion policy regarding the West Bank, Israel has continued its controversial plans to build settlements with the housing the state “issuing tenders for hundreds of housing units in the West Bank settlements of Karnel Shomron and Efrat”[11]. Despite the consternation towards Israel’s settlement plans, Rubio contradicts the position of his own country by siding with Israel’s isolating and conflict inducing position looking to beef up his foreign policy profile by stating his views “on some of the nation’s (Israel) thorniest issues”[12].

While photo ops with Shimon Peres and Benjamin Netanyahu may help his foreign policy profile, Rubio has supported a position that the people of Israel are clearly split on and may even like to see slow down or stop completely. According to ThinkProgress’s Hayes Brown, “Fifty-four percent of respondents were in favor of a Palestinian state, with only 38 percent opposed”[13].

In an survey taken by 600 Israelis, contrary to Israel’s well-earned reputation as a militarized country, 81.9% of Israels “think settlements should be the first source of budget cuts”, even among the Israel’s strong right wing contingent there is majority support for “diverting funds from settlements to help balance the budget”[14].

However for all the encouraging polls suggesting that the people of Israel would like to see an ease in the building settlements and military conflict, the hopes of this happening are depressing to say the least with a decisive “54 percent of those polled believe that a peace deal with the Palestinians is impossible”[15]. The country, as far as support for settlements are concerned, has no definite position with Support and opposition “split in half, with 43 percent opposed and 43 percent in favour”[16].

With the evidence available, It was unwise for Rubio to take a position on an contentious issue and is a reliable sources for the international to pour condemnation on Israel and further isolate a country already low on friends and high on military intent.

---

[1] I. Volsky, 2013, Right-Wing Congressman Suddenly Embraces Ahealth Care…For Immigrants, http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/02/05/1543681/right-wing-congressman-suddenly-embraces-a-health-care-mandatefor-immigrants/

[2] Ibid

[3] K. McDonough, 2013, Marco Rubio threatens White House leaked immigration bill would be “dead on arrival”,  http://www.salon.com/2013/02/17/marco_rubio_threatens_white_house_leaked_immigration_bill_would_be_dead_on_arrival/

[4] C. Joseph, 2013, Marco Rubio Rejects His Own Immigration Proposal, Because of Barack Obama,  http://blogs.browardpalmbeach.com/pulp/2013/02/marco_rubio_rejects_his_own_im.php

[5] Fox News, 2013, Republicans rip Obama immigration plan ; Rubio calls it ‘dead on arrival’, http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/02/17/report-bill-would-set-8-year-path-to-residency/

[6] A. Esenten, 2013, Visting Senator Marco Rubio:Of Course Jerusalem I Israel’s Capital,  http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/visiting-u-s-senator-marco-rubio-of-course-jerusalem-is-israel-s-capital.premium-1.504963

[7] H. Sherwood et al, 2012, Israel stands by settlements plan despite growing diplomatic crisis, http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/dec/03/uk-may-recall-israel-ambassador-settlement

[8] Y. Benhorin, 2012, US: Israel Settlement Plans Provocative, http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4321795,00.html

[9] Ibid, Quoted by Benhorin

[10] Ibid, Quoted by Benhorin

[11] Ibid

[12] S. McLaughlin, 2013, Israel stop a boost to Marco Rubio’s foreign policy profile, http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/feb/20/israel-stop-a-boost-to-marco-rubios-foreign-policy/

[13] H. Brown, 2013, POLL: Israels Support Palestinian State But Split On Settlements, http://thinkprogress.org/security/2013/01/04/1398041/israelis-support-two-state-split-settlements/

[14] A. Zeiger, 2013, Poll: Israels say defunds settlements to balance budget, http://www.timesofisrael.com/poll-israelis-say-defund-settlements-to-balance-budget/

[15] H. Brown, 2013, POLL: Israels Support Palestinian State But Split On Settlements, http://thinkprogress.org/security/2013/01/04/1398041/israelis-support-two-state-split-settlements/

[16] Ibid

(News) Drone operators and military medals: purple hearts for yellow bellies?

(Video) Obama Drone Strikes: Taking Drones Seriously

(Video) Obama Drone Strikes: the devil is in the process

(Politics) Middle East: why the Middle East Matters

Browse more data visualization.

(video) Jose Manuel Barroso interview: Barroso on the state of the union

(Opinion) ‘Innocence of Muslims’ film controversy: more an affront to cinema than Islam

After watching the innocence of Muslims’ extended trailer you can come to number of conclusion but two will probably be most among them, firstly, it is as offensive as it is poorly executed, and secondly, surprise that such a silly attempt at hateful propaganda lead to the death  of U.S ambassador to Libya, J. Christopher Steven. While the film is insulting to Islam and its prophet as it depicts Muhammad as a barbaric idiot, it is more of an insult to cinema as a medium.

Why such awful film from the writing, directing , acting and production of such flagrant propaganda even got made or any backing goes to show that there no such thing as merit in the movie industry when a real estate developer who reckons himself the next Leni Riefenstahl can even helm a movie.

The trailer itself reveals quite quickly that the director has no type of skill or taste for dialogue or comedy as this comes off at a very bad attempt  to imitate the Monty Python’s classic send up of the story of Jesus ‘the life of Brian’. The comedy in the piece is unfunny and thus comes off as offensive as characters run totally off script into ignoble tirades about the prophet Muhammad and his supposed penchant women and girls.

The fact that followers of Islam saw this film as an affront to their faith and their prophet says a lot more about followers of the faith than the trailer in question. This film is affront to good taste and valuable time not the prophet Muhammad as the only question after watching the trailer is that if this film had a $5 million budget, why backers of this film aren’t asking for their 4,999,999 back.

In sum, The Innocence of Muslims is no affront to Islam or its prophet as it is more of an affront to cinema as a medium. The only travesty is that this film ever got made and its release led to the death of a human being. The death of  J. Christopher Steven says more about certain followers of the faith that such a silly film should inspire such outrage as there have been releases of films about other faiths that have been much more libellous and insulting that this one which serves to buffer the divisive argument (the central argument in the trailer) that Islam is not a religion of peace.