Early Bird summary
Monday’s Early Bird leads with stories from the New York Times and Washington Post reporting that four American soldiers were killed in eastern Afghanistan in a roadside explosion on Sunday, the United States military said, in the worst of several attacks by insurgents around the country.The Taliban claimed responsibility for the attack, a spokesman, Zabiullah Mujahid, said.The Taliban have been threatening to increase attacks on foreign and Afghan forces in Afghanistan to counter the increase in American troops arriving in the country over the coming months. Military officials have been predicting an increase in violence this year.
The transition in Iraq receives coverage from the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Philadelphia Inquirer and CNN, with the New York Times reporting a spike in revenge killings and other crimes as Americans pull out, the Los Angeles Times covering how U.S.-owned military materiel will be handled as American troops leave, the Philadelphia Inquirer reporting that U.S. troops will not be removed from areas of Iraq that are not completely secure or where there is a high probability that attacks could resume after the Americans leave, and CNN airing a short report about “how things stand” in Basra.
The Washington Post reports that a suspected U.S. missile strike killed two Arabs and three other people in northwest Pakistan late Sunday, intelligence officials said, in the latest in a barrage of attacks on suspected insurgent targets in the region.The Pakistan-Afghanistan border area is home to scores of al-Qaeda and Taliban insurgents, and the United States is pressing the Pakistani government to do more to fight them. The remote area is thought to be a hiding place for al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.
The Marine Corps Air Station in Yuma is hoping a 15-story wall of flame nearly 2 miles long will break a Guinness world record, according to the Arizona Republic.The wall of flame soared into the sky Saturday at the Yuma Air Show, causing thick smoke to cast a shade over the airfield and thousands of spectators. The inferno was the finale of a day filled with daring flights by aerobatic pilots, skydivers and military jet fighters.
Philippine prisons are better known for rats and vicious gangs than diplomatic niceties, which is why people (in Manila) are angry that an American Marine convicted of rape is doing his jail time in the dignified U.S. Embassy, according to the Los Angeles Times.Lance Cpl. Daniel Smith was convicted in December 2006 of raping a 22-year-old Filipina a year earlier after they had been drinking in a bar in Subic Bay, a former U.S. naval base north of Manila.American officials say Smith, whose unit was deployed here for counter-terrorism training, has been under Marine guard at the U.S. Embassy compound since Philippine authorities transferred him there from a Manila jail weeks after he was convicted.
Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez ordered the navy on Sunday to seize seaports in states with major petroleum-exporting installations, part of his effort to assert greater control over infrastructure that had come under the dominion of political opponents in regional elections last year, the New York Times reportsThe move points to a spreading radicalization by Mr. Chávez, as he responds to a slowing economy and the gains made by his opponents. Economic growth slowed in the last quarter to its most sluggish pace in five years, 3.2 percent, weighed down by low oil prices.In recent weeks, Mr. Chávez’s government announced the nationalization of an Irish-owned eucalyptus-tree plantation and a rice plant controlled by Cargill, the American agricultural giant. Last week, legislators loyal to Mr. Chávez approved a law shifting control of seaports, airports and highways from states to the central government.
Media summary
1. Leading newspaper headlines: The New York Times, Washington Post, and Los Angeles Times lead with American International Group releasing the names of trading partners that got a big chunk of the federal bailout money the ailing insurance giant began receiving six months ago. (Slate Magazine)
2. Iraqis ‘more upbeat about future’: Violence and insecurity are no longer the main concern of most Iraqis, for the first time since the 2003 US-led invasion, an opinion poll suggests. (BBC)
3. Hamas threatens rocket militants: Hamas says continuing rocket fire by Palestinian militants from Gaza into Israel is "ill-timed". (BBC)
4. The generals declare war on adjectives: Over the past week, a war has broken out at Small Wars Journal over adjectives. (Foreign Policy)
Leading newspaper headlines
The New York Times, Washington Post, and Los Angeles Times lead with American International Group releasing the names of trading partners that got a big chunk of the federal bailout money the ailing insurance giant began receiving six months ago. Members of Congress have been demanding to know the names of the institutions that got money from AIG, a company that has received more than $170 billion and is now about 80 percent owned by U.S. taxpayers. After arguing for weeks that it couldn't release those details due to privacy considerations, AIG unexpectedly released a list of nearly 80 trading partners that received nearly $100 billion in the final months of 2008. (The WSJ says $120 billion.)
The Wall Street Journal leads its world-wide newsbox with, and almost everyone else fronts, news that the Pakistani government has agreed to reinstate the former chief justice of the Supreme Court. The "stunning concession" (NYT) ended a political showdown between President Asif Ali Zardari and opposition leader Nawaz Sharif, who was heading to the capital for what was expected to be a huge protest. USA Today leads with a look at a series of reports that say the U.S. missile-defense system that has been proposed for Europe would cost billions to deploy and may not work. More than $100 billion has been used to develop the system, but it continues to fail some basic tests. It could cost as much as $13 billion to deploy in Europe, and some analysts insist it would be relatively easy for anyone to get around the system.
The list of companies that received payments from AIG "reads like a who's who of global finance," notes the WSJ. Some of the biggest U.S. financial institutions are on the list, including Goldman Sachs, which got nearly $13 billion, and Merrill Lynch, which received almost $7 billion. There are also major foreign banks on the list, including Société Générale of France and Germany's Deutsche Bank, which received around $12 billion each. The insurance giant also reported that municipalities in dozens of states received $12 billion.
The government had always said that it was necessary to rescue AIG because its failure could lead to a series of other collapses, since the insurance giant is so interconnected in the financial system. The NYT points out that the list released yesterday "could bolster that justification by illustrating the breadth of losses that might have occurred had A.I.G. been allowed to fail." At the same time, there are "political risks to the disclosures," notes the WSJ. It's not just that AIG is serving as a funnel to save numerous private businesses. That some of the institutions have received bailouts of their own and that some are based overseas won't make it any easier for taxpayers to accept the situation.
The long-awaited disclosure came on a day when the airwaves were filled with public outrage over the revelation that AIG paid hundreds of millions of dollars in bonuses. AIG executives said they had no choice but to fork over $165 million in bonus payments that were due Sunday for executives at its Financial Products unit, which lost $40.5 billion last year. Although much attention has been paid to that number, it is hardly the whole story. The WSJ breaks down the numbers and says that employees at the troubled unit had been promised $450 million in bonuses before the government rescue. In addition, the company will be paying $121.5 million in incentive bonuses to 6,400 employees as well as $619 million in retention payments to 4,200 employees. In total, "the three programs could result in roughly $1.2 billion in retention and bonus payments to AIG employees."
AIG and government lawyers say that the company is obligated to make payments. "The easy thing would be to just say ... Off with their heads, violate the contracts," Lawrence Summers, Obama's top economic adviser, said. "But you have to think about the consequences of breaking contracts for the overall system of law, for the overall financial system." Others weren't quite convinced by that argument. "We need to find out whether these bonuses are legally recoverable," Rep. Barney Frank said.
Even as it described itself as having no choice but to accept the bonuses, administration officials brought on full-on outrage about the situation at AIG during the Sunday talk shows. In a front-page analysis, the NYT says it was the administration's latest effort "to distance itself from abuses" in the financial system as it grows increasingly concerned about a "populist backlash against banks and Wall Street" that could turn into anger at Congress and the White House. This could make it harder for Obama to get any additional bailouts through Congress and prevent him from pursuing other big-ticket items in his agenda. "Never underestimate the capacity of angry populism in times of economic stress," warned Robert Reich, labor secretary under President Bill Clinton.
The WSJ goes high with word that the Obama administration has started to outline its plan to overhaul the oversight of the financial markets. "We want to accelerate the pace of change on the reform agenda," Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said. The administration wants to give more power to the Federal Reserve to police the system and require banks to hold more capital during good times so they have a bigger cushion if there is a downturn. The White House is also likely to ask Congress to give regulators the authority to take over a large financial company that is failing.
The WP points out that the Pakistani government's decision to reinstate the chief justice, along with other deposed judges, "marked an extraordinary victory for Pakistan's legal community." A lawyers' movement had been campaigning for two years to reinstate Iftikhar Mohammed Chaudhry but it became stronger after opposition leader Nawaz Sharif joined the protests. There was a widespread belief that Zardari didn't want to reinstate Chaudhry out of fear that he would reopen old corruption cases against him. Zardari's reversal appeared to be further evidence that he is losing his grip on power and cemented Sharif's role as the main face of the opposition.
The WP notes that newly released excerpts from a report by the International Committee of the Red Cross reveals that the humanitarian group concluded that the way al-Qaida detainees were treated inside CIA "black site" prisons "constituted torture." The Red Cross was given access to 14 "high-value" detainees who were transferred to Guantanamo in 2006 and they all gave very similar accounts of the rough interrogation practices they had to endure. A piece by Mark Danner published yesterday by the New York Review of Books quotes extensively from the report, which was given to White House officials in 2007. Although many of the details were already known, "the ICRC report is the most authoritative account and the first to use the word 'torture' in a legal context," says the Post. "It could not be more important that the ICRC explicitly uses the words 'torture' and 'cruel and degrading,' " Danner said in an interview. "The ICRC is the guardian of the Geneva Conventions, and when it uses those words, they have the force of law."
The NYT fronts word that European countries are raising doubts about taking in prisoners from Guantanamo. Several European government officials have been emphasizing that they can't make a commitment to take in prisoners until they're clear on the security risks and whether the Obama administration will also commit to resettle some detainees in the United States. The White House and European Union officials will hold today a first round of talks on these issues that everyone says will be critical to begin answering some key questions about Obama's plan to close the prison.
To top of document
Iraqis 'more upbeat about future'
UK majority 'want Iraq inquiry'
Violence and insecurity are no longer the main concern of most Iraqis, for the first time since the 2003 US-led invasion, an opinion poll suggests.
It says Iraqis are much more hopeful about the future and are increasingly pre-occupied with more conventional worries like the economy and jobs.
But Iraqis remain unhappy about the role foreign powers play in their country, notably Iran, the US and UK.
The survey was carried out for the BBC, ABC News and NHK in February.
A total of 2,228 Iraqis were questioned across all 18 provinces. The margin of error is 2.5%.
Security
The poll is the sixth in a series of surveys stretching back to March 2004 and shows a marked overall improvement in perceptions, the BBC's Adam Mynott says.
Its findings show striking shifts in opinion since the last poll in March 2008.
On security, 85% of all respondents described the current situation as very good or quite good - up 23% on a year ago:
a total of 52% say security has improved over the last year, up 16% on March 2008
· only 8% say it is worse - against 26% last year
· 59% feel safe in their neighbourhoods, up 22% from 37% last time.
See poll results on security and democracy
Supplies improving
The numbers of people who report direct experience of car bombs, suicide attacks, sectarian fighting, kidnappings and assassination in their areas are much lower than last year.
Iraq Poll 2009
Iraq Poll questions and answers in full [605KB]
Most computers will open this document automatically, but you may need Adobe Reader
Download the reader here
Confidence grows as fear ebbs
Those who say their lives are going very well or quite well are now 65% of the total, up 9%. And there is a 14% increase - to 60% - of those who think things will be better in Iraq as a whole in a year from now.
The survey shows that some aspects of everyday life are improving, too.
The availability of power has been a major issue in the past six years, with only about 10% of the population saying in previous polls that they have had reliable supplies. In the latest poll, that figure has leapt to 37%.
And the number of those who say that availability of fuel for cooking or driving is now very good or quite good has also shot up to 67%, a 48% rise on the 19% of March 2008.
Sunni shift
As with previous findings, it is possible to distinguish between the responses of Shias and Sunnis.
All earlier polls have shown stark differences between them, with the Sunni minority profoundly more pessimistic than Shias about the current situation and Iraq's prospects.
These differences persist, but the new poll poll shows a pronounced shift in Sunni opinion towards a more optimistic view:
· overall, there is a 9% increase among those who think their lives are going very well or quite well (Shias +8%; Sunnis +16%)
· 14% more think things will be better for Iraq in a year's time (Shias +13%; Sunnis +29%)
· there is a 23% increase in those who say their local security situation is very/quite good (Shias +21%; Sunnis +32%)
· 21% more support democracy as the preferred model of government for Iraq compared with a strong leader or Islamic state (Shias +21% , Sunnis +27%).
Regional differences
Asked whether foreign countries are playing a positive or negative role in Iraq, Britain, the US and Iran get the most negative scores.
Overall, 59% of those questioned think Britain's role is negative, 22% positive; 64% say the US is negative, 18% positive; 68% view Iran negatively, 12% positively.
Also, 56% think the 2003 invasion was wrong (up 6%), while 42% say it was right (down 7%).
Only 30% think coalition forces are doing a good job, 69% a bad job - more or less the same as a year ago.
In the light of an imminent withdrawal of British troops from southern Iraq, Iraqis were asked about the value of the British presence since 2003.
The responses were mixed on this issue: 36% call it generally positive, 42% generally negative.
The poll also suggests that there are some marked differences in responses between the northern, central and southern regions of Iraq.
Overall, respondents in central Iraq, which includes Baghdad, are significantly less positive about how well things are currently going in their lives.
To top of document
Hamas threatens rocket militants
Rockets like this one aimed at Ashkelon, Israel are still being fired
Hamas says continuing rocket fire by Palestinian militants from Gaza into Israel is "ill-timed".
Hamas, which runs Gaza, said it had nothing to do with the attacks and would act against those responsible.
The warning, issued in a brief statement, was released as Egyptian-led efforts continue to achieve a long-term ceasefire between Hamas and Israel.
A key Israeli condition of any deal is the complete cessation of Palestinian rocket attacks against Israel.
Hamas has fired thousands of rockets into southern Israel over the past few years.
In eight years, around 20 Israeli civilians have been killed by rockets, and dozens injured.
'Right to resist'
This was Israel's justification for its recent, massive military operation in Gaza, in which around 1,300 Palestinians are thought to have died.
"Hamas is under pressure to make the conditions right for a ceasefire deal with Israel," says the BBC's Aleem Maqbool in Gaza.
A senior leader of the Islamic Jihad movement, Khader Habib, confirmed to the BBC that Hamas forces had arrested some of the group's members for launching rockets.
Islamic Jihad said they were only released when they signed forms saying they would no longer carry out attacks.
Mr Habib said Islamic Jihad had "the right to resist" and would continue to fire rockets in response to what it saw as any aggression from Israel.
To top of document
The generals declare war on "war adjectives"
Over the past week, a war has broken out at Small Wars Journal over adjectives. In an attempt to improve the U.S. military's ability to respond intelligently to the variety of threats it faces now and in the future, over the past decade analysts have added their favorite adjectives in front of the word "warfare." With the proper definition of the problem, these analysts reason, a logical solution should then be easy to find.
Thus, we have seen a parade of terms such as "irregular warfare," "insurgency warfare," "counterinsurgency warfare," "hybrid warfare," "unconventional warfare," "traditional warfare," "fourth generation warfare," etc. The creators and promoters of each of these modifiers have hoped to precisely describe a particular problem, from which an elegant and efficient solution should then appear.
The onset in late 2003 and 2004 of an urban insurgency in Iraq was the clearest justification for the arrival of "war adjectives." The mechanized, high-speed, and high- firepower military machine that invaded Iraq in March 2003 was perfectly suited for "traditional" or "conventional" warfare. However, that military machine seemed inept at dealing with the "irregular war" that followed.
But has the flowering of "war adjectives" turned into a confusing thicket of weeds? Col. David Maxwell, a U.S. Army Special Forces officer, senses confusion and perhaps even a hint of profiteering in the growth of "war adjectives." He made this case in a piece for Small Wars Journal:
For both academics and think tank researchers, published work is a measure of merit. Published research is augmented by the widest possible exposure at conferences and symposia to promote name recognition and career success. Unfortunately there are pundits who also participate in these conferences and symposia and publish their opinions without the same rigor as academics and professional researchers. A select few members of this ad hoc and informal community can be seen as peddling the same ideas over and over again as the answer to all the future US national security problems ... Leaders should and, in fact must, listen to these researchers and academics but they must also consider the agendas of pundits who often have the loudest voices as they push their concepts and terminology. [emphasis in original]
Maxwell advises U.S. generals to listen less to outside pundits and think-tank analysts and more to the military's own officers with field experience.
Two generals entered this debate at Small Wars Journal and both declared war on "war adjectives." Lt. Gen. Paul Van Riper, retired from the U.S. Marine Corps, asserted,
Every modification of the word "war" serves mainly as fodder for un-needed conferences, workshops, and meetings where the new definitions as well as the merits of these terms are debated with, in my estimation, little value added. These new terms also help confuse our officer corps and undermine a solid professional lexicon.
Finally, four-star Gen. Martin Dempsey, currently the commander of all of the U.S. Army's training programs, joined Lt. General Van Riper at Small Wars Journal in the battle to gun down some of the "war adjectives":
Dissecting war and placing it into various "bins" may seduce us into believing that we have somehow discovered a way to make it coherent. However, we'd be wrong. War is war. The threats we face are always hybrid threats ... What the nation needs is a balance of capabilities that can be applied by agile leaders when we confront an adaptive enemy.
Rather than attempting to define every type of war in order to prepare for that special situation, Dempsey advises, the Pentagon should develop a "balance of capabilities" to best prepare for unpredictable events.
Who could object to a "balance of capabilities"? Regrettably, one is only going to find out if U.S. military forces are properly balanced after the shooting starts. After the enemy's vote is counted, policymakers will then find out which capabilities they should have bought more of.
Special operations forces - the talent-poaching elite?
Ever since U.S. forces first entered Afghanistan in October 2001, policymakers on both sides of the political spectrum have called for increasing the size and budgets of the Pentagon's special operations forces. As military planners have discovered, the Pentagon is short of many of these elite specialists, such as the Army's Green Berets, the Navy's SEALs, and specialized aviation units. Congress and the Pentagon have therefore authorized expanding these and other special operations forces.
But some in Washington are calling for more. On March 3, Robert Martinage, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, delivered testimony to the House Armed Services Committee recommending even more growth for special ops. On the final page of his testimony, Martinage advised that "it will be necessary to offset the cost of these investments with cuts in conventional forces."
But where do the special operations forces find their elite warriors? By recruiting from the ranks of the conventional forces. Martinage understands the problem. While discussing his recommendation to create an additional Ranger regiment in the Army, he wrote:
The risk in creating an additional Ranger regiment, however, is that it would siphon off some of the most skilled and capable soldiers from the conventional Army, which is already struggling to maintain performance standards, especially within its non-commissioned officer corps. Increasing active-duty Army infantry, Ranger, and [Special Forces] force structure simultaneously without sacrificing quality will likely prove a daunting challenge. [emphasis in original]
The Army's special operations forces fill their ranks by poaching the best talent from the ranks of its conventional forces. But poachers can also be the victims of poaching, as this advertisement from the Central Intelligence Agency, which I found by clicking through a banner ad at Foreign Policy, reveals:
The Clandestine Service is looking for U.S. citizen candidates to fill Paramilitary Operations Officer and Specialized Skills Officer positions ... Qualified candidates can expect to focus on intelligence operations and activities for U.S. policymakers in hazardous and austere overseas environments ... Minimum requirements for Paramilitary Operations Officers include a bachelor's degree, military special operations or combat arms experience (ground, air or maritime), as well as combat leadership experience. [emphasis added]
Does this put the CIA at the very top of poaching food chain?
To top of document
Monday’s Early Bird leads with stories from the New York Times and Washington Post reporting that four American soldiers were killed in eastern Afghanistan in a roadside explosion on Sunday, the United States military said, in the worst of several attacks by insurgents around the country.The Taliban claimed responsibility for the attack, a spokesman, Zabiullah Mujahid, said.The Taliban have been threatening to increase attacks on foreign and Afghan forces in Afghanistan to counter the increase in American troops arriving in the country over the coming months. Military officials have been predicting an increase in violence this year.
The transition in Iraq receives coverage from the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Philadelphia Inquirer and CNN, with the New York Times reporting a spike in revenge killings and other crimes as Americans pull out, the Los Angeles Times covering how U.S.-owned military materiel will be handled as American troops leave, the Philadelphia Inquirer reporting that U.S. troops will not be removed from areas of Iraq that are not completely secure or where there is a high probability that attacks could resume after the Americans leave, and CNN airing a short report about “how things stand” in Basra.
The Washington Post reports that a suspected U.S. missile strike killed two Arabs and three other people in northwest Pakistan late Sunday, intelligence officials said, in the latest in a barrage of attacks on suspected insurgent targets in the region.The Pakistan-Afghanistan border area is home to scores of al-Qaeda and Taliban insurgents, and the United States is pressing the Pakistani government to do more to fight them. The remote area is thought to be a hiding place for al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.
The Marine Corps Air Station in Yuma is hoping a 15-story wall of flame nearly 2 miles long will break a Guinness world record, according to the Arizona Republic.The wall of flame soared into the sky Saturday at the Yuma Air Show, causing thick smoke to cast a shade over the airfield and thousands of spectators. The inferno was the finale of a day filled with daring flights by aerobatic pilots, skydivers and military jet fighters.
Philippine prisons are better known for rats and vicious gangs than diplomatic niceties, which is why people (in Manila) are angry that an American Marine convicted of rape is doing his jail time in the dignified U.S. Embassy, according to the Los Angeles Times.Lance Cpl. Daniel Smith was convicted in December 2006 of raping a 22-year-old Filipina a year earlier after they had been drinking in a bar in Subic Bay, a former U.S. naval base north of Manila.American officials say Smith, whose unit was deployed here for counter-terrorism training, has been under Marine guard at the U.S. Embassy compound since Philippine authorities transferred him there from a Manila jail weeks after he was convicted.
Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez ordered the navy on Sunday to seize seaports in states with major petroleum-exporting installations, part of his effort to assert greater control over infrastructure that had come under the dominion of political opponents in regional elections last year, the New York Times reportsThe move points to a spreading radicalization by Mr. Chávez, as he responds to a slowing economy and the gains made by his opponents. Economic growth slowed in the last quarter to its most sluggish pace in five years, 3.2 percent, weighed down by low oil prices.In recent weeks, Mr. Chávez’s government announced the nationalization of an Irish-owned eucalyptus-tree plantation and a rice plant controlled by Cargill, the American agricultural giant. Last week, legislators loyal to Mr. Chávez approved a law shifting control of seaports, airports and highways from states to the central government.
Media summary
1. Leading newspaper headlines: The New York Times, Washington Post, and Los Angeles Times lead with American International Group releasing the names of trading partners that got a big chunk of the federal bailout money the ailing insurance giant began receiving six months ago. (Slate Magazine)
2. Iraqis ‘more upbeat about future’: Violence and insecurity are no longer the main concern of most Iraqis, for the first time since the 2003 US-led invasion, an opinion poll suggests. (BBC)
3. Hamas threatens rocket militants: Hamas says continuing rocket fire by Palestinian militants from Gaza into Israel is "ill-timed". (BBC)
4. The generals declare war on adjectives: Over the past week, a war has broken out at Small Wars Journal over adjectives. (Foreign Policy)
Leading newspaper headlines
The New York Times, Washington Post, and Los Angeles Times lead with American International Group releasing the names of trading partners that got a big chunk of the federal bailout money the ailing insurance giant began receiving six months ago. Members of Congress have been demanding to know the names of the institutions that got money from AIG, a company that has received more than $170 billion and is now about 80 percent owned by U.S. taxpayers. After arguing for weeks that it couldn't release those details due to privacy considerations, AIG unexpectedly released a list of nearly 80 trading partners that received nearly $100 billion in the final months of 2008. (The WSJ says $120 billion.)
The Wall Street Journal leads its world-wide newsbox with, and almost everyone else fronts, news that the Pakistani government has agreed to reinstate the former chief justice of the Supreme Court. The "stunning concession" (NYT) ended a political showdown between President Asif Ali Zardari and opposition leader Nawaz Sharif, who was heading to the capital for what was expected to be a huge protest. USA Today leads with a look at a series of reports that say the U.S. missile-defense system that has been proposed for Europe would cost billions to deploy and may not work. More than $100 billion has been used to develop the system, but it continues to fail some basic tests. It could cost as much as $13 billion to deploy in Europe, and some analysts insist it would be relatively easy for anyone to get around the system.
The list of companies that received payments from AIG "reads like a who's who of global finance," notes the WSJ. Some of the biggest U.S. financial institutions are on the list, including Goldman Sachs, which got nearly $13 billion, and Merrill Lynch, which received almost $7 billion. There are also major foreign banks on the list, including Société Générale of France and Germany's Deutsche Bank, which received around $12 billion each. The insurance giant also reported that municipalities in dozens of states received $12 billion.
The government had always said that it was necessary to rescue AIG because its failure could lead to a series of other collapses, since the insurance giant is so interconnected in the financial system. The NYT points out that the list released yesterday "could bolster that justification by illustrating the breadth of losses that might have occurred had A.I.G. been allowed to fail." At the same time, there are "political risks to the disclosures," notes the WSJ. It's not just that AIG is serving as a funnel to save numerous private businesses. That some of the institutions have received bailouts of their own and that some are based overseas won't make it any easier for taxpayers to accept the situation.
The long-awaited disclosure came on a day when the airwaves were filled with public outrage over the revelation that AIG paid hundreds of millions of dollars in bonuses. AIG executives said they had no choice but to fork over $165 million in bonus payments that were due Sunday for executives at its Financial Products unit, which lost $40.5 billion last year. Although much attention has been paid to that number, it is hardly the whole story. The WSJ breaks down the numbers and says that employees at the troubled unit had been promised $450 million in bonuses before the government rescue. In addition, the company will be paying $121.5 million in incentive bonuses to 6,400 employees as well as $619 million in retention payments to 4,200 employees. In total, "the three programs could result in roughly $1.2 billion in retention and bonus payments to AIG employees."
AIG and government lawyers say that the company is obligated to make payments. "The easy thing would be to just say ... Off with their heads, violate the contracts," Lawrence Summers, Obama's top economic adviser, said. "But you have to think about the consequences of breaking contracts for the overall system of law, for the overall financial system." Others weren't quite convinced by that argument. "We need to find out whether these bonuses are legally recoverable," Rep. Barney Frank said.
Even as it described itself as having no choice but to accept the bonuses, administration officials brought on full-on outrage about the situation at AIG during the Sunday talk shows. In a front-page analysis, the NYT says it was the administration's latest effort "to distance itself from abuses" in the financial system as it grows increasingly concerned about a "populist backlash against banks and Wall Street" that could turn into anger at Congress and the White House. This could make it harder for Obama to get any additional bailouts through Congress and prevent him from pursuing other big-ticket items in his agenda. "Never underestimate the capacity of angry populism in times of economic stress," warned Robert Reich, labor secretary under President Bill Clinton.
The WSJ goes high with word that the Obama administration has started to outline its plan to overhaul the oversight of the financial markets. "We want to accelerate the pace of change on the reform agenda," Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said. The administration wants to give more power to the Federal Reserve to police the system and require banks to hold more capital during good times so they have a bigger cushion if there is a downturn. The White House is also likely to ask Congress to give regulators the authority to take over a large financial company that is failing.
The WP points out that the Pakistani government's decision to reinstate the chief justice, along with other deposed judges, "marked an extraordinary victory for Pakistan's legal community." A lawyers' movement had been campaigning for two years to reinstate Iftikhar Mohammed Chaudhry but it became stronger after opposition leader Nawaz Sharif joined the protests. There was a widespread belief that Zardari didn't want to reinstate Chaudhry out of fear that he would reopen old corruption cases against him. Zardari's reversal appeared to be further evidence that he is losing his grip on power and cemented Sharif's role as the main face of the opposition.
The WP notes that newly released excerpts from a report by the International Committee of the Red Cross reveals that the humanitarian group concluded that the way al-Qaida detainees were treated inside CIA "black site" prisons "constituted torture." The Red Cross was given access to 14 "high-value" detainees who were transferred to Guantanamo in 2006 and they all gave very similar accounts of the rough interrogation practices they had to endure. A piece by Mark Danner published yesterday by the New York Review of Books quotes extensively from the report, which was given to White House officials in 2007. Although many of the details were already known, "the ICRC report is the most authoritative account and the first to use the word 'torture' in a legal context," says the Post. "It could not be more important that the ICRC explicitly uses the words 'torture' and 'cruel and degrading,' " Danner said in an interview. "The ICRC is the guardian of the Geneva Conventions, and when it uses those words, they have the force of law."
The NYT fronts word that European countries are raising doubts about taking in prisoners from Guantanamo. Several European government officials have been emphasizing that they can't make a commitment to take in prisoners until they're clear on the security risks and whether the Obama administration will also commit to resettle some detainees in the United States. The White House and European Union officials will hold today a first round of talks on these issues that everyone says will be critical to begin answering some key questions about Obama's plan to close the prison.
To top of document
Iraqis 'more upbeat about future'
UK majority 'want Iraq inquiry'
Violence and insecurity are no longer the main concern of most Iraqis, for the first time since the 2003 US-led invasion, an opinion poll suggests.
It says Iraqis are much more hopeful about the future and are increasingly pre-occupied with more conventional worries like the economy and jobs.
But Iraqis remain unhappy about the role foreign powers play in their country, notably Iran, the US and UK.
The survey was carried out for the BBC, ABC News and NHK in February.
A total of 2,228 Iraqis were questioned across all 18 provinces. The margin of error is 2.5%.
Security
The poll is the sixth in a series of surveys stretching back to March 2004 and shows a marked overall improvement in perceptions, the BBC's Adam Mynott says.
Its findings show striking shifts in opinion since the last poll in March 2008.
On security, 85% of all respondents described the current situation as very good or quite good - up 23% on a year ago:
a total of 52% say security has improved over the last year, up 16% on March 2008
· only 8% say it is worse - against 26% last year
· 59% feel safe in their neighbourhoods, up 22% from 37% last time.
See poll results on security and democracy
Supplies improving
The numbers of people who report direct experience of car bombs, suicide attacks, sectarian fighting, kidnappings and assassination in their areas are much lower than last year.
Iraq Poll 2009
Iraq Poll questions and answers in full [605KB]
Most computers will open this document automatically, but you may need Adobe Reader
Download the reader here
Confidence grows as fear ebbs
Those who say their lives are going very well or quite well are now 65% of the total, up 9%. And there is a 14% increase - to 60% - of those who think things will be better in Iraq as a whole in a year from now.
The survey shows that some aspects of everyday life are improving, too.
The availability of power has been a major issue in the past six years, with only about 10% of the population saying in previous polls that they have had reliable supplies. In the latest poll, that figure has leapt to 37%.
And the number of those who say that availability of fuel for cooking or driving is now very good or quite good has also shot up to 67%, a 48% rise on the 19% of March 2008.
Sunni shift
As with previous findings, it is possible to distinguish between the responses of Shias and Sunnis.
All earlier polls have shown stark differences between them, with the Sunni minority profoundly more pessimistic than Shias about the current situation and Iraq's prospects.
These differences persist, but the new poll poll shows a pronounced shift in Sunni opinion towards a more optimistic view:
· overall, there is a 9% increase among those who think their lives are going very well or quite well (Shias +8%; Sunnis +16%)
· 14% more think things will be better for Iraq in a year's time (Shias +13%; Sunnis +29%)
· there is a 23% increase in those who say their local security situation is very/quite good (Shias +21%; Sunnis +32%)
· 21% more support democracy as the preferred model of government for Iraq compared with a strong leader or Islamic state (Shias +21% , Sunnis +27%).
Regional differences
Asked whether foreign countries are playing a positive or negative role in Iraq, Britain, the US and Iran get the most negative scores.
Overall, 59% of those questioned think Britain's role is negative, 22% positive; 64% say the US is negative, 18% positive; 68% view Iran negatively, 12% positively.
Also, 56% think the 2003 invasion was wrong (up 6%), while 42% say it was right (down 7%).
Only 30% think coalition forces are doing a good job, 69% a bad job - more or less the same as a year ago.
In the light of an imminent withdrawal of British troops from southern Iraq, Iraqis were asked about the value of the British presence since 2003.
The responses were mixed on this issue: 36% call it generally positive, 42% generally negative.
The poll also suggests that there are some marked differences in responses between the northern, central and southern regions of Iraq.
Overall, respondents in central Iraq, which includes Baghdad, are significantly less positive about how well things are currently going in their lives.
To top of document
Hamas threatens rocket militants
Rockets like this one aimed at Ashkelon, Israel are still being fired
Hamas says continuing rocket fire by Palestinian militants from Gaza into Israel is "ill-timed".
Hamas, which runs Gaza, said it had nothing to do with the attacks and would act against those responsible.
The warning, issued in a brief statement, was released as Egyptian-led efforts continue to achieve a long-term ceasefire between Hamas and Israel.
A key Israeli condition of any deal is the complete cessation of Palestinian rocket attacks against Israel.
Hamas has fired thousands of rockets into southern Israel over the past few years.
In eight years, around 20 Israeli civilians have been killed by rockets, and dozens injured.
'Right to resist'
This was Israel's justification for its recent, massive military operation in Gaza, in which around 1,300 Palestinians are thought to have died.
"Hamas is under pressure to make the conditions right for a ceasefire deal with Israel," says the BBC's Aleem Maqbool in Gaza.
A senior leader of the Islamic Jihad movement, Khader Habib, confirmed to the BBC that Hamas forces had arrested some of the group's members for launching rockets.
Islamic Jihad said they were only released when they signed forms saying they would no longer carry out attacks.
Mr Habib said Islamic Jihad had "the right to resist" and would continue to fire rockets in response to what it saw as any aggression from Israel.
To top of document
The generals declare war on "war adjectives"
Over the past week, a war has broken out at Small Wars Journal over adjectives. In an attempt to improve the U.S. military's ability to respond intelligently to the variety of threats it faces now and in the future, over the past decade analysts have added their favorite adjectives in front of the word "warfare." With the proper definition of the problem, these analysts reason, a logical solution should then be easy to find.
Thus, we have seen a parade of terms such as "irregular warfare," "insurgency warfare," "counterinsurgency warfare," "hybrid warfare," "unconventional warfare," "traditional warfare," "fourth generation warfare," etc. The creators and promoters of each of these modifiers have hoped to precisely describe a particular problem, from which an elegant and efficient solution should then appear.
The onset in late 2003 and 2004 of an urban insurgency in Iraq was the clearest justification for the arrival of "war adjectives." The mechanized, high-speed, and high- firepower military machine that invaded Iraq in March 2003 was perfectly suited for "traditional" or "conventional" warfare. However, that military machine seemed inept at dealing with the "irregular war" that followed.
But has the flowering of "war adjectives" turned into a confusing thicket of weeds? Col. David Maxwell, a U.S. Army Special Forces officer, senses confusion and perhaps even a hint of profiteering in the growth of "war adjectives." He made this case in a piece for Small Wars Journal:
For both academics and think tank researchers, published work is a measure of merit. Published research is augmented by the widest possible exposure at conferences and symposia to promote name recognition and career success. Unfortunately there are pundits who also participate in these conferences and symposia and publish their opinions without the same rigor as academics and professional researchers. A select few members of this ad hoc and informal community can be seen as peddling the same ideas over and over again as the answer to all the future US national security problems ... Leaders should and, in fact must, listen to these researchers and academics but they must also consider the agendas of pundits who often have the loudest voices as they push their concepts and terminology. [emphasis in original]
Maxwell advises U.S. generals to listen less to outside pundits and think-tank analysts and more to the military's own officers with field experience.
Two generals entered this debate at Small Wars Journal and both declared war on "war adjectives." Lt. Gen. Paul Van Riper, retired from the U.S. Marine Corps, asserted,
Every modification of the word "war" serves mainly as fodder for un-needed conferences, workshops, and meetings where the new definitions as well as the merits of these terms are debated with, in my estimation, little value added. These new terms also help confuse our officer corps and undermine a solid professional lexicon.
Finally, four-star Gen. Martin Dempsey, currently the commander of all of the U.S. Army's training programs, joined Lt. General Van Riper at Small Wars Journal in the battle to gun down some of the "war adjectives":
Dissecting war and placing it into various "bins" may seduce us into believing that we have somehow discovered a way to make it coherent. However, we'd be wrong. War is war. The threats we face are always hybrid threats ... What the nation needs is a balance of capabilities that can be applied by agile leaders when we confront an adaptive enemy.
Rather than attempting to define every type of war in order to prepare for that special situation, Dempsey advises, the Pentagon should develop a "balance of capabilities" to best prepare for unpredictable events.
Who could object to a "balance of capabilities"? Regrettably, one is only going to find out if U.S. military forces are properly balanced after the shooting starts. After the enemy's vote is counted, policymakers will then find out which capabilities they should have bought more of.
Special operations forces - the talent-poaching elite?
Ever since U.S. forces first entered Afghanistan in October 2001, policymakers on both sides of the political spectrum have called for increasing the size and budgets of the Pentagon's special operations forces. As military planners have discovered, the Pentagon is short of many of these elite specialists, such as the Army's Green Berets, the Navy's SEALs, and specialized aviation units. Congress and the Pentagon have therefore authorized expanding these and other special operations forces.
But some in Washington are calling for more. On March 3, Robert Martinage, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, delivered testimony to the House Armed Services Committee recommending even more growth for special ops. On the final page of his testimony, Martinage advised that "it will be necessary to offset the cost of these investments with cuts in conventional forces."
But where do the special operations forces find their elite warriors? By recruiting from the ranks of the conventional forces. Martinage understands the problem. While discussing his recommendation to create an additional Ranger regiment in the Army, he wrote:
The risk in creating an additional Ranger regiment, however, is that it would siphon off some of the most skilled and capable soldiers from the conventional Army, which is already struggling to maintain performance standards, especially within its non-commissioned officer corps. Increasing active-duty Army infantry, Ranger, and [Special Forces] force structure simultaneously without sacrificing quality will likely prove a daunting challenge. [emphasis in original]
The Army's special operations forces fill their ranks by poaching the best talent from the ranks of its conventional forces. But poachers can also be the victims of poaching, as this advertisement from the Central Intelligence Agency, which I found by clicking through a banner ad at Foreign Policy, reveals:
The Clandestine Service is looking for U.S. citizen candidates to fill Paramilitary Operations Officer and Specialized Skills Officer positions ... Qualified candidates can expect to focus on intelligence operations and activities for U.S. policymakers in hazardous and austere overseas environments ... Minimum requirements for Paramilitary Operations Officers include a bachelor's degree, military special operations or combat arms experience (ground, air or maritime), as well as combat leadership experience. [emphasis added]
Does this put the CIA at the very top of poaching food chain?
To top of document
No comments:
Post a Comment