The Slaughterhouse Informer

A Compendiium of Various Official Lies, Business Scandals, Small Murders, Frauds, and Other Gross Defects of Our Current Political, Business and Religious Moral Lepers.

Presenting a new magazine that contains material that is not found elsewhere and is very difficult to post on the Internet. The ‘Voice of the White House’ will appear in each issue containing material not found on TBR News for very obvious reasons.This publication will appear once a week, on Wednesday, every week, will be ten pages in length and is available by subscription only. The price is $5.00 a month and can be paid via PayPal or by check, sent to ‘Morris Productions, 3015 E. New York St. Ste A2-190, Aurora, Il 60504.’ If you don’t like it, and Bush supporters can read the Drudge Report for free, you can cancel at any time.

Civil insurrection in America and government countermeasures: The official papers

By Bradley Moscrip

An in-depth study of official American plans to construct FEMA detention centers in America and specific recent U.S. Army domestic counterinsurgency plans. Here is a sampling of the ebook contents:

Gun Control by Confiscation

As the American general population is known to be the most heavily armed in the world, immediately upon the declaration of Martial Law and the execution by the military of counterinsurgency programs, it has been determined that the BATF, will begin the process of rounding up all rifles, pistols and so-called assault weaponry from the civil population. Lists of gun collectors obtained from firearms dealers, gun magazine subscription lists and other sources will be the basis for these mass confiscations. Gun owners will be supplied documentation by the BATF showing which pieces have been confiscated so that in the future, they will be told, they can recover their weapons when the state of emergency has passed. In actuality, weapons that do not have a high value or are not suitable for arming loyalist police forces, will be destroyed by order

This study is available from tbrnews at $5.00 by PayPal  

The Voice of the White House

          Washington, D.C., October 25, 2009: “More unintended humor, this time from the pen of Pat Buchanan, former aide to President Reagan and one-time Presidential candidate. In a recent article, which I am attaching, Mr. Buchanan, who is otherwise a very sensible person, deals with another of the lunatic fringe protest groups that the Republican leadership has launched on an increasingly annoyed and disinterested American public. According to this article, there is a new, vibrant, group formed of “ex-military and police” who will disobey any order to disarm the public, if so ordered by the government. My, what an impact this is going to have nationwide! Just imagine, ageing and overweight ex-GIs and former deputy sheriffs from backwater counties in some southern state, refusing to obey orders. Since they are all retired and would not be called upon to do anything more strenuous than to help their wife with the dishes, this organization is just another group of unhappy lower-middle class twits trying to drag in money from the public. As the police in this country are becoming more and more inclined to beat innocent citizens in public and to incarcerate them without medical treatment after clubbing them in a church parking lot, using retired gendarmes for anything but filling empty space in local cemeteries would not be in order. This reminds me of the ‘Promise Keepers’ that erupted a few years back and consisted of overweight, middle aged men holding hands and singing hymns in public while swaying back and forth is ecstasy. And Mr. Buchanan also mentions that these people are upset that their “Christian faith” is removed from public school classrooms. There are quite a number of people, most, if not all, of whom get their hair cut in pencil sharpeners, who also have similar feelings and would also like to ban any teaching of science that might lead innocent children to question the Holy Word of God (revised edition) which clearly states that men were created solely in His image in one day! They curse Darwin and scream about Jesus but in the end, very few people outside of the “My Left Behind” crew pay the slightest attention to them. And what about the Flat Earth believers? Or devotees of Planet X? Have they nothing to add? Perhaps they, too, can keep their oaths and join the new patriot group in howling and screaming at any kind of a public meeting that has television coverage. And their leaders might persuade the screamers to wear something that better covers their bulging bellies and top off their ensembles with something other than greasy baseball hats ”

Middle Americans Alienated & Radicalized

October 19, 2009
by Patrick J. Buchanan
http://www.vdare.com/buchanan/091019_alienated.htm

            In the brief age of Obama, we have had "truthers," "birthers," Tea Party activists and town-hall dissenters.

            Comes now, the "Oath Keepers." And who might they be?

            Writes Alan Maimon in the Las Vegas Review-Journal, Oath Keepers, depending on where one stands, are "either strident defenders of liberty or dangerous peddlers of paranoia." READY TO REVOLT: Oath Keepers pledges to prevent dictatorship in United States, October 18, 2009

            Formed in March, they are ex-military and police who repledge themselves to defend the Constitution, even if it means disobeying orders. If the U.S. government ordered law enforcement agencies to violate Second Amendment rights by disarming the people, Oath Keepers will not obey.

            "The whole point of Oath Keepers is to stop a dictatorship from ever happening here," says founding father Stewart Rhodes, an ex-Army paratrooper and Yale-trained lawyer. "My focus is on the guys with the guns, because they can't do it without them.

            "We say if the American people decide it's time for a revolution, we'll fight with you."

             Prediction: Brother Rhodes is headed for cable stardom.

            And if the Pelosi-Reid progressives went postal over town-hall protesters, calling them "un-American," "Nazis" and "evil-mongers," one can imagine what they will do with the Oath Keepers.

            As with Jimmy Carter's long range psychoanalysis of Joe Wilson, the reflexive reaction of the mainstream media will likely be that these are militia types, driven to irrationality because America has a black president.

            Yet, the establishment's reaction seems more problematic for the republic than anything the Oath Keepers are up to. For our political and media elite seem to have lost touch with the nation and to be wedded to a vision of America divorced from reality.

             Progressives are the folks who, in the 1960s, could easily understand that urban riots that took scores of lives and destroyed billions in property were an inevitable reaction to racism, poverty and despair. They could empathize with the rage of campus radicals who burned down the ROTC building and bombed the Pentagon.

            The "dirty, immoral war in Vietnam" explains why the "finest generation we have ever produced" is behaving like this, they said. We must deal with the "root causes" of social disorder.

            Yet, they cannot comprehend what would motivate Middle America to distrust its government, for it surely does, as Ron Brownstein reports in the National Journal:

            "Whites are not only more anxious, but also more alienated. Big majorities of whites say the past year's turmoil has diminished their confidence in government, corporations and the financial industry ... Asked which institution they trust most to make economic decisions in their interest, a plurality of whites older than 30 pick 'none'—a grim statement
           

            Is all this due to Obama's race?

            Even Obama laughs at that. As he told David Letterman, I was already black by the time I was elected. And he not only got a higher share of the white vote than Kerry or Gore, a third of white voters, who said in August 2008 that race was an important consideration in voting, said they were going to vote for Obama.

            With black voters going 24 to 1 for Obama, he almost surely won more votes than he lost because of his race.

             Moreover, the alienation and radicalization of white America began long before Obama arrived. He acknowledged as much when he explained Middle Pennsylvanians to puzzled progressives in that closed-door meeting in San Francisco.

             Referring to the white working-class voters in the industrial towns decimated by job losses, Obama said: "They get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

            Yet, we had seen these folks before. They were Perotistas in 1992, opposed NAFTA in 1993, and blocked the Bush-Kennedy McCain amnesty in 2007.

            In their lifetimes, they have seen their Christian faith purged from schools their taxes paid for, and mocked in movies and on TV. They have seen their factories shuttered in the thousands and their jobs outsourced in the millions to Mexico and China. They have seen trillions of tax dollars go for Great Society programs, but have seen no Great Society, only rising crime, illegitimacy, drug use and dropout rates.

            They watch on cable TV as illegal aliens walk into their country, are rewarded with free educations and health care, and take jobs at lower pay than American families can live on—then carry Mexican flags in American cities and demand U.S. citizenship.

            They see Wall Street banks bailed out as they sweat their next paycheck, then read that bank profits are soaring, and the big bonuses for the brilliant bankers are back. Neither they nor their kids ever benefited from affirmative action, unlike Barack and Michelle Obama.

            They see a government in Washington that cannot balance its books, win our wars or protect our borders. The government shovels out trillions to Fortune 500 corporations and banks to rescue the country from a crisis created by the government and Fortune 500 corporations and banks.

             America was once their country. They sense they are losing it. And they are right.

SECRECY NEWS
from the FAS Project on Government Secrecy
Volume 2009, Issue No. 83
October 22, 2009

 
INVENTION SECRECY AT HIGHEST IN A DECADE

            The total number of invention secrecy orders that the U.S. government imposed on patent applications rose again this year, reaching 5,081 by the end of last month, the highest figure since 1996.

            Under the Invention Secrecy Act of 1951, U.S. government agencies may restrict the disclosure of a patent application whenever its publication is deemed "detrimental to the national security."  In Fiscal Year 2009, 103 new secrecy orders were issued, while 45 existing orders were rescinded.  The overall number of orders in effect increased by about 1% over the year before, according to statistics from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office that were released to Secrecy News under the Freedom of Information Act.

            The most vexing secrecy orders, known as "John Doe" secrecy orders, are those that are imposed on private inventors who are not government contractors so that the government has no property interest in the invention.  In Fiscal Year 2009, there were 21 new John Doe secrecy orders, according to the latest statistics.  An argument could be made that secrecy orders in such cases are infringements on an inventor's First Amendment rights, but such an argument has never been tested in court.

            In general, however, challenges or complaints concerning the operation of the patent secrecy system seem to be rare.  Most secrecy orders originate at defense agencies, with the U.S. Navy in the lead this year with 39.  (The National Security Agency issued 12 secrecy orders in FY 2009.)  In such cases, the most likely customers for the inventions are the military agencies themselves, not commercial enterprises, and so the secrecy orders may have no adverse impact on the inventors.    For other resources on invention secrecy, see here.


SUPREME COURT DEMOGRAPHICS, AND MORE FROM CRS

            "Over time, the Supreme Court has become more diverse in some ways and more homogeneous in others," a recent Congressional Research Service report (pdf) observed.

            "When first constituted, and throughout most of its history, no women or minorities served on the Court... The religious affiliations of the Court’s members also have changed over time. For almost the first 50 years of the Court, all Justices were affiliated with protestant Christian churches. [Today], six of the nine current Justices identify as Roman Catholic.... Over time, Justices' legal educations have become more homogeneous.... In the last 20 years, especially, three Ivy League law schools--Harvard, Yale, and Columbia--have been disproportionately represented on the Court."

            "To date, every Supreme Court Justice has been a lawyer. There is, however, no constitutional requirement regarding the educational background of a Justice or the necessity of a law degree."  See "Supreme Court Justices: Demographic Characteristics, Professional Experience, and Legal Education, 1789-2009," September 9, 2009.

            Other noteworthy new CRS reports that have not been made readily available to the public include the following (all pdf).

             "Presidential Terms and Tenure: Perspectives and Proposals for Change," October 19, 2009.

            "The Debate Over Selected Presidential Assistants and Advisors: Appointment, Accountability, and Congressional Oversight," October 9, 2009.

             "Poverty in the United States: 2008," October 6, 2009.

            "Public Safety Communications and Spectrum Resources: Policy Issues for Congress," October 14, 2009.

             "Managing Electronic Waste: Issues with Exporting E-Waste," October 7, 2009.

            "Iraq: Regional Perspectives and U.S. Policy," October 6, 2009.


NOZETTE AND NUCLEAR ROCKETRY

            Stewart D. Nozette, who was arrested and charged this week under the Espionage Act, is an unusually gifted and accomplished technologist.  The allegation that he provided classified information to an FBI agent posing as an Israeli intelligence officer in exchange for cash is distressing on several levels.

            Among other things, Nozette had exceptionally broad access to a range of classified programs in defense, space and nuclear technology.  According to an FBI affidavit (pdf), Nozette stated that he "held a DOE Q clearance from 1990-2000, which involved insight into all aspects of nuclear weapons programs.  Held TS/SI/TK/B/G clearance 1998-2006,... Held at least 20+ SAP [special access program clearances]... from 1998-2004."

            In fact, however, Nozette's participation in Department of Defense special access programs dates back even earlier, to 1990 or so.  At that time he was read into an unacknowledged special access program called Timber Wind (pdf), which was an effort by the Strategic Defense Initiative Organization to develop a rocket engine powered by a nuclear reactor.  Dr. Nozette's name appears on a Timber Wind master access list we obtained which identified the several hundred persons who were authorized to be briefed on that nuclear rocket program.

            The discovery of the hyper-classified Timber Wind program was an inspiration for the FAS Project on Government Secrecy, since we considered it a compelling instance of classification abuse.  On a number of occasions I asked Dr. Nozette about the program, but he was always quite scrupulous about rebuffing my inquiries.

            Timber Wind was canceled shortly after it became public, and other nuclear rocket initiatives likewise faded away in the 1990s, as the effort to develop nuclear rocketry for military or civilian applications surged and then collapsed, leaving behind only a bunch of good stories.

            An idiosyncratic new memoir by Tony Zuppero, one of the would-be nuclear rocketeers, tells those stories as he recalls them, with sometimes alarming candor, humor, and disappointment.  Dr. Zuppero had his own concept of a nuclear rocket that would open a path for human expansion into the solar system.  But, he laments, "after all the effort, all the visions, I got old instead of making it happen."

            Dr. Nozette, myself and the Federation of American Scientists make a few cameo appearances in Dr. Zuppero's new memoir, entitled "To Inhabit the Solar System" (pdf).

Experts Worry as Population and Hunger Grow

by Neil MacFarquahar  

October 21, 2009

New York Times

 ROME — Scientists and development experts across the globe are racing to increase food production by 50 percent over the next two decades to feed the world’s growing population, yet many doubt their chances despite a broad consensus that enough land, water and expertise exist. The number of hungry people in the world rose to 1.02 billion this year, or nearly one in seven people, according to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, despite a 12-year concentrated effort to cut the number.

The global financial recession added at least 100 million people by depriving them of the means to buy enough food, but the numbers were inching up even before the crisis, the United Nations noted in a report last week.

“The way we manage the global agriculture and food security system doesn’t work,” said Kostas G. Stamoulis, a senior economist at the organization. “There is this paradox of increasing global food production, even in developing countries, yet there is hunger.”

Agronomists and development experts who gathered in Rome last week generally agreed that the resources and technical knowledge were available to increase food production by 50 percent in 2030 and by 70 percent in 2050 — the amounts needed to feed a population expected to grow to 9.1 billion in 40 years.

But the conundrum is whether the food can be grown in the developing world where the hungry can actually get it, at prices they can afford. Poverty and difficult growing conditions plague the places that need new production most, namely sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia.

A straw poll of the experts in Rome on whether the world will be able to feed its population in 40 years underscored the uncertainty surrounding that question: 73 said yes, 49 said no and 15 abstained.

The track record of failing to feed the hungry haunts the effort. But other important uncertainties also give pause. The effect climate change will have on weather and crops remains an open question. The so-called green revolution of the 1960s and ’70s ended the specter of mass famines then, but the environmental cost of chemical fertilizers and heavy irrigation has spurred a bitter divide over the right ingredients for a second one.

In addition, the demand for biofuels may use up crop land. And as scores of food riots in 2008 showed, oil prices and other income shocks can quickly drive millions more people into hunger, sending ripples of instability around the world.

A summit meeting of world leaders in Rome on Nov. 16 is expected to address the future food demands. Since July, the richest countries have ostensibly committed more than $22 billion to the effort over the next three years.

The final meeting of Group of 8 leaders that month in L’Aquila, Italy, started with $15 billion already on the table. Then President Obama gave a speech evoking the Kenyan village where his father herded goats as a child. In countless villages like it, millions of people face hunger daily, Mr. Obama said, and after he finished speaking, the pledges jumped by $5 billion, according to several officials present.

Yet those pledges remain murky. Senior diplomats estimate that less than a third to slightly more than half of the money represents new commitments that had not already been made, with the rest being repackaged existing aid.

Washington and its European allies have also jostled over putting the money in a World Bank account, the American preference, or working through United Nations or domestic aid agencies, an approach the Europeans favor. An initial American proposal of one unified fund was largely rejected. How policy and priorities will be established on a worldwide scale is also a central negotiating hurdle.

“The good news is that the political class considers this important and wants to do something about it,” said one financial official involved in the talks who was not authorized to speak publicly. “But nobody has 20 billion and spare change in their sock drawer.”

The United States, with the largest pledge, $3.5 billion, organized a conference in Washington along with Italy last month in an unsuccessful attempt to nail down the pledges so that Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton could announce the results during the United Nations General Assembly.

“It is a little bit difficult — I cannot give you a precise figure per country,” said Renzo Rosso, a senior Italian aid official. “But the most difficult part will be to make them all work together.”

Mrs. Clinton often calls agriculture aid a critical issue, saying the administration supports domestic efforts in developing nations and improvements in production by small farmers, particularly women. Philip J. Crowley, a department spokesman, said, “We are trying to shift away from emergency aid toward agricultural development.”

Agriculture was once a pillar of international aid programs, with World Bank figures showing that it constituted 17 percent of all foreign assistance in 1980, said Christopher Delgado, the bank’s agriculture adviser. But the emphasis declined as the number of hungry people dropped to its lowest recent level, 825 million people, around 1996. By 2000, agriculture aid had shrunk to 4 percent, he said, although it has since ticked up slowly.

World leaders often evoke the green revolution of the 1960s and ’70s as an inspiration for future progress. The original revolution employed new seeds, fertilizers and irrigation in Asia and Latin America to stave off famines affecting millions.

But the green revolution’s concentration on wheat and rice would be impossible to copy in parts of Asia and in Africa, experts say, noting that Africa has seven or eight staple crops, wildly varied growing conditions and only an estimated 7 percent of farmland irrigated.

Then there is the question of genetically modified crops. No issue provokes such an emotional division among agronomists, who debate whether they constitute the building blocks of a second green revolution or a health menace.

“Who is steering this fear and global paranoia about the G.M. cotton and all these G.M. crops?” said Hans P. Binswanger-Mkhize, a South African agriculture consultant. “Show us where the corpses are — the corpses of earthworms, the corpses of bees, the corpses of antelopes and the corpses of humans. Nobody has yet ever shown us a corpse.”

Opponents respond that organic farming is critical to producing healthy food and reducing global warming. Widespread use of nitrogen fertilizers has contributed heavily to greenhouse gases, and the vast water resources required for irrigation are not sustainable, they contend.

“We have a billion hungry people today, so we can’t say the green revolution solved the problem,” said Markus Arbenz, the executive director of the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements. “We can’t just cut and paste the solution from the 1960s with G.M. crops.”

Comment: The New York Times seems to be chronically interested in feeding the entire world out of our pocket,s as witness their endless rantings about Dafur. No one outside of their news room cares about Dafur, Bangldesh or some other decaying Third World country. Why, in the name of God, should Americans feed, clothe and medicate these scrabbling dirt eaters? To feel like Christians? For tax-write offs? The planet is now dangerously overcrowded and more and more of its less productive citizens are going to either starve to death or die of rampant diseases. There is no earthly reason why any of us should either care about their inexorable fate or deplete our own resources. The primary aim of any people is to protect and defend itself, not concern themselves about distant and unproductive neighbors. Ed

Fla. insurer reverses on Chinese drywall

October 23, 2009

Associated Press

WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. - Florida's public insurance company now says it will continue covering a couple's home after refusing to renew the policy because of tainted Chinese drywall problems.

James and Maria Ivory moved back to Colorado after finding their new Gulf Coast residence was built with the imported drywall, which emits sulfuric fumes and corrodes pipes.

Citizens Property Insurance Corp. denied their claim to fix it, then said the policy wouldn't be renewed. This week, the company reversed course after a second inspection and will renew the policy.

Experts say homeowners across the country could start losing policies on homes containing the tainted materials. In some cases, it's estimated the fix could cost more than owners paid for their homes.

Putin says South Stream pipeline may be ready before Nord Stream
October 25, 2009

Ria Novosti

            ST. PETERSBURG (RIA Novosti) - The South Stream natural gas pipeline to the Balkans could be completed before the Russian-German Nord Stream pipeline, the Russian prime minister said on Thursday.

            “The project has every chance of being completed before the Baltic project - Nord Stream,” Vladimir Putin said.

            The 25 billion-euro ($36.5 billion) South Stream project is designed to annually pump 31 billion cubic meters of Central Asian and Russian gas to the Balkans and on to other European countries, bypassing Ukraine, which has frequent disputes with Russia over gas supplies and transits. The pipeline’s capacity is expected to be eventually increased to 63 billion cubic meters.

            The South Stream project was originally scheduled to go online in 2013 whereas Nord Stream is expected to be fully completed in 2012.

            The Nord Stream pipeline, which will pump gas from Siberia to Europe under the Baltic Sea, bypassing East European transit countries, is being built jointly by Gazprom, Germany’s E.ON Ruhrgas and BASF-Wintershall, and Dutch gas transportation firm Gasunie at an estimated cost of $12 billion.

America's Phoney War in Afghanistan
October 21, 2009
by F. William Engdahl
Global Research,

            One of the most remarkable aspects of the Obama Presidential agenda is how little anyone has questioned in the media or elsewhere why at all the United States Pentagon is committed to a military occupation of Afghanistan. There are two basic reasons, neither one of which can be admitted openly to the public at large.

            Behind all the deceptive official debate over how many troops are needed to “win” the war in Afghanistan, whether another 30,000 is sufficient, or whether at least 200000 are needed, the real purpose of US military presence in that pivotal Central Asian country is obscured.

            Even during the 2008 Presidential campaign candidate Obama argued that Afghanistan not Iraq was where the US must wage war. His reason? Because he claimed, that was where the Al Qaeda organization was holed up and that was the “real” threat to US national security. The reasons behind US involvement in Afghanistan is quite another one.

            The US military is in Afghanistan for two reasons. First to restore and control the world’s largest supply of opium for the world heroin markets and to use the drugs as a geopolitical weapon against opponents, especially Russia. That control of the Afghan drug market is essential for the liquidity of the bankrupt and corrupt Wall Street financial mafia.

Geopolitics of Afghan Opium

             According even to an official UN report, opium production in Afghanistan has risen dramatically since the downfall of the Taliban in 2001. UNODC data shows more opium poppy cultivation in each of the past four growing seasons (2004-2007), than in any one year during Taliban rule. More land is now used for opium in Afghanistan, than for coca cultivation in Latin America. In 2007, 93% of the opiates on the world market originated in Afghanistan. This is no accident.

            It has been documented that Washington hand-picked the controversial Hamid Karzai, a Pashtun warlord from the Popalzai tribe, long in the CIA’s service, brought him back from exile in the USA, created a Hollywood mythology around his “courageous leadership of his people.” According to Afghan sources, Karzai is the Opium “Godfather” of Afghanistan today. There is apparently no accident that he was and is today still Washington’s preferred man in Kabul. Yet even with massive vote buying and fraud and intimidation, Karzai’s days could be ending as President.

            The second reason the US military remains in Afghanistan long after the world has forgotten even who the mysterious Osama bin Laden and his alleged Al Qaeda terrorist organization is or even if they exist, is as a pretext to build a permanent US military strike force with a series of permanent US airbases across Afghanistan. The aim of those bases is not to eradicate any Al Qaeda cells that may have survived in the caves of Tora Bora, or to eradicate a mythical “Taliban” which at this point according to eyewitness reports is made up overwhelmingly of local ordinary Afghanis fighting to rid their land once more of occupier armies as they did in the 1980’s against the Russians.

            The aim of the US bases in Afghanistan is to target and be able to strike at the two nations which today represent the only combined threat in the world today to an American global imperium, to America’s Full Spectrum Dominance as the Pentagon terms it.


The lost ‘Mandate of Heaven’


            The problem for the US power elites around Wall Street and in Washington is the fact that they are now in the deepest financial crisis in their history. That crisis is clear to the entire world and the world is acting on a basis of self-survival. The US elites have lost what in Chinese imperial history is known as the Mandate of Heaven. That mandate is given a ruler or ruling elite provided they rule their people justly and fairly. When they rule tyrannically and as despots, oppressing and abusing their people, they lose that Mandate of Heaven.

            If the powerful private wealthy elites that have controlled essential US financial and foreign policy for most of the past century or more ever had a “mandate of Heaven” they clearly have lost it. The domestic developments towards creation of an abusive police state with deprivation of Constitutional rights to its citizens, the arbitrary exercise of power by non elected officials such as Treasury Secretaries Henry Paulson and now Tim Geithner, stealing trillion dollar sums from taxpayers without their consent in order to bailout the bankrupt biggest Wall Street banks, banks deemed “Too Big To Fail,” this all demonstrates to the world they have lost the mandate.

            In this situation, the US power elites are increasingly desperate to maintain their control of a global parasitical empire, called deceptively by their media machine, “globalization.” To hold that dominance it is essential that they be able to break up any emerging cooperation in the economic, energy or military realm between the two major powers of Eurasia that conceivably could pose a challenge to future US sole Superpower control—China in combination with Russia.

            Each Eurasian power brings to the table essential contributions. China has the world’s most robust economy, a huge young and dynamic workforce, an educated middle class. Russia, whose economy has not recovered from the destructive end pf the Soviet era and of the primitive looting during the Yeltsin era, still holds essential assets for the combination. Russia’s nuclear strike force and its military pose the only threat in the world today to US military dominance, even if it is largely a residue of the Cold War. The Russian military elites never gave up that potential.

            As well Russia holds the world’s largest treasure of natural gas and vast reserves of oil urgently needed by China. The two powers are increasingly converging via a new organization they created in 2001 known as the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO). That includes as well as China and Russia, the largest Central Asia states Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan.

            The purpose of the alleged US war against both Taliban and Al Qaeda is in reality to place its military strike force directly in the middle of the geographical space of this emerging SCO in Central Asia. Iran is a diversion. The main goal or target is Russia and China.

             Officially, of course, Washington claims it has built its military presence inside Afghanistan since 2002 in order to protect a “fragile” Afghan democracy. It’s a curious argument given the reality of US military presence there.

            In December 2004, during a visit to Kabul, US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld finalized plans to build nine new bases in Afghanistan in the provinces of Helmand, Herat, Nimrouz, Balkh, Khost and Paktia. The nine are in addition to the three major US military bases already installed in the wake of its occupation of Afghanistan in winter of 2001-2002, ostensibly to isolate and eliminate the terror threat of Osama bin Laden.

            The Pentagon built its first three bases at Bagram Air Field north of Kabul, the US’ main military logistics center; Kandahar Air Field, in southern Afghanistan; and Shindand Air Field in the western province of Herat. Shindand, the largest US base in Afghanistan, was constructed a mere 100 kilometers from the border of Iran, and within striking distance of Russia as well as China.

             Afghanistan has historically been the heartland for the British-Russia Great Game, the struggle for control of Central Asia during the 19th and early 20th Centuries. British strategy then was to prevent Russia at all costs from controlling Afghanistan and thereby threatening Britain’s imperial crown jewel, India.

             Afghanistan is similarly regarded by Pentagon planners as highly strategic. It is a platform from which US military power could directly threaten Russia and China, as well as Iran and other oil-rich Middle East lands. Little has changed geopolitically over more than a century of wars.

             Afghanistan is in an extremely vital location, straddling South Asia, Central Asia, and the Middle East. Afghanistan also lies along a proposed oil pipeline route from the Caspian Sea oil fields to the Indian Ocean, where the US oil company, Unocal, along with Enron and Cheney’s Halliburton, had been in negotiations for exclusive pipeline rights to bring natural gas from Turkmenistan across Afghanistan and Pakistan to Enron’s huge natural gas power plant at Dabhol near Mumbai. Karzai, before becoming puppet US president, had been a Unocal lobbyist.

Al Qaeda doesn’t exist as a threat

            The truth of all this deception around the real purpose in Afghanistan becomes clear on a closer look at the alleged “Al Qaeda” threat in Afghanistan. According to author Erik Margolis, prior to the September 11,2001 attacks, US intelligence was giving aid and support both to the Taliban and to Al Qaeda. Margolis claims that “The CIA was planning to use Osama bin Laden’s Al Qaeda to stir up Muslim Uighurs against Chinese rule, and Taliban against Russia’s Central Asian allies.”

            The US clearly found other means of stirring up Muslim Uighurs against Beijing last July via its support for the World Uighur Congress. But the Al Qaeda “threat” remains the lynchpin of Obama US justification for his Afghan war buildup.

            Now, however, the National Security Adviser to President Obama, former Marine Gen. James Jones has made a statement, conveniently buried by the friendly US media, about the estimated size of the present Al Qaeda danger in Afghanistan. Jones told Congress, “The al-Qaeda presence is very diminished. The maximum estimate is less than 100 operating in the country, no bases, no ability to launch attacks on either us or our allies.”

            That means that Al-Qaeda, for all practical purposes, does not exist in Afghanistan. Oops…

            Even in neighboring Pakistan, the remnants of Al-Qaeda are scarcely to be found. The Wall Street Journal reports, “Hunted by US drones, beset by money problems and finding it tougher to lure young Arabs to the bleak mountains of Pakistan, al Qaeda is seeing its role shrink there and in Afghanistan, according to intelligence reports and Pakistan and U.S. officials. For Arab youths who are al Qaeda’s primary recruits, ‘it’s not romantic to be cold and hungry and hiding,’ said a senior U.S. official in South Asia.”

            If we follow the statement to its logical consequence we must conclude then that the reason German soldiers are dying along with other NATO youth in the mountains of Afghanistan has nothing to do with “winning a war against terrorism.” Conveniently most media chooses to forget the fact that Al Qaeda to the extent it ever existed, was a creation in the 1980’s of the CIA, who recruited and trained radical muslims from across the Islamic world to wage war against Russian troops in Afghanistan as part of a strategy developed by Reagan’s CIA head Bill Casey and others to create a “new Vietnam” for the Soviet Union which would lead to a humiliating defeat for the Red Army and the ultimate collapse of the Soviet Union.

            Now US NSC head Jones admits there is essentially no Al Qaeda anymore in Afghanistan. Perhaps it is time for a more honest debate from our political leaders about the true purpose of sending more young to die protecting the opium harvests of Afghanistan.


F. William Engdahl is author of Full Spectrum Dominance: Totalitarian Democracy in the New World Order. He may be reached via his website at www.engdahl.oilgeopolitics.net.

http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=15761

The Prolonging of Palin

October 24, 2009

by Christopher Brauchli

CommonDreams

Books, like men their authors, have no more than one way of coming into the world, but there are ten thousand to go out of it, and return no more.

                                    Jonathan Swift, A Tale of a Tub, dedication

It's not the same as learning that just in time for the holiday season, a heretofore-unpublished novel of Dostoyevsky will hit the stores to great excitement and acclaim, but it's not much less exciting.  It's the news that Sarah Palin's memoir with the catchy title "Going Rogue: An American Life" will arrive at bookstores on November 17^th.  Its advent has produced more of a buzz than did the news of Joe the Plumber's book, earlier this year, with the fetching title of "Joe the Plumber: Fighting for the American Dream."

Joe's fight began with the utterance of 12 words he spoke when introduced to Presidential Candidate Obama during the 2008 campaign. Those words were:  "Your new tax plan is going to tax me more, isn't it?" With that cogent inquiry Joe became an instant hero to the right wing and finally gave John McCain something to talk about.  It was, of course, a miracle as great as any in memory, that such an utterance should be considered fighting for the American dream.  Until then, Joe's fighting for the American dream consisted of not paying taxes he owed and practicing plumbing without a license.  That redemption could be achieved with such an utterance is indeed proof that in this country incompetence is no bar to success.

Joe's fight continued after the election when Joe became a correspondent for Pajamas TV.  As correspondent he went first to Israel where he reported on what he thought Israel's response to the proposed cease fire with Hamas would be based on his perceptive conversations with "regular Israelis" (as distinguished from the other kind that more sophisticated reporters rely on).  From that assignment he went on to "investigate the Obama stimulus package", an assignment he completed on February 11.   His last appearance for Pajamas appears to be March 3, 2009, probably because he got involved in writing his new book that was published later in the year.  (Of course he did not write it himself.  He wrote it with the help of someone who was able to put Joe's few thoughts into words and embellish them to book length.)  Sarah Palin's book is more eagerly awaited than was Joe's and, if advanced reports are believed, will have considerably more success.  

Like Joe, (and unlike Dostoyevsky who did all his own writing and in Russian at that, which Sarah, having lived practically within earshot of Russia would be the first to tell you, is a considerable challenge) Sarah, too, had help. Her co-author was Lynn Vincent who spent the entire summer helping Sarah write her 400-page book.  Ms. Vincent has written her own books as well as co-authored books for other public figures who lack the ability to do their own writing. A HarperCollins spokeswoman said the book would be "a memoir of Governor Palin's life" but refused to discuss the role of Ms. Vincent saying the publisher did not "participate in stories regarding collaborators." According to Politico, however, Ms. Vincent is "a staunch conservative, devoted evangelical Christian and intensely partisan Republican." (Her partisanship is well illustrated by a book she wrote entitled "Donkey Cons" which, among other things, describes the Democratic party as "pro-gangster" and the "party of treason and subversion", descriptions that resonate in the hearts of those who can hardly wait for the Palin book to hit the stores.)  Its conception aside, the book promises to be a real boon for booksellers around the country. 

According to a report in the Wall Street Journal its initial press run will be 1.5 million copies, the same as the first press run of the memoir of another famous American, Edward M. Kennedy published in late September.  Retailers are hoping the book will boost the fortunes of booksellers around the country.  Edward Ash-Milby, a buyer for Barnes and Noble is quoted in the WSJ as saying that "It's going to be a No. 1 best seller, the hottest book in the country when it comes out.  She has a lot to say and a lot of people will want to hear it."  It is reassuring to learn that Ms. Palin, who was repeatedly stumped by questioners when interviewed during the 2008 campaign, has found a brain and a voice and now has a lot to say.  Some were amazed at Joe the Plumber's popularity with a large segment of the American public when his accomplishments were essentially non-existent.  It is even more amazing to think that Sarah Palin's book will become a best seller.  The only question that is left is whether the promised popularity of her book says more about her or about those who buy her book.  Readers can reach their own conclusions.

Christopher Brauchli can be emailed at brauchli.56@post.harvard.edu. For political commentary see his web page at http://humanraceandothersports.com

Who speaks for America's Jews? J Street lobby group works to loosen big beasts' grip on Congress

Boost for J Street as Obama adviser attends conference, but Israeli ambassador will be staying away

October 23, 2009

by Chris McGreal in Washington

guardian.co.uk

Members of Congress signed up by the score when they were invited to this weekend's "pro-Israel" conference. But then the faxes and emails started to roll in, denouncing the organisers as "Jewish Stalinists", the "surrender lobby" and terrorist sympathisers.

Some members of Congress scuttled for cover, admitting they had little idea what the organisation behind the conference – an upstart Washington lobby group called J Street, which wants to turn US policy on Israel on its head – stands for.

But Washington is learning fast. J Street – the name plays on the first letter of Jew and that many of the big Washington lobbying firms are on the city's K Street – was launched at the beginning of last year as a "pro-Israel and pro-peace" group to general ridicule from the big beasts of the Israel lobby, which have kept a grip on Congress for decades.

They predicted that J Street and the men who launched it – Jeremy Ben-Ami, a former domestic policy adviser to President Bill Clinton, and Daniel Levy, a former adviser to Israeli cabinet ministers and one of the authors of the Geneva peace initiative – would be swiftly marginalised as a niche group backed by obscure peaceniks with little influence.

But the organisation opens its first national conference in Washington tomorrow with a stamp of legitimacy from a White House that is clearly sympathetic to the J Street view. General James Jones, Barack Obama's national security adviser and one of his point men on Israel, is to make a keynote speech. About 140 members of Congress have pledged their support even after others backed away, and former Israeli cabinet ministers and generals will be in attendance.

But perhaps the best measure of its impact is the fury that has greeted the organisation's rise.

The Israel ambassador has refused to attend the conference, while the traditional pro-Israel lobby has accused J Street of being "obsequious to terrorists and hostile to Israel" and a "disreputable pseudo-pro-Israel organisation".

"They're going hysterical," said Levy. "They said no one would want to hear what we have to say: that American Jews are fed up with being told we're for bombing Iraq and bombing Iran and we're against the hard concessions necessary for peace in Israel. Now they're trying to discredit us."

On the face of it, J Street stands for what the rest of the pro-Israel lobby stands for: peace, a two-state solution and a secure Israel. The very wide divide is in how to get there.

At the heart of the battle is who speaks for America's Jews and what it means to be pro-Israel.

For decades, groups from the Zionist Organisation of America to the powerful American Israel Public Affairs Committee (Aipac) have claimed to be the voice of the largest Jewish community outside Israel advocating unflinching support for the government in Jerusalem.

But in recent years, Aipac, the ZOA and other groups have drawn even closer to the hard-right in America, particularly the neocons and Christian evangelical organisations, as the conflict in Israel is framed largely in the context of terrorism while hardline governments pay little more than lip service to peace and a Palestinian state.

Levy says J Street was born out of a belief that many American Jews are now alienated from those who claim to speak in their name.

"A community that is very, very liberal, votes 78% Obama, overall a community that prides itself in the role it played historically in the US in advancing civil rights, was suddenly being identified with the most illiberal reactionary regressive policies advocated by groups that claimed to be doing this in the name of American Jewry and the name of Israel, making alliances with these dreadful people on the far-right of American politics," said Levy.

"What we had a hunch about, and was proven when J Street was launched, is that there is this very large constituency of Jewish Americans who do care about Israel and who are cool identifying themselves as pro-Israel. But their pro-Israelness is about the need for Israel to be at peace with its neighbours, to gain security not by being an ongoing expansionist presence. In fact, that endangers Israel."

J Street swiftly found followers – it claims 110,000 now – and funders. The organisation hoped to raise $50,000 (£31,000) for campaign contributions to sympathetic candidates in last year's congressional elections. In fact it brought in $600,000 in individual donations, which it directed to 41 candidates. Thirty-three of them won, although J Street is quick to acknowledge that its support was not decisive.

The organisation has brought in much more to fund its lobbying work, much of it five- and six-figure sums from Jewish philanthropists, although it has also been criticised for taking money from Muslims and Arabs.

For years Aipac successfully defined "pro-Israel" to Washington politicians as meaning unflinching support for whatever government sat in Jerusalem, and whatever its policies. The lobby group saw its core role as keeping the military aid flowing and ensuring that Washington did not force Israel's hand in ending the conflict with the Palestinians.

Aipac took the position that it was all very well for the US to offer the framework for negotiation and to mediate where necessary, but that the final agreement could only be reached by the two sides on the ground.

So when Obama laid down a marker to the Israeli prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, demanding a freeze on settlement construction, Aipac rounded up 70 members of the Senate to urge him to back off.

J Street has alarmed the Israeli government and its supporters in Washington by taking a very different tack. The group argues that if the two sides cannot reach a deal then the US should cajole Israel and the Palestinians towards an agreement even if that means pressing the Jewish state to give up more than it wants.

Some J Street activists believe that is what Obama wants to do and they want to help him by building a constituency for action among sympathetic Jews across America.

That's a tall order made all the more difficult by the resistance of vested interests targeted especially at discouraging members of Congress from dealings with J Street.

A barrage of attacks has been launched in recent weeks in conservative magazines, on influential blogs and by well-funded organisations across America.

One that has gained the widest attention has been led by Lenny Ben David, a former Israeli diplomat who for 25 years served on Aipac's staff, where his job was to dig out information to discredit Israel's critics.

In the Jerusalem Post, Ben David derided J Street as Obama's "toy Jews".

He has been digging into Ben-Ami's background in a PR firm that also dealt with Arab governments, and looking into some of J Street's funders, whom he describes as "Palestinians, Arab-Americans, and Iranian-Americans" – and therefore inherently anti-Israeli. Ben David has said that accepting donations from individuals with links to the Arab world or human rights organisations critical of Israel shows it to be against the Jewish state.

StandWithUS, a group set up to counter growing disillusionment with Israel among young Jews in the universities, distributed letters to members of Congress planning to attend the conference saying "J Street frequently endorses anti-Israel, anti-Jewish narratives" such as criticising the assault on Gaza. It also accused the organisation of demonising Jewish settlers in the occupied territories and said that some of J Street's funders had ties to Arab governments or Iran.

Some members of Congress, aware of the power of groups such as Aipac to mobilise against them, have had second thoughts and backed away.

Ben-Ami hit back in an email to supporters last week. "They're working the phones – calling the offices of every one of the 150-plus members of Congress … to frighten them away from associating with J Street. The most infuriating part is that their thuggish smear tactics are having an impact – already five members of Congress have pulled off of our Host Committee," he wrote.

By the end of this week the number of withdrawals was closer to 15 and it is likely to rise further. Most are Republicans but some Democrats have backed away too, including New York's two members of the Senate, Charles Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand.

Senator John Kerry, the former presidential candidate and chair of the foreign affairs committee, has also pulled out of a major speech, although his office denies it is under pressure and says he will do his best to attend the conference at some point.

J Street was forced to pull a poetry session from its cultural programme amid an uproar on rightwing blogs over the poet Josh Healey, who likened Guantánamo to Auschwitz and compared Israeli actions in Gaza to those of the Nazis.

Aipac officially denies that it has any role in the assault on J Street but those at the forefront are close allies of the lobby group, from the conservative Weekly Standard magazine (once dubbed the "neocon bible") to the Zionist Organisation of America.

"If you look at this it's hard not to see this as a concerted, co-ordinated campaign," said Levy. "We know that's how the right wing works. There's a nexus of funders, there's a nexus of people who sit on each other's boards. They're all very close to Aipac."

The frenzy of denunciations almost certainly played a role in discouraging the Israeli ambassador, Michael Oren, from accepting an invitation to address the J Street conference on the grounds that certain of the group's policies "could impair Israel's interests".

Oren, who recently gave up American citizenship in order to become the Israeli envoy, is sophisticated and well attuned to the American Jewish community and so it is thought likely that he would have seen the advantage in engaging with J Street. But the pressure for him to refuse the invitation was fierce and the decision was made easier by J Street's public stand with Obama against Netanyahu on the end to settlement construction.

At times J Street has misjudged the situation and drawn fire from its friends, most notably when it was seen as failing to distinguish between Israel's motives and those of Hamas in its criticism of the assault on Gaza this year. That drew the wrath of one of America's most prominent liberal Jews, Rabbi Eric Yoffie, president of the Union for Reform Judaism, who called J Street "morally deficient, profoundly out of touch with Jewish sentiment and also appallingly naive".

Levy says the pressure won't work. "There are people in Israel who understand they've got a significant problem. Israel is alienating Jewish communities around the world," he said. "They risk losing young people, saying that Israel is not part of who I am. We're trying to say we can still embrace Israel, have a constructive critical dialogue to try and advance our vision of what Israel needs to be. And I think there are Israelis who are strategically far sighted enough to understand that if you alienate J Street you're setting Israel up for a huge problem."

Powerful voices

Much of the legislation that emerges from the US Congress is heavily influenced by lobby groups wielding huge budgets for campaign contributions and advertising that can be turned for or against a legislator. But money is not all that matters.

Possibly the most influential lobby group consists of retirees and their organisation, the American Association of Retired People, which has 30 million members who are more likely to vote than most Americans. Its voice has recently been heard on healthcare reform.

Religious groupings, particularly Christian evangelicals around the anti-abortion movement, hold considerable sway over politicians from some parts of America, as does the National Rifle Association, which works to limit gun control legislation by playing on fears that any new limitation on the right to carry weapons is a first step to a ban on all guns.

The NRA is particularly powerful in the south, where few political candidates dare to upset it.

Oil companies, trade unions, the aviation industry, drug manufacturers and the insurance industry all use money to considerable effect on Capitol Hill and in the White House.

On foreign affairs, there is no more powerful an organisation than the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (Aipac), which has locked most of Congress into unquestioning support for the Israeli government with few members willing to incur the wrath of a lobby that has proven able to destroy political careers.

Other groups have seen their influence wane in recent years, notably the anti-Castro Cubans in Florida

The Afghan Death Toll: October 2009  39

October 26, 2009

by Brian Harring

October 1, 2009

            The Department of Defense announced today the death of a soldier who was supporting Operation Iraqi Freedom. 

            Spc. Ross E. Vogel, III, 27, of Red Lion, Pa., died Sept. 29 in Kut, Iraq, of injuries suffered from a non-combat related incident.  He was assigned to the 67th Signal Battalion, 35th Signal Brigade, Fort Gordon, Ga.      

            The circumstances surrounding the incident are under investigation.    

            The Department of Defense announced today the death of a soldier who was supporting Operation Enduring Freedom.

             Staff Sgt. Alex French IV, 31, of Milledgeville, Ga., died Sept. 30 in Kwhost, Afghanistan, of wounds suffered when enemy forces attacked his unit using an improvised-explosive device. He was assigned to the 1st Battalion, 121st Infantry Regiment, Lawrenceville, Ga.

            The Department of Defense announced today the death of two soldiers who were supporting Operation Enduring Freedom.  They died Sept. 29 in Jolo Island, the Philippines, from the detonation of an improvised-explosive device.  The soldiers were assigned to the 3rd Battalion, 1st Special Forces Group, Fort Lewis, Wash.

            Killed were:

            Sgt. 1st Class Christopher D. Shaw, 37, of Markham, Ill. 

            Staff Sgt. Jack M. Martin III, 26, of Bethany, Okla.

October 3, 2009

            The Department of Defense announced today the death of a soldier who was supporting Operation Enduring Freedom.

             Spc. Russell S. Hercules Jr., 22 of Murfreesboro, Tenn., died Oct. 1 in Wardak province, Afghanistan, of wounds suffered when insurgents attacked his unit using small arms fire  He was assigned to the 4^th Battalion, 101^st Aviation Regiment, 159^th Combat Aviation Brigade, 101^st Airborne Division (Air Assault), Fort Campbell, Ky.

            The Department of Defense announced today the death of a soldier who was supporting Operation Enduring Freedom. 

            Sgt. Ryan C. Adams, 26 of Rhinelander, Wisc., died Oct. 2 in Logar province, Afghanistan, of wounds suffered when enemy forces attacked his vehicle using rocket-propelled grenade fire. He was assigned to the 951st Engineer Company (Sapper), Wisconsin Army National Guard, Rhinelander, Wisc.

            The Department of Defense announced today the death of a soldier who was supporting Operation Enduring Freedom. 

            Sgt. Roberto D. Sanchez, 24 of Satellite Beach, Fla., died Oct. 1 in Kandahar province, Afghanistan, of wounds suffered when enemy forces attacked his unit with an improvised explosive device.  He was assigned to the 1^st Battalion, 75^th Ranger Regiment, Hunter Army Airfield Ga.

October 4, 2009

            The Department of Defense announced today the death of two soldiers who were supporting Operation Enduring Freedom.  They died Oct. 2 in Wardak province, Afghanistan, of injuries sustained when enemy forces attacked their unit using small arms fire.

            Killed were:

            Sgt. Aaron M. Smith, 25, of Manhattan, Kan. He was assigned to the 2^nd Battalion, 87^th Infantry Regiment, 3^rd Brigade Combat Team, 10^th Mountain Division (Light Infantry), Fort Drum, N.Y.

            Pfc. Brandon A. Owens, 21, of Memphis, Tenn. He was assigned to the 118^th Military Police Company, 503^rd Military Police Battalion, 16^th Military Police Brigade, XVIII Airborne Corps, Fort Bragg, N.C.

October 5, 2009

            The Department of Defense announced today the death of a soldier who was supporting Operation Enduring Freedom.

            Staff Sgt. Thomas D. Rabjohn, 39, of Litchfield Park, Ariz., died Oct. 3 in Wardak province, Afghanistan, of wounds suffered when an improvised explosive device detonated during an attempt to disarm it.  He was assigned to the 363rd Explosive Ordnance Detachment, Coolidge, Ariz.

            The Department of Defense announced today the death of a soldier who was supporting Operation Iraqi Freedom.

            Spc. Paul E. Andersen, 49, of Dowagiac, Mich., died Oct. 1 in Baghdad, Iraq, of wounds suffered when enemy forces attacked his camp using indirect fire. He was assigned to the 855th Quartermaster Company, South Bend, Ind.

October 7, 2009

            The Department of Defense announced today the death of a soldier who was supporting Operation Iraqi Freedom.

             Maj. Tad T. Hervas, 48, of Coon Rapids, Minn., died Oct. 6 at Contingency Operating Base Basra, Iraq, of injuries sustained from a non-combat related incident. He was assigned to the 34th Infantry Division, Rosemont, Minn.

             The circumstances surrounding the incident are under investigation.

            The Department of Defense announced today the death of eight soldiers who were supporting Operation Enduring Freedom.  They died Oct. 3 in Kamdesh, Afghanistan, of wounds suffered when enemy forces attacked their contingency outpost with small arms, rocket-propelled grenade and indirect fires. They were assigned to the 3rd Squadron, 61st Cavalry Regiment, 4th Brigade Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division, Fort Carson, Colo.

            Killed were:

 Staff Sgt. Vernon W. Martin, 25 of Savannah, Ga.

 Sgt. Justin T. Gallegos, 27, of Tucson, Ariz.

 Sgt. Joshua M. Hardt, 24, of Applegate, Calif.

 Sgt. Joshua J. Kirk, 30, of South Portland, Maine.

 Sgt. Michael P. Scusa, 22, of Villas, N.J.

 Spc. Christopher T. Griffin, 24, of Kincheloe, Mich.

 Spc. Stephan L. Mace, 21, of Lovettsville, Va.

 Pfc. Kevin C. Thomson, 22, of Reno, Nev.

            The Department of Defense announced today the death of a soldier who was supporting Operation Enduring Freedom.

                        Spc. Kevin O. Hill, 23, of Brooklyn, N.Y., died Oct. 4 at Contingency Outpost Dehanna, Afghanistan, of wounds suffered when enemy forces attacked his unit using small arms and indirect fires. He was assigned to the 576th Mobility Augmentation Company, Fort Carson, Colo.

Army Releases September Suicide Data

            The Army today released suicide data for the month of September.  Among active-duty soldiers, there were seven potential suicides.  One has been confirmed as a suicide, and six are pending determination of the manner of death.  For August, the Army reported 11 potential suicides among active-duty soldiers.  Since the release of that report, four have been confirmed as suicides and seven remain under investigation.

            There were 117 reported active-duty Army suicides from January 2009 through September 2009.  Of those, 81 have been confirmed, and 36 are pending determination of manner of death.  For the same period in 2008, there were 103 suicides among active-duty soldiers.

            During September 2009, among reserve component soldiers who were not on active duty, there were seven potential suicides.  Among that same group, from January 2009 through September 2009, there were 35 confirmed suicides.  Twenty-five potential suicides are currently under investigation to determine the manner of death.  For the same period in 2008, there were 40 suicides among reserve soldiers who were not on active duty.

            Over the past year, the Army has engaged in a sustained effort to reduce the rate of suicide within its ranks.  This effort has included an Army-wide suicide prevention stand-down and chain teach for every soldier; the implementation of the Army Campaign Plan for Health Promotion, Risk Reduction and Suicide Prevention; the establishment of both a Suicide Prevention Task Force and Suicide Prevention Council; a long-term partnership with the National Institute of Mental Health to carry out the largest ever study of suicide and behavioral health among military personnel; and more than 160 specific improvements to Army suicide prevention policies, doctrine, training and resources.

             “Whether it’s additional resources, improved training or ensuring those in our Army community can readily identify the warning signs of suicidal behavior, all our efforts often come down to one soldier caring enough about another soldier to step in when they see something wrong, “ said Brig. Gen. Colleen McGuire, Director, Army Suicide Prevention Task Force.  “Soldiers will be willing to do that if they know help is available, if they believe there is no stigma attached to asking for that help, and if they are certain that Army leaders remain absolutely committed to the resiliency of our entire Army Family.”

            Soldiers and families in need of crisis assistance can contact Military OneSource or the Defense Center of Excellence (DCOE) for Psychological Health and Traumatic Brain Injury Outreach Center.  Trained consultants are available from both organizations 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year.

            The Military OneSource toll-free number for those residing in the continental U.S. is 1-800-342-9647, their Web site address is: http://www.militaryonesource.com.

             Overseas personnel should refer to the Military OneSource Web site for dialing instructions for their specific location.

            The DCOE Outreach Center can be contacted at 1-866-966-1020, via electronic mail at Resources@DCoEOutreach.org and at http://www.dcoe.health.mil .

 The Army's most current suicide prevention information is located at http://www.armyg1.army.mil/hr/suicide/default.asp .

October 9. 2009

            The Department of Defense announced today the death of a soldier who was supporting Operation Enduring Freedom.

             Sgt. 1st Class Kenneth W. Westbrook, 41, of Shiprock, N.M., died Oct. 7 at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, D.C., of wounds suffered Sept. 8 when insurgents attacked his unit in the Ganjigal Valley, Afghanistan, using small arms and indirect fire. He was assigned to the 1st Brigade, 1st Infantry Division, Fort Riley, Kan.

 October 12, 2009

            The Department of Defense announced today the death of a soldier who was supporting Operation Enduring Freedom.

             Spc. George W. Cauley, 24, of Walker, Minn., died Oct. 10 in Bagram, Afghanistan, of wounds suffered when insurgents attacked his vehicle with an improvised explosive device on Oct. 7 in Helmand province. He was assigned to the 114th Truck Company of the Minnesota Army National Guard in Duluth, Minn.

October 13, 2009-

            The Department of Defense announced today the death of a Marine who was supporting Operation Enduring Freedom.

            Lance Cpl. Alfonso Ochoa Jr., 20, of Armona, Calif., died Oct. 10 while supporting combat operations in Farah province, Afghanistan.  He was assigned to 2nd Battalion, 3rd Marine Regiment, 3rd Marine Division, III Marine Expeditionary Force, Marine Corps Base Hawaii, Kaneohe Bay.

            The Department of Defense announced today the death of a Marine who was supporting Operation Enduring Freedom.

            Staff Sgt. Aaron J. Taylor, 27, of Bovey, Minn., died Oct. 9 while supporting combat operations in Helmand province, Afghanistan.  He was assigned to Marine Wing Support Squadron 372, Marine Wing Support Group 37, 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, Calif.

October 17, 2009

            The Department of Defense announced today the death of a soldier who was supporting Operation Enduring Freedom.

            Sgt. Christopher M. Rudzinski, 28, of Rantoul, Ill., died Oct. 16 near Kandahar, Afghanistan, of wounds suffered when enemy forces attacked his vehicle with an improvised explosive device.  He was assigned to 293rd Military Police Company, 385th Military Police Battalion, 16th Military Police Brigade (Airborne), Fort Stewart, Ga.

       The Department of Defense announced today the death of two soldiers who were supporting Operation Enduring Freedom.  They died Oct. 16 in Wardak province, Afghanistan, of wounds suffered when enemy forces attacked their vehicle with an improvised explosive device.  The soldiers were assigned to the 143rd Infantry Detachment, Austin, Texas.

             Killed were:

             Staff Sgt. Chris N. Staats, 32, of Fredericksburg, Texas.

             Spc. Anthony G. Green, 28, of Matthews, N.C.

October 19, 2009

            The Department of Defense announced today the death of four soldiers who were supporting Operation Enduring Freedom.  They died Oct. 15 in Kandahar province, Afghanistan, of wounds suffered when enemy forces attacked their vehicle with an improvised explosive device.  They were assigned to the 569th Mobility Augmentation Company, 4th Engineer Battalion, Fort Carson, Colo.

            Killed were:

            Staff Sgt. Glen H. Stivison, Jr., 34, of Blairsville, Pa.;

            Spc. Jesus O. Flores, Jr., 28, of La Mirada, Calif.;

            Spc. Daniel C. Lawson, 33, of Deerfield Beach, Fla.; and

            Pfc. Brandon M. Styer, 19, of Lancaster, Pa.

            The Department of Defense announced today the death of a soldier who was supporting Operation Iraqi Freedom.

            Pfc. Daniel J. Rivera, 22, of Rochester, N.Y., died Oct. 18 in Mosul, Iraq, of injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident.  He was assigned to the 3rd Battalion, 8th Cavalry Regiment, 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 1st Cavalry Division, Fort Hood, Texas.

            The circumstances surrounding the incident are under investigation.

October 20, 2009

            The Department of Defense announced today the death of a soldier who was supporting Operation Enduring Freedom.

            Spc. Michael A. Dahl Jr., 23, of Moreno Valley, Calif., died Oct. 17 in Argahndab, Afghanistan, of wounds suffered when enemy forces attacked his vehicle with an improvised explosive device.  He was assigned to 1st Battalion, 17th Infantry Regiment, 5th Stryker Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division, Fort Lewis, Wash.

October 21, 2009

            The Department of Defense announced today the death of a Marine who was supporting Operation Enduring Freedom.

            Lance Cpl. David R. Baker, 22, of Painesville, Ohio, died Oct. 20 while supporting combat operations in Helmand province, Afghanistan.  He was assigned to 1st Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division, I Marine Expeditionary Force, Camp Pendleton, Calif.

                The Department of Defense announced today the death of a soldier who was supporting Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Staff Sgt. Bradley Espinoza, 26, of Mission, Texas, died Oct. 19 in Qwest, Iraq, of wounds suffered when enemy forces attacked his vehicle with an improvised explosive device.               He was assigned to 1st Battalion, 12th Cavalry Regiment, 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 1st Cavalry Division, Fort Hood, Texas.

October 22, 2009

                The Department of Defense announced today the death of a soldier who was supporting Operation Enduring Freedom.

            Spc. Kyle A. Coumas, 22, of Lockeford, Calif., died Oct. 21 in Kandahar province, Afghanistan, of wounds suffered when enemy forces attacked his vehicle with an improvised explosive device. He was assigned to 1st Battalion, 17th Infantry Regiment, 5th Stryker Brigade Combat Team,  2nd Infantry Division, Fort Lewis, Wash.

October 26, 2009

            The Department of Defense announced today the death of two soldiers who were supporting Operation Enduring Freedom.  They died Oct. 23 in Afghanistan, of wounds suffered when enemy forces attacked their vehicle with an improvised explosive device.  The soldiers were assigned to the 569th Mobility Augmentation Company, 4th Engineer Battalion, Fort Carson, Colo.

            Killed were:

            Spc. Eric N. Lembke, 25, of Tampa, Fla.

            Pfc. Kimble A. Han, 30, of Lehi, Utah.

A Few Good Kids?

How the No Child Left Behind Act allowed military recruiters to collect info on millions of unsuspecting teens.

by David Goodman

Mother Jones/September/October 2009 Issue

             John Travers was striding purposefully into the Westfield mall in Wheaton, Maryland, for some back-to-school shopping before starting his junior year at Bowling Green State University. When I asked him whether he'd ever talked to a military recruiter, Travers, a 19-year-old African American with a buzz cut, a crisp white T-shirt, and a diamond stud in his left ear, smiled wryly. "To get to lunch in my high school, you had to pass recruiters," he said. "It was overwhelming." Then he added, "I thought the recruiters had too much information about me. They called me, but I never gave them my phone number."

            Nor did he give the recruiters his email address, Social Security number, or details about his ethnicity, shopping habits, or college plans. Yet they probably knew all that, too. In the past few years, the military has mounted a virtual invasion into the lives of young Americans. Using data mining, stealth websites, career tests, and sophisticated marketing software, the Pentagon is harvesting and analyzing information on everything from high school students' GPAs and SAT scores to which video games they play. Before an Army recruiter even picks up the phone to call a prospect like Travers, the soldier may know more about the kid's habits than do his own parents. The military has long struggled to find more effective ways to reach potential enlistees; for every new GI it signed up last year, the Army spent $24,500 on recruitment. (In contrast, four-year colleges spend an average of $2,000 per incoming student.) Recruiters hit pay dirt in 2002, when then-Rep. (now Sen.) David Vitter (R-La.) slipped a provision into the No Child Left Behind Act that requires high schools to give recruiters the names and contact details of all juniors and seniors. Schools that fail to comply risk losing their NCLB funding. This little-known regulation effectively transformed President George W. Bush's signature education bill into the most aggressive military recruitment tool since the draft. Students may sign an opt-out form—but not all school districts let them know about it.

            Yet NCLB is just the tip of the data iceberg. In 2005, privacy advocates discovered that the Pentagon had spent the past two years quietly amassing records from Selective Service, state DMVs, and data brokers to create a database of tens of millions of young adults and teens, some as young as 15. The massive data-mining project is overseen by the Joint Advertising Market Research & Studies program, whose website has described the database, which now holds 34 million names, as "arguably the largest repository of 16-25-year-old youth data in the country." The JAMRS database is in turn run by Equifax, the credit reporting giant.

            Marc Rotenberg, head of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, says the Pentagon's initial failure to disclose the collection of the information likely violated the Privacy Act. In 2007, the Pentagon settled a lawsuit (filed by the New York Civil Liberties Union) by agreeing to stop collecting the names and Social Security numbers of anyone younger than 17 and promising not to share its database records with other government agencies. Students may opt out of having their JAMRS database information sent to recruiters, but only 8,700 have invoked this obscure safeguard.

            The Pentagon also spends about $600,000 a year on commercial data brokers, notably the Student Marketing Group and the American Student List, which boasts that it has records for 8 million high school students. Both companies have been accused of using deceptive practices to gather information: In 2002, New York's attorney general sued SMG for telling high schools it was surveying students for scholarship and financial aid opportunities yet selling the info to telemarketers; the Federal Trade Commission charged ASL with similar tactics. Both companies eventually settled.

            The Pentagon is also gathering data from unsuspecting Web surfers. This year, the Army spent $1.2 million on the website March2Success.com, which provides free standardized test-taking tips devised by prep firms such as Peterson's, Kaplan, and Princeton Review. The only indications that the Army runs the site, which registers an average of 17,000 new users each month, are a tiny tagline and a small logo that links to the main recruitment website, GoArmy.com. Yet visitors' contact information can be sent to recruiters unless they opt out, and students also have the option of having a recruiter monitor their practice test scores. Terry Backstrom, who runs March2Success.com for the US Army Recruiting Command at Fort Knox, insists that it is about "good will," not recruiting. "We are providing a great service to schools that normally would cost them."

             Recruiters are also data mining the classroom. More than 12,000 high schools administer the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery, a three-hour multiple-choice test originally created in 1968 to match conscripts with military assignments. Rebranded in the mid-1990s as the "ASVAB Career Exploration Program," the test has a cheerful home page that makes no reference to its military applications, instead declaring that it "is designed to help students learn more about themselves and the world of work." A student who takes the test is asked to divulge his or her Social Security number, GPA, ethnicity, and career interests—all of which is then logged into the JAMRS database. In 2008, more than 641,000 high school students took the ASVAB; 90 percent had their scores sent to recruiters. Tony Castillo of the Army's Houston Recruiting Battalion says that ASVAB is "much more than a test to join the military. It is really a gift to public education."

             Concerns about the ASVAB's links to recruiting have led to a nearly 20 percent decline in the number of test takers between 2003 and 2008. But the test is mandatory at approximately 1,000 high schools. Last February, three North Carolina students were sent to detention for refusing to take it. One, a junior named Dakota Ling, told the local paper, "I just really don't want the military to have all the info it can on me." Last year, the California Legislature barred schools from sending ASVAB results to military recruiters, though Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed the bill. The Los Angeles and Washington, DC, school districts have tried to protect students' information by releasing their scores only on request.

            To put all its data to use, the military has enlisted the help of Nielsen Claritas, a research and marketing firm whose clients include BMW, AOL, and Starbucks. Last year, it rolled out a "custom segmentation" program that allows a recruiter armed with the address, age, race, and gender of a potential "lead" to call up a wealth of information about young people in the immediate area, including recreation and consumption patterns. The program even suggests pitches that might work while cold-calling teenagers. "It's just a foot in the door for a recruiter to start a relevant conversation with a young person," says Donna Dorminey of the US Army Center for Accessions Research.

            Still, no amount of data slicing can fix the challenge of recruiting during wartime. Last year, a JAMRS survey identified recruiters' single biggest obstacle: Only 5 percent of parents would recommend military service to their kids, a situation blamed on "a constant barrage of negative media coverage on the War in Iraq." Not surprisingly, more and more kids are opting out of having their information shared with recruiters under No Child Left Behind; in New York City, the number of students opting out has doubled in the past five years, to 45,000 in 2008. At some schools, 90 percent of students have opted out. In 2007, JAMRS awarded a $50 million contract to Mullen Advertising to continue its marketing campaign to target "influencers" such as parents, coaches, and guidance counselors. The result: print ads that declare, "Your son wants to join the military. The question isn't whether he's prepared enough, but whether you are."

            Not far from the mall in Maryland, I asked 21-year-old Marcelo Salazar, who'd been a cadet in his high school's Junior Reserve Officer Training Corps, why he'd decided not to enlist after graduating from John F. Kennedy High School in Silver Spring, Maryland, in 2005. Now a community college student, he replied that his mother was firmly against it.

            Then, as if on cue, his cell phone chirped: It was a recruiter who called him constantly. He ignored it. "War is cool," he said, flipping on his aviator sunglasses. "But if you're dying, it's not."

David Goodman is a contributing writer for Mother Jones and coauthor of Static: Government Liars, Media Cheerleaders and the People Who Fight Back. For more of his stories, click here.