Letters to the Editor
Jim White
Published Letters: 1088 Editor's Choice: 15
-
More digging on why we didn't bomb Iran in March
[Read the article: The U.S. military's role in preventing the bombing of Iran]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]In order to see if there is a further parallel to the Ashcroft, Comey and Goldsmith resignations over spying with any putative order to bomb Iran after the capture of British sailors in March of this year, I decided to look at turnover at high military ranks.
I started with the Joint Chiefs, but then ran across something that made me stop. According to the Wikipedia entry on the Joint Chiefs of Staff:
After the 1986 reorganization of the military undertaken by the Goldwater-Nichols Act, the Joint Chiefs of Staff do not have operational command of U.S. military forces. Responsibility for conducting military operations goes from the President to the Secretary of Defense directly to the heads of the Unified Combatant Commands and thus bypasses the Joint Chiefs of Staff completely.
That means that the key player to examine with regard to any order to attack Iran is the Commander of CentCom, the Unified Combatant Command that oversees the Middle East. That's where the timing gets VERY interesting.
Abizaid was commander of CentCom until Fallon took over on March 16, 2007. The British sailors were captured on March 23, 2007.
Now think about the public statements of both Abizaid and Fallon. Abizaid has said that we could live with a nuclear Iran (http://tinyurl.com/2eo6uz) and Fallon has said that we will not attack Iran on his watch (http://thinkprogress.org/2007/05/16/fallon-carrier/).
It looks like our hopes ride on Fallon alone to prevent an attack. I find the timing of his assuming command and the "Iranian provocation" to be very interesting. It looks like Fallon was tested after only one week on the job. He served his country admirably, but I suspect he greatly disappointed Cheney, Bush and Gates. Long may he serve.
-
OT (slightly) -- Why Bush cares about "human rights" in Myanmar
[Read the article: The Susan Estrich Complex]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I had to wonder why Bush would repudiate rather than shout out "heh" to the junta in Myanmar for responding as he undoubtedly would prefer to social unrest. This article from today's Houston Chronicle takes care of that:
Myanmar's proven gas reserves were 19 trillion cubic feet at the end of 2006, according to BP PLC's World Review of Statistics. While that's only about 0.3 percent of the world's total reserves, at current production rates and Thailand's contract price for gas, the deposits are worth almost $2 billion a year in sales over the next 40 years.
"It points to the potential that Myanmar has," said Kang Wu, a fellow at the University of Hawaii's East-West Center in Honolulu.
Altogether, nine foreign oil companies are involved in 16 onshore blocks exploring for oil, enhancing recovery from older fields, or trying to reactivate fields where production has been suspended, according to Total's Web site. A block is an area onshore or offshore in which an oil company is granted exploratory and discovery rights.
Offshore, nine companies, including Total, Petronas, PTTEP, South Korea's Daewoo International Corp., Chinese state-run companies China National Offshore Oil Corp., or CNOOC, and China Petroleum & Chemical Corp., or Sinopec, are exploring or developing 29 blocks, Total said.
Despite economic sanctions against Myanmar by the United States and the European Union, Total continues to operate the Yadana gas field, and Chevron Corp. has a 28 percent stake through its takeover of Unocal. Existing investments were exempt from the investment ban.
Both Total and Chevron broadly defended their business in the nation.
"Far from solving Myanmar's problems, a forced withdrawal would only lead to our replacement by other operators probably less committed to the ethical principles guiding all our initiatives," Jean-Francois Lassalle, vice president of public affairs for Total Exploration & Production, said this week in a statement.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/fn/5172872.html
Ah, yes. Just another example of constructive engagement. But guess who shows up in this concern-fest?
"First lady Laura Bush and Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., have previously condemned human rights violations in Myanmar." Link:http://tinyurl.com/22wfpl
Yep, DiFi continues her function as a total tool of the Bushies.