The real “Axis of Evil” is Washington
Jun 29th, 2008 by Ken Hagler

The Past, Endlessly Repeating: This Is What They Want. Many of you have probably already read the latest Seymour Hersh: “Preparing the Battlefield: The Bush administration steps up its secret moves against Iran.” Interesting reading, in conjunction with this. I suppose “interesting” is one word for it.

I think we might distill the article down to a few key excerpts.


Late last year, Congress agreed to a request from President Bush to fund a major escalation of covert operations against Iran, according to current and former military, intelligence, and congressional sources. These operations, for which the President sought up to four hundred million dollars, were described in a Presidential Finding signed by Bush, and are designed to destabilize the country’s religious leadership. The covert activities involve support of the minority Ahwazi Arab and Baluchi groups and other dissident organizations. They also include gathering intelligence about Iran’s suspected nuclear-weapons program.

Clandestine operations against Iran are not new. United States Special Operations Forces have been conducting cross-border operations from southern Iraq, with Presidential authorization, since last year. These have included seizing members of Al Quds, the commando arm of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, and taking them to Iraq for interrogation, and the pursuit of “high-value targets” in the President’s war on terror, who may be captured or killed. But the scale and the scope of the operations in Iran, which involve the Central Intelligence Agency and the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC), have now been significantly expanded, according to the current and former officials. Many of these activities are not specified in the new Finding, and some congressional leaders have had serious questions about their nature.

Although some legislators were troubled by aspects of the Finding, and “there was a significant amount of high-level discussion” about it, according to the source familiar with it, the funding for the escalation was approved. In other words, some members of the Democratic leadership—Congress has been under Democratic control since the 2006 elections—were willing, in secret, to go along with the Administration in expanding covert activities directed at Iran, while the Party’s presumptive candidate for President, Barack Obama, has said that he favors direct talks and diplomacy.


None of the four Democrats in the Gang of Eight—Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senate Intelligence Committee chairman John D. Rockefeller IV, and House Intelligence Committee chairman Silvestre Reyes—would comment on the Finding, with some noting that it was highly classified. An aide to one member of the Democratic leadership responded, on his behalf, by pointing to the limitations of the Gang of Eight process. The notification of a Finding, the aide said, “is just that—notification, and not a sign-off on activities. Proper oversight of ongoing intelligence activities is done by fully briefing the members of the intelligence committee.” However, Congress does have the means to challenge the White House once it has been sent a Finding. It has the power to withhold funding for any government operation. The members of the House and Senate Democratic leadership who have access to the Finding can also, if they choose to do so, and if they have shared concerns, come up with ways to exert their influence on Administration policy. (A spokesman for the C.I.A. said, “As a rule, we don’t comment one way or the other on allegations of covert activities or purported findings.” The White House also declined to comment.)

A member of the House Appropriations Committee acknowledged that, even with a Democratic victory in November, “it will take another year before we get the intelligence activities under control.” He went on, “We control the money and they can’t do anything without the money. Money is what it’s all about. But I’m very leery of this Administration.” He added, “This Administration has been so secretive.”

Brave Democrats, with significant change in government policy always just over the horizon, when the light appears beyond the curve of the tunnel after the mountain has been climbed, once a multitude of unicorns and ponies have appeared on every doorstep, after…oh, to hell with it. But cutting off money now, to stop the horrific progress of utterly insane actions…nope, don’t want to do that.

Beyond these points, none of this matters in the least, first, because intelligence is entirely irrelevant with regard to the conventional arguments about its central importance (read lies for “conventional arguments”), and second, because the Democrats favor, in fundamental terms, the exactly identical foreign policy. Huzzah!

Saved my favorite Hersh bit for last:

Many of the activities may be being carried out by dissidents in Iran, and not by Americans in the field. One problem with “passing money” (to use the term of the person familiar with the Finding) in a covert setting is that it is hard to control where the money goes and whom it benefits. Nonetheless, the former senior intelligence official said, “We’ve got exposure, because of the transfer of our weapons and our communications gear. The Iranians will be able to make the argument that the opposition was inspired by the Americans. How many times have we tried this without asking the right questions? Is the risk worth it?” One possible consequence of these operations would be a violent Iranian crackdown on one of the dissident groups, which could give the Bush Administration a reason to intervene.

The Administration may have been willing to rely on dissident organizations in Iran even when there was reason to believe that the groups had operated against American interests in the past. The use of Baluchi elements, for example, is problematic, Robert Baer, a former C.I.A. clandestine officer who worked for nearly two decades in South Asia and the Middle East, told me. “The Baluchis are Sunni fundamentalists who hate the regime in Tehran, but you can also describe them as Al Qaeda,” Baer told me. “These are guys who cut off the heads of nonbelievers—in this case, it’s Shiite Iranians. The irony is that we’re once again working with Sunni fundamentalists, just as we did in Afghanistan in the nineteen-eighties.” Ramzi Yousef, who was convicted for his role in the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who is considered one of the leading planners of the September 11th attacks, are Baluchi Sunni fundamentalists.

Just like Afghanistan in the 1980s! Because that worked out so well.

Time to reprise some excerpts from Robert Dreyfuss’s Devil’s Game: How the United States Helped Unleash Fundamentalist Islam (I offered them once before, in the second half of “It’s Much Later than We Think: Why It Is Not ‘Our War’“).

I excerpted Dreyfuss’s observations as a demonstration of a principle I identified several years ago, concerning “The Folly of Intervention“:

Intervention always leads to more intervention: the first intervention leads to unforeseen and uncontrollable consequences, which are then used as the justification for still further intervention. That intervention in turn leads to still more unforeseen and uncontrollable consequences, which are then used as yet another justification for still further intervention. The process can go on indefinitely, and the ultimate consequences are always disastrous in the extreme.

Here is Dreyfuss:

There is an unwritten chapter in the history of the Cold War and the New World Order that followed. It is the story of how the United States–sometimes overtly, sometimes covertly–funded and encouraged right-wing Islamist activism. Devil’s Game attempts to fill in that vital missing link.

Vital because this little-known policy, conducted over six decades, is partly to blame for the emergence of Islamist terrorism as a worldwide phenomenon. Indeed, America’s would-be empire in the Middle East, North Africa, and Central and South Asia was designed to rest in part on the bedrock of political Islam. At least that is what its architects hoped. But it proved to be a devil’s game. Only too late, after September 11, 2001, did Washington begin to discover its strategic miscalculation.

The United States spent decades cultivating Islamists, manipulating and double-crossing them, cynically using and misusing them as Cold War allies, only to find that it spawned a force that turned against its sponsor, and with a vengeance. Like monsters imbued with artificial life, radical imams, mullahs, and ayatollahs stalk the landscape, thundering not only against the United States but against freedom of thought, against secular science, against nationalism and the left, against women’s rights. Some are terrorists, but far more are just medieval-minded religious fanatics who want to turn the calendar back to the seventh century.

The United States found political Islam to be a convenient partner during each stage of America’s empire-building project in the Middle East, from its early entry into the region to its gradual military encroachment, to its expansion into an on-the-ground military presence, and finally to the emergence of the United States as an army of occupation in Iraq and Afghanistan.


From FDR on, leading U.S. politicians were prisoners of misguided stereotypes. They seemed entranced by the almost other-worldly appearance of their Arab interlocutors. FDR, after meeting Ibn Saud, returned to Washington and “could not shake the image of the hawk-like Saudi monarch, ensconced in a gold chair and surrounded by six slaves.” Harry Truman, two years later, described a leading Saudi official as a “real old biblical Arab with chin whiskers, a white gown, gold braid, and everything.” And Eisenhower dismissed the Arabs as “a very uncertain quantity, explosive and full of prejudices.” The official record is full of such uninformed stereotyping of Arabs and Muslims by U.S. officials. For the next sixty years, the handful of American Arabists who actually knew something about the Middle East would try to combat those stereotypes. But they would fail.

The American attachment to a romanticized fantasy of Arab life and a racist-fed, religious disdain for the Arabs’ supposed heathenism proved a deadly combination when the time came for America to engage itself politically and militarily in the Middle East. Perhaps those stereotypes led American policy makers to see Muslims as fierce warriors. Perhaps they believed that the fanaticism of their religious tenets would lead them to resist atheistic communism. Perhaps it was the notion that in southwest Asia the traditional religious establishment was a bulwark of the status quo. But it never dawned on U.S. officials that Islamist organizations such as the Muslim Brotherhood were a qualitatively different phenomenon from the comprador clerical establishment. Certainly, as the Cold War progressed, the big enemy, the USSR, and its alleged accomplice, Arab nationalism, seemed to have a common enemy: Islam.

More from Dreyfuss will be found in the earlier essay.

And even now — even now — the United States government does all this again, with the acquiescence and support of the Democrats. At this point, if you are at all honest, you must give up the pathetic grasping for explanations, excuses and justifications: that the Democrats act as they do because they are weak, or cowardly, or being blackmailed. (Honestly, will you grow the fuck up?)

This is what they want. When an individual or a government repeats the same actions over and over and over again, even when those actions appear to lead to disaster, you must conclude that they pursue those actions because they want to.

Robert Higgs, for the umpteenth time:

As a general rule for understanding public policies, I insist that there are no persistent “failed” policies. Policies that do not achieve their desired outcomes for the actual powers-that-be are quickly changed. If you want to know why the U.S. policies have been what they have been for the past sixty years, you need only comply with that invaluable rule of inquiry in politics: follow the money.

When you do so, I believe you will find U.S. policies in the Middle East to have been wildly successful, so successful that the gains they have produced for the movers and shakers in the petrochemical, financial, and weapons industries (which is approximately to say, for those who have the greatest influence in determining U.S. foreign policies) must surely be counted in the hundreds of billions of dollars.

So U.S. soldiers get killed, so Palestinians get insulted, robbed, and confined to a set of squalid concentration areas, so the “peace process” never gets far from square one, etc., etc. – none of this makes the policies failures; these things are all surface froth, costs not borne by the policy makers themselves but by the cannon-fodder masses, the bovine taxpayers at large, and foreigners who count for nothing.

The ruling class is doing just fine, thank you. And none of this will change with a Democratic president, and with the Democrats having large majorities in both houses of Congress. None of it, not in any significant manner.

So, do we all understand now? Good. [Once Upon a Time…]

I agree. When the government is supporting terrorist groups and directly engaging in kidnapping, torture, and murder, and the Democrats not only know all this but actively approve and support it, it’s much too late to pretend that voting for Democrats will in any way change things. What’s more, most of the people in the United States either don’t care about what their government is doing, are actively in denial, or are actively supporting it. All the voters really care about is “Amerika über alles.”

Jun 28th, 2008 by Ken Hagler

In response to the general inadequacy and unpleasantness of Movable Type, I’m looking at WordPress again. I had originally rejected it in favor of Movable Type when I was looking for a Radio Userland replacement, but that was in 2006. That’s plenty of time for it to have improved significantly.

Perhaps it would even be able to import my old Radio posts–something I could never get Movable Type to do.

If it’s not encrypted, it’s not private
Jun 27th, 2008 by Ken Hagler

A company computer and questions about e-mail privacy.

A company computer and questions about e-mail privacy – Via Privacy : Tech news from CNET :

When he was fired, Scott Sidell was angry enough. Then he found out that his former employer was reading his personal Yahoo e-mail messages, after he had left the company.

In a lawsuit that he filed in May against Structured Settlement Investments, the finance company he used to run, Sidell claims that executives at the company went so far as to read e-mail messages that he had sent to his lawyers discussing his strategy for winning an arbitration claim over his lost job.

“It’s kind of like the other side gets your playbook, or they’re spying on your locker room,” said Russell Green, a lawyer representing Sidell. He said his client was now using a new e-mail address.  read more »

[Privacy Digest: Privacy News (Civil Rights, Encryption, Free Speech, Cryptography)]

This happened because Sidell and his lawyers were ignorant. It’s no secret that email is very easy to intercept by pretty much anyone with the inclination to do so–and not just governments, but companies and even hackers. This has been mentioned repeatedly even in the mainstream media, so they certainly should have known better. It’s really quite simple: if you don’t want anybody else reading your, email encrypt it.

Missing an important detail
Jun 27th, 2008 by Ken Hagler

Firefox 3 Already Rules the Roost. Barence writes in with a data point on Firefox 3 adoption: it’s been available for 10 days, and already one site is seeing 55% of its Firefox-using visitors on version 3. “Microsoft still has three out of ten people running an old version of its browser more than 18 months after Internet Explorer 7 launched, while Firefox has converted more than half of its users to the latest version in just over a week. That should set a few alarm bells ringing in Redmond.”

Read more of this story at Slashdot.


This analysis overlooks something important: people use Firefox because they want to use Firefox. Regardless of what version they’re using, they’ve made a conscious decision to download and install it. People use Internet Explorer because they don’t know any better, or because they’re using a corporate machine that won’t let them install anything else. It’s hardly surprising that Firefox users would upgrade their version more quickly than IE users.

More “upgrade” problems
Jun 27th, 2008 by Ken Hagler

The “upgrade” to Movable Type 4.12 seems to have killed style I was using, and made it impossible to put back–at least for me. I’ve been trying to find a solution, but Movable Type has very little documentation and its interface is a tangled mess.

My original motive for changing versions was to use that iPod Touch plugin, which does seem to be working, but in retrospect it definitely wasn’t worthwhile.

Personally, I’d much rather use Conversant, but unfortunately it’s not something I could get my web hosting company to install.

Another predictable ruling
Jun 26th, 2008 by Ken Hagler

There’s a bit of fuss today about the ruling by the Nazgûl in the Heller case. As I expected, they took the same position that Ashcroft did several years ago, which is (shortened considerably):

“The Second Amendment means what it says, just like the rest of the Bill of Rights, and we’ll ignore it whenever we want to, just like the rest of the Bill of Rights.”

The outcome is entirely predictable, of course; so much so that I just copied and pasted the above quote from a prediction I had made on a web forum yesterday.

iPhone security improvement
Jun 25th, 2008 by Ken Hagler

iPhone 2.0 to feature extra data-wipe security?. Wiping data off an iPhone should become more secure with the v2.0 firmware than in the current release, say sources using the most recent beta. Although both the v1.x and 2.0 releases present users with an “Erase All Contents and Settings” option, v1.x only performs a regular deletion; v2.0 should mimic the “Secure Empty Trash” option of Mac OS X,… [The Macintosh News Network]

The article mentions that it takes “about an hour,” so you’d have to know well ahead of time that the phone would need to be wiped. This would make it useful for anyone with an iPhone who is entering the Evil Empire, though–they could wipe the phone shortly before the plane lands so that when the Gestapo tries to steal their data there won’t be anything left for them.

iPod Touch test
Jun 24th, 2008 by Ken Hagler

As an experiment, this post was written on an iPod Touch. It works pretty well, but tapping away on a tiny keyboard isn’t very comfortable.

Cultural differences
Jun 24th, 2008 by Ken Hagler

Mexico police fired over stampede. Mexico City authorities sack 17 police officers after a nightclub raid caused a stampede that killed 12 people. [BBC News]

No doubt if this happened in America, the cops would have been commended.

Movable Type upgrade
Jun 24th, 2008 by Ken Hagler

I’ve upgraded the software behind this weblog to Movable Type 4.12. The process remains highly unpleasant, very slow, and with inadequate and incorrect documentation.

»  Substance:WordPress   »  Style:Ahren Ahimsa
© Ken Hagler. All rights reserved.