Forum

Certains emettent l’hypothèse que malgré les apparences, L’Iran et Israel étaient en train d’opérer un rapprochement par l’intermédiaire de certains néo-cons:

http://www.strategic-road.com/pays/pubs/etats_unis_strategie_geopolitique_txt.htm

*****************
“Pendant la période de soi-disant durcissement à Téhéran, à quoi a-t-on assisté dans la région ? A un accord secret de désarmement par l’Iran de ses missiles à longue portée en accord avec Israël; à un rapprochement chaleureux avec la Jordanie et poli avec l’Egypte, c’est à dire avec les deux Etats arabes qui reconnaissent Israël; à une dénonciation en bonne et due forme du lobby nucléaire pakistanais pour avoir vendu du matériel très dangereux à l’Iran, ce qui a permis aux Etats-Unis d’exercer une pression décisive sur Musharraf; à une accentuation des pressions sur l’Arabie saoudite en faveur des chiites locaux et à une coopération plus grande avec l’Occident en Afghanistan, le tout couronné par une visite de courtoisie du prince Charles d’Angleterre.

A partir de ce constat, il ne fait guère de doute que l’Iran est appelée à jouer un rôle majeur au Moyen-Orient, dans l’équation des néo-conservateurs. Cependant le pragmatisme des Iraniens n’exclut pas un bras de fer sur la question du nucléaire, afin de faire montée les enchères en contrepartie d’un éventuel rénoncement. Le futur Moyen-Orient dans l’esprit des néo-conservateurs semble conduire vers la disparition des puissances arabes en tant qu’Etats forts et l’intronisation d’Israël, de la Turquie et de l’Iran, trois Etats non arabes comme puissances régionales de premier plan. L’axe Tel Aviv-Ankara est déjà opérationnel. Il ne reste plus qu’à réintégrer Téhéran, dans le jeu régional. “

*************************

Chalabi pouvait donc representer pour les israéliens comme pour les iraniens, la concrétisation de ce nouveau partenariat stratégique. Les uns voyaient la création d’un état reconnaissant leur droit à l’existence, les autres le renforcement de l’influence chiite.

Faut-il donc en conclure que le State Departement ainsi que l’armée US ont décidé de détruire la couverture de Chalabi (comme la maison Blanche l’avait fait en son temps pour Valery Plane/Wilson) de façon à saborder les plans des néo-conservateurs ?

On peut néanmoins remarquer que même dans le cadre de cette hypothèse, l’Iran ne perd pas grand chose avec Chalabi puisque d’autres chiites sont prèts à prendre sa place et regner soit sur l’Irak, soit sur un morceau de l’Irak.

En ce sens, les neocons ont effectivement pu se faire manipuler.

http://www.forbes.com/home/free_forbes/2004/0607/047.html

Useful Lesson From the Past
Caspar Weinberger, 06.07.04, 12:00 AM ET

The short, easy and wrong solution to the problems in Iraq is to turn them all over to the United Nations and urge other countries to help. This basically is Senator John Kerry’s response to any “What would you do?” questions. He and others who criticize President Bush for going to war without the UN’s permission and the support of the international community offer only this egregiously useless solution. The ignorance, misconceptions and faulty judgment displayed in such thinking are appalling.

To begin with, we have the support and participation in Iraq of some 30 countries. Not incidentally, the majority of eastern European countries are with us. They remember what it was like to be under the brutal domination of the Soviet Union.

Secondly, it seems that no one quite understands what the consequences of turning all this over to the UN would be. The UN is totally incapable of fighting a war. It can assemble troops—most of whom have not trained together—for “peacekeeping missions,” usually in areas where there is no peace. Then there is the problem of UN procedures, which enable one of the veto-holding countries—for whatever tawdry reason of trade—to block any action that most other nations would want to take. Result: impotence.

Finally, a good look at the record of Lakhdar Brahimi, UNSecretary-General Kofi Annan’s choice as the man to bring democracy to Iraq, shows how wrong the UN can be. Brahimi was hailed by the large anti-U.S. faction as a skilled, seasoned diplomat, in contrast with the U.S. and other administrators now in charge. The first demonstration of Brahimi’s seasoning was his statement that Israeli policy is “poison in the region.” He later also managed to be offensive to the Palestinians. Some seasoning. Why we ever agreed to let Brahimi in is inexplicable. William Safire of the New York Times explained the situation best: Brahimi’s strategy is “aligning the UN with those Iraqis who—having been cured of crippling despotism—now feel free to throw their crutches at the doctor.”

The daily attacks on coalition forces are, of course, designed to force our withdrawal and the admission that we can’t bring democracy to Iraq. It seems that John Kerry would virtually accept this capitulation, and the UN would almost certainly go along.

Fact, Not Fiction
Our rebuilding efforts in Iraq are giving millions of Iraqis a vastly better present and the certain prospect of a far better future. The abuses committed by the six or seven very rotten apples out of the more than 135,000 American service people there are overshadowing all that has been accomplished by the professional skills and personal bravery of these troops. The sacrifices these brave men and women make on our behalf is what we should be talking about.

The fact that we’re in the middle of a presidential election campaign explains the constant degradation of our armed forces’ accomplishments. The seeming delight of the Administration’s opponents in exploiting any reverses adds to our heavy burden.

Lest We Forget
Sometimes we can look back at a historic event and apply its lessons to the present. In May 1940 everything was going wrong for the Allies in World War II. The brown stain of the Nazi Wehrmacht covered most of Europe. France—with a huge army that its leaders were afraid to use effectively—had been broken, and the road to Paris was open. In England Winston Churchill had just become Prime Minister, but he was opposed by many of the most senior of his fellow Conservatives. His only real support in the War Cabinet came from two Labour members of the new coalition.

During a critical three days of nearly continuous War Cabinet meetings, it became apparent that France was determined to capitulate. Foreign Minister Lord Halifax repeatedly urged that Britain open negotiations with Germany, possibly using Benito Mussolini or Franklin D. Roosevelt as an intermediary. Through his matchless oratory, Churchill finally carried the day against such a move.

The notes of Hugh Dalton, Minister of Economic Warfare, show that Churchill led the entire Cabinet to understand that if Britain were to seek peace the first thing “the Germans would demand [would be] our fleet—that would be called ‘disarmament.’… We should become a slave state, though a British government which would be Hitler’s puppet would be set up—‘under [Sir Oswald] Mosley [a prominent British Fascist] or some such person.’” Churchill reminded his opponents that Britain still had immense strengths. He closed with what was to become one of his most famous sentences: “We shall go on and we shall fight it out, here or elsewhere, and if at last the long story is to end, it were better it should end, not through surrender, but only when we are rolling senseless on the ground.” There was no further talk of negotiations.

We could agree that the circumstances of 1940 were vastly different than are those of 2004. But the crucial lesson here is that giving up is no solution. Nothing but chaos and brutality would follow any U.S. withdrawal. We have already made a great many concessions in Iraq. We have agreed to a June 30 transfer of sovereignty; we have accepted in vital posts some not-yet-reeducated Baathists; and we run great risks by granting the UN too much authority.

Now is the time to make it clear, as President Bush has done, that we are totally committed to winning the war against the terrorists in Iraq and that we will stay the course until a free Iraq accepts the burden of its sovereignty and has the strength, with our help, to take its place among the democratic nations of the world. We cannot lose our resolve. We must always remember that if we want peace with freedom for ourselves and our friends, we sometimes have to fight for it.

La Situation-Empire .

http://www.chear.defense.gouv.fr/fr/think_tank/archives/armement/51/kleinknecht51.pdf

Bonjour,

ci-dessous une dépêche AFP du jour au sujet du JSF:

Le MoD inquiet du poids du JSF Lockheed-Martin pour les porte-avions anglais
LONDRES, 17 mai (AFP) - Le ministère britannique de la Défense a admis dimanche être préoccupé par le poids du Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) F-35, le futur chasseur construit par la firme américaine Lockheed Martin, qui pourrait l’empêcher de décoller des porte-avions de la Royal Navy.

“Le problème du poids (du JSF) est un souci, mais des problèmes de ce type surviennent régulièrement au début de programmes complexes comme celui-ci”, a déclaré une porte-parole du ministère. Elle a rappelé que l’appareil ne devrait pas entrer en service à bord des porte-avions britanniques avant 2012.

“En ce qui nous concerne, ces problèmes ne remettent pas en cause le choix de l’avion”, censé remplacer les Harrier à décollage vertical actuellement en service, a-t-elle soutenu.

Selon la presse britannique, le JSF F-35, trop lourd de près d’une tonne et demie, ne pourrait pas décoller depuis le pont des deux porte-avions britanniques actuellement en chantier, les pistes d’envol prévues étant trop courtes.

Pour équiper ses deux futurs porte-avions, le ministère de la Défense avait retenu fin septembre 2002 le JSF dans sa version à décollage court et atterrissage vertical (STOVL, Short Take-Off Vertical Landing).

Les appareils de type STOVL nécessitent une sorte de tremplin à la proue des porte-avions pour leur décollage, alors que les appareils embarqués “classiques” utilisent des catapultes à vapeur.

La Grande-Bretagne a signé un contrat de plus de 5 milliards de livres (environ 7,5 milliards d’euros) avec Lockheed Martin pour la fourniture de 150 appareils.

Neuf pays (Royaume-Uni, Australie, Canada, Danemark, Norvège, Pays-Bas, Turquie, Italie et Singapour) se sont engagés à participer au programme JSF, aux côtés du constructeur américain.

Fin avril, la Norvège a cependant menacé de se désengager du programme JSF au profit du Gripen suédois, faute d’avoir engrangé des retombées industrielles suffisantes en échange de sa contribution financière.

Le coût unitaire des appareils, déclinés en trois versions (pour porte-avions, à décollage vertical et pour utilisation conventionnelle) est estimé par le Pentagone entre 37 et 47 millions de dollars.

Le programme JSF prévoit la construction d’au moins 3.000 appareils.

Thyssen rachète HDW à l’américain One Equity Partners

FRANCFORT (Reuters) - Le groupe sidérurgique allemand ThyssenKrupp (Xetra: 750000.DE - actualité) rachète le constructeur de sous-marins Howaldtswerke-Deutsche Werft (HDW) au fonds d’investissement américain One Equity Partners (OEP).

HDW sera intégré à la filiale construction navale de Thyssen et repassera ainsi sous contrôle allemand, aux termes de la lettre d’intention signée par les deux sociétés.

OEP, elle-même filiale de Bank One (NYSE: ONE - actualité) , recevra en échange de 100% du capital de HDW 25% du nouvel ensemble et 240 millions d’euros en numéraire, précise ThyssenKrupp dans un communiqué.

HDW, considéré comme le plus avancé des constructeurs mondiaux de sous-marins non nucléaires, était depuis près d’un an au centre d’intenses spéculations sur un éventuel rachat.

ThyssenKrupp avait annoncé en août dernier avoir soumis une offre pour en prendre le contrôle.

Le groupe de construction navale issu de la fusion sera contrôlé par ThyssenKrupp Werfen GmbH. Il réalisera un chiffre d’affaires annuel d’environ 2,2 milliards d’euros et comptera 9.300 employés.

Les deux partenaires estiment que l’opération présente un important potentiel d’économies de coûts, indique Thyssen sans plus de précisions.

OEP avait acheté 75% de HDW en juin 2002 au groupe de construction mécanique Babcock Borsig (Xetra: 663834.DE - actualité) , à Preussag et à un troisième investisseur. Les 25% restants avaient été acquis en septembre de la même année.

Le chancelier Gerhard Schröder avait désapprouvé cette cession à un investisseur américain. A l’époque, une partie des milieux politiques allemands y avaient vu un risque de voir le savoir-faire de l’industrie militaire allemande passer en des mains étrangères.

A priori, il s’agit du même Peters dont ces colonnes ont déjà débattu ...

New York Post
May 14, 2004

Why The Troops Don’t Trust Rummy

By Ralph Peters

According to his handlers, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld went to
Baghdad to “boost troop morale.” The best way the SecDef could improve
morale would be to resign.

In Operation Iraqi Freedom, Rumsfeld and his apparatchiks boldly
defended Washington while our troops fought overseas. Now that the
battle’s shifted to Capitol Hill in the wake of the Abu Ghraib scandal,
the SecDef’s in Iraq.

It’s like all those press briefings in which he answers the questions
when things are going well, but defers to those in uniform when things
are going badly.

Should Rumsfeld resign over the prisoner abuse by rogue MPs? No. He
should resign for the good of our military and our country. Those
twisted photos are only one symptom of how badly the Rumsfeld era has
derailed our military.

Rumsfeld has maintained a positive image with much of America because
he controls information fanatically and tolerates no deviation from the
party line. Differing opinions are punished in today’s Pentagon - and
every field general who has spoken plainly of the deficiencies of either
the non-plan for the occupation of Iraq, the lack of sufficient troops
(in Iraq or overall) or any aspect of Rumsfeld’s “transformation” plan
has seen his career ended.

It isn’t treason to tell the truth in wartime. But it verges on treason
to lie. And Rumsfeld lies.

Our military needs vigorous, continual internal debate. Contrary to
popular myth, our officer corps has a long tradition of dissenting
opinions. And the grave new world in which we find ourselves is not
susceptible to party-line solutions.

It’s especially noteworthy that the officers who respectfully differed
from the views of the Rumsfeld cabal turned out to be right. Consider
former Army Chief of Staff Gen. Eric Shinseki, who was right about the
need for more troops and even right about the kind of vehicles we’d need
in Iraq. For his service to our country, he was treated dismissively and
mocked publicly.

What of that much-touted transformation so beloved of the neocons? In
fact, it’s just a plain old con, with nothing neo about it. The Office
of the Secretary of Defense hasn’t canceled one of the real
budget-buster weapons systems designed for the Cold War and kept alive
by lobbyists. Only the low-end Crusader artillery piece went to the
chopping block as a token (the Army itself decided to cancel the
Comanche helicopter).

Rumsfeld’s “vision” was to lavish money on the defense industry and
administration-friendly contractors, while sending too few troops to
war, with too little battlefield equipment, inadequate supplies and no
long-range plan. As one Army colonel put it in the heat of battle,
“We’re winning this despite OSD.”

Contractors grow rich. The Army grows exhausted. And every single
prediction about the future of warfare made by the Rumsfeld gang proved
incorrect. Airpower doesn’t win wars on its own. Technology doesn’t
trump courage, guts and skill. Both war and its aftermath still require
adequate numbers of well-trained, disciplined troops. And serious
planning.

We need a bigger Army. We got a bigger budget - but the money is going
to CEOs, not to G.I. Joe.

Outsourcing? We see now where that gets us. In Rumsfeld’s military, you
even outsource leadership. As we did at Abu Ghraib prison.

Even if none of the above mattered, Rumsfeld needs to go because he has
utterly lost the trust of the officer corps. He isn’t a leader. He’s an
arrogant ideologue unfit to serve our democracy.

On camera, in a Pentagon briefing room or at a carefully orchestrated,
neo-Soviet visit to the troops he so despises, Rumsfeld surrounds
himself with yes-men and sycophants. But just ask the combat generals in
private what they think of Donald Rumsfeld.

I’m privileged to spend a good bit of time with our military officers,
from generals to new lieutenants. And I have never seen such distrust of
a public official in the senior ranks. Not even of Bill Clinton.
Rumsfeld & Co. have trashed our ground forces every way they could. Only
the quality of those in uniform saved us from a debacle in Iraq.

Of course, those in uniform don’t get to pick the SecDef. And they
continue, as they always will, to loyally carry out their orders to the
letter. But to be effective, a SecDef must be respected. He doesn’t have
to be liked. But, especially in wartime, he must be trusted.

Rumsfeld has failed the most important test of all.

Clinging to power isn’t a mark of strength, but of weakness, arrogance
and brute obstinacy. Rumsfeld has wounded our military and sent our
troops to die for harebrained schemes. In place of sound plans, he
substituted political prejudices. Election year or not, he has to go.

It’s time to bring integrity, mutual respect and a focus on the
realities of warfare back to the Pentagon. The White House has Sen.
McCain’s phone number.

Ralph Peters is a retired military officer and a regular Post
contributor.

Un point de vue dissident par rapport au conformisme post-Abhu Ghraib:

“Ignorez les sirènes qui affirment que les Etats Unis n’avaient pas de plan d’après-guerre en Irak. De façon intentionnelle ou non, Washington a en fait réalisé autant d’objectifs qu’il était possible d’esperer, pour le pays d’Irak ainsi que pour la région entière.”

“...The US-Israeli strategic objectives in Iraq have been achieved, and to stay or not to stay is more a matter of style than substance. “

All going according to plan?
Sadi Baig, Asia Times online
http://atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/FE12Ak04.html

Cet article par un opposant à l’invasion américaine fournit paradoxalement à ces derniers, les bases d’une défence un brin cynique et surement très “real-politik” de leurs entreprises guerrières.

Une analyse autour de la présence de spécialistes privés à la prison d’Abu Ghraib, leurs liens éventuels avec Israël et tout le tintouin :
http://www.counterpunch.org/madsen05102004.html

May 10, 2004
The Israeli Torture Template
Rape, Feces and Urine-Dipped Cloth Sacks

By WAYNE MADSEN

With mounting evidence that a shadowy group of former Israeli Defense Force and General Security Service (Shin Bet) Arabic-speaking interrogators were hired by the Pentagon under a classified “carve out” sub-contract to brutally interrogate Iraqi prisoners at Baghdad’s Abu Ghraib prison, one only needs to examine the record of abuse of Palestinian and Lebanese prisoners in Israel to understand what Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld meant, when referring to new, yet to be released photos and videos, he said, “if these images are released to the public, obviously its going to make matters worse.”

According to a political appointee within the Bush administration and U.S. intelligence sources, the interrogators at Abu Ghraib included a number of Arabic-speaking Israelis who also helped U.S. interrogators develop the “R2I” (Resistance to Interrogation) techniques. Many of the torture methods were developed by the Israelis over many years of interrogating Arab prisoners on the occupied West Bank and in Israel itself.

Clues about worse photos and videos of abuse may be found in Israeli files about similar abuse of Palestinian and other Arab prisoners. In March 2000, a lawyer for a Lebanese prisoner kidnapped in 1994 by the Israelis in Lebanon claimed that his client had been subjected to torture, including rape. The type of compensation offered by Rumsfeld in his testimony has its roots in cases of Israeli torture of Arabs. In the case of the Lebanese man, said to have been raped by his Israeli captors, his lawyer demanded compensation of $1.47 million. The Public Committee Against Torture in Israel documented the types of torture meted out on Arab prisoners. Many of the tactics coincide with those contained in the Taguba report: beatings and prolonged periods handcuffed to furniture. In an article in the December 1998 issue of The Progressive, Rabbi Lynn Gottlieb reported on the treatment given to a 23-year old Palestinian held on “administrative detention.” The prisoner was “cuffed behind a chair 17 hours a day for 120 days . . . [he] had his head covered with a sack, which was often dipped in urine or feces. Guards played loud music right next to his ears and frequently taunted him with threats of physical and sexual violence.” If additional photos and videos document such practices, the Bush administration and the American people have, indeed, “seen nothing yet.”

Although it is still largely undocumented if any of the contractor named in the report of General Antonio Taguba were associated with the Israeli military or intelligence services, it is noteworthy that one, John Israel, who was identified in the report as being employed by both CACI International of Arlington, Virginia, and Titan, Inc., of San Diego, may not have even been a U.S. citizen. The Taguba report states that Israel did not have a security clearance, a requirement for employment as an interrogator for CACI. According to CACI’s web site, “a Top Secret Clearance (TS) that is current and US citizenship” are required for CACI interrogators working in Iraq. In addition, CACI requires that its interrogators “have at least two years experience as a military policeman or similar type of law enforcement/intelligence agency whereby the individual utilized interviewing techniques.”

Speculation that “John Israel” may be an intelligence cover name has fueled speculation whether this individual could have been one of a number of Israeli interrogators hired under a classified contract. Because U.S. citizenship and documentation thereof are requirements for a U.S. security clearance, Israeli citizens would not be permitted to hold a Top Secret clearance. However, dual U.S.-Israeli citizens could have satisfied Pentagon requirements that interrogators hold U.S. citizenship and a Top Secret clearance. Although the Taguba report refers twice to Israel as an employee of Titan, the company claims he is one of their sub-contractors. CACI stated that one of the men listed in the report “is not and never has been a CACI employee” without providing more detail. A U.S. intelligence source revealed that in the world of intelligence “carve out” subcontracts such confusion is often the case with “plausible deniability” being a foremost concern.

In fact, the Taguba report does reference the presence of non-U.S. and non-Iraqi interrogators at Abu Ghraib. The report states, “In general, US civilian contract personnel (Titan Corporation, CACI, etc), third country nationals, and local contractors do not appear to be properly supervised within the detention facility at Abu Ghraib.”

The Pentagon is clearly concerned about the outing of the Taguba report and its references to CACI, Titan, and third country nationals, which could permanently damage U.S. relations with Arab and Islamic nations. The Pentagon’s angst may explain why the Taguba report is classified Secret No Foreign Dissemination.

The leak of the Taguba report was so radioactive, Daniel R. Dunn, the Information Assurance Officer for Douglas Feith’s Office of the Under Secretary of Defense, Policy (Policy Automation Services Security Team), sent a May 6, 2004, For Official Use Only Urgent E-mail to Pentagon staffers stating, “THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS REPORT IS CLASSIFIED; DO NOT GO TO FOX NEWS TO READ OR OBTAIN A COPY.” Considering Feith’s close ties to the Israelis, such a reaction by his top computer security officer, a Certified Information System Security Professional (CISSP), is understandable, although considering the fact that CISSPs are to act on behalf of the public good, it is also regrettable..

The reference to “third country nationals” in a report that restricts its dissemination to U.S. coalition partners (Great Britain, Poland, Italy, etc.) is another indication of the possible involvement of Israelis in the interrogation of Iraqi prisoners. Knowledge that the U.S. may have been using Israeli interrogators could have severely fractured the Bush administration’s tenuous “coalition of the willing’ in Iraq. General Taguba’s findings were transmitted to the Coalition Forces Land Component Command on March 9, 2004, just six days before the Spanish general election, one that the opposition anti-Iraq war Socialists won. The Spanish ultimately withdrew their forces from Iraq.

During his testimony before the Senate Armed Service Committee, Rumsfeld was pressed upon by Senator John McCain about the role of the private contractors in the interrogations and abuse. McCain asked Rumsfeld four pertinent questions, “. . . who was in charge? What agency or private contractor was in charge of the interrogations? Did they have authority over the guards? And what were the instructions that they gave to the guards?”

When Rumsfeld had problems answering McCain’s question, Lt. Gen. Lance Smith, the Deputy Commander of the U.S. Central Command, said there were 37 contract interrogators used in Abu Ghraib. The two named contractors, CACI and Titan, have close ties to the Israeli military and technology communities. Last January 14, after Provost Marshal General of the Army, Major General Donald Ryder, had already uncovered abuse at Abu Ghraib, CACI’s President and CEO, Dr. J.P. (Jack) London was receiving the Jerusalem Fund of Aish HaTorah’s Albert Einstein Technology award at the Jerusalem City Hall, with right-wing Likud politician Israeli Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz and ultra-Orthodox United Torah Judaism party Jerusalem Mayor Uri Lupolianski in attendance. Oddly, CACI waited until February 2 to publicly announce the award in a press release. CACI has also received grants from U.S.-Israeli bi-national foundations.

Titan also has had close connections to Israeli interests. After his stint as CIA Director, James Woolsey served as a Titan director. Woolsey is an architect of America’s Iraq policy and the chief proponent of and lobbyist for Ahmad Chalabi of the Iraqi National Congress. An adviser to the neo-conservative Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, Jewish Institute of National Security Affairs, Project for the New American Century, Center for Security Policy, Freedom House, and Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, Woolsey is close to Stephen Cambone, the Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence, a key person in the chain of command who would have not only known about the torture tactics used by U.S. and Israeli interrogators in Iraq but who would have also approved them. Cambone was associated with the Project for the New American Century and is viewed as a member of Rumsfeld’s neo-conservative “cabal” within the Pentagon.

Another person considered by Pentagon insiders to have been knowledgeable about the treatment of Iraqi prisoners is U.S. Army Col. Steven Bucci, a Green Beret and Rumsfeld’s military assistant and chief traffic cop for the information flow to the Defense Secretary. According to Pentagon insiders, Bucci was involved in the direction of a special covert operations unit composed of former U.S. special operations personnel who answered to the Pentagon rather than the CIA’s Special Activities Division, the agency’s own paramilitary group. The Pentagon group included Arabic linguists and former members of the Green Berets and Delta Force who operated covertly in Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Pakistan, and Uzbekistan. Titan also uses linguists trained in the languages (Arabic, Dari, Farsi, Pashto, Urdu, and Tajik) of those same countries. It is not known if a link exists between Rumsfeld’s covert operations unit and Titan’s covert operations linguists.

Another Titan employee named in the Taguba report is Adel L. Nakhla. Nakhla is a name common among Egypt’s Coptic Christian community, however, it is not known if Adel Nakhla is either an Egyptian-American or a national of Egypt. A CACI employee identified in the report, Steven Stephanowicz, is referred to as “Stefanowicz” in a number of articles on the prison abuse. Stefanowicz is the spelling used by Joe Ryan, another CACI employee assigned with Stefanowicz to Abu Ghraib. Ryan is a radio personality on KSTP, a conservative radio station in Minneapolis, who maintained a daily log of his activities in Iraq on the radio’s web site before it was taken down. Ryan indicated that Stefanowicz (or Stephanowicz) continued to hold his interrogation job in Iraq even though General Taguba recommended he lose his security clearance and be terminated for the abuses at Abu Ghraib.

In an even more bizarre twist, the Philadelphia Daily News identified a former expatriate public relations specialist for the government of South Australia in Adelaide named Steve Stefanowicz as possibly being the same person identified in the Taguba report. In 2000, Stefanowicz, who grew up in the Philadelphia and Allentown areas, left for Australia. On September 16, 2001, he was quoted by the Sunday Mail of Adelaide on the 911 attacks. He said of the attacks, “It was one of the most incredible and most devastating things I have ever seen. I have been in constant contact with my family and friends in the US and the mood was very solemn and quiet. But this is progressing into anger.” Stefanowicz returned to the United States and volunteered for the Navy in a reserve status. His mother told the Allentown Morning Call in April 2002 that Stefanowicz was stationed somewhere in the Middle East but did not know where because of what Stefanowicz said was “security concerns.” His mother told the Philadelphia Daily News that her son was in Iraq but she knew nothing about his current status.

Wayne Madsen is a Washington, DC-based investigative journalist and columnist. He served in the National Security Agency (NSA) during the Reagan administration and wrote the introduction to Forbidden Truth. He is the co-author, with John Stanton, of “America’s Nightmare: The Presidency of George Bush II.” His forthcoming book is titled: “Jaded Tasks: Big Oil, Black Ops, and Brass Plates.”

Madsen can be reached at:

Il y a 50 ans, le 7 mai 1954, à 17H30, Dien Bien Phu tombait.

Alors que les mémoires deviennent sélectives, il est bon de rappeler quelques points :

1- La garnison de Dien Bien Phu a fait taire les armes, sur ordre du Commandement en Chef de Hanoï ; elle ne s’est pas rendue. Des rumeurs sur un soit disant drapeau blanc ont courues ça et là. Véhiculée par la propagande communiste, ce mensonge n’en était qu’un de plus. Il est vrai que de nombreux tissus blancs (des parachutes) jonchaient la zone mais certains ont voulu voir dans ces voiles blanches flottant au gré du vent, le signe d’une reddition.
2- Nos morts ne sont pas morts pour rien, comme on peut aussi l’entendre. Nos morts ont accomplis leur devoir jusqu’au bout et se sont battus pour plusieurs raisons, et cela malgré l’incurie des politiques d’alors et l’incapacité de Généraux nommés par les premiers. L’honneur du drapeau et de l’Empire, la camaraderie, la foi, une certaine idée du service et de la mission, furent pour nos soldats autant de raisons de se battre et de mourir. 
3- Dien Bien Phu fut une bataille perdue, mais une bataille seulement. L’Armée Française n’avait que moins de 15% de ses forces dans cette bataille, le reste étant toujours opérationnel ailleurs sur le territoire de l’Indochine. Certes, les meilleurs de nos soldats se trouvaient à Dien Bien Phu (Légionnaires, Parachutistes, Infanterie Coloniale, Tirailleurs, etc.) ; mais vu les pertes causés à l’ennemi par rapport à celle endurées, nos soldats n’ont vraiment pas à rougir du combat mené pendant 57 jours.
4- Vo Nguyen Giap ne gagna pas tout seul « sa » bataille… La victoire des Bo-Doï avancée par certains ignorants ou complices, comme celle des « combattants aux pieds nus », « en guenilles », « transportant leur ravitaillement sur des bicyclettes », « tirant à bout de bras les canons sur les crêtes », relève plus de la propagande et du mythe que de la réalité. En 1954, l’armée du Vietminh utilisait des centaines de camions Molotova de l’armée rouge de Mao Tsé Toung et des officiers et soldats de Pékin encadraient et aidaient les forces Vietminh.
5- Sur les 11 000 prisonniers, plus de 8 000 disparaîtront dans les camps Vietminh ; un pourcentage bien supérieur à celui des camps allemands pendant la seconde guerre mondiale. De Dien Bien Phu, tous nos soldats, blessés ou non, durent faire plus de 700 kilomètres à pieds avant d’être parqués – pour ceux qui survécurent à la marche forcée – dans des camps de la mort lente. C’est dans ce genre de camp que s’illustrèrent des traîtres comme Georges Boudarel, alors officier politique du Vietminh. Mauvais traitements, lavage de cerveaux à la méthode communiste, maladies (dysenterie, malaria, paludisme, Béri-béri, etc.) furent le lot quotidien de nos prisonniers.
6- Au moment où Dien Bien Phu agonisait, Pierre Mendès-France négociait à Genève avec les délégation russe, chinoise, vietminh, anglaise, américaine. Ce que Mendès avançait comme une solution « honorable » (retrait de la France en deçà du 17ème parallèle) relevait cependant plus d’une déculottée que d’autre chose. Pham Van Dong lui-même, alors Ministre plénipotentiaire du Nord Vietnam, avouait à Kroutchev qu’il n’avait jamais espéré tant de la France et que les forces armées du Vietminh étaient exsangues ; toutes leurs forces avaient été lancées dans la bataille de Dien Bien Phu et Giap n’avait plus aucune réserve. Les menaces du même Mendès sur l’envoi du Contingent si un accord n’était pas conclu rapidement, furent une vaste mascarade ; à aucun moment cette solution ne fut envisagée concrètement. Par ailleurs, pour tenir son fameux « pari » (obtenir un accord avant une date et une heure précises) Mendès fit reculer les aiguilles des horloges… C’est tout dire sur le personnage et son honnêteté.
7- Alors que la France quittait le Nord du Vietnam, commençait la tragédie des Boat-people vietnamiens, fuyant le territoire « libéré » par les communistes pour rejoindre le Sud du pays, encore hors de portée du Vietminh.
8- Alors que la guerre d’Indochine finissait, une autre allait commencer en novembre 1954, en Algérie. Une autre tragédie, une autre trahison, une autre histoire…

Philippe RAGGI
Membre du Centre Français de Recherche sur le Renseignement (CF2R).

Tout le monde ne possedera pas le même genre de F35. Il semble que le Pentagone entende protéger ses technologies quoi qu’il en coûte: Un F16-79 bis en quelque sorte.

http://www.janes.com/defence/air_forces/news/idr/idr040416_1_n.shtml

By Bill Sweetman

Up to US$1 billion of the projected cost overrun on the Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) is attributable to the development of ‘anti-tamper’ (AT) technology to protect stealth features on the JSF, together with a ‘sanitized’ and probably less stealthy export configuration of the fighter.

Some of this overrun is reflected in a supplemental contract awarded to Lockheed Martin in November 2003, valued at US$603 million and covering the development of an “international partner version” for the JSF.

Building export JSFs with less sensitive - and less effective - low observable (LO) features is practicable because the primary structure of the JSF is conventional, with most of the LO systems being added at the end of the assembly line. The program office has consistently declined to clarify US policy on this issue, and people close to the program have made conflicting statements.

Most recently, however, a JSF program official said that the export versions “would look the same” - implying that materials under the surface might be different. Another source says that “all JSFs will have stealth features” but will not confirm that all of them will be identical in LO performance. The November contract’s reference to an “international partner version” also suggests that such an approach is being taken. The value of the contract would reflect the need to conduct a separate radar cross-section (RCS) validation program.

The clear implication is that the ‘international’ JSF would have a larger RCS than the US version, would be easier to detect by hostile radars and would consequently be more susceptible to attack. That, in turn, would have consequences for the overall effectiveness of the fighter. Like other LO aircraft, it does not carry active jamming equipment or a towed decoy, and it cannot use high-off-boresight air-to-air missiles when in stealth mode.

JSF is the first US stealth aircraft to be offered for export. Rules on the export of stealth technologies, as well as of dual-use technologies that are important to stealth, are not made by the JSF program office, but by senior Pentagon leaders, who define disclosure policy with the help of the Low Observables Executive Committee (LO-EXCOM). The EXCOM includes representatives from the services, intelligence agencies and all major stealth programs, including ‘black’ or unacknowledged programs.

The use of less sensitive materials on export JSFs is likely to be accompanied by a range of new AT measures, an area that has received increasing attention since 11 September 2001. The objective is “to protect critical technologies in US weapon systems that may be sold to foreign governments or that could possibly fall into enemy hands”.

436 of 1,338 words

[End of non-subscriber extract.]

Plus loin dans l’article, une source (anonyme) suggère qu’il y aurait deux types de maintenance suivant que les réparations sont à effectuer sur des systemes critiques ou non:
les clients finaux vont certainement apprecier à sa juste valeur cette nouvelle humiliation

Après le départ discret de troupes US, la traversée belge ... :

German troops to end guard duty outside US bases
 
ISN SECURITY WATCH - German Defense Minister Peter Struck said in
an interview on Sunday that Germany would stop guarding US
military bases in the country at the end of 2004 and would not
contribute forces to a NATO force in Iraq. Struck told the Welt am
Sonntag weekly that the government wanted to “put an end to the
German army’s protection of American installations by the end of
the year”. The German Defense Ministry said the arrangements for
ending the guard service were still under negotiation, and that
talks had been going on since the beginning of 2004. US
installations in Germany were established when the country came
under Allied occupation after World War II, and stayed for the
duration of the Cold War, when US forces were stationed along the
“Iron Curtain” against the Warsaw Pact’s armies in the east. The
US army still has about 70’000 troops in Germany, but has said it
may move up to half of them to new bases in Romania or Bulgaria.
This redeployment will be part of a major realignment of US forces
across the globe, with the Pentagon aiming to establish small,
low-maintenance bases that could quickly be brought to full
operability if required. Some 2’500 soldiers of Germany’s
Bundeswehr have protected US installations since the beginning of
2003, when a large part of the US contingent was sent to take part
in the invasion of Iraq. Struck excluded the possibility that
Germany would participate in any future NATO force in Iraq. Struck
said he considered it “highly uncertain” whether NATO would be
asked for support, and when. “Whatever the case, Germany will not
take part in it. The army will only provide special aircraft to
transport wounded if this proves necessary.” In other news,
Spain’s Foreign Minister Miguel Angel Moratinos announced on
Monday that Spain would not participate in any future security
force in Iraq after 30 June, even if it had the approval of the
UN. UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan said on Sunday that he
expected the Security Council to authorize a multinational force
in Iraq. However, Moratinos said that such a move would not meet
Spanish demands that full sovereignty of Iraq be handed to Iraqis
or to the UN.

Info d’AFP du lundi 3 mai.
Un autre aspect du déclin américain….

“WASHINGTON (AFP) - Les Etats-Unis ont commencé à perdre leur prédominance mondiale dans certains domaines importants des sciences et des inventions, cédant parfois la première place à des pays tiers, notamment asiatiques, écrit lundi le New York Times.
Citant des experts gouvernementaux et privés, le journal indique que les performances étrangères dans la recherche fondamentale égalisent ou surpassent désormais souvent celles des Etats-Unis, peu conscients de ce phénomène et de ses conséquences pour l’emploi, l’industrie, la sécurité nationale ou encore le niveau de la vie intellectuelle et culturelle du pays.
“Le reste du monde rattrape le retard”, a résumé John Jankowski, éminent analyste de la Fondation nationale de la science. “La supériorité scientifique n’est plus le domaine des seuls Etats-Unis”, a estimé cet expert cité par le New York Times.
Selon le journal, certains analystes américains préoccupés par cette évolution admettent qu’elle pourrrait revigorer la lutte contre des maladies, le developpement de nouvelles sources d’énergie et la recherche de solution à des problèmes environnementaux.
Cependant les Etats-Unis doivent affronter une concurrence dans l’engagement de scientifiques de talent et dans l’accès à des publications pour présenter les fruits de leur recherche, poursuit le journal.
Le nombre de brevets d’inventions américaines est toujours très élevé, mais ce pourcentage est en baisse au profit des étrangers, notamment des Asiatiques, devenus plus actifs et qui sont désormais en tête dans certains domaines, ajoute le journal.
La part américaine dans les brevets industriels des Etats-Unis, en chute constante, est tombée à 52%, souligne le quotidien.
Le déclin américain dans le domaine scientifique est également palpable dans les publications, selon le New York Times.
Ainsi la publication spécialisée Physical Review a recensé que les articles de physiciens américains parus dans les revues prestigieuses de science sont tombés à 29% en 2003, contre 61% en 1983, souligne le journal.
Le New York Times cite Martin Blume, le redacteur en chef des revues de l’Amercian Physical Society, indiquant que la Chine a ainsi soumis plus de mille articles scientifiques l’année dernière.”

Communique | Le Congrès des Serbes d’Europe (CSE) lance un appel | 20.03.04
Fecha Saturday, 20 March a las 11:27:50
Tema Коммюнике

CONGRES DES SERBES D’EUROPE 5 Rue de Nemours,75011 Paris FRANCE
PRESIDENT DE LA REPUBLIQUE FRANCAISE
Monsieur JACQUES CHIRAC
Le Congrès des Serbes d’Europe (CSE) lance un appel :

• au Conseil de l’Europe,
• au Gouvernement de la Fédération de Russie,
• au Gouvernement de la Serbie-Monténégro et aux Gouvernements des différentes Républiques, de l’ex-Yougoslavie,
• au Gouvernement Français,
• au Gouvernement Allemand et aux Gouvernements des différents pays de l’Union Européenne,

POUR SOUTENIR L’INITIATIVE DE LA FEDERATION DE RUSSIE ET DU PRESIDENT VLADIMIR POUTINE, LANCEE EN 2001 POUR L’ORGANISATION D’UNE CONFERENCE INTERNATIONALE POUR LES BALKANS, CONNUE SOUS LE NOM D’« INITIATIVE RUSSE POUR LES BALKANS ».

Le projet en question demandait l’examen de la définition internationale du statut politique de chaque entité constitutive de la région des Balkans et l’Initiative russe avait été acceptée par la République de Croatie et la FYROM (République de Macédoine) tandis que les réponses de la République Fédérale de Yougoslavie (RFY) et de la République de Slovénie étaient en attente. Mais au bout du compte cette initiative prometteuse avait été rejetée sous la pression de l’administration étatsunienne.

Le Congrès des Serbes d’Europe (CSE) entend s’impliquer dans toutes les recherches de solutions tendant à faire sortir la région des Balkans de l’insécurité, du terrorisme et du marasme consécutifs aux années d’embargo et de guerres. Il estime qu’il est dans l’intérêt de la Grande Europe d’empêcher que les Balkans ne s’installent dans les divisions entretenues et le statut de zone grise qui (au Kossovo) pourrait devenir le centre des resaux terroristes du XXI siecle.

Le Congrès des Serbes d’Europe (CSE) considère qu’aucun problème de l’Europe du Sud-Est, partie intégrante de l’Europe, ne saurait être résolu sans la participation de la Russie. A la faveur du renforcement des liens bilatéraux entre Paris, Berlin et Moscou (porteurs de vues voisines sur la guerre en Irak), le CSE estime que le moment est venu pour que l’Initiative russe pour les Balkans, lancée en 2001, soit prise en considération et devienne une Initiative Paneuropéenne. Il devrait au moins revenir au « premier noyau de l’Europe » d’en réexaminer le détail.

Le CSE considère que les difficultés actuelles dans la région des Balkans sont en partie la conséquence du refus de la « communauté internationale » de prendre naguère en considération l’Initiative de la Fédération de Russie. Répétons-le, cette initiative s’inscrit dans la volonté d’entamer le processus de stabilisation effectif et de paix durable dans les Balkans.

Le CSE se félicite du degré grandissant de coopération de la France et de l’Allemagne avec la Fédération de Russie, et ceci à tous les niveaux (diplomatique, militaire, économique et culturel). C’est pourquoi il voit dans l’Initiative russe pour les Balkans une bonne façon d’aborder les principaux points de litige dans la région, dans la perspective d’une paix revenue et d’une Union Européenne en voie l’élargissement mais qui ne sera complète qu’avec l’adhésion des pays de l’ex Yougoslavie. Pour que l’Europe devienne elle-même et pèse de tout son poids dans la balance de l’histoire, il lui faut éviter plus que jamais une balkanisation outrancière qui conduit à la pulvérisation. A ce sujet, le CSE fait sien le concept géopolitique français de lutte contre la « prolifération étatique ».

Le CSE lance un appel solennel aux centres de décision et aux instances européennes du « premier noyau » (celui qui, en attendant que d’autres le rejoignent a su faire valoir sa différence) pour qu’il prenne en considération l’Initiative russe pour les Balkans dont le but est la redéfinition du statut politique et du contours étatique des différentes entités constitutives de la région (et en particulier ceux de la Serbie) afin qu’un processus véritable de stabilisation, de rénovation et de développement de l’Europe du Sud-Est puisse être réellement mis en œuvre.

CONGRES DES SERBES D’EUROPE Siege du CSE: 5 Rue de Nemours,75011 Paris France

[Présent dans douze pays, le Congrès des Serbes d’Europe (CSE), porte-voix de la Diaspora Serbe, a sollicité son adhésion de partenariat au Mouvement Eurasien International (MIE), basé à Moscou,sous la direction d ALEXANDRE DOUGINE avant les élections présidentielles de Russie le 14 mars 2004] President: Dr. Mraovic Sima Vicepresidente: Dr. Aleckovic Bataille Mila France, 75011 Paris, Siege du CSE: 5 Rue de Nemours

Este artнculo proviene de http://evrazia.org

La direcciуn de esta noticia es: http://evrazia.org/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1722

————————————————————————————————————————
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-wilson30_apr30,1,5078788.story?coll=la-headlines-nation
THE NATION
Ex-Diplomat Whose Wife Was Outed at CIA Is Next to Throw Book at Bush
By Richard B. Schmitt
Times Staff Writer

April 30, 2004

WASHINGTON — Adding to a growing bookshelf of critiques of the Bush administration, former diplomat Joseph C. Wilson IV says in an account being published today that two top White House officials played roles in retaliating against him and his wife for criticizing administration war plans.

But the question of who leaked the name of his wife, CIA operative Valerie Plame, to journalist Robert Novak remains a whodunit, Wilson said in an interview Thursday, admitting that he does not know who provided the information to Novak.

The leak is the subject of a federal grand jury investigation. It is illegal to disclose the identities of CIA operatives.

In a book he described as part memoir, part political attack, Wilson says that I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff, helped organize a March 2003 meeting to start gathering dirt on Wilson.

The planning, which the book asserted also may have involved the vice president and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.), came after Wilson publicly questioned now-discredited statements by President Bush that Iraq was attempting to purchase nuclear-weapons materials in Africa.

The “work-up,” as Wilson described it, laid the groundwork for a political and public relations attack that the White House launched against him and his wife in July after he further detailed his concerns in a New York Times opinion column — which ultimately led to the outing of his wife by Novak.

Wilson also said he discussed how Bush political chief Karl Rove called journalists and others after publication of the Novak column in an effort to discredit him.

But Wilson said he did not identify Rove as the perpetrator of the initial leak.

Wilson entertained questions in a series of interviews with a handful of reporters Thursday as part of a highly orchestrated publicity campaign for the official release of his book, “The Politics of Truth: Inside the Lies that Led to War and Betrayed My Wife’s CIA Identity.” The launch included leaking the book itself to the New York Times on Thursday, a flurry of TV appearances, a nationwide book tour and a possible speaking slot at the Democratic National Convention in Boston this summer, his publicist said.

Asked to respond to the allegations involving Rove and Libby, White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan declined comment Thursday, except to say: “Joe Wilson has said his primary objective is a political agenda to defeat the president. I don’t intend to promote or review a book of someone whose primary objective is grounded in a political objective.”

A spokesman for Gingrich denied that the former speaker had any role in the affair. “The allegation that Newt attended any meeting ever to discuss Joe Wilson is completely false,” the spokesman said.

Wilson said he didn’t identify his sources in the book, which based on his description Thursday appeared to be largely a compendium of assertions and claims that have swirled around the episode for months.

As described by Wilson, the book recounted his tenure in charge of the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad during the Persian Gulf War, where he was the last U.S. diplomat to meet with Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. He includes a photograph of himself in the Oval Office with the President George H.W. Bush, and a copy of a note from the former president thanking him for his government service.

The balance of the work was an indictment of the administration of the current president, whom Wilson said he has never met.

Wilson became a lightning rod after challenging a statement by Bush in his 2003 State of the Union address that Iraq was attempting to purchase uranium “yellowcake” from Niger.

Wilson had been commissioned by the CIA to assess the claim the year before, and concluded that it lacked merit. Ultimately, he detailed his concerns in the July 2003 New York Times article.

The White House later acknowledged it was a mistake to include the statement in the speech.

Wilson said his book details a White House meeting involving Libby as early as March 2003 in which officials discussed responding to his attacks. He said he believes that Libby was the “driving force” behind the effort whose ultimate aim was to smear Wilson by unmasking his CIA wife and suggesting that his CIA-sponsored trip to Niger was an act of nepotism.

The book, he said, recounted an episode where Libby was heard to describe Wilson as a “playboy.” He said the book also reported that Rove “pushed the [Novak] story” for a week in discussions with journalists, among others.

He said around that time he got a call from MSNBC talk-show host Chris Matthews, who said Rove had told him that “Wilson’s wife is fair game.” Matthews declined to comment.

Wilson said Rove decided to stop hawking the story when newspaper stories began to question whether whoever unveiled Plame’s identity may have violated a federal law protecting CIA operatives.

Wilson said he also asserted that Rove and Libby had an argument about who should bear responsibility for any fallout from the episode.

In December, the Justice Department named U.S. Atty. Patrick Fitzgerald of Chicago to examine whether laws were broken in connection with the disclosure of the occupation of Plame.

A grand jury in Washington has been investigating the case, and heard testimony from several White House officials earlier in the year. Among other materials, the grand jury subpoenaed telephone records from Air Force One, and minutes of a White House working group on Iraq whose members included Rove and Libby.

The law prohibiting disclosure of CIA operatives’ identities has been rarely used in part because journalists getting the tips are disinclined to reveal their sources and the people leaking the information are disinclined to come forward on their own.

A spokesman for Fitzgerald declined to comment about the status of the investigation this week.