In an op-ed in the July 28 New York Times, "Oil and Blood," Bob Herbert insists on looking at the glaringly obvious elephant in the room that so many on all sides of the Iraq debate are blinding themselves to:

[T]he whole point of this war, it seems, was to establish a long-term military presence in Iraq to ensure U.S. domination of the Middle East and its precious oil reserves, which have been described, the author Daniel Yergin tells us, as "the greatest single prize in all history."

The Brownsville Herald reports that the US has temporarily closed its consulate in Nuevo Laraedo following a gunbattle the night of July 28 between drug traffickers armed with grenades, rocket launchers and heavy machine guns. US Ambassador Tony Garza said in a written statement that the consulate would suspend all operations except for emergency services for US citizens through at least Aug. 5. The closure comes two days after Garza announced that escalating violence has prompted the State Department to extend a travel advisory for the entire Mexican side of the border until further notice.

Its a little ironic. The Irish Republican Army has actually been portrayed since 9-11 as the "good terrorists," in contradistinction to Islamic extremists who supposedly have no "grievances" and with whom there can be no dialogue. Henry Kissinger wrote in a 2002 commentary:

European critics holding more traditional concepts have accused America of overreacting because terrorism is a phenomenon new primarily to Americans and that Europeans overcame terrorism in the 1970s and 1980s without undertaking global crusades. But the terrorism of two decades ago was of a different character. It was on the whole composed of nationals of the country where the terror took place (or, as in the case of the IRA in Britain, by a group with special national grievances of its own). Though some received foreign intelligence support, their bases were in the country where they operated. Their weapons of choice were mostly suitable for individual assaults. By contrast, Sept. 11 terrorists operate on a global basis, are motivated less by a specific grievance than by a generalized hatred and have access to weapons by which they can give effect to their strategy of killing thousands and ultimately far more if they acquire weapons of mass destruction.

So the IRA's decision (announced yesterday) to formally lay down arms after a century of armed struggle (or 36 years, if one starts counting from the emergence of the Provisional IRA) comes at a propitious time for the counter-terrorist establishment. The group has outlived its usefulness to the security wonks, who now have much bigger fish to fry. The IRA's announcement may have been a reaction to public outrage at the London bombings, which is a sign of political maturity; the security state, in turn, has exhibited no such capacity for self-criticism. Notes the Boston Globe today: "Human rights activists reacted with creeping concern that the same policies -- including shoot-to-kill orders for police and detentions without trial -- that they say undercut civil liberties for many Irish people during the IRA period have once again surfaced in the probe into the London bombings."

A US army mechanic, sentenced to 15 months in jail for refusing to return to Iraq with his Army unit, told the military judge in his case that he acted out of conscience, not a disregard for duty. "I am not against soldiers," Sgt. Kevin Benderman, 40, said at his court-martial July 28. "Though some might take my actions as being against soldiers, I want everyone to be home and safe and raising their families. I don't want anyone to be hurt in a combat zone." Benderman was earlier acquitted of desertion, but convicted on the lesser charge of missing movement—meaning, having skipped his Jan. 8 deployment flight. He could have received five years in prison if convicted of desertion. In addittion to his 15-month prison term, Benderman will receive a dishonourable discharge and have his rank reduced to private. (Al-Jazeera, July 29)

How depressing. The lead op-ed piece in today's New York Times (picked up by several papers around the country, such as the Houston Chronicle) is an open and abject call—not only for surrendering our privacy rights in the name of "security," which nearly everybody seems to take for granted—but for racial profiling. Utterly terrifying how quickly these ideas are being legitimized.

No, we aren't being sarcastic.

The Space Shuttle "Discovery"—the first sent into flight since the Shuttle fleet was grounded following the mid-flight destruction of the "Columbia" in 2003—succeeded in docking at the International Space Station this week, but only after performing an unprecedented back-flip so astronauts on board could photograph the craft's underbelly for signs of damage. NASA managers discovered the "Discovery" was still shedding big pieces of foam insulation on launch, and have again suspended future flights. One chunk captured on camera was almost as big as the one that banged into the heat shield of Columbia's wing, dooming the craft and its seven astronauts. NASA has already poured $1.4 billion into trying to make the shuttle fleet safer since the Columbia disaster, and frustrations are mounting. "Maybe the money would be better spent on replacing the shuttle, rather than flying it," suggested John Pike, who directs the web site Globalsecurity.org. (AP, July 28)

We've heard this before. As we recently recalled, official optimism on troop reductions in Iraq should give anyone who is paying attention a sense of deja vu. Even under the most optimistic scenario—credited to a "secret memo" and never officially acknowledged—the foreign troop presence in Iraq is to drop from the current 170,000 to "just" (as this account says) 66,000 next year. That is still double the number Bush pledged they would be dropped to within four months at the time "major combat operations" ended in May 2003. There are more troops in Iraq now than there were then. Via TruthOut:

US Aims to Sharply Cut Iraq Force within a Year
By Peter Graff
Reuters

Wednesday 27 July 2005

The United States hopes to sharply reduce its forces in Iraq by the middle of next year if all goes according to plan, its top commander on the ground said on Wednesday.

But underscoring the challenges faced by the new Iraqi government, al Qaeda in Iraq said it had killed two Algerian envoys kidnapped last week in a spate of attacks that are driving diplomats out of Baghdad.

A recent story in the Indypendent, the weekly print edition of the NYC Independent Media Center, helps make sense of the conflict between the new labor organizations in post-Saddam Iraq. Via New York's Independent Press Association:

Iraqi labor tour in U.S. stirs controversy
By Bennett Baumer, The Indypendent, 19 July 2005. English Language.

Representatives from three Iraqi labor groups conducted a U.S. tour in June discussing the occupation, insurgency and the state of workers’ rights and organizing in Iraq. Sponsored by U.S. Labor Against the War, the tour has sparked debate throughout the left internationally on how to resist the occupation. The three Iraqi unions all oppose the American-led military occupation – but differ on how to end it.