Aohell

Israeli Defense Force

And before I get a lot of grief on this from the pro-Israelis out there, there is an incredible amount of propaganda used to lie about what the IDF does and has done. It is an arm of the Israeli state that has been used in human rights violations, including ethnic deportations and massacres. Yes, there is a terrorist campaign against the Israeli state. No, it does not justify a state-sponsored terror campaign that kills three times as many Arab civilians as the Israelis lose to the PLO/Hamas/Hizbollah and other Palestinian Arab organizations. There are people who believe in Israel like it was God. It is not God. It is not an entity one follows blindly. It is not led by God. It is a secular state that abuses the power granted it by the United States to oppress millions of people it has rendered stateless, creating ghettos of Arabs on marginal lands.

People sometimes ask what would have happened if the Jews were able to organize an effective resistance under Hitler: what would it have been like? It would have been like the Palestinian resistance against Israel's robbery of their lands and property. No, Israel does not resort to death camps, thank goodness. On the other hand, it is resorting to the Stalinist solution: slow, determined grinding away to eliminate resistance in the long run. Stalin hoped to collect all the Jews in Russia to the Soviet Far East in a "homeland" of sorts, then liquidate the settlements there by severing rail links and letting Siberian winters do their thing. The way Israel seals off Gaza, starving it a little at a time, is more analagous to Stalin's methods than Hitler's, and I find Stalin to be much more the worse of the two tyrants. He just happened to have a better PR machine, that's all.

And Israel has a PR machine almost without parallel. The only thing that comes close to it in terms of viciousness and rabidity is the Turkish denial of the Armenian Holocaust. It would be nice if the USA quit shipping weapons to both those states, but that's not likely at all, especially under a president whose Chief of Staff is a golden boy in the American-Israeli PAC, or AIPAC. For those who are new to Washington lobbying groups, AIPAC is the one that makes sure the USA keeps sending arms and cash to Israel so it can continue to fire rockets into inhabited apartment blocks.

The death toll in Gaza so far in "Operation Cast Lead" is over 1000 civilians. All the US does is watch.

"Never again," my eye. More like "Never again to us, even if we have to make it happen again to others, in some form or fashion." And if you want one of the earliest comparisons of Israeli ethnic cleansing to the Nazis, look no further that the words of Golda Meir in 1948:

It is dreadful thing to see the dead city. I found next to the port [Palestinian Arab] children, women, the old, waiting for a way to leave. I entered the houses, there were houses where coffee and pitot were left on the table, I could not avoid [thinking] that this, indeed, had been the picture in many Jewish towns...

Gaza... Why?

Because, of course.

Hamas chucked missiles at Israel to provoke precisely the sort of ground attack that is happening now. In a few days, Hamas will launch more missiles to let Israel know it did not get all the missiles. Israel will remain in Gaza and its operation there will seem ineffective. If you've been following the Middle East, this should sound familiar, as it's exactly the sort of thing Hezbollah did to Israel in Lebanon. Israel left Lebanon without having defeated Hezbollah.

Hamas has had close ties with Hezbollah, so it's no surprise that they're carrying out a Hezbollah-style operation. For all the US-made rockets that the Israeli Defense Forces will fire into Gazan apartments, Hamas will survive and inflict unacceptable losses on Israel. Israel knows that if it withdraws, it looks weak. Hamas knows that, as well, and knows that Israel must eventually withdraw from Gaza. It cannot remain there indefinitely.

Israel missed its chance to have peace back in 1991. Now it's dealing with a Hamas that knows it can win a war of attrition, instead of the tired old Fatah of Yassir Arafat. Both sides are as bloody-minded as World War One generals, and will not step away from the violence, for fear of looking weak. In the long run, the Palestinians will win through weight of numbers, but only at a terrible civilian cost. The Israelis will lose in the long run, but also only at a terrible civilian cost.

Both sides' political leaders use the violence to perpetrate their power base. Both sides point to their own civilian casualties, rightly, as horrifying outrages. But they then point to the other side's civilian casualties, wrongly, as justifiable consequences for their struggle against evil.

Obama is very tight with the AIPAC. He'll send gobs of cash and material to Israel, but not soldiers. Hamas knows that if they can kill enough Israelis, all the cash and gadgetry in the USA won't save Israel. They're ready to fight this out for another 140 years.

After all, the last time Crusaders set up a state in Palestine, it took the Arabs 200 years to wipe it out - at terrible civilian cost to both sides. So it goes in the Middle East when the major powers pick sides instead of true peace.

Questions for a Future Debate...

Having seen the debates thus far, I have to say I'm disgusted at the way the politicians dodge some issues, make no mention of others, and beat the drum on real vote-getters. Is that all democracy has done for the US? Produce men that have no desire to care for their nation, but to get to the top of the greasy pole of politics?

I don't think I'll ever be in a position to ask these questions point-blank to any candidate. I'm not in the major media groups, and even if I was, asking these questions would likely get me fired, transferred, or otherwise shoved under a bus. That's the irony of this whole thing... we have a free press, but it has no ability to air its views or truly reach the nation's leaders. That reach is reserved for the corporations and the lobbies that know how to act as corporations.

Anyway, my questions:

1. Haiti is the nation with perhaps the longest-running "nation-building" relationship with the United States. Given the conditions there - people scrounging around to find the least toxic dirt to eat - what hope do you have that what the US is doing in Iraq or Afghanistan won't eventually end in similar failure?

And, yes, least toxic dirt. The poor of Haiti can't afford food, so they are forced to turn to a certain kind of dirt that can be mixed with a little butter and salt and sun-baked into a cake. It has next to no nutritive value, but helps to end the pains of hunger. The toxins in the dirt, however, are themselves debilitating. Eating the dirt cakes is known as "bleaching the belly". This is a nation the US has tried to rebuild since 1914. Nearly a century later, they are eating toxic dirt. If there was oil there, things would be worse, I guess...

2. If the American-Israel PAC told you to wear underwear on top of your head, would you wear boxers or briefs and would you make it a campaign issue about how slow your opponent was to don his undergarments in the AIPAC-requested fashion?

Honestly, the US should just make Israel the 51st state. That way, no other nation on earth could attack it and it would prosper with all the guarantees the United States grants its minority populations with substantial amounts of cash. They would further rest assured that the Arabs would be given an alternative ethnic descriptor with loads more syllables in it so they could be properly ignored like all of the US' minority populations without substantial amounts of cash.

3. Given how much money the candidates are receiving from the banking, insurance, and real estate industries, will either really, really take care of the current financial mess in a way that does not somehow enrich further the very people who created it?

Opensecrets.org has information on industry donors by sector. $116 million of corporate spending came from banking, finance, and real estate. That's the single-largest set of contributions. I'm sorry, but I simply can't look at that and smile. This next president will be bought and paid for, that's what it looks like. Whether or not it's like other presidents makes no difference: it's still a nauseating tragedy.

4. Can we trust either of the candidates with our tax dollars?

Hold on, this question was asked in the debate. Neither candidate managed an answer that didn't sound like some kind of used car sales pitch. I'm not convinced we can trust any of them.

5. Why are candidates that are neither Republican nor Democrat excluded from participation in the debates by the bi-partisan Federal Election Commission?

Oh, snap. It's because a bipartisan commission doesn't want to upset the apple cart with any views other than the existing currently carefully-scripted ones. Heaven forfend someone outside the influence of corporate America should speak his mind in a well-attended public forum.

6. What is your position on nuclear disarmament?

7. If a rising tide is supposed to lift all boats, why does the increasing GDP of the USA leave an increased disparity between the richest Americans and its poorest citizens? Does the government of America truly represent all people or only the ones able to purchase access to government bodies?

8. What assurances can the candidates give us that the recently-announced NATO authorization to go after heroin producers in Afghanistan isn't a move to wipe out the producers that compete with the associates of the brother of Afghanistan's president? How do we know this isn't a move designed to boost heroin prices worldwide to benefit the heroin producers working with the Afghan government at the expense of the heroin producers working for al-Qaeda and the Taliban?

I'm sure I could think of more questions. I'll let these stand for now.

Palin on Pakistan

Central Asia: Graveyard of Empires

In the study of World History, Central Asia is an anomaly. There isn't a lot of civilization originating out of there, but a whole lot of civilizations get involved with it. It's not really entirely part of any other region because of all the influences on it. It's also one of the last things empires touch before they fizzle out into the shades of history.

The people of Afghanistan have a saying, "Nobody wins in Afghanistan, not even the Afghans." Consider:

* Medes: take it and then get overthrown by the Achaemenids

* Achaemenids: they start out with Central Asia, but it's only a matter of time for them before Al the Great cleans their clock.

* Alexander the Great: conquers Bactria, dies soon thereafter, empire collapses.

* Selucids: they can't hold the area and hand it over to the Mauryans, then get owned by the Romans.

* Mauryans: They lose Bactria to a Greek rebellion, then fall apart

* Bactria: Does not end well for them. Overrun by nomads. Not a good way to go, at all.

* Indo-Greek Empire: Conquers Bactria, then implodes due to civil war.

* Han China: gets out that way, then collapses.

* Parthia: Takes the region from the Scythians, then loses it in rebellion, then collapses as an empire

* Persia: rises in glory, conquers Central Asia, fights with the Byzantines and then is utterly destroyed by the rise of Islam

* Islamic Caliphate... gets out that way, then the Umayyads fall and their empire collapses.

* Tang Dynasty: undone after a disastrous Central Asian battle.

* Khwarezmids: They proudly conquer Central Asia in 1205. Mongols arrive in 1219, which is bad news for the Khwarezmids...

* Mongols: Like Alexander, they take Central Asia early on, then their empire fractures and fades.

* Timurids: They start off as a Central Asian empire. It does not end well for them, although one of their rulers has a great re-invention as the founder of the Moghul Empire in India... never gets Central Asia back, though...

* Safavids: They take Afghanistan, and then stir up a massive uprising there that results in the Afghans invading Persia and ruining the place... then the Persians rise up and destroy the empire of their Afghan rulers, conquer Afghanistan, then collapse as an empire utterly.

* Durranis: Local dynasty that manages to rule for about 70 years, then collapses due to infighting.

* British: They lose an entire army in Afghanistan in the 1840s and don't take over the place until the 1880s... and then their empire starts to unravel in a series of increasingly successful independence movements.

* Russia: Takes over Central Asia after running out of Siberia and Europe... completely destroyed in revolution soon afterward.

* Soviet Union: Yeah, like *they* had staying power. They didn't even last as long as the Durranis before things started to unravel for them in 1989... a collapse accelerated by their attempt to take Afghanistan.

* Taliban: Nope. They did not win in Afghanistan, and they're still ruining everyone's day over there.

* USA: oooh, this is the raw nerve... but the sad fact remains that when a nation's soldiers are being shot at by weapons soldiers traded to the resistance for drugs, it's not going to win that war.

I admit a bit of a cavalier approach in some of my assessments... stretching points here and there... but it's a nice survey of Central Asia, all the same.

Come Visit Beautiful Central Asia: Graveyard of Empires!

Draft Deferments

MANUEL NORIEGA

SADDAM HUSSEIN

AZERBAIJAN

NUCLEAR WEAPONS

Britney Spears...

Foreign Policy...

What Will Be the End in Iraq?

The anti-US forces in Iraq seemed to have learned well the lessons from The Battle of Algiers, as the pro-US forces are increasingly marginalized. But have they learned enough to avoid the violence which continues to wrack post-French Algeria? I don't think so.

Nor do I think a continued US presence in Iraq will benefit that nation in the long run. No matter what, the people there will destroy each other for years to come. All a US presence accomplishes is a pseudo-unity in the face of the occupation.

Watch out.

A modest request...

I would humbly ask that all the attention and "how could this possibly happen?" sort of stories the major US media outlets have expended, are expending, and will expend on both Don Imus and the tragic shootings in Virginia be equalled, at the very least, in attention to the following topics:

• The US involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq
• Third world poverty
• Global climate instability
• Human rights issues in general

The stories should focus not just on defining the problem, but about what is needed to work towards a solution. Terrible as Mr. Imus' comments may have been and shocking though the tragedy in Virginia may be, there really are much greater things that should be demanding the attention and mindspace of America.

Thank you.

360 Tons of Cash

Paul Bremer's trying to explain how he lost $9 billion in cash while running the show in Iraq. That's 360 tons of cash, as Congressman Henry Waxman put it. The cash was literally loaded on pallets and shipped into Iraq, a war zone.

"But as often in Iraq the ideal collided with the harsh realities on the ground," Bremer said. Get outta here. Iraq wasn't an ideal situation?

Note to the Bush administration: Next time you want to lose $9 billion, let me know. There are a lot better things to do with 360 tons of money than to fly it into the middle of a chaos studded with corrupt contractors and shady politicians. Or was that the intent in the first place?

2007 to See Attack on Iran?

Tough talk from Bush, rumblings from Likud, Ahmadinejad in need of something to rally his sagging popularity, and a US buildup in Iraq: do these add up to a potential US invasion of Iran?

No.

But add a second aircraft carrier group and the stage is set for a pre-emptive strike against Iran. While Turkey may not be forthcoming with assistance, Azerbaijan might just. US bases in Afghanistan could also provide support, as well as those in Iraq. And what of Turkmenistan? That nation's loss of Niyazov could be the US' gain as the new powers that be seek legitimacy in the form of US support.

Would a pre-emptive strike lead to war with Iran?

Maybe.

The US would need a draft to go into a formal war. Iran might be in no position to wage an offensive war after a US strike.

Terrorism?

Of course. But that's hardly going to be a change of pace. If Iran is hit, maybe Hizbollah won't be so frisky in the Middle East. But maybe also something else crazy happens.

The US was wrong about there being nuclear weapons on Cuba in 1962. The US thought they weren't there yet. They were. Had the US attacked Cuba, Castro had already insisted the weapons be used against US soldiers and targets.

I'm pretty sure Ahmadinejad would order nuclear weapons to be used against US or Israeli targets if he could in the event of a strike against Iran.

The question is, does he already have them? The US says not yet. Is it that sure it would risk being wrong?

Will an Invasion of Iran Make the US Safe From Nuclear Attack?

For the sake of argument, let us say that Iran is 100% full of evil people and every so-called civilian there is actually a soldier armed to the teeth, with the exception of children under two years of age, who are secretly trained to be suicide bombers with remote controlled baby carriages. That allows every person in Iran to be a target. Let us furthermore say that we anticipate most of these so-called civilians to not really attack us as if they were soldiers so we could safely assume they'd behave like actual civilians in the event of a military invasion and occupation.

That's one helluva an assumption. Bear with me, though.

How would an invasion of Iran stop nuclear proliferation among the enemies of the United States? Will it stop North Korean nuclear development? Venezuelan nuclear development? Will it halt non-state actors from acquiring fissible materials for use in nuclear bombs?

I will allow the US as many troops as it needs to get the job done in Iran, Iraq, and Afghanistan: I'll even let it have enough troops to invade and occupy Venezuela, Colombia, Peru, Ecuador, and Bolivia, just in case any of those nations wants to use petrodollars or narcodollars to buy nukes. I will even let the US have enough forces to invade and occupy Pakistan and India: China, too. And yet, there will be unsecured nuclear materials for the buying.

Look at Russia. We don't need to occupy that place. We need to get busy there and finish the job that has been started of securing its nuclear stockpiles and power plants. Two-thirds of the Russian fissible materials are not yet under proper security. Securing them can be done without a big invasion, yet Bush's administration has not properly funded US efforts to secure those materials.

Worse, the US government left it up to a group of private citizens, including ultra-Democrat Ted Turner to pony up the dollars needed to secure some black market nuclear materials up for grabs in the Balkans. This happened a year or two ago, IIRC. If the USG won't move in to take care of the easily secured materials, what in the world makes it think it'll be more secure from nuclear-armed terrorists by invading Iran or any other place mentioned above? Hell, I'll let the US own and occupy every square inch of England, France, South Africa, Brazil, Argentina, Japan, and every other nation with a working nuclear reactor - it still won't do jack for securing the Russian materials.

I say all this to point out how if the US were truly concerned with security from nuclear attacks, it would already be working with Russia to take care of business there.

Economics underlines the US' true intentions. The Law of the Declared Preference states that if an actor declares he wants something he does not have, he really doesn't. If he truly wanted it, he would already own it or he would be working towards acquiring it. The US claims it wants security from the possibility of nuclear attack, but it doesn't really. Therefore, the invasion of Iran would happen because of a different, undeclared preference.

It's a War, Not a Football Game

I am sick unto mental death over how people in America insist "the US is gonna win in Iraq" by beating down, obliterating, stomping, etc. on the insurgency there. They treat Iraq like a football game. It's not. It's a war. W-A-R, war.

They tend not to talk about Afghanistan, though. Afghanistan's two years older than Iraq, has an elected government with the backing of what seems to be most everybody there, and they still have to deal with an insurgency - one fiercer than the one last year, or any year before that. The president of Afghanistan recently made a statement that all but implicated Pakistan as a supporter of the Taliban.

As Pakistan is to Afghanistan, so Iran is to Iraq. But what about the men on the ground? What's happening to them? Can history provide a guide?

OK, first you need to go read this article:

http://www.diacritica.com/sobaka/2005/smack.html

Read that. It's a memoir from a veteran of the army that went into Afghanistan before the US one. And here's a section of the last part I'd like to emphasize:

*****

ARMY OF ADDICTS

In the staff history and other histories of the Soviet-Afghan War, they do not discuss this very much as a cause of the Soviet defeat. I've read some of these books though and they don't mention a lot of things. We did not become an army of addicts but in our army we had a lot of addicts. Sanatoriums even ten years after the end of this war receive men who became addicted to drugs in Afghanistan, in the army. They have never been able to overcome it. They may stop for four or five years but it creeps back into their life. Like me when I did opium the first time it helps them to go numb, to escape.

In Iraq and in Afghanistan today there are the same temptations, and though the pay for the American soldier is better than ours was it is still not much by their country's standards. Addiction is not a Soviet disease. In an army, the only sign that I know of for sure that it is happening is that your enemy begins to shoot you with your own guns.

*****

I know in Colombia, the FARC and AUC already shoot at police and US advisers with US weapons. Same thing happened as US forces became heavily addicted to heroin in Vietnam. I wonder aloud if the Iraqis and Afghans are shooting at the US soldiers with their weapons. It's been 5 years in Afghanistan and 3 in Iraq. Surely, their initial supplies of ammo are depleted and they're using munitions acquired recently. Who from? Where is the story on that?

Now back to Iraq. In a football game, the winner improves his record and possibly goes on to the Finals. There's a parade, t-shirt sales, and bragging rights. What happens if the US completes its military mission of defeating the Iraqi insurgency?

Time for another link:

http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC05.php?CID=2459

While not pessimistic in its assessment of the US ability to deal with insurgency, it is pessimistic about long-term stability in Iraq and how it stands to become an extension of Iran in the region.

To all the cheerleaders out there, I want you to understand this: If the US actually does bring about an end to the insurgency in Iraq, it will be to create an ally for the sworn enemy of the US, Iran.

How would that be victory when the successful completion of a military campaign results in a massive benefit for a sworn enemy? The other alternative, complete civil war in Iraq because of the failure of the military mission, is unacceptable to all.

Attack Iran? The Saudi oil ministry predicts a tripling in the price of oil should that happen. That may be truth, that may be threat, but one way or another, it'll be reality. It's a nice way of saying to Bush, "Hands off, cowboy!"

So the US can't attack Iran. It's stuck trying to make Iraq safe for Iran because the alternative is beyond contemplation, it's so bad.

Projected time frames for the occupation of Iraq put the US forces in there for 8-13 years. Assuming casualty rates remain constant, that's about 2000 in the first three years (I'll round down for a conservative estimate), with 4000-6000 yet to die in Iraq, about 6000-8000 total by the time the operation is finished in 2011-2016. Monetary cost aside, how are we going to tell the families of the fallen... their sons and daughters, husbands and wives, brothers and sisters... how are we going to tell them that their loved ones shed their blood so Iran could exert more control on the price of oil than Saudi Arabia? And that's in a best case scenario.

Please, no more sis-boom-bah. This is a war, let's view it as one in all its terrible sophistication.

Failed State Round-Up

OK, George Bush is on the lookout for failed states because they can be havens for evil-doers. What is a failed state, though?

I'd say a failed state would have to be a place where law and order have broken down. In severe cases of breakdown, one can see a high number of IDRs (Internally Displaced Refugees). Somalia, for instance, has about 400,000 IDRs. But we already know Somalia is a mess. Iraq has 1.2 million IDRs, but, yeah, the US forces are already on the ground there. We can't re-invade Iraq to fix things there.

But there's a place in the world with an estimated 2 million IDRs. For this state, that's about 5% of its population, or one out of every 20 people has been forced from where they used to live due to turf battles between armed gangs.

Where is this failed state?

Colombia.

Right in the US' back yard, there's a massively failed state. Although the FARC and AUC factions are demobilizing and turning in their uniforms and US-made weapons, the CIA Factbook doubts they're giving up illicit activities. Those that remain active are also active in the same illicit activities, cocaine and heroin production and distribution.

Colombia produces 3.8 metric tons of heroin, which is as nothing compared to Afghanistan's 4475 metric tons or even Mexico's production of 23 metric tons of black tar heroin, which is the equivalent of 9 metric tons of regular heroin. But for cocaine, Colombia is king: 430 metric tons of blow for the US and the rest of the world. (NB: 90% of that cocaine moves through Mexico... should we check there for failed-stated-iness next?)

CIA Factbook: http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/index.html

That cocaine is what forces people off their lands. The drug-dealing factions wage war over fields and shipment routes and civilians in the crossfire have to flee their villages and head for the relative safety of larger towns. Colombia has the highest IDR population in the world, and the UNHCR report on refugees notes their IDR problem has not been getting better.

UNHCR 2005 Global Refugee Trends: http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/statistics/opendoc.pdf?tbl=STATISTICS&id=4486ceb12

So let's get those US assets into Colombia to fix it up right! We can't leave it the way it is!

Er, hold on there... seems like the US has been involved in Colombia. "Plan Colombia" cost over $3 billion in efforts to fight narcotics and terrorism from 2000-2005. The US has abandoned that plan. It failed to accomplish its goals.

Spraying the coca crops typically resulted only in one crop loss. Coca can produce four crops per year. Although hectares under coca cultivation did decrease in Colombia for a while, hectares under coca cultivation increased in surrounding states, so the cost and purity of cocaine on the black market remained stable. Worse, by 2004, Colombia's hectares under coca cultivation increased, in spite of stepped-up herbicide efforts.

The drugs also touched US forces stationed in Colombia. A few troops were caught, but I have to suspect that the smugglers and arms-dealers weren't just a few bad eggs. They were the tip of the iceberg, given how US military discipline seems to break down rapidly in garrison or guerrilla warfare conditions. It's the same story as in Vietnam, really. Drugs corrupted our efforts there, just like they did in Colombia and like they are probably doing right now in Afghanistan.

I won't discuss the US' use of mercenaries to conduct business and military-style operations in Colombia: that is for another investigation. I'm considering the failure of Colombia as a state. 5% of the population is displaced, the highest number of IDRs in the world. 10% unemployment. 49.2% living in the Colombian version of poverty. The Colombian per capita murder rate is surpassed only by South Africa and Iraq. Add that to the constant drug-fueled warfare, and we see a failed state.

And yet the US gave up on Colombia... Colombia had to go begging to President Bush last week. ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/5081888.stm) Colombia's supposed to be the closest ally the US has in the region and, yet, they have to beg for help from their own next-door neighbor, whose demand for cocaine is causing the very failure of the state of Colombia.

Where Are the GIs Now?

Hey! Wanna know where the US forces are deployed around the world? For regular military, it's no secret. A Google(TM) search, a click, and you're there! I found a listing of US troop deployments worldwide from 1950-2005. Here's the link, so you can go download your own copy of the file and then discuss.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/cda06-02.cfm

OK, so I don't care much for the way Heritage draws conclusions from the data. I know how to fudge numbers, and there's fudging going on there. Comparing current deployment to the average of 1950-2000 without qualifying that average by saying it includes massive Vietnam-era deployments is one such fudge. Be that as it may, for a piece that could have done a lot more cheerleading and flag-waving, the summary is well done and worth reading.

But even more worthwhile is the Excel(TM) spreadsheet I told you to download and look over. Rather than dealing with averages, I want to look at the numbers over time. The Heritage article touched on high points, but I want to ask about some of the spots that fly under Big Media's radar.

While I'm sure it would be fun to wonder aloud what the 7 or 8 guys in Iraq were doing in the mid-80's, I'll pass over that for now. Let's look first at changes from 1989 to 2005. Why 1989? Because it fits on my screen, that's why. If you're not running at the same settings I've got, you'll have to scroll around. Looking at the total worldwide deployment, one can see the decline in troop levels after the Cold War ended. From 2.13 million in 1989, it goes to 1.385 million in 1999, and holds there until 2001.

But the totals don't rocket upward with the latest round of police actions. There are only about 40,000 more troops worldwide today than in 1999. There are more troops than 40,000 in Iraq, so it's clear deployments are shifting worldwide, which really isn't a surprise to anyone who's heard announcements to that effect.

So where are the shifts? Where are the troops leaving and where are they going to? Iraq's not the only answer here.

We should take this in phases, first 1989-1999 to handle the peacetime shifts, then we're at a level more comparable to today's deployments. Any shift from 1989 to 2005 is going to be misleading, as there's an overall drop of 700,000 troops that must first be accounted for before comparisons can be made.

Moreover, we shouldn't look at just regional numbers. Those can hide shifts within the region. OK, time to crunch numbers. I'll round my numbers within reason, hopefully a fudge of no more than a few tens or hundreds.

From 1989-1999, East Asia lost 33,000 troops; Europe 205,000; Africa 5; Americas 16,000. The Mideast gained 8000. The rest of the Cold War demobilization came from troops stationed stateside and a small decrease in soldiers "alfoat", ie, on naval vessels. (Just in case anyone forgot the US has a navy. Still does, although it depends on Marines and SEALS for most of its press these days.)

Now for the goodies from 1989 to 1999... Antarctic deployment went from 57 to 0. There's a story, I'm sure. Not a big one, but still worth a search or two. Other island-like deployments went to 0, like on Midway and Johnston Island. Guam's troop levels dropped to less than half of their 1999 numbers, as did the US Virgin Islands. To be sure, Guam went from 8100 to 3600 while the Virgin Islands crew dropped from 9 to 4... what are they doing in the Virgin Islands? I have mental images of constant volleyball games on the beach to try and recruit Virgin Islanders for the Army, but I'm sure it's a lot more fun than that. OK, so these are obviously fluctuations due to the end of the Cold War. There are similar drops around the world, so let's look at places that increase in this time frame, or places that make one ask the question, "What in the hell are they doing <i>there?"</i>

Cambodia's one. Sure, there are only 5 guys there, but, what in the hell are they doing <i>there?</i> I don't know. Japan and Korea each lose about 9000 from their numbers... Laos actually gets a dozen troops in 1991. Huh? <i>Laos?</i> Philippines drops waaaaaay off. They closed the US bases and kicked most the soldiers outta there. US troops returned to Vietnam in 1992, and they're up to a baker's dozen today. I'm not too worried about that, but, still, what are they doing there?

And no speculation, please. I know people want to say, "Well, they're probably doing this or that...", but that's not good enough. It's news if they're not attached to the US Embassy as guards. The US didn't normalize relations with Vietnam until 1995, so why did it station military there before that?

Moving on to Europe. One can follow general declines in Cold War deployments and see a spike in 1996 for the US deployment to Bosnia and Croatia. It's gone down significantly since then. German deployment went from 248,000 to 65,000. Wow. BIG drop. Big drops in the UK and Spain, too, but not such a big drop in Italy. What's the story there? What does Italy have that Germany doesn't, besides better pizza and Tuscany?

Now I do know the story in the Former Soviet Union. Those guys are military advisers. In 1999, their numbers weren't too great, but they were still there in every republic except Latvia, regardless of how oppressive the local regime may have been. More on those later, I can assure you.

Bahrein went from 168 to 1511. That's a redeployment. Desert Storm and all that, yeah. But Egypt? OK, so it dropped from 1100 to 800, but what's up in Egypt we need troops there? There were 8 dudes in Iraq in 1989, 7 in 1990, and then none in 1991. What were they doing before Saddam invaded Kuwait? Speaking of Kuwait, 25 to 4000... another redeployment. Is Kuwait becoming the new UK in terms of troop deployment and US basing? Aside from the Desert Storm spike in 1991, Saudi Arabian deployment rose from 400 in 1989 to 5500 in 1999. That I think I can explain, but what about the Syrian deployment through all this time? Aren't they associates of the Axis of Evil? Why do we have troops there? Same question for Yemen.

Africa tends to be ignored as often as possible in the media. It's a wreck in between Cairo and Johannesburg for the most part. Loads of oppressive regimes that kill off their people, unless they have oil, in which case they buy off the opposition. Except in Nigeria. Too many people there to buy off. Through this time period, deployments of US forces remained constant in Africa, even though they shift from one place to another. There's a spike for Somalia and a few places drop off the list, but Uganda and Zimbabwe keep their troops. What is going on in those places that requires a US troop presence?

The Americas lost troops after 1991 for one big reason and a dozen little ones. The big reason was Panama and the little ones were Honduras, Cuba, Bermuda, and a bunch of other, smaller deployments getting cut. As of 1999, the two largest US presences in The Americas were Gitmo and Honduras. So why Honduras? What's up there?

Coming forward from 1999, some of my previous questions persist. Those troop levels didn't change. There are drops in Japan, Korea, and Bosnia and we all know about the huge rises for Afghanistan and Iraq. But now there are over 40,000 troops in Kuwait. That's a massive staging area for action in the Mideast. Only 66,000 remain in Germany. Why keep any there at all? Or in the UK? Or Italy? Or Belgium, Portugal, and Spain? What is the justification for maintaining permanent bases there? WW2 has been over for generations, and Russia seems bent on conquering Europe as a customer for its oil and natural gas. With over 98,000 troops remaining in Europe, couldn't they be cut back to contingents of 99 or less and get us down to maybe 2500? Or is bureaucratic inertia finally halting the erosion of forces in Europe?

In the Former Soviet Union, I'm worried most about the number of US advisers in Georgia going to 42. They're supposed to be there to help Georgia fight off any Chechens setting up al-Qaeda bases in the Panskii Gorge. There is no al-Qaeda in Georgia, but there are secessionist movements within that nation. Why does the US give a care? Oil. Watch out in Georgia. If things flare up there along the pipeline routes, US forces will arrive to secure the pipeline, just as they did in Afghanistan.

Speaking of the Afghan deployment, permanent bases are going up there, all along the pipeline route. Those 19,500 troops are an increase over the 2000 that assisted in driving out the Taliban from power in 2001. The permanent bases are going up in Iraq, too, so don't look for a drop in troop deployments there. Look instead for fudged numbers to make it look like there's a troop level drop there, or no mention at all of troop levels.

There are 600 more troops in Djibouti than in 1999. Why?

From 1999 to 2005, Europe and East Asia lost about 10,000 troops each, while the Mideast deployments went up by 200,000, and that's rounding down. Most of those boys headed for Baghdad are drawn from stateside bases.

Look over the chart. If you know exactly why troops are where they are in some of those places not in the news, do let me know. Thanks.