Alleged bin Laden Tape Surfaces

The world's most hated terrorist was allegedly heard from yesterday in an audio tape broadcast by al Jazeera. If authentic, it would be the first time anyone has heard from the displaced head of al Qaeda in over thirteen months. The rhetoric remains the same, threatening more attacks on the US, telling us to pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan, and this time even having the audacity to offer a truce. (Washington Post: Bin Laden: Attacks on U.S. Being Prepared).

Let's talk about the truce offer for a moment. For openers, bin Laden is in no position to make such a ridiculous offer. Al Qaeda is being systematically destroyed. The majority of his leadership is either dead or captured. Their training camps in Afghanistan have been destroyed. Funding to the organization from around the world continues to be disrupted. Certainly a truce would be in al Qaeda's best interests but it's simply not going to happen.

The only acceptable proposal is the complete and unconditional surrender of al Qaeda. That includes the surrender of bin Laden, Zarqawi, Zawahiri, and all of al Qaeda's top deputies to face immediate trial before a military tribunal. It includes bin Laden's revelation of all remaining al Qaeda training camps, storage facilities, and safe houses. It includes a disclosure of all al Qaeada support organizations world-wide.

The US and allies would not accept a truce with Hitler. We would not accept a truce with Emperor Hirohito. We most certainly will not accept a truce with Osama bin Laden. Scott McClellan, speaking for the President, said it best, "We do not negotiate with terrorists. We put them out of business."

That should effectively put this truce nonsense to rest. Europe laughed at a similar offer last year, and the concept is even more laughable when presented to us. There can be no truce so long as a single al Qaeda terror cell remains anywhere in the world.

Technorati: politics news bin Laden al Qaeda al Qaida truce
IceRocket: politics news bin Laden al Qaeda al Qaida truce

Pakistan's Duplicity

Local Pakistanis continue to rage against a US air strike this weekend that killed as many as 13 civilians. Reports coming out of the Pakistan government now show that senior al Qaeda members were among those killed, however. The US has consistently maintained that top al Qaeda leaders were expected to be at that location and that they were the target of the strike. (Washington Post: Pakistanis Say Airstrike Killed Al Qaeda Figures).

Included in the reported deaths were Abu Khabab al-Masri, a training camp leader and an explosives and poisons expert, Abdul Rahman Maghribi - the son-in-law of al Qaeda's deputy leader Ayman Zawahiri and the head of propaganda in that region - and Abu Ubayida Misri, a chief operative in the Konar province. Once confirmed, those deaths alone validate the military nature of the target.

The issue underscores the duplicity of Pakistan's tenuous relationship with the United States. While President Pervez Musharraf is an open supporter of the US lead war on terror, his views are the overwhelming minority on that topic. The general population openly supported the Taliban in Afghanistan and are strong idealistic supporters of al Qaeda and especially bin Laden. Musharraf's government is often at odds with its people with regards to support for the war-on-terror.

This lack of popular support in Pakistan has severely hindered US efforts to destroy al Qaeda camps on the Pakistani side of the Afghan border. Musharraf continues to deny access to US troops, and Friday's raid was conducted by the CIA using a Predator aircraft. The strike allegedly occurred without the approval of Pakistan's government, although they are not pressing that issue.

What seems to be overlooked in this particular case is the fact that top al Qaeda leaders, including Ayman Zawahiri, had been invited to that gathering in Pakistan. All of the participants were fully expecting that leadership to be there. There were no "innocent" civilians involved in this strike given their open support for the al Qaeda leadership they were hoping to entertain. Given the disappearance of bin Laden for over a year, Zawahiri is now the de facto head of al Qaeda. It should come as no surprise to anyone, least of all the Pakistanis, that the US will launch strikes against any location where Zawahiri is expected to be.

Technorati: politics news Pakistan Zawahiri al Qaeda al Qaida Musharraf
IceRocket: politics news Pakistan Zawahiri al Qaeda al Qaida Musharraf

Lobby Reform Lacks Substance

House Republicans floated a series of lobby reform bills yesterday, following a series of bribery related scandals that are tarnishing the party's image heading into a critical mid-term election. On the surface, the bills would restrict privately funded travel, meals, and gifts to lawmakers. Yet, when you dig a bit deeper into the actual proposals, they seem to fall somewhat short of the mark. (Washington Post: Republicans Propose Restrictions On Lobbying).

The plan unveiled by House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL) is one such bill, however it leaves a gaping loophole that makes the bill essentially worthless. Under this proposal, legislators would not be eligible for private travel or lobbyist funded meals unless the travel or meals were accompanied by a campaign donation. Let me think about this for a second because I somehow fail to see how that's going to curb the problem.

Let's face it, Congress has absolutely no incentive to do anything to curb the problem of lobbyists. Special interest groups are the life-blood of politicians and their political campaigns. To cut access to lobbyists would force politicians to actually take issues to their constituents and raise money themselves rather than taking what amounts to legalized bribes in exchange for votes. The entire system is flawed and the people taking in the cash have no incentive to correct it.

The practice of making campaign donations or providing any other perk in exchange for vote consideration is unethical at best. I call it bribery. Yet, that is precisely how Washington operates on a daily basis. The only acceptable reform to the lobbyist issue is to ban them outright. Legislators should not receive free meals, private travel, or "gifts" under any circumstances. That's called a conflict of interest and it should be illegal.

Think about this for a second. An NCAA Division One athlete on scholarship cannot accept a free meal in his school cafeteria but someone responsible for writing the laws of this country can be wined and dined all over the country in exchange for his vote. Are we serious?

Speaker Hastert said, "We need to reform the rules so that it is clear, beyond a shadow of a doubt, what is ethically acceptable." I'm sorry, congressman, but first you're going to have to find someone in Congress that is qualified to talk about ethics in the first place. I'm hard pressed to find one.

There are more loopholes in the campaign finance bills and in the proposed lobbyist reform bills than you are likely to find in a roll of Velcro™. Make it clear beyond a shadow of a doubt? Not a chance. There's not a politician out there willing to do that. Color me skeptical, but I don't expect to see this issue fixed in my lifetime.

Technorati: politics news lobby lobbyist campaign finance Hastert
IceRocket: politics news lobby lobbyist campaign finance Hastert

World Events Further Strain Oil Prices

Events around the world continue to conspire to drive up oil prices. In addition to the crisis in Iran, which threatens oil supplies to Asia and parts of Europe, Nigeria has had their oil output reduced by 10% thanks to a series of attacks on oil rigs in that African nation. Several oilmen were taken hostage, prompting Royal Dutch/Shell to evacuate 330 of their workers. (AlJazeera: Shell pulls workers from Nigeria).

Rebels belonging to the Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta vowed to disrupt all oil flow out of Nigeria, the 8th largest oil exporter in the world. The Niger Delta has become increasingly unstable as the region prepares for the 2007 elections. Local politicians are often at odds with the military and federal government over control of the rich oil fields in the region, each wanting their share of the wealth.

Nigeria becomes the latest in a long series of conflicts threatening oil supplies around the world. Iraq's oil production was down for the better part of a decade due to economic sanctions followed by the Iraq war. Kuwait's oil production was devastated after the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and Hussein's subsequent burning of their oil wells. Neither of those countries have returned to 100% production. The escalating tensions in Iran further strain Middle Eastern oil pressures, leading to yet another rise in prices.

In South America, Ecuador's output is only at about 50% capacity due to a political coup that damaged or shut down many refineries. Venezuela continues to pump oil, however they have threatened to shut off supplies to the west based on any number of issues that seem to vary with the day of the week. Bearing in mind that Chavez is closely allied with Iran, any actions taken by the west against Iran will likely ripple down to Venezuela. Bolivia has aligned itself with Chavez, raising questions about the reliability of oil reserves from that land-locked nation.

Russian oil supplies, while stable, have been impacted by the on-going dispute between Russia and the Ukraine. Two weeks ago, supplies to the EU were cut when Russia closed a pipeline through the Ukraine, a move that sparked a dramatic rise in price world-wide.

It would be far easier to list oil producing nations that are not in the midst of crisis. With demand world-wide continuing to rise and supplies world-wide increasingly threatened by political unrest, it's easy to see gas prices well over $3.00 per gallon come the summer. One must wonder how much further we will allow this to go before getting serious about alternative fuel sources. It is pure folly to hinge our entire economy on the backs of an energy source in the hands of unstable and often hostile governments, yet that is precisely what we are doing. The oil market is not going to stabilize anytime soon, if ever. Developing and deploying a viable alternate source - one that is not dependent on any foreign resource - must be a national priority. Until then, our economy is in the hands of governments that may not be around by noon the next day.

Technorati: politics news Nigeria Shell Royal Dutch OPEC oil
IceRocket: politics news Nigeria Shell Royal Dutch OPEC oil

ElBaradei Sets March 6th Deadline for Iran

In an uncharacteristic show of strength, IAEA director Mohammed ElBaradei has issued an ultimatum to Iran, giving them 7 weeks to respond to all outstanding questions or face sanctions and possible military action. (Telegraph: Nuclear chief gives Iran a deadline).

In a Newsweek interview, ElBaradei used the sharpest tone he has to date, saying, "We are coming to the litmus test in the next few weeks. Diplomacy has to be backed by pressure and, in extreme cases, by force. We have rules. We have to do everything possible to uphold the rules through conviction. If not, then you impose them. Of course, this has to be the last resort, but sometimes you have to do it."

The deadline set for Iran is March 6th, after which ElBaradei will declare his investigation closed and recommend that Iran be referred to the UN Security Council for sanctions and possible military action. The IAEA alone does not have the authority to order either, however their support will make it more difficult for Russia and China to block the actions.

Both of those nations are the keys since they hold veto authority in the Security Council, and both have a lot to lose if Iran is hit with either sanctions or is the target of military action. Russia is a major supplier of military equipment to Iran and would not want to jeopardize that relationship by supporting sanctions. They are also the primary supplier for Iran's nuclear research facilities. They have a lot to gain economically if Iran is allowed to enrich uranium on Russian soil and have no desire to see Iran's research curtailed.

China is heavily dependent on Iranian oil and they have a non-controlling interest in many of Iran's oil fields. Sanctions against Iran would be tantamount to sanctions against China and would have a financial impact on China's 9.8% economic growth rate. There's little chance of China voting to approve sanctions against Iran. Just getting them to abstain is highly improbable.

Still, the comments from ElBaradei are the most useful statements to come out of the IAEA in over a decade. In this case, he's absolutely correct. Diplomacy must be backed by strength, both economically and militarily. Without a legitimate threat of force, no diplomacy will ever bring Iran to heel. The challenge now is to convince Russia and China. As long as Tehran continues to receive private assurances that nothing will get through the Security Council Iran will continue to act with impunity.

Technorati: politics news ElBaradei IAEA Iran Russia China
IceRocket: politics news ElBaradei IAEA Iran Russia China

Hussein Trial Judge Submits Resignation

Judge Rizgar Mohammed Amin, the head judge in the Hussein trial and the only one publicly identified, submitted his resignation citing "personal reasons". He denied being under government pressure to resign, however he has been under increased criticism over the way he has handled the trial. Many believe he has allowed the trial to spin out of control. (USA Today: Tribunal confirms Saddam judge wants out).

That Amin has been unable to keep order in his courtroom cannot be questioned. Hussein has repeatedly been responsible for disruptive outbursts that have made a mockery of the trial. Amin has been unable to control Hussein's outbursts and has yet to impose any penalty for the disruptions. Certainly nothing that has occurred in this trial would be permissible in a US court.

Given the inexperience of the fledgling Iraqi judicial system, it seems quite clear that they are incapable of conducting this trial. Not only do they not have justices with the experience necessary to maintain order in such a high profile case, but they are also incapable of providing for the security of all parties involved in each of the trials. There have already been several assassinations, and attorneys have already resigned due to death threats.

This is precisely the reason a trial of this nature is normally conducted by a military tribunal comprised of the victors. That is what should have happened in the Hussein case. There is sufficient precedent to permit such a trial, and moving it off-shore would guarantee the safety and security of all involved. Instead, there was a feeble attempt to add the illusion of legitimacy to the trial by having the Iraqi people conduct it. The way this has been handled, however, has paved the way for all sorts of criticisms regarding the legitimacy, the fairness, and the authority of the court.

Amin's resignation is certainly a positive development. He is far too incompetent to conduct this trial. While I doubt a more competent judge will be found in Iraq given the history of their judicial system and the grave security concerns surrounding this trial, they would be hard pressed to find anyone worse than Amin. It's too late now to turn this over to a military tribunal, unfortunately, so we're going to have to make the best of what's left. Hopefully, this trial will end soon, Hussein will be found guilty, and his execution will be swift. I would hate to think we're going to have to go through this travesty all over again for the next set of charges.

Technorati: politics news Amin Hussein Iraq
IceRocket: politics news Amin Hussein Iraq

Syria Heading Back to Security Council

Five UN resolutions are already being ignored by Syria, and it appears that a sixth resolution may be added to the mix. The US is considering whether or not to raise in the Security Council the issue of Syria's lack of cooperation in the Hariri probe. (Al Bawaba: US sends stern message to Syria).

In a statement issued yesterday, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said, "Syria must cease obstructing the investigation into the assassination of former Lebanese prime minister Hariri and instead co-operate fully and unconditionally, as required by UN Security Council resolutions. We call upon the Syrian regime to respond positively to the requests of UN Independent International Investigation (UNIIIC). We intend to refer this matter back to the Security Council if Syrian obstruction continues."

Prepare the draft, Madam Secretary, because Syria has no intention of cooperating with this or any other probe. Consider well how that UN referral is worded, however. The previous five are essentially worthless, and on the surface, the sixth resolution will be equally useless. None of the prior resolutions include any threats or punishments for non-compliance. Without some teeth, these resolutions are a waste of time.

The Secretary of State also took issue with Syria's support for terrorist organizations such as Hezbollah. "Continuing assassinations in Lebanon of opponents of Syrian domination, including most recently the murder of journalist and Member of Parliament Gebran Tueni on Dec 12, 2005, create an atmosphere of fear that Syria uses to intimidate Lebanon," she stated.

2006 looks to be a busy year for the UN Security Council, at least so far as the Middle East is concerned. Iran is about to start its own UN Resolutions collection, and Syria appears eager to add to its collection. The outstanding question surrounds the willingness of the world body to enforce those resolutions. Every resolution passed that goes ignored and unenforced further weakens the credibility of the UN. It has reached the point now where UN resolutions are laughable and are typically ignored.

There are only two methods available to the UN for resolution enforcement: sanctions and military force. The former has proven ineffective time and time again. Not only does it require a tremendous amount of time to have any impact at all, but it also requires the cooperation of member nations. That cooperation is rarely available, and all too often member nations seize the financial opportunity and sell banned goods and services to the nation under sanction. It's like providing an underground bread and water concession to a castle under siege. It prolongs the effort and renders the sanctions effectively useless.

Hollow threats are worthless and only undermine the UN's already tarnished credibility. It's no wonder both Iran and Syria continue to thumb their noses at the rest of the world and at the UN in particular. They are both well aware that time is on their side. They are both well aware that consensus for military action is hardly likely (although in the case of Iran I doubt the US and Israel will wait for that consensus) and they are both well aware that sanctions will be ineffective against them.

So prepare yourselves for another round of useless discussions in the UN Security Council. Meanwhile, it will be business as usual in Iran and Syria. When - or rather if - any resolution does pass against those nations, just put it in the pile in the corner with the rest of them. Six resolutions are as easy to ignore as five.

Technorati: politics news Syria Iran UN Security Council Hariri sanctions
IceRocket: politics news Syria Iran UN Security Council Hariri sanctions

Russia To Abstain on Iran

The US has secured Russia's assurance that they will not block an IAEA resolution to refer Iran to the UN Security Council. This agreement removes a major hurdle in moving the Iranian nuclear issue forward on the world stage, although no such agreement has yet been reached with China. (Washington Post: Russia Won't Block U.S. on Iran).

The agreement with Russia does not extend to any votes in the Security Council, however, indicating that a strongly worded resolution that invokes Chapter 7 (authorizing the use of force) would likely meet strong resistance. The current tact being taken by the US, France, Germany, and Great Britain is to transfer the issue from the IAEA to the Security Council and then to impose UN sanctions on Iran unless that nation halts all efforts to procure nuclear technology.

This now becomes a race between Iran's nuclear research, the ability to bring any meaningful resolution through the UN, the ability for economic sanctions to have any impact, and the ability to bring a use of force resolution through the council. If it were a horse race, my money would be on Iran's research far outpacing any of the other steps. This slow-motion crawl through the UN process most certainly works in Iran's favor.

Consider the amount of time Iraq resolutions took tow work their way through the security council. Economic sanctions had been in place for twelve years before any use of force resolution went through, and even after 1441 was approved (which authorized the use of force in Iraq) there was still debate as to whether additional resolutions should be imposed. The world cannot afford to wait for this process to play out with regards to Iran.

Nothing that is happening on the world stage right now will deter Iran. Russia's IAEA agreement is relatively meaningless since we technically do not need IAEA support to raise the Iranian issue in the Security Council. We also know that the real opposition will be there, not in the IAEA, and Russia has not agreed to step aside when the matter comes up there.

Russia clearly has its own interests at stake in this venture, too. Several times, Russia has floated propositions that would allow Iran to obtain enriched uranium from facilities operating on Russian soil. I seriously doubt Russia plans to donate those services. With a financial interest on the table, Russia is certainly going to do whatever it takes to steer the security council towards a resolution that would entice Iran to accept their proposal. They have absolutely no incentive to do any more than shuffle their feet and delay any meaningful resolutions that could surface at the UN.

Iran and the rest of the world need to learn that we are serious about preventing them from obtaining nuclear technology. Iran's uranium enrichment site in Isfahan is above ground and relatively isolated. Take it out. Now. That's the only way we're going to get their attention and potentially prevent an all-out war with Iran. It is also in our best interests to do this before Israel does. We don't have the luxury of waiting months for the process to be watered down in its slow crawl through the UN. Take action now, eliminate the above ground sites, and then put strict controls into preventing Iran from continuing their program elsewhere. It's time to prove that we're serious about preventing this proliferation.

Technorati: politics news Iran Russia IAEA UN
IceRocket: politics news Iran Russia IAEA UN

Afghan's Overwhelmingly Support US

An independent non-partisan poll conducted by the University of Maryland's Program on International Policy Attitudes showed overwhelming support for US efforts in Afghanistan. 5 out of 6 people polled expressed a positive view of the US military and President Karzai enjoys a 93% approval rating. Perhaps the most surprising aspect of the poll was a 90% disapproval rating for both the Taliban and Osama bin Laden. (VOA: Afghan Poll: Big Support for US Military Presence).

What the poll demonstrates is the overwhelming success of US policy in the region. Four years after the US went to war in Afghanistan to oust the Taliban and disrupt and destroy al Qaeda's terror cells operating in that region, Afghanistan is now experiencing the fruits of their first successful democratic elections. Afghan women have new-found freedoms including the right to vote and a right to an education. While pockets of Taliban resistance remain, the war of public opinion appears to have been won.

Bin Laden's loss of support in that nation cannot be overlooked, either. Just four years after local warlords helped him escape the trap laid by Operation Anaconda, bin Laden is now a hated figure in the region. The policy of making al Qaeda homeless is succeeding. Assuming he's still alive - and that is not necessarily a valid assumption, given his silence for more than a year - bin Laden has lost a significant refuge that sustained him through three US presidential administrations.

What will be interesting to watch is the impact this has on neighboring Pakistan and Iran. Pakistan was once a staunch supporter of the Taliban, and there is still popular support there for al Qaeda. Of course, Pakistan has yet to experience the wave of freedoms that are sweeping through Afghanistan.

The same holds true for Iran where there is an undercurrent of support for western ideas and western culture among the more educated youth; a youth already chafing to get out from under the thumb of the very restrictive religious regime that has controlled Iran since the Islamic Revolution.

The fruits planted by the US in the war on terror, both in Afghanistan and Iraq will take some time to grow to maturity, however they most certainly are growing. Our policies in that region are proving successful, our enemies are growing increasingly isolated. While I'm sure there are those that will attempt to paint a negative spin on this, as is typical whenever US policy appears successful, the facts remain that there are now two more democratic societies in the Muslim world than there were pre-9/11. 2006 will be most interesting since the next battle grounds in this war on terror are shaping up to be Iran and Syria, both of whom are doing their best to antagonize the rest of the world.


Technorati: politics news Afghanistan Iran Bin Laden Iraq Pakistan
IceRocket: politics news Afghanistan Iran Bin Laden Iraq Pakistan

Belafonte Gives Aid and Comfort to the Enemy

Harry Belafonte, traveling with his misguided posse of Hollywood misfits, met with Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez yesterday. During Chavez's televised speech on Sunday, Belafonte trashed most aspects of American life. Said the aging singer, "No matter what the greatest tyrant in the world, the greatest terrorist in the world, George W. Bush says, we're here to tell you: Not hundreds, not thousands, but millions of the American people ... support your [Chavez's] revolution." (Seattle Post-Intelligencer: Belafonte calls Bush 'greatest terrorist').

Millions support Chavez's socialist revolution? It would be interesting to see Belafonte name two outside of the idiots traveling with him. Unfortunately, Belafonte and his ilk have easy access to the media and they enjoy playing to the cameras. Harry Belafonte and Pat Robertson represent both sides of the same coin - a coin that should have been recycled or discarded a decade ago.

What part of "giving aid and comfort to the enemy" does Belafonte not understand? It was precisely this type of unAmerican rhetoric that prompted the wave of McCarthyism in the 1950s. People like Belafonte, people that hate everything this country stands for, are a cancer in our society. They don't represent the values of free speech, they represent irresponsible speech. They represent a fringe element that exploit the freedoms in a nation they apparently loath, and given their easy access to the microphone, they provide ammunition to repressive dictators like Chavez who put the Belafontes and Fondas of the world out on display like last year's trophies.

Call it free speech if you want, but I don't buy it. People like Belafonte are enemies to the US. They do not deserve to be traveling overseas on an American passport. In fact, I view it as hypocritical of them to claim to be US citizens while constantly trashing everything this country stands for. Of course, I also find it extremely hypocritical of most of Hollywood everytime one of these prima donnas claims to be a socialist while raking in millions for their latest movie. People like Belafonte sicken me. Where's Joe when you really need him?

Technorati: politics news Belafonte Harry Belafonte Chavez Venezuela
IceRocket: politics news Belafonte Harry Belafonte Chavez Venezuela

Iran Calls West's Bluff

Iran announced that they will remove the IAEA seals from their nuclear research facilities on Monday, pledging to restart research that had been suspended for almost two years. The removal of the seals is in direct violation of UN regulations, and has prompted yet another round of warnings form the West. (Reuters: Iran to remove U.N. seals at atomic research sites).

While on the surface, the issue of Iran's nuclear research would appear to be a staring contest between Israel and the rest of the Middle East, the undercurrent in the entire dispute is the authority and credibility of the UN. The crisis with Iran has been ongoing for almost two years and we are no further along today than we were in early 2004. The UN has been powerless for that entire period, stymied by weak resolutions and delaying tactics forced primarily by Russia.

To date there are no resolutions that threaten Iran with military action. On the contrary, every resolution passed to date has tiptoed gracefully around the topic, only threatening further resolutions if Iran does not comply. Describing the current set of resolutions as useless seems too much of an understatement. Iran has already thumbed its nose at the UN with removal of some seals earlier this year. Now they are prepared to go the rest of the way, removing the remainder of the seals and restarting their research. When will the UN get the message? When will the UN actually show some backbone and actually enforce their own regulations and directives?

The credibility of the UN is on the line. The organization has historically proven impotent in the face of these challenges, but if ever there's a time for them to grow a spine it's now. A nuclear equipped Iran is the greatest threat to peace the world has ever faced. No, that's not being a sensationalist, it's being realistic. A nuclear equipped Iran guarantees war with Israel - a war that would involve all of the Middle East. The likelihood of that being a nuclear conflict is extremely high. It's a war Israel cannot afford to lose and they will most certainly take ever measure to see that they prevail. Such a war will certainly involve the US and our allies. It may well involve Russia, though which side they'd be on is anyone's guess.

So where is the UN in all this? It's been months since the UN addressed the issue and there are no sanctions scheduled for debate. They've been conspicuously silent. Again, the stumbling block is Russia. What needs to happen immediately is clear. Sanctions including the threat of military action must be introduced - and approved - in the UN Security Council immediately. The US must begin Predator overflights of Iran's key military installations. Iran doesn't have the ability to hit the Predators and it will send a stern warning that military action is imminent. Our B52 and B2 bombers are already forward deployed in Diego Garcia, however it would be worthwhile to make a public show of their readiness. Finally, US troops should be positioned near the Iranian borders both in Iraq and in Afghanistan. The only way to convince Iran to halt their nuclear activities is to convince them military action is imminent. Until they believe that, they will continue to defy the UN and the IAEA. Every day we do nothing brings us that much closer to war. It's time to convince Iran that we're serious.

Technorati: politics news Iran IAEA UN nuclear
IceRocket: politics news Iran IAEA UN nuclear

Robertson Comments Offensive To All

Once again, the White House has had to publicly condemn the remarks of television evangelist Pat Robertson after the religious extremists made inflammatory comments regarding the medical condition of Ariel Sharon. (CNN: Robertson suggests God smote Sharon).

Robertson made his ridiculous remarks on the 700 Club, saying, "He [Sharon] was dividing God's land, and I would say, 'Woe unto any prime minister of Israel who takes a similar course to appease the [European Union], the United Nations or the United States of America.' God says, 'This land belongs to me, and you'd better leave it alone.'"

This is the third in a recent string of embarrassing comments made by the aging evangelist. Earlier, he had suggested that Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez should be assassinated. That prompted a series of statements from the White House distancing themselves from Robertson's public pronouncements. Following a series of hurricanes that plagued the East Coast, Robertson then claimed that towns should not turn to God if they had rejected Intelligent Design since God would refuse to hear their prayers.

Robertson is increasingly an embarrassment for conservative Republicans, and if nothing else, he provides constant ammunition for those that would portray all conservatives as religious "wing nuts". The fact is, Robertson does not speak for the Republican Party, he does not speak for the Bush Administration, and he has no more political sway among conservatives than does Phil Donahue among the Democrats. Even to members of the Religious Right - and I consider myself to be a very conservative Christian - Pat Robertson is nothing more than a vocal crackpot with a TV show. The folks taking this guy seriously are the same ones reporting Elvis sightings in the local supermarket.

I find it hard to believe that the 700 Club has much in the way of ratings, but it apparently has enough to keep it on ABC Family, TBN, and FamilyNet. I look forward to the day this crackpot is taken off the air for good. What he preaches has very little to do with Christianity and his message certainly does not represent the views of the Christian majority in the US. He's very good at selectively quoting the Bible - typically out of context - but he has no concept whatsoever as to the message being revealed in that same Bible. The man is an embarrassment for Christians everywhere. He's an embarrassment for the United States. Someone sound the gong and get this crackpot off the air. His 15 minutes are up.

Technorati: politics news Robertson Pat Robertson 700 Club Sharon Ariel Sharon
IceRocket: politics news Robertson Pat Robertson 700 Club Sharon Ariel Sharon

Won't Pledge? Revoke Citizenship

The squabble over the Pledge of Allegiance has entered my home state of Rhode Island. Coventry High School senior Joseph S. Marketos Jr has taken center stage for his refusal to stand for the Pledge of Allegiance, an act of defiance he claims started when he was in the 6th grade. According to Marketos, he doesn't believe in God, believes the minimum wage is too low, and doesn't like President Bush. Therefore, he refuses to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. (Providence Journal: Student standing up for not standing up - Projo.com requires free registration).

Not surprisingly, the ACLU - an organization founded in 1920 by card-carrying communist Roger Baldwin - has championed Marketos' case. According to Rhode Island ACLU chapter head Steven Brown, "A student's right to silently dissent form a coerced patriotic exercise like this lies at the heart of the First Amendment." Brown is technically correct. The First Amendment does grant Marketos the right not to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. I wouldn't argue with that. In fact, any pledge or oath recited under coercion is a non-binding oath in the first place. So certainly, reciting the Pledge of Allegiance should be optional.

Let's stop and look at the very title of the oath, however. It is a Pledge of Allegiance. It is an oath that we, as Americans, take that represents our allegiance to the United States of America. Anyone who refuses to pledge allegiance to the United States, by definition, effectively renounces their US citizenship. You can't have it both ways! Either you are a US citizen and therefore pledge allegiance to the United States, or you refuse to pledge allegiance and therefore are not a citizen.

Should reciting the Pledge of Allegiance be required in our schools? No, I don't believe it should. Requiring it would actually cheapen the oath itself. Rather, our schools should do a much better job of teaching what that oath means and what the Pledge signifies. What should be required, however, is a Pledge of Allegiance by every American citizen. One who refuses to pledge allegiance to this nation should - and must - be stripped of US citizenship.

Citizenship in this great nation is something too many Americans take for granted. They believe that citizenship is a right, not a privilege. They flaunt their right to free speech, while at the same time spit on the very principles that forged the document that grants Americans that right.

The Pledge of Allegiance is not about the phrase "under God." It's not about minimum wage, or whether or not you support the current president. It's about your allegiance to the United States of America. If you're not willing to make that pledge, then you are undeserving of US Citizenship.

There is an oath that is required of everyone when they become American Citizens by any method other than birth. I believe that oath should be professed by ALL Americans, not just foreign born ones. To take that Oath of Citizenship, raise your right hand and repeat after me:

I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God. In acknowledgement whereof I have hereunto affixed my signature.

Of course, that's a bit long to recite on a daily basis. Feel free to use the short form:

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands. One nation, under God, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all.

Technorati: politics news Pledge of Allegiance Oath of Citizenship ACLU Marketos Joseph Marketos
IceRocket: politics news Pledge of Allegiance Oath of Citizenship ACLU Marketos Joseph Marketos

Abramoff - A Thief's Thief

Washington lobbyist Jack Abramoff plead guilty to fraud charges stemming primarily from his purchase of SunCruz casinos. As part of his plea agreement, Abramoff is expected to finger numerous legislators on both sides of the aisle that received millions of dollars in campaign donations in exchange for legislative considerations. (Miami Herald: Abramoff pleads guilty to bogus purchase of SunCruz Casinos fleet).

Dictionary.com defines the noun "Bribe" this way:

1. Something, such as money or a favor, offered or given to a person in a position of trust to influence that person's views or conduct.

2. Something serving to influence or persuade.

Isn't this precisely what a lobbyist does? Isn't that the purpose of a lobby in the first place? Again, dictionary.com defines the verb "to lobby" as:

1. To try to influence public officials on behalf of or against (proposed legislation, for example): lobbied the bill through Congress; lobbied the bill to a negative vote.

2. To try to influence (an official) to take a desired action.

How do lobbyists do this? By making significant campaign donations on behalf of their clients. By wining and dining legislators in an attempt to influence their votes on a particular topic. By providing non-monetary perks to legislators, again with the intention of influencing their votes. The only difference between a successful lobby and a bribe is that the former is legal.

Now, in Abramoff's case, what he did certainly crossed the boundaries between legal lobby activities and criminal activities. What his actions underscore, though, is a fundamental problem with the entire concept of lobbying in the first place. As long as this system of legalized bribery is in place, large special interest groups will always have a far greater voice in our government than the people the government is allegedly in place to serve.

Eddy Murphy's satirical look at insider politics in The Distinguished Gentleman actually provides a chillingly accurate view into the corruption that surrounds everyday legislation. The voice of the people is seldom heard in Washington. Too often, it's drowned out by the roar of the lobbyist.

Right now, there's a lot of "harrumphing" by the talking heads over the Abramoff case. Analysts, in typical "The End is Near" fashion, are trumpeting the downfall of many a politician as Abramoff starts to name names. The truth is, however, nothing is going to come of this other than a stint at the government's expense by Abramoff. There is not a person in congress that has not dealt with lobbyists, and the full extent of their dealings with lobbyists is not something any congressman wants their constituents to know. The Abramoff case is going to be swept aside as fast as anything can possibly move in Washington.

Will there be any legislative changes forthcoming? Obviously not. There's no way congress is going to vote away their cash cow. So for the moment, enjoy the hoopla being generated in the media, but expect nothing other than a side-show to come of this. It's not in any legislator's best interests to modify the rules or to change the legalized bribery that occurs, and after all, it's their best interests that come before all of ours.

Technorati: politics news Abramoff
IceRocket: politics news Abramoff

Iran Moves Closer to Military Strike

Iran notified the IAEA that they were resuming uranium enrichment research, pushing the west and Israel significantly closer to a military strike against the rogue nation. (AlJazeera: Iran to resume nuclear fuel research). When asked how far Israel would go to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear technology, Sharon responded, "About 2000 miles."

The official response from ElBaradei was that the IAEA, "recalls the importance placed by the IAEA Board that Iran maintains its suspension of all enrichment-related activity as a key confidence building measure". Analysts believe Iran's announcement is the death knell of negotiations involving Germany, France, and Russia to head off the crisis.

Mohammad Saidi, the head of Iran's Atomic Energy agency stated, "In a letter, the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) has been informed that Iran will start research on the technology of nuclear fuel in a few days, with the cooperation and coordination of the agency. We think our experts have undergone lots of losses during this period (of suspension). Many of our researchers have lost their jobs." Given the increased likelihood of military strikes, the loss of jobs should now be the least of their researchers' worries.

Earlier last month, Sharon had implied that Israel could not afford to wait much beyond March before dealing with the issue of Iranian nuclear research. Given my view that it will be the US, not Israel, that strikes Iran, it would seem that time is running out for any type of diplomatic solution. One way or another, Iran will not be allowed to enrich uranium for any purpose. Whether that is enforced diplomatically or militarily is now up to Iran. So far, it would appear that they've chosen to have it enforced militarily.

Technorati: politics news Iran Israel elBaredei IAEA Saidi
IceRocket: politics news Iran Israel elBaredei IAEA Saidi

China's Economy Soars in 2005

China posted an economic growth rate of 9.8% in 2005, marking it as the sixth largest economy in the world behind Britain and France. The driving factor behind the surging growth is China's booming service sector. (Asia One: China's 2005 growth rate lifted to 9.8 percent, thanks to new survey ).

While the upswing in the Asian economy is good news for foreign investors amid rather weak economic growth in the US and recessionary pressures in Europe, this news should send shivers down the spines of environmentalists and workers in both manufacturing and service industries world-wide. What that 9.8% economic growth figure doesn't tell you is the number of service industry jobs lost in both the US and the EU as firms in first world countries outsourced those positions in an effort to reduce costs. China's gain is everyone else's loss.

Historically, China has had one of the lowest salary structures in the world, making it a very attractive target for US and European goods manufacturing. Many of the components that make up your clothing and electronics pass through China in one form or another, again thanks to the developed nations seeking lower manufacturing costs. That 9.8% growth rate in China comes at the expense of manufacturing jobs in the West.

What China does not have are comparable environmental standards for manufacturing firms, making Asia an even more enticing target. Adhering to environmental standards in the US is a tremendous economic burden on both the manufacturing and the energy sectors and, coupled with high salary and benefits requirements, is a major reason US manufacturing corporations look to move their operations overseas. It was China's lack of environmental standards and their exclusion from the Kyoto treaty that forced the US to refuse to ratify that same treaty, citing the detrimental impact it would have on the US economy.

It's important to recognize that a comparison between China's economic growth and our own is a mismatched comparison. China does not have our standard of living. It's not even close. The Chinese worker does not receive the type benefits even the minimum wage worker in the US receives. The minimum wage worker in the US also receives more per hour than the Chinese worker does in a day. China's industries are not faced with the same regulation constraints as the American counterpart. Energy costs, environmental restrictions costs, insurance costs, and licensing costs are all significantly higher in the US. It's no wonder the Chinese economy grew at such a high rate.

That high growth rate in China comes with a hefty price tag for the rest of the world, however. The loss of service and manufacturing jobs in the West will be felt for some time to come, however that loss is most noticeable only to those that were directly impacted by outsourcing. Everyone, however, can feel the crunch everytime we pull up at the pumps and see gas prices more than double what they were a year ago. The primary reason for that price surge is the amount of oil being consumed by China. Their oil consumption in the last year has grown faster than their economy, placing tremendous economic pressures on the worldwide oil supply.

Don't expect China to maintain that rate, however. The cost of energy alone is going to dampen their economic enthusiasm. So, too, will a rising standard of living. Chinese workers will begin to demand more western style benefit plans and salary structures, much as what happened in Japan and is happening now in India. As that happens, the attractiveness of the Chinese market will be begin to diminish. So where's the next economic boom? Well, Bangladesh and much of Southeast Asia look promising. So, too, is Central and South America if they are ever able to throw off the yoke Chavez has fastened around their collective necks. Unfortunately, until the effects of outsourcing force an implosion of the US and EU markets, that growth rate will not be experienced here. There are too many forces driving our jobs into the undeveloped world at the moment, and to date our Congress has done little to stop it.

Technorati: politics news China service sector economy business
IceRocket: politics news China service sector economy business

Morales Tries Balancing Act

Newly elected Bolivian President Evo Morales is visiting Cuba and Venezuela this week, further increasing US fears of a leftist leaning Latin American consortium that openly opposes US initiatives in the region. Yet, Morales is also traveling to Europe and expressed a willingness to visit the US if he were invited. (AlJazeera: Towards an 'axis of good').

Morales, a coca farmer, is at odds with US initiatives to eradicate the growth of coca in an attempt to stem the trafficking of cocaine. Yet, as Morales points out, the use of the coca plant is widespread throughout Latin America and has nothing to do with cocaine. Virtually all restaurants in Peru and Bolivia serve coca tea, a rather refreshing light tea that is said to stem the effects of altitude sickness, and most natives chew coca leaves. Morales also claims to be opposed to cocaine trafficking and points to the more common uses of coca that have nothing to do with the illegal drug.

Rebuilding - or at least maintaining - good relations with Bolivia would certainly be in our best interests. Venezuela is clearly antagonistic towards the US, and Chavez has considerable influence in the region. He successfully rallied other Latin American countries at the last summit, preventing any decision on a free trade agreement being pushed by the US. Stemming the tide of nations gravitating towards Venezuela is essential if we are to maintain good relations with South American, and Bolivia is a good starting point given Morales overtures.

If coca is the only stumbling block, and it would appear that it is, then it seems foolish to allow that trivial issue to prevent another domino from falling in Chavez's game of power. Rather, it would make more sense to ally ourselves with Morales in a campaign to prevent cocaine trafficking from Bolivia while not attempting to ban a crop that is central to the Bolivian economy. It's the end product we object to anyway, not the traditional uses for the leaf.

Gaining that foothold in Bolivia would also set the stage for a similar bid in Peru, a much larger grower of coca and also another Latin American nation that exports tons of cocaine. With Peruvian elections scheduled for later this year, we need to ensure that there is not additional momentum for another nation to fall under Chavez' sway.

Hearing Morales state that he would have visited the US had he been invited was very reminiscent of the exchange between Anwar al-Sadat and Menachem Begin that launched the 1978 peace accords between Israel and Egypt. As you may recall, Sadat was asked why he had never visited Israel and his response was simply that he had never been invited. That paved the way for mutual invitations and lead to the historic summit at Camp David.

Morales has floated the subtle offer. All it would take now is to extend the invitation. There's no harm in talking and we have all of South America to gain. Extend the invitation. It's in our best interests to do so.

Technorati: politics news Morales Evo Morales Bolivia cocaine Latin America
IceRocket: politics news Morales Evo Morales Bolivia cocaine Latin America

Russia Creates Gas Crises

As if oil supplies weren't already strained to the max, Russia has generated an artificial constraint over price squabbles with rival Ukraine that is starting to impact gas supplies in Europe. (BBC: Ukraine gas row hits EU supplies). Gazprom, the state-run Russian supplier cut pipeline delivery to the Ukraine today after they were unable to resolve politically charged price differences. That also impacted supplies to parts of the EU since they share the same pipeline.

The Ukraine currently receives 30% of its oil supplies from Russia, making it unlikely that the average Ukrainian will not be impacted during the typically harsh winter. It's also likely that prices will rise throughout the EU as they scramble to replace the oil that is not flowing to them through the Ukraine. Should this dispute linger, that will also have an impact on world-wide oil prices as other OPEC nations make up the slack.

All of this underscores the very precarious nature of the world's oil supplies. The vast majority of the world's oil is in the hands of either unstable or adversarial nations. Between the oil in the Middle East, oil in Russia, and oil in South America - primarily in Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia, and Argentina - there is a glut of oil under the control of nations that are at best US adversaries.

That our oil supply, and therefore our economy, is being juggled by our enemies should come as no surprise. The warning signs were there in the 1970s, first with the Arab Oil Embargo under President Nixon and again under the alleged Oil Shortage crisis under President Carter. Both of those energy crisis resulted in a doubling of the price of gasoline in the US, first to the $0.55 per gallon range under Nixon to as high as $1.20 per gallon under Carter. In fact, prices remained at that last level for the better part of two decades before the latest crisis again more than doubled prices.

The warning signs have been there for 35 years, but so far we have yet to learn our lesson. Still there are no serious attempts to both reduce our dependence on foreign oil and also to eliminate our dependence on petroleum products in general. For the former, we have a thirty-year supply of oil sitting beneath the Arctic yet the environmentalist lobby is still holding Congress at bay, refusing to allow us to tap that resource. That is short-sighted foolishness since at the very least it would buy us time to develop and alternate source.

As to the latter, there are very few serious plans even being discussed, and if there is serious progress being made it's a very well kept secret. Hybrid vehicles are not a solution. There's too great a dependency on both gasoline and on electrical recharging of the batteries, which also ultimately uses fossil fuels. Ethanol and soy based fuels are not a solution either. All that will do is raise the price of agricultural products while putting a strain on both our food and energy supplies the first time there's a drought. Wind or solar energy are not solutions. There's not enough of either to make a dent in the nation's energy demands. Conservation is a quaint concept, but there shouldn't be any need to reduce our standard of living or modify our lifestyle when there are viable options available to us that would meet our needs.

When it comes to the replacement of fossil fuels, the answer is hydrogen fuel cells. Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe. It's bound in virtually every substance on the planet. The supply is virtually inexhaustible. As to electrical energy demands, the solution was found decades ago. Nuclear energy has proven to be the most effective method of generating electricity given our current technology. If we can ever perfect nuclear fusion, that would be even more desirable, but for the present we must settle for the fission reactors that environmentalists are so dead set against.

It's time to get serious about our national energy crisis. It's time for congress to take action. What we need is simple, and it's a challenge I place before congress for 2006:

• Open the arctic for oil drilling. As part of that bill mandate that an alternative fuel source must be developed and in production before the end of 2031.
• Relax environmental requirements around oil refineries. Until we develop an alternate source, we must reduce the costs of refining oil in this country, and we must increase our national capacity to do so.
• Allocate significant funding towards hydrogen fuel cell research, again with a goal that we must be off the dependency on fossil fuels by 2031.
• Enable the production of more nuclear power plants, especially on the east and west coasts.

As long as we do nothing, the crisis will continue to deepen. We will continue to be at the mercy of our adversaries in the Middle East, Russia, Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia, and Argentina. We have the ability to take control of our own energy needs. The question is, do we have the will to do it?

Technorati: politics news Russia Ukraine Gazprom oil gas
IceRocket: politics news Russia Ukraine Gazprom oil gas

Justice Department Probes Leaks

The US Justice Department has opened a probe into the various leaks surrounding the release of classified surveillance programs ordered in the wake of 9/11. The latest leaks involve information regarding warrantless surveillance by the NSA as reported in the New York Times. (AlJazeera: US opens inquiry into spying leak).

White House spokesman Trent Duffy said, "The leaking of classified information is a serious issue. The fact is that al-Qaeda's playbook is not printed on page one, and when America's is, it has serious ramifications." According to Duffy, the investigation was launched independently by the Justice Department and was not ordered by the White House.

Clearly there is someone in the intelligence community that is leaking classified information to the news media, and specifically to the New York Times. Now, just as the receipt of stolen goods is illegal, so too should be the receipt of illegal information. The New York Times must not be allowed to hide behind the "Freedom of the Press" clause on this one. The rights of a free press do not extend to compromising national security. The person leaking this information is guilty of espionage against the United States and in this case the New York Times is equally guilty and must be held accountable.

Top level leaks have become commonplace of late. Investigations are still ongoing over the release of CIA Operative Valerie Plame's name. The Justice Department recently launched a probe to determine who leaked the existence of top secret CIA prisons in Europe to the Washington Post. Now the Justice Department must deal with the release of a secret NSA program to the New York Times. Wherever these leaks originate, they must be stopped and those responsible for them must be brought to justice.

It is equally important that the reporters and editors of newspapers receiving this information and choosing to print it be held just as accountable as those that leaked the information in the first place. The First Amendment does not give the press the right to publish classified information. It does not give the press the right to obtain and publish any information that endangers national security. With freedom comes responsibility, and the news media has demonstrated precious little of the latter.

There are several steps the administration should take immediately. First, the Washington Post and New York Times must be removed from the press pool that has access to government briefings. If they can't report the news responsibly, then they have no right to obtain the information first hand. Second, the reporters and editors of both papers should be subpoenaed and ordered to reveal the source of the information. Should they choose to withhold that information then both should be imprisoned until they do. There can be no tolerance at all for the release of classified information and clearly the reporters and editors know where the information originated. Lock them up until they talk.

The penalty for those releasing this information must be especially harsh. An example must be made of those that commit what amounts to an act of treason. Yes, I do consider this treason under Article III, Section III of the Constitution: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court." In this case, the release of classified information regarding anti-terror surveillance constitutes providing aid and comfort to the enemy as defined in the Constitution.

The three Justice Department investigations currently underway will be watched with interest. The apprehension of those responsible is an important part of our ongoing war on terror. Likewise, the punishment of those in the news media guilty of conspiring against our national security interests will also be required. I look forward to seeing all of them brought to justice.

Technorati: politics news NSA Justice Department surveillance leaks New York Times Washington Post
IceRocket: politics news NSA Justice Department surveillance leaks New York Times Washington Post

Outsourcing Is National Security Issue

A one-man terror style attack in Bangalore underscores the serious threat facing the US economy as American companies continue to send sensitive and mission-critical jobs to third world countries. (Time: Is Outsourcing the Next Terror Target?). What happened in Bangalore was simplicity itself from a terror attack perspective. A man walked into a conference at the Indian Institute of Science, tossed four hand-grenades into the crowd, and then opened fire with an AK-56.

In this instance, the attack was not aimed at US interests, however it did hit one of the most prestigious institutions in India and it targeted the center of India's thriving outsourcing industry. More to the point, though, is that a terror attack in India does not have to be aimed at US interests to have a devastation impact on the US economy. Neither does it have to be conducted by anti-American extremists. India has plenty of its own enemies, complete with extremist groups targeting India's infrastructure.

Information Technology is the core of all American companies, but for the financial sector it is the industry's life blood. Brokerage firms, banks, mortgage companies, and any other corporation even remotely involved in the financial industry simply cannot function without uninterrupted service to their information technology systems. Yet, these are the very companies that are sending their mission-critical technology jobs to unstable third-world companies in a misguided attempt to reduce their IT costs.

India, for its part, is the recipient of the majority of these outsourcing jobs, but in many cases they've simply become the middleman for the jobs' ultimate destination: Bangladesh. Indian companies, faced with rising costs as worker salaries rise to meet their American counterparts, are pushing those same jobs into Bangladesh because of the extremely low cost of labor in that country. What's wrong with that? Here is what the US State Department has to say about Bangladesh in a Travel Advisory issued on December 21, 2005:

An outlawed Islamist terrorist organization, Jamaatul Mujahideen Bangladesh (JMB), has taken responsibility for a series of bombings and suicide attacks in Bangladesh since August against a variety of targets. The half-dozen attacks have focused on the judicial system and local government institutions, killed approximately 30 Bangladeshis, and wounded nearly 200. JMB leaflets found at attack sites and sent to local media call for the implementation of strict Islamic law in Bangladesh, justify the use of indiscriminate suicide attacks, and condemn Western social and political concepts as un-Islamic. They also identify the governments of the United States and the United Kingdom as enemies of Islam. Newspapers and Bangladeshi non-governmental organizations, including several which receive funding from the United States Government, have received threats purportedly from JMB.

So there are Islamic extremists operating in Bangladesh that are conducting suicide attacks, condemn Western concepts, and list the US as enemies of Islam. Sure, this sounds like a great place to send our mission critical technology jobs!

A single attack in New York City on 9/11 closed the New York Stock Exchange for almost a week. Many small businesses operating in the World Trade Center never recovered, and the disaster recovery sites supporting major IT operations in the WTC were strained to the breaking point. How devastating would a targeted IT focused terror attack be in a third world country that does not have the infrastructure necessary to support large-scale recoveries?

The issue of outsourcing, especially to third-world countries, needs to be treated as a national security issue. Instead of lauding the use of outsourcing and using it as a political wedge between India and Pakistan, the Bush Administration must clamp down on this rampant threat to the US economy. Sending manufacturing jobs to countries with ultra-cheap labor is bad enough. But to send the life blood of our financial industries to unstable third world countries is absolute foolishness. Let's hope it is not a lesson we learn the hard way.

Technorati: politics news India Bangladesh Bangalore outsourcing Information Technology
IceRocket: politics news India Bangladesh Bangalore outsourcing Information Technology