Who needs Dana Perino when you have the NYT's Michael Gordon?

by Glenn Greenwald (source: Salon.com)
Monday May 5, 2008 07:23 EDT
Who needs Dana Perino when you have the NYT's Michael Gordon?


On Meet the Press yesterday during an interview with Barack Obama, Tim Russert said:

The administration, we have reported at NBC, are drawing up some plans for potential airstrikes in Iran at different missile weapons factories or special force compounds because we have indications, evidence that the Iranians are helping some of their supporters within Iraq to kill U.S. troops.

It's unclear whether the "we" in Russert's statement ("we have indications, evidence") refers to the U.S. Government or NBC News, though that distinction is essentially nonexistent. Russert didn't bother to describe this purported "evidence" leading to our planning air strikes against Iran, but he did then ask Obama: "If it could be demonstrated that was a fact, would you be in support of such limited attacks in Iran?"

Like clockwork, the administration's most stalwart surge supporter/journalist -- the New York Times' Michael Gordon -- has a lengthy article today bolstering the administration's war-justifying accusations against Iran. It claims in the lead sentence that "militants from the Lebanese group Hezbollah have been training Iraqi militia fighters at a camp near Tehran," and that "the training, the Americans say, is carried out at several camps near Tehran that are overseen by the Quds Force of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Command, and the instruction is carried out by militants from Hezbollah, which has long been supported by the Quds Force."

As usual with Gordon's articles, nothing is done here other than uncritically repeating Bush administration claims under the cover of anonymity. Virtually every paragraph in this article is nothing more a mindless recitation of uncorroborated assertions which he copies from Bush officials and then weaves into a news narrative, with the phrase "American officials say" tacked on at the end or the phrase "according to officials" unobtrusively interspersed in the middle, as in:

In a possible effort to be less obtrusive, it appears that Iran is now bringing small groups of Iraqi Shiite militants to camps in Iran, where they are taught how to do their own training, American officials say.

The militants then return to Iraq to teach comrades how to fire rockets and mortars, fight as snipers or assemble explosively formed penetrators, a particularly lethal type of roadside bomb made of Iranian components, according to American officials. The officials describe this approach as “training the trainers."

As presented, the "news" here isn't that Bush officials are making these accusations; the news, as Gordon reports it, is what the Iranians are allegedly doing, all based on anonymous, unchallenged Bush claims. It's nothing more than yet another Bush administration press release masquerading as a New York Times article on Iranian involvement in Iraq.

Worse, despite noting that "there has been debate among experts about the extent to which Iran is responsible for instability in Iraq," the article does not contain a single skeptical word about any of these accusations, nor does it quote a single "expert" who questions or disputes them. This omission is particularly glaring in light of this McClatchy article from yesterday reporting that "the Iraqi Government seemed to distance itself from U.S. accusations towards Iran," which echoes an Agence-France-Press report that "Iraq said on Sunday it has no evidence that Iran was supplying militias engaged in fierce street fighting with security forces in Baghdad." There's not a word about any of that in Gordon's article (though it does note that the Iraqi government "announced Sunday that it would conduct its own inquiry into accusations of Iranian intervention in Iraq and document any interference").

Gordon's reporting is as predictable as it is uncritical and unreliable. Any time the administration ratchets up its war-threatening rhetoric with Iran, Gordon -- who was almost as responsible as Judy Miller for some of the NYT's most dubious pre-war articles uncritically mouthing administration claims -- pops up with a prominent article that does nothing other than repeat Government claims as fact. In fact, the claims he breathlessly passes along today -- that Iran is using Hezbollah to train Iraqi militants to kill American troops inside Iraq -- are the exact same claims he uncritically "reported" in July of last year, also based exclusively on the claims of Bush officials.

As always, Gordon does all this by granting anonymity to Bush officials to recite these accusations even though (a) such anonymity plainly violates (in multiple ways) the NYT's own anonymity policy adopted in the wake of the Judy-Miller/Michael-Gordon debacle and (b) Gordon's Iran reporting has been specifically criticized by the NYT's previous Public Editor, Byron Calame, for granting anonymity to Bush officials to make accusations without any explanation as to why anonymity was granted, and Calame also criticized Gordon's "editors [because they] didn't make sure all conflicting views were always clearly reported." (Five months later -- in July, 2007 -- the current Public Editor, Clark Hoyt, also criticized Gordon's reporting (among others) for "slipp[ing] into a routine of quoting the president and the military uncritically about Al Qaeda's role in Iraq").

Yet here are the NYT and Gordon, yet again, employing exactly these same tactics to disseminate administration accusations against its current Enemy. As Calame put it back in February of 2007 while criticizing Gordon's reporting on Administration claims of Iranian involvement in Iraq:

COVERAGE of the American saber-rattling about Iranian intervention in Iraq posed an important test for The New York Times, given the paper's discredited pre-war articles about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. And it has triggered a rash of complaints from readers who believed The Times was again serving as a megaphone for the White House. . . .

The situation closely parallels the pre-war period when The Times prominently reported that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. Deeply shamed when they were not found, the paper publicly acknowledged that its coverage had been "insufficiently qualified or allowed to stand unchallenged."

The administration's war-threatening rhetoric against Iran has plainly reached new heights in the last several weeks. Whether they really intend to follow through on those threats before Bush leaves office is unclear, though some commentators with a history of insight and prescience -- such as Scott Ritter -- are convinced they will. But what is clear is that the administration has no better ally in disseminating its war-provoking accusations than Michael Gordon and his NYT Editors, for whom "reporting" consists of repeating whatever Bush officials say -- no matter how significant or dubious -- and to do so without challenge and while baselessly granting them anonymity to make their provocative accusations without accountability.

* * * * *

"The Art of the Possible" is a newly launched blog devoted to "bring[ing] together liberal and libertarian writers who agree on certain politically and morally enlightened essentials." Its writers include Jim Henley and Mona of Unqualified Offerings. They have published an interview with me this morning on an eclectic variety of topics.

UPDATE: The blog Abu Muqawama, which often has excellent coverage of the Middle East and terrorism-related issues, has an analysis of the Gordon story today (h/t Laura Rozen). They label Gordon "a good reporter" but then add this about today's article (emphasis in original):

This is the official U.S. case. Michael Gordon is a good reporter, but he is highly reliant on high-level official (anonymous) sources for stories like this. As one of Dr. iRack's trusted friends points out, Gordon "is in essence repeating a narrative that was given to him." In other words, none of this is "independent" of the information that MNF-I is likely to provide--it is the information that MNF-I is likely to provide. The danger in stories like this is the risk of creating an echo chamber that produces the illusion of outside corroboration for administration claims when they do no such thing. Instead, stories like this should be viewed as narrative "shaping" operations. Moreover, it is worth remembering that Michael Gordon has a track record here of uncritically parroting administration positions. After all, this is the same Gordon who penned many stories with his colleague Judy Miller on Iraqi WMD based on anonymous official sources--stories that were then cited as corroborating evidence by senior U.S. officials who, it turned out, were the conduits for the information in the first place.

I really don't understand how a reporter who "is in essence repeating a narrative that was given to him" by the Government; none of whose reporting in this article is "independehttp://www.blogger.com/img/gl.link.gifnt"; and whose reporting thus carries "the risk of creating an echo chamber that produces the illusion of outside corroboration for administration claims" and who "has a track record of uncritically parroting administration positions" can possibly -- at the same time -- be considered a "good reporter." Isn't all of that behavior the defining attribute of a rank government propagandist, and the very antithesis of "good reporting"?

It was this "echo chamber" behavior by Gordon that and claim that even the NYT reported that Saddam had sought to obtain aluminum tubes of the type necessary to build a centrifuge. The Government had fed Miller and Gordon that claim; they mindlessly re-printed it; and then the Government cited their "reporting" as proof that it was true. How can someone who did that -- and continues repeatedly to do it -- be anything close to a "good reporter"?

In any event, the fact that even those who consider Gordon to be a "good reporter" recognize what his work really is speaks volumes about the true function of Gordon and his NYT editors. Abu Muqawama counsels that "we should reserve at least a bit of critical judgement" about the government claims passed on by Gordon's story, but "critical judgment" of that sort would, by definition, already be built into any story by an actual "good reporter," and it is that complete lack of critical judgment which is the hallmark of Gordon's reporting.

UPDATE II: For a superb analysis of the current situation in Iraq, including the role of Iran, see this detailed piece by the always-excellent journalist Nir Rosen, who spent several years in Iraq after our invasion.

For real journalism on Iraq, watch this interview (in two 10-minute clips) of Rosen by Amy Goodman on Democracy Now from last month, after Rosen returned from his latest trip to Iraq (where he does not rely on the U.S. military to select his itinerary and herd him around):



Part 2:

Flashback: US Military Aid Went to Israel, Back to Miami, then to Colombian Druglords

Ministry probes how IDF choppers got to Colombia

By Yossi Melman, Haaretz Correspondent

The Defense Ministry is investigating a complaint that a company called Globus Aviation Ltd. was involved in a transaction in which surplus IDF helicopters ended up in Colombia, violating an agreement with the ministry. The possibility that the helicopters have ended up in the hands of criminal elements in Colombia is under investigation.

The ministry's inquiry is being conducted in cooperation with U.S. investigators, and Colombia's Defense Ministry.

Major General (res.) Yossi Ben Hannan, who heads the Defense Ministry's Defense Export branch, has asked Colombian authorities to help with the investigation of Globus Aviation and its role in the helicopters affair.

Though the transaction's origins go back several months, suspicions about possible wrongdoing arose two weeks ago. Globus Aviation received permission from the Defense Ministry to purchase five DM-500 helicopters that were in IDF surplus. The helicopters were made in America, and they were delivered to the Israel Air Force as part of U.S. defense assistance to Israel.

The IAF removed them from active service, and the choppers were put under Defense Ministry authority, for sale as IDF surplus. Globus Aviation, owned by Gabi Meidar, signed a contract to purchase the choppers for $100,000 apiece.

Under the terms of the agreement with the Defense Ministry, Globus Aviation was to sell the helicopters via a Canadian intermediary to purchasers who would use them for fire-fighting in Spain's Catalonia region; alternatively, the helicopters were to end up with the federal police in Mexico.

At one stage, Globus Aviation received permission to turn the helicopters into civilian aircraft; once they were revamped for civilian purposes, Globus Aviation transferred the helicopters to Miami, and their shipping invoice states that they were destined for Vera Cruz, Mexico.

But the helicopters ended up in the possession of a Colombian company called Aviel. Not long ago, U.S. Federal Aviation Administration officials turned to Israel with an inquiry about the choppers, asking why they have ended up in Colombia.

Senior Israel Defense Ministry officials have expressed concern that the sale of U.S.-manufactured helicopters to Colombian purchasers, without American consent, could harm defense relations between Jerusalem and Washington. Such tensions could compound existing problems that surfaced in recent years from other misunderstandings and affairs involving the use or sale of military items.

A Defense Ministry spokesperson corroborated the facts in the case of the five helicopters, but she stressed that "all the documents presented to the Defense Ministry were appropriate and confirmed," which is why the case is now under investigation after the helicopters ended up in Colombia.

As part of the inquiry, Yossi Ben Hannan has already met with Meidar, who apparently is arguing that once the helicopters were converted to civilian use and certified as civilian craft by the Defense Ministry, their sale was no longer a military matter. Ra'anan Har-Zahav, Meidar's attorney, told Haaretz: "Gabi Meidar is not a party to a sale of the helicopters that involves the Defense Ministry. Signatures for the sale involved a Canadian company and the Defense Ministry ... Meidar has done all that he can to help the Defense Ministry clarify how the helicopters were moved to Colombia."

Link

U.S. Seeks Enhanced Financial Authority for 'Federal' Reserve

U.S. seeks enhanced financial authority for Fed

WASHINGTON, March 28 (Reuters) - The U.S. Treasury Department will propose on Monday that the Federal Reserve be given sweeping new powers that would make it chief regulator with authority to require actions to ensure market stability.

An executive summary of the proposals published by the New York Times, which Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson will make public on Monday when he unveils a blueprint for regulatory overhaul, says it is vital to fix "regulatory gaps and redundancies" exposed by an ongoing subprime mortgage crisis.

Lax regulation has been widely blamed for permitting a flood of inadequately documented loans to be made during the boom years of a U.S. housing market that has since soured and now threatens to drag the economy into a deep recession.

The proposals say a "market stability regulator" is needed and the Fed best fits that role, suggesting the central bank could use its control over interest rates as well as its ability to provide market liquidity to fulfil its functions.

It proposes that the Fed be given broad authority to require information from all participants in financial markets and a right to collaborate with other regulators in writing the rules that companies and institutions must follow. For a factbox on the proposed overhaul, click on [ID:SP266640]

NEW FED POWERS

If the Fed finds that the actions of some market participants pose risks for the overall financial system or the economy, "the Federal Reserve should have authority to require corrective action to address current risks or to constrain future risk-taking," the summary said.

Among other recommendations, Treasury suggests merging the Securities and Exchange Commission, the U.S. markets watchdog, with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission that oversees the activities of the futures market.

It also recommends getting rid of a Depression-era charter for thrifts that was intended to make it easier to obtain mortgage loans, saying it is no longer necessary. That would mean closing up the Office of Thrift Supervision and transferring its duties to the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency that oversees national banks.

It urges setting up a "Mortgage Origination Commission" made up of regulatory agency representatives that would be able to set licensing standards for mortgage brokers.

Brokers were blamed for steering many Americans into mortgage loans that carried low initial "teaser" rates that lasted only a few years before resetting at higher levels with consequently costlier monthly payments.

New York Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer, who chairs the congressional Joint Economic Committee, said in a statement on Friday night that Paulson was "on the money when he calls for a more unified regulatory structure".

Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke is scheduled to testify next Wednesday about the economy's condition and will face questioning about the U.S. central bank's willingness to step up as a super-regulator.

Treasury said it has been working on its proposals since March last year, well before calls for an overhaul began to intensify in the wake of the subprime mortgage crisis that began to wreak havoc last summer on financial markets.

Paulson had signalled some of the direction the proposals would take earlier this week when he said that since the Fed had taken the exceptional step of permitting investment banks access to its discount window for loans -- the first time it has done so for any financial entities besides commercial banks since the 1930s -- it should have some authority over the investment banks.

ACCESS BRINGS RULES

"Certainly any regular access to the discount window should involve the same type of regulation and supervision," he said in a speech to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Another proposal would provide an option for insurance companies to obtain a charter to do business under federal regulation, though it says the current state-based system would continue for any that did not get a federal charter.

Most of the financial services industry in the United States is regulated by federal authorities except insurance, which the states supervise. For years, big insurance companies, however, have been calling for an optional federal charter.

The chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, Democratic Rep. Barney Frank, last week said Congress should seriously consider giving a federal agency the power to monitor all risk in the financial system and act when necessary, regardless of its corporate form.

Frank suggested one possibility would be to empower the fed as "Financial Services Risk Regulator," an idea that Treasury's proposals appear to broadly embrace.

Many analysts and some Treasury officials have said they don't expect recommendations made during the current administration to become law but hope it will be used a springboard for the next resident of the White House. (Reporting by John Poirier and Glenn Somerville; Editing by Louise Heavens)

Link

Video Shows Feds Firing On Ed Brown's Dog Walker Last Summer

Video Shows Feds Firing On Ed Brown's Dog Walker Last Summer



A newly released video has corroborated the account of Danny Riley, a supporter of income tax protesters Ed and Elaine Brown, who claimed that he was fired at by US federal agents hiding in the woods outside the Brown's New Hampshire home last Summer.

Infowars and Prisonplanet extensively covered the events in Plainfield, N.H. last year, where Ed and Elaine Brown remained in their home for months, refusing to face trial and subsequent conviction on charges of non-payment of income taxes.

The couple were arrested peacefully last August, after the long stand off, when agents infiltrated the property posing as supporters.

The new video, shot by the feds on June 7th, shows men in full jungle camouflage gear, lining the approach to the Brown's driveway as Riley approaches walking their dog.

Full Article HERE

Unfair Dealing: "Homegrown Terrorism" of Toronto 18 Was a Black Op

Unfair Dealing



Shocking facts about alleged “homegrown terrorism” in Toronto are revealed for the first time in a new and independent documentary.

The film, entitled “Unfair Dealing”, is the creation of Toronto-area broadcaster David Weingarten. “Unfair Dealing” examines the ongoing case of 18 mostly Muslim Canadians, arrested during the summer of 2006 and accused of plotting to detonate fertilizer-bombs in Southern Ontario. The film contains exclusive interviews with:

Tariq Abdelhaleem, father of suspect Shareef Abdelhaleem
Ken Kerr, witness and neighbour of the warehouse which received the bomb-making materials, or ammonium nitrate
QUOTE: “Any features we’ve seen on this particular topic are pretty biased,” says writer and narrator David Weingarten. “They unfairly paint the suspects a shade of guilty.”

“We’ve created a film that looks at the suspects the way they’re supposed to be looked at in a free and just society – innocent until proven guilty.”

“Our documentary serves as a comprehensive guide to how this case developed into what it has.”

“Unfair Dealing” also examines some of the controversial evidence and facts involved in the ongoing case of alleged “homegrown terrorism”, including:

The fact that federal MP Wajid Kahn was instrumental in surveillance of the suspects
The fact that one paid informants degree in ‘agricultural engineering’ gave him - and only him - the capability to buy the alleged bomb-making fertilizer
The fact that the warehouse which received the bomb-making materials is within 500 meters of the RCMP detachment in Newmarket, Ontario, at 1228 Gorham St., Unit 6
The allegation that the RCMP secured the rental of the warehouse - not the suspects - according to an exclusive interview with Ken Kerr of 1228 Gorham Street, as told to him by the warehouse co-owner, Robert Lassaline. This allegation challenges Crown documents stating that Shareef Abdelhaleem was the one to secure rental of the warehouse
The well-documented history of RCMP and CSIS dirty-trick tactics and staged operations (Phony FLQ Manifesto, Barn-Burning, Operation Bricole, Operation Ham, Operation Kabriole, Project Thread, Etc…)
QUOTE: “As we have seen in the taser-death of Robert Dziekanski, and during the RCMP dirty-tricks campaign at the SPP Montebello protests in Quebec, citizen-journalism has the potential to break news and information, and command political attention in the form of inquiries and investigations” says writer and narrator David Weingarten. “This film highlights some of the little-known facts about an extremely important case that is likely to remain in the courts for years. It really is something the public needs to see.”

Contact information for David Weingarten: Unfair.Dealing@Gmail.com

Tibet, the 'Great Game' and the CIA

Tibet, the 'great game' and the CIA
By Richard M Bennett

Given the historical context of the unrest in Tibet, there is reason to believe Beijing was caught on the hop with the recent demonstrations for the simple reason that their planning took place outside of Tibet and that the direction of the protesters is similarly in the hands of anti-Chinese organizers safely out of reach in Nepal and northern India.

Similarly, the funding and overall control of the unrest has also been linked to Tibetan spiritual leader the Dalai Lama, and by inference to the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) because of his close cooperation with US intelligence for over 50 years.

Indeed, with the CIA's deep involvement with the Free Tibet Movement and its funding of the suspiciously well-informed Radio Free Asia, it would seem somewhat unlikely that any revolt could have been planned or occurred without the prior knowledge, and even perhaps the agreement, of the National Clandestine Service (formerly known as the Directorate of Operations) at CIA headquarters in Langley.

Respected columnist and former senior Indian Intelligence officer, B Raman, commented on March 21 that "on the basis of available evidence, it was possible to assess with a reasonable measure of conviction" that the initial uprising in Lhasa on March 14 "had been pre-planned and well orchestrated".

Could there be a factual basis to the suggestion that the main beneficiaries to the death and destruction sweeping Tibet are in Washington? History would suggest that this is a distinct possibility.

The CIA conducted a large scale covert action campaign against the communist Chinese in Tibet starting in 1956. This led to a disastrous bloody uprising in 1959, leaving tens of thousands of Tibetans dead, while the Dalai Lama and about 100,000 followers were forced to flee across the treacherous Himalayan passes to India and Nepal.

The CIA established a secret military training camp for the Dalai Lama's resistance fighters at Camp Hale near Leadville, Colorado, in the US. The Tibetan guerrillas were trained and equipped by the CIA for guerrilla warfare and sabotage operations against the communist Chinese.

The US-trained guerrillas regularly carried out raids into Tibet, on occasions led by CIA-contract mercenaries and supported by CIA planes. The initial training program ended in December 1961, though the camp in Colorado appears to have remained open until at least 1966.

The CIA Tibetan Task Force created by Roger E McCarthy, alongside the Tibetan guerrilla army, continued the operation codenamed ST CIRCUS to harass the Chinese occupation forces for another 15 years until 1974, when officially sanctioned involvement ceased.

McCarthy, who also served as head of the Tibet Task Force at the height of its activities from 1959 until 1961, later went on to run similar operations in Vietnam and Laos.

By the mid-1960s, the CIA had switched its strategy from parachuting guerrilla fighters and intelligence agents into Tibet to establishing the Chusi Gangdruk, a guerrilla army of some 2,000 ethnic Khamba fighters at bases such as Mustang in Nepal.

This base was only closed down in 1974 by the Nepalese government after being put under tremendous pressure by Beijing.
After the Indo-China War of 1962, the CIA developed a close relationship with the Indian intelligence services in both training and supplying agents in Tibet.

Kenneth Conboy and James Morrison in their book The CIA's Secret War in Tibet disclose that the CIA and the Indian intelligence services cooperated in the training and equipping of Tibetan agents and special forces troops and in forming joint aerial and intelligence units such as the Aviation Research Center and Special Center.

This collaboration continued well into the 1970s and some of the programs that it sponsored, especially the special forces unit of Tibetan refugees which would become an important part of the Indian Special Frontier Force, continue into the present.

Only the deterioration in relations with India which coincided with improvements in those with Beijing brought most of the joint CIA-Indian operations to an end.

Though Washington had been scaling back support for the Tibetan guerrillas since 1968, it is thought that the end of official US backing for the resistance only came during meetings between president Richard Nixon and the Chinese communist leadership in Beijing in February 1972.

Victor Marchetti, a former CIA officer has described the outrage many field agents felt when Washington finally pulled the plug, adding that a number even "[turned] for solace to the Tibetan prayers which they had learned during their years with the Dalai Lama".

The former CIA Tibetan Task Force chief from 1958 to 1965, John Kenneth Knaus, has been quoted as saying, "This was not some CIA black-bag operation." He added, "The initiative was coming from ... the entire US government."

In his book Orphans of the Cold War, Knaus writes of the obligation Americans feel toward the cause of Tibetan independence from China. Significantly, he adds that its realization "would validate the more worthy motives of we who tried to help them achieve this goal over 40 years ago. It would also alleviate the guilt some of us feel over our participation in these efforts, which cost others their lives, but which were the prime adventure of our own."

Despite the lack of official support it is still widely rumored that the CIA were involved, if only by proxy, in another failed revolt in October 1987, the unrest that followed and the consequent Chinese repression continuing till May 1993.

The timing for another serious attempt to destabilize Chinese rule in Tibet would appear to be right for the CIA and Langley will undoubtedly keep all its options open.

China is faced with significant problems, with the Uighur Muslims in Xinjiang province; the activities of the Falun Gong among many other dissident groups and of course growing concern over the security of the Summer Olympic Games in August.

China is viewed by Washington as a major threat, both economic and military, not just in Asia, but in Africa and Latin America as well.

The CIA also views China as being "unhelpful" in the "war on terror", with little or no cooperation being offered and nothing positive being done to stop the flow of arms and men from Muslim areas of western China to support Islamic extremist movements in Afghanistan and Central Asian states.

To many in Washington, this may seem the ideal opportunity to knock the Beijing government off balance as Tibet is still seen as China's potential weak spot.

The CIA will undoubtedly ensure that its fingerprints are not discovered all over this growing revolt. Cut-outs and proxies will be used among the Tibetan exiles in Nepal and India's northern border areas.

Indeed, the CIA can expect a significant level of support from a number of security organizations in both India and Nepal and will have no trouble in providing the resistance movement with advice, money and above all, publicity.

However, not until the unrest shows any genuine signs of becoming an open revolt by the great mass of ethnic Tibetans against the Han Chinese and Hui Muslims will any weapons be allowed to appear.

Large quantities of former Eastern bloc small arms and explosives have been reportedly smuggled into Tibet over the past 30 years, but these are likely to remain safely hidden until the right opportunity presents itself.

The weapons have been acquired on the world markets or from stocks captured by US or Israeli forces. They have been sanitized and are deniable, untraceable back to the CIA.

Weapons of this nature also have the advantage of being interchangeable with those used by the Chinese armed forces and of course use the same ammunition, easing the problem of resupply during any future conflict.

Though official support for the Tibetan resistance ended 30 years ago, the CIA has kept open its lines of communications and still funds much of the Tibetan Freedom movement.

So is the CIA once again playing the "great game" in Tibet?

It certainly has the capability, with a significant intelligence and paramilitary presence in the region. Major bases exist in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan and several Central Asian states.

It cannot be doubted that it has an interest in undermining China, as well as the more obvious target of Iran.

So the probable answer is yes, and indeed it would be rather surprising if the CIA was not taking more than just a passing interest in Tibet. That is after all what it is paid to do.

Since September 11, 2001, there has been a sea-change in US Intelligence attitudes, requirements and capabilities. Old operational plans have been dusted off and updated. Previous assets re-activated. Tibet and the perceived weakness of China's position there will probably have been fully reassessed.

For Washington and the CIA, this may seem a heaven-sent opportunity to create a significant lever against Beijing, with little risk to American interests; simply a win-win situation.

The Chinese government would be on the receiving end of worldwide condemnation for its continuing repression and violation of human rights and it will be young Tibetans dying on the streets of Lhasa rather than yet more uniformed American kids.

The consequences of any open revolt against Beijing, however, are that once again the fear of arrest, torture and even execution will pervade every corner of both Tibet and those neighboring provinces where large Tibetan populations exist, such as Gansu, Qinghai and Sichuan.

And the Tibetan Freedom movement still has little likelihood of achieving any significant improvement in central Chinese policy in the long run and no chance whatever of removing its control of Lhasa and their homeland.

Once again it would appear that the Tibetan people will find themselves trapped between an oppressive Beijing and a manipulative Washington.

Beijing sends in the heavies
The fear that the United States, Britain and other Western states may try to portray Tibet as another Kosovo may be part of the reason why the Chinese authorities reacted as if faced with a genuine mass revolt rather than their official portrayal of a short-lived outbreak of unrest by malcontents supporting the Dalai Lama.

Indeed, so seriously did Beijing view the situation that a special security coordination unit, the 110 Command Center, has been established in Lhasa with the primary objective of suppressing the disturbances and restoring full central government control.

The center appears to be under the direct control of Zhang Qingli, first secretary of the Tibet Party and a President Hu Jintao loyalist. Zhang is also the former Xinjiang deputy party secretary with considerable experience in counter-terrorism operations in that region.

Others holding important positions in Lhasa are Zhang Xinfeng, vice minister of the Central Public Security Ministry and Zhen Yi, deputy commander of the People's Armed Police Headquarters in Beijing.

The seriousness with which Beijing is treating the present unrest is further illustrated by the deployment of a large number of important army units from the Chengdu Military Region, including brigades from the 149th Mechanized Infantry Division, which acts as the region's rapid reaction force.

According to a United Press International report, elite ground force units of the People's Liberation Army were involved in Lhasa, and the new T-90 armored personnel carrier and T-92 wheeled armored vehicles were deployed. According to the report, China has denied the participation of the army in the crackdown, saying it was carried out by units of the armed police. "Such equipment as mentioned above has never been deployed by China's armed police, however."

Air support is provided by the 2nd Army Aviation Regiment, based at Fenghuangshan, Chengdu, in Sichuan province. It operates a mix of helicopters and STOL transports from a frontline base near Lhasa. Combat air support could be quickly made available from fighter ground attack squadrons based within the Chengdu region.
The Xizang Military District forms the Tibet garrison, which has two mountain infantry units; the 52nd Brigade based at Linzhi and the 53rd Brigade at Yaoxian Shannxi. These are supported by the 8th Motorized Infantry Division and an artillery brigade at Shawan, Xinjiang.

Tibet is also no longer quite as remote or difficult to resupply for the Chinese army. The construction of the first railway between 2001 and 2007 has significantly eased the problems of the movement of large numbers of troops and equipment from Qinghai onto the ruggehttp://www.blogger.com/img/gl.link.gifd Tibetan plateau.

Other precautions against a resumption of the long-term Tibetan revolts of previous years has led to a considerable degree of self-sufficiency in logistics and vehicle repair by the Tibetan garrison and an increasing number of small airfields have been built to allow rapid-reaction units to gain access to even the most remote areas.

The Chinese Security Ministry and intelligence services had been thought to have a suffocating presence in the province and indeed the ability to detect any serious protest movement and suppress resistance.

Richard M Bennett, intelligence and security consultant

American Drug War - the film

American Drug War

The War on Drugs has become the longest and most costly war in American history, the question has become, how much more can the country ...endure? Inspired by the death of four family members from "legal drugs", Texas filmmaker Kevin Booth sets out to discover why the Drug War has become such a big failure. Three and a half years in the making, the film follows gang members, former DEA agents, CIA officers, narcotics officers, judges, politicians, prisoners and celebrities. Most notably the film befriends Freeway Ricky Ross; the man many accuse for starting the Crack epidemic, who after being arrested discovered that his cocaine source had been working for the CIA. AMERICAN DRUG WAR shows how money, power and greed have corrupted not just dope fiends but an entire government. More importantly, it shows what can be done about it.