In the wake of General McChrystal’s firing, supporters of his counterinsurgency strategy have shifted to the blame game. Their target? US Ambassador to Afghanistan Karl Eikenberry. But is Eikenberry really at fault, or has he been right all along?

Blackwater has been THE mercenary outfit of choice by the Bush – Cheney Whitehouse to conduct operations in the Global War on Terror.
Recently the Justice department and FBI discovered Blackwater had committed unjustified homicides or perhaps outright assassinations in conjunction with the CIA under Dick Cheney’s orders.

Furthermore, Blackwater paid millions in bribes to local officials to remain silent after a bloody massacre of civilians in Iraq.
Now, Erik Prince is moving to United Arab Emirates, a country with no extradition policy with the U.S. coming on the heels of further investigations.
You’d think this company would never get another dime from the State Department.
You’d be wrong.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton is reportedly asking foreign leaders to ‘dial down’ their criticism of Israel for its horrendous high-seas attack on civilian vessels carrying humanitarian aid to the Gazan ghetto.

The problem in Afghanistan is not picking the right or wrong counterinsurgency strategy, but picking any military strategy at all.

Don’t you wonder who named the TEA citizenship-stripping bill, Joe Lieberman or his co-sponsor Scott Brown?

It’s been almost three weeks now since I wrote about the U.S. decision to revoke the visa of prominent Irish anti-renditions activist Edward Horgan, and not much has changed. The revocation came only a month before Dr. Horgan was slated to visit the United States to attend a major conference at Duke University on the battle against the government’s use of extraordinary rendition. What does the Obama administration fear from the presence of Dr. Horgan? If there is fear, it is on the side of those who politically oppose U.S. policies, and see the revocation of Horgan’s visa as political retribution against policy critics.

Foreign policy can be a minefield. Worse there is no choice but to tap-dance your way through it. Take the case of Turkey and Armenia. During the run up to World War I the Ottoman Empire (the predecessor of the modern Turkish state) killed somewhere in the neighborhood of 1.5 of their Armenian subjects. This, by any standard you would like to name is a genocide.

The current Turkish government, like all the previous ones, is not willing to call it that. They say it was not nearly the numbers; that there were many Turks killed as well; that even if the numbers are right it was never the policy of the government to do it. All these are pretty weak excuses, but they are what the Turkish government gives.

This leaves the United States is a bit of trick bag. Turkey is a an ally, during the Cold War their presence in NATO was a strong bulwark against the Soviet Union. On the other hand the United States has a moderately good record of at least calling genocide for what it is (when it comes to acting on that acknowledgment, we have a far worse record).

This makes recognition of the Armenian genocide a really touchy issue. We want to have some kind of credibility in the world when it comes to genocide, but sticking our thumb in the eye of a valued ally for acts committed nearly 100 years ago is not exactly the way to keep that ally well disposed towards us.

The fourth in this multi-part series covers the present situation in Honduras, including the internal forces and the forces at work in Latin America. The fifth section will provide conclusions and predictions.

This, the second of a multi-part series on the Honduran coup against Manuel Zelaya, seeks to understand how it was viewed by both supporters and opponents of Zelaya, develop a clear timeline of events, and examine the legal issues, including both Honduran and international law. While conclusions are left to the final section, this analysis does make it clear that the removal of Zelaya violated the Honduran Constitution, which was the threshold event triggering international involvement.

The expulsion of President Zelaya of Honduras and the “politics of destruction” deployed against Bill Clinton both represented illegitimate attempts to remove popular progressive political leaders. In each case, a few very wealthy men employed a campaign of defamation, amplified by media under their influence or control, to weaken the Executive. The attacks were characterized by wild accusations against the Presidents of involvement in drugs, financial crimes, and lust for power, as well as by a tone of exaggerated anti-communism.