No silent nights in the Holy Land this winter

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7801657.stm

We know that Israel and Hamas-controlled Gaza have been hostile for some time over cross-border rocket fire, embargo, and retaliatory attacks. Israel, the US, and Fatah have done all they can to oust Hamas, yet they doggedly continue to hold power (could it be that some suffering Gazans actually prefer them to the corrupt Western crony alternatives?). Tired of the bloodshed that seems to accomplish nothing, Israel and Hamas agreed to a truce in June that persisted more-or-less violence-free until December. But now hostilities have resumed, with Hamas firing dozens or hundreds of rockets into southwest Israel, and the IDF launching a devastating bombing campaign that will probably preceed a ground incursion.

As usual, Israeli casualties total a whopping 1 civilian, and Palestinian deaths are 225 (plus 700 wounded), including some women/children. Gaza is one of the most densely-populated areas in the world. Hamas compounds are situated near hospitals and apartments; there's no way around it. Unless you're using a scalpel, you are going to kill innocents when you strike. Israel knows this, but insisted on such heavy bombing. Aid workers say they haven't seen such carnage in Gaza since the 1967 War. But I suppose that hundreds of poor Muslim lives don't count as much as a single Israeli. Speaking of that, did you find it strange that during the Mumbai terror attacks, the 6 Jewish victims seemed to get 80% of the press coverage vs. the hundreds of South Asians that also died? Most US news outlets even listed them by name, paying more respect than is customary even to American soldiers who have died in Mideast combat. Fair and objective for sure.

As Arab states used the Yom Kippur holiday to mount a sneak attack on Israel, maybe now Israel has chosen this Christmastime to destroy Gaza, while the West is preoccupied with gift wrapping and doorbuster sales. Plus the transitioning US government (the few left who aren't on holiday) is too busy with the economy and administration succession to do anything. And we all know they would just diplomatically shield Israel anyway, Obama included. The double-standard exceeds even the most paranoid, anti-Zionist expectations. Just imagine if we punished Israeli aggression to even a fraction of how we routinely deal with Arab dictators! To show that he was tough on foreign policy, Clinton breached the UN mandate and bombed Baghdad after a supposed "plot to kill former president Bush" surfaced. Dozens died. A while ago Israel razed Lebanon to the Stone Age, last year they bombed an alleged Syrian "nuclear site" without imminent threat or evidence, and this week they are laying waste to an already starving and suffocating Gaza. All we get from Washington and the UN is a "plea for calm". Or if anything, they blame Hamas rockets for instigating the whole mess (Hamas is not innocent, but Israel does account for over 90% of deaths in this war). Basically, the official State Department stance is: there can only be peace when Hamas/Palestinians lay down their arms and agree to all Western conditions. To them, peace equals surrender - brilliant diplomacy as usual.

And this isn't really about Hamas rockets, anyway. If it was, there would be no point for the IDF to bomb Hamas political offices on the Mediterranean coast (the part of Gaza furthest from Israel and not cointaining rocket sites), which they are doing. Additionally, there is a huge election coming up in Israel next month. The current ruling party is trailing in the polls to the more hardline oppostion led by ultra-right hawk Benyamin Netanyahu. Some Israelis are demanding tougher action on the panic-driven rocket threat. Yet others worry that Israeli attacks can't stop the rockets anyway, and may even provoke harsher Hamas retaliation. And that is true; no matter how many buildings they bomb and how tightly they squeeze the Gaza border, somehow people will find a way to smuggle in and launch rockets, because they are that pissed off and fanatical (Israeli policies made it so). But regardless, the scandal-plagued Olmert regime is trying to do something desperate to deflate Netanyahu's charge. It's just sadistic that they choose to end hundreds of lives in order to score some political points. But being an American, who am I to talk?

Private security firms

Mercenaries a.k.a. "private security contractors" (I'll abbreviate them as PSCs) in the Middle East:

http://www.democracynow.org/2008/11/19/steve_fainaru_on_big_boy_rules
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/30/AR2008113002216.html

Although the first indictment of mercenary misconduct is pending (6 Blackwater Worldwide employees accused of slaughtering 12+ Iraqi civilians in the 2007 Nisour Square incident), the private security industry in the Middle East is thriving. The people from Blackwater may get off the hook as well, since they worked for the State Dept., not DoD. This was probably deliberate, because no laws exist to regulate State Dept. contractors overseas. Plus at the time, the US-Iraq Status of Forces Agreement gave private US contractors legal immunity in Iraq (which has now been nullified for 2009-2012), so they didn't face local punishment, and were probably whisked out of the country before anyone in government could respond. While PSCs have committed illegal killings probably every year of the Iraqi occupation, no previous incidents have made it to court due to the ambiguity of jurisdiction and challenges in procuring evidence. But the Nisour case, like the Marines at Haditha, was so blatant and publicized (especially among outraged Iraqis), that some heads have to roll. The accused have turned themselves in to authorities in Utah (one has already reached a plea bargain, probably to testify against others), hoping that they will get a more favorable, conservative-leaning trial than in DC.

We already know that the Bush administration has been the most prolific in terms of hiring private contractors to do government work, even crafting policy. And the Iraq War has been the most privatized war in US history. Part of that is due to the "sleek occupation" approach championed by Rumsfeld and Co., and an unwillingness to implement a military draft to make up the manpower shortfall. PSCs have fought in the Third World for decades, and were even involved in several successful or failed coups d'etat. But Iraq heralded their golden age (industry insiders gleefully refer to the "Iraq bubble"). Similar to the dot-com or housing bubbles, there are now tremendous demands and opportunities for their services. And with the gradual drawdown of US military forces in Iraq planned through 2012, PSCs will happily fill the void. Depending on how you measure, PSCs and non-combat support staff comprise a fighting force even larger than the Iraqi Army. They have their own helicopters, medics, explosives, and turreted armored vehicles (the poorer outfits like Crescent Security just use pickups with scrap metal plating). So really the US taxpayer is funding two armies (with very different priorities as well).

Some regular soldiers accept this with disdain. While they may earn under $30k/year putting their lives on the line for Uncle Sam, PSCs make $7-20k PER MONTH (higher-ups may make $200-300k/year). Plus the death/disability benefits for PSCs are much better than enlisted personnel, though it is unclear how many PSCs have actually been wounded/killed in Iraq because the companies are not required to disclose anything to the public. While PSCs do risk death on the job (and get in firefights on a near-daily basis), it's not like they have to do the grueling, tedious, confrontational work of uniformed soldiers like directing traffic, patrolling neighborhoods, and conducting counterinsurgency missions. PSCs mostly guard VIPs, Green Zone checkpoints, and vehicle convoys (that often come under attack, but again it's hard to estimate the frequency since companies don't release data). So they're paid nearly 10X an enlisted person's salary to do less work. No wonder Army recruiters are having difficulties reaching their quotas.

In addition, uniformed soldiers are bound by military discipline, Geneva Conventions, and the rules of engagement, while PSCs basically operate by the law of the jungle with practically zero oversight. Soldiers took an oath to defend the country (maybe all of them don't faithfully execute their commitments 100% of the time, but at least it's on their mind), while PSCs only have to answer to company management. A US soldier goes through hell to protect fellow Americans, the Constitution, and the interests of our country (yes, that includes access to oil). Bringing dishonor to the uniform is as unpalatable as defeat. They want to win wars cleanly, expediently, and then go home. PSCs have other priorities in mind, such as thrill seeking (seriously). In fact, it may be in the best interests of PSC firms to drag out wars indefinitely, which means a constant guaranteed paycheck. Despite the patriotic propaganda (PSCs are serving their country too... if the price is right), one has to question their loyalties. That is a big reason why it's always a risk to rely on mercenaries, dating back to Roman times. The Iraqis hate PSCs more than any other Westerners in their country. Probably the insurgents do too, which accounts for the higher number of kidnappings and other incidents.

Yet despite all this, many Iraq vets want to become PSCs after their service is completed. Some have trouble adjusting to civilian life (PTSD, etc.). Others were discharged from the military, but are addicted to adrenaline and miss the action. Though for most it's the money. With little education, it might be the highest-paying career they can get, and many military families endure significant financial hardships when a member goes abroad to serve. So they have little choice but return to the suck. Do we really want to leave our national defense and foreign policy objectives in the hands of people who are mostly concerned with profit, thrills, and may be mentally unstable? Again it's unclear, but there are at least 25,000 PSCs in Iraq, and the total could be as high as 50,000. That is larger than an entire military division. Apparently PSCs are paid out of the Iraq Reconstruction fund, not Pentagon coffers. The Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction estimates that they've paid out over $6B to PSCs since 2003, about 12% of the total reconstruction budget meant for roads, schools, utilities. But really they have little clue about the true financial burden of PSCs, not to mention the secondary costs of cleaning up their negative incidents and bad PR with Iraqis.

http://www.propublica.org/article/audit-us-fails-in-tracking-cost-of-iraq-contractors#When:17:30:00Z

PSCs are becoming as ubiquitous as conflict itself. During the Cold War, they were used by the CIA to train militants like the Nicaraguan Contras, or protect pro-US strong men like Augusto Pinochet. Besides Blackwater, other big outfits are DynCorp and AEGIS. Sourcewatch.org lists over 140 private security firms in total, and 77 have been used in Iraq. They are often based in British Commonwealth nations and tend to outsource to Third World conflict zones, where they can hire for less pay. They even operate within our borders: Blackwater USA trigger men were dispatched by DHS to New Orleans during Katrina to "maintain order" (I'd be unruly too if I went without food and water for days). Blackwater is also lobbying Washington to have its men patrol the Mexico border. So for the 500,000+ Americans who have lost their jobs this fall, maybe they should pick up a weapon and join an industry that is growing faster than health care or education. They pay is great and you might even get to kill a Muslim.

http://www.democracynow.org/2007/3/20/blackwater_the_rise_of_the_worlds

Thailand airport protests

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7775749.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7584005.stm
http://www.france24.com/en/20081125-bangkok-airport-closes-protest-turns-violent-thailand

Dear Newsweek,

I suppose your "Conventional Wisdom" section is more meant for eye-catching than delivering concrete news, but I disagree with the comment that the Thailand airport protests were peaceful and pro-democratic. Even your own article titled "Thailand Slides Toward Civil War" (by Wehrfritz and Seaton, Dec. 6 issue) refutes those claims. While it is true that the pro-Thaksin regime was corrupt in some ways, the opposition movement People's Alliance for Democracy (PAD) has anything but democracy in mind. PAD is directed by Thailand's rich and privileged (military officers, upper classes, royalists), so obviously they were threatened by Thaksin's populism. During his five years in office, Thaksin reformed government to reduce bureaucratic inertia and become more results-oriented. His initiatives increased social services, economic opportunities, and political representation for the poor, rural majority. Thaksin and his successors - all wealthy men as well - were neither saints nor tyrants, but their main political transgression was daring to upset the elite-friendly status quo.


As your own reporters noted: The PAD [...] advocates the transformation of Parliament to one dominated by appointed lawmakers because, as PAD leader Sondhi Limthongkul told NEWSWEEK a few months ago, the rural masses "lack intelligence and wisdom" to vote responsibly. The group's guards carry guns, knives and explosives and have fought pitched battles with riot police. [...] Pavin Chachavalpongpun, a foreign-policy specialist at Singapore's Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, says the PAD vision for Thailand is "scarily analogous" to the political system Burma's generals are constructing to perpetuate their own monopoly on power. Rural Thais resent it so viscerally that they're rallying around Thaksin's allies as a point of pride.

And as further proof that the airport protests were not peaceful, France24 reported that PAD supporters opened fire on rival pro-government protesters and assailed them with metal poles (eleven were injured).

Zimbabwe/Mugabe history you probably don't know about

We all know that Robert Mugabe is a stupid man and worse dictator. Zimbabwe, once the breadbasket of southern Africa, is now starving. Terrible mismanagement, corruption, and crackdowns/abuses by the Mugabe regime have crippled the country. Inflation was at 10,000% in 2007 and higher than 200M% today (yes, that is 200,000,000%), so now a 10M bank note is worthless. And to make matters worse, thousands are now dying from preventable cholera, which is spreading to neighboring nations via waterways. That is partly why Zimbabwe's neighbors are finally starting to denounce formerly revered African nationalist Mugabe. The health care and clean water systems have broken down, so now cholera, which usually kills just 1% of infected, is now killing 10-40% in some areas. It's a horrible situation, yet some in Harare claim that the epidemic is "under control". But others are secretly or publicly begging for more foreign aid.

Zimbabwe's political dysfunctions have been well documented. Here is the State Dept's take: http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/16501.htm. Clearly the catastrophic Mugabe regime would prefer to blame the West for national ills rather than actually address them. Bordering on Rev. Wright territory, the Mugabe government has even accused the UK/US of deliberately infecting people with cholera/anthrax.

But Mugabe wouldn't have risen to power if he was all bad. Like Mandela, he protested against the white minority rule in British Rhodesia, and was imprisoned 11 years for his efforts (while jailed he earned 3 advanced degrees, including law). His 4-year-old son died while he was behind bars, and his jailors wouldn't even allow him to attend the funeral. Maybe that contributed to his disdain for whites and the West. In 1980 he came to power in a shady fashion (like many post-colonial nations), and adopted a pseudo-Maoist political platform. But while in power, he actually did some good and Zimbabwe thrived. According to a 1995 World Bank report, from 1980-1990 infant mortality/child malnutrition rates were nearly halved and immunizations tripled. Life expectancy rose 8 years, and Zimbabwe was above average on many social metrics vs. other developing nations. But short on cash in 1991, Mugabe began to print more cash, land reform backfired, foreign investment dried up, economic problems worsened, and things spiraled downward to present conditions. But it wasn't totally his fault.

Contrary to what we might expect, it was not Mugabe or other black revolutionaries who resisted British colonial rule and established an independent state. Zimbabwe was not an Algeria. Actually it was Ian Smith, the UK-appointed white leader of colonial Southern Rhodesia, who broke off ties with London and declared independence in 1965. Though the UK pushed for international sanctions, and Rhodesia was never officially recognized. Smith's Rhodesia implemented minority white rule and enforced apartheid (blacks couldn't vote and whites owned most of the usable land), which contributed to the rise of black nationalism resistance from groups like ZANU (Zimbabwe African Nat. Union) and UANC (United African Nat. Council), the former which Mugabe belonged to. The whites and blacks waged war from 1971-9 until the UK brokered the Lancaster House peace agreement that created Zimbabwe and launched Mugabe's political career.

http://www.eubusiness.com/news-eu/1196912834.59/

Surprisingly, relations between Mugabe and the UK were quite warm in the 1980s and early '90s under Thatcher/Major, and Britain invested heavily in the Zimbabwean military and public works projects. The UK even cooperated in Mugabe's land reform initiatives, buying back over 40M pounds worth of land from whites so Mugabe could redistribute it to blacks. But things changed overnight when Tony Blair became the new PM. Blair's government decided to cancel his predecessor's verbal promise to continue the land program, angering Mugabe. Things "seemed" to be going well between whites/blacks and the UK/Zimbabwe, but Blair unilaterally decided to change course. Partly because of this, Mugabe adopted a harder political line (and became more racist/xenophobic too), cracked down on his opponents, and forcefully seized white land instead. He believed that the Blair regime was supporting his political rivals to undermine and oust him, so in a sense, Blair pushed Mugabe into becoming a bigger tyrant. The Bush administration also got on board (maybe as quid pro quo for Iraq?), and the US/UK lobbied the UN for sanctions and foreign divestment from Zimbabwe. I guess it's not paranoia if some people really are out to get you.

http://www.gmanews.tv/story/63020/Western-sanctions-hurt-the-poor-Zimbabwe-central-bank-report-says

The US/UK claim that they just want to punish the Mugabe regime and won't hurt poor Zimbabweans. They want him out of power so Zimbabwe can fix its economy and move towards democratic reforms. That's all fair and good, but "targeted sanctions" are like smart bombs - more humane in principle but not so in practice. Yes it is true that despite soured relations, Western agencies have continued to pour millions of aid dollars to help Zimbabwe with HIV, hunger, and other problems. But official and unofficial sanctions have crippled the Zimbabwean economy. They have a harder time exporting their goods overseas in a competitive manner, and have to accept grossly unfair prices for the imported raw materials that they need. At least Saddam had "Oil for Food".

It's a vicious cycle: foreign divestment makes Zimbabwe poorer and lowers its economic appeal/credit rating for investors, which forces Zimbabwe to pursue riskier sources of capital or even print new money to try to balance its books, which further lowers its economic health. Foreign direct investment/donor grants fell from $240M/year in the 1990s to $60M in 2006. The WHO closed its Harare office, and the IMF/World Bank cancelled its loan programs (loans that literally kept the nation afloat), probably at the behest of the US/UK. There were many "legitimate" reasons for those org's to cut off Zimbabwe, but political foul play was obviously involved as well. Because if the IMF applied the same scrutiny of Zimbabwe's loans to other developing nations, they'd have to remove dozens more countries from their books too. But I guess their patience for Mugabe is particularly low? The Zimbabwe central bank is not full of idiots; they are printing all that money and suffering record inflation because they don't have a choice (they can't get funds from anyone else). Surely governments and companies have the right to withdraw investments as a form of political protest, but we shouldn't deceive ourselves into thinking that innocents won't be hurt in the process. Hospitals can't afford drugs/equipment, schools can't buy new books/computers, and infrastructure projects languish without funding. It's partly Mugabe's doing, but ultimately we let it happen.

Mugabe has a lot of blood on his hands and will go down in history as a failure, but we shouldn't overlook the West's role in Zimbabwe's suffering too (even if the media and history books do).

A new crime wave in Japan

By senior citizens...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/japan/3213349/Japan-struggles-with-elderly-crime-wave.html

Japan struggles with elderly crime wave

Police in Japan are struggling to control a crime wave carried out by the most unlikely of criminal fraternities: the elderly.

[Me:] A portent of things to come in the US? In Japan, one of the top nations by measure of longevity, 20-25% of the country is over 60, and the US/Europe are on that path. NPR was discussing this too, and they said that one elderly lady stabbed a younger woman just because she was homeless and wanted the police to care for her (or at least put a roof over her head in jail). It reminds me of poor Palestinian youth deliberately committing minor crimes to get "street cred", and also to live more comfortably in Israeli jails for a while (hot meals, TV, safety). Though unlike Palestine, Japan is the #2 economy and a traditionally low crime, orderly country. It's really shocking that things have come to this, though Japan is a peculiar case study in social dynamics on many levels. The traditional family support network has broken down, and younger generations either don't care to help the old, or are too busy trying to survive in the world themselves. And it's amazing how unsympathetic, and even pejorative, the center-right Aso government is to the seniors' plight (plus, it's not like the leaders in Tokyo are spry young guys either). They prefer to build new prisons for them rather than improve their crumbling safety net. I don't know how much of Japan shares that attitude though. I guess to some Japanese, seniors are just temperamental and burdensome. Old people will always be burdens, but so are kids, wounded veterans, and the handicapped, and we don't cut them loose (usually). It's up to the society or family to decide how to treat them, and I am not sure if Japan has age discrimination laws like the US. Well, kids represent the future, so investing in them is more justified, but the old have apparently outlived their usefulness.

I am sure all of us have horror stories of our elderly relatives acting out and being a pain. Sometimes they can't help it (Alzheimer's, dementia, irritability over chronic pains etc.). Sometimes they do it to get attention, or maybe they are just crabby SOBs. I guess some older Japanese take it to another level (crime), partly because of economic desperation and partly due to their frustration over their irrelevance and neglect. Like terrorism, we have to analyze why some seniors would choose to resort to criminal acts in order to make a statement or strike out at society. That generation worked like hell to bring Japan out of the WWII ashes and into a premier industrial power, but for what? A piddling pension and social disdain/alienation? Not only are they not respected and appreciated (as they were taught to do... filial piety Confucian/Shinto values and such), they are cast aside like chaff. Apart from helping seniors with basic essentials as the costs of Western living continues to rise, I think many of the disgruntled elderly would appreciate some moral support too. The past is prologue, and much of what we now are is because of them, for better or worse. How we think of and treat our elderly is a reflection on how we feel about ourselves. Would it hurt so much to show them a little more inclusion and gratitude? It's one of those social problems where everyone is guilty, so no one is, and therefore nothing gets done. I am sure many seniors hate being old more than we may ever know, and maybe some would prefer to end their lives than feel useless and unwanted by their family/country. It's not their fault that they continue to live. It's up to us to decide what kind of life our societies will provide for them, or what kind of life we would want if we were in their shoes.

I know some of you have lived in or studied about Japan, so would love your input. The same story is unfolding in China, Russia, and parts of the West. At least for poorer, developing countries, their excuse is economic limitations precluding better senior care. But in the US, how are we faring?

------------

Article text:

While the majority of crimes committed by older Japanese involve petty theft, cases of murder, assault and violence are on the increase.

"There has been a huge change in the last 10 years," said Tomomi Fujiwara, author of the book "Bousou Rojin" ("The Elderly Out of Control").

"It can be a question of money for some of these people, but that is not the main reason we're seeing this problem now," he said.

Mr Fujiwara blamed the changing face of Japanese society for the spike in crime. "In the past, elderly people were revered and cared for in Japanese society, living in the same homes with their children and families. That has gone now and they don't recognise their own neighbourhood or the people living around them."

Cases of the elderly becoming involved in crime include a 79-year-old woman stabbing two young women with a fruit knife in Tokyo after leaving a shelter for homeless people; a terminally ill 85-year-old man strangling his wife because he did not want her to go on living after his own death and a man in his 70s robbing a store in Nagoya at knife-point.

Japan has traditionally enjoyed low levels of crime and government statistics show that overall figures are falling, except among the elderly. The number of people aged 65 or older convicted of a criminal offence stood at 13,739 in 1998; by last year that figure had risen to 48,597 cases. That number accounted for one in seven of all reported crimes and included 150 murder charges. The Japanese government is spending Y8.3 billlion (£39 million) on constructing three new prison wards that are specifically designed to cater to the rising number of elderly inmates. Many are repeat offenders who commit another minor crime shortly after their release simply to get back into a community where they are comfortable, warm, fed and have friends of their own age.

Mr Rujiwara also said many elderly people have abandoned politeness and understanding - values for which the Japanese are renown - and are now rude, demanding and threatening. "I've seen it happen myself," he said. "I watched this man shouting at a member of staff in a supermarket and then he went into the bank and did exactly the same thing again," he said. "I had never seen anything like it before."

As well as the dislocation from society and their families, Mr Fujiwara said the elderly were increasingly concerned about who will care for them when they become frail. Japan's pension system is disarray, with thousands of workers' records lost, causing fears among the elderly that they will not receive any financial assistance. "Society has already changed and now we have more economic problems, so I really don't see this situation getting any better in the near future," said Mr Fujiwara. "In fact, I'm sure it will get much worse."