WORLD/US ISSUES - ORGANIZATIONAL

Weakening Press Protections - 20040925

Weakening press protections is the subject of a New York Times August 18, 2004 article. The article describes a number of ways in which press protections are being weakened. Also, "It calculated that the government classified 14 million new documents as national security secrets in 2003, compared with 11 million in 2002 and 9 million in 2001." The Justice Department contends the Freedom of Information Act emphasis on swift and often-unfettered disclosure could aid terrorists. Could! It is acknowledged that many of the documents are sensitive, but editors and lawyers worry that material is withheld that is of little use to terrorists but might well reveal the failings of government or industry.

Is this any way to run a democracy? If this is 9/11/2001 motivated, then the terrorists are succeeding in terrifying our leaders and us in self-destruction of the very essence of our democracy. Do all these restrictions on freedom of information increase our security? Seems like overkill that is killing democracy.

Who's who in Iraq? - 2000826

The BBC online news posted a 2004/08/26 story:

"Who's who in Iraq: Ayatollah Sistani".

A sidebar to the story, titled "Iraq in Transition", provided a number of links describing:

-- Key players in the interim government (5 links)

-- Islamic groups and leaders (6 links)

-- Secular groups and leaders and (3 links)

-- National groups (4 links),

One bit of insight comes just from the variety of Iraqi organizations and players listed. Diplomatic intelligence about the number and conflicting views of these organizations, prior to a decision for an Iraqi war and occupation, would signal great caution before making a decision for war.

A Google search, on 2004/08/26, with quotes on the word pairs of "military intelligence" and "diplomatic intelligence", produced hits of 430,000 and 1,980 respectively. Google searches on "militancy" and "diplomacy" produced hits of 170,000 and 1,630,000 respectively. What kind of "intelligence" supports all these hits on "diplomacy"? Where are diplomatic successes? A misdirected preparation for conflict over cooperation seems evident.

News coverage on "military intelligence" far outweighs that for "diplomatic intelligence". A search on BBC archives for the past 7 years produced 709 articles with the phrase "miltary intelligence" and only 5 articles with the phrase "diplomatic intelligence". It would seem that more intelligence is required to be warlike than to deal with people tactfully.

Knowing who's who in Iraq, and how to deal with them diplomatically as well as militarily seems vital to insight on all Iraqi issues. This series of articles in the BBC is a welcome addition to a smallamount of diplomatic intelligence.

The Georgetown University Institute for the Study of Diplomacy, issued a 2004/06/30 report "The Use of U.S. Power: Implications for U.S. Interests". (This link has a link to the full report in PDF)

A subtitle to this report concludes that "actions since 9/11 have undermined U.S. influence, interests". The PDF report is 132 pages long - an introduction, 4 sections and an appendix.

The first section, 18 pages, describes the future stewardship of American Power with conclusions and recommendations. Snapshots of ideas in the report are in the right hand column.. (These snapshots are openings to insights to be sought in the mainstream and alternative media information.)

The appendix, 5 pages, describes some "potential surprises from the use of U.S. power post-9/11". Potential surprises in the Middle East. Europe and Asia are described. One observation was that the U.S. might become less adventurous after its Afghanistan and Iraq dificulties which could provide a readjustment time.