US has April surplus but budget strained
Tuesday May 13, 2008, 6:40 am
The US government posted a $US159.3 billion ($A169.52 billion) surplus in April, helped by the mid-month deadline for individuals meeting 2007 tax obligations, but it was down from the prior year's surplus, the Treasury Department reported on Monday.

In April 2007, the surplus was $US177.7 billion ($A189.1 billion).

In the first seven months of fiscal 2008, which ends on September 30, the government's budget deficit swelled by 88.4 per cent to $US152.2 billion ($A161.97 billion), from $US80.8 billion ($A85.98 billion) in the first seven months of fiscal 2007.

The latest figures point to growing strain on the budget, which is poised to face a deeper deficit as payments under an economic stimulus program agreed by Congress and the Bush administration get into full swing.

The Congressional Budget Office forecast in March that the fiscal 2008 deficit likely will hit $US396 billion ($A421.41 billion). Defence spending keeps climbing as the administration seeks more funds for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In the first seven months of fiscal 2008, Defence Department spending rose by about $US34 billion ($A36.18 billion) from the comparable period in fiscal 2007 to $US341.1 billion ($A362.99 billion).

In April alone, receipts primarily from taxes totalled a record $US403.8 billion ($A429.71 billion), up from $US383.6 billion ($A408.22 billion) in April 2007.

But outlays also set a record at $US244.5 billion ($A260.19 billion), compared with $US205.9 billion ($A219.11 billion) in April last year. Outlays are due to swell in coming months as tax rebates of up to $US600 ($A638.50) for individuals and $US1,200 ($A1,277) for married couples that are part of the administration's economic stimulus plan start flowing in earnest.

The program, intended to give the flagging economy a boost, got started at the end of April and the Treasury Department said that $US3.4 billion ($A3.62 billion) had been issued. The stimulus package is suppose to pump about $US152 billion ($A161.75 billion) into consumers' hands to try to keep the consumption-driven economy from stalling.

Bush administration accepts "reality"—NEWSFLASH!

ARTICLE: "U.S. Accepts International Criminal Court," by Jess Bravin, Wall Street Journal, 26-27 April 2008, p. A5A.
Hold your horses!

State's chief lawyer now says the U.S. "must acknowledge that the ICC enjoys a large body of international support."

Well, duh!

Same guy gave the usual bitch list to boot, so don't hold your breath on hearing Bush or Cheney make any different noises on the subject.

Bush-Cheney "unsigned" the Rome Statute setting up the ICC in 2002, and Bush then signed legislation "authorizing military action, should the court arrest an American."

Nice, but par for the neocon course.

But I suppose years of Abu Ghraib and Gitmo stories do soften the administration up a bit.

All the prez candidates make similar noises while offering similar bitch lists--wah wah wah!

The only reason why we can't "submit" to the ICC is because we don't want anyone telling us when we can employ our military might.

If you want that kind of freedom, you better expect balancing.

And when you can't afford your military, expect others to "vote" down your implied global service by making it harder for you to float public debt. Other powers will simply stop paying for the service—unless they see it offered according to some mutually agreed-upon rule set.

The ICC is one such rule set. We ignore it at our strategic risk.

Economic Opportunity Replaces Conflict in Iraq

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
May 9, 2008
Press Office: 202-712-4320
Public Information: 202-712-4810
www.usaid.gov

BALAD, IRAQ - The U.S. Agency for International Development's (USAID) Agribusiness Program, 'Inma,' is leading the way to economic recovery in the city of Balad, 50 miles north of Baghdad. A $5 million grant to restart operations at the Balad Canning Factory (BCF) is part of a larger regional project that will help restore agricultural and agribusiness operations throughout this formerly strife-torn area.

BCF, one of Iraq's largest food processors, was built in 1974 as a government-owned tomato paste factory. After privatization, the owners added ten product lines to their operations that employed over 1000 Sunni and Shia workers, including up to 200 women. The factory's demand for agricultural supplies not only kept local farmers producing and profiting, it also bought produce from some 50 wholesale suppliers in the provinces of Diyala, Salah ad Din, Baghdad, Anbar, Babil, Mosul, and Erbil. BCF's outputs created still further employment for transportation companies and for more than thirty wholesale buyers throughout Iraq.

USAID has long recognized the importance of Iraq's food and agriculture sector. A 2006 USAID report, The Potential for Food Processing in Iraq, stated "…the food and agriculture sector may contribute as much as $10 billion to Iraq's GDP, assuming that Iraq can achieve levels of agricultural production per capita that are in keeping with regional levels, and can establish a food processing industry…" Inma's mandate is to strengthen entire "value chains" in the agriculture and agribusiness sector, including production, handling, processing and marketing.

BCF's potential for food processing was shattered in October 2006 when the entire surrounding area erupted in sectarian violence; farmers were unable to work their fields and the factory no longer had access to the agricultural supplies required to operate. Not only were factory workers suddenly unemployed, tens of thousands of farmers found themselves similarly destitute.

It wasn't until mid-2007 that efforts by Coalition and Iraqi Security Forces ended the violence in the area. Engagement with the community began by bringing the various sectarian factions to the table where they all recognized a common goal - economic development could ensure continued peace. Engineers from USAID's Inma program undertook an extensive assessment of BCF's 10-hectare facility and drew up plans to bring at least some of the plant's operations back on line.

Inma's grant funding will ensure that power, water, waste treatment and steam are restored to the plant. The latter is key to processing tomato paste, sesame butter, and date syrup, items that demand huge quantities of locally grown products. Lines requiring the least amount of renovation and steam - chips, bottled water and fruit-flavored drinks - are expected to go on line by mid-2008. These product lines will employ up to 200 workers.

When rehabilitation is complete and all production lines are on-line, BCF will have a permanent workforce of approximately 1,200 workers. The plant will process close to 20,000 tons - $30 million - worth of dates, tomatoes, sesame, wheat and corn produced from over 1,000 small farms.

By bringing workers together, BCF spells hope for sectarian reconciliation in the Balad community and creates a model for other Iraqi communities to follow.

For more information about USAID and its programs in Iraq, please visit www.usaid.gov .


PLEASE NOTE: Replies to this email will not be answered.
For further and more detailed information concerning the USAID Iraq reconstruction program, please visit our web site at http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/

You have received this e-mail because you subscribed to the USAID Iraq Update e-mail list. To unsubscribe from this list, please visit http://www.usaid.gov/cgi-bin/listserv.cgi?listname=USAIDIRAQ . If this message was forwarded to you by someone else and you wish to subscribe to the USAID Iraq Update email list, please visit http://www.usaid.gov/cgi-bin/listserv.cgi?listname=USAIDIRAQ .

For press inquiries, please contact the USAID Press Office at 202-712-4320.

Transmitted by the USAID Public Information, Production and Online Services group, contact number 202-712-0000

A Schism over Shari'a in the Church of England

by David J. Rusin
American Thinker
May 11, 2008
http://www.meforum.org/article/1890
Send
RSS

The debate over the trajectory of the Western sociopolitical system and its strained relations with Islam is the most pivotal of our time, as approaches decided upon today will impact billions not yet born. Two prelates in the ever more fractious Church of England provide a microcosm of this discourse.

Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams and Bishop of Rochester Michael Nazir-Ali have emerged as central combatants in the dispute between two fundamentally opposed models of social organization: multiculturalism and universalism. The former bestows equal standing upon different cultures in the public square. The latter bestows equal standing upon individuals who wield a common set of rights and responsibilities. Which system prevails will ultimately determine the level of danger that homegrown Islamists pose to Britain, Europe, and the broader West.

Nazir-Ali believes that Britain's campaign to reconstitute itself as a multicultural society has failed, and he explained why in a January 6 op-ed. By emphasizing differences over common values, his country has promoted alienation among Muslims, many of whom are "living as separate communities, continuing to communicate in their own languages, and having minimum need for building healthy relationships with the majority." Since segregation breeds extremism, Islamist-dominated "no-go areas" now dot the map.

Indeed, as Britain increasingly accommodates the strictures of Islamic law in both welfare and finance, the radicalization of its Muslims continues apace. According to a 2006 Channel 4 survey, nearly one-quarter see the 7/7 London bombings as justifiable. A 2007 Policy Exchange poll found that 40% of Muslims under 24 prefer to be governed by Shari'a, while a shocking 36% believe that apostates from Islam should be "punished by death." Extremist views are far more common among younger Muslims, portending trouble on the horizon.

The death threats that followed Nazir-Ali's essay only bolstered his thesis. "The irony is that I had similar threats when I was a bishop in Pakistan," he noted, "but I never thought I would have them here." The rejection of reason is particularly disturbing to this learned man: "If you disagree, that must be met by counterarguments, not by trying to silence people. It was a threat not just to me, but to my family. … It gave me sleepless nights."

Rowan Williams was likewise losing sleep — over the "damage" done by Nazir-Ali's frank assessment of multicultural pieties. Speaking to the BBC on February 7, he ignited a firestorm of his own by suggesting that the official acceptance of some facets of Shari'a not only "seems unavoidable," but could actually improve social cohesion. To Williams, the idea that "there's one law for everybody and that's all there is to be said, and anything else that commands your loyalty or allegiance is completely irrelevant in the processes of the courts — I think that's a bit of a danger."

In one sentence, Britain's most influential cleric effectively discarded the primary achievement of Western civilization: a system in which all live as equals before a single standard of law. The logical consequences of his worldview were underscored by Melanie Phillips: "If there is no one law, there is no one national identity and therefore no society but instead a set of warring fiefdoms with their own separate jurisdictions."

Williams and Nazir-Ali also illustrate how one's preferred method of social organization — multiculturalism or universalism — frequently boils down to whether one acknowledges the righteousness of the Western enterprise. Preoccupation with the real and imagined crimes of the West can serve as a gateway to Islamist apologetics. And the archbishop is Exhibit A.

Regarding the free market, Williams sees only suffering: "Every transaction in the developed economies of the West can be interpreted as an act of aggression against the economic losers in the worldwide game." And America's role on the international stage is, of course, the height of iniquity. In contrast, he often excuses horrors committed in the name of Islam. While condemning terrorism, he has suggested that terrorists can "have serious moral goals." He also laments the challenges faced by Middle Eastern Christians, but portrays them as victims of Western policies rather than of the Islamists threatening their lives.

Unlike Rowan Williams, Michael Nazir-Ali witnessed the realities of Shari'a law and radical Islam firsthand as a young Pakistani. These experiences eventually led him to Britain's shores — and to an admiration for the freedoms nurtured in the West. Like Magdi Allam, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Abdullahi Ahmed An-Na'im, Salman Rushdie, and Ibn Warraq, the future bishop escaped the stifling oppression of Shari'a to become an outspoken champion of Western values.

Shari'a "would be in tension with the English legal tradition on questions like monogamy, provisions for divorce, the rights of women, custody of children, laws of inheritance and of evidence," Nazir-Ali said in response to Williams' BBC interview. "This is not to mention the relation of freedom of belief and of expression to provisions for blasphemy and apostasy." His statement reveals a keen understanding of the two groups that suffer an inferior status under Shari'a: women and non-Muslims.

Not satisfied with abstract musings, Nazir-Ali applies this knowledge to contemporary problems. In March he quizzed a Home Office minister on whether women threatened by forced marriages are being adequately protected, and last year he urged Muslim leaders to condemn violence against apostates. Williams, in contrast, has said little about either issue. The bishop of Rochester has also criticized amplification of the call to prayer, demanded that Britain carefully scrutinize foreign imams, and spoken out against face-covering veils — even as Williams insists that an attempt to limit them would be "politically dangerous."

Nazir-Ali contends that the Western ethos did not arise by chance, but proceeded from "the Bible's teaching that we have equal dignity and freedom because we are all made in God's image." Islamist encroachments are therefore symptoms of a more fundamental problem. "The real danger to Britain today is the spiritual and moral vacuum that has occurred for the last 40 or 50 years. When you have such a vacuum something will fill it," he recently warned. "Do the British people really want to lose that rooting in the Christian faith that has given them everything they cherish — art, literature, architecture, institutions, the monarchy, their value system, their laws?"

Only time will tell.

Historians may one day look back on these two prelates and the church they serve — a body faced with plummeting attendance and approaching disestablishment — as symbols of the early twenty-first-century discourse over the future of the West. For now, Michael Nazir-Ali and Rowan Williams illuminate the diverging paths before us: one paved with an ardent defense of Western liberties, the other with a nihilism that leads inexorably to dhimmitude.

David J. Rusin is a research associate at Islamist Watch and a Philadelphia-based editor for Pajamas Media. He holds a Ph.D. in Physics and Astronomy from the University of Pennsylvania. Please feel free to contact him at rusin@meforum.org.

Related Topics: Dhimmitude, Islamic law (Shari‘a), Muslims in the United Kingdom

Barnett: Buying wings but operating rotors

By Thomas P.M. Barnett
Sunday, May 11, 2008

If I told you that improvised explosive devices (IEDs) were the leading cause of U.S. casualties in Iraq, you'd expect the Pentagon would have mounted a major R&D effort to defeat this threat. And you'd be right.

If I told you that helicopter crashes and shoot-downs were the leading cause of U.S. casualties in Afghanistan, you'd expect the Pentagon would have mounted a major R&D to defeat that threat as well. But you'd be wrong.

Helicopter losses are the No. 1 cause of U.S. casualties in high-altitude, mountainous Afghanistan and the third leading cause in Iraq. Yet Pentagon R&D spending on tactical aircraft dwarfs the amount spent on rotor craft. In recent years, the total budgeted R&D for helicopters was $2 billion to $3 billion, roughly half of what the Defense Department spends on just one new tactical aircraft and one-quarter of its R&D on missile defense.

Doesn't that sound out of whack? Spending so much on low-probability future scenarios and so little on today's real-world operations?

This is the reality of U.S. defense spending going all the way back to the fall of the Berlin Wall: we buy one military, and we use another. We buy plenty of super-expensive tactical aircraft for "big war" scenarios and spend frighteningly little on helicopters that are - beyond all doubt - the "long pole in the tent" of small wars, crisis responses, humanitarian relief operations and counterinsurgency campaigns.

You read up on any Western intervention in a failed state today, such as Sudan's Darfur region, and you'll hear the same complaint: There simply aren't enough helicopters, especially ones capable of operating in the harshest and highest environments.

Meanwhile, let me tell you a dirty little secret of the "tacair" community: the last Air Force pilot ever involved in a real dogfight is coming up on his second star, meaning he's a general long out of the cockpit. The same is true for the last naval aviator ever involved in a dogfight. The operational reality is that nobody flies against our tactical aircraft anymore unless they're simply trying to get away from the fight - faster!

Tactical aircraft losses in Iraq and Afghanistan are negligible. We've lost several-fold more troops in friendly fire incidents, and boy, have we ever spent some serious bucks to reduce that problem - as we should.

Here's the long-term trend we need to correct: Back in the Vietnam era, our Marines were losing one tactical aircraft every 1,000 sorties, or individual missions. That loss rate was considered unacceptable, so R&D spending was increased to reduce those numbers. The Marine Corps was hugely successful in that effort. In Operation Iraqi Freedom, our loss rate plummeted to one tactical aircraft lost per every 26,000 sorties.

Contrast this impressive improvement in platform survivability with what's happened in Marine Corps rotor craft over the same time frame. In Vietnam, the Marines lost a helicopter once every 6,000 sorties. In Iraq, their loss rate jumped to one every 1,500 sorties. That is a four-fold increase in rotor-craft losses compared to a 26-fold decrease in tactical aircraft losses.

With this spending record, it's clear that you'd be a lot safer spending your military aviation career as a fighter pilot than a helicopter pilot - counterintuitive but true.

The U.S. military emerged from Vietnam with an understanding that tactical aircraft were vulnerable, so it researched those vulnerabilities and fixed them across the 1980s and 1990s, yielding an attack capability without peer in the world. The same effort could and should be pursued by the Pentagon today as it looks ahead to a long war against radical extremism that will see U.S. troops put in harm's way - time and time again - in environments like Afghanistan and Iraq.

Why do we keep buying one military and operating another, running the latter into the ground with such lengthy, high-tempo operations? The "big war" crowd continues to dominate the acquisition community inside both the Pentagon and the defense industry. Both sides want the same thing: huge and expensive platforms that come with magnificently loaded maintenance contracts.

Responding to today's wars is messy and complicated, while planning for tomorrow's brilliant high-tech space wars against China is so much more fulfilling - at least in a budgetary sense.

Too bad, because the Pentagon's penchant to plan for all possible contingencies - the very absence of grand strategy - is costing the lives of American troops every day in this long war.

Thomas P.M. Barnett is a distinguished strategist at the Oak Ridge Center for Advanced Studies and senior managing director of Enterra Solutions LLC. Contact him at tom@thomaspmbarnett.com.