Interesting article related to the recent gains we've seen in the stock market.
Bubble tipped to burst in 2011
Andy Mukherjee COMMENTARY
Thursday, May 10, 2007
Harvard University economist Jeffrey Frankel has an interesting theory about the timing of the next emerging- market meltdown.
He says capital flows into developing economies follow a 15-year pattern: "seven fat years followed by seven lean years." The year between the two phases is when the flow of money suddenly stops. Why 15 years?
"After 15 years have gone by, there is somebody new on the trading desk who did not personally live through the last crash," Frankel said at a globalization forum, organized by the International Monetary Fund in Washington. "They sort of know about it, but it is easier for them to say the world has changed than if they lost money in it."
There have been two such cycles in the recent past, according to Frankel. The first wave began around 1975, following a sharp increase in oil prices in 1973-74. After seven years of frenzied recycling of petrodollars into emerging-market securities, Mexico blew up in 1982.
Then there were seven slow years, before investors came back to these markets with renewed vigor in the early 1990s. That boom, which again went on for seven years, ended with the Asian crisis in 1997. By this logic, the next blow to emerging-market economies will come in 2011 or 2012. So all those who envision that the current subprime mortgage crisis in the United States will lead to investors bailing out of risky, emerging-market securities may be disappointed.
The time is not ripe, yet, for a disaster. "It is too soon, memories are still fresh," Frankel said. "Argentina and Turkey, they were not that long ago, so I think it is too soon."
Could the next meltdown start in Asia? The region has a seemingly inexhaustible war chest of US$2.5 trillion (HK$19.5 trillion) in foreign- exchange reserves. Besides, most Asian current accounts are now in surplus. East Asia is no longer funding its expansion with capital borrowed from overseas. Now it is exporting capital to the rest of the world.
All of this makes a currency crisis unlikely. But other risks remain.
Nouriel Roubini, chairman of Roubini Global Economics in New York, is predicting "a new and different type of financial crisis in Asia," one that is triggered by excessive liquidity and asset bubbles. The risks stem from Asia's currency policies. China remains reluctant to allow the yuan to trade more freely.
That means other Asian nations will not be able to tolerate significant currency appreciation without their exports losing market share to cheap Chinese-made goods in Western markets.
One country that did try to live with faster currency gains - Thailand - had to resort to capital controls to prevent its exports from sinking under the weight of a stronger baht.
Cheap Asian currencies are not a free lunch. The bloated and growing Asian forex reserves are being increasingly financed by an expansion in the monetary base. Base-money growth in China was 21 percent in 2006, double the annual average of 2004 and 2005. It was about 20 percent in Korea in 2006, six times the average in the preceding two years, according to a World Bank report last month.
Unmistakably, Asia is contributing - along with petrodollars and Japanese carry trades - to a surfeit of global liquidity and a mispricing of risk. For now, excesses may continue to build up. The spread, or the extra yield demanded by investors to hold dollar-denominated emerging-market bonds instead of risk-free US securities, has shrunk to about a 10th of its post-Asian crisis level, according to a JPMorgan Chase index.
Those who want to sell you developing-country debt will tell you what a fine job these nations have done in containing public debt and inflation.
Besides, countries such as Brazil are buying back dollar bonds, reducing supply; so the high valuations are warranted, they will say.
Standard & Poor's, which raised the credit rating on eight out of 34 emerging-market sovereigns and lowered its assessment on just one in the 12 months through August 2006, is talking about the need to redefine the "emerging market" label, and in certain cases, even eliminate it.
This excessive show of optimism has "bubble" written on it in bright neon. Yet, investors will wait to see emerging-market risk turn to zero before being stung by losses.
The same is true for equity.
Morgan Stanley Capital International's MSCI index of emerging- market shares reached 1000 this week. It has doubled in 2 years. Do not be surprised if it doubles again. The bubble is alive and well. It just might keep growing for the next five years, if Frankel's prophecy is right.
BLOOMBERG
http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?pp_cat=22&art_id=44077&sid=13528100&con_type=1
Commentary
Bear in mind that the Dow Theory triple high back in February in the Dow Transports, Industrials, and Utilities gave a new market buy signal that is extremely rare, and combined with the all-time record short interest on the NYSE, it puts a tremendous "bid" under the market as shorts get scared and cover their positions. The higher the markets go, the more the shorts are losing and the higher their financial "pain". It's also worth noting, for those unfamiliar with short-selling that the potential risk of loss for a short is infinite. If a "long" buys a stock, the most they can lose is the total purchase price of their stock (ie: it goes to zero value). When a short seller initiates a position, they borrow the stock certificate (generally this is electronically executed) and sell it with the promise to replace that stock certificate at a later date. If they stock they shorted is valued less when they buy it back to return to the brokerage (covering their short is what it's called) than the price they sold it at when they initiated their position, they pocket the difference as profit.
However, if the stock increases in value ABOVE what they shorted it at, then they lose money with each dollar that stock increases in value. And since there is no limit to how high a stock can go in price, their potential for loss is infinite.
Something to thing about in coming weeks/months as we assess the long term potential for the indices, and stock overall. Let's not forget that, even though the Dow and S&P have reach new highs, the Nasdaq has yet to achieve the same. It's unlikely we'll see 5000 on the Nasdaq anytime soon, given how high it assailed in 2000. But it's quite possible we could print 3400 by this time next year.
It all depends on Asia, in my opinion. China's markets are definitely due for a correction, but with the Olympics coming up next year, we can all anticipate that the government in Bejing will do anything they can to delay the pain of such a correction until after the medals are all passed out.
So, I might be wrong, but I suggest we all try and enjoy the next couple of years. Because when the financial hangover comes, it's going to be a doozy!!
The Scrutinizer
Saturday, May 12, 2007
Thursday, May 10, 2007
We Support the Stupid Mercenaries
May 2, 2007:
Yet another example of a media celebrity letting their true feeling about the troops slip out. In this case, it is "The View" guest co-host Ricki Lake (best known for a trashy talk show), who used the word "ineducation" to describe why young Americans join the military. This was in response to a question from co-host Rosie O'Donnell as to why they enlist. An attempt to challenge that by co-host Elizabeth Hasselback was slapped down by O'Donnell, who went on to claim that felons were being allowed to enlist. This is not the first time that such insults have been fired off, but it does show the contempt that is held for the troops in at least some quarters of the anti-war movement.
This is not the first time such comments have been made by opponents of the Iraqi component campaign of the war on terror. In February, NBC commentator William Arkin, criticized American soldiers who defended their efforts in the war on terror. Arkin also had expressed his hope the troops who made the comments had been counseled. Arkin also raised the specter of a military coup, and then referred to them as mercenaries.
In November, 2006, Senator John Kerry made comments concerning an alleged lack of intelligence among the troops and the notion that many of the recruits are poor. Like Kerry's comments, which killed his 2008 presidential bid, Rosie O'Donnell's comments also have little, if any, basis in truth. Every year since 1983, over 90 percent of all recruits have at least a high school diploma. Many officers and enlisted personnel tend to get college degrees (both graduate and undergraduate), often paid for by the armed services. The claim that most of the recruits are poor also did not stand up to facts. Most of the recruits come from middle-class families. These recruits also score high on the AVSAB tests (two-thirds of recruits score over 60 percent on the test), another indication that they are not stupid. Also, felonies are a bar to enlistment.
The comments from Ricki Lake, Rosie O'Donnell, and John Kerry are not the worst things that have been said about the troops. Some scurrilous and very incendiary charges came from Seymour Hersh, a journalist who broke various stories in the Vietnam War. Hersh openly called for American troops to be treated as they were when they returned from Vietnam. Hersh claimed that the American forces in Iraq were carrying out atrocities. In one instance, he claimed a video of a massacre at a soccer game in the wake of an IED attack existed. Yet Hersh made this claim at a lecture at McGill University in Canada. He apparently had not heard of the Army's Criminal Investigative Division and the Naval Criminal Investigative Service (the latter of which is the subject of a popular prime-time TV series).
In a very real sense, there is only so much hypocrisy that the anti-war movement will be able to get away with. It certainly is fair to ask the anti-war movement how they reconcile their belief that they support the troops, when they express almost implacable opposition to what the troops are doing. These claims of support become harder to buy when they come right after the person making them has called the troops stupid on national TV. – Harold C. Hutchison (haroldc.hutchison@gmail.com)
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htiw/articles/20070502.aspx
Commentary:
I have to admit, this is one of reasons that I have yet to vote Democrat. It's one thing to play partisan politics with domestic or foreign policy, but quite another to disparage the people tasked with implementing that policy as idiots. And what are the soldiers to do when it comes to defending themselves from such denigrating abuse?
Recently, DOD issued a policy stating that all "mil-bloggers" have to clear their postings with their chain of command before publicizing their comments on their personal blogs due to concerns about Operational Security concerns. Aside from being this potentially becoming an excessive burden upon the chain of command to undertake censorship duties, it also deprives our soldiers the ability to voice their owns opinions as to whether they believe in their mission or not. My view is that if a soldier commits an OPSEC violation, they should be punished. If they insult their chain of command, or engage in partisan political activities online, they should be punished. This preserves the professional quality of our military force and maintains their subservience to civilian control.
There should be nothing wrong with servicemen creating blogs as a means of letting the American people know what they are doing and how they live. For one thing, in this day and age, it's almost technically impossible to stop. If China, with its near complete control over internet access in that country, can't stop their people from posting anti-government comments, what makes us think the US military can do so in our open societies? What's to stop a soldier from typing up comments on his laptop, storing it on a thumb drive, and mailing it to some accomplice who will post it anonymously?
Collective punishment perpetrated against all soldiers trying to educate the American homefront is not the answer. It's difficult for most Americans to understand their frustrations, as well as their triumphs, when the main stream media doesn't consider it important enough to report.
No wonder the people in this country don't understand what's at stake in Iraq (let alone the entire Middle East).
The Scrutinizer
May 2, 2007:
Yet another example of a media celebrity letting their true feeling about the troops slip out. In this case, it is "The View" guest co-host Ricki Lake (best known for a trashy talk show), who used the word "ineducation" to describe why young Americans join the military. This was in response to a question from co-host Rosie O'Donnell as to why they enlist. An attempt to challenge that by co-host Elizabeth Hasselback was slapped down by O'Donnell, who went on to claim that felons were being allowed to enlist. This is not the first time that such insults have been fired off, but it does show the contempt that is held for the troops in at least some quarters of the anti-war movement.
This is not the first time such comments have been made by opponents of the Iraqi component campaign of the war on terror. In February, NBC commentator William Arkin, criticized American soldiers who defended their efforts in the war on terror. Arkin also had expressed his hope the troops who made the comments had been counseled. Arkin also raised the specter of a military coup, and then referred to them as mercenaries.
In November, 2006, Senator John Kerry made comments concerning an alleged lack of intelligence among the troops and the notion that many of the recruits are poor. Like Kerry's comments, which killed his 2008 presidential bid, Rosie O'Donnell's comments also have little, if any, basis in truth. Every year since 1983, over 90 percent of all recruits have at least a high school diploma. Many officers and enlisted personnel tend to get college degrees (both graduate and undergraduate), often paid for by the armed services. The claim that most of the recruits are poor also did not stand up to facts. Most of the recruits come from middle-class families. These recruits also score high on the AVSAB tests (two-thirds of recruits score over 60 percent on the test), another indication that they are not stupid. Also, felonies are a bar to enlistment.
The comments from Ricki Lake, Rosie O'Donnell, and John Kerry are not the worst things that have been said about the troops. Some scurrilous and very incendiary charges came from Seymour Hersh, a journalist who broke various stories in the Vietnam War. Hersh openly called for American troops to be treated as they were when they returned from Vietnam. Hersh claimed that the American forces in Iraq were carrying out atrocities. In one instance, he claimed a video of a massacre at a soccer game in the wake of an IED attack existed. Yet Hersh made this claim at a lecture at McGill University in Canada. He apparently had not heard of the Army's Criminal Investigative Division and the Naval Criminal Investigative Service (the latter of which is the subject of a popular prime-time TV series).
In a very real sense, there is only so much hypocrisy that the anti-war movement will be able to get away with. It certainly is fair to ask the anti-war movement how they reconcile their belief that they support the troops, when they express almost implacable opposition to what the troops are doing. These claims of support become harder to buy when they come right after the person making them has called the troops stupid on national TV. – Harold C. Hutchison (haroldc.hutchison@gmail.com)
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htiw/articles/20070502.aspx
Commentary:
I have to admit, this is one of reasons that I have yet to vote Democrat. It's one thing to play partisan politics with domestic or foreign policy, but quite another to disparage the people tasked with implementing that policy as idiots. And what are the soldiers to do when it comes to defending themselves from such denigrating abuse?
Recently, DOD issued a policy stating that all "mil-bloggers" have to clear their postings with their chain of command before publicizing their comments on their personal blogs due to concerns about Operational Security concerns. Aside from being this potentially becoming an excessive burden upon the chain of command to undertake censorship duties, it also deprives our soldiers the ability to voice their owns opinions as to whether they believe in their mission or not. My view is that if a soldier commits an OPSEC violation, they should be punished. If they insult their chain of command, or engage in partisan political activities online, they should be punished. This preserves the professional quality of our military force and maintains their subservience to civilian control.
There should be nothing wrong with servicemen creating blogs as a means of letting the American people know what they are doing and how they live. For one thing, in this day and age, it's almost technically impossible to stop. If China, with its near complete control over internet access in that country, can't stop their people from posting anti-government comments, what makes us think the US military can do so in our open societies? What's to stop a soldier from typing up comments on his laptop, storing it on a thumb drive, and mailing it to some accomplice who will post it anonymously?
Collective punishment perpetrated against all soldiers trying to educate the American homefront is not the answer. It's difficult for most Americans to understand their frustrations, as well as their triumphs, when the main stream media doesn't consider it important enough to report.
No wonder the people in this country don't understand what's at stake in Iraq (let alone the entire Middle East).
The Scrutinizer
Wednesday, May 09, 2007
Reaping What We Have Sown
Why is there an Militant Islamist insurgency in Iraq? Did it just "appear" when Saddam was overthrown, or was the foundation of a Salafist/Takfirist Islamist state already taking root during the '90s when Saddam's regime was weakened by international sanctions, as well as Shi'a and Kurdish rebellion (after years of oppression).
One of the epiphanies I experienced while I was in Iraq was the degree to which former Ba'thists were involved in the leadership of various Jihadist groups which MNF-I all, rightly or wrongly, categorized as Al Qai'da in Iraq (AQIZ, IZ being the country code for Iraq). Ansar Al-Islam, Ansar Al-Sunnah, 1920 Brigades.. Umar Brigades, and let's not forget Al Qai'da. All of these are among the most prevalent of the Sunni based insurgent groups. For the moment, I will refrain from addressing the Shi'a factions, since the focus of this post is to point out that militant Islamism was a rising force that not even Saddam was successful at containing. But here is a general list of current insurgent groups operating in Iraq:
http://www.milnet.com/pentagon/centcom/iraq/Terrorism-in-Iraq.html
One of the fundamental questions that has remained begging to be asked is why has the nature of the insurgency taken on an Islamist tone? Why, in the wake of Saddam's overthrow, did we not see the Sunnis rally around already organized resistance movements such as the Fidayin Saddam (Saddam's men of sacrifice) and thus, preserving a Ba'thist "tone" to the insurgency? The message from many in the main stream media and anti-war pundits is that Saddam, nasty as he might have been, was at least secular dictator and thus, a "ally" in our war against militant Islam. But if Saddam were really as powerful as everyone claims, Al Qai'da should have been squashed by the Sunnis tribal leaders the very minute it attempted to compete with the Ba'thists for control over the insurgency.
Instead, the Fidayin (also anglicized as Fedayeen), although a force of resistance during the early months after Saddam's fall, were quickly dismantled as an organization, and their members drifted to the Islamist groups. Of course, this might have been also due to their proclivity to tatoo themselves with heart or wings, topped by an F (for Fidayin).
Now, another point that seemed to elude understanding is why Syria, despite long standing rivalries between the Syrian Ba'thist party and Saddam, did not provide support to the Iraqi Ba'thist, if only out of sheer self-preservation of their veracity of their own ideology (as as to potentially finally seize control over the Iraqi Ba'thist political apparatus). One would think that the Syrians would have had an interest in promoting a Ba'thist insurgency, rather than assisting in inciting an militant Sunni Islamist resistance movement that might undermine its own authority in Damascus (look up Hama and Assad to fully understand the logic).
IMO, the reality is that the only authority the Ba'thists had in ruling Iraq was their ability to implement a "divide and conquer" strategy amongst the Sunni tribes, pitting them against one another for Saddam's favor (translate as money and political power), while increasing their representation within Saddam's administrative and military/intelligence machine (think patronage system). I believe the same situation exists within Syria, and Bashir Al-Assad has relatively little control over the activities those Ba'thist officials who secretly have a duel allegiance to the Islamist factions.
Over and over again, I would see reports of individuals formerly part of the Ba'thist party apparatus, now apparently involved with Al Qai'da and/or Ansar Al-Sunnah (the 2 dominant Jihadist factions). The Umar (Omar) Brigrade was reportedly recruited from the ranks of former Republican Guards, Special Security, and Intelligence members, to fight against the Shi'a Badr brigades. But no one willing to claim allegiance to Ba'thism.
If one doubts me, then let's look at the capture of Abu Ayman, one of the biggest, baddest, terrorist cell leaders in the Baghdad area for several years. He was someone who was closely linked to Abu Mu'sab Al-Zarqawi, and was reported next in line to become the "Amir" (Prince) of Baghdad representing Al Qai'da in 2005, after Abu Azzam was killed. But who is Abu Ayman?:
http://jamestown.org/terrorism/news/article.php?articleid=2369955
Mohammed Hila Hammad Obeidi(Ubaydi), aka Abu Ayman, "was formerly the chief of staff of intelligence under the regime of Saddam Hussein and was most recently the leader of the Secret Islamic Army, a secret militia operating in the Babil province".
Now ask yourselves how a man, supposedly one of the highest members of Saddam's Intelligence Service, heavily vetted for his Ba'thist loyalties, suddenly opted to become a militant Islamist? Why didn't he just represent himself as a Ba'thist, with aim of restoring Ba'thism to nation of Iraq? How did a man, who would rapidly turn from secular ideology, strongly oppsed to militant Islam, rise to such a rank that he became the COS of Saddam's intelligence service?
And then there is the case of Sa'ad Ali Firas and his associates, most of whom were former members of Saddam's intelligence/security entities:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2005/10/mil-051020-mnfi01.htm
Now, I could go on about discussing the multitude of former members of Saddam's intelligence and security agencies who have risen to leadership within either Al Qai'da or Ansar Al Sunnah, including some who were former bodyguards for Saddam's family. But there's not much "publicly available" documentation to support this, primarily because the members of the press have not posed these questions to MNF-I PAO briefers and much of it remains classifed.
Why is no one asking this question, you might ask?
Well, some people HAVE asked this question. Ray Robinson was a member of the DOCEX operation for the Iraq Survey Group, and he has expressed many of the same questions and perspectives that I did during my period in Iraq:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2006/10/fallujah_baathist_and_wahhabis.html
To sum this up.. those who would contend that Saddam's regime was a secular dictatorship ignore the fact that it was increasingly becoming dependent upon, if not infiltrated by, individuals who did not share the secular ideology of Ba'thism. It was merely a convenient means for them to survive, until such a time that they possessed sufficient control over the military and intelligence, to stage a coup.
Anyone remember what happened to Sadat?
http://www.nmhschool.org/tthornton/jihadorgan.php
"In the 1990s, Egyptian members of al-Jihad merged with Osama bin Laden's organization, al-Qaeda ("the Foundation"). One of Jihad's leaders, Ayman al-Zawahiri, became one of Osama bin Laden's chief lieutenants.
And what would have been the US response to such a coup by a Jihadist motivated government? What COULD our response have been, except to wring our hands and accept it. After all, Saddam's overthrow was what we were hoping for, right? How could we oppose any faction that managed to accomplish that?
By overthrowing Saddam ourselves, what we did was unleash the pent-up Salafist forces that ALREADY existed in Iraq and were simply binding their time until the proper opportunity arose to take charge. We permitted these Salafists to gain power during the '90s by weakening Saddam's power, rather than just overthrowing him as punishment for the invasion of Kuwait. We threw him into the hands of the Salafists, without who's support, he could not defend the regime against the rebellious Shi'a and Kurds. He put "Allah Ahkbar" on the Ba'thist Iraqi flag in recognition of his growing dependence on the Salafists. He built them HUGE mosques within which to pray and spread their Islamist ideas. Saddam was riding the back of an Islamist "Tiger", hoping that controlling it's agenda, he could prevent himself from being devoured by it.
Thus, by not removing Saddam in 1991, when we had real justification (and the necessary troops) we have reaped what we have sown.
The Scrutinizer
Why is there an Militant Islamist insurgency in Iraq? Did it just "appear" when Saddam was overthrown, or was the foundation of a Salafist/Takfirist Islamist state already taking root during the '90s when Saddam's regime was weakened by international sanctions, as well as Shi'a and Kurdish rebellion (after years of oppression).
One of the epiphanies I experienced while I was in Iraq was the degree to which former Ba'thists were involved in the leadership of various Jihadist groups which MNF-I all, rightly or wrongly, categorized as Al Qai'da in Iraq (AQIZ, IZ being the country code for Iraq). Ansar Al-Islam, Ansar Al-Sunnah, 1920 Brigades.. Umar Brigades, and let's not forget Al Qai'da. All of these are among the most prevalent of the Sunni based insurgent groups. For the moment, I will refrain from addressing the Shi'a factions, since the focus of this post is to point out that militant Islamism was a rising force that not even Saddam was successful at containing. But here is a general list of current insurgent groups operating in Iraq:
http://www.milnet.com/pentagon/centcom/iraq/Terrorism-in-Iraq.html
One of the fundamental questions that has remained begging to be asked is why has the nature of the insurgency taken on an Islamist tone? Why, in the wake of Saddam's overthrow, did we not see the Sunnis rally around already organized resistance movements such as the Fidayin Saddam (Saddam's men of sacrifice) and thus, preserving a Ba'thist "tone" to the insurgency? The message from many in the main stream media and anti-war pundits is that Saddam, nasty as he might have been, was at least secular dictator and thus, a "ally" in our war against militant Islam. But if Saddam were really as powerful as everyone claims, Al Qai'da should have been squashed by the Sunnis tribal leaders the very minute it attempted to compete with the Ba'thists for control over the insurgency.
Instead, the Fidayin (also anglicized as Fedayeen), although a force of resistance during the early months after Saddam's fall, were quickly dismantled as an organization, and their members drifted to the Islamist groups. Of course, this might have been also due to their proclivity to tatoo themselves with heart or wings, topped by an F (for Fidayin).
Now, another point that seemed to elude understanding is why Syria, despite long standing rivalries between the Syrian Ba'thist party and Saddam, did not provide support to the Iraqi Ba'thist, if only out of sheer self-preservation of their veracity of their own ideology (as as to potentially finally seize control over the Iraqi Ba'thist political apparatus). One would think that the Syrians would have had an interest in promoting a Ba'thist insurgency, rather than assisting in inciting an militant Sunni Islamist resistance movement that might undermine its own authority in Damascus (look up Hama and Assad to fully understand the logic).
IMO, the reality is that the only authority the Ba'thists had in ruling Iraq was their ability to implement a "divide and conquer" strategy amongst the Sunni tribes, pitting them against one another for Saddam's favor (translate as money and political power), while increasing their representation within Saddam's administrative and military/intelligence machine (think patronage system). I believe the same situation exists within Syria, and Bashir Al-Assad has relatively little control over the activities those Ba'thist officials who secretly have a duel allegiance to the Islamist factions.
Over and over again, I would see reports of individuals formerly part of the Ba'thist party apparatus, now apparently involved with Al Qai'da and/or Ansar Al-Sunnah (the 2 dominant Jihadist factions). The Umar (Omar) Brigrade was reportedly recruited from the ranks of former Republican Guards, Special Security, and Intelligence members, to fight against the Shi'a Badr brigades. But no one willing to claim allegiance to Ba'thism.
If one doubts me, then let's look at the capture of Abu Ayman, one of the biggest, baddest, terrorist cell leaders in the Baghdad area for several years. He was someone who was closely linked to Abu Mu'sab Al-Zarqawi, and was reported next in line to become the "Amir" (Prince) of Baghdad representing Al Qai'da in 2005, after Abu Azzam was killed. But who is Abu Ayman?:
http://jamestown.org/terrorism/news/article.php?articleid=2369955
Mohammed Hila Hammad Obeidi(Ubaydi), aka Abu Ayman, "was formerly the chief of staff of intelligence under the regime of Saddam Hussein and was most recently the leader of the Secret Islamic Army, a secret militia operating in the Babil province".
Now ask yourselves how a man, supposedly one of the highest members of Saddam's Intelligence Service, heavily vetted for his Ba'thist loyalties, suddenly opted to become a militant Islamist? Why didn't he just represent himself as a Ba'thist, with aim of restoring Ba'thism to nation of Iraq? How did a man, who would rapidly turn from secular ideology, strongly oppsed to militant Islam, rise to such a rank that he became the COS of Saddam's intelligence service?
And then there is the case of Sa'ad Ali Firas and his associates, most of whom were former members of Saddam's intelligence/security entities:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2005/10/mil-051020-mnfi01.htm
Now, I could go on about discussing the multitude of former members of Saddam's intelligence and security agencies who have risen to leadership within either Al Qai'da or Ansar Al Sunnah, including some who were former bodyguards for Saddam's family. But there's not much "publicly available" documentation to support this, primarily because the members of the press have not posed these questions to MNF-I PAO briefers and much of it remains classifed.
Why is no one asking this question, you might ask?
Well, some people HAVE asked this question. Ray Robinson was a member of the DOCEX operation for the Iraq Survey Group, and he has expressed many of the same questions and perspectives that I did during my period in Iraq:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2006/10/fallujah_baathist_and_wahhabis.html
To sum this up.. those who would contend that Saddam's regime was a secular dictatorship ignore the fact that it was increasingly becoming dependent upon, if not infiltrated by, individuals who did not share the secular ideology of Ba'thism. It was merely a convenient means for them to survive, until such a time that they possessed sufficient control over the military and intelligence, to stage a coup.
Anyone remember what happened to Sadat?
http://www.nmhschool.org/tthornton/jihadorgan.php
"In the 1990s, Egyptian members of al-Jihad merged with Osama bin Laden's organization, al-Qaeda ("the Foundation"). One of Jihad's leaders, Ayman al-Zawahiri, became one of Osama bin Laden's chief lieutenants.
And what would have been the US response to such a coup by a Jihadist motivated government? What COULD our response have been, except to wring our hands and accept it. After all, Saddam's overthrow was what we were hoping for, right? How could we oppose any faction that managed to accomplish that?
By overthrowing Saddam ourselves, what we did was unleash the pent-up Salafist forces that ALREADY existed in Iraq and were simply binding their time until the proper opportunity arose to take charge. We permitted these Salafists to gain power during the '90s by weakening Saddam's power, rather than just overthrowing him as punishment for the invasion of Kuwait. We threw him into the hands of the Salafists, without who's support, he could not defend the regime against the rebellious Shi'a and Kurds. He put "Allah Ahkbar" on the Ba'thist Iraqi flag in recognition of his growing dependence on the Salafists. He built them HUGE mosques within which to pray and spread their Islamist ideas. Saddam was riding the back of an Islamist "Tiger", hoping that controlling it's agenda, he could prevent himself from being devoured by it.
Thus, by not removing Saddam in 1991, when we had real justification (and the necessary troops) we have reaped what we have sown.
The Scrutinizer
Tuesday, May 08, 2007
Since my return from Iraq, I've been dabbling with day and swing trading. Last year (2006) was going gangbusters for the first part of the year, but then I forgot my trading discipline and permitted myself to fall into a false sense of security (which caused some financial pain). This year has been going much better and I think I've learned a few lessons about taking profits when I have them and moving on.
A few of the companies that have captured my interest are Internap: INAP and Microvision: MVIS.
INAP surprised the street with some very impressive pre- one time charge earnings which immediately sent the stock soaring back towards previous highs. It's currently in a consolidation phase after this run up, but this company stands, IMO, to provide some serious competition to such 800 pound guerrillas like AKAM. The one time charge was due to INAP consolidating real-estate holdings with its newly acquired CDN (Content Delivery Network) which finally rounds out their IP routing, and co-location services. This enables them to provide the "full package" to prospective customers, along with their 100% up-time guarantee.
Anyone having any doubts about this company's prospects should listen to the most recent conference call by it's CEO, Jim DeBlasio (available for the next couple of weeks at this link):
http://biz.yahoo.com/cc/9/79999.html
And here is a presentation they gave a couple of days ago for the investment community explaining what they do, and what they have to offer:
http://www.internap.com/investor/presentations/files/5-7-07.pdf
As for Microvision: MVIS, I became aware of them in January, 2007 when an acquaintance of mine (friend of a friend) made me aware of the looming "disruptive technology" being presented by Laser Projection Displays. MVIS has developed a laser projector that is the size of your average chocolate mint, small enough to fit in a cell phone:
http://www.microvision.com/
There are a couple of blogs that I pay particularly close attention to for the latest news and insight regarding the prospects for MVIS:
http://microvision.blogspot.com/
And, of course, one cannot overlook the always irreverant (and generally unecessarily profane) "Fly on the Wall", who apparently runs a "bit of money" on the street:
http://flyonwallstreet.blogspot.com/
It's worth reading some of the comments posted on his blog back in April relative to the "special situation" that MVIS shares represent at this level.
http://flyonwallstreet.blogspot.com/2007_04_01_archive.html
That's all for tonight.. maybe I'll have some time to play more "catch-up" in coming days.
The Scrutinizer
A few of the companies that have captured my interest are Internap: INAP and Microvision: MVIS.
INAP surprised the street with some very impressive pre- one time charge earnings which immediately sent the stock soaring back towards previous highs. It's currently in a consolidation phase after this run up, but this company stands, IMO, to provide some serious competition to such 800 pound guerrillas like AKAM. The one time charge was due to INAP consolidating real-estate holdings with its newly acquired CDN (Content Delivery Network) which finally rounds out their IP routing, and co-location services. This enables them to provide the "full package" to prospective customers, along with their 100% up-time guarantee.
Anyone having any doubts about this company's prospects should listen to the most recent conference call by it's CEO, Jim DeBlasio (available for the next couple of weeks at this link):
http://biz.yahoo.com/cc/9/79999.html
And here is a presentation they gave a couple of days ago for the investment community explaining what they do, and what they have to offer:
http://www.internap.com/investor/presentations/files/5-7-07.pdf
As for Microvision: MVIS, I became aware of them in January, 2007 when an acquaintance of mine (friend of a friend) made me aware of the looming "disruptive technology" being presented by Laser Projection Displays. MVIS has developed a laser projector that is the size of your average chocolate mint, small enough to fit in a cell phone:
http://www.microvision.com/
There are a couple of blogs that I pay particularly close attention to for the latest news and insight regarding the prospects for MVIS:
http://microvision.blogspot.com/
And, of course, one cannot overlook the always irreverant (and generally unecessarily profane) "Fly on the Wall", who apparently runs a "bit of money" on the street:
http://flyonwallstreet.blogspot.com/
It's worth reading some of the comments posted on his blog back in April relative to the "special situation" that MVIS shares represent at this level.
http://flyonwallstreet.blogspot.com/2007_04_01_archive.html
That's all for tonight.. maybe I'll have some time to play more "catch-up" in coming days.
The Scrutinizer
Now what has motivated me to reactivate this Blog, you might ask? (is there anyone out there?)
It was this post:
http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2007/05/a_disaster_wait.html
Pat seems to be trying to assert that armored car bombs being used by the "Muj" (Mujahidin) is something new.
This is nonsense. Can we forget when insurgents drove a concrete truck full of high explosive into the courtyard of the Palestine Hotel in Baghdad, nearly succeeding in toppling the building?
It's also been a long-know tactic for insurgents to use dump-trucks as mobile mortar platforms.
And finally, I contend, it's not some "Haji" vehicle decked out with "hill-billy" armor we have to worry about. I would suspect that those can be identified from a considerable distance by sharp eyed snipers, long before they manage to receive a traffic control point (TCP). No, what we should worry about are the the equivalent of of our armored suburbans, vehicles specifically armord in such a manner as to preserve their stock, unmodified, appearance. These are the ones we need to worry about because they will look harmless enough to get close to the TCP, whereupon the driver would punch the gas and attempt to bust through immune to withering return fire, or even worse, catching the soldiers off-guard before they could react with anti-armor weaponry. That's what I worry about.
And lest someone believe that's unlikely, ask yourself who's driving the $185K white armored surbuban that formerly carried the Iraq Survey Group director, Charles Duelfer, between the BIAP and the Green Zone. It was stolen in 2005, while enroute on a car carrier to Kuwait for repairs that were not permitted to be conducted in Baghdad. So far as I know, it was never recovered. One can only hope it was sold on the black market to some wealthy Kuwaiti or Saudi.
Alrighty.. enough of the "sour grapes" over my encounter with Pat Lang (Pat.. if you find this blog, you'll always be be welcome to comment.. I promise I won't censor you, even if I disagree with you.).
The Scrutinizer
It was this post:
http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2007/05/a_disaster_wait.html
Pat seems to be trying to assert that armored car bombs being used by the "Muj" (Mujahidin) is something new.
This is nonsense. Can we forget when insurgents drove a concrete truck full of high explosive into the courtyard of the Palestine Hotel in Baghdad, nearly succeeding in toppling the building?
It's also been a long-know tactic for insurgents to use dump-trucks as mobile mortar platforms.
And finally, I contend, it's not some "Haji" vehicle decked out with "hill-billy" armor we have to worry about. I would suspect that those can be identified from a considerable distance by sharp eyed snipers, long before they manage to receive a traffic control point (TCP). No, what we should worry about are the the equivalent of of our armored suburbans, vehicles specifically armord in such a manner as to preserve their stock, unmodified, appearance. These are the ones we need to worry about because they will look harmless enough to get close to the TCP, whereupon the driver would punch the gas and attempt to bust through immune to withering return fire, or even worse, catching the soldiers off-guard before they could react with anti-armor weaponry. That's what I worry about.
And lest someone believe that's unlikely, ask yourself who's driving the $185K white armored surbuban that formerly carried the Iraq Survey Group director, Charles Duelfer, between the BIAP and the Green Zone. It was stolen in 2005, while enroute on a car carrier to Kuwait for repairs that were not permitted to be conducted in Baghdad. So far as I know, it was never recovered. One can only hope it was sold on the black market to some wealthy Kuwaiti or Saudi.
Alrighty.. enough of the "sour grapes" over my encounter with Pat Lang (Pat.. if you find this blog, you'll always be be welcome to comment.. I promise I won't censor you, even if I disagree with you.).
The Scrutinizer
Been awhile since I've posted. Was overseas for a couple of years working in Iraq and the experience has given me some new perspectives and insights which I hope to put in coming posts.
Currently, I've been engaged in commenting on a couple of other blogs, including Intel Dump under the name Diogenes (the famous Greek cynic who reported travels the streets blindfolded looking for an "honest man").
Interesting experiences of late include the censorship I received at the hands Ret. Col Patrick Lang on his blog:
http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/
I, apparently, have been declared "Persona Non Grata" on his Blog because he didn't like some of my comments, calling them "naive and uninformed". When I attempted to explain my perspective in more depth, in order for him to understand my perspectives (and hopefully to edcucate me why my views were illogical or inaccurate), his response consisted of asking me whether I was engaged in some "IO campaign" on behalf of the "Neo-Cons", or the US government (presumably the Bush administration).
This is sad, because I had originally sought him out as a "sounding board" against which I could test my logic, test it's intellectual "armor" against opposing perspectives, and ultimately, get a bit close to some form of "truth".
Admittedly, I am quite disappointed that Pat chose to respond by attempting to "label and categorize" me, rather than taking the time to correct what he presumed were my logical errors.
As I embark on reactivating this blog, I give commentors the promise that I won't censor comments merely because I disagree with them. This will be a moderated forum, if only to keep down the "noise" factor. But if you have a comment, and are prepared to logically defend it with facts, then I will be happy to "bless it".
We don't always have to agree. But if I see you're making an honest attempt to logically argue your perspective, I certainly don't see any reason to invoke censorship.
Currently, I've been engaged in commenting on a couple of other blogs, including Intel Dump under the name Diogenes (the famous Greek cynic who reported travels the streets blindfolded looking for an "honest man").
Interesting experiences of late include the censorship I received at the hands Ret. Col Patrick Lang on his blog:
http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/
I, apparently, have been declared "Persona Non Grata" on his Blog because he didn't like some of my comments, calling them "naive and uninformed". When I attempted to explain my perspective in more depth, in order for him to understand my perspectives (and hopefully to edcucate me why my views were illogical or inaccurate), his response consisted of asking me whether I was engaged in some "IO campaign" on behalf of the "Neo-Cons", or the US government (presumably the Bush administration).
This is sad, because I had originally sought him out as a "sounding board" against which I could test my logic, test it's intellectual "armor" against opposing perspectives, and ultimately, get a bit close to some form of "truth".
Admittedly, I am quite disappointed that Pat chose to respond by attempting to "label and categorize" me, rather than taking the time to correct what he presumed were my logical errors.
As I embark on reactivating this blog, I give commentors the promise that I won't censor comments merely because I disagree with them. This will be a moderated forum, if only to keep down the "noise" factor. But if you have a comment, and are prepared to logically defend it with facts, then I will be happy to "bless it".
We don't always have to agree. But if I see you're making an honest attempt to logically argue your perspective, I certainly don't see any reason to invoke censorship.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)