From The Seattle PI

In the second quarter of the year, a U.S. military auditor recently reported, Iraq’s oil production averaged more than 2.4 million barrels a day, the highest level since the U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003, and a marked improvement on last year’s average of around 2 million barrels a day.

Rising output, along with the high (if now falling) price of oil, should pump up Iraq’s oil revenues to almost $80 billion this year. That, in turn, has allowed the country’s Parliament to boost this year’s budget from $48 billion to $70 billion in a supplementary spending bill approved earlier this month.

As security improves, the government has a lot more cash to spend than it did a year ago. Will it make the best of it?

For one thing, revenue from oil should go up more sharply still. Iraq produced 3 million b/d as recently as October 2001, despite the crippling U.N.-enforced sanctions at the time. Iraq’s oil minister, Hussein al-Shahristani, has spoken of raising output to 6 million b/d.

In theory, that is possible. Iraq’s proven reserves, of 115 billion barrels, are the world’s third-largest after Saudi Arabia and Iran. Yet Iraq ranks just 13th in terms of production, suggesting there is plenty of scope to pump more.

Russia, for example, produced almost 10 million b/d last year from reserves of 80 billion barrels. Only 27 of the 80 or so fields that have been discovered in Iraq have ever been tapped.

Read more Oil

From The Consortium News
By Michael Winship

In a letter written in 1648, the Swedish statesman, Axel Oxenstierna, chancellor to both King Gustavus Adolphus and Queen Christina, counseled, “Know, my son, with how little wisdom the world is governed.”

The fighting between Russia and the former Soviet republic of Georgia is an unnerving reminder of that, and of how quickly the balance of global power can be tilted from unexpected directions with barely a warning.

Some hawks and neo-cons called for NATO intervention or even suggested we send in Stinger missiles or the 82nd Airborne as a peacekeeping force. President Bush warned, “Russia has invaded a sovereign neighboring state and threatens a democratic government elected by its people. Such an action is unacceptable in the 21st century.”

Perhaps, but the reality of the early 21st century is that, in the short run, at least, the president’s words ring hollow. In spite of past promises of support to Georgia, Russia is key to our efforts in the Middle East and our European allies are dependent on Russia for energy.

The invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq have both our military strength and our international credibility stretched perilously thin at a time when oil-rich Russia is reemerging as a superpower. We’ve boxed ourselves in.

It was in that light that I came upon the Oxenstierna quote the other night, while re-reading the late historian Barbara Tuchman’s The March of Folly, a knowing compendium, from ancient Troy to Vietnam, of the ways in which, given half a chance, those in power will steer their ships of state straight into the rocks.

Read more Limits

From The BBC News

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice travelled to Warsaw for the ceremony, after 18 months of negotiations.

The deal has angered Russia, which has warned the base could become a target for a nuclear strike.

Washington says the system will protect the US and much of Europe against missile attacks from “rogue elements” in the Middle East such as Iran.

The agreement, which has yet to be ratified by the Polish parliament, was signed by Ms Rice and Poland’s Foreign Minister Radek Sikorski.

‘Aimed at no-one’

Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk said the negotiations had been “tough, but friendly”, adding that the deal would make both Poland and the US more secure.

Ms Rice said the signing of the document was an extraordinary occasion, adding that the agreement would help Nato, Poland and the US respond to “the threats of the 21st Century”.

Read more Missile Deal

From Der Spiegel
By Gabor Steingart

These days Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin is often compared — unfairly — with Stalin and Hitler. In truth, Putin is a Russian Kennedy. And Putin’s Cuba is called Georgia.

Russia’s invasion of Georgia has brought lovers of historical comparisons out of the woodwork. Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt, for one, compared Vladimir Putin with Hitler. And former US National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski felt reminded of Stalin’s treatment of Finland.

But these analogies have more to say about the West’s mood than about Putin. Although it may sound bold at first, and although the Americans won’t like hearing it, the Vladimir Putin the world has experienced in recent days bears the strongest resemblance to former US President John F. Kennedy in the years 1961 and 1962.

First, the youthful Kennedy was seen as the embodiment of a new America, just as the wiry Putin represents Russia’s revival. Kennedy was and Putin is deeply popular among his own citizens.

Second, even Kennedy drew a distinction between first-class and second-class sovereign states. He assumed that residents of the main house ought to have something to say in the backyard, as in Cuba, for example. Putin shares the same view, in the case of Georgia, for example. In America’s case we call such behavior dominant, and in Russia’s case aggressive. But we mean the same thing.

Read more Learning

From TruthDig
By Bill Boyarsky

The brief, bloody Georgia war provided another example of John McCain’s reckless views on foreign policy and what he’ll do if he becomes president.

He’s Bush but worse. Forget the moderate image, promoted by an admiring media. Forget the so-called straight talk and independence. With the Russian-Georgian war winding down, McCain has firmly established himself as an old-fashioned Cold Warrior and a supporter of the huge oil companies that have a big stake in Georgia and the rest of the Caucasus.

President Bush talks to the Russians. McCain seems to long for the Iron Curtain days of those long decades of conflict with plenty of brinkmanship, saber rattling and possibly a trip to the edge of war.

Bush chatted with Prime Minister Vladimir Putin during the Olympics, even while Russian troops were invading Georgia. Engagement with the Russians is alien to McCain. For example, he urged Bush to boycott a meeting of the Group of Eight, composed of major industrial nations, in St. Petersburg in 2006. Bush ignored his advice.

And whereas Bush said that when he looked Putin “in the eye,” “I found him to be very straightforward and trustworthy” and “I was able to get a sense of his soul,” McCain said, “I looked into his eyes and saw three letters, a K, a G and a B.”

McCain may have a clearer reading of the old KGB spy’s soul than Bush. But his hostile attitude is dangerous in a time when these two powers must get along. Only the most fanatic neocons want a resumption of the Cold War.

Read more Danger

From The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
By Cynthia Tucker

The Chinese are getting just what they wanted from their Olympics. And I’m not talking about medals — though they seem to be in for their share of gold. I mean prestige, status, respect.

China’s Communist government pushed to host the Summer Olympic Games because its leaders were intent on showing the world that the country is no longer a backwater to be ignored — or patronized — by world powers. With a stunning (if slightly fake) Opening Ceremony that marched viewers through centuries of its history, China announced its resurgence.

And while the Chinese were flexing their muscle through public relations mastery, the Russians were doing the same using a more traditional tool: military might. As the West enjoyed its traditional lazy August, with its journalists focused largely on the Olympics, Russia moved to remind the United States that it won’t tolerate any more mucking about in its neighborhood. A small country called Georgia, with a U.S.-educated president who seems to see himself as the second coming of Lech Walesa, sent in troops to try to reassert control over pro-Russian breakaway enclaves. But Russia responded with tanks and troops of its own.

Let’s hope Americans who still believe we can bend the world to our will are paying attention. The Chinese glitter and the Russian guns of August should have reinforced a lesson: Even if the United States remains the world’s lone superpower, it is a significantly diminished one, first among near-equals. We no longer stand astride the globe. Our bluff and bluster aren’t as frightening as we might think.

Read more Bluster

From The Times UK
By Andrew Sullivan

Last week John McCain came alive. He’s a mercurial fellow – sometimes obviously bored, more often careening around his surroundings like a white, scarred and bowed Tasmanian devil, occasionally bursting with temper, often joking, very occasionally mild and funny. But he really comes to life when a conflict is around and he knows who the enemy is. The enemy can be the president of Russia or fellow Republican senators, but they’ll know it if McCain is on the warpath.

Not many senators, after all, knew who Mikhail Saakashvili was before last weekend. McCain did. He’d spoken to him often, even nominated him for a Nobel peace prize in 2005. Randy Scheunemann, one of McCain’s closest neoconservative advisers, was paid by the Georgian government to lobby for it in Washington. And McCain’s long-standing hatred of the Russian government is common knowledge. He once mocked George W Bush for his eminently mockable statement that he had looked into Vladimir Putin’s eyes and seen a force for good. McCain said he’d looked into Putin’s eyes and seen three letters: K, G and B.

So Putin’s invasion of Georgia brought out the fiery righteousness that has marked the McCain family for generations. He dominated the news, eclipsing the laconic Barack Obama, holidaying in Hawaii, and the hapless American president, still making faces in the crowds at the Olympics. McCain sent a delegation, held press conferences, issued vague threats and championed the plucky Georgians. The prospect of another armed conflict – even better against the old Russian enemy – seemed to lift his mood. And it may lift his ratings.

Nobody who knows McCain was surprised. His ancestors, as Matt Welch pointed out in the best short biography of the man, The Myth of a Maverick, have served in almost every war America has been involved with since the war of independence. McCain’s ideal president is Teddy Roosevelt and if you want to understand McCain’s view of the world, a quick perusal of Roosevelt’s presidency is about as good a primer as you can find.

Read more War

From TruthDig
By Patrick J. Buchanan

Mikheil Saakashvili’s decision to use the opening of the Olympic Games to cover Georgia’s invasion of its breakaway province of South Ossetia must rank in stupidity with Gamal Abdel-Nasser’s decision to close the Straits of Tiran to Israeli ships.

Nasser’s blunder cost him the Sinai in the Six-Day War. Saakashvili’s blunder probably means permanent loss of South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

After shelling and attacking what he claims is his own country, killing scores of his own Ossetian citizens and sending tens of thousands fleeing into Russia, Saakashvili’s army was whipped back into Georgia in 48 hours.

Vladimir Putin took the opportunity to kick the Georgian army out of Abkhazia, as well, to bomb Tbilisi, and to seize Gori, birthplace of Stalin.

Reveling in his status as an intimate of George Bush, Dick Cheney and John McCain, and as America’s lone democratic ally in the Caucasus, Saakashvili thought he could get away with a lightning coup and present the world with a fait accompli.

Mikheil did not reckon on the rage or resolve of the Bear.

American charges of Russian aggression ring hollow. Georgia started this fight—Russia finished it. People who start wars don’t get to decide how and when they end.

Russia’s response was “disproportionate” and “brutal,” wailed Bush.

True. But did we not authorize Israel to bomb Lebanon for 35 days in response to a border skirmish where several Israel soldiers were killed and two captured? Was that not many times more “disproportionate”?

Read more Bear-Baiting

From Der Spiegel
By Gregor Peter Schmits

The Bush Administration has warned that ties with Russia are imperiled, but the truth is that the US can undertake little more than symbolic action against Moscow. As much as Russia’s actions have irritated the Americans, no one is interested in an escalation.

The Brookings Institution in the heart of Washington has invited guests to a debate. The issue, of course, is the crisis in Georgia. Sitting to the left is Robert Kagan, the argumentative conservative political scientist. Kagan has just written a new book in which he seeks to explain the psychology behind Russia’s aggressive foreign policy. Sitting next to him is Martha Brill Olcott, a respected Russia expert with the Carnegie Foundation for International Peace. Kagan criticizes Russia’s Georgia strategy as a colossal mistake, but Brill Olcott starts objecting to some of his statements. The argument goes back and forth, both raise their voices until Kagan tries to assuage the situation.

“I’m not fighting with you, Martha,” he says, smiling at his partner on the podium. “I am fighting against Russia.”

“But Russia isn’t even sitting at the podium,” she replies.

It’s not entirely true — in some ways Russia is omnipresent here — at least as an issue.

Read more Tied Hands

From The Progressive
By Matthew Rothschild

What we’re witnessing now is the bankruptcy of almost two decades of U.S. policy toward Russia.

When Gorbachev and Yeltsin agreed to the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Washington had a great opportunity to broker a global peace with only country, Russia, still capable of destroying the United States.

Bush Sr. seemed to recognize this, and pledged in 1991 not to try to incorporate the Eastern bloc nations and the former Soviet republics that border Eastern Europe right into NATO’s sphere.

But Clinton reneged on that pledge, and George Jr. has done everything in his power to further the incorporation process and to encircle and humiliate Russia.

Last May, Gorbachev said, “The Americans promised that NATO wouldn’t move beyond the boundaries of Germany after the Cold War but now half of central and eastern Europe are members, so what happened to their promises? It shows they cannot be trusted.”

Immanuel Wallerstein lays out all the bad plays by the United States in a brilliant essay entitled “Geopolitical Chess: Background to a Mini-War in the Caucasus.”

Aside from NATO expansion, he mentions U.S. support for the secession of Kosovo, the abrogation of the ABM Treaty, the ditching of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, and the invasion of Iraq.

At the same time, Wallerstein charts the strengthening of Putin’s hand.

Finally, Russia said enough is enough.

Read more Reckless