Books Folder - 2008 onwards!!!

[ramana]

JEM, Here is a link to vol II of Will Durant's History of Civilization

THE STORY OF CIVILIZATION
Our Oriental Heritage.
VOL-II (1935)

Author: WILL DURANT

http://www.archive.org/details/storyofc ... t006839mbp

download pdf or view text


"the Islamic conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. It is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a precious good, whose delicate complex order and freedom can at any moment be overthrown by barbarians invading from without and multiplying from within"

IF had it in their book folder for Indian History.

[JE Menon]

holy crap... have been looking high and low for it and its on the net...

Thanx a million Ramana...

[ramana]

JEM we need to have a sticky where we can find e-books on India. Lets think about how we can do this and the right forum for it.

[JE Menon]

why not right here on this forum? A sticky with links to books should be just fine I would think...

[svinayak]

[quote]Name of the Book: Tuhfat al-Mujahidin (translated from Arabic by S. Muhammad Husayn Nainar)
Author: Shaykh Zainuddin Makhdum
Year: 2006
Pages: 139
Publisher: Islamic book Trust, Kuala Lumpur (www.ibtbooks.com) & Other Books, Calicut (otherbooks@post.com)
Other Books,
P.B.No.620, 13/776,
I Floor, New Way Building,
Railway Link Road,
Calicut-673002,
Kerala,India.
Ph: +91 495 2306808
Price not mentioned

The Tuhfat is one of Shaikh Zainuddin’s several works, and is the best known among them. A chronicle of the stiff resistance put up by the Muslims of Malabar against the Portuguese colonialists from 1498, when Vasco Da Gama arrived in Calicut, to 1583, it describes in considerable detail events, many of which that the author had himself witnessed and lived through. It was intended, as Shaikh Zainduddin says, as a means to exhort the Malabar Muslims to launch a struggle or jihad against the Portuguese invaders. The book thus extols the virtues of jihad against oppressors, and, at the same time, also provides fascinating details about the history of Islam in Malabar, the relations between Muslims and Hindus in the region and the customs and practices of both.

Islam’s first contact with India is said to have taken place in Malabar, and Shaikh Zainuddin offers a popularly-held account of this. He writes of how the Hindu ruler of Malabar, impressed with a group of Muslim pilgrims on their way to Ceylon, converted to Islam and accompanied them back to Arabia. There, shortly before he died, he instructed them to return to Malabar. They did as they were told, and the king’s governors welcomed them, allowing them to settle along the coast and establish mosques. Gradually, he writes, the Muslim community began expanding through the missionary efforts of Sufis and traders.

Relations between Muslims and the Hindus of Malabar, Shaikh Zainudin observes, were traditionally cordial. The rulers of Malabar, all Hindus, treated the Muslims with respect, one reason being that the Muslims played a vital role in the region’s economy because of their control of the trading routes linking Malabar to other lands by sea. Hindu rulers even paid salaries of the muezzins and qazis and allowed the Muslims to be governed in personal matters by their own laws. Hindus who converted to Islam were not harassed, and, even if they were of ‘low’ caste origin, were warmly welcomed into the Muslim community. This was probably one reason for the rapid spread of Islam in the region.

Shaikh Zainuddin’s observations about the Hindus of Malabar are remarkable for their sense of balance and sympathy. Of the Hindu rulers, he says, ‘There are some who are powerful and some comparatively weak. But the strong, as a matter of fact, will not attack or occupy the territory of the weak’. (This, Shaikh Zainuddin suggests, might be a result of the conversion of one of their kings, referred to earlier, to Islam ‘and of his supplications to this effect to God’). He also adds, ‘[The] people of Malabar are never treacherous in their wars’. At the same time, he notes with disapproval the deeply-rooted caste prejudices among the Malabari Hindus. So strict is the law of caste, he writes, that any violation of it results in excommunication, forcing the violator to convert to Islam or Christianity or become a yogi or mendicant or to be enslaved by the king. Even such a minor matter as a ‘high’ caste Hindu woman being hit by a stone thrown by a ‘low’ caste man causes her to lose caste. ‘How many such detestable customs!â€

[svinayak]

The Geography of Thought : How Asians and Westerners Think Differently...and Why
by Richard Nisbett (Author)

# Hardcover: 288 pages
# Publisher: Free Press (March 3, 2003)
# Language: English
# ISBN-10: 0743216466
# ISBN-13: 978-0743216463

This book may mark the beginning of a new front in the science wars. Nisbett, an eminent psychologist and co-author of a seminal Psychological Review paper on how people talk about their decision making, reports on some of his latest work in cultural psychology. He contends that "[h]uman cognition is not everywhere the same"-that those brought up in Western and East Asian cultures think differently from one another in scientifically measurable ways. Such a contention pits his work squarely against evolutionary psychology (as articulated by Steven Pinker and others) and cognitive science, which assume all appreciable human characteristics are "hard wired." Initial chapters lay out the traditional differences between Aristotle and Confucius, and the social practices that produced (and have grown out of) these differing "homeostatic approaches" to the world: Westerners tend to inculcate individualism and choice (40 breakfast cereals at the supermarket), while East Asians are oriented toward group relations and obligations ("the tall poppy is cut down" remains a popular Chinese aphorism). Next, Nisbett presents his actual experiments and data, many of which measure reaction times in recalling previously shown objects. They seem to show East Asians (a term Nisbett uses as a catch-all for Chinese, Koreans, Japanese and others) measurably more holistic in their perceptions (taking in whole scenes rather than a few stand-out objects). Westerners, or those brought up in Northern European and Anglo-Saxon-descended cultures, have a "tunnel-vision perceptual style" that focuses much more on identifying what's prominent in certain scenes and remembering it. Writing dispassionately yet with engagement, Nisbett explains the differences as "an inevitable consequence of using different tools to understand the world." If his explanation turns out to be generally accepted, it means a big victory for memes in their struggle with genes.
Copyright 2003 Reed Business Information, Inc.

From Scientific American
Nisbett, a psychologist and Distinguished University Professor at the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor, used to believe that "all human groups perceive and reason in the same way." A series of events and studies led him gradually to quite another view, that Asians and Westerners "have maintained very different systems of thought for thousands of years." Different how? "The collective or interdependent nature of Asian society is consistent with Asians' broad, contextual view of the world and their belief that events are highly complex and determined by many factors. The individualistic or independent nature of Western society seems consistent with the Western focus on particular objects in isolation from their context and with Westerners' belief that they can know the rules governing objects and therefore can control the objects' behavior." Nisbett explores areas that manifest these different approaches--among them medicine, law, science, human rights and international relations. Are the societal differences so great that they will lead to conflict? Nisbett thinks not. "I believe the twain shall meet by virtue of each moving in the direction of the other."

Editors of Scientific American

First the good. Several experiments on human subjects have shown that Asians and Westerners at a very basic level have biases in perception and categorization. Some experiments on human subjects even show that these differences are, surprise, a bit situational. I have lived in Japan for nine years, and I have noticed several of these things myself. So it was rather refreshing to see experimental data that actually objectifies a lot of these differences. I do think people are often unaware of just how different even a simple picture might look to someone from a different culture. As descriptions of these experiments take up a large part of the book, it certainly might be worthwhile to purchase the book merely to read about them. However, one caution I must add is that Nisbett preludes every experiment's reported result with an "as expected" or an "as anticipated." Nisbett seems content to try and find tests that support his views, but one is forced to wonder how hard he tried to falsify them. A subtle but important difference.

Now, for the bad. If Nisbett had stuck to his interesting and fascinating experiments on human subjects, this book might have made for some interesting reading. Instead, his aims are much larger. He wants to show that, "Each of these orientations -- the Western and the Eastern -- is a self-reinforcing, homeostatic system. The social practices promote the worldviews: the worldviews dictate the appropriate thought processes; and the thought processes both justify the world views and support the social practices. Understanding these homeostatic systems has implications for grasping the fundamental nature of the mind, for beliefs about how we ought ideally to reason, and for appropriate education strategies for different peoples." There is so much philosophical absurdity packed into this phrase it's hard to unpack it all, but it spills out all over the book making it disconnected and confused at times. What would it mean to understand how we "ideally ought to reason." If we "ideally" knew how to reason we could shut off all debate. Where is Karl Popper when you need him? Think about it. If there is an ideal way to reason, then all future debate is shut off immediately. There's no reason to argue or debate about anything, merely turn the levers and use the "ideal" reasoning principles. Where's Kurt Godel when you need him? Another thing Nisbett might want to ask himself is this, how does he escape his own homeostatic system? After all, if the system determined his beliefs about the system then how do we know they are true at all, and not just products of the system itself?

Given this fundamentally flawed thesis, and his attempt to take some very narrow experiments on human subjects and basically roam sloppily over virtually any area he chooses, ranging from philosophy to history to culture, we get a phantasmagoria of stereotypes and confusions. Nisbett's biases are clear, he favors the Western system, after all, the entire approach of the book is mostly logical and argumentative. Yet, Nisbett wants to alternate between putting on his homeostatic-system-hat-for-Asians and his homeostatic-system-hat-for-Westerners as he compares the two with complete relativistic glee. He states: "Medicine in the West retains the analytic, object-oriented, and interventionist approaches that were common thousands of years ago: Find the offending part or humour and remove or alter it. Medicine in the East is far more holistic and has never until modern times been in the least inclined towards surgery or other heroic interventions." What's he got against Western medicine? He thinks that removing the offending humour is the same as modern surgery? He claims he isn't a relativist, and that's right. He's just confused.

There's a lot going on in Japan, where I live, worthy of interest and study. There is a serious problem, though, with critical thinking in Japan. After all, there is a lot of authoritarianism in Japan, just as there is throughout Asia. People in Japan need to learn to express their opinion and they aren't learning how to do that enough. (For that matter they could do a better job in America as well!). The former Japanese ambassador to the UN Yoshio Hatano once said, "Study should not be memorizing what our teachers teach us but learning how to think on our own. And what many Japanese need is to be able to clearly express and advocate their own opinions, even if these might be "minority opinions."" He said this in reference to the fact that many Japanese can't argue their opinions. Nisbet reduces issues like this to : "Is it a form of "colonialism" to demand that they [Asians] perform verbally and share their thoughts with their classmates?" Give me a break! With Nisbett's confused homeostatic-system-causes-beliefs model he just muddles his way through a host of important ethical issues spreading more confusion than enlightenment.

All in all, I would say Nisbett's problem is too much looking for ideal methods of reasoning and too little Karl Popper. In _Objective Knowledge_ Popper states, "An observation always presupposes the existence of some system of expectations." Basically Nisbett's whole program revolves around giving Asians and Westerners vague commands like "observe" or "choose" and then seeing how their expectations or preconceptions influenced them. This is interesting, but it doesn't tell us much we didn't already know. People from different cultures have different preconceptions. According to Popper we all have preconceptions and it's trying to improve them and get a little closer to the truth that is important. Is this a Western approach? Is this an Eastern approach? Is that all that matters?

I do recommend people interested in Asia check out some of these experiments on human subjects, they are interesting and worth reading about. Nevertheless, I can hardly recommend this book in clean and clear conscience. It's just too ugly.

This is a very insightful book with lots of information. It is well written and researched. There are many differences between the way Westerners and Easterners think. Some of the points may seem obvious, but they are still interesting to read about. Children who grow up in the East learn verbs faster. In contrast, children in the West pick up nouns faster. This is because Easterners learn the relationships between objects with action words first. Westerners generally just learn what the object is first. Conflict resolution is handled very differently too. The goal in Eastern conflict resolution is to reduce hostility and to reach a compromise. The goal in resolving conflict in the West is having satisfaction that justice was carried out with a clear winner and loser. However as the author suggests Westerners have to begun to embrace a lot of Eastern ideas. There is a greater emphasis in achieving harmony in a person's life in Eastern cultures. Asian people are more self critical of themselves as a result. In contrast, the goal of a Westerner is to achieve a sense of uniqueness and superiority. I also learned that students who study history in the West focus on the implications or outcomes of events first. Asian students study the causes of historical events first. Teacher training and evaluation is a process that never ends in Eastern countries unlike the West where it is short.

The Geography of Thought is a very short book, but it should not be read rapidly because of the depth and quantity of information. I have a greater insight and appreciation for the way people think now. I enjoyed it very much.

Nisbett's book is intended to illustrate the apparent differences in ways of thinking between Westerners and East Asians. While the experiments and their results as documented in the book are interesting and fascinating, in the early portions of the book he makes comparisons between the cultures of ancient Greece and China as an exploration of the historical origins of the mental inclinations of contemporary Westerners and Asians, and along the way he makes several claims about the two cultures which I would seriously question. (Indeed I would go further and ask why only Greece and China should be singled out for comparison, and not the Near East and India as well, considering the vast impact Christianity and Buddhism had on the West and East.)

Nisbett -- somewhat typically of Western authors, be it said -- credits the ancient Greeks with such virtues as a recognition of the uniqueness of the individual, a sense of curiosity, a desire to plumb the underlying reasons and principles of things, and so on, all qualities which he claims are absent or largely absent in China (if not indeed everywhere else in the past). I really don't think these claims stand up to the facts at all. (Don't know if I'm being paranoid, but frankly I seem to pick up faint racist odors coming from this book. And I really do think Nisbett is selecting from the facts.)

A reading of the Analects shows that Confucius was highly sensitive to the differences in personality among his students and tailored his teachings to suit them accordingly. He also demanded a lot of independent thinking from them and got upset when all they did was parrot his words. Contrariwise, scholars like Paul Feyerabend and Bruno Snell have argued that the 'heroes' of Homer's ILIAD cannot be understood as integrated individuals, only as 'systems of loosely connected parts'. Also, the Greeks practised slavery, but the Chinese mostly didn't, according to sinologists Joseph Needham and Derk Bodde. So much for the claim that the Greeks valued the individual and the Chinese didn't.

Nisbett also claims that there was little debate and argumentation between different views in the Chinese tradition. But there have been disagreements aplenty in the history of Chinese thought. Letters of discussion went back and forth between the Sung Dynasty thinkers Chu Hsi and Lu Hsiang-shan. Maurizio Scarpari also spoke of 'a lively and productive debate' on human nature in China 'that has almost lasted twenty-five centuries'.

Chu Hsi, China's most influential thinker for seven centuries, also advocated 'the investigation of things' to uncover their LI (often translated as 'principle') -- what makes them what they are. Who says the Greeks were the only people to search for principles and to be curious to know, and not the Chinese? Not surprisingly, there is no reference to Chu Hsi in Nisbett's book.

Finally, I want to look at what Nisbett said about the ancient remains of a group of people found somewhere in China, being identified as being of Caucasian stock and showing signs of being operated on surgically. Alongside this he muses on the absence of the practice of surgery in the Chinese tradition. What's the intended point? That if those were the remains of Asians, then marks of surgical operation would have been impossible? Apparently Nisbett didn't know that the world's first book on forensic medicine was Chinese. And surely it is a very long way from the unusual features found on a few corpses to sweeping generalisations about differences between races and cultures.

[JE Menon]

Acharya, boss, thanks for putting up these books. Geography of thought seems like something well worth reading... Would not have heard of it otherwise...

[svinayak]

Acharya, boss, thanks for putting up these books. Geography of thought seems like something well worth reading... Would not have heard of it otherwise...

I try to do my best.

[svinayak]

http://www.ibcpub.co.jp/books/jp5.html

http://westfearneon.com/2007/10/24/the- ... sh-nation/
[quote]
The Dignity of a State (国家ã

[ramana]

Acharya, Please put these two book reviews in Non-Western World view so they can be discussed. Thanks, ramana

[svinayak]

God's Crucible: Islam and the Making of Europe, 570-1215
by David Levering Lewis (Author)

# Hardcover: 384 pages
# Publisher: W. W. Norton (January 21, 2008)
# Language: English
# ISBN-10: 0393064727
# ISBN-13: 978-0393064728

The Battle of Tours in 732 was a pivotal moment in world history. Historians like Gibbon consider it a seminal moment in Western Civilization. Had Charles Martel's outnumbered Franks lost that battle, we all might be turning towards Mecca every day for our daily prayers, but they defeated Al Ghafiqi's forces and halted the first of several waves of invasion of Western Europe from the Islamic world. Lewis however, thinks this was a less than ideal outcome, claiming that Europe and indeed the entire world would have been better off had the Muslim armies conquered Europe.

During the Dark Ages, Europe was excessively tribal, violent, mired in poverty, economically backwards and generally uncivilized by any definition of the term. The Islamic world during this same period was the center of the enlightenment, economically robust, scientifically advanced and unified under a common banner of Islam. Lewis, unlike many of his contemporaries, does not hide or obscure the more inconvenient truths about the Muslim who invaded the Iberian peninsula. He writes at some length about the Muslims wars of conquest, their use of slavery, and the treatment of Christians and Jews as second class citizens. Despite his acknowledgement of this he seems to be under the impression that the Islamic rule of Spain was "tolerant" and had this rule spread to Western Europe the Golden Age of Islamic society would have ended the above mentioned deficiencies in European society.

Its almost a reverse of the "White Man's Burden" where the black and brown people of Africa and the Middle East civilize the savages of Western Europe.

But we know how things played out. Western Civilization entered its golden age around the time that Isabella had managed to expel the Muslims from Spain and the Islamic world began its long, slow and painful decline. While Mongol armies stormed the Middle east, and fanatical tribalism once again crept into the Islamic world, the West was developing the seeds of the Renaissance, Scientific Theory, the widespread use of moveable type, representative democracy, abolition of slavery, capitalism and universal suffrage.

True, we don't know where we would be today if Islam conquered Europe, but a quick look at the Middle East today is a clue.

The central argument of this rather rambling book is that the Islamic civilization that developed in the Iberian Peninsula after the Muslim conquest of the 8th Century contributed directly to the rebirth of Western European culture and learning. A secondary theme is that the Realm of Islam, after its initial and phenomenal expansion, developed into a uniquely tolerant and cultured society that compared very favorably to an intolerant and semi-barbaric Western Europe of the early Middle Ages. Yet this book is not a particularly good history. Nonetheless, it is a fun read. Lewis clearly enjoyed writing it and provides the reader with a lot of interesting detours and asides.

History is as much a matter of interpretation as a recounting of facts. It is certainly true that most Islamic fundamentalist today regard much of the period covered by this book (late 8th Century through the early 13th Century) as a `Golden Age' for Islam. It also appears accurate to argue that during this golden age at least parts of the Realm of Islam (Dar al Islam) achieved a remarkably tolerant society and a high level of culture. Yet this is a very relative conclusion. One suspects that most Muslims of the golden age were more like their contemporaneous European Christian counterparts than not. Golden age Islamic learning and culture, like contemporary European culture, were restricted to a learned minority and were scarcely universal. Also one would suspect that Islamic tolerance to religious minority groups such as the Jews and Coptic Christians was as dicey in the Golden Age as it is today. Still the Islamic society of the Iberian Peninsula had an enviable reputation for tolerance and certainly provided Western Europe with some of the intellectual horse power it needed to move into the high middle ages. Yet other influences also helped propel Europe into the pre-renaissance period. The reign of Charlemagne provided the stability needed to reinvigorate Western European learning and scholarship and by the late 10th Century Byzantine (East Roman) culture began again influencing Europe.

The great Belgian historian Henri Pirenne in 1937 wrote what even today is a brilliant book, "Mohammed and Charlemagne" (Amazon.com). In it he argued that the Muslim expansion and subsequent control of the Mediterranean Sea (7th Century) finally and completely brought an end to the commerce which kept at least the vestiges of the Roman commercial system alive in Europe long after the implosion of the Western Empire. In describing the Muslim influence on European development this is still the better book.

[ramana]

A book review from the Telegraph, 1 Feb., 2008

[quote]
A CIVILIZATION OLDER THAN CHARLEMAGNE



BYZANTIUM: THE SURPRISING LIFE OF A MEDIEVAL EMPIRE By Judith Herrin, Penguin, £15

Judith Herrin has dedicated this book to her young daughters who asked, “What is Byzantium?â€

[ramana]

Clash on idea of progress

A clash on the idea of progress

Posted online: Sunday , January 27, 2008 at 0014 hrs

As the massively underplayed, almost invisible 150th anniversary celebrations of 1857 wind down, one may well wonder why a movement that gave India’s erstwhile colonial masters their biggest scare ever, defined almost all their following policies, had such a long memory in oral history been so downplayed? Irrespective of the search for nomenclature defining its nature — mutiny/ revolt/ uprising/ petty bourgeois/ jacquerie — similar movements in other nations have had state-driven, passionate searches to unearth the smallest detail. What was its exact extent — geographically and in its scope? What were its socio-economic underpinnings? Who participated, who reaped the benefits by siding with the British? How many people died in the events of 1857? Why have we as a nation so bought into the British opinion that it was a mutiny? Fortunately most recent studies have debunked that it was just a soldiers’ revolt, but the knowledge has largely been confined to rarefied academic echelons. Amaresh Misra, author of Lucknow: Fire of Grace and Mangal Pandey: The True Story of an Indian Revolutionary, has written War of Civilisations: India AD 1857, a massive 3,000+-page, two-volume tome in which he has claims to make that would at least lead to further debate — 10 million dead, pan-Indian spread, longer-lasting reverberations than usually suspected. Suman Tarafdar summarises conversations with the author. Excerpts:

You do call your book a War of Civilisations?

I want to allude to the current clash of civilisations and go beyond it. The conflict is real, and its contours need to be defined. 1857 saw the British idea of progress clashing with the Indian one.

Did the British fail to gauge the nature of Indian capitalism?

We need to look at 1857 from an indigenous perspective. For India, the elements of capitalist progress were inside its rural infrastructure. While in the West, the city led the villages, it was the peasant-led pattadari system — by which 15-20 gotrabhais held land, in which the peasant and the artisan were integral to the system. The British failed to gauge the nature of Indian systems, and by the Permanent Settlement, destroyed them by reversing the direction of Indian capitalism, converting the talukdars into landowners, making the peasant a tenant and rupturing his links withthe artisan.

How did you arrive at a figure of 10 million dead, a massive jump from previous estimates?

Besides accessing sources not previously accessed, and relying on the labour and road survey reports of the time. A large reason for UP-Bihar belt remaining backward for long was that there was no labour, and the then intelligentsia was killed off. I provide the sources, it is up to others to agree or dispute them.

And the extent is wider than the Hindi belt?

Absolutely. The Hazara gazetteers mention the 55th BNI revolting in Nowshera and proceeding to meet Bahadurshah Zafar’s troops, while Gilgit ruler Gohar Aman was also coming to unite with them. In Gujarat areas the Mehsana and Borada gazetteers also mention vast sections of the state, especially Dahod, Godhra and central Gujarat revolting. The Okha Vaghelas revolted too, and the rare naval battles against the British are here. Then there is the Bhil-Koli uprising in the Nashik belt. Ratnagiri and Aurangabad areas are affected. Areas in north Karnataka, like Raichur and Bijapur had the Ramoshis, later dubbed ‘criminal’ castes by the British, in revolt. The Gond Rajas were Mughalised, and the tribes also sided with the Mughals. The Godavari delta saw Reddi landlords and Gurjar tribals fight together, while the 8th Madras Cavalry revolted too. The four big states that did not revolt were those of the Nizam, the Cis-Sutlej states, Kashmir and Nepal, and they were rewarded.

You see a conscious divide post 1857?

Instead of policies of modernisation followed by the likes of Bentinck, the British went on a conscious mode of orientalising — bringing back old faultlines, which by mid-18th century had vanished. Henry Lawrence gave a Hindu-Muslim-divide speech on May 12, the logic of which is still followed. The process was complex. They created new landlords, consuming classes and castes. They couldn’t do to India what they had done in the Americas, Africa and Australia, wiping out memory. More than a political war, bitter and racially contested, it was also a war to preserve memory.

[G Subramaniam]

Excerpted from Barrons

author = Catholic theologian George Wiegel

Summary = Most muslims are Passive Jihadists

( I shall elaborate on this on other threads )

*Multiculturalism is dooming the west into dhimmitude
*Sharia laws enforced in muslim ghettos throughout Europe
*Dutch children are banned from putting national flag on school backpacks

*The mantra " most muslims are not terrorists " is misleading and gives false hopes
*Most muslims support the goals of the terrorists - sharia
*Muslims in the west are just as pro-sharia as muslims in Arabia
*America has a serious problem with enemy identification

[svinayak]

Traders, Guns & Money: Knowns and unknowns in the dazzling world of derivatives
by Satyajit Das (Author)

# Paperback: 352 pages
# Publisher: FT Press; 1 edition (May 15, 2006)
# Language: English
# ISBN-10: 0273704745
# ISBN-13: 978-0273704744

[quote]
Warren Buffet once memorably described derivatives as “financial weapons of mass destructionâ€

[svinayak]

Financial Armageddon: Protecting Your Future from Four Impending Catastrophes
by Michael J. Panzner (Author)
# Hardcover: 240 pages
# Publisher: Kaplan Business (March 1, 2007)
# Language: English
# ISBN-10: 141959608X
# ISBN-13: 978-1419596087

There is a memorable scene in Star Wars Episode V where Luke, unware of the worst possible outcome that awaits him, pledges to Yoda, "I am not afrad." Yoda, speaking with 900 years of aquired Jedi wisdom let's the untried and unproven and naïve Skywalker know in certain terms "You will be. You will be." Peter Schiff may not have 900 years on Wall Street but his Jedi skills are complete. He truly sees to other side. Peter takes the blissfully unaware investor by the neck and walks them right up to the edge of the cliff showing them the abyss below. And as Nietzsche said "When you stare into the abyss the abyss stares into you."

Schiff has aquired the title of doomsayer which is inapt. Few investment firms on Wall Street have made more money for their clients as Euro Pacific Captial and few industry analysts are as bullish on the overall global economy. It's the US economy where Schiff foretells financial armegeddon. And he doesn't wish for it. That is also untrue. He is simply telling you. It's real. It's coming. And it's inevitable.

Friday, August 3, 2007, 3:00 PM ECT. Jim Cramer has just appeared on CNBC proclaiming "Financial armageddon is here. THIS IS ARMAGEDDON."
Written by New York Institute of Finance faculty member Michael J. Panzer, Financial Armageddon: Protecting Your Future From Four Impending Catastrophes is a dire warning of the four most severe financial risks confronting Americans today. Private and public debt has been climbing to record levels; the aging population is putting so much pressure on Social Security that eventually retirement will be simply a hopeless mirage; systemic overindulgence in "hedge funds" and other house-of-cards derivatives that depend on assets losing their value to make a profit place negative pressures on the economy. Financial Armageddon does not pull punches in its warnings of doom and gloom, and what raw economic realities can potentially inflict upon Americans everywhere, yet its greatest asset is its solidly practical advice for preparing for the worst. From the importance of prioritizing maintenance investitures over acquisitional investitures (skipping the regular tune-up of a car is more likely to cause more expense further down the line) to knowing when to spend and when to hold off (it's valuable to buy up tangible and practical commodities such as nonperishable food when the threat of hyperinflation reigns, but not when prices are falling), to the singularly invaluable sentiment of "Trust but verify" - the importance of utilizing the internet to thoroughly check out the credentials and track records of any individual or institution with whom one is considering a financial relationship. Written in plain terms, and notable for its painstakingly clear definitions of terms like "derivatives" that cause many a lay reader's eyes to glaze over, "Financial Armageddon" is a must-read for anyone in the unfortunate modern era of ballooning fiscal irresponsibility, not to mention outright swindles. Highly recommended.
Part One of this book offers a brief overview of four financial threats the author suggests Americans will be facing in the near future. This is the mild stuff.

What follows, in Parts Two and Three, is a very disturbing "worst case" scenario of what life might be like for the average American once these four threats hit home. We could be facing a full-fledged systemic economic breakdown. And we will each be on our own. There is no certainty that we can count on Social Security; retirement pensions; Medicare, or financial institutions to save us. And this is just the tip of the iceberg. There will be fallout from dozens of other disasters headed our way as society begins unraveling. We need to start taking immediate steps to educate and protect ourselves. Part Four of the book offers some advice on how to do just that.

[SwamyG]

Anybody read "Indian Summer: The Secret History of the End of an Empire" by Alex Von Tunzelmann ?

I am into it - read about 90 odd pages, and found how the nature of personalities & their experiences shaped the Independence Movement, and other accounts.

So far I have got BIG negative impressions on Mountbatten, Edwina, Churchill, & other British luminaries, mixed impressions on Gandhi {he is either a Saint or a Lunatic - but it shows how a human being he was} and positive impressions on Nehru {I was wondering if Congress(i) had actually sponsored it - but if there are quotes and facts to support, then I am fine}. Even Jinnah has evoked mixed impressions.

So far the chapters have devoted to affairs between various stake holders, including how Feroze Gandhy was devoted to Kamala Nehru and that people were surprised when he proposed to Indira It seems Kamala Nehru was just 12 years older than Feroze Gandhy. Yes it mentions the spelling change from Gandhy to Gandhi.

[Paul]

Yes...some people say that something was on between Feroze and Kamala. However, I think it is pointless to speculate on this.

Much as we hate the Nehrus, it should be remembered that they are India's first family and they made india much of what it is today. If you throw mud on the Nehrus this way....some of it is bound to stick to India as well.

Something for Jingos to think about.

[ramana]

Agree. I also want to put a stop to Mahatma Gandhi bashing.

Book Review from Pioneer, 7 Feb. 2008

Babus no less to blame

KS Subramaniam fails to touch the problem of committed bureaucracy and a corrupt political leadership, says EN Rammohan

Political Violence and the Police in India
Author: KS Subramaniam
Publisher: Sage
Price: Rs 350

This is a well documented study of the way different Governments in India have dealt with governance with respect to the Maoist problem, violence against the Scheduled Castes and also the handling of the insurgency in the North-East. There is also a chapter on the post-Godhra violence in Gujarat in 2001. The author has also written chapters on the Indian police system, the Intelligence Bureau and the Central paramilitary forces.

KS Subramaniam is well suited to write on these subjects. He has worked as Director, the Research and Policy Division (the Home Ministry), where he has had an opportunity to study the problem of the Scheduled Castes and tribes in mainland India. He has also worked in the Centre for Contemporary Studies in the Nehru Memorial Library, where he had a chance to study the impact of development on the Scheduled Castes and Tribes. He has also worked in the Intelligence Bureau.

The author has quoted extensively from official reports and related documents describing the incidents of violence in the first chapter, 'Political Violence and the State Response'. He has also quoted from those who have studied individual incidents of violence. It makes a good documentation, but there is no analysis of the causes of major incidents of violence and the responsibility of the state in failing to prevent or even control it before it has done damage in the form of lives lost and property destroyed. In all societies some form of violence will take place at some time or the other. What is to be catalogued is the failure of the state to curb violence, thanks to wrong approaches and decisions by political leaders. There are, for example, several instances in which people resort to violence mainly due to wrong decisions by political leaders. The role of the bureaucracy in such instances is important. The book, however, fails to question the role of babus.

In the chapter on the Indian Police System and the Intelligence Bureau, the subversion caused by the politicians -- one of the major causes of violence in society -- has not been examined by the author. In Uttar Pradesh, the police, particularly the State paramilitary force (the Pradeshik Armed Constabulary), has a reputation of taking an anti-minority stance during peace-keeping operations. What is the role of the politicians in this? The BJP has been thoroughly criticised for its failure to protect the demolition of the Babri Masjid. But when a 'secular' party like the Congress was in power, how did the PAC become a pro-Hindu and anti-Muslim force? This needs to be examined.

Similarly, in the handling of the Maoist problem, the author writes about the work of the Research and Policy Division and how the facts of exploitation of the Scheduled Castes and Tribes brought out by it were not applied by the Home Ministry. Why were the recommendations of this division not applied by the Home Ministry and the division itself wound up? For example, the root cause of the Maoist problem in the agrarian areas is the lack of enforcement of the land ceiling laws legislated in the 1950s. What prevented the bureaucrats from implementing these laws? Both in Andhra Pradesh and Bihar it is the lack of implementation of the land ceiling that has led to the Maoist problem. In Kerala the CPI, enacted land tenancy laws in their first Government of 1957. This led to tenant farmers getting ownership of land. No wonder the CPI(ML) failed to spread its tentacles in Kerala.

Subramaniam's' book is well documented and well written. It is, however, not incisive and does not blame the politicians and the bureaucrats for their patronage of the landlords in States like Andhra Pradesh and Bihar. A good addition to the literature of the study of the state, the police and the Intelligence Bureau, but it does not touch the core of the problem of committed bureaucracy, sycophancy and a corrupt political leadership.

-- The reviewer is former DGP, BSF, and member of National Security Advisory Board

[ramana]

Another one from Pioneer, 7 Feb., 2008

A wake up call for journalists

There is an increasing trend towards trivialisation in the media with serious news being given the go-by, writes MV Kamath

Indian Journalism: Keeping it Clean
Author: Alok Mehta
Publisher:Rupa & Co
Price: Rs 395

Alok Mehta is editor of Outlook Saptahik and currently president of the Editors Guild of India and has won several awards. His work on contemporary journalism, therefore, commands attention. Additionally, the book carries a foreword by Inder Malhotra, himself a distinguished journalist and contributions from Hiranmay Karlekar, a former editor of Hindustan Times, Somnath Chatterjee, Speaker of Lok Sabha and Justice GN Ray, chairman of Press Council of India.

Mehta could not have found a better trio to support his undoubtedly authoritative and at times provocative work. Malhotra, in his brief foreword, has rightly drawn attention to the general belief that crass commercialisation has eroded the print media's social commitment and professional values more than considerably, with editors losing ground to market advisers to the point that in some of the largest newspaper chains, the institution of the editor is virtually extinct.

Somnath Chatterjee makes his point that "it is extremely important that the journalist or the editor does not project his/her or the management's views as news", when they can be expressed in editorials as well as in signed articles. Well said.


Hiranmay Karlekar makes the point that "there is an increasing trend towards trivialisation" in the Indian media "underlined by the attention paid to a strange category called Page 3 people" with "serious coverage" being given the go-by. "Ethics?" he asks, "where is the place for such a thing in the globalised marketplace celebrating social Darwinism?"

Justice Ray has written like a judge, which he was. As he sees it in today's media, facts are very often distorted to "suit a particular kind of opinion", even when he asserts that "reporting truth is not libel". Is the Justice in favour of investigative journalism? According to him a reporter has to "keep in mind the principle of limitation of harm" which means that he needs to give due weight to the negative consequences of all disclosures, creating a practical and ethical dilemma. But in this matter one sees the learned judge walking on the razor's edge. According to him "this kind of journalism verges on risking ethical standards as the work involves undercover journalism or the use of whistleblowers." One expects a clearer stand from so distinguished a personality.

There can be no compromise either in the matter of what is known as "chequebook journalism". Mehta seems to think that this is okay "when important issues of the general good are involved". He concedes that chequebook journalism "amounts to paying wages for vice", but shockingly adds that "the reporter should resort to this only if no other way of getting news is available". Who is to decide that? The reporter himself? Mehta is also for collecting news or information by taking photographs "stealthily", using audio aids or taping personal phone conversations, but only "when it is fair and essential for the general good and no other method is in sight", a most questionable stand.

We are in the gray area where caution is abundantly needed. The Press Council of India is fairly clear on this point. According to the Council, the private life of a person, even a public figure, is his own and the disclosure or impingement of any person's privacy or individual seclusion is not allowed unless there is direct evidence of the fact that his actions are closely related to his public position of power in the matter under consideration and that they negatively impact the public good. And who is to decide what affects public good? It is not clear. But there are many features in this book that would immensely benefit not only new entrants to the profession but old-timers as well.

Mehta draws special attention to the behaviour "sometimes" of "senior and so-called ideologue editors and correspondents lobbying with politicians, government officials and business magnates on behalf of their newspaper's owner". He rightly points out that this "harms the credibility of media". As he puts it, "the reputation of a journalist or a publication builds up over the years but just a slip or two can destroy it for ever", a point that needs to be stressed again and again.

But is Mehta himself fair? He devotes 17 pages to the findings of a Editors Guild Fact-Finding Mission in the matter of the post-Godhra violence in Gujarat. In all fairness he should have included another 17 pages to the findings of another 'mission' in the matter of the 1984 anti-Sikh pogrom. If Mehta wants journalism to be fair, the example he has set is not a good one.

Overall, it's an interesting book.

[negi]

Yes...some people say that something was on between Feroze and Kamala. However, I think it is pointless to speculate on this.

Yes I agree here for its a personal matter which in no way relates/affects India's interests.

Much as we hate the Nehrus, it should be remembered that they are India's first family and they made india much of what it is today. If you throw mud on the Nehrus this way....some of it is bound to stick to India as well.

Something for Jingos to think about.

Well imo when one evaluates a person or any entity per se we need to be consistent if we are highlighting someones good qualities and achievements we also need to factor in his/her weakness/shortcomings and this imo is not only required to get a holistic view but also prevents from individuals being conferred god like status.

[Paul]

There is nothing wrong in critizing Nehruvian policies and ideals which in retrospect seem to have been misplaced. We think we know everything now.

However, going overboard in this criticism can lead to a loss of confidence amongst the general populace who through their macaulayized, dhimmified, DIE-brainwashed thinking will be unable to get the true picture and hence make incorrect decisions. Cases such as the one cited above are the result of imbalanced criticism, which happens as a result of a domino effect.

Case in point, consider Thomas Jefferson's background. He was known to own slaves, kept a black mistress and sired children. Ismail Merchant made a movie on this. However, we do not see anyone in the US passing a blanket judgement on the Jeffersons based on this. He is still seen as one of the founding fathers and a visionary. this is balanced criticism IMO.

Key is to strike the right balance.

When Indian polity reaches a state of equilibrium between the right and the left, JLN and other leaders will be elevated to a similar pedestal and be revered by all Indians, regardless of their affiliation.

[SwamyG]

Yes...some people say that something was on between Feroze and Kamala. However, I think it is pointless to speculate on this.

Much as we hate the Nehrus, it should be remembered that they are India's first family and they made india much of what it is today. If you throw mud on the Nehrus this way....some of it is bound to stick to India as well.

Something for Jingos to think about.

Did you read my post? I said I have come out with positive impressions so far. No bashing of Nehru or Gandhi. Geez!!! And do not include me in your "we hate the Nehrus" group.
I passed along what was written in the book and did not express my opinions.

I haven't read the book fully yet, but it is book that does not get into the dates; but looks at the personalities and events giving us idea about what shaped their decisions and the history.

You should see how she rubbishes Mountbatten's Naval acumen, or for that matter Churchill's immense degrading views on India.

And just because one is the father of the nation or one is the first family does not give them an immediate right to be above all criticisms. That is what your posts convey - though you use the word "overboard".

Motilal and Jawarharlal seems to have given up a lot for the cause of India's independence, but that does not mean the author can not look into their lives to see what motivated and shaped them - and hence the country.

[ramana]

link:

Indian but Modern

[quote]
INDIAN BUT MODERN
Editor's Choice




The Fake Brahmin Dispensing for Lucre


THE TRIUMPH OF MODERNISM: INDIA’S ARTISTS AND THE AVANT-GARDE, 1922-1947 By Partha Mitter, Oxford, Rs 1,750

The discipline of art history demands of its practitioners that they have an appreciation of art as well as the training of a historian. This is not an easy balance to achieve. The eye of the art lover often sees aspects of a painting that are difficult to articulate. The prose of the historian can diminish the aesthetic appeal of a work of art. Partha Mitter is one of the few Indian art historians who uses his training as a historian to enhance his appreciation of art. In the process, he helps his readers to look at art in a more refined way.

The subject of his new book is complex and challenging. Mitter does not go into the thorny issue of attempting to define modernism in very precise terms. He sees it as the product of a particular aesthetic ambience whose hallmark was the avant-garde. Responses to the avant-garde in the non-Western world cannot be extricated from the network of authority, hierarchy and power that informed the relationship between the West and the Orient in the modern world.

The inherent inequality in the relationship between the West and its colonies in Asia and Africa has given rise to a situation, noted very aptly by Mitter, in which a country like India is denied having its own modernity. Mitter writes, “influence has been the key epistemic tool in studying the reception of Western art in the non-Western world: if the product is too close to its original source, it reflects slavish mentality; if on the other hand, the imitation is imperfect, it represents a failure. In terms of power relations, borrowing by artists from the peripheries becomes a badge of inferiority. In contrast, the borrowings of European artists are described approvingly as ‘affinities’ or dismissed as inconsequential.’’ Mitter gives the example of Picasso whose emulation of African sculpture was seen as nothing more than than a mere formal affinity with the primitive. Gaganendranath Tagore (picture), who Mitter describes as “one of the first Indian modernists’’, was dismissed as un cubiste manqué, whose works were derivative and bad imitations of Picasso.

To break away from the stranglehold of this kind of analysis, Mitter seeks to empower Indian artists by restoring to them the dignity of their own choice. Indian artists deliberately chose elements from Western modernity to confront those elements with aspects of their own tradition. In the first half of the 20th century in India, this resulted in a new kind of artistic production and the construction of a national identity. The triumph of modernism in Indian art lies in its ability to cross cultural frontiers without losing its own self and identity. Through the process, to slightly alter a line of Yeats, a new beauty was born.

“The modernists idiolized rural India as the true site of the nationâ€

[svinayak]

They Knew They Were Right: The Rise of the Neocons
by Jacob Heilbrunn (Author)

# Hardcover: 336 pages
# Publisher: Doubleday (January 15, 2008)
# Language: English
# ISBN-10: 0385511817
# ISBN-13: 978-0385511810

[quote]
The neocons have become at once the most feared and reviled intellectual movement in American history. Critics on left and right describe them as a tight-knit cabal that ensnared the Bush administration in an unwinnable foreign war.

Who are the neoconservatives? How did an obscure band of policy intellectuals, left for dead in the 1990s, suddenly rise to influence the Bush administration and revolutionize American foreign policy?

Jacob Heilbrunn wittily and pungently depicts the government officials, pundits, and think-tank denizens who make up this controversial movement, bringing them to life against a background rich in historical detail and political insight. Setting the movement in the larger context of the decades-long battle between liberals and conservatives, first over communism, now over the war on terrorism, he shows that they have always been intellectual mavericks, with a fiery prophetic temperament (and a rhetoric to match) that sets them apart from both liberals and traditional conservatives.

Neoconservatism grew out of a split in the 1930s between Stalinists and followers of Trotsky. These obscure ideological battles between warring Marxist factions were transported to the larger canvas of the Cold War, as over time the neocons moved steadily to the right, abandoning the Democratic party after 1972 when it shunned intervention abroad, and completing their journey in 1980 when they embraced Ronald Reagan and the Republican party. There they supplied the ideological glue that held the Reagan coalition together, combining the agenda of “family valuesâ€

[svinayak]

http://rajeev2007.wordpress.com/2006/11 ... en-empire/
http://books.google.com/books?id=DUl1PFJAOoAC

[quote]
Vijayanagar, A Forgotten Empire
November 17, 2006

Here is an excerpt from the first chapter of the Robert Sewell book, quoting Portuguese and Persian envoys, about the splendor of Vijayanagar. This book should be made compulsory reading for all high school students in India.

An electronic version can be downlooaded for free from http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/3310

which is where I got this excerpt from as well.

I suggest you circulate the book widely. It is a good antidote to the re-toxified textbooks in India.

Excerpt:

A Forgotten Empire: Vijayanagar

CHAPTER 1

Introduction

Introductory remarks — Sources of information — Sketch of history of
Southern India down to A.D. 1336 — A Hindu bulwark against Muhammadan
conquest — The opening date, as given by Nuniz, wrong — “Togao
Mamedeâ€

[Paul]

DT

Lashkar: Into The Heart of Terror (HarperCollins, Rs 195) by Mukul Deva

begins with the following lines: "A plump...lady had just bent to pick up the bright red table cover...when the bomb...detonated." What follows is a dreary tale of jihadi terror, proxy war, and an even more terrible reprisal. The troublemakers, if you haven't guessed already, hail from that 'evil State', Pakistan, while the avengers belong to a shadowy wing - "the ultrasecret Force 22" - of the Indian army. The plot, a strange brew of exaggerated patriotism and misplaced confidence in an armed solution, will not endear Deva to the fastidious reader.

[Raju]

A Century Of War
By F. William Engdahl
Review By Stephen Lendman - Part 1
2-11-8

F. William Engdahl is a leading researcher, economist and analyst of the New World Order who's written on issues of energy, politics and economics for over 30 years. He contributes regularly to publications like Japan's Nihon Keizai Shimbun, Foresight magazine, Grant's Investor.com, European Banker and Business Banker International. He's also a frequent speaker at geopolitical, economic and energy related international conferences and is a distinguished Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization where he's a regular contributor.

Engdahl wrote two important books. This writer reviewed his latest one in three parts called "Seeds of Destruction: The Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation." It's the diabolical story of how Washington and four Anglo-American agribusiness giants plan world domination by patenting animal and vegetable life forms. They aim to control food worldwide, make it all genetically engineered, and use it as a weapon to reward friends and punish enemies.

The book is a sequel to Engdahl's first one and subject of this review - "A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order." It's breathtaking in scope and content, and a shocking and essential history of geopolitics and strategic importance of oil. The book is reviewed in-depth so readers will know the type future Henry Kissinger had in mind in 1970 when he said: "Control oil and you control nations; control food and you control people." Engdahl recounts the story in his two masterful books, both critically essential reading.

The story line in his first one began late in the 19th century when oil's advantage was first realized, and First Lord of the Admiralty Winston Churchill told Parliament in 1919:

"We must become the owners, or at any rate the controllers at the source, of at least a proportion of the supply (of oil) which we require....and obtain our oil supply, so far as possible, from sources under British control, or British influence."

After defeating Napoleon in 1815, Britain was supreme until America emerged predominant during WW II. Engdahl explains how: through two pillars and one commodity - unchallengeable military power and the dollar as the world's reserve currency combined with the quest to control global oil and other energy resources.

Engdahl calls his book "no ordinary history of oil" because what he recounts is suppressed in the mainstream and what passes for education in America. It settles for mediocrity, ignorance, and a barely literate public by design. As a result, people don't know that US manipulators arranged "the greatest confidence game the world had ever seen" - a "special hegemony" to:

-- print limitless dollar paper certificates to buy every imaginable product;

-- accumulate endless trade deficits;

-- "inflate (the) currency beyond imagination;" -- have the government pay interest on its own money; and

-- create an unprecedented public and private debt to enrich an elite few at the expense of the greater good.

So far it's worked because people haven't caught on, other nations need our markets, fear our might, and countries like China, Japan and petrodollar recyclers remain lenders of last resort. Combined, it let America rule the world, control its energy, and crush all upstart competition. Washington had a good role model, and that's where the story begins.

The Three Pillars of the British Empire

Geopolitical history for the last 100 years was shaped around the quest for what Big Oil acolyte Daniel Yergin called "The Prize: The Epic Quest for Oil, Money and Power" with two countries at its epicenter - first Britain and now America with its UK junior partner that built its rule on three essential pillars:

-- controlling the seas and setting the terms of trade;

-- dominating world banking and manipulating the world's largest gold supply; and

-- controlling world raw materials with oil the key one at the turn of the century; with these working, it devised an "informal empire" to loot world wealth and maintain a balance of power on the continent.

Britain's "genius" was being able to shift alliances without letting sentiment interfere with its interests. Post-Waterloo, it operated "on an extremely sophisticated marriage between top (London) bankers and financiers, government cabinet ministers," key industrialists and espionage chiefs. By keeping everything secret, it "wielded immense power over credulous and unsuspecting foreign economies." By the late 19th century, however, things began to change, and a new strategy was needed. Key to it was oil geopolitics as a vital naval supremacy ingredient.

The Lines are Drawn: Germany and the Geopolitics of the Great War

The importance of oil and emergence of continental economies (especially in Germany) provided the backdrop to WW I. By the late 19th century, British bankers and political elites were alarmed that German industrial and technological development began surpassing its own that was in decline. Included was a modern German merchant and naval fleet and an ambitious railway project linking Berlin with Baghdad, then part of the Ottoman empire. At stake was British hegemony, and preserving it led to war.

Prior to its outbreak, coal was king, German output was impressive and so was its growth:

-- its steel production increased 1000% in 20 years, leaving Britain far behind by 1900;

-- its state-backed rail infrastructure doubled in track kilometers from 1870 to 1913;

-- with the advent of centralized electric power generation and long-distance transmission, its electrical industry exploded to dominate half the world's trade by 1913;

-- impressive research built the country's chemical industry and made Germany the world leader in analine dye production, pharmaceuticals and chemical fertilizers;

-- German agriculture thrived; it made "astonishing" gains from the introduction of "scientific agriculture chemistry" and produced an 80% grain harvest increase from 1887 to 1914;

-- population growth was dramatic - 75% to 67 million between 1870 and 1914;

-- Germany's merchant fleet rocketed to second place in the world behind Britain and at a pace to overtake it;

-- steel and engineering advances were achieved; and consider another British concern:

-- early in the century, British Dreadnought battleship leadership was surpassed; Germany's super model was superior and that spelled trouble for UK sea power supremacy; by 1910, "dramatic remedies" were needed; Germany's economic emergence had to be confronted, its growing naval strength as well, and for the first time oil was a factor.

A Global Fight for Control of Petroleum Begins

By 1882, British Admiral Lord Fisher saw oil's potential as qualitatively superior to coal. It required one-quarter the tonnage, one-third the engine weight, and expanded a fleet's "radius of action" fourfold. It was first used in 1885 after Gottlieb Daimler developed the internal combustion engine. Another 20 years passed, however, before its importance was realized, and that created a problem. Britain had no oil and needed a supply.

Up to then, its Middle East presence was limited, but that changed after oil was discovered in Masjed Soleiman, Persia (now Iran) in 1908. It secured Britain an "extraordinarily significant exclusive right (to potential) vast untapped petroleum deposits" for the country's newly formed Anglo-Persian Oil Company (APOC).

Earlier in 1899, German industrialists and bankers got Ottoman approval for a Berlin-Baghdad railway. The aim - to establish strong economic ties to Turkey and develop new markets in the East. Once extended to Kuwait, it would be the fastest, cheapest rail link to the Indian subcontinent, and that spelled trouble for Britain. It would challenge UK supremacy and had to be confronted.

The project was costly and needed help to complete, so Germany turned to Britain. London, for its part however, used "every device known to delay and obstruct progress. The game lasted" until war began in 1914 and after Britain secured an exclusive oil development "lease in perpetuity" in what today is Iraq and Kuwait. Yet competition remained because Germany got the Ottoman emperor to grant its Baghdad Railway Company full rights to all oil and minerals on a parallel 20 kilometers of land on either side of the rail line. By 1912, oil's importance was apparent, and geologists discovered it between Mosul and Baghdad.

WW I stalled efforts for a German-owned oil company, independent of Rockefeller interests. At a time, the US produced over 63% of world supply, Russia's Baku 19% and Mexico 5%. Britain's new APOC was barely a player when First Lord of the Admiralty Winston Churchill convinced the government to buy a majority interest in what today is British Petroleum (BP). "From that point, oil was at the core of British strategic interests," and the game was this - secure its own supplies, deny them to key rivals like Germany, and do it if necessary by war.

That became London's scheme early in the century when Britain, France and Russia allied in a Triple Entente against Germany and the Austro-Hungarian powers. By 1907, it was solidified, effectively encircled Germany, and it laid the foundation for the coming showdown with Kaiser Wilhelm II. From then until 1914, preparations were made for the "final elimination of the German threat." Included was a "series of continuous crises and regional (Balkans) wars (in) the 'soft underbelly' of Central Europe." Three months after the alliance, Austria's heir to the throne was assassinated in Sarajavo, and it "detonated the Great War."

Oil Becomes the Weapon, the Near East the Battleground

WW I was no different from other wars. Imperial, territorial and economic rivalries were at its root. It lasted from July 28, 1914 to November 11, 1918 and at a time Britain was effectively bankrupt, had big plans along with other combatants, plus a "secret weapon" that later emerged: the special relationship of "His Majesty's Treasury" with The House of Morgan.

The conflict matched the Allied powers of Britain, France, Russia, Belgium, Serbia, Greece, Romania, Montenegro, Italy, Portugal, Japan and for its last seven months the US against the Central Powers of Germany, Austria-Hungary, Bulgaria and Ottoman Turkey. The timeline was as follows:

-- on June 28, Archduke Ferdinand and his wife were assassinated;

-- on July 28, Austria declared war on Serbia;

-- on August 1, Germany declared war on Russia;

-- on August 3, Germany declared war on France and invaded Belgium on August 4; and

-- on August 4, Britain declared war on Germany, and the world was at war. Four years later, its toll was horrific, and four empires were destroyed - Ottoman Turkey, Austria-Hungary, Germany and Russia. Later on, so would Britain's, but in 1914 schemes and intrigue drove the winners to reallocate the spoils, especially where it was thought large oil deposits lay.

Well before 1914, Britain's geostrategy was threefold:


-- create and preserve an unchallengeable global empire;

-- defeat its main rival Germany; and -- secure and control the most strategically important resource - oil that was crucial to winning the war.

At its end, Britain's Foreign Secretary Lord Curzon commented: "The Allies were carried to victory on a flood of oil." Germany ran short and lost because it couldn't mount a decisive offensive in 1918. In 1915, however, Britain gambled and lost. It failed to defeat Turkey in the Battle of Gallipoli, and the stakes involved were high - to secure Russia's rich Baku oil fields at a time they supplied almost a fifth of world production. It was early in the war, Britain ultimately prevailed, and in no small measure by preemptively occupying Baku in August, 1918 to deny Germany its vital resources.

Throughout the war, oil's importance was key and the reason for the Allies' secret 1916 Sykes-Picot agreement. It spelled "betrayal and Britain's intent to....control....the undeveloped petroleum reserves of the Arabian Gulf after the war." Britain was devious. While France and Germany clashed along the Western Front, London moved 1.4 million troops to the Gulf and eastern Mediterranean on the pretext of bolstering Russia. After 1918, a million forces remained on what became a "British Lake" by 1919 with access to the region's oil. Its potential was later learned, France was cheated out of its share, Saudi Arabia's value was unknown, and turned out to be a major British blunder that didn't elude America in the 1930s.

Partitioning the Ottoman Empire proceeded post-war and included an "extraordinary new element." Now known as the Balfour Declaration, it was a classified British policy statement supporting a Jewish homeland in Palestine at a time Jews comprised 1% of the population. It came on November 2, 1917, a year of conflict remained, and it was the basis for the post-1919 British mandate over Palestine that gave London "strategic possibilities of enormous importance." British elites and its principal think tank (the Royal Institute for International Affairs or Chatham House) supported a "Jewish-dominated Palestine, beholden to England for its survival (and) surrounded by a balkanized group of squabbling Arab states."

The scheme was to link England's colonial possessions from South Africa's gold and diamond mines, north to Egypt and the Suez canal, through Mesopotamia (Iraq and Kuwait), Persia (Iran) and East into India and what today is Pakistan and Bangladesh. Controlling this territory became crucial. It meant dominating the world's most strategically valuable resources before their vast potential was realized.

Combined and Conflicting Goals: The United States Rivals Britain

Britain was the world's major post-WW I power, its territorial winner, and borrowed Wall Street money secured the victory, but with a problem. The country was deeply in debt, mired in depression, and the US now loomed as the world's economic power. In the 1920s, a rivalry ensued pitting America against Britain's three imperial pillars: control of world sea lanes, its banking and finance, and its strategic raw materials. At stake was whether London or Washington would be the world's new capital, with no assured winner at the time. Later, it was very clear that WW II's seeds were planted in a place called Versailles and a 1919 treaty in its name.

Its terms were outrageous and onerous. They made unimaginable demands, and therein lay the problem. In May 1921, Germany got an ultimatum with six days to accept or the industrial Ruhr Valley would be militarily occupied. Even worse, the country lost its colonial possessions and all their raw material resources. In the end, all combatants were losers. Their combined debt overwhelmed world finance and monetary policy from 1919 to the 1929 Wall Street crash. The entire pyramid was built on punitive war debts with Morgan and other major New York banks uncompromising on the terms. They was so burdensome that yearly payments exceeded America's annual 1920s foreign trade. In addition, paying it took precedence over rebuilding and modernizing war-torn European economies.

At the same time, oil's importance grew as Britain exploited the spoils at France and America's expense. In March 1921, Winston Churchill was UK secretary of state for colonial affairs, the British Colonial Office Middle East Department was established, and Mesopotamia was renamed Iraq and became a British colony. Anglo-Persian Oil officials got administrative control, American companies gained no British Middle East concessions, and a fierce battle raged over the region's oil throughout the 1920s. Then it moved to Latin America.

In the 19th century, US Senator Henry Cabot Lodge stated "commerce follows the flag" and by it meant economic progress requires expansion. In 1912, it got Mexico targeted after oil was discovered in Tampico in 1910. Woodrow Wilson sent in troops to seize control from Britain and the UK-connected Mexican Eagle Oil Company that had concessions for half the country's oil at the time. As war in Europe loomed, Britain backed off, and America secured Tampico's enormous potential.

Britain, nonetheless, pressed on, and by the early 1920s controlled "a formidable arsenal of apparently private companies" that, in fact, let His Majesty's government "dominate and ultimately control all" major world oil-containing regions. Four companies were empowered that were also an "integral part of British secret intelligence activities:"

-- Royal Dutch Shell that rivaled Rockefeller's Standard Oil, even in America through California Oil Fields and Oklahoma-based Roxana Petroleum;

-- the Anglo-Persian Oil Company that became the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company and is now British Petroleum;

-- the little-known d'Arcy Exploitation Company; it was tied to the Foreign Office and British intelligence, and its agents showed up wherever there was oil development potential; and

-- the nominally Canadian company called British Controlled Oilfields (BCO); it was secretly government- owned as were Shell and the others.

In 1912, British companies controlled about 12% of world oil production. By 1925, it was most of it, America noticed, but in 1922, London and Washington united against a common threat and called a truce to their post-Versailles conflict.

The Anglo-Americans Close Ranks

In April 1922, Germany and Russia stunned the West by their bilateral Rapello Treaty. Under it, Russia waived its war reparations claims in return for Germany's industrial technology. The news shocked the continent, especially as it emerged from a British-organized Genoa meeting with other strategic aims in mind.

While secretly financing an anti-Soviet counterrevolution, London approached Russia regarding Baku's oil fields, hoping to arrange lucrative deals for Royal Dutch Shell and other UK oil companies. Rockefeller's Standard Oil also eyed them, but was disadvantaged by Britain's favored position and its own unsavory reputation. Yet it proceeded through Harry Sinclair of Sinclair Petroleum as a perceived independent middleman with no Rockefeller taint.

Moscow was interested because Sinclair had ties to President Harding, and a deal meant US diplomatic recognition and an end to Russia's international isolation post-1917. Sinclair agreed, Harding approved, but events then intervened.

It was scandal in Wyoming in a place called Teapot Dome. It involved political influence and the awarding of no-bid oil leases to Sinclair Oil (then called Mammoth Oil) and a whole lot more with illegal payoffs and no-interest loans as part of the deal. Harding, though not directly involved, was implicated, a year later he was dead ("under strange circumstances"), Coolidge became President, dropped the Baku project, and ended plans to recognize Russia. At the time, it was thought British intelligence was involved, blocked the bid to give UK oil companies an edge, but Germany's deal with Russia intervened.

It was Germany's second option at a time its onerous debt made dealing with Britain preferable. Efforts failed because London was hard-line, stuck to its punitive repayment process, and imposed stiff tariffs to make things worse with Germany already on its knees.

The looting ruined the country's economy and forced the Reichsbank to print enormous amounts of money to survive. Inevitable inflation followed and by 1923 was catastrophic. In January, the mark dropped to 18,000 to the dollar. By July, it was at 353,000, by August 4,620,000, and by November an astonishing 4,200,000,000,000. It was effectively worthless in the greatest ever (before or since) inflation that destroyed the country's savings and made further calamitous events inevitable.

The misery was compounded when Germany lost its assets. Britain took its colonies, and also seized was Alsace-Lorraine and Silesia with its rich mineral and agricultural resources. Gone was 75% of the country's iron ore, 68% of zinc ore, 26% of coal as well as Alsatian textile industries and potash mines. In addition, Germany's entire merchant fleet was taken, a portion of its transport and fishing fleet plus locomotives, railroad cars and trucks - all justified as war debts that were fixed at an impossible to pay 132 billion gold marks at 6% annual interest, and with it an ultimatum. Agree in six days or Allied troops would occupy the Ruhr. Unsurprisingly, the Reichstag approved.

It made dealing with Russia essential as Germany sought practical ways to survive. It proved impossible, France objected to a minor treaty obligation and occupied the Ruhr anyway. In the meantime, inflation soared, German industrial activity was erased, Reichsbank and other German bank assets were seized, and the currency became worthless.

In 1923, a so-called Dawes Plan (named for US banker Charles Dawes) was adopted. It was the Anglo-American banking community's way to reassert fiscal control over Germany, assure reparations were paid, and continue the state-sponsored looting. It continued until 1929 when the debt pyramid collapsed, an ensuing banking crisis followed, capital flowed out of the country, its economy crashed, the world headed into depression, and radical political elements gained prominence.

Reichbank president, Hjalmar Schacht, was a key figure. He resigned his post to organize financial support for the man he and Bank of England governor Montagu Norman wanted as chancellor. From 1926, Schacht secretly backed the radical National Socialist German workers party, the NSDAP Nazis. Britain also favored the "Hitler Project," support for it went right to the top and included figures like Prime Minister Chamberlain and the Prince of Wales (later King Edward VIII in 1936 until he abdication later in the year).

Throughout the period, Wall Street and Washington were comfortable with the Nazis, and a key government official met Hitler in 1922. He came away saying he "was deeply impressed by his personality and thought it likely he would play an important part in German politics."

By this time, the Anglo-American power struggle was resolved. So, too, the oil wars with the creation of an "enormously powerful Anglo-American oil cartel," later called the "Seven Sisters." British and American companies struck a deal. They ended competition, kept existing market shares, and secretly set prices with governments of both countries arranging a Red Line agreement. From then to now, Big Oil ruled the energy world and devised how to deal with "outsiders."

Later, the consequences from Baron Kurt von Schroeder's January 4, 1932 meeting would have to be faced after he, Heinrich von Papen and Hitler secretly arranged a Nazi takeover. A year later, another meeting followed preparatory to acting. The Weimar government was weak, the scheme was to topple it, and it made Hitler Reichschancellor on January 30, 1933. On August 2, 1934 he seized absolute power as Fuhrer. British interests backed him, Royal Dutch Shell financed him, and the Bank of England "moved with indecent haste to reward" him with a vital line of credit. The rest, as they say, is history, and from it would emerge a new world order.

Oil and the New World Order of Bretton Woods

In 1945, the world had changed. Post-WW I, Britain was preeminent with an empire spanning one-fourth the globe. Thirty years later, it was disintegrating and "in the throes of the largest upheaval of perhaps any empire in history" (although it happened most prominently to Rome, but it took longer). It wasn't from "beneficence" or a matter of principle. It was unavoidable because the war took its toll. It shattered Britain's financial power, its industry was decaying, its housing stock was dilapidated, and its people exhausted. Britain was "utterly dependent on America," so the baton passed to the only major power left standing in a ravaged post-war world.

A "special relationship" between them emerged post-Versailles. Britain led it then, it hoped post-1945 to continue indirectly, and a new element was added - the post-war CIA that worked with Britain in the war as the OSS (Office of Strategic Services). The relationship continued as the two countries have mutual interests and jointly share intelligence, except that Britain now is junior in a US-dominated world.

Post-war, Anglo-American oil interests had enormous power. It was assured by the 1944 Bretton Woods system that was built around three dominant pillars - the IMF, World Bank and managed "free trade" from GATT. Clauses were built into each to ensure Anglo and especially American dominance over monetary and trade issues. Both countries have voting control, and the arrangement created a "gold exchange system." Under it, each member country's currency was pegged to the dollar that, in turn, was set at a fixed $35 an ounce gold price. It suited Big Oil fine as America by then had the bulk of world gold reserves.

They also benefitted from the Marshall Plan as more than 10% of it went for American oil, and five US companies supplied over half of western Europe's supply at a dear price (that was pennies on the dollar compared to today). They profited enormously, nonetheless, as oil became the key commodity fueling world growth that without which would halt.

Partnered with Big Oil and its trade were Wall Street and New York international banks. They profited hugely from its capital inflows, and it ensured their advantage that was built into the Bretton Woods system. They also had cartel power by having consolidated to hold disproportionate control over world finance.

Britain, as well, had its post-war priorities in the wake of its lost empire. Its leadership regrouped around the power and profits of oil and other strategic raw materials with US help. It made Iran a target, Britain humiliated its nationalist elements, occupied the country, and demanded concessions for its government-linked Royal Dutch Shell. Finally in December, 1944, nationalist leader Mohammed Mossadegh introduced a bill to bar foreign country oil negotiations. A bitter fight ensued, by 1948 foreign troops were withdrawn, but the country remained under UK control through its Anglo-Iranian Oil Company at a time Iran's southern region had the world's richest known reserves.

In late 1947, the Iranian government demanded an increase in its oil revenue share (meager at the time) and cited Venezuela where Standard Oil had a 50 - 50 arrangement. London wasn't pleased, talks dragged on, and the strategy was to stall and delay. In late 1949, Mossadegh headed a parliamentary commission, a 50 - 50 split was demanded, Britain refused, and by 1951 Mossadegh was Prime Minister. Around the same time, Iran's parliament nationalized the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company and paid fair compensation for it. Britain, nonetheless, was outraged and reacted.

Full economic sanctions and an oil embargo followed. In addition, Iranian assets in British banks were frozen, and major Anglo-American oil companies supported London. Iran's economy was devastated. Its oil revenues plummeted from $400 million in 1950 to less than $2 million from July 1951 to August 1953 when Mossadegh was ousted by a CIA-British SIS coup. Shah Reza Pahlevi returned to power, sanctions were lifted, and America and Britain regained their client state until 1979 when the same Anglo-American interests turned on the Shah and deposed him. More on that below.

An Italian company defied the sanctions at the time - Azienda Generale Italiana Petroli (AGIP). Its founder and head was Enrico Mattei, a man to be reckoned with. He sought indigenous energy resources for Italy that Anglo-American oil interests wouldn't co-opt. It was no simple task, yet he got a new law passed that established a central semi-autonomous state energy company called Ente Nazionale Idrocarburi (ENI). AGIP became a subsidiary.

As its leader in 1957, he negotiated an unprecedented deal with Iran - 75% of profits to the National Iranian Oil Company and 25% to ENI. Washington, London and Big Oil weren't pleased. If unchecked, this type arrangement would upset their entire world oil order benefitting them at the expense of host countries. Mattei had to be stopped, and the US and Britain pressured the Shah to opt out - to no avail.

Mattei became a major irritant. He challenged Big Oil with low gasoline prices. He also offered deals with former colonies on more favorable terms than the majors, including the prospect of local refineries so supplier countries could be more than just raw material sources.

Finally, in October 1960 he went too far and enraged Washington and London. He negotiated a deal with Moscow they opposed. In 1958, he contracted to buy one million annual tons of Soviet crude. He then signed an exchange agreement for 2.4 million tons for five years but not to be paid in cash. Instead it would be in large-diameter oil pipe that Russia badly needed to construct a huge pipeline network bringing Volga-Urals oil to Czechoslovakia, Poland and Hungary - 15 million tons annually when completed. The deal helped both sides with Mattei getting Russian oil at below market price and the Soviets getting a pipe works plant completed for them in September, 1962.

A month later, Mattei was dead. His private plane crashed on takeoff killing him and two others on board. To this day, deliberate sabotage was suspected, and why not. Mattei was at the peak of his powers, he'd already signed deals with Iran, Russia, Morocco, Sudan, Tanzania, Ghana, India and Argentina and upset the established order. He also planned to meet President Kennedy who, at the time, was pressing Big Oil to reach accommodation with him. A year later, Kennedy was also dead, and the finger pointed to "US intelligence, through a complex web of organized crime cutouts."

A Sterling Crisis and the Adenauer-De Gaulle Threat

In 1957, western European countries headed by France, West Germany and Italy signed the Treaty of Rome. It established the European Economic Community (EEC) that came into force on January 1, 1959. Germany was recovering from the war, and Charles De Gaulle regained power in France with vigorous restructuring plans - to rebuild the country's infrastructure, expand its devastated industrial and agricultural economy, and restore fiscal stability.

It was already under way in continental Europe, the result of unprecedented EEC trade-driven growth. De Gaulle and Germany's Konrad Adenauer led the effort with the French President exerting a strong independent voice. The two leaders bonded, and the Treaty Between and French Republic and Federal Republic of Germany was concluded on January 22, 1963. It assured close cooperation and coordination of economic and industrial policy. Washington and London were alarmed at the prospect of an independent alliance that included Italy under Aldo Moro.

An Anglo-American alliance was hatched to counter it. It targeted Europe and took the form of pushing the EEC to open to US imports and be firmly part of a Washington-London-dominated NATO. Britain also demanded inclusion in the six nation Common Market. De Gaulle strongly opposed it, but was denied when Atlanticist Ludwig Erhard became Germany's Chancellor in April 1963. He favored admitting Britain and agreed to support London's 19th century "balance of power" strategy against continental Europe. Though formally ratified, the Franco-German accord was lifeless, and the culmination of Adenauer's work was lost - stolen by the America and Britain at the last moment.

Washington supported the EEC but not as an independent alliance. It might have become that in 1957 at a time recession hit America and lasted into the 1960s. It led to debate in the US with the New York Council of Foreign Relations and Rockefeller Brothers Fund drafting options at a time Henry Kissinger emerged. It was also when Big Oil and New York banks (the East Coast establishment) were dominant and viewed the world as their market. They also controlled the media and used it to promote their interests over what was best for the nation and greater good.

Rebuilding US infrastructure, investing in modern factories, improving the national economy and developing a skilled labor force were ignored. Instead, investment flowed abroad for greater returns. Cheating on quality also became fashionable, and productive pride lost out to bottom line priorities to please Wall Street.

It came with a cost, however, and part of it was the state's financial health. As dollars flowed abroad, US gold reserves plunged enough to threaten the Bretton Woods system. The problem was a "fatal flaw" in its design. Its rules established a "gold exchange standard" requiring IMF countries to fix the value of their currencies to the US dollar and indirectly to gold at $35 an ounce.

By the 1960s, European growth outpaced the US, and domestic investment sought to take advantage of double the returns it could get domestically. It was the beginning of the Eurodollar market, and the start of a decade of "ever worsening international monetary crises." By the late 1970s, it became a cancer that "threatened to destroy its entire host - the world monetary system." It also influenced the Johnson administration to believe that a full-scale southeast Asian conflict could stimulate a stagnant economy and show the world who was still boss.

In the 1960s, New York bankers, Big Oil and the defense establishment advocated war and a homeland garrison state to boost profits, but consider the strategy. DOD Secretary Robert McNamara and Pentagon planners obliged. They designed a protracted "no-win war from the outset" to rev up spending and secure the defense component of the economy. Deficits resulted, the dollar inflated, and Washington forced its trading partners to accept war costs in the form of cheapened greenbacks.

It led to European central banks accumulating large Eurodollars reserves they then earned interest on from US treasuries. The net effect was continental bankers funded US deficits the way they do now, along with China and Japan. Engdahl quoted futurist Herman Kahn saying: "We've pulled off the biggest ripoff in history (running) rings around the British empire." Nonetheless, London planned a comeback with "expatriate American dollars." More on that below.

Lyndon Johnson waged war on two fronts, and failed at both. Vietnam cost him his presidency while his War on Poverty and Great Society barely made a difference but amassed huge European-financed deficits. At the same time, industrial and scientific investment declined, financial speculation grew, a service-oriented economy was favored, and America headed down the same "road to ruin" Britain followed earlier.

Few understood that Johnson's domestic policy had little to do with alleviating poverty. It was a corporate scheme to exploit economic decay, curb wage growth and back a 19th century colonial-style looting. Inciting "race war" was part of the plan. Engdahl described it as a domestic Vietnam pitting blacks against whites, unemployed against employed, and high wage earners against lower paid ones in a "new Great Society, while Wall Street bankers benefited from slashed union wages and cuts in infrastructure investment." They, in turn, recycled their profits into cheap Asian and South American labor markets for still greater profits. It's the same scheme writ large today.

By 1967, trouble was evident. The Bretton Woods system was threatened as US external debt soared and the nation's gold reserves plummeted to one-third their liability. At the same time, Britain's economy was "a rotting mess and getting worse." Faith in the pound sterling was eroding because the UK, like America, neglected its industrial base, amassed large trade deficits, and was a net currency exporter. Something had to give, and it was the pound.

At this time, De Gaulle withdrew from the gold pool, and "the entire Bretton Woods edifice (shook) at its weakest link, the pound sterling." The crisis highlighted the core vulnerability of the international monetary system, the US dollar. Things came to a head on November 18, 1967. Britain devalued the pound by 14% for the first time since 1949. It abated the sterling crisis, but the dollar one was just beginning as international holders of the currency demanded gold in exchange.

Crisis built in 1968, and Business Week magazine devoted an astonishing nine articles and feature editorial to it in its March 23 issue headlined "Gold crisis jolts the West" on its front cover. A publisher's memo also addressed it and quoted Virgil's Aeneid, Book III: "Oh cursed lust for gold, to what dost thou not drive the hearts of men!" It affected Charles De Gaulle as well. His independence made him a target for removal that succeeded. It got him voted out of office a year later. For Washington and London, however, it was a Pyrrhic victory.

"A Century of War" will continue in Part II of this review to complete the story to the present era under George Bush.

Stephen Lendman can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

[Raju]

A Century Of War
By F. William Engdahl
Review By Stephen Lendman - Part 2
2-14-8

Part II continues the story of "A Century in War" in Part I. It's breathtaking in scope and content, and a shocking and essential history of geopolitics and the strategic importance of oil. Part I covered events from the late 19th century through the end of the 1960s. Part II completes the story to the present era under George Bush.

Running the World Economy in Reverse: Who Made the 1970s Oil Shocks?

In 1969, the US was in recession, interest rates were cut, dollars flowed abroad, and the money supply expanded. In addition, in May 1971, America recorded its first monthly trade deficit that triggered a panic US dollar sell-off.

Things were desperate, gold reserves were one-quarter of official liabilities, and Nixon shocked the world on August 15. He unilaterally imposed a 90 day wage and price freeze, a 10% import surcharge, and most importantly closed the gold window, suspended dollar convertibility into the metal, and shredded the Bretton Woods core provision. He also devalued the dollar by 8%, far less than what US allies wanted.

By this action, Nixon "pulled the plug on the world economy" and set off a series of events that shook it. Further deterioration followed with massive capital flight to Europe and Japan. It forced Nixon to act again on February 12, 1973. He announced a further 10% devaluation, major world currencies began a process called a "managed float," and world instability was the worst seen since the 1930s.

Unknown was the reason behind the August, 1971 strategy. It was to buy time before initiating a bold new monetary "paradigm shift" - to revive a strong dollar and US world power with it. In May 1973, the scheme was hatched - to initiate a "colossal assault" on world industrial growth through a 400% increase in oil prices. In addition, the resulting petrodollar flood had to be managed. A global oil embargo was the scheme to rocket up its price and create an equally great demand for dollars.

Kissinger's Yom Kippur war began it when Egypt and Syria invaded Israel on October 6, 1973. It wasn't by accident as Washington and London carefully orchestrated the conflict while Kissinger controlled Israel's response. An oil embargo followed, OPEC prices skyrocketed 400% overnight, panic ensued, Arab oil producers were scapegoated, and the key part of the scheme took shape. It was for much of the windfall oil revenue (mainly Saudi, the world's largest producer) to be recycled into US investments.

Following a Tehran January 1, 1974 meeting, a second price increase doubled the price of oil for even more recycling. The net effect - the worst American and European economic crisis since the 1930s with bankruptcies, unemployment, and in the US, a bonus of stagflation. The fallout was horrific. It brought down most European governments but its effects on developing states were devastating. Nixon as well got caught in the "Watergate affair" that benefitted Henry Kissinger hugely. He became de facto president throughout the period while his boss battled to survive and lost. For Big Oil and major US and London banks, it was even sweeter. They profited handsomely.

Other issues were at stake as well, one of which was potentially cheaper nuclear electricity as an alternative energy source. By the early 1970s, it was viewed favorably, and European governments favored building 160 to 200 nuclear plants by 1985. For the first time, America's nuclear export market was threatened as well as Big Oil's overall energy dominance. It got Anglo-American think tanks and journals to launch an "awesome propaganda offensive" to ensure the oil shock strategy's success. The scheme was an "Anglo-American ecology agenda" (strongly anti-nuclear) that became "one of the most successful frauds in history." (origin of NPA)

A second Malthusian plot was also hatched through a classified Kissinger April 1974 memo. It was a secret project called National Security Study Memorandum 200 (NSSM 200) that called for drastic global population reduction. It reasoned that many developing nations are resource rich and vital to US growth. If Third World populations grow too fast, their domestic demand will as well, and that will pressure price rises for their goods. Curbing population growth was the counter strategy. It's also self-defeating along with horrific fallout for targeted countries.

Europe, Japan and a Response to the Oil Shock

By late 1975, industrial countries began recovering but not developing ones. The oil shock was crushing and prevented their ability to finance industrial and agricultural growth and the hopes of their people for a better life. Perversely, it was also at a time the worst global drought in decades hit Africa, South America and parts of Asia especially hard. The fourfold increase in oil prices exacerbated conditions and increased developing states' current account deficits sevenfold by 1976. They halted internal development to preserve revenue for debt service and to buy oil. Conditions also let foreign banks and later the IMF provide loans that became an onerous debt bondage cycle.

At the same time in 1974, 70% of surplus OPEC revenues were recycled abroad into equities, bonds, real estate and other investments as part of an exclusive OPEC decision to accept only US dollars for oil. It forced world nations to buy enormous amounts of dollars and do it when the currency was weak. This effectively replaced the gold standard with a "highly unstable (petrodollar) exchange system." Washington and New York banks planned to control it and thus benefit from artificially inflated oil prices.

The scheme transformed the world economy and began an unprecedented transfer of wealth to an elite minority. Engdahl called it "a perverse variation on the old mafia 'protection racket' game." Third World agricultural and industrial development suffered so a select few could prosper. It sent shock waves through the developing world and got a Colombo, Sri Lanka gathering to confront it.

Officials from 85 Non-Aligned Nations met in the Sri Lankan capital in August, 1976 and produced a document unlike any others by developing states post-war. Its theme was "A fair and just economic development, and its contents stated that "economic problems have become the most difficult aspect of international relations (and) developing countries have become the victim(s) of this worldwide crisis." Steps were proposed to address it, and they called for a "fundamental reorganization of the international trade system to improve" its terms. They also wanted the international monetary system overhauled and the "explosive issue" of foreign debt raised for the first time.

The proposal was then presented at the annual UN General Assembly meeting in New York. It was a "political bombshell," and financial markets reacted sending bank shares and the dollar lower. The fear was a potential alliance between key oil producing states and continental Europe and Japan. If in place, it could challenge Anglo-American dominance, had to be confronted, and Henry Kissinger got the job with "the full power and force of the US government." He warned EEC foreign ministers and disrupted any efforts they were considering to ally with OPEC and the non-aligned group.

Coordinating with Britain, he also forced key non-aligned nation strategists out of office within months of their declaration. The threat was thwarted and leading New York and London banks took full advantage. They turned on the spigot and increased lending to developing nations under draconian IMF terms.

Down but not out, North-South cooperation resurfaced in new ways. In late 1975, Brazil contracted with Germany to build a nuclear power plant complex. A similar deal was made with France for an experimental fast breeder reactor. Mexico as well decided to go nuclear for part of its electricity to conserve oil and so did Pakistan and Iran. The Shah's oil revenues were substantial, and his idea was "to realize an old dream" - to create a modern energy infrastructure, built around nuclear power generation, that would transform the entire Middle East's power needs. In 1978, Iran had the world's fourth largest nuclear program, the largest among developing states, and the plan was for 20 new reactors by 1995.

The idea was simple - to diversify from Iran's dependence on oil and weaken Washington and London's pressure to recycle petrodollars. Also involved was investing in leading European companies to ally with the continent. Washington was alarmed and tried to block the plan but failed. Nonetheless, the Carter administration continued Kissinger's strategy behind a phony "human rights" mask. In reality, the game was unchanged - limit Third World growth and maintain dollar hegemony. It failed miserably but threats to dollar dominance were stalled for a time.

They resurfaced in June, 1978 on the initiative of France and Germany. Responding to policy disagreements and a fluctuating dollar, they took steps to create a European currency zone and proposed Phase I of the European Monetary System (EMS) under which central banks of EEC countries agreed to stabilize their currencies relative to each other. EMS became operational in 1979 with notable positive results. This worried Washington and London as a threat to petrodollar supremacy, Britain refused to be an EMS partner, and Carter was unable to dissuade Germany from pursuing a nuclear option. The situation required drastic action.

It began in November 1978 with a White House Iran task force that recommended Washington end support for the Shah and replace him with Ayatollah Khomeini, then living in France. It would be by the same type coup that overthrew the Iranian government in 1953 along with broader aims that again are in play in the region.

Key then (and now) was to balkanize the Middle East along tribal and religious lines - a simple divide and conquer strategy that worked in the 1990s Balkan wars. The aim was to create an "Arc of Crisis" that would spread to Central Asia and the Soviet Union. Another 1978 event highlighted the urgency. At the time, the Shah was negotiating a 25-year oil agreement with British Petroleum (BP), but talks broke down in October. BP demanded exclusive rights to future Iranian output but refused to guarantee oil purchases. The Shah balked and was on the verge of independently seeking new buyers with eager ones lined up in Germany, France, Japan and elsewhere.

Washington and London were alarmed and acted. They implemented destabilization plans, starting with cutting Iranian oil purchases. Economic pressures followed, and trained US and UK agitators exacerbated them by fanning religious discontent and overall turmoil. Oil strikes as well were used. They crippled production and made things worse. American security advisors recommended Iran's Savak secret police use repressive tactics to maximize antipathy to the Shah. The Carter administration cynically protested human rights abuses, and BBC correspondents exaggerated anti-Shah protests to rev up hysteria against him. At the same time, it gave Khomeini an open platform to speak and prevented the Shah from replying.

Things came to a head in January, 1979 when he fled the country, and Khomeini returned to Tehran and proclaimed a theocratic state. Chaos was unleashed, and by May the new regime cancelled plans for further nuclear reactor development. At the same time, Iran's oil exports were cut off, and the Saudis inexplicably cut their own in January. Spot prices skyrocketed, and a second oil shock ensued that was as deviously conceived as the first one. Then it got worse. In October, newly appointed Fed Chairman Paul Volker unleashed a new scheme that turned calamity into catastrophe by design.

It was a radical new monetary policy on the pretext of "squeezing inflation out of the system." In fact, it was made-in-Washington fraud to preserve dollar hegemony, make it the world's most sought currency, and crush industrial growth to let political and financial power prop up dollar strength. Volker succeeded by raising interest rates from 10% to 16% and finally 20% in weeks. World policy makers were stunned, economies plunged into the deepest recession since the 1930s, and the dollar began an extraordinary five year ascent.

The combined effect of oil and Volker shocks took "the bloom off the nuclear rose" and ended its threat to Anglo-American oil supremacy. And if more was needed it came on March 28, 1979 in the middle of Pennsylvania at a place called Three Mile Island. Conveniently, at the same time The China Syndrome was released that fictionalized the ongoing event. The combined effect was public hysteria, and later investigation revealed critical valves had illegally been closed. In addition, FEMA controlled all news to create panic. The scheme worked, and Anglo-American supremacy was reasserted over the industrial and financial world. Nothing is stable forever, however, and within a decade new rumblings would be felt.

Imposing the New World Order

The combined effects of two oil shocks and resulting inflation created a new US "landed aristocracy" while the vast majority of Americans saw their living standards sink. It was the same type scheme Margaret Thatcher imposed on Britain when she declared "there is no alternative." Preaching free market hokum, she claimed deficit spending was the culprit, not two oil shocks causing 18% UK inflation. Her remedy - kill the patient to save it by cutting the money supply and government spending while sharply hiking interest rates to 17% in weeks, thereby causing depression she called the "Thatcher revolution." Engdahl had another view saying: "Never in modern history had an industrialized nation undergone such (a counterproductive) shock" in so short a time, except in wartime emergency. Thatcher crushed the economy by design the way Volker did in America.

At the time, Britain's problem wasn't government ownership. It was lack of investment in public infrastructure, in educating a skilled work force, and in enough scientific research and development. Government isn't the problem. Misguided policy is, and Thatcher and Volker excelled at it with one mutual aim - benefit their banks and Big Oil interests by cutting taxes and spending, reducing social services, privatizing and deregulating business, and breaking the back of organized labor in their brave new world order.

President Carter knew nothing about finance and economics and was duped into signing an "extraordinary piece of legislation" - the Depository Institutions Deregulation Monetary Control Act of 1980. It let the Fed impose reserve requirements on banks and be able to choke off credit to them. It also phased out interest rate ceilings banks could charge customers. Reagan continued the policies and was bamboozled by Chicago School ideologues like Milton Friedman. Engdahl called his radical monetarism "one of the most cruel economic frauds ever perpetrated." It was that and more because of all the human wreckage it caused.

It led to the Third World debt crisis and its horrific fallout. It willfully immiserated millions of people, and events came to a head in the summer of 1982 with debtor states struggling to repay. Their burden was too onerous, and Reagan and Thatcher planned an example of what happens when nonpayment is an option. The Malvinas (or Falkland) archipelago was the targeted choice. It's off Argentina's coast but was hardly a reason for war. The issue wasn't Argentina's sovereignty. It was to enforce the principle that Third World debts must be paid by a "new form of 19th century gunboat diplomacy." Two-thirds of Britain's fleet was dispatched, a shooting war ensued, and Argentina became a test case.

Reagan backed Thatcher, and it soured relations with Latin American states like Mexico that also became a target. President Jose Lopez Portillo favored a modernization and industrialization policy and planned to use his oil revenue to implement it. The prospect of a strong Mexico was intolerable, Washington had other ideas, and a scheme was hatched to sabotage the plan by demanding rigid repayment of Mexican debt at exorbitant rates.

It began with an orchestrated run on the peso in the fall of 1981. Claims of an impending devaluation followed, and stories were planted of impending capital flight. An unavoidable austerity program followed, and the Portillo government cracked under pressure. It devalued the peso 30%, Mexican industry was devastated, many businesses were bankrupted, industrial production was cut and so were living standards for the majority of the people under conditions of orchestrated chaos.

Mexico effectively became insolvent at a time the US was in deep recession. Nonetheless, the Reagan administration hatched a plan to solve the debt crisis and save New York banks. Ignoring the root cause of the crisis, Secretary of State George Schultz offered IMF medicine combined with stimulating US consumer purchases as a way to increase Third World exports.

It would be "the most costly recovery in world history (and what followed) was almost beyond belief." Lopez Portillo failed to rally Latin American support, and his term expired two months later. US officials then blackmailed Brazil and Argentina to back down, and debtor countries had to accept IMF terms that became "the most concerted organized looting operation in modern history," far exceeding the worst of Versailles.

New York and London banks profited hugely the way they do today. First, they "socialize(d) their debt crisis" by getting unprecedented international repayment support. Working through governments and the IMF, they spun off their debt to taxpayers, privatized gains for themselves, and pummeled debtor countries by structural adjustment looting.

That was Step One. Next came Step Two - restructuring debtor nations' repayment schedules that included onerous interest on top of oppressive principal. It caused mounting debt no matter how much was paid in an unending looting daisy chain still in play today and bigger than ever.

Back in the 1980s, here are the numbers. Between 1980 and 1986, 109 debtor countries were charged $326 billion in interest. They paid an additional $332 billion in principal for a total of $658 billion on original debt of $430 billion. In spite of it, in 1986 they still owed $882 billion, an impossible debt trap, and Engdahl attributed it to "the wonders of compound interest and floating rates" with a little gunboat diplomacy thrown in. Only one way out was possible - surrender economic sovereignty and valued raw materials, or else. Capital flight in the tens of billions followed, and it became a profit-making bonanza for major US banks.

In the 1980s, Americans also suffered. Reaganomics victimized them by structuring big gains for banks, oil and defense giants while ignoring the greater good and long-term economic health. The plan was nonsensical and built around the largest post-war tax cut until the combined three George Bush ones (with another coming) may have topped it. They did in nominal dollars, but Reagan's was much bigger as a percent of GDP in an economy half today's size.

Reagan and Bush had the same scheme in mind. Some call it "supply-side economics," others a "voodoo" variety on the idea that tax cuts release "stifled creative energies," stimulate higher economic growth and produce greater government revenue. The Reagan one signaled "anything goes." Besides generous benefits for the rich and business, it encouraged speculative real estate investment, especially for commercial ventures. It also removed restrictions on corporate takeovers.

A year later, interest rates headed down, stock and bond prices shot up, a speculative bonanza was unleashed, and here's the bottom line. Reaganomics failed to encourage productive investment, except for selected defense contractors. Money instead poured into equities and debt instruments, high-risk real estate, junk bond-financed leveraged buyouts, and tax-sheltered oil well and other development.

At the same time, infrastructure needs were ignored, organized labor was targeted, government became the problem, and deregulation the solution to get it off our backs. Throughout the 1980s and since: organized labor ranks declined, high-paying manufacturing jobs were lost, working American living standards declined, and an astonishing generational shift began - the annual wealth transfer of over $1 trillion from 90 million working class households to for-profit corporations and the richest 1% of the population to create an unprecedented wealth disparity. It continues unabated and is destroying the bedrock middle class without which democracy can't survive and is already on life support and sinking.

Simultaneously, by the mid-1980s, the US went from being the world's largest creditor to a net debtor nation for the first time since 1914. Budget deficits as well skyrocketed along with the national debt, and the true economic condition was revealed. "It was sick." Today, it's much sicker and depends on "the kindness of strangers" the way it did in the roaring twenties until the 1929 market crash smashed it.

At the end of the 1980s, a lesser version of it occurred from the savings and loan industry (S & Ls) collapse. During the decade, almost $1 trillion went into speculative real estate, and for the first time banks were allowed to participate. S & Ls took full advantage in an anything goes, deregulated environment. The 1982 Garn-St. Germain Act let them invest in anything they wished with government-backed $100,000 per account insurance. It allowed reckless speculation, massive fraud, and was an ideal way for organized crime and CIA to launder billions in drugs-related funds.

The 1980s ended the Reagan era when George HW Bush became President in 1989. It coincided with the fall of the Berlin Wall in November and breakup of the Soviet Union in 1991. Around the same time, it was decided to target the Middle East and its vast oil reserves to counter the fear of a united Germany and economically expanding continental Europe that could threaten US dominance. Saddam would be the victim and an easy target after being weakened by the 1980 - 1988 Iran-Iraq war and a $65 billion debt to foreign creditors.

The scheme was to lure him into a trap (with Kuwait as bait) to provide a pretext for US military intervention. The rest is history:

-- Iraq invaded Kuwait on August 2, 1990;

-- four days later Operation Desert Shield was launched; harsh economic sanctions were imposed and a large US troop deployment began;

-- Operation Desert Storm began on January 17, 1991 and ended six weeks later on February 28;

-- Next came 12 years of the most comprehensive genocidal sanctions ever imposed on a country that included a crippling embargo; hundreds of thousands died and millions suffered;

-- Operation Iraqi Freedom was launched on March 19, 2003 and is still ongoing nearly five years later; the "cradle of civilization" was erased, a free market paradise created, and the death, human misery and displacement toll is incalculable for an impossible to win guerilla war.

From the Evil Empire to the Axis of Evil

In his 1991 State of the Union address, GHW Bush proclaimed a New World Order, quickly dropped the term but pursued the policy. The younger Bush does as well with focus shifted from the "Evil Empire" to the "Axis of Evil." It was a vague construct that conveniently encompassed the Eurasian continent and its oil riches. To ensure US dominance, they had to be controlled, especially against key Japanese, European Union (EU) and emerging Chinese rivals.

A threefold scheme was hatched to do it:

-- target Russia, eastern Europe and all parts of the world to ensure IMF rules and US dollar hegemony are maintained;

-- control every country with significant energy or other vital raw material resources; and

-- maintain unchallengeable military supremacy to deter opposition to US-imposed rules.

The catch word was "globalization." It denies global justice, globalizes US dominance, and consolidates it by political, economic and military enforcement. At the start of the 1990s, however, Japan had become the world's economic and banking leader and had to be confronted. A reckless speculation decade left American banks in deep crisis. Japan operated differently, prospered and challenged US supremacy. Its influence was recognized and had to be undercut.

Treasury Secretary James Baker laid the trap through the 1985 Plaza accord and the Baker-Miyazawa month later agreement. He got Tokyo to exercise monetary and fiscal measures to expand domestic demand and reduce Japan's external surplus. At the same time, the Bank of Japan cut interest rates to 2.5% in 1987 and held that level until May, 1989. The plan was for lower rates to stimulate US goods purchases. Instead, cheap money went into Japanese stocks and real estate and led to colossal twin bubbles still deflating today.

The yen was also affected. Within months, it shot up 40% against the dollar, and overnight Japan became the world's largest banking center, surpassing London and New York. As the country's twin bubbles inflated, Japan became home to the world's 10 largest banks, an astonishing achievement for a country its size or any country. Things were so extreme at the bubble's peak that the value of Tokyo real estate, in dollars, exceeded all of it in the US, and the nominal value of Japanese stocks amounted to 42% of the world's total - but not for long.

Tokyo equities peaked in December, 1989. Three months later, the Nikkei dropped 23% or over $1 trillion in value, and it was just the beginning. From its 38,915 peak, Japanese stocks plunged to 7831 in April, 2003 with no assurance that's a bottom. Why and how could this happen? Japanese officials speculated on the reason.

In 1990, Japan proposed financing the former Soviet Union's reconstruction and drew strong US opposition. In addition, Japan's MITI model was suggested for former communist countries with Washington dead set against it for two reasons: it might exclude US companies, and it would rely on state economic guidance that impressively fueled Japanese and Asian Tiger growth. It had to be stopped as America had other ideas for the post-Cold War era.

Pressure was applied with threats of drastic US troop cuts that would endanger Japan's security. The message was abandon economic plans or provide your own defense. At the same time, Japan's twin bubbles kept deflating, months later the Nikkei had lost $5 trillion in value, the country was badly hurt, and its challenge to America was dropped.

That was Phase One. Phase Two confronted Asian Tiger countries because (like Japan) their economic model bested the US and threatened it. It was a major embarrassment to IMF rules that exploit developing states for America's gain. In the 1980s, East Asia boomed with 7 - 8% annual growth rates compared to half that in the US. Their market economy followed state guidance and planning and it worked. They were also debt-free and unhampered by IMF restrictions. In addition, their model enhanced social security and productivity, promoted universal education and set limits on foreign investment and imports. Washington had other ideas.

In 1993, demands were made to deregulate, open financial markets, and allow free capital flows. Easing followed and trouble began. From 1994 to 1997, hot money flooded in and created speculative real estate, stock and other asset bubbles. Hedge funds (including George Soros' billions allied with major international banks) forcefully acted. They attacked the weakest regional economy and its currency - Thailand and its baht. The aim? Force devaluation, and it worked. Thailand capitulated, floated its currency and turned to the IMF for help it never before needed.


Next came the Philippines, Indonesia and South Korea as their "populations sank into economic chaos and (mass) poverty." Prosperous Asian Tigers were humbled, they were forced into IMF debt bondage, and Russia got the same medicine plus a bonus. A sole superpower remained under US dollar supremacy, and US military bases encircled its former adversary, were closing in, and targeted an emerging China as well.

Russian shock therapy was especially tragic. Washington wanted to deindustrialize the country to permanently destroy the old Soviet economic structure. Boris Yeltsin complied, and IMF wreckage was the scheme. A corporatist state replaced a communist one, and its apparatchiks were winners along with a handful of mutual fund managers who made dizzying returns from newly privatized Russian companies. In addition, 17 nouveau billionaires (called "the oligarchs") emerged overnight, strip mined the country's wealth, and shipped it overseas to safe havens.

Russia's people were devastated and still suffer. Unemployment is epidemic, well over half the population is impoverished, 80% of farmers were bankrupted, and 70,000 state factories were shuttered. And it got worse. Social services ended, diseases like HIV/AIDS became rampant, suicides rose, violent crime jumped fourfold, and the population now declines by about 700,000 a year with free market medicine already having killed over 10% of it. Outside a select elite, the former superpower was humbled, reduced to Third World status, and it created potential for Big Oil to exploit Russia's energy riches that were given away for kopecks on the ruble.

Seven oligarchs grabbed off half the country's natural resources. Their hard currency profits were dollarized, but by summer 1998 things got out of hand. With the economy in trouble, the IMF extended an emergency $23 billion loan to support the ruble and protect speculative western investments, but it came too late. On August 15, Russia did the unthinkable. It defaulted and, for a time, shock the dollarized world. The largest of all hedge funds (LTCM) bet on the country and leveraged up manyfold. A financial disaster loomed, the Fed intervened, Russia's default was quietly forgiven, and dollarization resumed.

Earlier, the Balkans got shock therapy and became a target for dismemberment with a simple idea in mind - destroy its mixed socialist economy that was independent of the West and couldn't be tolerated. Europe's soft underbelly also lies between central Asia's oil and the route over which Washington wants it transported. It had to be brought to heel, and a US-led NATO was the way. Softening up began by the late 1980s, continued into the new decade, and George Soros was at it again. IMF medicine was employed, living standards plunged, and economic chaos resulted. Breakup began, each region was on its own, and a lot of pushing came from the West.

Croatia and Slovania seceded first in 1991. That lit the fuse that exploded in a series of Balkan wars. Slobadan Milosevic became the fall guy, was targeted for removal, conflict lasted the decade, and it culminated with US-NATO's merciless 79 day 1999 Serbia bombing that caused an estimated $40 billion of destruction to the country's economy and infrastructure. The US moved in and set up shop in one of its largest military bases in the world - Camp Bondsteel near Gnjilane in southeast Kosovo. It's a Serbian province that was split off and occupied by design. The West's divide and conquer strategy is in play, Kosovo heads for independence, and the mother country's objections don't matter.

At war's end, US Eurasian control was enhanced but not guaranteed as the contest for Caspian riches is still in play with Russia, China and others vying for them.

A New Millennium for Oil Geopolitics

A new president accompanied the new millennium with a changed Washington focus - oil is at its core, controlling it is key, and Dick Cheney's first job as vice-president was working with the (James) Baker Institute to draft the April 2001 National Energy Policy Report. It projected a growing dependency on foreign oil, highlighted Iraq's "de-stabilizing influence," and recommended "restat(ing) goals with respect to Iraq policy." It also linked the Pentagon with future energy policy plans.

Core report recommendations signalled how with a crystal clear message:

-- securing foreign sources is key;

-- less than cooperative governments in volatile parts of the world control some of the largest sources; and

-- Cheney highlighted concern at a private 1999 London Institute of Petroleum meeting saying: "by 2010 we will need on the order of an additional fifty million barrels a day."

He didn't flinch saying where we'd get it: "the Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies...." and Iraq is the potential crown jewel with the largest of all untapped low-hanging fruit. Immediately on entering the White House, Cheney & Co. swung into action. They focused on Iraq like a laser, targeted Saddam Hussein, and removing him from office became top goal.

Washington teems with schemes and intrigue, but a neoconservative think tank was particularly diabolical. Established in 1997, it was called the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), its goal was unchallengeable US dominance, and a policy paper was drafted to achieve it. It appeared in 2000 and was called "Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategies, Forces and Resources for a New Century." It stated that "America should seek to preserve and extend its position of global leadership by maintaining the preeminence of US military forces." It further called for "American hegemony" and "full-spectrum dominance," and believed achieving it would be long-term "absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor."

A rogues gallery of PNAC members joined the Bush administration in 2001, key among them Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz, and topping their goals was removing Saddam Hussein. September 11 obliged, the "war on terror" was born, "terrorism" replaced communism as the new enemy, its core was in the oil-rich Middle East, and its headquarters was in Iraq. Removing the Taliban was just a warm-up for the main event ahead. It was conceived before bin Laden was "Enemy Number One" and overnight Al-Queda became western civilization's greatest threat.

On October 7, 2001 (four weeks after 9/11), America went to war. Target One was Afghanistan, controlling Central Asian oil was the goal, transporting it through Afghanistan was the plan, and the Taliban had to go because they rejected one-way Washington (double) deal making. They fled Kabul five weeks later, Northern Alliance warlords took over, a puppet president was installed, war ended (for a time), and the focus shifted to Iraq.

Prepping the public began, Saddam became another Hitler, his WMDs threatened western civilization, so he had to go. "Shock and awe" began on March 19, 2003, and Baghdad fell three weeks later. Saddam was removed, fighting "officially" ended in May, and to almost no one's surprise, no WMDs were found because they're weren't any, and that was known by the mid-1990s or earlier.

Paul Wolfowitz attended an unreported Singapore security conference in June. He was asked why America chose WMDs as a causis belli when none existed. He answered it was "the only thing we could agree on." He was also asked why Iraq was targeted, not North Korea and its nuclear threat, and he explained: "The country swims on a sea of oil" so there was no other choice with world supply running out.

That conclusion came out of an alarming September 9, 2001 Oil Depletion Analysis Centre energy policy memo to Tony Blair. It highlighted "hydrocarbon difficulties," declining output, and importance of Iraq as the one remaining untapped oil-rich country. Securing it was key because credible geological reports argued that easy cheap oil was dramatically declining while global demand was rising, especially in emerging China and India. For almost a century, world economic growth needed cheap, plentiful oil. No good substitute exists so controlling what's left is essential.

Further, if "peak oil" has been reached, as many believe, its cost will explode, and one analyst predicted: "Beyond 2005, the energy required to find and extract a barrel of oil will exceed the energy contained in the barrel." Further, he estimated most major oil sources are near or at peak, for every new barrel discovered, four are being used, and the only cheap untapped supply left is in the Middle East where around two-thirds of proved reserves remain. Five regional countries are key - Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iran, the Gulf Emirates (notably Qatar) and Iraq above all with estimates that its potential may be 432 billion barrels or around two-thirds more than Saudi Arabia's proved reserves.

If true, Iraq's importance is vital, its real estate is the world's most valuable, and controlling it unchallenged means "Washington (holds) the trump cards over all potential economic rivals," friends and foes. Even more grandiose would be to control every major and potential worldwide oil source and transport route to achieve unimaginable omnipotence. It would be a global-scale chokehold to decide who gets supply, who doesn't, how much and at what price. It would thereby assure who controls world economic development and remains Number One.

Unchallengeable military power is key and the reason the Bush administration repositioned its global presence through a web of new bases. They've been strategically placed where Cold War geopolitics didn't permit. Unsurprisingly, they target Eurasia and its importance Zbigniew Brzezinski highlighted in his 1997 book, "The Grand Chessboard." He referred to the region as the "center of world power extending from Germany and Poland in the East through Russia and China to the Pacific and including the Middle East and Indian subcontinent." Dominating it assures the US access to and control of its vast energy reserves, so that becomes Goal One.

But it doesn't exclude broader aims, including Africa that will supply around one-fourth of future US oil supply, according to some analysts. It explains the Pentagon's AFRICOM presence that's expected to be fully operational by late summer and be responsible for the entire continent and its valued resources that include more than energy.

Swing over to Latin America and its energy potential. Countries like Venezuela, Colombia, Ecuador, Bolivia, Brazil and Mexico are very much in US plans with the Bolivarian Republic far and away most important. According to Hugo Chavez and some US estimates, the country has more potential reserves than Saudi Arabia when its heavy oil is included. It explains SOUTHCOM'S mission and command over 30 regional countries with a growing presence in a number of them and ongoing operations (some covert) throughout Latin America.

Engdahl ends his book discussing oil's importance to US "full spectrum dominance." Controlling it directly or indirectly through client regimes means holding "a true weapon of mass destruction (and) potential blackmail over the rest of the world. Who would dare challenge the dollar" as the world's reserve currency? And if IMF rules keep restraining developing countries' growth, their oil demand will be curbed, so all the more for America and its key Global North allies at a time when most world oil sources have peaked. More than ever then, controlling world energy reserves is crucial to maintaining economic growth.

The 1970s oil shocks were warning shots. Today, threatened shortfalls are real and worsening. We call controlling world supply promoting democracy, others see the subterfuge, and some critics feel our imperial arrogance defines our weakness. Today, America is unrivaled in global power, and Engdahl quoted the late Edward Said after Iraq's invasion saying: "Every single empire (says) it is not like all the others, that (it's special), that it has a mission to enlighten, civilize, bring order and democracy (and only use) force as a last resort." It remains to be seen what's ahead in "the New American Century," but the evidence so far isn't encouraging, and that's putting it mildly.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

[ramana]

Pioneer Book review, 15 feb 2008

Dhaka's Islamic turn

In the early days in Dhaka, Krishnan Srinivasan got the impression that New Delhi was not clear about what approach it should have towards Bangladesh; that holds true even today, notes Saradindu Mukherji

The Jamdani Revolution: Politics, Personalities and Civil Society in Bangladesh, 1989-1992
Author: Krishnan Srinivasan
Publisher: Har-Anand
Price: Rs 595

Krishnan Srinivasan, a former Foreign Secretary, was India's High Commissioner in Dhaka. Naturally he has a lot in his kitty. He rightly suggests that during Partition, the majority of Muslims were more conscious of their Islamic identity than anything else. However, up to the 18th century they were reluctant converts on whom Islam sat very lightly till the Faraizis/Wahaabis compelled them to turn into full-fledged 'Believers' by abandoning their Hindu-Buddhist heritage. He notes the "local indifference" to the Hindu-Buddhist past of Bangladesh -- its only authentic ancient cultural heritage". Nothing surprising, since the denial of the pre-Islamic past (jahiliya) is a must for the convert. Subsequently, rapid Islamisation, petro-dollar and the failure of civil society have further strengthened this mindset.

Hence, the writer foresees the "possible exodus from Bangladesh of the 10 million or more Hindus", its political repercussions in India and how it was "preying on the minds of our Home Ministry". Of the 500 Bangladeshis illegally moving into West Bengal everyday, 25 per cent of them could be Hindus. Srinivasan told the authorities in Dhaka that they must ensure that the minorities "had a secure future" there. Not many "progressive" politicians and buddhijibis in India, despite being refugees from eastern and western parts would say such things lest their 'secular' image was dented.

Srinivasan mentions the Hindu-Buddhist-Christian Unity Council and the unprecedented deprivation of the landed properties of Hindus through the draconian Vested Property Act. Though this has been scrapped, the hapless Hindus have not yet been restored their land. He met Maj Gen CR Dutta, the founder president of the HBCUC, without mentioning that he was the first and last Hindu commissioned officer in the Pakistan Army, senior to Gen Ershad, and should have been its Army Chief. This reviewer had met this General at Dhaka, decorated with the Bir Uttam award for his heroic role in the war of liberation. Similarly, he mentions Priya Ranjan Dasmunsi's visit to his ancestral village in Dinajpur without telling if he found any of his relatives or other Hindus there and the condition in which they survive.

On illegal migration of Muslims, Srinivasan wanted a "team of international correspondents taken to the places of self-evident migration along the West Bengal borders". While accepted by officials, this was rejected by Jyoti Basu, because that would cause "communal disharmony". The fact, however, is that it would have exposed the complicity of Basu's Government in the demographic aggression. No wonder Basu is highly respected in the fundamentalist circles in Bangladesh.

On Bangabhumi agitation for a homeland for the evicted Hindus from Bangladesh to be carved out of its western parts, Srinivasan correctly attributes it to the frustrations of Hindu refugees and the "deprivations of the Hindu minority in Bangladesh", which numbered about 30 per cent in 1947 but have been reduced to 10 per cent. Exchange of population, as repeatedly demanded by the Muslim League in the 1940s, might still be the only answer to this ongoing tragedy.

Srinivasan could have provided more details about the trauma and tragedy of the "beleaguered" Hindus and their systematic elimination. He visited the Dhakeshwari temple (Dhaka itself is named after this), but does not mention why the hallowed Ramna Kali Bari (destroyed by the Pakistanis) could not be re-built by Sheikh Mujib. His impressions of desecrated Hindu temples and dilapidated Hindu homes/palaces might bring tears in many eyes.

As for the disaster in the Chittagong Hill Tracts (CHT) and the repatriation issue, Srinivasan has missed the total picture, especially when the oppression, torture, forced conversion, assault on their women, forced seizure of their land and the settlement of Bengali-speaking Muslims in the CHT, culminating in the exodus of the Jumma people to India is well-documented. He mentions them cursorily in the Appendix but not in the diary-part. He is unduly harsh on Shanti Bahini. He calls Upendra Lal Chakma a "rascal", but this gentleman whom this reviewer had met at Takumbari camp in Tripura was a genuine leader and a fearless campaigner for the Jumma people. In fact, he went over to Shanti Bahini only after the genocidal pogrom of the Jumma people after the Longadu massacre of May 1989.

Srinivasan completely overlooks the brutal role of the paramilitary forces and the village guards, which this reviewer had detailed in his Subjects, Citizens and Refugees: Tragedy in the Chittagong Hill Tracts 1947-1998 (Delhi, 2000). After all, they are a minority in the CHT now, having been 97 per cent in 1947.

In bracketing the non-existent "Hindu fundamentalism" in India with Muslim fundamentalism and Hindu hardliners setting the Indian agenda towards Bangladesh, Srinivasan sounds superficial. When 16 BSF jawans were mercilessly killed by the Bangladeshis, the BJP-led NDA Government far from taking any penal action dispatched the coal supplies the following day, and Brajesh Mishra did not utter a word for the persecuted Hindus of Bangladesh when he visited Dhaka following their pogrom in 2001. So much for the "Hindu hardliners"!

The writer has interesting comments on guests pounce on the food like hungry wolves in the Indian parties, Chandrashekhar having a "miserable bunch of Ministers", politically well-connected females holding sway in Delhi durbar, etc. Gen Ershad's Government making Islam the state religion to give the "nation a distinctive identity', its distrust of increased cultural contact with India to "emphasise their separate identity" and various facets of the public life in Bangladesh, including Gen Ershad's downfall have been well-sketched. On bilateral aspects like Tin Bigha, Farakka water, gas supply from Bangladesh and other issues, he has many details. He also points the uninhibited growth of Pakistani and other pan-Islamic anti-liberation forces in Bangladesh.

In the early days in Dhaka, the writer got the impression that New Delhi was not clear about what approach it should have towards Bangladesh. That holds true even today.
-- The reviewer is a Delhi University professor and an expert on Bangladesh

[svinayak]

The New Cold War: Putin's Russia and the Threat to the West
by Edward Lucas (Author)

# Hardcover: 272 pages
# Publisher: Palgrave Macmillan (February 19, 2008)
# Language: English
# ISBN-10: 0230606121
# ISBN-13: 978-0230606128

"Edward Lucas is one of the best-informed, best-connected, and most perceptive journalists writing about Putin's Russia. The New Cold War is essential reading for anyone who wants to understand what is happening in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union today."
--Anne Applebaum, author of Gulag, A History
"Edward Lucas's absorbing book shows the forces that are turning Russia against the West. They include militarism, greed, and a failure to understand that national greatness can be based only on civilized values. It is an invaluable primer for students of the Russian situation and a cautionary tale for those who prefer to treat Russia as it pretends to be rather than as it is."
--David Satter, author of Darkness at Dawn: The Rise of the Russian Criminal State
"While the West is preoccupied with the Middle East and Islamic terrorism, Edward Lucas warns, Russia is quietly reinventing herself as a milder version of the Soviet Union and hence as a new threat to the West. Conceding Putin's domestic achievements, the seasoned East European correspondent of The Economist tracks post-Communist Russia's skillful exploitation of the capitalist world's greed to divide and thus to dominate it. It is a chilling account that needs to be taken seriously."--Richard Pipes, author of The Russian Revolution


Book Description
In late 1999 when Vladimir Putin was named Prime Minister, Russia was a budding democracy. Multiple parties campaigned for seats in the Duma, the nation’s parliament. The media criticized the government freely. Eight years later as Putin completes his second term as president of Russia and announces his bid for prime minister, the country is under a repressive regime. Human rights abuses are widespread. The Kremlin is openly hostile to the West. Yet the United States and Europe have been slow to confront the new reality, in effect, helping Russia win what experts are now calling the New Cold War.

Edward Lucas, former Moscow Bureau Chief for The Economist, offers a harrowing portrait from inside Russia as well as a sobering political assessment of what the New Cold War will mean for the world. In this big, hard hitting and urgently needed book, he shows how

* Russia is pursuing global energy markets
* Neighboring nations are being coerced back into the former Soviet orbit
* Journalists and dissidents are being silenced
* Foreign investments and private enterprises are routinely defrauded
* Putin is laying the groundwork for controlling industry and planning his new role as prime minister

Drawing on new and hitherto reported material, The New Cold War brilliantly anticipates what is in store for the new Russia and what the world should be doing.

[Sanjay M]

Based on Russian pursuit of global energy markets, they could come into competition with the Chinese at some point.

It's a case of Haves vs Have-Nots.
Those who need that energy badly won't shy away from the competition for it.

[vsunder]

Details the time Devlin was station chief in the Congo. He was handed poisoned toothpaste to assasinate Lumumba.

http://www.amazon.com/Chief-Station-Con ... 852&sr=1-1

[Manu]

Folks,

I would strongly urge you to read Suketu Mehta's "Maximum City".

It is about our beloved Mumbai, and once you learn to ignore his left/liberal bias*, you will be terrified to know how close Mumbai is to collapse.

Some scary statistics:

(1) Some 16 Kgs of RDX was used to Kill 257 people, and mortally wound 713 in a series of 10 Bomb Blasts.

(2) The actual amount of RDX smuggled into Mumbai for the Bomb Blasts was 2074 Kgs (another 2000 Kgs is still classified as 'missing')

(3) 980 kgs of gelatin, 63 AK-56s (38,917 rounds), 1100 electronic detonators, and 482 Arges hand grenades. - All this is just what was confiscated.

(4) Madanpura is basically a Pakistani city in India. During Ramadan, all the Beer bars are empty. It is already clear who holds sway in the city.

(5) 'Shooters' have killed for 50 Rupees, less than the price of a cup of coffee.

(6) In 1951, Bombay had 4.3 cops/thousand people - now there are 2.6/thousand

(7) A constable takes home a salary of 4,000/month and 40% of the police force is living in slums due to shortage of Govt. housing.

(8 ) The conviction rate of shooters, if caught is less than 10%. In jail, they get tiffins, hookers and charas from 'Bhai' and often they walk out on Bail. Even encounters can only account for a small percentage.

The Judge-Population ratio in the United States is 107 Judges/Million People; in Mumbai it is 13/Million. 40% of Judgeships are vacant, and each serving judge of the Mumbai High Court has 3000+ cases pending with him.

(9) The 'source' of the problem is Azamgarh, Uttar Pradesh - from where 90% of the Mumbai criminals hail (vast majority Muslim). The Trains from the Bimaru states carry train loads of wannabe 'bhais' to Mumbai everyday.

(10) Other than the severely weakened Chota Rajan (and Gawli - who is finished) - Mumbai Builders, Film personalities, Rich traders/Merchants and Investment Bankers - all pay regular 'protection money' to the voice on the threatening phone call from Dubai. Essentially the criminal Muslim franchise holds sway. They have networks that start from slums like Madanpura and Jogeshwari, to Nepal, Malaysia, Toronto, Melbourne, South Africa, Dubai and ultimately the nerve center, Karachi.

D-Company is all powerful. Dawood Ibrahim, his brother Anees and his lieutenant Chotta Shakeel (who openly praises the Congress Govt.)basically rule Mumbai. Both Dawood Ibrahim and Chotta Shakeel met Osama Bin Laden in Kabul in August 1999. Is it just the ISI that is protecting them?

Cross-border aggression has added a new dimension: Economic Sabotage.

The Govts. of India and Maharashtra seem to have their thumbs up their ass*s. In their defence however, the middle-class and rich class voter turnout is 16%, in Slums it is 88%.

* (a) He has contempt for the Marathi People in Genral, and visceral hatred for the Shiv Sena. He feels "Bombay was taken from the Gujaratis" during the Samyukta Maharashtra movement.

'Khem chhe? Saru chee! Danda leke maru chhe!' - he recalls slogans and has never forgiven the Ghatis for robbing what was rightfully his.

(b) A U.S Citizen, he quotes liberally from the 'findings' of : Mahesh Bhatt, Teesta Setalvad et all.

Overall, you can ignore (a) and (b) and just digest the hard facts. You come to the conclusion that Mumbai will need many more Vijay Salaskars, Pradeep Sharmas, and Pradeep Sawants (all 'encounter specialists') to control the powder kegs that are: Jogeshwari, Madanpura, Dongri, Bhendi Bazaar, and Byculla. Mumbai, our financial capital, can be set aflame at a moment's notice. It is a ruined Metropolis.

[Ananth]

From the points listed by the reader, it seems Mehta's novel is discussing 94-98 period. That was a hell time. But Gopinath Munde's clean up operation cleaned the supari cottage industry. Nowadays protection racket has become much more sophisticated.

[Manu]

Ananth, he goes all the way up to late 2001. The Book contains may other gems like the effect of the rent act on real estate, the Bollywood Industry, the Beer Bars/Brothels, The Gorakhpur Express bringing in 500 new migrants every day ....a constant struggle.

In Many ways, the destiny of India is linked to the destiny of Mumbai.

My only problem with the book is that the writer is some sort of a Gujarati Chauvinist. He has thinly veiled contempt for all the other communities in Mumbai (more so for Marathis). Moreover, it is obvious where his political bias lies. This is just my take on it.

But it is a treasure trove of information and facts.

[svinayak]

Review of "Astronomical Dating of Events & Select Vignettes from Indian history"
Edited by Kosla Vepa PhD
ISBN 978-1-4357-1120-4

http://www.lulu.com/content/2060969

This is an anthology of essays on the distortions that have accreted in the historical narrative of the Indic peoples and their civilization. Most of these egregiously erroneous accretions have been initiated at the behest of the colonial overlord and are the result of preconceived notions on the part of the Colonial Power . These preconceived notions include



The set of assumptions underlying the Aryan Invasion Theory . The most important assumption was that the Indic civilization could not possibly have been the product of the autocthonous peoples of the subcontinent and must have been seeded by a superior race of people from elsewhere.

In order to make this hypothesis stick with some degree of credibility, the other major postulate was that the seeding occurred after the Golden age of Greece (400-600 BCE)and that all of the science developed in the subcontinent was a derivative of the Greeks

The inherent contradictions of the Aryan Invasion Theory by the mythic and yet to be identified Aryan race.

The insistence on clinging to a racial terminology even when it is widely discredited and abandoned elsewhere

The insistence that Indic astronomy , geometry and mathematics was not autochthonous to India but was borrowed from the Greek or the Babylonians,without any evidence

The origin of the Brahmi script becomes a victim of the 'anywhere but India' syndrome

Devaluation and denigration of the extent of the ancient Indic contribution to Mathematics and Astronomy

There are resulting inconsistencies in the chronology of the Indic historical narrative, which is now horribly mangled to fit the straightjacket of British assumptions.


The result is a tectonic shift in the Chronology of the Indic civilization, with the resulting falsification of most of the important dates
Dating of the Mahabharata
Dating of the Satapatha Brahmana
Dating of the Veda
Dating of the Vedanga Jyotisha
Dating of the Sulva sutras
Beginning of the Vikrama era
Dating of the Buddha
Dating of the Arthashastra
Dating of Chandragupta Maurya
Dating of Panini's Ashtadhyayi and consequentially the dating of Panini himself
Dating of Aryabhata


Such a distortion has resulted in vast gaps in the narrative of the history of the Indics and has resulted in absurdities such as the naming of the calendar after a person who is yet to be born.

This collection of papers , summarizes these lacunae in the chronology and advocates the use of Astronomical Software to determine the accurate dates.

[svinayak]

The Three Trillion Dollar War: The True Cost of the Iraq Conflict
by Joseph E. Stiglitz (Author), Linda J. Bilmes (Author)

# Hardcover: 192 pages
# Publisher: W. W. Norton (March 3, 2008)
# Language: English
# ISBN-10: 0393067017
# ISBN-13: 978-0393067019

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/feat/ar ... 2003403735

The true cost of the Iraq War is $3 trillion—and counting—rather than the $50 billion projected by the White House.
Stiglitz and Bilmes dug deeper, and what they have discovered, after months of chasing often deliberately obscured accounts, is that in fact Bush's Iraqi adventure will cost America - just America - a conservatively estimated US$3 trillion. The rest of the world, including Britain, will probably account for about the same amount again. And in doing so they have achieved something much greater than arriving at an unimaginable figure: by describing the process, by detailing individual costs, by soberly listing the consequences of short-sighted budget decisions, they have produced a picture of comprehensive obfuscation and bad faith whose power comes from its roots in bald fact. Some of their discoveries we have heard before, others we may have had a hunch about, but others are completely new. There will be few who do not think that whatever the reasons for going to war, its progression has been morally disquieting; following the money turns out to be a brilliant way of getting at exactly why that is.

Apart from its tragic human toll, the Iraq War will be staggeringly expensive in financial terms. This sobering study by Nobel Prize winner Joseph E. Stiglitz and Harvard professor Linda J. Bilmes casts a spotlight on expense items that have been hidden from the U.S. taxpayer, including not only big-ticket items like replacing military equipment (being used up at six times the peacetime rate) but also the cost of caring for thousands of wounded veterans—for the rest of their lives. Shifting to a global focus, the authors investigate the cost in lives and economic damage within Iraq and the region. Finally, with the chilling precision of an actuary, the authors measure what the U.S. taxpayer's money would have produced if instead it had been invested in the further growth of the U.S. economy. Written in language as simple as the details are disturbing, this book will forever change the way we think about the war.

About the Author
Winner of the 2001 Nobel Prize in Economics, Joseph E. Stiglitz of Columbia University is the author of Making Globalization Work and Globalization and Its Discontents. Linda J. Bilmes, a professor of public finance at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, is a former assistant secretary for management and budget in the U.S. Department of Commerce.

This book, which is readable for laypeople due to the co-author Linda Bilmes, delves into what economists call "opportunity cost". It calculates as a cost of the war what would have been saved if there was no war. So, if war resulted in 70000 injured veterans, then you have to calculate, just like in a personal injury lawsuit, the cost over the lives of these veterans what it costs to make them whole, as if there was no war and no injuries. When including these 'opportunity costs', it makes the total cost of the Iraqi war a lot higher than the actual out-of-pocket cost of the war. Since Stiglitz is left-wing, this suits his objective, but the reader has to be a bit critical when reading this argument.

This book not only describes the cost of the Iraq War long term, but explains how billions of dollars were wasted in Iraq due to the total corruption of the Bush administration, starting with Bush refusing to allow open bidding on the contracts to rebuild Iraq. Those contract then went to his or the Vice President's cronies. In addition the Bush administration makes no mention of the long term costs of the injured soldiers returning from Iraq. Bush has also lied to the American people about the number of injured soldiers and after being caught on the government's own web site, they took the site down.

[KarthikSan]

I am currently reading "Intelligent Investor" by Ben Graham a.k.a Warren Buffett's guru. I was hoping some of you could give me a little back ground on his other book "Security Analysis". Is it easy enough to read and understood by a layman with no economics or finance background?

[ramana]

You should ask such question in the Nukkad thread or the Economics Forum. Not in a book review thread.