IRAQ: A Wider War on the Horizon ?

January 10, 2007

Dear List members: Apropros the number of messages posted ingroup regarding America’s decidedly unpopular [both home and abroad] crusade-like wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, I thought appropriate to post this [non-astrological]

news report by Michael Klare, which report's negative implications generally accord with what the SAMVA USA chart appears to indicate for later on this year, just 3 months from now and beyond. The author, Michael T Klare, concludes this report with this telling, final paragraph: “The recent replacement of General Abizaid by Admiral Fallon [to command the American armed forces in Afghanistan & Iraq], along with other recent moves announced by the Defense Secretary, should give deep pause to anyone concerned about the prospect of escalation in the Iraq War. Contrary to the advice given by the Iraq Study Group, Bush appears to be planning for a wider war - with much higher risk of catastrophic failure - not a gradual and dignified withdrawal from the region.” Ominous Sign of a Wider WarBy Michael T. KlareThe NationMonday 08 January 2007 On January 5 Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced that he was replacing Gen. John Abizaid as commander of the Central Command (Centcom) - the body responsible for

oversight of all US forces in Iraq, Afghanistan and the greater Middle East - with Adm. Richard Fallon, currently the commander of the Pacific Command (Pacom). Fallon is one of several senior officers recently appointed by Gates to oversee the new strategy for Iraq now being shaped by President Bush. The choice of Fallon to replace Abizaid was highly unusual in several respects. First, this is a lateral move for the admiral, not a promotion: As head of Pacom, Fallon commanded a

larger force than he will oversee at Centcom, and one over which he will exercise less direct control since all combat operations in Iraq will be under the supervision of Gen. Dave Petraeus, the recently announced replacement for Gen. George Casey as commander of all US and allied forces. Second, and more surprising, Fallon is a Navy man, with experience in carrier operations, while most of Centcom's day-to-day work is on the ground, in the struggle against insurgents and warlords in Iraq and Afghanistan. Part of the explanation for this move, of course, is a desire by the White House to sweep away bitter

ground-force commanders like Abizaid and Casey who had opposed an increase in US troops in Iraq and argued for shifting greater responsibility for the fighting to Iraq forces, thereby permitting a gradual American withdrawal. "The Baghdad situation requires more Iraqi troops," not more Americans, Abizaid said in a recent interview with the New York Times. For this alone Abizaid had to go. But there's more to it. Abizaid, who is of Lebanese descent and served a tour of duty with UN forces in

Lebanon, has come to see the need for a regional solution to the crisis in Iraq - one that inevitably requires some sort of engagement with Iran and Syria, as recommended by the Iraq Study Group. "You have to internationalize the problem, you have to attack it diplomatically, geo-strategically," he told the Times. "You just can't apply a microscope on a particular problem in downtown Baghdad ... and say that somehow or another, if you throw enough military forces at it, you are going to solve the broader issues in the region of extremism." If engagement with Iran and Syria was even remotely on the agenda, Abizaid is exactly the man you'd want on the job at Centcom overseeing US forces and strategy in the region. But if that's not on the agenda, if you're thinking instead of using force against Iran and/or Syria, then Admiral Fallon is exactly the man you'd want at Centcom. Why? Because combined air and naval operations are his forte. Fallon began his combat career as a Navy combat flyer in Vietnam, and he served with carrier-based forces for twenty-four years after that. He commanded a carrier battle wing during the first Gulf War in 1991 and led the naval group supporting NATO operations during the Bosnia conflict four years later. More recently, Fallon served as vice chief of naval operations before becoming the head of Pacom in 2005. All this means that he is primed to oversee an air, missile and naval attack on Iran, should the President give the green light for such an assault - and the fact that Fallon has been moved from Pacom to Centcom means that such a move is very much on Bush's mind. The

recent replacement of General Abizaid by Admiral Fallon, along with other recent moves announced by the Defense Secretary, should give deep pause to anyone concerned about the prospect of escalation in the Iraq War. Contrary to the advice given by the Iraq Study Group, Bush appears to be planning for a wider war - with much higher risk of catastrophic failure - not a gradual and dignified withdrawal from the region.

January 10, 2007

Dear John,

I agree with you.

In both US charts, we can see that

things will not be easy during 2007.

In US rectified chart, Ve/Me will start on September 6, 2007. Natal Mercury is combust, retrograde, and L6 in D8, bringing

conflicts and death.

In SAMVA USA chart, Ve/Ju is running, which may

bring an escalation in war. In the beginning of September, 2007, Ve/Sa will start, bringing

also very serious concerns.

After September 2007, things will be very

difficult.

Best wishes,

Jorge

SAMVA

[sAMVA ] On Behalf Of JohnTWB

quarta-feira, 10 de Janeiro

de 2007 10:51

SAMVA

IRAQ: A Wider

War on the Horizon ?

Dear

List members:

Apropros

the number of messages posted ingroup regarding Americaâ€™s

decidedly unpopular [both home and abroad] crusade-like wars in Afghanistan

and Iraq,

I thought appropriate to post this [non-astrological] news report by

Michael Klare, which report's negative implications generally accord with what the SAMVA USA chart appears to

indicate for later on this year, just 3 months from now and beyond.

The

author, Michael T Klare, concludes this report with this telling, final

paragraph:

â€œThe

recent replacement of General Abizaid by Admiral Fallon [to command the

American armed forces in Afghanistan & Iraq], along with other recent moves

announced by the Defense Secretary, should give deep pause to anyone concerned

about the prospect of escalation in the Iraq War. Contrary to the advice given by

the Iraq Study Group, Bush appears to be planning for a wider war - with much

higher risk of catastrophic failure - not a gradual and dignified withdrawal

from the region.â€

Ominous Sign of a Wider War

By Michael T. Klare

The Nation

Monday 08 January 2007

On January 5 Defense Secretary Robert Gates

announced that he was replacing Gen. John Abizaid as commander of the Central

Command (Centcom) - the body responsible for oversight of all US forces

in Iraq, Afghanistan and the greater Middle East - with

Adm. Richard Fallon, currently the commander of the Pacific Command (Pacom).

Fallon is one of several senior officers recently appointed by Gates to oversee

the new strategy for Iraq now being shaped by President Bush.

The choice of Fallon to replace Abizaid was

highly unusual in several respects. First, this is a lateral move for the admiral, not a

promotion: As head of Pacom, Fallon commanded a larger force than he will

oversee at Centcom, and one over which he will exercise less direct control

since all combat operations in Iraq will be under the supervision of Gen. Dave

Petraeus, the recently announced replacement for Gen. George Casey as commander

of all US and allied forces. Second, and more surprising, Fallon is a Navy man,

with experience in carrier operations, while most of Centcom's day-to-day work is on

the ground, in the struggle against insurgents and warlords in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Part of the explanation for this move, of

course, is a desire by the White House to sweep away bitter ground-force

commanders like Abizaid and Casey who had opposed an increase in US troops

in Iraq and argued for shifting greater responsibility for the

fighting to Iraq forces, thereby permitting a gradual American withdrawal.

" The Baghdad situation requires more Iraqi troops, " not more Americans,

Abizaid said in a recent interview with the New York Times. For this alone

Abizaid had to go.

But there's more to it. Abizaid, who is of Lebanese descent and served a

tour of duty with UN forces in Lebanon, has come to see the need for a regional solution to the crisis

in Iraq - one that inevitably requires some sort of engagement with Iran and Syria, as recommended by the Iraq Study Group. " You have to

internationalize the problem, you have to attack it diplomatically,

geo-strategically, " he told the Times. " You just can't apply a microscope on

a particular problem in downtown Baghdad ... and say that somehow or another, if you throw enough military

forces at it, you are going to solve the broader issues in the region of

extremism. "

If engagement with Iran and Syria was even remotely on the agenda, Abizaid is exactly the man you'd want on the job at

Centcom overseeing US forces and strategy in the region. But if that's not on the agenda, if

you're

thinking instead of using force against Iran and/or Syria, then Admiral Fallon

is exactly the man you'd want at Centcom.

Why? Because combined air and naval operations

are his forte. Fallon began his combat career as a Navy combat flyer in Vietnam, and he served with carrier-based forces for twenty-four years

after that. He commanded a carrier battle wing during the first Gulf War in

1991 and led the naval group supporting NATO operations during the Bosnia conflict four years later. More recently, Fallon served as vice

chief of naval operations before becoming the head of Pacom in 2005. All this

means that he is primed to oversee an air, missile and naval attack on Iran,

should the President give the green light for such an assault - and the fact

that Fallon has been moved from Pacom to Centcom means that such a move is very

much on Bush's mind.

The

recent replacement of General Abizaid by Admiral Fallon, along with other

recent moves announced by the Defense Secretary, should give deep pause to

anyone concerned about the prospect of escalation in the Iraq War. Contrary to the advice given by

the Iraq Study Group, Bush appears to be planning for a wider war - with much

higher risk of catastrophic failure - not a gradual and dignified withdrawal

from the region.

--

Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.16.8/621 - Release 09.01.2007 13:37

--

Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.16.8/621 - Release 09.01.2007 13:37

January 10, 2007

Dear Jorge,

In the SAMVA USA chart, the first half of this year indicates challenges

with the axis on the MEP afflicting all even houses and Saturn and Jupiter

are troubling all odd houses in this Ve/Ju period.

In the USA rectified chart, the first half of this year isn't challenging.

The trigger for long standing tensions in the Sc ascendant would be caused

by long term afflictions to MEPs or natal positions by the axis. No

affliction is caused by the axis to MEP's and slow moving FB's Ju and Sa are

well placed. The only tension is caused by tr Ra to badly placed natal Sun,

but this isn't exact for the current 4 months that Rahu is stationary and

the Sun is well placed in transit until mid April.

From around the beginning of June until the middle of July, the MEPs of all

even houses are within 2 degrees of the axis in the rectified chart.The

concern would be Ve in an afflicted H10 by Ke. Tr Ve and Ke never become

exact in this period - at the end of July, they are mildly close. Since

Ve/Sa period is running, we look to Saturn's position as well. It enters H10

Leo at the end of July and is exact with retrograde Venus for only 6 days

(Aug 10-16th). Quick contacts are there with the Sun and Mercury as well -

the movement is into Leo whose MEP is no longer afflicted by Ke, but close

and separating. Into the end of the year, more tensions are caused to the

natal positions of Ju and Ve by the axis. They are both well placed in

transit.

In my humble opinion, the rectified chart does not indicate serious concerns

in this 2007, whereas the SAMVA USA chart does.

Ve/Sa does not start until Jan 2009 in the SAMVA USA chart - you've

mentioned that Sep 2007 is when it starts.

You've also mentioned the retrograde action of Me in the rectified chart.

Perhaps I have missed a further discussion on it - what's the SA relevance

to retrograde planets?

Best regards,