May 19, 2008 • Vol. 13, No. 34
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
« January 2006 |
Main
| March 2006 »
Though hardly mentioned by the media nowadays, al Qaeda had set-up a global network long before the March 2003 invasion of Iraq. Richard Clarke told PBS' Frontline that by the end of 2000 al Qaeda had a presence "in probably between 50-60 countries [and] that they had trained thousands, perhaps over 10,000 terrorists at the camps in Afghanistan." Many ended up in Southeast Asia.
From the Associated Press:
Official Ties al-Qaida to Indonesia Terror
By ZAKKI HAKIM, Tue Feb 28, 12:23 PM ET
The al-Qaida terror network helped fund suicide bombings in Indonesia over the past four years through a courier system set up by the reputed mastermind behind the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on the United States, a senior police official said Tuesday.
Former al-Qaida No. 3 Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, who was captured in 2003, was personally involved in setting up the courier system, in which money was carried from Thailand to Malaysia and finally to Indonesia's Sumatra island, said Col. Petrus Reinhard Golose of Indonesia's counterterrorism task force.
Golose said the money was used to help the regional militant group Jemaah Islamiyah launch attacks in the world's most populous Muslim country from 2002-2005.
Jemaah Islamiyah is blamed for the 2002 nightclub attacks on the resort island of Bali that killed 202 people, attacks in the capital Jakarta in 2003 and 2004 that together killed 21, and triple suicide bombings on Bali in October that killed 20.
Indonesian authorities have claimed for years that al-Qaida helped finance the terror network, but never before provided the level of detail given by Golose, who was directly involved in the investigations of the bombings.
Golose said several members of Jemaah Islamiyah met directly with bin Laden in Afghanistan and signed agreements with him before launching the attacks, but he did not elaborate. He also did not say from where the al-Qaida funds originated or the nationalities of the couriers.
"Thirty thousand U.S. dollars was sent for the first Bali bombing," Golose said, adding that "tens of thousands of dollars" was sent for the 2003 bombing of the J.W. Marriott Hotel in Jakarta.
Some of the leftover cash was used for the 2004 attack on the Australian Embassy in Jakarta, he said. He said he was uncertain how much al-Qaida money was used for the latest attack on Bali, targeting three crowded restaurants.
Jemaah Islamiyah, which has roots back to the 1980s, is believed to be fighting for an Islamic state across Southeast Asia. It has been hard hit by a regionwide crackdown in the last four years, resulting in at least 200 arrests, including Abu Bakar Bashir, a Muslim cleric who allegedly helped co-found the terror network.
Golose said Indonesian militant Abu Dujana has replaced Bashir, who is eligible for release from prison in June, as Jemaah Islamiyah's top leader. Dujana's whereabouts are not known.
During a speech today accusing President Bush of being weak on defense, Dean stated that,
under no circumstances will a Democratic Administration ever allow Iran to become a nuclear power.
What is Dean exactly saying here? Why use the phrase "nuclear power"?
Is this a "no tolerance" policy that Democrats would not allow Iran to acquire a single nuclear weapon?
Or, is Dean saying Democrats would allow Iran to build nuclear weapons so as it didn't build enough of them to qualify as a "nuclear power"?
Also, let's remember that it was the Clinton administration that rewarded North Korea -- see here -- by letting that government keeps its nuclear weapons and cheat on the "Framework" it signed. Republicans should ask Dean if he has something similar in mind for Iran.
If Iran strikes a nuclear agreement with Russia, it won't be a shock to learn that Moscow also agreed (perhaps in a Gore-like secret side deal) to block any substantial Security Council action against Tehran. Beijing may also be in on the deal given China's huge energy interests in Iran. Such a deal would help Iran guard against the possibility that the West rejects the nuclear agreement and goes for UN sanctions against Tehran. To see the Moscow-Beijing alliance in action, look no further than Sudan.
From ABC News:
The U.N. Security Council remained divided Monday on imposing punitive measures over the conflict in Darfur despite calls for sanctions against Sudanese allegedly blocking peace in the region.
U.S. Ambassador John Bolton, on the next to last day of the U.S. presidency of the council, scheduled a closed-door meeting to discuss a report by a U.N.-appointed panel that recommended sanctions against key figures from all groups.
Most of the 15-member council were in favor of sanctions, led by the United States, Britain, France and Denmark but Qatar, China, and Russia were strongly opposed, council diplomats said. Qatar is the only Arab member of the council, China is a major buyer of Sudanese oil, and Russia traditionally opposes sanctions.
Perhaps Bolton haters can lighten up a bit and support him on this one.
Frequent Weekly Standard contributor Tom Joscelyn has some interesting material here on pre-war Iraq-al Qaeda contacts.
(Update II: Uribe supporters won big in yesterday's congressional elections, paving the way for passage of the U.S-Colombia free trade deal. With strong support in Congress and probable reelection in May, Uribe's offensive against the FARC will likely intensify. All of this is pretty remarkable given that just a few years ago the FARC greeted the newly elected president by firing mortars at the presidential palace while he took the oath of office inside. The attack, which killed dozens, led many analysts to offer grim assessments on Colombia's future. Uribe, who came to office after the fail of several "peace initiatives," has proven them wrong.)
(Update: FARC terrorists continue their killing spree in their effort to destabilize Colombia's democracy. This time, AP reports, they gunned down eight unarmed town officials while they ate lunch.)
Venezuela's Hugo Chavez gets lots of media attention with his anti-American rants. But in bordering Colombia, President Alvaro Uribe is a friend of America and an anti-terror ally. In a nation where tens of thousands have been killed and many more scarred physically and emotionally from decades of violence and terror, things are looking a bit brighter these days. Killings and kidnappings are down. Drug production has been cut. Foreign investment is rising; the economy has stabilized; and for the first time in almost a decade Standard & Poor’s boosted its rating for Colombian debt. Not bad for a man derided as a “hardliner” by his political opponents whose election, they warned voters, would be a disaster for Colombia. Right now, Uribe is on track to score another impressive election victory in May and that doesn't sit well with Colombia's FARC terrorists who on Saturday, the Associated Press reports, ambushed a civilian bus with gunfire, killing nine.
"We don't understand how they can attack the unarmed civilian population in this way," Mendoza [Col. Jose Angel Mendoza, police chief of Caqueta state] said in an interview with RCN Radio....
More than a week ago, FARC rebels began distributing pamphlets warning drivers to stay off the highways in Caqueta and Putumayo states. The FARC said the traffic ban was aimed in part to protest the re-election bid of President Alvaro Uribe, a hard-line leader with whom the rebels have shunned peace talks.
Uribe, who is well-liked by most Colombians and seems likely to coast to victory in presidential elections set for May 28, has sought to wipe out the guerrillas militarily.
Uribe's prospective reelection follows in the footsteps of other friends of America. Australia's John Howard won a fourth term, while Tony Blair was elected to an unprecedented third. German and Canadian voters followed up by rejecting candidates who ran anti-American campaigns. Now, that's quite a story.
"What the alternative to promoting freedom in the Middle East?" ask the editors of the Wall Street Journal today. They also point out that the years before September 11
coincided with the rise of al Qaeda, Hamas and Hezbollah, the first World Trade Center bombing, the bombings of U.S. embassies in East Africa and the USS Cole, the outbreak of the terrorist intifada in Israel, and September 11. Mr. Fukuyama may or may not be right that promoting democracy does not resolve the problem of terrorism in the short-term. What we know for sure is that tolerating dictatorship not only doesn't resolve the terrorist problem but actively nurtures it....
Leaving aside the niggling examples of Japan and Germany, exactly how are we to know that country X does not want democracy, except democratically? Afghans, Iraqis, Palestinians and Lebanese have all made their democratic preferences plain in successive recent elections. And with the arguable exception of the Palestinians (arguable because Fatah was as undemocratic as Hamas), they have voted to establish considerably more liberal regimes than what existed previously.
Indeed, Princeton economist Alan Krueger analyzed terrorism data collected by the U.S. State Department over the years. Here's what he found:
Once a country's degree of civil liberties is taken into account ... income per capita bears no relation to involvement in terrorism. Countries like Saudi Arabia and Bahrain, which have spawned relatively many terrorists, are economically well off yet lacking in civil liberties. Poor countries with a tradition of protecting civil liberties are unlikely to spawn terrorists.
Evidently, the freedom to assemble and protest peacefully without interference from the government goes a long way to providing an alternative to terrorism.
Tossing the president's democracy agenda overboard, as some critics advocate, would be a huge strategic blunder.
State Department officials in Iraq produce a daily summary of overnight pan-Arabic and regional Iraqi TV news reports. Regarding the coverage of the mosque bombing, they note:
The Iraqi media continues to be focused on pushing national unity and the idea that the government is in control and taking action. The pan-Arab media has offered a grimmer picture, but still not as dark as its Western counterparts, who continue to push the message that civil war in Iraq is just around the corner.
The full summary follows:
"OVERNIGHT PAN-ARABIC & REGIONAL IRAQI TELEVISION NEWS REPORT
AS OF 0600, 26 February, 2006
Intent: This product is intended to provide information and situational awareness regarding the nightly news/early morning (from 2000 to 0600) broadcasts that are influencing Iraqi opinions and perceptions. Stations monitored are Al Jazeera, Al Arabiya, Al Sharqiya, Al Fourat, and Al Iraqiya.
Executive Summary:
Overnight broadcast news was slow and focused mainly on repeating early evening stories, such as Al Sadr meeting with Association of Muslim Scholars (AMS) officials, the attack on the funeral procession of the slain Al Arabiya journalists, and the extension of the curfew. Details regarding the meeting at the Iraqi prime minister’s house of leading Iraqi figures did emerge, and it appears it was a productive gathering for building national unity.
Curfew. Al Iraqiya reported throughout the night that the vehicular curfew had been extended in Baghdad from 6 am to 6 pm on Sunday, and that no vehicles are allowed to enter Baghdad during this time. Meanwhile, Al Sharqiya mentioned that Iraq has postponed the purchase of 1.5 million tons of wheat because of the curfew.
Iraqi Leaders Meet. Al Iraqiya provided live coverage of a meeting at Prime Minister Al Jaafari’s residence between Iraqi government officials, Iraqi politicians, and leading clerics from all groups. The meeting lasted three hours, and the participants discussed how to ensure the current situation does not worsen into sectarian strife. The gathering finished with a joint prayer in which all participated.
Al Sadr And AMS. Al Jazeera and Al Arabiya reported that Muqtadah Al Sadr and his supporters met with AMS leadership to absolve the Sadrist movement of any connection with attacks on Sunnis or Sunni mosques. The two sides held a joint press conference in which they blamed the “occupation” for the country’s current problems and called for a timetable for when the occupation would withdraw from Iraq. The meeting ended with a joint prayer.
US Ambassador Says Risk Of War Diminished. Al Jazeera reported Ambassador Khalilzad said during a lengthy interview (not sure with whom) given on Saturday that there is still danger in Iraq, but the risk of war has been greatly diminished. He also added that America is ready to help Iraq in any manner and that Iraq’s failures are America’s failures too.
Miscellanous. Al Fourat aired many protest images, and concentrated heavily on the female presence in the demonstrations, something our nightly monitor said was rare, as women are not normally seen in such processions with men. Meanwhile, Al Arabiya continued to focus heavy coverage on the death of its three journalists and their 25 February funeral procession that was attacked.
AL-IRAQIYA:
-- The curfew remain for Sunday starting 6am until 6am on Monday but for only cars and it's going to be no vehicles coming to or leaving from Baghdad.
-- Aljaafari hold a meeting in his house with talibani and with the presence of US ambassador and top political leaders and after three hours meeting jaafari said:" The only enemy Iraqis have is terrorism , there is no Sunnis against Shiites, All or most expressed the importance of accelerating the political initiative without any delay". Sunnis politician who had pulled out of talks before attend the meeting.
-- Alhakim urge Iraqis to calm down and united to not fail into terrorists (Attakfirieenes and Sadamieenes) trap.
-- Foreign - Libyan minister in a phone call with Iraqis foreign minister condemn the attack on Samara
-- The top Egyptian Sheikh of Al-Aazhar in a joint news conference with the Iraqi ambassador address people of Iraq to united and destroy the differentiation between sunnis and shiia's and be just a Muslims without secretarians.
-- Atwar Bahjat funeral was attacked in Abu-Ghrib.
ALSHARQIYA:
-- Religious leaders Sunnis and Shiites agree to united and they pray together for this accord to not attack each other.
-- A joint press conference between MOI and MOD early afternoon they both confirm that they going to take a serious measures against terrorism and the media that support terrorist acts.
-- ustrian airlines postpone their flights to Arbil north of Iraq
-- raq postpones the purchase of 1.5 million ton of wheat because of the curfew.
ALJAZEERA:
-- Aljaafari meet with Kurdish and Arab Sunnis leaders at his house and call the Iraqis to unite and fight terrorism.
-- Us Ambassador who has been criticized by shia's leaders this week for pushing to have Sunnis brought into government, said a unity government would help avert the risk of civil war, the risk he said had diminished on Saturday "There is still a danger" He told the reporter "But the risk of going to war because of the bombing has diminished." In a lengthy interview he assured Iraqis that Washington was ready to help in any way:" The USA has a lot invested in Iraq. Iraq's failures are ours"
-- Earlier, Moktada Alsadr aides meet with Sunnis religious and political leaders and call for Muslim unity.
-- Bush urges all Iraqi leaders on all sides to work together.
ALFOURAT:
-- Frequently showing today demonstrations of people protesting and the camera was concreting on the heavy presence of women and this is unusual in Islam word Women don appear out with men in such occasions and without any comment.
-- Prayers and Koran lectures
-- Few times they show the joint press conference of MOD and MOI.
-- Out of the air staring midnight.
AL-ARABIYA:
-- Funeral of Atwar Bahjat take the big part in today broadcasting the funeral was attacked three death and four injuries. on the way back a car bombing explode the convoy change direction to faluja instead to Baghdad
-- Joint press conference of MOD and MOI.
-- Showing some sad pictures of women crying for death and of there love one in Iraq and Palestine.
-- Sunnis and Muqtadah Alsadr Shiite leaders meet earlier to promote peace with a joint accord and blaming what is going one on the occupation asking the coalition to give agenda of pulling of Iraq as soon as possible, and they end the meeting with a joint prayer."
From Sunday's Chattanooga Times Free Press:
Friday afternoon, McCain attended a crowded Latin Builders Association lunch [in Miami].
"As for torture, we know what's going on as we speak in Castro's prisons," said McCain, who spent five years as a prisoner of war in Vietnam. "The real answer is the removal of this kind of government."
McCain said that while he was in a Vietnamese prison, Cuba sent a specialist in interrogations to his prison. "He was responsible for the death of some of my friends," McCain said.
Lawrence Kaplan is back from Iraq and reports in the current New Republic on what he found, including this strange encounter with Prime Minister Ibrahim Jafiri.
As a television in the corner of the room conveys images of the carnage outside, Jafari admits to being partial to the works of Noam Chomsky. Why won't Chomsky come to Iraq? he asks. The commissioners don't know what to say. And, apart from expressing doubts about a Chomsky visit, neither do I.
Some politicians and others have argued that allowing the U.A.E.'s DP World to manage six major US ports would inject an additional layer of security risk that we don't need. The White House disagrees. But for argument's sake, let's assume the deal will be scuttled on "security grounds." Opponents will claim victory. But they shouldn't if they're serious about their argument. Each year millions of containers are off-loaded at US ports. But a port's vulnerability doesn't begin at docking. It's just as vulnerable as soon as a ship enters its harbor. Hundreds of containers are on a ship, so a weaponized one buried deep inside isn't likely to be detected before detonation. That's why the Bush administration created the Container Security Initiative to monitor US-bound cargo as it's loaded onto a ship at a foreign port. DP World's takeover of the British firm, P & O, will add about two-dozen foreign ports to their current operations, which span the globe. Doesn't DP World's management of these ports also add security risk? Shouldn't opponents of the deal like Senators Clinton and Frist also be calling for a separate security regime for all ships entering US ports that have docked at a DP World foreign port beforehand or are they just playing politics? Congress is right to review the pending deal but it would be nice if they do so in a responsible way.
William Bennett and Alan Dershowitz write in today's Washington Post on the hypocrisy of the major media on the cartoon issue. The Vatican also weighs in on the controversy today.
"Port security has been totally neglected," said New York Sen. Chuck Schumer during a press conference with his fellow Democrats in July 2004. But as with so many other federal programs -- from the Army Corps to education, transportation and health care -- Congress, on a bipartisan basis, is also guilty of negligence. Spending is often not prioritized and is doled out according to a politicians' wishes leading to ridiculous results, such as the one described in this 60 Minutes episode in July 2005.
KROFT: The 9/11 commission recommended that homeland security money be allocated to protect the most vulnerable strategic targets from attacks that would cause the most casualties or economic damage.
But Congress, led by a group of powerful senators from smaller states, had a different plan. It decided to ignore the recommendations and distribute the money much the same way it hands out federal highway funds, with everyone getting a share.
Rep. COX (R-CA): It's pork barrel. It's the kind of distribution of funds that Washington always makes when politics comes before substance. And here we find that the monies are being doled out not necessarily according to national security risks, but rather according to political formulas.
Mr. TOM SCHATZ: Everybody wants a piece of this pie. And after September 11th, it's one of the biggest pies around.
KROFT: (Voiceover) Tom Schatz, who runs a group called Citizens Against Government Waste, estimates that pork barrel spending on homeland security this year will reach $1.7 billion.
Mr. SCHATZ: Members of Congress have figured out how to get their hands on homeland security pork.
(Footage of barges)
KROFT: (Voiceover) Why else, he asks, would the state of Oklahoma get federal funds designated for port security?
I mean, Oklahoma's a landlocked state. I didn't know that they had any ports.
Mr. SCHATZ: They have a river somewhere and that is included under this maritime security provision that was passed by Congress. And in this case, if you have a maritime facility of some kind in the United States, it may get money under this port security grant program.
Iran's talks with Moscow and now Beijing appear to be moving forward with Tehran "sounding more receptive to an enrichment joint venture with Russia...." But is any deal better than no deal?
Back in 1994, Sen. McCain was a vocal opponent of the deal President Clinton struck with North Korea. He told PBS's Robert MacNeil that the US would come to "regret [the deal] very, very much" because Pyongyang gets to keep the handful of nuclear weapons it had already likely produced but also much more. McCain continued that even though North Korea has "violated the nonproliferation treaty egregiously time and time again, ... we are now rewarding them.... And not only are we saying it's okay to Korea, but we'll be saying that it's okay to Iran and other countries who will demand a similar deal."
Today the Russians are doing the primary negotiating, but in the end Washington and Europe will have to make a judgment on whether to sign on to any deal struck. To this end, Gary Milhollin and Valerie Lincy of the Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control have offered some useful yardsticks in which to judge any "breakthrough" agreement.
From the February 1, 2006 New York Times:
...There is little doubt what this cooling-off period is intended for: further negotiations on a proposal that would have Iran shift its large-scale, energy-related uranium enrichment work to Russia.
The Americans, British, French, Germans and Chinese have all shown support for the Russian proposal. Iran, however, showed little interest before mid-January, when it became clear the West was intent on getting tough. Last Wednesday, Iran's chief nuclear negotiator called the Russian suggestion "positive" and predicted that it could be "perfected" through further talks.
While this may seem hopeful, the Russian deal actually poses more problems than it solves.
First, even if Russia took over Iran's nuclear energy work, the religious radicals in Tehran would be left with a huge amount of dangerous equipment. The deal covers only the commercial-scale enrichment program Iran has planned for its plant at Natanz. But Iran also has a string of shops for manufacturing centrifuges — which can be used to enrich uranium to weapon grade — a large inventory of centrifuge parts, a stockpile of uranium gas needed to feed the centrifuges (plus a factory to produce more), and a pilot-scale enrichment plant under construction.
Second, Iran draws a distinction between the energy-related work that would go to Russia and other enrichment activity that it likes to call "research." When Iran broke the international seals at three enrichment sites last month and resumed work, its Foreign Ministry said the move was done only for scientific interests and had nothing to do with weapons. Even with a Russian deal, Iran is likely to insist on its right to continue such research, which would allow its scientists to develop the skills necessary to process uranium for bombs.
Last, the proposal, if accepted, would shatter the coalition of states that is finally working together to restrain Iran. Russia would certainly end its tepid support for Security Council action and would agree to let the Iranians continue their "research." The United States is equally certain to refuse such a concession. The Europeans would be torn between the desire to see a successful end to their years of diplomatic effort and their belief that Iran's nuclear ambitions would not be adequately contained.
If we are going to negotiate with Iran, we must hold out for a solution like the one Libya accepted in 2003. Libya allowed everything useful for enriching uranium to be boxed up and carted out of the country. It also answered all questions about its nuclear past and it revealed the names of its shady suppliers, allowing the West to counter the nuclear smuggling network run by the Pakistani scientist A. Q. Khan. Only greater pressure from the Security Council is likely to force Iran to accept a similar agreement.
The Russian proposal is a red herring aimed at helping Iran, a major trading partner of Moscow's, get out of harm's way at the very moment when the world is uniting against it. A Security Council referral came into play only because of Iran's recent behavior: the inflammatory anti-Israel statements of its president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and its ill-timed decision to resume nuclear work. If Iran snaps up the Russian offer, our last, best chance to pressure Iran in the Security Council may be lost.
UN Ambassador John Bolton remains focused on reform in the face of the usual obstructionism that pervades Turtle Bay.
I haven't made up my mind on whether the Dubai deal harms U.S. national security. I'll wait to hear what Bush officials have to say tomorrow before the Senate Armed Services Committee. But many others, who have obviously studied the pending deal with a fine toothcomb, have. Hotline reports that Ol' Blood n' Guts Martin O'Malley, the Democratic mayor of Baltimore and gubernatorial candidate, invoked the Stars & Strips in his call to arms. "We want to turn over the Port of Baltimore, the home of the 'Star Spangled Banner,' to the United Arab Emirates? Not so long as I'm mayor, and not so long as I have breath in my body." Give me a break. I don't remember the mayor fighting to his last "breath" efforts by many in his party to shut down the NSA program monitoring al Qaeda communications to people inside the U.S. -- perhaps even Baltimore. Others, as today's Wall Street Journal points out, are stoking the Dubai issue to bolster their protectionist cause. I doubt most of the people making categorical statements on the wisdom of the deal have a clue as to the nuts and bolts of port operations/security, the role the U.A.E. has played in the war on terror, or if there is another intelligence component to this that hasn't been made public. The current deal may or may not be a good idea but the debate, so far, is about as phony as Washington can get. In the end, my guess is that a compromise will be struck allowing an amended deal to move foward.
North Carolina Republican Sue Myrick sent, and released to the press, the following "letter" to President Bush:
February 22, 2006
The Honorable George W. Bush
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, DC 20500
Dear Mr. President:
In regards to selling American ports to the United Arab Emirates, not just NO-but HELL NO!
Sincerely,
Sue Myrick
Member of Congress
One can disagree with the Dubai deal, but cheap media stunts like this one are usually reserved for Democrats.
(Austin Bay has more here related to my post from last week)
The Combating Terrorism Center at West Point has posted on its web site several al Qaeda-related documents that have been "captured in the course of operations supporting the GWOT." Two letters, dated September 30, 1993 and May 24, 1994, relate directly to al Qaeda operations in Somalia. The letters are from "Hassan al-Tajiki" to the "African Corps." Assuming their authenticity, the letters are consistent with the propaganda of bin Laden in the 1990s that Mogadishu and other events showed that America was "a paper tiger" and "a weak horse." He and his followers would use such imagery as a recruiting tool for al Qaeda, "the strong horse" in bin Laden's words, throughout the 1990s. In fact, though little reported in the media, al Qaeda had recruited and trained thousands before September 11, 2001. Indeed, Richard Clarke told PBS' Frontline that by the end of 2000 al Qaeda had a presence "in probably between 50-60 countries [and] that they had trained thousands, perhaps over 10,000 terrorists at the camps in Afghanistan."
The September 30, 1993 letter called for attacks "to expel" US forces "from Somalia." (Later, a U.S. government indictment charged that bin Laden and other al Qaeda members had trained those who attacked the U.S. Rangers.)
Therefore, the most important need is to expel them from Somalia, even were a semi-Islamic, semi-democratic, semi-etc. government subsequently to assume power....
When you entered Somalia, the Somali arena was barren and futile. The situation changed, however, after the intervention by America and the Knights of the Cross. You most resembled a hunter aiming his rifle at the dead branch of a tree, with no leaves or birds on it. Suddenly, a bald eagle lands on the branch of the tree, directly in line with the rifle. Shouldn’t the hunter pull the trigger to kill the eagle or at least bloody it? The American bald eagle has landed within range of our rifles. You can kill it or leave it permanently disfigured....
The May 24, 1994 letter congratulates the Africa Corps for the "great victory" in the American withdrawal. It notes that the "victory in Somalia over the Americans has profound implications ideologically, politically, and psychologically..." and that the U.S. "fled in panic before their true capabilities could be exposed." Furthermore, "the Somali experience confirmed the spurious nature of American power and that it has not recovered from the Vietnam complex. It fears getting bogged down in a real war that would reveal its psychological collapse at the level of personnel and leadership. Since Vietnam America has been seeking easy battles that are completely guaranteed."
We congratulate you, ourselves, and all Muslims for that great victory in the land of Islamic Somalia....
I would have liked to write on this subject unemotionally and somewhat objectively, were in not for my overwhelming desire to kiss the heads and hands of all those who took part in this action....
General observations on the operation:
1. The Africa Corps did not enter the Somali arena with a clear vision, specifically a strategic vision, either militarily or politically.
2. Likewise, Americans did not enter the Somali arena with a clear vision of the objectives of its presence. Moreover, its vision of East Africa and the Horn of Africa failed to crystallize. I believe that the buffoon Clinton was motivated by election considerations and a personal inclination toward flamboyance, as if for a fleeting moment he believed the falsehood that he was the leader of the most powerful country in the world.
These are not just my words. Rather, this is the considered opinion of many inside America and abroad. What was the result? The result was that our amazing Corps was equal to America for the first time, but in a limited area —the area of darkness regarding a strategic vision. So how were our amazing Corps and its starving African Muslim allies able to be victorious over the greatest power in the world today?
... The Muslim victory in Somalia over the America has profound implications ideologically, politically, and psychologically that will require lengthy studies. You have the duty to record notes about these implications and keep them until it is time to study them in depth. Just the same, there is an important observation that we must not ignore, which is that the Americans were not defeated militarily in Somalia. Effective human and economic losses were not inflicted on them. All that happened was that the Somali battle revealed many of their psychological, political, and perhaps military weaknesses.
5. The Somali experience confirmed the spurious nature of American power and that it has not recovered from the Vietnam complex. It fears getting bogged down in a real war that would reveal its psychological collapse at the level of personnel and leadership. Since Vietnam America has been seeking easy battles that are completely guaranteed. It entered into a shameful series of adventures on the island of Grenada, then Panama, then bombing Libya, and then the Gulf War farce, which was the greatest military, political, and ideological swindle in history.
The outcomes were 100 percent guaranteed. Even so, the Americans brought with them forces from 30 countries to take the blows on their behalf, should events not turn out the way they were supposed to. In the end, the Arabs, the Europeans, and Japan paid the costs of the war, plus fees!
America wanted to continue this series of farces. It assumed that Somalia was an appropriate space for another ridiculous act. But the Muslims were there—so the great disaster occurred. They fled in panic before their true capabilities could be exposed.
6. In Mogadishu and Beirut, urban deterrence operations caused the American forces to flee in a shameful and humiliating manner. Doesn’t this demonstrate the importance of this type of warfare and the need to develop our warfare capabilities in terms of personnel, training syllabi, equipment being used, its level of technological advancement, development of security syllabi, development of security procedures, and training of competent elements for the security field.
What's clear is that the supposed "stability" of the 1990s was illusory.
Sen. McCain released the following statement on the Dubai port controversy:
“We all need to take a moment and not rush to judgment on this matter without knowing all the facts. The President’s leadership has earned our trust in the war on terror, and surely his administration deserves the presumption that they would not sell our security short. Dubai has cooperated with us in the war and deserves to be treated respectfully. By all means, let’s do due diligence, get briefings, seek answers to all relevant questions and assurances that defense officials and the intelligence community were involved in the examination and approval of this transaction. In other words, let’s make a judgment when we possess all the pertinent facts. Until then, all we can offer is heat and little light to the discussion.”
According to Time magazine,
Pentagon officials have been saying for some time that Iraqis must take more responsibility for securing their country. But can these local forces protect its critical infrastructure without U.S. help? Top American officials disagree, and that has caused friction between the State and Defense departments and may complicate the planned reduction of U.S. troops.
The State Department's top official in Iraq, Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad, argues vigorously that the U.S. needs to maintain a robust military presence around areas such as oil pipelines and power grids, targeted by the insurgents.
A Washington Post piece a month ago indicated similar friction.
From the BBC:
A curfew has been imposed in Bauchi in northern Nigerian after at least 13 people were killed in a sectarian riot. It began as an argument between a teacher and a pupil over the confiscation of a Koran in school.
But rumours swept the city that the book had been desecrated and that was the cue for youths, some armed with machetes, to rampage in the streets.
From the caption accompanying a photo in a Washington Post piece on rioters in Afghanistan:
"Ataullah Najafi, ... in Herat, in West Afghanistan, shows the remains of hundreds of Korans burned by Sunni rioters who descended on the mosque on Feb. 9.
A few disgruntled folks at the State Department have again run to the Washington Post to air their grievances -- anonymously, of course. This time they're not happy with Secretary Rice's reorganization plan that reportedly doesn't include rogue operators walking the halls of Foggy Bottom.
Rice and her top aides have sought to heal the damaging rifts that existed with the Pentagon and other agencies. Some State Department officials privately acknowledge that they used to be thrilled by the department's reputation as a renegade in President Bush's first term, but they say the message has become clear in the past year that such attitudes are no longer acceptable.
"Thrilled" at sticking to their boss, the elected President of the United States? But the Post story gets better. A paragraph later one of the anonymous officials claims that they're really just professionals with no political axe to grind.
"The suspicion is we would undermine the policy," said one of the officials who have felt sidelined. "That is what all of us find most offensive. We are here to serve any administration."
But apparently, as the Post piece reveals, going around the back of their immediate boss was not "offensive" to their collective conscience. What was "offensive" to them was the White House's skeptical view of IAEA head Mohamed ElBaradei, along with other "administration positions," which had made "several" of them "embarrassed for the United States."
Thank you, Secretary Rice.
Newt Gingrich pulled no punches late today when asked about the pending port deal by radio host Sean Hannity. Gingrich was a vocal critic of the Panama Canal Treaty in his younger days. And the architect of that treaty, Jimmy Carter, has endorsed the port deal.
It was odd that one of the biggest barriers to lifting nations out of chronic poverty -- rampant government and business corruption -- didn't appear on the radar screen at the World Economic Forum at Davos a few weeks back. There wasn't a single panel discussion on a problem that some say costs poorer nations up to twenty-five percent of their national income. Nonetheless, instigated by people tired of empty promises, horrible living conditions, and out-right thievery an anti-corruption wave, has gathered some momentum. The BBC reported on this campaign over the weekend. While today's Washington Post reports on anti-corruption efforts in Kenya --
"'We're a thirsty land of empty promises. Other countries have droughts and you never see their people dying,' Ciira said in this town 50 miles northwest of Nairobi. As she spoke, people gathered around her, some waving copies of one of Kenya's daily newspapers, the Nation, with a three-page spread detailing the largest scandals."
Last week, dramatic details of two of the largest scandals have implicated high-level officials, some of whom allegedly pocketed a total of $1.3 billion in public funds, money that critics say should have gone to irrigation and road projects to help protect farmers from the devastating effects of recurring droughts.
As the country's worst drought in 20 years wears on, many Kenyans are blaming government corruption, not Mother Nature, for their dire situation. The crisis highlights how government fraud and mismanagement can worsen, and in some cases create, food shortages.
-- and at the World Bank under the leadership of Paul Wolfowitz.
The bank has frozen lending to Chad, whose government had reneged on a promise to spend its oil revenue on poverty reduction. Although Chad is a small country, the frozen loans were high-profile: They were an attempt to defy the "curse of oil" and make petrodollars serve development. It took some courage to admit that the curse of oil remained unbroken.
The bank has canceled 14 road contracts in Bangladesh because of corrupt bidding. Two government officials have since been fired, and Wolfowitz plans to ban the private firms involved from future World Bank contracts.
The bank has frozen five loans to Kenya because of corruption, though it did go ahead with a project to improve Kenya's financial management. On a recent stopover in London, Wolfowitz made a point of having dinner with John Githongo, a senior Kenyan official who left the country after issuing a report exposing cabinet ministers' corruption.
The bank has interrupted a project in Argentina that topped up the wages of poor workers. Some of the money seems to have greased the ruling Peronist Party's electoral machine before elections in 2003, and the government has brought charges against one senior official and fired 10 others. The bank's Argentina team responded by building in a few corruption safeguards and pressing to resume lending. But Wolfowitz has demanded that the safeguards be expanded further still. The project has yet to be reauthorized.
Finally, the bank has postponed debt relief for Congo. A team from the International Monetary Fund had certified that the country deserved relief, and the bank was supposed to fall in line last Thursday. But a newspaper report about the Congolese president's extravagant hotel bills was passed around by Wolfowitz's top staff, who noted that KPMG, the firm that audits Congo's state oil company, had refused for three years running to sign off on its financial statements. On Tuesday Wolfowitz called the IMF's boss and asked whether Congo really merited debt relief. On Thursday he refused to go ahead with it.
Since the early 1990s, radical Islamists have targeted Somalia. Back then, American forces and U.N peacekeepers were the target. Today, as in other regions of the world, they are also increasingly aiming their gun sights on moderate Muslims. From the BBC:
The fighting pits a new group, the Alliance for the Restoration of Peace and Counter-Terrorism, against the Islamic Courts' militia....
Our correspondent says at least five warlords-cum-ministers in the transitional government are behind the new alliance, which is battling the Islamic Courts.
The courts have set up Mogadishu's only judicial system in parts of the capital but have been accused of links to al-Qaeda.
Their critics accuse the courts of being behind the killing of moderate Muslim scholars.
"Iran's hardline spiritual leaders have issued an unprecedented new fatwa, or holy order, sanctioning the use of atomic weapons against its enemies," reports the Telegraph.
In yet another sign of Teheran's stiffening resolve on the nuclear issue, influential Muslim clerics have for the first time questioned the theocracy's traditional stance that Sharia law forbade the use of nuclear weapons.
One senior mullah has now said it is "only natural" to have nuclear bombs as a "countermeasure" against other nuclear powers, thought to be a reference to America and Israel.
The pronouncement is particularly worrying because it has come from Mohsen Gharavian, a disciple of the ultra-conservative Ayatollah Mohammad Taghi Mesbah-Yazdi, who is widely regarded as the cleric closest to Iran's new president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Britain's Sunday Telegram reports on the results of a recent poll of British Muslims here.
And these are the kind of people the University of Washington "wants to produce" nowadays? I hope not. From the Wall Street Journal's John Fund:
'Pappy' Shot Down by Campus Ignoramuses
It's well known that college students today aren't as educated in our nation's history as they should be, but it's still hard to grasp the mind-bending political correctness just displayed by the University of Washington's student senate at its campus in Seattle.
The issue before the Senate this month was a proposed memorial to World War II combat pilot Gregory "Pappy" Boyington, a 1933 engineering graduate of the university, who was awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor for his service commanding the famed "Black Sheep" squadron in the Pacific. The student senate rejected the memorial because "a Marine" is not "an example of the sort of person UW wants to produce."
Digging themselves in deeper, the student opponents of the memorial indicated: "We don't need to honor any more rich white males." Other opponents compared Boyington's actions during World War II with murder.
"I am absolutely bewildered that the Student Senate voted down the resolution," Brent Ludeman, the president of the UW College Republicans, told me. He noted that despite the deficiencies of the UW History Department, the complete ignorance of Boyington's history and reputation by the student body was hard to fathom. After all, "Black Sheep Squadron," a 1970s television show portraying Colonel Boyington's heroism as a pilot and Japanese prisoner of war, still airs frequently on the History Channel. Apparently, though, it's an unusual UW student who'd be willing to learn any U.S. history even if it's spoonfed to him by TV.
As for the sin of honoring a rich white male, Mr. Ludeman points out that Boyington (who died in 1988) was neither rich nor white. He happened to be a Sioux Indian, who wound up raising his three children as a single parent. "Colonel Boyington is luckily not around to see how ignorant students at his alma mater can be today," says Kirby Wilbur, a morning talk show host at Seattle's KVI Radio. Perhaps the trustees and alumni of the school will now help educate them.
The BBC reports on the anti-corruption campaigns being launched by many African nations.
Corruption costs African countries an estimated 25% of its combined national income, Nigerian President Olusegun Obasanjo said - some $148bn a year.
Newly-elected members of Hamas have been officially sworn in and now control the Palestinian parliament. But spokesman Sami abu-Zuhri says Hamas isn't interested in peace initiatives.
From the BBC:
"Hamas rejects negotiations with the occupation under the current circumstances, while occupation and aggression continues," he said.
"We re-emphasise the commitment to [armed] resistance as a natural right of our people."
If Hamas won't reject terrorism and accept Israel's right to exist and the legitimacy of the peace process based on the concept of peaceful coexistence, the U.S. government should also consider discouraging private investment in their financial markets.
From Reuters:
The United Nations on Tuesday asked Lebanon to explain reports of arms shipments crossing the Syrian border destined for the Lebanese guerrilla group Hizbollah.
Lebanese Druze leader Walid Jumblatt, a foe of Syria, said over the weekend that truckloads of arms and missiles had crossed the border intended for "armed groups" inside Lebanon. He alleged that the Lebanese army intercepted the shipment but allowed delivery to Hizbollah and possibly Palestinian groups.
The army said on Monday Jumblatt was incorrect and the weapons had been stocked inside Lebanon and shipped south to the "Lebanese resistance."
"We have followed the statements about the recent armed shipments including the statements of the Lebanese army," said a spokesman for U.N. envoy Terje Roed-Larsen.
"If this information were to be confirmed it would be an alarming development in clear violation of resolution 1559," the spokesman said.
Security Council resolution 1559, adopted in September 2004, called for Syria to withdraw troops and intelligence agents from Lebanon and for the disarmament of militias. This would include Palestinian groups and the Hizbollah guerrillas, who dominate southern Lebanon.
Roed-Larsen, who reports on compliance with resolution 1559, asked the Lebanese government for an explanation on Tuesday, U.N. officials told Reuters.
On October 26, Roed-Larsen issued a report that cited "an increasing influx of weaponry and personnel from Syria to some of these groups." It said Syria acknowledged arms and people were being smuggled "albeit in both directions."
Asked about the reports, U.S. Ambassador John Bolton told reporters: "I think it is clear that any assistance that Syria is giving, which it is, to the continued supply of weapons to armed groups inside Lebanon, is a violation of 1559."
Jumblatt also said the main reason for Hizbollah to have arms was to attack Israel's occupation of the Shebaa Farms in the false belief they were Lebanese territory.
This, he said, contradicted legitimate maps from 1962, which, as the United Nations has said, puts the Shebaa Farms inside Syria.
Other maps produced since then, he said, were forgeries. "Lebanon should not remain an open battlefield against Israel and this state-within-state status should end," Jumblatt said.
(Update II: Today's Wall Street Journal has a piece by a former CIA intelligence officer on the "dodgy disclosures" of Paul Pillar and how his actions "will end up making the CIA even less relevant than it is today--if that is possible.")
(Update I: Senate Intelligence Committee chairman Pat Roberts (R-KS) told Tim Russert on Sunday's Meet the Press that Paul Pillar said nothing about subtle political pressure on analysts when he was interviewed as part of the committee's investigation of pre-war intelligence. "Now we interviewed over 250 analysts during the WMD—the WMD inquiry, including this gentleman [Mr. Pillar]. Not one, except him now, post after all this is done, said that they were pressured in any way. And that was backed up by the WMD commission.")
Not surprisingly, the Washington Post's Walter Pincus reports on an upcoming Foreign Affairs piece by Paul Pillar, the CIA's national intelligence officer for the Near East and South Asia from 2000 to 2005. Pillar's views are old news, of course, as Stephen Hayes points out. He believed that "containment" was working and that Saddam could have been kept "in his box" -- a favorite phrase of Secretary of State Albright during the Clinton years. Fine. But the president, elected by the voters to make policy judgments, and many others disagreed then and still do today with Pillar's "in his box" assessment -- see here. Since the Iraq invasion, Pillar hasn't apparently been shy in letting people know "privately" and also publicly about the wisdom of the CIA and the ignorance of the Bush White House.
Pincus writes:
The Bush administration, Pillar wrote, "repeatedly called on the intelligence community to uncover more material that would contribute to the case for war," including information on the "supposed connection" between Hussein and al Qaeda, which analysts had discounted.
Of course, Mr. Pillar's dismissive comments are puzzling given that, at the time, U.S. intelligence had no high-level, human assets in Saddam’s inner circle let alone inside the top ranks of al Qaeda. For example, consider these two congressional reports, the Joint Inquiry into Intelligence Community Activities before and after the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001 (pp. 90, 91), and the Report on U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq (pp. 322, 323, 351, 355):
“The U.S. Intelligence Community was not able to penetrate al Qaeda’s inner circle successfully before September 11, despite the fact that human penetration of that organization was considered a priority.”
“According to senior CTC [Counterterrorist Center] officials, CIA had no penetrations of al Qaeda’s leadership and never obtained intelligence that was sufficient for action against Usama bin Laden.”
“CIA acknowledged the poor intelligence collection on both the Iraqi regime and al Qaeda leadership.”
“CIA stated it did not have specific intelligence reports that revealed Saddam Hussein’s personal opinion about dealing with al Qaeda.”
“There was no robust HUMINT collection capability targeting Iraq’s links to terrorism until the fall of 2002.”
“Despite four decades of intelligence reporting on Iraq, there was little useful intelligence collection that helped analysts determine the Iraqi regime’s possible links to al Qaeda.”
“The CIA had no…sources on the ground in Iraq providing reporting specifically on terrorism.”
But then again, perhaps the people who wrote these reports were "subtly" pressured to reach these conclusions.
Not that facts matter anyone more in the Iraq debate, but Nightline's report last night on Saddam's tape-recorded meetings, specifically the April/May 1995 one, is key to understanding the 2003 decision to invade. On the tape, Saddam's son-in-law, Lt. Gen. Hussein Kamal, briefs Saddam on his efforts to hide weapons information from UN inspectors. A short time later, in August, Kamal would defect to Jordan. His defection would fully expose the massive concealment campaign the Iraqi government had conducted of its weapons programs. UNSCOM chief Richard Butler told to the Security Council “that a program of concealment, run at a very senior level in Iraq, must have operated successfully for over four years without detection by the Commission.” He added that with the defection,
[i]mmediately, the entire basis upon which the Commission was conducting its assessments and analysis was undermined. It became clear that Iraq’s declaration of March 1992 was itself a fraud; everything had NOT been declared to the Commission; everything had not been destroyed.
From then on, the UN inspection team's conclusions on the state of Iraq's disarmament were to be solely based on "obtaining verifiable evidence including physical materials or documents; investigation of the successful concealment activities by Iraq; and, the thorough verification of the unilateral destruction events." In other words, Saddam had to prove he got rid of the stuff to ensure that he did not just stash it away somewhere beyond the eyes of the UN. Clinton Defense Secretary Cohen explained it this way in 1998:
[Inspectors] have to find documents, computer disks, production points, ammunition areas in an area that size [California]. Hussein has said, 'we have no program now.' We're saying, 'prove it.' He says he has destroyed all his nerve agent. [W]e're asking 'where, when and how?'"
Here's what UNMOVIC head Hans Blix said on the verification standard in late January 2003.
Resolution 687 (1991), like the subsequent resolutions I shall refer to, required cooperation by Iraq but such was often withheld or given grudgingly. Unlike South Africa, which decided on its own to eliminate its nuclear weapons and welcomed inspection as a means of creating confidence in its disarmament, Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance—not even today—of the disarmament, which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace.
As we know, the twin operation “declare and verify,” which was prescribed in resolution 687 (1991), too often turned into a game of “hide and seek.” Rather than just verifying declarations and supporting evidence, the two inspecting organizations found themselves engaged in efforts to map the weapons programmes and to search for evidence through inspections, interviews, seminars, inquiries with suppliers and intelligence organizations.
Blix also gave some concrete examples of the difficulty in verifying Iraq's disarmament without the active help of Saddam's regime. For instance,
January 27, 2003
The discovery of a number of 122 mm chemical rocket warheads in a bunker at a storage depot 170 km southwest of Baghdad was much publicized. This was a relatively new bunker and therefore the rockets must have been moved there in the past few years, at a time when Iraq should not have had such munitions…. They could also be the tip of a submerged iceberg. The discovery of a few rockets does not resolve but rather points to the issue of several thousands of chemical rockets that are unaccounted for.
March 6, 2003
The result, so far, is that no underground facility of special interest has been found. Although they may be easier to find than mobile facilities, they are still a difficult target and it is always possible that inspectors have missed a hidden entrance. Like mobile facilities, any dedicated underground CW or BW facility could also have been dismantled prior to inspection. UNMOVIC does not dismiss the possibility that such facilities exist and will continue to investigate reports as appropriate. Given the vast number of potential underground “sites” capable of hosting CW or BW production or storage facilities in Iraq, inspections in this area will have to be dynamic and rely on specific intelligence information….
The long list of proscribed items unaccounted for and as such resulting in unresolved disarmament issues was neither shortened by the inspections, nor by Iraqi declarations and documents.
The fact the Saddam Hussein never complied with UN disarmament resolutions led Defense Secretary William Cohen to state on CNN one month AFTER coalition forces entered Iraq:
I am convinced that he has them. I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out. I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons. We will find them.
Tom Ricks of the Washington Post reports on the achievements of the 3rd Armored Cavalry Regiment in Iraq under the command of Col. H.R. McMaster. It's an encouraging read until the concluding paragraphs.
Even now, McMaster said, he understands that his success is "fragile." The city's mayor, Najim Abdullah Jabouri, is unhappy that McMaster and his unit are leaving Iraq this month. "A surgeon doesn't leave in the middle of the operation!" the mayor said intently to McMaster over a recent lunch of lamb kabobs and bread. He waved his finger under the colonel's nose. "The doctor should finish the job he started."
McMaster and Hickey tried to calm him down. "There's another doctor coming," Hickey ventured. "He's very good."
The mayor wasn't mollified. He said he has seen other American units here before, and they didn't coordinate with Iraqi forces like McMaster's has. "When you leave, I will leave, too," the mayor threatened. "What you are doing is an experiment, and it isn't right to experiment on people."
Nor is it clear that McMaster's example can be followed elsewhere by American commanders in the country. The biggest problem U.S. troops in Iraq face is Baghdad, a city about 30 times the size of Tall Afar. With the current number of American troops in Iraq, it would be impossible to copy the approach used here, with outposts every few blocks.
"Baghdad is a much tougher nut to crack than this," said Maj. Jack McLaughlin, Hickey's plans officer, who attended Robinson Secondary School in Fairfax, Va. Standing in the castle overlooking the city, he said, "It's a matter of scale -- you'd need a huge number of troops to replicate what we've done here."
| | | |
