May 19, 2008 • Vol. 13, No. 34
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
« October 2006 |
Main
| December 2006 »
It's worth remembering as we consider the consequences of exiting Iraq along the lines advocated by some Washington politicians.
“The first stage," Zawahiri wrote in his July 2005 letter to Zarqawi, is to “expel the Americans from Iraq.” He also counseled Zarqawi to be prepared:
[T]hings may develop faster than we imagine. The aftermath of the collapse of American power in Vietnam -- and how they ran and left their agents is noteworthy. Because of that, we must be ready starting now, before events overtake us, and before we are surprised by the conspiracies of the Americans and the United Nations and their plans to fill the void behind them. We must take the initiative and impose a fait accompli upon our enemies, instead of the enemy imposing one on us, wherein our lot would be to merely resist their schemes.
Such an outcome will be anything but “peace with honor.”
(The assassin speaks. From the AP: "Syrian President Bashar Assad said Wednesday his country will continue to challenge U.S. efforts to exert control over the Middle East, sounding a defiant tone ahead of President Bush's arrival in the region for talks on Iraq. 'Colonialism has not ended. In the past they used to call it colonialism, today it is called liberation of people. ... Names differ but the essence is the same. As colonialism continues, revolution and resistance continue.... '")
From Reuters:
France and the United States agree there is no point in talking to Syria because the conditions for an honest dialogue do not exist, President Jacques Chirac said on Wednesday.
His comment came as President Bush is under strong domestic pressure to talk to Syria and Iran in an effort to reduce sectarian violence and avert civil war in Iraq.
Speaking after a NATO summit in Latvia, Chirac said he was always in favor of dialogue in principle provided it led to results and was based on honesty and a commitment to carry out what was agreed.
"In the current state of affairs, this is not exactly the characteristic of the dialogue which some European countries have started with Syria. I deplore that," Chirac said.
"I understand that the American president's position is exactly the same as France's," Chirac said.
Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Moualem accused Paris on Tuesday of trying to destabilize his country.
France took the lead with Washington last year in a United Nations resolution to force the withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon after the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik al-Hariri, a close friend of Chirac.
CNN reports today:
Pelosi 'sad' over Bush's Iraq representation
WASHINGTON -- House Speaker-designate Nancy Pelosi, D-California, said Tuesday she feels "sad" President Bush blamed insurgent violence on al Qaeda while he dismissed notions Iraq is in a civil war.
"My thoughts on the president's representations are well-known," Pelosi told reporters while meeting with Deputy Italian Minister Francesco Rutelli. "The 9/11 Commission dismissed that notion a long time ago and I feel sad that the president is resorting to it again."
But in her recent 60 Minutes profile the incoming speaker conceded that non-Iraqi terrorists are NOW in Iraq.
STAHL: Do you not think that the war in Iraq now, today, is the war on terror?
Rep. PELOSI: No. The war on terror is the war in Afghanistan. That is what...
STAHL: But you don't think that the terrorists have moved into Iraq now?
Rep. PELOSI: (Unintelligible). They have.
STAHL: Well...
Rep. PELOSI: The jihadists in Iraq. But that doesn't mean we stay there. That means--they'll stay there as long as we're there. They're there because we're there.
Guess Pelosi was referring to the non-al Qaeda foreign terrorists operating in Iraq.
Will the Baker-Hamilton Commission endorse the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq on a hard timetable? That’s highly unlikely. The president has flatly rejected withdrawal timetables, so it’s hard to believe Sec. Baker would go along with such a recommendation for this reason alone. What about tweaking the current strategy? That's also unlikely. The Commission isn’t going to release a report endorsing the same basic policies that brought about the Commission in the first place. So what then?
The two most revealing public comments about where it may be headed came from defense secretary nominee Bob Gates and Iraq War opponent Gen. Anthony Zinni. After his nomination was announced, a news story surfaced noting that, after a Baghdad visit, Gates was astonished that his soon-to-be predecessor had let the security situation deteriorate so badly. Thus, it’s a good bet Gates doesn’t believe things will getter better in Baghdad in the short term with fewer troops, especially given the conclusions on troop levels contained in this intelligence assessment published in today’s Washington Post. A bit after the Gates piece appeared, there was another news story in which Zinni publicly called for more forces in the Baghdad area to stabilize the downward spiral. I’ve also learned that at least one senior member of the first Bush administration not named Baker has been telling folks that we cannot leave Iraq in its current state and that a precondition for any U.S. drawdown must be a relatively stable Baghdad, which, this person believes, will require a surge in forces.
Merits aside, I suspect we may be looking at a call for more forces in the short term, combined with a regional conference (and possibly an Iraq-only one also) and an economic aid package of some sort aimed at the Sunnis, followed by a recommendation for a significant drawdown or redeployment thereafter, and the transformation of the remaining force to a largely advisory command. I also wager that there will be some vocal dissents -- in public and on background. Whatever the Commission does, President Bush alone will have to decide whether their report advances his often-stated objectives in Iraq or undermines them and act accordingly.
Newt weighs in on the Iraq commission here.
I'm confident the Iranian regime will act even more responsibly if it manages to acquire nuclear weapons. From today’s New York Times:
A senior American intelligence official said Monday that the Iranian-backed group Hezbollah had been training members of the Mahdi Army, the Iraqi Shiite militia led by Moktada al-Sadr.
The official said that 1,000 to 2,000 fighters from the Mahdi Army and other Shiite militias had been trained by Hezbollah in Lebanon. A small number of Hezbollah operatives have also visited Iraq to help with training, the official said.
Iran has facilitated the link between Hezbollah and the Shiite militias in Iraq, the official said. Syrian officials have also cooperated, though there is debate about whether it has the blessing of the senior leaders in Syria….
General Abizaid also said it was hard to pin down some details of relationships between armed factions in the Middle East, adding: “There are clearly links between Hezbollah training people in Iran to operate in Lebanon and also training people in Iran that are Shia splinter groups that could operate against us in Iraq These linkages exist, but it is very, very hard to pin down with precision.”
From the November 24 Wall Street Journal:
Tensions in Tehran are intensifying, leading Afghan officials to worry about potential spillover into their country. Iran has developed a pervasive economic and intelligence capacity inside the Central Asia state, which it could potentially turn against American forces. “They have a destructive capability,” says Said Jawad, Afghanistan’s ambassador to the U.S.
From the November 16 New York Times:
More than 700 Islamic militants from Somalia traveled to Lebanon in July to fight alongside Hezbollah in its war against Israel, a United Nations report says. The militia in Lebanon returned the favor by providing training and — through its patrons Iran and Syria — weapons to the Islamic alliance struggling for control of Somalia, it adds….
The report also says Iran sought to trade arms for uranium from Somalia to further its nuclear ambitions, though it does not say whether Iran succeeded….
While the sources of the information remain unclear, the report is dense with details about arms shipments to the groups vying for power in Somalia.
It states that in mid-July, Aden Hashi Farah, a leader of the Somali Islamist alliance, personally selected about 720 combat-hardened fighters to travel to Lebanon and fight alongside Hezbollah.
At least 100 Somalis had returned by early September — with five Hezbollah members — while others stayed on in Lebanon for advanced military training, the report says. It is not clear how many may have been killed, though the report says some were wounded and later treated after their return to Somalia.
The fighters were paid a minimum of $2,000 for their service, the report says, and as much as $30,000 was to be given to the families of those killed, with money donated by “a number of supporting countries.”
In addition to training some Somali militants, Hezbollah “arranged for additional support to be given” by Iran and Syria, including weapons, the report found. On July 27, 200 Somali fighters also traveled to Syria to be trained in guerrilla warfare, the report says.
It also indicates that Iran appears to have sought help in its quest for uranium in Dusa Mareb, the hometown of Sheik Hassan Dahir Aweys, the leader of the Islamist alliance in Somalia, which is known as the Council of Islamic Courts.
“At the time of the writing of this report, there were two Iranians in Dusa Mareb engaged on matters linked to the exploration of uranium in exchange for arms” for the Council of Islamic Courts, says the report, which is dated Oct. 16.
Those claims, if proved, could worsen global tensions over Iran’s nuclear program. Iran ignored an Aug. 31 deadline to suspend its uranium enrichment, and the United States has been leading a United Nations effort to impose sanctions….
The report recommends that the Security Council blockade Somalia….
The truth is the UN Security Council could put enormous pressure on Syria and Iran to end all the above, but, regrettably, there’s little chance they’ll do much anytime soon. And so it goes.
Have Rep. Tom Tancredo face off against Mark Udall for the Allard seat. From the Denver Post:
The buzz in U.S. Senate circles is that Wayne Allard might honor his pledge to serve just two terms and retire to that new home he and his wife, Joan, are building in Jackson County….
Allard is in the minority in Congress for the first time since he was elected in 1997 and word is he isn't too keen on the situation. The list of Republicans who might run in 2008 if Allard does not includes U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo, former Reps. Scott McInnis and Bob Schaffer, and outgoing Gov. Bill Owens.
Regardless of the GOP ticket, Rep. Mark Udall plans to run and will make a formal announcement sometime next year. His campaign coffers now hold $1.2 million.
Speaking of immigration, CNN has just released a presidential poll of GOP voters. The result: Giuliani, 33%, McCain, 30%, Gingrich, 9%, and Romney, 9%. Rudy and McCain both hold the president’s view on immigration; Newt and Romney agree on immigration and oppose the president’s position. Yet, the polls consistently show Giuliani and McCain with a large share of the GOP vote. Does this suggest that the views of rank-and-file Republicans on immigration may be more varied than those on talk radio and in the blogoshere? Perhaps.
A few weeks ago, I noted that Tehran would likely demand that in exchange for its “cooperation” in Iraq the U.S. must stop pushing for punitive action against them on the Security Council. Guess what? On Sunday, the AP reports, Ahmadinejad said that “he would help the United States bring calm to Iraq if Washington changes what he described as its ‘bullying’ policy toward Iran."
Of course, the Security Council has been anything but “bullying” on Iran. Its done practically nothing since Iran ignored the UN-imposed August 31 deadline to stop its enrichment activities. The international community has been so passive with Iran that Ahmadinejad now jubilantly declares that the world has lost its will to counter Iran's nuclear program. So far, Iran’s bullying – in weapons and words -- across the Middle East has paid dividends for Tehran and, given the attitude of Moscow and Beijing and other capitals, there’s no sign Tehran's investment will go south anytime soon.
This (free sub. req'd) quote -- "Rumsfeld is being vilified for our fate in Iraq. He does not get enough credit for dragging the DOD, kicking and screaming, into the 21st century" -- from the former undersecretary of defense in yesterday’s Miami Herald reminds me of what Marion Barry, then mayor of Washington D.C., told a national press club audience in 1989: "Except for the killings, Washington has one of the lowest crime rates in the country."
“Dragging … kicking and screaming” aside, Secretary Rumsfeld failed to adequately expand U.S. ground forces post 9/11 and deploy enough forces to post-invasion Iraq -- as some had called for over three years ago as the insurgency picked-up steam.
I have to wonder what exactly the president got out of his stopover in Moscow on his way to the APEC summit a little over a week ago. He traveled well out of his way to chat with Putin. Since then, and despite our objections, the Kremlin has gone ahead with the delivery of an air-defense system to Iran. The Tor-M1 system will reportedly be deployed around Iran’s nuclear facilities – facilities the Russians are helping to build.
Tor-M1
(Source: AFP)
On top of this, Russia and China show no sign of acting responsibly on the UN Security Council in the face Tehran’s continued defiance over its nuclear enrichment program. The Council gave Iran until August 31 to stop its enrichment program or face real consequences. Iran ignored the deadline, and today the Council dithers.
After Air Force One departed Moscow, National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley told reporters that the Putin meeting “really wasn't about business it was about social, it was about personal." That’s nice. It would also be nice to believe that when they did talk “business” the president received a private assurance from Putin that Moscow would back tough action against Iran, but it’s a hope getting dimmer by the day.
On Iran, the Russians appear to be all business.
Evidently, the world soccer federation is a tougher outfit than the UN Security Council. From the AP:
ZURICH, Switzerland - Iran was suspended from international soccer by FIFA on Thursday because of government interference with the country's soccer federation.
The decision was made Wednesday at an emergency council meeting of soccer's world governing body. FIFA said it had given Iran a Nov. 15 deadline to reinstate elected soccer federation president Mohammed Dadgan and comply with FIFA regulations.
"This deadline was not met," FIFA said.
FIFA said Iran was not abiding by rules regarding the "independence of the decision-making process of the football governing body in each country and the way in which changes in the leadership of associations are brought about."
Iran, which played in the 2006 World Cup and has qualified for the 2007 Asian Cup, will be reinstated only after drafting new statutes and organizing a new election under the supervision of FIFA and the Asian Football Confederation.
"The lifting of this suspension would depend on the above road map being accepted and fully implemented by the relevant authorities in Tehran," FIFA said.
On this day, I wanted to highlight two organizations that assist active duty service members and disabled veterans. Profiled in the Weekly Standard, Unmet Needs is a charity that helps military families facing financial difficulties.
In addition, I am on the board of the Wounded Warrior Project, a non-profit that assists severely wounded soldiers and their families with a variety of programs.
To all those who have served, America thanks you.
The biannual Top500 supercomputers list is out. IBM retains the top spot with its BlueGene system at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. BlueGene's performance comes in at 280.6 trillion calculations per second. Of the ten most powerful supercomputers in the world, seven are in the U.S. with the other three in Japan, France and Spain. Overall, 306 of the top 500 systems are in the U.S.
The Connecticut senator made some blunt comments last night on Fox News' Hannity and Colmes:
HANNITY: [I]f Barack Obama and Senator Levin want to cut and run [from Iraq]? Are you going to stand in strong opposition to them?
LIEBERMAN: You bet I am. I mean, they're now proposing that we begin a withdrawal of American troops from Iraq within the next four to six months. I think that would -- that's a road to disaster. That's basically the beginning of giving up on Iraq. And as bad as things are in Iraq today, they would be dramatically worse if we just pick up and leave.
…[W]hen General Abizaid was before the Senate Armed Services Committee, on which I'm privileged to serve, I asked him, "What would be the effect on the sectarian violence if we began a withdrawal in four to six months, regardless of what's happening on the ground?" And he said it would become much worse. And then Ambassador Satterfield from the State Department was there. And I said, "I know some of the people that want us to begin a withdrawal in a time certain think that's the only way we can get the Iraqi government to do what they want to do, to take control of their destiny." I asked Satterfield, "What's your reaction to that?" He said, if we began to arbitrarily withdraw in the next four to six months, it will have exactly the opposite effect on the Iraqi government. They'll begin to hedge their bets, because they'll see us heading for the door, and they'll see that what's going to follow is out-and-out civil war, maybe even regional war. We cannot let that happen.
Iraq is now a central battlefield in the war on terrorism, and we've got to have a success strategy there.
Of course, incoming Speaker Pelosi disagrees that “Iraq is now a central battlefield in the war on terrorism.”
(Darn. The conspiracy has been exposed.)
It's no surprise that Senator Lieberman has tapped Marshall Wittmann of the Democratic Leadership Council to be his communications director and informal political advisor. During the campaign, Wittmann, a registered Independent, frequently battled the leftwing bloggers who were trying to put the anti-war Ned Lamont in office. But Connecticut voters gave Lamont and his far left backers a good thumping on November 7. Like his new boss, Wittmann’s a big fan of the late Henry “Scoop” Jackson, the Democratic senator from the state of Washington who fought his party’s dominant McGovern wing. The bottom line: don’t look for Lieberman singing "Kumbaya” with the liberal Senate leadership anytime soon.
(From Reuters: "Anti-Syrian Druze leader Walid Jumblatt said on Wednesday he expected more assassinations of ministers and members of parliament aimed at undermining the ruling majority. 'We have to expect, and this is my impression unfortunately, more assassinations of ministers and parliamentarians,' Jumblatt told a news conference. Lebanese Minister Pierre Gemayel, a member of the ruling bloc, was shot dead on Tuesday.")
The failure of the US, Europe and the UN Security Council to hold Syria accountable for its actions in Lebanon has evidently not gone unnoticed in Damascus. Syrian hands were all over the Hiriri assassination, and now this report from Reuters:
Syria played a part in the assassination of Lebanese Christian minister Pierre Gemayel, Lebanese parliamentary majority leader Saad al-Hariri told CNN on Tuesday.
"We believe the hand of Syria is all over the place," Hariri, son of assassinated former Prime Minister Rafik al-Hariri, said from Beirut shortly after Gemayel was shot dead near the city.
Gov. Romney's interview with the Washington Examiner is interesting not for his direct attack on Sen. McCain, one of the few politicians who has actually exhibited leadership on the Iraq War, but this statement: “I’m a conservative Republican, there’s no question about that…. I’m at a different place than the other two [McCain and Giuliani].”
Well, as I’ve noted before, it’s clear from the comments of Giuliani and his staff that if the mayor does jump in, he’s not about to concede conservatives to anyone. Indeed, it wouldn’t take much effort for Rudy to question his opponents’ conservative credentials on some issues just as they question his. McCain’s record is well known, so look for the Giuliani camp, in public and on background, to target Romney’s record and past statements a bit more in the early stages of the campaign.
I still very much doubt the mayor can win the nomination, but nothing in Rudy’s background suggests he’ll be a punching bag for his opponents. He’ll throw just as many jabs as he’ll absorb. And if he doesn’t run, the former prosecutor would be an excellent surrogate for the presidential camp that lands him. Then there’s Newt…and Brownback…
From the Sunday Telegraph:
Ayatollah who backs suicide bombs aims to be Iran's next spiritual leader
An ultra-conservative Iranian cleric who opposes all dialogue with the West is a frontrunner to become the country's next supreme spiritual leader.
In a move that would push Iran even further into the diplomatic wilderness, Ayatollah Mohammad Taghi Mesbah-Yazdi, 71, who publicly backs the use of suicide bombers against Israel, is campaigning to succeed Grand Ayatollah Ali Khameini, 67, as the head of the Islamic state.
Considered an extremist even by fellow mullahs, he was a fringe figure in Iran's theocracy until last year's election of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a fellow fundamentalist who views him as his ideological mentor. He is known to many Iranians as "Professor Crocodile" because of a notorious cartoon that depicted him weeping false tears over the jailing of a reformist journalist…
Appointing Mr Mesbah-Yazdi as supreme leader would be a massive blow to Western efforts to get Iran to cease its nuclear programme and backing of militants in Lebanon, Iraq and among the Palestinians. Although he has never spoken publicly on the issue, Mr Mesbah-Yazdi is thought to support the idea of an Iranian nuclear bomb…
The run-up to the vote has been marred by complaints of rigging in favour of hardliners. The guardian council, a hardline conservative body that vets candidates, is accused of vetoing reform-minded clerics from taking part. Around half of nearly 500 applicants have been banned from standing.
(The Washington Post reports: "British police are investigating the poisoning of a former Russian spy and outspoken critic of President Vladimir Putin and have placed him under protective guard at a London hospital…. Alexander Litvinenko, 43, began vomiting shortly after he had lunch on Nov. 1 with a man who gave him documents related to the recent killing of Anna Politkovskaya, a Russian journalist.")
Posted on October 7, 2006:
Journalist Anna Politkovskaya was murdered last night in Moscow, reports Reuters:
Russian journalist Anna Politkovskaya, an outspoken critic of President Vladimir Putin, was shot dead on Saturday at her apartment block in central Moscow, police said.
"According to initial information she was killed by two shots when leaving the lift. Neighbors found her body," a police source told Reuters. Police found a pistol and four rounds in the lift.
Politkovskaya, a 48-year-old mother of two, won international fame and numerous prizes for her dogged pursuit of rights abuses by Putin's government, particularly in the violent southern province of Chechnya.
"The first thing that comes to mind is that Anna was killed for her professional activities. We don't see any other motive for this terrible crime," said Vitaly Yaroshevsky, a deputy editor of the newspaper where Politkovskaya worked.
I’m told that Politkovskaya had written an article on Russian atrocities in Chechnya due to be published on Monday.
Here's a big thing many Americans wouldn't expect early on from Democrats: passing legislation to substantially enlarge the ground force. The Democratic leadership would enjoy strong bipartisan support for something that should have been done years ago. Just how bipartisan? Well, consider today’s New York Times editorial:
But keeping the Army in its present straitjacket would bring bigger and more immediate problems. Even assuming an early exit from Iraq, the Army’s overall authorized strength needs to be increased some 75,000 to 100,000 troops more than Mr. Rumsfeld had in mind for the next few years.
A force totaling 575,000 would permit the creation of two new divisions for peacekeeping and stabilization missions, a doubling of special operations forces and the addition of 10,000 to the military police to train and supplement local police forces. The Marine Corps, currently 175,000, needs to be expanded to at least 180,000 and shifted from long-term occupation duties toward its real vocation as a tactical assault force ready for rapid deployment.
The sooner Congress debates and sorts out the budget issues involved the better. Though, I seriously doubt they’ll adopt the Times’ funding proposals.
Gingrich on Fox News Sunday:
WALLACE: You say Mitt Romney. McCain started an exploratory committee this week. Thirty seconds: Are you going to do the same?
GINGRICH: No. We have a program called American Solutions we're working on. And in September of next year, I'll be glad to come back and talk with you about running for president, but not until...
WALLACE: Not until that late?
GINGRICH: Not until September.
A Newt run would certainly shake things up.
In a speech yesterday, Gen. John Abizaid was quite blunt in assessing the threat posed by Islamic radicalism. He also questioned whether the West has the will necessary to confront it now before a broader war erupts. From Reuters:
The top U.S. general in the Middle East said on Friday that if the world does not find a way to stem the rise of Islamic militancy, it will face a third world war.
Army Gen. John Abizaid compared the rise of militant ideologies, such as the force driving al Qaeda, to the rise of fascism in Europe in the 1920s and 1930s that set the stage for World War Two.
"If we don't have guts enough to confront this ideology today, we'll go through World War Three tomorrow," Abizaid said in a speech titled "The Long War," at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government in Cambridge, outside Boston.
If not stopped, Abizaid said extremists would be allowed to "gain an advantage, to gain a safe haven, to develop weapons of mass destruction, to develop a national place from which to operate. And I think that the dangers associated with that are just too great to comprehend."
Abizaid said the world faces three major hurdles in stabilizing the Middle East region: Easing Arab-Israeli tensions, stemming the spread of militant extremism, and dealing with Iran, which Washington has accused of seeking to develop nuclear bombs.
"Where these three problems come together happens to come in a place known as Iraq," said Abizaid, who earlier in the week warned Congress against seeking a timeline for withdrawing U.S. troops from the country that is wracked by insurgent and sectarian violence.
"The sacrifice that is necessary to stabilize Iraq, in my view, must be sustained in order for the region itself to become more resilient," Abizaid said.
Other senior officers have echoed Abizaid’s view on the centrality of Iraq in this war, and the need to stay engaged. Also, though it got little media attention, this November 16 piece from the back pages of the New York Times is another example of what Abizaid is warning about.
Weighing in at 364 pages, the Rand Corporation has just released a two-part study, “Beyond Al Qaeda.” Al Qaeda espouses a "global revolutionary creed” with an “ideology that is radical and Islamist at its core, but also borrows from 20th century Western totalitarian traditions.” Its goals, Rand notes, “are to mobilize Muslims for a global jihad against the West; topple ‘apostate’ regimes, particularly in Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Pakistan; and create an Islamic government spanning the Muslim world based on an ultra-orthodox interpretation of Sunni Islam that would isolate the majority of Sunni Muslims as well as Shi'ite Muslims.”
On Iraq, Rand outlines three scenarios:
In the end, terror alone cannot guarantee success for the insurgents. The insurgency can continue to wreak havoc but will become an exercise in political futility. In these circumstances, three general scenarios are possible:
In the most benign case, significant elements of the Sunni community realize that a return of the status quo ante is no longer viable and accept a minority role within a democratic Iraq. The Sunnis might find a common interest with the Kurdish parties in balancing Shi’ite predominance, and a rough balance of power could develop, allowing for what we called in another study “democracy with Iraqi characteristics.”
In the second scenario, the representatives of the Sunni community are too alienated or terrorized to enter into a political arrangement with the Shi’ites and the Kurds. The insurgency could continue, perhaps at high levels of violence, but would be unable to transcend its narrow social base or to prevent the nascent government from gradually consolidating its control over the country.
In the third scenario, if the new government is unable to contain the insurgents and terrorists, or to win broad support among the diverse ethnic and religious communities in Iraq, it will be no match for local warlords and will have to contend with the growth of terrorist infrastructures. A failure of central authority could lead to a formal or de facto partition of the country.
Would an American troop withdrawal, along the lines suggested by many senior Democrats, make the third scenario more or less likely?
Here’s volume one, The Global Jihadist Movement , and volume two, The Outer Rings of the Terrorist Universe .
This is a strange story first reported on ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) radio:
US authorities have uncovered a plot to set up a flight training school in the Pacific nation of Kiribati and suspect the man behind it may have had links to September 11 mastermind Mohammed Atta.
Since the plot emerged, Kiribati had asked for Australia's help to fight terrorism, ABC radio reported today.
The US' Federal Bureau of Investigations said Wolfgang Bohringer was considered a "person of interest".
It said Bohringer had close connections with a US flight school [in Florida] used by Atta, who masterminded the plot to hijack passenger planes and fly them into key targets in the United States five years ago, the ABC saod .
Bohringer had fled Kiribati on his yacht, leaving questions about his intentions.
He surfaced in the Pacific nation about a year ago and began talking up plans for a resort and flight school on Fanning Island - a remote outpost with no phones, no functioning airstrip but among the closest to Hawaii.
Bohringer is not mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report.
The AP reports that "House Democrats have chosen Rep. Steny Hoyer as House majority leader, the No. 2 leadership post.” Democrats showed some sense on this. Murtha would have been a disaster for the Democrats, though good for the media. With Lieberman's big victory and now Murtha's trouncing, the anti-war left will need to regroup a bit.
Despite the comments of Rep. Pelosi ("The war on terror is the war in Afghanistan”) and DNC chair Howard Dean (Afghanistan “is where the fight on terror is.”), the Global War on Terror is, in fact, global. Today’s New York Times reports:
More than 700 Islamic militants from Somalia traveled to Lebanon in July to fight alongside Hezbollah in its war against Israel, a United Nations report says. The militia in Lebanon returned the favor by providing training and — through its patrons Iran and Syria — weapons to the Islamic alliance struggling for control of Somalia, it adds….
The report also says Iran sought to trade arms for uranium from Somalia to further its nuclear ambitions, though it does not say whether Iran succeeded….
While the sources of the information remain unclear, the report is dense with details about arms shipments to the groups vying for power in Somalia.
It states that in mid-July, Aden Hashi Farah, a leader of the Somali Islamist alliance, personally selected about 720 combat-hardened fighters to travel to Lebanon and fight alongside Hezbollah.
At least 100 Somalis had returned by early September — with five Hezbollah members — while others stayed on in Lebanon for advanced military training, the report says. It is not clear how many may have been killed, though the report says some were wounded and later treated after their return to Somalia.
The fighters were paid a minimum of $2,000 for their service, the report says, and as much as $30,000 was to be given to the families of those killed, with money donated by “a number of supporting countries.”
In addition to training some Somali militants, Hezbollah “arranged for additional support to be given” by Iran and Syria, including weapons, the report found. On July 27, 200 Somali fighters also traveled to Syria to be trained in guerrilla warfare, the report says.
It also indicates that Iran appears to have sought help in its quest for uranium in Dusa Mareb, the hometown of Sheik Hassan Dahir Aweys, the leader of the Islamist alliance in Somalia, which is known as the Council of Islamic Courts.
“At the time of the writing of this report, there were two Iranians in Dusa Mareb engaged on matters linked to the exploration of uranium in exchange for arms” for the Council of Islamic Courts, says the report, which is dated Oct. 16.
Those claims, if proved, could worsen global tensions over Iran’s nuclear program. Iran ignored an Aug. 31 deadline to suspend its uranium enrichment, and the United States has been leading a United Nations effort to impose sanctions….
Not only has the volume of arms flowing into Somalia grown, according to the authors, but more sophisticated weapons like surface-to-air missiles are being brought in. The conflict could grow into a regional war, with Somalia’s neighbors, Ethiopia and Eritrea, backing opposing sides.
The report also accuses Djibouti, Egypt, Iran, Libya, Saudi Arabia and Syria of supplying the Somali Islamists with arms, advisers and fighters. It says three nations — Ethiopia, Uganda and Yemen — are aligned with the so-called transitional government based in Baidoa, an inland city….
The report recommends that the Security Council blockade Somalia….
I’m confident the UN Security Council will act swiftly against the apparent chief state sponsors of the above – Syria and Iran.
Its significance was on display at yesterday's Senate Armed Services Committee hearing. From today’s New York Times:
But no sooner had Mr. Levin outlined his case for a phased pullout of troops beginning in four to six months than the new Independent Democratic hero of the hawkish wing, Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut, began acting the role of cross-examiner, leading Gen. John P. Abizaid, the top American military commander in the Middle East, to say that such a withdrawal would increase violence and instability.
''I take it by your answer that you profoundly disagree?'' Mr. Lieberman asked. With the Democrats, he meant. ''We have a window of opportunity and, really, responsibility now, after the election,'' he said, ''to find a bipartisan consensus for being supportive of the efforts of our troops and our diplomats there to achieve success.''
To this, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, the leading Democratic contender for the 2008 race, knocked back the remains in her coffee cup.
His comments on immigration, the party leadership races, and 2008 may be found here.
If John Bolton decides to bow out of the UN post because of continued Democratic opposition to his confirmation, the president should seriously consider former Tennessee Senator Fred Thompson for the job. Like Bolton, he’s tough, well versed in national security, extremely articulate and would be a forceful public advocate for the president’s policies. Democrats would be hard pressed to deny him an up or down vote on the Senate floor. A Thompson pick would also send a bold signal that the president isn’t about to run-out-the-clock on his term. I’m hopeful the president could persuade Thompson to accept the nomination, but he will probably have to do so over the objections of a few, particularly in the intelligence community. With his background as a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee and chairman of the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, Thompson has routinely questioned the performance of our intelligence agencies over the years.
The bottom line: Bush shouldn’t answer the Bolton critics by appointing an anti-Bolton type, as some are clamoring for; he should up the ante and put the Democrats on the defensive. Nominate Thompson.
During the past year, senior Democrats have often cited the remarks of Gen. Zinni and Gen. Batiste, in particular, in their attacks on the administration’s conduct of the war. But I doubt they’ll be citing them anymore -- or these officers for that matter. Zinni wants more forces in Iraq, and Batiste characterizes Democratic troop withdrawal plans as “terribly naïve.” From today’s New York Times:
One of the most resonant arguments in the debate over Iraq holds that the United States can move forward by pulling its troops back, as part of a phased withdrawal. If American troops begin to leave and the remaining forces assume a more limited role, the argument holds, it will galvanize the Iraqi government to assume more responsibility for securing and rebuilding Iraq.
This is the case now being argued by many Democrats, most notably Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, the incoming chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, who asserts that the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq should begin within four to six months.
But this argument is being challenged by a number of military officers, experts and former generals, including some who have been among the most vehement critics of the Bush administration’s Iraq policies.
Anthony C. Zinni, the former head of the United States Central Command and one of the retired generals who called for the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, argued that any substantial reduction of American forces over the next several months would be more likely to accelerate the slide to civil war than stop it.
“The logic of this is you put pressure on Maliki and force him to stand up to this,” General Zinni said in an interview, referring to Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, the Iraqi prime minister. “Well, you can’t put pressure on a wounded guy. There is a premise that the Iraqis are not doing enough now, that there is a capability that they have not employed or used. I am not so sure they are capable of stopping sectarian violence.”
Instead of taking troops out, General Zinni said, it would make more sense to consider deploying additional American forces over the next six months to “regain momentum” as part of a broader effort to stabilize Iraq that would create more jobs, foster political reconciliation and develop more effective Iraqi security forces….
But some current and retired military officers say the situation in Baghdad and other parts of Iraq is too precarious to start thinning out the number of American troops. In addition, they worry that some Shiite leaders would see the reduction of American troops as an opportunity to unleash their militias against the Sunnis and engage in wholesale ethnic cleansing to consolidate their control of the capital.
John Batiste, a retired Army major general who also joined in the call for Mr. Rumsfeld’s resignation, described the Congressional proposals for troop withdrawals as “terribly naïve.”
Kenneth M. Pollack, an expert at the Brookings Institution who served on the staff of the National Security Council during the Clinton administration, also argued that a push for troop reductions would backfire by contributing to the disorder in Iraq.
“If we start pulling out troops and the violence gets worse and the control of the militias increases and people become confirmed in their suspicion that the United States is not going to be there to prevent civil war, they are to going to start making decisions today to prepare for the eventuality of civil war tomorrow,” he said. “That is how civil wars start.”
From the Islamic Republic News Agency:
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad here Tuesday referred to Iran's peaceful nuclear activities as the most complicated challenge in the country's diplomacy, saying time is running in Iran's favor in this respect.
"The greatest and most complicated challenge in the country's diplomacy has been removed by the grace of the Almighty and thanks to resistance and vigilance of the Iranian nation," he told domestic reporters.
"Today the Iranian nation possesses the full nuclear fuel cycle and time is completely running in our favor in terms of diplomacy."
Referring to Iran's peaceful nuclear activities as one of the most important issues since he came to office 15 months ago, he said it is an issue on which almost all big powers stood against the Iranian nation to prevent it from attaining its rights.
However, he said, by the grace of God and thanks to the resistance of the Iranian nation a large number of those who could not tolerate Iran's launch of fuel cycle have accepted this today and are coexisting and interacting with a nuclear Iran.
Also, the IAEA has reportedly "found unexplained plutonium and highly enriched uranium traces in a nuclear waste facility in Iran." Will the Security Council now act or will the Russians and the Chinese continue to do Tehran's bidding?
From AFP:
Lebanon's Western-backed cabinet is facing a deep crisis as pro-Syrian opponents called for a change of government after it adopted a UN plan to try suspects in former premier Rafiq Hariri's murder.
Despite the resignations of six pro-Syrian ministers, the cabinet on Monday approved the UN draft to set up an international tribunal for the February 2005 assassination of the five-time prime minister….
An ongoing UN probe has implicated senior officials from Syria, which for decades was the power-broker in its smaller neighbour, and also Lebanese accomplices. Damascus strongly denies any connection with the Hariri killing.
US State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said the root of the crisis in Lebanon was that "some (people) are very, very nervous -- including in Damascus -- about where this tribunal issue is going".
Perhaps Western diplomats will get another opportunity to talk with President Assad about Hariri’s killing should the much ballyhooed regional peace conference ever take place. Let’s hope Damascus and Tehran haven’t toppled the current Lebanese government by then.
Last January, the Kremlin cut off gas supplies to the Ukraine to punish Kiev. Earlier this month, the AP reported that Gazprom “would more than double the price of gas for Georgia,” a struggling pro-Western democracy. Now, the Financial Times reports:
A confidential study by Nato economics experts, sent to the ambassadors of its 26 member states last week, warned that Russia may be seeking to build a gas cartel including Algeria, Qatar, Libya, the countries of Central Asia and perhaps Iran.
The study, by Nato’s economics committee, said Russia was seeking to use energy policy to pursue political ends, particularly in dealings with neighbours such as Georgia and Ukraine….
Although there is disagreement over whether Russia could create any such cartel, the report highlights the deepening tensions between Western Europe and Moscow over energy security.
Energy company executives say the biggest threat to gas prices comes from Russia’s own investment shortfalls and possible moves by Moscow to convince other producers, such as Algeria, to limit investment.
Russia supplies 24 per cent of Europe’s natural gas, with Norway selling 13 per cent and Algeria, a major exporter to Spain and Italy, supplying 10 per cent.
Last week, the International Energy Agency warned of “the possibility of major gas-exporting countries co-ordinating their investment and production plans in order to avoid surplus capacity and to keep gas prices up.”
…Last month, before an EU summit with Russia, Javier Solana, EU foreign policy chief, highlighted a Russian deal with Algeria, which he said stopped Algeria selling majority stakes in gas projects to foreign investors.
“We are witnessing some form of mutual agreement as Russia and Algeria restrain investment,” said one industry analyst.
“Moscow has tightened the grip using Gazprom and Algiers has just changed its hydrocarbons law giving [Algeria’s] Sonatrach 51 per cent of every project instead of 30 per cent.”
In July, the G-8 held its annual summit near St. Petersburg, Russia. One of the major topics discussed: energy security.
The DNC head released this statement the other day on the resignation of Secretary Rumsfeld:
I am glad that President Bush has finally listened to the growing chorus of retired Generals, civilian leaders and Democrats who long ago called for Secretary Rumsfeld's resignation. This is a good first step but the American people have spoken and it must be followed by a real change in direction in Iraq and in America's foreign policy by the President. Democrats are united and ready to get to work with Republicans to find real solutions to the challenges we are facing in Iraq. Our brave troops fighting in harm's way deserve nothing less.
Here’s what a “chorus of retired” officers told the Democrats about what our troops “deserve" when they spoke before the Senate Democratic Policy Committee in September. As the Washington Post’s Dana Milbank noted, they delivered a message the Democrats didn’t want to hear.
But Democrats, while celebrating Batiste's criticism of the administration, exercised some selective listening at the hearing when Batiste and his colleagues offered their solution: more troops, more money and more time in Iraq.
"We must mobilize our country for a protracted challenge," Batiste warned.
"We better be planning for at least a minimum of a decade or longer," contributed retired Marine Col. Thomas Hammes.
"We are, conservatively, 60,000 soldiers short," added retired Army Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton, who was in charge of building the Iraqi Security Forces.
That last remark caused Schumer to shake his head, indicating he was not so sure. And, indeed, the retired officers' recommendations were off-message for the Democrats. Six of the seven Democrats at the hearing supported legislation calling for the start of a troop withdrawal from Iraq this year. One, Richard Durbin (Ill.), voted for the pullout to be mostly complete by next summer.
In post-election Washington, it sure doesn't sound like the Democrats "listened" to what these officers had to say.
Rudy hasn't wavered in his support for stronger border security plus broader immigration reform. From the Times Leader (PA):
He recommended that political leaders “do immigration reform” before the 2008 Presidential election cycle begins because it should be easy for both sides to agree on such legislation. “I think that would restore people’s confidence in government (to) get something done,” he said….
Turning to immigration, he said “Illegal immigrants have some constitutional rights,” and the authority of local governments to legislate on immigration issues “depends” on whether the laws infringe upon those rights. He supports “strict” border security, but “at some time, (the government should) allow for people who are working, who are legitimate, to make them come out of the underground.”
“We need to know everybody in the United States,” he said, “because a larger underground network makes it easier for terrorists to hide in America.”
First Jane Harman feels the wrath of the new speaker and now Steny Hoyer. Pelosi is backing Jack Murtha for majority leader because of the boost he gave the Democratic faithful by calling for the rapid withdrawal of troops from Iraq and his “strong voice for national security.” Murtha first called for the “immediate withdrawal” of U.S. troops last November. Pelosi endorsed the Murtha plan at the time, but Hoyer opposed it. “I believe that a precipitous withdrawal of American forces in Iraq,” Hoyer warned, “could lead to disaster, spawning a civil war, fostering a haven for terrorists and damaging our nation's security and credibility.” Also in the fall of 2005, Hoyer joined a handful of other centrist Democrats to form a group to counter the party’s weak image on national security issues. One of the other prominent Democrats involved in the group: Jane Harman.
Some highlights from the senator's appearance on Meet the Press today:
On the election:
MCCAIN: That we Republicans have lost our way, that we came to Washington to change government and government changed us. The spending, the ethics, the massive programs such as Medicare prescription drug program, that—our failure to address their priorities as opposed to our own, and there was a—obviously a reaction to it. The Iraq war obviously is very frustrating. I know we’re going to talk more about that, but there’s—very frustrating to the American people. But I would submit, if they were all against the Iraq war that you probably would not have seen my friend Joe Lieberman, who I’m sure will talk about it, re-elected. So they’re frustrated by the war, but I also believe that many of our, our spending, our—the scandals, the ongoing scandals, the large government programs. In, in other words, one of the pillars of the Republican Party is fiscal conservatives. They were alienated by the fact that we let spending lurch out of control….
I am a proud conservative, both economically and socially. And I am a conservative Republican, and I will remain so in the school of Ronald Reagan—who, by the way, brought our party back after a defeat in 1976 and gave us hope and optimism. And I believe this party will rebound. I believe that we will get our bearings straight and we’ll get back on course, because I believe America is still a conservative right-of-center nation, and our message, our Republican message, is best.
On what to do in Iraq and the consequences of defeat:
MCCAIN: The question is, is what’s the solution? And I believe that a withdrawal, or a date for withdrawal, will lead to chaos in the region, and most military experts think the same thing. I believe that there are a lot of things that we can do to salvage this, but they all require the presence of additional troops.
Now, if you want to, to give up on, on Iraq, then fine, and take the consequences. I think there will be chaos in the region. But we need to control the—this insurgency, we need to embed people with the police and the military, we need to clear and hold—and “hold” is the important part—so we can expand areas of security. There’s a lot of things that we can and must do. But if we don’t want to do that, fine, but that is a decision that I think will have profound consequences. I’m not prepared to go to an American family and tell them, “Well, you know, we’ll—you just stay there for a while and we’ll delay this withdrawal and defeat for a year or two,” I’m not prepared to tell them that. I’m prepared to tell them that if we have the will to win, we will do what’s necessary to win. But I’m not interested in seeing a scene of the American Embassy on the, the roof of the American embassy in Saigon multiplied a thousandfold.
RUSSERT: …How can you go to the country after these elections and say, “Send more troops to Iraq”?
MCCAIN: I can only do what I think is best for these young men and women who are in the military. To do otherwise would be immoral and dishonorable. I believe that we have sacrificed enormously because of mistakes that have been made that were serious, which have been well-chronicled on this program and in many books. You have to make a decision as to whether you’re going to pursue a path that can bring to—about a stable Iraq and freedom and dem—for the people of Iraq, or you’re going to have some kind of, of situation where we either withdraw immediately or delay. And there are some who will say, “Well, we, we can stabilize the situation and withdraw gradually,” I don’t accept that, I think that what’s going to happen is that, as you withdraw, that you will see these—the sectarian violence increase, I think you’ll see involvement by Iran and Syria, and I think you will see a serious situation. I have to do what I think is morally right, and that’s been what has guided me throughout my life, and I do have some experience in some of these issues.
Feingold bows out for 2008. Will the anti-war left give in to Hillary or now push for a Gore candidacy to challenge the aura of inevitability surrounding the New York senator?
On this Veterans Day, I wanted to highlight two organizations that assist active duty service members and disabled veterans. Profiled in the Weekly Standard, Unmet Needs is a charity that helps military families facing financial difficulties.
In addition, I am on the board of the
| | | |
