May 19, 2008 • Vol. 13, No. 34
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
« December 2006 |
Main
| February 2007 »
Yesterday I posted on the subject of alleged cooperation between the Iranian and North Korean nuclear programs. In that post I made reference to skeptical remarks by two well respected experts, Paul Kerr and Jeffrey Lewis, that both seemed to step back from in subsequent posts. I also spoke with John Pike, who told me there was no way to confirm such reports, but that the North Korean, Iranian, and Pakistani nuclear programs were essentially "one program in three places."
Kerr feels I misrepresented his comments, and has attributed such misrepresentation to either dishonesty or stupidity on my part. I strongly deny that there was any intent to deceive (only time will tell if the other charge sticks), so let's go through point by point.
First Kerr says, "he claims (falsely) that additional evidence [of collaboration] has made the claim more plausible." The additional evidence I was pointing to was this piece by Bill Gertz on collaboration between North Korea and Iran on ICBM technology. Kerr says the piece I "refer to is about missile, not nuclear, cooperation." True enough, and I said as much, but any reasonable person could draw the conclusion that collaboration on technology for delivering a nuclear warhead makes collaboration on warhead design seem more plausible. If Kerr chooses not to make that leap, fine, but I'd have to disagree with him.
Second, Kerr says the two haven't changed their minds. I did mistakenly attribute a cross-post by Kerr that appeared on Lewis's site to Lewis himself. So, my apologies to Dr. Lewis. But Kerr subsequently posted that his initial impression--that North Korean data would be of little use to Iran--was not correct, since information from the test of a weapon with a plutonium core (North Korea) would, in fact, be useful to a country working to design a weapon with a uranium core (Iran). I inferred that Kerr's realization meant he was more inclined to believe that collaboration was possible, since there was much to be gained from the Iranian perspective. Kerr says, "that post only indicates that Iran could perhaps benefit more from North Korean test data than I had previously suspected. That doesn’t mean that North Korea is actually providing such data."
Again, Kerr chooses not to make this leap, I disagree--to me his statement implies that, in light of this new information, collaboration is more likely.
Finally, Kerr says I inaccurately claimed that, "In Kerr’s opinion, the only way to significantly shorten that estimate [the IC’s 5-10 year estimate] was if the North Koreans sold weapons-grade fuel, presumably plutonium, to the Iranians." Kerr had written that,
"there’s no reason why the cooperation between North Korea and Iran discussed in [Couglin's] article would impact the US IC’s 5-10 year estimate. My understanding is that that estimate applies to Iran’s ability to produce HEU . . . North Korea’s program uses plutonium."
Because Couglin's article was confined to collaboration on warhead design, I surmised that this only left the transfer of nuclear fuel as a collaborative measure which might speed up the Iranian program. I'm not sure what else goes into building a bomb other than designing the warhead and procuring the fuel--these seem to be the two significant obstacles. So if the estimate applies to producing HEU, it seems reasonable to conclude that, in Kerr's opinion, only a transfer of fuel from North Korea to Iran would shorten the estimate.
Again, I spoke to no one who thought Coughlin's story was particularly credible. But the fact that Gertz later reported on ICBM collaboration between North Korea and Iran, and that Kerr later acknowledged that test data from North Korea would be valuable to Iran, led me to conclude that Kerr's skepticism had softened and Couglin's claims seemed more credible. If Kerr insists that none of this new information has led him to change his position, fine. But I think he's sticking his head in the sand. We must assume the worst about these two regimes, and any evidence that confirms those assumptions ought to be treated as serious, rather than dismissed out of hand.
By way of Red State, this clip from NBC News shows that U.S. troops "are increasingly frustrated by American [read Congressional] criticism of the war." Says 21-year-old SPC Tyler Johnson, "People are dying here, you know what I'm saying, you may support...oh, we support the troops but you're not supporting what they do, what they sweat for, what they bleed for, what they die for. That just don't make sense to me."
It doesn't make much sense to me either. You can't support the troops without supporting their mission.
A little good news from the war on terror. The AP reports that a relative of Osama bin Laden was killed in Madagascar yesterday in what family members are calling a burglary. The victim, Jamal Khalifa, was wanted in the Philippines "for alleged terror financing," was named by the U.S. government as an "unindicted co-conspirator" in the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center, and was married to one of bin Laden's sisters. According to Khalifa's brother, more than 25 armed men broke into the house, killed Khalifa while he was sleeping, and stole everything that wasn't nailed down, including computers.
Sounds suspiciously like a successful counterterror operation, but if not, it's still nice to see bad things happen to bad people. You can read more about Khalifa here.
There have been rumors for several days now that an attack in Karbala that resulted in the deaths of five American soldiers earlier this month was carried out directly by Iranian special forces. The American soldiers were meeting with local officials, and security was fairly tight. The attackers, 12 men disguised as American soldiers, were able to slip into the compound and capture four U.S. soldiers, leaving one more dead and several wounded.
The attackers fled east from Karbala in a convoy of SUVs, and soon aroused suspicions at an Iraqi checkpoint. The Iraqi police gave pursuit and found the trucks abandoned some 30 miles down the road, with two murdered American soldiers in the back of one truck, and another two laying dead on the road.
The efficiency, sophistication, and complexity of the attack all raised red-flags in the military community. As early as January 26, Bill Roggio was writing that, "based on the sophisticated nature of the raid, as well as the response, or cryptic non-responses, from multiple military and intelligence sources, this raid appears to have been directed and executed by the Qods Force branch of the Iranian Republican Guard Corps."
Other military bloggers drew the same conclusion, or were hearing the same things from their sources. Now CNN has confirmation from two different officials at the Defense Department--"the Iranian connection [is] a leading theory in the investigation."
Less than a week after the attack, President Bush announced that he had authorized American forces to kill or capture any Iranian agents found operating in Iraq. And administration officials made known their intention to offer substantial proof of Iranian meddling in Iraq. But now those plans have been put on hold.
Why would the administration hold back a "dossier" with detailed information about Iranian involvement in Iraq? In this country, the case against Iran is being made by the media already, and without much help from the administration. That Iran is supplying insurgent groups with weapons, training, and explosives is no longer a matter of speculation, but of fact, with new stories on the subject coming daily from mainstream media outlets. But the case against Iran has yet to be made effectively to the international community, which the administration has seemed so desperate to convince of the need for sanctions.
One possible explanation is that the administration has evidence of Iranian involvement that is so provocative that it would demand a serious American response--a response the administration just isn't prepared to undertake. Marvin Hutchens of threatswatch.org, speculated that "Negropante and company are withholding the report because they don't have an answer they can give in the current political climate (as to what to do next). The proper response to a nation making war on you is to respond in full kind. That is not something that can happen today--and in DC any discussion of doing so would end in disaster as the Iranians would receive more support than our Commander-in-Chief."
Last week at Davos, Senator John Kerry called the United States an " international pariah" while seated next to former Iranian president Mohammed Khatami.
Earlier today, James Baker endorsed President Bush's plan to surge troops into Baghdad, as did Lee Hamilton, who co-chaired the bipartisan Iraq Study Group with Baker. Baker told the Senate Foreign Relation Committee that "the president's plan ought to be given a chance . . . Just give it a chance." Said Hamilton, "If we can put this together there is a chance we can reasonably succeed. But we realize that is a very, very daunting challenge."
The Iraq Study Group's final report did recommend "a short-term redeployment or surge of American combat forces to stabilize Baghdad, or to speed up the training and equipping mission, if the U.S. commander in Iraq determines that such steps would be effective." And the U.S. commander, General David Petraeus, has determined just that. Democrats have been vociferous in their opposition to any proposed surge of troops, but in the days following the report's release, they overwhelmingly endorsed its recommendations.
Now that Baker and Hamilton have reiterated their support for an increase in troop numbers, Democrats will find themselves in the awkward position of having to go along with the plan or disavow the group's recommendations, which have otherwise been warmly embraced by the Democratic party. Either way, Baker and Hamilton have just made life a lot more difficult for Congressional Democrats, denying them the opportunity to hide behind a bipartisan commission as they push for withdrawal and defeat in Iraq.
Reader Bill Walsh sends along this story about the F-22's impressive training record last year. Among the highlights:
During a 6-week stay in Alaska, the 27th FS engaged in its first-ever, full-length exercise with the F-22, Northern Edge. In the first exercise week, while flying in joint teams with F-15 Eagles and F/A-18 Hornets, the Raptor was able to produce a whopping 144-to-0 kill ratio.
In the majority of missions, Raptors consisted of just one-quarter to one-third of the defending force, yet F-22s destroyed more than half of the enemy targets.
The F-22 also performed well in ground attack exercises:
More than 60 Joint Direct Attack Munitions (1,000-pound bombs) were dropped by Raptor pilots this summer; each punished the targets below hitting within six meters or less of the intended bull's-eyes. 26 bombs were dropped during Close Air Support exercises using a forward air controller, another first-attempt and complete success for the F-22.
Not to be outdone, the 94th FS took to the skies over Hill AFB in Utah and accomplished the first supersonic bomb drops for the F-22.
"Until then, no operational F-22 had ever done that," explained Lt. Col. Michael Hoepfner, 94th Fighter Squadron director of operations. "No other aircraft can get up to 1.5 mach at 50,000 feet and deliver a JDAM."
It's kinematics as it's best: Faster plane = faster bomb. Faster bomb = more dead targets.
If any of our readers can do the math, I'd love to know just what happens when a plane traveling at 1,200 mph drops a 1,000-pound bomb from 50,000 feet.
Bob Herbert wrote a really touching column yesterday about how the antiwar protesters that demonstrated on the Mall this weekend really do love America (Subscription).
Said Herbert, "You can say what you want about the people opposed to this wretched war in Iraq, try to stereotype them any way you can. But you couldn't walk among them for more than a few minutes on Saturday without realizing that they love their country as much as anyone ever has."
Unfortunately, that just isn't true. Approximately 300 anarchists showed how much they "love their country" by spray-painting anarchist symbols on the steps of the Capitol building. I know dissent is patriotic and all, but vandalizing a monument to American democracy means you don't love America.
Last week, the Telegraph's Con Coughlin reported that Iranian scientists had been sent to North Korea last fall to observe that country's nuclear test. Furthermore, Coughlin said the North Koreans were actively assisting the Iranians in their own preparations for a nuclear test.
The report was met with some skepticism--the estimable Dr. Jeffrey Lewis went so far as to call Coughlin a "super-hack." Paul Kerr, another well-respected expert, also mocked the report, pointing out that the Iranian program is designed around the use of highly enriched uranium (HEU) as weapons fuel, while the North Koreans used plutonium for the core of their weapon.
Now we have a report from Bill Gertz alleging intense cooperation on ICBM missile development between the two remaining members of the axis of evil. Also, Paul Kerr has changed his tune after consulting with a number of physicists who explained that the Iranians could still learn a great deal from the North Korean test, despite the use of HEU instead of plutonium. Lewis, too, seems less certain that such collaboration is unlikely.
The crux of this debate is whether or not the North Koreans will provide Iran enough assistance to shave months, or even years, off the time it will take Iran to build a bomb. Kerr points to statements from Bush administration officials asserting that Iran will need 5 to 10 years before being able to test a functioning nuclear weapon. In Kerr's opinion, the only way to significantly shorten that estimate was if the North Koreans sold weapons-grade fuel, presumably plutonium, to the Iranians. That seems unlikely, given North Korea's own limited supply, but the accumulating evidence of increased cooperation between the two countries is not good news. According to John Pike, director of globalsecurity.org, Iran could be ready to test as early as this summer.
So why has the administration not repudiated the U.S. intelligence community's fantastically optimistic 5-10 year estimate? One explanation is that the Bush administration is suffering from a credibility deficit after it overhyped the WMD threat from Iraq. But isn't the intelligence community just as much to blame, if not more so. Regardless, the Bush administration, and every other government, ought to err on the side of caution when dealing with Iran, which means assuming the worst case scenario: a nuclear Iran within the year.
By way of Blackfive, some very interesting comments by General James Conway, commandant of the Marine Corps.
On the media coverage of Iraq:
"We believe that our people are subject to some misinformation -- not intentional perhaps, but nevertheless if you talk to any troop that's been to Iraq or Afghanistan, they will paint you a significantly different picture, I think, from what's being captured here day in and day out, in the news . . . "
On "the casualty issue":
Conway said "the casualty issue" is "driving the thinking of our country." But he argued the United States has "lost perspective" when considering the number of deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan. "I have gone to way too many memorial services and written too many letters to families to dismiss this lightly," he said. But he said U.S. forces are losing "on average about two soldiers, or Marines, maybe sailors, a day," compared to 302 casualties a day during World War II. "We've lost just over 3,000 now, in the entirety of the war," he said. "Since we invaded Iraq we've lost 43,000 young men of military age on the highway of this country. . . . That does not transmit to our country. I've got to tell you, it just doesn't stick."
Conway added, "My view is, if it's important to the country, we should be able to sustain whatever it takes."
On the insurgency:
"I'll tell you, these people have a plan," Conway said. "And the plan is to boot us out of the Middle East, destroy Israel, take charge of the oil supply and then strangle us to the point where we'll have no choice but to go back in."
On Marines:
Conway also said he wants every Marine in the existing force to get combat experience. He said he issued a directive Jan. 19 to implement this goal, which will affect about 35,000 Marines that have not seen combat. "I just think we need to give every Marine that opportunity," he said.
From the Jerusalem Post (HT the Corner): What a nuclear Iran would do, by Barry Rubin.
From BBC: Gaffes tarnish Royal's campaign, by Clive Myrie.
From the Washington Times: How the 'axis' seeks the killer missile, by Bill Gertz.
From the Fourth Rail: Iraqi Army battles Shia cult, Sunni insurgents in Najaf, by Bill Roggio.
From Defense News: After China Test, U.S. Lawmaker Urges More Space Spending, by William Matthews.
Rep. Gene Taylor, chairman of the House Seapower and Expeditionary Forces Subcommittee, is talking about making the Navy's next-generation Cruiser, CG(X), a nuclear-powered ship. Late last year, Taylor made clear his intention to increase the size of the fleet, and to make sure that as many vessels as possible would rely on nuclear propulsion, so as to reduce the Navy's dependence on oil. There had been some speculation that Taylor wanted to see the spectacularly over-budget DDG 1000, and possibly even the LCS, redesigned to incorporate a nuclear propulsion system, but that idea seems to have been dropped in favor of focusing on the still-on-the-drawing-board CG(X).
Earlier this month I spoke with Robert Work of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessment about Taylor's plans to expand the Navy's use of nuclear power to ships other than carriers and submarines. He said oil would have to cost more than twice what it does now to justify the added expense. But Taylor seems totally unconcerned with cost, so long as the Navy has the right equipment.
“They’re [the Navy] still saying, ‘It’s going to cost more. Can we afford it?’ And I’m saying, ‘Look, don’t you worry about that side of it. Just think about the future. And let’s build us a ship that’s going to last 30 years. And let me make the case that, yes, it’s more than worth the 10 percent extra.’”
The more I hear from Taylor, the more I like him.
Two truly silly statements from the Democratic leadership.
First, Madame Speaker Nancy Pelosi (HT Real Clear Politics):
"I believe redeployment of our troops is a step toward stability in the region.''
Next up, Democratic Majority Leader Steny Hoyer:
"I would propose that [a] conference be carried out under U.N. auspices, with robust involvement from various Iraqi factions, neighboring countries, key Middle East nations, the European Union and others, with the hope of brokering deals on securing Iraq's borders, disbanding militias, finalizing the constitution, establishing divisions of power and oil resources, and other issues."
And in the same breadth:
"While the world can and should critically evaluate the administration's flawed execution of this war, we cannot ignore the central argument that our action was, in part, a consequence of the international community's failure to act multilaterally . . . The U.N. only talked in the face of international violations, even though history demonstrates that vacillation only emboldens those who seek to rule through force and terror."
So the solution is to withdraw American forces and hope the international community can talk the militias out of killing each other, even though America was forced to act unilaterally by the failure of the international community to show any resolve. Which was the reality-based party again?
Defense Update has more news on the Pentagon's plans to deploy 4,100 additional mine resistant ambush protected (MRAP) vehicles to Iraq within the year. Over the next two months, the Navy, which is managing the project, will test commercially available vehicles from nine different companies before selecting a winner. Among those competing is Force Protection Industries Inc., which manufactures the Cougar Joint Explosive Ordnance Disposal Rapid Response Vehicle, which you can read about here.
These vehicles can play an important role in reducing IED-related casualties, so we will keep an eye on this program as it moves along.
I'll take the one on the left.
Jane Fonda spoke to antiwar protesters on the National Mall yesterday. She also wore a button that read "Vietnam Veterans Against the War." I'm sure there are many Vietnam veterans who are opposed to the war in Iraq, but wouldn't it be more appropriate if Fonda wore a button that read "NVA Veterans Against the War."
Courtesy of Associated Press
There's no denying it, the F-22 is the most advanced fighter in the world. Stealthy, maneuverable, and lethal, it is without rival. Still, there may yet be a few kinks to work out.
First, Defense Tech reports that the F-22, unlike many older fighters, was built without the ability to send data. Hard to believe, but F-22 pilots need to pass on all information through the comm system. Defense Tech's David Axe: "I asked the Raptor jockeys at Virginia's Langley Air Force Base about this last year and they shifted uncomfortably in their seats while feeding me some line about how voice comms work just fine." Axe says a fix is in the works. But according to Aviation Week & Space Technology (via Defense News), the F-22 is also having problems receiving data.
Essential electronic surveillance systems used by the F-22 may be too sensitive--overwhelmed by the density of U.S. and allied emitters--to be useful in the electronically polluted environment of Baghdad.
The good news is that the F-22 was not built to provide close air support in a war like that being fought in Iraq. Still, at $350 million each, it'd be nice if the plane was able to send and receive information about where the enemy is. It's still an amazing plane, and I'm sure the Air Force will get these early problems ironed out, but one shudders to think how much it might cost.
This thing doesn't have internet?
That's the question Johns Hopkins history professor David A. Bell asked in yesterday's Los Angeles Times. Because so few were killed that day, at least relative to the number of Russians killed in the Second World War, Bell thinks we might have overreacted.
Certainly, if we look at nothing but our enemies' objectives, it is hard to see any indication of an overreaction. The people who attacked us in 2001 are indeed hate-filled fanatics who would like nothing better than to destroy this country. But desire is not the same thing as capacity, and although Islamist extremists can certainly do huge amounts of harm around the world, it is quite different to suggest that they can threaten the existence of the United States.
Occasional WEEKLY STANDARD contributor Michael Tanji had this to say in response to Bell's question:
When I ran a warning shop I used to love hearing this from all the blind-wearing nay-sayers. Someone doesn't have ICBMs so they're not a threat. Someone can't project force via an aircraft carrier, so they're not a threat. I watched two kids in western Europe trump the best technical defenses of the government--better than rival nation-states--but for some reason they weren't a threat. It is as if the entire body of unconventional warfare doesn't exist for these people. Save for the suitcase nuke, the first four hours of '24' this season could be playing out today. Capacity is not the issue. Fact is they don't need to cause excessive death/destruction because they are threatening our existence without it. Every "loyal dissenter" says they would not have voted 'yes' then if they knew what they knew now; yet with the threat of Iran dancing in their faces they refuse act accordingly because THIS TIME they're not going to be DUPED.
Over at the Corner, John Podhoretz linked to another interesting response, this one from Tim Sumner of 9/11 Families for a Safe and Strong America. In case you don't have the time to read it, his answer is yes...9/11 was really that bad.
A bizarre story from the Baltimore Sun brings word of an impending crisis at the National Security Agency. Senator John D. Rockefeller is calling it "a national catastrophe," in as little as two years the electrical demands of the NSA may outstrip supply.
Rockefeller, who heads the Senate Intelligence Committee, gave an interview to the Sun yesterday. He said that officials at the NSA "were so busy doing what various people wanted that they forgot to understand that they were running out of power, and that's sort of a national catastrophe."
The Sun reports that the NSA uses 65 to 75 megawatt-hours of electricity and expects demand at the facility to increase an additional 10 to 15 megawatt-hours by next fall. The NSA has "shut off some equipment and delayed plugging in some new supercomputers," in order to reduce demand. ACLU members, sleep easy, the NSA is powerless to bug your phones.
The future of the NSA: Hand Operated Red Analog.
It's been a busy week in India, where Vladimir Putin was greeted with much the same treatment as President Bush got during his visit in March of last year. Putin's visit was preceded by the announcement of increased military cooperation between the two countries, specifically a joint project to develop a fifth-generation fighter jet that will compete with the American-led F-35 project. That project will be in addition to a further $18 billion worth of arms India has already agreed to buy from Russia through 2010, including 16 MiG-29Ks for carrier operations. Putin's visit also included an offer to build four more nuclear power plants in India in addition to the two which are already under construction.
Of course, this all comes in the wake of great efforts by the Bush administration to forge closer ties between the United States and India. Last month in the pages of THE WEEKLY STANDARD, Daniel Twining described India as a potential "swing state" that could help offset the growing military and economic power of China. Said Twining:
The United States has an enormous stake in the success of a rich, confident, democratic India that shares American ambitions to manage Chinese power, protect Indian Ocean sea lanes, safeguard an open international economy, stabilize a volatile region encompassing the heartland of jihadist extremism in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and prove to all those enamored of the Chinese model of authoritarian development that democracy is the firmest foundation for the achievement of humankind's most basic aspirations.
The idea is that India and the United States are natural allies. But some are skeptical that India is ready to assume the mantle of responsible world power. Closer ties with an ever more authoritarian Russia don't bode well.
The first MiG-29KUB undergoes flight testing in Russia earlier this week.
(Courtesy RIA Novosti, Sergey Pyatakov)
From WEEKLY STANDARD contributing editor Gerard Baker in today's Times:
All politicians, sadly, lie. We can often forgive the lies as the necessary price paid to win popularity for a noble cause. But the Clinton candidacy is a Grand Deceit, an entirely artificial construct built around a person who, stripped bare of the cynicism, manipulation and calculation, is nothing more than an enormous, overpowering and rather terrifying ego.
Read the whole thing here.
Did President Bush provoke China's ASAT test with the "tough talk" of his administration's new national space policy? Theresa Hitchens thinks so. So does Russian General Leonid Ivashov. Now Michael Krepon has added his voice to the chorus, saying "if further evidence were needed that the Bush administration's tough talk backfires, China's test of an anti-satellite weapon will do."
Sure, Krepon was agitating against the new policy from day one. And he neglects to mention that the Chinese made three failed attempts at bringing down a satellite between October 2005 and November 2006 before finally succeeding this month. And he also concedes that any negotiated restrictions would be unlikely to deter the Chinese from further research and testing--"rules don't stop rule-breakers," he says. Yet he would have the United States negotiate a new set of rules and abide by them. Why, you ask? "[H]aving one set of rules allows us to identify, isolate and punish bad actors." Does anyone really believe that the international community would take action against China under such circumstances?
From Middle East Quarterly: My Problem with Jimmy Carter's Book, by Kenneth W. Stein.
From the New York Sun: Turnaround in Baghdad, by Nibras Kazimi.
From City Journal:Yes, Rudy Giuliani Is a Conservative, by Steven Malanga.
From Newsweek: Interview with Lin Chong-Pin, former Taiwan vice defense minister, by Jonathan Adams.
From the L.A. Times: Cooperative tone of Sadr surprises U.S., by Borzou Daragahi.
From the Washington Times: Untie Military Hands, by James A. Lyons Jr.
The former secretary-general of Hezbollah, Sheikh Subhi Al-Tufeili, gave an interview to the Kuwaiti daily Al Siyassa in December of last year. MEMRI posted the translation nearly a week ago, but it hasn't gotten as much attention as it deserves.
The most relevant excerpts follow, but it's worth reading the whole thing.
Question: "Does this mean that Hizbullah does not make its own decisions, and that its orders come from outside [Lebanon]?"
Al-Tufeili: "Yes, Hizbullah is a tool, and it is an integral part of the Iranian intelligence apparatus. Unfortunately, all the elements in the [Lebanese] arena have become tools, and take orders from outside [Lebanon] . . . "
Question: "Can you see any justification for the July [2006] war after southern Lebanon was liberated in 2000?"
Al-Tufeili: . . . "When we look at the causes of the war, there is no choice but to [admit] this. If [the war] had gotten worse, it could have led to the loss of the [entire] country . . . Are we allowed to destroy our country [just] so we can say that we abducted two soldiers - when we all knew what the magnitude of the Israeli response [would be]? What happened was an unsuccessful adventure, and there is no escaping the fact that those who carried it out will bear the responsibility for it . . . "
In the coverage of last summer's war between Israel and Hezbollah, two themes came to dominate the narrative. First, every major news outlet estimated Lebanese casualties at around 1,200, "mostly civilians." Just search Google News for "Lebanon" and "mostly civilians" and you'll see the oft repeated numbers--at least 44 current news stories echo the claim, which was a staple of international reporting on the conflict in the months after the war. (As far as Israeli casualties, those numbers are uniformly, and accurately, given as 157 killed, "mostly soldiers," though not for lack of effort by Hezbollah to kill civilians.)
Only that isn't the case at all. To my mind it is impossible that the Lebanese government and human rights organizations didn't err in favor of a higher body count, but let's say that 1,200 is an accurate number. The Lebanese government draws no distinction between dead civilians and Hezbollah fighters, but during the war Hezbollah claimed only 70 of its men had been killed, and later revised that number upward to 250. The AP's estimate for Hezbollah casualties is, suprise!, 250. That the AP, and every other mainstream media outlet, unquestioningly accepted Hezbollah's count is laughable. Israeli estimates of dead Hezbollah fighters initially stood at 800. Those numbers were subsequently revised down to 532 confirmed dead, of which the IDF claims it can verify individual names and addresses, and a further 200 which cannot be confirmed. So that means approximately 732 Hezbollah fighters were killed out of 1,200. Even if one assumes the Israelis fudged their numbers, one must certainly assume the same of the Lebanese. By any measure then, Lebanese losses were not comprised of "mostly civilians."
The other dominating theme of press coverage last summer was that the IDF's bombing campaign risked driving the Lebanese public into the arms of Hezbollah. As John O'Sullivan put it, "Instead of destroying Hezbollah and strengthening Lebanon as a democratic state, it [the bombing campaign] destroyed much of Lebanon physically, weakened its new democratic government, and strengthened Hezbollah."
That even National Review bought into the "Israel lost" narrative is telling. Sure, Israel didn't win a decisive victory, but as healthy as Hezbollah appeared late last summer, it is now clear that the movement was suffering from the equivalent of severe internal injuries. As the violence in Lebanon spins out of control, Hezbollah looks less and less like the winner of last summer's war. Blogging from Beirut, Christopher Allbritton, a former reporter for the AP and the New York Daily News, writes that Hezbollah has, in fact, alienated its countrymen.
Today’s violence shows that Hezbollah no longer controls the opposition movement it created. Months of animosity over the war, the parliamentary paralysis and calls for changing the government has hardened positions among the Sunni, who increasingly see the Shi’a as responsible for last summer’s war and more loyal to Iran than to Lebanon. In short, the Shi’ite militant group has pushed its political opponents too far.
Whatever the outcome in Lebanon, it is a mistake to believe that Israel's campaign was entirely ineffective, or that Hezbollah was strengthened by the conflict. Certainly it was a mistake to believe that Lebanon's minorities were pushed into the waiting arms of Hezbollah. Sunnis are chanting pro-American slogans in the streets of Beirut. Lebanon is probably the only place outside of Iraqi Kurdistan where such a thing would be possible.
Michael Oren's op-ed in yesterday's New York Times comes in for some tough criticism at the Commentary blog, where Hillel Halkin chides the usually hawkish Oren for his willingness to "give up the unchanging for the contingent and the certain for the unpredictable."
Rumors of talks between Syria and Israel over the Golan are flying, and Oren says that such negotiations are taking place without American approval. Oren's analysis is that a peace treaty between Syria and Israel would allow "Israel . . . to address the Iranian nuclear threat--perhaps by military means--without fear of retribution from Syrian ground forces and missiles."
Halkin has a different take. While Halkin is less concerned with American opinion (Oren writes that "the potentially disparate positions of Israel and the United States on the question of peace with Syria could trigger a significant crisis between the two countries"), he counsels against trading away the Golan for so little--"land is an unchanging asset; it never loses its value." Hezbollah, he says, would still be free to retaliate against any Israeli strike on Iran, while political changes in Syria a few years down the road might leave Israel vulnerable to a more determined enemy on the high ground of the Golan. I find Halkin's argument much more persuasive.
On Tuesday, Commandant Gen. James Conway, ranking officer of the Marine Corps, told the House Armed Services Committee that surging U.S. Marines into Al Anbar beyond six or seven months would diminish the Corps's ability to respond to other potential hot spots.
We feel like we would be able to respond with those forces that are not committed to Iraq or Afghanistan, but the response would be slower than we might like, would not have all the equipment sets that [would] ordinarily be the case, and there’s certainly risk associated with that.
We already knew the Marine Corps was too small to carry out all the missions that are asked of it, and an increased deployment to Iraq will have an effect on readiness, but one wonders if Conway isn't exaggerating just a little bit in order to create a more favorable environment for increased funding. Still, the commandant made clear that the Corps was prepared for a long-term commitment to stabilizing Iraq:
I have seen it [the surge] characterized as a ‘hail Mary’ and that’s the last play of the game. I don’t necessarily see it that way. I think this is the latest in a series of operations to attempt to stabilize Baghdad and the Al Anbar province. And I’m not sure it will be the last.
MEMRI has translated an interview given by Hezbollah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah to Al Manar TV, Hezbollah's official media outlet. Strangely, Nasrallah offers some praise for his sworn enemy, "the Zionist entity":
I have said on several occasions that our enemy possesses some aspects that I wish we possessed--or that our countries or governments possessed. For example . . . I even praised Sharon once. I said that although this man is a criminal, a killer, a butcher, and a blood-shedder, there is something positive about the Zionists: They do not abandon their prisoners, and they do not abandon even their prisoners’ bodies, or their remains, even 50 or 60 years after their deaths. This is a positive aspect that you must respect in your enemy.
Funny that a man who has done so much to promote a culture of death and martyrdom among his own people would praise Israel for its commitment to preserving the lives, and returning the remains, of its own soldiers. Nasrallah also addressed the conflict in Iraq, suggesting that "Jihad against the occupation forces" is the only way forward for Iraqis. It seems likely that Nasrallah's Iranian sponsors take a similar view of the war in Iraq, and his comments only further undermine the idea that Iran might somehow become a partner for peace in Iraq.
As Iranian proxy Hezbollah works to destabilize Lebanon's pro-Western government through violence and intimidation, another Shiite group is emulating that strategy in Yemen. According to the World Tribune, the radical Shiite Believing Youth has, with Iranian support, been waging an off-and-on insurgency against the government of Yemen for the past 3 years. Now this latests report has the group driving a small community of Jews from their village in the north of the country. The group's ultimatum read, "it has become clear to us that they were doing things which serve mainly Zionism, which seeks to corrupt the people and distance them from their principles, their values, their morals, and their religion." The Jews were given 10 days to leave the country.
Yemen is no democracy, but writing in THE DAILY STANDARD in October of last year, Abigail Lavin described that country's first tentative steps towards elected government. It seems wherever there is progress in the Middle East--Lebanon, Iraq, Yemen--there is also the malign influence of Iran in the form of terrorism and insurgency.
ABC News anchor Chris Cuomo was in an up-armored Humvee on the streets of Baghdad this morning when the convoy he was traveling in was hit with small arms fire and two IEDs. Cuomo escaped unharmed, and the soldiers he was with had only "minor injuries." According to Cuomo, each IED was concealed beneath a corpse.
Cuomo had nothing but praise for the troops of the 410th MP Company. In an interview with ABC shortly after the attack, Cuomo was effusive in describing their performance under fire: "They are saving me, they are perfect, they are beyond expectation, they are supermen in green outfits."
A couple of journalists from the Detroit Free Press wrote a column earlier this month that conveyed their similarly overwhelming gratitude to the Reserve Marines of the 1st Battalion of the 24th Marine Regiment. You should definitely take the time to read their story.
Did the Islamic Republic really send experts to observe the North Korean nuke test last fall? Writing in the Telegraph, Con Coughlin mentions unconfirmed reports to that effect, and, citing an unnamed "European defence official," claims that the North Koreans invited Iranian scientists "to study the results of last October's underground test to assist Teheran's preparations to conduct its own--possibly by the end of this year."
According to John Pike, director of globalsecurity.org, Iran could be ready to test a nuclear weapon as early as May of this year. Pike was skeptical that they would, saying such a test would likely be "more trouble than it's worth," but, assuming Russia delivers fuel for the newly built reactor at Bushehr some time this spring, and assuming the Iranians divert that fuel and start enriching it as soon as it is received, the worst case scenario is a nuclear Iran by this summer.
Pike said he had no reason to doubt reports of collaboration, but confirming such reports would be nearly impossible. Still, Pike says that between Pakistan, North Korean, and Iran, what we are seeing is "one [nuclear weapons] program doing business in 3 places." So does anyone still believe that Iran's nuclear program might not be a weapons program? Last night on MSNBC, Hillary Clinton had this to say about Iran:
Right now we are flying blind when it comes to Iran. We don't have good intelligence about Iran, about, you know, what their real motivations are, who is calling the shots. The same with Syria. And I would immediately open a diplomatic track.
And I don't think we would lose. In fact, I think we would gain insight. I mean, if we have to take a firm stand against Iran to prevent it from obtaining nuclear weapons, let's get more information before we do that.
We do have to take a firm stand against Iran to prevent it from obtaining nuclear weapons, and the only information we need before doing that is how far along the program is and where the critical facilities are. It's highly unlikely a diplomatic track would provide answers to either of those questions.
The editors over at Foreign Policy have a very amusing post on the copy at China's People's Daily over the past week. It's all very reassuring.
Concerned about China's rise? Here are some recent headlines for you:
* China's development an opportunity, not threat
* Chinese economy does not pose any threat to world
* China says it opposes arms races in space
* How the move for "harmonious East Asia" goes forward?
All that's missing is some talk of a Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere.
The junior senator from New York will have a busy schedule over the next 2 years, what with all the campaign stops, TV appearances, and her work in the Senate. Which is why her decision to pursue as many committee assignments as possible seems a bit strange. Elizabeth Benjamin, blogging at Albany's Times Union, points out that Clinton will serve on no less than 3 subcommittees of the Senate Armed Services Committee. And this is in addition to her work on the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, of which she chairs the subcommittee on Superfund and Environmental Health.
Benjamin also notes that John Kerry's absence from the Senate during his 2004 run prompted considerable criticism. What kind of criticism will Clinton come in for if she is only occasionally able to attend meetings of the Emerging Threats and Capabilities subcommittee, which has jurisdiction over:
policies and programs to counter emerging threats (such as proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, terrorism, illegal drugs, and other asymmetric threats); information warfare programs; technology base programs; special operations programs; emerging operational concepts; Foreign Military Sales (FMS); technology export policies; Nunn-Lugar cooperative threat reduction program issues; DOE non-proliferation programs; doctrine and R & D supporting non-traditional military operations, including peacekeeping and low-intensity conflict; and DOD commands and agencies including Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA); Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA); Defense Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA); and SOCOM.
According to the AP, "the Defense Department [yesterday] exempted the Navy from complying with the Marine Mammal Protection Act for the next two years so sailors may practice tracking submarines with sonar."
Cara Horowitz, a lawyer with the Natural Resources Defense Council, said that there was no reason for the Navy to delay in taking immediate and "commonsense" measures to protect the animals--"adopt a larger safety zone around its ships, reduce the power of sonar at night when marine mammals are harder to see and thus protect, and avoid training in rich marine mammal habitats." Maybe we can negotiate a treaty with the Chinese that any conflict over Taiwan would be fought only during the daytime and in waters devoid of marine life.
Iranian Defense Minister Mostafa Mohammad Najar signed a memorandum of understanding with Leonid Maltsev, his Belorussian counterpart, yesterday. According to UPI, "the agreement formalizes the development of relations between Iran and Belarus, emphasizing expanding and solidifying defense ties between the countries."
Belarus is often referred to as Europe's last dictatorship, and Condoleezza Rice included the country in a list of six "outposts of tyranny" during her confirmation hearings in early 2005.
Iran has been a lucrative market for military exports from Belarus, which include tanks, artillery, and APCs, and Belarus has offered outspoken support for Iran's nuclear program in exchange. The Bush administration accused Belarus of selling military communication equipment to Iraq prior to the 2003 invasion and in violation of a U.N. embargo, so it seems unlikely there is any limit to the support Belarus might offer Iran in the absence of any international sanctions regime. Of course this is just the latest example of Iran cozying up to the world's most offensive regimes. Said Ahmadinejad, “In the light of their current abundant potentials, Iran and Belarus can complement each other in different areas.” Causing trouble seems to be the only thing for which these two regimes have "abundant potential."
Belarus Defense Minister Leonid Maltsev and his Iranian counterpart Mostafa Mohammad-Najjar; from IRNA.
The Los Angeles Times reports today on the "scant evidence" of an Iran-Iraq arms link. And what evidence does the Times offer to back up this claim?
During a recent sweep through a stronghold of Sunni insurgents here, a single Iranian machine gun turned up among dozens of arms caches U.S. troops uncovered.
No surprise there, Iran is unlikely to funnel weapons and cash to Sunni insurgents (though it shouldn't be ruled out). Still, the Times concedes "that U.S. forces have picked up specially shaped charges used to make roadside bombs capable of penetrating advanced armor . . . with markings that could be traced to Iran and dates that were recent."
"Two years ago we were debating whether this was really happening," the [high-ranking intelligence] official said. "Now the debate is over."
So, "the debate is over," and every serious discussion of the IEDs focuses on the increased lethality of the devices owing to the influence of Iran--and the Times admits as much:
A second high-ranking U.S. intelligence official in Washington acknowledged that only a "small percentage" of explosions in Iraq could be linked to shaped charges coming from Iran.
"But in terms of American casualties, they are significant," he said, because they are much more lethal than standard roadside bombs.
How on earth, then, does the Times run a story under the headline "Scant evidence found of Iran-Iraq arms link"?
| | | |
