May 19, 2008 • Vol. 13, No. 34
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
« May 2007 |
Main
| July 2007 »
President Bush will entertain his Russian counterpart at Kennebunkport this weekend, and they have a lot to talk about. Putin is fresh off a meeting with Hugo Chavez--a good customer for conventional arms who's kicking the tires on an Iran-style nuclear program. And while Putin's Russia has become more cooperative in recent years in non-proliferation efforts, Chavez might be hoping to convince Putin that his oil money is just as good as Iran's.
 The main building of Iran's Bushehr nuclear power plant,
which was built with Russian technology and expertise. Somewhere between the 'frank exchanges of views,' Putin and Bush might find time to highlight an agreement on nuclear cooperation that the two nations will soon sign:
Such an agreement marks a significant change in US policy. Under the Clinton administration, most nuclear cooperation with Russia was prohibited because of Moscow's pivotal role in building Iran's $US800 million ($NZ1.067 billion) nuclear power plant at Bushehr.
But Bush administration officials, arguing Russia has increasingly co-operated on Iran and other non-proliferation issues, reversed that...
The American Council on Global Nuclear Competitiveness, which represents nuclear and energy experts, has backed a nuclear cooperation agreement with Russia.
The council says the accord would help the United States gain access to Russia's fast-spectrum reactor technology while providing Russia with the opportunity to learn from America's extensive fast reactor experience.
Presidents Bush and Putin set this agreement as a goal when they met at the G-8 in July, 2006. With the renewed attention to nuclear power in Washington, such an accord could go a long way to helping the United States catch up on fast reactor technology--an area where our long absence from 'the nuclear game' has left us far behind. Without a '123 agreement,' only the most limited of exchanges are possible; that's the reason nuclear power proponents rate this deal a priority.
But backers also stress the value of the accord to non-proliferation efforts. They argue that Russia has made great strides and is working as an ally on Iran's program. Part of the reason is that the U.S. held out this treaty as an incentive. If it goes into effect, Russia can become a repository of spent fuel from Taiwan and South Korea. That might reduce the amount of spent fuel available for reprocessing and use in nuclear weapons, and provide Russia with a new source of revenues, and one dependent on its 'good behavior' in the counter-proliferation world.
Congress may yet prove a stumbling block, though. The US-Russia agreement can be blocked by a joint resolution of both Houses. And more directly, such an agreement could be specifically barred by the terms of the Iran Counter-Proliferation Act, which I wrote about here just a few days ago. That legislation would preclude bilateral cooperation agreements "with Russia or with any other countries assisting Iran's nuclear or missile or advanced conventional weapons programmes."
Congress will get 90 days to assess the agreement after it's signed. So once Bush wraps up his frank discussions with Putin, he may have to start a new round with Capitol Hill.
From the Moscow Times: Chavez Lashes Out, Putin is Low Key, by Anna Smolchenko.
From CFR: Soul-Searching in Kennebunkport, by Lionel Beehner.
From Policy Review: Terrorism, the Military, and the Courts, by Benjamin Wittes.
From In From the Cold: General Cartwright's Blog, by Spook86.
From the New York Sun: Bush's Moment of Truth, by the editors.
 From Edmunds: Beijing Jeep has introduced this new product, the first new vehicle for China's military in 35 years. Xinhua reports that the Chinese military will also be getting new uniforms to go along with their new rides.
In what has become something of an annual ritual, the House of Representatives yesterday approved an amendment to appropriations legislation to expand commerce with Cuba. But while the House has voted every year since 1999 either to lift the embargo or the travel ban, this year it limited itself to an important technical change that would kick start farm exports to the island dictatorship:
By voice vote, the House adopted an amendment by Jerry Moran, R-Kan., that would block the Treasury Department from enforcing a rule that has effectively limited agricultural sales to Cuba. The rule requires payments for U.S. goods to be made before a ship leaves port. It replaced an earlier regulation that allowed U.S. firms to accept payment after the goods were received in Cuba.
Moran said the current restriction is “disruptive” to the U.S. economy and hurts the country’s reputation as an exporter because it slows the flow of agricultural goods.
In a brief House floor debate on the amendment, supporters argued that Cuba is--technically--open to U.S. agricultural exports now, due to an exemption from the embargo approved in 2000. Two years ago, however, the Treasury Department began to require that Cuba pay for these goods before they are shipped.
And why is that such a problem? Because Cuba doesn't pay its bills. This is from the floor statement of Congressman Lincoln Diaz-Balart, a Cuban American proponent of the existing policy:
[The 2005 amendment] stemmed from requests by U.S. financial institutions that were becoming concerned by the increasingly slow rate of payment for agricultural sales by the Cuban regime. The financial institutions requested OFAC to clarify the legislative intent of cash in advance, which is in the law, in order to protect the interests of those financial institutions on their claims.
The Cuban regime's entity in charge of agricultural purchases has an abysmal record of not paying its creditors and has been known to extort or seek to extort agricultural associations in order to increase the regime's lobbying pressure in favor of the unconditional lifting of sanctions, which is sought by the regime. The regime promises more agriculture purchases if agriculture interests lobby Congress for what the regime seeks, an end to sanctions. In effect, the opening of mass U.S. tourism and trade finance.
Currently, Mr. Chairman, the Cuban regime's foreign debt represents close to 800 percent of its GDP, and it is ranked by international credit agencies as the second worst, if not the worst, credit risk in the world. Countries throughout the world are taking extreme measures to obtain restitution for billions of dollars they are owed, which the Cuban regime refuses to pay.
It's not the change in Congressional leadership that's led Cuba trade advocates to lower their sights, according to the WEEKLY STANDARD''s own Duncan Currie. He says "there was not an anti-embargo majority when Republicans were in control; now, my guess is, there would be. But if any bill weakening Cuba sanctions reaches his desk, President Bush will veto it... he has been absolutely consistent on this issue."
And in case you think President Bush might change his mind, the 'Statement of Administration Policy' on the bill includes this rather clear statement: 'If the final version of the bill contained a provision that weakens current restrictions against Cuba, the President would veto the bill.'
So if Fidel wants to enjoy any American farm products before the good Lord takes him away, he'd better get out his checkbook.
More details have emerged on the operations in the Thar Thar region of Anbar province. Meanwhile, operations in Baghdad and Baqubah continue to evolve, while the Iraqi and U.S. recruiting and training of local police south and west of Baghdad is showing some positive results.
The 3rd Battalion, 1st Marines [3/1] are conducting clearing operations in the Thar Thar region of Anbar province. Brigadier General Charles Gurganus, the commanding general of the Ground Combat Element, Multi-National Force-West said he expected to encounter light resistance and find weapons caches and factories during an interview earlier this week.
 A U.S. soldier walks past women in line waiting for the
distribution of relief supplies in Baquba, June 28, 2007.
REUTERS/Helmiy al-Azawi Marines.com reported that the operation in the Thar Thar region is called China Shop, and the 3/1 found three large caches on June 25 and 26. "The first cache reportedly contained more than 121 IEDs, more than half of which were already armed. The devices included “speed bump” IEDs, often placed or buried in roads ... The second find was the largest of the three. A house search uncovered a room containing a high-explosive stack nearly three feet high draped in a United Nations flag. Battalion personnel estimate the material could have been used to construct more than 80 large IEDs ... The third cache ... [contained] various small arms munitions, a rocket-propelled grenade, 10 pressure plate IEDs and other bomb making material."
The raids against al Qaeda's network are ongoing. Coalition Forces killed three al Qaeda operatives and captured 26 during operations Friday in Fallujah, Karmah, Baghdad, and Mosul.
Kinetic operations are said to be "winding down" in Baqubah, the focal point of Operation Arrowhead Ripper in Diyala province. "With almost no hostile fire reported in days, combat operations are winding down," said Drew Brown in Stars and Stripes "The focus of the effort now is to consolidate control and persuade local residents to begin cooperating with U.S. troops and Iraqi security forces."
David Kilcullen the Senior Counterinsurgency Adviser for Multinational Forces Iraq described this phase in an update on the scope of the operation at Small War Journal. "The really decisive activity will be police work, registration of the population and counterintelligence in these areas, to comb out the insurgent sleeper cells and political cells that have 'gone quiet' as we moved in, but which will try to survive through the op and emerge later," said Kilcullen. "This will take operational patience, and it will be intelligence-led, and Iraqi government-led. It will probably not make the news (the really important stuff rarely does) but it will be the truly decisive action."
In Baghdad, clearing operations have focused on the Rashid District in the west and New Baghdad (or Sadr City) in the east. In the Rashid neighborhood of Amil, U.S. forces found a cache of Iranian-made rocket parts, which included "several empty 107mm cases with the same lot numbers as those seized June 17, one rocket launcher, materials to build more than 50 launchers, 13 60mm mortar rounds, one 81mm mortar, rocket-propelled grenades, a large quantity of homemade and plastic explosives," and small arms and ammunition. Also, two weapons caches were found in mosques in Rashid. Seven insurgents were killed and 17 captured since June 27.
In the Risalah neighborhood, three insurgents were killed and seven captured on June 28. "An alleged IED cell member with known connections to Jaish Al-Mahdi leaders" and a "financier of a local terrorist cell" were among those captured. In Sadr City, Coalition soldiers captured five insurgents and uncovered three small weapons caches.
To the south and west of Baghdad, the recruiting and training of local police is ongoing. Eight hundred police graduated from the six-week long emergency response [ERU] unit training course. ERUs fall under the command of the provincial governor. The police will be deployed in Haswah, Bahbahhani, Eskan, Iskandariyah, and Musayyib in northern Babil province.
Over 600 candidates volunteered for the local police in the Nasir Wa Salam and Abu Ghraib neighborhoods west of Baghdad. The local tribes encouraged their members to join the police to fight al Qaeda. “The first day was a resounding success,” said Lt. Col. Peter Andrysiak, deputy commander for 1st “Ironhorse” Brigade Combat Team, 1st Cavalry Division. “The large turn out was not entirely unexpected. We have been working with reconcilable tribal leaders and the government of Iraq to make this happen.”
The co-opting of tribal leaders and insurgent groups formerly hostile to U.S. forces and the Iraqi government is reconciliation at the local level. The police will also be executing "the really decisive activity" during the next phase of securing Iraq as described by Kilcullen.
Earlier this week in Washington, I had the opportunity to sit down for an informal discussion with visiting German defense minister Franz-Josef Jung. While the mounting security risks for Germany’s more than 3,500 soldiers currently deployed in Afghanistan certainly ranked high on his political agenda, the conservative CDU minister also warned that the on-going diplomatic wrangling over the future status of Kosovo could be a source of massive international tensions. The province of Kosovo, inhabited by about two million mainly ethnic Albanian Muslims, remains in a legal limbo since being run as a UN protectorate following NATO’s March 1999 bombing campaign that drove out then-Yugoslav strong man Slobodan Milosevic.
Today, many European political leaders fear that a potential unilateral declaration of independence by Kosovo, without UN Security Council backing and subsequently recognized by Washington, would not only do serious harm to relations with Russia but could also drive a wedge through the 27-nation EU. In the nightmare scenario, some EU members (like the UK) would follow the U.S. lead and recognize an independent Kosovo while others (Greece, Cyprus, Bulgaria, etc.) would continue to support the government in Belgrade, which views an independent Kosovo as a blatant violation of Serbia’s territorial integrity. The remaining EU members--including key powers such as Germany, France, and Italy--would suddenly be caught in the middle of an ugly, damaging international "recognition race" over Kosovo.
In February this year, UN special envoy Martti Ahtisaari presented a status proposal that would, in essence, put Kosovo on track for eventual statehood and independence under temporary EU supervision. For instance, while Ahtisaari’s plan carefully avoids the word "independence," it gives Kosovo the right to negotiate and conclude international agreements, establish a Kosovo Security Force, and adopt national symbols. Serbia is firmly opposed to Kosovo’s independence and has already rejected the Ahtisaari proposal. Moscow, for its part, has made clear that it would veto any UN Security Council resolution that would impose a settlement on Belgrade. While the Kosovo political leadership has reluctantly embraced the Ahtisaari plan, the province’s prime minister Agim Ceku, has already warned that Kosovo would declare independence unilaterally if Russia blocked a UN Security Council resolution enforcing the plan: "We can't wait anymore. Every day of delay means an increase in frustration and a loss of legitimacy."
The idea of granting independence (if necessary against the objections of Belgrade and Moscow) to Kosovo increasingly resonates among top Bush administration officials and influential lawmakers from both parties on Capitol Hill. During his June 10 visit to Albania, Kosovo’s next-door neighbor and ethnic kin, President Bush came out strongly in favor of an independent Kosovo, arguing that "At some point in time, sooner rather than later, you've got to say, 'Enough is enough. Kosovo is independent.'"
For an American president whose domestic approvals ratings are hovering near all-time lows, Bush must have enjoyed the hero's welcome he was given in the Albanian village of Fushe Kruje earlier this month. For better or worse, Albania could well be the one country on the face of this earth where the most serious potential threat to the well-being of the visiting U.S. president consists of throngs of well-wishers lining the streets, shaking his hand, and somewhat mysteriously, making his wrist watch disappear in the process. For sure, Bush's popularity in Albania, a majority Muslim country, is solely due to his strong support for an independent Kosovo. From the perspective of other European countries, however, Bush's remarks hinting at a potential unilateral recognition of Kosovo even in the absence of a UN Security Council resolution just added to existing concerns over a nasty Kosovo showdown.
At their recent summit in Germany in early June, the leaders of the G8 failed to reach an agreement about the future status of Kosovo. Russia remains stubborn in its opposition to Kosovo independence, insisting that any final status solution must be acceptable to Belgrade. Moscow and, albeit to a lesser extent, Beijing, are also concerned about the consequences of the precedent set by Kosovo's potential independence for their own "renegade provinces" such as Chechnya or Taiwan. At the same time, however, the Kosovo Albanians are getting increasingly impatient with the status quo; a development that could trigger violent clashes with destabilizing consequences for the 17,000-strong NATO-led KFOR troops stationed in the troubled province. When I discussed this issue with an American diplomat friend of mine who has long experience in Kosovo, he also warned that not resolving Kosovo's status could also adversely impact neighboring countries such as Macedonia, Montenegro, and even Serbia's Preshevo Valley: "The Kosovars and other ethnic Albanians are ready to fight for Kosovo and they have the weapons to do so."
And, in the case of Germany, any attempt to create an independent Kosovo without a new UN Security council resolution would remove the legal mandate for the country’s 2,200 KFOR Bundeswehr soldiers stationed there.
Today President Bush made his first trip to Rhode Island, to speak at the Naval War College regarding the war in Iraq. With the final elements of the surge having arrived in Iraq just a few weeks ago, Operation Phantom Thunder has begun. The president highlighted the successes so far:
Last September, Anbar was all over the news. It was held up as an example of America's failure in Iraq. The papers cited a leaked intelligence report that was pessimistic about our prospects there. One columnist summed it up this way: "The war is over in Anbar province, and the United States lost."
About the same time some folks were writing off Anbar, our troops were methodically clearing Anbar's capital city of Ramadi of terrorists, and winning the trust of the local population. In parallel with these efforts, a group of tribal sheiks launched a movement called "The Awakening" -- and began cooperating with American and Iraqi forces. These sheiks, these leaders were tired of murder and tired of mayhem that al Qaeda had brought to their towns and communities. They knew exactly who these folks were.
To capitalize on this opportunity, I sent more Marines into Anbar. And gradually they have been helping the locals take back their province from al Qaeda.
These operations are showing good results. Our forces are going into parts of Anbar where they couldn't operate before. With the help of Iraqi and coalition forces, local Sunni tribes have driven al Qaeda from most of Ramadi -- and attacks there are now down to a two-year low. Recruiting of Iraqi police forces now draws thousands of candidates, compared to a few hundred just a few months ago. This month, Anbar opened its first police academy. And as the slide shows, overall attacks in Anbar are sharply down from this time last year...
To the north of Baghdad, our forces have surged into Diyala province. The primary focus is the provincial capital of Baqubah, which is just an hour's car ride from Baghdad. There, masked gunmen enforce their brutal rule with prisons and torture chambers and punish crimes like smoking.
In one building, our forces discovered a medical facility for the terrorists that tells us the enemy was preparing itself for a sustained and deadly fight. They had burrowed in. There was no resistance. They were trying to export their violence to the capital. Iraqi and American troops are now fighting block by block. The colonel leading the assault says we have denied al Qaeda a major bastion. The city is cleared. The challenge, of course, is going to be for coalition and Iraqi forces to keep it that way. But we're making progress in Operation Phantom Thunder....
Today I had the opportunity to speak with Ambassador Larry Butler, deputy assistant secretary for Near Eastern Affairs at State Department, about the progress of Operation Phantom Thunder. (McQ did as well.) Like the president, Butler stressed the success to date in Anbar, which has been largely deserted by Al Qaeda leading to a dramatic drop in attacks. He also talked about the increased ability of Iraqi troops to 'pull their weight,' mentioning the three brigades sent by President Maliki to work with U.S. troops in Sadr City.
Butler spent some time discussing the Provincial Reconstruction Teams--the military/civilian outreach teams whose work with 'ordinary Iraqis' is key both to rebuilding Iraq and increasing trust in the US. The positive experience with the PRTs and their good work has led to a doubling of the number of teams operating in Iraq, with more still to follow. It's also expected that the teams themselves will expand from units of four people to units of between ten and 20, 'leveraging' the power of the United States to make a difference in Iraq.
All-in-all, Butler stressed the promise of Operation Phantom Thunder to bring Iraq back from the brink.
| | Baghdad and the Belts. Red bordered units identified as active in offensive operations. Click map to view. | Iraqi and Coalition forces continue to maintain the pressure against al Qaeda, Sunni insurgents, and the "rogue," Iranian backed "secret cells" of the Mahdi Army and the Qazali network. Operation Phantom Thunder is underway inside Baghdad and the Belts, as well as against al Qaeda's network nationwide. Also, the northwestern region of Iraq has been a focus of U.S. and Iraqi operations. The simultaneous operations to pressure al Qaeda's network are occurring in all theaters throughout Iraq. An update on each theater is provided below.
Coalition forces continue to strike at al Qaeda's leadership cells. Multinational Forces Iraq confirmed two senior al Qaeda operatives were killed on June 23. "Mehmet Yilmaz, also known as Khalid al-Turki, was a known terrorist and senior leader in al-Qaeda who operated a cell that facilitated the movement of foreign fighters into Iraq for al-Qaeda operations," Multinational Forces Iraq reported. Yilmaz was a global terrorist, with roots back to Pakistan. "Yilmaz was an al-Qaeda leader who led a group of Turks to Afghanistan in 2001 to fight against Coalition Forces. Intelligence reports indicate he was wounded in the fighting there and went to Pakistan for treatment, where he was captured by the government in 2004 and deported to Turkey. He was released in late 2005 and returned to al-Qaeda operations in 2006, moving his operations to Iraq."
Coalition forces also killed Mehmet Resit Isik, also known as Khalil al-Turki. Isik was "a close associate of Yilmaz who was assessed to be a courier for the same al-Qaeda cell and a close associate of Yilmaz and senior leaders within al-Qaeda."
Two al Qaeda operatives were killed and two captured in raids on Tuesday in Bayji, Mosul, and Baghdad. Wednesday's raids in Mosul and Baghdad resulted in six al Qaeda operatives captured. One of those captured in Mosul "is believed to have replaced the al-Qaeda emir of east Mosul after his capture May 31." Al Qaeda's Mosul network has become a focus of Coalition efforts of late. The network has regenerated since Ansar al-Sunnah merged with al Qaeda this spring.
Diyala
Eleven days after Operation Arrowhead Ripper kicked off in the provincial capital of Baqubah, Coalition and Iraqi forces have been conducting operations throughout the province. In Baqubah, "at least 60 al-Qaida operatives have been killed, 74 have been detained, 31 weapons caches have been discovered, 81 improvised explosive devices have been destroyed and 18 booby-trapped structures have been destroyed," since the start of Arrowhead Ripper, Multinational Forces Iraq reported.
Coalition and Iraqi forces have also distributed "approximately 265,000 pounds of rice and flour ... handed out over 10,000 vegetarian humanitarian rations, and thousands of bottles of water." An al Qaeda warehouse "filled with food seized by al-Qaeda from Government of Iraq food shipments to the city" was found by Iraqi troops in the Khatoon neighborhood.
A joint Iraqi and U.S. operation in Muqdadiyah and the Hamrin mountains resulted in the capture of 18 al Qaeda fighters, while Iraqi soldiers captured five al Qaeda operatives in an operation in nearby Balad Ruz. Two "gunmen" were killed during a raid near Al Thurah, north of Muqdadiyah. In Khalis, Iraqi Police intervened after two villages staged a battle that resulted in four killed and 19 wounded.
The North (Mosul/Salahadin/Tikrit)
In addition to the operations in Diyala and the raids against al Qaeda's network in Mosul, the northern theater has seen an increase in operational tempo from Iraqi and U.S. security forces. With operations ongoing inside Baghdad and in the belts, this region is the natural fall-back position for the terror network.
Iraqi Police and Army units are the main targets of al Qaeda and insurgent attacks in Salahadin and Ninewa provinces. There is one U.S. combat brigade in each province, and Ninewa is Iraq's second most populated province. The Iraqi security forces shoulder the majority of the security burden in the north. Four Iraqi police were killed in an ambush near Kirkuk on Wednesday.
Joint U.S. and Iraqi operations in Mosul and Tal Afar resulted in the capture of 25 suspected insurgents. Another five al Qaeda operatives were captured in a raid near Mosul.
In the city of Taji in Salahadin province, the newly formed neighborhood watch turned in another large weapons cache. In Tikrit, fourteen insurgents died in a "work accident" when the truck bomb they were assembling detonated prematurely.
Northern Babil
As part of Operation Phantom Thunder, Northern Babil Province has been split into two major theaters: the area around Arab Jabour (Operation Marne Torch) in the southeast, and the area around Mahmudiyah (Operation Commando Eagle) in the southwest.
In the southeast, six insurgents were killed near Salman Pak after about 30 attacked an Iraqi National Police station and checkpoint. A British Royal Air Force GR-4 Tornado and two U.S. Army OH-58D helicopters fired at the insurgents in support of the Iraqi nationals Police. Also, two more insurgents were killed and seven captured in the village of Al Dura'iya, and one insurgent was killed and another wounded "south of Baghdad."
In the southwest, a recruiting drive in the city of Yusufiyah netted over 1,200 volunteers. Only 200 applicants were expected, and 252 were accepted. "The surplus applications--including one from a local woman--will be kept and as the JSS expands, those individuals will be the first called for new hires," Multinational Forces Iraq stated. Further south in Najaf, Iraqi security forces arrested an al Qaeda operative.
Baghdad
Clearing operations continue in the capital as al Qaeda conducted two successful mass casualty attacks. A car bomb attack in the western Rashid neighborhood of Al-Bayaa killed 21 civilians and wounded 42, while a suicide attack in the Kadhimiyah neighborhood in northern Baghdad killed 10 and wounded 15.
U.S. and Iraqi forces are still in the process of clearing the Rashid district. Eleven IEDs were found in Rashid and several insurgent attacks were defeated on June 25 and 26. Iraqi security forces "killed 14 gunmen, captured 114 others and arrested 2 suspected militants in several areas of Baghdad during the past 24 hours," Voices of Iraq reported. "The forces managed also to free three captives, defuse two bombs and confiscate [a] large amount of weapons and ammunition in different areas of Baghdad, mainly in Kadhimiyah City in northern Baghdad." U.S. forces also captured six insurgents in eastern Baghdad.
Eastern Anbar Province
Reporting on Operation Fahrad Al Amin in eastern Anbar province has been virtually non-existent. While Iraqi and Coalition forces have been solidifying the police presence in Fallujah and are conducting operations in Karma and the Thar Thar region, the eastern Anbar theater has surprisingly been quiet.
Mahdi and the Iranian Cells
Both the United States and Britain continue to point the finger at Iran and the Qods Force involvement in training, funding, arming, and planning attacks against Coalition and Iraqi forces inside Iraq. Operations continue to target these Iranian backed secret cells, which include the Qazali Network and "rogue" elements of Muqtada al Sadr's Mahdi Army.
"Iraqi Special Operations Forces, Iraqi Police and Iraqi Army forces destroyed a large weapons cache during an early morning operation June 26 southeast of Nasiriyah," Multinational Forces Iraq reported. "The cache is linked to a rogue Jaysh Al-Mahdi (JAM or Mahdi Army) militant group." One suspect was detained in the operation.
Meanwhile, Muqtada al Sadr continues attempts to brand himself as a nationalist leader since his return last month from a four-month, self-imposed exile in Iran. Sadr plans to carry out a march to Samarra's al-Askaria mosque on July 5, which was destroyed by two attacks, the firs in February 2006 and the second in May 2007. Sadr's past two demonstrations failed to draw more than ten thousand protesters--prior to his exile his demonstrations would draw hundreds of thousands.
The Washington Post reports today that the Chinese government quietly dispatched its vice foreign minister to meet with representatives of several presidential campaigns last week:
One of China's top government officials reached out to the leading U.S. presidential contenders last week, holding an unpublicized meeting with several of their top foreign policy advisers during a visit to Washington for high-level talks with Bush administration officials.
Among those present for the dinner with Vice Foreign Minister Dai Bingguo on June 19, according to people familiar with the encounter, were top advisers to Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.), Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), former senator John Edwards (D-N.C.), Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney (R)...
By several accounts, the meeting was generally cordial, with Dai listing many areas of potential cooperation and warning the participants that they should not rock the boat on the status of Taiwan, which remains of paramount concern to Beijing.
Wary about pressure from U.S. politicians for China to ease controls on the fluctuation of its currency, Dai made a case for the benefits of expanding economic ties between the two countries, the sources said.
Dai also told the small group that China was interested in helping to stop the violence in Darfur but added that the 2008 Olympics in Beijing should not be held hostage to the issue. Some of the presidential contenders, including New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson (D), have suggested that the U.S. consider boycotting the Games if China does not do more to pressure Khartoum over the issue.
This is an interesting indication of China improving the way it 'plays the game' in DC. By opening lines of communication early, and establishing relationships with key advisers, the Chinese government might hope to improve upon what could already be considered a remarkably smooth relationship, given all the irritants between the two countries. One wonders how much more of this must go on than meets the eye.
There are many nations who would like to improve their relations with the United States, and who might see the upcoming presidential transition as a good opportunity to do that. Which ones might now be reaching out--in a less obtrusive way--to the nascent campaigns?
It's also interesting that among the 'top tier candidates,' Giuliani was the only one not to send a representative. Perhaps Giuliani is the real China hawk among the candidates for 2008, even if our friends over at The American Scene seem to think that title belongs to McCain--they claim they won't "be shocked if McCain got us into a war with China." Go figure.
The good folks over at the New York Times finally got around to taking a look at Indoctrinate U in the education section yesterday. As we might have expected, the Times’s take on the film was less than flattering--indeed, the author seems to use Evan Coyne Maloney’s film as little more than an introductory device to tell us how few restrictions are placed on free speech on campus.
Maloney has done a fine job dismantling the Times piece, which went so far as to praise university administrators for reopening newspapers they'd previously shut-down for what they perceived as objectionable political content:
Oddly, one of the examples cited in the article (but not the film) was the case of a student paper published by Vassar’s Moderate, Independent and Conservative Student Alliance. The paper was de-funded and shut down for a year after publishing a piece criticizing the school’s funding of special “social centers” for minority and gay students. But because the paper was eventually allowed to start publishing again--the following year--the Vassar case is presented as one in which “[u]ltimately, free speech was respected.”
Sorry, but shutting down a paper for a year is not a benign event, and it is certainly not one in which we can say “free speech was respected.” If Homeland Security shut down the Times for a year after exposing ways that we track terrorist financing, I’m sure they’d understand my position on this.
I’ve already written up my own thoughts on the film, so I won’t go into it any more here. But it is useful to contrast the treatment this documentary received with that of another controversial flick making the rounds: Sicko. A.O. Scott reviewed the new Michael Moore picture for the Times in a modestly celebratory manner. While Maloney’s film is dismissed as “just a pastiche of notorious events,” Moore’s is praised for making an “argument [that] is illustrated with anecdotes and statistics--terrible stories about Americans denied medical care or forced into bankruptcy to pay for it; grim actuarial data about life expectancy and infant mortality; damning tallies of dollars donated to political campaigns.”
Those interested in seeing some other “anecdotes and statistics” that argue America’s health care “crisis” is overblown and that socialized medicine is dangerous to your health can check out Free Market Cure, a project brought to us by one of the primary financiers of Indoctrinate U, Stuart Browning.
From THE DAILY STANDARD: American by Choice, by Peter W. Schramm.
From AEI: To Be, or Not to Be . . . an Empire, by Gary J. Schmitt.
From the Washington Times: Another Great Wall, by Senator Wayne Allard.
From National Review: Surging to Defeat, by J .D. Johannes.
From the Orlando Sentinel: Hone U.S. Message of Freedom, by Senator John McCain.
 From Pacific Air Forces: EIELSON AIR FORCE BASE, Alaska--A moose strolls past 18th Fighter Squadron F-16s on the flightline here June 22.
 Spc. Luke McMahan, 22, of Mountain View, Ark., talks
to children gathered around his Humvee in the Baghdad
neighborhood of Ghazaliyah. By Jim Michaels, USA TODAY A front page piece by Jim Michaels in USA Today seems to tell a story of measured success in a neighborhood where the effects of the surge are finally starting to be felt. Michaels writes about a Coalition combat outpost in Ghazaliyah, in western Baghdad.
When this combat outpost, named Casino, was established in January, Ghazaliyah was a battleground. Shiite militias had pushed Sunnis from their homes in this predominantly Sunni neighborhood. That drove many Sunnis to al-Qaeda, concentrated in southern Ghazaliyah, for protection.
Streets were empty and stores closed. Gunfire crackled around the outpost each day. U.S. forces would find 15 bodies a day in the area, many of them victims of sectarian killings, said Joyce, of Garden City, N.Y.
"Now we have a bad day (when we) find one," Joyce said.
It's not all happy news. Michaels points out that "the outposts have made civilians safer but often have exposed American troops to more danger." But as far as reducing the level of sectarian violence, the piece provides anecdotal evidence--which is well supported by the numbers coming out of Iraq--that increased force levels are starting to make a positive difference on the security situation there. As to whether the Iraqis are able to capitalize on those improved conditions, James Nickolas, commander of the battalion that established the outposts in Ghazaliyah, tells Michaels "he's not sure that's been taken advantage of." But this new strategy was never a guarantee of political success, it was designed to create the kind of favorable conditions that might allow for such success. And it looks as if that is exactly what is happening.
It's rare that Republicans and Democrats can agree on anything in Washington. But the fight over Iran's nuclear ambitions shows that even when they do come together, that doesn't guarantee that the White House will jump on board as well.
Yesterday, the House Foreign Affairs Committee passed legislation sanctioning countries that invest in Iran--particularly in that nation's energy sector. Specifically, the Iran Counter Proliferation Act repeals the administration's authority to waive penalties under the Iran Sanctions Act, blocks the import of all Iranian products, provides for the designation of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist group, and increases funds for the Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence.
While the legislation was adopted by an eye-catching vote of 37-1, it's opposed by the Bush administration, which argues that it would undercut multilateral efforts--particularly the sanctions imposed by the U.N. Security Council. Anticipating that it would rattle some cages in European capitals, bill sponsor (and Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman) Tom Lantos said:
Some Europeans will complain about this bill, as they complained when Iran sanctions legislation was first passed in 1996. They will point out that Secretary of State Albright essentially agreed not to impose Iran-related sanctions against the European Union in 1998. But 1998 is a long time ago.
In 1998, many European leaders were still holding out hope that Iran's nuclear efforts were strictly geared toward peaceful energy use. By now every single European leader fully understands, and acknowledges, that Iran is hell-bent on acquiring nuclear weapons. So it is time for Europeans' actions to catch up with their perceptions. It is time for Europe to cease investing in Iran's energy industry, and our legislation will facilitate that result.
Heritage Foundation Research Fellow for Middle Eastern Affairs Jim Phillips, who has written on the merits of stronger sanctions, says that the Bush administration policy in this area has been similar to that of its predecessors. It's been focused more on not 'rocking the boat' with regard to our allies than it has rocking the boat of Iran's Mullahs. He adds, though, that the strong vote for the measure in committee is indicative of its broad support in the House. He noted that given the large number of cosponsors (nearly 300) the administration may be forced to compromise, or see a veto overridden.
While Lantos's spokesmen did not return a request for comment this afternoon (we will update if he does), typically legislation with this level of support is promptly scheduled for floor consideration. It would be no surprise if this measure is headed for Senate consideration as early as July.
And while the Bush administration may regard this measure as too provocative, there are Bush administration alumni who favor even tougher measures to block Iran's nuclear ambitions.
For more information on Iran sanctions, read this CRS backgrounder on the Iran (& Libya) Sanctions Act, or check out Heritage's Iran Briefing Room.
Over at The Danger Room, Noah Shachtman managed to score an interview with Dr. David Kilcullen, chief counterinsurgency adviser to General David Petraeus. Kilcullen seems to have taken a special interest in the power of the blog, posting regular contributions to the blog run by the Small Wars Journal, the most recent of which can be found here, and participating in the OSD's series of blogger conference calls--excerpts of that conversation can be found here.
Kilcullen tells Shachtman that the walls that have been constructed throughout Baghdad to stem the flow of insurgents and militias from one neighborhood to the next have put the Coalition "in a position to move against the [insurgent] havens."
"The point of the walls was to structure the environment, to hold the city and keep it safe," he tells DANGER ROOM. "It's like [keeping] guard inside a concrete building, instead of in the middle of a field... You don't need vast maneuver forces to do it... It's the principle of economy of force."
Now that the eleven sets of walls across Baghdad have been built -- "controlling access, preventing attacks on the community, and preventing attacks from being launched on someone else," Kilcullen says -- "we're now in a position to move against the [insurgent] havens."
"Murders and sectarian killings have dropped 63%" in Baghdad's Adhamiya neighborhood, since the wall has been put in place, he claims. Residents are "thrilled."
Go read the whole thing.
 A picture shows a wall made of concrete blocks, which separates Baghdad's
al-Adhamiyah district from a neighboring Shiite area in east Baghdad.
Wisam Sami/AFP
From THE DAILY STADNARD: Lugar's Plan B, by Fred Barnes.
From the Philadelphia Inquirer: A volunteer eyewitness to the hidden side of war, by Edward Colimore.
(HT Ares)
From National Review: Confessions of a Cheney Fan, by Jonah Goldberg.
From the St. Louis Post-Dispatch: The Lesson of History: Persevere, by Senator Kit Bond.
From the Washington Post: An Exit to Disaster, by Michael Gerson.
Defense News reports: "Army Apache helicopters are firing so many 30mm rounds in Iraq and Afghanistan that replacement ammo is being airlifted into theater, bypassing the normal depot-to-cargo-ship process, say Army and officials with ammo maker ATK.
In November, Army officials found that they were running out of M789 explosive rounds for the helicopters’ M230 chain guns, so they asked ATK to ramp up delivery to 50,000 to 60,000 rounds per month."
Dean Barnett writes the definitive post on today's Times poll on the attitudes of Americans aged 17-29. Barnett notes that the poll was cosponsored "by that most reputable of news agencies," MTV, and then informs readers that he will analyze the numbers himself, "unguided by Adam [Nagourney's] insights."
Once again, I haven’t read Nagourney’s coverage, but I assume his lead derives from the results to this tendentious question:
50. Which do you think would be better for the country: 1. Having one health insurance program covering all Americans that would be administered by the government and paid for by taxpayers, OR 2. Keeping the current system where many people get their insurance from private employers and some have no insurance.
62% of the kids would opt for the socialist experiment of a single payer system. In a way, I guess this is good. I think it was Churchill who said “If you’re not a communist when you’re young, you have no heart. If you’re still a communist when you’re old, you have no brain.” Good to see the kids have their hearts in the right place, even if the phrasing of the question drove them to that particular place.
What I found really interesting about the poll was Question 62. The question in question asked, “As a result of the United States' military action against Iraq, do you think the United States is more safe from terrorism, less safe from terrorism, or hasn't it made any difference?”
31% said “more safe”, 19% said “less safe”, 47% said “no difference” and 2% said “don’t know.” All I can say is, “Huh?” After being pounded over their young heads for half a decade that Iraq has been a fiasco on every level, the kids lean in the direction that it has made us more safe? Maybe the headline to this poll should be, “Old media’s influence increasingly marginalized.”
Go read the whole thing--it doesn't get better than Barnett writing on "the self-esteem generation."
It looks like earmarking continues to run rampant--even in defense bills. The Politico reports:
Just how open and honest the reformed process is can be seen in the new Department of Defense authorization bill that came out of the House Armed Services Committee in May. It did list 449 earmarks -- in small, unreadable print--costing $7.6 billion, but the list was incomplete. An astute watchdog group, Taxpayers for Common Sense, found 53 additional, unlisted earmarks costing $744 million.
When the Senate Armed Services Committee reported out its different version of the bill, S. 1547, it listed 309 earmarks costing $5.6 billion. When it comes up for debate in the Senate, 200 or more amendments will be introduced. About half of those amendments will be for home-state projects that for some reason the committee did not add during its initial review process.
During the week or two the Senate will take to consider the bill, there will be debates, some of them interesting, on the great issues of the day: the war in Iraq, nuclear nonproliferation, the worn-out U.S. Army and more. Interspersed through those debates will be strange presentations by Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (Mich.) and the ranking Republican, Sen. John McCain (Ariz.). They will be reading off procedural motions, calling up amendments and passing them by "unanimous consent"; they will do this time after time, sometimes passing as many as 20 amendments in one sequence. The amendments will not be debated; they may not even be described.
There's a reason why these items will receive such little scrutiny: They are the pork amendments. The senators pressing them will have "cleared" them with Levin and McCain. Then the amendments will go through the arcane but well-oiled approval process, with utterly no debate -- all in what calls itself the "world's greatest deliberative body..."
Let me stipulate at the start that defense bills often contain meritorious earmarks. There are more than a few worthwhile defense programs that receive funding by specific order of Congress.
That said, there's something disconcerting about defense bill that contain hundreds--or even thousands--of earmarks. If there are that many important programs not receiving funding from the Defense Department, then Congress ought to be looking into procurement as a whole, not just cramming pet projects into appropriations bills.
Le Bourget
The 47th running of the biennial Paris Air Show closed as it always does. Huge crowds on the public days of the last weekend, an air display of fighter and commercial aircraft, and dozens of vendors hawking baseball caps, t-shirts, jackets, refrigerator magnets, and plush toys with the air show’s logo plastered on them.
This year’s air show motif was a sign of how the industry views itself in the present day. Instead of going for some ultra-modern looking, space age logo that looks like the trademark of some hi-tech corporate behemoth, the show used a set of simple drawings that looked like cartoon aeroplanes and rocketships from a pre-schooler’s coloring book.
It is appropriate because in the aftermath of up and down fuel costs, the ripple effects on the commercial airline industry following 9/11, and the troubles at Europe’s Airbus the overall attitude of the industry is almost that of childlike optimism. “I have never seen the aerospace industry in general so upbeat,” said one executive from France’s Dassault Aviation. “It is as if people believe all of these troubles are now behind us.”
Many of the difficulties that the last few years have brought to aerospace firms worldwide may now be finished, but there are a number of potential pitfalls ahead.
 Saab J39 Gripen at Le Bourget 2003 taxiing before takeoff. The Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) is one of the most ambitious programs of its kind and involves numerous foreign partners. If it proceeds according to schedule and without overshooting its cost numbers too far it will be the most successful program in the history of modern military aviation. However, if delivery dates slip to the right or costs rise too high there could be defections.
And there are plenty of firms out there willing to step in to provide a cheaper and more readily available solution. Already Sweden’s Saab Aerospace has offered their JAS-39 Gripen fighter to Norway and Denmark to try and woo them away from the JSF. The Royal Australian Air Force opted to buy a batch of Boeing F/A-18Fs instead of waiting for its JSF’s to be delivered. The RAAF are still in the JSF program, but any further delays could see them decide to go with more F/A-18s instead.
In Europe much depends on the mammoth A380 double-decker super jumbo airliner. That program is behind schedule because of production delays and most of the companies (i.e. DHL, UPS) that had originally planned to buy a cargo version of the aircraft have cancelled their orders in favor of other options. Any hiccups here and Europe’s aerospace industry could be significantly damaged by forced layoffs and drops in share prices.
The defense business in the west has also become somewhat precarious due to its reliance on so many international alliances and interlocking companies. One of the major partners on JSF is the UK’s BAE Systems, which--it was announced today--will now be investigated by the U.S. Department of Justice in relation to continuing stories about kickbacks and other payoffs to former Saudi ambassador to the United States Prince Bandar bin-Sultan and other officials in Riyahd.
It is not yet clear if the probe is all for show in order to quell the cries of those who are understandably concerned about so much unaccounted for money in Saudi hands, or if DoJ intend to go after the UK defense giant with even one-tenth of the ferocity with which they have tried to destroy Scooter Libby. But, it does raise the question of whether it is possible to maintain U.S. legal standards on corrupt practices while linked up with so many foreign partners and how such efforts might affect a program as important to U.S. industry as the JSF.
Over all of these problems of corporate accountability, program schedules, and the marketplace hovers the specter of Iran. Numerous sources now assert that they believe Russia’s Rosoboronexport, which is controlled by ex-KGB FOV (Friend of Vladimir), Sergei Chemezov, is on the verge of a major arms sale to Teheran. If the numbers and types of weaponry are true, it could signal a major shift of the balance of power in the Middle East and create more instability in a region that is already as unstable as can be.
So, is the aerospace industry being childishly (and blindly) positive about the future. I don't think so. It seems more as if people are trying to take a few minutes to enjoy the good news and grab a little breathing space before having to face another round of troubles. How far will the fortunes of the industry take a tumble--or will they at all?
We’ll all be here to tell you about it in two years’ time.
The BBC reports that "several petrol stations have been torched in the Iranian capital Tehran, after the government announced fuel rationing for private vehicles." And then adds this comment, attributed to the BBC's correspondent in Tehran, about three-quarters of the way through:
It is a dangerous move for any elected government, especially in an oil-rich country like Iran, where people think cheap fuel is their birthright and public transport is very limited, she says.
Does the BBC's correspondent believe she is working in a democratic state, or that the "elected government" of that state is running the risk of being booted out for rationing fuel? Max Boot had a good piece up at Contentions yesterday on more "Flawed Logic on Iran" from our mainstream press.
This morning the House Committee on Foreign Affairs is holding hearings on the question "Iraq: Is the Escalation Working?" The witnesses include WEEKLY STANDARD contributor Frederick W. Kagan, whose testimony is posted in its entirety at THE DAILY STANDARD. Here's an excerpt, and it's worth reading the whole thing...
But even this operation--the largest coordinated combat operation the U.S. has undertaken since the invasion in 2003--is not the decisive phase of the current strategy. It is an operation designed to set the preconditions for a successful clear-and-hold operation that will probably begin in late July or early August within Baghdad itself. That is the operation that is designed to bring security to Iraq's capital in a lasting way that will create the space for political progress that we all desire.
The U.S. has not undertaken a multi-phased operation on such a large scale since 2003, and it is not surprising therefore that many commentators have become confused about how to evaluate what is going on and how to report it. Sectarian deaths in Baghdad dropped significantly as soon as the new strategy was announced in January, and remain at less than half their former levels. Spectacular attacks rose as al Qaeda conducted a counter-surge of its own, but have recently begun falling again. Violence is down tremendously in Anbar province, where the Sunni tribes have turned against al Qaeda and are actively cooperating with U.S. forces for the first time. This process has spread from Anbar into Babil, Salah-ad-Din, and even Diyala provinces, and echoes of it have even spread into one of the worst neighborhoods in Baghdad--Ameriyah, formerly an al Qaeda stronghold. Violence has risen naturally in areas that the enemy had long controlled but in which U.S. forces are now actively fighting for the first time in many years, and the downward spiral in Diyala that began in mid-2006 continued (which is not surprising, since the Baghdad Security Plan does not aim to establish security in Diyala).
All of these trends are positive. The growing skill and determination of the Iraqi Army units fighting alongside Americans is also positive. Some Iraqi Police units have also fought well. Others have displayed sectarian tendencies and participated in sectarian actions. Political progress has been very slow--something that has clearly disappointed many who hoped for an immediate turnaround, but that is not surprising for those who always believed that it would follow, not precede or accompany, the establishment of security at least in Baghdad. And negative sectarian actors within the Iraqi Government continue to resist making necessary compromises with former foes. Overall, the basic trends are rather better than could have been expected of the operation so far, primarily because of the unanticipated stunning success in Anbar and its spread. But it remains far too early to offer any meaningful evaluation of the progress of an operation whose decisive phases are only just beginning.
Kimberly Kagan, executive director of the Institute for the Study of War, and Frederick W. Kagan, resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute--both WEEKLY STANDARD contributors--have put out a great fact sheet on Operation Phantom Thunder, which Army Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno described as the end of the force build-up portion of the surge and the beginning of offensive operations. "It is an open-ended operation that will extend through the summer and will be done in conjunction with civil-military operations to support political and economic efforts," Odierno said. Click here or on the text below to download the pdf. Roggio's also got some great reporting on the operation here.
There are a lot of rumors flying around about the fate of the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay. Last week the AP reported that the Bush administration was "nearing a decision to close the Guantanamo Bay detainee facility and move its terror suspects to military prisons elsewhere."
Since then, the administration has denied that any such decision is in the offing, but international pressure and a Democratic Congress are threatening to force a decision on the status of some 400 enemy combatants being held there.
It would seem that the most important question, though, is whether the facility at Guantanamo offers some advantage that would justify its decidedly negative effect on America's image abroad (after looking over poll data, I would offer that most Americans are satisfied with the status quo on this issue), and the answer, according to Alan Liotta, principle director for the Pentagon's Office of Detainee Affairs, is 'yes'. Liotta spoke to a few bloggers on a conference call this morning arranged by the office of the secretary of defense.
The WWS asked why the administration can't just close Guantanamo and move these guys somewhere else, to which Liotta responded:
If we were to bring them to the United States, we would have to put them in one of two places, either a U.S. military prison, like Leavenworth or Charleston, or in a U.S. federal penitentiary....sure we house very dangerous criminals and top mafia people, cartel leaders, and gang leaders in our penitentiary system, but we know for a fact that al Qaeda would like nothing more than to break some of their brethren out of a facility where they're being held by the United States or our allies in Iraq for that matter...we know that Guantanamo and its isolation is a huge deterrent against them being able to do that and being able to attack there. Put that facility in the middle of an American community, in Kansas or Charleston, South Carolina, and you're going to have a huge burden put upon on that local community in terms of what first responders are going to have to be geared up for and where your security is.
Of course, I wouldn't want the federal government to put the worst of the worst from the war on terror in my backyard. And Liotta says there's been "no real look" at where these prisoners might be housed if they were relocated to the U.S. Liotta used Alcatraz as an example of a U.S. prison that, while extremely isolated, could be easily observed by al Qaeda from the surrounding hills. But surely the military could construct a base in the middle of Alaska, for example, that would present al Qaeda with a similar challenge in terms of overcoming geography. To be blunt, I don't find this to be a terribly compelling argument for keeping Gitmo open--though neither is it unreasonable.
But Liotta didn't stop there. He also pointed out that detainees that are brought to the United States,
could have the full panoply of U.S. constitutional protections, which means you'd have to have a judicial hearing on them in a certain amount of time, if you couldn't have that judicial hearing in a certain amount of time, they could be released. And when they went to be released, as it is we can't return many of these people to their home countries as it is, either because the home country won't take them back or because in some instances the home country is such a place that we know they'll get tortured if they go back. So under international treaties and obligations we can't return them, so the result would be they'd be left free here in the United States....that is, from what the lawyers are telling us, a very real possibility.
Robert Bluey asked if it really matters where we put these prisoners--whether "the detention operation would be conducted in a significantly different manner in a different location." Liotta said that wherever the prisoners were held, they would be held under the same basic framework:
No, you're absolutely right...it's not so much the objections over how we treat people...that's not an issue, what people are objecting to is the overall legal framework of how we're holding people and whether you're holding people with proper due process or not and whether they should have access to the courts....Guantanamo, fairly or unfairly, and I would argue unfairly, has a taint to it...and people believe that by closing Guantanamo you could remove that taint. But I think a very real argument could be made that as long as you're not changing the basic legal construct of how we're holding them and why we believe we're entitled to hold them, no matter where you put them, you're still going to have that argument...and while the conditions of detention probably won't change at all...the mere fact that you're holding them probably would be under the same construct, and that's what people object to, particularly Europeans.
When pressed as to whether Guantanamo didn't offer some additional advantage other than security, Liotta added that prisoners were "routinely interrogated" at Guantanamo, and that those interrogations were providing "actionable intelligence" for soldiers fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. Moving them to the United States, he said, could limit those interrogations:
In moving them to the States, they would be subject to greater legal claims and most likely, in that environment, we would not be able to question or interrogate them at all or in the same ways. And that's one of the questions that's open and hasn't been ruled on yet. It would be the subject of a lot of litigation...there would be stays that would be put in by the court that would limit our ability to do that. But the end result would be yes, we would lose an ability to gain critical information from these individuals who are assisting us right now in the war on terror.
The bottom line is that the interrogators would follow the same guidelines when conducting their interrogations whether they were done in the States or at Gitmo, but "in the United States, that accessibility would probably be much more limited than what it is right now in Guantanamo...the great fear is that we would be severely limited in our ability to just do our standard interrogation techniques."
That seems like a risk not worth taking, especially when critics of the status quo--the Democrats and the Europeans--will never be satisfied with any policy this administration puts into place.
|
| | Baghdad and the Belts. Red bordered units identified as active in offensive operations. Click map to view. |
As operations north of Baghdad in Baqubah and south in Babil province have taken center stage, the third theater in eastern Anbar province has received little attention in the reporting from Iraq. The reporting has been so sparse that the name of Multinational Forces West's operation has yet to be released. In an interview with Brigadier General Charles M. Gurganus, commanding general of Ground Combat Element, Multi-National Force-West, The Fourth Rail has learned the name of the operation is Fahrad Al Amin, or Operation Safety and Security.
As we noted at the opening of Operation Phantom Thunder, the focus of combat operations in eastern Anbar province includes Fallujah, the Karma region, and the desert expanse of the Thar Thar region. Brig. Gen. Gurganus confirmed this, however, he noted that Multinational Forces West did not expect to meet serious opposition in either of the three areas of focus. "I could only hope that they would stand and fight," sai Gurganus. "We should be so lucky because that is our strength."
The purpose of Fahrad Al Amin is to "make sure al Qaeda and the insurgents have no safe sanctuary where they can rest, refit, stage and plan for attacks," said Gurganus. "We want to keep any of [the] ones we have in Al Anbar form getting to and being able to joint the fight in Baghdad."
Regimental Combat Team-6 is conducting the bulk of operations in Fallujah, where Coalition and Iraqi forces are working to establish police stations and neighborhood watches in each of the 11 districts in that city.
The 13th Marine Expeditionary Unit [13th MEU], which just arrived in eastern Anbar province, is conducting operations up to the Thar Thar region. The Marines and Iraqi troops operating in the Thar Thar area are "starting to establish a relative freedom of movement up to and through the Thar Thar region." The arrival of the 13th MEU as part of the surge "gives us an opportunity to go into areas where previously we quite frankly we couldn't stretch that far and maintain a permanent presence."
The Marines operating in Thar Thar "haven't seen a lot of accurate attacks yet." They have mainly encountered indirect fire attacks and have taken some casualties from enemy IEDs. When asked if he expected a major battle in Thar Thar, Gurganus said no. "I don't expect it, I expect to continue to find IEDs, indirect attacks, they'll pop up and fire a few rounds and take off. I really do think they will look for a seam to try to squeeze out and go where there is not a coalition force presence."
Gurganus expressed confidence in the ability of Iraqi troops and police to secure the regions in his area of operations. On June 24, Brig. Gen. Mick Bednarek, the general in charge of the offensive in the north, and Maj. Gen. Rick Lynch, the commander in the south, expressed doubts about the ability of the Iraqi Army to hold the regions after they were cleared by U.S. forces.
"In our areas we probably have sufficient forces if they are not drawn off to be used in other parts of Iraq," said Gurganus. "Our strength in numbers will be sufficient to leave a presence." The Iraqi Army in the region is now manned well of 80 percent--close to 90 percent in the 1st Iraqi Army Division. As late as last year, units were manned as low as 39 percent. Gurganus attributed the surge in recruiting to the Anbar Awakening and other tribes which now oppose al Qaeda's attempt to subjugate the Iraqi people.
But the ability of the Iraqi Army and police to conduct complex counterinsurgency operations remains a question. "I don't worry about numbers as much as capabilities to fight a counterinsurgency," he noted. It is difficult to "raise an army as it fights at the same time."
Gurganus stated that despite these concerns he is very comfortable with integrating the Iraqi security forces into Multinational Forces West's operations. He noted the interaction between the Iraqi Army, the police, and Coalition forces in Ramadi and Fallujah have been "success stories" that he expects will be rep | | | |
