Four random thoughts about Barack Obama’s speech today.

*Obama repeatedly complained about “fear-mongering” and a “climate of fear” and unnamed people making unspecified arguments designed to arouse the irrational fears of the American public. The White House doesn’t get it. Terrorism is scary. There is no need to create such a climate – it already exists, even if people don’t spend every day thinking about these threats. And this climate exists not because of anything Dick Cheney has said but because al Qaeda killed 3,000 people on 9/11 and its terrorists are committed to doing more.

*Obama’s speech seemed to blame the Bush administration and aggressive lawyering and Guantanamo and enhanced interrogation for, well, everything. "Because the terrorists can only succeed if they swell their ranks and alienate America from our allies, and they will never be able to do that if we stay true to who we are; if we forge tough and durable approaches to fighting terrorism that are anchored in our timeless ideals."

But terrorists swelled their ranks during the Clinton years, sending some 20,000 terrorists through al Qaeda training camps alone. This happened at a time when Obama presumably believes we were being true to who we are and before the dark days of the Bush administration alienated America from its allies. This is true of much of Obama's rhetoric on terrorism. It's as if he thinks anti-American terrorism started with the Bush administration and if we are only more mindful of "American values" these terrorists will leave us alone.

*Obama lamented the “return of the politicization of these issues that have characterized the last several years.” One might argue that Obama has politicized these issues as much as anyone in American public life over the past several years. He campaigned against Bush administration policies that, in several cases, he now embraces. And last month he declassified and released Bush-era memos on enhanced interrogation while refusing to declassify and release Bush-era CIA documents that include the results of those interrogations. That, it seems to me, is a classic example of politicizing intelligence or national security or "these issues."

*Obama courageously challenged those believe in the “anything goes” philosophy of fighting terrorists. Only he never actually named any of its adherents. He couldn’t of course, because no serious participant in these debates advocates such an approach.

This is Obama at his laziest and most intellectually dishonest – constructing and knocking down straw-man arguments so absurd that they don’t even serve the purpose of straw men in the first place. In this case, one of the most important revelations of the OLC memos was that the most aggressive, forward-leaning policymakers were unwilling to sanction an “anything goes” approach to interrogation. Even those who disagree with the legal reasoning in those memos or disagree with the use of waterboarding have to concede that an "anything goes" approach would include tactics and techniques that make US-style "enhanced interrogations" seem positively quaint.

That's what we ought to call the men and women who interrogated the worst of the worst. For those most committed to the ridiculous crusade for terrorist rights, "enhanced interrogation" is not only immoral and illegal, it's ineffective. That argument, like Khalid Sheik Mohamed, doesn't hold water. Obviously it works sometimes, and there are plenty of senior officials, including both the current and former DNI, who have said as much. More responsible critics are satisfied to argue that the technique is illegal. Maybe they're right, but there are plenty of lawyers, and at least one Supreme Court Justice, who will argue the other side of that. It's not clear the United States government can prosecute a lawyer for holding a minority view, let alone convict an American hero for dunking a terrorist responsible for the murder of thousands. If they want any chance at getting twelve guilty votes, they'll have to hold the trial in Berkeley, which will at least make things easier on Professor Yoo.

As to the morality of the methods used, I don't see anything immoral about smacking around a terrorist or making him sit in the cold or dunking him in the water, but you can argue it either way. Still, I wonder why the same people squealing about the alleged moral indignity to which these monsters were subjected are the same people who want the government to keep morality out of their bedrooms and doctors' offices. Why should the government be forbidden from making a moral judgment about gay marriage or abortion but compelled to make a moral judgment about the treatment of terrorists plotting to murder Americans citizens?

The left will probably get their show-trial out of all this, and not because the Obama administration has any deep conviction on this issue. They seem to have bungled the thing so badly as to have completely lost control. Now the American people will get to see what national security means to the Obama administration: the prosecution of Bush administration officials who kept this country safe, and the release of detainees who tried to destroy our way of life. It's terrible for the country.

I can already see the political ads questioning these decisions three years from now, but then again I've been told Obama's election means the end of the old way of politics that had partisans question the decency and patriotism of their opponents. So maybe those ads will never see the light of day -- much like the American heroes whom the left would lock up simply for asking what they could do for their country.

Former Vice President Dick Cheney's appearance on CNN's "State of the Union with John King" has generated lots of discussion over the past 24 hours. Among the noteworthy things Cheney said was his claim that Barack Obama's decisions on national security policy have made us less safe.

KING: You made clear in an interview with the Politico when you left office that you were a little worried that President Obama might not be up to this challenge of fighting terrorism. I want to read you from that interview. You said you think there's a high probability of such an attempt, meaning a major attack on the United States like 9/11.

And you said, whether or not they can pull it off depends whether or not we keep in place policies that have allowed us to defeat all further attempts since 9/11 to launch mass casualty attacks against the United States."

Well, since taking office, President Obama has done these things to change the policies you helped put in place. He has announced he will close the Guantanamo Bay detention facility. He has announced he will close CIA black sites around the world, where they interrogate terror suspects. Says he will make CIA interrogators abide by the Army Field Manual, defined waterboarding as torture and ban it, suspend trials for terrorists by military commission, and now eliminate the label of enemy combatants.

I'd like to just simply ask you, yes or no, by taking those steps, do you believe the president of the United States has made Americans less safe?

CHENEY: I do. I think those programs were absolutely essential to the success we enjoyed of being able to collect the intelligence that let us defeat all further attempts to launch attacks against the United States since 9/11. I think that's a great success story. It was done legally. It was done in accordance with our constitutional practices and principles.

President Obama campaigned against it all across the country. And now he is making some choices that, in my mind, will, in fact, raise the risk to the American people of another attack.

In a story posted immediately after the interview, Politico's Mike Allen predicted that this part of the interview was "likely to get the most reaction." He was right. And the response from Cheney critics, many of them in the news media, has ranged from surprised to outraged -- as if Cheney's claim is somehow radical or impolite.

Democrats spent much of the last five years making the argument that Bush administration policies have made the country less safe. Indeed, much of the debate on national security policy during the last two presidential elections was devoted to the subject. And Cheney has defended those policies, sometimes without the help of the Bush White House and often virtually alone, without regard his standing in public opinion polls. So it is completely unsurprising that he would restate those views now.

The most interesting part of the interview, in my view, came when Cheney warned that Obama is, in effect, ending the War on Terror in favor of a return to law enforcement.

Now, I think part of the difficulty here as I look at what the Obama administration is doing, we made a decision after 9/11 that I think was crucial. We said this is a war. It's not a law enforcement problem.

Up until 9/11, it was treated as a law enforcement problem. You go find the bad guy, put him on trial, put him in jail. The FBI would go to Oklahoma City and find the identification tag off the truck and go find the guy that rented the truck and put him in jail.

Once you go into a wartime situation and it's a strategic threat, then you use all of your assets to go after the enemy. You go after the state sponsors of terror, places where they've got sanctuary. You use your intelligence resources, your military resources, your financial resources, everything you can in order to shut down that terrorist threat against you.

When you go back to the law enforcement mode, which I sense is what they're doing, closing Guantanamo and so forth, that they are very much giving up that center of attention and focus that's required, and that concept of military threat that is essential if you're going to successfully defend the nation against further attacks.

Some back-of-the-envelop math on Barack Obama’s speech last night. Although he acknowledged that we are “a nation at war,” in a speech of 6182 words the president used just 468 of them to talk about national security – the military and diplomacy, together – approximately 7 percent.

Of course the speech had to be largely -- even overwhelmingly -- about the economy. But the war was overshadowed by Obama's other priorities, too. He devoted some 827 words to education, 13 percent -- nearly double the time he spent talking about national security.

Most extraordinary, as Bill Kristol pointed out below, is his failure to talk about the 17,000 additional soldiers he will be sending to Afghanistan, other than a passing mention of “more who are ready to deploy.” Who are they? Why are they being sent? What will they do? What are his goals? We are left to wonder.

in history?

Claudia Rosett reports that the Obama administration appears to be easing -- lifting? -- sanctions on Syria, designated by the State Department as a state sponsor of terror.

Trouble is, the most transparent administration in history won't talk about it.

(H/T, Andy McCarthy, The Corner)

Should the United States continue the policy of striking at al Qaeda's network inside Pakistan? Over at Danger Room, Noah Shachtman interviews Dr. David Kilcullen, a counterinsurgency expert who has advised CENTCOM commander General David Petraeus and former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Dr. Kilcullen believes the U.S. should severely curtail the strikes:

"If we want to strengthen our friends and weaken our enemies in Pakistan, bombing Pakistani villages with unmanned drones is totally counterproductive," Dr. David Kilcullen tells Danger Room...

Kilcullen doesn't think all UAV attacks are bad. "While ever al Qa’ida remains active and can threaten the international community from bases within Pakistan, the need to strike terrorist targets on Pakistani territory will remain. But our policy should be to treat this as an absolute, and rarely invoked, last resort," he notes.

All strikes should be carried out in consultation with Islamabad, in "an area outside of effective Pakistani sovereignty," and a time when "the target is positively identified and clearly distinguishable from surrounding populations, reducing the risk of collateral damage to a level acceptable to elected political leaders."

Dr. Kilcullen's suggestion to use the strikes wisely and for maximum effect should be heeded, but there are a few items that should be addressed.

First, not all Pakistanis want the strikes to stop. Some secretly wish for the attacks to continue. Not everyone in Pakistan, particularly those in the northwest, enjoy living under the Taliban's jackboot (jacksandal?).

Second, just about every time we've informed Islamabad about targets in the tribal areas, these targets have magically disappeared. I've heard numerous such complaints from intelligence officials. The level of co-operation we get from Pakistan concerning al Qaeda has been less than helpful. Perhaps the Pakistanis can explain why Omar Saeed Sheikh, the man behind the murder of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl, is plotting attacks from a Pakistani jail? Or why Rashid Rauf, one of the masterminds of the 2006 plot to blow up airliners over the Atlantic Ocean, magically escaped Pakistani custody? I could list numerous Afghan Taliban commanders and leaders who have been captured in Pakistan and subsequently released, such as Mullah Obaidullah Akhund, the Taliban’s former minister of defense and a member of the Taliban's Shura Majlis, or executive council; and Mufti Yousuf, a top military commander in eastern Afghanistan.

Third, much of northwestern Pakistan is "an area outside of effective Pakistani sovereignty" and under Taliban and al Qaeda control. There is no shortage of targets. The U.S. strikes have been selective considering the very serious security issues inside Pakistan.

Fourth, the U.S. isn't "collecting scalps" as Dr. Kilcullen puts it, but is directly targeting al Qaeda's external network. A look at the key players killed in the attacks shows this.

Last week, Tom Ricks asserted that al Qaeda isn't behind the Afghan insurgency because the United States has taken out an inordinate amount of senior leaders. I laid out the reasons why I disagreed with Ricks' assessment in this post. Now there's one more reason why his premise is false: al Qaeda has banded with the Taliban and an assortment of allied jihadi groups to create what it calls the Lashkar al Zil, or the Shadow Army. This is essentially al Qaeda's paramilitary force that operates in Pakistan's northwest and in eastern and southern Afghanistan.

Al Qaeda has reformed its notorious 055 Brigade and added on several other brigades made of of Arab, Central Asians, and South Asians. The Shadow Army has had spectacular success in Pakistan, and has been behind some effective attacks in Afghanistan. You can witness one of its successful operations in Pakistan at the link above. And here is a photo of the Shadow Army, operating openly in Pakistan's Swat district, where the Pakistani Army has been defeated twice in the past two years.

At least one squad of the joint Taliban-al Qaeda Shadow Army operating in Swat.

Noah Schactman on the drone surge:

In 2008, 71 Predator robo-craft flew 138,404 combat hours -- a 94 percent increase from the year before, according to an Air Force presentation obtained by National Security Drone's Frank Naif.
That's a just one part of the nearly 400,000 flight hours that medium-to-large American unmanned planes logged during 2008 -- more than double 2006's figure. Over all, a Defense Department presentation observes, the number of drones has grown from 300 in 2002 to nearly 7000, six years later. The amount of U.S. surveillance coverage in the region is up 1431 percent, since 2001.

In related news, the other day NPR had a story reporting that several high military officials say al Qaeda is "decimated" and "really, really struggling."

P.W. Singer has a new book on robotics and warfare that you can find here. Also, Singer gave an interesting interview to Marketplace here.

The drones are excellent at destroying hard-to-reach targets. They can help clear out the enemy. But they can't hold. And they can't build. (Yet.) President Obama still needs to make good on his promise to expand the United States Army and Marine Corps. And while he's at it, he might want to help rebuild and expand our Navy, too.

Much has been written about Barack Obama's interview with Al Arabiya. One comment the president made has not gotten enough attention. "America was not born as a colonial power, and that the same respect and partnership that America had with the Muslim world as recently as 20 or 30 years ago, there’s no reason why we can’t restore that. And that I think is going to be an important task."

Fair to ask, then, how things looked as recently as 20 or 30 years ago. The answer: Not great. I'd been thinking about this for two days and now Max Boot, at Contentions, fills in some of the history, with an assist from Bernard Grun's The Timetables of History.

Boot writes:

It turns out that in 1989 U.S. fighters shot down two Libyan jets over the Gulf of Sidra. The last Soviet troops left Afghanistan, creating a vacuum that would eventually be filled by the Taliban. Ayatollah Khomeini issued a fatwa calling for Salman Rushdie’s death for “blasphemy.” Hundreds died in Lebanon’s long-running civil war while Hezbollah militants were torturing to death U.S. Marine Colonel William “Rich” Higgins, who had been kidnapped the previous year while serving as a UN peacekeeper in Lebanon.

And 1979? That was an even darker year-in many ways a turning point for the worse in the Middle East. That was, after all, the year that the shah of Iran was overthrown. He was replaced by the Ayatollah Khomeini, who launched a war against the West that is still unfolding. One of the first actions of this long struggle was the seizure of the US Embassy in Tehran and all of its personnel as hostages. The same year saw the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, which led to the growth of the mujahideen, some of whom would later morph into Al Qaeda and the Taliban. This was also the year that Islamic militants temporarily seized control of the Grand Mosque in Mecca, an event that drove the Saudi royal family to become ever more fundamentalist.

In other news in 1979, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, the former prime minister of Pakistan, was hanged by General Zia al-Hak, inaugurating a long period when Pakistan would be under the effective control of the army in alliance with Islamic militants. That year mobs also attacked U.S. embassies throughout the Muslim world from Kabul and Islamabad to Tripoli. The one bright spot in 1979 was the signing of the Camp David Accord between the US, Egypt, and Israel, which did not, unfortunately, auger a “new” Middle East as many optimists hoped.

As Boot's post makes clear, Obama's comments reveal a rather short view of history and one in which George W. Bush is the cause of America's problems.

It's worth remembering, as a very smart foreign policy thinker pointed out to me the other day, the world loved America under Bill Clinton -- or at least liked and respected us more than it did under George W. Bush. (See here for more.) And despite those warm feelings, the halcyon 1990s brought the dramatic build-up of the global jihadist network, the training of some 20,000 fighters (at least) from camps in Afghanistan, and several attacks on American interests. Much of the planning for the 9/11 attacks took place during the Clinton years, too.

Being loved, it seems, is not quite the same thing as being safe.

Barack Obama was sworn in Tuesday. He ordered Guantanamo closed on Thursday. And today comes news that the United States plans to send 94 Yemeni detainees from Guantanamo back to Yemen -- a nation with a long history of accommodating terrorists.

Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh made the announcement today at a security conference in Sana'a. "Now, within 60-90 days, 94 Yemeni detainees will be here among us," he said.

The Yemen Observer reports that US Ambassador to Yemen Stephen Seche expressed his hope that the detainees would be able to "make a future for themselves" back in Yemen. Seche made his comments to Stephen Kaufman of America.gov.

“We are going to have to find a way to relocate them at some point. Certainly we would like to be able to bring them back to Yemen and have them integrate themselves back into their own society with their families and make a future for themselves here,” Seche said.

He added: “Except in the case perhaps of some very hard-core elements, we believe that the majority of these detainees can be put productively into a … reintegration program with the goal over time of enabling them to find a way back into Yemeni society without posing a security risk."

And who will make that determination? Let's hope it's not the Yemeni government -- a regime that never quite accepted the "with-us-or-against-us" paradigm of George W. Bush's war on terror and insisted on both. At various times, Yemen has released high-ranking al Qaeda terrorists, including Jamal Ahmed al Badawi, the mastermind of the attack on the USS Cole in October 2000. When they're not releasing terrorists outright, Yemeni prisons seem subject to a surprising number of "escapes," such as this one in February of 2006, when al Badawi and 12 other al Qaeda terrorists.

Saleh's announcement comes on the heels of a New York Times story about Abu Sufyan al-Azdi al-Shahri, who was released from Guantanamo and now serves as a leader of Al Qaeda in Yemen. Al Shahri is now appearing in a new al Qaeda video, along with another terrorist released from Guantanamo Bay.

Are Saleh's comments accurate? Will the Obama administration release 94 Yemeni detainees from Guantanamo to Yemen? Does President Obama share the views of his Ambassador to Yemen that the majority of Yemeni Gitmo detainees should be allowed to return to their native country to "make a future for themselves" back home?

Is this Barack Obama's War on Terror?

... That the war on terror is over. The Washington Post's Dana Priest has the major scoop today:

President Obama yesterday eliminated the most controversial tools employed by his predecessor against terrorism suspects. With the stroke of his pen, he effectively declared an end to the "war on terror," as President George W. Bush had defined it, signaling to the world that the reach of the U.S. government in battling its enemies will not be limitless.

Imagine that, a war that ends with a few strokes of the pen. I'm trying to think of other great men who ended wars by signing a few pieces of paper...Lee at Appamattox, Jodl at Rheims, Shigemitsu on board the Missouri. Or maybe what Priest means is that those parts of the war on terror that violated international norms and offended the decency of liberals and Islamists alike will now be replaced by a kinder, gentler, legitimate law enforcement action against suspected terrorists who remain innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a jury of Glenn Greenwald, Andrew Sullivan, Joe Klein, and Jose Padilla (the vote must be unanimous!).

Meanwhile, something that looks an awful lot like Bush's war on terror continues with a drone strike in Pakistan killing seven suspected terrorists, and news that a Gitmo detainee, no doubt innocent until his rage at being unconstitutionally detained boiled over upon release, has since emerged as the emir of al Qaeda in Yemen. Naturally, when Obama releases detainees they will be informed that the war is over, so hopefully this is the last time we'll see this kind of problem.

John Ondrasik, the lead singer of Five for Fighting, has released a second "CD for the Troops" -- a free download for anyone with a military ID. Ondrasik is a great guy and this is a worthy project. Spread the word and send people here.

The Pentagon is planning to expand the number of air bases in the remote regions of Afghanistan’s south and east, USA Today reports. The bases will allow the U.S. military to sortie more of the deadly unmanned Predator and Reaper aircraft that provide surveillance and striking power for U.S. forces in Afghanistan. The bases are needed “particularly in the rugged mountain area near the border with Pakistan” as the region “has seen some of the toughest fighting for U.S. troops.”

The article focuses on using the Predators and Reapers to support U.S. and allied forces in Afghanistan, but the USA Today misses the elephant in the room. The U.S. military and CIA have been conducting covert airstrikes into Pakistan’s lawless tribal areas that border eastern Afghanistan, primarily with unmanned Predators and Reapers. The strikes have skyrocketed over the past year after President Bush loosened the restrictions on striking inside Pakistan. U.S. intelligence is deeply concerned the next attack on the West will be hatched in Pakistan’s tribal areas.

The United States has conducted at least 28 airstrikes and cross-border attacks in Pakistan in during 2008 (you can see the current list here). Twenty-one of these attacks have occurred between Aug. 31 and Nov. 7. At least four senior al Qaeda leaders have been killed in these attacks. In comparison, there were only 10 recorded strikes during 2006 and 2007 combined.

The big question is whether or not President-elect Barack Obama will continue the current policy of hitting al Qaeda and their Taliban allies inside Pakistan. The Pakistani government has already implored Obama to halt the attacks. Obama has run on a platform that emphasizes a kinder, gentler foreign policy that stresses diplomacy. He also promised to be aggressive inside Pakistan. He will soon learn that being “liked” and “respected” by the international community often conflicts with vital U.S. national security interests.

The New York Times tells us today that the Bush administration granted approval for the U.S. military "to use new authority to attack the Qaeda terrorist network anywhere in the world, and a more sweeping mandate to conduct operations in countries not at war with the United States." The U.S. military used this "broad, secret authority to carry out nearly a dozen previously undisclosed attacks against Al Qaeda and other militants in Syria, Pakistan and elsewhere," the Times reports.

But anyone who has been remotely following operations against al Qaeda and its allied terror groups has long been able to deduce the U.S. government has granted approval for the military and CIA to attack high value targets outside of the hot zones of Iraq and Afghanistan. This was one of the worst-kept "secrets" because the high-profile nature of the operations can't remain hidden.

With very little time and effort, I tracked down seven of these so-called secret attacks. One of the most brazen attacks occurred in the country of Madagascar in January 2007. That's right, Madagascar. U.S. special operations forces from the hunter killer teams of Task Force 88 (back then it was called Task Force 145, the name has likely changed yet again) killed Mohammed Jamal Khalifa, one of Osama bin Laden's brothers-in-law who has deep roots in al Qaeda as a financier and facilitator.

U.S. intelligence tracked Khalifa for a long time (he lived in Saudi Arabia) and waited for the right moment to pounce. The Task Force made it look like Khalifa was killed in a robbery, but it was clear this was a hit. The Saudis went ballistic over Khalifa's death and lodged a protest with the United States.

Back in January 2007, I stated the U.S. was clearly hunting al Qaeda operatives:

Task Force 145 has a mandate to hunt down senior al Qaeda operatives world wide, and is known to have operated in Pakistan to destroy Osama bin Laden's Black Guard. Also, the U.S. recently deployed naval assets to the (East Africa) region, as well as Task Force 145, in the hunt for al Qaeda and Islamic Courts leaders fleeing Somalia.

In addition to the strikes against Khalifa in Madagascar and the Black Guard in Pakistan, the U.S. military have been active in Somalia. We knew back in early January 2007 that the CIA and the U.S. military were operating on the ground in Somalia, directing attacks against al Qaeda and the Islamic Courts. Task Force 88 killed Aden Hashi Ayro, a senior leader in Shabaab, al Qaeda's front in Somalia. In March 2008, an airstrike targeted Hassan Turki, a military commander in Shabaab who ran a terror camp on the Somali-Kenyan border.

The United States also targeted three senior al Qaeda operatives behind the attacks in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998. Fazul Abdullah Mohammad, Saleh Ali Saleh Nabhan, and Abu Tala al Sudani have been marked for death starting in late 2006. Sudani was killed during the strikes in early 2007.

In another incident, the Task Force captured Abd al Hadi al Iraqi in late 2006. Hadi was one of Osama bin Laden's senior deputies, and was personally chosen by bin Laden to monitor al Qaeda operations in Iraq. Hadi was captured outside of Iraq, but it was never stated where. Good money is on Syria or Iran. Hadi was known to meet with senior al Qaeda leaders inside Iran.

Some secret.

So it turns out that not only is Sarah Palin completely vindicated in the state-trooper non-scandal, but the New York Times has discovered that maybe that gulag down at Guantanamo isn't such a bad idea after all.

Here's the WSJ taking apart the Times:

In their 1,600-word dispatch "Next President Will Face Test on Detainees," reporters William Glaberson and Margot Williams discover that, gee whiz, many of the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay really are dangerous terrorists. The Times reviewed "thousands of pages" of evidence that the government has so far made public and concludes that perhaps the reality is more complicated than the critics claim.

Lo and behold, detainees are implicated in such terror attacks as the 1998 embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania and the 2000 attack on the USS Cole. Those with "serious terrorism credentials" include al Qaeda operatives Abu Zubaydah, Ramzi bin al-Shibh and the so-called "Dirty 30," Osama bin Laden's cadre of bodyguards. The Times didn't mention Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the architect of 9/11, though he's awaiting a war-crimes tribunal at Gitmo too.

Both Barack Obama and John McCain have pledged to put Guantanamo out of business, but, as the Times explains, "the review of the government's public files underscores the challenges of fulfilling that promise. The next president will have to contend with sobering intelligence claims against many of the remaining detainees." Now they tell us.

The next thing you know, the Times will be telling us Iran really is a problem and that the FISA courts are important to national security . . .

Obama at a press conference yesterday:

In 2002 I said we should focus on finishing the fight against Osama Bin Laden. Throughout this campaign I’ve argued that we need more troops and more resources to win the war in Iraq. But we also need a new strategy that deals with Pakistan that deals with issues of corruption that deals with issues of narco-terrorism. We need a comprehensive strategy and approach to confront the growing threat from al Qaeda along the Pakistani border.

Did Obama forget which war he doesn't mind losing? Obama usually says he wants to "end" the war in Iraq and "win" war in Afghanistan. Throughout the campaign he has argued that more troops and resources would lead to success in Afghanistan, but he said that that same policy would lead to failure in Iraq. He must have meant to say "Afghanistan" instead of "Iraq." That's a pretty big mixup. As far as I can tell, this false impression Obama gave voters about his position on Iraq has gone uncorrected.

Recordings of bin Laden reciting his penwork were found on some of the 1,500 cassettes discovered in Kandahar, Afghanistan following the 9/11 attacks. Flagg Miller, an assistant professor at University of California, Davis, has been studying them and will publish his findings next week in the October issue of Language and Communication. Yale is currently cleaning and digitizing the cassettes.

Miller affords us the insight that “Bin Laden is an entertainer with an agenda” and “uses poetry to tap into the cultural orientation, the history and the ethics of Islam,” while BBC gushes a bit, saying “…Saudi-born Bin Laden [is] a skilled poet who weaves mystical references as well as jihadist imagery into his verse, reciting 1,400-year-old poetry alongside more current mujahideen-era work.”

He weaves? If so, there are more than a few unseemly strands in the fabric. Check out his work below:

Tomorrow, William, you will discover which young man
[will] confront your brethren, who have been deceived by [their own] leaders.
A youth, who plunged into the smoke of war, smiling
He hunches forth, staining the blades of lances red
May God not let my eye stray from the most eminent
Humans, should they fall, Djinn, should they ride
[And] lions of the jungle, whose only fangs
[Are their] lances and short Indian swords
As the stallion bears my witness that I hold them back
[My] stabbing is like the cinders of fire that explode into flame
On the day of the stallions’ expulsion, how the war-cries attest to me
As do stabbing, striking, pens, and books.

An unnamed Arabic specialist quoted in the Times says that the poems are a “adolescent and brutal,” “a disgrace,” and don’t merit publishing. You can say that again.

Photini Philippidou reports that there's a Pakistani protest song "Ye Hum Naheen", Urdu for "This Is Not Us", seeking to redefine Islam as anti-terrorist. The song has stirred 62.8 million Pakistanis to sign a petition, either by name or thumbprint, saying that true Muslims don't support terrorism. Check it out here.

Andy McCarthy writes:

In Hamdan’s case, we thus have a double problem. First, the jury of military officers somehow decided that material support to our enemies, by a guy who actually protected bin Laden and transported weapons for al-Qaeda, was worth only five-and-a-half years in jail. Second, the judge then made matters incalculably worse by effectively giving Hamdan what everyone (including the judge) must know will be taken as a get-out-of-jail card: i.e., full credit for the five years Hamdan has already been in custody as an enemy combatant. That turns the 66 months into six months.

Understand: there is no requirement to try captured enemy combatants for war crimes. As the laws of war have long provided, and as the Supreme Court has recently reaffirmed, wartime enemy combatants may be held without trial for the duration of hostilities. War crimes charges are an additional measure against combatants who commit egregious law-of-war violations.

Yet, that distinction has been lost in the media’s coverage. Absurdly, Hamdan is now in a better position as a convicted war-criminal than those who have merely been detained as enemy combatants without war crimes charges. The American military has managed to value terrorist war crimes as a less serious impropriety than terrorist war participation. Instead of highlighting Hamdan’s conviction, the government will now spend its time explaining why he is still being held after his sentence is over.

Read the whole thing.

From the New York Times:

A panel of six military officers convicted a former driver for Osama bin Laden of a war crime Tuesday, completing the first military commission trial here and the first conducted by the United States since the end of World War II.

The military commission conviction of the former driver, Salim Ahmed Hamdan, a Yemeni who was part of a select group of drivers and bodyguards for Mr. bin Laden until 2001, was a long-sought, if some what qualified, victory for the Bush administration, which has been working to begin military commission trials at the isolated naval base here for nearly seven years.

The commission acquitted Mr. Hamdan of a conspiracy charge, arguably the more serious of two charges he faced, but convicted him of a separate charge of providing material support for terrorism.

The Supreme Court's recent decision in Boumediene v. Bush was a terrible blunder that repudiated the measures governing the treatment and legal status of terrorist detainees, agreed to in good faith by President Bush and the U.S. Congress multiple times. It is now once again up to Congress and the president to resolve the numerous legal issues and complications resulting from Boumediene. Luckily, Senator Lindsey Graham is on the job.

On July 31, Sens. Graham and Lieberman introduced the Enemy Combatant Detention Review Act, which would clarify the procedures for judicial review of the Guantanamo detainees' habeas corpus petitions. The legislation would charge a single court - the U.S. District Court for the D.C. Circuit - with review of all detainee habeas petitions, and would also legislate clear rules for review of those petitions. For example, a detainee would not be allowed to see secret evidence against him, though his lawyer would be able to do so. Also, soldiers on the battlefield could not be called from their posts to testify unless the presiding judge deems it absolutely necessary. The law would also stipulate that no detainee be released in the United States. If his habeas petition was affirmed by the court, the detainee would be transferred into the custody of the Department of Homeland Security, which would arrange his transfer back to his country of origin or a third country willing to take him.

It's unlikely that the Detention Review Act will be put to a vote this year, but Graham and Lieberman, along with their cosponsors, have at least made a good faith effort to address some of the serious and pressing national security concerns that have arisen as a consequence of Boumediene. Will Senator Obama join them?

Wait. You probably already know the answer to that.

Brian Williams held an interview with Mahmoud Ahmadenijad that you’ll be able to see on NBC tonight. The following exchange will likely make the most news:

BRIAN WILLIAMS: Is Iran's goal to have nuclear power or to be a nuclear power?

Pres. AHMADINEJAD: (Through translator) We are not working to manufacture a bomb. We don't believe in a nuclear bomb. We also think it will not effect political relations. The Zionist regime which you refer to earlier has an arsenal of hundreds of nuclear warheads. Has this arsenal helped the zionists to prevail inside the conflict inside Lebanon? No.

Again, did nuclear arms help the Soviet Union from falling and disintegrating. For that matter, did a nuclear bomb help the U.S. to prevail inside Iraq or Afghanistan, for that matter. Nuclear bombs belong to the 20th century. We are living in a new century. We think that things to nuclear issue, an inappropriate measure or action was taken. Nuclear energy must not be equaled to a nuclear bomb.

Phew! For a while there, I feared that Ahmadenijad and his regime were downright belligerent. Now I see that they view nuclear weapons as just soooo 20th century. Then again, with a regime that worships the mores of the 7th century, perhaps something purportedly belonging to an era that passed a mere nine years ago still has a little shelf life left in it.

If we had a “Most Offensive Quote of the Day” every day, Joe Biden would probably come to own the prize. But even by the senator’s lofty standards of chronic obtuseness, he outdid himself this afternoon:

“If John (McCain) wants to know where the bad guys live, come back with me to Afghanistan. We know where they reside. And it's not in Iraq.”

I know Democrats get a certain tingling in their thighs when their politicos talk butch in such a manner. Still, this comment is so over the top, somewhere in America Wesley Clark is probably feeling much better about his public relations acumen. What’s more, Biden’s comment turns what ought to be a serious conversation about two vital foreign theatres into a juvenile schoolyard taunt.

I have a suggestion for the senator: Perhaps he could bring his newly benign assessment to our soldiers who are serving in Iraq and the veterans who have served there. It would surely come as a huge relief to our soldiers currently in Iraq that their work has suddenly become “bad guy free.” Perhaps Biden should also share his crass bad-guy-appraisal with all of the Iraqis who have stood by us and who, like our soldiers, have given and still are giving so much for that nation’s freedom.

We all understand that the Democrats have pivoted from Iraq-is-a-quagmire to Iraq-is-over, the better to pretend that Afghanistan has become their foreign policy obsession. Politics necessitates certain idiocies at times, and we are cognizant of this. But it would be nice if Senator Biden could perform his surrogate duties while maintaining an appropriate respect for our soldiers in Iraq and our Iraqi allies who continue to pursue a very dangerous line of work.

Actually, it would be even nicer if Barack Obama chose surrogates who didn’t channel a rhetorical bull in a china shop who has just come down with a wicked case of Tourette Syndrome.

The Hill reports:

The Senate on Thursday nearly unanimously confirmed Gen. David Petraeus as the new commander of the U.S. Central Command and Gen. Ray Odierno, President Bush’s pick as the top U.S. military commander in Iraq.

Sens. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) and Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) opposed the confirmation of Petraeus, while only Harkin opposed Odierno.

Sen. Lieberman offered this fitting praise in a statement:

There is no doubt in my mind that General Petraeus and General Odierno are the two best men to assume these two critically important commands.

General Petraeus has won the admiration and respect of the entire country over the past eighteen months. As commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, he has overseen one of the most dramatic turnarounds in American military history, quite literally seizing victory out of the jaws of defeat. There is no one better qualified or more capable to lead America’s brave men and women in uniform in the Middle East, which remains one of the most strategically vital regions of the world for America's national security.

I also have full confidence in General Odierno. As commander of Multi-National Corps – Iraq, General Odierno brilliantly adapted General Petraeus' overarching counterinsurgency strategy into operational art. As much as anyone else, he deserves credit for the extraordinary transformation in security conditions in Iraq over the past year.

In addition, General Odierno's willingness to accept another tour in Iraq -- having only just recently returned to his family in the United States after fifteen months there -- is a testament to his extraordinary patriotism and inspiring dedication to duty. There is no one better qualified to succeed General Petraeus in Baghdad than General Odierno.

About five months ago, former Al Gore advisor Naomi Wolf went on Fox News and said, “We need to get our babies out of Iraq.” In spite or perhaps because of its shocking offensiveness, Wolf's comment revealed the way some members of the left think about the American military – as a hapless collection of dupes, rubes and children.

The organization Vets For Freedom exists partly to rebuke that notion, and the ad above will hopefully introduce people like Naomi Wolf to the real nature of our military. The men and women who signed up to join our armed forces personify John F. Kennedy’s notion of a people willing to “bear any burden.” They don’t want to get “the babies” (i.e themselves and their brothers and sisters in arms) out of Iraq. They want to win.

Yesterday, I had the audacity to suggest that the lack of any terror attacks on American soil since 9/11 represented an accomplishment for the Bush administration. Frankly, I thought this was a rather banal assertion. Nevertheless, many Bush haters took issue with the contention – much to my surprise.

First of all, mea culpa. Make that mea maxima culpa. The way I worded things allowed for a surfeit of blogger mirth. Some overly clever types eagerly pointed out that since the Clinton administration saw several years of no terror attacks on American soil after the 1993 attempt to take the World Trade Center down, then it too had to qualify as a success.

Once again, I apologize for providing careless wording that would inevitably serve as catnip for Bush critics. Yet I assume the critics’ playfulness wasn’t really meant to serve as a serious argument that the Clinton administration had effective anti-terror policies. Yes, it’s true enough that after the ’93 attack there were no more Jihadist incidents on American soil for over seven years. But there was the attack on the Cole, the embassy bombings and a general growing of the Jihadist menace that went unchecked and culminated on 9/11.

For what it’s worth, I’ve never been one who thought the Bush administration deserves a pass for 9/11. Several administrations’ neglect made 9/11 possible, and the second Bush administration was part of the malfeasance. This administration came to office with a Secretary of Defense who talked about two things – transformation and asymmetrical threats. So there was at least one high ranking guy who perceived the danger.

And yet the administration did nothing of substance until the towers fell. One can chalk this failing up to Washington inertia or the possibility that America never would have tolerated traveling without its precious box cutters until something dramatic had happened. Still, the fact remains the Bush administration did little (or more likely nothing) to address the dangerous dynamic that had developed under his predecessors until 9/11 shook the entire body politic out of its torpor.

Back to the preset day - the issue of whether or not the administration deserves any credit for the subsequent lack of terror attacks reveals a fundamental philosophical divide in our current politics. Fareed Zakaria’s article in Newsweek today is in its own strange and confused way enlightening on that matter:

“It is by now overwhelmingly clear that Al Qaeda and its philosophy are not the worldwide leviathan that they were once portrayed to be. Both have been losing support over the last seven years. The terrorist organization's ability to plan large-scale operations has crumbled, their funding streams are smaller and more closely tracked.”

Later in his article, Zakaria generously allows that the administration deserves “some credit for its counterterrorism activities.” Still, the wording that I quoted above is interesting. Note how Zakaria mentions that Al Qaeda’s abilities “have crumbled.” It’s as if he’s suggesting that the “crumbling” was the result of nature or perhaps old age. The notion that American policies had something to do with the “crumbling” is strangely absent from his brief history on the battle with Al Qaeda.

There are dire implications to this way of thinking. There’s a revisionist school of thought that posits that the best way to treat the war on terrorism is as a law enforcement matter. Barack Obama saluted this approach a couple of weeks ago, citing the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and its aftermath as a template for how to deal with terrorism. This is a remarkable position. Assume for a minute that the 1993 attack had succeeded, and that one tower had toppled into the other killing 50,000 people. Would the presence of a few Jihadists in jail cells really qualify the whole incident as a success?

Let’s get back to Zakaria. In his piece, he states, “The neoconservative Weekly Standard finally recognizes that ‘the enemy,’ as it likes to say ominously, is much weaker now, but quickly notes that Bush deserves all the credit.” Personally, I don’t recall anyone in these pages insisting that “Bush deserves all the credit.” It’s a tad surprising that a careful writer like Zakaria either failed to provide a quote to support such a bold assertion or indulged in some distorting hyperbole.

Speaking just for myself, I think the administration’s policy of treating Jihadist terror as a matter of war rather than a matter for the constable has contributed to our safety. Al Qaeda has not spontaneously “crumbled.” It has been gravely harmed by effective administration policies.

I realize those are debatable assertions, and I mean debatable in its most literal sense. This entire matter is one that should be debated and argued over. We haven’t had a terrorist attack on American soil since 9/11. The public’s concern about terror attacks is at its lowest point since 9/11. These are not developments that anyone foresaw in 9/11’s immediate aftermath. Not even Fareed Zakaria.

How we got to this point is an important matter. The question of “Why have we been safe?” is worthy of serious debate and discussion. To give Zakaria his due, in his piece today he stakes out certain intellectual positions in this conversation. They may be intellectual positions that I find ahistorical and politically convenient, but at least he makes an argument and concedes the undeniable point that “the administration deserves some credit.”

The following may be a rather banal assertion, but then again I'm the guy who thought saying the Bush administration deserves some credit for the lack of terror attacks on American soil since 9/11 was banal: The next administration ought to take a look at the things the Bush administration has done right. The next administration will want to emulate them. In other words, it will be a very bad thing if the next administration and its intellectual supporters start with the intellectual fantasy that the Bush administration has done literally everything completely wrong,

If Representative William Delahunt from Massachusetts had to choose sides in that fight, it seems he would choose al Qaeda over Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff. At the end of a televised House Judiciary Committee hearing yesterday, where Addington appeared under subpoena, Delahunt said that he was glad the world's most lethal terrorist organization finally got a glimpse of the low-profile official.

"I'm sure they [al Qaeda] are watching, and I'm glad they finally have a chance to see you, Mr. Addington, given your penchant for being unobtrusive."

You might think that whatever the state of partisan Washington it would be unacceptable for a sitting Member of Congress to hope that al Qaeda gets a chance to see a senior executive branch official, not-so-subtly wishing him ill. Apparently it's okay. Dana Milbank, the Washington Post's resident snarkist who included the exchange in his column, was more outraged that Addington's "unbridled hostility" toward committee Democrats than he was with Delahunt's odious comment.

Delahunt tried to walk his comment back yesterday. His explanation makes no sense. Powerline has more.

An apology -- at least -- would seem appropriate. I'm not holding my breath.

UPDATE: It's nice to see someone else who thinks it's outrageous.

If only the Taliban had respect for evolving community standards:

Militants in Pakistan have carried out what officials have called a "public execution" of two Afghans before thousands of cheering supporters.

The pair were alleged to have helped an American missile strike that killed 14 people in a border village last month.

Correspondents say that the brazen nature of the killings -- one man was decapitated and another shot -- show the Taliban's growing power.

Earlier in the week, Russ Feingold said he wouldn't filibuster the FISA bill--but that was apparently before he got his marching orders from the netroots. His attempt to kill the bill last night failed on a vote to begin debate, 80 to 15. The Huffington/Kos crowd might not approve of the majority of Democrats who acted reasonably, but the rest of America thanks them.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is one eccentric terrorist. First, he objects to a court-artist's rendition of his schnoz. Now we learn he wrote poetry for his CIA interrogator's wife.

Mr. Martinez came in after the rough stuff, the ultimate good cop with the classic skills: an unimposing presence, inexhaustible patience and a willingness to listen to the gripes and musings of a pitiless killer in rambling, imperfect English. He achieved a rapport with Mr. Mohammed that astonished his fellow C.I.A. officers.

A canny opponent, Mr. Mohammed mixed disinformation and braggadocio with details of plots, past and planned. Eventually, he grew loquacious. “They’d have long talks about religion,” comparing notes on Islam and Mr. Martinez’s Catholicism, one C.I.A. officer recalled. And, the officer added, there was one other detail no one could have predicted: “He wrote poems to Deuce’s wife.”

I personally believe Mohammed is a committed author of Haiku, but perhaps he instead composed limericks of the Nantucket variety. A free WEEKLY STANDARD t-shirt will be awarded to our first reader who sends us the actual poems.

Lest anyone forget, Saddam Hussein also dabbled with poetry while in American custody, i.e. "[O]ur Baath Party blossoms like a branch turns green." Is forcing detainees to draft poems now an official CIA interrogation technique? Perhaps instead of waterboarding terrorists, the CIA can just start sponsoring spoken word night at Gitmo or poetry contests at Abu Ghraib?

Many have already expressed appropriate outrage at the New York Times for printing the name of Khalid Sheikh Mohammad's CIA interrogator, Deuce Martinez. Surely Martinez--who interrogated leaders of an organization with a penchant for sawing off heads--was put in much greater danger than, say, Valerie Plame, who was working a desk job at the CIA when her identity became public knowledge, to the horror of a whole host of people who had never before lost any sleep over CIA assets.

But what was lost in the discussion over the Times's reckless decision is the story's revealing reporting on the efficacy of waterboarding. According to the Times, senior FBI "agents got Abu Zubaydah talking without the use of force, and he revealed the central role of Mr. Mohammed in the 9/11 plot," but two paragraphs later we learn this:

John C. Kiriakou, a former C.I.A. counterterrorism officer who was the first to question Abu Zubaydah, [...] was not present for the waterboarding but read the resulting intelligence reports, said he had been told that Abu Zubaydah became compliant after 35 seconds of the water treatment.

“It was like flipping a switch,” Mr. Kiriakou said of the shift from resistance to cooperation. He said he thought such “desperate measures” were justified in the “desperate time” in 2002 when another attack seemed imminent. But on reflection, he said, he had concluded that waterboarding was torture and should not be permitted. “We Americans are better than that,” he said.

So for critics who say that there is no "proof" waterboarding worked: Now we have a statement from a CIA agent who thinks waterboarding is immoral but admits that it's what actually got Zubaydah talking.

That won't be surprising to most honest observers. Both presidential candidates oppose waterboarding and would ban it as unethical. But let's not delude ourselves into thinking that it doesn't actually work--there never would have been any debate if that were the case.

Despite yesterday's successful mission in Southern Afghanistan, which resulted in the deaths of several hundred terrorists, the New York Times continues to assert that Afghanistan is an utter disaster and the U.S. lacks a coherent strategy. In an editorial today, the Times claims most of the 50,000 NATO troops deployed there are American. Not true. A majority of NATO soldiers are from other countries as this handy chart courtesy of Reuters details. The United States contributes a majority of soldiers only if one counts non-NATO forces and excludes the 140,000 Afghan troopers.

The Times also undersells the contributions of Afghan soldiers in the protection of their own communities, writing that only two army units are "fully capable." This stat is of little consequence as Afghan troops play key roles in nearly all military missions--including yesterday's battle in Kandahar.

Perhaps the editorial's biggest mistake is in claiming, without evidence, that the Taliban is stronger than it was two years ago. Reports on the ground give rise to contradictory conclusions. A December 2007 poll of Afghans found "More than 40 percent said the Taliban had increased in strength in their area." The same poll, however, concluded, "There's been no meaningful change . . . in the number of Afghans who report clashes between Taliban and government or foreign forces in their area."

Moreover, support for the Taliban among the general population has not increased between 2006 and 2007, and "70 percent [of Afghans] rate their overall living conditions positively, and 66 percent rate their own local security positively." Many problems for sure. Utter disaster, I think not.

Writing at the Atlantic.com, Matthew Yglesias draws a fine distinction:

French television asked Ahmadenijad what he meant about how Israel should be wiped from the map, and he replied: "Why are you worried? Where is the Soviet Union? It has disappeared, has it not?"

Now I think it's actually clear enough why one might worry about this, and I have no objection to anyone worrying, but it really is different from threatening to kill all the inhabitants.

Ready for some irony to kick off your weekend? The name of he book that Yglesias recently authored is "Heads in the Sand."

Andy McCarthy praises the FISA compromise that Congress has worked out:

Here is the bottom line: Our intelligence agencies will once again have authority to conduct aggressive monitoring of foreign powers, including terrorist organizations, which threaten the United States. In particular, this will be the case overseas — that is, when foreigners located outside our borders communicate with each other. The Central Intelligence Agency and the National Security Agency will essentially be able to collect foreign intelligence without interference from the courts, the status quo ante that was U.S. law for decades before being upset by a secret court ruling last year.

Moreover, the telecommunications companies which patriotically complied with administration requests for assistance in the emergency conditions that obtained after nearly 3,000 Americans were mass-murdered in the 9/11 attacks will receive retroactive immunity. That is, they will be relieved of the potential billions in liability they (and their shareholders and customers) faced in scores of lawsuits.

McCarthy notes the compromise isn't perfect: It requires a standard of "probable cause," which "has no place in national-security surveillance against foreign threats." Also, the compromise usurps executive authority by purporting "to make congressional statutes — i.e., the laws that impose judicial oversight — the 'exclusive means' by which electronic surveillance may be conducted."

But if Russ Feingold says the bill "is not a compromise; it is a capitulation," that's good enough for government work. Right?

UPDATE: In the House, the bill passes 293 to 129.

In the past week, several disturbing stories out of Afghanistan suggested the Taliban was gaining traction, especially in Kandahar, where an elaborate jail-break freed hundreds of terrorists. Afghan and NATO troops though have already taken action to curb this disturbing trend, and it sounds like they're succeeding.

After a day of airstrikes and ground operations against a surge by Taliban fighters, provincial authorities here said Thursday that hundreds of militants had been killed or wounded in the valleys and villages of the strategic Arghandab region on the approaches to Kandahar.

Afghan and NATO forces poured reinforcements, armored vehicles and helicopter gunships into the area Wednesday after the insurgents infiltrated 18 villages. The influx of fighters came less than a week after a jailbreak in Kandahar freed hundreds of Taliban prisoners.

Asadullah Khaled, the governor of Kandahar Province, told a news conference in the Arghandab district compound on Thursday: “Hundreds of militants have been killed and wounded, their dead bodies have been left on the ground, with numbers of light and heavy weapons.”

While he said that the Arghandab district was “completely cleared of insurgents” operations were continuing to root out any “insurgents who are hiding.”

Mr. Khaled said most of the insurgents were from Pakistan’s Waziristan area, commanded by a man called Baitullah Masood. “He sent the men to destroy the lives of innocent Afghans,” Mr. Khaled said. He said there had been no civilian casualties and no new Afghan or NATO casualties on Thursday.

Barack Obama said this today about prosecuting terrorists in an interview with ABC News. "And, you know, let's take the example of Guantanamo. What we know is that, in previous terrorist attacks -- for example, the first attack against the World Trade Center, we were able to arrest those responsible, put them on trial. They are currently in U.S. prisons, incapacitated."

No, not all of them. Abdul Rahman Yasin, an Iraqi native, was twice interrogated by the FBI and then allowed to walk away a free man. He fled the United States in the days after that attack and returned, with the assistance of officials at the Iraqi embassy in Amman, Jordan, to Baghdad. He lived openly in Baghdad with his father and a neighbor interviewed in 1994 by an ABC News/Newsweek investigative team told the reporters that he was working for the Iraqi regime.

There are conflicting reports about how Saddam Hussein treated Yasin after these reports were made public, with some documentation suggesting the Iraqis were holding him under some form of house arrest and other documents that seem to indicate he was being actively harbored -- given housing and living allowances -- by Saddam Hussein's regime.

What is not in dispute, however, is that Saddam Hussein's intelligence services helped Yasin return to Iraq mere days after he helped orchestrate the 1993 World Trade Center attack. According to the 2004 Senate Intelligence Committee report on Prewar Intelligence (signed by all of the panel's Democrats): "Abdul Rahman Yasin, a fugitive from the attack, is of Iraqi descent, and in 1993, he fled to Iraq with Iraqi assistance."

Beyond the fact that Obama seems to have been unaware of Yasin's flight and the role Saddam Hussein's regime played in it is his odd embrace of law enforcement as the proper way to treat terrorists. It's as if he wasn't paying attention in the 1990s.

John McCain's foreign policy adviser Randy Scheunemann has this to say: "Barack Obama's belief that we should treat terrorists as nothing more than common criminals demonstrates a stunning and alarming misunderstanding of the threat we face from radical Islamic extremism. Obama holds up the prosecution of the terrorists who bombed the World Trade Center in 1993 as a model for his administration, when in fact this failed approach of treating terrorism simply as a matter of law enforcement rather than a clear and present danger to the United States contributed to the tragedy of September 11th. This is change that will take us back to the failed policies of the past and every American should find this mindset troubling."

Looking for someone to support in this weekend's U.S. Open? Rory Sabbatini is your man. Sabbatini teed off today wearing a camouflage golf shirt to honor The Intrepid Fallen Heroes Fund. Sabbatini, who is from South Africa, has raised more than $1 million for charities benefitting U.S. troops and their families. Solid.

Just one day after Pakistani officials told the Wall Street Journal that negotiations with the Taliban in South Waziristan were put on hold, the governor of the Northwest Frontier Province said that negotiations are continuing. In fact, the governor expects that a deal will be completed in a matter of weeks.

The latest draft copy of the peace agreement was passed on to Pakistan’s Daily Times. As the current draft stands, the Pakistani Army will withdraw from South Waziristan once Taliban leader Baitullah Mehsud releases the scores of regular and paramilitary troops who were captured in 2007 and 2008. There is one major sticking point in the negotiations. The U.S. and NATO allies are pushing Pakistan to halt the continued cross-border attacks into Afghanistan. The Taliban said they do not recognize the existing border and will not halt strikes. Meanwhile, the Taliban and al Qaeda train fighters and suicide bombers to strike in Afghanistan and the West.

To really understand Pakistan’s tribal areas, particularly North and South Waziristan, read Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty’s report about a 14-year-old Pakistani boy who was sent to a madrassa, or religious school, in South Waziristan. The boy, named Shakirullah, was brainwashed by the school’s radical clerics to conduct a suicide attack against U.S. forces based in Khost province, Afghanistan. Afghan soldiers stopped the boy and arrested him:

Shakirullah identifies a teacher at the madrassa named Azizullah as the person who transported him across the border into Afghanistan's Khost Province, urging him to blow himself up. He says Azizullah also gave him an explosives-laden vest and instructed him to detonate the device when he got close to a group of U.S. soldiers.

"They told me to go to Afghanistan and carry out a suicide attack and that I would come back," Shakirullah says. "[Azizullah] didn't allow me to inform my family. I was forced to come [to Afghanistan]. When I finished [studying] the Koran, they told me, 'Now you carry out a suicide attack and you will come back to visit your parents.' Then I was brought to Afghanistan."

This madrassa is still in operation, and the Pakistani government has shut down the program to monitor madrassa. With the peace deal, these madrassa will only flourish.

The Pakistani government’s recent negotiations in the Northwest Frontier Province and the tribal areas bordering Afghanistan have sparked objections from U.S. military and intelligence officers. In the June 9 edition of THE WEEKLY STANDARD, Daveed Gartenstein-Ross and I explained why the deals are a bad idea. Today’s Wall Street Journal reports that the Pakistani government, under pressure from the U.S. government, has suspended talks with the Taliban:

According to officials familiar with the talks, Pakistani officials have told the U.S. in recent days that Islamabad is suspending the talks with tribal chiefs in both South and North Waziristan until they first agree to new conditions, including a cessation of all their activities inside Afghanistan. They also must voice their commitment to stop providing any safe haven or material support to al Qaeda and other foreign fighters who have created a new safe haven in the tribal areas, according to U.S. intelligence officials.

Pakistan, consequently, will maintain its military presence in South Waziristan and continue to conduct offensive operations against militants throughout the tribal belt, unless they agree to the new terms set down by Mr. Gilani's government, these officials said.

"Negotiations will not proceed with the tribal groups until everyone is satisfied that an implementation mechanism exists to secure against attacks on both sides of the border," said a senior Pakistani official familiar with the talks. "And we want to make absolutely certain that the complaints that resulted from previous agreements will not be repeated."

The problem is that the Pakistani government is not negotiating with “tribal elders” as is often repeated. The Pakistani government is negotiating with the likes of Baitullah Mehsud in South Waziristan and the Haqqani family in North Waziristan. These Taliban leaders are sworn to Mullah Omar and are allies of Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda. The Pakistani government believes it can cut deals with these men, who have committed to fighting jihad in Afghanistan and have called for and supported strikes against the West. These agreements have failed in the past because the Taliban has no intention of abiding by the terms.

The Wall Street Journal also misses another crucial point. There is no discussion on how the existing peace deals in Swat, Bajaur, Malakand, and Mohmand will be handled. Also, will the negotiations in Kohat and Mardan be cancelled?

The Pakistani government has already signed a peace agreement with the Taliban in North Waziristan, according to a report in Pakistan’s Daily Times. The agreement was signed in February, prior to the election of the new Pakistani government. Will this deal be rescinded?

The Taliban has fought pitched battles against the Pakistani military in North and South Waziristan over the past year, and has taken significant losses. This heavy fighting led to current negotiations. The Taliban will surely start fighting again if the peace agreements are scrapped.

Private First Class Ross Andrew McGinnis received the Medal of Honor posthumously this morning in the East Room of the White House. In a more perfect world, PFC McGinnis would be a household name.

Below are some of President Bush’s moving remarks from today’s ceremony:

A week ago on Memorial Day, the flag of the United States flew in half-staff in tribute to those who fell in service to our country. Today we pay special homage to one of those heroes: Private First Class Ross Andrew McGinnis of the U.S. Army. Private McGinnis died in a combat zone in Iraq on December the 4th, 2006 –- and for his heroism that day, he now receives the Medal of Honor…

The Medal of Honor is the nation's highest military distinction. It's given for valor beyond anything that duty could require, or a superior could command. By long tradition, it's presented by the President. For any President, doing so is a high privilege.

Before he entered our country's history, Ross McGinnis came of age in the town of Knox, Pennsylvania. Back home they remember a slender boy with a big heart and a carefree spirit. He was a regular guy. He loved playing basketball. He loved working on cars. He wasn't too wild about schoolwork. (Laughter.) He had a lot of friends and a great sense of humor. In high school and in the Army, Ross became known for his ability to do impersonations. A buddy from boot camp said that Ross was the only man there who could make the drill sergeant laugh. (Laughter.)

Most of all, those who knew Ross McGinnis recall him as a dependable friend and a really good guy. If Ross was your buddy and you needed help or you got in trouble, he'd stick with you and be the one you could count on. One of his friends told a reporter that Ross was the type "who would do anything for anybody."

That element of his character was to make all the difference when Ross McGinnis became a soldier in the Army. One afternoon 18 months ago, Private McGinnis was part of a humvee patrol in a neighborhood of Baghdad. From his position in the gun turret, he noticed a grenade thrown directly at the vehicle. In an instant, the grenade dropped through the gunner's hatch. He shouted a warning to the four men inside. Confined in that tiny space, the soldiers had no chance of escaping the explosion. Private McGinnis could have easily jumped from the humvee and saved himself. Instead he dropped inside, put himself against the grenade, and absorbed the blast with his own body.

By that split-second decision, Private McGinnis lost his own life, and he saved his comrades. One of them was Platoon Sergeant Cedric Thomas, who said this: "He had time to jump out of the truck. He chose not to. He's a hero. He was just an awesome guy." For his actions, Private McGinnis received the Silver Star, a posthumous promotion in rank, and a swift nomination for the Medal of Honor. But it wasn't acclaim or credit that motivated him. Ross's dad has said, "I know medals never crossed his mind. He was always about friendships and relationships. He just took that to the ultimate this time."

When Ross McGinnis was in kindergarten, the teacher asked him to draw a picture of what he wanted to be when he grew up. He drew a soldier. Today our nation recognizing -- recognizes him as a soldier, and more than that –- because he did far more than his duty. In the words of one of our commanding generals, "Four men are alive because this soldier embodied our Army values and gave his life."

The day will come when the mission he served has been completed and the fighting is over, and freedom and security have prevailed. America will never forget those who came forward to bear the battle. America will always honor the name of this brave soldier who gave all for his country, and was taken to rest at age 19.

No one outside this man's family can know the true weight of their loss. But in words spoken long ago, we are told how to measure the kind of devotion that Ross McGinnis showed on his last day: "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends."

Gospel also gives this assurance: "Blessed are they that mourn, for they shall be comforted." May the deep respect of our whole nation be a comfort to the family of this fallen soldier. May God always watch over the country he served, and keep us ever grateful for the life of Ross Andrew McGinnis.

Barack Obama’s potential partner-in-summiting (without preconditions, but with preparations) has issued more soothing commentary on world affairs:

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad predicted on Monday that Muslims would uproot "satanic powers" and repeated his controversial belief that Israel will soon disappear, the Mehr news agency reported.

"I must announce that the Zionist regime (Israel), with a 60-year record of genocide, plunder, invasion and betrayal is about to die and will soon be erased from the geographical scene," he said.

"Today, the time for the fall of the satanic power of the United States has come and the countdown to the annihilation of the emperor of power and wealth has started."

Big deal, right? That’s how Ahmadenijad talks now, but just wait until he gets a shot of the Hope/Change pixie dust in a private meeting with President Obama. He’ll surely change his tune.

Hopefully Obama will set A'jad straight on the irony of his using the term genocide. If Israel were interested in genocide of any sort, it could have made a good go of it any time in the past 30 years (at least). And yet it seems genocide truly does interest Israel's neighbors, be they the Iranian government or its terrorist proxies.

Exit question: Is there any possibility that A’jad already feels emboldened by the anxiousness to appease shown by one of the two finalists for the American presidency?

Saleh Riqab, Hamas’ deputy minister of religious endowment, took the time on a TV interview a couple of weeks ago to explain Bill Clinton’s scandals to the Al Aqsa TV audience:

Riqab: Both Democrats and Republicans compete to please the state of the Jews. That's why when a Democrat comes to occupied Palestine, he puts on a religious skullcap, goes to the Western Wall, bangs his head against the wall, and says: 'Your philosophy and the need to please you is now inside my head.' They all compete with one another, but the Jews maintain a balance, and they always prefer the Christian Zionists.

If a Democrat comes to power, like [Bill] Clinton - who served them well in Oslo and elsewhere, and almost served them in the second Camp David, but then made statements [they didn't like] - what did Zionism do? It sent him the Jewish Monica, with whom Clinton had sex in the American White House.

Clinton left [the White House], but there are thousands of pages documenting his sexual depravity, because he had sex in the White House. I read a report that Clinton used to call Arab leaders and talk to them while she was having sex with him.

Interviewer: My God!

Saleh Riqab: These things are documented, but the Arabs don't read them.

After reading this report, is there any wonder why Hamas is the one group of lunatic tyrants that Barack Obama is not eager to chat with?

HT: Memri

We know that elite German commandos are not permitted to kill known Taliban commanders, even if they are behind the most gruesome suicide attacks in Afghanistan to date or are directly targeting German soldiers or civilians. The Taliban, on the other hand, are eager to kill German soldiers and civilians. How do some of the other NATO allies respond to Taliban attacks in northwestern Afghanistan?

It seems the Norwegians are more than willing to kill Taliban. During several days in May, Norwegian forces based in Badghis province came under attack, and they responded forcefully. Thirteen Taliban were killed during the battles.

Major Rune Wenneberg said the Taliban rebels conducted "a well-coordinated assault" from a distance of about 1,200 meters against Norway's Telemark Battalion.

"The only dramatic moments were the first few seconds," Wenneberg claimed. "Then we did what we've been training to do at Rena, seize the initiative and respond with massive, precise fire."

The Taliban have been attempting to expand their influence from the southwestern provinces into the northwestern provinces. Badghis is at the center of this push, but the Norwegians aren't likely to give much ground. Unfortunately, their German neighbors don't seem to posses the same fighting spirit.

The U.S. military is doing a lot of good these days:

The increasing success and pace of airstrikes this year indicates that American spy agencies and their allies have made progress in infiltrating Al Qaeda in Pakistan, said Louis Caprioli, a former anti-terrorism chief of France's DST intelligence agency.

"You have to have good intelligence on the ground to hit a target like that," Caprioli said. "It requires human as well as technical intelligence. I think the money that the Americans are spreading around is having an effect.

"Also, there are troops in Afghanistan, prisoners being interrogated. This is a long-term effort that is paying off."

If only killing and interrogating bad guys could address the "root causes" of terrorism and the "legitimate claims" of terrorist groups. And just imagine what the military could do if it wasn't distracted by winning the war against al Qaeda in Iraq.

HT: Hot Air

As noted the other day, the Germans have serious reservations about killing the Taliban in Afghanistan. So much so, that its elite commandos have been restricted from attacking known Taliban murderers. They are only allowed to detain these "fugitives."

The Taliban, on the other hand, have no such qualms about killing Germans. Spiegel followed up its sickening story about German rules of engagement in Afghanistan by interviewing a Taliban commander named Qabir Bashir Haqqani. Here is what Haqqani has to say:

SPIEGEL ONLINE: The three Germans killed weren't even combat troops, they were army employees in charge of purchasing refrigerators for the troops' kitchen.

Haqqani: It is not important what kind of soldiers they were. What's important is to kill and hammer out the Germans in Kunduz. The Germans are the most important enemy in the north and because they are stationed in Kunduz, the city will soon become the Kandahar of the north.

The Germans are treating the war as a police action. The Taliban are treating the war as a war. Security in the North will only suffer because of the German's failure to properly use their military forces to hunt and kill Taliban.

Roggio had an interesting piece the other day on "over the horizon" strikes into Pakistan. There are some technical aspects of such strikes that raise a lot of questions. First of all, "over-the-horizon" implies non-line of sight and a lock-on after launch weapon, probably with some sort of inertial (and GPS-aided) midcourse guidance. The range of such a weapon would be at least fifty and possibly as many as 250 kilometers, depending upon how deep into Pakistan the target is located, and how far back from the border the launch platform wants to stand.

Obviously, there also needs to be some sort of target acquisition and tracking system that can provide target coordinates in real time. Only two methods appear viable; either a high-altitude, long-endurance air platform, such as a Predator or Global Hawk UAV or a manned TR-1 (U-2); or a special operations team (probably 4-6 men) providing surveillance on the ground. Since the terrorists come together at a specific place and time, they need to be tracked and observed, in order that the weapon be launched at the right time to do the maximum damage; at the same time, there has to be a way of diverting the weapon if the terrorists should suddenly pick up and leave while it is in flight (or a bus full of school kids suddenly pulls up in front of the target).

In addition, the weapon has to be fairly fast, to minimize time of flight, and the chances of the enemy getting away. Finally, inertial navigation, even when assisted by GPS and terrain scene matching, is not sufficiently accurate to destroy a point target with minimal collateral damage. This would tend to rule out a Tomahawk Land Attack Cruise Missile, while the distance involved precludes the use of a short-range missile such as an AGM-130, or a guided bomb such as a JDAM.

Taking all of those factors into account, I believe that these attacks are being conducted using both a deep penetration reconnaissance team on the ground and a long-endurance UAV such as a Predator. The Predator provides wide area surveillance, and keeps track of the terrorist group's activities as they assemble in a building or compound. The ground team then closes with the target area to verify the image intelligence provided by the UAV. They can also provide additional high-resolution video that can be transmitted to the operational commander using the UAV as a communications relay. The standoff weapon, probably an AGM-158 Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile (JASSM) or an AGM-84E Standoff Land Attack Missile-Extended Range (SLAM-ER), would be launched from a manned fighter such as an F-15E Strike Eagle flying at high altitude over Afghanistan.

The issue of fighting as a coalition in Afghanistan has been problematic since NATO first assumed a greater role in securing the country. Goldfarb and I have discussed these issues here and here, and I’ve mentioned “caveats”--the restrictions NATO countries place on their troops to limit when, where, and how the units can fight. Today, Germany's Spiegel tells the story of how a German caveat that prevents their special forces from killing Taliban commanders is destabilizing the peaceful Northern provinces, where German troops maintain security.

German troops had a Taliban commander, known as the “Baghlan bomber” for his role in the largest suicide bombing in Afghanistan to date, in their sights but refused to kill him. “The German government considers its allies' approach as ‘not being in conformity with international law,’" Speigel reported. “A fugitive like the Baghlan bomber is not an aggressor and should not be shot unless necessary,” a German Defense Ministry official told the magazine.

The Taliban are aware of the German’s lack of vigor, and in response they are growing bolder in the North:

Maulawi Bashir Haqqani, 40, the Taliban's military commander in Kunduz, told SPIEGEL: "The Germans are the most important enemy in the north. If they leave their base, they will find booby traps and bombs waiting for them on every road. They will have to carry many more bodies in coffins on their shoulders if they don't come to the realistic conclusion that their forces must withdraw from our country."

Iran's kook-in-chief is once again rattling his beheading scimitar in Israel's direction:

Tehran - Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Tuesday that Israel would "be soon swept away" from the Palestinian Territories by the Palestinians. It is the second time within less than three years that the Iranian president predicted the eradication of the Jewish state.

The first time was in 2005 when Ahmadinejad hoped that Israel would be eradicated from the Middle East map.

"This terrorist and criminal state is backed by foreign powers, but this regime would soon be swept away by the Palestinians," Ahmadinejad said in a press conference in Tehran.

Referring to worldwide celebrations for the 60th anniversary of Israel's foundation, he said that "it would be futile to hold a birthday ceremony for something which is already dead."

"As far as the regional countries are concerned, this regime does not exist," Ahmadinejad added.

The Iranian president said last week that the anniversary feasts could not save this "rotten and stinking corpse."

It's a good thing that all the presidential candidates now realize that sit-down summits with such a character would be unwise. Thank heavens for small miracles.

If you haven't already, this would be a good time to check out our own Bill Kristol's New York Times piece from yesterday on the existential threats Israel faces and how her struggle belongs to us all:

Even though the security of Israel is very much at risk, the good news is that, unlike in the 1930s, the Jews are able to defend themselves, and the United States is willing to fight for freedom. Americans grasp that Israel’s very existence to some degree embodies the defeat and repudiation of the genocidal totalitarianism of the 20th century. They understand that its defense today is the front line of resistance to the jihadist terror, and the suicidal nihilism, that threaten to deform the 21st.

From Matt Duss at Think Progress:

The attacks of 9/11 made bin Laden a major figure in Arab media and culture; the decision by Bush and the neocons to cast him as the sinister leader of a global Islamofascist movement made him a legend. Simply put, Bush’s policy response to 9/11 has done more to promote bin Laden’s ideology than a hundred 9/11s.

If Bush and those nefarious neocons made bin Laden a legend, they sure did a lousy job--his poll numbers in the Arab world have tanked since 9/11 according to Pew. Bin Laden and bin Ladenism have been marginalized, and we haven't had another 9/11, let alone a hundred. Simply put, this is hysterical nonsense that portrays Bush as an ally of al Qaeda--of course it's a "smear" to suggest that terrorists might prefer a Democrat (even when they've expressed that preference in the form of an official endorsement).

If you get your news from NPR, the television networks, the New York Times and the newsweeklies, you could be forgiven if you believe that most of the alleged terrorists the United States is holding (and mistreating) at Guantanamo Bay are of the wrong-place, wrong-time variety. You know, the well-armed goat farmer who just happened to be in Tora Bora during the intense fighting there or the peaceful cleric who got lost and ended up being captured at an al Qaeda outpost on the Pakistan/Afghanistan border. For some reason, we hear a lot about them when they are released from Gitmo and, like the al Jazeera cameraman recently freed, their allegations of abuse are broadcast throughout the world.

This powerful editorial in the Wall Street Journal provides a welcome corrective. It turns out that 37 former Gitmo detainees have used their freedom to rejoin the jihad. "Captive 220," a Kuwaiti freed with the help of high-powered American lawyers at Shearman and Sterling, is one of them. He just killed seven people in Mosul.

They, too, were in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Andrew McCarthy, a former federal prosecutor in New York, is author of the new, much-discussed book Willful Blindness: A Memoir of the Jihad. I'm in the middle of reporting two pieces and haven't yet had a spare minute to read it, but it is my top priority when my current obligations are met (next Tuesday). I'll have much more to say about it here at that point.

McCarthy is a razor-sharp thinker and his writing reflects the clarity and precision of his thought. More often than not, when McCarthy sets out to challenge an argument he not only wins but leaves his opponents arguments in tatters. I can't tell you how many emails I've sent him, after reading one of his pieces, that begin with one word: Devastating.

I sent him another one today. Over at National Review Online, McCarthy takes on Laurie Mylroie's error-riddled review of his book. It is devastating. Do yourself a favor and read the whole thing, here, but let me just address two points.

First, on Iraq and terrorism. McCarthy writes of Mylroie: "Indeed, for commentators (like Steve Hayes, Tom Joscelyn, and I) who have argued that there were, in fact, important ties between Iraq and radical Islam, Mylroie has been a thorn in the side for years — the analyst whose zany assertions are routinely used to discredit credible evidence of cooperation." He's right, and that was the case not just with those of us outside the government, but those on the inside, too. Mylroie comes up In several of the books written about the Iraq War as a terrorism analyst who led the Bush Administration into making questionable claims about Iraq and al Qaeda. (George Packer, the New Yorker writer and author of the otherwise well-reported book, "The Assassin's Gate," makes this mistake.) This vastly overstates her role. Although her emails may have occasionally made their way to Bush administration officials, no one I know took her arguments very seriously. For good reason. Mylroie has seen an Iraqi hand behind virtually every terrorist attack on American interests. Indeed, in our one brief conversation, she faulted me for failing to understand that al Qaeda is little more than an Iraqi "front group." That's crazy. Iraq was an active state sponsor of terror and, as the recent Pentagon report confirms, a willing sponsor of al Qaeda leaders, their terrorist associates, and a wide variety of jihadist groups.

Second, in her review of McCarthy's book, Mylroie seems to misunderstand -- or misrepresent -- McCarthy's views on the proper U.S. policy approach to terrorism. She argues that McCarthy -- as a prosecutor and an author -- does not take seriously enough the role that states play in sponsoring jihadist terror. As I say, I have not yet read the book, but having discussed these issues with McCarthy on literally dozens of occasions, it's inconceivable that he is guilty of that offense. Indeed, anyone who has read his writings over the past decade knows not only that he understands the role of states but that he sees rogue states as a primary source of the terrorist threat against us.

So, I believe him when he concludes:

A central theme of my book is the incapacity of the criminal-justice system to deal adequately with a national security threat. Another is that, while the threat that confronts us is fueled by a strain of Islamic ideology, terror networks would not be able to project power on a consequential scale absent facilitation by such rogue nations as Iran, Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, and Sudan. Reading Laurie Mylroie’s review, a reader would come away figuring I must have argued, in contravention of what Willful Blindness actually says, that international terrorism is merely a crime and state sponsorship a trifle. Under the guise of reviewing a book, Mylroie ignores the book, using the opportunity instead to reprise her half-baked theories and cavalier dismissal of Islamic radicalism. It’s a shame the Sun let her do it.

In Afghanistan. I hope this one involves member states actually...y'know, fighting.

NATO will be changing tactics and strategy in Afghanistan, according to the head of the alliance's Operations Section.

"We've learned the lessons and we're refocusing [ISAF's campaign]," said Brett, adding that one strand of ISAF's new effort would be to put a Provincial Reconstruction Team of military and civilian development personnel in each of Afghanistan's 32 provinces.

ISAF's other objectives include efforts "to boost co-operation with Afghanistan's neighbours and to increase [its] support along the [Afghan-Pakistani] border" to counter the Taliban's cross-border manoeuvres, he continued.

Guess not. Hope remains though, as NATO has proven more than willing to jointly bomb the bejesus out of Scotland.

Taliban conventional and suicide attacks in Pakistan have dropped dramatically since the election in February, when the new government has indicated it was willing to negotiate with the terror groups. The Taliban have largely abided by their cease-fire. Meanwhile the U.S. State Department has been pushing the new government to go after the Taliban and al Qaeda in its safe havens inside the Northwest Frontier Province. U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Richard Boucher said progress is being made on this front, as the Pakistani government is exerting pressure on the Taliban and al Qaeda in concert with efforts on the Afghan side of the border.

"To some extent, the extremists in those areas are now fighting on two fronts," Boucher said at a news conference in Kabul, Afghanistan on March 14. "They have to deal with pressures from the Pakistan side and the pressure from the Afghan side. The more we can do that in concert with each other, the more squeezed the al Qaeda and Taliban supporters in those areas will feel."

The Taliban obviously is not feeling the squeeze, and is brimming with confidence. Yesterday, the Taliban started a two-day conference in the tribal agency of Mohmand. The Taliban have provided their own security and have blocked the roads leading up to the conference.

Taliban leaders will be in attendance. "Local ulema, Taliban leaders and delegations from the Tank and Swat districts of NWFP, and the North and South Waziristan, Kurram, Orakzai and Bajaur tribal agencies participated in the conference," Pakistan's Daily Times reported. "Hundreds of people including Taliban spokesman Maulvi Omar attended the event, despite heavy rain in the area... He said that object of the conference was to enable the Taliban to spread the message of jihad"

None other than Faqir Mohammed, the leader of the Taliban in Bajaur agency who has sheltered al Qaeda number two Ayman al Zawahiri and has been the target of two U.S. airstrikes, is expected to attend the conference. Baitullah Mehsud, the overall commander of the Taliban in Pakistan, declined to attend "due to personal engagements and security reasons."

Meanwhile, the Pakistani government has ordered the Pakistani Army to withdraw from Swat and has ordered a new round of negotiations with the Taliban. The last set of peace negotiations led to the Taliban takeover of North and South Waziristan, Mohmand, and Bajaur agencies and the settled district of Swat.

The Pakistani government knows where senior Taliban leaders are gathering, and has done nothing to kill or capture the men responsible for hundreds of killed and thousands of wounded over the past year in Pakistan alone. Some squeeze.

AFP reports:

The US State Department said Thursday it has advised former US president Jimmy Carter against meeting with the radical Palestinian group Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal if he visits Syria....

The State Department will help Carter with arrangements if he visits Syria but "will not participate in the planning or scheduling of any meetings with Hamas figures in Damascus," McCormack said.

"And in fact we have counseled the former president (against) having such a meeting," he said.

Fine, so the State Department won't schedule Carter's meeting with a man who leads a group officially designated as a terrorist organization by the United States government. More important, will the Secret Service be protecting Carter as he goes to rub elbows with the who's who of world terrorism? And if so, do American taxpayers really have to foot the bill? Carter's made it perfectly clear that he's attending this meeting in his capacity as head of the Carter Center, not as a former President of the United States--so why do I have to pay for it?

I haven't really been following this issue, mostly because I'm pretty sure that whatever the government is doing to these terrorists wouldn't "shock my conscience." Like my man Scalia says, sometimes you're going to have to take these terrorists and "smack them in the face." But, some folks are more easily shocked than I am, and they are in full moral outrage mode this morning with the release of a 2003 memo by John Yoo (now a professor at Berkeley!) approving "harsh interrogation techniques." Oh, the humanity!

Unfortunately, in a sad twist of fate, Andrew Sullivan has taken the week off, and so there will be no calls for a new Nuremberg trial featuring the prosecution of George Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and everyone else Andrew doesn't agree with. But if you need your fix of self-righteous lefty demagoguery, Glenn Greenwald is a pretty good substitute with his post on "John Yoo's War Crimes."

Jim Gerghaty of the National Review Online found an interesting tidbit in the magazine's archives:

On January 5, [2003] Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez's former personal pilot dropped a bombshell that has been ignored by just about every major U.S. news organization: The Venezuelan president, according to the pilot, gave al Qaeda a substantial sum of money following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

Memo to Joe Kennedy: How goes that little oil business with your buddy Hugo? Any idea if Osama’s getting his cut?

Director of National Intelligence Michael McConnell spoke yesterday at his alma mater, Furman University in Greenville, South Carolina. The whole speech is worth a read. Perhaps the most entertaining moment comes when McConnell shares his personal email and that of his assistant with the crowd. In classic DNI fashion, this bit of information has been redacted for the version sent out by his office. Hilarious.

The most important moment of the speech came in response to a question about the greatest current threats to the U.S. For those who took comfort in last year's misleading NIE on Iran, McConnell provides a welcome wake-up call.

My biggest worry at the moment: nuclear weapon in Iran. If the Iranians are successful in achieving fissile material, which they are pursuing, and if they turn it into a nuclear weapon, the dynamics in the Middle East will change literally overnight. We will have a nuclear-arms race because if the Iranians have them, my guess is all of the surrounding nations would immediately attempt to secure nuclear weapons and now we’ve got a situation where we have to have access to energy and not only is in destabilized in the current politics of what we all know about, you have the risk of weapons of mass destruction added to it.

He said: "Those who claim we should withdraw from Iraq in order to fight Al Qaeda more effectively elsewhere are making a dangerous mistake. Whether they were there before is immaterial, al Qaeda is in Iraq now, as it is in the borderlands between Pakistan and Afghanistan, in Somalia, and in Indonesia."

Whether they were there before is immaterial. I understand the point. He said several weeks ago that while he still believes that going to war in Iraq was the right thing to do he wasn't going to spend his time now debating whether it was a wise thing to do. I get that, too.

But lines like the ones above strike me as unnecessary and unwise. We know al Qaeda was in Iraq before the war. Nobody disputes that. Reasonable people can disagree on how much the regime aided them in Iraq and whether Saddam Hussein knowingly gave them sanctuary in Baghdad. But Abu Musab al Zarqawi and two dozen al Qaeda members were in Baghdad before the war. There is no question about that. So taken literally the effect of McCain's statement is to turn a plain fact into a debatable issue.

But the real debate isn't about whether those two dozens jihadists were in Iraq, as McCain surely knows. It's about whether Iraq was part of the global war on terror from the beginning or is now only because we went to war there five years ago. He seems to be saying that the answer doesn't matter. But he's wrong. And the new IDA study makes clear that any serious global war on terror -- or, as McCain prefers, struggle against radical Islamic extremism -- had to include Iraq. In the twelve years before the war, Saddam Hussein was supporting an alphabet soup of jihadist terror groups across the globe -- from Abu Sayyaf in the Philippines to Ayman al Zawahiri's Egyptian Islamic Jihad to the radicals in northern Iraq to the "Sudanese fighters" he trained on Iraqi soil throughout the 1990s. This matters. And John McCain, who has a better record on Iraq than anyone else who ran for president this year and still probably doesn't get enough credit for fighting back the forces of withdrawal in the Senate last summer, should know better.

We have been among the many conservatives critical of the White House and its inexplicable aversion to making a fact-based case on Saddam Hussein's support for jihadist terror. But for years now, instead of arguments to that effect, George W. Bush simply repeats his assertion that Iraq is the central front in the War on Terror. That hasn't worked, of course, in part because other aspects of the Bush Administration's case for war in Iraq were deeply flawed, even if most Democrats made the same arguments.

Now things are different. We know what Saddam Hussein was up to in the decade before the war and we know it from the best source available -- the Iraqi regime itself. The debate is no longer whether the Iraqi regime would support jihadist terror. It did. It's a fact. That support included backing for members of the al Qaeda leadership and several affiliate groups. Again, that's a fact. And yet the White House still refused even to acknowledge any of this.

Until now. Mark Eichenlaub, who runs the excellent website, Regime of Terror, has an excellent article at National Review online. It's a very straightforward piece that explains in clear language what we have learned from the recently released Pentagon study on Iraq and terrorism. And remarkably, he has managed to coax a quote out of NSC spokesman Gordon Johndroe.

White House National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe commented to me that the report confirms that Saddam “had ties to regional terrorism” and that in a region where there was “no lack of terrorist groups willing to attack the U.S.,” it was not surprising to see who Saddam had been supporting.

His claims are indisputable, of course, but it's still notable that someone from the Bush Administration other than Dick Cheney is willing to talk on the record about terrorism. (The White House did not respond to repeated requests for comment on the new study when I contacted them two weeks ago for this piece.)

It's a good start. Next, someone should make sure that George W. Bush sees the IDA report on Iraq and terrorism. National Security Adviser Steve Hadley was supposed to have shown Bush the report before it was released publicly. But Hadley is cautious to a fault and believes that there is nothing to gain from revisiting the case for war in Iraq. And there are no indications that he shared the report with President Bush.

Bush would want to see it. Months ago, when we fought to have the Iraqi documents translated and released, Bush's White House staff kept him in the dark. Even after Bush told then-Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte that he wanted the documents out, the DNI slow-rolled the process and the White House staff argued against sharing the secrets of the Iraqi regime.

Those were mistakes and they have cost the president. But now we have enough of the regime's documents to know that Saddam Hussein support jihadist terror for years. And, as the Wall Street Journal pointed out Monday, it's clear that the CIA underestimated Iraqi support for terrorism. The White House should talk about it.

John Hinderaker at Power Line writes, "…our principal news media outlets have fabricated an alternative reality around the Iraq war by simply misreporting the facts." That’s true, especially with regards to Saddam’s terror ties. And, as Power Line has noted on a number of occasions, the media has gotten a lot of help from partisan members of the U.S. Intelligence Community (both current and former).

Take, for example, this recent column by Michael Isikoff of Newsweek concerning the Iraqi Perspectives Project’s recently released study of Saddam’s intelligence files. You would never know from Isikoff’s piece that the report contains documents linking Saddam’s regime to six terrorist groups that are all part of Osama bin Laden’s terrorist empire, including two groups that form the core of al Qaeda. Nor, would you know that Saddam’s regime cooperated with these groups at various times. Instead, all you’ll find is spin.

The spin is provided by Paul Pillar, a former high-ranking analyst at the CIA who has made his anti-Bush, anti-Iraq war inclinations known. Pillar has spun tale after tale about Saddam’s regime and al Qaeda. He is heavily invested in the notion that Saddam’s "secular" regime did not work with the Islamists of al Qaeda. Pillar is, quite clearly, a man with an agenda. Here are the most relevant lines from Isikoff’s piece:

The report did find plenty of evidence that Saddam's regime had close ties to other (mainly Palestinian) terror groups and had maintained contacts with some radical Islamic movements-including, according to one 1993 document, Egyptian Islamic Jihad. Last week Vice President Dick Cheney said the document showed there was a "link between Iraq and Al Qaeda." But Pillar notes the Egyptian group-headed by Ayman al-Zawahiri-didn't merge with Al Qaeda until years later. "This is the same kind of word game they played before the war," Pillar says.

This is nonsense. Pillar is pretending that because Zawahiri’s Egyptian Islamic Jihad (the "EIJ") had not formally merged with bin Laden until 1998 or 2001 (depending on who you talk to) that a connection between Saddam and the EIJ doesn’t represent a link to al Qaeda. On the contrary, as I pointed out in a recent post over at Power Line, Zawahiri and the EIJ began to work closely with bin Laden in the mid-1980’s--long before their formal merger. Numerous sources, including Zawahiri’s lawyer in Egypt, Montasser al-Zayyat, have reported on the long-standing relationship. Lawrence Wright has also provided numerous details in his reporting for the New Yorker and in his book The Looming Tower.

A clear pattern emerges from the available evidence: Zawahiri and the Egyptian Islamic Jihad were major influences on Osama bin Laden early on, long before their formal merger. There were, of course, tactical differences from time to time, but this never stopped the two groups from working hand-in-glove. In fact, as Wright, al-Zayyat, and other sources have reported, it was Zawahiri and his EIJ lieutenants who steered bin Laden towards the absolute jihadist approach that defines al Qaeda. They were, in fact, always as much a part of al Qaeda as bin Laden himself. It is highly significant, therefore, that the IIS document Pillar and Isikoff refer to says that the IIS and the EIJ had an agreement in place to collude against Hosni Mubarak’s regime in Egypt. (Subsequent documents show that Saddam wanted the EIJ to focus on hunting Americans in Somalia. I’ll have more on this in the near future.)

The evidence is rather unambiguous in this regard. So, we are left with two options: (1) Pillar doesn’t know this, or (2) He is spinning this story to serve his own agenda. Either way, Isikoff’s blind reliance on Pillar to dismiss this important connection between Saddam’s regime and al Qaeda does not inspire confidence. Of course, as Robert Novak has reported, Isikoff has relied heavily on Pillar in the past.

Afghanistan has its own American Idol!! In fact, Afghan Star just crowned 19-year-old Rafi Naabzada the winner of its third season, and the whole country is going gah-gah for his hip new sound. Actually, his singing voice resembles the screams of a goat passing a kidney stone, but that didn’t stop a third of the Afghan population from tuning in for the season finale. Despite some controversy over a third-place finish by a colorfully, though modestly, dressed female contestant, hundreds of thousands of text message votes were sent. Yeah, apparently they have text messaging in Afghanistan too.

For all the talk about winning the hearts and minds of Afghans and Iraqis, stories about Western culture being successfully exported have been mostly overlooked. That a pop reality show can thrive in a nation ruled just seven years ago by fascist thugs who stoned people for singing and dancing is a cause for hope. And by hope, I am not merely referring to the prospect of a Middle Eastern edition of Flavor of Love. The fact is Afghan Star has almost as much to do with winning their hearts and minds as anything we do militarily.

Guns cannot penetrate the soul. However, popular entertainment combined with consumerism has the potential to refocus the attention of young, prospective terrorist recruits. A new consumer culture can even be used, as with products like Mecca Cola, to provide people a nonviolent means of channeling anti-Americanism. Muslims can maintain the pretense of hating the West even while they subconsciously affirm quintessentially American values like materialism and consumer choice.

The Wall Street Journal offers a particularly strong editorial this morning on Iraq's support for terrorism and links to al Qaeda.

The key conclusion, in my view, is this one: "The main Iraq intelligence failure was over WMD, but the report indicates that the CIA also underestimated Saddam's ties to global terror cartels." [Emphasis in the original.]

The editorial lashes the press corps, John McCain and the Bush Administration for the failure to let the public know about the study and its importance. The entire thing is worth reading -- here -- but I found the editorial's criticism of the Bush Administration particularly compelling.

A new Pentagon report suggests that Iraq's links to world-wide terror networks, including al Qaeda, were far more extensive than previously understood.

Naturally, it's getting little or no attention. Press accounts have been misleading or outright distortions, while the Bush Administration seems indifferent. Even John McCain has let the study's revelations float by. But that doesn't make the facts any less notable or true.

The editorial concludes:

All of these are inconvenient facts for those who want to assert that somehow Saddam could have been easily contained and presented no threat to the U.S. The Harmony files buttress the case that the decision to oust Saddam was the right one -- which makes it all the more puzzling that the Bush Administration is mum. It isn't the first time the White House has ceded the Iraq debate to its opponents.

We are, after all, in the middle of a global war on terror. The great debate over past six years has been about whether Iraq is a central front in that war or a distraction from it. You'd think a study on "Iraq and Terrorism" might be relevant, especially to an dministration that has struggled miserably to communicate on the war. Here is their case, and they're choosing to ignore it.

Iran isn't working with al Qaeda in Iraq? Tell that to some of al Qaeda's opposition. The NEFA Foundation has provided a transcript of an interview with a commander from "Hamas in Iraq," an insurgency group that was formerly a faction of the 1920 Revolution Brigades:

Q: "Is there any evidence of cooperation between the Al-Qaida network and Iran that you are aware of, since you are in a province bordering Iran?"

A: "We have irrefutable evidence of Iran supplying Al-Qaida with weaponry. This was exposed because of the weapons they used in the Diyala province several days ago - specifically on December 25, 2007. Our mujahideen from the Uthman bin Affan Brigade dismantled a car bomb in the Al-Onaq neighborhood in the region of al-Hadid [west of Baquba]. Hidden inside the car were three large rockets, three antitank mines, a quantity of TNT, 53 handgrenades, and a quantity of chlorine hidden inside the gas tank. [These items] were confiscated, and upon examining weapons, we discovered that they were Iranian-made. We also obtained confessions from some of those we have captured from [Al-Qaida] that they had transformed their wounded to border hospitals."

It is never safe to take these characters at their word. But he certainly does not have a pro-American bias. He refers to America as the "enemy" and says that his group will "never, ever cooperate" with American-led forces.

In addition, nothing he says about Iran's support for al Qaeda is all that surprising. As we have mentioned previously, the U.S. military and the new Iraqi intelligence service both confirm that Iran is hunting al Qaeda's enemies, not al Qaeda itself, inside Iraq. Iran is on al Qaeda's side in Iraq--not ours and not the Iraqi citizens. Some in the media seem to have trouble accepting this reality. As Steve Schippert explains, that includes the Boston Globe.

As Steve Hayes and I have previously discussed, the new IPP study documents the relationship between Saddam Hussein’s regime and Ayman al Zawahiri’s Egyptian Islamic Jihad ("EIJ"). It is worth reproducing the language from the IPP study in this regard once again: "Saddam supported groups that either associated directly with al Qaeda (such as the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, led at one time by bin Laden's deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri) or that generally shared al Qaeda's stated goals and objectives."

Indeed, this is a very important fact. Zawahiri has worked closely with Osama bin Laden since the mid-1980’s, when both terror chieftains were organizing and directing recruits for the jihad in Afghanistan. Zawahiri and other Egyptian terrorists, in particular Sheikh Omar abd al-Rahman (aka the "Blind Sheikh"), played instrumental roles in al Qaeda’s evolution. Most likely, al Qaeda would not have become nearly as effective without them. Almost all of the key roles inside al Qaeda were filled by EIJ members early on, and the EIJ remains at the core of al Qaeda to this day. It is no exaggeration to say that Zawahiri is as much a part of al Qaeda as Osama bin Laden himself.

But there is more to the story of Saddam’s relationship with the EIJ. If you take a closer look at one of the documents the IPP study relies upon, you will find that Saddam agreed to work with not only Zawahiri’s EIJ, but also, more broadly, the so-called "Afghan Arabs"--the veterans of the Afghanistan jihad against the Soviets who made up almost the entire first generation of al Qaeda--in general. (Of course, the EIJ’s members were themselves "Arab Afghans.")

The key is the January 25, 1993 memo from the Iraqi Intelligence Service (IIS) to Saddam that I discussed in my first post in this series. Recall that just one week earlier, on January 18, Saddam had ordered his minions to use terrorists to "hunt" the Americans throughout the Muslim world, and especially in Somalia. One of the groups the IIS identified as capable of fulfilling this mission was Zawahiri’s EIJ.

According to the January 25 memo, Iraqi Intelligence had recently met with a leading figure in Sudan’s ruling National Islamic Front party, Sheikh Ali ‘Uthman Taha. It was Taha who negotiated a renewal of the relationship between Saddam’s Iraq, on the one hand, and Zawahiri and the Blind Sheikh’s sister organizations on the other. Sudan was then playing host to the Arab Afghans.

Eli Lake, whose been covering this issue for years, reports for the New York Sun:

Mr. McCain's national security adviser, Randy Scheunemann, told The New York Sun, "There is ample documentation that Iran has provided many different forms of support to Sunni extremists, including Al Qaeda as well as Shi'ia extremists in Iraq. It would require a willing suspension of disbelief to deny Iran supports Al Qaeda in Iraq."

Responding to Mr. Scheunemann's remarks, a senior foreign policy adviser to Senator Obama, Susan Rice, yesterday told the Sun, "It's very bizarre." She noted that Mr. McCain had "made the same statement three times in as many days. Surely he must know, as Senator Lieberman reminded him, that Iran is not engaged with Al Qaeda in Iraq. I don't know if he is confused, or is he cynically trying to conflate Al Qaeda and Iran as Cheney and Bush did Al Qaeda and Iraq in 2002 and 2003?"

Ms. Rice stipulated in the interview that she was not saying Iran and Al Qaeda have never worked together, but that "there is no body of evidence to suggest Iran is aiding Al Qaeda in Iraq."

Rice echoes what Brian Katulis of the left-wing Center for American Progress said yesterday, calling the intelligence on this a "gray area." Likewise, Rice won't say that Iran and al Qaeda don't work together, so it's hard to see what all the fuss is about. And whatever relationship exists, Iran isn't going to advertise it. In this gray area, the Obama camp leans one way (assuming our enemies don't collaborate) and the McCain camp leans another (assuming they do). Fact of the matter is that what little evidence exists suggests they do work together--and of course when they don't work together there will be no evidence. If Obama makes it to the White House, he can raise the issue with Ahmadinejad during their summit at Camp David--I'm sure he'll get a straight answer (maybe there really is no al Qaeda, or homosexuality, in Iran).

With the ongoing imbroglio over Senator McCain’s comments linking Iran and al Qaeda, it is worth reviewing what Saddam’s own files have to say about Iran’s support for al Qaeda. Not only do Saddam’s Intelligence files confirm that his regime had a significant relationship with al Qaeda, but they also provide more evidence of Iran’s hand in al Qaeda’s terror. Some may say this is impossible: How could two states that hated each other as much as Saddam’s Iraq and the mullah’s Iran support the same terrorist group(s)? However, such thinking is very narrow-minded.

The IPP study proposes that we think of our terrorist enemies as cartels. In this sense, each of these parties competes in some important ways, but they are also capable of collaborating when it suits their interests. The IPP’s paradigm for understanding terrorism is very similar to the one Michael Ledeen proposed in his book, The War Against the Terror Masters. Ledeen has proposed that our terrorist enemies are best compared to rival mafia families, who can bitterly fight one another only to band together when facing a common foe, like law enforcement agencies. James Woolsey, the former head of the CIA, has proposed a similar way of understanding modern Islamic terrorism as well. For Woolsey, terrorist organizations and their sponsors are capable of forming "joint ventures" to fulfill their common interests--e.g. attacking Americans.

Numerous examples of such collaboration can be found throughout the history of Middle Eastern and Islamic terrorism. For example, Yasser Arafat and his PLO allied with both Iraq and Iran at various points throughout Arafat’s terrorist career. Hamas, a terrorist group which is the ideological cousin of al Qaeda and likewise an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood, has drawn support from Saudi Arabia, Iran, and previously Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. Today, the Sunni Hamas is strongly allied with Iran. And the man who served as Osama bin Laden’s protector and mentor from 1991 through mid-1996, Hassan al-Turabi, was quite open about his relationships with both Saddam Hussein (who he called a "close" ally) and the Iranian Mullahs. Turabi turned his Sudan into a melting pot of terrorism, bringing together disparate groups under a common anti-Western, anti-American banner. (See here and here for my two part series on Turabi.) This does not mean that Saddam’s Iraq and Iran necessarily had to cooperate with each other (although they did when it came to illicit deals under the oil-for-food program), just that each was capable of supporting terrorist groups that shared their immediate interests.

Accompanying the IPP report were four volumes of backup materials. In all, the five total volumes contain more than 2,000 pages of documents, translations and other related materials, which are collectively housed in the so-called Harmony Database. The database contains a massive warehouse of materials collected in post-Saddam Iraq. Many of the documents contained in the four backup volumes were not discussed in the first volume of the IPP report, which was the actual study produced by the Institute for Defense Analyses.

One of those documents is a provocative letter from the Iraqi embassy in Islamabad, Pakistan. Dated January 17, 2003, the letter is addressed to Iraq’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and its subject is listed as "Al-Qa’eda Activities." Here is the relevant portion of the U.S. government’s translation of the document:

Attached is a report, furnished by source code number 6841, which includes the following:

1- Al-Qa’eda dispatched elements and personnel with fake passports to Arabic Countries under fictitious [sic] alias to target American interests in countries such as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Bahrain.

2- The Yemeni (Abu-Muhammad) was sent to Algeria carrying a passport with the name Saydi Ahmed Habiballah, to contact the Algerian "Salafist group for the calling of Jihad" and deliver money to them; however he was killed in an armed skirmish between Algerian security forces and the above-mentioned group. Algerian authorities were able to trace his real name and his families [sic] address in cooperation with the Yemeni embassy in Algeria. His real name is (‘Imad ‘Abdul-Wahid Rahman ‘Ulwan) from the "Ta’iz" village and he was a member of Al-Qa’eda.

A careful reading of the translated letter raises a number of questions and observations:

• What was contained in the "report, furnished by source code number 6841"? The volume of documents produced as part of the study does not contain a copy of the actual report, which was apparently included with the letter. Only a copy of the translated cover letter was included. Does the U.S. government have a copy of the actual report too? Or, is it missing? If the government does have a copy of the full report, what does it say?

• Why does source 6841 know so much about al Qaeda’s activities? It is possible that 6841 was an Iraqi spy tasked with monitoring al Qaeda on behalf of the Iraqi regime. But if that is the case, then Iraq had a particularly well-placed mole. Not only did he know that al Qaeda had sent terrorists to three different countries "to target American interests," but he also knew that one al Qaeda member had been sent to Algeria to "deliver money" to still other al Qaeda operatives. Al Qaeda is a highly compartmentalized organization, just as Saddam’s intelligence services were. Yet, source 6841 seems to know details that only someone with sufficiently senior access inside the al Qaeda organization could know.

Eli Lake reports for the New York Sun:

The news that American forces had captured Iranians in Iraq was widely reported last month, but less well known is that the Iranians were carrying documents that offered Americans insight into Iranian activities in Iraq.

An American intelligence official said the new material, which has been authenticated within the intelligence community, confirms "that Iran is working closely with both the Shiite militias and Sunni Jihadist groups." The source was careful to stress that the Iranian plans do not extend to cooperation with Baathist groups fighting the government in Baghdad, and said the documents rather show how the Quds Force — the arm of Iran's revolutionary guard that supports Shiite Hezbollah, Sunni Hamas, and Shiite death squads — is working with individuals affiliated with Al Qaeda in Iraq and Ansar al-Sunna.

But yesterday the New Republic's film critic, Chris Orr, assured us that "Al Qaeda is, after all, a Sunni group, and Iran, a Shiite nation," so we needn't worry about collaboration between the two. Maybe the military just got the translation wrong.

As discussed in my first post in this series, Saddam tasked his minions with hunting Americans throughout the Muslim world and especially in Somalia in 1993. The Iraqi Intelligence Service identified eleven groups with which it had relations and that were capable of carrying out the mission. One of the groups identified was the Jamiat-e-Ulema Islam party, otherwise known as the JUI, in Pakistan. According to a U.S. Government translation, here is what the IIS had to say about its relationship with the JUI in its January 25, 1993 memo:

Jam’iyyat ‘Ulama’ Al-Islam (J.U.I.), (translator’s note: "The Society of Islamic Scholars")

1. It was established in 1948 and is considered one of the political parties that influence the Pakistani arena and in particular the northern region [Baluchistan] and Punjab. It is headed by Mulana (translator’s note: or Mawlana) Fadil Al-Rahman.

2. It depends on its financing on its organizations in Pakistan and foreign aid from Iraq and Libya.

3. Secretary of the Party, Mulana Jawid Ahmad Nu’mati, has a close relationship with our apparatus since 1981 and is willing to perform any mission that he would be assigned.

The JUI has been one of the strictest Islamist parties in Pakistan. It is as far from secular as you can get; its goal has been to turn Pakistan into a theological state. Moreover, the JUI has practiced an extremist brand of Islam for decades. Yet, according to this IIS document, the JUI was receiving aid from both Iraq and Libya--two nominally secular states headed by ruthless dictators who one would not think of as especially religious, to say the least. Not only was the JUI receiving aid from Iraq, the IIS reported a "close relationship" with the group’s secretary since the early 1980’s and his willingness "to perform any mission that he would be assigned." Since this was written in the context of Iraq’s quest to launch anti-American terrorist operations in Somalia and elsewhere, "any mission" would presumably include just such a task. However, it is not known if the JUI ever contributed to such attacks in any way, and it might well not have.

What the IIS memo does not note is that the JUI was then training future cadres of Taliban members. Indeed, the JUI is widely considered the mother organization for the Taliban. The U.S. government’s translation of the IIS document notes that the JUI is headed by "Mulana Fadil Al-Rahman." There are a number of alternative spellings of Rahman’s name floating around, but a more common English translation of his name is Maulana Fazlur Rahman.

But, as Steve Schippert has previously noted, you can just call him the "godfather" of the Taliban.

(Note: Over the next few days, I will be blogging about documents captured in post-Saddam Iraq. Some of these documents were analyzed in a new study written for the military by the Institute for Defense Analyses. That report is part of the Iraqi Perspectives Project and is titled, Saddam and Terrorism: Emerging Insights from Captured Iraqi Documents. Hereafter, I refer to the study as the "IPP Report.")

On January 18, 1993, Saddam’s personal secretary sent a "very urgent" note to the director of the Iraqi Intelligence Service. Saddam wanted his goons to "hunt" Americans present on Arab soil:

Follow up to our memo 7184/K on 20 Dec 1992, the [Baath] Party has decided to snipe (translator’s note: or hunt) Americans that are present on Arab soil, particularly in Somalia, utilizing Arab, Asian Muslims or friendly elements.

The note was directed to the head of Saddam’s foreign intelligence service, who was told he "should meet to study the method of performing the said directive and to notify me of your opinion as soon as possible."

One week later, on January 25, 1993, the Iraqi Intelligence Service sent a reply to Saddam:

In reference to your memo Top Secret Personal and Very Urgent 425/K dated 18 Jan 1993. Below are the groups with whom our agency has relations, and who have elements dispersed on the Arab land and have the expertise to carry out the aforementioned mission.

Eleven terrorist groups/individuals were listed including: (1) the Abu Nidal Organization (aka the Fatah Revolutionary Council), (2) the Palestinian Liberation Front, or "PLF" (3) Force 17, (4) an obscure group called the "Organization of AI-Jihad and AI-Tajdid," (5) the Al-Murabitun Organization, (6) The Palestinian Abd-al-Bari AI-Duwayk (Abu Dawud), (7) Abd-al-Fattah Abd-al-Latif Fakhuri (Abu Yihya), (8) the Egyptian Islamic Jihad Organization, or "EIJ" (9) the Jamiat-e-Ulema Islam, or "JUI", (10) the Islamic Afghani Party, or Hezb-e Islami and (11) the Pakistani Scholars Party.

Saddam was clearly keeping some nasty company. The Abu Nidal Organization was one of the most deadly terrorist organizations of the 1980’s, having killed hundreds and wounded hundreds more.

But what is particularly interesting about this document is that the IIS noted its relationship with two parties that are directly allied with Osama bin Laden’s al Qaeda (the Egyptian Islamic Jihad Organization, which is one of the core groups that makes up al Qaeda, and the Islamic Afghani Party, which has allied with bin Laden since the 1980’s) and one group which is, in many ways, the mother organization for the Taliban (the Jamiat-e-Ulema Islam).

In coming posts we will explore the ties between Saddam’s regime and these three groups, including what Saddam’s intelligence files say about these relationships. It is clear that Saddam saw his support for all of these organizations in the context of striking his enemies, especially Americans.

After all, the IIS said these groups, including core al Qaeda members, were ready to "hunt" Americans.

When the 9-11 Commission’s final report was published in July 2004, some in the press were quick to trumpet one line in the report that appeared to dispense with the issue of Saddam’s ties to al Qaeda. The Commission reported on a number of contacts between the two sides, but ultimately concluded: "to date we have seen no evidence that these or earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship."

For many, that was the end of the story. But re-read the Commission’s report carefully (as some did at the time) and you realize it found a number of disturbing threads tying Saddam’s Iraq to al Qaeda. For example, the Commission reported that Ayman al Zawahiri set up at least one and maybe two meetings between al Qaeda and Saddam’s regime in 1998. The Commission explained that Zawahiri was in a position to act as a liaison since he had "ties of his own to the Iraqis." The Commission did not explain further.

But now, thanks to the release of a new study on Saddam’s ties to terrorism, we learn more about Zawahiri’s "ties" to Iraq. The Iraqi Perspectives Project report (which we’ve discussed here, here, and here) explains:

Saddam supported groups that either associated directly with al Qaeda (such as the Egyptian Islamic Jihad, led at one time by bin Laden's deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri) or that generally shared al Qaeda's stated goals and objectives.

As Steve Hayes pointed out again this morning, the study cites an Iraqi Intelligence document dated March 18, 1993. The translation of the document provided in the study begins:

We list herein the organizations that our agency [IIS] cooperates with and have relations with various elements in many parts of the Arab world and who also have the expertise to carry out assignments indicated in the above directive [the cited directive has not been discovered yet].

Ayman al Zawahiri’s Egyptian Islamic Jihad is one of the nine terrorist organizations then discussed in the extracts of the document cited:

Islamic Jihad Organization [Egyptian Islamic Jihad]

- In a meeting in the Sudan we agreed to renew our relations with the Islamic Jihad Organization in Egypt. Our information on the group is as follows:

- It was established in 1979.

- Its goal is to apply the Islamic shari' a law and establish Islamic rule.

- It is considered one of the most brutal Egyptian organizations. It carried out numerous successful operations, including the assassination of Sadat.

- We have previously met with the organization's representative and we agreed on a plan to carry out commando operations against the Egyptian regime.

So we now know that Zawahiri’s "ties" to Iraq included an agreement to cooperate on "commando operations against the Egyptian regime." This would seem to be evidence of an "operational collaborative relationship." That Saddam’s regime was willing to sponsor the EIJ’s operations should be a major blow to those who would argue that Saddam and al Qaeda could never, ever cooperate. It sheds new light on the 9/11 Commission’s report, and raises a number of questions.

Over at the New York Sun Eli Lake has an excellent write-up on the new military report, which (contrary to what many press outlets are reporting) details Saddam’s extensive ties to regional and global terrorist groups, including al Qaeda. I’m sure we will be following up with more commentary in the coming days (and make sure to read Steve Hayes’s initial take here), but for now I think it is worth pointing out that the report ties Saddam’s regime to at least five different al Qaeda associated groups, including two groups that formed the core of al Qaeda.

The Iraqi Intelligence documents discussed in the report link Saddam’s regime to: the Egyptian Islamic Jihad (the “EIJ” is al Qaeda number-two Ayman al Zawahiri's group), the Islamic Group or “IG” (once headed by a key al Qaeda ideologue, Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman), the Army of Mohammed (al Qaeda's affiliate in Bahrain), the Islamic Movement of Kurdistan (a forerunner to Ansar al-Islam, al Qaeda's affiliate in Iraq), and Gulbuddin Hekmatyar (a long-time ally of Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan), among other terrorist groups. Documents cited by the report, but not discussed at length in the publicly available version (they may be in a redacted portion of the report), also detail Saddam’s ties to a sixth al Qaeda affiliate: the Abu Sayyaf group, an al Qaeda affiliate in the Philippines.

Both the EIJ and the IG were early and important core allies for Osama bin Laden as he forged the al Qaeda terror network, which comprises a number of affiliates around the world.

The report also says that Iraqi Intelligence documents demonstrate Saddam’s willingness to support the Somali terrorist groups who famously terrorized U.S. forces in the early 1990s. Although the report does not include any direct evidence of Saddam’s regime collaborating with Osama bin Laden’s terrorists in this regard, the report’s authors note that this was one example where the two organizations’ interests coincided. No wonder one of Saddam’s favorite movies was Black Hawk Down. As the war in Iraq got underway in March 2003, Saddam even reportedly distributed copies of the film to his troops--showing them how he thought the Americans could be defeated through guerilla-style terrorist warfare.

Of course, as Steve pointed out, some will continue to seize on one misleading line in the executive summary to claim that the report dismisses the idea the two were linked in any way. The overwhelming bulk of the report and the actual evidence cited therein, however, tell a different story. There’s more to come.

The other night I attended an electrifying debate by Intelligence Squared U.S. about U.S. interrogation techniques in the war on terror. Despite the recent brouhaha about John McCain allegedly backtracking, I think it’s clear that the presidential candidates of both parties will dismantle many of the Bush administration’s policies once in office. Yet I left the debate feeling the question of U.S. interrogation techniques will not become irrelevant in the next year.

Many of the interrogation techniques employed by the CIA and now barred by the Army field manual do not amount to what most Americans would call torture. While it’s easy to understand why waterboarding is controversial, I cannot say the same about depriving detainees of sleep, being disrespectful to them in a good cop/bad cop context, and subjecting them to loud music (unless it is Hanson’s “MMMBop”). These are all practices currently barred by the Army Field Manual, but which the CIA is permitted to employ against high-value terrorist detainees.

Whether or not America should allow these techniques to be used, I found it very peculiar that opponents of the resolution took for granted that we would win the hearts and minds of Muslims if only we abandoned these techniques. Polls have shown that only small minorities of several predominantly Muslim countries believe al Qaeda was responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Nothing we do or have done--certainly not the treatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo--is responsible for these delusions. To say otherwise is naïve, and evidence actually suggests that in the last four years, there has been declining support for Bin Laden and suicide bombing among Muslim populations.

The speaker who struck me as most loopy was John Hutson, a former Judge Advocate General of the Navy, who refused to draw any nuance about the different interrogation techniques used by the CIA. He called everything torture, and even proclaimed “This is not an existential war” and that “Killing us isn’t their goal.” I encourage Mr. Hutson to get to know our enemy a little better by reading about al Qaeda’s field manual. That should give him a better understanding of what torture really is and the nature of their goals.

One of Her Majesty's Finest vs. 150 Taliban. Good odds, it appears.

A BRITISH soldier who almost single-handedly took on 150 Taliban after he and his 50-man convoy were ambushed in Afghanistan has been awarded the Military Cross.

Fusilier Damien Hields used his grenade machinegun to destroy seven Taliban positions before his ambushers realised he was their main threat. After peppering his vehicle with bullets, they hit the 24-year-old soldier. He had to be dragged off for treatment by his driver after he tried to continue fighting. They were on their way back to Kandahar on June 3, driving south in a valley, when the Taliban attacked. One of the Land Rovers hit a landmine and was flipped upside down by the blast. “There were Taliban dug in all around and they started hitting us with AK47s and mortars. We could not see where they were at first.”

Hields followed the trail of RPG-7 rocket-propelled grenades coming towards him and started firing grenades one at a time, trying to home in. “Then I switched to automatic fire,” he said. A grenade machine gun has a box with 32 grenade rounds. “I emptied a box onto that position and you could see all the dust and smoke flying about where they hit. “After that no fire came back from that position and I moved on to the next one. One or two rounds until I got onto the target, and switch to automatic and empty the box.” Realising that Hields was the main threat to them, the remaining Taliban fighters homed in on him with their RPG7s, Dushka heavy machineguns and Kalash-nikov rifles. Hields was undaunted and continued firing.

“I got through six boxes in about 15 minutes and we were winning the fight,” he said. “They started it. We were going to finish it.”

Democrats have spent the last year loudly insisting that Afghanistan is the "real" war on terror. But when it comes to making meaningful recommendations for what actually needs to be done to reverse the situation in Afghanistan and defeat the Taliban, they have been notably vague and lethargic. Barack Obama--despite being the chairman of the Senate Subcommittee responsible for overseeing NATO’s military operations in Afghanistan--hasn’t bothered to hold a single hearing on the Atlantic Alliance’s flagging mission there. In fact, the putative Democratic commander-in-chief has never even taken the time to visit Afghanistan and talk to our commanders on the ground there (nor did he take the time to talk to the Captain whose stories of shortages in that theater he so badly mangled).

The explanation for this behavior, of course, is that the overwhelming majority of Democrats in Congress couldn’t care less about the hard realities we face in Afghanistan or how to turn them around. Rather, they see Afghanistan as a political tool to justify retreat and defeat in Iraq. It’s the kind of cynical manipulation of national security that has increasingly become the norm among the politicos of the left.

By contrast, Joe Lieberman today has an op-ed in the Washington Post that offers a sober and serious policy proposal for reversing Afghanistan’s slide: expand the Afghan National Army. Here’s hoping that the administration--and Republicans, more broadly--listen to him and reclaim this issue from the Democrats.

Why is Iran going after al Qaeda’s enemies in Iraq? A few days ago, Iraqi spymaster Mohammed Abdullah Shahwani accused Iran of trying to sabotage al Qaeda’s opposition. "We have information confirming that Iranian secret services have sent agents to sabotage the Sahwa [i.e. the "Awakening"] experience in Iraq," Shahwani said shortly before Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s visit to Iraq. Shahwani "stressed the need for the Iraqi people to be vigilant in facing these activities."

The U.S. Military has apparently confirmed and added supporting details to Shahwani’s accusation. According to Adnkronos International (AKI), U.S. military spokesman Adm. Gregory Smith explained: "the American military recently obtained confessions from detainees who are members of the Al-Quds Brigade and other Shia group who have been arrested in various parts of Iraq, who said that they were assigned to carry out armed operations to kill the leaders and the members of the Awakening Councils, in order to destroy this experiment."

So, here we have yet another instance in which Iran’s interests coincide with al Qaeda’s. Upon reading these latest accusations I cannot help but think of all those who believe that Iran and America have common interests in Iraq. For example, in "Iran: Time for a New Approach," America’s foreign policy elite, including Zbigniew Brzezinski and the now current Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates, argued:

Although they may differ profoundly on specifics, both the United States and Iran want postconflict governments in Iraq and Afghanistan that respect the rights of their diverse citizenries and live in peace with their neighbors. The hostility that characterizes U.S.-Iranian relations undermines these shared interests and squanders the potential benefits of even limited cooperation. As tenuous new governments in Baghdad and Kabul embark on precarious post-conflict futures, the United States and the region cannot afford to spurn any prospective contributions to the region’s stability.

What "shared interests" do the United States and Iran have in post-Saddam Iraq? Beats me. As for the "specifics," we are against al Qaeda and Iran is not. That is indeed a profound difference.

At some point we are going to have to recognize that Iran and al Qaeda are allies, no?

CJCS to Military: Ditch the peacetime mentality...

In a broad-ranging all-hands meeting with Joint Staff members here today, Navy Adm. Mike Mullen discussed the stand-up of U.S. Africa Command, the challenges of leadership in a changing world, and the increased speed of war.

Military officials need to adopt a wartime attitude, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said. Mullen said he believes that, more than six years into the war on terror, people still follow a peacetime frame of mind. “There are things that we’re still doing that’s under peacetime rules,” he said. “We’re in a couple of wars, and too often we get caught up in what I call peacetime responses or adapting peacetime rules, policies, regulations to what we need to do in responding very rapidly." . . .

Changes in the world have convinced the chairman that U.S. conventional forces are going to have to take on some of the attributes of special operations forces. Conventional forces are going to have to be more culturally aware; they are going to have to build relationships with other peoples and make quick decisions under constant and extreme pressure, he said.

Both Stuart Koehl and I have received our fair share of angry letters for suggesting that the military needs to lose the chickenshit attitude and rediscover the "damn the torpedoes" warrior ethos that has characterized America's historical dominance on the battlefield. Now that the Chairman has gone on record saying what is in effect the exact same thing, I'm hoping that the administrative military takes a strong look inward.

This war stops on a dime and changes direction in the blink of an eye. It is perhaps one of the fastest paced conflicts that we've ever had to fight, in that the military is forced to continuously reinvent the wheel so as to stay one step ahead of an enemy unencumbered by the administrative suck. The bad guys move fast, while the peacetime military--still prevalent in our ranks--has built career officers and NCO careers in a bureaucratic fashion straight out of the Dilbert comic strips. Focus groups and committees, risk aversion, bloated command structures and a disproportionate ratio of bosses to war fighters, all bring operations that should be fast-paced, flexible, and innovative to a screeching halt.

That the top man in uniform has said "enough!" is one small step for the military, one giant leap for the war on terror. I'm eager to see Admiral Mullen's vision translated into policy, and hope that step one in the implementation strategy is a force-wide ban on Microsoft Powerpoint. That’d do a hell of a lot more for military productivity than a ban on blogs.

Cat's out of the bag:

Prince Harry has been serving on the front line with his British army unit in one of Afghanistan's most lawless and barren provinces.

Harry is the first royal to serve in a combat zone since his uncle Prince Andrew flew helicopters during Britain's war with Argentina over the Falkland Islands in 1982.

British officials had hoped to keep the 23-year-old's deployment secret until he had safely returned, but they released video of Harry serving in Helmand Province after a leak appeared on the U.S. Web site the Drudge Report.

The planned deployment had been disclosed to reporters, with no specific date, but was not reported previously under a pool agreement between the Ministry of Defense and all major news organizations operating in Britain, including The Associated Press. The news blackout was intended to reduce the risk to the prince and his regiment.

This type of leadership impresses me to no end. Prince Harry didn't just request to be sent to the front lines, he demanded it. And equally impressive is the restraint shown by both the Ministry of Defense and the tabloid driven British media, sitting on a bombshell of a story for what appears to be all the right reasons.

But, for the same reason that Prince Harry was denied a deployment to Iraq, the Ministry of Defense will now be forced to separate the royal from his men. He's simply too rich of a target, and the knowledge that he's active in what is certainly the hottest combat zone in the CENTCOM AOR undoubtedly has the area's sizable Taliban and al Qaeda contingent licking their lips like hungry wolves. This doesn't just place Prince Harry at unnecessary risk, but his entire regiment.

Tragedy that it is to part an effective platoon leader from his troops, the MoD has little choice.

Yesterday’s airstrike in Pakistan’s tribal agency of South Waziristan, which killed 13 Arab al Qaeda and Pakistani Taliban, has raised once again the question of whether last month’s airstrike in North Waziristan claimed the life of Adam Gadahn, the American traitor and al Qaeda propagandist. Rumors swirled last month that Gadahn was killed along with Abu Laith al Libi, a senior al Qaeda leader in Afghanistan. Gadahn was reported missing by associates, and he has not produced an al Qaeda propaganda tape since the January strike.

Rusty Shackleford, who closely tracks jihadi and al Qaeda’s propaganda operations at The Jawa Report, believes Gadahn died in the late January airstrike. “This week a trusted source revealed to me that he was hearing from Pakistan that Gadahn was most likely dead,” Shackleford said. “I asked him if his sources weren't the same as NBC? No, he replied, he had a different source of information.”

“Then why hasn't the U.S. confirmed Gadahn's demise?” Shackleford asks. “ Too many body parts,” his source said. “Very little left of any one on the ground. Could take some time, or we may never have confirmation.”

Perhaps. But al Qaeda would certainly know if one of its senior propagandists has been killed. Al Qaeda has been quick to announce the death of its leaders in the past, and has taken the opportunity to use their deaths as propaganda and recruiting tools. In the case of Abu Laith al Libi, al Qaeda released an announcement less than 48 hours after the airstrike. Several videotapes have been released addressing al Libi’s death, including one released yesterday by none other than Ayman al Zawahiri, al Qaeda’s second in command.

Al Qaeda likely would have capitalized on Gadahn's death as well given his unique status as an American member of the terror group. Al Qaeda could claim the cowardly Americans had to use remotely launched missiles to kill their own countryman (despite the fact Gadahn tore up his passport in a video released a few months ago).

Of course, there is the possibility that al Qaeda would hide Gadahn’s death to deny the Bush administration its own propaganda coup. Gadahn was indicted in a U.S. federal court under charges of treason and providing material support to a foreign terrorist organization by making al Qaeda propaganda videos. He is the first American to be indicted for treason since 1952. But this seems unlikely, as covering up Gadahn’s death would run counter to al Qaeda’s history of quickly and publicly announcing the death of the group's senior figures.

Sounds like the rumors of French forces bolstering NATO lines in Afghanistan were true:

France may send hundreds of ground troops to east Afghanistan where NATO-led forces are fighting al Qaeda-backed insurgents, Le Monde newspaper reported on Tuesday.

It said the move would be part of a new Afghan policy being worked out by President Nicolas Sarkozy and his advisers.

France has about 1,900 soldiers under NATO's Afghan command, most of them based in relatively calm Kabul, and Le Monde said the fresh troops would be deployed outside the capital.

Interesting. Back during the de Gaulle years, France caused an enormous shakeup in NATO by largely removing itself from the alliance. Forty-five years later, the Fifth Republic is on the verge of saving it. In any case, this quote almost had me spitting out my coffee:

"Their destination would be zones of potentially fierce fighting, preferably the eastern region of Afghanistan close to the tribal areas of Pakistan," it said.

I take back almost all of the nasty things I said about France. Almost.

Does Afghanistan have enough combat troops to secure the country? Can Afghanistan be fixed merely by adding troops to conduct humanitarian missions? The Washington Post's William M. Arkin says yes to both questions. In an article titled "Afghanistan: America Wrong, Europe Right," he argues the "hesitant Europeans" are right in withholding combat forces in Afghanistan, because more reconstruction is needed, not more troops. Arkin sums up his argument in a brief paragraph:

Jump on the bandwagon if you like. I'm sure all three presidential candidates could happily articulate some version of Gates' lament on Afghanistan as diversion therapy. But the truth is that hesitant Europeans are right. More firepower isn't going to "win" the war in Afghanistan. It's not just because of the Pakistan back door, or because special operations and airpower -- not more boots on the ground -- are the keys to success. It's because what is really needed in the country is more non-military operations. In other words, hooray for the reluctant shooters.

Arkin's belief that combat troops are not needed in Afghanistan displays a woeful ignorance about the situation on the ground. Several of the arguments used by those opposed to the Iraq war to criticize the Bush administration and the military strategy there actually apply much better to Afghanistan. The primary criticism that applies here is force strength: there are too few troops on the ground to hold territory after it has been liberated from the Taliban, particularly in the south. Combat troops, and not provincial reconstruction teams, are needed to help hold ground to allow the PRTs do their work.

I embedded with the Canadian Army in Afghanistan in June of 2006 during the massive operation call Mountain Thrust, which was designed to clear Taliban forces from their strongholds in Kandahar, Uruzgan, and Helmand provinces. These operations were successful in killing over a thousand Taliban fighters and driving them from their redoubts, but only temporarily. There were not enough Afghan, Canadian, British, U.S., Dutch, and Danish forces to consolidate the successes. NATO and Afghan forces were forced to fight over the same territory during 2007.

If Arkin believes more reconstruction troops and less trigger pullers are needed, does he believe the NATO allies such as France, Germany, Italy, and Spain, who have failed to deploy to the hot regions in the east, southeast, and south, would happily deploy non-combat troops into these dangerous regions? These countries are reluctant to deploy more troops in the north, let alone take on a more risky mission in the south.

Arkin’s view contradicts everything learned over the past seven years of fighting small wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere. Security has to come first, then reconstruction.

One other note, Arkin wrongly lumps all of the NATO force under the "European" umbrella, thus making this a USA vs. Europe issue. It isn't. Arkin fails to note that several NATO allies have also called for an increase in combat forces. The deputy commander of the Canadian battle group called for a doubling of combat forces in Kandahar just last weekend. The Canadian and Dutch governments have been under enormous political pressure from their citizens as these countries have shouldered an inordinate amount of the fighting while larger allies shun combat for cushy peacekeeping gigs in the north.

Anthony Cordesman opens his op-ed in today's Washington Post:

No one can return from the battlefields in Iraq and Afghanistan, as I recently did, without believing that these are wars that can still be won. They are also clearly wars that can still be lost, but visits to the battlefield show that these conflicts are very different from the wars being described in American political campaigns and most of the debates outside the United States.

Cordesman is, in fact, far more optimistic about the situation in Iraq, where he says "al-Qaeda is clearly losing in every province," than Afghanistan, where "the Taliban is sharply expanding its support areas as well as its political and economic influence."

Part of the blame for this backsliding in Afghanistan surely rests with our NATO allies, who, with a few notable exceptions, have failed to commit the necessary resources to that fight. But the failure is also one of multilateralism. As we've seen in Iraq over the last year, effective counterinsurgency requires unity of effort and unity of command. Victory in Afghanistan will require more troops, more resources, and a commander like Petraeus who can direct the full weight of Coalition forces where they are needed most. Cordesman concludes:

We either need long-term commitments, effective long-term resources and strategic patience -- or we do not need enemies. We will defeat ourselves [in both wars].

John McCain ought to steal that line for his stump speech.

Matthew Levitt and Michael Jacobson of the Washington Institute recently visited Bahrain, where the government has recently convicted five men on terrorism charges including "receiving explosives and weapons training, engaging in terrorism overseas, and terrorism financing targeting 'friendly countries.'" They received relatively light sentences for their crimes, just six months in jail. One of the defense lawyers explained, "the six-month jail sentence is nothing, and we consider this to be an acquittal."

But this isn't the real story. As Levitt and Jacobson report:

Lost in the coverage, however, was the important role Iran played, either explicitly or implicitly. According to Bahraini investigators, several of the cell members traveled from Bahrain to Afghanistan via Iran. First, they flew to Tehran and met up with several al-Qaeda-affiliated individuals at the airport. Al-Qaeda facilitators then passed the cell members along from "person to person" until their arrival in Afghan training camps. . . .

Bahraini authorities do not know whether the Iranian government actively facilitated the cell members' travel to Afghanistan. But given the regime's track record, Iran's possible involvement with the cell is worth exploring further.

Indeed, this story is worth investigating further--as are the possible ties between Iran and Hezbollah on the one hand, and al Qaeda’s 9/11 hijackers on the other. As I wrote in my latest piece, the 9/11 Commission found that Iran and Hezbollah may have facilitated travel for a majority of the 9/11 hijackers in a manner very similar to this Bahraini al Qaeda cell. The Commission called for further investigation into the matter, but we are still waiting. If any such investigation is ever begun, the story of this Bahraini cell should also be looked into. The pattern of behavior is very similar.

The AP reports:

The Obama campaign offered no details to support the captain's story, making it impossible to verify. A spokesman did not immediately respond to questions about who the captain was and when and how the candidate learned about the allegation.

ABC News said it talked to the unidentified captain, whose account of shortages in Afghanistan was for the most part accurately summarized by Obama, although not verified.

The captain said, however, that the unit did not go after the Taliban for the purpose of getting their weapons, but sometimes used those weapons when some were captured.

"For the most part" is a generous description. Aside from Tapper's faith in the captain as credible, the story remains unverified, and, in fact, "impossible to verify," since the Obama campaign has not released any detail that might corroborate the account. Even if one takes the captain's story at face value, there is a large discrepancy between the story he tells and the story Obama told in last night's debate (mainly that there was no ammunition shortage, and that the unit was equipped with a full compliment of weapons).

But at this point the captain's story cannot be taken at face value, and confirmation of his account cannot be left solely to Jake Tapper's assessment of the captain's credibility. Confirmation requires something beyond the word of an unnamed captain who found his way to a meeting with Barack Obama's staff at some unspecified date in the past. Obama has leveled a specific and unsubstantiated allegation that remains, by any objective analysis, "impossible to verify."

There is a lot about Obama's story that makes no sense. Let us start with the opening line:

"You know, I've heard from an Army captain who was the head of a rifle platoon--supposed to have 39 men in a rifle platoon. Ended up being sent to Afghanistan with 24 because 15 of those soldiers had been sent to Iraq."

Well, captains command companies, not rifle platoons. A rifle platoon is normally commanded by a 2nd lieutenant, sometimes (if short handed) by a senior sergeant. So for starters, Obama betrays a woeful ignorance of military organization and the chain of command. Then he remarks that the platoon was under-strength because 15 of its men had been "sent to Iraq." Sorry, the Army doesn't work that way. Platoons are organic units, consisting of three rifle squads, a heavy weapons squad, and a headquarters section. You can't break it up. It is the smallest building block in the infantry that can conduct fire-and-movement tactics.

So, no matter what, if the Army needed to shift men from Afghanistan to Iraq, it would have done so either by detaching the whole platoon, or, more likely, an entire company from its parent battalion, because a company is an administrative as well as a tactical unit, and believe me, the Army would sooner fight with one hand tied behind its back than create administrative hassles for itself. Maybe the captain was commanding something other than a rifle platoon--perhaps a company headquarters unit, or an intelligence or communications unit, or some other small specialist unit, but in that case, the loss of troops is not nearly as critical as Obama's story implies. "High-Demand/Low-Density" specialists are always being moved around because there just aren't enough of them to go around. Period. It's a chronic problem not just in the military, but in civilian life as well. Obama went on:

And as a consequence, they didn't have enough ammunition, they didn't have enough Humvees. They were actually capturing Taliban weapons, because it was easier to get Taliban weapons than it was for them to get properly equipped by our current commander in chief.

The idea that our guys were scrounging weapons and ammo because they were short is ludicrous. How much ammo you carry is done on a "per man" basis in the infantry--each solder carries a "basic load," which is backed up by reserve supplies at company, battalion, and above. It is possible to run out of ammunition, temporarily, in the midst of an intense firefight. Weapons like the M4 Carbine, the M16A3 rifle, and especially the M249 Squad Automatic Weapon (SAW) can burn through ammo like fire through dry tinder. Since each man carries perhaps 200 rounds into a firefight (about six or seven magazines), he can easily expend it all in a matter of minutes (which is the reason the Army teaches fire discipline). If you can't get a runner back to the company supply train, then things might get dicey, and if you're out, and there's a Taliban guy lying dead at your feet with an AK-74 and a full bandoleer of ammo, what are you going to do?

Moreover, U.S. soldiers have always scrounged, and have always admired the other guy's weapons. In World War II, our guys picked up German MP-41 submachine guns and MG-42 machine guns, which were demonstrably better than their U.S. counterparts. In Vietnam, GIs seemed to prefer the rugged and reliable AK-47 to the high-tech M16 (while, perversely, the Viet Cong preferred the M16 because it was lighter and had less recoil). It would not surprise me if some U.S. troops "acquired" some ex-Taliban AKs--though they run the risk, especially at night, of being mistaken for the enemy because different types of guns have distinctive sounds.

To the best of my knowledge, no U.S. forces in either Afghanistan or Iraq ever ran out of ammunition for more than a few hours at most. When you consider that we were operating in Afghanistan at the tenuous end of a 8,000 mile supply line, that's pretty impressive.

As for not having enough HMMWVs, that's understandable, when you consider what it takes to get a HMMWV to Afghanistan and then to keep it up and running. Fact is, no unit ever has enough HMMWVs (in its own mind, at least), just as in World War II, no unit had enough Jeeps. Again, that we have managed to sustain our forces in Afghanistan so well is cause for congratulations not criticism.

Overall, I think Obama would be better sticking to his "message of hope"--hope that nobody will ever ask him to make any substantive statements on military affairs, ever again.

During tonight's debate, Barack Obama related this stunning anecdote:

You know, I've heard from an Army captain who was the head of a rifle platoon--supposed to have 39 men in a rifle platoon. Ended up being sent to Afghanistan with 24 because 15 of those soldiers had been sent to Iraq.

And as a consequence, they didn't have enough ammunition, they didn't have enough Humvees. They were actually capturing Taliban weapons, because it was easier to get Taliban weapons than it was for them to get properly equipped by our current commander in chief.

As soon as the Senator made the claim he looked as though he knew he'd gone too far. The Corner reports the campaign is already backtracking. After the debate Obama advisor David Axlerod told Stephen Spruiell,

That was a discussion that a captain in the military had with our staff, and he asked that that be passed along to Senator Obama.

So Obama never actually spoke with the captain, which means he can reasonably claim the tale was garbled in transmission. It is possible that an American unit was ill-equipped for combat, these things happen in the fog of war (as do bullshit stories), and they have happened with troubling frequency in this war as in every other. Which is not to diminish any failure on the part of the administration or the military leadership in providing U.S. forces with the equipment they need. But is this particular story true?

Our troops never rotate into theater before running through a series of inspections which ensure that they're properly equipped, and we've never heard a report of soldiers having to scrounge for ammo. If we did, we'd join the Senator in raising hell. In Obama's telling the blame lies with President Bush, but the story is perfectly vague and based on nothing but hearsay. We expect there will be a lot of folks that want to get to the bottom of this, whether the facts supports Obama's version or not.

More from Hot Air and Ace.

The AP reports:

The chief of Hezbollah vowed Thursday to retaliate against Israeli targets anywhere in the world after accusing the Jewish state of killing the militant Imad Mughniyeh in Syria.

Israel ordered its military, embassies and Jewish institutions overseas to go on alert Thursday, fearing revenge attacks for a car bomb that killed Mughniyeh — accused of masterminding dramatic attacks that killed hundreds of Americans in Lebanon in the 1980s.

"You have crossed the borders," he said. "With this murder, its timing, location and method — Zionists, if you want this kind of open war, let the whole world listen: Let this war be open."

Hezbollah's war against Israel never stopped, so turgid threats to "resume" the conflict ring a bit hollow. They can--and most likely will--intensify their usual operations against Israel in the form of rocket attacks against Israeli population centers, attempted kidnappings, suicide bombings, etc., but the notion that Israel broke some kind of ceasefire with this attack is pure propaganda.

If Israel was indeed behind Mughniyeh's death, we owe them a pat on the back. We've had a vested interest in seeing this guy dead since he took 241 Marines from us in 1983, a Navy diver in 1985, and 19 soldiers and airmen in 1996. Bob Baer, a career spook with ops time in Lebanon, called him the "grail" that we've been after for over two decades. So if Hezbollah's retaliation grants Israel the opportunity to send a few of Mughniyeh's buddies to join him, I won't shed any tears.

As the Democratic presidential race careens towards what may be an ugly finish, liberals are increasingly outraged that superdelegates could frustrate the will of a majority of Democratic primary voters. To this I say: what's the big deal? Liberals in the House of Representatives are doing it right now.

Here's the FISA state of play: the Senate yesterday soundly rejected an amendment by Chris Dodd to deny telecom companies legal protections for their good-faith cooperation with terrorist surveillance. Dodd and other liberals apparently want future requests to the telecom companies to sound like this: "Hi, I'm with the CIA and we want you to listen in on Osama bin Laden's phone calls. It's an urgent matter of national security, and you better have plenty to spend on lawyers because you'll get sued out the wazoo."

The Senate rejected this approach 67-31, then passed the surveillance bill 68-29.

This should effectively end the debate over whether to extend protection to these companies. That's because 21 'Blue Dog' House Democrats have written to Speaker Pelosi and told her that they support the Senate bill, and want to see it brought to the House floor promptly for a vote:

The Rockefeller-Bond FISA legislation contains satisfactory language addressing all these issues, and we would fully support that measure should it reach the House floor without substantial change. We believe these components will ensure a strong national security apparatus that can thwart terrorism across the globe and save American lives here in our country.

Combined with the 198 Republicans who support this approach, there is a clear majority in favor of telecom immunity, and of the Senate bill more generally. For those committed to majority rule, there's no more need for discussion, right? The bill ought to come to the House floor, be approved, and sent to the president.

But that's not what House Democrats are doing. This afternoon they're muscling through a 21-day extension of FISA, which they hope will give them breathing room to twist arms. Then they might pass a bill that takes the teeth out of terrorist surveillance, and which the president would veto.

Why are Democrats throwing out the principle of majority rule just to wind up back where they started? Because that's what MoveOn.org and their liberal base demands -- regardless of how futile the effort is. And if you don't intend to make laws that reflect the will of the majority, why select a presidential nominee that way either?

WWS pal Adam White responds to this post from yesterday:

Scalia's comment -- i.e., that torture isn't "cruel and unusual punishment" under the Eighth Amendment -- is entirely consistent with mainstream constitutional law.

Generally speaking, the Eighth Amendment's ban on "cruel and unusual punishment" only covers conditions imposed by a sentence following a criminal conviction. (I may be wrong, but I believe it may also apply to fines imposed by the federal government in civil proceedings that are the functional equivalent of criminal punishments, too. Say, civil RICO forfeitures.) Torture undertaken for purposes of pre-conviction interrogation, as objectionable as it is as a general matter, simply is not "punishment" under the Eighth Amendment. Instead, torture's constitutional implications are found in the Fifth Amendment, which provides that "no person shall . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

No doubt, some left-wing knee-jerk types will challenge this analysis as right-wing nonsense. But they'd be utterly wrong. For proof, look no further than the report prepared in 2006 by the Congressional Research Service (hardly a hot-bed of neocon torture apologists) outlining the "McCain Amendment":

The Eighth Amendment's prohibition on "cruel and unusual punishment" concerns the imposition of a criminal punishment. Ingraham v. Wright, 430 U.S. 651 (1977). The constitutional restraint of persons in other areas, such as pre-trial interrogation, is found in the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment (concerning obligations owed by the U.S. federal government) and Fourteenth Amendment (concerning duties owed by U.S. state governments). These due process rights protect persons from executive abuses which "shock the conscience."

Thus, the question isn't whether harsh interrogation techniques (or even outright "torture") qualifies as "cruel and unusual punishment" under the Eighth Amendment; it's whether that conduct "shocks the conscience" so as to violate the Fifth Amendment. Obviously, that test can't be applied in the abstract -- it requires context, because that which certainly would "shock the conscience" in one situation (say, repeatedly slapping a young boy for several hours for no good reason), may not certainly "shock the concience" in another situation (say, repeatedly slapping Khalid Sheikh Mohammed for several hours in a "ticking time bomb" scenario.)

This is certainly the distinction to which Scalia was referring.

According to multiple press accounts, Iran’s and Hezbollah’s master terrorist, Imad Mugniyah, is dead. He was reportedly killed by a car bomb in Damascus last night. Hezbollah is claiming that he was killed by the Israelis. But the Prime Minister of Israel, Ehud Olmert, disputed Hezbollah’s version: “Israel rejects any attempt by terrorist organisations to attribute to it any implication in this affair.”

Thus far, the press accounts I’ve read have done a decent job of summarizing Mugniyah’s early terrorist career in the 1980’s. Mugniyah’s involvement in the bombings of the U.S. Embassy (April 18, 1983) and the Marine barracks (October 23,1983) in Lebanon, which led to the U.S. retreat from that nation, is well known. Mugniyah’s role in a string of additional attacks including the hijacking of TWA Flight 847 (June 14, 1985) and the kidnapping and murder of various Americans is also widely known.

But here is something that none of the press accounts I’ve read today have reported: Imad Mugniyah played an instrumental role in al Qaeda’s rise. I detailed Mugniyah’s role in al Qaeda’s terror in Iran’s Proxy War Against America, a short book published by the Claremont Institute last year. I won’t go into all of the details again in this post, but here is a quick summary of the relationship:

• Mugniyah met with Osama bin Laden in Sudan in the early 1990’s. The two agreed to work together against their common enemies, including America. Al Qaeda operatives were then trained by Mugniyah and other Hezbollah trainers, as well as Iranian personnel, in Sudan, Lebanon, and Iran. Both the Clinton administration, in its first two indictments of al Qaeda and bin Laden, and the 9/11 Commission found significant evidence of this early collaboration.

• According to Bob Baer, a long-time CIA operative who tracked Mugniyah for years, one of Mugniyah’s goons facilitated the travel of an al Qaeda operative en route to the November 19, 1995, bombing of the Egyptian Embassy in Islamabad, Pakistan. The bombing was among al Qaeda’s earliest operations.

• There is no real doubt that Iran and Mugniyah’s Hezbollah were primarily responsible for the June 1996 Khobar Towers bombing. But the 9/11 Commission also found evidence that al Qaeda may have played some role. Intelligence indicates that al Qaeda was planning a similar operation in the months prior. And afterwards, in telephone conversations that were evidently intercepted, Osama bin Laden received congratulations from his fellow terrorists, including Ayman al Zawahiri.

We know Justice Scalia is a fan of Jack Bauer. As the Wall Street Journal quoted him last summer:

“Jack Bauer saved Los Angeles . . . . He saved hundreds of thousands of lives,” Judge Scalia reportedly said. “Are you going to convict Jack Bauer?” He then posed a series of questions to his fellow judges: “Say that criminal law is against him? ‘You have the right to a jury trial?’ Is any jury going to convict Jack Bauer?”

“I don’t think so,” Scalia reportedly answered himself. “So the question is really whether we believe in these absolutes. And ought we believe in these absolutes.”

It seems Scalia has further elaborated on his position in an interview with the BBC via Think Progress. Click through to listen, but the basic gist is that Scalia doesn't believe it's clear that the government is prevented from using coercive interrogation in order to prevent an imminent terrorist attack. His argument seems to rest on the fact that the Constitution forbids cruel and unusual punishment, but if the treatment is not meant as punishment, then there is some room for maneuver. The show's host takes issue with his use of the ticking-time bomb scenario, which is often dismissed as so unlikely as to be irrelevant, but Scalia responds that once you accept the premise that there are conditions under which torture might be permissible, and he says it would be "absurd" to think otherwise, "then we're into a different game."

"How close does the threat have to be, and how severe [would the] infliction of pain be. I don't think it's easy at all, in either direction, but I certainly know you can't come in smugly and with great self-satisfaction and say 'oh, well it's torture, and therefore it's no good.' You would not apply that in some real life situations. It may not be a ticking bomb in Los Angeles, but it may be where is this group that we know is plotting some very painful action against the United States. Where are they and what are they planning?"

The left will portray Scalia's comments as somehow beyond the pale, but my sense is that Americans are pretty evenly divided on this as they are on most other issues relating to the war on terror. It would be troubling if the Supreme Court wasn't as well.

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates laid out the case for a continued NATO role in Afghanistan during a speech in Germany this past Sunday. Highlighting the gravity of the terrorist threat against Europe, Gates listed a number of terrorist plots that have been foiled in recent years and asked the audience to:

Imagine, for a moment, if some or all of these attacks had come to pass. Imagine if Islamic terrorists had managed to strike your capitals on the same scale as they struck in New York. Imagine if they had laid their hands on weapons and materials with even greater destructive capability--weapons of the sort all too easily accessible in the world today. We forget at our peril that the ambition of Islamic extremists is limited only by opportunity. (emphasis in original)

Then Gates said something that deserves more attention. He explained:

We should also remember that terrorist cells in Europe are not purely homegrown or unconnected to events far away--or simply a matter of domestic law and order. Some are funded from abroad. Some hate all western democracies, not just the United States. Many who have been arrested have had direct connections to Al Qaeda. Some have met with top leaders or attended training camps abroad. Some are connected to Al Qaeda in Iraq. In the most recent case, the Barcelona cell appears to have ties to a terrorist training network run by Baitullah Mehsud, a Pakistan-based extremist commander affiliated with the Taliban and Al Qaeda--who we believe was responsible for the assassination of Benazir Bhutto.

Here, Gates is directly refuting what I will call the “homegrown-only myth.” That is, it is widely believed that attacks such as the March 11, 2004, bombings in Madrid and the July 7, 2005, bombings in London were executed by terrorists with no real affiliation to al Qaeda’s global network. Instead of being the work of an organized and professional terrorist network, it is widely believed that such attacks were cooked up by local extremists, with no support from more seasoned terrorist operatives. Some Western counterterrorism officials and analysts believe this to be true despite abundant evidence to the contrary. For example, as I argued in "The Real Madrid Bombers?", there are numerous threads connecting the terrorists responsible for the 3/11 attack to al Qaeda. The same can be said for the 7/7 attackers--they had clear ties to senior al Qaeda operatives operating out of Pakistan.

Hopefully, some in Secretary Gates’ audience paid close attention to what he had to say about the global terror network. If NATO fails in Afghanistan, we can expect even more attacks from the al Qaeda terrorists operating there and in northern Pakistan. Europe and the United States should be on guard against “homegrown-only” plots. There is certainly the potential for such attacks in the future, and some incidents both here and abroad appear to conform to this paradigm (e.g. the Fort Dix Six). But this does not mean we should bury our heads in the sand when it comes to the terror emanating from northern Pakistan and Afghanistan, as well as Iraq. Nor should we ignore the fact that al Qaeda still maintains an active network all across Europe.

The Washington Times reports:

According to the poll results, only 24 percent of Pakistanis approved of bin Laden when the survey was conducted last month, compared with 46 percent during a similar survey in August.

Backing for al Qaeda, whose senior leaders are thought to be hiding along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border, fell to 18 percent from 33 percent.

Support for the Taliban, whose Pakistani offshoots have seized control of much of the lawless border area and have been engaged in a growing war against security forces, dropped by half to 19 percent from 38 percent, the results said.

It's easy to see why support for al Qaeda and the Taliban might be on the decline given the spread of violence from the Northwest Frontier Province into the country's more settled districts. And it's also interesting to see that Pakistanis apparently don't draw much of a distinction between the Taliban and al Qaeda, or at least that's what I surmise from the results. But the real question is whether the erosion of support for the two groups will lead to increased political will for meaningful action on the part of the government. If it doesn't, this may not matter much. After all, al Qaeda's not running a slate of candidates for parliament--they're trying to overthrow the government.

HT: Murdoc

I'm reluctant to say that Canada's "destroy NATO in order to save it" plan is working, but it doesn't seem to be failing either:

A Canadian ultimatum on Afghanistan is forcing allies to take seriously the troubling question of why some countries are being forced to shed more blood than others in the battle against Taliban insurgents, U.S. Defence Secretary Robert Gates said here Thursday.

Gates said he urged allied defence ministers to heed Canada's warning that it will withdraw its 2,500 soldiers from the dangerous Kandahar region next February unless the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) comes up with 1,000 more troops and more equipment to assist the Canadian effort.

And--surprise, surprise--look who appears to be stepping up:

French Defence Minister Herve Morin indicated after a meeting with Canadian Defence Minister Peter MacKay that France will come to Canada's assistance, although he played down reports that some 700 paratroopers could be deployed to help the effort in Kandahar.

"I said that we would help the Canadians," Morin told reporters, adding that French President Nicolas Sarkozy has "extraordinary relations" with Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

"And I indicated to him that all this must be done as part of a global reflection on the reorganization of NATO forces," Morin said.

While the French get a bad rap for a poor 20th century combat record (described by my old history professor as "a sled ride downhill after World War I"), their armed forces are actually quite capable. I remember chatting with a major in the French paratroopers some years ago, who felt it was his personal responsibility to absolve the country of that "cheese eating surrender monkey" stigma (he also hated Chiraq, for what it's worth). Those guys are eager to get in the fight, and I'm just as eager to see what they can do.

I do wonder how America's reputation across the pond is affecting the NATO debate. When Gates challenges European commitment, they scoff at the effrontery. When Canadians say what is in effect the exact same thing, ears magically open.

Goldfarb linked the this story from USA Today about a video showing young boys "training to kill, kidnap." This comes on the heels of last week's story that al Qaeda had duped two mentally retarded women into becoming suicide bombers. Al Qaeda's reliance on children, women, and the mentally handicapped certainly does, as Goldfarb suggests, speak to their potential recruiting base for bombers. The past year's relentless operations against the terror network have resulted in thousands of al Qaeda operatives killed and thousands more captured.

But there are other reasons why al Qaeda uses children, women, and the mentally handicapped as suicide bombers. Al Qaeda selects and indoctrinates these kind of "recruits" to penetrate security while at the same time sowing distrust among the security forces and the population.

Women, children, and the handicapped are not considered threats and are able to more easily penetrate checkpoints. By their nature they do not arrouse suspicion in security personnel. The term "military aged male" exists because they are the primary, secondary, and tertiary suspects.

By using women, children, and the handicapped as bombers, al Qaeda seeks to undermine the bonds of civil society. When soldiers and police--or even civilians--can no longer trust people who were once presumed to be noncombatants, the effect is widespread terror. And for al Qaeda, the tactic has the added bonus of increasing the likelihood that security forces will kill or wound the innocent for fear of attack.

But al Qaeda also incurs costs in using innocents to conduct strikes. In Iraq, these acts have been widely condemned. They serve to unite the people against terrorism and to prove al Qaeda is a foreign presence intent on destroying Iraqi society.

So while this tactic should not necessarily be taken as evidence that al Qaeda in Iraq is in it's "death throes"--al Qaeda in Iraq has been using children and the mentally handicapped to launch attacks since early 2005--neither does it indicate a healthy insurgency.

From Murdoc:

When the US military begins accepting more men without high school diplomas than it did previously, it's reported as a sure sign that it's getting more difficult to convince educated men to join up.

So when terrorists begin recruiting and training little boys, isn't it a sure sign that the terrorists are having to lower their own standards, possibly because we're killing all of their trained men and they're having difficulties recruiting replacements?

The reference is to this story in USA Today: "Al-Qaeda video shows boys training to kill, kidnap."

I've always been dubious of the notion that it didn't matter how many terrorists we killed because that number would always be outpaced by recruitment (because, in general, it is American foreign policy that breeds terrorism, and in particular the Bush administration).

Killing terrorists is an inherently good thing. And if it's not an end in and of itself, it's pretty darn close. The more terrorists you maim and kill, the less attractive terrorism becomes as a career option for disaffected Muslim youths (rich and poor). And the fact that Iraqis are turning to children and the mentally handicapped as a recruitment pool, just as the the Palestinians did as the last intifada petered out, would seem to bode well for this kind of logic.

A strongly-worded letter by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates requesting the deployment of German combat troops and helicopters to southern Afghanistan has caused a major political backlash in Berlin.

Both the content and timing of Gates’s blunt letter to his German counterpart Franz-Josef Jung, which was leaked yesterday by the center-left paper Sueddeutsche Zeitung, have left even staunchly pro-American politicians from the conservative CDU/CSU parties supporting Chancellor Merkel astounded and annoyed. The German response was swift. Speaking at a hastily arranged press conference in Berlin earlier today, CDU defense minister Jung offered this terse statement:

"I remain convinced that we should continue and fulfill our (current Bundeswehr) mandate in Afghanistan."

Even Chancellor Merkel’s usually soft-spoken spokesman Ulrich Wilhelm weighed in on the discussion, emphasizing that his boss had already made it very clear on a number of occasions that a change in the Bundeswehr’s current Afghanistan mandate (which needs yearly parliamentary approval) "is not a topic for discussion."

The Pentagon’s aggressive attempt to get this key ally to cough up more troops for Afghanistan (right now, Berlin has 3,500 soldiers there, the third-blargest NATO contingent overall) comes at the very time that the German government is considering a new NATO request to deploy about 250 additional Bundeswehr troops as part of the Alliance’s Quick Response Force (QRF) in northern Afghanistan. Unfortunately, the Gates letter had the effect of putting those CDU/CSU politicians on the political defensive when they were already arguing in favor of Germany taking over the dangerous QRF mission in the North.

For example, even someone like Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg--a prominent CSU Bundestag member who sits on the foreign relations and defense committees and travels to Washington frequently--felt compelled today to issue a press release calling the tone of Gates’s letter "inappropriate" and urging the Pentagon and the rest of the U.S. administration to "straighten its lines of communication."

Mullah Nazir, a senior Taliban leader in South Waziristan who shelters regional al Qaeda leaders and financiers, has long been portrayed by the Pakistani government as a pro-government tribal leader. The media has been eager to repeat these claims, as have some Western Pakistan watchers. But, as recent negotiations show, this is far from the case. The Daily Times reports Nazir is in negotiations with Afghan Taliban leaders for the return of Uzbek members of al Qaeda to the Wana region.

A source close to Maulvi Nazir told Daily Times that a three-member delegation of “the Islamic Emirate” was talking to Maulvi Nazir in Wana to broker a deal between him and pro-Uzbek commanders. He said the delegation members were “not known faces” and one of them was “speaking Pushto in Kandahari accent” suggesting he was from Afghanistan’s Kandahar province, the birthplace of Taliban.

Nazir led two "offensives" against Uzbek al Qaeda forces over the past two years. The latest action occurred in early January 2006 after forces from rival Taliban leader Baitullah Mehsud executed eight members of a peace jirga. Nazir ordered all Mehsud clansmen to leave Wana and formed a Lashkar, or tribal force, of 600 men. A few commentators referred to this development as the birth of the Pakistani version of the Awakening movement. But Nazir's forces never battled with Baitullah's fighters, and instead negotiations were launched.

As Daveed Gartenstein-Ross and I reported in April 2007, Nazir's intra-Taliban dispute with rival tribal leaders is being spun by the Pakistani government to show a measure of success in the lawless, Taliban controlled tribal regions, but Nazir's Afghan Taliban-brokered negotiations with Baitullah Mehsud show nothing has changed.

The U.S. is concerned, and rightly so, with the rise of the Taliban and al Qaeda in the tribal regions. As yesterday’s killing of al Qaeda leader Abu Laith al Libi shows, al Qaeda is operating widely in the tribal regions. The U.S. is initiating its development program in the tribal regions, and will spend $750 million this year alone. With little U.S. presence in the region and even less an understanding of the tribal dynamics, let's hope U.S. funds aren't being funneled to Taliban leaders like Nazir.

From Jim Glassman’s testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations this week:

Consider Muslim Americans. A Pew study in May found that foreign-born American Muslims, by a 70 to 3 percent majority, have an unfavorable view of Al Qaeda. By 78 to 18 percent, they are happy with their lives in America.

They are optimistic, by a four-to-one margin, that a way will be found for Israel and the Palestinians to coexist. In all of these measures, Muslim Americans differ not only from Muslims in the Middle East and much of Asia but from Muslim immigrants in Europe. Yet American Muslims, by a margin of more than six to one, say that the war in Iraq was wrong. That compares to a split of roughly 50-50 at the time among the entire U.S. public.

In other words, Muslims in America embrace U.S. values and participate actively in U.S. society, yet they differ with other Americans and with the U.S. government on policy. That is to say, policy is not the determining factor in their view of America. This is precisely the condition we should strive for in the world. People in other countries will not agree with our policies all the time, but we want them to have an accurate picture of those policies and the motivations behind them, and we want the disagreements to be constructive.

Glassman is set to replace Karen Hughes as the Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy, the job Senator Lieberman has described as “the closest thing we have in the U.S. government to a Supreme Allied Commander in the War of Ideas” against Islamist extremism. And he certainly strikes the right message here. We can't change our policies in the Middle East because al Qaeda's put a gun to our head, but we should strive to make sure "policy is not the determining factor" in how Muslims view America. Let them hate us for our Big Macs and cultural imperialism as the French do, and like the French, let them do nothing about it.

Yesterdays airstrike against a purported Taliban safe house in Pakistan's North Waziristan tribal agency resulted in 12 killed just as the Taliban and the government are prepared to sign a new peace accord. But the strike may have claimed a high value al Qaeda leader, ABC News reported today.

Pakistani intelligence sources say they believe a "high-value" al Qaeda target was killed in a missile strike yesterday in the country's tribal region bordering Afghanistan. U.S. officials said there was no indication that the target was Osama bin Laden or his deputy Ayman al Zawahri, but one senior official told ABCNews.com the strike was aimed at one particular figure. "We don't know whether we got him yet, we are sorting through it," the official said, indicating the intended target was a top leader of the terror group.

While the Internet is abuzz with the possibility of Osama bin Laden or Ayman al Zawahiri being killed, the likelihood, as ABC News noted, is low. A series of airstrikes in the tribal areas from earlier 2006 onward has yielded only two mid-level a Qaeda operatives: Imam Asad, the chief trainer of the Black Guard, and Mohsin Matawalli Atwa, one of the architects of the 1998 attacks on the U.S. Embassies in Eastern Africa.

Anonymous Pakistani intelligence officials have misled the U.S. officials about the deaths of high value al Qaeda targets in the past. The Pakistanis claimed six senior al Qaeda operatives were killed in a strike in January 2006. These leaders were: Midhat Mursi al Sayid Umar (Abu Khabab), al Qaeda's WMD expert; Abdul Rahman al Maghribi, Zawahiri's son-in-law and an al Qaeda commander; Abu Obaidah al Masri, the Kunar, Afghanistan operations chief; Marwan al Suri, the Waziristan operations chief; Khalid Habib, the commander of southeastern Afghanistan commander; and Abd al Hadi al Iraqi, a member of al Qaeda's military committee. The Washington Post reported almost two years later that they had, in fact, survived the attack. Abd al Hadi al Iraqi was captured while trying to enter Iraq in April 2007.

I noted yesterday that the strike may have been designed to derail the new peace talks, as happened in October 2006 in Bajaur agency. At that time, the government was negotiating with Faqir Mohammed and his local Taliban forces in Bajaur. The government leveled a Taliban training camp at the Chingai madrassa, killing more than 80 Taliban. The peace talks with the Taliban in Bajaur were sabotaged, but a deal was cut six months later in March 2007.

Pakistan has finally admitted what many of us have been saying for years: the country is fighting a counterinsurgency campaign on its own soil. The Musharraf government recognizes “that they had a growing issue in FATA [Federally Administered Tribal Agency] that could be described correctly as an insurgency and they seem now to be cueing up to take it on,” said General Dan McNeill, the commander of NATO forces in Afghanistan, after a recent meeting with Musharraf and Afghanistan's President Hamid Karzai. “I think they also know that they need a maximum adjustment in their force perhaps in training and equipping to be able to prosecute this fight the right way.”

That Musharraf is finally able to admit he is fighting a counterinsurgency campaign in the tribal areas is a good start, but the truth is the Taliban has branched out far beyond that area and into the greater Northwest Frontier Province. Peshawar, the provincial capital, has been buffeted by suicide attacks and a host of Taliban inspired violence and intimidation since late 2006. The Taliban have been active in Tank, Khyber, and Peshawar since early 2006. A government report stated that settled districts of Bannu, Lakki Marwat, and Swat were falling into a state of "Talibanisation, lawlessness and terrorism" in April 2007.

The Taliban overran Swat and Shangla in the fall of 2007 after signing a peace accord in the spring, and the Pakistani military has been waging intense battles since late November to dislodge the terrorists. Just yesterday in Bannu, "militants" took more than 250 children hostage. A Beslan-like situation was narrowly averted when a tribal committee stepped forward and secured free passage for the terrorists. The military recently fought a pitched three-day battle with the Taliban in Darra Adam Khel and Kohat, where the Taliban took over a tunnel on the Indus Highway.

This list is hardly comprehensive. Fighting is ongoing in Swat, Orakzai, and South Waziristan. Bajaur remains an al Qaeda command and control center. And the government is looking to cut yet another "peace accord" with the Taliban in North Waziristan. So while the Pakistani government is just now coming to terms with the insurgency in the tribal areas, the problem has already extended far beyond that. Until the government becomes serious about waging an intensive counterinsurgency campaign, the problem will only continue to grow.

Reuters reports:

Canada will pull its 2,500 troops out of Afghanistan early next year unless NATO sends in significant reinforcements, Prime Minister Stephen Harper said on Monday, signaling Ottawa has lost patience with what it sees as foot-dragging by allies.

The minority Conservative government wants the soldiers to stay beyond their current withdrawal date of February 2009 but in another potential threat to the mission, the main opposition Liberal Party expressed doubts about the idea of an extension.

Harper, who is exasperated at the refusal of many other NATO nations to commit more troops to Afghanistan, said the Alliance's failure to provide enough forces meant the whole future of the organization was under serious threat.

Early next year the United States will have a new president and our NATO allies may be more willing to buck up and support the mission in Afghanistan. And if not, Harper sounds like he's ready to destroy the alliance in order to save it. Good for him.

HT: Alex

Click image to view the slideshow of the leadership of al Qaeda in the Caucasus.

This presentation looks at some of the major leaders in Caucasus jihad in the past and present. Chechnya served as one of the first battlegrounds outside of Afghanistan for al Qaeda in the early 1990s. Al Qaeda sent thousands of foreign fighters to Chechnya to fight alongside the domestic Chechen resistance to the Russians during the First and Second Chechen Wars. Al Qaeda also funneled large amounts of money to the fight in Chechnya and used the theater as a training ground as well as a propaganda and recruiting tool. The Chechen leadership became increasingly radicalized and the jihad expanded to the greater Caucasus. In the fall of 2007, Doku Umarov, the new leader of the Chechen jihadis, declared the Islamic Caucasus Emirate and imposed sharia law.

Nick Grace from ThreatsWatch.org contributed to this presentation.

The recriminations over the security situation in Afghanistan continue, but from a new corner. Afghani President Hamid Karzai has criticized the British effort in the southern province of Helmand, where the Taliban have waged a violent campaign against NATO and Afghan forces.

“There was one part of the country where we suffered after the arrival of the British forces,” Mr. Karzai told a group of journalists at the Davos Economic Forum. “Before that we were fully in charge of Helmand. When our governor was there, we were fully in charge. They came and said, ‘Your governor is no good’. I said ‘All right, do we have a replacement for this governor; do you have enough forces?’. Both the American and the British forces guaranteed to me they knew what they were doing and I made the mistake of listening to them. And when they came in, the Taliban came.”

Asked if he was blaming British failure for the return of the Taliban, he added: “I just described the situation of mistakes we made. The mistake was that we removed a local arrangement without having a replacement. We removed the police force. That was not good. The security forces were not in sufficient numbers or information about the province. That is why the Taliban came in. It took us a year and a half to take back Musa Qala. This was not failure but a mistake.”

The British, in a highly controversial move, negotiated with the Taliban in late 2006 to turn over Musa Qala to the Taliban. The district wasn't liberated from Taliban control until December 2007.

Karzai's jab at the Brits and the United States comes after infighting within NATO over commitments to the Afghan war. The British wrongly accused the United States of shying away from the hot zones in Afghanistan, while Secretary of Defense Gates questioned NATO countries' commitment to provide troops and their ability to wage a proper counterinsurgency campaign.

A suicide bombing is a hazardous occupation by definition. The successful suicide bomber has a 100 percent chance of being killed on the job. But not all suicide bombers die while blowing themselves up in front of schools, inside mosques, at funerals, or during the recovery of victims of other bombings.

Occasionally suicide bombers meet their end from the occupational hazard known as premature detonation. In some quarters premature detonation is referred to as a "work accident."

The latest work accident occurred in Khost, Afghanistan, as the suicide bomber hopeful left his home. "Coming down the stairs, he fell down and exploded,” the Australian reported. “Two civilian women and a man were wounded." The bomber appears to have removed the trigger safety, if one ever existed, a bit early.

The bomber was targeting an opening ceremony at a mosque, of course.

Today's work accident was preceded by one two days earlier in Lashkar Gah, Afghanistan. A suicide bomber there prematurely detonated his vest as he was putting it on. He killed himself, his two sons, and another unnamed person.

Afghanistan’s burgeoning air force received a morale boost this week as several donated Czech helicopters, including gunships, were inaugurated in a ceremony at the newly constructed $22 million military hangar called Aviation Facility 1. President Hamid Karzai, several military leaders, and other Afghan officials attended the event.

"This is the rebirth of the Afghan air force," Karzai told reporters. "God has been kind to us again and has blessed us with the rebirth of the air force." The donated helicopters, combined with Afghanistan’s current fleet, will bring the total number of Afghan aircraft close to 50.

Aviation Facility 1 is the first part of a U.S.-funded $183 million plan to build a sprawling state-of-the-art Afghan air base adjacent to the international airport in Kabul. The new site already contains some hangars, offices, and other housing accommodations. The air force hopes to recruit up to 3,500 personnel over the next three years and expand the total number of aircraft to 61, all of which would be housed at the new facility.

Although only three of the promised 22 helicopters are currently in country, the remaining six Mi-17 transport helicopters, six Mi-35 helicopter gunships, and four Ukrainian An-32 transport planes are expected to arrive by this spring, according to the Associated Press. Ten additional Mi-17 transport helicopters donated by the United Arab Emirates are also expected to arrive sometime this spring.

The United States also pledged to donate 180 aircraft to Afghanistan’s air force but dropped the number to 120 in a meeting before Thursday’s event. "It is good but 180 is better," Karzai said. "We encourage them to the figure [of] 180."

Afghanistan hosted one of the most formidable air forces in the region during the 1980s with a Soviet-supplied arsenal that included hundreds of transport and attack helicopters, fighter jets, bombers, and transport planes. After the Soviets withdrew, years of civil war, maintenance cutbacks, and the lack of money for spare parts degraded the Afghan air force considerably throughout the 1990s. Massive air blitzes at the start of the U.S.-led invasion in October 2001 destroyed all remaining functional aircraft. The head of the Taliban’s air force, Akhtar Mohammad Mansoor, was believed to be among those killed in the initial aerial attacks.

Click to view the slideshow of the leadership of Somalia's Islamic Courts and Shabab.

Somalia's Islamic Courts presentation looks at the major players in the Islamic Courts and affiliated Shabab movement. Both organizations have deep ties to al Qaeda and are waging a violent insurgency against the Transitional Federal Goverment and allied Ethiopian forces.

Since the Ethiopian military teamed up with the weak Transitional Federal Government to force out the al Qaeda-backed Islamic Courts Union in December 2006, Somalia has been mired in a violent insurgency. The leaders of the Islamic Courts Union escaped the Ethiopian advance and fled to Eritrea and Yemen, where they worked to reconstitute their power.

The Islamic Courts Union essentially reformed as Shabab and teamed up with the powerful Hawiye clan to attack Ethiopian and Somali security forces. Ambushes and IED and mortar strikes are a daily occurrence in Mogadishu and the surrounding regions. Shabab is believed to be in outright control of the central Hiran province, while a Somali security official stated that 80 percent of the country was outside of government control.

See the Rise and Fall of Somalia's Islamic Courts: An Online History, for more information on the Islamic Court's takeover of Somalia and the Ethiopian invasion which ejected them from power for more information.

Nick Grace of ThreatsWatch and Dr. Abdiweli Ali contributed to this report.

After the Bundeswehr’s ISAF and OEF mandates were renewed for another twelve months by the German parliament in October and November 2007, respectively, it seemed that the country’s military engagement in Afghanistan would be on the political backburner until later this summer. By that point existing domestic fault lines about the success or failure, legitimacy or illegitimacy, of the deployment were bound to come again to the fore ahead of the next annual parliamentary vote on the controversial deployment.

This Wednesday, however, the German defense ministry announced that about 240 Bundeswehr soldiers may take over from Norway the command of NATO’s Quick Reaction Force (QRF) in northern Afghanistan. The left-wing SPD party (which is part of Chancellor Merkel’s governing "grand coalition"), the Greens, and even the free-market FDP party are already positioning themselves against the Afghanistan deployment in a way that could yield electoral benefit in the future.

Already two-thirds of the German population is in favor of a swift Bundeswehr pullout from Afghanistan and views the U.S.-led OEF mission in a negative light.

The CDU/CSU-led defense ministry, for its part, stressed that no formal decision about the QRF--which provides force protection or serves as emergency back-up for NATO troops--would be made until a meeting with other NATO members later this month. Specifically, a spokesman for conservative CDU defense minister Franz-Josef Jung made clear his position that Germany’s involvement in the QRF would be covered by the current ISAF mandate and would therefore not require a new vote by the Bundestag.

However, Rainer Arnold, the SPD Bundestag group’s defense policy spokesman, immediately seized on the ministry’s pronouncements to warn that the Bundeswehr’s mission in Afghanistan would take on a "new quality" if Berlin took over the QRF command. In this context, he emphasized that the Bundeswehr infantry troops assigned to the QRF would be deployed for "combat missions" whereas Germany’s current ISAF troops were only involved in "stabilization missions." Several other SPD and FDP MPs concurred with Arnold’s assessment.

Prior to its first deployment (currently underway), there was much hand wringing in the defense community as to whether or not the MV-22 Osprey would be worth it's weight in blood. After a long, tragic history of crashing and burning, DAILY STANDARD regular Christian Lowe is reporting that Marines just don't like the Osprey . . . they love it.

I'm putting together a longer story about my day and interviews I had with crew, maintainers and commanders with the squadron, but here are my preliminary impressions.

You ride one, you'll never want to go back to anything else. Period.

It just so happened that my flight from Fallujah to al Asad was on an Osprey. I was jammed in there with about ten other pax, their gear and a box full of supplies they call "tri-walls" for their three-ply cardboard construction. The guy next to me was a SEAL who's working here training Iraqi army troops. It was his first time on an Osprey.

Shouting over the engine noise, I asked him what he thought. He beamed a huge smile and gave a hardy thumbs up. Then he told me...

"I've ridden on CH-53s about five times before...it takes forEVER," he shouted as we sped across the blackened desert. That three-engined beast is really the only thing comparable in this AO to the Osprey (the Army's
CH-47 is a good comparison too) but the MV-22 blows the Super Stallion out of the water in this medium lift role.

Because the Osprey claimed so many lives in testing, there are some folks who -- understandably -- will never trust the MV-22. I'm a fan myself, simply because of Osprey's remarkable speed. In places like Iraq or Afghanistan, where the enemy is scattered over vast areas, the ability to quickly zip in and out of LZs is critical. While there's no scientific formula here, I suspect that the lives the Osprey will save with the limited exposure granted by rapid infil/exfil time will make up for the lives it took during trials.

Or so I hope.

The fracturing of NATO over the Afghanistan deployment becomes more apparent each day. The United States has pleaded for NATO allies to deploy an additional 7,500 combat troops to Afghanistan to blunt an expected Taliban spring offensive, but with no relief available, the Washington Post reports the planned deployment of 3,200 U.S. Marines is intended to "shame" the NATO allies. Meanwhile, NATO members Britain and Canada are complaining their forces suffer a disproportionate number of casualties.

British officials note that the eastern region, where most U.S. forces are based, is far quieter than the Taliban-saturated center of British operations in Helmand, the country's top opium-producing province. The American rejoinder, spoken only in private with references to British operations in both Iraq and Afghanistan, is that superior U.S. skills have made it so.

While the southern provinces of Kandahar and Helmand have high levels of violence, a look at the statistics shows the British claim is incorrect. The Taliban/al Qaeda/HIG related violence (referred to as AGE, or Anti Government Elements, violence) Is highest in the eastern, southeastern, and southern regions of Afghanistan. The eastern and southern regions each suffer 25 percent of the Taliban violence. The southeastern region suffers 23 percent of the Taliban related violence. U.S. forces are deployed in both the east and southeast, as well as in the south.

Kunar province in the east leads in violent Taliban incidents (734), followed by Kandahar in the south (697), Khost (southeast, 438), Nangarhar (east, 320), Paktia (southeast, 320), Paktika (southeast, 228), Helmand (south, 228), and Ghazi (southeast, 225).

The charts below (after the jump) look at the data over the course of 2007. The data has been compiled and the grpahs have been created by Vigilant Strategic Services Afghanistan (VSSA).

CQ Politics is assembling a list of possible questions for al Qaeda number two Ayman Al Zawahiri. The questions are in response to an offer made by Zawahiri about a month ago. Questions may be submitted to an al Qaeda-friendly website through January 16, and Zawahiri will answer some of them. (It's not specified whether he'll answer on the website, via video, or some other means.)

In defense of CQ, some of the questions they're suggesting would have very interesting answers:

• After failing, with Egyptian Islamic Jihad, to topple the “near enemy,” Egypt, you’ve run into trouble with the “far enemy,” losing your base in Afghanistan to the United States and now seeing al Qaeda in Iraq being beaten back by Gen. David Petraeus. Is there a “middle enemy” you might consider shifting your sights toward? Is that what bin Laden’s recent audiotaped tirade against Israel was aimed toward?

• How closely is al Qaeda following the U.S. presidential race? Of the candidates who still have a chance to win, whom would al Qaeda most like to see take office next January, and why?

• The Taliban set up a fundamentalist regime in Afghanistan, and the Afghan people rejected it. Now the Sunnis in Iraq are rejecting al Qaeda. How do you explain your failures there?

• What do you see as America’s vulnerabilities? If you had to carry out an attack tomorrow, what would you target and why? Are targets picked because of their vulnerability or their symbolism?

• The scholar Bernard Lewis argues that roots of Muslim rage have less to do with the evils of the West than with the sense of humiliation at being surpassed by the West, being overtaken by modernity. Why do you think the Islamic world has failed to keep up with the West over the past 500 years?

• Why are you taking questions instead of bin Laden?

But interesting as it might be to have candid answers to these questions, there's no reason to think the response will be anything but self-serving nonsense. So why legitimize the exercise by even participating? Why would a news organization voluntarily allow itself to become a tacit propaganda arm of the enemy?

And further, there are only two important questions that Zawahiri can answer: where are you, and where is Osama bin Laden. Everything else is trivia.

Hans-Juergen Papier, president of Germany’s Constitutional Court, has sharply criticized plans by conservative CDU interior minister Wolfgang Schaeuble to amend the country’s Basic Law to allow for the downing of hijacked terrorist planes over German airspace as a measure of last resort.

According to advance excerpts of an interview to be published by Der Spiegel on Monday, Papier essentially argues that the calculated killing of innocent passengers aboard civilian airlines through government action could never be justified and was always going to be incompatible with Article 1 of the Basic Law, which states that "The dignity of man is untouchable".

Germany’s "Air Security Act," which includes the controversial shoot-down clause, was initially passed under the previous left-wing Red-Green government and entered into force in January 2005. In February 2006, however, the Constitutional Court ruled that this particular anti-terrorist provision was unconstitutional.

While Germany’s ruling conservative CDU/CSU parties want to change the constitution to give the government the necessary means to protect Germany against the unprecedented threats of the post-9/11 world, they fall short of the two-thirds parliamentary majority required for any such amendments. Virtually all opposition MPs, and even many members of the governing left-wing SPD party--who had previously voted for the contested law--are now dragging their feet, clinging to an outdated, pre-9/11 vision of the world.

During his interview, Papier also came out against interior minister Schaeuble’s proposal to declare terrorists "enemies of the legal order." Back in July 2007, Schaeuble had caused political uproar in Germany when he called, inter alia, for the indefinite detention and "targeted killing" of terror suspects. In this context, Germany’s top judge deemed "the entire discussion about certain people being outside legal jurisdiction and having enemy status as completely inappropriate."

I'm back to agreeing with Ralph Peters (sans his use of "mini-surge," blech):

As you read these lines, our troops are in the midst of Operation Phantom Phoenix, a "mini-surge" to squeeze al Qaeda and its fast-dwindling band of allies out of their few remaining safe havens in Iraq.

Iraqi troops fight beside us against a common enemy. Vast swaths of the country enjoy a newborn peace. Commerce thrives again. At the provincial and local levels, the political progress has been remarkable.

As for Operation Phantom Phoenix, our commanders expected terrorist dead-enders to put up a fight. Instead, they ran, leaving behind only booby traps and disgust among the Iraqis they tormented far too long.

Well, they can run, but they can't hide. We dropped 20 tons of bombs on 40 terrorist targets yesterday, including safe houses, weapons caches and IED factories. In a late-afternoon exchange with The Post, Gen. David Petraeus characterized our current ops as "executing aggressively, pursuing tenaciously."

The headlines at home? "Nine American Soldiers Killed." No mention of progress or a fleeing enemy on the front pages. Just dead soldiers.

Unable to credibly deny the progress in Iraq, the media has traveled down other roads to spin the surge as a failure. Though I have noticed these reach-back stories, where the press will revisit old territory for negative headlines, are becoming few and far between. Today, for example, two headlines from Iraq are dominating the news cycle: the 21 terrorists killed in yesterday's air strikes and the proposed handover of Anbar to the Iraqi government.

It's difficult to make dead tangos and provincial handoffs sound negative, even for this press corps.

So much for NATO. From Fox News, Request made to send 3,000 Marines to Afghanistan:

A request has been made by top commanders in Afghanistan to send 3,000 Marines to the country, FOX News has learned.

The goal would be to have the Marines in the region by April, the time of year when offensive actions by the Taliban usually pick up after the Spring thaw.

Senior Defense Department officials say International Security Assistance Forces Cmdr. Gen. Dan McNeil made the request, which has to be approved by Defense Secretary Robert Gates. Gates will receive the proposal on Friday, but not like make a decision on that day [sic].

The plan calls for sending one ground and one air Marine contingent plus one battalion for a "one-time, seven-month deployment," Pentagon Press Secretary Geoff Morell said Wednesday.

Defense officials are not calling this a surge, rather a specific increase for more troops. Currently roughly 26,000 American troops are in Afghanistan, under NATO auspices. NATO commanders have asked for 7,500 more troops, but Gates has called on allies to contribute the additional forces.

Gates wants to keep the Marines in Anbar, but Marines want to go where the targets are, which, at the moment, is Afghanistan. Since NATO won’t fight in Iraq, Gates is making the logical decision here. Keep Iraq’s surge forces in place until Petraeus is ready for a drawdown, and try to fill the cracks in Afghanistan with NATO allies who are still committed to the fight.

I agree with my friend Charlie Munn here, NATO should have never been given the reigns in Afghanistan. While we've seen laudable fierceness from a few friendly nations (Canada, UK, Poland, Australia, Belgium), the rest of our NATO allies are acting like high-maintenance girlfriends. Better to organize combat forces under U.S. or British command, instead of the clunky UN mandated International Security Assistance Force in which combined forces are restricted by ridiculous ROEs (no night fighting, no snow fighting, to name two of the silliest).

Now this isn't to say that we're ungrateful for NATO's help, we are. It's just that when the United States was ready to invoke the treaty's collective defense clause during the Cold War--as NATO did after 9/11--we were prepared to send the bulk of our force--reserve, guard, active duty...the whole shebang--to fight the Soviets under the REFORGER (return of forces to Germany) plan. It pissed the Russians off something awful, but it also demonstrated our firm allegiance to our European allies. To expect similar resolve from NATO in Afghanistan, a fight where we are numerically and technologically superior, isn't asking much. Not in comparison, at least.

Still fighting the important battles, I see.

To coincide with the six-year anniversary of the arrival of prisoners at Guantánamo Bay, the American Civil Liberties Union today announced its Close Guantánamo campaign. The ACLU is hosting more than 20 events across the country this week from Washington, DC to Boise, Idaho. In addition, the ACLU is calling on Americans to wear orange this Friday as an expression of opposition to indefinite detention at the U.S.-run prison and torture. Orange, the color of the jumpsuits worn by the first Gitmo detainees in photographs released by the Department of Defense in 2002, was chosen to represent torture tactics and prisoner abuse.

"We believe people will turn out in force to express their opposition to the symbol and reality of Guantánamo," said Jameel Jaffer, Director of the ACLU's National Security Project. "For six years, the Bush administration has flouted the Constitution and run roughshod over the international human rights system that the U.S. itself helped build. On January 11, we will send a clear message to the world that the administration must abandon its torture policies and shut down Guantánamo once and for all."

As Jaffer said, this is more about Bush than it is about human rights. My path has intersected with a handful of military types who have deployed to Gitmo in the past, including one Air Force tech sergeant who helped transport detainees to their nation of origin (including one C-17 trip to Libya, surprise surprise) for trial and an old roommate from the Virginia Military Institute, who spent a full year guarding Camp X-Ray as part of a Virginia National Guard deployment. Both mentioned that the handling rules for prisoners were as humane as they were strict, and that the harshest discipline at the prison was reserved for those MPs who violated those regulations. Neither agreed that the left's reaction to Gitmo matched the reality of what was actually occurring at the camp.

One thing you'll notice when listening to human rights activist complain about the detention center in Cuba is that they focus on overall accusations instead of specifics. In this case, it's "the Bush administration has flouted the Constitution and run roughshod over the international human rights system that the US itself helped build," in lieu of detailed violations of the Constitution and "international human rights system," whatever mysterious legal entity that may be.

So go ahead and wear orange tomorrow. If nothing else, it highlights the absurdity of protesting Gitmo while tyrants in Iran, North Korea, and China hold their collective peoples under real oppression.

HT: Michelle Malkin

The Danger Room posted this screen capture of Adam Gadahn, the American al Qaeda, on As-Sahab, the organization's official media outlet. Says the Danger Room commenter who first noticed the mug, "I can't wait till they start giving away tote bags at the next pledge drive."

At the end of 2007, the Afghan Taliban made a radical leadership change which has sparked controversy in the ranks of the terror group. On December 29, Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahed issued a statement that Mullah Mansoor Dadullah, the commander for southern Afghanistan, was relieved of his command by Taliban leader Mullah Omar. Dadullah stated he had no knowledge of the dismissal and claimed it was a "conspiracy by my enemies." Omar responded by issuing a signed statement ordering Dadullah's firing.

Omar's dismissal of Mansoor was published on Voice of Jihad, a well trafficked jihadi internet forum.. The release was signed by Mullah Mohammad Omar Mujahid, the Ameer Al-Mu’meneen, or the commander of the faithful.

"Mullah Mansoor Dadullah is not [in] obedience to the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan in his actions and has carried out activities which were against the rules of Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan," said Omar. "So the Decision Authorities [or Shura Majlis, executive council] of Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan have removed Mansoor Dadullah from his post and he will no longer be serving the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan in [any way] and no Taliban will obey his orders any more."

Omar's orders also call for Mansoor's followers to disassociate themselves with the former commander. "This decision only applies to Mansoor Dadullah, all other friends of Mullah Dadullah Shahed will be carrying out their Jihad duties for the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, all the sympathizers of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan end their relationship with Mansoor Dadullah," said Omar.

Like the original statement announcing Mansoor's dismissal, Omar's statement did not include specifics on Mansoor's failures of "obedience to the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan."

Mansoor had contacted the Times of India on December 30 denying he was dismissed. "It's not true that Mullah Omar kicked me out of the Taliban," Mansoor told the Times of India by telephone. "If Mullah Omar wanted me to leave the Taliban, then he would send me the message and I would put down my weapons because he is our top commander." Dadullah admitted he was unable to contact Omar.

Mansoor served as commander of the Taliban's southern front in Kandahar, Helmand, Uruzgan, Zabul, Nimruz, and Farah provinces. He succeeded his brother, Mullah Dadullah Ahkund, who was killed by British special forces in May 2007.

See "Taliban Dismisses Senior Afghan Commander" for additional information on Mullah Mansoor Dadullah and Mullah Dadullah Ahkund.

For those of you who were wondering how long it would take ranking Democrats to blame the Bhutto assassination on the Bush administration and the Iraq war, wonder no more. Russ Feingold has done the honors:

The focus on Iraq has been a real disservice to focusing on this part of the world where a great, frankly somebody who had great leadership and following, has been killed.

It’s not immediately apparent from Feingold's comment how our “focus” could have prevented today's crime, but what's that matter? In the fever swamp, all that is wrong with the world inevitably traces its origins to some sort of Bushian malfeasance.

Kudos to Senator Feingold – he even managed to outdo the Daily Kos today. I’ve been trolling the Kossacks' lair, waiting for the screed insisting that Bush practically pulled the trigger himself. But the reactions over there have been considerably more mature than the silly senator's.

HT: Brian Maloney, Radio Equalizer

The Bhutto assassination has already prompted reaction from most of the candidates. Not surprisingly, the statement by Mike Huckabee has drawn the most criticism. Here's CBS News correspondent Nancy Cordes:

He made a bad choice of words when saying the U.S. needs to consider “what impact does it have on whether or not there’s going to be martial law continuing in Pakistan.” He should have said whether or not martial law will be reinstated – it was lifted nearly two weeks ago. A minor slip, maybe, but not a subject he wants to mess up on when he is already considered weak in the area of foreign policy.

To which Ambinder responds:

It's not the mistake itself that will raise eyebrowses -- it's Huckabee's lack of intellectual ease, his lack of felicity, with foreign policy at a critical moment when everyone is paying attention.

Indeed, observers have tied Huckabee's rise to "Iraq's slide" off the front pages, and while the situation in Iraq continues to improve (casualties this month are likely to be the second lowest since the start of the war), the rapidly deteriorating situation in Pakistan once again moves foreign policy issues to the fore.

If tomorrow's funeral is followed by rioting and more violence, Pakistan may stay on the front pages, and one has to assume that the beneficiary would be McCain. Or at least that's the thinking at Red State, where Erik asks, "In light of recent troubles in Asia, compounded by a growing threat from China, and pending civil war (it seems) in Pakistan after the tragic assassination of Benazir Bhutto, does America need John McCain as President?"

Perhaps all this blows over in a few days (obviously not in Pakistan, but as a concern of the voters in the early primary states), and people return to the issues that have dominated the campaign up to this point. But as McCain surges, momentum begets momentum--and he is the only candidate who can say that he knows Musharraf well, that he knew Bhutto, that he has been to Waziristan, and that he has the foreign policy experience to deal with these issues. And while some candidates are petulantly calling for Musharraf to resign, and others are putting out slightly bizarre statements, McCain has offered a measured and sensible response.

Over at Hot Air, Bryan writes:

What does “justice” mean in the context of jihad, if jihadists perpetrated this attack? When they’re caught, tried and imprisoned in some countries, they remain unapologetic enemies of the rest of the world and they tend to get early parole. If they’re not allowed to escape by allies in strategic government positions. When we capture them and hold them at Guantanamo, “human rights” groups agitate for them and the ACLU goes to bat for them while the MSM reports their fabricated accusations against our personnel as truth, all while the political opposition works to grant them full habeas corpus rights. So what does “justice” mean when these assassins, whoever they may turn out to be, could well have touched off a civil war in a nuclear country?

It should be emphasized that Pakistan has become the main front for al Qaeda not only because of the resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan and the compromises of Musharraf with the radicals, but because al Qaeda in Iraq is being beaten and they are seeking a more vulnerable front. Pakistan has been the second bloodiest theater in the GWOT after Iraq for years now. So while it's all well and good to say that the perpetrators, almost certainly members of al Qaeda, must be brought to justice, as Bryan points out, there is no justice for terrorists. The only good terrorist is a dead terrorist.

The current issue of Vanity Fair carries a very fine piece by Sebastian Junger chronicling the efforts of the 503rd Infantry Regiment (airborne) to get some sort of control over the Korengal Valley in eastern Afghanistan. The story has some finely observed moments of infantry life:

Sure enough, daylight brought bursts of heavy-machine-gun fire that sent the men diving into the shallow trenches they had just dug. They fought until the shooting stopped and then they got back up and continued to work. There was no loose dirt up there to fill the sandbags, so they broke up the rock with pickaxes and then shoveled pieces into the bags, which they piled up to form crude bunkers. Someone pointed out that they were actually "rock bags," not sandbags, and so "rock bags" became a platoon joke that helped them get through the next several weeks. They worked in 100-degree heat in full body armor and took their breaks during firefights, when they got to lie down and return fire.

Junger also does well in the strategic mode, doing his best to explain clearly the tortured politics and economics which support the insurgency:

Insurgent operations in the valley are run by an Egyptian named Abu Ikhlas al-Masri, who married locally and has been fighting here since the jihad against the Soviets. Ikhlas is paid directly by al-Qaeda. He shares responsibility for the area with an Afghan named Ahmad Shah, whose forces in 2005 cornered the navy-seal team and shot down the Chinook helicopter. Competing with them for control of the area--and al-Qaeda financing--is an Arabist group called Jamiat-e Dawa el al Qurani Wasouna. The J.D.Q., as it is known by American intelligence, is suspected of having links to both the Saudi and Kuwaiti governments, as well as to Pakistan's infamous intelligence services. Both groups are thought to pay and train local Afghan fighters to attack coalition forces in the area.

There is no need to quote it here, but Junger also does a fine job of explaining how the valley's thriving and ancient timber industry plays a key role in the fighting. And the frank descriptions of furious violence should be enough to disabuse anyone still possessed of the notion that the war in Afghanistan is somehow Iraq-lite. Especially moving is the report, appended to the end of the piece, that Sergeant Larry Rougle, with whom Junger has a rare discussion about politics (most of the infantrymen avoid or seem uninterested in the topic; Rougle, a Utah Republican, intends to vote Obama) was killed in combat soon after Junger left the valley.

Courtesy of K-Lo at the Corner, above is a clip of Ronald Reagan's seminal "Time for Choosing" speech.

What I find most remarkable about the speech beyond its extraordinary content is the simple, straight forward language and the appropriately spare delivery. There were no clumsy applause lines, no laundry lists of silly promises meant to purchase the votes of certain citizens. Instead, it was just one man talking sense, honestly and from the heart, clearly without the guidance of either pollsters or focus groups.

Current candidates, please take note - the audience loved it. And 43 years later, it's part of history. Even the most moving paen to ethanol won't be so recognized.

No one set to replace the 1600 man contingent yet, either. From the AFP:

The Netherlands announced that Dutch troops would leave Afghanistan from July 2010, though it remained uncertain whether other nations would send enough soldiers to replace them.

"I do not have assurances that other countries will be ready to replace Netherlands troops, but I am certain that Dutch troops will leave in 2010," Foreign Minister Maxime Verhagen told journalists.

"I indicated that in writing ... to the NATO secretary general, who has confirmed it.

The Netherlands government decided last month to prolong its Afghanistan deployment by two years to December 2010 and the parliament approved the measure late on Tuesday.

Dutch troops are stationed in the southern province of Uruzgan as part of the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF).

Some 1,600 Dutch soldiers have been stationed in Uruzgan since July 2006. The mission, which was initially set to end after two years, is set to be reduced to between 1,100 and 1,200 soldiers in that region, with 250 troops in Kabul and Kandahar.

The Canadians are wavering, too. France has promised more troops, but they will likely be restricted to a training mission. The Aussies have expressed a willingness to fill the hole in NATO lines, but they can't stand in for both the Canadians and the Dutch. Poland is already committed in Iraq and Afghanistan, so are the British. The rest of NATO is squabbling over whether or not their constitutions allow them to fight, despite the fact that they unanimously invoked Article V of the alliance charter (collective defense) after the 9/11 attacks.

The failure of NATO to competently perform its most basic function could mean the end of the alliance, says Reuters:

The 38-nation NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan is already hobbled by restrictions that mean most European nations only allow their troops to fire in self-defence and bar them from the more violent south.

U.S. appeals for 3,500 more military trainers, more helicopters and ground troops have largely fallen on deaf ears.

The shortage of troops means NATO, in the words of one analyst, "is left chasing the pieces round the chess board".

Some now question the validity of an alliance that won the Cold War, but is struggling against a rag-tag lightly armed militia. Failure in Afghanistan might damage NATO beyond repair.

Ultimately, we're going to have to fill these gaps ourselves. And there's only two ways to make that happen: pull troops out of Iraq and send them east, or vastly increase the size of the military.

To the Men and Women of the United States Armed Forces

On behalf of a grateful Nation, Laura and I send our best wishes for the holidays.

In this season of giving, we remember our duty to others, and we see that sense of duty fulfilled in the men and women who wear our Nation's uniform. Our country owes you a debt of gratitude for your courage and resolve to serve the cause of peace. Americans are proud of your dedicated service, and I am proud to be the Commander in Chief of the greatest force for freedom in the history of the world.

Our Nation is thankful for the many sacrifices you and your families make every day. During the holidays and throughout the coming year, we ask the Almighty to bestow His protection and care on you and your loved ones. We pray for your safety and for liberty, justice, and peace on Earth.

Laura and I wish you a joyful holiday season. May God bless you, and may God continue to bless America.

GEORGE W. BUSH

If you look at the graphs posted by Roggio below, it's obvious that the every metric for gaging progress in Iraq is going in the right direction--attacks are down, American and Iraqi casualties are down, car bombs are down, and IEDs have become nonexistent in some parts of the country.

General Odierno says that Iraq is at its quietest since 2004, but there's one major difference:

"I feel we are back in '03 and early '04. Frankly I was here then, and the environment is about the same in terms of security in my opinion," he said. "What is different from then is that the Iraqi security forces are significantly more mature."

Meanwhile, al Qaeda has stooped to new lows in its propaganda. This from the Zawahiri tape:

The mujahedeen "must throw out the bribe-taking collaborators from among their ranks, those who sold out their faith and fight under the banner of the cross. They must expose them to the Muslim world," al- Zawahri said. "Those who support the Americans are despicable scum," he said.

"The tribe or clan that does not cleanse itself of traitors and apostates will be remembered in history for generations as one of the collaborators and traitors," he warned. "But any clan or tribe that defends Islam and crushes traitors ... will be remembered in Arab history with pride and glory."

In just one year, al Qaeda has gone from making threats against American forces and the Iraqi government to making threats against the Sunni tribes of Iraq--which, if al Qaeda is to have any success, must be the the group's base of support. But the leaders of those tribes are not going to purge their ranks of "collaborators and traitors," which makes such rhetoric further reinforcement for the status quo--collaboration with U.S. forces and the Iraqi government against al Qaeda.

Still, there is a real threat that the U.S. military will become a victim of its own success. As the Washington Post reports, "Bush faces pressure to shift war priorities":

With violence on the decline in Iraq but on the upswing in Afghanistan, President Bush is facing new pressure from the U.S. military to accelerate a troop drawdown in Iraq and bulk up force levels in Afghanistan, according to senior U.S. officials.

There's no doubt that Afghanistan has become, in many ways, a more problematic conflict than the war in Iraq. The Taliban has been resurgent for some time, and casualties are on the increase while Coalition partners, who make a far greater contribution in Afghanistan than in Iraq (faint praise), are going wobbly. But the war in Afghanistan is not in any danger of spiraling out of control--it's a slow-motion disaster, and there's still plenty of time left to make the necessary adjustments and regain the initiative. In Iraq, on the other hand, violence is down and al Qaeda is on the run. Shifting the focus to Afghanistan now would only repeat the mistakes of the past. Better to finish what's been started in Iraq, and then deal with the Afghan problem.

The AP reports:

South Korea brought home 195 army medics and engineers Dec. 14 from Afghanistan, ending a five-year deployment made at Washington's request to help rebuild the war-ravaged country.

South Korea had previously planned to withdraw the troops, but reconfirmed that pledge to the Taliban to win the freedom of 21 kidnapped civilians in July after the insurgents killed two hostages.

Of course, when the United States proposed redeploying some 12,000 troops from the Korean peninsula, the South Koreans threw a fit, even though more than 20,000 U.S. troops remain as a trip wire to prevent any attack from the North. But the South Korean's wouldn't want to break a promise made under duress to a group of terrorists that had already executed two hostages. Meanwhile, the South Korean commitment in Iraq will be reduced starting next week from nearly 1,000 troops to some 600, and even those forces may eventually be pulled out as lawmakers have yet to endorse an extension for the deployment.

You have to wonder what lesson the North Koreans take away from all of this.

Cliff May catches the New York Times again quoting from the "prominent Sunni extremist, Abu Omar al-Baghdadi." As Aaron MacLean wrote here in September:

As has been documented by Michael Gordon in the New York Times and covered by Frederick W. Kagan in THE WEEKLY STANDARD, U.S. intelligence is largely persuaded that Abu Omar al-Baghdadi is a fiction invented to obscure the largely foreign character of al Qaeda in Iraq’s leadership cadre.

We know the Times is disinclined to believe anything the military has to say about Iraq, but one would think that after their own reporter exposed al-Baghdadi as nothing more than an al Qaeda bogeyman, the paper might offer some kind of caveat when reporting his threats.

Over at FP Passport, David Bosco notes an interview with Major Gen. Bruno Kasdorf, the highest-ranking German officer in Afghanistan, at Spiegel online. The European media has long been critical of what it perceives as an unnecessarily violent American campaign against the Taliban there, but Kasdorf doesn't see it like that:

Pulling out of OEF would not be helpful. It bothers the Americans when Europeans accuse them of waging the war in a brutal fashion. If there were no OEF, the insurgency would gain strength in the country and they would consider themselves unopposed here, which could also threaten ISAF's success. Here at ISAF we don't have the forces to go after the extremists alone. At the same time, fighting terror is not our mandate.

Kasdorf adds:

The limitations that the Germans have placed upon themselves are not regarded as optimal here. If a country takes over reconstruction responsibilities, its teams can, in an emergency, be replaced by reserve units if the Afghans go into battle. That's what we're really talking about here. When all the countries on a mission go into conflict areas and then a few of them say that they're only going to do something very specific, it becomes difficult. We must realize that the rest of Afghanistan, including the north, will only be safe when we have succeeded in the east and south.

I'm skeptical that an increase in German troops numbers, or a lifting of the "limitations" placed on them by their mandate from the German parliament, would fundamentally alter the equation in Afghanistan. But it certainly wouldn't hurt, and it may be an important piece of a larger reorganization of the Coalition forces there. And when that reorganization takes place, Kasdorf sounds like a good guy to keep around.

Stephen Trimble flags an Army solicitation for an "NFL Tour Package" to Afghanistan in support of Operation Enduring Freedom. The tour would coincide with the Super Bowl in the first week of February. Trimble reports:

The contract requires the vendor to deliver three active or recently retired NFL players, who must have played three seasons at any of the following "key" positions: quarterback, running back, kicker, defensive safety, defensive linebacker, or wide receiver.

NFL lineman, consider yourselves dissed. Even the kicker outranks you.

I wonder whether there wasn't a more practical reason for excluding offensive lineman from the trip--feeding an offensive linemen for the week isn't cheap. And you have to figure they'll be flown around by helicopter. With the average weight of an NFL lineman somewhere on the order of 318 pounds--well, would the troops be happier to see one Orlando Pace step off that chopper or three cheerleaders. It also seems a bit ageist to limit the the tour to "current" NFL cheerleaders, I can think of at least one worthy exception.

The headlines today indicate that Congressional Democrats caved to the president's position on spending for 2008. The Washington Post says 'Democrats Bow to Bush's Demands.' The Hill reads 'Dems Cave on Spending.' And the headline from the Los Angeles Times declares 'Democrats Bow to Bush Spending Limit.' But according to the conservative members of the House Republican Study Committee, that's not quite true:

In short, as described and reported, the latest Democrat omnibus package—described as meeting the President’s top-line spending amount—is roughly $23 billion above the President’s comparable request for domestic spending.

The omnibus bill would also fund only up to $30 billion in supplemental funding for Afghanistan—not for Iraq and without any transfer authority to allow the President to shift a portion to Iraq. This would have the perverse result of treating our troops in Afghanistan differently than our troops in Iraq.

As the Club for Growth points out, the total spending level the Democrats are calling for is quite close to their initial proposal at the start of the process. Will the White House call the Democrats on this?

Roll Call provides additional detail:

Democrats also appeared poised to accept a $70 billion package of spending for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan with no strings attached, although no Iraq money would appear in the initial House version. Democrats had been considering a trade of war funding for $11 billion in domestic spending and $7 billion in emergency spending, but Bush’s veto threat now has Democrats on the verge of approving another fat check for the war that they have repeatedly sought and failed to end with little in return except the ability to go home for Christmas.

The Democratic leadership plan is convoluted. It calls for the House to approve a spending bill with no funding for Iraq, and which is well over the agreed-upon level of overall spending. Many Republicans will vote against the bill, which would be passed with Democratic support.

Next, the Senate will pass the same bill--after approving an additional $70 billion of the president's $200 billion request for the war on terror. That Senate product must subsequently pass the House again.

But dozens of anti-war Democrats in the House will oppose the Senate version because of the additional funding provided for the war on terror. House Republicans who seek full funding for the war on terror and who oppose the added spending would seem to have little incentive to vote for this flawed compromise. Can Democratic leaders cobble together a majority to pass the bill? If they do, will the president sign it?

Republican Study Committee spokesman Brad Dayspring sums the situation up this way:

"Stating the obvious, thus far Republicans have successfully protected taxpayers from a Democrat spending spree. Stating the even more obvious, I don't think that the Democrat leadership woke up, picked up the morning papers and smiled. With that in mind, it doesn't seem as though they are negotiating from a position of strength."

It seems Democrats may find themselves heading back to the drawing board.

Secretary of Defense Bob Gates testified before the House Armed Services Committee yesterday on the status of the Coalition mission in Afghanistan, and though his statement might best be characterized as one of cautious optimism, there is clearly cause for concern as to the overall direction of that campaign. Gates stated:

The final point I will turn to - and it is an extremely important one - is the willingness of the NATO allies to meet their commitments.

Since ISAF assumed responsibility for all of Afghanistan in October 2006, the number of non-U.S. troops has increased by about 3,500. That said, much more can and should be done. NATO still has shortfalls in meeting minimum requirements in troops, equipment, and other resources. I leave for Scotland tomorrow for a meeting of Defense Ministers of the countries involved in Regional Command South and I know this will be on the agenda.

The Afghanistan mission has exposed constraints associated with interoperability, organization, critical equipment shortfalls, and national caveats. ...

Our progress in Afghanistan is real but fragile. ...

I know, as do you, the members of this committee, that if the world's greatest democracies cannot summon the will to accomplish a mission that all agree is morally just and essential for our collective security, then the citizens of these democracies will begin to question the mission's worth - and perhaps even the worth of the Alliance itself. We must not allow this to happen.

As the situation in Afghanistan deteriorates, it has become clear that the mission there is not one of peacekeeping, but rather a classic counterinsurgency campaign--and no one in their right mind would put NATO in charge of a counterinsurgency campaign. Counterinsurgency is predominantly political by its very nature. It requires a unity of effort, as the military effort needs to be synced up with the political effort, and the military must have a coherent objective and a clear plan for achieving it. But NATO has no political lead actor, and it is incapable of unity of effort. And this is not to blame the Europeans, it is simply a function of what NATO is and is not. And it is not an institution that is capable of complete subordination to a single commander, as each government has a veto over how its troops and equipment will be deployed.

Interestingly, the left has often praised the effort in Afghanistan, relative to that in Iraq, as the 'good war'--a multilateral war waged with the support of the international community. But it turns out that counterinsurgency operations are, as we have seen in Iraq, far more effective when carried out in a unilateral fashion, with a unity of effort and a unity of command. Right now, Afghanistan has no lead actor. Who's in charge of the mission there? Is it General Dan McNeil, who heads up the ISAF mission, or Maj General David Rodriguez, who commands American forces operating as part of Operation Enduring Freedom? And then there's the Special Operations Command, which is itself operating largely independent of both ISAF and OEF.

The situation in Afghanistan is not critical--there is no sign that the effort there is on the verge of some kind of collapse--but in a counterinsurgency campaign, if you're not winning, you're losing. And we are not winning. The Democrats want to throw more money and more troops at the problem, which isn't a bad idea, but as long as this fundamentally dysfunctional and disorganized command structure remains in place, more money and more troops will not suffice.

And here's where Iraq becomes the model for getting Afghanistan back on track. Only now, with General Petraeus clearly in charge of what is a unilateral and united effort to dismantle the insurgency have American forces seen sustained progress. And that model must be adapted to Afghanistan. Afghanistan needs more troops, more money, and a unified command. The American people know who's running the war in Iraq, it's time they were able to identify the person charged with running the war in Afghanistan as well. Afghanistan needs its own Petraeus.

From Aviation Week, Dutch airpower fighting the good fight in Afghanistan:

The Netherlands defense ministry has released photos showing the preparations for the large airmobile operation conducted Dec. 7 in Helmand province, Afghanistan, by mainly Afghan, American and British troops of the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF).

The airmobile operation and the supporting casualty evacuation mission involved approximately 20 Chinook, Black Hawk and Apache helicopters provided by British, Dutch and U.S. forces -- meaning that practically all available helicopters in ISAF's Regional Command South were used for the mission.

Great find from AW's Ares blog. Click here for more photos.

BBC took terror trainers....paintballing?

The BBC funded a paintballing trip for men later accused of Islamic terrorism and failed to pass on information about the 21/7 bombers to police, a court was told yesterday.

Mohammed Hamid, who is charged with overseeing a two-year radicalisation programme to prepare London-based Muslim youths for jihad, was described as a "cockney comic" by a BBC producer.

The BBC paid for Mr Hamid and fellow defendants Muhammad al-Figari and Mousa Brown to go on a paintballing trip at the Delta Force centre in Tonbridge, Kent, in February 2005. The men, accused of terrorism training, were filmed for a BBC programme called Don't Panic, I'm Islamic, screened in June 2005.

Not mentioned: "Don't Panic, I'm Islamic" was a Beeb documentary on how British Muslims are unfairly stereotyped as terrorists.

Even weirder is the description of activities at Hamid's terror camp:

The court was told previously that Mr Hamid taunted police on his return from an alleged terror training camp in the New Forest where exercises included somersaults, pole-vaulting and paintballing.

Somersaults? Pole-vaulting? Was he planning on attacking Circ Du Soleil?

In a superb piece from the Wall Street Journal, Michael M. Phillips illustrates just how profoundly the Army's new COIN evolution has transformed the force.

A natural-born insurgent, Sgt. First Class Jacob Stockdill was brimming with malicious suggestions when a group of American soldiers and Afghan security men sat down last month to plot their own defeat.

"I can put a guy out on a ridge with an AK-47 and have him take a couple of shots," Sgt. Stockdill proposed to fellow students at the Army's new Afghanistan Counterinsurgency Academy. "The Americans will shoot back with their big guns and disrupt the whole valley.... Being an insurgent would be so easy." Capt. Chris Rowe finished his thought: "All you have to do is not screw up, and, even if you do, you just blame it on the Americans."

Six years into the Afghan war, the Army has decided its troops on the ground still don't understand well enough how to battle the Taliban insurgency. So since the spring, groups of 60 people have been attending intensive, five-day sessions in plywood classrooms in the corner of a U.S. base here, where they learn to think like a Taliban and counterpunch like a politician.

The academy's principal message: The war that began to oust a regime has evolved into a popularity contest where insurgents and counterinsurgents vie for public support and the right to rule. The implicit critique: Many U.S. and allied soldiers still arrive in the country well-trained to kill, but not to persuade.

That soldiers are training to win a "popularity contest" demonstrates the depth of the institutional shift in Army thinking, as the subtle intricacies inherent in both the Afghani and Iraqi insurgencies force the Pentagon to reevaluate even its most elementary of doctrines. Phillips elaborates on the complexity of this new fight:

Col. Najeeb, the Afghan intelligence officer, complained to American classmates that coalition troops sometimes are so nervous about being hit that they mistrust all Afghans, including the security forces. He told of being sent to scout out a village before a coalition sweep. As he left the village on a motorcycle, NATO troops opened fire on him, even though he waved ID proving he is a government agent. He never got close enough to warn the coalition soldiers of the ambush that awaited them in the village, he said.

His classmate Capt. Nick Talbot, a 27-year-old from Washington, D.C., countered with a story about a car bomb in September in Nangarhar Province near Pakistan. U.S. troops arrived to find a man in a police uniform unconscious on the ground. When they did a routine body search for any unseen injuries, they discovered he was wearing a vest filled with explosives. The man woke up, but was unable to detonate the bomb before the soldiers killed him. "It can make you very hesitant to work very closely" with Afghan security forces, Capt. Talbot confessed to Col. Najeeb.

To be sure, Afghanistan is a geopolitical Rubik's Cube. Solving it is going to take time. The same goes for Iraq. But, despite common difficulties, one can't help but to admire the Army's remarkable comfort in adapting itself to the challenges faced in both theaters. Though they have a ways to go, their journey from a clunky, immobile Cold War bureaucracy to an agile, flexible fighting force has been nothing short of amazing.

From the BBC:

One of the most striking findings was the apparent unpopularity of the Taleban and their foreign supporters.

Only 5% of respondents said they supported or strongly supported the Taleban (against 4% last year), with 14% of respondents saying they supported or strongly supported jihadi fighters from other countries.

Only 4% would like to see the Taleban return to government.

Golly, you mean after all the wonderful things the Taliban did for their country, the Afghans are not supportive of their return? Only the BBC could be surprised by this.

With the return of former Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif to Pakistan, a dangerous new actor has now reentered Pakistani politics. ABC News's the Blotter reports that Sharif has accepted a bribe from none other than Osama bin Laden.

The report is based on the interrogation of one Ali Mohamed, who "served as a special projects coordinator for bin Laden and his deputy Ayman al Zawahri in the mid-1990s." Based on the Blotter report, 'Mohamed was also in charge of selecting bin Laden's personal security team." This would be the Black Guard, and this posting along with the special projects coordinator position would place Mohamed at the heart of al Qaeda's inner working.

Mohamed, who is now in a U.S. prison for his role in the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Africa, has been cooperating with the FBI and providing them with a wealth of information on the inner workings of al Qaeda. Frmer FBI agent and ABC News consultant Jack Cloonan has questioned Mohamed over a period of years and believes the information he has provided to U.S. authorities is accurate.

Cloonan says that back in 1999 Mohamed told the FBI he arranged for a meeting between bin Laden and Sharif's representatives. Following that meeting, Mohamed told Cloonan he delivered $1 million to Sharif's representatives. Mohamed said the payoff was a tribute to Sharif for not cracking down on the Taliban as it flourished in Afghanistan and influenced the Northwest Frontier Province in Pakistan, according to Cloonan.

Sharif, who was deposed by President Pervez Musharraf in a coup in 1999, is now being courted by Musharraf to serve as prime minister in a new coalition government. U.S. ambassador to Pakistan Anne W. Patterson is set to meet with Sharif today.

As the Blotter noted, rumors of Sharif's links to al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden are not new. In 2005, Khalid Khawaja, a former Inter Services Intelligence operative, told Asia Times that Sharif and bin Laden met in Saudi Arabia in 1998. According to Khawaja, Sharif accepted cash to prevent the rise of political rival Benazir Bhutto.

After Gen Zia’s death in a plane crash (1988), elections were announced and there was a possibility that the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) led by Benazir Bhutto would win, which would be a great setback for the cause of the Afghan jihad against the USSR. The situation was discussed and all the mujahideen thought that they should play a role in blocking the PPP from winning the elections. I joined my former DG Hamid Gul and played a role in forming the then Islamic Democratic Alliance consisting of the Pakistan Muslim League and the Jamaat-e-Islami. The PPP won the elections by a thin margin and faced a strong opposition.

Nawaz Sharif insisted that I arrange a direct meeting with the Osama, which I did in Saudi Arabia. Nawaz met thrice with Osama in Saudi Arabia...

Nawaz Sharif was looking for a Rs 500 million grant from Osama. Though Osama gave a comparatively smaller amount, the landmark thing he secured for Nawaz Sharif was a meeting with the (Saudi) royal family, which gave Nawaz Sharif a lot of political support, and it remained till he was dislodged (as premier) by Gen Pervez Musharraf (in a coup in 1999). Saudi Arabia arranged for his release and his safe exit to Saudi Arabia,” he told Asia Times online.

Sharif is denying any links to the Taliban or al Qaeda. "Let me be clear I have been condemning all sorts of terrorism, whether in Pakistan or outside Pakistan," Sharif told the Associated Press. "We are moderates, we follow moderation and nothing except moderation. Remarks are made by other countries without taking (into consideration) our cooperation that we have extended in the past. To me this is unreasonable and I am disappointed."

More than a month after the Taliban took over the settled district of Swat, once the most visited tourist spot in Pakistan, the Pakistani Army has yet to dislodge the Taliban from the scenic valley. The Pakistani military, beset by problems with poor morale and a poor counterinsurgency strategy, have made few gains since launching their ground offensive after weeks of bombarding civilian centers.

Asia Times's Syed Saleem Shahzad, who closely follows the Taliban movement in Pakistan and Afghanistan, states the vaunted Pakistani Army is no closer to defeating the Taliban than when it started offensive operations.

Intensified military operations over the past 10 days in the Swat Valley have not yielded any significant results. The army did succeed in recapturing a few districts but was in no position to force the militants' surrender. This means the army will not be able to consolidate its gains for any prolonged period in the valley - the militants will be back.

Shahzad also claims the Taliban seek to keep the Pakistani military from conducting operation along the tribal regions on the border, where al Qaeda and the Taliban have established training camps throughout the region and openly rule the tribal agencies.

The aim of the militants to date has been to engage the Pakistani security forces in the Swat Valley, forcing them to reduce their presence on the border. This in turn has allowed militants to cross freely into and out of Afghanistan in support of the Taliban's insurgency there.

The Pakistani military is losing an insurgency in the Northwest Frontier Province and the tribal regions (see "The Fall of Northwestern Pakistan" at The Long War Journal and "Is the NWFP Slipping out of Pakistan’s Control?" at The Jamestown Foundation for more details.)

Shahzad states the appointment of General Kiyani, Musharraf's successor as chief of staff of the Pakistani army, has increased the likelihood the Pakistani military will cut a deal with the Taliban in the long run. While Kiyani is not viewed as sympathetic to the Islamists, he will be under great pressure from the Pakistani military to halt the fighting. This will only embolden the Taliban and create a buffer for al Qaeda to continue cranking out terrorists to fight in Pakistan, Afghanistan, India, Iraq and throughout the Middle East.

Another day, another poll showing Americans are changing their views on the war in Iraq:

The latest Rasmussen Reports tracking poll finds that 47% of Americans now say the U.S. and its allies are winning the War on Terror (see crosstabs). That’s up from 43% a month ago and reflects is the highest level of confidence measured since December 2005...

The 47% who believe the U.S. and its allies are winning is up significantly from earlier in the year. During the first nine months of 2007, the number believing that the U.S. fell as low as 33% and reached the 40% level just once...

In what may be just as significant a finding, only 24% of voters now believe the terrorists are winning. That’s down from 30% a month ago and represents the lowest level of pessimism recorded since 2004.

The Rasmussen Reports telephone survey also found that 35% of all American voters expect things to get better in Iraq over the next six months while 32% expect the situation to get worse. That’s the first time in years that a plurality has given a positive assessment on the situation in Iraq. The recent increase in optimism is substantial. Just four months ago, in July, 49% of American voters offered a pessimistic assessment of the situation in Iraq and only 23% expected things to get better...

Overall, 36% now believe the American mission in Iraq will ultimately be judged a success while 44% say the history books will judge the long engagement a failure. In July, the view was decidedly more pessimistic. At that time, just 27% thought history would consider the mission a success while 56% took the opposite view.

It seems intuitive that views of the war in Iraq should greatly affect the overall rating for President Bush, and for the Republican party. So far however, the president and the GOP are seeing marginal improvements, at best. It may be that those ratings are 'lagging' indicators, or it could be that voters are dissatisfied on other fronts. Or it could be that the public has simply decided that regardless of how well or how poorly the war may be going, they're ready for it to be over.

If that last one is the reason, Republicans shouldn't expect 'credit' for Iraq, regardless of how the war may go between now and the presidential election. It may be that the best they can hope for is for the public to continue to look to downgrade the importance of Iraq as the drawdown of troops continues.

As predicted, the latest purported bin Laden tape blames American foreign policy (that is, his conspiratorial notion of America’s foreign policy) for al Qaeda’s terror. The Associated Press has reported translations of excerpts of the tape, which were broadcast on Al-Jazeera. Bin Laden says he was the "only one responsible" for the 9/11 attacks. Moreover:

The events of Manhattan were retaliation against the American-Israeli alliance's aggression against our people in Palestine and Lebanon, and I am the only one responsible for it. The Afghan people and government knew nothing about it. America knows that.

Bin Laden wants free reign inside Afghanistan again, so he calls upon European nations to abandon the U.S.-led effort there:

Europe went along with it (the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan) because they had no other alternative, only to be a follower.

It is better for you [European citizens] to stand against your leaders who are dropping in on the White House, and to work seriously to lift the injustice against the believers.

Of course, this is fairly typical of al Qaeda’s propaganda. In the group’s messages to the West, they claim that their terror is merely a "Defensive Jihad," waged as retribution against the West for its alleged conspiratorial assault on Muslims. In its messages to fellow Muslims and in laying out the Islamic justifications for their attacks, however, al Qaeda argues strenuously for an "Offensive Jihad" waged against the West because we are infidels who refuse to follow their strict sharia laws and offend Allah’s supposed will.

More later when a full transcript of the tape becomes available.

Press reports indicate that a new tape from Osama bin Laden is about to be released. This account from Adnkronos International (AKI) provides an interesting detail about how the video will be distributed:

A new al-Qaeda video containing Osama Bin Laden's latest message "must be posted to Western websites," the terror network's media arm as-Sahab has ordered cyber jihadists.

"You must spread the new message from Sheikh Osama bin Laden in every way, especially via Western websites," said As-Sahab, which produces al-Qaeda's videos and audiotapes.

In a web message announcing the imminent posting of bin Laden's new message, entitled "To the European people", As-Sahab also gives instructions on how best to distribute the new video.

"Any means of distributing the video should be used in order to get the truth across to them about their war which they are losing and reveal to them the reality which they ignore," said As-Sahab. …

That is, al Qaeda is giving explicit orders for how its propaganda should be spread. But we shouldn’t accept any part of it at face value.

This seems obvious enough, but still many commentators and analysts are citing al Qaeda’s propaganda as if it says something meaningful about our nation. This is especially true when it comes to our foreign policy. How many times in the wake of the September 11 attacks and the conflicts that followed were we told by pundits that America’s foreign policy was to blame? This school of “thought” is propounded by people like former CIA analyst Michael Scheuer, who reads bin Laden’s statements and takes at face value polling done in the Middle East (while ignoring that Arab regimes pump out propaganda of their own on a daily basis to demonize America and America’s “policies,” thereby shaping public opinion) and concludes: “We need to acknowledge that we are at war, not because of who we are, but because of what we do. We are confronting a jihad that is inspired by the tangible and visible impact of our policies.”

Al Qaeda is happy to play along. For more than a decade now, bin Laden has repeatedly pointed out our supposed flaws and that his terror is really all our fault. I am sure the latest tape will have a healthy dose of this rhetoric as well as the usual conspiratorial nonsense. (Remember, for example, that bin Laden told us back in September how President Kennedy was assassinated because he wanted to end the Vietnam war and this “angered the owners of the major corporations who were benefiting from its continuation.”)

But while bin Laden and al Qaeda say one thing to us, they say something entirely different in their missives to Muslims. This is the essential lesson of Raymond Ibrahim’s excellent book, The Al Qaeda Reader. Three key paragraphs from Ibrahim’s Foreword explain this difference:

AP reporter Matthew Barakat details the ongoing controversy surrounding the Islamic Saudi Academy, a K-12 school with campuses in Alexandria and Fairfax, Virginia, that is owned by the Saudi embassy and accused of promoting Islamic extremism:

The academy opened in 1984 and stayed out of the spotlight until the Sept. 11 attacks. Criticisms were revived in 2005, when a former class valedictorian, Ahmed Omar Abu Ali, was charged with joining al-Qaida while attending college in Saudi Arabia. He was convicted on several charges, including plotting to assassinate President Bush, and was sentenced to 30 years in prison.

Most recently, the religious freedom commission--an independent federal agency created by Congress--issued its report, saying it was rebuffed in its efforts to obtain textbooks to verify claims they had been reformed.

The commission recommended that the academy be shut down until it could review the textbooks to ensure they do not promote intolerance.

Since the commission's report, the academy has given copies of its books to the Saudi embassy, which then provided them to the State Department. The commission is waiting to get the books from the State Department.

On Nov. 15, a dozen U.S. senators, including Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., and Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., wrote a letter to the State Department urging it to act on the commission's recommendations. And on Tuesday, Reps. Frank Wolf, R-Va., and Steve Israel, D-N.Y., introduced legislation to write the commission's recommendations regarding the academy into law.

The Washington Post has already chastised the government panel for failing to ask enough times to look at the textbooks. The school's director says that the textbooks have been cleaned up, but after the Saudi government similarly claimed to have modified its textbooks in 2006, Nina Shea at Freedom House reported that those textbooks still included passages such as these:

SIXTH GRADE: Just as Muslims were successful in the past when they came together in a sincere endeavor to evict the Christian crusaders from Palestine, so will the Arabs and Muslims emerge victorious, God willing, against the Jews and their allies if they stand together and fight a true jihad for God, for this is within God's power.

EIGHTH GRADE: As cited in Ibn Abbas: The apes are Jews, the people of the Sabbath; while the swine are the Christians, the infidels of the communion of Jesus.

TWELFTH GRADE: Jihad in the path of God -- which consists of battling against unbelief, oppression, injustice, and those who perpetrate it -- is the summit of Islam. This religion arose through jihad and through jihad was its banner raised high. It is one of the noblest acts, which brings one closer to God, and one of the most magnificent acts of obedience to God.

The real problem then is not that a religious school is asserting that it's religious claims--even hate-filled claims against other religions--are true, but that particular teachings compel believers to wage war on unbelievers.

As much as the Washington Post editorial page and U.S. political leaders would hate to admit it, even if the textbooks of the Saudi academy were scrubbed of intolerance, a literal interpretation of certain passages in the Koran would still promote violence. After all, when bin Laden and friends issued their 1998 declaration of war, they weren't quoting from a textbook when they wrote: "But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the pagans wherever ye find them, seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war)."

After a month of overt Taliban control over the settled district of Swat in Pakistan's turbulent Northwest frontier Province, the Pakistani military announced that it has begun the ground assault to retake the district. The Daily Times reports:

Security forces backed by gunship helicopters and artillery have begun a ground offensive against pro-Taliban militants, killing at least 35 of them and losing two soldiers, the military said on Sunday.

It was the first time ground troops had been used in the Swat region, said army spokesman Major General Waheed Arshad. He said the troops had gained control of mountaintops overlooking three militant-held villages near Mingora in an operation that was launched late on Saturday, reported AP. The troops controlled all entry and exit points to these villages, he added. He said 15 soldiers were also wounded.

“The strongholds of militants are being hit. Troops have demolished their bunkers and destroyed a checkpost,” Arshad said.

Prior to the beginning of this ground offensive, the Pakistani military relied on artillery and air strikes to target Taliban positions. The military claims over 150 Taliban were killed in the past month, but the Taliban puts the numbers below 20. The Pakistani military is notorious for inflating enemy casualties and deflating its own.

After one month of fighting in Swat, the government can claim some small success. The military is touting the retaking of checkpoints and hilltops overlooking towns. This is a poor counterinsurgency strategy and speaks volumes about the military’s inability to wage war against the Taliban within its own borders. The military has also blockaded food, medical supplies, and other vital aid to the regions controlled by the Taliban, punishing civilians caught behind Pakistani lines. The military has only now started to jam Taliban leader Maulana Fazlullah's jihadi radio channel, which has incited supporters to fight the government.

Despite the start of this long awaited offensive, the government has signaled throughout the standoff it was willing to cut a deal. The provincial government is forming a "peace jirga"--or tribal meeting--to resolve the situation. The governor has repeatedly said force was the option of last resort--he is looking for a political solution.

But most importantly, the government