There is a lot of talk about Lashkar-e-Taiba, the group that is strongly suspected of being behind last week's terror assault in Mumbai, India. Below is a quick primer on Lashkar-e-Taiba I've excerpted from an update on the situation in Mumbai I wrote yesterday. There is far more to the terror group than this, but it should help explain the relationship between what is called "al Qaeda Central" and their affiliated groups. There are a lot of people out there twisting themselves in knots to disassociate  Lashkar-e-Taiba from al Qaeda. They are wrong to do so.

Lashkar-e-Taiba has an extensive network in southern and Southeast Asia. A senior US military intelligence official described the group as "al Qaeda junior," as it has vast resources, an extensive network, and is able to carry out complex attacks throughout its area of operations. "If by some stroke of luck al Qaeda collapsed, LeT (Lashkar-e-Taiba) could step in and essentially take its place."The relationship between al Qaeda and Lashkar-e-Taiba is complex, the official noted. "While Lashkar-e-Taiba is definitely subordinate to al Qaeda in many ways, it runs its own network and has its own command structure. The groups often train in each others' camps, and fight side by side in Afghanistan."

Lashkar-e-Taiba forces fought alongside al Qaeda and Taliban in the assault on the US combat outpost in Wanat in Nuristan province, Afghanistan in July of this year. Nine US troops were killed, and 15 US soldiers and four Afghan troops were wounded in the heavy fight that nearly ended in the outpost being overrun. US forces ultimately broke the attack.Founded by Hafiz Mohammed Saeed in Afghanistan in 1990, the organization quickly expanded its reach.

The Lashkar-e-Taiba has received direct support by Pakistan's notorious Inter-Service Intelligence agency as they serve to destabilize India and wage war in Indian-occupied Kashmir.Like al Qaeda, the Lashkar-e-Taiba seeks to establish a Muslim caliphate in southern and central Asia. Lashkar-e-Taiba "consistently advocated the use of force and vowed that it would plant the 'flag of Islam' in Washington, Tel Aviv and New Delhi," the Southeast Asia Terrorism Portal reported.

Also, like al Qaeda, Lashkar-e-Taiba practices Wahabism, the radical Islamist school of thought born in Saudi Arabia.The group essentially runs a state within a state of Pakistan. The sprawling Muridke complex houses "a Madrassa (seminary), a hospital, a market, a large residential area for ‘scholars’ and faculty members, a fish farm and agricultural tracts. The LeT also reportedly operates 16 Islamic institutions, 135 secondary schools, an ambulance service, mobile clinics, blood banks and several seminaries across Pakistan."

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.

Hat tip: NewsBusters

The terror assault on Mumbai is in its second day as Indian security forces struggle to regain control of the city and clear the remaining terrorists from two hotels and a residential complex. Hundreds of Indian Naval and National Security Guards commandos have been rushed into the capital to help end the hostage situations at the Taj and Oberoi Trident hotels and the Nariman House. Reports from India indicate the commando assaults are underway. More than 200 hostages, many foreigners, are still held captive. The Indian Mujahideen have demanded the release of all jihadis currently in Indian jails to end the crisis.

While it is too early to know exactly how the Mumbai strikes were planned and executed, one thing seems clear: This attack is the most significant terrorist attack since the Sept. 11 attack against the United States.

The terrorists launched a sophisticated, multi-pronged attack into a city of 18 million residents. This requires planning, training, funding, and detailed reconnaissance. The targets were chosen carefully to achieve maximum effect. The terrorists hit hotels, a train station, a movie house, a residential complex, and a hospital--all soft targets. They also were able to plant bombs in taxis as well as capture a police van, which was then used in a drive-by shooting spree.

The assault teams--there is no other way to describe them--coordinated and synchronized their attacks to overwhelm Mumbai security. The terrorists were able to take a significant number of hostages. They knew where to find foreigners and wealthy Indians--at the five star hotels.

Past attacks in Indian cities and in other parts of the world may have had higher death tolls, but they failed to achieve the results of Mumbai. The city has been completely shut down for two days, while the Hindustan Times said the country is gripped by a "fear psychosis." India's government has long treated the terrorist problem as a secondary issue. This will change. The mode of attack--assault teams launched into the heart of a major city--is already sending chills down the spines of security officials and governments throughout the world.

The number of injured is up to a gut-wrenching 900, and the Deccan Mujahideen (which Bill connects to Lashkar-e-Taiba) has reportedly taken responsibility for the attacks, sending e-mails to media outlets.

The Times of India has more information on hostages and apprehensions:

The attacks appeared to be aimed at getting international attention as the terrorists took up to 40 British nationals and other foreigners hostage. The chairman of Hindustan Unilever Harish Manwani and CEO of the company Nitin Paranjpe were among the guests trapped at the Oberoi. All the internal board members of the multinational giant were reported to be holed up in the Oberoi hotel.

Two terrorists were reported holed up inside the Oberoi Hotel. Fresh firing has been reported at Oberoi and Army has entered the hotel to flush out the terrorists.

At least some of the terrorists have been shot or arrested:

Well after midnight, sources said two of the terrorists were shot and wounded at Girgaum in south Mumbai. The two were driving in a commandeered silver-coloured Skoda car. Earlier, these men had sprayed bullets from a police Bolero, outside the Metro Adlabs multiplex.

Early reports attributed the attacks to Lashkar-e-Taiba, members of whom were arrested in the 2006 bombings.

Obama's team responded:

“President-Elect Obama strongly condemns today's terrorist attacks in Mumbai, and his thoughts and prayers are with the victims, their families, and the people of India,” Obama spokesman Brooke Anderson said. “These coordinated attacks on innocent civilians demonstrate the grave and urgent threat of terrorism. The United States must continue to strengthen our partnerships with India and nations around the world to root out and destroy terrorist networks. We stand with the people of India, whose democracy will prove far more resilient than the hateful ideology that led to these attacks.”

Bush hasn't released an official statement, "but White House spokesman Tony Fratto made clear the Bush Administration’s reaction.

'We condemn these attacks and the loss of innocent life," Fratto said, adding that "we continue to seek more information.'"

The outgoing and ingoing presidents' teams are said to be in close contact about national security issues during the transition period, during which the hand-off could make the country more vulnerable to attack.

Today, there was news that the feds warned of a possible Al Qaeda attack on New York's subway and train system during the holiday time:

A person briefed on the matter, speaking to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the intelligence-gathering work, said the threat may also be directed at the passenger rail lines running through New York, such as Amtrak and the Long Island Rail Road, which are particularly busy with Thanksgiving holiday travelers.

A U.S. counterterror official, also speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to do so publicly, said senior government officials have been briefed because the FBI very recently received credible information about possible attacks over the holiday season, and authorities are particularly concerned about this long holiday weekend.

Thomas Joscelyn is absolutely correct in suspecting the Pakistan and Kashmiri-based terror groups as being behind today’s terror attacks in Mumbai. A group called the Deccan Mujahideen, or Indian Mujahideen, has taken credit for today’s strike, the Times of India just reported.

While it is certainly possible that the group is taking credit for another’s handiwork, the Indian Mujahideen has been implicated as being behind several recent attacks in India.
The group claimed credit for the July 25 and 26 bombings in Ahmedabad and Bangalore. At least 36 Indians were killed and more than 120 were wounded in the attacks. The Indian Mujahideen took credit for the Sept. 13 attacks in New Delhi that resulted in 18 killed and more than 90 wounded. The group also claimed credit for the bombings in Jaipur last May (60 killed, more than 200 wounded), and bombings in Uttar Pradesh in November 2007 (14 killed, 50 wounded).

Indian intelligence believes the Indian Mujahideen is a front group created by Lashkar-e-Taiba and the Harkat ul Jihad al Islami to confuse investigators and cover the tracks of the Students' Islamic Movement of India, or SIMI, a radical Islamist movement. The groups receive support from Pakistan's Inter-Service Intelligence and are al Qaeda affiliates.

Of the eight targets hit today, authorities say there are still hostages at two of them:

A.N. Roy, a senior police officer, said police were continuing to battle the gunmen. "The terrorists have used automatic weapons and in some places grenades have been lobbed, the encounters are still going on and we are trying to overpower them," he said.

Local television said army troops had begun moving into one of the hotels, the Oberoi, containing hostages.

The Times Online has more specific information:

The gunman, armed with automatic weapons and grenades, targeted British and American tourists in the city’s luxury hotels and bars. They were reported to be holding Western tourists hostage at the Taj Mahal Palace, Bombay’s top hotel, where a group of British MEPs were staying...

“I guess they were after foreigners, because they were asking for British or American passports,” said Rakesh Patel, a British witness who lives in Hong Kong and was staying at the Taj Mahal hotel on business. “They had bombs.”

“They came from the restaurant and took us up the stairs.”

From the Taj Mahal hotel:

Sajjad Karim, an MEP for the North West of England who was a member of an EU delegation visiting Bombay said he had seen a gunman opening fire in the lobby of Taj Mahal Palace Hotel.

Speaking via mobile phone, he said: “I was in the lobby of the hotel when gunmen came in and people started running … A gunman just stood there spraying bullets around, right next to me. I managed to turn away and I ran into the hotel kitchen and then we were shunted into a restaurant in the basement.” “We are now in the dark in this room and we’ve barricaded all the doors. It’s really bad.” Outside the Taj hotel, injured guests were being stretchered away on the hotel’s golden-coloured luggage carts.

All American diplomats have been accounted for, but the State Department is still working to track down tourists and visitors who might have been staying in the hotels.

Mumbai's chief of the Anti Terror Squad, Hemant Karkare, has died from injuries suffered while leading an operation against terrorists holding hostages at one of the five-star hotels targeted.

Karkare (54), who is probing the Malegaon blasts case, was gunned down when he was leading an operation at Hotel Taj against terrorists who had taken 15 people, including seven foreigners, as hostages. He was hit by three bullets in his chest. One MP Krishan Das and 200 people were stranded in Taj hotel.

Another IPS officer Ashok Marutirao Kamte, a 1989 batch IPS officer, was killed while fighting terrorists at Metro Cinema in the city along with encounter specialist Vijay Salaskar who also gunned down as one of the worst terror strikes brought Mumbai to the knees.

Fighting was ongoing in the city as the first reports emerged from the chaos:

Gunmen opened fire on two of the city's best known luxury hotels, the Taj Mahal and the Oberoi. They also attacked the crowded Chhatrapati Shivaji Terminus station in southern Mumbai and Leopold's restaurant, a Mumbai landmark.

The gunmen also attacked police headquarters in south Mumbai, the area where most of the attacks took place.

"We are under fire, there is shooting at the gate," said constable A. Shetti by phone from police headquarters.

MSNBC offers some raw footage from India in their report, and a glimpse of one of the gunmen, some of whom witnesses are describing as "very young."

Video below the fold:

In some ways, today’s terrorist attacks in Mumbai (Bombay), India are unremarkable. India has been repeatedly attacked in recent years. Pakistani and Kashmiri based terrorist groups, as well as so-called homegrown terrorists, kill up to hundreds every year. But if the early reports are correct, then today’s terrorist attacks seem unprecedented. As many as seven different locations (if not more) have been struck, with hostages taken. Most, if not all, of the targets are places that cater to westerners – restaurants, hotels, trains, etc. Moreover, the terrorists have laid siege to a couple of hotels and the terrorists are incredibly mobile, moving from location to location. The attacks are ongoing and the casualty count keeps rising. The result is a traumatized city and nation.

It is too early to tell with any precision who is behind these attacks. The smart money is on the multi-headed hydra of terrorist and extremist groups based in Pakistan and Kashmir. Indeed, Pakistan’s intelligence service has waged a proxy war against India using terrorists for decades. The two nuclear powers have avoided a large-scale exchange, but the Pakistani ISI has repeatedly sponsored or aided terrorist groups targeting civilians in India. For example, Indian authorities were quite vocal in blaming Pakistan for the July 11, 2006 train bombings, which killed more than 200.

Today’s attacks, if they are indeed a continuation of Pakistan’s proxy war, threaten to destabilize relations between the two nations further. The contest for regional hegemony has played out across the region from Kashmir to Afghanistan. And terrorist groups have, once again, reminded India of their reach deep into the subcontinent. In the coming weeks, when the chaos has played out and authorities stabilize the situation, it will be crucial for American authorities to pay attention to the evidence accumulated by Indian authorities. It is possible that Pakistani intelligence played no role in this attack, but it is equally possible, if not likely, that they did.

All of the prime suspects have ties to Pakistani Intelligence: Kashmiri separatists, Pakistani extremists, and even the Taliban and al Qaeda. American authorities should, therefore, look not only for evidence of which specific terrorist groups are involved, but also evidence of ties to the ISI.

Via Hot Air, Times of India reports:

Armed with AK-47 rifles and grenades, a couple of terrorists entered the passenger hall of CST and opened fire and threw grenades, Mumbai General Railway Police Commissioner A K Sharma said.

The terror strike which began at 10:33 PM at Chhatrapathi Shivaji Terminus(CST), formerly known as the Victoria Terminus(VT), claimed 10 lives in the premises of the station alone, police said.

Three persons were killed in a bomb explosion in a taxi on Mazegaon dockyard road and an equal number were gunned down at Taj Hotel. The victims in the hotel were its employees.

The lobby of the Oberoi hotel was on fire and the hotel evacuated, eyewitnesses said.

Maharashtra DGP A N Roy said tonight’s attack in “at least seven places” is a “terror strike.”

Via Ace of Spades HQ, the Times of India reports the terrorists took hostages:

Two terrorists carrying guns tonight took 15 people, half of them foreigners, hostage on the roof of the luxury Taj Hotel, one of the hostages who managed to escape said.

Two youths in their 20s came to the restaurant of the hotel and took 15 people to the roof of the hotel, Rakesh Patel, a businessman from London who lives in Hong Kong, told a TV channel giving the first eyewitness account of what happened in the five-star hotel in South Mumbai.

"The two young boys came to the restaurant and took us upstairs. We were taken to the 18th floor from where we escaped", he said.

Replying to a question, Patel said the terrorists wanted to know if any one of the hostages was carrying American and British passports.

They clearly wanted foreigners, he added.

As President-elect Obama puts together his national security team, a narrative has emerged to explain the somewhat surprising continuity on foreign policy between President Bush's second term and the incoming administration. There will be a shift to the left, but not a big shift, and certainly nothing that represents a drastic change in how Washington does business. The expectation is that Obama is set to continue the course set by Bush in his second term -- continued draw downs in Iraq, an increased focus on the Afghan-Pakistan border, greater engagement with Iran, and a serious effort to restart the peace process in Israel -- because Obama is a realist, as is Bush after the failures of his first term. Secretary Gates will remain at Defense. Jim Jones, another realist, will serve as National Security Adviser. And Hillary Clinton, who has been a consistent hawk, will head the State Department.

The always sharp Robert Kaplan explains:

For President George W. Bush did not just damage America’s position in the world, he has also, over the past two years, quietly repositioned himself as a realist in foreign policy, and that, coupled with a bold new strategy in Iraq, known as the “surge,” has poised America for a diplomatic rebound, which the next administration will get the credit for carrying out.

Kaplan's larger point is that Obama will preside over a period of foreign policy (and economic) recovery, and will get the credit for policies that are little different from those of his predecessor. Obama will be in the right place at the right time. This is almost certainly true, but the way Kaplan describes the Bush administration's second term is revealing: with the exception of the surge, Bush has been a realist. Of course, the surge has been the signal accomplishment of the Bush administration's second term -- and the realists opposed it. The surge was, at its core, a doubling down on the notion that American foreign policy objectives could be achieved by force of arms. Yes there was more to it than that -- a greater emphasis on co-opting the local population and a new willingness to negotiate with reconcilable elements of the insurgency -- but this was a military solution to a problem that realists like Jones, and liberals like Obama, claimed could not be solved militarily.

So what did the realists of the Bush administration achieve in the second term? There is a functioning peace process in Israel, but the two sides are nowhere near a deal. The imbalance in the Taiwan Strait continues to grow, the realists having fought against Taiwan's efforts (supported by this magazine) for a massive purchase of American arms that was ultimately pushed through but without the more than 60 F-16s Taiwan had requested. President Bush did nothing in the face of Russian aggression in Georgia. Democracy activists were slaughtered in Burma. The administration has removed North Korea from the list of state sponsors of terror in exchange for what exactly? The genocide in Darfur continues unabated. And while President Bush has tried to engage Iran, offering a long list of incentives for a halt to uranium enrichment and sending Under Secretary of State Nicholas Burns to deliver the offer in person, the Iranians continue toward a nuclear weapon -- perhaps because they will not be convinced to do otherwise through mere diplomacy.

The realist policies of the Bush administration appear to have been failures, while the surge, championed by the neoconservative wing of the party, has been an unbridled success. However, one can say that the realist failures of the Bush administration have, so far, been small. While they have not made any real headway on North Korea or Iran, the worst outcomes have, for now, been avoided as well. Realists focus on an incremental approach to solving problems, neoconservatives and liberal hawks tend to favor bold strokes -- with greater risk and greater reward.

Of course, none of this is to say that conservatives of all stripes shouldn't be pleased by the direction Obama is taking. As Max Boot says, "Only churlish partisans of both the left and the right can be unhappy with the emerging tenor" of the Obama administration. The realists may have opposed the surge, but they were not hostile to it -- they worked diligently for its success once the decision was made. If there is an emerging consensus on American foreign policy, it is that the players should remain the same even if the outcomes are different -- that the center should hold.

CNN reports:

Minnesota's Canvassing Board voted unanimously to reject Franken's request to include thousands of absentee ballots that are not included in the recount in the Minnesota senate race between the Democratic challenger and Republican incumbent Norm Coleman.

The Canvassing Board, which oversees the recount, stressed during a hearing today, that they weren't rejecting the merits made by Franken's attorneys. The panel also indicated that the fight over the exclusion of the absentee ballots from the recount will most likely land in court.

Here's where things stand in the Coleman-Franken recount. With 82 percent of the ballots recounted, Coleman leads Franken by 243 votes, but--and this is a very important but--both campaigns agree that Coleman's lead is smaller than that.

The Coleman campaign has challenged 1,897 ballots, while Team Franken has challenged 1,806. Almost all of Coleman's challenges will go to Franken or neither candidate; almost all of Franken's challenges will go to Coleman or neither candidate. But both campaigns agree that Coleman has challenged a larger number of ballots that will end up going to Franken in the end than vice versa.

After 79 percent of the votes had been recounted, the Coleman camp claimed their candidate's lead was about 180 votes, but the Franken camp said Coleman's lead was only 84 votes. This number, Team Franken said, reflected the "election judge's actual calls from the table" at each recount site. It is highly unlikely that a significant number of election judges' rulings will be overturned by the canvassing board.

If the Franken campaign has resorted to telling the truth, and Coleman's lead is actually 84 votes, Coleman would still be on track to win when the entire recount process has finished. If Coleman's lead dropped from 215 to 84 votes, that translates into a 61 percent decrease in Coleman's lead after 79 percent of the votes had been recounted.

To catch Coleman, Franken would have to pick up votes at twice the rate he has thus far among the share of ballots yet to be recounted. Even though a large chunk of Minneapolis haven't been recounted, it seems unlikely Franken will pick up the votes he needs because all of the ballots from the Democratic strongholds of St. Paul and St. Louis County (where Duluth and the Iron Range are located) have already been recounted.

But the Franken campaign will almost certainly go to court in an attempt to include rejected absentee ballots. The issue could be decisive. John Fund sketches out the arguments of both campaigns in today's Wall Street Journal

The problem with adding absentee ballots is state law. According to an advisory opinion issued last week by the office of Democratic state Attorney General Lori Swanson, "Only the ballots cast in the election and the summary statements certified by the election judges may be considered in the recount process." A recount manual prepared this year by the office of Secretary of State Mark Ritchie, also a Democrat, makes clear that the canvassing board only supervises "an administrative recount" that is "not to determine if absentee ballots were properly accepted."

But Mr. Franken's attorneys are now arguing that Minnesota law also requires that each county's election report include "the complete voting activity within that county." They are also invoking the Equal Protection arguments cited by the Supreme Court in Bush vs. Gore, as well as rulings from Washington State's disputed 2004 governor's race -- that contest was decided for Democrat Christine Gregoire by 133 votes after an initial count and two subsequent recounts.

The Boston Globe published an interview with Admiral William Fallon, the former CENTCOM commander who was relieved of command in March 2008 after just one short year. Admiral Fallon discusses the situation in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. In a portion of the interview on Pakistan, he demonstrates why his tenure was short lived.

Admiral Fallon displayed a very real lack of understanding of the situation on the ground in the Taliban-controlled, al Qaeda sanctuaries of North and South Waziristan. He promotes the fallacy that the "local Taliban" drove out elements of al Qaeda and the Pakistani government’s policy has been successful in dealing with the terror group. He claims al Qaeda, and not the Pakistani Taliban, are the root of the problems in Waziristan.

The real troublemakers are Al Qaeda who are a worldwide terrorist network who will do anything they can do have instability in the area, first of all, because it protects them. If they can have a cone of instability around them, then they can continue to exist where they are. And we're pretty certain, at least when I checked out, that they were up somewhere in those remote areas in Pakistan and Afghanistan where not only is the terrain about as challenging as you'll find anywhere on earth, but the tribal networks are very, very exclusive of outsiders.

They [the Pakistanis] were actually pretty successful in south Waziristan, which is one of the areas on the border. Why? They decided to act, which was nice, for a change. They got tribal support to help them get rid of the outsiders. Very interesting.

But they didn't get that kind of help up in North Waziristan, and they haven't yet. Why? Because the outsiders [in South Waziristan] were mostly Uzbeks. And they didn't treat the locals very well. And the locals picked up on it. And after a while, they said, "We'd be happy to get rid of some of these thugs for you."

It hasn't happened with Arabs from Al Qaeda They've been very clever about this. They've figured out how to get very close culturally. I'm not there, this is all second and third-hand but we get a lot of reports that indicate that this is the way it is. They've intermarried. They've taken great pains to be deferential to the local chiefs. And they've done, I'm sure they've greased the way fairly, so they've been much more successful.

There are plenty of problems with Fallon's narrative, I’ll touch on the major ones..

First, Daveed Gartenstein-Ross and I debunked the idea that the "good Taliban" drove out the Uzbek al Qaeda fighters out of the kindness of their hearts back in April 2007. The clashes between Nazir's Taliban in South Waziristan and Uzbek fighters from the Islamic Jihad Group were due to local issues of land ownership and intermarrying with the tribes, not out of a desire to rid the region of jihadis. Senior al Qaeda and Taliban leaders ultimately mediated the dispute.

The Pakistani government promoted the idea that Nazir's forces were "pro-government" because they fought the Uzbeks, however Nazir has openly supported al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden and Taliban leader Mullah Omar. Nazir routinely sends fighters into Afghanistan fight U.S. and Coalition forces. And Nazir doesn't harbor ill will towards Uzbeks of the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan; Tahir Yuldashev, the group's leader, is thought to have been killed in a US airstrike on a meeting in South Waziristan. He was meeting with none other than Nazir, who was wounded in the attack.

Second, Fallon completely ignores the elephant in South Waziristan's room: Baitullah Mehsud, the commander of the Pakistani Taliban. Baitullah has been behind the assassination of Benazir Bhutto and a rash of suicide attacks throughout Pakistan as well as a military campaign in Pakistan's northwest. Baitullah and Nazir openly operate in South Waziristan; the government has essentially ceded this region to them.

Third, the "the outsiders in South Waziristan" are not mostly Uzbeks. Fallon should explain why several senior and mid-level al Qaeda leaders have been killed in U.S. strikes in South Waziristan. Also, the biggest U.S. cross-border incident inside Pakistan this year occurred in Nazir's tribal regions in South Waziristan. U.S. special operations forces conducted an air assault in an effort to take down some high-value targets.

Finally, Fallon said "I'm not there, this is all second and third-hand but we get a lot of reports that indicate that this is the way it is." Fallon clearly was getting his information from the Pakistani government, which had a vested interest to show some progress against al Qaeda in the tribal areas. Here's the rub: you don't need classified information to figure out what is happening in Pakistan's tribal areas. For all of Pakistan’s failings, its press does an excellent job in providing the nuggets of information that allow you to paint a picture on what is happening in Pakistan.

The London Times has written an over-the-top story on the recent airstrike this weekend that is reported to have killed Rashid Rauf, the al Qaeda operative behind the foiled London airlines strike. The headline alone says it all: Top al-Qaeda terrorist Abu Zubair al-Masri ‘was missile target in Bush campaign for favourable legacy.

The problem is the Times gets a few basic facts wrong in this story. First and foremost, the Times identifies the target of the raid as "Abu Zubair al-Masri, an Egyptian described as being 'high up in the al-Qaeda pecking order.'" While the target of the raid is debatable, Zubair's status in al Qaeda isn't. He's a mid-level operative at best. So bagging Zubair would do little to enhance Bush's "favourable legacy."

Second, there is a photo of Zubair accompanying the article. The problem is the photo is of Abu Ayyub al Masri, the current leader of al Qaeda in Iraq, and not Zubair.

Third, there is very little to the claim that these strikes are designed to enhance Bush's "legacy." In early September I recognized that the United States had dramatically ramped up its strikes in Pakistan's tribal areas. I asked around and to a man, the people I spoke to said U.S. intelligence is fearful the next strike will emanate from al Qaeda's safe havens within Pakistan's tribal agencies. Not a single person mentioned legacy. While I am sure it is true President Bush would love to kill bin Laden before he leaves office, there is no evidence he's launched a campaign in an allied country strictly to enhance his legacy.

This type of war reporting is all too common these days. Any editor that had half a clue about al Qaeda and the war in general should have at least caught the photo mismatch. Abu Ayyub al Masri's photo is often splashed on the pages of newspapers and on the television. This should have immediately set off alarm bells. We deserve far better reporting on the war than this.

The economy brings an uptick in "struggling" families, just in time for the holidays. Yuck.

"Heavy is the head that wears the tiara."

Obama is still asking for your money, at the bottom of public service announcements about the ailing economy and how he'll rescue it. Classy.

Good news: SNL hiring actual black guy who can impersonate Barack Obama for four years instead of Fred Armisen, who was neither black nor capable of impersonation, making him somewhat unconvincing.

Mormons are being investigated in California because tolerant liberals are mad Prop. 8 won Californians Against Hate filed a complaint that the church neglected to report "nonmonetary contributions" to the campaign.

Obama talks to Barbara Walters, doesn't cry.

A decision in Minnesota could be months away.

President Bush gets former Fugee John Forte out of jail. He will get zero cool points for this.

Giving thanks for the free market.

Sunni lawmakers are demanding concessions before signing onto the security pact that would keep U.S. troops in Iraq until 2011. The vote is expected to be today.

McCain's first post-election news conference:

As an encore to last week's "Giving up on God," Parker is now endorsing a federal subsidy for a daily supply of newspapers to high-school students, which will make students smarter and — Bonus!— save the newspaper industry with your tax dollars.

This plan is necessitated, according to Parker, by an abysmal performance by American voters on an Intercollegiate Studies Institute civics quiz (the average score was 49).

Right, because what corrects a left-leaning public school education lacking in respect for America's founding fathers, documents, and principles better than a daily dose of the New York Times, whose circulation and ad revenue will have been artificially inflated by the government in circumvention of the very free-market system of which many Americans are sadly ignorant? Yeah, that'll do the trick.

Clearly she didn't read P.J. O'Rourke in this week's Standard, or she would have known why newspapers don't deserve a bail-out.

I'm all for young Americans getting a better civic education, but why not do that through assigning readings readily available in all public schools? The Constitution, Bill of Rights, Declaration of Independence, Gettysburg Address, and the Federalist Papers are undoubtedly sitting under a thick layer of dust, while "Dylan has Two Mommies" and the companion study guide to "An Inconvenient Truth" are widely distributed.

Breaking his silence, the man who so skillfully horrified liberals by doing his job in the background of a Sarah Palin interview:

"I thought they had panned in on her face…I did try and block the process," he said.

Tomes has worked at the Triple D Turkey Farm in Palin's hometown of Wasilla for nine years. He offered support for the former vice-presidential candidate.

"The only thing I can say is, 'Don't mess with my governor!'"

Don't mess with her, he says. It's up to you if you'd like to ignore a man that handy with a turkey chipper.

Gates will stay on at Defense; Jim Geraghty notices some gnashing of teeth on the left.

Michael Yon writes that the Iraq war is over.

Without missing a shot, a corporal tallies 20 kills, as 30 U.S. Marines defeat 250 insurgents in Afghanistan.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco blocked a major offshore drilling effort.

Mitt Romney v. Jennifer Granholm on the auto bailouts.

Peter Schiff, who predicted the recession, is a bear on the bailouts and Obama.

The University of Chicago's Eric Posner writes:

A conservative estimate is that more than 40,000 Iraqis survive per year today than during the sanctions regime, and probably most of them children. The tight correlation between GDP and child mortality across countries bolsters this conclusion.

Let’s suppose that the sanctions regime had continued for 10 years, from 2003 to 2013, and further that security flattens out—it doesn’t get worse, but it doesn’t get better. Under these assumptions, 400,000 Iraqi children would have died if the war had not occurred and the sanctions regime continued. Now, almost 100,000 Iraqis died during the war, and so one of the war’s benefits is that it saves the lives of 300,000 Iraqis (over 10 years). ...

The 2003 war damaged it even more, but now the economy is recovering. GDP per capita (PPP) in 2002 was about $2400; today it is about $3600. Everyone hears about how bad electricity is in Iraq, but that is news from Baghdad. For the country as a whole, there is more electricity generation today than there was prewar (see the Brookings report).

A bizarre development in the story of the pirates operating off the coast of Somalia:

The pirates who captured the Saudi oil tanker Sirius Star have broken off negotiations with the ship’s owners, apparently insisting they want to talk with a wealthy Virginia woman with close ties to the US military and intelligence communities.

Michele Lynn Ballarin, a figure only Washington could offer the world, runs a small Virginia-based company, SelectArmor, that designs and makes body armor and provides executive protection to wealthy individuals. She has a long history of involvement in Somalia, including allegations by a respected publication — Africa Confidential — that she was helping plan military operations there in 2006.

Military.com has the exclusive interview with Ms. Ballarin, definitely worth reading. But the real news here is that the pirates, with their seizure of the Saudi-owned supertanker, seemed to have crossed the Islamist insurgent group Al Shabab, successor to the Islamic Courts Union that was toppled by an American-backed Ethiopian invasion.

[Ballarin] claimed the Islamist group had captured, tortured and killed a young male relative of one of the pirates in the last few days. This came after Al Shabab announced it opposed the taking of ships owned by Muslims and promised to behead those who did.

Al Shabab “made it dead clear that any ransom that is collected they will take it; they will take away their money and kill them,” Ballarin said.

It seems obvious enough that the Saudis have some kind of relationship with this group. That concerns me. Al Shabab has been designated as a terrorist organization by the United States State Department. One wonders how much money the Saudis gave these terrorists in exchange for a little help protecting the sea lanes in the Gulf of Aden and further out into the Indian Ocean. And if the terrorists are running some kind of racket here, shaking down the Saudis for help with keeping the pirates under control -- isn't that our racket? What is the United States Navy doing if not protecting sea lanes and insuring the free flow of commerce on the world's oceans?

Interestingly, there is a current on the left that would welcome a return of Islamist rule in Somalia for the measure of stability it would bring -- even if that stability allowed the state to become a safe-haven for al Qaeda affiliated terrorists. There are others who think we should embrace the pirates as the "secular, liberal capitalists of Somalia," who might serve as a bulwark against what now seems to be the inevitable return of Islamist rule.

Must we accept a choice between pirates and terrorists? Shouldn't we be for killing them all?

Nate Silver would probably take issue with this number:

40 percent of Iraqis would have Washington bomb Iran to halt its nuclear weapons programme, while more than half of all Arabs share the US view that a nuclear-armed Tehran is intolerable.

Just 60 percent of those surveyed say Obama will be "a better president" than Bush (apparently Arabs are a little more circumspect than the American media) and "little more than a third believe he can turn the US into a 'force for good.'" To hear the New York Times and the Associated Press tell it, Obama's election turned the entire Arab world upside down -- our enemies "suffered a defeat in the global war of ideas with Mr. Obama’s election" the Times said. Perhaps an al Qaeda defeat in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, accompanied by prosperity, freedom, and democracy for the people of those two countries, would do more to convince the Arab world of America's good intentions than the feel-good election of a man with a Muslim middle name as President of the United States.

But for a quick popularity boost in the Arab world, he can always bomb Iran.

Over at the Next Right, Patrick Ruffini writes that conservatives shouldn't waste their time crying wolf about the Fairness Doctrine, a regulation that would mandate equal time for political opinions on public airwaves and thus kill conservative talk radio. Ruffini notes that the re-imposition of the Fairness Doctrine would "constitute a direct provocation to the Right without any tangible political benefit in the Center or the Left", and, futhermore, Obama said he does not want to bring it back. Focus on legitimate threats like nationalized health care and card check, he writes.

But Conn Carroll responds:

Yes, Obama is too smart to bring back the 'Fairness Doctrine'. You are absolutely not going to see any movement in Congress to pass legislation forcing the FCC to revive the same rule it abandoned in 1987. But as the Center for American Progress points out, Congress does not need to pass any new legislation: "The public obligations inherent in the Fairness Doctrine are still in existence and operative, at least on paper." Instead you will see a regulatory push at the FCC to intimidate conservative radio stations by shortening their licensing requirements from every eight, to every three years, and forcing them to meet stepped up "public interest" requirements. This new standard would be just as vague and ripe for abuse as the old Fairness Doctrine ever was.

... a re-regulation of radio broadcasting along the lines that CAP envisions is a real threat to freedom of speech. And the way Obama will porbably go about it, bypassing Congress and using a bureacratic out of touch regulatory body, is exactly the route the Obama administration is probably going to take on cap and trade as well. As Patrick points out CAP "president John Podesta is leading the Obama transition" and he "is dead serious."

An article by Marin Cogin in The New Republic argues that concerns about the Fairness Doctrine were mere "Republican paranoia."

The left gets its first scalp:

John Brennan, President-elect Barack Obama's top adviser on intelligence, has taken his name out of the running for any intelligence position in the new administration.

In a letter Tuesday, Brennan wrote letter to Obama that he did not want to be a distraction. His potential appointment has raised a firestorm in liberal blogs who associate him with the Bush administration's interrogation, detention and rendition policies.

"The fact that I was not involved in the decisionmaking process for any of these controversial policies and actions has been ignored," he wrote, in a letter obtained by The Associated Press.

In the end, the responsibility of governing will lead Obama to many of the same war on terror policies that Bush endorsed -- just as he came to support telecom immunity when the chips were down. Surely whomever Obama appoints to head the CIA will be someone he views as pragmatic, and hopefully ruthless as well. But consider this another early sign of overreach: if conservatives want to stage a comeback, they should be heartened by any evidence that Obama is catering to the loudest, and most ideological, elements of the Democratic base.

Harry Reid told the Detroit Free Press that he expects comprehensive immigration reform to be passed relatively early in the next Congress:

Q. With more Democrats in the Senate and the House and a Democrat in the White House, how do you see congressional efforts playing out on such issues as health care and immigration?

A: On immigration, there's been an agreement between (President-elect Barack) Obama and (Arizona Republican Sen. John) McCain to move forward on that. ... We'll do that. We have to get this economy stuff figured out first, so I think we'll have a shot at doing something on health care in the next Congress for sure.

Q: Will there be as much of a fight on immigration as last time?

A: We've got McCain and we've got a few others. I don't expect much of a fight at all. Now health care is going to be difficult. That's a very complicated issue. We debated at great length immigration. People understand the issues very well. We have not debated health care, so that's going to take a lot more time to do.

One senator who wields significant influence on the debate is Robert Menendez, and he seems to be pushing ahead on the issue as well. Menendez is no extremist among Senate Democrats, either; he's just been named head of the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee. Expect Menendez to lead a push--apparently with Reid's blessing--to get comprehensive reform passed in the first half of 2009. Proponents will argue that while the measure may be unpopular, it's better to swallow a bitter pill far in advance of the midterms. And if it seems that they lack the votes to pass it in the next few months, they'll bargain for a commitment for passage later in 2009.

Less than a week after the IAEA reported that "a Syrian site bombed by Israel last year had features resembling those of a nuclear reactor site," the AP reports that Mohamed ElBaradei wants to...help Syria build a nuclear reactor:

The chief U.N. nuclear inspector said Monday that Syria had a right to his agency's help in planning a power-producing atomic reactor, in what diplomats described as a rejection of U.S.-led efforts to block the aid.

The clash reflected tensions between Mohamed ElBaradei, the head of the U.N. nuclear agency, and key Western nations over whether Syria should be given potentially sensitive nuclear guidance at a time when it is being investigated.

Russia, China and developing nations also back the aid project, said diplomats who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the International Atomic Energy Agency talks.

U.S. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said it was "totally inappropriate, we believe, given the fact that Syria is under investigation by the IAEA for building a nuclear reactor outside the bounds of its international legal commitments.

"And then for the IAEA to be involved in providing technical information concerning nuclear activities would seem to be contradictory, if not ironic," McCormack said.

It will be fascinating to see how an Obama administration, so keen to strengthen our alliances and restore our standing in the international community, will respond to this kind of idiocy from our international institutions.

Eighteen to twenty-nine-year-old turnout did not live up to all the pre-election hype. According to CNN exit polls, the proportion of voters under 30 increased by about 1 percent nationally--from 17 percent of the electorate in 2004 to 18 percent this year. Yet even if their share of the electorate was relatively flat, their propensity to choose Barack Obama was not. The Democratic share from this subgroup surged in 2008.

Barack Obama’s 34-point (66 percent-32 percent) victory among 18-29-year-olds was the largest winning margin in that age group since Lyndon Johnson beat Barry Goldwater in 1964. By way of comparison, George W. Bush lost the under-30 vote by 9 points to John Kerry (54 percent-45 percent) four years ago.

Even though younger voters are hard to turnout and often inattentive to politics, they provided a huge number of votes to Barack Obama. Not surprisingly, Democrats are already working hard to maintain their edge with this cohort. This recent Los Angles Times piece discusses some of the efforts already under way. Reporter Laura Olson writes:

The Obama transition team already has moved to capitalize on this enormous youth base: Web-casting the president-elect's weekly addresses on YouTube; communicating its transition steps on a post-election website, Change.gov; and reaching out by e-mail to many of the campaign's 3 million donors amassed during a nearly two-year campaign.

The team also has taken advantage of booming social networking sites, such as Facebook and MySpace, in reaching out to younger voters in their own element.

Republicans may not win this age group in the foreseeable future. But a Republican won’t step foot in the White House again if the party continues to lose this roughly 20 percent of the electorate by more than a 2-1 margin. Closing that gap--at least to low double digits--should be a top priority of the Republican Party hierarchy now that the election dust has settled.

HT: The Democratic Strategist

Mary Katharine points out that Joe Biden's chief of staff, Ted Kaufman, has been named to fill his boss's seat. Kaufman says he will step down in 2010. By all indications Kaufman is simply keeping the seat warm until Beau Biden, Joe's son and Delaware's attorney general, will return from serving in Iraq as a JAG and run for his dad's seat. In what NBC reporters describe as a "lengthy" statement from Biden (is there any other kind?), the vice president-elect pretty much says he would have wanted his son to have his seat if he weren't in Iraq:

"It is no secret that I believe my son, Attorney General Beau Biden would make a great United States Senator-just as I believe he has been a great Attorney General,” Biden said. “But Beau has made it clear from the moment he entered public life, that any office he sought, he would earn on his own. He proved that two years ago when he turned down an appointment as Attorney General. Instead, he ran on his own and won election. Typical of Beau, he made it clear again his year that he would not accept an appointment to the United States Senate. As he said when he deployed overseas, he is determined to fulfill his military obligations and then return to his duties as Attorney General. If he chooses to run for the Senate in the future, he will have to run and win on his own. He wouldn't have it any other way. In making her decision, the governor has made it clear that whoever seeks the office in 2010 will do so from a level playing field. The voters will make that decision. For now, my concern is with Beau's safety, not his political future.”

Delaware Democrats seem a bit miffed that no one informed them of Kaufman's appointment prior to the governor's announcement. Could Biden's positioning to get his son in the Senate lead to a backlash and create an opening for a Republican to have a serious shot at the seat? Perhaps. But the fact that Beau Biden wasn't directly appointed to fill his father's seat lessens the appearance of blatant nepotism--the kind of nepotism that nearly led to the defeat of Alaska's senator Lisa Murkowski in 2004, who was appointed by her father Frank. The Alaska legislature later passed a law against appointing a family member to office, and you may recall Frank Murkowski was walloped in a gubernatorial Republican primary by a certain moose-hunting former mayor of Wasilla.