the fourth rail

The fourth rail has moved...

2004-08-10T19:11:00.000-04:00

The fourth rail has moved, the new address is as follows:

http://billroggio.com

Please update your bookmarks or any links to this site.

Kindest Regards,

Bill Roggio

Friends for now

2004-08-09T23:23:00.000-04:00

Saudi Arabia and Pakistan illustrate the difficult decisions the United States faces when fighting the War on Terror. It is easy to argue that these two nations, along with Iran and Syria, are the fount of Islamic terrorism throughout the world. Saudi Arabia is the home of the radical Islamist ideology of Wahhabism, the ideology espoused by al Qaeda, which it has exported throughout the world. Fifteen of the nineteen hijackers of the 9-11 attacks were Saudis. Saudi princes and charities have been financing al Qaeda. Pakistan's intelligence service supported Afghanistan’s government of the Taliban, the host of al Qaeda, as well as supporting Kashmiri terrorists groups intimately linked to al Qaeda. Both Saudi Arabia and Pakistan tolerate and fund madrassas, some of which are used by radical Islamists to indoctrinate Muslim youth into hating the West.

After 9-11, President Bush issued the much-derided challenge to the nations of the world, "Every nation will have a choice to make: Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists." Saudi Arabia and Pakistan have made strides to be with us, and are assisting with the hunt for al Qaeda.

Pakistan

Pakistan is responsible for the arrests of upwards to a thousand al Qaeda terrorists, including Abu Zubaydah, the former operations chief of the al Qaeda, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and Ramsi Binalshibh, masterminds of 9-11 and senior al Qaeda operatives. After several assassination attempts on President Musharraf’s life, Pakistan took the domestic al Qaeda threat seriously, and this spring it initiated two offensives into its Western autonomous tribal regions to rout out al Qaeda operatives and supporting tribes. This past month, Pakistan netted several senior al Qaeda leaders that lead to heightened security alerts as well as further arrests:

In late July, Pakistan arrested two high level al Qaeda operatives, Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani (bomb maker of the Kenya and Tanzania embassy attacks in 1998) and Mohammad Naeem Noor Khan. Both have lead to a wealth of information on planned terror attacks in the United States and Britain. The high alert status in the United States, which warns of attacks against financial targets in New York City, New Jersey and Washington, DC. The intelligence used to warn of these attacks was confirmed from a recent source separate from Ghailani and Khan, making allegations that the information was old or trumped up dishonest at best. Al Qaeda has a history of planning attacks over long periods of time. Britain has broken up an al Qaeda cell of 13 members, including the a leader of al Qaeda in Britain, Abu Musa al-Hindi, based on the interrogation of Naeem Noor Khan. It is believed the cell was planning to attack London's Heathrow airport.
These arrests have lead to even more intelligence, including new information on al Qaeda plans to attack the United States.

Separately, a senior American intelligence official said that more than 1,000 computer disks had been seized by British authorities during arrests last week of 12 suspected operatives for Al Qaeda in England. The seized files are now being subjected to intensive analysis by British and American intelligence, but they appear to contain evidence of previously unknown terrorist planning activities in the United States, the official said. As a result, Bush administration officials are preparing for the possibility of expanded public and private threat alerts.
Saudi Arabia

Saudi Arabia has been fighting it own local War on Terror, a string of attacks that began in May of 2003. As a result of al Qaeda’s offensive, Saudi Arabia has decided to cooperate with the United States in hunting the terror organization.

After years of giving tacit support and back-channel financing to Islamic extremists, the Saudi government has joined forces with the United States in an intensive battle against Al Qaeda in the desert kingdom. For the last year, U.S. intelligence analysts have been sitting side by side with their Saudi counterparts at a secret location here in the capital, sharing raw intelligence and plotting counterattacks, said a former U.S. ambassador to the country, Robert Jordan, and a senior Saudi government official.
Even critics who accuse the Saudis of turning a blind eye to militant Islamic terrorism in the past — and who remain skeptical about the extent of their cooperation — agreed that Saudi security forces were taking the Al Qaeda threat seriously and responding forcefully. The government's abrupt change of strategy came after a string of suicide bombings, shooting rampages and a beheading by the Al Qaeda terrorist network in Saudi Arabia in the last 15 months. The strikes have killed more than 100 people, most of them foreigners, and have threatened to cause political instability for the world's largest oil producer.

Where do they stand?

Pakistan and Saudi Arabia’s contributions in hunting down al Qaeda are commendable, and demonstrate the wisdom of challenging nations to cooperate in fighting terrorism after 9-11. Currently these nations are more valuable as allies than as enemies, and their cooperation opens the door for further cooperation in the future. Along with hunting al Qaeda, these nations have provided other assistance in the War on Terror. Pakistan’s cooperation allowed us to defeat the Taliban and maintain a presence in Afghanistan. Saudi Arabia provided assistance with defeating Iraq.

The nature of these two regimes must not be forgotten, however. Pakistan is a military dictatorship run by Pervez Musharraf (it has a democratically elected assembly which is still in existence), while Saudi Arabia is a monarchy run by the House of Saud. Both of these regimes have a history of human rights abuses and suppressing the freedoms of their peoples. We must not allow their cooperation to cloud our judgment about these nations; they are allies of convenience at the moment, just as the Soviet Union was an ally in the defeat of Nazi Germany. We must demand internal reform from these nations, as governmental support of radical ideologies is a real root cause of terrorism. Pakistan has the foundation to return to a full democratically elected government, has appointed a new prime minister and has worked to purge its military and intelligence services of al Qaeda and Islamist influence. Saudi Arabia is a tougher case, but small steps are going forward, including financial reforms for charities and local elections this upcoming September. The Middle East Partnership Initiative is designed to provide assistance and incentives for Middle Eastern nations to reform from within and can play a roll in these nation's development.

A common misunderstanding about the War on Terror is that it is limited to fighting and destroying al Qaeda. Al Qaeda is merely the most prominent enemy we currently face. The war also entails preventing the proliferation of WMD as well as opposing nations that shelter and support terrorists. Victory in the war will not be achieved until the cultures that breed the totalitarian ideologies that create the likes of al Qaeda and Hezbollah are reformed. Pakistan and Saudi Arabia’s cooperation in hunting al Qaeda grants them immunity in this round of the war, but until they change the fundamental problems in their cultures that leads to the creation of terrorists, they cannot and should not be considered full partners in the War on Terror.

Why Terrorism and not Car Accidents?

2004-08-07T19:43:00.000-04:00

7:43 PM Eastern

Tonight's post will address questions asked in the comments section concerning yesterday's article about the exaggerated threat of terrorism. Feel free jump in before I get some time to compose an answer (getting the kids to bed comes first).

The Question:
By your account the number of deaths on 9/11 form the justification for finding the UN report incorrect in discounting terrorism. So, less than, 5,000 American deaths is right threshold. Okay. You know the counter-argument: How many Americans have died by car, iatrogenic infection, abortion, suicide -- whatever one's personal crusade may be -- in the past three years? What, by your chosen metric, makes the people who had their lives tragically, unfairly shortened by terrorism more special than the people who had their lives cut short by other means?

BTW -- I see from your blog that close family members witnessed the tragedy of 9/11. You have my sympathies -- but don't be so sure the rest of the country shares your pain to the same degree. From the West Coast, this 9/11 things IS looking a tad overblown, three years on.....

tylerh 08.07.04 - 6:31 pm

11:55 PM Eastern

The Answer:

Traffic accidents are just that, accidents, that are part of the risk of driving, and laws, safety regulation or education will not eradicate this problem, only reduce its impact. Iatrogenic infections can be reduced with proper hygienic standards, health regulations and the education of the medical profession. Abortion, while abhorrent to me, is a direction our society has chosen, and could be outlawed with proper legislation or the intervention of the courts. Suicides, while destructive to families, are in the end a personal choice and only physically harm the individual.

Radical Islamist ideologies are the modern form of the destructive totalitarian ideologies of fascism, Nazism and Communism. The estimates of the murder totals of these totalitarian governments and others are staggering.

World War II (1937-1945) 51,000,000
Mao's Communist China (1949-1975) 42,000,000
Stalin's Soviet Union (1924-1953) 20,000,000
World War I (1914-1918) 16,800,000
Nationalist China (1928-1937) 9,600,000
Russian Civil War (1917-1922) 8,900,000
Congo Free State (1886-1908) 8,000,000
Warlord China (1917-1928) 6,800,000
North Korea (1948-now) 4,600,000 (not including the Korean War)
Democratic Republic of the Congo (1998-now) 3,300,000
Chinese Civil War (1945-1949) 3,000,000
Nigeria (1966-1970) 3,000,000
Korean War (1950-1953) 2,900,000
Expulsion of Germans after World War II (1945-1947) 2,100,000
Second Indochina War (1960-1975) 1,900,000
Pol Pot's Cambodia (1975-1978) 1,800,000
Sudan (1983-now) 1,500,000
Ethiopia (1962-1992) 1,500,000
Bangladesh (1971) 1,500,000
Afghanistan (1979-2001) 1,400,000
Mozambique (1975-1993) 1,100,000
Mexico (1910-1920) 1,000,000
Armenia (1915-1923) 1,000,000
Rwanda and Burundi (1959-1995) 1,000,000
Iran-Iraq War (1980-1988) 1,000,000

The total of these is 196,500,000

Totalitarian governments are responsible for the deaths of hundreds of millions of people in the past century. World War II and the subsequent deaths of over 50 million people was the result of failing to stand up to the evil of fascism, the result of appeasing a bloodthirsty enemy with no regards for treaties, international law, or the sanctity of life.

Radical Islam, unlike car accidents, iatrogenic infections, abortions and suicides, is a totalitarian ideology bent on the destruction of our very way of life. It is devoted to the destruction of Western civilization. Its very nature is contrary to liberty and freedom. Radical Islam does not care if your politics are left, center or right; liberal, moderate or conservative. Our very existence is anathema to the jihadis. We are kafir, the infidel. They cannot be reasoned with, they disdain negotiation and they have no interest in living in peaceful coexistence with us. Osama bin Laden said it himself: "The only language between you and us is the sword that will strike your necks."

As Americans we all share the liberties provided by the Constitution. With these liberties comes a great responsibility: to protect our freedom from all threats, and to stand with our fellow Americans in a time of need. Three thousand of our fellow citizens were murdered on September 11, 2001. Our nation was directly attacked by an enemy that wishes us all dead, and cares little about our political differences. As Americans, we should stand together to defend ourselves against such naked aggression, from the evil that is in front of our very faces. It should not matter if you live on the West Coast, flyover country or the East Coast. 9-11 was an attack on all Americans. And the West Coast has been targerted; al Qaeda planned to bomb Los Angeles in the Millennium plot in 1999.

Al Qaeda has attempted to obtain nuclear weapons and materials in the past, and it is believed that they will use them if they can be acquired. I have no doubt they would use them. The results of the detonation of a nuclear device on American soil would be devastating, both home and abroad. No longer would America fight the humane, tame war of rooting out Islamists and attempting to influence Middle Eastern governments to change their ways. Iraq and Afghanistan would seem as minor police actions compared to the violence this nation is capable of unleashing. The American public would demand total victory, at any cost. Any person with compassion for others does not want to see this war spin out of control, with the potential of the release of nuclear weapons and the loss of millions of innocent lives.

The answer to the question of which metric I use to classify the threat of terrorism above other causes of death is simple: History. History demonstrates that if totalitarianism is left to its own devices, the death toll rises to unimaginable proportions.

Whipping it up

2004-08-06T22:15:00.000-04:00

The United Nations agrees with John Kerry, Howard Dean and other Leftists concerning the exaggeration of the threat of Terrorism by certain Western governments.

A United Nations investigator has called on governments to stop whipping up exaggerated fears of terrorism among their populations, in an apparent reference to the United States and Britain.

And in implicit criticism of Russia and China, Greek Lawyer Kalliopi K. Koufa said in a report that the world community should be more alert to a growing trend to label as terrorists groups seeking to exercise the right of self-determination.

Fear of terrorism "out of proportion to its actual risk and generated by states themselves or other actors" can be exploited to make people accept "counter-terrorism measures that unduly curtail human rights and humanitarian law," the report declared on Thursday.

The families of the 3,000-plus victims of the exaggerated threat of terrorism in New York, Washington, DC and Shanksville, PA must be wondering what all of the fuss was about. The United States and Britain have repeatedly been the targets of terrorism. Unlike the United Nations, the governments of the United States and Britain are accountable to their citizens and have an obligation to protect them. This includes warning them about terror activities.

"Fear of terrorism is heightened by repeated and often exaggerated, if not unlikely, references to weapons of mass destruction potentially in the hands of terrorist groups or certain states, even though nearly all terrorist acts have been carried out by traditional methods," she wrote.
The United Nations must be referring to the exaggerated threat of terrorists using WMD, such as the foiled attack planned against the U.S. embassy and Jordanian intelligence services in Amman, Jordan last spring, or attempts by terrorists to use ricin in Europe, or the dirty bomb plot in the United States. Just one big exaggeration.

U.N. diplomats said her phrasing left little doubt she was thinking of
Russia and its war against separatist forces in the rebel region of Chechnya, as well as China which has labelled as "terrorists" its own Moslem rebels in the north-west.
The United Nations is unwilling to recognize the terror links between Chechens and al Qaeda. While there is a legitimate resistance in Chechnya, some of the rebel groups are funded and backed by Wahhabi organizations and are directly linked to al Qaeda. Examples of al Qaeda inspired terror attacks carried out by Chechens are the Moscow theater seizure, replete with female terrorists and their suicide belts, a bombing of a military parade celebrating the defeat of Nazi Germany, which killed the president of Chechnya and dozens of others, and the bombings of apartment buildings throughout the Russian Republic which killed over three hundred.

The United Nations, the American and European Left, Socialists, Marxists and Communists world wide seem to believe terrorism is threat that compares to global warming, fatalities from falls, disease, floods, suicides, homicides and other such incidents. To some, terrorism is not a threat. To others, the real threat is the United States.

The attempt to minimize the threat of terrorism is disconcerting to those that wish to see it destroyed, and for good reason. Some of us recognize that if terrorism becomes a daily routine in American life, the American people will demand that it be put down, by any means necessary. Our war on terror has been tame so far by historical standards, and further mass casualty attacks or the use of WMD will not be tolerated by the American public. Those of us with compassion do not wish to see this war escalate to a point where the use of nuclear weapons becomes a necessity.

This is the major flaw in the thinking of the Leftist intelligencia. While they believe they are acting in a manner to minimize violence, their very inaction may escalate the war to nightmarish proportions. Appeasing your enemies only creates greater violence.

Hat tip to Athena of Terrorism Unveiled for pointing out the article on the U.N. Terrorism Unveiled is an excellent site devoted to the War on Terror and is a daily read for me.

Is this an Exaggeration?

2004-08-05T15:10:00.000-04:00

"I think there has been an exaggeration," Mr. Kerry said when asked whether President Bush has overstated the threat of terrorism. "They are misleading all Americans in a profound way." Senator John Kerry, Democratic candidate for president

"I am concerned that every time something happens that's not good for President Bush, he plays this trump card, which is terrorism….His whole campaign is based on the notion that 'I can keep you safe, therefore at times of difficulty for America stick with me,' and then out comes Tom Ridge….It's just impossible to know how much of this is real and how much of this is politics, and I suspect there's some of both in it." - Howard Dean, former Democratic candidate for president

"The fact is, there are terrorists among us who want to engage in acts to attack us again and take away our freedom." - George Pataki, Governor of New York

Some on the Left refuse to recognize the very real threat we face, and attempt to downplay terror warnings by the Bush administration as exaggerations, fear-mongering and political posturing. A look at the news over the past several weeks shows that the Left is deceiving themsevles and the American people by making such claims.

Recently, five members of the Holy Land Foundation, a Muslim Charity connected to Hamas and al Qaeda, were arrested in Texas, with two others at large. Today, two members of an Albany Mosque, were arrested attempting to purchase missiles to assassinate Pakistan's Ambassador to the United States. The New York Times article neglects to mention the men arrested were the founder and Iman of the Masjid As-Salaam mosque. The two men are believed to be tied to Ansar al-Islam, the terrorist organization of Abu Musab Zarqawi, which we are currently battling in Iraq.

Several weeks ago, Pakistan arrested two South Africans plotting to carry out terrorist attacks against their home county. These arrests lead to the capture of Farida Goolam Mohamed Ahmed, a Muslim woman from South Africa believe to be an al Qaeda operative. She entered the United States illegally through the Mexican border. South African Passports appear to be a hot commodity for al Qaeda operatives. Today, a fourth South African al Qaeda suspect was arrested in Mexico, and it is believed that up to 14 members of al Qaeda are currently in that country. The security of our Southern border becomes an ever-increasing point of weakness in the war.

In late July, Pakistan arrested two high level al Qaeda operatives, Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani (bomb maker of the Kenya and Tanzania embassy attacks in 1998) and Mohammad Naeem Noor Khan. Both have lead to a wealth of information on planned terror attacks in the United States and Britain. The high alert status in the United States, which warns of attacks against financial targets in New York City, New Jersey and Washington, DC. The intelligence used to warn of these attacks was confirmed from a recent source separate from Ghailani and Khan, making allegations that the information was old or trumped up dishonest at best. Al Qaeda has a history of planning attacks over long periods of time. Britain has broken up an al Qaeda cell of 13 members, including the a leader of al Qaeda in Britain, Abu Musa al-Hindi, based on the interrogation of Naeem Noor Khan. It is believed the cell was planning to attack London's Heathrow airport.

In light of the information and arrests, is still reasonable to call the threats we face exaggerated, trumped up, or the politics of fear? Howard Dean and John Kerry seem to think so, despite the facts laid out in from of them.

Who's Vietnam?

2004-08-04T11:30:00.000-04:00

'Iraq is George Bush's Vietnam' - Senator Edward Kennedy

Ask and you shall receive. Senator Kerry has begun to explain his plan for Iraq, and it ain't pretty. The Associated Press printed a scathing article on Senator Kerry's plan to internationalize the war effort in Iraq, and as discussed in yesterday's post Hope it away, the plan relies on the assumption that the international community to bail America out.

"There is a potential to be able to put a deal together over the course of time," Kerry told The Associated Press in his first interview as the Democratic nominee. "At least, that is the perception that smart people like Joe Biden and, you know, Carl Levin and other leaders who've been there for a long time.

But when asked for hard evidence that his victory would produce a troops-reducing deal for America, neither Kerry nor his fellow senators cite anything other than their vague perceptions and utmost hopes.

"I can't give ou the details of any deal, obviously," Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., said Monday. "You don't negotiate a deal until you have a leader who is there to negotiate a deal."

What deal would a President Kerry cut to attempt to induce France to enter Iraq? A return of some version of UNSCAM? When Senator Levin was pressed for details on any commitments made by foreign leaders, he stated there were none. Hope indeed.

Senator Kerry's has also shed more light on his plan for Iraq, and it can be summarized in two words: run away.

Promising a fresh start with U.S. allies “burned” by President Bush, Kerry said, “I would consider it an unsuccessful policy if I hadn’t brought significant numbers of troops back within the first term. And I will do that.”

“If we demonstrate an America that has a foreign policy that is smarter, more engaged ... and more respectful of the world, we’re going to bring people to our side,” Kerry added. “We’re not only not going to put additional troops there, that’s the way to bring our troops home.”

These statements are telling. Senator Kerry's focus on Iraq appears to be internationalizing the effort to withdraw American troops. Where is the commitment to the freedom of Iraq? Where is the commitment to reforming the Middle East? The only priority seems to be the egress of American soldiers from Iraq, the consequences be damned.

If elected, Iraq will become John Kerry's Vietnam, with its hallmark military, economic and diplomatic withdrawal, the murder, persecution and suffering of millions of peoples committed to fighting tyranny, and humiliation and defeat for America.

Hoping it away

2004-08-03T13:40:00.000-04:00

With less than three months until Election Day, Senator Kerry has yet to communicate his policy to fight the War on Terror. His public statements on the war have been vague, and many questions on his policies remain. How would Kerry respond to a terror attack? Would he be willing to attack nations preemptively if intelligence indicated they were a threat? Would he act without the concensus of the United Nations? How will he handle Iraq? Is he committed to victory? In his acceptance speech to the Democratic convention last week, which barely covered the war, Senator Kerry attempted to answer some of these questions.

I defended this country as a young man and I will defend it as President. Let there be no mistake: I will never hesitate to use force when it is required. Any attack will be met with a swift and certain response. I will never give any nation or international institution a veto over our national security. And I will build a stronger American military.
Questions still remain. Would he have acted in Iraq with the same intelligence, and without the approval of the United Nations? Does he support a policy of preemption? Is he saying he would only respond to attacks on America? Does he support change in the Middle East, or is he happy with the status quo?

When pressed during follow-up questioning on the weekend news show circuit, his response to handling the war was to trust him. He stated he was unwilling to outline his plan to successfully prosecute the war without being elected president.

SENATOR JOHN F. KERRY: [in reply that his plan to fight the war sounds like Nixon's secret plan to win Vietnam] I don't care what it sounds like . It's truth. I don't care what it sounds like. The fact is that I'm not going to negotiate in public today without the presidency, without the power. I'm going to do that as president. And people will have to judge my 35 years of involvement in foreign affairs, my 20 years as a Senator fighting to make things happen. That's the judgment people make in this race. It's a judgment of character, and I believe my character is one that has shown that when I say something, I follow through on it, and when I stand up and fight for something, I'm tenacious about it.

Since Senator Kerry has not clearly laid out his policy to fight the war and has challenged us to look at his "35 years of involvement in foreign affairs, my 20 years as a Senator", let's do it. He is unwilling to share his vision with us, so we can do nothing else but judge him by his his history.
John Kerry entered the public stage after his service in Vietnam, when he joined Vietnam Veterans Against the War and testified in front of Congress for the Winter Soldier Investigation about alleged atrocities committed by American troops and the pointlessness of the need to fight Communism.

They told the stories at times they had personally raped, cut off ears, cut off heads, taped wires from portable telephones to human genitals and turned up the power, cut off limbs, blown up bodies, randomly shot at civilians, razed villages in fashion reminiscent of Genghis Khan, shot cattle and dogs for fun, poisoned food stocks, and generally ravaged the countryside of South Vietnam in addition to the normal ravage of war, and the normal and very particular ravaging which is done by the applied bombing power of this country.

In our opinion, and from our experience, there is nothing in South Vietnam, nothing which could happen that realistically threatens the United States of America. And to attempt to justify the loss of one American life in Vietnam, Cambodia, or Laos by linking such loss to the preservation of freedom, which those misfits supposedly abuse, is to us the height of criminal hypocrisy, and it is that kind of hypocrisy which we feel has torn this country apart.

I think it [the threat of Communism] is bogus, totally artificial. There is no threat. The Communists are not about to take over our McDonald hamburger stands.

His testimony and actions can be excused as the statements of an upset young man impacted by the brutality of war, however history has proved his statements were deceptive at best, and he has yet to recant or apologize for his actions. His lack of understanding of the threat of Communism is troubling, as this is an ideology bent on the destruction of the free world and responsible for the enslavement of and murder of hundreds of millions world wide. Referring to Communism as "bogus, totally artificial" demonstrates a naive worldview; the victims of the brutality of Communism would view it as neither bogus nor artificial.

The belief that Communism was not a threat to America carried over to his career as a senator, where he opposed President Reagan's efforts to fight the spread of Communism in Central America. This was a real threat as the Soviets were working to undermine American security by exporting Communism to the Western hemisphere. He negotiated with the Communist Sandinista regime and attempted to appease the Communist regime, against the wishes of the Reagan administration. He also pressured Congress to vote against aiding the anti-Communist resistance.

During the Cold War, Senator Kerry's voting record on military programs provides some insight on his commitment to a strong defense. Not only was he against building and upgrading our nuclear capabilities and voted to cut spending on intelligence, he opposed some of the most crucial weapons systems currently in use in today's war.

The litany of weapons systems that Kerry opposed included conventional as well as nuclear equipment: the B-1 bomber, the B-2, the F-15, the F-14A, the F-14D, the AH-64 Apache helicopter, the AV-8B Harrier jet, the Patriot missile, the Aegis air-defense cruiser and the Trident missile. And he sought to reduce procurement of the M1 Abrams tank, the Bradley Fighting Vehicle, the Tomahawk cruise missile and the F-16 jet. Time and again, Kerry fought against what he called "the military-industrial corporate welfare complex that has relentlessly chewed up taxpayers' dollars."

His stance on Iraq and its WMDs is perhaps Senator Kerry's most perplexing position. Up until June of 2003, he insisted Iraq possessed WMD, insisted Saddam was a threat to American security and supported the removal Saddam. As his hopes of obtaining the Democratic presidential nomination faded, Senator Kerry appeared to tack left to seduce the anti-war vote. He has failed to understand the relationship between Iraq and the War on Terror, its importance to the region or the need to change the culture of the Middle East.

Almost three years into the war, Senator Kerry's public stand on prosecuting the war has been confusing. As a Senator and presidential candidate, he has had many opportunities to distinguish his policies but unfortunately he has failed to do so. He has advocated further international cooperation, without outlining how this would work or how he would improve on the efforts of the Bush administration. He criticized the Patriot Act (which he voted for) as a law that undermined the Constitution as well as accusing the Bush administration for using the law for political ends.

During the primaries, Kerry blasted it as a violation of our fundamental rights: "We have learned from the...Patriot Act that the last thing we need is John Ashcroft rewriting the Bill of Rights." A Kerry spokesman just the other day criticized Bush for "playing election-year politics with the Patriot Act."

He also stated that President Bush has used the issue of terrorism for political gain.

"I think there has been an exaggeration," Mr. Kerry said when asked whether President Bush has overstated the threat of terrorism. "They are misleading all Americans in a profound way."

Howard Dean voiced this same sentiment, in response to the detailed terror threat exposed after the Democratic convention.

"I am concerned that every time something happens that's not good for President Bush, he plays this trump card, which is terrorism," Howard Dean, a former rival of Mr. Kerry for the Democratic nomination, told Wolf Blitzer on CNN on Sunday. "His whole campaign is based on the notion that 'I can keep you safe, therefore at times of difficulty for America stick with me,' and then out comes Tom Ridge," Mr. Dean, the former Vermont governor, added, referring to the homeland security secretary. "It's just impossible to know how much of this is real and how much of this is politics, and I suspect there's some of both in it."

To his credit, Senator Kerry has refuted Dean's conspiratorial remarks.

"I don't care what he said. I haven't suggested that and I won't suggest that," Kerry said. "I do not hold that opinion. I don't believe that."

This is curious as Senator Kerry held a similar position only this spring. While refuting Governor Dean's remarks on the validity of terror warnings, Senator Kerry made a telling statement concerning the causes of terrorism and perhaps provided some insight on his plan to fight.

"I believe this administration, in its policies, is actually encouraging the recruitment of terrorists," Kerry told "American Morning" on CNN. The administration hasn't reached out to other countries and the Muslim community, he said, and hasn't done enough to protect U.S. ports, chemical plants and nuclear facilities.

This is profound. The Bush administration has caused terrorist ranks to grow? Does a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee forget the decade of attacks by terrorists against America? Whose fault was the rise in terror recruiting at this time? How can he demonstrate the administration's policies have created more terrorists? Does he discount the thousands of terrorists we have killed or captured? Is terrorism the fault of America's actions, or is it the fault of a perverted radical ideology promoted in backwards nations?

The statement above is perhaps Senator Kerry's clearest position on fighting the war. He insinuates America's actions are the cause of terrorism, and because of this force should be used only as a last resort. He advocates negotiations with foreign governments, despite the 9-11 Commission's explanation of the failures of relying on diplomacy. He recommends consultations the Muslim community, a community that appears to be either unwilling or unable to publicly denounce terrorism, except for isolated cases. He suggests fighting a defensive war by protecting American infrastructure. But there is no mention of how to take the fight to terrorists and the nations that support them, no mention of how to change the culture of terror so prevalent in the Muslim world, no mention of the need to promote democracy and freedom to overcome the enslaving Islamist ideologies.

The Kerry/Edwards campaign slogan of "Hope is on the Way" appears to be apt. The message we are receiving is as follows: let's hope we can negotiate with our enemies, hope indifferent democracies and dictators will come to our aid, hope we can build our internal defenses strong enough to thwart the next attack, hope the Middle East will reform itself, hope the radical ideologies that threaten our existence will melt away.

Until Senator Kerry articulates his strategy to fight the War on Terror, we have no other way to judge his intentions except by looking at his past actions and voting record. His history does not bode well for those looking for victory in the War on Terror, and most disturbing is his attitude towards totalitarian ideologies. John Kerry believed we could coexist with Communism despite the clear danger to the Western world. The totalitarian ideology of radical Islam has stated it does not wish to peacefully coexist with the Western way of life, and its actions have demonstrated this. We need to know if he believes we can contain radical Islam, as he believed we could contain Communism, or if it must be defeated. We are waiting.

Limits of Diplomacy

2004-08-02T00:43:00.000-04:00

Diplomacy has its limits when fighting the War on Terror. Diplomatic pressure alone cannot force friendly nations to cooperate. Recent events in Iraq illustrate this problem. Put aside the lead up to the war, where France, Russia (both have a veto on the United Nations Security Council) and Germany blocked attempts by the United States Britain to enforce UNSC resolution 1441. Post-war it became obvious that Al Qaeda, Hezbolloh and Iran were fueling a significant portion of the insurgency. France, Russia and Germany continued to impede coalition efforts to rebuild Iraq's security forces and assist with peacekeeping, steps that would assist with defeating terrorism in the fledgling nation. In Afghanistan, NATO has failed to provide the forces required to assist with protecting the upcoming elections from terrorist attacks by al Qaeda and Taliban remnants. Iran continues to sponsor terrorism and attempts to obtain WMD while failing to concern the internationals.

Indifferent or hostile nations further demonstrate the difficulty of relying on diplomacy to fight terrorism. Other than the threat of sanctions, there is little motivation for hostile nations to cooperate. The Executive Summary of the 9-11 report aptly sums up the failures of diplomatic efforts prior to 9-11:

Beginning in February 1997, and through September 11, 2001, the U.S. government tried to use diplomatic pressure to persuade the Taliban regime in Afghanistan to stop being a sanctuary for al Qaeda, and to expel Bin Ladin to a country where he could face justice. These efforts included warnings and sanctions, but they all failed.

The U.S. government also pressed two successive Pakistani governments to demand that the Taliban cease providing a sanctuary for Bin Ladin and his organization and, failing that, to cut off their support for the Taliban. Before 9/11, the United States could not find a mix of incentives and pressure that would persuade Pakistan to reconsider its fundamental relationship with the Taliban.

The full report notes some interesting details on the methods used to capture bin Laden. As diplomatic relations did not exist between the United States and the Taliban, the U.S. was forced to negotiate first via Saudi Arabia.

Frustrated by the Taliban’s resistance, two senior State Department officials suggested asking the Saudis to offer the Taliban $250 million for Bin Ladin. Clarke opposed having the United States facilitate a “huge grant to a regime as heinous as the Taliban” and suggested that the idea might not seem attractive to either Secretary Albright or First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton—both critics of the Taliban’s record on women’s rights. The proposal seems to have quietly died.

After attempts with Saudi Arabia failed, the Clinton administration attempted to deal with Pakistan, an indifferent state at the time, with predictable results. Mullah Omar, the leader of the Taliban, was not threatened by the diplomatic actions of the United States and had no reason to be. Economic sanctions, barring travel visas and the severing of diplomatic ties have little effect on insular regimes such as the Taliban.

In fact none of the outside pressure had any visible effect on Mullah Omar, who was unconcerned about commerce with the outside world. Omar had virtually no diplomatic contact with the West, since he refused to meet with non-Muslims. The United States learned that at the end of 1999, the Taliban Council of Ministers unanimously reaffirmed that their regime would stick by Bin Ladin. Relations between Bin Ladin and the Taliban leadership were sometimes tense, but the foundation was deep and personal. (Page 125)

By late 1999, more than a year after the embassy bombings, diplomacy with Pakistan, like the efforts with the Taliban, had, according to Under Secretary of State Thomas Pickering, “borne little fruit. (page 126)

The failures of relying exclusively on diplomacy and negotiated, half-hearted peace keeping efforts to resolve conflicts against brutal regimes litter the history of the 1990s. The Taliban, Iraq, Rwanda, Bosnia, Kosovo and North Korea are clear examples of the failures of relying exclusively on diplomacy, with little or no threats of consequences. The current process of debate and negotiation, with little chance of intervention, plays itself out before our eyes in the Sudan, where government sponsored genocide are being conducted in the Darfur region.

Afghanistan and Iraq showed America's commitment to take hard action against enemies unwilling to work within the confines of international law. Outlaw nations have taken notice of America's ability to dismantle the militaries and capture the leaders of terror states. Some, such as Iran, Syria and North Korea continue to work to undermine the United States, but these nations have been given fair warning. Libya has decided to end its program of WMD and renounce terrorism because of American resolve after 9-11.

Indifferent nations are impacted as well. Pakistan is a prime example of a nation that has begun to actively cooperate against terrorism. It has capture and killed over a thousand al Qaeda operatives, and is responsible for the capture of Khalid Sheihk Mohammed and Ramsi bin-Alshib, two of the operational planners of 9-11. A recent arrest of a high level al Qaeda operative in Pakistan may have thwarted planned attacks in New York City and Washington, DC. It is highly unlikely diplomacy alone can be responsible for Pakistan's change of heart.

The War on Terror requires all options to be available for use. Law enforcement and diplomacy are important tools in the toolbox to fight terrorism, but cannot be relied upon exclusively to win the war. Nor can diplomacy be an obstacle. There are times the war must be fought in the trenches, be it covert or overt military actions, without the approval of others.

Jaime Anne

2004-07-31T09:04:00.000-04:00

Thanks everyone for the kind words in the comments box. Mom & Little Baby Roggio are doing fine. Sarah and Alex met her yesterday and are interested. Jaime Anne will be coming home today.

Are They Serious?

2004-07-31T00:02:00.000-04:00

Editor's Note: I planned to look deeper into the platform discussed at the Democratic National Convention, but due to time constraints I focused the discussion related to terrorism, al Qaeda and radical Islam. I apologize about the format of the table below & will improve on this, time permitting.

The leadership of the Democrat party has spoken and it looks like the War on Terror is not worth much of a mention. In a search of the speeches of the party leadership there is very little mention of the threat of al Qaeda, terrorism or the Islamist ideology that threatens the safety of America.

The following table lists the speaker with a link to the speech and the number of time they mentioned terror/terrorism, al Qaeda, and Islam:

Clinton - 11, 0, 0
Gore - 3, 2, 0
Kennedy - 3, 1, 0
Obama - 0, 0, 0
Carter - 3, 0, 0
Hillary - 1, 0, 0
Teresa - 0, 0, 0
Gephardt - 2, 0, 0
Daschle - 2, 0, 0
Dean - 0, 0, 0
Edwards - 4, 1, 0
Kerry - 2, 0, 0

Totals - 30, 4, 0

Averages - 2.5, .33, 0

Former Vice President Al Gore mentioned al Qaeda twice in his speech, but both references are couched in negative terms towards President Bush. Al Qaeda is used as a rhetorical tool to fault the Bush Administration's actions in Iraq:

But in order to protect our people, shouldn't we focus on the real source of this threat: the group that attacked us and is trying to attack us again -- al Qaeda, headed by Osama Bin Laden? Wouldn't we be safer with a President who didn't insist on confusing al Qaeda with Iraq?

Senator Kennedy, like Al Gore, mentioned al Qaeda only to attack President Bush.

They have made it harder to win the real war on terrorism, the war against
Al Qaeda.

Barack Obama is hailed as the future of the Democratic party and yet he cannot bring himself to mention either al Qaeda or terrorism. Senator Edward rhetoric was by far the strongest, and yet he mentioned al Qaeda once and terrorism four times. Senator Kerry failed to mention al Qaeda at all, and terrorism only twice. In fact, over one third (11) of the mentions of terrorism were made by one man, President Clinton.

The word Islam did not appear in any of the twelve speeches listed above. The party leadership made no attempt to define the origins of the terrorist threat we are currently fighting - the radical Islamist ideology bent on the destruction of Western civilization. Nor was there a serious discussion of a strategy to defeat it.

There is no doubt that after 9-11, the greatest dangers facing America are the web of international terrorism, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and rogue nations that are willing to support terrorist or the spread of WMD. The security of this nation is the primary responsibility of the President of the United States, which is clearly outlined by Article II, Section 1, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution, the oath of office:

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

If the leadership of the Democratic Party is unable discuss the current dangers facing America, it is reasonable to question their presidential candidate's willingness and ability to protect and defend America.

Additions

2004-07-30T00:17:00.000-04:00

A new member of the Roggio family arrived yesterday. I received a call at work just before noon. Jennie was shopping with my two year old Sarah, and went into labor. She was close to my place of work, I picked her up and a couple of hours later Jennie (without an epidoral, my little warrior) gave birth to a 6 pound 14 ounce , 19 inch little girl. She is beautiful. We'll get a picture up tomorrow, the digital camera was not on hand due to the timing.

Thanks to everyone that has stopped by the past several weeks since Scott Elliot so kindly featured the 4th rail at Election Projection. Thank you, Scott.

Tomorrow, some pictures and a post.

What did he know?

2004-07-29T00:05:00.000-04:00

CARVILLE: Today, virtually every Democrat in Washington has tried out his or her Howard Baker impression. What did the president know and when did he know it?

REP. DICK GEPHARDT (D-MO), MINORITY LEADER: I think what we have to do now is to find out what the president, what the White House knew about the events leading up to 9/11, when they knew it, and, most importantly, what was done about it at that time.

In the spring of 2002, some Democrats attempted to make political hay out of the question "What did he know and when did he know it?" concerning President Bush's knowledge about the planning and execution of the 9-11 attacks. The questions led to much speculation that President Bush was warned about the 9-11 attacks but failed to act in his role as Commander in Chief to protect the nation. The 9-11 Commission report puts these questions to rest once and for all.

The transition to the new Bush administration in late 2000 and early 2001 took place with the Cole issue still pending. President George W. Bush and his chief advisers accepted that al Qaeda was responsible for the attack on the Cole, but did not like the options available for a response. Bin Ladin’s inference may well have been that attacks, at least at the level of the Cole, were risk free. The Bush administration began developing a new strategy with the stated goal of eliminating the al Qaeda threat within three to five years. During the spring and summer of 2001, U.S. intelligence agencies received a stream of warnings that al Qaeda planned, as one report put it, "something very, very, very big." Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet told us, "The system was blinking red." Although Bin Ladin was determined to strike in the United States, as President Clinton had been told and President Bush was reminded in a Presidential Daily Brief article briefed to him in August 2001, the specific threat information pointed overseas. Numerous precautions were taken overseas. Domestic agencies were not effectively mobilized. The threat did not receive national media attention comparable to the millennium alert. While the United States continued disruption efforts around the world, its emerging strategy to eliminate the al Qaeda threat was to include an enlarged covert action program in Afghanistan, as well as diplomatic strategies for Afghanistan and Pakistan. The process culminated during the summer of 2001 in a draft presidential directive and arguments about the Predator aircraft, which was soon to be deployed with a missile of its own, so that it might be used to attempt to kill Bin Ladin or his chief lieutenants. At a September 4 meeting, President Bush’s chief advisers approved the draft directive of the strategy and endorsed the concept of arming the Predator. This directive on the al Qaeda strategy was awaiting President Bush’s signature on September 11, 2001.

The full accounting of what the government knew of al Qaeda plans to attack the United States homeland during the summer of 2001 can be found in Chapter 8 of the full report (page 254 to 278). This section includes excerpts from the August 6th Presidential Daily Brief (PDB) which discussed the possibility of al Qaeda attacks in the United States. The PDB was used by certain members of the 9-11 Commission to insinutate the Bush administration was aware of the 9-11 attacks but failed to act to stop it. As the evidence shows, intelligence believe the attacks were to take place overseas and steps were taken to secure overseas installations.

The strategy to counter al Qaeda was taking shape the summer of 2001, and ironically the authorization to strike al Qaeda would have been approved by President Bush on September 11th. But had action begun against al Qaeda in the spring of 2001, it is unlikely 9-11 would have been stopped. Al Qaeda's strike assets were mainly in place; 9-11 was the culmination of years of careful planning. The U.S. government and intelligence agencies' systemic failures were the culmination of decades of mistakes and missed opportunites.

Terror, Inc.

2004-07-28T00:05:00.000-04:00

The reports from Time and Newsweek which indicated links exist between al Qaeda, Hezbollah and Iran were accurate. The 9-11 Commission's report debunks another of the myths about cooperation between different sects of Islamic terrorists:

It is unlikely Sunni (al Qaeda) and Shia (Hezbollah/Iran) terror organizations would cooperate as their hatred for each other and ideological difference are far too great.

The 9-11 Commission's report clearly lays out the case for cooperation between al Qaeda, Hezbollah and Iran:

Page 50-51
Bin Ladin seemed willing to include in the confederation terrorists from almost every corner of the Muslim world. His vision mirrored that of Sudan’s Islamist leader,Turabi, who convened a series of meetings under the label Popular Arab and Islamic Conference around the time of Bin Ladin’s arrival in that country. Delegations of violent Islamist extremists came from all the groups represented in Bin Ladin’s Islamic Army Shura. Representatives also came from organizations such as the Palestine Liberation Organization, Hamas, and Hezbollah.

Turabi sought to persuade Shiites and Sunnis to put aside their divisions and join against the common enemy. In late 1991 or 1992, discussions in Sudan between al Qaeda and Iranian operatives led to an informal agreement to cooperate in providing support—even if only training—for actions carried out primarily against Israel and the United States. Not long afterward, senior al Qaeda operatives and trainers traveled to Iran to receive training in explosives. In the fall of 1993, another such delegation went to the Bekaa Valley in Lebanon for further training in explosives as well as in intelligence and security. Bin Ladin reportedly showed particular interest in learning how to use truck bombs such as the one that had killed 241 U.S. Marines in Lebanon in 1983. The relationship between al Qaeda and Iran demonstrated that Sunni-Shia divisions did not necessarily pose an insurmountable barrier to cooperation in terrorist operations. As will be described in chapter 7, al Qaeda contacts with Iran continued in ensuing years.

Page 240
Assistance from Hezbollah and Iran to al Qaeda As we mentioned in chapter 2, while in Sudan, senior managers in al Qaeda maintained contacts with Iran and the Iranian-supported worldwide terrorist organization Hezbollah, which is based mainly in southern Lebanon and Beirut. Al Qaeda members received advice and training from Hezbollah. Intelligence indicates the persistence of contacts between Iranian security officials and senior al Qaeda figures after Bin Ladin’s return to Afghanistan. Khallad has said that Iran made a concerted effort to strengthen relations with al Qaeda after the October 2000 attack on the USS Cole, but was rebuffed because Bin Ladin did not want to alienate his supporters in Saudi Arabia. Khallad and other detainees have described the willingness of Iranian officials to facilitate the travel of al Qaeda members through Iran, on their way to and from Afghanistan.For example, Iranian border inspectors would be told not to place telltale stamps in the passports of these travelers. Such arrangements were particularly beneficial to Saudi members of al Qaeda.

Our knowledge of the international travels of the al Qaeda operatives selected for the 9/11 operation remains fragmentary. But we now have evidence suggesting that 8 to 10 of the 14 Saudi “muscle” operatives traveled into or out of Iran between October 2000 and February 2001.

In October 2000, a senior operative of Hezbollah visited Saudi Arabia to coordinate activities there. He also planned to assist individuals in Saudi Arabia in traveling to Iran during November. A top Hezbollah commander and Saudi Hezbollah contacts were involved.

Also in October 2000, two future muscle hijackers, Mohand al Shehri and Hamza al Ghamdi, flew from Iran to Kuwait. In November, Ahmed al Ghamdi apparently flew to Beirut, traveling—perhaps by coincidence—on the same flight as a senior Hezbollah operative. Also in November,Salem al Hazmi apparently flew from Saudi Arabia to Beirut. In mid-November, we believe, three of the future muscle hijackers,Wail al Shehri,Waleed al Shehri, and Ahmed al Nami, all of whom had obtained their U.S. visas in late October, traveled in a group from Saudi Arabia to Beirut and then onward to Iran. An associate of a senior Hezbollah operative was on the same flight that took the future hijackers to Iran. Hezbollah officials in Beirut and Iran were expecting the arrival of a group during the same time period. The travel of this group was important enough to merit the attention of senior figures in Hezbollah. Later in November, two future muscle hijackers,Satam al Suqami and Majed Moqed,flew into Iran from Bahrain. In February 2001, Khalid al Mihdhar may have taken a flight from Syria to Iran, and then traveled further within Iran to a point near the Afghan border. KSM and Binalshibh have confirmed that several of the 9/11 hijackers (at least eight, according to Binalshibh) transited Iran on their way to or from Afghanistan, taking advantage of the Iranian practice of not stamping Saudi passports. They deny any other reason for the hijackers’ travel to Iran. They also deny any relationship between the hijackers and Hezbollah.

In sum, there is strong evidence that Iran facilitated the transit of al Qaeda members into and out of Afghanistan before 9/11, and that some of these were future 9/11 hijackers. There also is circumstantial evidence that senior Hezbollah operatives were closely tracking the travel of some of these future muscle hijackers into Iran in November 2000. However,we cannot rule out the possibility of a remarkable coincidence—that is, that Hezbollah was actually focusing on some other group of individuals traveling from Saudi Arabia during this same time frame, rather than the future hijackers. We have found no evidence that Iran or Hezbollah was aware of the planning for what later became the 9/11 attack. At the time of their travel through Iran, the al Qaeda operatives themselves were probably not aware of the specific details of their future operation. After 9/11, Iran and Hezbollah wished to conceal any past evidence of cooperation with Sunni terrorists associated with al Qaeda. A senior Hezbollah official disclaimed any Hezbollah involvement in 9/11. We believe this topic requires further investigation by the U.S. government.

Further investigation indeed. This is a scathing indictment of Iran's involvement with international terror and proof that ideologically different terror orgainizations are more than willing to cooperate to defeat their common enemies. After the "remarkable coincidences" that were ignored prior to 9-11, we should not downplay Iran's important role in fomenting terrorism or their willingness to assist al Qaeda or other enemies of the United States. Whether or not Iran had initmate knowledge of the 9-11 plot, its facilitation of the hijackers movements, offerring of support and sanctuary to al Qaeda both prior to and after 9-11, ongoing sponsorship of Hezbollah, and pursuit of WMD, specifically nuclear program, make it the most dangerous of terror nations. Barring an overt move against the United States or one of its allies, Iran will not be addressed until after the presidential election in November. The next president has a very difficult decision to make with respect to Iran, and it is highly unlikely the diplomatic and law enforcement options without the threat of intervention will carry much weight with the Mullahs of Iran.

Poetic Justice

2004-07-27T00:05:00.000-04:00

When the brokers of power lose their position of authority and are placed in prison, they can be reduced to the most ordinary of men. Albert Speer, Reich Minister of Armaments and War Production, Adolf Hitler's architect and personal confidant, was captured after the defeat of Nazi Germany. As Reich Minster of Armaments, Speer was responsible for the importation of slave labor throughout Europe to employ in German factories. He was tried and convicted at the Nuremburg Trials and sentenced to serve twenty years at Spandau prison, along with other high profile Nazis. Speer kept a secret diary during his imprisonment and published it after his release, under the title Spandau. His diary documents his every day life in prison, discussions with guards and fellow inmates, work details, hobbies and details of his service to Hitler. As Hitler's architect, he was commissioned to design massive governmental buildings, monuments and other landmarks to inaugurate the beginning of the Thousand Year Reich. As an inmate of Spandau, he was tasked to clean toilets and design gardens.

October 6, 1956 - Day before yesterday, we divided up the cleaning chores on a new basis. A bitter quarrel arose between Hess and Schirach, because Hess categorically refused to clean the guard's toilets two days a week. When I tired to mediate, Schirach and Funk furiously turned on me, saying that my everlasting indulgence had brought Hess to that point. (Page 300)

April 14, 1959 - About two years ago, in response to Cuthill's invitation, I systematically set about landscaping our garden, making a park of it. I graded uneven ground into interesting terraces, sowed lawns, planted forsythia, lavender, hydrangea bushes, and roses. In additions I set out twenty-five lilacs of my own raising. Along the paths I have laid out beds of iris two and a half meters wide and fifty meters long. Today, seedling pines, birches, and lindens were delivered. With such a wealth of plant materials I can begin to lay out a landscape garden. (Page 335-6)

Like Albert Speer, Saddam Hussein former president of Iraq, the presumptive leader of the Pan-Arab movement, the Lion of Baghdad, the modern-day Nebucadnezzer and Saladin, experiences the tedium of prison life as he awaits trial for his crimes against the people of Iraq. Saddam also has taken up gardening and fancies himself a poet as well.

Former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein is passing his time in solitary confinement by reading the Koran, writing poetry, gardening and snacking on cookies and muffins, Britain's Guardian newspaper reported on Monday.

Iraq’s human rights minister Bakhtiar Amin said Saddam's health was "generally good" but he was being treated for high blood pressure and had suffered a chronic prostate infection. "One of the poems is about (U.S. President) George Bush, but I had no time to read it," said Amin, a Kurd originally from Kirkuk, who had spent much of his life in exile in Europe and the United States.

"He is looking after a few bushes and shrubs and has even placed a circle of white stones around a small plum tree," he added.

Saddam was a man accustomed to luxury, great wealth and infinite power within Iraq. He was feared throughout the Middle East and respected as the Arab who stood up to the United States; he was the pride of the Arab and Muslim people, despite his atrocities against Arabs and Muslims alike. Stripped of his powers, he becomes an ordinary little man, writing banal poetry, tending the garden and munching on pastries. And as Iraqi justice draws near, we hope he becomes even more ordinary, shaking in fear as he faces the gallows.

A fourth rail exclusive
The fourth rail has received an advanced copy Saddam’s poetry. He is an aficionado of haiku, the art of Japanese poetry. Here are some samples:

U.N. Palaces
a Koran written in blood
lost in weeks of war

Evil GWB
said WMD not for me
now I tend plum tree

Raking the garden
a Mother Of All Battles
it hurts my prostate

Butcher of Baghdad
pruning, weeding, placing stones
Uday, Kusay gone

Prison of white stones,
cupcakes, muffins, cookies make
my blood pressure rise

The Economy, Not Terrorism

2004-07-26T00:02:00.000-04:00

The agenda of the Kerry-Edwards ticket begins to take shape as the Democratic convention draws near. Predictably the economy will take precedence in the Kerry-Edwards campaign.

It's the economy, John Kerry. That's what delegates to the Democratic National Convention say their presumed presidential nominee or — they shudder to think — President Bush should concentrate on first in 2005, an Associated Press survey of Democratic delegates found.

Health care was the No. 2 issue, followed by the war in Iraq, according to the survey of some three-quarters of the 4,300-plus delegates.

The delegates' to-do list aligns closely with the message that Kerry and vice presidential candidate John Edwards are trying to craft on the campaign trail in the face of rising optimism among the general public. The Democratic duo hopes their message about a struggling economy and job loss strikes a chord with anxious voters.
:
About 70 percent ranked the economy and jobs among their top three issues. It was followed by health care, mentioned by some 52 percent of delegates. Roughly 44 percent said the war in Iraq. ....Education (37 percent) and fighting terrorism (17 percent) were next on the list.

The Democrats plan on presenting the economy as the main priority in this election cycle despite the strong economic recovery since August of 2003. But what the Democrats fail to realize is that security and the economy are directly related: the economy suffers when the security of Americans is at risk, specifically when there are attacks on American soil. In 2002, the Government Accounting Agency estimated the following impact of 9-11 on the American economy:

The attacks on the two World Trade Center buildings cost about $83 billion (in 2001 dollars) in total losses (including both direct and indirect costs); about $67 billion of the losses would most likely be covered by insurance, federal payments, or increased economic activity.

The study by the Milken Institute, for example, estimated that for 2001 alone, the economy of the New York-New Jersey metropolitan area sustained income losses of about $2.7 billion, while all the metropolitan areas in the country sustained losses of about $191 billion. In addition, since most of the studies were completed—or were based on information developed--in the immediate aftermath of the attack, the estimates of impact were based on preliminary information that is now, in some cases, dated. For example, the study by the New York City Partnership and the New York Comptroller’s Office estimated that it would cost from $5 to $6 billion to clean up the site of the World Trade Center and the surrounding areas and that the cost in loss of life (in terms of foregone income) would be from $10 billion to $11 billion.

The economic impact of the terrorist strikes on American soil was staggering, perhaps over $250 billion nationwide. Much greater than the economic losses of 9-11 is the loss of American lives. Over 3,000 Americans and foreign guests from over 86 nations were murdered during the attacks.

The Democrat party's inability to treat the War on Terror as a top priority demonstrates a lack of understanding of the impact of terrorism on both the physical and economic security of Americans. It has been less that three years since the World Trade Center towers fell and the Pentagon was attacked, and yet the issue of terrorism ranks fifth on the list of priorities of the delegates of the Democratic convention. Universal healthcare, jobs creation, education improvements and raising the minimum wage will not stop our enemies from plotting further attacks. The lack of vision on the terrorist threat is prevalent among one of the two major parties as the Democrats fail to understand the economic well-being of America cannot be assured without addressing our physical security and the threat of global terrorism.

Cooperation - Iraq & al Qaeda

2004-07-25T00:03:00.000-04:00

The 9-11 Commission's final report it is a wealth of information that can be used to put to rest some of the pervasive Legends of the Left concerning the War on Terror. One of the most common myths pertains to the impossibility of cooperation between Iraq and al Qaeda. This myth has been used to discredit the Iraq war and paint it as a distraction from the War on Terrorism. It can be summed up as follows:

Iraq and al Qaeda would never cooperate, as Iraq is a secular state and al Qaeda is a fundamentalist Islamic terror organization. Iraq and al Qaeda are ideological enemies and would never consider working with each other to fight America.

This theory has never held up to historical scrutiny, as ideological opponents have cooperated in the past to defeat a common enemy. The best example of this is the cooperation between America and Britain, and the Soviet Union during World War II. The ideological opposites of capitalism and communism worked together to destroy their common foe, Nazi Germany. The 9-11 Commission documents the relationship between al Qaeda and Iraq:

(Page 61)
Bin Ladin was also willing to explore possibilities for cooperation with Iraq, even though Iraq's dictator, Saddam Hussein, had never had an Islamist agenda save for his opportunistic pose as a defender of the faithful against 'Crusaders' during the Gulf War of 1991. Moreover, Bin Ladin had in fact been sponsoring anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan, and sought to attract them into his Islamic army.
To protect his own ties with Iraq, Turabi reportedly brokered an agreement that Bin Ladin would stop supporting activities against Saddam. Bin Ladin apparently honored this pledge, at least for a time, although he continued to aid a group of Islamist extremists operating in part of Iraq (Kurdistan) outside of Baghdad's control. In the late 1990s, these extremist groups suffered major defeats by Kurdish forces. In 2001, with Bin Ladin's help they re-formed into an organization called Ansar al Islam. There are indications that by then the Iraqi regime tolerated and may even have helped Ansar al Islam against the common Kurdish enemy.
With the Sudanese regime acting as intermediary, Bin Ladin himself met with a senior Iraqi intelligence officer in Khartoum in late 1994 or early 1995. Bin Ladin is said to have asked for space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but there is no evidence that Iraq responded to this request. As described below, the ensuing years saw additional efforts to establish connections.

Answar al Islam is the terrorist organization run by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who is responsible for the murder of American soldiers and the beheading of an American citizen in Iraq. Zarqawi is also the leader of the Unity and Jihad Group, which is currently operating in Iraq and has claimed responsibility for attacks on Coalition troops and Iraqi forces and civilians. The relationship between Iraq, Zarqawi and al Qaeda provides a most compelling case for cooperation between Iraq and al Qaeda.

(Page 66)
There is also evidence that around this time Bin Ladin sent out a number of feelers to the Iraqi regime, offering some cooperation. None are reported to have received a significant response. According to one report, Saddam Hussein's efforts at this time to rebuild relations with the Saudis and other Middle Eastern regimes led him to stay clear of Bin Ladin.

In mid-1998, the situation reversed; it was Iraq that reportedly took the initiative. In March 1998, after Bin Ladin's public fatwa against the United States, two al Qaeda members reportedly went to Iraq to meet with Iraqi intelligence. In July, an Iraqi delegation traveled to Afghanistan to meet first with the Taliban and then with Bin Ladin. Sources reported that one, or perhaps both, of these meetings was apparently arranged through Bin Ladin's Egyptian deputy, Zawahiri, who had ties of his own to the Iraqis. In 1998, Iraq was under intensifying U.S. pressure, which culminated in a series of large air attacks in December.

Similar meetings between Iraqi officials and Bin Ladin or his aides may have occurred in 1999 during a period of some reported strains with the Taliban. According to the reporting, Iraqi officials offered Bin Ladin a safe haven in Iraq. Bin Ladin declined, apparently judging that his circumstances in Afghanistan remained more favorable than the Iraqi alternative. The reports describe friendly contacts and indicate some common themes in both sides' hatred of the United States. But to date we have seen no evidence that these or the earlier contacts ever developed into a collaborative operational relationship. Nor have we seen evidence indicating that Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any attacks against the United States.

The report shows the numerous attempts to make contact and establish a relationship, but concludes there was no "collaborative operational relationship" or cooperation between Iraq and the planning of 9-11. While the Bush administration warned of the connections between Iraq and Answar al Islam and other high level contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda, at no time did they claim Iraq and al Qaeda were actively working together or that Iraq had a hand in 9-11. Pages 334-338 of the report document the Administration's internal debate about Iraq and its links with 9-11, and the conclusion made by the President was that Iraq was not involved. Iraq was deemed a threat, however due to the ongoing conflict left over from the First Gulf War, its relations with terrorism, its pursuit of WMD and it's ability to destabilize the region.

It must be remembered that the War on Terrorism is not isolated to al Qaeda alone. This is a crucial misunderstanding of the Left. They feel that after the removal of the Taliban from power, we should have rebuilt Afghanistan and proceeded with fighting the war using the tried and not-so-true methods of diplomacy and policing that failed us in the lead up to 9-11. The war is against terrorist organizations, states that condone or sponsor terrorism, and the underground distribution network of weapons of mass destruction that can supply terrorists with the most deadly of tools. Iraq was a sworn enemy of the United States, and Saddam was the only world leader to praise the attacks on 9-11. He even commissioned paintings depicting the attacks on the World Trade Center. Iraq fit the profile of a nation that had to be dealt with, particularly after the attacks on 9-11. We removed one of the most dangerous dictators of the 20th Century from power and we should bare no remorse for our actions.

The Redemption of the 9-11 Commission

2004-07-24T13:40:00.000-04:00

There is much information in the 9-11 Commission's report to dispel the Left's myths of 9-11. The Full Report is worth reading but is quite long, over 500 pages. The Executive Summary, which is only 34 pages, is an easy and enlightening read and I highly recommend it.

The release of the 9-11 Commission’s report has erased much of the bad feelings I had for these proceedings. There was much to dislike. The constant distortions of testimony and information. The commissioners grandstanding and frequent visits to the Sunday morning talk shows. Richard Clarke, whose testimony completely contradicted statements in his book (which was released around the time of testimony), public and media appearances. The appointment of Jamie Gorelick, whose 1995 justice department memo encouraged the wall of silence between the FBI and CIA. The rude treatment given to Condolezza Rice and Rudy Giuliani. The two commissioners that left in the middle of president Bush’s testimony. The constant search for a ‘gotcha’ moment by the media. The claims of 'no connection' between Iraq and al Qaeda. The timing of the release of the report was even coordinated with a book deal.

The report itself is well written, direct and informative. It documents the causes of 9-11 with precision: the threat of Islamic terrorism, the leadership failures, the intelligence problems, the lack of vision by government, the problems with relying on diplomacy and law enforcement, structural problems with the Department of Justice, the FAA, CIA, NORAD, Immigration, homeland defense, first responders, Congress. No individuals or organizations were treated unfairly or spared the lens of scrutiny. Recommendations to government are intelligent and well thought out, including preemption against terrorists and nations that sponsor them, reorganizing government, and the creation of the Cabinet Level post of National Intelligence Director. I am supportive of the recommendations made by this commission and hopeful Congress will work to enact laws to see them through. President Bush has indicated he will use the recommendations as a guideline for future legislation to fight the War on Terror.

The quality of this report makes the flawed process of the commission worth the aggravation. I have learned much from this report and it has restored my faith that bureaucrats can occasionally produce something of worth.

An Appointment at 10:37

2004-07-23T12:07:00.000-04:00

I was preparing a column on a different topic, but then I saw this, from the New York Times , July 22:

“Flight 93 became part of American lore when passengers banded together to try to storm the cockpit of the hijacked airliner, which crashed in Pennsylvania. New details of the hijacking and the passenger uprising were made public in the report released today by the 9/11 commission.”

“Of the 33 passengers on the plane who were not hijackers, at least 10, and two crew members, spoke to people on the ground. At least five of the calls included discussion of the World Trade Center. At 9:57, about seven minutes before the end, one of the passengers ended her conversation saying: "Everyone's running up to first class. I've got to go. Bye."

"The report indicates that Mr. Jarrah, at the controls of United 93, did what many airline pilots have fantasized about since the hijackings: tried to maneuver the plane sharply, rolling and pitching, to keep control of the cockpit. It apparently did not work; the plane crashed in rural Pennsylvania.

"The report does not clarify whether the hijackers' goal for Flight 93 was the White House or the Capitol, but indicates that the hijackers tuned a cockpit radio to the frequency of a navigation beacon at National Airport, just across the Potomac River from the capital, erasing any doubt about the region of their intended destination.”

“The hijackers remained at the controls but must have judged that the passengers were only seconds from overcoming them," according to the report, which seems to indicate that the hijackers themselves crashed the plane. "With the sounds of the passenger counterattack continuing, the aircraft plowed into an empty field in Shanksville, Pennsylvania, at 580 miles per hour, about 20 minutes' flying time from Washington, D.C," according to the report.”

I don’t know what your plans are, for remembering September 11th’s third anniversary. But at 10:37 AM Eastern time, I will be saluting 33 ordinary people who showed incredible valor and courage in the face of certain death. We will never know how many other lives they saved, but we know what a ‘hero’ looks like in our generation because of them, and others like them.
Please visit this website to learn more about them.

Indifferent to Terror

2004-07-23T00:05:00.000-04:00

Israel’s fight for a separate peace with the Palestinians met further opposition from the international community. The United Nations General Assembly has passed a non-binding resolution in support of the International Court of Justice’s ruling on the illegality of the security fence. The vote count was 150 for, 6 against, 10 abstentions, with the following nations voting against the anti-Israel resolution: the United States, Australia, Micronesia, the Marshall Islands, Palau and Israel. Not one European nation voted in favor of Israel’s attempts to halt the entry of Palestinian suicide bombings. EU envoy Javier Solana states the humanitarian needs of the Palestinians is as great as the security needs of the Israelis.

"All the European countries support the right of Israel to defend itself, (but) you have to balance the security needs with humanitarian needs" of the Palestinians.

In response, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has declared that the European Union has lost its ability to play an influential part in a future peace process and will continue with building the security fence.

What the Europeans fail to understand is there is no greater humanitarian need than the right to not be indiscriminately murdered while riding the bus, visiting the local pizza shop or restaurant, celebrating a wedding, attending prayer, going to school or a host of other daily activities. The fence has been quite effective with preventing suicide and sniper attacks in Israel. Issues such as land disputes and difficulties getting around the fence are insignificant when Israeli citizens are indiscriminately targeted by terrorists.

After the establishment of Israel in 1948, subsequent United Nations actions in the General Assembly can be easily understood as the Arab block and other nations have a history of anti-Israel policies. Resolutions supporting the Palestinian cause and committees designed to further the goal of the Palestinian return to Israel are numerous while similar conflicts throughout the would are ignored.

Emergency Special Sessions of the United Nations General Assembly are rare. No such session has ever been convened with respect to the Chinese occupation of Tibet, the Indonesian occupation of East Timor, the Syrian occupation of Lebanon, the slaughters in Rwanda, the disappearances in Zaire or the horrors of Bosnia. In fact, during the last 15 years they have been called only to condemn Israel. Whereas Arab states have traditionally used UN fora to demonize and isolate Israel (for example, they routinely attempt to deny Israel its credentials), they now believe they enjoy "Western" support which emboldens them.

The European Union’s support of the Palestinian cause only furthers the violence against Israel and provides much needed aid and comfort to the Palestinian terrorists. It is shocking the Europeans side with Palestinian terrorists over the democratically elected government of Israel. It appears strains of anti-Semitism and moral relativism have co-opted Europe’s foreign policy with respect to Israel.

The international community passes itself off as a moral body and arbiter of international law, but their actions towards Israel clearly demonstrate the indifference and even hatred of Israel’s plight in its war against Palestinian terror. Where is the United Nations and European Union’s condemnation of the Palestinian Authority’s state sponsorship of terror? The resolutions against the Palestinians’ practice of indoctrinating and training their children to hate and murder Israelis? The resolutions condemning attacks on Israeli children? The ideologies of fascism and communism are not too far removed from the memory of Europeans. They should have intimate knowledge of these bankrupt and deadly practices as Europe served as their birthplace and testing grounds. A large majority of the free nations of the world, including all of Europe, is unable to recognize the totalitarian nature of the Palestinian Authority. Or they just don’t care.

Presidential Decisions

2004-07-22T00:41:00.000-04:00

Phil O'Connor asks you to Take the Commander in Chief Test, a series of questions designed to illustrate difficult decisions made by American leaders in times of war. The questions cover American military and civilian decision-making in the American Revolutionary, the Civil War, World War II, the Cuban Missile Crisis and the Iraq War. The available knowledge leading up to the decision to go to war is nicely summarized in the question related to the Iraq War (links have been inserted by me).

President Bush in early 2003, just months after 9/11 and anthrax. The Clinton administration had indicted Osama bin Laden, citing ties to Saddam Hussein and had bombed a suspected al Qaeda bio-weapons plant in Sudan with ties to Iraq. Czech intelligence insists that 9/11 plotter Mohammad Atta met with Iraqi intelligence in Prague. UN weapons inspectors are being frustrated in Iraq. British intelligence says that Saddam was trying to buy uranium in Africa. Saddam had invaded Kuwait a decade before and had used chemical weapons on his own people. One of the perpetrators of the first World Trade Center bombing had taken refuge in Baghdad and families of Palestinian suicide bombers were paid by Iraq. The CIA Director, originally appointed by Clinton, tells you "it's a slam dunk" that Saddam has WMD. The French, strongly opposed to war with Iraq, say their intelligence service believes Iraq still has WMD. Russian President Putin, opposed to war with Iraq, tells you that Russian intelligence believes Iraq has plans for terror assaults on the U.S. Most of the CIA's human assets in Iraq have been discovered and murdered. Do you wait to get more spies into the country to confirm the other intelligence? Or do you go to Congress for a resolution supporting the use of force and then use force?

While we may know today that some (but not all) of the intelligence related to Saddam's weapons programs was inaccurate, this was not known at the time President Bush decided to request the use of force resolution from Congress. In fact, many members of Congress had access to the same intelligence as the Bush administration prior to the war resolution and came to the same conclusions about the threat of Iraq's WMD. Their statements demonstrate this (the link contains numerous quotes, I have excerpted a few in the interest of brevity):

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security." -- Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction." -- John Rockefeller, Oct 10, 2002

"Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal." -- John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

"Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." -- Al Gore, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." -- Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

"I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." -- John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation." -- John Kerry, October 9, 2002

President Bush took the case to Congress, and the Congress overwhelming supported the use of force resolution. The Democrat leaders quoted (former Vice President, First Lady, Senate leaders, co-chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee) had access to the same intelligence as President Bush and came to the same conclusion: Saddam was a threat and had to be removed. Curiously, after the initial success in Iraq, the Democratic leadership discarded their initial support for the Iraq war and attacked President Bush for lying, misleading, and betraying the American public about the reasons and motivations for war. Would they have made the same decision to go to war in 2002 if they were in the Oval Office?

Knowing what we did after the 9-11 and anthrax attacks, was President Bush wrong for aggressively defending America based on the available intelligence? Look at the other historical examples given in the quiz. Each decision made was fraught with risk and dealt with shaky intelligence. The bold decisions, such as General Washington's Christmas attack in Trenton and General Eisenhower's decision to move forward on D-Day, paid enormous dividends. The timid decisions, such as ignoring the RADAR date during the attack on Pearl Harbor lead to humiliating losses. The cautious decisions for President Bush to make with respect to Iraq after the stunning victory in Afghanistan would have been continuing the failed sanctions, press for further U.N. resolutions and restart inspections. The pilloring President Bush has taken from the Left demonstrates the political risk of attacking Iraq was enormous. But in the climate after an unprecedented and bold attack by al Qaeda, President Bush would have been negligent not to address Iraq based on the information at hand.

Taming the Tiger

2004-07-21T01:10:00.000-04:00

With Iran’s involvement in the 9-11 attacks now public knowledge, we must consider what the next step is in the War on Terror. Iran’s overtures with al Qaeda and its complicity with facilitating the 9-11 hijacker's movements through its territory require a response by America. In yesterday’s post, I advocated a high level strategy for dealing with Iran.

The next president must act against Iran by demanding the release of al Qaeda members and Iranian officials involved with 9-11 to American custody, demanding the complete disbandment of Hezbollah and an accounting of its international operations, and insisting on the complete dismantlement of the Iranian nuclear program with full verification. Absent of these actions by Iran (Iran is highly unlikely to comply with these demands), America must support domestic Iranian opposition to the theocratic regime and prepare for military strikes on Iran’s nuclear programs, as well as prepare for the possible overthrow of the Iranian government by American force.

Options

The first step would be a concerted effort to convince the United Nations, the European Union, NATO and the international community of Iran's involvement with 9-11. While this may seem like a thankless and impossible task, it must be done to provide cover for any potential allies and to allow the U.S. formally state our case. The U.S. should push for immediate sanctions to isolate Iran and issue the ultimatum demanding al Qaeda in country and Iranian operatives that assisted the 9-11 conspirators, and demand for the immediate dismantlement and verification of Iran's nuclear program. The U.S. should invoke its right of self defense as outlined by Article 51 of Charter of the United Nations.

Article 51

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defense shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.

Just as the Taliban refused America’s demands to hand over Osama bin Laden and other al Qaeda members sheltered in Afghanistan, we should not expect Iran will hand over al Qaeda members hidden in their nation. Nor will Iran agree to dismantle their WMD program and turn over members of the Iranian government and military guilty of dealing with al Qaeda.

The next step would be to work to undermine the existing Iranian government by supporting the indigenous democracy movement. The reform movement within the Iranian government was once very popular with the people of Iran, and large majorities of declared reformists were elected to the Iranian parliament but its influence has now fallen among the Iranian people. The reformists lacked the statutory power in Iran’stheocratic government, where the Mullahs have a final say on all policy and have direct control over the security apparatuses. The last election had a poor voter turnout and the reformists disputed the election results, as their members were barred from running for office. While the political reform movement is dead, the grass roots democracy movement is alive and well, and represent by high profile leaders such as Nobel Laureate Shirin Ebadi, who believes Islam and democracy can coexist, as it does in Indonesia, Turkey and Malaysia. There are other opposition groups that are strong supporters of democracy and freedom from religious rule. Numerous demonstrations, organized by student groups, occur yearly and result in violent clashes with Iran's security services and military.

As Iran has an established freedom movement, we would be well served to back them with money, communications equipment, organizational assistance, vocal support from the U.S. government, and assistance with setting up news programs, blogs, newspapers, and other forms of media to further the message of freedom. A similar strategy was instrumental in the success against communist regimes in Eastern Europe.

If diplomacy and the support of indigenous Iranian opposition fail, America must be prepared for open conflict with Iran. A variety of options short of a full scale invasion would be available, from arming and training Iranian resistance in neighboring Iraq and Afghanistan to special operations and airstrikes against nuclear sites, the Iranian leadership and al Qaeda bases in Iran. The attacks on the nuclear facilities must be completed prior to the reactors going fully online to prevent the risk of nuclear fallout.

Ideally, the actions outlined above would lead to the fall of the Iranian theocracy, but the recent history in Iraq demonstrates that some dictators are unwilling to relinquish power until they are removed by full military force. The above proposals would give the United States plenty of time to prepare for the worst-case scenario: a full-scale military invasion of Iran.

Currently the United States Army is actively engaged in Iraq, Afghanistan, Korea and elsewhere; with about half of its active duty combat brigades and one-sixth of the Army National Guard combat brigades committed to overseas deployments. Most of the other brigades are slated as replacements in the deployment rotations. The U.S. Marines are in a similar situation. There is no doubt the Iraq war has tied up a significant amount of active American ground combat power, but the troops are now forward deployed in Iraq, Iran's neighbor, if needed. To free up American combat brigades, the U.S. must focus on improving the security situation in Iraq and move forward with training the Iraqi army and security services to shoulder the burden of policing and rebuilding Iraq.

Iran has a voice

American actions against Iran will not occur in a vacuum; Iran will have a say in how the conflict plays out. Iran currently possesses the world's eighth largest military. But Iran's military is not as strong as it was prior to the Iran-Iraq war that spanned the 1980s. Iran's Air Force is a hodge-podge of homemade designs, cannibalized airplanes from the era of the Shah and imported aircraft from China and North Korea of vintage Soviet design, and is unable to perform a role other than air defense. Its Army has been reduced by half since the Shah's overthrow and also uses a mix of Western and Soviet weapons systems, which make logistics and repairs difficult. The Iranian Navy is little more than a coastal defense service. Iran's true threats lay in its unconventional
assets: Hezbollah, ballistic missiles, and chemical and biological weapons arsenals. Iran's missiles would be able to strike American forces in the region, and tipped with chemical or biological agents, pose a great threat.

The Party of God

No action against Iran can be considered without accounting for Hezbollah, the premier terror organization in the world. Hezbollah has true global reach and has successfully conducted many overseas operations in the past 20 years. Military attacks on Iran would surely be followed up by attacks on American and Israeli interests throughout the world. Hezbollah's Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah openly declared America as an enemy just prior to the Iraq war, and hinted at what is in store for American if it became further involved in the region.

The people of this region will welcome you with guns, blood, weapons, sacrifice for the sake of Allah and even acts of martyrdom… Death to America is not a slogan. Death to America is a policy, a strategy and a vision. In the past, when the Marines were in Beirut and the fleets were in the Mediterranean, our mouths shouted in the suburb [i.e. southern suburb of Beirut] ‘Death to America’. And now, the region is full of hundreds of thousands of American soldiers and fleets… What do the Americans expect in this region? The same that happened to the Israelis in Lebanon.”

American Power

But it is not the size of the military that matters, it is the quality. The United States outspends Iran in military purchases by a factor of thirty. The United States military has no equal, its training, personnel, equipment and doctrine are unmatched. America possesses the state of the art in weapons systems that have been combat tested on the battlefields of Afghanistan and Iraq. And American soldiers are combat ready, well schooled in the arts of maneuver and asymmetrical warfare, two skills that would be needed to conquer and pacify Iran. By no means will the military conquest of Iran be easy. The size of the nation, its difficult terrain and the fanatical fighters loyal to the theocracy will make the mission difficult. It is doubtful Iran's government will fall in three weeks, like Iraq, but the military achievement in Iraq was unprecedented in history. The experiences in Afghanistan and Iraq will be crucial in devising and executing a successful military campaign and occupation of Iran (if needed).

What to do?

The strategy outlined in this post is by no mean complete, nor is it very detailed. It is a high level look at the threat Iran poses, the challenges we would face engaging Iran in combat, and possible consequences of our actions. Iran's involvement with 9-11 requires action by America; without action we are demonstrating our lack of commitment to the War on Terror. We have two choices: we can do nothing, pretend the threat of Iran will go away, and maintain the status quo with Iran; or we can act to affect change.

Maintaining the status quo is a strategy we have tried for years, and the result of this policy was the attack on 9-11. By not acting against Iran, we are clearly communicating our weakness and lack of resolve. Iran will continue to sponsor terror attacks against America and Israel, and will rush further to develop nuclear weapons. This would likely lead to a more deadly conflict in the future, as the Israelis will not tolerate a nuclear armed Iran. And it would be a matter of time before Iran backs another attack of the magnitude of 9-11 or greater.

Acting against Iran is fraught with risk. It is highly likely American casualties would exceed those in Iraq, and if an occupation was required the cost to America would be enormous. But this is what sacrifice is all about. America has never shied away from a threat or refused to fight tyranny because of the price tag. We must all remember the price 3,000 citizens paid on 9-11. And America has sacrificed its finest citizens defeating the totalitarian ideologies of fascism, Nazism and communism in the Twentieth Century. We must not shy away from defeating the totalitarian ideology of Islamic terrorism because we are unwilling to pay the price for victory.

Iran and 9-11

2004-07-19T22:00:00.000-04:00

Time Magazine states the 9-11 Commission's soon to be released report will link Iran with al Qaeda and also include possible ties between Iran and 9-11.

Next week's much anticipated final report by a bipartisan commission on the origins of the 9/11 attacks will contain new evidence of contacts between al-Qaeda and Iran—just weeks after the Administration has come under fire for overstating its claims of contacts between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's Iraq.

A senior U.S. official told TIME that the Commission has uncovered evidence suggesting that between eight and ten of the 14 "muscle" hijackers—that is, those involved in gaining control of the four 9/11 aircraft and subduing the crew and passengers—passed through Iran in the period from October 2000 to February 2001. Sources also tell TIME that Commission investigators found that Iran had a history of allowing al-Qaeda members to enter and exit Iran across the Afghan border. This practice dated back to October 2000, with Iranian officials issuing specific instructions to their border guards—in some cases not to put stamps in the passports of al-Qaeda personnel—and otherwise not harass them and to facilitate their travel across the frontier. The report does not, however, offer evidence that Iran was aware of the plans for the 9/11 attacks.

The senior official also told TIME that the report will note that Iranian officials approached the al-Qaeda leadership after the bombing of the USS Cole and proposed a collaborative relationship in future attacks on the U.S., but the offer was turned down by bin Laden because he did not want to alienate his supporters in Saudi Arabia.

The Iran-al Qaeda contacts were discovered and presented to the Commissioners near the end of the bipartisan panel's more than year-long investigation into the sources and origins of the 9/11 attacks. Much of the new information about Iran came from al-Qaeda detainees interrogated by the U.S. government, including captured Yemeni al-Qaeda operative Waleed Mohammed bin Attash, who organized the October 2000 attack on the USS Cole, and from as many as 100 separate electronic intelligence intercepts culled by analysts at the NSA. The findings were sent to the White House for review only this week. But Commission members have been hinting for weeks that their report would have some Iran surprises. As the 9/11 Commission's chairman, Thomas Kean, said in June, "We believe....that there were a lot more active contacts, frankly, with Iran and with Pakistan than there were with Iraq."

These findings follow a Commission staff report, released in June, which suggested that al-Qaeda may have collaborated with Hezbollah and its Iranian sponsors in the 1996 bombing of the Khobar Towers, a key American military barracks in Saudi Arabia. Previously, the attack had been attributed only to Hezbollah, with Iranian support. A U.S. indictment of bin Laden filed in 1998 for the bombing of U.S. embassies in Africa said al-Qaeda "forged alliances . . . with the government of Iran and its associated terrorist group Hezbollah for the purpose of working together against their perceived common enemies in the West, particularly the United States." But the Commission comes to no firm conclusion on al-Qaeda's involvement in the Khobar disaster.

Since 9/11 the U.S. has held direct talks with Iran—and through intermediaries including Britain, Switzerland and Saudi Arabia—concerning the fate of scores of al-Qaeda that Iran has acknowledged are in the country, including an unspecified number of senior leaders, whom one senior U.S. official called al-Qaeda's "management council". The U.S. as well as the Saudis have unsuccessfully sought the repatriation of this group, which is widely thought to include Saad bin Laden, the son of Osama bin Laden, as well of other key al-Qaeda figures.

Iran’s involvement with international terrorism and direct involvement with al Qaeda should come as no surprise as Iran has been the epicenter for terrorism since the Khomeini revolution in 1979. The sponsorship of Hezbollah, the A-Team of international terror, has positioned Iran as the premier terror broker of the world.

Like organized crime, organized terror has many links and contacts across differing organizations. The reasons are practical; tools of the trade are shared amongst terror groups as they share common enemies, America and Western culture. The political and ideological differences between Sunni and Shia, al Qaeda and Hezbollah are put aside to fight the Great Satan and problems are left to be hammered out at a later date. Hezbollah’s resources, finances, infrastructure, training, international contacts and global reach are second to none. It is inevitable that other terror groups would ally themselves with Hezbollah in order to take advantage of its vast assets.

Iran’s established links to terror, possible connection to 9-11 and al Qaeda, support of the Iraqi insurgency and sponsorship of terror attacks on coalition troops, and its pursuit of its nuclear program in violation of international agreements places it as the prime candidate for the next target in the War on Terror. America is well positioned to address Iran militarily if the need arises, with troops stationed in Iraq to the west, Afghanistan to the east and the U.S. Navy in the Persian Gulf and Indian Ocean to the south. The question that begs to be answered is what does America do about this? As the U.S. is in the middle of a hotly contested election cycle, there is little chance Iran will be addressed by military action prior to Election Day. Any actions against Iran would be decried by the Left as warmongering, political posturing and an attempt to deflect attention from a host of international and domestic issues during the election season. It is the sad reality we face in today’s polarized political environment, but here we are.

As Iran has now moved to the forefront in the War on Terror, Senator Kerry should answer some specific questions pertaining to his views and policies concerning Iran. Does he view Iran as a terror-sponsoring nation? Should terror-sponsoring nations be allowed to obtain nuclear weapons or other forms of WMD? If elected, would President Kerry be willing to use force against Iran if needed? Would he allow Iran to obtain nuclear weapons? Would he be willing to act against Iran without ironclad evidence, the “smoking gun”, which has practically become a political necessity to act against nations deemed a threat? What would he do if the international community (the United Nations, NATO, the European Union) failed to support action against Iran? Would he move forward without international approval, building a coalition of the willing to remove the Iranian threat?

Senator Kerry’s history in the U.S. Senate leaves many questions about his commitment to fight tyranny, terrorism and terror-sponsoring nations. In the past, he has voted against numerous defense systems currently being used to prosecute the War on Terror, such as the M1 Abrahms tank, the Apache helicopter, the B-2 bomber and a host of other programs vital to America’s defense. He voted against the removal of Saddam’s army from Kuwait in 1991 and also voted to cut intelligence funding during the 1990s. Senator Kerry’s actions during Operation Iraqi Freedom do not provide clarity to how he would act regarding Iran. His statements prior to the war indicated he deemed Iraq a direct threat, including the declaration that Iraq possessed WMD, and he voted in approval of the war resolution. Yet after the conclusion of the liberation of Iraq, he belittled President Bush’s motivations and the necessity to go to war. He also voted against the bill to fund U.S. troops in Iraq. He has been highly critical of U.S. intelligence that lead up to the war, despite the fact that he was a member of the Senate Select Intelligence Committee in the past and was privy to the same intelligence as the Bush administration. His solution to the problems in Iraq can be boiled down to asking the international community for more assistance.

President Bush’s record fighting terrorism the past 3 years leaves little doubt about his political will to act when a threat is deemed great enough to our national security. And the labeling of Iran as a member of the Axis of Evil demonstrates he understood early on the dangers this nation posed to our security. President Bush has vowed to hold accountable terrorists organizations and states that shelter or sponsor them, and his actions against the Taliban in Afghanistan and Iraq demonstrate he has the fortitude to carry out his vision of defending America by attacking terror states, limiting the spread of WMD, working with allies to strengthen alliances and preempting nations that threaten American security. This strategy is outlined in the 2002 National Security Strategy of the United States of America.

The 9-11 Commission’s report will force the question of Iranian involvement in 9-11 to the forefront of the foreign policy debate (or at least it should). The report will also reintroduce the opposing views between Republicans and Democrats on how to properly fight the War on Terror. Should the war be confined to al Qaeda alone? Was the war over after we defeated the Taliban, and the only remaining actions left are law enforcement related? How do you deal with terror-sponsoring nations such as Iran? What is the standard of evidence that is needed to attack a nation suspected of aiding international terrorist? How far should the United States defer to international organizations before it decides it must act, alone if necessary, to deal with a nation it deems a threat?

The American people have a right to know how the next president will act against nations implicated in attacks on America as well as nations that support terrorists. Iran’s involvement in 9-11 may spur the debate. But at some point, the debate must end and a decision must be made. The next president must act against Iran by demanding the release of al Qaeda members and Iranian officials involved with 9-11 to American custody, demanding the complete disbandment of Hezbollah and an accounting of its international operations, and insisting on the complete dismantlement of the Iranian nuclear program with full verification. Absent of these actions by Iran (Iran is highly unlikely to comply with these demands), America must support domestic Iranian opposition to the theocratic regime and prepare for military strikes on Iran’s nuclear programs, as well as prepare for the possible overthrow of the Iranian government by American force. This is no small task; it requires a president to possess the will to stand up to domestic and international condemnation and the fortitude to see his vision through. Iran will be the most difficult problem we will face in the War on Terror.

President Bush has articulated his vision and demonstrated his commitment to act against terrorists and the nations that sponsor them. What is Senator Kerry’s vision? How would he answer the questions outlined above? The prosecution of the War on Terror is the most important issue in the 2004 Presidential election, and these questions have not been addressed by Senator Kerry. We are waiting.

Decay of the PA

2004-07-18T00:08:00.000-04:00

The situation in Gaza and the West bank has moved quickly in just the two days since the writing of The Road to Defeat. The security situation has deteriorated even further. Gaza's chief of police, who had been the target of previous attacks this year, was kidnapped and later released by factions of Arafat's own Fatah movement that accused him of corruption and abuse of power. French citizens performing charity work were also abducted and released. In a bid to quell the violence, Arafat appointed his relative, Musa Arafat, as chief of security in Gaza. The move provoked a wave of protests and violence, as a security headquarters in the town of Khan Yunis is attacked, PA offices are burned and the PA police flee. Fatah supporters of Mohammed Dahlan, former minister of security in the PA, oppose the appointment of Musa Arafat and threaten further violence if he is not removed. Gaza has now been placed under a state of emergency, and several prominent members of its security apparatus resigned "because of the state of chaos and the lack of action by the Palestinian Authority to make reforms." Prime Minister Qureia has submitted his resignation due to the situation in Gaza.

"There is a crisis. There is a state of chaos in the security situation," Ahmed Qureia said after announcing his resignation as premier during a Cabinet meeting in the West Bank town of Ramallah. Queria told Palestinian officials he had resigned "because of a series of internal and external issues that developed in the recent period," according to a statement from his office. He specifically cited the deteriorating security situation in Gaza.

Late last week, Arafat banned the U.N. Middle East envoy Terje Roed-Larsen due to statements that were critical of Arafat's reform efforts and his commitment to the peace process.

Top advisors to Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat has called on militant groups to ban the United Nations senior envoy to the Middle East, Terje Roed-Larsen, from entering the Palestinian territories or meeting Palestinian officials, militant leaders said Friday. The call was the latest response by the PA to a briefing Tuesday to the Security Council, in which Larsen accused Arafat of causing the failure of attempts by Egypt and the international community to implement reforms in the PA security establishment.

A spokesman for the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, a militant group with ties to Arafat's ruling Fatah movement, said on condition of anonymity that Arafat aides asked the group to release a statement in conjunction with Islamic Jihad barring Larsen from the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Palestinian officials were infuriated earlier this week when Roed-Larsen - long considered close to Arafat and sympathetic to the Palestinian cause - said at a UN Security Council briefing that Arafat was blocking vital reforms within the Palestinian Authority and accused him of hindering peace moves.

"People in Arafat's office called us and told us that Larsen's statements are just another part of the conspiracy to delegitimize Arafat," said the Al-Aqsa spokesman... They told us Larsen is now with Israel and America... They asked us to intervene to stop him in his tracks," he said

While it is difficult to determine the state of affairs within the chaotic Palestinian territories, we just may be witnessing the Palestinian Authority's demise. To obtain the release of his security personnel and the French citizens, Arafat was forced to negotiate with the very terrorists he has nurtured throughout the years. The appointment of Musa Arafat as chief of security in Gaza is a desperate move to consolidate power that also demonstrates Arafat's nepotism and corruption. It is a move that has infurated his increasingly bold and very deadly rivals. Influential leaders of the security forces are resigning in opposition to Arafat's corruption and the worsening state of security, leaving further holes in the lawless Palestinian territories. The refusal to admit the U.N. Middle East envoy in Gaza and the West Bank will not endear Arafat to some in the U.N. or in Europe, particularly since Arafat issued the threats via terror organizations Al-Aqsa and Islamic Jihad. And it demonstrates the willingness of the international community, however small, to recognize the failure of Arafat's government. The internal divisions within Fatah itself and the pressure being exerted by the terrorist groups makes for a fluid security situation that can lead to a change of government or a descent into chaos.

It is difficult to rule out Arafat; he is a survivor that rose from an exiled terrorist leader of the PLO to chairman of the Palestinian Authority, and has maintained his grip on power despite being isolated in his Ramallah compound during the current Intifada. But these days, one gets the impression that many in Gaza, the West Bank, and Fatah itself would not be terribly disappointed if Israel decided to direct a few Hellfire missiles at Arafat's Ramallah redoubt. Israel would be wise to let events run their course, as events within the Palestinian territories may yet create the conditions for a defeated enemy.

The Road to Defeat

2004-07-16T00:01:00.000-04:00

In an effort to obtain a separate peace from the Palestinians, Israel has enacted a strategy to defeat the Palestinians by building a security fence, targeting terrorist leaders and unilaterally withdrawing from Gaza and the West Bank.

The security fence has drastically reduced the number of suicide bombings in Israel, and there has only been one successful attack in Israel in the past four months. Despite a recent ruling by the World Court, which has rules the fence illegal, construction continues. The Israeli Supreme Court has determined the fence is wrongly placed in some areas, and Israel re-routes the fence to abide by its court's wishes for the fence to conform closer to the pre-existing Green Line.

Targeting terror leadership creates a power vacuum in the terror organizations. Hamas' leadership has been decapitated, with the assassinations of Rantisi and Sheikh Yassin, its 'spiritual' advisor. Other leaders of terror groups, such as Islamic Jihad, the PFLP (Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine), and Al Aqsa have not fared much better. As these groups founder without leadership, they are susceptible to splintering and infighting, further weakening their ability to fight successfully.

The unilateral withdrawal from Gaza and most of the West Bank, along with the security fence, prevents the Palestinians from negotiating from a position of strength, as the Israelis alone set the conditions for withdrawing from the areas and Israel alone draws the borders to its needs. The Palestinians have no voice in the boundaries, nor do they have the leverage to extract concessions, such as financial aid, from Israel.

Further evidence shows the Palestinian Authority and its armed (terrorist) wing Al Aqsa appears to be succumbing to Israel's pressure. In April, the PA planted the seeds of dissent when it arrested Al Aqsa terrorists, sowing the seeds for further conflict between the organizations. A recent report demonstrates the increasing divisions between these two groups. Al Aqsa is very unhappy with the state of affairs in the Palestinian Authority and released a paper demanding reform within the PA.

The 10-page document calls for the expulsion and prosecution of government officials involved in corruption, a wholesale purge of relatives and cronies of senior officials from government payrolls, and a halt to the practice of government officials' monopolizing sectors of the Palestinian economy to line "their private pockets."

The paper lashes out at "wives and sons and daughters of officials who are registered as employees and receive high salaries from the Palestinian Authority and are either at home or abroad." It attacks bureaucrats who "hold official titles and government jobs . . . when in fact they have no role other than the salary and position." It demands "eradication of the corruption in most of the PLO embassies and representatives" overseas.
:
:
According to Zakaria Zbeida, who heads the Al Aqsa group in the northern West Bank city of Jenin, Al Aqsa leaders in the West Bank and Gaza Strip crafted the proposal partially in response to Israel's announced plan to withdraw soldiers and Jewish settlers from the Gaza Strip within the next few years.
:
:
"We want to take part in this stage and not have the political process bypass us," Zbeida said in an interview at a rundown hideout in the Jenin refugee camp. "We come with this initiative to prove we are not just a group of fighters throwing bullets here and there. . . . We are ready to sit and talk."
:
:
"This is a way of saying to Arafat that 'it's time for you to step down as head of the Palestinian Authority,' " said Khalil Shikaki, a Palestinian pollster and political analyst. "That's a direct assault on Arafat. It's a clear indictment of the whole old guard."

And the Palestinian Authority's ability to police and maintain law in Gaza and the West Bank is practically non-existent.

A United Nations briefing on the estimated 45,000 PA police and security forces in the West Bank and Gaza Strip informed the Security Council that PA police operate in only one city.....The failure of the police has led to chaos throughout the PA areas, the council was told. [U.N. envoy] Roed-Larsen warned of a collapse of the PA and said the worst-hit areas was Rafah in the southern Gaza Strip and Nablus in the northern West Bank. "Clashes and showdowns between branches of Palestinian security forces are now common in the Gaza Strip, where Palestinian Authority legal authority is receding fast in the face of the mounting power of arms, money and intimidation," Roed-Larsen said. "Lawlessness and gang rule are becoming common in [the northern West Bank city of] Nablus."

The UN envoy said the PA "has made no progress on its core obligation to take immediate action on the ground to end violence and combat terror.....Despite a well-intended prime minister, the paralysis of the Palestinian Authority has become abundantly clear and the deterioration of law and order in Palestinian areas is steadily worsening," Roed-Larsen said. "The PA is in deep distress and is in real danger of collapse."

Absent the unlikely involvement of the international community, the pending implosion of the Palestinian Authority will accompany a period of lawlessness, power grabs by competing factions of Fatah and terror organizations and the complete collapse of the remainder of the Palestinian economy and society. Israel's strategy to defeat the Intafada requires the defeat of the Palestinian Authority as the PA is a major supporter of terror and an obstacle to peace. It appears Israel is coming closer to realizing its goals.

Elmo-Akbar

2004-07-15T00:05:00.000-04:00

The Palestinian's devotion to their cause, the destruction of Israel, has driven them to training their children to fight.

Children as young as 10 are being recruited to fight for the Palestinian cause. Sky News has gained access to a young people's camp in Gaza, where the only lesson taught is how to kill Israelis. Sky's Middle East Correspondent Emma Hurd said the camp, at an undisclosed location, had been set up to drill children in the ways of war. The recruits, some of whom are dwarfed by their AK-47 assault rifles, are taught how to carry out ambushes. They are also made to do an obstacle course, crawling under barbed wire and leaping through hoops of fire while their instructors fire live bullets overhead.

Hurd witnessed one training session in which a militant, dressed as a Jewish settler complete with yarmulke skull cap, was ambushed in his car.Gunmen pulled the "settler" from his vehicle and Hurd was told if this had been real he would have been killed. She spoke to two 10-year-old recruits. One of them, Mustafa, said he wanted to shoot down Israeli aircraft and blow up tanks.

The camp is run by a group called the Popular Resistance Committee, which said the next generation of Palestinians needed to know how to fight the Israeli "occupation". The boys even "graduate" at the end of their training, receiving a certificate from the camp commander.

The methods of indoctrination used by the Palestinians are very much like the methods used by Adolf Hitler in Nazi Germany.

German youth could join the Hitler Youth beginning at the age of 10. The organization was divided into two categories, one for members ages 10-14 and the other for members 14-18. The organizational structure was based on a military model, with squads, platoons, and companies.

Hitler was a firm believer in the need to indoctrinate Nazi ideology early and the power of young people in ensuring the continued vitality of the "Thousand Year Reich." The Hitler Youth was based on Hitler's anti-intellectualism, focusing on military training in preparation for becoming a soldier at 18.

But the children of Palestine are prepared as toddlers for hatred of Israel and the Jews, and devotion to martyrdom. Programs such as Children's Club, the Palestinian version of Sesame Street, are instrumental in infusing children with the Palestinian's ideology.

As captured on an Israeli video documentary produced in 1998, a "Sesame Street"-like children's program called the "Children's Club" -- complete with puppet shows, songs, Mickey Mouse and other characters -- focused on inculcating intense hatred of Jews and a passion for engaging in and celebrating violence against them in a perpetual "jihad" until the day the Israeli flags come down from above "Palestinian land" and the Palestinian flag is raised.

In one song on the "Children's Club," very young children are shown singing songs about wanting to become "suicide warriors" and to take up "a machine gun" to direct "violence, anger, anger, anger" against Israelis.

Living in the United States, where a simple giveaway of a G.I. Joe doll at a baseball game for the Armed Services Appreciation Day generates cries of warmongering, it would be assumed that the indoctrination and training of Palestinian children would cause a wave of disgust among humanitarian organizations. Yet peace activists are strangely silent on this issue.

Predictably, the Palestinian leadership is eager for naive children to carry out attacks against Israelis, as long as it is not their own children. As adult suicide volunteers dry up, the Palestinian ideologues dig deeper, looking for brainwashed youth to fight their battles. The Palestinians are forced to turn to their children to sacrifice themselves for a losing cause, just as the Nazis were forced to turn to children to defend Berlin from the Soviet onslaught at the end of World War II.

"In honor of Hitler's birthday, we received an eight-day ration allowance, plus one tiny can of vegetables, a few ounces of sugar and a half-ounce of real coffee. No one could afford to miss rations of this type and we stood in long lines at the grocery store patiently waiting to receive them. While standing there, we noticed a sad looking young boy across the street standing behind some bushes in a self-dug shallow trench. I went over to him and found a mere child in a uniform many sizes too large for him, with an anti-tank grenade lying beside him. Tears were running down his face, and he was obviously very frightened of everyone. I very softly asked him what he was doing there. He lost his distrust and told me that he had been ordered to lie in wait here, and when a Soviet tank approached he was to run under it and explode the grenade. I asked how that would work, but he didn't know. In fact, this frail child didn't even look capable of carrying such a grenade. It looked to me like a useless suicide assignment because the Soviets would shoot him on sight before he ever reached the tank.

By now, he was sobbing and muttering something, probably calling for his mother in despair, and there was nothing that I could do to help him. He was a picture of distress, created by our inhuman government. If I encouraged him to run away, he would be caught and hung by the SS, and if I gave him refuge in my home, everyone in the house would be shot by the SS. So, all we could do was to give him something to eat and drink from our rations. When I looked for him early next morning he was gone and so was the grenade. Hopefully, his mother found him and would keep him in hiding during these last days of a lost war."

A Correction to "Weakness"

2004-07-14T00:05:00.000-04:00

The French woman who claimed she was the victim of an anti-Semitic attack turns out to have fabricated the incident:

"The 23-year-old had initially told police that a gang of six youths had accosted her on a suburban train outside Paris, slashing her clothes and drawing swastikas on her stomach after mistaking her for a Jew.

The first declarations of the young woman reveal that her accusations were lies and that she had been making it all up," the public prosecutor's office said in a statement. The woman admitted to "having made knife cut marks on herself, cut off a lock of her own hair and drawn swastikas on her body," it said.

Doubts had mounted Tuesday over her claim after no one came forward to corroborate the story, despite the fact that she said some 20 people had witnessed the alleged incident. She changed her story Tuesday, too, to say that she and her 13-month-old child had been assaulted outside the train, but finally admitted that she had totally invented the attack, police said.

Duly noted. In an attempt to prove a point, I used the most recent story on an anti-Semitic attack in Europe. While that particular incident turned out to be been false, the post Weakness itself is not invalidated by this error. There are numerous accounts of anti-Semitic crimes in Europe that would just as easily disturb you. I could have used this dated example of brutality and indifference towards Jews in Europe:

Three young neo-Nazis went on trial in east Germany yesterday charged with the "bestial murder" of a schoolboy. The teenager was tortured and killed after his attackers decided that his baggy trousers and dyed blond hair made him "look like a Jew".

The men aged 17, 18 and 24 faced charges on separate counts of causing grievous bodily harm, coercion, attempted murder, and murder by a court in the town of Neuruppin. They are accused of killing Marinus Schoeberl, 17, a white German, whose mutilated body was discovered in a farm silage pit near the isolated village of Potzlow, north of Berlin, last November, four and a half months after his death.

Gerd Schnittcher, the chief state prosecutor, said: "The accused are part of an extreme right-wing scene. Acts of violence are nothing new, but we are dealing with a new dimension here. The details of the murder are so cruel that I can hardly bring myself to describe them. It was bestial."

The court was told how in July last year, Schoeberl had joined a group of young people in a flat in Potzlow where they got drunk. The three neo-Nazis in the group took exception to the boy's dyed hair and trousers. "They saw this as a provocation," state prosecutors said. Schoeberl was punched and kicked by the three who forced him to "confess" that he looked "like a Jew". The boy was taken to another flat in the village and beaten further before being dragged to a derelict pigsty on a deserted farm.

There, the prosecution said, Schoeberl was tortured according to methods shown in the film American History X, in which a neo-Nazi brutally murders two black men. In their confessions yesterday, the accused admitted to kicking Schoeberl's head repeatedly, which was propped up against a stone block.

I apologize for the error.

ChiCom, Taiwan and the USN

2004-07-13T00:37:00.000-04:00

Last week, in a little reported news story that should have garnered more attention, the United States Navy announced plans for an unprecedented show of force in the Pacific Ocean north of Taiwan. Operation Summer Pulse 04 will deploy seven of the twelve existing Carrier Battle Groups to demonstrate the capability of the United States to smash any invasion of Taiwan by Communist China. Some neoconservatives have lamented that the U.S. is abandoning Taiwan for the sake of friendly relations with China, including assistance with the North Korean nuclear crisis. Summer Pulse demonstrates the U.S. commitment to Taiwan is not dead. While China is not an enemy of the U.S. in the War on Terror, the two nations are regional and ideological opponents, and China's actions and America's policies in Asia have an impact on the War on Terror.

China and the War on Terror

China's stance on the United States' War on Terror has generally been neutral to supportive, as it has not opposed the United States in the United Nations concerning Afghanistan or Iraq. China has not protested U.S. involvement other areas of Asia where the U.S. has forged local cooperation in fighting terror, such as Pakistan, Thailand, Uzbekistan, and other central Asian nations. Part of the reason for China's cooperation with the U.S. may be concern over its local terrorism problem with the East Turkestan Islamic Movement, a local Islamist group in the Xinjiang province with links to al Qaeda. But China may also be using the War on Terror and the North Korean nuclear standoff to advance its own goals of reunification with Taiwan and its rise as a global power.

A Brief History of Communist China, Taiwan and American involvement

Before, during and after World War II, China fought a civil war between Nationalists under Chiang Kai-Shek and Communists under Mao Zedong. The Communists were victorious in 1949 and established the People's Republic of China (PRC), and the Nationalists fled to Taiwan and other islands to establish the Republic of China (ROC). The United States supported the ROC, and the United Nations recognized the ROC as the legitimate representative in the U.N. up until 1971 with the passage of UNSC Resolution 2758. The U.S., under President Carter, withdrew support from the government of ROC in 1979 to normalize relations with the PRC, but the passage of the Taiwan Relations Act allowed the U.S. to maintain informal diplomatic ties as well as economic and military assistance to Taiwan which continue to this day.

One China

Recognition of the "One China" policy is Communist China's requirement for diplomatic relations with the PRC. The policy states that communist mainland China is the legitimate government of the Chinese people and that reunification is the eventual goal. China views Taiwan as a renegade province and has conducted several threatening military exercises in the past decade to intimidate Taiwan, including ballistic missiles tests in 1996 that landed near Taiwan's ports, basing missiles on the coast of mainland China in 2001 and more missile tests and naval exercises in March of 2004 prior to elections in Taiwan. Taiwan has pressed for independence from China, in opposition to the PRC, and has requested to become a full member of the United Nations. These efforts have been opposed by the Clinton and Bush administrations in an attempt to maintain relations with China and avoid the possibility of war as China may be pushed to prevent the establishment of an independent nation of Taiwan.

On the Move

The War on Terror has forced the United States to reconsider its worldwide troop deployments to confront the real threat of global terrorism. Europe and Asia are not major theaters in the war, and the military assets can be put to better use in Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere. Redeployments from Korea and Japan as well as the diversion of naval and air assets to the Middle East and Central Asian theaters provides China an opportunity to exploit America's perceived weakness in the Pacific rim, and gives China reasons to consider reunification by force. China has worked to modernize its military and improve its economy (a more in depth, but dated, analysis can be viewed here) and intends develop its Navy into a regional force with blue water (open ocean) capabilities that could threaten American naval dominance in the Pacific. China's space program is also being developed to include anti-satellite capabilities with the idea of challenging America's space superiority. While it is estimated China is decades behind America's military sophistication, China's commitment to improving its military capabilities poses a direct threat to Taiwan's independence from communist rule and America's military dominance in the Pacific. Any American redeployments from the region have a real impact on the status of U.S., Chinese and Taiwanese relations. However the impact of America's military transformation, the process of reorganizing the military using new weapons systems, training, mobility, firepower, intelligence and organization to fight efficiently and effectively in the 21st century cannot be discounted when discussing the drawdown of forces in Asia. If China is evaluating American power by the size of its forces alone it would be making a serious error in judgment.

Impact

The deployment of the carrier armada by the U.S. Navy will have serious consequences. The U.S. has unconditionally reaffirmed its commitment to the defense of Taiwan in the Taiwan in the bluntest way - through a military show of force. The U.S. will also demonstrate its global reach and power projection at a time US forces are stretched thin due to commitments in the War on Terror. But the U.S. must not become complacent. It must maintain a military, economic and diplomatic edge to stay head of China. The deployment will be a direct slap in the face of China, and will likely force a further revamp of its military. But it may cause them to have second thoughts about competing with the U.S. Navy dominance of the sea lanes.

It is possible the surging of carrier fleets for exercises in the Pacific may be related to the War on Terror, a pretext for an increased naval presence in the Pacific to secure shipping lanes from potential terrorist threats. The naval aspect of the War on Terror is generally overlooked, but attacks on seaports and shipping choke points can cause serious damage to cities, world trade and the economic security of the United States. Wretchard of the Belmont Club has recently written on the importance of foreign oil to Europe and developing nations in Asia and the vulnerabilities of shipping choke points in the Pacific, specifically the Straits of Malacca. China is rapidly become the world's second largest importer of foreign oil, and depends on a significant amount from the Middle East for its imports. Ironically, the sea lanes China needs protected to import its oil can only be defended by the United States Navy.

Credits

Thanks to Michael at The Common Virtue for finding the original article on Operation Summer Pulse 04. Michael is a cadet in the Army ROTC and his blog is highly recommended for a daily read. Drop by, say hello and wish him the best of luck in defending this great nation.

Weakness

2004-07-12T08:00:00.000-04:00

Italian police believe they have captured the mastermind behind the March 11 Madrid attacks. Rabei Osman Sayed Ahmed, also known as "Muhammad the Egyptian" has been very chatty in phone conversations prior to his arrest as well as while in custody. Much is known about Ahmed's travels in Europe over the past five years. His movement about the European continent demonstrates the inherent weaknesses of democracies; the inability to deport illegal aliens, the reluctance to investigate radical religious groups and, especially in Europe's case, the ability to move from nation to nation without coming under suspicion.

In Germany in 1999 and 2000, Mr. Ahmed served 16 months in a detention center, feigning different Arabic accents and pretending to be a "stateless Palestinian" seeking political asylum.

In Madrid in 2001 and 2002, he befriended a group of radical Muslims, some of whom were involved in the March 11 bombings and were killed in a suicide operation while trying to escape the police.

In a Paris suburb in 2003, he eked out a living as an illegal construction worker and house painter. In Milan in 2004, he lived in an apartment in a tidy, upscale neighborhood, where he seemed to spend most of his day watching Arabic-language movies and news on satellite television.

Ahmed also unearths the depths terrorists will go to recruit for their "holy" cause, including the inclusion of criminals, resorting to phony marriage and flattering the young to convince them to martyr themselves.

He declares that nationality does not matter in holy war, that he has converted drug dealers and criminals to the faith and that Muslims are allowed to marry Christians as a means of acquiring false documents. He describes the ease of buying false documents but stresses quality, saying, "If you don't know who used them, it is dangerous."

He takes what he calls a "beautiful photo" of Yahia Ragheh, a 21-year-old Egyptian he is grooming to become a suicide bomber — and who was arrested with him — and tells him that it will be sent to his family and other militants after his death. He boasts that while the Americans possess nuclear weapons, he has seen "something in the form of a hair dryer" that causes "the most horrible death possible" by suffocation.

While America and Europe share many of these weaknesses, Europe has done little enact new laws and methods to prevent the next attack. America has attempted to close holes in its security by measures such as the passage of the Patriot Act, increased maritime security and airline security legislation. These actions have been looked on with disdain by the Europeans as being too intrusive to personal freedoms and little progress has been made to tighten European security.

But Europe's weakness does not stop with security problems. Europe also suffers from an old problem, with a new twist: the rise of anti-Semitism coupled with the increased immigration of Muslims from the Arab world. The European Union has gone so far as to suppress its report on the rise of anti-Semitism due to the conclusion that "Muslims and pro-Palestinian groups were behind many of the incidents it examined". France has been a hotspot for anti-Semitic violence, and has experienced incidents such as a bombing of a synagogue, an attack on a Jewish sports club and just this weekend, an attack on a woman and her child who were only suspected as being Jewish.

"One of them said, 'She's a rich kid.' And then he added, 'There are only Jews in the 16th,'" the police spokesman said. "Nothing in the name of the young woman or where she lives has any Jewish character," the spokesman added.

The attackers cut the victim's clothing, slightly wounding her in the process, and cut off a lock of her hair, "as a souvenir," one of the attackers is reported to have said. After slashing the stroller, the six attackers overturned it. The baby fell to the ground and suffered a mild bruise, the police said.
:
:
About 20 people saw what happened, but none came to the aid of the victim, the police said, adding that only two passengers approached afterward.

The Scotsman provides further details that were left out of the International Herald Tribune's report:

They then cut her hair, using their knives “to keep a souvenir” and opened her shirt, also with knives, then drew swastikas on her belly with marking pen.

No one came to the aid of a woman and child being attacked? A train full of people was silent? It is understandable they may have feared for their lives, but only two witnesses approached the woman and child after the thugs left the scene? This type of behavior is inexcusable. But perhaps we should not be surprised by the lack of action, as it seems that few in France actually care. And Europe seems to fair no better. In a recent poll requested by the European Commission, the majority of the respondents believe Israel is "biggest threat to world peace" (followed by, big shock here, the United States).

In the end, why should the riders on that train care about this woman and her child? She was only Jewish, right? Or at least they thought so. When you turn your back on your fellow countrymen because of race, religion or appearance, the day will come when some will turn their back on you.

Something humorous

2004-07-11T12:28:00.000-04:00

While I realize I deal with serious issues on a daily basis, I want to assure you I do have a sense of humor.

Take a look at this excellent political humor, where neither President Bush or Senator Kerry's feelings are spared. (hatttip Spoons of The Spoons Experience)

My favorite parts: President Bush riding the bomb in classic Strangelovian fashion and Senator Kerry's 'submission' to the United Nations.

The CIA and Senate's Intelligence is MIA

2004-07-10T00:07:00.000-04:00

The Senate Intelligence Committee released its report on the intelligence used in the lead up to the Iraq war (the more readable conclusion can be read here). This report deals with the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), Iraq's Continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction. The report is specifically damning to the Central Intelligence Agency but does not implicate the Bush administration in any wrongdoing concerning the use of the intelligence that was presented. Keep in mind this report is addressing the intelligence used in the lead up to the war, not the results of what we have found in Iraq since the overthrow of Saddam's regime. Some of the evidence we have found (chemical weapons, nuclear material, chemical precursor stockpiles, proof of the Niger uranium purchase attempts, production facilities, missiles, etc.) demonstrates Iraq did possess WMD, delivery means and the capacity to produce it. This is all in violation of Iraq's cease fire and U.N. obligations, just not on the same scale or in the same way the CIA estimated prior to the war.

This is a brief summary of the major items covered (the conclusion alone is thirty pages, so I stress the brief):

* The CIA's failures

* made serious errors in analysis of intelligence
* made assumptions Iraq was actively pursuing WMD based on evasion of UN inspections and did not challenge these assumptions,
* did not have adequate human intelligence
* guilty of poor management
* did not share their data with other intelligence organizations to cross check their work
* did not state the uncertainties of the estimate to the Bush administration.
* The existing intelligence did not support the CIA's claim Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear program, but did support the claim Iraq was acquiring dual use technologies (technologies that can be used for both civilian and military purposes to product WMD).

* The intelligence did not support CIA claims Iraq was producing biological weapons, but did support the claim Iraq did possess dual use capabilities.

* The intelligence did not support CIA claims Iraq was producing chemical weapons but did support the claim Iraq possessed old stockpiles as well as the materials to make more, as well as dual use capabilities.

* The intelligence on the missile systems was accurate, while the intelligence on the UAV (Unmanned Arial Vehicles) program was overstated.

* There was no pressure by any members of the Bush administration on intelligence analysts to massage the intelligence to support the case for war.

Intelligence gathering is difficult based on the nature of the business. We were attempting to penetrate one of the most dangerous and ruthless regimes in the world with a history of producing, owning and using WMD on its citizens and neighbors. It is not disturbing some of the intelligence was incorrect, but what are disturbing is the CIA's methods, its poor analysis and processes used to come to its conclusions. The CIA needs immediate reform to prevent this from happening in the future.

This report is very damaging to the prestige of the United States and its intelligence gathering services. Political pressures forced the Senate to investigate the intelligence leading up to Iraq shortly after the end of the invasion, in spite of the fact that we are still at war. While it is very important to understand the causes for failure, inquiries such as this and the 9/11 Commission do little to help further America's ability to successfully prosecute the war. The American public and foreign governments will be less likely to take America at her word in the future on intelligence matters, despite the fact that this was not just an American failure, but an intelligence failure on a global scale.

It is prudent to understand our intelligence shortcomings, but unwise to publicly release the report in the middle of war. Our national security would be better served if the findings were kept secret and released at a much later date. The Democrat's need to prove President Bush wrong prior to the election trumped the need to behave in a responsible manner concerning our national security. This is not a matter of whether a (R) or a (D) is next to a president's name, this is an issue that affects our safety. And if President Bush is not reelected, the next president will still be hampered in making his decisions on national security due to the political pounding he may receive from the opposition, as now all bets are off when it comes to the validity of intelligence. Every American will pay a price, as America's national security does not benefit from a president hampered by indecision due to political attacks on his decision making process in the lead up to war. The nature of the enemy we face, terrorists and rogue nations that operate in the shadows, requires a certain amount of guess work and assumptions that cannot meet the standards of a court of law. The Democrats have practically ensured that iron clad evidence is needed to prosecute the next war on a murderous regime bent on thwarting the laws of nations. By the time this impossible standard of evidence is available, nations such as Iran and North Korea may already have met their goal of joining the nuclear club or pass on their destructive weapons to terror organizations.

But this report does not prove that the Bush administration was wrong to prosecute the war against Saddam. WMD potential was but one of several reasons in the case for the Iraq war. Our recent findings demonstrate Saddam still possessed WMD and pursued dual use technologies, all in violation to his obligations under international agreements. And the Iraq war has been crucial to the prosecution of the War on Terror, despite claims the war has been a distraction. The unearthing of AQ Khan's clandestine WMD ring alone was worth the price, but there are further benefits, including affecting change via democracy in the Middle East, proving or commitment to fight on enemy territory, toppling the Lybia WMD regime and placing American troops within striking distance of Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia.

The investigation into Saddam's WMD is not over, and evidence is unearthed every day that sheds new light onto the dealings of Saddam's corrupt regime, including his success at manipulating the United Nations Oil for Food program. Because our intelligence prior to the war was flawed does not mean we were wrong in deposing the Butcher of Baghdad.

Update

See Dan Darling's special analysis on this report concerning al Qaeda links to Iraq, the now proven attempt by Iraq to buy uranium from Niger and further insight.

The Magnet

2004-07-09T00:05:00.000-04:00

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi released an hour-long propaganda video that documents his rise to stardom in the jihad community and provides a look into the minds of the foot soldiers willing to sacrifice themselves for their sick cause. The video also includes footage of suicide attacks on American, Coalition and Iraqi forces and civilians. This is but a taste of the depravity of our enemy:

The tape contains many chilling scenes. When the chairman of the U.S. appointed Iraqi Governing Council, Izzedine Salam, then the country's highest Iraqi official, was assassinated last month in a car bomb Zarqawi quickly claimed credit. Now he shows the act, in graphic footage shot from a parked car: A convoy of white SUVs disappears down a Baghdad street, followed a moment later by a ball of flame and explosion so intense the windscreen through which the cameraman films cracks before your eyes.

When a suicide car bomber intercepted a convoy of security personnel for General Electric in the heart of Baghdad on June 14 Zarqawi's information unit was there, ready and waiting. The three-vehicle convoy enters the screen and is followed down a crowded little street. As the lens zooms in the vehicles erupt in a blistering ball of flame. Three bystanders are seen turning their backs from the blast, attempting to cover their heads. In contrast to other videos of insurgent attacks, the cameraman does not flee. Instead he holds his position and zooms in on the burning suicide vehicle and the flaming SUVs. Survivors can be seen moving from the vehicles and attempting to take cover.

Not just satisfied with murdering their victims, terrorist revel in taping their murders for recruiting purposes. The video also documents the makeup of Zarqawi's organization in Iraq, which is almost wholly made of foreigners.

One thing the video makes clear is that foreign fighters have developed a sophisticated organization in Iraq. Interviews on the tape, and living wills made by suicide bombers, show how Muslim men have been brought to the country through well-defined and clearly funded channels. Appearances are made by Saudis, Algerians, Libyans, Jordanians and others; the video even claims that one bomber had lived in Italy and played hockey for a premier club.

Nothing threatens radical Islamists more than free governments; they are the antithesis to the jihadi's way of life. For them, the only form of government permissible is a Taliban style government, one that forces its perverted laws on an unwilling population under the pain of mutilation or death. Because of this, Iraq has become a magnet for terror. Al Qaeda and other terror organizations are directing their fighters to Iraq to destroy the hope of democracy in the Middle East. While the foreign terrorists are very dangerous to the citizens and do complicate the task of establishing a stable democracy, this does force al Qaeda to commit to Iraq and flushes its operatives into the open.

Al Qaeda is diverting valuable resources such as money, arms, training and other organizational support assets to Iraq that could be used in the United States and Europe. These resources are not infinite. And once there, al Qaeda is meeting the combined weight of American power, assisted by local Iraqi intelligence and security services.

Establishing democracy in Iraq under these conditions is fraught with risk, but in war, all bold moves are. But the payoff for winning is huge. We have the opportunity to defeat terrorists on their home turf while establishing a democracy in one of the most intolerant regions of the world. We have the chance to provide hope for a people that have known nothing but despair, corruption and oppression.

Can we call Iran evil now?

2004-07-08T00:05:00.000-04:00

President Bush included Iran, along with Iraq and North Korea, in the Axis of Evil for a good reason: the government of Iran is evil. Iran is a nation that is developing nuclear weapons in violation of its international treaty obligations and is a proven state sponsor of international terror. And yesterday, Iranian spies were captured in Baghdad with explosives.

American and Iraqi joint patrols, along with U.S. Special Operations teams, captured two men with explosives in Baghdad on Monday who identified themselves as Iranian intelligence officers, FOX News has confirmed. Senior officials said it was previously believed that Iran had officers inside Iraq stirring up violence, but this is the first time that self-proclaimed Iranian intelligence agents have been captured within the country.

Iran is sending in its agents to attack Iraqi, American and Coalition forces; this is an act of war. Coupled with the recent hijacking of British sailors while in Iraqi waters, this action demonstrates the willingness of the Iranian government to risk confrontation with American and British forces. This news directly follows Iraqi claims on Monday that foreign governments are supporting the insurrection in the newly established Iraq.

Iraq’s new government will this week publish evidence of ties between foreign countries, including Iran and Syria, and Muslim extremists and supporters of Saddam Hussein’s regime who have launched an insurgency in the country, a British newspaper reported here on Sunday.

Hoshyar Zebari, Iraqi foreign minister, told the Sunday Telegraph that his government had gathered information from intelligence services showing support by some neighbouring countries to the insurgents. Zebari did not name the foreign powers, but the Sunday Telegraph quoted “senior Iraqi officials” as indicating “that Iran and Syria were the worst offenders”. “Since we started to look at the security situation, we have seen how foreign governments have been helping terrorists,” the newspaper quoted Zebari as saying. “Why they are doing it we cannot say, but we know where the support is coming from. We have plans to put this before the public within days and it will have substantial impact,” he told the newspaper.

Zebari, whose administration took power in the country early last week, said insurgents benefited from financial support, logistical help and training from “neighbouring government agencies”, the Sunday Telegraph quoted Zebari as saying. Baghdad also believed that up to 10,000 foreign spies and undercover agents had infiltrated the country since last year’s war, the newspaper reported.

Zebari “even indicated that Iraq might not oppose attacks by American troops based in Iraq on neighbouring states if they were backing the insurgents,” the Sunday Telegraph added. He was quoted as warning that supporting terrorists “will backfire on those governments. A stable and peaceful Iraq is a better neighbour for them.”

The capture of two Iranian agents with explosives is a bit more serious than "financial support, logistical help and training". If Iraq is sincere about allowing American forces to use Iraq to stage an assault on Iran, the Mullahs should have plenty to worry about. This also provides further proof of the soundness of President Bush's policy to make Iraq a central front in the War on Terror. Iran will need to be dealt with at some point during this war. Iraq is the "keystone" to the Middle East, bordering the hostile states of Iran and Syria and the troublesome state of Saudi Arabia. America has established a base of operations to affect change in the region, with a friendly democratic government, military and intelligence service that is also interested in promoting democracy for its own security reasons. Battle-seasoned American troops are stationed in Afghanistan and Iraq, to the East and West of Iran respectively, and the U.S. Navy is in the Persian Gulf to the South. We have essentially boxed in Iran, as Turkey, the Caucasus nations and Turkmenistan which border Iran to the North are highly unlikely to provide assistance to Iran. Our positioning strengthens our ability to remove the corrupt theocratic regime of Iran, by force if neccessary.

WMD Update - Iraq

2004-07-07T00:04:00.000-04:00

This post is a continuation of the WMD - Past and Present from the beginning of May, which documented what was known at the time of Iraq's Weapon's of Mass Destruction potential and capabilities.

In the past two months, U.S. troops found a sarin shell rigged as a improvised explosive device (IED), the United Nations discovered that Iraq was smuggling WMD components outside of its borders, Charles Deulfer of the Iraq Inspection Group states the U.S. found a dozen chemical weapons, Polish troops found 19 chemical rounds filled with cyclosarin, evidence emerged that Iraq did try to purchase Uranium from Niger and most recently the U.S. moved nuclear material out of Iraq, enough that was capable of being used to build a nuclear weapon (hattip: The Common Virtue).

Yet the media continues to insist the Bush administration's case for Iraq's WMD was seriously flawed. And the Left still claims Bush Lied! about Iraq's possession of WMD. How many finds of chemical weapons and related materials are needed to convince the media and the Left that Iraq possessed them? What is a stockpile? A single warhead? Twelve? Nineteen? How much nuclear, biological, and chemical materials, as well as prohibited missiles, UAVs, labs, factories, components and plans must be found? The facts are not good enough to convince those with the misguided beliefs in the incompetence of the Bush administration and the benevolence of Saddam Hussein and his compliance with the United Nations weapons inspections. The truth slowly trickles out of Iraq; one day either the preponderance of the evidence will be so damning or a major find of WMD will be unearthed, and the media and the Left will no longer be able to ignore the facts. But they will still try: the media by burying the story on the back page and the Left by standing by their outdated "facts".

Salvation’s Army

2004-07-06T10:25:00.002-04:00

A new militia appears to have been created in Iraq, but this is one Iraqis and Americans should be happy to see. Much like the Thulfiqar Army, which began to kill members of Muqtada al-Sadr’s militia during the Phantom Shiite Rebellion, the Salvation Movement is after al Qaeda’s Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and his Tawhid terror group.

In a videotape sent to the al-Arabiya television station, a group calling itself the "Salvation Movement," questioned how al-Zarqawi could use Islam to justify the killing of innocent civilians, the targeting of government officials and the kidnapping and beheading of foreigners. “He must leave Iraq immediately, he and his followers and everyone who gives shelter to him and his criminal actions," said a man on the video….."We swear to Allah that we have started preparing ... to capture him and his allies or kill them and present them as gift to our people." the man said. "This is the last warning. If you don't stop, we will do to you what the coalition forces have failed to do."

Note that the Salvation Movement openly questions Zarqawi’s use of Islam in the commission of terror. Meanwhile, Iraqi interim Prime Minister Allawi reaffirms his government’s desire to defeat terrorist in Iraq.

Allawi appealed to all Iraqis to report the activities of insurgents. "The sovereign Iraqi people and our international partners are adamant that we will put an end to terrorism and chase those corrupt terrorists and will uproot them one by one," he said in the statement.

The pieces of the puzzle to defeat Zarqawi are now in place. The Iraqi government is building its security and intelligence apparatus to deal with the terrorism threat, and the intelligence used to conduct the latest strike on a Zarqawi safe house in Fallujah was provide by Iraqi intelligence services. The Iraqi people are forming local vigilante groups, such as the Thulfiqar Army and the Salvation Movement, to clandestinely kill terrorists and insurgents that are making their lives miserable and mutating Islam for their horrific purposes. This same tactic, well documented by Mark Bowden in Killing Pablo, was used by the Columbians; the creation of the secretive Los Pepes group was instrumental in tracking and killing Columbian drug lord Pablo Escobar. Los Pepes cut Pablo’s support system from underneath him, killing friends, family, foot soldiers and middle managers in Pablo’s drug cartel until there was no one left to help him, and he was finally killed by Columbian police. And it is suspected similar tactics were used to capture Saddam Hussein. This is part of the ugly side of counter insurgencies, but the tactic is quite effective. And finally, the full weight of the United States military remains in Iraq, with its superior special operations forces, air support and intelligence capabilities as well as economic assistance. America can leverage these assets to assist the Iraqi government as well as the shadow groups to achieve the goals of rooting out terrorists and stabilizing Iraq as it transitions to democracy. The noose around Zarqawi’s neck may be tightening, and the Salvation Movement may be providing an extra tug.

Our Independence Day

2004-07-04T16:02:00.001-04:00

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. --Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

The Declaration of Independence - The Want, Will and Hopes of the People - July 4th, 1776

Today is the most uniquely American holiday: the celebration of the birth of the American nation; the celebration of our freedom from British rule and the establishment of democracy that is the light of freedom for the world. Our founding fathers sacrificed everything by signing the Declaration of Independence on July 4th, 1776; signing this document made them traitors to the British Crown, subject to immediate death. The eight years of war that followed against the most powerful empire on the earth were difficult and bloody times, but our ancestors prevailed against long odds to achieve the goal of independence.

Since the creation of this great nation, we have corrected many of the imperfections that existed; slavery has been abolished, black and women’s voting rights were established, among others. While these changes may occur over long periods of time, the net result is a freer and safer nation that grants its citizens independent rights. America is the example to the rest of the world freedom brings; freedom and democracy have been slowly taken hold throughout the world since the birth of America. We have inspired Europe, Latin America, Eastern Europe, Taiwan, South Korea, South Africa, Russia, and Iraq to strive for something more than fascism, communism, dictatorships and martial law. But there are still large regions of the world, such as Africa, much of Asia and the Middle East that still have not experienced the joy of freedom; these are the regions that pose the greatest threat to the peace and security of the free world. Free nations do not fight wars to resolve their differences.

President Reagan referred to America as the “shining light on the hill”, the hope and inspiration of the free world. As such, we have an obligation to assist our fellow travelers who aspire to be more than mere subjects of tyrannical rule. This is what all free men should do, what all free men must do.

Today is our Independence Day, and we should rejoice. May we be skillful and brave enough to assist those less fortunate in obtaining their freedom. And may we be there to rejoice in the future independence days of those nations that are deprived of the rights all men should enjoy.

Babyblogging

2004-07-02T12:05:00.000-04:00

We're having a great time, the weather has been better than expected and the kids are enjoying themselves. This is the view from our lower balcony. The flag poll was lonely when we first arrived, so we picked up a flag to give it company.

Getting a good shot of Alex (who will be 4 in a month) is difficult, so here is one of a bed jumping session, which followed an art session, as evidenced by the body colorings.

Sarah (who will be 2 in a month) on the other hand is quite photogenic. She enjoys the beach but is still afraid of the water.

Alex loves to read his books and watch vidoes in the morning.

Sarah has beautiful blue eyes and is daddy’s girl. “Uppey big hug” is her way of telling me to pick here up and give her some love.

American Mythology 2004

2004-07-01T23:02:00.000-04:00

As the election heats up again, so does the rhetoric. June 30, the scheduled handover of Sovereignty back to an Interim Government in Iraq, always held special significance for the War in Iraq, as well as the War on Terrorism. Naturally, it has occurred to players and pundits no both sides of the fence, that because the War in Iraq (WI) is a campaign issue, the handover is a point of great value. Or rather, if you have a certain political flavor, it is a point which value must be diluted, diminished, or thwarted as much as possible. There are two main topics which have risen from the handover of Sovereignty back to Iraq; the return of the Liberal Myth Chant, and the political impact of this tactic. Here on TheFourthRail, I will note the most prevalent of the chants from this week, and respond to them. Over on Polipundit, I shall discuss the political impact I see, especially the courses which have become too locked-in to change.There are many myths flying around, but for here, I will simply address the top 12 I have heard, or the Dirty Dozen as I see them:

Liberal Myths About Iraq

1.“George W. Bush did not really win the Presidency ” -
Yep, it’s back, that moldy oldie you knew would come back as a ghost when the next election came up. There are really only three views one can hold on the matter – that Bush was properly elected, that they don’t like what happened, but they can move on, and of course, the lot that just can’t let go of the argument. There is no purpose to going over the way the Electoral college works, or to remind an angry mob that every count in Florida had Bush ahead, but it serves as a touchstone for where the Left is, emotionally, in this election. That may be summed up as unbalanced rage.

2.“Iraq is a country with several racial and religious groups. Giving them their freedom will just lead to civil war, it will just collapse back into another dictatorship ” -
Yes, there are actually people out there throwing out the notion that the people of Iraq can’t be trusted with their own country, simply because they are a heterogenous group, like the USA. Aside from the racism and arrogance contained in such a notion, it demonstrates a level of frustration from the Left, as the emerging Republic takes shape. The Left never thought the war would be won to this level of success, and has therefore developed no effective response to the new conditions.

3.“The handover was only symbolic, Iraq is just a puppet of the US” –
That’s not really much different from #2, except for the conspiracy theory. Basically, Allawi’s Council has assumed all civilian and military control in Iraq, excepting Coalition military personnel, territory, and actions. It’s really very much like a posse comitatus relationship.

4.“There were no WMD, and Bush lied to get us into Iraq” –
Most people have not read either David Kay’s interim report on the WMD search, nor any of the myriad documents out there to show the WMD threat, especially from Chemical Weapons. Kay specifically noted that “Deliberate dispersal and destruction of material and documentation related to weapons programs began pre-conflict and ran trans-to-post conflict”; that "Some WMD personnel crossed borders in the pre/trans conflict period and may have taken evidence and even weapons-related materials with them”; that "Any actual WMD weapons or material is likely to be small in relation to the total conventional armaments footprint and difficult to near impossible to identify with normal search procedures. It is important to keep in mind that even the bulkiest materials we are searching for, in the quantities we would expect to find, can be concealed in spaces not much larger than a two car garage”. In other words, in addition to what has already been found, more may well be there to be discovered, but there is no serious doubt that the WMD existed. The summary?
“We have discovered dozens of WMD-related program activities and significant amounts of equipment that Iraq concealed from the United Nations”,
”A clandestine network of laboratories and safehouses … that contained equipment subject to UN monitoring and suitable for continuing CBW research”;
“A prison laboratory complex, possibly used in human testing of BW agents”;
“New research on BW-applicable agents, Brucella and Congo Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever (CCHF), and continuing work on ricin and aflatoxin were not declared to the UN”; and
“Documents and equipment, hidden in scientists' homes, that would have been useful in resuming uranium enrichment by centrifuge and electromagnetic isotope separation (EMIS)”. These indicate significant potential for future discoveries.

5.“The US just wants to rape Iraq’s resources” –
In other words, the old “War for Oil” canard. Instead of taking resources from Iraq, the US has pumped billions of dollars into the country to get oil production flowing again, the proceeds from which benefit the Iraq Treasury. In addition to that, the US has assisted Iraq by arranging for other nations like Russia to write off or cap Iraq’s debt, so that the fledgling republic can be solvent from its beginning.

6.“Iraqis are not celebrating the handover, they know nothing has changed” –
That line could only come from someone nowhere near Iraq. The mood in Iraq has been quiet, but very positive , as Iraqis come to realize the truth from the US promise. An Arab blogger in Iraq has detailed responses, which are compelling in their perception and clarity. Iraqis did not believe this day would come; now that it has, they are just beginning to learn the possibilities of their promise. The last line in Ali’s log is the best. Speaking about Bush and America, an Iraqi barber notes “They have shown that they keep their promises.”

7.“The Interim government is no more legitimate than Saddam Hussein was” -
They have restored authority to civilian government, established the framework for national elections and a permanent constitution which will be democratically voted into effect. In so doing, the Interim Council has not tortured or killed a single dissident, they have in fact established unprecedented civil rights in Iraq.

8.“Saudi Arabia, North Korea, and Iran are much greater threats than Iraq ever was.” -
Not really, if you think about it. Saudi Arabia is annoying in its duplicity at times, but the Sa'ud government has a history of close cooperation with the US, and the official stance remains pro-US. As for North Korea, while they are a threat to the region, they have a simple but effective pair of restraints on their use of WMD; China and the US, who have both made clear that any threat will be redressed quickly and in full measure. As for Iran, that nation now has to deal with a democratic republic on its borders, and a nation who cannot be easily dismissed as infidels or foreigners. That, actually, reflects the genius of dealing with Iraq first. If the US had moved on North Korea, there would have been an immediate crisis with China, and the Middle East could not be tended. Moves against either Iran or Saudi Arabia would have driven even moderate Muslims to oppose the US. By attacking a secular dictator, and establishing a democratic republic in a nation formerly ruled only by tyrants and monarchists, the US has clearly installed a regime more preferable to all of its neighbors, and at the same time positioned a likely ally where we can most use one.

9.“Conservatives are unfairly attacking Liberals, just for not agreeing with them” –
In actual practice, this merely the Left trying to change the subject when their own foul play is highlighted. But in examination, it’s also important to note the method involved. Consider, for example, the “support the troops but not the War” strategy: The Left sends out speakers like Michael Moore and Martin Sheen and the Dixie Chicks, who rail against President Bush and his policies, calling him names and such. When pressed, these worthies claim that they are simply opposing an ____ War or _____ President (insert random epithet). And of course, the Democratic Leadership disavows any knowledge or support for these spokespeople, if there happens to be any public outcry. But they have played themselves too clever for their own good. The best example of this is John Kerry himself. When John Kerry’s war protests were criticized, Kerry tried to claim that his war service was being attacked , and ignored the real question. But more and more, people are getting better at seeing the real men behind the façade, and when politicians cross the line and fail to rein in their behavior , it comes back around to bite them back. History is likely to repeat itself here, too.

10.“Fundamentalist Islam is to blame, not some state or leader” –
This one’s a new attack, and a subtler one. Islam is not widely understood in the US, and it’s certainly not the most common faith in the West, which makes it an easy target for suspicion. To make matters worse, the very word “fundamentalist” to many people, means ‘rigid’ or ‘unyielding’, and it’s very easy from that assumption , to move on to mistrust. But Islam is a religion founded on faith, justice, and peace, and in fact, it’s five pillars, the requirements for all Muslims, are very much like the requirements for devout Christians, and are generally considered useful in growing towards a service-centered life, one which helps people. Fundamentalists are no more, than people who take the core beliefs of their faith very seriously. In that regard, the Amish are fundamentalist Christians, a bit different from other people, but gentle and kind all the same. It’s worth noting, as well, that the terrorists, in their behavior, violated almost every major tenet of Islam, even before murdering innocents, which is prohibited in the Quran. Or, to put it another way, perhaps thirty thousand Muslims are the militant, kill-the-infidel types. With over 1.6 billion practicing Muslims, that means for every Muslim who supports violence and murder, well over fifty thousand other Muslims do not. If Islam holds to its fundamental core, the terrorists will be rejected and driven out from their number.

11.“Instead of being in Iraq at all, we should first finish the job in Afghanistan” -
That sounds clever, but in reality it just ignores the facts. In the first place, Afghanistan was not important because of bin Laden, since bin Laden and Al Qaeda operated in a number of countries. Afghanistan was important because the Taliban had taken over the country for the express purpose of promoting a radical jihad against the West. What’s more, despite the image many have, that the US-supported Mujahadeen turned against the US, the fact is the Taliban overthrew the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan, and many of the Taliban had no popular or legitimate standing in Afghanistan at all. The US, so far as Afghanistan is concerned, handled the war there with precisely the right measures: Sending in specialists in small numbers to assist the Northern Alliance in their fight to reclaim the country for the people of Afghanistan. The US helped throw out the Taliban, set up a new Constitution to protect civil rights, and supports the new government in its mix of traditional Afghan culture and individual rights. We finished the job in Afghanistan, and did well. If the rebuilding in Iraq is as successful as Afghanistan has been, then there will be much to celebrate, and the hunt for terrorists will become that much easier.

12. “Bush is changing his defense about why we went into Iraq” -
A last-ditch claim by the Left, when presented with the hard evidence of US successes in Iraq, is often to claim that our successes have nothing to do with our stated reasons for going into the country, inferring that Bush is being dishonest about the reasons for our involvement, then and now.Let’s start with the legal basis: On October 8, 2002, the UN Security Council held Iraq in “material breach” of the cease-fire terms . When all the arguing is said and done, the undeniable fact behind that statement, is that a Cassus Belli now existed. And it was not relevant (though of interest) whether WMD stockpiles existed at that time; Hussein’s refusal to act in accordance with the UN’s terms forfeited his right to stay in power. But there are many other reasons, and they were all cited from the beginning of the discussion, including Iraq’s support for terrorist organizations, Saddam’s brutal repression of minorities in Iraq, abuse of children and women, and Saddam’s refusal to return prisoners to other countries from previous wars. President Bush detailed some of these same reasons in his 2003 SOTU address , including emphasizing the torture of children in Iraq. In September 2002 testimony to Congress, SecDef Rumsfeld noted the many causes for the US to act in Iraq, including the confirmed use of CW on his own population, two unprovoked wars on neighboring countries, missiles fired against four neighboring countries, longtime support for terrorist organizations, assassinations and attempts, including the attempted assassination of a former US President, acts of war against US and Coalition aircraft in violation of the cease-fire, numerous attempts to acquire nuclear material, systematic deception and denial to weapons inspectors, again in direct violation of the cease-fire terms, and fraudulent manipulation of the Oil-for-Food program, leaving thousands of Iraqis to starve so he could spend billions on banned weapons. In simple terms, everything being observed now, was stated before the war, as well. The President and the Coalition are simply confirming that they were right. George W. Bush set the stage back on September 20, 2001, when he told the Congress of the United States:

"Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen... We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place, until there is no refuge or rest."

President Bush meant he said, and we are seeing the fruit of his work.

The total effect of these myths, when considered, is that they are running scared, apparently scared to death about what Americans will conclude when they find out the facts. Here you see my responses to the claims. Over on Polipundit, please also see my estimates of the likely effects of those claims to the election.

Still no connection.....

2004-06-30T23:04:00.000-04:00

Vacation pictures will be available late tomorrow.

I tried to use the traditional media as my primary news source, but it has become impossible to function. I decided I would log in, load Betsy’s Page & Instapudit, then terminate the painfully slow internet connection. These are the best two blogs available for a condensed look at the latest news and opinion; they cover important issues much better than CNN, MSNBC, FOX and networks combined.

This story from Betsy's Page caught my eye. In an interview with NBC's Tom Brokaw, Iraqi Prime Minister Allawi states Saddam's Iraq and al Qaeda were associated. This interview demonstrates the cravenness of Tom Brokaw (and the media in general) as he blindly repeats the misrepresentations of the 9/11 commission’s statement about the links between Iraq & al Qaeda and inserts his negative take on the war.

Brokaw: I know that you and others like you are grateful for the liberation of Iraq. But can’t you understand why many Americans feel that so many young men and women have died here for purposes other than protecting the United States?

Allawi: We know that this is an extension to what has happened in New York. And — the war have been taken out to Iraq by the same terrorists. Saddam was a potential friend and partner and natural ally of terrorism.

Brokaw: Prime minister, I’m surprised that you would make the connection between 9/11 and the war in Iraq. The 9/11 commission in America says there is no evidence of a collaborative relationship between Saddam Hussein and those terrorists of al-Qaida.

Allawi: No. I believe very strongly that Saddam had relations with al-Qaida. And these relations started in Sudan. We know Saddam had relationships with a lot of terrorists and international terrorism. Now, whether he is directly connected to the September — atrocities or not, I can’t — vouch for this. But definitely I know he has connections with extremism and terrorists.
Tom Brokaw and the media establishment do not understand the extent of the war, how this is not just about who was actively involved with 9/11. The terrorist breeding grounds of the Middle East and other oppressive governments are the lifeblood of al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas and other murderers bent on destroying our way of life. To the likes of Brokaw, we should only be hunting al Qaeda and the problem ends in Afghanistan. This is a dangerous worldview that sets American up for an attack far worse than we experienced almost three years ago.

The good news is Prime Minister Allawi clearly understands the nature of the war. He could have easily taken a pass on the question about al Qaeda, but answered them directly and truthfully. America needs allies such as this man, who has been at the forefront of defending America’s roll in the liberation of Iraq and the meaning of the war. May Iraq produce many such politicians such as he and we will have an easier fight ahead of us.

A Correction to "The Poll Vault"

2004-06-30T11:44:00.000-04:00

Ever discover that something you had heard for years was wrong? I just did, and what's worse, it showed up in my last post.

In "The Poll Vault", I stated that voter registration was averaging around 70% of the eligible population, and that actual voting was around 60% of the registered voters. That is not correct, actually.

I was reading through the Census Bureau's demographics of the 2000 Federal Election, when I finally caught my mistake.

What makes the difference is a statistical oddity. There is the General Population, then what the Government calls the Voting Age Population (VAP), or adult citizens in the US who are at least 18 years old. According to the Census Bureau, roughly 70% of the VAP is registered to vote, so in 2000 there was a VAP of roughly 183.5 million people, of which 129 million were registered to vote. Since roughly 110 million people voted in the 2000 Federal Election, that works out to 59.94% voters in the VAP, but 85.27% of the Registered voters.

I apologize for the error. It does not change the basic impetus of my post, except to balance better the respondents' demographics, and to emphasize the significance of the GOTV effort for each party this fall.

From the Beach

2004-06-29T12:18:00.000-04:00

Once I get some good photos together, they will be posted. Trying to get the kids to look at the camera at the same time (or even get them in the same frame) is the equivalent of herding cats. They are having lots of fun so far, with plenty of pool, puddle and beach activity.

Many thanks to Daniel Drummond for putting together “The Poll Vault”. Daniel will post a couple times a month and I am happy to have him contribute to the fourth rail.

I never realized how much I valued cable and DSL internet connections. Using a phone modem is impossible for my temperament, web surfing is not going to happen. Having to rely on the traditional news outlets is painful. This is my best take on the news of the past several days without access my usual internet sources.

Transition

The Iraqis received their sovereignty a few days early, much to the shock and dismay of the media and al Qaeda, for different reasons. The press corps wanted the pomp & circumstance, the photo op, the planned “Iraq Transition 2004” graphics for network and cable news with the appropriate talking heads discussing the meaning of transition for Iraqis and Americans. By jumping the gun, the United States and Iraq’s interim government ruined the preplanned media spectacle. Al Qaeda, on the other hand, has lost the chance to destroy Iraq’s transition to freedom. No longer can al Qaeda claim it is fighting the occupation; Iraqis are now responsible for the direction of their nation and any attempt to interrupt the change to a democratic society is a direct threat to the nation of Iraq. This is a major defeat for al Qaeda. The Iraqi government is likely to take tougher measures to achieve their security, such as curfews, beefed up security and martial law in areas that need it. Al Qaeda will not give up the fight easily, we can expect much violence in the future.

NATO

Europe sits on the sidelines as the war rages around it. The NATO meeting in Turkey ended and surprise, surprise, France and Germany opposes active NATO participation in assisting with Iraq’s security. NATO will provide help with training Iraq’s security services, but outside of Iraq’s borders. That is helpful, I am sure it is logistically possible to move the tens of thousands of Iraqis outside of their country for training. Europe and NATO’s relevance declines daily, as the European member nations refuse to invest in their military and are both unable and unwilling to project meaningful force outside of continental Europe. America naturally has created new alliances with countries that understand the threat we face, such as Korea, Japan, and Poland in order to make up for NATO’s intransigence. And America continues to sacrifice blood and treasure for the ungrateful Europeans that have forgotten the meaning of friendship, honor and freedom, as well as the evil that stares civilization in the face. We defend them still because it is who we are.

Hamdi, Padilla and SCOTUS

It appears the Supreme Court has decided the President’s powers to declare American citizens as enemy combatants are not unlimited. As distasteful as it may seem, I am in agreement. This problem stems from the failure of the United States Congress to declare war after the 9/11 attacks and pass the appropriate laws to deal with the likes of Hamdi and Padilla. While I am in complete agreement with the Patriot Act, I have always been concerned with allowing the executive branch over government to detain American citizens without due process. Had war been declared and laws been passed to create the appropriate methods to deal with security problems inherent with the prosecution of terrorist in civil courts, we would not be in this mess. Now the Department of Justice will be forced to charge them with some crime in order to keep them in jail. Here’s an idea: the Constitution has a section where it describes treason. Let Hamdi and Padilla try that on for size, the sources and security be damned.

More Chemical Weapons that do not exist, and uranium too!

Charles Deulfer of the Iraq Survey Group has stated to Fox News that up to twelve chemical weapons have been discovered. Nothing but silence from the mainstream media as this question has already been answered from their perspective. Oh, and by the way, remember the claim that Iraq didn't try to purchase uranium from Nigeria? Joe Wilson's 15 minutes of fame? It turns out that wasn't quite accurate as well. European intelligence stands by the claim Iraq did attempt to purchase the uranium from Niger (hattip to Brian Scott of RadioBS for emailing the link). One day the media will be forced to eat their words.

Another one bite the dust

Israel whacks the leader of Palestinian Islamic Jihad, the most wanted terrorist on their list. Unlike the recent beheadings by al Qaeda, Israel’s brand of decapitation has real consequences on the prospect for victory. As Palestinian terror groups conduct internal struggles to replace their leadership, Israel strengthens their intelligence and isolates the Palestinian Authority. The PA will find it more and more difficult to attempt to appear neutral. Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Al Aqsa and others will not accept the PA’s weakness forever and will eventually turn on the PA host.

The Poll Vault

2004-06-28T05:37:00.000-04:00

In virtually every newspaper, current events TV show, or political web page, we see them. Polls, all purporting to give us the inside scoop about and who and what is going on, and how we should think about it. It helps, I think, to have an idea of just what we are working with, its nature, value, and of course, its balance and/or bias.

According to Houghton Mifflin (who publish school textbooks), one of the earliest “soundings of opinion on record” comes from the Harrisburg Pennsylvanian and the Raleigh Star, who reported favorites in certain regions during the 1824 Presidential race, which was also the first race in which the general public was allowed to vote.

By the turn of the century many newspapers were conducting polls to determine political preferences. Later polls were conducted by magazines; the first among them were the Farm Journal (1912) and the Literary Digest (1916). Early polls were anything but scientific, dependant on cavassers asking people at random, or by “straw ballots” in newspapers, which readers mailed in. Sampling, a method which takes a small percentage, and then projects the whole group’s opinion from it, began in the mid-1930’s, especially with the 1936 campaign between President Franklin Roosevelt and Republican Alf Landon. Literary Digest magazine conducted a poll with over 10 million ballots, indicating that Landon would win easily. History and the actual election decided otherwise, and interest in polls dropped off with the embarassing blunder.

However, a new method of polling, introduced for the same election by the Gallup Organization, which accurately predicted FDR’s re-election, and with a respectably close margin (Gallup predicted FDR would take 56% of the vote; he actually took 62.5%). But it took a while for Gallup’s success to be recognized as an example of a new wave of methodology; Gallup had to compete with the Fortune survey (begun in 1936) conducted by Elmo Roper, and the Crossley Poll (also begun in 1936). To make matters murkier, pretty much everyone, Gallup included, predicted President Truman would lose to challenger Dewey in 1948. There is a famous photograph of Truman holding up a newspaper in Chicago with the headline, “Dewey Defeats Truman”. The lesson to prognosticators is as valid now, as it was then, but sadly, is just as ignored.

Sampling was the key to many varieties of polling, which is one reason why polls often disagree with one another. Sampling techniques may be random, stratified, or purposive, or a combination of any of these. The information may be elicited by personal interview, telephone interview, or mail questionnaire, and the polling is completed only after the data have been tabulated and evaluated.. Once these responses have been assembled, the pollster then puts together his model. Which brings us to demographics, often the least-discussed element of the pollster’s method.

Before I go into that, I should like to observe that pollsters generally fall into three types:
Polling Agencies (like Gallup, Harris, Zogby, Pew Research, and Rasmussen Reports);
Media Groups (like ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, The LA Times, Fox News, Time magazine, and Newsweek magazine); and
Universities (such as Quinnipiac, University of Connecticut, Marist, Arizona State University, the University of Michigan and the University of Massachusetts).
What makes that messier, is the cooperation between many of these groups. For instance, in a March 2004 poll of Iraqis, about the War on Terror, the US-led occupation, and conditions now that Saddam has been removed, was released simultaneously by ABC News, the German network ARD, the BBC, and NHK in Japan, with identical responses. This happened, because the actual polling was done by Oxford Research International of Oxford, England, who licensed the media to use its results under their own names. Cooperation between media, who have money and name recognition, and universities, who can provide the fieldwork quickly and within designed parameters, is not only common, but has proven a useful way to meet the growing public appetite for new polls.

Going back, then, to demographics. There are, actually, rules for this sort of thing, though they are hardly observed by all pollsters. The two most respected groups for determining a valid methodology for opinion polling in the United States are the American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR), and the National Council on Public Polls (NCPP). Both organizations claim to set standards for polling agencies, but it is noteworthy that they tend only to comment on whether the conclusions from polls are comparable to each other, not whether the agencies are accurate, biased, or whether the underlying methodology may be flawed. Caveat Emptor, indeed!

The AAPOR tends to showcase a number of polls (their homepage advertises the latest Pew Researech poll, for example), while the NCPP appears to act much more as a watch-dog. The NCPP, for example, includes a section entitled “20 Questions A Journalist Should Ask About A Poll”. These questions include such important questions as
“1. Who did the poll?
2. Who paid for the poll and why was it done?
7. Who should have been interviewed and was not?
18. So I’ve asked all the questions. The answers sound good. The poll is correct, right?
20. Is this poll worth reporting?”

What makes these questions particlarly salient, is that on the website, these questions are links to discussions about the issues behind the questions. Sadly, from reading through these questions, it’s rather apparent that most journalists have never read, let alone asked, these important questions. But at least it’s a start.

I thought about going into detail about how the polls reach their sample. But besides the fact that many of the polling agencies now refuse to divulge demographic details in their polls, it can be distracting to get too deep in the numbers, and so miss the actual works of the machine.

To begin with, a pollster wants to know whether he can use the information the respondent might provide. So, he asks whether the voter is registered to vote, and whether the voter is likely to vote. The “likely voter” is the prized respondent, but no pollster can truly be sure that the “likely voter” is what he claims. Gallup has discussed how they determine if a respondent is a “likely voter”, but in general the only virtue a “likely voter” shows, is that he has claimed he plans to be one. Just look at the number of respondents in a poll, and compare those who claim to be registered voters or likely voters, to the known demographics. The 2000 Election actually was pretty close to the traditional turnout ; around 70% of the adult population in the U.S. is registered to vote, and something like 60% of the registered voters showed up to actually vote. So, when a poll claims to be representative of the actual population, if around a thousand people are polled (the usual number), around 700 should be registered to vote, and only 420 or so should say they are likely to vote. Just keep that in mind the next time you see the few details the pollster tosses out at the bottom of the poll.

The next point is to consider where the sampling results lead. It’s not hard to say what 500 people think, if all 500 are cited in the poll. But what happens if you interview 500 people, and only 200 of them are women? Most polls want a rough 50-50 balance between men and women. So, they “weight” the results to match what they consider the appropriate demographics , which in this example would mean adding an additional 25% value to the response of any woman polled, and discounting the male responses by 17%. Statistically, this sounds great, but it means that the pollster has just eliminated 50 valid responses because they were not what they wanted, and created 50 artificial responses in order to achieve a desired result. Does this sound reasonable?

The AAPOR and NCPP both rely on the last U.S. Census for their demographics base, and they instruct their members to weight the responses to match those numbers. But 2000 was four years ago; there is no concensus for dealing with the fact that people can and do change their habits and statistics in nearly half a decade. This too, must be considered when looking at the polls. They may have been taken just hours ago, but could still be years out of date.

To the Beach

2004-06-26T00:35:00.000-04:00

The family is off to the Outer Banks, North Carolina for the first real vacation since our first child was born just under 4 years ago. We have rented a home on the beach with my sister, brother in law, and their two children. That makes four adults and four children, all under four years old. It should be very interesting and quite fun, as I am a huge fan of the little people.

I am bringing the brand new laptop and plan on doing a little blogging as long as there are no problems with getting a dialup connection. After being spoiled with a cable modem and wireless connection, I am dreading the dialtone.

Daniel Drummond will contribute a post or two as well during the next week. His last post, The Iraq Fitnah was very popular and well referenced in the blogsphere, and I am looking forward to seeing what is in store for this week.

If by some chance I cannot get online, may you have a great week.

A "friendly and good man"

2004-06-25T00:15:00.000-04:00

One of Abu-Musab al-Zarqawi's two wives states that her husband is kind and caring, and is not really the international man of terrorism the media depicts him to be, or the vicious killer he plays on tape.

"There's no way that my husband could be a terrorist. He is friendly and a good man. He would not recommend the killings of children, women and elderly people as they're trying to portray him," she said at the family's home in Zarqa, near the Jordanian capital Amman.

His wife said she has not heard from her husband since he left Jordan for Afghanistan in 1999.

We all know why Zarqawi was in Afghanistan: the world-renowned tourism, fine dining and the beautiful ladies in burqas (why just stop at two wives?). Come to think of it, wasn't someone else in Afghanistan during the same time? But of course there are no links between these two.....

Let's see what this "friendly and good man" has been up to lately. Like most friendly, good men, in the past several months Zarqawi has planned a chemical attack in Jordan, murdered hundreds of religious pilgrims in Iraqi holy cities, orchestrated the Madrid railway bombings, performed two beheadings, wrote to his pen-pals in al Qaeda to discuss strategy to foment civil war in Iraq between Sunnis and Shias, threatened to assassinate Iraq's new Prime Minister Iyad Allawi and has claimed responsibility for numerous other attacks within Iraq and elsewhere. For his latest act of kindness, Zarqawi has incited the latest round of violence in Iraq that has killed over 100 people and wounded hundreds more. Mrs. Zarqawi (#2) does not know her husband very well, perhaps he has changed since the five years she last saw him.

Al Qaeda's full court press is now on. The violence will only increase in the next week as Iraq comes closer to the transfer to full sovereignty. And the violence will not end there as the likes of Zarqawi will continue to work to destroy any chance of free government in Iraq. The United States and Iraqi military and security services must use all means necessary to capture or kill Abu-Musab al-Zarqawi and his minions. Al Qaeda is in the death throws for the battle of Iraq; the only way al Qaeda can win is to destroy the will of the coalition. The American public must stand firm in the upcoming months and make the sacrifices required to bring peace to Iraq. Our safety will not be obtained by fleeing the battlefields of the Middle East; safety can only be obtained by destroying the Middle East status quo that bred the likes of al Qaeda.

NoKo's Nukes

2004-06-24T07:00:00.000-04:00

Another aspirant to the nuclear club has popped up in the headlines. North Korea's quest for nuclear weapons is a source of much debate. Officially they state the pursuit of nuclear capabilities is to defend against American, South Korean and Japanese aggression, but the real motivations appear to be related to extracting concessions from these nations. But no matter what their reasons, a nuclear armed North Korea does not bode well for the prospects of peace. North Korea's leadership, political makeup, history of nuclear proliferation and the current round of negotiations gives insight on the prospects for success of stopping North Korea's drive to join the nuclear nations.

The Dear Leader

Kim Jong Il, son of North Korea's founder Kim Il-Sung, is viewed as both an erratic and a dangerous leader of the Stalinist North Korean state. He is best described by Vaclav Havel, former president of the Czech Republic.

Kim Jong Il is able to blackmail the world with the help of his huge army, nuclear weapons, long-range missiles, and the export of weaponry and military technology to like-minded dictators around the world. He wants to be respected and feared abroad and to be recognized as one of the world's most powerful leaders. He is willing to let his own people die of hunger, and he uses famine to liquidate those who show any sign of wavering loyalty to his rule. Through blackmail, he receives food and oil, which he distributes among those loyal to him (first in line being the army).

The Hermit Kingdom

The brutality of North Korea's Stalinist state is well documented. The U.S. Committee for Human Rights in North Korea states that up to 200,000 political prisoners are in forced work camps or jails where starvation, rape, forced abortions and infanticide are policy. The existence of the camps is confirmed via satellite imagery. The economic policies of North Korea have repeatedly caused famine and starvation while Kim Jong-Il and the elites live in luxury. It has been estimated that up to 5 million North Koreans have died since the latest rounds of sorrow began in the 1990s. The desperate situation has caused tens of thousands of North Koreans to risk their lives by fleeing to China, as those captured and returned are placed in the brutal gulags of the state. North Korea also has kidnapped Japanese citizens who are forced to train North Korean intelligence officers in the language and customs of Japan. Many of these Japanese citizens have not been returned to this day.

Delivery Systems

The advanced ballistic weapons program poses a direct threat to Northeast Asia as their Nodong and Taepodon 1 missiles have been designed to be armed with nuclear weapons and have ranges of several thousand kilometers. The latest Taepodong 2 intercontinental ballistic missiles can reach Alaska or Hawaii, and possibly the continental United States. North Korea has been directly linked to Pakistani nuclear scientist A.Q. Khan's underground nuclear weapons program, and has exported its missile technology to Iran, Iraq, Libya, Pakistan, Syria and Egypt.

NoKo's Nukes, A Brief History

North Korea began its nuclear program in the 1950's with the aid of the Soviet Union, and its weapons program can be traced back to the early 1980s. In 1985 North Korea was pressured to join the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) and in 1992 the Joint Declaration on Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. These treaties were ignored by the North Koreans when they refused to let IAEA inspectors verify the terms of the NPT. This lead to the crisis of 1993-94 that almost resulted in a military conflict between America and North Korea. The crisis was resolved with the signing of the Agreed Framework, where North Korea was provided light reactors, fuel oil and other imports in exchange for their promise to dismantle their heavy nuclear programs and remain a member of the NPT. The issue appeared to die down until the fall of 2002, when the United States confronted North Korea about its hidden activities and North Korea began to subvert the IAEA's monitoring and move stored nuclear fuel. This has led to the current crisis we face today.

Current Negotiations

The most recent round of negotiations between the United States, North Korean, South Korea, Japan, China and Russia have been at an impasse since the spring of 2003. The United Nations Security Council refused to address the problem of North Korea's nukes, despite pleas from the IAEA, so the problem was directed to the regional powers that be. South Korea, Japan, China and Russia have refused to take the lead in the negotiations and have placed the burden of the responsibility on the United States. Following the advice of South Korea, the United States has submitted the latest proposal that is much like the Agreed Framework signed in 1994.

Under the American plan, North Korea would have to fully disclose its nuclear program, submit to inspections and pledge to begin eliminating the program after a "preparatory period" of three months. In exchange, the reclusive regime of Kim Jong-Il, the North Korean leader, would receive shipments of heavy fuel oil to meet its energy needs, be granted a "provisional security guarantee" by the United States, and see the lifting of some sanctions.

Current negotiations directly refute recent claims by Senator Kennedy that the Bush Administration is unwilling to deal with international partners on the North Korean problem. As the United Nations Security Council took a pass and the other negotiating partners refuse to take the lead, the United States is forced to shoulder the burden.

Dealing with the Devil

As distasteful as negotiating with the North Koreans may be, there are very few options available to the United States. The United Nations, South Korea, Japan, China and Russia refuse to apply the necessary pressure to get North Korea to truly halt its nuclear program. This is odd, as these countries have the most to lose from a nuclear armed North Korea. China and Russia should be appalled by such an unstable regime in close proximity possessing nuclear weapons, and this development may force Japan and South Korea to develop nukes of their own as a deterrent. A nuclear arms race in Northeast Asia is in no one's interest, neither is attacking North Korea's nuclear program as it can have serious consequences and would likely lead to a full scale war. South Korea and the United States have the capability to destroy North Korea's army, but the cost would be enormous due to North Korea's conventional artillery being within range of Seoul, South Korea's capitol, home to 10.5 million people. The North Korean problem is a situation that calls for a bitter dose of realism. There is little the United States can do militarily without risking a wide scale war. But whatever agreement is made, the disarmament of North Korea must be verifiable, or this problem will surely reoccur in the future. We cannot allow North Korea to play the game of nuclear brinkmanship indefinitely, and must be prepared to deal with the North Koreans more forcefully if they are unwilling to relinquish their quest for nuclear weapons.

Unspeakable Crimes

2004-06-23T00:50:00.000-04:00

Sincerest condolences to the family of Kim Sun-il.

South Korean Kim Sun-il has been beheaded by terrorists in Iraq. As a final act of disgrace, Kim's body was booby trapped in an attempt to kill those who discovered his body.

U.S. soldiers on a routine patrol found the body of the man, Kim Sun-il, 33, between Baghdad and Fallujah, 22 miles west of the capital, about noon (4 a.m. ET), military officials told NBC News. They said that Kim's body was booby-trapped with explosives but that the explosives did not go off.

The conditions of Kim's release were simple: the cancellation of a deployment of 3,000 South Korean soldiers to Iraq and the withdrawal of the 600 military medics and engineers already in country. This deployment would make South Korea the third largest partner in the coalition behind the United States and Britain. Unlike Spain, they did not bend to the will of terrorists. The South Korean government refused demands to halt the deployment or remove the existing soldiers and Kim was executed shortly thereafter. The Korean government should be commended for not giving into the demands of terrorists and reaffirming their commitment to assisting with the stability of Iraq. As there is a significant anti-war sentiment from both the South Korean public and members of President Roh's party, the decision to continue with the troop deployment is an act of political and moral courage.

The suspected murderer of Kim is none other than Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the same animal that beheaded Nick Berg. A suspected safe house of Zarqawi's Monotheism and Jihad group in Fallujah was destroyed Tuesday, the second such strike in several days. Zarqawi has earned his stripes as al Qaeda's most dangerous operator. May we get a chance to knock those stripes off of him in the very near future.

The Non-Torture Memos

2004-06-23T00:36:00.000-04:00

The White House has released internal memos that demonstrate the administration's discussion on the use of torture and the treatment of al Qaeda and Taliban detainees. While the president agreed he had the right to terminate America's obligations under the Geneva and other international conventions, at no point did he do so, nor did he authorize the use of torture.

"I accept the legal conclusion of the attorney general and the Department of Justice that I have the authority under the Constitution to suspend Geneva as between the United States and Afghanistan, but I decline to exercise that authority at this time," the president said in the memo, entitled "Humane Treatment of al Qaeda and Taliban Detainees."

Also listed in the memos are the interrogation techniques authorized by Secretary Rumsfeld.

Haynes also recommended approval of one technique among harsher methods requested by U.S. military authorities at Guantanamo: use of "mild, non-injurious physical contact such as grabbing, poking in the chest with the finger and light pushing." Among the techniques that Rumsfeld approved on Dec. 2, 2002, in addition to the grabbing, the yelling and the stress positions:

* Use of 20-hour interrogations.
* Removal of all comfort items, including religious items.
* Removal of clothing.
* Using detainees' "individual phobias such as fear of dogs to induce stress."

Let's face it, if this is the best the Bush & Rumsfeld Approved of Torture! crowd can come up with, the American public will not be impressed with their attempt to brand the administration as a group of sadistic criminals. Not willing to throw in the towel so soon, Senator Leahy presses on for a deeper investigation into the matter.

Reacting to the White House release, Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy, the senior Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, accused the administration of continuing to withhold information. "Though this is a self-serving selection, at least it is a beginning," Leahy said. "But for the Judiciary Committee and the Senate to find the whole truth, we will need much more cooperation and extensive hearings."

I respectfully disagree, Senator Leahy, further "extensive hearings" are not what is needed in order to win the War on Terror. We need to put this exercise of self flagellation behind us and continue to pursue our enemies throughout the world. Congressional commissions, hearings and fact finding missions on a matter that is already being investigated and tried in military courts will not help the prosecution of the war. They will only further your desire to provide ammunition against your political enemies, while at the same time provide our enemies with easy propaganda to prove their case of America's decadence. Political witchhunts are not needed, this country needs to unite and stand firm against the enemies of civilization.

Note:

The memos are available at the CBS page linked to above, but are also available here (in PDF format):

Memo 1 Application of Treaties and Laws to al Qaeda and Taliban Detainees
Memo 2 National Security Council's Discussion on Status of Taliban Detainees
Memo 3 Status of Taliban Forces Under Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention
Memo 4 Potential Legal Contraints Applicable to Interrogations
Memo 5 Legality of Interrogation Methods
Memo 6 Standards of Conduct for Interrogation

The Shatt al-Arab

2004-06-22T00:50:00.000-04:00

The War on Terror shifts to one of its many fronts. Iran has captured eight British sailors and plans on placing them on trial.

"They are going to be prosecuted for illegally entering Iranian territorial waters. They were 1,000 metres inside Iranian territorial waters," said the Arabic-language satellite channel, a branch of Iran's state television.

The sailors were escorting boats to be used by Iraq's river patrol security services, and appear to have been detained by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards in the Shatt al-Arab waterway (see map), a hotly disputed border area between Iran and Iraq.

"The waterway runs over a mile (1.6 kilometres) wide. The border runs pretty much down the middle of it ... Maybe, it was disputed whose side" of the border the vessels were on, [a Royal Navy spokesman] said.

The accidental violation of territorial sovereignty in such a difficult waterway should not spark such an international dispute, and one has to wonder what Iran's motivations are for detaining and placing the British sailors on trial. The two likely motivations for Iran's actions are thrawrting democracy in Iraq and Iran's nuclear program. Iran has no interest in the establishment of democracy in Iraq; this is a direct threat to the theocratic regime and a beacon for the vast pro-democracy movement in Iran. Iran believes the coalition in Iraq is fragile and uncommitted, based on the restraint shown against Sadr, Iran's proxy in Iraq, and the Ba'athists in Fallujah. Because of this, Iran may be attempting to weaken the coalition in Iraq by attempting to peel Britain away; perhaps they perceive domestic support for British involvement in Iraq to be weak and the capture of the British sailors will provide the final blow to British support. Second, Iran may be trying to force the British to back off from criticizing Iran on its nuclear weapons program. In both cases, the Iranians are attempting to use the sailors as hostages in order to attain its goals.

This is a dangerous game. Iran is making the assumption that Prime Minister Tony Blair will be cowed by a hostage situation, much as President Carter was rendered ineffective during the 444 day Iran hostage crisis at the end of his term. This is not 1980, and Tony Blair must know that President Carter's inaction during the hostage crisis was a major reason for his downfall. A repeat of the 1980 Desert One hostage rescue failure is highly unlikely as well trained British and American forces are stationed right next door in Iraq. And if America and Britain are looking for an excuse to destroy Iran's nuclear program using targeted air strikes as well as limited raids by ground forces, a hostage situation can give them all the needed reasons to strike. If the Mullahs decide to follow through on the threat of trying the British Sailors, they had better be prepared for the consequences: the destruction of their nuclear facilities and the Mullahcracy's potential fall from power. Prime Minister Blair and President Bush have demonstrated a willingness to sidestep the international community and take action when the threat is deemed large enough, and Iran is coming perilously close to crossing the threshold.

Buried, Again

2004-06-21T13:01:00.000-04:00

It’s time to play the “Where Did The New York Times Bury This Story” game.

Over the weekend, 9-11 Commissioner John Lehman indicated evidence ties between Iraq and al Qaeda exists and the intelligence is still being investigated (front page news in the Washington Times).

"There is at least one officer of Saddam's Fedayeen, a lieutenant colonel, who was a very prominent member of al Qaeda," said September 11 commission member and former Navy Secretary John Lehman. Although he stressed that the intelligence "still has to be confirmed," Mr. Lehman told NBC's "Meet the Press" that the information came from "captured documents" shown to the panel after the September 11 commission's staff report had been written.

So where did the Paper of Record decide to report this story? Well, it certainly is not on the front page, nor is it on the front page of the international section as well. The article is listed on the index page for the international section of the New York Times, which is the full listing of all international articles. Reproduced below is a listing of the index page; the stories the Grey Lady deemed more important than links between Iraq and al Qaeda are highlighted. Look real hard, the article is in there. Really.

International
Judge in Abuse Case Will Allow Questioning of Top Officers
3 Royal Navy Vessels, With Crew of 8, Are Seized by Iran
U.S. Is Accused of Trying to Isolate U.N. Agency
Saudis Seek American's Body as Militants Vow More Terror
Security: Iraq Government Considers Using Emergency Rule
Hostage: Seoul to Send Troops to Iraq Despite Kidnapping
U.S. Said to Overstate Value of Guantánamo Detainees
Victoria Falls Journal: The Best of Times, and the Worst, for Two Tourist Towns
Ruling Party's Slick Campaign in Mongolia Has Rough Edges
Arroyo Said to Win Bitter Philippines Race
Militant Slain in Algeria; Ties to Qaeda Are Reported
Premier to Fill In as Mubarak Has Surgery
Israel and Hezbollah Clash
Guantánamo Memories, From Outside the Wire
Iraq Update
Security: Iraq Government Considers Using Emergency Rule
Reconstruction: U.S. Is Quietly Spending $2.5 Billion From Iraqi Oil Revenues to Pay for Iraqi Projects
Falluja: Iraqi Official Says U.S. Raid Aimed to Kill Foreign Rebels
Political Uproar: 9/11 Panel Members Debate Qaeda-Iraq 'Tie'
Hostage: Seoul to Send Troops to Iraq Despite Kidnapping

Out of 21 articles indexed on the international page, the potentially ground breaking story of possible links between al Qaeda and Iraq turns up 20th on the list. 20th. While we all know that the American public is far more interested in accusations the U.S. is isolating the U.N., the trials and tribulations of tourists at Victoria Falls, Mongolian power politics, Mubarak’s back and fondness of Guantánamo, one would think evidence of possible links between Iraq & al Qaeda may merit a bit more attention. The claim the links did not exist was front page news only last Thursday, after all.

The Paper of Record’s spinning and editorializing of the news is nothing new; this has been a complaint of conservatives for many years. But when a newspaper proclaims from the front page that links between Iraq and al Qaeda do not exist, then several days later new evidence surfaces that links do indeed exist and the story is relegated to the trash heap of the international section, one has no choice but to question the motives. It is quite obvious by now that the New York Times has a vested interest in promoting news that refutes claims made by the Bush administration and burying news that supports the reasons for war. The intellectual dishonesty of the New York Times’ editors knows no bounds.

The Pak Attack

2004-06-20T11:55:00.000-04:00

Pakistan appears to be getting serious with its war on radical Islamists. After numerous clashes in the Western tribal regions last March between Pakistan's army and tribes sheltering al Qaeda fighters that fell short of the objectives, there has been enormous political pressure within Pakistan not to resume operations. Pakistan has attempted to resolve the problems without sending in the army; the tribes were warned they must turn in sheltered suspected al Qaeda and other foreign fighters, but they did not heed the calls of the government. Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf has not given in to the domestic pressure, and chose to fight. The current offensive began last week, after lengthy attempts to negotiate with tribal leaders failed. A main target of the offensive was former Taliban leader Nek Mohammed, who has been responsible for numerous terrorist attacks, including an ambush of a Pakistani general in Karachi.

Nek is a 26-year-old former Taliban commander and loyal to Taliban leader Mullah Omar. He outright rejects any compromise in handing over foreign fighters to Pakistan (read US) authorities, such as Aiman al-Zawahir or his al-Qaeda boss, Osama bin Laden (if he is even alive) and Uzbek leader Tahir Yuldevish.

Tank Killers

While America is not officially helping Pakistan in the Waziri region, anecdotal evidence exists that America is providing technical assistance in the form of guided missiles and intelligence gathering. A little over a week after the new offensive began, Pakistan gets results, and confirmed Nek Mohammed has been killed and the situation in the tribal regions has calmed down.

His supporters were made to believe that Nek was “like a tank” and that the Pakistan Army was unlikely to eliminate him physically, he said. “I think Nek’s followers are in deep shock because a new dimension — the use of guided missiles — was added to the operation. There was no quick reaction on the first day after his burial because his followers were probably taking stock of the situation before launching a counter-strike,” a former Inter Services Intelligence official said. He said the government must be ready for any ‘adventure’ by Nek’s followers to avenge his death. Intelligence sources said situation was being monitored closely. They said foreigners and Nek’s followers would stay quiet for some time.

Continuing the fight?

In conjunction with the renewed offensive in the tribal areas, Pakistan is also working to fight terrorism on the domestic front. President Musharraf is working to purge its intelligence services and military of radical Islamists and al Qaeda supporters. This week an al Qaeda cell has been arrested in Karachi and included among them is Abu Mosab al-Balochi, a cousin of Khalid Shaikh Mohammad, the mastermind of 9-11 who was also arrested in Pakistan last year.

While Pakistan's efforts to fight terrorism have been criticized as too tepid, it appears a concerted effort is being made to rid itself of al Qaeda and the Taliban's influence. Pakistan has a long way to go, however, as its support for the Kashmiri insurgency and its relative inaction for Kashmiri terrorist organizations such as Jaish-e-Mohammed, Lashkar-e-Tayyiba and Harakat ul-Mujahidin (all of which have since been renamed to disguise appearances due to laws that ban the groups) contributes to its domestic problems and the spread of radical Islam in the region. Each of the terror groups mentioned above have connections with al Qaeda, and have provided training, shelter, support, finances and personnel to carry out attacks within Pakistan and Kashmir.

One wonders how long Pakistan can continue to support as well as oppose the Islamists. Saudi Arabia has successfully played both sides for a long time, but recent events in the Magic Kingdom make it likely the House of Saud will make a decision. Based on Pakistan's current actions, it appears more likely they will turn on the Kashmiri cells and continue its hunt for al Qaeda. But there are no guarentees. It is crucial that America cultivates the relationship with Pakistan and presses for internal change and liberalization, as Pakistan is a nuclear power with a small but violent portion of the population that is opposed to America. We cannot allow Pakistan to fall to the Islamists as access to nuclear weapons would likely force an immediate response from America, Israel and India. Placing Pakistan in the enemy column will decrease the chance of successfully prosecuting the War on Terror, and increase the prospect of the nightmare scenario coming to fruition: terrorists obtaining nuclear weapons and using them on American soil.

Threat? What Threat?

2004-06-19T23:55:00.000-04:00

Russian President Vladimir Putin surprised many by stating his intelligence services had information that Saddam planned terrorist attacks in America.

"After Sept. 11, 2001, and before the start of the military operation in Iraq, the Russian special services, the intelligence service, received information that officials from Saddam's regime were preparing terrorist attacks in the United States and outside it against the U.S. military and other interests."

President Putin's information helps explain President Bush's decision to act against Iraq. In light of the fact that America failed to act on intelligence and against attacks on its interests overseas prior to 9-11, is it not prudent for an American president to consider a nation that plans to carry out attacks on our soil a threat? Intelligence that indicated Iraq was planning to attack us here after 9-11 could not be ignored, especially based on Saddam's history of actively opposing America and his violent history in the Middle East. A president's first and foremost responsibilities are to defend the Constitution and protect this nation from all threats. President Bush would have failed his in his duty as Commander in Chief had he not considered addressing Saddam's regime, and America is indeed safer today because we have removed Saddam from power.

A Cry for Justice

2004-06-18T23:55:00.000-04:00

The dead cannot cry out for justice; it is a duty of the living to do so for them. - Lois McMaster Bujold

American Paul Johnson has been brutally beheaded by al Qaeda terrorists in Saudi Arabia, in the same fashion as Nick Berg and Daniel Pearl. Shortly afterwards, Abdulaziz al-Moqrin, the leader of al-Qaida in Saudi Arabia, was tracked down and killed by Saudi security teams. The Magic Kingdom heads further and further into the depths of chaos.

Middle Eastern blogger Mahmood Al-Yousif asks what are Muslims waiting for? When will they work to end the violence of the jihadis and the corruption of their governments?

My question is what else are WE as Muslims, Arabs whatever are we waiting for exactly to rise against these bastards? It is quite clear that the governments we have inherited are incompetent in the face of this terror, especially Saudi, where they still seem to try to sweep this event under a rug and still refusing to accept that this is a violent revolution or civil war that is happening, rather than a few criminals who were "let astray" by "foreigners."

The sooner they face facts and immediately put a transparent action plan in place, led by capable people the sooner we can sleep well again. But that, I fear, if a very long time coming.

I fear Mahood is right. But the Middle East needs more men like Mahmood, for without them civilization has no chance at beating back the horror of the insane Islamists. Americans and other westerners are not the only targets of the likes of al Qaeda. Those who claim to fight in the name of Islam frequently murder Muslims without a second thought.

Sincerest condolences to the family of Paul Johnson. May you find some solace knowing that millions of Americans grieve with you, and that many will fight for the justice that he and so many others deserve.

Update:

I want to be perfectly clear that the reason I have provided the link to the pictures of Paul Johnson's beheading (below), as with the video of Daniel Pearl and Nick Berg, is because the mainstream media does not believe Americans should see these images. While the media is perfectly willing to run every photograph and video of Abu Ghraib they can get their hands on - 24 hours a day, 7 days a week - the brutality committed against Americans is convieniently flushed down the memory hole. Some Americans easily forget the nature of this enemy, the cruelty they are capable of and the lengths they will go to terrorize free men. If you know the enemy, do not look at these pictures, it is senseless. If you need a wakeup call, look at the pictures.

No Connection?

2004-06-17T18:27:00.000-04:00

The 9-11 Commission released a report yesterday which claims that Iraq and al Qaeda did not cooperate on the attacks on America, and seems to go so far to suggest they never cooperated in any way. In an effort to grab headlines and provide another “gotcha” moment, the media immediately touted the report as proof Iraq and al Qaeda never established a working relationship; that no ties existed. Besides the fact that the relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda outside of the context of the 9-11 attack is beyond commission’s purview, the claim a relationship never existed is factually inaccurate at best. Here is the relevant paragraph of the 9-11 Commission report:

Bin Ladin also explored possible cooperation with Iraq during his time in Sudan, despite his opposition to Hussein’s secular regime. Bin Ladin had in fact at one time sponsored anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan. The Sudanese, to protect their own ties with Iraq, reportedly persuaded Bin Ladin to cease this support and arranged for contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda. A senior Iraqi intelligence officer reportedly made three visits to Sudan, finally meeting Bin Ladin in 1994. Bin Ladin is said to have requested space to establish training camps, as well as assistance in procuring weapons, but Iraq apparently never responded. There have been reports that contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda also occurred after Bin Ladin had returned to Afghanistan, but they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship. Two senior Bin Ladin associates have adamantly denied that any ties existed between al Qaeda and Iraq. We have no credible evidence that Iraq and al Qaeda cooperated
against the United States.

Let’s take a look at this sentence:

Bin Ladin had in fact at one time sponsored anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan.

The “anti-Saddam Islamists in Iraqi Kurdistan” refers to Answar al-Islam, the terrorist organization run by Abu Musab Zarqawi. But Answar al Islam is not anti-Saddam. It was supported by Saddam and his intelligence services, as this report from the Department of State demonstrates:

The presence of several hundred al-Qaida operatives fighting with the small Kurdish Islamist group Ansar al-Islam in the northeastern corner of Iraqi Kurdistan—where the IIS operates—is well documented. Iraq has an agent in the most senior levels of Ansar al-Islam as well. In addition, small numbers of highly placed al-Qaida militants were present in Baghdad and areas of Iraq that Saddam controls. It is inconceivable these groups were in Iraq without the knowledge and acquiescence of Saddam’s regime. In the past year, al-Qaida operatives in northern Iraq concocted suspect chemicals under the direction of senior al-Qaida associate Abu Mus’ab al-Zarqawi and tried to smuggle them into Russia, Western Europe, and the United States for terrorist operations.

The U.S. State Department also designated Answar al Islam as a terrorist organization with direct links to al Qaeda:

Ansar al-Islam, which operates in northeastern Iraq, has close links to and support from al-Qaida. Al-Qaida and Usama Bin Laden participated in the formation and funding of the group, which has provided safehaven to al-Qaida in northeastern Iraq.

Zarqawi’s connections to both al Qaeda and Iraq have been documented at the fourth rail in full (with the full set of links available in the article), but the short of it is that Zarqawi is intimately linked with al Qaeda and was also sponsored by Saddam’s security services. Zarqawi’s footprint of terrorist activities is quite large, including planned and successful attacks in Iraq, Jordan, Europe and the United Sates as well as running terrorist training camps in Afghanistan.

One has to wonder what evidence the 9-11 Commission looked at to determine the lack of cooperation between Iraq and al Qaeda. Perhaps they missed the indictment for the 1998 U.S. Embassy Bombings which links Iraq and al Qaeda:

"According to the indictment, bin Laden and al Qaeda forged alliances with the National Islamic Front in Sudan and with representatives of the Government of Iran and its associated terrorist group Hezballah with the goal of working together against their common enemies in the West, particularly the United States. In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the Government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq," the indictment said.

Or did they miss CIA Directory George Tenet’s letter to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence that indicated intelligence demonstrates links exist:

"We have solid reporting of senior-level contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda going back a decade. ... We have credible reporting that al Qaeda leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire WMD capabilities."

Or how about the Clinton administration’s claims of ties between Iraq and al Qaeda when bombing the Shifa chemical weapons factory in Sudan in conjunction with the attack on al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan in 1998:

The United States also claims it had other evidence linking the plant with chemical weapons production. That evidence includes links between officials at the facility in Sudan and an Iraqi official who has been labeled by U.S. intelligence as "the father of Iraq's chemical weapons program." The Iraqi, identified as Emad Al Ani, is said to have had extensive dealings with officials at the plant in the Sudanese capital of Khartoum. That and the connection between terrorism sponsor Osama bin Laden and Sudan's "military industrial complex" were enough to convince the United States that the Shifa plant was involved in chemical weapons production, the official said.

I can go on with the evidence of connections between Iraq and al Qaeda, but why? The Clinton administration, the Department of State, the CIA, the Department of Defense, a U.S. Federal Court and others have evidence of cooperation between Iraq and al Qaeda, and have acted over the course of the past decade because of this. The media has chosen to further the story that Iraq and al Qaeda could never have cooperated. A main reason sited is the differences are too great, as Saddam was secular and al Qaeda an Islamist. This is flawed logic at best. Did such ideological differences prevent America and Britain from cooperating with the Soviet Union during World War II?

The media is doing the American public a great disservice by promoting the claim that Iraq and al Qaeda never would, could or did cooperate. Zarqari, who is actively leading the al Qaeda attacks on US forces in Iraq today, demonstrates the solid connections between Iraq and al Qaeda and Americans need to put his involvement in context as to why we are fighting in Iraq. The 9-11 Commission's inability to examine this connection in full has done the public a serious disservice and their poorly worded statement has only provided fodder for the opponents of the Iraq war and President Bush's political enemies.

Iran's Nukes. Who cares?

2004-06-16T06:08:00.000-04:00

"If a day comes when the world of Islam is duly equipped with the arms Israel has in possession, the strategy of colonialism would face a stalemate because application of an atomic bomb would not leave any thing in Israel but the same thing would just produce damages in the Muslim world." - Ayatollah Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani, President of Iran

Iran wants to become a nuclear power and will not be deterred. Last weekend, Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi stated as much:

"We won't accept any new obligations….Iran has a high technical capability and has to be recognized by the international community as a member of the nuclear club….This is an irreversible path….That somebody demands that we give up the nuclear fuel cycle ... is an additional demand," Kharrazi said. He apparently was referring to demands by U.S. and European countries that Iran halt operations of a plant it inaugurated in March in Isfahan, central Iran, that processes uranium into gas and abort plans to build a heavy water reactor in Arak, another city in central Iran. "We can't accept such an additional demand, which is contrary to our legal and legitimate rights," he said. "No one in Iran can make a decision to deny the nation of something that is a source of pride."

Yesterday the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei, issued a report on Iran's non-compliance with over two years of inspections (scroll down to the Implementation of Safeguards in the Islamic Republic of Iran section) and highlighted the two main open questions concerning Iran’s uranium enrichment program:

The first relates to the origin of the particles of high enriched and low enriched uranium contamination found at various locations related to uranium enrichment in Iran. The information provided by Iran in April 2004 — information requested since August 2003 — has not been sufficient to resolve this complex matter. Iran should make every effort to provide additional relevant information, particularly about the origin of the components in question, and explanations about the presence of a cluster of 36% uranium-235 particles at one location.

Second, we need to gain a fuller understanding of the extent of Iran’s efforts to import, manufacture and use centrifuges of the P-2 design. As mentioned in my report, the information provided by Iran with regard to the P-2 centrifuge programme, after repeated requests, has been changing and at times contradictory.

Clearly, this pattern of engagement on the part of Iran is less than satisfactory if it wishes to build confidence in the international community that Iran has indeed revealed the full extent of its nuclear programme. After a year of difficulties encountered by the inspectors, Iran needs to be proactive and fully transparent.

Uranium 235 is a primary material used in nuclear weapons, and this high percentage of U-235 would not be found in commercial nuclear reactors. The P2 centrifuges are of Pakistani origin and are used to enrich uranium to weapons grade quality (to create U-235). Evidence also exists that Iran has set up production facilities to enrich large amounts of uranium for weapons usage.

The IAEA has caught Iran red-handed in its attempts to create weapon-grade nuclear fuel. The reaction of board of governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has been tepid, however. The board of governors does not recommend sanctions and barely seems concerned about Iran's attempts to join the nuclear club.

Diplomats here said they were near agreement Tuesday on the draft resolution to censure Iran rather than punish it for its lack of cooperation with the UN nuclear energy watchdog. The draft under consideration at the IAEA 35-nation board of governors meeting contains no direct threat of sanctions but does keep pressure on Iran to come clean on the aspects of its 20-year covert nuclear program that was discovered two years ago. The new draft was somewhat softer in tone than the original. The draft said the IAEA board "deplores... the fact that overall, Iran's cooperation has not been as full, timely and proactive as it should have been."

To his credit, Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei has strongly advocated that the international community show resolve against states attempting to circumvent their treaty obligations on nuclear weapons proliferation. The 35-member Board of Governors, of which Iran is a member and sits in its own judgment, has a different agenda, one of appeasement and inaction.

The unfortunate results of the IAEA board of governors inaction remains to be seen, but there are two likely outcomes: Iran continues to pursue nuclear fuel processing until they build a bomb, or a government opposed to Iran's possession of nuclear weapons (such as the US or Israel) will take unilateral action to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities, just as Israel attacked Iraq's Osirak reactor in 1981. Israel estimates Iran will possess nuclear capabilities in 18 months and is already considering a preemptive attack, as Iran has threatened to use nukes against Israel if they are obtained. The United States most likely has contingency plans as well. An attack on Iran's nuclear capabilities would create a firestorm and would most likely involve a long-term conflict with Iran.

The IAEA board of governors is indicative of most international organizations; long on process, proceedings and finding, short on resolve and action. By not acting to stem the threat early on with all means available, solutions are postponed, decisions become impossible and rogue regimes exploit the weakness and desire for consensus in the international community. We saw this same process play out in Iraq, with Saddam waiting for the UN to fracture and lift sanctions. Had the international community held fast and demanded Iraq abide by the 17 UN resolutions, a conflict may have been avoided. As it is not acceptable for Iran to possess nuclear weapons, the likely outcome is unilateral military intervention against Iran.

Outing Fatah

2004-06-15T06:18:00.000-04:00

The Palestinian Authority is now officially a state sponsor of terrorist activity. While it is common knowledge that Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades is the armed wing of Fatah, it is never admitted publicly. Currently there is a rift between Fatah (Yassir Arafat's political party) and Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades (a terrorist organization responsible for the murder of many Israeli citizens). Al Aqsa has threatened to break off from Fatah, so Fatah has formed a high level committee in an attempt to placate them.

The Fatah Central Council has decided to form a special committee to study the demands of the Aksa Martyrs Brigades militia. The committee will consist of senior Fatah officials and cabinet ministers. It is the first time that the Palestinian leadership has acknowledged its responsibility for the armed group. The decision to form the committee follows complaints by the leaders of the militia that Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat and the Fatah leadership have abandoned them and were no longer paying them their salaries.

Earlier this week, several members of the Aksa Martyrs Brigades in the West Bank and Gaza Strip embarrassed the Palestinian leadership by threatening to break away from Fatah. The gunmen also accused the Palestinian leadership of corruption.

On Sunday night, Arafat chaired an emergency meeting of the Fatah Central Committee in his office in Ramallah to discuss ways of containing the mutiny by the Fatah militia. The meeting was attended by Prime Minister Ahmed Qurei, who announced that the Aksa Martyrs Brigades were receiving the full attention of the Palestinian leadership. He said the most important mission now was to guarantee the safety of the gunmen who are wanted by Israel for carrying out terrorist attacks.

Like any compassionate terror sponsoring government, the PA is concerned for the safety of their terrorists. This is in complete disagreement with the Road Map, which requires the Palestinian Authority to capture terrorists, not coddle them.

It's the economy, stupid. Al Aqsa members are upset they are not getting paid (sidenote: why is no one lamenting the failure of the Arafat economy, with its official unemployment rate of 26%, 57% below the poverty line and Annual growth of -35%?). And the reason Al Asqa terrorists are not getting paid is to put on a good show for the international community.

Hani Uwaidah, the commander of the Aksa Martyrs Brigades in Tulkarm, told The Jerusalem Post that the PA stopped paying his salary a few months ago. He said that was the main reason why he and his friends had halted their attacks against Israel. "The Palestinian leadership in Ramallah told us that we must now sit quiet and that because of pressure from the international community they would not be able to continue paying us our salaries," he added.

Foreign aid to the Palestinian Authority should immediately cease as there is no way to determine if it is used to finance terrorist operations and salaries. The European Union specifically has coddled the PA for far too long, and refuses to accept the fact that the PA finances or supports terror. Even if the EU cannot determine its aid is used to finance terror specifically, giving money to the PA frees up resources from other areas to enable it to fund terrorism. The aid only serves to prop up Arafat's corrupt regime. And the diplomatic kabuki dance with the PA should cease as well.

As I have stated in the past, "the obstacles to peace (the PA, Hamas, Islamic Jihad and other terror groups) must be removed before a moderate Palestinian voice can step forward. The Palestinians should be given their own state, but not until they renounce terror as a tool of negotiation, arrest and prosecute Palestinian terrorists, and demonstrate a commitment to live peacefully side by side with their Israeli neighbor." The withdraw of support for the PA is crucial to moving forward towards peace, as a government that sponsors terrorism cannot be negotiated with. The short term effects may be chaotic as the Palestinians fight amongst themselves, but attempts to negotiate with the corrupt and terror sponsoring PA is not a solution.

The Winds of War Monday Briefing

2004-06-14T00:10:00.000-04:00

I have posted the Monday Winds of War Briefing at the Winds of Change website, so head on over to read it. The Winds of War Briefing is a roundup of the latest news on the Global War on Terror with a quick summary of each article. If you are interested in the details, progress and setbacks in the war this is a must read.

The Iraq Fitnah

2004-06-12T13:49:00.000-04:00

by Daniel Drummond

A favorite aphorism of many lecturers, is the cautionary pronouncement; “Those who do not learn from History are condemned to repeat it.” For some reason, however, I cannot remember anyone following through to the obvious counterpoint: What happens when a leader does learn from History, and applies what he knows to his plans? We may very well be seeing the answer to that question, in President Bush’s plans for the Middle East.

The 2003 invasion of Iraq by the US-led coalition has been widely ridiculed and derided in many places. The most common charge claims that Bush had no idea what he was getting the nation into, or what consequences his decision would bring. Both claims, like so many attacks against the President, are false, and demonstrate only the inability of Bush’s critics to see beyond their own subjective opinions. The actions taken by the Bush Administration in Iraq, are essential components of a policy which not only has the potential to revolutionize the notion of representative democracy in the Middle East, but also to render obsolete the use of terrorist attacks as a tool for political position.

The first point to make, is that it was unavoidably necessary to invade Iraq. Iraq under Saddam Hussein represented a triple threat: First, Saddam Hussein supported Terrorism. He paid money to terrorist organizations and to the families of suicide bombers who killed Israelis. He stockpiled thousands of explosive vests in military warehouses, where US forces discovered them. He established and supplied terrorist training camps in Iraq, such as Salman Pak . He hosted and sheltered terrorist leaders such as Abu Abbas , Abu Nidal , and Carlos “The Jackal”. Saddam’s Baath Party officials had direct meetings with leaders from Al-Fatah, Islamic Jihad, and other international terrorist groups . Second, Iraq tried to invade Iran, and followed up with an invasion of Kuwait. He mobilized his army twice during Clinton’s terms as US President, forcing Clinton to deploy troops each time . Third, He used WMD against Iran , and against the Kurds , as well as using prisoners to develop bioweapons , including two previously unknown weaponized strains (Brucella and Congo Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever (CCHF)) discovered by David Kay’s inspectors. Saddam broke the terms of his cease-fire by hiding his WMD from inspectors for 12 years, committed an act of war by attempting to kill former President George HW Bush , and used the UN’s own Oil-for-Food program to buy prohibited weapons . Saddam Hussein represented a grave threat to the region, a man with a track record of aggressive violence, a pathological hatred of many enemies, and an utter ruthlessness to use any means at hand to advance his aim.

The second point then, comes down to method. Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Jordan tried to buy out Saddam Hussein, to the tune of ten billion dollars. Saddam preferred power to luxury, and so ignored the offer. A number of Imams approached Saddam in the name of Islam, but since Saddam was a Muslim in name only, this went nowhere. President Clinton warned Saddam off, including air strikes to emphasize the point, but Saddam continued his preparations. All the possible options were explored and removed from consideration, until only 4 remained: Sanctions, Assassination, a UN-approved invasion, or unilateral action by the United States.

Sanctions were tried for 12 years, and by now everyone has heard about the UN’s Oil-for-Food scandal, so there is no point going back to that failed attempt, except to note that twelve years is quite long enough to have tried the option. Assassination may or may not have been approved by President Clinton, but in any case it would have proved a poor measure; If one of his sons (the noble qualities of Uday and Qusay rival the meanest attributes of the Marquis de Sade) had not simply become the new Thuggus Maximus, it’s entirely possible the vacuum would have been filled either by another Baathist despot, or else an angry mullah in the mold of Khomeini could have taken the reins of Iraq. One can only imagine an evil comparable to Hussein’s, but in the form of an even less predictable enemy.

As for anything by the United Nations, Bush knew early on the track record of the UN’s military actions. In over a half-century of existence, the UN has sanctioned exactly two military actions: the response to the Communist invasion of South Korea, and the first Gulf War. In neither case was peace ever accomplished by anything done by the UN . Korea remains split to this day, to the happiness of no one. And the failure to resolve the Iraq issue in 1991 is the source of the present difficulty. The UN did nothing to stop the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan or to protect fleeing refugees from Somalia and the Sudan. And the massacre in Rwanda is a landmark of UN indifference. There is absolutely no reason to believe that the United Nations is capable or willing to resolve any sort of military conflict, or effectively address any sort of threat to the region. That leaves what happened, direct military action, led by the one nation able to lead such an effort, as the irreducible option.

At this point, the critics start up again, this time insisting that the US is doomed to failure in Iraq, for a variety of reasons. But there are a number of reasons to believe that, as before, Bush’s critics are wrong.

Some people actually seem to believe that the Arab people are unable or unwilling to pursue Democracy. Besides the blatant racism and bigotry of such thinking, it can be quickly disproven by simply pointing to the many Americans of Arab descent living quite well in the United States . And there’s more. When the FBI arrested Ahmad Musa Jibril and his father Musa Abdallah Jibril on September 9, 2002, it was on tips from Muslims in Dearborn Michigan, alarmed by the tone and message of the militants. Mahmoud Youssef Kourani raised money for the terrorist group Hezbollah, but his American brother discovered his activities and turned him in.

OK, some say, but what does that prove about Iraqi Muslims? Well, consider the capture of Saddam Hussein last November. He was caught hiding in a spider hole, and it sure looked sweet finding him huddled in the mud, but seriously, just how do you suppose the troops knew where to look? Yeah, they’re thorough, but the fact is clear that someone tipped off the troops.

All right, that’s a big-time loser worth a big reward, but it tracks with local warnings to US forces about planned attacks , and informants' directions to hidden weapons and wanted leaders. The simple fact is, more and more Iraqis are sick of the fighting, and they realize the US forces are the key to resolving the conflict.

Now, Iraq has held the first truly free elections in its history, with a growing number of Iraqis not only optimistic about their future, but grateful to the United States for the way it is handling the rebuilding of Iraq, and the organization of its future government.

This is happening because of a fundamental mistake made by bin Laden. Bin Laden correctly understood the lesson of Khomeini, that many Muslims saw the United States not as an empire, but as a seducer. But bin Laden soiled the teachings of Islam by advocating violence as Jihad, even when used against women and children, even when used against people who had done no offense to Islam, even when done against other Muslims. Bin Laden has already lost the support of most Muslims, provided the U.S. does one thing, which it is doing now: Keep its promises to return Iraq to the Iraqis, and leave the Hajib alone, especially Mecca, Medina, and Jerusalem. It is beginning to dawn on many Muslims, that even if the U.S. keeps a military presence in Iraq, it will likely lead to removing troops from Saudi Arabia, which is exactly what two of the most important groups of Muslims, the Fundamentalists and the Conservatives, want most.

The war in Iraq is also paying dividends in other countries. Following the success of the US-led Coalition into Iraq, Libya announced a sudden decision to cooperate fully to disarm from its WMD programs. Iran followed by announcing it would unilaterally accept IAEA inspectors, even though those were often led by American scientists. That’s progress by any standard, and it came directly as a result of the US actions in Iraq.

Bin Laden also accidentally gave an insight into Arab mistrust of the US plan. On his October 7, 2001 tape, bin Laden claimed that Islam had suffered “humiliation and disgrace” for “more than eighty years”. That brings us back to 1918, when the Ottoman Sultanate lost to the Allied powers in World War I. As a consequence of the war, Britain claimed the provinces named as Iraq and Palestine, while France took a region named Syria. “Palestine” was later divided into sub-regions named Trans-Jordan (present day Jordan) and Cis-Jordan (which includes present day Israel); “Syria” was divided into sub-regions named Syria and Lebanon, which later became the countries by those names. After World War 1, the Arabs discovered to their anger that they had been lied to by Britain in the Balfour declaration. The only clear winner in the region was ibn Saud, whose private agreement with Britain secured his control over al-Hasa and most of the Nejd. Other men in power would take his example and make their private agreements to establish their thrones.

In March 1920, an elected assembly proclaimed Feisal king of the sovereign state of Syria. France’s response was to invade Syria, seizing Damascus on July 25. France followed up in 1925, dividing its territory into four parts, including Lebanon, a Syrian republic, present-day Libya, a district of Latakia. The Arabs revolted against the new foreign rulers, but were suppressed ruthlessly. Britain gradually began to relinquish its hold on Arab lands, especially Egypt in 1936, and recognized Shah Pahlavi in Iran and ibn Saud in the Hejaz. After World War 2, the fate of the Middle East fell into the hands of the victors, including Britain and France. So, as recently as a generation ago, the Middle East found itself unable to decide its own affairs, relegated to the status of pawns.

From there, the condition of Arabs, Jews, and other peoples in the region have taken one of three broad paths. Some, mostly those nations which were Soviet client states, were run by despots and ruthless dictatorships. Countries like Iraq, Yemen, Somalia, Libya, and Syria all learned their ways of government from Soviet patrons, who preferred to keep the people in those nations from ruling over themselves, especially after Egypt found it did not need the Soviets, and threw them out of the country in 1974. The second path is of religious radicalism, as evidenced in Iran, Lebanon, and Saudi Arabia, where groups of religious ‘purists’ have risen against American and other Western nations and people; cooperation and mutual benefit is rejected as no more than lies and imperialism. The third path, however, is very real. It shows up in Jordan’s restraint in their relations with Israel, a thing not mentioned much in the news. It shows up in Egypt, which has shown remarkable stability, even in the face of the assassination of President Anwar el-Sadat; most people are unaware that Hosni Mubarek was Sadat's Vice-President, and succeeded Sadat in much the same way that LBJ suceeded JFK. When George W. Bush speaks about the Middle East, he is in large part speaking of these nations which are the foundation for the future Arab world.

In Islam, 'Fitnah' is a test for the faithful, one with special significance. Iraq is just such a test. If (I think when) the United States shows it can and will do as it promised, the whole region will come to a better understanding not of the United States, but also of Islam's proper role in its future. George W. Bush already knows that lesson of History.

One Final Swing

2004-06-11T13:42:00.000-04:00

President Reagan,

Thank you for showing me what it means to be an American. You helped me understand that duty, honor, respect, strength, leadership, courage and service are not just words but the true basis of a man's character. And thank you for showing me that chopping firewood is cool. Every fall when I swing the axe I think of you. May I one day have the honor of splitting a cord with you, in a better place.

I miss you Mr. President.

No War For Oil

2004-06-11T12:02:00.000-04:00

Anti-war protestors have been screaming about wars for oil since the first Gulf War. This claim was also repeated when we overthrew the Taliban in Afghanistan; the motivation was to build an oil pipe line from central Asia through Afghanistan and ending in Pakistan. Predictably, the latest war in Iraq was also called a war for oil. The battlecry of the peacenik is "No War For Oil".

Tuesday, we found out the anti-war slogan of "No War For Oil" is accurate:

Iraqi officials declared Tuesday that the interim government has assumed full control of the country's oil industry ahead of the June 30 handover of sovereignty from the U.S.-led occupation administration.

"Today the most important natural resource has been returned to Iraqis to serve all Iraqis," Prime Minister Iyad Allawi said. "I'm pleased to announce that full sovereignty and full control on oil industry has been handed over to the oil ministry today and to the new Iraqi government as of today."

Not only are the decisions for Iraq's oil under the full control of the interim government, but control was turned over earlier than expected. Further proof the invasion and occupation of Iraq was no war for oil.

Resolute

2004-06-10T00:19:00.000-04:00

The United Nations Security Council has unanimously passed Resolution 1546. The full text of the resolution can be viewed by selecting Security Council resolution 1546 (2004) from the list (the file is in PDF format). Here are the major points:

- Grants full sovereignty to Iraq's Interim Government (Paragraph 1).
- Dissolves the Coalition Provisional Authority on June 31, 2004 (Paragraph 2).
- Approves election time table (Paragraph 4.c). December 31, 2004 is the date for the election of the Transitional National Assembly, which will form the Transitional Government and create the constitution. December 31, 2005 is the deadline for the election of the constitutional government.
- The U.N. special representativie will assist the interim government with reconstruction, humanitarian assistance and election efforts.
- Iraq to establish security forces and work with the coalition for assistance (Paragraphs 8 - 17). Of particular interest:
"the multinational force in Iraq is at the request of the incoming Interim Government of Iraq" (Paragraph 9)
"The multinational force shall have the authority to take all necessary measures to contribute to the maintenance of security and stability in Iraq" (Paragraph 10)
- Requests U.N. members assist with Iraq's security needs, including providing troops (Paragraphs 15 & 16).
- Denounces terrorism (Paragraph 17).
- Requests U.N. members assist with debt relief (Paragraph 28).

This resolution should be viewed as a major diplomatic victory for Iraq, Great Britain and the United States. This is the international approval for the security situation, reconstruction, debt relief and interim government that and reconstruction of Iraq that Great Britain and the United States were looking for. Iraq's interim government receives the international legitimacy to work with world nations and the approval of much needed assistance. Nations that require U.N. approval for domestic reasons now have the mandate they need to cooperate. Already the resolution has had a positive influence: Japan has indicated it will deploy more troops in Iraq.

World reaction overall has been positive; Pakistan and China particularly appear to be pleased. Both France and Spain appeared to have reservations about the resolution, but voted in favor anyway.

In Madrid, Spanish Foreign Minister Miguel Moratinos told a news conference "Spain will vote in favor in a spirit of cooperation."

French Foreign Minister Michel Barnier told France-Inter radio that France, which has the power of veto on the U.N. Security Council and staunchly opposed the war in Iraq, was still not fully satisfied with the resolution, but would vote for it.

If France and Spain disliked the resolution, it really must be good.

Update:

The Kurds are not happy and threatened to not participate in the interim government. However it appears a short term compromise was reached. The Iraqis appear to be learning about democracy and compromise in a short amount of time.

Iranian Involvement, Reloaded

2004-06-09T12:11:00.000-04:00

activistchat.com, a blog devoted to Iranian freedom from theocratic Islamist rule, posts and translates a ‘resume’ distributed at an international conference held in Tehran dedicated to suicide bombing, as well as a brief description of the conference:

As part of the anniversary ceremonies of Iman Khomeini's death, an international gathering of candidates for suicide bombing will take place in Tehran under the title "Suicide in Tehran." The "Center for the appreciation of the Shahid" of the world Islamic Movement, declared today that an international gathering of "Shahids" (martyr bombers) is to take place with the objective of presenting suicide bombing as the most effective and influential method to compel occupying forces to flee Muslim territories. The ceremony will include participants from various Jihad movements and will take place on 02/06/04 in the AL-SHOHADAH HALL at 7th Batir square.

Besides the Name, Children, Birth Date and Location the only questions on the resume are:

What Martyrdom Operations are you Prepared For?

Against the Occupiers in Iraq ___________________________
Against the Occupiers in Jerusalem ______________________
Towards the Execution of the Fatwa against Salman Rushdie _________

I declare the above
And additionally I am interested in membership in the Global Islamic Martyrdom Brigades

Let’s be perfectly clear. This conference is openly advocating suicide attacks on American troops in Iraq, as well as suicide operations in Israel and against Salman Rushdie, author of The Satanic Verses. A conference of this nature could not be conducted without the approval of the ruling government of Iran, as Iran is essentially a police state. Members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards are attending this event, and it is highly doubtful they are doing this against the will of the Mullahs.

The government of Iran is our enemy, and there is no reason why the United States should engage in diplomatic relations with this terror sponsoring state. President Bush was correct when he included Iran as a member of the Axis of Evil. Iran is a manufacturer of WMD, a state sponsor of terrorism and it's pet terrorist organization Hezbollah, a terror sanctuary for al Qaeda, and a supporter of Shiite insurgent leader Muqtada al-Sadr in Iraq.

The War on Terror will not be won until Iran's terror sponsoring theocrat government is removed from power. We must support Iranian dissidents and student activists in their fight against the Iranian government.

Falling just short of a Unified Strategy to Combat Terror

2004-06-08T12:03:00.000-04:00

Dr. Thomas Barnett, a professor at the U.S. Naval War College, recently published The Pentagon's New Map: War and Peace in the Twenty-first Century. While I have not yet read it (I just ordered it), last fall I did read the The Pentagon's New Map briefing, which this book is based on, and other of his articles that contributed to book's publication (editor's note: if you read only one article linked in this post, it should be The Pentagon's New Map briefing). The main points of his theory are:

- The world is divided into two camps, the nations that have successfully implemented globalization (the Functional Core) and the nations that have rejected globalization (the Non-Integrating Gap). Examples of Core states are "North America, much of South America, the European Union, Putin’s Russia, Japan and Asia’s emerging economies (most notably China and India), Australia and New Zealand, and South Africa, which accounts for roughly four billion out of a global population of six billion." Examples of Gap states are "the Caribbean Rim, virtually all of Africa, the Balkans, the Caucasus, Central Asia, the Middle East and Southwest Asia, and much of Southeast Asia."
- Recent military actions, as well as future one, are conducted in the Gap states or along the Seam states. The Seam states are Core states that border the Gap states, and are the states where terrorists attempt to "access the Core." Examples of Seam states are "Mexico, Brazil, South Africa, Morocco, Algeria, Greece, Turkey, Pakistan, Thailand, Malaysia, the Philippines, and Indonesia."
- The classic setpiece nation state wars are a thing of the past due to America's dominance in conventional and nuclear forces, and economic strength.
- The new wars will be low intesity conflicts with the Gap states.
- Wars will be continuous throughout the 21st century, until globalization takes hold.

His strategy for winning the War on Terror, which he views as a result of problems with globalization, can be summed up as follows:

- The Core states must "export" security and globalization to the Seam and Gap states.
- The U.S. military must reorganize (force transformation) to meet the threat of the Gap states by having two components, a heavy force structured much like today's military
(Leviathan) and a light force designed for nation building (System Administration).
- Reduce the size of the Gap, as we cannot afford to isolate ourselves in the believe the threat will go away.

In his most recent article, Mr. President, Here's How to Make Sense of Our Iraq Strategy, Dr. Barnett discusses the Iraq war in the context of the Core versus the Gap, argues the Powell Doctrine of overwhelming force and a clear exit strategy is dead, looks at the failures of the Bush administration to properly frame the debate of Iraq and why this happened (no international rules exist for dealing with dangerous failed states such as Iraq), explains the military is rapidly changing to correct its deficiencies in dealing with the 21st century threats (tranformation and the move to create Leviathan and Sys Admin forces) and how American foreign policy is adapting. He is critical of the Bush administration’s portrayal of the threat from Iraq and its handling of the reconstruction of post war Iraq. But Dr. Barnett does support the Iraq war as he believes it forces us to engage with the nations of the Middle East, a major source of instability in the Gap.

While Mr. Barnett’s theory on the Core vs. Gap is a compelling argument for why America is forced to fight wars in the Gap nations, as well as the Seam nations, it appears his theory practically ignores the impact and influence of radical Islam, its role in terror organizations and its lore in the Muslim world. In fact, in the two articles I reference and the preface to his book, I found no mention of radical Islamic ideologies and how they are related to the war on terror. To Mr. Barnett, the likes of Osama bin Laden, Abu Musab al-Zarqari, Yasser Arafat and other Islam terrorists are merely “system perturbations” or “violent feedback to the Core.” The Gap nation’s lack of freedom, a lack of a stable middle class, being left out of globalization’s benefits, poor education, poor communications, poverty and other conditions make these countries inherently unstable and likely candidates for American military actions. But these conditions have existed for centuries, and there have not been attacks on American soil by Third World nations or non-governmental entities (terrorist) until 9/11. Historically, left to their own devices, Third World or Gap nations typically threaten their own populations neighboring countries that are also in disarray, not the United States or other major world powers.

Dr. Barnett’s only failings are that he does not recognize the roots of radical Islam existed prior to globalization and does not present an argument to counter the ideology (editors note: the assumption is made by reading his articles, not the full book). The jihadis began their armed struggle against America prior to the spread of globalization. Al Qaeda was established by Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan while fighting against the Soviet Union in the 1980s. The Egyptian Islamic Jihad, Ayman al-Zawahiri’s terror group, was established in the 1970, merged with al Qaeda after working together in Afghanistan. Terrorism against Israelis has existed since the nation’s founding. Islamic terrorists invented the suicide bomb prior to talk of globalization. The audacious attacks on America required a devoted and fanatical group of individuals willing to kill themselves and thousands of innocents to further their corrupt religious cause. While the anarchy that existed in the Gap states contributed to the success of al Qaeda on 9/11 and elsewhere, the radical ideology of al Qaeda cannot be explained in terms of globalization or lack thereof alone.

Because Dr. Barnett leaves out the role of Islamic fundamentalism in today’s threat of terrorism, this does not make his theory invalid. In fact, I agree with much of what he has to say. His description of Core, Gap and Seam states is very accurate in predicting past hot spots in the world as well as likely areas in future confrontations. The need to realign the military to address the threats posed by the Gap states is correct, as events of the past decade since the fall of the Soviet Union has shown; wars have been fast while reconstruction and nation building has been painfully slow. Improving the security situation in the Gap and Seam states will help reduce the threat of terrorism by denying terrorist bases of operation and support. Over time, the spread of globalization will decrease America’s involvement in the world’s hot spots, as well as promote freedom and improve the lives of the citizens of these nations. America should be fighting the War on Terror overseas, not on American soil: “gated communities and rent-a-cops” will not prevent the next 9/11.

Dr. Barnett’s theory should be integrated with the understanding of the threat of radical Islam and a strategy to combat radical ideologies, as globalization alone will not stop poisonous ideologies from infecting the minds of Muslims. Promoting security, globalization and personal freedoms along with combating radical ideologies would truly be an effective and potent Unified Strategy to Combat Terror.

The Bush Administration understands the main elements of Dr. Barnett's theories (perhaps unconsciously) and is slowly implementing his solutions while recognizing the threat of radical Islam. It is supporting the Seam states, such as the Philippines and Israel, and security and liberalization in the Gap states, such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Uzbekistan and Georgia; perhaps not as much as we would like, but keeping the regimes in place is better than the alternative of radical Islam taking control. The Middle East Partnership Initiative is designed to promote freedom, liberalization and economic reforms. The U.S. is active in the WTO and other world organizations that promote globalization, while at the same time forming bilateral and regional trade agreements to shore up free trade. President Bush has explained the threat of radical Islam and has worked to encourage nations to reduce the maddrassas, textbooks and sermons that promote these hateful ideologies; this is another area where the solutions are slow in the making and the policy is still being formed.

The Bush administration's main failing is that it has not fully articulated the strategy to fight terrorism, nor has it given a name to the strategy. But this is understandable. We are only just under three years into this war. The last world war, the Cold War, was not won until a winning strategy was clearly explained and fully implemented by President Reagan. Over the course of about 35 years after the Cold War began, the West went from a policy of containment (a strategy of maintaining the status quo) to a policy of active engagement of the communist threat politically, militarily and economically (a strategy to win). The process of recognizing the threat and devising a strategy to combat it does not materialize overnight. The Bush Administration should be commended for recognizing the main elements of the threat and acting so quickly to counter them. It should also be pushed harder to search for better solutions. Men like Dr. Barnett are crucial in describing the threat environment and proposing solutions; let us hope they can condense the timetable on creating a winning strategy. If only he had mentioned the threat of Islamist ideologies and a plan to defeat it, I would be completely on board.

Update #1

Dr. Barnett was kind enough to drop by to respond to this article. Please view the comments to see what he has to say, as well as my response. I encourage you to join the debate.

Update #2

Dr. Barnett & I continued the debate at his blog. At first I am lumped in with the "I hate Islam" crowd, I take umbrage and state the war is against radical ideologies, not Islam. The debate continues and Dr. Barnett and I find out we actually agree, but the only sticking point is the language used. He feels referring to enemies specifically creates divides amoung potential allies (referring to al Qaeda and the likes as radical Islamists alienates peaceful Muslims). I see the value of describing and understanding the radical ideologies to better fight them. In the end, it appears our overall strategy is the same.

Kudos:

Many thanks to Angel (full disclosure: she is my Aunt) for informing me about Dr. Barnett's book and interview on C-SPAN. She provided the vital information for this post, and I am truly grateful for her insights and support.

Fairwell to the Chief

2004-06-06T01:41:00.000-04:00

On June 5, 3002, Ronald Wilson Reagan, the 40th President of the United States, ended his ten year twilight struggle with Alzheimer's disease. President Reagan's eight-year presidency began with a landslide victory over President Carter (489-49 Electoral College votes, 51% of the popular vote) and the immediate release of the American hostages held in Iran, after 444 days of inaction by President Carter. He was reelected in 1984, defeating challenger Walter Mondale in another landslide victory (525-13 Electoral College votes, 59% of the popular vote). His two term presidency included many successes and setbacks, including taxes cuts and substantial economic growth, his survival of an assassination attempt, Hezbollah's attack on the Marines barracks in Beirut and the subsequent American withdraw from Lebanon, the Iran-Contra scandal, the Black Monday stock market crash and its quick recovery, and the ratification of the Intermediate Nuclear Forces treaty, which abolished an entire class of nuclear weapons.

His defining moments as president were his continuous stands against communism and the Soviet Union. He had the vision to recognize the threat communism posed against the forces of freedom, liberalization and democracy. He had the moral clarity to label the USSR the Evil Empire, and the will and determination to fight the Soviets in every way possible. He actively opposed the spread of communism in the Caribbean, with the invasion of Grenada, and in Central America with the support of the anti-communist Contras in Nicaragua and the assistance to the governments of Honduras and El Salvador, which fought Soviet and Cuba supported communist insurgencies. He armed the mujahedeen in Afghanistan, which broke the back of the Soviet occupation armies. He provided moral and economic support to the freedom movements in Eastern Europe, and constantly challenged the USSR to liberalize. He rebuilt and modernized the military after its decline and malaise of the post Vietnam era, proposed the Strategic Defense Initiative (Star Wars), the program that was to provide a missile defense against Soviet nuclear weapons, and deployed medium range nuclear missiles in Europe to counter the Soviet threat. The program of active and passive opposition to the USSR, along with the rebuilding and moderization of the US military ultimately led to the defeat of the Soviet Union. President Reagan demonstrated that the USSR could not compete militarily, economically and morally with the United States. In 1987, Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev announced the policies of Glasnost and Perestroika (openness and reform), programs designed to loosen the totalitarian controls in the USSR. In 1989, the Berlin Wall was toppled and Germany was reunited as a democratic government. In 1991 the Soviet Union collapsed and the main communist threat against the western world passed into history.

President Reagan was more than just a successful and admired president. He was a devout Christian, an actor, an Army officer, husband and father, twice elected governor of California, a columnist and radio personality. He wrote over 10,000 personal letters to friends, family admirers and detractors, and demonstrated his kindness, thoughtfulness, humor and humanity.

President Reagan is my personal hero. I was ten years old when he was elected, and was inspired by his, hope, vision and positive outlook on America and our place in the world. I began to follow politics, history and world events solely because of his leadership and personality, and I suspect I am not alone. America has lost one of its greatest citizens and greatest presidents.

If you would like to express your sympathy to the Reagan family, visit the Ronald Reagan Memorial website and select the Condolences Book link.

The Protection Racket

2004-06-04T00:35:00.000-04:00

Since the end of the Cold War, the positioning of America's overseas military deployments has come into question, yet very little was done to address the concerns. While the Army was reduced from 20 divisions to 10, the commitment to defend Europe, South Korea, Japan and other nations did not change, and a large percentage of American troops remained overseas. But 9/11 and subsequent invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq has created an urgency to review the long overlooked problem of deployments in Europe and Southeast Asia. It appears over the last month the Department of Defense has decided to radically overhaul its overseas commitments and will reduce America's presence. Thursday's New York Times reports that the size of the American military presence in Europe will be dramatically decreased:

The Pentagon has proposed a plan to withdraw its two Army divisions from Germany and undertake an array of other changes in its European-based forces, in the most significant rearrangement of the American military around the world since the beginning of the cold war, according to American and allied officials. Pentagon policy makers said the aim is to afford maximum flexibility in sending forces to the Middle East, Central Asia and other potential battlegrounds.

Last May, the United States announced it would redeploy a brigade (one of the two in country) from South Korea to Iraq and Afghanistan and that these troops may not return to South Korea:

The United States will reassign some troops from South Korea to Afghanistan and Iraq and shift most of the 7,000 people in its headquarters in Seoul out of the capital beginning within a year, military officials say. The moves are part of a gradual disengagement of U.S. land forces from Korea and a greater reliance on sea power to maintain the American security posture in Asia.

The European nations and South Korean must also shoulder the responsibility for their own defense. The combined European defense expenditures equal about 1.9% of GDP, South Korea commitment to military expenditures is about 2.5% and the United States 3.1%. The combined nations of Europe have a population and GDP that exceeds the United States, yet they rely on American protection over sixty years after the liberation of Europe. The fact that certain European nations, such as France, Germany and Belgium, have been unsupportive both in the military and diplomatic efforts of America in Iraq and elsewhere does not make the argument for continued American presence any easier.

While the reduction in troops in Asia and Europe made lead to reduced influence in these regions, the security concerns of America must be first and foremost in the minds of American policy makers. It is important to support and maintain American interests and democracy in Europe and South Korea, but the current threats America faces are mainly located in the Middle East and Central Asia. America's current posture prevents it from adequately using its existing forces. Barring a dramatic increase in the number of active duty Army divisions (which would take years to raise, train and equip anyway) the United States has no choice but to redistribute its forces to better suit the existing security situation.

Update:

Germany is on the list for troop deductions and redeployments as well.

Mending Fences

2004-06-03T00:07:00.000-04:00

"Bad neighbors require good fences." - unknown

In late April, I wrote about the question of Palestinian statehood and the current strategy of Israel to create a separate, unilateral peace with the Palestinians. The two main elements of this plan are to decapitate the Islamic terror groups' leadership, and create a security fence between Israelis and Palestinians:

As the PA has demonstrated it is uninterested in finding a peaceful solution with Israel (unwilling to compromise on the right of return and borders of a new Palestinian State, sponsoring the Intifada & supporting terror organizations), Israel has embarked on a project to unilaterally create its own conditions for peace. Israel has decided to build a security fence (wall) between Israel and the Palestinian territories, with the lines drawn of their own choosing, started to withdraw from Gaza and the West Bank (while leaving several settlements in the West Bank) and targeted Hamas leadership in the Palestinian territories. These are measures which President Bush has recently decided to support, a radical change in U.S. policy. The effects of this strategy are as follows:

- Removes PA from bargaining process
- Creates chaos in terror organizations by removing leadership
- Shows Palestinians they will get less than they want without negotiating

Today's post will focus on how the security fence is helping to further the Israeli security plan (an excellent "operational concept" of how the fence works can be viewed here).

Wednesday, Charles of little green footballs, a blog which exposes the threat of radical Islam, links to an article titled Death of the Intifada. This article provides details on how the Israeli plan is working in the Palestinian city of Tulkarem:

There's nobody left of the serious hard core of the Brigades, they say, only the remnants of Jarira's junior lieutenants such as Aweideh inside the city and "a few thieves" in the two local refugee camps. The mounting tensions between the city and camp militants have turned them more into rivals than brothers-in-arms.
:
"Residents of Tul Karm are no longer willing to provide refuge for the armed men in their houses, local sources say, for fear of ending up on the army's demolition list. Furthermore Aweideh, his fingers nervously drumming on the back of his chair, an eye fixed on the door, reveals that it is not only the Israeli actions that are curbing the militants. "The Palestinian Authority used to support us, but we've had no funding from them for the past two months," he claims. "They make promises, but nothing ever materializes. The PA wants to calm the situation, but Sharon doesn't," he concludes."
:
Aweideh attributes the difficulty in launching attacks to the recently constructed security barrier that now seals Tul Karm off from Israel, as well as the strict checkpoint regime that controls movement between the city and the rest of the West Bank and "the pressure put on us by the PA." He says that the people he deals with in Ramallah "are scared for Arafat" following Prime Minister Sharon's veiled threats on the Palestinian leader's life.

Further evidence of Israel's plan to halt terror attacks using the security fence exists. The Jewish Virtual Library provides a listing of the Major Palestinian Terror Attacks Since Oslo. This year, there were three major attacks against Israelis, with the last major attack inside Israel in March, at the Ashdod seaport facility. There were five major attacks in 2003, forty-five in 2002, forty in 2001, and five in 2000 (the year the Intifada began).

The Jewish Virtual Library also provides a complete listing of all terror attacks against Israelis, and here are the numbers (editor's note, I had to manually count this list, the numbers may be off by a few. If anyone finds a summary list please let me know):

Year / Casualties
2000 / 25 (Start of Intifada, September 2000)
2001 / 94
2002 / 130
2003 / 63
2004 / 15

The Israeli Ministry of Defence documents the effectiveness of security fence by citing two specific examples of how the fence prevents terror attacks and lead to the arrest of the perpetrators:

In the first case, two terrorists, members of the Islamic Jihad, came from Zbubeh but were unable to cross into Israel directly and had to make a detour of 45 km to try and infiltrate in the Beit Shean area where there is no fence, in order to carry out a suicide bombing at the ORT high school in Yokne'am. This long march provided the IDF and the Security forces who were chasing them, time to trace them hiding in a mosque in Bardaleh and capture them thus preventing the terror attack.

The other suicide bombing was planned to take place in Rosh Ha'ayin. Two of the three members belonging to the Fatah Tanzim infrastructure in Nablus left Nablus in one car and the third member, a 40 year old mother of seven children left in a separate vehicle carrying the explosive belt with her. Their meeting point was Kfar Kasim, a spot chosen because there is no security fence in that area yet. The explosive belt was transferred and the woman returned back to Nablus undetected. The large presence of Israeli security forces in the area of Rosh Ha'ayin prevented the two terrorists from reaching their destination and they tried to get back but, later on they were caught heading towards Habla. The woman was arrested in Nablus.

In both cases, terror attacks were prevented due to the combination of specific intelligence and deterrence provided by the Security Fence and the security forces.

The Israeli Ministry of Defence also provides a graph (copied below) that highlights the effectiveness of the fence against suicide bombings by showing the number of successful attacks decreases while the number of intercepted attacks increases once the fence began construction:

The evidence demonstrates the security fence is performing well in protecting Israeli citizens against Palestinian terrorist attacks. In absence of a serious attempt by the Palestinians to reform their government, arrest known terrorists, work to prevent future terrorist attacks, stop the state sponsorship of terror, negotiate with the Israelis in good faith and recognize the right of Israel's existence, Israel is justified in pursuing the security of its citizens and the unilateral disengagement from Palestinian society. For all of the international outcry over the fence, it is doing exactly what is was designed to do: save lives.

Confession:

I would like to take a moment to acknowledge Charles of little green footballs. After reading his blog for many months, I came to the conclusion that Charles was promoting hatred and intolerance of Muslims, and stopped viewing his site. Last week, after reading an explanation of Charles' site at Eject! Eject! Eject! (beneath the photos of the WTC attacks on the May 22, 2004 post) I decided to take a second look at little green footballs, and sure enough, Charles is not promoting hatred of Muslims as I had assumed. While some commentors at little green footballs may be too extreme for my liking, the purpose is clear: to shine a light on the insanity and violence of radical Islam. I apologize to Charles for wrongly judging him.

Halftime - Iraq 14, Jihad 6

2004-06-02T12:04:00.000-04:00

The path of transition to Iraq's interim government took a step forward, with the naming of the major members of the cabinet and the disbanding of the Iraqi Governing Council (update: The new interim government has taken over the functions of the IGC until the June 30th handover, after which the Coalition Provisional Authority will be dissolved and full sovereignty will be handed over to the Iraqi interim government). There was much disagreement between the United States, the coalition, the Iraqi Governing Council and UN envoy Brahimi over the composition of the interim government:

After a two-day stand-off, the United States and U.N. envoy Lakhdar Brahimi accepted Yawar in the largely ceremonial role of head of state after their preferred candidate, elder statesman Adnan Pachachi, was formally offered the job and turned it down. One Iraqi politician had complained of U.S. "dictatorship" though U.S. officials later denied trying to impose Pachachi. It seemed at first like a clear win for the U.S.-appointed Iraqi Governing Council, which last week named Allawi as premier in a move that caught Brahimi and Washington off guard. "There were a lot of rows this morning but everything settled down when Pachachi withdrew," Council member Rajaa Habib Khuzai told Reuters. "We think this has been a big victory for the Governing Council and for Iraqis themselves." But in return the 22-member Council agreed to dissolve itself with immediate effect and accepted a cabinet line-up that featured only two Council members, many fewer than it had wanted -- a key demand of the United Nations and U.S. officials.

This process should indeed be viewed as a victory for the Iraqi people. The members of the Iraq Governing Council demonstrated their independences from UN and US by insisting on choosing their candidate for president. Their actions showed Iraqi politicians are willing to take ownership for the future of Iraq. And most importantly, this demonstrated the ability of Iraqis to cross political, religious and ethnic divides in order to negotiate with each other and appoint the members of their interim government. In order for Iraq to maintain its integrity and succeed as an independent and free nation, the Iraqi leadership must learn to work together, and learn to work out differences via negotiation, something that has not occurred in Iraq for decades.

Here is a brief look at the top members of the interim Iraqi government (a full listing can be found here):

President
The President of the interim government is Ghazi Mashal Ajil al-Yawer. Mr. Al-Yawer is a Sunni and member of the diverse Shammar tribe, which opposed Saddam, and is comprised Shiite and Sunni clans throughout Iraq and the gulf region, including Syria and Saudi Arabia. He recently took over as head of the Iraqi Governing Council after the assassination of Izzadine Saleem. The office of President is mainly a ceremonial position (as in many parliamentatry style governments such as Israel and Germany).

Prime Minister
The post of Prime Minister is held by Iyad Allawi, a U.S.-backed secular Shiite who was head of the exile opposition group Iraqi National Accord. He was a unanimous choice of the IGC, and was both minister of trade and defence in the IGC.

Vice Presidents
The interim government will have two Vice Presidents, Ibrahim al-Jaafari, a spokesman of the Shiite Islam Dawa Party, and Rowsch Shaways, President of the Kurdistan National Assembly.

Foreign Minister
The post of Foreign Minister is held by Hoshyar Zebari, a former official in the Kurdistan Democratic Party. He was the foreign minister in the IGC, and accused the UN of complicity in Saddam's reign of Terror and fighting over the future of Iraq for political reasons (to discredit the United States) to the detriment of the Iraqi people.

Deputy Prime Minister for National Security
This post is held by Barham Saleh, the prime minister of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan.

Meanwhile, attacks on Iraqis, Americans and coalition forces continue in Iraq:

A car bomb exploded Tuesday in central Baghdad outside the offices of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, which is located just outside the green zone headquarters of the U.S.-run coalition. At least three people were killed and 20 were injured, the military said.

Another blast, followed by gunfire, sent a mushroom cloud 100 feet billowing into the dusty air hanging over the city. Coalition aircraft could be heard flying over Baghdad.

Elsewhere, a car bomb exploded near the U.S. military base in northern Iraq on Tuesday. Eleven Iraqis were killed and 26 were wounded in the explosion, an Interior Ministry source told The Associated Press.

President Bush has repeatedly warned about this dangerous period in Iraq:

Iraq now faces a critical moment. As the Iraqi people move closer to governing themselves, the terrorists are likely to become more active and more brutal. There are difficult days ahead, and the way forward may sometimes appear chaotic.

The Iraqis have moved closer towards self government and must now move closer towards self defense in order for the terrorist and homegrown insurgents to be defeated. Once the Iraqis are the primary face of security, the foreign terrorists cannot claim to be fighting the forces of occupation; they will be fighting the people of Iraq.

A Private Memorial

2004-05-31T00:01:00.000-04:00

While we gather with friends and family for the long Memorial Day weekend, take a silent moment to honor the soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines and members of Coast Guard who have sacrificed their lives in the defense of this great nation. From the founding of this nation on the battlefields of the American colonies to the current battlefields of Iraq, Afghanistan and places we will not know of for years to come, this country has had no shortage of men and women willing to fight for the cause of freedom. The cause of freedom is a constant struggle against the darkness of tyranny, oppression and hatred; it is an ongoing struggle that often requires a call to arms and the loss of our finest and bravest citizens.

Salute them. Remember them. Honor them.

With friends like Saudis....

2004-05-30T00:09:00.000-04:00

The loyalties of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in relation to the War on Terror remains an open question after almost three years after al Qaeda's attack on America on 9/11. Saudi Arabia appears to be straddling the fence in the War on Terror: hunting al Qaeda terrorists, cooperating with America in shutting down terror finances and cooperating with intelligence and staging for the Iraq war while at the same time condoning radical Wahhabi clerics, financing and facilitating anti-American fighter's travel into Iraq and turning a blind eye to terror financing.

This Saturday, Saudi Arabia was again attacked by fist of al Qaeda in the city of Khobar:

The militants sprayed gunfire at Western oil firms. Nine Saudis and seven foreigners, including two Westerners, were killed before the militants holed up in a housing complex. The sources said the militants, armed with grenades and machineguns, had rigged a building in the luxury compound with explosives and were holding their hostages on the sixth floor. A large number of Westerners were among the hostages, including Americans, the security sources said.

Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah, the defacto ruler of the Kingdom, has harsh words for the terrorists:

"We will continue to chase this deviant group until we eradicate them."

The Saudi's War on Terror

Attacks such as this have become commonplace in the Saudi Kingdom over the past year. Al Qaeda's offensive began in May of 2003, when it executed a coordinated attack by suicide teams against three compounds housing foreigners in Riyadh, the capital of the Saudi Kingdom, killing thirty five and wounding hundreds. Throughout the summer and fall of 2003 there were numerous clashes between Saudi security forces and al Qaeda members, including two in holy city of Mecca. In November of 2003, they struck again, this time attacking diplomatic compounds in Riyadh, killing seventeen Muslims from foreign countries. Last month, al Qaeda bombed a Riyadh police station, killing four and wounding several hundred. Earlier this month, a petroleum company's headquarters was attacked in the city of Yanbu.

The US Department of State's Patterns of Global Terrorism 2003 report states that Saudi Arabia has been a full partner in the war on terror, and has cracked down on al Qaeda within the Kingdom, reformed the financial system, prevented cash contributions to charities to better track monies, and begun to combat the ideology of radical Islamist terror organizations. Also, the Saudis aided the United States during Operation Iraqi Freedom allowing basing, command centers, flight operations, search and rescue operations, Special Operations staging and low cost fuel. While this was not advertised due to political sensitivities within the Kingdom, the actions were vital to the success of the Iraq war.

The Saudi's Support of Terror

Saudi Arabia's state sponsored religion is Wahhabism, a radical and intolerant form of Sunni Islam which does not view other sects of Islam as believers, and is hostile to other religions. Osama bin Laden and his followers are Wahhabis. Clerics at government sponsored mosques preach Wahhabi ideology and the ideology is exported throughout the world. Saudi children are taught Jews and Christians are not human and the world must be converted to Islam. After the attack in early May, crown prince Abdullah blamed Zionists for the attack and for supporting al Qaeda. And Saudi Interior Minister, Prince Nayef, blamed Jews for the 9/11 attacks.

The 9/11 Report - Joint Congressional Inquiry apparently claims Saudi Arabia was "less than cooperative" in the fight against terrorism. These accusations cannot be confirmed or denied at this time as the twenty eight pages of the report related to foreign activity sponsoring 9/11 hijackers was censored for security reasons. However it must be noted that Saudi Ambassador Bandar bin Sultan objected to the censorship of the report as he stated this will only cause more doubt about the Saudi's involvement with 9/11.

The most recent example of Saudi Arabia's support of terrorism is the actions taken in neighboring Iraq against American troops:

Saudi Arabia, a Sunni kingdom anxious at the prospect of Iraq's majority Shiites taking control from longtime Sunni rulers, stands accused of allowing Sunni radicals to infiltrate across a porous border to help resist both the US and Shiite advances. "Traditionally the Saudis need a release valve to take the pressure of the radical Islamists off of their internal affairs, and recently Iraq has served as that release," says Matthew Levitt, a former Mideast counterterrorism expert for the FBI now at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. "We need the Saudis to do more about controlling their border."
:
:
Mr. Jabar, the Iraqi, agrees, noting that a Saudi intelligence official recently told him that the Saudis view the promotion of Wahhabism in Iraq - the form of the Sunni practice that is Saudi Arabia's state religion - as the only way to head off a complete Shiite takeover. "I told them my view that this is the shortest way to disaster," Jabar says, "but the flow of money and influence continues."

Friend, Enemy or Both?

Saudi Arabia's contributions to the War on Terror are difficult to ignore, as they captured or killed hundreds (approaching thousands) of al Qaeda operatives within their country, supported America in the Iraq war and assisted with intelligence abroad. However, the continued promotion of the Wahhabi ideology, the naked hatred for Israel and the support of the Iraqi resistance clearly outweigh the Saudis cooperation in the War on Terror. The real root cause of terror, the promotion and exportation of the corrupt Wahhabi ideology must be addressed before this war can be won. Saudi Arabia is a difficult problem to tackle, as significant support for the princes exists in Washington (on both sides of the aisle). The location of Mecca and Medina, the two holiest cities in Islam, makes military action against the Saudi government dangerous. While the 'Arab street' has been silent against American actions in the Middle East, an invasion of Saudi Arabia would at the least provoke a diplomatic backlash and withdraw of support and cooperation in the War on Terror in the Arab and Muslim world.

The solution to the Saudi problem lies in a combination of diplomatic and military pressure, domestic support of moderates within the kingdom, and the establishment of democracy in Iraq. The State Department must make is clear that the exportation of Wahhabi ideology will not be tolerated, and push hard for internal reforms in education, law and government. The US military in Iraq must increase patrols on the Saudi-Iraq border and eradicate any persons crossing the border with the intent to support the Iraqi insurgents. Moderates within the kingdom should be supported just as freedom fighters within the Eastern Europe were during the Cold War. Finally, the importance of establishing a stable democracy in Iraq, Saudi Arabia's neighbor, cannot be underestimated. The Saudi people will not wait forever while their neighbors to the north prosper. Freedom is contagious, and freedom and the Wahhabi ideology are not compatible.

colVmn

2004-05-28T12:02:00.000-04:00

fifth column
Etymology: name applied to rebel sympathizers in Madrid in 1936 when four rebel columns were advancing on the city
: a group of secret sympathizers or supporters of an enemy that engage in espionage or sabotage within defense lines or national borders

As the War on Terror is fought in far away lands such as Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Israel, Jordan, Algeria, Morocco, Tanzania, Kenya, Ethiopia, Uganda, Djibouti, Indonesia, the Philippines, Spain and elsewhere, we often forget the battlefield here at home. Yesterday the Department of Justice announced the manhunt for seven suspected al Qaeda members believed to be inside the United States actively plotting terror attacks this summer. One of the members of the suspected cell, American born Adam Gadahn (aka Adam Pearlman, aka Abu Suhayb Al-Amriki) reminds us that the enemy we face is not only foreign; that Americans have taken up arms with al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations. Intelligence experts believe that upwards to thousands of al Qaeda operatives and support personnel are in the United States (not this estimate does not include other terror groups).

Some intelligence officials estimate there may be as many as 5,000 people in the United States with some sort of connection to al Qaeda. That number, larger than other estimates, includes all those in the "realm of suspicion" and those who may know of terrorist activities but not participate in them, one official said. The number of hardcore al Qaeda members in the United States who might actually do harm to Americans is in the low hundreds or even less, officials say.

The disturbing revelation that Americans have turned on their own country surfaced in Afghanistan after American Johnny Walker Lindh was apprehended following the murder of CIA interrogator Michael Spann, and American born Yaser Esam Hamdi was discovered in the Guantanimo Bay detention facility. Shortly after, Jose Padilla was arrested entering the United States after plotting with al Qaeda to design and detonate a dirty bomb. As the invasion of Iraq began, Sgt. Asan Akbar of the 101st Airborne division killed two of his fellow soldiers by lobbing hand grenades into tents at Camp Pennsylvania in Kuwait. And the list of Americans implicated with or convicted for plotting with terrorists continues. The Yemini born naturalized American citizens know as the Lackawanna Six have plead guilty to training in al Qaeda camps and assisting the terror organization. Seattle residents Patrice Lumumba Ford and Jeffrey Leon Battle both pled guilty for attempting to join the Taliban after the 9/11 attacks. University of South Florida professor Sami Al Arian has been indicted for serving as the Secretary General of the violent Palestinian Islamic Jihad. British cleric Abu Hamza has been arrested with “plotting to establish a "violent jihad training camp" in Oregon.” The Muslim American group Council for American Islamic Relations [CAIR] (which will be covered in greater detail at this site) has recently had three prominent members indicted for cooperating with terrorist groups:

The government alleges that Mr. Royer trained with the “Lashkar-e-Taiba” (army of the righteous) group, a Kashmir terrorist group that is listed on the State Departments international terror list. Lashkar-e-Taiba is reportedly linked with al-Qaida, the Islamist terror group behind the September 11, 2001 terror attacks. This is not the first time that CAIR has had its officers arrested for Islamist-terror related crimes; Mr. Bassem Khafagi, CAIR’s director of community relations was arrested this past January and Mr. Siraj Wahhaj, CAIR Advisory Board member has been named as “one of the “unindicted persons who may be alleged as co-conspirators” in a plot to blow up monuments in New York City several years ago.

In order to win the War on Terror, we must fight both at home and abroad. While terrorists can train, coordinate and plan oversees, the attacks such as 9/11, Madrid and Bali cannot be executed without terrorists operating within the host nation. In order to root out terrorists within the United States, the government depends on tools such as the Patriot Act. Members of both the far left and far right who instinctively oppose the Patriot Act for political reasons are unwittingly playing into the hands of a dangerous and deadly fifth column here in America.

Clarification:

The "members of both the far left and far right who instinctively oppose the Patriot Act for political reasons" refers to those who make false accusations about the Patriot Act for political gain or in an attempt to discedit the government. Their actions are destructive as they demonize the law, make it politically difficult to pursue terrorists, and give our enemy propaganda that reinforces the image of American decadence. There are Republicans and Democrats with reasonable concerns about the law that do not engage in the destructive rhetoric of the antiwar fringe. Their actions are constructive as they look for ways to improve the law and prevent legitimate violations of civil liberties.

Lollapa-snooza

2004-05-27T00:15:00.000-04:00

The Nation reports on the beautiful, wonderful and exciting new venture between a radical left-wing political organization and an over-commercialized musical festival – the marriage between MoveOn and Lollapalooza. MoveOn is the organization created to defend President Clinton during the Monica Lewinski scandal (its message to America was "Censure President Clinton and Move On to Pressing Issues Facing the Nation") and currently features a photo of a shrouded Statue of Liberty which is used in a petition to fire Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and a petition to censure President Bush "for misleading the country about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction." The Lollapalooza tour began in 1991 and "throughout its nine year history, Lollapalooza has always been about more than just music. The festival is devoted to introducing concertgoers to unconventional notions of art, technology, and culture, as well as exposing them to an assortment of ideas and philosophies, ranging from expanding environmental consciousness and encouraging political activism." Note to Lollapalooza: if you have been around since 1991, that would mean you have a thirteen year history. Somehow I get the feeling conservative voices are not entertained at these events. This is what The Nation has to say about this union:

Lollapalooza is going political. Through a new partnership with MoveOn.Org, tour organizers hope to politically mobilize the young and the hip en masse as they rock out in outdoor venues across the country this summer.

Even our youth is not safe from the political mind-rays of the Left. MoveOn has plans, big plans, and wants to energize the youth of America. This is what they hope to accomplish:

As the two-day festival tours, a MoveOn tent will travel and distribute literature on "RS" [Revolution Solution] issues, including: renewable energy and the environment, free speech and media deregulation, trade policy and voting rights. Activists will conduct onsite voter registration drives, and street teams will infiltrate the crowd to chat folks up on the issues. Move.On will also run a "Real World"- style video booth where concertgoers can film their own political commentary while asking issue-related questions.

If you follow Lollapalooza's Revolution Solution link, you can see what they have to say about MoveOn:

A non-partisan political campaign – in partnership with the influential grassroots political network, MoveOn.org – the Revolution Solution challenges Americans young and old to take charge of their own future through vigorous, well-informed involvement in the political process.

You will also see this "non-partisan" cartoon:

Now that's non-partisan. I can see the joy in the eyes of America's adolescents as MoveOn's activists approach. The same joy you feel when the lady with the clipboard, begging you to complete a survey, accosts you at the mall. And what else is in store for those attending the concert?

Additionally, MoveOn will place huge media screens next to the main stage at select shows. Between musical sets, issue-oriented videos will air, featuring well-known thinkers, celebrities and some regular folks speaking about issues important to them. Additionally, MoveOn will arrange for well-known political speakers to briefly take the stage to discuss a chosen issue before the main act, which he or she will then introduce. Picture Al Gore chatting up the crowd about environmental issues and then introducing the Pixies. It's weird, but kind of cool, and will definitely get people talking.

Weird and kind of cool indeed. I can think of nothing teenagers would enjoy more than having their favorite bands being introduced by politicians as exciting and dynamic as Al Gore. Can you? This is exactly what every rock 'n roller dreams of: Sex, drugs, and The Creator of the Internet.

The tour will practice what it will preach. Lollapalooza's third performance stage (there are three total, which combined will feature thirty-odd bands at each event) will run entirely on solar energy throughout the tour. Additionally, the entire two days of performances in New York City on Randall's Island will be run "off the grid." Through a combination of solar, biodiesel and hydrogen fuel cells, the show will be produced without the use of any petroleum products whatsoever.

Will the band members practice this as well? I suspect the limos, private jets and other accoutrements the stars depend on will be exempt from the green policies. And have no doubt, the petroleum grid will be ready to go if the clouds roll in and the biodiesel generator chokes on its granola fuel. It'll be good old Big Oil to the rescue.

Can you smell the excitement? Get your tickets now!

The Reef

2004-05-26T00:10:00.000-04:00

Last weekend my wife and I had the pleasure of attending the wedding of a close friend at the Ocean Reef Club in Key Largo, Florida. Having never been to the Florida Keys, I did not know what to expect, but I was told I was in for a treat. This was the first time my wife and I had an opportunity to take a mini-vacation without our children, who are almost 2 and 4 years old, and as we have another little one on the way this summer, this will be our last such opportunity for some time.

One of my goals for the vacation was to put the world behind for several days, including home, work, the news and the blog. I talked politics as little as possible (which probably means about every other hour), kept the TV off, ignored the news and talked about my blog only when asked. My only planned outlet was an occasional read of Bob Woodward's "Plan of Attack".

The Ocean Reef Club is paradise; it is easy to remove yourself from the realities of the world. I was largely successful, and only bored my closest of friends about the evolution of the fourth rail (sorry Michael). But there were two moments during the vacation were I could not refrain from discussing the war, and both occurred by chance.

The first conversation occurred during the afternoon prior to the wedding. My friends and I were hanging out poolside, and after a good game of volleyball, the group cooled off in the pool and then prepared to head back for the wedding. I separated myself for a moment alone, leaned on the ledge of the pool and sipped my beer. A gentleman close by struck up a friendly conversation: nice weather, where are you from, why are you here, the standard. In the course of conversation I learned he is a Commander in the Naval Reserves, and served in Iraq during the first Gulf War, during the enforcement of the no-fly zone and during Operation Iraqi Freedom. He gave me great insight on the status of airline cargo security and flaws in the security program, the arming of pilots and many other areas of domestic airline security, as he is also a pilot for a major cargo carrier. Eventually we discussed the progress and setbacks in Iraq, and he stated the media has misrepresented the progress in Iraq. He also stated American soldiers are welcomed by the locals in most places, the violence is isolated to several specific areas (basically a portion of the Sunni triangle and among Sadr's supporters, as well some other small hot spots), the morale is high among the military, soldiers are volunteering for duty in Iraq and Afghanistan and reenlistment has been above the set quotas.

The second conversation occurred later that night at a friend's room, after we were ejected from the local watering hole due to the closure of the establishment. I struck up a friendly conversation with one of the groomsmen, and it turns out he also serves in the Naval Reserves, as a Lieutenant Commander in intelligence. He explained the importance of the information we have received from al Qaeda members in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere, and stated the events at Abu Ghraib are not standard operating procedure for interrogations. Like the pilot I met earlier in the day, he stated the media has distorted the war effort, morale is high and we have had many successes.

At the end of both encounters I thanked them for their service and encouraged them to drop by the fourth rail to see how every day Americans are fighting the war on the home front, against the entrenched media that is indifferent or hostile to the war effort; against a media that is willing to distort or bury the truth for political ends. Based on the conditions of our meetings, I can understand if they have forgotten me, but hold out hope they contact me in the future.

It has been some time since I served on active duty (Army) or in the National Guard and I do not know anyone serving at this time. It was both enlightening and reassuring to talk to these officers. America has no shortage of patriots willing defend our freedom and way of life. With men such as these fighting for our nation, we can never lose this war. We can only lose if we lose our will to fight.

The Iraqi Five-Step

2004-05-25T01:10:00.000-04:00

For those who did not have the opportunity to see President Bush's speech outlining the Iraq transition strategy, you can read it in its entirety here.

The main portion of the speech was devoted to the plan to transition Iraq from occupation to an interim government to free elections next year.

There are five steps in our plan to help Iraq achieve democracy and freedom. We will hand over authority to a sovereign Iraqi government, help establish security, continue rebuilding Iraq's infrastructure, encourage more international support, and move toward a national election that will bring forward new leaders empowered by the Iraqi people.

Many questions about Iraq, the transition and the War on Terror have been answered in this speech (all answers are direct quotes from tonight's speech).

Q. How will the interim government be chosen?
A. The United Nations Special Envoy, Lakhdar Brahimi, is now consulting with a broad spectrum of Iraqis to determine the composition of this interim government. The special envoy intends to put forward the names of interim government officials this week. In addition to a president, two vice presidents, and a prime minister, 26 Iraqi ministers will oversee government departments, from health to justice to defense. This new government will be advised by a national council, which will be chosen in July by Iraqis representing their country's diversity. This interim government will exercise full sovereignty until national elections are held.

Q. After transition to the Iraqi government, will the US military remain in Iraq, what is its role, and who will command this force?
A. After June 30th, American and other forces will still have important duties. American military forces in Iraq will operate under American command as a part of a multinational force authorized by the United Nations. Iraq's new sovereign government will still face enormous security challenges, and our forces will be there to help.

Q. What about America's position on Abu Ghraib?
A. That same prison became a symbol of disgraceful conduct by a few American troops who dishonored our country and disregarded our values. America will fund the construction of a modern, maximum security prison. When that prison is completed, detainees at Abu Ghraib will be relocated. Then, with the approval of the Iraqi government, we will demolish the Abu Ghraib prison, as a fitting symbol of Iraq's new beginning.

Q. What effort is being made to internationalize Iraq?
A. Today, the United States and Great Britain presented a new resolution in the Security Council to help move Iraq toward self-government. I've directed Secretary Powell to work with fellow members of the Council to endorse the timetable the Iraqis have adopted, to express international support for Iraq's interim government, to reaffirm the world's security commitment to the Iraqi people, and to encourage other U.N. members to join in the effort. Despite past disagreements, most nations have indicated strong support for the success of a free Iraq.

Q. What can we expect in the near future?
A. Iraq now faces a critical moment. As the Iraqi people move closer to governing themselves, the terrorists are likely to become more active and more brutal. There are difficult days ahead, and the way forward may sometimes appear chaotic.

Q. Why should we remain in Iraq? What is the significance of Iraq in the War on Terror?
A. The return of tyranny to Iraq would be an unprecedented terrorist victory, and a cause for killers to rejoice. It would also embolden the terrorists, leading to more bombings, more beheadings, and more murders of the innocent around the world. The rise of a free and self-governing Iraq will deny terrorists a base of operation, discredit their narrow ideology, and give momentum to reformers across the region. This will be a decisive blow to terrorism at the heart of its power, and a victory for the security of America and the civilized world.

Q. Who exactly is our enemy in the War on Terror?
A. Our terrorist enemies have a vision that guides and explains all their varied acts of murder. They seek to impose Taliban-like rule, country by country, across the greater Middle East. They seek the total control of every person, and mind, and soul, a harsh society in which women are voiceless and brutalized. They seek bases of operation to train more killers and export more violence. They commit dramatic acts of murder to shock, frighten and demoralize civilized nations, hoping we will retreat from the world and give them free rein. They seek weapons of mass destruction, to impose their will through blackmail and catastrophic attacks. None of this is the expression of a religion. It is a totalitarian political ideology, pursued with consuming zeal, and without conscience.

While I would like to say most of these answers are new, they are not. Other than the revelation about the destruction of Abu Gharib (good riddance), this information has been public knowledge, available to anyone with a computer or access to news sources. An executive summary of the Interim Constitution will tell you how transistion will take place, the only real question remaining is 'who', not how, and this will be clarified in the coming week. Belmont Club has provided excellent and accurate analysis, unmatched by any media source I have read, on the strategies and tactics on Fallujah and with Sadr. In fact, it looks as if President Bush's explanation on Iraqis taking responsibility in Fallujah and with Sadr was written by Wretchard himself. Even a lowly blogger of two months such as myself was able to draw some conclusions about the Iraqi insurgents and how they are being marginalized. Al Qaeda and Saddam sponsored terrorist Zarqari told us how he intends to ratchet up the violence and promote a civil war Shias and Sunnis in an attempt to fracture the coalition and Iraqi groups supporting the transition to sovereignty. What exactly is new?

This is not to say the speech was useless or uninformative. The message was clear: a plan to transfer power and support the Iraqi people does exist, Iraqis must take responsibility and ownership for their security, America will stand by Iraq, Iraq is related to the War on Terror, al Qaeda is active in Iraq, and the establishment of democracy in Iraq is crucial to winning the War on Terror. The speech was designed for those not paying attention to the War on Terror and Iraq's significance in this war; it was given to revitalize support among those who have been disenchanted about Iraq due to a constant barrage of negative news. As with prior speeches and statements from President Bush, he clearly defines the difference between American values and those of our enemy, and the sacrifice and commitment needed to see this war through. President Bush may need to give many more such speeches to turn the tide of negative opinion on the war. As the media continues portraying the war in the worst possible light, President Bush will need to continue to counter the conventional wisdom about Iraq. Tonight was a good start.