The Sydney Morning Herald has published an analytical article looking at the developing Iranian regional hemony in a timely echo of sorts to today’s PrincipalAnalysis (Iran’s Encroaching Regional Hegemony).

The threat that civil war in Iraq might inflame much of the Middle East is real, but for many in the region it pales against one of the more staggering consequences of what they see as America’s policy failure in the area - the firming supremacy of non-Arab Iran.

The intrigues and conspiracies of the Arab world often defy Western comprehension. But in a visit to the Jordanian capital, en route to Baghdad, the rising tension over Iran’s thrust into the affairs of the region was palpable.

While autocratic Sunni regimes, long propped up by Washington, have used Israel as a bogeyman to justify the oppression and poverty of their own people, Shiite Tehran has positioned itself as a powerbroker in Lebanon, Gaza, the Israeli-occupied Palestinian territories and in Iraq, all on the back of Shiite loyalty and support for the Palestinian cause. [Emphasis added]

To be sure, Iran has long vowed to fight Israel right down to the last Lebanese and Palestinian. With the windfall influence found via a needy Hamas, the rising potential prospects of increased Hezbollah influence in Lebanon and the pledge by Muqtada al-Sadr to be at Iran & Syria’s disposal, the Iranian regime is making many influential friends outside its borders.

Inside its borders, the mullah regime has few friends, but those Iranians not enamored with Ahmadinejad and crew are nearly powerless to affect any change. Perhaps if we had not ignored them for thirty years under the oppressive regime…

Washington’s pledge to now fund and assist Iranian opposition groups to the tune of $75 million this year is decades too late, as there is not enough time for such slow developing strategies.

The new-found Washington commitment to Iranian opposition represents little more than a desperate grasp for a palatable internal Iranian solution where none exists.

Meanwhile, while Washington plans radio and television broadcasts too late in the game to be immediately effective, Iran solidifies its tangible influence throughout the region from week to week, sometimes from day to day.

By Steve Schippert at 8:47 AM | Permalink | Feedback (0) | Referenced By (0)

With Iran claiming to have reached some sort of ‘understanding’ with Russia on the Russian Proposal, it is important to understand what motivates Russia. With Russia & Iran Save The Last Dance, James G. Poulos offers some insight to that end. He begins:

As the clock struck twelve on the last night of 2005, I wrote my second prediction for this year:

2. The Iran-nuke crisis goes pop. The Iranians will toy with the Russian proposal, embrace it again, demur again, raise questions, withhold answers, tinker furiously, and let their actions constitute a de facto rejection. By then the Security Council will pass an unenforceable resolution, unanimous but with the absention of the last country that can seriously abstain — China.

We’re well on our way. Iran has succeeded in toying, embracing, demuring, and now raises more questions than it answers in the latest agreement “in principle.” The Washington Post reports that Russia’s head nucleoid Kiriyenko says all the right things:

He continues with a thoughtful glimpse of the situation with Iran, Russia’s involvement and the incredibly complex diplomatic minefield before us if the Iranian crisis is to be resolved sans overt military warfare, concluding, “Iran requires real statecraft. Our margin for error, so forgivingly vast in the Iraqi case, has narrowed down to a thin line indeed.”

Recommended reading for today.

By Steve Schippert at 4:36 PM | Permalink | Feedback (0) | Referenced By (0)

It is odd, isn’t it? After Muqtada al-Sadr proclaimed from Damascus that he and his militia are ‘at the service’ of Syria and Iran, he now is calling for peace and tranquility in Iraq? Jed Babbin is on the money today:

Calls for calm in Iraq emanating from Moqtada al-Sadr last week are being viewed by some as good news. What they ignore is the fact that Sadr, while calling for peace, ordered his militia to stop wearing their trademark black getups. He sending his people underground, which may well mean the terror campaign we haven’t seen from him before is about to start in earnest. Could mean other things as well, but this guy calling for peace is the rough equivalent of Bonnie and Clyde decrying lousy bank security.

Put Babbin’s observations in context with the linked statement above about al-Sadr proclaiming his service to Syria & Iran, and you will share his concern.

Hit the AmSpec Blog main page and scroll up from the original comment for an interesting exchange there on al-Sadr and his possible motives.

By Steve Schippert at 3:44 PM | Permalink | Feedback (1) | Referenced By (0)

President Chen Shui-bian has announced that the National Unification Council will “cease operations” and no longer be funded. This despite US requests to maintain his pledge to maintain support for the organization and its Guildelines for National Unification. The Guidelines called for a three phased move toward reunification.

China has yet to make a statement following the announcement, although it is well known that the Chinese government is likely to see the move as a step toward an attempt at independence for Taiwan.

From the US perspective - our pragmatic policy of supporting Taiwan while not recognizing it as an independent nation, via the one-China policy, is likely to be tested in the coming months - particularly given Hu Jintao’s April visit to Washington. As with many foreign policy positions, the US may now have to face how hamstrung we can be by our pragmatism and desire to maintain the status quo.

By Marvin Hutchens at 1:39 PM | Permalink | Feedback (3) | Referenced By (0)

The Counterterrorism Blog reminds us that today is the 13th anniversary of the 1993 WTC bombing and challenges all of us, NEVER FORGET.

A close friend of mine was present for both attacks, and was among the thousands running in vain to escape the ominous encroaching clouds of dust and debris as the first of the Twin Towers came crashing down.

Our circle of family and friends is lucky to be able to throw another burger on the grill for him rather than throw another flower…well, someplace else. We are lucky and we will never forget. Not 1993, not 2001.

None of us should.

By Steve Schippert at 7:35 PM | Permalink | Feedback (2) | Referenced By (0)

Does the New York Times actually support US Ambassador to the UN John Bolton in his insistance on reform? That’s how it appears in this morning’s New York Times Editorial, The Shame of the United Nations.

When it comes to reforming the disgraceful United Nations Human Rights Commission, America’s ambassador, John Bolton, is right; Secretary General Kofi Annan is wrong; and leading international human rights groups have unwisely put their preference for multilateral consensus ahead of their duty to fight for the strongest possible human rights protection. A once-promising reform proposal has been so watered down that it has become an ugly sham, offering cover to an unacceptable status quo. It should be renegotiated or rejected.

Marc Schulman at American Future asks, “When was the last time (if ever) that the Times called into question the wisdom of the UN, Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International?”

Well, Mr. Bolton (who similarly holds my disdain for ‘nuance’) did not escape without a swipe in closing.

Mr. Bolton, representing an administration whose record is stained by Guantánamo and Abu Ghraib, is awkwardly placed to defend basic human rights principles. But he also represents the United States, with its long and proud human rights tradition. We hope that his refusal to go along with this shameful charade can produce something better.

Abu Ghraib was an anomaly created by individuals, not policy. How is Mr. Bolton somehow attached ownership? Camp X-Ray at Guantánamo Bay is a prison where fabrications of abuse have been discredited yet conveniently ignored. In fact, it is a documented fact that many of the prisoners who were eventually released have been re-captured or killed firing yet again from the other direction. Yet, both are stains affixed to John Bolton’s lapel, even in support.

The assertion that he is awkwardly placed to defend basic human rights principles is stunning. Is one of the central components of the War on Terror not also the recognition of basic human rights?

Was not the elimination of the Taliban’s ritual of stadium executions as a national sport not an advancement of a basic human right? The inclusion of women (both as voters and elected officials) in successful elections in Afghanistan? Was the cessation of the torture and execution of thousands and thousands of Kurds and Shiia in Hussein’s Iraq not the restoration of basic human rights? The mass graves continue to be unearthed in Iraq.

The New York Times editorial board’s transparent belief that only those who think like them, politically and socially, can possibly stand for basic human rights is absurd, shallow, insulting, and very, very wrong.

By Steve Schippert at 2:23 AM | Permalink | Feedback (3) | Referenced By (0)

The Department of Homeland Security recently updated its site and offered a press release: DHS Fact Sheet: Securing U.S. Ports. In it, the release details, from DHS perspective, some aspects of the UAE-owned Dubai Ports World acquisition. Offered for your information and review without commentary:

UAE/Dubai Ports World Acquisition

DP World will not, nor will any other terminal operator, control, operate or manage any United States port. DP World will only operate and manage specific, individual terminals located within six ports.

• The recent business transaction taken by DP World, a United Arab Emirates based company, to acquire British company Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company (P&O) does not change the operations or security of keeping our nation’s ports safe. The people working on the docks also will not change as a result of this transaction.
• This transaction is not an issue of controlling United States’ ports. It is an issue of operating some terminals within U.S. ports.
• DP World will operate at the following terminals within the six United States’ ports currently operated by the United Kingdom company, P & O:
  • Baltimore - 2 of 14 total
  • Philadelphia - 1 of 5 (does not include the 1 cruise vessel terminal)
  • Miami - 1 of 3 (does not include the 7 cruise vessel terminals)
  • New Orleans - 2 of 5 (does not include the numerous chemical plant terminals up and down the Mississippi River, up to Baton Rouge)
  • Houston – 4 of 12 (P&O work alongside other stevedoring* contractors at the terminals)
  • Newark/Elizabeth – 1 of 4
  • (Note: also in Norfolk - Involved with stevedoring activities at all 5 terminals, but not managing a specific terminal.)

• Stevedoring – provides labor, carries physical loading and unloading of cargo.

• P&O and DP World made a commitment to comply with current security programs, regulations and partnerships to which P&O currently subscribes, including:
  • The Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism (C-TPAT);
  • The Container Security Initiative (CSI);
  • The Business Alliance on Smuggling and Counterfeiting (BASC); and,
  • The Megaports Initiative MOU with the Department of Energy.

• All P&O security arrangements will remain intact, including cargo security cooperation with CBP, compliance with USCG regulations (ISPS and MTSA) regarding port facilities/terminals, and foreign terminal operations within CSI ports.

• Dubai was the first Middle Eastern entity to join the Container Security Initiative (March 2005). As a result, CBP officer are working closely with Dubai Customs to screen containers destined for the U.S. Cooperation with Dubai officials has been outstanding and a model for other operation within CSI ports.

By Steve Schippert at 1:41 PM | Permalink | Feedback (0) | Referenced By (0)

After outlining the three alternate asymmetrical strategies available to the terrorist fomenters in Iraq, Victor Davis Hanson observes the long-existing conditions that can be frustratingly termed ‘victory without winning’.

The terrorists, whom I did not talk to, but whose bombs I heard, answer back that while they fear the Iraqization of their enemy and the progress of democracy, they can still kill enough Shiites, bomb enough mosques, and stop enough rebuilding to sink the country into sectarian war — or at least something like Lebanon of the 1980s or an Afghanistan under the Taliban.

It is an odd war, because the side that I think is losing garners all the press, whether by blowing up the great golden dome of the Askariya shrine in Samarra, or blowing up an American each day. Yet we hear nothing of the other side that is ever so slowly, shrewdly undermining the enemy.

If Iraq survives this deadly test thrust upon it by the camera magnets of al-Qaeda in Iraq, can anyone possibly deny that this has been a war on a steady - though not unhindered - path to victory without the public ever getting the sense that we and the Iraqi people are and have been winning?

By Steve Schippert at 11:38 AM | Permalink | Feedback (1) | Referenced By (0)

While certainly not a trivial matter by any stretch, a former lead US Customs official states clearly why the Dubai Ports World operation of US ports is not the acute security concern perceived by some and advertised by others.

Robert Bonner, the former US Customs commissioner who oversaw the tightening of port security following the 2001 terrorist attacks, believes critics have overestimated the influence that terminal operators have over ports. “The security concerns here are greatly exaggerated,” he says. “The responsibility for the evaluation and inspection of anything coming into the US is not the responsibility of the port owner or the terminal operator. It’s the responsibility of the federal Government.”

This echoes precisely the logic which lead to the conclusions reached when it was simply asked, Slower, Please.

Also, from the same article:

But Rob Burton, director of security consultancy Blue Water Partners, says some concern is merited. “The Coast Guard and Customs may have oversight but it is the people on the ground handling the cargo that have most effect on security and that is usually the terminal operators.”

He’s is correct also, but remember that these cargo handlers are American longshoremen, not imported workers as seems to be part of the misconception among the most fearful in opposition.

Thankfully, it looks like this whole process will proceed slower. After 45 days of thorough review, the facts more clearly understood will almost certainly abate the fear that exists today.

By Steve Schippert at 8:57 AM | Permalink | Feedback (1) | Referenced By (0)

Now, both The White House and Dubai Ports World have agreed to take this a little slower.

This is good. 45 days sounds about right.

Now it is up to the US Congress to not bend the review around their stated opinions, but rather to form more informed opinions around facts studied and shared during the review.

Some, justifiably, Thave their doubts about Congress’ ability or desire to do this.

The American public needs to remain actively engaged throughout. It is the engagement which brought the issue this far. Now, see it through with diligence rather than simply handing it off to Congress.

By Steve Schippert at 8:47 AM | Permalink | Feedback (0) | Referenced By (0)

For those not entirely familiar with the United Arab Emirates, an excellent collection of informative links has been assembled for you, courtesy of John Little at Blogs of War. He has a video posted that gives you a good look at Dubai, the most western looking city in the Middle East, bar none.

Well done, John.

Speaking of videos at Blogs of War…

By Steve Schippert at 9:12 PM | Permalink | Feedback (0) | Referenced By (0)

Marc Schulman has a small sampling of some English language Arab media columns reacting to the American fury over the DP World management of US ports at American Future. One of them is from Saudi Arabia’s Arab News.

The attempt by a group of US Congressman to block the takeover of six US ports by an Arab company is wrong … this is bigoted nonsense that once again raises the deeply objectionable notion that all Muslims are terrorists … President Bush is right to say that if this deal is blocked, it will send entirely the wrong signal to the rest of the world about the even-handedness of US foreign policy. The suspicion must be that these US legislators are playing to the electoral gallery in advance of the November elections.

By Steve Schippert at 5:42 PM | Permalink | Feedback (0) | Referenced By (0)

Mohammed makes first-hand observations of the atmosphere in and around Baghdad the day after the mosque attacks. While the potential for a civil war still exists in the front of everyone’s minds, it appears a pensive day in Baghdad, but an improvement over yesterday.

Baghdad looks more alive today but in a very cautious way, traffic in the streets is heavier than it was yesterday but still way below normal.

There’s some kind of shopping frenzy because people are trying to be prepared if the worst happens; people are stock-piling small reserves of food, cigarettes, bottled water…etc especially after they heard some of the roads to/from Baghdad are closed and vehicles were turned away.

The Sunni political leaders were invited to a meeting with the UIA suggested by president Talabani but they refused to join the meeting saying the government has to condemn attacks on their mosques as well before they consider ending the boycott.
Talabani responded positively to their demand and gave a short statement to the press half an hour ago and condemned all attacks on worshipping places of all kinds.

The situation is still very tense but the good thing is that the Sunni have not returned the attacks and I hope the Shia have satisfied their vengeance by now because I don’t want to even think of what can happen if this situation lasts longer than this.

Read his full post at Iraq the Model.

By Steve Schippert at 10:57 AM | Permalink | Feedback (0) | Referenced By (0)

There remains much hyperventilation over the UAE DP World acquisition of P & O Steam Navigation and its existing contract to manage port operations in the United States. If you are among those completely flabergasted at the appearance, breathe. Look at the issue logically and deeper than the surface and emotional association. Later today, I will offer a commentary explaining my position and illustrating the logical points that this opinion is based upon. Until then, the Port Security, Maritime Security, and Homeland Security Blog offers some of those points today with Issues to Consider about the Dubai Ports Deal, highlighting Keith Porter at About.com.

These ports have been operated by foreign companies for quite some time. The company that runs them now (P&O) is British (a great American friend). The company buying P&O is part of the United Arab Emirates (also a great American friend).

While I would not equate the UAE with Britain in terms of trust and friendship, the point remains valid.

By Steve Schippert at 1:00 PM | Permalink | Feedback (2) | Referenced By (0)

Amid continued Kassam rocket attacks from Gaza into Israel, a mortar attack on Jerusalem was averted when Israeli security forces acted on intelligence and apprehended a members of a Fatah terrorist cell who had military grade mortars, a launcher and, more troublingly, IDF uniforms and plans to launch the mortars into Israeli areas of Jerusalem. The number apprehended was not released nor was the name of the Fatah group, though the most active Fatah terrorist group is the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades.

Since the unilateral Israeli withdrawal from Gaza, there have been over 450 Kassam rocket launches from Gaza into Israel.

What, then, lies ahead if Israel meets further demands that they withdraw from the West Bank? What reward will Israel reap?

By Steve Schippert at 11:30 AM | Permalink | Feedback (0) | Referenced By (0)

The Army News Service and the MNF-I PAO report significant weapons cache discoveries.

Near Kirkuk - the Iraqi Army’s 2nd Brigade and the US Army’s 1st Brigade Combat Team, 101st Airborne Division discovered a network of 15 weapons caches. The find was the result of a cordon and search operation in an area known to be a safe haven for insurgents. Four insurgents were arrested during the operation. The find included:

1 complete surface to air missile system, 450 mortar rounds, 12 rockets, 11 complete mortar systems, 31 rocket propelled grenade (RPG) launchers, 70 rocket propelled grenades, 30 grenades, 14 machine guns, 16 sniper rifles, more than 190 fuses, tens of thousands of rounds of small arms ammunition, multiple weapons parts, including scopes, 75 pounds of propellant, timers and parts used in making improvised explosive devices (IED’s), [and] 1 gas mask.

MNF-I reports that local citizens, near Rawah, Northwest of Baghdad along the Euphrates, alerted soldiers from 4th Squadron, 14th U.S. Cavalry Regiment, assigned to Regimental Combat Team-7 to a possible cache. More than 3000 rounds of munitions, including mortar rounds (60 to 125mm) and “various other projectile-type munitions.”

While we all await a hopeful solution to the forming of a new Iraqi government - news of the removal of more of the enemy’s weapons is significant and heartening - as is local support and Iraqi forces involvement.

By Marvin Hutchens at 1:33 PM | Permalink | Feedback (0) | Referenced By (0)

What do Iran and Hamas have in common aside from violent Islamist ideologies? The answer is closer to home than most Americans may want to think. Security Watchtower connects the dots that lead to South American dictator Hugo Chavez of Venezuela in an excellent post in which C.S. Scott bulletpoints the last six years of Hugo Chavez’ troublesome activities, including nuclear ambitions.

Meanwhile, Publius Pundit asks, is there really a Venezuela oil shortage?

Venezuela’s oil production has gone to hell and it’s not getting better. In 1998, Venezuela was the Number One exporter of imported oil to the U.S. Today, it ranks Number Six, and only sells the U.S. 10% of its oil - see the Energy Department site for proof, it’s not 15% as the news media lazily describes. Last year it was 15%, this year it’s since slid 10%.

Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez has driven his country’s oil company straight into the ground. Windfall profits on high oil prices that should have gone into reinvestment in order to ensure maximum production and maximum profits is instead being squandered on welfare handouts for immediate consumption.

Chavez has turned a hobby of instigation into a profession built around aligning himself with enemies and strategic competitors of the United States…and quite possibly has destroyed Venezuela’s oil industry along the way.

By Steve Schippert at 11:19 AM | Permalink | Feedback (2) | Referenced By (0)

With all of the controversy surrounding foreign aid to a Hamas-led Palestinian Authority, American enterprise steps up to the plate to demonstrate precisely how to help the Palestinian people…and it isn’t through grants to a governing body. Intel is setting up a technology training center in Gaza City. Not a charity. A for-profit business, seeking a mutually beneficial relationship with Palestinians willing and capable of learning new skills in exchange for helping Intel establish themselves in the Middle Eastern markets.

Most notably, there are no middlemen in government buildings to skim directly from the program before it ever reaches the people.

Now this is how an entity offers assistance to the Palestinian people. Don’t give them scraps for standing in line or for being on government payrolls. Give them valuable skills which lead to careers rather than jobs. Give them reason to wake in the morning…unleash productivity and fulfilling endeavors.

Begin to create an employable workforce and watch businesses materialize to make use of that resource. At first, most will be foreign, but it will only be a matter of time before Palestinians leverage their local knowledge and begin building profitable Palestinian businesses employing a newly skilled talent pool, exchanging goods and services both domestically and abroad…even (or especially) with Israel.

It has always seemed rather arrogant to me how various governments, American or otherwise, always believed that the best way to assist the Palestinian people was to transfer raw dollars from one inefficient government to the other. This, in the long run, is nonsense. This creates nothing but further dependence.

Inspire them. Show them that they can do it. And then watch them do it.

Read anything on the root causes of terrorism and the central theme will not be the popularly trumpeted Islamic cause…it will be hopelessness. Plain and simple.

Intel shows the world how to give the Palestinians hope…by giving them skills, not cash from America or Kalashnikovs from Iran or Kassams from al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades.

Cheer loudly for Intel and take note.

By Steve Schippert at 10:24 PM | Permalink | Feedback (1) | Referenced By (0)

In A Bomb-Builder, ‘Out of the Shadows’, the Washington Post’s Karl Vick looks at Louai Sakka, the Syrian terrorist arrested in Turkey and found to ahve solid links to al-Qaeda. Sakka was living the jihadi high-life, with plastic surgery to alter his appearance, a yacht, a luxury appartment and apparently money to burn.

Says Douglas Farah of The Counterterrorism Blog:

This clearly shows that, when they need to, al Qaeda operatives can gather the cash to carry out expensive, long-term plans to inflict damage. The cash pipeline, while perhaps not as freeflowing as before, exists and is able to pump out the money when needed.

The total cost of the operation, had Sakka been a better student in Iraq, would have only registered at a few thousand dollars. The real cost of setting him up, allowing him to live and gather the specific information he needed from visiting Israeli tourists, was far higher. This is the argument for keeping the heat on the terror finance front, despite resistence and lack of attention in much of the intelligence community.

By Steve Schippert at 2:47 PM | Permalink | Feedback (2) | Referenced By (0)

With the obvious focus on Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, Nir Rosen has written an outstanding article for The New York Times with Iraq’s Jordanian Jihadis. It’s an excellent read.

Azzam was fiercely opposed to Zarqawi and his kind, who, he says, gave jihad a bad name: “We say to people who give funds: Don’t give to Zarqawi. Give to Iraqis, give to the Association of Muslim Scholars. They are the right way; our school supports them.” The association was founded in the summer of 2003 in Baghdad to unite Iraq’s Sunnis and to increase their political leverage. It was led by Sheik Harith al-Dari, whose grandfather had been a leader of the rebellion against the British and whose son, according to insurgents I spoke with, organizes armed resistance. The association, according to members I interviewed, is affiliated with several Iraqi national resistance units, the most important being the 1920 Revolution Brigades and the Iraqi Islamic Army. It also, on occasion, aided Shiites who were opposing the American and allied forces.

Azzam viewed his support for Iraqi resistance as consistent with his support of other indigenous Muslim movements fighting in what the jihadis consider self-defense. “Iraq is a defensive jihad,” Azzam insisted. “Troops from abroad came to a Muslim country.” He said that the Iraqi jihad was going very well. “Praise God, we were successful,” he told me. “Everything is going much better. Much better than we were planning. It won’t take like Afghanistan, nine years, to kick the U.S. out. It will be much faster. But we must know our aims and goals. Just exploding cars is not enough. We need a plan for the future. When the Americans leave, we will look for the next place.”

By Steve Schippert at 2:06 AM | Permalink | Feedback (0) | Referenced By (0)

With a good look at the latest in the Able Danger hearings, AJ Strata has put up an Able Danger Hearings summary.

In my review of the audio tapes I identified 54 news worthy items of interest. These are things that were previously speculation and now being confirmed, additional information that changes or expands what we believed to be the truth about Able Danger, and some new revelations. These items are contained in the three parts of the analysis I did as follows: my post on Part II covers items 1 - 15, Part III covers 16 - 35, and Part IV covers items 35-54. I will refer to these in this post so I do not have to repeat what is written already.

Fair warning: I am interpretting statements based on my knowledge of working in the Federal Government, extrapolating some comments as well, and speculating what it could mean. It is possible I read too much into a comment - though I have tried to check myself. I will do so again once the full transcript is out.

He’s covered the Able Danger topic like a hawk and with insight and as much objectivity as he can muster. His detailed initial hearings summary is definitely worth your reading.

By Steve Schippert at 4:20 PM | Permalink | Feedback (1) | Referenced By (0)

On a regular weekly basis, a comprehensive roundup of positive developments in the progress of Iraqi Security Forces’ evolution into a self-sustaining, independent force can be found in The Advisor (PDF), a publication provided by the Multi-National Security Transition Command - Iraq.

It is easy to find out about bad news and setbacks. Hit any news organization’s website for the latest IED attack or suicide bombing. CentCom has been making this resource of positive developments available for some time and with little fanfare.

This week, among the highlighted issues are new scuba gear and dive training for the Iraqi Police and the Baghdad Dive and Rescue Team; the Chief of Staff and Commanding General of the Iraqi Joint Forces, Iraqi Gen. Babakir Zibari, speaking to the Iraqi Military Academy about ethics; and the 1st Battalion, 4th Brigade, 1st Iraqi Army Division spearheading their second independent operation in Subiyhat in eastern al-Anbar province.

If you follow developments in Iraq, you know that an American withdrawal is directly tied to the development and self-sustaining capabilities level of the Iraqi Security Forces, whether Iraqi Army, police or Special Operations Units.

You can follow their development activities complete with successes through The Advisor. You can also subscribe to receive The Advisor every Saturday via e-mail in PDF format before it’s even available online. All you need to do is enter your e-mail address.

It’s a valuable resource we thought you might be interested in.

By Steve Schippert at 2:19 PM | Permalink | Feedback (0) | Referenced By (0)

ThreatsWatch recently featured Guest Commentary from Magdi Khalil, who appeared on al-Jazeera (video clip and translation courtesy of MEMRI TV) debating the forthrightness of Islmaists in democracy and overtures from Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal, who had said that Hamas’ issues with Israel are now political and not religious.

Democracy, Mr. Faysal, consists of values and procedures. The ballot box is only one of the procedures. As for democratic values – to this day, none of the Islamic movements believe in them.

[…]

If you read the column by Khaled Mash’al in today’s Guardian, you will encounter something completely different from the old Hamas discourse. They used to swear, by the sword and the Koran, to annihilate Israel. But today he wrote things that are completely different. He wrote: “We have no problem with Israel, our conflict is not a religious one.” Hamas was established on the basis of the idea that the conflict is religious. There is even a Hadith that says that Judgment Day will come only when the Muslims kill the Jews, and then every tree will says: There is a Jew behind me, Oh servant of Allah, come and kill him - except for the whatchamacallit tree, which is a tree of the Jews. This Hadith is popular among Islamists, and appears in all the Islamist literature. All the Islamist literature refers to the annihilation of Israel, and to the Islamists’ divine promise to fight and annihilate the Jews, and to destroy Israel.

All of a sudden, they say: No, the conflict is [not] a religious one. Khaled Mash’al wrote this in The Guardian: “The conflict between us is not religious, but political.” This is what we’ve been saying for a long time - that the conflict is political. All of a sudden you are saying this is a political conflict?

It should not be overlooked that it takes no small amount of courage to speak so openly of such things within the region. At ThreatsWatch, we tip our hats to Magdi Khalil.

By Steve Schippert at 11:59 PM | Permalink | Feedback (2) | Referenced By (0)

If the immediate emotion of the issue can be shelved long enough to read Mad Tea Party’s On Ports and Terminal Operators, a clearer picture will emerge. Not, mind you, a more satisfying picture, but one that displays more logic than an (understandably) emotional outburst directed at the potential new proprietors of Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation. After she explains the essential functions of port authorities, terminal operators and stevedoring companies, she offers a root cause of the problem…one that pre-dates the current security concerns.

But who would take over?

The sad fact is the U.S. Maritime Industry as a whole is in dire straits. There are no major U.S. flag carriers, with U.S. crews, in the TransPacific trade. No merchant ships are being built here. Most of the graduates from the six Merchant Marine Academies in the U.S. do not go to sea. Rather, they work in port operations for companies that are either completely foreign owned or are a joint U.S.-foreign company venture. (The foreign company—at least here on the West Coast—is often a foreign steamship line or maritime company.)

Huffing and puffing will not resolve these problems, which have their origins with the first oil crisis, back in the mid-1970’s. And we will continue to have them until American companies decide that the rewards available in the maritime industry are worth the risk. Until then, we will have to depend on the “kindness of strangers” who are willing to take that risk.

She has, in short order, answered the first two questions I posed previously. She also seems far from favoring the DP World move, but does take an intelligent and logical look at the situation. Giver her post a read.

By Steve Schippert at 7:24 PM | Permalink | Feedback (1) | Referenced By (0)

The approval of transferring US port security to a UAE company, who purchased the current European contractor, Britain’s Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation, has caused a fair amount of fury over the past 48 hours. Michelle Malkin has a good roundup of the exaspiration being expressed around the web and in the media.

A few quick observations:

• Why was a European firm ultimately responsible for American port security, especially post-9.11, in the first place?
• How is it that there is not a worthy American organization that can be tasked with American security?
• Why is the Department of the Treasury has the lead in making such a fundamental security decision that transcends any monetary concern?
• Are the various local port authorities not worthy of consult regarding security matters of the ports they know intimately (let alone live near)?
• While there is concern about special oversight of the potentially UAE-run operation, has anyone asked about the nature of oversight of the same function while outsourced to a European firm?
• If the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S. is ‘an interagency panel headed by the Treasury Department that can block foreign acquisitions that threaten national security’, doesn’t it make sense that it is headed by a Department who is tasked with National Security with Treasury contributing rather than the other way around?

All that said, regardless of one’s view on the matter at hand, the question of prior oversight seems a fair question in principle before jumping all over the UAE issue without fair and proper contrast. While the Middle Eastern issue is certainly a sensitive one, we should also remember to stop and ask the same of a firm that, at the end of the day, is/was equally non-American. And what about American-run security? Airport security did not initially fail because it was foreign-run. It has, however, proven effective and sufficiently deterrent since.

While I disagree with the decision and, more importantly, the process employed to arrive at that decision, to allow a UAE-owned outfit run American port security, the issue truly before us is not why a United Arab Emirate entity would be tasked as ultimately responsible for US Port Security.

It is, rather, a more fundamental question of why American leadership is not tasked with the ultimate responsibility of American security, ports or otherwise.

By Steve Schippert at 4:27 PM | Permalink | Feedback (0) | Referenced By (1)

Interestingly juxtaposed with Bruce Bawyer’s Hudson Review column contrasting an American in Europe’s reassessment of his native home with a look forward at Europe, today Donald Sensing offers very interesting commentary on Europe’s non-European future.

Tony Blankley speculates that the coming years in Europe may be bloody as ethnic Europeans (my term, not his) realize that their governments are determined to surrender to the Islamists. The masses, he says, may suddenly decide not to stand for it and the prospect of open battles in the streets of major cities may become reality. Or maybe not, Blankley says, because it’s far from certain as well that the masses of Europe have that kind of energy or fight left in them.

But even if they do, they will still lose. The death spiral is real, not speculative. Unless the European masses decide to accept 20 years of a dramatically lower economy so that women can leave the work force to have 2-3 babies apiece, Europe, as a European continent, is done for. What do you think the odds of the masses deciding to do that are?

By Steve Schippert at 4:24 PM | Permalink | Feedback (1) | Referenced By (0)

Soldier’s Dad takes issue with an ICG report that asserts that the US Military still does not know the enemy it faces in Iraq. In Soldier’s Dad: International Crisis Group Misses the Point, he reminds the slow, trudging nature of the fight being taken to an enemy that is certainly not misunderstood.

So that leaves a war of “exhaustion”. In order to win a war of “Exhaustion”, you need to make the price of surrender cheaper than the price of continuing fighting.

Publicly advertising the various subgroups and motivations of such sub groups, and the level of violence they may or may not have committed makes it difficult to offer palable surrender terms.

If one watches closely, the statements of MNF-Iraq. Terms of surrender are not going to be offered to AQIZ. The vast majority of the violence is publicly attributed to AQIZ. The violence of various other groups is consistantly “not accentuated”. Which sub-group belongs to which broad category, Terrorist, Saddamist, Rejectionist is left undefined.

This leaves the cost of surrender, or “reconciliation” of the various sub-groups minimal, to both the sub-group, and the Iraqi Government.

Earlier in the day yesterday, he pointed to a chart showing Iraq attack distribution by province, and noted how attack frequencies have abated, a trend that, in part at least, also seems to fly in the face of the ICG report which claims the US ground forces do not understand the enemy they have been facing (and steadily defeating through adaptive tactics) since the summer of 2003.

By Steve Schippert at 8:27 AM | Permalink | Feedback (0) | Referenced By (0)

As a follow-on to the previous, one would look at a few of the pictures that Michael Totten took and published and question whether they were looking at post-war (or mid-insurgency) Northern Iraq or Phoenix, Arizona. Note the new home. No wonder they call it a “Dream City”.

When you think of what the Kurds are doing with their region, contrast that with the same opportunity lost upon the Palestinians in Gaza. Instead, fully functional greenhouses in Gaza were rampaged and destroyed and not a single thing built. The things that can be done when a society decides to stop blowing each other to bits and, instead, prosper.

By Steve Schippert at 4:24 PM | Permalink | Feedback (0) | Referenced By (0)

In an interview by Stephen Spruiell of NRO, Michael J. Totten discusses his two weeks in Iraq. Totten limited his vist to Kurdish areas and had this to say about their efforts to rebuild:

“Massive, and I mean massive, reconstruction. In Sulaymaniyah, there are 300,000 people living where three years ago there were only half as many. Like all massive urban immigration, most of the people are settling on the outskirts. But unlike in the most of the third world, the outskirts aren’t slums. They are so nice, in fact, that you might not believe you were in the Middle East. You would look at some of these pictures and swear that this wasn’t the Middle East at all.”

It is well worth a read or two. And while Totten limited his trip to Kurdish areas of Iraq, for well explained reasons, and notes that the remainder of Iraq is quite a different story - it is heartening news to see that some, even if not for Iraq’s cause, are finding the ways and means to constructively rebuild their society.

By Marvin Hutchens at 3:57 PM | Permalink | Feedback (0) | Referenced By (0)

This is not the first time that the Danish Imam who sparked belated Middle East outrage over cartoons has led in demonstration. The Counterterrorism Blog’s Evan Kohlmann reminds of Another Protest Led by Danish Imam Ahmed Abu Laban, back in 1995 when ‘one of the most senior leaders of the notorious Egyptian terrorist organization Al-Gama`at al-Islamiyya’, Talaat Fouad Qassem, was captured, much to the ‘moderate’ Abu Laban’s displeasure.

The protest occurred as Al-Gama`at’s spiritual leader Shaykh Omar Abdel Rahman was nearing a conviction in the U.S. for his role in conspiring to wage a campaign of terrorism against civilian targets in the New York metropolitan area. For further information, see my book Al-Qaida’s Jihad in Europe, pages 26-27, 149-154.

Having forgotten those passages is a source of frustration. If you have not already read Kohlmann’s book, it is highly recommended and should be considered required reading.

Go here: Amazon.com: Al-Qaida’s Jihad in Europe : The Afghan-Bosnian Network

By Steve Schippert at 2:16 PM | Permalink | Feedback (0) | Referenced By (0)

This is the assertion made by ‘sources’ in several media reports on supporting internal Iranian opposition groups as we should have for the past 20+ years. Austin Bay notes part of a Los Angeles Times article on President Bush’s supplemental request for $75 million in additional aid to Iranian opposition groups and their efforts in Taking Down Tehran’s Mullahs: Help the Iranians Do It

But Iranian officials, who are highly sensitive to signs of foreign influence, are likely to point to the effort as another example of U.S. meddling and try to use it to foster anti-Americanism and build support for the regime, analysts said.

Says Austin Bay:

Foster anti-Americanism? Pish. Yes, anti-Americanism is the mullahs agit-prop counter; what this does is scare the heck out of the thugs-in-robes.

Having noticed this in other reports as well, but failing to speak to them, allow me to carry Bay’s observation a few steps further.

Iran is ‘likely to point to the effort as another example of U.S. meddling’? You don’t say. The US Secretary of State is publicly before the US Senate asking for $75 million to affect an internal regime change. You bet the mullahs are ‘highly sensitive’ to this. We are looking to end their regime.

What is additionally frustrating about the tone of the paraphrasing of the analysts’ words is that it asserts that funding internal opposition will only make the mullahs mad and will fail. Imagine these same analysts’ reactions to striking Iran’s nuclear facilities or actually invading Iran.

Perhaps we should just close up shop and wait to see what the Iranians squeeze out of Natanz, Arak and Isfahan. If we just don’t make them mad, we’ll have nothing to worry about. Perhaps.

By Steve Schippert at 12:31 PM | Permalink | Feedback (0) | Referenced By (0)

al-Qaeda has been making every effort to secure Lebanon as a base of operations and, further, “to make in particular the area of Tripoli (in the north of Lebanon) a new Afghanistan since several of its bases are in this city,” according to one source.

Be sure to read Olivier Guitta’s latest column at Tech Central Station: Al Qaeda… in Lebanon.

Regarding the December rocket attacks against Israel from the south of the country that Zarqawi (Al Qaeda’s leader in Iraq) claimed responsibility for, Fatfat [Ahmed Fatfat, the new incoming Lebanese Interior Minister] confirmed it was indeed the work of Al Qaeda. He added that it was an attack carried out by the Palestinian terror group FPLP-GC based out of Damascus, but financed directly by Al Qaeda. Finally Fatfat affirmed that FPLP-GC answers directly to Damascus and that a branch of Al Qaeda could be manipulated by Syrian security services.

The Kuwaiti daily Al-Seyassah of February 9 seconded Fatfat’s assertions. Quoting an Iraqi source, the journalist stated that Al-Qaeda is leading a large infiltration operation inside Lebanon, where it already has sleeper cells.

It is not outside the realm of possiblity that the Marine Corps Hymn may one day have a more contemporary meaning and fresh coordinates for the opening lines:

By Steve Schippert at 11:19 AM | Permalink | Feedback (0) | Referenced By (0)