The Center for Security Policy’s Alex Alexiev suggests, To stop Iran, twist European arms.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s UN rant against the Great Satan got banner headlines around the world last week. But two smaller news items out of Iran, largely unnoticed, tell us far more about where Iran is heading and how U.S. policies can nudge the belligerent regime in the right direction.

The first report: The Iranian public did not buy a single government bond in the five months prior. The second: The French banking group Societe Generale invested $2.7 billion in Iranian oil and gas development. Taken together, they reveal an Iran that is ripe for positive change - should the Bush administration meet the moment and change its hypocritical policies now.

You see, despite huge windfall oil profits, the Iranian economy is headed for the rocks. Take the oil (90% of exports) away, and Iran is a failed state. Even with it, 40% of the population lives in poverty - and unemployment among the young is 35%. Iran’s own ministry reports indicate galloping inflation and severe financial problems that threaten to shut down scores of hospitals and bankrupt critical companies.

No wonder the Iranian people have no more confidence in regime bonds.

Instead, we watch from afar as Javier Solana meets and greets the Iranian ‘negotiators,’ desperate to emerge the diplomat who ‘dicovered a solution,’ one which Iran simply will not yield.

Alexiev provides a glimpse into the Iranian psyche beind their ‘no compromise’ approach to what - for some reason - continues to be called ‘negotiations’ under such conditions. Alexiev uses Ahmadinejad’s own words for the construct.

“Europeans are like yapping dogs, kick them once and they run away,” Ahmadinejad opined while also dismissing America as a “superpower made of straw.” Discomforting as it is to admit, given the record of European and American policies in the intervening year, his tirades are not completely devoid of sense.

Concur.

By Steve Schippert at 2:29 PM | Permalink | Feedback (1) | Referenced By (0)

Iran may be experiencing technical difficulties forging ahead in their nuclear enrichment, at least at the pace they desire. Says David Ignatius at the Washington Post…

The problem, according to intelligence officials, is that the centrifuges that are supposed to enrich uranium are overheating. Some are breaking down and must be replaced. As a result, Iran has not ramped up its enrichment effort as quickly as analysts had expected.

This assessment is based on recent conversations with analysts from several Western nations that are watching the Iranian program closely and on an unpublished report by the International Atomic Energy Agency that was completed Aug. 31. To me, it’s the equivalent of adding some extra time to the clock in a tense football game. The urgency remains, but there is an opportunity for a few additional plays before the game is over.

This is where Ignatius and I part ways. His sentence should conclude simply, “The urgency remains.” Any perceived “opportunity for a few additional plays before the game is over” relies upon an assumption that any in the West know precisely when that game will be over. If there is no reliably measurable clock, the only sure approach to preventing a nuclear Iran is to stop convincing each other that we know when the clock strikes zero. Doing so is to rely upon any number of disparate predictions and/or intelligence analyses - which range from months to more than a decade.

Imagine one is seeking to protect his family from neighborhood violence. A gang is expected to be able to brandish high-powered machine guns on your street at some point, with .50 calibers mounted inside the sliding doors of their vans. All concede this will happen, and there are various estimates on when this will become reality, ranging from two weeks to two years. Without knowing, under which presumption do you operate in order to protect your family - whether through direct conflict, negotiation or law enforcement?

When Ignatius - who is certainly not alone in this thinking - says that “there is an opportunity for a few additional plays before the game is over” and concludes that “the clock is still ticking,” he is not necessarily incorrect, but he employs a rigid American mentality regarding a ‘game clock.’ Ignatius acknowledges as much when he says, “To me, it’s the equivalent of adding some extra time to the clock in a tense football game.”

This is a mistake. In American football, there is a known finite clock. When it strikes 0:00, the game is over. We know when this will happen. But Iran and Europe do not employ any such mentality, as can be evidenced by the approach to talks even after the UNSC concrete deadline as stated had passed without adherence.

Iran and Europe employ the ‘game clock’ - and thus clearly in their approach to ‘deadlines’- quite naturally in a soccer sense. When the game clock in soccer reaches the 90:00 mark, the supposed end of the game, it neither stops nor pauses. It continues on beyond for a precise amount of time known only to the referee that has been quietly tabulating how long the clock should be extended for interruptions during regulation play. Eventually and suddenly, seemingly out of the blue, that referee will blow a whistle ending the game, jarring the stadium into surprised acknowledgement that the game is now indeed over.

No one knows when that whistle will blow for Iran. But to approach these unknown ‘extended minutes’ as if there’s still time for maneuver undermines the very sense of urgency required when facing a known consequence in an unknown time.

By Steve Schippert at 1:51 PM | Permalink | Feedback (0) | Referenced By (0)

Fred Stakelbeck provides a glimpse of the complexity of the relationship between Japan and China as the newly elected Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe takes the reigns. In Sino-Japan relations remain complex, a very good look at the situation that Abe steps into is provided.

The Sino-Japan relationship remains one of the world’s most complex; defined by one-hundred years of mutual hostility and unremitting suspicion.

Adding to the precarious nature of Sino-Japan relations, Tokyo has expressed growing reservations concerning China’s meteoric global rise and the country’s ultimate intentions in “Greater Asia”. In particular, Beijing’s continued military modernization; energy pursuits in the East China Sea and unprecedented economic expansion have gained the attention of Tokyo, forcing the country’s leadership to affix greater urgency to the development of a revised China policy.

In July, Japan’s Defense Agency released its much anticipated annual report. The 429- page report urged China to provide more information to neighboring countries about its growing military buildup, saying China’s navy had become “active” in the region. The Defense Agency report was released at a time when calls have intensified at home for Japan to transform its own military. The country currently spends US$43 billion on defense each year, placing it behind the U.S., Russia, China and Britain. Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi has pushed hard for the country to revise its pacifist Constitution to address perceived regional threats such as a nuclear-armed North Korea, saying, “It is time to deepen the debate on a constitution for a new era.”

Yet, exemplifying the intricate and complicated nature of the relationship, Fred Stakelbeck later shows that there are positive developments in the Sino-Japan relationship as well, especially in the trade arena.

Despite the continued military posturing, accusations and disagreements, positive signs of an improvement in bilateral relations between the two Asian powers have begun to surface.

In January, Prime Minister Koizumi told the Diet, the country’s legislative body that he planned to move forward with a variety of measures aimed at strengthening relations with both China and South Korea. “While there may be differences in opinion or disputes in certain areas, China and South Korea are very important neighbors,” Koizumi said. Over the past several years, China has become one of Japan’s largest trading partners and the destination for billions of dollars of Japanese foreign direct investment. Bilateral trade between the two countries increased almost 13 percent in 2005 to a record US$189.3 billion, marking the seventh straight year of double-digit growth. During the same period, Japan’s trade deficit with mainland China reached a record US$28.6 billion, offering further proof of the island nation’s voracious appetite for cheap Chinese goods.

Fred’s analysis is excellent on its own merits, but brings value added also in the sense that there are security developments abound beyond that which is related to the War on Terror.

Fred Stakelbeck is a good friend to ThreatsWatch and is the Senior Asia Fellow at The Center for Security Policy, where today is also found an interesting article on Hugo Chavez.

By Steve Schippert at 9:01 AM | Permalink | Feedback (0) | Referenced By (0)

As DNI Negroponte Orders a Review – Good or Bad?

Today, outsourcing surrounds our lives. You call Dell Computer, you get a techie in India, Pakistan or the Philippines. Just when does outsourcing cross the line?

With all of the attention and controversy surrounding our Intelligence Community and about the conflicting analysis that has occurred, you might be surprised to learn that more than half of the employees at the National Counterterrorism Center are outside contractors (estimated at 17,500, double the level of contractors five years ago). Apparently, the CIA actually wants to go beyond that.

So, it is the analysis piece of the puzzle that is being outsourced. And it appears to be evidenced most dramatically in the President’s daily briefing. From the article, U.S. Intelligence Analysis:

To a degree never before witnessed in American history, many core functions of the U.S. intelligence community are being outsourced to the private sector. Outsourcing has taken place in almost every aspect of intelligence work — collection, counterintelligence, covert operations –- but nowhere has the recent trend been more dramatic than in the analysis that informs what the President receives on his desk every morning. “The outsourced analysis piece, particularly since 9/11, is a significant portion of the analysis that’s done,” said John Gannon, a former CIA Deputy Director for Intelligence and now head of BAE Systems’ Global Analysis Group. “And it’s growing.”

More on the same subject can be found in the recent L.A. Times article, Spy Agencies Outsourcing to Fill Key Jobs.
Although this situation is good for employees (and the private companies that manage them), some remain uncomfortable with intelligence agencies hiring out sensitive work.

Concerned by the lack of data and direction, Director of National Intelligence John D. Negroponte this year ordered a comprehensive study of the use of contractor, and all sixteen U.S. intelligence agencies have been instructed to turn over records on contractors. “We have to come to some conclusion about what our core intelligence mission is and how many it’s going to take to accomplish that mission,” said Ronald Sanders, the official charged with reassessing the program. “I wish I could tell you [all this contracting was] by design,” he said. “But I think it’s been by default.”

With intelligence budgets bursting with more than $10 billion a year in extra post-9/11 spending, and with political demands mounting, the government is straining to fill new analyst positions. Contractors command higher salaries than government workers do. Many of the contractors in fact are former IC employees with security clearances who have left military and intelligence community positions to work in the private sector. Many of these former IC professionals simply rotate back into similar jobs, without much of the restrictions and bureaucracy of their former positions.

At CIA headquarters in Langley, Va., senior officials say it is routine for career officers to look around the table during meetings on secret operations and be surrounded by so-called green-badgers — nonagency employees who carry special-colored IDs.

Some of the work being outsourced is extremely sensitive. Abraxas Corp., a private company in McLean, Va., founded by a group of CIA veterans, devises “covers,” or false identities, for an elite group of overseas case officers, according to current and former U.S. intelligence officials familiar with the arrangement.

Contractors also are turning up in increasing numbers in clandestine facilities around the world. At the CIA station in Islamabad, Pakistan, as many as three-quarters of those on hand since the Sept. 11 attacks have been contractors. In Baghdad, site of the agency’s largest overseas presence, contractors have at times outnumbered full-time CIA employees, according to officials who have held senior positions in the station.

What better source for this capability than former IC people?

The use of outside firms has enabled spy agencies to tap a deep reservoir of talent during a period of unprecedented demand. Many of those hired have been retired case officers and analysts who were eager to contribute to the response to the Sept. 11 attacks and who have more expertise and operational experience than agency insiders. In fact, the CIA has created its own roster of retired case officers — known as the “cadre” — who are eligible to be hired as independent contractors for temporary assignments.

This really isn’t a new occurrence, but what is happening now is that the risks and costs of using contractors to do spy work concerns some IC professionals. At the same time, the profits of the contracting firms are soaring, raising the question of profit motive influencing intelligence tasks.

U.S. intelligence agencies have used contractors for decades. Corporate giants such as Lockheed Martin Corp. have long competed for classified contracts to build spy planes and satellites. Spy services routinely use private companies to handle support functions, such as providing security or building classified computer networks. In fact, two-thirds of the contractors at the counter-terrorism center are information technology workers who manage computer systems. And independent contractors have at times played significant roles in overseas operations, including pilots who flew clandestine supply runs for the CIA in Vietnam.

There has always been “life after” for government workers and military people. Today, it appears clear that cycling back into the “community” in a higher-paying contractor position is more and more the career path of choice. The question that one could ask though, it at what cost?

Meanwhile, new intelligence entities created to fix Sept. 11-related failures — including the intelligence director’s office and centers tracking terrorism and weapons proliferation — have created thousands of new positions and cannibalized the ranks of the CIA and other agencies.
In Baghdad, contractors “do everything, especially ‘ops’ work,” a former CIA officer who has served extensively in Iraq said of the operations functions. “They’re recruiting [informants], managing the major relationships we have with the military, handling agents in support of frontline combat units. The guys doing that work are contractors. They’re not staff officers.”

By Jay Fraser at 10:27 AM | Permalink | Feedback (0) | Referenced By (0)

Much is still being made about former President Clinton’s appearance with Chris Wallace this past weekend. At first glance, one may think Tom Joscelyn is also making political hay on this in his latest titled Warning Signs. But if the reader digests the entire article and successfully reaches his conclusion, something entirely different emerges.

He begins the article quoting former First Lady Hillary Clinton defending her husband saying, “I’m certain that if my husband and his national security team had been shown a classified report entitled ‘Bin Laden Determined To Attack Inside the United States’ he would have taken it more seriously than history suggests it was taken by our current president and his national security team.” Joscelyn shows otherwise.

The report goes on to list three examples of “information that was shared with senior U.S. Government officials, but was not made available to the American public because of its national security classification.” This information was “explicit about the gravity and immediacy of the threat posed by Bin Laden” and included “a classified document” signed by President Clinton in December 1998, which read in part:

“The Intelligence Community has strong indications that Bin Laden intends to conduct or sponsor attacks inside the United States.”

This conclusion was based on numerous threads of evidence. Beginning in 1998 the U.S. intelligence community received regular reporting concerning not only al Qaeda’s determination to carry out attacks in the United States but that the terror group also planned to hijack civilian aircraft. Some of the reporting even specifically referenced the World Trade Center.

But this alone is still not the point, as Joscelyn later also notes intelligence reported after President Bush’s 2000 election as well as the inherited intelligence above.

The politicization of the conflict deposited at our feet five years ago - in a manner that could not be denied, with 3,000 dead and precious little to bury - continues to hinder this nation’s ability to defend itself. Given the nature of the enemy, this defense is necessarily forward-leaning and aggressive in nature.

Yet, considering the current political climate, al-Qaeda would be wise not to attack on American soil. We’re doing a fairly adequate job of ripping ourselves apart at the seams without their further input. To that end and within that context, Joscelyn’s conclusion is spot on.

That’s the real point in all of this. Prior to September 11, 2001, no one in the U.S. Government—Republican or Democrat—did enough to stop the terrorist threat from metastasizing on U.S. soil.

Until Americans outright demand that the Republican and Democrat parties acknowledge that al-Qaeda is the enemy, along with other like-minded Islamists, and not the Democrat or Republican Party, we will slowly cede victory to the Islamist terrorists and the states that support them.

Enough.

The enemy wears neither a red nor blue jersey. Nor is he particularly fond of symbolic elephants or donkeys. The enemy waves neither a blue nor red banner in November.

The enemy flies the black banner of jihad. Daily.

America, please take note.

By Steve Schippert at 2:06 AM | Permalink | Feedback (3) | Referenced By (0)

In Baghdad, Sunni tribal leaders met with Iraq’s Shi’a PM Nuri al-Maliki and pledged their support in cooperation to drive out al-Qaeda. This is a very significant step for Iraq, especially within the context of sectarian violence raging since the bombing of the Shia’s Golden Mosque in Samara.

Sattar al-Buzayi, a Sunni sheikh from Anbar province who has emerged in recent weeks as a leader of a tribal alliance against Osama bin Laden’s followers, said he and about 15 other sheikhs bq. had offered their cooperation to Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki.

“We agreed to cooperate,” Buzayi told Reuters. “We haven’t agreed to anything specific, but we agreed to cooperate.”

Maliki’s office issued a statement praising the chiefs for their committment to fighting the militants.

“This is admired and respected by all Iraqis. We are fully prepared to back your efforts,” the prime minister said.

Also see previous ThreatsWatch coverage on this here:

• RapidRecon: Anbar Tribes Take Arms Against Insurgency / al-Qaeda
• InBrief: Anbar Sunnis Turn on al-Qaeda

By Steve Schippert at 11:12 PM | Permalink | Feedback (2) | Referenced By (0)

Just what is the point of the Reuters article republished by the Washington Post titled Iran seen borrowing nuclear strategy from Israel?

“Whether deliberately or inadvertently, there are elements of resemblance between the way Iran is pursuing its nuclear program today and the way Israel was pursuing its own program in the 1960s,” Avner Cohen, author of a landmark study entitled “Israel and the Bomb,” in a telephone interview.

“This is a great irony of history but Iranian policymakers and nuclear technocrats may be strategically mimicking the Israeli model,” said Cohen, senior research scholar at the University of Maryland’s Center for International and Security Studies.

As Cohen sees it, the elements the Israeli and Iranian nuclear programs have in common are secrecy, concealment, ambiguity, double talk and denial.

Within the context provided, this appears to be a meaningless study, or at least a meaningless observation. What nation was ever open about their initial development of nuclear weapons? Was the Manhattan Project an open program?

Lets remove the names and restate the key sentence to demonstrate.

As Professor J.Q. Public sees it, the elements the ________ and ________ nuclear programs have in common are secrecy, concealment, ambiguity, double talk and denial.

Insert, if you will, each of the following sets to complete the sentence:

Set A: Iranian, Pakistani
Set B: Iranian, Indian
Set C: Pakistani, Indian
Set D: American, Russian
Set E: Russian, Chinese

The problem is that Iran is the epicenter of International Terrorism as the world’s foremost state-sponsor of terrorism. Are we to believe then that if Israel did not have nuclear weapons that Iran would not pursue them out of a sense of fair play?

“If only Israel did not have nuclear weapons” is the concept being furthered by this article and, possibly, the CISS study.

Another dire issue to barely be whispered past the lips of leadership is the fact that Pakistan - a nuclear power - is dangerously close to incrementally falling into the hands of radical Islamists who are or identify with the Taliban-al-Qaeda alliance.

But that is another story for another day. Today, it’s still Israel’s fault.

By Steve Schippert at 2:25 PM | Permalink | Feedback (0) | Referenced By (0)

I happen to like the Seattle Times a fair bit, but in this instance their editors seem lacking or at minimum behind the knowledge curve for their choice for the following headline to a pretty good recap of events regarding the Taliban in North Waziristan: Truce Deals May Be Helping Taliban Rebels.

The article appears orignially at Newsday (Taliban Truce Raises Doubts) and is worth your read from either source regardless.

Since Pakistan signed a truce in June with the Taliban in its border region of North Waziristan, “we have seen a 300 percent increase” in Taliban attacks in the adjacent Afghan provinces, a U.S. intelligence officer said Tuesday. Most came from Pakistani soil, he said.

This month, Pakistan converted that truce into a long-term pact that Musharraf said bars the Taliban from crossing to fight in Afghanistan. Military analysts in Pakistan and Afghanistan say the deal cannot be enforced and is a surrender to the Taliban. President Bush has defended Musharraf, saying simply, “I believe him.”

Again, Pakistan’s disengagement has only freed the Taliban-al-Qaeda aliance to increase their attacks in Afghanistan’s direction (to the tune of tripling their attacks, no less). And the 2,500 Taliban & al-Qaeda terrorists released were freed on the condition that they not stay in Pakistan. Three guesses where they have headed… (Hint: There are more than three destinations.)

By Steve Schippert at 8:42 AM | Permalink | Feedback (0) | Referenced By (0)

President Bush has now ordered declassified the key judgments of the CIA’s 2006 “National Intelligence Estimate” (PDF). The NIE, completed earlier this year, has become the subject in recent days of political spinning which is entirely inappropriate, and not related to a serious analysis of either the NIE or the terrorist threat. A full analysis of the document will have to come, but the issue of Iraq and its place as a “cause celebre” for jihadists has been spun as evidence that the Iraq war was making the terrorist threat worse.

This flawed logic, and ignorance of history, needs to be exposed - whatever the United States is doing most prominently to fight jihadist organizations at any given time will always be the “cause celebre” of global terrorism. Prior to 2003 it was Afghanistan; in the mainstream Arab media, the U.S.-led intervention in Afghanistan was largely presented as a “war on Afghanistan” and often as a “war on Islam.” During the 1990s the United States was pressuring Israel to compromise politically with the Palestinians, but nevertheless we supported Israel’s right to fight Hamas, Hizballah and other terrorist groups. And as a result, this was the most prominent issue raised by terrorist recruiters. It was common to hear in Arab discourse especially that the United States was waging war against the Palestinians.

This phenomenon is not limited to Muslim societies - in any war, one is always most likely to focus one’s propoganda on the most publicly visible actions of one’s enemy. This is true of the U.S., it is true of all, and the more effective a military action is at taking the war to the enemy, the more likely it is to be a rallying point. It is entirely logical for those hostile to us to resent such action; it is not logical for us to then cease to take action. The NIE does not say that the Iraq war itself is causing the spread of terrorism, only that it has become a rallying point. Acceptance of the spin we have seen in recent days would logically lead to not being able to take any action against global jihad.

By Kirk H. Sowell at 8:12 AM | Permalink | Feedback (0) | Referenced By (0)

MSNBC has released the first of what we hope will be many video segments honoring those who’ve fought in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The first segment is on Sergeant First Class Paul Ray Smith, posthumously awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor for his actions.

Sergeant First Class Paul Ray Smith

To view the segments visit our Faces of Courage section - or click the image of SFC Smith above.

Help us to encourage MSNBC to produce and release more of these by emailing MSNBC at heroes (at) msnbc (dot) com.

By Marvin Hutchens at 5:03 PM | Permalink | Feedback (2) | Referenced By (1)

Perhaps you have not stumbled upon an article published in the online version of The Stanford Review by Joe Dunn, a young Economics major from Illinois. But perhaps you should. He makes some excellent points about UNSC Resolution 1701, the UN codified ceasefire agreement in place currently in Lebanon. Among them is this:

International sources—the news departments of CNN, ABC, and CBS, et cetera—widely agree that Iran feeds Hezbollah upwards of $250 million in direct funding annually. This may be an overestimation, but the low-end estimate of the Center for Strategic and International Studies places Iranian aid to Hezbollah at a quite considerable $50 million annually. Even according to this most conservative figure, Iran spends, as a fraction of GDP, nearly three times as much arming Hezbollah as the United States spends arming the Marine Corps under the 2005 Navy budget. This astonishing comparison exposes the hopelessness of disarming Hezbollah with a strategy that does not include Iran.

Resolution 1701’s proposal to strengthen the Lebanese Government is a backward approach to controlling the rapid influx of Iranian weaponry through Syria into Lebanon, which the Center for Strategic and International Studies places above 10,000 rockets in 2006. Building the infrastructure necessary to give UN peacekeepers even a slim chance at policing Lebanon’s 233-mile border with Syria would require years, and millions of dollars. It is truly baffling that the UN neglected to challenge Iran’s sponsorship of Hezbollah. Resolution 1701 is more an appeal to the UN’s hyper-non-confrontationalism than a legitimate strategy for disarming Hezbollah.

Leave it to a Stanford University economics student to link GDP to Iran, Hizballah and the United States Marine Corps. Compellingly.

Not bad, young man. Not bad at all.

By Steve Schippert at 11:49 PM | Permalink | Feedback (5) | Referenced By (1)

Steve notes at the end of bin Laden Death Report Questioned that UbL is unlikely to go without medical treatment. He cites his wealth and stature.

Certainly UbL’s place at the forefront of the mujahideen would make him a priority candidate for medical treatment. Likewise the number of physicians - such as Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri - who are likely to be close to him would increase his likelihood of receiving medical care.

On the other hand - his wealth has been over stated for years and is now part of his lore and mythology more than reality.

Is he dead? Unlikely.

By Marvin Hutchens at 11:42 AM | Permalink | Feedback (2) | Referenced By (0)

Following a report in a French newspaper that quoted “usually reliable sources” (Saudi Arabian) that Usama bin Laden had died of typhoid fever, France is investigating the bin Laden ‘death’ leak.

French President Jacques Chirac said on Saturday he would investigate the leak of confidential French defense ministry documents containing a report that al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden is dead, and stressed the report had been in no way confirmed.

“I was rather surprised to see that a confidential note from the DGSE (General Directorate for External Security) was published and I have asked the minister of Defense to start an investigation immediately and to reach whatever conclusions are necessary,” Chirac said.

“Secondly, speaking of the source of the information itself, this information is in no way confirmed.”

In fact, reports are beginning to surface that the word of bin Laden’s death are an al-Qaeda disinformation operation through Pakistan’s ISI after North Waziristan truce with the al-Qaeda-Taliban alliance. (India Daily)

Pakistan has spread the rumor that typhoid killed Osama Bin Laden in August.Report on Osama Bin Laden’s death from typhoid is a set up by Pakistan’s ISI after truce with Taliban.

Officially Pakistan denies even of hearing any thing like that…

French secret service got the information from their ISI dual agent bases working to protect France from Pakistan based Islamic terrorists.

A senior official in Pakistan’s Interior Ministry also said: “We have no information about Osama’s death.”

The daily L”est Republicain reported that, according to a French secret service report, Saudi Arabia was convinced that bin Laden died of typhoid in Pakistan in late August.

There is likely good reason this sat quietly within French intelligence circles until now. If bin Laden is in Pakistan as suspected, it may be worth considering the typhoid fever occurrence and death rate in the region. A 2005 CDC study reflected fewer than 400 incidences per 100,000 in Pakistan and a death rate of <5. The risk is highest among the poorest with little medical care. Usama bin Laden likely lacks little for health care, given his wealth and stature.

By Steve Schippert at 11:34 AM | Permalink | Feedback (1) | Referenced By (2)

While Hizballah leader Hassan Nasrallah throws his fist in the air at a public rally celebrating a “divine victory,” quite another picture of the private psyche of terrorist figurehead emerges.

The Washington Institute’s Ehud Yaari speaks surprisingly of Nasrallah’s Malaise [via Pajamas Media], privately dejected and depressed at his lost stature, both personally and with regard to the present and future diminishing strength of Hizballah.

Hassan Nasrallah is showing clear signs of “dejection, melancholy and depression,” according to the editors of the Lebanese daily al-Safir, who are counted among the most steadfast supporters of the leader of Hizballah. Alongside a tiresomely long interview with him, published on September 5, they note that the man radiates a sense of “disappointment and distress.”

It is no trifling matter that Nasrallah, who is always punctilious in demonstrating self-confidence and determination, comes across this way to those visiting him in his hideout. “I myself don’t even know where I am,” he told his interviewers. “They have moved me from one hiding place to another dozens of times.”

…There are already signs that Hizballah has started moving its military equipment from the South toward the Lebanese Biqa [or Bekaa Valley]. In other words, Nasrallah understands that the South has ceased to be “Hizballahstan” and he is conceding the role that he had taken upon himself in the past, to serve as the guardian of Lebanon’s border.

Read all of Yaari’s latest. It exposes a telling contrast between the private Nasrallah and the public Nasrallah, who screamed today at a Hizballah rally in Beirut, “No army in the world will be able to make us drop the weapons from our hands!”

More precisely, no army in the world has the political within its civilian leadership to disarm Hizballah. The IDF as a military force is perfectly capable of disarming Hizballah. Yet, the combination of UN-flagged and Lebanese troops have at least the ability to force Hizballah to hide their weapons in the ‘tool shed’ rather than brandish them on the streets. That Hizballah is heeding this negotiated demand is a sign of weakness when compared to their bellicose militant history.

So, while Nasrallah proclaims a “divine victory” over the Israeli armed forces in the south, Hizballahstan is moving north. These are not the actions of a victor.

By Steve Schippert at 1:05 AM | Permalink | Feedback (2) | Referenced By (0)

Today, Marvin directed readers to view and hear Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld’s comments today in response to a sailor’s question of who the enemy is and why they are an enemy. [Special thanks to reader Maria for sharing the link with us and others.] Watching the first two-thirds of his response, I kept thinking of Marvin’s own Commentary published Thursday regarding the same topic. Though Marvin is too modest to reference his own writing, his thoughts on who the enemy is - and equally important, who is not the enemy - are compelling. For readers who found value in Secretary Rumsfeld’s words today, you may likely find value in Marvin’s as well in Fighting The Long War.

Perhaps the most compelling part of Secretary Rumsfeld’s response came about two-thirds of the way through. If you did not watch the whole 8 minutes the first time, consider revisiting the video and fast-forwarding to about the two-thirds point, beginning where he says, “The idea that the reason there are problems in the world is the United States is balogna. We are not what’s wrong with the world.”

While that is a powerful statement in itself, it is his explanatory analogy that is perhaps the finest concise example of spoken clarity on the issue of prosperity and poverty in the global condition. He uses North and South Korea, with the same people and the same resources. Yet one starves and the other is the 12th most prosperous economy on the planet. The difference, he points out, is not people or resources, it is the system of a free democratic government and a free and open economy on one hand, and a dictatorial regime and command economy on the other.

If you missed it, be sure to go back and watch.

By Steve Schippert at 11:46 PM | Permalink | Feedback (6) | Referenced By (0)

After Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas declared at the UN Thursday that the potential ‘unity government’ in the process of being formed would recognize both Israel as a state and existing PLO agreements with Israel, we asked “But What of Hamas and Islamic Jihad, Mr. Abbas?” For it appeared that no affirming words had been spoken by Hamas on their own behalf suggesting any recognition of Israel. Abbas’ statement unfortunately appeared more idealistic than realistic.

Well today Hamas has spoken. Clearly.

But Prime Minister Ismail Haniya, in a mosque sermon in Gaza City on Friday, said: “I personally will not head any government that recognises Israel.”

Earlier, Ahmed Youssef, a senior adviser to Mr Haniya, said there would be no explicit recognition of Israel, but Hamas was prepared to agree to a 10-year truce with the Jewish state.

“The government and the Hamas movement will be against recognising Israel. Our position to solve the crisis is a 10-year truce which will be good for stability and prosperity,” he said.

In short, we are back to the non-prospect of ‘hudna,’ just as it was proposed on the eve of Hamas’ electoral victory. ThreatsWatch took a close look at Hamas’ January 2006 offer of hudna in The Hamas Hudna Hoodwink.

Al-Zahar refused to acknowledge Israel’s right to exist, claiming that Hamas would decide that issue once they met his demands as set forth. Those demands include “to release our detainees; to stop their aggression; to make geographic link between Gaza Strip and West Bank”.

The substance of the above demands aside, the true insight into the subject offered by Hamas came with the qualifier that followed the demands, as al-Zahar concluded, “at that time, with assurance from other sides, we are going to accept to establish our independent state at that time, and give us one or two, 10, 15 years time in order to see what is the real intention of Israel after that.”

In short, if Israel releases all of its prisoners (not happening, as many are held on direct charges of acts of terrorism), pulls out of the West Bank entirely (including all settlements), ceases all operations (presumably including future operations in reaction to attacks by any other Palestinian-based terror group not recognizing a Hamas hudna), and gives them an additional swath of land from Israel proper in the Negev Desert that links Gaza and the West Bank, then Hamas will think about reconsidering their recognition of Israel.

For those interested, Hamas’ 10-year length is not an arbitrary (nor necessarily strategicaly planned) term. From Wikipedia’s Hudna entry:

According to Umdat as-Salik, a medieval summary of Shafi’i jurisprudence, hudnas with a non-Muslim enemy should be limited to 10 years: “if Muslims are weak, a truce may be made for ten years if necessary, for the Prophet made a truce with the Quraysh for that long, as is related by Abu Dawud” (‘Umdat as-Salik, o9.16).

By Steve Schippert at 10:51 PM | Permalink | Feedback (0) | Referenced By (0)

I tend not to have a very high opinion of “Blue Ribbon” commissions and similar enterprises involving famous names called in to lend their wisdom on an issue of public controversy. This skepticism was deepened by reading an article in the Washington Post on the Iraq Study Group, a low-profile bipartisan group of very high-profile individuals charged with studying Iraq for a few months to “save” the country (“Called From Diplomatic Reserve: Former Secretary of State Leads Attempt to Salvage Iraq Mission”). Or, as the partisan writer of this news article put it, “Is Jim Baker bailing out the Bushes again?” (And, of course, the subheading was biased; this should have appeared in the opinion section, not the news.)

Yes, the group is co-chaired by former Secretary of State James Baker, and also includes, among others, Sandra Day O’Conner, who knows a bit about the law, Rudy Giuliani, who knows a bit about domestic security issues, and two Clinton officials, attorney and Clinton golf partner Vernon Jordan and former chief-of-staff Leon Panetta. It wouldn’t bother me if Panetta headed up a group on budget reform or if Giuliani chaired one on police reform. But none of these individuals knows Arabic, and aside from Baker, none has significant experience in the region. It would be as if a group of eminent Turks were to travel to the United States and began to make recommendations on urban renewal or prison reform although none of them knew English or had significant previous experience with the country.

It does not help that the Post writer chose to use the article to promote the group and its mission. Baker is indeed a skilled diplomat, but Iraq’s problems have little to do with diplomacy, and skill in managing differences is of little use if one’s underlying substantive ideas are wrong. This point is illustrated by a quote from the article:

“I think he basically wants to call it the way he sees it,” said this source, a critic of the administration’s approach to Iraq. “He’s also been frustrated by the mistakes that have been made. In many ways, it has damaged the legacy he established as secretary of state.”

Yet the two areas in which Bush I-Baker established a legacy in the Middle East - Iraq and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict - have both turned out disastrously. In the former case, the U.S. ended up supporting sanctions which starved much of Iraq’s population but didn’t starve Saddam’s terror network, and in the latter the Oslo Peace Accords and the 1990s “peace process,” the primary consequence of which was the arming and empowerment of Palestinian terrorist groups. In 1989 Palestinians were throwing stones, while in 2000 they were firing mortars, and Oslo made the difference. Baker surely listened to “experts” at the State Department and the intelligence community who told him that removing Saddam would bring an Iranian-style state to Iraq and that Yasser Arafat could be trusted. They were wrong on both counts, and much of Bush II foreign policy has been spent correcting the flawed legacy of Bush I.

Baker has said that the group intends to publish its recommendations after the elections in November in order to protect it from partisan influences. He could go a step better and save the taxpayers whatever is being spent to fund this group, and shut it down now.

By Kirk H. Sowell at 10:35 PM | Permalink | Feedback (0) | Referenced By (0)

Secretary Rumsfeld was asked “Who the enemy is, what they want and why they are the enemy?”

His answer is absolutely worth our attention. The Pentagon Channel unfortunately is designed for Microsoft Internet Explorer - so we’ve added the Secretary’s response to our Multimedia section for those who use other browsers - you must still have Windows Media Player installed.

You may view it here.

By Marvin Hutchens at 6:36 PM | Permalink | Feedback (0) | Referenced By (0)

PA President Mahmoud Abbas came to the UN and said Thursday that a Palestinian Unity government will recognize Israel. When we first saw this, we posted a link to the story in our NewsBriefs section and added a note to the NewsBrief rather than an excerpt.

[TW Note: There’s just one thing missing: Hamas’ statement to the same, the other half of ‘Unity’.]

From the original article:

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas told the U.N. General Assembly Thursday that the planned national unity government will recognize Israel.

The Hamas-led Palestinian government that won elections in January has refused to recognize Israel, end violence, and honor past agreements between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization, which Abbas heads….

“I would like to reaffirm that any future Palestinian government will commit to all the agreements that the Palestine Liberation Organization and the Palestinian National Authority have committed to,” he said.

We also intended to revisit the issue here shortly addressing with a little bit more detail the fact that Hamas has not said the same, lest a reader be misled that some sort of major step forward between the Palestians and the Israelis had just ocurred.

But the good Captain has already done precisely that. From Captain’s Quarters:

This will be a neat trick. Hamas has repeatedly stated in the last few months that it will not recognize Israel, and since they hold a majority of seats in the Palestinian assembly, Abbas’ ability to deliver on this promise appears problematic at best.

One has to assume that Abbas hammered that deal out during the negotiations. If so, then Hamas won’t kill him when he returns. However, the rank and file of Hamas may start wondering whether to turn on its own leadership, especially those who have lost relatives foolish enough to conduct suicide-bombing missions. And Hamas is not the only problem. Islamic Jihad has never joined in Palestinian self-government, preferring to remain unsullied by the stench of compromise and negotiation. Other smaller groups with less formal leadership will present Abbas with even more difficulties in enforcing this new policy.

The ThreatsWatch response is quite simply: “Concur”

Just one more observation: Is this ‘Unity Government’ going to enforce against recalcitrant PIJ, al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades and Hamas members who don’t quite feel up to recognizing Israel or PLO agreements?

UPDATE: Question answered: What About Hamas? “No To Abbas.”

By Steve Schippert at 12:03 AM | Permalink | Feedback (0) | Referenced By (0)

Yemen had its presidential election yesterday, and the consensus view seems to be that while the ruling party led by President Ali Abdullah Salih pulled some dirty tricks and used its powers of patronage to the full, the elections themselves were relatively free and the election did offer a real choice (Washington Post). In other words, Yemen is a managed democracy. It is a desparately poor country, one of the poorest in the Arab world, with high rates of illiteracy and unemployment. It is also a society in which radical Islam has a strong sway, and which al-Qaeda has found inviting. It could use a government committed to development rather than self-enrichment, and while Yemen’s government could be worse, it could be a lot better.

Jane Novak, a frequent critique of Salih and the Yemeni government, noted that despite facing many disadvantages, the opposition candidate was allowed to travel around the country and present his views to voters. Managed democracy is better than a police state, and perhaps this partial political opening will help spur reform in other ways.

By Kirk H. Sowell at 9:22 PM | Permalink | Feedback (2) | Referenced By (0)

As has been noted elsewhere, it is now comes officially from the Iraqi government. From the USA Today:

Iraqi Interior Ministry says insurgents kidnap people to use in car bomb attacks

Iraqi insurgents are no longer using just volunteers as suicide car bombers but are instead kidnapping drivers, rigging their vehicles with explosives and blowing them up, the Interior Ministry said Thursday.

In what appears to be a new tactic for the insurgency, the ministry said the kidnap victims do not know their cars have been loaded with explosives when they are released.

The ministry issued a statement saying that first “a motorist is kidnapped with his car. They then booby trap the car without the driver knowing. Then the kidnapped driver is released and threatened to take a certain road.”

But this is not a ‘new tactic’ employed by jihadis at all, not even in Iraq. Consider, ironically, an AP report from September 2005.

Mohammed Ali, who claimed to be Saudi-born and appeared to be in his 20s, said he managed to flee after another suicide attacker set off his bomb, killing at least 12 worshippers Friday as they left a mosque in the northern city of Tuz Khormato.

In confession broadcast on state television later that day, Ali told Iraqi interrogators he did not want to bomb the mosque and hoped to go home.

Results from medical tests on Ali were “consistent with his story and characterization of his treatment,” Col. Billy J. Buckner, a U.S. military spokesman said Sunday.

Ali said insurgents kidnapped him from a field near his home earlier this month, then drugged and beat him.
[Emphasis Added]

In intelligence circles, it has been a known tactic that when a terrorist cell does not have a willing suicide bomber on-hand, they will kidnap a local to pilot a VBIED. This is not preferred because they are much less reliable than inspired volunteers, as Ali’s story clearly displays.

There is always the risk of the kidnapped local’s escape before the act. Also, at the point of attack, an inspired volunteer suicide bomber will seek out an alternate target if the primary does not present itself as planned. The local forced-homicide captive, however, will not. It is, after all, his home. This also is quite telling as to why most true and motivated suicide bombers are foreigners.

By Steve Schippert at 1:36 PM | Permalink | Feedback (0) | Referenced By (0)

Headlines are important. Many people who do not have the time or interest will read no more of stories than the headline. Far more people read a headline than do the given text. This is why headlines often do not match story content: Because headlines are about message while the story itself is (or should be) about an event or circumstance. This is also one reason editors choose headlines rather than the authoring journalist.

To this end, John Noonan of OPFOR highlights what he calls Agenda Driven Journalism of the Day. Reuters runs a story with the following headline:

U.N. says Iraq deadlier, Italians pull out

For the headline reader, the two naturally seem related. Such as, “al-Qaeda Attacks NYC, Nearly 3,000 Dead.” Such styled headlines read as Cause & Effect. And editors know this clearly. Their livelihoods revolve around words and communication.

But Noonan points out rightly that neither of the two issues in the Reuters headline are remotely related.

The Italian mission in southern Iraq has been a real success story, yet the Reuters lead was deliberately calculated make it appear as they are retreating from an unwinnable fight. What the UN says about Iraq is completely irrelevant to the Italian withdrawal, which has been planned for some time now. It has everything to do with the Italians successfully managing the sector, to the point where Iraqi troops can comfortably handle the security load on their own.

To be sure, the ability to read, filter and decipher the various media sources available is a developed skill set akin to learning a second language.

By Steve Schippert at 10:26 AM | Permalink | Feedback (0) | Referenced By (0)

Hot Air has video up of ABC’s Brian Ross discussing his Intelligence sources who claim that, while some of them remain opposed to such practices as waterboarding, this and other methods of interrogation have broken such men as Khaled Sheik Muhammed, the 9-11 mastermind, and prevented at least 14 attacks, including another airliner plot to strike Los Angeles’ Library Tower.

Those who oppose CIA (formerly) secret detention centers and selective application of harsh tactics will never know just who is alive today that otherwise would not have been. [Note: I personally do not equate waterboarding with torture. I equate with torture bamboo chutes under fingernails, being strapped to an electrified box spring mattress, being hung by the wrists (tied behind the back), and having toes and fingers smashed with a hammer. None of these we employ.]

Also recently from Brian Ross is this: Musharaff Reveals New Bin Laden Intelligence. However, the ‘new intelligence’ is more stating the obvious than the sharing of any intelligence.

By Steve Schippert at 9:51 AM | Permalink | Feedback (0) | Referenced By (0)

A former Venezuela-based foreign correspondent, David Paulin, explains one reason why Hugo Chavez is so virulently anti-American as he sits atop the only OPEC member state in the Western Hemisphere.

Hugo Chavez’s bizarre anti-American rant at the United Nations has got Americans asking, “What makes Chavez tick?”

To understand him, stop thinking of oil-producing Venezuela as a Latin American country. Think of it as a dysfunctional Middle Eastern petro-state. Doing that is the key to understanding Chavez and Venezuela.

Chavez is not alone in his thinking, which can be considered a manifestation of outward hatred diverted from internal failings.

Chavez’s anti-Americanism, moreover, achieves the recognition he never could attain by providing mundane things such as decent public services, crime control, and serious anti-poverty programs. It’s no wonder that Chavez gets along so well with oil-rich Middle Eastern thugs, who also are adept at the blame game, as they accuse Israel, America, or whatever they can come up with to excuse their dysfunction.

No wonder so many Third World delegates in the U.N. applauded Chavez’s anti-American rant. They, like Chavez, find it easier to blame America than to accept responsibility for their personal and collective failures.

Yet while Chavez is enjoying his increasing celebrity status abroad, this appears not to be the case at home in Venezuela.

Some may be curious if you still buy your gasoline at Citgo…

By Steve Schippert at 9:28 AM | Permalink | Feedback (3) | Referenced By (0)

While no formal statements of recognition have been offered to the new Thai leadership, it is increasingly looking as if the bloodless coup, led by General Sonthi Boonyarataglin has succeeded. The Thai military forces behind this move have captured the parliament, taken control of the nations communications apparatus and have stated that the temporary government they are creating will have the backing of Thailand’s King Bhumibol Adulyadej.

It has been announced that retired General Surayudh Chulanont will be acting as Prime Minister until the government is returned to the people. No date, as of yet, for those elections has been set. Other reports state that General Sonthi Boonyarataglin will act as Prime Minister.

Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra has canceled his speech for this evening at the United Nations.

By Marvin Hutchens at 5:42 PM | Permalink | Feedback (0) | Referenced By (0)

Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, in New York at the United Nations, has declared a State of Emergency for Thailand as the members of the Thai military loyal to Lieutenant General Sonthi Boonyaratglin and, reportedly the King, have attempted a coup.

Forces are said to have entered the Prime Ministers offices and have tanks on the streets of Bangkok.

The Wall Street Journal reported that the Prime Minister has denied any involvement by the King - “His Majesty is not really involved in politics. We should not bring him into politics.” That from an interview on Monday in New York.

More as it becomes available.

By Marvin Hutchens at 12:35 PM | Permalink | Feedback (0) | Referenced By (0)

Max Schultz agrees: Iran’s Oil-Weapon Threat Rings Hollow.

The implication is that such actions would set off a depth charge in the international energy economy, so the U.S. and its allies should back down.

Don’t believe it. Certainly Iran’s leaders are unhinged enough to try making good on one of those two promises. Either action would send oil soaring, perhaps well over $100 per barrel. Gasoline would spike too, perhaps to $5 or $6 per gallon. The dirty little secret about Iran’s threats, however, is though they might cause some pain, they wouldn’t cripple our economy. The American economic engine is too strong to be brought to its knees by Iran’s machinations, and the weapon Tehran threatens to wield is not as menacing as they would have us believe.

Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman noted recently that the United States could weather a hypothetical Iranian oil disruption and foil Tehran’s efforts at