There can be no doubt that al-Qaeda intends to reach the voters in Western democracies in order to bring about elected governments that will ease the pressure put on the terrorist organization. With the American midterm elections just one week away, the Jamestown Foundation’s Michael Scheuer offers a brief, effective overview of this strategy and its successes to date in Al-Qaeda Doctrine for International Political Warfare.

Bin Laden has tied this quasi-foreign policy closely to Islamist military activities and has laid it out as a doctrine to be followed by al-Qaeda and its associates. This foreign policy—or political warfare strategy—is to be delivered over the heads of U.S. and Western leaders to voters in non-Muslim countries and is meant to do two things: change the policies of countries allied with the United States by eroding popular support for assisting the United States in fighting the war on terrorism, and, second, slowly strip allies away from the United States and leave it increasingly isolated.

Scheuer goes on to cite bin Laden messages that were timed and delivered for precisely this purpose. Just how successful has this strategy been? Consider the concise list of major political shifts.

- The conservative, pro-U.S. government of Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar was defeated in an election soon after the March 2003 Madrid attack. The victorious socialist regime of Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero is less pro-American and has withdrawn Spanish troops from Iraq.

- In the summer of 2006, Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi’s conservative, pro-U.S. government was defeated by a narrow margin, much of which appears to have consisted of those voters opposed to Rome’s support for the U.S.-led war in Iraq. The new Italian government is planning to reduce the number of Italian troops in Iraq.

- After facing a near revolt this summer in his Labor Party, British Prime Minister Tony Blair was compelled to appease the dissenters by announcing that he would step down from the premiership before he had intended to do so. The Labor Party’s anger—backed by many public opinion polls—stemmed from Blair’s hardy support for Washington’s war on terrorism.

- In October 2006, a group of Thai military officers staged a coup that removed Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra from office. Allegations of corruption have since been made against Thaksin, but the generals appear to have acted in large part to stop Thaksin’s harsh military and law-enforcement operations against Islamist separatists in the country’s three Muslim-dominated southern provinces. The coup leaders named a Muslim Thai general as the new prime minister, and he immediately announced his willingness to slow military operations and consider increased autonomy for the southern provinces—actions that Thaksin had refused to do.

- In mid-October 2006, sources “close to the [French] military” leaked information showing that President Jacques Chirac’s government—in the face of rising violence in Afghanistan and public condemnation of the Iraq war—was formulating plans to withdraw its Special Forces from Afghanistan in 2007.

- In the fall of 2006, Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki and Afghan President Hamid Karzai repeatedly tried to distance themselves from “excessive” military operations conducted by the United States in their countries.

While not all of these are direct al-Qaeda cause and effect scenarios, such as the Madrid attacks that brought about the major shift in the Spanish government, at minimum they all parallel al-Qaeda’s desired effect – the incremental isolation of its American pursuers - and display an erosion of will.

By Steve Schippert at 5:02 PM | Permalink | Feedback (0) | Referenced By (0)

We hope ThreatsWatch readers will consider joining us in helping Soldiers’ Angels provide voice-controlled laptops to those who have sacrificed for us.

Project Valour-IT, in memory of SFC William V. Ziegenfuss, provides voice-controlled laptop computers to wounded Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines recovering from hand and arm injuries or amputations at home or in military hospitals. Operating laptops by speaking into a microphone, our wounded heroes are able to send and receive messages from friends and loved ones, surf the ‘Net, and communicate with buddies still in the field without having to press a key or move a mouse. The experience of CPT Charles “Chuck” Ziegenfuss, a partner in the project who suffered severe hand wounds while serving in Iraq, illustrates how important this voice-controlled software can be to a wounded servicemember’s recovery.

Please consider choosing the service of your choice below, clicking through and making a donation to this worthy cause. Naturally, since the co-founders of ThreatsWatch are both Marine Corps veterans, we strongly encourage donations be made through the Leatherneck button. However, we remain quite certain that the deserving beneficiaries of your generosity will appreciate the ends far more than the chosen means.

Thank you for considering such a worthy cause.

By Steve Schippert at 12:45 AM | Permalink | Feedback (0) | Referenced By (0)

In Sunday’s New York Times Magazine, the Council on Foreign Relations’ Noah Feldman has written an article that looks at the specter of a nuclear Middle East in Islam, Terror and the Second Nuclear Age.

In the lengthy piece, Mr. Feldman offers a succinct passage that strikes at the core of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) as a psychological deterrent. Simply put, it almost certainly would no longer effectively apply.

What makes suicide bombing especially relevant to the nuclear question is that, by design, it unsettles the theory of deterrence. When the suicide bomber dies in an attack, he means to send the message “You cannot stop me, because I am already willing to die.” To make the challenge to deterrence even more stark, a suicide bomber who blows up a market or a funeral gathering in Iraq or Afghanistan is willing to kill innocent bystanders, including fellow Muslims. According to the prevailing ideology of suicide bombing, these victims are subjected to an involuntary martyrdom that is no less glorious for being unintentional.

So far, the nonstate actors who favor suicide bombing have limited their collateral damage to those standing in the way of their own bombs. But the logic of sacrificing other Muslims against their own wills could be extended to the national level. If an Islamic state or Islamic terrorists used nuclear weapons against Israel, the United States or other Western targets, like London or Madrid, the guaranteed retaliation would cost the lives of thousands and maybe millions of Muslims. But following the logic of suicide bombing, the original bomber might reason that those Muslims would die in God’s grace and that others would live on to fight the jihad. No state in the Muslim world has openly embraced such a view. But after 9/11, we can no longer treat the possibility as fanciful.

By Steve Schippert at 2:25 AM | Permalink | Feedback (3) | Referenced By (0)

The US House Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Homeland Security has recently issued an interim report “summarizing its findings regarding the criminal activity and violence taking place along the Southwest border of the United States between Texas and Mexico.” Its findings are troubling though not unexpected, including the state of drug cartel-related violence along the border (which, in Mexico, now includes beheadings), armed attacks on US Border Patrol agents, the alarming rate of illegal alien sex offenders, and human smuggling.

Of particular note in the Congressional Report, A Line in the Sand: Confronting the Threat at the Southwest Border (PDF), is the following regarding the rate of OTM’s (Other Than Mexicans) from “special interest” countries known to produce and harbor Islamic terrorists.

The number of aliens other than Mexican (“OTMs”) illegally crossing the border has grown at an alarming rate over the past several years. Based on U.S. Border Patrol statistics there were 30,147 OTMs apprehended in FY2003, 44,614 in FY2004, 165,178 in FY2005, and 108,025 in FY2006. Most of them were apprehended along the U.S. Southwest border.

The sheer increase of OTMs coming across the border makes it more difficult for Border Patrol agents to readily identify and process each, thereby increasing the chances that a potential terrorist could slip through the system. Moreover, there is no concrete mechanism for determining how many OTMs evade apprehensions and successfully enter the country illegally.

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) pays particular attention to OTMs apprehended by the Border Patrol who originate from thirty-five nations designated as “special interest” countries. According to Border Patrol Chief David Aguilar, special interest countries have been “designated by our intelligence community as countries that could export individuals that could bring harm to our country in the way of terrorism.” …

The data indicates that each year hundreds of illegal aliens from countries known to harbor terrorists or promote terrorism are routinely encountered and apprehended attempting to enter the U.S. illegally between Ports of Entry. Just recently, U.S. intelligence officials report that seven Iraqis were found in Brownsville, Texas in June 2006.103 In August 2006, an Afghani man was found swimming across the Rio Grande River in Hidalgo, Texas;104 as recently as October 2006, seven Chinese were apprehended in the Rio Grande Valley area of Texas.

Items have been found by law enforcement officials along the banks of the Rio Grande River and inland that indicate possible ties to a terrorist organization or member of military units of Mexico.106 A jacket with patches from countries where al Qa’ida is known to operate was found in Jim Hogg County, Texas by the Border Patrol. The patches on the jacket show an Arabic military badge with one depicting an airplane flying over a building and heading towards a tower, and another showing an image of a lion’s head with wings and a parachute emanating from the animal. The bottom of one patch read “martyr,” “way to eternal life” or “way to immortality.”

Being the world’s most open society has always been a source of liberty-inspired pride. In today’s world, it is also a source of very real potential peril.

By Steve Schippert at 1:55 AM | Permalink | Feedback (0) | Referenced By (0)

Jeff Stein, National Security Editor at Congressional Quarterly, has written an article on the recent English-language terrorist assessment of the American Intelligence Community (IC). Stein sought reaction and analysis from a wide variety of sources, including Rita Katz, director of the SITE Institute, Evan Kohlmann, terrorism consultant and Counterterrorism Blog contributing expert, former CIA officer Robert Baer, and Marvin Hutchens of ThreatsWatch among others.

The holy warriors’ intelligence shop may need a shake-up, by the looks of a new analysis of White House responses to the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, circulating among password-protected jihad Web sites.

“Myth of Delusion: Exposing the U.S. Intelligence” (sic), authored by a rising star in the al Qaeda hierarchy, relies on openly available materials — congressional and other official investigations of intelligence failures related to the 9/11 attacks and the war in Iraq, along with media exposes and scholarly studies — for its wide-ranging book-length report on the operations of American spy agencies.

But when it comes to analyzing the Bush administration’s emergency responses to the al Qaeda hijackings on 9/11, it reads like an Oliver Stone script.

That it does. In our own initial analysis, we arrived at a similar conclusion that “at many points, The Myth of Delusion also reads like a Conspiracy Theorist’s Intelligence Bible.”

Stein includes varied reactions to the jihadi English-language effort among professionals and experts and forms an interesting mix of analysis and commentary. He arrives at a challenging question after looking at what Mohammed al-Hakaymah’s writing does (and does not) accurately portray through open-source information, Congressional and Intelligence Community leaks and media reporting on things such as the secret NSA surveillance program and equally secret US Treasury counterterrorism measures.

All of which raises a dilemma for Congress, not to mention the media: Can it meet its constitutional obligation to ride herd on the government, including U.S. intelligence, without giving material support to the enemy?

There is little question that exposing secret counterterrorism efforts does just that, as does broadcasting terrorist propoganda as recently and shamefully done by CNN with its airing of a terrorist snuff film of jihadi snipers killing US servicemen.

The original Hakaymah document can be seen as an example of the damage such leaking and reporting can do. It can be read in full and/or downloaded via ThreatsWatch resources at the following link:

• The Myth of Delusion: Exposing the American Intelligence

By Steve Schippert at 3:55 PM | Permalink | Feedback (0) | Referenced By (1)

The Kurds are a people who were badly treated by history during the past century, and now they are being squeezed by geography in this one. While their autonomous region in the north of Iraq functions in many ways like an independent state, geography makes this landlocked region highly dependent on its neighbors, most of them unfriendly. The Turks and the Iranians fear Kurdish rebels in the own countries, and the problems that an independent Kurdistan might bring. Iraqi Kurds have an even worse relationship - no relationship might be more accurate - with the Syrian government, which rules over a significant Kurdish minority that it treats very badly. And then to the south, of course, are the Iraqi Arabs, with whom they must negotiate autonomy.

Today’s Wall Street Journal has an interview the Kurdish President Massoud Barzani which explores the tension between the Kurdish desire and their reality. Most Kurds long for independence, and on a de facto basis they have a lot of it, but their leaders are highly aware that they cannot survive if their four neighbors oppose them. Kurdistan has oil and increasing commercial links with the outside world, but none of this is worth anything without the right to pump oil through and travel over adjacent territories. Barzani makes clear that he is committed to a federal Iraq, but that the two concepts are joined - either Iraq is federal or the Kurds will split. Arab leaders in Baghdad, on the other hand, know that they have some leverage, but that they cannot force a united Iraq on Barzani. So they will have to negotiate.

This is from today’s Weekend Interview:

ERBIL, Iraq—Unlike Baghdad, 200 miles away, the air here does not echo with the sound of gunfire, car bombs and helicopters. Residents of this city of a million people picnic by day in pristine new parks and sip tea with friends and relatives at night. American forces are not “occupiers” or the “enemy,” but “liberators.” Mentioning President Bush evokes smiles—and not of derision.

American forces were “most welcome” when stationed here at the start of the invasion of Iraq, says Massoud Barzani, the president of Kurdistan in the north. Not a single U.S. soldier was killed in his region, he adds proudly, “not even in a traffic accident.” Would U.S. forces be welcome back now? “Most certainly,” he declared this week in an interview in his newly minted marble (and heavily chandeliered) palace. The more American soldiers the better, a top aide confirms.

The secret of Kurdistan’s relative success so far—and of America’s enduring popularity here—is the officially unacknowledged fact that the three provinces of the Kurdish north are already quasi-independent. On Oct. 11, Iraq’s parliament approved a law that would allow the Sunni and Shiite provinces also to form semi-autonomous regions with the same powers that the constitution has confirmed in Kurdistan. And while Kurdish leaders pay lip-service to President Bush’s stubborn insistence on the need for a unified Iraq with a strong centralized government, Kurdistan is staunchly resisting efforts to concentrate economic control in Baghdad…

Read the full Weekend Interview.

By Kirk H. Sowell at 8:46 PM | Permalink | Feedback (0) | Referenced By (0)

As al-Qaeda warns Canada of a Canadian 9/11 attack if the American ally does not withdraw its heavily engaged (and extremely effective) troops from Afghanistan, intelligence suggests that an increased threat to Saudi Arabian oil facilities exists. The reaction to the intelligence has been primarily to marshal allied naval assets to protect the world’s largest offshore oil export facility, the Ras Tanura terminal, as well as Bahrain’s Bapco refinery.

The potential methods of an al-Qaeda attack on the offshore Ras Tanura terminal are numerous, including an explosives-laden small craft such as that used against the USS Cole or a rocket or missile attack from a small craft or even an attack from al-Qaeda operatives that may have infiltrated the Saudi Arabian military or the terminal and/or refinery staff.

In an MSNBC interview with Dr. Walid Phares early Saturday, there was mention of intelligence that the threat to the Saudi offshore facility may have included the use of a submarine. Dr. Phares posited that such equipment may, if in fact accurate, be provided by Iran for such an attack.

At first glance, the use of a submarine in such an attack seems a remote possibility. Yet, in contemplating possible attack tactics and equipment and the MSNBC mention of submarines, it brings to mind the attempts in the late 1990’s of a Philippine terrorist group, the Moro Islamic Liberation Front, to purchase a mini-submarine from North Korea. The equipment was never delivered, but that was not due to any North Korean reluctance to sell arms – including the mini-submarine - to terrorist organizations.

A January 2005 article appearing in the World Tribune detailed the extent to which North Korea armed the Islamic group MILF in Philippines. The MILF had ordered and partially paid for the mini-submarine (US$1 million of $2.2 million), with North Korea ultimately aborting the sale only under American pressure after US intelligence learned of the deal.

In addition, investigations by Southeast Asian nations’ security authorities show that the MILF told North Korea in June 1999 that it wanted to buy a North Korean mini-submarine, the Yomiuri Shimbun said in a dispatch from Jakarta.

Quoting sources among the security authorities of unidentified Southeastern Asian nations, the daily said the arms deals — mostly taking place in Malaysia — came to light as a result of documents the authorities confiscated from the MILF in November 2004.

The deal was engineered by Rim Kyu-Do, a North Korean authorized to negotiate contracts on behalf of his government, and Ghazali Jaafar, MILF vice chairman for political affairs. The MILF paid $1 million but still owes another $1.2 million in the deal.
Yomiuri said North Korea had also said it would send at least one mini-submarine to the MILF, but has yet to deliver.

The submarine was to have been of the same type that was caught in the nets of a South Korean fisherman off South Korea’s east coast in July 1998 and then dragged into port, where South Korean navy investigators found the bodies of nine North Koreans inside. North Korean agents had apparently killed the sailors on the sub before shooting themselves.

Such a submarine would have been ideal for carrying MILF special troops into remote harbors and inlets, where they could have ambushed Philippine government troops and officials. The North held off on delivering the submarine, though, after U.S. and Philippine intelligence sources got wind of the deal.

The terrorists’ mini-submarine order was only a small part of the arms deals between North Korea and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (among other groups supplied with North Korean arms). The article cited the Japanese newspaper report that “North Korea sold 10,000 M16 rifles and other arms and ammunition, including grenades.” The arms were said to have been shipped in 1999 and 2000.

• CDI: al-Qaeda in Southeast Asia
• CS Monitor: al-Qaeda’s Asian ‘quartermaster’
• TIME Asia: al-Qaeda’s Asian Web of Terror
• World Press: Mindanao the New Afghanistan Says Ambassador
• CNN: Thailand: A safe haven for al Qaeda?

By Steve Schippert at 3:30 PM | Permalink | Feedback (0) | Referenced By (0)

The European Union’s foreign policy chief and principal negotiator in the recent failed negotiations with Iran said in an interview from Israel that he believes Hamas doesn’t want to destroy Israel.

In an interview following his talks in Tel Aviv with Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, Solana insisted that it was “not impossible” for Hamas to change and “recognize the existence of Israel.” History had shown that people and nations “adapt to reality,” he said. “I don’t want to lose hope.”

Pressed as to whether he was underestimating the fundamentalist religious imperative at the heart of the Hamas ideology, Solana said, “I cannot imagine that the religious imperative, the real religious imperative, can make anybody destroy another country… Therefore that is an abuse of religion…

“I don’t think the essence of Hamas is the destruction of Israel. The essence of Hamas is the liberation of the Palestinians,” he added. “The liberation of their people, not the destruction of Israel.”

Daniel Freedman at the New York Sun calls Solana an Apologist For Hamas. Perhaps.

Perhaps Javier Solana is the eternal optimist. Any rational observer would certainly hope that he is correct. Yet, an objective observer would find little to support such a belief. Certainly, addressing all members of Hamas or any other group with a blanket statement in disregard of individual thought lends itself to inaccuracies one way or another. But Solana was not addressing his beliefs of individuals within Hamas, he was addressing the foundational structure of the terrorist organization.

In reality, the disconnect between Solana’s understanding and Hamas’ “essence” lies in the definition of Palestine itself.

With that, a closer look at the formal Hamas Charter is in order. It is important for Western readers to understand first that what the Charter calls “Palestine” is not what is recognized as the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, but rather the whole of the land between the Jordan River to the Meditteranean Sea: The West Bank, Gaza and the current state of Israel. This is why Hamas will not recognize Israel as a state…they believe their land was invaded. It is not Israel to them, but Occupied Palestine (again, ‘occupied’ not being limited to a description of the West Bank or Gaza).

With that context, key portions of the HAMAS (Islamic Resistance Movement) Charter:

Introduction: …In so doing, it joined its hands with those of all Jihad fighters for the purpose of liberating Palestine. The souls of its Jihad fighters will encounter those of all Jihad fighters who have sacrificed their lives in the land of Palestine since it was conquered by the Companion of the Prophet, be Allah’s prayer and peace upon him, and until this very day…

For our struggle against the Jews is extremely wide-ranging and grave, so much so that it will need all the loyal efforts we can wield, to be followed by further steps and reinforced by successive battalions from the multifarious Arab and Islamic world, until the enemies are defeated and Allah’s victory prevails.

Article Six: …Only under the shadow of Islam could the members of all regions coexist in safety and security for their lives, properties and rights.

But of particular note are Articles 11, 12 and 13 of the defining Hamas Charter.

Article 11: The Strategy of Hamas: Palestine is an Islamic Waqf
The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine has been an Islamic Waqf throughout the generations and until the Day of Resurrection, no one can renounce it or part of it, or abandon it or part of it. No Arab country nor the aggregate of all Arab countries, and no Arab King or President nor all of them in the aggregate, have that right, nor has that right any organization or the aggregate of all organizations, be they Palestinian or Arab, because Palestine is an Islamic Waqf throughout all generations and to the Day of Resurrection… The ownership of the land by its owners is only one of usufruct, and this Waqf will endure as long as Heaven and earth last. Any demarche in violation of this law of Islam, with regard to Palestine, is baseless and reflects on its perpetrators.

Considering Hamas’ national definition of Palestine as being ‘From the River to the Sea,’ Article 12 carries significance.

Article 12: Hamas in Palestine, Its Views on Homeland and Nationalism
Hamas regards Nationalism (Wataniyya) as part and parcel of the religious faith. Nothing is loftier or deeper in Nationalism than waging Jihad against the enemy and confronting him when he sets foot on the land of the Muslims.

And then there is Article 13, which is at the epicenter of debate regarding Hamas’ recognition of Israel, called for by others and steadfastly and openly refused by the group’s leadership. Recognition of Israel would essentially shred the founding Charter. Indeed, Article 12’s significance is buttressed by what follows it.

Article 13: Peaceful Solutions, [Peace] Initiatives and International Conferences
[Peace] initiatives, the so-called peaceful solutions, and the international conferences to resolve the Palestinian problem, are all contrary to the beliefs of the Islamic Resistance Movement. For renouncing any part of Palestine means renouncing part of the religion; the nationalism of the Islamic Resistance Movement is part of its faith, the movement educates its members to adhere to its principles and to raise the banner of Allah over their homeland as they fight their Jihad… There is no solution to the Palestinian problem except by Jihad. The initiatives, proposals and International Conferences are but a waste of time, an exercise in futility. The Palestinian people are too noble to have their future, their right and their destiny submitted to a vain game.

Western observers and news consumers must understand that the Hamas founding charter sets the definition of Palestine as much more than the West Bank and Gaza. It views the state of Israel as an invasion, with the state itself on occupied territory. It rejects all negotiations, agreements and settlements that leave the state of Israel on their ‘occupied territory.’ it openly states that the only solution is through Jihad, that its principle enemy is “the Jews” and that other religions can only coexist “under the shadow of Islam.”

Mr. Solana is correct. Hamas seeks to liberate Palestine. Mr. Solana, however, fails to share the same definition of Palestine that Hamas itself recognizes (…the land of Palestine… was conquered by the Companion of the Prophet.)

If Hamas were to ever share Solana’s definition of Palestine (West Bank & Gaza), Hamas would cease being Hamas by very definition as set forth in their founding charter.

By Steve Schippert at 12:10 PM | Permalink | Feedback (3) | Referenced By (0)

The text of the Draft Sanctions Resolution on Iran makes clear exception to anything related to Iran’s Bushehr nuclear plant construction, currently under contract with Russia for completion.

14. Decides, with regard to the construction of Bushehr I Civil Nuclear Power Plant and on the condition that activities set out in subparagraphs (a) to (d) below are notified to the Committee within ten days of taking place, that;

(a.) the measures imposed by paragraph 4 and 5 above shall not apply to supplies of items, materials, equipment, goods and technology, nor to the provision of technical assistance or training, financial assistance, investment, brokering or other services, and the transfer of financial resources, related to the construction of Bushehr I, where these are being provided directly by the Russian Federation,

(b.) the measures imposed by paragraph 7 above shall not apply where such travel, directly between Iran and the Russian Federation, is necessary for the construction of Bushehr I,

(c.) the measures imposed by paragraph 9 above shall not apply to funds, other financial assets or economic resources payable to the Russian Federation by Iran, related to the construction of Bushehr I,

(d.) the measures imposed by paragraph 13 above shall not apply to assistance provided solely to Iran by the IAEA, related to the construction of Bushehr I,

(e.) all other activities related to Bushehr I which are covered by the measures in paragraphs 4, 5, 7, 9 and 13 above must be approved in advance and on a case by case basis by the Committee;

The rest of the text - as proposed but unaffirmed - spells out the restrictions sought to be placed on Iran, including but not limited to travel of those involved in Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile programs, the sale of items that can be used for the programs, and the refusal of training abroad in related fields.

Such restrictions are logical as presented. Yet, as Paragraph 14 above clearly states, the logic stops at Bushehr.

With a draft proposal [made available here] that calls for the cessation of all enrichment activities - including ceasing construction of Iran’s heavy water reactor at Arak - the wisdom of an exception in all restrictions for the Islamic Republic’s largest nuclear reactor is more than questionable. The reasons for it are clear: Consensus requires Russian approval, and Putin’s Russia has a greater interest in a partnership with the Iranian regime than countering the potential acquisition of nuclear weapons by the world’s primary state sponsor of international terrorism.

Glasnost should be officially declared dead.

It should be recalled that during the 2003 US invasion of Iraq, Russian ‘advisors’ were in Baghdad, feeding intelligence and, some say, directing Hussein’s military defense against American forces.

With the Hussein regime gone, Iran represents Russia’s primary seat of influence at the Middle Eastern power table. The Bushehr sanctions exception both recognizes and solidifies this.

(With thanks to Iran Vajahan for publishing draft text.)

By Steve Schippert at 8:54 AM | Permalink | Feedback (0) | Referenced By (0)

On Wednesday, President George W. Bush gave an extensive press briefing on Iraq, discussing both successes and failures on our own behalf, and on behalf of our Iraqi allies, as well as plans for the future. I have excerpted some of his opening remarks below, and provided a link to a full transcript of the briefing, which includes questions from journalists. The only point I’ll emphasize is that, as the president notes, the current government led by Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki is only five months old. To many it seems that the Iraqis have had a long time to get themselves together, but the process of establishing a new representative government where before there was nothing but a police state would have taken a long time even if we had done everything right. Obviously we did not, and my estimation is that we could have saved about a year by handling things differently after the fall of the Baathist regime. But regardless this would have taken years, and it is safe to say that if General Washington and the Continental Congress had been given the timetable many wish to force on Maliki’s government, the United States would not exist today.

President Bush:

Over the past three years I have often addressed the American people to explain developments in Iraq. Some of these developments were encouraging, such as the capture of Saddam Hussein, the elections in which 12 million Iraqis defied the terrorists and voted for a free future, and the demise of the brutal terrorist Zarqawi. Other developments were not encouraging, such as the bombing of the U.N. Headquarters in Baghdad, the fact that we did not find stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, and the continued loss of some of America’s finest sons and daughters.

Recently, American and Iraqi forces have launched some of the most aggressive operations on enemy forces in Baghdad since the war began. They’ve cleared neighborhoods of terrorists and death squads, and uncovered large caches of weapons, including sniper scopes and mortars and powerful bombs. There has been heavy fighting. Many enemy fighters have been killed or captured, and we’ve suffered casualties of our own. This month we’ve lost 93 American service members in Iraq, the most since October of 2005. During roughly the same period, more than 300 Iraqi security personnel have given their lives in battle. Iraqi civilians have suffered unspeakable violence at the hands of the terrorists, insurgents, illegal militias, armed groups, and criminals.

The events of the past month have been a serious concern to me, and a serious concern to the American people. Today I will explain how we’re adapting our tactics to help the Iraqi government gain control of the security situation. I’ll also explain why, despite the difficulties and bloodshed, it remains critical that America defeat the enemy in Iraq by helping the Iraqis build a free nation that can sustain itself and defend itself.

Our security at home depends on ensuring that Iraq is an ally in the war on terror and does not become a terrorist haven like Afghanistan under the Taliban. The enemy we face in Iraq has evolved over the past three years. After the fall of Saddam Hussein, a sophisticated and a violent insurgency took root. Early on this insurgency was made up of remnants of Saddam Hussein’s Baath Party, as well as criminals released by the regime. The insurgency was fueled by al Qaeda and other foreign terrorists, who focused most of their attention on high-profile attacks against coalition forces and international institutions.

We learned some key lessons from that early phase in the war. We saw how quickly al Qaeda and other extremist groups would come to Iraq to fight and try to drive us out. We overestimated the capability of the civil service in Iraq to continue to provide essential services to the Iraqi people. We did not expect the Iraqi army, including the Republican Guard, to melt away in the way that it did in the phase of advancing coalition forces.

Despite these early setbacks, some very important progress was made, in the midst of an incredibly violent period. Iraqis formed an interim government that assumed sovereignty. The Iraqi people elected a transitional government, drafted and adopted the most progressive democratic constitution in the Arab world, braved the car bombs and assassins to choose a permanent government under that constitution, and slowly began to build a capable national army.

Al Qaeda and insurgents were unable to stop this progress. They tried to stand up to our forces in places like Fallujah, and they were routed. So they changed their tactics. In an intercepted letter to Osama bin Laden, the terrorist Zarqawi laid out his strategy to drag Iraq’s Shia population into a sectarian war. To the credit of the Shia population, they resisted responding to the horrific violence against them for a long time…

Read the full transcript of the press conference.

By Kirk H. Sowell at 7:12 AM | Permalink | Feedback (0) | Referenced By (0)

The plaintiffs, who claimed to have the backing of 20 more Islamic organizations in the Scandinavian country, had sought $16,860 in damages from Jyllands-Posten Editor in Chief Carsten Juste and Culture Editor Flemming Rose, who supervised the cartoon project.

The lawsuit said the cartoons depict Mohammed “as belligerent, oppressing women, criminal, crazy and unintelligent, and a connection is made between the Prophet and war and terror.”

It said the drawings were published “solely to provoke and mock not only the Prophet Mohammed but also the Muslim population.”

The City Court of Aarhus indicated that while the drawings “have offended some Muslims’ honor, there is no basis to assume that the drawings are, or were conceived as, insulting.” The article indicates that there are statuatory laws against both racism and blasphemy in Denmark, meaning that they are punishable by law. However, in a very narrow reading of the law, the Court decided that neither rule was violated by the cartoons.

There is no question that religious beliefs and traditions, whether Muslim, Christian, Jewish, Hindu or others, should be respected. Additionally, this decision should not be seen as a ticket to speak ill of Islam. In order to foster mutual understanding between the religions, differences must be acknowledged and valued. However, individual freedoms including the right to free speech must also be respected. It is up to the legislatures, not the courts, to balance the line between respect for religious beliefs and free speech. The role of the courts is not to punish someone for hurting another’s feelings. Courts are in place to dictate what the law says and punish those who are in violation of the law. In this case, the courts appear to have done their job.

By Kyle Dabruzzi at 10:42 PM | Permalink | Feedback (0) | Referenced By (0)

• Ayatollah Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, former Iranian President, currently chairs Iran’s State Expediency Council and is deputy chair of the Assembly of Experts
• Hojatoleslam Ali Fallahian, former Iranian Minister of Intelligence and Security
• Ali Akbar Velayati, former Iranian Foreign Minister, currently the chief foreign policy advisor to Iran’€™s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei
• Major General Mohsen Rezai, former Supreme Commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC), is currently the secretary of the State Expediency Council
• Major General Ahmad Vahidi, former Commander of the IRGC Qods Force, is currently Deputy Defence Minister
• Mohsen Rabbani, former cultural attaché at the Iranian embassy in Buenos Aires
• Ahmad Reza Asgari, alias Mohsen Ranjbaran, former official at the Iranian embassy in Buenos Aires
• Imad Fayez Mugniyeh, commander of the Shiite Lebanese group Hizballah’s overseas operation, currently believed to be hiding in Iran

By Steve Schippert at 12:29 PM | Permalink | Feedback (0) | Referenced By (1)

As we reported on Monday, the Palestinian Authority is on the verge of meltdown as Fatah and Hamas escalate verbal and physical attacks on each other. Yet Israel’s government is not much more stable, due to a combination of the Lebanon war, coalition politics and corruption allegations. Israel’s democratic culture means that any “meltdown” would be political rather than physical, yet the instability has all but paralyzed decision-making, leading to ad hoc decisions on vital security matters where long-term vision is needed.

Both Prime Minister Ehud Olmert of the ruling Kadima Party and Defense Minister Amir Peretz of Labor have seen their public support plummet, yet the recent political crisis came about when Olmert decided to bring Avigdor Lieberman’s Israel Beiteinu into the coalition. Mainly a Russian party, IB favors removing Arab Israelis from Israel through territorial exchange. The Labor Party appeared likely to leave the government, bringing new elections, but a bitterly contested decision to stay has been approved. Nevertheless, individual Labor members might force Peretz’ hand by resigning, or vote him out in a few months and replace him with a leader who would leave the government.

Olmert now seeks to add United Torah Judaism to the coalition. If he succeeds, this will give Olmert 84 seats (61 needed for majority), enough to survive a pullout by Labor, which he probably considers inevitable. If Labor were to then leave, this would mean a much more right-wing government than before, with Kadima joined by two religious parties (Shas and UTJ), a secular nationalist party (IB), and the small Pensioners’ Party. That combination might allow Olmert to survive.

Survive politically, that is, but an even greater threat is now on the horizon - Israel’s State Prosecutor’s Office is recommending that Olmert may have acted criminally in allegedly providing assistance to two businessmen from whom he was benefiting while serving as acting finance minister last year. The attorney general is considering the recommendation, and if he decides to move forward, there will be a formal state investigation and a decision as to whether Olmert should be indicted. If he is indicted, he will have to resign as prime minister, and new elections will likely (but not necessarily) follow.

Adding to the complexity of the situation, Lieberman himself is the subject of an ongoing seven-year criminal investigation, and now that his party is entering the government, pressure is increasing to bring it to a conclusion one way or the other. It appears that the only affect that the investigation had on the coalition talks was that the attorney general told Olmert that Lieberman should not be given any position related to law enforcement.

While Hamas’ government struggles to pay the salaries of civil servants, its terror infrastructure continues to grow, with IDF Chief of Staff Dan Halutz now saying that they had built at least 100 tunnels from Egypt into the Gaza Strip and were smuggling weapons at a quick pace. The threat from Gaza, as well as from Iran, will not wait for Israel’s internal divisions to solidify.

By Kirk H. Sowell at 11:48 PM | Permalink | Feedback (0) | Referenced By (0)

MSNBC has released the third video segment honoring those who have fought in Iraq and Afghanistan.

This segment is on Staff Sergeant William Thomas Payne, who was awarded the Silver Star for his actions.

Staff Sergeant William Thomas Payne

To view this video, or the first two, visit our Faces of Courage section - or click the image of Staff Sergeant Payne 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 3:31 PM | Permalink | Feedback (0) | Referenced By (0)

Last Friday, ThreatsWatch published a report on Iran’s Qods Day threats, delivered without ambiguity to Europe. [See Friday’s: Ahmadinejad Delivers Jihad Ultimatum To Europe] Since writing it, I have been struck by the near absolute silence on the subject.

Ahmadinejad said to Europe quite directly,

“You imposed a group of terrorists [Israel]… on the region. It is in your own interest to distance yourself from these criminals… This is an ultimatum. Don’t complain tomorrow.”

Please forgive as I re-state from Friday: With the above statement, there is no mistaking Ahmadinejad’s words as a state’s threat of war to be principally waged through the terrorism of jihad. Iran is the world’s foremost state sponsor of terrorism, and no words from any of its leaders have ever made it more abundantly clear.

Again, Ahmadinejad’s ultimatum should be taken with the grave sincerity and literal terms in which it was delivered.

Thankfully, at the New York Sun, Steven Stalinsky has taken note and written a very detailed article on the al-Qods Day events titled Western Press Ignores Iran’s Hate-Filled Quds Day. al-Qods Day is a national hliday in Iran that celebrates the coming ‘liberation of al-Qods (Jerusalem)’ through the destruction of the Zionist (Israeli) regime. Stalinsky notes:

The words “the Zionist regime is a cancerous gland that needs to be uprooted” were written in a communiqué from the Iranian Foreign Ministry in honor of the holiday. Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki held a meeting for other Islamic countries’ ambassadors to Iran and told them that Israel’s existence would be shattered and that death bells were tolling for the Zionists. At the meeting, the Palestinian Arab ambassador to Tehran, Salah Zawawi, said, “The day for the liberation of Quds Day is close at hand.”

Ed Morrissey has also taken note at Captain’s Quarters and also cites Mr. Stalinsky’s New York Sun article..

Do you recall the massive coverage provided to this event, in which present and former heads of state held a national celebration calling for our destruction? Have CQ readers seen any journalists covering the massive rallies, complete with burning effigies of George Bush and Tony Blair and burning flags of the US and Israel? Did any TV network note that the winner of Iran’s Quds Day engineering competition, Isfahan University, produced a design for a pilotless plane to replace suicide bombers in the glorious jihad?

I certainly don’t recall hearing anything about this, and I’m a person inclined to follow several media outlets on a daily basis. Western media didn’t have any interest in providing this information to its consumers, and one has to wonder why. In the middle of midterm elections, does the media want to keep us from considering this particular threat, and if so, why?

My apologies to Ed. Perhaps I should have sent the Good Captain a note on Friday.

One thing is for certain: We cannot ignore the Iranian threats and pretend that they did not happen or that they do not mean them. That does not serve national security, and recognizing the threat(s) in “the grave sincerity and literal terms in which it was delivered” is not alarmist hyperventilating. Ignoring the threat will not make it go away.

Neither Ed Morrissey, Steven Stalinsky nor Steve Schippert are the ones making the overt threats.

One wonders what part of “This is an ultimatum, Don’t complain tomorrow” from the world’s foremost state sponsor of international terrorism is difficult to understand.

By Steve Schippert at 12:07 PM | Permalink | Feedback (0) | Referenced By (0)

A reader raised the issue of a possible coup in Iraq to replace the current government led by Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki in feedback to Iraq’s New Political Alignment. Because this issue has become something of a hot topic, and because it does not directly relate to that analysis, I have chosen to respond here.

To the extent that political shows and TV commentators are seriously discussing a coup - by others or the U.S. - to replace the current Iraqi government, I would lower my estimate of the value of listening to these shows. I first read talk of a coup in the Arab media - usually alleged by SCIRI against the Baathists - back in July. Since SCIRI is hardcore on debaathification, I took this talk for the posturing that it was. In order to believe that there will be a coup, one must imagine some group or coalition with the power to make it happen. While many Sunnis have the desire, they are both weak and internally divided. Moreover, the intense hostility which the major Shi’a factions have for the Sunnis cannot be underestimated. They would partition Iraq before agreeing to give up a government in which they are the dominant force.

This article in the Washington Post (“Beyond the Coup Rumors, Options for Iraq”) provides some background on the coup rumors. I don’t think any of the ideas discussed therein should be taken seriously, but this is what is in the air. Sunni governments in the region certainly would favor a Sunni-led “national salvation government,” but both the Shi’a and the Kurds would sooner partition the country than accept that. It should be noted that the party of Salih al-Mutlak, who was pushing the idea, has a mere 4 percent of the seats in Iraq’s parliament. The country is already under martial law and so that is not new, and the idea of a five-man ruling junta representing the factions and led by Ayad Allawi would appeal to no one but the Sunnis. The article says Iraqi intelligence officials have discussed this idea, but Iraq’s intelligence has been funded and controlled since 2004 by the U.S., and as no announcement of transfer of authority has been made, it is not an independent power center.

Yet anything that is this much talked about has to be considered seriously, and so after thinking about the issue, I think the best way to analyze it is to ask what are the armed factions in the country which might pull off a coup, and what are the possibilities. Aside from the U.S. and coalition forces, these are the potential actors in any possible coup:

1) Defense: The Iraqi Security Force (ISF) is run out of the Ministry of Defense. Abd al-Qadir al-‘Abaydi, a Sunni, is the Defense Minister, but the ISF is dominated by Shi’a. The main policy difference between Abaydi and Maliki has been that Abaydi has been more forceful in going after the Shi’a militias, which is understandable. But with a Shi’a-dominated army, even if there were some basis for doubting the defense minister’s loyalty to the government, it is hard to see how it would happen.

2) Interior: The Ministry of the Interior is headed by Jawad al-Bolani, an independent Shi’a. Bolani has taken criticism from fellow Shi’a for bringing more Sunnis into the interior ministry, and he recently reached an agreement with Sunni tribes in the Anbar to help equip them as long as they are fighting al-Qaeda. Bolani has a separate national police force under his authority, but it is funded by the U.S. Recently Bolani had to suspend part of the national police because of corruption and militia infiltration. In other words, Bolani has no independent source of power; he maintains his position by courting Sunnis, and depends on the U.S. for funding.

3) Shi’a Militias: The idea that the Shi’a militias might carry out a coup is completely implausible. SCIRI’s Badr Corps and Muqtada al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army are the strongest, but neither is likely strong enough to take on the ISF, much less the U.S. military, and since the Iraqi Defense Ministry is headed by a Sunni, the ISF would resist. In fact, the ISF (along with coalition forces) has been fighting the Mahdi Army sporadically, and it has been getting the better of those fights. Moreover, SCIRI and the Sadriya are fierce opponents, and their militias have fought each other and would fight again rather than join forces with the Sunnis.

4) Iraqi Sunni Insurgents: Sunni Iraqis are not only weak, they are divided into three factions; those who have laid down their arms and joined the political process, those who continue to fight against U.S. and Iraqi forces, but which do not support al-Qaeda, and those who have joined themselves to the foreign jihadists. They do not have the ability to take over the government.

5) Al-Qaeda in Iraq and other Sunni jihadists: No possibility at all here. They are strongest in the Anbar Province, where they have succeeded in preventing the government from establishing itself, but they have also turned most of the tribes against them, and so mere survival is the issue for them. They hope to outlast the government, and if their suicide bombers are not stopped, they might. But they will not be taking over Baghdad.

6) Kurdish militias (the Pershmerga): The Kurds have real power only in their region, and they do have the ability to break away if they wish, although their land-locked Kurdistan would be completely dependent upon Arab Iraqis to export oil or engage in any other kind of commerce. A Kurdish role in a coup, which would deprive them of what influence they now have in Baghdad (they hold the presidency and the foreign ministry), is difficult to imagine.

Discontent with the current Iraqi government is indeed strong, but the only realistic alternative in case of its failure would be the partition of Iraq. I do not believe that the U.S. should threaten to withdraw troops in case of a coup attempt, as that would encourage it in some quarters, but the idea itself is implausible. While I have argued against those who say that the partition of Iraq is inevitable, I do think that partition is a possibility, much more so than a coup. Given that the current government has only been in power for five months, I consider discussion of its collapse to be premature. If America’s founders had faced this much impatience, the United States would have been stillborn.

By Kirk H. Sowell at 9:36 PM | Permalink | Feedback (0) | Referenced By (1)

If the hurried news consumer is reduced to scanning headlines, the answer is Israel. However, reality is that the Palestinians themselves may have killed their own in a hasty response to an Israeli operation aimed at a local leader of the Popular Resistance Committees. Another report suggests that the firing between the two factions occurred before the Israelis even happened upon the scene. Yet most headlines on the story convey a conslusiveness that, at least at the time of reportage, was non-existent.

In this age of information warfare, it is ever more important that editors mind the content and headlines of wire stories. This need was put plainly on display during the recent Reuters photography controversy where a Lebanese photographer sympathetic to Hizballah supplied doctored photos intended to exaggerate Israeli attacks which were run by the news organization – and consequently used widely by others as well.

Today, widely run Associated Press and Reuters news wire service headlines and subsequent stories regarding seven Palestinian deaths reflect similar dangers to inattentive editors and leads to potentially misinforming their vast readerships.

In reading the various published reports available, it appears that Israel launched an attack aimed at killing the local northern Gaza commander of the Popular Resistance Committees who commanded the group that has been primarily responsible for the many Qassam rocket launches into nearby Israeli towns. When the shots began to ring out, the Palestinian group under fire seems to have made the mistake of thinking that the gunfire had come from a nearby house occupied by a rival Palestinian faction. They immediately began to fire upon the house. When the dust settled, seven apparently lay dead, including the PRC commander, Atar Shinbari.

But who killed whom is far from clear. Yet, the headlines widely read that Israel killed seven Palestinians, an account that solely relies upon a single Palestinian source.

The Reuters headline reads “Israel kills 7 in Gaza battle-Palestinian officials”. ABC News picks up the Reuters report, complete with the supplied headline, unmodified.

The Associated Press forgoes the ‘Palestinian Sources’ tagline altogether and runs a headline reading simply ”Israeli Troops Kill 7 Palestinians”. The Boston Globe picks up the story and runs the same misleading headline provided by the AP.

Yet how can these news organizations be so certain that Israel killed the seven Palestinians? Even with the ‘Palestinian Sources’ tagline (_Reuters_), the headline is misleading, especially when so many news consumers scan headlines in their busy days, reading few articles compared to headlines and reading even fewer still in full.

The UK’s Monsters & Critics seems to display the patience necessary to choose an alternative headline, though it may be perhaps the same headline supplied by Deutsche Presse-Agentur, who the British news service uses for wire reports rather than AP or Reuters. Yet even still, the Monsters & Critics headline draws a conclusion that is unclear (Six killed, 10 wounded in Gaza gunfight sparked by family feud), though they should be applauded for not attempting to convey to readers who killed whom.

At any rate, somewhere along the line of reportage, someone in the DPS/Monsters & Critics chain refrained from the simple, easy and unfair headline reading “Israelis Kill Seven Palestinians”.

It is today’s lesson in basic news consumption and one of the principal reasons ThreatsWatch continues to attempt to provide multiple-source, multiple-report context in our regular InBrief content.

By Steve Schippert at 12:14 PM | Permalink | Feedback (0) | Referenced By (0)

The primary rubbing point between the United States and Turkey right now is not related to radical Islam. Quite the opposite - it is related to the Marxist Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), a Kurdish terrorist group which has taken refuge in Iraqi Kurdistan. Yet as Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and his ruling Justice and Development Party (known by its Turkish initials, the AKP) continue to dominate Turkey’s political scene, there are rising concerns on both sides of the Atlantic about the rise of Islamism in Turkey.

The two sides of this debate were on feature in two recent op-eds in the Wall Street Journal. The first, Mr. Erdogan’s Turkey, Michael Rubin, a Middle East scholar, argued that the AKP posed a threat to Turkish democracy, and was slyly and slowly but steadily eroding the country’s independent institutions. Rubin argues:

…Over the party’s four-year tenure, Mr. Erdogan has spoken of democracy, tolerance and liberalism, but waged a slow and steady assault on the system. He endorsed, for example, the dream of Turkey’s secular elite to enter the European Union, but only to embrace reforms diluting the checks and balances of military constitutional enforcement…

The assault on the secular education system has been subtle but effective. Traditionally, students had three choices: enroll at religious academies (so-called Imam Hatips) and enter the clergy; learn a trade at vocational schools; or matriculate at secular high schools, attend university and pursue a career. Mr. Erdogan changed the system: By equating Imam Hatip degrees with high-school degrees, he enabled Islamist students to enter university and qualify for government jobs without ever mastering Western fundamentals. He also sought to bypass checks and balances. After the Higher Education Board composed of university rectors rejected his demands to make universities more welcoming of political Islam, the AKP-dominated parliament proposed to establish 15 new universities. While Mr. Erdogan told diplomats his goal was to promote education, Turkish academics say the move would enable him to handpick rectors and swamp the board with political henchmen…

Such tactics have become commonplace. At Mr. Erdogan’s insistence and over the objections of many secularists, the AKP passed legislation to lower the mandatory retirement age of technocrats. This could mean replacement of nearly 4,000 out of 9,000 judges. Turks are suspicious that the AKP seeks to curtail judicial independence. In May 2005, AKP Parliamentary Speaker Bülent Arinç warned that the AKP might abolish the constitutional court if its judges continued to hamper its legislation. Mr. Erdogan’s refusal to implement Supreme Court decisions levied against his government underline his contempt for rule of law. Last May, in the heat of the AKP’s anti-judiciary rhetoric, an Islamist lawyer protesting the head scarf ban shouted “Allahu Akbar,” opened fire in the Supreme Court and murdered a judge. Thousands attended his funeral, chanting pro-secular slogans. Mr. Erdogan was absent from the ceremony.

There have been other subtle changes. Mr. Erdogan has replaced nearly every member of the banking regulatory board with officials from the Islamic banking sector. Accusations of Saudi capital subsidizing AKP are rampant…

Rubin also takes aim at U.S. diplomacy, noting that U.S. Ambassador Ross Wilson has publicly taken the side of the AKP against its secular political opponents, describing domestic criticism of Erdogan’s Islamist policies as “political cacophony.”

Matthew Kaminski, a member of the Journal’s editorial board, took the opposite point of view (although without criticizing Rubin by name). Writing in Turkish Tiger: Freedom Thrives Even Under an ‘Islamist’ Government, Kaminski argues:

…The recent troubling news here, from Kurdish terrorism to the rise of political Islam and anti-Americanism to tensions with Europe, can’t take away from Turkey’s economic renaissance. New and old industries powered a 7% expansion in 2005, the fourth consecutive year that growth approached double digits; this year, it’ll be around 5%. Inflation, an old Turkish non-delight, is under control. Inside the European Union’s free-trade area since 1996, Turkey has done especially well with export-driven manufacturing. More than half of Europe’s television sets are made here. Investors are taking notice; Citigroup last week bought 20% of the third-largest bank for $3.1 billion. Though the economic gap with Europe remains wide, Turks are spending their way to bourgeois respectability, buying, in the past year, $3.5 billion in imported cars. Consumer loans are up 120% in that time, housing 300%…

The good times have made for a richer civil society. Since the last military-led regime in 1980-83, notes author Hugh Pope, 27 private universities have been founded, mostly courtesy of tycoons like the Koç and Sabanci families. Sabanci University’s art gallery last year put on a popular Picasso exhibit, a first in Istanbul; Rodin followed this summer. Associations and lobby groups are mushrooming; they are giving voice to competing interests and providing counterweights to the Islamists in charge, even as opposition parties remain weak. Turkish democracy has never been stronger…

While Turkey continues “talks” with European governments about entering the European Union, that prospect is all but dead. The major governments remain in support, but across Europe the publics are opposed, and their governments are starting to bend. Recently the French parliament passed the first reading of a bill that would make it a crime punishable by prison to deny that the Turks committed genocide against the Armenians in the First World War. As this is in fact denied by virtually all Turks, not simply the nationalists, many very mainstream Turkish public figures would be inviting prosecution by travel to France if the bill becomes law. While such a law would serve no practical purpose for France, it would ensure that Turks know they are not welcome.

No, the real issue is whether or not Turkey will maintain its democratic institutions, or else make a U-turn toward history. There is no need to assume a choice between extremes; there is a middle ground in which Turkey could stay outside the EU, but maintain strong economic, military and diplomatic ties with the West, and be a force for peace and a non-threatening current of Islam. Yet that middle ground cannot be assumed, either.

By Kirk H. Sowell at 9:00 PM | Permalink | Feedback (0) | Referenced By (0)

A GAO (Government Accounting Ofice) report released last week found that the Department of Homeland Security’s Cost-Benefit Analysis used to determine contract awards was not based on the performance data of the tests, and did not consider all of the costs and benefits of the systems.

Since September 11th, the U.S. government has spent $350 million to install more than 840 radiation detection devices at borders, seaports, and international mail centers.

The government contracted with foreign operators such as Hong Kong-based Hutchison Whampoa to operate radiation detection machinery in foreign ports (notably Freetown in the Bahamas). Most of that detection machinery relied on crude detection technology used in scrap-metal recycling. Although this equipment was sufficient for industrial use (without the ability to identify the exact isotopic source of the radiation), for security purposes the equipment was subject to numerous false positives with modestly radioactive but harmless substances such as cat litter, ceramic tile, and bananas setting off alarms. To avoid the resulting delays caused by these false alarms, port officials recalibrated the detection sensitivity of the devices. While reducing the false alarm rate, this made the detection devices less capable of detecting threatening sources of nuclear radiation.

The new technology, which DHS calls Advance Spectroscopic Portal monitor, simultaneously detects the presence and type of radiation. The department has already awarded contracts totaling $1.16 billion to Meriden, Connecticut-based Canberra Industries; Waltham, Massachusetts-based Raytheon; and Waltham, Massachusetts-based Thermo Electron, to develop the new technology. DHS officials say that the accuracy of the new technology will reduce the number of secondary inspections to about 15,000 a year. There is one drawback to the new technology: Cost. The new machines will cost about $500,000 each, which is the price of seven of the old detection machines. Still, current DHS plans call for purchasing 1,400 of the new machines by 2011.

About a month ago, the Department of Homeland Security had awarded contracts under two related programs.

Advance Spectroscopic Portal - In July DHS awarded $1.16 billion worth of ASP contracts to three vendors — Raytheon, Thermo Electron, and Canberra — for one base year plus four annual options. The goal for the first year is to develop a fixed radiation detection portal which will become the “standard installation for screening cargo containers and truck traffic.” Here is the news release from DHS announcing the award.

Cargo Advanced Automated Radiography System - The Department of Homeland Security awarded contracts totaling $1.35 billion to L-3 Communications Holdings Inc., American Science & Engineering Inc. and employee-owned SAIC to screen for radioactive material in hidden cargo. The DHS program is called the Cargo Advanced Automated Radiography System, or CAARS, and it is designed to deliver “an advanced imaging system that will automatically detect high density shielding that could be used to hide special nuclear material such as highly enriched uranium or weapons grade plutonium.”

This all seems pretty straightforward. DHS requests proposals for a system or systems that meet critical national requirements. But last week, the GAO (Government Accounting Office) published a report titled: DHS’s Cost-Benefit Analysis to Support the Purchase of New Radiation Detection Portal Monitors Was Not Based on Available Performance Data and Did Not Fully Evaluate All the Monitors’ Costs and Benefits.

The lives and safety of Americans are at stake here. And yet, according to the GAO report, the DHS and its newly formed Domestic Nuclear Detection Office (DNDO) failed to follow its own testing report and protocols. THe GAO report revealed that:

1) tests of ASPs showed that they did not meet DNDO’s main performance assumption in the cost-benefit analysis of correctly identifying unmasked highly enriched uranium (HEU) 95% of the time it passes through portal monitors (actual performance was in the 70-88% range);

2) identifying masked HEU, considered much more difficult, was detected by the three winning companies 53%, 45% and 17% of the time respectively (the GAO report did not match the detection percentages with the names of the three companies);

3) the DNDO, while acknowledging that none of the ASPs met the standards in the independent testing, assumed that the units would eventually reach that level of performance sometime in the future;

4) the DNDO’s cost-benefit analysis only considered the ability of the ASPs to detect masked and unmasked HEU, and not any other type or form of radiological material (apparently, this capability is dependent on whether the ASP has the software to perform the detection of these other materials);

5) the DNDO apparently did not follow DHS guidelines for performing the cost-benefit analysis, omitting such variables as the difference in cost between land based cargo portal monitors and seaport units, despite acknowledging that there are as many as 12 different ASPs;

6) life-cycle costs for operations and maintenance for the equipment over time was underestimated;

7) the DNDO did not assess the likelihood that radiation detection equipment would either misidentify or fail to detect nuclear and radiological materials. Rather, DNDO’s cost-benefit analysis focuses on the ability of ASPs to reduce false alarms. This leads to the possibility (discussed in the GAO report) that the ASP could misidentify HEU and allow it to pass through a portal.

The entire report includes a brief Powerpoint presentation, as well as DHS/DNDO explanations for the variances from the cost-benefit analysis guidelines. However, considering the importance of port security,