Despite the denials by Secretary Chertoff that the SBINet (Project 28) will be mothballed, the $20 million project to deploy a virtual technology fence along the Arizona-Mexican border is being delayed for up to three years.
Though the department took over that initial stretch Friday from Boeing, authorities confirmed that Project 28, the initial deployment of the Secure Border Initiative network, did not work as planned or meet the needs of the U.S. Border Patrol. According to investigators of the GAO, software problems and other “unplanned difficulties” have plagued the implementation of the SBINet.
“It’s not really what they had envisioned,” Richard Stana, director of homeland security and justice at the Government Accountability Office, said at today’s joint hearing on SBInet by two subcommittees of House Homeland Security Committee.
Testing is not complete, but Project 28’s ability to detect intrusions is expected to be lower than the rate of 95 percent, plus or minus 5 percent, that DHS wants. On the other hand, it is argued that the system is a prototype. DHS press secretary Laura Keehner indicated that the system demonstration had been successful in the field test, and that it had enabled the identification of over 2000 illegal aliens since December 2007. Further, DHS indicates that the feasibility of the technical approach, critical technologies and system integration had been proven.
Still, this is a long-term, multi-billion dollar program (the 2006 estimate was $7.6 billion through project completion in 2011 to secure the entire 2000 mile border). Boeing was given an additional $65 million in December to upgrade the software. As you read some of the information, those familiar with contracting will note comments like “portions of Project 28 will be replicated” combined with “unworkable demonstration system.” Regardless, this sounds like a political football at a time when our border security is at stake.
Earlier this week, we passed the 15th anniversary of the first attack on the World Trade Center occurred when Ramsi Yusef and his cohorts attempted to take Tower I (North) down with a truck bomb loaded with a fertilizer based bomb. Now, as the plans for the new World Trade Center are being finalized, questions about the safety of its designs have been raised.
Among the concerns are that the buildings contain too much glass, that they sit too close to the street where untold numbers of trucks would pass each day, and a further concern about whether or not the buildings should meet higher blast standards.
Port Authority spokesman Stephen Sigmund said the agency is “very confident that the entire rebuilt WTC site — every building and every square inch — will operate with an unprecedented level of safety and security.” Michael Balboni, Governor Elliot Spitzer’s deputy secretary for public safety, emphasized, “At the end of the day, this will be one of the most secure footprints on the globe.”
The questions are pretty straightforward.
· A row of three mostly glass towers positioned too closely to city streets, increasing their vulnerability to attack
· Difficulties in inspecting some 2,000 delivery trucks and sightseeing buses that will enter or leave the site daily
· A vehicle security center which has not been fully designed and relies on vehicle inspection technology that has not even been developed yet
The question of whether the new buildings should meet Defense Department or Department of Homeland Security blast standards usually reserved for U.S. embassies or missions abroad is an interesting one.
The Vehicle Screening Center (VSC) is another unresolved issue. The design and engineering specifications for the nearly $500 million underground security center are not completed, even though the Port Authority claims that it will be completed when the other buildings are completed in 2012.
Frankly, it would seem that all, possible, security precautions be taken for a piece of real estate that has been targeted twice before.
Israel Kills Hamas Terrorists Recently Trained in Iran, Syria
Reading is fundamental. It’s more than a public service message or a familiar and excellent nonprofit children’s literacy organization. It is a lesson we adults often must relearn over and over again. One of our bad habits is in reading news. Far too often we fail to progress beyond the third paragraph.
If you had failed once again when reading today’s New York Times article on the Hamas rocket attacks and the Israeli response, you would have missed paragraphs 11 and 12. And these paragraphs are fundamental to understanding what Israel and the West are facing.
Palestinians said two of the militants killed in the first Israeli strike were Abdullah Edwan, a rocket engineer, and Muhammad Abu Aker, a rocket squad commander. Residents said the men were going to a training camp in southern Gaza. Two were masked, they said, and returned from Iran three weeks ago.
Relatives of Mr. Edwan, who was said to have been the main strike target, said he was trained in Syria and Iran. Two other militants were wounded, medical officials said.
It’s not the IDF making such claims, it is Palestinian family members.
When you hear someone minimize Iran’s involvement in terrorism across the globe and across the Sunni-Shi’a divide, refer them to this article and these paragraphs from the New York Times today. Hamas is the Palestinian offshoot of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, about as Sunni an organization as there is. And Iran is, naturally, the protagonist of the (Shi’a) Islamic Revolution there since 1979.
Food for thought.
Here is an example of ill-advised dismissal of Shi’a-Sunni cooperation in terrorism:
Skilled terrorists armed with rockets, missiles and tons of explosives are not born in a vacuum. And the Hamas (Sunni) terrorists in Gaza have a long, profitable track record of Iranian (Shi’a) sponsorship.
When the world cries out about Israel’s defensive ‘siege’ or blockade of the territory as ‘collective punishment,’ there are no strings of responsibility run back to the Iranian regime. None.
There is an interesting symposium today on the topic of Cyber Jihad, published at FrontPage Magazine. Interesting discussion that you might want to check out.
Opening comment by Dr. Lawrence Prabhakar:
Cyber Jihad represents the new defining paradigm of asymmetric conflict that is being launched by the wannabe jihadists in attacking a superior adversary with enduring tactics and weapons of the electronic cyberspace.
The contest pits the defending West against the host of coordinated attacks by a radical ideology that is determined of its objectives in terms of inflicting predatory physical violence; massive economic destruction and triggering a social and civic collapse that would destroy the very fabric of the liberal-democratic edifice.
The war in cyberspace is a virulent attempt to:
i) intimidate the public;
ii) impose the pervasive influence of a dogma that seeks radical transformation of the rest of the world to its whims or face the impunity of being destroyed;
iii) win the contest of the public space that delegitimizes all governments, civic institutions, democratic values;
iv) glorify violence and denigrate all pacific initiatives to development and growth;
v) promote religious obscurantism as the means of an emergent order.
Cyber jihad enjoys all the technological advantages of its adversary—the West, though it is asymmetrically weak in resources, yet its high human motivational force provides it the prospect to overwhelm the West that is now being surmounted not only by the predatory, asymmetric and attritional power of the cyber jihadis, but it also confronts the assertive and revisionist challenges of Russia, China Iran and North Korea who are evermore determined to attrite and assail the power of the West, the values of liberal-democracy and impose an authoritarian world order.
While the US and Israel try to work with Mahmoud Abbas and his Palestinian Authority in the West Bank, when others in Israel are hesitant to trust him because of his past, they should not be simply dismissed as alarmists. Meet Mahmoud Abbas.
“At this present juncture, I am opposed to the armed struggle because we can’t succeed in it, but maybe in the future things will be different,” he said.
The PA president also expressed pride both in himself and his organization, Fatah, for trailblazing the path of resistance.
“I had the honor of firing the first shot in 1965 and of being the one who taught resistance to many in the region and around the world; what it’s like; when it is effective and when it isn’t effective; its uses, and what serious, authentic and influential resistance is,” Abbas said.
“It is common knowledge when and how resistance is detrimental and when it is well timed,” he addad. “We (Fatah) had the honor of leading the resistance and we taught resistance to everyone, including Hizbullah, who trained in our military camps.”
He did not say he is opposed to fighting Israel because he seeks peace and coexistence. Rather, “because we can’t succeed in it.”
I think in this space I have voiced support for trying to work with Abbas. But what I will not do is deride those who fear this because they do not trust him. They have good reason, as you can see.
It is a popular parlour game in Washington’s corridors of power and European chancelleries to deride Mohamed ElBaradei as a quixotic bureaucrat determined to subvert the western strategy of restraining Iran’s nuclear programme. The latest International Atomic Energy Agency report suggesting progress has been made by Iran is quietly disparaged by the Bush administration as another clean pass for the rash theocracy. The point that Mr ElBaradei’s critics miss is that he is judiciously achieving the goals that they seemingly desire - the disarmament of the Islamic Republic.
The IAEA process, particularly the adoption last year of a “work plan” to investigate suspect activities, has been criticised by many Americans. The latest report shows, however, that process is working. The investigation and inspections - even the limited ones the IAEA is currently able to conduct - have, in effect, shut down direct weapons work and resolved many of the outstanding historical questions.
Oh really? One would think, after making such a bold statement, that Takeyh and Cirincione would have no trouble then spelling out specifically what “direct weapons work” ElBaradei and the IAEA have “shut down” in Iran. But they do not and leave the assertion hanging mid-air. They also dismiss as seemingly trivial the IAEA report’s questions regarding “administrative interconnections” among Iran’s enrichment, warhead and missile design programs.
What they go on to explain is how ElBaradei accepted Iran’s explanations about such things as the HEU contamination on its centrifuges - an explanation that is certainly correct - while also accepting other explanations that are not so clearly obvious. But equally telling in ElBaradei’s acceptance of the Iranian explanations is the statement used after each one: that the IAEA still seeks to verify the veracity of the Iranian explanations. The IAEA report states on each question the IAEA accepted as follows:
The Agency considers this question no longer outstanding at this stage. However, the Agency continues, in accordance with its procedures and practices, to seek corroboration of its findings and to verify this issue as part of its verification of the completeness of Iran’s declarations.
This is not an insignificant caveat. And it is far from a ‘final answer,’ though Iran says that it has given theirs. It sounds a lot more like ‘trust but verify.’
At any rate, Takeyh and Cirincione continue.
Mr ElBaradei has disproved the notion that Iran’s nuclear strategy is immutable. Despite its apparent solidarity, there are divisions within the theocratic regime on the urgency of the nuclear programme. It is true that President Mahmoud Ahmadi-nejad and his militant allies’ calculations are susceptible to neither offers of incentives nor threats of force. However, for the more tempered members of the ruling elite, the nuclear issue is considered within the context of international relations. Indeed, the fact that Iran has suspended the weapon design component of its programme since 2003 and is largely complying with the IAEA “work plan” reflects the propensity of the state to adhere to certain limits.
While there are indeed divisions within segments of the regime, let’s not get carried away and credit Mohamed ElBaradei or the IAEA for exploiting them. ElBaradei knows what the Iranians want him to know. Just for kicks, let’s bear in mind that the IAEA has no enforcement mechanism and that, as a result, Iran continues its enrichment activities unhindered - a.) In defiance of UN Security Council resolutions, b.) Undeterred by resultant sanctions, and c.) Unimpeded by the ‘watchful eye’ of Mohamed ElBaradei and the IAEA.
Let’s go back to the IAEA’s own report here. Iran - again under UN Security Council demand to halt enrichment activities - is implementing an advanced P-2 centrifuge design cascade that will ultimately speed its enrichment cycle as much as four-fold from the old P-1 design.
At the end of January 2008, the single P-1 machine and the 10- and 20-machine P-1 cascades were dismantled and the space was used for the new IR-2 machines. All activities took place under Agency containment and surveillance. [Emphasis added.]
Let’s recap:
• The UNSC has sanctioned Iran and ordered it to halt its enrichment activities.
• Iran ignores and dismisses the UNSC demand and continues its enrichment program.
• Significant Iranian enrichment advances and milestones take place as the IAEA simply watches on.
Oh, and let’s not forget…
• Two respected individuals, Ray Takeyh and Joseph Cirincione, proclaim “It is the much maligned Mr ElBaradei that has paved the way for success.”
For whom? How does that make any sense?
Count me out of that cocktail party, because I beg to differ.
New and Improved: Euro Carrots for Mullahs to Mull
Consistent with previous fallout after December’s NIE on Iran, the Europeans are planning a new round of incentives for Iran, apparently in tandem with a supposed new round of UNSC sanctions on Iran hoped for within the next week. That the most significant “outstanding questions” remain unresolved by the latest IAEA report is of no matter. After all, Iran said the evidence indicating “administrative interconnections” among Iran’s enrichment, warhead and missile development programs are all “lies” and “fabrications.”
Nothing to see here. Move along.
Note to Javier Solana: The sanctions are laughed at by Iran. There is no stick. And the previous US/EU attempt at offering incentives - which included construction of Western nuclear power plants - failed because Iran’s own carrot is bigger. Why would they compromise?
The Iranian program steams ahead while we in the West amuse ourselves with the next bright idea. Iran is, simply stated, undeterred by our weak sticks and disinterested in our proffered carrots, which include all the civilian nuclear power - and accompanying uranium fuel - that Iran could ever want.
At some point, we will have to ask why this is, no?
Every four years, Iranians go to the polls to elect the members of the Mejlis - the Iranian parliament. And while a democratic process on its face, the fact that all candidates are vetted by the clerical leadership - and those objectionable eliminated - assures that the Iranian people can only choose between candidates the regime approves of and candidates who approve of the regime. Not exactly the definition of popular representation.
But as Iranians head to the polls this year, something is distinctly different - something that began three years ago with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s election as president. It is the rise of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corp in halls of power beyond military. The mullah regime has grown increasingly reliant on the IRGC in order to maintain power. And now this manifests itself in the candidate lists for the 2008 parliamentary elections - with predictable electoral results that will signify the ‘mission creep’ of the IRGC. Ali Alfoneh explains in greater detail in an AEI Middle Eastern Outlook column, IRGC coup d’etat In Iran. He concludes below.
Unable or unwilling to satisfy internal demands for reform and fearful of external pressure, the leadership of the Islamic Republic has handed over executive, and now legislative, power to the military. Commanders may retire, but they do not become civilians. They maintain informal networks and command structures honed at the frontlines with Iraq.
The Iran-Iraq war was their formative experience. United Nations sanctions and European Union admonishing simply do not compare to the horrors of trench warfare, Iraqi mustard gas, and wartime deprivation. International pressure may be a nuisance, but it is not serious coercion to a hardened generation of political elites used to the daily bombardment of civilian targets and the food rationing that occurred in Iran in the 1980s. Such a generation of leaders is not as sensitive to economic sanctions.
At the same time, the IRGC is changing the nature of the Islamic Republic. While still ruled by the clergy, in practice the Islamic Republic has begun to resemble other third world military regimes, with a military-industrial complex running the state machinery and controlling civil society.
The Islamic Republic’s militarization, however, follows a different pattern from other military regimes. Rather than power being seized by force, the transformation in Iran will be gradual. Nevertheless, the March parliamentary elections are bound to mark a milestone in this creeping coup d’etat.
As Ali Alfoneh explains in the column (read it in its entirety), the clerical regime’s power and longevity is now inextricably tacked to the level of loyalty of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Understanding the loyalties of the key IRGC leadership will be essential to reading future tea leaves in Iran.
We are losing the greater War of Ideas. It’s not because we have no ideas or ideals. Nor is it because we do not know how to convey them in a compelling manner. (Are you watching the crush for the latest Air Jordan sneakers from Nike? It’s not because there is gold bullion in every 100th pair.)
We’ve plenty of ideas as important today as nearly 250 years ago, and we’ve mastered the art of communication. No, the problem is greater than either of those potential obstacles.
To begin to demonstrate, consider some important paragraphs below from a Jerusalem Post analysis titled Nasrallah’s existential dilemmas. The context of the first paragraph cited is a speech from Hizballah’s political leader Hassan Nasrallah delivered at a Beirut mosque last week and broadcast by Hizballah’s Al-Manar TV. The excerpt is relatively lengthy, but read through it. You will see that it applies here.
The Hizbullah leader [Nasrallah] railed from his unknown hiding place against the ‘robbing and murdering Zionists’, whom he accused of killing prominent Hizbullah official Imad Mughniyeh. Behind the Hizbullah leader’s customary defiant rhetoric, however, his movement currently faces a series of dilemmas.
Firstly, the movement’s attempt to bring down the government of Prime Minister Fuad Saniora, launched in late 2006, has gone nowhere. A few Hizbullah supporters (and a lot of tents) remain at the movement’s ‘permanent demonstration’ in downtown Beirut. But the Saniora government has stood firm.
The constitutional crisis over the presidency is dragging on. There is a growing sense that Hizbullah’s only non-Shi’a ally, the Free Patriotic Movement of Michel Aoun (Christian Maronite), is becoming an irrelevancy, because of the failure of Aoun to emerge as a realistic presidential candidate.
The result of this is to make Hizbullah’s camp look more and more like a narrow, sectarian Shi’a force. The movement has spent the last decade and a half cultivating an image of itself as a ‘patriotic’ Lebanese and pan-Arab movement, rather than a sectarian, Iran-sponsored militia. This image is now looking increasingly frayed.
Perhaps it is looking frayed with Aoun, seen by some Lebanese Christians as a leader and by other Christians as a traitor, failing to live up to Hizballah’s expectations - or his own.
But to whatever degree Hizballah’s image as a nationalist movement is seen (or not) as frayed, it is most certainly not for lack of marketing effort. Pay close attention to the astute and skilled usage of imagery, compelling music and language in this recent Hizballah video effort.
Matt Armstrong took note and asked, “Terrorist or Nationalist?” And, in my view, that’s precisely the question such groups would love the West to be asking themselves. For my money, it’s important in this context to acknowledge that Hizballah was birthed by Iran and Syria more for the cause of fighting and killing the invading Israeli Jews and American and French forces than to win a civil war based on any indigenous love of Lebanon.
For Iran, it was a matter of exporting its revolution, only four years young at the time of the bombing of the US Marine Barracks in Beirut. For Syria, it was about the maintenance of a base through which it could later exert control of Lebanon from within, eventually fully realized in the 1989 Taif Accord.
In Hizballah’s own language still today, the above video propaganda notwithstanding, its own aims are less about a love of Lebanon than hatred for “Zionists” in Israel and the certainty of its “disappearance.” This, Nasrallah reminds us, is an “established fact.”
This is not beside the point. Rather, it is demonstrating it. Because Hizballah is thus required to effectively sell their hatred for the Jews of Israel as love of Lebanon in order to broaden their base. They must effectively market and sell an idea.
The video propaganda above, well produced and effective, is far more compelling than any message directly or indirectly employed (or not) to counter it among the target Lebanese audience. As Matt says, “you need to know to counter the message effectively.” Note that he did not say you need to know how to. Because it’s less a matter of knowing how if you don’t know to.
There is a raging War of Ideas shaping this century. And the nation that turned certain stripes on rubber soled leather shoes into objects of desire that people have fought and killed over, and that promoted the shape of a soda bottle into a cultural icon, the country that invented “Guerrilla Marketing,” is simply not engaged.
This. Must. Change.
We clearly know how. We must resolve to.
The latter is significantly more important and fundamental an obstacle than the former.
The UN’s ‘special coordinator for the Middle East peace process,’ Robert Serry, pronounced from Turtle Bay that a ‘new strategy’ is needed by Israel, Egypt and Mahmoud Abbas’ Palestinian Authority to end the Israeli blockade of Hamas’ Gaza Strip. If it weren’t from the austere halls of the United Nations, it would be a stunning display of ineptitude at understanding the conflict. Or bias. Pick one. But it’s not stunning. It’s just a display of ineptitude at understanding the conflict.
Despite Israeli denials, Serry, who was appointed to his post last December, on Tuesday reiterated that the Israeli siege of Gaza amounts “to collective punishment” of the territory’s 1.5 million Palestinians.
He also chided the militant Hamas movement for not acting “with sufficient determination” to end rocket firing by Gaza-based militants on southern Israel.
Hamas hasn’t acted to stop the rocket barrages “with sufficient determination”? Would Robert Serry have admonished the Third Reich for not acting “with sufficient determination” to stop the incineration of the Jews? It’s hard to tell if that question is even rhetorical.
And collective punishment? What then is Sderot? Or even Ashkelon? It’s the largest “collective” that Hamas can reach. That’s why they are walled off and penned in, Bob. Hamas and the population that freely and openly elected the terrorists into a governing power.
And he expressed concern about “reports of outside militant groups now gaining a foothold in Gaza” but did not elaborate.
Of course he did not elaborate. Allow me. No, check that.
My friend Nir Boms has already elaborated on Gaza’s New Residents. Read and one will be prepared to elaborate.
Late last week the National Research Council issued a report titled “Government should spur replacement of radioactive cesium chloride in medical and research equipment,” urging hospitals and universities, along with the developers of certain medical devices, to stop using the 1,300 machines that are used to irradiate blood for transplant patients. While the cesium-137 is usually contained in stainless steel capsules, the material is radioactive and if combined with conventional explosives could become a dirty bomb or radiological dispersal device.
At a time when the number of these devices is increasing the disposal of the material is problematic.
About 400 of the cesium chloride irradiators in use in the United States were made by Canada’s MDS Nordion, said Leonard Connell of the US Department of Energy’s Sandia National Laboratories in Albuquerque, a member of the panel that produced the report.
The number of cesium chloride irradiators appears to be on the rise in the United States, the report said. In addition, Connell said, there is no disposal facility for them in the United States.
The report argued that the storage of such large amounts of the deadly ingredient in potentially attractive targets poses a threat. Again, according to the NRC report, the concern over the toxicity of the cesium-137 is very real. Some might ask if it worth the concern? The report argues that phasing out the use of the material, especially in light of the on-going concern over the threat of a dirty bomb, is warranted.
Eight radionuclides account for more than 99 percent of the sealed sources that pose the highest security risks in the United States. Cesium-137 in the form of cesium chloride poses greater concern than the others because it is widely used in significant quantities and is soluble and dispersible. If ingested or inhaled, it delivers a dose to the whole body. The concern about the availability of sources is exacerbated by the lack of permanent disposal options, which increases the likelihood that unwanted cesium-137 will remain in storage where it could be vulnerable to theft, the committee emphasized.
The NRC is usually pretty objective and especially since they acknowledge that alternative, safer materials, including other forms of cesium could be used as substitutes, industry and academia should listen - - - “Possible options include less-hazardous forms of radioactive cesium (not currently commercially available), radioactive cobalt and other chemicals that cost more but work just as well in medical and research equipment, according to the council’s report.” Frankly, I would probably conclude that the threat is real and the concern is valid.
The NRC offered a number of steps to achieve the phasing out of the cesium-137 that include the stoppage of licensing new cesium chloride irradiators (including their import/export), create government incentives for owners to decommission and dispose of the radioactive sources and devices, provide incentives to lower the cost of less dangerous materials, and possibly to create a government buy-back program (that’s a big WOW with the estimated cost of each irradiator being $200,000).
Is it worth the concern? Is it worth $260 million? It might be, considering the continuing threat of a dirty bomb, despite the fact that the real threat of a dirty bomb probably lies more in the bomb part of it.
The Taliban, tired of frequent demise by ‘Nokia Triangulation,’ have decided to threaten cellphone companies operating in Afghanistan. The International Herald Tribune reports.
The Taliban have demanded that all four cellphone companies in Afghanistan cease operating during night hours or face attacks on their offices and communication towers, according to a statement issued Monday to journalists.
The statement, issued by a Taliban spokesman, Zabiullah Mujahid, complained that NATO and American forces in Afghanistan, which it called “occupying forces,” were tracking the whereabouts of militants through their mobile phones and also conducting espionage through cellphones.
Dear Mr. Mujahid,
If you would kindly reject the practice of executing Afghan women with a bullet to the head in the public square for the intolerable sin of imperfection by adultery, and likewise reject the companion practice of murdering Afghan men who do not share your irresistible desire to kill all who disagree with you and your friends, then perhaps the local citizenry would not inform forces of your whereabouts. They - in theory - no longer feeling threatened, of course.
Until such time, please note that the power button on your cell phone does not require sunlight to function. At sunrise, however, it will function even still - neither requiring darkness - and you can press it at will.
Or, alternatively, you and yours can seek to blow up the cell phone operators and their civilian employess in Afghanistan. Surely we will witness the wisdom and compassion of your choice made in short order.
'Administrative Interconnections' Among Iran's Various R&D Programs
With the release of the IAEA’s latest report on the Iranian nuclear program, ElBaradei’s agency is worried about Iran’s ability to build nuclear weapons though it does say that all other issues of concern have been addressed and unresolved questions answered. That’s a rather fundamental issue to have ‘concerns’ about, regardless of what Mohamed ElBaradei and his IAEA accepted from Tehran as explanations.
Opening the section regarding “Alleged Studies,” the IAEA report’s paragraph 35 has wording that is about as close to an accusation as anything written by ElBaradei is ever going to get.
The Agency has continued to urge Iran, as demanded by the Security Council, to address the alleged studies concerning the conversion of uranium dioxide (UO2) into uranium tetrafluoride (UF4) (the green salt project), high explosives testing and the design of a missile re-entry vehicle, which could have a military nuclear dimension and which appear to have administrative interconnections, and in view of their possible link to nuclear material (GOV/2007/58, para. 28). As part of the work plan, Iran agreed to address these alleged studies.
Did you catch it? Th report says that Iran’s enrichment, missile and explosives (high explosives needed to implode and trigger a nuclear detonation - ie warhead) R&D programs “appear to have administrative interconnections.”
We will have analysis of the new IAEA report in the coming days. Until then, in order to learn more about Iran’s Green Salt Project that the IAEA report referenced above, see from February 2006:
While questions still remain regarding who orchestrated the assassination of Imad Mugniyah, there seems to be general agreement that Hizballah and its allies intend to use the “terror master’s” death to justify acts of aggression (or from their perspective, retaliation) against Israel.
However, in today’s Daily Star, Michael Young reports that the Hizballah-Syria-Iran alliance is spinning a more convoluted tale - one that has much grander ambitions in mind:
In the Kuwaiti daily Al-Rai Al-Aam, a source close to Hizbullah was quoted as saying that the Mughniyeh hit was “Palestinian-Israeli,” using American technology and financed by an unidentified Gulf Arab official.
While a Palestinian-Israeli-American-Persian Gulf alliance might seem illogical to many, the motive for promoting such an idea is much clearer:
The deepening animosity between Syria and Saudi Arabia might mean the Mughniyeh investigation is carried even further to implicate some Arab states. The fear is that Syria would do such a thing to gain leverage and force leading Arab heads to state to attend the Arab League summit scheduled for late March in Damascus, therefore guaranteeing that the event will be a success. The only problem is that the absence of a prior solution in Lebanon will almost certainly mean a failed summit. Assad will probably not bring the Saudis or anyone else to his gathering through intimidation, let alone through a politicized investigation.
Yet, Young believes that most catastrophic element of the report may well be the Lebanese connection:
According to a Syrian source cited by Al-Haqiqa, the Mughniyeh investigation may accuse “official or semi-official Lebanese parties … allied with [the government]” of having participated in the Mughniyeh operation. The paper suggested investigators might also identify Walid Jumblatt, or more specifically his alleged security chief, Hisham Nasreddine, as having played a role in the killing.
The “official or semi-official” parties the source refers to is almost certainly the Information Department of the Internal Security Forces - essentially the state security apparatus most loyal to March 14. A key objective of Syria and the opposition in the negotiations over a new government has been to ensure that the Interior Ministry, which oversees the Information Department, is taken out of the hands of the parliamentary majority. If the information in Al-Haqiqa becomes the basis of an official Syrian charge, the aim may be to advance this agenda. As for Jumblatt, no one will seriously believe the Druze leader has the capacity to eliminate so secretive as figure as Mughniyeh. However, if the Syrians do level such an accusation, it may exacerbate tension on the ground between Jumblatt’s supporters and Hizbullah, without the latter being able to express doubt in the Syrian conclusions. The party has little margin of maneuver vis-a-vis Damascus, and Iran has reportedly indicated it wants no quarrel with the Assad regime over Mughniyeh. Hizbullah has blamed Israel for the assassination, but its secretary general, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah, has also described March 14 as having sided with Israel. If the Syrians play on that theme, Nasrallah may find himself tossed back into the unforgiving alleyways of inter-Lebanese conflict.
If the Syrian report actually implicates all of these players, the fallout could be immense.
Decades of Inattention: Terror Masters' Permitted Evolution
At the Center for Security Policy, Caroline Glick has written a column that gives another brief history of the life and times of Imad Mugniyah. However, she begins not with a look at his murderous career’s past, but rather at what was its present.
It is quite possible that terror master Imad Mughniyeh was not killed Tuesday night in Damascus for his past crimes, but to prevent him from carrying out additional attacks in the future.
On January 30, French security services raided a Paris apartment and arrested six Arab men. Three of the men - two Lebanese and one Syrian - were travelling on diplomatic passports. According to the Italian Libero newspaper, the six were members of a Hizbullah cell. Documents seized included tourist maps of Paris, London, Madrid, Berlin and Rome marked up with red highlighter to indicate routes, addresses, parking lots and “truck stopping points.” The maps pointed to several routes to Vatican back entrances.
Libero’s report explained that the “truck stopping points” aligned with information the French had received the week before from Beirut. There, Hizbullah chief Hassan Nasrallah had convened a conference of his senior terror leaders where he ordered them to activate Hizbullah cells throughout Europe to kidnap senior European leaders.
The ‘French Connection’ may prove insightful in what lead to his demise. It may or may not unfold eventually in the open source.
But it is Ms. Glick’s concluding graphs that are most important here, and policy makers should pay close attention going forward.
Mughniyeh embodied the fact that terrorists of all shapes and colors willingly collaborate with one another against their common enemies in the West. Mughniyeh personally bridged all the divisions within the world of Arab and Islamic terrorism. He showed that when it comes to attacking the West, there is no distinction between secular, nationalist, religious, Islamist, Sunni or Shi’ite terrorists.
His work revealed the inconvenient truth so fervently denied by policy-makers and politicians throughout the Western world. He showed that for the jihadists there is no distinction between terrorists who attack in Israel or against Jewish targets abroad and those who attack non-Israeli and non-Jewish targets. Moreover, his work as an Iranian agent demonstrates Iran’s central role in sponsoring jihad throughout the world.
Mughniyeh’s legacy is not simply a laundry list of massacre and torture. It is the nexus of global terror. While it is a great thing that he is dead, it must be understood that his death is insufficient. Hundreds of thousands converged in Beirut to celebrate his life’s work. The West must understand the significance of that work and unite to destroy it - layer after layer.
[Emphasis added.]
After decades of inattention, the Terror Masters’ war has grown exponentially in scope, lethality and scale. They will not be defeated simply by killing its seasoned leadership - neither Mugniyah nor bin Laden nor al-Zawahiri.
We must resist the temptation to find a way to end the war in its various theaters, but rather embrace the necessity to win it and defeat them in all.
We did not declare it. Likewise, it is not within our power to ‘end’ it so long as they desire it. To presume so is both arrogant and naive. And a road to defeat.
Ending months of speculation over where the headquarters for AFRICOM, the new unified combatant command for Africa, would be located, a definitive answer has been reached. AFRICOM will remain in Stuttgart, Germany, AFRICOM’s base of operations since the command’s inception. This question has been long running as a number of African countries came out in strong opposition to having the base in or anywhere near their territory. Liberia, the tiny country founded by repatriated American slaves on the Gulf of Guinea, was the only African nation to openly express a desire to host the headquarters facility. This question of location was a major distraction amid efforts to get AFRICOM up and running smoothly. According to an AFRICOM official:
Vince Crawley, a spokesman for the Stuttgart, Germany-based command known as Africom, told The Associated Press that “the discussion of where we will place the headquarters has been so animated and apprehensive that it is getting in the way of our programs.”
In actuality, such an arrangement is not all that unusual. Central Command (CENTCOM), the command running the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, has its main headquarters in Tampa, Florida, while Southern Command, responsible for Central and South America, is located in Miami, Florida. In related news, President Bush is on the last legs of a several day trip to Africa. During the course of his visit, the establishment of AFRICOM was a major issue and Bush sought to allay fears among Africans that AFRICOM represents an effort to militarize US relations with the continent. What has apparently been unclear to these individuals is that Africa was previously covered by three commands, European Command, Central Command, and Pacific Command. The creation of AFRICOM as a means to concentrate responsibility for Africa under one roof is not a radical departure from previous policy. This appears to be getting overlooked in much of the concern over the command. President Bush responded to these concerns in his characteristic style:
“The purpose of this is not to add military bases,” Bush said without being asked at the opening of a session with reporters here. “I know there’s rumors in Ghana — ‘All Bush is coming to do is try to convince you to put a big military base here.’ That’s baloney. Or as we say in Texas,that’s bull.”
Amid the consternation about AFRICOM, much of the humanitarian work performed in Africa over the course of the current administration was overlooked. For example, Bush announced a new $350 million program to combat elephantiasis, hookworm and river blindness, not to mention previous large investments for HIV/AIDS prevention in Africa.
Farewell Optimism: Miranshah II = Miranshah I in North Waziristan
Tuesday, on learning there was a new ‘peace accord’ signed in North Waziristan, I wondered, Is Miranshah II a Pakistani Deal With Tribes in FATA This Time? The Pakistani news reports (only two available at the time) relying on government sources assured us that indeed this was the case, that the 2008 deal was with tribal leaders interested in peace and not supporters or members of the Taliban-al-Qaeda alliance seeking respite, as was the case in 2006. In 2006, Pakistan ceded North Waziristan to the Taliban and al-Qaeda in hopes of placating an implacable violent enemy to avoid direct conflict and procrastinate confrontation. And thus the safe haven was formed and al-Qaeda has since recovered to pre-9/11 levels and capabilities while anchored there.
It should have raises red flags immediately. In reality it did. However, in my own rush to find reason for optimism and to spell out once more the proper means of defeating an embedded insurgency, haste made waste. For Miranshah II of 2008 gives no evidence that it is any different than the Miranshah I lopsided deal beyond the word of the same government who assured us the last time that it had made no deal with the Taliban and al-Qaeda. It had, in fact, maintained this incredulously until this past Monday, when it assured us this time was different.
And in that rush, I committed the cardinal sin of analyzing news: I failed to read attentively the whole report, skimming by the final graphs. I hope that readers did not make the same mistake. If you did, allow me to point out the final three paragraphs of this report from Dawn, which I cited Tuesday yet allowed myself to sail right past the real ‘keys to the kingdom.’
Local residents said that while Khasadars, a ragtag tribal police, man the check-posts now in North Waziristan, militants continue to patrol the streets, though without challenging the government authority.
On Sunday, the authorities imposed a Rs50 million penalty on tribes living in Darpakhel, Miramshah village and Borakhel Wazirs for causing damage to government property during clashes.
The government, however, has agreed to release some of the tribesmen in its custody and pay compensation to those whose properties have also been damaged by security forces.
The first hint comes in the first graph above. Envision ‘militants’ patrolling the streets. Patrols in streets (of the North Waziristan capital, no less) are shows of force and the arms of enforcement.
Now ask yourself: What possible ‘authority’ can the ‘government’ actually possess if armed ‘militants’ are conducting patrols and enforcing their own security? It is no different than the Crips or Bloods on armed patrols of 42nd Street in New York City while the mayor claims there is peace because the gang is “not challenging government authority.” What authority? The gangs - and in this instance, the ‘militants’ in Miranshah - are the authority. Clearly.
So what do we have just from this skeletal report?
• Don’t create a government (ie. challenge gov’t authority)
• Release of captured prisoners
• Cessation of attacks by Pakistani forces (that’s the ‘peace’ part)
• Undisclosed monetary payment compensating for tribal deaths and damage
• All captured fighters freed & returned to Waziristan.
• All captured weapons & vehicles returned to Waziristan.
• Restoration of ‘perks & privileges’ for tribesmen.
• Cessation of all air & ground assaults on the Taliban in Waziristan.
• Withdrawal of Pakistani troops, including checkpoints in Waziristan.
• Undisclosed monetary payment compensating for deaths/damage.
Look familiar?
What it takes to defeat an embedded insurgency remains the same - as discussed in Tuesday’s optimistic initial reaction. Unfortunately, so does the Pakistani approach to negotiating cease fires with an implacable enemy.
The absence of conflict (“they did not challenge government authority”) is not peace. It is a breather. And the Taliban-al-Qaeda alliance benefits exponentially more than the state of Pakistan and its forces. Over 30 terrorist training camps in North Waziristan did not appear out of thin air. They were built and operational after the 2006 ‘peace accord’ that was Miranshah I.
Reaction to PBS' Haditha Marines Documentary - Rules of Engagement
A recent PBS Frontline documentary explored the saga of the Haditha Marines facing charges for the deaths of civilians that occurred after being ambushed by insurgents.
In a shocking turn of events the PBS documentary on Haditha was overwhelmingly even-handed and convinced me they should face no punishment. The show was fair and I have no complaints about bias or slant. This is what PBS ought to do all the time.
This is my in-depth look at the incident from a decision point perspective. What are our troops thinking and is that the right decision. Haditha was a horrible loss of life, but the decisions were correct if not perfect.
The Migration of al-Qaeda in Iraq: Gaza's New Residents
Al-Qaeda terrorists from Iraq have entered into Gaza via the downed fence with Egypt, according to reports and jihadi websites. This should be viewed in context with AQI’s recent message offering assistance to Palestinian terrorists in Gaza. On the al-Qaeda wave into Gaza (along with others), this week’s guest on the Fire Watch podcast, Nir Boms, refers to them as Gaza’s New Residents at The Weekly Standard.
The border incident, initiated by Hamas and Islamic Jihad, allowed some otherwise unwelcome guests to enter Gaza. The Bethlehem-based Maan news agency quoted Hamas sources as estimating the number of Arab men who had entered the Gaza Strip as new residents at 2,000. Many of these men, according to Egyptian sources, toured a number of Hamas-affiliated training bases and security installations and expressed their desire to remain in the Gaza Strip and launch attacks against Israel. Some
of the men, according to Arab sources, had recently fled from Iraq, where they had been carrying out attacks against U.S. troops.
Where else did they come from? A Sunni Muslim website that carries statements of al Qaeda reported last week on the arrival of at least four Saudi militants to Gaza through Egypt. The members-only website, al-ekhlaas.net, said that the four Saudis, one from Riyadh and three from Jeddah, entered Gaza with the help of an Egyptian guide. Sada Usama, the author of that site, is said to have spoken with the men who had arrived safely. He called on other Saudis to enter Gaza.
“Hamas has turned the Gaza Strip into an international center for global jihad,” said one Palestinian Authority official to the Jerusalem Post. This official claimed that, “Most of the men who entered the Gaza Strip through the breached border are now being trained in Hamas’s camps and schools.” Another PA security official told the Jerusalem Post that, according to his information, dozens of al Qaeda operatives have managed to enter the Gaza Strip in the past two weeks. He said some of them had already been recruited to Hamas and Islamic Jihad. “They brought with them tons of explosives and various types of weapons, including anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles,” he told the paper, and added that a number of Iranian security experts had also entered the Gaza Strip to help train members of Hamas and other armed groups.
Remember that in an audio statement by al-Qaeda in Iraq offered not only financial aid to Palestinian terrorists, but also called for Hamas’ al-Qassam Brigades to break from the rest of Hamas and ‘liberate’ Jerusalem and even offered help in manufacturing Qassam rockets.
We scoffed at the AQI messenger, calling him “The Artist Formerly Known As Abdullah al-Naima.” And we chided the Western media for continually referring to the stage name of ‘Abu Omar al-Baghdadi.’
But regardless the messenger and the media indifference toward distinguishing between “James Bond” and Sean Connery, the AQI message with Palestinian ‘offers’ and al-Qaeda terrorists from Iraq entering Gaza via the felled Gaza-Egypt fence in the weeks prior are decidedly not a coincidence. Al-Qaeda is aggressively setting up shop in Gaza. And in so doing, it is also attempting to piggyback off the lucrative Palestinian cause in the Arab world.
First, we nailed Al Qaeda commander Abu al-Laith al-Liby (or al-Libi, depending on your dictionary). Then someone (the Israelis? the Syrians?) stuck Hezbollah commander Imad Mughniyeh, “the Bin Laden of the 80s,” in his well-deserved coffin. Now comes word that the Filippino Army has probably found the remains of Dulmatin, a top Jemaah Islamiah member suspected of planning the 2002 Bali bombings which killed over 200, in a grave in the southernmost tip of the Philippines. Dulmatin was apparently killed in a battle there on January 31 between government troops and a group of Abu Sayyaf, the terrorists who gave him refuge after he fled Indonesia. The FBI is assisting in the DNA check, but the authorities are quite confident. The Manila Times article on his death provides other details on him:
“Dulmatin carries the highest bounty of all fugitives known to be hiding in the Philippines, $10 million—dead or alive—offered by the US government.
Dulmatin—whose real name is Joko Pitono but was also known as Ammar Usman—is a Malaysian engineer from a wealthy family. He is the suspected mastermind of the bombings of a beach resort in Bali, Indonesia, on October 10, 2002, that killed 202 people, mostly Australian tourists.
Together with fellow Jemaah Islamiah member, Umar Patek, an Indonesian bomb expert, Dulmatin had sought refuge with the Abu Sayyafs in Jolo, Sulu, also in Mindanao, before being sighted in Tawi-Tawi.”
No better words to conclude than with Andy’s own: “The Good Guys are on a hot streak.” Got that right.
Miranshah II: Pakistani Deal With Tribes in FATA This Time?
Pakistan’s Daily Times and Dawn newspapers reported earlier this week that a new ‘peace accord’ (Miranshah II) had been signed between the Pakistani government and the two major North Waziristan tribes in Miranshah.
A grand jirga of 286 tribal elders from Dawar and Wazir sub-tribes of Utmanzai gathered at the agency headquarters in Miramshah on Sunday morning to discuss the future line of action following the expiry of a unilateral ceasefire by militants.
The ceasefire, first announced on Dec 17, was extended five times. It was due to expire on Feb 17.
Witnesses said that the grand jirga reached an agreement to revive the Sept 5, 2006, peace deal with the government.
The controversial agreement had drawn criticism, particularly from Washington which believed that it had allowed Al Qaeda to regroup in the militant tribal region.
Critics of the agreement said the government had capitulated to the militants by granting them major concessions without getting anything in return, particularly on key demands relating to the expulsion of foreign militants, an end to cross-border infiltration into Afghanistan and a pledge not to form a parallel government.
It appears the Pakistani government is finally - now that it may have rectified the error - admitting that it did not sign the Miranshah I accord with tribal elders in 2006 but rather with the Taliban-al-Qaeda alliance. And it appears there may be reason to believe that Miranshah II has a chance to at least enable the isolation of the Taliban-al-Qaeda alliance in North Waziristan. Whether this will actually be done is another question about the next steps - the agreement is not the endgame, but the enabler.
But there is reason to believe that it may in fact be so. Last month, several key tribal leaders that had been involved in government talks in the tribal areas were assassinated, clearly because such displeases Baitullah Mehsud and the rest of the Taliban-al-Qaeda alliance. And if this is so, and the agreement was made between the Pakistani government and leaders from the same lot as those killed, there may be a chance for this to actually have more traction than the last, which was nothing short of a mere exercise in procrastination.
One can hope that, like Musharraf’s behavior and direction during and after the elections, there are lessons learned and modifications made in strategy and approach at play here.
Too many are quick to opine that we need to hammer the tribal regions. Unless you are going to kill them all in a genocidal sweep, this has no long-term path to resolution. Any victory over the Taliban-al-Qaeda alliance inside the Pakistani tribal region (FATA) requires the tacit involvement and shared desire by the Pakistanis who call that place home.
At the end of the day, it is the basic model that is working in Iraq today: Iraqis standing up for their own neighborhoods and towns. We would not be talking of the successes in Iraq meted out in 2007 without the support of the Iraqi civilian population. Period.
Well, not exactly ‘period.’ What I failed to say there was that there needs to be a balance of smart, on the ground force against the enemy in either theater, one which is deadly yet close enough and precise enough to discern enemy from civilian.
An accord alone will not achieve anything if the local populations do not feel localized security and freedom of movement/activity. By the same token, force alone (or any agreement decidedly not with the local population but with the implacable Taliban-al-Qaeda enemy) will not achieve any resolution or semblance of victory, nor will the wide application of area weapons (artillery, aerial bombardment) that accumulate growing numbers of civilian collateral losses.
Here’s hoping the Frontier Corps can be ramped up and properly equipped and trained in order to effectively carry out the back end of what Miranshah II may (may) be.
It at least deserves to be observed in implementation before being condemned to the waste bin that has long held the paper Miranshah I was written on.
FireWatch Podcast: Conversations on Mugniyah, al-Qaeda, Hizballah and Iran
ThreatsWatch readers may note a change this week in the right column that includes a new section for our FireWatch podcast. The latest published this week - Fire Watch: February 18, 2008 - features Tom Joscelyn on the history and assassination of Imad Mugniyah followed by a second segment from Israel with Nir Boms on potential scenarios (who may have killed him) and an important look to the future implications for both Israel and the West as well as Hizballah and Iran.
Tom Jocselyn’s cover story on Imad Mugniyah for this week’s Weekly Standard is critically required reading for every American. The link to it as well as links to several other important pieces of work from both Joscelyn and Nir Boms are listed within the Fire Watch podcast posting, including a link to the 9/11 commission report referenced by Tom in the discussion. We extend our thanks to both for participating.
We also hope that readers and listeners will offer constructive feedback on the show as well as suggestions for topics and guests you would be most interested in for future productions. Our feedback e-mail address is listed on our ThreastWatch Contact Details page. We hope you will take a minute to send a note to let us know how we did and what you hope we will do going forward.
Some have asked about the name. It comes from the Marine Corps term used for daily unit level barracks/site guard duty. And, in a manner of speaking, that is what we are doing: standing guard in observing hot spots and US national security threats around the globe. The podcast is meant to bring this home in an accessible language and delivery for the average American who needs to become more informed but has difficulty in digesting often ‘wonkish’ language. The dirty little secret is that none of this is rocket science. Yes, it can get complicated and yes it requires study to digest fully, but it need not be a mystery to the average American.
We have long held that too few of those within professional counterterrorism, intelligence and national security circles speak to the broader public. Viewing this as critically important, it has been our primary mission all along. We hope you will continue to let us know how we are doing in that regard.
Note: Global Crisis Watch has not gone anywhere and a new edition of GCW is coming soon. FireWatch is simply a somewhat different kind of production and a new addition.
Castro Resigns, Cuba Handed to "Old Guard" Brother
The 50-year communist reign of Fidel Castro is over. The ailing dictator resigned and said in a letter to the Cuban people that they “can still count on cadres from the old guard” to carry on the Revolution. His brother Raul is now formally in power, though he has been the de facto ruler since the older Fidel has been seriously ill and under medical care. London’s Times Online speculates that the sibling Castro, called ‘The Prussian’ for his “cold, efficient style,” may move Cuba from the authoritarian Soviet-style communist model and adopt the new Chinese model of communism, one with ‘less economic restraints but full political control.’
So long as brother Raul continues along the communist Cuban path, he is sure to draw praise from various American celebrity quarters, though hampered by a decidedly lacking level of charisma compared to his brother. Michelle Malkin has her usual rolling, updated page, which includes a list of laughable quotes from various public figures long-enamored with the Cuban dictatorship.
“Very selfless and moral. One of the world’s wisest men.” –Oliver Stone.
“Cuba’s Elvis.” –Dan Rather.
“Castro is at the same time the island, the men, the cattle, and the earth. He is the whole island.” –Jean Paul-Sartre.
“A dream come true!” –Naomi Campbell.
“If you believe in freedom, if you believe in justice, if you believe in democracy, you have no choice but to support Fidel Castro!” –Harry Belafonte.
“A genius.” –Jack Nicholson.
“Fidel, I love you. We both have beards. We both have power and want to use it for good purposes.” –Francis Ford Coppola.
“The first and greatest hero to appear in the world since the Second World War.” –Norman Mailer.
“Socialism works. I think Cuba might prove that.” –Chevy Chase.
“Castro is an extraordinary man. He is warm and understanding and seems extremely humane.” –Gina Lollobrigida.
If only we could find so many American celebrities who think so highly and adoringly of their own country. Perhaps its the American health care system’s inferiority. It is nonetheless amusing that Chevy Chase, one of my personal favorite comedians, confuses socialism - which can be found in France and Germany - with communism.
At any rate, President Bush is demanding democracy for Cuba as Castro exits. While he is right to do so, he most assuredly is not holding his breath waiting for a new dictator to surrender absolute power to the will of Cuba’s people.
Last week there was a rash of disturbing conspiracy theory misinformation about an organization called Infragard, a public-private partnership of the FBI and local businesses around the country. Chapter members are primarily involved in critical infrastructure and specifically cyber security in their communities, although other security-oriented companies are also involved. The organization is made up of a range of people from large companies like utility companies, to small companies like my own. Yes, I am a member of Infragard. Meetings are also populated by a number of agents from the local F.B.I. office from the cyber security arena.
This month’s meeting included a presentation by Paul Williams the Chief Technology Officer of Gray Hat Research about the vulnerabilities of what many would consider the most secure computer systems and data bases. A few months ago, we listened to a presentation from the local Protective Security Advisor of the Department of Homeland Security who is attached to the Office of Infrastructure Protection in the Risk Management Division.
Frankly, if you want to learn something about infrastructure security and the important role of private businesses and citizens in the process, it is probably worth a few minutes of your time to go through the Powerpoint presentation.
The point of all of this is that an ”exclusive” article by the “folks” at Progressive Media Project was trumpeted around the Internet last week in which they alleged having “inside information” that Infragard members were being deputized by the F.B.I. That is laughable on its face, and simply not true. More outrageous however was the allegation by an anonymous whistle blower that Infragard members were essentially given rights above the law. This anonymous “source” then related how at a “small meeting” of the organization, members were briefed about the steps they could take when (not if) martial law was declared, including the “ability to travel in restricted areas and to get people out” and in the protection of the infrastructure, the ability to use “deadly force to protect it, without fear of prosecution.”
The problem here is not that the Progressive article is true, or that Infragard is a “secret society” of snitches and industrial spies. That is simply conspiracy theory nonsense! The problem is that the Progressive article was believed by (too) many people and then was strewn around the Internet on various blogs as though it was authoritative and true. Here is a link to the F.B.I. Response to The Progressive Article Alleging that the F.B.I. Authorizes Infragard Members to “Shoot to Kill” that brands the original article a fabrication.
If, before September 11th, someone, a “normal” citizen, had noticed something that “did not look right” and reported it, who knows if history might have been different. With certainty, members of Infragard chapters around the country are offered certain “For Official Use Only” information via a secure website, often daily and sometimes weekly. I simply don’t see anything wrong with citizens being more aware of their surroundings. Last Summer, our Infragard Chapter attended a briefing meeting of the local U.S. Attorneys office given by Fred Burton of Stratfor in which he spoke largely about the vulnerability of soft targets and some targets that were Not so soft. One of Burton’s key points was that business owners and employees of businesses needed to be aware of those people who might be watching their business.
We all should be watching and aware of what occurs around us. We’d all be alot safer.
There are two kinds of war veterans: The poor dumb saps who only wanted money for college, and the violently transformed raging infernos who just can’t transition from ‘Bush’s War’ to Bellevue, Washington. So sayeth our print and broadcast media. LTC Steve Russell, US Army, (Ret.), had no earthly idea how imbalanced and prone to homicidal violence he was. He was instructed of precisely how ‘on the edge’ he and his brothers really are.
IN THE LAST several weeks I have learned a great deal about myself, thanks to all the wonderful media reports about serving and returning war veterans. For example, I have learned that I might want to kill my wife because of the trauma of war. Or, if I have no beef with my family, that I might go after my neighbors instead. Or if there are no other handy targets for my aggression, I might go after myself.
While waiting to appear on a talk show, I learned that combat veterans are “all a little bit on the edge.” One brilliant commentator even suggested that combat soldiers and private security contractors tend to be the types of individuals that have a propensity to harm others and commit acts of violence.
As if I was not sufficiently depressed after absorbing these diatribes (perhaps it was just those suicidal tendencies), I also learned that the term “hero” no longer applies to hundreds of thousands of veterans who have served multiple tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. Instead, according to a Men’s Health magazine I read while getting a haircut, only miscreants who jeopardize fellow soldiers by deserting their units in wartime exhibit true courage. Although I don’t feel the term is fitting for myself, I never imagined the term “hero” could be used interchangeably with the word “AWOL” in a mainstream magazine.
Note the transition of the Victim Class message since the beginning of the conflict. Its central theme was originally that members of the US military did not sign up for war and that they simply wanted college tuition. Recall Jessica Lynch, portrayed as a barefoot girl from a hillbilly family too poor and unsophisticated for gainful civilian employment. Recall how those of her unit were also portrayed from Ft. Bliss in El Paso, Texas. College tuition was the centrally pounced upon theme as the primary motivator for enlistment. This was a commonly trumpeted meme. But mass re-enlistments inside Iraq made this an embarrassingly silly leg to stand on.
Now, the transition - after a brief stop at Walter Reid and Bethesda in vain attempts at gathering amputee critics - shifts to the same tripe that plagued public media portrayals of Vietnam veterans: Crazy, violent, and unable to adjust.
War veterans from Iraq to Vietnam are just about sick of it all. Most of those doing the ‘reporting’ and commentating have about as much a clue about the ‘military experience’ as Wile E. Coyote has about the life and times of Charlie Tuna and his oceanic home.
Terrorists' Plot to Assassinate Philippine President Uncovered
The Philippine military has uncovered a joint Abu Sayyef and Jemaah Islamiyah assassination plot against President Arroyo, it was announced. The head of the Presidential Security Group, Brigadier-General Romeo Prestoza, also said that she is not the sole target. “We’re taking any threat of this nature very seriously. It’s not just the president, there are other targets,” Prestoza said at a news conference. Arroyo has canceled travel plans within the country as a result, and a large protest against her had been planned in Manila, which authorities believe could be used for cover by terrorists seeking an attack.
Only three months ago, a Phlippine minister of parliament was among several killed in a bombing at the Philippine parliament building. The minister, Wahab Akbar, had been accused of once being a member of Abu Sayyef as well as maintaining ties to them.
There remains good reason for the United States’ continued low-profile but significant counterterrorism assistance to and within the Philippines, including special forces training and operational assistance and advising.
To see a summary and overview of the two terrorist groups involved in the assassination plot, visit the MIPT Terrorism Knowledge Base entries for each below:
Update: Nick Grace, an Indonesia and Jemaah Islamiyah expert here at ThreatsWatch, notes that the news of the plot in conjunction with major increases in arrests of JI members in Indonesia suggests that Jemaah Islamiyah may be shifting its center of gravity from Indonesia to the Philippines. He adds that they seem to be more interested in striking Manila than Jakarta, where their ability to operate safely has been severely impaired by Indonesian counterterrorism and security efforts.
“So-called talk that China runs spying activities in [the US] is totally fictitious and has ulterior motives”
So spoke Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu Jianchao today after Washington announced the arrest of several Chinese living in the US for espionage.
Everyone spies on everyone to one extent or another, that’s an irrefutable given. That Chinese spies just happen to be arrested collecting information on technologies that the Chinese military is attempting to master is not simply a random collection of data points.
What we may be able to debate is the definition of a “Chinese spy,” given their practice of using the large number of scientists, students and professionals that go abroad as de facto as well as actual intelligence collectors. Still, it is hard to refute one’s status when they’re caught handing over wads full of cash for data.
Using Tripwires to Address the Border Security Threat
So much of the attention has been on the security threat posed by the porous U.S. border with Mexico and the building of the controversial wall that the great Northern border with Canada has gone largely unnoticed. To a great extent, even with the reports about the permeability of the border (see Security Lacking at the Canadian-U.S. Border ), most people have not listened to what is happening on our largely unprotected span of border with Canada (often referred to as the World’s longest unprotected border).
Last week, the Department of Homeland Security asked for responses from industry and public comment on the possible deployment of what they describe as “covert tripwire sensor systems” along the U.S.-Canadian border capable of detecting human beings crossing the international boundary line (and being able to differentiate between humans, animals, vehicles and wind blown materials). Apparently, the DHS is envisioning a system that could perform in unauthorized areas at distances ranging from 200 yards to several miles.” These sensors will be camouflaged or otherwise concealed from view and be powered with low-draw batteries or solar power.
“The tripwire sensor system is envisioned to contain classification capability that allows distinguishing a human that crosses the linear region from animals, vehicles, or wind blown material,” said a sources sought notice published by the science and technology directorate of DHS on February 5. The department’s office of the chief procurement officer wants to hear by February 20 from prospective vendors that can supply such sensor systems.
Though it did not indicate specifically where and when these sensors would be deployed, DHS indicated that they would “operate in the environmental conditions typically encountered along the northwest and northeast border regions of the United States.”
Now, while there is no way of knowing for sure, I’d expect that the DHS has a company and a technology already in mind and aired the public request to provide full disclosure.
At the same time, this statement of intent should probably be looked at in the context of the continuing “issues” being experienced by the first section of SBInet (the Secure Border Initiative) on the Mexican border. This program is also known as “Project 28,” reflecting the 28-mile stretch of the border that it is supposed to protect. As written in the February 5th edition of Federal Computer Week (dot com)
Following testing that was supposed to be final, the Homeland Security Department has determined that it needs to develop better software and perform additional tests on the initial 28-mile segment of the SBInet border surveillance system, a department spokeswoman said.
Yet, just a few hours ago, an AP report indicated that Michael Chertoff, the Secretary of the DHS said that the government intends to approve the first 28-mile segment of the fence on the Arizona-Mexican border. The questions about the software continue, and seem to focus on the difficulties in providing what is called a common operational picture (COPS) to Border Patrol centers and mobile units.
Both Senator Joseph Lieberman and Congressman Bennie Thompson have expressed concerns over the applicability and merits of the effort. Of course this reflects the nature of politics, especially when it comes to appointees of the opposite party running a federal agency.
