Resources are stretched. Allocation of those limited resources continues to be a subject of discussion. Today, according to an article in Government Security News it is being reported that the National Guard’s aerial surveillance activities in support of federal, state and local law enforcement counter-drug efforts may be outsourced to private contractors.

The Domestic Operations Directorate of the National Guard of the National Guard has requested private aviation companies to provide information about how they might instead provide aircraft, pilots and crew for 4,000 to 6,000 flight hours per year, for a period of three to five years.

According to Lt. Col. Mike Shiels, chief of counterdrug aviation for the National Guard, “about half” of the 11 fixed wing aircraft used by the National Guard’s aerial surveillance efforts have been redeployed for use in the War on Terrorism. Shiels did not speculate on the effect of this redeployment on the Guard’s domestic counter-drug campaign. However, to provide the necessary support, the Guard is now considering outsourcing the program to a private contractor, but must overcome two obstacles; they must identify a commercial contractor with the aircraft equipped with surveillance equipment and crews to accomplish the Guard’s airborne mission; and the leadership of the National Guard needs to be willing to “outsource” the surveillance mission to a commercial contractor.

The 1878 Posse Comitatus Act generally precludes uniformed personnel from performing domestic law enforcement duties. However, Shiels believes that the Guard’s efforts fall under the narrow limitations under which the Guard operates in the area of domestic surveillance. Clearly, airborne surveillance is more costly than most local law enforcement agencies can afford. Also pretty apparent is that the Guard’s aerial resources have been redeployed to the war front. The challenge is to balance our border and domestic security needs with those of the multiple fronts in the War on Terror.

By Jay Fraser at 10:15 PM | Permalink | Feedback (0) | Referenced By (0)

While Admiral Hayden warns us that al-Qaeda is training Europeans and Americans for Western infiltration and attacks, it is also true that al-Qaeda is waning on its 10th birthday. Friend of ThreatsWatch Olivier Guitta writes in the Middle East Times that “it is al-Qaida’s failure in Iraq that has clearly inflicted the maximum damage to Bin Laden’s organization.”

Olivier looks at the competing camps of thought; one professing that al-Qaeda is weaker and the other that al-Qaeda is even stronger. The latter is believed by many who hold the view because America has made al-Qaeda stronger through wrong-headed policy.

The fact remains that Guitta is correct in assessing that “al-Qaeda is waning” and equally correct in pointing to al-Qaeda’s bleeding in Iraq as one of the primary causes.

But at the same time, al-Qaeda is also stronger in ways. Take for instance its complete recovery to pre-9/11 levels inside Pakistan.

The lesson that should be drawn is that al-Qaeda, born the World Islamic Front for Jihad against Jews and Crusaders in 1998, struggles and is defeated where it is confronted aggressively. It thrives where it finds haven and freedom of movement and activity.

I would assess the status of al-Qaeda at a net push at this point in a complex and varied set of battlefields - physical and intellectual; The War of Arms and the War of Ideas.

The key to its long-term viability hinges on both aggressive pursuit as well as its credibility and level of acceptance among the greater Muslim ummah. The former condition is inconsistently applied (nor an easy feat, especially with tepid world support for boldness.) The latter condition is in the air, with signs of both acceptance and rejection and neither taking a decisive foothold. Yet.

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

Another security breach involving sensitive information has occurred. This time, a laptop computer containing the unsecured data of about 2500 participants in a cardiac study of the National Heart, Lung and Blood Tissue Institute (NHLBI), part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) was stolen from the trunk of a car owned by an employee of the NHLBI.

While the integrity of personal patient information is of critical importance, the fact remains that NIH and NHLBI still fail to follow the June 2006 recommendations of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) of ensuring that laptops and mobile data bases be encrypted.

Important questions are raised by this incident.

1) Why is sensitive patient information being stored on a laptop that an employee is able to take home?

2) If the theft of the laptop occurred on February 23rd, why was it not until March 4th that the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) determined that study participants should be notified about the breach.

3) Why did it take another two weeks, until March 20th, that the letter informing the patients of the breach go out to them in overnight mail?

NHLBI director Elizabeth Nabel said in a statement that the theft did not occur on the NIH’s Bethesda, Md., campus, but she did not provide any other details about the alleged crime. She said the purloined computer was issued to an employee (as opposed to a government contractor); it reportedly contained the names, birth dates and hospital medical record numbers of each participant as well as information gleaned about them from cardiac MRIs taken during the study conducted from 2001 to 2007.

Considering the cyber-demand for sensitive information, it would seem that the protection of patients’ rights takes priority over a government employee’s convenience in transporting a laptop in the trunk of a car. Further, if this level of poor security exists with patient data, what other lapses of a National Security nature are possible?

By Jay Fraser at 10:04 AM | Permalink | Feedback (0) | Referenced By (0)

Earlier this month I attended a meeting of my local chapter of Infragard. Coincidentally, the presentation covered the IMAGE Program, or ICE Mutual Agreement between Government and Employers. IMAGE is a program of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement arm of DHS. The goal of the program is to assist employers in targeted sectors to develop a more secure and stable workforce and to enhance fraudulent document awareness through education and training.

Despite the fact that a 1986 law prohibited businesses from knowingly employing illegal aliens, the problem of determining whether an applicant for a job was legal or not has continued to plague businesses, especially in industries like construction and hotels. I asked the question, “if someone makes an application for a job and the employer receives a no-match notification, why is the applicant given the option of challenging the ruling (and supplying supporting documentation) or simply withdrawing. Why wouldn’t that person be arrested and deported?” The question was answered with the simple, “we don’t have the manpower to arrest and deport” people who receive no-match letters.

It appears that the ICE agents making this presentation weren’t talking about the revisions to the rule. While this does not directly address my point about directly deporting job applicants for whom employers receive a “no match” letter, this revised rule would threaten employers with prosecution if they didn’t fire an employee where there is a “no match” situation.

There is clear opposition from immigration proponents.

Opponents said the new plan, which like the old one would be based on discrepancies in Social Security records, would harm large numbers of legal workers, foster discrimination against the foreign-born and drive up business costs. “This misguided attempt to fit the square peg of immigration enforcement into the round hole of Social Security benefits is a guarantee of increased discrimination and erroneous terminations,” said Kathleen Campbell Walker, president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association.

The new rule is intended to clarify the required actions by employers.

Employers who get no-match letters would have 90 days to resolve the discrepancy and an additional three days for an employee to submit a new, valid Social Security number. After that, an employer who failed to fire the worker would be subject to civil fines or criminal prosecution.

These proposed changes and the new rule still do not address the question of what will happen to the illegal immigrants who are fired because of a “no match” finding. We’ll see what happens following the public comment period.

By Jay Fraser at 10:54 PM | Permalink | Feedback (0) | Referenced By (0)

Long before the attacks of September 11th, many people recognized the terrorist aspects of the illegal narcotics activities just south of the border. To some, the parallels were obvious, yet to others, 2001 was too early to see the dilemma faced by the United States. Yes, it is argued by some people that were it not for the demand for illegal narcotics in the U.S., the drug trade would not be as “vibrant” as it is in Mexico. Perhaps this is debateable. What is not debateable, however, is that the proximity of the drug cartels to U.S. soil and the violence wrought by the internal wars being fought for territorial superiority, creates a threat to U.S. security. That threat now clearly goes beyond the proliferation of illegal narcotics on our streets. Today, the parallels between terorrism and illegal narcotics are no less obvious to me than they were in 2002 when I was interviewed by the MIT Technology Review.

Such similarities have not gone unnoticed by high-tech firms. Tracer and SAIC were two of thousands that responded to the Pentagon’s call last October for new technologies to combat terrorism. “Isn’t there a fairly strong feeling that narcotics in this country is a terrorist activity?” asks Fraser. Yes and no, says Houghton, who cautions against drawing too many parallels, or assuming that knowledge in one area bequeaths expertise in the other. “There are similarities, but [drug trafficking and terrorism] are two different things,” he says. “Where they start to go apart is that drugs are such an epidemic. If all drug dealers and cartels were terrorist organizations we’d be in big trouble.”

I dare say that the cross over between the drug cartels and terrorist organizations has already occurred. Further, the adoption of jihadist tactics by the narco-terrorists is more torubling today that it was nearly six years ago. Today’s Dallas Morning News brings as much justification as is needed for stronger border security and control.

The ranch near this border community is isolated, desolate and laced by arroyos – an ideal place, experts say, for training drug cartel assassins.

Mexican drug cartels have conducted military-style training camps in at least six such locations in northern Tamaulipas and Nuevo León states, some within a few miles of the Texas border, according to U.S. and Mexican authorities and the printed testimony of five protected witnesses who were trained in the camps.

The camps near the Texas border and at other locations in Mexico are used to train cartel recruits – ranging from Mexican army deserters to American teenagers – who then carry out killings and other cartel assignments on both sides of the border, authorities say.

The Mexican Army deserters referred to are known more often as Los Zetas. Trained by our own special operations, the Zetas have been known to cross our border and even attack our Border Patrol units. One of my associates, a former Army special ops MSgt. was brought in about two years ago to help re-train the border patrol agents in special ops tactics so they might be better able to combat these incursions. Despite the fact that a spokeman for the Mexican attorney general’s office tried to minimize these training camps as places where the recruits use the camps for “target practice,” their proximity to the U.S. cannot be ignored.

According to the printed testimony, the training has taken place at locations southwest of Matamoros, across the border from Brownsville; near the town of Abasolo, between Matamoros and Ciudad Victoria; just north of the Nuevo Laredo airport; and at a place called “Rancho Las Amarillas” near a rural community, China, that is close to the Nuevo León-Tamaulipas border. Two other ranches used as training camps, both east of Matamoros, have clandestine landing strips for cocaine shipments originating in Colombia and destined for the United States via Texas, according to the officials and testimony.

Over a period of about two years, nearly 5000 people have been killed in these narco-wars. Unfortunately, as politicized as the issue of border security has become, and as much attention has been placed on fighting the terrorists “over there” instead of on our soil, the situation on the nearly 2000 mile border with Mexico is often overlooked.

“I know we’re fighting terrorism throughout the world … but here along the border the narco-terrorists operate on both sides of the border, and so far it’s gone largely unnoticed by Washington,” said Webb County Assistant District Attorney Jesús Guillén.

A recent Mexican intelligence report numbered the hardcore members of Los Zetas at over 300. Frankly, its probably alot more than that. Yes, admittedly, there is no proof of Middle Eastern terrorists using the training camps. Recent reports of three Afghanis attempting to cross the border with altered, but genuine, Mexican passports, is probably just the beginnning. We need to pay attention to what is happening just across the border.

By Jay Fraser at 2:55 PM | Permalink | Feedback (2) | Referenced By (0)

About 18 months ago at the Blackhat Hackers Convention in Las Vegas, German hacker Lukas Grunwald cloned the e-chip (an RFID) that was embedded in the new Electronic Passport. At the time the State Department assured us all that while the chip could be copied, the security embedded in the chip itself could not be. Setting aside the derisive comments Grunwald made at the time, we now learn that the Government Printing Office (GPO) production of these e-passports has been outsourced to companies overseas (at least some components), including companies in Thailand (an unstable country with a history of corruption and increasing Islamic terrorism, especially in the south of the country) and China. Additionally, according to a March 26th report in the Washington Times, there have been allegations made that the production facility in Thailand is owned by a Dutch company that reportedly charged China with pilfering its patented e-passport chip technology.

The Netherlands-based company that assembles the U.S. e-passport covers in Thailand, Smartrac Technology Ltd., warned in its latest annual report that, in a worst-case scenario, social unrest in Thailand could lead to a halt in production. Smartrac divulged in an October 2007 court filing in The Hague that China had stolen its patented technology for e-passport chips, raising additional questions about the security of America’s e-passports.

Again, putting aside the question of whether the GPO profits by off-shoring even a part of the production of the passport, the GPO immediately countered the allegations made in the Washington Times article. The article, the GPO’s inspector general made a strong denial, saying that the article had misstated the facts. Further, a GPO spokesman stated that “The passports are not manufactured overseas,” but that “a component with the chip and inlay [of the antenna] comes from various places overseas, but manufacturing is done in Washington and soon-to-be Mississippi.”

In response to the Times article, GPO released on March 26 a document about work processes it used to produce passports. According to the document, and reiterated by GPO spokesman Gary Somerset, the agency manufactures passports at its facilities in Washington. The agency will soon produce passports at a second secure facility it is constructing in Mississippi. Production of the electronic chip, which is embedded in the cover and contains the same information printed on the passport, was outsourced to two overseas companies, Amsterdam-based Gemalto and Infineon, based in Neubiberg, Germany. No American company meets the standards developed by the International Civil Aviation Organization and required by the State Department for border crossing procedures that involve the computer chip, according to GPO.

Its pretty certain that there will be Congressional inquiry into this, especially given Chairman Bennie Thompson’s stated concerns.

Congress has yet to ask the Government Accountability Office to investigate the issue. Unless a specific vulnerability is detected, Jess Ford, GAO director of international affairs and trade, doesn’t expect that to change. “My understanding is that lots of chips used not only for passports but other forms of identification are manufactured overseas,” he said. “Besides, I’m not sure if someone even got hold of the chip, how they would use them. There’s a lot of security that happens here in the United States.”

The situation bears watching and further scrutiny. The security of passports, especially the new electronic passports with embedded RFID technology is still new and evolving. The second and third installments of the Washington Times series on this matter are provided here. Especially considering the increased requirements for using passports as a proof of identity and citizenship, including leaving and returning to the United States from vacation locations previously accessible without passports, off-shoring any part of the U.S. passport is questionable at best.

By Jay Fraser at 9:40 PM | Permalink | Feedback (0) | Referenced By (0)

I’m not at all bothered by airport security, even though I’ve been traveling a lot more recently. It’s sort of routine to remove my laptop from the case, put it in its own bin, take off my shoes and get through the checkpoint as fast as possible. I’m a PC guy (that’s personal computer), but I’ve seen the commercials for the new ultra thin MacBook Air that fits into an interoffice type envelope. It seems, however, that the TSA was taken by surprise by one recently when an air traveler was delayed through security because his MacBook lacked some “standard features”.

In response to the growing complaints, a veteran, seasoned TSA supervisor at the Cincinnati-Northern Kentucky International Airport put the MacBook Air through an X-ray scanner and found that it “does look completely different than your typical laptop or DVD player. I can’t get into specifics of course, but there were a couple of areas on the X-ray that could pique some interest for Transportation Security Officers,” he said.

TSA moved pretty quickly to inform its security officers about this new technology, and that it isn’t a security threat. But this incident does raise a question of how TSA will be able to keep up with technology as it evolves. From personal experience I can tell you that anything that is “not normal” (like an electronic prototype system that I carried through security at LaGuardia Airport a few years ago) creates quite a stir and will get you separated out of the queue for “special treatment” until TSA is satisfied that all of the wires, mirrors and the motor are innocuous (all justified).

CNETNews.com provides a list of their top five technologies to “confuse” the TSA (probably not an all inclusive list) including lead-lined pouches to carry standard film for an old fashioned SLR camera, homemade electronic devices, insulin pumps, certain types of mini-tablets or PDAs, and the new Hello Kitty Assault Rifle

This is a serious problem, and one that is bound to continue as the technology revolution continues. At the same time, however, while it is not publicized, the TSA has acknowledged that its goal is to clear 200 passengers-per-hour through security the checkpoints.

By Jay Fraser at 10:37 PM | Permalink | Feedback (4) | Referenced By (0)

In the enduring spirit of Spy vs Spy, it’s the real-life UN version: “Surprising” vs. “Stunning.”

Surprising: (adj.) 1. The United Nations hands out military service medals to Pakistani soldiers.

Stunning: (adj.) 1. The United Nations appoints a new human-rights advisor who founded the Moammar Khaddafi Human Rights Prize in 1989.

According to Wikipedia, “Winners of the Qaddafi prize have included Fidel Castro, Louis Farrakhan, and recently Venezuela’s Hugo Chávez. In 2002, the awardees were ‘13 intellectual and literature personalities,’ of whom the most notable were the French Holocaust denier Roger Garaudy and Jean Ziegler himself.”

It would make for an entertaining comic strip, but for the simple fact that it’s reality.

Previewing next week’s Fiction Meets Life headline:

• Hu Jintao Nominated President of International Olympic Committee

With today’s UN ‘Human Rights’ appointment, you can no longer say that stranger things have not truly already happened.

Hu at the IOC… Perhaps if the UN were the nominating authority for the IOC…

By Steve Schippert at 3:41 PM | Permalink | Feedback (0) | Referenced By (0)

Because every day you need at least one good, hardy laugh.

In his response, Mottaki singled out the United States, Britain, France and Germany, accusing them of pushing new sanctions for political motives and “providing false and erroneous information” to the IAEA concerning Iran’s nuclear activities.

“These countries should, as a minimum step, admit their mistakes, apologize to the great nation of Iran, correct their behavior, and above all, compensate all the damages they have inflicted on the Islamic Republic of Iran,” Mottaki said.

Sometimes, following conflicts and world events can be a humorless toil. But even still, every day provides at least one good laugh, usually offered upon the altar of inanity by caricaturesque spokesmen of dictatorial rogue regimes.

Thank you, Mr. Mottaki.

By Steve Schippert at 8:44 AM | Permalink | Feedback (0) | Referenced By (0)

We now learn that Saddam Hussein’s IIS intelligence service arranged the 2002 trip to Iraq for three US Congressmen, each Democrats openly seeking to undermine the Bush Administration’s efforts to disarm - by force if necessary - Saddam Hussein, who was rightly believed to be involved in international terrorism. Now they collectively claim that they did not know that Iraq’s intelligence service arranged for their trip.

No excuses. The End.

The three - and their other colleagues - knew precisely what kind of individual and regime they were dealing with. They knew that their trip was intended to ultimately assist Hussein by going against their American President. No more talk of somehow being able to do things counter to the President of the United States without those actions simultaneously being of benefit to the enemy, be it Hussein, Bashar Assad and his Syrian regime or Ahmadinejad and the rest of the Iranian regime.

One cannot claim to be wise in the ways of nuance - if any of these elected officials’ words and actions are to be interpreted as routinely transmitted - and then turn around and claim ignorance to the fact that the Iraqi regime was all for what they were doing. For it to the point of making their trip happen, such a media coup it was for the self-professed enemy of America.

The same applies to elected officials (and any others) who insist on ‘diplomatic’ junkets to have tea with the dictatorial leaders of states whom the official US policy includes no diplomatic ties. The congressional trip to Syria to meet with Bashar Assad is another prime example.

No excuses. None. You know what you were/are doing. Don’t act surprised when you learn their intelligence services are busy arranging and facilitating your aid to them.

It is one thing to disagree with one’s president and his policies. It’s also one thing to have internal and public debate - even heated and passionate. But it is another to travel to the home of the enemy - regardless the course of action you argue for at home - and surrender a media and propaganda coup to those who are our enemies.

There is responsible dissent and conduct and there is irresponsible dissent and conduct. Representative Jim McDermott (D-WA), Representative Mike Thompson (D-CA), and former Representative David E. Bonior (D-MI) either did not know the difference or did not care.

If these three are shocked at the revelations about their irresponsible dissent and conduct, they are either disingenuous or far too naive to be embarking on international diplomatic junkets rubbing elbows with the enemies of America.

Neither is acceptable. At all.

By Steve Schippert at 8:27 AM | Permalink | Feedback (5) | Referenced By (0)

Last week more than 500 people from government, academia and the policy sector came together at the Second DHS University Network Summit to discuss what Jay Cohen, head of the Department of Homeland Security’s science and technology directorate, recognizes as the need to educate a new group of scientists and business managers who are educated to create the products, methods and systems to more effectively defend the homeland.

During this conference, such topics as explosives detection, event modeling, port security, border protection, biometrics and terrorism research were covered. Since 2002, a number of universities have created programs to develop curricula in the fields of homeland security. Some focus (or focused) on regional requirements while others looked at training and degree or certification programs. DHS also “encouraged universities and colleges to explore funding, research and other opportunities within vast consortia of schools linked by region as well as by area of activity.” The key, of course, is the funding of these programs. I’m familiar personally with at least one program that was pretty much abandoned because it didn’t become self-supporting within three years. Another program simply didn’t come together because of difficulties in gaining cooperation between the participants that included a local university and that area’s department of public safety.

Diana Beecher, chief technology officer of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey said:

”We have taken ideas from universities and turned them into real-life technologies. Both parties need to be cooperative. We cannot sacrifice our business practices [and] universities cannot sacrifice open inquiry. The needs of everybody at the table need to be clearly understood and addressed.”

The social sciences aspects of achieving this public-private partnership cannot be understated. The problems are not unlike those experienced in the field of technology transfer. The director of one successful effort (even at its early stage), Warren Edwards of the Southeast Region Research Initiative (SERRI) that is managed by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory stated that:

”the nature of homeland security projects requires schools to link with other schools, national laboratories or private companies to maximize their research and development capabilities.

The importance of creating these public-private partnerships was discussed almost a year ago in When Disaster Strikes - The Importance of Public-Private Partnerships. Among those already created, and discussed at the conference, were:

• CREATE (the Center for Risk and Economic Analysis of Terrorism Events), led by the University of Southern California.

• PACER (the National Center for the Study of Preparedness and Catastrophic Event Response), led by Michigan State University and established jointly with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

• The National Center for Foreign Animal and Zoonotic Disease Defense (FAZD), led by Texas A&M University.

• START (the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism), led by the University of Maryland.

However, creating these consortia and gaining the level of cooperation is a lot easier said then done. While it is absolutely necessary for the pipeline of skilled and trained professionals and a supply of technologies be created, it is interesting that industry was apparently not included in the program. From experience, universities are a great place to do research, but not necessarily the likely place to commercialize the results of that research. DHS, of course, knows the importance of industry in the process of defending the Nation from terrorism.

By Jay Fraser at 10:44 PM | Permalink | Feedback (0) | Referenced By (0)

Steve Hayes at The Weekly Standard is not particularly stunned that part of the reason President Bush does not talk about known links between Saddam Hussein’s Iraq and international terrorism is because he apparently is not shown or consciously made aware of some important post-invasion evidence.

Next, someone should make sure that George W. Bush sees the IDA report on Iraq and terrorism. National Security Adviser Steve Hadley was supposed to have shown Bush the report before it was released publicly. But Hadley is cautious to a fault and believes that there is nothing to gain from revisiting the case for war in Iraq. And there are no indications that he shared the report with President Bush.

Bush would want to see it. Months ago, when we fought to have the Iraqi documents translated and released, Bush’s White House staff kept him in the dark. Even after Bush told then-Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte that he wanted the documents out, the DNI slow-rolled the process and the White House staff argued against sharing the secrets of the Iraqi regime.

Those were mistakes and they have cost the president. But now we have enough of the regime’s documents to know that Saddam Hussein support jihadist terror for years. And, as the Wall Street Journal pointed out Monday, it’s clear that the CIA underestimated Iraqi support for terrorism. The White House should talk about it.

I have long held that history will ultimately vindicate President Bush, and hopefully within his lifetime. He could make significant strides toward his own vindication by simply discussing the evidence shown light in the Iraq Perspectives Project report.

But that is presuming he has actually seen it. And as Steve Hayes points out, that is not necessarily an accurate presumption. It may in fact be flat wrong.

By Steve Schippert at 3:59 PM | Permalink | Feedback (0) | Referenced By (0)

Apparently yesterday’s RapidRecon is making the e-mail rounds in Tehran. (Yahoo! mail appears the favorite medium.) As night falls on Tehran, it appears Iran, Not al-Sadr, Leading Shi’a Attacks In Iraq must have struck a chord with our friends who like to kill us.

Good morning, boys.

By Steve Schippert at 9:58 AM | Permalink | Feedback (3) | Referenced By (0)

This morning, I found re-reading portions of a September analysis interesting. Some may wish to see:

One thing that General Petraeus did not say was that the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps has been pulled out of Iraq. This is the larger elite Iranian military branch of which Quds Force is a part. This is not likely an unintended oversight by an intelligent field commander who possesses a Ph.D. from Princeton. This means that the general is expressly not saying that all Iranian operatives are out of Iraq.

As recently as mid-August, Major General Rick Lynch said that his forces and military intelligence were tracking about 50 members of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps in his area of operations, which includes the southern edge of Baghdad and some of the provincial areas to its south, including Karbala. Of the IRGC operatives known to be active in his region, Major General Lynch said, “We’ve got about 50 of those. They go back and forth. There’s a porous border.”

And just across those porous borders lie myriad Iranian terrorist training camps, teaching, arming and paying Iraqis to fight their proxy war against America and the Iraqi state, seeking instability in Iraq in the immediate and increased Iranian infiltration, influence and control in the longer term. And the better they can achieve this, the fewer of its own valuable and highly trained Quds Force operatives and terror facilitators need be put at physical risk of being killed or captured in Iraq by a new American commander clearly seeks to engage without hesitation those within his Iraqi theater of operations who kill his men, Coalition forces and Iraqi civilians. Even the fearsome Iranians who never lack for threat and bluster.

So, while General Petraeus reported that Iran’s Quds Force and their Lebanese Hizballah terrorist facilitators have vacated Iraqi territory, he did not say that the Iranian threat has abated as a result nor did he say that all Iranians have left the theater. He, in fact, said just the opposite: The Iranian threat continues to grow.

Rarely has a combatant nation had so willing a partner in criticism of its enemy than Iran has in the Western media when it comes to President George W. Bush, his administration, and almost anything at all said or done by either. It’s truly a Proxy Warrior’s dream. Ho Chi Minh never had it so good.

By Steve Schippert at 9:38 AM | Permalink | Feedback (0) | Referenced By (0)

No sooner do I write that there are “no attributions of direct quotes, commands or comment from Muqtada since the Shi’a militia uprising began in earnest” than we ‘hear’ from Muqtada that he threatens a civil revolt in Iraq….sort of. It is a logistical challenge to personally address one’s followers in Najaf, Iraq when one is busy shuttling between Qom and Tehran in Iran.

But Sadrist lawmakers and officials denounced the (US/Iraqi coalition) offensive and said they felt the government is targeting the Sadr organization, which is a powerful political force in southern Iraq.

The cleric’s [al-Sadr’s] aide Hazem Al-Aaraji read a statement on behalf of Sadr, demanding and end to the operation.

He said Sadr’s group was calling for a nationwide strike, and then if the Iraqi government does not comply, he said, “the second step will be civil disobedience in Baghdad and other provinces.” He said after that would come a “third step,” but did not say what it would be.

Two things: First, Sadr does not want to raise his head from the gopher hole, which is a wise precautionary measure. It’s pretty clear that Petraeus does not play games for political consumption (such as the decision to allow Sadr to survive a deathmatch he declared in 2004). It’s also clear that the (largely Shi’a) Iraqi Army and police forces are shooting to kill.

Second, Sadr’s gopher hole is, after all, in Iran. Having a statement read is what leaders do when they either want to remain in the shadows or are not present to make such. In this case, it’s a bit of both most likely. Keep in mind that anyone could have written (or directed the writing of) the statement read.

Yesterday at The Tank on National Review Online, I closed a thought by attempting to reiterate that it is not up to us entirely whether we are to have conflict with Iran. Iran is, naturally, half of the equation: a non-scientific math problem that has been up on the board for all to see since 1979.

The other half has been decided, like it or not. But for goodness sakes, don’t take General David Petraeus’s word for it. Oh, no. Instead, cry out, “O Admiral Fallon, where art thou?” That should help.

Admiral Fallon, presented to the American public as the one sane mind between a dangerous Bush Administration and conflict with Iran, you should recall. (Again, not that Iran has any say in killing our men or anything like that.) Well, Richard Fernandez over at The Belmont Club draws an interesting parallel between the current Mahdi Army violence and Fallon’s exit from CENTCOM.

One of the rumored frictions between Petraeus and former CENTCOM CINC “Fox” Fallon centered around how strongly to respond to threats from Iranian sponsored groups. And Sadr’s men would fall under that category. Maj Gen Paul Vallely was quoted as saying CENTCOM may not have been done all that it could to prevent Iran from endangering American troops.

“The fact is that [Central Command] had the external responsibility to protect our troops in Iraq from the outside and under Fallon they failed to do it,” said retired Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely, a military analyst. “We have done nothing to protect our soldiers from external threats in Iraq.”

That, as framed by Major General Vallely, is not insignificant and is something that we have criticized in this space and elsewhere.

So desperate are some, it seems, to avoid conflict with Iran that we ignore and tolerate Iran’s conflict with us. In a street fight, that’s a losing proposition and easy pickings for the aggressor. And this is a street fight.

By Steve Schippert at 8:24 AM | Permalink | Feedback (0) | Referenced By (0)

It happened last Friday. In what is characterized as an informal meeting with reporters, U.S. Attorney General Mike Mukasey commented that he has been ‘surprised’ by scope of terrorist threats facing this country. The apparent disconnect with the true threat of terrorism by Mr.Mukasey is quite concerning. Frankly, this doesn’t engender a lot of confidence in the lead lawyer of this country.

“I’m surprised by how surprised I am,” said Mukasey, who as a federal judge presided over terrorism-related trials in New York.

“It’s surprising how varied [the threat] is, how many directions it comes from, how geographically spread out it is,” he said.

At the same time that he expresses concern over the expiration of FISA, and says that he’s not hopeful for a compromise, he also remarks that the jihadi fatwas do not expire. What is really surprising is that Mukasey is as unaware as he seems to be about the breadth of the threats confronting us, and the ingenuity of our enemies.

If Mukasey receives terrorism daily updates, why is he surprised by the asymmetric nature of the threat?

By Jay Fraser at 9:52 PM | Permalink | Feedback (2) | Referenced By (0)

As Shi’a militias and armed groups strike out at US and Iraqi targets from Baghdad to Basra, it is curious to note how many news reports attribute the attacks to Muqtada al-Sadr, either directly or indirectly.

Rocket attacks on the U.S.-protected Green Zone may carry a message with implications across Iraq: rising anger within the Mahdi Army militia.

The Shiite fighters led by anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr are reorganizing their ranks, taking delivery of new weapons from Iran and ramping up complaints about crackdowns by U.S. and Iraqi forces that could unravel the Mahdi Army’s self-declared cease-fire, according to militia commanders.

But Muqtada al-Sadr was sidelined from any command by Iran weeks ago. There are no attributions of direct quotes, commands or comment from Muqtada since the Shi’a militia uprising began in earnest. And there is a very simple explanation for this: The puppet has had his strings cut. Iran is calling the shots.

The fact that his note exists is far more important than its specific wording.

“So far I did not succeed either to liberate Iraq or make it an Islamic society — whether because of my own inability or the inability of society, only God knows,” Sadr wrote.

“The continued presence of the occupiers, on the one hand, and the disobedience of many on the other, pushed me to isolate myself in protest. I gave society a big proportion of my life. Even my body became weaker, I got more sicknesses.”

In reality, the continued presence of his Iranian masters pushed him to isolate himself. Iran has changed other leadership positions and oriented other terrorist groups toward field operational leadership and away from political leadership. The IRGC commander was changed. Hizballah’s military command was stripped from Nasrallah and handed to sheikh Naim Qasim in the Bekaa Valley. And Hamas is effectively run by al-Qassam Brigades military commander Ahmed Jabari in Gaza, not Khalid Meshaal in Damascus nor Ismail Haniyeh in Gaza City.

As such, the militarily incompetent Muqtada al-Sadr has been yanked from control of the Mahdi Army. We are seeing the natural and intended progression of this change in Iraq today.

The shelling of the ‘Green Zone’ (or International Zone) in Baghdad in coordination with attacks throughout southern Iraq from Basra to Baghdad are not a reaction to an al-Sadr decision any more than they are the effects of his military leadership and command. They are the fruits of Iranian labor.

The rockets used in the Green Zone attacks “were Iranian-provided, Iranian-made rockets,” General Petraeus said.

Can we dismiss this from the most successful US commander in Iraq since the conflict began? Further, is it wise to also dismiss the trend of Iranian command changes across the board to operational ground commanders? And, is it wise to forget that Muqtada al-Sadr announced his seclusion and withdrawal from command (at the behest of his Iranian masters)?

In order to minimize or dismiss Iran’s guiding hand in the fighting in Iraq, one must do all of these things. And this is completely illogical. Completely.

Yet, so desperate some seem to avoid any conflict with Iran, they ignore that fact that Iran has already chosen the conflict, whether we like it or not.

It is an ‘Inconvenient Truth.’

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

As Jay points out this morning, our border with Mexico is about to suffer a severe manpower shortage. With the physical barrier between the US and Mexico and on-again, off-again affair and the virtual fence plagued with shortcomings, the significance of cases like this cannot be emphasized enough:

Three Afghan Muslim men caught posing as Mexican nationals last month while en route to Europe were part of a human smuggling operation and carried what now are believed to be altered but genuine Mexican passports for which they paid $10,000 each …

This would not be the first time terrorists or suspected terrorists have crossed the border from Mexico into the US, as Todd Bensman’s reportage from Texas indicates.

You can secure nothing if you do not have control over what it is that needs protection. Border security – Mexican or Canadian – is not exclusively an immigration issue, and those that would frame it as such are well meaning but much too narrowly focused. While there are many ways to address the flow of benign people across geography who are motivated by economic factors, the futility of thinking we can negotiate with radical Islamists has been regularly demonstrated for decades. It is the latter class of border jumpers that deserves our attention and the primary reason why anything that reduces our ability to secure our sovereign territory should be thwarted.

By Michael Tanji at 12:04 PM | Permalink | Feedback (1) | Referenced By (0)

Operation Jump Start began in mid-2006 with the intention of augmenting the manpower of the Border Patrol along the U.S.-Mexican border. Since that time, about 6,000 Guardsmen have filled non-enforcement positions to allow Border Patrol agents to engage in “front-line” activities. This “back to the border” effort resulted in the Guard assisting in the arrests of 140,000 illegal immigrants, the seizure of 143 tons of drugs (mostly marijuana), the building of 111 miles of border fencing and more than 18 miles of new all-weather roads in addition to maintaining or improving more than 570 miles of existing roads.

The effort didn’t come without a cost.

Through January, the National Guard Bureau spent more than $1 billion on the program — nearly $212 million in the 2006 fiscal year, $687 million in fiscal 2007 and $136 million during the first four months of fiscal 2008.

Operation Jump Start is now scheduled to end this summer .

While is may be an unconnected coincidence, there is now a recruiting push overseas to entice returning military veterans to sign up for the Border Patrol in an effort to reach its manpower goal of 20,000 agents by 2009. While acknowledging that the Defense Department would like to retain its seasoned soldiers but also recognizes that many will leave the service. The recruitment effort by the Border Patrol offers those soldiers an opportunity to continue serving their country in a different capacity. Border Patrol recruiters plan to visit 12 Army posts and Air Force bases.

By Jay Fraser at 10:34 AM | Permalink | Feedback (0) | Referenced By (0)

Saying Iraq was not supporting al Qaeda, when there was no meaningful distinction between the EIJ and al Qaeda, strains credulity.

Therein lies the problem: this report—and every assessment dealing with intelligence or national security matters—is crafted with such extreme precision in an impossible quest to be “right” that they end up being absurdly wrong. This quest for false precision skews our understanding of very clear and simple truths. This is part of the reason why so many policymakers of all political persuasions hold intelligence in such disdain. The books and articles that document Saddam’s relationship with terrorist groups that were published before this report was issued are numerous and draw largely the same conclusions that this review of classified material shows. Secrets are only valuable if they tell you something meaningful that you didn’t already know.

With so many journalists latching onto the solitary line stating that the report found “no smoking gun” linking Saddam Huseein to al-Qaeda - while ignoring the rest of the report that details definitive linkages to international terrorist groups (including Ayman al-Zawahiri, now al-Qaeda’s #2) - seemed to be a collective attempt to further the notion that, somehow, if it’s not al-Qaeda and bin Laden, it just doesn’t count. That’s a dangerous, dangerous mindset.

Read the rest of Michael’s article Intelligently Misleading at the Weekly Standard.

By Steve Schippert at 8:51 AM | Permalink | Feedback (1) | Referenced By (0)

Is China’s military buildup and suspected strategic orientation an unexpected boon for US-Russian relations?

With the latest ominous disclosure of China’s burgeoning military budget - a nearly 18% increase this year over last year, according to the most recent (and undoubtedly conservative) official estimate - security specialists invariably focus on its implications regarding the balance of military power in East Asia, the strategically sensitive Straits of Taiwan, and the concomitant risks to US forces in the region.

Although such a Taiwan-centric perspective on increased Chinese military expenditure is only natural given China’s fixation with Taiwan, not to mention prudent in that it represents perhaps the most combustible “sticking point” confronting US-China military relations, the Pentagon’s 2008 Annual Report to Congress: Military Power of the People’s Republic of China (pdf) offers perhaps a broader interpretation of the rationale behind the build up. Consider the following excerpt from that report:

China’s near-term focus on preparing for contingencies in the Taiwan Strait, including the possibility of U.S. intervention, is an important driver of its modernization. However, analysis of China’s military acquisitions and strategic thinking suggests Beijing is also developing capabilities for use in other contingencies, such as conflict over resources or disputed territories. [Emphasis added.]

If natural resource considerations also inform the strategic orientation of China’s military, might we witness in the future a rekindling of the Sino-Russo rivalry? Renowned Soviet military scholar Col. (ret.) David M. Glantz does not discount the possibility.

“Two factors are operating here: China’s rapid economic development and the historical precedence of border incidents with Soviet Russia,” Glantz said. “China’s presently on a wild ride of economic development, and there exists grave doubts as to whether she has the resources to sustain her growth. China will be pursuing the resources needed to sustain that growth, and the Far East of Russia, formerly Soviet Russia, could very well be an area to which the Chinese look. Here’s where past border clashes with Soviet Russia play a role. Indeed, China has had border conflicts with other nations over the years, most notably Vietnam and India, but it is doubtful whether either of those offer the promise of alleviating China’s resource needs like the Russian Far East or the newly independent states of Soviet Russia that remain under Russian influence.”

Col. Glantz continued, “At any rate, the Russian Far East probably won’t be fully developed and exploited for years. Thus, any talk of potential conflict between Russia and China over this resources rich area must be couched in the context of more a long term, not near term, timeframe. Certainly, the potential for conflict exists but it shouldn’t be misunderstood nor misinterpreted as an imminent potential confrontation.”

What, then, might the threat of a renewed Sino-Russo rivalry portend for the future of US-Russian relations and cooperation? Could it be the issue that cleaves the present China-Russian geo-strategic partnership?

Perhaps, though the existing dynamic—ie Russia and China acting more or less in concert against perceived US interests (see Iran)—is unlikely to change to anytime soon. Awash in oil revenues and at odds with the United States over a myriad of issues ranging from American missile defense components in Poland and Czechoslovakia, the possibility of further NATO expansion et al, contemporary Russia increasingly views the United States through the prism of Cold War lenses.

Still, China’s military and economic ascension, not to mention the mutual threat of Islamic radicalism, represents the makings of a breach that, if exploited by skillful American foreign policy and strategic sobriety on the part of both nations, offers the opportunity for a more harmonious US-Russian relationship in the future.

By Warren Wilkins at 3:00 PM | Permalink | Feedback (0) | Referenced By (0)

A recent RAND report formally documents a development that intelligence insiders have known about for several years:

The overarching generality about the U.S. intelligence analytic community today is that most of it is engaged in work that is tactical, operational, or current. By most accounts, the relative lack of longer-term analysis has long been bemoaned. In other words, most analytic resources and activities are dedicated to intelligence reporting instead of attempting to attain the “deep understanding” of our adversaries that constitutes analysis.

As noted previously, the delineation point when we stopped attempting to do analysis and started to repackage intelligence reporting was shortly after Saddam’s regime fell to US and allied forces and it was noted that the road to Baghdad was not paved with artillery shells full of nerve agent. The fact that US intelligence analysts did their job – best conclusions drawn from incomplete, insufficient and occasionally inaccurate information – is lost in the midst of a grand blame-game. The response is typical bureaucratic short-sightedness mixed with a large dose of management philosophy of the moment: as long as we stick to re-packaging “facts” we can avoid being called “failures” in the future.

The fundamental problem of course is that you can train monkeys to sort documents and stack them into neat piles; humans have more highly developed gray cells and should be applying them accordingly. Analysts want to use their brains and perhaps the only thing more insulting to them than those who don’t know how intelligence works calling them failures is their own management effectively turning them into apes performing rote tasks for treats.

In the long term, such thinking plays havoc with our ability to avoid honest failures in the future. By abandoning the whole concept of “lanes in the road” (Services and Commands should be supplying the bulk of current intelligence needs) and driving (intentionally or otherwise) national-level assets to become classified CNNs, the community is setting the nation up for more surprises. Fixing this doesn’t require wide scale reform so much as it requires a more judicious deployment of existing resources.

By Michael Tanji at 12:12 PM | Permalink | Feedback (0) | Referenced By (0)

From the English version of Asharq Alawsat, an ode to industry in the Gaza Strip.

A ‘cemetery’ in the neighborhood of al Rimal in Gaza is attracting the attention of motorists and pedestrians alike. Set up last Tuesday in al Katiba Square, this symbolic cemetery is comprised of ‘graves’ symbolizing hundreds of factories that have been closed down as a result of the economic embargo.

The forty ‘graves’, which have been adorned with flowers, each have a tombstone that bears the name of the factory and the number of employees who have lost their jobs in the aftermath. The Popular Committee for Resisting the Siege (PCRS) in Gaza is responsible for the creation of this cemetery as a protest against the economic blockade that has been imposed on Gaza following the Palestinian legislative elections in 2006.

But “The Death of Industry,” such that it was in ‘life,’ cannot be properly eulogized without the inseparable context of the “Rebirth of Hamas,” an inextricably intertwined primary cause.

Freely and openly elected in a democratic process, actions have consequences and democracy, freedom and liberty all carry with them the heavy burden of individual (voter) responsibility, for there is no ‘greater authority’ upon which to place the blame for the consequences of aggression.

Democracy, freedom and liberty are not an instant ticket to peace, actions are. Democracy, freedom and liberty are the most reliable vehicles in which a people can assure such actions are taken by the chosen governing bodies. But they are not a guarantor.

Sometimes enough of the people are duped. Sometimes enough of the people choose leadership for actions other than peace. Sometimes there is not much to choose from at the ballot. Sometimes the people simply do not choose a peaceful path.

But their choices always have consequences, in America and in Gaza.

So when one reads Gaza: The Death of Industry, understand it within the context of “Gaza: The Re-Birth of Hamas.”

By Steve Schippert at 11:29 AM | Permalink | Feedback (0) | Referenced By (0)

Vladimir Putin’s aim has long been to re-establish as much of the old Soviet order as possible, preferably all of it, under Kremlin control. Within that context, the fight for Georgia appears about to get dirtier and nastier in short order as the Russian Duma (parliament) just handed Putin a mandate to support Georgian separatist movements in order to fragment the potential NATO member into splintered internal disarray.

MOSCOW: Parliament on Friday urged the Kremlin to consider recognizing the independence of two separatist regions in neighboring Georgia, stepping up Moscow’s campaign to keep the former Soviet republic out of NATO.

The lower house of Parliament, the State Duma, voted overwhelmingly to adopt a statement calling on President Vladimir Putin and the government to “consider the question of the expediency of recognizing the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia.”

The statement also says the government should speed up efforts to support the sovereignty of the two regions in case Georgia “accelerated” its drive to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, suggesting that Moscow should move swiftly toward recognizing the regions if the alliance puts Georgia on track for membership at a meeting next month.

The vote was 440 to 0 in the 450-seat chamber. [Ed. Note: In Russia, that’s a mandate.]

The statement calls on the government to increase support for Abkhazia and South Ossetia, which broke away from Georgian government control after the 1991 Soviet breakup and have made renewed calls for international recognition since Kosovo’s Western-backed declaration of independence.

Moscow has granted most of the regions’ residents Russian citizenship and has backed them in disputes with the government of Georgia’s pro-Western president, Mikheil Saakashvili, but it formally recognizes Georgia’s territorial integrity.

By Steve Schippert at 12:47 AM | Permalink | Feedback (1) | Referenced By (0)

A British SBS (Special Boat Service) commando who fought off 70 Taliban in Afghanistan is honoured in secret.

The firefight took place on June 27 2006, but the award of a Military Cross has only just been made because medals for special forces soldiers are treated separately for security reasons.

The Special Boat Service team had grabbed the Taliban they were sent in to collect and were on their way back to base, but were ambushed by a force of 70 Taliban who destroyed one of their vehicles. They were forced to flee the vehicles and became pinned down in an irrigation ditch.

“They had an OP [observation post] from which they were watching the targets,” one special forces source said.

“They were expecting a meeting of just four key guys but the OP was compromised and they were ambushed by 70-odd Taliban.”

Capt David Patten, 38, from Aghadowey, Co Londonderry, a member of the Special Reconnaissance Regiment, was killed as the team tried to escape across the fields.

The leader of the patrol was badly wounded by a bullet that went through his forearm and passed through his watch and they were left pinned down in a ditch with their grinning Taliban prisoners, who were now certain they would be freed, one source said.

As dawn broke, one SBS commando, Sgt Paul Bartlett, 35, from Poole, made an attempt to get back to the vehicles but was shot dead. However, this allowed the patrol to see where the the Taliban fire was coming from.

The MC winner, one of two brothers in the SBS, took charge and led the men in holding off the Taliban, manoeuvring himself into a position from where he could throw a grenade into the main enemy position. The 13 fit men not only managed to hold off the Taliban until a Gurkha platoon arrived but killed dozens of the Taliban.

The leader of the patrol lost his forearm as a result of his wounds but is still with the service.

This Marine offers up a hearty “Semper Fi, Jack!” Here’s hoping the entire team has been privately recognized for their collective and individual valour. They are so recognized here.

UPDATE: The good news: Britain plans to boost its Afghanistan force in Helmand province with 600 troops, most for additional reconstruction efforts following the recapture of Musa Qala. The bad news: “The move to send extra troops follows the failure to per