Michael J. Totten writing from Beirut:
Can I make a new rule? Anyone who is in a position of power and who will make policies relating to Muslims is first required to visit Muslim countries.
Archive for October, 2005
Austin Bay has assembled the relevant segments from the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence on Joe Wilson’s misrepresentations.
Austin notes that Ed Morrissey covers the same material a day earlier, but from a different angle.
Dean Esmay in Misty WMD Memories…. expressed my feelings succinctly:
…I am utterly appalled at people I used to think of as intelligent and well-informed who keep repeating falsehood after falsehood after falsehood. And I am utterly exhausted with having to, at least once a month or so, go back and rehash the same arguments because some people are not honest enough, diligent enough, or caring enough to go back and look at the historical record and just be honest about it.
Fasten your seat belt low and tight before you read Dan Darling’s Fourth Rail post based on translations of two articles for the German political magazine Cicero. You knew that Iran was supporting al Qaeda, right? But did you know how wide and deep that relationship is?
While President Ahmadinejad’s call for the annihilation of Israel elicited (and rightly so) a great deal of international outcry even among the Iranian regime’s staunchest defenders, at some point one must consider that it is far more important what the Iranian government does than what it says.
Towards that end, I would like to call the readers’ attention to two articles that have appeared in the German political magazine Cicero over the last year. The first, published last spring, was apparently so concerning to the German government in terms of the information contained that it prompted a raid on Cicero’s Potsdam-based offices by German authorities. To the best of my knowledge, much of this information has yet to be widely reported in the English media.
This blog post will contain the full text of the first Cicero article courtesy of the Foreign Broadcast Information Service (FBIS) and the relevant portions of the second courtesy of Rantburg poster Iblis with relatively little commentary, enabling readers to read both of them and draw their own conclusions.
The World’s Most Dangerous Man
by Bruno Schirra
Supported by Iran, gone underground in Iraq, Abu Mus’ab al-Zarqawi has been pulling the strings of Islamist terrorism, becoming Usama Bin Ladin’s new crown prince and an unscrupulous Holy War fighter. (…)
AFP has a short brief on the most recent Cicero article (Saad bin Laden is Osama’s son thought to be his designated successor):
Iran is providing refuge to around 25 leading members of the Al-Qaeda terror group including three of Osama bin Laden’s sons, a German magazine reported.
Cicero magazine said Saad, Mohammed and Othman bin Laden as well as other Al-Qaeda members from Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Uzbekistan, north Africa and Europe were living in and around Tehran under the protection of Iran’s Republican Guard.
The magazine quoted a “top-ranking Western secret service agent” as saying the Al-Qaeda members were free to move around.
“They are not under arrest or house arrest,” the unnamed source told the respected monthly Cicero. “They can do what they like.”
Saad bin Laden, who is around 25, is thought to have played a key financial and logistical role in several Al-Qaeda attacks and is on a US most-wanted list.
Osama bin Laden is believed to have more than 20 sons by several wives.
The article was written by journalist Bruno Schirra.
Cicero and Schirra made national headlines in Germany last month when police raided the magazine’s offices and Schirra’s Berlin home after he wrote a story alleging links between Iran and Al-Qaeda’s frontman in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.
The police were searching for evidence to identify Schirra’s sources after he quoted classified German documents in that story.
For more background on Iran and al Qaeda, derived from the 9/11 Report, see Bill Roggio’s Terror Inc.
Civil society is growing step by step, see Iraq the Model:
Today, Mohammed and I had the privilege to be invited to attend a conference organized by a group of civil society organizations to announce the launch of a new community under the name “Ahd Al-Iraq” or (the oath of Iraq).
The basic theme of the community is to take a promise from politicians, civil society activists and MPs (current or running for office) to preserve and protect the rights and freedoms every Iraqi citizen is supposed to enjoy under the new constitution and under the internationally recognized conventions and laws and to work to introduce amendments in the constitution whenever believed necessary for the protection of these rights and freedoms.
The founders of the community named five main points in the constitution that require urgent reconsideration: (…snip…)
The interesting thing about this meeting and similar ones is that civil society organizations began to modify their methods of applying pressure on the government and politicians, so instead of waiting for politicians and parties to present their platforms, now we have emerging organizations that decided to jump a couple of steps ahead and start telling politicians and parties what the people want to see in electoral platforms and what kind of a government people are willing support.
I wish them success in this campaign.
Bill Roggio has posted a very informative interview with Colonel Stephen W. Davis, Commander of Marine Regimental Combat Team - 2, who is responsible for fighting in western Anbar province. E.g., Col. Davis’ observations on composition of the enemy:
Bill: What is your estimation of the number of insurgents in the region? Do the foreign fighters have a dominant voice in the insurgency?
Col Davis: There are three levels of enemy in our area of operations - AO Denver. First there are the independent tribal fighters operating in this barren region who are traditional smugglers and are wrapped up in an assortment of criminal enterprises. There are the Baathists hardliners, the former regime elements that are fighting to rid the area of an American presence and are looking to return to power. Then there are the al Qaeda jihadist who are not interested in the stability of the region, but only interested in killing Iraqis and Americans, establishing their Islamist Caliphate and terrorizing the local population.
These various groups will work together or fight each other on any given day. The jihadists are not predominant in numbers but are providing the bulk of the leadership, the financiers that fund the terror activities and the technical knowledge of the insurgency. This area of Iraq is complex. Generations have been conditioned by Saddam to be survivalists and will do what is needed to survive. When the people become convinced we will remain to provide security and services, they cooperate with us. They hate the foreign fighters; they despise them for what they have done to their families and their towns and cities.
And on reconstruction progress:
Bill: How are reconstruction projects proceeding in cities and towns along the Euphrates River basin such as Hit, Haditha, Rawah?
Col Davis: We are in the infancy in the reconstruction stage. The best results so far have been in the city of Rawah, where the Army’s 114th Civil Affairs group has done some wonderful work. We are also making some progress in the city of Hit.
I don’t like to talk in terms of winning and losing when it comes to the issues in the Middle East. Americans have a very Western way of thinking: you identify the problem; you analyze the problem and then fix it and move onto the next problem. Out here you need to be vigilant and do a lot of continuous maintenance work, which pays off over time.
Saddam never controlled this region of Iraq. It is very tribal and fiercely independent. He sent in the army to kill and intimidate the population. He established two tribes in the region: the Salmanis and the Karabilah tribes, to further his goals and counter balance existing dominating tribes. The Iraqis out west, particularly in Haditha are well educated and are able to provide for their own needs. They have operated this way for centuries and can do so again with the proper security environment. We have a simple equation we use out here:
Presence = Security = Stability = the environment for self governance.
Our goal is to enfranchise the Iraqi security forces and allow them to provide for the security in the region and improve the lives of the Iraqi people. We will continue to conduct civil/military affairs operations to improve the lives of the Iraqi people. In Haditha, we are rebuilding the hospital the jihadis attacked with a car bomb and then used as a base of operation. We are working to enhance schools and other services vital to the people. We will continue to maintain a presence until the Iraqi Army is capable of standing on its own.
The Glenn Reynold’s post I linked in my previous post contains many resource links. One is this earlier Instapundit post that is so useful I wanted to highlight as a resource - on the dangerous practice of historical revisionism. As Glenn wrote:
Just, you know, correcting the record. (…)
Don’t these guys realize that we have Google?
Not to mention, apparently, better memories . . . .
Trust Law professor Instapundit to be all over the Wilson’s/Libby mis-coverage by the press:
ONE OF THE THINGS I’VE NOTICED in the Judy Miller / Scooter Libby coverage is the development of a new history that’s very convenient for a lot of the people peddling it. The new story is that:
1. We only went to war because of WMDs — that was the only reason ever given.
2. Bush lied about those.
3. He told his lies to Judy Miller, who acted like a stenographer and reported them.
4. Everyone else gullibly went along.
There are lots of problems with this, beginning with the fact that it’s not true. I’ve addressed much of this — especially parts 1 & 2 — in earlier posts like this one, this one, and especially this one. It gets tiresome having to repeat this stuff, but the new history, despite its falsity, is just too convenient for too many people to be stopped by anything as simple as the truth.
Glenn has lots of links.
An excellent Wall Street Journal editorial provides more true history on “prisoner abuse”
The proposition that the Pentagon threw out any rules is simply false. Regarding Abu Ghraib, no fewer than nine courts-martial were confident enough of the rules to hand out sentences of up to 10 years to soldiers who violated those rules. The same courts martial proved that the abuses had nothing to do with interrogations. As former Defense Secretary James Schlesinger, who headed last year’s independent panel on detention operations put it, Abu Ghraib was the result of sick and sadistic behavior on the “night shift.”
If Mr. McCain has any point here, it’s that before 9/11 the U.S. had developed little guidance for interrogating prisoners whom the Geneva Conventions designate as “unlawful combatants”–i.e., terrorists, and guerrillas who fight out of uniform. But since 9/11 the Bush Administration has developed such guidance, and the allowable techniques are both specific and legally vetted. Abuses have occurred, and dozens have been punished. Overall, rates of reported detainee abuse by U.S. soldiers today are historically low compared with other conflicts, such as World War II.
and raises a critical point that is rarely discussed
The danger is that the McCain Amendment would only solidify what’s already been a military overreaction to the Abu Ghraib scandal. In Iraq, that overreaction has meant that terror suspects cannot be aggressively interrogated at all. They cannot be held for more than several weeks after capture without charge. The insurgents know this, and thus know that they have little to fear if they fall into U.S. hands….
Far more impressive is the near-unanimous opposition to the McCain effort from commanders currently fighting the war on terror. They understand that the amendment will be interpreted as an unnecessary rebuke, and as a huge disincentive to push detainees hard when seeking information on “ticking bombs.”
Or as Senator Pat Roberts explained his opposition in the Washington Post: “I know as chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee that the information we get from interrogating terrorists is some of the most valuable information we get. It saves lives. . . . Passing a law that effectively telegraphs to the entire terrorist world what they can expect if they are caught is not only counterproductive, but could be downright dangerous.”
Richard Miniter is the author of “Disinformation: 22 Media Myths That Undermine the War on Terror” (October 24, 2005). The 5000 word excerpt Baggage Claim published today in the Wall Street Journal debunks the suitcase nuke myth.
Read Miniter’s article - see what you think. It looks like he has done him homework - though I’m not well-informed on the topic and might well miss gaps in his case.
One very interesting point should be fact-checkable: that radioactive decay would require frequent replacement of suitable fissionable material.
The half-life of the most likely materials in the infinitesimal weights necessary to fit in a suitcase is a few months. So as a matter of physics and engineering, the nuclear suitcase is an impractical weapon. It would have to be rebuilt with new radioactive elements every few months.
By reasoning backwards from the practical dimensions and weight a portable device, one should be able to estimate the maximum quantity of nuclear material that could be employed. And from there to the useable lifetime of the device. Would any physicist-readers care to comment on that?
Other useful info - about a third of the article covers al Qaeda’s efforts to buy, steal or construct nuclear weapons. Very serious, well organized efforts - that so far as we know today have not yet been successful.
My reading of the difficulty of building and deploying a dirty bomb is far more pessimistic. I’m convinced that pre 9/11 al Qaeda could detonate dirty bomb(s) on U.S. soil. Paris would be easier. See Getting Serious About Homeland Security (lots of resource links). And Our Hair is on Fire. Of particular concern is that terrorists can obtain the radioactive isotopes and explosives required inside U.S. borders.
Whether the terror leaders would choose that option from their menu of terror-alternatives is a “known unknown”. In MIT Technology Review, Physicist Richard Muller discussed what we can project about dirty bomb effects. The impact is largely public panic - which al Qaeda may find difficult to appraise when weighing alternative attacks. A Wall Street firm might rate the impact quite differently - in a 1/25/05 talk at the Carnegie Council Stephen Flynn said:
My nightmare scenario, which is one that comes from spending a lot of time talking and seeing how this operates, is a hardware kind of thing. The scenario I lay out in chapter 2 of my book, called “The Next Attack,” involves essentially four dirty bombs: one here in Port Elizabeth; another on the Ambassador Bridge, the world’s busiest commercial crossing between Windsor, Ontario, and Detroit, Michigan, where virtually all our automotive industry moves their stuff back and forth; the other is in the Port of L.A.; and the last is in Miami, in the Free Trade Zone. These four dirty bombs go off.
The response by the U.S. government is to immediately close all our seaports and to close the borders. The longshoremen won’t work. The Teamsters won’t drive the trucks. The mayors are saying, “I don’t want any trucks and trains coming into my city,” because the terrorists come on Al-Jazeera about six hours later and say, “We have three nukes, not dirty bombs, that we’ll set off if you don’t get out of the Middle East.”
The cascading effects are that within two weeks the entire global trade system essentially collapses. It’s because essentially this all has to keep moving to keep moving. I describe it as like being at the bottom of a very long escalator and tripping, and then everything comes crashing down. When we close our seaports, essentially all the ships that were destined to unload goods have to anchor out. Then the terminals overseas, particularly in places like Hong Kong and Rotterdam and Singapore, have to close their gates immediately to all incoming trucks because they have no place to put them; they will be in the cement mix bowl of containers. That means every truck and train coming into the terminal is stuck with a container on its back with no place to go. That means back at the factory with goods to ship there’s no truck or train to pick it up.
And does al Qaeda et al have the capability today? Who would have predicted that four years after 9/11 the U.S. could have avoided further attacks? Counter-terror operations are not publicized, so we know almost nothing of the global operations that have so far been successful.
Latest Comments
RSS