Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Snuffymith's Blog-Sept. 17 - Nov. 29, 2007
Common Ground Common Sense > National & International News > Op-Ed Articles from the Mainstream Media > Op-Ed Articles from the Mainstream Media Archive
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42
Snuffysmith
Inside Track: Fred Thompson’s Defense Diatribe by Ted Galen Carpenter

11.15.2007

EMAIL ARTICLE | PRINTER FRIENDLY

Republican presidential candidate Fred Thompson may have set a modern record for the amount of sloppy thinking on defense policy in a single speech. In remarks at the Citadel on Tuesday, Thompson proposed measures for a “revitalized” national defense.

The chief “pillar” of Thompson’s proposal is that the United States should not spend less than 4.5 percent of its gross domestic product on defense—not including the vast sums committed each year for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Another crucial pillar is that the U.S. should expand Army and Marine Corps to form a “million-member” force.

4.5 percent of GDP is an astonishingly large sum. The U.S. already spends as much on the military as the rest of the world combined, but even that vast outlay apparently does not satisfy Thompson and others who want to lavish more money on the Pentagon. Under his plan—and a similar scheme advanced by the Heritage Foundation earlier this year— the U.S. military budget would soar by nearly $100 billion. The total would approach $600 billion—plus at least another $150 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan. Worse, the 4.5 percent figure is a floor; the actual defense budget of a Thompson administration could be even more.

Thompson’s approach turns proper defense budgeting on its head. Instead of crafting a defense strategy and then determining how much we need to spend to implement it, Thompson picks an arbitrary budget figure. He would apparently decide on policy priorities later.

To the extent he thinks about the specifics of security strategy at all, Thompson uncritically accepts all of Washington’s current defense commitments. But there are numerous obligations that reek of obsolescence. Why, for example, does the United States need to keep nearly 100,000 troops in Europe more than 15 years after the collapse of the Soviet Union?

Similarly, why do we need to retain our security commitment to South Korea? When we made that pledge, South Korea was an impoverished country incapable of defending itself, and the Korean peninsula was only one theater in America’s global struggle against communism. Today, South Korea has twice the population and an economy 40 times bigger than that of its North Korean rival. It seems absurd on its face to continue subsidizing the defense of such a prosperous and capable country -- especially when it is no longer part of a global security rivalry.

Yet there is no hint in Thompson’s defense manifesto that he is willing to consider terminating—or even downsizing—such obsolete commitments. Setting military spending at so high a level spares policymakers from having to make decisions about priorities. Instead, it encourages complacent, lazy thinking about strategy.

The second crucial pillar of Thompson’s proposal—the million-member ground force— may be even more worrisome than the overall spending figure. Due to its geographic position and technological prowess, America needs to focus on air and naval power to protect its legitimate security interests. A large ground force makes little strategic sense. The United States is not likely to wage a ground war against China, Russia or any other conceivable major strategic adversary.

Consequently, a million-member ground force is superfluous, unless Thompson is contemplating involving the United States in additional Iraq-style nation-building missions. But that is the last thing America needs to do. We have already spent a tragic amount of blood and treasure—nearly 3,900 casualties and well over $500 billion—in the Iraq misadventure. For the United States to pursue similar missions in the future would be an exercise in foreign policy masochism.

Thompson’s defense proposal is a case study in faulty thinking about important security issues. Throwing money at the Pentagon, complacently accepting a host of obsolete commitments to free-riding allies and embracing the folly of nation building is not what the next administration needs to do.



Ted Galen Carpenter, vice president for defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute, is the author of seven books on international affairs. His next book, Smart Power: Toward a Prudent Foreign Policy for America, will be published in 2008.

Snuffysmith
Doubts Linger as Syria
Shows Iraq Border Security
Snuffysmith
This piece appeared in North County Times in California on November 18. Find the North County Times' copy at http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2007/11/18..._1711_17_07.prt

Why Congress won't reform: Changes in wake of Cunningham scandal don't dent corrupt 'earmarking' system

By: WINSLOW T. WHEELER - Commentary

Having endured the Congressman Randy "Duke" Cunningham saga up close and personal for the last two years, most recently in the form of Mr. Brent Wilkes' conviction on all 13 counts for the corrupt acts that he and Cunningham performed, San Diego has had a ring-side seat on modern sleaze in Congress.

Since the Dukester's resignation from the U.S. House of Representatives in November 2005, there has been a lot of congressional activity to change how members of Congress do business with lobbyists like Mr. Wilkes and how Congress enacts those "earmarks" that Cunningham chased so assiduously to earn his bribes. Voters in San Diego County have a right to think that there is potentially a positive side to the mess; the scandal could produce reforms to retard at least some of the more painfully obvious abuses.

Sorry. It hasn't happened, and it's not going to.

I worked on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., for 31 years as a staffer for Republican and Democratic senators, helping them chase down pork and stay cozy with the network of lobbyists that pay huge sums to members of Congress to keep federal tax dollars flowing through the congressional pork process. Despite dozens of pages of new rules and "reforms," and thousands of sanctimonious speeches, nothing has changed. In some ways, legislative ethics are now even worse than when felon Cunningham was selling himself in return for used cars, old furniture, prostitutes and other goodies.

Just after the November 2006 elections that brought the Democrats into the majority in Congress, the new Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, D-San Francisco, promised "the most ethical Congress ever." Her delivery on part of that promise was a new set of rules for the pork process on Capitol Hill. They permit any spending bill to be ruled "out of order" (and therefore dead) unless it is accompanied by a list of earmarks in the bill. The identity of each earmark's congressional sponsor must be displayed along with "the name and address of the intended recipient" or "the intended location" of the earmark and a certification that no member of Congress has any financial interest in the earmark. In other words, the reform sheds "sunshine" on earmarks.

Sounds good, doesn't it?

The new sunlight is more deceptive than illuminating; each earmark's description is authored not by an objective entity, but by the earmark's congressional sponsor. In other words, Duke Cunningham, for example, would have been allowed to explain without fear of contradiction why Brent Wilkes' earmarks should stay in the defense budget as essential national security spending. Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., can today freely articulate every reason the Boeing Company feeds her as to why a few billion more should be spent on C-17 transport aircraft the secretary of defense doesn't want. She will not be required to explain what other defense spending will be axed to make her superfluous C-17s available, nor that they will never arrive in time to play a useful role in the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan.

Sen. Boxer and all other congressional porkers would be crazy not to comply with the new "anti-pork" reforms. They are nothing less than free advertising. None of the pork in this new "reformed" system will be objectively evaluated by or honestly described to anyone. We won't know if it is actually needed, how much it will really cost, or whether spending on something else would be a better idea.

But it gets worse. The so-called "sunshine" that the Pelosi reforms have shed on earmarks is highly selective. The new definition of earmarks excludes huge amounts of pork. The Washington, D.C.-based watchdog organization Taxpayers for Common Sense found 70 earmarks that the House Appropriations Committee failed to identify in its new fiscal year 2008 Department of Defense Appropriations bill, adding to the 1,339 earmarks the committee did disclose. These unlisted 70 earmarks were fat ones: They more than doubled the legislation's pork bill from $3 billion to $6.5 billion. When the Senate got to its version of the bill in September, it put in 936 earmarks amounting to $5.2 billion. Earlier this month, the House and Senate reconciled the differences between their two versions of the legislation and sent it to the president. It's now law. Analysts are still sorting out the complete pork bill, but it already looks to be an amount higher than what either the House or Senate separately passed; after all, porking is an additive process.

Further, the pork process for defense spending will not be over if and when this new defense bill is enacted. There is still the supplemental spending Congress must pass to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the congressional porkers have big plans there too. They include almost $3 billion for those additional C-17s the Pentagon says it doesn't want, but which Sen. Boxer, and many others, will jam into the bill.

In toto, there is an excellent chance that Congress will top last year's pork bill for defense spending. For fiscal year 2007, the Republican Congress enacted 2,646 defense earmarks for $10.5 billion. Given the course the Democratic "reform" Congress is on, that will be an easy mark to beat. Should this occur, it will be done in spite of the promise from both the House and Senate Democratic leadership to cut pork spending in half.

And what about bribes? That system is alive and well also. They will surely come from the appreciative corporations for the ever-compliant porkers. Payments in the form of used cars, furniture and women will be rare ---- as has always been the case; payment in the form of campaign contributions will be routine. The only difference between the Cunningham form of payment and the latter is that Congress has deemed thank you payments in the form of cash to campaigns to be perfectly legal. After all, they write the laws.

There is a simple reason why Congress has not changed any fundamentals: Senators and representatives still see their political survival dependant on their ability to "bring home the bacon." Any reduction in spending for a congressional district will be immediate grounds for a political attack in an election. Less pork will prompt an allegation that the member of Congress either "doesn't care" or "can't produce." Sitting members are deathly afraid of any such attack and behave accordingly.

Those attacks will not just come from political opponents; they will also come from local media who keep track of such things. They will also come from the voters, who think that "bringing home the bacon" is a measure of a good representative.

In the final analysis, it is not the members of Congress we should attack for their phony reforms. They are only doing what they know we want them to do. When we change, they will.

Winslow T. Wheeler is the director of the Straus Military Reform Project in Washington, D.C. He spent 31 years working in Congress for U.S. Senators from both political parties and the Government Accountability Office. Senators sought his resignation from the Senate staff in 2002 when he wrote an essay about the congressional pork system, "Mr. Smith Is Dead: No One Stands in the Way as Congress Laces Post-Sept. 11 Defense Bills with Pork." Wheeler subsequently wrote about his congressional career in his book about Congress and national security, "The Wastrels of Defense."
Snuffysmith
U.S. Hopes to Use Pakistani Tribes Against Al Qaeda
Ali Imam/Reuters

In the Swat region, a member of the Frontier Corps, a paramilitary force that has about 85,000 soldiers, stood guard at a bazaar.

By ERIC SCHMITT, MARK MAZZETTI and CARLOTTA GALL
Published: November 19, 2007

WASHINGTON, Nov. 18 — A new and classified American military proposal outlines an intensified effort to enlist tribal leaders in the frontier areas of Pakistan in the fight against Al Qaeda and the Taliban, as part of a broader effort to bolster Pakistani forces against an expanding militancy, American military officials said.
Skip to next paragraph
The New York Times

Militants have extended their reach beyond the tribal areas.

If adopted, the proposal would join elements of a shift in strategy that would also be likely to expand the presence of American military trainers in Pakistan, directly finance a separate tribal paramilitary force that until now has proved largely ineffective and pay militias that agreed to fight Al Qaeda and foreign extremists, officials said. The United States now has only about 50 troops in Pakistan, a Pentagon spokesman said, a force that could grow by dozens under the new approach.

The proposal is modeled in part on a similar effort by American forces in Anbar Province in Iraq that has been hailed as a great success in fighting foreign insurgents there. But it raises the question of whether such partnerships, to be forged in this case by Pakistani troops backed by the United States, can be made without a significant American military presence in Pakistan. And it is unclear whether enough support can be found among the tribes, some of which are working with Pakistan's intelligence agency.

Altogether, the broader strategic move toward more local support is being accelerated because of concern about instability in Pakistan and the weakness of the Pakistani government, as well as fears that extremists with havens in the tribal areas could escalate their attacks on allied troops in Afghanistan. Just in recent weeks, Islamic militants sympathetic to Al Qaeda and the Taliban have already extended their reach beyond the frontier areas into more settled areas, most notably the mountainous region of Swat.

[The Pakistani president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, recommended late Sunday that the Election Commission call for parliamentary elections on Jan. 8, but he did not say whether emergency rule would be revoked beforehand, Reuters reported early Monday.

“Inshallah, the general elections in the country would be held on Jan. 8,” the official Associated Press of Pakistan news agency quoted Musharraf as saying late Sunday.]

The tribal proposal, a strategy paper prepared by staff members of the United States Special Operations Command, has been circulated to counterterrorism experts but has not yet been formally approved by the command’s headquarters in Tampa, Fla. Some other elements of the campaign have been approved in principle by the Americans and Pakistanis and await financing, like $350 million over several years to help train and equip the Frontier Corps, a paramilitary force that has about 85,000 members and is recruited from border tribes.

Ever since Sept. 11, 2001, the Bush administration has used billions of dollars of aid and heavy political pressure to encourage Gen. Pervez Musharraf, Pakistan’s president, to carry out more aggressive military operations against militants in the tribal areas. But the sporadic military campaigns Pakistan has conducted there have had little success, resulting instead in heavy losses among Pakistani Army units and anger among local residents who have for decades been mostly independent from Islamabad’s control.

American officials acknowledge those failures, but say that the renewed emphasis on recruiting allies among the tribal militias and investing more heavily in the Frontier Corps reflect the depth of American concern about the need to address Islamic extremism in Pakistan. The new counterinsurgency campaign is also a vivid example of the American military’s asserting a bigger role in a part of Pakistan that the Central Intelligence Agency has overseen almost exclusively since Sept. 11.

Small numbers of United States military personnel have served as advisers to the Pakistani Army in the tribal areas, giving planning advice and helping to integrate American intelligence, said one senior American officer with long service in the region.

Historically, American Special Forces have gone into foreign countries to work with local militaries to improve the security of those countries in ways that help American interests. Under this new approach, the number of advisers would increase, officials said.

American officials said these security improvements complemented a package of assistance from the Agency for International Development and the State Department for the seven districts of the tribal areas that amounted to $750 million over five years, and would involve work in education, health and other sectors. The State Department’s Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs is also assisting the Frontier Corps with financing for counternarcotics work.

Some details of the security improvements have been reported by The Los Angeles Times and The Washington Post. But the classified proposal to enlist tribal leaders is new.

“The D.O.D. is about to start funding the Frontier Corps,” one military official said, referring to the Department of Defense. “We have only got a portion of that requested but it is enough to start.”

Until now, the Frontier Corps has not received American military financing because the corps technically falls under the Pakistani Interior Ministry, a nonmilitary agency that the Pentagon ordinarily does not deal with. But American officials say the Frontier Corps is in the long term the most suitable force to combat an insurgency. The force, which since 2001 has increasingly been under the day-to-day command of Pakistani Army units, is now being expanded and trained by American advisers, diplomats said.

The training of the Frontier Corps remains a concern for some. NATO and American soldiers in Afghanistan have often blamed the Frontier Corps for aiding and abetting Taliban insurgents mounting cross-border attacks. “It’s going to take years to turn them into a professional force,” said one Western military official. “Is it worth it now?”

At the same time, military officials fear the assistance to develop a counterinsurgency force is too little, too late. “The advantage is already in the enemy hands,” one Western military official said. Local Taliban and foreign fighters in Waziristan have managed to regroup since negotiating peace deals with the government in 2005 and 2006, and last year they were able to fight all through the winter, he said. Militants have now emerged in force in the Swat area, a scenic tourist region that is a considerable distance inland from the tribal areas on the border.

The planning at the Special Operations Command intensified after Adm. Eric T. Olson, a member of the Navy Seals who is the new head of the command, met with General Musharraf and Pakistani military leaders in August to discuss how the military could increase cooperation in Pakistan’s fight against the extremists.

A spokesman for the command, Kenneth McGraw, would not comment on any briefing paper that had been circulated for review. He said Friday that after Admiral Olson returned from his trip, he “energized the staff to look for ways to develop opportunities for future cooperation.”

A senior Defense Department official said that Admiral Olson had prepared a memorandum on how Special Operations forces could assist the Pakistani military in the counterinsurgency, and shared that document with several senior Pentagon officials.

Four senior defense or counterterrorism officials confirmed that planning was under way at the command headquarters.

One person who was briefed on the proposal prepared by the Special Operations Command staff members, and who spoke on condition of anonymity because the briefing had not yet been approved, said it was in the form of about two dozen slides. The slides described a strategy using both military and nonmilitary measures to fight the militants.

One slide included a chart that categorized one to two dozen tribes by location — North Waziristan and South Waziristan, for example — and then gave a brief description of their location, their known or suspected links to Al Qaeda and the Taliban, and their size and military abilities.

The briefing said United States forces would not be involved in any conventional combat in Pakistan. But several senior military and Pentagon officials said elements of the Joint Special Operations Command, an elite counterterrorism unit, might be involved in strikes against senior militant leaders under specific conditions.

Two people briefed on elements of the approach said it was modeled in part on efforts in Iraq, where American commanders have worked with Sunni sheiks in Anbar Province to turn locals against the militant group Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, the homegrown Sunni extremist group that American intelligence agencies say is led by foreigners.

The success of these efforts, together with the consensus in military and intelligence circles that the grip of the original Al Qaeda in the tribal areas continues to tighten at a time when the Pakistani government is in crisis, led planners at the Special Operations Command to develop the strategy for the tribal areas.

A group of Pakistan experts convened in March by the Defense Intelligence Agency concluded that empowering tribal leaders could be an effective strategy to counter the rising influence of Islamic religious leaders and to weaken Al Qaeda. But a report on the session found that such successes “would be difficult to achieve, particularly in the north (Bajaur) and south (North and South Waziristan).”

One person who had been brief on the proposal cautioned that whether a significant number of tribal leaders would join an American-backed effort carried out by Pakistani forces was “the $64,000 question.”


Eric Schmitt and Mark Mazzetti reported from Washington, and Carlotta Gall from Islamabad, Pakistan.
Snuffysmith
Pakistan put in its real place

Visiting US Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte made all the politically correct noises at the weekend about Pakistan needing to lift its state of emergency. But what really matters to Washington is the continued prosecution of the "war on terror" and the person who is going to do it - President General Pervez Musharraf. - Syed Saleem Shahzad (Nov 19, '07)
Snuffysmith
US tripped up over Iranian captives

The United States has captured numerous Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps officials in Iraq, hoping to associate them to arms smuggling into Iraq, or even better, to show that the corps' elite Quds Force is involved in assisting Shi'ite forces militarily. To date, not one of the captives has been linked to any such operations. - Gareth Porter (Nov 19, '07)
Snuffysmith
SPENGLER
Israel, the hope of
the Muslim world
The state of Israel embodies the last, best chance for the Islamic world to come to terms with the modern world, precisely because it constitutes a humiliation to Muslims. (Nov 19, '07)
Snuffysmith
CREDIT BUBBLE BULLETIN
Crunch time
Recessionary forces are intensifying in the US as the financial sector comes under heightened strain. Expect huge finance-related job cuts over the coming months, expect more broad-based tightening of credit and financial conditions, and expect the severity of the unfolding housing bust to negatively impact holiday spending and consumer confidence generally.
Doug Noland wraps up the previous week's developments each Monday.
Snuffysmith
John Brown, "Too Parochial for Empire: The Bush Administration Conquers Washington" (TomDispatch.com, November 18)
http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/174864/joh...ding_washington
PUBLIC DIPLOMACY ISN'T PR: U.S. FOREIGN POLICY, NOT KAREN HUGHES, IS THE REASON WE'RE LOSING THE WORLD - PRICE B. FLOYD (LOS ANGELES TIMES, NOVEMBER 19): http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-...inion-rightrail
THE DIGITAL JIHADIS AND THE DIGITAL OUTREACH PROGRAMS - HAKAWI HAKAWI FROM THE EAST: COMMENTARY ON INSANITY, NOVEMBER 18): http://hakawi.wordpress.com/2007/11/18/the...reach-programs/

U.S. ENLISTS ARAB BLOGGERS FOR INFO WAR (UPDATED) - NOAH SHACHTMAN (WIRED, NOVEMBER 15): http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/11/its-no-secret-t.html

STATE DEPT. TRIES BLOG DIPLOMACY - WALTER PINCUS (WASHINGTON POST, NOVEMBER 19): http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...1801114_pf.html
SEE ALSO
http://www.defensetech.org/archives/003859.html
BUSH'S DIVINE COMEDY: PART I -- THE GOOD, THE BAD... - ERIC WALBERG (AL-AHRAM, NOVEMBER 15): Imagine how humiliating, if you are a thinking person and have any ethical standards at all, to have to defend with a straight face the current policies of the US government, year in, year out, that is, until you get your head blown off by one of the millions of people wishing to avenge their personal loss.
http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2007/871/special.htm
U.S. SAYS ATTACKS IN IRAQ FELL TO THE LEVEL OF FEB. 2006 - CARA BUCKLEY AND MICHAEL R. GORDON (NEW YORK TIMES, NOVEMBER 19): The American military said Sunday that the weekly number of attacks in Iraq had fallen to the lowest level since just before the February 2006 bombing of the Shiite shrine in Samarra, an event commonly used as a benchmark for the country?s worst spasm of bloodletting after the American invasion nearly five years ago.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/19/world/mi...agewanted=print
IRAQ'S NARROW WINDOW: IRAQIS, AND THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION, RISK SQUANDERING THE POLITICAL OPPORTUNITY CREATED BY THE SURGE EDITORIAL (WASHINGTON POST, NOVEMBER 18): The White House and State Department seem to be turning their attention from Iraq at the very moment when they should be mounting a diplomatic offensive to secure concrete steps toward a political settlement. Such negligence would be another fateful mistake in the conduct of this war.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...1601765_pf.html
GOOD NEWS IS NO NEWS - VICTOR DAVIS HANSON (WASHINGTON TIMES, NOVEMBER 17): The US Army and Marine Corps may well soon stabilize the Iraqi democracy once deemed lost. Or perhaps, in the manner of Vietnam between 1973-75, the public may have become so tired of Iraq -- despite the improvement -- that it simply wants it out of sight and out of mind.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.d...mplate=printart
COALITION 'CANNOT WIN' IN IRAQ OR AFGHANISTAN - GRAEME DOBELL (ABC NEWS, AUSTRALIA, NOVEMBER 18): http://abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/11/18/...m?section=world
http://www.juancole.com/2007/11/us-increas...raq-dozens.html

MAKING THE INEVITABLE HAPPEN: EVERYONE KNOWS THE OUTLINES OF THE MIDDLE EAST PEACE ACCORD. WHAT'S MISSING IS THE POLITICAL WILL TO ACHIEVE IT - BERNARD AVISHAI AND SAM BAHOUR (LOS ANGELES TIMES, NOVEMBER 18): http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-op-...inion-rightrail

ISRAEL, PALESTINE, CRAB CAKES - ROGER COHEN (NEW YORK TIMES, NOVEMBER 19): http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/19/opinion/...agewanted=print

PAKISTANIS GROWING FRUSTRATED WITH U.S.: ENVOY TO BRING TOUGH MESSAGE FOR MUSHARRAF - EMILY WAX AND IMTIAZ ALI (WASHINGTON POST, NOVEMBER 16)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7111502273.html
MUSHARRAF TIES POSE DILEMMA FOR BUSH - MICHAEL ABRAMOWITZ (WASHINGTON POST, NOVEMBER 18): http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...1700839_pf.html

IN THE SHAH'S FOOTSTEPS? - CLAUDE SALHANI (WASHINGTON TIMES, NOVEMBER 17): http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.d...mplate=printart

PAKISTAN'S OPTIONS - ED ROYCE (WASHINGTON TIMES, NOVEMBER 18): http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.d...mplate=printart

CHÁVEZ AND THE KING - JACKSON DIEHL (WASHINGTON POST, NOVEMBER 19): http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...1800945_pf.html

OUTSMARTED BY SUDAN - JIM HOAGLAND (WASHINGTON POST, NOVEMBER 18): http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...1601619_pf.html

DARFUR IN PERIL EDITORIAL (WASHINGTON TIMES, NOVEMBER 19): http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.d...mplate=printart

PUTIN INSTITUTIONALIZED ? REVIEW & OUTLOOK (WALL STREET JOURNAL, NOVEMBER 19): http://online.wsj.com/article_print/SB1195...6806397254.html
PAID SUBSCRIPTION

TWO SIDES OF MR. SARKOZY - EDITORIAL (NEW YORK TIMES, NOVEMBER 18): http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/18/opinion/...agewanted=print

WHO IS SARKOZY? - WILLIAM PFAFF (NEW YORK REVIEW OF BOOKS, DECEMBER 6): http://www.nybooks.com/articles/20859

ARE WE SAFER? A REPORT CARD ON THE WAR ON TERROR - DAVID COLE AND JULES LOBEL (LOS ANGELES TIMES, NOVEMBER 18)
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commen...omment-opinions
HENRY KISSINGER: DIPLOMACY IN THE POST-9/11 ERA - DAVID B. RIVKIN JR. (WALL STREET JOURNAL, NOVEMBER 17): http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1195268524...ured_stories_hs
PAID SUBSCRIPTION

BEWARE AN EMPIRE THAT SAVES SOULS AT SWORD POINT - JAMES LEVY (NEWSDAY.COM, NOVEMBER 19): http://www.newsday.com/news/opinion/ny-opl...0,3444637.story

DIPLOMACY WITH THE DEVIL - DANIELLE PLETKA (NEW YORK TIMES, NOVEMBER 19): http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/19/opinion/...agewanted=print

CONDI ROUNDUP: LECONDEL! LECONDEL! TO LIFE! (WONKETTE, NOVEMBER 19): http://wonkette.com/politics/condi-roundup...life-324160.php





Snuffysmith
John Brown, "Too Parochial for Empire: The Bush Administration Conquers Washington" (TomDispatch.com, November 18)
http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/174864/joh...ding_washington
PUBLIC DIPLOMACY ISN'T PR: U.S. FOREIGN POLICY, NOT KAREN HUGHES, IS THE REASON WE'RE LOSING THE WORLD - PRICE B. FLOYD (LOS ANGELES TIMES, NOVEMBER 19): http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-...inion-rightrail
THE DIGITAL JIHADIS AND THE DIGITAL OUTREACH PROGRAMS - HAKAWI HAKAWI FROM THE EAST: COMMENTARY ON INSANITY, NOVEMBER 18): http://hakawi.wordpress.com/2007/11/18/the...reach-programs/

U.S. ENLISTS ARAB BLOGGERS FOR INFO WAR (UPDATED) - NOAH SHACHTMAN (WIRED, NOVEMBER 15): http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/11/its-no-secret-t.html

STATE DEPT. TRIES BLOG DIPLOMACY - WALTER PINCUS (WASHINGTON POST, NOVEMBER 19): http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...1801114_pf.html
SEE ALSO
http://www.defensetech.org/archives/003859.html
BUSH'S DIVINE COMEDY: PART I -- THE GOOD, THE BAD... - ERIC WALBERG (AL-AHRAM, NOVEMBER 15): Imagine how humiliating, if you are a thinking person and have any ethical standards at all, to have to defend with a straight face the current policies of the US government, year in, year out, that is, until you get your head blown off by one of the millions of people wishing to avenge their personal loss.
http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2007/871/special.htm
U.S. SAYS ATTACKS IN IRAQ FELL TO THE LEVEL OF FEB. 2006 - CARA BUCKLEY AND MICHAEL R. GORDON (NEW YORK TIMES, NOVEMBER 19): The American military said Sunday that the weekly number of attacks in Iraq had fallen to the lowest level since just before the February 2006 bombing of the Shiite shrine in Samarra, an event commonly used as a benchmark for the country?s worst spasm of bloodletting after the American invasion nearly five years ago.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/19/world/mi...agewanted=print
IRAQ'S NARROW WINDOW: IRAQIS, AND THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION, RISK SQUANDERING THE POLITICAL OPPORTUNITY CREATED BY THE SURGE EDITORIAL (WASHINGTON POST, NOVEMBER 18): The White House and State Department seem to be turning their attention from Iraq at the very moment when they should be mounting a diplomatic offensive to secure concrete steps toward a political settlement. Such negligence would be another fateful mistake in the conduct of this war.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...1601765_pf.html
GOOD NEWS IS NO NEWS - VICTOR DAVIS HANSON (WASHINGTON TIMES, NOVEMBER 17): The US Army and Marine Corps may well soon stabilize the Iraqi democracy once deemed lost. Or perhaps, in the manner of Vietnam between 1973-75, the public may have become so tired of Iraq -- despite the improvement -- that it simply wants it out of sight and out of mind.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.d...mplate=printart
COALITION 'CANNOT WIN' IN IRAQ OR AFGHANISTAN - GRAEME DOBELL (ABC NEWS, AUSTRALIA, NOVEMBER 18): http://abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/11/18/...m?section=world
http://www.juancole.com/2007/11/us-increas...raq-dozens.html

MAKING THE INEVITABLE HAPPEN: EVERYONE KNOWS THE OUTLINES OF THE MIDDLE EAST PEACE ACCORD. WHAT'S MISSING IS THE POLITICAL WILL TO ACHIEVE IT - BERNARD AVISHAI AND SAM BAHOUR (LOS ANGELES TIMES, NOVEMBER 18): http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-op-...inion-rightrail

ISRAEL, PALESTINE, CRAB CAKES - ROGER COHEN (NEW YORK TIMES, NOVEMBER 19): http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/19/opinion/...agewanted=print

PAKISTANIS GROWING FRUSTRATED WITH U.S.: ENVOY TO BRING TOUGH MESSAGE FOR MUSHARRAF - EMILY WAX AND IMTIAZ ALI (WASHINGTON POST, NOVEMBER 16)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7111502273.html
MUSHARRAF TIES POSE DILEMMA FOR BUSH - MICHAEL ABRAMOWITZ (WASHINGTON POST, NOVEMBER 18): http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...1700839_pf.html

IN THE SHAH'S FOOTSTEPS? - CLAUDE SALHANI (WASHINGTON TIMES, NOVEMBER 17): http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.d...mplate=printart

PAKISTAN'S OPTIONS - ED ROYCE (WASHINGTON TIMES, NOVEMBER 18): http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.d...mplate=printart

CHÁVEZ AND THE KING - JACKSON DIEHL (WASHINGTON POST, NOVEMBER 19): http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...1800945_pf.html

OUTSMARTED BY SUDAN - JIM HOAGLAND (WASHINGTON POST, NOVEMBER 18): http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...1601619_pf.html

DARFUR IN PERIL EDITORIAL (WASHINGTON TIMES, NOVEMBER 19): http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.d...mplate=printart

PUTIN INSTITUTIONALIZED ? REVIEW & OUTLOOK (WALL STREET JOURNAL, NOVEMBER 19): http://online.wsj.com/article_print/SB1195...6806397254.html
PAID SUBSCRIPTION

TWO SIDES OF MR. SARKOZY - EDITORIAL (NEW YORK TIMES, NOVEMBER 18): http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/18/opinion/...agewanted=print

WHO IS SARKOZY? - WILLIAM PFAFF (NEW YORK REVIEW OF BOOKS, DECEMBER 6): http://www.nybooks.com/articles/20859

ARE WE SAFER? A REPORT CARD ON THE WAR ON TERROR - DAVID COLE AND JULES LOBEL (LOS ANGELES TIMES, NOVEMBER 18)
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commen...omment-opinions
HENRY KISSINGER: DIPLOMACY IN THE POST-9/11 ERA - DAVID B. RIVKIN JR. (WALL STREET JOURNAL, NOVEMBER 17): http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1195268524...ured_stories_hs
PAID SUBSCRIPTION

BEWARE AN EMPIRE THAT SAVES SOULS AT SWORD POINT - JAMES LEVY (NEWSDAY.COM, NOVEMBER 19): http://www.newsday.com/news/opinion/ny-opl...0,3444637.story

DIPLOMACY WITH THE DEVIL - DANIELLE PLETKA (NEW YORK TIMES, NOVEMBER 19): http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/19/opinion/...agewanted=print

CONDI ROUNDUP: LECONDEL! LECONDEL! TO LIFE! (WONKETTE, NOVEMBER 19): http://wonkette.com/politics/condi-roundup...life-324160.php





Snuffysmith

Are You With Us… or Against Us?
The Road from Washington to Karachi to Nuclear Anarchy

by Jonathan Schell / November 19th, 2007

The journey to the martial law just imposed on Pakistan by its self-appointed president, the dictator Pervez Musharraf, began in Washington on September 11, 2001. On that day, it so happened, Pakistan’s intelligence chief, Lt. General Mahmood Ahmed, was in town. He was summoned forthwith to meet with Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage, who gave him perhaps the earliest preview of the global Bush doctrine then in its formative stages, telling him, “You are either one hundred percent with us or one hundred percent against us.” (Full article …)

Snuffysmith
What is OPEC Up To? by Jed Babbin The feudal lords of oil may try to revive the Clinton campaign theme of, "it's the economy, stupid" in time for the 2008 election.
Snuffysmith

Iran's secret Syrian plan

By Olivier Guitta


While the story about the September Israeli bombing on a Syrian nuclear facility has been off the radar for a few weeks, the implications of what really took place are going to reverberate for a long time.
For more on this, The Croissant (available to subscribers) ran several stories on this issue.

Interestingly, while North Korea has been mentioned many times, the role of Iran has not been scrutinized.
I just wrote a piece for the Middle East Times on that topic.
Here is an excerpt:
Israel has been providing intelligence and satellite images to the U.S. about a secret Syrian nuclear program for several months, according to media reports. Discussions between Israel and the United States took place last summer regarding a possible strike. But when Israel found the matter so pressing that when they realized the U.S. was not ready to act, on September 6 they attacked a Syrian nuclear site. Hence the question: what is Syria really up to or more to the point what is Iran up to?

First, let's start with an underreported explosion that occurred in a Syrian military base outside Aleppo on July 26. Jane's Defense Weekly reported, citing Syrian defense sources, as saying the explosion took place during a test to fit a "Scud C" missile with a mustard-gas warhead. It quoted the sources as saying the explosion occurred when fuel caught fire in the missile production laboratory.

But there might be another explanation. Kuwait's Al Seyassah newspaper recently reported that a Shiite Lebanese religious cleric claimed the Iranians were allegedly supervising a chemical weapons manufacturing program and that tens of Iranian experts and engineers died as a result of that explosion. He also said Israelis attacked the base. He added that Western officials told him they received proof from Israel on the Syrian chemical weapons program. Even if Israel's involvement is not proven, what remains sure is that it must be very happy that a chemical weapons facility in Syria has been partly destroyed.

You can read the rest here.

November 19, 2007 12:07 PM Link
Snuffysmith

USAID and Possible Terrorist Funding

By Douglas Farah


The Chicago Tribune today brings word that USAID, purveyor of billions of dollars in aid around the world, cannot insure the money does not go to terrorist organizations.

It is hard to believe that six years after 9/11, with the amply-documented propensity for terrorist groups to use charities to fund that activities, that the agency:

_cannot "reasonably ensure" that its money does not wind up in terrorist hands, an internal audit has concluded._

The review found that AID had, in fact, funded terrorist-affiliated groups on two occasions, and that, despite operating in countries where terrorism is a major concern, "USAID has not developed or instituted a worldwide anti-terrorism program."

_USAID risks providing funding or other material support and resources to terrorists or terrorist organizations."_

It does seem incredible to me that this was not a high-priority issue over the past six years. This is not to say that aid should be cut off. I am a firm believer that the right kind of foreign aid, properly channeled, can be a huge help, both on humanitarian grounds and to help combat radical Islam and other ideological threats.

But the grants are not just grants, and that is why they must be taken seriously, and seriously vetted. My full blog is here.

November 19, 2007 10:17 AM Link
Snuffysmith
Pentagon draws up plans for Pakistani fighting corps
Washington (AFP) Nov 19, 2007 - The Pentagon plans to train and equip an expanded paramilitary force in Pakistan's tribal areas in a major effort to counter the growing strength of Al-Qaeda and Taliban forces, officials said Monday. US Army troops will be used to train the Pakistani Frontier Corps at a new center in the tribal areas that border Afghanistan, said Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell. The efforts come ... more
Snuffysmith
US Saudi arms package faces fight in Congress
Washington (AFP) Nov 19, 2007 - Lawmakers are striking a note of alarm over reported US plans to sell sophisticated satellite guided bombs to Saudi Arabia, as part of a 20 billion dollar arms sale. A coalition of 188 members of the House of Representatives warned that if the technology fell into the "wrong hands" it could harm US forces in the Middle East and threaten Israel. "Any sale of JDAM (Joint Direct Attack Muni ... more
Snuffysmith
OPEC Promises Expensive Oil
Moscow (RIA Novosti) Nov 19, 2007 - On November 17-18, Saudi Arabia will play host to the third summit in the 47 long-year history of the omnipotent oil cartel - the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC). On the eve of the summit, OPEC has been subjected to a massive attack led by oil consumers, who demand that it should immediately increase oil production. The price of oil may surpass the record of $100 per bar ... more
Snuffysmith
Analysis: Climate change on OPEC agenda
Riyadh, Saudi Arabia (UPI) Nov 19, 2007 - Geopolitics and petropolitics charged the OPEC summit while the cartel defended itself against charges it was to blame for high oil prices and Saudi Arabia promoted itself. The threat of climate change made a rare appearance at the OPEC summit with the Saudi king announcing three-quarters of a billion dollars in research. The funding was announced over the weekend, but no money has bee ... more
Snuffysmith
Russia Will Supply A Third Of European Gas
Moscow (RIA Novosti) Nov 19, 2007 - At the 20th World Energy Congress in Rome on November 11-15, Russian representatives confirmed that they have chosen Europe as a priority market of energy supplies for many years ahead. Gazprom, for instance, intends to increase its share in the European gas market from the current 26% to 33% by 2015. It seems that Russia is not particularly worried about the EU initiative to protect its domesti ... more
Snuffysmith
Anthropology Goes to War - Ann Marlowe, Weekly Standard
SOF: The Tribal Option in Pakistan - Peter Brookes, New York Post
Losing Afghanistan, One Civilian at a Time - Bergen and Tiedemann, Washington Post
Congress Must Keep Pressure to End War - Pittsburgh Post-Gazette editorial
The Big Picture in Iraq - Michael Barone, Washington Times
Iraq War's Collateral Damage - Anne Applebaum, Washington Post
U.S.-Iran Collision Course Calls for Diplomatic Brakes - USA Today editorial
Iranian Bomb 'Intolerable' - Joshua Muravchik, USA Today
What if the U.S. Bombed Iran? - Joel Brinkley, San Francisco Chronicle
Gen. Musharraf Is the Problem - Washington Post editorial
Musharraf Cannot be Part of the Solution - Ramesh Thakur, Toronto Star
Compromise: Last Real Hope for Pakistan - Mohsin Hamid, Sydney Morning Herald
My Hopes for Annapolis Talks – Gershon Baskin, Jerusalem Post
Waiting for Annapolis – Moshe Arens, Haaretz
Israelis and Palestinians Appear SeriousLondon Times editorial
Annapolis: Facing a Common Enemy - Boston Herald editorial
Annapolis Talks: Not Much Promise – Bronwen Maddox, London Times
The Annapolis Fiasco - Bret Stephens, Wall Street Journal
Brokering Mideast Peace - Tulin Daloglu, Washington Times
More Hype than Hope for Summit - Richard Gwyn, Toronto Star
Mideast Meeting Defined by Fear - Trudy Rubin, Baltimore Sun
Iran and AnnapolisJerusalem Post editorial
This Time the IDF Favors Syria – Amir Oren, Haaretz
Hamas Muddling Through Gaza Apathy - Taghreed El-Khodary, Daily Star
Mistaking Unity for Democracy in Lebanon - Rayyan al-Shawaf, Daily Star
Lebanon's Fatal Showdown - Amir Taheri, New York Post
John Bolton: Surrender Not an Option – Jonathan Tobin, Jerusalem Post
Renouncing Empire - Bruce Fein, Washington Times
Why Ditch Blairite Foreign Policy? - David Aaronovitch, London Times
Security and the War without EndCanberra Times editorial
Time for Indonesia to Face Truth about Baliboa – James Dunn, Canberra Times
First Kosovo, and Then What? - Boston Globe editorial
Keeping Faith With Colombia - Barry McCaffrey, Washington Post
How Not to Bring Liberty to Cuba - Paolo Spadoni, Christian Science Monitor
Chavez: President for Life? - Washington Times editorial
Fight Chávez's Petro-Recession - Michael Rowan, Miami Herald
Release Justice’s Secrets - Katzenbach and Schwarz, New York Times
Hezbollah Spy: A Real Travesty - Joel Mowbray, Washington Times
Jihad Jane's Poison Family - Debbie Schlussel, New York Post
The U.N.'s Slick Accomplice - New York Post editorial
Al Jazeera English: No Nonsense News - Andrew Stroehlein, Boston Globe
The Not-So-Great Generation - WIlliam Kristol, Weekly Standard

Snuffysmith
Israel's Syrian Air Strike Was Aimed at Iran
by Gareth Porter Until late October, the accepted explanation about the Sept. 6 Israeli air strike in Syria, constructed in a series of press leaks from U.S. officials, was that it was prompted by dramatic satellite intelligence that Syria was building a nuclear facility with help from North Korea.

But new satellite evidence has discredited that narrative, suggesting a more plausible explanation for the strike: that it was a calculated effort by Israel and the United States to convince Iran that its nuclear facilities could be attacked as well.

The narrative promoted by neoconservatives in the George W. Bush administration began to unravel in late October with the release by a private company of a series of satellite images showing that the same square, multistory building that was hit by Israeli planes Sept. 6 had been present on the site four years earlier. Although the building appears to be somewhat farther along in the August 2007 image, it showed that the only major new developments at the site since September 2003 were what appears to be a pumping station on the Euphrates and a smaller secondary structure.

Media reports based on leaks from administration officials had suggested that the presence of a water pump indicated that the building must have been a nuclear reactor. But Jeffrey Lewis, a specialist on nuclear technology at the New America Foundation, pointed out in an interview with IPS that the existence of a water pump cannot be taken as evidence of the purpose of the building, since other kinds of industrial buildings would also need to pump water.

The campaign of press leaks portraying the strike as related to an alleged nuclear weapons program assisted by North Korea began almost immediately after the Israeli strike. On Sept. 11, a Bush administration official told the New York Times that Israel had obtained intelligence from "reconnaissance flights" over Syria showing "possible nuclear installations that Israeli officials believed might have been supplied with material from North Korea."

The Bush administration officials leaking this account to the press, obviously aligned with Vice President Dick Cheney, were hoping to shoot down the administration's announced policy, pushed by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, of going ahead with an agreement to provide food and fuel aid to North Korea in exchange for the dismantling of its nuclear program.

They had lost an earlier battle over that policy and were seeking to use the Israeli strike story as a new argument against it.

The officials did not want the intelligence community involved in assessing the alleged new evidence, suggesting that they knew it would not withstand expert scrutiny. Glenn Kessler reported in the Washington Post Sept. 13 that the "dramatic satellite imagery" provided by Israel had been restricted to "a few senior officials" and not disseminated to the intelligence community, on orders from National Security Adviser Stephen J. Hadley.

The intelligence community had opposed a previous neoconservative effort in 2002-2003 to claim evidence of a Syrian nuclear program at the same site. A senior U.S. intelligence official confirmed to the New York Times on Oct. 30 that U.S. intelligence analysts had been aware of the Syrian site in question "from the beginning" – meaning from before 2003 – but had not been convinced that it was an indication of an active nuclear program.

In 2002, John Bolton, then undersecretary of state for arms control and international security, wanted to go public with an accusation that Syria was seeking a nuclear weapons program, but the intelligence community rejected the claim. A State Department intelligence analyst had called Bolton's assertion that Syria was interested in nuclear weapons technology "a stretch" and other elements of the community also challenged it, according to a Senate Foreign Relations Committee report.

The attack on the site was an obvious demonstration of Israel's military dominance over Syria, generally considered a vital ally of Iran by Israeli and U.S. officials. It was also in line with the general approach of using force against Syria that Cheney and his allies in the administration had urged on Israel before and during the war against Hezbollah in Lebanon in summer 2006.

During the war, Deputy National Security Adviser Elliott Abrams told a senior Israeli official that the Bush administration would not object if Israel "chose to extend the war beyond to its other northern neighbor," leaving no doubt he meant for Israel to attack Syria, IPS reported last December. David Wurmser's wife, Meyrav Wurmser, director of the neoconservative Hudson Institute's Center for Middle East Policy, told Israel's YNet News in December 2006 that "many parts of the American administration believed that Israel should have fought against the real enemy, which is Syria and not Hezbollah." She said such an attack on Syria would have been "such a harsh blow for Iran that it would have weakened it and changed the strategic map in the Middle East."

Both Israeli and U.S. officials dropped hints soon after the Israeli raid that it was aimed at sending a message to Iran. Ten days after the raid, Israeli military intelligence chief Amos Yadlin declared to a parliamentary committee, "Israel's deterrence has been rehabilitated since the Lebanon war, and it affects the entire regional system, including Iran and Syria."

Although he did not refer explicitly to the strike in Syria, the fact that the Syrian raid was the only event that could possibly have been regarded as restoring Israel's strategic credibility left little doubt as to the meaning of the reference.

That same day, Reuters quoted an unnamed U.S. Defense Department official as saying that the significance of the strike "was not whether Israel hit its targets, but rather that it displayed a willingness to take military action."

On Sept. 18, former United Nations ambassador John Bolton was quoted by the Jewish Telegraphic Agency as saying, "We're talking about a clear message to Iran – Israel has the right to self-defense – and that includes offensive operations against WMD facilities that pose a threat to Israel. The United States would justify such attacks."

On Oct. 7, Washington Post columnist David Ignatius, who enjoys access to top administration officials, quoted an unnamed official as providing the official explanation for the Israeli attack as targeting "nuclear materials supplied to Syria by North Korea."

But then, without quoting the official directly, Ignatius reported the official's description of the raid's implicit message: "[T]he message to Iran is clear: America and Israel can identify nuclear targets and penetrate air defenses to destroy them."

The official's suggestion that the strike was a joint U.S.-Israeli message about a joint policy toward striking Iran's nuclear sites was the clearest indication that the primary objective of the strike was to intimidate Iran at a time when both Israel and the Cheney faction of the Bush administration were finding it increasingly difficult to do so.

(Inter Press Service)

Snuffysmith

November 19, 2007 Issue
Copyright © 2007 The American Conservative



Osama’s Man in America


His job: keep the Viagra and the gossip flowing while
praying for a Giuliani victory.


by Leon Hadar

The following document was obtained by a small private intelligence company, located at a (secret) address in Chevy Chase, Maryland, that monitors Islamic terrorist groups. It followed a year-long surveillance operation that intercepted (secret) messages within a (secret) al-Qaeda communications network. Dr. Leon Hadar, a world-renowned terrorism connoisseur, who has written The Osama bin Laden I Don’t Know, translated this somewhat historic document, and it was authenticated by a panel of outside veteran amateurs, including retired analysts from the Office of Strategic Services.

In the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate. From Abdullah men Amreeka (the Slave of God from America) to the honorable brother, Osama bin Laden, Imam al-Ummah (leader of the Islamic community). Peace and the mercy and blessings of God are upon you. Aslam-o-Alaikum (Hi there). Keef Halak, Sheik? (What’s up, boss?). BTW, you looked great in your last video that I watched on television here. I especially liked the groomed beard and see that you are using the Just for Men Haircolor I sent you. So who is the lucky new bride? Mabrook! (Congratulations!) And apropos, let me know if you need more of the “blue.”

I also hope you enjoyed the DVD with the final “Sopranos” episode that I put in the package at the last moment. I was a bit disappointed that we never got to find out whether Muhammad and Ahmed, who Tony befriended in the last season of the show, were “brothers” or just pistachio salesmen. This subplot resulted in an AP story headlined, “Osama and the Sopranos,” about alleged FBI worries over “al-Qaeda ties to the Mob.” Next thing you know, the Olive Garden will be serving Halaal food and Rudy Giuliani will be campaigning out of the local mosque in Trenton, New Jersey, in the Dar al-Kufr, the land of non-Islam of North America. I know, I know. You’re probably saying, “Yallah. Get out of here.”

I don’t know if you remember me. But we met in the Khyber Pass café in Quetta in 1999 (1420 according to the Muslim calendar), and I bombarded (oops … sorry!) you with my schtick about dying to meet those virgins in heaven, and you looked deep into my blue eyes (Bosnian dad) and stroked my blond curly hair (German mom) and said, “Ya, Habibi. The bottom line is, you look less like Omar Sharif in ‘Lawrence of Arabia’ and more like Robert Redford in ‘The Way we Were.’ We need you here. To study. To become an American. Perhaps even run for office. In any case, I want you to write me regular reports about political developments. Some movie reviews. Think about yourself as al-Qaeda’s own Frank Rich. Also obtain a credit card and do some shopping for me. The mole in the mall, if you will. Are you familiar with Davis’ Big & Tall? I like their stuff.”

So here I am with another of my monthly reports, as well as a copy of that new book by Chomsky that you requested. We are entering now into the last year of the rule of the Rayyis George W. Bush. I know that many of our brothers curse him as a Fajir, a wicked evildoer or a sinner by action. I beg to differ. If anything, he reminds me of the biblical character of Balaam. As retold by Persian historian Abi J’afar Muhammad ibn Jarir al-Tabari, Balaam was instructed by Balak, the king of Moab, to curse the children of Israel. But then God “turned his tongue” so the cursing ended up falling upon Balaam’s own people and the blessing upon the Israelites. From that perspective, Bush could be described as the Balaam of our time and we as the Israelites he cursed. Bush is certainty a Kafir, a sinner by disbelief in Allah. But the results of his actions advance the work of God. Bush leads the world’s “only remaining superpower,” the most powerful military force that the infidels have acquired since the time of the Romans. And not only has he failed to defeat us—as you know, he depicts us as “Islamofascists,” the term he borrowed from that Dahri (atheist) and Sakran (drunk) from England, Christopher Hitchens. In fact, as that celebrated Catholic Warraq (scribe)—or to apply the Indian term used by the Americans, “pundit”—Andrew Sullivan has pointed out on his blog, Bush has become “Al Qaeda’s enabler.” The Luti (homosexual) is right. Our group “surely never had a more helpful man in such a powerful place.”

God, indeed, has turned Bush’s tongue, and the promised crusade against the believers has been transformed into a Jihad against crusaders and Zionists. Bush, a Dajjal (liar), may have refused to embrace Islam and will die as an infidel, but through his actions, he appears to the world as though he was a brother who had received guidance from Allah. Hence, you the hawk on the top of the Shara (mountains) should be the proudest of all the brothers for this great accomplishment. You had succeeded in forcing this Habllah (idiot) from Texas and all his Zionist cowboys into the traps in the land of Mesopotamia, where the Ummah (nation) and its Mujahidin are now leading a victorious Jihad against the Americans and their allies. Inshallah.

After seven years in the “white” house in Washington and six years after the blessed Shaid (martyrs) destroyed the Tower of Babylon in New York and the nest of the Hamsah (five) in Virginia, you are still the leader of the faithful and will remain long after Bush returns to his ranch to play with his pigs and dogs. (I FedExed to you a copy of the memoir of former Mexican President Vincente Fox in which he describes Bush as a “windshield cowboy”—a cowboy who prefers to drive—and, get this, is afraid of horses…) You will then expel the Fasiq, those who have violated Islamic laws, from the two Holy Precincts of Mecca and Medina, return Syria to the Islamic fold, defeat the Zionists, and pray in Al-Asqa. Then you will ask Bush: Where are all your historians and other Hakim (wise men) that you told us would sing your praise years after you leave office and portray you as “Truman”? Weren’t they expected to conclude that you had “transformed” the Middle East, turning its people to the supplicants of the West and bringing its oil resources under the control of your crooked companies?

But God, the generous, benefited you, wise Sheikh. You will become the Caliph of a great Ummah while Bush the Wa’lek (boy) will probably become the Caliph of the owners of baseball, the game of the, yes, small balls. Isn’t it appropriate that Bush as well as Cheney—the two, as you know, cursed that they are, are abu el-banat (father of the girls)—like this game?

You probably recall the time when Bush, using the language of his Wild West, promised the American people to capture you “dead or alive.” These arrogant boasts, like his pledges to export the corrupt political system that helped him come to power in America—he calls it “democracy”—to the Dar al-Islam all proved to be delusions. Bush had you trapped for a few hours in the mountains of Tora Bora, but he then let you get away because he wanted to focus on Saddam instead. (I hope you’ve read Gary Berntsen’s Jawbreaker: The Attack on Bin Laden and Al Qaeda: A Personal Account by the CIA’s Key Field Commander, which I had sent you last year.) Thanks to Bush, you are alive and well and living in Pakistan, which enjoys the status of—get this!—“non-NATO ally” of the United States. President Musharraf, who helped us and the Taliban brothers build our political and military power in Afghanistan and prepare our operations is welcomed as a Friend of America in Washington. Instead of discussing the Osama-Musharraf Connection, Bush and Cheney made it sound as thought you had been allied with Saddam the Murtaad (apostate) and the man of Ightala (killing). O Sheikh, you actually wanted the Saudis to let you fight Saddam—which you considered worthy of death—on behalf of the Ummah and remove him from Kuwait. But they refused and allowed Baba Bush to operate out of Saudi Arabia and force the Iraqis from Kuwait and then remain in our Holy places. But Salil Bush and his neocons and crusaders knew that they could not sell the invasion of Iraq without making the American people believe Saddam was behind the al Nashmi (brave) attack in New York.

Now, thanks to the American invasion, we have established our presence in Mesopotamia and expanded our reach in the entire region and around the world, especially in Europe, the Dar al-Amn (part of the Western world where Muslims reside). The torture, death and destruction the Americans have inflicted on the Iraqis has only helped to recruit more brothers into the ranks of the Mujahidin. Shukran! (Thanks!) Ya, Rayyis Bush. You probably recall that in a report I e-mailed you before the 2004 presidential elections, I expressed hope that the American people would re-elect Bush. And they did! And they allowed this Majnun (madman) to become al-Qaeda’s man in Washington. Shukran! Shukran!

Bush and his Zionist crusaders had hoped to create the Greater State of Israel from the Euphrates to the Nile—Iraq and Syria and Palestine under their rule. But they did not understand that Iraq was a mosaic of many ethnic and religious groups that only the Shaytan (Satan) Saddam kept together. So they built an alliance with the Kurdish spies in the North and with the Shi’ite snakes who, as you know, are not real Muslims. The Shi’ites betrayed us once again like the cunning people they have always been and are trying now to operate as the agents of the Americans and the Persians in Baghdad in the same way that they once joined Genghis Khan and other enemies of the Muslims. But our mujahidin are continuing to strike at these treacherous people and their American masters and are making sure that the “central government” in Baghdad cannot function beyond the “Green Zone,” where the Americans are hiding like the cowards that they are. They are now presenting—or, to use a popular term here, “spinning”—their strategic failure in maintaining a unified Iraq as a great “success” in transferring power to the provinces or “decentralization.” If you believe that, I’ll buy you a bridge over the Euphrates.

As for this so-called “surge,” it cannot change the constellation of forces on the ground that we helped create in the aftermath of the American invasion. “Iraq” doesn’t exist anymore as a state, and its disintegration is already helping destroy the U.S. hegemonic strategy in the Middle East. You know that the Kurds want to establish their state and expand and that this is igniting opposition from the Turks, Iranians, and even the brothers in Syria. You can already see the tensions between the Americans and the Turks, who are bound to take military action against the Kurds in the North, especially if the Kurds try to win total control over Kirkuk and make life difficult for the Turkmen people in the area.

There is a lot of good news coming from Turkey: more women there are wearing the Khumur (scarf), and people there are choosing the Sirat al-Mustaqim (straight path) and returning to the true fold of Islam. Opinion polls suggest that the people despise Bush, the Americans, and the Zionists. I remember that you predicted once that the road to the Caliphate would have to lead through Turkey—that the Americans would abandon them, that the Europeans would reject them, and that one day they would become our Awliya (allies). Inshallah.

I’ve forwarded to you copies of news reports and commentary from newspapers in this country like the Washington Post that were celebrating the election victory of the Islamists of the AK party in Turkey as another sign that “democracy is spreading in the Middle East.” If you accept my Bush-as-Balaam analogy, you have no choice but to conclude that these guys who seem to believe that having free elections in Turkey, Palestine, Egypt, and elsewhere are going to advance their interests and help strengthen the influence of their “democracy” are actually helping create the conditions for our victory. In Turkey, in Palestine, and Egypt—or for that matter in Iraq and Lebanon—free elections strengthened the hands of those who are against America and its political model. After all, the brothers won in Palestine and gained more votes in Egypt.

And while we despise the Shi’ites and their agents in Iraq and Lebanon, who have been gaining more political power, we should rejoice at these developments, for the elections choreographed by the crusaders and Zionists are producing revolutionary developments. They have helped us by weakening the foundations of the old order and sweeping away the corrupt lackeys of the Americans. We can only hope that similar changes will take place in Syria, where the Murtaad Bashir rules. Indeed, the Americans are doing their best to weaken him and force him to ally with the Persians. And when they try to reverse the results of free elections, which is exactly what they are doing now in Palestine, they demonstrate to the world that they are nothing more than hypocrites. We have nothing to lose. If they have free elections in Egypt, the brothers will come to power, abrogate the “peace” agreements with the Zionists, and join the struggle. If they don’t have elections, the Pharaoh Mubarak would not survive the rage of the people.

I know that during our meeting and throughout our correspondence, I may have sounded a bit hesitant, if not doubtful about our ability to achieve the long-term goal of restoring the Caliphate. “How could we do it with just a few thousand Mujahidin fighting against the powerful evil forces with all their huge militaries and nuclear weapons?” I once asked you. And you responded, “Through our revolutionary actions, we’ll be able to force them to play according to our script, to waste their resources in trying to take control over the Dar al-Islam, from the mountains of the Hindu Kush to the rivers of Meso-potamia. We will make them bleed, create divisions in their ranks, and expose the internal contradictions in their system.”

Indeed, O Sheikh. Who would have believed that one day Bush and his clique of neocons would compare our power to that of the Third Reich, the Japanese Empire, and the Soviet Union. That is the way they see us now. And the irony: their “war of terrorism” is taking longer that the one they fought with the Germans and the Japanese in the 1940s. They are now stuck in Iraq and in Afghanistan, with no way out. They lose if they stay, and they lose if they leave. The price of oil is rising into the stratosphere. Meanwhile, our actions helped hasten the split between the Americans and the Europeans, and the arrogance of American power is making it more likely that the Russians and the Chinese could pose a challenge to Bush and his gangs. The world now knows that the Christian crusaders and the Zionists have the same agenda: destroying the Muslim lands of Palestine and controlling Al Quods. And they call that the “peace process.” It is just a question of time before the rotten apples, the Murtaad of the Arab Gulf, Syria, of Mashriq and the Maghreb, and of Pakistan, will be smashed under our feet and a united Ummah will be ready to fight the Persians and rip the Shi’ite snake.

I pray to Allah that the American voters elect the Zionist minion and agent of the Vatican Giuliani as their next president and that he and his troops fall into the new traps we are preparing for them as they try to depose regimes in the Dar al-Islam. (Syria? Iran?) I’m certainly going to register as a volunteer in Rudy’s campaign after I mail you the DVD of the last season of “Big Love.”
____________________________

Leon Hadar is a Cato Institute research fellow in foreign-policy studies and author, most recently, of Sandstorm: Policy Failure in the Middle East.

Snuffysmith
A Conservative View of Iran
Philip Giraldi The turmoil in Pakistan might have one positive result: the need to strengthen the American presence in neighboring Afghanistan could narrow the White House's options and permanently derail plans to attack Iran. Nevertheless, the likelihood of a war that will be a catastrophe for both belligerents, almost certainly for the entire Middle East, and possibly for the world at large, remains at a high level. War might even be regarded as inevitable because it is the only option remaining for decision-makers in Washington, who have effectively closed the door on other approaches that might reduced the level of hostility.

Contrary to the repeated assertions by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, an endless series of threats emanating from Washington is not diplomacy. The United States is refusing to negotiate with Iran, and the only obstacle to a war from the U.S. side is the resistance coming from Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and some military and naval officers, most notably the Central Command's Admiral William Fallon, who are heavily outnumbered by those in the administration and outside it who are pro-war. Anti-Iranian resolutions pass by large majorities in Congress. Both parties and nearly all the presidential candidates assert the necessity of war to disarm Iran and have placed no impediment on its initiation, the mainstream media is as acquiescent as it was in the run-up to Iraq, and the latest Zogby poll indicates that even a thin majority of the public has been convinced by the war hysteria and is supportive of conflict. Powerful lobbying groups like the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) continue to resist talks and urge a military resolution. It may be that few in the White House and Congress actually want to pull the trigger on Iran because they are gun shy after the debacle in Iraq, but the danger of a larger war growing out of a relatively minor incident is very real, as is the possibility that a nervous Israel will play some part in initiating a major conflict that will draw the United States in.

One of the strongest constituencies supporting military action against the perceived Iranian threat is voters who describe themselves as politically conservative. Most also identify as Republicans. To a certain extent, this support derives from a desire to support "their president" rather than from any serious consideration of what the probable consequences of yet another war in the Middle East might be. It also likely stems from a more general belief that the United States should have a strong and assertive defense policy in a troubled world, coupled with the irrational fear that "Islamofascism" is a global force that threatens national security. Those who see an existential struggle join with the Christian Armageddonists to welcome an "end days" conflict that pits good against evil, but they are likely a small minority even among conservatives.

As is often the case, conservatives should look to the example of President Ronald Reagan to see how global conflict should be managed. Reagan won the Cold War against a powerful nuclear armed adversary through calculated steps that increased bilateral cooperation on security issues while at the same time ratcheting up pressure on the shaky Soviet economy. The radically different imperialistic foreign policy of the Bush administration is difficult to reconcile with the cautious internationalism embraced by Reagan and his Republican predecessors, which proceeded carefully and sought to avoid involvement in other people's quarrels. Bush rarely exhibits other traditional conservative values, such as a preference for smaller and less intrusive government, fiscal responsibility, rule of law, and regard for the Constitution. He has convincingly demonstrated that he is not an heir to the Reagan tradition. George W. Bush, like his father before him, fraudulently claims the conservative label solely for his own political convenience.

Traditional Republican conservatives and foreign policy realists believe above all that war should genuinely be a last resort, not a first option, and that war must absolutely be in response to unambiguous threats to a vital national interest. It is the White House's embrace of permanent war and nation-building in the Middle East that should be most troubling, as it has already meant the deaths of thousands of American soldiers. Fiscally responsible conservatives should also be concerned about borrowing what will eventually amount to trillions of dollars to finance wars of choice. This has resulted in a plummeting dollar, higher interest rates, and increased energy costs, which has given China the keys to the U.S. economy.

Concerning Iran, the United States intelligence community has yet to complete a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), though the report is scheduled to be issued by the end of this month. Unlike other recent NIEs, it will not have key judgments released in unclassified form, which means that the public and even many government officials will not know what it says. There is every indication that the delay in the preparation of the report was due to concerns by the administration that it was not "strong" enough. The White House will undoubtedly seek to use the document to buttress its case for action against Iran.

From the conservative viewpoint, it would be far better if the administration were to use the NIE to undertake a careful assessment of the Iranian relationship and respond to that assessment realistically. No one doubts that the United States and Iran have genuine differences that include possible nuclear proliferation, regional dominance, support of terrorism, and Iran's proper role as a neighbor of both Afghanistan and Iraq. These differences cannot be resolved with a bombing campaign. They should be dealt with through diplomacy, without any preconditions, and it is up to the United States to jump-start the process because the United States has more to lose from another war, most particularly in economic terms. Far from an extreme or radical position, positive and comprehensive diplomatic engagement with Iran was a key recommendation of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group and was also endorsed recently by Efraim Halevy, the former head of Israel's Mossad intelligence service. Conservatives should also eschew the demonization and disinformation campaign against Iran, which has muddied the waters and made negotiations more difficult. Iran has a legitimate, elected government, like it or not, and it should be treated with respect. The United States should step back and make a serious and dispassionate estimate of the genuine threat posed by Iran without using the words "Hitler" or "Nazis," or mentioning the year 1938.

Conservatives who believe that there must be a "casus belli" to justify a conflict or who are practicing Christians and believe a war must be "just" should particularly note the lack of evidence suggesting that Iran is preparing to attack anyone. The intelligence community believes that Iran might well have a secret nuclear weapons program, even though there is no evidence to support that suspicion. But even if Iran is seeking nuclear weapons, there is broad consensus that the program is likely not far advanced, is suffering from technical problems, and is susceptible to internationally sanctioned steps to slow it down further as long as the United States takes the lead and abandons the role of school bully.

Conservatives should also be skeptical about other claims, as much of what appears in the media is false or misleading. Iran has a vested interest in stabilizing both Iraq and Afghanistan, and the accounts of Tehran's involvement in both countries, most recently described as "conducting operations in our battle space" in Iraq, have been grossly overstated and frequently based on dubious intelligence. While Iran is undoubtedly both able and willing to make the U.S. presence in Afghanistan and Iraq uncomfortable, the allegation that it has been deliberately "killing our soldiers," which is the latest congressional pretext for going to war, is not supported by hard evidence. That Iran would have any interest or ability to provide a weapon of mass destruction to a terrorist group is speculation piled on top of speculation. It is unsupported by evidence, and observers of Iran have frequently noted that the regime of the mullahs has consistently behaved cautiously in support of its perceived national interest and is not suicidal. Even if Iran does obtain one or two crude nuclear weapons, it is difficult to imagine how Tehran could pose a serious threat to the United States in the near term, because it can be both deterred and contained.

Finally, conservatives should believe that America comes first. They should insist that the United States' interaction with Iran be based on our national interests, not Israel's, Saudi Arabia's, or any of the other countries' in the region, though those interests and concerns can be instrumental in shaping U.S. policies. Any serious analysis of the growing conflict with Iran will reveal that there are serious issues between Tehran and Washington, but the "existential crisis" that has been fueling the talk of war is largely false in nature, a concoction of outside interests, including lobbies, interest groups, the media, and the military-industrial complex.

Snuffysmith
US lacks a smart nuclear policy
US officials in charge of nuclear arms control continue to behave as if they are in an unreflexive cocoon of unilateralism in which the superpower's actions serve the collective good. As long as the US continues to focus on non-proliferation at the expense of disarmament, it cannot lead the rest of the world on this most important issue. - Kaveh L Afrasiabi (Nov 20, '07)

Fallujah under a different siege
Three years after the US attack on Fallujah that destroyed 70% of the city, the once bustling commercial center is an isolated, barricaded poverty-stricken dead zone. Electricity and water supplies are lacking, prices are high, many neighborhoods are still in ruins and the citizens are frustrated with the extensive media coverage that has brought them no relief, and, in many cases, only resulted in retribution from US-backed Iraqi police and military. - Ali al-Fadhily (Nov 20, '07)
Snuffysmith
Foreign Policy News and Commentary Update November 21, 2007

The World Through Bush-Color Glasses
http://www.236.com/video/?bcpid=1272014315...ctid=1304990175

Oprah's Favorite Things: The Over-The-Top Crowd Reaction
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/11/20/o...s-_n_73588.html

MTV LAUNCHES NEW ARABIC SERVICE BBC NEWS (NOVEMBER 18): The music and youth lifestyle channel MTV has launched an Arabic service it hopes can tap into a booming appetite for Western-influenced culture. MTV says it hopes to respect local culture without diluting its brand. The MTV Arabia service will screen Arab music videos, talent shows, and international programmes like Pimp My Ride adapted for Arab audiences. It says it hopes the channel can act as a cultural unifying force in a region known for political tension.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7100252.stm
LEBANON'S HIP-HOP STRUGGLE - AMAR C. BAKSHI (WASHINGTON POST, NOVEMBER 20): Lynn Fattouh, a.k.a. MC Lix, a.k.a. Malikah ("The Queen") is one of seven top Arab rappers, hand-picked by MTV Arabiya, a new cable channel that began broadcasting over the weekend. She is grateful to American hip-hop musicians for creating a ?diverse culture? that accepted her immediately and provided her with a platform to counter the negative images of Arab people around the world, and to demand change from her leaders in the Middle East. But it also convinced her that Americans had a lot to be grateful for, and a lot to learn.
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/postglo...op_lebanon.html SEE ALSO
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/orlando-lima...op_b_73531.html
YOUNG BROTHERS IN CYBERSPACE - MARC LYNCH (MIDDLE EAST REPORT): The bloggers of the Muslim Brothers represent a growing intellectual and political force within the movement that could, over time, help tip it in a reformist direction. But they face considerable challenges.
http://merip.org/mer/mer245/lynch.html
COLLATERAL DAMAGE - ANNE APPLEBAUM (WASHINGTON POST, NOVEMBER 20): The collateral damage inflicted by the war in Iraq on America's relationships with the rest of the world is a lot deeper and broader than most Americans have realized. It isn't just that the war invigorated the anti-Americanism that has always been latent pretty much everywhere. What's worse is the fact that -- however it all comes out in the end, however successful Iraqi democracy is a decade from now -- our conduct of the war has disillusioned our natural friends and supporters and thrown a lasting shadow over our military and political competence. However it all comes out, the price we've paid is too high.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...1901185_pf.html
U.S. WILL NOT HAVE TO ORDER DIPLOMATS TO IRAQ ? REUTERS (NEW YORK TIMES, NOVEMBER 19): The State Department said on Monday it had now found enough volunteers to serve in Iraq and would not have to force diplomats to go there. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said all of the posts had now been filled by volunteers and there would be no need for "directed" assignments to the war zone. He said Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice would send a cable to employees congratulating them on meeting the staffing challenge in Baghdad.