February 27, 2005

Chester's Newswire

Ta-da! Check out the new above the fold "newswire"! I've set up a system that makes it incredibly fast for me to post links. No commentary, just links. Between my newsreader, and some configuration improvements I've made in Safari, I should be able to turn this blog into a link-machine. I'll be tossing a few up in the mornings, if and when I come home for lunch, early evening, and late evening. Should keep the fires burning during periods of time when other concerns keep me from offering any in-depth posting.

If I were to offer in-depth posting by the way, it would be about Lebanon. This week will make Beirut look like Kiev from all the signs . . .

Anyways, hope you like the new feature!

Written by Chester at 11:41 PM | Link | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Print Article

February 26, 2005

Note on Light-Posting

Loyal Readers: I've had an exceptionally busy week at work and posting has been light. It's a good thing that Steven Vincent was able to carry the torch a bit.

Some changes to the general format of things here may be in the works . . . you will be pleased with the result . . .

Written by Chester at 10:26 AM | Link | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Print Article

February 24, 2005

THE GOD COMPLEX II

By all accounts, Ahmed Omar Abu Ali Is a bright young man, and a good Muslim. Born in Houston to Jordanian parents, he was a valedictorian at an Islamic high school in the Washington, D.C. area, where he spent his teen years teaching religious studies at the Dar Al-Hijrah Islamic Center in Falls Church, Virginia. After graduating, he moved to Saudi Arabia in 2000 to study the Koran at the Islamic University of Medina.

Yesterday, federal authorities in Alexandria, Virginia, unsealed an indictment against Abu Ali, charging him, as the New York Times reports, with providing material support for terrorism and training with Al Qaeda overseas. According to prosecutors, in 2002 the American citizen allegedly contacted terrorists in Saudi Arabia, and received training from them in the use of weapons and in document forgery. Moreover, the feds claim, in 2002 and 2003 Abu Ali and Al Qaeda discussed plans for Abu Ali to assassinate President of the United States George W. Bush, by shooting him or detonating a car bomb in his vicinity. Abu Ali denies the charges.

He may be innocent. At this point, the indictment seem rather weak its based mainly on the testimony of unnamed co-conspirators-- and Abu Ali claims he was tortured while in Saudi custody. Moreover, federal accusations lodged against American citizens for assisting terrorism have often proved wrong, as witness the Brandon Mayfield case. Still, if nothing else, Abu Ali's indictment opens a window onto Saudi-supported Islamic education in America, and the degree to which the ideology of religious supremacy has crept into our nations mosques and Islamic cultural centers.

As the New York Times reports, Abu Ali's high school, the Islamic Saudi Academy, is a private institution that serves hundreds of Saudi citizens and is subsidized by the Saudi government. As for the Dar Al-Hijrah Islamic Center, according to a recent report by the Center for Religious Freedom, this organization was one in which researchers discovered hate literature published by the Saudi government. A sample of the material found in the Center includes the following passage:

Zionism, which is the worst racism in history because of its violence, atrocities, selfishness and arrogance, invests all the means available to it, together with the other enemies to destroy this religion [i.e., Islam] and exterminate its followers, weakening and paralyzing them to say the least.
Interestingly, Abu Ali's father works for the Saudi embassy in Washington. CRF researchers discovered Saudi-subsidized hate literature in two religious and cultural sites in the city, the Islamic Center of Washington, and Masjid Al-Islam. More interestingly yet, researchers found Saudi-sponsored hate literature in Abu Ali's hometown of Houston, specifically the Al-Farouq Mosque. One screed called upon Muslims to
...form a society that is committed to the Islamic way of thinking and Islamic way of life, which means to form a government that implements principles of justice embodied in sharia...Until the nations of the world have functional Islamic governments, every individual who is careless or lazy in working for Islam is sinful.
Another quotes one of the founders of modern Islamic radicalism, Sayyid Qutb.
[Believers] should realize that their self-value derives only from Islam, without which they are like animals or worse. They must know, however, that true honor can never be achieved unless they continue actively to involve themselves in the Islamic Movement. Those who remain in isolation will be in the Hellfire.
There is no proof that Abu Ali or his father read, or were affected by, these documents. Still, it seems clear that the young man lived and worked in an atmosphere permeated with Saudi hate literature and Islamofascist ideologyan atmosphere, moreover, that has produced foul results. As the CRF notes, quoting the 9-11 Commission report, Osama bin Laden and other terrorist leaders draw on a minority tradition in Islamic teaching that extends from at least Ibn Tamiyya, through the founders of Wahhabismitself one of the foundations of Saudi Arabia through the Muslim Brotherhood to Sayyid Qutb.

As I noted in a previous post, The God Complex I, Qutb's manifesto Milestones is a veritable handbook of Islamic grandiosity and will to power that contains such passages as

The earth belongs to God and should be purified for God, and it cannot be purified for Him unless the banner, No Deity Except God, [i.e., a core Islamic belief] is unfurled across the earth.
What Qutb could not have foreseen were the vast resources of Saudi Arabia pumping out Islamofascist literature to the ummah across the globe. Nor could he and other radical Islamic thinkers have foreseen how the internet--as Olivier Roy notes in his Globalized Islam--allows for a deculturalized form of the religion to possess intelligent, angry and impressionable Muslim minds. Whether Abu Ali is part of this mindset remains unclear. What is clear, however, is the problem of Islamic grandiosity, an abyss into whose depths we are only beginning to peer.

------
Steven Vincent contributes weekly to The Adventures of Chester. Don't miss his blog In the Red Zone, or his book by the same name, in the sidebar.

Written by at 6:57 PM | Link | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Print Article

February 22, 2005

Tuesday Reading

No time for in-depth posting today, but here's a myriad of links I ran across today. All kinds of topics:

INTEL DUMP - pontificates upon the rise of entrepreneurial, private military forces in Iraq.

An outstanding piece at World Tribune.com discusses life with the 1st Marine Division in Ramadi. General Mattis is quoted yet again:

"The first time you blow someone away is not an insignificant event," he tells about 200 Marines, sitting on the ground under a metal windbreak against a cliff in Al Asad.

"That said, there are some a--holes in the world that just need to be shot. But you go on and find your next victim or he's gonna kill you or your buddy. It's kill or be killed," he said.

"There are hunters and there are victims. By your discipline, cunning, obedience and alertness, you will decide if you are a hunter or a victim. ... It's really a hell of a lot of fun. You're gonna have a blast out here!" he said, with marked glee. "I feel sorry for every son of a bitch that doesn't get to serve with you."

Read the whole thing.

Who knows if it is true, but another World Tribune article says that the assassins of Hariri were dispatched from Iraq and trained by Ansar al Islam.

This Guardian article, Bloggers will rescue the right, set off lots of commentary. Power Line here. Samizdata.net on the other hand, says Blogging will not necessarily save the Conservative Party.

The Conservatives now have a hideous problem. Having lost confidence in its own economic nostrums, with the collapse both of the old USSR and of its own attempts to galvanise the British economy by seizing control of it, the British dirigiste left is content to allow Blair – or, I suspect, any likely successor of Blair – to triangulate away into the sunset. Labour knows that for them, it is either New Labour or no Labour at all. Which means that the Conservatives are no longer united by Labour. Instead they are divided by New Labour.
Meanwhile, the executive editor of the New York Times recently told an audience at the Columbia School of Journalism, “This is not a time when editors swear off alcohol.”
Keller also sees “blogging,” or online writing that blurs news and commentary, as a mixed blessing. While he celebrated the blogger’s ability to uncover breaking news, he noted that a blog’s inherent bias might be detrimental to the reader. “A blog is still a view of the world through a pinhole,” he said, noting that it can sometimes fall as low as being a “one man circle jerk.”
The genius statements never stop coming at the NYTimes. Brilliant one there, Keller. Keep thinking that right until you get canned. What a moron.

National Journal notes that blogging is quite on the rise.

"Bloggers as News Media Trophy Hunters," The New York Times headlined on February 14, in a story that was picked up across the country. "Some in the traditional media are growing alarmed," the story said, "as they watch careers being destroyed by what they see as the growing power of rampant, unedited dialogue."

Rampant, unedited dialogue! Mercy me, what is democracy coming to?

And why are we having all this intra-media warfare, anyway? Because we can, and because it's good for us. Anyone who isn't exhilarated by the bloggers and the havoc they're wreaking has lost touch with what American journalism at its best has always been about: making trouble to get at the truth.

Andrew Sullivan recently wrote, in a pretty-good piece, Society is dead, we have retreated into the iWorld.
Technology has given us a universe entirely for ourselves — where the serendipity of meeting a new stranger, hearing a piece of music we would never choose for ourselves or an opinion that might force us to change our mind about something are all effectively banished.
A Wired article asks if things aren't about to shift wildly in favor of right-brained individuals.

Syria News

Assad Appoints Brother-in-Law Intel Chief

A confirmation here: Hariri Assassins Said to Come From Iraq

An opinion piece in Arab News apologizes for Syria:

If Syria began pulling out in earnest tomorrow and cut ties with Beirut, where does that leave tiny Lebanon, especially if the new Israeli-Palestinian détente turns sour? What if unfriendly influences fomented a new civil war, just as they did before? Who will step in then? The Americans, who are leading the charge, perhaps or, its client state, the Israelis? The Syrians would no doubt tell them “on your bike”. It isn’t that Syria shouldn’t leave its neighbor but that the timing is wrong. First, let’s wave goodbye to Iraq’s invaders and witness the Middle East peace process reaching fruition. Then, if Syria still insisted on hanging around where it isn’t wanted, it should, indeed, be hauled in front of the UN Security Council with all that could follow.

Once again, Syria is not the aggressor here. Imad Mustapha, the Syrian ambassador in Washington asserted that: “Syria is trying to engage constructively with the United States. We are not enemies of the United States and we don’t want to be drawn into such an enmity.” With the specter of Iraq as a precedent, Syria appears to be hedging its bets and forming closer ties with Iran, currently accused of enriching uranium for weapons purposes. Russia seems to be lining up with them both and is set to supply Syria with advanced missiles.

It is time for the Lebanese to decide where they stand during these threatening times. Their choices are thus. They can go shoulder to shoulder with their Syrian cousins, or trust the Americans and the Israelis to secure their safety and future prosperity? Sadly, either way they could be losers in a world where winners are inevitably the ones with the biggest bombs and hardest hearts.

Who will take care of all those poor pitiful Lebanese when the Syrians leave? What drivel.

Apparently, the Lebanese agree with me: Thousands in Lebanon Protest Government

Across the Bay is a blog from a writer in Syria, which I have just added to my newsreader. Excellent.

Iran

The BBC reports the price paid for blogging Iran.

Chrenkoff interviews Michael Ledeen. Way to go Chrenk!

Bush in Europe

Discarded Lies asksIs Europe Starting To Love A Cowboy?

New Sisyphus has a line-by-line analysis of Bush's speech today in Brussels.

At Home

US signals hard line on China military threat

Sen Rockefeller, the Vice chairman of the intellligence committee, thinks half of Russia's nuclear materials are unaccounted for. Doesn't seem like good news at all.

The Blue State Conservatives has a greatroundup of conservative blog opinion from blue states. Great stuff.

And I'm out . . .

Written by Chester at 12:03 AM | Link | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Print Article

February 21, 2005

THE GOD COMPLEX I

He was a loner obsessed by guns and explosives. A social outcast, he developed a "lurid fascination" with Columbine High School killers Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold. And on February 13, 24 year-old Robert Bonelli, Jr. entered the Hudson Valley Mall in Kingston, New York, and fired 60 rounds from a Hesse AK-47 into crowds of shoppers. Miraculously, no one was killed.

People in Iraq were not so lucky. Last weekend, suicide bombers murdered over 60 people, most of them Shia worshippers observing Ashura. These attacks were but the latest in an ongoing series of homicidal martyrdoms carried out by Arab Muslims in places ranging from Iraq to Israel to lower Manhattan.

Despite their geographic and cultural distance, killers like Bonelli, Harris and Klebold share numerous characteristics with suicide bombers. They choose death over life; attention over anonymity; the ecstasy of violence over the frustrations of daily life—and view other human beings as stage props in a drama in which they play the starring role. In short, they exhibit a narcissism so malignant it seems to consume their egos in a monstrous will-to-power. Rejecting human limitations, they desire instead the infinite, the omnipotent, the transcendent. Seeking the unlimited, they embrace death.

Take, for instance, the shaheed. He or she belongs to a culture, as Syrian scholar Sadik Al-Azm wrote in a recent essay, which has not come to grips with its decline and fall.

[A]s Arabs and Muslims, we continue to imagine ourselves as conquerors, history-makers, pace setters, pioneers and leaders of world-historic proportions.
When this grandiose self-image collides with the “impotence, frustration and insignificance” of the actual Arab-Muslim world
a host of problems ensues: massive inferiority complexes, huge compensatory delusions, wild adventurism, political recklessness, desperate violence and, lately, large-scale terrorism.
We have heard much about the Muslim-Arab sense of inferiority; few observers, however, consider the flip side of this complex: feelings of superiority. And indeed, deep within the Muslim-Arab weltanschauung lurks a sense of grandiosity fueled by oil wealth and the parochial nature of tribalism. Recently, Hasan Mahmaud, a member of the Muslim Canadian Congress told me “Arabs have been made to live an unreal existence by their leaders. They give us a picture that we are still the center of the world.”

Exacerbating this self-aggrandizement is Islam—a religion that stresses its spiritual and doctrinal superiority, while enjoining its followers to “kill the infidels wherever you find them.” As Sayyid Qutb wrote in his salafist manifesto, Milestones,

Islamic society is, by its very essence, the only civilized society, and the jahili [infidel, ignorant] societies, in all their various forms, are backwards societies. It is necessary to elucidate this great truth.
And to kill those who won’t accept it.

For most of Islam’s existence, cultural bonds - music, food, customs, family ties—ameliorated this grandiosity and rooted Muslims in everyday life. Beginning with the rise of Wahhabism in the late 17th century, however, radical strains of Islam began to attack traditional culture as ignorant and deluded. These assaults increased as the Muslim world fell further behind the West. Islam was not responsible for this backwardness, many argued: rather, it was secular society. “Islam is the solution,” claimed intellectuals like Qutb, Maududi and Al-Banna. “Islam is the answer.”

Over the last 25 years, Muslim immigrants have spread across the globe, particularly into Western countries. Surrounded by alien cultures often at odds with their traditional ways of life, many rely on Islam to provide the main organizing principle of their identities. But a new kind of Islam, argues French scholar Olivier Roy in his recent book Globalized Islam: the Search for a New Ummah—a radicalized, “deculturalized” religion freed from specific ethnic and national customs. An Islam that particularly appeals

to an uprooted, disaffect youth in search of an identity beyond the local cultures of their parents and beyond the thwarted expectations of a better life in the West.
Promulgated in cyberspace, this 21st century Islam is a “dream that finds on the internet its virtual existence. Websites and chat rooms compensate for the lack of real social roots.” Recruiters of suicide bombers look precisely for these young men and women: confused but secretly grandiose souls who find fulfillment in a never-never land of pure Islam—or an Islam realizable only on the web, where the boundary between the limited self and infinite cyberspace identity is increasingly blurred. Add to this the supremacy complex and it makes for some an irresistible temptation to slip the bonds of ego for the paradise of immortality.

But why violence? Because without limits, channels, cultural and traditional restrains, narcissism turns to power, power to domination and violence. When Bonelli stood in that New York mall, armed with an assault weapon—did he not feel for a moment like God, bestower of life and death? When a suicide bomber sits on a crowded bus and contemplates his soon-to-be victims, does he not feel an exhilarating power over the fate of so many people? What sense of godhood flitted through Mohammad Atta’s mind as the World Trade Center came into view? That the Bonellis, Klebolds and Harrises act out of a sense of resentment while the shahadah justifies his or her actions in the name of Allah makes no difference. In the end, both extremes meet in the void beyond the human ego. The Arabs, in fact, have a word for this: haram. It means at once the divine and the obscene, and implies the worst possible of all desires: to become God.

-------
[Starting today, author Steven Vincent returns to The Adventures of Chester on a more regular basis -- once or twice a week. Don't miss his blog In the Red Zone, or his book by the same name, in the sidebar.]

Written by at 6:48 AM | Link | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0) | Print Article

Intelligence Update

Look for things to start slipping into the press this week about the content of Goss's plan to strengthen the CIA.

Goss will stress, as he did last year, that he wants to get more people overseas, "in the field," including not just clandestine officers but also knowledgeable analysts, one senior administration official said yesterday. His plan will focus on recruiting more officers and analysts who "look, sound and talk like" the groups being spied on, so that they "can have close access and learn plans and intentions," the official added.
Meanwhile, here's some background on the new Deputy Director of National Intelligence, John Negroponte's second in command, Lieutenant General Michael Hayden.

Written by Chester at 1:21 AM | Link | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Print Article

Bush Goes to Europe

Stories and links about Bush's trip to Europe this week:

Bush's Grand Tour: Gerard Baker at the Weekly Standard wonders if Bush isn't walking into a trap.

What is new is a growing commitment by the leaders of Europe to implement a global strategy that will actively block the United States from pursuing its goal of combating tyranny.
Transatlantic Intelligencer points to a sign of this chasm in relations in Inveterate Arte: A Sign of Respect?

James Kitfield in National Journal wonders if a second term will give Bush a second chance to make a first impression.

And Mark Steyn writes that the only thing the President must remember is not to giggle at how silly European policies are.

And now the President himself is on his way, staying up all night on Air Force One trying to master the official State Department briefing paper on the European Rapid Reaction Force, the European Constitution, the European negotiations with Iran, etc. ("When these subjects come up, US policy is to nod politely and try not to giggle. If you feel a massive hoot of derision coming on, duck out to the men's room, but without blaming it on the escargots.") The French Foreign Minister took to calling the US Secretary of State "chre Condi" every 30 seconds. It's doubtful if the French President will go that far, but, if he does, the White House line is that Mr Bush is happy to play Renee Zellweger to Chirac's Tom Cruise ("You had me at bonjour").

Steyn points to a recent CIA study which says the European Union will break-up within 15 years unless it radically reforms its ailing welfare systems.

Denis Boyles offers the President a guide on what to say to the Europeans.

1. Get a job . . .
2. Clean up your mess . . .
3. Stop taking bribes . . .
4. Since you cant defend yourselves, get out of our way . . .
5. Knock off the eco-hypocrisy . . .
6. Start a No European Left Behind program . . .
7. Jacques, Gerhard, get a better campaign issue . . .
Meanwhile, Daniel Blumenthal and Thomas Donnelly, two scholars at the American Enterprise Institute, ask, "Why is Europe Eager to Sell Arms to China?"
The European Union is on the verge of lifting the arms embargo it imposed on the Peoples Republic of China following the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre. If the E.U. carries out this threat - and make no mistake, this would be a genuinely hostile act against the United States -- the transatlantic tiffs of recent years could come to seem minor, and Bush could be saying a final farewell to old allies rather than renewing strategic bonds.

***

The missing pieces of the PLA puzzle are exactly the sorts of command and control, communications, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance systems that the Europeans are getting ready to sell. These are the same technologies that make the U.S. military so effective, having been developed initially for NATO operations. Lifting the embargo would thus mean that, in a future flare-up with Beijing such as the cross-straits crisis over Taiwan in 1996 or Chinas 2001 downing of an American EP-3 surveillance aircraft, U.S. soldiers would find themselves going up against an adversary armed with NATO technology.

The immediate objective of the PLAs modernization effort is the subjugation, either by intimidation or direct military action, of Taiwan. But the larger target is the United States and its position as the guarantor of freedom and stability in the region -- what the Chinese government calls American hegemony. Beijing wants to develop the military capacity to deter the United States and its regional allies from acting in Asia. Lifting the embargo will go a long way toward helping the Chinese reach that goal.

Written by Chester at 1:00 AM | Link | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Print Article

China Reading

Some links about China you should see:

You Big Mouth, You! takes a pessimistic and in-depth view of the economic growth of China and its implications for future war. (h-t to Chrenkoff)

By Dawn's Early Light examines the political maneuvering in East Asia as Japan and the US affirm their security relationship.

The Faces of G also discusses political maneuvering in East Asia. Strange times we live in indeed.

This Newsmax article notes that

China's future course in the world is among the four most important issues the Bush administration is considering as it develops a new national security strategy, a top Pentagon official said Thursday.

Written by Chester at 12:46 AM | Link | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0) | Print Article

February 20, 2005

Fallujah: The Music Video

Hat-tip to American Digest for hosting this video by a Tank/Infantry/Engineer Team that fought together in Fallujah. My favorite scene is the Mic-Lic. nearly two-thousand pounds of C4 all being towed by a small rocket and probably clearing a path through a booby-trapped street. Awesome.

http://boswell.web.aplus.net/falluja.mpg

Written by Chester at 11:59 PM | Link | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Print Article

The insurgents are starting to negotiate

Power Line was the first to draw attention to these stories on the blogosphere this weekend. First, from Reuters, via Yahoo News:

U.S. diplomats and intelligence officers are conducting secret talks with Iraq's Sunni insurgents on ways to end fighting there, Time magazine reported on Sunday, citing Pentagon and other sources.

The Bush administration has said it would not negotiate with Iraqi fighters and there is no authorized dialogue but the U.S. is having "back-channel" communications with certain insurgents, unidentified Washington and Iraqi sources told the magazine.

Powerline notes:
The so-called insurgency has long consisted of two main elements, the al Qaeda-linked terrorists, most of whom are not Iraqis, and Baathist Sunnis whose objectives are more narrowly political. It sounds as though some of the latter group, at least, are ready to throw in the towel. Their violence had two main strategic objectives: first, to prevent President Bush from being re-elected; second, to prevent the Iraqi election from going forward. Both failed. If they give up, the terrorists will be isolated and can much more easily be defeated.

Powerline also draws attention to another AP story, "Sunnis Seek Place in New Iraqi Government:"

Just west of the capital, U.S. Marines and Iraqi security forces launched a joint operation to crack down on insurgents and terrorists in several troubled cities, the military said.

The operation was underway in several Euphrates River cities in Anbar province, including Heet, Baghdad, Hadithah and the provincial capital Ramadi, where authorities imposed a nighttime curfew, the military said.

Meanwhile, a powerful Sunni organization believed to have ties with the insurgents sought Sunday to condemn the weekend attacks that left nearly 100 Iraqis dead.

"We won't remain silent over those crimes which target the Iraqi people Sunnis or Shiites, Islamic or non-Islamic," Sheik Harith al-Dhari, of the Association Muslim Scholars, told a news conference.

Iraqis, he said, should unite "against those who are trying to incite hatred between us."

This is significant. While hard-core former Ba'athists make up the secular side of the insurgency, they cannot operate, or maybe even exist, without the support, active, tacit or otherwise, of Sunni religious and political groups. If these groups see themselves as losing in the long run, they will pressure the military elements of the insurgency to continue negotiations.

Wretchard at Belmont Club has his own take:

The available data suggests that the Sunni insurgents are still capable of showing strength within their strongholds and menacing traffic on the Baghdad streets. However, even within their bailiwicks, their capabilities are not decisive. They have been unable to impede or even delay the political goals set by the US as evidenced by their failure to stop the January 30 elections. Moreover, they are unable to project any significant combat power in Shi'ite and Kurdish areas. Faced with the loss of oil revenues, a growing Iraqi security force and the gradual depletion of their stored weapons and suffering a terrible attrition rate their relative power is irretrievably on the wane.
A close examination of the original Time story, Talking with the Enemy is in order. Notable excerpts . . . first, it was the insurgents themselves that tipped off Time that they are talking:
An account of the secret meeting between the senior insurgent negotiator and the U.S. military officials was provided to TIME by the insurgent negotiator. He says two such meetings have taken place. While U.S. officials would not confirm the details of any specific meetings . . .
Time does its best to leave things unclear as to who has initiated the negotiations, and whether it is a sign of weakness for either side. Is it the US that is war-weary?
Over the course of the war in Iraq, as the anti-U.S. resistance has grown in size and intensity, Administration officials have been steadfast in their refusal to negotiate with enemy fighters. But in recent months, the persistence of the fighting and signs of division in the ranks of the insurgency have prompted some U.S. officials to seek a political solution.
Or is it the enemy?
But in interviews with TIME, senior Iraqi insurgent commanders said several "nationalist" rebel groups--composed predominantly of ex--military officers and what the Pentagon dubs "former regime elements"--have moved toward a strategy of "fight and negotiate." Although they have no immediate plans to halt attacks on U.S. troops, they say their aim is to establish a political identity that can represent disenfranchised Sunnis and eventually negotiate an end to the U.S. military's offensive in the Sunni triangle. Their model is Sinn Fein, the political wing of the Irish Republican Army, which ultimately earned the I.R.A. a role in the Northern Ireland peace process. "That's what we're working for, to have a political face appear from the battlefield, to unify the groups, to resist the aggressor and put our views to the people," says a battle commander in the upper tiers of the insurgency who asked to be identified by his nom de guerre, Abu Marwan. Another negotiator, called Abu Mohammed, told TIME, "Despite what has happened, the possibility for negotiation is still open."
Whoever has begun the talks, it seems clear that side negotiating from a position of weakness is the enemy. Their forces are being attrited, their funds and weapons caches are being seized, and they have failed to break the will of the Americans.

From the enemy standpoint, there are two choices: they can continue on, effecting some level of instability in Baghdad and Anbar province, but having little power in either -- all the while fearing that the elected government will make an Iran-inspired theocratic shift, or, they can negotiate their way into participating in politics and take their chances that they might retain some minor semblance of their former power.

The key to the negotiations is the new Iraqi government. It will be the ultimate arbiter between a rejection of any claims of the Ba'athists, or an accomodation such that they will be included in the government.

What good is it to attempt to include them? Is this a failure? Does it mean we are floundering in our attempts to destroy the insurgency? These are certainly the narratives that will be spun in the press to explain such a move, but they are true not in the slightest. Many, many positives can come from some form of political inclusion of the Sunnis:

1. The legitimacy of the new government will increase dramatically.
2. By merely negotiating with the insurgents, the US and Iraqi government can gather information about its leadership and the centralized or decentralized nature of its organization. For example, if we request that some act be taken in good faith, whether or not the insurgent commander is able to guarantee it and then have it done indictates what he is in charge of vs what he is not.
3. If the Sunni/Ba'athist side of the insurgency can be included in the political process in some way -- some careful tightrope arrangement between the poles of having former Ba'athists actually in the government and that of having them only mildly associated with it and still controlling attacks by subordinates, then there is a great prize to be had: they can be co-opted and can give up information on the other side of the insugency. The other side is the "mayhem" side, the Zarqawi/Al Qaeda side, the religious side. What level of coordination does it possess with the Ba'athists? Can the Ba'athists give it up?

These are the questions that will drive negotiations and their outcome.

Meanwhile, the US is continuing to tighten the screws on the Sunni Triangle.

Iraqi, U.S. Forces Kick Off Operation River Blitz

The 1st Marine Division of the I Marine Expeditionary Force and Iraqi Security Forces kicked off Operation River Blitz, which includes a curfew from 8 p.m. to 6 a.m. and other measures to enhance security in and around Ramadi.

“We were asked by the Iraqi government to increase our security operations in the city to locate, isolate and defeat anti-Iraqi forces and terrorists who are intent on preventing a peaceful transition of power between the Interim Iraqi Government and the Iraqi Transitional Government,” said Maj. Gen. Richard F. Natonski, commanding general, 1st Marine Division, I Marine Expeditionary Force.

The security measures in and around the provincial capital are designed to ensure the safety of the populace by controlling access into the city. Access control points leading into the city will screen vehicles for terrorists and criminals as well as weapons, munitions and materials to produce improvised-explosive devices.

In conjunction with implementing the security measures in Ramadi, increased security operations also began in several cities along the Euphrates River, including the cities of Hit, Baghdadi and Hadithah.

Whether this is a limited operation, or something more substantial like Plymouth Rock remains to be seen . . .


Written by Chester at 10:29 PM | Link | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Print Article

Iran Week in Review from www.regimechangeiran.com

[I've made a deal with Dr. Zin at the Regime Change Iran blog for this week's roundup of Iran news and analysis to be double-posted here. Regime Change Iran is an excellent blog and is growing in stature in the blogosphere.]

DoctorZin provides a brief week in review on the major news events affecting Iran.

The Europeans:
  • An important distinction has appeared between the US and some of the Europeans. While President Bush is speaking the language of freedom and human rights (traditional European concerns) Germany’s Schroeder speaks of stability and is silent on freedom.
  • The Europeans are pushing on recognition of the state of Israel, but Iran has flatly rejected these demands. On the issue of Iran’s heavy water reactor
    (which are universally used for production of plutonium), Iran is
    rejecting any EU3 discussions on closing this facility, saying they want to be an exporter of enriched uranium.
  • Once again, the WTO has rejected Iran’s application for membership. France wants the US to reconsider its opposition to it.
  • Bush makes it clear to the Europeans that military action against is not our first choice.
The Iranian Threat:
More evidence of a growing popular struggle inside of Iran.
  • There were more anti-regime demonstrations in Iran this week. But as a result, the Mullahs retaliated by cutting off the offending city's natural gas. It is still winter...
  • Proof that Iranians no longer support their regime can be seen in their refusal to participate in their elections. In the last election, only 12% bothered to vote.
    Much of the world pretends Iran is a democracy. At the time, of the
    last election, the world media largely failed to report this story.
    Many claim the Iranians refused to vote because they are not free to
    elect leaders of their own choosing (Iran’s religious clerics approve
    the candidates they want the people to choose from and thus keep a
    strangle hold on the government). Iran’s next presidential election is scheduled to occur on June 17th. This time when the people of Iran refuse to participate in these phony elections the world will be watching.
  • There is further evidence that Iranians are largely pro US and pro Bush. A sample quote from this report: Tehran University student who said,
    "The Iranian people support President Bush because he supports our cause. As long President Bush stands with the Iranian people, the Iranian people will stand with him."
  • Roger L Simon, film producer, writer, and popular blogger can now add revolutionary to his resume. He has come out in support of the Iranian people’s quest for a referendum
    on their form of government. This blog and others are currently
    preparing a major blogosphere campaign in support of this. Stay tuned.
  • UPI produced some interesting facts about Iranian bloggers.
  • Iranians appear to be increasingly convinced that the US is going to cause a regime change in Iran. IPS weighs in as well.
  • Michael Ledeen, writes: These Are Revolutionary Times. Faster Please, President Bush.
Iran’s Neighbors:
  • Who is Ayatollah Sistani of Iraq? The Times provide a glimpse of this important US ally and his website.
  • Jihadism appears to be in retreat in Iraq.
  • Is freedom on the move in Lebanon?
    The murder this past week of former Lebanonese prime minister Rafiq
    Hariri has put the spotlight on Syria and its meddling in Lebanon. The
    evidence appears to point to Syria as the culprit in the murder. Some
    are speculating that Hariri was preparing a coup to oust the Syrians
    from the country. Reports are coming in of popular demonstrations in the streets of Lebanon for Syria to leave.
    If this movement gains momentum and Syria is forced out, it will
    seriously weaken this ally of Iran. – See the report from the Belmont Club and Amir Taheri.
Odd and Ends:
  • Maureen Dowd of the NY Times drove some Iranians crazy this past week when she denied that Iran is a totalitarian state.
  • The American Thinker published a report of Iran’s Supreme leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, in his own words. It is long but well worth reading.
  • More Iranian TV Video Clips - MemriTV.org.
  • And finally, I have produced a list of interesting quotes of week.

Written by Chester at 9:53 PM | Link | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Print Article

February 17, 2005

Publius Pundit

The next time I update my blogroll, it will definitely include this one: Publius Pundit - Blogging the democratic revolution. This blog is dedicated to "finding stories and commentary from news sources and blogs from all over the world relating to the progress of free, democratic elections. It encourages its readers and other bloggers to submit relevant links for posting, as this aims to be a blog that networks many specialized blogs in a common cause." Looks like great work there so far. Publius has a great international blogroll too.

Written by Chester at 11:29 PM | Link | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0) | Print Article

First Lieutenant Pantano

Marine Lieutenant Pantano has been charged with pre-meditated murder for shooting two insurgents in Iraq in April of 2004. This has been all over the talk radio stations today and seems poised to take off in the blogosphere as well. Van Mendenhall offers his take on matters:

Both these cases bear similarities to the NYC Police shooting of a man whom the police had stopped, but then decided to run. Again they stopped the man, at which point the man turned around, reached inside his jacket in the same manner as if going for a gun in a shoulder holster. At this point, the cops open fire and killed him. But the man was unarmed and it turned out he was reaching for his wallet. The cops had order him to stop and put his hands up. Twice the man refused to comply.

Note here that a suspect rapidly reaching for his wallet is exactly the same action as reaching for a gun. In this case, the cops were charged and found not guilty. The point is that in such a situation, a cop or a soldier has only a split second to make a life or death situation. And while it is reasonable that a cop who works in a civilian environment should have his actions closely examined, it is completely irrational to apply this standard to war. One would think that the military would understand this and behave accordingly. Alas, not, apparently because they are caving to media pressure.

Meanwhile, WorldNetDaily notes that the very same Lt. Pantano was quoted for by a Time magazine article, also during April of 2004.
The Marine Corps officer charged with murder for killing two Iraqi insurgents was featured last spring in a gripping, first-hand account by an embedded Time magazine reporter who illustrated the hair-trigger intensity U.S. fighters endured facing an increasingly sophisticated foe on the outskirts of Fallujah.

The story showed 2nd Lt. Ilario Pantano's deep frustration with high-level decisions as forces preparing in late April for an onslaught of the terrorist-stronghold were ordered to pull back . . .

Pantano was among the many in Easy Company who, according to Quinn-Judge, "viewed the decision as a retreat from the U.S. pledge to drive the 'bad guys' out of Fallujah."

The story quotes Pantano saying: "Does this remind you of another part of the world in the early '70s?" referring to the U.S. withdrawal from Vietnam.

The Time reporter said that while it was understood the decision provided an opportunity for the Iraqis to prove they can take control of their own security, the Marines "felt angry, frustrated and deeply skeptical that the deal would work."

"As they packed up their equipment and cleared out from their forward operating base, they were fuming," the reporter wrote.

Despite the agreement, the Marines still were taking heavy fire from the insurgents.

"This is so surreal," Pantano said, after being briefed on the agreement. "I had to write it down in my journal to make sure I wasn't making it up."

Prior to the decision to pull out, Quinn-Judge recounted how Pantano, as platoon commander, led his men to the southern edge of Fallujah to help destroy two bunkers insurgents were using to fire on their positions.

More about the incident:
Pantano's attorney, Charles Gittins, emphasizing the high casualty rate at the time, said the April 15 incident took place when the officer's quick-reaction battalion was dispatched to capture an arms cache at an insurgent hideaway. After finding weapons, the Marines stopped two Iraqis fleeing in an SUV by shooting out the vehicles tires.

Pantano, armed with an M-16, had the Iraqis search the vehicle in case it was booby trapped. While performing the search, the Marine said he heard the two men talking among themselves then saw them turn.

The lieutenant thought the Iraqis were coming at him and ordered them in Arabic to stop. When they didn't obey, Pantano shot them with "many rounds," according to Gittins.

The lawyer acknowledged the Iraqis turned out to be unarmed, but insists his client didn't know it at the time.

Pantano immediately reported the incident to his superiors and an internal investigation cleared him, allowing him to continue in combat duty for another three months. After returning to Camp Lejeune, however, he learned he had been accused by a subordinate Gittins describes as a "disgruntled" sargeant who had experienced "difficulties" in the unit.

Written by Chester at 11:19 PM | Link | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Print Article

Friday Reading

Here's all kinds of stuff that might have slipped under your radar:


A medic in the Washington State National Guard was recently awarded the Silver Star for saving the lives of several Iraqi soldiers caught with him in an ambush on a convoy on November 2nd.

Spirit of America is hiring. Openings include a VP for Project Management and a VP for Communications, among others. All are based in Los Angeles.

The city of Dubai, in the United Arab Emirates, plans to add 500 miles of man-made coastline in a very large public development project to be bigger than Manhattan.

Here's a good account of one company of Light Armored Infantry that is taking the long way home from Iraq after fighting in Fallujah.

caliber50 is a new blog by another former Marine officer -- a tanker. Stop by and check it out.

One of the bloggers at I Should Have Stayed Home tells of an ethical dilemma he recently encountered:

I had detailed information that someone would be kidnapped and executed the next morning, and that it would be carried out by someone they knew (whether through work or family or friendship I'll leave out). But I wasn't allowed to provide the person the details because doing so would compromise the source, and end more lives. So I called up this person out of the blue, with the barest minimal warning: "You are going to be kidnapped tomorrow morning, leave your home tonight and trust nobody." Naturally, they were skeptical. "Thanks very much, but I can take care of myself." I had the information that would have convinced them otherwise, but couldn't release it. Nor did I have time or ability to get to them in person or interdict the kidnappers.
I just love that blog. Everything they write about is interesting.

Another blogger in Iraq, Cigars in the Sand writes about intimidation's effects on his Iraqi coworkers.

The Regime Change Iran blog, which I read every day, notes in a detailed post that blogging is incredibly popular in Iran.

Some observers say the gathering revolution will be blogged, not televised.

The blog NKzone.org, which I read every day by the way, offers an interesting take on the possibility of a food shortage in North Korea.

Written by Chester at 10:29 PM | Link | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Print Article

US Increases Military Pressure on Syria

The Middle East Newswire reports that

the White House has endorsed a plan that would grant U.S. troops the right of pursuit of Iraqi insurgents into Syria. They said the plan also included greater efforts along the Iraqi-Syrian border to block the flow of insurgents and weapons into Iraq.

"We will continue to make it clear to both Syria and Iran that meddling in the internal affairs of Iraq is not in their interests," Bush said.

The plan does not call for an invasion or attack on Syria, officials said. Instead, the plan stipulated the deployment of additional air and ground assets meant to detect and strike infiltrators from Syria. They said the policy would allow U.S. troops to shoot suspected infiltrators, even while they were on Syrian territory.

This move has been in the works for some time. Last month we discussed various options for Syria (here, here, and here) and noted that some were pushing for incursions into Syrian territory. Looks like a less aggressive option was chosen, which includes allowing US fires to cross into Syrian territory, though not troops (or will they in small numbers . . .).

US Moves
1. Diplomatic pressure on Syria ongoing for months.
2. Recall US ambassador in wake of bombing in Lebanon.
3. Announce more aggressive defense posture vs. Syria-based enemies in Iraq.

Syria Moves
1. Kill former PM of Lebanon.
2. Make a defense pact with Iran.

The US announcement shows that the US is not willing to cede the initiative in its overall diplomatic and military judo-match against Syria.

What next? What countermoves might Syria attempt, and what further initiatives might the US begin?

One thing is certain: while it may seem that Syria was on the back-burner in the White House for a while -- and this may only be a perception, as diplomacy is not always visible -- it and Iran are now clearly in the front of the President's field of vision.

Written by Chester at 9:53 PM | Link | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Print Article

February 16, 2005

The Technical Collection Game and the Strange Reports from Iran

How to reconcile seemingly conflicting information emerging from Iran -- or rather from the space wherein lies the US-Iranian relationship?

The story started in the Washington Post on Sunday. The Post gave a valiant attempt to throw the story in favor of the Iranians, noting that since they decided not to engage the US drones, the US was unable to gather information about the Iranian air defenses:

"It was clear to our air force that the entire intention here was to get us to turn on our radar," the official said.

That tactic, designed to contribute information to what the military calls an "enemy order of battle," was used by the U.S. military in the Korean and Vietnam wars, against the Soviets and the Chinese, and in both Iraq wars.

"By coaxing the Iranians to turn on their radar, we can learn all about their defense systems, including the frequencies they are operating on, the range of their radar and, of course, where their weaknesses lie," said Thomas Keaney, a retired U.S. Air Force colonel and executive director of the Foreign Policy Institute at Johns Hopkins University.

But it did not work. "The United States must have forgotten that they trained half our guys," the Iranian official said. After a briefing by their air force three weeks ago, Iran's national security officials ordered their forces not to turn on the radar or come into contact with the drones in any way.

"Our decision was: Don't engage," the Iranian official said. Leaving the radar off deprives U.S. forces of vital information about the country's air defense system, but it also makes it harder for Iran to tell if an attack is underway.

This is all true -- if the Iranians didn't turn on their air defenses, then the US probably didn't gather much new info about them.

But to imply an advantage for Iran here is misleading. The US has infiltrated Iranian airspace with no response. Moreover, either the Iranians took their sweet time in noticing, or the US started small and slowly escalated the extent and coverage of the infiltration. The Post mentions that the US began in April of 2004, but has had aircraft over Iran as recently as December, 2004 and January of 2005. But the Iranian National Security Council didn't decide not to engage them until January, 2005?

Moreover, whether information about air defenses was a goal or not, the US has no doubt gathered a great deal of useful intelligence of a variety of kinds. One of the best ways to test an enemy's defense is to go through a series of posturing moves designed to test his reactions. In so doing, the US would ratchet up its activity to a feverish pace, then quit with no warning, then hit it again in different spots, then back off slowly, etc. By performing intelligence collection in unexpected ways, one can systematically test the defenses of one's quarry. Perhaps nothing was gained about air defenses, but there are many other things of interest. When combined with signals collection, for example, these incursions would be very useful for mapping command and control networks. Who calls whom when a drone appears? Who does that person then call?

A betting man would place good money that Iran's airspace isn't the only place where such incursions and challenges are taking place . . . testing Iran's naval activity around Bushehr would be my first guess . . . and US subs would be the vehicle for doing so.

But it gets even more interesting . . .

Note this Newsmax article, Iran Okayed U.S. Drone Flights:

A senior Iranian diplomat tells NewsMax that a recent report in the Washington Post that the U.S. had been spying on their nuclear facilities using drones was not news to them - the Iranian government had quietly given the U.S. the OK to make the overflights.
Strange, eh? More:
NewsMax has leaned that the U.S. surveillance flights came up dry and may have since been suspended, at least temporarily.

Some suspect that Tehran halted activity and sanitized sites where weapons research was underway before the U.S. began flying the drones.

So, rather than exacerbating tensions between Washington and Tehran, the flights have actually undercut any Bush administration moves against Iran, at least for the time being.


Perhaps the Iranian official is just playing the Farsi version of the CYA game. But if he's honest . . . why would the US telegraph its plans to overfly with drones?

To map this out, the Bush Administration asked Tehran for permission for the overflights, presumably from a position of "since you have nothing to hide anyway . . ." If I was Iranian and wanted to hide what I was doing, I would immediately begin a frenzy of activity. This activity could then be watched by satellites before any drones even started flying. After discovering that we were about to begin the flights, how did vehicle traffic change around key sites? What phone calls were made to whom? What equipment was moved, and to where? And at day or night? And by whom? How long did any displacement take? A wealth of information could have been gained merely be releasing that we were about to start flying, and then to watch and see what happened . . .

NewsMax reports that the flights found little of consequence. Why would this be released? Whether true or not, it certainly serves to embolden the Iranians, who have been led to believe that the flights found nothing, and that the flights have ceased. So perhaps they have, but they've been replaced by other means of collection to see the consequences.

I seriously doubt that the US made the move to put several drones over Iranian airspace all the while thinking that the Iranians would never notice . . .

How might the Iranians react next time?

Another NewsMax story, Iran Now Threatens to Shoot Down U.S. Drones, notes thus:

Iran's intelligence chief on Wednesday accused the United States of flying spy drones over its nuclear sites and threatened to shoot down the unmanned surveillance crafts.

Intelligence Minister Ali Yunesi comments backed a report in The Washington Post on Sunday that quoted unnamed U.S. officials as saying the drones have been flying over Iran for nearly a year to seek evidence of nuclear weapons programs.

More:
In December, the Iranian air force was ordered to shoot down any unknown flying objects. At the time, there were reports in Iranian newspapers that Iran had discovered spying devices in pilotless planes its air defense force had shot down.

"If any of the bright objects come close, they will definitely meet our fire and will be shot down. We possess the necessary equipment to confront them," Yunesi said.

So here, we learn that the Iranians claim to have shot down some drones -- which refutes the Post's assertion that nothing was gained for the US by this venture. I think it is more likely that the Iranians did not shoot anything down, but that this is bluster meant for their own domestic consumption . . .

How might the US execute a collection mission next? If the Iranians refuse to shoot drones, then the US will probably begin to play games with manned aircraft. Since we effectively own the airspace over the Persian Gulf, and Iraq, and Afghanistan, one tactic would be to increase significantly the number and tempo of flights of manned aircraft getting very close to the Iranian border, so that the Iranians will become desensitized to the US presences, and then . . . slower to react when the planes don't just get near the border, but break it in the midst of their targeting runs . . .

Written by Chester at 11:37 PM | Link | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Print Article

"Blog" mentioned on Senate floor for first time in history today

Sen John Cornyn (R-TX) (hat-tip: PoliPundit):

THE NEWS MEDIA, OF COURSE, IS THE MAIN WAY THAT PEOPLE GET INFORMATION ABOUT GOVERNMENT. THE MEDIA PUSHES GOVERNMENT ENTITIES AND ELECTED OFFICIALS, BUREAUCRATS AND AGENCIES TO RELEASE INFORMATION THE PEOPLE HAVE THE RIGHT TO KNOW. OCCASIONALLY EXPOSING WASTE, FRAUD, AND ABUSE, AND HOPEFULLY MORE OFTEN THAN THAT, LETTING THE AMERICAN PEOPLE KNOW WHAT A GOOD JOB THEIR PUBLIC OFFICIALS ARE DOING.

BUT WE'VE ALSO SEEN IN RECENT YEARS THE EXPANSION OF OTHER OUTLETS FOR SHARING INFORMATION OUTSIDE THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA, TO ONLINE COMMUNITIES, DISCUSSION GROUPS AND BLOGS.

I BELIEVE ALL THESE OUTLETS ARE -- CAN AND DO CONTRIBUTE TO THE HEALTH OF OUR POLITICAL DEMOCRACY. BUT LET ME MAKE THIS CLEAR, MR. PRESIDENT, THIS IS NOT JUST A BILL FOR THE MEDIA, LEST ANYBODY BE CONFUSED. THIS IS A BILL THAT WILL BENEFIT EVERY MAN, WOMAN AND CHILD IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA WHO CARES ABOUT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, CARES ABOUT HOW THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OPERATES, AND ULTIMATELY CARES ABOUT THE SUCCESS OF THIS GREAT DEMOCRACY.

I presume wasn't yelling, by the way. The transcript is just in all caps.

Written by Chester at 10:56 PM | Link | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Print Article

The Major Media Continues to Show Itself as a Large Slow-moving Oaf Around Blogs. You Just Can't Make This Stuff Up

For every good sign that major media won't die a horrible death like this:

MSNBC - 'Connected: Coast to Coast' premieres February 15

“Connected” will respond directly to viewers’ comments and questions, and provide the experts and analysis to help viewers get the questions they ask answered.  Reagan and Crowley will also contribute blogs to their website, Connected.MSNBC.com; the site will feature guest blogs, video blogs and citizen journalists, who will be featured on the site and on-air. 
There is an equally disturbing one like this[Truly a must read. Check out the whole thing.]:
NOTE to those of you who normally skip the Tulsa stuff here: Please read this entry. This is not just about the sordid little world of Tulsa politics. This is the old media trying to intimidate their critics in the new media into silence. It has repercussions for any blogger engaged in media criticism. It strikes at the heart of what blogs do. I'd appreciate your help in putting the blogosphere's spotlight of shame on this legal threat.
Hat-tip to Daniel Drezner yet again, who is so kind as to provide a link to the email address of the Tulsa World.

By the way, USMC_Vet over at The Word Unheard plans to offer a critique of the new MSNBC show shortly, I believe ("Psst! USMC_Vet! Wake up! I'm sending traffic your way!")

Personally, I just set TiVo to record the show. Looks to be a creative attempt to incorporate blogs into major media. Worth a shot and kudos to MSNBC for doing it first. Anyone see footage of Judy Woodruff talking to Howie Kurtz about the blogosphere recently? Judy looked like she had just heard of the word "blog" in her briefing notes before going on the air. [Sigh] I should expect more out of a fellow Blue Devil and Duke trustee emerita.

Written by Chester at 10:31 PM | Link | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0) | Print Article

The Post-Assassination Aftermath

Daniel Drezner thinks things are getting uncomfortable for Syria.

THE BELGRAVIA DISPATCH: Hariri's Assassination has more:

It seems like many parties are going to use this assassination to resuscitate and spearhead new efforts to get Syrian troops out of Lebanon. Part of the rationale will now also be that any supposed Syrian 'stabilization' role has fallen well short with this gruesome mega-bombing near the St. George hotel on Beirut's corniche. Still, however, we need to see where the evidence leads before getting too carried away. The demarche and temporary recall of our Ambassador were fine and, all told, measured and appropriate responses. An actual suspension in diplomatic relations or more permanent recall of our Ambassador are not yet warranted, in my view.
How might the US maneuver now? If Syria can be induced to withdraw from Lebanon, grateful Lebanese might give the US free reign in the Beka'a Valley. Getting there either before or during the Syrian withdrawal could yield treasure troves of intelligence -- everything from the Iranian Pasdaran's support of Hamas and Hezbollah to all other manner of ill-willed individuals who have trained there from time to time . . . The Lebanese seem genuinely pissed off about the assassination (h-t to Drezner for this bit from the NY Times):
n Sidon, Mr. Hariri's hometown, Syrian workers were attacked by dozens of protesters before the police intervened, and hundreds of Lebanese marched with black banners and pictures of the slain leader. A mob also attacked a Beirut office of Syria's ruling Baath Party.

Thousands of protesters also massed in the northern port city of Tripoli, according to Reuters.

Written by Chester at 10:16 PM | Link | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Print Article

Iraq's Most Wanted

CentCom has a list of the most wanted Ba'athist terrorists plumb full of details. Aside from Zarqawi, the top guy is:

‘Izzat Ibrahim al-Duri'

As former Vice Chairman of the Revolutionary Command Council, ‘Izzat Ibrahim Al-Duri was part of the inner circle and very close to Saddam. Al-Duri is believed to be the current leader of the New Regional Command and New Ba’ath Party. As such, Al-Duri provides guidance, financial support and coordination of the Former Regime insurgency. His financial support for the insurgency, derived from the expropriated wealth of Iraq, continues to facilitate attacks against coalition forces, the Interim Iraqi Government, Iraqi National Guard, the Iraqi Police and the Iraqi people. As a member of the former Saddam regime, ‘Izzat Ibrahim al-Duri has been designated under United Nations Security Counsel Resolution 1483 for stealing assets from the Iraqi people. Under this United Nations Security Counsel resolution all member nations must freeze any funds, other financial assets or economic resources associated with ‘Izzat Ibrahim al-Duri and immediately return them to the Iraqi people. Any of these assets recovered from al Duri will be immediately dedicated to the reconstruction of Iraq. Additionally, the Multi National Forces in Iraq are offering a reward of $10 million for information leading to the capture of Izzat Ibrahim al-Duri.

UPDATE: Strategypage.com notes the role of cell phones in thwarting attacks and capturing bad guys, and also takes a look at the difficulty of following the money:

ttacking the money isn't easy, as Baath has decades of experience in getting around the international banking system rules. Long established smuggling networks can get cash,  major appliances, or weapons and people, into the country. That access is being attacked by building up the border patrol. Over a hundred border forts, and the establishment of a highway patrol. In the past, smugglers would cross the border at some remote, roadless, area, move to a main highway, and then drive to a major population center to deliver the smuggled goods. The border patrol forts, with their new electronic sensors and night vision equipment, plus the highway patrol stopping trucks and inspecting cargo and documents, will complicate smuggling operations considerably.

The Sunni Arabs were always better organized, and up for trying new things. Most of the scientists and engineers in Iraq are Sunni Arabs. Most new businesses are established by Sunnis Arabs. The first ones to adopt new ideas are Sunni Arabs. But within the Sunni Arab community there is a major debate over the wisdom of continuing to support "Arab Socialism" (the Baath Party). Even before the 2003 invasion shut down Saddam's tyrannical government, many Sunni Arabs were turning to Islamic radicalism. Others backed democracy, but the socialists and religious radicals were more willing to use force. Guns speak louder than ballots, or so the Baath and al Qaeda zealots thought. But day by day, more cell phone tips come into the police from Sunni Arabs.

Written by Chester at 10:08 PM | Link | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Print Article

Suspending "The Whole Truth Series"

I am going to abandon my efforts at a "Whole Truth Series," for several reasons:

1. After the Jordan affair, I've had my fill of exposing news execs.
2. I've found that the only way to get enough information for a decent post would be to spend so much time on this that my blog would cease to be anything else.
3. Better ways of getting behind the scenes info are already out there . . .

Might sound as though I am giving up. Not true. As a maneuverist, I am choosing not to reinforce failure, and to reinforce success instead. And I will continue to report undercovered events, opinions, and tidbits.

By the way, US Army Lieutenant Colonel Ryan, whose thoughts were my inspiration, is now headed home after 404 days:

I want to apologize for taking so long to respond, many of you wrote several weeks ago. The last two weeks of January were really hectic for us as we were busy catching "bad guys" and digging up weapons caches (see this week's Time magazine "Hunt for the Bomb Factories" by Mick Ware) in order to ensure the safety of the elections on the 30th. Since then, we pulled up stakes and headed south to Kuwait after 404 days (we counted every one of them!) in Iraq. We should head back to the good ol' U.S.A. in the next two weeks, get our feet back under us for about two weeks and then take thirty days of much needed leave.
Is he jaded about the future of Iraq after 404 days? No.
I predict that things will be much better in a year than they are now. The period from April to December of last year was the high-water mark of the insurgency and now the people have cast their votes for the future. You can't imagine how we felt to see little old women, mothers, fathers and Iraqis from all walks of their society braving mortar and suicide bomb attacks to cast their votes that Sunday.

Now the hard-liners see that their days are numbered unless they also take part in the process. This will not be easy, but as I like to say: if wars were easy and painless, everyone would have one and nobody would ever give up. We won't give up – the American voters also cast their ballots to see this thing through.

Welcome home, sir.


UPDATE: Operation Truth is a blog of blogs. It is devoted to compiling stories from service personnel of all stripes who've been to Iraq. Go check it out for more on-the-ground info.

Written by Chester at 9:54 PM | Link | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Print Article

Prime Minister Shopping . . .

The Christian Science Monitor reports that Ibrahim Jaafari may emerge as the choice of the election victors for Iraq's new prime minister:

Though there's still room for change, aides to both Mr. Jaafari and members of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), the party of his main rival, say they're close to a deal that will deliver him the premiership.
The Monitor wonders if Jaafari's ascension might be a blow to Washington, which would prefer a more secularist leader:
aafari's rise will put a Shiite Islamist in charge of the government for the first time in Iraq's history. It also underscores waning US influence over Iraq's politics. The US would have preferred to see a secular leader emerge, not an Islamist who once lived in Iran. Jaafari's party is also unlikely to support expanded ties with Israel, a goal articulated by the US at the start of the war.
But other interpretations of his intentions and beliefs exist:
But his friends and allies say no contradiction exists - that he's a pragmatic politician who sees Islam as the best guarantee against more turmoil, and who believes that a modern interpretation of Islam's political role can be found that's acceptable to most who live here.

"Iraq's minorities must be protected, and they must be given their rights,'' Jaafari said in a recent interview with the Monitor. "But we must also respect the majority, so Islam should be the official religion of the state ... and we shouldn't have any laws that contradict Islam."

"He looks at Islam as a bridge to all humanity, not just for on particular type of people,'' says Mr. Khadimi. "He doesn't want an Islamic republic like Iran's, or a system like Saudi Arabia's. He wants to see something modernized and that recognizes that Iraqis are closely tied to their religion and traditions. He's going with what the Iraqi people want."

"I wouldn't say he's secular, or religious either,'' says Toby Dodge, an Iraq expert at Queen Mary University in London.

2005 looks to be a very interesting year . . .

Meanwhile, Egypt's newsweekly Al-Ahram reports that the Shi'ites are laying the political order of the new Iraq, and notes that one point of contention is whether all legislation must spring from Islam. As usual, Ayatollah Sistani's mere mention is influential:

Confident of victory the UIA appeared to have already started to dictate the rules of the political game when, early this week, a fierce debate broke out over the role religion should play in delineating Iraq's new political map. Should Islam be the only source of legislation or one among several? Statements attributed to Al-Sistani first indicated that the grand ayatollah, along with other members of the religious seminary, had cautioned against any attempt to separate religion from the state. A statement issued on Sunday in Najaf insisted that "the religious seminary will only accept a constitution that acknowledges Islam as the sole source of legislation and that any item will be rejected if deemed in contradiction with the Islamic creed."

On Tuesday, however, Al-Sistani's aides, while stressing the ayatollah believed legislation must respect Iraq's Islamic identity, insisted he had not made the remarks attributed to him.

Written by Chester at 9:11 PM | Link | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0) | Print Article

Evening Admin Notes

Well, loyal readers, after a five or so day break, I am back. It was nice to actually get a full night's sleep for a change and to exercise a bit. Must get a more disciplined schedule going so's I don't kill myself.

Quick thought: in my silence, the Eason Jordan story has moved from back to front page. Also, I notice that in the span of -- get this -- only six months! -- the blogosphere has moved from being pajama-clad internet sickos to a "lynch mob." Wow! We are really getting somewhere! Where will we be in another 6 months? Resistance is futile. You do not understand the power of the dark side . . .

A change to the email policy: For those of you blessed or cursed enough to be on my email list, you know that I usually send out one message at the beginning of the week. I have decided to change that. From now on, I will send out a quick, two-sentence message whenever I have just posted something that I feel is worthy of your attention. I envision this happening only twice a week.

If you are unsatisfied with this policy and would now like to unsubscribe, just email me with "unsubscribe" in the subject line.

If you had no idea I even have an email list and would like to join it, just email me with "subscribe" in the subject line. My email address is: terrier_manchester@yahoo.com.

I will now offer a post or two for your evening and Thursday morning pleasure . . .

UPDATE: [9pm] It looks like my comrades in arms over at Easongate have let the cat out of the bag on their next move in pursuing this story to its end. They have begun a new blog entitled, War, Truth, and Videotape. The purpose there is to continue the fight to get the video of Eason Jordan's Davos comments released.

For a variety of reasons, I have decided not to join them on this quest. Let me be the first to assure you though, that I have become close friends with both Bill Roggio and Brian Scott and I am certain that neither of them is continuing the attack solely for exposure for their own blogs or some other personal reason. They actually are deeply vested in discovering the truth behind this entire episode and have stacked the deck with a number of excellent bloggers who are no doubt equally dedicated. I wish them all success.

Written by Chester at 8:51 PM | Link | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0) | Print Article

February 11, 2005

Final Thoughts on the Eason Jordan Controversy

Well, as you may know, I've been moonlighting this week at Easongate.

Today, Eason Jordan resigned his post at CNN.

I was completely flabbergasted by this move. In a way, I see it as a threat, and very skillful damage control (though the best would have been to go public, air the tape, retract, recant, and get it over with). I see it as skillful because I doubt the tape will be released now, though a couple of phone calls could probably make that happen.

And I see it as a threat because without the tape, Jordan is free to play the "victim of the angry bloggers" role. If he doesn't, someone will transpose that upon him. Or, as I told Bill Roggio in a message tonight:

He's leaving because of what he said. But nobody knows what he said. So it's easy to portray his departure as just the fault of a lynch-mob. "Poor ole Eason. Got chased off by bloodthirsty bloggers." I would rather we all knew what happened and then all would understand why he was leaving. CNN is smart in this fasion. Smarter than CBS. Still haven't cracked the code on it though. If they really knew what was up, they would have fixed this immediately and he'd still be employed. But smart enough to solve in a way that makes us look bad . . . In my blogging future, I don't want to just be known as one of the guys who brought Jordan down -- just like he probably doesnt want to be known as the "troop-slanderer."
I'm still sorting my thoughts on all of this. This is just wild. Of the nine people I've worked with on Easongate, I've never met any of them, have only communicated via email or instant messenger, and Bill is the only one I've ever spoken to -- and twice at that. It's just wild.

The way I see it, I'm not going to congratulate myself. However hideous his statements are, a man I never met is now toppled partly because of me. In a way, there is something -- not dishonorable -- but disconcerting about the whole thing. Perhaps I am a little too 19th-century in my ideas of honor, but I would have preferred to speak personally with Mr. Jordan about this. Failing that, I would have rather seen the tape and judged his conduct for myself. But Mr. Jordan and I would never have met as equals to discuss this issue. The blogosphere has become a great leveler.

I think he deserved it, but the entire affair is sobering. I am not doing any touchdown dances, or putting a new patch on my pajamas. Though the media may mind its p's and q's a little better after this, I'm not sure it means they'll cover the military better, and that's a shame . . .

The next post here at The Adventures of Chester will be Part III of the series "Conservative Critiques of the War," and will be subtitled, "Clash of Civilizations? More like Total War of Civilizations" [Part I here, Part II here]. I hope to have it up on Sunday evening, and hope you will stop by to read it.

After that I just might take a week off from blogging.

-----
Here's some previous thoughts I've had on bloggers and the major press:
Bloggers vs. the Mainstream? Not quite . . .
And my reasons for joining Easongate:
Geraghty Asks Tough Questions of the Eason Bloggers

-----
UPDATE: Welcome Polipundit and Instapundit readers!

Written by Chester at 11:53 PM | Link | Comments (2) | TrackBack (1) | Print Article

February 10, 2005

Oliver North Weighs In

Col Oliver North has given his thoughts on the Eason story in a printed commentary on FOXNews.com (I don't believe he's been on the air with this . . . correct me please . . .). Excerpt:

There is a lesson in all of this, and not just for CNN but for all the media. Eason Jordan’s disparaging duplicity wasn’t exposed by the barons of broadcasting or the potentates of print, but by "amateurs" — bloggers — the same "unwashed masses" who brought down Dan Rather. These e-mailing, web-surfing, call-'em as you see-'em bloggers are the electronic equivalent of the pamphleteers who brought about our revolution. Today they "pass the word" faster than an official spokesman can draft a denial. They are the small "d" democrats of the new "news business" — and more believable to many than what is presented on the tube or in the paper. To the bloggers it’s clear that if Dan Rather worked for CNN he’d still have a job. Apparently the network that bills itself as "the most trusted name in news" has even lower standards of proof than CBS.
[My emphasis]

Written by Chester at 10:42 PM | Link | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0) | Print Article

February 9