Did FBI Call ABC but not Border Patrol?

The ABC News Blotter reported yesterday that Iraqis are being smuggled from Mexico across the Rio Grande River into New Mexico by a human smuggling ring, and this ring has been in operation for more than a year, according to an FBI intelligence report issued last week. This ABC story received significant attention in Internet news forums, but reader commentary at The Blotter web site and one of my favorites, Lucianne.com, was focused almost exclusively on our porous borders and the Bush administration's crusade for amnesty at the expense of national security through secure borders. These criticisms were, of course, perfectly valid, but when I read Brian Ross' Blotter piece, I observed something different and troubling that unless rectified, will almost certainly lead to continued vulnerability to terrorist attacks. Here is the portion of Ross' report that caught my attention:

An FBI intelligence report distributed by the Washington, D.C. Joint Terrorism Task Force, obtained by the Blotter on ABCNews.com, says the illegal ring has been bringing Iraqis across the border illegally for more than a year.

Border Patrol officials in the area said they were unaware of the specifics of the FBI's report, and federal prosecutors in New Mexico told ABCNews.com they had no current cases involving the illegal smuggling of Iraqis.

The FBI report, issued last week, says the smuggling organization "used to smuggle Mexicans, but decided to smuggle Iraqi or other Middle Eastern individuals because it was more lucrative....

If Ross' source is accurate, the FBI distributed this Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF) report last week to agencies that are participating members of the Washington DC JTTF. That list would include most federal agencies with counterterrorism and law enforcement functions, including Department of Homeland Security components such as Customs and Border Protection (CBP), as well as many local and state law enforcement agencies. Yet when contacted for information about the Iraqi smuggling ring and the FBI's information about its existence, Border Patrol officials "were unaware" of the FBI report. Is this another example of the FBI keeping its terrorism investigation details close to the vest? It should concern all Americans that Brian Ross can obtain a copy of a restricted document about the smuggling of Middle Easterners into New Mexico, but the Border Patrol in New Mexico cannot.

What was the lesson from 9/11 if not the importance of information sharing among government agencies? I have decried the lack of openness in the intelligence and law enforcement communities in previous posts and there is ample blame to go around, but here we find ourselves nearly six years after 9/11 and the lead agency charged with investigating terrorism learns of a ring smuggling Middle Eastern individuals into America and no one bothers to tell the Border Patrol? The media should not be tasked with notifying law enforcement agencies about illegal activities that likely have a terrorist nexus. Brian Ross is not an FBI agent or counterterrorism specialist, yet when he contacted the Border Patrol in New Mexico, they received first notice of the FBI report from a journalist.

To make matters worse, the new National Intelligence Estimate issued yesterday made it quite clear that al Qaeda in Iraq has expressed significant interest in possibly attacking the U.S. homeland with Iraqi operatives to be placed in America. I'm sure it is just coincidence that the smuggling of Iraqis from Mexico into New Mexico has been occurring for over a year. Are they really "refugees fleeing the violence in Iraq" as Brian Ross claims, or are some of them the proverbial wolf in sheep's clothing?

Do you feel safer knowing that those sworn to protect you work harder to avoid communicating with each other than they do to warn each other of newly obtained intelligence? This is a problem that must be stopped before an attack that could have been detected early is brought to terrible fruition.

Technorati Tags:
Border Patrol, Border Security, Human Smuggling, Iraqis, New Mexico, FBI, Information Sharing, National Intelligence Estimate, Al Qaeda in Iraq, Brian Ross

NIE Shows CIA, State in Denial on Iran

Portions of the much anticipated new National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) will be released to the public today, and finally average citizens will get a clear view of the end product funded by their taxes. After more than two years of meetings, conferences, briefings, draft sessions, and revisions, the American intelligence agencies’ NIE concludes only that there is no consensus between them on very fundamental issues. The “major points” made by the report are truly shocking revelations that no one outside of an intelligence agency could possibly have concluded without all of that specialized training and experience (sarcasm off):

-Al Qaeda is still trying to get its hands on a variety of WMDs and, gasp, would use them if it possessed them.

-Al Qaeda has regrouped and restored most of the ingredients necessary to launch a major terrorist attack against the U.S. homeland.

-Al Qaeda, another gasp, is working hard to place operatives in the U.S.

-The U.S. faces “a persistent and evolving terrorist threat” for at least the next three years. The predicted main sources for that threat are, third gasp, Islamic terrorist groups, particularly Al Qaeda. The threat to the U.S. comes from “the undiminished intent to attack the homeland and a continued effort by terrorist groups to adapt and improve their capabilities.”

Of course, NIE summaries released to the public are sanitized of any classified information or source references, but the level of sanitization for this NIE is insulting to Americans who do not have access to the full report. Capital Cloak readers are intelligent and interested in matters of national security and intelligence. You did not need the NIE, representing millions of dollars and thousands of hours of research, to tell you what you already knew: Islamic terrorists want to kill Americans in America with any weapon they can acquire. In my profession, we knew these things long before 9/11, and anyone who did not learn these lessons after 9/11 continues to live in a fantasy world of “if we leave them alone they will leave us alone.” What then was the purpose of the NIE and all of the media hoopla surrounding it?

Like most NIE’s, the one released today contains the official conclusions of the sixteen agencies that comprise the intelligence community. If nothing else, NIE’s offer a glimpse at the functionality and ideology of each agency, and often the gulf between certain agencies are nowhere more clearly demonstrated than in these documents. Sometimes inter-agency disagreements are little more than technical trivia, but disputes also can create institutional paralysis. When several major agencies offer divergent opinions of the same issue, it leaves the executive and legislative branches that rely on those opinions for policy decision-making in a difficult position. Unfortunately, as the NY Sun reported today, the new NIE includes a critical point of disagreement between agencies on what is likely the most important issue currently facing America: Iran.

Despite clear and increasing evidence that al Qaeda’s resurgence is occurring not only in Pakistan’s mountains but also in Iran, analysts within the State Department and CIA argue in the new NIE that Iran’s Quds Force, terrorist special forces units designed to support terror operations and report directly to Iran’s supreme leader, are acting independently of Iran’s official government in their funding, equipping, and transporting al Qaeda terrorists who have attacked and continue to attack American troops in Iraq. According to these two agencies, the simple fact that Iran is a Shia nation while al Qaeda is run by radical Sunnis makes collaboration between the two groups against a common enemy unlikely if not impossible. They appear convinced that Iran’s government is not giving orders to the Quds Force to assist al Qaeda terrorists with their fight against the U.S. in Iraq.

That conclusion is incredibly short-sighted and narrow-minded. It is true that al Qaeda’s Sunnis view Iran’s Shia population as “infidels” under a technical Koranic interpretation, but the differences between the two are far easier to overcome than the religious and cultural divide between Islam and non-Islamic nations and cultures. Thus it is far more logical to conclude that Shia-Sunni collaboration against the West is not only possible but extremely likely, and if the combined effort succeeds in defeating Western cultures, these two differing branches of Islam could then turn their attentions or contentions to each other. But don’t try to convince anyone at State or the CIA, they are convinced that the two are not capable of working together. Extending that flawed logic to its equally flawed conclusion, these two departments apparently believe that Sunni terrorists would refuse to join with Shia terrorists in a war against Israel. It is much more logical to conclude that branches of the same religion would gladly join hands and martyr themselves in a war against the U.S. or Israel, as doing so is necessary to bringing about their ultimate goal: a global Islamic state under Sharia law.

National Review’s Michael Ledeen nicely countered the flawed thinking behind the estimate that the Quds Force acts independently:

Instead, every new revelation about Iran’s role in the terror war is greeted with the pathetic mantra “but this does not prove that the regime itself is involved.” As if General Suleimani of the Revolutionary Guards’ Quds Force would dare launch operation after operation against us in Iraq without the explicit approval of his commander-in-chief, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. Do our analysts not know that the Revolutionary Guards were created for the explicit purpose of responding to the whims of the Supreme Leader? Whenever the Guards move, they do so precisely because “the regime” has willed it.

While Americans should be insulted by the common sense vanilla plainness of the public portions of the new NIE, we should also be concerned that two of the most influential agencies in any administration, the CIA and State Department, refuse to recognize that the Defense Department, which has infinitely more sources of information in the region at this time, is warning that Iran, despite a doctrinal religious difference with al Qaeda Sunnis, is actively supporting the terrorists in Iraq and killing our troops. Iranian weaponry and explosives are found in ever-increasing numbers within Iraq. Those weapons and IEDs did not leave Iranian supply facilities on their own or without the approval of Iran’s government.

The liberal media jumped out in front of this issue long ago, accusing the Bush administration and specifically Vice President Cheney, of pushing for action against Iran, branding such recommendations as “war mongering.” Yet it should be noted that counterterrorism expert and bitter Bush critic Richard Clarke’s deputy Roger Cressey told the NY Sun that when President Bush took the fight to the Taliban after 9/11, al Qaeda relocated its operational centers to two areas: Pakistan and Iran. Cressey described known meetings and meet locations of al Qaeda leaders in Iran and made it quite clear that the Shia Iranian government had no qualms about allowing and even embracing al Qaeda within its borders because they share common enemies, the U.S. and Israel. Those who casually toss out accusations like “war mongering” should remember that it was the bipartisan 9/11 Commission Report, highly revered in liberal circles, that first reported publicly Iranian ties and assistance to eight of the 9/11 hijackers, with Iran’s government offering them passage into and out of Afghanistan.

What liberal critics and apparently the CIA and State Department fail to grasp is the concept of war. They mistakenly sit idly by, tinkering with foreign policy “solutions,” waiting for Iran to formally declare war on the U.S., and only then will they choose to recognize war-like behaviors for what they are and recommend decisive action to defend America. Unfortunately, the days of nations notifying each other through declarations of war are long gone, and whether or not State and CIA officials recognize it, Iran is conducting a war against the U.S., allowing well funded proxies to fight it for them. Another term for such proxies is mercenaries, and even liberals cannot deny that England’s employment of Hessian mercenaries against America in the Revolutionary War did not make Hessians responsible for the war itself. While Iran’s proxies kill our troops with no repercussions resulting for the mullahs, Iran continues to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons production with no intention of stopping or being induced to stop by sanctions or other diplomatic methods.

In war, there is logic behind meeting the enemy on a “neutral” battlefield. In this case, Iran is taking the fight to us in Iraq, attempting (very half-heartedly) to conceal its involvement, while making sure that Iraqi, not Iranian, citizens are killed in the battles and crossfire. At some point, however, defeating an enemy requires destroying his resources, production capabilities, and governmental centers. This is why it is so critical that the U.S. remain and stabilize Iraq; victory there will set the stage for the coming conflict with the world’s largest state sponsor of terror and soon to be its number one WMD threat.

The boots on the ground in Iraq insist that Iran is already at war with us. Hopefully the CIA and State Department will come to recognize this fact instead of holding tenaciously to the ridiculous notion that differing Islamic radicals groups cannot work together to hasten our demise.

Technorati Tags:
NIE, National Intelligence Estimate, Iran, Quds Force, Al Qaeda, Islamic Terrorists, CIA, State Department, 9/11 Commission

Gut Check: Chertoff v. Threat Assessment

A U.S. counterterrorism official leaked portions of a new classified report to the media this morning warning that al Qaeda has regrouped to near pre-9/11 strength and may be poised for significant attacks. No, wait, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff insisted to the media this morning that the threat posed by al Qaeda has NOT returned to pre-9/11 levels. What is wrong with this picture? The anonymous counterterrorism official “familiar with” the contents of a classified report titled “Al-Qaida Better Positioned to Strike the West” stated that the report would be included in a meeting today at the White House to discuss a pending National Intelligence Estimate. This raises a crucial question; had Secretary Chertoff already read the summary report about al Qaeda’s renewed strength before he claimed to have a “gut feeling” that America may be attacked this summer and before he later assured Americans via ABC and NBC appearances that al Qaeda does not pose as great a threat today as it did in the summer of 2001?

The contradictions between the AP’s counterterrorism source and Secretary Chertoff are curious. If Secretary Chertoff’s widely ridiculed comment Tuesday about his “gut feeling” that America faces a heightened risk of attack this summer came after he had reviewed the summary report leaked by the AP’s anonymous source, then what did Chertoff really mean with his “gut feeling” remark? One could interpret Chertoff’s remarks as a call to vigilance, as he later characterized them, and not as indicating knowledge of specific threats or plots. On the surface that could pass as a somewhat logical explanation. However, if Chertoff had already reviewed the classified report later leaked to the Post, then that report constituted the basis for his “gut feeling” about our increased risk of a summer attack. The logical conclusion here is that Chertoff would only state that his “gut” told him al Qaeda was likely to attempt an attack in America this summer if he had read classified reports describing al Qaeda’s strength and activity now as approaching the level of summer 2001.

He later explained away his “gut feeling” remarks as merely a general call for Americans to be vigilant and observant, but if that is true, then why downplay the current risk from al Qaeda? Americans are traditionally entertained by things that revolve, such as doors, merry-go-rounds, or carousels, but do not expect government terror warnings to revolve by being issued, contradicted, retracted, and reissued like a carnival ride.

When intelligence community and counterterrorism officials contradict statements by the Homeland Security secretary, we should all sit up and take notice. The reality is that a classified document reportedly confirms that al Qaeda is nearly as strong as it was prior to 9/11 and may be prepared to strike us with operations rivaling 9/11 in scope and ambition, but our Homeland Security secretary assures us that al Qaeda is actually not that strong while simultaneously warning that his “gut” tells him we may be attacked this summer. Chertoff’s Potomac two-step on this assessment of al Qaeda would be a humorous example of political double-speak if it merely involved politics, but since it involves national security there is nothing funny about the mixed messages coming out of Washington in advance of today’s intelligence meeting at the White House.

Americans do not mind requests to be vigilant. Such warnings appeal to our individualism and desire to add a small personal contribution to winning the War on Terror. However, Americans become justifiably cynical of all such warnings and grow to distrust the government officials who issue them when warnings are given in a disingenuous manner. Chertoff’s comment that he just had a “gut feeling” when it appears now that it was actually a now-leaked classified report that stirred his gut was both disingenuous and unnecessary. Instead of hinting at classified reports or using a smokescreen “gut feeling” comment that he should have known would bring him only ridicule, Chertoff could have stated something like the following:

“While we have been fortunate to have avoided another attack in America since 9/11, we do not underestimate the capabilities and determination of al Qaeda. Tourist attractions and vacation sites are crowded and popular during the summer months and may present attractive targets for terrorists wishing to inflict mass casualties. I urge Americans to be vigilant and observant as they vacation and travel this summer, and to report anything suspicious. Together, we can all work to keep each other safe.”

The above statement would have delivered the message Chertoff intended to convey, namely to be vigilant for a possible summer attack, without hinting at any specific intelligence or creating the impression that he was withholding information. Unfortunately, instead he chose to mention his “gut feeling” and then promptly backtracked on his position when assessments of the capabilities of al Qaeda were leaked to the media. These are not actions that secure the trust and united vigilance of Americans that Chertoff and other government officials rightly desire.

The assessments of al Qaeda’s current strength and operational abilities as leaked to the AP, if they were cited correctly by the anonymous source, paint a different portrait of al Qaeda’s current capabilities than Chertoff offered in his Good Morning America statement that the threat is not as great as it was pre-9/11. According to the AP source:

A new threat assessment from U.S. counterterrorism analysts says that al-Qaida has used its safe haven along the Afghan-Pakistan border to restore its operating capabilities to a level unseen since the months before Sept. 11, 2001.

...Al-Qaida is "considerably operationally stronger than a year ago" and has "regrouped to an extent not seen since 2001," the counterterrorism official said, paraphrasing the report's conclusions. "They are showing greater and greater ability to plan attacks in Europe and the United States."

The group also has created "the most robust training program since 2001, with an interest in using European operatives," the official quoted the report as saying.
…The threat assessment says that al-Qaida stepped up efforts to "improve its core operational capability" in late 2004 but did not succeed until December of 2006 after the Pakistani government signed a peace agreement with tribal leaders that effectively removed government military presence from the northwest frontier with Afghanistan.

The agreement allows Taliban and al-Qaida operatives to move across the border with impunity and establish and run training centers, the report says, according to the official.

It also says that al-Qaida is particularly interested in building up the numbers in its middle ranks, or operational positions, so there is not as great a lag in attacks when such people are killed.

If the AP source quoted the report accurately, it appears that al Qaeda is not only rapidly approaching pre 9/11 strength but is becoming more formidable and less detectable as it recruits more European followers willing to carry out attacks. A buildup of its middle ranks also signifies a shift in strategy away from occasional spectacular attacks like 9/11 to frequent mid or small-scale attacks on softer targets, such as nightclubs, shopping malls, or other public gathering places. The middle ranks of a terrorist cell would not be entrusted with planning major attacks, but with sufficient training they could operate as independent cells with discretion on choice of small-attack venues. The doctors involved in the recent attempted bombings in London and Glasgow are examples of al Qaeda’s middle ranks. They operated locally, unsuspected by the community, and had it not been for a wireless phone issue the bombings would have been successful.

If al Qaeda is working to flood its organization with “middle ranks” then the strategy has shifted to a sustained campaign of attrition much like it is conducting in Iraq. That effort has already produced a growing American desire to withdraw from Iraq. Imagine the chaos and finger-pointing that will ensure in America when a seemingly endless wave of smaller bombings and other forms of terror attacks begins in earnest in this country.

While Chertoff was correct in stating that al Qaeda is not precisely as strong as it was prior to 9/11, that fact should in no way comfort America and its allies. Often when a bone is broken, it heals and becomes stronger in the area of the break than it was before because of the addition of new and vital tissues. Al Qaeda appears to be healing its broken bones and becoming potentially stronger than it was before the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, with the addition of new European, and one would logically assume American, operatives. That prospect should cause all of us to experience a “gut feeling” that we will be increasingly at risk.

Technorati Tags:
al Qaeda, War on Terror, National Intelligence Estimates, Michael Chertoff, Homeland Security, Gut Feeling, Pakistan, Counterterrorism

Intel "Experts" vs. Magic 8 Balls

Get out your Ouija boards, Tarot cards, Magic 8-Balls, and tea leaves, because with these you could predict with as much accuracy as any “expert” how long it will take for Iran to produce a functional nuclear weapon. The dynamics of the debate over Iran’s capabilities change from week to week. The divergent opinions of nuclear “experts” and intelligence agencies signal a frightening admission that when it comes to estimating when Iran will master the uranium enrichment and warhead production processes, the only certain thing is uncertainty.

In January I warned that America’s intelligence analysts were underestimating Iran’s determination and aggressive overtures to accomplice nations such as Russia, and North Korea. At that time, the consensus among intelligence analysts was that Iran could not construct a nuclear weapon earlier than 2015. On April 3rd I alerted readers that Iran’s unprecedented speed in building 3,000 centrifuges forced intelligence experts to revise earlier estimates and point to 2009 rather than 2015 as the year by which Iran would weaponize uranium. On April 10th I wrote about the revised revisions of WMD specialists alarmed by reports and video footage from within the Natanz nuclear facility south of Tehran. At that time “experts” warned that Iran, if all factors fell into place and centrifuge construction continued at a torrid pace, might produce sufficient enriched uranium for a nuclear weapon by the end of this year. Following this pattern, it would seem logical to predict that the next revised estimate might warn of Iran weaponizing uranium before Alex Rodriguez hits his 20th home run of this young season (he has hit 14 in 18 games in April thus far).

So much for patterns or analysts’ credibility! An esteemed British theoretical physics professor and Israel’s intelligence service, Mossad, now agree that Iran is actually three or four years away from producing deployable weapons grade uranium. After interviewing Professor Norman Dombey, the UK Telegraph reported:

But the smallest particle of dust - even a fingerprint - can disrupt enrichment. Iran will have to spin all the centrifuges inside a vacuum without any interruption for a period of about one year.

If any machine breaks down - or if dust enters the system or if the power supply is lost - the process must halt and start again.

Prof Dombey estimates that Iran will need about two years simply to master the process of running centrifuges. Then, making allowances for interruptions caused by breakdowns, it could take another two years to produce enough weapons-grade uranium for one bomb.

The Telegraph article also asserted that even if Iran eventually masters the enrichment process, it will still be faced with the task of building a warhead and fitting it to a missile delivery system. I do not separate this task from the more complex enrichment problem. Iran’s role as provider of 20% of the world’s crude oil places it in a strong position to purchase warhead delivery missile technology from a number of willing nations already doing business in Iran. Iran need not “figure out” how to build the missiles. It can simply buy them and clear that hurdle while the centrifuges are spinning straw into gold, as it were.

Intelligence analysts have now changed their estimates to read quite differently than just two years ago. Then, the consensus was that Iran would not be capable of producing sufficient uranium for 10 years. Now, analysts no longer speculate about capability to produce. That has become, apparently, an accepted fact. Estimates now focus only on whether Iran will encounter technological glitches that will hamper production. The UN and the U.S. missed the opportunity to address Iran’s nuclear ambitions decisively before they moved from construction to production. Now our intelligence “experts” are counting on Iran’s centrifuges to break down or work less efficiently than planned to buy time for negotiations and sanctions. What these “experts” will not predict is how soon Iran will have sufficient enriched uranium if all the centrifuges operate perfectly, because they apparently refuse to believe in that possibility. According to Gary Samore, Vice President of the Council on Foreign Relations, "The belief in Western intelligence circles is that a large portion of these machines are likely to break if Iran attempts to operate them at high speeds necessary for enrichment."

Counting on machinery to malfunction is not a strategy that will keep nuclear arms out of the mullahs’ hands. Analysts are uncertain how well the centrifuges were constructed. They are uncertain whether the machinery will withstand the rigors of high enrichment. They are uncertain how many centrifuges have been or are currently being constructed in facilities other than Natanz. They are uncertain what technological and material assistance has been provided by nations with valuable investments in Iran, such as China and Russia. They are uncertain how many years (or is it months?) it will take for Iran to enrich weaponized uranium.

The only factor of which analysts are certain is that the mullahs will do and say anything to buy time for their ultimate goal: Annihilating Israel and wielding nuclear weapons over cowering Middle East and Europe populations. Perhaps our policies toward Iran should operate on that premise rather than on psychics, palm readers, or nuclear intelligence “experts”, all of whom seem to be equally reliable sources when making important strategic decisions.

From War to Warming: Senators Seek to Divert Attention

One of the left’s sharpest criticisms of President Bush’s handling of the War on Terror has been the argument that after routing the Taliban in Afghanistan, he turned his focus away from Bin Laden and al Qaeda in that region in favor of waging war on Saddam Hussein. The needless war in Iraq, liberals and Richard Clarke claim, shifted resources and priorities away from pursuing Bin Laden and the Taliban further, and this stretched our military too thin to effectively achieve its missions in Iraq and Afghanistan. Additionally, the 9/11 Commission determined that our intelligence agencies possessed thousands of seized terrorism related Arabic documents yet to be translated and analyzed due to inadequate budgets and staffing. The burdens of a War on Terror, the President’s critics claim, are too heavy for our military and intelligence agencies to bear.

Now global warming hysteria has moved members of Congress to propose a bill that would tie a millstone to the neck of our military and intelligence agencies by diverting their attention further from the War on Terror and sink them in a quagmire of studies, strategic planning, and war games to prepare for, drum roll please: global warming. That’s right, a normal cyclical global weather pattern is in line for being awarded status as a “national defense issue,” if a bill cosponsored by Sen. Chuck (Cut and Run) Hagel, R-NE, and Sen. Dick (our troops in Guantanamo act like Nazis) Durbin, D-IL, passes in Congress. The Boston Globe reported that the bill would order the National Intelligence Director to conduct a “National Intelligence Estimate” on global warming, and would likewise order the Pentagon to engage in war games exploring possible national security scenarios that could allegedly result from extreme weather.

Apparently some members of Congress, with the urging of the National Academy of Sciences, have become so spooked by wildly exaggerated films such as “The Day After Tomorrow” and “An Inconvenient Truth,” that they determined global warming poses a danger to national security so grave that it warrants their recommending that the military divert its attention away from the War on Terror to focus on hurricanes and climate change. I find it ironic that the President’s critics feel that diverting military and intelligence attention from the War on Terror is acceptable for global warming, but it was not acceptable in the case of deposing a dictator who had used chemical weapons on his own people and failed to comply with 14 UN resolutions demanding WMD inspections.

When I go to sleep at night, I am far more worried about a rogue nation in possession of WMDs than I am of a cyclical and temporary melting of polar ice fields. Severe weather was such a threat to national defense in 2006 that we had 0 (none, zero) hurricanes make landfall in the U.S.

The motive behind the bill is more insidious. The White House has apparently not embraced the questionable science behind the global warming frenzy, and this has frustrated those who have staked their professional reputations on the issue. Consider this excerpt from the Boston Globe’s coverage of the proposed bill:

"If you get the intelligence community to apply some of its analytic capabilities to this issue, it could be compelling to whoever is sitting in the White House," said Anne Harrington , director of the committee on international security at the National Academy of Sciences in Washington. "If the White House does not absorb the independent scientific expertise, then maybe something from the intelligence community might have more weight."

Will this be the new trend, to declare every pet issue a “national defense” issue because the White House is more likely to read and take action on military and intelligence reports than climate change “science?” Like the boy who cried wolf’s exaggerated warnings, the more causes that are given national defense status, the more difficult it will become to properly assign highest priority to those that pose the greatest immediate threat. Worse, diverting resources from military and intelligence operations to alleged global warming while we are fighting a real War on Terror and Operation Iraqi Freedom, is a shoddy approach to national defense that reeks of political opportunism.

Senators Hagel and Durbin should cut out some of that shameful pork attached to the armed service appropriation bill drafts and divert it to hire more translators and intelligence staff to sift through the mountain of documents seized in Afghanistan and Iraq instead of demanding national intelligence estimates on global warming. We need better intelligence on Iran more than we need intelligence estimates on severe weather. We can assert far more control over one than the other.

Will Iran Have Bomb in Months?

My, how things change in a week! One week ago, I wrote about reports that U.S. intelligence analysts had revised their estimates for the earliest date by which Iran could develop a nuclear bomb from the year 2015 to 2009. Now, a scant 7 days later, World Net Daily is reporting that after yesterday’s “nuclear day” announcement by Iranian President Ahmadinejad, intelligence analysts have again revised their estimates of Iran’s capabilities and warn that Iran could potentially produce sufficient weapons-grade Uranium in a matter of months. This would change the estimated target date from sometime in 2009 to late 2007-mid 2008. Maybe moving up the dates of all those big state primaries was a good idea after all, as the candidates may be forced to directly state what they would do about Iran even as Iran’s WMD program reaches critical mass.

According to WND, analysts were taken by surprise by yesterday’s announcement that Iran had successfully constructed and placed in operation 3,000 centrifuges, ten times the number of centrifuges previously known, at the underground Natanz facility. The Chief of the Iranian Atomic Energy Organization stated after yesterday’s announcement that within the next 20 days, Iran will announce the number of centrifuges injected with uranium at Natanz.

Because Iran has prevented IAEA inspectors access to the Natanz facility and other less publicized sites, it is currently unknown how many centrifuges are operational throughout Iran or what improvements have been made on the original centrifuge technology Iran acquired from Pakistani scientist Abdul Kahn.

In one week, intelligence analysts shaved 7-8 years off of their estimates of Iran’s nuclear weapons program capabilities. The only surprise involved in Iran’s announcement yesterday is that analysts were taken by surprise. On January 24, I wrote the following paragraphs in a post here at Spy The News!, which in light of yesterday’s announcement and analysts’ reactions, seems prescient:

One wonders, given this incredible underestimation of China, a nation we know much more about and can monitor more closely than Iran, how accurate are analysts’ assessments that Iran will not have nuclear weapon capabilities until 2015? That estimate was made after a “major US intelligence review” in 2005, and analysts concluded that Iran was 10 years away from possessing the capability to produce a nuclear bomb.

These analysts were wrong about North Korea, wrong about China’s space weaponry, and it is prudent for current and future administrations to assume that the 10 year prediction for Iran is another dangerous underestimation. Ahmadinejad refuses to allow IAEA inspections of Iranian nuclear facilities, and he openly challenges America, the only obstacle to the goal of Iranian nuclear weaponry, to try to stop him. With the technological assistance of North Korea and the UN Security Council vetoes of China and Russia confidently in pocket, Iran will surely produce a deployable nuclear weapon much sooner than analysts predict.

Revising a WMD estimate from years to months is a significant act in the intelligence community. At least we know one thing for certain: Ahmadinejad does not yet have a nuclear bomb. We know this because no mushroom clouds have appeared over Israel yet. Hopefully our intelligence on Iran will improve so that that will not be our first official notification of Iran’s capabilities. While it is true that leaders such as Ahamdinejad often employ bluster as a propaganda tool, it has become clear that there is significant technology and determination operating behind the bombast. Iran is perilously close to bringing online sufficient enrichment capabilities to produce weapons grade uranium and is daring the UN and particularly the U.S. to intervene.

US Vulnerability Growing, Allies and Foes Note: Chinese General Warns Space "to be Weaponized"

In a timely and well researched commentary yesterday , UPI Editor at Large Arnaud De Borchgrave concisely portrayed China’s growing international economic, political, and technological capabilities while also warning that even our perceived allies are convinced the US cannot win in Iraq largely due to partisan discord in America. Truly China’s reputation is shining more brightly than America’s, and in that light America’s vulnerabilities are illuminated for allies and foes alike to examine closely.

The commentary echoes concerns about intelligence estimates on China expressed in a recent post here at Spy the News! The description of China’s powerful cyberwarfare capabilities lends further credence to concerns that the US intelligence community has underestimated China, to the detriment of our military preparations to combat a foe with equal or perhaps superior technological capabilities, as China’s recent successful test of an anti-satellite missile demonstrated. De Borchgrave delves deeper into the financial strength of China, which is increasing at the expense of America’s former dominance in world markets. While America fights global terrorism, China, unfettered by such drains on its economy, is investing in raw materials and international trade alliances that will ensure sustained growth far into the future.

The entire UPI article is valuable reading, but I wanted to highlight certain portions that will be of interest to Spy the News! readers:


1. US allies, such as Pakistani President Musharraf, are intently watching “the defection of some of President Bush’s Congressional supporters” and see eventual defeat in Iraq because of America’s internal politics.

2. World leaders will perceive premature US withdrawal from Iraq as a defeat for the US.

3. De Borchgrave quoted the following from the Financial Times: "As authority drains from Mr. Bush, so Washington is losing its capacity to determine outcomes elsewhere. Iran is the principal beneficiary."

4. Musharraf and other allies in the War on Terror are “reappraising” their commitments to the US and NATO because US debate on troop withdrawal from Iraq is also convincing them that neither the US nor NATO will complete the mission in Afghanistan, in which Musharraf has invested his political capital and personal safety.

5. America’s dependence on satellites for civilian and military communications and navigation is a largely undefended vulnerability that could fall prey to the so-called E-bomb or Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP), which would cripple US communications except for small handheld self transmitting/receiving radio units. [Consider that in 2004, a panel appointed by Congress tasked with evaluating the threat of EMP attack on the US concluded, “While the US military has grown increasingly dependent on computers, electronics and information systems, it has relaxed requirements for EMP-hardened systems since the end of the Cold War and its overall record of adherence to its guidelines for such robust equipment ‘has been spotty’ . . . . This trend continues ‘in the wrong direction’.”]

The US should take at face value the statement of one-star general Yao Yunzhu, director of China's Asia-Pacific Office at the Academy of Military Science in Beijing: “Outer space is going to be weaponized in our lifetime.” As De Borchgrave advises, Yao is 52 years old. Clearly China recognized long ago the need to develop space weaponry, offensive and defensive, and, with enormous economic reserves to invest, has developed them much faster than intelligence analysts predicted.

China’s growing global influence, combined with its cozy import/export oil for weapons trade alliances in the Middle East, particularly Iran, provide ample reason for the US to reevaluate favored nation trade status for China and other economic leverage until that nation ceases funding and equipping the state sponsors of terrorism that the US is spending heavily to defeat.

While John “Pariah” Kerry was in Davos, Switzerland bashing America and the Bush Administration at the World Economic Forum, General Yao Yunzhu attended the same forum and proudly declared China’s primacy in the rush to weaponize space. Democrats and a growing number of Republicans criticize President Bush for concentrating on Iraq and allegedly taking our focus off of the War on Terror. Such critics are guilty of waging war so intensely on President Bush that they are incapable or unwilling to recognize how that internal conflict is affecting world perception of American vulnerability. Our allies and enemies have noticed and are making plans to abandon or attack us accordingly.

Technorati Search Tags: Yao Yunzhu Arnaud De Borchgrave cyberwarfare Electromagnetic Pulse EMP National Intelligence Estimates Davos Switzerland World Economic Forum Chinese Military Intelligence Analysts Space Weapons Satellite Killer Musharaff Iraq War Global War On Terror

Hillary's "Tough" Leadership: "Please, Please, Please Don't Leave Iraq to Me!"

Hillary Clinton’s first campaign visit to Iowa this weekend provided an opportunity for potential voters to test and witness the Senator’s self-proclaimed mettle. Although Clinton sought to demonstrate her forcefulness and caste herself as presidential timbre, she exhibited much more cowardice than conviction when it comes to Iraq.

Pressed repeatedly to explain her vote for war in Iraq, the Senator could have defended her vote with the truth, which was that all available intelligence agreed Iraq possessed WMD and was funding terrorists. Clinton instead trotted out the tired, “If I had known then what I know now . . .” Monday morning quarterback excuse. When truth was on her side, she eschewed it for a partisan attack on the President instead, choosing to ride her Congressional colleagues’ coattails by claiming that President Bush “misled Congress.” Hillary showed her disregard for truth by blaming President Bush, when she and Senator Kerry and nearly all others in Congress accepted as fact the National Intelligence Estimates on Iraq that they, Prime Minister Blair, and the President acted upon in good faith.

While trying to convince potential voters that she had the courage, strength, and background to stand up to “evil and bad men,” Hillary instead communicated a cowardly lament that she, if elected president, may be forced to face difficulties in the Middle East. Hillary is so entrenched in anti-Bush rhetoric that she now refuses to take credit for actually standing up to an “evil man” through her vote to invade Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein. When asked to clarify to whom she referred with the phrase “evil and bad men, “ Clinton mentioned Bin Laden but not Hussein, a man who gassed Kurds, waged war on Iran, and tortured and killed thousands of Iraqis. She laudably stood up to him but is now so ashamed of it she blames Bush for tricking her into supporting the war. That Hillary, whom many insist is the shrewdest woman in politics, could be duped by a President endlessly ridiculed by Democrats for being ignorant, stupid, and anti-intellectual, is laughably ironic.

In her Iowa remarks, Clinton disingenuously stated that President Bush intended to leave the Iraq War for his successor to resolve: "I am going to level with you, the president has said this is going to be left to his successor," Clinton said. "I think it is the height of irresponsibility and I really resent it." Compare that with what the President actually stated to USA Today: "The War on Terror will be a problem for the next president. Presidents after me will be confronting ... an enemy that would like to strike the United States again.”

The War on Terror and terrorist attacks clearly will continue through many future presidencies, but the President did NOT state that he intended to leave the Iraq War for his successor to conclude. Perhaps she would prefer that President Bush solved the Iranian, Palestinian, and Syrian situations as well prior to leaving office so she can focus exclusively on issues more dear to her than national security, such as socialized medicine. That Clinton would resent being forced to deal with difficult international and national security issues speaks volumes about her alleged competence and toughness.

Was Truman out on the stump while FDR was on this deathbed telling reporters, “FDR told me this war is going to be mine to solve as his successor, and I think that is irresponsible and deeply resent it! He better end this war before he passes away!”? No, Truman took the reins when handed them, and demonstrated a determination to end the war through overwhelming victory. When that succeeded (yes, victory is the best exit strategy), he presided over an amazingly compassionate rebuilding and protection of the former enemy nations, in essence what we are trying to achieve in Iraq on a smaller scale.

Truman was praised for implementing the Marshall Plan after the elimination of Hitler, which protected a new government in Germany from being overrun by the Soviet Union and others looking for postwar spoils until it could stand on its own. President Bush seeks to do the same in Iraq after the removal of a dictator, and the obvious reality is the Iraqi government is not yet ready to sustain and defend itself. Should a time limit be imposed, a drop dead date by which if they are still not capable we should abandon them to whatever fate may bring (it will bring an Iranian invasion)? Fortunately Truman and succeeding administrations were not as shortsighted as the current stable of Democratic presidential aspirants. A viable democracy in the Middle East is no less worthy a goal than rebuilding Germany or Japan, and our commitment to help Iraq until it is self-sustaining or officially rejects American intervention should not depend on any politically motivated timetable.

If Senator Clinton wants to be viewed as legitimately qualified on national security and military matters, she should demonstrate a willingness to take on difficult challenges, not run from them. She should not beg and plead publicly for President Bush to hurry and resolve the Iraq War so she will not be required to resolve it if elected. A true executive would relish the opportunity to step in where others have (in her view) failed, and if necessary, lead in a new direction or finish the work of the preceding executive. In many respects, this is why former governors are generally better prepared and suited for the presidency than Senators or Congressmen. For Senator Clinton to openly shun the responsibilities of executive leadership and plead for issues to be resolved before she might face them personally signals an appalling lack of courage, optimism, charisma, and leadership.

Technorati Tags: Iowa Marshall Plan National Intelligence Estimates Executive Leadership Intelligence Failures Bush Administration National Security Iraq War Global War On Terror Hillary Clinton