'Ugly American' No-Confidence in al-Maliki

Is a no-confidence vote from Senator Carl Levin (D-MI) a blessing or a curse for a head of state? Perhaps the more germane question is, do Iraqis take note of or care what Senator Levin thinks of their government's internal affairs? Over the weekend, Levin visited Iraq with Senator John Warner (R-VA) for the express purpose, as we reported Friday, to shift attention away from news that the upcoming report on the progress of General Petraeus' surge strategy would be positive and increase support for continuance of the war effort. Levin telegraphed his distraction playbook, stating openly that he intended to focus his trip and subsequent media interviews on one topic: the political nature of Iraq's problems and that they can only be solved through political means.

On Monday, Levin wasted no time reporting on the results of his brief "fact-finding" stint in Iraq. In just two days, despite hearing glowing reports of the difference made by the surge strategy in the overall security in Iraq, Senator Levin dismissed all such good news and did what any good Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman who wishes he were Secretary of State would do: he called for the ouster of a government that has worked for years at extreme personal peril for unity and functional democracy in Iraq. Although that description also applies to the Bush administration, which Levin has also worked assiduously to thwart, Levin's no-confidence vote was for Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. In smug superiority rivaling that of the infamous "Ugly American" of literary renown, Levin made these less than statesmanlike public remarks about the elected leader of a government that is surrounded by mortal enemies and looks to the United States as perhaps its only reliable ally:

I hope that the Iraqi assembly, when it reconvenes in a few weeks, will vote the Maliki government out of office and will have the wisdom to replace it with a less sectarian and a more unifying prime minister and government," said Sen. Carl Levin, chairman of the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee.

Levin and Sen. John Warner of Virginia, the top Republican on the Armed Services Committee, just completed a two-day visit to Iraq.

The two senior lawmakers issued a joint statement saying that while the U.S. military "surge" in Iraq has given Iraqi politicians some breathing room, they have failed to make the compromises needed to bring peace to that war-torn nation.

"We are not optimistic about the prospects for those compromises," the Levin and Warner said in their joint statement.

Levin in a teleconference with reporters went a step further, suggesting the Iraqi parliament have a vote of no confidence and replace the Maliki government, which he said is built too much upon sectarian allegiances and connections.

We have heard American congressmen express a desire for Fidel Castro's demise. We heard congressmen and presidents declare their hopes for the downfall of oppressive communist governments in the Soviet Union throughout the Cold War. Yet we cannot recall having heard a member of congress actively promoting a hope that an allied government, democratically elected, would be voted out with no consideration given to the repercussions of such statements. That Senator Warner, who traveled to Iraq with Levin, did not immediately disavow Levin's meddling in Iraqi electoral politics makes him perhaps equally responsible for whatever may eventually result if al-Maliki's government is crippled by a no-confidence vote.

In his quest to diminish the upcoming surge progress report in September, Levin appears not to care what havoc his misinformation campaign may wreak. Note that Levin and Warner on one hand praise the surge strategy for increasing public safety in Iraq and turning Sunni tribes against al Qaeda, but on the other hand they minimize the overall importance of the surge by dismissing it as merely giving al-Maliki's government "breathing room." We are quite certain that our troops in Iraq and their commanders are not risking their lives daily merely to give, as Levin called it, a "non-functional" Iraqi government a bit of breathing room. Levin may be the most adept senator in the current Democratic Party stable at forecasting storms of doom from the clouds attached to every silver lining reported from Iraq.

Looking down his nose over studious-looking spectacles at squirming victims dragged in front of his Armed Services Committee hearings is Levin's forte. He waxes professorial as he lectures four-star generals on how they should be conducting wars, and one can easily conjure up such mental images when reading Levin's further report of his meetings with Iraqi government officials:

In many meetings with Iraqi political leaders, of all different backgrounds, we told them of the deep impatience of the American people and the Congress with the lack of political progress, impressed upon them that time has run out in that regard, and told them of the urgent need to make the essential compromises.

Somehow we doubt that Iraqis, who have survived bombings of parliament and daily face potential assassination, were overly intimidated by Levin's impatience and impertinence.

Absent in these encounters were rebuttals and chastisements from the State Department for Levin's intrusion into diplomatic issues constitutionally assigned to the executive branch. Ordinarily State objects rather publicly when congressmen journey into realms of statecraft and issues of consequence such as ousting elected governments. Nancy Pelosi's 2007 Syrian Odyssey was loudly condemned by Secretary of State Rice for protocol reasons, but more substantively because of its potential for disrupting Middle Eastern relations. It is baffling that despite the fact that Levin and Warner were entitled to such brief fact-finding trips to Iraq, Levin's proclaimed hope for the removal of the sitting Iraqi Prime Minister during an ongoing war were not decried by State aggressively and decisively.

The fact that this appeared to be a bi-partisan (thanks to Warner's presence) knife in al-Maliki's back surely will not lessen the pain of the wound. Levin and Warner clearly had come to their conclusions about the al-Maliki government prior to their two-day visit to Iraq, raising the question of why they made the trip in the first place. What information did the pair obtain by meeting with and talking down to Iraqis that they did not already possess through military and intelligence reports? A two-day stay is hardly enough for anyone to become an expert on complex issues like nation-building or the consequences of no-confidence votes, unless perhaps Levin and Warner stayed in a Holiday Inn Express. Levin's verbal attack on al-Maliki was merely the opening salvo of an expected full-scale bombardment that will intensify as the surge progress report date nears.

Technorati Tags:
Carl Levin, John Warner, Armed Services Committee, Iraq, Al-Maliki, No-Confidence Vote, Ugly American, Surge Strategy, Surge Report, General Petraeus, Iraqi Government

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

Fox Analyst Flays "Friend" Musharraf

It is a rare occurrence when I must side with the usually left-leaning State Department on any issue that directly involves national security. However, when it comes to calls from certain quarters for the Bush administration to aggressively pressure Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf to wage all out war on Islamic radicals hiding in the mountainous Afghanistan/Pakistan border, I found myself siding with Richard Boucher, Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asian Affairs rather than Fox News military analyst Colonel David Hunt. Ordinarily I appreciate Col. Hunt’s blunt assessments and aggressive posture towards engaging the enemy with full purpose and force rather than limited rules of engagement, but Col. Hunt’s recommendations for conducting the War on Terror within Pakistan are fraught with dangers that he either minimizes or ignores in his online columns and cable news interviews.

A summary of a new threat assessment leaked to the Associated Press this week highlighted the reality that the Taliban and al Qaeda have regrouped and regained strength nearly on par with pre-9/11 levels, thriving in their mountain hideouts in the tribal regions of Pakistan’s northwestern border with Afghanistan. What to do about that reality is, next to Iraq, the most hotly debated issue in Washington. Counterterrorism and intelligence officials believe Musharraf has not done enough to root out the terrorists while accepting $100 million from the U.S. each month ostensibly to develop the local economy in the tribal areas where many find the money alternatively offered by terror groups and border smugglers irresistible. Musharraf has insisted that Pakistani forces execute all counterterrorism raids and operations within Pakistan, and the amount of success he has achieved forms the crux of the debate between the State Department’s approach toward Pakistan and the approach favored by Col. Hunt and others.

In his latest column at FoxNews.com, Col. Hunt wrote the following:

This week, we learned that in 2005, great guys from Seal Team 6, Special Forces, and other terrific Special Operations Organizations were sitting on a runway in Afghanistan, all geared up, ready to go and capture and or kill much of al Qaeda's top leadership. You remember al Qaeda; they’re the ones who killed us on September 11, 2001. Our supremely brave, conditioned and trained men were fully rehearsed, totally committed and ready to kick some serious al Qaeda [expletive].

They call him Rummy … or at least I do. He's the former and totally incompetent Secretary of Defense, who less than two years after 9/11 — two years after the president says “we will hunt them down” — decides that this mission was to be canceled. He makes this bone-headed decision because it might be “dangerous” and it might piss off the president of Pakistan. ARE YOU KIDDING ME? Hey, Mr. “Ask and Answer Your Own Questions,” everything about war is dangerous and General Musharraf is not our friend.

I do not fault Col. Hunt for his dislike of former Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld or for his desire for Special Forces operations like the one he described to act swiftly and lethally to eliminate Bin Laden or other terrorist leaders. From a counterterrorism and military perspective, the idea that a Special Forces team had a specific location to hit within Pakistan and was prepared to strike but was denied the opportunity for political reasons is incredibly frustrating. It is easy for those of us who work in intelligence or related fields to conclude that though such an operation might anger Musharraf, the ends would justify the means, especially if Bin Laden were captured or killed. Yet that is precisely where Col. Hunt’s assessment of the missed opportunity and the risk to Musharraf drifts from understandable disappointment to dangerous miscalculation.

Col. Hunt’s assessment that “General Musharraf is not our friend” is shared by many within the intelligence and counterterrorism community, but it is based on unrealistic expectations for “friendship” in the War on Terror, as well as a dangerous underestimation of the Muslim power vacuum that would occur in nuclear-armed Pakistan should Musharraf lose control or be assassinated. Although Musharraf may not be the “friend” that Col. Hunt understandably hopes for, considering the seething cauldron of Islamic radicalism that surrounds him within his own population it is remarkable that he has survived to assist the U.S. as long as he has. Assistant Sec. of State Boucher defended Musharraf’s contributions to the War on Terror during a House committee hearing yesterday, as excerpted from the Washington Post:

At the hearing, Boucher said that Pakistan has "captured more al-Qaeda than any country in the world, and lost more people doing that." He added that Pakistani authorities had killed or captured three of the top 10 Taliban commanders in the border area over the past six to nine months -- and caught several more in the past week.

Boucher said that Pakistan has about 85,000 troops stationed in the border area, with Washington reimbursing Islamabad for its $100 million monthly expenses. Musharraf has promised the tribal leaders $100 million annually for 10 years, and the United States has pledged another $150 million annually for five years, in an effort to promote economic development as an alternative to smuggling and terrorism.

"These were all joint efforts with Pakistan that led to the elimination of some of the top Taliban leaders who had been operating from Pakistan to support the insurgency in Afghanistan," Boucher said.

He said that there are signs "every now and then that there's not a wholehearted effort at all levels in all institutions in Pakistan" -- a reference to news accounts of Pakistani intelligence officials supporting terrorists.

"We've raised those when we need to," Boucher said. When asked about Musharraf's role, he said, "I think if Pakistan was not fighting terrorism, there'd be no way we could succeed in Afghanistan or in terms of the security of our homeland."

The State Department and intelligence community are nearly always at odds over strategy and alliance issues, and nowhere is that more evident than in the debate over how much pressure the U.S. should apply to Musharraf to wage war against Islamic radicals within his own country. In addition to the contributions Musharraf has made as outlined in part by Asst. Secretary Boucher, Musharraf recently showed courage in raiding a radical mosque and killing a barricaded Islamic radical cleric, actions that were wildly unpopular In Islamabad and caused riots. He has reportedly survived fourteen assassination attempts, and yet continues to mount Pakistani military operations against Taliban and al Qaeda leaders in the tribal regions. In this precarious position reality dictates that losing Musharraf, regardless of his perceived level of “friendship” with the U.S., would be far more dangerous to world stability and our national security than his continued allegedly half-hearted engagement in the War on Terror.

Col. Hunt was quick to criticize Musharraf and to call for American military strikes within Pakistan regardless of the potential ramifications for Musharraf’s continued control over Pakistan’s nuclear weaponry and resources. Such rash action might satisfy our desire for revenge on Bin Laden and it might very well weaken al Qaeda greatly for many years. However, as recent plots in Britain, Indonesia, the Philippines, and other nations have demonstrated, al Qaeda’s leadership may be holed up in Pakistan’s mountains, but its ideology and followers have formed a global movement. By striking within Pakistan without the consent of President Musharraf, America would undermine his authority and control over his country and embolden radical Islamists to gain control of Pakistan’s military and nuclear weapons through a coup or other violent action. Would America be safer with a Pakistani leader who, though far from being a perfect “friend”, at least keeps nuclear weapons and material out of the hands of Islamic terrorists, or with the alternative; a radical Islamist Pakistani leader who opens Pakistan’s nuclear resources to the highest bidding terrorist organization?

If a U.S. War on Terror, waged by the U.S. inside Pakistan, would create no other repercussions than making Musharraf angry, as Col. Hunt simplistically assumed, then it would be well worth doing, and doing immediately. Unfortunately, war carries multiple dangers, and angering Musharraf is not the reason we have forestalled sending our Special Forces into Pakistan. The simple truth is that Musharraf’s stability in Pakistan has earned him the right to demand that Pakistan’s military conduct all operations within its border. One wonders how Col. Hunt might respond if he were President of the United States and a terrorist group, later discovered to be holed up in the Rocky Mountains near Denver, flew planes into government buildings in Islamabad, killing 3,000 Pakistanis. Would “President Hunt,” when contacted by an angry Musharraf, agree to allow Pakistani forces to operate inside the U.S. and attack the terrorists hiding in the Rocky Mountains? It is not likely. “President Hunt” would rightfully expect to be respected and would likewise rightfully assure Musharraf that the U.S. military would handle any such operation within our borders. Why would Col. Hunt expect Musharraf to act any differently when given the same type of request?

For a military man steeped in the culture of respect for authority, it is surprising that Col. Hunt would demonstrate so much contempt for the authority of a foreign president of a nuclear power with a population of 165 million who has, lest it be forgotten, taken high profile terrorists like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed into custody and turned them over to American intelligence operatives. The information gleaned from those prisoners has been the most significant contribution to our knowledge of the enemy in the War on Terror, and Musharraf’s military operations against al Qaeda in Pakistan made that possible. While Musharraf holds onto his fragile control over Pakistan, America should patiently assist this “friend” rather than cast stones at him. Who among world leaders is a perfect “friend?” Let him cast the first stone. Secretary Rumsfeld, also a far from perfect Defense Secretary, clearly had more significant reasons for not sending Special Ops into Pakistan than making Musharraf angry, reasons that continue to shape current American restraint in order to preserve a known and stable leadership in Pakistan.

Technorati Tags:
Musharraf, Pakistan, al Qaeda, War on Terror, Bush Administration, Colonel David Hunt, State Department, Richard Boucher, Taliban, Counterterrorism

Bolton Worried About Rice Spell on Bush

Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice is “overwhelmingly predominant on foreign policy” within the Bush administration and has sidelined voices with differing views on how to handle Iran’s nearly imminent production of weapons grade uranium, according to former U.S. Ambassador to the UN John Bolton. Bolton, in a telephone interview with the Jerusalem Post yesterday, warned that the current Bush administration may not be up to the task of dealing decisively with Iran’s quest for nuclear weapons. The criticisms of the administration’s handling of Iran, coming as they did from a former presidential adviser and tough-talking UN Ambassador, reveal the growth of a significant and potentially paralyzing division within the administration between President Bush’s closest confidants on foreign policy and the War on Terror. Bolton left the administration in part over the Iranian nuclear issue.

Bolton raised a blunt voice of warning, apparently hoping that drawing media attention to what he views as a dire situation may influence the administration to change course away from ineffective sanctions and act before Iran passes the nuclear “point of no return” previously identified by the IAEA. The message Bolton delivered to the Jerusalem Post interviewer was reminiscent of Winston Churchill’s warnings about Nazi Germany’s rearmament and potential danger to the world:

Sanctions and diplomacy have failed and it may be too late for internal opposition to oust the Islamist regime, leaving only military intervention to stop Iran's drive to nuclear weapons, the US's former ambassador to the UN, John Bolton, told The Jerusalem Post on Tuesday.

Worse still, according to Ambassador Bolton, the Bush administration does not recognize the urgency of the hour and that the options are now limited to only the possibility of regime change from within or a last-resort military intervention, and it is still clinging to the dangerous and misguided belief that sanctions can be effective.

As a consequence, Bolton said he was "very worried" about the well-being of Israel….
"The current approach of the Europeans and the Americans is not just doomed to failure, but dangerous," he said. "Dealing with [the Iranians] just gives them what they want, which is more time...

"We have fiddled away four years, in which Europe tried to persuade Iran to give up voluntarily," he complained. "Iran in those four years mastered uranium conversion from solid to gas and now enrichment to weapons grade... We lost four years to feckless European diplomacy and our options are very limited."

…Bolton lamented that the Bush administration today was "not the same" as a presumably more robust incarnation three years ago, because of what he said was now the State Department's overwhelming dominance of foreign policy. "The State Department has adopted the European view [on how to deal with Iran] and other voices have been sidelined," he said. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice "is overwhelmingly predominant on foreign policy."

…Bolton, who served as undersecretary of state for arms control and international security from 2001 to 2005, before taking the ambassadorial posting to the UN from August 2005 to December 2006, said the failed handling of the Iran nuclear crisis was one of the reasons he had left the Bush administration. "I felt we were watching Europe fiddling while Rome burned," he said. "It's still fiddling."

John Bolton was, only a few short months ago, one of the president’s most trusted advisers on international security issues, particularly nuclear weapons proliferation and enlisting serious allies in the War on Terror. Bolton was further appointed as the U.S. Ambassador to the UN precisely because he was blunt and would demand accountability and reform from the UN if U.S. funding of that organization was to continue. Unfortunately, after Bolton’s condemnations of UN corruption and demands for reform were met with opposition from corrupt UN officials and nations, Democrats seized on his unpopularity and refused to confirm his appointment in the Senate. After his nomination was blocked and later withdrawn by the president, Bolton remained for a time as an adviser to the administration but never regained the president’s ear.

The cause for this is baffling for a president who is often cited for being loyal to his friends almost to a fault. President Bush seemed to distance himself at every possible turn from the unpopular (in the media and with liberals) Bolton. Instead of continuing to benefit from an experienced and knowledgeable adviser and following his own moral compass, the president instead chose to listen almost exclusively to Secretary Rice, who is in turn influenced greatly by her own State Department colleagues. As I have written previously, State has long been a den of liberalism and its current personnel are unlikely ever to recommend use of force against Iran or any other nation regardless of imminent peril to the world.

Winston Churchill became unpopular with his own party for his incessant and dire warnings of the consequences of appeasement and inaction in the face of Nazi rearmament and aggression. His party relegated him to the back bench in parliament, a humiliating demotion for an accomplished and distinguished politician. Bolton became unpopular with corrupt UN nations large and small as well as the American liberal media, was relegated to a failed appointment as UN Ambassador and was eventually shunned by his allegedly loyal president. Now Bolton, like Churchill, stands on the sidelines of history while other players execute an obviously failed game plan. To the credit of Churchill and Bolton, neither sulked off into bitter silence and withheld their expertise from public discourse. Both continued to speak out in hopes that someone would listen before it was too late. The British did not, and paid a terrible price in WWII. What price will the world pay for “fiddling” while the mullahs reach the capacity to burn Rome, London, Washington, Jerusalem, or Paris?

The most disturbing aspect of Bolton’s cry from the political wilderness is that he is not alone in calling for action against Iran, but all voices arguing logically for action are being ignored by the current administration as it continues to pursue UN sanctions or regime change. As Bolton mentioned, regime changes like the one we envision for Iran occur over time, sometimes involving the development of more than one generation of oppositionists before overthrow can be achieved. The Israeli government has already declared December 31, 2007 as the deadline after which sanctions and diplomacy should be abandoned in favor of forceful action if Iran does not dismantle its uranium enrichment program. Does the Bush administration believe that regime change is likely to occur in Iran in the next 6 months?

Liberal publications certainly don’t envision that happening anytime soon. Newsweek Magazine’s current article, “Iranians Aren’t About to Overthrow the Mullahs” makes a strong case that this option is not realistically available to the world, particularly if the world sincerely desires to prevent a nuclear Iran before the point of no return. Considering that ABC and other liberal media outlets exposed the CIA’s active program to foment unrest among Iranians toward the current regime, Iranians can now recognize those efforts for what they are, thus no unrest will result.

Bolton expressed grave concern that the Bush administration and Secretary Rice have pinned all their hopes for containing Iran on two options, UN Sanctions, and regime change. Removing regime change as a viable option in the limited time remaining before Iran enriches sufficient uranium leaves only UN sanctions as a non-military option, and sanctions have done nothing but encourage Iran to move faster toward nuclear weapons. The State Department has offered no workable alternatives to military action, and the clock is literally ticking.

The formerly “robust” Bush administration, as Bolton puts it, has been replaced with a decidedly liberal, quasi-pacifist cadre that appears to make its policy decisions based on international opinion rather than national interest or national security. Secretary Rice has advocated providing arms and funding to known Palestinian terrorist organizations over Israel’s outraged objections in order to achieve some semblance of stability there. Not surprisingly one terrorist faction wrested control from another and the American weapons have been used against the Israeli Defense Force more than any fellow Palestinian targets. The result is a decidedly unstable Palestinian populace and a further lesson that appeasement of terrorists of any stripe is a woefully ignorant foreign policy strategy.

Rice continues to press Israel to give up more territory and place itself in ever-increasing danger in the name of international opinion. She likewise continues to press the president to rely on UN sanctions to deter Iran from its stated goal to annihilate Israel and the U.S. with glowing fireballs. It is easy to see why Bolton became disillusioned with the formerly tough-talking but currently soft-peddling Secretary of State. She has the president’s ear, while Bolton was left at the altar. According to Bolton, that is dangerous for the U.S. and the world, as the fiddling continues and becomes more maddening as the centrifuges spin in Iran.

Technorati Tags:
John Bolton, Condoleeza Rice, State Department, Iran, Nuclear Weapons, Proliferation, UN Sanctions, Regime Change, Diplomacy, Bush Administration

Putin Checkmates Pro-Democracy Chess Champ

Recent news out of Russia indicates that in its continued efforts to consolidate power and silence critics, President Vladimir Putin’s government is rapidly developing decidedly anti-democratic and anti-American policies, and shows little fear of international criticism for its crackdown on democracy advocates critical of Putin. Last Friday, CNSNews reported that both houses of Russia’s parliament passed resolutions that accuse America of interfering with Russia’s internal political processes. The Russian government is bristling at current U.S. State Department assessments of the status of human rights and democracy in Russia, assessments that the Russians believe are intentionally exaggerated.

The State Department’s goal, according to the Russians, is to unite international opposition to the Putin government and to impose sanctions against Russia that would interfere with Russia’s upcoming parliamentary and presidential elections this year and in 2008. Recommending a preliminary strike, Russia’s parliament rattled its sabers about imposing economic sanctions on American interests in that country if America attempted to impose sanctions stemming from human rights violations.

Almost as if on cue, the Russian government could not restrain itself from violating human rights when an opportunity arose for promoting a positive international image. Pro-democracy rallies held in St. Petersburg and Moscow this weekend met with violent riot police tactics and numerous arrests, including Former international chess champion Garry Kasparov, who is now a prominent political activist giving name recognition and credibility to groups opposing Putin’s high-handed quashing of democracy. Kasparov, who has also contributed to the Wall Street Journal since 1990, spent 10 hours in jail before being released after paying a fine. According to Kasparov, the arresting authorities did not identify themselves and several demonstrators were badly beaten.

Incidents like this are becoming par for the course with Putin, and the behavior of the riot police demonstrated that the Russian government’s complaints about the State Department’s Russian human rights assessment are without merit, as Russian democracy appears to be in only slightly less mortal peril than Putin’s turncoat KGB colleagues and personal critics.

Kasparov, contributing to Newsweek in 2005, wrote the following assessment of Putin’s Russia:

The Russian people are ready for democracy—no less so than Iraqis. It's the Putin government that finds democracy unsuitable for its ends. The freedoms gained after the collapse of the U.S.S.R. have been steadily eroded until little remains. Putin is clamping the lid down so tight, in fact, that an explosion is inevitable. Stable? Not Russia.

. . . Nor is Russia an ally on terror outside its borders. Nuclear and missile technology flow to Iran, and Syria's dictatorship is shielded from U.N. investigation of its terror activities, all while the Kremlin says it is trying to help by exploiting its "special relationship" with these rogue states.

That was Kasparov's bleak outlook in 2005. Nothing that has transpired in Russia in the past two years suggests that any improvement will occur under the Putin administration. Those who demonstrate for democracy in Russia are incredibly courageous and careful international scrutiny should be given to Russia’s handling of internal political dissent. I wrote previously of Putin’s thin skin, and Kasparov has worked his way underneath it.

Miniter's Anonymous Sources Place British Crew, Negotiations with Iran in Jeopardy

In an exclusive report by Pajamas Media’s (PJM) Washington Editor Richard Miniter, 2 “anonymous sources” have claimed that the U.S. is holding 300 Iranians with ties to Iranian intelligence agencies, all of whom were captured in Iraq while conducting operations against U.S. troops. All previous official U.S. government reports had acknowledged the military was holding only 5 Iranian intelligence operatives in Iraq. The sources further advised Miniter that these Iranians have been and continue to be interrogated, and the U.S. military has refused to release these prisoners despite pressure from the CIA and State Department to do so.

Ordinarily, a report that the U.S was holding Iranian intelligence operatives captured in Iraq would hardly raise an eyebrow, as it is common knowledge that Iranians have been funneling weapons, personnel, and other means of support to terrorist “insurgents” fighting U.S. troops in Iraq. However, Miniter’s exclusive report comes when tensions between the U.S., Britain, and Iran are anything but ordinary.

Last Friday’s seizure by the Iranian Navy of a British vessel and 15 British sailors and marines, which according to the official British statement occurred in Iraqi, not Iranian, waters, raised the already high probability of conflict to a dangerous level. The British are outraged by the incident and Ahmadinejad’s decision to move the British personnel to Tehran, threatening to put them on trial based on “confessions” obtained through interrogation of the 14 men and 1 woman in custody. The EU, feckless as it is at times, has united in its condemnation of Iran’s actions and issued a joint statement urging Iran to release the prisoners.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair has warned Iran that he expects the British crew to be released within days and no longer. Adding to today’s tension, the presidents of Russia and China urged Iran to comply with U.N. Security Council demands for inspections and regulation of Iran’s nuclear program. The Security Council, to demonstrate its resolve, voted Saturday to impose new sanctions on Iran. Iran responded today by ignoring the Security Council warning, resuming payments to Russia for nuclear fuel, and took the additional step of suspending cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the entity charged with monitoring nuclear non-proliferation.

In this climate, with Iran simultaneously and blatantly ignoring the Security Council, the IAEA, and the EU, and anxious ongoing negotiations over the British crew and nuclear arms, Miniter’s anonymous “diplomatic and military sources” chose a remarkably poor moment to loosen their lips to report information that was sensitive if not overtly classified. The motivation for such a disclosure appears to have been related to State Department and CIA desires to sidestep General David Petraeus, commander of the Multinational Force in Iraq. Petraeus is leading the “surge” strategy to secure Baghdad and other Iraqi cities, and one key feature of the Petraeus plan was obtaining authorization to capture and hold foreign (non-Iraqi) operatives suspected of participating in terrorist attacks in Iraq. As Miniter points out, Iraqi law authorizes this counterterrorism tactic, thus Petraeus is actively enforcing the will of the Iraqi people.

According to Miniter’s report, the State Department and the CIA do not want this strategy enforced quite so strongly, and have argued that releasing the captured Iranian intelligence operatives will give the U.S. leverage in negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program. Thankfully, General Petraeus has held firm. Miniter reported:

The Pentagon received “considerable pressure” from officials in the State department and CIA to release some or all of the Iran-linked prisoners to facilitate discussions between Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Iranian officials. Apparently, Gen. Petraeus sharply disagreed, saying that he intends to hold the prisoners “until they run out of information or we run out of food,” according to our sources who heard these remarks through channels.

The two sources requested anonymity, citing the sensitivity of the intelligence and developing events with Iran.

This brief excerpt from Miniter’s report contains a modern day Patrick Henry “give me liberty or give me death” style statement of determination by general Petraeus, but it also contains a modern day Benedict Arnold style statement of treason by Miniter’s anonymous sources.

State Department employees or military personnel requesting anonymity from a reporter because the intelligence they are revealing is sensitive is no different than a previously undiscovered rapist requesting anonymity from a reporter because rape is a crime and the rapist wants to avoid arrest and prosecution. In both cases, felonies have occurred. The number of Iranian intelligence operatives being held, the fact that they are being interrogated, and General Petraeus’ gritty promise to continue holding and interrogating them, are all pieces of information that were never intended to be distributed outside of officially classified channels.

Miniter’s sources knew that divulging this information to Miniter was a criminal act, as anyone with a government access clearance receives explicit training as to the permitted uses of the material they will see or hear. Even if one were to argue that he/she merely heard a supervisor talking and thus was not aware of the official classification level of the information when he/she provided it to the media, the anonymous source would still be in violation for not verifying that the information was NOT classified. Under ordinary peacetime conditions, such divulgence of sensitive information may have repercussions over time. During a war, in this case 2 wars in Iraq and the War on Terror, such loose lips are truly despicable and can immediately harm the war effort.

What of the motive for leaking this Iranian prisoner information now? The most likely motive appears to be a strategy by the State Department to publicly expose the imprisonment and interrogation of Iranians by the U.S. and thus gain their release through public outcry. General Petraeus, rightly, will not order their release unless ordered to do so by the civilian command structure of the military. That civilian command all too often is swayed by public opinion rather than what is working and what is right. The leaked information about the 300 Iranians will sway public opinion in some countries, and was thus sensitive situational intelligence unlawful to share outside of official channels.

The most disgusting aspect of this leak is its timing, while negotiations are underway regarding the potentially lengthy imprisonment and show trials of the British crew held in Tehran. Leaking information about the Iranian intelligence operatives held by the U.S. appears to be an effort by State to deflate world anger against Iran, particularly within the EU, which had finally united on an issue other than anti-American bitterness. With this treasonous divulgence, Iran can point to 300+ Iranians held by the U.S. in Iraq and use that fact to justify its seizure of the British vessel and crew. It will be much more difficult for the U.S. and Britain to secure solidarity on the prisoner issue from potential and existing allies now that the moral relativism card will be played.

I fully expect to hear Ahmadinejad’s next typical speech in which he vows to wipe Israel off the map, turn America into a nuclear fireball, and then slips in “and by the way, you captured 300 of my innocent Iranian faithful brothers engaged in nothing but prayer in Iraq, and we seized only 15 of your violent infidel marines so clearly in our territorial waters. I ask the world, who is worse?”

Having written a post last week titled “Government Droning too much to Media About Drones,” in which I urged government agencies to return to adherence to the phrase “loose lips sink ships”, it is a sad irony that only a few days later diplomatic and military sources leaked sensitive information during a moment of intense confrontation with Iran over hostages and nuclear weapons programs. The stakes could not be higher, and the need for integrity in keeping sensitive information within official channels has likewise never been greater. Loose lips really can sink ships, but in the case of the HMS Cornwall, loose lips may sink negotiations for release of a ship and her crew.

DNC Led in Prayer for Global Conversion to Islam: Ignorance of Islamic Terminology Rampant in Washington

On Saturday, World Net Daily reported that at Friday’s Democratic National Committee (DNC) winter meeting, attendees bowed their heads and were led in prayer by a popular Michigan religious leader. The party usually associated with ACLU positions on prayer religion’s role in public life, appeared in its winter meeting to be eager to show its reverence for religious practice. On the surface this would appear to be a welcome change for the DNC, but when it comes to the DNC and its quest to cast itself as mainstream America, nothing is as it seems. As the DNC bowed and listened to a prayer seemingly for peace, brotherhood, and an end to global strife, what was actually prayed for by the religious leader went completely unrecognized and unchallenged by DNC members.

In a remarkable, but sadly not uncommon (Rep. Silvestre Reyes, Chairman House Intelligence Committee unaware of whether Al Qaeda was Sunni or Shiite), display of Washington’s chronic cultural ignorance of Islamic culture and symbolism, DNC members prayed for their own conversion to Islam, liberation of the world from religions other than Islam, the end of American and Israeli “occupations” in the Middle East, and the destruction of Israel. More troubling is that none of them appear to have realized they had done so.

The meaning of the prayer, spoken in English by Husham Al-Husainy, Shiite imam of the Karbalaa Islamic Education Center, a mosque in Dearborn, Michigan, was clearly understood by those with knowledge of Islamic symbolism, but not by any DNC members, many of whom already hold or aspire to occupy the most sensitive policy making positions within the US Government. Senators, Congressman, presidential aspirants, and key staffers, the power-wielders in the party now controlling Congress suffer from a deplorable ignorance of traditional, let alone radical Islam. Lest Republicans gloat about their rival colleagues’ shortcomings, a similar ignorance of Islam exists in that party as well, though displayed less transparently than Rep. Reyes and the DNC have illustrated.

Robert Spencer, Director of Jihad Watch, reviewed a transcript of the prayer and provided a concise explanation of terms as they relate to Islamic culture, history, and teachings from the Quran. The prayer was delivered as follows:

“In the name of God the most merciful, the most compassionate. We thank you, God, to bless us among your creations. We thank you, God, to make us as a great nation. We thank you God, to send us your messages through our father Abraham and Moses and Jesus and Muhammad. Through you, God, we unite. So guide us to the right path. The path of the people you bless, not the path of the people you doom. Help us God to liberate and fill this earth with justice and peace and love and equality. And help us to stop the war and violence, and oppression and occupation. Ameen.”

Spencer pointed out that in Islam, the term “straight path” refers to Islamic Sharia, the body of Islamic law that governs politics, economics, behaviors and all other aspects of life under Islamic rule. All other paths, or governmental forms, are errant and must be corrected. Likewise, the phrase “the path of the people you bless” refers to peoples living under Sharia law. All other religions or nations not under Sharia rule are doomed.

It is significant that the next sentence importunes God to “liberate and fill the earth with justice”. Liberate whom, and what form would justice take? “Liberation” in Islamic terminology denotes conversion of all nations to Islam, or liberation from errant religions, and “justice” equates to Sharia, the Islamic code of laws Muslims would implement after “liberating” nations oppressed by other religions, such as Judaism and Christianity.

Imam Al-Husainy concluded with the obligatory reference to Israel, calling for an end to the Israeli state and its presence on (occupation of) disputed Arab land, as well as and end to the US “occupation” of Iraq. To embrace a prayer with such references and wishes is ironically stunning for the DNC, which is supported with fierce (though clearly misguided) loyalty by American Jews. Donating to campaigns of candidates from a party that invites clerics to pray for global conversion to Islam is, one would reasonably conclude, not in the interest of members of any other religion or no religion at all. Under Sharia there is no special consideration or immunity granted to atheists, agnostics, or naturalists. ACLU secular crusaders would face beheading for attempting to separate Church and State under Sharia law.

That the DNC sought to demonstrate its conveniently new effort to appear religious by inviting an imam to pray is not objectionable. That the DNC did not recognize or have courage to criticize the content of the prayer should stir outrage among all Americans of either party and of all religions. Our elected officials and the parties funding them either lack basic knowledge of Islamic culture and the teachings of the Quran, or if they have such awareness lack the fortitude to point out and condemn thinly veiled calls for the overthrow of America and Israel, especially when those calls come from a popular imam.

Secretary of State Rice recently bowed to “political correctness”, referring to HAMAS as a “resistance movement” rather than a terrorist group (despite the State Department’s official designation of HAMAS as a terrorist organization). Even those tasked with recruiting allies in the War on Terror are afraid of offending terrorists by calling them terrorists. It should come as no surprise that the DNC imam had the audacity to pray for such things by invitation in front of a prominent political organization. That he did so and no one in Washington noticed or cared should be a clear warning sign to all who are not on the “straight path” that radical Islam is winning the political, media, and culture war here while our soldiers are fighting the physical war in the Middle East.


Technorati Search Tags: DNC Husham Al-Husainy World Net Daily Robert Spencer Jihad Watch Islamic Conversion HAMAS Dearborn US Department of State Condoleeza Rice Global War On Terror Silvestre Reyes Israeli Occupation

Fighting Terrorism From Your Desk: "Terror-Free Investing"

Most U.S. citizens who wish they could do something to combat terrorism do not enlist in the military, or leave their jobs to join intelligence and law enforcement agencies engaged in the War on Terror. What can the average American do to help eradicate global terrorism, or at least make it increasingly difficult for terrorists to obtain weaponry or travel? One easy and effective tactic available to any American owning stocks or shares in mutual funds is to make sure your hard earned money is not being invested in companies who are known to do business with foreign states identified by the U.S. State Department as state sponsors of terrorism.

In an article published in yesterday’s edition of the Wall Street Journal, Missouri State Treasurer Sarah Steelman brilliantly explained the work of an independent research firm, Conflict Securites Advisory Group (CSAG), that has identified 485 publicly traded companies doing business with four governments designated by the State Department as state sponsors of terrorism. Those four terrorist sponsors are Iran, Sudan, North Korea, and Syria. These companies offer a wide variety of services to these regimes, and the lucrative contracts provide these governments with the ability to fund terrorist activities, develop WMD programs, and supply weapons and logistical support to the insurgency in Iraq that is killing American soldiers. Steelman rightly advised that by cutting off investments in these companies, CEOs will be pressured to change business practices and choose clients not affiliated with terrorists. When share prices and dividends decline, CEOs are jettisoned as excess baggage. In the interest of self preservation, these CEOs will adopt the terror-free business practices they should already have been following.

Steelman’s insightful article also described how as Missouri State Treasurer, she helped her state develop and launch the nation’s first “terror-free investment fund,” and is rolling out Missouri’s 529 College Savings Advisor Plan in 2007 that will offer the Roosevelt Anti-Terror Multi-Cap Fund (RATF). This fund will exclude companies doing business with designated state sponsors of terrorism. This concept will allow Missourians to do the right thing twice with one investment: save for a child’s college tuition; and combat global terrorism by keeping money out of the hands of terrorists and regimes seeking WMD development.

Other investment firms have begun to follow suit, such as Nationwide Financial, and according to market research performed by Steelman’s office and CSAG, the transition to terror-free investing within mutual funds has been very successful. In fact, the funds are significantly outperforming existing indexes. If there is any question that money talks, we should consider, as Steelman reminded, that South Africa is free of Apartheid because of financial pressures created by shareholders in companies doing business with the South African government. Apartheid-free investing worked, and every indication is that terror-free investing is also effective.

It is not often that the average American is presented with a direct opportunity to fight terrorism. The operatives who struck us on 9/11 needed funds to train, travel here, find housing, feed themselves, enroll in flight schools, rent cars, purchase airline tickets to perform dry runs, and finally to purchase those fateful one-way tickets for the 9/11 flights. If you could keep money from flowing to such operatives preparing for future attacks, would you? Learn more about terror-free investing through the links above, and ask your financial planner or 401k manager to exclude any company identified by CSAG as doing business with terror sponsors. American intelligence and law enforcement agencies are limited by available funding for our efforts to combat terrorism, and terrorists also rely on funding to recruit, train, and act. Without funds, their efforts are significantly hampered.

If Americans can boycott Disney over moral issues or Wal-Mart over clothes production in sweatshops, we can rise to this occasion and withhold funds from those who have already killed thousands of Americans and are preparing to do so again. Is your money being invested in one of the 485 companies identified by CSAG? With a few clicks of your mouse, you can find out and fight terrorism from your desk.

CSAG Missouri Terror-Free Investing Sarah Steelman War On Terror Wall Street Journal Conflict Securities Advisory Group State Department