Sleepless Senate Awakens Iraqi Unity

Forget democracy and Iraqi self-determination as motivating factors for reconciling the internal differences plaguing their parliament. It seems that all it took to accomplish such a feat was the mental image of Ted Kennedy or Harry Reid in pajamas. The all-night Senate slumber party this week to debate troop withdrawal from Iraq was reported with amusement and no shortage of mockery by the American media, and ultimately the amendment to withdraw U.S. troops by April 2008 went down to inglorious defeat. Senator Levin (D-MI) argued at length that the Iraqis simply had not done enough to secure their own country, and virtually every Democrat who participated in the amendment debate cited Iraqi internal divisions and "civil war" as the primary reasons to withdraw American troops from the conflict. I disagree completely with those characterizations of the situation in Iraq, but perhaps the Democrats' emotional anti-Iraqi rhetoric lighted a few fires under certain factions within Iraq's parliament.

It may just be coincidence, but perhaps Iraqi parliamentarians, surely watching the captivating "Sleepless in the Senate" production via satellite, took note that while this particular troop withdrawal amendment failed passage in the Senate, others are sure to follow. They likely realized that the only way to blunt the criticism was to demonstrate unity in purpose among Shi'ite and Sunni members of parliament. That is one possible explanation for a news report Thursday that should have been heralded in the media as a great breakthrough in Iraq but was largely relegated to obscurity through beneath the fold attention. Credit Reuters for placing the headline "Sunni Bloc Ends Boycott of Iraqi Parliament" as the lead international news story at Reuters.com for a few hours Thursday.

Reuters reported that Sunni Arabs, who had staged a boycott of the Iraqi parliament since June, decided Thursday to end the boycott and work with the majority Shi'ite bloc to work on "very important legislation." The Sunni Arabs constitute 44 of the 275 seats in Iraq's parliament, making the passage of legislation without that bloc a difficult task that has bogged down Iraq's legislative attempts at unity. When combined with 30 Shi'ite followers of cleric Moqtada al-Sadr who ended their boycott of parliament earlier this week, the end result was that 74 disgruntled Iraqis of varying religious sentiments returned to parliament to rebut accusations from the House and Senate that unity of Iraq's Shiites and Sunnis is not possible.

In typical fashion, the Washington Post determined that this effort at reconciliation might bring good news from Iraq and hope for its future, and the Post immediately buried the Reuters wire story at the bottom of its online front page, where only avid news observers might stumble upon it. It is sadly ironic that the main reason given in the Senate Sleepover for withdrawing our troops was that Iraq is engulfed in a hopeless "civil war," yet when Iraq's minority members of parliament set aside their differences with the majority and vowed to work together to secure Iraq's sovereignty and security, neither the Democrats in Congress nor the liberal media wanted to give that sign of progress any meaningful attention. Clearly, while they waxed philosophical (Sen. Schumer, D-NY) or emotional (Sen. Kennedy) about the "quagmire" in Iraq, none had any sincere desire for an actual reconciliation of Shiites and Sunnis in Iraq. The prospect that President Bush might be right about the instinctive human thirst for freedom in Iraq was just too politically frightening for the chorus of critics to consider or patiently nurture.

The Iraqi government still faces rough seas ahead, but at least now it will face challenges with a full complement of Shi'ite and Sunni leaders who presently appear committed to proving the sleep-deprived Senate critics wrong. Yet as the Senate Snoozefest demonstrated, if our Congress actually put in the kind of work hours that most Americans do each week, the number of world crises they could solve, even in their pajamas, would be impressive.

Photo Credit: McClatchey Washington Bureau

Technorati Tags:
Senate, Iraqi Parliament, Sunni, Shia, Boycott, Troop Withdrawal, Ted Kennedy, Harry Reid, Moqtada al-Sadr

Pakistan a Moderate Muslim Test Case

Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf could not have been more clear: "We are in direct confrontation with the extremist forces - it is moderates versus extremists." Yet instead of being encouraged by Musharraf's newly launched war to reform Islam from within, Lee Hamilton, former 9/11 Commission and Iraq Study Group member, recommended that the U.S. strike at al Qaeda in its Pakistani mountain safe haven on the Afghanistan border without Musharraf's consent. Hamilton cited several good reasons for taking unilateral action, specifically the importance of keeping al Qaeda on the run and unable to replenish itself. Hamilton also expressed evident disdain for Musharraf's insistence that Pakistani military forces conduct all raids against radical Islamist groups operating in Pakistan, an arrangement that Hamilton described as unacceptable. Hamilton joined Fox News Military analyst Colonel David Hunt in the "Musharraf is not our friend" chorus, and if Americans continue to sing that tune long and loudly enough, we will soon find few friends among the moderate Muslim leaders of the world.

Hamilton and Col. Hunt want what we all want: to see al Qaeda hunted down ruthlessly in their mountain sanctuaries as a deterrent to the rest of the world's radical Islamic terrorists and their potential recruits. The problem is that both men are fixated on the American "right" to conduct military operations within Pakistan even though Pakistan's moderate Muslim president and military leader has declared war on the extremists in his own nation and has now promised to confront radical Islamists in every corner of Pakistan.

Of course we want to strike al Qaeda, but doing so unilaterally without the consent of the president of the world's only Muslim nuclear nation would send precisely the wrong message to Muslims everywhere. Americans complain that not enough moderate Muslims are working to reform Islam by confronting its extremists, yet when we find one who happens to be a powerful figure with control of a small nuclear arsenal, Hamilton and Col. Hunt question his friendship and urge our leaders to ignore Musharraf's promise to purge the terrorists internally. Either we want Islam to reform itself or we don't. Hamilton and Col. Hunt cannot have it both ways.

I wrote previously about Musharraf's need for sovereignty, further postulating that the United States would never allow a foreign military to conduct strikes within our borders, as we would, like Musharraf, exercise our sovereignty and insist that our military remove the enemy from within our borders. It is no small matter for a president to permit a foreign military to cross his nation's borders and attack members, albeit radical ones, of his national religion. Therein lays the danger inherent in circumventing Musharraf's authority. His decision to publicly distinguish between moderate and extreme Islam, and further vow to "fight against extremism and terrorism no matter what province," has worsened his already precarious political position because a long-term battle against terrorists in Pakistan will require Musharraf to not relinquish command of the Pakistani military, a power he has personally retained despite calls for separation of his political and military role as President-General. Musharraf's military command, if he continues on the moderate path, is of great benefit to global security, as he keeps nuclear weapons in moderate hands.

Meanwhile, radicals within Pakistan salivate at the prospect of electing a president who shares their views and might use that arsenal to intimidate or annihilate their enemies. America finds itself in the position of having a moderate Muslim president-military dictator as perhaps its most valuable and vulnerable ally in the War on Terror.

Musharraf has successfully remained in power because of his strong hold on Pakistan's military establishment, though he faces danger in that realm from radical infiltration. If the United States were to ignore Musharraf's sovereign authority and send our military to conduct operations within Pakistan, it would directly challenge the one core strength he possesses: electorates rarely choose to change leaders in war time or when military confrontation is imminent. A U.S. strike, rather than a sustained Pakistani operation, would convince Pakistanis that Musharraf did not wield any international influence and could be replaced, since the U.S. would have shown little regard for whomever was Pakistan's president by handling the matter unilaterally. Musharraf is receiving criticism from every political party in Pakistan, some opposing his combative stance against radical Islam, and others decrying his determination to run for re-election without relinquishing control of the military.

Impatience is our sorest affliction in Iraq, as the House and Senate worked feverishly and at least for one night, sleeplessly, to withdraw from Iraq long before the full results of the surge strategy can be evaluated. That same impatience must not dictate precipitous U.S. action in Pakistan before allowing Musharraf's confrontation strategy to yield tangible results. Arguably the most militarily and politically powerful moderate Muslim in the world, Musharraf embodies the great question the non-Muslim world wants answered: Is Islam truly a moderate religion of peace, or does radical Islam hold sway in the hearts and minds of the majority?

If Musharraf's declared war against extremism within Islam succeeds in Pakistan, it would set a precedent to be followed in Muslim nations worldwide. If it is also true that moderate Muslims live in fear of the radicals in their midst, then we, and they, should sing Musharraf's praises for pitting himself squarely against the terrorists, rather than forming choruses that shriek about his perceived limitations.

Musharraf left no doubt about his commitment to victory in Pakistan's new war on extremism, reassuring his countrymen, "We will finish it off in every corner of the country." What greater victory could there be in a war against extremist terrorism than for a Muslim nation to clean its own house of terrorists? Let us not allow our national epidemic of impatience to cripple in Pakistan what may be the ultimate death knell for radical Islam: internal reform, by ideology if possible, but by the sword if necessary.

Technorati Tags:
Musharraf, Lee Hamilton, Colonel David Hunt, Pakistan, Al Qaeda, War on Terror, Moderate Muslims, Radical Islam

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