Federal District Judge James Robertson has resigned from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA), apparently in protest over the recently-disclosed NSA domestic surveillance program. Sources told the Washington Post that Judge Robertson had deep reservations about the program's legality, and felt it tainted the work of the FISA court.
While Judge Robertson was well-regarded by his colleagues, he was one of the most liberal members of the FISA court, and frequently ruled against the Bush Administration in cases relating to the War on Terror. In his most famous decision Hamadan vs. Rumsfeld, Robertson ruled that the Pentagon's system for trying terror suspects at Gunatanamo Bay was stacked against defendants. Robertson's decision was subsequently overturned by a three-judge federal appellate panel that included Judge John Roberts, now Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.
Judge Robertson was named to the federal bench by President Clinton in 1994, and later selected to serve on the FISA court by then-Chief Justice William Rhenquist. Some observers described Robertson's decision as "courageous," but I'm guessing a former federal judge, with more than 30 years of legal experience, won't have a hard time finding work. His salary as a senior partner at a "name" law firm or law school dean will far exceed the $140,000 a year he earned on the federal bench.
More puzzling is Robertson's sudden dissatisfaction with warrantless wiretaps. The practice is nothing new; as Drudge (and others) have reported, the practice dates back to the Carter Administration, and Robertson's patron (Bill Clinton) signed an executive order continuing warrantless surveillance, and former Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick opined that the president had the "inherent authority" to authorize such searches. Apparently, Judge Robertson had fewer problems with warantless domestic surveillance during the Clinton years, or if he did, his protests were far more muted.
On a related note, Federal Judge Richard Posner has a characteristically brillant op-ed in today's edition of the Wa-Po. From Judge Posner's perspective, the real threat is not from the domestic surveillance program, but from continuing gaps in our ability to collect information on terrorists operating in this country. As he notes, the NSA program was expanded primarily to make up for shortfalls in domestic intelligence collection. He makes a convincing case for creating a new spy agency to handle missions now divided between the FBI, the NSA and other agencies.
Wednesday, December 21, 2005
In (Generic Deity's Name) We Pray, Amen
Lt Gordon Klingenschmitt is a Navy Chaplain. As of 20 December, he was holding a multi-day hunger strike in Washington, protesting recent restrictions on religious liberties in the U.S. military.
The Washington Times has details on Lt. Klingenschmitt's vigil, which is being held across the street from the White House. The Navy Chaplain says he is being fired because he prays in Jesus's names at public military events. According to Klingenschmitt, military chaplains are being trained to pray "only to God" during public prayers; references to Christ, the Virgin Mary, Allah, or the Trinity are strongly discouraged.
Klingenschmitt apparently got in trouble with his superiors in the summer of 2004, while assigned to the USS Anzio. During a funeral for a Catholic sailor in the base chaptel in Naples, Italy, Klingenschmitt delivered an evangelistic sermon that landed him a reprimand from two senior chaplains. Klingenschmitt was reassigned to shore duty in Norfolk, VA in March of this year. He claims he may be booted from the service next month, and evicted from military family housing.
Klingenschmitt's plight is not unique. More than 50 Christian chaplains filed lawsuits against the Navy (in 1999 and 2000), claiming the service discriminates against Pentecostal and evangelical clerics. The American Center for Law and Justice has mounted a petition campaign, asking President Bush to sign an executive order, allowing individual chaplains to pray according to their religious traditions. More than 70 members of Congress have joined the effort, noting "it is increasingly difficult [for chaplains] to use the name of Jesus while praying.
The Air Force has actually taken formal steps to encourage non-specific public prayers. A few months ago, the service issued guidelines allowing a "brief, non-sectarian prior before military events...to add a sense of seriousness of solemnity, not to advance specific religious beliefs." The guidelines were implemented amid charges that non-evangelicals were discriminated against at the U.S. Air Force Academy. An investigation into those charges eventually led to the early retirement of the Academy superintendent, and the reassignment of the school's Commandant of Cadets (Brig Gen Johnny Weida), an evangelical Christian.
Advocates of these restrictions say that a prayer in the name of Jesus or Allah discriminates against those who hold other religious views. They also point out that Chaplains are free to pray according to their tradition in chapel services. But with approximately 80% of the nation's armed forces calling themselves Christians, so the number of potentially "offended" service members is rather low. You've also got to wonder how offended someone might be by a single mention of "Jesus" or "Allah" in a short prayer at the beginning or end of a military ceremony. Again, I'm guessing that number would be almost negligible.
But in today's politically-correct military, even a handful of complaints can make generals and senior officials sweat. In that environment, it's easy to toss out two centuries of military tradition (and 400 years of religious liberty), in the name of generic prayer. Secularists will complain (again) that the religious community is overracting, but I'm not so sure. The Rev. Billy Baugham, head of a Greenville, S.C. group that endorses evangelical chaplains, tells of a phone call he recently received from a chaplain in Iraq. The chaplain told Baugham "he'd be hammered" if he use Jesus's name in a prayer.
During the Battle of Bataan in World War II, another Army chaplain remarked (famously) that there were no atheists in foxholes. But there are plenty of secularists in today's military, and they appear determined to impose their belief structure on our military chaplain corps. And sadly, our military leadership is doing little to reverse that trend.
The Washington Times has details on Lt. Klingenschmitt's vigil, which is being held across the street from the White House. The Navy Chaplain says he is being fired because he prays in Jesus's names at public military events. According to Klingenschmitt, military chaplains are being trained to pray "only to God" during public prayers; references to Christ, the Virgin Mary, Allah, or the Trinity are strongly discouraged.
Klingenschmitt apparently got in trouble with his superiors in the summer of 2004, while assigned to the USS Anzio. During a funeral for a Catholic sailor in the base chaptel in Naples, Italy, Klingenschmitt delivered an evangelistic sermon that landed him a reprimand from two senior chaplains. Klingenschmitt was reassigned to shore duty in Norfolk, VA in March of this year. He claims he may be booted from the service next month, and evicted from military family housing.
Klingenschmitt's plight is not unique. More than 50 Christian chaplains filed lawsuits against the Navy (in 1999 and 2000), claiming the service discriminates against Pentecostal and evangelical clerics. The American Center for Law and Justice has mounted a petition campaign, asking President Bush to sign an executive order, allowing individual chaplains to pray according to their religious traditions. More than 70 members of Congress have joined the effort, noting "it is increasingly difficult [for chaplains] to use the name of Jesus while praying.
The Air Force has actually taken formal steps to encourage non-specific public prayers. A few months ago, the service issued guidelines allowing a "brief, non-sectarian prior before military events...to add a sense of seriousness of solemnity, not to advance specific religious beliefs." The guidelines were implemented amid charges that non-evangelicals were discriminated against at the U.S. Air Force Academy. An investigation into those charges eventually led to the early retirement of the Academy superintendent, and the reassignment of the school's Commandant of Cadets (Brig Gen Johnny Weida), an evangelical Christian.
Advocates of these restrictions say that a prayer in the name of Jesus or Allah discriminates against those who hold other religious views. They also point out that Chaplains are free to pray according to their tradition in chapel services. But with approximately 80% of the nation's armed forces calling themselves Christians, so the number of potentially "offended" service members is rather low. You've also got to wonder how offended someone might be by a single mention of "Jesus" or "Allah" in a short prayer at the beginning or end of a military ceremony. Again, I'm guessing that number would be almost negligible.
But in today's politically-correct military, even a handful of complaints can make generals and senior officials sweat. In that environment, it's easy to toss out two centuries of military tradition (and 400 years of religious liberty), in the name of generic prayer. Secularists will complain (again) that the religious community is overracting, but I'm not so sure. The Rev. Billy Baugham, head of a Greenville, S.C. group that endorses evangelical chaplains, tells of a phone call he recently received from a chaplain in Iraq. The chaplain told Baugham "he'd be hammered" if he use Jesus's name in a prayer.
During the Battle of Bataan in World War II, another Army chaplain remarked (famously) that there were no atheists in foxholes. But there are plenty of secularists in today's military, and they appear determined to impose their belief structure on our military chaplain corps. And sadly, our military leadership is doing little to reverse that trend.
The Floor is Open...
For nominees for the First Annual People Who Really Mattered List. As noted a couple of days ago. Time magazine's list of "People Who Mattered" includes folks like racist rapper Kanye West, New Orleans Mayor "Schoolbus" Ray Nagin, and of course, Mother Sheehan.
I'm convinced the blogosphere can produce a list of people that actually made a difference in 2005, and started the ball rolling with two nominees: Army Lt Gen David Petraeus, who successfully turned around the training program for Iraqi security forces (paving the way for a U.S. drawdown in 2006), and another Army officer, Lt Col Erik Kurilla. Lt Col Kurilla commanded the 1st Battalion, 24th Infantry Regiment (Deuce Four) during the hard fighting in Mosul earlier this year, and played an instrumental role in defeating the terrorists who were trying to take control of that city.
As a third nominee, several readers have suggested independent journalist/blogger Michael Yon, whose vivid dispatches from Iraq set the standard for combat coverage in the War on Terror. More remarkably, Mr. Yon is doing it on his own dime, relying heavily on reader contributions to fund his extended trips to Iraq. For providing the "ground truth" from Iraq, Michael Yon is indeed, someone who really mattered in 2005.
Provide other nominess in the comments section, or send them to icspook86@hotmail.com My final list will be published at year's end.
I'm convinced the blogosphere can produce a list of people that actually made a difference in 2005, and started the ball rolling with two nominees: Army Lt Gen David Petraeus, who successfully turned around the training program for Iraqi security forces (paving the way for a U.S. drawdown in 2006), and another Army officer, Lt Col Erik Kurilla. Lt Col Kurilla commanded the 1st Battalion, 24th Infantry Regiment (Deuce Four) during the hard fighting in Mosul earlier this year, and played an instrumental role in defeating the terrorists who were trying to take control of that city.
As a third nominee, several readers have suggested independent journalist/blogger Michael Yon, whose vivid dispatches from Iraq set the standard for combat coverage in the War on Terror. More remarkably, Mr. Yon is doing it on his own dime, relying heavily on reader contributions to fund his extended trips to Iraq. For providing the "ground truth" from Iraq, Michael Yon is indeed, someone who really mattered in 2005.
Provide other nominess in the comments section, or send them to icspook86@hotmail.com My final list will be published at year's end.
C'mon In, the Water's Fine
It's always nice to see the big guys in the blogosphere (or even the MSM) echo observations first made in small blogs, like this one.
Case in point: last Thursday, we noted the blatant hypocrisy of the NTY (and other media outlets) who fretted over the outing of Valerie Plame, but had no problem revealing a highly sensitive surveillance program, vital to the War on Terror:
"...The Times also misses another key motivation for the surveillance program. By keeping it close-hold within the NSA, the administration and intelligence officials were hoping to lessen chances of a leak, or inadvertent disclosure. Secrecy was deemed vital to maintain the flow of critical information but that flow may now slow to a trickle, thanks to the NYT. Sometimes secrets are necessary to protect a democracy, but that is an alien concept in the Times newsroom and executive suite. The same organization that is so concerned about the Valerie Plame affair has no problems with exposing a secret that is far more vital to national security. It's the sort of hypocrisy the Times practices on a regular basis."
Columnist Max Boot makes similar points in today's edition of the Los Angeles Times, noting that the "Plame Platoon" has been predictably silent on the NYT's exposure of a highly classified intelligence program. Glad to see you're catching up, Max. Of course, as a moderate conservative at the LA Times, Mr. Boot operates at a serious disadvantage. His column appears only once a week, and that's probably a bit too often for some Times staffers. Still, it's encouraging to have Mr. Boot join the fray, in highlighting the MSM's obvious hypocrisy on protecting our nation's secrets.
Case in point: last Thursday, we noted the blatant hypocrisy of the NTY (and other media outlets) who fretted over the outing of Valerie Plame, but had no problem revealing a highly sensitive surveillance program, vital to the War on Terror:
"...The Times also misses another key motivation for the surveillance program. By keeping it close-hold within the NSA, the administration and intelligence officials were hoping to lessen chances of a leak, or inadvertent disclosure. Secrecy was deemed vital to maintain the flow of critical information but that flow may now slow to a trickle, thanks to the NYT. Sometimes secrets are necessary to protect a democracy, but that is an alien concept in the Times newsroom and executive suite. The same organization that is so concerned about the Valerie Plame affair has no problems with exposing a secret that is far more vital to national security. It's the sort of hypocrisy the Times practices on a regular basis."
Columnist Max Boot makes similar points in today's edition of the Los Angeles Times, noting that the "Plame Platoon" has been predictably silent on the NYT's exposure of a highly classified intelligence program. Glad to see you're catching up, Max. Of course, as a moderate conservative at the LA Times, Mr. Boot operates at a serious disadvantage. His column appears only once a week, and that's probably a bit too often for some Times staffers. Still, it's encouraging to have Mr. Boot join the fray, in highlighting the MSM's obvious hypocrisy on protecting our nation's secrets.
Another Legal Opinion
The indispensible Powerline offers another legal take on the NSA surveillance program, this one from former U.S. attorney Bill Otis. Mr. Otis was part of a legal team that represented the U.S. government in Troung case, where the government conducted a warrantless wiretap of a suspect for months (the wiretap occurred before the FISA was enacted in 1979). As Mr. Otis notes, the Fourth Circuit held that:
"...the Executive Branch should be excused from securing a warrant only when “the object of the search or the surveillance is a foreign power, its agents or collaborators,” and “the surveillance is conducted ‘primarily’ for foreign intelligence reasons."
Given the stated purpose of the NSA program--gather information on suspected Al Qaida operatives--the administration would appear to be on firm legal ground, given the precedent established by Troung. Mr. Otis also observes that, in a court footnote, the Fourth Circuit determined that the warrantless wiretaps passed muster under the Fourth Amendment, and would satisfy FISA standards as well.
Funny, but you don't see that type of legal analysis highlighted in the MSM. But the NYT (and other publications) are eager to quote any law professor who thinks the NSA program violated the law.
"...the Executive Branch should be excused from securing a warrant only when “the object of the search or the surveillance is a foreign power, its agents or collaborators,” and “the surveillance is conducted ‘primarily’ for foreign intelligence reasons."
Given the stated purpose of the NSA program--gather information on suspected Al Qaida operatives--the administration would appear to be on firm legal ground, given the precedent established by Troung. Mr. Otis also observes that, in a court footnote, the Fourth Circuit determined that the warrantless wiretaps passed muster under the Fourth Amendment, and would satisfy FISA standards as well.
Funny, but you don't see that type of legal analysis highlighted in the MSM. But the NYT (and other publications) are eager to quote any law professor who thinks the NSA program violated the law.
Tuesday, December 20, 2005
Striking a Deal
The authoritative Jane's Defence Weekly is reporting that Syria has signed an agreement with Iran, pledging to hide Tehran's WMD and missiles, should it come under UN sanctions.
Citing diplomatic sources, Jane' s says that the strategic accord signed by Tehran and Damascus allows Iran to store weapons, sensitive equipment or even hazardous materials on Syria soil, in a time of crisis. Damascus also agreed to continue serving as a conduit for military hardware flowing from Iran to various terrorist groups, including Hizballah. In return, Iran has promised to provide a wide range of military hardware to Damascus, and upgrade Syrian chemical weapons and ballistic missiles. The agreement even allows Iran to operate "advanced weapons" on Syrian soil in times of crisis.
While details of the accord are surprising, the fact that Syria and Iran struck a deal is hardly earth-shattering. With expanding U.S. influence in the Middle East, both Tehran and Damascus find themselves increasingly isolated, with few other reliable partners in the region. Syria's willingness to accept Iranian WMD provides yet another option for deceiving western intelligence agencies and the UN, making it more difficult to track Tehran's nuclear efforts. Additionally, Damascus's willingness to continue funneling Iranian aid to Hizballah gives both nations leverage in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
From the Syrian point-of-view, Iranian aid comes at a time when Syria needs to modernize its military, but lacks the resources to do so. Iranian military technology is hardly advanced, but loans from Tehran could allow Syria to make needed upgrades in its air, air defense and ballistic missile forces. And, the potential presence of Iranian nukes on Syrian soil might provide a measure of deterrence--or (more likely) invite a preemptive Israeli strike.
While both sides probably view the agreement as a good deal, some of the provisions are unrealistic, even a bit silly. For example, how does Iran plan to get advanced weapons to Syria, let alone operate them near the Israeli border--I'm sure the Israeli Air Force would have something to say about that. But Damascus's apparent willingness to house Iranian WMD gives new credence to reports that some of Saddam's stocpiles also found a home there. The final chapter of Iraq's WMD program cannot be written until we find out what may be hiding in Syria.
Citing diplomatic sources, Jane' s says that the strategic accord signed by Tehran and Damascus allows Iran to store weapons, sensitive equipment or even hazardous materials on Syria soil, in a time of crisis. Damascus also agreed to continue serving as a conduit for military hardware flowing from Iran to various terrorist groups, including Hizballah. In return, Iran has promised to provide a wide range of military hardware to Damascus, and upgrade Syrian chemical weapons and ballistic missiles. The agreement even allows Iran to operate "advanced weapons" on Syrian soil in times of crisis.
While details of the accord are surprising, the fact that Syria and Iran struck a deal is hardly earth-shattering. With expanding U.S. influence in the Middle East, both Tehran and Damascus find themselves increasingly isolated, with few other reliable partners in the region. Syria's willingness to accept Iranian WMD provides yet another option for deceiving western intelligence agencies and the UN, making it more difficult to track Tehran's nuclear efforts. Additionally, Damascus's willingness to continue funneling Iranian aid to Hizballah gives both nations leverage in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
From the Syrian point-of-view, Iranian aid comes at a time when Syria needs to modernize its military, but lacks the resources to do so. Iranian military technology is hardly advanced, but loans from Tehran could allow Syria to make needed upgrades in its air, air defense and ballistic missile forces. And, the potential presence of Iranian nukes on Syrian soil might provide a measure of deterrence--or (more likely) invite a preemptive Israeli strike.
While both sides probably view the agreement as a good deal, some of the provisions are unrealistic, even a bit silly. For example, how does Iran plan to get advanced weapons to Syria, let alone operate them near the Israeli border--I'm sure the Israeli Air Force would have something to say about that. But Damascus's apparent willingness to house Iranian WMD gives new credence to reports that some of Saddam's stocpiles also found a home there. The final chapter of Iraq's WMD program cannot be written until we find out what may be hiding in Syria.
Failing Her First Test
New German PM Angela Merkel campaigned on a promise to strengthen ties with Washington. Unfortunately, one her first major decisions isn't going to sit well with the United States, or anyone opposed to Islamic terrorism.
Hizballah member Mohammed Ali Hamadi was released from a German jail a few days ago and allowed to return to Lebanon. Hamadi was serving a life sentence for the murder of a U.S. Navy diver, Petty Officer Robert Stethem, who was tortured and killed during the hijacking of TWA flight 847 in June 1985. The Germans arrested Hamadi two years later, as he tried to smuggle liquid explosives through the Frankfurt airport. While the U.S. sought his extradition on murder charges, the Germans refused, citing American death penalty laws.
Not coincidentally, Hamadi's release came just days before Islamic terrorists freed a German hostage in Iraq. The cost of that little exchange has yet to be measured; Hamadi disappeared after flying from Germany to Beirut. Given his terrorist ties, it's a good bet he's getting reacquainted with his Hizballah chums, and he'll probably be back in the business in no time.
After the blatant anti-Americanism of Gerhard Schroeder, many Americans cheered when Ms. Merkel unseated him. Judging from the Hamadi decision, it appears as though our confidence was misplaced. By cutting a deal with terrorists, Ms. Merkel is likely setting the stage for more violence and bloodshed, all for the sake of scoring a few political points at home. I'm sure the kidnappers in Iraq are taking note; there's a new boss in Berlin, and she's more than willing to make a deal.
To my European friends, no I haven't forgotten about the Iran-Contra affair. While Ollie North's described it (famously) as a "neat idea," the arms-for-hostages-and-money-for-the Contras arrangement ultimately blew up in Ronald Reagan's face, and only emboldened the terrorists. It's a lesson Ms. Merkel has yet to learn.
Hizballah member Mohammed Ali Hamadi was released from a German jail a few days ago and allowed to return to Lebanon. Hamadi was serving a life sentence for the murder of a U.S. Navy diver, Petty Officer Robert Stethem, who was tortured and killed during the hijacking of TWA flight 847 in June 1985. The Germans arrested Hamadi two years later, as he tried to smuggle liquid explosives through the Frankfurt airport. While the U.S. sought his extradition on murder charges, the Germans refused, citing American death penalty laws.
Not coincidentally, Hamadi's release came just days before Islamic terrorists freed a German hostage in Iraq. The cost of that little exchange has yet to be measured; Hamadi disappeared after flying from Germany to Beirut. Given his terrorist ties, it's a good bet he's getting reacquainted with his Hizballah chums, and he'll probably be back in the business in no time.
After the blatant anti-Americanism of Gerhard Schroeder, many Americans cheered when Ms. Merkel unseated him. Judging from the Hamadi decision, it appears as though our confidence was misplaced. By cutting a deal with terrorists, Ms. Merkel is likely setting the stage for more violence and bloodshed, all for the sake of scoring a few political points at home. I'm sure the kidnappers in Iraq are taking note; there's a new boss in Berlin, and she's more than willing to make a deal.
To my European friends, no I haven't forgotten about the Iran-Contra affair. While Ollie North's described it (famously) as a "neat idea," the arms-for-hostages-and-money-for-the Contras arrangement ultimately blew up in Ronald Reagan's face, and only emboldened the terrorists. It's a lesson Ms. Merkel has yet to learn.
Jonathan Alter's Alternate Universe
In his latest column, Newsweek columnist Jonathan Alter sems positively gleeful over an apparnet Oval Office meeting between President Bush and senior executives of The New York Times. According to Alter, Mr. Bush summoned Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger and executive editor Bill Keller to the White House, in a futile effort to talk them out of running last week's expose on expanded domestic surveillance by the National Security Agency. The President urged the Times not to run the story, citing national security concerns. Of course, the paper rejected the President's request, and ran the story anyway.
Alter is happy because he believes the Times caught the President red-handed. In the Newsweek columnist's alternate universe, the security concerns cited by Mr. Bush are bogus; in fact, the meeting with the newspaper executives was little more than an effort to help conceal law-breaking:
Bush was desperate to keep the Times from running this important story—which the paper had already inexplicably held for a year—because he knew that it would reveal him as a law-breaker. He insists he had “legal authority derived from the Constitution and congressional resolution authorizing force.” But the Constitution explicitly requires the president to obey the law. And the post 9/11 congressional resolution authorizing “all necessary force” in fighting terrorism was made in clear reference to military intervention. It did not scrap the Constitution and allow the president to do whatever he pleased in any area in the name of fighting terrorism.
Alter is happy because he believes the Times caught the President red-handed. In the Newsweek columnist's alternate universe, the security concerns cited by Mr. Bush are bogus; in fact, the meeting with the newspaper executives was little more than an effort to help conceal law-breaking:
Bush was desperate to keep the Times from running this important story—which the paper had already inexplicably held for a year—because he knew that it would reveal him as a law-breaker. He insists he had “legal authority derived from the Constitution and congressional resolution authorizing force.” But the Constitution explicitly requires the president to obey the law. And the post 9/11 congressional resolution authorizing “all necessary force” in fighting terrorism was made in clear reference to military intervention. It did not scrap the Constitution and allow the president to do whatever he pleased in any area in the name of fighting terrorism.
Law breaker? That's pretty amazing stuff from a member of a MSM establishment that accused Mr. Bush of "pre-judging" a case when he suggested that Texas Congressman Tom Delay might be innocent. But Alter--who isn't a lawyer, BTW--is quite ready to judge the surveillance program as illegal, and even suggests that a Democratic Congress might prepare articles of impeachment against President Bush. More remarkably, Alter makes his pronouncement before the first Congressional hearing or court case can be held.
Before Alter consigns Bush to the disgraced ranks of impeached Presidents, he might want to bone up on some legal precedents and relevant case law. Orin Kerr has an excellent summary of relevant laws and legal decisions in these areas; suffice it to say, he is not prepared to hop on Alter's "impeachable offense" bandwagon. Hugh Hewitt also has useful information on the subject, as does Tom Smith, who has some disagreement with some of Orin Kerr's analysis. Collectively, they seem to find sufficient constitutional and statutory authority for the NSA program.
But that won't deter the Jonathan Alters of the MSM. Mr. Alter was a history major at Harvard, and judging from his column, he sees instant parallels between the NSA surveillance effort and Watergate. Never mind that Watergate sprang from a political operation; it wasn't routinely reviewed by the Justice Department (as is the NSA program) and, of course, the inner workings of Watergate were never briefed to Democratic Congressional leaders. Alter ignores those glaring dissimilarities, since his "illegal action" theme ties in nicely with the "culture of corruption" charge that Howard Dean and the DNC have been trying to launch for several weeks. Nice to see you're getting the DNC's talking points, Jonathan. Apparently, modern communications still work in your universe, where it's still 1974, and there's a Republican crook that must be removed from the White House.
Why We Fight
During WWII, the government produced a documentary series entitled "Why We Fight." These films were produced by film director Frank Capra, and designed to educate military personnel on the reasons behind our involvement in the Second World War. Army Chief of Staff General George Marshall began the program after it was discovered that the first wave of pre-war draftees "haven't the slightest enthusiasm for this war or this cause."
Almost seven decades later, we no longer have that problem. I am continually impressed with the quality of our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines, and their clear understanding of what's at stake in the War on Terror. They are determined to see the mission through, even as many in Washington express doubts about our ability to win the war, or (in the case of feckless John Kerry), even accuse the troops of "terrorizing" civilians. In fact, a latter-day version of "Why We Fight" should be aimed at American civilians and our political leaders, who (seemingly) don't have a clue about the realities of our current conflict.
But for a solider or Marine on the ground, war is more than geopolitics; it's about doing your job so the task gets done, taking care of your buddies, keeping faith with those above and below you in the chain of command, and an overridding belief that your cause and mission are just. Sgt Mike Stokley of the Georgia National Guard was such a man. He died on August 15, 2005 in Iraq, the victim of an IED attack. Sgt Stokley's father has written a letter about his son, posted in the Mudville Gazette. It is extraordinarily moving, and beautifully describes the ideals that led his son into the Army, and on to Iraq.
"Why We Fight" was not a mystery to Sgt Stokley; he did not view Iraq as a quagmire or a lost cause. He never lost hope in the cause that sent him to the Middle East and ultimately claimed his life. Sgt Stokley understood "Why We Fight." To honor his memory--and those of our other fallen heroes--we need follow their resolve, and see the mission through to victory. It is the only fitting tribute for such remarkable men.
Almost seven decades later, we no longer have that problem. I am continually impressed with the quality of our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines, and their clear understanding of what's at stake in the War on Terror. They are determined to see the mission through, even as many in Washington express doubts about our ability to win the war, or (in the case of feckless John Kerry), even accuse the troops of "terrorizing" civilians. In fact, a latter-day version of "Why We Fight" should be aimed at American civilians and our political leaders, who (seemingly) don't have a clue about the realities of our current conflict.
But for a solider or Marine on the ground, war is more than geopolitics; it's about doing your job so the task gets done, taking care of your buddies, keeping faith with those above and below you in the chain of command, and an overridding belief that your cause and mission are just. Sgt Mike Stokley of the Georgia National Guard was such a man. He died on August 15, 2005 in Iraq, the victim of an IED attack. Sgt Stokley's father has written a letter about his son, posted in the Mudville Gazette. It is extraordinarily moving, and beautifully describes the ideals that led his son into the Army, and on to Iraq.
"Why We Fight" was not a mystery to Sgt Stokley; he did not view Iraq as a quagmire or a lost cause. He never lost hope in the cause that sent him to the Middle East and ultimately claimed his life. Sgt Stokley understood "Why We Fight." To honor his memory--and those of our other fallen heroes--we need follow their resolve, and see the mission through to victory. It is the only fitting tribute for such remarkable men.
Monday, December 19, 2005
People Who REALLY Mattered (But Didn't Make the List)
Time is out with its "Persons of the Year" (more on that in a moment), and its annual list of "Persons Who Mattered." Pardon me if I'm slightly underwhelmed.
For "Persons of the Year," the magazine selected Bill and Melinda Gates and rocker Bono from U2. Mr. and Mrs. Gates were cited for their charitable efforts in funding health care initiatives in the developing world. But lest we forget, the Gates foundation also funds a host of population control and pro-abortion groups. Certainly Mr. Gates has earned his billions and can give them away in any manner he chooses. But it seems more than a little ironic that Gates is lauded for supporting the same types of charities that the MSM favors. And, if you don't believe politics plays a role in how the media covers billionaires and their charitable giving, take a look at some of the recent articles about the Walton Family Foundation. The liberal Nation accuses the Wal-Mart heirs of "trying to buy goodwill." Even Fortune has taken a swipe at how the Waltons give their money away, mostly in the form of small grants.
"...at some point the Waltons may have to abandon the practice if they want to accomplish great things. Think of the Rockefellers, who built Rockefeller University in New York and the University of Chicago. They checked the scourge of hook-worm in the South. They even reconstructed Colonial Williams-burg. Fair enough, the Waltons may not be interested in these kinds of projects. But in the end, if they ever want to join the top tier of great American philanthropic families, they may have to take the initiative and the responsibility for great accomplishments upon themselves. It would take even more innovative thinking and bold action than Winthrop Rockefeller brought to their state some 50 years ago. With a fortune this big, it might require the kind of single-mindedness, drive, and vision that Mr. Sam brought to Bentonville in the first place."
Bono, who shares Person of the Year honors with Bill and Melinda Gates, strikes me as sincere, but misguided. For years, he's been on a crusade to pressure the U.S. and other wealthy nations to forgive the debts of third-world nations. That (presumably) will allow them to borrow more money, default on their loads, and get Bono to bail them out again somewhere down the road. Incidentally, Paul Theroux has a brillant deconstruction of Bono's "more money/more debt forgiveness" approach in a recent edition of The New York Times. Hat tip: Betsy Newmark.
But it gets worse; take a look at some of the luminaries on Time's "People Who Mattered" list: Gold Star mother-turned-anti-war loon Cindy Sheehan; the breath-takingly incompetent mayor of New Orleans, Ray Nagin; Iranian Presidential nut-job Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, actress Geena Davis (TV's first female Commander-in-Chief), and rapper/race baiter Kanye West.
If Time's editors were looking for people that really mattered in 2005, here are a couple of worthy nominees. I'll begin with Lt Gen David Petraeus, U.S. Army, the man who headed our efforts to train Iraqi security forces and get them in the field. The expected drawdown of U.S. troops in Iraq in 2006 are the result of two factors: first, the exceptional work of our soldiers, and secondly, General Petraeus's yeoman's efforts to train Iraqi security forces. The Iraqis' ability to take the lead in securing last week's elections is a reflection of how successful Petraeus has been.
My second nominee is also an Army officer, Lt Col Erik Kurilla, commander of 1st Battalion, 24th Infantry Regiment. If you've read Michael Yong incredible dispatches from Iraq, you know Lt Col Kurilla. Under his leadership, his battalion (the Deuce Four) played an instrumental role in winning the Battle of Mosul, helping wrest control of the city from the insurgents. Kurilla--who led from the front and was wounded in a close-quarters battle with the terrorists--is a sterling example of the brillant combat leadership that is making a diference in Iraq.
That's why men like General Petraeus and Lt Col Kurilla matter far more than a left-wing loon like Cindy Sheehan, a racist rapper like Kanye West, or a political hack like Ray Nagin. But sadly, you'll never convince the editors of Time that a single David Petraeus or Eric Kurilla is worth more than all their celebrities and activists put together.
Here's a challenge to the blogosphere: submit your nominations for other People Who Really Mattered, and I'll post them.
For "Persons of the Year," the magazine selected Bill and Melinda Gates and rocker Bono from U2. Mr. and Mrs. Gates were cited for their charitable efforts in funding health care initiatives in the developing world. But lest we forget, the Gates foundation also funds a host of population control and pro-abortion groups. Certainly Mr. Gates has earned his billions and can give them away in any manner he chooses. But it seems more than a little ironic that Gates is lauded for supporting the same types of charities that the MSM favors. And, if you don't believe politics plays a role in how the media covers billionaires and their charitable giving, take a look at some of the recent articles about the Walton Family Foundation. The liberal Nation accuses the Wal-Mart heirs of "trying to buy goodwill." Even Fortune has taken a swipe at how the Waltons give their money away, mostly in the form of small grants.
"...at some point the Waltons may have to abandon the practice if they want to accomplish great things. Think of the Rockefellers, who built Rockefeller University in New York and the University of Chicago. They checked the scourge of hook-worm in the South. They even reconstructed Colonial Williams-burg. Fair enough, the Waltons may not be interested in these kinds of projects. But in the end, if they ever want to join the top tier of great American philanthropic families, they may have to take the initiative and the responsibility for great accomplishments upon themselves. It would take even more innovative thinking and bold action than Winthrop Rockefeller brought to their state some 50 years ago. With a fortune this big, it might require the kind of single-mindedness, drive, and vision that Mr. Sam brought to Bentonville in the first place."
Bono, who shares Person of the Year honors with Bill and Melinda Gates, strikes me as sincere, but misguided. For years, he's been on a crusade to pressure the U.S. and other wealthy nations to forgive the debts of third-world nations. That (presumably) will allow them to borrow more money, default on their loads, and get Bono to bail them out again somewhere down the road. Incidentally, Paul Theroux has a brillant deconstruction of Bono's "more money/more debt forgiveness" approach in a recent edition of The New York Times. Hat tip: Betsy Newmark.
But it gets worse; take a look at some of the luminaries on Time's "People Who Mattered" list: Gold Star mother-turned-anti-war loon Cindy Sheehan; the breath-takingly incompetent mayor of New Orleans, Ray Nagin; Iranian Presidential nut-job Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, actress Geena Davis (TV's first female Commander-in-Chief), and rapper/race baiter Kanye West.
If Time's editors were looking for people that really mattered in 2005, here are a couple of worthy nominees. I'll begin with Lt Gen David Petraeus, U.S. Army, the man who headed our efforts to train Iraqi security forces and get them in the field. The expected drawdown of U.S. troops in Iraq in 2006 are the result of two factors: first, the exceptional work of our soldiers, and secondly, General Petraeus's yeoman's efforts to train Iraqi security forces. The Iraqis' ability to take the lead in securing last week's elections is a reflection of how successful Petraeus has been.
My second nominee is also an Army officer, Lt Col Erik Kurilla, commander of 1st Battalion, 24th Infantry Regiment. If you've read Michael Yong incredible dispatches from Iraq, you know Lt Col Kurilla. Under his leadership, his battalion (the Deuce Four) played an instrumental role in winning the Battle of Mosul, helping wrest control of the city from the insurgents. Kurilla--who led from the front and was wounded in a close-quarters battle with the terrorists--is a sterling example of the brillant combat leadership that is making a diference in Iraq.
That's why men like General Petraeus and Lt Col Kurilla matter far more than a left-wing loon like Cindy Sheehan, a racist rapper like Kanye West, or a political hack like Ray Nagin. But sadly, you'll never convince the editors of Time that a single David Petraeus or Eric Kurilla is worth more than all their celebrities and activists put together.
Here's a challenge to the blogosphere: submit your nominations for other People Who Really Mattered, and I'll post them.
The Legal Case
I won't have a watch to see President Bush's press conference this morning. But rest assured, the subject of the NSA's expanded domestic surveillance program will come up. The liberals in Washington have worked themselves into a lather on this one, making the pedictable demands hearings and Congressional investigations, despite the fact that some Democrats--including Jay Rockefeller and Harry Reid were bried on the programs months ago, and (apparently) rasied few objections.
The bottom line in the NSA case is clear: does President Bush have the legal authority to use the NSA to conduct expanded surveillance of American citizens without first obtaining search warrants. Former Undersecretary of Defense Jed Babbin believes the answer to that one is a definite "yes" and notes that the current legal system for that type of surveillance work (through the FISA court) is too slow and cumbersome.
Meanwhile, attorney (and WABC talk host) Mark Levin reminds us that this type of activity has been going on for some time, under the auspices of the Echelon program. As the Great One notes, the Echelon effort has been underway for some time and it receives funding from Congress every year. Echelon casts a much wider net than the recently-disclosed domestic surveillance program, and no one has raised any objections to that program.
Finally, kudos to Texas Senator John Cornyn for addressing the subject that is largely absent in this debate--the deliberate and wreckless endangerment of national security by the NYT, and the government's refusal (so far) to hold them accountable.
The bottom line in the NSA case is clear: does President Bush have the legal authority to use the NSA to conduct expanded surveillance of American citizens without first obtaining search warrants. Former Undersecretary of Defense Jed Babbin believes the answer to that one is a definite "yes" and notes that the current legal system for that type of surveillance work (through the FISA court) is too slow and cumbersome.
Meanwhile, attorney (and WABC talk host) Mark Levin reminds us that this type of activity has been going on for some time, under the auspices of the Echelon program. As the Great One notes, the Echelon effort has been underway for some time and it receives funding from Congress every year. Echelon casts a much wider net than the recently-disclosed domestic surveillance program, and no one has raised any objections to that program.
Finally, kudos to Texas Senator John Cornyn for addressing the subject that is largely absent in this debate--the deliberate and wreckless endangerment of national security by the NYT, and the government's refusal (so far) to hold them accountable.
Saturday, December 17, 2005
Nothin' Like a Little Loven
I would be hard-pressed to name the most-biased journalist in Washington, but Associated Press correspondent Jennifer Loven would defintely be a contender. Powerline documented Ms. Loven's obvious partisanship during the 2004 election, when she accused President Bush of "twisting" the words of rival John Kerry, and her attempt to sustain the "16 words" scandal involving the President's comments of WMD in Iraq --after his accuser (Joe Wilson) was exposed as a liar.
More than a year after Bush's re-election, Ms. Loven is still at it. Consider her latest piece, on President Bush's radio address regarding the recently-revealed domestic surveillance program by the National Security Agency. Ms. Loven--who is married for a former Clinton advisor--leads with the "revelation" that Mr. Bush has authorized use of the program more than 30 times since September 11th. Excuse me, Ms. Loven, but that's hardly a headline. Since the original NYT article, we've known that the program was okayed by the President, and it's logical to assume that continuation of those efforts require periodic approval from the Commander-in-Chief. Still, the AP writer finds something about compelling about that number, suggesting (perhaps) that Mr. Bush trashed our constitution more than two dozen times. Keep reading the article, and you'll learn that intelligence officers involved in the program have been carefully trained to avoid infringing on our civil liberties. But, in Ms. Loven's estimation, that's far less important than the magical figure of "30."
Loven also notes that some members of Congress are upset over the program, although she doesn't list any Congressman, or offer specific quotes (a little lazy, if you ask me, since there are plenty of Democrats going ballistic over this issue). She also makes a brief stab at balance, providing a short summary of oversight efforts, but buries that information near the end of the story.
Not surprisingly, Loven also downplays the story's actual lead, waiting until the sixth paragraph before mentioning that members of Congress have been briefed on the program more than a dozen times, according to President Bush. The President didn't "name names," but it's logical to assume that the list included members of the Senate Intelligence Committee. In fact, the committee's Vice-Chairman, Democrat Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, has admitted that he has known about the program for some time. So, claims that Congress was "out of the loop" simply don't wash.
But mark my words: there will be plenty of comments on the Sunday talk shows about "how President Bush unleashed the NSA without informing Congress." And reporters like Jennifer Loven will dutifully transcribe their comments, while ignoring or burying inconvenient facts that fail to advance the Democratic talking points.
With the NSA program now "blown," the Bush Administration needs to launch a preemptive strike on Congressional critics. Release a list of all briefings provided to the House and Senate on this topic, and publish the names of Representatives and Senators in attendance. Then, start a concerted search for the individuals who leaked this information to the Times. If the leaker was ever discovered and prosecuted (don't hold your breath), Jennifer Loven's lead would probably be: "Bush Administration targets whistle-blowers."
More than a year after Bush's re-election, Ms. Loven is still at it. Consider her latest piece, on President Bush's radio address regarding the recently-revealed domestic surveillance program by the National Security Agency. Ms. Loven--who is married for a former Clinton advisor--leads with the "revelation" that Mr. Bush has authorized use of the program more than 30 times since September 11th. Excuse me, Ms. Loven, but that's hardly a headline. Since the original NYT article, we've known that the program was okayed by the President, and it's logical to assume that continuation of those efforts require periodic approval from the Commander-in-Chief. Still, the AP writer finds something about compelling about that number, suggesting (perhaps) that Mr. Bush trashed our constitution more than two dozen times. Keep reading the article, and you'll learn that intelligence officers involved in the program have been carefully trained to avoid infringing on our civil liberties. But, in Ms. Loven's estimation, that's far less important than the magical figure of "30."
Loven also notes that some members of Congress are upset over the program, although she doesn't list any Congressman, or offer specific quotes (a little lazy, if you ask me, since there are plenty of Democrats going ballistic over this issue). She also makes a brief stab at balance, providing a short summary of oversight efforts, but buries that information near the end of the story.
Not surprisingly, Loven also downplays the story's actual lead, waiting until the sixth paragraph before mentioning that members of Congress have been briefed on the program more than a dozen times, according to President Bush. The President didn't "name names," but it's logical to assume that the list included members of the Senate Intelligence Committee. In fact, the committee's Vice-Chairman, Democrat Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, has admitted that he has known about the program for some time. So, claims that Congress was "out of the loop" simply don't wash.
But mark my words: there will be plenty of comments on the Sunday talk shows about "how President Bush unleashed the NSA without informing Congress." And reporters like Jennifer Loven will dutifully transcribe their comments, while ignoring or burying inconvenient facts that fail to advance the Democratic talking points.
With the NSA program now "blown," the Bush Administration needs to launch a preemptive strike on Congressional critics. Release a list of all briefings provided to the House and Senate on this topic, and publish the names of Representatives and Senators in attendance. Then, start a concerted search for the individuals who leaked this information to the Times. If the leaker was ever discovered and prosecuted (don't hold your breath), Jennifer Loven's lead would probably be: "Bush Administration targets whistle-blowers."
Friday, December 16, 2005
Utterly Predictable
The gang at The New York Times must be feeling pretty smug right about now. Just a few hours after they disclosed existence of expanded domestic surveillance by the National Security Agency (NSA), the Senate voted against extending key elements of the Patriot Act. If the Patriot Act is not reviewed, the infamous "Gorelick Wall," will reemerge, virtually eliminating cooperation between law enforcement and the intelligence communities.
Reaction from some of the so-called leaders of the U.S. Senate has been equally disappointing. Senate Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter announced late today that he plans a probe of the program, and President Bush's decision to authorize it. Meanwhile, the Times reporters and editors who exposed the surveillance effort get a free pass.
Somewhere along the Afghan-Pakistan border, Osama bin Laden is smiling, as he reaches for his cellphone and laptop.
Reaction from some of the so-called leaders of the U.S. Senate has been equally disappointing. Senate Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter announced late today that he plans a probe of the program, and President Bush's decision to authorize it. Meanwhile, the Times reporters and editors who exposed the surveillance effort get a free pass.
Somewhere along the Afghan-Pakistan border, Osama bin Laden is smiling, as he reaches for his cellphone and laptop.
Full Disclosure
The NYT apparently had a number of reasons for running today's story on increased domestic surveillance by the National Security Agency (NSA). Opposition to the Bush Administration and the War on Terror is a given. And, as Michelle Malkin and others have postulated, the story does a nice job of shifting focus away from Thursday's extraordinarily successful elections in Iraq.
It also turns out that one of the Times reporters who prepared the story (James Risen) may benefit financially from the front-page splash. According to Drudge, Mr. Risen has a book coming out in a few weeks, which will detail the NSA surveillance program and other "explosive, newsbreaking stories" related to the intelligence community and the War on Terror. A page one exclusive certainly won't hurt booksales. According to the Times, publication of the article was delayed more than a year, to allow "additional reporting" on the subject.
To their credit, the TV networks run a disclaimer when reporting on a topic involving another element of their corporation. The Times owes an explanation to its readers as well. Why did the story run now--on the heels of the successful Iraqi election--and why wasn't Risen's book deal mentioned in an editor's note that should have accompanied the article?
It also turns out that one of the Times reporters who prepared the story (James Risen) may benefit financially from the front-page splash. According to Drudge, Mr. Risen has a book coming out in a few weeks, which will detail the NSA surveillance program and other "explosive, newsbreaking stories" related to the intelligence community and the War on Terror. A page one exclusive certainly won't hurt booksales. According to the Times, publication of the article was delayed more than a year, to allow "additional reporting" on the subject.
To their credit, the TV networks run a disclaimer when reporting on a topic involving another element of their corporation. The Times owes an explanation to its readers as well. Why did the story run now--on the heels of the successful Iraqi election--and why wasn't Risen's book deal mentioned in an editor's note that should have accompanied the article?
Thursday, December 15, 2005
A Sea Change
Friday's NYT has a bombshell story on the National Security Agency's expanded efforts to monitor the international phone calls and e-mails of Americans (and others inside our country) with possible terrorist ties. According to the Times, the effort began in 2002, after President Bush lifted a long-standing requirement that required court-approved warrants for domestic spying.
While the paper (ostensibly) presents both sides of the story, the slant of the article is clear. Tomorrow's Democratic talking points will charge that Bush is--once again--trashing the Constitution and running roughshod over the Bill of Rights. The paper notes that West Virginia Senator Jay Rockefeller, Vice-Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, has voiced "concerns" about the program, as has a federal judge who supervises the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA). At one point, the Times reports, elements of the surveillance program were suspended and refined, due to questions raised by the judge, Colleen Kollar-Kotelly. Judge Kollar-Kotelly wondered whether information obtained by the NSA was being used improperly as a basis for FISA wiretap warrant requests from the Justice Department, forcing refinements in the program.
Amid the hysteria you'll hear tomorrow, a little perspective is in order. As the lead agency for U.S. signals intelligence (SIGINT) efforts, NSA has monitored foreign communications since its inception in the early 1950s. Before the 2002 Presidential order, the NSA typically limited its domestic collection activities to foreign diplomatic establishments and personnel, and sought court orders before initiating those collection missions. Under the new program, the agency can monitor overseas calls and e-mails that originate in the United States, without first gaining approval from the FISA. Based on the Times article, the number of people under surveillance at any given time (both domestically and overseas), is rather small.
The need for this type of surveillance work is understandable. In the aftermath of 9-11, it was obvious that our intelligence agencies had failed to detect Al-Qaida preparations for the attacks on New York and Washington, D.C. In an effort to gather more information and prevent subsequent attacks, the decision was made to expand the NSA's domestic surveillance program, with adequate safeguards to protect civil liberties. Judging from the Times article, the program seems to be working, despite concerns from liberal critics. At least two Al-Qaida plots have been uncovered as a result of the expanded surveillance program. The Times attempts to argue that the FISA and law enforcement wiretapes could yield the same information, while ignoring various legal attempts to extend full legal rights to foreign terrorist combatants--a move the paper has supported. Proceeding down that slippery slope, the activities of the FISA and the FBI's wiretape program could easily come under legal and public scrutiny. Against that possible backdrop, it made sense to keep the program inside the NSA, without involvement by the intelligence court.
However, I doubt that program's achievements (and existing safeguards) will be enough to placate the Times, the ACLU, and many Senate Democrats. Interestingly, the paper claims it has been holding the story for more than a year, and considered a Bush Administration request not to publish it. But in the end, the public's right to know trumped security concerns.
That's one element you won't find in the NYT story--the impact of this disclosure on the collection program. It's no secret that once a program or technical collection system is exposed it's "haul" (the amount of information collected) begins to decrease. I'm sure the Times article will be carefully read by Al-Qaida, and they'll modify their communications methods to make our collection that much more difficult. Just wondering, if we miss a critical cell phone call or e-mail because of the NYT's revelation, will the paper apologize? Fat chance.
The Times also misses another key motivation for the surveillance program. By keeping it close-hold within the NSA, the administration and intelligence officials were hoping to lessen chances of a leak, or inadvertent disclosure. Secrecy was deemed vital to maintain the flow of critical information but that flow may now slow to a trickle, thanks to the NYT. Sometimes secrets are necessary to protect a democracy, but that is an alien concept in the Times newsroom and executive suite. The same organization that is so concerned about the Valerie Plame affair has no problems with exposing a secret that is far more vital to national security. It's the sort of hypocrisy the Times practices on a regular basis.
One anonmyous intelligence official--the sort of source the NYT loves--described the NSA program as a "sea change." In reality, the sea change occurred on 9-11, prompting the intelligence community to use extraordinary measures to gather information on foreign terrorists, and persons in the United States that may support them. The NSA program was one of those measures. I say was because the program will now lose much of its value, as terrorists find other ways to protect their information, including better encryption programs.
Make no mistake: we should be concerned about potential threats to our civil liberties.
But it seems to me that Islamofacist terrorists, hell-bent on killing as many Americans as possible, pose a far greater threat to our civil liberties than the NSA collection program.
A final thought: the Patriot Act is currently up for renewal in Congress. In its article, the Times carefully notes that the NSA wiretap program goes "far beyond" anything authorized in the Patriot Act. Again, the insinuation is clear: Bush's Patriot Act has created an environment where our own civil liberties are threatened. It's a powerful argument for Democrats--and certain wishy-washy Republicans--to vote against renewal. But I'm sure that the Times will tell you that publication of the NSA story--on the eve of the vote--is nothing more than a coincidence.
**UPDATE**
You'll note that the Times article makes no mention of Echelon, the purported information sharing agreement that supposedly exists between the NSA and its foreign SIGINT partners. There are no restrictions on what foreign SIGINT agencies can collect in the U.S., and that could provide yet another source of information on potential terrorist activities within our borders. But there is absolutely no proof that NSA is using its foreign partnerships to collect information inside the U.S., and for good reason. Entrusting that mission to a foreign SIGINT agency would open a veritable Pandora's box of potential civil liberties abuses. That's why President Bush and his intelligence advisors opted--correctly--for a limited program, under the auspices of the NSA.
While the paper (ostensibly) presents both sides of the story, the slant of the article is clear. Tomorrow's Democratic talking points will charge that Bush is--once again--trashing the Constitution and running roughshod over the Bill of Rights. The paper notes that West Virginia Senator Jay Rockefeller, Vice-Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, has voiced "concerns" about the program, as has a federal judge who supervises the Federal Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA). At one point, the Times reports, elements of the surveillance program were suspended and refined, due to questions raised by the judge, Colleen Kollar-Kotelly. Judge Kollar-Kotelly wondered whether information obtained by the NSA was being used improperly as a basis for FISA wiretap warrant requests from the Justice Department, forcing refinements in the program.
Amid the hysteria you'll hear tomorrow, a little perspective is in order. As the lead agency for U.S. signals intelligence (SIGINT) efforts, NSA has monitored foreign communications since its inception in the early 1950s. Before the 2002 Presidential order, the NSA typically limited its domestic collection activities to foreign diplomatic establishments and personnel, and sought court orders before initiating those collection missions. Under the new program, the agency can monitor overseas calls and e-mails that originate in the United States, without first gaining approval from the FISA. Based on the Times article, the number of people under surveillance at any given time (both domestically and overseas), is rather small.
The need for this type of surveillance work is understandable. In the aftermath of 9-11, it was obvious that our intelligence agencies had failed to detect Al-Qaida preparations for the attacks on New York and Washington, D.C. In an effort to gather more information and prevent subsequent attacks, the decision was made to expand the NSA's domestic surveillance program, with adequate safeguards to protect civil liberties. Judging from the Times article, the program seems to be working, despite concerns from liberal critics. At least two Al-Qaida plots have been uncovered as a result of the expanded surveillance program. The Times attempts to argue that the FISA and law enforcement wiretapes could yield the same information, while ignoring various legal attempts to extend full legal rights to foreign terrorist combatants--a move the paper has supported. Proceeding down that slippery slope, the activities of the FISA and the FBI's wiretape program could easily come under legal and public scrutiny. Against that possible backdrop, it made sense to keep the program inside the NSA, without involvement by the intelligence court.
However, I doubt that program's achievements (and existing safeguards) will be enough to placate the Times, the ACLU, and many Senate Democrats. Interestingly, the paper claims it has been holding the story for more than a year, and considered a Bush Administration request not to publish it. But in the end, the public's right to know trumped security concerns.
That's one element you won't find in the NYT story--the impact of this disclosure on the collection program. It's no secret that once a program or technical collection system is exposed it's "haul" (the amount of information collected) begins to decrease. I'm sure the Times article will be carefully read by Al-Qaida, and they'll modify their communications methods to make our collection that much more difficult. Just wondering, if we miss a critical cell phone call or e-mail because of the NYT's revelation, will the paper apologize? Fat chance.
The Times also misses another key motivation for the surveillance program. By keeping it close-hold within the NSA, the administration and intelligence officials were hoping to lessen chances of a leak, or inadvertent disclosure. Secrecy was deemed vital to maintain the flow of critical information but that flow may now slow to a trickle, thanks to the NYT. Sometimes secrets are necessary to protect a democracy, but that is an alien concept in the Times newsroom and executive suite. The same organization that is so concerned about the Valerie Plame affair has no problems with exposing a secret that is far more vital to national security. It's the sort of hypocrisy the Times practices on a regular basis.
One anonmyous intelligence official--the sort of source the NYT loves--described the NSA program as a "sea change." In reality, the sea change occurred on 9-11, prompting the intelligence community to use extraordinary measures to gather information on foreign terrorists, and persons in the United States that may support them. The NSA program was one of those measures. I say was because the program will now lose much of its value, as terrorists find other ways to protect their information, including better encryption programs.
Make no mistake: we should be concerned about potential threats to our civil liberties.
But it seems to me that Islamofacist terrorists, hell-bent on killing as many Americans as possible, pose a far greater threat to our civil liberties than the NSA collection program.
A final thought: the Patriot Act is currently up for renewal in Congress. In its article, the Times carefully notes that the NSA wiretap program goes "far beyond" anything authorized in the Patriot Act. Again, the insinuation is clear: Bush's Patriot Act has created an environment where our own civil liberties are threatened. It's a powerful argument for Democrats--and certain wishy-washy Republicans--to vote against renewal. But I'm sure that the Times will tell you that publication of the NSA story--on the eve of the vote--is nothing more than a coincidence.
**UPDATE**
You'll note that the Times article makes no mention of Echelon, the purported information sharing agreement that supposedly exists between the NSA and its foreign SIGINT partners. There are no restrictions on what foreign SIGINT agencies can collect in the U.S., and that could provide yet another source of information on potential terrorist activities within our borders. But there is absolutely no proof that NSA is using its foreign partnerships to collect information inside the U.S., and for good reason. Entrusting that mission to a foreign SIGINT agency would open a veritable Pandora's box of potential civil liberties abuses. That's why President Bush and his intelligence advisors opted--correctly--for a limited program, under the auspices of the NSA.
Career Change
At one time, your humble correspondent was a proud member of the Fourth Estate, toiling as a print and broadcast journalist in the Midwest. Like many young reporters, I was inspired by Watergate, and convinced that my coverage would somehow change the world. Working at small-market (and low-paying) reporting jobs tempered my optimism; being fired at age 23--part of a format change at the radio station where I served as news director--convinced me to seek another career path.
My search for work led me to an Air Force recruiting office. With my money almost gone and a hopeless habit to support (eating), a military tour began to look very appealing. Besides, I told myself, with a bachelor's degree in journalism, I was a shoo-in for Officer Training School and a commission as a Second Lieutenant. Picturing myself in the cockpit of an F-15, I promptly signed up, and even allowed the Air Force to select a job for me (mistake #1).
Mistake #2 came in the form of a botched flight physical, during a period when the only officer positions available were for pilots and navigators. Barred from the cockpit, but still needing a job, I decided to enlist anyway. After basic training, I learned that the "needs of the Air Force come first" and letting the military pick your job isn't a good idea. I began my military career as an EMT trainee at an Air Force hospital in South Carolina.
But something funny happened along the way. I discovered that I loved being a part of the Air Force, and my military career was far more rewarding than anything I'd done in the civilian sector. I also discovered that the military rewarded achievement; within a year, I was hand-picked to join the Wing Commander's staff. His recommendation--and those of other supervisors--helped me earn my commission four years later. My enlisted time made me a better officer, and helped convince me to make the Air Force career.
Matt Pottinger, a former reporter for The Wall Street Journal, is undergoing a similar, life-changing experience. Tomorrow, Mr. Pottinger will become Second Lieutenant Pottinger, USMC, after completing the Marine Corps basic school at Quantico, Virginia. In today's Opinion Journal, Pottinger traces the events that prompted his career change, and his struggle to meeting Marine Corps fitness standards, at the ripe old age of 31. Semper Fi, Lieutenant Pottinger.
My search for work led me to an Air Force recruiting office. With my money almost gone and a hopeless habit to support (eating), a military tour began to look very appealing. Besides, I told myself, with a bachelor's degree in journalism, I was a shoo-in for Officer Training School and a commission as a Second Lieutenant. Picturing myself in the cockpit of an F-15, I promptly signed up, and even allowed the Air Force to select a job for me (mistake #1).
Mistake #2 came in the form of a botched flight physical, during a period when the only officer positions available were for pilots and navigators. Barred from the cockpit, but still needing a job, I decided to enlist anyway. After basic training, I learned that the "needs of the Air Force come first" and letting the military pick your job isn't a good idea. I began my military career as an EMT trainee at an Air Force hospital in South Carolina.
But something funny happened along the way. I discovered that I loved being a part of the Air Force, and my military career was far more rewarding than anything I'd done in the civilian sector. I also discovered that the military rewarded achievement; within a year, I was hand-picked to join the Wing Commander's staff. His recommendation--and those of other supervisors--helped me earn my commission four years later. My enlisted time made me a better officer, and helped convince me to make the Air Force career.
Matt Pottinger, a former reporter for The Wall Street Journal, is undergoing a similar, life-changing experience. Tomorrow, Mr. Pottinger will become Second Lieutenant Pottinger, USMC, after completing the Marine Corps basic school at Quantico, Virginia. In today's Opinion Journal, Pottinger traces the events that prompted his career change, and his struggle to meeting Marine Corps fitness standards, at the ripe old age of 31. Semper Fi, Lieutenant Pottinger.
Relocated
Did Saddam transfer his WMD stockpile--specifically, his arsenal of chemical weapons--to Syria, shortly before the U.S. invaded in Iraq in 2003.
A former senior Israeli defense official is reiterating that claim. Lieutenant General Moshe Yaalon, who served as Chief of the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) from 2002-2005. General Yaalon told The New York Sun that Saddam moved his chemical weapons to Syria about six weeks before the U.S.-led invasion in 2003. Yaalon made similar claims in 2004, but they received little attention in the American media. Likewise, there has been almost no coverage of a Middle East Quarterly article (Fall 2005 edition) which quotes Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon as sayaing Iraqi WMD had been moved to Syria. Mr. Sharon made his comments in an appearance on Israel's Channel 2 in the Fall of 2002.
Yaalon's comments are similar to those of (Ret) Air Force Lt Gen James Clapper, who now runs the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency (NGA), which exploits information collected by our spy satellites and other platforms. In October 2003, General Clapper revealed that satellite imagery and other information from the pre-war period indicated that WMD material and documentation was being moved from Iraq to Syria. The activity and timeline described by General Clapper was remarkably similar to Israeli reports.
However, the Syrian trail has grown cold over the past two years. While the Israelis have restated their claims in meetings with the U.S., the Bush Administration has downplayed the possibility that Iraqi WMD found a new home in Damascus. Intelligence failures surrounding the Iraq war are one reason for the reluctance; after George Tenent's "slam dunk" comments on the expectation of finding WMD in Iraq, few intelligence officials are willing to make similar predictions on a weapons transfer between Baghdad and Damascus. Additionally, a confirmation of Iraqi WMD in Syria would pressure the administration to do something about it. And with the U.S. preoccupied with Iraq and the Iranian nuclear issue, there is no appetite for potential military action against Syria.
Then, there's the lingering question of why the U.S. hasn't found anyone in Iraq with credible evidence of a WMD transfer. While Saddam would only entrust that operation to trusted military units, it would still require a significant amount of manpower and vehicles. So far, U.S. investigators haven't located personnel who participated in that type of operation, or found trucks with traces of WMD-related material. One answer might be that the transfer--if it actually occurred--was a one-way operation, with the weapons, trucks and personnel remaining in Syria, instead of returning to Iraq. The weapons and vehicles could be easily hidden at Syrian WMD facilities, while Iraqi personnel could blend it with other Baathists who fled to Damascus before and after the war.
The Israeli claim is significant for a couple of reasons. First, General Yaalons claims are based largely on Israeli information, and are not a mere regurgitation of U.S. data. Secondly, Israeli reporting on Syria tends to be detailed and accurate, given the potential threat posed by the Damascus regime to Israel. The previously cited Middle East Quarterly article (written by Lee Kass) lists a number of Syrian military installations which could house Iraqi WMD. Kass's authoritative article appears to be heavily based on Israeli information.
Obviously, the potential presence of Iraqi WMD in Syria cannot be discounted. It's part of the larger problem posed by Bashir Assad and his regime--an issue that must be confronted sooner or later. Reading the tea leaves at Foggy Bottom at the White House, it appears that the latter option is our preferred policy, at least for now.
Hat tip: Powerline.
A former senior Israeli defense official is reiterating that claim. Lieutenant General Moshe Yaalon, who served as Chief of the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) from 2002-2005. General Yaalon told The New York Sun that Saddam moved his chemical weapons to Syria about six weeks before the U.S.-led invasion in 2003. Yaalon made similar claims in 2004, but they received little attention in the American media. Likewise, there has been almost no coverage of a Middle East Quarterly article (Fall 2005 edition) which quotes Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon as sayaing Iraqi WMD had been moved to Syria. Mr. Sharon made his comments in an appearance on Israel's Channel 2 in the Fall of 2002.
Yaalon's comments are similar to those of (Ret) Air Force Lt Gen James Clapper, who now runs the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency (NGA), which exploits information collected by our spy satellites and other platforms. In October 2003, General Clapper revealed that satellite imagery and other information from the pre-war period indicated that WMD material and documentation was being moved from Iraq to Syria. The activity and timeline described by General Clapper was remarkably similar to Israeli reports.
However, the Syrian trail has grown cold over the past two years. While the Israelis have restated their claims in meetings with the U.S., the Bush Administration has downplayed the possibility that Iraqi WMD found a new home in Damascus. Intelligence failures surrounding the Iraq war are one reason for the reluctance; after George Tenent's "slam dunk" comments on the expectation of finding WMD in Iraq, few intelligence officials are willing to make similar predictions on a weapons transfer between Baghdad and Damascus. Additionally, a confirmation of Iraqi WMD in Syria would pressure the administration to do something about it. And with the U.S. preoccupied with Iraq and the Iranian nuclear issue, there is no appetite for potential military action against Syria.
Then, there's the lingering question of why the U.S. hasn't found anyone in Iraq with credible evidence of a WMD transfer. While Saddam would only entrust that operation to trusted military units, it would still require a significant amount of manpower and vehicles. So far, U.S. investigators haven't located personnel who participated in that type of operation, or found trucks with traces of WMD-related material. One answer might be that the transfer--if it actually occurred--was a one-way operation, with the weapons, trucks and personnel remaining in Syria, instead of returning to Iraq. The weapons and vehicles could be easily hidden at Syrian WMD facilities, while Iraqi personnel could blend it with other Baathists who fled to Damascus before and after the war.
The Israeli claim is significant for a couple of reasons. First, General Yaalons claims are based largely on Israeli information, and are not a mere regurgitation of U.S. data. Secondly, Israeli reporting on Syria tends to be detailed and accurate, given the potential threat posed by the Damascus regime to Israel. The previously cited Middle East Quarterly article (written by Lee Kass) lists a number of Syrian military installations which could house Iraqi WMD. Kass's authoritative article appears to be heavily based on Israeli information.
Obviously, the potential presence of Iraqi WMD in Syria cannot be discounted. It's part of the larger problem posed by Bashir Assad and his regime--an issue that must be confronted sooner or later. Reading the tea leaves at Foggy Bottom at the White House, it appears that the latter option is our preferred policy, at least for now.
Hat tip: Powerline.
Wednesday, December 14, 2005
Ground Truth
An excellent op-ed in today's Washington Post (hard to believe, I know) from a Marine Corps officer, heading for his third tour in Iraq. Major Ben Connable says there is justifiable reason for optimism in Iraq, despite what we hear from the MSM. As he notes, it's easy for skeptics to dismiss reports of progress from civilian leaders and senior Pentagon officials. It's much more difficult to ignore those claims from officers and NCOs who see progress, first-hand, on the ground.
Israel's Military Options
According to The Sunday Times, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has ordered his nation's military to be ready by the end of March, for possible strikes against secret Iranian nuclear facilities.
Defense sources in Israel told the paper that the March deadline would represent the "point of no return," when Iran would have the capability to enrich sufficient quantities of uranium, allowing them to produce a nuclear weapon in 2-4 years. The Times also reports that selected commando units and Israeli F-15I squadrons have been placed on highest alert, in preparation for a possible attack. The F-15I is the Israeli version of the U.S. F-15 Strike Eagle, a long-range attack aircraft purchased specifically for potential action against Iran.
The Sunday Times article is interesting, since it envisions a joint air/land attack, a scenario that has also postulated by western intelligence analysts. But the Times account also seems to be a bit off the mark, hinting that major planning and operational preparations may still be underway. I believe the Israelis have had plans for an Iran raid on the books for some time; at this point, they would probably require only a bit of fine-tuning, rehearsal and (of course), the go-ahead from the Prime Minister.
In support of this theory, let me offer a brief summary of an exchange between Israeli Air Force officers and their USAF counterparts that occurred almost a year ago. The meeting was part of a routine exchange program that has existed for many years--nothing unusual there, the USAF (like the rest of our military) has bilateral relationships with a number of foreign partners.
During the referenced exchange, the topic of Iran immediately surfaced. The Israelis asked pointed questions about Iranian and U.S. capabilities. While the USAF participants were non-committal in their answers, the Israeli questions suggested planning for an Iran operation was either in its late stages, or had been concluded. The questions about Iran appeared design to confirm Israeli intelligence assessments, while the queries about U.S. capabilities focused on our ability to detect an IAF operation.
While the Israelis have the ability to deliver a sizeable military blow against Iran, there are limits on what the IPP and/or ground forces might accomplish. Consider potential routes of flight. It's unlikely Israel would jeopardize its close relationship with Ankara by flying through Turkish airspace. A southern route--across or around Saudi Arabia--increases flight time and the risk of detection. The third route (through Jordan and Iraq) runs the risk of an inadvertent encounter between U.S. and Israeli forces.
Other factors complicate the planning process. Israel has only a handful of KC-707 tankers, needed to refuel F-15Is and other fighter aircraft in flight. The limited number of tankers, coupled with required fuel off-loads, restricts the overall size of the strike package, and the number of targets that could be attacked. Those restrictions, coupled with Tehran's efforts to disperse of its nuclear program, mean that Israel cannot deliver a decisive blow against Iran. According to some estimates, even a successful Israeli strike would result in no more than a 1-2 year delay in Iran's nuclear program.
The attack would also invite an Iranian missile attack against Israeli cities, using SHAHAB-3 medium-range missiles carrying conventional, chemical or biological warheads. Israel has an extensive anti-missile defense system, but it is not foolproof. If a single Iranian missile "got through," Israel would almost certainly respond with a counterstrike, possibly using JERICHO II missiles, which can carry a nuclear warhead. That, in turn, could lead to a wider, regional conflict, leaving the U.S. in a precarious position, diplomatically, politically and militarily. While Israel certainly has military options it can use against Iran, these options are far from optimum, and fraught with potential dangers, both for the Israelis and their allies. On the other hand, those risks may be worth taking when you consider the alternative--an increasingly belligerent and (eventually) nuclear-armed Iran.
Defense sources in Israel told the paper that the March deadline would represent the "point of no return," when Iran would have the capability to enrich sufficient quantities of uranium, allowing them to produce a nuclear weapon in 2-4 years. The Times also reports that selected commando units and Israeli F-15I squadrons have been placed on highest alert, in preparation for a possible attack. The F-15I is the Israeli version of the U.S. F-15 Strike Eagle, a long-range attack aircraft purchased specifically for potential action against Iran.
The Sunday Times article is interesting, since it envisions a joint air/land attack, a scenario that has also postulated by western intelligence analysts. But the Times account also seems to be a bit off the mark, hinting that major planning and operational preparations may still be underway. I believe the Israelis have had plans for an Iran raid on the books for some time; at this point, they would probably require only a bit of fine-tuning, rehearsal and (of course), the go-ahead from the Prime Minister.
In support of this theory, let me offer a brief summary of an exchange between Israeli Air Force officers and their USAF counterparts that occurred almost a year ago. The meeting was part of a routine exchange program that has existed for many years--nothing unusual there, the USAF (like the rest of our military) has bilateral relationships with a number of foreign partners.
During the referenced exchange, the topic of Iran immediately surfaced. The Israelis asked pointed questions about Iranian and U.S. capabilities. While the USAF participants were non-committal in their answers, the Israeli questions suggested planning for an Iran operation was either in its late stages, or had been concluded. The questions about Iran appeared design to confirm Israeli intelligence assessments, while the queries about U.S. capabilities focused on our ability to detect an IAF operation.
While the Israelis have the ability to deliver a sizeable military blow against Iran, there are limits on what the IPP and/or ground forces might accomplish. Consider potential routes of flight. It's unlikely Israel would jeopardize its close relationship with Ankara by flying through Turkish airspace. A southern route--across or around Saudi Arabia--increases flight time and the risk of detection. The third route (through Jordan and Iraq) runs the risk of an inadvertent encounter between U.S. and Israeli forces.
Other factors complicate the planning process. Israel has only a handful of KC-707 tankers, needed to refuel F-15Is and other fighter aircraft in flight. The limited number of tankers, coupled with required fuel off-loads, restricts the overall size of the strike package, and the number of targets that could be attacked. Those restrictions, coupled with Tehran's efforts to disperse of its nuclear program, mean that Israel cannot deliver a decisive blow against Iran. According to some estimates, even a successful Israeli strike would result in no more than a 1-2 year delay in Iran's nuclear program.
The attack would also invite an Iranian missile attack against Israeli cities, using SHAHAB-3 medium-range missiles carrying conventional, chemical or biological warheads. Israel has an extensive anti-missile defense system, but it is not foolproof. If a single Iranian missile "got through," Israel would almost certainly respond with a counterstrike, possibly using JERICHO II missiles, which can carry a nuclear warhead. That, in turn, could lead to a wider, regional conflict, leaving the U.S. in a precarious position, diplomatically, politically and militarily. While Israel certainly has military options it can use against Iran, these options are far from optimum, and fraught with potential dangers, both for the Israelis and their allies. On the other hand, those risks may be worth taking when you consider the alternative--an increasingly belligerent and (eventually) nuclear-armed Iran.
A Looming Showdown With Iran?
The most recent, intemperate remarks by Iran's president have raised fears that Iran is now squarely on a collision course with Israel and the West.
Drudge is linking to this AFP report, outlining growing diplomatic concerns about Tehran's increasingly harsh rhetoric, and refusal to compromise on its nuclear program.
As someone who's followed Iran for almost 20 years, I believe the concerns expressed in the article are valid. But I'm not prepared to predict an impending Israeli strike on Tehran's nuclear facilities, or an effort by the west to refer the Iranian nuclear program to the U.N. Security Council. In fact, I'll go out on a limb and forecast more of the same in the coming months, with Tehran continuing its rhetoric (and nuclear activity), while the west casts about for diplomatic options and Israel focuses on domestic politics.
Unfortunately, that approach will do little to improve regional security and--possibly--encourage Iran to up the ante. The western alliance (including the U.S.) missed an important opportunity when they decided not to refer Iran to the U.N. Security Council. And while it's doubtful that the council would have taken decisive action against Tehran, the referral would have represented an important, symbolic step--signalling that there are limits to western patience. Instead, the west has signed on for more rounds of diplomacy, allowing Iran to maintain the illusion of negotiations, while its scientists work frantically to develop nuclear weapons.
Likewise, Israel deserves part of the blame for the current situation. Not too many weeks ago, some Israeli officials were differentiating between an Iranian nuclear research program (which might be tolerated), versus a nuclear-armed Iran. Such comments were apparently designed to placate Israeli voters, in advance of next year's election. Unfortunately, those comments also gave a green light to Tehran, although the rhetoric from Tel Aviv has been noticeably tougher over the past couple of weeks. But there are still no signs that the Sharon government is preparing the Israeli public for the possibility of military action, a likely prelude to any strike against Iran. Running as part of a new centrist party, Sharon has tread carefully on the Iran issue, and avoid antagonizing liberal voters that he needs to win re-election. Facing the fight of his political life, it is difficult to envision Sharon ordering a strike on Iran before the election, unless he had unambiguous evidence of a looming Iranian nuclear threat.
By definition, a showdown requires two or more parties, with defined limits on what will (and won't) be tolerated. So far, the situation with Iran is a standoff in name only, because the west (and the Israelis) have only vaguely defined the limits on Tehran's behavior. In that environment, the Iranians will continue to push back, while the west continues to dither.
Drudge is linking to this AFP report, outlining growing diplomatic concerns about Tehran's increasingly harsh rhetoric, and refusal to compromise on its nuclear program.
As someone who's followed Iran for almost 20 years, I believe the concerns expressed in the article are valid. But I'm not prepared to predict an impending Israeli strike on Tehran's nuclear facilities, or an effort by the west to refer the Iranian nuclear program to the U.N. Security Council. In fact, I'll go out on a limb and forecast more of the same in the coming months, with Tehran continuing its rhetoric (and nuclear activity), while the west casts about for diplomatic options and Israel focuses on domestic politics.
Unfortunately, that approach will do little to improve regional security and--possibly--encourage Iran to up the ante. The western alliance (including the U.S.) missed an important opportunity when they decided not to refer Iran to the U.N. Security Council. And while it's doubtful that the council would have taken decisive action against Tehran, the referral would have represented an important, symbolic step--signalling that there are limits to western patience. Instead, the west has signed on for more rounds of diplomacy, allowing Iran to maintain the illusion of negotiations, while its scientists work frantically to develop nuclear weapons.
Likewise, Israel deserves part of the blame for the current situation. Not too many weeks ago, some Israeli officials were differentiating between an Iranian nuclear research program (which might be tolerated), versus a nuclear-armed Iran. Such comments were apparently designed to placate Israeli voters, in advance of next year's election. Unfortunately, those comments also gave a green light to Tehran, although the rhetoric from Tel Aviv has been noticeably tougher over the past couple of weeks. But there are still no signs that the Sharon government is preparing the Israeli public for the possibility of military action, a likely prelude to any strike against Iran. Running as part of a new centrist party, Sharon has tread carefully on the Iran issue, and avoid antagonizing liberal voters that he needs to win re-election. Facing the fight of his political life, it is difficult to envision Sharon ordering a strike on Iran before the election, unless he had unambiguous evidence of a looming Iranian nuclear threat.
By definition, a showdown requires two or more parties, with defined limits on what will (and won't) be tolerated. So far, the situation with Iran is a standoff in name only, because the west (and the Israelis) have only vaguely defined the limits on Tehran's behavior. In that environment, the Iranians will continue to push back, while the west continues to dither.
Just a Myth
Iran's chief nutjob, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has repeated his assertion that the Holocaust never happened, a claim that has sparked international outrage and earned a rebuke from the U.N. Security Council.
In a televised speech from the Iranian city of Zahedan, Ahmadinejad described the Holocaust, as a "fabricated legend" that Jews hold higher than God himself." Ahmadinejad has also advocated the relocation of Israel from the Middle East to Europe, the continental U.S., or even Alaska.
Sadly, assertions that the Holocaust never happened are nothing new. They've been a staple among kook academics, neo-Nazis and some Muslim groups for years. And, predictably, they offer no evidence to support their theory; instead, they postulate that the numbers of Jews murdered by the Nazis has been exaggerated, as have the horrors of the concentration camps.
What is disappointing is that a major media organization--in this case, Reuters--simply repeats Ahmadinejad's claims, without citing the mountains of evidence that contradict him. By simply transcribing the Iranian President's remarks, Reuters actually lends weight to charges that have no basis in fact. With its sympathetic coverage of the Palestinian cause, Reuters proved long ago that it is no friend of Israel. Now, by refusing to challenge the ludicrous claims of the Iranian President, Reuters appears to be moving beyond its normal anti-Israel bias, and into the toxic realm of anti-Semitism.
In a televised speech from the Iranian city of Zahedan, Ahmadinejad described the Holocaust, as a "fabricated legend" that Jews hold higher than God himself." Ahmadinejad has also advocated the relocation of Israel from the Middle East to Europe, the continental U.S., or even Alaska.
Sadly, assertions that the Holocaust never happened are nothing new. They've been a staple among kook academics, neo-Nazis and some Muslim groups for years. And, predictably, they offer no evidence to support their theory; instead, they postulate that the numbers of Jews murdered by the Nazis has been exaggerated, as have the horrors of the concentration camps.
What is disappointing is that a major media organization--in this case, Reuters--simply repeats Ahmadinejad's claims, without citing the mountains of evidence that contradict him. By simply transcribing the Iranian President's remarks, Reuters actually lends weight to charges that have no basis in fact. With its sympathetic coverage of the Palestinian cause, Reuters proved long ago that it is no friend of Israel. Now, by refusing to challenge the ludicrous claims of the Iranian President, Reuters appears to be moving beyond its normal anti-Israel bias, and into the toxic realm of anti-Semitism.
Tuesday, December 13, 2005
Back to Work
...after a weekend visit to South Carolina, preceded by a business trip to the Midwest. Along the way, I had a personal encounter with last week's snowstorm (which left me briefly stranded in Philadelphia), and the horrendous customer service of U.S. Air. Note to self: avoid business trips to the Upper Midwest in December, and avoid U.S. Air at all costs. More on that later...
Tookie's "Legacy"
Suffice it to say, society is better off with the departure of Stanley "Tookie" Williams, co-founder of the notorious "Crips" street gang. After 24 years on California's Death Row, Williams was executed early today for the 1979 murders of four individuals.
While Tookie proclaimed his innocence until the end, but police and prosecutors say there was little doubt about his guilt. Court testimony indicates that Williams even mocked the final, desparate gurgling sounds made by one of his victims, 26-year-old Albert Owens, after shooting him at point-blank range with a shotgun. Owens was a clerk in a 7-11 convenience store that Williams robbed in February 1979. The Crips leader was also found guilty of killing three members of the Yang family at their Los Angeles-area motel in March of that year.
Williams's execution may provide a semblance of justice to the Owens and Yang families, but there is no comfort in his lasting legacy--today's gang culture and the rampant crime that accompanies it. According to one estimate, there are at least 12,000 Crips members in Southern California alone, with thousands more in other cities and towns across America. Various Crips gangs are heavily involved in the crack cocaine trade (and other criminal enterprises), and have staged violent wars with rival factions. In one year alone, there were almost 300 gang-related slayings in Southern California, many of them in inner-city neighborhoods dominated by the Crips and other gangs. Culturally, the Crips and their counterparts have provided "inspiration" for the gangta lifestyle glorified by rap artists, and elements of the hip-hop lifestyle.
The legacy of Stanley "Tookie" Williams is dark, violent and odious. And sadly, the problems and social pathologies that he helped create will survive long after he is forgotten.
While Tookie proclaimed his innocence until the end, but police and prosecutors say there was little doubt about his guilt. Court testimony indicates that Williams even mocked the final, desparate gurgling sounds made by one of his victims, 26-year-old Albert Owens, after shooting him at point-blank range with a shotgun. Owens was a clerk in a 7-11 convenience store that Williams robbed in February 1979. The Crips leader was also found guilty of killing three members of the Yang family at their Los Angeles-area motel in March of that year.
Williams's execution may provide a semblance of justice to the Owens and Yang families, but there is no comfort in his lasting legacy--today's gang culture and the rampant crime that accompanies it. According to one estimate, there are at least 12,000 Crips members in Southern California alone, with thousands more in other cities and towns across America. Various Crips gangs are heavily involved in the crack cocaine trade (and other criminal enterprises), and have staged violent wars with rival factions. In one year alone, there were almost 300 gang-related slayings in Southern California, many of them in inner-city neighborhoods dominated by the Crips and other gangs. Culturally, the Crips and their counterparts have provided "inspiration" for the gangta lifestyle glorified by rap artists, and elements of the hip-hop lifestyle.
The legacy of Stanley "Tookie" Williams is dark, violent and odious. And sadly, the problems and social pathologies that he helped create will survive long after he is forgotten.
Thursday, December 08, 2005
The Disaster that Shortened World War II
Yesterday marked the 64th anniversary of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. The day was filled by the usual rememberances--and concerns that Americans will eventually forget the day's significance, as the last survivors of the Japanese surprise attack pass on.
Pearl Harbor clearly represents a watershed in American histoy. From that day, U.S. isolationism disappeared forever. Less that four years later, the United States emerged victorious from World War II, having built the most powerful military in the history of the world, leading the defeat of facisim in Europe and the Pacific, and ushering in the the nuclear age.
The debacle at Pearl Harbor remains a source of speculation and conjecture. Day of Deceit, the 2001 best-seller by journalist Robert Stinnett presents a compelling case that FDR (and other senior officials) "allowed" the attack to occur, believing it was necessary for Japan to provoke U.S. entry into World War II. If you buy Stinnett's argument, FDR and his military commanders were reading secret Japanese messages months before the attack occured. They postulated that the strike would occur elsewhere (probably the Philippines), and that our military forces could surive the strike with minimal damage. Such conspiracy theories have been roundly rejected by other historians, including the late Gordon Prange and Donald Goldstein, who believe that no one in the U.S. government had advanced knowledge of the Japanese attack.
Other elements of the Pearl Harbor story also invite historical scrutiny, including the question of whether the disaster actually shortened the war. Consider this: U.S. strategy for fighting Japan in 1941 was based on the outdated War Plan Orange, first developed in the 1920s. The plan was based on a number of faulty assumptions, including the idea that the war would develop slowly, giving the U.S. time to fully mobilize its fleet, then sail across the Pacific and defeat the Japanese forces somewhere between the Philippines and Japan's home islands. War Plan Orange made little provisions for the impact of aircraft carriers, submarines, or long-range, land-based aircraft. It envisioned a decisive, "Jutland of the Pacific," fought by opposing lines of battleships.
In retrospect, it seems likely that the United States would have lost such a battle. Surface engagements fought during the first year of the Pacific War, notably the Naval Battle of Guadacanal and Savo Island demonstrated that the Japanese were better a long-range gunnery and night-fighting than their American counterparts during the early stages of the war. Additionally, the American battleships that would have sortied from Pearl Harbor in 1941 lacked radar, and were out-gunned by Japanese dreadnoughts, putting them at a disadvantage in a surface battle. U.S. carrier aircraft of the pre-war era were also antiquated, and were not effectively integrated into the battle plan.
Exploiting American weaknesses, the Japanese could have easily won a "decisive" naval battle fought on the high seas in 1941. After neutralizing the U.S. carrier force, Japanese commanders would turn their attention to the American battle line, probably attacking under the cover of darkness. In the ensuing melee, it is likely that the U.S. would have lost several capital ships, forcing it to retire to the east. Decimated in the engagement, the Pacific Fleet would have been forced to retreat to bases in California, leaving key U.S. positions (including Hawaii) exposed, and cutting off the Philippines and Australia. Under that scenario, the Australia, Midway and Hawaii might also have fallen (along with the Philippines), forcing the U.S. to literally fight its way from the West Coast to Japan, prolonging the war by at least another 2-3 years, and possibly compelling the U.S. to develop (and begin using) atomic weapons much earlier.
Given our military deficiencies in 1941, the disater at Pearl Harbor may have well averted an even greater disaster at sea. Executing Plan Orange might have resulted in a catastrophic naval defeat, on the scale of Trafalgar or the Spanish Armada. And,as a consequence, the war in the Pacific would have lasted much, much longer, and resulted in hundreds of thousands--perhaps millions of additional casualties. As tragic as Pearl Harbor was, it may have actually saved us from an even greater military disaster that would have profoundly alterted the war, and possibly, its outcome.
Pearl Harbor clearly represents a watershed in American histoy. From that day, U.S. isolationism disappeared forever. Less that four years later, the United States emerged victorious from World War II, having built the most powerful military in the history of the world, leading the defeat of facisim in Europe and the Pacific, and ushering in the the nuclear age.
The debacle at Pearl Harbor remains a source of speculation and conjecture. Day of Deceit, the 2001 best-seller by journalist Robert Stinnett presents a compelling case that FDR (and other senior officials) "allowed" the attack to occur, believing it was necessary for Japan to provoke U.S. entry into World War II. If you buy Stinnett's argument, FDR and his military commanders were reading secret Japanese messages months before the attack occured. They postulated that the strike would occur elsewhere (probably the Philippines), and that our military forces could surive the strike with minimal damage. Such conspiracy theories have been roundly rejected by other historians, including the late Gordon Prange and Donald Goldstein, who believe that no one in the U.S. government had advanced knowledge of the Japanese attack.
Other elements of the Pearl Harbor story also invite historical scrutiny, including the question of whether the disaster actually shortened the war. Consider this: U.S. strategy for fighting Japan in 1941 was based on the outdated War Plan Orange, first developed in the 1920s. The plan was based on a number of faulty assumptions, including the idea that the war would develop slowly, giving the U.S. time to fully mobilize its fleet, then sail across the Pacific and defeat the Japanese forces somewhere between the Philippines and Japan's home islands. War Plan Orange made little provisions for the impact of aircraft carriers, submarines, or long-range, land-based aircraft. It envisioned a decisive, "Jutland of the Pacific," fought by opposing lines of battleships.
In retrospect, it seems likely that the United States would have lost such a battle. Surface engagements fought during the first year of the Pacific War, notably the Naval Battle of Guadacanal and Savo Island demonstrated that the Japanese were better a long-range gunnery and night-fighting than their American counterparts during the early stages of the war. Additionally, the American battleships that would have sortied from Pearl Harbor in 1941 lacked radar, and were out-gunned by Japanese dreadnoughts, putting them at a disadvantage in a surface battle. U.S. carrier aircraft of the pre-war era were also antiquated, and were not effectively integrated into the battle plan.
Exploiting American weaknesses, the Japanese could have easily won a "decisive" naval battle fought on the high seas in 1941. After neutralizing the U.S. carrier force, Japanese commanders would turn their attention to the American battle line, probably attacking under the cover of darkness. In the ensuing melee, it is likely that the U.S. would have lost several capital ships, forcing it to retire to the east. Decimated in the engagement, the Pacific Fleet would have been forced to retreat to bases in California, leaving key U.S. positions (including Hawaii) exposed, and cutting off the Philippines and Australia. Under that scenario, the Australia, Midway and Hawaii might also have fallen (along with the Philippines), forcing the U.S. to literally fight its way from the West Coast to Japan, prolonging the war by at least another 2-3 years, and possibly compelling the U.S. to develop (and begin using) atomic weapons much earlier.
Given our military deficiencies in 1941, the disater at Pearl Harbor may have well averted an even greater disaster at sea. Executing Plan Orange might have resulted in a catastrophic naval defeat, on the scale of Trafalgar or the Spanish Armada. And,as a consequence, the war in the Pacific would have lasted much, much longer, and resulted in hundreds of thousands--perhaps millions of additional casualties. As tragic as Pearl Harbor was, it may have actually saved us from an even greater military disaster that would have profoundly alterted the war, and possibly, its outcome.
Teddy Gets Wired (and it Doesn't Involve Chivas)
Sitting in an airport this afternoon, I picked up a recent copy of U.S. News and World Report. According to the magazine, Democratic Senator Ted Kennedy is a fan of the blogosphere, getting a daily summary of musings from Daily Kos and other liberal sites. Apparently, Ted's staff has to compile a summary for him, since he can't use a computer. Not real surprise there; as I recall, Teddy's had problems in the past with devices that require navigation skills.
Welcome to the blogosphere, Ted. And, in case your staff is looking for material for your next blog summary, here are a couple of thoughts. You're a fat old drunk whose feckless comments are undermining the war effort and endangering the lives of our troops. And one more thing: in a just world, you'd be a recently-parolled felon, drinking away your trust fund on Martha's Vineyard with your liberal pals.
Stick that in your summary.
Welcome to the blogosphere, Ted. And, in case your staff is looking for material for your next blog summary, here are a couple of thoughts. You're a fat old drunk whose feckless comments are undermining the war effort and endangering the lives of our troops. And one more thing: in a just world, you'd be a recently-parolled felon, drinking away your trust fund on Martha's Vineyard with your liberal pals.
Stick that in your summary.
Tuesday, December 06, 2005
Reverend Al's New Gig
I was waiting for the MSM to discover this one; career activist cume Democratic presidential candidate Rev. Al Sharpton has a new gig--pitchman for a title loan chain. I saw one of Sharpton's ads for the loan sharks--er title loan stores--on a local TV station last Friday night; in the spot, Sharpton touts the virtues of the firm, which (like most title loan operations) charge annual interest rates approaching 300%.
Never mind that these predatory lenders prey on many of Sharpton's constituents. And, rest assured, the Rev Al hasn't pawned the title to his wheels, and I'm sure he's getting a six-figure check as a celebrity spokesman. Sharpton, predictably, sees nothing wrong with his new job.
So far, there has been no reaction from other members of the professional "activist" fraternity like Jesse Jackson and Julian Bond. But the ever-alert LaShawn Barber did find a quote from Congressional Black Caucus member, Ohio Representative Stephanie Tubbs-Jones, who refers to predatory lending as "the civil rights issue of this century." Wonder how Congresswoman Jones feels about Reverend Al getting rich from the loan sharks she so roundly condemns?
Never mind that these predatory lenders prey on many of Sharpton's constituents. And, rest assured, the Rev Al hasn't pawned the title to his wheels, and I'm sure he's getting a six-figure check as a celebrity spokesman. Sharpton, predictably, sees nothing wrong with his new job.
So far, there has been no reaction from other members of the professional "activist" fraternity like Jesse Jackson and Julian Bond. But the ever-alert LaShawn Barber did find a quote from Congressional Black Caucus member, Ohio Representative Stephanie Tubbs-Jones, who refers to predatory lending as "the civil rights issue of this century." Wonder how Congresswoman Jones feels about Reverend Al getting rich from the loan sharks she so roundly condemns?
Adding Fuel to the Fire
The looming showdown over Iran's nuclear program took another series of twists and turns yesterday. Rhetoric between Tehran and Tel Aviv has clearly ramped up in recent days, and while I'm not predicting an imminent Israeli strike, the two nations are clearly on a collision course once again. And, there's a certain irony in that realization; Israeli Prime Minister Arial Sharon had hoped to keep the nuclear issue in the background during his re-election campaign. But his hopes have been dashed, by events in Israel and Iran.
On the political front, former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu offered an aggressive option for dealing with Iran, said he would support pre-emptive strikes against Tehran's nuclear facilities. In remarks published Monday, Netanyahu endorsed the concept of a unilateral strike, similar to the Israeli raid on Iraq's nuclear reactor in 1981.
"I will continue the tradition established by Menachem Begin, who did not allow Iraq to develop such a nuclear threat against Israel, and by a daring and courageous act gave us two decades of tranquility," Netanyahu told the Maariv daily. "I believe that this is what Israel has to do."
Netanyahu's remarks were quickly criticized by political rivals and outside analysts. Israeli Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz, who is also a candidate for the Likud Party nomination, accused Netanyahu of making "inflammatory statements," and stated that the uclear issue should be "taken out of the campaign."
Judith Kipper, a Middle East analyst at the the Council on Foreign Relations in Washington, described Netanyahu's comments as a "desperate political move" and warned that such statement would undermine regional peace efforts.
Netanyahu faces an uphill battle in his bid to become Prime Minister for a second time, but he has achieved one goal, by making the Iranian nuclear program an issue in the Israeli campaign. As we've noted previously, Prime Minister Sharon is in the fight of his political life, having left Likud to form a new centrist party, which (supposedly) will give him more room to negotiate a comprehensive peace deal with the Palestinians. As a part of that strategy, the Iranian issue was essentially removed from the political burner. Until recently, Sharon repeated calls for a diplomatic solution, while other Israeli officials took pains to differentiate between Tehran's nuclear research program (which could be tolerated) versus a nuclear-armed Iran, which remains unacceptable to Tel Aviv. If Netanyahu's statements resonate with conservative voters, (Sharon's base), then the Prime Minister will have to expend time and effort explaining his Iran policy, and how it meets Israel's security needs.
That may be a tough sell, since Tehran is clearly moving ahead with its nuclear program. Iran has rejected a proposal to enrich its uranium in Russian facilities, which offered a measure of external control over a key element of the nuclear fuel cycle. Meanwhile, Iran's chief nuclear negotiator told Reuters that his nation's patience is "wearing thin" and it would give the European Union only a few months to settle the matter through negotiations. EU diplomats had hoped the Russian enrichment offer might produce a breakthrough, and lead to a peaceful solution. Iran has long claimed that it is only interested in developing a nuclear power industry, but intelligence reporting and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) believe Tehran is intent on producing nuclear weapons.
Iran's continued bellicosity on the nuclear issue suggests several things. First, with the Israelis in a political campaign (and the U.S. occupied in Iraq), Tehran may perceive that the threat of a military strike will remain low in the coming months. That gives Tehran an opening to badger the EU, negotiate deals for new military hardware, and even purchase additional nuclear reactors, as it did on Monday. Meanwhile, Iran will continue its efforts to develop a nuclear weapon, although a working bomb may be several years away.
To is credit, Mr. Netanyahu is right about one thing: Iran's nuclear program needs to be an issue in next spring's Israeli election, and not divorced from the political process. While a public debate on Iran's nuclear plans will add fuel to the political fire in Israel, it is a necessary part of the democratic process. A nuclear-armed Iran is the gravest security challenge facing Israel, whether Tehran achieves that capability in a matter of months (as some have suggested), or more likely, over the next 3-4 years. The Israeli public (and the western community) need to hear how the next Prime Minister plans to deal with that threat.
On the political front, former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu offered an aggressive option for dealing with Iran, said he would support pre-emptive strikes against Tehran's nuclear facilities. In remarks published Monday, Netanyahu endorsed the concept of a unilateral strike, similar to the Israeli raid on Iraq's nuclear reactor in 1981.
"I will continue the tradition established by Menachem Begin, who did not allow Iraq to develop such a nuclear threat against Israel, and by a daring and courageous act gave us two decades of tranquility," Netanyahu told the Maariv daily. "I believe that this is what Israel has to do."
Netanyahu's remarks were quickly criticized by political rivals and outside analysts. Israeli Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz, who is also a candidate for the Likud Party nomination, accused Netanyahu of making "inflammatory statements," and stated that the uclear issue should be "taken out of the campaign."
Judith Kipper, a Middle East analyst at the the Council on Foreign Relations in Washington, described Netanyahu's comments as a "desperate political move" and warned that such statement would undermine regional peace efforts.
Netanyahu faces an uphill battle in his bid to become Prime Minister for a second time, but he has achieved one goal, by making the Iranian nuclear program an issue in the Israeli campaign. As we've noted previously, Prime Minister Sharon is in the fight of his political life, having left Likud to form a new centrist party, which (supposedly) will give him more room to negotiate a comprehensive peace deal with the Palestinians. As a part of that strategy, the Iranian issue was essentially removed from the political burner. Until recently, Sharon repeated calls for a diplomatic solution, while other Israeli officials took pains to differentiate between Tehran's nuclear research program (which could be tolerated) versus a nuclear-armed Iran, which remains unacceptable to Tel Aviv. If Netanyahu's statements resonate with conservative voters, (Sharon's base), then the Prime Minister will have to expend time and effort explaining his Iran policy, and how it meets Israel's security needs.
That may be a tough sell, since Tehran is clearly moving ahead with its nuclear program. Iran has rejected a proposal to enrich its uranium in Russian facilities, which offered a measure of external control over a key element of the nuclear fuel cycle. Meanwhile, Iran's chief nuclear negotiator told Reuters that his nation's patience is "wearing thin" and it would give the European Union only a few months to settle the matter through negotiations. EU diplomats had hoped the Russian enrichment offer might produce a breakthrough, and lead to a peaceful solution. Iran has long claimed that it is only interested in developing a nuclear power industry, but intelligence reporting and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) believe Tehran is intent on producing nuclear weapons.
Iran's continued bellicosity on the nuclear issue suggests several things. First, with the Israelis in a political campaign (and the U.S. occupied in Iraq), Tehran may perceive that the threat of a military strike will remain low in the coming months. That gives Tehran an opening to badger the EU, negotiate deals for new military hardware, and even purchase additional nuclear reactors, as it did on Monday. Meanwhile, Iran will continue its efforts to develop a nuclear weapon, although a working bomb may be several years away.
To is credit, Mr. Netanyahu is right about one thing: Iran's nuclear program needs to be an issue in next spring's Israeli election, and not divorced from the political process. While a public debate on Iran's nuclear plans will add fuel to the political fire in Israel, it is a necessary part of the democratic process. A nuclear-armed Iran is the gravest security challenge facing Israel, whether Tehran achieves that capability in a matter of months (as some have suggested), or more likely, over the next 3-4 years. The Israeli public (and the western community) need to hear how the next Prime Minister plans to deal with that threat.
Monday, December 05, 2005
Mixed Signals
There are more mixed signals over Iran's nuclear program, and its potential implications for Israel and the United States.
The Jerusalem Post lifted an item from the UK Independent, saying it will take Iran "only a few months to produce a bomb, if Tehran has resumed uranium enrichment in other plants. However, the Post omits an important detail from the UK paper's account. To complete the enrichment process, Iran will have to restart its facility at Natanz, which could take two years. That would put the earliest production of an Iranian nuclear bomb in the 2008-2009 timeframe, assuming that Teharn doesn't encounter a significant difficulties in the restart, or the subsequent efforts to enrich uranium and fabricate a working weapon. That could push production of Iran's first atomic bomb past 2010. The timeline in the Independent was based on an interview with IAEA Director, Mohamed El Baradei, and its seems to mirror those of Israeli analysts.
But there are too many intelligence gaps to say that the timeline is correct. For example, Iran is believed to have covert nuclear facilities that may duplicate the functions of such known sites as Esfahan, Khondab and Natanz. If Tehran has a hidden complex for uranium enrichment--and technical hurdles have been overcome--then Iran may be well on its way to producing a nuclear weapons before the 2008-2010 timetable. However, Israeli seems to be hedging that Iran is still years away from developing nuclear weapons, giving its leaders more time to develop a consensus on the issue and (potentially) prepare the Israeli public for military action against Iran.
As we noted last week, there appears to be no appetite for unilateral military action within Israel (at least for now), and senior leaders have actually differentiated between an Iran with a nuclear research program (which Israel might be willing to tolerate), and an Iranian regime with nuclear weapons, something that Israel has said it would never tolerate. But even on that long-standing "red line," the Israeli position is less clear. Just last week, a senior unnamed defense official (perhaps IDF Chief Dan Halutz) told The Jerusalem Post that Israel might have to resign itself to a nuclear Iran. I'm not sure that represents a consensus within the Israeli cabinet, and Prime Minister Sharon quickly followed those remarks by reiterating that Israel would never allow a nuclear-armed Iran. But the comments of Sharon (and the anonmyous defense official) suggest that debate on the Iranian issue is continuing.
Here's something else to consider: while the "mixed signals" from Tel Aviv may represent legitimate political debate, they may also be an effort at deception. The Israelis are acknowledged masters of geopolitical deception, and the apparent "debate" may be an effort to confuse Iran (and the world community) while Israel secretly weighs potential options. But the deception theory has its flaws as well. To date, there has been no discernable effort to prepare the Israeli public for potential military action, a requisite step in the political and military processes. Before the 1981 raid on the Iraqi reactor near Baghdad, the Israeli public was bombarded with stories and statements on the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, preparing Israelis for the secret raid that was eventually launched.
Despite today's breathless headline in The Jerusalem Post, there are no signs of pending shifts in Israeli policy. Tel Aviv will keep a wary eye on Iran's nuclear program, publicly supporting diplomatic efforts to resolve the matter peacefully, while (at the same time) examining its miliary options as well. If recent reports are correct, Israel believes its will reach a decision point on Iran's nuclear program sometime around 2008, allowing more time for diplomacy and (as required) military planning. This strategy is predicated on accurate intelligence from the Mossad and Israel's military intelligence branch (the DMI), who are without peer in the Middle East. Mr. Sharon is betting Israel's short-term security on the belief that his spooks are getting it right.
The Jerusalem Post lifted an item from the UK Independent, saying it will take Iran "only a few months to produce a bomb, if Tehran has resumed uranium enrichment in other plants. However, the Post omits an important detail from the UK paper's account. To complete the enrichment process, Iran will have to restart its facility at Natanz, which could take two years. That would put the earliest production of an Iranian nuclear bomb in the 2008-2009 timeframe, assuming that Teharn doesn't encounter a significant difficulties in the restart, or the subsequent efforts to enrich uranium and fabricate a working weapon. That could push production of Iran's first atomic bomb past 2010. The timeline in the Independent was based on an interview with IAEA Director, Mohamed El Baradei, and its seems to mirror those of Israeli analysts.
But there are too many intelligence gaps to say that the timeline is correct. For example, Iran is believed to have covert nuclear facilities that may duplicate the functions of such known sites as Esfahan, Khondab and Natanz. If Tehran has a hidden complex for uranium enrichment--and technical hurdles have been overcome--then Iran may be well on its way to producing a nuclear weapons before the 2008-2010 timetable. However, Israeli seems to be hedging that Iran is still years away from developing nuclear weapons, giving its leaders more time to develop a consensus on the issue and (potentially) prepare the Israeli public for military action against Iran.
As we noted last week, there appears to be no appetite for unilateral military action within Israel (at least for now), and senior leaders have actually differentiated between an Iran with a nuclear research program (which Israel might be willing to tolerate), and an Iranian regime with nuclear weapons, something that Israel has said it would never tolerate. But even on that long-standing "red line," the Israeli position is less clear. Just last week, a senior unnamed defense official (perhaps IDF Chief Dan Halutz) told The Jerusalem Post that Israel might have to resign itself to a nuclear Iran. I'm not sure that represents a consensus within the Israeli cabinet, and Prime Minister Sharon quickly followed those remarks by reiterating that Israel would never allow a nuclear-armed Iran. But the comments of Sharon (and the anonmyous defense official) suggest that debate on the Iranian issue is continuing.
Here's something else to consider: while the "mixed signals" from Tel Aviv may represent legitimate political debate, they may also be an effort at deception. The Israelis are acknowledged masters of geopolitical deception, and the apparent "debate" may be an effort to confuse Iran (and the world community) while Israel secretly weighs potential options. But the deception theory has its flaws as well. To date, there has been no discernable effort to prepare the Israeli public for potential military action, a requisite step in the political and military processes. Before the 1981 raid on the Iraqi reactor near Baghdad, the Israeli public was bombarded with stories and statements on the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, preparing Israelis for the secret raid that was eventually launched.
Despite today's breathless headline in The Jerusalem Post, there are no signs of pending shifts in Israeli policy. Tel Aviv will keep a wary eye on Iran's nuclear program, publicly supporting diplomatic efforts to resolve the matter peacefully, while (at the same time) examining its miliary options as well. If recent reports are correct, Israel believes its will reach a decision point on Iran's nuclear program sometime around 2008, allowing more time for diplomacy and (as required) military planning. This strategy is predicated on accurate intelligence from the Mossad and Israel's military intelligence branch (the DMI), who are without peer in the Middle East. Mr. Sharon is betting Israel's short-term security on the belief that his spooks are getting it right.
Sunday, December 04, 2005
Good News is No News
The AP is reporting what most of us have discovered at the pump: gas prices have dropped dramatically over the past couple of months. According to analyst Tribly Lundberg, the national average price from a gallon of regular, unleaded gas has dropped 88 cents since early September. Here in my neck of the woods, the decrease has been even more spectacular. Shortly after Hurricane Katrina ravaged Gulf Coast oil platforms and refineries, gas prices in my area hit $3.20 a gallon. Today, the average price in my neighborhood is $1,85 a gallon, a 40% decrease.
But there's an interesting element to this story. Do a Google search on "Gas Prices Increase," and you'll get 17,900,000 matches. Change the search terms to "Gas Prices Drop," and the number of hits is only 7,430,000. Quite a difference.
True, the media hasn't exactly ignored the drop in gasoline prices. And, to be fair, may of the "increase" matches are found in stories on Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, which contained frequent references to the storms' impact on gasoline supplies. But that still doesn't explain the gap between references to gas prices hikes, and their subsequent decline. And, BTW, I don't put much stock in the shopworn media cliche that "good news doesn't sell." During the Clinton years, the MSM seem anxious to report continuing drops in interest rates, a booming stock market, and others signs of economic prosperity. But, when GWB entered the White House, the press rediscovered the homeless and other signs of distress, and Bernard Goldberg (and others) observed. More recently, the NYT went to great pains to find a dark lining in an otherwise silver economic cloud. Coincidence? You decide.
Rumors from Washington indicate that President Bush will go on the offensive in touting good economic news, starting Monday. Not a bad idea, since the MSM seems to have comparatively little interest in that story.
But there's an interesting element to this story. Do a Google search on "Gas Prices Increase," and you'll get 17,900,000 matches. Change the search terms to "Gas Prices Drop," and the number of hits is only 7,430,000. Quite a difference.
True, the media hasn't exactly ignored the drop in gasoline prices. And, to be fair, may of the "increase" matches are found in stories on Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, which contained frequent references to the storms' impact on gasoline supplies. But that still doesn't explain the gap between references to gas prices hikes, and their subsequent decline. And, BTW, I don't put much stock in the shopworn media cliche that "good news doesn't sell." During the Clinton years, the MSM seem anxious to report continuing drops in interest rates, a booming stock market, and others signs of economic prosperity. But, when GWB entered the White House, the press rediscovered the homeless and other signs of distress, and Bernard Goldberg (and others) observed. More recently, the NYT went to great pains to find a dark lining in an otherwise silver economic cloud. Coincidence? You decide.
Rumors from Washington indicate that President Bush will go on the offensive in touting good economic news, starting Monday. Not a bad idea, since the MSM seems to have comparatively little interest in that story.
Get That Man a Bigger Shovel
When Porter Goss became director of the CIA, it was clear that he faced a massive job: reinvigorating a moribund agency that had lost its way, both in terms of intelligence collection and finished analysis.
Since arriving at Langley, Goss has taken on the agency's ossified bureaucracy, and (predictably) the bureaucrats have fought back, largely through a series of well-time leaks, designed to discredit the Bush Administration's War on Terror, and Goss's internal reform efforts.
Goss is making progress, but the battle is far from won. As Mona Charen reminds us, the leak culture is alive at well at Langley, as evidenced by last week's disclosure of CIA interrogation centers in Europe, and flights of agency aircraft that delivered Al Qaida suspects to those facilities.
Getting rid of the leakers and "independent foreign policy advisors" at Langley is a daunting task, rivaling Hercules's efforts to clean the Augean Stables. According to Greek mythology, Hercules completed that task only by diverting to rivers to clean out the accumulated muck and filth. Rerouting the Potomac is not an option for cleaning up Langley, but Mr. Goss could use a bigger shovel, in the form of expanded Justice Department investigations to find and punish leakers. As long as there is no penalty for divulging classified information, the leaks will continue, and reforming the CIA will prove that much more difficult.
Since arriving at Langley, Goss has taken on the agency's ossified bureaucracy, and (predictably) the bureaucrats have fought back, largely through a series of well-time leaks, designed to discredit the Bush Administration's War on Terror, and Goss's internal reform efforts.
Goss is making progress, but the battle is far from won. As Mona Charen reminds us, the leak culture is alive at well at Langley, as evidenced by last week's disclosure of CIA interrogation centers in Europe, and flights of agency aircraft that delivered Al Qaida suspects to those facilities.
Getting rid of the leakers and "independent foreign policy advisors" at Langley is a daunting task, rivaling Hercules's efforts to clean the Augean Stables. According to Greek mythology, Hercules completed that task only by diverting to rivers to clean out the accumulated muck and filth. Rerouting the Potomac is not an option for cleaning up Langley, but Mr. Goss could use a bigger shovel, in the form of expanded Justice Department investigations to find and punish leakers. As long as there is no penalty for divulging classified information, the leaks will continue, and reforming the CIA will prove that much more difficult.
Friday, December 02, 2005
The Rest of the Story
Most of today's news from Iraq is focusing on the roadside bomb attack that killed 10 U.S. Marines on Thursday. While we mourn the loss of those brave men, there are continuing signs that their efforts and sacrifice are making a difference in Iraq.
Last night, I received an e-mail from a former subordinate, now serving a tour in Baghdad. Among his other duties, he tracks monthly attack totals and other terrorist trends in Iraq. The November numbers have just been tabulated, and there are encouraging trends. For example:
-- Overall, the number of attacks in Iraq in Novembe was about 2,000--30% below the October total.
--Attacks in the Sunni triangle--Iraq's northern and western territories--decreased by almost 40%, and are at their lowest levels since January.
--Attacks in Baghdad dropped to their lowest level since April of this year
--Terrorist strikes using Vehicle-borne Improvised Explosive Devices (VBIEDs) were at their lowest level since February
--Suicide bombing fell to their lowest level since December of last year.
There are a number of reasons for the decrease, including the traditional lull that follows Ramadan and increased Sunni participation in the political process. But the biggest reason for the drop is the valiant work of coalition forces, who have significantly reduced enemy strongholds in the west.
Make no mistake: we still face tough days in Iraq, and statistics on decreased attacks offer little comfort to the family of a fallen solider or marine. But their sacrifices have not been in vain. We are clearly making progress in Iraq, and we owe it our fallen heroes to finish the job, once and for all.
Last night, I received an e-mail from a former subordinate, now serving a tour in Baghdad. Among his other duties, he tracks monthly attack totals and other terrorist trends in Iraq. The November numbers have just been tabulated, and there are encouraging trends. For example:
-- Overall, the number of attacks in Iraq in Novembe was about 2,000--30% below the October total.
--Attacks in the Sunni triangle--Iraq's northern and western territories--decreased by almost 40%, and are at their lowest levels since January.
--Attacks in Baghdad dropped to their lowest level since April of this year
--Terrorist strikes using Vehicle-borne Improvised Explosive Devices (VBIEDs) were at their lowest level since February
--Suicide bombing fell to their lowest level since December of last year.
There are a number of reasons for the decrease, including the traditional lull that follows Ramadan and increased Sunni participation in the political process. But the biggest reason for the drop is the valiant work of coalition forces, who have significantly reduced enemy strongholds in the west.
Make no mistake: we still face tough days in Iraq, and statistics on decreased attacks offer little comfort to the family of a fallen solider or marine. But their sacrifices have not been in vain. We are clearly making progress in Iraq, and we owe it our fallen heroes to finish the job, once and for all.
What Was It?
Drudge has a link to this item, which has (apparently) received very little attention in the MSM. Last weekend, the pilot of an American airlines flight departing Los Angeles radioed air traffic controllers to report a missile had been fired at his jet. The jetliner was over the water when the pilot saw a smoke trail pass by the cockpit. The pilot told controllers that a missile had been fired at his aircraft and missed.
The incident was investigated by the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security. FBI sources told ABC News they believe the object may have been a flare or bottle rocket, although they may never know what was fired at the airliner.
From my perspective, there aren't enough details to provide a credible analysis. What was the aircraft altitude and heading at the time of the incident? Did the smoke trail appear to originate from the tail aspect, or did it come at the jetliner head-on? Did the object appear to follow a straight flight path, or did it corkscrew. Answering those questions would provide greater insight into what happened near LAX on 28 November, but (so far) federal officials aren't providing those types of details.
While there's nothing to link this episode to terrorist activity, Al Qaida is interested in shooting down airliners with surface to air missiles, as evidenced by their failed attack on Israeli 757 in Kenya last year. Earlier this year, there reports of Middle Eastern men with a possible shoulder-fired missile tracking an Air Force B-1 bomber near Tinker AFB, Oklahoma, but that report was later discounted. Other accounts suggested possible MANPADS-related activity in Arizona, but (again) those reports were never fully confirmed.
Meanwhile, we're years away from installing self-protection systems on our commercial airliners. The lack of a "successful" MANPADS attack (so far) doesn't mitigate the potential threat. The FAA and the airline industry need to accelerate efforts to put self-protection equipment on U.S. commercial jets.
The incident was investigated by the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security. FBI sources told ABC News they believe the object may have been a flare or bottle rocket, although they may never know what was fired at the airliner.
From my perspective, there aren't enough details to provide a credible analysis. What was the aircraft altitude and heading at the time of the incident? Did the smoke trail appear to originate from the tail aspect, or did it come at the jetliner head-on? Did the object appear to follow a straight flight path, or did it corkscrew. Answering those questions would provide greater insight into what happened near LAX on 28 November, but (so far) federal officials aren't providing those types of details.
While there's nothing to link this episode to terrorist activity, Al Qaida is interested in shooting down airliners with surface to air missiles, as evidenced by their failed attack on Israeli 757 in Kenya last year. Earlier this year, there reports of Middle Eastern men with a possible shoulder-fired missile tracking an Air Force B-1 bomber near Tinker AFB, Oklahoma, but that report was later discounted. Other accounts suggested possible MANPADS-related activity in Arizona, but (again) those reports were never fully confirmed.
Meanwhile, we're years away from installing self-protection systems on our commercial airliners. The lack of a "successful" MANPADS attack (so far) doesn't mitigate the potential threat. The FAA and the airline industry need to accelerate efforts to put self-protection equipment on U.S. commercial jets.
Iran's Air Defense "Deal"
Concerned about possibile attacks against its nuclear sites by Israeli or U.S. forces, Iran has been trying to upgrade its air defense system in recent years, with limited success. While it has expanded its fiber-optic communications network and installed Chinese-built, automated command and control (C2) equipment, much of its air defense hardware dates from the 1970s. The U.S. built F-4 Phantom is still the mainstay of the Iranian Air Force, and the I-HAWK SAM system (purchased from the U.S. more than 30 years ago) remains the backbone of of Tehran's ground-based air defenses. Both are increasingly difficult to maintain, and obtaining spare parts is a major problem.
Reuters is reporting that Iran has negotiated a deal to buy the SA-15 mobile SAM system from Russia, for an undisclosed price. Designated the TOR-M1 by the Russians, the system provides advanced intercept capabilities against aircraft, cruise missiles and other standoff weapons, at short ranges. Iran reportedly plans to buy 29 SA-15s, which could substantially improve the point defenses at high value targets, including nuclear facilities.
There's only one problem with this report: we've heard these stories before. In recent years, there have been credible accounts that Iran was planning to purchase other Russian SAMs, most notably the long-range SA-10/SA-20 systems, with capabilities matching (and in some cases, exceeding) the U.S. built PATRIOT. But the Iranian deals never materialized, for a variety of reasons. Until the recent spike in oil prices, Tehran's defense budget was severely limited, with little room for high-priced acquisitions (a single SA-10 battery has a price tag of roughly $300 million). Increased oil revenues will permit more arms purchases, but there is still competition for resources within the Iranian military between the "regular" armed forces and the Revolutionary Guards.
Historically, the "regular" Air Force has been in charge of Iran's air defenses, but it has been viewed with suspicion by the political leadership, and fared relatively poorly in budget battles. More recently, the Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) have organized their own air and air defense units, and they seem to be gaining the upper hand in the fight for military resources. If the SA-15s actually show up in Iran, they are likely to be an IRGC asset. However, that creates other problems for the Iranians, since cooperation between "regular" air defense units and their IRGC counterparts is minimal at best.
Finally, there's the issue of whether Iran will actually consummate the deal. Despite increase oil revenues, Tehran still prefers the "budget" route in defense matters, using the arms "gray" market to buy enough spares to keep their F-4s and I-HAWKs in operation, or refurbishing captured Iraqi aircraft to expand their air force. Acquisition of the SA-15 would be a significant upgrade for Iran, but there's a strong chance the deal struck in Moscow will never be finalized. We've heard these stories before, and more often than not, they simply don't pan out.
Reuters is reporting that Iran has negotiated a deal to buy the SA-15 mobile SAM system from Russia, for an undisclosed price. Designated the TOR-M1 by the Russians, the system provides advanced intercept capabilities against aircraft, cruise missiles and other standoff weapons, at short ranges. Iran reportedly plans to buy 29 SA-15s, which could substantially improve the point defenses at high value targets, including nuclear facilities.
There's only one problem with this report: we've heard these stories before. In recent years, there have been credible accounts that Iran was planning to purchase other Russian SAMs, most notably the long-range SA-10/SA-20 systems, with capabilities matching (and in some cases, exceeding) the U.S. built PATRIOT. But the Iranian deals never materialized, for a variety of reasons. Until the recent spike in oil prices, Tehran's defense budget was severely limited, with little room for high-priced acquisitions (a single SA-10 battery has a price tag of roughly $300 million). Increased oil revenues will permit more arms purchases, but there is still competition for resources within the Iranian military between the "regular" armed forces and the Revolutionary Guards.
Historically, the "regular" Air Force has been in charge of Iran's air defenses, but it has been viewed with suspicion by the political leadership, and fared relatively poorly in budget battles. More recently, the Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) have organized their own air and air defense units, and they seem to be gaining the upper hand in the fight for military resources. If the SA-15s actually show up in Iran, they are likely to be an IRGC asset. However, that creates other problems for the Iranians, since cooperation between "regular" air defense units and their IRGC counterparts is minimal at best.
Finally, there's the issue of whether Iran will actually consummate the deal. Despite increase oil revenues, Tehran still prefers the "budget" route in defense matters, using the arms "gray" market to buy enough spares to keep their F-4s and I-HAWKs in operation, or refurbishing captured Iraqi aircraft to expand their air force. Acquisition of the SA-15 would be a significant upgrade for Iran, but there's a strong chance the deal struck in Moscow will never be finalized. We've heard these stories before, and more often than not, they simply don't pan out.
Thursday, December 01, 2005
Sharon's Biggest Gamble
Much has been made of Israel Prime Minister Arial Sharon's decision to quit the Likud Party, and run for re-election under the banner of a new, more centrist political movement. It's a daring political gambit, designed to defeat critics (and former Likud allies) who oppose the Israeli pull-out from the Gaza Strip.
Meanwhile, Sharon is taking an even bigger gamble in Israel's relationship with Iran. Recent statements by the Prime Minister and other senior Israeli officials highlight a clear differentiation between Tehran's current efforts--focused primarily on uranium enrichment--and an Iran with nuclear weapons. While that latter scenario remains unacceptable to the Israelis, there are growing indications that Tel Aviv will tolerate an Iranian nuclear research program.
There are a number of signs that support this contention. As early as September 2004, Sharon publicly ruled the possibility of unilateral action against Iran, although there were periodic warnings from other officials about the dangers Tehran faced by pursuing nuclear weapons. More recently, several senior officials have noted the distinction between the "nuclearization" process (Iran's research program) and actual weapons production. Senior Israeli defense officials believe that Iran could acquire a bomb by 2008, but other estimates push the acquisition timeline out to 2010 or 2012. Indeed, comments by a high-ranking IDF officer (probably Chief of Staff Dan Halutz) indicated that the Iranian nuclear therat may be more remote than first thought.
Such assessments are probably based on a variety of factors, including Israeli intelligence reporting from inside the Iranian program. The Israelis may believe that Tehran will have difficulty in completing the enrichment process and designing a working bomb, obstacles that could push eapons production beyond the 2010-2012 timeframe. Israel has also completed deployment of an extensive anti-missile system, built around U.S. Patriots and the Israeli-developed Arrow II system. While not foolproof, this integrated system does provide redundant, overlapping coverage of Israeli population centers from the Shahab-3 medium-range ballistic missile (the only Iranian missile currently capable of reaching Israel), providing another measure of comfort for the Israeli public. And, of course, the Tel Aviv retains the capability to strike Iran on short notice, using tactical aircraft or its own ballistic missiles, armed with conventional, chemical, biological or nuclear weapons.
Diplomatically, Israel believes its recent withdrawal from Gaza deserves some sort of reward," from the West and Tel Aviv may ask European negotiators to press Iran for a 'deal" on its nuclear program. Tel Aviv will also use the Gaza agreement as leverage with the United States, pushing for more military aid and increased research on technology that could help defend Israel from an Iranian attack.
Sharon's decision to differentiate between a "nuclear" Iran and an Iranian regime with nuclear weapons is clearly a calculate risk. An Iranian breakthrough could lead to weapons much sooner, forcing Israel to abandon long-haul diplomatic efforts and deal with the issue over the short term. Likewise, a failure of Israeli intelligence might lead to faulty assessments and a false sense of optimism or confidence, when (in fact) Israeli might be facing an immediate nuclear threat. However, if Sharon is right, Israel may have several years to let diplomacy run its course, bolster Israeli defenses, improve relations with moderate Arab neighbors, and (if necessary) develop a national consensus on dealing with Iran more forcibly.
Is it a gamble worth taking? One could argue that giving Iran time to possibly develop nuclear weapons is akin to British and French appeasement in the mid-1930s. History showed that the west had an opportunity to move decisively against Hitler, but failed to act and paid a horrendous price. There is a similar risk in the Israeli calculus, but Sharon realizes that a strike against Iran would not eliminate Tehran's nuclear program, invite a new wave of terrorist attacks against Israel, and derail Tel Aviv's expanding relations with Islamic moderates. A strike against Iranian nuclear facilities might produce short-term tactical gains, but the long-term benefits are less clear. Iran has likely decentralized its development efforts, and could reconstitute its nuclear program quickly. According to some estimates, even a successful Israeli attack might delay Iran's nuclear program by only two years.
If that assessment is accurate, Sharon may believe that he has no other choice but to watch and wait. While the Israeli Air Force remains ready, there is no public consensus for a strike against Iran, and no efforts underway to develop that support. And, with Sharon facing the political fight of his life, the Iran pot will be placed on the back burner, amid hopes that it doesn't accidentally boil over.
***UPDATE***
Interestingly, the Iran issue was back in the news shortly after I posted this article. Speaking to reporters in Tel Aviv, Israeli Prime Minister Sharon reiterated that his nation would never allow Iran to possess nuclear weapons. However, Sharon also noted that diplomacy is the best way for Israel to deal with its enemies in Tehran. Sharon's defense minister, Shaul Mofaz, made similar comments and urged the U.N. Security Council to take up the issue.
The observations of Sharon and Mofaz came only one day after an unnamed, senior defense official told the daily Maairv that Israel might have to resign itself to a nuclear Iran.
"I don't see any force that can turn things around -- to wit, Iran going nuclear -- and there is going to be no choice but to resign outselves to that inchoate reality," he told the paper
The comments of Sharon and Mofaz were intended to show unity within the Israeli government, and caution Tehran that its nuclear efforts could have serious consequences. But as we previously noted, Israel faces tough choices in dealing with Iran, and seems to have adopted a more benign approach, hoping that diplomatic efforts can reign in Tehran's nuclear program. The comments of the defense official probably don't represent a majority of Sharon's cabinet, but they underscore the extreme challenge posed by Iran's nuclear program, politically, diplomatically and militarily.
Meanwhile, Sharon is taking an even bigger gamble in Israel's relationship with Iran. Recent statements by the Prime Minister and other senior Israeli officials highlight a clear differentiation between Tehran's current efforts--focused primarily on uranium enrichment--and an Iran with nuclear weapons. While that latter scenario remains unacceptable to the Israelis, there are growing indications that Tel Aviv will tolerate an Iranian nuclear research program.
There are a number of signs that support this contention. As early as September 2004, Sharon publicly ruled the possibility of unilateral action against Iran, although there were periodic warnings from other officials about the dangers Tehran faced by pursuing nuclear weapons. More recently, several senior officials have noted the distinction between the "nuclearization" process (Iran's research program) and actual weapons production. Senior Israeli defense officials believe that Iran could acquire a bomb by 2008, but other estimates push the acquisition timeline out to 2010 or 2012. Indeed, comments by a high-ranking IDF officer (probably Chief of Staff Dan Halutz) indicated that the Iranian nuclear therat may be more remote than first thought.
Such assessments are probably based on a variety of factors, including Israeli intelligence reporting from inside the Iranian program. The Israelis may believe that Tehran will have difficulty in completing the enrichment process and designing a working bomb, obstacles that could push eapons production beyond the 2010-2012 timeframe. Israel has also completed deployment of an extensive anti-missile system, built around U.S. Patriots and the Israeli-developed Arrow II system. While not foolproof, this integrated system does provide redundant, overlapping coverage of Israeli population centers from the Shahab-3 medium-range ballistic missile (the only Iranian missile currently capable of reaching Israel), providing another measure of comfort for the Israeli public. And, of course, the Tel Aviv retains the capability to strike Iran on short notice, using tactical aircraft or its own ballistic missiles, armed with conventional, chemical, biological or nuclear weapons.
Diplomatically, Israel believes its recent withdrawal from Gaza deserves some sort of reward," from the West and Tel Aviv may ask European negotiators to press Iran for a 'deal" on its nuclear program. Tel Aviv will also use the Gaza agreement as leverage with the United States, pushing for more military aid and increased research on technology that could help defend Israel from an Iranian attack.
Sharon's decision to differentiate between a "nuclear" Iran and an Iranian regime with nuclear weapons is clearly a calculate risk. An Iranian breakthrough could lead to weapons much sooner, forcing Israel to abandon long-haul diplomatic efforts and deal with the issue over the short term. Likewise, a failure of Israeli intelligence might lead to faulty assessments and a false sense of optimism or confidence, when (in fact) Israeli might be facing an immediate nuclear threat. However, if Sharon is right, Israel may have several years to let diplomacy run its course, bolster Israeli defenses, improve relations with moderate Arab neighbors, and (if necessary) develop a national consensus on dealing with Iran more forcibly.
Is it a gamble worth taking? One could argue that giving Iran time to possibly develop nuclear weapons is akin to British and French appeasement in the mid-1930s. History showed that the west had an opportunity to move decisively against Hitler, but failed to act and paid a horrendous price. There is a similar risk in the Israeli calculus, but Sharon realizes that a strike against Iran would not eliminate Tehran's nuclear program, invite a new wave of terrorist attacks against Israel, and derail Tel Aviv's expanding relations with Islamic moderates. A strike against Iranian nuclear facilities might produce short-term tactical gains, but the long-term benefits are less clear. Iran has likely decentralized its development efforts, and could reconstitute its nuclear program quickly. According to some estimates, even a successful Israeli attack might delay Iran's nuclear program by only two years.
If that assessment is accurate, Sharon may believe that he has no other choice but to watch and wait. While the Israeli Air Force remains ready, there is no public consensus for a strike against Iran, and no efforts underway to develop that support. And, with Sharon facing the political fight of his life, the Iran pot will be placed on the back burner, amid hopes that it doesn't accidentally boil over.
***UPDATE***
Interestingly, the Iran issue was back in the news shortly after I posted this article. Speaking to reporters in Tel Aviv, Israeli Prime Minister Sharon reiterated that his nation would never allow Iran to possess nuclear weapons. However, Sharon also noted that diplomacy is the best way for Israel to deal with its enemies in Tehran. Sharon's defense minister, Shaul Mofaz, made similar comments and urged the U.N. Security Council to take up the issue.
The observations of Sharon and Mofaz came only one day after an unnamed, senior defense official told the daily Maairv that Israel might have to resign itself to a nuclear Iran.
"I don't see any force that can turn things around -- to wit, Iran going nuclear -- and there is going to be no choice but to resign outselves to that inchoate reality," he told the paper
The comments of Sharon and Mofaz were intended to show unity within the Israeli government, and caution Tehran that its nuclear efforts could have serious consequences. But as we previously noted, Israel faces tough choices in dealing with Iran, and seems to have adopted a more benign approach, hoping that diplomatic efforts can reign in Tehran's nuclear program. The comments of the defense official probably don't represent a majority of Sharon's cabinet, but they underscore the extreme challenge posed by Iran's nuclear program, politically, diplomatically and militarily.
Randy Cunningham Had the Wrong Mortgage Company
As noted a couple of days ago, former California Congressman Randy "Duke" Cunningham is likely on his way to federal prison, after being convicted on bribery charges. Cunningham accepted more than $2 in bribes from various co-conspirators, including a sweetheart deal to sell his former San Diego home to a defense contractor. That sale--at a greatly inflated price--allowed Cunningham and his wife to "trade up" and buy a more expensive home. It also triggered an investigation that eventually led to his indictment and conviction.
Not to be outdone, Democratic Congressman Bobby Rush of Illinois is resorting to a more tried-and-true solution to his real estate problems. Turns out that Rush hasn't paid his mortgage since July, and is now facing possible foreclosure.
Unlike Cunningham, Rush has done nothing illegal. But it's more than ironic that one of the most liberal members of the house--anxious to spend your tax dollars on any number of pork barrell projects--is a little slow when it comes to mailing in his monthly mortgage payments.
I'll go way out on a limb here, and predict that Bobby Rush will not face foreclosure on his home. I'm sure there is at least one Chicago bank who'd be willing to help the Congressman out (in exchange for some favorable votes in the House)--and that's when the ethics investigation should begin.
Not to be outdone, Democratic Congressman Bobby Rush of Illinois is resorting to a more tried-and-true solution to his real estate problems. Turns out that Rush hasn't paid his mortgage since July, and is now facing possible foreclosure.
Unlike Cunningham, Rush has done nothing illegal. But it's more than ironic that one of the most liberal members of the house--anxious to spend your tax dollars on any number of pork barrell projects--is a little slow when it comes to mailing in his monthly mortgage payments.
I'll go way out on a limb here, and predict that Bobby Rush will not face foreclosure on his home. I'm sure there is at least one Chicago bank who'd be willing to help the Congressman out (in exchange for some favorable votes in the House)--and that's when the ethics investigation should begin.
Doesn't Pass the Aggie Test
Peter Schweitzer's new book "Do as I Say (Not as I Do) is an excellent expose of liberal hypocrisy, built on the premise that actions of leftist elites rarely match their rhetoric. For example, Schweitzer discovered that left-wing film maker Michael Moore actually has stock in Haliburton, Dick Cheney's old firm, which liberals often describe as the living embodiment of the evil military-industrial complex.
Schweitzer has uncovered other gems as well. Turns out that anti-American socialist professor Norm Chomsky has profitted from the military as well. Schweitzer reveals that Chomsky, a linguistics professor, has received several military research contracts over the decades, contracts that earned him millions of dollars. Not bad for a guy who once called the Pentagon "the most hideous institution on earth."
Naturally, Chomsky sees nothing wrong with taking money from a military he clearly loathes. "I think we should be responsible for what we do, and not for the bureaucratic question of who stamps the paycheck." In other words, Chomsky is more than happy to bite the hand that occasionally feeds him.
Admittedly, some of Chomsky's DOD contracts date back decades, when he was better known as a linguistics scholar than a radical activist. But the Chomsky revelation does raise disturbing questions; namely, why did the DOD keep giving Chomsky money in light of his views on the military--surely there are other linguistics scholars who could have completed the work for the Pentagon. And finally, there's the issue of potential bias in Chomsky's work. How can anyone who openly hates the military produce research that doesn't reflect that bias to some degree. Someone at the GAO or hte Pentagon Inspector General's office needs to determine if the taxpayers got their money's worth, and whether Chomsky's military customers (including the U.S. Army Signal Corps) received research data that wasn't shaped by the professor's radical views.
As my friends in College Station would say, the notion of hiring Chomsky to work for DOD just doesn't pass the Aggie Test.
Hat Tip: Inside the Ring.
Schweitzer has uncovered other gems as well. Turns out that anti-American socialist professor Norm Chomsky has profitted from the military as well. Schweitzer reveals that Chomsky, a linguistics professor, has received several military research contracts over the decades, contracts that earned him millions of dollars. Not bad for a guy who once called the Pentagon "the most hideous institution on earth."
Naturally, Chomsky sees nothing wrong with taking money from a military he clearly loathes. "I think we should be responsible for what we do, and not for the bureaucratic question of who stamps the paycheck." In other words, Chomsky is more than happy to bite the hand that occasionally feeds him.
Admittedly, some of Chomsky's DOD contracts date back decades, when he was better known as a linguistics scholar than a radical activist. But the Chomsky revelation does raise disturbing questions; namely, why did the DOD keep giving Chomsky money in light of his views on the military--surely there are other linguistics scholars who could have completed the work for the Pentagon. And finally, there's the issue of potential bias in Chomsky's work. How can anyone who openly hates the military produce research that doesn't reflect that bias to some degree. Someone at the GAO or hte Pentagon Inspector General's office needs to determine if the taxpayers got their money's worth, and whether Chomsky's military customers (including the U.S. Army Signal Corps) received research data that wasn't shaped by the professor's radical views.
As my friends in College Station would say, the notion of hiring Chomsky to work for DOD just doesn't pass the Aggie Test.
Hat Tip: Inside the Ring.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)