Waiting for Word

We may know more about the condition of Kim Jong-il in the coming days.

AFP, citing Japanese media reports, say that North Korean officials posted abroad have been told to "prepare for an important announcement" that may be related to the reclusive dictator's health. The statement is expected in a few days.

Pyongyang has told diplomats around the world to stay in one place and refrain from travelling, the Yomiuri Shimbun reported, quoting several unnamed sources familiar with North Korean issues.

The sources speculated the message could be related to North Korea's relations with South Korea or the health of Kim, Japan's best-selling daily said, adding that the announcement was expected in a few days.

Rumors about Kim Jong-il's health have swirled since mid-August, when he reportedly suffered a stroke and underwent brain surgery. Speculation intensified in early September, when Kim failed to appear at a massive celebration for the 60th anniversary of the DPRK.

A spokesman for South Korea's national intelligence service said his agency was "checking" the most recent reports on Kim Jong-il. However, intel sources in Washington and Seoul say they believe that Kim remains in charge of his regime. A U.S. official recently suggested that the North Korean leader's condition has "improved" in recent weeks, and he is not incapacitated.

State-run media in the DPRK recently published photos of Kim inspecting a female military unit, although it was unclear when the images were taken. Kim has not met with foreign dignitaries in several months, although such meetings were rare, even when he was in good health.

At this point, it's impossible to say what sort of message may come from Pyongyang. Western intelligence agencies have only limited insight into the political workings of the North Korean regime. The Hermit Kingdom rarely telegraphs its moves, and is adept at both military and geopolitical deception.

Many Korean watchers remember a particularly bizarre incident in the late 1980s. North Korean loudspeakers along the DMZ--and some media outlets in Pyongyang--suddenly announced that Kim il-Sung was dead. To this day, that episode has never been satisfactorily explained, although some have suggested that the broadcasts were connected to an attempted coup, or an effort to gauge potential reaction to his eventual passing.

Eventually, it became clear that the elder Kim was still among the living. He retained power until his death in 1994, and was succeeded by Kim Jong-il.

Currently, there is no convincing evidence that the younger Kim is permanently incapacitated, or preparing to transfer power to a new leader. Indeed, while Kim Jong-il is (reportedly) grooming his son to eventually take the reigns of power, most observers believe that he is not ready for that transition. The most likely, short-term successor for Kim Jong-il would come from the ranks of the nation's senior generals.

That scenario is considered remote--at least for now. But there's little certainty in trying to predict the actions of the DPRK. So that pending announcement clearly bears watching.

Iran's Latest Air Defense Exercise

Iran has launched a major air force exercise in its northwestern provinces, near the Turkish border. But (so far) the drill appears to be a repeat of previous exercises, and will do little to improve operational readiness or long-range strike capabilities.

According to an AP dispatch from Tehran, the exercise includes U.S.-built F-5, F-4 and F-14 fighters, along with newer, Russian-made Sukhoi jets (most likely the SU-25 Frogfoot). Iran's small inventory of domestically produced (read: re-manufactured) Saegheh aircraft are also participating.

But, as we've noted before, the Saegheh is nothing more than a refurbished F-5 with a second vertical stabilizer and minor avionics upgrades. It is not Tehran's answer to F/A-18 Hornet, as some Iranian officials have claimed.

Equally specious are Iran's claims that the drill will "test the Air Force's ability to fly to Israel and back without refueling," and feature electronic combat events, aimed at jamming U.S. and Israeli electronics system. That latter comment is a clear reference to the new, high-power anti-missile radar, currently being installed at an Israeli Air Force base in the Negev Desert.

The new radar is a key component of Israel's missile defense system. While the system will operated by American technicians, the Israelis will have full access to its tracking data. The radar can reportedly identify small objects at ranges of up to 1,900 miles, improving detection of missile launches and other military events inside Iran.

Obviously, the Iranians would need a lot of power to jam the radar, applied at a relatively close quarters. Call us skeptical, but we don't see the Iranian Air Force mounting that type of mission during this exercise, unless they want to lose the assigned aircraft and provoke a war. There's also the matter of how the Iranians would actually get to the Negev. Tehran's claims that its aircraft can now reach Israel without refueling are downright laughable.

And, complicating matters even more, Iran has no more than two aerial tankers to support long-range missions. One of those aircraft, a KC-707, participates in Iranian exercises on a limited basis; Iran's other tanker, a modified Boeing 747, has not been active in that role, and there is some speculation that its refueling equipment was removed. That means that Tehran would have only one tanker to support a long-range mission against Israel, limiting the size of the strike package to no more than 4-5 aircraft.

Additionally, most Iranian Air Force units don't train for long-distance missions. Even in the GPS area, finding your way to a target 1,000 miles away still requires a certain degree of navigation skill, and practice in executing long-range missions. In recent years, just one Iranian fighter unit --the F-4 wing at Hamadan Airbase--has practiced that type of profile, and only on rare occasions. Most western analysts believe that Iran currently lacks the training program (and requisite aircrew skills) to mount a successful attack on Israel.

What is significant about the exercise is its geography. The area around Tabriz represents the northwest gateway to Iran, and the nuclear facilities located in the western portion of that country. The most likely routes for an Israeli attack would carry strike aircraft across northern Iraq or southern Turkey, entering Iranian airspace in the Tabriz sector. Tehran clearly understands that, and the current drill is clearly aimed at testing defenses in that area.

But the region's rugged geography presents severe challenges to Iran's air force. Mountainous terrain means numerous gaps in radar coverage, particularly at low to medium altitude. Detecting an inbound strike package in that area is difficult, a task made more difficult by expected Israeli deception efforts.

Following established air corridors and using IFF "squawks" reserved for commercial aircraft, IAF formations could reach Iranian airspace without detection. At that point, Iran's aging F-4s (which remain the backbone of their interceptor fleet) would face the daunting task of intercepting better aircraft, flown by better pilots, operating under the cover of darkness.

And, if that's not enough, the Iranian F-4 crews would face a fratricide threat from their own surface-to-air missile batteries. As we've observed in the past, Iran's air defense network is a patchwork of outdated technology and more advanced equipment, cobbled together with a Chinese command-and-control system. Confusion sometimes reigns supreme, with fighters launched in pursuit of mysterious lights and even UFOs. In one instance, the Iranians came dangerously close to shooting down a Saudi airliner that misidentified by the air defense system.

If Tehran believes it is under Israeli air attack, much of the country will instantly become an enormous "free fire zone," with I-HAWK, CSA-1 and SA-15 batteries shooting at anything that resembles a target. The Israelis will likely contribute to the confusion, with their own jamming and the introduction of false targets into the Iranian air defense system. In that environment, Iran's F-4 crews will be essentially on their own.

While Iran understands these deficiencies, many still remain, and they would impair Tehran's ability to defend its airspace. The current exercise will almost certainly highlight the air defense problems, though you won't find any mention of them in mainstream media accounts or "official" statements from Tehran. Unfortunately, the few western press organizations in Iran have become little more than stenographers for the mullah's military, reporting their grandiose claims without any measure of confirmation.

***

Some observers say that Iran's exercise is a response to the large-scale drill conducted by the Israeli Air Force in June. But Tehran's war game is a far cry from the Israeli exercise, particularly in terms of complexity. Unlike Iran, the IAF actually tested its long-range strike capabilities during the June drill, flying across the Mediterranean to ranges in Greece. At least 100 Israeli aircraft took part in the operation.

By comparison, most of Iran's long-distance missions consist of 1-2 F-4s, flying a closed-loop circuit south of Tehran, with only limited air refueling to support the mission. That is not adequate practice for a potential long-range mission to Israel.

More Accurate Missile Warning for Israel

Israel is developing a system that will predict a missile's landing point with greatly improved accuracy, permitting tailored warnings for the country's civilian population.

Haaretz reports that the new system--which should be operational in 18 months--will allow Israel's Home Front Command to order alerts across relatively small areas, rather than broad regions of the country.

Currently, Israel is divided into 10 large districts for missile alerts, forcing large segments of the population into shelters during actual warnings and civil defense drills. Under the new system, Israel will be divided into 100 smaller districts, with alerts issued for areas specifically targeted by enemy missiles.

As an interim measure, the 10 existing districts will be split into 27 warning areas by next year. The total will increase to 100 once the alert system becomes fully operational.

Israel's new warning network is a recognition of several factors. First, the IDF expects sustained missile attacks as a key component of future conflict. Secondly, if fewer people have to run for shelters during individual attacks, the populace will be able to better endure enemy strikes.

The advanced warning system would allow more Israelis can carry on with daily routines when their neighborhoods aren't directly threatened. That could prevent a recurrence of the paralysis that gripped much of Israel in the 2006 war with Hizballah. During that conflict, the northern half of the country was pounded by repeated missile and rocket attacks, bringing normal life to a halt.

As Haaretz notes, the new system is heavily based on technological assistance provided by the United States. Over the last year, Washington has given Tel Aviv more access to data from Defense Support Program (DSP) satellites, which detect the thermal signatures of missiles shortly after launch. Additionally, the U.S. is installing a powerful surveillance radar in the Negev Desert, capable of detecting missile launches at a range of 1,900 miles. Data from those sources--and others--feed into the IAF system, producing more accurate assessments of where missiles will land.

Israel's original system for predicting missile impact points was developed during the First Gulf War, and upgraded prior to the 2006 Lebanon conflict. But after hundreds of attacks by Hizballah missiles and rockets, the IAF decided to take a new approach, creating a system that enables more pinpoint predictions.

The new warning network also hinges on an effective civil defense system, something that Israel has long emphasized. After all, advanced alert technology is of little use if the public doesn't know how to properly respond. But decades of living with the threat--and a nationwide civil defense program--ensure that Israelis will respond correctly.

While the advanced warning system is optimized for short and medium-range ballistic missiles (like Syrian SCUDs and Iranian Shahab-3s), it is expected to provide some detection of short-range threats, including Hizballah rockets fired from southern Lebanon. In the near future, the detection technology will be linked with another system, which will actually engage those threats.

The new detection and tracking system will also facilitate more accurate engagements by Israel's Arrow II ballistic missile defense system, reducing the number of enemy rockets that actually get through. But, like any other system, the Arrow II is subject to saturation. That's another reason that Israel needs a state-of-the-art warning system--just in case.

Following a Familiar Pattern

There's little doubt that the Air Force acquisition corps is in serious trouble. Protracted efforts to find a replacement for the KC-135 tanker recently suffered another setback, when Defense Secretary Robert Gates deferred a final decision to his successor.

Some would say that Mr. Gates had little choice. Last spring, the USAF awarded a contract for new refueling jets to Northrop-Grumman, but that deal was ultimately tossed out, after the Government Accountability Office (GAO) found serious problems with how the service handled the bidding process.

It was the second time the USAF bungled the tanker acquisition effort. A proposed lease of Boeing aircraft was scuttled five years ago, after government investigators uncovered misconduct by an Air Force official and a senior Boeing executive.

In the aftermath of the latest debacle, Mr. Gates stripped the USAF of its authority over the program. His action represented a damning indictment of the service's acquisition efforts, a vote of "no confidence" in the Air Force's ability to manage its procurement affairs. With the process dragging on (and the Bush Administration winding down), Gates decided to let his replacement sort out the mess and award the next tanker contract.

Meanwhile, the USAF's other big acquisition project, the next-generation Combat Search and Rescue (CSAR-X) helicopter seems to be following a similar pattern. Readers will recall that the GAO shot down (no pun intended) the original contract awarded to Boeing, after protests from competing firms. But, the Air Force still hoped to rebid the project--and announce a new winner--by year's end, minimizing delays in the delivery of the new choppers.

Now, those hopes appear to be fading. Contractors familiar with the process say that Air Force briefings on the project (scheduled for this month) have been postponed, while the service focuses on reforming its overall acquisition program.

As a part of that process, the service is consulting with outside experts on potential life cycle costs for CSAR-X. That was a major sticking point in the original competition, won by Boeing. Competitors claimed that the Air Force ignored certain life cycle expenses in making its original decision.

According to Aviation Week, no one really knows how the additional reviews will affect the contracting process. Officially, the Air Force is sticking by its original timetable, but that schedule seems (increasingly) in doubt. Given the same political factors that influenced the tanker decision, it seems likely that the USAF will postpone a decision on CSAR-X until after the next administration takes office.

In turn, that means more delays for a badly-needed weapons system. See a pattern here? As we wrote several months ago, reform of the acquisition process was one of the top priorities for the new Air Force leadership team. They are clearly working on the problem, but it may take an accelerated effort. Continued delays in major acquisition programs are unacceptable.

And, in fairness, the USAF needs a little help. Political pressures have crippled major defense programs, perpetuating a protracted cycle of protests and rebids. We need an acquisition equivalent of a BRAC commission, to reduce political influences in key military procurement programs.

Shades of "Hymietown"

The odious Jesse Jackson has offered his thoughts on what U.S. foreign policy might look like under an Obama Administration.

Speaking at the World Policy Forum in France over the weekend, Mr. Jackson promised "fundamental changes" in American foreign policy, saying the U.S. must "heal wounds" it has caused to other nations, revive its alliances and apologize for the "arrogance of the Bush administration."

Then, for good measure, Jackson took a little excursion into anti-Semitism, as the New York Post reports:

[According to Jackson] "The most important change would occur in the Middle East, where "decades of putting Israel's interests first" would end.

Jackson believes that, although "Zionists who have controlled American policy for decades" remain strong, they'll lose a great deal of their clout when Barack Obama enters the White House.

"Obama is about change," Jackson told [Post columnist Amir Taheri] in a wide-ranging conversation. "And the change that Obama promises is not limited to what we do in America itself. It is a change of the way America looks at the world and its place in it."

Jackson emphasized that he is not a member of Obama's policy advisory team--"just a supporter" as he describes it. But he did take credit for helping the Democratic presidential nominee launch his career.

So far, the Obama camp has said little about Jackson's remarks. They're probably hoping the matter will simply go away, and the MSM seems to be aiding in the effort (what a surprise). Aside from the Post, Jackson's comments have received very little attention, and don't look for them on the front page of The New York Times or Washington Post. Ditto for those evening news programs.

But maybe there is more to this than meets the eye. Matt Brooks of the Republican Jewish Coalition notes a similarity between Jackson's remarks and those of an Obama advisor, retired Air Force General Merrill "Tony" McPeak. Earlier this year, McPeak said that progress had not been made on the Middle East peace process because of the influence of the American Jewish community. McPeak suggested that American policy toward the Middle East is decided in "New York and Miami," which have large blocs of Jewish voters.

Amazing, General McPeak remains with the Obama campaign, those his role was been decidedly low-profile during the run-up to election day. And that begs another question: why has Senator Obama been so slow to distance himself from McPeak's remarks, and now, those of Jesse Jackson.

No one is accusing Mr. Obama of being an anti-Semite. But we can judge him by the company he keeps, and his alliances with General McPeak and Jesse Jackson raise legitimate concerns about how U.S.-Israeli relations would fare under his presidency.

Indeed, Jackson's expanded interview with the Post do nothing to alleviate those worries. He strongly supports Obama's desire for direct talks with the leaders of Iran, and claims that repairing relations with Islamic countries would be a top priority for his administration.

H/T: to Jennifer Rubin at Commentary.

The Last Mission

A Halifax bomber of the Royal Air Force (Daily Mail photo)

On a cold winter night in January, 1944, the RAF dispatched 800 heavy bombers on a raid against Berlin. It was a perilous assignment; the German capital was among the most heavily defended targets in the Third Reich, protected by hundreds of anti-aircraft guns, searchlights and deadly night fighters.

For such a mission, Bomber Command would (typically) lose five percent of its strike force, or roughly 40 aircraft. That affirmed the grim reality facing RAF bomber crews; despite their heroism and skill, most would not survive their 30-sortie combat tour. Of the 125,000 airmen who flew for Bomber Command, over 44% died in action or training accidents--a loss rate higher than British infantry officers who served in World War I.

The law of averages caught up with the crews of 27 bombers on that Berlin raid in early 1944. One of them--a Halifax from 102 Squadron--was hit by anti-aircraft fire on the homeward leg of its mission. In moments, the four-engine bomber, nicknamed, Old Flo, was transformed into an inferno; the tail gunner, Sergeant John Bushell, remembered being knocked unconscious, then coming to after being thrown from the burning aircraft.

Bushell and three other crew members survived and were taken to POW camps. The bodies of two other men--the second pilot and wireless operator--were buried after the war. But the bomber's flight engineer, Sergeant John Bremmer and a gunner, Warrant Officer Charles Dupueis, remained unaccounted for.

Seven decades later, the fate of Bremmer and Dupueis haunted Old Flo's other pilot, Flying Officer Reg Wilson. In 2005, at the age of 82, long after his retirement as a management consultant, Wilson traveled to Berlin and began a personal search for his missing comrades.

The U.K. Daily Mail offers a moving account of what he found.

De-Listing Pyongyang

As expected, the U.S. will remove North Korea from the list of nations that support terrorism. In exchange, Pyongyang has agreed to "verification" of its nuclear activities.

A statement announcing the deal is expected later today, according to Reuters. The agreement comes after a recent trip to North Korea by U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill, and subsequent deliberations within the Bush Administration.

A U.S. official tells the wire service that Mr. Hill brought back "assurances" on the verification issue, including some that North Korea had not provided before. The official did not elaborate on what Pyongyang had agreed to.

Note those words--agreed to. If this sounds, suspiciously familiar, it should be, since we've been down this road before. Under the infamous "Agreed To Framework" of 1994 and the more recent Six Party accord, North Korea has promised to open its nuclear facilities for inspection, and allowed limited inspections.

But, in the end, Pyongyang broke its word--just as it always does. In the mid-1990s, the DPRK took its program underground, achieving the technical breakthroughs that resulted in the 2006 nuclear test. And, since the Six Party agreement, North Korea has balked at making the required required disclosures about its nuclear program.

Initially, there were complaints about frozen assets in a Macau bank. When Kim Jong-il gained access to those funds, the terror designation became the new sticking point. We can only imagine what the next excuse for non-compliance might be. And rest assured--North Korea will find some reason for breaking this latest "agreement."

Then, there's the matter of Pyongyang's proliferation activities. Originally, the U.S. was pressing North Korea to disclose its nuclear assistance to other rogue states, including Syria and Iran. But today's announcement has no mention of that requirement. Earlier reports suggest that Washington has dropped that demand.

That means that we'll never get a full accounting of past proliferation efforts (remember that Syrian nuclear reactor), or regimes that are currently receiving assistance. Desperate to preserve the nuclear deal, Mr. Hill and his State Department colleagues were willing to give North Korea a pass on one of the most important elements of the original, Six Party agreement.

To be fair, Christopher Hill isn't the only official at fault. President Bush okayed the latest deal, ignoring North Korea's long history of diplomatic deceit. At this point in his term, we assume that the President is looking toward his legacy, hoping to be remembered for getting a nuclear deal with the DPRK.

Regrettably, Mr. Bush didn't choose the "other" legacy option for his Korean policy: a Commander-in-Chief that gave Pyongyang every chance for compliance (and the benefits that come with it), then scuttled the deal when it became clear that Kim Jong-il would never live up to his word.

***
ADDENDUM/12 October: Stephen Hayes expresses similar thoughts in a piece posted earlier today at The Weekly Standard. Well-placed sources tell Mr. Hayes that the latest agreement between the U.S. and North Korea is based on "verbal promises" from Pyongyang, nothing more. As a former Bush Administration official observed:

"There is no formal written agreement...the North Koreans haven't signed anything. We are taking them off the terrorist list based on oral understandings and clarifications. This isn't diplomacy, it's lunacy."

Sadly, we can only concur.

Taking Arbitron to Court

As we reported a couple of days ago, various Democratic politicians--including Barack Obama-- are mounting a frivilous attempt to block more accurate technology used to measure audiences for radio stations and other media.

And, sure enough, New York State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo has made good on his promise to file suit against Arbitron, the market research firm that developed the new technology. According to the New York Daily News, Cuomo's lawsuit claims that Arbitron's new Personal People Meters (PPMs) are unfair to minorities because they're "under-represented" in audience measurements. The suit also asks that the company reimburse minority broadcasters for revenue lost due to lower ratings.

While Cuomo has been threatening legal action for some time, Arbitron actually beat him to the punch. On Monday of this week, the firm filed its own suit, asking a New Jersey federal judge to prevent Mr. Cuomo from halting the roll-out of PPM technology in multiple markets. In its suit, Arbitron claims that the attorney general is violating its First Amendment rights.

As we've noted previously, Cuomo's suit is nothing more than pure political pandering. Under the new system, stations that are friendly to Democratic politicians (including those with urban and Hispanic formats) have seen their ratings dip. Meanwhile, outlets oriented toward an older audience (including talk stations) have picked up thousands of additional listeners who went uncounted before the advent of PPMs.

It's also a firm bet that Mr. Cuomo (and his allies) are concerned because conservative talk radio is among the beneficiaries of the new system. According to just-released ratings in New York City, WABC (the flagship for Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Mark Levin) is now #3 in the market, with its largest audience since its heyday as a Top 40 station.

Here's hoping that Cuomo's lawsuit is quickly dismissed, and Arbitron is allowed to proceed with the new system. By all accounts, PPMs are far more reliable than the antiquated "diary" method they replaced. Stations and advertisers have every right to accurate audience data to guide their advertising and programming decisions. Mr. Cuomo's legal stunt should be exposed for what it is--a feckless attempt to influence audience measurements for his friends in select media circles.

Someone needs to ask John McCain if he'd still like to nominate Andrew Cuomo for a position in his administration.

Too Little Learned

Today's reading assignment comes from Clifford May, writing for National Review. He recalls a seminal event in the Middle East, one that occurred 25 years ago this month. It was the bombing of the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut, and it signaled a new chapter in Iran'swar against America.

As Mr. May reminds us, the order for attacking the Marine compound came straight from Tehran, through the Iranian ambassador to Lebanon. The job of planning (and executing) the strike fell on a senior Hizballah operative, Imad Fayez Mughniyeh. His deadly bombing of the Marine barracks (and a similar, near-simultaneous attack on a building housing French peacekeepers) marked the start of Mughniyeh's own, bloody career as a terror master-mind.

Mughniyeh went on to conduct many other terrorist operations, “including the 1984 kidnapping and murder of the CIA station chief in Beirut, William Buckley. Mugniyah was also directly in charge of the 1988 kidnapping and execution of Marine Corps Colonel Rich Higgins, who was serving with the United Nations peacekeeping mission. And he was indicted in absentia by the U.S. government for his role in the hijacking of TWA Flight 847 in 1985, which led to the savage beating and execution of U.S. Navy diver Robert Stetham.”

In 1996, Mughniyeh (a Shia) met with Osama bin Laden (a Sunni) in Sudan. Among the topics these two terrorists presumably discussed was the efficacy of suicide attacks utilizing vehicles (if a truck rigged with explosives and fuel can kill several hundred infidels, what might various other vehicles do?), the psychological impact of synchronized and simultaneous attacks, and the encouraging fact that the United States had never made a serious attempt to punish the individuals (e.g. Mughniyeh), groups (e.g. Hezbollah) and regimes (Iran and Syria) responsible for the earlier attacks.

On October 23rd, the 25th anniversary of the bombing, there will be two commemorations, Mr. May writes. In North Carolina survivors of the attack and families of the dead Marines will gather at Camp Lejeune for the dedication of a memorial, honoring the fallen peace-keepers.

Half-way around the world, there will be a second ceremony on the 23rd. At Tehran's Behesht-E-Zahra Cemetary, crowds will honor the suicide bombers that launched the devastating attacks. The Iranian government erected a monument to the terrorists in 2004.

With perfect hindsight, we can now see the war against American that began with the embassy seizure in Tehran in 1979, then took a new and deadly turn with the 1983 Beirut attack. But we never learned the larger larger lessons of those episodes until much, much later--and we paid a price for our inaction.

To his credit, Mr. Reagan took on the Iran over other matters, and inflicted a series stinging naval defeats on Tehran in the late 1980s. But the snap decision to remove the Marines from Beirut was not his finest hour. With the exit of western forces, Iran and Hizballah eventually took control of Lebanon, creating the terrorist state that has now emerged on Israel's northern border.

In fairness, Reagan's decision made sense--at least from a military perspective. Sitting inside a compound, with restrictive rules of engagement, the Marines couldn't adequately defend themselves from terrorist attacks. Unfortunately, the withdrawal from Beirut was not followed by new, effective policies that would have slowed--or prevented--the advent of an Iranian proxy state in Lebanon.

Sadly, the mistakes that followed the Beirut bombing were compounded by the administrations that followed. The alarm bell that sounded in that single, terrible moment at the Marine barracks was largely ignored over the decades that followed, allowing the terrorist to continue their work.
***

ADDENDUM: May's column is based, in large part, on a superb article in this month's issue of Proceedings, the journal of the U.S. Naval Institute. Entitled "We Came in Peace, " it is written by retired Colonel Timothy Geraghty, the commander of the Marine unit in Beirut at the time of the attack. Colonel Geraghty does an excellent job in not only describing the attack, but the events that led to the bombing.

Making Washington Jump

***UPDATE/1830 EDT***Fox News reports a potential deal between the U.S. and North Korea. In exchange for being removed from the list of states supporting terrorism, Pyongyang would agree to some sort of verification regime. However, the DPRK would not be required to disclose its proliferation activties.
***

Last month, North Korea pitched another diplomatic temper-tantrum, backing out of its nuclear agreement with the United States and other participants in the Six-Party Talks. And, for good measure, Pyongyang expelled U.N. inspectors and vowed to restart its nuclear facility at Yongbyong--the same complex that produced the plutonium for the DPRK's first atomic device, tested in 2006.

What prompted the latest outburst from Kim Jong-il's regime? Apparently, the U.S. wasn't moving fast enough to remove North Korea from its list of countries that support international terrorism. Washington had promised to strike Pyongyang from that list, provided that Mr. Kim provided a full disclosure of his country's nuclear activities. As you might have guessed, North Korea never lived up to its end of the bargain.

It was merely the latest example of a tactic we call the nuclear "rope-a-dope" which goes something like this:

Bluster, then offer to talk. When the negotiations bog down (due to North Korean intransigence), call off the talks and bluster some more. At that point, the U.S. and its allies will make concessions, to restart the diplomatic process. In response, Pyongyang will offer a few vague promises, even sign the occasional agreement. Then, when North Korean compliance is questioned, start the process all over again.

Judging from the latest events in the Hermit Kingdom, we are apparently at the "bluster some more" point in the process. According to South Korean press reporting, the DPRK has deployed at least 10 anti-ship missiles on its west coast, in preparation for an apparent test launch.

A Reuters dispatch indicates that Pyongyang fired two missiles into the Yellow Sea on Wednesday, and ROK defense officials believe that North Korea may launch as many as seven. The DPRK has established a closure area off its southwestern coast through 15 October, in preparation for expected missile tests.

So far, the North Korean move seems to be having the desired effect. Japan's Kyodo news agency reports that U.S. envoy Christopher Hill, our chief negotiator in the Six Party talks, has reportedly agreed that verification of uranium enrichment and proliferation activities will not be a condition for removing Pyongyang from the terror list (emphasis ours). And, to sweeten the pot, Washington may take North Korea off the list before the end of the month.

In other words, Pyongyang doesn't have to prove that it doesn't have a covert enrichment program, or isn't sharing its expertise with other rogue states, in exchange for being dropped from the list of terror sponsors. Never mind that those guarantees were essential elements of the nuclear deal. Anxious to preserve the Six Party Accord at any cost, Mr. Hill and his State Department colleagues are (apparently) willing to take North Korea's enrichment and proliferation requirements off the table, while accelerating Pyongyang's "de-listing" as a state sponsor of terror.

Talk about a win-win. Kim Jong-il must have opened another bottle of Hennessy when he heard that Washington had rolled over again. And why not? For the cost of initial restart activities at Yongbyon and firing a few, aging Silkworm missiles into the Yellow Sea, he extracted major concessions from the United States. We can only imagine what his next stunt will be.

Of course, that is still a few months off. Once North Korea is removed from the terror list, Pyongyang will make a few vague promises about re-entering the accord, put its missiles back into storage and slow (or even halt) the reactivation of Yongbyon. That will last until its time for the DPRK to demonstrate even rudimentary compliance, or gain more concessions from the U.S.

By that time, a new administration will be in office, facing the ever-present challenge of how to handle Kim Jong-il. If we had to guess, the next stand-off will occur sometime in early 2009, a period that coincides with North Korea's annual Winter Training Cycle, when military training is at its peak. That gives Mr. Kim even more options for taunting the U.S., say road-marching an entire mechanized division toward the DMZ, or a large-scale exercise featuring ballistic missiles.

Understanding that the U.S. is fully committed to the diplomatic track--to the exclusion of other options--Pyongyang has mastered the art of making Washington jump. Look for the next round of "frog" after Inauguration Day, or possibly sooner, if it suits North Korea's needs.

Obama's Latest Cause

Barack Obama is on a crusade.

But we're not talking about a push for universal health care, or his tax plan to soak the rich. Instead, we refer to the Senator's efforts to ban electronic ratings monitoring.

Brian Maloney at the Radio Equalizer has been covering this issue for more than a year. As he notes, the controversy pits the radio audience measurement firm (Arbitron), subscriber stations and advertisers, against other stations--mostly those with urban or hip-hop formats; their allies in the civil rights establishment and the Democratic Party.

For decades, Arbitron has been searching for a more accurate method to measure the size of radio audiences and their demographic composition. Traditionally, the firm had used "diaries" to record listening patterns. Audience members, selected by Arbitron, were required to record their listening activity in a small book, which was returned to the firm at the end of the ratings period.

However, the "diary method" had serious flaws. Some participants tended to over-report their listening patterns, simply writing in the calls letters (or frequency) of a single station for every day in the survey period. Advertisers--who bought commercial time on the basis on Arbitron reporting--expressed concern that some demographic groups were "over-sampled," while others went under-reported. Broadcasters, particularly those with stations appealing to older audiences, claimed that many of their listeners went uncounted.

To provide more accurate audience measurements, Arbitron developed a device called the Portable People Meter (PPM). About the size of a small cell phone, the PPM is carried by survey participants. It detects inaudible codes embedded in the audio portion of media and entertainment content from broadcasters, content providers and distributors. Periodically, individuals participating in the survey put their PPM in a small docking device that extracts code information, and sends it to Arbitron's computers.

Ratings data compiled under the new system has been tested in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles and other major markets for more than a year. And it seems to confirm the long-held suspicions of broadcasters and advertisers, who believed that audience levels for some formats, particularly news-talk, had been grossly under-reported by the old system. With more accurate PPM technology, a number of talk stations have seen a major ratings spike. As Mr. Maloney reports:

That included a massive 3.6 (spring 2008 under the old system) to 4.8 jump for New York City's conservative WABC in the overall 12 and older demographic. In Los Angeles, KFI moved from a 4.0 to 4.2, while Chicago's WLS surged from 3.0 to 4.5 and Philly's WPHT rocketed from 3.8 to 5.0. And in San Francisco, KGO moved from 5.2 to 6.5.

At WABC, Rush Limbaugh (now ranked fourth among all stations, including music, with a huge 5.3 share), Sean Hannity (third with a 4.8) and Mark Levin (first with a 6.5) have all turned in stellar numbers under PPM.

Meanwhile, ratings for speciality-format stations, including urban and hip-hop, have dropped, meaning a loss of millions of dollars in advertising revenue. In New York, for example, urban-formatted WBLS dropped from #4 to #12 when PPM data unveiled earlier this month. The city's most popular Hispanic station, WCAA, fell from #5 under the diary system, to #20 under PPM.

Executives at those (and other) minority-formatted stations are clearly concerned. WBLS's program director told the New York Daily News last year that the PPM system could "put us out of business."

As you might expect, Democratic politicians and "community activists" are riding to the rescue. New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo has announced plans for a lawsuit against Arbitron, warning stations and advertisers not to rely on PPM-generated ratings data. Mr. Cuomo claims that the new technology under-represents African-Americans, Hispanics, people who do not speak English and households without "land line" telephones.

Arbitron counters that argument with its own data, showing that the PPM sample is exceeding targets among blacks and Hispanics by more than 15%. The company also notes that the syndicated Steve Harvey Radio Show is tied for first place in morning drive in New York. If the new system was actually under-sampling minorities, the firm contends, Mr. Harvey's program would be much lower in the ratings.

Unfortunately, Mr. Cuomo and his allies never let the facts get in the way of a race-baiting lawsuit. And that brings us to Barack Obama and his role in this affair.

Along with fellow Illinois Senator Dick Durbin, Mr. Obama fired off a letter to Arbitron's President and CEO, urging him to delay the rollout of PPMs in other markets, including Chicago. They claim that a poorly-implemented meter system would "distort the market...harming the important broadcast policy of diversity."

As Mr. Maloney observes, there's more to this letter than sinking ratings at urban and Hispanic stations that are friendly to Democratic pols. Unfortunately for Messrs Obama, Durbin and Cuomo, PPM technology affirms that their biggest broadcast foe--conservative talk radio--is more popular than anyone realized.

Virtually all of the talk stations that saw their ratings soar under the new system carry Rush Limbaugh and/or Sean Hannity. In fact, PPM ratings have added hundreds of thousands of additional listeners for both programs in New York City alone. That, of course, means that outlets like WABC and WLS can charge more for advertising time, adding handsomely to their bottom line. The popularity--and profitability--of conservative talk shows means it will be tougher for the Democrats to achieve their number one broadcast goal: re-imposition of the Fairness Doctrine.

No wonder Mr. Obama was so willing to sign that letter to Arbitron.

The Air Force Nuclear (and Cyber) "Re-Org" Begins

As part of an effort to fix its troubled nuclear program, the USAF will consolidate its nuclear operations in a new command, rather than under Air Force Space Command (AFSPC).

And, in a separate organizational change, the service has decided against the creation of a new "cyber command." Instead, the service will create a Numbered Air Force (NAF) for cyber operations, aligning it under AFSPC.

According to Air Force Times, the mission realignment was finalized last week, during four days of meetings at the U.S. Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs. Details on the new organizations will be released in the following weeks, after the service unveils its new nuclear road map.

Details from that plan were published by this blog last week; the 200-page document highlights the root causes of recent nuclear security mishaps, and USAF's game plan for fixing them, emphasizing accountability, rigorous self-assessment, and reinvestment in personnel and equipment.

In the wake of two high-profile nuclear incidents, organizational changes in the Air Force were almost inevitable. But the plan outlined in Air Force Times deviates from recommendations provided by a DoD Nuclear Task Force, headed by former Defense Secretary James Schlesinger.

As part of their investigation into the service's nuclear woes, the Schlesinger panel suggested that USAF nuclear missions be consolidated under AFSPC, which would be re-named Air Force Strategic Command.

Instead, Air Force leaders elected to move AFSPC's intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) into the new command, which has not been formally named. While the service's long-range nuclear bombers are also expected to be a part of the new organization, officials have not explained the realignment's impact on nuclear-capable platforms like the B-2 and B-52.

It is also unclear how the organizational change may affect tactical nuclear missions, now performed by fighter units in the CONUS, Europe and the Far East.

As Air Force Space Command prepares to lose its long-standing ICBM mission, it will become responsible for the service's cyber operations. Originally, USAF leaders hoped to establish a separate command for cyber wafare, with a provisional headquarters at Barksdale AFB, Louisiana. However, those plans were subsequently scaled back, after the other services accused the Air Force of "poaching" the cyber mission.

Under the option selected last week, AFSPC will gain the cyber operations NAF, although details of that realignment have not been released. Currently, the Air Force Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (AFISR) Agency is the service's executive agent for cyber warfare, reporting to Eighth Air Force and U.S. Strategic Command.

The AFISR organization is a Field Operating Agency, reporting directly to the service's Deputy Chief of Staff for ISR. Creating of the cyber operations NAF could mean a loss of assets for the agency, a change in its reporting chain, or both.

Creating of the "Cyber NAF" is viewed as something of a sop for AFSPC and Colorado officials. With creation of the new "nuclear command," AFSPC stands to lose hundreds of billets associated with its ICBM mission--and there's no guarantee that the new organization (or those positions) will remain in Colorado.

However, there's also the issue of what cyber assets--if any--the service might uproot in establishing the new numbered air force. The bulk of the Air Force's cyber units are concentrated in Texas and Maryland, and shifting them to Colorado (or another AFSPC location) makes little sense.

Indeed, the best option might be a NAF (with a minimal staff) at an AFSPC base, while the organization's "war-fighting" assets remain in their current location, with the personnel and infrastructure to carry out their mission. When it first proposed a full-fledged cyber command, the Air Force talked about a virtual headquarters, leading subordinate units across the country. That template could be easily applied to the new, cyber NAF.

Would Congress go along with the idea? While no elected officials have weighed in on the organizational changes (at least not yet), many would have misgivings about a virtual command structure. Their opposition would be based on two issues: money and manpower.

With AFSPC losing jobs at Peterson AFB, Colorado (and other locations) in conjunction with the ICBM shift, politicians in the state will be looking for an offset. And we're guessing they won't be satisfied with a small NAF in Colorado, commanding large cyber ops units whose personnel--and payrolls--are located hundreds of miles away, in other states. Look for the cyber NAF that eventually emerges to have a full headquarters staff--and enough operational assets in Colorado to keep the pols happy.

Today's Reading Assignment

Sol Stern, writing at City Journal, on "The Bomber as School Reformer." Mr. Stern is referring to the title recently bestowed on Barack Obama's neighborhood buddy, former 60's radical William Ayres.

With the presidential campaign now in its final month, the white-washing of Ayres (and his terrorist roots) has become Job #1 for the mainstream press. The latest effort began with last Saturday's lengthy article in The New York Times, which concluded that Obama and Ayres were never close. And, for good measure, the paper described Mr. Ayres as an advocate of education reform. True enough--if you favor school reform along the lines of Fidel Castro's Cuba, or those of Hugo Chavez in Venezuela.

Mr. Stern, a former leftist himself, appreciates the irony of Ayres' "reform" mantle:

Calling Bill Ayers a school reformer is a bit like calling Joseph Stalin an agricultural reformer. (If you find the metaphor strained, consider that Walter Duranty, the infamous New York Times reporter covering the Soviet Union in the 1930s, did, in fact, depict Stalin as a great land reformer who created happy, productive collective farms.) For instance, at a November 2006 education forum in Caracas, Venezuela, with President Hugo Chávez at his side, Ayers proclaimed his support for “the profound educational reforms under way here in Venezuela under the leadership of President Chávez. We share the belief that education is the motor-force of revolution. . . . I look forward to seeing how you continue to overcome the failings of capitalist education as you seek to create something truly new and deeply humane.” Ayers concluded his speech by declaring that “Venezuela is poised to offer the world a new model of education—a humanizing and revolutionary model whose twin missions are enlightenment and liberation,” and then, as in days of old, raised his fist and chanted: “Viva Presidente Chávez! Viva la Revolucion Bolivariana! Hasta la Victoria Siempre!”

Indeed, Ayres' reform agenda is based almost entirely on the idea of teaching "social justice" in the classroom.

Ayers and his education school comrades are explicit about the need to indoctrinate public school children with the belief that America is a racist, militarist country and that the capitalist system is inherently unfair and oppressive. As a leader of this growing “reform” movement, Ayers was recently elected vice president for curriculum of the American Education Research Association, the nation’s largest organization of ed school professors and researchers.

Stern reminds us that we still don't have an accurate picture of the relationship between Ayres and Obama, or what the Democratic presidential nominee thinks of his ideas on school reform.

And, if you're hoping the subject is raised at tonight's debate in Nashville, think again. NBC's Tom Brokaw, who will moderate the "town hall" event, has also referred to Bill Ayres as a "school reformer." What a coincidence.

More Tanker Headaches

The Air Force's struggle to find a new tanker aircraft has attracted world-wide attention over the past couple of years. Currently, efforts to select a replacement for Eisenhower-era KC-135s are on hold, after Boeing successfully challenged a contract awarded to rival Northrop-Grumman.

With the battle spilling over into political circles, Defense Secretary Robert Gates elected to defer the decision to his successor. That means that USAF refueling units won't get new aircraft until at least 2013-2014, almost a decade behind the original schedule.

And, if that weren't bad enough, the Air Force is also caught in a bruising fight over who will provide depot-level maintenance for those aging KC-135s. As Aviation Week reports, the long-time contractor and subcontractor for the depot program are locked in a court battle, with clear implications for future tanker maintenance.

The twists and turns of this saga would give a lawyer a headache, but here's a quick synopsis:

Three years ago, Boeing (the prime contractor) and Alabama Aircraft Industries, Inc (the sub-contractor) agreed to bid together on the Air Force tanker depot maintenance contract, covering more than 40 aircraft a year. Depot work is roughly defined as the more detailed maintenance and airframe upgrades that can't be handled at the unit level, or at service-run logistics centers.

However, the service subsequently reduced the number of aircraft that would receive depot-level maintenance from outside firms, from 44 to 24. At that point, Boeing pulled out of its agreement with AAII. In response, the Alabama firm filed a protest, and submitted a bid on its own.

Flash forward to September 2007, when the Air Force gave the contract to Boeing. AAII filed another protest, which was partially upheld by the GAO. Boeing won again in a second round of bidding (concluded in March of this year), prompting AAII to seek legal relief. On 30 September, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, ruling on a complaint filed by AAII, enjoined the Air Force from moving forward on the new contract.

For now, the two aerospace firms have agreed to keep working together, under the terms of the old contract. But, as Aviation Week observes, sorting out the KC-135 depot maintenance deal could take another two years. The legal wrangling also raises questions about long-term support for the KC-135, which will remain the backbone of our refueling fleet until those new tankers arrive in....er....you get the picture.

The Boeing/AAII battle is yet another reminder of the need for major reform in the defense contracting and procurement business. Corporate protests and political influence have, essentially, brought the Air Force tanker program to a halt, and the service's new combat search and rescue (CSAR) helicopter has been delayed by the same sort of tactics. Meanwhile, the tankers used to refuel other aircraft and our rescue choppers aren't getting any younger.

There has to be a better way. It's imperative that the next administration put acquisition and contracting reforms at the top of its DoD "to do" list.

Setting the Template

There's plenty of blame to go around in the current financial meltdown; feckless politicians from both parties; greedy executive on Wall Street who thought they could re-write the rules of economics; deadbeat homeowners who bought homes they couldn't afford--all share culpability for the mortgage crisis that eventually spread to the credit market and now threatens our entire economy.

But it's also clear that the entire mess began with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, those infamous, semi-public entities established by Congress to "encourage" home ownership by guaranteeing mortgage loans to all types of consumers. Fannie and Freddie (along with their pals in the financial industry) were also responsible for buying up and reselling risky loans to investors, who believed that the housing bubble would expand indefinitely.

That's why an article that appeared in Sunday's edition of The New York Times is so instructive. Written by reporter Charles Duhigg, the piece represents of the paper's first attempts to examine the role of Fannie and Freddie in precipitating the current crisis.

Unfortunately, the article is anything but a hard-hitting expose. Instead, it is something of a mea culpa for Daniel Mudd, the son of the former CBS newscaster, and Fannie Mae's well-c9compensated CEO until earlier this year. It begins with Mudd's assertion that he was blindsided (for lack of a better term) by the crisis.

“Almost no one expected what was coming. It’s not fair to blame us for not predicting the unthinkable.“— Daniel H. Mudd, former chief executive, Fannie Mae.

The piece goes on to describe the former CEO in glowing terms; a "decorated former Marine," who "wanted to work for an altruistic business," so "he could be a hero to his four children," just as his father had been to him.

But, as Duhigg describes it, Mr. Mudd inherited a company under siege, because private lenders were snatching lucrative parts of Fannie Mae's business. Lenders were also threatening to by-pass the company and sell directly to Wall Street, unless Fannie Mae bought more of their high-risk loans. Making matters worse, Congress was pressuring Mudd and his organization to expand their efforts and guarantee even more loans to "low-income borrowers."

In other words, Mr. Mudd was literally backed into a corner, and acted accordingly:

So Mr. Mudd made a fateful choice. Disregarding warnings from his managers that lenders were making too many loans that would never be repaid, he steered Fannie into more treacherous corners of the mortgage market, according to executives.

For a time, that decision proved profitable. In the end, it nearly destroyed the company and threatened to drag down the housing market and the economy.

Dozens of interviews, most from people who requested anonymity to avoid legal repercussions, offer an inside account of the critical juncture when Fannie Mae’s new chief executive, under pressure from Wall Street firms, Congress and company shareholders, took additional risks that pushed his company, and, in turn, a large part of the nation’s financial health, to the brink.

[snip]

Mr. Mudd said in an interview that he responded as best he could given the company’s challenges, and worked to balance risks prudently.

“Fannie Mae faced the danger that the market would pass us by,” he said. “We were afraid that lenders would be selling products we weren’t buying and Congress would feel like we weren’t fulfilling our mission. The market was changing, and it’s our job to buy loans, so we had to change as well.”

Obviously, financial reporting isn't our forte, and we can't claim the decades of collective experience of the Times' business section. But we do seem to recall a certain accounting scandal that engulfed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in the middle part of this decade, ending the tenure of Mudd's predecessor, Franklin Raines, and the company's Chief Financial Officer, Timothy Howard.

To his credit, Duhigg does get around to mentioning that little snafu, but it's quickly summarized in a single paragraph on page 2. There is no description of the fraud perpetuated by Raines, Howard and their associates. Federal investigators described it as "extensive" and that's being charitable. It was nothing more than a scheme to cook Fannie Mae's books, so executives could pocket tens of millions of dollars in pay and bonuses, linked to the company's financial performance.

Raines and Howard don't surface again until the end of the article, which notes that both men kept most of their bonus money, and are enjoying the good life as multi-millionaires. Mr. Mudd, by comparison, is depicted as a man who tried to salvage a sinking ship, before finally being sacked by Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson.

Also receiving scant attention is the role played by Congressional Democrats, who resisted efforts to reform Fannie and Freddie. Only two are mentioned by name; Rhode Island Senator Jack Reed, who lectured Mudd during a Congressional hearing in 2006, and Massachusetts Congressman Barney Frank, There is no mention of two of Fannie Mae's most enthusiastic backers in the Senate--Chris Dodd and Barack Obama.

Predictably, Mr. Duhigg also ignores GOP to rein in the federally-backed mortgage guarantors. Over the past eight years, the Bush Administration proposed additional oversight for Fannie and Freddie on at least fourteen occasions. In 2005, Senator John McCain offered a bill that would have increased regulation of both agencies, but Senate Democrats blocked its passage.

In the end, Mudd comes off as yet another victim of the financial crisis. As far as we can tell, the Times never presses the former CEO on what me he could have done--should have done--to stem the crisis that (ultimately) caused the collapse of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Indeed, Mudd seems almost oblivious to the gathering storm in the housing and mortgage industries.

Why was he so preoccupied? To hear the NYT tell it, he was trying to placate partners in the lending industry and on Wall Street. No mention was made of Mudd's appearance before the Congressional Black Caucus in 2005, shortly after he took over Fannie Mae. Mudd gave a particularly fawning speech, referring to caucus members as "family," and pledging to do more for their constituencies.

Mr. Mudd's address makes one thing very clear: he knew who was buttering Fannie Mae's bread, and was determined to serve his political masters, whatever the cost.

It also seems apparent that the Times' plans to go easy on people like Mr. Mudd and his former associates at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. As government regulators reported three years ago, executives at the organizations were up to their necks in fraudulent activities, yet there's no discussion on what Mr. Mudd knew--and why he did nothing as Raines (and others) approved fraudulent financial statements that gave them millions in pay and bonuses.

If the MSM follows the NYT template, we won't be hearing much about what happened in the boardrooms at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Conversely, the Wall Street crooks involved in this mess will get the "Enron" treatment, right down to their perp walk.

We're not saying the Wall Street crowd doesn't deserve a media lynching. But ignoring the underlying corruption at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac--and the politicians who enabled it--is yet another example of the slow, steady death of American journalism.

Michelle Malkin has observed the same, sorry media scramble to cover for Democrats involved in the fleecing and collapse of Fannie and Freddie.

***

ADDENDUM: And, right on cue, California Congressman Henry Waxman has opened hearings into the financial meltdown. His first witness? The former CEO of Lehman Brothers. To date, we've heard of no plans to subpoena Frank Raines, Jim Johnson, Tim Howard or Daniel Mudd.

We also wonder how long it would take a President Obama to pardon Raines and other, former members of his management team.

The Truth be Told

NATO Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer strikes us as one of those prototypical European politicians who have (traditionally) held the alliance's top job. Mr. Scheffer is bright, sophisticated and an adept manager, with years of experience in the Dutch government and its national security apparatus.

But Scheffer is equally calibrated and cautious. Trying to satisfy NATO's 26 member nations is a tall order; it's no wonder the secretary-general seems to wet his finger and test the political winds before making any statement of consequence.

That's why NATO's 11th civilian leader deserves credit for his most recent statement on Iran. Speaking at a conference in France, Mr. Scheffer expressed doubt about the international community's ability to keep Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons:

"I am not positive about the world being able to stop Iran from fulfilling its ambitions," he said during a meeting which was quoted by Reuters.

"It is a major challenge to prevent Iran from continuing to strive to get the bomb," Scheffer said, adding that his concern was "that the Security Council, as we speak, is rather incapable of coming to further conclusions on further sanctions."

And he's exactly right. At the present time, there appears to be no consensus within the Security Council for additional sanctions against Iran, and any move along those lines would almost certainly be blocked by Russia and China. So, anyone expecting decisive action from the U.N. will almost certainly be disappointed (again).

Readers will note that Scheffer did not directly criticize diplomatic efforts by the EU-3 (Britian, Germany and France), who have been talking with Tehran on the nuclear issue for more than three years, with no appreciable results. Reading between the lines of his comments, we wonder if Scheffer is taking an indirect swipe at European diplomatic efforts, which have been as unproductive as the security council.

Being a former diplomat, Scheffer is unlikely to directly criticize fellow envoys--particularly since they represent three important NATO members. But it's easy to see that the NATO Secretary-General is frustrated by the failure of existing efforts to curb Iran's nuclear ambitions. While he never advocates military action, Scheffer is reminding the west (in carefully-constructed language) that the current approach on Iran has failed, and it's time to try something else--if anyone has the stomach for it.

Sadly, no one does. As the Bush Administration plays out the string, it remains wedded to the "diplomatic track" of the EU-3. Iran understands that and is quite willing to continue the conversation, while refusing to make any concessions on its nuclear program. The situation in the security council is even more dire; prospects for new, tougher sanctions are virtually nil, and with the growing world financial crisis, Iran has all-but-disappeared as an issue of immediate concern.

Meanwhile, the centrifuges at Natanz keep spinning, and Iranian scientists continue their work on medium and long-range missiles, aimed at putting nukes on Israel and points beyond. With today's comments, the NATO Secretary-General seems to be echoing a point we've made before. On-going efforts to deal with the Iranian nuclear problem have simply "kicked the can" down the road, delaying the inevitable day of reckoning.

But that day cannot be postponed indefinitely. And it's about time the smart people in Washington, London, Berlin, Paris and Turtle Bay come to grips with it, and devise a new approach.

Unfortunately, that prospect is nothing more than a diplomatic pipe-dream. Mr. Scheffer's description of the security council as "rather incapable" could be applied to a lot of governments (and international institutions) that have soft-peddled the Iranian threat for years.

McCain Gets Some Good Poll Numbers (For a Change)

While John McCain's recent polling data has been anything but encouraging, the GOP presidential nominee is getting some good news from a bedrock Republican constituency.

According to a Military Times survey, "career" military personnel are solidly behind Senator McCain, by an almost three-to-one margin. Among the 4,000 who participated in the poll, 68% said they planned to vote for the Arizona Senator, compared to only 23% for the Democratic nominee, Senator Barack Obama.

A breakdown of the survey reveals wide support for Mr. McCain among virtually all segments of the military. The Republican candidate had solid majority among every demographic group except African-American members of the armed forces, who prefer Mr. Obama by 79-12 margin. Interviews with black participants indicated that race was a significant factor in their support for the Illinois Senator.

Otherwise, the military poll was a virtual clean-sweep for McCain. White, non-Hispanic military members (including active duty, reservists and retirees) support the Arizona Senator by a 76-17% margin; McCain also a majority among the survey's Hispanic participants (63-27%), and other minorities (58-30%).

Mr. McCain is also preferred by respondents who identified their service affiliation. He leads among members of the Army (68-23%), and enjoys similar margins among Navy and Air Force personnel. Senator McCain enjoys an even wider margin among Marines, 75-18%.

The Republican nominee is also viewed as a better choice for handling domestic and foreign policy issues. Seventy-four percent of survey respondents said McCain would do a better job handling the wars in Iraq in Afghanistan (compared to only 19% for Obama). By a slightly wider margin (77-15%), military personnel and retirees believe the GOP candidate would be better at handling issues affecting the armed forces. McCain was also viewed as more qualified on domestic matters, but the gap was much narrower, 50-33%.

In terms of why they're supporting a particular candidate, most of the poll participants (42%) said character was the most important issue. Twenty-five percent of the respondents identified the economy as their reason for picking a candidate, while the war in Iraq ranked third.

As Times reporter Brendan McGarry notes, the results suggest the Democrats have made little inroads with military voters, despite on-going conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the party's attempt to appeal to that voting block, with tailored campaign messages and recent legislation that expanded G.I. Bill benefits.

In fairness, we should offer a few caveats about this poll, as we have with previous surveys conducted by Military Times. First, the publishing company draws respondents from its readership list; more than 80,000 current and former subscribers were invited to participate, via a secure website. More than 4,000 actually took part in the poll, which was conducted between 22-29 September. Since it is a voluntary survey, it is impossible to determine the margins of error within the data.

Additionally--by the Times' own admission, the survey is weighted toward "career" military personnel, a group more likely to vote for Republican candidates. Survey participants were also older than the military average, and the group contained a higher percentage of officers than the armed forces as a whole.

Still, executives at Gannett (which publishes the Military Times papers) have touted past polls as a potential barometer of the professional military. It is also the only recurring survey that is aimed at measuring opinion within the armed forces. And surprisingly, the publications have actually assigned a margin of error (3%) to previous polls, using a similar methodology. But even if a wider margin is factored in, the conclusion is still clear; the vast majority of military personnel and retirees will vote for John McCain in November.

How much of an impact will they have? In several battleground states, military voters represent an important demographic, particularly for Republicans. Florida, for example, has thousands of active duty and retiree voters in the Panhandle, along the eastern "Space Coast," and in the Tampa Bay area. Thousands of other military members vote in Florida by absentee ballot. For Mr. McCain to win the state, he needs to run up healthy margins in those areas; if the Times survey is any indication, his military "base" seems secure.

Unfortunately, there is one bit of discouraging news in the Military Times survey. Over half of the survey participants--56%--plan to vote by absentee ballot. Recent research indicates that two-thirds of military absentee votes went uncounted in the last presidential election, largely because members of the armed forces (and their dependents) received their ballots late, or they were returned after deadlines set by state and local officials.

Meanwhile, Congressional Democrats have consistently blocked efforts to make military votes count. Not a single Democrat supported a GOP measure that would have required DoD to ship absentee ballots via air mail, cutting return times from three or four weeks, to a matter of days.

***
ADDENDUM: There are also significant numbers of military voters in two other battleground states, Virginia and Ohio. While the McCain campaign has been active in the Buckeye State, their efforts in the Old Dominion have been sporadic, although TV advertising has increased over the past week. Meanwhile, Barack Obama has been to Virginia at least four times, most recently on Saturday. Obama has his own, targeted groups in the Commonwealth, and he's using that ground game to partly offset McCain's military advantage.

Beneath Contempt

One thing about liberal "pundits," including those in the blogosphere. Just when you think they've hit rock-bottom with contemptuous comments, they find a way to reach a new low in public discourse.

The latest case-in-point is ABC Sports sideline reporter Suzy Shuster, who also blogs at the Huffington Post. Here's her "take" on "Sarah Palin's 'favorite campaign prop,' her five-month-old son Trig (H/T to Michael Bates at Newsbusters):

It actually came after the debate, when for seemingly the millionth time, Sarah Palin trotted out her piece de resistance, her favorite prop of this campaign season: her five and a half month old son Trig.

Why is this child up so late every time there is a camera op? Why isn't this baby sleeping in a crib or bassinet somewhere with a sleep sheep or some other sound apparatus lulling him into night-night? Is it just me or does it seem like she carts this poor child around like a living breathing example of how wonderful a mom she is? After all, she's more than adopted the "I'm just a mom, just like you moms out there, America" attitude.

But the truth is, if she was just like all you other Moms out there, America, then she'd know the best thing she can do for this infant is to make sure he is tucked safely in his bed and out cold at eleven pm. And please don't say well, maybe she doesn't have anyone to watch him. Believe that, and I've got a Bridge to Nowhere that I want to sell you.

As far as we know, Ms. Shuster doesn't have any children. So, her "offering" parenting advice is a bit like sex counseling from a priest. However, we are reminded that Shuster had her own, domestic difficulties last year, when she discovered her husband, fellow sportscaster Rich Eisen, had received racy bikini photos from Philadelphia anchorwoman Alycia Lane.

Now, we understand why Mr. Eisen was engaged in that "platonic," on-line relationship with Ms. Lane.

***

ADDENDUM: As an alert reader at Free Republic noted, Trig Palin's body clock is on Alaska Time, four hours behind the eastern time zone. So, when the debate ended at 10:30 EDT last night, it was "only" 6:30 for Trig. No wonder he was wide awake when the debate concluded. We're also reminded that infants tend to operate on their own schedule, as any parent who's been awakened at 3:00 a.m. can attest.

One more thing: we always thought liberals championed the idea of women "having it all"--balancing work, a successful marriage and children. Obviously, there's a different standard for conservatives. And conversely, we can predict Ms. Shuster's reaction if Sarah Palin had left Trig behind in Alaska, in the care of relatives or a nanny; something along the lines of "she's ignoring her baby," or "she's ashamed of her handicapped son."

Governor Palin really does get under their skin.

Another Bad Idea

From Bill Gertz of the Washington Times, we learn that President Bush has authorized the intelligence community to brief both presidential campaigns with "classified information on world events."

The policy was revealed last month, during a speech by Thomas C. Fingar, the Deputy Director of National Intelligence for Analysis.

"The president authorized us to reach out to the campaigns to offer substantive briefings at a time and place of their choosing," Mr. Fingar said in a Sept. 4 speech in Florida.

Mr. Fingar, who also heads the National Intelligence Council, which produces intelligence estimates, stated that "our approach in this is complete transparency. If one campaign asks for something or receives something, we notify the other. We don't want to be an issue. We don't want to appear to be or enable anybody to construe us as being partisan in this. We've provided an array of topics that we think sort of collectively in the community are ones that might want to know about early on. But we'll of course receive any request."

Based on limited evidence, the system seems to be working. We can't find any evidence that either campaign has tried to use the information for political advantage. However, we'd feel better if the DNI released an (unclassified) list of topics presented, and who has been present for the briefings, and where the presentations were delivered.

Still, the Bush policy strikes us as a bad idea, for a couple of reasons. First, Senators Obama and McCain already have access to classified information in their capacity as elected officials. Some of their top advisers also have security clearances, and (we assume) receive intelligence updates in their positions outside the campaign. Suffice it to say that both campaigns already have access to intel data, without regular updates from the DNI staff.

Secondly, regardless of who wins the election, there will be plenty of time to get them up to speed before Inauguration Day. In the interim, providing current intelligence data to the campaigns creates an enormous temptation to "spin" a report or assessment, particularly in a close race.

Again, there is no indication of that happening (so far). But lest we forget, the ultimate job of a campaign--and a candidate--is winning the election, no matter what it takes. If that means a timely leak to enhance a candidate's stand (or embarrass an opponent), so be it.

Besides, even if Mr. Obama and Mr. McCain play by the rules this time around, there's no guarantee that future presidential hopefuls will comply. Nowadays, virtually no one gets prosecuted for divulging classified information, and that includes various politicians and advisers with access to intelligence data.

In his effort to be fair, Mr. Bush has only accelerated an ominous trend. In theory, intelligence agencies and their assessments should be above politics and presidential campaigns. Instead, our intelligence community has become increasingly politicized, with elements conducting an open war against the administration and its policies, largely through anonymous leaks. It's easy to see that practice continuing, in the heat of a political campaign.

***

ADDENDUM: There is a certain irony that the briefing policy was announced by Dr. Fingar, a man who is no stranger to controversy, or the politics of intelligence. As you'll recall, Fingar presided over that controversial National Intelligence Estimate on Iran, the controversial (read: misguided) assessment which declared that Iran had suspended its nuclear weapons program for three years, and was almost a decade away from obtaining the bomb.

While the NIE was subsequently criticized by other intelligence officials, it virtually eliminated any chance of a U.S. strike on Iran during the final year of the Bush Administration.

The Rest of the Story (Homeland Security Edition)

You can count us among the fans of Glenn Beck, but we do see a need to clarify--and correct--a report that aired on his radio program this morning.

Citing Army Times as a source, Mr. Beck said that the 1st Brigade Combat Team of the 3rd Infantry Division, based as Ft. Stewart, Georgia, will be assigned to U.S. Northern Command (USNORTHCOM) for the next year, as a rapid reaction force for potential terror attacks, natural disasters and civil unrest (emphasis ours).

Beck suggested that the move might be related to a pending financial collapse (something he's been preaching about for several months), or turmoil resulting from an extremely tight--and disputed--presidential election.

So far, we've found a couple of problems with this report. First, there's no evidence of the reported story on the Army Times website, or the sites of other publications in the Military Times family. We've asked our contacts at the publishing group if any of their papers are working on that type of story. As we write this, there are no indications that such a report is in the works.

However, there is a kernel of truth in Mr. Beck's report--as there are with many media rumors. Turns out that the referenced brigade combat team of the 3rd ID has been assigned to NORTHCOM, as part of domestic response force. But the mission envisioned for that unit is very different from what the radio host described.

From the NORTHCOM press release, issued earlier this week:

U.S. Northern Command gains dedicated response force

September 30, 2008

PETERSON AIR FORCE BASE, Colo. -- For the first time in its existence, U.S. Northern Command is gaining a dedicated force to respond to potential chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear and high-yield explosive (CBRNE) incidents in the homeland.

"We are now building the first of three CBRNE Consequence Management Response Forces," said USNORTHCOM Commander Gen. Gene Renuart. "On the first of October, we’ll have an organized force, a trained force, an equipped force, a force that has adequate command and control and is on quick response – 48 hours – to head off to a large-scale nuclear, chemical, biological event that might require Department of Defense support."

[snip]

Each CCMRF will be composed of three functional task forces – Task Force Operations, Task Force Medical and Task Force Aviation – that have their own individual operational focus and set of mission skills. Depending on the different mission requirements and the incident commander’s priorities, Task Force Operations, Task Force Medical and Task Force Aviation units would have varying roles and responsibilities based upon the type of catastrophe and the size of the geographical area. In USNORTHCOM’s first CCMRF, the Army’s 3rd Infantry Division’s 1st Brigade Combat Team, assigned at Fort Stewart, Ga., will form the core unit of Task Force Operations.

NORTHCOM's Chief of Future Operations, Army Colonel Michael Boatner, emphasized that the task force will not perform domestic security duties, or similar functions:

“This response force will not be called upon to help with law enforcement, civil disturbance or crowd control, but will be used to support lead agencies involved in saving lives, relieving suffering and meeting the needs of communities affected by weapons of mass destruction attacks, accidents or even natural disasters.”

To his credit, Beck said he needed more information on the subject. Here's hoping he makes a few more phone calls, and gets the story straight.