The Enemy Within

Monday's edition of USA Today highlights China's full-court espionage assault on the United States, as illustrated by the case of Chi Mak, the former engineer who passed sensitive defense information to the PRC. Mak was convicted last week of conspiracy, two counts of attempting to violate export control laws and failing to register as a foreign agent. He could receive up to 45 years in prison at his sentencing later this year.


According to federal prosecutors, Mak ran a family spy ring for more than a decade, using his position as a defense contractor to acquire sensitive information and pass it to his handlers in China. At the time of his arrest, Mak worked for Power Paragon, a major defense firm in Southern California. During his time at the firm, Mak copied research data on the Navy's effort to develop a 'quiet drive" system for submarines, making them harder to detect.


At least four other members of Mak's family have been implicated in the plot. His wife, Rebecca, pleaded guilty to charges of not registering as a foreign agent, and is facing up to three years in prison. Mak's bother, Tai Mak, who was arrested as he tried to smuggle encrypted disks out of the country, also entered a guilty plea (on charges of conspiring to export defense articles) and could receive a 10-year prison sentence. Tai Mak's wife and son have also pleaded guilty to other charges related to the case, and a family "friend"--Boeing engineer Greg Chung--is under investigation for allegedly passing information to the Mak clan, for transmission to the PRC.

We've been writing about the Mak family for over a year. At one point, we suggested that the Mak ring might become the "next big spy scandal," but the case never quite reached that level. For one thing, the government had to backtrack on its original claim that Mak and his clan passed classified information to the PRC, later describing the information as "sensitive." Likewise, an FBI affidavit described the Maks as "foreign intelligence operatives," but espionage charges were never filed in the case.

But the lack of an espionage indictment doesn't mean that Mak wasn't a spy. FBI agents found a technology "shopping list" during a search of Mak's home, along with more than 900 documents on various defense technologies, and letters of introduction from an official in Beijing, written in the 1980s. A similar letter was found in Chung's home, advising him to "pass information through Mr. Mak. This channel is much safer than others."

So why did prosecutors take a pass on espionage charges? As the article suggests, federal officials are still gun-shy from the 1999 Wen Ho Lee case. Lee, a Chinese-American engineer, was originally accused of stealing nuclear warhead designs through his position at Los Alamos National Laboratory. But the case against Lee unraveled, and he eventually pleaded guilty to only one count of mishandling classified information and was released from jail. Against that legal backdrop--and without hard evidence that he actually passed classified information--prosecutors elected to file lesser charges against the Mak family.

According to USA Today, a serious blunder by agents from the Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) also hampered the feds' case. Two days after his arrest, Chi Mak reportedly told the NCIS that he had been passing information to Beijing since 1983. Incredibly, the agents did not make a video or audio recording of their interrogation session, and Mak later recanted his confession.

Fact is, we may never know the scope of Mak's activities on behalf of the PRC. He became a naturalized U.S. citizen in 1995, and obtained a "Secret" level security clearance a decade later. The FBI didn't begin its investigation until 2004, so there was ample opportunity for Mak to obtain--and pass--classified data to his handlers.

Using operatives like Mak, Beijing can shave years of development time--and billions of dollars --in fielding new military systems. The FBI estimates that the number of counter-intelligence cases involving the PRC has jumped 12% in recent years, and that's probably a conservative number.

Remember, that figure is based on the number of investigations and prosecutions actually conducted. For every Mak family that is actually caught by the counter-intel dragnet, there are thousands of operatives who "fly beneath the radar," using their positions to access information that is coveted by the PRC. Bill Gertz's recent best-sellers "The China Threat" and "Enemies," offer a sobering look at the scope of Beijing's spy efforts; the classic "Year of the Rat" reminds us that Beijing's efforts to gain information (and influence) were also targeted at the highest levels of American government.

Real Stories From Iraq

The blogosphere is abuzz about "Shock Troops" a combat "dispatch," published in the current edition of The New Republic. Supposedly the work of a U.S. soldier serving in Iraq, the article details alleged, atrocious behavior by American troops, ranging from running over dogs with Bradley fighting vehicles, to mocking a victim of an IED attack. Michael Goldfarb at the WorldwideStandard.com (and others) have been doing yeoman's work in debunking these claims.

In the interest of accuracy (and fairness), we'd like to pass along a true story of U.S. troops, defending freedom in Iraq. It's an unclassified operational summary that was recently provided to friends and family members of soldiers serving in Bravo Troop 5-73 CAV, 82nd ABN DIV. The account details the unit's participation in Operation Ithaca, which was conducted last week. We have absolutely no reason to doubt the accuracy and veracity of this summary, which was forwarded to us by a former colleague. It provides a sharp--and obvious--contrast to the dubious information of "Shock Troops." The 5-73 CAV op summary is long, but well worth the read.

***

5-73 CAV (TF 300) deployed to Iraq in August 2006 to defeat the insurgency in eastern Diyala, Iraq. 5-73 CAV was formerly 3rd Battalion, 505th Parachute Infantry Regiment, 82nd Airborne Division, but was chosen by the Department of the Army to be the first Airborne Reconnaissance Squadron. The members of the Squadron were hand selected by the Squadron Commander. The Commanders, Officers, Non-commissioned Officers, and soldiers were competitively chosen to be members of this elite force of two time volunteers.

Once established, the members of 5-73 CAV were sent to specialty schools: Ranger School, Recon Surveillance Leaders Course, Air Assault, and EMT to have the necessary skill sets to operate in an austere intelligence environment. Following the specialty schools the Squadron went into an intensive training cycle to prepare for deployment, which culminated in a successful rotation to the Joint Readiness Training Center.

Since deployed to Iraq the Squadron has achieved many successes and experienced some tragedy. Throughout the last twelve months we have conducted operations that have captured international headlines; Operation Turki Bowl I, Operation Turki Bowl II, and Operation Minotaur. 5-73 CAV, now referred to as Task Force 300 (for its 300 fighters) has consistently dominated the enemy through maneuver, saturating the area with patrol bases, patrols, and operations, and the application of Corps and Joint level assets.

On 11 July 2007 Bravo (Strike Force 300) 5-73 CAV moved to the FOB Warhorse Helicopter landing zone during hours of limited visibility to stage on Black Hawk (UH-60) and Chinook (CH-47) helicopters for the Air Assault Raid on Objectives Red, White, and Blue.

The target was an Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQIZ) safe haven north of Baqubah, and east of Khalis, Iraq. Intelligence was developed primarily through local Iraq civilians. Shia’s and Sunnis directed us to this area, which was once a peaceful tribal farm land, but now overrun by Wahabbi extremists under the Islamic State of Iraq (ISI).

The mission was B/ 5-73 CAV conducts Air Assault Raid to clear AQIZ Safe Haven in order to disrupt Anti-Iraq forces operating in the Diyala River valley and shape the area for future operations.

The purpose of the operation was to destroy the AQIZ safe haven to support the larger mission of clearing the Diyala providence.

Concept of the operation was to Isolate the objectives, then clear the objectives forcing the fighters into the open so we could capture them, or if they decided to fight, kill them. With our platoons providing the ground force, aerial support from helicopter gunships and fighter jets and Artillery, we would push them in-between the objective areas and into the palm groves, so we could bring them to justice.

As soon as we hit the ground we began clearing the three separate objectives simultaneously, locating the enemy quickly through various sensors; Paratroopers on the ground, Paratroopers in two Black Hawk Helicopters flying overhead as the Aerial Reaction Force (ARF), Aerial Weapons Team (AH-64 Apaches), F-16 fighters, and Tactical Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (TUAVs).

The enemy was surrounded and had nowhere to run. Half of the fighters attempted to flee the objective with weapons, showing a hostile threat to the ground forces and the other half attempted to organize and maneuver on the paratroopers. Immediately we engaged the enemy with direct fire from our machine guns and rifles, a barrage of 155mm High Explosive (HE) Artillery, Apache 30mm Machine Guns and Hellfire rockets, and F-16 20mm strafing runs through their dug in positions.

We cleared from house to house, chicken coops, canals, and palm groves rooting out the enemy and forcing them into our planned kill zone. Along the way we discovered three large caches of RPGs, Heavy Machine Guns, AK-47’s, AQIZ propaganda, Iraqi Army/ police radio’s, military uniforms and over 17 IEDs. The significance of the IED cache is that they are unable to put them on the street, which equals saving coalition and Iraqi lives.

Through the night into the early morning we fought the enemy, dominating them with impunity. The end result was we killed 29 AQIZ fighters, captured 23, and most importantly saved eight severely tortured civilians being held captive. The hostages told us that they had been sentenced by the Islamic State of Iraq to be executed later that day, and we saved them from certain death. All eight hostages who were from all over Iraq are now safely at home with their loved ones.

Our Paratroopers with all of their heavy gear and body armor covered four sq km of ground, clearing over 250 homes, many canals, and palm groves non-stop for eight hours, all while taking fire from a disciplined and determined enemy.

No civilians were killed or injured during this operation, nor any of our Paratroopers. As we were preparing to extract on our helicopters the hostages broke out in tears thanking us over and over. Security was given back to this region, allowing the repatriation of hundreds of families that had been threatened daily, lost family members, and lost the homes that had been in their families for over a hundred years.

***

We're sure the operational summary wouldn't make the editorial cut at TNR, but at least it's true.

Accuracy in Vick Reporting Dept.

Yesterday, we noted that Atlanta Falcons star (and indicted dog-fighting impressario) Michael Vick had endorsement contracts with Nike and AirTran Airways.

While Vick is still with Nike, it turns out that the airline dumped him as a pitchman at the end of May. AirTran spokesman Tad Hutcheson told the AP on Wednesday that the company decided to go in a different direction, and we elected not to renew Mr. Vick's contract." AirTran did not release a press statement at the time, although some Atlanta media outlets did report the airline's decision.

For the record, Mr. Hutcheson is the same AirTran official who chuckled when Vick got into trouble earlier this year at Miami International Airport, trying to take a water bottle (with a hidden compartment) onto an AirTran flight. "At least he wasn't boarding a Delta flight," observed Hutcheson, who said the airline was "very pleased" with Vick's endorsement.

But AirTran apparently became very displeased in the weeks that followed, and quietly dropped Vick when his contract expired. The decision came about a month after authorities first searched the quarterback's home in Virginia, and uncovered evidence that Vick was involved in dog-fighting. AirTran is now using other Falcons' players to promote the airline. So much for that "different" direction.

Meanwhile, Vick still has an endorsement deal with Nike--at least for now. In an e-mail to the AP, a company spokesman said that Nike is aware of the indictment and "reviewing the information." The Oregon-based sportswear giant offers a line of shoes in Vick's name, and sells jerseys and shirts emblazoned with the quarterback's name and familiar number "7."

As the AP notes, Nike has a history of sticking by controversial athletes. The company honored a multi-million dollar endorsement deal with Los Angeles Laker star Kobe Bryant, although he disappeared from Nike advertising for two years after an arrest on sexual assault charges.

Mr. Vick is going to be busy in the coming weeks, with a scheduled arraignment in Richmond, the start of training camp, and a possible meeting with senior NFL officials. Between those engagements, he might consider hopping a Delta flight and heading for Beaverton, Oregon, for a little ring-kissing session with Phil Knight. By our count, Nike is Michael Vick's last friend in the corporate world, although the company can't be proud of its association with an accused dog-killer.

General Downing's Other Legacy

General Wayne Downing (1940-2007)

In five decades of public service, General Wayne Downing accomplished something that is rare in the armed services. He became a hero in the Army (and the special operations community), while earning near-pariah status within the U.S. Air Force.

General Downing, who died Wednesday from meningitis at the age of 68, will be rightfully remembered as a "warrior's warrior," a man who helped build American special operations forces (SOF) into assets that are respected and feared by our adversaries around the globe. At the time of his retirement from active duty in 1996, Downing was the nation's "chief snake eater," commander of U.S. Special Operations Command, the capstone assignment of his long career as a shadow warrior. A Washington Post profile recounted the general "fast-roping" with other Rangers into a West Point pep rally in 1995--at the age of 55. In later years, General Downing also served as an advisor to the Bush Administration, helping develop counter-terrorism strategies in the wake of 9-11.

But Downing will also be remembered as the point man for one of the most controversial investigations in recent military history--the 1996 probe into the terrorist bombing at Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia. In his report on the blast that killed 19 airman, General Downing placed most of the blame on Air Force Brigadier General Terry Schwalier, the wing commander on the scene. Later reports clearly debunked Downing's conclusion, but his report formed the basis for later decisions that derailed Schwailer's career, and prompted an early retirement by the Air Force Chief of Staff.

Downing's appointment to lead the investigative task force was made by then-Defense Secretary William Perry, and it came only days after the explosion. As reporter Matt LaBash later described in a seminal Weekly Standard article on Khobar Towers and its aftermath, the incident almost immediately took on a political tone. Congressional Republicans saw an opportunity to use the bombing against the Clinton Administration, demanding that someone be found culpable. Against that backdrop, Downing was dispatched to conduct his inquiry, and report back to Mr. Perry in only 60 days.

Matt LaBash also discovered that the Clinton team did little to insulate Downing and his task force from the growing political storm. Instead, Mr. Perry's staff relayed Congressional "concerns" to General Downing, which resulted in a changing focus for the investigation:

As early as July 10, a days after the first Khobar hearings, Perry instructed Downing that, "as a result of high Congressional interest, we must expedite portions of your assessment process. Downing should include in his report, Perry said, "what U.S. official(s) were responsible for actions to improve or upgrade the [perimeter] fence.

The Defense Secretary also told South Carolina Senator Strom Thurmond that Downing was empowered to explore accountability, and that the retired General "fully understands what is expected of this assessment."

Downing told LaBash that Perry never made any informal demands on the investigation, and that he "resisted" efforts by SecDef staff members to "insert themselves into the assessment. But when his report was released on September 16, 1996, it clearly faulted General Schwalier, citing him by name, and ruling that "he did not adequately protect his forces from a perimeter attack."

That determination stunned military officials. Sources told LaBash that Downing had assured both the CENTCOM commander, General A.B. Peay, and the Air Force Chief of Staff, General Ron Fogleman, that he was finding nobody culpable, including Schwalier. Downing disputed that claim, although General Peay confirmed that he received such assurances from Downing. Interestingly, the Downing task force arrived at their conclusion after spending only seven days in Saudi Arabia, the despite the fact that the massive truck bomb was detonated outside the base perimeter, and documented efforts by Schwalier to improve security at his base.

Equally damning was a second inquiry into the bombing, headed by Air Force Lieutenant General James Record. Unlike the Downing team (which focused on regional security issues and the bombing attack), General Record was allowed to concentrate solely on the Khobar Towers incident. Using the work of the first task force as a starting point, Record's team conducted another 207 interviews and reviewed transcripts of the 200 interviews conducted by the Downing team. Record also allowed General Schwalier to provide a point-by-point response to the Downing report, which highlighted 37 incorrect statements, 61 misleading implications and 23 contradictions.

In his assessment, General Record concurred with many of Downing's recommendations for improving force protection, but sharply disagreed with its criticism of General Schwalier. As Matt LaBash wrote, the Record investigation "issued a strong rebuke to the Downing findings, saying that the desire to deliver quick results had caused individuals to be "unfairly and publicly criticized as being derelict in their duties." He also notes that Schwalier was exonerated a second time in a subsequent investigation by the Air Force Inspector General and Judge Advocate General.

After months of slow-rolling and internal debate, disposition of the Khobar Towers incident fell on the new Secretary of Defense, William Cohen, who replaced Perry in early 1997. Cohen's own, subsequent report was based heavily on Downing's findings. Both Cohen and Downing faulted General Schwalier for failing to protect his installation from outside attack, despite the fact that (a) the bomb was detonated in an area under the jurisdiction of Saudi security forces; (b) the Saudis had been previously unwilling to let the U.S extend the defensive perimeter at Khobar, and (c) Schwalier's unit had already implemented an impressive number of security improvements at the facility, while flying daily combat missions over Iraq.

In the end, Cohen decided that Brigadier General Schwalier was culpable, ignoring more detailed reports that proved otherwise. Cohen also rescinded Schwalier's promotion to Major General, claiming that it was justified in light of the casualties we suffered. "For me to face the parents of the 19 who died, and to say everything that reasonably could have been done was done--I don't believe that's the case," he told the New Yorker.

But Matt LaBash discovered that the Defense Secretary's claims were specious. Pentagon spokesman Ken Bacon, told the Weekly Standard that Cohen had never been in contact with the families of the Khobar victims. Indeed, some family members interviewed by LaBash reported that they had written letters to the Mr. Cohen in support of General Schwalier. Those letters were obviously ignored, and Schwalier retired a few months later, his career ruined.

The Khobar bombing claimed another casualty with the early depature of General Fogleman. On July 28, 1997, the Air Force Chief of Staff requested early retirement, and the Schwalier decision was clearly a factor in his decision. He described his frustrations in an interview with former Air Force historian Dr. Richard Kohn, printed in the Spring 2001 edition of Aerospace Power Journal:

"...I then watched the way the investigation [Khobar Towers] unfolded. I watched the way the United States Air Force as an institution was treated, for purely political reasons, and the way an individual was treated and came to the conclusion that it was fundamentally wrong. I think a hell of a lot of other people came to that same conclusion."

As Fogelman concluded: "I simply lost respect and confidence in the leadership that I was supposed to be following."

More than a decade later, the mention of Khobar Towers and the Downing Report still leaves a sour taste in the mouths of many airmen--and rightfully so. By rushing to judgement in the aftermath of the bombing, and (apparently) acceding to political pressures, General Downing produced an assessment that was both inaccurate and unfair, destroying the career of an exceptional officer in the process. Downing was, by all accounts, a brave and thoroughly honorable man, and a gifted military commander. But his flawed report on Khobar Towers remains a dark stain on his record of service to our nation.

Today's Reading Assignment

More than 200 members of Congress are slated to gather at the Pentagon this morning, for a secure video teleconference (TVC) with General David Petraeus, our senior commander in Iraq, and the senior U.S. diplomatic official, Ambassador Ryan Crocker.

In preparation for that VTC, those Congressmen and Senators would be well-advised to read yesterday's interview between General Petraeus and Hugh Hewitt. As you might expect, Hugh was well-prepared for the discussion, and his questions elicited long and detailed responses from General Petraeus. A transcript and full audio of the interview can be found at Hugh's blog; a few highlights are provided below:


HH: Welcome, General. You took over command of the multinational forces in February of this year, February 10. In the past five months, how have conditions in Iraq changed?


DP: Well, obviously, we have been surging our forces during that time. We have added five Army brigade combat teams, two Marine battalions, and a Marine expeditionary unit, and some enablers, as they’re called. And over the last month, that surge of forces has turned into a surge of offensive operations. And we have achieved what we believe is a reasonable degree of tactical momentum on the ground, gains against the principal near-term threat, al Qaeda-Iraq, and also gains against what is another near-term threat, and also potentially the long term threat, Shia militia extremists as well. As you may have heard, that today, we announced the capture of the senior Iraqi leader of al Qaeda-Iraq, and that follows in recent weeks the detention of some four different emirs, as they’re called, the different area leaders of al Qaeda, six different foreign fighter facilitators, and a couple dozen other leaders, in addition to killing or capturing hundreds of other al Qaeda-Iraq operatives.

[snip]

HH: Now you’re due to make a report back in September, I don’t know if it’s early, mid or late September, General Petraeus, is that enough time to really get a fix on how the surge is progressing?

DP: Well, I have always said that we will have a sense by that time of basically, of how things are going, have we been able to achieve progress on the ground, where have their been shortfalls, and so forth. And I think that is a reasonable amount of time to have had all the forces on the ground, again, for about three months, to have that kind of sense. But that’s all it is going to be. But we do intend, Ambassador Ryan Crocker, the ambassador here, and I, do very much intend to provide as comprehensive and as forthright an assessment as we can at that time of the progress that has been achieved, and where we’ve fallen short.

[snip]

HH: General, what about the losses on the enemy? You mentioned that hundreds of al Qaeda fighters have been killed in the last couple of months, but are they suffering losses in the thousands every month? Or is it hundred, two hundred? What kind of force reduction’s going on there?


DP: Yeah, as you know, we try to avoid body counting, but inevitably, obviously, it is something we keep track of, because we’re trying to have some sense of the damage that we are doing to al Qaeda-Iraq, its affiliates, other Sunni insurgent groups, and also certainly to the Shia militia extremist elements. And the answer to that in a general sense is that they are losing many, many hundreds of their, of these different elements each month, certainly since the onset of the surge.

[snip]

HH: Some of the arguments about Iraq in the United States argue that it’s possible for American troops to withdraw to their bases and just strike at al Qaeda, sort of an Anbar only option, I guess. Does that make any sense to you at all, General Petraeus?

DP: Well, first of all, al Qaeda-Iraq is throughout pretty substantial parts of Iraq, and it is a significant enough network in capability that it is not going to be dealt with just by certainly, if you will, classical counterterrorist operations. Indeed, we are doing those. Our best operators in America and in the world are here in the largest number of anywhere in the world by several multiples, and conducting a very, very high operational tempo, and doing extraordinary operations. When I think back to the operations that we did, for example, going after war criminals in Bosnia, or something like that, you know, and one of those would be a big deal, and you’d dine off that for the next several months. On a nightly basis here, you know, ten or twelve serious operations are going down by those forces.

HH: Wow.


DP: And any one of those is far more significant than we conducted for decades. They are very sophisticated, very complex, very lethal sometimes, and very effective. Having said that, although they may be the most important operations, because they can take down, as they did the senior Iraqi leader in al Qaeda-Iraq, or kill the three al Turkey brothers, or what have you, it is also the weight of the operations conducted by the, if you will, the regular special forces, the Green Berets and the others that make up the special operations task force, and operate throughout the country as a very high operational tempo, and of our conventional forces. I mean, it is conventional forces who cleared Western Baquba. Certainly, augmented by, again, our special forces and our special mission unit elements, but they’re the ones that, you know, killed the 80 or 90 confirmed kill, and perhaps another 80 or so more, and captured a couple of hundred in addition to that as well. And they’re the ones who will hold that area against attempts that have already taken place by al Qaeda and their affiliates to try to get back into those neighborhoods.

A very timely--and important read (or listen). General Petraeus doesn't attempt to sugar-coat the situation, but his comments indicate that the troop surge is producing its desired results.

Equally telling are his observations on SOF operations. The exceptionally high tempo of special forces activities suggests that they have been "unleashed" in Iraq, and are engaging the enemy with deadly efficiency. While most media reports focus on conventional units, engaged in large-scale operations (such as the recent clearing of Baquba, there is another, equally important conflict being waged in the shadows. And that's where Al Qaida is taking a major beating.

Michael Vick's Corporate Friends

What do a major airline and the best-known manufacturer of athletic shows and apparel have in common?

How about nervous executives and a pitchman who's under a serious legal cloud?

In happier times, both AirTran Airways and Nike signed Falcons quarterback Michael Vick to lucrative endorsement deals. Now, with Vick facing federal conspiracy charges in connection with an illegal dog-fighting ring, the airline and the shoe firm are facing a tough question:

Can they afford to continue their association with Michael Vick?

Obviously, it's not a question of money; it's a matter of propriety. According the a federal indictment released yesterday, Vick was a key player in a multi-state dog-fighting operation, which trained pit bulls to fight to the death, hosted dog fights at Vick's Virginia estate, and transported animals across state lines for other matches. If convicted, Vick and his three co-conspirators could be sentenced to six years in prison, and pay up to $350,000 in fines.

Not exactly the kind of image that corporate America wants, and it's quite possible that one or both companies will sever ties with Vick in the near future. Questions about Vick's status with AirTran and Nike went unanswered today.

This is not the first time that Vick's behavior has jeopardized his endorsement deals. Earlier this year, the NFL star had an encounter with security screeners at the Miami airport, after he tried to take a water bottle with a false bottom onto an AirTran flight. Screeners discovered a small amount of brown residue in the hidden compartment, but tests for marijuana proved negative.

Despite the controversy, both AirTran and Nike stood behind their pitchman, according to WXIA-TV in Atlanta:

"At least he wasn't boarding a Delta plane," said Air Tran marketing director Tad Hutcheson with a laugh.

"I'm just glad he used the product he endorses."Hutcheson says Vick's ad campaign has been a hit."We're very pleased with Michael Vick's endorsements," Hutcheson said. "He's done exactly what we've wanted, which is to sell airline tickets. A lot of people have bought airline tickets because of Michael Vick."

Nike spokesman Brian Facchini says Vick's status as a pitchman for the company hasn't changed [because of the water bottle incident]. Nike's "Michael Vick Experience" TV ad ends with the quarterback in the end zone saying "That's not in the playbook, but it should be."

Obviously, there's a world of difference between a run-in with airport security, and an indictment on federal conspiracy charges. Like other corporations, AirTran and Nike have large numbers of customers who own pets, and are repulsed at the idea of dog fighting, and an NFL star who was apparently involved in that barbaric activity.

AirTran's endorsement deal with Michael Vick is reportedly up for renewal this summer. Given his legal woes, it seems unlikely that the airline will retain Vick as one of its pitchmen. Ditto for Nike, which also tries to protect its image. The Falcons quarterback reportedly has six-figure endorsement deals with both firms, and he receives a percentage of "Michael Vick" Nike merchandise sold through various outlets.

My preference in athletic shoes runs toward New Balance (no pun intended), but as an AirTran frequent flyer, and I let them know that I'll be choosing another airline if they continue their association with Mr. Vick. If you'd like to express your thoughts on Vick's association of AirTran and Nike, contact information for both companies is provided below:

AirTran Airways
9955 AirTran Blvd
Orlando, FL 32827
(678) 254-7442 (Corporate Communications)
E-mail link

Nike
One Bowerman Drive
Beaverton, OR 97005-6453
Phone: 1-800-344-6453
1-212-367-4447 (Corporate Communications)
E-mail link

Incidentally, Vick also had an endorsement deal with Coca-Cola's Powerade sports drink, but that agreement expired last year. A company spokesman told WXIA that the decision had nothing to do with the Falcons star, and reflected a "deemphasis" of the NFL in Powerade marketing.

Today's Good News from Iraq

US: Top al-Qaida in Iraq Figure Captured.

Turns out that American forces have nabbed the highest-ranking Iraqi in the leadership of Al Qaida in Iraq (AQI). Khaled Abdul-Fattah Dawoud Mahmoud al-Mashhadani, also known as Abu Shahid, was captured in Mosul on July 4, said Brig. Gen. Kevin Bergner, a military spokesman. Al-Mashhadani is a close associate of Abu Ayub al-Masri, the Egyptian-born terrorist who's run AQI since the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi last year.

According to U.S. officials, al-Mashhadani was not only the senior Iraqi in the terrorist organization, he was also the chief intermediary between group and Al Qaida's top leaders, Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri. General Bergner indicated that communication between bin senior Al Qaida leaders and al-Masri frequently flowed through al-Mashhadani.

The arrest of al-Mashhadani is encouraging in several respects. First, his capture was kept secret for more than two weeks, allowing coalition forces to process intelligence, follow leads and (presumably) capture more terror leaders, or at least gain better information on their whereabouts and operating patterns. Secondly, as a key communications link between the "local" Al Qaida affiliate and its senior leaders in Waziristan, al-Mashhadani can shed new light on how the group transmits information to its Iraqi cell, and the degree of operational control exerted by bin Laden and Zawahiri.

Finally, as Bill Roggio observes, the capture of al-Mashhadani firmly debunks the "myth" of the Islamic State of Iraq. During interrogation, the Iraqi terrorst freely admitted that the Islamic State of Iraq was an Al Qaida creation, designed to put a "local face" on the insurgency.

But not only is the Islamic State of Iraq a contrived entity, its leader, Abu Omar al-Baghdadi is as well. “To further this myth [of the Islamic State of Iraq], al Masri created a fictional political head of ISI known as Omar al-Baghdadi,” said Brig. Gen Bergner. Al-Baghdadi is actually played by an actor named Abu Abdullah al Naima, and al Masri “maintains exclusive control over al Naima as he acts the part of the fictitious al-Baghdadi character.”

[snip]

Mashhadani stated that al Qaeda in Iraq is operationally controlled by foreign fighters, not Iraqi insurgents. “Mashhadani confirms that al Masri and the foreign leaders with whom he surrounds himself, not Iraqis, make the operational decisions for AQI,” said Brig. Gen Bergner. “According to Mashhadani, in fact, al Masri increasingly relies only on foreigners, who make up the majority of the leadership of AQI. He does not seek or trust the advice of Iraqis in the organization.”

While foreign fighters remain a minority in Iraq, the interrogation of al-Mashhadani leaves little doubt about who's in charge, and who's behind the major terrorist attacks. Of course, those Democratic Senators who took part in Harry Reid's all-nighter would probably disagree, claiming that AQI is only a minor player in the grand scheme of things.

Al-Mashhadani's comments put a major nail in the coffin of that argument. But sadly, few in Washington--particularly on the Democratic side of the aisle--are paying attention.

***

ADDENDUM: Hot Air has more good news from the battle front. The chairman of the JCS, General Peter Pace, took a walking tour of Ramadi yesterday, the same city that was an Al Qaida safe haven just a few months ago. Pace was accompanied by a security detail, but it was far smaller than the contingent that protected Senator John McCain during his recent visit to a Baghdad market. CNN reporter Barbara Starr, who accompanied General Pace, described the progress in Ramadi as "extraordinary."

No wonder Harry Reid is in such a hurry to surrender.

Ookie Gets Indicted (The Michael Vick Saga, Part III)

Falcons QB Michael "Ookie" Vick (the Virginian-Pilot)

A federal grand jury has indicted NFL star Michael Vick on conspiracy charges, in connection with an interstate dog fighting ring that staged big-money bouts and his personal involvement in the execution of animals that "performed poorly."

Vick, a native of Newport News, VA and a former collegiate All-American at Virginia Tech, was one of four men indicted yesterday by a federal grand jury in Richmond. The Smoking Gun was one of the first websites to publish the 18-page indictment, which describes efforts by Vick and his associates to establish (and operate) a dog-fighting operation on the quarterback's property in rural Surry County, west of Norfolk.

According to the indictment, Vick and the other men used the property to train dogs and host host fights over a five-year period, dating back to 2002. The operation, also known as "Bad Newz Kennels" was also involved in transporting animals across state lines for fights in other locations. The indictment provides details of a number of fights at Vick's property and in other locations; purses for some of the fights were as high as $26,000.

Vick, the starting quarterback for the Atlanta Falcons, was not listed as a participant in some of the dog fights. But the indictment contains plenty of damning allegations about Vick, who went by the nickname of "Ookie." In addition to his purchase of the property, Vick also paid off bets when his animals lost, and participated in the killing of dogs that fared poorly as fighters.

Page 12 of the indictment lists one such episode. In March 2003, Vick, along with co-defendant Purnell A. Peace (a.k.a. "P-Funk") sponsored a female pit bull in a fight with a dog owned by a cooperating witness. After the "Bad Newz" dog lost the fight (and a $26,000 purse), Peace electrocuted the animal, with Vick's concurrence.

More recently, Vick is accused of actively participating in the killing of eight dogs at his kennels. In April of this year (according to the indictment), the Falcons QB, along with Peace and co-defendant Quanis L. Phillips (a.k.a. "Q") executed eight pit bulls that did not fare well in fight "testing" sessions. The three men are accused of using various methods to kill the dogs, including drowning, hanging and slamming "at least one dog's body to the ground."

That event occurred in the same month that authorities conducted their first search of Vick's Surry County property. The search was prompted by the arrest of Vick's cousin on drug charges in nearby Hampton. The cousin--who was not listed in the federal indictment--listed the Surry property as his address. During a search for drugs, authorities discovered more than 50 pit bulls and equipment associated with dog fighting.

While Mr. Vick is certainly entitled to his day in court, it's hard to imagine him walking away from these charges. According to the Norfolk Virginian-Pilot, the conspiracy count carries a maximum penalty of five years in prison and a $250,000 fine. The animal fighting charge is punishable by up to a year in prison and a $100,000 fine.

That's probably chump change to Michael Vick, who received a $130 million dollar contract from the Falcons in 2004. Vick might want to check his investment portfolio, because that's likely the last big-money deal he'll ever receive. Regardless of what happens in court, I don't think companies will be knocking on Vick's door for endorsement deals. After all, most NFL fans are also dog owners, and the idea of training animals to fight to the death is absolutely abhorrent. Vick's career as a pitch-man is over, and we're guessing that sales of Falcons' merchandise--and Vick's famous "7" jersey--will slow considerably in the coming days. Beyond that, there's the question of whether the Falcons will hang onto a talented QB who's on-field performance has tailed off in recent seasons, and may be heading for a stint in federal prison.

Reaction from the sports media has been mixed. Fox Sports on-line columnist John Czarneck says that the Atlanta star has "let down his team, the Falcons' owner (Home Depot co-founder Arthur Blank), and the NFL (Ya think?). He also predicts that new NFL Commissioner Roger Goddell will suspend Vick for at least the first two games of the season. The league doesn't have to wait for the court's ruling, and Goddell has already suspended other players for various offenses. For actively participating in the most repugnant of "sports," we believe that Vick deserves a much longer suspension, especially since he has already lied to the Commissioner about his role in dog-fighting.

A more unvarnished view of Vick--and his "reputation"--can be found in this piece, by Pilot columnist Bob Molinaro. He observes that "Ookie's" career (and image) have been in free-fall for sometime, despite excuses offered by his fans, friends and even some media types. With his indictment by that federal grand jury, we're getting a better picture of the man behind the football hype. And it's a very ugly image indeed.

***

ADDENDUM: Tuesday's indictment is also a thinly-veiled slap at local authorities in Surry County. As court document indicates, dog-fighting activity began at Vick's property more than five years ago, yet there were no local inquiries until earlier this year. And despite ample evidence of dog-fighting at Vick's home, the local Commonwealth's Attorney, Gerald Poindexter, promised to conduct a deliberate investigation. In early June, he told local reporters that he didn't have a single investigation report in his file, and said he couldn't present evidence to a local grand jury until late July. In the interim, federal investigators conducted multiple searches of Vick's property, interviewed witnesses and returned an indictment--while Gerald Poindexter and the local sheriff twiddled their thumbs.

Idiot of the Week (And Maybe, the Year)

It shows up regularly in your e-mail inbox; it's "from the desk" of someone you've never heard of, and begins with a flowery salutation. Assuming that you bother to open the e-mail, you quickly learn that Mr. Abu, Ms. Cameroon or (pick your own name) has a problem. There's a large sum of money stuck in an African bank, and if you can wire them some money to grease the local skids, Mr. Abu or Ms. Cameroon will get the loot and split it with you.

Anyone with an I.Q. above room temperature recognizes the message as the latest version of the Nigerian bank scam, and quickly deletes it. The con has been around for years, and thanks to the internet and spam e-mail, it will probably last forever. Apparently, there are still a few suckers out there who fall for it, sending thousands of dollars to criminals in pursuit of that elusive African fortune.

Did you ever wonder what kind of idiot actually falls for the scam? Well, until recently, one of them wore the uniform of a U.S. Navy officer.

Lieutenant Milton Guy was a supply officer, part of the crew of the USS McClusky, a frigate based in San Diego. Guy is now serving 28 months in the brig after pleading guilty to stealing up to $140,000 from the ship's safe. According to Navy Times and the San Diego Union-Tribune, Lieutenant Guy sent most of the money to a man named Barnabus, who told the officer that he was a Nigerian government representative handling disbursement of an $2.6 million estate belonging to a Mark Guy.

Court documents indicate that Guy stole "small amounts" of money from the frigate's safe between October 2004 and July 2005. Apparently, those small amounts added up rather quickly, because a 2006 Navy audit showed between $120,000 and $140,000 was missing from the ship's funds. Along with his payments to Barnabus, Guy also used the stolen funds to buy a laptop computer, put a down payment on a car, and a deposit on an apartment.

In addition to his brig time, the former naval officer also received a $14,000 fine. At his court-martial last month, Guy pleaded guilty last month to charges of wrongful appropriation, dereliction of duty and making a false statement, according to the Union-Tribune. Press accounts also indicate that he "could" be dismissed from service.

Let's hope that the local reporters got that wrong. Given the severity of Guy's crime, dismissal from service should be automatic, regardless of his previous service history. But then again, military justice often takes a strange turn. We recently reported on the case of an Air Force officer, Major Steven Bishop, who filed dozens of false travel vouchers and bilked the government for $21,000.

Major Bishop was also found guilty at court-martial and sentenced to 27 months in prison. But if he pays the imposed fine--you guessed it, $21,000--he won't be dismissed from service. That would allow him to emerge from prison with a federal conviction on his record, but his military pension intact.

We certainly disagree with that provision of Bishop's sentence, and for sheer stupidity, we don't think that Guy deserves the same opportunity. The supply corps has long been maligned (rather unfairly) for having a number of dim bulbs in its ranks, and Guy's little escapade won't diminish that reputation.

By actually falling for the Nigerian bank scam--and paying for his mistake with government funds--former Navy Lieutenant Milton Guy certainly deserves "Idiot of the Week" honors, and he's got a leg up for the annual prize as well.

Now, we're just waiting for someone to tell us that he's a proud grad of that Boat School in Annapolis.

Did You Know?

...that a key element of U.S. missile defense program successfully completed a key flight test over the weekend?

You wouldn't, unless you read The Drudge Report, The Australian newspaper, or its affiliated websites. Drudge has a link to the Australian account, which was published this morning. The story details Saturday's test flight by the U.S. Air Force's Airborne Laser (ABL), which is designed to shoot down ballistic missiles during their boost phase.

During the weekend test, the modified Boeing 747 "demonstrated most of the steps needed to engage a threat missile and deliver precise and lethal effects against it," said a company spokesman.

To simulate an intercept, the prototype Airborne Laser actively tracked an airborne target, compensated for atmospheric turbulence and fired a "surrogate" for a missile-zapping high-energy laser, according to the Pentagon's Missile Defense Agency, which is funding the project. The successful test clears the way for the next phase of ABL development, installing a high-energy oxygen-iodine laser, and eventually, firing the weapon against a simulated missile target. That test is now scheduled for August 2009.

The ABL program manager, Air Force Lieutenant Colonel John Daniels, said the successful test marked an historic day for directed energy weapons. "This will fundamentally change the way we engage and destroy fleeting targets," he said. The commander of the Air Force's Air Combat Command (which will eventually operate the ABL) has described the weapon as "one of only two truly revolutionary weapons" in the entire Pentagon budget.

So, why is this news in Australia, but not the United States? Did the Aussies score a journalistic coup? Or perhaps The Australian had some sort of head start over its American counterparts, you know, that whole "rotation of the earth" thing. Or maybe it's because The Australian is owned by News Corporation, supposedly the media arm of the vast, right-wing conspiracy.

We don't know if Mr. Murdoch told his editors down under to "hype" the ABL, but the answer to the question about journalistic coups is a resounding "no." Boeing's press release on the ABL test was posted on the company website yesterday, and The Australian report was prepared by its Washington bureau, which (presumably) maintains a schedule similar to MSM outlets in the United States. So much for the Aussies getting a jump on the Yanks, just because their morning editions appear hours ahead of the Washington Post, or The New York Times.

Which brings us back to our first question, about why the successful ABL test was deemed newsworthy by Australian editors, but not their U.S. counterparts.

Unfortunately, the lack of American media interest in the ABL test is merely a reflection of partisan politics and media agendas. Both the Times and the Post have consistently lobbied against missile defense, both in their editorials and opinion columns. In fact, the closest the Times has come to supporting missile defense was in a recent op-ed by MIT Professor Theodore Postol, who encouraged the Bush Administration to accept a Russian proposal to utilize their Azerbaijan-based radar as part of a defensive shield. We thoroughly debunked Moscow's offer after it was unveiled at the G-8 Summit in early June; it is unworthy of consideration, for a variety of military and political reasons.

The Post has also expressed serious misgivings about missile defense, a position that dovetails nicely with that of Congressional Democrats. With their party now in control of the House and Senate, they've launched a major campaign to gut missile defense, with ABL as one of their primary targets. ABL stands to lose $400 million in next year's budget, based on recent mark-ups of the 2008 Defense Authorization Act. At this point, the airborne laser program doesn't appear to be in danger of imminent cancellation, but its long-term survival is very much in doubt.

So, there's little reason for Congressional leaders to tout a program they want to kill, and the MSM won't waste column inches, web space or airtime on an effort they also oppose. That's why the successful ABL test is apparently news in Australia, but a non-event here at home.

Refusing to Connect the Dots (Or, Much Ado About the Same Old Thing)

The chattering class is abuzz over today's scheduled release of key findings from a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on the terrorist threat to the United States. Excerpts from the document were leaked to the press last week, which breathlessly reported that Al Qaida had reconstituted its core structure, and may be stronger now than it was a year ago.

Now, the Associated Press has obtained copies of the NIE's key findings, which will be released to the public shortly. In reading the wire service account, we were struck by the relatively small amount of new information in the published finding. In many respects, this estimate reads like previous assessments on the subject. However, much of the report remains classified, so our understanding of the NIE (and its assessments) is limited, at best.

More disturbing is the apparent political slant of the report--or at least in the findings that will be made public. As you'll see, the NIE expresses concern over potential CONUS strikes by Al Qaida's Iraqi affiliate, but refuses to acknowledge to potential value of the troop surge in mitigating that threat. More on that in a moment. Listed below are key findings from the NIE, and our observations on those assessments:

--"Of note," the analysts said, "we assess that al-Qaida will probably seek to leverage the contacts and capabilities of al-Qaida in Iraq (AQI), its most visible and capable affiliate and the only one known to have expressed a desire to attack the homeland."

Nothing particularly revelatory there. Intercepted letters and other communications from late 2005 and early 2006 indicate that Senior Al Qaida leaders were imploring their top lieutenant in Iraq, Musab al-Zarqawi, to launch strikes against the United States. Zarqawi was unable to fulfill that request before his death, and the recent troop surge in Iraq would (arguably) make it more difficult for AQI to conduct operations in the CONUS.

--[The analysts also found that] al-Qaida's association with its Iraqi affiliate helps the group to energize the broader Sunni Muslim extremist community, raise resources and recruit and indoctrinate operatives — "including for homeland attacks"

Such observations have long been used as a rallying cry against the War on Terror, but they also ignore another reality of the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. If those campaigns have energized the "broader Sunni Muslim extremist community," they have also served as something of a furnace, forcing terrorists to expend resources that might have otherwise been utilized in attacks on our homeland. Al Qaida's resources are not unlimited; with Iraq still identified as their "central front" in the war against the Crusaders, the jihadists will be forced to expend a disproportionate amount of their personnel and weapons in that conflict, limiting their options for attacking the United States.

--Al-Qaida is likely to continue to focus on high-profile political, economic and infrastructure targets to cause mass casualties, visually dramatic destruction, economic aftershocks and fear. "The group is proficient with conventional small arms and improvised explosive devices and is innovative in creating new capabilities and overcoming security obstacles."

That "finding" could have been easily lifted from previous terrorism NIEs. Al Qaida's pre-occupation with mass casualty "spectaculars"--as well as its ability to evolve and adapt--are well-documented.

--The group will continue to seek weapons of mass destruction — chemical, biological or nuclear material — and "would not hesitate to use them."

Evidence of Al Qaida's interest in WMD dates back to the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001. And, if you don't believe the group is interested in those types of weapons, just ask Jose Padilla, currently on trial in a U.S. court, in connection with an Al Qaida "dirty bomb" plot.

--Lebanese Hezbollah, a Shiite Muslim extremist group that has conducted anti-American attacks overseas, may be more likely to consider attacking here, especially if it believes the United States is directly threatening the group or its main sponsor, Iran.

Again, nothing really new here. The intelligence community has long believed that Hizballah would attack U.S. targets (at home and abroad) under the circumstances described by the NIE. Ironically, some analysts believe that Hizballah has refrained from striking the CONUS in the past because of the group's successful fund-raising activities within the United States.

--Non-Muslim terrorist groups probably will attack here in the next several years, although on a smaller scale. The judgments don't name any specific groups, but the FBI often warns of violent environmental groups, such as Earth Liberation Front, and others.

In some respects, this "finding" is the most interesting, because it acknowledges a threat that has been largely ignored in past terrorism assessments. Environmental extremist groups--including Earth First--have demonstrated a consistent ability to carry out high-profile attacks, while maintaining impressive operational security (OPSEC). Law enforcement agencies have been unable to penetrate these groups, leaving us vulnerable to future strikes.

More disturbingly, the views of these groups toward western society and culture are not incompatible with those of Islamic terrorists. It would be interesting to learn the FBI's views on a potential "alliance" between home-grown, environmental terrorists, and those from the Muslim world.

The other bit of "new" information information in the findings concerns Al Qaida's successful efforts to reestablish safe havens along the Afghan-Pakistan border, a topic we discussed at length last week.

--The group has been able to restore key capabilities it would need to launch an attack on U.S. soil: a safe haven in Pakistan's tribal areas, operational lieutenants and senior leaders

A significant development (to be sure) but hardly surprising. Perhaps the real story here is the MSM's lack of previous interest in this topic. A number of terrorism analysts (including Bill Roggio) warned last fall about the dire consequences of the "Waziristan Accords," but most media outlets paid little attention, until those developments found their way into the NIE.

While many of the findings have been previously expressed in other intelligence reporting, it should not be an excuse to downplay or dismiss the terrorism threat. Indeed, the U.S. has been facing a domestic threat from Al Qaida since before 9-11, and the group has never lost interest in attacking our homeland.

But it's not surprising that the AP elects to couch that menace a bit differently, focusing on the potential threats to the CONUS from Al Qaida in Iraq. Yet, in pursuing that angle, the wire service (and public portions of the intelligence estimate) fail to connect all the dots. The War in Iraq is very much a part of the "worldwide counter-terrorism efforts" that, in the words of the NIE, "have constrained Al Qaida's ability to attack the U.S. and convinced terror groups that our soil is a tougher target." Using that criteria, Al Qaida in Iraq may find it more difficult to strike the CONUS, given the fact that they are under attack--by our troops--on a daily basis.

The failure to make that obvious connection leads us to question both the wire service story and the published conclusions of the NIE. As we've noted before, national intelligence estimates are often rooted in agency turf battles and internal politics. By refusing to note that the troop surge could impair AQI's ability to hit the CONUS, this report reflects the fine hand of the anti-war, anti-administration faction at the CIA, assisted by their willing stenographers at the Associated Press.

***

ADDENDUM: We welcome comments from anyone who's seen the "full" NIE. We'd particularly like to know if the estimate acknowledges the impact of the troop surge on AQI, including its prospects for attacking the U.S. homeland.

Mr. Webb's Hard Month

It's been a tough couple of weeks for the junior Senator from Virginia. Yesterday, Democrat Jim Webb provided the "Sunday talk show soundbite of the week" for his heated exchanged with South Carolina Republican Lindsey Graham over Iraq. The Richmond Times-Dispatch provides this account:

The two took opposite positions on whether to begin withdrawing troops -- which Webb favors and Graham opposes -- and frequently interrupted each other. At one point, Webb put his hand on Graham's shoulder. He also smirked occasionally at what Graham said.

The two sat side by side on the set of the NBC program "Meet the Press," hosted by Tim Russert.

"Lindsey's had a hard month," Webb said at one point.

"It ain't about Lindsey having a hard month," Graham shot back.

[snip]

As the exchange yesterday between Webb and Graham got testier, Graham mentioned that Webb has not gone to Iraq.

"I've been there seven times," Graham said.

Webb called such visits "dog and pony shows," and said, "That's what congressmen do."

The Times-Dispatch--which is not unfriendly to Mr. Webb--offered the usual disclaimer about the Senator being a decorated combat veteran (he won the Navy Cross in Vietnam), and the father of a Marine who recently returned from Iraq. By comparison, the paper notes that, "as a member of the Judge Advocate General Corps, Graham was called to active duty during the Gulf War, and served stateside. In reality, Mr. Graham still serves in the Air Force JAG Corps (he was recently promoted to Colonel), and has performed at least one temporary duty assignment in the Middle East.

But the paper's cordial treatment of Mr. Webb--and his exchange on Meet the Press--masks a genuine problem for the Senator. In his short time in the Senate, Webb has displayed a haughty, even arrogant demeanor that belies his "populist" appeal. Consider his "explanation" for the gun that an aide tried to carry into a Senate office building shortly after Webb took office. The aide told police that the weapon belonged to the Senator, but Webb refused to acknowledge the gun was his--until last month, and only after a federal prosecutor dropped the case. Mr. Webb still refuses to discuss whether his gun ownership complies with District of Columbia laws.

As for Iraq, Mr. Webb claims that he's been there three times as a "war correspondent" before winning his Senate seat. Fair enough. But as a member of the Senate Armed Service Committee, we would think that Webb had an interest--some might say duty--to visit the Iraq, given the recent change in U.S. leadership and strategy. True, Congressional visits to a war zone often include the "dog-and-pony" presentations Senator Webb refers to, but they also provide an opportunity for key members of Congress to gain the unvarnished opinions of our military leaders on the ground. Many of the committee's members have been to Iraq this year, but Webb prefers to stay at home, relying on his "past" expertise to assess a rapidly changing situation.

There are also signs that Webb's sometimes-abrasive personality is making it difficult for him to get things done in the Senate. Last week, Senators rejected a Webb amendment that, in today's political environment, should have been a slam-dunk--a proposal to give troops as much time at home as they spend on combat deployments. While the measure attracted 56 votes, it fell short of the 60 required to cut-off debate, and Senator Webb subsequently withdrew it. Critics noted that Webb's measure was little more than a back-door attempt to limit troop deployments, interferring with decisions normally made by the Pentagon.

Meanwhile, Webb's other legislative show piece--an effort to upgrade the G.I. Bill--appears headed for defeat as well. The Senator's plan would offer current military members the same "level" of benefits provided under the original, World War II-era legislation, even granting a $1000-a-month stipend for living expenses. But so far, not a single Republican has agreed to back the Webb proposal. Privately, some Senators believe that the bill is too expensive, and it doesn't account for off-duty education programs that allow many military members to earn a college degree while they serve.

Apparently, Mr. Webb doesn't understand that military education programs have changed dramatically since he served, and many of today's troops don't defer college until after their discharge. That's why tuition assistance budgets in the Air Force (and other services) have more than doubled in the past four years, and the money Senator Webb wants to use for a new G.I. might be better spent on existing programs for active duty personnel.

The lack of support is also a reflection of Webb's abrasive manner, which has clearly rubbed some of his colleagues the wrong way. Efforts to limit troop deployments are controversial, but a plan to enhance the G.I. Bill should attract broad, bi-partisan support, regardless of the potential cost. Judging from the tepid support the measure has received (so far), it seems clear that many Senators won't go out of their way in helping "One Term Jim."

Shutdown

North Korea's apparent shut-down of its Yongbyon nuclear facility will probably be hailed as a victory for diplomacy, as manifested by the Bush Administration's "Six Party" approach for dealing with Pyongyang and its nuclear weapons program.

But that news is tempered by a pair of sobering realizations. First, we've been down this road before, and secondly, our "knowledge gaps" concerning North Korea's nuclear program are substantial. There is the very real possibility that Kim Jong-il may continue convert nuclear development (at home or abroad), while appearing to comply with the latest agreement.

Readers will recall that this isn't the first time that the Yongbyon reactor has gone off-line. Back in 1994, was idled as part of the "Agreed To" Framework between Pyongyang, Washington and Seoul. Under that agreement, the United States and South Korea agreed to provide fuel oil for heating and electricity, until the ROK government could build two light water reactors to replace the graphite-moderated plants in North Korea, which could produce weapons-grade plutonium. In return, Pyongyang agreed to close the Yongbyon facility, abandon two larger reactors (then under construction) and allow IAEA monitoring and inspections.

The presence of IAEA cameras and inspectors led John Kerry to brag about the "success" of the agreement during the 2004 Presidential campaign, and the corresponding "failure" of Bush Administration policies, which took a harder view toward North Korea. Mr. Kerry was referring to the collapse of the "Agreed To" framework in 2002, when the U.S. confronted Pyongyang about covert nuclear efforts, and North Korean diplomats confessed that their country had developed a small nuclear arsenal, in spite of the agreement.

Not surprisingly, Mr. Kerry--and other members of his party--got it wrong. Far from being an arms control success, the Agreed To Framework simply drove the North Korean program underground, where it continued unfettered. Critics of the Bush Administration have suggested that much of Pyongyang's nuclear development came after framework finally collapsed in 2002, but that belies an obvious fact. Without a convert program, which continued throughout the 1990s, it would have been difficult, if not impossible for Kim Jong-il's regime to announce that it had nuclear weapons in 2002, and follow that with a partially-successful test less than four years later.

Which brings us back to our original question: are we heading down the same path again? Pyongyang announced the shutdown of Yongbyon as a South Korean tanker arrived, bringing badly needed fuel oil for the DPRK. Under the Agreed To Framework, the U.S. and ROK provided up to 500,000 tons of oil a year; the Six-Party talks promised 50,000 tons for idling the Yongbyon plant, and another 950,000 tons of oil once the reactor has been fully disabled. Delivery of energy assistance is a major objective for Pyongyang.

So too, is the lessening of U.S.-led economic sanctions, which have been aimed (in part) at North Korea's ruling elites. Shutdown of the Yongbyon reactor was delayed, in part, by a dispute over $25 million in frozen North Korean assets in a Macau bank. The accounts apparently belonged to senior North Korean officials, or were used to purchase premium goods for members of the country's political and military leadership. While $25 million may sound like chump change by international banking standards, it was enough to stall implementation of the new agreement. With the release of that money--and the easing of other sanctions--North Korean achieved a second major goal.

So what is the United States--and its partners--getting in return? The shut-down of Yongbyon is a good first step, and the presence of IAEA inspectors at that site will provide a measure of reassurance. But the really hard work lies ahead, in getting North Korea to declare all of its nuclear programs and disable all of its nuclear facilities, as required under the new agreement.

And that's where things get a bit dicey. As we learned in North Korea in the late 1990s--and we may be learning again in Iran--it's relatively easy to conceal covert nuclear work. Even critical functions (such as uranium enrichment) can be hidden in underground facilities, or in non-descript buildings without any "overt" signature. Despite this latest agreement--and the return of IAEA inspectors to North Korea--it would be possible for Pyongyang to continue a covert program, with little fear of detection. The intelligence community has long admitted that its coverage of the DPRK nuclear program is far from complete, hindering verification and implementation of any agreement.

That's one reason that Senator Kerry's famous "camera comment" was so completely vacuous. The monitoring system at Yongbyon in the 1990s showed no activity because that's what the North Koreans wanted us to see. Meanwhile, the real work of advancing Pyongyang's nuclear ambitions was going on at other facilities, oblivious to the IAEA--or western intelligence. As the latest agreement enters its implementation phase, we can only wonder if Kim Jong-il is playing another nuclear shell game.

We should also worry about the "other" reasons Pyongyang might have for supporting the new accord. Perhaps North Korea believes its nuclear stockpile is sufficient for current purposes, and is willing to play along for a while, in exchange for sanctions relief, security guarantees and that vitally important energy assistance. Or, more ominously, the DPRK may have moved key portions of its nuclear program overseas, providing technical assistance for nations like Iran, and using the revenue earned to improve its own technology and designs.

Dealing with North Korea requires modification of Ronald Reagan's famous maxim of "Trust, But Verify." While the Bush Administration is committed to diplomacy in resolving issues on the Korean Peninsula, past agreements with Pyongyang provide little foudation for trust. And verification of full compliance will prove difficult, if not impossible.

The Air Force "Surge" in Iraq

The Associated Press headline is a bit misleading: "Air Force Quietly Builds Presence in Iraq," suggests that the service has somehow returned to the war, after taking a bit of a breather.

In the article that follows, AP "Special Correspondent" Charles Hanley tries to clarify matters a bit, stating the the Air Force has "quietly built up its hardware inside Iraq, sharply stepped up bombing and laid a foundation for a sustained air campaign in support of American and Iraqi forces."

Squadrons of attack planes have been added to the in-country fleet. The air reconnaissance arm has almost doubled since last year. The powerful B1-B bomber has been recalled to action over Iraq.

[snip]

Statistics tell the story: Air Force and Navy aircraft dropped 437 bombs and missiles in Iraq in the first six months of 2007, a fivefold increase over the 86 used in the first half of 2006, and three times more than in the second half of 2006, according to Air Force data. In June, bombs dropped at a rate of more than five a day.

But the "numbers" also tell another story, namely of an Air Force that has been continuously engaged in Iraq and Afghanistan since the start of those conflicts, and will remain in the skies long after ground units begin their redeployment. While Mr. Hanley deserves credit for focusing attention on an almost-forgotten element of the war, his reported "surge" is actually more of a sustainment effort than an increase in operations tempo.

In support of our theory, we decided to compare numbers from the daily "Airpower Summary," released by U.S. Central Command Air Forces (USCENTAF). At random, we selected daily totals for 10 July 2007, and 30 July 2006. The totals--in most categories--are remarkably similar. Figures for last Tuesday (10 July) are listed first, followed by totals for a similar period in 2006.

Close Air Support Msns in Iraq 53 46
Close Air Support Msns in Afghanistan 21 45
Intelligence, Surveillance and Recce Msn in Iraq 21 17
Airlift Sorties (Iraq and Afghanistan) 155 170
Tanker Sorties (Iraq and Afghanistan) 51 42

Judging by those totals, you might think the "real" surge is occurring in Afghanistan, given the major jump in close air support (CAS) missions over the past year. But we're also reminded that statistics are often deceiving. Totals for CAS sorties--and other combat missions--are a reflection of many factors, including platform availability, weather conditions, and most importantly, the ground situation. After all, one of the primary reasons for an air force's existence is to support friendly troops on the ground.

And, in both Iraq and Afghanistan, allied forces have been on the attack in recent months. More troops in contact typically means an increase in CAS requests, although there's another element at play in Afghanistan. Earlier this year, in anticipation of a spring offensive by a resurgent Taliban, U.S. commanders made a conscious decision to unleash air power on enemy marshaling points and troop concentrations, using helicopter gunships and fixed-wing assets. These efforts have continued into the summer months, with notable success.

In Iraq, Mr. Hanley's report of an "airpower" surge is based (in part) on a noticeable increase in the number of munitions dropped. According to information provided to the AP, Air Force and naval aircraft expended 437 bombs and missiles against Iraqi targets in the first half of 2007, compared to 86 during the same period last year. That's obviously an indication of the on-going troop surge, but it's also a product of better intelligence (from UAVs and ground-based sources) and introduction of the new, small-diameter bomb (SDB), which minimizes collateral damage, even in densely-populated urban environments. The SDB can be carried by a variety of Air Force platforms, ranging from fighters like the F-15E and F-16, to heavy bombers like the B-

While Hanley acknowledges the impact of the surge on air operations, other elements of his story are just plain wrong. He believes the U.S. is "laying to foundation for sustained bombing campaign," based on such developments as the A-10 attack aircraft to a base in western Iraq; introduction of advanced, Block 50 F-16s at Balad AB (near Baghdad), and the redeployment of B-1s from Diego Garcia, to a base in the Persian Gulf region.

In reality, the number of available Air Force assets in theater has increased only slightly over the past 12 months. The service has long had the capability to carry out a sustained bombing campaign, using aircraft and personnel deployed to the region (as part of the Air Expeditionary Force concept), and other resources that could be dispatched with relatively short notice. At least two Air Force wings are currently based in the region, a number that has remained relatively constant over the past two years. Indeed, most of the recent increase in "deployed" fighters is the result of additional Navy carriers operating in the Persian Gulf.

Hanley's article also ignores the contributions of other airman, who were "surging" long before the recent increase in ground support missions. More than 3,000 Air Force members are currently performing "non-traditional" roles in the theater, conducting convoy operations, providing convoy security, interrogating detainees and guarding prisoners--functions normally performed by the Army. Additionally USAF SOF personnel (gunship and helicopter crews, combat controllers and pararescuemen) have been in the thick of the fighting since 2003. Ditto for Air Force EOD personnel, who disarm IEDs and VBIEDs in Iraq every day.

The AP writer even suggests that there might be a shortage of airpower, noting that during one recent day, 16 of 48 requests for air support went unfilled. But there are a number of reasons that an air request doesn't always result in a fighter or bomber dropping ordnance on a target. In some cases, the firefight ends before the aircraft arrive; in other cases, fire support can be better handled by ground-based artillery, multiple rocket launchers or Army attack helicopters. We're guessing that most of these "unfilled" requests were handled in that manner, but you wouldn't know that by reading the Associated Press account.

Truth is, the Air Force has been in continuous combat operations in the Middle East since January 1991, along TACAIR assets from the Navy, Marine Corps and the RAF. The mission (and adversaries) have evolved over the years, along with the aircraft and weaponry, but the fundamental responsibility--delivering combat airpower--has never changed. This might come as a shock to Mr. Hanley, but the Air Force "presence" in Iraq (and the region) was built long before the spring and summer of 2007.

Another Inconvenient Truth

Middle East "experts" insist that the U.S. (and Israel) have no choice but to back Fatah in its struggle with Hamas for "leadership" of the Palestinian people. We've questioned the efficacy of that strategy, noting the absolute moral and fiscal corruption of Fatah, whose leaders have murdered innocents--and lined their pockets--from more than 40 years.

Of course, a fish rots from the head, and with Fatah, absolute corruption began with its founder, the late Yasser Arafat. Now, one of Arafat's closest associates has confirmed what many have known for years: the PLO founder died of AIDS, the result of a dissolute life that he actively concealed. Arafat's demise from AIDS was recently affirmed by Ahmad Jibril, Secretary-General of the PFLP General Command, in an interview that recently aired on Al-Manar TV: the translation was provided by MEMRI:

Ahmad Jibril: When Abu Mazen came to Damascus with his team, I asked them: "What happened to the investigation into the death of Abu Ammar [Arafat]? The Israelis killed him. He was my colleague ever since 1965 and used to sleep at my home. He and I followed the same path." Is it conceivable that when Rafiq Al-Hariri was killed, all hell broke loose, even though he was just a merchant in Saudi Arabia, who later entered politics, whereas the death of Yasser Arafat, who for 40 years had been carrying his gun from one place to another, is not investigate? Is this conceivable? They were silent, and then one of them said to me: "To be honest, the French gave us the medical report, that stated that the cause of Abu Ammar's death was AIDS." I am not saying this, they did. Now they pretend that they miss Yasser Arafat, and complain that [Hamas] entered his house in [Gaza] and so on... I say to every honorable member of the Fatah movement that he should be happy that we got rid of the plague, which had been imposed upon them and upon the Palestinian people. The Fatah movement now has an opportunity to renew itself.

Flash back three years, to November 2004. Though reports of Arafat's homosexuality had been making the rounds for years--with confirmation by various intelligence services, the western press was complicit in protecting Arafat's "reputation" at the time of his passing. CNN described the Palestinian leader's illness as the flu, a stomach virus or gallstones; the Washington Post provided a similar account, and subsequent coverage in The New York Times flatly rejected the suggestion that Arafat had AIDS. As with so many elements of Arafat's life and "career," the MSM was willing to cast a blind eye to the painful truth.

Why does it matter? Because the current generation of Palestinian leaders were mentored and trained by Abu Ammar. And collectively, there's no indication that the folks now running "the movement" are any more honest or ethical than the man who founded Fatah. Most became powerful and rich under Arafat's leadership, and they were quite willing to look the other way while he plundered the Palestinian treasury, supported terrorists, and pursued his sexual proclivities, which (according to Romanian intelligence reporting) trended towards young boys.

Now, the U.S. and Israel are investing heavily in these same "leaders" to clean up Fatah, and prevent Hamas from extending its control into the West Bank. It is a forlorn hope, because the amoral, corrupt legacy of Yasser Arafat is alive and well, three years after his death.

H/T: Powerline.

Swimming With Sources

We're learning a bit more about that infamous videotape that "sunk" the career of Chicago TV reporter Amy Jacobson. You'll recall that she was fired by her employer (WMAQ-TV), after rival WBBM aired a tape of Ms. Jacobson, clad in a bikini, frollicking at the backyard pool of Craig Stebic. Jacobson has been covering Mr. Stebic for the past two months, following the disappearance of his wife, Lisa. Stebic has not been charged with any crime, but police describe him as a "person of interest" in his wife's disappearance.

In her mea culpa tour of Chicago media, Ms. Jacobson admitted that she made a mistake, but also suggested that the incident had been blown out of proportion. After all, she was taking her sons to a local swimming pool when a member of the Stebic family called, and asked her to stop by and discuss the case. And since she was already wearing a swim suit, and her kids were looking forward to a splash in the pool, well, what the heck.

We believe that WMAQ made the right call in firing Ms. Jacobson, who clearly stepped over the bounds in getting "chummy" with her sources. And we still think that WBBM made a bad decision in airing the tape. First--and most importantly--it did absolutely nothing to advance the story. A woman is missing--quite likely, the victim of foul play--and the focus suddenly shifted to an attractive TV reporter, swimming with the "person of interest" in his backyard.

Secondly, we don't buy Channel 2's claims about its "days" of agonized decisions about actually broadcasting the video. Rumors about the tape started swirling immediately in Chicago media circles, and both the Chicago Sun-Times and Tribune had stories about Jacobson's little swim party before the story appeared on WBBM. In hindsight, it seems likely that Channel 2 used the four days of "deliberations" to build some buzz on the segment before it aired. We haven't seen the Nielsens, but it's likely that the Jacobson story produced a nice little spike in Channel 2's news ratings, which lag well behind those of WMAQ and market-leader WLS.

From those reasons, we believe that WBBM News Director Carol Fowler committed a serious error in judgment by splashing the video (pun intended) across her newscasts and the station's website. But we will give Channel 2 credit for one thing: they obtained the tape honestly, not through some cheesy "sting" operation aimed at nailing the competition. According to WBBM, reporter Mike Puccinelli and his videographer went to the Stebic home last Friday, in search of an interview with members of the family. Apparently, the team from Channel 2 was turned away and they went to a neighbor's house in search of information.

While in the neighbor's house, the WBBM photographer spotted Jacobson at the Stebic home. With the neighbor's permission, the videographer began recording the swim party, with the bikini-clad WMAQ reporter clearly in view. Having secured the permission of the property owner, there was nothing unethical about the Channel 2 crew taping the poolside activities, and reporting what they saw. From our perspective, the problems began with the station's decision to air the tape.

Before moving to Chicago, Mr. Puccinelli was an anchor and reporter for WMC-TV in Memphis, where he's remembered for being aggressive, but fair. Certainly, no one in the Mid-South remembers him going for a dip with a "person of interest" in a major police case. Like any good reporter, he was probably disappointed when he saw "the competition" inside the Stebic home, angling for a major scoop. But Mike Puccinelli and his videographer played by the rules--even if their bosses at WBBM didn't. That's one reason they're still employed, and Amy Jacobson is looking for work.

H/T: the Beachwood Reporter.

Those Pesky Details

Readers of this blog know that we've been following the case of Air Force Major Jill Metzger, whose disappearance in Kyrgyzstan last September touched off an international incident. Metzger disappeared from a shopping mall in Bishek, then resurfaced three days later, claiming that she had been kidnapped and held prisoner. Major Metzger claimed that she escaped by overpowering one of her captors and running miles to freedom. Both Kyrgyz and U.S. authorities have expressed doubts about her story, and the incident remains under investigation by the Air Force and the Justice Department.

While the official inquiries continue, Major Metzger will be placed on the Temporary Disability Retired List (TDRL) for the next 18 months, as we noted earlier this week. By our count, this represents the fourth "change" in Metzger's duty status over the past month; initially, sources told military corruption.com that the Major would be permanently retired with a disability pension resulting from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) that stemmed from her captivity. When that touched off a storm of protest, her status kept changing. Within the span of a single week, Major Metzger's mother told the press that her daughter would be taking a leave of absence, then described it as medical leave. The TDRL version came from Metzger's father, a retired Air Force officer, who spoke with Air Force Times earlier this week.

While each of those actions are permissible under military personnel regulations, neither the Air Force nor the Metzger family has explained why the Major's duty status kept changing. Placing her on the TDRL indicates the Metzger's case was reviewed by a medical board at the Air Force Personnel Center (AFPC), which determines the status of personnel who have been wounded in the line of duty, or suffer from serious illnesses. There is no indication when the board made its ruling, and we've encouraged the Air Force to release that information. Learning when the board met and made its decision could go a long way toward quieting rumors about "special" deals" and those apparent changes in duty status over the last month.

But even the TDRL ruling raises additional questions, for both the Major and the Air Force. Some of the most informed analysis on the "mechanics" of the Metzger case can be found at Johca's Conversation, a blog run by a retired Air Force NCO. Johca doesn't list his military vocation, but he must have been a personnel specialist, given his detailed knowledge of those particular regulations.

As he observers, the TDRL determination should have followed rulings by two other panels. Given the fact that Major Metzger went missing in Kyrgyzstan, the Air Force would be required to convene a Board of Inquiry (BOI) to determine the circumtances of her disappearance. That would be followed by a separate BOI for a "line of duty determination," to decide if injuries or disabilities received were in conjunction with her military duties. If the initial board of inquiry validated her tale of abduction, then the second panel becomes unnecessary.

On the other hand, if the "missing person" BOI (specified in Title 10 USC, Section 1501), can't corroborate the kidnapping story--or worse yet, determines that Metzger's disappearance was the result of an unauthorized absence or miscondut--then the Air Force has a real problem on its hands. Any unauthorized absence is a violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and is subject to punishment. Moreover, establishment of unauthorized absence would have a deleterious effect on the concurrent "line of duty" determination. If you're absent without authorization, the military can deny benefits for injuries or disabilities received during that period. Those provisions are outlined in Title 10 USC, Section 1207, Disability from intentional misconduct or willful neglect: separation.

At this point, we can only assume that these steps were taken because neither the Air Force nor Major Metzger have explained how she would up on the TRDL. In fairness, portions of this process--and the material presented--are covered by the Privacy Act, which prevents full disclosure. However, given the publicity (and controversy) this case has generated, we believe it's important for the service and Major Metzger to provide some details about these events. At a minimum, this information should include the dates and convening authority for the boards of inquiry (as described above), along with similar data for the medical board which granted TRDL status. We also encourage the Air Force--or Major Metzger--to release the data of the medical board's retirement ruling, so that it can be compared with other "status stories" that have made the rounds over the past months.

The Metzger case is more than the saga of an Air Force officer who went missing for three days. Not only did it damage relations with a key ally in the War on Terror, it also required the marshaling of extensive resources to aid in the search. By one account, the Air Force Office of Special Investigations (AFOSI) dispatched 24 additional agents to Kyrgyzstan to hunt for Major Metzger. Calculate their bill for transportation, billeting, per diem, and man-hours expended, and you'll see that the search for Major Metzger was anything but cheap. And that's another reason that the public deserves more answers about this bizarre case, and the "disposition" of its key figure.