For a blogger who focuses on military and intelligence issues, there was no worse time to be on the road--and without my trusty laptop--that yesterday, when the world learned that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi had been "terminated" by U.S. and coalition military forces.
But there is sweet justice in knowing that Iraq's most nortorious terrorist is dead, and better yet, he was actually alive when U.S. and Polish military personnel arrived on the scene. According to some press reports, Zarqawi actually tried to climb off his stretcher when he realized he was in coalition hands, then died a short time later. It's actually a bit of a shame that Zarqawi wasn't in better shape, and might have tried to engage those Task Force 145 operators who were watching from across the street. But, after watching Zarqawi's famous "SAW" video, we know it wouldn't be been a fair fight.
With Zarqawi now roasting on his own special spit, the MSM (and its various "experts") are already downplaying the significance of his demise. True, Zarqawi wasn't the only terrorist leader in Iraq--only the most famous; the man who literally put a face on the murdering savages who have killed hundreds of U.S. troops, and thousands of Iraqi civilians. If you believe Richard Clark, Zarqawi and his minions represent only about 5% of the "insurgency," but such statements ignore an obvious fact--Al Qaida in Iraq was responsible for some of the most spectacular attacks and brutal acts perpetuated by the terrorists, including the bombing of the U.N. complex in Baghdad, and the beheading deaths of several western hostages, including American businessman Nicholas Berg.
At this point, the focus ought to be on the spooks and troops who arranged the meeting between Zarqawi and his maker. But, alas, too much talk of a "successful" operation might translate into higher poll numbers for George Bush, so the pictures of Zarqawi's battered body must be "balanced" by John Kerry and John Murtha declaring "mission complete," and demanding the withdrawal of U.S. troops by the end of the year. It's tantamount to proclaiming victory on June 7, 1944. But, it's part-and-parcel of what passes for national security policy in most quarters of the Democratic Party. Somewhere, Harry Truman and Henry "Spook" Jackson are spinning in their graves.
But rather that focus on the nay-sayers, I'll offer one more tip of the hat to the young men and women responsible for finding and eliminating Zarqawi. Ironically, I spent part of the day Thursday in their company, as part of a group touring an Air Force DCGS site. I've written about DCGS before; it's the ground site where images and other data from various airbreather platforms (aircraft and UAVs) is analyzed, exploited, and forwarded to the operators and in the skies.
Sites like the one I visited play an important role in the War on Terror, providing real-time support to troops in harm's way. I was told (unofficially) the site had played a minor role in monitoring Zarqawi's final hideout. "There wasn't much to see," one officer told me. "We kept an eye on the house, to make sure he didn't leave." With confirmation that Zarqawi was in the house, U.S. special forces, Iraqi security units and Air Force F-16s did the rest. The Iraqis quietly cordoned off the area; SOF troops took up positions across the street from the Al-Qaida hideout, and at the appointed moment, the F-16s dropped two 500-lb bombs. Inside the DGS facility on Thursday morning, the war had already moved on. Young officers, NCOs and airmen were monitoring other missions on the war zone. But on a video monitor inside their operations center, Fox News Channel was re-playing the F-16 video from the night before, a mission that they had played a role in.
There wasn't any cheering or outward celebration in the ops center that morning--just professionals doing their job, and doing it exceptionally well. As we watched missions unfold, our escort officer pointed to the computer terminal of an Air Force lieutenant who was probably in his mid-20s. Watching the feeds from various surveillance platforms, the lieutenant (in turn) orchestrated his team while relaying data to other intel nodes and operational customers via a series of secure chat rooms. By my count, the lieutenant was monitoring at least a dozen chat rooms, connecting the front lines to ops centers and intel facilities around the world. "I don't think I could do that," whispered our escort officer, as he watched the lieutenant work.
I don't think I could, either. And ditto for the work done by the intel troops on the ground, the SOF operators on the streets of Baghdad, and the F-16 pilots who delivered Zarqawi's coup de grace. Military and intelligence service is a young person's game, and we are fortunate to have such able men and women defending our freedom, both in Iraq and in those DGS trailers where critical information is gathered and disseminated. Our country and the people of Iraq--no, make that free people everywhere--owe them a debt of gratitude. Most of them would probably settle for a simple "thank you."
Friday, June 09, 2006
Thursday, June 08, 2006
What’s Going on in Iran?
Michael Barone was one of the first to note the U.S. media’s lack of interest in recent unrest and demonstrations in Iran. While the MSM remains preoccupied with the nuclear issue and the antics of President Ahmadinejad (will he go to the World Cup?), there have been reports of violent clashes between police and demonstrators in several Iranian cities, including Tabriz.
From what I can gather, many of the confrontations occurred in northwest Iran (where Tabriz is the largest city), and home to a large number of ethnic Azeris. Many of Iran’s Azeri minority would like to be reunited with neighboring Azerbaijan, a prospect that Tehran has summarily rejected. According to Azeri TV in Baku, clashes with Iranian police have claimed the lives of at least five Azeris over the past week, and as many as 11,000 Azeris have been detained. Iranian authorities also temporarily suspended cell phone service in the region, in an effort to prevent unrest from spreading, and keep the story from getting out.
Admittedly, Baku TV isn’t the most accurate or reliable of sources, but at least they’re covering the story. Since Iran’s student movement fizzled in the late 1990s, the U.S. media has all-but-ignored discontent and unrest within Iran’s borders. Time magazine even postulated that student demonstrators had been co-opted by the regime, and were more interested in better paying jobs and creature comforts, than genuine political reform.
In reality, there been a persistent undercurrent of discontent in Iran for years. The student demonstrations of 1999 were followed by a regime crackdown. But there was a second, substantial wave of protests (and some violence) in 2003, followed by another government backlash. Now, public dissatisfaction (particularly among ethnic minorities) seems to be bubbling over again.
It is possible to make too much of this story. Opposition within Iran remains fragmented along ethnic and other demographic lines; at this point, it seems unlikely that opposition groups can coalesce around a central figure or leader and effectively challenge the regime.
But, on the other hand, Iran is hardly the fundamentalist monlith so often potrayed in the western press. There is something going on in Iran, but you wouldn’t know it from the U.S. media.
From what I can gather, many of the confrontations occurred in northwest Iran (where Tabriz is the largest city), and home to a large number of ethnic Azeris. Many of Iran’s Azeri minority would like to be reunited with neighboring Azerbaijan, a prospect that Tehran has summarily rejected. According to Azeri TV in Baku, clashes with Iranian police have claimed the lives of at least five Azeris over the past week, and as many as 11,000 Azeris have been detained. Iranian authorities also temporarily suspended cell phone service in the region, in an effort to prevent unrest from spreading, and keep the story from getting out.
Admittedly, Baku TV isn’t the most accurate or reliable of sources, but at least they’re covering the story. Since Iran’s student movement fizzled in the late 1990s, the U.S. media has all-but-ignored discontent and unrest within Iran’s borders. Time magazine even postulated that student demonstrators had been co-opted by the regime, and were more interested in better paying jobs and creature comforts, than genuine political reform.
In reality, there been a persistent undercurrent of discontent in Iran for years. The student demonstrations of 1999 were followed by a regime crackdown. But there was a second, substantial wave of protests (and some violence) in 2003, followed by another government backlash. Now, public dissatisfaction (particularly among ethnic minorities) seems to be bubbling over again.
It is possible to make too much of this story. Opposition within Iran remains fragmented along ethnic and other demographic lines; at this point, it seems unlikely that opposition groups can coalesce around a central figure or leader and effectively challenge the regime.
But, on the other hand, Iran is hardly the fundamentalist monlith so often potrayed in the western press. There is something going on in Iran, but you wouldn’t know it from the U.S. media.
Failing the Aggie Test
Like other elements within DOD, the Air Force is struggling with budget shortfalls and accompanying personnel cutbacks. At least 40,000 enlisted personnel, officers and civilians will be trimmed from the ranks over the next four years, to achieve required savings and help fund weapons upgrades.
In military circles, it’s called a Reduction in Force (RIF) and most of us have lived through one or more. The Air Force has already announced plans to involuntarily separate several hundred junior officers by the end of the current fiscal year, and more cuts may be on the way. A senior officer told me the other day that he expects that 20,000 additional personnel will be eventually eliminated, on top of the 40,000 currently projected. The ramifications of these cutbacks will be felt for years to come; today’s airmen and lieutenants are tomorrow’s Chief Master Sergeants and Colonels. In other words, we may face an experience gap in the future, thanks to personnel decisions being made today.
If the service is facing tough times in terms of manning and personnel—and it is—perhaps someone can explain the logic of this Air Force decision, outlined in a recent press release:
6/7/2006 - WASHINGTON (AFPN) -- Some previously restricted Airmen now may be assigned permanently or on temporary duty to any stateside base with a medical facility or to certain overseas bases with a medical facility because of recent changes to Air Force Instruction 41-210, “Patient Administration Functions,” and the initiation of a Stratified Assignment Limitation Code C.
Airmen diagnosed with medical conditions that are potentially disqualifying from continued military service undergo a medical evaluation board. Many are not discharged, but are returned to duty with an Assignment Limitation Code-C, or ALC-C. The code is issued by the Air Force Personnel Center's Medical Standards Branch in the Medical Service Officer Management Division.
This code restricts permanent and TDY assignments to areas where appropriate medical care is available to the member. The intent of the ALC-C is to protect members from being placed in an environment where adequate medical care is not available.
Under the Stratified Assignment Limitation Code C program, Airmen placed on Code C restriction now fall into one of three stratification levels:
C1: Airmen permanently and TDY assignment-eligible to global Department of Defense installations with medical treatment facilities. Generally, approvals are for conditions that are stable and found as a result of a medical review and not likely to worsen suddenly.
C2: Airmen permanently and TDY assignment-eligible to CONUS installations. They could also be deployable or assignable to overseas bases or non-fixed facilities if appropriate care is available. This is generally approved for temporary or mild conditions requiring follow-up but clinically inactive and managed without frequent visits or unique medication regimen or prescriptions.
C3: Airmen who are TDY non-deployable and assignment-limited to a specific installation based on medical need and availability of care. Approval authority is the Medical Standards Branch. The member’s commander may request waivers to send a member on deployment or permanent assignment in support of unit operations.
“Airmen with certain conditions, such as mild asthma, may now be eligible for permanent or TDY assignments to locations never before possible," said Lt. Col. (Dr.) Lane Wall, Air Force Medical Operations Agency in Washington, D.C.
Asthma accounts for the highest number of Airmen restricted from assignments.
“Roughly 2,000 Airmen with asthma could be affected by the change,” Colonel Wall said. “These Airmen with asthma may deploy to places such as Germany and Japan.”
Assignment or deployment to these locations will depend on the availability of primary care physicians to manage the disease-associated routine medication issues, and assurance that additional care is available should the Airman’s condition worsen.
“All Airmen going through the medical review process will be assigned using the new stratification levels,” Colonel Wall said. “Airmen who are already on Code C will be assigned the new stratification levels during their next scheduled update or when they’re selected for a permanent or TDY deployment assignment.”
In other words, the Air Force is kicking 40,000 healthy folks to the curb, while bending over backwards to retain 2,000 airmen, NCOs and officers whose health conditions prevent them from deploying to a combat zone. Perhaps I’m a bit unschooled in the finer points of military medicine and personnel assignments, but this one simply flunks the Aggie test.
And I’m not the only one concerned by this trend. A retired Air Force E-9, a former senior enlisted advisor (and one of the truly great Chiefs to ever wear the uniform) believes that medical restrictions have become a dodge for airmen who want to avoid deployments to combat zones or other undesirable locations. He remembers one case where a string of senior NCOs suddenly developed medical problems to avoid an assignment to a small base in northern Italy. With airmen now pulling duty at such garden spots as Bagram, Balad and Baghdad, I’m sure this trend has only accelerated.
The solution is painfully obvious. If these airmen aren’t healthy enough for duty in Iraq or Afghanistan, why should they be retained for assignments stateside, or at overseas locations with “adequate” medical facilities. If their problems are chronic or long-term, convene a medical board, and give them early retirement or involuntary separation. Then, fill their spot with a healthy airman who would be otherwise forced out by personnel reductions.
There’s nothing wrong with the Air Force making an occasional exception for personnel with medical conditions that limit deployments. But the number of airmen currently on the Code C program is entirely too high, and members of the “Profile Corps” are sending other airmen downrange for a second, third or fourth tour in the sandbox. Get rid of some of these medical goldbricks and you’ll see an immediate improvement across the board. Faced with an early exit from the Air Force, some of the Code C’rs will suddenly find their health improved; there will be less work for the admin troops, medical folks and commanders (who now spend too much time on medical restriction issues), and fully-qualified airmen will get more of a break from combat deployments.
It’s time for the Air Force to get serious about this issue. Or, as Chief Buddy would say, flush early and often.
In military circles, it’s called a Reduction in Force (RIF) and most of us have lived through one or more. The Air Force has already announced plans to involuntarily separate several hundred junior officers by the end of the current fiscal year, and more cuts may be on the way. A senior officer told me the other day that he expects that 20,000 additional personnel will be eventually eliminated, on top of the 40,000 currently projected. The ramifications of these cutbacks will be felt for years to come; today’s airmen and lieutenants are tomorrow’s Chief Master Sergeants and Colonels. In other words, we may face an experience gap in the future, thanks to personnel decisions being made today.
If the service is facing tough times in terms of manning and personnel—and it is—perhaps someone can explain the logic of this Air Force decision, outlined in a recent press release:
6/7/2006 - WASHINGTON (AFPN) -- Some previously restricted Airmen now may be assigned permanently or on temporary duty to any stateside base with a medical facility or to certain overseas bases with a medical facility because of recent changes to Air Force Instruction 41-210, “Patient Administration Functions,” and the initiation of a Stratified Assignment Limitation Code C.
Airmen diagnosed with medical conditions that are potentially disqualifying from continued military service undergo a medical evaluation board. Many are not discharged, but are returned to duty with an Assignment Limitation Code-C, or ALC-C. The code is issued by the Air Force Personnel Center's Medical Standards Branch in the Medical Service Officer Management Division.
This code restricts permanent and TDY assignments to areas where appropriate medical care is available to the member. The intent of the ALC-C is to protect members from being placed in an environment where adequate medical care is not available.
Under the Stratified Assignment Limitation Code C program, Airmen placed on Code C restriction now fall into one of three stratification levels:
C1: Airmen permanently and TDY assignment-eligible to global Department of Defense installations with medical treatment facilities. Generally, approvals are for conditions that are stable and found as a result of a medical review and not likely to worsen suddenly.
C2: Airmen permanently and TDY assignment-eligible to CONUS installations. They could also be deployable or assignable to overseas bases or non-fixed facilities if appropriate care is available. This is generally approved for temporary or mild conditions requiring follow-up but clinically inactive and managed without frequent visits or unique medication regimen or prescriptions.
C3: Airmen who are TDY non-deployable and assignment-limited to a specific installation based on medical need and availability of care. Approval authority is the Medical Standards Branch. The member’s commander may request waivers to send a member on deployment or permanent assignment in support of unit operations.
“Airmen with certain conditions, such as mild asthma, may now be eligible for permanent or TDY assignments to locations never before possible," said Lt. Col. (Dr.) Lane Wall, Air Force Medical Operations Agency in Washington, D.C.
Asthma accounts for the highest number of Airmen restricted from assignments.
“Roughly 2,000 Airmen with asthma could be affected by the change,” Colonel Wall said. “These Airmen with asthma may deploy to places such as Germany and Japan.”
Assignment or deployment to these locations will depend on the availability of primary care physicians to manage the disease-associated routine medication issues, and assurance that additional care is available should the Airman’s condition worsen.
“All Airmen going through the medical review process will be assigned using the new stratification levels,” Colonel Wall said. “Airmen who are already on Code C will be assigned the new stratification levels during their next scheduled update or when they’re selected for a permanent or TDY deployment assignment.”
In other words, the Air Force is kicking 40,000 healthy folks to the curb, while bending over backwards to retain 2,000 airmen, NCOs and officers whose health conditions prevent them from deploying to a combat zone. Perhaps I’m a bit unschooled in the finer points of military medicine and personnel assignments, but this one simply flunks the Aggie test.
And I’m not the only one concerned by this trend. A retired Air Force E-9, a former senior enlisted advisor (and one of the truly great Chiefs to ever wear the uniform) believes that medical restrictions have become a dodge for airmen who want to avoid deployments to combat zones or other undesirable locations. He remembers one case where a string of senior NCOs suddenly developed medical problems to avoid an assignment to a small base in northern Italy. With airmen now pulling duty at such garden spots as Bagram, Balad and Baghdad, I’m sure this trend has only accelerated.
The solution is painfully obvious. If these airmen aren’t healthy enough for duty in Iraq or Afghanistan, why should they be retained for assignments stateside, or at overseas locations with “adequate” medical facilities. If their problems are chronic or long-term, convene a medical board, and give them early retirement or involuntary separation. Then, fill their spot with a healthy airman who would be otherwise forced out by personnel reductions.
There’s nothing wrong with the Air Force making an occasional exception for personnel with medical conditions that limit deployments. But the number of airmen currently on the Code C program is entirely too high, and members of the “Profile Corps” are sending other airmen downrange for a second, third or fourth tour in the sandbox. Get rid of some of these medical goldbricks and you’ll see an immediate improvement across the board. Faced with an early exit from the Air Force, some of the Code C’rs will suddenly find their health improved; there will be less work for the admin troops, medical folks and commanders (who now spend too much time on medical restriction issues), and fully-qualified airmen will get more of a break from combat deployments.
It’s time for the Air Force to get serious about this issue. Or, as Chief Buddy would say, flush early and often.
Tuesday, June 06, 2006
The Next Space Race
The Pentagon has just released its annual report on Chinese space power, and it's a disturbing document, in several respects. Not only is Beijing spending heavily to develop space-based surveillance and reconnaissance systems, it is also investing in navigation warfare and anti-satellite capabilities that pose a direct threat to U.S. and its ability to wage future wars.
Space.com has a summary of the report, which focuses on China's efforts to expand its manned space program, develop its own, space-based navigation systems (similar to GPS), improve launch capabilities and create viable anti-satellite technologies that could threaten U.S. reconnaissance satellites in low earth orbit, and deny information to military commanders.
From an intelligence perspective, China's emerging navigation warfare (NAVWAR) strategy is a clear concern to American defense analysts and military planners. Beijing clearly understands that the U.S. has grown increasingly dependent on precision-guided munitions, and the satellites required to guide them to their targets. As a hedge against our precision strike systems, China is developing a two-phased approach. Within their own territory, they plan to deploy GPS jammers, making it more difficult for satellite-guided bombs to find their mark. While military systems use a "secure" mode of GPS, advanced jammers (deployed properly) could have some impact on that system, creating miss distances that would ensure target survival, or minimize damage, and force a re-strike, against an increasingly defense Chinese air defense array.
At the same time, Beijing is also investing in its own satellite-guided weapons, capable of using GPS, Russia's GLOSNASS, the European Galileo system, or China's own Beidou navigation satellites. The Chinese assume that signals from at least one of these systems would be accessible in the skies over Taiwan, allowing short-range ballistic missiles and cruise missiles to still find their targets. In essence, China hopes to deny use of space-based navigation and strike capabilities to an adversary operating over their territory, while using the same technology to conduct attacks against Taiwan. While there are some problems with this approach (namely in the technical capabilities of the Beidou system), development of this NAVWAR strategy illustrates how far China's space program has come over the past decade.
More disturbing is China's efforts to field anti-satellite systems, capable of targeting adversary platforms in low earth orbit (LEO). That's the arena where many U.S. spy satellites operate. And while our reconnaissance platforms are technical marvels, they are also limited in terms of numbers, and it's extremely expensive and time-consuming to manufacture them. With a robust ASAT system, China could develop the ability to disable or destroy much of our LEO intel constellation, leaving the U.S. with no short-term options for replacing them. Bowing to political pressure, the U.S. essentially abandoned its ASAT program back in the 1980s; meanwhile, Beijing has plowed ahead, and is developing capabilities that could have grave implications for our space-based collection systems.
Predictably, some on the left (notably Harvard's Jeffrey Lewis) have dismissed the report as little more than "a laundry list of Chinese space activities." I would argue that Mr. Lewis can't see the forest for the trees. Beijing clearly has a space plan, designed to challenge U.S. supremacy in that arena, and advance its own interests at the same time. China's NAVWAR strategy and ASAT efforts aren't isolated "science projects," they are integral parts of a comprehensive scheme that should be closely monitored by the U.S. intelligence communities.
How worried should we be about China as a space power? In recent weeks, senior Congressional leaders and the Director of National Intelligence have been briefed on some of the topics outlined in the space report. Thankfully, there are some leaders in our national security establishment who can see the big picture, and view China's space endeavors as an over-arching plan, and not a series of isolated efforts.
Space.com has a summary of the report, which focuses on China's efforts to expand its manned space program, develop its own, space-based navigation systems (similar to GPS), improve launch capabilities and create viable anti-satellite technologies that could threaten U.S. reconnaissance satellites in low earth orbit, and deny information to military commanders.
From an intelligence perspective, China's emerging navigation warfare (NAVWAR) strategy is a clear concern to American defense analysts and military planners. Beijing clearly understands that the U.S. has grown increasingly dependent on precision-guided munitions, and the satellites required to guide them to their targets. As a hedge against our precision strike systems, China is developing a two-phased approach. Within their own territory, they plan to deploy GPS jammers, making it more difficult for satellite-guided bombs to find their mark. While military systems use a "secure" mode of GPS, advanced jammers (deployed properly) could have some impact on that system, creating miss distances that would ensure target survival, or minimize damage, and force a re-strike, against an increasingly defense Chinese air defense array.
At the same time, Beijing is also investing in its own satellite-guided weapons, capable of using GPS, Russia's GLOSNASS, the European Galileo system, or China's own Beidou navigation satellites. The Chinese assume that signals from at least one of these systems would be accessible in the skies over Taiwan, allowing short-range ballistic missiles and cruise missiles to still find their targets. In essence, China hopes to deny use of space-based navigation and strike capabilities to an adversary operating over their territory, while using the same technology to conduct attacks against Taiwan. While there are some problems with this approach (namely in the technical capabilities of the Beidou system), development of this NAVWAR strategy illustrates how far China's space program has come over the past decade.
More disturbing is China's efforts to field anti-satellite systems, capable of targeting adversary platforms in low earth orbit (LEO). That's the arena where many U.S. spy satellites operate. And while our reconnaissance platforms are technical marvels, they are also limited in terms of numbers, and it's extremely expensive and time-consuming to manufacture them. With a robust ASAT system, China could develop the ability to disable or destroy much of our LEO intel constellation, leaving the U.S. with no short-term options for replacing them. Bowing to political pressure, the U.S. essentially abandoned its ASAT program back in the 1980s; meanwhile, Beijing has plowed ahead, and is developing capabilities that could have grave implications for our space-based collection systems.
Predictably, some on the left (notably Harvard's Jeffrey Lewis) have dismissed the report as little more than "a laundry list of Chinese space activities." I would argue that Mr. Lewis can't see the forest for the trees. Beijing clearly has a space plan, designed to challenge U.S. supremacy in that arena, and advance its own interests at the same time. China's NAVWAR strategy and ASAT efforts aren't isolated "science projects," they are integral parts of a comprehensive scheme that should be closely monitored by the U.S. intelligence communities.
How worried should we be about China as a space power? In recent weeks, senior Congressional leaders and the Director of National Intelligence have been briefed on some of the topics outlined in the space report. Thankfully, there are some leaders in our national security establishment who can see the big picture, and view China's space endeavors as an over-arching plan, and not a series of isolated efforts.
The Offer
According to the Associated Press, the United States is prepared to offer “some” nuclear technology to Iran, in exchange for suspension of uranium enrichment efforts. The offer is reportedly part of a package of incentives developed by the U.S. and its European allies, and presented to Iran on Tuesday.
Call me a pessimist, but this package is probably DOA, although Tehran will probably delay formal rejection of the offer until the time is right. Not only has the Iranian regime declared an inherent “right” to nuclear technology, it’s also doubtful that the U.S. would provide the type of advanced technology desired by Tehran—the very type of dual-use systems now being developed by Iran, capable of supporting civilian applications, or nuclear weapons development.
This proposal illustrates how desperate the U.S. and the Europeans have become in trying to keep the diplomatic option alive. If I'm reading the tea leaves correctly, I'd guess that Tehran will not just reject the offer, but come back with a counter-proposal, demanding even more in the way of nuclear technology. Having seen the west's "starting point," Tehran realizes it can press for much more, with some hope of gaining additional concessions from the U.S. and its European partners.
Readers may recall that this "package" also outlines potential penalties for Iranian non-compliance. The AP dispatch makes no mention of those penalties, suggesting that the proposed deal has more carrots than sticks. If that's the case, then perhaps the best scenario for this offer is a quick death, followed by a tougher follow-up offer, balancing rewards and penalties. Call that a diplomatic pipe dream.
Call me a pessimist, but this package is probably DOA, although Tehran will probably delay formal rejection of the offer until the time is right. Not only has the Iranian regime declared an inherent “right” to nuclear technology, it’s also doubtful that the U.S. would provide the type of advanced technology desired by Tehran—the very type of dual-use systems now being developed by Iran, capable of supporting civilian applications, or nuclear weapons development.
This proposal illustrates how desperate the U.S. and the Europeans have become in trying to keep the diplomatic option alive. If I'm reading the tea leaves correctly, I'd guess that Tehran will not just reject the offer, but come back with a counter-proposal, demanding even more in the way of nuclear technology. Having seen the west's "starting point," Tehran realizes it can press for much more, with some hope of gaining additional concessions from the U.S. and its European partners.
Readers may recall that this "package" also outlines potential penalties for Iranian non-compliance. The AP dispatch makes no mention of those penalties, suggesting that the proposed deal has more carrots than sticks. If that's the case, then perhaps the best scenario for this offer is a quick death, followed by a tougher follow-up offer, balancing rewards and penalties. Call that a diplomatic pipe dream.
Monday, June 05, 2006
Blending In
One of the leaders at a mosque attended by those Canadian terror suspects is expressing surprise at their arrest, and their apparent plans to conduct a series of bombings across southern Ontario.
According to Iman Qamrul Khanson, several members of the suspected terror ring prayed daily at his storefont mosque (the Al Rahman Islamic Center for Islamic Education), but "never spoke of hurting others." The one-room mosque is located in Mississauga, Ontario, a middle-class town west of Toronto. At least 40-50 families attend the mosque; press reports indicate at least three of the suspects prayed there on a regular basis.
The oldest suspect, Qayyum Abdul Jamal, was apparently more than a mere worshipper. Khanson told reporters that Jamal often led prayers at the mosque, and described them as "more aggressive" than those of other worship leaders. But Khanson said that Jamal's prayers contained no mention of violence or terrorism.
That description doesn't quite square with other accounts, which suggest that Jamal is a "well-known and fiery figure in Toronto's South Asian community, and iman of the Ar Rahman Quran Learning Center in Mississagua. Tarek Fatah, who runs the Muslim Canadian Congress says Jamal took over "an otherwise peaceful mosque and threw out the old management. There were reports throughout the community of him making hate speeches." Hat tip: Andrew Coyne.
And, if that's not enough, there are those disturbing ties between Jamal's gang and a couple of U.S. terrorism suspects, recently arrested by the FBI. Two other Canadians with ties to Jamal are already in prison, after being apprehended as they attempted to smuggle weapons into that country. That activity, coupled with the group's ideology and attempts to purchase large quantities of amonium nitrate, certainly warranted their surveillance by U.S. and Canadian authorities. When the RCMP learned of their attempt to buy amonium nitrate, a sting was arranged, with officers posing as fertilizer providers, and a harmless powder substituted for the chemical, which becomes a high explosive when mixed with fuel oil or other substances.
The operation that led to last weekend's arrests is already being described as a "sting" and I'm sure that defense attorneys will start using the term "set-up" within the next couple of news cycles. That seems to be part-and-parcel of the domestic terrorist defense strategy, previously observed during terror cases in California and upstate New York. In Lodi, California, friends and neighbors expressed shock and disbelief at the arrests of a five men with alleged Al-Qaida connections, including a 22-year-old Pakistani-American who had attended a terrorist training camp near the Afghanistan border. "They are good people," said one neighbor. We never had any problem with them." Members of the Lackawanna Seven, convicted of providing material support to Al-Qaida, were described in equally, ordinary terms. One of the terrorists was even voted the "friendliest" member of his high school graduating class in 1996. All were long-time residents of the Lackawanna area, who blended seamlessly into their communities.
Which brings us back to that mosque in Ontario and the worshippers arrested over the weekend. It is far too early to determine if these men had any ties to Al-Qaida, but they certainly seem to fit the evolving profile of home-grown Islamic terrorists: Muslim men recruited, indoctrinated and trained in their community, where strong local ties make them all-but-oblivious to law enforcment. If press reports are accurate, the Canadian cell wasn't identified until their internet communications were intercepted by intelligence organizations, highlighting the ability of domestic terrorists to work and plot, literally under the noses of local authorities. It's the type of organizational model that facilitated successful terror attacks in London, Madrid (and elsewhere), and it remains one of the greatest challenges in prosecuting the War on Terror.
The Canadian investigation is continuing, and one issue that remains unresolved is the role Jamal played at that Ontario mosque, and whether his intentions plans were known (to any degree) outside the members of his cell. From what we've learned so far, the disrupted Toronto plot seems to be similar to failed plots in Lodi and Lackawanna in one key respect; in each case, the activities of suspected terrorists seemd all-but-transparent to the members of their communities.
Was the Canadian plot simply a case of terrorists blending easily into their surroundings, or an example of friends and neighbors ignoring potential warning signs, either intentionally or unintentionally. At this point, it's difficult to say, but reports of Jamal's "taking control" of that storefront mosque and preaching hate-filled sermons doesn't exactly match descriptions of a "peaceful" worship center offered by other members of the congregation. I'm guessing that Iman Khanson (and other members of the mosque) may be having some extended conversations with the RCMP in the coming days.
According to Iman Qamrul Khanson, several members of the suspected terror ring prayed daily at his storefont mosque (the Al Rahman Islamic Center for Islamic Education), but "never spoke of hurting others." The one-room mosque is located in Mississauga, Ontario, a middle-class town west of Toronto. At least 40-50 families attend the mosque; press reports indicate at least three of the suspects prayed there on a regular basis.
The oldest suspect, Qayyum Abdul Jamal, was apparently more than a mere worshipper. Khanson told reporters that Jamal often led prayers at the mosque, and described them as "more aggressive" than those of other worship leaders. But Khanson said that Jamal's prayers contained no mention of violence or terrorism.
That description doesn't quite square with other accounts, which suggest that Jamal is a "well-known and fiery figure in Toronto's South Asian community, and iman of the Ar Rahman Quran Learning Center in Mississagua. Tarek Fatah, who runs the Muslim Canadian Congress says Jamal took over "an otherwise peaceful mosque and threw out the old management. There were reports throughout the community of him making hate speeches." Hat tip: Andrew Coyne.
And, if that's not enough, there are those disturbing ties between Jamal's gang and a couple of U.S. terrorism suspects, recently arrested by the FBI. Two other Canadians with ties to Jamal are already in prison, after being apprehended as they attempted to smuggle weapons into that country. That activity, coupled with the group's ideology and attempts to purchase large quantities of amonium nitrate, certainly warranted their surveillance by U.S. and Canadian authorities. When the RCMP learned of their attempt to buy amonium nitrate, a sting was arranged, with officers posing as fertilizer providers, and a harmless powder substituted for the chemical, which becomes a high explosive when mixed with fuel oil or other substances.
The operation that led to last weekend's arrests is already being described as a "sting" and I'm sure that defense attorneys will start using the term "set-up" within the next couple of news cycles. That seems to be part-and-parcel of the domestic terrorist defense strategy, previously observed during terror cases in California and upstate New York. In Lodi, California, friends and neighbors expressed shock and disbelief at the arrests of a five men with alleged Al-Qaida connections, including a 22-year-old Pakistani-American who had attended a terrorist training camp near the Afghanistan border. "They are good people," said one neighbor. We never had any problem with them." Members of the Lackawanna Seven, convicted of providing material support to Al-Qaida, were described in equally, ordinary terms. One of the terrorists was even voted the "friendliest" member of his high school graduating class in 1996. All were long-time residents of the Lackawanna area, who blended seamlessly into their communities.
Which brings us back to that mosque in Ontario and the worshippers arrested over the weekend. It is far too early to determine if these men had any ties to Al-Qaida, but they certainly seem to fit the evolving profile of home-grown Islamic terrorists: Muslim men recruited, indoctrinated and trained in their community, where strong local ties make them all-but-oblivious to law enforcment. If press reports are accurate, the Canadian cell wasn't identified until their internet communications were intercepted by intelligence organizations, highlighting the ability of domestic terrorists to work and plot, literally under the noses of local authorities. It's the type of organizational model that facilitated successful terror attacks in London, Madrid (and elsewhere), and it remains one of the greatest challenges in prosecuting the War on Terror.
The Canadian investigation is continuing, and one issue that remains unresolved is the role Jamal played at that Ontario mosque, and whether his intentions plans were known (to any degree) outside the members of his cell. From what we've learned so far, the disrupted Toronto plot seems to be similar to failed plots in Lodi and Lackawanna in one key respect; in each case, the activities of suspected terrorists seemd all-but-transparent to the members of their communities.
Was the Canadian plot simply a case of terrorists blending easily into their surroundings, or an example of friends and neighbors ignoring potential warning signs, either intentionally or unintentionally. At this point, it's difficult to say, but reports of Jamal's "taking control" of that storefront mosque and preaching hate-filled sermons doesn't exactly match descriptions of a "peaceful" worship center offered by other members of the congregation. I'm guessing that Iman Khanson (and other members of the mosque) may be having some extended conversations with the RCMP in the coming days.
Saturday, June 03, 2006
Did Someone Say Domestic Surveillance?
We're beginning to learn some of the details of a terror plot that was foiled by Canadian authorities, notably the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS). Working from tips developed by the intelligence service (beginning in 2004), the Mounties conducted an exhaustive investigation that, eventually, led them to a home-grown terror cell, apparently plotting large-scale terror attacks in southern Ontario. According to investigators, the suspects "took steps to acquire" three tons of amonium nitrate, the combustible fertilizer that was used in the 1995 attack on the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. The amount sought by the Canadian suspects was roughy three times the amount used in the U.S. attack.
The RCMP hasn't released the names of the suspects (yet), but describes them as either citizens or residents of Canada. The Toronto Star reports that 17 individuals have been arrested, twelve adults and five juveniles. Some of those arrested were reportedly "upset" at the treatment of Muslims worldwide, and had become adherents of a violent, Al-Qaida style ideology. The Star says that some of the suspects trained together at a camp north of Toronto, and produced propaganda videos. Their planned bombing campaign apparently included several targets, including CSIS headquarters in downtown Toronto, near the CN Tower.
You'll note that an important element of this story is being largely ignored by the MSM. According to Canadian press accounts, the investigation began with monitoring of internet trafffic by the CSIS. As the outlines of the plot became obvious, the RCMP became involved. It's similar to the system that's been created in the U.S., where intelligence agencies monitor selected traffic and (as necessary) provide tip-offs to law enforcement for additional surveillance and investigation. When word of the alleged Canadian plot was revealed, I didn't hear any cries about civil liberties from the press or liberal pundits. Perhaps our neighbors up north have learned that vigilance against terrorism requires the full cooperation of intelligence services and law enforcement agencies, with an aggressive commitment toward uncovering and identifying potential terror cells.
Those terror suspects in Canada were rounded up, in part, because of heightened domestic surveillance efforts. The same system that worked in Canada is also working here, and will (hopefully) continue to produce desired results.
The RCMP hasn't released the names of the suspects (yet), but describes them as either citizens or residents of Canada. The Toronto Star reports that 17 individuals have been arrested, twelve adults and five juveniles. Some of those arrested were reportedly "upset" at the treatment of Muslims worldwide, and had become adherents of a violent, Al-Qaida style ideology. The Star says that some of the suspects trained together at a camp north of Toronto, and produced propaganda videos. Their planned bombing campaign apparently included several targets, including CSIS headquarters in downtown Toronto, near the CN Tower.
You'll note that an important element of this story is being largely ignored by the MSM. According to Canadian press accounts, the investigation began with monitoring of internet trafffic by the CSIS. As the outlines of the plot became obvious, the RCMP became involved. It's similar to the system that's been created in the U.S., where intelligence agencies monitor selected traffic and (as necessary) provide tip-offs to law enforcement for additional surveillance and investigation. When word of the alleged Canadian plot was revealed, I didn't hear any cries about civil liberties from the press or liberal pundits. Perhaps our neighbors up north have learned that vigilance against terrorism requires the full cooperation of intelligence services and law enforcement agencies, with an aggressive commitment toward uncovering and identifying potential terror cells.
Those terror suspects in Canada were rounded up, in part, because of heightened domestic surveillance efforts. The same system that worked in Canada is also working here, and will (hopefully) continue to produce desired results.
Friday, June 02, 2006
Feeling the Pinch
From today's edition of the World Tribune comes word that the Israel's military is feeling a budget squeeze, and the impact is being felt by operational forces.
Ephraim Sneh, a Labor Kenesset member (and former Deputy Defense Minister) told the paper that Israeli defense strength has decreased by up to 30% over the past four years, due to budget cuts. With the current defense budget, "we're scratching the bottom" he observed. Earlier this week, the Israeli cabinet approved a $113 million reduction in the current defense budget, and rejected the defense ministry's request for a multi-year spending plan.
Because of the cutbacks, the Israelis are cancelling or delaying a number of key programs, mostly for the Israeli Army and Navy. The reduction will affect virtually all systems not financed by U.S. military aid (which totals $2.2 billion a year), ranging from unmanned aerial vehicles and naval combatants, to new variants of the Merkava main battle tank.
This is not to say that Israel's national security is in grave jeopardy. The Israeli military remains the preeminent power in the region, and remains more than capable of decisively defeating any regional adversary. But the nation's budget woes will affect both near and long-term modernization efforts, forcing Israeli ground and naval forces to make do with older, albeit proven combat systems.
Readers will also note that the Israeli Air Force (IAF) will be relatively unaffected by the cutbacks. And with good reason. With its long-range strike fighters (the F-15I and F-16I) and ballistic missiles the IAF remains the primary guarantor of Israel's national security. As the Iranian threat continues to grow, the Israelis will do nothing that might impair their ability to strike at Tehran, either preemptively or reactively. Israel's missile defense systems also appear to have surived the budget wars, and will remain fully funded.
Beyond belt-tightening, the Israel's defense budget problems will produce other effects as well. It's almost a given that Tel Aviv will ask the U.S. for a substantial hike in defense aid, and there will be more pressure for intelligence sharing. With some UAV programs facing cuts, the argument goes, Israel will need greater access to U.S. intel systems. I'm guessing that Israel will get much of what it asks for. Politically and militarily, we can't afford to let Israel's military power go into a prolonged tail spin, even if some of the "tales of woe" may be a bit exaggerated.
Ephraim Sneh, a Labor Kenesset member (and former Deputy Defense Minister) told the paper that Israeli defense strength has decreased by up to 30% over the past four years, due to budget cuts. With the current defense budget, "we're scratching the bottom" he observed. Earlier this week, the Israeli cabinet approved a $113 million reduction in the current defense budget, and rejected the defense ministry's request for a multi-year spending plan.
Because of the cutbacks, the Israelis are cancelling or delaying a number of key programs, mostly for the Israeli Army and Navy. The reduction will affect virtually all systems not financed by U.S. military aid (which totals $2.2 billion a year), ranging from unmanned aerial vehicles and naval combatants, to new variants of the Merkava main battle tank.
This is not to say that Israel's national security is in grave jeopardy. The Israeli military remains the preeminent power in the region, and remains more than capable of decisively defeating any regional adversary. But the nation's budget woes will affect both near and long-term modernization efforts, forcing Israeli ground and naval forces to make do with older, albeit proven combat systems.
Readers will also note that the Israeli Air Force (IAF) will be relatively unaffected by the cutbacks. And with good reason. With its long-range strike fighters (the F-15I and F-16I) and ballistic missiles the IAF remains the primary guarantor of Israel's national security. As the Iranian threat continues to grow, the Israelis will do nothing that might impair their ability to strike at Tehran, either preemptively or reactively. Israel's missile defense systems also appear to have surived the budget wars, and will remain fully funded.
Beyond belt-tightening, the Israel's defense budget problems will produce other effects as well. It's almost a given that Tel Aviv will ask the U.S. for a substantial hike in defense aid, and there will be more pressure for intelligence sharing. With some UAV programs facing cuts, the argument goes, Israel will need greater access to U.S. intel systems. I'm guessing that Israel will get much of what it asks for. Politically and militarily, we can't afford to let Israel's military power go into a prolonged tail spin, even if some of the "tales of woe" may be a bit exaggerated.
Summer of Haditha
Judging from today's headlines, it's pretty clear that the MSM has found its latest template for framing the War in Iraq. This will be the "Summer of Haditha," with wall-to-wall coverage of any "atrocities" (or even suspected atrocities) connected to U.S. troops, no matter how tenuous the relationship might be.
The theme will run something like this: American military personnel have deliberately killed "scores" of Iraqi civilians, and their superiors did nothing to stop it. That presumptionwill, in turn, lead the chattering class back to their standard talking points: the war is a failure, troops are being killed and maimed for nothing, and we need to get out of Iraq now. For affirmation of this assessment, they will turn to the usual suspects, led by Pennsylvania Congressman Jack Murtha and those former generals who staged their anti-Rumsfeld putsch a few months back.
As the Haditha investigation moves toward conclusion, we are being told of "new" atrocities involving U.S. troops. According to the AP, seven Marines and a Navy corpsman are facing murder charges for the slaying of an Iraqi man in April. The men--who could be charged as early as today--served in Iraq as members of Kilo Company, 3rd Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment. In a seperate case, five other Marines (including a lieutenant) are under investigation for injuring a suspect in their custody.
As of this writing, none of the personnel implicated in these incidents has been formally charged. But, there has already been a rush to judgment, noted by as defense attorney Jeremiah Sullivan III, who is representing one of the murder suspects.
"There's concern about the publicity of Haditha having a detrimental impact on the case," he said. "My concern is that the whole politics of this. There's an assumption that these guys are guilty before there's been an opportunity for a thorough, impartial investigation."
I don't envy Mr. Sullivan. As the media feeding frenzy builds, it will be virtually impossible for the military to conduct a fair, impartial courts-martial for any personnel who might be charged in connection with these incidents. Mr. Sullivan may find himself defending a young Marine or Corpsman who has already been convicted in the court of media opinion, even before an Article 32 hearing (military equivalent of a grand jury investigation) is held.
Of course, the presumption of innocent until proven guilty is of little concern to reporters who are anxious to embellish their new theme for Iraq. The BBC is claiming to have obtained evidence suggesting that U.S. troops were responsible for the "deliberate killing" of 11 "innocent" Iraqi civilians in the town of Ishaqi in March. According to the BBC, a video obtained from a hardline Sunni group opposed to coalition forces shows a number of dead adults and children at the site with what the network says were "clearly gunshot wounds."
Let's see...the tape came from a group opposed to the coalition military presence in Iraq. They wouldn't have an axe to grind, now would they? Additionally, the tape provides no clue as to how the Iraqis were shot. Coalition forces had a firefight in Ishaqi that day, so the BBC presumes that the Americans were responsible. But the terrorists were carrying guns as well, and it's entirely possible that the "atrocity" could have been staged by the bad guys. That possibility is being investigated by the U.S. military, along with other theories on what might have happened that day. But those other possibilities are of little interest to the "Beeb," which accepts the "evidence" of an anti-coalition group without question.
Of course, this isn't the first time the BBC and its MSM companions have ignored inconvenient facts. A few days back, the British network reported that U.S. troops had shot a pregnant Iraqi woman on her way to the hospital. Turns out that the car was traveling in a prohibited area, and failed to heed a warning to stop from U.S. soldiers. To its "credit," the BBC provided those amplifying details in the body of its report, but only couching the story in the current frame of reference: babaric American soldiers shoot an innocent Iraqi woman, who was only trying to get to the hospital to deliver her child.
It's all part and parcel of the Summer of Haditha, and a continuing campaign to undermine the war effort. Writing in today's Wall Street Journal, Daniel Henninger sums it up well; amid the relentless drumbeat of bad news from Iraq--and dark accusations of "widespread atrocities"--the American public may decide it's time to get out, because every time the U.S. goes in, it gets hung out to dry. Never mind that the alleged atrocities represent less than a fraction of a fraction of one percent of U.S. military operations in Iraq. Never mind that the war is actually being won, and the vast majority of our troops have performed magnificently. In the Summer of Haditha, it's the isolated incident that assumes strategic importance, and becomes the standard reference for an entire war.
The theme will run something like this: American military personnel have deliberately killed "scores" of Iraqi civilians, and their superiors did nothing to stop it. That presumptionwill, in turn, lead the chattering class back to their standard talking points: the war is a failure, troops are being killed and maimed for nothing, and we need to get out of Iraq now. For affirmation of this assessment, they will turn to the usual suspects, led by Pennsylvania Congressman Jack Murtha and those former generals who staged their anti-Rumsfeld putsch a few months back.
As the Haditha investigation moves toward conclusion, we are being told of "new" atrocities involving U.S. troops. According to the AP, seven Marines and a Navy corpsman are facing murder charges for the slaying of an Iraqi man in April. The men--who could be charged as early as today--served in Iraq as members of Kilo Company, 3rd Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment. In a seperate case, five other Marines (including a lieutenant) are under investigation for injuring a suspect in their custody.
As of this writing, none of the personnel implicated in these incidents has been formally charged. But, there has already been a rush to judgment, noted by as defense attorney Jeremiah Sullivan III, who is representing one of the murder suspects.
"There's concern about the publicity of Haditha having a detrimental impact on the case," he said. "My concern is that the whole politics of this. There's an assumption that these guys are guilty before there's been an opportunity for a thorough, impartial investigation."
I don't envy Mr. Sullivan. As the media feeding frenzy builds, it will be virtually impossible for the military to conduct a fair, impartial courts-martial for any personnel who might be charged in connection with these incidents. Mr. Sullivan may find himself defending a young Marine or Corpsman who has already been convicted in the court of media opinion, even before an Article 32 hearing (military equivalent of a grand jury investigation) is held.
Of course, the presumption of innocent until proven guilty is of little concern to reporters who are anxious to embellish their new theme for Iraq. The BBC is claiming to have obtained evidence suggesting that U.S. troops were responsible for the "deliberate killing" of 11 "innocent" Iraqi civilians in the town of Ishaqi in March. According to the BBC, a video obtained from a hardline Sunni group opposed to coalition forces shows a number of dead adults and children at the site with what the network says were "clearly gunshot wounds."
Let's see...the tape came from a group opposed to the coalition military presence in Iraq. They wouldn't have an axe to grind, now would they? Additionally, the tape provides no clue as to how the Iraqis were shot. Coalition forces had a firefight in Ishaqi that day, so the BBC presumes that the Americans were responsible. But the terrorists were carrying guns as well, and it's entirely possible that the "atrocity" could have been staged by the bad guys. That possibility is being investigated by the U.S. military, along with other theories on what might have happened that day. But those other possibilities are of little interest to the "Beeb," which accepts the "evidence" of an anti-coalition group without question.
Of course, this isn't the first time the BBC and its MSM companions have ignored inconvenient facts. A few days back, the British network reported that U.S. troops had shot a pregnant Iraqi woman on her way to the hospital. Turns out that the car was traveling in a prohibited area, and failed to heed a warning to stop from U.S. soldiers. To its "credit," the BBC provided those amplifying details in the body of its report, but only couching the story in the current frame of reference: babaric American soldiers shoot an innocent Iraqi woman, who was only trying to get to the hospital to deliver her child.
It's all part and parcel of the Summer of Haditha, and a continuing campaign to undermine the war effort. Writing in today's Wall Street Journal, Daniel Henninger sums it up well; amid the relentless drumbeat of bad news from Iraq--and dark accusations of "widespread atrocities"--the American public may decide it's time to get out, because every time the U.S. goes in, it gets hung out to dry. Never mind that the alleged atrocities represent less than a fraction of a fraction of one percent of U.S. military operations in Iraq. Never mind that the war is actually being won, and the vast majority of our troops have performed magnificently. In the Summer of Haditha, it's the isolated incident that assumes strategic importance, and becomes the standard reference for an entire war.
Thursday, June 01, 2006
Today's Reading Assignment
In a column posted at Real Clear Politics, former Deputy Undersecretary of Defense Jed Babbin offers some valuable thoughts on the growing media frenzy over Haditha, and its long-erm consequences for our military.
As Mr. Babbin reminds us, we still don't officially know what happened in that day in Haditha, despite the rush to judgment by anti-war politicians (paging Jack Murtha) and the MSM. Moreover, it is completely inappropriate for senior U.S. officials to speculate on the investigation and its potential outcome; if they offer their thoughts or opinions on the matter, they could be accused of exerting "command influence" on the case, and provide possible legal grounds for dismissal of charges against anyone implicated in the incident. Unfortunately, that legal requirement won't satisfy the media, which is already talking about a Pentagon "cover-up."
Ham-strung by a slow military investigative and judicial process, the Bush Administration has been forced to cede the field to the anti-war left, which (as Babbin notes) will attempt to make Haditha the defining moment of the Iraq War. Think "Abu Ghraib times 10" and you'll get some idea of the media and political firestorm that is now erupting. Never mind the fact that U.S. atrocities in Iraq have been few and far between (even Abu Ghraib was ultimately revealed as the misdeeds of a small band of poorly trained military prison guards); or that our military routinely investigates even minor allegations of misconduct on the battlefield--while our enemies celebrate and revere the killing of innocents.
Ultimately, as Babbin reminds us, all of our military personnel will be affected--to some degree--by the events at Haditha. But there is also a responsibility to minimize that damage, to avoid tarring those men (and women) who serve bravely and honorably.
"Just as the few disgraced the many at Abu Ghraib, the very few who may have committed murder in Haditha will place a burden on the shoulders of every soldier, sailor, airman, marine and coast guardsman fighting terrorism. Each of us has a duty to not add to that burden, and to help relieve it as well. If those few Marines killed innocents in Haditha, their conduct is an aberration, not the norm. It is up to each one of us to ensure that the events of Haditha do not tarnish the brave and selfless service of the many who came before, or any who come after. Except for the aberrant few, the Marines are always faithful to America. In times such as this, we cannot fail to be faithful to them."
Sadly, such lessons are completely lost on members of the Murtha caucus and their allies in the press.
As Mr. Babbin reminds us, we still don't officially know what happened in that day in Haditha, despite the rush to judgment by anti-war politicians (paging Jack Murtha) and the MSM. Moreover, it is completely inappropriate for senior U.S. officials to speculate on the investigation and its potential outcome; if they offer their thoughts or opinions on the matter, they could be accused of exerting "command influence" on the case, and provide possible legal grounds for dismissal of charges against anyone implicated in the incident. Unfortunately, that legal requirement won't satisfy the media, which is already talking about a Pentagon "cover-up."
Ham-strung by a slow military investigative and judicial process, the Bush Administration has been forced to cede the field to the anti-war left, which (as Babbin notes) will attempt to make Haditha the defining moment of the Iraq War. Think "Abu Ghraib times 10" and you'll get some idea of the media and political firestorm that is now erupting. Never mind the fact that U.S. atrocities in Iraq have been few and far between (even Abu Ghraib was ultimately revealed as the misdeeds of a small band of poorly trained military prison guards); or that our military routinely investigates even minor allegations of misconduct on the battlefield--while our enemies celebrate and revere the killing of innocents.
Ultimately, as Babbin reminds us, all of our military personnel will be affected--to some degree--by the events at Haditha. But there is also a responsibility to minimize that damage, to avoid tarring those men (and women) who serve bravely and honorably.
"Just as the few disgraced the many at Abu Ghraib, the very few who may have committed murder in Haditha will place a burden on the shoulders of every soldier, sailor, airman, marine and coast guardsman fighting terrorism. Each of us has a duty to not add to that burden, and to help relieve it as well. If those few Marines killed innocents in Haditha, their conduct is an aberration, not the norm. It is up to each one of us to ensure that the events of Haditha do not tarnish the brave and selfless service of the many who came before, or any who come after. Except for the aberrant few, the Marines are always faithful to America. In times such as this, we cannot fail to be faithful to them."
Sadly, such lessons are completely lost on members of the Murtha caucus and their allies in the press.
Sergeant Damon Fights Back
If you watched Michael Moore's cinematic lie (Farenheit 9/11), you may remember a brief segment featuring an Army veteran who lost both arms in Iraq. The veteran is Sergeant Peter Damon, who was seriously injured when a tire exploded on the Black Hawk helicopter he was servicing.
Damon, who had his right arm amputated at the shoulder and his left arm at the elbow, is shown strapped to a gurney at Walter Reed Army Hospital, saying he feels like he has hands being crushed in a vice. Sergeant Damon appears moments after Washington Representative "Baghdad" Jim McDermott takes a swipe at the Bush Administration:
"You know they say they're not leaving any veterans behind, but they're leaving all kinds of veterans behind."
There are more than a few problems with Sergeant Damon's "appearance" in the film. First of all, he never gave Moore permission for the footage to be used. Secondly, Damon's comments were completely distorted by Moore, and taken completely out of context. The video originally aired in an NBC News report on medical care for soldiers wounded in Iraq; Damon's comments were a reference to the pain his injuries caused, and the relief provided by new drugs administered at Walter Reed. In the report, NBC anchor Brian Williams noted that Damon and other soldiers featured in the segment voiced support for President and the war effort.
Now, Sergeant Damon and his family are fighting back; they've filed suit against Moore and his production company, seeking $85 million in damages for "loss of reputation, emotional distress, embarassment and personal humiliation." The requested damages include a separate, $10 million suit filed by Damon's wife for mental distress and anguish.
Damon has also launched his own media blitz, letting everyone know that, despite his injuries, he's doing just fine:
Damon was "supported, financially and emotionally, by the active assistance of the president, the United States and his family, friends, acquaintances and community," he added.
Damon has learned to use his artificial arms with the help of military personnel. Veterans groups have helped to build his family a home in Middleboro, Massachusetts.
In an interview in front of his house, Damon told local CBS television: "The original idea was supposed to be something positive about the treatment we were receiving ... not something to be used in a story talking about veterans being left behind because as you can see behind me I'm the last person who can say I am being left behind," he said, gesturing to his home.
Not surprisingly, neither Mr. Moore nor his representatives could be reached for comment. This ought to be an interesting (although brief) court battle. The rich, corpulent film-maker versus a decorated, disabled vet. Even in Massachusetts, it won't take long for a jury to decide against Mr. Moore.
Damon, who had his right arm amputated at the shoulder and his left arm at the elbow, is shown strapped to a gurney at Walter Reed Army Hospital, saying he feels like he has hands being crushed in a vice. Sergeant Damon appears moments after Washington Representative "Baghdad" Jim McDermott takes a swipe at the Bush Administration:
"You know they say they're not leaving any veterans behind, but they're leaving all kinds of veterans behind."
There are more than a few problems with Sergeant Damon's "appearance" in the film. First of all, he never gave Moore permission for the footage to be used. Secondly, Damon's comments were completely distorted by Moore, and taken completely out of context. The video originally aired in an NBC News report on medical care for soldiers wounded in Iraq; Damon's comments were a reference to the pain his injuries caused, and the relief provided by new drugs administered at Walter Reed. In the report, NBC anchor Brian Williams noted that Damon and other soldiers featured in the segment voiced support for President and the war effort.
Now, Sergeant Damon and his family are fighting back; they've filed suit against Moore and his production company, seeking $85 million in damages for "loss of reputation, emotional distress, embarassment and personal humiliation." The requested damages include a separate, $10 million suit filed by Damon's wife for mental distress and anguish.
Damon has also launched his own media blitz, letting everyone know that, despite his injuries, he's doing just fine:
Damon was "supported, financially and emotionally, by the active assistance of the president, the United States and his family, friends, acquaintances and community," he added.
Damon has learned to use his artificial arms with the help of military personnel. Veterans groups have helped to build his family a home in Middleboro, Massachusetts.
In an interview in front of his house, Damon told local CBS television: "The original idea was supposed to be something positive about the treatment we were receiving ... not something to be used in a story talking about veterans being left behind because as you can see behind me I'm the last person who can say I am being left behind," he said, gesturing to his home.
Not surprisingly, neither Mr. Moore nor his representatives could be reached for comment. This ought to be an interesting (although brief) court battle. The rich, corpulent film-maker versus a decorated, disabled vet. Even in Massachusetts, it won't take long for a jury to decide against Mr. Moore.
That Was Fast
***UPDATE***
1324 PDT
The U.S., along with its European allies, Russia, and China have reportedly reached a "substantial agreement" on Iran's nuclear, promising incentives if Tehran cooperates, and penalties if it does not. Details of the accord have not been revealed. One source told Reuters that Iran may be given only a few weeks to accept the deal, or face possible sanctions.
I'll withhold judgment until I actually review the agreement. The idea of a short timetable sounds promising--although Tehran will do all it can to stretch out negotiations (and potential compliance) over a period of months and years. But the most serious concerns lie in such issues as inspections, verification and potential penalties. Carrots are fine, but the international community needs to offer some serious "sticks" as well; otherwise, the proposed deal will be dead on arrival, and Iran's nuclear efforts will continue unfettered.
****
Iran has summarily dismissed a U.S. proposal for direct talks on its nuclear program, describing it as a propaganda ploy. Earlier this week, Secretary of State Condolezza Rice had indicated that the United States was prepared to enter negotiations with Iran--on the condition Tehran abandon its uranium enrichment efforts and submit to inspections to verify compliance.
The Iranian rejection was speedy--but hardly surprising. Tehran has previously rejected similar demands from the Europeans, one reason that nuclear talks between Iran, Germany, France and Great Britain have stalled. Tehran views its "right" to enrich uranium and produce nuclear fuel as "non-negotiable," although that process could lead to nuclear weapons.
Iran's rejection came on the eve of scheduled talks in Vienna, aimed at hammering out a "final" U.S.-European proposal on the Iranian nuclear issue. The resolution, as described to the Associated Press, calls for the imposition of unspecified sanctions under the UN Charter, if Iran fails to comply. However, the measure reportedly avoids language that could trigger a use of force against Tehran if it continues its nuclear program.
The Iranian regime has little to fear from that process. Both Russia and China have expressed misgivings about sanctions, so there's no guarantee that the UN will actually "punish" Iran for its nuclear development efforts. That's tantamount to a green light for Tehran's nuclear program; afterall, there's no reason to talk to the U.S., if you can sustain current efforts--with only the slightest chance of punishment by the international community.
Undeterred, the U.S. and its European allies are pressing ahead with diplomacy. The current line of thinking goes somewhat like this: if we offer enough "incentives," we can get them to the table, and eventually get around to hammering out a nuclear deal. Such thinking is not only myopic, it's also very dangerous.
1324 PDT
The U.S., along with its European allies, Russia, and China have reportedly reached a "substantial agreement" on Iran's nuclear, promising incentives if Tehran cooperates, and penalties if it does not. Details of the accord have not been revealed. One source told Reuters that Iran may be given only a few weeks to accept the deal, or face possible sanctions.
I'll withhold judgment until I actually review the agreement. The idea of a short timetable sounds promising--although Tehran will do all it can to stretch out negotiations (and potential compliance) over a period of months and years. But the most serious concerns lie in such issues as inspections, verification and potential penalties. Carrots are fine, but the international community needs to offer some serious "sticks" as well; otherwise, the proposed deal will be dead on arrival, and Iran's nuclear efforts will continue unfettered.
****
Iran has summarily dismissed a U.S. proposal for direct talks on its nuclear program, describing it as a propaganda ploy. Earlier this week, Secretary of State Condolezza Rice had indicated that the United States was prepared to enter negotiations with Iran--on the condition Tehran abandon its uranium enrichment efforts and submit to inspections to verify compliance.
The Iranian rejection was speedy--but hardly surprising. Tehran has previously rejected similar demands from the Europeans, one reason that nuclear talks between Iran, Germany, France and Great Britain have stalled. Tehran views its "right" to enrich uranium and produce nuclear fuel as "non-negotiable," although that process could lead to nuclear weapons.
Iran's rejection came on the eve of scheduled talks in Vienna, aimed at hammering out a "final" U.S.-European proposal on the Iranian nuclear issue. The resolution, as described to the Associated Press, calls for the imposition of unspecified sanctions under the UN Charter, if Iran fails to comply. However, the measure reportedly avoids language that could trigger a use of force against Tehran if it continues its nuclear program.
The Iranian regime has little to fear from that process. Both Russia and China have expressed misgivings about sanctions, so there's no guarantee that the UN will actually "punish" Iran for its nuclear development efforts. That's tantamount to a green light for Tehran's nuclear program; afterall, there's no reason to talk to the U.S., if you can sustain current efforts--with only the slightest chance of punishment by the international community.
Undeterred, the U.S. and its European allies are pressing ahead with diplomacy. The current line of thinking goes somewhat like this: if we offer enough "incentives," we can get them to the table, and eventually get around to hammering out a nuclear deal. Such thinking is not only myopic, it's also very dangerous.
Wednesday, May 31, 2006
Today's Reading Assignment
From Gateway Pundit, who has some surprising numbers on Iraq. Hint: the situation there is not nearly as bad as you've been led to believe. In fact, some American cities have a higher incidence of violence than Baghdad.
Hat tip: Powerline.
Hat tip: Powerline.
Let's Talk, Part II
According to Secretary of State Condolezza Rice, the U.S. is prepared to enter into talks with Iran, if Tehran gives up its on-going uranium enrichment and reprocessing activities. Secretary Rice indicates that Washington and its European allies are prepared to offer incentives for compliance, and possible sanctions for non-compliance. Dr. Rice's comments came after a series of press reports indicated that the U.S. was considering direct negotiations with Iran on its nuclear issue.
We've expressed major misgivings about this diplomatic track, but the Bush Administration appears fully committed. There is a very good possibility that Iran may merely use the talks to push its propaganda points, berate the U.S., stall for time, and give its nuclear engineers the months or years they may need to produce an Iranian bomb. Despite that possibility, the White House seems to believe that it can somehow reach an accord with Tehran, and those favoring a diplomatic solution have the upper hand in policy debates, at least for now.
The State Department insists that it is not "negotiating with terrorists," given Iran's long support for Hizballah and other Middle Eastern terrorist groups. In fact, there doesn't appear to be any effort to link the proposed talks with broader discussions on Tehran's terrorist ties and other issues of concern. In diplomatic terms, that type of linkage might be "premature."
On the other hand, there's nothing wrong with establishing firm, non-negotiable conditions for talks between the U.S. and Iran, focused squarely on the nuclear issue. Here's a list of things we would demand from Tehran as a starting point for any direct talks:
1) Immediate suspension of all uranium enrichment activities.
2) No notice inspections of all known/suspected nuclear facilities
3) Installation of monitoring cameras at all known/suspected sites
4) Short-notice transfer of all enrichment efforts to a Russian facility, with all activities monitored by the IAEA
5) Clearly defined limits on the amount and purity of enriched uranium that can be produced
6) Immediate closure of the Iranian facilities at Khondab (heavy water plant), Esfahan (uranium enrichment), and Natanz (centrifuge operations). The nuclear reactor at Bushehr will remain in operation, but only under strict international supervision
7) Short-term inspections of all enriched uranium produced domestically by Iran, and a strict accounting of all inventories
8) Agreement to "Open Skies"-style overflights, to monitor known and suspected facilities
9) Inspection of all know/suspected medium-range missiles and support facilities
10) Medium-term dismantlement of the Khnodab, Esfahan and Natanz facilities
11) Renounce any intention to develop nuclear weapons, and provide complete transparency on nuclear issues, similar to Libya's actions when it abandoned its nuclear program
Intrusive? Hardly. In fact, such conditions have been a part of nuclear accords proposed and signed in the past. If Iran is serious about these talks, they'd be willing to comply. Refusal to meet these conditions might offer real insight into the Iranian mindset, and tell the Bush Administration if this option should actually be pursued.
We've expressed major misgivings about this diplomatic track, but the Bush Administration appears fully committed. There is a very good possibility that Iran may merely use the talks to push its propaganda points, berate the U.S., stall for time, and give its nuclear engineers the months or years they may need to produce an Iranian bomb. Despite that possibility, the White House seems to believe that it can somehow reach an accord with Tehran, and those favoring a diplomatic solution have the upper hand in policy debates, at least for now.
The State Department insists that it is not "negotiating with terrorists," given Iran's long support for Hizballah and other Middle Eastern terrorist groups. In fact, there doesn't appear to be any effort to link the proposed talks with broader discussions on Tehran's terrorist ties and other issues of concern. In diplomatic terms, that type of linkage might be "premature."
On the other hand, there's nothing wrong with establishing firm, non-negotiable conditions for talks between the U.S. and Iran, focused squarely on the nuclear issue. Here's a list of things we would demand from Tehran as a starting point for any direct talks:
1) Immediate suspension of all uranium enrichment activities.
2) No notice inspections of all known/suspected nuclear facilities
3) Installation of monitoring cameras at all known/suspected sites
4) Short-notice transfer of all enrichment efforts to a Russian facility, with all activities monitored by the IAEA
5) Clearly defined limits on the amount and purity of enriched uranium that can be produced
6) Immediate closure of the Iranian facilities at Khondab (heavy water plant), Esfahan (uranium enrichment), and Natanz (centrifuge operations). The nuclear reactor at Bushehr will remain in operation, but only under strict international supervision
7) Short-term inspections of all enriched uranium produced domestically by Iran, and a strict accounting of all inventories
8) Agreement to "Open Skies"-style overflights, to monitor known and suspected facilities
9) Inspection of all know/suspected medium-range missiles and support facilities
10) Medium-term dismantlement of the Khnodab, Esfahan and Natanz facilities
11) Renounce any intention to develop nuclear weapons, and provide complete transparency on nuclear issues, similar to Libya's actions when it abandoned its nuclear program
Intrusive? Hardly. In fact, such conditions have been a part of nuclear accords proposed and signed in the past. If Iran is serious about these talks, they'd be willing to comply. Refusal to meet these conditions might offer real insight into the Iranian mindset, and tell the Bush Administration if this option should actually be pursued.
What a Novel Concept
With hurricane season upon us, states along the Gulf Coast and Eastern Seaboard are adopting a novel approach to storm preparation, preaching the virtures of self-reliance and personal readiness. Today's edition of The New York Times reports that personal preparedness has become the new buzzword in hurricane-prone areas. A number of coastal states have launched media campaigns, reminding citizens of the need to take responsibility for their own preparations.
The need for such reminders is regrettable, but obviously necessary. In the aftermath of Katrina last year, it was obvious that many survivors had not taken the necessary preparations for survival after the storm, and they expected the government and private charities to provide literally literally everything. And, more than a few became angry when FEMA failed to show up on therr doorstep the morning after the storm, with ice, water, chainsaws and keys to a rental house or apartment in hand. Obviously, the magnitude of the storm was overwhelming, and many residents were not prepared for the devastation that occurred in New Orleans and along the Mississippi Gulf Coast. But that doesn't excuse (or eliminate) the need for individual preparations.
If there's a "hidden blessing" in last year's hurricane season, it would be value of personal responsibility and individual preparation before the next storm--a requirement that should have been stressed from Day One. Have those lessons been absorbed? The Times article cites a recent Mason-Dixon poll which revealed that most coastal residents have taken no steps to fortify their homes, most don't have emergency supplies stockpiled, and most don't have a personal survival or evacuation plan. These are likely the same folks who believe that a revamped FEMA and state agencies will be more efficient in delivering assistance after future storms. And when that doesn't happen, they will be happy to tell the nearest TV news crew that the government has "abandoned" them.
The results of that survey beg some obvious questions. In a post-Katrina world, if residents have been warned to prepare for hurricanes (and fail to take the necessary precautions), what do we owe them, in terms of assistance after the storm? While most Americans have nothing but sympathy for the victims of a major hurricane, there is a growing sense of frustration about residents and home owners who fail to prepare themselves for the storm, particularly when they have the means to take basic precautions.
Of course, it's hard to gauge levels of individual preparation, and there isn't a politician alive who would deny post-storm assistance to someone who didn't have a personal survival kit, or an emergency evacuation plan. But, as we learned after Katrina, the American people have finite patience for bureaucratic incompetence after a storm. Now comes the sticky question of what we owe to people who refuse to to assume any degree of responsibility for themselves and their families. As the state of Florida recently discovered, you can hold a tax-free holiday and encourage people to stock up on storm supplies, but you can't make them walk into Home Depot or Lowe's and actually make those purchases.
Encouraging personal responsibility is both a welcome and novel approach for government, even at the state level. But ensuring some measure of individual compliance and preparation is a totally different matter. How do you make someone prepare for a storm? The obvious answer would be to deny or withhold certain types of assistance, unless the claimant can demonstrate a dire need. But that would take genuine political courage, something that's as hard to find as plywood in a home improvement store--the day before a Category IV storm churns ashore.
The need for such reminders is regrettable, but obviously necessary. In the aftermath of Katrina last year, it was obvious that many survivors had not taken the necessary preparations for survival after the storm, and they expected the government and private charities to provide literally literally everything. And, more than a few became angry when FEMA failed to show up on therr doorstep the morning after the storm, with ice, water, chainsaws and keys to a rental house or apartment in hand. Obviously, the magnitude of the storm was overwhelming, and many residents were not prepared for the devastation that occurred in New Orleans and along the Mississippi Gulf Coast. But that doesn't excuse (or eliminate) the need for individual preparations.
If there's a "hidden blessing" in last year's hurricane season, it would be value of personal responsibility and individual preparation before the next storm--a requirement that should have been stressed from Day One. Have those lessons been absorbed? The Times article cites a recent Mason-Dixon poll which revealed that most coastal residents have taken no steps to fortify their homes, most don't have emergency supplies stockpiled, and most don't have a personal survival or evacuation plan. These are likely the same folks who believe that a revamped FEMA and state agencies will be more efficient in delivering assistance after future storms. And when that doesn't happen, they will be happy to tell the nearest TV news crew that the government has "abandoned" them.
The results of that survey beg some obvious questions. In a post-Katrina world, if residents have been warned to prepare for hurricanes (and fail to take the necessary precautions), what do we owe them, in terms of assistance after the storm? While most Americans have nothing but sympathy for the victims of a major hurricane, there is a growing sense of frustration about residents and home owners who fail to prepare themselves for the storm, particularly when they have the means to take basic precautions.
Of course, it's hard to gauge levels of individual preparation, and there isn't a politician alive who would deny post-storm assistance to someone who didn't have a personal survival kit, or an emergency evacuation plan. But, as we learned after Katrina, the American people have finite patience for bureaucratic incompetence after a storm. Now comes the sticky question of what we owe to people who refuse to to assume any degree of responsibility for themselves and their families. As the state of Florida recently discovered, you can hold a tax-free holiday and encourage people to stock up on storm supplies, but you can't make them walk into Home Depot or Lowe's and actually make those purchases.
Encouraging personal responsibility is both a welcome and novel approach for government, even at the state level. But ensuring some measure of individual compliance and preparation is a totally different matter. How do you make someone prepare for a storm? The obvious answer would be to deny or withhold certain types of assistance, unless the claimant can demonstrate a dire need. But that would take genuine political courage, something that's as hard to find as plywood in a home improvement store--the day before a Category IV storm churns ashore.
Tuesday, May 30, 2006
Another Wade Through the Muck
The gang at militarycorruption.com is at it again. A few weeks ago, we reported on the website's attempt to "slime" President Bush's nominee to run the CIA, Air Force General Michael Hayden. In an effort to potentially de-rail the nomination, militarycorruption.com recirculated old rumors that Hayden had a one-night stand with a female Air Force Captain, during a visit to the Balkans in 2001. With the held of an award-winning investigative journalist and a retired counter-intelligence officer, we took a look at the allegations and found them seriously lacking. The charge of infidelity was based on the accusations of the woman's ex-husband, a retired Air Force major. The Air Force conducted an official investigation into the matter, and found no evidence to support the allegation. Case closed, or so we thought.
Now, militarycorruption.com is offering the "inside" story of how Hayden won confirmation by the Senate, despite the infidelity rumors and questions about the surveillance programs he ran as NSA director. If you can believe the website (and that's a stretch), then General Hayden mounted one of the most effective intimidation campaigns in the history of Washington, D.C.
"The primary word was fear," a Congressional source tells MilitaryCorruption.com. "Few senators wanted to make an enemy of the general - President George Bush's choice to be the next director of the Central Intelligence Agency.
"There was little chance to stop the nomination anyway. A lot was at risk for needlessly antagonizing such a powerful man. When he took over NSA (National Security Agency) there was a blood purge. Heads will roll at CIA soon enough. Gen. Michael Hayden is not a person you want angry with you, that's for sure."
When the votes were counted, only 15 senators dared to go against the general. Hillary Clinton, re-inventing herself as a "moderate" in preparation for a run for President in 2008, was not one of them. If any senator distinguished themselves by refusing to "rubber stamp" the general, it was Russ Feingold of Wisconsin.
If Hayden turns out to be half as bad as some observers fear, Feingold will have been right.
Naming an active-duty general as head of the CIA sends a chill down the back of many who cherish the Constitution and it's provisions for protection of free speech. Everyone in their right mind knows we must fight terrorism every way we can. But in doing that, the White House should be careful how they curb individual freedoms and try and control or mislead the news media.
Top aides to several senators, including Carl Levin of Michigan, spoke with MilitaryCorruption.com after reading our copyrighted story on Hayden [see "related stories" box below], which included a claim by a former Air Force officer that his young wife confessed to him she'd had an affair with the general when they worked together at NSA.
We can tell our readers that at least one top editor on a newspaper that had a copy of Kevin Furlong's complaint to the Air Force Inspector General's Office, decided not to go with the story after an intensive investigation, for fear of possible retaliation.
The Levin aide had the information before the vote, but in the end, the Democrat senator lined up with the Bush administration and supported Hayden's nomination.
"All we wanted was for Sen. Levin to ask Hayden, under oath, if any complaint against him involving adultery with a subordinate female officer, was ever filed with the Air Force IG," an MCC editor said.
One of the problems the above-mentioned newspaper had in nailing down and publishing the story was the refusal by the Air Force to even acknowledge whether or not they had such a complaint in their files.
At least inquiring about the alleged affair would place Hayden's response on record, but no senator was willing to go there. For whatever reason.
Let's see...if the website is correct, then many--if not most--of the senators voting for confirmation were afraid to cross paths with the prospective CIA nominee? True, the director of that spy agency is a powerful man, but so are the men and women who make up the "World's Most Exclusive Club" a.k.a., The United States Senate. The idea that one nominee could transform most of the Senate into sniveling pansies is nothing short of ludicrous, particularly when you consider the controversy surrounding the Hayden nomination. In today's political climate, opponents of Hayden would have used whatever was available to torpedo the nomination, assuming that the charges had some basis in fact.
And that's where militarycorruption.com runs into trouble. The adultery allegation was filed by the woman's husband, Major Kevin Furlong, who had gone through a bitter divorce with his ex-wife. According to Major Furlong, his former wife (who has refused comment on the matter) confessed the alleged affair during a marital counseling session. However, he could not provide any substantiation for that claim. The Eighth Air Force Inspector General's office (which conduced the inquiry) actually obtained notes from the counseling session, but they provided no record of the infidelity claim from the former Mrs. Furlong.
Militarycorruption.com reports that this "information" was provided to aides to several top senators, including Michigan's Carl Levin. However, Levin and his colleagues decided not to pursue the adultery allegation in the confirmation hearings, for obvious reasons--there was no proof to support the allegations, other than the complaint originally filed by retired Major Furlong. And when a detailed Air Force investigation found no basis for that claim, it became a dead issue. Whatever he may be, Carl Levin is not a dumb politician. Without any evidence to back up the adultery charges, he elected to stay away from the allegations. Smart move.
Even wackier than the "fear and intimidation" charge is the website's claim that a "top" newspaper refused to pursue the story, for fear of retaliation. As with other charges from militarycorruption.com, the allegation is long on sensationalism, short on the facts. Who is this editor? What paper does he or she work for? Obviously, the editor in question doesn't work for The New York Times, the Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, or the Washington Times, all of which have published classified "exclusives" for a number of years.
Truth be told, I'll bet that the MSM outlets that looked at this story (and there were more than a few) found it lacking, and without independent confirmation, decided not to publish or broadcast the information. For the record, militarycorruption.com also notes that the paper was unable to publish the story because the Air Force refused to acknowledge that the matter had been investigated. That's rather strange, since the 8th Air Force IG report has been posted on the internet (that's where we found it), so the idea that this unnamed paper couldn't confirm the inquiry is simply bizarre.
Unfortunately, this story will keep reverberating around the internet for years to come. Like the legend of the grassy knoll in Dallas, and the CIA's "campaign" to use crack cocaine to destroy African-Americans, some myths never die, even when obliterated by the truth.
My charge to militarycorruption.com remains the same: put up or shut up. Your original claim against General Hayden could not be substantiated, so you come back with dark stories of fear and intimidation. Once again, your allegations demand clear, unequivocal proof. The ball's back in your court. We won't hold our breath in waiting for a substantive reply.
Now, militarycorruption.com is offering the "inside" story of how Hayden won confirmation by the Senate, despite the infidelity rumors and questions about the surveillance programs he ran as NSA director. If you can believe the website (and that's a stretch), then General Hayden mounted one of the most effective intimidation campaigns in the history of Washington, D.C.
"The primary word was fear," a Congressional source tells MilitaryCorruption.com. "Few senators wanted to make an enemy of the general - President George Bush's choice to be the next director of the Central Intelligence Agency.
"There was little chance to stop the nomination anyway. A lot was at risk for needlessly antagonizing such a powerful man. When he took over NSA (National Security Agency) there was a blood purge. Heads will roll at CIA soon enough. Gen. Michael Hayden is not a person you want angry with you, that's for sure."
When the votes were counted, only 15 senators dared to go against the general. Hillary Clinton, re-inventing herself as a "moderate" in preparation for a run for President in 2008, was not one of them. If any senator distinguished themselves by refusing to "rubber stamp" the general, it was Russ Feingold of Wisconsin.
If Hayden turns out to be half as bad as some observers fear, Feingold will have been right.
Naming an active-duty general as head of the CIA sends a chill down the back of many who cherish the Constitution and it's provisions for protection of free speech. Everyone in their right mind knows we must fight terrorism every way we can. But in doing that, the White House should be careful how they curb individual freedoms and try and control or mislead the news media.
Top aides to several senators, including Carl Levin of Michigan, spoke with MilitaryCorruption.com after reading our copyrighted story on Hayden [see "related stories" box below], which included a claim by a former Air Force officer that his young wife confessed to him she'd had an affair with the general when they worked together at NSA.
We can tell our readers that at least one top editor on a newspaper that had a copy of Kevin Furlong's complaint to the Air Force Inspector General's Office, decided not to go with the story after an intensive investigation, for fear of possible retaliation.
The Levin aide had the information before the vote, but in the end, the Democrat senator lined up with the Bush administration and supported Hayden's nomination.
"All we wanted was for Sen. Levin to ask Hayden, under oath, if any complaint against him involving adultery with a subordinate female officer, was ever filed with the Air Force IG," an MCC editor said.
One of the problems the above-mentioned newspaper had in nailing down and publishing the story was the refusal by the Air Force to even acknowledge whether or not they had such a complaint in their files.
At least inquiring about the alleged affair would place Hayden's response on record, but no senator was willing to go there. For whatever reason.
Let's see...if the website is correct, then many--if not most--of the senators voting for confirmation were afraid to cross paths with the prospective CIA nominee? True, the director of that spy agency is a powerful man, but so are the men and women who make up the "World's Most Exclusive Club" a.k.a., The United States Senate. The idea that one nominee could transform most of the Senate into sniveling pansies is nothing short of ludicrous, particularly when you consider the controversy surrounding the Hayden nomination. In today's political climate, opponents of Hayden would have used whatever was available to torpedo the nomination, assuming that the charges had some basis in fact.
And that's where militarycorruption.com runs into trouble. The adultery allegation was filed by the woman's husband, Major Kevin Furlong, who had gone through a bitter divorce with his ex-wife. According to Major Furlong, his former wife (who has refused comment on the matter) confessed the alleged affair during a marital counseling session. However, he could not provide any substantiation for that claim. The Eighth Air Force Inspector General's office (which conduced the inquiry) actually obtained notes from the counseling session, but they provided no record of the infidelity claim from the former Mrs. Furlong.
Militarycorruption.com reports that this "information" was provided to aides to several top senators, including Michigan's Carl Levin. However, Levin and his colleagues decided not to pursue the adultery allegation in the confirmation hearings, for obvious reasons--there was no proof to support the allegations, other than the complaint originally filed by retired Major Furlong. And when a detailed Air Force investigation found no basis for that claim, it became a dead issue. Whatever he may be, Carl Levin is not a dumb politician. Without any evidence to back up the adultery charges, he elected to stay away from the allegations. Smart move.
Even wackier than the "fear and intimidation" charge is the website's claim that a "top" newspaper refused to pursue the story, for fear of retaliation. As with other charges from militarycorruption.com, the allegation is long on sensationalism, short on the facts. Who is this editor? What paper does he or she work for? Obviously, the editor in question doesn't work for The New York Times, the Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, or the Washington Times, all of which have published classified "exclusives" for a number of years.
Truth be told, I'll bet that the MSM outlets that looked at this story (and there were more than a few) found it lacking, and without independent confirmation, decided not to publish or broadcast the information. For the record, militarycorruption.com also notes that the paper was unable to publish the story because the Air Force refused to acknowledge that the matter had been investigated. That's rather strange, since the 8th Air Force IG report has been posted on the internet (that's where we found it), so the idea that this unnamed paper couldn't confirm the inquiry is simply bizarre.
Unfortunately, this story will keep reverberating around the internet for years to come. Like the legend of the grassy knoll in Dallas, and the CIA's "campaign" to use crack cocaine to destroy African-Americans, some myths never die, even when obliterated by the truth.
My charge to militarycorruption.com remains the same: put up or shut up. Your original claim against General Hayden could not be substantiated, so you come back with dark stories of fear and intimidation. Once again, your allegations demand clear, unequivocal proof. The ball's back in your court. We won't hold our breath in waiting for a substantive reply.
A Moment in Baghdad
Our thoughts and prayers go out to CBS News Correspondent Kimberly Dozier, who was seriously wounded in an IED attack in Baghdad on Monday. Our condolences to the families of CBS News camerman Paul Douglas, sound technician James Brolan, and an unidentified U.S. soldier, who died in that blast. At least six other U.S. soldiers were wounded in the attack; keep them in your prayers, too.
The incident is still under investigation, but here's what we know so far: Dozier and her crew were embedded with members of the 4th Infantry Division, on patrol in Baghdad. The patrol had stopped to inspect a check-point manned by Iraqi soldiers when a car packed with explosives was detonated, killing Douglas, Brolan and the solider, and wounding seven others, including Dozier. According to a CBS spokesman, Dozier was working on a story about Memorial Day in Iraq at the time of the incident.
We may never know what motivated Ms. Dozier and her crew to leave the relative safety of an armored HUMVEE and accompany the soliders to that check-point. Perhaps it was a desire to see things for themselves, or get better footage for a "package" that would be featured on The CBS Evening News. By most accounts, Dozier, Douglas and Brolan were used to taking risks; Dozier has spent more time in Iraq than any other CBS News Correspondent, and Douglas and Brolan were veterans of battlefields from the Balkans to the Middle East. They understood the risks associated with climbing out of an armored vehicle to have "a look for themselves."
My own, brief career in journalism never carried me to a war zone, but I've talked to plenty of reporters who've been there. Many talked of developing a "sixth sense" about certain situations or environments, and knowing when to back away. Balancing that against a desire to get the story is a tough job for any journalist, especially someone trying to negotiate the cut-throat world of network television news. According to her CBS bio, Ms. Dozier earned her job the hard way; she went to the Middle East as a reporter, not for the network, but as a "bureau chief" for CBS's New York affiliate, WCBS-TV. Her early work for CBS News was on the radio side (hardly a "star" assignment), and she slowly worked her way into a TV correspondent's job, doing the tough, dirty jobs that few others volunteered for.
From what I've read, putting herself in harm's way (or potentially, in harm's way) was something Ms. Dozier did on a regular basis. In hindsight, it would be easy to second-guess her decision--and grossly unfair. Ms. Dozier and her colleagues made a choice, based on their assessment of the situaition. Unfortunately for them (and members of the 4th ID), there was danger lurking on that Baghdad street, with devastating consequences for both journalists and soldiers alike.
While I often disagree with the tone of network news reports from Baghdad, I do admire men and women who are willing to get out on the streets and report the story. But, from a style standpoint, I do have a minor beef. Watching today's TV reports from any war zone, you'll note that most end with the correspondent doing an on-camera "stand-up." The stand-up serves two purposes; first, it allows the reporter to sum-up his piece, and (secondly) it gives the correspondent some needed face time on camera, allowing him (or her) to "connect" with viewers back home and their bosses back in New York. Wars have made the reputation of more than one broadcast correspondent, including the patron saint of CBS News, the late Edward R. Murrow.
But it hasn't always been that way. A few months ago, CBS News Sunday Morning paid tribute to the network's retiring Far East correspondent, Bruce Dunning. Mr. Dunning spent years reporting from Southeast Asia during the Vietnam War, and in homage to his career, Sunday Morning replayed one his most famous reports, filmed on the last plane out of Da Nang before that city fell to the North Vietnamese. The flight--and Dunning's report--are harrowing, even through the prism of time. The charter 727 was grossly overloaded; frantic South Vietnamese tried to storm the plane, in an effort to get out, only to be beaten by equally desperate security personnel. Others clung to the aircraft's rear stairway as it took off, losing their grip and plunging to their death in the jungle below. The CBS camera caught it all, and Dunning's precise, understated narration captured the mood exactly, without fancy graphics, computer animation or phony histronics.
Dunning's flight out of Da Nang should be required viewing for any television reporter aspiring to be a combat correspondent. It's straightforward journalism; no ambivalance, no moral equivocation, no references to the North Vietnamese as "insurgents." By today's standards, it's a bit quaint, even unsophisticated. Perhaps that's one reason that Dunning's career never advanced beyond CBS's Tokyo bureau. But you cannot dispute the power or truth captured in that report from South Vietnam in the spring of 1975.
For Ms. Dozier and those wounded American soldiers, we wish full and complete recovery from her injuries in Iraq. And for Mr. Dunning, a long, happy retirement, and a faculty slot at a first-class journalism school. The next generation of TV war reporters could learn a lot from him.
The incident is still under investigation, but here's what we know so far: Dozier and her crew were embedded with members of the 4th Infantry Division, on patrol in Baghdad. The patrol had stopped to inspect a check-point manned by Iraqi soldiers when a car packed with explosives was detonated, killing Douglas, Brolan and the solider, and wounding seven others, including Dozier. According to a CBS spokesman, Dozier was working on a story about Memorial Day in Iraq at the time of the incident.
We may never know what motivated Ms. Dozier and her crew to leave the relative safety of an armored HUMVEE and accompany the soliders to that check-point. Perhaps it was a desire to see things for themselves, or get better footage for a "package" that would be featured on The CBS Evening News. By most accounts, Dozier, Douglas and Brolan were used to taking risks; Dozier has spent more time in Iraq than any other CBS News Correspondent, and Douglas and Brolan were veterans of battlefields from the Balkans to the Middle East. They understood the risks associated with climbing out of an armored vehicle to have "a look for themselves."
My own, brief career in journalism never carried me to a war zone, but I've talked to plenty of reporters who've been there. Many talked of developing a "sixth sense" about certain situations or environments, and knowing when to back away. Balancing that against a desire to get the story is a tough job for any journalist, especially someone trying to negotiate the cut-throat world of network television news. According to her CBS bio, Ms. Dozier earned her job the hard way; she went to the Middle East as a reporter, not for the network, but as a "bureau chief" for CBS's New York affiliate, WCBS-TV. Her early work for CBS News was on the radio side (hardly a "star" assignment), and she slowly worked her way into a TV correspondent's job, doing the tough, dirty jobs that few others volunteered for.
From what I've read, putting herself in harm's way (or potentially, in harm's way) was something Ms. Dozier did on a regular basis. In hindsight, it would be easy to second-guess her decision--and grossly unfair. Ms. Dozier and her colleagues made a choice, based on their assessment of the situaition. Unfortunately for them (and members of the 4th ID), there was danger lurking on that Baghdad street, with devastating consequences for both journalists and soldiers alike.
While I often disagree with the tone of network news reports from Baghdad, I do admire men and women who are willing to get out on the streets and report the story. But, from a style standpoint, I do have a minor beef. Watching today's TV reports from any war zone, you'll note that most end with the correspondent doing an on-camera "stand-up." The stand-up serves two purposes; first, it allows the reporter to sum-up his piece, and (secondly) it gives the correspondent some needed face time on camera, allowing him (or her) to "connect" with viewers back home and their bosses back in New York. Wars have made the reputation of more than one broadcast correspondent, including the patron saint of CBS News, the late Edward R. Murrow.
But it hasn't always been that way. A few months ago, CBS News Sunday Morning paid tribute to the network's retiring Far East correspondent, Bruce Dunning. Mr. Dunning spent years reporting from Southeast Asia during the Vietnam War, and in homage to his career, Sunday Morning replayed one his most famous reports, filmed on the last plane out of Da Nang before that city fell to the North Vietnamese. The flight--and Dunning's report--are harrowing, even through the prism of time. The charter 727 was grossly overloaded; frantic South Vietnamese tried to storm the plane, in an effort to get out, only to be beaten by equally desperate security personnel. Others clung to the aircraft's rear stairway as it took off, losing their grip and plunging to their death in the jungle below. The CBS camera caught it all, and Dunning's precise, understated narration captured the mood exactly, without fancy graphics, computer animation or phony histronics.
Dunning's flight out of Da Nang should be required viewing for any television reporter aspiring to be a combat correspondent. It's straightforward journalism; no ambivalance, no moral equivocation, no references to the North Vietnamese as "insurgents." By today's standards, it's a bit quaint, even unsophisticated. Perhaps that's one reason that Dunning's career never advanced beyond CBS's Tokyo bureau. But you cannot dispute the power or truth captured in that report from South Vietnam in the spring of 1975.
For Ms. Dozier and those wounded American soldiers, we wish full and complete recovery from her injuries in Iraq. And for Mr. Dunning, a long, happy retirement, and a faculty slot at a first-class journalism school. The next generation of TV war reporters could learn a lot from him.
Slowing the Pace
The New York Times is reporting that Iran's uranium enrichment efforts have slowed a bit over the past month, suggesting that Tehran has encountered technical problems with the process, or may be trying to avoid a nuclear confrontation with the U.S.
Much of the information in the Times' account is based on conversations with European diplomats, who have reviewed the results of recent inspections in Iran. According to the inspectors, Iranian engineers stopped pouring UF6 gas into their centrifuges only six days after the process began--even as crowds in Tehran and other cities celebrated the achievement. One official interviewed by the Times described Tehran's pace as "more diplomatic than technical," suggesting that the slowing pace may provide an opening for negotiations.
To its credit, the paper notes that the Europeans have a motive in circulating this theory. As we observed over the weekend, the Europeans desperately want the U.S. to join the diplomatic process, and enage in direct talks with Iran. Getting the U.S. involved would serve serve a number of purposes, including (A) adding legitimacy to their own diplomatic efforts, (B) forestalling potential U.S. and/or Israeli military strikes and (C) avoiding tough decisions over Iran in the UNSC, and in talks with the U.S.
For the Europeans, the process is paramount, even if prospects for a negotiated solution are dim, at best. While the Times acknowledges the Europeans' ulterior motive, they still offer plenty of "evidence," that suggests the time for diplomacy may be at hand.
"Even peering through the keyhole, the International Atomic Energy Agency's findings and Tehran's own statements have combined to raise questions about its claims of irreversible breakthroughs in developing indigenous nuclear technology."
"For instance, the inspectors found that Iran in the first enrichment campaign used not only its own raw uranium but material it had imported from China. Its domestic supplies are reportedly laced with impurities that can reduce the efficiency of delicate centrifuges or cut their lives short."
But there may be other explanations for the Iranian slow-down, which receive less prominence in the Times account. An anonmyous administration official (here we go again) observed that "it could simply mean that we're not looking in the right places," a reference to a suspected secret nuclear program that Iran may be operating. We've written extensively about that possibility in the past, along with Tehran's dual-track development efforts. If Iran's enrichment efforts are thwarted (for whatever reason), then its heavy water plant at Khondab could yield a plutonium-based bomb in less than a decade.
Officially, the Bush Administration is resisting efforts to join the diplomatic circus, although the idea of talks with Iran is apparently being debated within the State Department. Tehran's sudden slow-down in its enrichment efforts is not, in our view, sufficient reason to open direct talks with Iran. And even the Times acknowledges, there may be multiple reasons for the changing pace of Iran's nuclear efforts--chief among them, problems with centrifuge designs and arrays. As we noted previously, technical delays provide a powerful motivation for negotiation, to give Iran's nuclear engineers enough time to overcome their problems, with less worry about a preemptive U.S. or Israeli attack.
Tehran has clearly followed the example of North Korea, and discovered that fraudulent diplomacy can achieve impressive results. Pyongyang had no intention of keeping its 1994 agreement with the U.S. and South Korea, but it maintained the charade for more than seven years, achieving its nuclear ambitions and obtaining badly needed shipment of oil from the United States. At last report, European negotiators were said to be working on a package of incentives for Tehran, in hopes of achieving some sort of deal on the Iranian nuclear program.
More disturbingly, there seems to be a willingness in some European circles to tolerate " a certain degree" of nuclear activity within Iran. Buried in the Times article is this gem, from a German diplomat:
"...German officials have begun to argue that allowing a low level of Iranian enrichment activity— essentially, allowing the Iranians to maintain their current activity — is harmless. "They've cracked the code," one senior German official said last week. "We're kidding ourselves if we think we are going to deny them the knowledge" of how to produce nuclear fuel."
If it were only that simple. The real issue here is Iran's ability to produce large quantities of highly-enriched uranium, necessary for the production of nuclear weapons. Tehran has already achieved a toe-hold in that area (as evidenced by recent efforts), and they will likely continue efforts to improve the quality of their output, as well as their volume. The comments from that German official suggest that some Europeans are quite prepared to let Iran move further along the nuclear path (afterall, the current activity is "harmless"), presumably while the diplomatic efforts continue.
The obvious contradiction in that approach should be enough to keep the U.S. off the diplomatic track, at least for now. Left unchecked, the current level of "harmless activity" will eventually grow into a full-scale uranium enrichment program and produce a nuclear weapon. The idea that Iran won't overcome its technical hurdles is ludicrous, as is the notion that Tehran will someone contain its enrichment efforts at current levels. But when the diplomatic "process" becomes your overriding concern, such matters are trivial, details to be discussed somewhere down the road, about the time Iran actually joins the nuclear club.
Much of the information in the Times' account is based on conversations with European diplomats, who have reviewed the results of recent inspections in Iran. According to the inspectors, Iranian engineers stopped pouring UF6 gas into their centrifuges only six days after the process began--even as crowds in Tehran and other cities celebrated the achievement. One official interviewed by the Times described Tehran's pace as "more diplomatic than technical," suggesting that the slowing pace may provide an opening for negotiations.
To its credit, the paper notes that the Europeans have a motive in circulating this theory. As we observed over the weekend, the Europeans desperately want the U.S. to join the diplomatic process, and enage in direct talks with Iran. Getting the U.S. involved would serve serve a number of purposes, including (A) adding legitimacy to their own diplomatic efforts, (B) forestalling potential U.S. and/or Israeli military strikes and (C) avoiding tough decisions over Iran in the UNSC, and in talks with the U.S.
For the Europeans, the process is paramount, even if prospects for a negotiated solution are dim, at best. While the Times acknowledges the Europeans' ulterior motive, they still offer plenty of "evidence," that suggests the time for diplomacy may be at hand.
"Even peering through the keyhole, the International Atomic Energy Agency's findings and Tehran's own statements have combined to raise questions about its claims of irreversible breakthroughs in developing indigenous nuclear technology."
"For instance, the inspectors found that Iran in the first enrichment campaign used not only its own raw uranium but material it had imported from China. Its domestic supplies are reportedly laced with impurities that can reduce the efficiency of delicate centrifuges or cut their lives short."
But there may be other explanations for the Iranian slow-down, which receive less prominence in the Times account. An anonmyous administration official (here we go again) observed that "it could simply mean that we're not looking in the right places," a reference to a suspected secret nuclear program that Iran may be operating. We've written extensively about that possibility in the past, along with Tehran's dual-track development efforts. If Iran's enrichment efforts are thwarted (for whatever reason), then its heavy water plant at Khondab could yield a plutonium-based bomb in less than a decade.
Officially, the Bush Administration is resisting efforts to join the diplomatic circus, although the idea of talks with Iran is apparently being debated within the State Department. Tehran's sudden slow-down in its enrichment efforts is not, in our view, sufficient reason to open direct talks with Iran. And even the Times acknowledges, there may be multiple reasons for the changing pace of Iran's nuclear efforts--chief among them, problems with centrifuge designs and arrays. As we noted previously, technical delays provide a powerful motivation for negotiation, to give Iran's nuclear engineers enough time to overcome their problems, with less worry about a preemptive U.S. or Israeli attack.
Tehran has clearly followed the example of North Korea, and discovered that fraudulent diplomacy can achieve impressive results. Pyongyang had no intention of keeping its 1994 agreement with the U.S. and South Korea, but it maintained the charade for more than seven years, achieving its nuclear ambitions and obtaining badly needed shipment of oil from the United States. At last report, European negotiators were said to be working on a package of incentives for Tehran, in hopes of achieving some sort of deal on the Iranian nuclear program.
More disturbingly, there seems to be a willingness in some European circles to tolerate " a certain degree" of nuclear activity within Iran. Buried in the Times article is this gem, from a German diplomat:
"...German officials have begun to argue that allowing a low level of Iranian enrichment activity— essentially, allowing the Iranians to maintain their current activity — is harmless. "They've cracked the code," one senior German official said last week. "We're kidding ourselves if we think we are going to deny them the knowledge" of how to produce nuclear fuel."
If it were only that simple. The real issue here is Iran's ability to produce large quantities of highly-enriched uranium, necessary for the production of nuclear weapons. Tehran has already achieved a toe-hold in that area (as evidenced by recent efforts), and they will likely continue efforts to improve the quality of their output, as well as their volume. The comments from that German official suggest that some Europeans are quite prepared to let Iran move further along the nuclear path (afterall, the current activity is "harmless"), presumably while the diplomatic efforts continue.
The obvious contradiction in that approach should be enough to keep the U.S. off the diplomatic track, at least for now. Left unchecked, the current level of "harmless activity" will eventually grow into a full-scale uranium enrichment program and produce a nuclear weapon. The idea that Iran won't overcome its technical hurdles is ludicrous, as is the notion that Tehran will someone contain its enrichment efforts at current levels. But when the diplomatic "process" becomes your overriding concern, such matters are trivial, details to be discussed somewhere down the road, about the time Iran actually joins the nuclear club.
Saturday, May 27, 2006
Should There be Any Debate?
According to The New York Times, the Bush Administration is weighing the possibility of holding direct talks with Iran over its nuclear issue. Judging from the Times account, most of the support for negotiations comes from current and former State Department officials. Secretary of State Condolezza Rice is said to have broached the subject with top aides, after recent discussions with European allies. Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld are said to oppose talks with Tehran.
For now, I'll cast my lot with Mr. Cheney and Mr. Rumsfeld. As we observed earlier this week, Iran has offered little proof that it will negotiate in good faith, and actually work toward a solution for the nuclear issue. On-going talks with the Europeans have produced nothing to date; ditto for negotiations with Moscow on a possible deal to move Iran's uranium enrichment efforts to a Russian facility. In fact, Iran's diplomatic strategy seems more aimed at creating the illusion of serious talks, aimed at buying time for its nuclear program.
European leaders and diplomats are said to be "anxious" for the U.S. to enter talks with Iran. And for obvious reasons. Not only would American participation add more weight and legitimacy to the process, it would also reduce prospects for U.S. military action, and demands for the Europeans to support the use of force. From their perspective, the process is paramount, even if prospects for a negotiated settlement are dim, at best.
Serious talks with Tehran should be preceded by a set of conditions that are not negotiable. First, Iran agrees to end its nuclear development efforts. Secondly, all Iranian nuclear facilities are subject to no-notice inspections by the IAEA, U.S. and European teams for at least the next decade, and thirdly, critical facilities at Khondab, Esfahan and Natanz will be dismantled and detroyed, under the supervision of the international community. Such actions would prove that Iran is serious about nuclear talks. If such conditions are not met, then any prospective nuclear talks would be almost meaningless. Vice-President Cheney and Mr. Rumsfeld seem to understand that. It will be interesting to see if the State Department and the diplomacy crowd can absorb that lesson as well.
For now, I'll cast my lot with Mr. Cheney and Mr. Rumsfeld. As we observed earlier this week, Iran has offered little proof that it will negotiate in good faith, and actually work toward a solution for the nuclear issue. On-going talks with the Europeans have produced nothing to date; ditto for negotiations with Moscow on a possible deal to move Iran's uranium enrichment efforts to a Russian facility. In fact, Iran's diplomatic strategy seems more aimed at creating the illusion of serious talks, aimed at buying time for its nuclear program.
European leaders and diplomats are said to be "anxious" for the U.S. to enter talks with Iran. And for obvious reasons. Not only would American participation add more weight and legitimacy to the process, it would also reduce prospects for U.S. military action, and demands for the Europeans to support the use of force. From their perspective, the process is paramount, even if prospects for a negotiated settlement are dim, at best.
Serious talks with Tehran should be preceded by a set of conditions that are not negotiable. First, Iran agrees to end its nuclear development efforts. Secondly, all Iranian nuclear facilities are subject to no-notice inspections by the IAEA, U.S. and European teams for at least the next decade, and thirdly, critical facilities at Khondab, Esfahan and Natanz will be dismantled and detroyed, under the supervision of the international community. Such actions would prove that Iran is serious about nuclear talks. If such conditions are not met, then any prospective nuclear talks would be almost meaningless. Vice-President Cheney and Mr. Rumsfeld seem to understand that. It will be interesting to see if the State Department and the diplomacy crowd can absorb that lesson as well.
Friday, May 26, 2006
It Wasn't Even Close
By an overwhelming, 78-15 vote, the Senate has confirmed General Mike Hayden as the next CIA director. In this space a few weeks ago, we predicted that Hayden's confirmation hearings might well become a tour-de-force, with the Air Force general easily demonstrating his command of intelligence issues, and his qualifications to run the CIA.
You may recall that some politicians and pundits expected an "uphill" battle for Hayden's confirmation, predicting "tough" questions about the the general's tenure as NSA director and the surveillance programs he oversaw. In the end, those battles never really materialized. Opposition to Hayden quickly melted away, leaving only the Senate's hard-core left to oppose him.
Hayden faces major hurdles in completing needed reforms at the CIA, but as we've noted on several occasions, he's more than up to the challenge. The process of fixing our intelligence system took another step forward this morning, with the confirmation of General Hayden. I would imagine the "leak brigade" at Langley is a bit upset, because Hayden will likely accelerate the process of ferreting out staffers who provide classified information to the press. For that clique, life is about to get a lot tougher.
You may recall that some politicians and pundits expected an "uphill" battle for Hayden's confirmation, predicting "tough" questions about the the general's tenure as NSA director and the surveillance programs he oversaw. In the end, those battles never really materialized. Opposition to Hayden quickly melted away, leaving only the Senate's hard-core left to oppose him.
Hayden faces major hurdles in completing needed reforms at the CIA, but as we've noted on several occasions, he's more than up to the challenge. The process of fixing our intelligence system took another step forward this morning, with the confirmation of General Hayden. I would imagine the "leak brigade" at Langley is a bit upset, because Hayden will likely accelerate the process of ferreting out staffers who provide classified information to the press. For that clique, life is about to get a lot tougher.
A Fix For Troubled Schools
Today's Washington Post has a fascinating story (written by Nick Anderson), on a novel education experiment in Maryland. For years, Forrestville High School was one of the worst in that state, with rampant discipline problems, a high dropout rate, and abysmal scores on standardized tests. To fix these problems, local leaders implemented a novel--some might say radical--solution; they converted Forrestville High School into Maryland's first public military academy.
Yesterday, the first students to fully benefit from that experiment walked across the stage and received their high school diplomas. Since entering Forrestville in 2002, they have been a part of a student cadet corps, wearing Army Junior ROTC uniforms to class every day, and subjected to a discipline code that is far more rigorous than most public schools. It was hoped that a more focused, structured environment would lead to improved student performance in the classroom.
According to the Post, results of the Forrestville experiment have been mixed (so far). Standardized test scores remain low, and only a handful of students take advanced placement exams. But for some students, the academy approach has produced dramatic changes. Anderson cites the example of one graduating senior:
For Ashley Bembry, it worked. She entered the academy in ninth grade with a talk-back attitude and a tendency to hang with the wrong crowd. "My ninth-grade year, I was so negative," the 17-year-old from Forestville said. "Oh my goodness, I was getting suspended left and right. I had a mouth on me, I really did."
But now she has graduated from the academy as a cadet second lieutenant, an honor roll student, with plans to attend Bowie State University and perhaps become a teacher.
Her mother, Josephine Bembry, said Ashley and her brother Ashford, who is in the class of 2007, benefited from "a taste of discipline, order, structure."
Reading the article, one also gets the impression that the Forrestville academy's most serious problems lie at the district level, not at the school. Since 2002, the Prince George's County, Maryland school system (which controls the academy) has had four different superintendents. Some have been less-than-supportive of the effort, forcing the school to constantly re-justify its approach and performance.
Obviously Forrestville would benefit from stable leadership at the top of the school system, more consistent support, and the time needed to get the job done. At this juncture, it may be too much to expect impressive results; the 2006 senior class was the first to spend all four years in a cadet corps environment; as underclassmen, they were taunted and harassed by older students who were not a part of the JROTC program. In that environment, a number of new cadets decided to transfer to other schools, or drop out altogether.
Despite these problems, the success stories from the 2006 class should offer hope for the future of the school. This year's valedictorian received an academic scholarship from the University of Wisconsin; the salutorian turned down a slot at West Point for a scholarship from Cornell. More importantly, many members of the inagural class seem to have gained a new sense of self-discipline, ethics and self-worth, qualities that should serve them well in life.
If I were a parent of student in the Forrestville Academy, I would encourage school officials to stay the course, and evaluate the school's performance in another four years, after the academy system has fully taken hold. A similar academy in one of Chicago's toughest neighborhoods (created before Forrestville) has produced even more impressive results. Chicago officials have also consistently supported their academy, which may partly explain its performance. Within three years of its opening, the Chicago school averaged a daily student attendance of 95%, (far above other inner city schools). Discipline problems are reportedly well below those of other public schools, suggesting that the academy is producing the desired, disciplined environment. Academically, the reading scores of the academy's 11th graders are within a few points of the state average, although math scores remain well below the Illinois standard.
Obviously, a military environment isn't for every high school student. And, I don't believe that a military academy model or Junior ROTC program can save every failing school. But in some districts--with support from political leaders and education officials--a public military academy offers a viable alternative for creating a structured, disciplined environment that can promote learning and achievement. The idea seems to be slowly spreading across the country. But, reading the Post article and other reports, it seems clear that the academy model (like most education reforms) faces its strongest opposition from education bureaucrats. For them, a high school built around a cadet corps for JROTC program is a threat to their status quo, which must be protected above all else. It would be a shame if the Forrestville experiment eventually fell victim to those forces.
Yesterday, the first students to fully benefit from that experiment walked across the stage and received their high school diplomas. Since entering Forrestville in 2002, they have been a part of a student cadet corps, wearing Army Junior ROTC uniforms to class every day, and subjected to a discipline code that is far more rigorous than most public schools. It was hoped that a more focused, structured environment would lead to improved student performance in the classroom.
According to the Post, results of the Forrestville experiment have been mixed (so far). Standardized test scores remain low, and only a handful of students take advanced placement exams. But for some students, the academy approach has produced dramatic changes. Anderson cites the example of one graduating senior:
For Ashley Bembry, it worked. She entered the academy in ninth grade with a talk-back attitude and a tendency to hang with the wrong crowd. "My ninth-grade year, I was so negative," the 17-year-old from Forestville said. "Oh my goodness, I was getting suspended left and right. I had a mouth on me, I really did."
But now she has graduated from the academy as a cadet second lieutenant, an honor roll student, with plans to attend Bowie State University and perhaps become a teacher.
Her mother, Josephine Bembry, said Ashley and her brother Ashford, who is in the class of 2007, benefited from "a taste of discipline, order, structure."
Reading the article, one also gets the impression that the Forrestville academy's most serious problems lie at the district level, not at the school. Since 2002, the Prince George's County, Maryland school system (which controls the academy) has had four different superintendents. Some have been less-than-supportive of the effort, forcing the school to constantly re-justify its approach and performance.
Obviously Forrestville would benefit from stable leadership at the top of the school system, more consistent support, and the time needed to get the job done. At this juncture, it may be too much to expect impressive results; the 2006 senior class was the first to spend all four years in a cadet corps environment; as underclassmen, they were taunted and harassed by older students who were not a part of the JROTC program. In that environment, a number of new cadets decided to transfer to other schools, or drop out altogether.
Despite these problems, the success stories from the 2006 class should offer hope for the future of the school. This year's valedictorian received an academic scholarship from the University of Wisconsin; the salutorian turned down a slot at West Point for a scholarship from Cornell. More importantly, many members of the inagural class seem to have gained a new sense of self-discipline, ethics and self-worth, qualities that should serve them well in life.
If I were a parent of student in the Forrestville Academy, I would encourage school officials to stay the course, and evaluate the school's performance in another four years, after the academy system has fully taken hold. A similar academy in one of Chicago's toughest neighborhoods (created before Forrestville) has produced even more impressive results. Chicago officials have also consistently supported their academy, which may partly explain its performance. Within three years of its opening, the Chicago school averaged a daily student attendance of 95%, (far above other inner city schools). Discipline problems are reportedly well below those of other public schools, suggesting that the academy is producing the desired, disciplined environment. Academically, the reading scores of the academy's 11th graders are within a few points of the state average, although math scores remain well below the Illinois standard.
Obviously, a military environment isn't for every high school student. And, I don't believe that a military academy model or Junior ROTC program can save every failing school. But in some districts--with support from political leaders and education officials--a public military academy offers a viable alternative for creating a structured, disciplined environment that can promote learning and achievement. The idea seems to be slowly spreading across the country. But, reading the Post article and other reports, it seems clear that the academy model (like most education reforms) faces its strongest opposition from education bureaucrats. For them, a high school built around a cadet corps for JROTC program is a threat to their status quo, which must be protected above all else. It would be a shame if the Forrestville experiment eventually fell victim to those forces.
A Life in Radio
For those of us who once labored over a hot mike, spent long weekends or overnights running pre-recorded programs, and gave a part of our lives to radio, Mitch Berg has a poignant tribute to one of our own, a man named Joe Hanson. Mr. Hanson, who was a long-time radio producer and engineer in the Twin Cities, passed away recently.
Reading the story of Hanson's life and career, I was struck by a sudden case of "what if." You see, I too, once chased the dream called radio. As a young man, I spent more than five years in the medium, working my way through college as a disc jockey, newscaster and football play-by-play man at small market stations in the south and Mid-West. During that interlude, I covered much of the same territory described by Mitch Berg; long nights and weekends at some podunk station in the middle of nowhere, spinning records or making sure that some syndicated program aired at the right time.
Working conditions were often grim; station politics and intrigue rivaled the Russian Politburo; young DJs and board operators were often hired and fired on the whim of a program director or general manager. At some stations, you were never more than one format deviation or miscue from the unemployment line. When you moved up to a slightly larger market, there was the ratings book to worry about. A god called Arbitron ruled your existence; good numbers meant more money, and (hopefully) a shot in a bigger market. If the audience wasn't there, neither was your job. It was that brutally simple.
If the work environment was bad, wages were usually worse. Rush Limbaugh was reportedly fired seven times in his early broadcast career, and found himself (at age 30) earning far less money than he had a decade earlier, as a morning DJ in Pittsburgh. Another broadcast icon, Sean Hannity, earned $1,000 a month as a talk show host in Huntsville, AL in the late 1980s--about the same thing I earned as a radio news director at the start of that decade. Of course, that was a step up from my first, full-time radio job, fresh out of college, with a bachelor's degree in journalism. That gig paid a princely $900 a month--in 1979.
But there was always the dream. Most of us had a mental image of our career, a path that would carry us from the small markets to New York, Chicago, or Los Angeles, preferably by the age of 30. For me, a couple of years at the local tea kettle station would get me to Little Rock, Shreveport, Springfield, or Jackson, MS. From there, I'd try to land a job in Memphis, Birmingham, or Nashville, followed by a stint in St. Louis, Atlanta, Pittsburgh, or Dallas. After that, a coveted gig at WLS, WABC, or KHJ, and big-money radio stardom. Sure, it was a pipedream, but it was something to keep you going when payday at your 1,000 watt AM station was two days away, and you had $1.50 in your pocket.
My radio ambitions came to an end in 1981, during a format change at the Midwest station where I was the news director. The ratings book came out, and our audience numbers were in the toilet. A consultant directed a complete overhaul, so the entire staff was summoned to the general manager's office on a Friday afternoon and summarily dismissed. For me, that event triggered a crisis of confidence that led me to an Air Force recruiter's office, a different career and a new life. I still dabbled in radio from time-to-time during my military career, but it was now a hobby and no longer an obsession.
In hindsight, getting out of radio was probably the best thing that ever happened to me. As Mitch Berg describes in his post, the business has become even tougher over the past 20 years. Satellite-delivered syndicated programs and music formats now fill many stations' broadcast schedules. There is no longer a requirement for a "live" human being to be in the station while it's on the air. Computers control everything, from monitoring the transmitter, to airing local commercials and promos. There are fewer entry-level and "second" jobs in the business, in markets where aspiring broadcasters could learn their craft and even make mistakes. Now, the "talent" is a nameless voice from New York, Los Angeles or even Omaha, announcing the same song at the same time on scores of stations around the country. The "local" broadcaster is there is host the morning show (if he or she is lucky), sell and record commercials, and (of course) reboot the computer when the satellite feeds go down.
That's the medium that Joe Hanson devoted his life to. I never met Mr. Hanson, but I've known dozens of men just like him, individuals who pursued a dream in a tough, unforgiving business. A few still reach the very top, but for the rest, there is often frustration and disappointment. They deserve better, but they also know the business, the economics that drive it, and understand that radio isn't going to change; if anything, current trends will only accelerate, meaning even fewer jobs and depressed wages for those working in small and medium-sized markets.
And yet they soldier on, because, despite the low pay, crummy hours and non-existent benefits, they love the business, and still find some magic in Mr. Marconi's invention. Somehow, that's enough to keep them going, if only for a while.
R.I.P. Mr. Hanson.
Reading the story of Hanson's life and career, I was struck by a sudden case of "what if." You see, I too, once chased the dream called radio. As a young man, I spent more than five years in the medium, working my way through college as a disc jockey, newscaster and football play-by-play man at small market stations in the south and Mid-West. During that interlude, I covered much of the same territory described by Mitch Berg; long nights and weekends at some podunk station in the middle of nowhere, spinning records or making sure that some syndicated program aired at the right time.
Working conditions were often grim; station politics and intrigue rivaled the Russian Politburo; young DJs and board operators were often hired and fired on the whim of a program director or general manager. At some stations, you were never more than one format deviation or miscue from the unemployment line. When you moved up to a slightly larger market, there was the ratings book to worry about. A god called Arbitron ruled your existence; good numbers meant more money, and (hopefully) a shot in a bigger market. If the audience wasn't there, neither was your job. It was that brutally simple.
If the work environment was bad, wages were usually worse. Rush Limbaugh was reportedly fired seven times in his early broadcast career, and found himself (at age 30) earning far less money than he had a decade earlier, as a morning DJ in Pittsburgh. Another broadcast icon, Sean Hannity, earned $1,000 a month as a talk show host in Huntsville, AL in the late 1980s--about the same thing I earned as a radio news director at the start of that decade. Of course, that was a step up from my first, full-time radio job, fresh out of college, with a bachelor's degree in journalism. That gig paid a princely $900 a month--in 1979.
But there was always the dream. Most of us had a mental image of our career, a path that would carry us from the small markets to New York, Chicago, or Los Angeles, preferably by the age of 30. For me, a couple of years at the local tea kettle station would get me to Little Rock, Shreveport, Springfield, or Jackson, MS. From there, I'd try to land a job in Memphis, Birmingham, or Nashville, followed by a stint in St. Louis, Atlanta, Pittsburgh, or Dallas. After that, a coveted gig at WLS, WABC, or KHJ, and big-money radio stardom. Sure, it was a pipedream, but it was something to keep you going when payday at your 1,000 watt AM station was two days away, and you had $1.50 in your pocket.
My radio ambitions came to an end in 1981, during a format change at the Midwest station where I was the news director. The ratings book came out, and our audience numbers were in the toilet. A consultant directed a complete overhaul, so the entire staff was summoned to the general manager's office on a Friday afternoon and summarily dismissed. For me, that event triggered a crisis of confidence that led me to an Air Force recruiter's office, a different career and a new life. I still dabbled in radio from time-to-time during my military career, but it was now a hobby and no longer an obsession.
In hindsight, getting out of radio was probably the best thing that ever happened to me. As Mitch Berg describes in his post, the business has become even tougher over the past 20 years. Satellite-delivered syndicated programs and music formats now fill many stations' broadcast schedules. There is no longer a requirement for a "live" human being to be in the station while it's on the air. Computers control everything, from monitoring the transmitter, to airing local commercials and promos. There are fewer entry-level and "second" jobs in the business, in markets where aspiring broadcasters could learn their craft and even make mistakes. Now, the "talent" is a nameless voice from New York, Los Angeles or even Omaha, announcing the same song at the same time on scores of stations around the country. The "local" broadcaster is there is host the morning show (if he or she is lucky), sell and record commercials, and (of course) reboot the computer when the satellite feeds go down.
That's the medium that Joe Hanson devoted his life to. I never met Mr. Hanson, but I've known dozens of men just like him, individuals who pursued a dream in a tough, unforgiving business. A few still reach the very top, but for the rest, there is often frustration and disappointment. They deserve better, but they also know the business, the economics that drive it, and understand that radio isn't going to change; if anything, current trends will only accelerate, meaning even fewer jobs and depressed wages for those working in small and medium-sized markets.
And yet they soldier on, because, despite the low pay, crummy hours and non-existent benefits, they love the business, and still find some magic in Mr. Marconi's invention. Somehow, that's enough to keep them going, if only for a while.
R.I.P. Mr. Hanson.
Thursday, May 25, 2006
Jack Murtha's Latest Slander
When we last left Congressman Jack Murtha, he was insisting that U.S. Marines had indiscriminately killed Iraqi civilians near Haditha late last year. On Alan Colmes's Fox News Radio show last night, Murtha repeated the claim, comparing the alleged atrocities to U.S. bombing raids in World War II.
Reportedly, a dozen Marines are under investigation for the incident, which happened in November 2005. Murtha insisted that the "truth" (when it comes out) would be much worse than the initial reports. According to NewsMax, Colmes asked the Pennsylvania Congressman if the episode could be characterized as the deliberate, indiscriminate killing of civilians. Murtha agreed, and likened the incident to American bombing raids during the Second World War.
"In World War II we dropped bombs on all these different countries," he told Colmes. "We killed civilians. In wartime - this is wartime. You're not sitting in an office back here. This is wartime."
There is no doubt that civilians died in U.S. bombing raids during World War II. But Congressman Murtha slanders the thousands of aircrew members who gave their lives in an effort to destroy enemy targets and minimize civilian casualties. Perhaps Mr. Murtha has forgotten, but the American bombing campaign in Europe was built around the concept of daylight, precision bombing. Despite the limitations of 1940s technology, U.S. air planners and bomber crews made every effort to hit their targets and reduce collateral damage. Army Air Corps leaders, including General Hap Arnold and Lieutenant Generals Ira Eaker and Jimmy Doolittle, resisted British calls to halt daylight raids, and join the RAF in night-time, area attacks.
Instead, the U.S. continued its daylight campaign until the end of the war, and many crew members paid the ultimate price, trying to hit precise targets with bombs from their B-17s and B-24s. Professional photographer (and aviation buff) Tom Philo has put together some interesting data on U.S. bombers losses in Europe during World War II. On particularly bloody raids (Schweinfurt and Ploesti), U.S. bomber groups lost more than 50 aircraft, each carrying a crew of 10 men.
Critics will argue that the U.S. still engaged in the deliberate targeting of civilians, during the infamous raids on Dresden, Germany in early 1945 and the B-29 fire-bombing campaign against Japan. However, those claims fail to ignore important facts: namely, (in Dresden) the bulk of the damage was inflicted by the initial RAF raid, and beyond that, there were valid military reasons for targeting the city's rail yards, the primary target for U.s. and British bombers. Against Japan, night raids (using incendiary bombs) began after daylight, high-altitude attacks failed to produce desired results. This failure was partly due to technical problems with the new B-29s, effects of the jet stream (which blew bombers and their munitions off-course), the long distance between Japan and U.S. bomber bases on Guam, and the density of Japanese cities, where civilian, military and industrial targets were typically interspersed.
With his latest defamatory comments, Jack Murtha has achieved a new low (even by his standards) and owes an apology to everyone who served as a U.S. bomber crew member in World War II. That list includes some former Democratic colleagues, namely Senator George McGovern and the late Treasury Secretary Lloyd Bentsen. I'm sure that Senator McGovern would be surprised to learn that he did nothing more than kill civilians during his 35 combat missions as a World War II B-24 pilot.
Reportedly, a dozen Marines are under investigation for the incident, which happened in November 2005. Murtha insisted that the "truth" (when it comes out) would be much worse than the initial reports. According to NewsMax, Colmes asked the Pennsylvania Congressman if the episode could be characterized as the deliberate, indiscriminate killing of civilians. Murtha agreed, and likened the incident to American bombing raids during the Second World War.
"In World War II we dropped bombs on all these different countries," he told Colmes. "We killed civilians. In wartime - this is wartime. You're not sitting in an office back here. This is wartime."
There is no doubt that civilians died in U.S. bombing raids during World War II. But Congressman Murtha slanders the thousands of aircrew members who gave their lives in an effort to destroy enemy targets and minimize civilian casualties. Perhaps Mr. Murtha has forgotten, but the American bombing campaign in Europe was built around the concept of daylight, precision bombing. Despite the limitations of 1940s technology, U.S. air planners and bomber crews made every effort to hit their targets and reduce collateral damage. Army Air Corps leaders, including General Hap Arnold and Lieutenant Generals Ira Eaker and Jimmy Doolittle, resisted British calls to halt daylight raids, and join the RAF in night-time, area attacks.
Instead, the U.S. continued its daylight campaign until the end of the war, and many crew members paid the ultimate price, trying to hit precise targets with bombs from their B-17s and B-24s. Professional photographer (and aviation buff) Tom Philo has put together some interesting data on U.S. bombers losses in Europe during World War II. On particularly bloody raids (Schweinfurt and Ploesti), U.S. bomber groups lost more than 50 aircraft, each carrying a crew of 10 men.
Critics will argue that the U.S. still engaged in the deliberate targeting of civilians, during the infamous raids on Dresden, Germany in early 1945 and the B-29 fire-bombing campaign against Japan. However, those claims fail to ignore important facts: namely, (in Dresden) the bulk of the damage was inflicted by the initial RAF raid, and beyond that, there were valid military reasons for targeting the city's rail yards, the primary target for U.s. and British bombers. Against Japan, night raids (using incendiary bombs) began after daylight, high-altitude attacks failed to produce desired results. This failure was partly due to technical problems with the new B-29s, effects of the jet stream (which blew bombers and their munitions off-course), the long distance between Japan and U.S. bomber bases on Guam, and the density of Japanese cities, where civilian, military and industrial targets were typically interspersed.
With his latest defamatory comments, Jack Murtha has achieved a new low (even by his standards) and owes an apology to everyone who served as a U.S. bomber crew member in World War II. That list includes some former Democratic colleagues, namely Senator George McGovern and the late Treasury Secretary Lloyd Bentsen. I'm sure that Senator McGovern would be surprised to learn that he did nothing more than kill civilians during his 35 combat missions as a World War II B-24 pilot.
Inconvenient Questions
..for AlGore and his global warming movie, courtesy of Dr. Roy Spencer at TCS Daily. Don't hold your breath waiting for answers, either. As Matt Drudge reminds us, "Mr. Conservation" is the same guy who burned 400,000 pounds of jet fuel to attend the Kyoto Conference, and (more recently) Gore and his entourage drove the 500 meters from their hotel, to the headquarters of the Cannes Film Festival, where the movie premiered.
Missile Defense from the Sea
Our ballistic missile defense efforts took a potentially important step yesterday, with a successful test of a Navy Standard Missile 2 (SM-2) against an incoming missile in the final seconds of flight. The test marked the first time that any sea-based missile conducted a successful intercept of a ballistic missile in its terminal flight stage. The SM-2 (a modified, Block IV variant) was fired by the Aegis cruiser USS Lake Erie, operating in the Pacific Missile Range Facility near Hawaii.
The significance of this test cannot be understated. For years, the U.S. has been attempting to extend its ballistic missile defenses to sea-based platforms, with mixed results. In 2001, the Pentagon cancelled the Navy's SM-2 IVA Area Defense program, which was built around modified SM-2 missiles (equipped with an imaging infrared seeker, to track incoming missiles), fired from surface vessels equipped with the Aegis system. At the time of the cancellation, the initial SM-2/BMD effort was at least two years behind schedule, and $400 million over budget. Efforts at developing medium-range missile defenses proved more successful (more on that in a moment), but the lack of a sea-based, terminal defense capability meant that U.S. forces would have to rely on land-based Patriot missiles for short-range defense. In some regions (namely the Taiwan Strait), that capability either doesn't exist, or would be quickly overwhelmed by enemy ballistic missiles, underscoring the importance of terminal defenses on naval vessels.
To meet that requirement, the Navy and DOD's Missile Defense Agency (MDA) pursued more affordable variants of the SM-2 Block IV, culminating in yesterday's successful test launch near Hawaii. Additionally, the Pentagon has developed the longer-ranged SM-3, in an effort to create a layered, sea-based missile defense. The SM-3 is designed to intercept ballistic missiles in mid-course (outside the earth's atmosphere), and has been successful in 6 of 7 test flights (so far). Deployment of the terminal phase SM-2 would complement the SM-3 on 15 modified Arleigh Burke-class destroyers and 3 Ticonderoga-class cruisers, optimized for theater missile defense.
According to the Missile Defense Agency, "considerations to deploy SM-2 terminal defense missiles" are still under review, indicating that the project's future is far from assured. But, given the requirement for short-range defense of naval forces and shore facilities from missile attack (and yesterday's successful test launch) the terminal defense program should find more support in Congress and the Pentagon.
When Ronald Reagan first raised the possibility of missile defense two decades ago, he was roundly ridiculed, and program managers were chided for wasting money on technology that "would never work." Despite some over-publicized failures, BMD programs have advanced steadily over the past 20 years, affirming both the validity of Reagan's original vision, and his faith in America's ability to make the dream a reality.
The significance of this test cannot be understated. For years, the U.S. has been attempting to extend its ballistic missile defenses to sea-based platforms, with mixed results. In 2001, the Pentagon cancelled the Navy's SM-2 IVA Area Defense program, which was built around modified SM-2 missiles (equipped with an imaging infrared seeker, to track incoming missiles), fired from surface vessels equipped with the Aegis system. At the time of the cancellation, the initial SM-2/BMD effort was at least two years behind schedule, and $400 million over budget. Efforts at developing medium-range missile defenses proved more successful (more on that in a moment), but the lack of a sea-based, terminal defense capability meant that U.S. forces would have to rely on land-based Patriot missiles for short-range defense. In some regions (namely the Taiwan Strait), that capability either doesn't exist, or would be quickly overwhelmed by enemy ballistic missiles, underscoring the importance of terminal defenses on naval vessels.
To meet that requirement, the Navy and DOD's Missile Defense Agency (MDA) pursued more affordable variants of the SM-2 Block IV, culminating in yesterday's successful test launch near Hawaii. Additionally, the Pentagon has developed the longer-ranged SM-3, in an effort to create a layered, sea-based missile defense. The SM-3 is designed to intercept ballistic missiles in mid-course (outside the earth's atmosphere), and has been successful in 6 of 7 test flights (so far). Deployment of the terminal phase SM-2 would complement the SM-3 on 15 modified Arleigh Burke-class destroyers and 3 Ticonderoga-class cruisers, optimized for theater missile defense.
According to the Missile Defense Agency, "considerations to deploy SM-2 terminal defense missiles" are still under review, indicating that the project's future is far from assured. But, given the requirement for short-range defense of naval forces and shore facilities from missile attack (and yesterday's successful test launch) the terminal defense program should find more support in Congress and the Pentagon.
When Ronald Reagan first raised the possibility of missile defense two decades ago, he was roundly ridiculed, and program managers were chided for wasting money on technology that "would never work." Despite some over-publicized failures, BMD programs have advanced steadily over the past 20 years, affirming both the validity of Reagan's original vision, and his faith in America's ability to make the dream a reality.
Wednesday, May 24, 2006
Tehran Sends Another Signal
Amid its current push for direct talks with Washington, the Ahmadinejad government took time out to send another signal Tuesday night, conducting a test launch of a Shahab-3 medium-range missile. The launch was conducted just hours before Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert began a summit with President Bush in Washington.
Preparations for the launch were detected in advance, and the test came as no surprise. It's unclear if the missile launched on Tuesday was an extended-range version of the Shahab-3, which would allow Iran to strike targets beyond Israel. Tehran has been working on an extended range version of the missile for some time, with mixed results.
Iran has been offering feelers about a dialogue with the U.S., and the missile test was apparently intended (in part) to highlight the potential dangers of ignoring or opposing Tehran. But from my perspective, the Shahab-3 launch sends other signals, namely that Iran is still intent on developing weapons of mass destruction (and the platforms to deliver them), and that Ahmadinejad isn't serious about negotiating with the U.S.
Preparations for the launch were detected in advance, and the test came as no surprise. It's unclear if the missile launched on Tuesday was an extended-range version of the Shahab-3, which would allow Iran to strike targets beyond Israel. Tehran has been working on an extended range version of the missile for some time, with mixed results.
Iran has been offering feelers about a dialogue with the U.S., and the missile test was apparently intended (in part) to highlight the potential dangers of ignoring or opposing Tehran. But from my perspective, the Shahab-3 launch sends other signals, namely that Iran is still intent on developing weapons of mass destruction (and the platforms to deliver them), and that Ahmadinejad isn't serious about negotiating with the U.S.
Let's Talk
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has apparently launched a "dialogue" campaign towards the United States. Earlier this month, Ahmadinejad sent an 18-page letter to President Bush, the first direct communication between Iranian and U.S. heads of state of state in more than 25 years. From the U.S. perspective, the correspondence was wacky, even offensive; Ahmadinejad devoted most of his letter to a familiar litany of complaints against the U.S., mixed in with odd musings on theology. The Bush Administration quickly--and correctly--rejected Ahmadinejad's letter, saying it provided no basis for renewed contacts with Iran.
Apparently undeterred by that rejection, Iranian officials are still pushing for a new dialogue with Washington. Today's Washington Post reports that a number of Iranian officials have conveyed their desire (through intermediaries) for direct talks with the United States. The head of Iran's Supreme National Security Council recently passed that message to Mohammed El-Baradei (head of the International Atomic Energy Agency), for transmission to Secretary of State Condolezza Rice and National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley. Similar requests were conveyed through other channels, including Islamic nations friendly to the U.S. (Indonesia, Kuwait), European countries (France, Britain) and even U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan.
What's driving this sudden demand for direct talks? Experts interviewed by the Post believe that the recent requests signal a change in Iranian strategy. Readers will note that many of these experts seem to come from sectors of the government (including the CIA) that have consistently opposed Bush Administration policies toward Iran. Not surprisingly, most of these analysts view the Iranian request as genuine, and believe the U.S. should respond to Tehran's overture. The Post even managed to track down Paul Pillar, the former CIA analyst who was forced to retire from the agency last fall, after publicly criticizing the administration. Predictably, Pillar believes engagement is a good idea:
"Much stranger first steps have led to dialogues than this letter. And as weird as the letter may be, if the Iranians want to begin discussions based on the theme of righteousness, that's something we should not be afraid to engage on...We have pretty strong arguments about justice and righteousness of our own, so we should not shy away from that."
The salient question, of course, is why do the Iranians want to talk now, after refusing American gestures for years? The Post believes that Tehran wants to avoid a showdown over its nuclear program, and realizes the window for diplomacy is closing fast. Some experts also believe that the domestic situation has changed in Iran; with "reformers" now out of power, Ahmadinejad's hard-line government (a relative concept in Tehran) can now engage the U.S., claim credit for any successful negotiations and enhance its standing at home.
There may be an element of truth in that, but I'll take a more cynical view. Following the North Korean model, the Iranians have learned that the U.S. is reluctant to engage in military action while diplomatic efforts are underway, and may use any negotiations as a way to "buy time" for its nuclear development efforts. You'll recall that Washington began serious talks with Pyongyang about its nuclear program in the early 1990s; the disastrous "Agreed To" framework was a bonanza for North Korea. In exchange for supposedly giving up its nuclear ambitions, Pyongyang received security guarantees, shipments of oil from the U.S., and South Korean promises to build light-water reactors. The deal finally unraveled after the U.S. discovered that North Korea had violated the agreement by maintaining a clandestine development program, building nuclear weapons. But the agreement "bought" eight precious years for Pyongyang, allowing them to realize their nuclear ambitions.
Tehran has already demonstrated a similar "talk and stall" approach in recent nuclear discussions with Germany, France and Britain, and in negotiations with Moscow to shift uranium enrichment efforts to a Russian facility. Negotiations on these issues have been underway for more than a year, with no signs of progress. But even vague hopes for a diplomatic solution have been enough to sustain the process--and deter military action. By including Washington in the talks, Iran may believe it can buy even more time, forestall possible U.S. military action, and even prevent a potential Israeli military strike.
While millions of ordinary Iranians (and a few officials in the current government) genuinely want a dialogue with the United States, their desires must be measured against Tehran's recent policies toward our government and our citizens. Since the 1979 revolution, successive Iranian regimes have pursued policies that are contrary to U.S. interests, directly endanger American lives, and provide no realistic foundation for dialogue.
And, despite calls for engagement, Ahmadinejad shows no inclination of abandoning those policies. He is continuing to pursue nuclear weapons and delivery systems that threaten the entire Middle East and parts of southern Europe. His government remains the major sponsor of Islamic terrorism, and has provided support for attacks that have killed scores of Israeli citizens and U.S. military personnel in Iraq. That sort of track record suggests that the Iran is not serious about negotiations with the U.S., and probably views potential talks as a little more than a ploy. Until Tehran actually changes its policies, both at home and abroad, the Bush Administration will be well-advised to keep the communications channels closed.
Apparently undeterred by that rejection, Iranian officials are still pushing for a new dialogue with Washington. Today's Washington Post reports that a number of Iranian officials have conveyed their desire (through intermediaries) for direct talks with the United States. The head of Iran's Supreme National Security Council recently passed that message to Mohammed El-Baradei (head of the International Atomic Energy Agency), for transmission to Secretary of State Condolezza Rice and National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley. Similar requests were conveyed through other channels, including Islamic nations friendly to the U.S. (Indonesia, Kuwait), European countries (France, Britain) and even U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan.
What's driving this sudden demand for direct talks? Experts interviewed by the Post believe that the recent requests signal a change in Iranian strategy. Readers will note that many of these experts seem to come from sectors of the government (including the CIA) that have consistently opposed Bush Administration policies toward Iran. Not surprisingly, most of these analysts view the Iranian request as genuine, and believe the U.S. should respond to Tehran's overture. The Post even managed to track down Paul Pillar, the former CIA analyst who was forced to retire from the agency last fall, after publicly criticizing the administration. Predictably, Pillar believes engagement is a good idea:
"Much stranger first steps have led to dialogues than this letter. And as weird as the letter may be, if the Iranians want to begin discussions based on the theme of righteousness, that's something we should not be afraid to engage on...We have pretty strong arguments about justice and righteousness of our own, so we should not shy away from that."
The salient question, of course, is why do the Iranians want to talk now, after refusing American gestures for years? The Post believes that Tehran wants to avoid a showdown over its nuclear program, and realizes the window for diplomacy is closing fast. Some experts also believe that the domestic situation has changed in Iran; with "reformers" now out of power, Ahmadinejad's hard-line government (a relative concept in Tehran) can now engage the U.S., claim credit for any successful negotiations and enhance its standing at home.
There may be an element of truth in that, but I'll take a more cynical view. Following the North Korean model, the Iranians have learned that the U.S. is reluctant to engage in military action while diplomatic efforts are underway, and may use any negotiations as a way to "buy time" for its nuclear development efforts. You'll recall that Washington began serious talks with Pyongyang about its nuclear program in the early 1990s; the disastrous "Agreed To" framework was a bonanza for North Korea. In exchange for supposedly giving up its nuclear ambitions, Pyongyang received security guarantees, shipments of oil from the U.S., and South Korean promises to build light-water reactors. The deal finally unraveled after the U.S. discovered that North Korea had violated the agreement by maintaining a clandestine development program, building nuclear weapons. But the agreement "bought" eight precious years for Pyongyang, allowing them to realize their nuclear ambitions.
Tehran has already demonstrated a similar "talk and stall" approach in recent nuclear discussions with Germany, France and Britain, and in negotiations with Moscow to shift uranium enrichment efforts to a Russian facility. Negotiations on these issues have been underway for more than a year, with no signs of progress. But even vague hopes for a diplomatic solution have been enough to sustain the process--and deter military action. By including Washington in the talks, Iran may believe it can buy even more time, forestall possible U.S. military action, and even prevent a potential Israeli military strike.
While millions of ordinary Iranians (and a few officials in the current government) genuinely want a dialogue with the United States, their desires must be measured against Tehran's recent policies toward our government and our citizens. Since the 1979 revolution, successive Iranian regimes have pursued policies that are contrary to U.S. interests, directly endanger American lives, and provide no realistic foundation for dialogue.
And, despite calls for engagement, Ahmadinejad shows no inclination of abandoning those policies. He is continuing to pursue nuclear weapons and delivery systems that threaten the entire Middle East and parts of southern Europe. His government remains the major sponsor of Islamic terrorism, and has provided support for attacks that have killed scores of Israeli citizens and U.S. military personnel in Iraq. That sort of track record suggests that the Iran is not serious about negotiations with the U.S., and probably views potential talks as a little more than a ploy. Until Tehran actually changes its policies, both at home and abroad, the Bush Administration will be well-advised to keep the communications channels closed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)