SITREP

Strategy Page has an excellent summary of the current situation in Iraq, and the problems facing the terrorists. As reported in several media outlets, U.S. intelligence recently obtained a letter written to terrorist leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, complaining about a lack of leadership and direction in the insurgency. According to the letter writer, Zarqawi keeps demanding more suicide attacks, without any apparent underlying strategy.

Reports from Iraq indicate that the terrorists are focusing heavily on Vehicle-Borne Improvised Explosive Devices (VBIEDs) as their primary weapon of choice. VBIED attacks in Iraq spiked dramatically in April, reaching their highest totals since last November. By comparison, the number of violent incidents remained relatively unchanged, running about 400 a week across the country. That's a 5o% reduction from last November, suggesting that the level of violence has not increased, but rather, the terrorists are concentrating on VBIED attacks.

But to what end? As Zarqawi's lieutenant indicated, the wave of vehicle bombings is having little impact on the resolve of coalition forces and the Iraqi public. That, in turn, seems to be producing a schism within the ranks of Iraqi-born insurgents, with some suggesting that it may be time to end the uprising and cooperate with the new government in Baghdad.

Reports of a division in the terrorist camp are nothing new; more than two months ago, there were reports of overtures between some insurgent elements and the coalition. And, even if some sort of deal can be reached, it won't mean an end to the violence in Iraq. There are still enough fanatics, dead-enders and foreign-born terrorists to sustain a lower level of violence for months--perhaps years--to come.

But the insurgent camp is far from unified, and it appears that our security efforts are having an effect on their strategy and tactics. Nabbing Zarqawi would put a major dent in the terrorist network, and it looks like his days are now numbered.

A Big Catch

Attention terrorists...Looking for a senior-level job in the world's top terrorist organization? Al Qaida apparently has an opening for a new operations director, following today's capture of Abu Farraj al-Libbi in Pakistan.

Al-Libbi, believed to be the #3 man in Al-Qaida was arrested in northern Pakistan after a shootout with security forces. The Libyan-born al-Libbi is a long-time associate of Osama bin Laden; he apparently took over the operations post in 2003, after the capture of his predecessor, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed (KSM).

Counter-terrorism officers hope that al-Libbi can lead them to bin Laden, but the captured Al Qaida planner may also yield important information about the group's organization, disposition and operational planning. The capture of KSM of provided similar information two years ago, and dealt a major blow to Al-Qaida.

By any definition, the arrest of al-Libbi is a very big catch, indeed. It may not lead to a quick capture of bin Laden, but it will drive the terrorist leader further underground, disrupt communications, and derail operational planning, at least for a while. Additionally, it may prove easy for us to get al-Libbi to talk. His choice? Make a deal with the Americans, or remain in Pakistani custody. The Paks would like to "talk" with al-Libbi about his role in the atttempted assassination of their President, Perverz Musharaff. And, since those conversations sometimes involve rubber hoses, al-Libbi may perfer to cast his lot with us.

Hypocrisy and the NYT

When it comes to pure, unadulterated hypocrisy, The New York Times has few equals. For more than a year, the paper was positively atwitter over the Valerie Plame affair. According to the Times, Ms. Plame's identity as a CIA operative was likely leaked by the Bush Administration, in retaliation for criticism of its Iraq WMD claims by former Ambassador Joe Wilson, Ms. Plame's husband.

As the NYT dutifully noted, it is against the law to knowingly reveal the identity of a CIA operative, putting the agent's life in jeopardy. But from the Times' perspective, that appears to be the only secret worth keeping. In today's editions, the paper printed excerpts from a classified Pentagon report, assessing the impact of our deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan on potential operations elsewhere. According to the report, the strain of on-going ops in the Middle East limits our ability to respond to crises in other locations, such as the Korean peninsula.

Revealing that sort of information is equally damaging to national security, but that is of little concern to the Times. Since the report supports the paper's anti-administration position, printing the report was a no-brainer. I'm sure Kim Jong-Il and his generals are delighted.

Funny, I don't recall seeing similar reports during the Clinton Foreign Policy World Tour of the mid-1990s. True, most of our ground forces weren't tied up in those operations, but a large chunk of our airpower was. Those efforts, coupled with no-fly zone enforcement over Iraq, would have made it difficult for Air Force, Navy and Marine aviation units to respond to a sudden crises in Korea or elsewhere. It was a concern that was stated many times during that era, in various Pentagon reports and analyses. I suppose those memos weren't released by the NYT, or (more likely) they never got around to publishing them. By the editorial standards of the Times, that was a secret that apparently required protection.

A full decade later, secret reports that support the paper's agenda are fair game. But such hypocrisy, of course, is part and parcel of the Times' worldview.

There's also a larger issue at work here. Too many media outlets are getting a free pass on publishing secrets that could potentially harm national security. Since the mid-1990s, there have been more than 600 major media leaks of classified information, resulting in lost information and blown intelligence sources. To date, there have been no indictments, and no convictions.

All Americans support a free press, but they also want a news media that is fair and responsible. What we don't know can kill us, and we're losing too much valuable information because reporters, editors and producers print and broadcast any classified report they get their hands on, with no regard for the consequences.

Once again, it's time to consider an American version of Britain's Official Secrets Act. If the media is unable to police itself (and clearly, it cannot), then maybe its time for the government to step in.

Hat Tip: http://wordunheard.com/

First Flight

Readers of this blog will quickly discover that I'm hardly a Europhile. Indeed there is much to dislike about the Western Europe of today, from their rampant anti-Americanism and abandonment of their Judeo-Christian roots, to their socialist approach to health care and economics.

But, in the interest of fairness, I'm willing to give our European friends some credit when they deserve it. And they deserve considerable credit for yesterday's successful first flight of the Airbus A380, the world's first "super-sized" jetliner. Capable of carrying more than 550 passengers, the A380 represents an 11-year, $13 billion gamble for the European consortium.
Airbus rival Boeing has elected not to develop a super jumbo jetliner, concentrating instead on smaller, 787 "Dreamliner."

Will Airbus's effort pay off? So far, it has orders for 154 A380s from such carriers as Air France, Lufthansa and Virgin (the first A380 will enter service next summer with Singapore Airlines on its trans-Pacific routes). Airbus needs at least 250 orders to break even on the project. Boeing, on the other hand, has 217 orders for the 787. With jet fuel prices soaring, some analysts believe the 787 makes more economic sense, carrying 250 passengers on long-haul routes now served by aircraft like the Boeing 747 and MD-11.

Which aircraft manufacturer made the right call? Only time will tell. But the sight of that huge jetliner climbing into the skies of France was impressive. But it's also worth noting that European governments put up about one-third of the A380's development costs. Without those subsidies, it's doubtful that the jetliner would have been built. Airbus believes the A380 will prove profitable, and that confidence is not misplaced. Now, Airbus needs to wean itself from government subsidies and compete on a level playing field with Boeing. Much has been made (in recent years) of Airbus gaining market share against its American rival. More impressive is Boeing's long history of developing and marketing new products, without underwriting from Washington.

The Politics of Torture

This week marks the one-year anniversary of the Abu Ghraib prison scandal. Massachusetts Senator Ted ("I'll have a Chivas") Kennedy saw fit to issue a press release on the subject. The infamous Senior Senator from the People's Republic (and estwhile driving instructor) has been conspiciously silent on our successes in Iraq, but misses no opportunity to bash our military, and sensationalize the actions of a few miscreants.

Let's put Abu Ghraib in perspective. This "scandal" has been investigated ad nauseum, and (so far) we've identified a handful of low-ranking guards as the culprits. There is no compelling evidence that senior officers or defense officials were aware of the activity, or condoned it. Results of a comprehensive Army investigation, released earlier this week, cleared a number of current commanders (including Lt Gen Ricardo Sanchez) of any wrongdoing. The Army inquiry lasted almost a year, and included interviews with hundreds of soliders and prisoners.

But that isn't good enough for the left, who still insist on trying to sustain the scandal. Human Rights Watch is out with their own, predictable report, alleging that Abu Ghraib is "just the tip of the iceberg" in terms of U.S. torturing Muslim detainees.

Funny, but Human Rights Watch and Senator Kennedy had little to say when four American contractors were brutally tortured and executed in Fallujah one year ago. They were also silent when Nicholas Berg and other American hostages were beheaded on camera by Islamic terrorists. And, I don't recall either the Senator or Human Rights Watch decrying the recent, videotaped murder of a Bulgarian helicopter crew member in Iraq.

But the moral hypocrisy doesn't end there. The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to hear an appeal by former U.S. POWs from the first Gulf War, who sued the Iraqi government for injuries suffered as a result of Saddam's torture. The POWs won their case initially, but the verdict was overturned by a federal appellate court. According to the court, U.S. POWs are not entitled to damages that would be paid from frozen Iraqi accounts in American banks.

I'm not a lawyer, but I'll predict that at least one Muslim detainee will eventually sue the U.S. for his suffering at the hands of U.S. military personnel. I'll also predict that liberal lawyers (perhaps from the ACLU) will gladly sign-on, to assist him with his court battle. Meanwhile, other Americans--mostly military members and defense contractors--will continue to be tortured and killed by terrorists and their supporters. And apparently, no one gives a damn.

Where Are They Now?

John Walker. Aldrich Ames. Robert Hanssen. They are America's most notorious spies; men who gave away some of the nation's most guarded secrets for financial gain. Their legacy is measured in lives lost, and lasting damage to our national security.

But what happened after their high-profile trial ended, when they were led away in shackles, and the TV lights went out? Most Americans assume that Walker, Ames, Hanssen and other spies are spending the rest of their lives in federal, high-security prisons, a fitting punishment for their heinous crimes.

Unfortunately, that assumption isn't already accurate. A friend of mine, who works for the Federal Bureau of Prisons, recently passed along a list of 16 convicted spies, who inflicted grave damage to national security. Surprisingly, only five on that list--Ames, Hanssen, James D. Harper and George Trofimoff, and Brian Regan--are actually serving life sentences, with no possibility of parole. Three convicted spies, Christopher Boyce and Andrew Daulton Lee (of "The Falcon and the Snowman fame) were released in the late 1990s, along with William Kampiles, a former CIA employee who sold a Top Secret spy satellite manual to the Soviets. Kampiles, incidentally, served less than half of his 40-year sentence before being paroled.

The rest have scheduled release dates over the next 18 years, a list that includes John Walker, Ronald Pelton, Ana Montes (a DIA analyst who passed extremely sensitive information to Cuba), FBI turncoat Earl Edwin Pitts, and Jonathan Pollard, the Navy intelligence analyst wo passed classified information to Israel. John Walker's projected release date is 2015; along with his brother Arthur (also convicted of spying for the Soviets) and Pelton, who betrayed the NSA's Ivory Bells program. Montes scheduled release date is 2023.

It may also surprise you to learn where America's traitors are serving their sentences. Only one--Robert Hanssen--is confined at the federal SuperMax penetintary in Florence, CO, where prisoners spend 23 hours a day in solitary confinement. Three others--Ames, Pelton and Brian Regan--are incarcerated at high security prisons, and three more spies, Army turncoat David Boone, James D. Harper, Steven Lalas, and Pitts are confined at medium security facilities. The rest, Pollard, Trofimoff (the highest ranking military officer ever convicted of spying) and Arthur Walker are housed at a low-security prison in Butner, North Carolina. John Walker is currently a patient at a federal prison medical center in Springfield, Missouri, while Ana Montes, is doing time at a minimum-security prison hospital near Ft. Worth, Texas.

Make no mistake; serving a sentence in federal prison is no picnic, and many of the spies will have spent decades behind bars by the time they are released (John and Arthur Walker will be 80 and 77, respectively, in 2015). But the severity of their crimes--and the damage they caused to our nation's security--it seems incomprehensible that any of them will have another shot at freedom, even if they go from jail to a retirement home. It also seems a bit odd that only a handful are incarcerated in maximum security prisons and just one convicted spy (Hanssen) is assigned to the SuperMax.

I can't explain the vagaries of the federal justice system, but one thing is clear. American turncoats have inflicted crippling damage on our national security over the past 30 years, and their legacy is literally measured in blood. Perhaps we'd have fewer espionage cases if federal prosecutors tried accused spies for treason instead of espionage, and judges and juries imposed the maximum penalty for that crime--death. And, for those convicted of espionage, life in the SuperMax without the possibility of parole seems a fitting sentence. Robert Hanssen needs some company.

A Major Find

The noose continues to tighten around terrorist mastermind Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. ABC News is reporting that Zarqawi recently eluded capture at a U.S. checkpoint in Baghdad, but he left behind a vertiable goldmine of information--on his computer.

Zarqawi's laptop is now being exploited by U.S. intelligence agencies, and it is expected to provide valuable insights on the terrorist network in Iraq, and its connections to Al-Qaida.

There's one more thing I hope we find on Zarqawi's computer--his relationship to Al Jazerra. The Qatar-based Arab "news" channel has a long history of being in the right place before terrorist attacks, and is always the first to air Zarqawi's gruesome hostage videos.

Dorrance Smith, former executive producer of ABC's This Week With David Brinkley (back in the days when that program was the gold standard for Sunday talk shows), recently had some thoughts on the relationships between terrorists, Al-Jazerra, and the American networks. Mr. Smith offers sage advice, cautioning producers against airing every bit of terrorist video, and aiding their cause . Predictably, his counsel will be ignored in America's broadcast newsrooms.

The Syrian Connection?

The Iraq Survey Group's final report is out, and it finds no evidence that Saddam's weapons of mass destruction made their way to Syria before the U.S. invasion in 2003.

While the survey group released its preliminary report months ago, the version released yesterday was designed to tie up a few loose ends, including the Syria question.

But the report doesn't completely rule out a Syria connection. As the panel notes, "investigators were unable to rule out unofficial movement of limited WMD-related materials" in the months before the war began.

It should be noted that the ISG's report, while volumnious, is based on limited data. Of the 300 former regime officials on the coalition blacklist, only 105 have been detained; almost 200 remain at large, including many with reported ties to Saddam's chemical, biological and nuclear programs. Some of those officials are now residing in Syria (a rather interesting coincidence), where they remain out of reach.

Kenneth Timmerman, one of the best investigative reporters in the business, has a different take on the WMD issue. In the most recent issue of Insight magazine, he notes that the search for WMD was more successful than many believe, producing firm evidence that Saddam retained an active interest in chemical and biological weapons, and potential delivery platforms.

Timmerman also asks a fundamental question: did U.S. investigators have false expectations during the search? After a decade of dodging UN inspectors and sanctions, Saddam may have used simple, legal, and effective measures to hide his programs, stockpiling large quantities of precursor chemicals at known WMD research centers. That would have allowed Saddam to quickly resurrect his programs after sanctions ended.

The ISG report is being accepted as the Gospel Truth in the intelligence community; the official party line is that there were no WMD in Iraq. But a lot of spooks--current and former--aren't quite ready to close the WMD book just yet. We won't have the final answer until we capture more of the suspects on the black list, and get regime change in Damascus. After than happens, we may see the issue in a slightly different light.

The New Intelligence Paradigm

A rather interesting document recently crossed my desk. It's a series of PowerPoint slides, based on a recent presentation by one of our National Intelligence Officers (NIO), detailing the planned paradigm shift in the Intelligence Community.

For those outside the spook world, NIOs fall just below the new Director of National Intelligence (DNI) and the agency directors. They are the "bishops" of the IC, charged with translating broad doctrine and principles into marching orders for the intel masses. I won't identify the NIO who gave this presentation, which, BTW, was NOT classified. The briefing was apparently delivered in the D.C. area in late March of this year.

I believe the NIO's remarks are important, because they outline a major cultural change within our intel agencies, and the way the do business. As someone who labored in the intelligence salt mines for more than two decades, I must say that this paradigm shift is way overdue. Regrettably, it took the double debacle of 9-11 and claims about WMD in Iraq to finally prompt a change.

The NIO covered a number of key points in his talk, which lasted almost two hours. Some of the more salient observations are listed below:

-- To adapt to the changing intelligence needs of key consumers (read the President, SecDef and Joint Cheifs of Staff), an even higher priority will be assigned to current intelligence, with emphasis on the following qualities.

--- Timeliness: "If you have a bit of data, put it out."

--- Disregard for D.C. Political Agendas: "Let the chips fall where they may."

--- Keep the Customer Informed: "Don't get caught having not reported something important to policymakers.

--- Speed: Cut out internal staffing--very short suspenses--get the info to the right consumer ASAP

--- Initiative: "Don't wait for tasking; anticipate and produce without waiting for someone to develop a requirement. Don't wait to do long-term analyses; don't worry about end-use analysis

--- Risk Taking: Analysts and IC managers must be willing to take risks on incomplete analysis.

--- Provide Alternate Viewpoints: List as many alternate viewpoints as you can think of.

To anyone in the business world, these guidelines may not seem revolutionary. But in the IC, implementation of these concepts represents a new way of doing business. Too many agencies--and analysts--remain trapped in their own little comfort zone, worried more about empire building and resource protection than delivering essential intelligence for policy-makers and warfighters.

Will this approach work? Let's be charitable and say the jury's definitely out on that one. As the WMD Commission noted, intelligence agencies are extremely resistent to change, and they've ignored reform efforts in the past. Beyond that, there's the challenge of actually holding agencies and anlysts accountable. President Bush's refusal to fire George Tenent after 9-11 spoke volumes about the lack of accountability in the intel community. But there's a more serious accountability problem in the community's day-to-day operations. Middle managers are often inept, and analysts are often left to their own devices, producing as much or little as they chose.

A case in point: a former colleague of mine took an analyst job for one of the armed services after retiring from active duty. After about a month on the job, the section supervisor passed on his production plan for the year. As a senior analyst, with almost two decades of intel experience, this analyst was tasked to produce exactly five products in 12 months. And BTW, these products could be something as simple as a few paragraphs contributed to a larger study, or a one-page note for a current intelligence briefing. For this effort, my friend was paid in excess of $70,000 a year. As he noted (with only a touch of irony) one that production plan, it would have been cheaper to pay me by the word.

Being conscientious, this analyst exceeded his production quota four-fold, and quickly became a recognized expert in his field. But many of his co-workers barely met their quotas, and many didn't produce at all. More disturbingly, there was no effort to enforce standards, or even develop production plans within individual teams, or analytical sections.

The new intelligence paradigm represents a welcome change, but the devil's in the details. Without better mid-level management--and more dedicated analysts--the IC will be hard-pressed to meet new production requirements. Solving those problems may be the greatest challenge facing the IC, and its efforts to reform. The NIOs and other senior managers have the right ideas, but implementing them--and making them work--is a different story.

e

Ward Churchill is Just the Tip of the Iceberg

Before you write another tuition check, or make another payment to your child's college fund, consider these recent examples of academia run amok. And remember: your tax and tuition dollars are helping to fund this indoctrination of our sons and daughters.

Hat tip: Maggie's Farm.

Meanwhile, On the Frontlines....

While Zarqawi plots, all is not well on the front lines of homeland security. The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is making a strong case for its own shuttering. Seems the agency has been wasting big bucks on some questionable purchases, and some of its employees appear guilty of old-fashioned fraud.

Some of us once held out hope for TSA. Now, the best option appears to be downsizing the agency, leaving only a few bureaucrats to supervise screening efforts by private contractors. A recent government report suggests that approach is more effective than a fully-federalized screener force. Duh.

Money being wasted on TSA would be better spent on federalizing our borders (now, there's a pipe dream), or increasing inspections of air and sea cargo. But don't hold your breath....

Zarqawi's Nuclear Option

From today's Washington Times comes the disturbing news that terrorist mastermind Abu Musab Zarqawi has obtained a nuclear device, or is preparing a so-called "dirty bomb," in preparation for an attack, probably against an American target.

How much credibility should we assign to such claims? That's difficult to say. The Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) has published a series of reports on this subject in recent months, but so far, there's no smoking gun that would provide definitive proof of Zarqawi's nuclear/radiological capabilities, or his intentions.

Let's try to seperate the wheat from the chaff in this assessment. First, while acknowledging that there are mechanisms which could give Zarqawi a nuclear bomb, I still believe that possibility is remote, particularly since Zarqawi is currently under a lot of pressure in his new base of operations, Iraq. There is the possibility that Zarqawi might have "farmed out" the operation to subordinates outside Iraq, but (once again) we lack conclusive proof.

Regarding a dirty bomb, that's a more realistic possibility. It would be far easier to obtain radiological material, pack it in explosives, smuggle it to an American city, and detonate the device. And certainly, Zarqawi and his Al-Qaida allies have been thinking about this option for some time. But available information also tells us that terrorists have, so far, been unable to bring their plans to fruition. If Zarqawi has a dirty bomb, it reflects a substantial improvement in his logistical, transportation, and technological capabilties, despite a worsening situation in Iraq.

Bottom line: I think Zarqawi's "nuclear" or radiological options are still remote possibilities, but definitely within the realm of possibilities. And there's the rub. By merely exploring these options (or planting rumors among informers), Zarqawi forces the U.S. to devote considerable time and effort to run these reports to ground. Meanwhile, Zarqawi is free to plan other attacks, using more conventional means.

Its the new paradigm of national security. Since 9-11, we've been forced to confront a host of potential threats, no matter how remote they might be. Real or imagined, we cannot ignore the threat of nuclear or radiological attacks, and Zarqawi knows it. It's a highly effective tactic, and even if his WMD cupboard is bare, the terrorist leader will keep playing the nuclear and dirty bomb cards because they work.

Religious Intolerance

The U.S. Air Force Academy (USAFA) is under fire--again. Two years after a major rape scandal rocked the academy, the institution is being attacked again, this time for supposed religious intolerance.

According to an AP report, there have been 55 complaints of religious discrimination filed at the academy over the past four years. In one case, a Jewish cadet was reportedly called a "Christ killer" by one of his classmates. A 1977 Jewish academy graduate claims one of his sons (now a cadet at the USAFA has been called a "dirty Jew" on several occasions). Other cadets contend that Evangelical Christians wield too much influence at the academy, and the public endorsement of Christianity by senior officers has created a climate of fear at the institution.

Clearly, religious bigotry should never be tolerated, and academy officials are addressing the problem. The academy recently started a 50-minute, mandatory course on "religious tolerance." Academy officials have also put an end to other practices, such as holding commissioning ceremonies at local churches.

Does this sound like overkill? Yes. The USAFA has a rigid discipline code. Cadets who engage in religious discrimination or bigotry should be punished--immediately. Sensitivity training on a massive scale won't solve the problem--it never does.

But there's something more disturbing at work here. Religion in the U.S. military is increasingly under attack, and officers and NCOs who identify themselves as born-again believers are the target. Consider the example of Brigadier General Johnny Weida, the USAFA's Commandant of Cadets. General Weida has been criticized for a 2003 statement, when he told the cadets that their "first responsibility was to God."

Imagine that. A senior leader in the U.S. military tells future officers that they have a responsibility to a higher power. You'll note that General Weida (a born-again Christian) never defined "God," leaving plenty of room for theological flexibility. Sounds like a good foundation for future leaders to me. More than a few military leaders have been men (and women) of faith, but in today's PC climate, any suggestion of the diety is simply not allowed. Never mind that 90% of the academy's cadets identify themselves as Christians, nor that they live in a country founded on Judeo-Christian principles, nor the fact that any cadet at the academy is free to worship in his or her own way.

I have a friend (now retired) who had his own battles with religious tolerance in the USAF. As an ROTC instructor, he once served at a summer camp at an Air Force base in Texas. During the middle of the program, he was approached by several cadets who informed him that they were Wiccans. After a crash course in the Wiccan "faith," my friend and the camp's other officers allowed the cadets to practice their faith during a field training exercise. His rules were clear: your observance can't interfere with mandatory training, and all Wiccan devotees will remain clothed during their religious ceremonies.

BTW, that incident came a few weeks after some irate Wiccans trashed the base chapel, upset that they had not been given full access to that facility. The left would call that free speech. I would call it religious intolerance.

In the interest of disclosure, let me state that I am NOT a graduate of the Air Force Academy. While I admire the institution (and some of its graduates) I earned my commission the old-fashioned way, through 13 weeks at Officer Training School, after four years as an NCO.

The Case for Tribunals

Since the first Taliban and Al Qaida captives began arriving at Guantanamo almost four years ago, the ACLU has been in an uproar over U.S. plans to try suspected terrorists in military tribunals, rather than the federal court system.

You can debate the legal status of the detainees all day, but the best case for tribunals can be found in federal court room, where the trail of Zacarias Moussaoui, the suspected 9-11 conspirator, drags on and on.

The latest twist in the case is that Moussaoui wants to plead guilty (again). The made the offer before, then changed his mind. In between, he's taken a stab at representing himself, bombarding U.S. District Judge Leonie Brinkema with filings filled with racist language. In one motion, Moussaoui said he "wanted anthrax for the Jew sympathizer." Judge Brinkema finally stripped Moussaoui of the right to defend himself in 2003, and the case has lurched along ever since. The trail has been delayed at least three times, and there are lingering questions as to whether Moussaoui is mentally competent.

I say Moussaoui is crazy--crazy like a fox. He's become adept at playing the legal system, deliberately turning his trial into an excruciating legal exercise, with no end in sight, unless, of course, he decides to go through with a plea bargin and doesn't change his mind (again).

There are more than 500 suspected terrorists now in U.S. custody. Multiply the Moussaoui mess by even half that number, and you'll get some idea of the legal logjam that Al Qaida and Taliban suspects would create within our federal court system. More than a few of the detainees are bright, college-educated, and more than capable of using the legal system to their advantage. And, of course, there are more than a few ACLU lawyers willing to assist in their legal battles.

That's why tribunals make so much sense. Take a look at the train wreck called the Moussaoui case, and you'll see a legal disaster that could have been inflicted on our entire court system. In the War on Terrorism, that's the last thing we need.

The Enemy Within (Part II)

On this 10th anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing, the mainstream press is re-visiting the subject of domestic terrorism. Yesterday, ABC News broadcast a report based on a secret FBI report, highlighting home-grown terrorist groups that still pose a threat to national security.

In his piece for World News Tonight, "Chief Investigative Correspondent" Brian Ross focused on right-wing hate groups, notably the Aryan Nation and National Alliance. While Ross is correct in his describing these groups (and their leaders) as viable threats, he never mentions the left-wing extremist groups that may be even more dangerous. At the top of that list is Earth First, the environmental terrorist squad responsible for a number of attacks against developments and SUV dealerships, primarily in the west and southwest. And, unlike the Neo-Nazi movement, law enforcement has been unable to penetrate the environmental terrorist groups.

We should keep an eye on the right-wing nut jobs, but law enforcement and homeland security officials need to pay more attention to the radical, left-wing fringe. Their ability to recruit, organize, and conduct high-profile attacks is impressive, and they operate with virtual impunity. More disturbingly, their hatred of the American economy and "consumer culture" makes them a natural ally for Middle Eastern terrorists. ABC News ought to devote some air time--and investigative resources--to that frightening possibility.

Israel Looks East

There will be an important change at the top of Israel's military hierarchy later this summer, as Major General Dan Halutz becomes the new Chief of Staff for the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF).

Normally, the appointment of a new Israeli Chief of Staff doesn't merit much attention, except at the Pentagon and (perhaps) the U.S. Embassy in Tel Aviv. But the appointment of General Halutz is significant, for a couple of reasons.

First, Halutz is the first Israeli Air Force (IAF) officer to serve as Chief of Staff, equivalent to our Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman. Since the IDF's inception in 1948, an Army officer has typically held the top military job, reflecting the primacy of the Israeli Army as guarantor of state security.

Appointment of Halutz suggests the IAF is now the most important branch of the IDF, and recent history tends to support that assertion. IAF fighters staged the successful strike that destroyed Iraq's nuclear reactor in 1981. Fourteen years later, they mounted a daring raid across the Mediterranean, striking PLO Headquarters in Tunis (and nearly killing Yasser Arafat). More recently, IDF Apache helicopters have been instrumental in eliminating leaders of the Intifada, and reducing the terrorist threat. Intelligence support for those missions has been provided, in part, by IAF reconnaissance UAVs, which helped identify and track terrorist leaders.

Halutz is also one of the few Israeli officials who have openly discussed the possibility of an air strike against Iran's nuclear facilities. During his tenure as Israeli Air Force Commander, Halutz supervised the integration of the F-15I into the IAF inventory. The Israeli version of the USAF F-15E Strike Eagle, the F-15I was acquired specifically to deal with long range threats, such as Iran's nuclear facilities and ballistic missile force. Halutz has confirmed that the IAF has the capability to stage long-range strikes against Iran, although the scope and intensity of those attacks might be limited.

The ascendancy of Major General Halutz signals a potentially significant shift in Israeli defense policy. With the intifada now essentially under control, the "security fence" nearing completion, and Israelis leaving the Gaza Strip and selected settlements in the West Bank, the IDF is now concentrating on more distant (and potentially menacing) threats. With General Halutz as Chief of Staff, Prime Minister Sharon believe he has a man with the background and expertise to deal with the Iranian problem, if the need arises.

General Halutz is not without controversy. After an Apache strike that killed a terrorist leader and his family, Halutz said he "slept well at night," a remark that struck liberal members of the Knesset as insensitive and inflammatory. A number of politicians and reserve IDF officers actually petitioned the Israeli Supreme Court to block his nomination as Chief of Staff. Their request was denied.

Halutz is, by most accounts, a brillant and charismatic leader. He is also (reportedly) a favorite of PM Sharon, a man who has, in the past, favored decisive action to deal with emerging threats. General Halutz begins his tour as Chief of Staff in July, as Iran approaches "the red line" in its nuclear weapons development effort. At that point, it will be up to General Halutz to recommend a course of action to the Prime Minister. If his record is any indication, Halutz will not shy away from a decisive option.

A Clarification?

CNN is offering a slightly different take on the Sharon story...in an interview with that network, the Israeli Prime Minister said his nation will not attack Iran to destroy its nuclear program. Sharon said he did not see unilateral action as a viable option, and called again for an international coalition to deal with Iran's nuclear program. Mr. Sharon said Iran is still "years away" from having a nuclear bomb, but will acquire the expertise to produce weapons in "a matter of months."

I'm not sure which network spoke to Mr. Sharon first; if the CNN interview came later, the Israeli Prime Minister may have been trying to soften his comments, probably to avoid antagonizing his American hosts.

But one issue remains unclear. At what juncture will Iran pass that "point of no return?" Israel will remain vague on that issue. But, judging from his comments to FNC, I tend to believe that timeline is measured in months, not years.

The Point of No Return

It's a given that Israel will not allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons. Today, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon suggested that the moment of reckoning may be at hand.

In an interview with Jennifer Griffin of Fox News Channel, Mr. Sharon noted that "Iran is at the point of no return...threats of international sanctions must be issued." Sharon also indicated that Iran has only a few more "technical obstacles to overcome" in acquiring the expertise needed to develop nuclear weapons.

In the past, a number of Israeli leaders have stated that Iran will not be allowed to reach the point of no return. But they've been unusually vague in saying when that point might be reached. Previously, some Israeli officials suggested that Iran wouldn't have the know-how to build a nuclear bomb for several years.

Iran's nuclear program was a major topic of discussion in the recent meeting between Sharon and President Bush. During their conversations, the Israeli Prime Minister reportedly urged Mr. Bush to take the lead on Iran, and not wait on European diplomatic efforts. The implication is clear; if no one else acts, Israel is prepared to use military action--probably air strikes--against Iran's nuclear facilities.

It's not a line in the sand, but Israel's patience is clearly wearing thin. And that puts the U.S. in a very difficult position. Our leverage with Tehran is virtually non-existent, and European diplomacy apparently can't deliver a solution that's acceptable to Israel. If we can't find a workable solution in the coming months, the Israeli Air Force will be heading east, and possibly very soon.

Share Your Story

From Polipundit, here's a classic example of the liberal versus conservative mindset. Massachusetts Senator (and defeated presidential candidate) John Kerry (did you know he served in Vietnam?) is asking readers to share stories about hardships experienced by military members (and their familes) during deployments to Afghanistan.

Kerry's website contains a link, where visitors can post their own tales of hardship and misery. Rather than focus on the remarkable achievements of our military personnel, Senator Kerry would rather hear about the difficulties they've experienced.

Make no mistake: deployment to a combat zone is tough, for the military member and their families. But the overwhelming majority have weathered those trials and tribulations just fine, thank you. Could we do more for military personnel and the spouses and children they leave behind? Possibly. But soliciting stories of harship and difficulty for political gain is beneath contempt.

Here's a better idea...I can't claim credit for this one, but a number of bloggers are encourging readers to e-mail Senator Kerry and encourage him to share his story with the rest of us, by signing the DD Form 180, which will make all of his military records public. He made that promise a couple of months ago, but (predictably) hasn't followed through.

Sign the form, Senator, and release your records. Now, that's one story worth sharing.

A Picture is Worth a Thousand Words

Drudge has a link to this interesting report from a newspaper in the United Arab Emirates. According to the paper (based on Israeli radio reports) an Israeli military attache presented aeria photos of Iran's nuclear facilities during the recent meeting between Prime Minister Sharon and President Bush.

Make no mistake, I have the utmost respect for Israeli intelligence; their military intelligence directorate is extremely competent professional, and the Mossad is among the world's best at old-fashioned, cloak-and-dagger spying.

But I rather doubt the Israelis did a PowerPoint briefing for the President during his talks with Mr. Sharon, for a couple of reasons. During my intel career, I worked a few exchanges with the Israelis. They are usually close-hold with their information, and typically offer data in hopes of getting us to share our information. Additionally, U.S. imagery capabilities are superior to those of Israel, and I'm not sure what additional details the Israeli images might reveal.

Iif the Israelis were playing show-and-tell at the summit, their "show" was likely aimed at getting us to tell more about our knowledge of Iran and its nuclear program.

The Report

It’s been almost two weeks since a Presidential Commission released its report on the intelligence failures surrounding Iraq’s WMD program. After a predictable surge of media coverage and public interest, the debate about fixing our intelligence community has seemingly faded once again.

I’ve refrained from commenting on the commission’s findings because, unlike most pundits, I actually wanted to read the report first. At just over 600 pages, it’s a little shorter than a Tom Clancy novel, and not as riveting as the 9-11 Commission Report. But the intelligence panel’s assessment is an equally important document, and required reading for anyone concerned about national security, and fixing our intelligence system.

Obviously, time and space don’t permit a full discussion of the entire report. But I will offer a few observations on the general problems facing our intelligence community (as identified by the commission) as well as recommended “fixes.”

The Intelligence Community (IC) is fragmented, loosely managed and poorly coordinated. Talk about an understatement; as the panel observes, our intelligence apparatus is a community in “name only,” and rarely acts with unity of purpose. Creation of the new Director of National Intelligence (DNI) is a necessary first step toward better management and coordination, but it’s unclear whether the new DNI (Ambassador John Negroponte) has the time—and the skills—needed to unify and coordinate the actvitities of 15 different intelligence agencies.

The Intelligence Community is too slow to change the way it does business. Amen. From personnel recruitment to collection methods, the IC is rigid, inflexible, and often unable to adapt to an ever-changing threat environment. Creating a nimble, responsive IC (is than an oxymoror?) will require a complete cultural change—a veritable Herculean feat (more on that later)

Intelligence Agencies are prone to developing risk-averse cultures that take outside advice badly. The commission makes a strong case that rejecting reform is the one thing our intelligence agencies do best. In fact, the IC has an almost perfect record of resisting internal changes. It’s a system where there are no rewards for innovative analysis and every incentive for supporting the status quo. Adopting this mindset, it becomes relatively easy to see how analysts—and intelligence agencies—were eager to hop on the Iraqi WMD bandwagon.

These problems—and others-- are hardly surprising, given the revelations of the past three years. It doesn’t take Porter Goss to figure out that our intelligence analysis often lacks rigor, our human intelligence (HUMINT) is poor and the various intelligence agencies often fail to share information. But other findings are more surprising, particularly to an American public that believes our intel organizations are sleek and omniscent. But in reality, intel agencies are facing new challenges that threaten collection efforts, and may potentially jeopardize our security. These challenges include:

Decreased Access in Signals Intelligence. The revolution in telecommunications technology—fiber optics, commercially-available encryption systems—have reduced our ability to monitor enemy communications. As the commission notes, the IC lost access to critical Iraqi communications well before the war began, denying access to important information. Other potential adversaries are also taking advantage of advances in telecommunications, resulting in additional intelligence gaps. Regaining our edge in signals intelligence is imperative, and it will require a greater willingness to accept financial costs, political risks and even human casualties.

Declining Utility of Traditional Imagery Intelligence Against Unconventional Weapons Programs. With information on our satellite programs readily available from a variety of sources—including the internet—adversaries have found it easier to defeat overhead imagery systems, denying another source of potential information on WMD efforts. Availability of this information, coupled with enemy efforts at denial and deception (D&D) and dual-use technologies, have created a dilemma for intelligence analysts and policy-makers. As the commissioners observed, “we can get piles of incredibly sharp photos of a adversary’s chemical factories and still not know much about his chemical weapons program. Too often what we can’t see doesn’t tell us what we need to know about nuclear, biological or chemical weapons.”

I’ll address the commission’s report (and it’s findings) in greater detail in future posts. But for now, consider this: the U.S. intelligence community is at the most important cross-roads in its history. With the nation more reliant on intelligence than ever before, the IC must quickly find a way to reform its practices and technology, to avoid future disasters like 9-11 and WMD in Iraq. And, as always, identifying the problems is the easy part. Forging expedient solutions is the hard part, and the devil is truly in the details…

Ground Truth

This blog was among the first to report the recent, dramtic decrease in enemy attacks against our military forces in Iraq. Despite a slight increase in insurgent activity in recent days, the overall level of violence is 55-60% below the levels of last November and December. The number of violent incidents--nationwide--is running about 300 a week, substantially below the levels reported during last year's Mahdi Army rebellion, and the run-up to the Iraqi elections in January.

Elements of the MSM initially suggested that the rebels were simply regrouping, looking to modify their tactics--and targeting--in the wake of the successful election. As we pointed out, there was also a military reason behind the drop in violence. Our successful offensive in Fallujah last November eliminated more than 1,000 terrorists--and a major base for insurgent operations. Subsequent raids killed more terrorists and provided actionable intelligence that led to the arrest of key aids of Al-Zarqawi, dealing another major blow to the insurgents.

It doesn't take a military analyst to see that the tide is turning in Iraq. And now, like a bloodhound with a sinus condition, the MSM may have finally caught the sent of this important story. CBSNews.com recently reprinted an NRO column by James Robbins, who notes the desperate nature of last weekend's terrorist attack on the Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad. Launched in an effort to "free the brothers and sisters held there," this raid (apparently staged by Al Qaida elements) was a spectacular failure. Perhaps one-third of the 50 attackers died; no U.S. soliders or Marines were killed, and not a single prisoner was freed.

Terrorists claimed by the attack was a great success, but (as Mr. Robbins notes), with a few more "victories" like this, the insurgency will soon be over. Someone might want to e-mail Robbins' column to Martha Raddatz, the Pentagon correspondent for ABC News. In her recent report on the Abu Ghraib attack, she sounded grave warnings about its significance, noting the level of planning and coordination required to execute that operation. Predictably, Ms. Raddatz misses the salient point; the prison raid was a resounding defeat for the terrorists, and reflects an increasing sense of desperation in their tactics.

A Hint of Things to Come

Security and intelligence officials have long feared that terrorists will launch suicide attacks inside the U.S. Strapping on an explosive vest, then detonating the bomb (and yourself) inside a crowded bus, subway or store is an effective tactic, guaranteed to generate fear and panic among Americans who have never faced this threat before.

Are terror groups considering suicide bombings in the United States? Today's New York Times reports that two teenage Muslim girls may have been involved in such a plot. Authorities in New York City detained the two girls late last month, after the apparent plot was discovered. One of the teenagers emigrated to the U.S. from Bangladesh, the other from the African nation of Guinea. Fox News has an update on the case.

Details are still sketchy and it's unclear how close the plot came to fruition. But it underscores the continuing threat to our homeland--and the willingness of Islamic terrorists to use all available means to launch new attacks.

Suicide bombings in the U.S. are not a matter of if, but when. As the Israelis have learned, even the most effective security system cannot protect every single building, street corner or transit system. However, the Israelis have had success in reducing the frequency of those attacks, by employing aggressive counter-intelligence measures, and targeting the leaders of terrorist groups. It's an example we may be forced to follow, and sooner rather than later.

The Disenfranchised

It's become a familiar refrain in every election cycle; Democrats claiming that large numbers of minority voters were denied the right to vote, followed by demands for re-counts and frivilous lawsuits.

Turns out that a large bloc of voters was actually disenfranchised during the 2004 election. According to a recent survey, as many as one in four ballots from this group weren't counted last year. Can you identify the group?

Hint: Al Gore's lawyers tried to disenfranchise them in 2000.

Hat tip: Polipundit.

Domestic Intelligence

Between the demands of work (and a recent business trip to Florida), I'm still trying to make my way through the recent presidential commission report on intelligence failures related to WMD in Iraq. So far, I'm about half-way through the 600-page document, and I hope to have some thoughts on the report this weekend.

Meanwhile, Judge Richard Posner has weighed in the commission and his findings. Judge Posner is one of the most formidable intellects on the federal bench, and his writings are always worth a read. In an op-ed for today's Washington Post, the judge notes that "intelligence failures" are sometimes the product of system limitations, and not the result of human error. The judge also makes a strong case for establishment of a domestic intelligence service, something many spooks (current and former) have advocated for years.

Snubbed

Former President Jimmy Carter is reportedly in a snit, after being excluded from the official U.S. delegation that will attend the funeral of Pope John Paul II.

The "official" account of the travel imbroligo (printed in today's Washington Post), suggests that Mr. Carter asked to attend the funeral, as part of the delegation, then withdrew his request after being told the U.S. contingent would be limited to only five seats. Those chairs will be filled by President Bush, his wife Laura, former Presidents Bill Clinton and George H.W. Bush, and Secretary of State Condolezza Rice.

However, some Democrats (and Mr. Carter's friends in the MSM) are suggesting he was snubbed by the Bush Administration, perhaps for his strident criticism of U.S. foreign policy-- including the War in Iraq--during the run-up to last year's Presidential election.

Republicans counter with another version of the story. On Sunday, barely 24 hours after the Pope died, a Carter aide brazenly informed the White House that "Mr. Carter would be happy to lead the U.S. delegation, if President Bush did not plan to attend." The former President subsequently learned that yes, Mr. Bush would attend, and no, his services would not be required.

We may never know exactly what transpired, but I tend to side with the latter version of this episode. Mr. Carter's post-presidential career has been largely devoted to rehabilitating his image, which was thoroughly tarnished by the myriad failures of his administration. This process dictates frequent public exposure, allowing Mr. Carter to assume the mantel of elder statesman. Whether he actually deserves that status will be left to the judgement of history.

On a more practical level, there are plenty of reasons to leave Mr. Carter back in Georgia. During his Presidency, he had the opportunity to attend not one, but two, papal funerals (Pope Paul VI and John Paul I), but for some reason, he elected to stay home. One wonders if the Vatican felt "snubbed" by those presidential no-shows.

More importantly, Mr. Carter sometimes espoused positions and policies that ran counter to those of John Paul II. While the Pope backed pro-Democratic forces behind the Iron Curtain, President Carter was urging better relations with the former Soviet Union, which expanded its influence during the late 1970s. Mr. Carter and the Pope offered an interesting dichotomy; the American President embracing Soviet leader Breznehv, while John Paul told his fellow Poles "be not afraid."

Mr. Carter also declined to establish full diplomatic relations with the Vatican, a situation corrected by his successor, Ronald Reagan. Under Mr. Reagan, the U.S. forged a close working relationship with Pope John Paul, working toward the common goal of ending communism in Eastern Europe. During his first meeting with the pontiff, President Reagan reportedly asked John Paul when communism would fall. "In my lifetime," the Pope replied. Reagan and his advisers recognized that John Paul was serious, and represented a powerful ally in the fight against the "Evil Empire." We can only speculate why Mr. Carter didn't make similar overtures during his presidency, particularly after the Pope's dramatic 1979 visit to Poland that helped spark the Solidarity movement.

Additionally, Mr. Carter enjoyed a chummy relationship with the Sandinista government in Nicaragua, a regime that tried to embarass the Pope during a visit to that country. During an appearance in Managua, Sandinista technicians used a back-up sound system to drown the Pope's remarks with pro-regime shouts and slogans. Clearly agitated, John Paul shouted "silencio" to the crowd, as he tried to finish his sermon. The Sandinistas were upset because the Pope opposed "revolution theology," the virulent philosophy that endorsed insurgent violence, and placed bishops and priests in league with Marxists. Sandinista leaders saw the Managua event as an opportunity to humiliate the Pope and score cheap political points. To my knowledge, Mr. Carter never repudiated the Sandinistas, nor their shameful treatment of Pope John Paul.

From my perspective, Mr. Carter's actions provide plenty of reasons to keep him out of the official delegation. Friday's funeral will honor the life of a true leader and visionary who had the courage of his convictions. It is not a photo op or an image builder for a failed former president. Leaving Mr. Carter at home was the right call, at the right time...

A Drop in the Bucket

From today's Washington Times; it seems the government is stepping up efforts to reduce illegal immigration along our southern border. In the coming months, more than 500 additional border patrol agents will begin working in southeastern Arizona, where thousands of illegal immigrants enter the U.S. each year.

I wish I could muster some enthusiasm for this initiative, but the addition of 500 agents is just a drop in the bucket. Border Patrol agents do their best, but they've never received the resources--or political support--needed to do their job. We may see a decrease in border crossings in Arizona, but the illegals (and their "coyotes") will simply find another entry point.

With more than a million illegal immigrants entering the U.S. each year, we need to federalize our southern border. Sadly, no politician--Democrat or Republican--has the backbone to support such a plan. That will come only after terrorists launch a major attack on U.S. soil, after entering our country from Mexico. And, given the present lax security along the border, such an attack is not a matter of "if" but "when."

Good News From the Front

The U.S. may begin reducing troop levels in Iraq later this year, if insurgent attacks remain low, according to Lt Gen Lance Smith, Vice-Commander of U.S. Central Command.

As reported in this blog weeks ago, the number of attacks against coalition forces have dropped dramatically since the Iraqi elections in late January. Contacts in the intel community report a 45-55% decline over the past six weeks. Overall, insurgent activity is at its lowest levels in the past eight months.

Make no mistake: it's still too early to declare final victory in Iraq, and it's possible that insurgents are husbanding resources for a new offensive in the spring. But it's also true that the terrorists have suffered setbacks in recent months. The capture of key Zarqawi operatives have yielded timely, actionable intelligence, as evidenced by the recent assault on an insurgent training camp that resulted in the deaths of 85 terrorists. Additionally, the Iraqis are taking a greater role in securing their freedom. Iraqi security forces--notably their naescent special forces teams--are displaying great skill in tactical operation, and ordinary Iraqis are providing more information on the insurgents and their activities, generating even more intelligence information.

But most of the credit for the improving security situation goes to the U.S. military. Since the fall of Saddam, they have battled a resourceful and tenacious foe in an urban setting--a nightmare for any military. Characteristically, our Soldiers and Marines have adapted and persevered, slowly gaining the upper hand. They are the real heroes of this war. Perhaps some day, where that statue of Saddam once stood, the Iraqi people will dedicate a monument to the brave Americans who won the war, and (eventually) the peace.

A personal note: I once served under General Smith, now the CENTCOM Vice-Commander. He is an exceptionally gifted officer, respected and revered in both the Air Force and the joint community. With the USAF now facing a leadership crisis (more on that later), General Smith is the right man to restore confidence and integrity at the highest levels of command.

Friends and Allies

Former Secretary of State Colin Powell believes the U.S. might have been a bit too forceful in selling the case for military action against Iraq. In an interview with a German magazine, General Powell opined that we were too loud, too direct, perhaps we made too much noise. "That certainly shocked the Europeans," he continued.

Wait a minute. Reviewing the run-up to Operation Iraqi Freedom, I don't recall U.S. officials being too direct or overbearing in advocating the removal of Saddam Hussein. Of course, I'm a bit prejudiced (being an American and a former military officer) but I recall the case for war developed over many months, after failed UN resolutions and endless diplomatic efforts. If that can be construed as "too loud," or "too direct," perhaps Foggy Bottom is operating under a different definition.

The interview also highlights the well-known struggle within the Bush cabinet over military action against Iraq. General Powell told the German publication that he argued for a diplomatic solution in Iraq, opposing other Administration officials (notably Vice-President Dick Cheney) who advocated a military solution. Powell also observed that Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld's comments about "old Europe" did not ease European concerns about U.S. policy in Iraq.

While I respect and admire Colin Powell, his comments suggest an undue influence from the diplomatic elite at the State Department. As described in the late, lamented "Diplomad" blog, the foreign service corps were, by in large, opposed to the Bush Administration and its policies. Given this political bias, it is no suprise that the "career professionals" at State favored a continuation of diplomacy, despite its dismal record in Iraq.

Not surprisingly, the German interviewer apparently fails to ask what diplomatic solution might have worked? The road to war with Saddam Hussein was papered with failed UN resolutions and other diplomatic initiatives. Saddam made it very clear that the only "acceptable" solution was an end to economic and military sanctions, positions supported (to some degree) by the Russians, Chinese and the French. Was Mr. Powell prepared to support that approach, which would have virtually guaranteed a resurgent Iraqi military and WMD programs? Once again, the interview fails to answer that essential question.

Always the loyal soldier, perhaps General Powell feels a sense of loyalty to the State Department he ran for the past four years. Perhaps his world view changed during his time at Foggy Bottom, like that of another general-turned-diplomat, George C. Marshall. But General Powell's belief that diplomacy could have solved the Iraq crisis in 2002 is a bit simplistic, even naive. We should wish him a prosperous and happy retirement, and be thankful that Condolezza Rice is now running the State Department.

Her Body, My Self

I feel a profound sense of sadness on this Good Friday. At this hour, Terri Schiavo is slipping closer to death, after a legion of state and federal judges have turned down appeals to reinstate her feeding tube, and consider petitions that might extend her life.

I'm not a lawyer, but I cannot comprehend the legal logic behind the Judge Greer's decision that set this ghastly process in motion. Yes, Michael Schiavo is still Terri's husband (in the loosest possible definition of that word), and has a voice in her care. But in siding with Schiavo's wishes, the Judge Greer--and the jurists who have reviewed his decision--have ignored compelling testimony and affidavits, suggesting that Michael Schiavo has other motives for allowing his wife to die. If Terri is allowed to expire, we can only hope that Florida police resume their investigation that began when she collapsed in 1990.

Why is Mr. Schiavo so insistent in this matter? The American Digest has an interesting run-down on Michael's potential profit from his wife's death. Remove the feeding tube, make a few million. Scott Peterson must be green with envy.

One final thought: the MSM is running ad nauseum stories about the need for a living will, to avoid this type of tragedy. But that's not the lesson of the Terri Schiavo case. Instead, this situation speaks volumes about the Culture of Death of today's America; in a society that aborts one million babies a year, it's relatively simple to kill a single, disabled woman who can't defend herself. These days, you don't need a gun or knife to kill an unwanted family member. All you need is a diagnosis of a "permanent vegitative state, a realitive professing to know your wishes, and a willing lawyer and judge.

The Enemy Within?

Meet Sadeq Naji Ahmed. He's going on trial in Detroit next week, for lying on a job application to become an airport security screener.

It seems that Mr. Ahmed forgot to mention that he was discharged from the U.S. Air Force in September 2001, after making statements sympathetic to Osama bin Laden.

Ahmed's lawyers claim the indictment is government overkill, citing his military record and his performance as a baggage screener for a contractor at the Detroit Aiport. Mr. Ahmed ran into trouble when he filled out an application to join the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) in a similar capacity. He was conditionally appointed to the TSA in October 2002, contingent upon passing a background check, which included the application form.

I'm sure Ahmed's legal counsel will continue to paint his client as a victim. But there's more to this story than meets the eye. First of all, the Air Force says Ahmed made troubling statements over a period of more than two years, beginning in 1999. During that time, he reportedly epressed support for bin Laden; said he was neither for nor against the 9-11 terrorist attacks; said the United States deserved to be attacked, and stated he would not fight if the U.S. took military action in Iraq.

Alarmed, the Air Force yanked his security clearance and access to classified materials on September 11, 2001, and discharged him 11 days later. That's a remarkably fast discharge, and suggests the USAF was anxious to get him out of Eglin AFB, where he served as an information systems analyst. During a 20-year military career, I watched more than a few airmen languish in legal limbo for months, while commanders and lawyers decided their fate. Ahmed's speedy discharge suggests the Air Force discovered statements and patterns of behavior that made the airman a potential security threat.

But there are more than a few disturbing questions about this case. Ahmed reportedly made questionable statements for more than two years, but he was recognized as "Airman of the Year" for Eglin's 33rd Fighter Wing in 1999, and "Airman of the Year" for the entire installation one year later. How can Ahmed's superiors justify rewarding an airman who clearly had sympathies with our enemies? And, why did it take the TSA more than a year to discover Ahmed's lie, and fire him? This episode demonstrates (once again) that federal agencies don't share information on a timely basis.

One more note: in his Air Force job, Ahmed had access to various military computer systems. So did Marine Corporal Wassef Ali Hassoun, who disappeared near Fallujah last year, only to resurface at the U.S. Embassy in Beirut. After returning to the states, Hassoun was charged with desertion, but never placed in the brig. Allowed to go on leave, Hassoun hopped a plane to Lebanon, where he now resides. Let's see...two Arab Americans join the military, gain access to sensitive computer systems, then express terrorist sympathies, or in the case of Hassoun, go AWOL with their knowledge and expertise.

Does anyone see a pattern here?

Pass the Rubber Hoses

Iraq's #1 TV show isn't Lost, Desperate Housewives, or Baghdad Idol. In fact, it's a reality show, best described as a combination of Cops and the War on Terror.

It's called Terrorism in the Hands of Justice, and it runs six nights a week on the state-run Iraqiya television network. Since its debut a month ago, the program has become a runaway hit, a fixture of conversation in Iraq's living rooms and cafes. The format is simple; Terrorism in the Hands of Justice features taped confessions from captured members of the insurgency.

The Boston Globe--no friend of the Bush Administration or the new Iraqi government--calls the show "distressingly reminiscent of the bad old Iraq," noting that many of the confessors appear bruised, as though they've been beaten or tortured.

But the program also seems to provide a morale-lifting boost for the Iraqis. Insurgents are no longer depicted as jihadists or freedom fighters, but rather as thugs and street criminals who attack Americans and Iraqis for pay. The show also depicts Iraqis striking back at the terrorists, reinforcing the impression that police and security forces are slowly gaining the upper hand, and that justice will be served. "I expect to see [my son's] killers on TV," one man told the Globe reporter.

The program does raise some disturbing questions. Some of the confessions seem a little too pat; virtually all of the men claim they joined the insurgency for pay, and many admit to homosexual acts, conduct considered particularly shameful in Iraq's culture. The channel which airs the program is run by American contractors, who sidestep questions about how the confessions are elicited.

But the Globe--predictably--misses an important point. Iraq's struggle against terrorism has a critical psychological component. For far too long, the terrorists and insurgents were depicted as holy warriors or freedom fighters (particularly in the western press), giving them a veneer of legitimacy that was hardly deserved. Terrorism in the Hands of Justice presents another--if slightly skewed--picture of the insurgency, depicting the criminals and opportunists who signed on with the terrorists, in search of a pay check, and the opportunity to inflict pain and suffering on the Iraqis.

Psychological warfare is a brutal, dirty business. During World War II, the U.S. mounted an intense campaign against the Japanese, depicting them as sub-human. Even Hollywood got into the act; just watch any war film made between 1942 and 1945, and you'll see Japanese soldiers depicted as savages, war criminals, or worse. The U.S. government justified such depictions on the "need" to marshal and focus public opinion against our enemy.

As Terrorism in the Hands of Justice illustrates, similar efforts are underway (and perhaps necessary) in Iraq. The U.S. should discourage Iraqi authorities from using torture, but the idea of "exposing" the insurgency is effective, even brillant. Is it working? Hard to say, but attacks in Iraq are down more than 55% in the past two months. Terrorism in the Hands of Justice can't claim sole credit for that decrease, but it is a valuable--and perhaps necessary--psychological technique.

Remembering John Barron

From NRO's John Miller, an appreciation of the life and career of former Reader's Digest senior editor John Barron, who passed away last month at the age of 75. In the 1970s and 80s, Barron authored a series of ground-breaking best sellers on the activities and tactics of the KGB. Barron, more than any other journalist of his era, exposed the pervasive reach of the Soviet spy agency, and the threat it posed to our national security. Mr. Barron won some recognition for his work, but never the credit he truly deserved.

It's ironic that Barron died on the same day as Hunter S. Thompson, the gonzo journalist, who was once described as a "drug addict impersonating a reporter." Thompson's death was front-page news in some locales, while Barron's passing received little notice. I believe the judgment of history will be kinder; Barron's fearless reporting will be remembered long after the rantings of "Dr. Thompson" become a distant blur.

The Renegade Province

China's so-called "Parliment" passed a law yesterday, authorizing the use of force to "reunify" Taiwan with the mainland, in the event Taiwan declares its independence.

Beijing has made these threats for years, but the measure marks the first time the PRC government has given them legal standing. It underscores China's willingness to use military force to bring Taiwan "into the fold," if Taipei ever crosses the independence threshhold.

China's threats are more than just talk. Buoyed by a booming economy, PRC military spending has increased dramatically over the past decade. Beijing is investing in all types of advanced military hardware, including new fighter jets (Russian-made SU-27/30 FLANKERS), advanced submarines, modern surface-to-air missiles, and (most ominously) large numbers of surface-to-surface missiles.

A few years ago, China vowed to have "hundreds" of ballistic missiles opposite Tawian in just a few years. And Beijing has lived up to its promise. Various Pentagon estimates suggest that the PRC now has more than 500 short-range ballistic missiles (mostly CSS-6 and CSS-7) aimed at Taiwan, which it regards as a "renegade province." These missiles, capable of carrying chemical, biological, or nuclear warheads, could easily overwhelm Taiwan's PATRIOT surface-to-air missiles, killing millions of its citizens, and making resupply/reinforcement of the island extremely difficult.

Along with missile strikes, the PRC would also use its growing submarine force to cut sea lanes to the island, and its modernized fighter force to control the skies over the Taiwan Strait. Collectively, these measures would result in an air and sea blockade of the island, slowly pounding and starving the island into submission. True, China lacks the amphibious forces to mount an effective invasion of Taiwan (wags have likened it to a "million-man swim"), but as Beijing improves its missile, air and naval forces, that capability becomes less important.

And that creates an interesting dilemma for the U.S. As you'll recall, the U.S. Congress passed a measure in 1979, vaguely promising support for Taiwan if it is ever attacked by the PRC. The Taiwan Support Act is not a mutual defense treaty, so there's no guarantee of military support. But it is difficult to imagine the U.S. standing idly by and allowing the PRC to attack Taiwan. Indeed, students at various U.S. military war colleges have "war gamed" the PRC-Taiwan scenario many times in recent years. Those students under the difficulties associated with defending Taiwan, particularly in light of China's recent defense build-up.

War between Taiwan and the PRC isn't inevitable. But China clearly hasn't abandoned the military option, and they're acquiring the muscle required to back up their resolution. In that regard, the measure passed by Beijing's Parliment is hardly an empty threat.

One Day in Beirut

It was the largest demonstration in Lebanon's long history; more than 800,000 people--roughly one out of every four Lebanese-- crowded into Martyr's Square in Beirut, protesting Syria's continuing military presence, and domination of Lebanese affairs.

The protest rally was, in a word, stunning. It came only days after 500,000 pro-Syrian demonstrators, led by the terrorist group Hizballah, gathered in the same square. After that demonstration, some pundits speculated that Hizballah's presence, backed by Syrian military muscle in the nearby Bekka Valley, would intimiated the Lebanese opposition.

Quite the contrary. The throngs that gathered for anti-Syria rally were roughly 60% larger than the rent-a-crowd turned out by Hizballah's thugs. And the protestors made their message perfectly clear: Syria's presence in Lebanon must end, and end quickly.

Meanwhile, the Syrians are supposedly working on phase one of their military withdrawal. Damascus is moving key units to new positions in the Bekka Valley, and Syrian Military Intelligence (SMI) has been observed vacating its Beirut headquarters.

While these developments are clearly encouraging, it's worth remembering that Syria won't give up its position in Lebanon without a struggle. There are literally dozens of Syrian military garrisons in Lebanon, and withdrawal activity has not been observed at all locations. Additionally, many SMI agents may attempt to stay in Beirut (and other locations) by "going native," and continuing to gather intelligence and exert influence.

The world community needs to sustain pressure on Damascus, and demand a complete--and verifiable--withdrawal from Lebanon. Democracy is finally on the march in Lebanon, and Syria should not be allowed to derail the movement.

Wither Hizballah?

There's a continuing debate over the potential consequences of Syria's planned pull-out Lebanon. Several bloggers, including your humble correspondent, have argued that the withdrawal will weaken Syria, and its terrorist ally, Hizballah.

However, other analysts paint a different picture. NRO has an interview with Barbara Newman, who is an expert on the terrorist group, its organization and its deadly history. Ms. Newman argues that Hizballah has grown increasingly stronger over the past 10 years, and could easily fill the power vaccum created by a Syrian withdrawal.

I concur with Ms. Newman on a couple of points. First, it is unlikely that Syria will ever completely leave Lebanon. A total withdrawal would be interpreted as a sign of weakness in Damascus (and elsewhere), and Bashir Assad's days would be numbered. There are alreay indications that Syrian Military Intelligence (SMI) is making plans to preserve their presence in Lebanon, as a means for influencing events.

Secondly, Ms. Newman is correct in noting that Hizballah's strength has increased steadily in recent years, and it is capable of defeating local militias and the Lebanese Army. But without an active Syrian presence, Hizballah would face an increasingly hostile populace, and the prospect of possible Israeli military action. While many Israelis have bitter memories of the 1982 Lebanese invasion, those concerns would be trumped by an unpalatable prospect: a Hizballah-controlled state on their northern border. There's also a large American military presence in the region, and those assets could also be employed against Hizaballah, should the group launch attacks inside the U.S.

Hizballah is a formidable terrorist threat, but it is not unbeatable. And any loss of Syrian support in Lebanon would weaken the group's position on its home turf, the very place where it cannot afford a loss of support or power. If that happens, Hizballah could strike at our homeland. But that would be a grave mistake. Hizballah will find the U.S. is a different adversary than the one it faced in the 1980s, when it blew up the Marine barracks in Beirut, and murdered American hostages with relative impunity. The times are changing, and not necessarily to Hizballah's benefit.

Tragedy in Atlanta

I've spent a good part of the day watching news coverage of the Atlanta courthouse shootings. WSB-TV, the dominant local news operation in that city, has excellent streaming video of its live coverage. CNN has been making extensive use of the WSB feed, enhancing their own coverage. For some reason, Fox News channel has been relying on pictures from WGCL, the local CBS affiliate. WGCL is something of a joke in the Atlanta market, and I can see why. At one point early this afternoon, the Channel 46 helicopter was panning wildly across the Atlanta freeways, as if they were trying to check every car from 3,000 feet.

As they discuss these tragic shootings, most of the talking heads have focused on courthouse security, and the challenge associated with protecting those inside. I'm sure terrorist groups are taking note, but the pundits, in passing, actually touched on an even more pressing security concern. In the wake of the Atlanta shootings, at least four schools in the area remained on lockdown in the early afternoon. Unfortunately, our schools represent an even more lucrative target for potential terrorist strikes, and comparatively little has been done to make them more secure.

Here We Go Again

From today's edition of The New York Times:

"A commission due to report to President Bush this month will describe American
intelligence on Iran as inadequate to allow firm judgements about Iran's nuclear
weapons program, according to people who have been briefed on the panel's
work."

The inference is clear. President Bush is running off half-cocked again, making
judgments about a country's WMD program, based on faulty intelligence. It is a familiar refrain for the Times, echoed time and time again in the aftermath of the Iraq War.

Is the criticism valid? Perhaps. It doesn't take Porter Goss (or a presidential commission) to understand that there are always gaps in our intelligence database, particularly when it comes to rogue states like Iran. Tehran has expended considerable effort to cloak its nuclear program, dating back to the late 80s and its first, clandestine development efforts. Those efforts continue to this day, and it's doubtful we'll ever have a complete picture of the Iranian nuclear program, no matter how much effort is devoted to intelligence collection and analysis.

But there's another issue here, one that Times story conveniently sidesteps. Reporters Doug Jehl and Eric Schmitt note that U.S. intelligence suffered a severe setback in the late 1980s, when Tehran's counter-intelligence service penetrated a U.S. spy ring in Iran. The loss of those resources, according to the Times, reverberated inside U.S. intelligence until the 1990s.

So why was nothing done to plug this intelligence gap? The NYT never answers that one, but that admission underscores one of the most lasting--and dangerous legacies--of the Clinton Administration. Throughout the 1990s, Mr. Clinton and his national security team refused to make the necessary investment in intelligence systems, personnel and resources, resulting in severe information gaps that precipitated 9-11, our failure to detect North Korea's covert nuclear efforts, and now, a lack of information on Iran's WMD programs.

Intelligence gaps don't happen overnight; they occur over a period of years--even decades--are are often the cumulative product of mismanagement and neglect. The seeds of our Iran problem were sown long ago, and it will take a long time to remedy the problem. We should be thankful that the current administration is willing to make the investment to fix past mistakes. Unfortunately, closing the gap is a race against time and, as Iran moves toward a nuclear capability, time may be running out.

The Wrong Side of History..

From, Hizballah, the self-styled "Party of God" that defines modern terrorism, comes a vote for the status quo in Lebanon. Borrowing a tactic from the Democratic Party's "rent a crowd" playbook, Hizbollah staged a massive rally in Beirut today, "thanking" Syria for its 30-year occupation of Lebanon. Many of the protestors (conveniently) carried signs written in English, denouncing U.S. and French demands that Syria end its occupation, once and for all.

Hizballah's endorsement of Syrian occupation is no surprise. Over the past three decades, Syria's military presence has allowed the terrorist group to flourish. An end to Syria occupation could pose a threat to Hizballah, which uses Lebanon to train its operatives, and launch terrorist attacks against Israel.

It may take a while, but Hizballah (and the Syrian regime that protects it) will eventually wind up on the ash heap of history. Lest we forget, there were pro-communist rallies in the eastern bloc in the years and months leading up to the fall of the Berlin Wall.

A Checkpoint in Baghdad

"Old Europe," (to borrow Don Rumsfeld's phrase) and its compatriots in our mainstream press, are still atwitter over that recent shooting of an Italian journalist by U.S. troops in Iraq. The incident occurred shortly after the journalist had been freed by her terrorist kidnappers. The reporter in question, Giluliana Sgrena, claims that she was deliberately targeted, because the U.S. opposes negotiations with terrorists. In today's issue of the Washington Times, Rowan Scarborough puts the incident in an entirely different light. Seems that Ms. Sgrena's rescuer (an Italian intelligence officer who died in the shooting) failed to coordinate her escape with the U.S. military. Oops...

Roger L. Simon advanced a similar theory a couple of days ago. As a former spook, his idea sounds entirely plausible; it would be easy for the bad guys to arrange Ms. Sgrena's release, then pass word that a blacked-out, speeding car would target an American checkpoint. The result? A propaganda windfall for the terrorists, who have had little to cheer about lately.

Back in the Saddle

After almost two weeks on the road, it's nice to be back in front of my computer. During my travels to the left coast and Yoknapatawpha County, I made a conscious effort to stay away from cable news and the internet, spending time (instead) with friends, family, and especially, my four-year-old granddaughter. However, there were a couple of items that caught my eye, notably the recent events in Iraq and Lebanon.

Incidentally, I'm not much of a Faulkner fan; there's something about sentences that meander on for half a page that cries out for a touch of editing. But, I will give Bill his due. Along the way, he managed to win the Nobel Prize for literature, and establish himself as, perhaps, the definitive voice of southern literature. On the other hand, I still believe Thomas Wolfe was a superior writer to Faulkner, and would have enjoyed similar accolades, had he not died at the age of 38. I still read Of Time and the River on occasion, marveling in the sheer magic and imagery of his writing.

Both Faulkner and Wolfe led rather messy personal lives. Wolfe had a long affair with a married woman and expressed some admiration for Hitler's Third Reich in the years before his death. Faulkner's pursuits were more pedestrian. After becoming a Nobel laureaute, he returned to his hometown of Oxford, MS, and spent a fair amount of time drinking. A friend of mine in Oxford remembers, as a young child, seeing the great writer stumbling around town-- sometimes clad in his pajamas--knocking on doors and asking for whisky. Forty years later, Oxford has more than its share of watering holes, thanks largely to the presence of the University of Mississippi, where Faulkner briefly worked as campus postmaster. Judging from the number of inebriated college students stumbling around Oxford, Bill would be very proud.

Memo to Zarqawi

According to the Washington Post, Osama bin Laden has been in touch with his man in Iraq, Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi, imploring him to expand his operations outside that country. U.S. intelligence recently intercepted a message from the Al-Qaida leader to his Jordanian-born surrogate, encouraging Zarqawi to strike American targets both overseas and here at home. That report led to renewed speculation about possible attacks, and a potential change in our terrorist threat level.

Perhaps I'm being overly optimistic, but I don't see this report as an indication of a resurgent Al-Qaida, or a harbinger of imminent strikes in the U.S. homeland. Instead, bin Laden's request paints a picture of an organization in serious trouble, with little hope for a short-term cure.

On the surface, bin Laden's message seems to depict a united Al-Qaida, with open channels of communication between senior leadership and its best-known field lieutenant, Zarqawi. It also suggests a new wave of terrorist attacks may be in the offing, utilizing the combined resources of Zarqawi's network and other, established Al-Qaida cells.

But bin Laden's directive also reflects a more desperate Al-Qaida, scrambling to strike back at the U.S. and its allies. By encouraging al-Zarqawi, bin Laden seems to suggest that he and members of his inner circle, are still "heads down" along the Afghan-Pakistani border, unable to effectively plan or coordinate another major attack. Indeed, bin Laden's message appears to indicate that the organization is still in a de-centralized mode, with cell leaders and other lower-level commanders enjoying wide autonomy in selecting targets and carrying out attacks. While this approach has produced some successes (such as the Bali nightclub bombing and the train attacks in Madrid, Spain), it is not an operational system capable of producing a spectacular event, along the lines of 9-11.

Bin Laden's communique may also be a veiled warning to Zarqawi: get out of Iraq while you still can. While still a threat, the Zarqawi network has also suffered a series of setbacks in recent weeks, with the arrest of several senior aides. General John Abazaid, Commander of U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM), recently told Congress that Zarqawi's days are numbered. He also hinted, vaguely, that U.S. intelligence may have penetrated the Zarqawi organization, suggesting "treason" within the ranks helped produce the recent arrests.

Reading between the lines, bin Laden's directive for Zarqawi is less an operational plan than a cry for help. And, thanks to the work of our military and intelligence community, Zarqawi is in no position to render that assistance.

Syria in the Crosshairs....

These days, Syrian President Bashir Assad probably wishes he'd passed on the family dictatorship and kept his opthamology practice in London. As you may recall, the younger Assad was an eye surgeon in London before returning to Damascus to succeed his late father, Hafez al-Assad, the former Air Force general who ruled Syria with an iron fist for nearly 30 years.

Sure, it was hard to pass on a chance to be El Supremo For Life. There are obvious perks (unlimited access to the national treasury; palatial accomodations, and the power to kill anyone who gets in your way). But there's also the danger that comes with any dictatorship, i.e. you tend to rub people the wrong way, and eventually, they want your scalp.

At last check, Mr. Assad's scalp was still intact, but his grip on power doesn't seem as certain as it once was. In recent days, both the U.S. and Israel have put Damascus on notice, for its role in the recent homicide bombing in Tel Aviv. Syria is in no position to challenge Israel militarily, and now finds its other major adversary (the U.S.) firmly ensconsed in neighboring Syria. Making matters worse, Syria is also next door to Turkey, another powerful country with little use for the Assad regime. Turkey almost went to war with Syria in the late 1990s, and maintains a strong military relationship with both the U.S. and Israel.

So what's a dictator to do? Well, for starters, Damascus has suddenly arrested Saddam's step-brother and more than two dozen other members of the former Iraqi regime, who had set up shop in Syria, and were (reportedly) playing a major role in supporting the insurgency in Iraq. In a police state like Syria, the presence of Saddam's henchmen was well known to intelligence and security officials, who allowed them to operate freely--until now. Why the change? Well, facing a possible visit from the Israeli Air Force (in response to the recent terrorist strike) and growing U.S. ire, the younger Assad decided it was in his interest to round up the Iraqi thugs. Eliminating a major source of funding and support is certainly bad news for the Iraqi insurgency, and Assad's own foreign policy, which is focused on reducing U.S. influence in the Middle East. But, in view of the "alternatives," Bashir was willing to weaken his own hand, and avoid possible military consequences.

Mr. Assad is also making nice in Lebanon, which has been under the Syrian thumb for almost 30 years. Damascus's recent assassination of a former Lebanese Prime Minister has produced an outpouring of anti-Syriun sentiment, unprecedented in that country's recent history. Thousands of Lebanese have taken to the streets, demanding that Syria remove the 15,000 troops that still occupy their nation. In response, Assad has promised that his soliders will leave "in a matter of months."

Will Damascus make good on its promises? Only time will tell. But Mr. Assad is back-pedaling furiously, in an effort to keep his regime out of harm's way. Surrounded by powerful neighbors, and buffeted by demands for democracy, Syria is operating from a position of weakness, rather than strength. The U.S. would be well-advised to keep the pressure on President Assad in the months to come; holding him accountable is the most viable strategy for dealing with that rogue regime and minimizing Syrian mischief in the Middle East.

And the Answer Is...

Last week, I posted an Iraq quiz, testing your knowledge of what's really going on in that country. The answers to the quiz have been added to that original post. As you read the answers, compare them to the daily acounts of the situation in Iraq, as reported by our MSM. Then, send an e-mail to your favorite media outlet and ask them why these numbers never make it into their reports.