Pakistan Update: Musharraf out?Foreign fighters okay...

With the DNC bent on taking over all branches of US government, fulling overdue promises of "tough love" by yanking the US troops out of Iraq, ignoring Lebanon, and Pakistan's peace deals further inflaming Afghanistan under NATO's command, it can be said that Middle East allies for the US might be getting to be an endangered species.

Quietly behind the scenes, and out of the western media spotlight, Pakistan is steadily traveling the yellow brick road to rogue and defiant ally-in-name-and-money-only status... content just to silence bombs in their back yard while allowing Taliban/AQ and fellow ilk militants to ping pong back and forth across the Afghanistan border at will.

Two deals were cemented over the past month, involving exchanging of prisoners and, in theory, either exiling or handing over foreign militants. However S. Waziristan Taliban leaders have made it abundantly clear that they have no intentions of halting their jihad battles on Afghan soil.

“First, we will not accept such a ban. But we hope the peace deal will be inked without a clause that puts restrictions on mujahideen to cross the border (into Afghanistan),” Abu Zakwan, Taliban commander in the Kotkai area of South Waziristan, told Daily Times on Saturday. Using the alias of Abu Zakwan, the commander said that government negotiators are asking for a pledge to stop cross-border attacks, but the Taliban were not committing to such an agreement.

Jihad centre: He said Waziristan was serving the region as “centre for jihad” and people from across the country were being trained for holy war “against the United States”.

To date, the peace deals have not resulted in any militants of note being either expelled or turned over to the Pakistan govt. Indeed, all they've done is add to the terrorists in the region, using their get-out-of-jail-free cards as an exchange for Pakistan Army hostages. As predicted, the militants deny knowing of any foreign fighters' whereabouts. Mehsud claims they are not harboring Zawahiri, OBL or ilk. Indeed, he insists Bin Laden is dead. I've seen this story on quite a few blogs, however not one link to the original story works. Take away what you wish from that note.

Meanship Nawaz Sharif continues his pressure on PPP's Zardari to not only oust Musharraf, but calls for trials for sedition. In today's Khaleej Times, he suggests that Zardari's party has agreed to expel Musharraf from the Presidency. Thus far, there has been no comment or confirmation from the PPP representative, nor PM Gilani.

One can safely say that Pakistan's efforts to curb jihad violence may offer temporary benefits for them... however making deals while they continue to foster jihad against the US doesn't benefit us, or the war on Islamic jihad movements, one bit. This would be the same US/Uncle Sam who's shelled out incentive cash, hand over fist, to Pakistan. And now, to add insult to injury, we're about to lose the rare military general ballsy enough to give a silent nod to US operations over Pakistan soil, and incur/endure the wrath of his country.

Pakistan, however, sees Obama with his incentive packages and "talk nice" coming. They have their hands already outstretched, whining that their anti-terror efforts on the behalf of the US costs twice what the US pays in the Coalition Support Fund.

A US Government Accountability Office report issued last week said that of $5.8 billion in US support for anti-terrorism efforts in the Fata between 2002 and 2007, about 96 per cent had gone towards reimbursing the Pakistani military, three per cent on border security and one per cent on development aid projects.

Talking to Dawn, sources said the $5.8 billion Pakistan received from the CSF was reimbursement of what the country had already spent.

“It is not easy to deploy 100,000 troops in a troubled area,” said one diplomatic source. “Look, how the Americans are spending billions of dollars on maintaining troops in Iraq. If the Americans feel that the Iraq war is draining their resources, imagine how it affects Pakistan.”

I have to ask... just how many times has Pakistan has deployed troops, especially in that number? Last year was filled with western media, accusing Musharraf of not doing anything. Yet now we are to believe that they're in the red, deploying troops on our behalf at every turn? Apparently the Pakistanis believe the US should carry the financial load of maintaining peace in their own tribal regions.

There is a smidgen of validity in that argument, of which they will have no problems in convincing a naive POTUS Obama that smidgen is much larger in US dollars. Tho many tribal elders may not seek war against the US or the west, they do harbor and benefit from those who do. However Pakistan's internal battles did not begin with America's more prominent presence in the Middle East. Nor will they end when we withdraw and come home. Jihad was there before we came, and will always be there.

Come the era of a possible President Obama in the WH, there are very different positions on the ME political chess board now. NATO falters in Afghanistan, and NATO alliance countries refuse to pony up the needed troops. Iraqis and US forces in Iraq are making headway, but live under the threat of having their progress reversed the moment a DNC leader takes the oath of office. Lebanon is morphing before our very eyes, with the Hezbollah shadow puppet government becoming more powerful with their legislative veto powers just acquired. Last year, Iran has no nuke program via an NIE - a report Obama buys hook, line and sinker. But today even the IAEA is concerned. Still the int'l community that makes up the corrupt and anti-semite UN, dances around significant action. And Obama will make sure US actions are blessed by the corrupt before implementing.

Pakistan, already proving the appeasement path benefits only their own backyard, and that terrorists will not budge on the bigger battle of training jihad, will be perhaps the next President's biggest problem. A President Obama will make nice, pass over more cash, and terrorists and dictators will continue to smile.

Fasten your seat belts, because we're in for a bumpy ride...

PT I: Hezbollah & Clinton era DTSA... 6 Degrees of Separation?

May 22nd turned into an odd cascade of bizarrely related events. Greg Grant over at Tribal Wars drew my attentions to a WSJ article with his post ... Communications Networks and Irregular War. Simultaneously on the Hill, Hawaii's Sen. Akaka was giving a speech on Dodd's Export Enforcement Act of 2007. The link between these two events is not only a "six degrees of separation" convergence, but may potentially span events and whistle blowing from over a decade ago.

From Grant's Tribal Wars article:

You think irregular fighters realize the force multiplier effect of a secure communications network? An interesting article in todays Wall Street Journal details Hezbollah's victory in Lebanon. I found the bit about Hezbollah's comms network, and the lengths they went to wire the country with fiber optic, fascinating. After the fighting in 2006, it was obvious command and control was one of Hezbollah's strong points. Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah apparently calls the network the group's "No. 1 weapon."

"Fascinating"? I was beyond fascinated... Something started clicking upstairs. More from the referenced WSJ article:

Hezbollah reached a bargain with the weak Lebanese government that essentially gave the Islamic group veto power in a new government to be formed.

The deal comes two weeks after Hezbollah flashed its military might by seizing Beirut neighborhoods to protest efforts to rein it in. The trigger was unusual: Hezbollah was expanding a secret communications network, and the government wanted it dismantled.

Okay... Hezbollah's getting a more powerful foot in the door with veto powers. Got that. But what was that about a "secret communications network"??

The catalyst for Lebanon's recent spasm was the government's discovery several months ago that Hezbollah was secretly expanding a network that could provide secure communications in times of battle. The network, the fight it sparked and Wednesday's resolution provide a dramatic illustration of Hezbollah's surging power in Lebanon.

Prime Minister Siniora ordered the network dismantled in early May. He also ordered the dismissal of an airport official his government labeled an ally of Hezbollah. After Hezbollah's violent response -- it seized neighborhoods, then handed them over to the neutral army -- the government was forced to rescind both orders last week.

To paraphrase the next events, the suspicions were raised last year when the Telecommunications Minister got a tip that there were spools of fiber optics being purchased in a southern Lebanon village. After investigations and reports of mysterious workers doing installations over private lands, they discovered that Hezbollah had expanded the network to over 200 miles... wireless, and safeguards to continue even if damaged in times of war.

State officials always knew Hezbollah had a wireless network communication system direct to Syria. However they thought it "limited" and not a threat. In fact, they had reported it to the UN some years ago.

However they had no idea the scope of the secret expansions - with miles of cable laid under the newly paved roads. A feat accomplished in conjunction with the Iranian Headquarters for the Reconstruction of Lebanon, who's completed about 400 reconstruction projects in the country since 2006. Needless to say, the Lebanese government officials are most unhappy.

The telecom minister said some of the equipment was imported from "the West," declining to be specific. Lebanese officials also believe Iran supplied some.

Since the government's public challenge to the network, Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah has left little doubt of its importance. In a news conference May 8, he defended it as a vital weapon against Israel, whose occupation of southern Lebanon from 1982 to 2000 helped give rise to Hezbollah.

Calling the system Hezbollah's "No. 1 weapon," the black-turbaned leader declared that "it is forbidden to touch [anything] linked to the networks, whether an engineer, a company or a mayor. Touching them is like touching me."

Meanwhile, back on the Hill... Sen. Akaka says:

...snip... The U.S. export control system is a relic of the Cold War and does not effectively meet our national and economic security needs.

Recent examples demonstrate the challenges of controlling sensitive exports. Dual-use technology has been diverted through Britain and the United Arab Emirates, UAE, to Iran. A recent attempt by two men to smuggle sensitive thermal imaging equipment to China shows that Iran is not alone in its desire for sensitive technology. However, the effort to control the flow of dual-use technology goes beyond our borders. Working with the international community is critical as technologies which were once only produced in the U.S. are now being produced elsewhere.

Let's see. Syria, Iran, China, telecommunications, imports from west, US export controversies. I feel the dust blow off a few brain cells, filled with hazy memories... This is not a new story. YES! Got it! Dr. Peter Leitner. A Clinton era whistle blower who achieved considerably less fame, nor the revered iconic status awarded to la femme Plame. A rather warped reality when you consider Valerie's concern and "damage" was centered on, and confined to, her personal life. That's if you call book deals, movies and lucrative private enterprises... "damage".

But Leitner and his whistle blowing subject - export licensing - is considerably less sexy and appealing to Joe Q. Public. The nation was captivated with the dramatized "outing" of a domestic-based, paper-pusher-and-personnel-recruiting spy with a good set of gams. "Ho hum" about export licensing and a few radios, right?

So I once again dug out some old links under "Syria" I had stored for the Paul Sperry WND article, "US Equipped Terror Sponsors" back on Sept 12, 2001. Leitner was discussing how the Clinton admin "rubber-stamped the shipment of top-end military-related telecommunications equipment to Syria". Much of this article bears repeating today, almost seven years later.

"We're giving them spread-spectrum radios, which are almost impossible to break into. We're giving them fiber optics. We're giving them a high level of encryption. We're giving them computer networks that can't be tapped," Leitner said.

Spread-spectrum radios, originally designed for military use only, change their frequency constantly.

snip

Leitner posits that the NSA wasn't able to detect the Islamic terrorists' plot because of the "high quality of the communications gear that they've been acquiring over the last couple of years, thanks to the Clinton administration's decontrols on advanced telecommunications equipment."

Terrorists' secured telecom gear "makes it infinitely more difficult to get even early warning signs" about their activities, he said.

snip

"I've testified to Congress that it will take serious numbers of body bags before we wake up to the need to tighten dual-use export controls," he said. "Unfortunately, we've got them now."

"This is so tragic and yet so preventable," he said. "Now we're going to have to knock out their [terrorist] camps, just like we had to bomb the Iraqis several times now to try to take out the fiber-optics network that the Chinese are installing in Iraq's air-defense systems."

"Yet, it was the Clinton administration that gave the Chinese the technology to give to Iraq," he noted.

This was 2001. Just three months earlier that year, now under the early Bush admin, the Commerce Dept was still asking Leitner to okay "exports of dual-use telecom equipment to Syria".

He denied the request, and was asked to reconsider. He denied it again, arguing in a letter to Karen Vogel, the Commerce export licensing officer who requested the approval, that:

"Doing so vastly upgrades the C3 and C41 systems of the Syrian military and Intelligence Services. My concerns are also obviously compounded by the fact that Syria is one of the foremost state sponsors of terrorism."

Leitner continued: "Since an 'upgraded telecom infrastructure' will also greatly facilitate Syrian planning, coordination, secrecy and execution of terrorist acts, as well as direct military communications, I see absolutely no basis for any position other than a denial."

Vogel argued in an earlier letter that her request came on the heels of eight previous approvals of licenses for similar exports to Syria.

Which brings me back to the Hezbollah/Syria network. A network "secure in times of battle" suggests to me technology such as spectrum spread with it's random changing frequencies. Fiber optics? Could it be that this network was undetectable by Israel's usually superior intelligence? And, if equipped with masking technology, how likely is it that we, ourselves, managed to provide the very equipment that allows the enemy to... yet again...plot right under our noses? All this 7 years after 911?

Part II is the story, as much as I can piece together, of Leitner - both before this article, after and where he is now. What he had done and tried to do in the 90s, and what the Commerce and admin officials did to him.

But most importantly, what is the status today of these lackadaisical export regulations that allows the enemy to not only hide their plans, but potentially put dual use nuclear weapon technology within their reach?

Stay tuned for Part II... coming soon.

UPDATED:Dangerous liaisons, oil & appeasement policyA vision of our future?

There is a slow groundswell in the West. There is no longer a proud and defiant movement to battle the jihad movements who carried out, assisted, or cheered on the 911 bombers that hit US soil in 2001.Instead the US finds itself inexplicably drawn to appeasement foreign policy, driven by war weary denizens.

It is the military families who bear the sacrifices for the war. For the majority, Americans are unaffected… except now – in their minds - in their wallets. Not for the actual war spending mind you, but because of the link from Iraq to the rising price of oil worldwide.

And so we come to the odd 6 degrees of separation between dangerous liaisons, appeasement foreign policy and the price of oil. It's ironic that it will ultimately be gas prices that herd Americans thru the gates to appeasement. But years of "the war is lost" or "this war cannot be won militarily" have taken their toll on the dangerously misinformed US voter.

We are taught Iraq and Bush are the cause for oil prices. They listen to Cindy Sheehan, as she continues the lie that Cheney still owns part of, and profits off of, Halliburton. Too many give a derelict Congress a pass. Increased global demands by a fast developing India and China, an ailing dollar, and topped with speculators fueling commodies are never factored into reality.

Facts tend to be inconvenient to political ends, and mean nothing to the disgruntled. They only know they are paying almost twice the amount they did last year for filling up their gas tanks, and seeing the effect domino into the cost of groceries. We are a nation of blame... as long as it's anyone but ourselves.

And any villain at hand will do. Mostly especially big oil - the industry America so loves to hate. Yesterday we had yet another rerun in Senate Hearings… just as in Nov 2005, Mar 2006 and May 2007, the oil industry execs appear for their annual reaming from Senators, diverting the attention from themselves to wealthy oil barons. Just as nothing happened back in 2005, nor in the decades before, nothing will again be done. But it makes for good political theatre in an election year.

As long as the US equates war on jihad elements with oil, they will support any and all attempts to extract ourselves from that battle... and hang the consequences. This same mentality that ties the two will curtain future military endeavors as a way to guarantee lower gas prices. Therefore a withdrawal from Iraq goes hand in hand with a new approach in foreign policy to accomplish that objective. Appeasement replaces military response.

Thus we come to a vision of our future. A world where our military hesitates to enter Middle East battlegrounds, and diplomats cut deals that ply our enemy with enough incentives to stop the bombs going off daily, achieving a false sense of relative peace.

Americans, desperate for a return to what they see as prosperity lost, are set to elect leadership that will lead us down the rosy path of appeasement foreign policy to accomplish just that end. Even more distressing, that trend is global in nature.

Obama, likely nominee (if you ask him), promises he will be an American President who sits down unconditionally with the enemy. Britain, formerly one of the US's strongest allies, has already placed a pacifist - PM Gordon Brown - at the helm who fits nicely with a President Obama's ideas. Brown has been busy making appointments of diplomats that echo his own sentiments.

____________________________________

UPDATE 5/24/08 - Britain's Foreign Sec'y "queries" Obama's Iran policy

Well now, surprises never cease. While on the surface it appears an Obama Presidency would be a match made in heavey with Britain's PM Brown and Foreign Sec'y Miliband, it's even more likely (and frightening...) that Mr. Obama is too extreme even for the very liberal Brits in power. Oh my...

David Miliband (see "appointment of diplomats" link above) has met with all three Presidential candidates during a trip to the US this week, feeling them out individually on their foreign policy. Apparently, in as polite of terms as possible, he's not terribly impressed with BHO.

Exact accounts of the conversation with Mr Obama differ and there is certainly acute anxiety on the part of the British not to be seen as stoking political controversy in America’s presidential elections. In the past week Mr McCain has repeatedly hammered Mr Obama for what he claims is a “naive” commitment to hold direct talks with foreign dictators.

snip

Mr Miliband, in a press conference with US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, reiterated Britain’s support for the united front on Iran adopted by the US and its European allies, which he believes is beginning to pay dividends. “Our position, jointly, has always been that as long as Iran exercises responsibilities, then it will be able to forge a more productive and positive relationship with the international community,” Mr Miliband said.

An aide later told The Times that the Foreign Secretary was being very careful to avoid direct criticism of any presidential candidate’s positions. But the same source added: “We know Obama wants to engage more, but we don’t know what route he will take or what he means by ‘no pre-conditions’. It has not unravelled yet and, when it does, we will be able to see where it converges or conflicts with what we’re doing.”

A Foreign Office spokesman later said: “I just want to stress that David Miliband is not confused about Obama’s policy. It would be quite wrong to say that.”

END UPDATE
__________________________________________



Australia’s Kevin Rudd is certainly more reserved in military use than John Howard, the previous strong US ally. Tho Rudd remains a strong ally in Afghanistan, and rejects Ahmadinejad, he is still a question mark in the march to appeasement foreign policy.

Pakistan, now under the PPP, has already implemented Obama'esque appeasement policy. They have made pacts with Baitullah Meshud in the S. Waziristan area, and finalizing a similar pact with the Maulana Fazlullah in the NWTA.

Mehsud has had Pakistan dancing to his tune over the past few months. At the beginning of the year, militants ravaged Pakistan with numerous suicide attacks and then suddenly proposed a peace agreement. Under immense pressure from its vulnerable domestic political and economic situation, Pakistan accepted the peace deal and then also accepted the militants' demand for the swapping of prisoners.

The world's reaction to Pakistan’s back room deals? Britain's Brown officials predictably applaud Pakistan's appeasement deals. The Taliban themselves are overjoyed. With the agreements, they have again reinforced their numbers, freeing 55 Taliban militants ranging in importance from the lowly fighter to commanders. As if freedom wasn't enough, Islamabad also "paid a sum of 20 million Pakistani rupees (US$287,000) to the militants."

We all must wonder - was the money paid to the freed jihad terrorists provided by the US for their cooperation in the global war on jihad movements? And will future appeasement deals – paying freed terrorists - also be funded by US incentive money? Such is the ugly reality of striking “deals” with the enemy.

A few of these jailed militants are former guests of Club Gitmo, including Muslim Dost. Mufti Yousuf is again running around free, while Maulana Abdul Aziz of the Lal Masjid (Red Mosque) in Islamabad is expected to be released soon. A fighter who promises to drive Pakistan to a Islamic revolution.
Where is the sanity in the Pakistan government letting loose a fighter, determined to evoke revolution?

Qari Ziaur Rahman, another freed militant they say is destined to become legendary, was also released in exchange for Pak military hostages in the Meshud appeasement agreement. Ziaur is in charge of Taliban finances.

The few not applauding this foreign policy movement is the current WH administration, and those countries who will be most affected by this “illusion of peac” - countries (like Afghanistan) who end up with these beasts proliferating in their own back yard because of another country's "truce". Other traditionally liberal countries, also directly affected with an increasing Muslim immigration that refuses to assimilate, have elected new, more conservative leadership (i.e. Italy, France and the Netherlands). Apparently, for those on the direct receiving end of these kinder/gentler tactics, it’s only a matter of time before the truth hits - one side of the parties only honors compromise.

As the US, as well as other western nations, start caving in to the appeasement trend, what is it we can expect from "peace" with such men, again running free? Do we assume that their hatred of the west dissipated with their release? Will the west be left alone if the US pulls out of Iraq, but stays in Afghanistan?

These beliefs are the delusions of the hopeful and naivel. The Taliban and other jihad movements, fresh off a propaganda victory, are recognized, forgiven, released *and* compensated for their "unjust" confinement. They have reprieve to regroup, re plan. Only this time, they may enjoy new financial and political incentives to bolster their cause. They already head back to their respective battlefields, relishing their second chance to fight the US and the west.

The bombs may go dormant in Pakistan and other places temporarily. But the new wave of global leaders, embodied by a President Obama, leads us to a fool’s paradise. A world of dangerous liaisons where the enemy has been enabled financially, politically and militarily by us - their targets. Time is not on our side.

On Urban Warfare and Collateral Damage

There's many talking points and websites that cite statistics of Iraq and Afghanistan's "collateral damage", constantly used as fodder for anti-free Iraq rhetoric. Their problem? They believe the enemy adheres to the same principled warfare as our coalition military. Such a mentality is just western naivety, based on a hopeful idealism. Admirable in theory, but useless in reality.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Urban warfare is hell. I'll be the first to say to any of our US military, shoot first when you believe there is clear and present danger, and ask questions later. I prefer they come home alive, and sort it out via investigations. There can and will be regrettable errors. But we must face facts... this is not the wars of the past, where the enemies wore uniforms and were well defined. The enemies... for the most part.. did not hide behind burkas, children and disabled women.

Today's CBC News out of Canada, "Bomber who struck Canadians was 11 years old, military sources say".

Few details of the attack were immediately available. The soldiers were on foot patrol at about 10 a.m. local time when the bomb exploded.

The Canadian Press quoted a military spokeswoman, Capt. Amber Bineau, as saying the boy is thought to have been wearing an explosive vest when he walked up to the patrol.

She condemned the attack as a "last ditch-attempt" by militants to disrupt the progress of Afghan and NATO forces in establishing security in the country.

"These types of attacks demonstrate a weakness in the insurgency and do not impede the resolve of those who work to make Kandahar province a safe and stable environment," she said in a statement.

There was no official confirmation of the bomber's age or how the bomb was triggered.

snip

In a separate attack not involving NATO forces Wednesday, a suicide bomber dressed in a burka struck a police station in the western province of Farah, killing 12 people and wounding 27 others.

Initial reports said the bomber was a woman, but the Taliban, which claimed responsibility for the attack, said it was carried out by a man named Mullah Khalid wearing the burka as a disguise.

As a reminder to the whiners of the world, allow me to give you a reintroduction to the enemy. The same cowardly enemy that demonstrates no honor in battle. The enemy that hides behind burkas instead of openly wearing a uniform like our coalition guys. The very same enemy that brainwashes "the innocent" into being their walking bombs.... children, disabled men in wheelchairs, or the mentally handicapped. It appears that brave, young jihadists - willing to die - are becoming an endangered species. Bad news for the bad guys.

So the next time you see reports of "women and children" being killed in a raid, and race to the conclusion that we are barbarians equal to those we fight, you might want to ask yourself:

Were they truly innocents? Or were they the next suicide bomber who's fuse hadn't detonated the bombs that kill our warriors?

Political Islam as the Spanish Inquisitor

Barry Rubin's article, "The Region: Stuck in the Middle Ages, Islam targets moderation" is an excellent analysis of the multifacets of Islam.

There are clerics radical in their oppression and adherence to fundamental Islam... or at least the Koran as interpreted by them. Many of these clerics advocate that Islam be the law of the land (Pakistan's Maulana Fazlur Rahman,of JUI-F in Pakistan's Parliament, just to name one), but do so via attempted legislation.

This has not fared well with the population, as they reject such strict governance and do embrace some western ideals. Such was the result of Pakistan's last election, and previous elections. There are areas (NWTA, i.e.) that do enforce it in their villages and regions. But Islam was not to be the law of Pakistan.

Hamas won elections in Palestine. However the party did not gain favor with Palestinians for totaltarian rule, or even their devotion to the elimination of Israel. Instead Hamas got the vote because of their nanny welfare programs to impoverished and war ransacked Palestinians. In essence, Palestinians are leaning Marxist/socialist in their governing views.

Then we have the militant clerics... those that demand Islamic law, and seek to implement it via violence and fear. This is "the enemy", as cleverly UN'defined by the current administration and talking heads. Their desires are clear, and most lately evoked in Zawahiri's Open Forum Part One Q&A session. They seek to not only turn all (what they consider) Arab lands into a Muslim Caliphate, but to eliminate all influences of the west. This could include everything from Embassies to corner Starbuck coffee stores.

And now we come to Rubin's analysis... likening the global jihad movement to an oppressive Spanish Inquisition. Clerics fear that with democracy and elections come an increasing irrelevance of themselves and the Islam they teach.

Those who think the problem stems from a need to make Western policy more palatable, showing enough empathy or appeasement, have no idea of the historical processes in play. Consider an interview by Munajid on Al-Majd television on March 30.

Focusing on the threat within Islam, Munajid warns (translation by MEMRI) that advocates of change are heretics engaged in "a very dangerous conspiracy." Why? Because rather than depending on clerics, they claim the right to interpret Islam, are reopening the gates of ijtihad - closed among Muslims for almost 1,000 years - and applying reason to religious doctrine. "This is the prerogative of religious scholars, not of ignorant people... fools or heretics."

Of course, Islamists as well as liberal reformers threaten the mainstream (conservative) clerics' monopoly over Islam. Many Islamists are not qualified theologians.

But moderates are more dangerous, in the mainstream view, since they may loosen religion's hold altogether. Thus, mainstream clerics are more sympathetic to radical Islamists - a key factor in the reformers' weakness and the Islamists' strength. To paraphrase an old Cold War slogan, they say: "Better green than dead."

To allow an Islamic state under jihad is to allow the enemy to completely suppress all forms of modernization and technology. For these allow an open window into the western temptation.

...Munajid and others know something past Europeans didn't: how far secularism can go. As a result, Muslims are extraordinarily insecure. Munajid warns that reformers "want to open up everything for debate," so that "anyone is entitled to believe in whatever he wants... If you want to become an apostate - go ahead. You like Buddhism? Leave Islam, and join Buddhism. No problem...."

Today, new interpretations; tomorrow, rampant alcoholism, short skirts, empty houses of worship, and punk rock. It begins with freedom of thought, it continues with freedom of speech, and it ends up with freedom of belief.

An excellent example of this thought in action comes from an article just today from AP's writer, Ali Akbar Dareini - "Iranian official warns against importing Barbie dolls".

Now how much harm can come from a little Iranian girl, clutching a Barbie doll, you say? To Muslim clerics, irreparable harm.

"The irregular importation of such toys, which unfortunately arrive through unofficial sources and smuggling, is destructive culturally and a social danger," Najafabadi said in his letter, a copy of which was made available to The Associated Press.

snip

While importing the toys is not necessarily illegal, it is discouraged by a government that made its name on preserving Iran from Western cultural influences.

In Monday's letter, Najafabadi said the increasing visibility of Western dolls was raising the alarm among authorities who were considering intervening.

"The displays of personalities such as Barbie, Batman, Spiderman and Harry Potter ... as well as the irregular importation of unsanctioned computer games and movies are all warning bells to the officials in the cultural arena," the letter said.

snip

"Undoubtedly, the personality and identity of the new generation and our children, as a result of unrestricted importation of toys, has been put at risk and caused irreparable damages," he said.

Iran has gone so far as to create competition for Barbie... twins Dara and Sara, with modest clothing and more befitting the Muslim cultural rules of no make up, head scarves, etc. Needless to say, they have been a flop. And go no... Iran is the 3rd largest importer of toys. Clerics are obviously desperate to shelter their Muslim youth from western culture, and this becomes more and more difficult in this Info Age world with satellite TV, cell phones and the Internet.

But it's not only western toys or clothing under assault. The League of Arab States recently voted in satellite broadcast restrictions to the Cairo Charter. This charter, agreed upon by 22 of the members (including Iraq and Pakistan), allows host countries to annul or suspend the licence of any broadcaster found in violation of the rules. i.e. broadcasting anything considered "un Islamic". It is the US "Fairness Doctrine", Arab style.

What may be the most ironic is that the jihad movement themselves are masters and ardent users of the very technology they seek to ban for the rest of their fellow Muslims. But then, that is what oppressors do.... deprive others while they live in relative comfort.

Rubin's article is a fabulous read, and right on point about the desperation of Muslim clerics - likening it to a desperate Catholic Church during the Spanish Inquisition. However Christianity has grown, and been forced to reconcile man's progress as part of it's religious teachings. Islam, however, can not.

Though Rubin's presentation is thorough of the past, it does not go far enough, IMHO. Just what does the future with a massive Muslim Caliphate mean to the world?

Part of the difficulty of this war is the western ignorance of the enemy and their goals. Too many live in a bubble and believe that what happens in the ME and Europe has nothing to do with the US. Perhaps in Colonial days, that was true. But in this world of global trade and relationships, isolation of their desired Caliphate - from the Andulusians (Spain) to China - under political and oppressive Islamic law would have catastrophic effects on our shores as well.

A jihad victory and Caliphate affects the world economy. Trade and products from west to Arab lands would no longer be possible. And that would include from Arab lands to the west. Can any of you say "beg for oil"? How about the beautiful artifacts and rugs? Other cultural beauties would become taboo.

Banking institutions would probably separate as well. In short, the entire flow of currency, products and international trade would be slashed severely... affecting jobs and prosperity not only here at home, but world wide.

You can expect third world conditions to increase in Arab lands as they shun technology. These conditions breed poverty, disease and food shortages - all the things the US battles even now by trying to help developing countries.

Like it or not, technology,communications and transportation has linked our world together. And what happens enmasse elsewhere can have great effect on America.

Collision course with Pakistan still imminent for next POTUS

I've said this many times... most recently in my March 31st 2008 post, "Pakistan Update: Trouble on the Horizon?". Prior to that, I lambasted the fools who bought, hook-line-and-sinker, the media demonization of Musharraf in "Hating Musharraf. Those chickens comin' home to roost" on Mar 25th.

During the run up to Pakistan's elections, there were few to no western media voices that credited Musharraf for his risky and bold stand, aiding the US against many Pakistan political power houses. The US electorate, dutiful little sheeple they tend to be, bought into the notion that Benazir's PPP party win would magically produce a more cooperative ally - ignoring the history of the party leaders and ministers (as well as Sharif's own sketchy past).

It's almost a month later, and it's becoming even more abundantly clear that the US media and electorate is now getting exactly what they asked for. And for that misplaced faith in the PPP, aided by a relentless piling-on of Musharraf, we're another step closer to the future collision course with the complacent PPP led Pakistani government and a weakened Musharraf. They just do not demonstrate the heart to do much more than talk... An approach that has yielded nothing but a trail of broken truces in the past.

From today's NYTs, "U.S. Commanders Seeking to Widen Pakistan Attacks " by MARK MAZZETTI and ERIC SCHMITT, comes reports of a wisely cautious WH, bent on not riling the new Pakistani govt while simultaneously trying to dance around cleaning out the wasp nests of AQ and neo Taliban that have entrenched themselves in the tribal regions of that country.

American commanders in Afghanistan have in recent months urged a widening of the war that could include American attacks on indigenous Pakistani militants in the tribal areas inside Pakistan, according to United States officials.

The requests have been rebuffed for now, the officials said, after deliberations in Washington among senior Bush administration officials who fear that attacking Pakistani radicals may anger Pakistan’s new government, which is negotiating with the militants, and destabilize an already fragile security situation.

American commanders would prefer that Pakistani forces attack the militants, but Pakistani military operations in the tribal areas have slowed recently to avoid upsetting the negotiations.

Pakistan has given it's tacit nod to remote Predator drone strikes, but have made it abundantly clear they will not tolerate US boots on the ground, nor unsanctioned air strikes. Yet the US lives in a rock/hard place of facts. The areas with the highest threats are the very places the US is most restricted in actions by Pakistan. Instead, Pakistan insists on plodding thru with negotiating with their tribal militant factions... the very same who provide unmitigated aid to AQ and other Islamic jihad movements, as well as murdering the more peaceful tribal elders who do not cooperate.

The WH, however, knows the delicate line it walks. It has no choice but to let Pakistan learn it's lessons... one more time... the hard way.

Administration officials say the risk of angering the new government in Pakistan and stirring increased anti-American sentiment in the tribal areas outweighs the benefits of dismantling militant networks in the region.

“It’s certainly something we want to get to, but not yet,” said one Bush administration official. “If you do it now, you can expect to do it without Pakistani approval, and you can expect to do it only once because the Pakistanis will never help us again.”

This last line is one Cowboy Obama needs to remember, given his previous statements about Pakistan.

Back in August [2007], I said we should work with the Pakistani government, first of all to encourage democracy in Pakistan, and secondly, that we have to press them to do more to take on al Qaeda in their territory," the Illinois Democrat, who now threatens to strike at Senator Hillary Rodham Hillary in New Hampshire after a stunning performance in Iowa, said.

"What I said was, if they could not or would not do so, and we had actionable intelligence, then I would strike."

Obama's military swagger.. whether for show or for real... did not set with with the Pakistani's then. And it's unlikely it will go over any better with the new PPP led Parliament and PM Gilani in this post election era.

On the flip side, a GOP President McCain is in the same position as GWB. Without cooperation from the Pakistanis, and with Musharraf on the ropes, his hands are equally tied.

Either way, the next POTUS faces an uphill battle with the "kinder and gentler" approach the new Pak government has elected to take. Obama will either lose us an ally in the region with his unilaterial proposition, or McCain will find himself looking for incentives to use on Pakistan to get them more motivated in battling the jihad/militant elements.

One undeniable fact - Musharraf's maverick actions with the Pakistan army will be sorely missed.

Cautious optimism presented to Sen Foreign Relations Committee

Before Petraeus and Crocker arrive this week to face the political wrath and wrangling of our Congress, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee had a media/unheralded slide thru by CFR's Dr. Stephen Biddle on April 2nd. I'm quite sure it was ignored in the media because they found it difficult to find cherry picked phrases in his analysis, "Stablizing Iraq from the Bottom Up", that are absolutes in support of their quest for withdrawal.

The above link to Biddle's paper on Iraq is a H/T to Greg Grant at Tribal Wars. Since someone at Floppping Aces turned me on to Grant's blog, I've been visiting regularly, and taking time to read his past posts. I can tell that Grant and I have some base disagreements. But from his blog presentation, I suspect this is actually a man I could disagree with without it degenerating into venomous personal assaults. And, admirably, he does indeed place a great deal of emphasis on wanting to see our military properly equipped... a place where he and I live harmoniously.

But back to Biddle and his report to the Senate Foreign Relations Commmittee. It's a surprisingly a'political analysis. There's some calling on the carpet for the doubters of Surge success, and those who opposed and preemptively called the Surge a failure. There is also the same for those that supported the Iraq deposition of Saddam, and documented mistakes. All criticism of both sides, however, is done in retrospect, with extremely good taste.

After dancing around not hurting all the politicos' partisan feelings, we are left with an insightful analysis of not only the past years of development/failures in Iraq, but where their future might possibly lie. And what appears to be surprising Biddle the most is the unexpected "bottom up" path for Iraqis to gaining long term stability.

Biddle sees a fragile and workable peace founded on their their provincial localities and local ceasefires. To him, the weakness lies with the national central government which, if it takes too much control, can have the country fall like a house of cards.

But there is a way he sees to ceasefires exising long term... with some sort of a US or UN peacekeeping force in place. Needed at least, perhaps, until younger Iraqi's, not "scarred by the experience of sectarian bloodletting, rises to leadership age in Iraq." Again, our futures like in a youthful generation, not bombarded with ancient history of hate.

This is a 15 page statement, and is worthy of your entire read. But let's see if I can summarize his future projections... leaving his Monday morning quarterback analysis of Iraq's recent past to your own reading.

From the "Conclusions and Implications" section on pg 15 of the PDF:

Iraq’s system of local ceasefires may thus offer an opportunity to stabilize the country and avert the downside risks of failure for the region and for US interests. To realize this opportunity will not be cheap or easy. And it will not produce the kind of Iraq we had hoped for in 2003. A country stabilized via the means described above would hardly be a strong, internally unified, Jeffersonian democracy that could serve as a beacon of democracy in the region. Iraq would be a patchwork quilt of uneasy local ceasefires, with Sunni CLCs, Shiite CLCs, and Shiite militia governance adjoining one another in small, irregularly shaped districts; with most essential services provided locally by trusted co-religionists rather than by a weak central government whose functions could be limited to the distribution of oil revenue; and with a continuing need for outside peacekeepers to police the terms of the ceasefires, ensure against the resumption of mass violence, and deter interference from neighbors in a weak Iraqi state for many years to come.

So far his vision of Iraq doesn't sound much different than Pakistan, or any Muslim government seeking to find a balance and liveable peace between more modern Muslims, a thriving capitalistic economy, and those that desire Sharia law.

But if you will, allow me to interject my own main bone of contention with Biddle's entire paper. He suggests somewhat of an overall failure because Irag will not turn out to be, as he puts it, another "Germany or Japan".

Or, as he says above... "it will not produce the kind of Iraq we had hoped for in 2003."

Bush warned against this notion as far back as a Nov 2003 speech at the Nat'l Endowment for Democracy: Quoted from speech:

As we watch and encourage reforms in the region, we are mindful that modernization is not the same as Westernization. Representative governments in the Middle East will reflect their own cultures. They will not, and should not, look like us. Democratic nations may be constitutional monarchies, federal republics, or parliamentary systems. And working democracies always need time to develop -- as did our own. We've taken a 200-year journey toward inclusion and justice -- and this makes us patient and understanding as other nations are at different stages of this journey.

Thus the only ones who could be surprised at the Iraqis' finding a "bottom up" alternative solution more appropriate to their needs are the media... the same who assumed and propagated the popular myth that Bush was trying to "westernize" and not "democratize".

For the rest of us who had a more realistic view of a Muslim democracy, and never believed Iraq would be another Germany or Japan, it was only a matter of time.... wondering when Iraq would find it's own way to relative stability.

Now that we have the only major disagreement out of the way, more from Biddle's conclusions. He suggests that the inevitible peacekeeping force must be "international" or accepted. This is, of course, a fatal flaw in al Qaeda and al Jihad Groups' Zawahiri's eyes. Per his recent interview, his organization affords the UN no higher status than he does any western force on Arab lands. But we'll leave that as an aside for now.

There are no guarantees in Iraq. And given the costs and the risks of pursuing stability, a case can still be made for cutting our losses now and withdrawing all US forces as soon as it is logistically practical.

But none of the options are cost or risk-free in Iraq, including withdrawal. A US departure from an unstable Iraq risks an escalation in violence, the prospect of regional intervention, and a much wider war engulfing the heart of the Mideast’s oil production – any responsible proposal for troop withdrawals in Iraq must contend with their risks, which are substantial. All US options in Iraq thus remain unattractive.2 But we must choose one all the same.

Biddle is quite practical. There's no guarantees... and all choices carry risk. Duh wuh! The the following paragraph.. the last one to wrap up the conclusion, I might add, drives the reality home for a cowardly leadership in a political driven liberal Congress in election year.

And the case for cutting our losses in Iraq is weaker today than it was a year ago. The rapid spread of negotiated ceasefires and the associated decline in violence since then has improved the case for remaining in Iraq and paying the price needed to maximize our odds of stability. It will not be cheap, and it is hardly risk-free. But in exchange for these costs and risks we now have a better chance for stability – not a guarantee, but a better chance – than we have seen for a long time.

Yup... hard to cherry pick this one. And I suspect when Petraeus/Crocker come up and present the same future vision, it will be a fact that is hard to ignore.

Hard to ignore unless, of course, the media deliberately avoids the link between this report, and tomorrow's Petraeus/Crocker report.

Zawahiri... in his own words Visions for the Middle Eat

HT to Laura Mansfield of The Mansfield Report, via Gateway Pundit.

Read the full text of open interview with Zawahiri.

There is little excuse for liberal denial anymore. I speak of their naive promises that US exit from Iraq (and even Afghanistan) will appease the global Islamic jihad movement. I have oft pointed out that were we to exit both Iraq and Afghanistan, we are merely sitting with the identical presence in the Middle East as we had on September 11th.

The jihad movement demands far more than withdrawal from both Iraq and Afghanistan. And those demands are not limited to the withdrawal of US military, but even "Crusader" influence.... which could be interpreted as anything from democratic governments in Arab countries to the McDonalds or Starbucks on the corner of a Dubai or Kuwait City street.

Thus, reprinted below, are some excerpts of Zawahiri... in his own words.. that substantiate the naivety of our DNC candidates and their promised foreign policy gaffes in the works.

First, some cut and paste of questions/responses from the 48 page translation. First INRE the future of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Iran... plus the jihad movements' visions for their future.

“The first question: what do you expect to happen in Iraq after America’s withdrawal with Allah’s permission? And do the Rejectionist’s armed militias represent a worry to the Mujahideen? And how will the Mujahideen deal with these militias?

First: I expect the Jihadi influence to spread after the Americans’ exit from Iraq, and to move towards Jerusalem (with Allah’s permission). As for the militias mentioned, they have failed to eliminate the Jihad with the help of what is called the strongest power in the history of mankind, so will they succeed by themselves or with the help of Iran?

Zawahiri's promise of the jihadis making a "move towards Jerusalem" does not mean, in my opinion, they will immediately set out to attack Israel. Instead it may mean that with clearing out the infidel, they can concentrate on their long term strategy to eliminate Israel and their occupation of territories the jihad movement claims for their Caliphate. More on this below... keep reading.

Zawahiri also scoffs at the notion that if the jihad movement cannot be defeated in Iraq with America's superpower, then Iraq has no chance of defending itself.. even with help from Iran. But he reserves a special message for the Awakening Council in Iraq, and probably for any future similar movement.

“2 – Is there a word you would like to direct, our Shaykh, to the apostates of the Awakening Councils?”

Second: As for the apostates of the Awakening Councils, I tell them: the Mujahideen will – with Allah’s help and will – deal with you according to the tradition of Abu Bakr al-Siddiq (with whom Allah was pleased): a war which ousts or a peace which humiliates.

Simply translated, they will fight to the death to in war, or they can surrender and endure the humiliation of their cowardice.

And speaking of Iran...

“The second question: what is Your Eminence’s opinion about the American threats to Iran? And does America really intend to strike Iran? And if that happens, what do you expect will happen in the region? And will it be in the interest of the Mujahideen or not?

Second: the dispute between America and Iran is a real dispute based on the struggle over areas of influence, and the possibility of America striking Iran is a real possibility. As for what might happen in the region, I can only say that major changes will occur in the region, and the situation will be in the interest of the Mujahideen if the war saps both of them. If, however, one of them emerges victorious, its influence will intensify and fierce battles will begin between it and the Mujahideen, except that the Jihadi awakening currently under way and the degeneration state of affairs of the invaders in Afghanistan and Iraq will make it impossible for Iran or America to become the sole decision-maker in the region.

Zawahiri seems content to let Iran and the US duke it out, and take on whoever is left standing. But the hope is that any conflict will weaken both, so as to be beyond any influence.

“The third question: What is your evaluation of America’s situation now? Has it really begun to collapse? And what do you expect if the American withdrawal from Afghanistan and Iraq? Will you be satisfied with this state of affairs, or will you attempt to drag American into a new war?

Third: There is no doubt that the American collapse has begun, and the myth of unipolarity has ended. And the raids on New York and Washington were identifying marks of this collapse, but I point out that the collapse of empires doesn’t come in a single moment, but rather, may take decades, and the collapse of the Soviet Union is the nearest example of that. And the withdrawal of America from Afghanistan and Iraq will be in the interest of the Muslims with Allah’s permission, and the Jihadi vanguard has announced that its objective on which it will not compromise – at this stage – is the withdrawal of all unbelieving forces from the lands of the Muslims.

Zawahiri's translation uses an odd and irregular form of the word, unipolar... which means a manic depressive disorder. "...myth of unipolarity has ended". To analyze it in the context of a form of "polarity", meaning attraction and/or opposition of two extremes or poles, then adding the "uni", meaning one, it merely nullifies the push/pull of extremes.

Truthfully, this translation doesn't clearly convey Zawahiri's message for is confusion of term. However what is clear is that Zawahiri marks 911 as a major turning point in America's collapse. And my guess he probably means collapse from within.. perhaps by setting the nation into deep, "manic" divide. But that is merely my speculation.

INRE dragging America into another war. Zawahiri simply states that US forces are not the only intruders on his desired Caliphate. *Any* forces and influences that are unbelievers must go. That will include NATO forces (see UN comments further below). And extending to "influence", any western business influence they consider "unIslamic".

“The fourth question: I request Your Eminence to give us a look at the future of the Jihadi march: i.e. after five or six years, how will the situation be in Iraq, Palestine, Afghanistan, the Land of the Two Sanctuaries, the Islamic Maghrib, Chechnya, Somalia and Darfur? (Mata Note: I believe the Land of Two Sanctuaries is Saudi Arabia)

Fourth: I expect – by the grace of Allah – the spreading of the Jihadi tide and an increase in its influence corresponding to the receding of the influence of the Crusaders, Jews and their agents in the places I mentioned.

Note carefully, the goal is to eliminate the influence of Jews and Crusaders entirely. And Zawahiri sees a rise of Islamic law in ratio to a decline of western influence over the next five years.

He states again the goals more clearly in another question/answer section. This in regard, not to western occupation and influence, but directly against what he considers "apostate" regimes.... or Arab regimes that abandon or renounce Islam in their rule.

“8: What is the usefulness of Jihad combat actions against the apostate Arab regimes, which usually target the regimes’ lackeys without severing the heads? And how do you evaluate the results of these actions, especially in Algeria, Egypt and the country of the two Sanctuaries?”

Eighth: I talked before about the Jihadi actions in Egypt and the Arabian Peninsula, and I referred to our practical discretion at this stage, but I would like to add here three notes:

1) The clash with the corrupt regimes must occur sooner or later if we want to set up the Muslim state and liberate the lands of Islam.

2) The overall position is open to adjustment from one territory to another. So for
example, in Algeria the brothers pair targeting of Jewish and Western interests with waging a guerilla war against the hireling government, because their circumstances make it possible for them to do that.

3) Severing the heads isn’t the objective: rather, the objective is to remove the corrupt, apostate regime and set up the Islamic government. And the means of change differ from one territory to another.

I repeat... "the objective is to remove the corrupt, apostate regime and set up the Islamic government." So in the first stated goal above, it was to see receding influence of Jews and Crusaders. But there is a second stated goal. Once the jihad movement can bring American resolve to her knees, their next target are the Arab governments themselves - those who do not implement and rule by Islamic law.

These governments are also marked for demise by mere cooperation with the west on intelligence.Even perhaps, by trade. And it is this phrasing that makes me believe the "move towards Jerusalem" is actually the quest to surround Israel with the Islamic Caliphate.

Which brings us to the first volume of pages where Zawahiri was pretty beat up by numerous questions (taken in advance and answered in bulk later...) on their disregard towards killing fellow Muslims.

His responses are vast and repetitive over the oft answered subject. But they ever followed the same theme.... Muslims who cooperate with Crusaders are infidels, and thereby fair game in jihad. They do not kill "innocents", however do admit that there are times when they die because they are used as a "human shield", as the infidel situates himself amidst the Muslim community.

I would like to clarify to the brother questioner that we don’t kill innocents: in fact, we fight those who kill innocents. Those who kill innocents are the Americans, the Jews, the Russians and the French and their agents. Were we insane killers of innocents as the questioner claims, it would be possible for us to kill thousands of them in the crowded markets, but we are confronting the enemies of the Muslim Ummah and targeting them, and it may be the case that during this, an innocent might fall unintentionally or unavoidably, and the Mujahideen have warned repeatedly the Muslims in general that they are in a war with the senior criminals – the Americans and Jews and their allies and agents – and that they must keep away from the places where these enemies gather.

Using the inherent belief that any association and cooperation with those the jihad movement considers infidels and the enemy, Muslims who indulge in democracy, elections, anything with western influence, are targets. But there will be no international presence in the jihadi's Caliphate either... For Zawahiri has specifically targeted the United Nations as an enemy, and taunted them for their fast withdrawal in Iraq upon confrontation.

The operation on the 11th of December was against the headquarters of the United Nations and the Constitutional Assembly and Police Academy, not against children’s schools or women’s hospitals. And the United Nations is an enemy of Islam and Muslims: it is the one which codified and legitimized the setting up of the state of Israel and its taking over of the Muslims’ lands. It is the one which considers Chechnya an inseparable part of Crusader Russia, and consider Ceuta and Melilla inseparable parts of Crusader Spain. And it is the one which codified the Crusader presence in Afghanistan through the Bonn conference, and codified the Crusader presence in Iraq through its various resolutions, and approved the separation of East Timor from Indonesia, while it doesn’t recognize that [right] for Chechnya, nor for all the Muslim Caucasus, nor for Kashmir, nor for Ceuta and Melilla, nor for Bosnia.

Allah granted success to the heroic Amir and – as we consider him – martyr Abu Mus’ab al-Zarqawi (may Allah have mercy on him), and he blew up the headquarters of the United Nations in Baghdad at the beginning of the Crusader invasion of Iraq, and its remnants turned back in flight. And thus he ruined the Crusaders’ plans to cover the Crusader invasion with international forces which wouldn’t provoke Arab and Islamic sensitivities. This is the same ruse which the Crusaders used in Lebanon, and so the forces of Hizbullah withdrew 30 kilometers to the rear and approved an international Crusader presence to occupy the lands of the Muslims on Lebanese soil, and the leadership of Hizbullah even promised to preserve the safety of those Crusader forces occupying the Muslims’ lands.

There is much much more here - giving us an unedited view into the enemy's mind and goals. The question is, will our media blind the electorate to the truth by ignoring and minimizing Zawahiri's words? And next POTUS even bother to listen?

Pelosi warns Petraeus ... doesn't want any good news

Ah yes... another Petraeus visit to Congress. And I guess the MoveOn.org funds prohibit another slanderous ad because Pelosi, herself - backed up by Ike Skelton and Howard Berman - called a press conference to lay out the predictable DNC un'welcome mat.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) warned Army Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker on Thursday not to "put a shine on recent events” in Iraq when they testify before Congress next week.

“I hope we don’t hear any glorification of what happened in Basra,” said Pelosi, referring to a recent military offensive against Shiite militants in the city led by the Iraqi government and supported by U.S. forces.

Although powerful Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr agreed to a ceasefire after six days of fighting, Pelosi wondered why the U.S. was caught off guard by the offensive and questioned how the ceasefire was achieved, saying the terms were "probably dictated from Iran.”

Caught "off guard"??? This woman needs to read something other than Redbook when getting her nails done. Prior to the start of Operation Calvary Charge, the US offered to place Special Forces and air power near the theatre as back up. The Iraqi's politely refused. Tough to offer aid in advance when you're caught off guard, don't you think?

According to even citizen Iraqis, they've known about OCC for months. In fact, word is it was supposed to start a week earlier, but was delayed for Abdul-Aziz al-Hakim's cold feet.

And dictated from Iran? Good god, woman. First you want everyone to "talk" to Iran. And when Maliki does, now you say Iran is "dictating" cease fire terms. Pick a talking point and stay on it, if you can.

Ahmadinejad visited Iran... with barely a welcome wagon. His offers of aid and projects were refused by Iraq. And to quote Nibras Kazimi of Talisman Gate directly...

"The UIA delegation that visited al-Sadr went public in denouncing any media talk of Iranian intervention in calming down the situation and described such talk as “enemy propaganda”.

What we do have is yet another DNC ploy to use a responsive, anti-free-Iraq media to discredit Petraeus in advance. And this is appalling. Congress should be listening to events from commanders on the ground... not the New York Times.

Reports of Maliki's demise are premature...

As Mark Twain said, "The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated". So it is with the western press's rush to declare Maliki's demise.

Media outlets - overjoyed that the Basra battle provided a rare opportunity to declare the Surge "failure" - are now falling all over themselves to pronounce Maliki's Operation Calvary Charge against Sadr'ist area mobsters and cartels a loss. Odd to assume that with one battle, a "war" is won *or* lost. Frankly, I've been looking at it as a great start for Iraqi's policing their own.

But before you get all caught up in the mantra of defeat and parroted phrases of western media, I suggest a perspective from one with more inside knowledge... Nibras Kazimi's "The 'Intifada' that Wasn't" at Talisman Gate.

I won that wager. I had written that “the Iraqi Army’s military operation in Basra will be a spectacular win against disorder and Iranian influence”. And I was right.

Of course, most western media outlets are declaring Muqtada al-Sadr and Iran as the victors of Operation Cavalry Charge. Nothing could be furthest from the truth.

The United Alliance List delegation comprising Ali al-Adib of the Da’awa Party, Hadi al-Ameri of the Badr Organization and (I think…) Qasim al-Sahlani representing a group that had splintered from the Da’awa Party, evidently made al-Sadr an offer he couldn’t refuse when they sat down for a friendly chat in Tehran two days ago: the Iraqi state was willing to go all the way in smashing the Sadrist movement—arresting all the leaders and shutting down all the offices—if he didn’t play along with Operation Cavalry Charge and hand over those operatives whose names appear on the wanted lists.

See Maliki went to Basra with a long-ish list of names comprising all those involved in oil smuggling, drug dealing and the various other crimes that have wracked Basra. It just so happens that many of them claim to be Mahdi Army commanders.

This is what I wrote a couple of days ago:

snip... continue reading at link above - truly a MUST REA

Haditha "massacre" myth quietly dissolves Ignored by media and ACLU

FrontPage Magazine's Ben Johnson article today, "The Party of Defeat’s Haditha Lie Crumbles", brings two very important points to bear.

1: The media hype, stoked by Murtha's accusations of murder in cold blood, kept Haditha in the forefront of headlines. Now that the electorate has formed an opinion of Murtha, as the defender of the Iraqi innocent, and the US Marine as a cold blooded killer, the media ignores the dismissal of charges of the third of the fourth defendants. The charge? Not murder. But failure to "properly identify every target before opening fire."

In reality, terrorists had fired on the squad from inside the house, and the room where innocent people had been killed was smoke-filled; moreover, according to multiple witnesses, everyone heard an AK-47 “racking” – that is, getting ready to fire upon them. A positive identification would have been both impossible and suicidal. The investigating officers report further observed, according to the prosecution's case, Tatum would have been absolved of throwing a grenade into the room without positively identifying everyone inside, but not firing his rifle. The government ultimately found his actions had not violated the rules of engagement.

In reality, terrorists had fired on the squad from inside the house, and the room where innocent people had been killed was smoke-filled; moreover, according to multiple witnesses, everyone heard an AK-47 “racking” – that is, getting ready to fire upon them. A positive identification would have been both impossible and suicidal. The investigating officers report further observed, according to the prosecution's case, Tatum would have been absolved of throwing a grenade into the room without positively identifying everyone inside, but not firing his rifle. The government ultimately found his actions had not violated the rules of engagement.

There was also the prosecution's star witness, Lance Cpl Humberto Mendoza, a Venezuelan citizen “trying to get his application for U.S. citizenship released by the Naval Criminal Investigative Service, which is holding up his papers.” Mendoza accused Tatum of issuing orders for Mendoza to kill and, upon refusal he says, Tatum pulled the trigger.

Minor detail in the he said-he said battle. Tatum passed a lie detector. Mendoza failed.

2: What about torture? Isn't the ACLU, Congress and the electorate all up in arms about "torture"? Or is "torture" acceptable because it's performed on US soldiers?

If leftists genuinely cared about U.S. troops, they would have protested the conditions of the Haditha soldiers' interrogations. Investigators refused to provide attorneys when requested, questioned the men for 12 hours at a time, and did not allow them to take bathroom breaks, forcing the men to relieve themselves into bottles. This far outstrips most of the accusations made against U.S. soldiers.

Certainly many of the above conditions are what constitutes "torture" to the left. Which begs the question of where is the ACLU in all this?

I suggest their distinct absence on behalf of the Haditha accused shows that the ACLU cares not about torture, but about giving comfort and opportunity for freedom to our enemy. They are, plain and simple, on the wrong side of the battlefield.

Pakistan Update Trouble on the horizon?

While most eyes and pundits focus on the battles in Basra, arguing over it's status as progress or a setback, we have what may be the loss of an important ally looming on the horizon.

As I pointed out in my Mar 25th post, Hating Musharraf, the media indoctrination, painting Musharraf as the enemy and the PPP as the Pakistani saviours, is bringing some more of those chickens home to roost. And the latest reports show not only no change in that original assessment, but even more firm assertations to go the path of peace thru negotiations with militants.

Musharraf hasn't thrown in the towel yet, promising cooperation with the new majority at his farewell dinner. But he also specifically made the point that he hoped the new government would recognize that one of it's prime responsibilities was the country's internal and external security.

In the meantime the power duo, Zardari (PPP co-chair) and Sharif (PML-N), tossed Musharraf a bone scrap, taking a "we'll see" attitude towards Musharraf's Presidential future. Their continuing relationship depended upon Musharraf's attitude towards Parliament.

The new PPP PM, Gilani, got a unanimous vote of "trust" from the assembly (including an uncontested Musharraf block... apparently a "no surprise" vote, indicating Musharraf may have noodged them into compliance), then laid out his kinder/gentler rules of engagement for the war on terror. Already his visions appear dashed with the improbability of bringing the differing factions to the peace table. His is a vision not untried in the past.

Mr Gilani, who is due to name the first batch of his cabinet on Monday, said his government was not afraid of “innumerable challenges” facing the country and that “the restoration of law and order and total elimination of terrorism will be (its) first priority”.

“The war against terrorism is our own war because countless of our innocent children and jawans have fallen martyrs as a result of it,” he said.

OLIVE BRANCH: But the prime minister, who discussed the future of Pakistan’s key role in the American-led war against terrorism with two senior US diplomats this week, offered an olive branch to what he described as some people who had chosen the path of violence as a means of expressing their views, asking them to give up their approach and “join us in this journey of democracy”.

“We are ready to talk to all those people who will lay down arms and adopt the path of peace,” he said.

However those with whom Gilani wishes to engage have laid down their own demands, as well as issued violent threats to the local tribal elders.

Local Taliban militants have asked the new government to end relations with the US and enforce Sharia in tribal areas and have warned tribal elders against meeting US officials.

The warning was issued at a public meeting held in Enayet Kalli near Khar on Sunday which was attended by thousands of tribesmen chanting anti-US slogans.

snip

“We hail Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani’s announcement to repeal the FCR,” Maulvi Faqir said, adding that the government should implement Sharia in the tribal region and sever diplomatic relations with United States.

“Taliban are patriotic people and do not want to fight with their own government. We have waged jihad against America. But the country will suffer as long as Pakistan remains an ally of the US in the ongoing war on terror in the region,” Maulvi Faqir said.

The new government, he said, should not repeat mistakes of the previous government and must change its internal and external policies. He said the militants were ready for talks with the government.

The meeting urged the government to remove all new checkpoints from the area and lift a ban on non-customs paid vehicles.

The Taliban leaders warned elders of ‘consequences’, if they met US officials.

A committee comprising local clerics was set up to resolve disputes among tribesmen. The committee was authorised to prepare a mechanism for eliminating un-Islamic practices like interest on loans, robbery and kidnapping for ransom from the region.

Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan spokesman Maulvi Umar told Dawn by phone that the government should formally enforce Sharia in the tribal belt.

Somehow, there doesn't appear to be much change in the militants' demands, nor in their coersive methods. Certainly demands of all diplomatic ties with the US doesn't fit into Gilani's desire to maintain "....strong and close relations also with America and Europe”.

The last truce with Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan's leader, Baitullah Mehsud, in 2006 proved to be yet another farce. And cooperation by the tribal leaders to root out the militants is inevitably followed by a blood bath of the elders, as has been done in the past.

The US most definitely has a concern with the possible loss of Musharraf, and the new gov't kinder/gentler approach.

The US is concerned that a softened approach might let Al Qaeda, the Taliban and other groups expand their base in Pakistan and step up attacks on US forces in Afghanistan.

The Bush administration also is concerned about the political sidelining of President Pervez Musharraf, its longtime ally in Pakistan.

While the previous Musharraf-led military government signed peace deals with the tribal leaders in 2006 — a strategy the CIA chief called ‘absolutely disastrous’ since it allowed Al Qaeda to regroup — the government also periodically conducted military strikes and permitted US missile strikes on suspected Al Qaeda targets.

Gilani, who clearly faces the same problems the previous govt did, talks a good game, but is likely to face the same obstacles that cannot be hurdled with talk alone. What remains to be seen is how this will affect the US-Pakistan relationships... even with a new POTUS.

Basra: A glimpse into a future Iraq under DNC foreign policy

Gordon Brown's admin has done the GOP a favor in the pre'election run up... they have, with their premature withdrawal from Basra, demonstrated to the world what will happen in Iraq if coalition troops leave before the Iraqis are fully capable of holding their own.

"Holding their own" includes more than just troops training, or political reconciliation - assuming... when you view the US DNC vs GOP... there is such a thing as political reconciliation. Part of Iraq's battle to be self-sufficient also depends upon competent structure in their finance/budget execution departments. For what good is having a stellar military if they cannot appropriate gear and ammunition? And what good is political reconciliation if they can allocate funds for national projects, but can not implement them due to bureaucratic red tape?

Today's Telegraph finds some US senior advisors giving our UK ally a discreet slap on the hand for governing via poll results.

Although British commanders in Basra still intend to play only a back-seat role, the deteriorating security picture nationwide prompted harsh comments from the principal architect of the surge strategy.

Mr Kagan, a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute think-tank, told The Sunday Telegraph: "British forces have an obligation to step up when needed and it sure looks here like they're needed.

"It is rather a watershed moment in the Anglo-American alliance. I understand that your Prime Minister has already said that the special relationship is over. There's an issue here of fulfilling your obligations as an ally, freely undertaken."

His fellow surge architect, retired US general Jack Keane, also voiced doubts that the Iraqi security forces would be able to pacify Basra unassisted. "There are about 8,000 armed militiamen with a stranglehold on the people of Basra. The situation in Basra has deteriorated since the British pulled out."

Their comments are likely to embarrass Downing Street and anger British commanders in Basra, who have insisted their policy of scaling down their presence is to encourage Iraqi security forces to take the lead. Senior officers also said that the coalition command in Baghdad approved their plans.

snip

Mindful of US unease over Basra, Des Browne, the Defence Secretary, will signal this week that there will be no withdrawal of UK troops from Iraq this spring.

He will tell the Commons that "all options remain under review", but government sources said it was accepted within the military that any troop withdrawal at this time would be "presentationally unacceptable".

This is the same British Sec'y of Defense who - just days ago in the thick of the Basra battle (March 29th) - stated in an interview that Britain should negotiate with the Taliban and Hezbollah. But, in the next breath, also noted that there was *no* negotiating with al Qaeda.

Defense Sec'y Browne is the perfect embodiment of a leader who lacks the education and comprehension of the enemy and their alliances. Ruling power achieved via violence, and the desire for strict adherence to (their version of) Islamic law, are the common threads of the multi pronged global Islamic jihad movement.

In short, you can no more separate al Qaeda from Hezbollah or the Taliban than you can separate the differing membership of medical professionals from the AMA.

The Basra battle was looming - and is necessary in Iraq's long term future - prior to it's recent kickoff. Or, as Iraqi visiting fellow, Nibras Kazimi put it in his 3/25/08 blog post, "Operation Calavary Charge (Updated)", at Talisman Gate:

This is Operation ‘Cavalry Charge’, which is the best translation I could come up with for صولة الفرسان.

Its chief objective is to flush out the organized crime cartels that control the port of Basra and the oil pipelines of the province. One major criminal force in the Basrawi scene are groups that affiliate themselves with the Sadrist movement and its Mahdi Army. Many of these criminal rings are also associated with certain factions of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard that operate in Basra both for intelligence/sabotage purposes as well as enriching themselves. By knocking out these egregious manifestations of lawlessness, Operation Cavalry Charge will have the accrued benefit of mashing up the more subtle patterns of Iran’s malignant influence in Iraqi Shiism’s foremost economic prize, the oil fields and port of Basra.

But is this how this story is being reported by the US and Arab media? Of course not!

The dominant false narrative du jour goes something like this: the Sadrists are angry over a number of things (arrests, political wrangling with the Hakim family and the Da’awa Party, etc.) so they decided to back away from Sadr’s seven-month ‘ceasefire’ (a term invented by the western media as a deliberately wrongful translation of تجميد وإعادة هيكلة جيش المهدي: “freezing and restructuring the Mahdi Army”) by staging ‘civil disobedience’ (…such as shutting down primary schools and shops by threatening teachers, students and the middle class) but things quickly deteriorated into the perpetual cycles violence that these journalists and pundits are mentally wedded to and have staked their thin expertise on predicting as Iraq’s inevitable fate.

If little old me had known about Operation Cavalry Charge a month ago then it stands to reason that the Sadrists and the Iranians had heard about it too. In fact, it was supposed to start a week ago, but got delayed allegedly because Abdul-Aziz al-Hakim got cold feet. However, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki forced the issue and flew down to Basra a couple of days ago (media reports said he got in yesterday; I was told something else) to personally oversee his boldest move yet: demonstrating that he’s got the gumption to use Iraqi security resources to battle Shia militias and crime cartels and take back Iraq’s vital economic nerve-center, all without appealing for American help and in a direct challenge to Iranian objectives.

The events in Basra are a lose-lose scenario for the DNC posturing on Iraq. They lose in their calls for withdrawal as a way to further Iraq's progress. The British turned over control of Basra to the Iraqis prematurely. Were they still in control, Operation Calvary Charge would have been delayed, allowing yet more time for Iraq military progress and increased equipment.

Yet the British semi-abandoment is somewhat of a blessing in disquise, as now the world can envision Iraq's future with a US premature withdrawal under Obama or Clinton. The Iraqis demonstrated their intents and desires to clean out the criminal cartels in their country. And, despite their fledgling status (and with a little help from US air strikes and some British side fire) they have won the battle. Sadr has called his street dogs off.

The DNC naysayers also lose when they deem Iraq as ungovernable, and in the midst of a civil war. This is about as much a "civil war" as US police actions against mobsters, cartels and gangs operating in US borders. To call Iraqis killing Iraqis (irrespective of Sunni or Shia) civil war demands the same label apply to American on American gang and criminal violence. It should also be noted we have a higher number of of those "American insurgent" deaths.

There are most definitely "wins" here in Iraq progress. The plan and will to secure Basra by the Maliki gov't is a step forward. The fact they lasted so long on their own before getting coalition aid a few days later shows they not only have the will to police their own country, but they are getting better at doing so.

Another win is for Maliki himself, long portrayed as Sadr's puppet and paid official. While it held some truth in the past, as Sadr's support catapulted Maliki to a position of power, that relationship has been altered.

But the biggest win goes to the Iraqis themselves. For it not only shows the govt plans on policing the entire nation, sans cartels, but shuns Iranian influence simultaneously. It is their way of saying their intrusive neighbor - "our port... our control... hands off".

Now picture our future. A newly elected DNC POTUS pulls US troops, leaving Iraq's so-called "civil war" in the hands of the Iraqis. Basra now goes nationwide wide, and the new Iraq police and military forces are overwhelmed, and under supplied with gear, vehicles and munitions. The jihad radicals are, of course well armed with black market war supplies by Iran, Syria, and every other underground channel they can tap. Thre is no dearth in middle east nations that want to see a free Iraq fail.

Iraq's failure or success will lay squarely on the hands of the next CIC, and how he/she chooses to continue our presence in Iraq. And yet, I will wager that if they do the right thing, and Iraq assumes competent control over their future without US troops, the DNC will bemore than willing and quick to take credit for success.

But they will be just as quick to dig a mass grave for the plethora of 2005-2008 press stories of their past - filled with withdraw/surrender demands.