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.

An President Obama?"If the dictators and terrorists are smiling, it means everyone else is crying.

An insightful column in the Israel Insider today by Barry Rubin, "LEBANON TO WEST: WAKE UP FAST!"

Anyone who has read my dissertations and rants knows I have the utmost disdain for our western media, our Congress, and the lazy American voters who insist on rejecting in depth education before forming opinions and casting votes. The media, charged with the education of voters on current events, constantly casts the US as the villain in the ongoing battle between the global Islamic jihad movements and western cultures and freedoms. The voters do not care to learn differently... takes too much time for "homework" and research. Spoiled US citizens are too easily distracted, and demonstrate little pride or aptitude for learning

Yet the path we insist upon traveling is fraught with danger of losing all we hold dear. What happens in the Middle East has an effect here, to the stubborn denial of average Joe and Josephine Blow. Each press headline offers more tinder to the fire that fuels jihad. Even tho their appeal is dwindling amongst Muslims for their brutal methods, it doesn't take many militants to inflict the damage and gain ground. It takes one suicide bomber, well placed in a public venue, to make an impact. It takes only a few well armed brutal leaders to subdue a nation into fear.

Rubin's article is a plea to humanity. Wake up, before it's too late. Much of his content revolves around Lebanon, too weak to stand up to Hezbollah. On the flip side, with 1/3 of the Shia Lebanese willing to fight back, Hezbollah leaders know they can't defeat the government militarily. But, as Rubin says, they don't need to. They merely need to control the government, forcing it to do their bidding.

Why should Lebanese Sunni, Druze, and Christians risk their lives when the West doesn't help them? Every Israeli speaking nonsense about Syria making peace; every American claiming Damascus might split from Tehran; every European preaching appeasement has in fact been engaged in confidence-breaking measures.

Hizballah doesn't need to win a military victory but only to show it can win one, using that position of strength to try to force its demands on the moderate government. . The government has already accepted Michel Suleiman, Syria's candidate for president. But Hizballah and the rest say this is not enough: they want veto power over everything.

This much is obvious to those of us who read. We have our own puppets in government with non-elected officials behind the scenes, controlling the marionette strings.

Rubin, blasting the western leaders and media for their inaction on behalf of Lebanon, and lack of urgency, reserves his strongest criticisms for the leading DNC candidate, Barack Obama.

If you want to know what's wrong, consider Obama's May 10 statement on Lebanon. He starts out playing tough, talking about "Hezbollah's power grab in Beirut. This effort to undermine Lebanon's elected government needs to stop, and all those who have influence with Hezbollah must press them to stand down immediately." He calls for supporting the Lebanese government, strengthening the Lebanese army, and to "insist on disarming Hezbollah."

But how to do this? By "working with the international community and the private sector to rebuild Lebanon and get its economy back on its feet."

In other words, according to the Obama world view, it's a problem of development. If people have more money they won't be terrorists. Of course, that was the policy of Hariri, which was countered by Syria blowing him up. In politics, bombs trump business. And any way you can't have a strong economy with no government and chaos. Part of the mistake here is Obama's assumption that Hizballah (and other radicals) want stability and prosperity. In fact, they want to use instability as blackmail in their pursuit of They don't want conciliation. It's a military-strategic problem, not one of community organizing.

The underlined statements (by me) drive a huge misconception home. It's true that a thriving economic Arab democracy is less a hotbed of terrorist recruitment. But what so many miss is this is the exact reason AQ and ilk cannot afford for Iraq to be in anything but chaos.... to keep instability and violence as such a level that the denizens cave in, relinquish all freedoms to oppression merely to live more easily through another day in hell.

Obama continues in his naivety, suggesting that the UN resolutions must be implemented. Terrific... this is the group that could not, and will not, even disarm Hezbollah. The UN and NATO are nothing but a history of one failure after another. The absolute irrelevance and corruption can be simply noted by the fact that the human rights committee is headed by Libya. Right....

But then Obama, with his Marxist views, speaks the soothing words that sound so good to gullible westerners, and strikes fear in the hearts of Arabs and Lebananese who desire freedom over Hezbollah oppression.

"It's time to engage in diplomatic efforts to help build a new Lebanese consensus that focuses on electoral reform, an end to the current corrupt patronage system, and the development of the economy that provides for a fair distribution of services, opportunities and employment."

Aptly translated by Rubin, Obama is "endorsing the Hizballah program." . Obama's largest failure as a leader is that he finds nothing in this battle worth fighting for. Diplomacy is, in his opinion, the answer.

Rubin then provides some the sarcastic comeback by Lebanon's government supporters to Obama's nonsensical suggestion.

"Oh the time we wasted by fighting Hizballah all those years?. If only we had engaged them and their masters in diplomacy?sitting with them around discussion tables, welcoming them into our parliament, and letting them veto cabinet decisions. If only Obama had shared his wisdom with us before, back when he was rallying with some of our former friends at pro-Palestinian rallies in Chicago. How stupid we were when, instead of developing 'national consensus' with them, we organized media campaigns against Israel on behalf of the impoverished people who voted for them.

"During that time when we bought into the cause against Israel, treating resistance fighters like our brothers, we really should have been 'building consensus' with them. Because what we did . . . was . . . unnecessary antagonism, a product of a 'corrupt patronage system and unfair distribution of wealth.'"

"We stand today regretting the wasted time that could have been wisely spent talking to them, to the Syrian occupiers who brought them into our system, and the Iranian revolutionary guards who trained them."

The Lebanese see thru Obama's vision of "unity", and the serious damage following his Pied Piper vision can wreak. Why is it American's cannot?

But, as the sage and astute Rubin aptly says...

When Senator and presidential candidate Barack Obama says he will negotiate with Syria and Iran over Iraq's future, he signals every Persian Gulf regime to cut its own deal with Iran. When his stances convince Hamas that he's the guy for them; when Iran and Syria conclude they merely need stand defiant and wait until January 21 for any existing pressure vanishes, the U.S. position in the Middle East is being systematically destroyed.

Note that this does not make Obama the candidate favored by Arabs in general but only by the radicals. Egyptians, Jordanians, Gulf Arabs, and the majorities in Lebanon and Iraq are very worried. This is not just an Israel problem; it is one for all non-extremists in the region.

If the dictators and terrorists are smiling, it means everyone else is crying.

Amen to that....

A new era of power struggles in Pakistan...the same ol' players

Nawaz Sharif has returned to Pakistan. And unlike his previous attempt, where he was immediately deported, he now has a tentative welcome from Musharraf.

It's hard to tell whether Sharif unpacked, or prepared files to run for PM in the Jan elections first. But there's no denying Sharif is back, and again ready to take control... and pontificating all the "right" phrases.

On his return on Sunday, Sharif vowed to “continue his fight against dictatorship”.

In his brief address at the airport in Lahore, he said: “Pakistan was not created for dictators or emergencies. It was created for democracy and the rule of law. I am here to play my role in ridding the country of dictatorship and bringing back the rule of law.”

About boycotting the next elections, he said the All Parties Democratic Movement - an alliance of parties opposed to Musharraf's rule - would assess the situation after the expiry of the four-day notice it had given to the government.

“But the movement is committed to democracy and constitutionalism. That is why it has demanded restoration of the judiciary to its pre-Nov 3 position.”

Musharraf declared a state of emergency in Pakistan on 3 November, citing rising extremism and an unruly judiciary. He sacked several Supreme Court judges who had shown judicial independence and replaced them with other judges.

Sharif, told the crowd that he had not come to the country under any deal.

“My roots are among the masses and I will never ditch them. I will live and die for the people of Pakistan,” he said amid a thunderous applause.

What a laugh... the words "democracy and constitutionalism" now bandied about by Sharif is truly a publicity campaign that belies Sharif's history. This is no pro-western, pro-freedom leader, as he or unsuspecting, history challenged western media would have us believe.

Even from the not-so-western-friendly Al Jazeera profile site

As chief minister of the populous Punjab from 1988 to 1990, Sharif challenged Bhutto, who became prime minister after Zia's death in an aeroplane explosion.

Sharif - with the military's blessing - was elected prime minister after Bhutto's dismissal in 1990, but after three years he was sacked on corruption charges following differences with Ghulam Ishaq Khan, the then-president.

Instead of accepting the dismissal, Sharif launched a scathing attack on Khan, considered his former mentor and top representative of the military-led establishment.

Second term

Sharif bounced back to the premiership in 1996 after the dismissal of Bhutto's second government on corruption charges.

He then won a massive two-thirds majority in 1997 elections, which emboldened him to take on the army - the institution which has ruled Pakistan for more than half its existence since independence 60 years ago.

Sharif also moved to increase the powers of his office, reversing a constitutional amendment that allowed the president to dismiss the prime minister.

Later, Pakistan's western allies grew concerned when he sought to introduce sharia (Islamic law), with himself as the so-called "commander of the faithful".

Let's review... Changing the constitution to increase his power and insure he couldn't be canned as PM, corruption charges (like Bhutto), and convicted (with life sentence imposed) for hijacking, attempted murder and terrorism. Then, of course, there's that pesky attempt to instill Shariah law in Pakistan. Sounds like a staunch freedom & democracy lover to me... not.

This is no new welcome entity in Pakistan. Sharif, who appointed Musharraf as chief of the army, did work side by side until they parted ways over Sharif's personal power quest and plans for making Pakistan a strict Islam nation.

So the big three are back... slugging it out for Pakistan's future. AQ is building up in Afghanistan, wearing Taliban insignias. And this would not make Musharraf a happy camper.

The battles for Pakistan, and for Lebanon - where pro Syrian/Hezbollah and pro-democracy govt entities, sans a stepped down President, battle for control while the country remains under control of the military - are two important one's to be watched. Both nations are important in the battle to contain the global Islamic jihad movement.

Media's simplistic "Sunni vs Shia" analyses again proven wrong...

We've been told over and over by an undereducated media that Iraq is merely a civil war - Sunni vs Shia violence - and that Saddam was never a danger as he could never have collaborated with the likes of Bin Laden and peers. It appears beyond a stubborn media (and Congress') comprehension to grasp the true convolution of relationships between Wahhabi and Deobandi mentalities, and the way they interact and function - yea... even survive - with Arab/Islamic states and with each other.

Again Ray Robison, Richard Duniway and "Sammi" have been proven correct in their co-authored work, Both in one Trench. The book, providing translations and analyses of documents confiscated in Iraq in 2003 proves that Saddam had been working and funding the global Islamic jihad movement. He held power and control, yes. But to do that, he had to form alliances with those the media tells us he hated.

Echoing the very same assessment is today's Jawa Report, Syrian Intelligence Linked to al Qaeda in Lebanon".

Fatah al-Islam is an al Qaeda affiliated group in Lebanon. Why would Syria support an al Qaeda linked group when the Syrian Baathists are so deeply hated by the Islamists? The answer is that the Islamists aren't opposed to strategic alliances, even with regimes they consider 'apostate'.

Below quote is from the Jawa Report referenced NY Sun article, Syrian Intelligence Linked to Terrorist Group.

"Direct contact between some of Fatah al-Islam's leaders and some senior Syrian intelligence officers, which were revealed in the interrogations, are consistent with the suspicion that Syrian intelligence has used Fatah al-Islam to serve its political and security objectives in Lebanon," Mr. Siniora wrote, according to Mr. Ban's report to the Security Council.

For comparison, a summary by Ray Robison in the Introduction of Both in One Trench:

The Saddam regime supported Islamic terrorists the same as it supported other
‘secular’ terrorists. The key to understanding this issue is the logical distinction
between working with Islamic extremists to achieve mutual objectives outside of
Iraq versus having them exist uncontrolled inside Iraq. Saddam’s regime was “open
for business” to leaders from al-Qaeda, Egyptian Islamic Jihad, the Taliban, Hamas,
Afghani warlords and other Islamic extremist organizations. A singular instance or
two of the Saddam regime meeting with Islamic terrorist leaders could possibly be
discounted in the overall scheme of things. However, document after document
indicates that Saddam’s strategy was to support Islamic terrorists to achieve mutual
objectives. His embrace of Islamic extremists, at odds with his supposedly secular
regime, was a survival technique.

Eventually the truth of Saddam, his nefarious contacts, hidden deeds and intents that most certainly did threaten the US will come out. In the meantime, the naysayers will have their day spreading lies and disinformation. Because of hatred for this country? Or because of sheer stupidity and an aversion to research?

Hard to say. But either one is unforgivable as it relates to the security of this nation.