Negotiating with Iran and Syria...

Yes, I have heard that there will be a 'regional meeting' in which the US will sit down with the 'neighbors' of Iraq that just seek 'peace'!

As this is a Republican President, I assume he will do what the last one to want to find an accord with Iran will do?

You know after taking Americans hostage from our Embassy in Tehran, bombing our Embassy in Beirut and killing 63, of which 49 were US Embassy staff, killing 241 American Servicemen, bombing the US Embassy in Beirut *again* killing 23 and then having one of our diplomats in Beirut abducted, later to be killed?

Do you remember that?

And the 'sweet deal' that came along after those things?

I hope that this President bakes a nice cake.

It is traditional.

Before giving the Iranian regime what it wants.

No thanks to the 'Realists'.

Again.

Sphere: Related Content

The Directivity of China

Examining China is not my stock'n'trade to say the least, and my ignorance is as vast as my thumbnail knowledge is of that vast territory and Nation. From early Hydraulic Empires to its turbulent decades of losing social cohesion due to the Opium trade to the Japanese invasion and the Red backlash which lost it Taiwan, China has not been a main focus of my interest. That said a few of the underlying principles of what is going on in China have always been at odds with the wonderful face they have presented to the world, please don't mind the bloody tank treads along the way.

In my Oil Outlook mostly upon Iran but ranging far and wide to look at social dynamics, I did put forth this on China:

China is facing a problem of subsidized fuel, a shift to the middle class and yet they still having a huge amount of their population living in rural conditions. Destabilization of its Western provinces by Islamic terrorists is no longer unknown. The Central provinces are facing population decline and economic collapse for the population that remains. Eastern and Southern China are now facing multi-prong threats as the Magic Kingdom of Mr. Kim has stolen food trains from China. China delivers the food 'aid' and North Korea says the trains are part of the package and confiscates them, too. Mr. Kim then turns around and says: You keep feeding my people or I will open my borders. Who would have thought that starving millions would be a political weapon? Finally China is coming face up to the fact that the Rising Sun is returning with modern equipment that makes theirs look antiquated. Japan has put the first of a new set of Aegis class ships out to sea. And with Mr. Kim going atomic, Japan has let it quietly be known they are thinking that option over, too... which, coupled with their existing space rocketry, makes them an instant global power with nuclear tipped ICBMs. China also realizes that if Japan does that, it will have manufacturing capability to turn those out like Toyotas.

All of that while China subsidizes a 1950's base factory system with a few spotlights on high-tech here and there. They run extremely polluting factories and are seeing things like lung cancer in cities go upwards. When a city disappears from satellite due to smog, you know you have a problem. When a yellow, noxious cloud hangs over it continuously, even after rain storms, you have an immense problem. Without a market and societal based feed-back into the industrial base, that base will be non-sustainable. Cheap gas, oil, and land have led to urban sprawl and decay, which it already had but is now spreading faster. Compress the US history between 1910 and 1960 without the sustainability of industry and you get an idea of the problems China will have. They are also getting this damned thing known as cheap telecom, which is starting to liquidize their social cohesion. Attempting to put a 'Great Firewall' in has proven that you need lots of folks to plug leaks and that some of those folks are none too trustworthy in that job. Even if that were done, the SMS cellphone capability has made distributed messages of pure text to be something easily done at nearly no cost burden at all. Add to that increasing storage capacity, processing power and cameras, and you suddenly have individuals who are their own file servers with autonomous wireless connectivity. Attempting to stop the wired internet has proven impossible *inside* China, as the low cost of computers and storage now makes redundant, off-site, fail-over possible. Pull down one server and two others will pick up at distributed locations. To end this China would have to get rid of *all* computational capability, including cellphones, which now serve as the wireless conduit into the world. To step forward they must let go, to let go is to invite disaster, to stay authoritarian invites overthrow, and to try and buy off the population just speeds the acceptance of modern digital technology which the State is not very adept at handling.

We do tend to think of China as thoroughly one Nation, when, in point of fact, it has a diversity within its peoples and religions North to South, East to West. In Western China the direct abutment to Pakistan, Afghanistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, plus the Kashmir region of India leads to little reported but present problems with radical Islam. It is very sparsely populated out there, but the problems do crop up with border smuggling, some terrorist attacks and ethnic unrest. The populations are Turkic with some Tajik and then more in the Tibetan/Burmese range heading down along the India and Nepal borders. My look at Mountain Warfare was on Afghanistan, and the climate is drier than that and a bit higher, if memory serves, so not the best place on the planet to try and patrol and keep smugglers and radicals from infiltrating on the border. Of course it isn't the easiest place to survive in to do such infiltration, either. Be that as it may, China has been trying desperately since the failed 'Great Leap Forward', which impoverished the Nation even more than it had been, to industrialize and try to get in a better industrial and agricultural system.

Two things have been weighing against that and heavily: efficiency and people.

One of the benefits the West has had over the centuries is a small population base. When large populations of serfs were available, the feudalistic movement of Europe was one in which about 1% of the people were ruling the 99%. In Japan, during its similar period, that was 10% ruling 90%. In China it has been and continues to be a very small fraction of 1% ruling everyone else. Yes you can point to millions of card carrying Communists, but that does not mean that they have any voice in their system of governance. Quite the contrary, the Chinese Communist Party has been trying to keep that slim minority of a minority of a minority in power while trying to 'liberalize' the economic system. Factories have been built, great mining operations opened, huge construction projects going on, all this wonderful stuff to be seen and isn't it lovely that China is modernizing?

One major problem.

People.

With so many people trying to get jobs, life is cheap. Mind you it has a fractionally higher investment than the still majoritarian poor farming areas, but not *much* more value. Why open up modern production facilities that are inherently labor saving when you have so much cheap, surplus labor? And as the cities swell and you have too many people looking for too few jobs, you have a major problem of actually trying to modernize. It just isn't worth the added cost of investment to get higher output per individual, when there are so many cheap individuals to hire. The young people are, indeed, flocking to the cities, and the cities are overburdened with them and expanding at horrific rate onto land that should *also* be producing food. Cities tend to start in rich trade areas along agricultural trade routes and that worked, so long as the cities remained relatively small. As the cities grow, they encroach upon agricultural land, displace more people who have to go into the cities, who go after any job they can get, and the city grows in size, thus attracting more people.

A quick look at the China balance sheet folks at CSIS and their Facts section tells the story here. Agriculture makes up 14% of the economy and nation-wide unemployment hovers around 20%, with official estimates of 4% in the cities. The 2003 estimate has 16.6% of the population below the poverty line. The National Statistical Coordination Board of the Philippines conducted a review of Chinese poverty and found some interesting things, but mostly where to place the poverty line at. Here is a problem endemic with authoritarian regimes: they can tell you what they say is the poverty line or any statistic, and exactly how they measured it. The relationship of that to the actual thing being measured can be problematical, however. By not properly accounting for something like inflation, the 'official' poverty rate is one number and the actual purchasing power is another thing entirely. Thus a minor shift to account for that and the poverty rate jumps from an idyllic 3% to a rather different 9%. That said even using official numbers, nearly 60% of the poor live in the 12 Western provinces with the worse at about 15%. Put in the higher poverty line and then fully 9 provinces have a poverty rate higher than 15% with that worse one jumping to 33.5%.

Other problems seen are things like 'community developments', which are things held in common for a village to use. Getting a village 'access' to telephone and electrical service does not mean that anyone actually can get those services, and that only a limited number of community properties may have same. What has happened is access to roads and a drop in the illiteracy rate from 20% to 10% from 1990 to 2002. These twin developments have changed the mobility demographic from 1.4% of rural folks moving to urban settings to 18.5% migrating for jobs internally. That is a large draw-down, needless to say, but the people left behind are thus: less educated, unable to compete for industrial jobs, and poor. This is causing instability in rural China with half of the households jumping back and forth over the poverty line as those able to earn incomes leave for jobs in the cities and the higher standard of living their eats up modest pay. That in itself is a telling question for while being able to have a better standard of living, the actual type of poverty changes from rural village to urban ghetto.

What happens when large segments of the population do this and start to have access to very cheap information devices is an internetworking of individuals that are: low paid, overworked, highly stressed, and unable to support a family properly. The heavy influx of available workers does increase industry, but the type and kind of industry is not necessarily something that the West would view as 'modern'. Also lacking is something nearly every American picks up just by living in the United States: some knowledge of how to run a business. Even the lowly drug gang has the wherewithal to understand this in a basic way as seen in (H/t to Classical Values):Why selling drugs in a gang is the worst job in America. Yes a 'board of directors', franchising opportunities, merchandising, and recruitment and training, and even the gaudy excesses that are not all they appear to be are well known in gangland America. The entire basis of how to run a free-market economy, buy insurance (or 'protection'), pay off loans (or lose an arm and/or leg), and entice high school dropouts to make less money than they would at McDonald's are ALL within the sphere of knowledge of even the most basic criminal organizations of the US. In China?

Outside of the coastal cities and the obvious Far Eastern Triads and the few interior operations they have in China, mostly for gray market goods production, and some interior narcotics production, there is no real basis for understanding the very basics of how to make businesses work in China. All of the large projects and industries are either overseen by the Chinese government, run under Chinese government rules which make business owners into the rule enforces of the government or run by outside firms putting in their franchise operations into China. On 27 FEB 2007 Instapundit posted on this and also to this post by James Waterton at Samizdata. A later post at Instapundit also points to the warnings from Samizdata on Non-Performing Loans (NPL) in China being the drive of this. As Mr. Waterton pointed out, the level of NPL in China is, at best, 12% and admitted to being at 25% and speculated to be at 50%. These NPLs are a direct result of businesses that have access to ready cash in China and then no experience in actually paying off loans or even setting up a basic business structure to succeed in China. And the underlying cause of *that*? Poor economic education and an overwhelming supply of cheap labor that has no recourse against exploitation. NPL are Loans that are in default or close to being in default. And this International Journalists' Network article by Anya Schiffrin on the large role of NPLs in banking crises, points out that once a Nation gets over 9% NPL on all outstanding loans, it is starting to look at real trouble.

The Chinese government furthers this problem by restricting access to outside sources of information that could hold vital economic and training information for Chinese businesses to run effectively... but those very same sources would be pointing out that Government overhead in the way of taxation and rule enforcement, was putting businesses into non-economically competitive methods of operation. While China has been trying to 'liberalize its economy' it has retained draconian control over information, training and business spheres to hold them directly accountable to the Government. By doing so the necessary feed-back from *customers* is secondary in importance, and limited as to its realm of influence by those government rules and lack of skills base. China further makes this worse by basically handing out 'free money' in the form of NPL start-ups that fail without any attempt to make good on the loan payback. That is seen as secondary to 'advancing the business climate' while, instead, it removes a necessary feedback INTO the business climate from those holding the bag on the loans.

From George Friedman at Bananas in Pyjamas Counterpoint discussion we have this from 19 FEB 2007:

The conservative count of non-performing loans is $600 billion in non-performing loans. A more realistic estimate that comes from companies like Ernst & Young are $900 billion in non-performing loans. There are some who say that non-performing loans are in the $1.2 to $1.3 trillion range. However you look at it, we're talking about somewhere between 30% and 60% of the Chinese GDP being bound up in bad loans. To benchmark it, when Japan reached about 15% non-performing loans of GDP it began its severe generation-long recession.

When East Asia, particularly South Korea, for example, reached about 20%, 22% it began to tumble. So looking at those two prior Asian benchmarks, we look at China's bad debt problem, its non-performing loan problem, and it is already substantially exceeding that, and we're already seeing the precursor events that we saw in Japan and East Asia; profitless export surges, tremendous growth, demand for commodities, money leaving China for investment in other countries. These are things we saw from Japan in 1990, we saw it in East Asia in 1996 and we're seeing it again here.

Consider the Small Business Administration in the US and its rate of NPLs being 10% or less which, while not grand, is about par for the course in a Federal Government program that has very few dynamic inputs and hard outputs expected and that gives a wide leniency on what is expected of businesses that it works with. The Federal Reserve Board keeps track of the Charge-Off and DelinquencyRates which is where a NPL winds up, in Delinquency still accruing interest past 30 days and then as a Charge-Off to be removed from the books. Now the numbers there stop at 2001, but indicate the worst for Charge-Off is Consumer Credit Cards at approximately 4%. Commercial & Industrial loans hit down in the sub-1% range and do indicate a good capability by lending institutions to figure out who to loan to there. From there we go to the FDIC FFIEC search page for looking at Peer Group Data Reports and get loads of numbers with the pertinent ones starting to show up at page 6 and 6A for Past Due, Nonaccrual and restructured loans and leases. Yes, not exacting but it will do!

As NPLs are those that are highly delinquent and heading towards being wiped off the books, that would be the 30-89 Days Past/Due lines. As of 31 DEC 2006 the #1 area for that was Loans to Individuals at 1.46%, and coming in at a virtual draw for second was Single & Multifamily Mortgages at 1.13% and Credit Card Loans & Leases at 1.12%. And the grand total of All Nonaccrual and all Past Due as a percentage of all Loans and Leases is 1.71% So when the folks looking at China at nearly 7 times that rate at a *minimum* start to get edgy, you know why. Mind you, that is just my back of the envelope quick look at it.

Now on the other part of highly dysfunctional societies we have subsidies. In particular the US started a WTO action against China due to subsidies, and the particulars of that action should be informative. Here is a choice sample from the US Trade Representative's press release:

Several of the subsidy programs at issue appear to grant export subsidies, which provide incentives for foreign investors in China and their Chinese partners to export to the United States and other markets. These subsidies offer significant benefits and are available for all products made in China, including, for example, steel, wood, paper, and other manufactured products. The companies targeted for many of these subsidies, i.e., companies with some foreign participation, accounted for nearly 60 percent of China’s exports of manufactured goods in 2005, according to a WTO report. Other subsidy programs at issue provide incentives for companies in China to purchase domestic equipment and accessories, instead of buying from U.S. exporters.

By subsidizing Chinese exports to the United States and denying U.S. exporters a fair opportunity to compete in China, these subsidy programs unfairly impact U.S. manufacturers and their workers. Elimination of the subsidies will help level the playing field for U.S.-based manufacturers and, in particular, for America’s small and medium-sized businesses across a range of industries. The subsidies being challenged also are inconsistent with clearly stated Chinese policies seeking to rebalance China’s economy with greater emphasis on domestic consumption-led growth rather than export-led growth, and to promote the efficiency of China’s domestic manufacturers.

But a very fun thing happened on the way to the USTR's Annual Report to Congress! Yes the United States proposes something very interesting to the WTO and for all members of it in the way of subsidies:

In addition to proposing the expansion of the prohibited category, the paper also lays out a bold new proposal to address increasing concerns with foreign state-owned and state-controlled enterprises. Questioning the justification for any government investment in the private sector in countries with well-developed capital markets, the paper states that government investment decisions that run counter to the private sector’s assessment that a company is not likely to generate a market return should be made in a transparent fashion, closely scrutinized and, as appropriate, curtailed. Accordingly, the paper proposes that there be a requirement that Members notify the WTO Subsidies Committee of government equity investment, including debt-to-equity conversions. Such notifications should describe: (1) the terms of the transaction; (2) how such an investment is consistent with the usual practice of private investors; and (3) potential adverse trade effects. Moreover, additional transparency measures should be considered for all government-controlled companies as well, such that Members can be assured of a consistently commercial, arm’s-length relationship between the government-owner and the state-owned enterprise.

So, does this mean the US will FINALLY get rid of its agriculture and business subsidies, water subsidies and all the other little goodies that are stashed in the tax code for businesses and uneconomical support of same? Probably not, is my guess.

Now that was a fun! A side-light... but something *else* is of interest to me, at least, coming from the Iranian article. And that is this article from the China Daily 27 MAR 2006China's subsidies on oil and processed oil products. From that article we can see where their gasoline prices are at:

In Beijing, retail prices for 93 RON grade gasoline rose to 4.65 yuan (about 58 US cents) a litre from 4.26 yuan (about 53 US cents), and zero-grade diesel prices increased to 4.04 yuan (50 US cents) a litre from 3.74 yuan (46 US cents), the capital city's development and reform commission said in a separate statement, the Bloomberg reported yesterday. RON is the research octane number that indicates the quality of the gasoline.

As a gallon is 3.7854118 liters that gets you to $2.20/gal up from $2/gal previously. At that same point the average of all gasolines sold in the US, as seen from the Energy Information Administration spreadsheet was $2.36/gal for all formulations and this was just before the steep summer rise in prices. Chinese gasoline is mostly formulated with MTBE and little else, according to Research and Markets which a few US States have banned as seen on the EPA FAQ on Reformulated Gasoline. So that is a fair comparison of prices, more or less, but as the Chinese Government sets the prices, how well their price elasticity deals with seasonal demands is questionable. And as that article cited, the Chinese Government has been lax in keeping up with global oil prices and not wanting to set economical fuel prices as a result. By trying to stabilize fuel prices, the net result is to have uneconomical pricing which is below cost at most times, which encourages wider end use. And when the global prices go down you then get, as seen previously in this Pakistan Daily Times article on 17 APR 2005 smuggling of gasoline and other products into China. That then REVERSES when oil prices go above that level. More of this was seen via an Interfax article on 14 FEB 2007 (since gone behind its customer login):

Two diesel-smuggling ships seized off eastern China coast Beijing. February 14. INTERFAX-CHINA - Two diesel-smuggling ships were seized by anti-smuggling police in Hangzhou, Zhejiang Province, last week, according to a report released by China's General Administration of Customs.

Police seized two ships that were trying to smuggle 110 tons of diesel out of China last Friday. Six suspects on board were detained, according to the report.

This is the first oil-related smuggling case foiled by China's police force this year.

China's oil product prices are significantly lower than those in neighboring countries, which has resulted in a rise in smuggling.

Currently, a liter of gasoline is sold at about RMB 5 ($0.64) in mainland China, but its price in Hong and Europe is about RMB 14 ($1.8) a liter, said Chen Qingtai, the former deputy director of the Development Research Center, which is a government think tank affiliated with the State Council.

"Almost all airplanes from around the world want to stop over in China to refuel their gas tanks. Trucks from Hong Kong and Macau drive to the mainland to refuel too," Chen said during a conference earlier this month.

"The smuggling of oil products is another result of this price gap," Chen said.
-YSW

Thus China becomes a two-way smuggling Nation when prices fluctuate which comes down to the Chinese Government encouraging smuggling by this subsidy. Either internally when market prices are below government set prices, or internally when market prices are above that set price. Even with periodic adjustments, that starts a process of heavily fluctuating use of the refined product in those areas that are amenable to smuggling, which happens to be some of the major trading ports and cities. All of which are growing thanks to the way China is setting its internal policies for lack of rural advances and encouraging growth of those cities with poorly financed and overseen industries.

The problem, then, starts to become a bit more clear:

1) China by increasing education is making a more literate working population.

2) China by not encouraging market based finance is allowing uneconomical and poorly capitalized and run companies to start up with a poorly run banking sector.

3) These industries then need cheap labor which it gets from the poor, rural sections of China which increases internal migration even when such is not allowed.

4) By subsidizing these manufacturers that cannot properly run their businesses, China sees a high rate of Non-Performing Loans that go beyond mere Delinquency. This has been seen as a way to move money into politically connected companies, as see seen by William Plesek in this 27 FEB 2007 article at Bloomberg.com.

5) High turnover of poorly run startups allows for those business owners to pocket the differential in the export market and run their companies into the ground using cheap labor as its basis.

6) Training for highly trained labor is done overseas where such training is done well, but that then returns to China and finds a non-market driven system where their skill sets are ill-equipped to compete in it.

7) Well run foreign subsidiaries then do the mass of employment with long-term outlooks on the Chinese market, but only invest in manufacturing when their goods can be more cheaply done by the lower skilled Chinese market, with the high skill individuals going to smaller manufacturing areas within those companies or serving as interim managers for business marketing and research.

8) The resultant urban population then puts up with high pollution from industries. This has been seen numerous places, including:

17 FEB 2007 Voice of America article in which China is cited as the #1 emitter of sulfur dioxide and the #2 emitter of carbon dioxide,

28 FEB 2007 China Economic Net article by Han Ji on the problem of reducing sulfur dioxide and cites coal fired power plants, uneconomically high energy consumption machinery, increase scrubbing capacity beyond the current 1/3 of all plants (40 million mw, vice an installed base of 125 million mw), and address the increasing inefficient use of coal power plants to meet energy needs,

27 FEB 2007 China Daily with a bill being introduced to make government officials liable for pollution and 'local protectionism' which has been cited as the cause of lead poisoning of 250 children in Huixian County and factories in Hunan Province releasing high concentration of arsenides into the Xinqiang River which is a water supply for 80,000 residents,

17 NOV 2004 Wall Street Journal article put up at the Yaleglobal site on mercury pollution in China,

World Bank 28 FEB 2007 article on its support for a Second Shandong Environment Project addressing a shortage of water, inadequate wastewater collection and treatment, and lack of solid waste management facilities,

28 FEB 2007 Radio Australia article on the World Wildlife Fund citing the Mai Po nature reserve manager, Lew Young, blaming "sewage, farm waste and industrial pollution". Additionally the article cites China for dumping 52 billion tonnes of untreated waste into the river system and polluting that and the coastal sea waters,

28 FEB 2007 People's Daily Online citing $1.5 Billion in economic loss in 2004 to pollution in Beijing *alone*,

Finally a quick visit to Nasa's Visible Earth will yield all sorts of lovely images of the air pollution over China.

Yes, this is almost Dickensian in its proportions! Polluted cities, streams, rivers, groundwater, and poor country folk trying to get into cities to get any decent job and many of the other sort that become available. Those that can get into a good company and reliable work actually get to afford an apartment of their very own, something a bit better than a bicycle, television, cellphone and computer. And it is that cellphone that is the key to China and its immediate future.

As I went through at the beginning of this, that is the asymmetrical technology aspect playing against the Chinese Government. This Government is trying to be less Communist, but is having trouble letting its hands go of the industries under its control and also unwilling to let Capitalism have free reign. Even though it no longer proposes the idea of global Communism and no longer even aspires to Communism in one country, it is slowly sliding towards something else. The hallmarks we are seeing are attempts to control information, economic enforcement of family size, using internal police mechanisms to stifle free speech, using control of banking to hold industries under the economic oversight of the Government and putting forth that the problems felt now are for a 'better future', just don't mind the crushing poverty, pollution, corruption and prisons.

This is attempted Capitalism within one Nation towards Nationalistic ends but controlled by the State. Thus the hallmarks seen are:

1) Nationalism. China has always had this throughout its entire existence, be it under a Sun Emperor, Dynastic Em porer, or Communist system. China might be defeated, but it always 'absorbed its conquerors'.

2) State Centralized economy. In the case of China via the banking system, bad loans, cronyism, and political favoritism. Also note the lack of caring about the health of the population or even such things as pollution. The Government no longer is a 'dictatorship of the proletariat' or espouses 'workers owning the means of production'.

3) Militarism is State imposed upon a population for repression and dreams of expansion, in this case towards Taiwan. Further the Government looks to bind its population so that individuality disappears. And the threat of the use of that has been seen multiple times in recent history.

4) Anti-liberal, as in the old school, 19th Century rights of man, liberal. By controlling the sources of information, personal liberties and enforcing structure from the rulers downwards, fascism negates all Western liberalism and ends it so that the State may have sole control over all aspects of individual life. No religion is brooked that has any possibility of interfering with the control of the State, as seen in the repression of Falun Gong, not allowing a vice such as gambling, and attempts to control news and ideas within the State.

The type of Government system this describes?

Fascist.


This is not an attempt to describe how the Chinese Government sees itself or purports itself as being, but a description of its activities and how it runs things. It is Communist in name only and Fascist in its outlook, control and methodology of thought. Any gloss of the Government as having any relationship to its people as individuals or even as workers has disappeared in the decades since Mao. One does not need to have a 'Great Leader' to get a Fascistic regime, and a ruling clique that decides who goes up and who does not does just as well and is the more insidious for being a clique and not a single, mortal leader. When you remove the outward, idealistic stance of Communism to be global, shear off any support, even in verbiage, of the worker, and then adhere to Nationalism, Militarism, State centralized control and go against the rights of individuals to have freedom of speech and religion, and use that all towards State centered control of production, you do not have Communism.

You do not have Capitalism.

You have Fascism.

And what technology is doing is liquidizing the last of the old Chinese culture as anything NOT disallowed is PERMISSIBLE. And the State is finding that out in spades as people now report on sexual activities, nepotism, and anything else they can get away with as well as circumventing the 'Great Firewall of China' which will be as effective at stopping ideas as The Great Wall was at stopping previous enemies. What comes of that is unstructured freedom and a dissolving of all bonds above the personal as even the family bonds to those in the countryside are degraded and lost by the current State control.

You do not get a liberal society out of that.

Nor do you get all things good and wonderful with that 'Free Trade'.

The anomic state of being that comes from this detachment is unstable as it is apparently listless and lawless. That was the state the Weimar Republic was in socially, although not politically. And the unstable elements to change that state are ones that are not easily controllable, either.

A rising Japan could easily turn China intensely militaristic.

A sudden religious shift in *any* direction could put in a religious regime bent on 'washing away the sins of the culture' as was seen in 'The Great Leap Forward' and 'The Cultural Revolution'.

A rise of radical Islam in the Western provinces could shatter the final, agrarian social cohesion there and the cracks from that would spread half-way into the Nation, provoking reprisals and possibly worse. If al Qaeda suddenly decided to declare a mountain Islamic State encompassing the autonomous territories of Pakistan, Kashmir and parts of Tajikistan, Afghanistan and China, the ability of a 'million man army' to respond out there in the highland desert would be questionable at best.

A collapse by the Government itself, into different ruling cliques would be a large scale catastrophe, no matter *what* the outcome as there are so many depending on minimal amenities in the cities and no longer a large and dispersed agricultural society to weather out storms at the top of society.

The threat by North Korea to open *its* borders to China would be a highly destabilizing blow as an economy already straining to cope with the tens of thousands of poor in its cities would then need to cope with a million or so poor AND starving individuals... or just kill them.


Those are my superficial thoughts on China.

Sphere: Related Content

Iraq and the Turf War

I am a retired bureaucrat from the INTEL side at DoD, having worked in the AR&D area, and coming up through various departments and such trying to get one major project going and then contribute to the forward looking capability of the DoD. In that time I got to go to a lot of places, meet with other government Agencies (both Civil and Military) and, in general, had to pick up a working knowledge of how Agencies viewed their own capabilities.

And protected their turf.

And within that protected turf set up 'fiefdoms' of entrenched individuals who saw their area as sacrosanct.

I am not surprised, then, when running across this article at INTEL DUMP by Phil Carter on 25 FEB 2007: The Diyala Two-Step. It goes through the extreme problems of getting cross-Department and Agency support for *anything*, in this case trying to move Dept. of State into the lead on Provincial Reconstruction Teams. I will say that the organization that he cites and that particular author are ones that I do not trust anymore. The description given, however, of non-cooperation *within* the US Federal Government is a pure extension of how they operate at home. And since the US is where the decisions are made, that extreme set of 'turf' conflicts and 'protecting resources' from 'poaching' by other Agencies is endemic across the Federal Government.

As an example, DoS has a laundry list of people that is cited, as necessary for their PRTs to succeed, beyond the mere translation portion of it. This quote is absolutely chime ringing on this: "No foreign service in the world has those people," Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice complained.

And the people they are lacking? From the cited article: "...agronomists, engineers, police officers or technicians of its own to send to Iraq."

These are requests sent to OTHER Federal Agencies for individual willing to get an upping in pay to go to an active combat zone, risk life and limb to help out, and, generally, in doing the best job possible to be seen as highly advisable for future promotion. Yes, it is difficult to get volunteers to go overseas for high pay, hard work and chance of good reward! Within the DoD Agency I worked at the Civilian side had its *own* deployable folks and the list of people *willing* to deploy for months to a year. And having known them, some are retired military, but a vast majority are *not*, but have commitment to the mission of providing the best capabilities to the Armed Forces so that they can be effective and lives can be saved.

This same affinity is lacking in the Agencies now being asked to pony up skilled professionals willing to put forth more for their Nation. And where might some of these people come from?

Agronomists - Department of Agriculture which has a truly huge budget and hands out more pork than can be dreamt of by all of Congress. Luckily multiple Congresses have so packed in the pork that no single Congress need expend itself to think upon it. Be that as it may I did put forth on how to defund the drug trade in Afghanistan by rechanneling the pork to something *useful* and then using Dept. of Agriculture analysts to ensure that non-narcotic crops are grown and then to give the first real tests of MOAB upon those that try to still grow the stuff. And you wouldn't even have to *touch* the $0.548 Billion went to disaster relief that they set aside... just the $12 Billion or so to farm subsidies, crop subsidies, water subsidies, and general cash payments for 'set aside' programs... also known as 'not growing crops'. Now I am sure that everyone will point to all the fine work done in rural parts of the Nation by the USDA, and all the lovely price supports, subsidies and such actually helping people to grow crops un-economically, but that is a relatively small part of their budget as seen in the breakout provided by Heartland Insititute giving the quick once over on the 2003-5 USDA budget projections.

And even *better* is that the USDA has BUDGETED for such things as providing overseas help to DoS as seen from Foreign Agricultural Service/USDA site on the Statement of A. Ellen Terpstra, Administrator, Foreign Agricultural Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Before the House Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies, Washington, D.C., March 3, 2005:

Our FY 2006 budget proposes a funding level of $152.4 million for FAS and 982 staff years. This is an increase of $11.2 million above the FY 2005 level and represents the funds needed to ensure the agency's continued ability to conduct its activities and provide services to U.S. agriculture.

The budget proposes an increase of $8.8 million for support of FAS overseas offices. The FAS network of 78 overseas offices covering over 130 countries is vulnerable to the vagaries of macro-economic events that are beyond the agency's control. The significantly weakened U.S. dollar and higher International Cooperative Administrative Support Services (ICASS) payments to DOS have caused base costs to increase sharply. Since 2002, the dollar has fallen 9 percent against currencies of our major markets.

Specifically, this increase includes:

$5.4 million to maintain current services at the 78 FAS offices around the world, including $2.4 million for wage increases for locally employed staff; $900 thousand for higher rents; and $900 thousand for increases in all other in-country expenses including security, repairs, travel, and supplies. Additionally, an increase of $1.2 million will be required to meet higher ICASS payments to DOS.


$2.7 million for the FY 2006 Capital Security Cost Sharing Program assessment. In FY 2005, DOS implemented a program through which all agencies with an overseas presence in U.S. diplomatic facilities will pay a proportionate share for accelerated construction of new secure, safe, and functional diplomatic facilities. These costs will be allocated annually based on the number of authorized personnel positions. This plan is designed to generate a total of $17.5 billion to fund 150 new facilities over a 14-year period. The FAS assessment is estimated to increase annually in roughly $3 million increments until FY 2009, at which time the annual assessed level will total an estimated $12 million. This level is assumed to remain constant at that point for the following 9 years.


$650 thousand to support the FAS presence in the soon-to-be constructed embassy in Baghdad, Iraq, after an absence of nearly 20 years. FAS will have the lead on all USDA activities and projects in support of Iraq and its agricultural development. This will entail the entire range of market development, market access, and market intelligence tools available to FAS and its industry partners.

The budget also includes an increase of $2.4 million to cover higher personnel compensation costs associated with the anticipated FY 2006 pay raise. Pay cost increases are non‑discretionary and must be funded. Absorption of these costs in FY 2006 would primarily come from reductions in agency personnel levels that would significantly affect FAS's ability to contribute to USDA's strategic goal of enhancing economic opportunities for agricultural producers.

Now let us peruse these numbers! The overall budget increase is that of 7.34% with inflation running in the 3-4% range. That does not address increase costs of running such a widely distributed operation as USDA, which includes getting foreign food inspectors registered with them, moving personnel during an time of increased travel costs, and the such like. Yes, those 'USDA Approved' sticker on that canned ham you got from Poland means that there is an office there to certify inspectors, run the inspection regulation program... you didn't think that foreign inspectors had to come HERE did you? No, the US of A believes in sending our bureaucracy overseas, too! Or that they ran a 'spot inspection program' on imports to ensure quality? Sorry, those 78 offices worldwide are ALL USDA personnel staffed, to keep up the quality of food bearing the USDA sticker of approval.

Onwards to the 982 staff years... yes, not 'person years' or 'man years' but "staff years". What this number is, at the very highest level, is something I came to know as the 'burdened personnel cost' in which all the extraneous factors of employment got added in to the overall staff pay cost. These included things like: 1:1 matching funds to employee Thrift Savings Plan accounts (the accounts employees put gross pay into for retirement), the Federal portion of the various employee health plans (of which the employee picks up 40% or so), travel costs, overhead costs of staff maintenance and the basics that were not outlays for buildings and supplies. Further, as roll-up number, this can be knocked out to more than 982 warm bodies with part-timers and such allowing for that to expand, but the overhead increases, too. Finally all contract personnel costs are put into that, which have their own additional overhead cost for running the contract which has some built-in profit based on contract proposals.

But the real 'meat' is the money they have put into the budget for actually resourcing staff to Baghdad! Unfortunately read what they are looking to supply: market development, market access, and market intelligence tools. Now, this may come as a surprise, based on how many offices and astute locals there are with USDA scattered around our fine Nation, but the Iraqis may need help in actually finding the best CROPS TO GROW! As in: look at the climate and needs and find out what fits them best. You know, like they do for the US in telling us which crops *not to grow* and pay for that? This is a reverse sort of deal where you find the best crops *to grow* and help the farmers to figure out the best way to grow them.

And the real problem: look at the subsidies budget from 2004 at nearly $12.5 Billion.

Look at the FAS part of USDA proposed for 2006: $152.4 Million.

Yes about 1.2% of the size between helping the US get Iraqi agriculture stood up so it can employee folks and get them off the street into good paying jobs and between paying subsidies, a good portion of which goes to not growing crops in the US. That is the real value of our National Security and National Sovereignty: We don't pay to help others to secure freedom and liberty, but we sure do love paying lots of money to folks here so they can get illegal labor to work at their crops! But if Congress doesn't push hard on it, then these things just get done in a lackadaisical fashion...

Next up, engineers. Considering that the US Army Corps of Engineers is doing its bit, we will assume that this is *not* the large scale infrastructure engineering for electricity, clean water, and sewage, along with road building, airport re-building and all those lovely large buildings going up in the way of hospitals, schools, firehouses, police stations, army training areas, border fortifications (say, we could use a few of those!), shipping waterways, oil pumping and refining.... Quite a long list for USACE, isn't it? So lets look at the Dept. of Transportation and see what they can help out on, shall we? This is a link to their 2006 budget and from that a few areas of definite interest show up almost immediately!

Say, the entire FAA portion PLUS the building and infrastructure portion for airport maintenance and helping to fund security are done here to help out TSA. They have an overall asked for budget of $13.78 Billion and some interesting numbers on repair of damaged facilities in previous years shows what would normally be expected for such things, which run at the ~$400 Million per airport for things like hurricane damage and such. Now those are nice, modern US airports, and my bet is with a bit of work that number couldn't be more than 50% higher for Iraqi needs. Now where is Congress when you need it?

Even better are all the people dedicated to flight safety, training and the entire how to design, layout and operate an airport deal! Why, those folks could be mighty handy *and* take a load from USACE, too.

The Federal Highway folks fall into here and USACE has had to do *that* too. Repairing roads and upgrading them and putting in heavy vehicle capable roads have all been under the USACE purview, and here we have an entire group at DOT that concentrates on how best to design, layout, pay contractors for construction, test, and then train maintenance personnel just for *roads*.

For Public Transit we have the Federal Transit Administration, which covers that panoply of assessing public transportation projects, doing planning and development for new systems and the such like. Yes, helping out on surface rail, busing and such would be a great help if anyone ever bothered to fund them and tell them to help. That would be Congress, BTW.

The Federal Railroad Administration is also under DOT! Yes, now the folks in Iraq could certainly use Amtrack! Ok, maybe take a mulligan on that and just hire competent contractors to help lay out new rail lines... but the FRA should be in on the oversight and planning and all that fun stuff. But, Congress would need to budget for that...

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration! At DOT! Just the folks I would want to help in looking at existing infrastructure and helping to lay the plans for new pipelines, refineries, cargo shipping for bulk hazardous materials by rail or on roads. A perfect match for Iraq! If only Congress would budget for it...

Maritime Administration is also at DOT, and with the needs of a congested oil terminal and port facilities nearly co-located, this is a prime concern for Iraq and long-distance oceanic shipping. These people could help out a *lot* in that and getting things really straightened out for long term use and take some load off of the US Navy and USACE. Ah, but where is Congress on that?
And the two prime line items for this? Well how about starting with:

Minority Business Resource Center (MBRC): $3.9 million is requested for MBRC activities. $0.9 million in Federal subsidy and administrative expenses will support an $18 million short-term loan guarantee program to assist small, disadvantaged and women-owned transportation-related businesses; and $3 million will fund the Minority Business Outreach program, which includes a clearinghouse for national dissemination of information on transportation-related projects and grants to minority educational institutions.

New Headquarters Building: $100 million is requested to finance the FY 2006 costs for the new Department of Transportation headquarters building. The goal is to consolidate the Department's headquarters operating functions into efficient leased office space in the District of Columbia.

Yes, a total of $104 Million is peanuts, but enough to get personnel over, projects scoped out, and long-term budget needs laid in and to help Iraqis understand the problems and the solutions. Congress could easily re-route the funds and hand a MBRC waiver and say that using those funds in Iraq is more vital to the long-term security of the Nation. Maybe some 'extra points' for using MBRC folks for normal work, above and beyond the Federal Mandates. You know, get rid of pork and put it to some good use?

Ah, police officers! Well beyond the already and ongoing civil police training. I mean the FBI is great for the Iraqi Security folks, but this goes way beyond that. In truth, after you get past the FBI, Secret Service, BATF, DEA, Treasury, and all the individual security organizations and contractors used for on-site security, it is difficult to find the old 'cop on the beat' training in the Federal system. This really *does* require hard partnership from the Federal side with the States to find police academies not only willing to stand up training capability but to help by getting some folks overseas to help on the local knowledge end of things. The US does a part of that as do the Coalition Nations, such as Poland, Romania, and so on. This is really not a major Federal area, but the folks at the above mentioned organizations can each play a role in things like force protection, counter-intelligence, internal affairs and policing. Still, if Congress doesn't budget for it, this is then left to the President to ask the States for any help they can give over the Slackers Upon the Hill.

Finally is technicians. All those wonderful roads, buildings, systems, and such needs technicians which are already employed working for the Federal Government in DOT and USDA and Dept. of Justice. DoD *itself* has more civilian technicians than you can shake a stick at. Technicians for building maintenance, climate control, automated systems, networking, road maintenance and inspection... again, if it is not in the Budget it does not get done.

And even if it *is* put into the budget, each Agency and Administration and organization will want to find ways to spend it for building their 'feudal empires', and *not* for the actual, specified reasons put in by Congress. And as these are 'extra duties' each Department and Agency will want more money to do them. Lots more.

We have lots of pork in the Federal system, enough to give this a rip-roaring start.

But it is Congress putting the pork in for their own personal needs to pay off lobbyists, contractors, consultants and often just to aggrandize their names.

In a time of war *not* removing such extras and placing those funds to the good of the Nation is destructive.

Pork is for terrorists.

Sphere: Related Content

Mountain warfare and what it takes

There is this strange idea that if you pull troops out of Iraq you can send them directly to Afghanistan and have an immediate fighting force there! Well, you can send them, but their ability to actually fight for most of the year is another question. Lets review the physical characteristics of Afghanistan, and for that I will use the Wikipedia article that draws on the Geography of Afghanistan and that, in turn, appears to be the direct article from the 1911 Encyclopedia Brittanica. Believe me, not much has changed since then.

The variety of climate is immense, as might be expected. Taking the highlands of the country as a whole, there is no great difference between the mean temperature of Afghanistan and that of the lower Himalaya. Each may be placed at a point between 10 °C and 15 °C (50 °F to 60 °F). But the remarkable feature of Afghan climate is its extreme range of temperature within limited periods. The least daily range in the north is during the cold weather, the greatest in the hot. For seven months of the year (from May to November) this range exceeds 30 °F (17 °C) daily. Waves of intense cold occur, lasting for several days, and one may have to endure a cold of 12 °F below zero (−24 °C), rising to a maximum of 17 °F (−8 °C). On the other hand the summer temperature is exceedingly high, especially in the Oxus regions, where a shade maximum of 110 °F to 120 °F (45 °C to 50 °C) is not uncommon. At Kabul, and over all the northern part of the country to the descent at Gandamak, winter is rigorous, but especially so on the high Arachosian plateau. In Kabul the snow lies for two or three months; the people seldom leave their houses, and sleep close to stoves. At Ghazni the snow has been known to lie long beyond the vernal equinox; the thermometer sinks between −10 °F and −15 °F (about −25 °C); and tradition relates the entire destruction of the population of Ghazni by snowstorms more than once.

What a lovely place to have a war, isn't it? Here is a bit on Kandahar and environs:

At Jalalabad the winter and the climate generally assume an Indian character. The summer heat is great everywhere in Afghanistan, but most of all in the districts bordering on the Indus, especially Sewi, on the lower Helmund and in Seistan. All over Kandahar province the summer heat is intense, and the simoon is not unknown. The hot season throughout this part of the country is rendered more trying by frequent dust storms and fiery winds; whilst the bare rocky ridges that traverse the country, absorbing heat by day and radiating it by night, render the summer nights most oppressive. At Kabul the summer sun has great power, though the heat is tempered occasionally by cool breezes from the Hindu Kush, and the nights are usually cool. At Kandahar snow seldom falls on the plains or lower hills; when it does, it melts at once.

At Herat, though 800 ft (240 m) lower than Kandahar, the summer climate is more temperate; and, in fact, the climate altogether is far from disagreeable. From May to September the wind blows from the northwest with great violence, and this extends across the country to Kandahar. The winter is tolerably mild; snow melts as it falls, and even on the mountains does not lie long. Three years out of four at Herat it does not freeze hard enough for the people to store ice; yet it was not very far from Herat, and could not have been at a greatly higher level (at Rafir Kala, near Kassan) that, in 1750, Ahmad Shah's army, retreating from Persia, is said to have lost 18,000 men from cold in a single night. In the northern Herat districts, too, records of the coldest month (February) show the mean minimum as 17° F (−8 °C), and the maximum 38 °F (3 °C). The eastern reaches of the Hari Rud river are frozen hard in the winter, rapids and all, and the people travel on it as on a road.

Yes, just a bit 'more temperate' once you get away from Kandahar and Kabul. This is what is typically known as desert highlands and mountainous terrain. Note the poor Ahmad Shah's army suddenly succumbing to a quick cold snap and you get the idea of what happens in such terrain. The overall elevation is trouble, the lack of water is added trouble, the sudden and sharp swings in temperature are extremely dangerous for the unwary. So like lowland, desert Iraq, isn't it?

In such terrain you need specialized training, equipment, supplies, medical knowledge and an understanding of how the climate effects you and your equipment. You are high enough so that helicopter lift is significantly reduced due to the low air pressure and so is your capacity to actually hike, move, and continue on with daily life. The history of warfare is replete with small forces holding up in mountainous terrain for *decades* and thwarting all new advances in technology by using terrain and local knowledge against large forces moving through such areas. Those same large forces, untrained for highland work at a minimum, quickly tire, find their supplies running low and can be kept under constant, low level attacks on the ground that slow advances and disrupt logistical supply lines. Aircraft are no sinecure against such due to sudden loss of visibility, wind shear and and other strange wind effects in rugged terrain. Infrared can be obscured by dust, confused by reflections and by difference in ground heating. Simple things like the metallic structure of equipment can start to crystallize and undergo freeze/thaw strains and just suddenly break as crystals form in the metallic alloys. Weapons lubricant, motor oils and a whole host of other liquids will face a hard time coping unless they are specifically formulated for those temperature swings, without speaking of lowered engine capacity due to lower air pressure.

The #1 surest way to give support to any enemy holding up in mountainous terrain is to throw a large army at them: their ability to slow the army, thwart attempts to be found and continually disrupt overland supplies will give them heart and free PR to show how skilled they are against your army. The British Empire learned this and the Soviet veterans of Afghanistan learned it in spades. For this sort of work you need specialized training and equipment as seen in Alpine or Mountain troops. This heavily specialized area is one where all of the troops must learn to operate across the entire broad range of conditions they will encounter and *still* be an effective fighting force.

In the 1917 Battle of Capretto, Austro-Hungarian alpine troops were a critical part of the fighting and their capability, or lack of same, were key to the fighting there which is very rugged and mountainous. The Italian Alpini date back to then and would continue that capability to this very day. In 1939 the USSR decided to attack Finland as part of the Nazi-Soviet Pact that had given the USSR a 'sphere of influence there' and the Winter War of 1939 was one of competent, well trained Finnish ski-troops taking on mechanized divisions. Germany would later station their own AlpenKorps there as well as deploy the Waffen SS AlpenKorps in Croatia to try and counter the Partisans.

These battles and many before them point to small, capable military units forcing the opposition to stall out and even retreat from the offensive. This is not the 'big troop movement' sort of battle you always see in the movies, as the view from the Italian Campaign by the US as is pointed out in this recollection from WWII:

"Attacking a Village "Daylight attacks against these hilltop villages are almost out of the question as casualties are invariably high. Extensive use of a limited night attack has proven to be the best method of handling this situation. The attack is made on as dark a night as possible. Silence is necessary and is relatively easy to obtain since the ground over which the approach is made is mostly cultivated. The process of infiltration must be systematic and every building gained should be immediately turned into a strong point for the attacker."

"It is advisable, where possible, to have the forward attacking elements allotted a high proportion of submachine guns. Each man should carry at least two to four hand grenades. They are invaluable in clearing buildings.

"The enemy's mortars are habitually emplaced behind villages on the reverse slopes, dug down to a depth of 10 feet. These are almost impossible to knock out by artillery fire even if we can actually locate them. One unit has reported that they have successfully engaged targets of this type by pooling all its 131-mm mortars and 'firing them as a battery under unit control.

"Of course, if at is at all possible, it is better to avoid these villages entirely, flank them, and cut the enemy's line of communication.

"The absolute necessity of keeping a reserve for counter-attacks on the reverse slope is stressed. If there are any houses on the forward slopes they should be occupied or the enemy will use them to assist his counterattacks."

These are lessons learned in mountain warfare bought the 'hard way': at a cost to US soldier's lives. Do not do frontal assaults on villages at daytimes, do not depend on airpower to take out enemy positions, do not expect to locate where enemy fire is coming from easily if it is indirect, and if you can go around the village entirely DO SO. Cutting off an enemy from communication and supplies is the way to make them shift out of a hard point as they seek to regain those supply lines. And they will be doing the *exact* same thing to you.

From a Major Muhammad Asim Malik, Pakistan Army we get this article on Mountain Warfare, and it is a good read to see what someone in the area thinks:

MOUNTAIN WARFARE is specialized combat with unique characteristics. Military leaders and soldiers need training and experience to understand the peculiarities of mountainous environments and how they affect combat. Armies that train for mountain combat perform much better than those that do not.

During World War II, the German Army raised an entire corps of elite mountain troops called "gebirgs jaeger" (mountain troops). Although not all of these troops were used in the mountains, they demonstrated superior abilities in almost all theaters in which they were used. The German Fifth Gebirgs Division marched more than 248 miles, crossed mountain passes above 6,500 feet, and secured well-entrenched defenses on the Mestksas Line. Other gebirgs jaeger captured most of the Caucasus mountain region in the summer of 1942.

These are *not* Special Forces, they are Specialized Forces that train and train hard to survive in some of the roughest terrain on the planet. And what is the priority for these troops? Here Maj. Malik puts it down for us:

Physical fitness is the first prerequisite of mountain-warfare training. The effects of cold weather and unforgiving terrain require a high level of physical fitness for long-distance climbing and walking, and the physical fitness required for mountainous terrain must be developed at high altitude. But being physically fit does not necessarily mean soldiers will be able to perform adequately at high elevations. U.S. soldiers selected to attend the mountain-warfare school in Kakul, Pakistan, required additional climbing time to attain the desired level of physical fitness. The body must adjust to the thin mountain air, and climbing muscles must be developed.


Mountainous terrain can be an ally or a dangerous adversary. In Kashmir each year, thousands of troops are introduced to the mountainous environment to help them understand and appreciate it. A marked difference exists in the performance of units that have conducted vigorous acclimatization training and those that have not. Weather and terrain-related casualties are a big indicator. During initial training in Colorado during the early 1940s, the U.S. 10th Mountain Division suffered more casualties from weather-related injuries than from actual mountain combat in Italy.

Yes, you have read that correctly. Training for this thing called Mountain Warfare is deadly all on its lonesome. And the terrain itself is both friend and foe, depending on how well you have factored it into your plans and your necessarily scanty knowledge of the enemy's plans. Then a bit of interesting local knowledge to show how things differ at altitude and via locale:

In Kashmir, stone or wooden bunkers, which double as living accommodations and fighting bunkers, are found at posts below 13,000 feet, but at high altitudes, stone structures are not practical. Cement will not bind, and the underlying glacier is always moving. Instead, prefabricated, synthetic domes (igloos) are used. The domes are easy to carry and assemble even at 18,000 feet and above. They can be retrieved from even large amounts of snow and set up again quickly.

Things do not work the way you expect them to at high altitudes and if you don't know what you are doing, something that appears innocuous can be fatal. I would think it would be a silly thing to build on a glacier as you never know when a crevasse would open up under you. And if it is a glacier with large amounts of rock and sand and silt in its structure, you may not even *know* it is a glacier. The effect of sudden cold snaps on the human body at that altitude are quite nasty:

Soldiers must also be trained to wear proper clothing. Loose-fitting layers and insulated and polypropylene clothing that does not allow perspiration to accumulate close to the body are best. Developing frostbite from touching metal equipment with one's bare hands is possible when temperatures drop to minus 22 degrees Fahrenheit. Pressurized sleeping bags help stabilize soldiers suffering from altitude-related sicknesses.

It is rare, once one is accustomed to an altitude to get altitude sickness, and at geology field camp we spent two weeks getting acclimated to it. That said a sudden and fierce low pressure front, as is common in Afghanistan, can *drop* that pressure and suddenly make you feel as if you were several hundred feet higher. Fun place to fight, isn't it? Do they have all of those with the soldiers in Iraq? How about the training to USE such equipment and wear clothing properly in such a climate?

Because it is not always possible to transport material by helicopter, troops are often required to carry awkward loads, including kerosene oilcans, rations, and building materials for bunkers. The Soviets learned this lesson while fighting in difficult terrain in Afghanistan.

At high altitudes, where it is difficult to keep weapons functioning, covering and protecting weapons and equipment against snow and ice is a necessity. Batteries often will not perform optimally in the cold, and complicated mechanisms, such as those in surface-to-air missiles, can easily malfunction. Also, artillery shells sometimes behave erratically because of thin air and gusting winds.

Helicopters, as noted, have reduced lift capacity and overground hauling, especially where you have a number of sudden peaks and troughs is vital as the sudden wind-shears can down helicopters and even low flying jets. Knowing how to judge wind direction, speed and what will cause it to change is an art, not a science, in mountainous terrain.

Even worse is that individuals become disconnected from the true needs of their body due to altitude and the rapid loss of heat and body moisture:

Surviving and operating in mountainous terrain requires more energy than usual. A soldier who needs 3,000 to 4,000 calories under normal circumstances will require 6,000 or more calories in the mountains. To complicate the situation, high altitude adversely affects a person's appetite. Soldiers tend to eat and drink less in high altitudes, which reduces morale and fighting capabilities and makes them more susceptible to mountain-related illnesses. U.S. soldiers conducting mountain-warfare training at Abbotabad, Pakistan, which is at 4,000 feet, lost approximately 25 pounds during a 3-week training period. Commanders must ensure soldiers consume proper diets and are well-hydrated.

The idea for a given body mass is the number of quarts per day that you would go through, and sometimes that was per *hour* in the highland desert terrain where I had field camp. Carrying 30-60 lbs of supplies required lots of food and I would go through a gallon of water in 6 hours of just hiking and mapping the terrain, and it was a common experience to be the only person, outside of the instructors who had water *left* at 6 hours. As a diabetic I cut down on my basal insulin and didn't worry about morning highs, as those would burn off in an hour or two of hard work. I have problems imagining carrying a combat load, all of one's supplies, weapons, ammo, and the rest in such a situation, not to speak of winter-time ops.

The normal practice in glaciated areas is to not keep soldiers above 19,000 feet for more than 3 to 4 weeks before returning them to lower elevations. If soldiers experience any signs of altitude illnesses, commanders must evacuate them promptly. For most mountain illnesses, evacuation to below at least 3,000 feet is the first requirement for saving a person's life. Delaying evacuation might not only cost the soldier's life, but imperil the lives of the soldiers who might have to conduct evacuation procedures during bad weather.

Replacements being sent to high-altitude environments must have operated at heights similar to those to which they are being sent for at least 10 to 15 days. If not, they could quickly become casualties themselves. Well-trained, acclimatized troops must be available to replace those at higher altitudes.

Altitude sickness is no joke and the acclimation time is vital. I had spent additional time at altitude before field camp to ensure that I was adjusted, and we only had one member out of 22 that needed to be sent down to lower elevations and he returned in a few days. The terrain and climate must be accounted for in all high terrain operations be they desert, highland jungle or forest, or mountain. And key is replacement troops already acclimated to the altitude so that when casualties need to be replaced, the replacements don't have problems, too.

High-altitude environments can take heavy physical and mental tolls on soldiers. While in the Caucasus, the Germans learned that troops wore down much faster in mountains despite the fact they were elite troops, picked for their mental abilities and physical prowess. Operations in such environments involve extreme physical exertion. Living conditions in mountainous terrain can be difficult. At times all movement is stopped, soldiers do not receive mail, and replacements might not arrive on time. These factors can lead to depression and boredom and a sharp decrease in fighting spirit. Simple tasks such as manning weapons, sentry duty, and patrolling require determination.

Offensive actions in mountainous terrain are difficult and costly. Not only must soldiers fight the enemy, they must also brave the elements of harsh terrain, which are equally formidable. These conditions call for strong leadership by junior leaders, who must physically lead and be mentally tough.

My personal experience with that mental fatigue is one of not being able to properly analyze data captured in the field, which I knew was vital but was unable to correctly interpret it during slack times. When the 'simple task' of actually *recording the information* was something I overlooked, I stopped, drank water and just recovered in any available shelter in the rocks.

This next part is the absolute key for understanding the difference between lowland warfare and mountain warfare:

Mountain combat is decentralized and often takes place at the platoon or squad level. The quality of junior leadership is decisive. The Russians observed in Afghanistan that even a small unit, maneuvering boldly, could decide the outcome of a battle.

Large force operations are not only difficult, but futile in the long run as you literally cannot *take* terrain. You own the ground you are on and that is about it, and are safe up to the distance you can accurately see and fire, and then the reverse-slope indirect fire can still kill you. The Russians noted that small units could decide the outcome of such battles because they were fighting large unit battles and not succeeding.

Cost-effective mountain combat requires skilled and well-trained troops. Soldiers cannot be sent into a fight at high altitude at the last moment. Doing so could invite disaster. One example of such an action is the employment of the 7th Indian Brigade against the Chinese in the 1962 Himalayan conflict. The brigade had not been stationed in the mountains previously, and when things began going badly, the brigade was moved from the plains straight into mountain combat. The soldiers, who had not been acclimatized or equipped to fight in the mountains, suffered heavy casualties because of frostbite, edema, and other high-altitude-induced illnesses.

And here is the nub of it: you do NOT send unprepared troops into such terrain. You are asking for disaster and lots of it and deservedly so for not taking into account training, acclimatization, equipment, stores, supplies and the entire medical chain that is necessary for survival.

Maneuver. Mountainous terrain is ideally suited for the defense. During World War II, some of the heaviest casualties in the Italian Theater occurred during an attempt to overcome German defenses at Mount Casino. In Afghanistan, the Russians attacked the strategic Panjshir Valley repeatedly but were unable to clear it despite their advantage in firepower and mobility. The line of control in Kashmir in 2003 was not much different from the cease-fire line of the India-Pakistan war in 1949. Both Indian and Pakistan forces found that an assault on well-defended positions was extremely costly. Defense requires the control of dominating heights, passes, and lines of communication by strongpoints. An integrated defense is not possible in cut up, mountainous terrain. During training, commanders need to understand the techniques of defense with all-around protection and emplacement of direct fighting weapons. Field Manual 3-97.6 highlights that reserves must be closer to important defense locations because reaction times in mountainous terrains are longer than usual, which could require several small rather than one large centralized reserve.

Mountainous terrain offers opportunities for infiltration, requiring defenders to be aggressive at all times. Aggressive patrolling enhances security and keeps soldiers active and sharp. In Kashmir this helped prevent a bunker mentality. Although sensors provide some protection, mountainous terrain is too compartmentalized for complete electronic surveillance. Combat service support (CSS) elements must provide their own protection and must train in patrolling and perimeter defense while developing a mindset focused on constant vigilance.

Offensive operations require meticulous planning and preparation because of the inherent strength mountainous terrain provides to the defender. Training plays a vital role in ensuring an edge for the attackers. Since the defender has an advantage, successful attacks should isolate the defender and keep him under constant pressure. The Soviets laid great emphasis on junior leaders and company-level mountain operations, advocating envelopment by smaller, autonomous groups.

This puts a stress on the junior officers and on-the-ground commanders as they know the conditions, the enemy, and their own force's capability and higher command does NOT. The Soviet system was not designed to encourage lower level officer initiative, and so the need to actually have troops that were well led required a strong NCO Corps. The Soviets also did not try to befriend the population and 'blend in' by not being omnipresent. The strategic outlook for obedient forces and direct attack limited their tactical ability to actually have competent low level officers that would show initiative and be able to compensate for the strategic lacks on the ground. They nearly succeeded until the US got Stinger missiles in to remove the airpower part of the equation and then the Soviet military was on equal footing with their adversary. The Stinger was the 'equalizer' of the Soviet invasion. Once on equal footing, local knowledge and support countervailed against Soviet external supplies and support.

During Operation Anaconda in Afghanistan, U.S. forces used more decentralized combat than on normal terrain. Junior leaders' initiative and skill is vital to the mission's success, especially in security and reconnaissance missions. Mountainous terrain and bad weather provide opportunities for small forces to concentrate and achieve surprise. Russian and Afghan government forces suffered heavily when they neglected this aspect of the battlefield environment.

Here is something that is another key, and that is the INTEL portion and force protection portion. These are also some of the duller jobs to be done, and they are especially difficult at altitude. The skill and planning are essential as with those in mind the enemy can also be examined for how *they* are succumbing to the altitude. And now for the really painful part:

Logistics. Logistics support in the mountains is difficult and time-consuming. In Kashmir, a variety of transport is used for logistical support, road transport being the most reliable and cost-effective. At higher altitudes where tracks cannot be maintained because of snow and difficult terrain, mules are a preferred means of transport. At altitudes where even mules cannot go, porters can. Porters are local people capable of carrying heavy loads across difficult terrain.

In the Caucasus Campaign, the German army used sleds, mules, and horses in addition to trucks. Recently, despite technological advances, the U.S. Army had to use horses and mules in Afghanistan. Helicopters are a quick, versatile means of transportation, but at higher altitudes their lift capability is severely limited. The French Alouette helicopter can fly higher than U.S helicopters can, but even it can deliver only about 180 pounds above 20,000 feet. Because helicopters cannot be used in adverse weather, a mixture of resources is necessary to ensure reliability and flexibility.

The road network in the mountains is generally a logistician's nightmare. Main supply routes are limited and often do not support vehicles that require large turning radii. Many roads do not permit two-way traffic.

One man with a sniper rifle need only pick off one vehicle in a convoy and the entire thing gets stuck. Get the lead vehicle and the ones behind it often have no place to go and their troops will take a bit of time to get used to the surroundings. Pick your place, pick your escape route and this can be done and with an extremely high chance of survival. Roads only become semi-reliable once an opponent is forced from mountainous terrain, and even then a few individuals with commitment can cause a large amount of chaos. Just a bit more on logistics:

Logistics estimates and loads must be customized for the mountainous environment. For example, using mules requires loads be broken up according to their carrying capacity. Also, overages must be built into supply estimates because there is always a need for a large reserve of items that wear out quickly, such as boots, jackets, and gloves. If soldiers use improper or worn clothing for even a short time, the chance of developing altitude and cold-related sicknesses increases significantly. In addition, combat casualty evacuation involves many challenges. Air evacuation remains the preferred method, but because of the dispersed nature of troops, expert medical help might not be available quickly. Therefore, self-aid, buddy help, and the availability of more combat life savers in the unit is important.

Canadian small-unit support vehicles, specially designed for restrictive terrain, were particularly useful for logistics support at high altitude in Afghanistan, whereas the bulky ground-held laser designating system was not. Soldiers' personal loads of more than 50 pounds were too heavy at high altitudes. Equipment must be upgraded for future mountain warfare.

This is why the US and Canada worked together to train up the US 10th Mountain Division. Canadians have a long history of having knowledge of mountains and survival in bad weather in such places. And note that last on equipment upgrade: it *must* be done for existing forces, not to speak of a raw army thrown in there.

The article goes into training, and that the US Army does basic survival skills training for mountainous terrain. One of the places it does so is United States Army Mountain Warfare School, Ethan Allen Firing Range, Jericho, VT and they have downloadable course materials on both winter and summer survival courses and objectives. Courses in mountaineering and assault climbing are featured in both variants. One could spend a 3-4 months just taking courses, learning how to apply what was learned, do some field testing, and so on, just to get through the basics. The Marine Corps Mountain Warfare Training Center has a much longer listing of courses, from what I could see on the public side, and looks to be intensive for enlistees and officers.

What was worrying on 9/11 and thereafter was the state of the US 10th Mountain Division because of the state it had fallen into during the previous Administration. At the Defense and National Interest site they have a 1997 report on a staff trip to the NTC and JRTC (National Training Center (NTC) and the Joint Readiness Training Center (JRTC) made by a Senate staffer.

Army-wide Shortages in Key Personnel

Despite high operating tempos and work loads, both OPFORs at the NTC and JRTC were described as fully manned, enjoying high esprit de corps, and having retention rates at least as good as the rest of the Army, if not better. For the units rotating into the NTC and JRTC—i.e. the Army's combat units; that is to say, the heart and sole of the Army—there is a very different story. I was told the following:

Units coming to both training centers frequently do not come with many of their sub-unit commanders; these have frequently been assigned to peacekeeping missions or other deployments that separate them from their units. As a result, sub-units—from basic squads on up—do not train with the commanders that they would go to war with. When this happens, it violates a key dictum of readiness and one of the basic points of having the NTC and the JRTC: the Army should “train just as you go to war.”

At the NTC, units rotating in typically come with a 60% shortage in mechanics and a 50% shortage in “mounted” mechanized infantry (in their Bradley APCs). These were described as “Army-wide” shortages: they were demonstrated by virtually all the units coming to the NTC. These shortages were described as due to these personnel, especially the mechanics, being deployed abroad for missions such as Bosnia. On average, all Army personnel now spend from 180 to 220 days of each year away from their home base, and families, on deployments. This average used to be about 165 days per year. According to Army testimony to Congress, the increase in these deployments is for peacekeeping missions.

At the JRTC, units were described as typically missing 25% of their basic infantry: mostly junior enlisted personnel with combat military specialties and mid grade non-commissioned officer (NCO) personnel. This was described as a recruiting problem and specifically not because of deployments such as Bosnia.

In actuality, these problems may be worse than indicated here. I was told at the NTC that the NCO shortages are often temporarily addressed by pulling junior NCOs into the unfilled senior and mid level slots to make more complete units for training purposes. At the JRTC, because one third of each brigade's junior enlisted and NCO personnel do not deploy for a rotation, it is possible that gaps in the units that do deploy are filled with those that would otherwise stay home. I was told this is not occurring; however, I am skeptical that it never happens.

The problems seen were Army-wide, but concentrated due to the conflict in Bosnia and 'peace keeping' there by US troops. Shortages in skills, personnel, equipment and the such like are being described with the drain being due to Bosnia. One of the groups sent to Bosnia and then suffering through this was the 10th Mountain Division. By NOV 1999 the 10th Mountain Division and 1st Infantry Division had both fallen to the lowest readiness level since Vietnam. Given the high level of training necessary to make the 10 MD, this was astonishing and pointed to some larger scale problem that could allow any part of the Army, but *particularly* the 10 MD to fall to that level. In the year 2000 an investigation due to presidential campaigning ensued and found the following, as seen at the DNI site hosting this report:

Summary Findings and Conclusions

The character, enthusiasm, and professionalism of the officers, non-commissioned officers (NCOs), and enlisted men and women in the 10th Mountain Division is impressive. The 10th Mountain Division is officially rated by the Army at a level that lends support to General Shelton and the other respondents to candidate Bush's assertion of non-readiness. Strenuous efforts of the 10th Division's personnel are manifest to make it as effective a combat unit as resources permit. Various unit commanders expressed a willingness and readiness to take on and perform effectively any mission assigned, as has been the case in the past.

However, beneath the favorable overall readiness rating and an understandable - and professional - expression of confidence by various commanders, and despite all the hard efforts of the officers, NCOs, and enlisted personnel, the 10th Mountain is today experiencing multiple, serious shortages of people and material resources, training deficiencies, and other impediments to readiness, a large number of them resulting from policies imposed by Washington.

The issues include the following:

Incomplete manning in many combat and support units, sometimes to the extent that important secondary - if not primary - missions cannot be performed and/or primary mission performance is degraded. Moreover, because of Army force structure decisions, what is normally one-third of a US Army division's combat strength (an entire ground maneuver brigade) does not exist in the 10th Mountain Division.

Gaps in the leadership of the Division throughout its hierarchy, such that enlisted personnel are frequently doing the work of sergeants, lieutenants are doing the work of captains, captains of majors, and so on. Also, in cases where a position is occupied by an individual of appropriate rank, that individual may be less experienced than in the past or than experienced personnel - in and out of the 10th Division - deemed sufficient.

Training deficiencies that include less satisfactorily trained personnel received from Army training or personnel trained on equipment not assigned to the division, and incomplete opportunities to overcome these training inadequacies.

Non-availability of various equipment , training ammunition shortages, and funding shortfalls for facilities.

Various policy directives and allocation of resources from Washington (i.e.: from the civilian and military leadership of the military services and the Department of Defense and from Congress) that either impede readiness or that are ineffectual at addressing known deficiencies.

A lack of inquiry by various entities to collect on-the-ground, empirical information on the condition of the 10th Mountain to establish what basis candidate Bush may have had for his statements and/or to verify the statements of General Shelton, Secretary of Defense Cohen, Vice President Gore, and others.

From these findings and the data presented below, it is concluded that,

As stated by a 10th Mountain soldier at Fort Drum "There are two different armies; the one described in Washington, and the one that exists." And, from another, "There is a mind-boggling difference between the division that Washington DC describes and what exists in 10th Mountain." And from still another, "The [Division] only looks good on paper."

About a year later and the 10 MD had *still* not recovered from its neglect at overlong 'peace keeping' missions without resupply, rest and replenishment of personnel and stores. Also note multiple levels of conflicting orders from not only the DoD structure, but from Congress. Mind you Congress is the one to ensure that enough equipment is procured, pay established, training paid for and the such like and it is for the President to utilize such things. If the President is not utilizing them and Congress can't put forward a coherent outlook, chaos ensues. As it was the 10 MD was finally up to the task a bit more than a year later when it was actually NEEDED as the one group that knows how to act as a larger fighting force on the ground in mountainous terrain. Special Operations can only go so far, and they did a superb job coordinating between the Northern Alliance and the US Armed Forces. What was needed was the 10 MD, however. This is why those who think that 'any army' can fight in Afghanistan have it positively dead wrong: this is specialist terrain and if you don't have the training, equipment, stamina and logistics, then you are dead.

Congress has not lived up to its duties for over 15 years and has yet to actually define what the Armed Forces of the US should look like in the 21st century, how they should be equipped and what the necessary stores and supplies ARE for that force. Even with gross mismanagement by the Executive branch, there is no excuse for not properly understanding the needs and requirements of training, force structure, supply, refit and equipment upgrades. In THAT Congress has failed.

It took two branches of the Federal Government to fail for the 10 MD to fall as low as it did.

But the underlying long-term problem for 15 years has been Congress. And it has been run by both political parties.

Obviously Congress has failed its job and its duties to the Armed Forces of the United States.

And that does not look to be getting any better as of late, and most likely far, far worse.

Sphere: Related Content

Created at Muppet Labs!

Muppet Labs! Now that brings back memories. Who can forget Dr. Bunsen Honeydew and his ever inventive mind?

And his ever lovable and often abused guinea pig... ummmm... lab assistant! That's it lab assistant, Beaker.

Now one of the interesting things in life is that there are many that obviously use Beaker as their role model! Yes you do not have to even say the words Electric Sledgehammer and you will find some willing guinea pig.... errrr... lab assistant! To do all sorts of ridiculous, dangerous and strange things all in the name of science.


And so you get folks like Eric Sofge at Popular Mechanics who is making a career at looking at things of interest like building demolition, all sorts of new high-tech things, GPS trackers to be fired during a car chase, the airborne laser system under development by the USAF, in-situ bone and tooth growth, the new Boeing 787 Dreamliner and, my personal favorite, deciding to have a Taser tested on him! Those others were just a warmup for *that*...


Eric Sofge, Tasered

Yes all the fine and wonderful products of Muppet Labs that would just change the lives of everyone. No longer would Bananas be so untidy once you purchased a Banana Sharpener!

Beaker, Banana-ed
Isn't the resemblance remarkable? I mean just look at those mid-expirement shots! It is so good to see one following in the footsteps of their role model in life...

Yes, indeed there were such grand ideas from Muppet Labs, that one wonders why they did not patent a few of them. And that brings me to the point: obviously Muppet Labs has had one of their inventions swiped! I mean take a look at the Lewis N. Clark Compression Bags.



Or the Cabela's Waterproof Stuff Sacks.


Yes these are a pure, and blatant rip-off from Muppet Labs and their Compressible Luggage:


I fully support anything that Dr. Bunsen Honeydew has to do so as to ensure that Muppet Labs gets all the credit it deserves in this area where they were pioneering spirits, risking Beaker to show how well their ideas worked. I am very sure that Mr. Rosenthal will take this case...


And then they will have their day in court with Judge Marvin Suggs!



They laughed at Edison!

They laughed at the Wright Brothers!

And they laughed at Muppet Labs!

Soon, I am sure, that the incomparable Muppet Labs will have the last laugh.

Sphere: Related Content

Thoughts stirred on the connectivity of al Qaeda in 9/11

Yes, my letters tend to go long and often turn into complete posts in and of themselves! So it is with one I sent to Instapundit on the piece he posted to look at Edward Jay Epstein's column at Opinionjournal on terrorism and connectivity in the Madrid Bombing case. Needless to say I have put forth a bit on the connectivity problem before and took time so put that together into a letter thanking Mr. Reynolds on his post to that article.

As always the letter is presented 'as is' with all spelling and syntax errors completely due to the deficiencies of the writer.

========

Dear Mr. Reynolds,

Indeed the Spanish prosecutor is quite right to call into question this idea that al Qaeda isolates operations in the way described by KSM and Binalshibh. My own look at how transnational terrorist networks work and how Nation States play a supporting, but not guiding role, I have gone over in: Template of Terror and The Web of the Supernote. Those are practical understandings of how different terror organizations work together in something stronger than a loose affiliational set-up, to disperse knowledge, weapons, skills and suppliers. I tend to concentrate on Iran, due to its more obvious methods that get noticed in places like South America, the Balkans and Turkey, as I did a look at with 6 months of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty archives from 2000. My recent review of Iranian influence in Bosnia, went a bit deeper than that and uncovered some connections that you may be interested in as you have also pointed out to the deadliness of Algerian terrorists. Way down in that article I cite the testimony of Ralf Mutschke, Interpol's Assistant Director, Criminal Intelligence Directorate to the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime on 13 DEC 2000 as seen at Globalsecurity and theantidrug websites:

I would like to draw the particular attention of the Committee to the Groupe Islamique Armé (GIA) , considering the events of December last year. On 14 December 1999, Ahmed Ressam, was arrested near Port Angeles, Washington State, while trying to enter the United States from Canada. He was in possession of a timing device, explosive materials and false identification documents. Ahmed Ressam is known to have shared a Montreal (Canada) apartment with Said Atmani, a known document forger for the GIA. It has been established that before Ressam attempted to enter the US, he was in the company of Abdelmajid Dahoumane in Vancouver (Canada) for a 3 to 4 week period . An Interpol Red Notice was issued regarding the latter. The investigation has revealed links between terrorists of Algerian origin and a criminal network established in Montreal and specializing in the theft of portable computers and mobile telephones. The group in Montreal was in contact with individuals involved in terrorist support activity in France, and with several Moudjahidin groups who are active in Bosnia.

Subsequent to the arrest of Ressam, the Montreal police arrested twelve persons who were committing theft of valuable goods in cars in the Montreal downtown area. The proceeds of these criminal activities were sent to an international network with links to France, Belgium, Italy, Turkey, Australia and Bosnia.

The events in Canada and the United States should be seen in a wider perspective. Indeed, intelligence shows that several Algerian terrorist leaders were present at a meeting in Albania, which could also have been attended by Usama bin Laden , who was believed to be in Albania at that time. It was during this meeting that many structures and networks were established for propaganda and fund raising activities, and for providing Algerian armed groups with logistical support. The arrest at the Canada-US border in December 1999 may indicate that the Algerian terrorists are prepared to take their terrorism campaign to North America.

Here we have 2000 testimony warning that bin Laden's contacts with GIA may have not only been behind the Millenium bombing plot, but part of a plan to increase terrorism in North America.

Apparently the 9/11 Commission never bothered to look at *other* al Qaeda attacks or connections of other groups to al Qaeda. They complained about failing to 'connect the dots' and did, themselves, fail to do so. Further into his testimony, Mr. Mutschke gives us this:

Finally, Albanian criminal groups frequently engage in burglaries, armed robberies and car theft in Europe and the United States.

There might still be links between political/military Kosovar Albanian groups (especially the KLA) and Albanian organized crime. Of the almost 900 million DM which reached Kosovo between 1996 and 1999, half was thought to be illegal drug money. Legitimate fundraising activities for the Kosovo and the KLA could have been be used to launder drug money. In 1998, the U.S. State Department listed the KLA as a terrorist organization, indicating that it was financing its operations with money from the international heroin trade and loans from Islamic countries and individuals, among them allegedly Usama bin Laden . Another link to bin Laden is the fact that the brother of a leader in an Egyptian Djihad organization and also a military commander of Usama bin Laden, was leading an elite KLA unit during the Kosovo conflict . In 1998, the KLA was described as a key player in the drugs for arms business in 1998, "helping to transport 2 billion USD worth of drugs annually into Western Europe". The KLA and other Albanian groups seem to utilize a sophisticated network of accounts and companies to process funds . In 1998, Germany froze two bank accounts belonging to the "United Kosova" organization after it had been discovered that several hundred thousand dollars had been deposited into those accounts by a convicted Kosovar Albanian drug trafficker.

Thus connections between bin Laden, KLA, Islamic Jihad and GIA are seen happening in Bosnia and Albania with the facilitation of Albanian organized crime groups. Beyond that he then puts together an extensively internetworked listing of how terrorist and criminal organizations have cooperated on a transnational scale:

In order to smuggle their illicit products into the U.S., Colombian drug cartels began forming alliances with Mexican groups, who have a well-developed smuggling infrastructure for transporting drugs across the vast border with the United States. As Mexicans began to charge more for their services, Colombians established relationships with various Dominican, Jamaican, Puerto Rican, and African-American groups which act as smugglers and retailers for Colombian wholesale cocaine. Colombians have also formed an alliance with some of the Nigerian drug trafficking groups based on product exchange. In the early 1990s, Nigerian groups supplied heroin to Colombian drug traffickers in exchange for cocaine. Colombians were able to develop their own heroin market, while Nigerians started selling cocaine in Western Europe. During the late 1980s and early 1990s, an important alliance was formed between Colombian drug cartels and the Sicilian Mafia. Since the cocaine market in the U.S. was saturated, and because cocaine could be sold with higher profit margins in Europe, Colombians wanted to enter the European drug market. The Cosa Nostra's well established heroin network was easily applicable to cocaine. In addition, the Sicilians had an excellent knowledge of European conditions and were able to neutralize law enforcement officials through bribery and corruption more effectively than the Colombians . From the Sicilian perspective, the alliance with Colombians was an opportunity to regain part of the market that had been lost to Chinese heroin traffickers. In recent years, South American drug cartels have been forming alliances with East European/Russian Organized Crime Groups in order to support and diversify their operations. East European groups have offered drug cartels access to sophisticated weapons that were previously not available. Helicopters, surface-to-air missiles, rocket-propelled grenades, and even submarines are on the drug cartels' "shopping list." The East European groups provided new drug markets in Russia, the former Soviet Republics, and Eastern Europe, while consumption was decreasing in the U.S. In 1993, Russian police intercepted a ton of South American cocaine which had been shipped to St. Petersburg by one Russian crime syndicate working with a Colombian drug cartel. In another example, a Russian crime leader was arrested in January 1997 in Miami by U.S. agents for the exportation of cocaine from Ecuador to St. Petersburg (Russia) and then to the United States . In exchange for these services, drug cartels pay for transactions with high quality cocaine. East European/Russian crime syndicates and corrupt military officers are supplying sophisticated weapons to Colombian rebels in exchange for huge shipments of cocaine. Although the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) receives most of the arms, some of them are distributed to Hezbollah factions.

And with previously cited Iranian influence in Bosnia in my post, the continued presence of them thereafter along with al Qaeda and Islamic Jihad, we can see that the ability to be facilitated to other groups via criminal associates, allows for an interweaving of terrorism and crime organizations, while still allowing each to have separate goals and identities. How else can Hezbollah operate in South America that is distinctly the territory of FARC, Shining Path, local drug kinpins, organized crime syndicates and emerald gangs? Terrorists can go 'shopping' via organized crime and also supply those organizations with other suppliers so that a multimodal transport system can be evolved for continual supply of arms and other goods to terrorist organizations that are remote from each other. These are not suspicions, as many cases against terrorists utilizing criminal capabilities have been recorded across South America and Europe. FARC has its own narcotics set up and works that in cooperation with other drug syndicates, all the while still having terrorist goals.

You noted with this post that to go to Bill Roggio's post on Coutnerterrorism Blog on a topic that became fact on the ground and demonstrates how the transfer of skills happens, in this case with Hezbollah:

Hezbollah's actions on the battlefields of southern Lebanon should give the Israelis, the West and neighboring Arab governments reason to worry. In just two weeks, Hezbollah has been fighting the Israeli military to an effective standstill on the ground (remember that time is not on Israel's side due to pressure to accept a cease fire). Not only is Hezbollah fighting at the platoon and company level, but fighting effectively during the initial engagements. al-Qaeda in Iraq (3 years of fighting) and the Taliban in Afghanistan (almost 5 years of fighting) have yet to reach such a level of effectiveness on the battlefield.

Iran has trained a proxy army that now sits on the border with Israeli, an army that cannot be dealt with from the air. If this problem is kicked down the road, Hezbollah will be that much more dangerous. And everything we think we know about Iran's conventional military capabilities needs to be rethought.

That is when I finally realized that Hezbollah was a Foreign Legion of Iran with multiple groups, as seen in my 2000 analysis, in South America, Turkey, Bosnia, Chechnya. And because their connectivity was a given, their trainers were obvious: FARC. They have gotten some help, no doubt, from other groups, but FARC is the closest thing to a military organization that is based on terrorism and their South American tactics were seen put to poor use in the desert climate of Lebanon. Staying and hoping that one's over-run position will not be noticed is not too bad in heavy vegetation, but is a death-trap in deserts. Yet, Hezbollah cowered in their bunkers hoping the IDF would just overlook them...

Now since ETA has *also* been operational in South America and would find it hard to do so without indigenous supplies. The Terror Knowledgebase lists a short grouping for ETA, including one of the ubiquitous Red groups (Red Flag in Venezuela, now working hard to go semi-legit in the anti-Chavez mode). But to operate in Chile ( 1999) or Costa Rica (1983) requires some entree to local groups and ensuring that those sent there have at least tacit recognition that their work will not be seen as a direct threat to a local group, say Shining Path or one of the Revolutionary groups in Costa Rica. Thus the entire web of connection then can be seen as snaking *back* into the Iberian Peninsula by indigenous connectivity in South America and the Caribbean and the connectivity there to the more localized groups.

It is this sort of internetworking, sharing of contacts, training, skills and resources that is a fundamental problem on non-Nation State based terrorism. The 9/11 Commission overlooked this to our collective peril by trying to sight in on one group, when it is the internetworking of these groups on both the terrorist and criminal side of things that is the long-lasting and continuous danger to the Union. In part of my look at The Volunteer Fifth Column I dug up every terrorist event aimed at the US as a Nation that would have been a casus belli in a previous century and came up with a long, long list just during the Clinton Administration with a light gathering from late in the Bush-41 Administration, too. These are illegitimate acts of war by non-National actors, not mere criminal events. The 9/11 Commission wants to straddle that and make only al Qaeda look to blame when, in point of fact, the US has been in the cross-hairs by a long listing of organizations that think it is a good idea to target the US with aims to destroy its Foreign Policy, kill Ambassadors and go after our Armed Forces. It has been far more than al Qaeda and dates back from before al Qaeda was even *formed*.

We ignored those dangers and the increasing body count and destruction as they mounted over time.

Now we are paying a bit of interest on that bill of lost National Sovereignty.

And those wanting to hand us the entire bill want to do so for keeps.

I thank you for pointing that article out, and hopefully a few more will read it and start to get an inkling of what we are facing as a Nation.

[Name Withheld]
A Jacksonian

=====

That is it, just some of the things I put together at the spur of the moment.

This stuff has been going on for years and running across Congressional testimony on the threat of al Qaeda prior to 9/11 is chilling, in the extreme. The 9/11 Commission did a grave disservice to the Nation in over-simplifying al Qaeda, its connectivity and its ability to utilize other groups to do its work. And that threat exists across the entire transnational terrorist internetwork and its organized crime connections for aid and support.

Sphere: Related Content

The last gasp of 'Realpolitik'

I link to an article at the RIA news aggregator and their picking up the Russian Novosti article on "Iraq is no Vietnam" on 19 FEB 2oo7 by Yevgeny Satanovsky. I had emailed it out to a few folks and pointed out that there is a line of reasoning here which is startling because it actually does try to address the situation in Iraq. I do disagree with the conclusions of the writer, particularly on the concept of an Iraqi Civil War, but the ability of someone to actually put forth a construction based on the facts of the situation are startling because NO ONE in the Political Elite of the United States wants to do so. So now a Russian comes a long to give us the view from that previous era and how it might be adapted to this one... although the 'Realists' are to blame for the problems of the 21st century, it is interesting that they are trying to cope with it. Or at least one or two of them are when they can get their heads out of the sand.

I will be extracting the article and giving in-line commentary, which is not my usual methodology, but seems appropriate here. For background you may want to peruse my articles on the Unreal 'Realists' , the Faultlines shifting the status quo, Peace in the Middle East checklist, Iraq the Civil War that wasn't and the Dumb Looks on Post-Warism to get an idea of where I am coming from and *why*. As I said I disagree with the conclusions, but this is as close as anyone on the 'Realist' side has gotten to stating the problem. Highlighting will be mine throughout.

Iraq is no Vietnam
19 FEB 2007

MOSCOW. (Yevgeny Satanovsky for RIA Novosti) - U.S. allies and their opponents, American Congressmen and terrorist leaders, professional politicians and ordinary people, journalists and generals are increasingly comparing the war in Iraq with Vietnam.

They are all in the wrong. Iraq is not Vietnam. The situation in Iraq is much worse, and the majority of parallels with the Vietnam war do not apply.

The fact that in Vietnam the Americans were fighting in the jungle, whereas in Iraq they are in the desert or urban areas does not make a difference. Nor is it manifest in the level of arms and technologies, or the changes that took place in the United States over several decades.

Yes in the first three paragraphs, a mere 6 sentences he immediately demolishes the underpinning of the entire set of activists forever caught in the amber of the 1960's-'70s. He is pointing out that fighting an insurgency does not matter where it is fought, but that circumstances surrounding such insurgencies DO matter.

The main difference is that war in Vietnam was not so much between the North and the South, but between the superpowers. The U.S. was fighting the U.S.S.R., and the war reflected the rivalry of modernization models which once belonged to the same civilization. Trade and diplomacy helped alleviate the confrontation and keep it within certain limits. The Vietnam war was part of the big game. Its rules were questionable and its consequences appalling, but the rules were still there.

Here is a vital key to all of those wishing to use Vietnam as the perspective point for Iraq: it was a contest WITHIN civilized paradigms. The US and the USSR had different outlooks on how best to approach the modern world, economics, and freedom, but within the confines of a set of agreed upon Nation State rules of orderly conduct. It could *still* lead to thermonuclear holocaust, but without those rules of conduct, the conflict would have been unconstrained. By both coming from Western traditions, the US and USSR understood that there was a global 'playing field' in which the Cold War was being carried out.

I, also, question the rules that were used, but not in denying them but in their implementation. The US was an economic powerhouse even then, and the USSR was desperately doing anything it could to compete and show capability. To do that its economy stagnated until it no longer grew and started to implode while the US continued economic growth and expansion even while handing 8% of its GDP to non-productive military use. That achievement was a long-term keystone to what was a struggle of 20th century views on modern economics.

Neither the US nor USSR perfectly incorporated those views, but the proposals and their conclusions were done and put forward in the global arena of proxy conflict. Isolationist views of the US then brought much death to those that looked to the US as a bastion of liberty and freedom. The US has suffered the long-term ideological consequences of defeat in Vietnam and has been horribly crippled ideologically since then. The USSR supplied and supported something on the order of 4 complete North Vietnamese armies from soup to nuts and suffered the deep economic damage of that which put the rate of internal rot and corruption so high that the US just had to outlast them. America, however, is still suffering the bleeding of Vietnam to this day and is losing the capability to assert the Universal Rights of Man as an Individual.

The war in Vietnam was not a conflict of civilizations. As distinct from Iraq, the Vietnamese did not kill each other for religious or ethnic reasons. In Iraq, many of those that are opposing the U.S.-British coalition fanatically believe in their mission of protecting the Muslim world against crusaders. Politically correct verbiage is appropriate in Western parliaments, but not in Erbil, Basra, or Baghdad.

Here again this point is absolutely missed by the nay-sayers. Yes, he has just indicted the entire PC movement in a way that should slap them silly. Here is a RUSSIAN decrying PCism!

It was not very difficult for the U.S. to leave Vietnam. South Vietnam lost, and North Vietnam won, but this was a victory of a nation rather than anarchy generated by religious fanaticism. Those who won in Vietnam were not going to continue the war in Europe or the United States. Those who may win in Iraq have opposite intentions, and have proved by deeds that their threats are very real. Of course, the U.S. could withdraw its troops and military advisers from Iraq, and this will mean the end of the war for the U.S. Congress and administration. However, this will mean nothing for those who are fighting America in Iraq, and the West in general.

As a Russian Mr. Satanovsky can be excused for his lack of knowledge on the harm done to the US internally by the Vietnam war. It is a deep ideological wound not one of economics, and those wishing for it to never heal want the US to die due to the lack of ideological vitality.

That said, the 'Realist' conception is not far off the mark, although the people of Laos and Cambodia were *also* part of the withdrawal of US troops, and their Nations suffered for the US lack of will. And in both of those there *were* ethnic rivalries that came to the fore as well as in Vietnam against the Hmong. But that was confined *to* Nations and not seen as a global imperative of Nations across the world. The stark difference between genocidal Nazi Germany and these confined conflicts are clearly seen as there was no attempt to track down entire *peoples* for killing, just remove them from the political class or from individual Nations.

Against radical Islam, there is no breathing space as the Globe is the aim for them and Empire is their credo. And the fights *within* Islam, not only the main sectarian fights, but those between parts of the same sect, are horrific, religious based and with high levels of ethnic adherence. Bosniaks are different from Albanian Muslims, and those differences arise in conflict as has been the situation in Chechnya where a common population is split by sectarian influences. Within and amongst sects are some of the nastiest and bitter infighting seen which the West should be able to identify from the 30 years war. No one is so blasphemous as someone who agrees with you on 95% of everything.

That is what the US is facing, and this next paragraph is telling in the description of things.

The war in Iraq involves everyone. The Iraqis believe that it is a war of insurgents against the occupants; the West believes that it is the war of the coalition forces against the terrorists; a war between Arabs and Kurds; and a war between Kurds and Turkmen. It is also a Shiite-Sunni war, and Iraq is the main front of this war which is unfolding in the entire Muslim world - from Lebanon to Pakistan. The war in Iraq is Sunni strife and Shiite elite clashes; a war between Baath Party proponents and al-Qaeda advocates; local Shiite sheikhs and Iran-oriented quarters; the puppet government's opponents and its few supporters. This is also a war of all these groups against the Christian communities, which will have to leave what has been their homeland for almost two millennia in a couple of years. Family clans are at loggerheads; tribes are locked in mortal combat; and the locals are fighting against all foreigners regardless of where they have come from and what they are doing. This is what the Iraqi war is all about.

Here is yet another stark realization that needs to be made by the US Political Elite: this conflict includes THEM. Yes, Mr. Satanovsky is actually trying to address all that my previous work has pointed out: that there is no clear division of the Middle East and that tribal and ethnic affiliation are more powerful than religion and that religious strife crosses tribes and that cultural strife crosses religion. From Sinai to China, the Empty Quarter to Russia there is NO coherence in the Nations built in the Middle East. And as the place where the majority of all the faultlines of the Middle East run through, Iraq is the #1 place of concern in that region. When it was under authoritarian or despotic rule it was difficult for ANY Nation in the region to not be that way. The Turks have tried, but only by allowing their military to stamp down on these tensions which flow THROUGH Iraq and TO Turkey.

Also note a bit of misdirection: there has been NO conflict between the Kurds and Arabs. There has been between the Turks and Kurds and Persians and Kurds, but not between the Arabs and Kurds. This is a key and critical misrepresentation. And the jab at the democratically elected government, also. Apparently those are easily made into 'puppet regimes' via Nation-wide elections under the scrutiny of outside observers. Strange kind of puppet, that.

In Vietnam, the sides were fighting for control over the country, whereas Iraq has become a territory a long time ago. Not a single conflicting party, including the coalition forces and the Iraqi government, controls this territory. Nobody is able or even seriously claims to control it. Iraq is no longer a country. It is a country-size grey area.

And here is the first bit of problem avoidance by Mr. Satanovsky and it is damned subtle for what he does *not* compare it to, because it was a failure of the Communist ideal: The Balkans. That failure of BOTH parts of Western ideology, the Western European after WWI and the Communist in post-WWII both failed in the one place that is as highly divided as Iraq. Yugoslavia by being its own authoritarian Nation under Tito broke with Stalinist Communism and the USSR, although retaining affiliations with it. It was a pressure cooker with the heat slowly turning up as the Cold War disappeared. And while Vietnam has a long historical record of Empires and such over them, they have been central enough in their region to be a required piece of territory to take over. As for being a Nation, that can only be said to date back to 1802 under French rule and a more modern National conception slowly evolved due to that but it came to an end in 1945 and the Communist revolution. So while they are coherent as a People, do note that they have ethnic affinity and even that did not stop political and social upheaval.

What was not seen is the degradation of inter-tribal affiliation as has been the case in Iraq and the total break-down of structure with the downfall of the Ba'athist regime. Due to the type of regime it *was* and how it operated, and due to previous political problems in Iraq, there has not been a coherent nor stable situation there since its founding post-WWI. And it has not helped things that the actual treaties to end that war were not abided by on the Turkish side and to some degree from Iran, also. In trying to cement temporary gains in non-affiliated ethnic regions, the borders of Nations were dividing Peoples, not bringing them together. Just like Iraq, the Balkans are a 'country-sized grey area'. Unlike Iraq it does not have tens of billions of dollars from petro-revenue flowing through it. I shudder to think of what ethnic Italians, Hungarians, Romanians, Slavs, Slovenes, Bulgarians, Greeks, Croats, Bosniaks, Albanians and such would have done along with the multiple religions crossing through that area. Europe would have had a hard time surviving that, I think, if every radical could get lots of funding for murder and mayhem. As it is one gunman at Sarajevo was more than enough for my taste.

On October 11, 2006, the Iraqi parliament adopted a law on the nation's federative structure, giving the official seal to the division of Iraq into autonomous regions. The majority of experts believe that this decision will lead to its disintegration in the near future. Imam As-Sadr is the most radical Shiite. He thinks it is possible to establish in Iraq an Islamic state on the Iranian pattern. In 2006, the extremist Mujahideen Shura Council reported the formation of an independent Islamic state in the Sunni regions. Kurd and Shiite leaders who control major oil-producing areas support the idea of a federation.

And these autonomous regions are called? Provinces. Here, again, Mr. Satanovsky is unfamiliar with this as a concept and so were, I suspect, most of the folks in the Middle East. There is a large and vast difference between talking about the United States as something other than a Nation and realizing that the internal structure is one that guides the Nation. Differences via locale are allowed, but departure from the Union is not. Common Law is only common amongst those areas that have had long-term affiliation with the Anglosphere, and Iraq has never really had that. Do remember that the then 'majority of experts' also believed that the United States would fail in the 1770's and nearly DID after the Revolution. Coming together to make Federalism *work* is a long and ongoing job and the US is just as likely to fail today as it was in 1787. And with Iraq finally looking to put oil profits out to its People, via the provinces, the ability of any province to shift away from the Nation puts *its* share of the pie at stake.

Does President Bush understand the situation when he talks about his new "strategy"? Probably. In any event, he is prepared to assume responsibility for what is taking place in Iraq, and this is a heavy burden for any politician. Will he follow in the wake of his critics? No way, and not because in this case he will kill his presidency - he has already been called America's worst president of the 20th century. He will not do this because it is pointless. It is one thing to alleviate military defeat, minimize U.S. losses, and reduce the damage done by his actions to the Republican Party. But adopting a decision which will allow for the repetition of September 11 attacks on the U.S. is quite a different thing. Not a single American president can allow this to happen again, certainly not Bush, who has unleashed this war for no reason and conducted it poorly.

Here he does parrot some of the maunderings of the Defeatocrats. The President may ask for war but only Congress may provide it, and then Congress may not point to anyone else in their failure of conception and understanding. Those wishing to say that Congress was lied to need to address that this had happened across two Administrations, multiple Congresses and Congress actually changing hands during that span. One may criticize the conduct of a war upon a President, but the reasoning behind it can only be stated by Congress.

What we are seeing is not the failure of a President, but the bleeding from the ideological wounds of Vietnam now withdrawing legitimacy of the US Federal Republic by no longer holding Congress accountable to anything. A President can put forward Foreign Policy, conduct wars and run the government, but the Congressional rationale for funding and outlook upon such things is guiding. These are checks and balances within the Federal system and Congress is removing its checks and so unbalances the system. When Congress complains that others are the cause of problems that are theirs, whole and entire to direct and solve, the US Public dares not buy into that as it begins the process of destroying the Federal system of government.

In 2006, the U.S. contingent fluctuated between 123,000 and 150,000 officers and men. As of January 1, 2007, the figure stood at about 140,000. The strength of the allied coalition forces went down from 21,000 to 16,500 in 2006. A 21,500-strong new contingent merely makes up for the past year's withdrawal and adds some strength to the U.S. positions in those areas where it suffered the biggest losses - in Baghdad and Anbar province in the west of Iraq, where 30,000 American troops are unable to curb the local insurgents and al-Qaeda militants.

President Bush's "strategy" has nothing to do with real strategy, but makes sense as a tactical step. The Americans will have to redeploy and withdraw to bases in Iraqi Kurdistan, Jordan and Gulf monarchies. By establishing control over oil pipelines, terminals and fields, as well as the embassy district, parliament and the government in Baghdad, they may go away, while retaining their presence. Successful redeployment under fire is only possible after pre-emptive strikes against the enemy. To do this, it is necessary to increase the strength of the troops and build reserves for screening the moving units. These are the ABCs of military art.

Here, again, he does cut to the chase and I do understand this part and agree, in part, as to the rationale behind the change in tactical outlay, but not towards the strategic goal. Americans no longer know the difference between 'problem solving' and 'troubleshooting', thus mistaking one for the other. By not bothering to look at the exact context he is placing this struggle in and then looking at how the US Armed Forces have worked it, he is missing the overall objective of the mission. This is where 'Realists' fall down on strategy: they prefer to make economics the sole and ONLY goal of warfare and National Interest, and so get blind-sided by those things that have nothing to do with economics and take place in realms of National Affairs that are not guided by things monetary. This 'strategy' is pure 'Realpolitik' aimed at some nebulous 'ensuring supplies' while letting everything go to hell elsewhere. This has FAILED repeatedly in the Middle East, Africa, Latin America and in the Balkans right there on the doorstep of Europe, not to speak of the ex-Russian Republics now going their own way and not liking the Russian intrusion into their affairs.

By citing all of those lovely ethnic, sectarian, cultural, political and religious differences, Mr. Satanovsky misses that the very things he says the US can 'withdraw to' cross ALL OF THEM. You cannot get any 'peace' or 'stability' along those infrastructure portions without doing something to the rest of the Nation. The surest way to let the entire place be over-run, save for the Kurdish regions, is to retreat in the face of opposition. That gets you bullets in the back faster than anything and, in this case, proves that you cannot *keep* the word given by the Nation to help things get better. That is the non-economic part of things that 'Realists' miss and so decide to fritter away National Sovereignty at the feet of 'economic stability'.

Just don't mind the knife in the back when you run from someone you told you were going to HELP.

Because you deserve it.

What else can the U.S. president do? The civil war in Iraq has become irreversible. The war started in the name of democracy (if we forget about Saddam's fictional nuclear bomb) has brought neither security nor peace to the Iraqi people. They lived better under Saddam's dictatorship. Today, they have electricity for 12 hours a day, and in Baghdad for six to seven hours. Unemployment has reached 70% in some areas. Iraqis are fleeing from their country. About 500,000 to 1 million Iraqi emigrants are in Syria; 500,000 to 700,000 in Jordan; and some 100,000 in Egypt. In the official Iraqi estimate, about 100,000 people left the country every month in 2006; the total number of refugees has surpassed 2 million since 2003. More than 18,000 are doctors, scientists, engineers and teachers. Inside Iraq, more than 500,000 people left their permanent residences and moved to their religious communities' abode.

By the beginning of 2007, the Iraqi communities controlled three out of Iraq's 18 provinces. In 2006, the Iraqi army increased its strength to 119,000 and the police to 199,000. But the majority of Iraqi units are unable to resist the insurgents and terrorists without U.S. army support. The 100,000-strong Peshmerga forces are under the exclusive command of the Kurd leaders.

Here, again, is missed so much from the non-economic side that those trying to put forward 'Realism' have no chance of understanding what warfare means and is using outright lies to put forward a point that is not sustainable or even defensible. Even to the simpletons: who wins in a three sided Civil War when only two sides fight? Side Three. Between Sunni and Shia Arabs who wins? The Kurds. The Joint Congressional Authorization for the Use of Force does *not* put democracy as the reason nor does it even depend overmuch on WMDS. It does see regime change as necessary and critically, it cites the removal of terrorist support and activities as one of the main goals of the entire war. So long as the terrorists keep on coming in, we have to keep killing them. And as to the 'fictional nuclear' program, I would like to hear the Russian FSB special operation that went into Iraq in the weeks prior to the invasion to find out exactly what they were doing, why they were going into various Iraqi industrial sites and why those sites were so 'clean' once the US got there.

Yes, Russia does not escape in this and has things to answer for as the FMSO documents have demonstrated.

Now to address some of the points.

First - Electricity. I looked at that in-depth previously and suffice it to say that 20 years of neglect, conversion of clean and efficient and high maintenance gas turbines to crude oil and the general lack of upkeep outside Baghdad allowed for Baghdad to have electricity while the rest of the surroundings went without. The 'rebuilding' phase will continue until 2015 by all schedules and estimates, and should be able to have replaced the whole damned power grid with something reliable unlike the Soviet era junk that is there now. Also note that Syria has the exact same problem under a DICTATORSHIP and no one wants to mention that they don't get 24/7 electricity there, for some reason. If dictators are so good at this stuff, why can't the Assad regime achieve this? This is a non-point, as far as I can tell, unless this also makes the case for Syria being a failure for never having anyone invade it.

Second - Unemployment rate has skyrocketed... in areas held by insurgents. Do note that before under Saddam not everyone had a job, either, and that most estimates placed unemployment Nation-wide, outside of the Kurdish regions, at 40%+ because the regime would not come clean on statistics. And while I greatly mistrust the unemployment figure from the Central Bank of Iraq a couple of years back, I saw their estimate place it at 11% which just doesn't look right *either*. The rest of their estimates were, however, reasonable and accurate. Selecting areas of poverty and insurgency and then castigating folks for those is disingenuous. Put up the National figure or not. You would think the economic bent of 'Realists' would require them to use actual figures and not cherry picked local estimates, wouldn't you? I don't see this as valid in any way, considering how many Nations have had worse than this and violence and still considered themselves to *be* Nations. Lebanon, for example. And some few South American and African regimes of today still have sky-high unemployment, and a few of those are quite repressive, to boot.

Third - No quibbles, the majority of those leaving are the well educated Sunni Arabs associated with or benefiting from the past regime. Gots a reconciliation plan handy? Because the Sunnis are only learning in the past few months or so that they WILL NOT be in charge in Iraq. The tribes are learning this and taking the fight TO the Ba'athists and al Qaeda in Anbar. That points to a watershed change in Iraq as Sunni Arabs begin to understand their role in the political process. And that total of 2 million is about 8.3% of the population while the US lost 15% to the Crown Colonies after the Revolution and 10% dead during the revolution. Iraq is facing *nothing* like that and is learning what it means to take control of their Nation. That takes time, effort and often there will be those that find themselves on the 'outs' temporarily or permanently. That said some of the cited numbers have been heavily questioned as to their accuracy, especially by Gateway Pundit. Is there a point to this? This is an excuse, not a reason to stop doing what is being done.

Fourth - Three provinces under full Iraqi control at the end of 2006... as compared to ZERO at the start of the year. (Thanks to Gateway Pundit on posting up the MNF graphic!)


End 2006
But this is also UP from just a few months previously as I put down in my post About those incapable Iraqis...


The MNF-Iraq briefing is here.



So, if the Iraqis are so incapable, how come they are controlling more of their country, more completely and allowing MNF forces to redeploy elsewhere? Such things as the recent turnover of full command to an Iraqi Army Division in Basra go unheralded, and yet that continues apace to give the Iraqi Army full and complete capability to operate on their own as they fully stand up and are prepared to do so. And the view of Maj. Gen. William B. Caldwell IV is that by early fall of 2007, Iraqis will have operational control over all provinces. So, somehow I see progress here, not disaster.

Finally, as for the Kurds not fighting anywhere outside of their home territory... why are they fighting in Baghdad? Like in Kadamiyah district as of 13 FEB 2007. And more are coming with 3 Kurdish Brigades coming in to help set things right. This is something that most foreigners do forget: the Arabs have a long memory and they remember a time of greatness... under a Kurd. Guy by the name of Saladin and Richard the Lionhearted thought some much of him. They remember the People who brought forth Saladin. And when the Kurds say that they want to be Iraqis and will fight to keep the Nation together, they mean it. Kurds mean what they say, and the Arabs know and respect that.

Onwards to more of the article!

At the same time, Riyadh and Cairo have called on the U.S. not to speed up troop withdrawal from Iraq. Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan believes that the U.S. should draft a schedule for troop withdrawal and reduce the strength of its forces slowly, all the more so since the Kurd militants are creating permanent tensions on the Turkish border with Iraqi Kurdistan. The situation on the border with Iran is not calm either, although Tehran has established relations with both the predominantly Shiite government in Baghdad and the Shiite radicals, whom it is helping train militants and supplying with arms. In 2006, Syria restored diplomatic relations with Iraq after a break of more than 20 years, but blocked the border by stationing a 7,500-strong contingent there.

It seems that all possible mistakes in Iraq have already been made. The U.S. administration and President Bush may still make more mistakes in Iran and Syria, but they will not generate a regional disaster because it has already happened. New wars, or awkward diplomatic moves can only speed it up or slow it down. Time is the only cure for historic mistakes of this dimension. The experience of old colonial empires is of great help, and it says that haste makes waste. There is no sense in rushing troop withdrawal and losing face. It is necessary to come to terms with those who are ready to talk and be tough with those who are not; it is important to forget the cliches of the second half of the 20th century.

Yes, I do find things to quibble with here, too, but do note that even with that an interesting conclusion is drawn. KSA and Egypt both want al Qaeda and its associated groups concentrating on Iraq and not their own Nations, of course, and the Turks split up Kurdistan after WWI, did not keep to the treaties it signed and is the cause of the Kurdish strife in the region. Tehran has been supplying militants since soon after major fighting stopped, and Syria has done its part to keep supply lines open first to the Ba'athists and then to al Qaeda.

But the best part is this Russian thinks it is as bad as it can get! In point of fact there were lots more mistakes that could be made, like installing yet another dictator du jour in the place and letting *it* fester and support terrorists and generally destabilize things there or be so unstable as to cause a fracturing across National boundaries. That can *still* happen, but this way does not make it a near certainty. But even better is to "forget the cliches of the 20th century"!

Yes! The PCism and all the rest of the 'Realpolitik' garbage needs to be put into a dump immediately and the US if not the World has to learn that you do not give those wishing to start an Empire the least means to do so. That is just idiotic and dangerous and will wind up with large fractions of the world's population dead or enslaved. We may agree for different reasons and from different outlooks, but that is a primary thing we must learn.

First and foremost, it is essential to part with the illusion that the world community is capable of effective action. It is no more than a small group of officials, politicians, journalists and international bureaucrats who claim the role of the world government without any grounds.

Yes the UN is useless as are all the other NGO's that wish to make policy all on their lonesome. They have no idea what it means to be held accountable and they, apparently, prefer to remove accountability from their activities so that they may put them forward without being stopped and facing no questions.

It is important to monitor the situation and support the stability of any regional regimes regardless of whether they are democratic or not. Effective quarantine should be established at Iraqi borders. It is necessary to gradually build up relations with those who will take power in Iraq, or the enclaves into which it disintegrates.

I disagree, and heartily. That was the option taken for the Balkans and it has NOT worked. I do not want to give lots of money to folks looking to blow things up, kill people, and act as sectarian tyrants over the world, thank you very much. I do agree on the quarantine on Iraq's borders... but to keep al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Iran, Syria, Ba'athists and such OUT. But if you like retreat and defeat, this is the 'Realpolitik' way to go, and see if you can get out of the extremely high body count this time around.

This medicine has bitter taste. The reality is unfair, ugly and offensive. It is very far from the infantile attitudes of messianic politicians. But there is no other reality.

That is the problem with the 'Realists': they think reality is one thing and then propose draconian solutions that will only make the situation worse. There is no other reality, indeed that is a truism. But the mistakes of the past 'Realists' have made the world a more dangerous place, less stable and heading towards catastrophe because they put economics and brutal tyrannies to keep things 'stable' over advocating human liberty and freedom.

I thank Mr. Stanovsky for his cogent article, which is far better in the opposition than anything I have read from the US in recent years. I disagree heartily with many points, but also agree on many things... but for wildly different reasons and outlook. Mr. Stanovsky is limited by his background as a Russian and may prefer totalitarian regimes over attempts to help People stand up for self-government.

Personally, I prefer helping folks to stand up on their own, make sure that no one is putting a gun to their heads and then listen to what they need.

And if they need me to leave then, fine and dandy!

But picking up someone from the lion's den and then feeling a few scratches while other lions gnaw on them as an *excuse* to let them be devoured is despicable. And that is where the 'Realists' want us to go.

Perhaps it is time to give Liberty a chance and abjure Despotism forevermore.

Sphere: Related Content

Syrian weapons purchases: the unbarked dog

An interesting thing happens when Syria purchases some weapons: people start to say Syria is 'arming up' against Israel. Well it is purchasing arms, but for what requires a bit of a look. So lets get some details from that UPI story:

Claim: Syria-Russia missle deal close

TEL AVIV, Israel, Feb. 22 (UPI) -- Syria could soon receive thousands of advanced anti-tank missiles from Russia that could find their way into the hands of Hezbollah in southern Lebanon.

Ha'aretz, which did not disclose it's sources, said Thursday the new sale of Kornet AT-14 and Metis AT-13 missiles was close to completion despite Israeli diplomatic efforts to get Moscow to abandon it.

The Kornet AT-14 is a semi-automatic, command-to-line-of site missile system capable of destroying armored vehicles equipped with protective plating, including those with explosive reactive armor. It is also effective against fortifications and entrenched troops. Mounted on a small tripod, the missile is considered accurate when fired from as far away as 3 miles.

Evidence that Hezbollah was in possession of the weapons was found during last summer's war in southern Lebanon. Crates of the missiles, with shipping documents showing they were procured from Russia by Syria, were found near the Saluki River, where Hezbollah delayed an Israeli armored column with missile fire.

The report said the evidence was presented by Israeli diplomats to the Russians, who purportedly promised to re-evaluate some of its arms deals with Syria.

Those are not what I would call 'arming up' so much as 'replacing spent ammo'. This comes a few days after the 17 FEB 2007 announcement from Syria captured at the Israel Hasbara Committee news excerpts on 19 FEB 2007:

2. Syrian President Bashar Assad and Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad pledged Saturday, 17 Feb, to form a joint alliance against what they deem to be US and Israeli conspiracies against the Islamic world. Both leaders claim the US has made false accusations against Syria and Iran because of its failures in Iraq. The two countries are leading supporters of terrorist groups in Lebanon and the Gaza Strip and have long been close allies. During the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq war, Syria was the only Arab country to support Iran. During the past decade, Iranian companies have invested more than $700 million in Syria. (Sources-Haaretz/IHC)

Now it may be just a bit on the belligerent side to actually announce an alliance against the US and Israel. As for those US 'failures' just who is it that is supplying the insurgents, by and large? Yes, these two Nations, so excuse that bit on the 'failure' front as neither wants the US to succeed for their own reasons.

Just a quick side trip to another news excerpt from Israel Hasbara Committee, is this from 18 FEB 2007:

4. An al-Qaida terrorist faction, late last week, posted an article on the Internet urging Islamic militants to attack oil facilities worldwide, including those in Canada, Mexico and Venezuela. The stated purpose is to stop the flow of oil to the U.S. Al-Qaida said in its monthly magazine that cutting oil supplies to the U.S. would help end the American occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan. The article reasoned that America might curb its dependence on Middle East oil by turning to Canada or other suppliers and therefore, oil interests in all regions that serve the US should be attacked. Canadian Public Safety Minister Stockwell Day said he takes the threat very seriously. (Sources: Associated Press/IHC)

Which is interesting in that al Qaeda is putting out the 'help wanted' sign in its operations because their long-range types of attacks take so long that they can't use the people they have for them to do other things.

Back to the unbarked!

Syria has also announced a smaller deal for some trucks from Russia, via Automotiveworld:

Russia: Ural exports 221 trucks to Syria
By Zoran Samardzic
20 February, 2007
Source: Automotive World

Russian heavy truck manufacturer Ural, which operates within the GAZ group, has delivered 221 Ural-4320 (6x6) vehicles to Syria. The trucks, which will be operating under adverse climate and road conditions, are powered by diesel engines manufactured...

All they offer is excerpts for free, but that is a help as the meat was put up front. Say, did you notice that the Russian Foreign Minister announced there is no deadline for Kosovo talks? I am sure that someday everything President Clinton wanted to happen there will happen in the way of peace and prosperity and good relations with its neighbors... be that as it may, the RIAN news excerpting folks have this from Gazeta on 19 FEB 2007:

Russia to sell weapons, air-defense systems in the Middle East

Most of the weapons and air-defense systems Moscow sells are exported to the Middle East, Southwest Asia and North Africa, accounting for about one-third of the $50 billion global arms market, according to the Center for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies.
Army weaponry and air-defense systems sales make up $5 billion of the grand total.
On Sunday, the Seventh International Arms Fair IDEX-2007 opened in Abu Dhabi. Forty-three Russian enterprises controlled by Rosoboronexport, the main national arms exporter, are attending the fair, where they face stiff competition from companies representing 50 other countries.
The Arab world is traditionally interested in Russian light armored vehicles, air-defense systems and specialized weapons, said Ruslan Pukhov, director of the Center for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies. Last year, air-defense systems accounted for 21.6% of Russian arms sales.
The center's experts analyzed open-source data and said Russian arms exports totaled $3.86 billion in 2006.
In late 2006, Mikhail Dmitriyev, head of Russia's Federal Service for Military-Technical Cooperation, estimated projected arms sales at $6 billion.
If Dmitriyev is right, then air-defense systems will account for over $1.2 billion of 2006 arms sales.
Iran has already paid $780 million for Tor-M1 surface-to-air missiles (SAMs).
Syria and Morocco have reportedly bought six short-range Tunguska SAM/gun systems worth $100 million each. Moreover, Egypt and Iran have paid Russia to upgrade their Kvadrat and Pechora SAMs.
Moscow would like the Arab world to operate Russian-made air-defense systems.
Most importantly, Russia must enter the Saudi Arabian arms market, which has traditionally been dominated by the United States, the United Kingdom and France, said Konstantin Makiyenko, deputy director of the Center for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies.
A great deal depends on the customers' political sympathies rather than the quality of Russian weapons and their attractive prices.
Global arms markets, primarily Arab markets, are politicized, he told the paper.

The integrated Tor-M1 to Iran was known previously, but here we get a bit more of what is working its way to Syria in the way of air defense systems. Actually, Syria does have a problem, and it isn't ammo, but lack of having a real military. They do *have* an army and air force and ship or three, but these are not what we would call 'modern'. Syria has done no serious investing in things like tanks and aircraft for at least a decade with only a minor tank upgrade since then. This makes the following off the UPI newswire a bit puzzling, from 22 FEB 2007:

Syria denies moving troops toward Israel

DAMASCUS, Syria, Feb. 22 (UPI) -- Syria denied a published report that it is building up its troops along the Israeli border.

Israeli Radio reported that Syrian Parliament member Mohammed Habash told Al Arabiya television that the country has not changed its troops along the border, denying a report from the Haaretz news service.

"Syria is fully prepared for any situation (that may develop)," Habash also said on Al Arabiya. He said that should "Israel decide to do something stupid, it would pay a heavy price."

Asked about reports that Iran is funding Syria's military, Habash said on Al Arabiya, "Cooperation between Damascus and Tehran is no secret, as both are being faced with a direct threat," Haaratz reported.

Haartez said that Syria has been beefing up its military in Syria and that appears to have moved troops closer to the Israeli border on the Golan Heights.

I don't doubt that Syria *is* moving troops to the border, but that is like saying they are moving a group of convicts to the border to do ditch digging: they are both about the same effectiveness as a military force. So even with vehement denials, there is one major problem that Syria has, and that is that its armed forces are so decrepit that the only way they can advance against Israel is by using WMDs. I went over that in a previous article so the fact that Syria does not have the cold, hard cash to layout for *new* tanks and aircraft points to their ineffectiveness. Buying neat toys doesn't help if your army is running from battle. They only way they will go forward, is if there is no one firing at them. It is possible for them to sit and fight, but notice that it is very much on the 'sit' side and not so much on the 'fight' side. That comes from having the lowest morale army in the Middle East: you can bluster, but your ability to threaten with them is limited.

Finally a bit more of the same, this from albawaba in Jordan, which I think is cadging from other sources:

The Syrian armed forces have been strengthened in an "unprecedented way" with the help of Iran and its troops appear to be moving closer to the border with Israel, the Tel Aviv-based Haaretz newspaper reported in its headline on Thursday. The Syrians are bolstering their forces in all areas except the air force, it added.

The report which is based on the Israeli intelligence, said the Syrian navy, after years of neglect, is also being reinforced with an Iranian version of a Chinese anti-ship missile. In addition to the overall strengthening of the armed forces in Syria, there has been a redeployment of forces along the front lines. The Syrians have moved forces closer to the border with Israel in the Golan Heights, the newspaper said.

Syria's rebuilding of its military strength has also included test launches of ballistic missiles. Lately, the Syrians test-fired a Scud-D surface-to-surface missile. The Scud-D has a 400-kilometer range and covers most of the territory of Israel.

It should be noted that Israel's Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi on Wednesday paid a visit to the Paratrooper Brigade, which was participating in a large-scale exercise on the Golan Heights. The exercise involved a scenario in which there was a confrontation with Syria. "We are ready for any eventuality. Not necessarily on the part of the Syrians," Ashkenazi said.

Reinforcing its navy! With new ships? No... just anti-ship missiles that can be fired from ground platforms. The Syrian AF is junk, pure and simple and hasn't contested anything near it for years because it *can't*. So, what are these wonderful supplies that the Syrians have purchased?

Kornet AT-14 - These have proven to be effective against Israeli armored vehicles, and so Hezbollah looks to be the ones getting these as they fired so many last summer.

Metis AT-13 - Good against ground and hovering rotary wing aircraft. Quite some number of these were also used by Hezbollah last summer so call this a restock, also.

221 GAZ Ural-4320 (6x6) Trucks - Yes! New trucks to transport men and equipment around. Now as to those ancient tanks... I mean nearly half of the Syrian tank corps is the old T-54/55 series and no matter how much you upgrade them, they are still obsolete. And the entire lot is obsolete due to the US sensor fuzed weapon CBU-97. I would not be surprised to find Israel having gotten a few of those from the US, along with some of its larger JDAM purchases.

6 Tunguska SAM/gun systems - For point defense and short area defense, mostly. Have to protect those troops on the border with *something*.

C-802a anti-ship missiles as demonstrated in the last dust-up in Lebanon where Hezbollah hit an Israeli warship and sunk a civilian, neutral transport vessel.

The worst of course is the stuff that Syria makes on its lonesome, and that is the SCUD-D which is a variant on the SCUD-B/C class of missiles. To get caught up you can hit my WMD basic list for Syria, and get an idea of their distributed production and storage concepts for those and for WMDs in general.

Mostly this is all re-supply for Hezbollah, as Iran has made quite clear that the C-802a's are for them and *not* Syria in the past. Syria is doing the tactical re-supply portion for the anti-armor weapons, and doing a minor plus-up on its military transport and point air defense systems. This is no major change, just a recognition that Hezbollah is getting resupplied.

The unbarked dog is, of course, Syria, getting away scot-free in being the 'middleman' for Iran in all of this. They get their cut on the deals, needless to say, which keeps Asad doing well in his continued production and refining of phosphorus to multiple WMD types.

No one wants to point that out, because to do so would point out nearly four decades of failed diplomacy there. Because the regime does not want diplomacy and is willing to play anyone the fool that comes to them to try and do so.

They want power and WMDs look to be the best way to get it. That and terrorists.

Sphere: Related Content

Examining Jamaat ul-Fuqra from Gates of Vienna views

Part of my views on many things in general happenings requires that events not be taken as 'incidents' but that they get some contextual analysis based on available data, historical background and a look at multiple other players in any human or non-human based happening. Things like the tidal wave in the Indian Ocean in 2004 have the causation at crustal plate boundaries which have steadily applied motion pressure, but that may not actually move due to friction. Once the amount of energy that is necessary to overcome the friction happens, then an entire segment of fault can suddenly slip and change position and be upthrust. That changes the water column and a tsunami results.

In the area of human affairs, the idea is that not only is no incident unconnected, but that actual events must take place at some place and at some time. This gives such events geographic and spatial boundaries. So, when Baron Bodissey at Gates of Vienna started looking at the Jamaat ul-Fuqra Islamic group in Georgia (US) the first thing I didn't do was read the commentary and analysis. No, I started by downloading the pictures and getting Google Earth up and running so that I could then have context fro the entire area and then the group's placement in it. Yes, endlessly exciting, isn't it?

I go over the basics of Google Earth with this introductory post on GIS and INTEL Analysis, so one can get their feet wet. Then a bit on how you, too, can become your very own All Source Exploitation organization. After that a bit of a demonstration on how to use multiple sources and the ability of Google Earth to give you a 3D environment to find things that folks really want to keep hidden, which in this case was Syria. Basic geologic and industrial site analysis in Syria is done with this post, to show how understanding geology, economics, transport and trade will lead to giving a firmer basis for understanding how a National program works. Then a WMD round-up for Syria with the places that can be found and why they matter, is done here.

The hunt starts with a map. You can't find the territory unless it has been described someplace and has a generalized position involved. And generalized is exactly what I got:

Just what one needs to start their day! From there I did a quick look up in Google Earth, found the neighborhood in the vicinity of Erastus, GA and just did some simple feature matching to get oriented. That doesn't take too long at all:



Not too bad, really. You can see Erastus in the lower left, and the road snaking up and the only viable side-road coming from it. And now a bit closer:



With the area now scoped out, I used the downloaded image of a number of buildings in amongst trees and went to work on finding and placing that. I will do a complete set of steps and then leave out the drudgery ones for other places. First up is the image to be placed. Remember that this is taken from aerial surveillance and is uncorrected for geometric, angular and geomorphic distortion. Taking such a shot at an angle changes perspective, puts distance distortion due to the curvature of the Earth and local geographic and geomorphic displacement into it and that perspective angle will only give a partial view of things. Some things can be corrected for, others not, and even the underlying GE imagery has some of this, although much has been corrected for. That said, the first image:



Then the rough placement by eye as an overlay in GE:




Perhaps not a thing of beauty, but it works! Throw in some placemarks to point out where building should be and things like road intersections, trying to ensure that they will not be too obscured:


Then move the opacity of the layer down to see the underlying imagery show through so one can make an inspection of the placement.


Seven out of eight isn't bad, particularly as the GE imagery was taken in a period of full growth on the trees, while the Gates of Vienna camera work was done during winter. That said the imagery in GE is awful. Doing work with it for this site, as compared to the Syrian sites, by and large, will be a job of 'blobography' or trying to figure out what minor textural and tonal variations mean in a blob. Add in JPEG or other compression schema artifacts to the GE imagery and one then keeps the bottle of aspirin handy. But the confidence level for this placement is in the 95%+ range and near enough to dead certainty because of the road intersection and building placement to ensure that there is nothing else even remotely nearby exactly like this.

The next series for a farm house and out building are less than stellar, however:


Such a lovely and detailed image! And now I need to place it in the blob field, which was not a fun piece of work:


And then turning the layer off and examining the reference points:


Better than trying to find al-Bayda in Syria, that is for sure, since that had zero reference images. The points of correspondence are good, but not highly convincing, to my eye. I would put the certainty at about 30% or so as there are a couple of other places that might be just as good a fit in the vicinity. Two aspirin later I am ready to hit the 'fortress' as the good Baron labels it, and thats good enough for now as a designation.

Image:

Placed with placemark:

Remove opacity:

Here there is no question due to the configuration of the building, the cleared area, the road and all surroundings. This is a 100% placement match. Thus a placemark overview of the area can now be had:



I did a quick analysis of the mystery objects as seen, also, leaving out the first as that was ID'd as optical illusion and ground clutter with a farm vehicle involved. Thus each on its own:

Notice how the tree casts a long shadow, but the area at the base has almost none? Because of the brown obscuring the picture casting a shadow, the smokehouse concept is a good one, but it is pretty close to the ground. Why build it at the base of a tree, I have no idea, might be a local custom. Say about 15% certainty.

A tool shed, but note that it is fully enclosed, so it could be something that needs protection from outside air. Unknown function, prefab shed 95%. The ground surroundings, especially the ramped area in back is unknown, possibly just support to keep it upright on sloping ground.

Chicken coop, looks abandoned. Seen those in rural WNY growing up, call it 90% certainty. Lots of fun things can be done in an old chicken coop.

Pre-fab tool shed. Note it is open air at the top, so nothing of high value or something that requires air circulation, like chemicals and such. Shed is 95% certainty, function unknown.

This, BTW, is why INTEL analysis is never certain on things. The only way to get a trustworthy report is from on the ground HUMINT that is, itself trustworthy, has good knowledge of what it is looking at and has good local knowledge. If any of those are lacking, then the value of such reporting degrades. It is best to synthesize analysis across multiple realms of INTEL so as to combine HUMINT (Human INT), IMINT (Imagery INT), and other forms of INT like SIGINT (Signals INT) and some of the non-obvious like MASINT (Measurement and Signature INT). Very few INTEL Reports will ever come *without* a degree of certainty attached to them, and that degree is based upon human judgment in weighing and weighting each factor involved. Doing that requires knowledge of the background of each of the source reports and the dependability and reliability of those compiling the reports. Making the cross-INT study then puts all of the various individual reports together to see what parts are cross-confirming, which are at odds and then look at all the odd factors picked up by only one or two reports out of many. It is often those human insight based 'odd man out' factors that can lead to fruitful synthesis of what is going on and give a better and broader understanding of how all the reports fit together and *why* they fit the way they do.

There is, literally, no science to this. There is human skill, reasonableness, and then levels of certainty attached to such reporting. At the highest levels of Nation to Nation sharing, each Nation brings its own strengths and weaknesses on a given subject and the utility of cross-comparing reports the allows for a deeper understanding of subjects to be done. As an example the US had no HUMINT in Saddam's Iraq, but I can almost guarantee you that Russia and France *did* because of their ongoing trade relationships with Iraq. The reliability and dependability of those individuals may be in question, but when multiple individuals without knowledge of each other report similar things to different Nations and they compare notes, then you start to form a better understanding of what is going on.

From here I had a long discussion with the Baron on the feasibility of that central 'fortress' building to be a hold-out place due to the nature of the roof areas with overlooks.

Overview Image 1 Image 2 Image 3 Image Tower

Image 4 Image 5 Image Cars Image Bevels

As a hold-out position I don't think much of the place, really. First off, although it has a good Line of Sight (LoS) from the top position outwards over the gravel area and main driveway in, the trees and scrub encroach upon two sides of the building and notably the garage area, which is not the place I would like to have someone move to when trying to defend a building. In point of fact I would like my garage to be situated on the other side of the building, thus making anyone coming into it have to go the long way around while under observation.

Further I would dearly love to clear out the trees and scrub completely around the building itself as there are far too many ways to get to it without a clear observation and LoS. If you pop back up to the GE view, there is plenty of tree-space to allow for this and still retain much in the way of trees around the building. If I wanted to really hinder incoming and uninvited guests, I would then place saplings or thin trees with high canopy in that area or prune such trees so as to open up the floor area while retaining canopy cover. This is something well known to the South American drug gangs and such organizations as FARC and Shining Path. To a small degree this is done, but the high canopy is not being pruned at the lowest levels and then encouraged to fan out. Now as this is hurricane and nasty storm prone territory there is a reason for that, too, as interlocking mid-tier canopy not only breaks up incoming wind gusts but also makes the forest more stable and harder to dislodge individual trees. For purely military work, clear out far enough so fallen trees and branches are not a problem, encourage high canopy growth and generally clear out the underbrush. Or put in a small garden with very low hedges: looks great, gives no cover and removes suspicion that you actually *are* clearing out your firing paths.

The building itself has many oddities, some relatively easy to explain and others less so. First off is the non-alignment of the building structure, in whole or in part, to Mecca. I used an online lookup for shortest distance and constant compass directions, which are two widely differing numbers in this part of North America, here, and with a few rotations found nothing that fit with either of them. If you are an Islamic organization, then having a readily and easily identifiable wall arrangement so that one can actually find Mecca is important. Still, I am just doing the quick, thumbnail analysis so I might be off and someone with better background can find that alignment. I haven't.

Looking at the building from all of the angles reveals that the central portion looks like an original building, with more or less standard roof, with the abutting garage and other section on either side of it as somewhat newer construction. I suppose someone might go through all the trouble of putting a corrugated roof on such a place, but it is out of the general tone of the leftward garage area and rightward area, when facing it from the forest direction and on the long roof side as seen in 1, 2, 5.

The actual driveway is planned concrete and only partially done as seen by the section at the garage in which the natural curvature there of the set concrete points to a section that should then go out in front of the house as a parking area, but there is forest there now. Or at least trees. Taking those trees out is a hard days work with a chainsaw and two men. Maybe two days for one man with a chainsaw. "Community of the Impoverished" or just plain lazy?

The over structures on the adjoining parts to the central house, garage and opposite side, are interesting. The Baron wonders if they are sniper positions, especially the triangular area on top of the garage with its roof and windows and such which he refers to as 'Tower' while I refer to it as 'death trap'. The place is well situated to fire into... the forest and scrub trees. Its LoS to the driveway is *blocked* by the 3' high walls around the roof itself. Not what I would call a prime locale for putting snipers, even those that are fool enough to go on the roof of that triangular area. Better situated, but only with balconies, is the more oblong and blocking portion of the opposite side which has one balcony overlook on the open area and to the driveway entrance as it comes out of the forest. But, it is a balcony and fully exposed. And contrary to popular belief, spraying rounds at orbiting helicopters is neither easy nor safe, especially if said helicopters can fire down and onto exposed balconies and roofs. Any half-way capable SWAT team will make mincemeat of such... even worse is they will be firing pepper rounds down onto same and making a noxious, painful cloud for anyone there and you had better make sure you have little in the way of exposed skin or mucous membranes. Hard to fire a weapon when you have pepper powder working on your pores, eyes, nose... very hard to do much of anything and you do *not* get desensitized to that. Ask anyone in the trade of cutting up peppers what happens when some pepper juice gets on same that are *not* used to working with it.

Another problem that the top roof and possible second story structures has is long distance sniper fire. I place the top roof above the triangular and oblong second story pieces about 20' or so above ground level, if not a bit more. The shadow cast by the building at that height is about that of the nearby trees, meaning that observers should be able to just see over the treetops. Now this does point to forethought in that but it also points to the reverse problem as one of the weapons in this post of mine points out: the Barrett .50 Caliber Rifle, accepted by the US Army in 2003 and given the M-107 designation.


Source: globalsecurity.org
This weapon has been battle tested in Afghanistan and Iraq and has confirmed kills at up to 1.5 miles. I can easily find a few places with local vertical exaggeration to be above local building tree-top level and have LoS down and into the relative hollow that this building is in compared to surrounding terrain with a 20' to 50' decline over a distance of 1.2 miles. Two of these are in relatively cleared areas and one in a higher, wooded area nearby and under 1.0 mile away. One thing that folks do have to realize is that there is a difference between local sharpshooting at targets of opportunity and true sniping. Actually, I am coming to deeply respect this single weapon and the distances it can reach out with accuracy, even with just its standard .50 cal, not to speak of its slimmer but longer range version bullet.

As a defensive arrangement, I would be hard pressed to find a place less suitable, particularly as long distance observation and fire can be directed from surrounding countryside and those individuals would be very hard to spot, especially in the pure observers role. On the ground is another matter, however, and this Islamic group appears to be drawn from the US African-American community, by and large. And the good Baron has a second post on them here. And I have not had a chance to do this placement in GE so I will leave off here and do so and see if anything new pops up. If not, then those police organizations that have dealt with entrenched groups are relatively aware of the standard and not so standard measures taken in woodlands and such. I would expect those to be taken unless this community is drawn from urban and not rural surroundings... then you have the problem of no applicable experience unless there is good outside leadership on same. Hard thing to do *and* run a religious community at the same time...

And now for the UPDATE:

I will say that to properly understand and typify what can and cannot be easily done in a place does require actually understanding the topography, geology, soils, rainfall and such, so that one gets a good idea of what is actually going on there. If you can't get to it first hand, then data collection across the board and then analysis is vital. And to do that one *must* get the necessary data and online that can be tricky. So finding the geologic maps of Georgia led me to Chuck and Rachel's page! Actually, directly to their index of geologic maps, but they deserve the plug for the damned hard work of making it available. With that I just downloaded the map I needed, put it into GE and did an overlay. The center JaF marker puts down the reference point for data:




But what does it *mean*? I can hear that being asked by everyone...

What it means is that there is a belt of rock running through that area and into South Carolina and North Carolina that has been heavily metamorphosed. Chuck and Rachel go through that on their thumbnail overview of the three main geological regions of Georgia, of which this is the Blue Ridge/Piedmont area. I read the site location as bg2 which, in the Legend, is Biotite Gneiss/Amphibolite. The Biotite is a form of mica, which is a mineral that crystallizes into a flaky number with lots of sheets of it compressed together. It used to be used for making the glass on fuses for the home power switch box, back in the day. This form of mica has some iron and magnesium in its structure. When in granitic rock you can often find garnets in with mica. This however is gneissic. Thus the biotite is probably bunches of small crystals within the rock itself. Also mixed in are amphibolites, which would be the para-amphibolites here, due to the presence of the biotite. Because of the character of these rock types, they do weather easily in wet climates, which is most of Georgia.

From there comes the soil analysis! You mean you weren't looking forward to this? But it is absolutely, positively critical in answering all the necessary things that people have been asking about what this group can and cannot do in the realm of terrorism. At least *easily*. In any event I went to the US Dept. of Agriculture and then burrowed through their online soil analysis database and finally dug up how to work it and get the necessary information:




A very, very close up map of the area that even distinguishes soil by slope! Such are the wonders of the modern world. Something that back in the 1990's would have taken me weeks to do I now do in minutes. Mind you I still end up sitting just as long in doctor's offices, but some things will just not improve, it appears. Now what we have here is this organization sitting on the crossing of two soil sample boundaries, but they are heavily related. These are GwC2 and GwD2 which, from my notes as I didn't bother to download the database, are: GwC2 - Gwinnett sandy clay loam, 6 to 10 percent slopes, eroded, and, GwD2 - Gwinnett sandy clay loam, 10 to 15 percent slopes, eroded. My first thoughts on the nice hard clay were dead wrong! Nope, instead you have something even *harder* to work with because it is so soft. All those wonderful, weathered minerals have turned into sandy clay particles that have lots of biota attached to them now. That gets you a lovely soil known as loam.

As one may have noted, this site is in a river valley that looks to have a high water table to it, thus making for nice, rich soil, with plenty of water, lots of disaggregated clay minerals and so very, very crumbly... and on a pretty decent slope, too! Now if you are a farmer the slope is cause for concern, but that can be dealt with. If, however, you are trying to dig tunnels and such? Forget it. You are dealing with a high water table, surface run-off and soil that doesn't compact all that well and is well saturated. That lovely reddish look is from the feldspar and other minerals that weather out to that lovely clay and never do form a good hard clay-pack, due to the organic chemicals and stuff that picks up on it. Dig a trench and stick a pipe in it, yes. Dig a tunnel? Wet, sloppy, crumbly walls and ceiling... no thanks! You can, but shoring that up is a task in and of itself.

Thus all of this points to surface work and the one thing that is very and extremely worrying is the location. Georgia is good farming country. Lots of fertilizers. Lots of chemicals. Does anyone remember the diesel/fertilizer enhanced bomb of Oklahoma City? Also of worry is that pesticides serve as great precursors to nerve gas and various other toxins. Luckily these folks haven't taken up farming!

Now for type identification of the group, and this is the hardest. There are two major expansionist Islamic terrorist organizations on the planet: Hezbollah and al Qaeda. Hezbollah is an Iranian/Syrian affair with branches in: Lebanon, Bosnia, Chechnya, Saudi Arabia, Argentina, Brazil and Venezuela. They are the 'direct attack, spare no jihadi' folks and prefer outright offensive action once they have enough weapons. Extremely dangerous as Israel can attest to. al Qaeda, on the flip side, is the organization that coordinates between itself and other organizations as 'The Base' as its name translates to. They are the one of distributed cells, long range operations, putting folks in place years in advance and letting them disappear into the woodwork. They are lethal for their successful operations.

Hezbollah backing would include long range criminal logistics, tying in with South American criminal cartels and Mexican drug gangs. This far on the Eastern portion of the Nation would also see tie-ins with more traditional Mafias of Sicily, and the new ones of the Eastern Bloc and Russia. Trainers from South America and Africa would be the norm, to slowly train such a group up to speed and they look to do the 'miniature army' bit wherever they go. Their use of high tech would be limited to command and control plus finances, and keep most of the rest of the flock in the dark on things. They would tend to gravitate towards indoctrination/brainwashing, training and expectations of short life expectancy.

al Qaeda backing is a very bad sign. They have four types of main cells: the scouting, the planning/infrastructure, execution, clean-up cells. They operate at a distance and in tandem with the center of operations keeping each part of the structure in the dark and working multiple projects so that any breach of security will be left with a high number of dead ends and lots of investigation to do.

-Scouting cells are the low personnel affairs of tourist snapshots, train schedules and so on. Blend in, be nice, disappear anonymously.

- Planning/Infrastructure cells often will be broken into separate categories so that money tracing is difficult. Planning does the work of finding out who has what skills and start the training of individuals that are trustworthy put skills poor. Infrastructure does the set-up work on target identification and execution so that supplies get to the right place at the right time. That level of separation makes these cells hard to interconnect with larger operations, as they also do long-range sustainment of other cells via intermediaries.

- Execution cells are the ones that do the dirty work. They can either be relatively unknown indigenous cells or be a sudden bringing together of agents from disparate locations so as not to leave a distinctive trail. al Qaeda has used both methods. These individuals often have little or no connection with the Planning/Infrastructure cells beyond payments and such and none at all with the Scouting elements.

- Clean-up cells cover the tracks, get rid of evidence, and kill off anyone that needs killing who knows too much and is untrustworthy. Their job is the vital one of ensuring operational security for the entirety of al Qaeda via this activity even on relatively normal personnel movement.

This group in Georgia is just a bit too easily made, but accepting that the US is more aware of things, the postulate of them being for al Qaeda would fall into just *one* cell structure. Allowing cross-cell type work is a grave security risk and al Qaeda knows this, and so keeps is structure system secure for everyone involved. The major possibilities are as follows:

1) Scouting - Here the SE US, Mid-Atlantic and Gulf Coasts are all prime areas of concern, but anywhere the individuals could jet to would indicate target possibilities. al Qaeda probably scopes out 10 or 15 targets for every one they finally pick and it may even be higher than that. Here comms gear is essential for data recording, messaging and tracking. Generally, these cells do *not* like to call any attention to themselves, and are distributed. So the high amounts of technical gear are a plus, but that is necessary no matter *what* the cell type. al Qaeda lives on data transfer.

2) Planning/Infrastructure - al Qaeda prefers to use indigenous groups for this, and that would be a prime role for this group. Local knowledge of the US would help on the planning side as well as better directing scouting and filtering reports. On the infrastructure side there would be the sustainment portion, most likely via criminal means such as drug trafficking, but also through such things as bank fraud. Also on the infrastructure side would be the accumulation of weapons caches at safe points and any research needed for future operations. This is the most highly worrying of the infrastructure side as captured al Qaeda and Taliban documents point to al Qaeda training by Iraq for the production of nerve agents and some biotoxin work.

3) Execution - Unless this group is seen as absolutely expendable, that would not be a choice for al Qaeda trying to build an indigenous support structure in the US. They think to the long run and using up individuals that have knowledge and local ability to 'blend in' are on the high needs of al Qaeda list. That said individuals seen as untrustworthy may get sent on such missions.

4) Clean-up - Very possible if they were nearly no profile. As it is some internal order keeping might happen here and there, but the Clean-up activity is pretty much its own, isolated operation. Very unlikely.

The target list for the SE US is large, but there is one very highly worrying one that would go with the al Qaeda scenario and the cell is perfectly placed as a logistics cell for it: Center for Disease Control in Atlanta.

As with everything else in real estate it is all location, location, location.

Georgia's damp climate, friable soil, and excess of foliage and lack of neighbors woould allow everything from test explosives work to chemical work to even crude biological work. Of these the first two are the most possible due to the fertilizer and pesticide supplies available via the agribusiness world. As part of a distributed, coordinated attack, the CDC would be a target *if* al Qaeda had developed the anthrax capability that Aum Shinrikyo demonstrated. Or that Saddam was rumored to have been working on and only reserve 'starter' kits were found after the conflict there. It wouldn't be the first time that al Qaeda took a page from Aum, indirectly.

Just food for thought....

Sphere: Related Content

Incompetent Congress

The following is from Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution, in part:

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Seems pretty simple, right?

Understood pretty well, yes?

So what does it mean when you hear the following:

ABC News, Jan. 10, 2006 — Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton called the Bush administration "incompetent" when it came to protecting the troops in combat and called the lack of adequate body armor for soldiers and Marines "unforgivable."

It does not mean that the Bush Administration is at fault for not asking for body armor, but that Congress is at fault for not carrying out ITS duties to ensure that soldiers get the equipment that CONGRESS thinks it needs. You may rightly attack the President for not asking for enough body armor, Sen. Clinton, but you do NOT get away from YOUR responsibility to SUPPLY what CONGRESS believes is the right amount. You are pointing out that if the Bush Administration is 'incompetent' then the Congressional lack of insight and ability is criminal and near treasonous. And then not bothering to SHOW UP at the hearing addressing this is pure negligence with malice aforethought, Sen. Clinton.

And we can now add other Congresscritters to this dishonor roll of incompetence:

From the Senate office of Barbara Milkulski - 19-Jan-2006, WASHINGTON, D.C. – Senator Barbara A. Mikulski (D-Md.) sent a letter to Armed Services Committee Chairman Senator John Warner (R-Va.) today expressing deep concern over reports that U.S. Armed Forces in Iraq do not have sufficient body armor to protect themselves on the battlefield.

And perhaps you can hold a hearing to find out how the Armed Forces of the United States are to protect themselves from YOUR lack of competence, Sen. Milkulski. And perhaps you two can explain why you voted AGAINST more body armor for the National Guard and Reserves in 2003?

Perhaps this 60 Minutes look at things in 31 OCT 2004 might help to understand where some of the culprits are in this:

Winslow Wheeler, a long time Capitol Hill staffer who spent years writing and reviewing defense appropriations bills, thinks he knows one reason why those shortages exist, after looking at the current Defense budget. Army accounts that pay for training, maintenance and repairs are being raided by Congress to pay for pork-barrel spending.

Wheeler says $2.8 billion that was earmarked for operations and maintenance to support U.S. troops has been used to "pay the pork bill."

Wheeler, who has written a book called "The Wastrels of Defense," says congressmen routinely hide billions of dollars in pet projects in the defense bill.

And buried in the back of this one, Wheeler found a biathlon jogging track in Alaska, a brown tree snake eradication program in Hawaii, a parade ground maintenance contract for a military base that closed years ago, and money for the Lewis and Clark Bicentennial celebration.

By law, these projects can't be cut, so Pentagon bookkeepers will have to dip into operations and maintenance accounts to pay for them.

"They do all kinds of things that adds up to: 'We're basically eating our own young to support the war,'" he says.

According to Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., a member of the Armed Services Committee who speaks out against pork-barrel spending, there is a total of $8.9 billion of pork in this year's defense bill, which would go a long way toward upgrading all the equipment used by the National Guard.

"I don't think that this war has truly come home to the Congress of the United States," McCain says. "This is the first time in history that we've cut taxes during a war. So I think that a lot of members of Congress feel that this is just sort of a business-as-usual situation."

"The least sexy items are the mundane - food, repair items, maintenance – there's no big contract there," says McCain. "And so there's a tendency that those mundane but vital aspects of war fighting are cut and routinely underfunded."

Yes, Congress puts in all sorts of little 'goodies' for itself and IGNORES the mundane things like actually making sure the Armed Forces are properly supplied as it isn't glamorous. And who is to blame for NOT getting those things to the Armed Forces when Congress is given the whole and entire oversight of ensuring that they ARE?

And then there is this little gem:

From the Office of Sen. Feinstein 3 OCT 2002 - Senator Feinstein first introduced the James Guelff Body Armor Act almost seven years ago in response to the death of San Francisco police officer James Guelff. On November 13, 1994, Guelff responded to a distress call. Upon reaching the crime scene, he was fired upon by a heavily armed suspect who was shielded by a kevlar vest and bulletproof helmet. He Guelff died in the ensuing gun fight.

The legislation was later also named after Officer Chris McCurley when Senator Sessions came on as a cosponsor and wanted to recognize an officer in his home state who was also killed by a gunman wearing body armor.

"It is unconscionable that our laws permit felons to obtain and wear body armor without restriction, when so many of our police lack comparable protection," Senator Feinstein said.

The bill directs the U.S. Sentencing Commission to provide an appropriate sentencing enhancement for any crime of violence or drug trafficking crime in which the defendant used body armor. It also makes it unlawful for a person who has been convicted of a violent felony to purchase, own, or possess body armor.

"Lee Guelff, brother of the slain officer, has worked tirelessly on behalf of this legislation for years. He wrote to me about why this legislation is so vital.

"'It's bad enough when officers have to face gunmen in possession of superior firepower... But to have to confront suspects shielded by equal or better defensive protection as well goes beyond the bounds of acceptable risk for officers and citizens alike. No officer should have to face the same set of deadly circumstances again.'"

And how did she vote a year later for getting body armor, helmets and other equipment to the National Guard and Reserve? NAY! Remember, that actually serving in the Armed Forces where actual COMBAT might be required is a lower priority than Civilian Law Enforcement. I do not denigrate the Law Enforcement community in this, but the Citizen Soldiers who are going to be put in harms way deserve the best protection that they can utilize and we are damned for not providing same to them FIRST.

When the manufacturers of the actual armor for infantry and HUMVEEs ran into *production* bottlenecks, what did Congress do?

Did they do the "Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings" that is REQUIRED of them to do so as to ensure the supply of goods to the Armed Forces? They actually did get one Arsenal involved, but that ramp-up time for modern armor production is horrendous.

And was armor the only thing that went missing from the ready stores so as to keep the warfighter supplied? Back to that 60 Minutes story:

(CBS) Two weeks ago, a group of Army reservists in Iraq refused a direct order to go on a dangerous operation to re-supply another unit with jet fuel.

Without helicopter gunships to escort them over a treacherous stretch of highway, and lacking armored vehicles, soldiers from the 343rd Quartermaster Company called it a suicide mission.

The Army called it an isolated incident, a temporary breakdown in discipline, and an investigation is underway.

But the 343rd isn't the first outfit to be put in harm's way without proper equipment, and commanders in Iraq acknowledged that the unit's concerns were legitimate, even if their mutiny was not.

With a $400 billion defense budget you might think U.S. troops have everything they need to fight the war, but that's not always the case.

Yes, armored HUMVEEs were also a problem, although a production one. Was that it? No, let us read further:

Oregon guardsman Sean Davis told us that his unit was short ammunition and night vision goggles, and lacked radios to communicate with each other.

He says guardsman were using walkie-talkies that they or their families purchased from a sporting goods or similar store. "And anybody can pick up those signals, you know," he says. "And we don't have the radios that we need."

Gen. Byrne says stories about families in Oregon having to go out and buy for their sons and daughters radio equipment, body armor, GPS gear, computers and night vision goggles because they weren't being issued are true.

He said some Guard units are also using Vietnam era M-16 assault rifles, which he calls adequate for state duty but not acceptable for duty in Iraq. There is also a bullet shortage for training, he says.

It bothers him, but "there's nothing I can do about it," he says.

"If I was making the decisions, I would readjust," he says. "The soldier on the ground should be a focus. When that's taken care of you can take care of other stuff."

The Army acknowledged to 60 Minutes that there is a shortage of radios in Iraq and a shortage of bullets for training, and says both are in the process of being remedied. There have also been problems with maintenance and replacement parts for critical equipment like Abrams tanks, Bradley personnel carriers and Black Hawk helicopters.

Maintenance equipment, spares, stores, even such things as bullets. Where was Congress on this? Were they authorizing new contracts to be let, left, right and center. Calling for new Arsenals and Armories to be opened? Because these ALL are under the jurisdiction of Congress. You do not get to blame the Executive on this and as the Armed Forces must go through with what you send them to do on the contracts and supply realm, Congress has clear oversight of THAT. Instead they saw fit for a Biathlon track in Alaska and parade ground maintenance for a closed base, such handy things with which to save the Union with.

Any time you hear any Congresscritter point to the Administration for 'not supplying the troops' remember that the responsibility for scoping out supplies, stores, munitions, and even such things as the SIZE of the Armed Forces is done by Congress, *not* the Executive. Congress had long months between the actual Congressional Authorization for the Use of Force in Iraq and the actual start of hostilities that could have been used to get the logistics and production supply base properly up and running. The did NOT do that then and this Congress looks as incapable as that one.

Even worse, however, is that Congress does not understand its real-live, actual War Powers. Here is a bit from a hearing on the Blackwater incident as reported by CNN News on 8 FEB 2007 about the hearings held on 7 FEB 2007 by the House Oversight Committee:

Rep. Darrell Issa, R-California, said federal law prevents lawsuits against contractors acting as government agents in a war zone, and he raised hackles among the witnesses when he asked whether their attorneys wrote their opening statement.

"Why are you dwelling on that?" asked Kathryn Helvenston-Wettengel, Helvenston's mother.

"We're subcontracting out our war. I understand there's 100,000 contractors over there, and there doesn't seem to be a law that applies," she added.

Now that just is plain wrong, although for the standard procedures for the Armed Services it is correct, but that is NOT the only set of War Powers that Congress gets. In point of fact there is an exact set of Laws that do apply to this as put forward by the Constitution a bit further up in Section I, Article 8:

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

That is the Privateer power in which Congress sets up a system of Warrants and pay for Bounty or selling of Captured Goods at Auction against those that are defined as Enemies of the Union that the regular Armed Forces cannot act against. They do not get PAID until they actually fulfill the work as set out by Congress and only those that meet the Warrant capabilities put forward by Congress can get the Letters to carry out the War Powers of the Union under their own cognizance.

The Blackwater Personnel do *not* fit into this as Congress has been lax in putting forth a System of Warrants and then requiring the Executive to draw up a list of Enemies that need to be curbed and then Congress offering Bounty for the ending of Commerce and Trade with those Enemies to those that have such Warrants to enact such Letters. But there is that entire War Power which Congress ignores to go after terrorists and their supporters and suppliers who would willfully attack the US and its legitimate Embassies and Government officers and Armed Forces without declaring War. Even better is that these being Privateers, they do NOT need to be supplied by the Union and take up lawful arms to carry out those warpowers as they see fit all on their lonesome, so long as they follow the strictures of warfighting put out by Congress. Yes, we can indeed go after them in that way

If Congress were not so treasonous and cowardly in the abdication of their responsibilities under the Constitution.

Congress is no longer cognizant of its powers and refuses to use them.

Congress no longer holds to their responsibilities given to them under the Constitution.

Congress now abuses the Federal budgetary system to get perks for themselves and their supporters.

Congress refuses to pay for those things necessary to protect the Union and ensure that the warfighter has the necessary equipment it needs.

The Executive has little to no say over these things.

These are Congressional powers.

Wherefore art thou, Congress?

Spineless, wool covered and bleating masses Upon the Hill.

Incompetent. Incapable. Destructive in their outlook towards the Nation.

I have severe problems criticizing the way a War is run, when the soldiers are not properly supplied by those that have the responsibility to do the supplying. Supply them with everything YOU think they need and ensure that it is at least what they ask for if not MORE if you think they are underestimating things.

Rather $100 Billion too MUCH than one red cent too little.

Congress is unable to do this or even comprehend this.

Why are they not held to their Oaths of Office by anyone?

And how can they claim to represent the Nation if they will not hold to their Oaths to it?

Sphere: Related Content

A VC Post - Pork is for Terrorists

The following is a post of mine at the Victory Caucus, re-iterating some ideas I have hit upon over time. All spelling and syntax left as-is to show the deficiencies of the writer:

Pork is for Terrorists

That heading was a title to a piece I did early on after looking at Congressional Warpowers for properly scoping out the actual needs on the GWoT and then a concept of how the GWoT needed identifiable policy goals. Needless to say I was not enthused by Congresscritters asking 'what is the role that Congress plays in warfare?', because it points to them being unable to actually read the document they are sworn to uphold and defend.

Be that as it may, the general concept is one in which you cannot say that Congress has committed to any War completely, and then turn around and do Pork Barrel spending. In point of fact as a Congresscritter one has no justification for saying that the US Armed Forces have, as one Democrat put on Mr. O'Reilly's program last night, 'beat down tanks, not enough body armor, not enough armored HUMVEEs' and so on while spending gross amounts on personal, pet projects for one's District or State at the expense of the Union. That is not only disingenuous, but it is a direct betrayal of the built-in checks and balances of the Constitution. Congress is given the Budgetary Power so as to help oversee the National Budget and administer it. They have so rarely passed the budget handed to the by the Executive, that this has become a joke and mere formality in modern politics. So, when one takes over the budgetary area completely in this way, what you cannot then turn around and say is that enough money is not bein put into *any* effort under Federal purview.

This is particularly apparent in wartime where previous Congresses have handed broad and sweeping powers for Executive oversight on National Industry to ensure wartime supply needs are met. The Congressional check is to ensure the infrastructure of the Nation is properly scaled and scoped to meet a conflict or, as the Constitution puts it, 'Danger' so that the National interest is looked after and those serving to protect the Nation have everything they could possibly need in the fight.

This is a check not only in redacting funds and oversight of contracts, but it is a balance for a President that does not properly comprehend the size, type and length of War the Nation is in. The Congress is given charge of oversight of the size of the Armed Forces, their supply and overall functioning in defense of the Nation. If a member of Congress puts forward that: 'The military does not have enough of X' in the way of goods and THEN votes for Pork Spending, that is a direct and clear abdication of responsibility and a breaking of the Oath of Office. When America gets into a Congressionally mandated War, Congress then must put forward the proper infrastructure, supplies, and goods to ensure the US Armed Forces have enough to win the battle and must push that past a President who is lacking the foresight or mental capability to properly address the size, scope and commitment to the war in the Executive Budget sent to Congress.

Congress does this for earmarks and pork continuously in other areas, but also in the black and white budget of the DoD. Congress has forced new and generally unwanted weapons systems and supply schemas upon the Armed Forces so that every District and State gets 'a piece of the pie'. And yet when looking towards the actual, tactical needs of supply, provisioning and assuring that enough material and warfighting equipment that is useful gets to the Armed Forces, Congress has continually meddled in those so as to fatten up those budgets for pure political, personal and partisan gain. The complaints about high procurement costs are a direct attribution to the Congressional procurement regulations that the Federal Government must adhere to. The idea that there is not enough production capacity to meet wartime needs flies in the face of those same regulations that have, for the DoD side, wartime powers that can be exercised so that vital industries supply the warfighter for their needs. And if those industries are not *enough* Congress must provision for new Arsenals and military production plants under Federal control, utilize such patents and other works as necessary to start those production lines up and then employ the necessary people to ensure that such goods are made. Such was the case with the Mitchell Bomber during WWII and other production needs in various wars: Congress ensures the infrastructure of the Nation is prepared to meet the needs of the fight.

To those in Congress who don't want the troops in 'battered tanks': Properly fund the upgrading of old tanks and start a NEW procurement on a COMPRESSED timeline for getting a brand NEW tank constructed and fielded in the shortest time possible.

To those in Congress who say there is not enough body armor: Open up a NEW Arsenal, use the patents and expertise of the existing suppliers and start NEW production lines under Federal wartime control for the duration of the War.

To those in Congress who want more armored HUMVEES: If the current contracts are not enough then follow suit at a NEW Arsenal and start up armored HUMVEE production under Federal wartime control.

And start to answer questions like: Why has the NLOS-C not gone from demonstrator to production?

Why have you let the DoD dilly-dally about the OICW and not force them to get on the ball with the next generation of infantry warfighting equipment?

Where is the DDX for the Navy so that multi-role vessels can be constructed for easy refit to new missions?

Why does Congress NOT push for the fast scaling up of Railgun technology for the Navy to reach test platforms and then use designs on new vessels for low cast, deep inland fire support?

As Combat Air Support is proving to be extremely vital, why have you only upgrade the A-10 airfleet and not put out a requisition for a NEW CAS aircraft system?

As there is a company looking to low cost methods to get to orbit, why have you not pushed for this for the Air Force so as to give them global battle-space oversight and management with secure comms from orbit?

Not pushing for proper supplies, proper maintenance and actually PAYING for them is a complete abdication of Congressional responsibility under the Federal System. It is more than just denying the President, it is to ensure that the Wars that Congress commits the Nation to are fought to Victory.

And DAMN THE COST.

Paying for Pork spending is defeatist and a direct denial that Congress actually cares about the Union or its Armed Forces.

That destroys the National will and erodes its confidence in the Federal system.

It is defeatist.

Actions taken to undermine the will of the American People to fight is succumbing to terrorism and eroding National sovereignty.

Pork is for terrorists.

======

That ended the post, but I will add this priceless quote:

We do adjust what the Defense Department asks for. That is our job. Our job is to try and set the priorities for the Defense Department. Now, we are going to go back to conference. We are going to look at all the things, the adjustments that the Members have asked for, the concern that they have about the various issues, and if I remember on the floor, there was an amendment to reduce defense in the initial phase, before the conference, by 5 percent, by 3 percent. Both of those were defeated substantially.

Any guesses as to the speaker?

Could be any blowhard in Congress, really.

From: Congressional Record: October 18, 1995 (House)
DOCID:cr18oc95-75
APPOINTMENT OF CONFEREES ON H.R. 2126, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1996

The speaker?

Rep. John Murth (D-PA)

Why, yes, Mr. Murtha... now where the hell are you on wising up your colleagues to this little fact? Or yourself, for that matter?

Sphere: Related Content

A look back from 2010 - The Jolly Black Crew

The following is fiction. The previous entry was Pork is for Terrorists.

Dateline - March 12, 2010, JBC HQ in the Gulf of Mexico

Geraldine Blaine reporting for her own blog and interviewing Sgt. Alex Corrida (ret.) CEO of "The Jolly Black Crew" on their floating headquarters.

Geraldine: Thank you for having me here and agreeing to let me interview Sgt. Corrida.

Alex Corrida: My pleasure, Ms. Blaine and please, it is Mr. Corrida or Alex.

GB: Thank you, Mr. Corrida. Let me start with some background questions, first. Just why did you form up "The Jolly Black Crew"?

AC: Well, Ms. Blaine, after the 1/11 attacks in Chicago and Denver it was pretty evident that al Qaeda was ramping up its lethality even after its number of supporters had gone down. They demonstrated that they were intent on killing Americans and destroying the Nation and putting a death toll that added three zeros on to the end of the 9/11 tally showed that resolve.

GB: How do you view the response taken to that?

AC: Mixed, at best. The Congress was frozen in place and could not budge and there was no coherent Foreign Policy in place by either the outgoing or incoming Administrations. The trail led through Mexican drug gangs, Hezbollah and FARC in Columbia, Venezuela, Brazil and Argentina, Bosnia, Russia, Turkey, and then in various directions all of which led to places that were distributed wide enough to stop any attempt by the Federal Government at shutting down such operations. That was not a pleasant period in American history.

GB: No, it wasn't, I lost a cousin in the Death of Chicago and my brother-in-law in attack on Denver.

AC: My condolences, Ma'am. It seems that just about every American knew someone or had friends if not relatives involved, sometimes just business associates. That brought it home that these Enemies would not stop.

GB: More than just al Qaeda, Mr. Corrida?

AC: Yes, Ma'am, far more than any single terrorist organization. What we have spent time tracking down via the commercial end and with agreements for work-sharing with DoD, DoJ, Treasury and DoS is more than any of them could figure out on their own. Plus we have some commercial backers in the large-scale data warehousing business that have helped to back and verify this. It is a complex web of interactions that run deep into criminal, commercial and corrupt governments on a global basis.

GB: Can you give me an example that will not endanger your operations, Mr. Corrida?

AC: Sure! We knew from after 9/11 that Hezbollah was installing commercial and criminal operatives into North America, and DoJ brought many of them in on lesser charges to get them out of circulation. Those connections to Mexican drug gangs, the Triads and South American drug lords were just the start. From there we have documented connections between drug lords, commercial transport companies, front companies across the globe but centering in Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Dubai, Abu Dhabi, and Morocco to name a few places. These companies then trans-ship at multiple ports and shift either overland or to further companies downstream. Even with the tracking system envisioned by Homeland Security post-9/11, stuff gets through because of this.

GB: And National involvement in those countries?

AC: That varies from simple low level corruption of inspectors and dock workers to higher level breaches in various Interior Ministries in different Nations. No Nation will outright support terrorist activities like that, but the unstated 'look the other way for pay' is rampant.

GB: Is that it?

AC: No Ma'am, there are corrupt regimes that have put further technical services to work for various terrorist organizations. The problem is that expertise and equipment then filters outwards via group to group associations and contacts both into the terrorist realm and into the organized crime realm. That is why police have been seeing an up-arming of drug gangs and mafia over the past few years: they are sharing resources, INTEL and training with terrorist organizations. Both are benefiting from this.

GB: That is a lot to try and keep track of!

AC: Yes it is, Ma'am. Which is why the Federal Government failed the People of the United States in this. Bureaucracies cannot handle this as a War Time situation. The US wanted to blinker itself even after 9/11 that the People of the United States were the target, not just the Nation. That changed after 1/11.

GB: It did, but it took time, didn't it, Mr. Corrida?

AC: Lots of time, Ma'am, yes. Congress looked at the very basics being put before it and realized that this was a different kind of fight than a regular World War. The depth of corruption and exploitation and degradation of normal society, normal trade and normal diplomacy had so ingrained the terrorist problem that not only could no Nation or set of Nations be held at fault, but that there was literally not enough manpower to go to war in the old way. Conscription would not do it, especially with the economic shock of losing two cities. Congress, the Presidents... no one had a way out. For awhile it looked like the death of America and soon the death of civilization.

GB: Do you think what they did is a way out of that, Mr. Corrida?

AC: Not a way out, Ma'am. It is a way forward. When Congress was forced to look at empty seats that would never be filled again and the downward spiral that was starting they had their noses rubbed in the fact that the United States was failing because they had failed us. It took a few firebrands to finally get the fire lit and two very courageous Congressmen actually rose up and read the Constitution in the House and Senate on the same day. Particularly Article I and the War Powers given to Congress. Then the screaming started.

GB: That was an interesting time in American Politics, wasn't it?

AC: It was. The Nation was set to crumble then, with some municipalities saying they would declare secession from the Union if anything went forward. Very close to an open Civil War. But the legislation did pass and the United States finally exercised the full set of War Powers.

GB: You seemed to be ready for that, Mr. Corrida. How were you so prepared to step up so quickly? Did you have any inside sources?

AC: No, Ma'am, no inside sources. My brother and I and a few friends took a look at the radioactive crater that was in the heart of what was Denver and the rotting bodies still being pulled out of buildings in Chicago, and started to scope out what was needed when the Black Days of Congress hit. We saw the light being offered and started the old 'friend of a friend' networking. We got some initial interest from a large company or two once Congress got to the Bounty and Auction parts, and started to cement deals then. We put a provisional inquiry to an oil company because we needed something outside territorial waters and yet had the full suite of necessities to run this operation. We filled out a few niches here and there, got things solidified and the day the paperwork went on the 'net we had it filled out: Application 0001.

GB: Your funding scheme was... evocative, wasn't it?

AC: Irregular, yes. We put up how many shares would be put up, what they represented as non-voting shares, what we were aiming for in the way of initial needs and then put those up on eBay, first as blocks of 10 and then singly. We were... surprised and gratified at the response.

GB: Everyone was surprised, I think. Still for only a piece of being an active member for your Crew, the chance to get some of the Prize money Congress offered was out of proportion with what the financial community expected. That did help you, didn't it?

AC: Certainly! The Congress by finally putting up the historical Auction part suddenly made this entire enterprise a real paying concern, if and when we could get the first real prize. We go by 'equal shares' and those two share equivalents would be divided into those shares that were bought. Plus the money comes tax-free, which is a big bonus. The naysayers had expected standard bounty hunter types working with shoestring operations which would get the Nation into trouble. We weren't *that* by any means and a number of applications after ours were rejected as they were not sustainable. The financial community quivered at the 'takings clauses', but the DoJ was forthright in showing what was and was not evidence as well as DoD. That left open a good sized window to have either accept any taking on either the pure commerce interdiction or War commerce interdiction.

GB: You don't go after individuals, do you?

AC: That is incorrect, Ma'am. We have a number of retired FBI and civil police agents that have brought in individuals from Somalia, Egypt, Indonesia, and Columbia. A few of them pretty high up in their operations, too. We try to keep those to low-level jobs and always try to get the most 'bang for the buck' by getting as much of the targeted material and personnel at one place at one time. We most certainly do go after anyone or any organization listed on the full list of Enemies that have attacked the United States, its Embassies, its Foreign Service personnel or its Regular Armed Forces.

GB: How do you fit into Treaties and laws?

AC: We are a Civilian Privateer operation, Ma'am. We give notification to DoD and DoS when we are planning to execute an operation and carry it out. They get 4 hours of warning so that any leaks do *not* get back to potential targets and if they do we can help track where that leak came from. At that time we fall under the UCMJ for most operations and follow the normal Rules of War with the amended Privateer sections in play. We have uniforms, fly the flag, show our unit insignia, and are held accountable via the Laws of the United States for our operations. Mind you, some parts of past Treaties had to be nullified and we filed a few inquiries with the Supreme Court to get rulings on various parts of the Geneva Conventions and other Treaties. For all personnel and equipment captured we hold to the UCMJ on those and seek the official ruling of the DoJ and DoD on those captures, with personnel that show up on the listing going to either organization for holding, prosecution or internment. Once that is done and the certification is finished, the organization moves back to its Civil mode of operations.

GB: That sounds complex!

AC: Not really as we do our best to compartment operations so that there is only limited exposure and for security reasons.

GB: Your company has purchased a lot of equipment from the Government, hasn't it, Mr. Corrida?

AC: Yes, Ma'am. Most of it is on the War Time Rejuvenation bill that allows Privateers to purchase over-age uniforms, equipment and such at very low cost. Some of the larger vessels and aircraft are on a rental basis per year, and are all overage for use and not considered to be modern enough for the Regular Armed Forces. We do spruce them up a bit with modern electronics, communications and weapons.

GB: That part caused a lot of anguish in Congress, the allowing of Privateers to use old equipment.

AC: Anguish wasn't the word for it, Ma'am. Near fistfights in the House at least once! But, the United States had purchased that equipment to defend the Nation against its foes and if folks like us could put it back into service for same, well, a penny a ton rental isn't too bad. We went after a couple of the smaller Vietnam vintage surface vessels and we are more than happy to pay out to Vets who want to care for that equipment. Still, that was pay-for renovation, not permanent hires although maintenance is now getting to be an issue and we may offer a full time alliance to one or more of those companies.

GB: You aren't just Privateers, are you, Mr. Corrida?

AC: No, Ma'am. We are a full search/rescue/salvage operation now along with goods recovery. We ensure all contracts go through DoS, DoJ and DoD so as to not infringe on our Privateer status, but even Privateers did regular business during War. So do we, and we try to combine some operations so that multiple customers can be satisfied simultaneously.

GB: That is a strange way to look at the Federal Government... a customer?

AC: Yes, Ma'am. They have requirements to be met, things to do and Letters of Marque and Reprisal issued and we know what it takes to fulfill those expectations. If they aren't satisfied not only do we not get the Bounty, but we are criminally liable for the operations. It is a very rought business.

GB: You aren't the only group of Privateers. How do you not get in each other's way?

AC: Operationally we let each other know our areas of interest. We have worked out a sharing system for some things, like criminal data tracking, so that those implicated in purely civil crimes but with ties to terrorist and other hostile organizations can be tracked. We have agreed, amongst us, to let a Third Party send warnings of Operational Conflicts that would hurt any of us. They serve as an intermediary and deconfliction group.

GB: That's TRW, isn't it?

AC: I'm not at liberty to say, Ma'am.

GB: It is an open secret that they have been supporting you and other Privateers. Their income figures show that.

AC: Ma'am, we actually have a distributed third party system, so no one company is the whole nor entirety of the deconfliction and INTEL gathering. I cannot tell you who they are until they make public statements and they have not, so I keep to my side of the bargain and contract.

GB: I see... Mr. Corrida, do you only depend on Veterans here?

AC: No, Ma'am. Only about 20% of the Crew has served in the Armed Forces and a similar amount in various police agencies. The rest are people who do not or cannot fight for their Nation in normal ways. We have people that have been crippled from birth, people that have fled tyrannies, people that are not acceptable to the Armed Forces or police for various reasons, but are fully acceptable to us for what we need them to do.

GB: You have been termed 'mercenaries'. How would you address that, Mr. Corrida?

AC: We work on a provisional 'pay for performance' concept. All Privateers, without exception, are not paid until they have actually satisfied their Letters of Marque and Reprisal and that has been certified. It is purely contingency fee based on performance. Mercenaries are for hire to the highest bidder. We don't get paid until we actually get the job done either at set fee by Congress or via Auction of captured goods. We are American Citizens working for our Nation in the Privateer realm to fight a nasty War and as a private company in other areas. You cannot *buy* our allegiance.

GB: What has been your greatest challenge so far?

AC: That is a tough one to answer, Ma'am. We are lucky to have a friend or two higher up in the oil business who came on to help sort out the entire running of this as a business and get us into a pile of debt with contingency sudden-payoff clauses and such. That was a legal nightmare. Operating out here so that we can be freely armed and defend ourselves has also required that we be integrated into the aircraft tracking and monitoring system due to our area of defense...

GB: Your what?

AC: We have capability to defend our Headquarters, Ma'am. From aerial, seaborne and underwater attack. We have an interdiction zone and any ship or aircraft that is not a certified part of the US tracked system is considered hostile until they demonstrate otherwise. To date we have stopped two drug gang attacks from surface vessels and one airborne attack. You can check the media files as we did report those to DoS, DoJ and DoD along with evidence of self-defense. Took us awhile to get the bomb casing fragments from the aircraft debris as the water is pretty deep here.

GB: Actual attacks?

AC: Yes, Ma'am. We defend the Nation by carrying out War Letters and expect to be hated and attacked because of that. We did not want to be restricted by being inside the US or its territorial waters, so we came out here where we can act autonomously for defending ourselves.

GB: What do you see as the future of your company?

AC: We would like to go out of business one day on the Privateer side as we can keep things running from other operations now. But we don't expect that to happen. Going after the Sicilian Mafia not only didn't end it, but didn't end organized crime. Terrorists operate in the same way, except that they use illegitimate ways of war to try and win for their beliefs. They are so distributed and their teachings always gathering a few followers that I can't see ever having an end to them. That said, I want them to know that if they want to actually target the US that THEY get put in our sights, too. And that of all the other Privateers standing up to defend the Nation. We can't eliminate the trade or corruption, but we can be the steel wool scrubbing it off and sometimes completely in an area or two.

GB: I thank you for your time and the interview, Mr. Corrida.

AC: You're welcome, Ms. Blaine. Let us know if you need a job. We need a good publicist for permanent hire. The pay isn't great until the Letters are executed. And then you can retire, unless you get the taste of it in you. Then it is damned hard to stop.

Sphere: Related Content

Iranian influence: Bosnia

A very interesting thing happens when you see a news item about a distraught Bosnian shooting people in an American shopping mall: you remember way back when the US first started to be involved in Bosnia and the troubles that were seen there, particularly to one Nation in particular that violated agreements, accords and Treaties. That Nation was and still is Iran. Perhaps we can look back and have a slight reminder of why the United States first agreed to help in that area of troubled peoples.

Why did the US decide to try and do things there? Well, some of the early ideas were expressed by Sen. Claiborne Pell (D-RI) as found in the Congressional Record: May 10, 1994, LIFTING THE ARMS EMBARGO ON BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA:

Mr. President, I strongly support Senator Dole and Senator Lieberman's legislation. I strongly feel that we must allow these people to defend themselves. As the Vice President of Bosnia said in my office 3 weeks ago, "We are dying. At least let us die fighting." If we do not lift this embargo with or without--hopefully with--the agreement of the United Nations, we will have a blot on the history of this Nation which will take a long time to erase because we failed to allow a decent and honorable people to defend themselves.

I would like to make an additional comment, Mr. President, about the impact that has not been discussed on the floor of this situation in Bosnia. Throughout the Moslem world today, Moslems are wondering and asking the question: Would the United States and the United Nations be so loath to lift this embargo if these people were not Moslems?

A couple of weeks ago, there were large-scale demonstrations in Ankara, Istanbul. Islamic fundamentalism, which is a great threat to peace and freedom throughout the world, is using the cause of the Moslems in Bosnia as a way to inflame and, indeed, enrage the passions of Moslem peoples throughout the world.

Mr. President, it is an unjust charge that the United States of America and the United Nations is discriminating against Moslem peoples. But believe me, it is real and it can have far-reaching consequences as well.

The highlighting is my own throughout. Now do we see how Mr. Pell viewed trying to help out in war torn Bosnia? It was a necessary stand AGAINST the spreading of Islamic fundamentalism and an attempt to allow the Bosnian people to find some peace amongst themselves. Otherwise the US would have a blot upon its record that would last a bit less than 9 years before the Left started to lobby against doing anything to stop another repressive regime that was working with terrorists of all stripes, including the Islamic fundamentalist kind. Yes the US won such wide acclaim by bringing peace, prosperity, free elections and not one single terrorist act to Bosnia in record time! President Clinton made President Bush (43) look like a real piker in that realm.

Oh, wait a second.

From Congressional Record: May 7, 1996 (Senate), DOCID:cr07my96-154, AMERICAN TROOPS IN BOSNIA:[Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX)]

Now, Mr. President, in addition to the total abrogation of his word to the American people regarding when the troops would come home from Bosnia, we now learn that, in fact, while President Clinton was stopping us from lifting the arms embargo, he was allowing another country to provide arms in violation of the embargo. Was it a legitimate ally of the United States? No, Mr. President, it was not a legitimate ally of the United States that was allowed to violate the arms embargo that we in this Congress were trying to lift. No, it was an enemy of the United States, a terrorist country: Iran.

Despite widespread rumors that Iranian arms were being shipped to Bosnia in violation of the arms embargo, an embargo this administration said we must support, and despite senior officials' strong denials, we learn we were deceived. Here we have the quotes, Mr. President. On April 15, 1995, a State Department spokesman, Nicholas Burns, told the Los Angeles Times, "We do not endorse violations of U.N. embargo resolutions whatever. We are not violating those resolutions. We don't endorse anyone else who is violating them."

On June 16, 1995, Secretary of State Warren Christopher said, "I think you get some instant gratification from lifting the arms embargo. It is kind of an emotional luxury, but you have to ask yourself, what are the consequences of that?" As late as March of this year, President Clinton himself told Congress that "Iran continued to engage in activities that represent a threat to the national security, foreign policy, and economy of the United States."

Mr. President, despite all of those statements by senior administration officials and the President himself, we have learned in recent weeks that this was not the case at all. Just 3 weeks after the President's report to Congress on Iran, it has been reported that the administration had given its tacit approval of the shipment by Iran, one of America's most hostile adversaries, of weapons to the Bosnian Muslim government.

We are justified in concluding, Mr. President, that the Clinton administration policy on Bosnia has been cynical. What many of us were advocating for so long--arming the Bosnians and allowing them to defend themselves with legitimate sales of arms by people who cared about the people--was, in fact, being opposed by the administration by day, but by night secret arms shipments from Iran were moving forward with the administration's blessing.

Now, Mr. President, we are faced with similar cynicism regarding the deployment of American troops. Those troops are there precisely because the administration refused the suggestions by Senator Dole and others in the Senate that arming the Bosnians and letting them fight for themselves was the best way to go. Instead, the administration adopted a half-a-loaf policy of covert arms shipments from Iran, which was too little, too late, from the wrong source.

As with arm sales to Bosnia, the American people have been deceived by the Clinton administration on the question of withdrawing American troops from Bosnia. Very simply, the President made a commitment to the American people, and he is now saying he will not honor that commitment.

And then a bit further into things we get the following from Sen. Larry Craig, (R-ID):

Let me read two quotes that I think speak volumes about what our President has caught himself in--that is, doublespeak. Mr. President, today you are not telling the American people the truth. For the last several months, you have been caught in a very difficult and very deceptive game of doublespeak.

Your representative, Richard Holbrooke, who immediate repudiated the Dayton peace accord was quoted on May 3 in a Reuters article saying:

"I will state flatly for the record that this policy was correct--"

He is referring to allowing the Iranians to move arms into the former Yugoslavia.

"and that if it hadn't taken place, the Bosnian Muslims would not have survived and we would not have gotten to Dayton."

That is an absolute opposite from what our President has been telling us. Mr. President, that is double speak.

The next quote from Richard Holbrooke:

"We knew that the Iranians would try to use the aid to buy political influence. It was a calculated policy based on the feeling that you had to choose between a lot of bad choices, and the choice that was chosen kept the Sarajevo government alive. But it left a problem--were the Iranians excessively influential on the ground?"

Mr. President, President Clinton once again was caught in double speak. This Congress gave our President an option, a viable, responsible, well-thought-out option, to allow the arms embargo to be lifted so that parity could be built on both sides. He chose not to do that. He chose to openly and publicly deceive the American people.

[...]

As I mentioned, a main part of the debate on the crisis in the former Yugoslavia has involved the arms embargo, first imposed against the Yugoslavian Government in 1991.

Information continues to surface, showing that while the Congress was openly debating the lifting of the arms embargo, the administration was giving a green light to Iran, allowing them to circumvent the arms embargo.

Richard Holbrooke, the administration's representative who helped to mediate the Dayton Peace Accord, was quoted in a May 3, 1996, Reuters article saying:

"I will state flatly for the record that this policy was correct and that if it hadn't taken place, the Bosnian Muslims would not have survived and we would not have gotten to Dayton."

Mr. President, I would agree with the comment made by Mr. Holbrooke. Allowing Iran to circumvent the arms embargo was not this administration's only choice--it was certainly not a correct choice. The Congress, just last year, provided President Clinton a viable alternative by the passage of S. 21, legislation that would have unilaterally lifted the U.N. arms embargo illegally enforced against Bosnia.

There was ample reason to question the enforcement of the 1991 embargo against Bosnia. The original embargo was not imposed on Bosnia, because it did not exist in 1991. Rather, it was imposed on Yugoslavia. In addition, enforcement of this embargo could arguably violate Bosnia's right to self-defense under article 51 of the U.N. charter.

The legal, unilateral lifting of the arms embargo that was called for in S. 21, would have allowed rough parity to exist in this conflict.

The President chose to veto S. 21, citing concerns that it would be breaking from an agreement with our allies, and diminish our credibility with Europe.

Mr. President, the only credibility that has been diminished here has been through the administration's efforts to allow one of the strongest supporters of terrorism around the world, Iran, to violate the arms embargo and gain a foothold in Europe.

In addition, Iran only provided light weaponry to the Bosnian's, which was fine for providing a little protection. However, it was not enough to provide the needed shift in the strategic military balance, altering Serbia's enormous advantage in the conflict. Therefore, even after this evasion of the arms embargo had begun, thousands of Bosnians were still being killed, and the Serbian forces continued to capture more territory.

[...]

Mr. President, these elections will not occur until September at the earliest. It is, therefore, likely that our troops will not be withdrawn until January 1997.

Mr. President, Richard Holbrooke made another assertion about the administration's decision in the May 3 reuters article, with respect to the risks of dealing with Iran.

We knew that the Iranians would try to use the aid to buy political influence. It was a calculated policy based on the feeling that you had to choose between a lot of bad choices, and the choice that was chosen kept the Sarajevo Government alive. But, it left a problem--were the Iranians excessively influential on the ground?

The article continues with Mr. Holbrooke claiming that this problem was adequately dealt with through the negotiations of the Dayton accord, by including in the agreement that all foreign forces would have to leave the country. This is precisely one of the problems that our troops have had to face: the removal of foreign forces including Iranian forces.

In addition, it is my understanding that this arms transfer operation was allowed to continue until January of this year--after our troops were beginning to be deployed as peacekeepers in Bosnia.

In closing, the Iranian presence that the Clinton administration helped to promote is now actively threatening the Dayton accord, the American and NATO peacekeepers seeking to enforce it, and the military viability and democratic character of Bosnia itself.

Mr. President, this situation needs to be addressed, and our troops need to be brought home.

I thank my colleague from Texas for taking out this special order. I hope the select committee in the House will thoroughly investigate what this President is failing to do in foreign policy.

And from Sen. Paul Coverdell (R-GA) and any resemblance you hear to this and current remarks by those Congresscritters Upon the Hill is purely intentional:

In addition to, I think, setting a political precedent that could lead to problems in the future, let us just look at the financial ramifications of it. The United States, which is now the single world power, in a period of enormous domestic financial pressure cannot be the ultimate financial resource in resolving these world conflicts. And the cost of the operation in Bosnia has been and continues to be enormous. The effect of that is to squeeze training, squeeze logistical support, and squeeze research and development in our own standing military. These vast sums of money going into the peacekeeping operations put enormous pressure on the ultimate mission of our own military, which is to defend the integrity and the shores of the United States.

At the time we were discussing all these questions, Secretary Perry came before our Foreign Relations Committee, and in testimony before the Foreign Relations Committee Secretary Perry indicated that the maximum duration of the U.S. commitment would be 1 year. And I can remember on the lips of virtually every member of the committee was the assertion or the worry, the anxiety that there would be mission creep; that we would get into nation building; that we would begin to assume the responsibility of rebuilding this poor and war-torn country and circumstance. And there was worry because of the ethnic divisions that in 1 year how would all that be quelled. But the assurances from the administration, the assurances from Secretary Perry were that we would not be in a mission of nation building; it was a military mission, as suggested by the Senator from Texas, and that it would be 1 year and that would have to suffice. That was the U.S. commitment.

As the Senator from Texas has suggested this morning and has read some of the quotes of the London Times of April 30:

The Clinton administration has scrapped plans to withdraw its forces by the end of the year.

And we are beginning to hear pleas from the European theater and suggestions that, well, we maybe cannot conclude this at the end of the year, and, yes, maybe we will be involved in other activities other than the initial military mission of separating the warring parties.

That suggestion leaves the American people once again unclear as to how to respond to a Presidential commitment. You go to the American people and say we are going to send your sons and daughters over there but they are only going to be there a year. You come to the Congress. You say we are only going to go for 1 year. We are going to have a very narrow, very defined mission.

When we began to discuss an exit strategy, it was quelled in a minute because the administration said the exit strategy was we are out of there in a year. And now with the slippage of time, we begin to undermine those commitments. Not only does that leave the American people, not only does it leave their Representatives, the Congress of the United States, unclear as to just where we are and where this all leads, but it is almost a certainty to mean more resources, more dollars.

What that means is more pressure on the principal mission of the military, more pressure on the budget, more pressure on the funds necessary to train American soldiers, more pressure on the budget to enter into research and development to keep us the technological military we displayed in the Persian Gulf--keep it at the edge.

Yes, it does sound familiar, but do remember that President Clinton did *not* ask for an open-ended commitment in Bosnia. Iraq, however, had no Congressional time-limit upon it at the start and that commits the US to fight to *win* no matter what the cost in blood and money. That is the difference between a 'peacekeeping mission' and going to war. And here we see *why* the US had two divisions drop to their lowest readiness ratings since Vietnam: by not increasing the level of National commitment as happens in wartime, the military was given a fixed budget and much, much more to do. So it has ever been, and 'peacekeeping' that has no defined end-state at the beginning is asking for a blank check without the frivolity of asking for National commitment via War Powers. Going to War, however, under Congressional Authorization means that the Nation is willing to put forth that commitment.

So with things not trudging along well, what was the Clinton Administration's view on Iran in Bosnia? Well, Rep. Lee Hamilton (D-IN) asked the State Dept. for its views and got them in a letter from Barbara Larkin, Acting Assistant Secretary, Legislative Affairs dated 20 MAY 1996, which he had put into the Congressional Record: June 11, 1996 (Extensions), DOCID:cr11jn96-22, THIRD-COUNTRY ARMS DELIVERIES TO BOSNIA AND CROATIA, an excerpt follows:

The political and military dynamic in Bosnia changed in March 1994. In that month, as a result of active U.S. mediation by our Special Envoy, Ambassador Charles Redman, the leaders of Bosnia, Croatia, and the Bosnian Croat community signed agreements ending their military conflict and setting up a bi-communal Federation between Bonsia's Muslims and ethnic Croats. The newly born Federation immediately received strong U.S. diplomatic support, and deservedly so; its founding principles reflected pluralistic Western values and the cease-fire it engendered helped free up government forces to defend their country against the Serbs and, over time, altered the military balance.

When President Tudjman of Croatia approached Ambassador Galbraith in Zagreb in April 1994 to elicit U.S. views on allowing third-country arms shipments to Bosnia via Croatia, we determined that a negative response could have led to the collapse of the Federation and a new deterioration of the Bosnian Government's military position. Instead, we decided that the best course was neither to object to nor approve of arms transfers to Bosnia through Croatia. This was consistent with our practice in the preceding months not to take active steps to prevent third-country arms shipments. At the same time, we did not believe it would have been appropriate to endorse actions contrary to UN Security Council resolutions. Thus we told Ambassador Galbraith to state that he had "no instructions" on the matter.

Our decision eventually bore fruit. By sustaining the Federation and eroding the Serbs' military advantage, it paved the way for the American diplomacy, backed by NATO air power, that produced the peace agreement at Dayton. Our decision allowed us both to observe our legal obligations under UN Security Council Resolution 713 and to promote the achievement of peace.

How did the Administration assess the implications of such a policy change on international adherence to UN Security Council Resolution 713 and U.S. efforts to get friends and allies to stop trade, economic dealings, and investment ties with Iran?

Iran's entry into the Bosnian conflict occurred long before the April 1994 decision. Iranian efforts to gain influence in Bosnia date back to the 1980s. They gained momentum in 1991-92, in the early stages of the war, when the international community proved unable to confront Serb aggression. During this period, despite the UN arms embargo, Iran established itself as Bosnia's principal arms supplier and dispatched hundreds of Revolutionary Guard and other personnel to assist in training Bosnian Government forces. Iranian military aid was part of a multi-pronged campaign of support that also included intelligence cooperation along with economic and humanitarian assistance. We have no evidence that Iran's presence in Bosnia increased significantly after April 1994. It is also worth noting that, through the Dayton Accords and subsequent diplomacy, we have reduced Iranian military influence in Bosnia to its lowest levels in years.

The April 1994 decision had no discernable impact on U.S. efforts to gain international support for the use of economic pressure to alter Iran's objectionable behavior, including its support for terrorism and pursuit of weapons of mass destruction. Prior to 1994, our Allies had generally been unresponsive to our requests that they not provide Iran with economic benefits such as new official credits and loan guarantees. In the past year, however, following the President's decision to impose a trade and investment embargo against Iran, most European countries have substantially reduced the pace and volume of economic activity with Iran. We continue to urge European governments to join our efforts to pressure Iran economically. Based on our ongoing consultations, including the April 19 meeting in Rome of the U.S.-EU-Canada Working Group on Iran, we have concluded that the April 1994 decision has not significantly affected our Iran diplomacy.

Did the United States have discussions regarding these deliveries only with the Croatian and Bosnian authorities, or did the United States also have discussions directly with third countries supplying or financing these arms deliveries?

The United States had no communications with Iran regarding arms for Bosnia, nor are we aware of any occasion on which U.S. officials, in any discussions with other countries, requested them to transfer arms to Bosnia or Croatia.

What countries besides Iran were involved in the financing and delivery of arms to Bosnia? Were Malaysia, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, or Egypt involved?

We have provided classified documents which address this question to the Senate Intelligence Committee and we will provide these same materials to appropriate Congressional committees that request them.

If there was a change of policy, why was there a change of policy, and who was informed of it? Was Congress informed, were Allies informed, and were all appropriate officials of the United States informed about a change in policy that affected stated, public policy? If not, why not?

In order to succeed, the thrust of our diplomatic activity both before and after April 1994--adhering to our obligations under UN resolutions, maintaining the cohesion of the Western Alliance, while not taking action to prevent the Bosnians from receiving weapons--required great discretion. That is why the Administration kept the April 1994 discussions with the Croatian government closely held within its own ranks.

It should be noted, however, that the Congressional leadership and relevant committees were made aware of the existence of Iranian arms shipments both from Administration-provided intelligence briefings and press reports. Furthermore, the U.S. decision not to object to such shipments was not inconsistent with the will of Congress as expressed in a June 1994 vote in the House of Representatives to lift the arms embargo unilaterally. In October 1994, the full Congress voted to cut off funds for U.S. enforcement of the arms embargo. No exception for Iranian arms was contained in the legislation, nor was any such exception proposed during the debate.

Thus when looking to stop shipments of arms the US decided to punt and let the UN take the blame for not telling folks which Nations could or could not act as a funnel for illegal shipments! Now, some folks may think that is just fine and dandy, but it really does point to a lack of any foreign policy via the Clinton Administration. Was the US to just act ONLY on UN directives, or did the Nation actually have a real live foreign policy that it was pushing forward? Luckily Europe bailed the Administration out by finally deciding that waiting for the UN was the equivalent of watching the grass grow, until they realized it was bamboo and would take a long time to actually finish growing. But the really interesting news is about Iran which did not increase its commitment level in Bosnia which was already in the hundreds. That lovely bit about 'reducing their numbers to the lowest level in years' and also stating the long-term commitment of Iran and the large number of people they had already been sending points to that 'reduction' as being minuscule. And the grand solution to this? Apply more sanctions that no one is willing to actually enforce. Finally when asked about other support from areas with an Islamic terrorist problems, the Administration says that is only for closed-door discussions.

So, the Clinton Administration's stance on stopping Iranian influence in Iran? 1) Apply sanctions, 2) Ask others to join you, 3) Point to a few people shifting in and out as a significant reduction of forces, 4) Do nothing. The result of this? Congress did what it always does in such circumstances - send out a group on a 'fact finding mission' and do the Inspector Clouseau bit. From Congressional Record: March 19, 1998 (Extensions), DOCID:cr19mr98-6, THE REPUBLIC OF HUNGARY AND THE REPUBLIC OF BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA, Congressional Delegation Trip Report March 5-9, 1998, Members: Representatives C.W. Bill Young, Tom Sawyer, Neil Abercrombie, Henry Bonilla, Tillie Fowler, Eddie Bernice Johnson, David Minge, Charles Bass, George Nethercutt, Allan Boyd. And I will excerpt just this bit of it as it is pertinent:

The Ambassador reviewed the "train and equip" program with the delegation and offered his opinion that besides working to redress the Muslim/Croat military disadvantage vis-a-vis the Serbs, it had important side benefits. These include helping keep out Iran and other interests who had supported the Muslims or Croatians during the war. It also provides a forum whereby the Muslims and Croats are learning to work together, not only at the military level but also at the political level which is essential if the Federation government is to become a success.

The delegation then had the opportunity to question both the Ambassador and Jacques Klein. In response to queries, Mr. Klein explained the goal of being able to gradually withdraw U.S. forces by disengaging them from many functions over time as civilian institutions develop or are reestablished.

Mr. Klein then expressed his view as to some of the larger geopolitical issues involved in Bosnia. Simply stated, he said, Europe does not want a Muslim-dominated state in the region and a viable Serbia and Croatia are viewed as needed to prevent that from happening.

So, its been nearly 4 years since all this fun started and Iran is *still* influencing things on the ground in Bosnia and Europe is still frightened about that influence. And I thought the idea was to get Iran OUT of Bosnia. Slowly this drops off the Congressional Radar screen as NATO and the UN are slowly involved and things never do seem to get straightened out. And I do wish that Europe would actually take a material role in things at least at the level the US does. But perhaps they are not serious about not wanting a Muslim State on their doorstep.

Even worse is this report from the Joint Committee on Special Operations at Globalsecurity.org on Iranian Intelligence Operations:

Iranian intelligence agencies are also mounting extensive operations in Bosnia to gather information and counter Western influence. As of late 1997 more than 200 Iranian agents have insinuated themselves into Bosnian Muslim political and social circles, and infiltrated the US program to train the Bosnian army. Iranian is collaborating with a pro-Iranian faction in Bosnia's intelligence service, the Agency for Investigation and Documentation. But Iran's intelligence operations extend far beyond the training program, and are aimed at influencing a broad range of Bosnian institutions.

Thus, not only was Iran *not* reducing its numbers in Bosnia, it was actually infiltrating *more* people into Bosnia than before, so the Clinton Administration not only didn't know the base of the trendline, but did not know its direction either, which was UP not DOWN.

That does not, however, means that such influence by Iran disappears, only that the short attention span of Congress has been exhausted. In one of the stranger sources I have yet to look at for real news is Pravda! Little did I think a couple of decades ago that it might actually have some *news* content in it. That said this short article from 09 OCT 2002 has this on goings-on in Bosnia:

Islamic Fundamentalists from al-Qaida, Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad Meet in Bosnia

An illegal meeting of Islamic fundamentalists from over 50 countries took place yesterday in the Bosnian town of Travnik, which is under the control of the Muslim-Croatian Federation. According to the law-enforcement authorities of Bosnia's Serbian Republic, the meeting included representatives of Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, the Muslim Brotherhood and Active Islamic Youth.

According to representatives of the special forces of the Serbian Republic, al-Qaida radicals were in Travnik for two days, but neither the Bosnian police nor SFOR peacekeeping soldiers made any attempt to arrest them. In Travnik Islamic delegates reached an agreement on the 'full consolidation' of religious and political movements in the battle against 'American aggression'. According to Rosbalt's correspondent, over twenty Islamic radicals illegally entered Bosnia from Albania.

Quite the confab! There you have some of the deadliest Islamic terrorist organizations all sending representatives to a pow-wow right under the noses of the NATO forces there. I think we can take it that the Clinton Administration never did properly 'reduce' Iranian influence in Bosnia.

Over at Globalsecurity.org they have this as part of their entry for Al-Qaida on a page last updated on 15 AUG 2006:

Location/Area of Operation
Al-Qaida has cells worldwide and is reinforced by its ties to Sunni extremist networks. Coalition attacks on Afghanistan since October 2001 have dismantled the Taliban–al-Qaida’s protectors–and led to the capture, death, or dispersal of al-Qaida operatives. Some al-Qaeda members at large probably will attempt to carry out future attacks against US interests. Other known areas of operation: United States, Yemen, Germany, Pakistan.

Al-Qaida is a multi-national network possessing a global reach and has supported through financing, training and logistics, Islamic militants in Afghanistan, Algeria, Bosnia, Chechnya, Eritrea, Kosovo, the Philippines, Somalia, Tajikistan, and Yemen, and now Kosovo. Additionally, al-Qaida has been linked to conflicts and attacks in Africa, Asia, Europe, the former Soviet Republics, the Middle East, as well as North and South America.

The headquarters of al-Qaeda are not known anymore.

• From 1991 to 1996, al-Qaeda worked out of Sudan.

• From 1996 until the collapse of the Taliban in 2001, al-Qaeda operated out of Afghanistan and maintained its training camps there.

• U.S. intelligence officials now think al-Qaeda’s senior leadership is trying to regroup in lawless tribal regions just inside Pakistan, near the Afghan border, inside Pakistani cities or in Iran.

• In May 2003, administration officials claimed that senior al-Qaeda figures were in Iran and urged Tehran to apprehend them. Sa'ad bin Laden, Usama bin Laden's son, in an October 2003 report, is said be among those in Iran.

• Al-Qaeda has autonomous underground cells in some 100 countries, including the United States, officials say. Law enforcement has broken up al-Qaeda cells in the United Kingdom, the United States, Italy, France, Spain, Germany, Albania, Uganda, and elsewhere.

Strength
It is impossible to known precisely, due to the decentralized stucture of the organization. Al-Qaida may have several thousand members and associates. It trained over 5,000 militants in camps in Afghanistan since the late 1980s. It also serves as a focal point for a worldwide network that includes many Sunni Islamic extremist groups, some members of al-Gama’a al-Islamiyya, the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan, and the Harakat ul-Mujahidin.

External Aid
Bin Laden, member of a billionaire family that owns the Bin Ladin Group construction empire, is said to have inherited tens of millions of dollars that he uses to help finance the group. Al-Qaida also maintains moneymaking front businesses, solicits donations from like-minded supporters, and illicitly siphons funds from donations to Muslim charitable organizations. US efforts to block al-Qaida funding has hampered al-Qaida’s ability to obtain money.

Al-Qaida has cooperated with a number of known terrorist groups worldwide including:

• Armed Islamic Group

• Salafist Group for Call and Combat and the Armed Islamic Group

• Egyptian Islamic Jihad (Egypt)

• Al-Gama’a al-Islamiyya

• Jamaat Islamiyya

• The Libyan Islamic Fighting Group

• Bayt al-Imam (Jordan)

• Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Muhammad (Kashmir)

• Asbat al Ansar

• Hezbollah (Lebanon)

• Al-Badar

• Harakat ul Ansar/Mujahadeen

• Al-Hadith

• Harakat ul Jihad

• Jaish Mohammed - JEM

• Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam

• Jamiat-ul-Ulema-e-Pakistan

• Laskar e-Toiba - LET

• Moro Islamic Liberation Front (the Philippines)

• Abu Sayyaf Group (Malaysia, Philippines)

• Al-Ittihad Al Islamiya - AIAI (Somalia)

• Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan

• Islamic Army of Aden (Yemen)

These groups share al-Qaeda’s Sunni Muslim fundamentalist views. Some terror experts theorize that Al-Qaeda, after the loss of it Afghanistan base, may be increasingly reliant on sympathetic affiliates to carry out it agenda. Intelligence officials and terrorism experts also say that al-Qaeda has stepped up its cooperation on logistics and training with Hezbollah, a radical, Iran-backed Lebanese militia drawn from the minority Shiite strain of Islam.

Al-Arabiyah television reported on 20 October 2004 that Jama'at Al-Tawhid wa Al-Jihad hadr released a statement claiming it has officially joined the Al-Qaeda terrorist network. Al-Jazeera broadcast a statement by the group identifying itself as Tanzim Qa'idat Al-Jihad in Bilad al-Rafidayn (Organization of Jihad's Base in the Country of the Two Rivers). Iraq is commonly known as the land of the two rivers, the Tigris and Euphrates. The statement has not been verified. Usama bin Laden'd 29 October 2004 video broadcast on the Arab TV network Al Jazeera made no mention of Zarqawi, suggesting that the report a few days earlier that Zarqawi and Bin Laden had joined forces were in error.

Busy folks, aren't they? Still, this does point up a problem that once militant Islamic fundamentalists with a bent towards terrorism get to a place, they are very difficult to remove plus the internetworking support structure means that going after al Qaeda requires an in-depth job that is across the board.

The fine folks at Globalsecurity.org also provide this bit from their Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty library, which is part of a series aired in 2005 about Iran's extensive backing of terrorism abroad:

Outside of the Middle East, Iran also appears to have sought to use its aid to Bosnia's Muslims during the conflict there to secretly train fundamentalist groups.

Analyst Nima Rashedan said much of the evidence of such activities comes from documents seized by NATO forces in Bosnia.

"This is a case that happened in a place in Bosnia. Before the Dayton Accords and the presence of the United States and NATO in Bosnia, the Islamic Republic had sent groups to Bosnia, including the Revolutionary Guards' Qods Force, led by Mohammad Reza Shams Naqdi, and his deputy, Hossein Allahkaram, based near Sarajevo -- another group from the Intelligence Ministry -- who had set up a camp, training fundamentalists close to [Alija] Izetbegovic's Democratic Action Party, to establish the intelligence apparatus of Bosnia. Later, NATO attacked the camp and arrested a number of people, including Iranian intelligence officials. The most interesting point was the discovery of documents that were part of the curriculum for the training of Bosnian intelligence recruits by Iranians. Among the instructions in the texts were methods for killing opposition figures and silencing journalists. That is, the Intelligence Ministry instructed a foreign organization's members how to intimidate, hunt, kidnap, eliminate, and threaten the families and the financial sources of journalists," Rashedan said.

Thus the absolute and direct link of captured documents and Intellligence Agents from Iran on the training of recruits in Bosnia is seen. This is not some short term affair for Iran, obviously. Now, how the internetworking of terrorist organizations can be seen from another perspective, we have this from the written testimony presented to the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, 13 DEC 2000 from Ralf Mutschke, Interpol's Assistant Director, Criminal Intelligence Directorate:

Structural links between political terrorism and traditional criminal activity, such as drugs trafficking, armed robbery or extortion have come increasingly to the attention of law enforcement authorities, security agencies and political decision makers. There is a fairly accepted view in the international community that in recent years, direct state sponsorship has declined, therefore terrorists increasingly have to resort to other means of financing, including criminal activities, in order to raise funds. These activities have traditionally been drug trafficking, extortion/collection of "revolutionary taxes", armed robbery, and kidnappings. The involvement of such groups as the PKK, LTTE, and GIA in these activities has been established.

I would like to draw the particular attention of the Committee to the Groupe Islamique Armé (GIA), considering the events of December last year. On 14 December 1999, Ahmed Ressam, was arrested near Port Angeles, Washington State, while trying to enter the United States from Canada. He was in possession of a timing device, explosive materials and false identification documents. Ahmed Ressam is known to have shared a Montreal (Canada) apartment with Said Atmani, a known document forger for the GIA. It has been established that before Ressam attempted to enter the US, he was in the company of Abdelmajid Dahoumane in Vancouver (Canada) for a 3 to 4 week period. An Interpol Red Notice was issued regarding the latter. The investigation has revealed links between terrorists of Algerian origin and a criminal network established in Montreal and specializing in the theft of portable computers and mobile telephones. The group in Montreal was in contact with individuals involved in terrorist support activity in France, and with several Moudjahidin groups who are active in Bosnia.

Subsequent to the arrest of Ressam, the Montreal police arrested twelve persons who were committing theft of valuable goods in cars in the Montreal downtown area. The proceeds of these criminal activities were sent to an international network with links to France, Belgium, Italy, Turkey, Australia and Bosnia.

The events in Canada and the United States should be seen in a wider perspective. Indeed, intelligence shows that several Algerian terrorist leaders were present at a meeting in Albania, which could also have been attended by Usama bin Laden, who was believed to be in Albania at that time. It was during this meeting that many structures and networks were established for propaganda and fund raising activities, and for providing Algerian armed groups with logistical support. The arrest at the Canada-US border in December 1999 may indicate that the Algerian terrorists are prepared to take their terrorism campaign to North America.

The GIA is a very active and deadly terrorist organization operating mainly in Algeria but which has also mounted several terrorist attacks in France, including the hijacking of an Air France jetliner in 1994 and a bombing campaign in 1995. Their aim is the overthrow of the Algerian Secular Government and its replacement with an Islamic state. They have developed large scale support and financing activities in Europe and other parts of the world. An analysis recently conducted at the Interpol General Secretariat has revealed GIA involvement in a number of criminal activities in several European countries. Although the information received is fragmented, it has been established that GIA support networks are involved in extortion, currency counterfeiting, fraud, and money laundering.

The above examples concern traditional terrorist groups with a well-defined political ideology who are only involved in organized crime on a secondary level. However, two of the main emerging threats today seem to emanate, on the one hand, from more hybrid groups who operate in highly unstable, often war-torn countries or regions, and, on the other hand, loose alliances and cooperation among different, already existing transnational criminal organizations. Albanian crime groups are highly representative of this trend.

Do note that this was in 2000 and al Qaeda was already seen as involved in Algerian terrorists while bin Laden was believed to be in Albania. Thus the capture of GIA terrorists in the US and Canada before 9/11 points to a longer term and deeper involvement by al Qaeda and other organizations against the US. Now, as Mr. Mutschke is looking at the coincidence of organized crime and terrorism, he cites this interesting passage further on talking about Albanian organized crime:

Finally, Albanian criminal groups frequently engage in burglaries, armed robberies and car theft in Europe and the United States.

There might still be links between political/military Kosovar Albanian groups (especially the KLA) and Albanian organized crime. Of the almost 900 million DM which reached Kosovo between 1996 and 1999, half was thought to be illegal drug money. Legitimate fundraising activities for the Kosovo and the KLA could have been be used to launder drug money. In 1998, the U.S. State Department listed the KLA as a terrorist organization, indicating that it was financing its operations with money from the international heroin trade and loans from Islamic countries and individuals, among them allegedly Usama bin Laden. Another link to bin Laden is the fact that the brother of a leader in an Egyptian Djihad organization and also a military commander of Usama bin Laden, was leading an elite KLA unit during the Kosovo conflict. In 1998, the KLA was described as a key player in the drugs for arms business in 1998, "helping to transport 2 billion USD worth of drugs annually into Western Europe". The KLA and other Albanian groups seem to utilize a sophisticated network of accounts and companies to process funds. In 1998, Germany froze two bank accounts belonging to the "United Kosova" organization after it had been discovered that several hundred thousand dollars had been deposited into those accounts by a convicted Kosovar Albanian drug trafficker.

That is Egyptian Islamic Jihad. Remember that bin Laden may not only be in the region for himself, but for allies and compatriots in terrorism. This is how the terror internetworking grows: trusted individuals giving entree to new organizations and areas, thus opening up further capabilities within the entire network. From there he extends the network analysis even further:

In order to smuggle their illicit products into the U.S., Colombian drug cartels began forming alliances with Mexican groups, who have a well-developed smuggling infrastructure for transporting drugs across the vast border with the United States. As Mexicans began to charge more for their services, Colombians established relationships with various Dominican, Jamaican, Puerto Rican, and African-American groups which act as smugglers and retailers for Colombian wholesale cocaine. Colombians have also formed an alliance with some of the Nigerian drug trafficking groups based on product exchange. In the early 1990s, Nigerian groups supplied heroin to Colombian drug traffickers in exchange for cocaine. Colombians were able to develop their own heroin market, while Nigerians started selling cocaine in Western Europe. During the late 1980s and early 1990s, an important alliance was formed between Colombian drug cartels and the Sicilian Mafia. Since the cocaine market in the U.S. was saturated, and because cocaine could be sold with higher profit margins in Europe, Colombians wanted to enter the European drug market. The Cosa Nostra’s well established heroin network was easily applicable to cocaine. In addition, the Sicilians had an excellent knowledge of European conditions and were able to neutralize law enforcement officials through bribery and corruption more effectively than the Colombians. From the Sicilian perspective, the alliance with Colombians was an opportunity to regain part of the market that had been lost to Chinese heroin traffickers. In recent years, South American drug cartels have been forming alliances with East European/Russian Organized Crime Groups in order to support and diversify their operations. East European groups have offered drug cartels access to sophisticated weapons that were previously not available. Helicopters, surface-to-air missiles, rocket-propelled grenades, and even submarines are on the drug cartels’ "shopping list." The East European groups provided new drug markets in Russia, the former Soviet Republics, and Eastern Europe, while consumption was decreasing in the U.S. In 1993, Russian police intercepted a ton of South American cocaine which had been shipped to St. Petersburg by one Russian crime syndicate working with a Colombian drug cartel. In another example, a Russian crime leader was arrested in January 1997 in Miami by U.S. agents for the exportation of cocaine from Ecuador to St. Petersburg (Russia) and then to the United States. In exchange for these services, drug cartels pay for transactions with high quality cocaine. East European/Russian crime syndicates and corrupt military officers are supplying sophisticated weapons to Colombian rebels in exchange for huge shipments of cocaine. Although the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) receives most of the arms, some of them are distributed to Hezbollah factions.

Yes, you do read that correctly as a culmination of contacts and organizations extending from Eastern Europe to South America using not only organized crime but Hezbollah offshoots in South America. Also the combination of contacts between Hezbollah and FARC is extremely worrying as it gives each of these organizations a longer list of contacts and suppliers that are nearly global in scale.

Beyond all of that, however, is another piece of the Bosnia-Iran puzzle, which is the nuclear portion. This piece comes from Appendix A of a report by Mark Gorwitz on Foreign Assistance to Iran's Nuclear and Missile Programs, OCT 1998:

With the disintegration of Yugoslavia many of these scientists are looking for work. The possibility of recruitment by Iran is of particular concern. The effect of the covert program by the US to use Iran to supply Bosnia with arms needs to be analyzed.(19) Whether these ties will be exploited by Iran to gain access to sensitive technology remains to be seen.(20)

Previous to that he describes the various purification and separation work for radionucleotides done in the Former Yugoslavia. Not to make too fine a point of that is the Communist era agreements between Iran, Yugoslavia and Russia, as reported at the RFE/RL Iran Report, 3 May 1999, Volume 2, Number 18 archives:

On 30 April, Belgrade's state-owned, pro-Milosevic news agency, Tanjug, reported that the KLA is supported by many foreign states. Tanjug reported: "Many terrorist activities of the organization are organized and prepared in Iran with the help of other Islamic countries: Pakistan, Turkey, Syria." On the other hand, Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi said although Iran supported the Bosnian Muslims militarily, it would not supply the KLA with weapons deliveries, because "the situation in Kosova is different from the Bosnia war," the German daily "Franfurter Allgemeine" reported on 24 April.

Curiously, there are reports that Iran is part of a secret alliance including Yugoslavia, Russia, and Iraq. The Paris-based Arabic newspaper "al-Watan al-Arabi" reported on 23 April that a delegation of Iranian intelligence officers paid "an important secret visit" to Moscow to discuss details of the alliance. The Iranians requested the most-up-to-date Russian arms, in exchange for which they pledged that the Bosnia experience would not be repeated. Iran promised to "not escalate its solidarity with the Muslims of Kosova to the extent of sending units of the Republican Guards or Hizballah units or military equipment to help the Kosova Liberation Army. The Iranians pledged not to arouse Islamic sentiments and not to rally and finance extremist movements, as happened in Bosnia, for jihad [holy war] in Kosova."

The newspaper also reported the existence of an older tripartite arrangement between Belgrade, Baghdad, and Tehran. Leading Iranian figures in this deal were Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, former IRGC chief Mohsen Rezai, and former Minister of Intelligence and Security Ali Fallahian. Via this arrangement, Iraqi oil was smuggled to Iran, and Yugoslav companies based in Tehran would then sell the oil, repaying Iraq with arms and military equipment. Also, these companies ensured the delivery of oil and banned equipment to Yugoslavia.

The names of the Nations may be different, but the players tend to remain the same, and any background helps to re-establish previous contacts. That is why Iranian influence on the European doorstep is so dangerous: it hides the open attempts by Iran to garner material support and expertise for its own needs, and it furthers the spread of terrorism as they support Islamic fundamentalists that can then infiltrate into the rest of Europe.

And since those names also tend to stay put in the Intelligence Community, those same folks who missed the increase in Iranian Intelligence agents shifting into Bosnia in the 1990's, I tend to not see similar reports from them as reliable, as reflected in this press briefing at the US State Dept. by Tom Casey, Deputy Spokesman on 17 OCT 2006:

QUESTION: Okay. According to reports from Slovenia U.S. Congressional Advisor Joseph Bodanowski claimed that a terrorist organization has come up with a plan entitled: "Balkans 2020." The plans include establishment of terrorist camps in Croatia, Bosnia, Kosovo and Sandzak, which is a Serbian territory, from where terrorist would carry out attacks against the rest of Europe. Do you have anything on that or make any comment?

MR. CASEY: Well, Mr. Lambros, I'm not familiar with these reports. Certainly we continue to work worldwide in the fight against terrorism. We have a good cooperative relationship with many of the countries in the Balkans on these kinds of issues and certainly we'll be doing everything we can to assure that there are no terrorist operations ongoing anywhere in the Balkans.

Let me know when you folks find those 200 or so Iranian agents. Unless that number has gone *up*. And don't mind those three bombs that exploded in Travnik in 2005 or the bombing of a Muslim Bosnian President's grave. Or the bombing of a journalist's residence in 2004. Or blowing up of an ex-Chief of Police's car across from a police station in 2004. Or the bombing of a mosque in Orahova to prevent some folks from returning home after fleeing as refugees. Or the bombing of a secondary school.

Remember that Bosnia does not have terrorist operations going on there.

And those are reducing... most likely because Iran has gotten very, very busy elsewheres the past couple of years.

Sphere: Related Content

The Volunteer Fifth Column - Transnational Progressivist Press Rules

It is not every day that one gets to witness an individual coming out and clearly advocating unethical behavior that advocates Transnational Progressivism! Rare, indeed, is the individual who feels safe and cozy enough to espouse that viewpoint and put forth that it needs be done. And rarer, still, is when such flies in the face of the espoused standards of those doing such work. It thank Patterico for pointing this out at his site with this post and I will take up from there.

Consider the following:

How the press can prevent another Iraq by Dan Froomkin

The Washington Post Standards and Ethics Author: The Washington Post Published: February 16, 1999 Last Updated: February 17, 1999

You Can’t Be Too Skeptical of Authority Don’t assume anything administration officials tell you is true. In fact, you are probably better off assuming anything they tell you is a lie. Demand proof for their every assertion. Assume the proof is a lie. Demand that they prove that their proof is accurate. Just because they say it, doesn’t mean it should be make the headlines. The absence of supporting evidence for their assertion -- or a preponderance of evidence that contradicts the assertion -- may be more newsworthy than the assertion itself. Don’t print anonymous assertions. Demand that sources make themselves accountable for what they insist is true. Provocation Alone Does Not Justify War War is so serious that even proving the existence of a casus belli isn’t enough. Make officials prove to the public that going to war will make things better. Demand to know what happens if the war (or tactical strike) doesn’t go as planned? Demand to know what happens if it does? What happens after “victory”? Ask them: Isn’t it possible this will make things worse, rather than better? Be Particularly Skeptical of Secrecy Don’t assume that these officials, with their access to secret intelligence, know more than you do. Alternately, assume that they do indeed know more than you do – and are trying to keep intelligence that would undermine their arguments secret. Watch for Rhetorical Traps Keep an eye on how advocates of war frame the arguments. Don’t buy into those frames unless you think they’re fair. Keep a particular eye out for the no-lose construction. For example: If we can’t find evidence of WMD, that proves Saddam is hiding them. Watch out for false denials. In the case of Iran, when administration officials say “nobody is talking about invading Iran,” point out that the much more likely scenario is bombing Iran, and that their answer is therefore a dodge. Don’t Just Give Voice to the Administration Officials Give voice to the skeptics; don’t marginalize and mock them. Listen to and quote the people who got it right last time: The intelligence officials, state department officials, war-college instructors and many others who predicted the problem we are now facing, but who were largely ignored. Offer the greatest and most guaranteed degree of confidentiality to whisteblowers offering information that contradicts the official government position. (By contrast, don’t offer any confidentiality to administration spinners.) Look Outside Our Borders Pay attention to international opinion. Raise the question: What do people in other countries think? Why should we be so different? Keep an eye out for how the international press is covering this story. Why should we be so different? Understand the Enemy Listen to people on the other side, and report their position. Send more reporters into the country we are about to attack and learn about their views, their politics and their culture. Don’t allow the population of any country to be demonized. All humans deserve to be humanized. Demand to know why the administration won’t open a dialogue with the enemy. Refusing to talk to someone you are threatening to attack should be considered inherently suspect behavior. Encourage Public Debate The nation is not well served when issues of war and peace are not fully debated in public. It’s reasonable for the press to demand that Congress engage in a full, substantial debate. Cover the debate exhaustively and substantively. Write about Motives Historically, the real motives for wars have often not been the public motives. Try to report on the motivations of the key advocates for war. Don’t assume that the administration is being forthright about its motives. If no one in the inner circle will openly discuss their motives, then encourage reasonable speculation about their motives. Talk to the Military Find out what the military is being told to prepare for.

The Washington Post Standards and Ethics A. Conflict of interest B. The reporter’s role C. Errors D. Attribution of sources E. Plagiarism and credit F. Fairness G. Opinion H. The national and community interest I. Taste J. The Post’s principles The Washington Post is pledged to an aggressive, responsible and fair pursuit of the truth without fear of any special interest, and with favor to none. Washington Post reporters and editors are pledged to approach every assignment with the fairness of open minds and without prior judgment. The search for opposing views must be routine. Comment from persons accused or challenged in stories must be included. The motives of those who press their views upon us must routinely be examined, and it must be recognized that those motives can be noble or ignoble, obvious or ulterior. We fully recognize that the power we have inherited as the dominant morning newspaper in the capital of the free world carries with it special responsibilities: to listen to the voiceless to avoid any and all acts of arrogance to face the public politely and candidly[sic] A. Conflict of Interest This newspaper is pledged to avoid conflict of interest or the appearance of conflict of interest, wherever and whenever possible. We have adopted stringent policies on these issues, conscious that they may be more restrictive than is customary in the world of private business. In particular: We pay our own way. We accept no gifts from news sources. We accept no free trips. We neither seek nor accept preferential treatment that might be rendered because of the positions we hold. Exceptions to the no-gift rule are few and obvious – invitations to meals, for example. Free admissions to any event that is not free to the public are prohibited. The only exception is for seats not sold to the public, as in a press box. Whenever possible, arrangements will be made to pay for such seats. We work for no one except The Washington Post without permission from supervisors. Many outside activities and jobs are incompatible with the proper performance of work on an independent newspaper. Connections with government are among the most objectionable. To avoid real or apparent conflicts of interest in the coverage of business and the financial markets, all members of the Business and Financial staff are required to disclose their financial holdings and investments to the assistant managing editor in charge of the section. The potential for conflict, however, is not limited to members of the Business and Financial staff. All reporters and editors, wherever they may work, are required to disclose to their department head any financial interests that might be in conflict or give the appearance of a conflict in their reporting or editing duties. Department heads will make their own financial disclosures to the managing editor. We freelance for no one and accept no speaking engagements without permission from department heads. Permission to freelance will be granted only if The Washington Post has no interest in the story and only if it is to appear in a medium that does not compete with The Post. It is important that no freelance assignments and no honoraria be accepted that might in any way be interpreted as disguised gratuities. We make every reasonable effort to be free of obligation to news sources and to special interests. We must be wary of entanglement with those whose positions render them likely to be subjects of journalistic interest and examination. Our private behavior as well as our professional behavior must not bring discredit to our profession or to The Post. We avoid active involvement in any partisan causes – politics, community affairs, social action, demonstrations – that could compromise or seem to compromise our ability to report and edit fairly. Relatives cannot fairly be made subject to Post rules, but it should be recognized that their employment or their involvement in causes can at least appear to compromise our integrity. The business and professional ties of traditional family members or other members of your household must be disclosed to department heads. B. The Reporter’s Role Although it has become increasingly difficult for this newspaper and for the press generally to do so since Watergate, reporters should make every effort to remain in the audience, to stay off the stage, to report the news, not to make the news. In gathering news, reporters will not misrepresent their identity. They will not identify themselves as police officers, physicians or anything other than journalists. C. Errors This newspaper is pledged to minimize the number of errors we make and to correct those that occur. Accuracy is our goal; candor is our defense. Persons who call errors to our attention must be accorded a respectful hearing. See Chapter 3, “The Role of the Ombudsman.” D. Attribution of Sources The Washington Post is pledged to disclose the source of all information when at all possible. When we agree to protect a source’s identity, that identity will not be made known to anyone outside The Post. Before any information is accepted without full attribution, reporters must make every reasonable effort to get it on the record. If that is not possible, reporters should consider seeking the information elsewhere. If that in turn is not possible, reporters should request an on-the-record reason for concealing the source’s identity and should include the reason in the story. In any case, some kind of identification is almost always possible – by department or by position, for example – and should be reported. No pseudonyms are to be used. However, The Washington Post will not knowingly disclose the identities of U.S. intelligence agents, except under highly unusual circumstances which must be weighed by the senior editors. E. Plagiarism and Credit Attribution of material from other newspapers and other media must be total. Plagiarism is one of journalism’s unforgivable sins. It is the policy of this newspaper to give credit to other publications that develop exclusive stories worthy of coverage by The Post. F. Fairness Reporters and editors of The Post are committed to fairness. While arguments about objectivity are endless, the concept of fairness is something that editors and reporters can easily understand and pursue. Fairness results from a few simple practices: No story is fair if it omits facts of major importance or significance. Fairness includes completeness. No story is fair if it includes essentially irrelevant information at the expense of significant facts. Fairness includes relevance. No story is fair if it consciously or unconsciously misleads or even deceives the reader. Fairness includes honesty – leveling with the reader. No story is fair if reporters hide their biases or emotions behind such subtly pejorative words as “refused,” “despite,” “quietly,” “admit” and “massive.” Fairness requires straightforwardness ahead of flashiness. G. Opinion On this newspaper, the separation of news columns from the editorial and opposite-editorial pages is solemn and complete. This separation is intended to serve the reader, who is entitled to the facts in the news columns and to opinions on the editorial and “op-ed” pages. But nothing in this separation of functions is intended to eliminate from the news columns honest, in-depth reporting, or analysis or commentary when plainly labeled. H. The National and Community Interest The Washington Post is vitally concerned with the national interest and with the community interest. We believe these interests are best served by the widest possible dissemination of information. The claim of national interest by a federal official does not automatically equate with the national interest. The claim of community interest by a local official does not automatically equate with the community interest. I. Taste The Washington Post as a newspaper respects taste and decency, understanding that society’s concepts of taste and decency are constantly changing. A word offensive to the last generation can be part of the next generation’s common vocabulary. But we shall avoid prurience. We shall avoid profanities and obscenities unless their use is so essential to a story of significance that its meaning is lost without them. In no case shall obscenities be used without the approval of the executive editor or the managing editor or his deputy. See Chapter 5, “Using the Language,” for guidance on particular words or terms that may be sensitive. J. The Post’s Principles After Eugene Meyer bought The Washington Post in 1933 and began the family ownership that continues today, he published “These Principles”: The first mission of a newspaper is to tell the truth as nearly as the truth may be ascertained. The newspaper shall tell ALL the truth so far as it can learn it, concerning the important affairs of America and the world. As a disseminator of the news, the paper shall observe the decencies that are obligatory upon a private gentleman. What it prints shall be fit reading for the young as well as for the old. The newspaper’s duty is to its readers and to the public at large, and not to the private interests of the owner. In the pursuit of truth, the newspaper shall be prepared to make sacrifices of its material fortunes, if such course be necessary for the public good. The newspaper shall not be the ally of any special interest, but shall be fair and free and wholesome in its outlook on public affairs and public men. “These Principles” are re-endorsed herewith.

Isn't that lovely? And why is the WaPo Ethics standard put up? Because Mr. Froomkin is the #2 editor at the Washingtonpost.com! I am so glad that Mr. Froomkin has decided to break with them in such an open and honest manner. Yes, lovely, isn't it? To see one espouse the breaking of their OWN Ethics and Standards of conduct to take partisan, anti-establishment, anti-democratic, anti-American stances so forthrightly.

Because that is what he is advocating. He is advocating not only an 'adversarial' role for the press, but to actively 'take up the other side' and JOIN IT and present their position without criticism or analysis while harshly criticizing the Administration on *everything*. In doing that he is seeking to interject the press into the conversation and NOT report on the conversation. In that the press would then *fail* to accurately report on the affairs of government AND those that would seek to bring it down. That is not an 'adversarial role' but an 'advocates role'.

That is 'working for the other side'.

He further puts forth to deny that the National Sovereign Right of a Nation that suffers a casus belli is not enough to go to war on. That is not *just* anti-American it is anti-Nation State. To remove that as a legitimate right for Nations to seek martial justice through the use of force is an advocacy that Nation States have NO right to defend themselves.

Further, he advocates that the reporter or journalist determine 'fairness' of an argument in a prejudicial way so as to denigrate any and all that support a martial position and empower those who have ANY anti-establishment, anti-military, anti-National stance to get a full and adequate hearing WITHOUT QUESTION. As he does not advocate that for reporting of the Administration that then makes the reporter an ADVOCATE in the reporting and no longer attempting to report 'facts' or 'news' but purport the individual's opinion to be more important than the 'facts' or 'news'.

In addition to that he wishes to deny that there is any difference between any people, any where and that all Nations should have the exact same outlook and that when the United States does *not* hold the outlook of other Nations it is to be questioned or, indeed, criticized for not holding that stance. That is, again, advocating that the United States should have NO separate identity from other Nations and should be 'just like them' in all outlooks.

By taking on the advocates position for the enemy, he further asserts that asking why the Enemy cannot be 'talked to' belies the fact that diplomacy has RUN OUT at the casus belli and that it is the Nation *causing* such that needs to be asked why they performed that action NOT the victim Nation on why it wishes to respond. Usually a Nation is gracious enough to give 'one last chance' for the aggressor to make up, but in cases like Vietnam and Iraq the long years of that got NOWHERE. Advocating more than *that* is not only pushing for pacifism, it is pushing for the ending of National Sovereignty and the right of a Nation to determine its own course for good or ill so that it may put an end to those attacking it. In taking up to show the horrors of war and the people who will suffer it also belies the fact that those people in that Nation have the right to overthrow their leadership and MAKE AMENDS for its actions or disavow them and attempt to MAKE UP for the wrongs done by the previous government. Because that is what is required in the realm of International Diplomacy. Advocating anything else is a call for an END to the system of International Diplomacy between Nation States as a way of regulating the affairs of Nations so that they may govern themselves and be held accountable for their actions.

Thus you have this strange notion that those that are aggressors are 'victims' and that those suffering from things that would normally allow reprisals of a warlike nature to be justified are to not EVER even think of that as it just might 'hurt the victim' who is the aggressor.

If that weren't enough he then wants to make groups of individuals that can be easily labeled and DISMISSED from reporting if they happen to hold a pro-National stance of *any sort*. The full panoply of dissent is to be given deep and wide coverage so that every conspiracy theory is to be given an airing while those advocating multiple different reasons and rationales to GO TO WAR are not only to be questioned but the 'fairness' of their viewpoint is to be brought into question when NO such questioning of 'fairness' is to be applied evenly and equally to those wanting NOT to go to war. Thus a casus belli may also have more than one set of ground under it beyond a mere incident and may, as in the case of Iraq, have multiple, continuing and ongoing reasons and rationales above and beyond ALL the UN mandates that were broken, the undermining of the trade restrictions, the funneling of money into weapons programs that were not only WMD related that were ALSO to be ENDED COMPLETELY, the violation of National Sovereignty by not returning those kidnapped in the previous war or military personnel captured and then NOT given their Geneva Convention Rights. Those all get lumped into one category and then the reporter gets to decide if those highly different outlooks are 'fair' or not. While those espousing that it is 'all about oil' or 'all about Saddam's attempt to assassinate Bush 41' are given free reign, little question and all the air and print time they can grab.

All of this comes together under a different label that gets applied to those espousing these very things and working to achieve them. As John Fonte described it these things all fall into the heading of Transnational Progressivism. Back in the day when blogging was young, Steven den Beste did an excellent write-up at USS Clueless, and I will be cadging from them both so that those things being espoused can be put into perspective:

The key concepts of transnational progressivism could be described as follows:

The ascribed group over the individual citizen. The key political unit is not the individual citizen, who forms voluntary associations and works with fellow citizens regardless of race, sex, or national origin, but the ascriptive group (racial, ethnic, or gender) into which one is born.

A dichotomy of groups: Oppressor vs. victim groups, with immigrant groups designated as victims. Transnational ideologists have incorporated the essentially Hegelian Marxist "privileged vs. marginalized" dichotomy.

Group proportionalism as the goal of "fairness." Transnational progressivism assumes that "victim" groups should be represented in all professions roughly proportionate to their percentage of the population. If not, there is a problem of "underrepresentation."

The values of all dominant institutions to be changed to reflect the perspectives of the victim groups. Transnational progressives insist that it is not enough to have proportional representation of minorities in major institutions if these institutions continue to reflect the worldview of the "dominant" culture. Instead, the distinct worldviews of ethnic, gender, and linguistic minorities must be represented within these institutions.

The "demographic imperative." The demographic imperative tells us that major demographic changes are occurring in the U. S. as millions of new immigrants from non-Western cultures enter American life. The traditional paradigm based on the assimilation of immigrants into an existing American civic culture is obsolete and must be changed to a framework that promotes "diversity," defined as group proportionalism.

The redefinition of democracy and "democratic ideals." Transnational progressives have been altering the definition of "democracy" from that of a system of majority rule among equal citizens to one of power sharing among ethnic groups composed of both citizens and non-citizens. James Banks, one of American education's leading textbook writers, noted in 1994 that "to create an authentic democratic Unum with moral authority and perceived legitimacy, the pluribus (diverse peoples) must negotiate and share power." Hence, American democracy is not authentic; real democracy will come when the different "peoples" that live within America "share power" as groups.

Deconstruction of national narratives and national symbols of democratic nation-states in the West. In October 2000, a UK government report denounced the concept of "Britishness" and declared that British history needed to be "revised, rethought, or jettisoned." In the U.S., the proposed "National History Standards," recommended altering the traditional historical narrative. Instead of emphasizing the story of European settlers, American civilization would be redefined as a multicultural "convergence" of three civilizations—Amerindian, West African, and European. In Israel, a "post-Zionist" intelligentsia has proposed that Israel consider itself multicultural and deconstruct its identity as a Jewish state. Even Israeli foreign minister Shimon Peres sounded the post-Zionist trumpet in his 1993 book , in which he deemphasized "sovereignty" and called for regional "elected central bodies," a type of Middle Eastern EU.

Promotion of the concept of postnational citizenship. In an important academic paper, Rutgers Law Professor Linda Bosniak asks hopefully "Can advocates of postnational citizenship ultimately succeed in decoupling the concept of citizenship from the nation-state in prevailing political thought?"

The idea of transnationalism as a major conceptual tool. Transnationalism is the next stage of multicultural ideology. Like multiculturalism, transnationalism is a concept that provides elites with both an empirical tool (a plausible analysis of what is) and an ideological framework (a vision of what should be). Transnational advocates argue that globalization requires some form of "global governance" because they believe that the nation-state and the idea of national citizenship are ill suited to deal with the global problems of the future.

The alignment of what Mr. Froomkin is advocating is so near 1:1 that it cannot be mistaken. He is advocating that Nations are *not* special units chosen by their People and that all Nations should be equal in ALL things. The assertion that the elected Government does NOT represent the will of the People in a democracy and that it should be considered 'suspect' at all times indicates that he disavows adherence to democracy ITSELF. Going beyond mere skepticism and asserting that a group of individuals is not to be trusted a priori is not only prejudicial but removes the legitimacy of rule especially when it is from the media. That is a denigration of the Nation State, its systems, its laws and its Sovereign outlook as a Nation. It is taking up an anti-Nation stance which, in this case, is the United States.

Perhaps Mr. Froomkin has forgotten that Peoples form Nations so as to be DIFFERENT from each other and assert such differences with National Identity to their Nation? By impugning that and asking why the US is 'not like everyone else' he is no longer asserting that there is any difference between the outlooks of peoples in different Nations and that those held in repressive tyranny that are *forced* to say things under pain of torture or death are 'just as equal' as those speaking freely in a democracy. That is especially true when one wants to give 'the other side' its say in things: you become an advocate FOR tyrannical repression in that doing and are attempting to use the emotional weight of loss of life to outweigh ongoing loss of freedom and liberty.

Thank you, Mr. Froomkin, for having openly demonstrated your allegiance to The Volunteer Fifth Column, your repudiation of the Washington Post's code of standards and ethics and your wish to end the United States via asserting that tyrannical rule is never worth attacking at any cost and that those attacking the United States should always get a free ticket to do so and then helped by you and those that follow these rules so that ALL National Sovereignty can be removed.

And the Nation with it.

Welcome to being an affirmed member of The Volunteer Fifth Column, Mr. Froomkin and for explaining just HOW the WaPo got there.

This being the #2 editor at the Washingtonpost.com website and of high stature within the organization, his espousal of these things taints the entire organization and it is no longer to be trusted in ANYTHING. In disavowing democracy, democratic government and espousing that aggressors are 'victims' he has demonstrated his lack of standards, ethics and his allegiance to Transnational Progressivist ideals.

I find those ideals reprehensible and the attitude that goes with them.

Sphere: Related Content

The bankrupt political class

Coming after a post on the Volunteer Fifth Column, this one should be a major list-a-thon, right? Going through and pointing out this clueless or that clueless individual and their lack of anything to actually put forward in politics... why, that isn't a list but a description of what actually is nearly the entire political class in America! Cluelessness abounds! Pointless politicians that continue pointing in everywhichway and yet don't seem to ever GET to a point. The folks who point to all the little things they do that are oh-so-wonderful and yet can't point out anything that backs such splendidness that actually makes things better.

You know, the Policy Wonks?

The Programocrats?

Those that come to town with a grab-bag of special interests, litmus tests, and lovely programs that benefit this or that group. You know those folks? The ones that keep on getting elected because they distribute goodies and want to continue on distributing same to their private interests, political backers and then, to put extra topping on the triple-decker banana-split sundae with 25 scoops of ice cream each of a different flavor and lots of whipped topping and 7 varieties of sprinkles and 3 different cherries, they then decide to actually put on the chocolate sauce in gallon quantities. You know them?

The Big Governmentites?

There are over 530 of them upon the Hill and one sitting in the Executive Branch as its head.

The ones with so many bright ideas to 'fix' things that they then find all sorts of excuses not only to *not* fix things but make them worse and STILL add in programs that expand forevermore.

The Two Partyites that have one, long, continuous, grand party.

At the taxpayers expense.

And at the expense of taxpayers freedom and liberties.

People who see one little thing that just *must* have a government program at the highest level to *fix* it that they can get to office on that and THEN think that EVERY problem needs a program or law to *fix* it. The folks who don't understand that this is NOT problem solving, but trouble shooting? And because they don't understand the difference between the two they actually never solve the underlying problem, no matter how well they have troubleshot a single instance of it.

There are, indeed, problems to be solved in America.

The absolute, number one, must be addressed before any other thing is the reduction of National Sovereignty. That poor concept is being so hashed, sliced, diced, mangled and generally stomped under foot by all the lovely trouble shooting that no one seems to realize that it is the target of their fire.

Take the illegal 'problem', please!

It is not a 'problem' but a lack of will to actually stand up and say that the Nation has a Sovereign right to enforce its borders and have systemic integrity into who it lets in and who it refuses to let into the Nation. The 'Land of the Free' is contained in this thing called a Nation State. To be a Nation State is to have internal integrity and to not give away the right of the Nation to BE a Nation. Without border controls and integrity that right is removed from play and the ability of the Nation to determine its own course without outside interference is not only reduced but is negated.

A Nation that does that cannot BE a Nation.

Take the 'foreign policy' problem, please!

We don't have one in America. Not a Foreign Policy to be found within the confines of the United States to define how we see ALL other Nations and approach them. After the Truman Doctrine there hasn't been one and the underpinnings for that vanished in a puff of smoke along with the USSR. Before that you have to go back to 'Walk softly and carry a big stick', which actually WAS a doctrine for Foreign Policy. It summed up quiet diplomacy that quickly scaled up to armed conflict. Worked, too, come to that. Before that you come to the Monroe Doctrine, which Jimmy Carter tried to appeal to until he realize that it hadn't been enforced by the US for so long because of the Truman Doctrine that it couldn't be revived. Without being able to actually state how the Nation looks at Foreign Nations, categorizes them and then uses that as a basis for approach, which can be varied but is clearly stated, there is no basis for the Nation to actually stand upon anything with respect to other Nations and International Affairs.

A Nation without a Foreign Policy is beset by a sea of troubles and has no engine, no rudder, no direction, no chart, no compass and finds that the ship, itself, is sinking.

Supporting these two things that are clearly stated, the Right of a Nation to determine its own course without outside interference and how it addresses the rest of the World, is called Nationalism. It is *not* a slur nor a bad word nor to be confused with any other '-ism'. It is the Westphalian concept that Nations are free to act internally as they please, address other Nations as they please, and be held accountable for their external actions by other Nations *without* threat of interference with its internal affairs BY other Nations that disagree with its outlook. You hold Nations accountable for Actions, and vigorously. You discuss outlook and try to change that and come to terms with it via something known as 'diplomacy'.

We don't get either of those from the modern Two Party Political System in America.

What DO we get?

Programs, lots and lots of Government Programs.

You can't sneeze without some elected official wanting to hike the kleenex subsidies for the 'poor'... who can already get good generic kleenex and even contact distributors for more samples than you can shake a stick at. I wouldn't put it past some bright folks to actually try and *live* on the free samples handed out for marketing. Probably do it pretty well, too. But heaven forfend if you actually try to rely on the grand marketplace to address it! No, if it doesn't have a Federal Program to address it then THAT is the very first thing those fine Programmerites Wonkus Spendophiliacs will seek to do: employ yet more government bureaucrats to spend taxpayer money on yet another pet program because it is a 'good idea'.

Why not just lump all of those good ideas into the government and call it Communist?

That *is* what these politicians are doing from the Big Government ticket, Left and Right.

When you change the Big Government switch from Right to Left, you change the Nannystate over from trying to curb such things as Internet Gambling and fretting about how much they can squirrel away to Big Business for their long-term re-elections, TO those trying to open your bankaccounts and siphon off the majority of them to pay for high medical care that is high because their lawyer friends sue over every thing that can possibly go wrong, even if you don't read the warning label and are, yourself, the cause of your own problems. That sucking sound you hear are your personal Responsibilities, Rights and Cash being sucked into the vast maw of Communist Big Government.

And I thought that we had WON the Cold War!

Seems the Big Government ideals of the defeated enemy have worked their way so deeply into the Two Party System that NEITHER major political party is something you would term American. Neither of these great and vaunted Two Parties who have put forth folks that would say: No, we really don't need a government program for this.

There ought to be a law, huh?

Well, no.

Because that is also part of this problem. Just like the Communist State concept, the US is moving away from the Rule of Law and heading towards the Law of Rules. Take a look, for example, between the US Constitution and the EU Constitution as it has been proposed.

You can buy a US Constitution copy that folds up and fits comfortably in a wallet.

You can buy a copy of the EU Constitution that fits on a CD.

One can actually read, understand and trace out the lines of control and responsibility in the US Constitution on a sheet of paper and list them and take just about as much space as the Constitution itself.

The EU Constitution requires one uses multi-dimensional spaces, strange non-euclidian geometry and other strange systemic concepts to trace out what it *does*. You come to the conclusion that they don't want *anyone* held accountable for *anything* save that the Government may rule as it likes in anything at any time.

By trying to put so much in the way of programmatics into their Constitution, the EU system is so brittle, so nebulous and so impossible to hold accountable that one is assured of having NO rights under it. Unfortunately, those that think 'there ought to be a law' are doing the *exact* same thing in the US and putting so many laws on the books that NONE of them is adequately enforced. Congresscritters complain bitterly that we have a 'revolving door' on the border and ignore the fact that not only will they not PAY for better, but they are the ones chugging nickels into it to keep it revolving like some sort of amusement park ride. It seems that everyone sees a need for a law against something, pushes it and soon it is added to the books. As the amount of money that is given to law enforcement is limited, it gets divided up and some things just get left out of the enforcement realm. Like actually *paying* for sending illegals back to their Nation of origin and ensuring that a system is set up to stop their illegal return. There are laws on the books for such, but unless Congress wishes to pay for robust enforcement...

So, how can you tell when a Candidate for Office has not clue as to what their own outlook on society and government is? I put together a list of 50 questions that should be very, very simple for any politician who has actual philosophy and policy orientation towards government to answer. So far only one campaign has contacted me and asked when I would like the responses... I let them know that sometime in this election they actually will have to state some if not all of these. It tells me much that those running so early have not done so *first* and that many are picking up their grab-bag of goodies to distribute and already pushing them. And those that haven't responded, even after setting up so early? Those poor dears just haven't thought it through that starting now means a long, long, long run and that they will be attacked for all of their past sins so as to be shown as merely human. And if they don't present something better, then We the People will not be able to try and look past their humanity to see what they hold in store for the Nation.

The Next President will BE a War President, even if perfection descended upon Iraq tomorrow, the rest of the region would not let that *hold*. The divisions there run long, deep and have not changed for long decades if not centuries and they have been set in motion. Glacially in 1979 and much, much faster today. If a Candidate has no basis of outlook, then they will run in fear. By not being able to define the Nation, their outlook and what we head towards, they will be unable to find any peace, any where.

They will run out on their duties to uphold the Constitution and help those that we have helped out of tyranny to stand *with us* so that we may both be stronger together. No good has ever come of running from those seeking to build Empire, not once nor ever.

The Programnistas only want goodies to hand.

Not responsibilities to uphold.

Or Sworn Oath to follow.

And when you look in the mirror you will face the one who holds those responsibilities in whole.

Let us not make this next election the last for the Nation and the Land of the Free.

Sphere: Related Content

A Gathering of Eagles

On 17 MAR 2007 there will be a leftist march on the Pentagon.

Unlike other marches there will be watchers to ensure that they do not disrespect *any* veterans. These men will ensure that any activities and hostilities towards veterans and soldiers are noted, because they, too, sense The Oncoming Storm...

"… An eagle knows when a storm is approaching long before it breaks. The eagle will fly to some high spot and wait for the winds to come. When the storm hits, it sets its wings so that the wind will pick it up and lift it above the storm. While the storm rages below, the eagle is soaring above it."

Those that wish us to lose wars wish us to lose our Nation, and that must not happen.

These brave men have already defended the Nation, and now they have returned to watch over her. They will stand by the Wall of the Fallen in Vietnam as the watchers and reminders that no good ever comes from running and that letting go of those who stood with us in warfare condemns them to tyranny and ourselves to moral bankruptcy. The Tree of Liberty was let to die in a far off land and as it went down so did the hopes of millions who fed that insatiable appetite of tyranny and despotism with their lives.

There are Long Term Consequences to Defeat and the millions dead and the world ceding ground to triumphant authoritarianism was a result. Let us dare to reach and grasp on to Liberty and Freedom so that others can share that grasp and hold tight with us and be stronger for it. For this time there is no excuse for cowardice in the face of those ready to build Empire on the graves of the fallen... and to chase those that have run from the fight and end the flight from freedom with slavery or death.

It is time to stop running and be America.

If we dare.

Sphere: Related Content

The Volunter Fifth Column

This past week has seen a confluence of events that are not to be believed in these United States. Prior to this every Leftist, every Peace Activist, every Transnational Progressivist has said that they are doing things that are in 'support of the troops and against the mission' in Iraq. They said that no one should ever 'question their patriotism'.

So let us look at some of what now calls them into question:

1) From Gateway Pundit - 29 JAN 2007 :

CPL Joshua Sparling, an Iraqi War veteran and amputee, talks about getting spit on, flipped off, and having cigarette butts thrown at him during a "peace" rally in Washington DC on Saturday January 27, 2007. (FOX News- Hannity & Colmes)

Now, considering that the man has just suffered what the Peace Activists had said they would never do after doing this to returning Vietnam Veterans, I do, indeed, think one can question their patriotism. And their lack of civility. And their lack of honor to the MAN who has served them.

2) From Strategypage.com - 28 JAN 2007 - Top Ten Myths of the Iraq War. Answers to the following canards of the Left and Peace Activists: 1) No WMDS, 2) Illegal Invasion, 3) Sanctions were working, 4) Overthrowing Saddam only helped Iran, 5) The Invasion was a failure, 6) The Invasion helped al Qaeda, 7) Iraq is in a state of Civil War, 8) Iraqis were better off under Saddam, 9) The Iraq War Caused Islamic Terrorism to Increase in Europe, 10) The War in Iraq is Lost.

All of those are then ANSWERED, and succinctly. To put forth these things is defeatism at the very least.

3) From Powerline - 31 JAN 2007 - The waffling Democratic Senators who were FOR a surge before they were against it. Their link is to a Washington Times article addressing this. The names of Senator John Kerry and Senator Joe Biden are mentioned. Also Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Senator Chuck Hagel is seen as a waffler from the Washington Times article. Also note Senator John W. Warner and his 'non-binding resolution' of being irresolute.

4) The Corner at National Review Online - 16 JAN 2007 - Representative Nancy Pelosi was for the surge before she came to power and then flip-flops on it once in power. Representative Sylvester Reyes was for a surge in DEC 2006 but flipped on that a month later when put at the head of the House Intelligence Committee. Here was his interview at CBS on that subject in 2006.

5) Michelle Malkin - 30 JAN 2007 - CBS getting al Qaeda video footage from their reporter in Iraq. They do not air it but make it available on the internet where it is spotted as the same video as broadcast by al Qaeda.

6) From the Washington Post blog - 30 JAN 2007 - William Arkin calls US Volunteer Armed Forces 'mercenaries', then goes on to say that they are being elevated above society when they are, in fact, defending his right to pontificate. His thorough derision of those Volunteers he then purports to be not that at all in his follow up and that he does not like that those who volunteer are given so much... when their pay is abysmal, their housing is minimal and the medical care is the best that can be given to them by the Federal Bureaucracy. Apparently he has never actually been in housing for the families of volunteers and the fact that they often need to have a second or third income in the family to make ends meet. And that this is the most well educated set of Armed Forces ever on this planet and that they could ALL be making more outside of the military than inside of it.

Now, far be it for me to say that the following advertisers should actually hear about this, as their ads adorn the WaPo page for this article (thank you to Scott Malensek for doing the gumshoe work and having to turn off the anti-ad and blocking software to do this!):

The Windows Place - Contact Form

Office Depot- Media Relations email

Sports Authority - Customer Support email

Belfort Furniture

Comp USA help page

Circuit City email

Linens-n-Things - Head of Marketing email

Rite Aid contact customer service - email Board of Directors

Staples contact form - Investor Relations for Staples email

Bray & Scarff - Service email

Best Buy - News Center email

CVS Customer Care email

JC Penny - Investor Relations

Eckerd

sprint-motorola (Red Razor) [Not Available]

Kmart - inquiry form

Don Pablo's - contact form

Kitchen Magic contact form

Wegman's

Marlo Furniture

Kohls - Community Relations email

Havertys feedback form

Longhorn Steakhouse contact form

Walmart

Radio Shack contact form


Now Don Surber has given a wrap up on Mr. Arkin's follies: Where Arkin Screwed Up.

Let me just say that Mr. Arkin's non-apology apology is not something that he nor the Washington Post should be proud of either in transparency of viewpoint or in the realm of ethical behavior for clarity in getting ideas across. If Mr. Arkin did not mean his slurs he should not apologize for 'misinterpretation' of his words but clarify his position and apologize for his previous words without condition.

Now some might want to say that this is just a minor problem at the Washington Post, but that is patently not the case. I, and many others, have pointed out that the WaPo as shown not only bias in their reporting, but have proven to be actually clueless on their knowledge of their 'home beat', which is the Federal Government. The case in point is my analysis on The Problem of Media Misreporting which is done in response to the Much Undone In Rebuilding Iraq story from them by Andy Mosher and Griff Witte. Their reporting was so bad, so slanted, so misleading and just plain *wrong* that Maj. General William H. McCoy Jr. who was heading up the US Army Corps of Engineers mission in Iraq had to post an open letter citing the problems with the WaPo report.

Not only did the reporters and editorial staff not present any of the past problems in context, they demonstrated a sheer inability to understand how the Federal budget and expenditure systems works and how it actually spends money. My analysis is based on having worked inside a component of the DoD in the area of Program and Project management for multi-year projects. The numbers that are presented in a bad light are not only NOT bad and NOT showing poor performance, but are showing a well run contract system under some of the very worst of circumstances that can be conceived of on the planet. It is hard enough getting US contractors to work on time, on budget and to specification in the US... getting Iraqi contractors to do that in Iraq is a damned *miracle*. But then the USACE has had to deal with Louisiana, so getting those not used to working on time or on budget is something they are past masters at. I explain and do the math. Apparently that is beyond the knowledge base of the entire editorial staff at the WaPo.

But it turns out that those problems were just the tip of the reportorial iceberg that the WaPo was grinding its hull against. It was later reported by multiple news organizations that an actual, *real* contractor problem was festering in Iraq that would lead to major problems on the rebuilding of the Baghdad Police College there. I reported on that in The Incapable Washington Post. It turns out that the two reporters sent by the WaPo for the above article were IN Iraq as this problem was brewing and they demonstrated NO competence at doing actual, real, investigative reporting. They were sent to Iraq to listen to 'dog and pony shows' that had actual, factual content that could have easily be gotten via email. While in Iraq they could not be bothered to talk to IRAQIS about the current state of projects, and I am quite sure that if they had sat down to take tea with a few local police officers or contract foremen or just nosed about asking questions, they could have BROKEN this story. Instead they regurgitated pap fed to them and then rearranged that already noxious mess into something totally worthless. It appears that the time when reporters were sent overseas to do this thing known as 'report news' or even 'find news' is gone.

I then collected other problems seen with the WaPo in The Factually Challenged Washington Post. At the National Review Online, Ramesh Ponnuru on 18 SEP 2006 responds to an article in the by Rajiv Chandrasekaran on the firings of some folks in Iraq and other places. According to Mr. Ponnuru not only are the facts about the individuals wrong but there are some items that are wholly invented because the individuals could not have bi-located to be in two places at one time to do the things they are cited as doing. And since record exists of their actual location at those times and dates, those that place them in other places must be wrong. Paul Mirengoff at Powerline in this 17 SEP 2006 article cites further problems with Mr. Chandrasekaran's characterization of people, activities and events based on his personal knowledge of same. In all of his attacks on people and 'Nation Building' one wonders why Mr. Chandrasekaran concentrates on Iraq, when the mess in Kosovo left by the Clinton Administration and totally mishandled by the UN is far worse than anything in that realm of operations in Iraq.

The Washington Post was taken off of my personal list of 'reliable sources' and has fallen into the 'must have two, independent sources to confirm' on ANY story in ANY realm. I will not trust them even on GOOD NEWS. Because they have become Volunteers for the Fifth Column.

7) ABC News 29 JAN 2007 - Senator Hillary Clinton:

"I am going to level with you, the president has said this is going to be left to his successor," Clinton said. "I think it is the height of irresponsibility and I really resent it."

Now for the list of Wars and Unresolved Conflicts and Enemies left to the next President to clean-up when you left the CoPresidency with your husband one the 'buy one, get one free' deal you two ran on (and much thanks to MIPT Terror Knowledge Base!) and a short lead-in of what you had to deal with coming in:

President Bush (41):
Shining Path wounds US Embassy regional security officer in Peru,
Tupac Ameru members throw bombs into the homes of US Marines stationed in Peru,
Tupac Ameru attempts bombing of US Embassy in Peru,
New People's Army attacks US Information Service in Philippines,
The CNPZ attacked the U.S. Embassy Marine barracks in Bolivia,
FMLN shoot down US military helicopter, execute survivors in El Salvador,
VPT-20 and PLO attack US Embassy in Panama,
Bomb sent to US Embassy in China,
Bomb thrown at US Embassy in Ecuador,
Attempted firebombing of US Embassy in Israel,
Attempted firebombing of US Embassy in East Berlin,
Popular Army of National Liberation attacks US Embassy in Panama,
DHKP/C attacks US military depot in Turkey,
Bombing of Peruvian - US Institute in Peru,
Tupac Ameru attacks US Embassy in Peru,
Attempted assassination of US Ambassador in Uganda,
US Embassy fired upon in Uruguay,
Bombing outside US Consulate in Turkey,
DHKP/C attacks American Cultural Center in Turkey,
Tupac Ameru attempts bombing of US Cultural Center in Peru,
Gunman fires at residence of US Ambassador in Yemen,
Attempted attack on US Ambassador's residence stopped by police in Peru,
US Embassy attacked in Peru,
Tupac Ameru attempts bombing of US Embassy in Peru,
US Embassy guard wounded in attack in Malaysia,
Bus carrying wounded US Servicemen attacked in Saudi Arabia,
Car of US Military Attache torched in Jordan,
Red Army Faction fires at US Embassy in West Germany,
Manuel Rodriguez Patriotic Front attacks home of US Embassy Marine wounding him in Chile,
Attempted firebombing of Australian-American Association in Australia,
Chukakuha Middle Faction fires at Japanese base with US Personnel in Japan,
DHKP/C assailant shoots US Air Force Officer in the face in Turkey,
RO-N17 uses remote controlled bomb to kill US Air Force sergeant in Greece,
Shining Path launches bomb and US Embassy as part of attack wave in Peru,
CNPZ attacks US Consulate in Bolivia,
Gunman fires on US Servicemen in Panama,
Shining Path attacks U.S.-Peruvian Cultural Center in Peru,
Bomb explodes at U.S.-Peru Binational Cultural Center in Peru,
Join US-Peruvian anti-narcotics base attacked in Peru,
Shots fired at US Embassy in Peru,
FPMR bombs US Embassy in Chile,
US Serviceman killed in Panama,
1 May Organization and ELA attempt bombing of US American Legion post in Greece,
Kach bomb US library in Israel,
Turkish Islamic Jihad kills US Air Force sergeant in Turkey,
Abu Nidal Organization and Arab Revolutionary Cells attack US Embassy in Lebanon,
Arson attack at US Naval base in Japan,
Attempted Embassy staff quarters bombing in Japan,
Islamic Salvation Front attempts firebombing of US Embassy in Algeria,
Carbombing US Ambassador's residence in Peru,
Attempted bombing of US Chamber of Commerce in Venezuela,
Attack on US Consulate in Turkey,
New People's Army assassinate retired US Air Force sergeant in Philippines,
M-20 attack on USAF Air Station in Panama,
M-20 ambush US Servicemen killing one in Panama,
Attempted bombing of US Army fuel depot in Panama,
Bombing in park across from US Consulate in Chile,
DHKP/C attacks US Consulate in Turkey,
DHKP/C attempts carbombing of US education official in Turkey,
Attempted bombing of unoccupied US Embassy building in Jordan,
Bomb explodes outside US Embassy in Yemen,
Tupac Amaru attacks US Ambassador's Residence in Peru,
Bomb explodes outside US Embassy in Nicaragua,
Attempted bombing of US Embassy in Netherlands,
Bombings at hotels housing US Marines in Yemen,
EGTK attack USAID facility in Bolivia,
US Marine killed in Somalia,
Firebombing of US Consulate in West Germany,
Tupac Amaru attack Peruvian-American Cultural Institute in Peru.

Yes I have just 'skimmed' over the knowledge base for these, but concentrated in the last year or two to get as many terrorist activities that I could find so that a fair representation of what was going on before, during and after the Gulf War could be seen. Just to be clear, Bush 41 and Reagan do *not* get a free pass. They were part of the problem.


Did President Clinton 'regret' that he had all of this to handle?
Did President Clinton actually get to stopping this sort of thing?


President Clinton:
Bomb explodes near US Ambassador's Residence in Columbia,
Carbomb explodes outside US Ambassador's Residence in Columbia,
Slayings of CIA personnel in Langely, VA,
Window smashing of US Cultural Center in Serbia,
Grenade attack on US Embassy in Serbia,
Guards at US Consulate attacked in Columbia,
ETA suspected of bombing near US Embassy in Spain,
Two US soldiers wounded by sniper fire in Somalia,
Kakurokyo attacks HQ of US forces in Japan,
Kakurokyo attacks US Camp Zuma in Japan,
Shining Path explodes carbomb outside US Embassy in Peru,
US diplomat killed in Tblisi, Georgia,
Forces of Gen. Aidid suspected in killing of four US soldiers in Somalia,
Red Brigades attack US-NATO airbase in Italy,
Three US soldiers killed when helicopter downed in Somalia,
US Embassy bombed in Estonia,
One US soldier killed in Somalia,
Shining Path attacks US-Peruvian Binational Cultural Center in Peru,
US diplomat kidnapped by Jahm tribesmen, headed by Mubarak Mashan, in Yemen,
US soldiers fired upon in Somalia,
Gunmen fire shots at US diplomat in Ethiopia,
'Southern California IRA' grenade attack on British property in US,
Lebanese man fires on van carrying rabbinical students in US,
Haitian exiles fired upon in US,
Shots fired at residence of US Ambassador in Uruguay,
Mozambique National Resistance Movement kidnaps US pilot working for UN in Mozambique,
Convoy carrying US Ambassador attacked in Somalia,
FARC kidnaps American in Columbia,
Shining Path bombs US Embassy in Peru,
Grenade attack as USAID offices in Ethiopia,
Two Americans working at US Consulate killed in Pakistan,
Oklahoma City Federal Office building bombing in US,
RPG attack on US Embassy in Russia,
US Army Captain fired at in Saudi Arabia,
GIA sets US Embassy warehouse on fire in Algeria,
Hezbollah and al Qaeda attack OPM/SANG complex in Saudi Arabia,
Chukakuha and Kakurokyoha bomb US base in Japan,
Attempted kidnapping of US human rights worker for UN in Guatemala,
Territorial Anti-Imperialist Nucleus firebombs US serviceman's car in Italy,
FARC kidnaps American Citizen in Columbia,
Guard at U.S. Government Binational Center disarmed and wounded in Columbia,
Revolutionary Struggle launches RPG attack at US Embassy in Greece,
Attack on US Consulate in China,
US Consulate attacked in Mexico,
Bombing of US Information Services compound in Pakistan,
Attempted firebombing of US Cultural Center in South Korea,
Firebombing of US military compound in South Korea,
Contras kidnap USAID election observer in Nicaragua,
Iranian Revolutionary Guards and Hezbollah bombing kill six US servicemen in Saudi Arabia,
US Defense Intelligence Agency employee stabbed in Egypt,
USAID vehicle torched outside US Embassy in Russia,
Nicaraguan Sandinista Liberation Front HQ set on fire in US,
Attempted firebombing of US Consulate in Indonesia,
Jamaat-e-Islami attack US Consulate in Pakistan,
FARC captures and kills US Citizen in Columbia,
Letterbombings of Saudi Arabian newspaper offices in US,
Letterbombs arrives at Ft. Leavenworth in US,
Letterbombs arrive at Saudi Arabian newspaper offices in US,
Two guards at US Embassy murdered in Tajikistan,
Palestinian kills one tourist, wounds others at Empire State Building in US,
Armed attack on US Ambassador's residence in Albania,
American Citizen kidnapped with others by tribesmen in Yemen,
US Citizen and child kidnapped in Guatemala,
Helicopter carrying US State Dept. official fired upon in Columbia,
Grenades launched at US Embassy in Lebanon,
FARC stages takeover of US Embassy public area in Columbia,
al Qaeda bombs US Embassy in Kenya,
al Qaeda bombs US Embassy in Tanzania,
Firebomb attack at US Information Center in Kosovo,
Bombing of US Embassy in Ecuador,
Two Americans taken as part of tourist kidnap plot by tribesmen in Yemen,
Bombing near US and UK Consulates in Russia,
DHKP/C assault US Consulate in Turkey,
US worker with UN mission injured by gunfire in East Timor,
Arson attack on vehicle parked outside US Information Services in Pakistan,
Attempted bombing of US Embassy in Indonesia,
FARC attempts assassination bombing of President Clinton in Columbia,
al Qaeda bombs USS Cole in Yemen.

Now your husband also had goings-on militarily in: Kosovo, Bosnia/Serbia, Somalia, and Haiti. Of which peace and light and good tidings are present in NONE of them. Would it be ok with you, Mrs. Clinton, if President Bush (43) was a bit.... resentful of that?

But above and beyond that is something else.

You are, perhaps, a bit cognizant of the term Casus belli? I went over how that operates in this post on Iran, which is yet ANOTHER of those things left over from a previous Administration, in this case the Carter Administration, which none of the succeeding Administrations has *ever* dealt with. It deals with unwarranted attacks upon a Nation. As it deals with Nation States it is very hard to make it deal with non-aligned Transnational Terrorist organizations. That said, an Act of War is a committing of warlike violence against a Nation, be it from another Nation or just a group of individuals or the lone, deranged individual seeking to be their very own Nation or taking up the tools of War in a cause and using them without civilized warrant granted to them via the Nation State structure.

So you get the Nation to Nation as being the best known case.

Groups representing themselves or some cause, while not falling into this, have *still* taken up the uncivilized path of determing to declare War or perform Warlike activities against Nations. In that a Nation has the absolute right, nay, the absolute REQUIREMENT to seek justice via Military means. That may mean a first bout with diplomacy to seek extradition of individuals to be tried before a military tribunal, but defaults upon harsher military means via embargo and finally armed conflict if the other State, Nation or group does *not* comply. They are not expressing mere civil criminal behavior: they have consciously taken up the tools of Warfare and are thusly liable to the Rules of War.

By applying civil, criminal procedures the very heart of National Sovereignty and Autonomy is undermined. I go over that in this post looking at the strange idea that Acts of War are merely civilian crimes. So, taking up the methods and devices of War and using them to attack a Nation is *also* a Casus belli. I have highlighted those in bold red. On some it is understood that actually finding the people involved may have been difficult, with anonymous attacks and such. But those were *not* mere civilian attacks but Acts of War against the Nation. Even more troubling are those by known and named groups that have acted in a manner intending to or actually attacking the Nation during your 'buy one, get one free' time with your husband in the White House.

A very quick and simple list might help:

1) al Qaeda
2) Iran via Hezbollah in Saudi Arabia and Lebanon
3) FARC
4) Kakurokyoha
5) Shining Path
6) ETA
7) Chukakuha
8) Red Brigades

These are the Enemies of the Nation during the Clinton Administration and I resent, bitterly *resent* that NOTHING was done to address them in a military fashion and that US Armed Forces were squandered on 'Peace Keeping' duties in Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo with no end in sight for THOSE problems. The Clinton Administration could not even GET civil government running in Kosovo and ran as fast as it could from Somalia. The Clinton Administration so overlooked the upkeep necessary for the troops on 'Peace Keeping' missions that it let two entire Army Divisions fall to the lowest readiness status that has been seen since the Vietnam war: 10th Mountain Division in Bosnia and the 1st Infantry Division in Kosovo.

And after 9/11 the US would desperately need the 10th Mountain Division because it is one of the few regular Army divisions that trains from high mountain combat. The Division that President Clinton let slip through the cracks by not getting it R&R, resupply, refit and some time *off*. So when one of the Enemies of the Nation that the Clinton Administration saw fit to leave unaddressed actually killed 3,000 in the Continental United States, the 10th could not be immediately sent for reprisals in Afghanistan.

I *resent* your CoPresidency and unwillingness to push your husband to defend the Nation during his time in office. By not urging action *then* the world is a worse place *now* because of the cowardice of your CoPresidency on the 'buy one, get one free' plan. By not confronting the back alley bullies of terrorism, you have joined the Volunteer Fifth Column to undermine National Sovereignty and to make the Nation less safe by encouraging the Enemies of Liberty and Freedom to attack the United States without fear of reprisal.


8) On 19 OCT 2006 CNN has decided to become the anti-American outlet of choice for Iraqi insurgents and terrorists. That is when they decided that to 'tell the other side of the story' in Iraq meant showing the murder of a US soldier via sniper fire. This was *not* a military assault, but a pre-planned and executed murder of a US soldier for propaganda video footage. CNN has refused to call it such or to even indicate that it is an evidentiary piece for war crimes as the showing of such is actually against the Geneva Conventions. In previous eras that would be considered activity worthy of a War Crimes tribunal for those involved. Strange how so many are ready to call for that for US soldiers in combat and *not* for those publicizing the murders of US soldiers.

Joining CNN in this category is the New York Times with its running of a video showing the death of Staff Sgt. Hector Leija as reported by Gateway Pundit on 03 FEB 2007 due to the uproar over the Stars & Stripes first report on this by the NYT. Not only did they not go via their own codes of conduct and respect for the family of a fallen serviceman. By doing neither and showing such video, the NYT is also liable for War Crimes prosecution by abrogating the Geneva Conventions on the treatment of the wounded and dead of lawful combatants.

Because of the lax attitude towards holding anyone accountable for any actions, I doubt that either organization will be brought up on charges. Specifically under the following:

Convention IV
Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, 12 August 1949.

Part I. General Provisions

...

Art. 5 Where in the territory of a Party to the conflict, the latter is satisfied that an individual protected person is definitely suspected of or engaged in activities hostile to the security of the State, such individual person shall not be entitled to claim such rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State.

Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.

In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention at the earliest date consistent with the security of the State or Occupying Power, as the case may be.

The use and reporting of actual sniper fire to kill a lawful combatant by individuals not affiliated with the Armed Forces of the High Contracting Powers or of those that would be considered to be equivalent in a civil war from the opposing side are considered to be neutral unless they take part in activities AGAINST said lawful combatants. Thus, by using such coverage and not clearing it with the lawful Armed Forces command structure and publicizing it in a manner that is against any High Contracting Power or equivalent, the neutrality is abrogated and LOST.

Further in the same Convention:

Part III. Status and Treatment of Protected Persons

Section III. Occupied territories

Art. 68. Protected persons who commit an offence which is solely intended to harm the Occupying Power, but which does not constitute an attempt on the life or limb of members of the occupying forces or administration, nor a grave collective danger, nor seriously damage the property of the occupying forces or administration or the installations used by them, shall be liable to internment or simple imprisonment, provided the duration of such internment or imprisonment is proportionate to the offence committed. Furthermore, internment or imprisonment shall, for such offences, be the only measure adopted for depriving protected persons of liberty. The courts provided for under Article 66 of the present Convention may at their discretion convert a sentence of imprisonment to one of internment for the same period.

The penal provisions promulgated by the Occupying Power in accordance with Articles 64 and 65 may impose the death penalty against a protected person only in cases where the person is guilty of espionage, of serious acts of sabotage against the military installations of the Occupying Power or of intentional offences which have caused the death of one or more persons, provided that such offences were punishable by death under the law of the occupied territory in force before the occupation began.

The death penalty may not be pronounced against a protected person unless the attention of the court has been particularly called to the fact that since the accused is not a national of the Occupying Power, he is not bound to it by any duty of allegiance.

In any case, the death penalty may not be pronounced on a protected person who was under eighteen years of age at the time of the offence.

Now Iraq is not being occupied unless reporting is being done from a viewpoint of presenting "the other side's view" - which is that the US is 'occupying' Iraq. Promulgating that storyline can either be done in context of the US is helping a Free Iraq, and the sniping is an illegal activity that they are reporting upon and are, thusly, under all laws of Iraq that cover such reporting or that those doing the reporting for the presentation of such violence in the light of the insurgents agree that Iraq is 'occupied' and thus such reporting falls under that of 'occupied territory'. So the first case makes these news organizations liable to the civil criminal codes of Iraq for this, but this is also combat against an insurgent force. Mind you, if you push the 'Occupied Iraq' concept, then the folks doing this should be summarily charged and imprisoned under the UCMJ. But I suspect they wouldn't like being in Gitmo. In which case that brings us to the dead and wounded Geneva Convention. This brings us to:

Convention I
For the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field, Geneva, 12 August 1949

...

Chapter II. Wounded and Sick
Art. 12. Members of the armed forces and other persons mentioned in the following Article, who are wounded or sick, shall be respected and protected in all circumstances.

They shall be treated humanely and cared for by the Party to the conflict in whose power they may be, without any adverse distinction founded on sex, race, nationality, religion, political opinions, or any other similar criteria. Any attempts upon their lives, or violence to their persons, shall be strictly prohibited; in particular, they shall not be murdered or exterminated, subjected to torture or to biological experiments; they shall not wilfully be left without medical assistance and care, nor shall conditions exposing them to contagion or infection be created.
[Parts applying to urgent medical treatment ommitted]

Art. 13. The present Convention shall apply to the wounded and sick belonging to the following categories:

(1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces. (2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions: (a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance; (c) that of carrying arms openly; (d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. (3) Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a Government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power. (4) Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civil members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany. (5) Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions in international law. (6) Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy, spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

...

Art. 17. Parties to the conflict shall ensure that burial or cremation of the dead, carried out individually as far as circumstances permit, is preceded by a careful examination, if possible by a medical examination, of the bodies, with a view to confirming death, establishing identity and enabling a report to be made. One half of the double identity disc, or the identity disc itself if it is a single disc, should remain on the body.

Bodies shall not be cremated except for imperative reasons of hygiene or for motives based on the religion of the deceased. In case of cremation, the circumstances and reasons for cremation shall be stated in detail in the death certificate or on the authenticated list of the dead.

They shall further ensure that the dead are honourably interred, if possible according to the rites of the religion to which they belonged, that their graves are respected, grouped if possible according to the nationality of the deceased, properly maintained and marked so that they may always be found. For this purpose, they shall organize at the commencement of hostilities an Official Graves Registration Service, to allow subsequent exhumations and to ensure the identification of bodies, whatever the site of the graves, and the possible transportation to the home country. These provisions shall likewise apply to the ashes, which shall be kept by the Graves Registration Service until proper disposal thereof in accordance with the wishes of the home country.

Thus the wounded and dead due to sniper fire are to be treated honorably throughout the entire procedure from event to interment in the grave for the dead. Not going through proper military channels on any and all events of wounding and killing that are recorded and propagating them without military authorization is an act against the State or High Contracting Power or equivalent. That reporting removes all protection of the Geneva Conventions from those doing such reporting on the dead and wounded encountered against an insurgent force IN ADDITION to the local laws. I find such reporting to be absolutely reprehensible by ANY news organization and cannot see how they can ethically justify such as doing so puts them in contradiction of the honorable treatment of the dead and wounded. Both CNN and New York Times do not treat the dead and wounded honorably by their use of film to show partisan views of such events and are considered to be working outside of normal military channels against the Nation of those being wounded and killed, in this case the United States.

Why they are not under indictment under the Geneva Conventions or treated as espionage agencies is beyond me. The use of such is a War Crime by any definition and doing so to harm a State is against the Geneva Conventions and makes one working for the enemy of the State that is being targeted for such coverage.

9) Reuters - Fauxtography - For this it is the coverage started by Charles Johnson at Little Green Footballs and rounded up in his Link Compendium of coverage and events during the 2006 fighting between Hezbollah and Israel. Instead of owning up to the massive problems seen then and later, Reuters has remained deathly silent after initial denials. They have quietly fired the editor involved and given no public statement as to how such slanted images and lack of context came to grace their coverage of events. Suffice it to say that issuing 'Picture Kills' does nothing to ensure the integrity fo the organization itself nor hold itself to journalistic standards of conduct.

My coverage on this points out the disingenuous attitudes based on the simple fact that this has been a much talked about issue in the imagery and new media world since the mid 1990's and that the very problems that happened were known failures of a type addressed by the experts in the field at industry symposia. In an era of cheap digital storage and the ability to ensure that copyright is followed and that archival images can be made available for analysis, the entire still and motion visual image industry for news has means and methodology to demonstrate that the images captured at an event are not forged, doctored, hoaxed or staged. Some of that would require an actual review panel of acknowledged experts in publication and academia along with the visual sciences, but that is relatively inexpensive work that should get wide industry backing. The entire disingenuous attitude that was put forth during this and the attempts to find an unbiased individual to address this by Editor & Publisher indicts them as being unable to look to the overall goal and mission of the MSM to serve the public and *not* be ideologically biased without acknowledging that bias. Thus an organization that should be helping the media industry to police itself is now so in bed with that industry that it cannot find means to criticize and offer views on how the industry, as a whole, can perform its job in an era where digital tools are overwhelming the skills of editors. Further, by not actually getting verbal or written reporting from actual photojournalists, images are sent in a state-less, context-free form in which propaganda is attached to them. By not indicating the restrictions upon reporters and the coercion going on at such sites, the public is not given a full view of events and fabrication of events is allowed to go unquestioned. Until the images, themselves, point to the underlying fabrication.

Reuters, however, was not alone in this use of fraudulent images, faked events, staged disasters and outright reporting of propaganda as news. This list includes most of the global news reporting agencies like the BBC and Associated Press, especially in their Hezbollah 'Green Helmet Man' coverage and their intact car photo that had survived a missile attack when, for that type of missile, one is left with scattered debris. The Red Cross has also endangered their reputation by not coming clean on purported ambulance attacks, using wrecks from junkyards to assert recent damage to vehicles and then having problems on limbs still being attached to individuals that they had clearly identified as missing such limbs in an unfindable state.

Thus Reuters, BBC, Editor & Publisher and AP all join the Washington Post as sources of unreliable news and event coverage. Further, the ICRC needs to come absolutely clean and clear that they will *not* support any side in a conflict, they will *not* give partisan aid and comfort to any side in any conflict and that they will only report on atrocities and violations of human rights that come from multiple, verifiable, reliable witnesses that will go on the record and that all such will be given a thorough, international review by individuals skilled at reviewing such and without partisan bias in any ongoing conflict.

Until then all news, analysis, reports and other coverage of events by all of these organizations is considered, by me at least, as coming from the Volunteer Fifth Column.

10) The New York Times - National Security Leaks - The NYT seems set on compromising every single National Security program that ever comes to their attention. The editors at National Review Online do a quick summary of the SWIFT program and the NYT basically said that it could have, might have endangered someone's rights somewhere, although they couldn't figure out exactly who, beyond terrorists and their sympathizers, might have been harmed. Months later their Public Editor came out and let the world know that they might have gotten it wrong and the program actually is thoroughly legal as they were told it was by the President and bipartisan swath of Congressional leadership. They really do need to re-think this entire 'report it while everyone else is telling us not to including the Wall Street Journal' concept. They said there might have been a fire while there were, a bunch of ashtrays.

Gabriel Schoenfeld has an article at Commentary Magazine online from MAR 2006 Has the "New York Times" violated the espionage act?, which goes into the detail of the NSA problems, leaks of classified information, the laws surrounding such, and the clear and explicit guidance given by Congress on such things via the espionage act revisions post-WWII. The case demonstrated is that by leaking national security information that is classified, all of those in the chain of illegal disclosure are held accountable to the laws of the land covering this. The NYT's Public Editor's admission that they had been hasty, not heeded warnings by Congress and went ahead even knowing that other news organizations held similar information and were withholding it points to intent and forethought on damaging national security without regards to outcome.

Now if that were an isolated incident, beyond their GC violation above, it wouldn't be so much. That is, however, far from the actual story. Consider their airing of Joseph Wilson's report on his report to the CIA about his trip to Niger. When traveling under US Government funds, anything he finds is Government property, including his report. If his report had not been published then he must seek out authorization to release that information which may be held for other reasons beyond his cognizance. Further, his editorial is directly at odds with his written report to the Government and the records of his verbal interviews with the Senate Committee investigating this indicates that an Iraqi trade delegation did come to Niger in 1999. As refined uranium ore is one of the major outputs of Niger, the question of what could be of interest to Iraq, which had stated nuclear intentions could not be dismissed. Yet the NYT gave a full and open op-ed to Mr. Wilson while knowing that he was neither authorized to speak on the subject nor privy to the entire dataset for the conclusions drawn from his report.

By basing an editorial stance on this biased coverage, the NYT amongst others have asserted that Saddam Hussein had no WMDs nor programs to acquire same. Beyond the Strategypage article above, the White House had to issue its own rebuttal to these inaccurate and false statements.

The NYT also blithely reported on alleged CIA prison facilities in Eastern Europe which ended up with the firing of Judith Miller. In this case the NYT proved to be a dependable source of anti-administration reporting because this was a *sting* operation inside the CIA to identify individuals who were leaking information. By assiduously reporting on every anti-administration piece of gossip that crossed their paths, the NYT can now be depended upon to give *anyone* with an axe to grind an open forum without oversight or inquiry into the actual, factual information in what they are given.

There is also the problematical tip given to Global Relief Foundation and the Holy Land Foundation in the reporting by Judith Miller revealing that it was amongst 30 organizations being investigated in her column of 19 FEB 2000 as reported by the NY Sun on 30 SEP 2004. But, as the special prosecuter pointed out, that general knowledge of investigation and giving a specific date, as is alleged as happened, are two different things. The US Government had been citing this organization for some time about its activities and ties to terrorist groups, especially al Qaeda, so giving warning to them of a particular investigation is extremely troubling. The Supreme Court has blocked the motion to prevent the government from reviewing phone records on this on 27 NOV 2006. Do note that this is entirely separate and different from the Valerie Plame prosecution and that Judith Miller has left the NYT.

There is also the matter of the NYT reporting on 31 MAY 2005 the CIA use of 'charter flights' run by the Agency out of an airfield in North Carolina. The reporters on that were Scott Shane, Stephen Grey and Margot Williams. By giving exact place and aircraft type used for these operations, these reporters gave out information that could allow anyone to find, identify and track such aircraft and put at risk ongoing CIA operations. The actual covert status of this operation is unknown, but the public's "need to know" for such things is extremely limited if not absent beyond citing that the CIA does this out of a US airfield and uses various aircraft to do so. Giving exact place and aircraft type is not only not necessary, but unwise in this era of telecommunications.

For the uncovering of a classified program that had Congressional oversight and ignoring warnings *not* to publish on that, the NYT should be investigated and prosecuted if it falls within the statutory requirements of the Espionage Act, which it apparently does. So to should it be prosecuted for the revelations in the CIA overseas prisons, which, even as a ruse, indicates intent to violate US national security by publishing secret documents. Both the NYT and Judith Miller should be held to account for that and for tipping off the terrorist supporting Global Relief Foundation. Worse than that is the giving of vital intelligence on covert air transport out and allowing it to be uncovered so t