The following is cross-posted from The Jacksonian Party.
From The Free Dictionary we can pull up a list of things with the DIME acronym, of which one is the most pertinent to modern conflicts: DIME- Diplomatic, Information, Military, and Economic.
These are cited time and again as the necessary underpinnings for creating a successful Counter Insurgency (COIN) plan for integrating local populations with the help of external forces to the population involved. These are, quintessentially, 20th century industrial views on what an integrated society *is* and what its underpinnings *are*. They are meant to be representative of a governmental effort to coordinate between external abilities of a government to create a stable societal environment so as to have a basis for successful COIN operations. Note that this is true not only for external, invading armies of a Nation, but internal to Nations as well, especially ones that have high levels of ethnic and social differences internal to the Nation. While the first is highly touted in post-war conflicts of external military ventures, the second is also indicative of internal conflicts against separatists or resentful peoples who have strong disagreement with their National government. For the first most would cite WW II, Philippine-American War, and similar Nation State to Nation State conflicts like the Napoleonic conflicts of the 19th century. Coming to a equitable agreement for a new accountable government that will uphold the Law of Nations between Nations is the litmus test of DIME operations for such conflicts. This does not ensure peace or stability, but does ensure the understanding of reciprocity between Nations is paramount in world affairs.
The second set, however, needs to be explored as it is no less of a need to bring accountability and responsibility to the forefront, but for the goal of stability and peace internal to the Nation involved. Here things are far than good and the list of conflicts gives one a feel for the direction of these internal accommodations: War of the Roses, US Civil War, Serbian independence movements pre-WWI, Spanish Civil War, Korean War, Vietnam War, Pol Pot's regime in Cambodia, Lebanese Civil War, Shining Path in Peru, FARC in Columbia, Bosnian-Serbian Conflict, Kosovar Conflict, Rwandan genocide, Eritrean independence movement, East Timor Conflict, Kasmir uprisings, Chechnya separatist movement, Moro insurgency and even such things as the Chiapas region of Mexico or the ethnic strife in Darfur. Each of these needs commitment on a scale for their governments no less than that of an external conflict, and yet some of these governments are so poor as to be unable to properly muster any ability to address such needs. One cannot utilize economic capability if there is very little of it to start with and any uprising or conflict puts *that* into doubt. Military means requires a relatively reliable and cohesive military system that has accountability to governmental authority, yet that is eroded by criminal activity, 'insurgent areas' and outright terrorist bribes to the fighters on the ground. To get reliable information one needs a reliable infrastructure for reporting, be it by telecommunications or pony express, and to have representatives of the government that will *not* be bribed and will act as intermediaries that can be trusted for their reliability. And that gets to the diplomatic realm of understanding that working agreements out without force is preferable to using force, but that diplomacy, of itself, cannot stop war if there is no ability to accommodate on disagreements by all parties.
DIME, then, has serious lacks when put on the stage in the actual, physical world that has individuals that are human, mortal and have the negatives of same. Further, these conflicts have moved from highly organized Civil Wars, with actual new governments and societal structures being instituted, to more and more dispersed and distributed affairs that no longer abide by the concepts of Nation State - accountability, responsibility to those in a region, and can, in places like Kasmir, Kosovo, Bosnia, Lebanon, Chechnya, represent the fomenting of war by organizations that seek only global disorder so that they may rule. DIME has some basis against those that hold society to be a basis of government, and are willing to work out equitable agreements after bloodshed as the cost of sacrificing civilians between belligerents is a losing proposition for both. Against those that are *not* part of the local society, however, THAT is not a problem, and continual foment and killing forever onwards until the collapse of the society is seen is the actual GOAL of it. These latter day affairs see more in common with that, as a concept, than in the previous era of the Nation State civil wars as the goal was to create a government accountable to a given part of society. And as these non-Nation State actors are more than willing to utilize ideology, ethnic tension, religious differences, sectarian differences within religions, and, in fact, things like criminal extortion and oppression as means to their ends, the legions of those that can be recruited are vast. Every society has disaffected social elements represented by individuals that feel that they are no longer part of the process of the Nation State and are being suppressed by it.
That leaves DIME in a dilemma as the basis of having common society, even in disagreement, must not only be in the majority, but it must reach near unanimity. Even .1% of any society may bring death, destruction and intimidation with it as a means to demonstrate their dissatisfaction with society and government and create a high death toll. Mere handfuls of anarchists in the 19th century assassinated Kings, Princes, and Presidents on a relatively random killing spree across decades and that would only burn itself out as the activity of anarchy was that to create disorder. Their means to organize on a larger than local or even National scale was limited. Anarchists burned themselves out as the pointlessness of their activities pointed out a pointlessness of the lives involved. Limited internal organization due to credo limited scope of destruction and the flames of anarchy burned hot and then to completion as they created nothing in their wake. Modern day creators of havoc, those called transnational terrorists, have a different goal and have means to achieve it. The goal is to overturn the order of Nation States so that their outlooks will be the supreme order amongst mankind. Their means to achieve this is provided by the very international global trade system which seeks to enforce the lowest cost of goods to individuals with no accountability attached to that trade beyond *payment*.
Those who have created this global internetwork of trade have also utilized DIME, but in a different form. The goal has been to achieve this thing known as 'open markets' and to have 'economic stability' and the global movement of capital as the means of production to those places that have the lowest wages for that production. These organizations have been part of Treaty negotiations on the diplomatic side and have utilized systems of pay-offs and buy-ins from repressive regimes so as to get their way. Their information capability piggy-backs not only on that of the Nation State, but via other actors that are either local, regional or global that already have a presence in markets. The military side was far more present in the 19th and early 20th century with the concept of having Nation States enforce treaties favorable to companies, which became known as 'Gunboat Diplomacy'. The economic power that was utilized would even keep one President from waging war against an enemy and used economic loss of companies as an excuse not to do so. The leverage of international and now transnational capitalism is used to benefit those organizations for means of production, distribution and sales, but have very little adherence to the concepts of liberty and freedom.
These two movements that are transnational in scope and diametrically opposed on the concepts of stability do, however, work hand-in-hand as neither has a view towards 'creating a better world' beyond sloganeering. Conceptually transnational terrorism seeks to utilize the cheapest means possible to disrupt Nation States and cause societies to decohere. These organizations are supplied by transnational capitalists more than willing to sell all the goods that are needed at a low price. As both sides of this have deep inroads to the criminal and black market sides of things, these transactions will take place no matter what the edict of any individual Nation State is or any group of Nation States due to the influence of the global trade community. Putting a *price* on dealing with those seeking to bring Nation States down is worked against by transnational capitalists which refuse to have any burden put upon trade nor accountability of trade to anyone in a responsible manner. Here the activities of individual companies and their outlook matters less than the global transport and transaction systems which operate on both the 'white' and 'black' side of trade. Attempts to make producers 'responsible' for where their goods end up has fallen flat on its face because the laws are such that only hard and fast ties to those that would bring down societies and Nations is required before any accountability can be had. And as the focus is upon the trade and not the manufacturing, the system of international trade, itself, is found to have no basis of accountability outside of treaty.
Treaties made to accommodate the movement of goods at the cheapest price to any paying customer.
On top of this comes a third conception of transnational affairs and that is transnational progressivism. This is a system of elitist viewpoint that puts forward that current liberal democracy or, indeed, any system that does not recognize differences between groups of people first is the cause of problems. To that end the elements supporting this put forward that the rights that one is to get is not based upon individuality but, instead, group affiliation. As this is an elitist outlook, any group designated as a 'victim' is then given more leeway and rights than 'oppressors', and 'victims' are not held accountable for their actions. Thus there is no advancement in society for the individual, what one has at birth in the way of groups, be they ethnic, religious, or societal minority, matter more than being a citizen of a Nation State. Individual rights are by association at birth and whatever the elite class determines can be handed out as a reward depending on whim and factional strife. This outlook has been utilized to actually foment discontent amongst ethnic populations that cross borders due to reasons of history and Nation State creation. A short listing of such illuminates this outlook: Kurds, muslims in Kasmir, native Americans across the Americas, North African muslims in France, and muslims, generally, across Europe, ethnic Chechens, ethnic Albanians, ethnic Serbs, ethnic Bosnians, latinos in the US, ethnic Malay, Timorese, Moros, and the muslims across North Africa. These groups by ethnicity and religion are further dissected downwards via sect and intermarriage until the plethora of groups means that one starts to find 'victimless' crimes being perpetrated by terrorists because they are of some designated 'victim' group. In the US this meme has been inculcated so that poor individuals who commit crime blame society for their upbringing, not their lack of character to make a responsible individual out of themselves as the motivation behind crime.
This system of outlook that is elitist and authoritarian in outlook utilizes the DIME concept to its advantage also. On the diplomatic fronts a number of associations in the West have created the 'Arabists' and other 'regionalists' that put forward that individuals, groups and Nations can't be held to a higher standard, such as adhering to treaties, because of the 'circumstances of their Nation' and the 'repressive nature' of their society. Poverty is put forward as the root cause of everything, because it is an insoluble problem short of socialism: in any achievement based economic system there will always be a bottom 10%. Socialism, luckily, makes everyone equally poor so there is no bottom 10% as no one can achieve anything. And the best way to make economic 'divides' WORSE is to get high capability capitalists in to put in transnational manufacturing sectors utilizing the lowest wages possible to 'exploit' the 'poor'. While many transnational progressivists take to the streets to decry the 'low wages' that this or that company gives to the workers there or decries the 'working conditions' because they do not meet Western standards, they never, not once, decry the overall poverty of such Nations nor that these 'bad jobs' are better than anything else to be had in that Nation. It is, instead, creating a 'impoverished class' of individuals who are being 'exploited', while those very same jobs create an 'economic divide' inside the Nation where the jobs are. Apparently one can be both too rich and too poor in this outlook: poor enough to be a victim, but rich enough to become affluent.
That is DIME working to near perfection as a way to erode the capacity of Nation States to have internal accountability without outside interference and gain any prosperity at all. And any attempt to use internal means to suppress riots, terrorism, etc. is decried as utilizing the military to 'suppress the victims'. To do this transnational progressivists use the media to their advantage as much of their elitism is held by the very same media organizations they decry these problems too. Thus a single side of any problem is put forward and the 'way forward' is always for the 'victim class' to 'gain power' and not be held accountable for their actions. The information gained via media outlets on diverse ethnic, cultural and religious populations then serves the transnational progressivists as a way to identify which will be the next 'victim class' to be uplifted above others. Western manufacturing plants in the Philippines, Thailand, Malaysia, India, Columbia, Argentina... indeed anywhere there is relatively cheap labor to fulfill manufacturing needs then serves as a place to foment divisions within society by putting forth that economic means cause inequality and that minorities are 'oppressed' by 'majorities'. Soon 'labor activists' show up, decrying things that, to Western eyes, look harsh, but to local eyes may seem otherwise. Yet the only thing that gets put up is the gold standard of 'inequality' and 'exploitation'. Never mind that folks making a good wage and a good life may be the upshot of such 'exploitation' as that is just another 'social divide' being caused by transnational capitalism.
With that these three transnational concepts come together as an interlocking whole. Expanding capitalism causes 'divides' as localized income increases, 'activists' arrive to help engender a feeling of being a 'victim', and those feeling the pressure of 'repression' be it real or imaginary, then fund organizations that further expand the 'problem'. Soon the concept of terrorism arrives from various groups, be they Nationalist, Communist, criminal or religious, and the killing starts which requires, perforce, National military action.... which is decried as suppression. In no time at all a factory or two suddenly gets a society in unrest, money flowing out from local affluent 'victims' to fund further agitation and then the killings begin, perhaps only one or two at start, but more as 'repression' is felt from those 'in power'. With the capitalists completing the cycle of making cheap and affordable arms available by white or black market means.
Each of these outlooks wants to ensure that strife remains in place for their own reasons. The transnational capitalists use this as a means to ensure that locals are kept on edge without having to increase pay to them and, if they leave to join 'insurgent' or terrorist groups, then they will need supplies provided by other parts of transnational capitalism and the local plant now has a low cost, entry level worker.
Transnational progressivists can utilize the 'exploitation' and the 'oppression' and not hold terrorists accountable as they are merely 'poor and exploited', ignoring that most of those doing the killing are actually well paid and have an education. By putting down a 'root cause' that cannot, ever, be addressed save by making everyone poor, exploitation is assured and any response by any government that does not meet the demands to turn more power over to smaller groups is met as an 'oppressive' response. As more 'repression' happens, upon designated minorities, foment is spread by 'activists' and the media to start larger scale 'solidarity' often across Nation State boundaries.
Having turned over the soil and added the fertilizer of actual jobs, then watering it with discontent and adding such seeds, is it any wonder the noxious plant of terrorism sprouts and grows from there? Terrorism is not done by the poor save for low level killings and such, but is actually guided by the affluent and college educated. Only the rich and well off can have time to make fine distinctions between texts, tracts, religious books, and other treatises and find cause to feel the 'will to power' via the sword. Would that it were only hand crafted swords and not mass produced weapons involved, as that would take a bit to establish. Instead any minor cash infusion to a terrorist organization creates the ready purchase of cheap small arms to be used in attacks to gain media attention and claim 'victimhood' while committing crimes. And when this is seen as an effective outlet either through lack of governmental response or by governments pressured to 'accommodate' problems, more local money flows into such 'successful' organizations.
Creating, of course, more 'repression' and more spreading of cheaper arms under the limelight of the media.
And the Nation State?
'Oppressive'.
'Obstacle to trade'.
'To be opposed for the purity of ethnicity/sect/class'.
DIME has a problem in that it serves equally well to set up the structures to collapse society as it does to uphold it. DIME is known as a set of 'vectors': pathways of major parts of society and systems that need to move in coordinated fashion to achieve ends. They are a set of 'means' not 'ends'. And, as such, can be used in any number of paradigms for how to have society, how to govern and, apparently, how *not* to do those things. As a method of COIN we must recognize that the opponents of Counter Insurgency, namely Insurgency, utilizes these exact same vectors in opposition to orderly society. That is because these vectors are neutral to ideology and only means to an end, not ends in and of themselves. If we treat DIME in isolation to the underpinnings of society, then we shall soon have no society in common as it fractures under the multiple forces of transnationalism which seek to gain by that destruction. To counter that the actual goals of what DIME is utilized for must be clearly and succinctly stated and all activities traced directly back to those goals. DIME utilized without such goals then can be utilized in opposition and that opposition will tear up any society upholding a group that does not put forward the goals first. In the military parlance this is known as the 'Grand Strategy'. It is more than just 'victory' but the reasons why victory is worthwhile and the goals of that victory BEYOND mere victory. If these are not clearly upheld at entry into a conflict, then there is no way to trace any lesser level strategy or tactics (the implementation tools and locales for strategy) back to the larger goal. In the realm of business this is the Corporate Business Plan or Outlook document, to sort out the major goals to be achieved by said business, and hiring folks to work in a business unit is mere tactics. In this realm of thought, DIME is a way of implementing Grand Strategy and NOT Grand Strategy in, and of, itself.
The original Marshal Plan had a Grand Strategy outlook to rebuild Europe along democratic lines and equality of rights and make sure that Germany never posed a threat to the world again. That took nearly two decades to finally come to a conclusion and it did not succeed fully in that so many Nations fell under Communism. Yes it was not fully successful because the will to uphold it was not present and a counter-strategy was able to thwart it. Without the on-the-ground tactical will to support Eastern European democracies, those Nations did not GET democratic rule until they got it for themselves. The Marshal Plan FAILED them, and cannot be seen as a full success because the M part of DIME was no longer seen as viable after a World War. What we got was DIE, and many, many did under repressive regimes, re-education camps or just such simple things as low standards of living. By not meaning what we said about democracy and putting for Military support of our Grand Strategy, we were barely able to save Western Europe from Communism.
So, when folks try to propose a 'Marshal Plan for the Middle East' just *what* exactly are the goals of that and will you back that with US military might? If not, I suggest you go peddle such elsewhere, as any plan without that element of reciprocity tends to fail.
Finally this brings us to what is necessary to oppose the transnational use of DIME via its three major formats: capitalism, progressivism and terrorism. To do that requires a 'Grand Strategy' that will not utilize just DIME but also create a societal factor for stability, accommodation and reciprocity internally and externally to Nation States. These are not tactics, nor programs, nor ways to spend money, but this is the outlook of what those things are to work *towards*, not only in Iraq but globally. DIME, on its lonesome, supports anyone willing to utilize it for their own ends, be it in the use or degradation of any of its elements to support other goals. To change that, there must be one major factor as a goal: accountability.
The First Goal is: Accountable Government. That is not only to the people internal to the Nation but between Nations. To do this requires acknowledging that there are consequences to actions taken and that the best way to solve adverse consequences is via accountability and the concept of reciprocity to hold government accountable for its actions. And the laws internally must also be accountable and those within it must acknowledge that a law between those in the Nation is primary above all other things.
The Second Goal is: Rule of Law. Again this is not only internal to a Nation but between Nations via this thing known as 'Treaties'. Internally law is applied to sustain society and the order of society, and law must be a product of accountable government. Governments create and sustain laws via the activity of law enforcement, but that means can vary from Nation to Nation so long as law is upheld in an accountable fashion. One of the major goals of accountable law, internal to Nations and via Treaties is that they be comprehensible to the 'common man' in the Nation(s) involved. If a law or Treaty cannot be clearly stated and defined it opens up the opportunity for abuse and invites same by those trying to shift emphasis from the intent of the law to the wording of the law. If the intent of a law or treaty is not clear, then no fine verbiage can allow it to be adhered to. And laws and treaties with exacting goals will be lost in a sea of verbiage if the meaning of words trump the intent of laws or treaties. Laws and treaties differentiate between activities, but do not discriminate between those doing the actions. Treaties in their own class may have discrimination on single State-to-State affairs, but multi-Nation Treaties are non-discriminatory as to ethnicity, religion, or any other physical or societal factor.
The Third Goal is: Equality before the law. This means that all citizens of a Nation are treated equally before the law, and that those multi-Nation Treaties must adhere to non-discriminatory language so that actions are addressed not intent. This does not mean that all individuals in a Nation are free, by any means, and many forms of government offer very little in the way of rights to citizens and yet can sustain equality of all before the law without regard to placement, stature, income, race, or belief system. That system of accountable law is held by government which is accountable to its people. People can, indeed, have very few rights and repressive laws, so long as the highest leader and lowliest beggar are equal before that law and no means are present to prevent the intent of the law from being carried out. Amongst those in multi-Nation Treaties, all Nations are equal to them and they agree to the Treaty, in full or in part, and will be held accountable to those parts they sign up to. Here the accountability is by other Nation States.
The Fourth Goal is one of the oldest to the Nation State system: Religious worship is not to be dictated by the State. The Westphalian concept that Nations may adhere to religions, but they may not force religion upon all the individuals inside their Nation are upheld. All religions are allowable and individuals must be given leave to practice same without interference or discrimination by governments. Religions have proven singularly incapable of governing large, mutli-ethnic, multi-cultural Nations, and the dead from the religious wars in Europe that caused the Treaty of Westphalia to come about is a 'lesson learned' on that score. Governments can, indeed, have religious adherence, but the ability to force anyone to decide ONLY for the religion of that government should be anathema to the West and, indeed, to all Nations.
The Fifth Goal is one to counter transnationalism: The basis for diplomacy and the accountability by Nations to each other is Nation State based. No other actors may be put on that stage from individuals to NGOs. Charities are organizations that give aid and succor to the poor and help in disaster relief. They are not a permanent conduit of unaccountable cash, arms and goods to any region or people. That is the realm of Nation States who can agree to have such organizations or *not* between them. There is no legitimacy in warlike activities outside of the realm of the Nation State system. International corporations are not to be a party to any Treaty negotiations between Nation States and as legal entities are fully amenable to the laws and treaties involved between Nations and may not seek to sway them via any form of lobbying. Commerce between Nations is conducted by groups and individuals that have accountability to those laws and treaties and that activity of commerce is only afforded by the system of Nation States which allows it to operate. If Nations like the idea of 'free trade' they can offer it because it is seen as good for their Nation and those they offer it to, not because it will benefit businesses. And accountable governments may, indeed, place restriction upon trade in the form of ban, travel restrictions, tariff, or designating those breaking those laws as Pirates and seen as out only for the welfare of themselves, not the Nation they are part of in that doing. Nations make the basis for trade and create the framework in which it exists and individuals, companies or any other non-Nation actor has no business dictating what they want upon Nations and are Pirate and Outlaw if they break those agreements.
Goals create, classify and define objectives to be met: they are the stated objectives for which the basis of underlying program scope and activities can be done. Within such a common framework one can create and craft a wide array of Foreign Policy for a Nation and uphold that Nations are the representatives for the people that are contained within it. A hard and fast Foreign Policy that upholds these concepts allows for a common framework between Nations to be held, although it guarantees neither stability or peace it is one that allows such to be formed. And from those times when the framework breaks down or even reciprocity breaks down, a policy for National action across the spectrum can be made to protect the Nation, the people and the system of Nation States. Without such things the basis for creating a war strategy is very difficult as one has no basis for stating the objectives in warfare and the aftermath of such conflicts. And without that the basis of COIN work is damned near impossible as it requires the underpinnings of understanding what the civilized discourse between Nations is and what is and is not acceptable within that framework. DIME is only one set of vectors in COIN, and are amenable to any who would utilize them to their own ends, and they do not define the entire gamut of National interest, power or ability, just major sections of same.
Again, these 5 goals are *not* Foreign Policy but serve as the acceptable basis upon which Foreign Policy can be built. And it does, indeed, allow us to discriminate between Nations and decide which ones would be good to have Treaties with and which ones are not so good for that. It also puts forth what the National view is towards international outlaws, who threaten the discourse amongst Nations, seek to overturn Nations or just seek to profit by preying upon the commerce of Nations. In this actual world such are very hard to implement as this Nation called The United States of America has helped those that do not stand up for these basics of civilization held between Nations. Sticking to these things define what the Nation can support in the way of other Nations and activities, and realize that a price will be paid by the Nation and its Citizens in trying to bring other Nations to this outlook of civilization. But then, there has always been a cost in time, effort, money and blood in creating and upholding civilization. And quite some more in trying to bring it down. It appears to be a never ending task, and the only one worth the cost.
31 July 2007
A DIME does not pay the toll
29 July 2007
The NLOS-C moves into production
The NLOS-C is going into limited production this year (h/t: Strategypage), mostly for trial units and system integration and familiarization, and then limited annual production from then on. This system is different than its predecessors in that it carries an auto-loader and precision fire system as part of its main offensive system. Germany has fielded their heavier version of this system depending upon more armor and less active defensive systems, but their work has demonstrated a fire rate of 4-8 rounds per minute (10 for sudden need) with 6 being a sustainable firing sequence for minutes until the combat load of the vehicle runs out. By automating the loading system for the weapon, this vehicle has reduced crew size (3 man crew) and had to meet weight limits for it to be delivered by aircraft (target weight of 20 tons). The initial test system has now allowed for this limited production run to start and the next step up is a full test of integration across multiple units.
Also being fielded for deployment is the Unmanned Ground Combat Vehicle which has quickly been moved from the CMU self-guided vehicle grand challenge into production. By marrying up self-drive and remote drive, this vehicle offers resupply of troops in isolated locations, the ability to protect itself and deal with obstacles on its own. I first looked at this with this post on the evolving technology for robots in farming and industry.
This system will also offer ways to get wounded out of such areas and give feedback via the systems it carries on-board which will also integrate with the rest of the FCS.
[UPDATE] Originally this was a longer post, but blogger has seen fit to not update properly, so the rest of the thoughts shall wait for another time. What is important is to see that the US Armed Forces are 'upgrading on-the-fly' and shifting to better means to function across the battlespace. This means more accurate use of firepower on targets so as to minimize 'collateral damage' to civilians and yet remove fighters from civilian surroundings. The augmenting of such forces with robotic systems for support and re-supply also limits exposure by the Armed Forces to hostile fire, and yet gives a minimum of continued surveillance over the points between base and operations in the field. Sphere: Related Content
26 July 2007
The wagers of deceit
We hear so much from people about 'enforcing the laws' and the ability of the law to do so much, that 'there ought to be a law' became a cliche in the American lexicon. New laws are proposed to try and cover old ills which cannot be covered by the Nation as it would impinge upon the rights of adults to have a Nation in common. Instapundit points to this article which describes Congresscritters having 'hearings' about why the internet should be 'filtered' of content that might injure 'children'. Apparently they have not bothered to read a few decades of Supreme Court rulings on this, where the Federal government is informed that this is still held by the United States:
Amendment IThis means censoring based on offensive content is *not* to be legislated on by Congress. The freedom of the press is the right of the People to disseminate information amongst themselves without Congress deciding if it is fit for human reading. There are limits to this, but they deal almost exclusively with activities aimed to deny rights or oversight over those that cannot find enforcement via legal means and to protect the Nation, as a whole, especially in dissemination of false or defamatory information about those critical services mandated under the Constitution to be under the bounds of Federal control. That is why the American People hand so little over to the Federal Government: it puts the onus of responsibility amongst the People, where it belongs, not to an empowered bureaucrat that was elected by no one.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The power of the press, held by the People, is to be used responsibly by the People to uphold the Nation which guarantees the backstopping of the foundations and protection of those rights. Accountability is at the lowest level, although it may be promulgated from various levels, the individual Citizen is the one that gives oversight and purview to their activities with the least restraining of Congress or, indeed, any government. That means that the rights of the People are put at risk when the very few things necessary to protect the Nation are put at risk by irresponsible reporting. The accountability is held by those doing the reporting and, in matters of National Safety and National Security which We the People have handed to the Federal government to allow the Nation to be free from outside interference, that means anything which might put the Union at risk via the freedom of the press actually does need to adhere to the laws involved in such reporting. We do not hand to any government the ability to censor or filter those things that we, as a People, teach our children. We do hold ourselves accountable for our actions to the Nation as individuals to be a part of the People.
Controls over speech are the most onerous ones as they seek to limit dissemination of thoughts, restrict public debate and put at risk the basis for democracy. Those seeking to make certain types of speech 'Politically Correct' are engaging on peer-based, authoritarian forms of this as individuals in an attempt to bypass political forms of censorship and use forms that will influence political debate. Change the use of terminology or use different contextual definitions for words that differ highly from standard definitions and yet attempt to retain emotional backing, and the end result is a disingenuous attempt to control others with illegitimate presentations of thoughts via language. The basis of common society is common discourse with widely accepted terminology and definitions. Without that there is not basis of thought nor reason via the use of language and common society crumbles as it is redefined by those that purport to present 'new ideas' while they are, in fact, presenting 'old ideas' and giving a sugar coating to them by debasing common usage for terms in 'new ways' that are at odds with their common usage.
This, however, does not work with the law as it utilizes common usage at the time a law is put in place and later changes to usage do not change the original meaning. Even worse is when a definition is GIVEN in a law and then those in later years try to undermine it by claiming that there is a different definition given to the language involved. A case in point here is the definition of 'person':
AMENDMENT XIVHere the definition of 'person' is clearly given in the Amendment itself and is abundantly clear as the conjunction AND is used to demonstrate that the first and second part must be true for the following to apply. Thus a 'person' for consideration of the usage within this Amendment is this class of being that has been born or naturalized into the US. If you are not born or naturalized into the US then jurisdiction does not matter as you do not fall under the first part of the logical statement being made. Only those that are born or naturalized into the United States are considered to be citizens within the United States, and are also subject to State laws where they live. And yet that clear and ample definition of 'person' has been twisted by those wanting to destroy the meaning of citizenship to include *anyone* who can somehow get to the United States, hide from the enforcement of the laws and otherwise seek to undermine the rule of law within the United States by their presence.
Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Even worse is the consideration that being born into the United States is *all* that is needed to become a citizen. As the States have jurisdiction over the laws that oversee birth certificates and the legitimacy of birth within their State to be eligible to become a citizen, the States can, if they wished on their own, put forth that to be considered under their jurisdiction as a citizen (plurally) an individual born in their state may be regulated as to Nationality. Any State that wanted to do so could put that down and require that at least one parent of the child be verified as a citizen of the United States for the child to gain such legitimacy. The Federal government via its immigration and naturalization powers may not step into an area where the State has sole jurisdiction. One does not get a birth certificate from the Federal government but from the STATE. It is the States that decide this matter for their own outlook as this is neither an immigration or naturalization power, but a determination of legitimacy of citizenship based on State jurisdiction upon birth.
Twist the meaning of 'person' to be a generic human being and the rest of the Amendment turns to mush as it can be applied globally. Local definition based on the definition given for the piece of law, or in this case the Constitution, over-rides later attempts to re-define it. You want to change it? Amend the Constitution to say EXACTLY what you mean.
On the other end of the spectrum we have National protection laws set up to ensure that false or otherwise destructive language with intent to harm the Union are regulated. This is not your deranged individual in the park on a soapbox, with which the Nation suffers fools gladly for the greater benefit to the Nation of freedom of speech, but the actual misrepresentation, misreporting or outright fraudulent reporting of events to undermine the National ability to understand the context of events in the affairs of mankind. Even here the Federal government has very few powers of oversight and has stringent restrictions upon what it can do outside the realm of commerce regularization and enforcement, protection on the High Seas and air space, promulgation of foreign policy outside the Nation, and with regards to the activities of Armed Forces. In these areas there are laws on the books to protect these few responsibilities and rights granted to the Federal and held for the People by that government. We agree on this, as the People, so as to have a government for a more perfect Union to represent us All. You may *disagree* with that government and petition it and use your freedoms to discuss its problems with your fellow citizens, but in those areas handed to this common government We have agreed that it does have accountability and oversight of those things.
Yes it is, indeed, 'done in your name'.
If you don't like that, then protest it right up to the limit of the common and talk and reason with your fellow citizens about why you dislike what is done in your name. Stepping away and saying it is not 'in my name' that it is done is stepping away from the People and putting your viewpoint as being more important and above the common viewpoint held for us, in trust, by the government. When you say it is 'Not in my name' what you are saying is: 'I am no longer of We the People and better than the rest of you'.
Protest, yell, scream, rant like a 5 year old if you must. Then feel the awesome weight we take upon ourselves as a People for the things done in our name as a People. We don't hand that off to dictators, tyrants, despots, or any authority whatsoever. We may trust in God, but We are held accountable for what is done for Us by Our government and no other may do that for Us and those that walk away from it are refusing to be part of society. When the government does Right we should feel empowered to know that our system works, and when it does wrong we should use our power to hold it accountable. But at no time do you step away from We the People by declaring actions done are 'not in your name'. That is Our compact and it ensures that we have small, tight and accountable government, not a Nannystate that takes your name from you and hands out a number.
The path to dictatorship is 'not in your name' until you have your name removed from you. Then your name will not matter. Because you decided your name was more valuable than the society you are a part of... until that society falls to adjust to those nameless, non-social entities who refuse to bear responsibility for authority handed out in common.
That path of disunion has legal obstacles put in its way on directly attacking those bodies that protect the Union as a whole. There are actual laws, on the books to protect those parts of government from hostile action via freedoms the People hold so that the Union may be protected against such attacks upon those commonly held functions. And yet there are those that wish to twist words and meanings to attack those very same functions and cause greater disunity amongst the People and loss of faith and trust in these functions held in common by the People.
Here a case in point is the set of 'diaries' published by the anonymous "Scott Thomas" in The New Republic. I looked at that in overview for the lack of ethics held by TNR and talk a bit about how TNR actually does not put up a Code of Ethics where the Public can readily find it. That shows a lack of integrity for the organization concerned and that, as they have no accountability they place upon themselves, that the more common accountability of We the People must be used. That, unfortunately, takes us to the actual laws that are in place to cover how the People can talk about the Armed Forces of the Union, and the peacetime law is under 18 USC 2387:
Here the actual reporting is that of demonstration of insubordination to the chain of command by not following rules and regulations for reporting of events and proper conduct during said events, the reporting of this by individual citizens using their press rights are *not* seeking out the lines of control and authority within the Armed Forces to report this *first*. By not reporting the individual(s) involved for misconduct, insubordination, refusal to obey the rules of engagement and the UCMJ covering conduct, The New Republic is disseminating information to give the appearance that such activities are NOT limited to a single individual or handful of individuals, but is endemic across the US Armed Forces. By not taking the responsibility of citizenship to the whole of the Nation and going through legitimate lines set up by Congress for the ability to hold soldiers accountable for their actions, TNR disseminates material to undermine the Armed Forces for its own ideological viewpoint.TITLE 18--CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I--CRIMES
CHAPTER 115--TREASON, SEDITION, AND SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES
Sec. 2387. Activities affecting armed forces generally
(a) Whoever, with intent to interfere with, impair, or influence the
loyalty, morale, or discipline of the military or naval forces of the
United States:Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten
(1) advises, counsels, urges, or in any manner causes or
attempts to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of
duty by any member of the military or naval forces of the United
States; or
(2) distributes or attempts to distribute any written or printed
matter which advises, counsels, or urges insubordination,
disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty by any member of the military
or naval forces of the United States--
years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United
States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next
following his conviction.
(b) For the purposes of this section, the term ``military or naval
forces of the United States'' includes the Army of the United States,
the Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Coast Guard, Naval Reserve, Marine
Corps Reserve, and Coast Guard Reserve of the United States; and, when
any merchant vessel is commissioned in the Navy or is in the service of
the Army or the Navy, includes the master, officers, and crew of such
vessel.
The responsibility for a citizen is *clear*: if you see misconduct you report it to the organizations and chain of command to get this addressed as this falls under the UCMJ not Civil Law. These are soldiers representing the Union and they agree to adhere to the Laws set by Congress for them via the chain of command. The place of the press is either to report that such activities have been reporting and to report upon investigations, or that they have sought to do so and have been REFUSED HEARING by the lawful organs of the Armed Forces set up by Congress. I have not seen TNR do *either*. The responsibility of the press right is that of the citizens right of free speech which has restrictions placed upon it when it comes to endangerment of fellow citizens in wrongful ways or when it is used to attack those things held in common without utilizing the lawful recourse for same set up by Congress.
And when the Armed Forces are at war, which is a function duly authorized by Congress to use force overseas by the Armed Forces of the United States, or others via the Letters of Marque and Reprisal system, or anyone the President sees fit to utilize overseas to achieve these ends, including such things as allies lending forces to our command structure, the next statute applies to this activity, which is 18 USC 2388:
TITLE 18--CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDUREHere things get a bit rougher as putting the active Armed Forces at risk due to the press freedom of the People is more actively endangering the Union as a whole. The diarist "Scott Thomas" has, indeed, made false statements and misrepresented events in Iraq. Confederate Yankee has been collecting that list of things that are blatantly false, misrepresented or otherwise reported in a light of insubordination and meant to sow discord amongst the People to help the enemies that the soldiers of the United States face. By doing these things "Scott Thomas" and the TNR are actively attempting to hinder progress being made and work against the stability of the Armed Forces to make them appear irrational, insubordinate to command and authority during wartime, and otherwise painting a false picture of activities in Iraq that those operating in the same Forward Operating Base have seen.
PART I--CRIMES
CHAPTER 115--TREASON, SEDITION, AND SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES
Sec. 2388. Activities affecting armed forces during war
(a) Whoever, when the United States is at war, willfully makes or
conveys false reports or false statements with intent to interfere with
the operation or success of the military or naval forces of the United
States or to promote the success of its enemies; or
Whoever, when the United States is at war, willfully causes or
attempts to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of
duty, in the military or naval forces of the United States, or willfully
obstructs the recruiting or enlistment service of the United States, to
the injury of the service or the United States, or attempts to do so--
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty
years, or both.
(b) If two or more persons conspire to violate subsection (a) of
this section and one or more such persons do any act to effect the
object of the conspiracy, each of the parties to such conspiracy shall
be punished as provided in said subsection (a).
(c) Whoever harbors or conceals any person who he knows, or has
reasonable grounds to believe or suspect, has committed, or is about to
commit, an offense under this section, shall be fined under this title
or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
(d) This section shall apply within the admiralty and maritime
jurisdiction of the United States, and on the high seas, as well as
within the United States.
While abhorrent activity is common in any organization set up by humans on the face of this Earth, NO organization deserves to be slandered by one or two bad actors in it. The responsibility by "Scott Thomas" was to report such activities and for those around him to do that exact, same thing: report them. By asserting that these things happen, often with witnesses, the outlook is that the entirety of those surrounding "Scott Thomas" likewise are willing to act outside the rules and laws set up by Congress and the accountability system within the Armed Forces to ensure regular operations for the Union as a whole. Above and beyond that, every editor, proof reader, and any individual at TNR who has had any oversight or input into the presentation of these stories are *likewise* aiding this by not reporting it to the Armed Forces via proper legal channels, the chain of command or BOTH. There are two ways to get this addressed at MINIMUM within the Armed Forces, and calling the Unit Commander or the legal affairs folks on the ground handling the receipt of complaints for review under UCMJ, and BOTH are legitimate for reporting this story and individual first, before it gets to the general public.
Even worse, however, is the blatant disregard for the remains of those in the 'mass grave' found and that is wholly out of line with the general procedures outlined by USAID in their view of identifying mass grave sites to assess criminality involved. And it is against the governmental view given by the Dept. of State for the United States on how mass graves are going to be handled. As we, as a Nation, cannot tell if any grave site is part of a mass grave site, even if the locals give information on the grave site itself, each is to be handled with respect and care. This is re-inforced by the Hague Convention II (1899), Article 56, which the US is a signatory to:
Article 56Cemeteries and grave sites, when NOT the sites of criminal mass murders, are under the care of the previous State and are considered to be non-"usufructory" under Article 55 of the same convention: cemeteries are not an area of productive utility and are to be treated as private property for all warfare, and sacrosanct once captured, save to find evidence of war crimes or other crimes. As nearly every cemetery on the planet has *some* affiliation with a religion, it is to be treated with utmost respect even and especially if it has unmarked graves.
The property of the communes, that of religious, charitable, and educational institutions, and those of arts and science, even when State property, shall be treated as private property.
All seizure of, and destruction, or intentional damage done to such institutions, to historical monuments, works of art or science, is prohibited, and should be made the subject of proceedings.
To not do that falls under 18 USC 2441:
TITLE 18--CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDUREAs all indications given by "Scott Thomas" are that the 'mass grave' was of unknown origin and had the remains of children in them, it was and is to be treated with the highest respect possible and no tampering with forensic evidence is to be done. The area is to be cordoned off and the official registry system contacted to find out what type of grave this is, if the locals know, and treat it as a war crime investigation site as we do not know what the Saddam regime did in its 30 years and more in power. Yes, in not respecting the dead in a foreign Nation during wartime, in not upholding the Hague II protocols, and in not following the established procedure outlined by the US Government in the Executive branch for the discovery of 'mass graves', "Scott Thomas" is reporting his own culpability in a war crime under the Hague II treaty. This is true if it is only a PURELY civilian grave site with NO criminal investigation warranted: the dead are to be respected.
PART I--CRIMES
CHAPTER 118--WAR CRIMES
Sec. 2441. War crimes
(a) Offense.--Whoever, whether inside or outside the United States,
commits a war crime, in any of the circumstances described in subsection
(b), shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for life or any term
of years, or both, and if death results to the victim, shall also be
subject to the penalty of death.
(b) Circumstances.--The circumstances referred to in subsection (a)
are that the person committing such war crime or the victim of such war
crime is a member of the Armed Forces of the United States or a national
of the United States (as defined in section 101 of the Immigration and
Nationality Act).
(c) Definition.--As used in this section the term ``war crime''
means any conduct--(1) defined as a grave breach in any of the international
conventions signed at Geneva 12 August 1949, or any protocol to such
convention to which the United States is a party;
(2) prohibited by Article 23, 25, 27, or 28 of the Annex to the
Hague Convention IV, Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land,
signed 18 October 1907;
(3) which constitutes a violation of common Article 3 of the
international conventions signed at Geneva, 12 August 1949, or any
protocol to such convention to which the United States is a party
and which deals with non-international armed conflict; or
(4) of a person who, in relation to an armed conflict and
contrary to the provisions of the Protocol on Prohibitions or
Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices as
amended at Geneva on 3 May 1996 (Protocol II as amended on 3 May
1996), when the United States is a party to such Protocol, willfully
kills or causes serious injury to civilians.
This goes beyond mere misrepresentation.
And in not following the procedures set out by Congress to report such things, TNR is aiding and abetting the idea that the Armed Forces will commit war crimes and not have them reported upon. Very well, it is time to cough up "Scott Thomas" to the legal authorities on the oversight of 'mass graves' and start getting to the bottom of this.
That is, if there is a "Scott Thomas" to cough up.
For I do not like those that commit war crimes.
Or sedition.
And TNR, in my view, has no other way to explain its actions in printing what it has printed.
UPDATE: "Scott Thomas" has outed himself at TNR. H/t to Dean Barnett at Hugh Hewitt's place. He’s Private Scott Thomas Beauchamp, a member of Alpha Company, 1/18 Infantry, Second Brigade Combat Team, First Infantry Division.
Corroboration of events, Mr. Thomas? TNR? Any accountability there at all? Sphere: Related Content
23 July 2007
The Soul of Iraq seen in its Army
I have taken the liberty of transcribing a video shot by Michael Yon during Operation Arrowhead Ripper, contained in his post on Bless the Beasts and Children, Part 2. This is the Iraqi commander of the unit that had found a mass grave which Mr. Yon reported on in Bless the Beasts and Children. I have done my best to transcribe it, but the sound quality of the original was not optimal for the interpreter and the area, and I may not have gotten it all. Still, what Captain Baker (or as one of Mr. Yon's commenters said, it is most likely either Bakr or Bakhir) says is something that should be heard far and wide in the Land of the Free:
Interview with Captain BakerNow, for those of you who don't understand what is surprising about this, let me remind you that there are quite some number of individuals who put forward that the New Iraqi Army is just a 'super Shia militia'. You know, absolutely divided by sect? That little meme has been going on for a few years now and it is time to finally end it. Captain Baker is quite far down the chain of command in the New Iraqi Army, a Company Commander. He is also in one of the longest serving, longest created units in the New Iraqi Army, that being 5ID or Iron Division. He has been in combat where 75% of his Company was shot out from under him in Fallujah, in 2004. Thus he has seen the New Iraqi Army pretty much from its start, and how it has developed over time. There are some salient points to note:
Scorpion Company Commander
5th Iraqi Army 3-2
Besides the graves of murdered Iraqis
in al Hamira Village near Baqubah
June 30, 2007 11:50am
[I]-Interpreter present, speaking.
CB[I] - ...like this block. There's a couple of families down there and we talks to them and they don't respond to us.
MY: ...are they afraid to talk...
CB[I]: He said they talk to the Muqtar.
MY: Have you found the Muqtar?
CB[I]: Yes.
MY: Is he helpful?
CB[I]: He said we talk to the Muqtar and he tell us... like he didn't cooperate very good with us, but he tell us some information about this palm grove. He said this palm grove is al Qaeda, never let anybody go through this palm grove.
Michael Yon: And you know...This village is Sunni village, yes?
Captain Baker: Yes Sunni village.
MY: And al Qaeda does kill Sunni people here in Baqubah, many times, yes?
CB[I]: He said they kill all the Iraqis they don't care if its Sunni or Shi'ites.
MY: Have you been catching or killing any of the al Qaeda yourself?
CB[I]: I've capture the assistant for Zarqawi, his right hand, KBS... who had accompanied him and I deliver him to Coalition forces... and the Coalition forces gave that person... he gave them information... we capture him... they gave him $50,000... he's on the wanted list for al Qaeda troops.
MY: Who did they give $50,000?
[I]: Uh, that info guy.
MY: Who did they give the 50,000?
[I]: Coalition forces gave him a gift $50,000...
[US Soldier off-camera]: the informant.
MY: Oh, the informant. Thank you. What happened to... I mean... was that the guy that helped to kill Zarqawi?
CB[I]: This information guy... the information guy... he got the money. He helped them all to capture the Zarqawi system.
MY: Were you there when Zarqawi was bombed?
CB[I]: Yes.
MY: Immediately?
CB[I]: I wasn't in the same spot that he get killed in... but I was in KBS and we got some active over there.
MY: Did you see Zarqawi after he was hit?
CB[I]: Yes.
MY: And what condition was he in?
CB[I]: He said... ah... the situation after Zarqawi killed in Despa[sp?] very good for us...
MY: You mean because of the local people?
[I]: Yes.
MY: And the local people... what? they gave you information?
CB[I]: That's right. After Zarqawi's been killed al Qaeda troops are lost their command and they're disappointed... nobody looked up to them anymore.
CB[I]: He said... they were broken for that... after about a month we capture a lot of headquarters of al Qaeda. And we capture... I told you... his assistant... his name is Abbas. His nickname is Abu Abdullah.
MY: And what happened to Abu Abdullah?
CB[I]: Coalition forces took and he's in Bukah [sp?] right now... jail.
MY: Where are you from in Iraq?
CB[I]: He says, I'm Iraqi... and I live up north in Kurdistan.
MY: Do they feel safe here?
CB[I]: [not catching the lead in]...be not a situation in Diyala... all the Kurds back there... back there... in Kurdistan and other places... I hope in this operation we can destroy all the insurgents and kill them.
MY: 15 people are Kurdish? How many people are in your company?
CB[I]: 103.
MY: 103...and mostly Sunni, Shia or...
CB[I]: He said we've got Sunni, Shia, Kurdish, we've got everybody.
MY: Even Christian, too?
CB[I]: No.
MY: (slight laugh) Not too many of those to go around.
CB[I]: He said but we've got...I..I.. have some friends in the Army that are Christian.
MY: Yes, and some Yazidi, sometimes even, yes?
CB[I]: Yeah, they got some Yazidi.
MY: In your company?
CB[I]: Yes.
MY: Everybody gets along well, or...?
CB[I]: He said that we don't have any problems in my Company, my Battalion, my Brigade, even my Division.
MY: How many other places have you fought besides Diyala?
CB[I]: He was in Fallujah... he was with the Marines...
MY: Ah... when was that?
CB[I]: 2004
MY: What month?
CB[I]: Its...ahhh... September. And most of my guys with me then...
MY: Did you stay for the big fight in November?
CB[I]: Yes. We stay until January 2005.
MY: So you were fighting very hard...
CB[I]: He said that this is the only Battalion that served every hour..
MY: Yes... yes only one Battalion, right, and most of the rest did not go or went home, yes?
CB[I]: He said that our... our Battalion is the only one that served for the fight against al Qaeda in Fallujah City. We've got other Battalions that served outside the City.
MY: Did you lose many soldiers?
CB[I]: I lost 3/4ths of them.
MY: During that fight?
[I]: Yes.
MY: Is there anything you want to tell the people in the United States?
CB[I]: I want to tell the people of the United States that look what al Qaeda do to our country. He said al Qaeda crimes in our country, in our villages, in our houses, they kill the children... they kill everybody... Sunni, Shia, Kurdi... they don't care who is... his religions or whats he belong to. The thing is we need to help... we need to cooperate from Coalition forces more than before to end all the terrorism in Iraq. And this is... I want to tell the people over there this picture is live and this myself... myself and my guys with dead bodies, its not anything fabric or something. This is nothing but al Qaeda crime to right. They do a horrible thing in our country.
MY: One last question and then I will turn off the camera... do you believe in a big Iraq first or a Kurdish first?
CB[I]: He said fully from the first I'm Iraqi. From the first.
MY: Thank you, sir.
1) He works under a unified command structure which cares about the strength of Companies internal to a Division, but ensures that it is properly manned and equipped. The ease of the soldiers under his command points to their trust and confidence in him, and it is the easy trust and confidence seen in US Armed Forces: alert, competent, and yet ready to react when needs be to changes. Throughout the interview various members of the Company are seen 'at ease' and yet there is also a calm sense of duty as individuals move around. There is no evidence of furtiveness or wariness, but there is that of combat weariness and a certain sense of 'hollowness' by what they have seen.
2) Captain Baker readily tells of problems with local officials, and, yet, the help that can be garnered from them. In this case having the area they entered as an al Qaeda area, one that shouldn't be trespassed upon for the things they did there. The fact that they then went in means that they had confidence in themselves to handle whatever they found be it hard firefight or something far more grisly. The quietness of the men is more than just professionalism, although that is the underlying sense I get watching them. They have seen something quite nasty and they are not clamoring to tell this. This scene reminds me of some from the closing film shot in World War II, and the soldiers telling what they experienced. Captain Baker is doing the same - he is 'bearing witness'. Not just as a soldier, but as a man.
3) This unit, by being a long lasting one, has knowledge across the Division and would have seen many other units from other organizations at work within the New Iraqi Army. It has good and clear ideas about how the New Iraqi Army is constructed, how it is manned and how it functions as an Army. These are not men that you can easily hide things from, not on a large scale, and as they become veterans of combat, the smaller scale stuff is also harder to hide, unit to unit.
4) The fundamental statements that put to lie those wanting to paint the New Iraqi Army as a Shia puppet are those that address sectarianism and ethnicity. The New Iraqi Army is integrated in that form, also. Within Divisions it is impossible to hide by sectarian division: that becomes obvious to Company commanders when other units do not function as they should during combat due to sectarian outlook. That also goes for ethnicity. The primary thing is that these soldiers see themselves as Iraqi first. They come from across all of Iraq, and their friendships across units are not delimited by sect or religion or ethnicity.
5) To get to this point where there are fully integrated Companies within Divisions, there must be a unified command and training system that ensures that secular and ethnic divisions do not divide up the Army. Units that adhere overmuch to one sect and support one over another get seen by the integrated parts and reported. Every set of Armed Forces on the planet will always have 'bad apples' and 'problem units'. The ability of units to operate at minimal levels, however, requires some level of cooperation and functioning so that units support each other. This was a difficult thing to do, as seen by the description of the 2004 Fallujah combat. Not all Iraqi units arrived, or would fight. That was a problem, and yet those that did arrive actually did fight and they were highly successful. These units would also complain that the *other* units needed to follow their example. All 'green' units have problems in combat, and that was the case with the New Iraqi Army in 2004. That had to change as combat veterans are skilled, accomplished and capable individuals able to operate in a combat environment as a unit. Combat veteran units will not put up with slackers, this has been true across time, and requires reform in the Army system to get units to fight as part of a whole operation.
Today in 2007 we see that happening across Iraq. Therefore this has been solved as a problem. Iraq is a majority Arab Shia population and will have that disproportionately represented in their Armed Forces. If it was 'sectarian' or a 'super Shia militia' it would have strict segregation within it, deferential rules in place for 'favored' portions of the Army and would, indeed, act like any other Arab Army.
To those of you wondering why these things are important, I will point you to my article on Creating an Army. This is not an unknown concept and is easy to discern just by the patterns of events over time, and I described it *previously* with this post, and I will excerpt a bit of it so that you can get a feel for the process involved:
And rebuild in the small towns, villages and small cities that can be quieted and use new Iraqi forces in those *first* to let them taste combat. The large cities are 'holding actions'. Push all the rest of the Iraqi political, infrastructure and economic side *hard*. Very hard. Let the New Iraqi Army clean out the old ways of thought and begin to start something brand new: a non-partisan Civil Army based on merit. That will take years if not a couple of decades to stand up completely, but their entire 'spin-up' will start to get fighting forces on the ground and give them real combat experience. It takes a hell of a long time to make a capable, trustworthy and competent Army and those are not hallmarks of the Middle East.As you can see, any review of events would lead to seeing that something was going on with the New Iraqi Army, and the abilities shown in 2004 had changed dramatically *upwards* over time via a process of unit cycling to new areas. Captain Baker's unit needed a serious refit and sustainment period after losing 75-80 men, and here it is in 2007 fighting *again* and hard. At this level the United States Armed Forces have had NO equivalent losses as 75-80 men lost in one battle would get noticed because it is a huge loss for the force size the United States can field.
Then, slowly, shift operations to the larger cities using mixed Iraqi and MNF troops to start letting the Iraqis take a hand and learn what this fight *takes*. Start to encroach on the cities from firmly held provinces, towns and smaller cities and work damned hard to win the tribes over to the Government side. By doing all of that, concentrating on the tribes, local governance, and competence for the New Iraqi Army, you have a formula that removes the hinterlands from an insurgency. Their violence gets concentrated, very telegenic and has no place else to go.
As Iraqi effectiveness increases, suddenly *more options* appear on how to handle the large cities. One can bring on a new force structure aimed at removing effectiveness from the insurgents and their ability to operate in a cohesive manner. From that 'peacemaking' troops can be sent in for final clear-out of disorganized insurgents partnered with police units and demonstrate effectiveness. Or a neighborhood by neighborhood cleansing could start, but that takes a lot of effective manpower and coordination. This was actually started in mid- to late-AUG 2006 and has been semi-successful in getting the more peaceful outer sections of Baghdad quieted. Or one could craft a 'dislodge and exploit' system that suddenly drops highly effective troops into the bad areas of cities to dislodge insurgents and then pick them off with fast mobile troops guided by overhead recon. Which is what we have now.
The effectiveness of the New Iraqi Army I have seen when I looked at Building the Mosaic of Iraq, which takes a wide swath of on-the-ground, first hand reporting by bloggers and examines what was going on there up to late last year. Here is a bit from Bill Ardolino from INDC Journal, when he was in Fallujah talking to a policeman there:
INDC: You mentioned that you hate the insurgents, is that just more now because you've been shot or did you have a different opinion of them before?From what we have seen this has not only stayed as a concept, this working together across sectarian lines, but remains to this day. The influx of Arab Sunnis from Anbar province will change the New Iraqi Army, but it is seen as already open to any Iraqi wanting to defend his Nation. And you don't get a choice of *who* you will defend in this: you defend the Nation of Iraq.
Mohammed: "They hit me and they also killed some of my family. Actually they killed my uncle who used to be an Iraqi Army soldier, and they killed him and burned his face. And then they actually started threatening us as well."
INDC: They burned his face?
Mohammed: "Yes. It's a substance called "tizar," it's like, acid. They put it in his face."
INDC: He was alive when they did this?
Mohammed: "Yes, he was alive. They burned him and stabbed him so many times, and also they shot him with bullets. And we found a note on him saying, 'The police and the army and the Americans are all the same.'
INDC: So they killed him because he was in the Iraqi Army?
Mohammed: "Yes. But we didn't tell any of these guys (the Iraqi police) around here (at the time) because they hated the Army as well."
INDC: So why do police hate the army?
Mohammed: "I think because the army actually liberated Fallujah, they work well, and they liberated Fallujah. And some of (the police) actually like (or liked) the insurgents."
"And the other thing would be because they are different (sects of Islam). But after the operations we started doing together, now we became like one and the same, we became like brothers."
INDC: The Iraqi police and the Iraqi Army?
Mohammed: "Yes. Now we became like brothers."
INDC: So how does the police work with the Iraqi Army when some of the police hate the IA's?
Mohammed: "Some bad guys used to be part of the police, but now they quit and ran to Syria. And actually in the JCC (American control room) they know (who) most of them (are)."
The rift between the IP's and IA's that Mohammed describes is accurate, as is the recent, though potentially transitory accord. After a recent set of operations where the Marines encouraged the police and army to work together, the Americans were surprised to find Shia IA's and Sunni IP's joking around with each other and hugging after a successful raid. As Gunnery Sergeant Jason Lawson put it, they were showing off captured insurgents "like kids comparing Halloween candy." Whether this amity will last is anyone's guess.
INDC: So who are the insurgents? Who are the people who are fighting stability? Are they locals?
Mohammed: "(Yes), almost all of them."
INDC: So why are local Fallujans fighting other Fallujans?
Mohammed: "Because the al Qaeda organization came to this city and controlled it so hard by killing. And some people here actually like killing and they liked Saddam Hussein as well, and I think the al Qaeda organization and Saddam Hussein are the same face."
INDC: What do you mean by "the same face," because Saddam was secular, he was not religious and al Qaeda is ...
Mohammed: "Because the language they use is killing. And the same people who used to be with Saddam, now they participate with the insurgency."
INDC: So their motivation for killing is what?
Mohammed: "Money and to be famous. And I think the first reason is to fight the American troops. They say, 'we can start from here and cross all the way to America to fight them.'"
As happens with most Armies that work by basis of merit and competence, it begins to be seen as more competent and capable than the actual politicians trying to guide their Nation. This is true not only in Iraq but in the United States as well. And as Norvell B. De Atkine points out in Why Arab Armies Lose Wars, Armies fight as they train and are a reflection of their society. Apparently there is some underlying cohesiveness to Iraq, an integration to it on some low level that is not easily discerned by diplomats seeking to play the 'Great Game' of Nations and not reconcile themselves to dealing with the realities of the People in a Nation.
How do you know Iraq will come together?
Look at its Army.
It reflects the Nation of Iraq.
They do need training in the basics of how to make a government work, how to assure accountability within government, and how to find ways to drive out those people trying to drive a wedge into the Nation. They have never done this before, so the learning curve is damned steep. But they can succeed.
Look at their Army.
See the eyes of Captain Baker and ask yourself: 'What is the fate of those killers going after the innocents, the children and men and women of Iraq?'
The window onto the soul of Iraq can be seen through their Army.
And good men like Captain Baker and those he commands.
My thanks to Michael Yon and all the others doing the work the Hotel Lobby Media will not do to bring us a look into the eyes and soul of Iraq. Sphere: Related Content
22 July 2007
Diplomatic insanity with regards to Iran
Iran, the hostage-taking, lovely Islamic Republic of Iran is back up to its old tricks of taking Americans hostage and then looking to get America to back down for the fact that Iran has taken hostages. Got that?
This thing started in 1979 with the Iran Hostage Crisis, when Iran committed a casus belli against the United States by invading the Embassy in Tehran, Iran, taking hostages and looting the place. You know, the 'nest of vipers' from the CIA - the Embassy of the United States. And do you remember the response of President Carter?
First was condemnation of the act!
“I ask that you release unharmed all Americans presently detained in Iran” - President Carter.
And then the diplospeak of appeasement: “I have asked both men to meet with you and to hear from you your perspective on events in Iran and the problems which have arisen between our two countries. The people of the United States desire to have relations with Iran based upon equality, mutual respect and friendship.”
Actually, before that was the internecine squabbling inside the National Security Council between Zbigniew Brzezinski, who wanted to back the Shah of Iran 'to the hilt' and had guaranteed the Shah that this would be done, and Cyrus Vance, Secretary of State, who wanted to come to terms with the Khomeini regime. These two would have had some basis in that outlook if the Khomeini regime would play the 'Great Game' and resume its place as a strategic ally or at least neutral to the US.
That, however, was not to be as it would not commit to the Soviets or the US, but put forth hostility to both. The schizophrenia on the part of the Carter Administration was due to the fact that President Carter really had no conception of what the role of the US was in the Middle East, beyond protecting oil supplies. It was this incoherence and swinging back and forth that originally led to having the Shah left in Mexico as the coup happened, then, when the Shah needed medical treatment for his cancer, having pressure from Henry Kissinger and Nelson Rockerfeller, convincing Carter to then let the Shah into the US for treatment. That ticked off the Ayatollah and led to the hostage taking which *then* got us the condemnation of that act. Because the US couldn't decide who to support in the 'Great Game' of 'Geostrategic Politics' with respect to Iran.
Yes, 'Realism' and not supporting democracy in and of itself, so that criticism could have been put against the Shah, Khomeini and anyone without regard to alignment in the 'Great Game'. Iran was a 'buffer state' and ally of the US and seen as a means to keep the Soviet Union from expanding power into the Middle East, but only if you were aligned along the 'Realist' mindset. Khomeini was not, and President Carter could not hold to any formulation of supporting democracy across-the-board due to what understandings he had about foreign policy. Mind you, the folks in Iran didn't like the repressive Shah, would have hated an autocratic Communist regime and came to detest their hijacked revolution as the radical Islamists took power.
Got that? Brzezinski could have dealt with the Iranians if they cooperated, but they wouldn't, and Vance wanted to cooperate no matter what (diplomacy is *always* the right choice). And there was a loud absence of anyone trying to stand up for actual people to have a right to self-government.
There are some that are putting forth the idea that President Carter pushed an Islamic 'Green Belt' between the US and USSR in the Middle East, to form up a number of 'moderate muslim nations' that would serve as a bulwark against Communism and that this was supported by Brzezinski. A few push this idea further back to support of Saudi Arabia and countering Nasser. While some objective concepts are seen via this, like the formation of the Muslim Brotherhood into something that would become a terrorist sponsoring and ideology hot house to put Soviet sponsored regimes at threat, they do not account for Turkey, Iraq, Syria, Libya and a number of other Nations that had Nationalistic outlook that also had strong elements of secular rule. Mohamar Ghadaffy would attempt to sponsor his *own* Islamic organization to sponsor terrorism to counter MB and other regimes have been able to keep out Islamism either via autocratic and dictatorial rule, like Iraq and Syria, or via a secular means like Turkey. In either event, the support of Brzezinski was more aligned with the direct, Nation State containment system that was not theocratically aligned. This is not a dismissal of the concept out of hand, but putting forth that if it *was* a conception carried through by the likes of Kissingers, Brzezinski, Baker, Scowcroft, and other foreign policy 'Realists', it remains one that is so low key as to be unrecognizable.
Ah, now back to that great ideal that President Carter put forth: "The United States of America will not yield to international terrorism or to blackmail."
One of the things that President Carter didn't do, before this, was actually address the FIRST time the US Embassy was invaded in Tehran nine months previously. That FEB 1979 break-in and invasion was left unaddressed by the Carter Administration as a whole, but it avoided any confrontation with the new regime in Tehran over that. So we did, indeed, yield to international terrorism BEFORE the hostage taking by not addressing the terrorism of that first go-around. To put forth this concept after the second break-in and full hostage taking is disingenuous by President Carter: the time to speak up is whenever National Sovereignty is broken and even in the 'Great Game' that is a necessary thing to do so as to extract any advantage over the other side whenever possible.
Of course it would have helped if the US Ambassador to the UN would have spoken up in a disapproving manner after that first break-in, also. But even that was not to be done when Ambassador Andrew Young put forth that Khomeini was “a Twentieth Century saint”. Add that to the initial openness of Brzezinski and is it any wonder that things got *worse*?
And when nice words and appeals to a religious radical who has taken over a Nation don't work? Then we see freezing of assets, ending oil imports from Iran (as if the world oil market cared), expelling Iranian diplomats, and actually expelling Iranians in the country ILLEGALLY. So that's what it takes to get a Democrat to move on this? Holding an Embassy's staff hostage? No *wonder* we have so many illegals in the US....
Finally, somewhere in there, President Carter realized that this was being done in 'bad faith' and he would cut off diplomatic relations and then stage a failed rescue attempt. Plus go to the UN and get those ever-so-handy sanctions that other Nations can bypass and ignore. Iran finally got tired of the game when Saddam invaded and gave President Carter a final tweak by releasing the hostages after he left office. No thanks to the UN, 'international community', 'sanctions' or the like.
That moves us onto the lovely era of Ronald Reagan where... hey, no fair reading ahead and getting to Iran/Contra where zealous staffers thought it would be 'a neat idea' to NEGOTIATE with Iran by giving them arms to release hostages and use those same connections to help funnel Saudi money and illegally gained money through intermediaries to fund the Contras. And one of those was a Syrian! No, those would only come *after* Iranian sponsored Hezbollah had attack the US Embassy in Beirut, bombed the US Marine Corps Barracks in Beirut, force the US to leave Beirut and then, for good measure, bomb the Embassy AGAIN! Then all the NEW hostage takings in Beirut would have the Administration working behind the scenes to do the above. You see, we wouldn't 'reward terrorism'.
So what is that called when terrorists bomb your Embassy, kill your soldiers, kidnap your government officials and then you deal with them by trading arms and utilize one of the intermediaries to buy arms for someone else... and his cut then goes to help those that had done all of that? Ronald Reagan was a great foe of the USSR, yes. His ability to actually hold terrorists accountable to anything they did against the US was lackluster at best and actually encouraged them at worse. Remember, if you like the McFarlane/North/Poindexter/Secord thing, then you *also* support the idea of paying Syria to support Hezbollah via that and reward it for getting our Embassy bombed and our Marines killed. This is not a 'neat idea' it is rewarding terrorists.
What other great ideas were presented on Iran, beyond rewarding them for killing Americans? President Reagan sent a cake to Ayatollah Khomeini. Let us hope that this remains only 'purported' to have done so...I do applaud President Reagan for the things he got right. I do shake my head that in getting other things wrong, he set the Nation up for long term problems that would go unaddressed and get worse because they remained unconfronted.
Then the grand total of George H.W. Bush's attitude towards Syria was to 'reward' it for not doing much of anything during the first Gulf War. And what was that reward? About $5 billion. Not bad for 16,000 men not doing much of anything, isn't it? Don't mind you that their hands are bloody from helping Hezbollah kill Americans... that is far too un-'Realistic'.
Now President Clinton, what did he do to stop the Iran-Syria axis from expanding? Did he finally punish either of them? Confront them at least? Hold them accountable for *anything*?
Heavens, no! That might take some forethought, guts and standing up for the US, its ideals and actually blaming other Nations for things they have *done*. Can't have that! Instead the Clinton Administration helped Iran expand its influence into the Balkans by dithering on doing anything about Bosnia. They would also reach out to help bomb the Israeli Embassy and cultural center in Argentina and establish themselves in the Tri-Border Area of South America and further expand influence into Chechnya and begin interfering with Turkish politics, beyond their regular nasty work with Hezbollah in Lebanon.
Yes, not only not confront Iran or Syria but actually ensure that nothing was done to stop their spread and, even, *encourage it* via inaction! What a great President, no? To hold no one accountable for the killing of American Embassy staff and Marines? Plus do nothing to stop them from killing more Americans like in the Khobar towers attack. Can't do anything about it, don't you know, someone might get a bit upset.
Just step around the dead Americans, nothing to see here...
Save for three American hostages in Iran and thank you to Mark Steyn and h/t to Scott Johnson at Powerline for pointing this out! Apparently this is a great 'secret' that the MSM doesn't want to release and that the Bush Administration doesn't want to talk about. Because, as Scott Johnson points out, there will be a 'diplomatic push' coming up.
With Iran.
Can't interfere with diplomacy!
Thank you, America, for 28 years of cowardice and being unable to stand up to tyrants, despots and dictators. The Nation seems to have run its course after confronting Communists.
All ideologically tuckered out.
And freedom bartered away for 'diplomacy'.
Bake them a cake before talking with them, these kidnappers and killers.
It is traditional.
Before you appease them.
And weaken the Nation more.
And forget that President Jefferson won respect by fighting, and meant what he said about 'not one red cent for tribute'.
And that the first US vessel to circumnavigate the globe was a warship, sent by President Jackson to deal with Pirates who threatened us, literally on the other side of the planet.
Apparently the only cakes involved then, were of gunpowder.
That was the international language for dealing with them.
Sent a clear message, too, come to that.
20 July 2007
NAFTA, The New Republic and a fishy story from Iraq
A series of writers, bloggers and interested citizens have started to question a story out of The New Republic ("Shock Troops" sub. req.) from an individual purported to have been a US Soldier in Iraq. The first to raise question on this is Michael Goldfarb's blog at The Weekly Standard with his article on Fact or Fiction? about such things as rooting through a Saddam era mass grave to do grisly things with the remains of children, run over stray dogs with a Bradley armored vehicle and make fun of an individual wounded from an IED attack. Needless to say others have jumped on this story, notably Confederate Yankee (first post, second post), Ace of Spades HQ, and Blackfive responding to Mr. Goldfarb's request for soldiers who have actually been to the Forward Operating Base in question, and on any other details of the story that they would have experience with.
The details one can get for oneself, but I will turn attention to another aspect of the media: the ethical problems of cross-National ownership of organizations.
Totally out of the blue? Not really, as CanWest MediaWorks bought out The New Republic on 27 FEB 2007 and replaced its editor earlier this year:
Attention Business Editors:E-mail in the original and, if Ms. Hutton places herself in public capacity for Corporate Communication, then she can very well take any problems that arise from the new editor at TNR. Well, just a normal and every-day happening in the new, lovely North American Union, I guess.... what? NAFTA does allow for this thing to go, basically, unnoticed so as to remove all the lovely trade restrictions and hoopla over cross-border ownership and investment. Can't stop 'free trade'!
New Publisher for The New Republic
NEW YORK, April 23 /CNW/ - Tom Strike, President of CanWest MediaWorks
International, a division of CanWest Global Communications Corp., announced
that Elizabeth W. Sheldon has been named the Publisher of The New Republic
effective immediately.
For the past ten years, Elizabeth has enjoyed a very successful career
with Congressional Quarterly. Most recently, she was the Advocacy Advertising
Manager. During her tenure with CQ, Elizabeth established herself as a highly
respected figure in the Washington publishing sector.
"Elizabeth's knowledge of the Washington market and the opinion journal
publishing space will serve as a tremendous catalyst in achieving the business
objectives of The New Republic," said Strike. "We are very pleased to welcome
her to the team."
About CanWest Global Communications Corp.
CanWest Global Communications Corp. (www.canwestglobal.com), (TSX: CGS
and CGS.A, NYSE: CWG) an international media company, is the owner of The New
Republic and is Canada's largest media company. CanWest is Canada's largest
publisher of daily newspapers and also owns, operates and/or holds substantial
interests in conventional television, out-of-home advertising, specialty cable
channels, web sites and radio stations and networks in Canada, New Zealand,
Australia, Turkey, Singapore, the United Kingdom and the United States.
For further information: Deb Hutton, Senior Vice President, Corporate
Communications, Tel: (416) 383-2442, dhutton@canwest.com
So if a lovely bunch of folks from Canada want to buy the moderate left TNR, what's the worry? I mean, just because they are trying to hold a large segment of the Canadian media market and folks get a but upset about that up North... holding a bit more than most lefties in the US would want, percentage-wise, than in the US market, why that's fine, isn't it? Just a couple of years ago CanWest was looking to change the outlook of traditional Canadian media, and start to change the way media ownership crafted news. From the Canadian Democratic Movement comes this view on 31 MAY 2005:
Swift, decisive action is necessary to preserve this country's independent, bilingual news service and to protect the free flow of print and broadcast news, says TNG Canada/CWA.While most Americans would not understand the gist of bilingual service, in Canada that has been hallowed ground for the left to trod upon for years. I am sure that North America will soon 'harmonize' to become a trilingual entity where even more years are going to be spent teaching children to learn three languages... poorly. But this all does relate to international fraud, as the Conrad Black scandal is *also* tied into this, with Mr. Black having recent guilty verdicts on fraud charges handed down to him in Illinois. Mind you it was only on three counts of mail fraud and one of obstruction of justice... the racketeering and other charges not panning out against him.
The federal government must restore a ban on cross-ownership of newspapers and broadcast outlets, impose market-share caps on media companies and ensure the survival of The Canadian Press (CP), TNG Canada says in an authoritative brief submitted to a Senate committee that is at a crucial point in its study of media concentration.
CP's existence is threatened by CanWest Global Communications, which has already pulled the National Post out of the national news co-operative and appears to be preparing to withdraw its other metro dailies.
"Presentations to this committee have reaffirmed our long-held conviction that a healthy, coast-to-coast, bilingual news gathering and news disseminating co-operative, operating for the mutual benefit of its members but independently of its corporate masters, is a key element of the open discourse and free flow of information that Canadians have a right to demand of their media," says the brief.
TNG Canada represents employees at several CanWest newspapers and is the parent union of the largest media Local in North America, the Canadian Media Guild. The CMG, with 6,000 members, is the largest union at the CBC and also represents employees at The Canadian Press/la Presse Canadienne as well as its allied services Broadcast News/Nouvelles Télé-Radio, which gives it a unique insight into Canada's only national news service.
Yes, the shift in the media due to CanWest is to the *right* as CanWest has been called on suppressing *criticism* of Israel and Conrad Black has been criticized for knocking leftist war historian Gwynn Dyer out of the newspaper commentary line-up. I do have some personal problems with Mr. Dyer's perspective on the future of Nation States and warfare, but he does, once in awhile, get some actual history through, so it is not all horrific slop like seen in the US as in the above TNR article problem. But, Conrad Black didn't much care for Mr. Dyer's articles and so out they went. I am sure he can find all sorts of lovely places to get his articles printed elsewhere.
Catching the drift, here?
Canadians on the Left, like the individual cited in the CDM article, above, are getting their socialist media ox gored by corporate ownership, shifting of attitudes away from 'group reporting', a shift of emphasis away from bilingual 'special communities' and from the old fashioned programming and monobloc control of the Left over the media there in Canada. Of course there have been media outlets, before the loosening of the laws, that have been heard, but not widely and not clearly. That has been the effect of government 'oversight' of press holdings in Canada: bland group reporting that adheres to the ideologies of the majority party which had been in power for decades.
Flip that around, however, and the US is seeing TNR shift because, lets face it, CanWest is still based in Canada no matter what its international holdings are, and stories like the one from TNR starts to point at a direction that they tried to step away from after Stephen Glass' fraudulent reporting. All of this while Lord Black runs criminal operations across the borders to his own benefit while he got a large profit from his newspapers being absorbed by CanWest.
Why, that's more than a two-fer, its a three-fer! Probably more as I'm sure that spurring international crime to more places was *not* the dream of the NAFTA enthusiasts, but it is what you get with this deal.
Because the problems about 'media concentration' that would 'limit outlook' in Canada were more about having to actually compete for getting a leftist message out about 'progressive' Canadian outlook against the bland homogenization being presented from cross-border investment in the media. That being said the 'traditional' cultural and ethnic tags applied to bilingualism and the general leftist outlook of the Canadian media allow that to be utilized to ensure that 'special treatment' is always insured to such no matter how bland the actual culture becomes.
The flip side of this, however, is interesting as, while Mr. Black has been a bit busy, TNR has shifted its ownership and editorial board and comes out with a story that belongs more in a fictional account out of film rendition of a third-rate war novel than out of a real-life episode of the goings-on in Iraq. While pro-American Conrad Black was caught accepting fraudulent deals, something else was going on with that outlook on its recent acquisition. That is worrying because of the individual involved in this who has not been mentioned: Leonard Asper.
To get a feel for this part of it, we will actually go to the CBC and get their take on the TNR takeover and changes there in this report of 26 FEB 2007:
While some liberal U.S. publications saw a rebound in circulation after the election of a Democrat majority in Congress, The New Republic, with circulation of about 60,000, did not rebound.Yes, 'synergy' with the 'progressives' in Canada and TNR. Even more interesting is that such fast changes are something that has happened before with the Asper family, as seen by this Tom Gross Mideast Media archive of a Globes article on the editorial board of *another* Asper acquisition, this back in early 2005:
CanWest also owns Global Television, Alliance Atlantis film and the CanWest newspaper chain that includes the National Post.
CanWest is controlled by the Asper family, which is well known for its support of the Liberals in Canada and of various political causes in Israel.
The magazine's editor in chief, Martin Peretz, said he hoped the takeover would secure The New Republic's financial future.
"It just seemed to me, given my own intellectual and moral synergies with Leonard J. Asper, a very good partnership," he said.
AZUR, ASPER FAMILY DISAGREE OVER "JERUSALEM POST" DEALThis is a bit more of the old-fashioned deal that happened with the old pulp magazine business back in the 1930's. In that day and age, publishers started to acquire extra businesses to ensure that magazines got published: paper mills, office buildings for staff, distributing companies, ink processing plants, and so on. With each of those came the bits and pieces of those companies and their land holdings, which made them large concerns even though they had relatively low monetary throughput. In fact, the distribution warehouses for some of the publishing concerns, once started at the outskirts of cities, were now inside the city limits and that property had high value as industrial, urban property. Suddenly a take-over of publishers began in which magazines were liquidated to get the *land* they were on as the land was now worth far more than the throughput of the magazines, cash-wise. Buy a publisher, slice it to pieces and sell it off and make a huge profit... then repeat with another publisher. The great die-off of pulp magazines was not due to the Depression, but due to undervalued businesses on highly valued land. That sounds a bit like the J-Post deal, but the change in editorship is, again, something that is similar to TNR in concept, even if different in final outcome.
Azur, Asper family disagree over "Jerusalem Post" deal
Eli Azur apparently wants to acquire full control of the newspaper, instead of owning equal shares with CanWest.
By Yael Gaoni
Globes
January 25, 2005
www.globes.co.il/serveen
The sale of "The Jerusalem Post" by Hollinger International Inc. (NYSE:HLR) to Eli Azur and CanWest Global Communications Corp (NYSE:CWG; TSX:CGS), controlled by the Asper family of Canada, for $13.2 million, has run into trouble. Azur apparently wants to acquire full control of the English-language newspaper, rather than the two parties owning equal shares.
CanWest has a market cap of $5 billion. The buyers of "The Jerusalem Post" intend to sell the site the newspaper occupies in the Romema neighborhood of Jerusalem for $7 million, and move the paper's offices and printing works to new premises. The newspaper's 9.5-dunam (2.375-acre) site is considered desirable.
The sale of the newspaper was concluded two months ago, and Hollinger International notified the New York Stock Exchange to this effect. Sources close to Azur said today that the deal had not broken down, but that unexpected difficulties had arisen. Azur was unavailable for comment.
So now we have the problem of just what *is it* that Leonard Asper sees as a 'synergy' between Canadian, Australian (yes, CanWest is global), Israeli and, no doubt, other firms held in other Nations? For that we go to *how* the Jerusalem Post got into his hands in the first place: via Conrad Black and Hollinger Investments. This take us back to 2003 and this set of connections is very, very clear as seen by this Wall Street Journal article:
Hollinger Investments Are Linked To Board's Perle and KissingerAnd there you have the connection between 'progressive' TNR, Leonard Asper and the Jerusalem Post - via Conrad Black's association with Henry Kissinger and Richard Perle. I do wonder how the readers of TNR would feel that their magazine is owned by someone who hobnobs with the 'rich and realist' sort. Not very 'progressive' are Kissinger and Perle. But this should be of real interest to the TNR crowd about just how close they are to some things they just detest:
By ROBERT FRANK and ELENA CHERNEY
Staff Reporters of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
December 3, 2003 12:44 a.m.
Hollinger International Inc. invested in a venture-capital fund and a conservative magazine linked to outside directors Richard N. Perle and Henry A. Kissinger, raising new questions about the board's independence in the wake of a widening financial scandal.
According to company filings and people familiar with the situation, Hollinger invested $2.5 million in a venture-capital firm that was co-managed by Mr. Perle and listed Mr. Kissinger as a board member.
Hollinger, a Chicago-based media company that owns the U.K.'s Telegraph Group, the Chicago Sun-Times and the Jerusalem Post, also invested $14 million in a British technology company that includes Mr. Perle and his business partner as shareholders. In addition, Hollinger gave $200,000 a year to the National Interest, a conservative publication that includes Mr. Perle, Mr. Kissinger and Hollinger's former chief executive, Conrad Black, as advisers.
There isn't any indication that any of the directors, including Messrs. Perle and Kissinger, did anything illegal. And neither Mr. Perle nor Mr. Kissinger served on Hollinger's audit or compensation committees. But the payments highlight the subtle financial relationships between companies and otherwise independent directors. And the payments take on a starker light in the wake of investor accusations that the board stood by while Hollinger made large payments to Lord Black, who resigned as CEO last month, despite the company's flagging share price.
Along with the financial investments, Hollinger also made contributions to political causes linked to directors. Hollinger contributed $200,000 annually for an undisclosed number of years to National Interest, a foreign affairs quarterly that's produced jointly by Hollinger and the Nixon Center, a think tank that's a division of the Richard Nixon Library and Birthplace Foundation. The Nixon Center lists Mr. Kissinger as its honorary chairman and Lord Black as a board member. Lord Black and Mr. Kissinger are co-chairmen of the editorial board of the National Interest, which is described on its masthead as a "nonprofit partnership between Hollinger International Inc. and the Nixon Center." Hollinger has never disclosed its role in publishing the National Interest or its annual funding of the periodical.Yes, the Nixon Center and the Nixon Library! Isn't it wonderful how these rich businessmen just pick up these interests as they go along. Like TNR?
In addition to supporting the National Interest, Hollinger also gave up to $375,000 a year to the International Institute for Strategic Studies, a London-based think tank of which Lord Black is a member. Hollinger also sponsored a library at Arundel House, where the Institute's offices are housed, called the Hollinger-Telegraph Library.
Hollinger is no longer donating annually to the institute. The company is reviewing its support for the National Interest as part of a review of all corporate costs to "ensure that all expenditures have an appropriate and valid business purpose," Mr. Paris said through a spokeswoman.
Well, enough of the tweaking of sensibilities across the spectrum, and time for the actual Code of Ethics of TNR... they do *have* one... somewhere. Finding it, however, is another matter.
So now it is time for my personal gripe against the MSM. We hear so much about 'objectivity' and 'fairness' and such things and how good the MSM is at doing its job, what with so many layers of editors and how there is just so much 'professionalism' involved that one can just feel the pressure of it, which must be somewhere in the region of that of the ocean above the Marianas Trench. But do ANY of them put a public link in the 'About Us' or 'FAQ' or 'Masthead' or some such to their actual Code of Ethics that they swear they will adhere to?
You know, like professionals? Hippocratic Oath for journalists? When I had to dig out the one to the Associated Press for its 'Jamil Hussein' which caused the Investor's Business Daily to wonder why *anyone* should trust AP based on its response to public inquiry, or Mr. Froomkin's outright adversarial and advocacy viewpoints as an editor that *breaks* the Washington Post's Standards and Ethics, I could at least *find* those after a simple hour's search. And I can even find the Code of Ethics for CanWest's Directors, Supervisors and such for accounting purposes... but TNR?
You would think that for such a liberal oriented publication that they would be *proud* of their Code of Ethics and place it highly *somewhere* so the reading public could know what standards they hold themselves to with respect to the public. Or even just put on the Society of Professional Journalist's Code of Ethics link and say: yeah, we follow these. If they have, then I have been unable to find it.
Anywhere.
For such a 'progressive' organization they seem to have 'progressed' beyond internal accountability. I am sure they had one for the Stephen Glass episode of fabricated stories printed by their magazine... really! The guy was held to *some* standard. Although I am starting to suspect it is the bare minimal one of: don't get caught lying.
So I would normally be giving you a nice and didactic run-down of The New Republic's Code of Ethics here and doing a compare/contrast deal. Instead you are getting this - a grouse and a warning.
I hold myself accountable to the best interpretation of the facts that make sense to *me* as I can give you. I do my damnedest to let my reader know that I am, indeed, biased, unbalanced, unedited and one of the hardest people to read that you will ever run across. Once in awhile I try to entertain, but that is very rare.
And when I say something I back it up with links and lengthy excerpts or I do attempt to step the poor reader through my twisted reasoning which seems so very straight to me, but appears so twisted to many. Fair is fair! That is not a Code of Ethics, but trying to be open, honest and transparent with you, the poor individual who finds this blather of some interest, so that you can judge for yourself my fairness and ability to reason with you. And when I think I am being unfair I tell you WHY. Of sugarcoating and sweetness you will find very little, although a bit of humor does help now and again. I do advocate a position which should be clear from my statements, my writing and my outlook on things.
As I will never be a journalist I cannot tell you of interviews and 'secret sources' to protect, but I will shield those in my private life that I have not asked if I may share the details of our times together in my life. That I see as highly ethical and a good way to live one's life and does not hurt nor help others without their ok as one man's help is another's hurt and those in my life deserve that from me if nothing else. My code of conduct for myself must leave me with clear conscience so I can be troubled by the actual goings-on around me, not by the attempts to hide them from others or myself. I hold myself accountable for what I put out and, when an article is backed by multiple sources I have had to dig to find, then I expect there to be some validity to that or expanded knowledge on an ill found basis as I am merely human and unable to know everything.
I do, indeed, know the difference between ignorance and stupidity: the first is curable. I can be cured of stupidity by knowledge and reason. And I know unreason and rose-colored views of the world as they are unsustainable in either fact or outlook because they have no basis in this world we share between us. We are in hard times and only hard facts and reason will see us through this time... or we will become stupid and repeat the exact, same mistakes that got us into such deadly peril and that will set us free... in the graveyard.
I did not enjoy putting together the 'Volunteer Fifth Column' part of my sidebar, and all the articles it contains. I do not like the activities of those involved as they are by action or inaction trying to bring my Nation to harm and end liberty and freedom as we know it. And almost all of those on it end up because they hold themselves to a standard of self-service and not giving a damn to anyone else. That is stupid adherence to ideology that fails and has failed.
It looks like The New Republic will soon be put onto that list.
Because, if they can come up with *no* reliable second sources willing to go on record, then they are damned by their own professional standards as known in the industry. For extraordinary claims must come extraordinary evidence.
But to go out on a more humorous note, Dominion Weblog posts this very fun piece about CanWest and its view towards freelancers in journalism:
The CanWest Global Contract for freelancers has some curious language.Now what was that about an all-encompassing vision of North America? It looks like Mr. Asper already has some views on 'grand designs'. That is what one gets when hanging around with Kissinger and company.Freelancer hereby irrevocably grants and assigns to CanWest all rights of every kind in and to the Content (including copyright), and agrees that CanWest shall have the right to exclusively use and exploit the Content in any manner and in any and all media, whether now known or hereafter devised, throughout the universe, in perpetuity. For greater certainty, Freelancer shall have no right to re-sell or re-publish the Content without CanWest's express written permission.CanWest: not just "global" anymore.
19 July 2007
It's Dumb Looks Time with: John Derbyshire and COIN!
Today's contestant on all things Counter-Insurgency (COIN) is John Derbyshire of The Corner on National Review Online! And for his great offering let us take his post response to Jonah Goldberg on COIN. A big round of applause to Mr. Derbyshire to step into the spotlight on this! So to start off with we will look at his posting and examine it for any and all Dumb Looks that can be given to it completely for FREE!
Here he begins thusly:
Jonah: Nope, don't care whether Iraqis "choose our side" or not. And I believe the American people have a much higher tolerance than you think for bloobaths caused by our giving up on people who—I think the American people would say—were so intrinsically hopeless, we had no choice but to give up on them. The American people barely turned a hair at Pol Pot.Oh, my! Mr. Derbyshire has decided to call the American People heartless, callous and having a high degree of tolerance for the deaths of foreigners! And lets take that in reverse order, so we can find out why he says such a thing.
Pol Pot was the genocidal maniac leading Cambodia into its era of the Killing Fields! And do you know WHY Americans 'barely turned a hair' to that genocide? Because the Mainstream Media of the day DIDN'T REPORT ON IT DAILY!! Yes news reports did NOT flood in, day after day, from village after village, witnessing the carnage of this bloodthirsty tyrant who gleefully slaughter all of his opponents inside Cambodia. That lovely Communist formed up Democratic Kampuchea and then, because such groups as: Buddhist monks, western trained intellectuals, anyone with a decent education regardless of source, anyone who had any contact with western Nations, people who 'looked intelligent' (including those wearing glasses), the crippled, lame, ethnic Chinese, ethnic Laotians, ethnic Vietnamese. And does Mr. Derbyshire know *why* there was so little reporting on this?
Because Pol Pot killed the reporters who were: intelligent, intellectuals, had contact with western Nations and had a decent education!
Oh, my! The 'Dumb-Looks-o-Meter' is moving hard over on that concept: the American People didn't KNOW about the genocide and almost no one else DID EITHER. It took getting rid of Pol Pot's regime to know the true horror and vast scale of it as it concentrated on first eliminating the weak links with the outside world. Mr. Derbyshire has just intimated that the American People should be outraged about something that only came to light YEARS after it went on.
But, lets be fair, there is a good reason WHY there was no good reporting on this beyond Pol Pot's willingness to just kill those that could report on it. We did NOT give up on the Cambodians because they were 'intrinsically hopeless'! No we gave up on the South Vietnamese as 'hopeless' as was the war we were fighting there. And WHY did the US give up on that? Because we only fought to preserve the South Vietnamese and NOT take out North Vietnam. And who did North Vietnam supply?
Pol Pot!
There you have it, the South Vietnamese were hard pressed because the US would not liberate North Vietnam and, so the Cambodian People were 'intrinsically hopeless' because we would not bring down the regime that supplied Pol Pot!
Uh, oh! The 'Dumb-Looks-o-Meter' is squarely into the DUMB LOOKS territory and going hard through that into the HEADSHAKE OF IMPOSSIBILITY region!
So there you have the basis for 'the American People having a much higher tolerance for a bloodbath of foreigners' concept! It comes squarely on the US inability to fight to WIN against an enemy, then FLEEING the region leaving no trustworthy journalists behind who would, in any event, have been caught up in the Killing Fields of Pol Pot in Cambodia and KILLED so we couldn't learn about it anyways! Perhaps the American People are supposed to be MIND READERS?
That is *just* the opening paragraph by Mr. Derbyshire, perhaps he can get back to simple DUMB LOOKS and not head into the SIGH OF EXASPERATION territory.
And I must say, your ruthlessness seems pretty tame to me. REAL ruthlessness is what Winston Churchill (disapprovingly) called "frightfulness." I think you'd have to conclude, looking back after the last century or so, that modern Anglo powers simply don't do "frightfulness"—not as a land-war tactic, anyway: the city-flattening air raids of WW2 were in a category of their own. The Brits tried the well-proven Roman-Ottoman style counterinsurgency tactics in Ireland (the Black and Tans) and India (Amritsar—that was Churchill's context), and discovered they had no stomach for it. That's why Ireland and India are independent. I doubt we have the stomach either.Oh, my, here he purports that the Roman-Ottoman style of COIN was utilized in Ireland and India. Now here it is difficult to tell just *which* COIN campaign waged by the Romans or the Ottomans he is talking about. Is this the placement of Roman troops and leadership amongst barbarians to civilize them? Or is it more along the lines of losing a revolt of indigenous peoples one once controlled, as the Ottomans clearly demonstrated they couldn't do in a losing Campaign in the Middle East during the Arab Revolt? Perhaps he is talking of the Belisarius North African Campaign to retake that area from the Vandals during the reign of Justinian? Or perhaps the Armenian Genocide perpetrated by the Ottoman Turks?
Just which, pray tell, COIN mind-set does Mr. Derbyshire refer to? Because these are all EMPIRES not democracies that are waging COIN and using drastic and draconian means to do so. Empires, typically, have only one good path to COIN: kill until peace is achieved.
Is that what he is referring to for the US and the UK? That we do not LIKE GENOCIDE? He is quite correct, but not, I think, in the way he means. If that is Mr. Derbyshire's conception of 'successful COIN' then he really does have a limited view of it.
Yes it is the SIGH OF EXASPERATION time! Someone saying that genocide is the only means to peace and that ethnic cleansing, as it is now known, is not liked by democracies and so they will ALWAYS FAIL. That is one of the most highly negative views of modern civilization I have ever seen and looks to be pining for the days of successful genocidal campaigns to pacify regions that I have ever seen.
The 'Dumb-Looks-o-Meter' is nearly pegged over at RAMPANT NEGATIVISM, and the needle has been replaced by numerous contestants who have broken the poor thing by their outlooks at the incapacity of Western Civilization to do any good whatsoever in the world. Let us hope that Mr. Derbyshire doesn't wander into *that* territory:
The very interesting question, raised by Luttwak and others, is then: Does any other kind of counterinsurgency work? I think both a priori considerations of human nature and the historical evidence say "No." Still, I'm happy to wait for General Petraeus's report in mid-September.Luckily this is all for that post, but it will be time for another needle replacement job, I can see. Previously I have left thoughts at the Bereft site on this very matter of Luttwak and his outlook, so let me lift from my response on that:
Luttwak makes the common mistake of assuming that once the oil slows from the ME, the power will wane. Terrorism now uses multiple sources for funding: narcotrafficking, bank fraud, grey market goods sales, theft, kidnap for ransom, and the ever popular murder for hire. Petrodollars make it worse, yes, but the present idea that free markets and cheap goods are making things safer and the world freer is misguided and no place more so than the Middle East. Trade does not get freedom. International insitutions do not get freedom.Yes, Mr. Luttwak is looking at the WRONG REASON for terrorism and its continuation! Mr. Luttwak wants there to be nice, cozy, rational actors that will appear, magically, in the Middle East once the petrodollars go away. I have some bad news for him and any who believe in that: it didn't happen during the Barbary Pirates days! This meme of taking over the world for the Caliphate has been around for a long time and those supporting it do not believe, like good Christians, that people should decide for themselves to believe in God and bring it about. The radical Islamists want it at gunpoint and submission - the loss of freedom globally so that they may rule.
If either of those were true then after 90 years of having it go on in the Middle East, it should be the freest place on the planet. I do not see that for some very strange reason.
This is primarily not a money flow question as that area has been a haven for tyrants, thugs and Empires for hundreds, if not thousands of years. Of freedom and liberty based upon the rights of man, there has been scant evidence of it. In fact the drying up of money will make things more restive, more tense and those new sources, like Canada with the tar sands and the US with its oil shales, even more hated for 'taking such riches away'. That is, of course, irrational. Perhaps Mr. Luttwak has not noticed the lack of rational actors in the region?
Mussolini still managed to get a lot of folks killed, threaten the vital supply link of the Suez and had an outside chance, with Germany, of cutting off Gibraltar if Germany had held to its original War Plan. Thankfully that was not done.
This enemy has no Nation and wishes all Nations overturned. It can get cheap arms anywhere because we do not do a thing about going after trade with our enemies. There are a number of vital supply and transport links that can be targeted with some ease and if any non-conventional weapon is used possibly removed from the global economy on a long-term basis. I suggest that the economic argument is trivial compared to the long-term survival argument. If we do not put an end to terrorism and dreams of Empire we and our children *will live* to regret our effete attitudes towards civilization and how to hold it.
The fighting would have been bad, but manageable in 1917 and given basis for the US to help bring about more Nations aligned with their Peoples. We did not do that.
The US could have done a bit more after WW II beyond mere anti-colonial support and put in some actual help to the region in the way of schools and building a good base for decent jobs. We did not do that, either.
We could have stopped supporting tyrants or actually overthrown those not in the direct control of the USSR. We did not do that.
Now we pay for the inaction of parents and grand-parents who could have helped other Peoples find a route to freedom by expending blood and money to fight a hard, nasty war that had no good end because it was not fought to completion anywhere. That is still left undone in the Balkans and Middle East. And the price of that is held by a butcher that has decided we need to pay with our lives and freedom.
Time to put fancy ideas of economic reality away and start to deal with this other, actual, real sort of reality, where there are non-rational actors in the world.
Because if we do not put an end to them, then they shall do so to us.
Apparently Mr. Derbyshire does not believe in that and, instead, believes these will be nice folks who will just leave the West alone once the US runs away. How unfortunate for the folks in London, Madrid, Bali, the Philippines, Indonesia, India, Pakistan, China (yes, western China these days), the Tri-Border Area of South America, Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden... sorry, COIN just doesn't work don't mind the Caliphate repression as it will WIN over democracies which have a high toleration for the bloodshed of their neighbors.
Yes the needle is hard over at RAMPANT NEGATIVISM and that brings us to the historical research of Mr. Derbyshire and it is time to bust the poor 'Dumb-Looks-o-Meter', again. We will start with one highly known, successful COIN operation waged by the United States of America!
This was against a ruthless, native enemy that we had not even FOUGHT against in a war and yet we got stuck doing COIN work against them.... an enemy so ruthless that they skinned people alive and stuffed the skins and left them by trails to be found at night... one that thought nothing of torture, mutilation and sending body parts back to villages. A hard fought, hard won campaign to help a Nation overcome its insurgent minority, islamic population. That was the Moro Rebellion of 1901-13 after the Philippine-American War (1899-1901). And by 1915 the Philippines was to be handed over to a reliable, native government!
If one looks at ethnic divisions and uprisings against a ruling government, then the entire set of Western Indian Wars by the US, lasting from the start of the Akira War starting on or about 01 JUN 1823 and lasting to the final treaties, ending them on 05 OCT 1898 is a 75 year COIN operation with perennial flare-ups, battles, wars, terrorism, killing and so on going on throughout the entire endeavor. There was, apparently, a lot of bloodshed going on in that time.
Prior to that the Northwest Indian War (21 JAN 1785 to 03 AUG 1795) would also be an example of COIN and ending such work on an ongoing basis. This was done by, yes, a democracy.
While we may like it less the British Malay Emergency solutions were on the order of 'relocating populations' but it was to prevent something worse from happening and was a long term problem until it was realized that it was unwinnable on the part of the insurgents. From this we get the 'hearts and minds' concept of COIN.
These solutions require: engaging the native population, ensuring that ethnic tensions and conflicts are addressed, and killing off the insurgents or giving them no long-term options for success. While Mao may like the idea of a 'fish swimming through populations of other fishes' and 'draining the swamp' comes from this concept, the one of helping to get local, accountable government structures that remove legitimacy from insurgent forces is key. That took a long time in the US and, to this day, the solution for Native Americans has been sub-optimal although the campaign was and is successful. Malay defensive relocation of ethnically 'at risk' populations allowed the government to quell tensions and give little options for insurgents to have legitimate cause to fight and wore them out. And in the Philippines, it was kill until respect is gained, in one of the most horrific and personal COIN fights the US has ever been engaged in and is still remembered by the Moros who bequeath names like "John", "Theodore" and "Pershing" to children.
Apparently using democratic means to create legitimate government and remove legitimacy from insurgents can and does work, via various means. So there we have historical analysis to demonstrate effective COIN work done by democracies. And so Mr. Derbyshire wins plenty of Free Dumb Looks for his Rampant Negativism on COIN and establishing governmental legitimacy by democracies.
Perhaps he would like a nice Islamic Empire, instead? Sphere: Related Content
Internetworking and the role it plays
One of the things that has been most difficult to describe is the critical importance of person-to-person networking in the coalescing networks between Transnational Terrorism, International Organized Crime and flow of goods in the black/grey market to support these things. In the good old days of police detective dramas we would see people in rooms full of 3x5 notecards and pieces of string all over the place to map out such networks. Indeed, more than one crime drama would focus on this and someone just looking at the network of who knew who and what happened until it all made sense. Unfortunately very few people can *think* like that and trying to describe what the large-scale internetworking means is very, very difficult.
Today, however, the computer has replaced the notecard and string arrangement, and one of the key elements of police work to bring down gangs, identify gang leaders and how their territory changes is via this method of network analysis. To find Saddam Hussein after his fall from power, he depended upon a close and interwoven set of individuals to provide him with safe houses, transportation, food, supplies and communications. He had hoped to evade capture to a secure location so as to re-emerge from safety at a point that could not be assailed by the Coalition Forces. For him to sustain himself, however, others would find out about the location of his confidantes and that would tie them to him.
When the 'Hunt for Saddam' started, it was a slow going thing as only a few members of the US Armed Forces had the necessary police investigation experience to do the tracking. I will say that from my time in Advanced R&D at one of the INTEL Agencies, that this sort of ability in the US INTEL Community was lacking or missing, completely. A few of us inside the department realized that these critical tools had to be employed to give a good rendition of INTEL across the board, so as to finally start to derive more reliable INTEL based reporting. One of the critical tools was one used by many police departments, but the department looked at many, many other tools, also. Those in Iraq, however, had to make sense of disparate INTEL reports from different groups, with different standards of reliability and to start piecing together just who was or was not in Saddam's 'inner circle'. Who did he trust and why?
For some weeks the notecards and string re-appeared and the experience of just organizing that data started to yield the outlay of that 'inner circle' and their outward bound contacts. Saddam was *not* moving via pre-emplaced government officials and safe-houses, but through a highly personal trust network of reliable individuals. Many of those would end up dead and their body trail was one indicator of his direction of thought and outlook. Reports from those in the second and third circles out would show up with more individuals interrogated and they would point to a region, Tikrit, which would go 'blank' in the notecard arrangement. Even troops on the ground could not get reports from anyone of where Saddam was.
For that narrowing down took place with Military Intelligence moving in, purchasing the police department network software, organizing data & collection standards, and, finally, entering all of the data into a few databases. That, in and of itself, took a couple of weeks (if memory serves) but it was able to remove vast areas where Saddam was *not* and start to tighten the literal circle of reports to show where he *was*. That blank area of reports was due to the brutality of his inner circle to enforce cooperation and obedience. Some of the capture of the 'Playing Cards', members of the higher circles of Saddam's regime, happened as they showed up in the analysis, too. That native, high-level, Ba'athist network got picked apart, but only to a level or so deeper than the High Value Targets. Much of the low-level networking was left in-place by oversight, not design, as it would clutter the search for the HVTs.
Those around Saddam noticed this: more Coalition forces near-by, more roadblocks, more house to house searches, and more members either fleeing or being taken in. Or killed by Saddam's cronies. Finally it was a relatively low-level but highly trusted individual that tipped off the Coalition and got the reward for 'finding Saddam': Saddam's chauffeur. One of the most highly trusted individuals is the one who has to fake his way past check-points, get supplies and ferry goods to and from Saddam. He knew that *his* time was nearly up with Saddam and the question of dying by Saddam's order (and most likely his family getting fallout from that) or turning him in so that he and his family could escape was too stark. He 'walked in', identified himself and within minutes of that he was identified in the network, his position realized, and in one hour a raid staged to get Saddam.
It got Saddam.
These tools and databases of contacts and internetworking served as the basis for much later INTEL work in Iraq and the Military Intelligence folks who, at the beginning of the conflict, were in a pre-automated era of receive reports, digest for a few hours and spit out a report a day or two later had to change their own cycle of analysis and reporting to what was seen on-the-ground in real time. That major change of personal affiliation network analysis has become a vital tool in moving down the command structures of various parts of the 'insurgency'. The 'insurgency' in Iraq, from the way it is described, falls into four highly affiliated internetworks. Individuals and their immediate friendship circles serve as the basis for allowing goods and information to pass from one network to another for joint operations, supplies and some loose deconfliction of events.
As a description and meta-analysis, these fall into the following categories:
1) Ba'athist redentist networks - These are the low level Ba'athists who had some basis for localized power at the time of the fall of Saddam. These low level networks started to re-knit themselves as the HVTs moved down the organizational ladder to attempt to re-network the regime in a new power basis. While many of the critical border operations along Syria and Jordan were re-established, it was the deeper networks into families that was starting to be pulled into this. The timely removal of the HVTs ended that, but caused a lateral spread of the Ba'athist insurgency.
2) Sunni Radicals - These groups utilized the pre-existing Ansar al-Sunnah [correction to Ansar al-Islam as the group at that point in time, with the influence of Zarqawi the name would change, along with operational basis - my thanks to Rusty on that!] bases to move their affiliations outwards, once the regime fell. They could no longer concentrate 'just' on the Kurds as that was a Saddamist goal and, really, had gotten them nowhere. With Ansar being part of the distributed al Qaeda heierarchy, it served to allow individuals to spread into Sunni Arab Iraq and then into the mixed Sunni/Shia areas. This would take a year to do, which is the noted 'breathing time' between the fall of Saddam in MAR-APR 2003 and a year later. These utilized inflows of money from Saudi Arabia, al Qaeda and more distributed elements in Jordan and Turkey to gain a foothold. al Qaeda, in particular, brought in individuals via Saudi Arabia to begin entrenching themselves in places like Anbar province.
3) Shia Radicals - These groups, most notably the Iranian supported and controlled Badr Brigades, plus the radical cleric Moqtada al Sadr, and a number of Shia Imams and affiliates spreading from the SE border and into Baghdad would be one of the first to stand up a new organization. The Badr Brigades would attempt to shift to temporary support of the Coalition to remove the Ba'athist regime and install a radical Shia outlook. Moqtada al Sadr would organized more wide-spread militias in the mode of Hezbollah, and begin to cycle individuals to Iran for training while attempting to build his own military support base in Baghdad to Basra corridor. The final part to be stood up was the political SCIRI organization, to arm-wrestle the consitution and the first National elections to its outlook, with support of Iran and having a basic anti-Ba'athist and hostile Sunni attitude. This set of organizations continue to utilize supply lines, training and equipment supplied from Iran and Syria, and reached out to the Sunni organizations and Organized crime to facilitate the Syrian inflow of arms and equipment.
4) Organized crime - This is, perhaps, the most overlooked part of how the various operations in Iraq sustain themselves. The original organized crime links to Iran, Turkey, Syria, Jordan and Saudi Arabia had started at a very low level, as Saddam's regime was more of a Mafia Don that brooked no competition than that of a Nation State. The Kurds, first to get out from his rule after the first Gulf War, had the most effective smuggling operations into Iraq: that first flood of used cars came not from overseas, but from Kurds smuggling in hundreds if not thousands of cheap used vehicles via Turkey, and a few from Syria. The effect of *that* was sudden appearance of cars on the road and the pointing out that there was limited oil refining capacity in Iraq to meet this need. The flood of televisions, radios, computers, refrigerators, stoves... these started with some commercial interests, yes, but those with ready money were in organized crime and their contacts suddenly made 'consumer goods' a high mark-up, hot selling item. The very same black/grey market goods channels to get in arms, munitions, explosives and people during Saddam's reign blossomed to become truckloads of white market goods flowing into Iraq to meet consumer demand. What happened is well known: demand outstripped supply of the ancient electrical system that dates back to the 1960s and '70s with mostly Soviet and some French and German equipment. This would also allow, however, for the influx of large amounts of arms on the cheap form weapon's suppliers like Syria's Monzer al-Kassar who would utilize his Eastern European contacts, along with ones in Turkey and Latin America to spread influence into Iraq. Which is why he was one of the first to go on the Iraqi 'Most Wanted' list after the government finally stood up last year.
What is amazing to hear, throughout that period, was the 'deficiencies of the post-war occupation' from many, many groups and individuals. Apparently the concept of 'set-expectations' trying to meet expanded need had never been brought to their minds and so the recriminations about supply of electricity, gasoline and all of that is blamed on the 'occupation' until some Interim body could be set up to slowly get some handle on all of this. I, personally, had a major problem with those folks as they had spent ZERO time to think about infrastructure maintenance, original design capacity, degraded actual capacity, pent-up consumer demand and such simple things as the Coalition Forces not having the necessary depth of police anti-gang experience to try and track down the networks listed above.
No one has ever addressed *which* grand and magnificent 'plan' by any part of the US Government or any of its Coalition partners had forecasted the two-year sea change in insurgencies, consumer demand, infrastructure analysis or even something so simple as finding reliable individuals who could govern. The four listed networks are not 'separate networks' but ones that can and do inter-cooperate on a local basis, although there is some higher-level antagonism between them. The Ba'athist network had to be the first to go as it was the hardest hit and the most dangerous, from a military perspective: it had the generals, commanders, trainers and everyone needed to restart the regime elsewhere. The paucity of tools to analyze it meant that a broad-based search operation had to be used and the other three network types could not be addressed until they started to show up by activities... terrorist activities. By that point in time it was too late as they had already used the criminal networks to expand their affilitation basis until they were rubbing against each other throughout Iraq.
The expectations of dictatorial regimes fighting it out 'to the bitter end' and either dying on the battlefield or surrendering did not play out in Iraq. Worries of that were ones of a highly influential dictator able to gain approval in the population to support such a fight and then, after the fall of the government, to install a temporary interim government from those that had fled overseas and trustworthy individuals found on the ground during the fighting. The insurgency from that would be entrenched, deeply sustained and have multiple fall-backs inside their own networks. This expectation did not show up and, instead of months of hard fighting, the regime fell in *weeks* and then evaporated.
Another expectation that has trouble materializing is that of how to shift from a State owned and run economy to that or private capitalism. Here the need to plan for shifting individuals in charge of things like electrical production and distribution and utilizing organs of government spun off from the government also did not happen. The government went fully out of existing and only low level technical people were around to keep things running. How does one shift from State to private control when there is: 1) No State, and, 2) no organized private capital ventures to shift control *to*? This is not only for electricity (which goes unmetered in Iraq!) water, sewage processing and such basic infrastructure, all the way down into the moribund agricultural sector, food processing and distribution.
It is a pure fantasy to think that there *could* be a shift of all of that to more localized control in the very best of circumstances. We have that learning experience from the Ex-Eastern Bloc Nations under the USSR to see the differences between glacially slow transfer, as in Russia, to 'Cold Turkey' like in Poland. In between there are a number of different options that are tried and some, like the Russian, are clearly failing. Those are in Nations with intact governments, intact control and distribution systems, backwards economies and no capitalism worth its name when they started. The very best of them, Poland, took 5 years or so to shift out from Soviet concepts of how to run things and get to a stable and slowly increasing economy. That is in the heart of Europe which was stable and peaceful. In Iraq? Getting factories open is only starting within the last 6 months and employment is now increasing and unemployment finally falling. Even without a counter-insurgency operation, which has *always* been seen as necessary, getting Iraq up and on its feet in anything less than Poland, that had advanced help nearby and ready investors lined up, was asinine, in the extreme.
What is even worse is the lack of recognition by the Political Elite and those who try to foist strange ideas of how the world works upon the public, is that the basis for what sort of government one can *get* in the Middle East has changed since 1945! Yes, strange as it may seem the all-mighty Nation State run by Nationalists is no longer the ONLY paradigm in the Middle East. Iran and Afghanistan have demonstrated two other methods of ruling that have very little to do with Nationalism and everything to do with pan-Islamism. Even worse is that the 'Palestinian Territories' have been unable to even FORM a Nation State since 1948, with the best being achieved is the insurgent-terrorist based kleptocracy that has impoverished the people there by feeding them pipe-dreams that cannot happen. Yes, there are some Arab areas that cannot *form* a Nation State even under a good, old-fashioned dictator.... which would be a step *up* for the folks in Palestine.
Somehow those purporting that the post-war policies failed have also failed to address their unreasonable expectations of a post-war situation that was highly unknown and impossible to plan for beyond the most general of outlines and even *those* would end up being scrapped as time went on. By putting down no *goals* that were understood the critics have NO BASIS in their carping. I have previously addressed some of the truly insane concepts of having a 'huge force on the ground' which, if you would notice, would not address the highly person-to-person networks that were developing in any way, shape or form. One could not even get the Shinsekian 500,000 troops without stripping out EUCOM and PACOM, and throwing in the reserves and then you have them for a year. Raw troops, untrained for Iraq, unused to the conditions and having to deal with a highly strange situation that would not make sense to them... and just as the drawdown would begin the actual insurgency would BEGIN. I can hear the screaming of the naysayers in that alternate universe because I can hear their unrealistic outlooks in this one.
Those individuals expecting that Iran and Syria would 'be amenable to diplomacy' forget that the two of them have been most un-amenable to it in Lebanon. The establishment of their proxy in the form of Hezbollah goes unaddressed by the West and those pushing for 'diplomacy' everywhere. If 'diplomacy' had worked, Lebanon would be at peace with no outside influence from Iran or Syria, now, wouldn't it? That hasn't happened. Generating the power vacuum of a fallen dictator invited these two Nations, plus al Qaeda and a scattering of other groups to try their hand in the Middle East power-by-terrorism concept that has worked so famously in Palestine. The Iraq Survey Group's recommendations sounds like something out of the 1950's with North Korea, and look how well THAT worked out.
I am surprised that anyone gives any credence to 'Realism' in Foreign Policy based upon the good wishes of dictators and tyrants. As a concept 'Realism' has not only grossly failed the West and the US, but it has put us in deadly danger by support it gives to radical elements, despots, thieves and dictators in the form of unaccountable foreign policy pay-offs and systems which give them EQUAL VOICE to democracies. In case you missed it, the folks who *caused* Iraq via 'Realism' in Foreign Policy have names like Baker, Scowcroft, Kissinger, Brzezinski and Clinton. These folks stood up an international era in which dictators would NOT be held to account for anything, in which power brokering with thugs would be utilized, and in which actual anti-democratic Nations would be welcomed into the fold to spread their ideals of totalitarian rule and 'gain legitimacy'. The fallout of that decades of being 'realistic' is now criticism based on wanting to, now, CONTINUE supporting tyrants, despots, kleptocracies, thugs and terrorists *against* forming up accountable Nations to confront them.
Isn't THAT a lovely thing to come from 'The Land of the Free'? Support of the most anti-democratic, anti-liberal elements on the face of the Earth because they stand up to the United States and Western ideals. And why do they support them?
First it is 'unrealistic' NOT to! Yes, call a conference of all the thugs, dictators and radial islamists surrounding Iraq... to do what? Really, what works with that scenario that ends up with MORE people leading freer lives with liberty to benefit by the bounty of their own work? Because I just don't see it.
Second they see the cost of support as unsustainable to the US! I really do forget how many of the next largest economies on this planet summed up equals that of the US. It used to be just #2 and 3 combined and I doubt its that anymore. So it isn't the actual, monetary nor capital expenditure costs, which would be the equivalent of refitting a moderately large State in the US that fell into disrepair and asking the folks there to take up the majority of the repair job once we've shown them how to do it. Like NOLA, save that sucker is sinking... so we put billions into a sinking city.
No, the lovely folks who put up a resistance on COST talk about the cost in lives and injuries to the Armed Forces.
The volunteer armed forces.
That they will not SUPPORT in their mission. Who fight and die because they have VOLUNTEERED to do so for the sorry asses of those carping on the losses sustained. And we are not asking them to go into Iwo Jima, Saipan or onto the beaches of Normandy, but to this Nation called Iraq. You remember that? Dictator over it for 30 years? A couple of decades of one-party or dictatorial or military rule before that? A province of the Ottoman Empire for centuries? Hello? You do *remember* that place, right? The one that has NEVER tasted Liberty and Freedom before, ever? No living memory of it. Some of the memories are carved in stone about dictators and Empires, but a freely elected government to represent the People of Iraq?
Apparently there are still Americans that will VOLUNTEER for helping a People who have never experienced Liberty, Freedom and Democracy before to try it out. And it could FAIL. And leave the West with an even larger problem in that doing.
It is very hard to hear those wanting failure - wanting to flee for handfuls of lives lost out of millions to achieve liberty for a downtrodden people in a far-off land.
To hear from Americans who no longer believe in the universality of all people being created equal.
To have life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness without tyrannical, despotic or autocratic government taking such from them.
Holding onto this concept has a cost, a deep cost to it, which was spoken about before, during and after the American Revolution so we would NEVER EVER forget it.
You may mouth the words, but if you no longer adhere to them, then you turn away from those things it gives us. You flee from death and destruction and seek the oblivion of tyranny by letting those seeking power over mankind get any rest, any surcease and any opportunity to grow and end that dream... that very idealistic dream... that was the basis for the Revolution.
Looking at the large-scale Terrorist internetworks tells me just how little that ideal now means to the West and to the United States. We have not confronted it for decades, and it has grown to infest itself globally... from the heroin centers in the Bekaa Valley to the Radical Islamist Imams in the US. From arms dealers willing to ship their goods without restriction by Western Nations to far off lands where a profit can be made easily and cheaply.
Even in Iraq we do not confront all of that, just a small outgrowth of that large scale internetwork. And the quivering about paying any price *now* will guarantee that these enemies will thrive, prosper and continue their aim of ending liberty once and for all if they can. As a Nation the US cannot run from Iraq to protect the US, those days ended with 'open borders' and FEDEX. Nor can we hide from the responsibilities leveraged upon us when our liberty and freedoms at home have already been attacked by killers for decades, that thrive on the moribund attitudes of one-worldism and transnational capitalism.
The horrific price the US paid by leaving South Vietnam was in the blood on our hands from those that needed protection from tyrants and despots. Destroyed villages, 'killing fields' and 'boat people' who fled from tyranny and death because the fighting did not end after the US left. And the killing only got worse. That led to many outcomes, but the worse is this dream of global pathway to power by just killing to it for an tyrannical ideology. And so you can get an idea of what that looks like on a graphical scale, lets take a look at rough sketching out of some of the links between: Syria, Iran, Hezbollah, al Qaeda, Abu Sayyaf, FARC, BCCI.
Not very pretty, and only covering about 15 terror incidents and concentrating on the US...call it less than 5% of the high level interconnections with much more from BCCI, BNL, and arms firms needing to be put in along with the Drug Cartels and Kingpins. Plus a hefty amount of the interaction between organized crime and terrorism isn't well scoped out yet.
That is what it looks like when we do not pay attention to tyranny and terror for 30 years.
Too bad so many in the defeatocrat camp don't want to confront it.
It is already here.
16 July 2007
Some commentary of mine at the Bistro
It had been a few days since I visited Harrison's place at the The Possum Bistro, and I found some great posts, and reading one after another I finally had some ideas that I was going to post about coalesce! So in his Defence Against the Dark Arts post, I did what I always do - meander on in commentary. But, as it was a great post, and a number of good ones to finally get things more properly moving, mentally, I will give it to you, the poor reader, as-is. That said the number of wonderful posts that Harrison has warrants a visit to The Possum Bistro!
Here is my commentary, as follows, no corrections or any such done so you may know exactly how bad I write with an insulin reaction coming on:
Amazing how the West thinks in terms of who should and should not be divided! Yes North and South Korea and Vietnam worked out so well... didn't they? How about East and West Berlin and Germany? Why, thank god there are two of them! Lovely palliative, that, to not stand up to totalitarianism and say: we are war weary, don't grab at what you can't grasp as that will come back to haunt you. And so it did, as you note, in Hungary and the welded together Checzoslovakia. Yes, they were one Nation... now two because of incompatabilities in ethnic outlook. Then there is this thing that the West in its grand ideals, made of disparate peoples and called it Yugoslavia. That worked very well, didn't it?And there you have it, twisted syntax and all... Sphere: Related Content
This 'deciding the fate of others' deal has a long history going back further than the Tripartite division of Poland, which resurrected itself out of the ashes of the Empires that divided it, only to be subjugated twice more due to Western inability to stick to its word: first to Fascist Germany and then to the USSR. 'Realism' is an excuse to put money ahead of liberty, and this idea that the West can do more than just guide post-war situations and *not* control them, is something we must get over. Western culture cannot force people to be free, but it can teach what the cost of liberty and freedom *is*.
Whenever we decide on the 'realistic' course, the US denies its history of being a Revolutionary Nation that has long-term commitment to its ideals. Strange to say, but 'idealistic' outlook can be quite pragmatic and yet understand that to coddle tyranny is abhorrent to a Free People.
And how dare the US put 'benchmarks' upon other governments when it can adhere to NONE of its own? While we are, indeed, committed to securing our own liberty, we do forget the responsibility of a post-war situation to help others understand what it means to secure liberty for themselves. That is *not* a cost-free situation, and yet we have a political class that believes otherwise.
No, let some magnificent 'moral equivalence' reign, in which black is white and torture is a bad night's sleep. Or that mere commerce is the be-all, end-all to liberty... forgetting that it is liberty that builds commerce to make one free to utilize the benefits of one's own work. The defeatism that we see is pure cowardice: an unwillingness to put any cost forward as worth it to build freedom and help others realize what it costs to secure liberty.
Fukiyama was blandly incorrect to assume an 'end of history' and the inevitability of Western culture and outlook. There is no such thing as inevitability in history. There may be 'tides in the affairs of men' but men are not King Canute commanding the tide, we ride it and sink or swim on our own basis... and sometimes we can get to higher ground and deny the tide its reach. That is contingency in history, based upon the actions of individuals. Our actions create history, even if the tide runs counter to it actions can and do make a difference. Even with the tide turning on human liberty and so many willing to see it gone, the goal of swimming for liberty and trying to reach higher ground to escape tyranny is worth the cost and struggle.
Because stopping is fatal.
Now we hear the insane ideas that running from helping others will have desireable outcomes... people that we committed to in overthrowing a tyrant. Be it right or wrong to do the overthrowing, the responsibility is to help guide these people on why we did it as a free people, and for them to determine their own course as a free people. I am more than willing to pay that price as a civilization, as *not* to pay it is lethal to us. That poison already drips into our mouths and its bitter taste is awful. Yet the sweet words of 'just swallow the poison' is heard again.
'We can't mediate a civil war.'
-Show me the 'civil war' by the ancient standards of honorably standing up a government and fighting FOR something, and I will tell you if it is something to take part in or NOT.
No, those ancient standards that we know are not the ones of modernity... *anything*, literally, is 'civil war' now. So blind terrorism masked as sectarian strife to give murderers cover... that is 'civil war'.
Not barbarians behaving barbarically against innocents.
'We can't figure out their problems for them, so just stand by the sidelines. Divide up their Nation.'
-Well if we can't figure it out, then 'why' is it a good thing to divide them? After THREE democratic elections, ONE to make a Constitution, a SECOND to ratify it and a THIRD to elect a government as a unified Nation, how can we say it should be divided? North-South, like Vietnam and Korea? East-West like Germany and Europe were? Or Tripartite like Poland?
Those *failed*.
Welding together people who did not want to be in a Nation together *failed* in the Balkans and for the Checzoslovakia.
The People there have spoken, wisely or unwisely, as a People. Can we abide by that or will we, as with Argentina under Allende, or S. Vietnam under Diem, invalidate their elections by our 'wisdom' being unable to figure the place out? Argentina and S. Vietnam worked out so well in this 'deciding for them' business, didn't it?
How come, in Austin Bay, I hear the same, old, tired and *wrong* ideals being given to us for the defeatist option and NO ONE willing to call them for the old, tired and *wrong* things they have given us in the past? I literally cannot name places where they have WORKED. The Ottoman Empire under lovely Wilsonian ideals? Free now with trade, right?
Those things are *excuses* not to do the right thing and hold on grimly to liberty as the cost of NOT doing that is an invalidation of liberty and freedom for ourselves. That cost was plainly told the US in the Revolution and for the world to witness: 'No taxation without representation' and 'The price of the Tree of Liberty comes in the cost of the blood of tyrants and patriots'.
'Divide up those that we cannot understand!
Or Unite them!
Or call genocide by the name 'civil war'!
Just RUN!
For god's sake don't stay and FIGHT to be FREE!!'
What is the cost of liberty?
-The last free person on the planet FIGHTING to be free, and dying for liberty. Nations rent asunder to do that. Peoples dead for that. All treasuries spent for that. The planet laid waste because slavery of the human spirit and soul to tyranny is NOT worth the price of living as a slave under *any* system.
That started in 1776.
Yet I find few defenders of this concept any more.
How do you justify defeat when it means being a slave to the fear of death?
And soon just being a slave as those that threaten know no bounds.
It is a stark, nasty, and permanent cost to be paid again and again and again. Generation upon generation, until we see that All men are created EQUAL.
The cost of liberty is all Peoples realizing the cost of that freedom is liberty's awful and awesome tree... which gives shade and shelter from tyranny only if it is defended. In blood. Until all men are free.
I am an absolutist Jacksonian on warfare. You fight to win. You help the fallen after. You help those tyrannized to be free. You help up honorable enemies who abide by their word to find the path from tyranny.
And to those that will not give up on tryanny?
You fight until they are dead.
Or you are.
If we cannot hold to that ideal, as a culture, then no amount of 'volunteering to fight' will help, as the culture is debased and will not cash in on the good blood spilled to create liberty. A culture debased is not worth fighting FOR.
Run from this fight and we will find few defenders left, anywhere.
And the Revolution restarted here, in the US.
I do my duty as Citizen to BE Citizen to show the better way to ensure that blood spilled is liberty gained. Not just in Iraq. But here, at home.
"You must pay the price, to secure the blessing." - Andrew Jackson.
13 July 2007
Failing the benchmarks they set for themselves
The time has come to look at the benchmarks set and see how well the forces are doing on them. A government is held to account for its inability to find a way to reach across the divide, unite the Nation and bring a common and consensual government together, with fair means so as to ensure the safety of the Nation.
Unfortunately, it is my duty to report to you that this has been an utter and complete failure on the part of those in power who have fought hard to gain power but have no idea how to exercise it. They have divided the Nation, done *nothing* on their promises and further ensure that disharmony is felt throughout the Nation, putting innocents at peril. By their own measures they have failed.
Is this about Iraq?
No, it is about the United States, now 25% into its two year Congressional cycle for the House and NONE of the stated things that those newly in power have promised have come about, and, indeed, there has been backsliding to chaos across the entire agenda. To remind you, this is the platform to which those in the Congress from the victorious side ran upon, not what they have been saying since that victory, although they have delivered on none of those promises, either:
A very, very simple Six Point Plan and they cannot achieve any of it. Using their own benchmark reporting concepts for Iraq, Congress can now rightly have similar applied to them.
Standard of Measurement: Section 1314(b)(2)(A) states: “The President shall submit an initial report to Congress, not later than July 15, 2007, assessing the status of each of the specific benchmarks established above, and declaring, in his judgment, whether satisfactory progress toward meeting these benchmarks is, or is not, being achieved.”This is a very simple concept made so that Congress could get very complex issues boiled down to pap so that they could understand it as they are unfit to have any real concept of Foreign Policy thrust upon them and so need it spoon fed to them for political reasons. So let us hit the Six points promised by Congress which has frittered away 25% of its time to date:
1) Honest Leadership & Open Government - In the House of Representatives there has been movement to put an impeached Judge into a position of power and the use of threats on the poisonous earmarks concept to hide earmarks from the American People and even add them to the budget with NO vote at all taken on them. When promising to reform the earmark process and ensure that each earmark was properly cited to an individual member and given a line-item in the budget, accountability was to be performed. That has not happened and the process of inserting said earmarks into the budget has gone further into back rooms, further off the budget and far outside the normal Congressional voting procedures.
In the Senate backroom creation of an Immigration Bill was done that went through NO committee or review process and was not even available to read to members before debate on it had begun. TWICE. Further the Senate has taken to its own concept of adding earmarks far outside the normal procedures for same and refuses to put any means or methods of accountability into place.
No major spending legislation has passed either body, beyond an Emergency Spending bill to ensure continued support of the effort in Iraq. No major reform bill has passed into law to curb and hold accountable the earmark process or end it all together. Previous 'do-nothing' Congresses have at least passed minor appropriations bills for domestic parts of government and put off the heavy political fighting until the last moment. This Congress has not even achieved that very, very, very low level of capability.
Progress on this item is unsatisfactory. It has not had any work done on it by the Congress or its Leadership. Backsliding has made the situations worse and the divide of Congress from the People of the United States has widened.
2) Real Security - Congress to date has not put forth *any* security provisions for the Nation to ensure that all borders are secure, that all individuals in this Nation illegally are tracked down, and that all of those who have committed crimes while in the US illegally have been deported. Congress refuses to fund the very laws it enacted and then complains that no one is working to enforce them. Congress has abdicated its duties to properly fund all Agencies involved with securing the Nation from illegal border incursions, which have invited cross-border attacks by drug gangs, outlaws and corrupted Mexican National Police and Military forces.
Further, Congress has taken to do no long-term review of the force size and structure of the US Armed Forces to better prepare it for a long-lasting conflict that can flare up at any point around the world with deadly consequences and long-lasting destabilization of the system of Nation States. US interests in trade and the economy ALONE should mandate that, beyond just fighting in Afghanistan, Iraq, support for the Philippines, Columbia, and other Nations facing terrorist problems.
Indeed, Congress is now looking to make Columbia more vulnerable to FARC and destabilize that Nation. By giving any consideration to FARC, Congress is seen as being cowed by an organization that has attempted to assassinate a sitting US President, beyond the hostage taking, assaults and other attacks upon the US, its citizens and property held by commercial organizations in Columbia by the US, that alone should give especial ire to Congress as the individual was from the party of the incoming leadership.
Beyond that members of the US Congress, from both parties, have broken with their duties as given in the Constitution and as upheld by the US Supreme Court making the President the ONLY individual who can make Foreign Policy for the United States. In particular, giving any hearing to one of the most centralized Terrorist organizations without the approval of the President inherently weakens those powers delegated only to the Executive Branch.
Congress has done nothing to ensure that a complete cargo inspection system has been created and implemented, so NO port of entry for cargo shipment in the US can be deemed 'secure'. Organizations in the Caribbean have been investigated that pose a deadly threat to a number of cities on the eastern seaboard by their plots to use terrorist means and piracy to attack the US and these have only failed due to luck of discovery before they could come to fruition.
All of this while complaining that the Executive has, indeed, implemented laws passed by Congress to allow for such things as 'roaming wiretaps', necessary in this day and age of cellphones, and about intercepts of communications and electronic intelligence beyond the boundaries of the United States and outside all lawmaking areas of Congress. To date no program has been cited that Congress has not been informed about on a timely basis nor has any indication been given that such programs have not been safeguarded so that data about US Citizens is properly handled. Instead of looking to safeguard the interior of the United States and its commerce, Congress has complained about properly approved programs that have had sufficient oversight and Congressional briefings.
Progress on this item is unsatisfactory. Congress has not funded or even passed programs to properly implement safeguards as cited by the 9/11 Commission and has not even ensured that the Dept. of Homeland Security is fully staffed and funded. By not addressing the problems of border security, port security, nor in funding police and other investigative agencies, plus the court system and prison system to handle its CURRENT workload, the Congress of the United States is backsliding as the deficiencies get worse over time due to Congressional inaction.
3) Energy Independence - Congress has given no plan for the energy independence of the United States nor has it even proposed to lessen reliance on foreign sources of energy sources from Nations that aid, assist and promote terrorism. Sen. Kennedy has remained in hard opposition to such facilities that would 'pollute the viewshed' of his family's vacation home in Martha's Vineyard, and other well off families and individuals also oppose such things from that area. Even simple measures to alleviate the use of foreign petroleum resources, such as opening the US Continental shelf to oil exploration or getting tax credits or other incentives to industry to explore and utilize US based resources has not been done. Refineries remain a key bottleneck in the US system and the concentration of older vintage refineries along the Gulf Coast are both a security concern against attacks and a vital vulnerability of the US to natural disasters. Nothing has been done to alleviate this or the fact that the US has not opened up a new oil refinery since the 1970's.
Congress cannot even put forward a simple 'X-Prize' package to set goals for private industry and award prizes to those in industry who meet achievement goals in safe energy production, storage, transportation and creation of new energy sources. Even worse is that Congress does not put forward a long-term plan for utilization of space industries for the long term shift of US energy needs out of the biosphere and into the vacuum of space, along with the industry needed to support same. This would help to achieve long term energy goals AND environmental goals with a shift in emphasis away from terrestrial sources and to those of space based sources.
Even the very simple idea of putting forth proper regulations for third and fourth generation nuclear power plants, which suffer none of the design flaws of first generation plants has been implemented, and yet this has proven to be the energy source with the least impact on the environment and the greatest long-term sustainability. Third and fourth generation plants run more efficiently, with far less waste and no capability for nuclear accidents that older plants had to deal with. Fusion has taken far steps forward in just the past two years and NO Congressional 'X-Prize' system for that has been developed to encourage those working on designs from desktop to large reactors capable of lighting thousands of homes with NO radioactivity involved.
Progress on this item is unsatisfactory. Congress, by not doing the meager things within its power to stimulate economic growth in this area, and encourage research, development and design of new methods of creating, storing, transmitting and utilizing energy allows an ever wider gap of vulnerability to open up based on over-reliance on foreign energy sources.
4) Economic Prosperity & Educational Excellence - As Congress came in with a long-running, multi-year basis for economic growth, the best method to ensure that continued growth is to do NOTHING about it. Congress has achieved that to date and it is recommended that ALL changes in the tax structure, beyond simplification of it, be tabled for the foreseeable future. This area is not broken and needs no 'fixing'.
As the Federal Government established the Dept. of Education in 1980, it has not changed the reading capability of the children of the United States nor its test scores on an international basis. All programs designed to do this have not impacted these scores and reading, in particular, remains the same as it was as a percentage measurement when it was first brought to the attention of the Nation in 1958, when Johnny couldn't read. By that series of measurements all Federal programs, funding and other such things are a FAILURE over the long term. Education costs have gone up with Federal spending, and yet the debt load of those Americans seeking higher education has risen disproportionately to both. As the Federal Government only has limited needs for advanced educational outlook for targeted R&D and that is overseen by separate agencies, it is recommended that Congress remove the Dept. of Education for primary and secondary schooling, and award funds in proportion to how well each State does on internationally recognized standardized tests, with only fully meeting the best in the world getting 100% funding. All other funding should be ceased and Federal Agencies given better funding for targeted R&D, and the entirety of the Dept. of Education disbanded.
As Congress has so far not brought ANY reform of the Dept. of Education to the table nor any way to reliably 'pay for performance' of schools, it should cease the meddling in the State's education system as it has not improved the overall capability of them by a substantial amount.
Progress on this item is satisfactory for the economic portion and unsatisfactory for the education portion. To retain the satisfactory rating in the economic side, Congress is recommended to retain stability in the tax structure at its current point and implement recommendations for simplification of the tax system. Congressional outlook to utilize any input into the educations of Americans is a multi-decade failure and should be terminated beyond simple 'pay for performance' block grants and targeted R&D.
5) A healthcare system that works for everyone - Congress has no progress on this item. Congress has yet to cite benchmarks on what 'works for everyone' means, as the varieties of outlook on what healthcare is or its scope varies from individual to individual across the Nation. As Congress is given NO power in this area via the US Constitution, it is recommended that a 'pay for performance' schema be instituted for all charitable hospitals without regard to any affiliation whatsoever. As Congress has already seen fit to establish medical costs per procedure that it is willing to pay for other systems, those can be utilized and adjusted by locale as is done with the Federal civil service system.
This would ensure that the very poorest of Americans gets reliable help from charitable institutions and the Federal Government would be establishing NO religion by paying to *any* institution, regardless of its religious or social affiliation, based on benchmarks for such procedures and institutions that can be established by such agencies as the National Institutes of Health and Mental Health. Congress can 'means test' such things and not pay out fully based on hospital performance and patient status, and this will only be, like in the case of Education, a small 'supplement' on the order of less than 5% of the Nation's overall medical costs. As other Nations with 'socialized health care' are now finding those systems failing and patients getting worse care, year on year, the US should do little to its system, beyond ensuring that the absolute poor and destitute get care.
Via the utilization of existing charitable and not-for-profit hospitals and giving re-reimbursement to them based on patient status and demonstrated capability of treatment, the very poorest can be assured of having access and the rest of America can pay more as their income rises, with a cut-off at the poverty line. This is not an area amenable to Federal oversight or legislation beyond tested drugs, assured procedures and a non-discriminatory outlay for the poorest to be treated. America has always been open to giving the poorest assurance they will not die for lack of funds, but we have never slit the National wrists to assuage a bleeding heart on the economics of it.
Progress on this item is unsatisfactory. Congress has little it can do in this realm and should let the American People know this is the case, and that the failings of other systems around the globe demonstrates that freedom of choice for Americans is far better than government choice.
6) Retirement security - As the original Social Security System was meant to encourage economic stimulation based on a theory of limited jobs and too many young individuals, it was seen as a limited time endeavor Individuals, before that, worked for their entire life and many did, indeed, retire based on health concerns or the ability of their own savings to cover them in that retirement. Today the wealthiest and most economically capable segment of the population is the elderly. One fact that needs addressing is that the jobs market is now missing the skills of those that retire early due to government fiat in this realm, and that many individuals seek further, part-time employment in their retirement. This is a mandated downgrading of jobs, by government, and this hurts the very job market that encourages younger people to work: the part-time market.
Further, as no individual expects to work for one company or even in one occupation for a lifetime, many individuals are restarting entire careers multiple times throughout their lives to cope with this changing economy. Retirement dates now change that outlook as individuals may find themselves needing to either retire early, due to upcoming age mandate, or to face working in a low paying job at the end of their careers due to the flux of the economy. This is compounded by the fact that Americans now live much longer lives than they did in the 1930's, and the expectation of two or more DECADES of healthy and active lives beyond retirement points out that the experience of the labor market is now increasingly on the golf courses of America and not in the workplace.
Economic vehicles have also increased in abundance and Americans now have options and opportunities for investment that allow for long-term financial planning so as to utilize advancing economic capability for self-actualization of funding. Mutual funds and other distributed investment concepts for fractional ownership in funds, have shifted the ownership proposition and payoff proposition from wealthy individuals to that of wealthy funds investing for masses of individuals for retirement. Most growing up today expect to receive NO Federal help as they see that the system will be BANKRUPT by the time they get to the point where it could be useful to them. To allow for these changes, Congress needs to examine if the Federal Government has *any* role in the care of the elderly beyond that of healthcare and minimal standards for living. As most of the wealth is now concentrated in the upward age brackets, the funds taken from younger workers is increasing disproportionately to the size of that workforce and the payouts are handed to those who should have *planned* for their retirement.
As it is the Federal Government will need to end this system at some point, as its percentage of budget is far larger than anything save paying on debt. A system of pro-rated returns on funds or ending the system with insuring only current payouts from the system for amount paid in would be a start to changing the basis of retirement security in the US. Further, a system of reducing or eliminating taxes on investments would allow for long-term financial planning that would not be raided by the Federal Government and allow for individual Americans to guide their own future be it into extended working life or into retirement.
Progress on this point is unsatisfactory. Congress has too long ignored the changing demographics of America, the changing workplace, the changing work expectations, the increased mobility of the Nation and the concentration of wealth to the older age brackets of Americans.
Congressional leaders have, since the election, purported that they promised many other things, including some unconstitutional Congressional 'oversight' for combat overseas and in areas of immigration reform. In the first instance Congress refuses to do its duty to properly ensure that the Armed Forces are trained, equipped, sized and scoped out according to the actual JOB that they have been set to do by Congress, and, on the second point, Congress has refused to fund enforcement of the laws on the books.
Iraq, in comparison, with 'green' politicians in their first democratically elected National Government is doing fine on its benchmarks, to actually establish a Nation. The Congress of the United States, however, seems to have lost the concept of democracy, accountability, oversight or even what their jobs are. Perhaps it is time for the Citizens of the United States to petition their States to pull the validity of the elections for their current Senators and Representatives and withhold same until the Government agrees to do its job. Sphere: Related Content
08 July 2007
Well at least they weren't professional terrorists
The strange and fun thing about the terror-bombing plot in the UK is its links to the US, via a bit of net-chat picked up by police monitoring discussion groups. H/t to Confederate Yankee for pointing out this UK Telegraph (06 JUL 2007) story on that:
Police found details of the discussions on a site run by one of a three-strong "cyber-terrorist" gang.And as is pointed out at CY the actual likelihood of this *succeeding* are quite small. Still, as this UK Daily Mail article (05 JUL 2007) points out, those arrested used the basic plans for their attacks in the UK:
They were discovered at the home of Younis Tsouli, 23, Woolwich Crown Court in south-east London heard.
One message read: "We are 45 doctors and we are determined to undertake jihad and take the battle inside America.
"The first target which will be penetrated by nine brothers is the naval base which gives shelter to the ship Kennedy." This is thought to have been a reference to the USS John F Kennedy, which is often at Mayport Naval Base in Jacksonville, Florida.
The message discussed targets at the base, adding: "These are clubs for naked women which are opposite the First and Third units."
It also referred to using six Chevrolet GT vehicles and three fishing boats and blowing up petrol tanks with rocket propelled grenades.
Investigators have found no link between the Tsouli chat room and the group of doctors and medics currently in custody over attempted car bomb attacks in London and Glasgow.
The court heard how Tsouli and his friends Waseem Mughal, 24, and Tariq Al-Daour, 21, had direct links to al Qaeda in Iraq led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. The trial, which is taking place at the high security court, is the first prosecution involving the online distribution of radical material.Apparently this plot came to us via the late Zarqawi's gang which received training in Bosnia. And in this lovely modern age of electronics, there is no need to have an Anarchist's Cookbook or some such, as seen at an earlier Telegraph story on this:
The US car bomb plan, which emerged during the two-month trial, has similarities to the failed attacks in London and Glasgow but investigators say they have found no link between the two groups. As the national terror threat level was reduced from critical to severe, details were uncovered today of the links between last week's bombing suspects.
Kafeel Ahmed, 27, who drove the Jeep into Glasgow airport, is the brother of Sabeel Ahmed, 26, the doctor arrested in Liverpool. They are cousins of Mohammed Haneef, 27, the Indian doctor arrested in Australia. The three are believed to have studied together in Bangalore.
Kafeel Ahmed, who is still in hospital with 90 per cent burns, studied technology in Cambridge and police suspect he may have been the bomb maker.
It is there in 2005 that he is believed to have met the alleged mastermind of the plot, Jordanian Dr Mohammed Asha.
Ahmed's accomplice in the Glasgow attack, Iraqi doctor Bilal Abdullah, 27, was also in the city at that time.
The three internet bombers being sentenced today appeared to be leading normal lives, studying and living with their parents.
The court hear Tsouli had come to the UK with his family from Morocco in 2001. His father worked for the Moroccan tourist board. He was given indefinite leave to stay in August 2005 - two months before his arrest.
Mughal, a British citizen, had a degree in biochemistry from Leicester University and was studying for a masters.
Al-Daour, born in the United Arab Emirates to Palestinian parents, was granted British citizenship in May 2005.
The three only came to attention in October 2005 when detectives followed a trail from two terrorists arrested in Bosnia. They were found to be in possession of a vast collection of extremist material on their laptops.
In one message Tsouli wrote the day before the 7 July bombings, he said: "The only thing that would stop me from joining the brothers in Iraq is to attack the bastards here in London."
Al-Daour, 21, of Bayswater, west London, who was born in the United Arab Emirates, today admitted inciting another person to commit and act of terrorism wholly or partly outside the United Kingdom which would, if committed in England and Wales, constitute murder.Yes, your very own formulas for jihad on CD! Plus whatever the latest fashion in "martyrdom vests" that goes with the well dressed jihadi this season. What is disturbing, however, like in the Anarchists finding cheap weapons in the 19th century to assassinate Kings, Princes and Presidents, this new era offers a much, much higher body count with successful materials processing formula AND cheap arms. Notice how this group funded itself? Not through al Qaeda. Not through Hezbollah. Not via an Islamic Charity. No, they did it the old fashioned way: bank and credit card fraud. Jihad on the cheap on a DIY basis! No need for expensive overhead of a massive organization, just a few tips and tricks on how to fraudulently get funds, cheap CDs to give you a shopping list, and a bit of training here or there (say, Bosnia) that can easily be re-taught to others.
Moroccan-born Tsouli, 23, of Shepherd’s Bush, west London, and British-born Mughal, 24, of Chatham, Kent, admitted the same charge on Monday. They are due to be sentenced tomorrow.
They also admitted conspiring together and with others to defraud banks, credit card companies and charge card companies.
Material on their computers, if printed out, would stand tens of thousands of feet high.
Al-Daour had CDs containing instructions for making explosives and poisons, including a recipe for creating a rotten meat toxin which, in its pure form, is “the most toxic substance known to man”, the court was told.
A leaflet on how to use a rocket-propelled grenade, and pages from “The Book of Jihad”, as well a video about the September 11 terror attacks.
Police found instructions on causing an explosion with “rocket propellant’’ and constructing a car bomb, and a video film about a “Martyrdom Operations Vest’’ - a reference to a suicide bomb vest. In one on-line conversation, when Al-Daour was asked what he would do with £1 million, he replied: “Sponsor terrorist attacks, become the new Osama.”
In another conversation, he said suicide bombings were permissible but he did not like them unless they killed many people because “a Muslim life is worth more than that”.
So it is now 'amateur hour' for jihad! And we have seen the amateurs crawling out of the woodwork with their plans and attacks and variety of strangeness that leaves them just one step away from the 'big time' and instant martyrdom. But do notice that there is one name that does pop up that we should be reminded of: Kennedy. Yes, the USS John F. Kennedy aircraft carrier and the John F. Kennedy airport give a lovely juxtaposition of places, from the sunny tropical climes of Florida to the temperate and seasonal NYC, and the name, itself, is emblematic of a popular President who was assassinated. As one of the prior JFK Airport suspects put it, this would serve to kill Kennedy *again*. Sort of like burning someone in effigy, only a bit more on the dark side. And since that brings up those lovely terrorists, lets remember that THOSE folks had ties via Florida, also. From my first view of the JFK plot, we see this little tidbit from 15 AUG 2005 Trinidad Express via ttgapers:
The John Doe witness is said to have told US authorities of a Muslimeen connection to a terrorist cell in Karachi, Pakistan, and of criminal jobs assigned to him by the Muslimeen hierarchy, including gun smuggling, drug trafficking and the payment of laundered funds to key members of the Mucurapo Road organisation.No one said terrorism had to be all high-tech! And Florida is *just* the place to be, apparently, if you are in the tropical terrorism mindset, as it served as a point for previous plots and movement of arms for terrorist uses. One such was brought out in the trial of Shueub Mossa Jokhan and Imran Mandhai in USA v. Shueub, Jokhan, et.al., with thanks to the MIPT Terrorism Knowledge Base for the summary:
He told of being directed to rendezvous with a key lieutenant in Brooklyn, New York, and of the latter providing him with false US Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) documents and a social security card.
According to US sources, John Doe also testified about a key lieutenant of the Muslimeen supplying him with smuggled cocaine which he, in turn, sold to dealers in Connecticut. He is said to have returned almost all of the proceeds of the drug sale to his Muslimeen contact in the US and other high-ranking members of the group, keeping only a small fraction to cover his expenses.
The John Doe witness, who is said to have had some involvement in the May 30, 2001 failed attempt to smuggle a shipment of machine guns and assault rifles into this country, told US investigators of a Muslimeen plan to take possession of some of the weapons for the group's private use. He is also reported to have been privy to discussions relating to a Muslimeen plan to sell the rest of the weapons to the underworld. Transcripts of taped telephone conversations show a key Muslimeen official detailing plans to sell the AK-47 rifles in Trinidad for US$4,000 apiece.
Small, who has challenged legal efforts to extradite him to the US to stand trial on gun-running charges, was identified by co-conspirator in the aborted arms deal, Keith Andre Glaude, as the consignee to the shipment of 60 AK-47s and Mac-10 machine pistols with silencers, which was intercepted en route to Trinidad by US undercover agents in Fort Lauderdale.
Glaude, a former close associate of Small and another T&T national resident in the US, told investigators of the Muslimeen plan to ship the weapons cache to Trinidad concealed in a shipment of hollowed out furniture.
US agents, who lost track of the guns used in the 1990 uprising, report that the planned method of transportation for the arms cache in 2001 was almost a blueprint of the one used for the April 1990 shipment, which had its origins in Broward County and involved weapons concealed inside a stack of hollowed out plywood.
Synopsis: Between May 2000 and May 2001, Imran Mandhai and Shueyb Mossa Jokhan plotted to wage Jihad by blowing up various electrical power stations and Jewish businesses in South Florida. With the assistance of a civilian informant, the FBI discovered Mandhai and Jokhan had acquired numerous firearms and explosives, and they had scouted out numerous targets.Now this is interesting because of who *else* is associated with the case, as seen in my second article on Radical Islam in the Caribbean, there is a bit of activity in the area. This comes from the testimony of Janice L. Kephart suring Hearing before the House Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security, and Claims on 08 JUN 2006:
On May 16, 2002, a 2-count indictment was filed charging Mandhai and Jokhan with violations of 18 USC § 841, conspiring to destroy by means of fire or an explosive any building, vehicle, or other real or personal property used in interstate or foreign commerce; and 18 USC § 373-0101, solicit and commit a crime of violence.
Mandhai pleaded guilty to 1 count of the indictment. He was sentenced to 140 months of imprisonment and 3 years probation.
Jokhan pleaded guilty to 1 count of the indictment. He was sentenced to 58 months of imprisonment and 3 years probation.
There were also reports prior and subsequent to 9/11 U.S.-sought Adnan El- Shukrijumah was living in Trinidad near schools that share his last name. In addition, two men with ties to Trinidad have been arrested in the United States. Keith Andre Gaude, a Jammat linked to bin Ladin, pled guilty on September 19, 2001 to unlawful possession of a machine gun. BATF officials stated he had come to Florida to “buy as many as 60 AK-47 assault rifles and 10 MAC-10 submachine guns with silencers."And who, praytell, is Adnan El-Shukrijumah? Janice Kephart does a wonderful summary of someone on the FBI's Most Wanted Terrorist list:
In 2002, Trinidad native and U.S. naturalized citizen Shueyb Mossa Jokhan was sentenced to 58 months in federal prison for a “jihad” mission that included bombing an electrical power station and a National Guard Armory. According to the FBI, “these attacks were then to be followed by a list of demands to be placed on the United States government and other governments around the world. The defendants also sought to acquire AK-47 type assault weapons for their jihad training and operations, and sought to obtain the release from custody of an individual described as a "mujahedin" fighter committed to jihad.”
Born in Saudi Arabia, Adnan El-Shukrijumah, aka “Jafar the Pilot,” has spent 15 years in the United States (mostly in South Florida), speaks fluent English, and has been employed as a teacher.Yes, the man associated with 9/11 that no one can lay their hands on, associated with Zacarias Moussaoui, Jose Padilla, Richard Reid and the lovely convict Imran Mandhai. Bet you didn't think that Florida was a nice traffic point for the 'poor and jihadi', as opposed to the 'rich and famous'! El-Shukrijumah is the #1 reason to take any threat via Florida *seriously*: his contacts there via Imran, Jokhan and his extended network via Jamaat al-Muslimeen in Trinidad, all point out to someone who is relatively well connected, able to evade authorities with ease, has his own private pilot's license and has this nasty habit of hooking up with folks plotting terrorist activities in Florida and environs.
El-Shukrijumah trained with Jose Padilla to partner in the dirty bomb plot, helicopter plots, and the New York and New Jersey financial infrastructure plots discovered in the summer of 2004. A Department of Homeland Security document quoted in Newsweek states that “KSM has identified Adnan el-Shukrijumah, a Saudi born permanent U.S. resident alien, as an operative with standing permission to attack targets in the United States that had been previously approved by Osama Bin Ladin.”
FBI Director Robert Mueller called him “a trained operative who poses an operational threat to the United States” who the FBI considers to be armed and dangerous. In late 2000 or early 2001, El-Shukrijumah was under investigation for his relationship to Imran Mandhai, convicted in Florida of conspiring to bomb a National Guard armory, power stations, Jewish businesses, and Mount Rushmore prior to 9/11. Mandhai was associated with Hakki Cemal Aksoy, convicted in 2002 for firearms violations and asylum fraud and in whose apartment bomb making manuals and notes were found.
El-Shukrijumah had previously applied for naturalization, but the INS interior enforcement office in Miami noticed that the application was fraudulent. The INS agents working the case met with the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Miami, and even discussed seeking a search warrant for El-Shukrijumah’s residence. Without further information linking El-Shukrijumah to terrorist activity, the matter was dropped.
As an LPR, El-Shukrijumah easily traveled to and from attended training camps in Afghanistan, where he was most likely schooled by Ramzi Binalshibh, famous for his role as emissary between KSM and 9/11 ring leader Mohamad Atta. El-Shukrijumah is a skilled bomb maker and a Florida trained pilot, and authorities have found a document that ties him (via one of his aliases) to the Oklahoma flight school where Zacarias Moussaoui trained. He may have been friendly with Atta as well, as I describe an immigration officer’s witnessing of receiving a request for help with travel documents in May 2001 from El-Shukrijumah on behalf of Atta and likely another 9/11 pilot in 9/11 and Terrorist Travel. According to Attorney General John Ashcroft, El-Shukrijumah “scouted sites across America that might be vulnerable to terrorist attack.” In addition to surveilling high-profile targets in New York’s financial district, El-Shukrijumah surveilled the Panama Canal.
Back in the United States, he was also involved in an aborted plot with Jose Padilla to blow up apartment buildings in the United States. He was also likely Padilla’s first partner in the dirty bomb plot, but differences between them ended the joint venture. There are also reports that El-Shukrijumah attempted to procure radioactive material from McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario. In March 2004, El-Shukrijumah attended a terrorist summit in Pakistan and met with a number of key al Qaeda members, including Abu Issa Al-Hindi, Mohammed Naeem Noor Khan, and Mohammed Babar. IN past months he has been spotted in Mexico. He reportedly met with members of the Mara Salvatrucha gang (known as MS-13) in Honduras, although Interpol denies the existence of evidence of such a meeting. In September 2004, the Aviation and Security Association reported, “An alert airline crewmember saw and then confronted a suspicious acting person at Kansai International Airport in Japan. El Shukrijumah was this suspicious person.” However, law enforcement was not notified.
Reporting indicates that since El-Shukrijumah fled the United States after 9/11, he has tried to get back into the United States using various passports. He has a Guyanese passport, but may also hold passports from Saudi Arabia, Canada, and Trinidad. However, unless authorities made a decision to permit Shukrijumah his freedom for law enforcement or intelligence reasons, or know that he did manage to enter the United States on one of these passports undetected and law enforcement knows about it, I do not place much credence in these reports.
These connections are not just the recent 'spontaneous jihad' type, but are far longer reaching going at least as far back as the Jamaat al-Muslimeen coup in Trinidad in 1990, in which arms were shipped via Florida to Trinidad. A larger connection to the area was revealed after 9/11 as seen in this BBC report on 01 OCT 2001:
There are reports that US investigators have uncovered evidence of financial transfers linking Osama Bin Laden to the 11 September attacks on America.Somehow everyone wants to think of Florida for the fun and sunshine and not for al Qaeda operatives like Mohamed Atta and Marwan Alshehhi doing flight training and financial transactions, or Shukrijumah working with a Pakistani to blow up some electrical substations and a National Guard Armory, or for folks associated with Jamaat al-Muslimeen looking to move weapons through Florida to Trinidad. Then there is the Jose Padilla case, also a El-Shukrijumah link, which started to get going in Florida with a jury selection that began on 16 APR 2007, this from FOX News:
According to FBI sources, Mustafa Mohamed Ahmad, a suspected Bin Laden financial operative, transferred money to Mohamed Atta, one of the hijackers, in the days running up to the attacks
Furthermore Atta and two of the other hijackers transferred some $15,000 back to an account under the same name just two days before the attacks.
Mr Ahmad, also known as Sheikh Saeed, is one of 27 individuals or groups with a known link to Bin Laden who have had their assets in America frozen.
He worked as a financial manager for Bin Laden when he was based in Sudan and is believed to be a financial operative for the al-Qaeda organisation.
Operations fund
Cash transfers were made to Atta via a money service in Florida on 8 and 9 September from an account in Dubai, under the name of Mustafa Ahmad.
Atta is believed to have been the ringleader of the 19 hijackers.
Atta and two other hijackers - Waleed al-Shehri and Marwan al-Shehi - then each sent $5,000 from the US to an account in Dubai, also under the name of Mustafa Ahmad, two days before the attacks.
The money is believed to have been unused surplus from the fund for the attacks, which investigators say may have amounted to about $500,000.
Moved to Pakistan
The man who collected the funds in the UAE then travelled to Karachi in Pakistan on the day of the attacks using a Saudi passport, according to Sheikh Abdullah, the son of UAE President Sheikh Zaid bin Sultan al-Nahayan.
Records also show that the man had arrived in the UAE at the end of June from Qatar.
MIAMI — Five years after his arrest at Chicago's O'Hare Airport, Jose Padilla heads to court — but with no mention of the "dirty bomb" allegations that first made headlines.Yes, Americans can go overseas to fight and fund things! And if you get involved with organizations attacking the US or its Armed Forces you can, indeed, be brought in for crimes under the US Code. When you do things that are contrary to the Foreign Policy of the Nation, however, like arming folks against a Nation that the US has *not* declared war on, like Russia in the Chechen conflict or the actual Governments that asked for help from the US in the Balkans, or supporting Foreign Terrorist Operations, then one really does have need to realize that they have gone just a bit too far. Because some of those lovely folks from Chechnya, Bosnia and elsewhere have shown up in places like Glasgow and London, trying to blow up places or just burn them down. Actions do, indeed, have consequences to them and not all consequences are *good ones*.
Padilla and two co-defendants are accused of being part of a support cell that funneled fighters, money and supplies to Islamic extremists in Afghanistan, Chechnya, Bosnia, Tajikistan and elsewhere around the world. Jury selection was to begin Monday.
Padilla, held for 3 1/2 years as an enemy combatant, and co-defendants Adham Amin Hassoun and Kifah Wael Jayyousi face charges of conspiracy to "murder, kidnap and maim" people overseas and of providing support to terror groups. All three pleaded not guilty. They could face life in prison if convicted.
In 2002, then-Attorney General John Ashcroft announced Padilla's arrest and said authorities had thwarted an Al Qaeda plot to detonate a radioactive "dirty bomb" in a major city. Those allegations have been dropped.
Padilla was hastily added to an existing case in Miami in November 2005, a few days before a Supreme Court deadline for Bush administration briefs on the question of the president's powers to continue holding him in military prison without charge.
Padilla claimed he was tortured while interrogated in military custody — a charge repeatedly denied by the Bush administration — and sought unsuccessfully to have his case dismissed for "outrageous government conduct."
Federal officials claim Padilla admitted involvement and training with Al Qaeda during his brig interrogations, as well as the proposed "dirty bomb" plot and 50,000 intercepted telephone calls and bugged conversations in Arabic with purported code words.
Yet there's little proof that the three were directly responsible for any specific acts of terrorism. In court papers, prosecutors listed generalized victims such as Serbian and Croat forces in the 1990s Bosnian war, the Russian army in Chechnya and "moderate" Muslim governments in Libya, Tunisia and elsewhere.
Defense lawyers say providing assistance to one faction in these conflicts does not necessarily amount to a crime.
"Killing only becomes murder under certain specific circumstances," said Hassoun's lawyer, Jeanne Baker. "Defending Muslims is not committing murder."
Padilla's voice is only heard on eight of the FBI wiretaps and he is mentioned on about 20 others. One of those says he had gone to "the area of Usama," an apparent reference to bin Laden's Al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan.
Now it is time to go off on a tangent to normal terrorism and look at another aspect of how terrorism and crime work together. The other aspect is the arms shipping one, and one of the big movers and shakers is one Jean-Bernard Lasnaud (born Francois Lasnosky). From the folks at Nisat on their text of The Arms Fixers from a PBS Frontline Special we get a quick look at what he was involved in from Florida:
According to Argentine sources, the arms dealer based in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, and acting through the Caribbean Group of Companies had been one of the key organizers of the trafficking ring that comprised many official and private individuals. Jean-Bernard Lasnaud was traced by the American Federal Bureau of Investigation to be a resident of Fort Lauderdale. According to the register of corporations of Florida, Lasnaud was a director of several companies, among them the Caribbean Group of Companies, which was used for some of the Argentine operations.And who was in charge of Argentina? Carlos Menem.
Official documents in Argentina show that Lasnaud had also been in Argentina in order to supervise the loading of the Fine Air cargo aircraft to Ecuador in February 1995, and to inspect a cargo bound for Croatia in December 1995. A Panamanian company, Tornasa, acted as a go-between for the transactions between Lasnaud and Palleros. According to the Florida registrar of corporations, Lasnaud’s Caribbean Group of Companies was officially incorporated on 13 March 1995, this was a few weeks after Palleros had sold the cargo bound for Ecuador on to Lasnaud.
Argentine journalists are in possession of Lasnaud’s e-mail correspondence with a former Argentine navy captain, Horacio Estrada, who was found shot dead in his apartment in August 1998. A few days before that, Estrada had sent a written testimony to the Argentine judge investigating the case. Estrada, a veteran of former military junta death squads, had been prosecuted for 21 cases of torture in 1987. He was reportedly also connected to Tornasa, the Panamanian go-between company.
In the course of 12 days before Estrada died, Lasnaud had sent the Argentine officer over 90 e-mail messages. Once decoded, the correspondence showed an intensive trade of illicitly smuggled weaponry, from small arms to armoured personnel carriers, naval vessels, helicopters and small aircraft. In one of the messages, dated 25 August 1998, Lasnaud had an order for 1,500 Argentine-produced rifles for shipment to Sierra Leone. In other messages, it was Lasnaud who offered Estrada a Bell helicopter, 50 mobile anti-air missile launchers, M113 armoured personnel carriers and NATO-standard small arms and ammunition. Argentine investigators opined that that it would be very hard to prosecute Lasnaud if he could ever be found, due to the intricate network of go-between companies and countries that were used for the transactions.
Who was Carlos Menem's designated Arms Dealer? Monzer al-Kassar.
Yes we have just played 'Six Degrees of Monzer al-Kassar'! Yes, everyone who is anyone apparently has contacts in Florida, and Mr. Lasnaud is no exception, apparently. From his Trade Prince screen we get his connection to General Equipment Corporation and the types of things used as cover for arms shipments. From his Strategic Consultants & Advisors page, we get Mr. Lasnaud's credentials:
Captain French Foreign Legion [ret.]Yes, go from the war fighting to 'consultancy' business to better run guns! Well, a bit more than guns as seen from the Kathmandu Post of Nepal on 13 MAR 2003 via nepalnews.com:
131st Black Panther Commandos
Jean-Bernard Lasnaud, born in Neuilly s/Seine, France, is the president and chief executive officer of General Equipment Corporation, Inc. as well as Auverland America. Jean-Bernard brings four decades of advisement, consulting and business experience to the Company.
He graduated as an electrical engineer at Ecole Violet, Paris.
He enlisted in the army and served in the Special Forces of the French Foreign Legion, 131st Black Panther Commandos and was detached to special intelligence branch of the 5th bureau, psychological action, retiring as Captain (Res.).
In his early years, he was involved in international business trade with Renault of France dealing mainly in Africa and Latin America. His assignment was to promote the commercial position of the heavy truck division.
Jean-Bernard left Renault and in the 70's made a career change to consulting.
The experience gained in dealing with Heads of State and Ministries in both Africa and Latin America enabled him to act as an advisor and consultant to many of these countries, especially in the fields of Ministries of Defense, civil aviation and intelligence gathering.
To accommodate these areas, two offices were opened: Johannesburg in South Africa to cover Southern Africa and Montevideo, Uruguay to cover South America.
In 1986, Jean-Bernard moved to the United States to consolidate all operations in South Florida to better cover Latin America.
General Equipment Corporation, Inc. was opened in order to offer these countries sales, advising and consulting in the fields of Defense, Aviation, Transportation and Energy.
Auverland America was also set up to distribute the Auverland products in North, Central and South America, as well as the Caribbean.
Jean-Bernard is fluent in English, French, Spanish and German.
Int’l arms dealers eyeing NepalThis is not the 'small arms' business we are talking about anymore. Mr. Lasnaud was quite 'in' with the Menem regime as seen in this 2005 review of European Arms Exports to Latin America, an IPIS background report by An Vranckx MAR 2005:
Tilak P Pokharel
Jean Bernard Lasnaud is an international arms dealer who brokers sales of tanks, rocket launchers and even Scud missiles from South Florida in the United States. With the proper end-user certificate, one can order a fighter plane or a field hospital from Lasnaud’s website. Despite nearly three-year long arrest requests from Argentinean jurists, US authorities have allowed him to live peacefully.
Like Lasnaud, Lebanese citizen Sarkis Soghanalian is another major player in the international arms trade – both of them receiving pat from the US. With more than 40 years of experience and billions of dollars in brokered deals, Soghanalian insists that all his deals - whether they were with Saddam Hussein’s Iraq or rebels in Central America – were done with the approval of the US government, according to a web portal on international arms deal.
[..]
With the Maoist insurgency and the counter-insurgency drives both gaining strength in Nepal, deadly international arms dealers such as Lasnaud and Soghanalian, who have international backing, might be eyeing Nepal as fertile soil for their businesses. And their wishes could be fulfilled if we have the leader like Sher Bahadur Deuba who went ahead with many myopic arms deals during his tenure. Due to his shortsightedness, now the arms have started coming after his collapse from power, and at a time when the truce has been declared from both the warring sides. Apart from the deals, which have come to the media, we cannot rule out other secret deals the government has made. Whatever justifications and reasons the arms dealers give (‘curbing terrorism’ has been the reason behind the inflow of weaponry into Nepal) while ‘legally’ selling armaments and military hardware to a state, they are simply after profit and we cannot deny that they are supplying the same to the rebelling organisations through ‘illegal’ channels, from which certain share of profits reaches to them.
Deuba was following the footsteps of US President George W Bush who sees military solution as the only resort to solve problems emerging out of discontent and injustice. Deuba’s failure was imminent largely because of following the Bush Path. Let’s hope that the present PM Lokendra Bahadur Chand doesn’t follow the Deuba or Dubyman suit and committedly strives for solving the problem through negotiations. Otherwise, the Nepalis will lose and the global arms traders will benefit, with foreign helicopters and planes with arms and ammunition ruling our skies.
(Re) exporting military equipment to a belligerent nation constitutes an obvious infringement on the arms embargo that had been set at the time. To make the situation look even worse, Argentina was one of the guarantors in the multilateral arrangement to contain Ecuador - Peru tension. The political responsibility for the Argentinean arms transfer was later ascribed to then president Carlos Menem. The case was investigated along with a string of corruption affairs, in which the former president was named as well. Menem was revealed to have signed three presidential decrees between 1991 and 1995, that allowed the sale of military equipment that belonged to the Argentinean armed forces. Panama and Venezuela were inaccurately mentioned as end users on the export certificates that substantiated these sales. The material was in actual fact shipped off to destinations under international arms embargo, not only to Ecuador, but also to a belligerent party in former Yugoslavia. The deals were brokered with the aid of Jean-Bernard Lasnaud, a French citizen and resident of the United States. Lasnaud - whose real, Polish name is Lasnosky - was arrested in Switzerland in May 2002. He there testified that he assisted in the sale of 10000 small arms and 10 million pieces of ammunition to Ecuador in February 1995, in a deal worth about US $7 million, which he concluded with colonel (r) Diego Palleros. The latter represented Fabricas Militares, the Argentinean state company that holds FN production licenses. In October 2004, Palleros, Carlos Menem and his former minister of economy were convicted for having trafficked ammunition, canons and machine guns made by an Argentinean state company to Ecuador and Croatia.And lest you think Mr. Lasnaud has just a nodding acquaintance with the events in Argentina that swirled around Carlos Menem and Monzer al-Kassar, he was extradited by Argentina in regards to the AMIA Jewish Center bombing there, as seen from multiple sources, but the Lebanon Wire Special to the Daily Star on 10 MAR 2003 gives some of the most pointed details:
Argentinean arms, including Belgian designed FN FAL 7,62 mm rifles, ended up into the hands of non-state actors and common criminals as well, such as the Rio de Janeiro drug mafia. Statistics on weapons confiscated in Rio by the Brazilian police, further reveal that FAL are but one of several FN products that circulate illegally. 9 mm pistols that circulate there too, appear to have been manufactured in the Belgian factory in Herstal. And yet, “According to Brazilian legislation, the use and possession of automatic weapons and 9 mm semi-automatic pistols is forbidden for civilians. That factor rules out the possibility that these weapons were legally exported to Brazil, for commercialisation by authorized sales agents. That is, the chances are very high that seized Belgian weapons reached Rio de Janeiro through illicit channels”.
Argentina seeks Iranians’ arrest for 1994 blast warrants renew interest in attack on jewish centerNow we are getting somewhere! By placing high level Iranian agents in Argentina under Menem's rule, plus Monzer al-Kassar working there to help Syria, we now get Mr. Lasnaud to aid on a few things for arms shipments, mostly illegal ones, out of Argentina, which require high level connections to do so. With this we have a whole new list of folks to look at! The most tenuous connection, using Florida as a good geographic location for arms, narcotics and personnel movement has shifted from the present to the past. In Florida we hear from the latest cyber-jihadis about their wanting to do something the the JFK aircraft carrier's home base and the strip joints across the street from that base. That then takes us to Imran Mandhai and Shueyb Mossa Jokhan with their connection to El-Shukrijumah. Also going through Florida were the previous arms shipment to Jamaat al-Muslimeen in the 1990 coup and the more recent try with Mr. Glaude just after 9/11. Florida also proves to be the good base for French ex-pat Jean-Bernard Lasnaud and his outward connections to Carlos Menem, Monzer al-Kassar, and illegal arms shipments to places like Bosnia, which Mr. Kassar also shipped arms to during that period. Those connections shift the emphasis from al Qaeda, with the recent plotters, Mandhai, Jokhan and El Shukrijumah, thence onto JaM and its successful 1990 smuggling operation and the second, less so with Mr. Glaude, to that of Iran/Hezbollah and Mr. Lasnaud, Carlos Menem, and Monzer al-Kassar, plus a whole slew of Foreign Intel operatives from Iran and Imad Mugniyah.
Islamic Republic, Hizbullah top list of suspects in a move seen as convenient for Washington’s ‘axis of evil’ campaign
Ed Blanche
Special to The Daily Star
BEIRUT: In a move that implicates Iran in international terrorism as the United States prepares to invade Iraq, which with the Islamic Republic is part of George W. Bush’s “axis of evil,” an Argentine judge has issued arrest warrants for four Iranians suspected of involvement in the bombing of a Jewish community center in Buenos Aires nine years ago.
In January, Argentine newspapers said the country’s intelligence service alleged in a recent report that Hizbullah carried out the July 18, 1994, bombing of the seven-storey Argentine Jewish Mutual Association (AMIA), in which 85 people were killed and 200 wounded.
But the international arrest warrants issued by Federal Judge Juan Jose Galeano on Friday only named Iran’s former intelligence minister, Ali Fallahian; the former cultural attache at the Iranian Embassy in Buenos Aires, Mohsen Rabbani; and Iranian Foreign Ministry official Barat Ali Balesh Abadi. Galeano also upheld an existing warrant dated Aug. 9, 1994, for Ali Akbar Parvaresh, a former member of the Iranian parliament who visited Buenos Aires on a diplomatic passport in December 1993 and was linked to the bombing by an Iranian informant.
Galeano’s action was seen in some quarters as a major breakthrough in an investigation that has dragged on inconclusively for nearly a decade, with dwindling expectations that any of the perpetrators will ever face trial. Argentine authorities, along with the US Central Intelligence Agency and Israel’s Mossad, which have both been deeply involved in the investigation, have repeatedly accused Iran and Hizbullah. Both vehemently deny any involvement.
It is far from clear how evidence deemed solid enough to issue arrest warrants now has emerged so many years after the bombing, the worst terrorist attack in Argentina, and an investigation that has been impaired by repeated unexplained delays, disappearing witnesses and evidence, and allegations of an official cover-up by former President Carlos Menem who headed Argentina from 1989 to 1999. Galeano, who has headed the investigation since the bombing, has filed some 70 complaints against security services for obstructing his investigation.
And to implicate Iran now, as the Middle East teeters on the brink of potentially explosive turmoil, raises suspicions that perhaps the Americans are raising the stakes with Tehran, where many fear the Islamic Republic may be next on the Bush administration’s hit list for “regime-change.”
Still, Iran and Hizbullah were prime suspects right from the start, not only in the 1994 bombing but also in the March 17, 1992, bombing of the Israeli Embassy in Buenos Aires that killed 29 people and wounded more than 200.
In August 1994, Galeano named as suspects two former secretaries at the Iranian Embassy, another embassy employee, and Parvaresh. In 1994, Buenos Aires was close to severing relations with Tehran until the Supreme Court quashed the arrest orders for the four Iranians, citing insufficient evidence.
Whether that resulted from pressure by Menem’s government is not known. Menem, whose parents were Syrian immigrants, is currently under investigation over allegations he was involved in illicit arms sales to Ecuador and Croatia between 1991 and 1995 when both countries were under United Nations embargoes.
Swiss authorities are investigating Geneva bank accounts linked to Menem as well as, at Buenos Aires’ request, allegations that Menem was paid $10 million by Tehran to cover up Iranian involvement in the AMIA bombing. Menem, who is seeking to run for the presidency again, denies any wrongdoing. In October, Swiss judicial authorities froze $10 million in two accounts linked to Menem in the gun-running investigation and in December extradited Jean-Bernard Lasnaud, a French-American arms dealers, to Argentina where he is wanted in connection with that probe.
Despite the complaints of an official cover-up in the AMIA attack, in May 1998, the Argentine government, claiming to have proof of Iranian involvement in the bombing, expelled seven Iranian Embassy officials. That happened after a former high-ranking Iranian intelligence official named Abdolghassem Mesbahi, then held by German authorities in protective custody following his defection in 1995, claimed that Mohsen Rabbani, the cultural attache at the Iranian Embassy in Buenos Aires until December 1997, had been a key figure in planning the bombing.
According to a sworn statement given to Galeano in May 2000 (he had another in April 1998), Mesbahi said the motive for the AMIA attack was a feud between Vevak, Iran’s intelligence service, and Mossad in Latin America: “In 1994, the building was attacked because it was assumed that a Mossad center was functioning there,” he claimed. “When the bombing took place, it was said in Iran that it had killed eight Mossad agents.”
Mesbahi claimed that Fallahian was the overall coordinator of the bombing operation, which was organized on the ground by a Lebanese identified only as “Ahad” (The One) and prepared by Rabbani and a Vevak agent known as Hamid Nagashan.
Mesbahi, who had reputedly been the No. 3 man in Vevak, alleged that Rabbani received assistance from Argentine police officers and four Iranian agents who had infiltrated Argentina through the Paraguayan border town of Ciudad del Este. That is in the lawless region where the borders of Argentina, Brazil and Paraguay converge and which the CIA, FBI and Latin American authorities say is a hornet’s nest of Middle Eastern extremists, including Lebanese Shiites, drug smugglers and money-launderers.
According to Argentine sources, the alleged Iranian connection was corroborated by telephone conversations at the Iranian Embassy intercepted by Argentine intelligence and the testimony of Ismanian Khusrow, one of eight Iranians who were temporarily detained for interrogation in May 1998.
“We have taken these actions against Iran only because of very damning evidence we now have that links Iran to the bombings,” Argentina’s then foreign minister, Guido Di Tell, declared following the expulsions. But no charges were leveled against Tehran and no-one has ever explained why.
Those Argentine moves were prompted after Galeano flew to Germany to interview Mesbahi, who was described at the time by a Western diplomat as perhaps “the most valuable and well-informed defector from Iran in the past decade or more.” Iranian authorities say Mesbahi fled to avoid facing fraud charges. Whatever, his testimony under the pseudonym “Witness C’’ during the Berlin trial of an Iranian intelligence agent and three Lebanese Shiites accused of the 1992 assassination of Kurdish dissident leader Sadegh Sharafkandi was crucial in convicting them in April 1997.
The German court ruled that the killings had been ordered by Iran’s leadership. It stopped short of naming names, but did indict Fallahian, who was then running Iran’s intelligence ministry as he had in 1992 and 1994.
On Sept. 2, 1999, Argentina’s Supreme Court issued an arrest warrant for Imad Mughniyeh, a former Hizbullah security chief and high on the US’ most-wanted list, on charges that he commanded the “terrorist group” which bombed the Israeli Embassy in 1992. The court cited “conclusive evidence” that Hizbullah was behind that attack. Since Sept. 11, the US hunt for Mughniyeh, who left Beirut when the Lebanese civil war ended in 1990 and reputedly works for Iranian intelligence these days, has been stepped up by the Americans.
But he, as well as all the other Arab or Iranian suspects named in the two Buenos Aires bombings, remain at large and as things stand these days they are unlikely to ever be apprehended or face trial. The only people arrested for the AMIA bombing are several police officers and a car thief allegedly linked to the bombers. Their trial, which began last year, is not expected to shed much light on the bombing.
Now as my Caribbean articles have handled the al Qaeda side, and my articles on Monzer al-Kassar has scoped out his breadth of contacts, it is now time to delve a bit deeper into Iran beyond my articles that review their 2000 work and Bosnia work. Luckily some of the above already starts to shift that focus and the AMIA Jewish Center bombing in 1994 is a prime focal point for individuals and events, to see just how the shift of them changed then. The Daily Star special does a great job of summarizing things to get a flavor of the individuals involved, and a handy-dandy listing of the Iranians there at the time should prove useful. Thus a quick look at some of these individuals is now in order.
Ali Fallahian
One of the things that Mr. Fallahian was indicted for is the Mykonos restaurant assassinations of 17 SEPT 1992 in Germany of three Iranian Kurds from the Iranian Democratic Party and their translator. Others have been convicted for parts of that, but Mr. Fallahian still has a warrant out on him from Germany. From this 27 MAY 2005 Iran Focus Profile on Mohammad-Reza Iravani, we get a look at Mr. Fallahian and his time as head of the Iranian secret police, VEVAK:
By that time, Ali Fallahian, a village mullah from the southwestern province of Khuzistan before the 1979 revolution, had become VEVAK chief. Some VEVAK officials killed out of necessity, knowing that the clerical regime would not survive without an iron grip on society. Fallahian was different. He enjoyed killing and took immense joy at torturing others. An indescribably brutal man even by the standards of VEVAK, Fallahian tortured and killed thousands of political activists, intellectuals, and even ordinary citizens during his fourteen years as the chief or deputy chief of VEVAK.Let us dispel any notions of Mr. Fallahian being 'wrongly impugned' with this. He is later cited in the murder of 120 dissidents in the "serial killings" murder spree in Iran to subdue unrest. The assassination of defectors and dissidents abroad was part of a plan designed by the special operations group to remove such individuals in an attempt to not only intimidate others that decried the regime, but to also spread fear in those communities so as to remove hope of outside help to those living inside Iran.
His motivations for these killings were often as much political as economic or even personal. He ordered the murder of businessmen who refused to bribe him. A crude womanizer, he murdered some of the women with whom he had an affair to leave no witness behind. One of these victims was Fatemeh Qaem-Maqami, an air hostess in Aseman Airways. Fallahian met her on a flight to Mashad and forced the married woman to have an affair with him. According to the confessions of a former VEVAK official that was published in Iran, a few months later, Fallahian decided that Qaem-Maqami knew too much. He ordered his deputy, Saeed Emami, to “liquidate” her. Emami arranged a meeting with the hapless woman and sent a VEVAK assassin, Saeed Haqqani, to kill her by shooting three bullets into her head and chest.
In 2003 Tarek Reed would also charge Iran, citing Mr. Fallahian as one of the prime movers, for the kidnapping of Tarek's father Frank Reed in 1986 by Hezbollah in Lebanon and holding him hostage for 3 years. While the case does have some problems, it has received a partial motion to go forward.
Mr. Fallahian is also wanted by the Argentinians for crimes against humanity for the AMIA bombing, as they reported on 11 NOV 2006:
London, Nov. 11 - On Thursday, an Argentinean federal judge issued an arrest warrant for eight Iranian officials involved in the deadly bombing of a Jewish community centre in Buenos Aires in 1994. Among those sought is the former head of Iran’s notorious secret police.They also cite the 1997 warrant from Germany and one from APR 2006:
The warrant was issued to Interpol for the arrest of Hojjatoleslam Ali Fallahian, who for years headed Iran’s Ministry of Intelligence and Security (MOIS). Judge Rodolfo Canicoba Corral also ordered the detention of former Iranian President Ayatollah Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, former Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Velayati, and the former commandant of the Revolutionary Guards.
The officials have been charged with "crimes against humanity" for masterminding the bombing of the Argentine Jewish Mutual Association, which killed 85 people and wounded more than 200.
This is not the first time the former intelligence chief has appeared on Interpol's list of wanted individuals.
Fallahian, who is currently an advisor on security affairs to Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and a member of the Assembly of Experts, is believed to have plotted other high-profile terrorist strikes and assassination of Iranian dissidents elsewhere in Europe and the Middle East.
The warrant issued in April 2006 by the Swiss judge called on law enforcement agencies to arrest “Ali Fallahian, former Minister of Intelligence and Security of the Islamic Republic of Iran and transfer him to the Canton Vaud Prison in Lausanne, Switzerland”. Fallahian was charged with masterminding the assassination of Prof. Kazem Rajavi, a renowned human rights advocate and elder brother of Iranian opposition leader Massoud Rajavi.All part of the assassination work going on at the time. Ali Fallahian was also part of the main outreach to Egyptian Islamic Jihad and al Qaeda in this period as seen from The Jamestown Foundation 11 SEP 2003 look at Iran and al Qaeda:
Kazem Rajavi, then the representative of the opposition National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI) in Switzerland, was gunned down in broad daylight by several MOIS agents on April 24, 1990 as he was driving to his home in Coppet, a village near Geneva.
The Swiss judge’s ruling added that prior to the assassination of Kazem Rajavi, Fallahian had also ordered the assassination of Massoud Rajavi.
Iran's relationship with al Qaeda is strongest through the Egyptian Islamic Jihad (EIJ). Throughout the 1990s, the leader of the EIJ, Ayman al Zawahiri, was a frequent guest of Ali Fallahian, Iran's then-Minister of Intelligence, and Ahmad Vahidi, the then-head of the Quds Force, a special operations unit active abroad. Since February of 1998, when the EIJ joined forces with al Qaeda to form the "World Islamic Front for Jihad against Jews and Crusaders," al-Zawahiri has become bin Laden's right-hand man and chief of ideology.Iran and al Qaeda would suffer some downturns after that, but with 9/11 Iran would see al Qaeda as a co-enemy with America and things would start to improve again. But this only happened due to the outreach performed by Mr. Fallahian with Ayman al Zawahiri. Yes, that's right, Iranian Shia Fallahian working WITH Ayman al Zawahiri.
Mohsen Rabbani
As the cultural attache with the Iranian Embassy in Argentina, Mr. Rabbani was well placed to conduct his part in the AMIA bombing in 1994. Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center have a page on that bombing, and looks at the points involved with the preparation leading up to the actual bombing:
The preparatory phases of the bombingNow while the folks at the ITIC want to point out high level similarities to the Mykonos bombing, I want to take a different tack and look at the previous Israeli Embassy Bombing in 1992 in Argentina. The reason why is that the previous one would set a bit of 'how to do it' for the later bombing, but be done just a bit more slickly. This is drawn from a MAR 2000 Middle East Intelligence Bulletin on links between Syria and the 1992 Israeli Embassy bombing in Argentina:
Upon the decision to carry out the AMIA bombing, in August 1993, all involved parties in Iran and Hezbollah set out to advance the goal: The gathering of target intelligence was accelerated; various operational aspects were examined; a political working plan was drawn up for the exploitation of the bombing and the repair of possible damages; and the logistical groundwork for the bombing was put into place.
To illustrate the above process: At the end of 1993, Mohsen Rabbani, then still in office in Argentina, had already conducted several checks regarding the purchase of a Renault Traffic van – the same car brand eventually used for the car bomb. Around the same time, Rabbani had on several occasions left Argentina and stayed in Iran. In March 1994, he returned to Argentina, where he stayed until the bombing.
It appears that by the summer of 1994, operational preparations had already reached an advanced stage. Following a new evaluation of the situation conducted by Iran and Hezbollah, the decision was presumably made to carry out the bombing. After an additional month-and-a-half of final preparations, the bombing was indeed perpetrated. During May and June 1994, Hezbollah leaders issued a number of communiqués about the organization’s “long arm” whose reach extends throughout the world. These may be seen in retrospect as laying the propaganda groundwork in anticipation of the bombing.
In June 1994 and during the days preceding the bombing, in mid-July, several “incriminating signs” were evident (ex post facto), consisting of changes in the routine behavior of those involved in the preparations. For example, ten days before the bombing, the head of the Iranian intelligence agency in Buenos Aires left Argentina hurriedly and unexpectedly. Furthermore, Iran’s ambassador to Argentina as well as its ambassadors to Chile and Uruguay could not be found at their respective offices at the time of the bombing.
This report hypothesizes a "Syrian connection" to the bombing of the Israeli embassy and the AMIA building, mainly through the presence and suspicious activities of a Syrian, Monzer al-Kazzar and an Argentine, Alfredo Yabran, and their link to then presidential candidate Carlos Menem's trip to Syria in 1988 and his promises concerning the Condor II missile and the installation of nuclear reactors in return for campaign funding. The report accuses investigators of a cover-up, noting that any possibility that sectors of the Syrian government or its surrogates could have been involved in the preparation or execution of the bombings have been ignored.A bit lengthy, but shows how a skilled operative works so as to make the trail harder to identify - cash payment for a truck, obfuscating a travel trail so one appears to be outside of a country when they have actually returned to it, and generally doing everything to insert a layer of distance between oneself and the actions being supported. Truly the work on the Embassy Bombing was done by a complete professional, while the more haphazard work on the AMIA bombing was done by terrorists. Professionalism *shows* in such work.
According to the report, taped testimony that tied certain people with the main suspects disappeared due to the negligence of the security services. The involvement of foreigners intimately associated with the previous government has been ignored, and they have been freed of suspicions "thanks to the lies spilled by civil employees of the government." These manipulations were to be expected since "all those investigated and soon rejected suspects were related, in one way or another, intimately with sectors of the previous government, including ex-president Carlos Menem himself." Suspicious activity by a number of Syrians are described in the report, including Mohamed Alem, Narman al-Hennawi, Ghassam al-Zein, Hassan Iasin Satin, Ali Chedade al-Hassan, Yalal Nacrach, Jacinto Kanoore Edul, Nassif Haddad, Javier Haddad and Monzer al-Kassar.
While there had been a successful attempt during the years since the attack to show that the Iranian track was antagonistic to the Syrian one, the Argentine group believes that both tracks "not only are not antagonistic to each other, but are interrelated with each other."
"The intent to show their antagonism is due, above all, to a real ignorance of the geopolitical alliances that were established in the Middle East, the deep relations that both sides maintain, the communion of interests, and, mostly, the clear objective to want to deviate the attention of public opinion from any indication that will involve the former government with suspects of the attacks, knowing, beforehand, the international scandal that this signifies."
[..]
In the petition filed against al-Kassar, Public Prosecutor Rivoli pointed out that the unfulfilled promises by al-Kassar (to invest millions of dollars in the country) were for the purpose of realizing activities, publicly acknowledged, such as the sale of armaments. While al-Kassar was settling himself in Argentina under the protection of the former government (he was able to obtain an Argentine passport in "record time"), Ibrahim al-Ibrahim was installing himself in the Customs of Ezeiza, and Yabran was strengthening his power over the fiscal deposits, the post office, and the transfer of wealth. Separate investigations affirmed that the establishment of the trio in "neuralgic sectors of power" facilitated the creation of a "real parallel customs" or "free zone" from where all types of merchandise entered, circulated, and exited without any control. Thus the suspicions that part of the technological secrets of the Condor II left through Customs and that the "exogenous" material that blew the embassy of Israel entered.
Incidentally, it was in 1991 that the illegal sales of arms to Croatia and Ecuador began. A witness, whose identity has not been disclosed and who presumably belonged to the organization led by al-Kassar, declared before the Swiss judge that the Syrian arms trafficker was the intermediary between the Argentine government and Croatian President Tujdman for the resulting arms into Argentina. The witness, of Spanish origin, affirmed that the cargo was destined for Croatia, moving through the Spanish port of Malaga.
Al-Kassar is also linked with the presidential nephew, Yalal Nacrach, known as the "Hezbollah " of Menemism. Yalal appears tied to the arms cause, among others, via the deposits in the famous account of Daforel on the part of the Eltham Trading investment fund with the investigations of the scandal of the sale of arms. Four hundred thousand dollars was deposited in the Daforel account, which Palleros earmarked as the payment of a bribery to a "high-level industrialist tied to the power."
Another element which the report indicates links al-Kassar with the Argentine arms traffic is an Ecuadorian government document, classified as "top secret," published by the Ecuadorian daily Posdata on September 11, 1998, which states that the intermediaries for the arms operation were al-Kassar and Jean Lasnaud. Most importantly were the suspicious relations that maintained ties between the arms operation and some of the suspects in the attack on AMIA.
On March 17, 1992, the Israeli embassy in Buenos Aires was blown up, product of a supposed car bomb that exploded in front of the diplomatic headquarters. The expert of the Supreme Court of Justice, Oscar Laborda, who later worked for AMIA, demonstrated that the explosive contained 65 kilos of extraneous material known as C-4 or Sentex. His conclusions were similar to those reached by the American agency for the Control of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms.
At the same time that the Israeli, American, and Argentine experts were debating over the origin of the explosive, then-Minister of the Interior, Josè Luis Manzano, was receiving through the intermediation of a high-placed English diplomat, confirmation that al-Kassar was at that time in Argentina. Manzano was alarmed when he read that the Syrian had entered the country through the Ezeiza airport on Iberia flight 6940, originating from Spain.
Another file processed by the Spanish secret services has information that ties al-Kassar with the attack on the embassy and would be used by the secret service as a form of blackmail against the arms trafficking so that al-Kassar would continue to perform "some jobs" for Spanish spies. The source, who preferred to remain anonymous, also demonstrated that the same file was the one used by Anserment to accuse al-Kassar in the triangulation of the Sentex.
The then prosecutor of the Swiss district, demonstrated, in his indictment against al-Kassar, that based on the evidence from the Spanish Ministry of Mines, the investigations of the journalist, Bermudez, and the information from Spanish intelligence, there was a definite possibility that al-Kassar had triangulated part of the Sentex from Spain, going through Damascus, and reaching Buenos Aires via the fiscal deposits of Ezeiza.
According to Anserment's investigation, the Sentex was bought in a Spanish factory by Cenrex Trading Corporation, LTD of Varsovia. The prosecutor was able to establish that the owner of the firm was none other than Monzer al-Kassar, under the alias of "Monzer Galioun." His investigation also showed that the material, which had been destined for the Democratic Republic of Yemen, was never shipped. He also pointed out that part of the cargo of the triangulated Sentex was sent to Syria, and from there, left for Buenos Aires in 1991, a few months before the attack on the embassy.
According to the majority of those who investigated the attack on the embassy (but not all), the explosion resulted from a Ford F-100 truck, which had been rented by a person with false identity, using the alias "Elias Griveiro Da Luz." This person paid $21,000 for the truck, 50 percent more than its value on the market. According to the report, it can be established that the money used to pay for the truck originated at a house of currency exchange in the Lebanese city of Biblos, a subsidiary of a larger house of exchange, the "Society of Change in Beirut," which was the property of al-Kassar.
The Syrian arms trafficker pointed out to the daily, Clarin, and later in a broadcast on "Hora Clave" that he had "abandoned the sale of arms and had dedicated himself to construction and the managing of the most important exchange house in Beirut," which, by chance, was none other than the Society of Change in Beirut, the most important in the Lebanese capital. The Justice department did not bother to investigate if the $21,000 originated from the holding company "Al Khaled Kassar," with headquarters in Damascus and immense interests in Lebanon. According to journalists, the holding company belonged to Ahmed Jibril, leader of the pro-Syrian movement, the Palestine-Comando Special Popular Liberation Front, to Rifaat Assad, brother of the Syrian president, and al-Kassar.
The Court also did not investigate the movement of Customs between the end of 1991 and the beginning of 1992, which the reporting opposition group had demanded, despite the fact that organizations such as the CIA, DEA, and others had denounced Ezeiza, which was directed by al-Ibrahim.
The report affirms that the investigations of the attack on the embassy of Israel have been relegated to absolute silence, investigating false trails to the point of condemning "generically" an organization, Islamic Jihad, which because of the investigators' lack of knowledge of the prevailing reality in the Middle East, did not even try to learn when and in which context that organization makes a public appearance. It was more than 20 years ago when Islamic Jihad appeared "for the one and only time" in the attack against the US marines in Beirut, only to disappear from the map right after.
"The Trail that Menem Fears" details the relationship between Customs, the house of exchange, the trafficking of arms, the meeting of al-Kassar and Yabran in Falda del Carmen, the relationship with Yamal Batich, Ibrahim al-Ibrahim, as well as former president Menem (the actual target of this report), all of which it concludes leads to a Syrian connection to the bombings of the Israeli embassy and AMIA. Its principal "proof," however, is the resistance to following the various leads, which may have proven this Syrian connection.
Luckily those involved in the UK plot and the cyber-terror threats in Florida are definitely not professionals or even skilled ideologues. They are, however, just a step or two away from finding someone who *is* that skilled. It will not be Monzer al-Kassar, however, and it might actually take a bit for the transnational terrorism internetwork to spit up someone or some way for such connections to be made. The internetwork works better with better connections, and as long as there are arms, narcotics and folks looking to overthrow society or just carve their piece from it, such well connected capabilities will show up again. And quickly. Sphere: Related Content
06 July 2007
And now the posting level heads downwards for a bit
Yes, even less posting than usual! Getting ready to finally move and the recovery from the pre-move, pre-sale house cleaning has moved my sleeping pattern back to the 'wildly swinging from 3 hours to 7 hours sort'. Which means, of course, a darker shade of the Land of Gray. Still, for all of that, there is a *lot* that I am processing from the last few months of posts...
Dot connecting - lack thereof by the INTEL Community and, mostly, everyone. Just going over the posts, one of the most obvious things is the absolute depth of the Transnational Terrorist support network. Case in point is Monzer al-Kassar: This single individual has been involved with more parts of the Transnational Terror network than I care to think about, and has utilized his ability to connect person-to-person in a way that is amazing.
Consider the set of dots he connects from my past posts (first, second and third) and what is in the notebook I have on him and a couple of other characters in the arms business:
1) Drug trafficking in the 1970's, giving inroads to the Sicilian Mafia.
2) His wife, Raghda is a member of the Assad family.
3) In control of the heroin trade through the Bekaa Valley and for 20% of the heroin reaching the US in the early 1980's.
4) Connections with Jerzy Dembrowski of CENREX and connections via the Iran/Contra scandal that would see Kassar get millions of dollars to buy weapons for the Contras and to facilitate the actual hostage swaps.
5) Kassar's connections with Soviet era Polish arms manufacturers, which helped supply the Iran/Contra deal.
6) Kassar's connections with the later Russian mafia, as well as Polish, Latvian, Romanian mafias.
7) Kassar's connection with Carlos Menem of Argentina, to work out a supply deal whereby advanced missile and nuclear technology is sent from Argentina to Syria (this was scotched by the US, but those connections proved valuable). I mean he did become an Argentinian and Menem's arms dealer.
8) Iranian radical elements showing up in Argentina, taking part in assassinations and the first wave of Islamic attacks in South and Central America: Argentina, Brazil and Panama. Plus the AMIA bombing report suggested that Kassar be investigated, but that was never done at the behest of the administration there. Needless to say many files *disappeared*.
9) References by Interpol to an *earlier* FARC arms-deal from Eastern Europe that looks surprisingly like the most recent attempt that brought Kassar in.
10) Connections with Abbu Abbas.
11) Connections with Abu Nidal, and the Achille Lauro hijacking.
12) Connections with BCCI for money laundering and, perhaps, technology transfer via it to a Turkish firm that Kassar had ties to.
13) Connections to Chile via drug trafficking, having a nephew there.
14) Connections to Merex International Arms via the Iran/Contra affair and to Lt. Col. (ret) James P. Atwood.
15) His ties that brought down Imperial Consolidated for his stake in Imperium Mining. And just what part *did* Osama bin Laden have in that?
16) Just what sort of ties does it require to get someone in Spanish prison to recant their testimony about Kassar? Or get another witness killed in S. America? Or to get another one drunk in his home town and have him fall out of a window to his death?
17) Connections with Somalia.
18) Connections with Banco Bilbao-Vizcaya Argentaria.
19) Connections to Franfurt, Germany in the mid-1980's and his heroin smuggling ring there.
20) Connections with the PLO, Black September and PFLP-GC.
21) Connections with the East German firm IMES.
22) Connections with the Cali and Medellin drug cartels.
And that is *just* on Monzer al-Kassar.
This has not even scratched the surface with the BNL scandal (my notebook so far), BCCI scandal and the various fun and frivolity of how USDA farm credit money gets turned into arms sales to Saddam Hussein.
I had not intended to become the All Source Expert on: terrorism, money laundering, drug trafficking, organized crime, ex-Soviet concerns, various Mafias, various drug kingpins, multiple drug cartels, and a slew of other things, like tracking shipping firms, small arms manufacturers and finding out just how one goes about turning grain into AK-47s on the high seas. Add in Abu Nidal, Abbu Abbas, multiple Palestinian terror groups, Hezbollah (et. al.), Carlos Menem, the Assad family, and more folks than I can shake a stick at, and you get very slow going.
Lots and lots of connections to try and handle.
So, when you ask about where I am: either exhausted, brain fried, or trying to dig up new leads.
Say, how about any connectivity between Kassar and, say, Jamaat al-Muslimeen or Jamaat al-Fuqra? Bet they exist! You do *remember* the JFK airport plot and the posts on radical Islam and the Caribbean, plus Latin America, right?
A real kicker is that Kassar's ties to the Bekaa Valley come right around the same time as the first of the North Korean supernotes showed up... probably some ties there, too. One would think he has a couple of connections for that, alone.
Moving - probably in a month or so, and some low level activities going on right until everything gets busy. And the low level ones are exhausting to me. Still, its one of those deals where I need to do this *for* my health, so long as I don't wind up expired. No plans on that, just do what is necessary when I can. Luckily lots of detritus has been cleared out and sent to the Vietnam Vets and Lupus foundation and a few other worthy charities.
In some ways I feel like Mycroft Holmes: I do very well in a quiet, stable environment. Don't bother me with things like marching around to protest... health doesn't allow, but I can do a bit of writing now and again.
And anyone with any insight into personal protection against bobcats is greatly appreciated! Must be safe for an individual likely to suffer from cataleptic attack: namely me. Don't have the energy to be at a firing range, either, so accuracy and such is limited.
So posting when time, energy and mental capability allows.
Yesterday was the LAST day for complaints.
04 July 2007
The opponent of freedom
H/t to Instpundit for linking to Globalization: Bin Laden's vs. the West's by James Pethokoukis.
One of the concepts that is put forward in today's world is that globalization, the interlinking of economic interests that will help 'uplift everyone' will eliminate many of the social ills of the world. Poverty, hunger and terrorism are all caused by this 'gap' between the developed world and the third world. Globalization of culture, outlook and values, however, also play right to the concept of Transnationalism: removing cultures, societal outlooks and homogenizing humanity so that it can be easily ruled. What has yet to be spelled out by folks is *how* Globalization is different from Transnationalism.
That is a tough thing to do as the primary proponents for Globalization, the integration of economies and the free flow of capital, are also the leading proponents of Transnationalist Capitalism, or the Transnational Right. Supporting Globalization and the export of goods has overlooked that the cultural values, or lack of same, that gets promulgated by those very same goods deteriorate localized society and culture. To Transnationalism this is a key benefit as it removes differences *of* culture for the installation of a ruling class. The view of the benefits of Globalization are given by Thomas Barnett, and I have done some initial review of those ideas in three posts: One of force structure and forcing the issue of the role of the US Armed Forces in Globalization, a look at why the US does not adhere to using forces in that manner, a third look brings up the serious problem of slanted outlook that 'free trade frees people' while, in truth, it is freedom that frees people to have goods and have security of goods from government confiscation.
That version of Globalization is that of the Transnationalist Right, seeking to utilize the power of economic forces to remove cultural, ethnic and political barriers so as to engender trade at higher end profit. Such a goal is destructive of cultures, especially those that are ill-suited to the social capabilities that are brought with them. Saudi Arabia thought cellphones were a truly wonderful invention, right up to the picture phone... and then the decay of morals could be seen and they even tried to outlaw them. Forgetting, of course, that the same smuggling routes *out* of the Kingdom also came back *into* it. King Canute had better luck against the tide.
If this idea that Globalization will bring democracy and freedom were *true*, then China would be a prime example of it after 30 years of getting more capitalism into the Nation. Unfortunately, capitalism is utilized by the regime to reward some over others, put forward no reasonable workplace standards, no real human rights, and, instead of a flowering of democracy, we have seen political repression, political prisoners and the crushing of an attempt to gain voice at Tiananmen Square in 1989. Beyond that has come the slow liquidation of Chinese culture as its society now enforces a one-child policy and sees internal migration of anyone with any ability to get to industrialized cities to try and just live a little better. China, via corrupt crony capitalism, repression and unwillingness to expand human rights has, instead, gotten a form of weak Fascism without any popular assent at all to it. Remember, that the US opened up to China in 1972, and 35 years later there is very little to show for that, save that more 'markets' have been made available to the US and we get to help keep the regime in power by offering goods to the people there. A great job for China! Buy off the population with Western goods and still retain a hard grip on civil rights. Works so very well, doesn't it?
Even worse is the problem that faces the Globalists from the very start of the concept in which it was promulgated that *trade* was more important than *fighting* an enemy. That was first put out by President Woodrow Wilson in 1917, and the thesis was that the US did not need to attack Allies of Germany and that the benefits of trade would work wonders on the Ottoman Empire. Yes, good old American trade was going to change everything! Don't mind 2.5 million Armenians dead in the genocide there.... which President Wilson knew about before making his decision on how and where to fight in World War I. In 1915, to be exact.
No, trade would work wonders!
So, 90 years on from this lovely concept of *not* fighting someone who is allied with a foe, what has the Middle East gotten? It has gotten the predicted chaos, that Theodore Roosevelt warned about at the time. By not taking to fight the Ottomans, the US was not seen as a full Ally in the War and the, oh so nice, '14 points plan' by President Wilson was tossed out by the Adult Allies: Britain and France. Apparently they didn't think much of a Nation wanting to dictate Peace Terms when it had not taken part fully in a war. By not fighting, more would die in genocide and the major powers would wreck havoc in their slicing and dicing of the Middle East and then letting parts of *those* agreements go to hell.
But Globalization was served!
And this concept of commerce freeing folks? Giving them democracy, freedom and liberty?
The major problem that I, personally, have with this lovely deterministic outlook of the world... of it all marching to the 'unseen hand of the marketplace' towards a golden age of freedom... is that it does not work that way. There are no inevitable 'forces of history' that will, assuredly, move the population of Rock 3 from Star Sol in any given direction. Even if there were a trend towards democracy, that is no guarantee of Peace and Stability or of even achieving democracy on a Universal basis. While so many love to point to the fact that 'no democracies have ever declared war on each other', I somehow see Germany doing that *twice*. While the Reichstags may have been undermined and somewhat underpowered before both conflicts, that does not mean they were not democratic institutions, no matter how debased they were. Even better is that multiple democracies have been titular Empires, mostly in trade, but the British had some degree of large holdings overseas which the locals had to protest to GET their rights. Those only came in the post-WWII decolonization era, and then for the fact that India has done rather well, Zimbabwe, Namibia, Morocco, Algeria... well... a whole slew of places quickly deteriorated after the Empires dried up.
Beyond that, however, are the differences in views between a Globalized world as so many in the West see it, and that of someone like Osama bin Laden. It is all very well and good to point to such things as the Global GDP and show how it is, indeed, rising. Very nice and methodical, that, and shows the 'march of history' and gives one a feeling of nice triumphalism and that this will overcome anything. From what we have seen, in recent days, is that the jihadi attacks are NOT coming from the poor, destitute and less well off in the world. Instead we are seeing doctors, engineers and those that would be considered to be middle class instituting these attacks. Yes, they have crossed the economic GAP!
They brought with them an authoritarian view of the world and now wish to institute it using the very basis OF the highly technical Western society as their basis.
What Globalization has done, for these folks, is gotten a cheap and easily utilized communications system together in which to run a highly, globally distributed organization, spread out cash flow so as to be nearly anonymous and/or restricted to person-to-person contacts and also found that explosives, weapons and other things can be purchased cheaply and delivered nearly anywhere on the planet. Globalism *helps* Islamofascistic views, and any other terrorist concept that wants to follow that game plan. In crossing the GAP they now seek to bring the affluent side of it to heel using their own disdain for the cultures they see as the reason to attack it and utilize the means of that hated culture to do so.
So that leaves us with Globalization *only* working if it removes cultural differences. Yes, it leaves one with Transnationalism. The idea that those wishing for authoritarian control will just 'go away' if you give them a good life is nonsense. It doesn't work to those committed to a religious or ideological outlook that sees the destruction of innocents as a pathway to power. Closing this vaunted GAP means more individuals that are disaffected with Western culture being given the tools to attack it and cheaply. That is the power of Globalization that those wishing to close the GAP from the Western side are blind to: it is not about trade, nor money, nor freedom. The fight against terrorism is the fight against the concept that a rule by an Elite for any reason whatsoever is *preferable* to self-rule and individualism.
Putting forward that democracy and liberty will win out 'in the long run' is a form of predestinationism. No matter what you do, you still get there as it is 'the better way' and must win out over every other concept. That means that no matter how bad the death toll *is*, you really shouldn't do a damned thing about it... because the freedom and liberty concept will 'always win'. That is an attitude that will get one killed in the short run as those who don't believe that and would prefer that their ideals be put forth as authoritarian ones will remove that decision from you.
If, however, you see that freedom and liberty for oneself is worth fighting *for*, then reaching out to others seeking that, no matter what their economic system or capabilities are, is a winning concept. Reciprocity and agreeing to common goals means working towards them *together*, even if the societies are different, those differences are recognized and acknowledged, and then that which is common to both put forth as a means of achievement. There is no GAP in that: there is compatibility of outlook and mutual association for same and sustainment of that outlook. A booming global economy is an interesting artifact, but the question of the utility of that power is one that cannot be put forward as 'predestined to win'. And because the link of prosperity to democracy is a weak associational one, in which democracy can be strong but prosperity low as well, in the case of China, prosperity relatively high and democracy low, there is no causality between the two. They can work together mutually, but the trade and commerce between individuals and Nations is an artifact of the human condition, not the cause of it.
We control trade and put it to use to sustain liberty and freedom.
Not the other way around.
That was the rallying cry, wasn't it?
"No taxation without representation"
Remember that? We as citizens of a Nation should have say over the taxes that we pay so that we can have common government. And that taxation, be it on income or on sales, comes *from* the value of our work and investment. Yes, from the trade of work or the goods of work. We agree, as a people, to support that common overhead for government amongst us and between Nations so that our Nation can be sustained by it. There is no predestination in that as it is decided upon by a People what is and is not fair, which does not necessarily mean 'free trade'. Free People decide upon what is fair in trade and taxation, and their viewpoints are as varied as their cultures and their outlooks on life. When we freely associate to create that common weal amongst us, we grow society and, soon, Nation amongst us. It was with deep distraught that dissolving those binding pieces of culture to form something new was so hard to do. Thomas Jefferson with the help of Benjamin Franklin wrote on that:
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.By right of being a People we create a New Nation amongst us, so that this separation can be recognized as important. From that comes the idea of Nation and the best way to have a Nation that is honorable for all involved:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.We come together by commonness to form something different for ourselves. Our ideals are Universal, but it can only be built among the willing. To do that a Government is created between us, on this mortal plane, so that we can have common governance to uphold rights, not hand them out to us. The Globalists do not like this idea, as it puts forth that we, as a People, have the right to determine our own course, set it as we will, stick to it and implement it in any way we see fit.
And so does any other People who put forth that THEY are the Nation, not the Government.
This is a horror and abomination to Transnationalists, that a grouping of People dare, DARE, to declare that their outlook as a group is self-determining and cannot be dictated to by outside forces. Globalists like this not, as it puts the very heart of trade at the mercy of Peoples who will do as they wish with the fruits of their labor, tax it or not as the case may be for whatever they see as fair for themselves.
What both the Globalists and Transnationalists adore is that only a People willing to take on the burden of governing themselves may do this: the rest of humanity is left open for dictators, tyrants and despots of all stripes and kinds. Hide the despotism behind a cloak of trade or 'cultural equality' and it is then seen as no different from democracy. And to those in a democracy they will use the simple expedient of making up excuses or flat out lying about the state of the world to get their way.
Those that wish to demean the Nation called America, use any thing they can to do so. America is claimed as an 'Empire' although it holds no foreign territory, save after war and then the Nation works hard to get a competent government of locals together because we do believe that they should be able to express their differences and form a government for themselves. Where are the grand swaths of land that the United States has kept after war? All of Japan, mayhap? A quarter of Germany divided amongst the victors? Half of Italy? The Philippines? A very, very strange 'Empire' that has no holdings of its own.
But then the lovely 'Empire of Trade' comes to the forefront and how foreign folks are somehow *forced* to purchase our goods. But only if they want to.... yes, strange is this 'Empire of Trade' that has ceded vast industries to other Nations for them to utilize and expand their capabilities. So dictatorial of the US to force Sony and Volvo and Airbus to do these things... something seems a bit askew there, on this entire 'Empire of Trade' concept. Folks picking up things from us, for a price (taxes included!) and then complaining about it. What a strange world it is when giving people choices is seen as 'Imperial'!
Or the euphonious GAP between the 'integrated Core' and the unintegrated periphery. Perhaps if they all just had Fascistic governments, very much like China and Russia, we could trade with them much, much more, their Governments would put them to work, deprive them of rights and they would be so much better off with more material goods! That DOES WORK in that paradigm, because trade, donchyaknow, will transform them magically into democracies, given time. Given generations.... how about China? Free yet?
Or the Middle East? Basking in the glory of human rights and democracy, is it?
Apparently this idea of a People claiming their rights together, but as individuals, to have Government amongst them. It does not take a rich society to do that: the 13 colonies were no where near as rich as Britain was. And yet through determination and a death toll of 10%, with 15% fled, these colonies *won* to be a Nation. One does not need to be rich to be free, and even those in the most desperate of situations under tyrannical government see that such government, after mere survival, is the *problem* not themselves as a People. Those governments work to make such impoverishment so deep that there is no time for rebellion... for revolution... for freedom to exist.
Because they do not see themselves as Free People *first* and, thusly, as he actual Nation, their impoverishment by evil government limits these People. That is not something that trade can do much about, but that education and outreach can help and greatly. That cannot come *from* Government: only a Free People can demonstrate their freedom by being unafraid to practice it constantly. Give that to Government and it will be ill-done, ill-thought out and poorly overseen. Do it yourself and you have absolute control over your actions and your liberty to build with as you see fit. Helping others out of their poverty is important, trade helps, but the greatest trade is the exchange of the notion that Freedom emanates from oneself. The grinding poverty of tyrannical and despotic government is not in the body, but in the mind and soul. Helping others find a pathway to understand that is critical, far more than bodily sustainment, and doing that is necessary to allow others to come together as Free People.
That is known as: building freedom.
One dare not depend upon Government for that or anything that determines what it means to be free, or else that freedom will slowly erode as a concept in yourself and society. To be free requires the greatest leeway for one's own freedom and the assurance that those laws held in common to protect yourself will also apply to you so as to protect society from you. When Government goes beyond that and is seen as a source of *good*, then there is no end of what will be handed to it, and all those things will be the rights of individuals diminished by less competent, less fair and, ultimately, less able bureaucracy.
We fought a Revolution over that, and it remains, to this day, as Revolutionary as it was in 1776.
And it is that which Osama bin Laden is fighting against, and the GAP between authoritarianism and democracy is vast and deep because it is a bitter struggle and fight to retain democracy until the last free person on this planet dies for it. As the alternative is true poverty of the spirit and soul, and final slavery and an end to freedom. Sphere: Related Content
02 July 2007
The terror take down in Iraq
Google, in its ever finer attempt to take over all things of interest in computing, has introduced the Google Notebook. What it is, is a nice way to deposit pieces of information, images and such into nice little documents that one can collaborate with others on or just share with the whole-wide world. In theory the resident part of it on one's computer, basically a link to let a web page get captured to the notebook, should work, but doesn't on my set-up. Still, it has the basic copy and past sort of deal and I am sure that, somehow, if I used a more or less normal arrangement of software, it would work a bit better. That said the thing does have an RSS feed in it, so one can update notebooks on the fly with interesting material and others can feed those right to their web page. Not something of great interest, but fun, nonetheless.
Thus, the first chance to use that is with the Kazali Network notebook I have up on my sidebar. One can click on a piece, bring up the notebook web page and go from there! A DIY clipping service! So handy....
As seen from the MNF-I briefing, a major take down of high level individuals in the Kazali terror network in Iraq happened a couple of months ago, and has netted a very high level individual: Ali Musa Daqduq. Now, what is interesting so far, is not Mr. Daqduq, but his compatriots the Kazali brothers, Kais and Laith. Like all things from the Middle East the variant spellings are numerous, so one needs to do a wide search to pick up all the variants on names.
These two boys worked their way into a high position in Sadr's Mahdi Army way back in 2003, and have been instrumental in working together a cross-Iraq supply network from Syria and Iran. Together, these two have been in what appears to be the 'insurgent supply' concept, for keeping insurgents well supplied with goods and material. There is a bit of evidence of their working with al Qaeda for awhile, to ensure that various terror cells from the have been kept well supplied with those huge weapons caches that have been found since the Riverine Campaign of 2005-6.
The connection to a high level Hezbollah operative is further demonstration of how much Iran is now concentrating on Iraq, and that they are running out of trustworthy personnel locally. If they had good Iraqis to train other Iraqis, you would not need Mr. Daqduq from Lebanon, now, would you? Yes, put together a few clippings, see how the Kazali boys have been keeping the terror going from their perspective, and catch a nice high level operative and the underlying nature of the supply system starts to fall out. Early, pre-surge, work in places like Ramadi started to yield up this sort of thing a couple of months ago, and now we finally get to see *why* the surge is going like it does: follow the supplies to the people using them.
Still, months away from ferreting out the entire extent of the Kazali network, and there are, to be sure, some indigenous networks amongst the Kurds (an interesting market for used cars, of all things, but not late model ones as al Qaeda prefers, so no luck on hooking that into the US car theft rings), and your standard, everyday, criminal operations for gray and black market goods. Those *also* need to be addressed as a truck full of video recorders, one day, yields just about the same as a truck load of AK-47s the next. Put them in boxes and crates and they look the same from the outside, too!
As to how I am going to use the Notebook... well, mostly it will be for extensive background material. Some of my articles have yielded far and away more than I can easily cite or put into a normal article, but the material, itself, is interesting for understanding the context of how Transnational Terrorism works. Now all I need is the time.... *sigh*.
Supporting Friends and Allies
