President Obama and State Secrets: It's Different, When You're in Charge

I was impressed, after reading that President Obama had authorized the raid that freed the Maersk Alabama's Captain. Barack Obama may be more solidly attached to the real world than might have been expected.

I'm not as surprised as I might be, though. Last August I wrote about Obama's failure to live down to the Congressional Black Caucus' standards. I could be wrong about this, but I think that many members of the CBC have never quite gotten over the passing of the sixties.

War Isn't Nice: Neither is the Taliban - Deal With It

Like it or not, organizations like Al Qaeda and the Taliban are

1. Not nice
2. Determined to make their version of Islam the only version
3. Not at all inhibited when it comes to killing people who get in their way

Since America, Western civilization in general, and - judging from the number of Muslims killed by these lions of Islam - quite a bit of the Islamic world don't see eye-to-eye with Al Qaeda and the Taliban, there is a conflict going on.

It may not, officially, be the "War on Terror" any more, but the fact is that Al Qaeda quite happily killed around 3,000 people in New York City a few years ago, and hit the Pentagon. The physical damage can be repaired: the people stay dead.

I realize that "war" isn't a nice word, and that it would be nice if there wasn't any war. But that doesn't change the unpleasant reality that everyone on Earth is living with right now: that the freedom to wear trousers (for men), and drive cars (for women); and freedom to decide how, or whether, to worship, is at stake.

Calling it a misunderstanding, or some other euphemistic term, might make a few people feel better - but it doesn't change the deadly nature of what's actually going on.

President Barack Obama: Keeping State Secrets?! The Horror!!

What seems to be brewing today is a refusal by the White House to say whether or not President Barack Obama supports the State Secrets Protection Act.

As The Atlantic put it, "...As a candidate, Obama supported the principles espoused in a similar piece of legislation, but he did not sign on to the bill as a cosponsor...." (The Atlantic)

The State Secrets Protection Act (S 2533) is "A bill to enact a safe, fair, and responsible state secrets privilege Act." (GovTrak.us) Who could possibly be against that?

'The Devil's in the details.' Good or bad, what matters in legislation is not its lofty goals and aspirations, but what it actually says. In the case of S2533, even the summary starts looking dicey.

"State Secrets Protection Act - Amends the federal judicial code to: (1) require a federal court to determine which filings, motions, and affidavits (or portions) submitted under this Act shall be submitted ex parte; (2) allow a federal court to order a party to provide a redacted, unclassified, or summary substitute of a filing, motion, or affidavit to other parties; and (3) require a federal court to make decisions under this Act, taking into consideration the interests of justice and national security...." (GovTrak.us S 2355 summary)

To those who truly believe in the ineffable perfection of federal judges to make wise, true - and reasonably prompt - decisions, S2355 is probably quite acceptable.

I grew up in the sixties, and although I acknowledge that America needs federal judges: I would very much rather not trust the lot of them to make sensible decisions about whether or not all the umbras of emanations were aligned correctly to permit eavesdropping on terrorists - probable or actual.

The last I checked, 221 people who had been tried and convicted of rape in American courts have been freed because of DNA testimony. I don't know how many were executed.

Then there's that wonderful bit: "specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance...." I know: "Penumbra" does have a legal definition: one that's as shadowy as the name implies. "In an 1873 article on the theory of torts, Justice Holmes used the term penumbra to describe the 'gray area where logic and principle falter.'..." A Penumbra these days seems to be "The rights guaranteed by implication in a constitution or the implied powers of a rule." (TheFreeDictionary)

There may be times when something that vague is needed in law - but it can also, I think, result in very groovy judicial legislation.

From the point of view of either bleeding heart liberal or a heartless conservative: American courts don't have a particularly good track record.

Perhaps more to the point, the courts aren't particularly noted for their speed. I wouldn't feel particularly safe, learning several weeks after the next 9/11 happens, that some federal court judge finally decided to approve listening in on the terrorists' messages.

Checks and Balances are a Good Idea

I'll admit that my apprehension over S2355 stems in no small part from the farcical antics of judges - many of them at the federal level - during my lifetime.

Sober, rational decisions have been made. On the other hand, just a few years ago a judge in Becker County, Minnesota, set a laughably low bail for a convicted sex offender. Thanks to Judge Thomas Schroeder's kind attention, Joseph Edward Duncan III was free to go to Idaho, where he wound up facing three murder charges. The last I heard, he's been sentenced to death. (About.com Crime/Punishment) (My views on capital punishment: "Capital Punishment: Killing Those Who Deserve to Die " A Catholic Citizen in America (October 2, 2008).)

I'm willing to trust American security to responsible grown-ups. That lot: I'm not so sure.

More-or-less related posts:

• "No More "War on Terror" - Officially?"
  (March 30, 2009)
• "Obama Backs Bush Policy, Guantanamo up to Geneva Convention Standards: It's Different, When You're in Charge"
  (February 21, 2009)
• "Barack Obama: Upstart Young Whippersnapper?"
  (August 26, 2008)

News and views:

• "Obama's Authorization of Force Against Pirates Is a Defining Moment"
  U.S. News and World Report (April 13, 2009)
• "Obama's Coming Clash With Congress On 'State Secrets' "
  The Atlantic (April 13, 2009)
• "Obama Administration Maintains Bush Legal Argument for Terrorist Surveillance Secrecy"
  FOXNews (April 13, 2009)

Somalia, Minnesota, and Common Sense

Somalis in Minnesota are in the international news again. A Somali man, one of around 20 who disappeared, was spotted at the Minneapolis Mall. Or someone who looked like him, anyway. Those news accounts are, in my opinion, hovering around the borders of 'some-guy-told-me-he-heard' credibility.

The Abubakar As-Saddique Mosque in Minneapolis, on the other hand, is getting investigated: by the FBI, which I think makes sense; and by the Senate, which is what Senators do, I suppose.

A "nonprofit journalism enterprise" wrote:

"Some Somalis say the mosque invited scrutiny and suspicion by helping to radicalize young Somali men for jihad in their homeland. Others say the mosque is a wrongly accused victim of the politics of war in East Africa." (Minnesota Post)

And

"If U.S. counterterrorism agencies took these commendable measures to correct President George Bush's myriad blunders in the war on terror, it was mindboggling to note the complete disregard of these suggestions in a recent meeting between Minneapolis-St. Paul Somali community and staff for Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman Sen. Joe Lieberman. This three-member group stated its mission as a fact-finding one to shed light on the recent disappearance of young Somali men from the Twin-Cities and the allegations that these men returned to Somalia to join Al-Shabab, an organization listed as a terrorist group with the United States government.

"An ongoing FBI investigation is looking into how young men like Shirwa Ahmed, who is considered the first known American suicide bomber in Somalia, came to become 'radicalized.' While there have been very few details as to what the FBI has uncovered thus far, FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III, referring to the Somali community in the Twin-Cities, stated that 'the prospect of young men, indoctrinated and radicalized in their own communities … is perversion of the immigrant story.'

"Lieberman's staff coming to the Twin Cities to correct 'the mishandling of this investigation' by the FBI and to get the story straight from the horse's mouth for a Senate hearing on the issue of terrorist cells in America was initially viewed by many Somalis who attended these meetings as a commendable first step to stop the media hysteria surrounding this story. This perception changed, however, once members of this staff started their queries with 'What is radicalizing young Somali men?' in the Twin Cities. This framing of the problem, and its unbounded generalization not as a problem of a handful of individuals among a community of 30,000 or more, was the first indication that gaining the trust of the Muslim community in America, let alone winning the hearts and minds of Muslims around the world, was far from the agenda these men." (Minnesota Post)

(I try to avoid huge block quotes like that: but I wanted the MP's remarks available in context.)

Obligatory Bush-bashing notwithstanding, the MP may have a point: The Senatorial staff's "What is radicalizing young Somali men?" line is, if not offensive, entirely too broad. Only 20 or so young Somali-Minnesotans have disappeared. That reminds me of the 'good old days' that I'm (thank God) too young to remember, when this country's best and brightest might have asked "what makes Irishmen drink too much?"

On the other hand, I must be terribly insensitive: I don't see how the FBI's statement - that someone could be radicalized (the MP put it in quotes, apparently they see something dicy about the word) in his or her own community - is naughty. The FBI fellow said that radicalization like that is "perversion of the immigrant story." He did not say that it's what happens with Somalis. Or, if that's what he did say, the MP should have included that quote.

And, for that "...there have been very few details as to what the FBI has uncovered thus far...," business: This is an on-going investigation. I'd be worried if the FBI was publicizing who they suspected, where they got their information, and exactly how much they knew. People who talk people into blowing up other people are not nice, and might skedaddle if they knew the jig was up. That's a best-case scenario. If the 'suspects' were smart, they'd kill whoever ratted on them, or might know too much, and then leave the area.

As for what's going on in Minnesota, I'm glad that the investigations are not entirely in the hands of Senators out on a junket. There appears to be a real problem in my state: Minnesotans are disappearing, probably radicalized by some of their neighbors

Shirwa Ahmed is one of the young Minnesotans who disappeared. A great many pieces of him showed up in Somalia, with enough DNA to identify him. He's back with his family now, "...buried simply as a Muslim man...." (FOX 9 (December 3, 2008))

What happened to Shirwa Ahmed is wrong. What he apparently did is wrong. And, I think, investigating how he and - almost certainly - others were radicalized is right. Even if members of Senatorial staffs need to be reminded that there are a whole lot of 'funny-looking Americans' around these days.

As I've written before, "there's a war on."

Related posts:

• "The West and Today's Somali President: The Enemy of Your Enemy is Your Friend?"
  (March 19, 2009)
• "Banning Online Terrorist Recruiters? Be Careful About What You Wish For"
  (March 10, 2009)
• "Minnesotans Recruited for Terror?"
  (March 10, 2009)
• "Al Shabaab May Be Running Somalia Now: Just What We Need"
  (January 26, 2009)
• "America to Unilaterally Attack Somalia!"
  (January 8, 2009)
• "Chinese Navy to Somali Waters - Time Running out for Somalia?"
  (December 18, 2008)
• " 'Bandit - Mr. White' - Defending Islam, But Picking the Wrong Target"
  (December 5, 2008)
• "Recruiting for Terror? Somali Minnesotans Missing, One Found Dead"
  (December 4, 2008)

News and views:

• "Somali suicide bomber from the heartland"
  The National (March 22, 2009)
• "U.S. intelligence reports first known Al Qaida recruiting ground — in Minneapolis"
  World Tribune.com (March 20, 2009)
• "Sudden notoriety: Mosque in Minneapolis draws scrutiny from U.S. Senate, FBI and international media"
  Minnesota Post (March 20, 2009)
• "The war on terror, Somali Minnesotans -- and ill-informed investigators"
  Minnesota Post (March 20, 2009)

FBI: Bruce Ivins Worked Alone in Anthrax Attack

It sounds like good news: the 2001 anthrax attacks were the work of one man, Bruce Ivins. Dr. Ivins had:

• Control of a flask of very pure anthrax spores
  • Mutations in those spores are identical to mutations in the anthrax spores that killed five people
• All the equipment he needed to prepare the spores in the Fort Detrick lab
• Time alone with the equipment
  • Ivins worked extended hours because " 'home was not good' and that he went to the laboratory 'to escape' from his home life," an affidavit says (CNN)
• Given FBI agents the wrong bacteria samples from his lab

He had a few possible motives, including wanting to get more attention and funding for his research, hoping to cash in on being a co-inventor of a vaccine, or having a weird thing for Kappa Kappa Gamma girls.

Kappa Kappa Gamma girls?!

Given what may be some loose screws in Dr. Ivins' head, and the FBI's Keystone Cops fingering of Steven Hatfill, I can understand why some people are dubious about the latest claim.

What's different this time is that the FBI has evidence, not the 'I saw him with some guys at Charley's Place' testimony they had against Hatfill.

An example of the FBI's rather more detail-conscious approach this time is the list of items taken by FBI, from Bruce Ivins' home: Receipt for Property Received/Returned/Released/Seized"

In the News:

• "Prosecutor calls researcher sole culprit in 2001 anthrax attacks"
  CNN (August 6, 2008)
  • "WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A federal prosecutor declared Army biological weapons researcher Bruce Ivins the sole culprit in the 2001 anthrax attacks Wednesday, after releasing a stack of documents from a "herculean" investigation that lasted nearly seven years. 'We are confident that Dr. Ivins was the only person responsible for these attacks,' Jeffrey Taylor, the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, told reporters Wednesday afternoon.
  • "The Justice Department released the documents implicating Ivins in the attacks, which killed five people and sickened more than a dozen people.
  • "Authorities said Ivins committed suicide last week as federal prosecutors prepared to present the results of their investigation to a grand jury.
  • "Taylor said prosecutors are "confident" they could have proved their case against him.
  • "Ivins was the custodian of a flask of a highly purified anthrax spores that had "certain genetic mutations identical to the anthrax used in the attacks," according to the court documents unsealed Wednesday.
• "Intended anthrax target has doubts about probe"
  CNN (August 4, 2008)
  • "WASHINGTON (CNN) -- An intended recipient of one of the anthrax-laced letters sent in 2001's anthrax scare said Monday he was "very skeptical" of the government's investigation.
  • "Former Sen. Tom Daschle, who was Senate majority leader at the time, said he is suspicious of the case against researcher Bruce Ivins because of the government "bungling" of Steven Hatfill's case.
  • "Hatfill, who was named by the Justice Department as a "person of interest" in 2002, was never charged and later sued the department. They reached a multimillion dollar settlement in June.
  • " 'Given their checkered past and the difficulty that they had in getting to this point -- the bungling of the Hatfill part of the investigation -- leads me to be very skeptical,' the former South Dakota senator said.
  • "Ivins, an anthrax researcher at Fort Detrick, Maryland, committed suicide last week before he was to have discussed a plea deal in the anthrax case with prosecutors, officials said....

U.S. Senate Doesn't Cut Money For Troops in Iraq!

The Senate's majority party wasn't able to stop what I suppose could be called the "anti-peace" party's filibuster of legislation that would have choked off financial support for the U.S. military in Iraq.

Their filibuster-stopping vote failed by 28-70. I really am impressed by the way Senators put up with their actions being reported: and by their own organization!

The majority party's idea, I suppose, was that if American troops weren't in Iraq, Al Qaeda, and all the other crazed jihadists, would start acting nice. Or, at any rate, leave America alone. It's a high and noble hope. Or, it's a case of trying to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Either way, I don't think that abandoning Iraq and hoping for the best is a good idea.

I don't like war, I'd much prefer that everyone sit down, have a nice cup of tea, and calmly discuss whatever issues must be resolved.

But there's been little to no evidence, in the several thousand years of recorded history, that human beings act this way. Not without a great deal of preparation, and sometimes not even then.

So, hats off to those who want "peace for our time," but I'd rather not be so idealistically hopeful.

American Senate Almost Makes Bold Statement About General Betrayus

"Another War-on-Terror Blog" isn't intended to be political. However, sometimes efforts to stop religious fanatics from killing people have to wade through politics.

Over a week ago, I posted "General Petraeus, General Betrayus, and Tolerance," about Senators making speeches at one of America's generals, and how a political action groups was making fun of the General.

It's arguable that it's the general's fault. He has a funny-sounding name. If he had a nice, American, name, like Aikin, or Carter, or Johnson, or Wilson, he wouldn't have been called "General Betrayus."

I'm inclined to see such mocking of a major military leader as one of the unpleasant side-effects of having a nation which allows free speech.

At any rate, someone in the Senate had the odd idea that the Senate should put some distance between itself and petulant outbursts like the "Betrayus" remarks.

That made sense to me. It's one thing for an advocacy group to sling mud at someone who is trying to preserve their right to insult him, and their lives, for that matter. It's another thing for one of the august legislative bodies to, by their silence, tacitly approve of such lack of respect.

The ruling party in the Senate didn't want to defend General Betrayus's integrity at first. Sorry, that's General Petraeus. See how a crack like that can squirm into everyday speech? Finally, though, after the Senate ruminated on the idea for a while, and let the legislative process work.

What came out was an amendment on the defense authorization bill.

Here's the Statement of Purpose for S.Amdt. 2934 to S.Amdt. 2011 to H.R. 1585 (National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008): "To express the sense of the Senate that General David H. Petraeus, Commanding General, Multi-National Force-Iraq, deserves the full support of the Senate and strongly condemn personal attacks on the honor and integrity of General Petraeus and all members of the United States Armed Forces."

I really am impressed. They went on record with a strong condemnation of "personal attacks on the honor and integrity of General Petraeus and all members of the United States Armed Forces."

The measure passed 75-25. None of the ruling party's presidential candidates voted for the measure. Some ducked out, others voted against it.

I'll say this for the United States Senate: They let people know who the membership voted. The Senate's website posted U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 110th Congress - 1st Session, where you can read how each Senator voted.

MoveOn.org, the political fund raiser and advocacy group that started the "Betrayus" thing with an ad in the New York Times, wasn't mentioned in the amendment, but it's still a remarkably blunt and clear statement.

How Dare General Petraeus Bring Facts to Congress?

General David Petraeus "is widely regarded as one of the brightest soldiers of his generation." As well as a remarkable knowledge of military history, he as the stamina to go on regular 10-mile runs with his troops. General Petraeus is "brilliant," according to Barry McCaffrey, a retired four-star general.

Aside from his mental and physical strengths, Petraeus has accepted the duty to defend America from its enemies.

He also must play along with the United States Congress.

Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Joe Biden asked Petraeus if Iraq was closer than before the surge to getting its political parties to work together, and whether continuing the surge would stop killing between Sunnis, Shias and Kurds?

Perhaps becaue he was afraid that General Petraeus would give the wrong answer, Biden said, "the answer to both those questions is no."

Senator Christopher Dodd showed greater efficiency by putting an implied answer into his question. "What makes you possibly think that anything further like this is going to produce the results that anybody else has failed to do?"

That's tellin' 'im!

Senator Chuck Hagel seemed affronted that Petraeus and Bush administration official Crocker had something other than bad news about Iraq. "Where is this going to go?" Hagel asked. Being an astute politician, Hagel continued, "are we going to continue to invest American blood and treasure at the same rate as we are now? For what?"

Petraeus replied: "my responsibility as I see it is not to give a good picture, it is to give an accurate picture."

Shocking! Presuming to bring facts to Senators who obviously know all the answers already!

More Reports on Iraq: Day 2, the GAO Report

The Government Accountability Office report, GAO-07-1195, is an update of an a sort of work-in-progress draft released in July, 2007.

I appreciated the table that the new GAO report put, on the third sheet. It's easier to see the overall pattern of the report that way.

The picture isn't rosy, by any means. I've copied the 18 "Benchmarks," and whether they were met or not (according to the GAO), with a GAO comment following. My comments on each are in parentheses.

1. Forming a Constitutional Review Committee and completing the constitutional review.

Not Met

Committee formed but amendments not approved by the Iraqi legislature and no referendum scheduled.

(They haven't thrashed out how much power the president will have, for one thing. I'm not surprised. That's something that's still being debated in Washington.)

2. Enacting and implementing legislation on de-Ba'athification.

Not Met (not quite)

(Laws drafted. Iraqi Shi'a, and Sunni Arab, and Kurdish, leaders are still working on what to do. Better this, than a quickie get-the-Ba'athists, or amneesty-for-all "solution.")

3. Enacting and implementing legislation to ensure the equitable distribution of hydrocarbon resources of the people of Iraq without regard to the sect or ethnicity of recipients, and enacting and implementing legislation to ensure that the energy resources of Iraq benefit Sunni Arabs, Shia Arabs, Kurds, and other Iraqi citizens in an equitable manner

Not Met (not quite)

3 of 4 components drafted; none being considered by parliament.

(This one is really complicated: four interrelated points, over a high-value economic prize, involving groups that haven't gotten along very well for the last thirty years, at least.)

4. Enacting and implementing legislation on procedures to form semi-autonomous regions.

Partly Met

Law enacted; implementation scheduled for 2008.

(That's less than 4 months away: And the delay in enactment was built into the law.)

5. Enacting and implementing legislation establishing an Independent High Electoral Commission, provincial elections law, provincial council authorities, and a date for provincial elections.

Partly Met

Commission law enacted and implemented; however, supporting laws not enacted.

(Not bad, nder the circumstances.)

6. Enacting and implementing legislation addressing amnesty.

Not Met

No law drafted.

("No progress" may not be a bad thing here. We're talking about amnesty for the equivalent of Nazi war criminals here, without the heavy-handed bunch of victors with righteous indignation that facilitated the Nuremburg trials.)

7. Enacting and implementing legislation establishing a strong militia disarmament program to ensure that such security forces are accountable only to the central government and loyal to the Constitution of Iraq.

Not Met

No law drafted.

(This is one that I regard as a real problem: You can't run a country, with war bands running around, killing people they don't approve of.)

8. Establishing supporting political, media, economic, and services committees in support of the Baghdad security plan.

Met

Committees established.

(Now, let's hope the committees do something besides have meetings.)

9. Providing three trained and ready brigades to support Baghdad operations.

Partly Met

Forces provided; some of limited effectiveness.

(It could be worse. Of 19 Iraqi units supporting operations in Baghdad; 5 units had performed well; 14, not so much.)

10. Providing Iraqi commanders with all authorities to execute this plan and to make tactical and operational decisions, in consultation with U.S. commanders, without political intervention, to include the authority to pursue all extremists, including Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias.

Not Met

Political intervention continues.

(Isn't that what politicians do? I've gotten the impression that part of the job of politicos is to second-guess military leaders.)

11. Ensuring that Iraqi security forces are providing even-handed enforcement of the law.

Not Met

Iraqi security forces engaged in sectarian-based abuses.

(This is very serious. "In May 2007, the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom reported that Iraq's Shi'a-dominated government bears responsibility for engaging in sectarian-based human
rights violations, as well as tolerating abuses committed by Shi'a militias with ties to political factions in the governing coalition." (page 44))

12. Ensuring that, according to President Bush, Prime Minister Maliki said “the Baghdad security plan will not provide a safe haven for any outlaws, regardless of [their] sectarian or political affiliation.”

Partly Met

Militia infiltration of some security forces enables some safe havens.

(There's actually something of a breakthrough here. Sadr City is no longer protected by the Iraqi government from law enforcement and military action.)

13. Reducing the level of sectarian violence in Iraq and eliminating militia control of local security.

Not Met

Militias control some local security; unclear whether sectarian violence has decreased.

(The report seems to treat this as a subheading of Benchmark 7.)

14. Establishing all of the planned joint security stations in neighborhoods across Baghdad.

Met

32 of 34 stations established.

(Looking back at the report's rating of point 5, shouldn't this be a "1"? Only 94% of the security stations are in place! Seriously, this is pretty good work.)

15. Increasing the number of Iraqi security forces units capable of operating independently.

Not Met

Number of independent units declined between March and July 2007.

(This is not good, but the problem seems to be a matter of finding ways to find supplies, and get them to the units. I should think this would be easier to solve than the problem of getting people to stop killing each other over tribal rivalries and religious details.)

16. Ensuring that the rights of minority political parties in the Iraqi legislature are protected.

Met

Legislators' rights protected; minority citizens' rights unprotected.

(This is limited good news.)

17. Allocating and spending $10 billion in Iraqi revenues for reconstruction projects, including delivery of essential services, on an equitable basis.

Partly Met

Funds allocated but unlikely to be fully spent.

(A government not spending money as a problem: that's an idea that takes getting used to.)

18. Ensuring that Iraq's political authorities are not undermining or making false accusations against members of the Iraqi security forces.

Not Met

Unsubstantiated accusations continue to be made.

(Fair enough. False accusations by someone in power is trouble, as the Duke Lacrosse situation showed.)

Okay, that was the GAO report.

I'd have liked to see more of those benchmarks met. On the other hand, and with due respect to the members of Congress, I wonder how well the House and Senate would score, if they an outside agency started looking at their performance?

The GAO report is available at http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d071195.pdf. I'd strongly recommend getting a copy, and comparing what politicos and experts will be saying it says, to what it actually says.

I'm afraid that even the best minds are subject to wishful thinking.

Posts on this topic:

• More Reports on Iraq: Day 2, Where to Find Reports
  (September 7, 2007)
• More Reports on Iraq: Day 2, the Independent Commission Report
  (September 7, 2007)
• More Reports on Iraq: Day 2, the GAO Report
  (September 7, 2007)
• More Reports of Iraq: Day 1
  (September 7, 2007: about 1:00am)

It's Not Both Sides: It's All Sides

In a week, it will be September 11: six years after airliners crashed into New York's World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and a field in Pennsylvania.

I may come up with something reflective and thoughtful when that date comes around, but for now I'll just take a quick run through today's headlines.

"Chinese military hacked into Pentagon" Financial Times (September 3, 2007). The Pentagon had to shut down part of its network recently. Apparently the data that was compromised wasn't particularly important. And, the attack came from computers in China. "Current and former officials have told the Financial Times an internal investigation has revealed that the incursion came from the People’s Liberation Army," the London news outfit reported. "These hacking attacks go on everyday but this was a more complicated attack with more sophisticated technology that broke through the current firewalls," another news service reported. The Chinese government denies having anything to do with the Pentagon attack, and on a hack attack on German government computers earlier.

China isn't involved in the jihad against the west: or if it is, it's showing it in a very strange way. The Online Times reports that "Beijing’s 'war on terror' hides brutal crackdown on Muslims" (July 22, 2007). The article focused on the late Ismail Semed, "a Muslim and a political activist." He confessed to "attempting to split the motherland," after being encouraged with torture.

China's western holdings include Uighur Muslims, a Turkic people who would just as soon not be part of China's regime. Chinese authorities were quiet about killing unruly Uighurs until 9/11 and the "war on terror" gave them an excuse for their anti-Muslim actions.

Please note: 9/11 didn't make the Chinese government start killing Muslims. It gave them a polite excuse for doing what they'd been doing for years.

The conflicts of the early 21st century are not a simple, two-sided confrontation.

• Fanatic Muslims are killing westerners, Muslims who aren't Islamic their way, and anyone else they don't approve of
• China is killing Muslims who don't want to be Chinese on the Chinese government's terms
• Russia is flying long-range bomber patrols over the Atlantic, and, according to President Putin, putting money into their aircraft industry, because "Russia ... faces the task of maintaining supremacy in producing military aircraft," according to CNN.com / World, which quoted Reuters
• America and a coalition of other nations have attacked nations which harbor the Islamic fanatics

Whatever else can be said about today's world: it's not boring. There are at least three, probably more, major powers at work.

"Budget Cut Will Delay Anti-Missile Laser" Yahoo! Finance (September 4, 2007). A flight test of the airliner-based Airborne Laser (ABL) system last week went very well. ABL system development is running behind schedule and over budget.

A big reason for the delay and expense is that "jitter," vibration that's part of a 747's normal flight, interferes with the precision aiming needed: and is harder to deal with than expected.

The Senate and House Armed Services committees, acting with the responsibility and wisdom that we've come to expect, cut the president's proposed fiscal 2008 ABL budget of $549 million. So far, the House Armed Services committee wants to cut the budget by $250 million. The Senate Armed Services Committee wants to cut $200 million from the ABL program.

With any luck, nobody will try to shoot down an American airliner until the system is finally ready. What astonishes me about the congressional decision is that those people often use civilian airliners themselves. You'd think that they'd be more concerned about airplanes blowing up with people inside, when they could be some of the people.

Civil War in Iraq, the Islamic State of Iraq, and Abu Omar al-Baghdadi

Abu Omar al-Baghdadi, leader of the Islamic State of Iraq, doesn't really exist. Maybe.

My guess is that the U.S. Army Brigadier General who made the announcement earlier this month is right.

Army Brigadier General Kevin Bergner announced that the Islamic State of Iraq is a cyberspace fake, and that Abu Omar al-Baghdadi is a virtual leader of a Web hoax. The fake Islamic State of Iraq was cooked up by by an Iraqi terrorist and Egyptian Abu Ayyab al-Masri, al Qaeda in Iraq leader, and Ayman al-Zawahri, al Qaeda number two world leader.

If Abu Omar al-Baghdadi, non-existent leader of a fake organization, is an "Iraqi" leader of the "civil war" in Iraq, then the conflict in Iraq starts looking a lot less than a civil war, and much more like the work of a group from outside Iraq.

It's early days, but I think that the U.S. Congress should stop, take a deep breath, and think very hard about whether their "civil war in Iraq" is real, or as fake as any other online hoax.

Especially the Senate. They'll probably be voting soon on whether or not to abandon Iraq to whatever armed faction is left in the chaos that would follow after a U.S. troop pullout.

That's my opinion. The rest of this post is what I dragged out of the news.

It's been hard to find much information about this online. Some of the first references I found were a USA Today blog, and an article in the Sacramento Bee.

A more detailed source was Al Qaeda in Iraq Duped Into Following Foreigners, Captured Operative Says, a DefenseLink News article dated July 18, 2007.

The man thought to be the senior Iraqi in al Qaeda in Iraq, Khalid Abdul Fatah Daud Mahmud al-Mashadani, was captured in early July. According to the U.S. military, al-Mashadani said that he was one of the people who created a virtual organization, called the Islamic State of Iraq, on the Web in 2006.

Army Brigadier General Kevin Bergner, a Multinational Force Iraq spokesman, made the announcement.

"The rank-and-file Iraqis in (al Qaeda in Iraq) believed they were following the Iraqi al Baghdadi, but all the while they have actually been following the orders of the Egyptian Abu Ayub al Masri," DefenseLink quotes Bergner as saying. "Mashadani has said in his own words that the Islamic State of Iraq should be free of foreign influence, but that is not the case."

Quoting from the DefenseLink article: "In fact, Bergner said, Masri relies solely on the direction of foreign leaders and doesn’t trust or seek the advice of Iraqis in the network.

'The disclosures of Mashadani show how (al Qaeda in Iraq) leaders misrepresent themselves and purposely deceive the Iraqi people and their own members,' Bergner said. 'ISI leaders cloak themselves in Iraqi nationalism, but in fact their purpose is to subjugate the Iraqi people under a foreign-led terrorist organization that wants to impose a Taliban-like ideology on Iraqis.'" The DefenseLink article didn't mention Abu Omar al-Baghdadi.

Abu Omar al-Baghdadi's name did turn up in a Reuters article. Reuters has Bergner saying that Abu Omar al-Baghdadi is a non-existent figurehead for the virtual Islamic State of Iraq.

U.S. Masses Not the Only Ones Fed Up About Iraq

"Sickened by the group’s barbarity, Iraqi insurgents are giving information to coalition forces" is how a Times reporter summed up the situation in Dura, Iraq, and other places in the country.

Dozens of Al-Qaeda members in Dura have gotten "Fed up with being part of a group that cuts off a person’s face with piano wire to teach others a lesson," according to the article.

"They are turning. We are talking to people who we believe have worked for al-Qaeda in Iraq and want to reconcile and have peace," commander of the units that oversee the area said.

One paragraph in the article illustrates a point which I believe is important.

"The increased presence of US forces in Doura, however, is encouraging insiders to overcome their fear and divulge what they know. Convoys of US soldiers are working the rubble-strewn streets day and night, knocking on doors, speaking to locals and following up leads on possible insurgent hideouts."

From a certain point of view, this illustrates the very real danger of victory, if U.S. troops remain in Iraq after April 1 of next year.

Another post on this general topic: The Senate, Military Funding, and Iraq

U.S. Senator Helps Propaganda: But Not Ours

Or, With Friends Like These ...

The headline is, under the circumstances, mild: DoD rebukes Sen. Clinton on Iraq questions. The first sentence of the article is carries a rather more appropriate tone. "The Pentagon told Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Rodham Clinton that her questions about how the U.S. plans to eventually withdraw from Iraq boosts enemy propaganda."

Undersecretary of Defense Eric Edelman was responding to New York Senator Clinton's statements in May, that the Pentagon had better hurry up and plan how to get out of Iraq.

"Premature and public discussion of the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq reinforces enemy propaganda that the United States will abandon its allies in Iraq, much as we are perceived to have done in Vietnam, Lebanon and Somalia," Edelman wrote.

Politicos broadcasting sensitive, even secret, information in wartime isn't new. At least not for the War on Terror.

Back in 2002, another Senator exercised his right to free speech, apparently without exercising his brain. Sen. Shelby the subject of probe on 9/11 intelligence leak (the Alabama Senator was a probable source of a "leak of highly classified intelligence related to al-Qaida communications in June 2002, primarily to CNN." The leak let al Qaeda know that one of their communications channels had been compromised, and that which two of their code words needed to be changed.

I suppose I shouldn't be too hard on members of the Senate. It must be difficult to keep track of what facts can be used to attract attention and get re-elected, and which, if broadcast, could kill American soldiers. Or even American Senators, if al Qaeda or a wannabe decides to take a whack at hitting the capitol again.

The Senate, Military Funding, and Iraq

Showing the sort of leadership we've come to expect over the last few months, the United States Senate pulled an all-nighter, and failed to pass military funding authorization in wartime.

The defense authorization bill that didn't pass would have included

• Pay raises for service members
• Missile defense programming
• Rules on habeas corpus rights for Guantanamo Bay detainees
• Equipment development plans

My hat's off to one of the major political parties. Even though they failed in their objective, they made a valiant effort to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

The desire to end U.S. involvement in Iraq is understandable. It's been about four years now, and apart from

• Removing a brutal dictator
• Rebuilding much of the infrastructure neglected under his rule
• Removing the dictator's enforcers and launching a civilian police force in their place
• Re-training Iraqi armed forces for something other than genocide and pillaging operations and
• Helping Iraqi leaders build a working government while under fire from religious fanatics

...not much has been achieved in Iraq.

I wonder how many people remember that it took 11 years for the United States of America to move from the Articles of Confederation to the start of the Constitution we're using now?

There are times when I feel that there should be a Chamberlain Committee to award the "Peace for Our Time" medal to those who excel at ignoring the big picture.

Yes, I'm biased.

I don't think that religious fanatics who were trying to kill us before 9/11 will stop because we abandon a country with which were were not closely involved before 2001.

I don't think people who sincerely believe that their god wants them to kill people who don't follow their rules will stop because the United States decides to get out of their way.

I don't think that it is reasonable to expect this struggle between one segment of Islam and everyone else will end soon. I would be astonished if this conflict took less time to resolve than the seven decades during which the Soviet Union absorbed much of eastern Europe, threatened the rest of the world, and provided some self-described deep thinkers a shining beacon of hope in a competitive world.

Back to the U.S. Congress.

I'm being a bit unfair, of course. The U.S. Congress has one recent achievement to its credit. Together, the houses of Congress have managed to not only score lower than President Bush in job approval, but to outdistance the president in job disapproval as well:

Job Approval:
25.0% Congress
33.0% President

Job Disapproval:
66.0% Congress
62.8% President

(from Real Clear Politics for Presidential and Congressional numbers, reported on Fox News)

Another issue that came up in the recent Congressional mess was the use of earmarks. These convenient little dodges are another topic - and one that I won't get into. At least, not now.

Iraq, Congress, and the Initial Benchmark Assessment Report

Or, Snatching Defeat from the Jaws of Victory
Or, There's Nothing so Lovely as Surrender in April.

As usual, Iraq is in the news.

According to what I read in the news, the Malachi government in Iraq got a "satisfactory" rating on only 8 of 18 "benchmarks", mixed reviews for 2 more, and for the 8 remaining, in an interim report: the Initial Benchmark Assessment Report.

The report I read had a different count:

• 9 benchmarks met: (i), (iv), (viii), (ix), (xii), (xiii), (xiv), (xvi), (xvii)
• 7 benchmarks not met: (ii),(iii), (vii), (x), (xi), (xv), (xviii)
• 2 benchmarks with a mixture of achieved and unachieved goals: (v), (vi).)

Here's the report, in pdf and html format, from the White House.

The current administration, trying to help leaders in Iraq set up a working government after over 30 years of a selfish tyrant's mismanagement, decided to increase the number of U.S. troops in Iraq. These soldiers were going to wage war on al Qaeda in Iraq, and anyone else who wanted to overthrow or disrupt the Iraqi government.

This has been called a "troop surge." Actually, the current strategy is called "the New Way Forward."

The last deployment of the U.S. troops involved in the "surge" arrived in Iraq just a few weeks ago.

According to the White House report, this "strategy -- the New Way Forward -- recognizes that the fulfillment of commitments by both the U.S. and Iraqi Governments will be necessary to achieving our common goal: a democratic Iraq that can govern, defend, and sustain itself, and be an ally in the War on Terror."

There's already progress. Limited progress, but progress.

The report says, "Tough fighting should be expected through the summer as Coalition and Iraqi Forces seek to seize the initiative from early gains and shape conditions for longer-term stabilization. These combined operations -- named Operation Phantom Thunder -- were launched on June 15, 2007, after the total complement of surge forces arrived in Iraq. The full surge in this respect has only just begun."

With a three-week-old major offensive showing limited progress, together with efforts at political reconciliation at the national, provincial, and local level, Iraq has a chance at getting a working government. A good chance, according to the White House.

Faced with the imminent threat of military and political success in Iraq, the United States House of Representatives acted with a decisiveness seldom seen on Capitol Hill.

A headline in the Washington Post says it well: House passes bill to withdraw troops from Iraq.

The measure, which passed a few hours ago, would have the Pentagon start withdrawing troops within four months, with all but a token force of 10,000 out of Iraq by April 1 of next year. The skeleton crew left behind would "train Iraqi soldiers, conduct counter-terrorism operations and protect U.S. diplomats."

al Qaeda and all the others who don't like U.S. efforts to help Iraq have been reassured by the House of Representatives. If they hunker down and survive until April of next year, they can enjoy a victory that will make the evacuation of Saigon, back in 1975, look like a tea party. Come to think of it, Saigon fell in late April, 1975, roughly April 27-30.

About the slow political progress in Iraq, the report says that there is "increasing concern among Iraqi political leaders that the United States may not have a long term-commitment to Iraq."

In other words, the Iraqis who are trying to put their country back together were worried that U.S. political leaders would do exactly what they did do.

The House of Representatives' notion of peacemaking goes to the Senate next. What they'll do, with 2008 elections coming up, is anyone's guess.

I sincerely hope that this nation's leaders are not putting polls and their own campaign plans above the good of the people who live in this country.

Whatever Congress decides, and whatever their motives, the odds are that they'll get to have their elections in 2008. November is only 7 months after April.

*-*-*-*-*

My academic and business experience has taught me that it's best to read original documents: not what someone says the original documents say. The only place, aside from the White House website, that I found a link to the White House report was the Fox Newsarticle.

Here's my summary of what the "Initial Benchmark Assessment Report" of July 12, 2007, says about the benchmarks.

The report itself is useful, if somewhat tedious, reading. (Available at the White House site, in pdf and html format).

• (i) Forming a Constitutional Review Committee and then completing the constitutional review.
  * satisfactory progress


• (ii) Enacting and implementing legislation on de-Ba’athification reform.
  * unsatisfactory


• (iii) Enacting and implementing legislation to ensure the equitable distribution of hydrocarbon resources to the people of Iraq without regard to the sect or ethnicity of recipients, and enacting and implementing legislation to ensure that the energy resources of Iraq benefit Sunni Arabs, Shi’a Arabs, Kurds, and other Iraqi citizens in an equitable manner.
  * unsatisfactory, but it is too early to tell whether the Government of Iraq will enact and implement legislation to ensure the equitable distribution of hydrocarbon resources to all Iraqis.


• (iv) Enacting and implementing legislation on procedures to form semi-autonomous regions.
  * satisfactory progress


• (v) Enacting and implementing legislation establishing an Independent High Electoral Commission, provincial elections law, provincial council authorities, and a date for provincial elections.
  * Multiple components to this benchmark, each deserving its own assessment:


• Establishing the IHEC Commission:
  * satisfactory progress


• Elections Law:
  * unsatisfactory progress


• Provincial Council Authorities:
  * unsatisfactory progress


• Provincial Elections Date:
  * unsatisfactory progress


• (vi) Enacting and implementing legislation addressing amnesty.
  * hard to say -- prerequisites for a successful general amnesty are not present; however, in the current security environment, it is not clear that such action should be a near-term Iraqi goal


• (vii) Enacting and implementing legislation establishing a strong militia disarmament program to ensure that such security forces are accountable only to the central government and loyal to the constitution of Iraq.
  * prerequisites ... are not present.


• (viii) Establishing supporting political, media, economic, and services committees in support of the Baghdad Security Plan.
  * satisfactory progress


• (ix) Providing three trained and ready Iraqi brigades to support Baghdad operations.
  * satisfactory progress


• (x) Providing Iraqi commanders with all authorities to execute this plan and to make tactical and operational decisions in consultation with U.S. Commanders without political intervention to include the authority to pursue all extremists including Sunni insurgents and Shiite militias.
  * unsatisfactory progress


• (xi) Ensuring that Iraqi Security Forces are providing even-handed enforcement of the law.
  * unsatisfactory progress


• (xii) Ensuring that, as Prime Minister Maliki was quoted by President Bush as saying, "the Baghdad Security Plan will not provide a safe haven for any outlaws, regardless of [their] sectarian or political affiliation."
  * satisfactory progress


• (xiii) Reducing the level of sectarian violence in Iraq and eliminating militia control of local security.
  * satisfactory progress


• (xiv) Establishing all of the planned joint security stations in neighborhoods across Baghdad.
  * satisfactory progress


• (xv) Increasing the number of Iraqi security forces units capable of operating independently.
  * unsatisfactory progress


• (xvi) Ensuring that the rights of minority political parties in the Iraqi legislature are protected.
  * satisfactory progress


• (xvii) Allocating and spending $10 billion in Iraqi revenues for reconstruction projects, including delivery of essential services, on an equitable basis.
  * satisfactory progress


• (xviii) Ensuring that Iraq’s political authorities are not undermining or making false accusations against members of the ISF.
  * unsatisfactory progress