Monday, December 08, 2003
Dean / Gore: Gore endorsing Dean. Upshot: Dean with additional momentum. But, if the convention is deadlocked, Dean delegates go to Gore?
What’s Happening, Iraq:
A disturbing front page article from yesterday’s NY Times (Dexter Filkins) that details the newest tactics by US forces, terribly reminiscent of Israel’s Occupation strategies:
As the guerrilla war against Iraqi insurgents intensifies, American soldiers have begun wrapping entire villages in barbed wire.
In selective cases, American soldiers are demolishing buildings thought to be used by Iraqi attackers. They have begun imprisoning the relatives of suspected guerrillas, in hopes of pressing the insurgents to turn themselves in.
The Americans embarked on their get-tough strategy in early November, goaded by what proved to be the deadliest month yet for American forces in Iraq, with 81 soldiers killed by hostile fire. The response they chose is beginning to echo the Israeli counterinsurgency campaign in the occupied territories.
So far, the new approach appears to be succeeding in diminishing the threat to American soldiers. But it appears to be coming at the cost of alienating many of the people the Americans are trying to win over. Abu Hishma is quiet now, but it is angry, too.
In Abu Hishma, encased in a razor-wire fence after repeated attacks on American troops, Iraqi civilians line up to go in and out, filing through an American-guarded checkpoint, each carrying an identification card printed in English only.
"If you have one of these cards, you can come and go," coaxed Lt. Col. Nathan Sassaman, the battalion commander whose men oversee the village, about 50 miles north of Baghdad. "If you don't have one of these cards, you can't."
The Iraqis nodded and edged their cars through the line. Over to one side, an Iraqi man named Tariq muttered in anger.
"I see no difference between us and the Palestinians," he said. "We didn't expect anything like this after Saddam fell." http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/07/international/middleeast/07TACT.html?hp=&pagewanted=all&position=
Sy Hersh’s latest: In the current (12/15) New Yorker issue, Seymour Hersh focuses on US attempts to reverse the course of events in Iraq. The thought? To fight fire with fire, to employ what sounds somewhat like “Operation Phoenix” from the Vietnam War, where Viet Cong fighters were singled out for execution.
A former intelligence official said that getting inside the Baathist leadership could be compared to “fighting your way into a coconut—you bang away and bang away until you find a soft spot, and then you can clean it out.” An American who has advised the civilian authority in Baghdad said, “The only way we can win is to go unconventional. We’re going to have to play their game. Guerrilla versus guerrilla. Terrorism versus terrorism. We’ve got to scare the Iraqis into submission.” http://www.newyorker.com/printable/?fact/031215fa_fact
South Koreans pulling out: Contract engineers and technicians working for the U.S. have stated their intention to withdraw from Iraq. This was partly a result of “terror” attacks, but also following disagreements that led to fist fights between the Koreans and their American managers.
With the Occupation in trouble, Why not turn to the UN?: Our penchant for unilateral behavior, to control the oil, etc. are the usual reasons cited. Jim Lobe adds a reason not usually focused on, our desire to build further our extensive system of military bases which the UN would not countenance.
At this point, an invitation appears logical. At a minimum, it would give the occupation greater international legitimacy and encourage other countries to contribute both troops and more reconstruction assistance, easing Washington's burden.
Moreover, the world body has much more recent experience than the United States in governing traumatised societies around the world.
It would also go far to heal the wounds opened so painfully between Washington and its western European allies as the administration of President George W. Bush rushed headlong to war earlier this year, at times showing its general contempt for ''Old Europe''.
The move would clearly boost Bush's re-election chances. Two-thirds or more of U.S. voters, according to a string of polls dating back a full year, have consistently supported giving the United Nations control over post-war Iraq. After all, the costs of the occupation in U.S. blood and treasure represent by far the greatest threat to Bush's chances next November.
So why then, the reluctance to ask the world body for help?
Several answers suggest themselves, not least of which is pride. Even though the administration has made a series of U-turns in its management of the occupation, it steadfastly refuses to acknowledge that previous policies might have been mistaken. Policy changes of 180 degrees are instead described as ''mid-course corrections''.
Bush hawks also no doubt fear that giving the United Nations responsibility for administering Iraq would create a highly undesirable precedent for future U.S. military action.
Then there is the conviction that the world body is fundamentally incompetent, although it would be very difficult to top the policy zigzags and confusion generated by the excruciatingly isolated Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA), as pointed out by Italy's former representative to the CPA, who resigned abruptly in exasperation earlier this month.
Of course, all those contracts to big U.S. companies amounting to many billions of dollars might also play a role. A U.N. administration could embarrass Bush by confirming the relationship between contracts and political contributions or even force some of the deals to be cancelled.
While most or all these arguments might be contributing to the administration's obstinacy, perhaps the most powerful one is the least discussed.
Is it possible that the most compelling reason for the administration to retain control of the transition is its determination to build permanent military bases in Iraq, bases that it knows would under no circumstances be approved by veto-wielding potential strategic rivals on the U.N. Security Council, namely China, Russia and, according to some neo-conservatives, France?
In other words, by retaining exclusive control over the transition, does the administration believe that its chances of negotiating a permanent military presence in Iraq with a successor government are much greater than if the Security Council were given a say in the process? http://www.ipsnews.net/interna.asp?idnews=21331
Samarra follow-up: The battle- with claims of 46 or 54 Iraqi deaths- sounded fishy from the outset, highly reminiscent of inflated Vietnam body counts. Jim Lobe of the Asian Times looks back, with a skeptical eye.
But when reporters began swarming to Samarra - some roused from their beds by eager military press officers - the scene was not as they had expected. Nor were the accounts of the townspeople, and, after a day of interviews, an entirely different picture of the Sunday battle emerged.
Doctors and hospital staff reported only eight Iraqi dead, including one or two elderly pilgrims from Iran, a child, a mentally disabled man who was sitting in a taxi, and a woman leaving the drug factory where she worked. The hospital said that it had treated a total of 54 people for wounds.
Indeed, townspeople interviewed by name described the "battle" more as indiscriminate firing from the tanks and other armored vehicles, and random shooting by US soldiers, much of it in the densely populated city center, while "dozens of guerrillas" moved around the city taking pot shots at the US troops at will.
"Luckily we evacuated the kindergarten five minutes before we came under attack," said Ibrahim Jassim, a guard interviewed by the London Guardian. "Why did they attack randomly? Why did they shoot a kindergarten with shells?"
Worse, according to accounts provided by some sources to the Washington Post, the Iraqi resistance grew larger as men rushed home to get their firearms to join in the fighting. The military explained the discrepancy in the body counts by suggesting that the guerrillas' bodies had been carried away and secretly buried by their comrades, an assertion for which reporters there could find no evidence, either at the city cemetery or anywhere else.
Justin Raimondo, a writer at antiwar.com, a website that opposes the occupation, also did a quick calculation, suggesting that the military's explanation did not add up. "We are told that a total of 60 insurgents ambushed those convoys, but if US troops killed 54 and captured 11, that leaves five insurgents to carry away the dead."
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EL09Ak02.html
Russia: Putin is tightening his grip on power. We should still care about Russia, still home to many nuclear weapons. Putin pushes for stronger state authority, and was rewarded with nearly 60% of the vote, with the Communists, the second-place finisher, trailing far behind. Some Russians about Putin’s growing power. As the LA Times notes, (David Holley and Kim Murphy),
Critics fear that a Putin-dominated Duma may vote to change the constitution to enable him to remain in office past 2008, when by current law he would have to step down. He is considered a shoo-in for reelection to a second term in March.
The new Duma "will allow President Putin to stay in the Kremlin as long as he wishes — most likely for life," predicted Dmitry Furman, a senior analyst at the Institute of Europe, a Moscow think tank. http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-russelect8dec08,1,2823021.story?coll=la-home-headlines
FYI: Soviet Arms for Sale…and Missing: Little energy has been utilized by the Bush Administration to help keep track of the many nuclear and other weapons of the former Soviet Union. In a front page article in Sunday’s Washington Post, Joby Warrick summarizes one such problem.
In the ethnic conflicts that surrounded the collapse of the Soviet Union, fighters in several countries seized upon an unlikely new weapon: a small, thin rocket known as the Alazan. Originally built for weather experiments, the Alazan rockets were packed with explosives and lobbed into cities. Military records show that at least 38 Alazan warheads were modified to carry radioactive material, effectively creating the world's first surface-to-surface dirty bomb.
The radioactive warheads are not known to have been used. But now, according to experts and officials, they have disappeared.
The last known repository was here, in a tiny separatist enclave known as Transdniester, which broke away from Moldova 12 years ago. The Transdniester Moldovan Republic is a sliver of land no bigger than Rhode Island located along Moldova's eastern border with Ukraine. Its government is recognized by no other nation. But its weapons stocks -- new, used and modified -- have attracted the attention of black-market arms dealers worldwide. And they're for sale, according to U.S. and Moldovan officials and weapons experts.
When the Soviet army withdrew from this corner of Eastern Europe, the weapons were deposited into an arsenal of stupefying proportions. In fortified bunkers are stored 50,000 tons of aging artillery shells, mines and rockets, enough to fill 2,500 boxcars.
Conventional arms originating in Transdniester have been turning up for years in conflict zones from the Caucasus to Central Africa, evidence of what U.S. officials describe as an invisible pipeline for smuggled goods that runs through Tiraspol to the Black Sea and beyond. Now, governments and terrorism experts fear the same pipeline is carrying nonconventional weapons such as the radioactive Alazan, and that terrorists are starting to tap in. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A41921-2003Dec6?language=printer
The Saudi terror connection: Fine, comprehensive article in US News (and World report; David Kaplan) on the extensive Saudi contribution, how the Saudis were “the epicenter" of terrorist financing and how slow Washington was to face up to that fact.
…But until the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, U.S. officials did painfully little to confront the Saudis not only on financing terror but on backing fundamentalists and jihadists overseas. Over the past 25 years, the desert kingdom has been the single greatest force in spreading Islamic fundamentalism, while its huge, unregulated charities funneled hundreds of millions of dollars to jihad groups and al Qaeda cells around the world. Those findings are the result of a five-month investigation by U.S. News. The magazine's inquiry is based on a review of thousands of pages of court records, U.S. and foreign intelligence reports, and other documents. In addition, the magazine spoke at length with more than three dozen current and former counterterrorism officers, as well as government officials and outside experts in Riyadh, the Saudi capital. Among the inquiry's principal findings:
Starting in the late 1980s--after the dual shocks of the Iranian revolution and the Soviet war in Afghanistan--Saudi Arabia's quasi-official charities became the primary source of funds for the fast-growing jihad movement. In some 20 countries, the money was used to run paramilitary training camps, purchase weapons, and recruit new members.
The charities were part of an extraordinary $70 billion Saudi campaign to spread their fundamentalist Wahhabi sect worldwide. The money helped lay the foundation for hundreds of radical mosques, schools, and Islamic centers that have acted as support networks for the jihad movement, officials say.
Saudi largess encouraged U.S. officials to look the other way, some veteran intelligence officers say. Billions of dollars in contracts, grants, and salaries have gone to a broad range of former U.S. officials who had dealt with the Saudis: ambassadors, CIA station chiefs, even cabinet secretaries
U.S. intelligence officials knew about Saudi Arabia's role in funding terrorism by 1996, yet for years Washington did almost nothing to stop it. Examining the Saudi role in terrorism, a senior intelligence analyst says, was "virtually taboo." Even after the embassy bombings in Africa, moves by counterterrorism officials to act against the Saudis were repeatedly rebuffed by senior staff at the State Department and elsewhere who felt that other foreign policy interests outweighed fighting terrorism. Washington's unwillingness to confront the Saudis over terrorism was part of a broader strategic failure to sound the alarm on the rise of the global jihad movement. During the 1990s, the U.S. intelligence community issued a series of National Intelligence Estimates--which report on America's global challenges--on ballistic missile threats, migration, infectious diseases; yet the government never issued a single NIE on the jihad movement or al Qaeda. http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/031215/usnews/15terror.htm
Saudi Bomb attack: Why? Follow-up
Syed Saleem Shahzad of the Asian Times adds an enlightening view, that perhaps this was not due to international terrorism or even a domestic attack seeking to destabilize the House of Saud.
A Pakistani undercover intelligence operator who recently returned from Riyadh told Asia Times Online that the attack was in fact the result of a deep divide within Saudi society between strict religious conservatives with little exposure to the outside world, and a more "liberal" element with the money and power to indulge in restricted activities.
The compound attacked on November 9 was inhabited mainly by Lebanese, Palestinians and Egyptians, and it had earned notoriety as a "pleasure ground" for Saudi "playboys" in a country in which prostitution is outlawed. Apparently, some of the female residents of the compound were well known for their "exotic erotica", for which they were showered with money and gifts. http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EL09Ak01.html
What’s Happening, Afghanistan: The accidental killing of nine children in a bombing near Ghanzni is the latest “tragic mistake” in that country. The military did its usual, stating that it had acted based on “extensive intelligence” and stated that it regrets the loss of life. OK?. The entire official comment from “U.S. Central Command” at: http://www.centcom.mil/CENTCOMNews/news_release.asp?NewsRelease=20031212.txt
Hillary Clinton- liberal?: I’ve never thought highly of her, considering her no more progressive than President Bill. Monday’s news section of the NY Times (Raymond Hernandez) fastens onto Hillary’s common criticism of the post-war chaos and a generalized comment about the Administration’s honesty: On NBC and CBS programs Sunday …
“Mrs. Clinton singled out Mr. Bush. "I think that one of the missing elements in our strategy thus far has been the president and the administration leveling with the American people about what it is we're up against, how long it's going to take, how much it's going to cost," she said. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/08/politics/08HILL.html
Yet, devilish conservative op ed columnist and former Nixon speechwriter William Safire characterizes Clinton as a “congenital hawk” He makes his case:
On forgotten Afghanistan, like many hawks, she was critical of the failure of European nations "to fulfill the commitment that NATO made to Afghanistan. I don't think we have enough American troops and we certainly don't have the promised NATO troops."
Would she support an increase of U.S. troops in Iraq? Senator Clinton associated herself with the views of Republican Senator John McCain, who disagrees with Bush and the generals who say they have adequate strength there. She cited McCain's conviction that "we need more troops, and we need a different mix of troops." And she directed a puissant message to what some of us consider the told-you-so doves who refuse to deal with today's geopolitical reality: "Whether you agreed or not that we should be in Iraq, failure is not an option."
Her range of expressed opinions urging us to "stay the course" can only be characterized as tough-minded.
Of course, to the relief of Democratic partisans, she is dutifully critical: like some neocons, she zaps the Bush administration for failing to plan adequately for the aftermath of the overthrow of Saddam. She proposes an "Iraq Reconstruction Stability Authority" to build an international bridge to a greater U.N. role. Clinton also wants a close look at where our intelligence went wrong, but takes a long view of the weak gathering and faulty analysis: "This was intelligence going back into my husband's administration, going back to the first President Bush's administration."
Consider the political meaning of all this. Here is a Democrat who has no regrets for voting for the resolution empowering the president to invade Iraq; who insists repeatedly and resolutely that "failure is not an option"; who is ready to send in a substantially greater U.S. force to avert any such policy failure — and yet whose latest poll ratings show her to be the favorite of 43 percent of Democrats, three times the nomination support given front-runner Howard Dean. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/08/opinion/08SAFI.html
-R
What’s Happening, Iraq:
A disturbing front page article from yesterday’s NY Times (Dexter Filkins) that details the newest tactics by US forces, terribly reminiscent of Israel’s Occupation strategies:
As the guerrilla war against Iraqi insurgents intensifies, American soldiers have begun wrapping entire villages in barbed wire.
In selective cases, American soldiers are demolishing buildings thought to be used by Iraqi attackers. They have begun imprisoning the relatives of suspected guerrillas, in hopes of pressing the insurgents to turn themselves in.
The Americans embarked on their get-tough strategy in early November, goaded by what proved to be the deadliest month yet for American forces in Iraq, with 81 soldiers killed by hostile fire. The response they chose is beginning to echo the Israeli counterinsurgency campaign in the occupied territories.
So far, the new approach appears to be succeeding in diminishing the threat to American soldiers. But it appears to be coming at the cost of alienating many of the people the Americans are trying to win over. Abu Hishma is quiet now, but it is angry, too.
In Abu Hishma, encased in a razor-wire fence after repeated attacks on American troops, Iraqi civilians line up to go in and out, filing through an American-guarded checkpoint, each carrying an identification card printed in English only.
"If you have one of these cards, you can come and go," coaxed Lt. Col. Nathan Sassaman, the battalion commander whose men oversee the village, about 50 miles north of Baghdad. "If you don't have one of these cards, you can't."
The Iraqis nodded and edged their cars through the line. Over to one side, an Iraqi man named Tariq muttered in anger.
"I see no difference between us and the Palestinians," he said. "We didn't expect anything like this after Saddam fell." http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/07/international/middleeast/07TACT.html?hp=&pagewanted=all&position=
Sy Hersh’s latest: In the current (12/15) New Yorker issue, Seymour Hersh focuses on US attempts to reverse the course of events in Iraq. The thought? To fight fire with fire, to employ what sounds somewhat like “Operation Phoenix” from the Vietnam War, where Viet Cong fighters were singled out for execution.
A former intelligence official said that getting inside the Baathist leadership could be compared to “fighting your way into a coconut—you bang away and bang away until you find a soft spot, and then you can clean it out.” An American who has advised the civilian authority in Baghdad said, “The only way we can win is to go unconventional. We’re going to have to play their game. Guerrilla versus guerrilla. Terrorism versus terrorism. We’ve got to scare the Iraqis into submission.” http://www.newyorker.com/printable/?fact/031215fa_fact
South Koreans pulling out: Contract engineers and technicians working for the U.S. have stated their intention to withdraw from Iraq. This was partly a result of “terror” attacks, but also following disagreements that led to fist fights between the Koreans and their American managers.
With the Occupation in trouble, Why not turn to the UN?: Our penchant for unilateral behavior, to control the oil, etc. are the usual reasons cited. Jim Lobe adds a reason not usually focused on, our desire to build further our extensive system of military bases which the UN would not countenance.
At this point, an invitation appears logical. At a minimum, it would give the occupation greater international legitimacy and encourage other countries to contribute both troops and more reconstruction assistance, easing Washington's burden.
Moreover, the world body has much more recent experience than the United States in governing traumatised societies around the world.
It would also go far to heal the wounds opened so painfully between Washington and its western European allies as the administration of President George W. Bush rushed headlong to war earlier this year, at times showing its general contempt for ''Old Europe''.
The move would clearly boost Bush's re-election chances. Two-thirds or more of U.S. voters, according to a string of polls dating back a full year, have consistently supported giving the United Nations control over post-war Iraq. After all, the costs of the occupation in U.S. blood and treasure represent by far the greatest threat to Bush's chances next November.
So why then, the reluctance to ask the world body for help?
Several answers suggest themselves, not least of which is pride. Even though the administration has made a series of U-turns in its management of the occupation, it steadfastly refuses to acknowledge that previous policies might have been mistaken. Policy changes of 180 degrees are instead described as ''mid-course corrections''.
Bush hawks also no doubt fear that giving the United Nations responsibility for administering Iraq would create a highly undesirable precedent for future U.S. military action.
Then there is the conviction that the world body is fundamentally incompetent, although it would be very difficult to top the policy zigzags and confusion generated by the excruciatingly isolated Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA), as pointed out by Italy's former representative to the CPA, who resigned abruptly in exasperation earlier this month.
Of course, all those contracts to big U.S. companies amounting to many billions of dollars might also play a role. A U.N. administration could embarrass Bush by confirming the relationship between contracts and political contributions or even force some of the deals to be cancelled.
While most or all these arguments might be contributing to the administration's obstinacy, perhaps the most powerful one is the least discussed.
Is it possible that the most compelling reason for the administration to retain control of the transition is its determination to build permanent military bases in Iraq, bases that it knows would under no circumstances be approved by veto-wielding potential strategic rivals on the U.N. Security Council, namely China, Russia and, according to some neo-conservatives, France?
In other words, by retaining exclusive control over the transition, does the administration believe that its chances of negotiating a permanent military presence in Iraq with a successor government are much greater than if the Security Council were given a say in the process? http://www.ipsnews.net/interna.asp?idnews=21331
Samarra follow-up: The battle- with claims of 46 or 54 Iraqi deaths- sounded fishy from the outset, highly reminiscent of inflated Vietnam body counts. Jim Lobe of the Asian Times looks back, with a skeptical eye.
But when reporters began swarming to Samarra - some roused from their beds by eager military press officers - the scene was not as they had expected. Nor were the accounts of the townspeople, and, after a day of interviews, an entirely different picture of the Sunday battle emerged.
Doctors and hospital staff reported only eight Iraqi dead, including one or two elderly pilgrims from Iran, a child, a mentally disabled man who was sitting in a taxi, and a woman leaving the drug factory where she worked. The hospital said that it had treated a total of 54 people for wounds.
Indeed, townspeople interviewed by name described the "battle" more as indiscriminate firing from the tanks and other armored vehicles, and random shooting by US soldiers, much of it in the densely populated city center, while "dozens of guerrillas" moved around the city taking pot shots at the US troops at will.
"Luckily we evacuated the kindergarten five minutes before we came under attack," said Ibrahim Jassim, a guard interviewed by the London Guardian. "Why did they attack randomly? Why did they shoot a kindergarten with shells?"
Worse, according to accounts provided by some sources to the Washington Post, the Iraqi resistance grew larger as men rushed home to get their firearms to join in the fighting. The military explained the discrepancy in the body counts by suggesting that the guerrillas' bodies had been carried away and secretly buried by their comrades, an assertion for which reporters there could find no evidence, either at the city cemetery or anywhere else.
Justin Raimondo, a writer at antiwar.com, a website that opposes the occupation, also did a quick calculation, suggesting that the military's explanation did not add up. "We are told that a total of 60 insurgents ambushed those convoys, but if US troops killed 54 and captured 11, that leaves five insurgents to carry away the dead."
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EL09Ak02.html
Russia: Putin is tightening his grip on power. We should still care about Russia, still home to many nuclear weapons. Putin pushes for stronger state authority, and was rewarded with nearly 60% of the vote, with the Communists, the second-place finisher, trailing far behind. Some Russians about Putin’s growing power. As the LA Times notes, (David Holley and Kim Murphy),
Critics fear that a Putin-dominated Duma may vote to change the constitution to enable him to remain in office past 2008, when by current law he would have to step down. He is considered a shoo-in for reelection to a second term in March.
The new Duma "will allow President Putin to stay in the Kremlin as long as he wishes — most likely for life," predicted Dmitry Furman, a senior analyst at the Institute of Europe, a Moscow think tank. http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-russelect8dec08,1,2823021.story?coll=la-home-headlines
FYI: Soviet Arms for Sale…and Missing: Little energy has been utilized by the Bush Administration to help keep track of the many nuclear and other weapons of the former Soviet Union. In a front page article in Sunday’s Washington Post, Joby Warrick summarizes one such problem.
In the ethnic conflicts that surrounded the collapse of the Soviet Union, fighters in several countries seized upon an unlikely new weapon: a small, thin rocket known as the Alazan. Originally built for weather experiments, the Alazan rockets were packed with explosives and lobbed into cities. Military records show that at least 38 Alazan warheads were modified to carry radioactive material, effectively creating the world's first surface-to-surface dirty bomb.
The radioactive warheads are not known to have been used. But now, according to experts and officials, they have disappeared.
The last known repository was here, in a tiny separatist enclave known as Transdniester, which broke away from Moldova 12 years ago. The Transdniester Moldovan Republic is a sliver of land no bigger than Rhode Island located along Moldova's eastern border with Ukraine. Its government is recognized by no other nation. But its weapons stocks -- new, used and modified -- have attracted the attention of black-market arms dealers worldwide. And they're for sale, according to U.S. and Moldovan officials and weapons experts.
When the Soviet army withdrew from this corner of Eastern Europe, the weapons were deposited into an arsenal of stupefying proportions. In fortified bunkers are stored 50,000 tons of aging artillery shells, mines and rockets, enough to fill 2,500 boxcars.
Conventional arms originating in Transdniester have been turning up for years in conflict zones from the Caucasus to Central Africa, evidence of what U.S. officials describe as an invisible pipeline for smuggled goods that runs through Tiraspol to the Black Sea and beyond. Now, governments and terrorism experts fear the same pipeline is carrying nonconventional weapons such as the radioactive Alazan, and that terrorists are starting to tap in. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A41921-2003Dec6?language=printer
The Saudi terror connection: Fine, comprehensive article in US News (and World report; David Kaplan) on the extensive Saudi contribution, how the Saudis were “the epicenter" of terrorist financing and how slow Washington was to face up to that fact.
…But until the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, U.S. officials did painfully little to confront the Saudis not only on financing terror but on backing fundamentalists and jihadists overseas. Over the past 25 years, the desert kingdom has been the single greatest force in spreading Islamic fundamentalism, while its huge, unregulated charities funneled hundreds of millions of dollars to jihad groups and al Qaeda cells around the world. Those findings are the result of a five-month investigation by U.S. News. The magazine's inquiry is based on a review of thousands of pages of court records, U.S. and foreign intelligence reports, and other documents. In addition, the magazine spoke at length with more than three dozen current and former counterterrorism officers, as well as government officials and outside experts in Riyadh, the Saudi capital. Among the inquiry's principal findings:
Starting in the late 1980s--after the dual shocks of the Iranian revolution and the Soviet war in Afghanistan--Saudi Arabia's quasi-official charities became the primary source of funds for the fast-growing jihad movement. In some 20 countries, the money was used to run paramilitary training camps, purchase weapons, and recruit new members.
The charities were part of an extraordinary $70 billion Saudi campaign to spread their fundamentalist Wahhabi sect worldwide. The money helped lay the foundation for hundreds of radical mosques, schools, and Islamic centers that have acted as support networks for the jihad movement, officials say.
Saudi largess encouraged U.S. officials to look the other way, some veteran intelligence officers say. Billions of dollars in contracts, grants, and salaries have gone to a broad range of former U.S. officials who had dealt with the Saudis: ambassadors, CIA station chiefs, even cabinet secretaries
U.S. intelligence officials knew about Saudi Arabia's role in funding terrorism by 1996, yet for years Washington did almost nothing to stop it. Examining the Saudi role in terrorism, a senior intelligence analyst says, was "virtually taboo." Even after the embassy bombings in Africa, moves by counterterrorism officials to act against the Saudis were repeatedly rebuffed by senior staff at the State Department and elsewhere who felt that other foreign policy interests outweighed fighting terrorism. Washington's unwillingness to confront the Saudis over terrorism was part of a broader strategic failure to sound the alarm on the rise of the global jihad movement. During the 1990s, the U.S. intelligence community issued a series of National Intelligence Estimates--which report on America's global challenges--on ballistic missile threats, migration, infectious diseases; yet the government never issued a single NIE on the jihad movement or al Qaeda. http://www.usnews.com/usnews/issue/031215/usnews/15terror.htm
Saudi Bomb attack: Why? Follow-up
Syed Saleem Shahzad of the Asian Times adds an enlightening view, that perhaps this was not due to international terrorism or even a domestic attack seeking to destabilize the House of Saud.
A Pakistani undercover intelligence operator who recently returned from Riyadh told Asia Times Online that the attack was in fact the result of a deep divide within Saudi society between strict religious conservatives with little exposure to the outside world, and a more "liberal" element with the money and power to indulge in restricted activities.
The compound attacked on November 9 was inhabited mainly by Lebanese, Palestinians and Egyptians, and it had earned notoriety as a "pleasure ground" for Saudi "playboys" in a country in which prostitution is outlawed. Apparently, some of the female residents of the compound were well known for their "exotic erotica", for which they were showered with money and gifts. http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EL09Ak01.html
What’s Happening, Afghanistan: The accidental killing of nine children in a bombing near Ghanzni is the latest “tragic mistake” in that country. The military did its usual, stating that it had acted based on “extensive intelligence” and stated that it regrets the loss of life. OK?. The entire official comment from “U.S. Central Command” at: http://www.centcom.mil/CENTCOMNews/news_release.asp?NewsRelease=20031212.txt
Hillary Clinton- liberal?: I’ve never thought highly of her, considering her no more progressive than President Bill. Monday’s news section of the NY Times (Raymond Hernandez) fastens onto Hillary’s common criticism of the post-war chaos and a generalized comment about the Administration’s honesty: On NBC and CBS programs Sunday …
“Mrs. Clinton singled out Mr. Bush. "I think that one of the missing elements in our strategy thus far has been the president and the administration leveling with the American people about what it is we're up against, how long it's going to take, how much it's going to cost," she said. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/08/politics/08HILL.html
Yet, devilish conservative op ed columnist and former Nixon speechwriter William Safire characterizes Clinton as a “congenital hawk” He makes his case:
On forgotten Afghanistan, like many hawks, she was critical of the failure of European nations "to fulfill the commitment that NATO made to Afghanistan. I don't think we have enough American troops and we certainly don't have the promised NATO troops."
Would she support an increase of U.S. troops in Iraq? Senator Clinton associated herself with the views of Republican Senator John McCain, who disagrees with Bush and the generals who say they have adequate strength there. She cited McCain's conviction that "we need more troops, and we need a different mix of troops." And she directed a puissant message to what some of us consider the told-you-so doves who refuse to deal with today's geopolitical reality: "Whether you agreed or not that we should be in Iraq, failure is not an option."
Her range of expressed opinions urging us to "stay the course" can only be characterized as tough-minded.
Of course, to the relief of Democratic partisans, she is dutifully critical: like some neocons, she zaps the Bush administration for failing to plan adequately for the aftermath of the overthrow of Saddam. She proposes an "Iraq Reconstruction Stability Authority" to build an international bridge to a greater U.N. role. Clinton also wants a close look at where our intelligence went wrong, but takes a long view of the weak gathering and faulty analysis: "This was intelligence going back into my husband's administration, going back to the first President Bush's administration."
Consider the political meaning of all this. Here is a Democrat who has no regrets for voting for the resolution empowering the president to invade Iraq; who insists repeatedly and resolutely that "failure is not an option"; who is ready to send in a substantially greater U.S. force to avert any such policy failure — and yet whose latest poll ratings show her to be the favorite of 43 percent of Democrats, three times the nomination support given front-runner Howard Dean. http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/08/opinion/08SAFI.html
-R
