|
 |
Saturday, October 07, 2006
03 May 2006
A key Senate Democrat is defending his proposal to divide Iraq into three autonomous regions with a central government in Baghdad. Senator Joe Biden denies Bush administration assertions that the plan represents a partition of the country, saying it is aimed at keeping the country unified.
When Senator Biden argued in an article in the New York Times earlier this week that Iraq should be divided into Shi'ite, Sunni and Kurdish autonomous regions, with a central government in Baghdad, the idea was immediately rejected by the Bush administration, which said it amounted to a partitioning of the country.
An influential Republican senator, Armed Services Committee chairman John Warner, has called the proposal constructive.
October 7, 2006 New York Times
Senator John Warner (R-Virginia), chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, fresh from a trip to Iraq, on the war:
“I assure you, in two or three months, if this thing hasn’t come to fruition and if this level of violence is not under control and this government able to function, I think it’s a responsibility of our government internally to determine: Is there a change of course that we should take? And I wouldn’t take off the table any option at this time.”
If Senator Warner is now saying that he won’t rule out withdrawal — even as, nationwide, Republican congressional candidates are saying “stay the course” — this is a huge crack in the dike of Republican intransigence.
Ms. Collins, who chairs the Senate Homeland Security Committee, echoed Mr. Warner’s calls for a shift in strategy in Iraq. “When Chairman Warner, who has been a steadfast ally of this administration, calls for a new strategy,” she said, “that is clearly significant.”
She said the current approach, which she attributed to Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld, had not led to an overall reduction in violence or any prospect that American troop levels would come down soon. “We’ve heard over and over that as Iraqis stand up, our troops will stand down,” Ms. Collins said. “Well, there are now hundreds of thousands of Iraqi troops and security forces, and yet we have not seen any reduction in violence.”
Democrats, who have been using their fall election campaigns to tap into intense voter dissatisfaction with the way that Mr. Bush has handled Iraq, quickly seized on the Warner remarks, circulating them in e-mail messages to reporters. Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr., the senior Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee, convened a conference call on Friday afternoon to hammer home the theme that even Republicans believed that the administration must change course. “Warner’s statement is an important, important statement and, I hope, a turning point,” Mr. Biden told reporters.
He that at least two Republican colleagues other than Mr. Warner had told him that once the election is over, they would join with Democrats in working on a bipartisan plan for bringing stability to Iraq. Echoing Mr. Warner’s language, he said, “I wouldn’t take any option off the table at this time. We are at the point of no return.”
...
Third, entirely outside the constitution, there is the possibility of a military coup d’etat. Rumors of a coup have swirled in Baghdad for at least a year. Over the weekend, when Maliki announced a sudden, and unprecedented, curfew banning vehicular and pedestrian traffic in the entire capital, there were reports that an army coup d’etat had been thwarted. One Iraq expert I talked to told me that perhaps some of the Iraqi army units being moved into Baghdad as part of the current crackdown might be candidates to seize power in the Green Zone. Of course, such an action would have to be encouraged and sponsored by the U.S. command in Iraq and the CIA, which—according to Iraqi sources—has a firm hand on Iraq’s own intelligence service. But a military coup would be a very brutal and bloody affair, instantly pitting the more Sunni-friendly army against the Shiite establishment and its paramilitary forces. On the other hand, Iraq’s military, unlike the police and Interior Ministry forces, has earned the grudging respect of many Iraqis, who see it as more neutral and even nationalist force.
Fourth, there is an option somewhere in between the second and third options I’ve just outlined, namely, the imposition of a strongman—perhaps someone like former Prime Minister Iyad Allawi—by the military, but with the military acting behind the scenes. It would depend on getting at least passive support from Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, who has despaired of Iraqi politics of late and withdrawn. This option would have an exceedingly high degree of difficulty, however, and this week Allawi, in London, denied rumors that he is involved in plotting a coup d’etat.
But options like these are being actively bruited about inside and outside the Bush administration. All of them are high-risk strategies—and because U.S. involvement in such schemes would likely be revealed in short order, it would mean that any Iraqi government created in such circumstances would suffer enormously from being seen as a U.S. puppet.
Posted at 11:48 am by Psychomike
Tuesday, October 03, 2006
What We Face: New Kind Of War
As early as 1998 this paper urged the government to prepare for a whole new, evolved method of warfare. What we faced was laid out for all to read. It still matters:
Asymmetric Warfare, the Evolution and Devolution of Terrorism;
The Coming Challenge For Emergency and National Security Forces
By: Clark L. Staten, Executive Director & Sr. Analyst
Emergency Response & Research Institute
04/27/98
"Terrorism will remain a major transnational problem, driven by continued ethnic, religious, nationalist, separatist, political, and economic motivations." (1)
The nature of global conflict is changing. It is the considered opinion of the Emergency Response & Research Institute (ERRI) that there is a general paradigm shift underway in regard to how future conflicts will unfold. This transition is one of form rather than substance. Mass violence, injuries and deaths will continue to occur, although we believe they will happen in different places and in differing ways than one might currently imagine.
With Russia's conventional forces on the verge of dissolution, the likelihood of a massive massed tank battle on the plains between Europe and Russia is almost a forgotten possibility. Similar circumstances in Saudi Arabia or Kuwait, or near of the DMZ between North and South Korea are also becoming increasingly unlikely. Although circumstances regarding another conflict with Iraq are still possible as this is written, probable prospects there would suggest that the United States (at worst) would undertake a strategic bombing campaign, rather than committing large numbers of ground troops to massed combat.
What is far more possible, however, in the coming decade, are an increasing number of "brush-fire" wars, counter-insurgency campaigns, hostage rescue operations, "drug wars," low intensity conflicts, urban combat, and "peacekeeping operations" that will require a vastly different set of tactics, equipment, training and skills than conventional military engagements of the past. Future conflicts, at least in the near term, may not involve commitments of massive numbers of troops to fixed battle zones, but will likely involve combating small units of fanatical terrorists using Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) and other sophisticated tactics and technologies.(2) As Commandant of the of the Marine Corps General Charles C. Krulak, likes to say, the United States will often be fighting engagements that are more like Somalia, Haiti, and Bosnia than they are like Desert Storm. (3)
Why Is This Occurring?
Of great concern is the fact that any number of what were previously considered essentially stable countries are experiencing religious, ethnic and other internal conflicts with increasing numbers of separatist movements trying to carve up larger countries into smaller and more tightly focused ethnic areas. Some of these conflicts are ancient and have been the cause of fighting for hundreds of years. Others are more recent and the result of demographic shifts, changing political regimes, or religious/ideological shifts.
Add to these factors political and ethnic internal disintegration caused by faltering economic circumstances in several parts of SW Asia, the Far-East, Africa, South America and elsewhere and you have a combustible mix that is certain to fuel future conflicts in a number of parts of the globe for the foreseeable future.
Marine Corp Colonel Gary I. Wilson, a long-time observer and analyst of emerging trends in non-conventional warfare, also says that he believes that changes in terrorist tactics, methods and operational activities are a naturally occurring phenomena. He draws similarities between bacteria that naturally mutates in order to become resistent to antibiotics or other adverse conditions. His comparison would suggest that terrorists and their methods also mutate, or change in form, in order to find new ways to survive and better project the strengths of the terrorists against the weaknesses of opposing civilizations.
According to James Denney, ERRI Senior analyst, global societies traditionally contain a myriad of subcultures that are based on strongly held ethnic, religious, cultural and ideological beliefs. In instances where many subcultures interact, new subcultures are generated in much the same way as a living cell generates another and another, until finally a new entity is created. Thus the structural integrity of a given society becomes increasingly complex.
Most incumbent ideologies in the postmodern era are struggling to maintain their dominant identity within their sphere of influence. Because of conflicting ideologies, presumptive religious and ethnic diversity has not materialized in many societies. For this reason, the concept of vertical ethnic and religious integration has given way to horizontal migration and factional polarization within these societies.
This is an engineered dynamic which creates a breeding ground where fanatical ethnic and religious tribalism has emerged as fractal subcultures, vying with each other for inclusion, with mutually exclusive and often conflicting agendas. This situation results in ethnic and religious migration to both geographic and political positioning within the existing society.
Through centuries of serial discrimination, imperious rule and unrelenting subculture manipulation, diversity has successfully been restricted while rulers continue to rise through the incumbent ideology or ruling system. Any perceived threat to the incumbent ideology will always be met with resistance, deflection, threat or illusional compliance, while the status quo is maintained. In some cases, a "preemptive defense" is commonly employed, whereby on one or more pretext, estranged factions are exterminated. Employing this methodology, the incumbent ideology (read government/ruling class) is insured passage from one class of rulers to the next, while those deemed unworthy or contemptible by the "powers that be" are manipulated, bypassed or ignored. This marginalization is often the motivation for violent acts.
How Is It Happening/What is Changing?
Very few countries, today, have the wherewithal to undertake a major attack on any of the major countries of the world...particularly the United States. Thus the reason that terrorism is both evolving and devolving. (4) Most nation-states have recognized the fact that they can no longer engage in open combat nor overtly support terrorism without fear of military retaliation or even openly declared war with the United States or her allies.
Take this evolution theory one step further and you will find that as "terrorist organizations" begin to gain some measure of political legitimization and press attention, that even they will diminish their open support of sabotage and acts of violence against innocent civilians. Obviously, few rational people will vote for or openly support an organization that publicly admits it kills women and children in pursuit of its goals.
Additionally, it would appear that smaller and smaller splinter groups are breaking from the main force body. These ultra-radicals, if you will, have become the enforcers of the extreme ends of an ideology or belief and it is they who will use unconventional tactics to carry out particularly heinous acts. This devolution of terrorist organizations into smaller and more compartmentalized groups makes detection of these small cells increasing more difficult and intelligence gathering and analysis efforts even more valuable.
In addition to the concept of smaller cells of non-attributable, non-state actors, evidence would suggest that there are also cells of what we have called "virtual sapper squads that are put together just for the purpose of committing one act and then disbanded and dispersing back into the population of a friendly nation. (5) One of the first examples of this that was recognized by ERRI was the World Trade Center bombing. It is believed that this is done to further obscure the identities of the perpetrators, enable their escape and evasion and to further complicate the process of ascertaining their motives.
Concurrently such a strategy confuses the issue of tracing ties between the operatives and to nation-states, who sponsor, finance and offer refuge to these killers. International legal and moral justification of military retaliation by the victim state may also become even more difficult, if not impossible.
Threats from Multiple Simultaneous Vectors
By the advent of the 21st Century, not only is it likely that many of the conflicts facing the United States and her allies will be of an asymmetrical and devolving nature, and it is also likely that the threats will come from diverse and differing vectors. Particularly of concern is the possibility that conventional terrorism and low-intensity conflict will be accompanied or compounded by computer/infrastructure attacks that may cause damage to vital commercial, military, and government information and confront communications systems. (6) Unfortunately, it would appear that while the United States gains tremendous advantages from its advanced information and battlefield management systems, we also become increasing vulnerable to cyber-attacks from our adversaries.
In other words, we would anticipate efforts to cause widespread fear by computer-generated attacks on electrical, water, banking, government information, emergency response systems and other vital infrastructures, while simultaneously suffering terrorist tactics involving multiple conventional explosives and/or chemical/biological/nuclear devices. (7)(8) Even a country as large and sophisticated as the United States could suffer greatly at the hands of an educated, equipped, and committed group of fewer than 50 people. At the present time, such an attack could realistically be expected to cause an effect vastly disproportionate to the resources expended to undertake it.
The Battle For Hearts and Minds
In the Post-Cold-War era, our enemies, including Sadam Hussien of Iraq, Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran, Fidel Castro in Cuba, Yasar Arafat of the Palestinian Liberation Organization and any number of others have discovered that they can win the "hearts and minds" of the world's people through the selected use of real information, disinformation, manipulation of the press, propaganda, and other psychological (Psy-Ops) warfare methods. In fact, some would even go so far as to suggest that Mr. Hussien actually won the latest stand-off with the United States (early 1998), over Chemical/biological Weapons and inspections of his palaces, as he was able to manipulate public opinion in the United States and elsewhere and split the former allied Persian Gulf coalition. (9)
With assistance of diplomats from a number of Arab countries, Russia, and France, all of whom have a vested economic interest in ending United Nations sanctions against Iraq, Hussien was able to both prevent the bombing of his country and be authorized by the U.S. to sell even more petroleum, obstensively to buy food and medicine for the Iraqi people. A historical perspective might suggest, however, that such programs and funds have probably enabled Iraq to rebuild presidential palaces and maintain key weapons and military assets.
It is believed by ERRI analysts that such psy-ops and propaganda programs will continue to have an increasingly more influential impact on future conflicts, and that our military and political leadership should seriously consider expanding efforts by U.S. psychological warfare operations and units to counter these developments. (10)
Most Serious Concerns
In recent years, terrorists and insurgent movements have discovered that they can multiply fear in a civilian population by undertaking even more violent and deadly tactics. Federal Bureau of Investigation and the U.S. Department of State reviews of recent terrorist incidents would suggest that they believe that there are a fewer number of incidents, but that those that do occur are more deadly. Additionally, and all too frequently in recent years, terrorist and terrorist groups are no longer taking credit for their acts. It is believed that this anonymity may also be contributing to larger and more reprehensible atrocities.
The Impact of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)
According to Richard K. Betts, some of the most important implications of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) have not yet registered with the public. Betts asserts that the nature of the potential use of WMD’s is changing. Rather than being weapons of deterrence, as they were during the "Cold War," they are increasingly becoming the weapons of choice of what were formally considered "second-rate" military powers or even non-state groups. (11) It is believed that these formerly impotent players on the world stage may believe that they have found a way to leverage non-conventional weapons to cause great fear and will use these weapons to attempt to intimidate legitimate governments.
Further and more fearsome, Cmdr. James Campbell, in his recent examination of the terrorist use of Chemical/Biological/Nuclear weapons, offers us a view of a "Post-Modern Terrorist," free of constraints provided by sponsoring nation-states, who have discovered that the use of WMD's affords them the ability to wield disproportionate power to cause massive numbers of casualties, even within the continental United States. (12)
At least some experts find this future use of WMD's in concurrence with recent trends in statistics involving terrorist attacks. A study of Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and U.S. State Department (DoS) documents would reveal that they believe that there are a fewer number of terrorist incidents, but that they have produced a greater number of wounded and dead. In other words, non-state actors and post-modern terrorists, with their apocalyptic visions and belief that they are acting on behalf of some higher power, are likely to use WMD to maximize their kill ratios and send a larger and more fearsome message to their perceived enemies.
The Effects of Economic Terrorism
Perpetrated by mercenaries, ideological or religious zealots-- it doesn't matter which -- corporations and business networks will undoubtedly become future targets of terrorism. More enlightened terrorists have discovered (maybe already in some countries), or will discover soon, that the path to the fear and chaos that they crave most may be more easily achieved by a wide-scale attack on infrastructure/economic targets, thus causing a general breakdown in society and facilitating civil unrest and rioting. Evidence of insurgent attacks on economic targets have been clearly demonstrated in places like Corsica (banks, court houses), Greece (Bank, car dealership, and businesses), Colombia (multiple oil pipeline bombings), India (attack on multiple commercial buildings in Bombay), and Sri Lanka (bank and commercial building attacks). (13)(14)
These concepts, and the inherent threats thereto, will become even more evident and viable in future megatroplises where millions will live in what will be in reality a very fragile and easily combustible (in more than one sense of the word) environment. It is believed that these future societies of largely urbanized populations will be even more vulnerable and susceptible to manipulation by insurgents using terror and low intensity warfare tactics.
There is even a possibility that the terrorist acts could be paid for by legal or extralegal multinational corporations that would benefit from the destruction of existing business competitors in a given city or region, or by less scrupulous business concerns that want to subvert or cause destabilization of an existing (and unfriendly) governmental system. Some evidence of these phenomena is already in evidence in Colombia, Pakistan, Burma and parts of the former Soviet Union.
An excellent example of this emerging situation might involve further study of a recent United Nations report that the GNP of the drug and crime driven "underground economy" in Pakistan is probably greater than that of the official government. Although sufficient studies are currently unavailable, this is also probably true in Colombia, and it is becoming increasingly likely that the same trend is developing in parts of the former Soviet Union, where organized crime "mafia organizations" have infiltrated or subverted legitimate business for their purposes. Needless to say, these patterns do not bode well for the future of the legitimate governments in these and other areas of the world.
Solutions and Recommendations
The prevailing thinking and overall mindset within military, diplomatic, intelligence, law enforcement, and emergency service communities may need modification in order to meet and combat these newly evolving patterns involving non-state actors and asymmetric warfare. Conceptually, the preparations, tactics, and strategies for fighting numerous "brush fire" conflicts and larger numbers of small scale but high-impact terrorist incidents, could prove a major challenge for those with an entrenched large force "Cold-War" mentality.
Those that are still mired in fighting another "Desert Storm" or want to continue to live in the comfortable past of a largely bi-polar, superpower-driven global situation may be in for a rude awakening as the nature of asymmetric conflict unfolds in the coming decade. There are few, if any, countries that can militarily challenge the United States in open combat at the present time. Some seemingly astute assessments would suggest that China may become a future adversary with the industrial and conventional military power to eventually confront America and her allies, but they also point out that this capability is still evolving and that it may take China a minimum of three to five (3-5) years, or more, to become a major threat to the United States and overall world stability.
Instead, given a reasonably effective foreign policy, our assessment would respectfully suggest that the near term threat to Americans and our country's security may bring a confusing mix of "stateless actors," separatist and fringe "independence movements," insurgency operations, terrorist attacks, the use of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD), Information Warfare (IW), and other unconventional threats. The nature of our defense thinking, training, weapons, equipment, intelligence operations, and national emergency response systems must be redefined and redirected in order to meet these threats that are concurrently both devolving and evolving.
It should not be forgotten that our most important asset in our war with terrorists, and in our defense against other non-conventional threats, rests with the young men and women of our nation's national security and emergency service communities. While useful in more conventional circumstances, "Stand-off" missiles, ICBM's, Nuclear Weapons, and other theatre weapons are practically useless in our response to insurgents, revolutionaries, and terrorist threats. That responsibility will undoubtedly fall on smaller groups of highly trained, better-equipped, and highly motivated anti- and counter-terrorist operatives and agencies, who will monitor, infiltrate, close with and destroy those that would engage in this insidious type of future warfare. Our people will make the difference, if we give them the resources to accomplish the task.
Finally, it is recommended that Congressional and Presidential funding, policies, and other initiatives take all of the issues presented above into consideration in a comprehensive way. This strategy must encompass providing leadership, reallocating necessary funds to the most appropriate efforts, and bringing all of the available public and private assets to work together to study and devise strategies to confront this new and dynamic threat. All of the levels of government, academia and related businesses must find a way to better communicate, cooperate and coordinate in an effective manner. Ultimately, we must ensure that we, as a country, are prepared to confront the asymmetric challenges of the future.
References:
1. "Global Threats And Challenges To The United States And Its Interests Abroad," by Lt. Gen. Patrick M. Hughes, USA Director, Defense Intelligence Agency, Feb. 5-6, 1997
2. The Fourth World War; Diplomacy and Espionage in the Age of Terrorism, by Marenches, C. and Adelman, D., Willam Morrow and Company, Pg. 30
3. "World Without Symmetry--Terrorism," Navy Times, 22 Sep 97
4. "Emerging, Devolving Threat of Terrorism," by Wilson, G and Fuller, F., EmergencyNet News Daily Intelligence Report, 11/30/96, Vol. 2, No. 335. On the internet at: http://www.emergency.com/devlthrt.htm
5. "THE LONG LIST OF SUSPECTS; Possible Theory of [Terrorist] Motivation," by Macko, S., EmergencyNet News Daily Report, Wednesday, July 24, 1996, Vol. 2, No. 206. On the Internet at: http://www.emergency.com/tersuspc.htm
6. "The IW Threat from Sub-State Groups: an Interdisciplinary Approach," by Rathmell, et al, Presented at 3rd International symposium on Command and Control Research and Technology, Institute for National Strategic Studies, National Defense University, June 17-20, 1997. On the Internet at: http://www.kcl.ac.uk/orgs/icsa/terrori.htm
7. "Middle East Terrorism: New Form of Warfare or Mission Impossible?" by LTC Stephen H. Gotowicki, U.S. Army, Military Review, May-June 1997, On the internet at: http://leav-www.army.mil/fmso/fmsopubs/issues/terror/terror.htm
8. "Reflections on the 1997 Commission on Critical Infrastructure Protection (PCCIP) Report," by Staten, C, ERRI Special Report, 10/23/97. On the Internet at: http://www.emergency.com/pcciprpt.htm
9. "Losing the War of Words," by George C. Wilson, Editorial, Washington Post, 30 Mar 98, Pg. 25A
10. "Manipulation And The Age Of The New Persuaders," by Thomas, T., Foreign Military Studies Office, Fort Leavenworth, KS., July, 1997, On the Internet at: http://leav-www.army.mil/fmso/fmsopubs/issues/maninfo.htm
11. "The New Threat of Mass Destruction," by Betts, R., Foreign Affairs, January/February, 1998, Pg. 27
12. Weapons of Mass Destruction - Terrorism, By Campbell, J. Interpact Press, 1997, Pg. 4-5
13. "Indian Bombings Caused By 'Foreign Extremists,' According to Police," By Staten, C., EmergencyNet News Special Report, 03/1/93. On the Internet at: http://www.emergency.com/bombay.htm
14. "Analysts Predict More Terrorist Attacks In Sri Lanka," by Jeremy Zakis, EmergencyNet News Daily Intelligence Report, Sunday, March 8, 1998 Vol. 4, No. 067. On the internet at: http://www.emergency.com/srilnk98.htm
This article, "The Evolution and Devolution of Terrorism; The Coming Challenge For Emergency and National Security Forces", was published in the Journal of Counterterrorism and Security International, Winter, 1999 edition, Vol. 5, No. 4, Pg. 8-11
Posted at 06:45 pm by Psychomike
Monday, October 02, 2006
The GOP Record
The roots of Republican failures in Congress.
GOP Senators in particular helped to steer President Bush away from his underwhelming initial choice of White House counsel Harriet Miers toward the distinguished Samuel Alito. With the High Court playing an ever more decisive role in our political life, this may be Mr. Bush's most significant legacy beyond the war on terror.
Republicans also deserve credit for financing the war, which is more than many Democrats say they'll do if they run Capitol Hill. The extension for two more years, through 2010, of the 15% rate on dividends and capital gains will also help sustain the economic growth that is throwing off record revenues to pay for the war even as the budget deficit declines. The recent compromise on terrorist interrogations may also turn out to be historic, putting Congress's imprimatur on the Presidential powers needed to fight an enemy that violates the normal rules of war. Toss in bankruptcy and class-action reform, and some free-trade agreements. That's about it for the good news.
On the liability side, the list of flops is extensive, starting with making the tax cuts permanent, repealing the estate tax and immigration reform. Senate Democrats did their part to kill the first two, but House Republicans get credit for fanning public worry about immigration and then pretending that a 700-mile fence will solve the problem.
Social Security reform was never going to be easy, and Mr. Bush's war-driven decline in job approval meant he couldn't move any Democrats. But that still doesn't excuse such prominent Republicans as Tom Davis (Virginia) and Roy Blunt (Missouri) for resisting their President's reform effort behind the scenes. So frightened were they that they never even brought the subject up for a vote.
Perhaps the most puzzling abdication was the GOP failure to do anything at all on health care. The window for saving private health care from government encroachment is closing, and both business and workers are feeling the pinch from rising costs. Yet Republicans failed to make health-care savings accounts more attractive, failed to let business associations offer their own health plans, and failed even to bring to a vote Arizona Congressman John Shadegg's bill to avoid costly state mandates by letting health insurance be marketed across state boundaries. The biggest winner here is Hillary Rodham Clinton's 2008 Presidential campaign.
Republicans have many explanations for their paltry record, some of them even accurate. The troubles in Iraq sapped Mr. Bush's support, dividing Republicans while uniting Democrats who saw a chance to regain power this fall. Hurricane Katrina blew away whatever hope there was of spending restraint and changed the national conversation from GOP priorities. And Tom DeLay's ethical troubles, and eventual ouster as Majority Leader, created a leadership vacuum.
Yet none of this excuses the more fundamental problem, which is that too many Republicans now believe their purpose in Washington is keeping power for its own sake.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice says she offered to resign as President Bush’s National Security Adviser as part of a broader house-cleaning following the president’s re-election in 2004.
"I did tell the president at one point that I thought maybe all of us should go, because we had fought two wars and we ... had the largest terrorist attack in American history," Rice disclosed Sunday night while en route to the Mideast.
"And when he asked me to be secretary of state, I said, 'I think maybe — maybe you need new people.' " She did not say what the president's immediate response was.
Fielding questions aboard her plane, Rice strenuously denied a claim in Bob Woodward's new book, "State of Denial," that her relations with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld once deteriorated to the point where Bush had to intervene to ensure Rumsfeld would return Rice's calls.
"Secretary Rumsfeld has never refused to return my phone calls," Rice said, noting the two talked every day as part of routine "principals' calls" involving senior officials.
"The idea that he wasn't returning my phone calls is simply ludicrous," she said.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,217119,00.html Posted at 06:13 pm by Psychomike
Sunday, October 01, 2006
Some years back I engaged in public debates with the Readers' Bill Wyman on political topics of the day. One of those debates was on Noam Chomsky and I had tried to find the cassette tape it was recorded on but was unable to. So I have pulled these articles for you instead, explaining the man who Hugo Chavez shot to the top of the best seller lists.
I have considered putting some of my debates and talks up on the net (I have done a couple of hundred over the years, from the Threat Assessment Group to Delilah's to College of Complexes). Interesting to note that none have ever been written up by the press, making me the only person who works in show biz whose political opinion doesn't matter. However, this opinion is not held by groups like the National Strategy Forum where I am a member, or teachers at the Naval Academy downtown, where my ideas have been discussed.
Who is this America-bashing Noam Chomsky?
SOMEONE WHO SHOULD HAVE STUCK TO SYNTAX
October 1, 2006
BY ROGER SCRUTON As Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez tore into President Bush in a U.N. speech last month, he waved a book by the far-left critic Noam Chomsky and urged everybody to read it. Chavez's endorsement put the book, Hegemony or Survival: America's Quest for Global Dominance, on the best-seller lists. But not everybody is a Chomsky fan.
Noam Chomsky's popularity owes little or nothing to the eminent place that he occupies in the world of ideas. That place was won many years ago in the science of linguistics, and no expert in the subject would, I think, dispute Chomsky's title to it.
"Has," I say, but perhaps "had" would be more accurate. For Chomsky long ago cast off his academic gown and donned the mantle of the prophet. For several decades now, he has been devoting his energies to denouncing his native country, usually before packed halls of fans who couldn't care a fig about the theory of syntax. And many of his public appearances are in America: the only country in the whole world that rewards those who denounce it with the honors and opportunities that make denouncing it into a rewarding way of life. It is proof of Chomsky's success that his diatribes are distributed by his American publishers around the world, so as to end up in the hands of America's critics everywhere -- Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez included.
To his supporters, Chomsky is a brave and outspoken champion of the oppressed against a corrupt and criminal political class. But to his opponents he is a self-important ranter whose one-sided vision of politics is chosen for its ability to shine a spotlight on himself. And it is surely undeniable that his habit of excusing or passing over the faults of America's enemies, in order to pin all crime on his native country, suggests that he has invested more in his posture of accusation than he has invested in the truth.
To describe this posture as "adolescent" is perhaps unfair. After all, there are plenty of quite grown-up people who believe that American foreign policy since World War II has been founded on a mistaken conception of America's role in the world. And it is true that we all make mistakes -- so that Chomsky's erstwhile support for regimes that no one could endorse in retrospect, like that of Pol Pot, is no proof of wickedness. But then the mistakes of American foreign policy are no proof of wickedness either. FULL STORY HERE: http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/78861,CST-CONT-chomsky01.article
The Chomsky Hoax: Issue by issue, the facts are not the way Norm sees them. http://www.paulbogdanor.com/chomskyhoax.html
Posted at 09:10 am by Psychomike
Saturday, September 30, 2006
Privatize National Security!
Here we go with first a question we hear a lot about today, then a new radical approach to National Security- PRIVATIZATION which as many of you know I have long supported. So... here we go:
QUESTION:
This is probaby accurate (reports of al Qaeda preparing to use bio and nuke weapons). After a series of small encounters and "victories" they are probably embolded and believe they can pull off something on a larger scale against a US military base.
As for Bush being a failure, he's right. I thought we were going to win their hearts and minds?
ANSWER:
In a war that will last decades, against a foe that already has almost 200 million followers, over 200,000 trained in camps in Afghanistan before 911, how does one measure success or failure? Some states will fail, some succeed, some will be our foes, then join us, and maybe even become foes again.When people say, oh my god the plans we are following have caused a thousand more to join, what is 1000 compared to 200 million?
Now let's look at the facts. Gore and Lieberman. If they had been elected, would liberals be satisfied with Lieberman today? Are they? The answer is clearly no. Now, Gore wanted to send from 125,000 to 200,000 troops to Iraq, and Democratic whip Rangel wanted a draft.
A draft!
So right about now about 100,000 troops more would be in Iraq, another 100,000 would be getting ready to go. There would be anti-draft riots, our colleges would be in an uproar. But more importantly, what are the Democratic Party's feelings about Iraq NOW? Today they just want to leave! That means as we were sending in more troops, the party itself would be at war with itself.
Clearly the party would be in the chaos it was in from 1968 on in Nam.
I said at the time I didn't understand how so many leftists could go along with the Gore- Lieberman re-invention of the Viet Nam War "strategy", and frankly if he had won that is exactly what it would have been. Gore even spoke of having a command center in Washington that would conduct the Iraq War from afar. Just like we did in Viet Nam!
So today the party admits it doesn't like Lieberman, and that the Gore strategy wouldn't work. Yet they were willing to try it!
Chilling. By the way. We are still in the Serbia/ Bosnia area. What was Clinton's exit strategy? Where are the missing mass graves?
Understanding the Privatization of National Security
Introduction
On May 11-12, 2006, experts from the government, military, private security industry, legal profession, academia, public health, and law enforcement met at the McCormick Tribune Foundation Cantigny Conference Center in Wheaton, Illinois to discuss the trend toward the privatization of national security functions traditionally performed by the government. The McCormick Tribune Foundation underwrote the conference entitled "Understanding the Privatization of National Security," which was organized by the American Bar Association Standing Committee on Law and National Security and the National Strategy Forum. The following is a summary of key issues that participants raised during the conference discussion.
What is Privatization?
The privatization of US national security is the delegation of tasks traditionally performed by the government to the private sector. The US government has engaged mercenaries and private forces since the Revolutionary War. Today, the use of private forces has grown into a billion dollar private security industry, and the trend toward privatization continues to expand.
The Role of Private Contractors
Private contractors are on the periphery of combat operations. The US government depends on private military companies (PMCs) and private security companies (PSCs) to fill gaps in military function; supply cost-effective, efficient, and rapidly deployable forces; and provide security functions, including high-tech equipment and operators, logistical support – food, water, electricity, and laundry – private bodyguards, and watchmen.
Factors Driving Privatization
There is an array of factors and trends that drive the expansion of privatization.
• Military downsizing
US government policy since the 1990s has focused on cutting costs by downsizing the military into a smaller, more efficient force supplemented by private contractors.
• Cost-effectiveness
There is disagreement regarding the assertion that privatization saves money. Some argue that it costs more to maintain military personnel on active duty than to outsource operations. On the other hand, price gouging and specific types of contracts (i.e.: no-bid, cost plus contracts) are argued to be cost-inefficient.
• New threats to US national security
Government needs enhanced resources to respond to an array of new threats and emergencies, including terrorism, crime organizations, drug cartels, regional and inter-state conflicts, and natural disasters.
• Surge capacity and "the need for speed"
There is a need to mitigate bureaucratic inefficiencies. Private contractors provide effective surge capacity, speed, and flexibility in the event of emergencies.
• Technological skills and niche expertise
The US government relies on private industry for complex weapon systems and skilled operators. The need for technical specialists and expertise will result in greater outsourcing.
• Reducing political costs
There may be politically risky and controversial missions for which the government cannot deploy the military. The use of private contractors as a proxy force for certain missions draws less public scrutiny but reduces transparency.
Privatizing Homeland Security
Private contractors are involved in the following homeland security areas:
• Critical infrastructure protection (CIP)
The private sector is responsible for approximately 90 percent of the nation's critical infrastructure. To what extent should government share responsibility for CIP with the private sector?
• Public health emergency incidents
There have been public-private coordinated initiatives to improve public health emergency preparedness. How can the private sector continue to assist government efforts?
• Information and intelligence sharing
Private contractors are capable of performing domestic intelligence-related functions because private companies employ many former counterterrorism professionals. However, there are concerns regarding non-governmental personnel handling sensitive information.
• Emergency preparedness and response
Government response within the first 72 hours of a catastrophic incident is crucial. Private companies are capable of providing rapid, flexible, and efficient responses to catastrophic incidents – terrorist attacks and natural disasters.
Bright Lines: Limitations to Outsourcing
There is a need for "bright lines" – boundaries that separate what should and should not be outsourced. Where does government draw the line? Government needs to develop an analytical decision-making model that addresses the following questions:
· What are exclusive government functions?
· What are appropriate uses of private contractors?
· Are there any missions that it would be unethical to outsource?
· How are outsourcing decisions made?
· Should limits be imposed on a case-by-case basis?
· Can boundaries be modified once they are set?
Find out more here: http://www.nationalstrategy.com/index_files/Page3117.htm Posted at 10:30 am by Psychomike
Friday, September 29, 2006
Al Qaeda Calls For Atomic, Bio Warfare
AL- QAEDA CALLS FOR BIOLOGICAL, ATOMIC WARFARE
Al-Qaeda's chief in Iraq called for launching biological warfare on US troops in the war-torn country, in an audio-clip posted on the Internet.
"My message to the pioneers ... especially atomic and explosives experts: We are in urgent need for you, as the American bases are the perfect place for non-conventional experiments of biological and dirty (warfare)," said the voice, purportedly that of to Abu Hamza al-Muhajer.
Muhajer said the group was launching a new "all-out offensive ... to uproot the infidels and the apostates," from Iraq, in reference to the US-led coalition forces and their supporters among the Iraqis.
In the same tape, he also offered amnesty to Sunni Arab tribal leaders who have collaborated with the government if they revert to supporting the insurgency.
The amnesty would last until the end of the Muslim fasting month of Ramadan, "I tell those (tribal sheikhs) who stood by the betrayers and sold out their religion and honour in this blessed month: We today offer you a full amnesty," he said.
This amnesty is however "contingent to your declaration of a full repentance ... and cooperation with your brothers the mujahedeen (holy warriors) to drive the occupier out" of Iraq, he said in the tape whose authenticity could not be verified.
Early in September, the terror network chief also known as Abu Ayyub al-Masri urged each Iraqi Sunni to kill one of the 141,000 US soldiers in Iraq by the start of Ramadan.
Muhajer took over as Al-Qaeda's leader in Iraq after a US air strike killed his predecessor, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, on June 7. http://snipurl.com/xmof
Al Qaeda's second-in-command Ayman al-Zawahri called President Bush a lying failure for talking of progress in the war on terrorism, according to a video posted on the Internet on Friday.
In the 18-minute tape posted by al Qaeda's media arm al-Sahab, the Egyptian militant leader referred to the arrest of al Qaeda figures such as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the suspected mastermind of the September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States.
"Bush, you are a lying failure and a charlatan. It has been three and-a-half years (since the arrests)...What happened to us? We have gained more strength and we are more insistent on martyrdom," he declared.
"Bush, O failure and liar, why don't you be courageous for once and confront your people and tell them the truth about your losses in Iraq and Afghanistan?" said Zawahri, wearing a black turban and sitting in front of a banner with Islam's statement of faith: "There is no god but Allah, Mohammad is his prophet."
A U.S. intelligence official in Washington dismissed the video as a "typical al Qaeda propaganda stream" but said analysts were scrutinising its contents for clues that might aid U.S. efforts to track down the militant leader.
Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) spokeswoman Michele Neff said: "After conducting a technical analysis of the videotape, the CIA can confirm with confidence that the voice on the tape is that of Ayman al-Zawahri."
In a second portion of the tape, apparently shot at a different location, Zawahri labeled Pope Benedict a "charlatan" because of his remarks on Islam.
"This charlatan accused Islam of being incompatible with rationality while forgetting that his own Christianity is unacceptable to a sensible mind," Zawahri said, this time wearing a white turban.
He also compared the Pope to the 11th century Pope Urban II who backed the first crusade.
In a speech to a university in his native Germany on September 12, Pope Benedict quoted criticism of Islam and the Prophet Mohammad by 14th century Byzantine Emperor Manuel II Palaeologus, who wrote that Mohammad commanded that Islam be spread by the sword.
HOLY WAR IN DARFUR
Zawahri urged Muslims to launch a holy war against proposed U.N. peacekeepers in Sudan's Darfur region.
"O Muslim nation, come to defend your lands from crusaders masked as United Nations (troops). Nothing will protect you except popular jihad (holy war)," Zawahri said on the video, that showed the date of the Muslim lunar month that ended about a week ago. http://snipurl.com/xmoh
Posted at 07:53 pm by Psychomike
Thursday, September 28, 2006
Troops To Danfur, Uganda Crisis
UGANDA ON THE BRINK!, U.N. SENDING TROOPS TO DANFUR, WHO BANKROLLS SUDAN CONFLICT?
The Ugandan military yesterday accused Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) rebels of violating a landmark truce by deserting neutral camps, clouding prospects for peace talks. It denied accusations that Ugandan troops are surrounding the two sites and dismissed LRA threats to pull out of the negotiations, instead alleging the rebels were leaving the camps and calling into question their commitment to peace. Army spokesman Felix Kulaije said rebel fighters had begun streaming out of the Owiny-Ki-Bul camp in southern Sudan on Tuesday and were heading west in an apparent attempt to regroup in the bush. “The LRA is moving away from their assembly point towards the west,” he said. “They are moving towards the River Nile and the army is ready to take necessary steps to stop that.” “We don’t know the numbers in the group (but) we see an attempt to use West Nile region in Uganda as another operation area for the LRA,” he said. http://www.gulf-times.com/site/topics/article.asp?cu_no=2&item_no=110096&version=1&template_id=48&parent_id=28
Uganda rebels boycott peace talks
Sep 28, 2006
Negotiators for Uganda's Lord's Resistance Army rebels have withdrawn from peace talks aimed at ending one of Africa's longest wars, accusing the army of surrounding their fighters in violation of a truce.
In a further blow to Uganda's fragile peace process, the LRA delegation said it would not resume talks until the army removes forces it accuses of deploying in areas where hundreds of insurgents have gathered under a ceasefire.
"The Juba peace talks are in grave danger of failure due to the unfolding heavy military deployment of UPDF (Uganda People's Defence Forces) troops," LRA delegation head Martin Ojul said in a statement issued late on Wednesday.
"LRA has resolved not to proceed with the negotiations unless the ... issues of grave concern are addressed."
A truce signed last month raised hopes of an end to a vicious 20-year civil war in northern Uganda that has killed tens of thousands of people and displaced nearly 2 million.
The LRA are notorious for killing civilians, mutilating survivors and kidnapping children to swell their ranks. http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/411319/837558
The United Nations told Sudan on Tuesday that it is sending military experts to Darfur to help the under-equipped African Union force there.
Stephane Dujarric, a UN spokesman, announced on Friday that the world body would move 105 personnel, mainly military experts, to Darfur in the next few weeks to man communications and help with transport in anticipation of an eventual transition to a UN force.
But the package of assistance does not have Sudan's permission yet, a senior UN official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/CA390185-5B16-48F9-8E10-234ABBBEF5FE.htm
Al Qaeda No. 2 Ayman al-Zawahiri will soon release a new message about the pope, President Bush and Sudan's troubled Darfur region, an Islamic Web site said Wednesday.
A banner warning of the upcoming message was posted on an Islamic Web site that frequently airs al Qaeda videos. Wednesday's notice did not specify whether the new message was a video, audiotape or text, but al-Zawahiri usually releases videos.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/09/28/al.qaeda.tape.ap/index.html
Armed conflicts are wide spread in the Sudan, but who bankrolls them?
September 26, 2006 — On Wednesday 20th September, the Security and peace Council of the African Union approved a decision to extend the mandate of the African forces in Darfur to the end of the year. The decision was facilitated by the rich Arabs countries who accepted to shoulder the cost of the extension. The Arab League (a regional institution whose membership is restricted to Arab states) is actively collecting shares from members. Although accepting to pay, Arab countries didn’t stop to ask whether their money would improve protection of the displaced in Darfur, even though the recipients of their largesse themselves declared that they couldn’t provide the level of protection needed and wanted to transfer the job to UN forces. Doesn’t simple logic tell us that money is normally paid to those who do the job best? However, the governments of the Arab league apparently don’t mind spending their money on those who, on their own admission, can’t do the job! In other words, despite the fact that Africans themselves declared that their forces have been ineffective in protecting the camps of the displaced from attacks by Sudanese government forces and their janjaweed militia, still Arabs countries agreed to pay the cost of such ineffectiveness! To put it bluntly, the Arab countries agreed to pay the costs of a chaotic situation in which civilians will be killed either by the government forces or by the janjaweed, for another three month extension paid for by Arab countries.
Away from Darfur, in northern Sudan, Arab financial institutions in partnership with China are paying billions of dollars for the construction of a massive dam project (the Merowe dam). The project will displace more than 60 thousands villagers from the river banks to the desert. The ill-planned project has led to massive human rights abuses committed by the dam authority against the affected communities. For the last four years, the affected communities have suffered harassment, torture, lengthy detention and eventually killings by the dam security personnel. Last April, the dam security shot dead three farmers and injured a further forty. The Arab banks that finance the project remained silent over the killing. As with their financing of Darfur, the killings didn’t prompt the project’s Arab and Chinese backers to suspend their finance to the project. Nonetheless, these institutions failed to ask the government to investigate the killings in order to assess the impact of their money on the lives of the impoverished Sudanese. Due to the huge amount of money the Arab institutions made available to the corrupt junta of Khartoum, the junta was able to lubricate its joints again and again. Consequently, with more money going into the country more innocent people are killed, displaced or detained. It has become evident that, the more money goes into the country the more people are killed. Over time; the relation between Arab money and conflicts in Sudan has become obvious and tangible. The Arab institutions pay and the officials of Sudan government do the rest. The experiences of the dam affected communities tell us that Arab financial institutions don’t give a damn to the lives of the Sudanese people. To- date, despite the killings, harassment and gross human rights volitions, Arab institutions continue business as usual pouring billions of petro dollars into the dam project. Not surprising then, the dam affected area remains tense, volatile on the verge of another explosion any moments.
http://www.sudantribune.com/spip.php?article17828 Posted at 10:40 am by Psychomike
Wednesday, September 27, 2006
STRIKE GROUP OF SHIPS HEADED TO IRAN'S WESTERN COAST, WILL IAN PAISLEY TALK TO SENN FEIN?
As reports circulate of a sharp debate within the White House over possible U.S. military action against Iran and its nuclear enrichment facilities, The Nation has learned that the Bush Administration and the Pentagon have moved up the deployment of a major "strike group" of ships, including the nuclear aircraft carrier Eisenhower as well as a cruiser, destroyer, frigate, submarine escort and supply ship, to head for the Persian Gulf, just off Iran's western coast. This information follows a report in the current issue of Time magazine, both online and in print, that a group of ships capable of mining harbors has received orders to be ready to sail for the Persian Gulf by October 1.
As Time writes in its cover story, "What Would War Look Like?" evidence of the forward deployment of minesweepers and word that the chief of naval operations had asked for a reworking of old plans for mining Iranian harbors "suggest that a much discussed -- but until now largely theoretical -- prospect has become real: that the U.S. may be preparing for war with Iran."
According to Lieut. Mike Kafka, a spokesman at the headquarters of the Second Fleet, based in Norfolk, Virginia, the Eisenhower Strike Group, bristling with Tomahawk cruise missiles, has received orders to depart the United States in a little over a week. Other official sources in the public affairs office of the Navy Department at the Pentagon confirm that this powerful armada is scheduled to arrive off the coast of Iran on or around October 21.
The Eisenhower had been in port at the Naval Station Norfolk for several years for refurbishing and refueling of its nuclear reactor; it had not been scheduled to depart for a new duty station until at least a month later, and possibly not till next spring. Family members, before the orders, had moved into the area and had until then expected to be with their sailor-spouses and parents in Virginia for some time yet. First word of the early dispatch of the "Ike Strike" group to the Persian Gulf region came from several angry officers on the ships involved, who contacted antiwar critics like retired Air Force Col. Sam Gardiner and complained that they were being sent to attack Iran without any order from the Congress.
"This is very serious," said Ray McGovern, a former CIA threat-assessment analyst who got early word of the Navy officers' complaints about the sudden deployment orders. (McGovern, a twenty-seven-year veteran of the CIA, resigned in 2002 in protest over what he said were Bush Administration pressures to exaggerate the threat posed by Iraq. He and other intelligence agency critics have formed a group called Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity.)
Colonel Gardiner, who has taught military strategy at the National War College, says that the carrier deployment and a scheduled Persian Gulf arrival date of October 21 is "very important evidence" of war planning. He says, "I know that some naval forces have already received 'prepare to deploy orders' [PTDOs], which have set the date for being ready to go as October 1. Given that it would take about from October 2 to October 21 to get those forces to the Gulf region, that looks about like the date" of any possible military action against Iran. (A PTDO means that all crews should be at their stations, and ships and planes should be ready to go, by a certain date -- in this case, reportedly, October 1.) Gardiner notes, "You cannot issue a PTDO and then stay ready for very long. It's a very significant order, and it's not done as a training exercise." http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/intervention/iran/general/2006/0923warsignals.htm
A UN report on Wednesday said that as Iraq continues to slide towards civil war, Al-Qaida "may paradoxically see more losses than gains." The report, presented to the Security Council by Argentinean Ambassador Cesar Mayoral, Chairman of the Security Council Committee concerning Al-Qaida and the Taliban, said Al-Qaida has gained by continuing to play a central role in the fighting and in encouraging the growth of sectarian violence and Iraq has provided many recruits and an "excellent" training ground.
But, the report added, Al-Zarqawi's death, "while a significant blow" to terrorists in Iraq, "may not have been totally unwelcome to the Al-Qaida leadership.
The report, put together by the Analytical Support and Sanctions Monitoring Team related to the committee, stated three reasons for that: First - it eliminated an alternative focus to Bin Laden and Al-Zawahiri, Second - it removed a particularly bloodthirsty criminal who undermined the righteous image of Al-Qaida that Bin Laden tried to portray.
Third - it removed the most repellent image of terrorism in Iraq, which may have dissuaded many from joining its ranks, and caused divisions among those that did. The report also said that the team was told by several intelligence and security agencies that fewer foreign fighters have been killed or captured in Iraq over the last few months because many of them returned home disappointed.
Many of these, upon arrival to their homeland from Iraq, expressed their "dissatisfaction that, upon arrival in Iraq, they were asked to kill fellow Muslims rather than foreign soldiers, or even told that there was no role for them except as suicide bombers." The report stated that while Al-Zarqawi's successor - Abu Hamza Al-Muhajir, an Egyptian - will continue to provide Al-Qaida in Iraq with links to external groups, his appointment "may give rise to further tensions between a 'foreign' leader and the Iraqi regional commanders." "The prominent role of Al-Qaida may diminish as the violence escalates between communities, and distinctions blur between sectarian attacks on markets and places of worship, or purely criminal kidnapping and protection rackets on the one hand, and the fight against Iraqi and non-Iraqi forces on the other," the report stated.
It noted that the two terrorist organizations have suffered losses in Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia.
It said there have been many arrests and disrupted plots in those countries, "only some of which have been announced publicly." As to the Taliban, the report said it continued to benefit from a close relationship with Al-Qaida and non-Afghans are still found fighting alongside the Taliban.
http://www.kuna.net.kw/Home/Story.aspx?Language=en&DSNO=908739
The Islamist group that has seized much of southern Somalia says Ethiopia has declared war by sending its troops to help the interim government, the BBC reports on its Web site Tuesday.
Ethiopia supports the weak government but denies sending troops to help them against the Union of Islamic Courts.
Sunday, the UIC took control of the key port of Kismayo after the defense minister's forces fled the town.
"The incursion of Ethiopian troops into Somali territories is a declaration of war on Somalia," said UIC national security chairman Sheik Yusuf Indahaadde.
"We call on the international community to urge Ethiopia to withdraw its troops from Somalia. If that doesn't happen the consequences of insecurity created by Ethiopia will spread to neighboring countries and to East Africa as a whole."
But Somalian transitional government spokesman Abduraman Dinari denied that any Ethiopian troops had crossed the border and said the reports were being fabricated by the Islamists to distract attention from their advance into Kismayo.
Eyewitnesses have reported that hundreds of troops wearing Ethiopian military uniforms have crossed the border and are in a military camp just outside Baidoa - the only town controlled by the internationally recognized government. http://snipurl.com/xe9b
The Reverend Ian Paisley has been urged to engage Sinn Fein in direct dialogue ahead of next month's crucial talks to revive power-sharing in Northern Ireland.
http://u.tv/newsroom/indepth.asp?id=76969&pt=n
A man from Northern Ireland who was convicted of aiding in the 1988 killings of two British soldiers has been deported to Ireland, ending a two-year effort by U.S. officials.
Sean O'Cealleagh, 37, flew to Dublin on Sunday, escorted by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers, the agency announced Monday. A judge signed a final order for his removal on Thursday.
http://www.forbes.com/technology/ebusiness/feeds/ap/2006/09/25/ap3044294.html Posted at 12:22 pm by Psychomike
Saturday, September 23, 2006
OSAMA BIN LADEN DIED OF TYPHOID: Saudi Intel report leaked by France
Here is the original article in French:
Here is the Google translation of the page:
Osama bin Laden dead? I don't want to make too big a deal of this--yet. But according to a regional French newspaper that obtained a classified French secret service report, the Saudis are convinced bin Laden died of typhoid in August in Pakistan.
The newspaper printed what it said was a copy of the report dated September 21 and said it was shown to President Jacques Chirac, Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin and France's interior and defense ministers on the same day.
"According to a usually reliable source, the Saudi services are now convinced that Osama bin Laden is dead," the document said.
"The information gathered by the Saudis indicates that the head of al Qaeda was a victim while he was in Pakistan on August 23, 2006, of a very serious case of typhoid which led to a partial paralysis of his internal organs."
The report, which was stamped with a "confidential defense" label and the initials of the French secret service, said Saudi Arabia first heard the information on September 4 and that it was waiting for more details before making an official announcement.
A senior official in Pakistan said no foreign government had shared information with Pakistan that would back up the report of bin Laden's death.
Now, reports of bin Laden's death have been exaggerated before. What makes this report particularly interesting is that the French Defense Ministry has essentially confirmed the existence of the secret service report, saying publicly that while it cannot confirm that bin Laden is dead, it will launch an inquiry into the leak of the secret document and seek criminal charges against the leaker.
Late update: U.S. government unable to confirm bin Laden death report. http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2006_09_17.php#009931
What are the symptoms of typhoid? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plague_of_Athens#Typhoid_fever
Posted at 07:51 am by Psychomike
Thursday, September 21, 2006
When I first planned on the talk I'd be giving this weekend a couple of months ago I had no idea how Chavez and Castro would dominate the world press leading right up to the day of my speech! If you live in Chicago- this one will be a doozy!
I will be speaking Saturday September 23 on CHE, CASTRO AND CHAVEZ: THE MYTH OF THE REVOLUTIONARY
Posted at 05:43 pm by Psychomike
|
|
|
