Many opponents of decentralization or partition use the example of the civil war during the breakup of Yugoslavia. Yet that is not the only model. Czechoslovakia and most of the Soviet Union broke up peacefully. Even in the case of Yugoslavia, when Slovenia, Croatia, and Bosnia separated from Yugoslavia, if the Serbs in those states had been allowed to affiliate with Serbia, a civil war might have been avoided.
The president and those giving him advice should admit the truth to themselves and to the American people: A unified, democratic Iraq is unattainable. Only then can they adopt and sell the radical solution of recognizing the existing de facto partition in Iraq and drastically shrinking or even eliminating the potentially oppressive central government.
"I urge all the Somali people to wage holy war against the Ethiopians," said top Islamic leader Sheik Sharif Sheik Ahmed, wearing combat fatigues and holding aloft an AK-47 assault rifle.
"Ethiopian troops have intentionally invaded our land," he said. "We will counter them soon."
His comments came hours after residents said hundreds of Ethiopian and government troops forced Islamic fighters to abandon Bur Haqaba, a strategic hilltop town. Sheik Yusuf Indahaadde, the national security chairman for the Islamic group, claimed that 35,000 Ethiopian troops were on Somali soil. Foreign observers, however, have put the number in the hundreds.
"This is a declaration of war," he said. "We will not wait any more. We will defend the integrity of our land." http://www.insidebayarea.com/oaklandtribune/news/ci_4469182
23 million people, but its apparently successful explosion of a small nuclear device in the mountains above the town of Kilju on Monday marks a de
fiant bid for survival and respect. For Washington and its allies, it marks a failure of nearly two decades of atomic diplomacy.
North Korea is more than just another nation joining the nuclear club. It has never developed a weapons system it did not ultimately sell on the world market, and it has periodically threatened to sell its nuclear technology. So the end of ambiguity about its nuclear capacity foreshadows a different era, in which the concern may not be where a nation's warheads are aimed, but in whose hands its weapons and know-how end up.
Democrats were quick to claim Monday, four weeks before a critical national election, that President Bush and hisaides never gave as much priority to countering a new era of proliferation as they did to overthrowing Saddam Hussein.
Bush and his aides contend that Iraq was the more urgent threat, in a volatile neighborhood. But the North's apparent nuclear test raises the question of whether it is too late for the president to make good on his promise that he would never let the world's "worst dictators" obtain the world's most dangerous weapons.
"What it tells you is that we started at the wrong end of the 'axis of evil,'" former Sen. Sam Nunn, the Georgia Democrat
http://www.insidebayarea.com/oaklandtribune/news/ci_4469158
The most alarming thing about Kim Jong-il's new weapons, to many knowledgeable observers, is not the nuclear threat itself. It is the way the world's major powers might respond to them.
The worst-case scenario goes something like this: Terrified by the nuclear threat next door, the Japanese decide to build their own nuclear arsenal, to the deep alarm of China. The United States beefs up its Pacific bases and begins threatening attacks on North Korean missile sites. In response to this new U.S. presence near its shores, China drastically increases its military strength and begins making overt threats, setting off a chain of military escalation. And North Korea, isolated and desperate after losing its last sources of economic support, sells its nuclear devices to al-Qaeda.
“It's more realistic today than it was yesterday,” said Mark Fitzpatrick, who was the U.S. State Department's chief official on nuclear proliferation issues until last year.
In his opinion, which is shared by many other Western officials, the greatest threat is that an isolated North Korea, desperate for food and fuel after it has been isolated by its former supporters, will sell its weapons to terrorist groups or rogue states. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20061009.wxbomb-race10/BNStory/International
I'm still wondering where all the damn outrage is, and I'm not talking about the Foley scandal. On September 29, the Senate voted 100-0 in favor of the pork-swollen Pentagon Budget, which earmarked $70 billion for our ongoing military ventures in Iraq and Afghanistan. There was no debate over the appropriations and not one Democrat voted against the egregious spending. On the same day, the Senate also overwhelmingly approved the dismantling of habeas corpus for "enemy combatants". Twelve Democrats sided with the Republicans to allow the US government to detain people arbitrarily and indefinitely.
We shouldn't be all that surprised the Democrats didn't filibuster the awful bill, which also expanded the definition of "enemy combatant" to include anybody who "has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against the United States." Whatever that's supposed to mean. No, the Democrats have long been on the frontlines of the federal government's assault on our civil liberties.
In fact, what we are seeing today is just a logical continuation of a foundation laid during the Clinton era. Before the now well-known Patriot Act there was The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, which was signed into law following the Oklahoma City bombing. "The act was wide-ranging, dealing with everything from the making of plastic explosives to trading in nuclear materials," writes Georgetown law professor David Cole and James X. Dempsey in Terrorism and the Constitution.
"Members of Congress immediately felt tremendous pressure to pass antiterrorism legislation," Cole and Dempsey recall. "It did not matter that the proposals in the President's initial bill were directed largely against international terrorism, while the Oklahoma bombing was the work of homegrown discontents Eager to get the bill on the President's desk by the April 19 anniversary of the Oklahoma City bombing, the Senate adopted the conference report on April 17 in a 91-8 vote. The next day, the House also adopted the report by a vote of 293-133. On April 24, President Clinton signed The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996."
"To make the death penalty effective," explains civil liberties expert Elaine Cassel in The War on Civil Liberties, "meant making it harder to appeal convictions of capital offenses." Clinton's law, says Cassel, also "[made] it a crime to support even the lawful activities of an organization labeled as terrorist [authorized] the FBI to investigate the crime of 'material support' for terrorism based solely on activities protected under the First Amendment [freezes] assets of any US citizen or domestic organization believed to be an agent of a terrorist group, without specifying an 'agent' [expanded] the powers of the secret court [repealed] the law that barred the FBI from opening investigations based solely on activities protected under the First Amendment [and allowed] the Immigration and Naturalization Service (now called the US Citizenship and Immigration Services) to deport citizens (mostly Muslims) upon the order of INS officials."
Of course, these are but a few of the ways in which the Clinton administration infringed upon civil liberties.
http://www.counterpunch.org/frank10102006.html
A Taliban commander in Afghanistan says hundreds of Taliban fighters are ready to launch suicide attacks to drive U-S and NATO troops out of his country.
http://www.wavy.com/Global/story.asp?S=5518977
A CLOSE friend of murdered teenager Kriss Donald told a court yesterday how he fought to save his friend's life as they were attacked by a gang of Asian men.
Unemployed Jamie Wallace, now 22, described how he and the 15-year-old schoolboy were attacked as they walked down a Glasgow street in daylight, in March 2004.
Edinburgh High Court heard Kriss was repeatedly punched and desperately resisted attempts to bundle him into a Mercedes.
Wallace told jurors: "I was trying to fight back. We were surrounded."
He also alleged one attacker shouted "white bastard" as Kriss yelled "I'm only 15".
The trial has heard the partially clothed body of Kriss, from Pollokshields, Glasgow, was found on the Clyde Walkway the day after the alleged abduction.
Imran Shahid, 29, his brother Zeeshan, 29, and Mohammed Mushtaq, 27, deny abducting Kriss, murdering him and setting him on fire.
"Al-Qaida is More Dangerous Than it Was on 9/11"
Some people think Bin Laden's network has been devastated by the war on terrorism, but Bruce Hoffman disagrees: The RAND Corporation expert talks to SPIEGEL ONLINE about al-Qaida's structure since September 11, Hezbollah's ambitions in Lebanon, and the chances of American success in Iraq.
SPIEGEL ONLINE: Mr. Hoffman, five years have passed since 9/11. US officials claim that two-thirds of the al-Qaida leadership have either been captured or killed. Yet you are saying that al-Qaida is on the march. What leads you to that conclusion?
Hoffman: Whatever the percentage of the leadership killed or captured, that was the leadership that existed on 9/11. I find that a tremendous success. I don't want to minimize it. But it is also a dangerously anachronistic view because al-Qaida has been capable of filling that void in five years. The constant succession of "Number Threes" -- people in the post of operations chief, from Mohamed Atef to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to Hambali to Hamza al-Rabi, for instance -- proves that. Al-Qaida has a much deeper bench than we thought. They have shown themselves to be more formidable and perhaps more determined than we imagined.
|
ABOUT BRUCE HOFFMAN
SPIEGEL ONLINE |
Hoffman: You must look at terror as a constant phenomenon. It changes continuously. Even before 9/11 al-Qaida was not a monolithic organisation. Certainly today it is not the same as it was on 9/11. It doesn't have a state within a state anymore, as it had in Afghanistan. It doesn't have a network of training camps and operational bases and a very solid command-and-control nexus. But now a lot of those training capabilities have migrated from physical space to virtual space, because the terrorists are using the Internet much more. Possession of Afghanistan should not be equated with being capable of a 9/11-type attack. Much of the 9/11 attacks were not planned in Afghanistan but in Germany, Spain and the US as well. I think that al-Qaida still exercises command-and-control. The attacks on the London Underground in July 2005 show that. And there are indications that the recently unmasked London airliner plot from this summer will, too. Al-Qaida is still alive and kicking and, as the airliner plot may yet show, still thinking in the same grandiose, ambitious terms as before 9/11.
SPIEGEL ONLINE: But are Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri still the ones ordering attacks?
Hoffman: That's unclear. But there surely is some command structure that functions out of Waziristan. The pattern of the bombings in London in July 2005 for example was almost identical with older plans by al-Qaida. It was carried out by a cell of British Muslim terrorists enlisted by al-Qaida and directed or assisted by al-Qaida cells in Pakistan just as a foiled plan the previous year to attack targets in the US was. In the wishful thinking mode that we are in, we chose not to believe al-Qaida was behind the London attack, and instead believe it was a case of "homegrown terrorism." But that is a myth. The London bombers were no self-radicalized, self-selected individuals acting spontaneously. The ring leader had visited jihadi camps in Pakistan on at least two occasions, and we believe he met with al-Qaida leaders there. By the same token, it wouldn't suprise me if the foiled airliner plot this summer could also be traced back to the al-Qaida leadership. It was also straight out of their textbook and not something self-radicalized, self-selected terrorists could easily devise, organize and coordinate on their own.
SPIEGEL ONLINE: At the same time you write about several new al-Qaidas that exist today...
Hoffman: Yes, because new structures have emerged. It is not an "either/or"-phenomenon: There are both new cells inspired by al-Qaida and actual al-Qaida terrorists active today. That is why I think al-Qaida is more dangerous than it was on 9/11. Because you have now a vast sea of self-radicalized Muslims in many places in the Muslim world that aren't necessarily connected with al-Qaida but willing to act. So you still have an al-Qaida organization that is operating on its own but is also seeking to tap into that pool of unhappiness and disaffection.
SPIEGEL ONLINE: There have been rumors recently about Osama bin Laden being dead or seriously ill. What consequences would his death have?
Hoffman: Bin Laden may be even more powerful dead than alive -- by inspiring people to follow his example of martyrdom. But also alive he is a very influential person, even if he is cut off from communication with his followers. Killing or capturing him straight after 9/11 would have had more impact. The fact that the biggest manhunt in history hasn't led to his arrest until now has already greatly enhanced his standing.
SPIEGEL ONLINE: In your book "Inside Terrorism" you cite Bin Laden's deputy Ayman al-Zawahiri as saying that al-Qaida has the US where they wanted it: if it leaves Iraq, it would be bad, if it stays in Iraq, it wouldn't be any better. Is he right?
Hoffman: Unfortunately I think al-Zawahiri's analysis is probably among the most astute and insightful. I think what he underestimates though is the capacity of the United States to have a positive impact in Iraq or indeed produce the staying power to see through what it has begun. Al-Zawahiri sees Iraq as a flat line that will continue to get worse and descend into total anarchy. Iraq is not a lost cause. We have to realize though that countering complex insurgencies has generally taken at least a decade. So it is still early days, even three years into the conflict there. Therefore, the accuracy of al-Zawahiri's predicition will have to stand the test of time.
SPIEGEL ONLINE: A couple of months ago, the US had to admit that Iraq has become a breeding ground for terrorism.
Hoffman: One of our problems is that we don't take seriously what jihadis say. Even before the invasion, Saif al-Adel, the then military chief of al-Qaida, openly incited foreign fighters to come fight there. Why we didn't believe an insurgency would occur still baffles me. The battle cry had already been sounded. Now we even have Iraqi jihadis, something that formerly didn't exist. In this situation it doesn't matter anymore if invading Iraq was right or not. Now the highest priority must be to succeed in Iraq. But that is going to take time. We have to adjust and adapt to our highly innovative and determined adversaries.
SPIEGEL ONLINE: The UNIFIL peacekeeping force is concentrating in Lebanon to secure a ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah. You have studied Hezbollah for a long time. Can you picture Hezbollah changing into a political party? Or will it stay a terrorist threat?
Hoffman: This also is not an "either/or"-question. Hezbollah, on the one hand, has become a major regional political force. But at the same time I don't see them giving up their military potential, since they style themselves a resistance force protecting Lebanon. Hezbollah can thus take tremendous satisfaction in having acquitted itself well against the Israelis this summer and having gained as much as they can for now: international attention, an improved standing with Shiites and even Sunnis across the Muslim world. They are likely to see the time right now as best used to consolidate these gains. The ceasefire will therefore perhaps hold for the time being -- at least as long as it is in Hezbollah's interest.
SPIEGEL ONLINE: For the first time Germany is sending soldiers to the Middle East. The navy is supposed to make sure no arms are being smuggled to Hezbollah via the Mediterranean. Is that a purely symbolic mission?
FULL INTERVIEW HERE: http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,441695,00.html
When the Reverend Ian Paisley, leader of Northern Ireland's largest Protestant political party, held his first formal talks with the local Roman Catholic archbishop in Belfast, perhaps even more unusual than the fact of the talks themselves was that afterward, each side seemed cheerful, almost optimistic.