Local Islamic leader has ties to raided Quincy co. founder
By Jonathan Wells
The leader of the local Islamic group planning to build a major new mosque in Roxbury is ``close friends’’ with one of the founders of the Quincy software company raided a year ago as part of a federal anti-terrorism investigation.

The friendship between Islamic Society of Boston chairman Osama M. Kandil and Ptech, Inc. founder Hussein Ibrahim was described to federal agents last year by a financier now awaiting sentencing in a terrorism-related immigration case in Virginia.

The financier, Soliman Biheiri, convicted last year of holding multiple passports immigration violations, told the agents during a June 15 interview ``that (Hussein) Ibrahim and (Osama) Kandil were close friends, and were both active in the Muslim Students Association (MSA),’’ acccording to a U.S. Treasury Department investigative report made public Monday in U.S. District Court in Alexandria.

Kandil, Ibrahim and Biheiri are subjects of a complex federal terrorism financing probe that began in Northern Virginia two months after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and has expanded to other cities around the country, including Boston, according to court records and law enforcement sources.

Kandil and certain other individuals involved with the Islamic Society of Boston are being looked at by investigators partly because of the group’s plan to build the largest mosque and cultural center in the Northeast on land in Roxbury, according to one high-level law enforcement source.

Another subject of the probe is Ptech, which was bankrolled by Yasin al-Qadi, a wealthy Saudi investor who has been officially designated by the U.S. government as a terrorism financier.

Ptech was raided by federal agents in December 2002 and remains under investigation, sources said. No officers or employees of the company have been charged with a crime and al-Qadi has denied any involvement in financing terrorists.

The company’s close relationship with al-Qadi is of concern to investigators because Ptech provided software and consulting to numerous federal agencies, including the FBI, the Federal Aviation Administration and the Department of Defense.

In 1985, Biheiri and Ibrahim founded an Islamic investment company in New Jersey called Bait ul Mal, or BMI, Inc. Biheiri said he and Ibrahim took money from handled various investments for al-Qadi, including an initial $5 million for Ptech routed through Kadi International, a U.S. company controlled by al-Qadi.

Later, al-Qadi invested another $5 million in Ptech directly, without the involvement of BMI, Biheiri said.

Biheiri also disclosed in the interview that Kandil invested $25,000 in BMI and ``made a slight profit and received his money back.’’

Three other major investors in BMI were the mother, sister and nephew of terrorist leader Osama bin Laden, Biheiri said. Bin Laden’s nephew, Abdullah bin Laden, invested approximately $500,000 in the company and made additional investments in BMI on behalf of his terrorist uncle’s mother and sister, but Biheiri did not recall the amounts.

Kandil and Abdullah bin Laden were both founding directors of the nonprofit Muslim Arab Youth Association, a controversial group that served as a platform for extremist elements of the Islamic world.

The two men have also served as directors of Taibah International Aid Association, a group long suspected by U.S. authorities of supporting terrorism.

Can anything be more moving than the joyous throngs swarming the streets of Baghdad? Memories of the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the defeat of Milosevic in Belgrade flood back. Statues and images of Saddam are smashed and defiled. Liberation is at hand. Liberation — the powerful balm that justifies painful sacrifice, erases lingering doubt and reinforces bold actions. Already the scent of victory is in the air. Yet a bit more work and some careful reckoning need to be done before we take our triumph.

Still, the immediate tasks at hand in Iraq cannot obscure the significance of the moment. The regime seems to have collapsed — the primary military objective — and with that accomplished, the defense ministers and generals, soldiers and airmen should take pride. American and Brits, working together, produced a lean plan, using only about a third of the ground combat power of the Gulf War. If the alternative to attacking in March with the equivalent of four divisions was to wait until late April to attack with five, they certainly made the right call.

But no one ever won a war or a battle with a plan. Every soldier knows there are only two kinds of plans: plans that might work and plans that won’t work. The art of war is to take a plan that might work and then drive it to success. This, General Tommy Franks and his team did very well indeed.

But the operation in Iraq will also serve as a launching pad for further diplomatic overtures, pressures and even military actions against others in the region who have supported terrorism and garnered weapons of mass destruction. Don’t look for stability as a Western goal. Governments in Syria and Iran will be put on notice — indeed, may have been already — that they are “next” if they fail to comply with Washington’s concerns.

As for the political leaders themselves, President Bush and Tony Blair should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt. And especially Mr Blair, who skillfully managed tough internal politics, an incredibly powerful and sometimes almost irrationally resolute ally, and concerns within Europe. Their opponents, those who questioned the necessity or wisdom of the operation, are temporarily silent, but probably unconvinced. And more tough questions remain to be answered.

Is this victory? Certainly the soldiers and generals can claim success. And surely, for the Iraqis there is a new-found sense of freedom. But remember, this was all about weapons of mass destruction. They haven’t yet been found. It was to continue the struggle against terror, bring democracy to Iraq, and create change, positive change, in the Middle East. And none of that is begun, much less completed.

Mark Tran
Monday August 2, 1999

Nato supreme commander General Wesley Clark is not being allowed to fade away quietly. Days after the Clinton administration relieved him of his command two months early, Newsweek is reporting that the victor of Kosovo was blocked from sending paratroopers to Pristina airport to pre-empt an unexpected Russian advance. Lieutenant-general Sir Michael Jackson overruled General Clark because the British commander did not want to spark a clash with the Russians. "I’m not going to start Third World War for you," General Jackson told the US commander, according to Newsweek. In the hours that followed General Clark’s order, both men sought political backing for their position, but only General Jackson received it.

News of the clash between the British and US commanders comes just days after the US snubbed General Clark by ordering him to step down next year, two months early, to make way for Air Force General Joseph Ralston, vice chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. The move is widely seen as a rebuke for the man who led Nato to victory, but who clashed repeatedly with his superiors because he favoured more aggressive tactics. General Clark, for example, pressed for the use of Apache attack helicopters, but his wish was denied amid fears of American casualties.

Trouble flared between the two men as soon as General Jackson was appointed commander on the ground in Kosovo. Talks on Russia’s role had broken down and the American general was so anxious to stop Moscow from stealing a march on the allies, he ordered British and French troops to take the airport. General Clark then asked fellow American commander Admiral James Ellis, in charge of Nato’s Southern Command, to land helicopters on the runways to prevent giant Russian Ilyushin transport coming in. However, Admiral Ellis also refused, saying General Jackson would not like it. The Russian planes were only prevented from landing after US officials persuaded Hungary to deny them permission to overfly the country. Both generals turned to their political masters for support, but while the British government backed General Jackson’s judgment, General Clark received no support, effectively meaning his orders were overruled.

"Ultimately, Clark’s plan was executed as NATO’s first armed conflict. Serb police and military were replaced with an international security force in Kosovo, and costly ground conflict was avoided. It had been a limited war with limited means and objectives but successful coercive diplomacy nonetheless. Clark viewed it as a victory, and although initially shocked to find himself relieved and retired in the aftermath, he reflected that the warning signs had been there all along: ’Somewhere in the back of my mind I had been half expecting something. I had pushed very hard to make the strategy work in the Balkans. Almost from the start there had been frictions, and after [GEN John M.] Shalikashvili’s retirement in September 1997, it had been a cool relationship with the Secretary and his team.’"

Q : General Clark -- will he be invited to come in and brief us when he gets back to Washington? And isn’t this his last day today? And is he resigning as well?

ADM. QUIGLEY: General Clark is retiring. This is the day that he has been relieved of command of his U.S. hat. The person that holds his position wears two hats. One is U.S. One is NATO. These are two separate ceremonies. Today’s took place in Stuttgart, Germany. Tomorrow’s is in Mons, Belgium, for the NATO hat. So today he has been relieved of the U.S. hat. Tomorrow it is the NATO hat. And then he will be relieved of his duties and will retire this summer.

"In a general sense, you can argue that pulling an officer out of command prematurely is a form of ’relief’, and semantically, you would be right. But the problem is that in the Army, ’relief’ is a term of art. AR 600-20, the Army Command Policy, defines ’relief for cause’ in paragraph 2-17. Bear in mind that this policy is written for junior commanders, and it technically doesn’t apply to the SACEUR position. But I quote it because it defines ’relief’ as its used in the Army today."