March 29, 2006: From the beginning, in September, 2001, Afghanistan was very much a special operations (commando) war. The United States asked all of its allies to contribute their commando forces, and most eagerly obliged. This enthusiasm came from the realization that this part of the world was particularly difficult to operate in. In addition, most nations saw Islamic terrorism as a real threat, and knew that key terrorist leaders were still hiding out in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iran. Even after the invasion of Iraq in 2003, which many Western and Middle Eastern nations opposed, they kept sending their commandoes to Afghanistan.
Most of these commando operations have been kept secret. This is typical for commando operations, but in this case, many of the nations involved don't want it known that they are involved. This has especially been the case with Arab nations that have contributed commando units. The only time any information gets into the media is, typically, when a commando contingent returns. In that way, the Norwegian media recently covered the return of their special forces from, as it was described, "another mission" to Afghanistan . Many nations have either sent their commandoes to Afghanistan in shifts, maintaining a near continuous presence, or send some in for a few months, or up to a year, then bring them home for a year or so, before sending them back.
Afghanistan has been called "the Commando Olympics," because so many nations have contingents there. While the different commando organizations aren't competing with each other, they are performing similar missions, using slightly different methods and equipment. Naturally, everyone compares notes and makes changes based on combat experience. That's the draw for commandoes, getting and using "combat experience." Training is great, but there's nothing like operating against an armed and hostile foe. This is all a real big thing, as the participating commandoes are becoming a lot more effective. But you can't get a photograph of this increased capability, and the commandoes aren't talking to the press. So it's all a big story you'll never hear much about, except in history books, many years from now.
Posted by: Steve ||
03/29/2006 12:58 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
In this case, the more there is to not hear about, the happier I'll be.
#3
Realistic training is relative. Remember that most of these nations do not have any military personnel who are oriented to force projection, only internal security.
Afghanistan itself is a hellacious place, and just for them to be able to function there may be good enough. It is almost as if they were deposited on another planet, where 90% of their task is survival, and anything else they do is just icing on the cake.
Does their equipment work? Can they as soldiers handle the grueling terrain, weather and other conditions? Will they adapt? Then *finally*, how do they handle themselves in a combat situation?
These soldiers then head home to either immediate dismissal, or on the fast track to promotion, after intensive debriefing.
Afghan lawmakers demand that Christian convert not be allowed to leave
KABUL, Afghanistan Afghanistan's parliament demanded Wednesday that the government prevent a man who faced the death penalty for abandoning Islam for Christianity from being able to flee the country.
Italy granted asylum to Abdul Rahman, 41, and the Foreign Ministry said he would arrive there soon, maybe within the day.
Rahman was released from prison Monday after a court dropped charges of apostasy against him because of a lack of evidence and suspicions he may be mentally ill. President Hamid Karzai had been under heavy international pressure to drop the case.
Rahman was released from the high-security Policharki prison on the outskirts of the capital late Monday. Justice Minister Mohammed Sarwar Danish said Tuesday that Rahman was staying at a safe location in Kabul.
His current whereabouts were unknown.
The Italian government granted asylum to Rahman after Muslim clerics called for his death.
I say that we are very glad to be able to welcome someone who has been so courageous, Premier Silvio Berlusconi said.
Afghan lawmakers debated the issue Wednesday and said Rahman should not be allowed to leave the country. However, they did not take a formal vote on the issue.
We sent a letter and called the Interior Ministry and demanded they not allow Abdul Rahman to leave the country, parliamentary speaker Yunus Qanooni told reporters on behalf of the entire body. Qanooni ==>
Interior Ministry officials could not immediately be reached for comment.
Rahman was put on trial last week for converting 16 years ago while he was a medical aid worker for an international Christian group helping Afghan refugees in Pakistan. He was carrying a Bible when arrested and faced the death penalty under Afghanistan's Islamic laws.
The case caused an outcry in the United States and other nations that helped oust the hard-line Taliban regime in late 2001 and provide aid and military support for Karzai.
Muslim clerics condemned Rahman's release, saying it was a betrayal of Islam, and threatened to incite violent protests.
Some 500 Muslim leaders, students and others gathered Wednesday in a mosque in southern Qalat town and criticized the government for releasing Rahman, said Abdulrahman Jan, the top cleric in Zabul province.
He said the government should either force Rahman to convert back to Islam or kill him.
This is a terrible thing and a major shame for Afghanistan, he said.
Rahman has appealed to leave Afghanistan, and the United Nations has been working to find a country willing to take him.
Italy has close ties with Afghanistan, whose former king, Mohammed Zaher Shah, was allowed to live in exile in Rome with his family for 30 years. The former royals returned to Kabul after the Taliban fell.
The United States and Germany welcomed Rahman's release from prison.
Obviously it's good news that he has been released, White House press secretary Scott McClellan said.
Germany, a major donor to Afghanistan that has about 2,000 troops in the NATO security force, also expressed satisfaction.
I think this is a sensible signal to the international community but also for the situation in Afghanistan, German Chancellor Angela Merkel said.
Aaah yes the religion of peace desiring a peaceful murder again.
#1
Here's a good but depressing quote from Big Pharoah:
The Christian reformation was bloody and messy, the Islamic reformation will take generations before it bears any fruit. There are 2 reasons why.
First, currently, we are not even in stage one. We are below the zero level. The debate of whether a convert out of islam should be killed or not didn't even commense. If such a simple crystal clear thing, the right to change religion, is still not being discussed, then when do you think will the Islamic world start discussing issues such as women rights, freedom of speech, and the seperation of politics and religion?
Second, Muslims are busy blaming the Jooooooz and America. When you are busy blaming others for your ills, you have no time to look at the mirror.
So ladies and gentlement, we're in this for the long haul. Don't forget to tell that to your grandchildren.
I hope he's wrong
Posted by: Matt ||
03/29/2006 12:53 Comments ||
Top||
#2
This is a terrible thing and a major shame for Afghanistan,
#3
According to Michelle Malkin, Mr. Rahman has arrived safely in Italy. However, other Afghan Christians are being harassed and arrested, now that attention has been brought to their existence.
Arab leaders reached a summit deal to provide funding for cash-strapped African Union troops in Sudan's Darfur region amid international pressure to accept the dispatch of a UN force. The move came after Sudan pressed fellow members of the Arab League to reject plans for the deployment of UN peacekeepers to Darfur, where war, disease and famine have cost up to 300,000 lives in three years. Announcing a deal after a closed-door session at the summit, Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh told reporters that Arab leaders had also agreed to strengthen the AU force by providing troops from Arab states. Palestinian foreign minister Nasser al-Qidwa confirmed that an agreement had been reached to "finance the AU troops for a period of six months" or until the end of its current mission which was renewed in March. He said Arab leaders had called on Arab African countries to send more troops to join the AU force.
Sorry, people of Darfur. You're screwed.
Leaders of the 22-member Arab League failed however to fill the gap emerging over a threatened Western freeze on aid to a Hamas-led Palestinian government, appearing set to keep their own aid at existing levels. The Palestinian Authority, soon to be led by the radical Islamic group Hamas, looked set for bad news after Hamas supremo Khaled Meshaal urged Arab countries to open their coffers to help stave off a widening financial crisis. Meshaal specifically asked for some 130 170 million dollars a month. But a draft resolution on the Palestinian question, which is expected to be adopted, has suggested keeping the monthly allocation at the 55 million dollars decided at last year's summit in Algeria.
Too bad, so sad.
Beshir urged his counterparts not to succumb to international efforts to isolate Hamas over its refusal to recognise Israel, forswear violence or honor previous agreements with the Jewish state. The summit's agenda was squeezed into one day from the originally planned two days, and some leaders have already left Khartoum. But a final declaration is not expected before Wednesday.
"Wouldja look at the time? So sorry, gotta make like a camel and ship out!"
Unidentified criminals shot and wounded a Jatiyatabadi Chhatra Dal (JCD) leader while 10 Jubo League activists were injured in a clash between themselves at Pallabi yesterday in the capital. Morshed Khan Ejaz, 26, general secretary of JCD Motijheel thana unit, was having tea at a roadside tea-stall around 11:15am when the criminals sprayed bullets on him, police said.
Ejaz, also an undergraduate student of a private university, received eight bullets in both of his legs and was admitted to Dhaka Medical College Hospital (DMCH). Police suspect Ejaz, who claimed he did not know why he was attacked, was assaulted due to a feud inside his group. Meanwhile, hundreds of Jubo League activists gathered in front of Mollah Market at Mirpur section 12 to get information about the formation of their unit committee.
Witnesses said at least 30 Jubo League activists suddenly attacked the other members of the front with sticks and iron rods when their names were not mentioned for the committee. Five of injured were treated at the DMCH yesterday afternoon while the rest in local hospitals.
Posted by: Fred ||
03/29/2006 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
LONDON (Reuters) - The government is set to introduce national identity cards to combat fraud and terrorism from 2008 after the House of Lords agreed a compromise deal with the Labour party on Wednesday. The planned biometric cards, which will carry fingerprint, iris and face recognition technology, are the world's most ambitious, say experts, and could be used as a model for other countries, including the United States.
No thanks
Critics say they are unworkable and costly and argue they infringe civil liberties.
The compromise, over the degree of compulsion, will be a relief to Prime Minister Tony Blair, who has been dogged by sleaze allegations and questions over his future in the last few weeks. His authority has been waning since he said he would not seek a fourth term at the next election, due by mid-2010.
The House of Lords had repeatedly rejected the government's ID card plans but has now accepted a compromise under which people applying for a new passport will have an opt-out until 2010 although their details will be put on an ID card database.
So they put all your info in, but you don't get a card? Well, that's ok then
"I am delighted that we have been able to give our backing to (this) amendment," said junior interior minister Andy Burnham. He said it ensured that everyone who applied for a passport would have their biometric information placed on the register while it also alleviated the concerns of those who had argued the cards should not yet be compulsory.
Just how does it do that?
Labour has long had plans to introduce ID cards, which it says will help tackle identity theft, abuse of the state benefits system, illegal immigration, organised crime and terrorism, although the measure has hit fierce opposition. In its policy blueprint for last year's election Labour said it was committed to introducing identity cards, initially on a voluntary basis. Since then it sought to link the scheme to passport applications.
It will be the first time Britons have carried ID cards since they were abolished after World War Two. ID cards are used in about a dozen European Union countries but are not always compulsory and do not carry as much data.
The House of Commons, is expected to formally approve the House of Lords decision later on Wednesday.
Posted by: Steve ||
03/29/2006 16:01 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
And remember, they also have a national DNA database, a medical records database, a total vehicle travel database (all vehicles all the time), marketing and god knows how many other databases, that all fit together into a great big fat dossier on Louise Banbridge-Stewart (Mrs.), ret., for some utterly unfathomable reason.
ANKARA, Turkey (AP) - Riot police fired water cannons and used pepper spray to disperse stone-throwing Kurdish rioters Wednesday in a second day of violence sparked by the killing of autonomy-seeking guerrillas in southeastern Turkey.
The pro-Kurdish mayor of Diyarbakir, the largest city in the southeast, claimed two rioters were shot to death in the rioting that began Tuesday and was among the worst in decades. Authorities would not confirm any killing or gunshot injury.
The Turkish army moved combat vehicles to the city's outskirts after clashes broke out Tuesday when thousands of protesters rampaged, hurling firebombs at armored police vehicles and smashing windows at a police station, after funerals for the Kurdish guerrillas killed by Turkish troops last week. About 200 rioters took to the streets again on Wednesday, blocking streets with burning car tires and hurling stones at riot police. They also smashed the windows of the local businesses and set a truck on fire before they were dispersed by security forces firing into the air and using a water cannon and tear gas. Paramilitary troops stationed outside the governor's office also quickly repelled a group of stone-throwing protesters.
At least 36 police officers and paramilitary troops and six civilians were injured and 80 people were detained in the two days of violence, Interior Minister Abdulkadir Aksu said. Four people with gunshot wounds were rushed to hospitals on Tuesday, hospital officials said. Mayor Osman Baydemir who is from a pro-Kurdish political party claimed that two people were killed and ``several people have been wounded by gunshots as a result of security forces' intervention.'' Authorities were still assessing damage in the city as municipality workers cleaned the wreckage of burned cars and broken glass littering the streets from the previous night.
``The aim of the perpetrators and rioters of this incidents is to destroy the unity of our country and the environment of safety,'' Aksu said. ``Our security forces will find and hand over the perpetrators, collaborators, provocateurs and their affiliates to justice and they will be given the punishment they deserved.''
Authorities boosted security in Diyarbakir. A long convoy of armored personnel carriers rumbled toward a major military base on the outskirts of the city as authorities called in police reinforcements from nearby cities. The slain guerrillas were among 14 killed by soldiers in the province of Mus in a two-day clash that ended Saturday. They belonged to the Kurdistan Workers Party, which has been fighting for autonomy in southeastern Turkey since 1984.
Further west in Adana, some 3,000 Kurdish protesters attending the funeral of another slain guerrilla also clashed with police on Tuesday, prompting the officers to detain several people. Tensions have been running high in the southeast, where autonomy-seeking Kurdish guerrillas have escalated attacks recently. The fight for autonomy has killed more than 37,000 people. The Kurdistan Workers Party is considered a terrorist organization by Turkey, the United States and the European Union. Turkey is under pressure from the European Union, which it wants to join, to grant more rights to its sizable Kurdish population that it does recognize as an official minority. But Ankara has ruled out any dialogue with the Kurdish guerrillas whom it regards as terrorists.
Meanwhile, Foreign Ministry Spokesman Namik Tan urged Denmark to shut down a Danish-based Kurdish satellite television station, Roj TV, which reportedly encouraged Kurdish rioters during Tuesday's clashes in Diyarbakir. Turkey accuses Roj TV of being a mouthpiece for the PKK. Danish authorities say they are still investigating, while Roj TV insists it has no links to the rebels.
Posted by: Steve ||
03/29/2006 13:17 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
Tuesday, March 28, 2006
African boat people: an ignored story
So far in 2006 about five thousand boat people (all figures are guesses except for the number caught by police) of West African origin, mostly Malians and Senegalese, have left the Mauritanian coast near Nouadibuh for the western Canary Islands, an integral part of Spain and of the EU. Illegal immigrants used to try to cross the Mediterranean from Morocco to Spain, or to make the short passage from the southwestern Morocco coast to the eastern Canary Islands. However, there are now so many patrols that such voyages are rarely attempted. Instead, they sail out into the open sea and then hope to catch the current up to the western Canaries, a journey of more than 1000 nautical miles, in primitive wooden Mauritanian open fishing boats. Spanish authorities have caught over 3000 of them, and are now in the process of deporting them back to Africa. Maybe 1000 made the Canaries without getting caught, and took commercial flights from there to the European mainland. At least 1000, and possibly as many as 2000, have died at sea from drowning or exposure or thirst, according to official estimates. So many illegals - almost all from Muslim majority countries - are trying to get to Europe that they have formed mini-cities of inhabitants waiting for the first opportunity. Muslims hate the West, but they want to live here. I guess their Koran says hate at close range is better.
This is a first-class humanitarian tragedy, and the international media is nowhere on it. Give them time and they will point the finger at White racism, for what is the result of Islam's backward way-of-life prescriptions.
And it's only going to get worse, as there are 10-15,000 people, almost all young men, waiting near Nouadibuh for their turn. A lot of these people are going to die... It is a tragedy, but many of these people would end up in jihad-gangs that cause the social upheaval that we saw last Fall in Muslim occupied France.
Posted by: Listen to Dogs ||
03/29/2006 11:52 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Just wait till they discover crack, then they'll really give you something to cry about.
It is interesting to note that these Muslim immigrants state quite openly that they are involved in a war, and see participation in crime and harassment of the native population as such. This is completely in line with what I have posited before. The number of rape charges in Sweden has quadrupled in just above twenty years. Rape cases involving children under the age of 15 are six times as common today as they were a generation ago. Most other kinds of violent crime have rapidly increased, too. Instability is spreading to most urban and suburban areas. Resident aliens from Algeria, Libya, Morocco and Tunisia dominate the group of rape suspects. Lawyer Ann Christine Hjelm found that 85 per cent of the convicted rapists were born on foreign soil or from foreign parents.
The phenomenon is not restricted to Sweden. The number of rapes committed by Muslim immigrants in Western nations is so extremely high that it is difficult to view these rapes as merely random acts of individuals. It resembles warfare. This is happening in most Western European countries, as well as in other non muslim countries such as India. European jails are filling up with Muslims imprisoned for robberies and all kinds of violent crimes, and Muslims bomb European civilians. One can see the mainstream media are struggling to make sense of all of this. That is because they cannot, or do not want to, see the obvious: this is exactly how an invading army would behave: rape, pillage and bombing. If many of the Muslim immigrants see themselves as conquerors in a war, it all makes perfect sense. Islam is a supremacist ideology. A Muslim cannot believe in the popular equality of individuals or the sovereign equality of states. That is why the Islamist movement must be totally crushed, prior to the time when proliferation indulgence allows our mortal enemy to wage nuclear-jihad.
Malmö in Sweden, set to become the first Scandinavian city with a Muslim majority within a decade or two, has nine times as many reported robberies per capita as Copenhagen, Denmark. Yet the number one priority for the political class in Sweden during this years national election campaign seems to be demonizing neighboring Denmark for xenophobia and a brutal debate about Muslim immigration... "Plough your women, as fields," says the Koran. Those infidel bodies in those puny bikinis; even a good Muslim can't resist.
Posted by: Listen to Dogs ||
03/29/2006 01:31 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Ummmm ... isn't she on a beach in South Florida? They have bitches beaches like that in Sweden?
#2
A good start would be chemical castration for those convicted of participation in gang rape. Pretty difficult to sow those seeds of Islam when you're shooting blanks.
Free karate self-defense classes for women with special emphasis on groin kicks, elbows and chops might put a damper on things, too.
#4
Free classes in the use of a Sig 239 would be much more effective.
Ever examined the issues of weapons ownership, especially handguns, in socialist countries? We won't even go into the concept of private citizen concealed carry.
#7
Chemical castration is a temporary fix. Make it physical, for gang rapists, and we can talk. For close-in work like this, a stout walking stick is better than a gun, I'd think, and much better than just elbows and fists, when it's one girl against a group of bad guys looking for a bit'o'fun.
#8
"Ever examined the issues of weapons ownership, especially handguns, in socialist countries? We won't even go into the concept of private citizen concealed carry."
Yes, I have. That was partly my point. The .gov robs the people of self defense. Victim Disarmament is the rapists' version of OSHA.
I was an exchange student to Sweden 25 years ago. One of my host 'fathers' owned some pistols. He described a process of mental health checks, sworn affadavits and character references from relatives & colleagues, etc., just to get a permit...
Not to mention a very expensive and mandatory safe to store the weapons that any bank or jeweler would envy...
It would probably be easier to adopt a child than LEGALLY buy a gun in Sweden.
#10
Agreed, psychohillbilly. Is anybody else reminded of the ending of "A Clockwork Orange"? Far too much of our society is having its survival instinct bred out of it. Even sadder is how the fathers, uncles and brothers of these Scandinavian women aren't forming up to take the fight where it belongs.
#11
JDB, my brother lives in Canada. There, you have to go down to the local RCMP station and apply for a permit to transport your weapon to the shooting range. Being caught with a weapon in your car and no such permit is a major no-no. Makes me glad to live in America. As a friend of mine used to say:
#12
If my daughter were a Swedish women, I'd get her trained up on a .48 or whatever. I'd rather have a dead deviate than a scarred daughter (or wife).
Posted by: Captain America ||
03/29/2006 17:36 Comments ||
Top||
#13
If guns are illegal, I suppose that crossbows, tasers, nunchucks, shuriken, swords, and railguns are straight out as well.
#14
If (my) Viking descendants won't defend their women, what have we come to - start to deride the men of thescandinavian world for th equislings they've become. Loose the rules for fighting back (and payback). Time for islamassholes to reap what they've sown. Castration with severe blood loss tends to focus the mind
Posted by: Frank G ||
03/29/2006 21:41 Comments ||
Top||
#15
Many decades ago a friend's sister was raped and beaten up on a date. She was left bleeding in a ditch in Nebraska in a snow storm. My friend was not a nice guy. His contacts spotted the rapist in a bar in Kansas. He, his buddies + the sister sped to the bar and found the guy.
They nutted him right on the pool table and the sister took his balls for safe keeping.
Write Caterpillars chief executive officer to demand the company immediately stop sales of its D9 bulldozer to the Israeli military. The bulldozer is the militarys primary weapon to raze Palestinian homes, shred roads, and turn terrorist loving leftist wackos into pancakes level greenhouses in the West Bank and Gaza Strip in violation of the laws of war.
Sample Letter:
James W. Owens
Chair and CEO, Caterpillar, Inc.
100 NE Adams St.
Peoria, IL. 61629-1425
Dear Mr. Owens,
I am writing to urge Caterpillar Inc. to stop all sales of D9 bulldozers, parts and maintenance services to the Israel Defense Force (IDF) so long as the bulldozers are used to destroy Palestinian homes and property in the West Bank and Gaza Strip in violation of international humanitarian law.
The D9 is the IDFs main tool to destroy terrorist hideouts civilian homes. Israeli soldiers often give Palestinians no warning before they crash the massive vehicle through the walls of their homes. The rear blade, known as the ripper, tears up roads, pulling up water and sewage pipes. At least three Palestinians have been killed in recent years by the bulldozer and falling debris because they could not flee their homes in time.
Human rights organizations have documented the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) systematic use of the D9 bulldozer in illegal demolitions throughout the West Bank and Gaza Strip. The IDF has demolished over 2,500 Palestinian homes in the Gaza Strip alone, most of them without military justification. Nearly two-thirds of those homes were in Rafah, a town and refugee camp on the southern border with Egypt. The Israeli military has used the Caterpillar bulldozer to raze over 10 percent of the town, and plans to demolish up to 20 percent more in connection with the governments Gaza disengagement plan.
The IDF, which regularly comes under fire from Palestinian armed groups in Rafah, claims the destruction is militarily necessary. But human rights groups have documented the extensive destruction of homes and infrastructure that posed no genuine military threat.
I believe Caterpillar has an important obligation to ensure its products are not used to violate human rights. While sales to the IDF continue, Caterpillar is complicit in serious human rights violations against civilians.
Please consider your companys responsibility in the suffering that results. Call on the Israeli military to use your equipment within the confines of the law, and refuse to sell them more bulldozers until you have evidence and assurances that illegal demolitions and destruction will desist.
Sincerely,
[the placemat formerly known as Rachel Corrie YOUR SIGNATURE HERE]
Good Lord, more than that have blown up in work-related accidents! What remarkable restraint on the part of Israeli's and what a great bulldozer - very precise! Increased sales coming your way CAT, what with today's swearing-in and all!
Canada has ended all relations with the new Palestinian government, Ottawa announced Wednesday.
Canada has ended any contacts with the members of the Hamas cabinet and is suspending assistance to the Palestinian Authority, Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay said.
"Not a red cent to Hamas," MacKay said on CBC's Inside Politics. "This is a terrorist organization."
Posted by: john ||
03/29/2006 20:01 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[10 views]
Top|| File under:
Eyeing House and Senate elections this fall, Democrats are stepping up their effort to cut into the public perception that Republicans are stronger on national security.
Congressional Democrats vow to provide U.S. agents with the resources to hunt down Osama bin Laden and ensure a "responsible redeployment of U.S. forces" from Iraq in 2006 in a national security policy statement House and Senate Democratic leaders were announcing Wednesday.
"We need a new direction on national security, and leaders with policies that are tough and smart. That is what Democrats offer," Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said in remarks prepared for delivery Wednesday.
His counterpart in the House, Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said Democrats were providing a fresh strategy _ "one that is strong and smart, which understands the challenges America faces in a post 9/11 world, and one that demonstrates that Democrats are the party of real national security."
Republicans criticized the statement as an election-year stunt.
"I trust in the common sense of the American people to see these efforts for what they are: misguided political attacks that are simply a bob-and-weave effort by those who have no real solutions or proposals of their own," Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, said.
The Democratic statement lacks specific details of a plan to capture bin Laden, the al-Qaida chief who has evaded U.S. forces in the more than four years since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. But Democrats suggest they will double the number of special forces and add more spies to increase the chances of finding al-Qaida's elusive leader.
Democrats also do not set a deadline for when all of the 132,000 American troops now in Iraq should be withdrawn.
They say: "We will ensure 2006 is a year of significant transition to full Iraqi sovereignty, with the Iraqis assuming primary responsibility for security and governing their country and with the responsible redeployment of U.S. forces."
The latest in a series of party policy statements for 2006, the Democrats' national security platform comes seven months before voters decide who will control the House and Senate.
Bush's job approval ratings are in the mid- to high-30s, and Democrats consistently have about a 10 percentage point lead over Republicans when people are asked who they want to see in control of Congress.
With the public skeptical of the Iraq war and Republicans and Democrats alike questioning Bush's war policies, Democrats aim to force Republicans to distance themselves from the president on Iraq and national security or rubber-stamp what Democrats contend is a failed policy.
Democratic strategists say their polling shows Democrats leading in all other areas _ such as the economy, health care, education and retirement security _ and having closed a gap in polls with Republicans on national security.
Republicans characterized the Democrats' platform as tough election- year talk that isn't backed up by the party's record.
"This is more of the same from the party that opposes this president's effort to keep our country safe," said Tracey Schmitt, a Republican National Committee spokeswoman.
Overall, the Democratic position paper covers party policy positions on homeland security, the war on terror, the military, Iraq and energy security. However, it contains many of the same proposals Democrats have offered over the past year.
For months, House and Senate Democrats have tried to craft a comprehensive position on national security, but they have splintered, primarily over Iraq.
Republicans have sought to use that division to their own political advantage, claiming that Democrats simply attack the president and his fellow Republicans without presenting proposals of their own.
Posted by: Captain America ||
03/29/2006 17:19 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
"We need a new direction on national security, and leaders with policies that are tough and smart."
Note to Dems: Harry Reid is about the last guy you want spouting stuff like that. He comes across about as tough and smart as a turnip.
Let me guess: what that really means is "withdraw our troops to a safe place where they won't have to fight jihadis."
Am I right? Yup, I thought so. "Tough and smart." Uh-huh...
God have mercy on us if we're so stupid as to ever allow these feckless dingalings back in power. Because one thing is absolutely certain: if we do, the rest of the world won't show us any mercy.
Neither will history.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
03/29/2006 17:48 Comments ||
Top||
#8
This is what Harry and Nancy are trying to tell Americans:
Posted by: Dave D. ||
03/29/2006 19:03 Comments ||
Top||
#9
I just had a vision of Reid drivin' a tank around similar to Dukakis. I'm seein' an extra large helmet pulled down over his brow. With Nancy reading a map upside down. They're serious damnit!! "You got a war face Nancy!!" "Lemme see your war face!!"
Uncle Harry channeling R. Lee Emory.. It'll be the next comercial.
Oh, I just had a vision of Babble Boxer in a Gille suit as a sniper w/ Osama in her sights. Nice!!!
#10
Expect lots of Kerry-style "why haven't we captured bin Laden?, we took our eye off the ball" baloney between now and Nov. Hopefully with electoral results for the Dems similar to those of 2004.
I don't know what it is about libs that causes them to retry the same failed approaches over and over again, but, at least when it comes to politics, I'm sure happy they do.
#18
At least we'd find out how amphibious the tank really is.
Posted by: Phil ||
03/29/2006 22:30 Comments ||
Top||
#19
The Dems remind me of my first attempt at writing a proposal for an engineering contract:
"We have done many fine and wonderful things. We have a great team of top notch specialists. We will develop and implement a sound plan that will meet your needs into the distant future. And because of the above, we are the best people for the job."
Posted by: Alaska Paul ||
03/29/2006 22:35 Comments ||
Top||
Construction workers cleaning a vacant building near the World Trade Center site have found bone fragments and human remains, officials said on Tuesday. The four fragments will be tested to determine if they are remains of victims of the September 11 attacks, said Ellen Borakove, spokeswoman for the city Medical Examiner. The remains were found in late January and on March 24 in the Deutsche Bank building, a 41-story neighbor of the twin towers that was severely damaged when the towers collapsed in the 2001 attack, she said. Some remains were discovered on the 38th floor and others were found on the roof. Ten human bone fragments were found on the rooftop in the fall.
The medical examiner's office will determine whether the newest remains are human and then try to match them to existing DNA profiles, Borakove said. The remains were found by crews cleaning the building before construction workers begin dismantling it in June. "If the DNA extracted doesn't have enough points to match to a person, it's a partial identification, but we're doing a lot of things to try to generate new technology to identify people with a partial DNA profile," Borakove said.
Recovering the remains of victims of the attacks has been a slow process, and identifying victims from tiny fragments such as bone shards has not always been possible. Borakove said the medical examiner's office has identified partial remains from 1,595 people of the 2,749 killed. Some 9,720 unidentified bone and tissue fragments have been sealed and stored in case developments in technology make identification possible in the future, officials have said.
LAHORE: The Lahore High Court has rejected the appeals of four civilians employees of the Pakistan Air Force convicted of involvement in an assassination attempt on Gen Pervez Musharraf. Justice Mohammad Akhtar Shabbir ruled that under Article 199 (3) of the Constitution, the LHC could not hear appeals against a military courts decision.
I will now approach the Supreme Court against this decision, the convicts counsel Col (r) Malik Akram later told reporters. He gave no further details and only said the prosecution had a very weak case against my clients. I will prove it. Technicians Khalid Mahmood, Nawazish Ali, Niaz Mohammad and Adnan Rashid were convicted and sentenced to death by a military court on October 3, 2005, for involvement in an assassination attempt on Gen Musharraf in Rawalpindi on December 14, 2003. Akram argued on Tuesday that there was no direct evidence against his clients. He said there had been a 131-day delay before the accuseds statements were recorded and they had been forced into making a confession. He also said the convicts were not provided copies of the judgment.
Posted by: Fred ||
03/29/2006 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[7 views]
Top|| File under:
The government is considering calling a "grand jirga" in the tribal areas to work towards peace in the area, Interior Minister Aftab Sherpao said on Tuesday. The jirga would consist of tribal elders, clerics, local councillors and government officials and its job would be to identify "anti-state elements" and persuade tribesmen not to shelter foreign militants, the minister told reporters.
Sherpao said the government was taking several measures to bring peace to the tribal areas, one of which was to crackdown on foreign militants. "We are committed to establishing complete writ of the government in the tribal areas," he said.
Posted by: Fred ||
03/29/2006 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under:
The government will not remove the subject of jihad from the school curriculum, Education Minister Javed Ashraf Qazi said on Tuesday. The minister told reporters after a prize distribution ceremony at a school here that the governments new education policy will be implemented from 2007. Geography and history will be re-introduced in the new education policy that will be implemented in 2007, he said. We will teach Islamiat from class one to twelve. The new syllabus will also include the subject of human rights, he added.
That'd be Islamic human rights, of course...
The minister said a census would be carried out to ascertain the literacy rate in Pakistan. The results of a census regarding the literacy rate in the country will be available in June 2006, he said. He said students will be taught in both English and Urdu. Science, maths and history will be taught in English and the other subjects in Urdu, he said.
Posted by: john ||
03/29/2006 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[8 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
You can take the Muslim out of jihad, but you can't take jihad out of the Muslim. Therefore, boot the Muslim out of the West.
Western powers softened a draft U.N. Security Council statement on Tuesday on reining in Iran's nuclear ambitions in hopes of reaching a deal with Russia and China before all their foreign ministers meet this week. Still, the new draft, obtained by Reuters, retains calls on Tehran to suspend uranium-enrichment efforts, a process that can produce fuel necessary for making a nuclear bomb.
The text deletes language on several specific demands. Instead it refers only to the number of the resolution that contained them and was adopted by the International Atomic Energy Agency board in Vienna, the U.N. nuclear watchdog.
Britain and France, authors of the draft backed by the United States, distributed the document, their third revision, to the full 15-nation U.N. Security Council for discussion on Wednesday, three weeks after talks began. The three Western nations hope to convince Russia and China to agree on the document, a day before foreign ministers of the five permanent members and Germany meet in Berlin on Thursday to map out strategy toward Iran.
Ambassadors from the United States, Britain, France, Russia and China, permanent council members with veto power, met three times on Tuesday on the Iran research programs, which Tehran says are for peaceful purposes but the West believes are a cover for atomic-bomb making.
U.S. Ambassador John Bolton and British Ambassador Emyr Jones Parry said there were still one or two issues outstanding. The main one was a provision that referred to weapons of mass destruction as a threat to international peace and security. Russia believes this could be a prelude to harsher punishment, diplomats said. Another unsolved issue, China said, was the how long the director of the IAEA, Mohamed ElBaradei had to report to the council on whether Iran had complied with its demands. The original text said 14 days while the new text refers to 30 days. Russia had proposed until June. China's U.N. Ambassador Wang Guangya told reporters the timeline had not been agreed yet.
#1
So soft, the final draft will be written on super soft facial tissue. Very flushable.
Posted by: Captain America ||
03/29/2006 2:00 Comments ||
Top||
#2
I think the US has decided to go with the flow in the UNSC and let it logjam as quickly as possible - to check off the box faster, this time. To deal with the chickenshit Senate, you still have to have that tissue for political cover though everyone, and I mean everyone, knows where this will end.
#6
I exaggerate, perhaps. My working assumptions are (1) there is nothing to be gained by military operations against Iranian nuclear infrastructure that leaves any Islamist regime in place; (2) the U.S. currently does not have the political capital necessary to move militarily against Iran whether or not the regime is left in place; (3) in contrast to Iraq, in which a solid majority of the population detested the Baath regime, the support for such regime change among the Iranian people is much softer. Finally, the (4) the U.S. (and perhaps no other country) is not very good at fighting limited war, yet Islamic fascism's success is a function of the West's unwillingness to confront low-damage operations like targeted assassinations of journalists and politicians, blowing up embassies, flying airplanes into buildings, and so on with an all-out assault on those who support such operations both tactically and financially. Effective retaliation is possible only given an attack of sufficient deadliness. The longer that we wait, the stronger and more ensconced Islamic fascism becomes. The best strategy is therefore to encourage an early attack.
BY AMIR TAHERI
Wednesday, March 29, 2006 12:01 a.m. EST
Hassan Abbasi has a dream--a helicopter doing an arabesque in cloudy skies to avoid being shot at from the ground. On board are the last of the "fleeing Americans," forced out of the Dar al-Islam (The Abode of Islam) by "the Army of Muhammad." Presented by his friends as "The Dr. Kissinger of Islam," Mr. Abbasi is "professor of strategy" at the Islamic Republic's Revolutionary Guard Corps University and, according to Tehran sources, the principal foreign policy voice in President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's new radical administration.
For the past several weeks Mr. Abbasi has been addressing crowds of Guard and Baseej Mustadafin (Mobilization of the Dispossessed) officers in Tehran with a simple theme: The U.S. does not have the stomach for a long conflict and will soon revert to its traditional policy of "running away," leaving Afghanistan and Iraq, indeed the whole of the Middle East, to be reshaped by Iran and its regional allies.
To hear Mr. Abbasi tell it the entire recent history of the U.S. could be narrated with the help of the image of "the last helicopter." It was that image in Saigon that concluded the Vietnam War under Gerald Ford. Jimmy Carter had five helicopters fleeing from the Iranian desert, leaving behind the charred corpses of eight American soldiers. Under Ronald Reagan the helicopters carried the corpses of 241 Marines murdered in their sleep in a Hezbollah suicide attack. Under the first President Bush, the helicopter flew from Safwan, in southern Iraq, with Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf aboard, leaving behind Saddam Hussein's generals, who could not believe why they had been allowed live to fight their domestic foes, and America, another day. Bill Clinton's helicopter was a Black Hawk, downed in Mogadishu and delivering 16 American soldiers into the hands of a murderous crowd.
According to this theory, President George W. Bush is an "aberration," a leader out of sync with his nation's character and no more than a brief nightmare for those who oppose the creation of an "American Middle East." Messrs. Abbasi and Ahmadinejad have concluded that there will be no helicopter as long as George W. Bush is in the White House. But they believe that whoever succeeds him, Democrat or Republican, will revive the helicopter image to extricate the U.S. from a complex situation that few Americans appear to understand.
Mr. Ahmadinejad's defiant rhetoric is based on a strategy known in Middle Eastern capitals as "waiting Bush out." "We are sure the U.S. will return to saner policies," says Manuchehr Motakki, Iran's new Foreign Minister.
Mr. Ahmadinejad believes that the world is heading for a clash of civilizations with the Middle East as the main battlefield. In that clash Iran will lead the Muslim world against the "Crusader-Zionist camp" led by America. Mr. Bush might have led the U.S. into "a brief moment of triumph." But the U.S. is a "sunset" (ofuli) power while Iran is a sunrise (tolu'ee) one and, once Mr. Bush is gone, a future president would admit defeat and order a retreat as all of Mr. Bush's predecessors have done since Jimmy Carter.
Mr. Ahmadinejad also notes that Iran has just "reached the Mediterranean" thanks to its strong presence in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and the Palestinian territories. He used that message to convince Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to adopt a defiant position vis-à-vis the U.N. investigation of the murder of Rafiq Hariri, a former prime minister of Lebanon. His argument was that once Mr. Bush is gone, the U.N., too, will revert to its traditional lethargy. "They can pass resolutions until they are blue in the face," Mr. Ahmadinejad told a gathering of Hezbollah, Hamas and other radical Arab leaders in Tehran last month.
According to sources in Tehran and Damascus, Mr. Assad had pondered the option of "doing a Gadhafi" by toning down his regime's anti-American posture. Since last February, however, he has revived Syria's militant rhetoric and dismissed those who advocated a rapprochement with Washington. Iran has rewarded him with a set of cut-price oil, soft loans and grants totaling $1.2 billion. In response Syria has increased its support for terrorists going to fight in Iraq and revived its network of agents in Lebanon, in a bid to frustrate that country's democratic ambitions.
It is not only in Tehran and Damascus that the game of "waiting Bush out" is played with determination. In recent visits to several regional capitals, this writer was struck by the popularity of this new game from Islamabad to Rabat. The general assumption is that Mr. Bush's plan to help democratize the heartland of Islam is fading under an avalanche of partisan attacks inside the U.S. The effect of this assumption can be witnessed everywhere.
In Pakistan, Pervez Musharraf has shelved his plan, forged under pressure from Washington, to foster a popular front to fight terrorism by lifting restrictions against the country's major political parties and allowing their exiled leaders to return. There is every indication that next year's elections will be choreographed to prevent the emergence of an effective opposition. In Afghanistan, Hamid Karzai, arguably the most pro-American leader in the region, is cautiously shaping his post-Bush strategy by courting Tehran and playing the Pushtun ethnic card against his rivals.
In Turkey, the "moderate" Islamist government of Recep Tayyip Erdogan is slowly but surely putting the democratization process into reverse gear. With the post-Bush era in mind, Mr. Erdogan has started a purge of the judiciary and a transfer of religious endowments to sections of the private sector controlled by his party's supporters. There are fears that next year's general election would not take place on a level playing field.
Even in Iraq the sentiment that the U.S. will not remain as committed as it has been under Mr. Bush is producing strange results. While Shiite politicians are rushing to Tehran to seek a reinsurance policy, some Sunni leaders are having second thoughts about their decision to join the democratization process. "What happens after Bush?" demands Salih al-Mutlak, a rising star of Iraqi Sunni leaders. The Iraqi Kurds have clearly decided to slow down all measures that would bind them closer to the Iraqi state. Again, they claim that they have to "take precautions in case the Americans run away."
There are more signs that the initial excitement created by Mr. Bush's democratization project may be on the wane. Saudi Arabia has put its national dialogue program on hold and has decided to focus on economic rather than political reform. In Bahrain, too, the political reform machine has been put into rear-gear, while in Qatar all talk of a new democratic constitution to set up a constitutional monarchy has subsided. In Jordan the security services are making a spectacular comeback, putting an end to a brief moment of hopes for reform. As for Egypt, Hosni Mubarak has decided to indefinitely postpone local elections, a clear sign that the Bush-inspired scenario is in trouble. Tunisia and Morocco, too, have joined the game by stopping much-advertised reform projects while Islamist radicals are regrouping and testing the waters at all levels.
But how valid is the assumption that Mr. Bush is an aberration and that his successor will "run away"? It was to find answers that this writer spent several days in the U.S., especially Washington and New York, meeting ordinary Americans and senior leaders, including potential presidential candidates from both parties. While Mr. Bush's approval ratings, now in free fall, and the increasingly bitter American debate on Iraq may lend some credence to the "helicopter" theory, I found no evidence that anyone in the American leadership elite supported a cut-and-run strategy.
The reason was that almost all realized that the 9/11 attacks have changed the way most Americans see the world and their own place in it. Running away from Saigon, the Iranian desert, Beirut, Safwan and Mogadishu was not hard to sell to the average American, because he was sure that the story would end there; the enemies left behind would not pursue their campaign within the U.S. itself. The enemies that America is now facing in the jihadist archipelago, however, are dedicated to the destruction of the U.S. as the world knows it today.
Those who have based their strategy on waiting Mr. Bush out may find to their cost that they have, once again, misread not only American politics but the realities of a world far more complex than it was even a decade ago. Mr. Bush may be a uniquely decisive, some might say reckless, leader. But a visitor to the U.S. soon finds out that he represents the American mood much more than the polls suggest.
I hope he's right
Mr. Taheri is author of "L'Irak: Le Dessous Des Cartes" (Editions Complexe, 2002).
#1
I don't think you need worry, Sherry. The numbers of those who get it keep rising, and will continue as this round of troops returns from stints in Iraq, Afghanistan, and places more obscure.
(Are you back now, Broadhead6? Or still posting from the Sandbox? You will clean up your language before getting involved in the PTA, right? ;-> )
#2
Yes Ma'am, I am now back in CONUS (2 weeks) and loving life. For the record my language around my little man has been most clean. I'm surprised at my own self discipline as I love to swear. (Actually, I'm even better than my wife!)However, I solenmly promise that my posts on the 'burg will continue to be full of "colorful metaphors."
#4
Glad to hear it, BH6. I imagine all went as it should over there, and look forward to the little tales you can now tell. And I'm thrilled for Mrs. BH6 and the little man, who've been strong for so long. Bless you all!
#5
Thanks Seafarious - it's great to be back. I'm glad I had a chance to do my bit for the country but am so happy to be home in my own house, looking at southern pine trees, green grass, drinking a pabst on my own patio and playing w/my boy and my loyal old dog. (and of course chasing Mrs. BH6 around the house ;)
God Bless America, there is no place better on this mud ball.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
03/29/2006 18:11 Comments ||
Top||
#7
TW, thanks. Yep, all went fine. Besides effectively executing our mission everybody in my unit came back alive. We had one guy lose a leg below the knee due to an IED but that was it. We were lucky but also well trained.
My family did well (my wife who is not only beautiful is also as solid as a rock) but we're kind of used to doing this. We did save some money during the course of my deployment so I am taking my sweetie to Ireland next month for a week - she's never been there but has always wanted to go. Our little lad will be staying w/his grand parents up in MI. This summer as my training schedule permits we plan on taking a lot of family camping trips around the state parks and such. I can't wait! It's great to be home.
#9
Supposedly from Stratfor - Seen elsewhere salt as needed
Counterplays and Timing
What they did not count on was American flexibility. From the first battle of Al Fallujah onward, the United States engaged in negotiations with the Sunni leadership. The United States had two goals: one, to use the Sunni presence in a new Iraqi government to block Iranian ambitions; and two, to split the Sunnis from the jihadists. It was the very success of this strategy, evident in the December 2005 elections, that caused Iraqi Shia to move away from the Iranians a bit, and, more important, caused the jihadists to launch an anti-Shiite rampage. The jihadists' goal was to force a civil war in Iraq and drive the Sunnis back into an unbreakable alliance with them.
In other words, the war was not going in favor of either the United States or Iran. The Americans were bogged down in a war that could not be won with available manpower, if by "victory" we mean breaking the Sunni-jihadist will to resist. The Iranians envisioned the re-emergence of their former Baathist enemies. Not altogether certain of the political commitments or even the political savvy of their Shiite allies in Iraq, they could now picture their worst nightmare: a coalition government in which the Sunnis, maneuvering with the Kurds and Americans, would dominate an Iraqi government. They saw Tehran's own years of maneuvering as being in jeopardy. Neither side could any longer be certain of the outcome.
In response, each side attempted, first, to rattle the other. Iran's nuclear maneuver was designed to render the Americans more forthcoming; the assumption was that a nuclear Iran would be more frightening, from the American point of view, than a Shiite Iraq. The Americans held off responding and then, a few weeks ago, began letting it be known that not only were airstrikes against Iran possible, but that in fact they were being seriously considered and that deadlines were being drawn up.
This wasn't about nuclear weapons but about Iraq, as both sides made clear when the talks were announced. Both players now have all their cards on the table. Iran bluffed nukes, the United States called the bluff and seemed about to raise. Khalilzad's request for talks was still on the table. The Iranians took it. This was not really done in order to forestall airstrikes -- the Iranians were worried about that only on the margins. What Iran had was a deep concern and an interesting opportunity.
The concern was that the situation in Iraq was spinning out of its control. The United States was no longer predictable, the Sunnis were no longer predictable, and even the Iranians' Shiite allies were not playing their proper role. The Iranians were playing for huge stakes in Iraq and there were suddenly too many moving pieces, too many things that could go wrong.
The Iranians also saw an opportunity. Bush's political position in the United States had deteriorated dramatically. As it deteriorated, his room for maneuver declined. The British had made it clear that they were planning to leave Iraq. Bush had really not been isolated before, as his critics always charged, but now he was becoming isolated -- domestically as well as internationally. Bush needed badly to break out of the political bind he was in. The administration had resisted pressure to withdraw troops under a timetable, but it no longer was clear whether Congress would permit Bush to continue to resist. The president did not want his hands tied by Congress, but it seemed to the Iranians that was exactly what was happening.
From the Iranian point of view, if ever a man has needed a deal, it is Bush. If there are going to be any negotiations, they are to happen now. From Bush's point of view, he does need a deal, but so do the Iranians -- things are ratcheting out of control from Tehran's point of view as well. For domestic Iraqi players, the room to maneuver is increasing, while the room to maneuver for foreign players is decreasing. In other words, the United States and Iran have, for the moment, the unified interest of managing Iraq, rather than seeing a civil war or a purely domestic solution.
The Next Phase of the Game
The Iranians want at least to Finlandize Iraq. During the Cold War, the Soviets did not turn Finland into a satellite, but they did have the right to veto members of its government, to influence the size and composition of its military and to require a neutral foreign policy. The Iranians wanted more, but they will settle for keeping the worst of the Baathists out of the government and for controls over Iraq's international behavior. The Americans want a coalition government within the limits of a Finlandic solution. They do not want a purely Shiite government; they want the Sunnis to deal with the jihadists, in return for guaranteed Sunni rights in Iraq. Finally, the United States wants the right to place a [permanent military] force in Iraq -- aircraft and perhaps 40,000 troops -- outside the urban areas, in the west. The Iranians do not really want U.S. troops so close, so they will probably argue about the number and the type. They do not want to see heavy armored units but can live with lighter units stationed to the west.
Now obviously, in this negotiation, each side will express distrust and indifference. The White House won the raise by expressing doubts as to Tehran's seriousness; the implication was that the Iranians were buying time to work on their nukes. Perhaps. But the fact is that Tehran will work on nukes as and when it wants, and Washington will destroy the nukes as and when it wants. The nukes are non-issues in the real negotiations.
There are three problems now with negotiations. One is Bush's ability to keep his coalition intact while he negotiates with a member of the "axis of evil." Another is Iran's ability to keep its coalition together while it negotiates with the "Great Satan." And third is the ability of either to impose their collective will on an increasingly self-reliant Iraqi polity. The two major powers are now ready to talk. What is not clear is whether, even together, they will be in a position to impose their will on the Iraqis. The coalitions will probably hold, and the Iraqis will probably submit. But those are three "probablies." Not good.
All wars end in negotiations. Clearly, the United States and Iran have been talking quietly for a long time. They now have decided it is time to make their talks public. That decision by itself indicates how seriously they both take these conversations now.
Supposed reprint from Stratfor
Putting Cards on the Table in Iraq
March 21, 2006 22 04 GMT
By George Friedman
The clouds couldn't have been darker last week. Everyone was talking about civil war in Iraq. Smart and informed people were talking about the real possibility of an American airstrike against Iran's nuclear capabilities. The Iranians were hurling defiance in every direction on the compass. U.S. President George W. Bush seemed to be politically on the ropes, unable to control his own party. And then seemingly out of nowhere, the Iranians offered to hold talks with the Americans on Iraq, and only Iraq. With the kind of lightning speed not seen from the White House for a while, the United States accepted. Suddenly, the two countries with the greatest stake in Iraq -- and the deepest hostility toward each other -- had agreed publicly to negotiate on Iraq.
To understand this development, we must understand that Iran and the United States have been holding quiet, secret, back-channel and off-the-record discussions for years -- but the discussions were no less important for all of that. The Iran-Contra affair, for example, could not have taken place had the Reagan administration not been talking to the Ayatollah Ruholla Khomeini's representatives. There is nothing new about Americans and Iranians talking; they have been doing it for years. Each side, for their own domestic reasons, has tried to hide the talks from public view, even when they were quite public, such as the Geneva discussions over Afghanistan prior to the Sept. 11 attacks.
What is dramatically new is the public nature of these talks now, and the subject matter: Iraq.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but the real players in Iraq are now going to sit down and see if they can reach some decisions about the country's future. They are going to do this over the heads of their various clients. Obviously, the needs of those clients will have to be satisfied, but in the end, the Iraq war is at least partly about U.S.-Iranian relations, and it is clear that both sides have now decided that it is time to explore a deal -- not in a quiet Georgetown restaurant, but in full view of the world. In other words, it is time to get serious.
The offer of public talks actually was not made by Iran. The first public proposal for talks came from U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad, who several months ago reported that he had been authorized by Bush to open two lines of discussion: One was with the non-jihadist Sunni leadership in Iraq; the other was with Iran. Interestingly, Khalilzad had emphasized that he was authorized to speak with the Iranians only about Iraq and not about other subjects. In other words, discussion of Iran's nuclear program was not going to take place. What happened last week was that the Iranians finally gave Khalilzad an answer: yes.
Iran's Slow Play
As we have discussed many times, Iraq has been Iran's obsession. It is an obsession rooted in ancient history; the Bible speaks of the struggle between Babylon and Persia for regional hegemony. It has some of its roots in more recent history as well: Iran lost about 300,000 people, with about 1 million more wounded and captured, in its 1980-88 war with Iraq. That would be the equivalent of more than 1 million dead Americans and an additional 4 million wounded and captured. It is a staggering number. Nothing can be understood about Iran until the impact of this war is understood. The Iranians, then, came out of the war with two things: an utter hatred of Saddam Hussein and his regime, and determination that this sort of devastation should never happen again.
After the United States decided, in Desert Storm, not to move on to Baghdad and overthrow the Hussein regime -- and after the catastrophic failure of the Shiite rising in southern Iraq -- the Iranians established a program of covert operations that was designed to increase their control of the Shiite population in the south. The Iranians were unable to wage war against Hussein but were content, after Desert Storm, that he could not attack Iran. So they focused on increasing their influence in the south and bided their time. They could not take out Hussein, but they still wanted someone to do so. That someone was the Americans.
Iran responded to the 9/11 attacks in a predictable manner. First, Iran was as concerned by al Qaeda as the United States was. The Iranians saw themselves as the vanguard of revolutionary Islam, and they did not want to see their place usurped by Wahhabis, whom they viewed as the tool of another regional rival, Saudi Arabia. Thus, Tehran immediately offered U.S. forces the right to land, at Iranian airbases, aircraft that were damaged during operations in Afghanistan. Far more important, the Iranians used their substantial influence in western and northern Afghanistan to secure allies for the United States. They wanted the Taliban gone. This is not to say that some al Qaeda operatives, having paid or otherwise induced regional Iranian commanders, didn't receive some sanctuary in Iran; the Iranians would have given sanctuary to Osama bin Laden if that would have neutralized him. But Tehran's policy was to oppose al Qaeda and the Taliban, and to quietly support the United States in its war against them. This was no stranger, really, than the Americans giving anti-tank missiles to Khomeini in the 1980s.
But the main chance that Iran saw was getting the Americans to invade Iraq and depose their true enemy, Saddam Hussein. The United States was not led to invade Iraq by the Iranians -- that would be too simple a model. However, the Iranians, with their excellent intelligence network in Iraq, helped to smooth the way for the American decision. Apart from providing useful tactical information, the Iranians led the Americans to believe three things:
1. That Iraq did have weapons of mass destruction programs.
2. That the Iraqis would not resist U.S. operations and would greet the Americans as liberators.
3. By omission, that there would be no postwar resistance in Iraq.
Again, this was not decisive, but it formed an important part of the analytical framework through which the Americans viewed Iraq.
The Iranians wanted the United States to defeat Hussein. They wanted the United States to bear the burden of pacifying the Sunni regions of Iraq. They wanted U.S. forces to bog down in Iraq so that, in due course, the Americans would withdraw -- but only after the Sunnis were broken -- leaving behind a Shiite government that would be heavily influenced by Iran. The Iranians did everything they could to encourage the initial engagement and then stood by as the United States fought the Sunnis. They were getting what they wanted.
#11
Iran may well believe this is the current situation. If so, they do not understand President G.W. Bush. He's been operating on "Never again," since 9/12/01. And he promised the Iraqis self-rule -- not at all the same thing as giving Iran veto power over their choices.
Saddam Hussein: "All 'Izzat Al-Douri ever wanted was to address the Iraqis as their leader, even if just for a few short minutes. Everybody remembers that he once addressed the Iraqi Women's Union without my knowledge. Do you know what I did to him?"
Interviewer: "We don't know. Tell us"...
Saddam Hussein: "The first thing I did when they brought him was to spit in his face."
Interviewer: "Why?"
Saddam Hussein: "I said to him: 'You despicable man, I spit on your owl's face. How do you address these glorious women without me knowing about it?'" HEY! I like owls!
"I'm the one who gets the babes around here!"
"The only one who makes speeches in Iraq is the fearless supreme leader - meaning me.
"I am the head cheese around here! You are gorgonzola, at best!"
"At this point 'Izzat Al-Duri pulled out his handkerchief and blubbered cried. I said to him: 'Look 'Izzat, this time I forgive you, but I swear by my honor, and the honor of the history of the Arab nation, that if you ever repeat this mistake I will cut your tongue off.'" My! THEY were certainly close buddies! [/SARCASM]
Wotta sweet guy.
Interviewer: "And now he has repeated this mistake, as you call it, and has published a statement addressed to the [Arab League] summit, as was mentioned on one of the television stations."
Saddam Hussein: "I didn't hear the speech, because I'm in prison." "Noone tells me anything!"
"Even though I am in prison, I don't allow anyone to speak on my behalf, so long as I live. I am still the president." See picture at left.
"They're gonna call him Izzy No-Tongue soon's my hard boyz hear about it!"
"Internet... Whatever... I give speeches without fearing anyone. I give speeches face to face..."
"I ain't a-scared o' nuttin'!"
Interviewer: "You're in prison. How can you give speeches?"
Saddam Hussein: "That's a good question. You watch the court sessions. How many sessions have there been so far? Fifteen sessions?"
Interviewer: "Seventeen."
Saddam Hussein: "I give a speech at every single session. If I don't give speeches, I get heartburn.
"... or maybe it's the chili. I'm not sure..."
"If 'Izzat Al-Duri is alive and he can hear me, I want to address him, through you, and to tell him to beware. Isn't this a disgrace? The leader of the Arabs - 'Izzat Al-Duri speaks on his behalf?! 'Izzat Al-Duri doesn't even know how to stand at attention. He should speak on behalf of Saddam Hussein? Any speech that doesn't receive my signature is unofficial, illegitimate, and illegal... He should beware and shut up. Why does he make speeches and exploit state funds? I left the funds under your responsibility. Billions of dollars... I left you the funds and you should use them properly. He goes and blows up mosques, markets, and schools."
"The man's an absolute loon!... Ummm... Unlike me."
"I know that people who listen to me might think that Saddam Hussein has become apathetic in prison and stopped supporting terrorism. No. I'm not ashamed to tell you that Iraq without Saddam Hussein isn't worth two bits. Therefore, it will make me happy if Iraq turns into dust." Sounding like Hitler in his final days, methinks.
Interviewer: "This reminds me that in one of your speeches, you said that you would leave Iraq a country without a people."
Saddam Hussein: "What is the people worth without Saddam Hussein?! What is it worth? Iraq is entirely Saddam Hussein. 'Long live Iraq' means 'long live Saddam Hussein.' What is Iraq worth without Saddam Hussein?" A great deal.
Interviewer: "You keep on with those slogans? You still cling to them..."
Saddam Hussein: "I was brought up on it. How do you want me to go back on this? Iraqis hear these things about me as soon as they come out of their mothers' wombs. I repeat: Iraq without Saddam Hussein isn't worth two bits. Therefore, it will make me happy if Iraq turns into ashes. I call to punish 'Izzat Al-Duri, because he burned my heart." What, fried the muscle!?
I'm guessing it was the chili.
Interviewer: "Why, because he published a statement without your permission?"
Saddam Hussein: "He gave a speech without me knowing it. The punishment that I want for him is to cut off his tongue and ears." I guess being a control freak comes with the territory when you're a tyrant.
Interviewer: "Why cutting off his tongue and ears?"
Saddam Hussein: "To make him the same as all the renegades whose tongues and ears I cut off. And if 'Izzat Al-Duri continues giving speeches in sign language, like the deaf do, I demand that his hands be cut off. And so on and so forth, until 'Izzat Al-Duri is finished, and we get rid of this degenerate."
Interviewer: "Why cutting off his tongue and ears?"
Saddam Hussein: "To make him the same as all the renegades whose tongues and ears I cut off. And if 'Izzat Al-Duri continues giving speeches in sign language, like the deaf do, I demand that his hands be cut off. And so on and so forth, until 'Izzat Al-Duri is finished, and we get rid of this degenerate."
(unpublished I believe by the MSM for obvious reasons) LOL...
And I have saved every tounge and ear, and when you find that secret vault with a hermetically sealed chamber in one of my palaces, you will see jar upon jar mounted on the wall, with the name of the former owner of those ears and tongues.
Some folks collect butterflies, I collect ears and tongues.
The United States has ordered its diplomats and contractors not to have any contacts with Palestinian ministries once a Hamas-led government is sworn in on Wednesday, U.S. officials said.
The directive, distributed to U.S. officials in the region by email, bars them from having contacts with Hamas-appointed government ministers, whether they are members of Hamas or not, as well as with those who work for them, U.S. officials said.
The United States hopes to sideline Hamas and pressure it to recognize Israel, renounce violence and abide by peace accords. Hamas, branded a terrorist organization by Washington, won Palestinian elections in January.
The decision will limit a wide range of U.S. programs, including security coordination through the Palestinian Authority's Ministry of Interior.
Contacts will still be permitted with President Mahmoud Abbas, his personal office and non-Hamas members of the Palestinian parliament.
The order takes effect from 6 p.m. on Wednesday, when Abbas is expected to swear in the new Hamas cabinet.
"It takes effect at the moment the new government is sworn in," said a U.S. official familiar with the directive.
The official said the ban on contacts would also apply to independents and technocrats in the new Hamas government because they were "invited to join the government by a Hamas prime minister and are in that position as a virtue of a vote of confidence by a Hamas-led PLC (parliament)."
U.S. law bars the government from providing direct assistance to any group that is on the State Department's list of "banned terrorist organizations."
Exit polls projected interim Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's Kadima party will win the most parliamentary seats in Israel's election on Tuesday. The surveys, issued after voting ended, gave centrist Kadima 29-32 seats in the 120-member legislature, putting it in a good position to form a coalition government.
Posted by: Fred ||
03/29/2006 00:01 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
It's official--Jews are not smarter than Gentiles.
#2
The Pals. have gotta know iff Radical-controlled Iran gets its empire, whether regional or global, any so-called Palestinian State will be dead meat, at best a ME version of Iran = Chinese controlled North Korea, etal, i.e. lawfully/
legally un-annexed slave territory.
#4
Send Bibi to France as the new ambassador. That'll bunch up some panties ruffle some feathers (my apologies, I don't know what I was thinking!) over there. ;-)
Lockheed Martins Skunk Works, famed for the U-2 and Blackbird spy planes that flew higher than anything else in the world in their day, is trying for a different altitude record: an airplane that starts and ends its mission 150 feet underwater.
The Cormorant, a stealthy, jet-powered, autonomous aircraft that could be outfitted with either short-range weapons or surveillance equipment, is designed to launch out of the Trident missile tubes in some of the U.S. Navys gigantic Cold Warera Ohio-class submarines. These formerly nuke-toting subs have become less useful in a military climate evolved to favor surgical strikes over nuclear stalemates, but the Cormorant could use their now-vacant tubes to provide another unmanned option for spying on or destroying targets near the coast.
[..] see artwork at link
#1
...Admiral Nelson and Captain Crane to the Flying Sub, please...
Mike
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski ||
03/29/2006 12:38 Comments ||
Top||
#2
UAVs are the *cash-cow of the industry, none/little of the liability risk of human death, which translates into massive savings across the industry. That and no ECS/Enviro systems which in mil terms means more payload.
* Hope that is, everyone in the industry is working on them, but when they really flood the industry it will be interesting to see what happens with Unit/Volumn margins. Nobody really knows now.
Doubt more stealthy. I had an RC heli similar to this (though to the looks a bit smaller). It was a Kalt Baron 50 w/ the Baron 60 engine.
Major hard to fly, esp as I couldn't afford a tail roter gryo and mixer (worked all summer to get it as a teenager, the gyro was almost as much as the heli at the time).
The engine was loud, seriously loud! But it had major lifting / hauling power. I never thought to, but I could have easily mounted a shotgun to the heli (thought of bottle rockets tho, lol)!
They have electrical ones these days that are super quiet, but I doubt they have the meat for a weapon ... tho recon would be awesome.
They say RC helis are one of the hardest things to fly in the world, one of the major reasons being with every 180 degree change the controls reverse.
Electrical + Powerful + Good Flight Software would equal an awesome UAV
Iranian Embassy in Moscow on Tuesday rejected a press report on a statement attributed to the Ministry saying that Iran will set up an international center for uranium enrichment. An Embassy official told IRNA that Iranian Embassy has not released any statement to that effect.
The press reports had said that Iran has put forward a plan to set up an international center to produce fuel in Iran.
#1
DRUDGEREPORT has a promo on PAUL WILLLIAMS, author of the new book THE DUNCES OF DOOMSDAY, which infers that Osama and AQ may already have 20 nuke warheads + 70 other nuke device types includ "suitcase" nukes. ALso an artic from a retired former Israeli Chief claiming that global civilization is on the verge of WW3 wid Radical Islam, and basically implies said WW3 will be a war to the death.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
Unidentified criminals shot and wounded a Jatiyatabadi Chhatra Dal (JCD) leader while 10 Jubo League activists were injured in a clash between themselves at Pallabi yesterday in the capital. Morshed Khan Ejaz, 26, general secretary of JCD Motijheel thana unit, was having tea at a roadside tea-stall around 11:15am when the criminals sprayed bullets on him, police said. 
Republicans are stronger on national security. 
LAHORE: The Lahore High Court has rejected the appeals of four civilians employees of the Pakistan Air Force convicted of involvement in an assassination attempt on Gen Pervez Musharraf. Justice Mohammad Akhtar Shabbir ruled that under Article 199 (3) of the Constitution, the LHC could not hear appeals against a military courts decision. 
The government will not remove the subject of jihad from the school curriculum, Education Minister Javed Ashraf Qazi said on Tuesday. The minister told reporters after a prize distribution ceremony at a school here that the governments new education policy will be implemented from 2007. Geography and history will be re-introduced in the new education policy that will be implemented in 2007, he said. We will teach Islamiat from class one to twelve. The new syllabus will also include the subject of human rights, he added. 
Western powers softened a draft U.N. Security Council statement on Tuesday on reining in Iran's nuclear ambitions in hopes of reaching a deal with Russia and China before all their foreign ministers meet this week. Still, the new draft, obtained by Reuters, retains calls on Tehran to suspend uranium-enrichment efforts, a process that can produce fuel necessary for making a nuclear bomb.
Saddam Hussein: "All '
"Even though I am in prison, I don't allow anyone to speak on my behalf, so long as I live. I am still the president."
Saddam Hussein: "What is the people worth without Saddam Hussein?! What is it worth? Iraq is entirely Saddam Hussein. 'Long live Iraq' means 'long live Saddam Hussein.' What is Iraq worth without Saddam Hussein?"
The United States has ordered its diplomats and contractors not to have any contacts with Palestinian ministries once a Hamas-led government is sworn in on Wednesday, U.S. officials said. 
Exit polls projected interim Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's Kadima party will win the most parliamentary seats in Israel's election on Tuesday. The surveys, issued after voting ended, gave centrist Kadima 29-32 seats in the 120-member legislature, putting it in a good position to form a coalition government.
Iranian Embassy in Moscow on Tuesday rejected a press report on a statement attributed to the Ministry saying that Iran will set up an international center for uranium enrichment. An Embassy official told IRNA that Iranian Embassy has not released any statement to that effect.
