What turns a British citizen into a suicide bomber? It is one of the most difficult, and most important, questions for MI5. That's why MI5's recent report on how to answer it is so interesting: it gives an insight into how the security service is responding to its most significant challenge.
The report hasn't been published, but judging by the summary that leaked last week, MI5's thinking is, to put it mildly, disappointing: it mixes the obvious with the tendentious to produce the fatuous.
There is, the report insists, "no single pathway to extremism", which is very obvious. As with all serious crimes, if you look closely at the perpetrators, they each came to perform their evil deeds for their own unique reasons: each murderer, rapist, paedophile and terrorist is different from every other.
While true, that banal observation is of no help whatever in combatting murder, rape or terrorism - so it is surprising to see it emphasised in a report from MI5's "behavioural science unit".
The report goes on to identify what it calls "key vulnerabilities" that lead a person to terrorism. These include "the experience of migrating to Britain, facing marginalisation and racism [and] the failure of those with degrees to achieve anything but low-grade jobs".
The report even throws in "inadequate media coverage" that "perpetuates negative stereotypes" as a catalyst for terrorism.
This is plain silly. Those experiences are not "key vulnerabilities", because thousands, indeed millions, of immigrants to Britain go through them, often in more extreme forms than anything that affected the 7/7 suicide bombers, without turning into terrorists.
MI5 might as well say that poverty is a "key vulnerability" that turns a man into a rapist or a murderer, although it is perfectly obvious that most poor people aren't killers or rapists.
But that is not the most bizarre feature of the MI5 report.
It conspicuously fails to mention the potential terrorist's most obvious "vulnerability": adherence to an extremist form of radical Islamism.
It stresses that "far from being religious zealots, a large number of those involved in terrorism do not practice their faith regularly; many lack religious literacy and could be regarded as religious novices." Which may be true, but does not alter the fundamental fact that all of the suicide bombers in the UK, and all of those who have been involved in helping them plan and execute their attacks, have claimed that they were motivated by commitment to an extreme form of Islam.
No one from any other faith has perpetrated a suicide bombing in Britain, or said anything to suggest that such terrorism would or could be justified. Does MI5's behavioural science unit really believe that, if the ideology of extreme Islamism did not exist, the people who blew themselves up on July 7, 2005 would have found another justification for it and done it anyway?
MI5's claim is all the more strange because other European security services have published detailed reports that take the connection between an extremist form of Islam and terrorist violence for granted.
The Dutch equivalent of MI5, for instance, has published several investigations into what makes a terrorist. Those reports agree with MI5 that there isn't a simple check-list that tells you who will become a terrorist. But the Dutch don't try to dodge the obvious correlation between adherence to extremist radical Islam and terrorist violence. Instead, they examine the forms that extremism takes and look at ways of stopping its spread.
On the evidence of its report, MI5 is reluctant to do the same. Why? I know from talking to people who work for the organisation that it is deeply split on the matter.
One faction of the security service - represented by the recent report - insists that there is no intrinsic connection between radical, extremist Islam and terrorism in Britain.
Another insists that there is: without Islamism, while there might of course be terrorism in Britain at the moment, it would not take the distinctive form of suicide bombing, which we have all come to dread.
People in MI5 tell me that denying the connection between Islamism and terrorism derives from the belief that if you accept it, there's no hope for a multicultural society in Britain: we would just have to recognise that part of the population is permanently liable to become terrorists.
But that conclusion is a mistake - as big a mistake as it was to conclude, from the plots hatched by some fanatical Catholics against Protestant rulers in the 17th century, that there was something intrinsic to Catholicism that made it impossible for Catholics to live in peace with Protestants.
I hope the debate within MI5 gets resolved soon. Because if MI5 starts devoting resources to following Hindus and Sikhs in the expectation of identifying the next suicide bomber in Britain, it will certainly be wasting its time and our money, as well as placing us all in much greater danger.
#1
Isn't it easier to just bug the mosques and sit outside and ID the ones coming out bobbing their heads and clenching their fists?
Posted by: Jack is Back! ||
08/24/2008 9:55 Comments ||
Top||
#2
The lack of any common sense is what allows these Muzz to operate freely. Can't identify them ? 99.9% of grandmas in Britain could handle it, if you'd get your dumb asses out of the way.
On Thursday, while overseeing his country's continuing occupation of neighboring Georgia, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev found time to meet with visiting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Mr. Assad, who is under suspicion of ordering the murder of political opponents in Lebanon, lavishly praised Russia's invasion of Georgia and asked for more Russian weapons. Mr. Medvedev acceded to this request, according to his foreign minister.
This was a small and unsurprising event in the annals of Russian diplomatic history. But it's worth noting as the United States and its European allies consider how to reshape relations with Russia in the wake of its Aug. 7 invasion of Georgia. A common theme of commentary since the war began has been that the United States is constrained in its condemnation of -- or sanctions against -- Russia because it needs Russia too much in areas ranging from counterterrorism to checking the nuclear ambitions of North Korea and Iran. But you can't lose what you never had, and it's fair to question how much help Russia has been providing in any of those areas, even before Aug. 7.
Iran provides a useful example. Russia has participated, with Germany, France and Britain, in talks aimed at persuading Iran to abandon its nuclear program and even has gone along with some sanctions enacted by the U.N. Security Council. But Russia's principal contribution has been to slow the process and resist meaningful sanctions, stringing the Bush administration along just enough to convince it that truly effective measures -- sometime, somewhere down the road -- might be possible. Iran's nuclear program has proceeded without inhibition. Meanwhile, Russian experts help develop Iran's Bushehr nuclear power plant, and Russia sells Iran air-defense weapons it can use to protect its nuclear sites and anti-ship weapons it could use to menace Persian Gulf shipping traffic in the event of conflict. While the administration blames Iran and its proteges, including Hamas and Syria, for destabilizing the Middle East, Russia sells arms to all of them, and to Venezuela and Sudan.
None of this means that the United States should seek or welcome a new cold war with Russia. Russia could make life far more difficult for many of America's friends if it chose to do so, just as it could, if it chose, help combat terrorism and nuclear proliferation. But President Bush's imagined partnership with president-turned-prime-minister Vladimir Putin has been pretty much an empty husk for a long time. We hope and believe that the West would not under any circumstance barter away the independence or territorial integrity of a small, free and helpless nation in exchange for a promise of big-power cooperation. But when that promise is an illusion, the calculation should become even easier.
#3
What am I missing NS? THIS article seems to be thinking pretty clearly, unlike their typical blinkered viewpoint.
"while overseeing his country's continuing occupation of neighboring Georgia, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev found time to meet with visiting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Mr. Assad, who is under suspicion of ordering the murder of political opponents"
#4
This is not an article, it is an editorial. The news pages in the WaPo continue to be filled with leftist slanted reporting. Same as the WSJ. It creates a false impression that because the editorial slant is clearly realist the reporting must be too. Not so.
#5
Russia will do whatever it wants in Georgia, because the West is not prepared or not able to respond.
For example, if Europe said we will implement a nuclear power program to ensure they don't need Russian gas in 5 to 10 years, Russia would be out of Georgia PDQ.
#7
Thanks NS. I hoped I was missing something. Between the WP making sense AND the nomination of Biden as VP, I thought maybe reality and I had gone in different directions.
Well, at least Russia is seen as the bad guy again.
#8
The reality-based community prefers its reality in bite-sized nuggets. Give WaPo time.
Posted by: Steve White ||
08/24/2008 14:47 Comments ||
Top||
#9
SpikeU,Georgia doesn't produce much oil but it is an important transportation route for it, from as you say, Azerbaijan. Azerbaijan is perhaps the oldest oil exporting region in the world, and as such has long been a 'hub' for gathering new oil supplies from around the Caspian region and sending them on through the traditional outlets. Georgia, with its central valley running from the Black Sea towards the Caspian, is one (and the most direct) of those routes, both for rail and for pipeline. Most other routes run through Russia, and now so do the Georgian routes.
#10
Azerbaijan and Georgia would also be the transit route to transport Turkmen gas to Europe. 1/3 of all Russian gas exports is Turkmen gas the Russians pay 30-40 cents on the dollar and transport through their pipelines. That's billions/year in free money to the KGB princes. An alternate pipeline would reduce Russian gas export revenues by 25%. And there are many areas of the Caspian and Kazakhstan still to be explored or put into production.
Posted by: ed ||
08/24/2008 16:12 Comments ||
Top||
#1
I find it ironic that the Middle East, Iran and Pakistan are not even considered as part of the State and DoD map. These are the core inflammations presently for the planet and are not considered major economic interests to protect or defend. The middle east with its oil assets are not on the map? Call me skeptical to that kind of thinking.
Posted by: Jack is Back! ||
08/24/2008 10:03 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Those are Barnett's views. Galrahn is a sychophant for Dr. Barnett, now Tom. What gets me is that Russia is included in the Core. Sorry, it's part of the Gap. And I'm not too sure about China, either. So throw them in the Gap and what do you have in the Core?
EUrope, US, Canada, Mexico(?!), Brazil, Argentina, South Africa, India, Japan, Australia, New Zealand. That's starting to look a lot like something else, at least the operational portions. The Anglosphere perhaps? And these Sys Admins Barnett wants to ship out to help the natives, are they really secular missionaries?
#3
I can't help but think that "core" and "gap" are just convenient words to make us feel better about the goddamn crappy empires re-establishing themselves onto the less-developed world. Russia gets to be 'core' and Georgia 'gap' in his analysis for no good reason I can see.
#4
Its the same old apologists in new suits coming out of the woodwork again crying let's not have another Cold War II. It's not our choice, it's one forced upon us by the reemergence of unrepentant Pan-Slavism. The Russians know that even with the monies coming in from oil and gas its still not enough to operate the very basics of a viable economy and have to play the 'Star Wars' game with a US that sets out a la Reagan to rebuild its military it disassembled in the 90s. So the Russians prod their sock puppets [same old excuses and warnings] to sell their game of 'let's not do something'. The US is getting nearer and nearer technically to first strike capability which would if focused would defang the bear once and for all. Expect all the soft power they have to be expended to stop that.
#5
core and gap are distractions. more of the same ole pap, barnett is a mouthppiece for sustaining oligarchic largesse. Nato should take on the russian airforce....get control of the skies, next the seas. russia is the same ole extorionist its always been. made some oligarchs rich, used oil as a weapon to extort advantage, didnt adapt to market, reverted only to its mean potential....nato can handle them and should do so without delay.
#6
Nato should take on the russian airforce....get control of the skies, next the seas. russia is the same ole extorionist its always been. made some oligarchs rich, used oil as a weapon to extort advantage, didnt adapt to market, reverted only to its mean potential....nato can handle them and should do so without delay.
With all due respect, Russia isn't Iraq or Iran or any of the desert mobocracies. It has a real military with real doctrine developed over centuries. Its equipment, at least the stuff the press showed in the Georgian invasion is crap; I seriously doubt we saw any Russian line units.
What I did see was a lot of yahoos with heavily AK-47s riding atop BMP-1s and BMP-2s, all hell bent on looting and raping; Bearded, unshaven, unclean fillers with donning watch caps, garrison caps and do-rags. I didn't see any line forces; just a lot of fellas with really good air support.
In other words, I don't believe the Russians would have tipped whatever hand they wanted us to see if they didn't want us to see it.
Remember the .pdf released by orbat.com just a few days ago?
A SPETSNAZ unit riding atop BMP-2s? Are you f*cking kidding me? Would any special forces allow themselves to be caught being photographed much less in a 30 year old IFV? Riding in a road column? Participating in joy road down Highway One to Gori?
Put yourself in the 58th Army commander's position. Is the best use of SPETSNAZ units going on a joyride to be photographed by a fawning press? Seriously?
We didn't see Russian line forces, and so we have zero idea what they have ready to go to war. Do you want to take that chance against the Russian Air Force and Army, the forces we haven't seen yet?
We did see a buncha yahoos armed with AKs with very good air support who were apparently told it's okay if they identified themselves as SPETSNAZ, cuz who the f*ck knows the difference?
Enjoy getting even with the bastard Georgians. That's what they were told.
#7
I didn't see any line forces; just a lot of fellas with really good air support.
Maybe. However all during the 70s and 80s we were told the Soviet soldier was 10 foot tall able to endure the unbearable and impervious to moral breaking environments. The Arab-Israel wars were just discounted as arabs [monkeys in Russian lexicon] using Soviet equipment and failing to perform. Then Afghanistan happened and while the 'line' units could chew up the third world types who stood, with the air contested, the little guys showed what the Soviet doctrine was - something still WWII overwhelming mass. When that wasn't in play, the Russians were often cooked. However, excuses were continued to be made for their performance. Then Chetchnya unfolded revealing that the bear had not really changed much from '45. The whole operation in Georgia doesn't show much beyond that.
From what I gather, it appears those who've faced both of our forces term our line units as spetsnaz /commandos in respect to their force. And those are few in their force structure while many in ours.
I'm not advocating going toe to toe unless the bear plays real stupid power tricks, but I'm not going to be a McClellan either.
#9
I'm not Badanov; AFAICT, the Georgians didn't go north until the tanks were already on their way south on the road through the tunnel, based on current information.
The Georgians did make a couple big mistakes: not being mobilized already, not having artillery zeroed in on the tunnel (I'm thinking of MLRS type rockets) and the surrounding road... if you ignore the "We all know it was started by Georgian aggression" line it looks like they were all caught flatfooted.
Badanov: I kind of suspect that the Russian line troops are five to ten miles back in case their bearded irregulars actually run into any resistance, then they can rush forward with a standard "Georgia broke the ceasefire again, the bastards" refrain.
Sadly, "they" were not alone. Not surprising however, since our intelligence community had little or no situational awarenes of pending Paki nuclear testing.
#11
AS you let him off the hook, but of course you are right. " I'm not Badanov; AFAICT, the Georgians didn't go north until the tanks were already on their way south on the road through the tunnel, based on current information."
The story circulating is that russia took defensive action post Georgias movements, in order to believe that, one would have to believe in materialization. The convoy of ru vehicles was reported between 600 and 1200 total vehicles. That organization takes time getting into position, georgia forces must have gotten a heads up. too bad they didnt shut the tunnel as priority 1.
ru propaganda is so blantantly reliant on the ignorance of any reader. the left is predisposed to defend putin, of course. but its clear that the only question needed to defeat that rhetoric is to demand to know where those vehicles were two weeks or even days before the move.....clearly putin thought he'd waltz right in unopposed, set up shop and fait acompli.
badinovs change of subject is more posturing, start with the air, and reverse the course of this misadventure.
Nato air is formidable, russia will lose its air forces within a week to 10 days.
#12
All I know is what I and the rest of the planet saw and thus I do not believe we saw Russian line units.
All we saw were the armed yahoos, not Russian regulars.
Not saying nor will I ever say Russian regulars are equal to our regulars, but I am saying you should step softly. We did not see the Bear's best, but we did see what we did see.
And an armed rabble is a terrible way to base your knowledge of the readiness of the Russian Armed Forces.
Were the US to tangle with the Russians, I will be the first in the stands with a Go USA pennant or a cheerleading outfit doing cheers for the USA.
I just don't believe we saw Russian regulars. I can't believe it. The soldiers I saw were dirty, poorly groomed yahoos in camos, not trained front line soldiers.
#13
Bad, the Russian 58th Army is their most experience unit. They have been fighting a very nasty war in Chechnya and Caucasus these past years. In addition I have read the Russians rushed into battle their first line airborne reserve forces from St Pete and Moscow. (I may try a search for unit names). Scruffy doesn't mean not combat experienced. Discipline? Ask the East Germans in 1945.
Posted by: ed ||
08/24/2008 15:56 Comments ||
Top||
#14
combat inexperienced
Posted by: ed ||
08/24/2008 16:19 Comments ||
Top||
#15
The Russians have enough BMP-2's in storage from the 80's to equip the current US army about four or five times over. They hand them to some Cossack and Chechnyan irregulars, send them into an area the regulars have already cleared but withdrawn from, and bam! there's your tripwire.
Have 'em pillage the area, haul off the young men, and rape the women, and bam! you have your next vicious Georgian violation of the cease-fire agreement against your tripwire.
And you don't have to worry about your line troops losing discipline from doing the looting pillaging and raping bit. They're all either dug in or waiting to go about 3/4 of an hour back and one phone call from the front lines.
#1
The fact that this asshole is even being allowed to run for office is a national embarrassment. I don't in a million years think they will do a damned thing about this, or any of his other chicanery that he himself has admitted to in his books.
As an argumentative Indian it pleases me when someone starts an argument with me. It pleases me even more when the challenger is a respected intellectual with more years of journalistic experience than little old me. So I was flattered that Prem Shankar Jha should consider it worthwhile to write a long, thoughtful piece in this newspaper last week to disagree with what I said on the current situation in Kashmir. What I said in this space was that it was disturbing not to hear Kashmirs supposedly moderate leaders speak in a moderate voice at a time when sensible voices were so badly needed.
Mr Jha accused me of being both simplistic and unjust. In his critique of my piece he gave a lengthy account of the history of the Amarnath Yatra but ended up half agreeing with me: Ms Singh is right when she says that (Yasin) Malik, the Mirwaiz, Geelani and even Omar Abdullah and Mehbooba Mufti fanned the agitation by joining it. But had they not done so they would have written their own epitaphs in Kashmiri politics.
My answer is they should have. Kashmir needs leaders not politicians in its present crisis. If all that the moderates can give us is politics and political expediency it would be better if they wrote their epitaphs quickly. It would make it easier for us to deal with the secessionists and jihadis who should under Indian law be tried for treason. Ten years ago I wrote a book that blamed the Government of India squarely for denying Kashmiris their democratic rights, thereby driving them towards armed insurgency. I believe this gives me the right to say that this time the Kashmiris have no cause. No country could have dealt with a secessionist movement more gently than India has after those initial mistakes in the early nineties. The movement for azadi turned into Islamist terrorism and India did nothing. Kashmiri Hindus were ethnically cleansed from the Valley and India did nothing. Jihadis came across our borders and turned Kashmiri Islam into a Saudi facsimile and India did nothing.
This is why when something as absurd as the Amarnath land row should have brought thousands of Kashmiris into the streets carrying Pakistani flags and shouting jihadi slogans the reaction from Indians has been: get out. Enough is enough. In Delhis liberal drawing rooms they put it diplomatically. We should have a referendum, they say, and if the Kashmiris want to go to Pakistan then its time to let them go because, poor dears, they have suffered so much for their azadi.
As a reporter who prefers to listen to what ordinary people say let me tell you what I hear when I put my ear to the ground. I hear people say that anyone who wants to go to Pakistan must be allowed to leave and never allowed back into Kashmir. I hear people say that they are not prepared to surrender another inch of Indian territory. If Kashmiri Muslims have a problem living with us let them emigrate to that Islamic country across the border. Whoever wants to go must be helped to go. But, there will be no more changing of Indias borders. The more belligerent say let the Kashmir Valley go to Pakistan but then there will be no room in India for Muslims.
What I also hear is huge support for the movement in Jammu. So when our political leaders and politically correct TV anchors equate the two agitations they make a serious mistake. The way ordinary Indians see it is that we have one set of protesters who carry Indian flags and are ready to die for Bharat Mata and they cannot be equated with those who openly state their allegiance to Pakistan.
It is no longer about the Amarnath Yatra. It is about whether the Indian state has the courage to defend India from breaking up. And, defend the values India stands for. We stand for democracy, secularism and fundamental human freedoms that include the freedom of worship. These are good values and we must defend them against those who would have us make compromises with religious fanatics and traitors.
Those who do not share our values have every right to leave and find a country more suited to their way of thinking and their beliefs. But, if they choose to stay in India they must abide by the values of this land. In the name of secularism Dr Manmohan Singhs Government has made too many concessions to jihadis and other lowlifes. This is being seen as a sign of weakness by those who have no compunction about waving Pakistani flags on Indian soil. If this is a simplistic and unjust assessment of the situation in Kashmir so be it.
Posted by: john frum ||
08/24/2008 17:10 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
The "October Surprise" is a time-honored tradition in election-year politics. This time around, bombing Iran would be the worst sort of surprise. But the best possible surprise might unfold right next door - in Iraq.
From our respective perches inside and outside the Defense Department, we are picking up open hints of a possible swift, deep drawdown in U.S. forces there that would take place long before the 2011 deadline apparently set by the impending troop withdrawal agreement between Washington and Baghdad. Aside from the happy shock of a much earlier than anticipated reduction announcement itself, the most unexpected aspect of such a development would be the tacit admission that the sheer numbers added by last year's surge had little to do with improvements in Iraq in the first place.
Instead, things got better because of our willingness to negotiate with Sunni insurgents and to build a network of small outposts to protect Iraqis where they were most vulnerable.
All 23 Sunni tribes in Anbar province quickly switched sides in response to our blandishments. But the big tactical adjustment was that Gen. David Petraeus took a few thousand soldiers and moved them off of forward operating bases the size of small cities and redeployed them, platoon by platoon, onto the streets.
There, like police on foot patrol, they could swiftly respond to acts of terror and take the fight to the enemy. A major corner was turned when we shifted to this "outpost and outreach" approach, with violence soon dropping by about 75 percent.
So, on any given day, about 5,000 American troops are now stationed at just over 100 outposts, paired with platoons of Iraqis, and directly supported by about 15,000 more Americans.
This still leaves more than 130,000 U.S. troops sitting in our huge forward operating bases, waiting, perhaps, for an old-fashioned war to begin. They are there to satisfy the "just in case" anxiety that keeps our generals thinking that conventional troop formulas and tactics are still relevant in this age of irregular warfare.
They cling to the old approach against monumental evidence that the world has changed and that old ways of thinking about the necessary scale of expeditionary forces are no longer justified.
This means, of course, that the first four years of the war in Iraq were largely wasted. We could have shifted to outposts and outreach at almost any time since 2003, cutting short the suffering of the Iraqi people and reducing our own casualties. To those who would argue that such a shift would have imperiled our forces, we observe simply that, since the concept of small outposts was put into use, whenever insurgents have tried to mount large-scale attacks, they have been destroyed by a combination of good soldiering and airpower. Not a single small outpost has ever been overrun.
For these reasons, we call for a dramatic, two-thirds reduction of U.S. troops in Iraq over a short period of time, bringing us down to about 50,000. Further, we would reduce the proportion of our forces on forward operating bases down from 90 percent, where it is today, to about 60 percent, or 30,000. The remaining 20,000 would be used to expand significantly the network of outposts. Thus, far more troops would be in better position to bring sustainable security to the Iraqi people until they can sustain themselves.
A great opportunity awaits whoever has the wit, and the grit, to take up the cudgels for this plan.
Barack Obama should adopt it immediately. He has already signaled a move away from his initial drawdown plan, one that lacked the concept of operations that ours offers. By embracing a proposal that could work well and quickly, Obama would simultaneously remain anti-war and become pro-military. This might just win him the election.
John McCain should also take up this path immediately. He would escape any innuendos aimed at painting him as trigger-happy, and rid him of the problem that his stay-the-course-for-a-century policy ignores: that our troops are tired and need to come home. By demonstrating that there is a way of being pro-war while embracing a concept of operations that is smarter and more scaled-down, McCain might just win the election.
Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki should support this plan immediately as well. The rapid reduction of two-thirds of U.S. troops that our plan calls for would allow him to tamp down any lingering suspicions - among his supporters and opponents - about the sincerity of the U.S. commitment to remove all combat forces by 2011.
Finally, George W. Bush, a commander in chief with a track record of embracing bold initiatives, should adopt this approach. Offering a rational plan that swiftly and sharply reduces our forces in Iraq, and creatively redeploys those that remain, would be a balm to the American people, and a blessing to a world that longs for a sign that we still possess a special mix of compassion and ingenuity.
John Arquilla works for the Navy and is author of "Worst Enemy: The Reluctant Transformation of the American Military." Todd Feinburg is a nationally syndicated radio talk host who specializes in matters of policy and strategy.
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.
On Thursday, while overseeing his country's continuing occupation of neighboring Georgia, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev found time to meet with visiting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Mr. Assad, who is under suspicion of ordering the murder of political opponents in Lebanon, lavishly praised Russia's invasion of Georgia and asked for more Russian weapons. Mr. Medvedev acceded to this request, according to his foreign minister. 
