[Dawn] In June 2001, a couple of months before the infamous attack on New York which changed the world, I had traveled with a couple of colleagues from Kandahar to Kabul to do a series of reports on life under the Taliban for a foreign television channel.
It was there that, for the first time, I truly understood the tragedy that was Afghanistan and the circumstances that gave rise to the group whose name has now become shorthand for all that is myopic, literalist and bad boy for most on the one hand, and for a brave indigenous resistance to a foreign occupation to some on the other. No amount of prior reading had the same revelatory effect on my understanding of the nuances of the Taliban movement as that trip.
When NATO ...the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Originally it was a mutual defense pact directed against an expansionist Soviet Union. In later years it evolved into a mechanism for picking the American pocket while criticizing the cut of the American pants... attacked Afghanistan in October that year as a response to '9/11', one of the things that completely bewildered them was how the supposedly fierce and resilient Taliban seemed to have disappeared into thin air. For most outsiders it seemed to prove the dictum -- parroted by the Northern Alliance and 'security' pundits in India -- that the Taliban were some sort of foreigner force propped up entirely by Pakistain's ISI which had returned en masse to the foreign land it had come from.
The ISI certainly provided support and military know-how to the Taliban after Benazir Bhutto's government in 1994 saw them as a solution to internecine warfare and warlordism among the former anti-Soviet 'mujahideen'. But having interacted with most levels of the Taliban bureaucracy -- except for the reclusive 'Emir' Mullah Omar ... a minor Pashtun commander in the war against the Soviets who made good as leader of the Taliban. As ruler of Afghanistan, he took the title Leader of the Faithful. The imposition of Pashtunkhwa on the nation institutionalized ignorance and brutality already notable for its own fair share of ignorance and brutality... -- it was clear to me even then that they were very much an Afghan force.
While the leadership might have decamped to Pakistain or elsewhere or while some commanders had opportunistically switched sides in the age-old tradition of the land, most Taliban fighters -- which included the former 'mujahideen' -- had simply melted away to their homes, indistinguishable from ordinary rural Pakhtun Afghans. Bizarrely, it seems it took NATO almost a further decade to understand this.
One of the people I got to know well on that trip was a senior member of the Taliban information ministry. He was only 24 then -- youthful like most Taliban I met (even Mullah Omar's right-hand man, Mullah Hasan Rehmani, the governor of Kandahar, was only in his early forties). A former law student at Kabul University, he had chosen to join the Taliban out of the necessity of choosing sides and in the naïve belief that they were actually a force for good compared to the warlordism he had seen growing up.
Now mortified by some of the Taliban's extremes, he chose to confide his secret dissent to me, and his own remarkable story as the unsung protector of Afghanistan's film heritage still remains to be told. When he decamped Afghanistan after the fall of Kabul (more out of notions of honour than necessity since two of his brothers who were also Taliban capos had simply switched sides), he landed up in Pakistain for a few months and I had the chance to interview him in a less guarded environment for the BBC Urdu Service. One of the questions I asked him was how it was that I had never seen any of the Arabs linked to Al Qaeda -- who the West considered the real string pullers of the Taliban -- in any government ministry during my time in Kandahar or Kabul. In fact, I don't think I saw a single Arab the entire time I was there. He replied that, while there were some Arabs in Afghanistan and they may have had access to Mullah Omar (he himself had met the late Osama bin Laden ... who has left the building... once on the Kabul frontlines), they never interfered in the day to day running of government nor exerted any direct influence on the Taliban rank and file.
Most analysts with a far greater knowledge of Afghanistan than mine corroborated his words which pointed to the essential difference between the Al Qaeda Arabs and the Afghan Taliban: one had a global vision and "an agenda that stretches beyond borders", the other mainly localised interests. It's pertinent to remember that despite the fact that Al Qaeda had found refuge in Afghanistan, no act of international terrorism has ever involved an Afghan. In the heady days after driving the Taliban from power, NATO and its allies chose to ignore this distinction.
Syed Saleem Shahzad's book, at its most persuasive, is essentially an explanation of how that crucial mistake and its resultant hubris allowed Al Qaeda to make "blood brothers" of those lumped with them and weave itself into the fabric of the Taliban far more than it ever had before 9/11.
Shahzad's contention is that the West's initial myopia in Afghanistan has become a self-fulfilling prophecy which has made it now impossible to separate Al Qaeda from the Taliban insurgency and which will thus lead to the West's eventual defeat in that arena.
THIS review has been the most difficult one, by far, that I have ever had to write. And it is only very partially because of the denseness of the book under consideration. The author frequently uses the metaphor of the Arabic mythological epic, Alf Laila Wa Laila (A Thousand and One Nights), to give a sense of the multifarious interconnected stories of Al Qaeda, but the metaphor could as easily be used for this book itself. It is a series of stories about people who fought and died and were replaced, obscure histories and recent events that have ostensibly shaped the beast that is Al Qaeda.
In fact, the book would have benefited tremendously from some charts and diagrams to help readers keep track of the numerous jihadist characters and their often complicated and fluid relationships with various organizations without having to continuously flip backwards and retrace their steps.
But there are two far more primary reasons this has been a difficult book to review. The first has to do with the content. Most of the book is written without source citations and more often than not, assertions are made that are impossible to verify.
Obviously, one must take the author at his word if he asserts that Militant X or Al Qaeda Planner Y told him something in an exclusive interview; there is no way for a reader to corroborate or refute such information, especially if X and Y are now dead.
But as often, startling claims are made without reference to any information in the public domain that would substantiate them.
To give just a few examples of numerous such assertions, the book claims that after the 2003 military operation in South Wazoo, Al Qaeda leaders Osama bin Laden and Ayman Al-Zwahiri were separately holed up in various valleys in the far-flung area of Shawal which falls at the juncture of South and North Waziristan and Afghanistan (if true, Shahzad was far more knowledgeable about their whereabouts than any of the various intelligence agencies hunting for them); that the blowing up of the Bamiyan Buddhas was engineered by Al Qaeda in order to prevent an imminent recognition of the Taliban by China which, had it occurred, would have reduced the Taliban government's international isolation and thus have worked against Al Qaeda's "broader interests" to make the Taliban dependent on it; and that "Unlike [President] Musharraf, [General] Kayani ... four star general, current Chief of Army Staff of the Mighty Pak Army. Kayani is the former Director General of ISI... was unconcerned about inflicting collateral damage" and was also unconcerned by the plight of millions of civilians made refugees in 2008 and 2009 in North and South Waziristan, Bajaur, Mohmand ... Named for the Mohmand clan of the Sarban Pahstuns, a truculent, quarrelsome lot. In Pakistain, the Mohmands infest their eponymous Agency, metastasizing as far as the plains of Beautiful Downtown Peshawar, Charsadda, and Mardan. Mohmands are also scattered throughout Pakistan in urban areas including Karachi, Lahore, and Quetta. In Afghanistan they are mainly found in Nangarhar and Kunar... and Swat.
These are not small assertions for a journalist to make as throwaway "factoids". Yet the book is littered with such claims. What makes such assertions particularly problematic is that they are presented along with other verifiable facts about well known events, quite possibly lulling the ordinary reader, with little independent knowledge of the region's politics, into accepting them as the truth rather than highly contested 'facts'.
The second reason making this a difficult review are the circumstances in which the book was published. It was launched in London only a few days before the author, Syed Saleem Shahzad, a fellow journalist who worked with the same media house as myself at one time, was kidnapped and found brutally murdered with the finger of blame pointing squarely towards the state's intelligence outfits. The immediate assumption was that his senseless murder was connected in some way to his writings on the murky world of jihadist outfits and possibly to this very book.
This obviously attached a halo to his investigative pieces that he possibly never enjoyed in his lifetime. It is never easy to write critically of the work of a colleague (albeit a colleague I never met), but especially when that colleague has met such a horrific and thoroughly undeserved fate.
The Commission of Inquiry into Shahzad's murder has yet to make its findings known. But irrespective of the results of that inquiry, and indeed it remains a fervent hope that Shahzad's killers are identified and punished, the book must be judged on its content, which I have endeavoured to do with the caveats detailed above.
I have already pointed out one of the major issues with the content of the book being a lack of citations for rather startling claims. However, there's no worse danger than telling a mother her baby is ugly... there also numerous assertions in the text which can actually be called out for their own internal contradictions and even misstatement of known facts.
As examples of the latter, Shahzad claims at one point that Islamic Emirates of Afghanistan (Afghanistan under the Taliban) "is recognised by a majority of Moslem scholars as an Islamic state", which is just simply wrong. At another point he claims that General Tariq Majeed was General Musharraf's choice to succeed him as chief of army staff in 2007 but that Musharraf was forced to accept General Kayani since the latter was the US choice. This is contradicted by the recent WikiLeaks disclosures of secret US documents that show that General Musharraf played his cards close to his chest and that US diplomats were left to speculate on who Musharraf's successor might be.
As an example of the former, Shahzad claims at one point in the book that Al Qaeda's leadership had become quite upset with its man in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, for his brutality and his policy of targeting Shias in Iraq since it felt this was alienating even moderate Sunnis from Al Qaeda. In fact, the author claims Al Qaeda was getting ready to quickly distance itself from Zarqawi before he was killed by US forces. Yet, at another point the author notes that Dr Ayman al-Zwahiri, who he calls the real founder of Al Qaeda, "awarded" Zarqawi the "Al Qaeda franchise for Iraq to stir up sectarian strife so that Iraq's theater of war would be more complicit" and to make Iraq ungovernable. His claims about Al Qaeda's alleged concern about Zarqawi's sectarianism are also belied by his own telling of Al Qaeda's intellectual lineage from the medieval ideologue Ibne Taymiyyah who declared Shias heretics, and how the virulently anti-Shia outfit, Lashkar-i-Jhangvi, was welcomed into Al Qaeda with open arms and allowed to carry on its targeting of the Shia in Pakistain.
But perhaps the book's greatest problem lies in Shahzad's interpretation of Al Qaeda itself. Contrary to every other scholarly dissection of Al Qaeda as a loose-knit group of radical jihadis worldwide bound by a common ideology, Shahzad paints an organization that seems not only to micromanage all affairs but which has a Nostradamus-like prophetic far-sightedness.
According to Shahzad, Al Qaeda not only "fashioned" the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistain (TTP) in 2007-8 by spotting and nurturing young cut-throats such as Baitullah Mehsud, Qari Ziaur Rehman and Swat's Ibne Ameen (who was later notorious for his throat-slitting brutality) early on, it did so because it had foreseen that Pakistain's tribal areas would become the real battleground against the Americans.
Shahzad also claims that the Lal Masjid episode of 2007 was precipitated by Al Qaeda on whose advice Maulana Abdul Aziz, the mosque's infamous khateeb, had in 2004 issued a fatwa forbidding Moslem funerals for army personnel killed in the South Waziristan operation. Before the actual military operation against Lal Masjid, "The Al Qaeda shura (council) met in North Waziristan and, after prolonged discussion and debate, agreed that the high point of their struggle in Pakistain would come when the foreseeable military operation against Lal Masjid began," writes Shahzad. "Open war against the US-Pakistain designs was now unavoidable."
Al Qaeda also knew in 2006 (!) that Barrack Obama would be elected president of the US, according to Shahzad, and therefore the liquidation of Benazir Bhutto was timed to unsettle US plans for Pakistain during a transition phase from a Republican to a Democrat administration. And its 9/11 attacks were orchestrated knowing that the US would then attack Afghanistan, thereby "sucking the US into their trap" and leading to a Moslem backlash which would precipitate a confrontation between the West and the Moslem world. This supposedly fulfilled a Hadith about the beginning of "End of Times" battles in ancient Khurasaan comprising the current areas of Central Asia, Iran, Pakistain and India. The belief in this Hadith is explained as the motivator for bin Laden's decision to return to Afghanistan in 1996, even though the actual circumstances of bin Laden's flight of necessity from Sudan are well known.
It is one thing to disabuse some silly liberals of their notions of the jihadists as unthinking automatons. It is quite another to do what Shahzad seems to have done: delineate Al Qaeda as some sort of all-seeing, all-knowing entity that is able to plan far ahead of mere mortals. In fact, his far more credible focus on Al Qaeda's "uncanny ability to exploit unfolding events" is undercut by this constant awe at the 'prophetic' nature of the group's leadership. In all probability, many of these stories were probably revisionist takes on past events by jihadists Shahzad had access to, such as the notorious Ilyas Kashmiri (killed in a drone strike a few days after Shahzad's own murder). But for the author to take these at face value betrays a strange gullibility for a seasoned journalist.
The book is at its best where Shahzad clearly cites his sources of information, usually mid-tier and lesser known figures of this shadowy world that he personally met, and which then provide a fresh insight into the workings of terror outfits. Characters like the former army commandos turned jihadis, Captain Khurram Ashiq, Major Abdul Rehman and Khurram's brother, Major Haroon Ashiq are among the most fascinating to emerge from these stories.
Major Haroon, who the author claims personally killed the former SSG commander Major General (retired) Faisal Alavi in Islamabad in retaliation for the 2003 special forces operations in Angoor Adda, in particular, is singled out as one of the real architects of Al Qaeda's new military strategy. This included, among other things, the November 26, 2008 attack on Mumbai (Shahzad claims it was planned by Haroon who "cunningly manipulated" a "forward section" of the ISI and the Lashkar-i-Taiba and was designed to take pressure off gun-hung tough guys on the Afghan border by causing an India-Pakistain conflagration), the focus on cutting off NATO supply lines and the kidnapping-civilians-for-ransom strategy (including of the Bloody Karachi-based filmmaker, Satish Anand) to raise funds.
He also claims that the attack on the touring Sri Lankan cricket team in March 2009 was actually aimed to hold the team hostage to negotiate the springing from prison of Haroon, who had been tossed in the calaboose during a bungled kidnapping in Rawalpindi.
Incidentally, it should be noted that Carey Schofield in her recently published book Inside the Pakistain Army hints strongly that Alavi's murder may have been motivated by the personal animosity of two senior generals who Alavi felt had reason to hold a grudge against him, who poisoned his longtime supporter General Musharraf against him and against whom he had filed a formal complaint for misrepresenting facts that led to his dismissal from service. She also repeats Alavi's family's claims (which she could not verify) that Major Haroon, who was charged with Alavi's murder, was acquitted and walked out of prison in the summer of 2011.
Shahzad is also good where, through recounting his own experiences of navigating the difficult terrain of the Pak-Afghan border, he is able to convey how gun-hung tough guys are able to manoeuvre militarily undetected by both NATO and Pak forces.
And because of his wealth of information on mid-level jihadists, he is also able to provide a snapshot of the increasingly fluid membership structure of Death Eater outfits. With the book citing an estimated figure of 600,000 gun-hung tough guys trained between 1980 and 2000, it paints a grim picture for analysts who believe they can turn a blind eye to some groups while targeting others.
Most importantly, the book also details the nuances of the extremely murky fight against militancy and terrorism in which nobody has any roadmaps and there is a constant push-and-pull over whether to employ force or divide-and-conquer tactics.
Shahzad points out, for example, that NATO initially mis-assessed Sirajuddin Haqqani's loyalty to Mullah Omar, hoping to use him to displace Omar from the leadership of the Taliban (according to the book, the US also attempted, unsuccessfully, to set up the Jaishul Moslem, as a rival outfit to the Taliban). They did not realise, Shahzad says, that unlike his father Jalaluddin Haqqani, Siraj had become very close to Al Qaeda and, in fact, Al Qaeda's man in the Taliban shura, and would never betray Omar because this would jeopardise Al Qaeda's own interests. In fact, he had also assisted the TTP against the Pakistain army, which might explain recent rumours that the Paks were willing to help the US track him down in exchange for the Americans not touching the elder Haqqani.
Similarly, he also puts down the failed treaties between the Pakistain army and Death Eaters, such as those of Shakai (April 2004), Srarogha (February 2005) and with the Utmanzai Wazirs (September 2006, which also resulted in money being transferred to gun-hung tough guys as 'compensation' and other tossed in the calaboosegun-hung tough guys being freed) not so much as Pakistain playing double games with the US, as desperate tactical strategies to contain militarily untenable situations. In 2007, for example, the Pakistain army
also supported the TTP South Waziristan commander Mullah Nazir, with success, in order to wipe out the Al Qaeda-related Uzbek fighters, who Shahzad claims were the ones who introduced brutal tactics, such as the cutting of throats, to Pak Death Eaters.
The author also mocks those who allege any nexus between the ISI and Al Qaeda in the Mumbai attacks laying the blame unequivocally on Major Haroon, Major Abdul Rehman and their Al Qaeda cohorts. If anything, Shahzad accuses the army of creating more jihadis through the "unnecessary persecution" of gun-hung tough guys and through torture tactics, neither of which seems to fit into the current discourse of US allegations of double-dealing against Pakistain. If indeed state intelligence agents were
responsible for Shahzad's murder, the irony is that they have silenced a voice that could have bolstered their arguments against the American accusations.
IN early 2000, a few months after General Musharraf took power in a coup, he participated in a question and answer session with a large audience in Bloody Karachi. He was asked a question about the army's concept of "strategic depth" and whether it realised that its support for the Taliban in Afghanistan was encouraging similar literalist interpretations of religion and militancy in Pakistain. At that point, reports had just begun to filter in of bands of Pak gun-hung tough guys imposing Taliban-like strictures, such as banning television, music and girls' education, in parts of the tribal areas. His answer surprised many of those present. Musharraf spoke about how four years earlier, when his army officers used to visit the Taliban, they were forced to eat sitting on the ground, usually from one large communal plate. Now, he said, when they visit, they sit at tables and chairs with the Talibs and have separate plates and even cutlery.
Although his answer sounded absurd then, particularly in relation to the question that was asked, I suppose what he meant was that the Taliban were also 'evolving'.
If Syed Saleem Shahzad's hypothesis about Al Qaeda is correct, the Taliban have certainly changed, though not in the way General Musharraf envisioned. And the repercussions of their ideological influence can be felt all over Pakistain. While it is questionable whether Al Qaeda actually foresaw and pre-planned the so-called "Af-Pak" theatre of war or not, and the US may have taken too long to decide that a common strategy was called for, Pakistain's establishment it seems has yet to understand this fully. Whatever the merits of tactically supporting the Taliban as a hedge against a potentially hostile Afghanistan after NATO withdraws, the long-term strategic consequences for Pakistain's own social fabric are disastrous.
Even more ironically, while the Pakistain military may have officially abandoned their ideas of "strategic depth", Al Qaeda and the Taliban it seems are the ones who have managed truly to achieve "strategic depth." In Pakistain.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Fred ||
11/07/2011 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under: Taliban
TRIPOLI: Some weapons depots in Libya have still not been secured properly, and much has already gone missing from unguarded sites, the top UN envoy in Libya said in an interview Sunday. Preventing more weapons from being smuggled out of country will be difficult, considering the nature of the vast desert nations borders, the envoy, Ian Martin, told The Associated Press.
Especially since the UN won't let any ground forces into Libya to secure the weapons.
That has to be a priority now, to secure what still remains in Libya, he said. Over time, the international community can assist Libya and its neighbors with that, but I am afraid there is not a quick and easy solution to that problem.
During the chaos of Libyas 8-month civil war, human rights groups and reporters came across a number of weapons depots that were left unguarded and were looted after Muammar Qaddafis fighters fled.
Martin said the unsecured weapons remain a very, very serious cause for concern. He said they include shoulder-held missiles, mines and ammunition.
Martin noted progress concerning chemical weapons and nuclear material. Last week, Libyan officials said they discovered two new sites with chemical weapons that had not been declared by the Qaddafi regime when it vowed several years ago to stop pursuing non-conventional weapons. Officials also said they found about 7,000 drums of raw uranium.
That, too, has been secured, Martin said of the latest discoveries, noting that the main issue is now how to dispose of them. The UN mission headed by Martin is designed to help Libyas interim leaders with the transition to democracy.
Posted by: Steve White ||
11/07/2011 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
Russia's foreign minister Sergei Lavov has warned that a military strike on Iran would be a "very serious mistake" with "unpredictable consequences", after Israel's president Shimon Peres said that an attack was increasingly likely.
One serious consequence would be a demonstration of how the S-300 air defense system doesn't work very well, and that would be a serious consequence indeed for Russia's defense exports...
In comments published in the Israeli daily Hayom, Mr Peres said that "the possibility of a military attack against Iran is now closer to being applied than the application of a diplomatic option".
"We must stay calm and resist pressure so that we can consider every alternative," he added.
The drumbeat of war is expected to grow louder this week when United Nations nuclear watchdog, the IAEA, issues its most detailed report to date on nuclear research in Iran.
It will provide what Western officials and experts regard as irrefutable evidence that Tehran is compiling the capacity and skills to build a bomb. It will be used as leverage for a fifth round of sanctions at the UN, but could also provide Israel, with the tacit support of Washington, to finalise plans for an air strike.
Among its findings are that Tehran was helped by nuclear experts from two countries, believed to be Russia and Pakistan. The Washington Post reported that key assistance was provided by Vyacheslav Danilenko, a former Soviet nuclear scientist, hired by Iran's Physics Research Centre.
Another serious consequence is exposing all the Russian connections to the Iranian nuclear program...
#4
This weekend I watched the news and one of the talking heads interviewed an Israeli official. She asked him Israel would actually attack Iran. The fellow talked around the subject for a few minutes but the general answer was "yes".
One could tell she did not like that answer at all and quickly changed the subject.
Posted by: kelly ||
11/07/2011 13:13 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Exactly, TW (poor Ruskies, once they figured out how to counteract American stealth tech, they thought they were home free).
#7
BHARAT RAKSHAK > [Guardian.UK] IRAN NUCLEAR REPORT: IAEA CLAIMS IRAN WORKING ON ADVANCED WARHEAD.
ARTIC = However, the new IAEA Report doesn't provide anything new information, i.e. no real "smoking gun" to criticize Iran.
Also in Artic, ISRAELI EXPERT AVNER COHEN = believes 70-80% of Israel's attack threat is sheer bluff intended to intimidate = inspire? Iran allies RUSSIA + CHINA, etc. into putting pressure on IRan to halt its NucDev.
versus
* SAME >[Yahoo News] PAKISTAN TRAINS 8000 TO PROTECT NUCLEAR ARSENAL.
I provide the above to illustrate why any successful or effective US, Israel Commando strike = direct action agz Iran's NucProgs needs to be large-scale from the onset.
> Airpower alone, to include latest underground "bunker-busters, may damage + delay Iran's nuclearization drive, but NOT stop it.
> Use of SpecFors + other elite Units, albeit likely in never-before-deployed mass scale, is consistent wid the US-NATO/West concepts in the post-AFPAK, IRAQ struggle agz Radical Islam.
As Radical Islam violently andor electroally takes over more NUclear or NUclear-potential States, ONE OF THE FIRST THINGS THE NEW ISLAMIST GOVTS-REGIMES WILL DO IS PROTECT + "HARDEN" THEIR COUNTRY'S NUCPROGS AGZ US-NATO ATTACK.
LATEST ADS WEAP SYS as complemented by LARGE NUMBERS OF GROUND MIL SECURITY, AFVS, MILITIA + NEARBY AIR BASES, ETC.
A Muslim extremist has again dishonored the memory of fallen soldiers by reactivating a heartless campaign on Facebook. As the bodies of three Diggers killed by a rogue Afghan soldier returned home this week, Ibrahim Siddiq-Conlon outraged the grieving families by launching a cruel Facebook page attacking the men.
The controversial site - The Australian Defence Force: The Real Terrorists - listed the names of each of the 32 Australians to die in Afghanistan and accused them of being terrorists because of their military service. The site was removed after the ADF received complaints and informed the Australian Federal Police and Facebook.
In a provocative move, Mr Siddiq-Conlon last night reactivated the page before it was removed by authorities yet again. The AFP had been evaluating the material to assess whether a criminal offence had been committed.
The unapologetic Muslim convert, who got death threats soon after creating the site, has continued to trash dead Diggers by posting hateful messages on other Facebook pages.
"May they rot in hell," he wrote in one post. In another message he wrote: "I hope I got your blood boiling. That's what I like. It's my hobby. My fun. My pleasure."
Australian-born Mr Siddiq-Conlon, formerly known as Shannon James Conlon, also called his grandfathers terrorists because of their service for the Australian Army in Kokoda and the Middle East. He has said he was proud of being referred to as an "extremist" and "terrorist supporter".
Felix Sher, the outraged father of a soldier killed in a 2009 Taliban attack, said he was devastated. He said, "Our soldiers are defenders and protectors, unlike many in other countries who are invaders. The greatest freedom in Australia is that you can leave it when you like - and Mr Siddiq-Conlon should exercise that as soon as possible. When you start preaching hate who needs you around?"
Mr Siddiq-Conlon refused to back down yesterday over the website. He said it was meant to "spark a debate" about bringing the troops home from Afghanistan. In an email to the Herald Sun he wrote, "I say: If the Australian soldiers don't want to get hurt, then don't go to Afghanistan. Stay out of the Muslims (sic) lands, or naturally they will suffer the consequences from the brave mujahideen whom defend their lands ferociously."
The hazard and secret weapon of a free society is "putting up with this." That way, the bad guys are always more than happy to identify themselves, thus having saved the good guys time and treasure for when crunch time comes.
h/t Gates of Vienna
Two teenage girls emerging from downtown Oslos train station were attacked on Saturday evening by five young men in yet another escalation of the capitals burgeoning rape problem.
The arrest of five Afghan and Pakistani men immediately stoked calls for the creation of a national police sex-crimes unit. Oslo mayor Fabian Stang also called for discussions on a possible curtailment on freedoms for asylum seekers.
The mass attack on the 16-year-old girls braving the station area after dark was reported just hours after hundreds took part in a torchlight protest to take back the night, a rally by womens groups and ordinary citizens for action against sexual assault.
In all, newspaper VG chronicled five rapes over the weekend, including one in which assailants were described as Scandinavian in appearance.
#3
This is how multiculturalists encourage the "asylum refugees" to migrate to Norway. They endlessly play the Dire Straits song to them, "money for nothing and your chicks for free". They even hand out copies that can be sent back to the village to encourage more "asylum refugees" As for the women, don't they realise that sacrifices have to be made to accommodate their new Islamic overlords, anything else would be racist, don't ya know.
#4
It found that fewer than half of Britains 650,000 Somalis, Bangladeshis, Turks and Pakistanis, have jobs and the four communities have the highest levels of benefit dependency.
Posted by: Paul D ||
11/07/2011 9:05 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Lutefish season is in now on into December. A Norwegian seasonal dish from when times were difficult in Norway.In twenty years they have seen a drop in crime except for the rape.They remind me that the shooting they had was a nut like our Timothy McVeigh. The Germans warn them they are paying too high for wages. The youth of Europe now flock to Norway for employment.The Muslims are upset that land for burial is scarce. They are concerned that unemployment will drop below 2%. Tourism is down, fishing exports are down, but everything else is at an all time high. Too numerous to mention here. They are actively searching for more labor. This is a balancing act but they have the money to do it. They are not perfect but they are in much better shape than many countries of the world. Their economy is tied to the rest of the world. They are taking steps to buffer themselves now. They are not immune.
#6
that's Lutefisk. I'm part Norwegian and that crap makes me gag
Posted by: Frank G ||
11/07/2011 9:26 Comments ||
Top||
#7
If the recipe is any indication, I'll take a pass on it prepared this way; "dried stockfish was soaked in stong lye for 2 days, thorougly flushed in fresh water for 1 day, before it was boiled and eaten".
#9
Important highlight, that would be 4/5 of the attacks were by non-scandinavian appearance (whatever that means, does not really mean scandinavian).
Not to get off-topic, but what is the reason for that dish? Was is something back in the day one could take on a sea voyage or on arrival...or some mid-winter bet brought on by cabin fever?
#14
Ebbang Uluque6305 good story. Harsh weather and difficult times. Cod I believe is the Lukefish. The fish was being smoked and fell. They couldn't throw it away. So they salvaged what they could. So a tradition because of difficult times. Lost half their population and the Danes came in to rule. Later the Swiss who are considered brothers today.
Long before the world had heard of Osama bin Laden, Carlos the Jackal was known as the world's most wanted terrorist. He once claimed in an interview to have been responsible for more than 1,500 deaths in the name of Palestinian liberation.
The 62-year-old's latest trial starts on Monday, and will involve his alleged participation in four bombings in France which left 11 dead and dozens injured during the early 1980s. It will likely determine whether he will ever set foot in his native Venezuela again.
In an interview with the Guardian, Ramírez's brother, Vladimir Ramírez Sanchez, insisted that Ramírez, once called the most dangerous man alive, was innocent of murder.
"I am not willing to declare him guilty of something that is considered a heroic act when committed by powerful nations. While these double moral standards continue to exist, I will not accept that my brother is guilty of anything other than opposing the hegemony," said Vladimir, a militant member of the Venezuelan Communist party who described himself as a part-time engineer and full-time defender of his brother.
For Vladimir, his brother's capture has always been tough to swallow. He said, "The circumstance of his kidnapping alone should render the whole process unconstitutional."
And his bitterness has been heightened by the lack of support from Venezuela's government. Where once Hugo Chavez described Ilich (Carlos) as a freedom fighter, Vladimir says the regime has ignored his pleas for legal help.
Vladimir insisted his brother's revolutionary side is still alive and kicking. "His time in jail has only served to deepen my brother's beliefs. His condemnation of the enemy strengthens every time he sees the grip of imperialism tighten, like we've just seen in Libya. I will not rest in my defence until I see justice served."
According to Vladimir, the conditions of Ilich's imprisonment are clearly in violation of his human rights. In telephone conversations spanning 17 years, Ilich has told his brother about a life of abuse where he has been beaten, held in solitary confinement for long periods of time, forbidden from taking lessons in the jail's school, and not allowed to hold marital visits with Isabelle Coutant-Peyre, his lawyer whom he met and married in jail in 2001 after divorcing fellow comrade, Magdalena Kopp, through the Muslim ritual of renunciation.
Vladimir says, "Ilich is bankrupt and if it weren't for the fact that his wife has been willing to defend him for free he would have no defense."
Ilich's latest trial is expected to last several weeks. In a recent interview with French radio, he vowed to fight the charges. "I'm still in a combative state of mind," he told Europe 1 radio. "The first thing I'll do, if I get out by the grace of God ... I'll start with my honeymoon. It's more than a decade late."
WASHINGTON Under orders to cut the Pentagon budget by more than $450 billion over the next decade, Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta is considering reductions in spending categories once thought sacrosanct, especially in medical and retirement benefits, as well as further shrinking the number of troops and reducing new weapons purchases.
Mr. Panetta, a former White House budget chief, acknowledged in an interview that he faced deep political pressures as he weighed cuts to Pentagon spending, which has doubled to $700 billion a year since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
Unlike education, health care, environmental spending and government in general; we all know those haven't gone up a dime in the last decade.
He said that meeting deficit-reduction targets might require another round of base closings, which could be highly contentious as members of Congress routinely fight to protect military deployments and jobs in their communities.
Among other steps, Mr. Panetta said, Pentagon strategists were looking at additional cuts in the nuclear arsenal, with an eye toward determining how many warheads the military needed to deter attacks.
Mr. Panetta also held out the possibility of cutting the number of American troops based in Europe, with the United States compensating for any withdrawal by helping NATO allies improve their militaries.
But the allies have already demonstrated that they don't want to improve their militaries. If we hadn't been running the logistics and intel for the Libyan non-war that would have collapsed after the first week. And how exactly do we help -- give them money? What's the point then of cutting our budget?
That effort would free up money so the United States could maintain or increase its forces in Asia, a high priority for the Obama administration, and sustain a presence in the Persian Gulf after the withdrawal from Iraq this year, he said.
Or we could keep a reasonably small force in Iraq in the first place. Of course Bambi biffed that one...
In a 40-minute interview on Friday, Mr. Panetta offered the most detailed description to date of his plans to cut and reshape the military to fit a smaller budget while still protecting national security interests and taking care of military personnel and their families.
It was clear in the interview that the defense secretary was addressing a variety of audiences: enlisted personnel, officers and veterans, as well as members of Congress who approve Pentagon spending and an American public exhausted by a decade of war and now worried about the nations financial health.
Mr. Panetta spoke less than three weeks before a special bipartisan committee is supposed to produce a far-reaching deficit-reduction plan. If the committee deadlocks and fails to find $1.2 trillion in deficit reductions, then automatic cuts go into effect and the Pentagon could face an estimated $500 billion in additional reductions over the next decade.
Mr. Panetta has called those additional cuts potentially ruinous. In that view, he has allies in Congress, especially Republicans on the House and Senate Armed Services Committees, who are preparing legislation that would undo the automatic across-the-board cuts for military programs, or exchange them for cuts in other areas of the federal budget. The defense secretarys stated views could well put more pressure on the committee to come up with a deal.
Apart from the prospect of the automatic cuts, some Republicans have already criticized the administrations planned reductions as dangerously severe. Some Tea Party members and liberals, by contrast, have argued that the administrations reductions are too modest.
The administrations more than $450 billion in cuts would reduce the military budget by roughly 7 or 8 percent over the next 10 years, even beyond the spending reductions that would come from the withdrawals from Iraq and Afghanistan, according to government budget projections.
Although Pentagon spending stands at about $700 billion this year, the Defense Departments base operating budget is about $530 billion, with the rest allocated by Congress for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Pentagon officials predict that total Defense Department spending will drop to $522.5 billion by 2017.
Mr. Panetta outlined a series of guiding principles for where to invest and where to cut. He pledged to maintain and even increase spending in areas that have redefined the American way of war in recent years. They include cyberoffense and defense, unmanned aircraft, known as drones, and Special Operations forces like those who killed Osama bin Laden and who also train foreign militaries to battle insurgencies so the United States does not have to.
Were going from three cops to two cops in a pretty rough neighborhood, Mr. Panetta said in his office, where a portion of one wall is devoted to mementos from the raid that killed Bin Laden, which he directed in his former role as director of the Central Intelligence Agency.
Were going to be developing a smaller, lighter, more agile, flexible joint force that has to conduct a full range of military activities that are necessary to defend our national interests, he said. So even though theyre going to be smaller and lighter, weve got to make sure they always maintain a technological edge.
Trimming Pentagon spending by eliminating waste and increasing productivity remains a goal, he said but he acknowledged that that would not be enough.
There will be some huge political challenges, he said. When you reduce defense spending, theres likely to be base closures, possible reduction in air wings.
Mr. Panetta cited North Korea and Iran as persistent threats, and said that the military had to maintain the ability to deter and defeat them. Still, he did not envision maintaining a ground force large enough to conduct a long, bloody war and then stability operations in North Korea or Iran, as the United States did in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Under current plans, the Army is to drop to 520,000 troops, from 570,000, and the Marine Corps to 186,600, from 202,000, beginning in 2015, and Mr. Panetta said cuts could go below those levels. There is a likelihood that there may be some additional reductions below that, but not very much at this point, he said.
You can cut ground forces, but you then have to cut expectations and commitments. Likewise the Navy -- cut a carrier battle group if you want, but then don't complain when you don't have one when you need it.
Mr. Panetta said he had met regularly at the White House with President Obama about the reductions to Pentagon spending. He described the president as closely involved and said Mr. Obama had met recently with the four armed services chiefs to discuss budget and strategy issues.
Mr. Panetta also revealed that on Thursday he conducted war games with the combatant commanders, who oversee military operations in specific regions of the world, to see how potential cuts in forces might play out as the military faces various threats. He declined to describe the games or the regions selected for them, but said the results were sobering. One of the things I learned is that even without the $450 billion cut there are questions about our capabilities to deal with some of these challenges, he said.
In what he described as the most sensitive of the potential cuts facing an all-volunteer force, Mr. Panetta said the Pentagon was considering raising fees for the militarys health insurance program, Tricare. Today, military retirees and families, who are guaranteed Tricare for life, pay only $460 a year in fees far below what they would pay if they worked for a private employer although a modest increase for new enrollees began last month.
The White House and Pentagon have made clear that Tricare fee increases would be phased in over a few years and would affect current retirees and troops serving today when they retire. Health care costs for the Pentagon, the nations largest employer, total $50 billion a year, or about a tenth of its base budget. Ten years ago, health care cost the Pentagon $19 billion, equal to about $25 billion in todays dollars.
Mr. Panetta provided no details of potential reductions in military retirement pay for those who enlist in the future, but said he would consider supporting the creation of a binding commission to review such pay. He also indicated that he might support a change that would increase retirement spending, by offering some retirement pay to those who had served less than 20 years. Currently only those who have served at least 20 years receive retirement pay, which is 50 percent of their final annual base pay, for life.
Are there ways, looking at the retirement piece, where those who serve 10 or 12 years might be able to take that retirement with them? Mr. Panetta said.
In potential reductions to major weapons systems, Mr. Panetta said he was considering cutting the purchases of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, a radar-evading jet for the Air Force, Navy and Marines that is projected to cost nearly $400 billion for more than 2,400 planes over the next two decades. He suggested he might slow or cut back production, although the final decision may be to protect that jet program and identify cuts in other weapons purchases.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Steve White ||
11/07/2011 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
I knew it was in there, somewhere.
Hmmm... No other function of government is quite so clear in the Preamble. Meanwhile, everything else falls under "general Welfare" or Blessings of Liberty", neither of which stand a chance without the "common defense".
Some Tea Party folks think defense spending should be slashed? Like, uh...which ones?
Posted by: Bobby ||
11/07/2011 6:02 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Money spent on an Army or Fleet
Is homicidal lunacy. . . .
My son has been killed in the Mons retreat,
Why is the Lord afflicting me?
#3
We can start by withdrawing from defending First World Countries. If they are unable or unwilling to defend themselves by now [half a century], its their fate by their choosing.
#4
Mr. Panetta, a former White House budget chief, acknowledged in an interview that he faced deep political pressures as he weighed cuts to Pentagon spending, which has doubled to $700 billion a yearreturned to historical norms since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
#5
Once I was opposed to most spending cuts but now I find it hard to justify the large number of supercarriers, marine carriers, and ballistic missile subs. I like having them, but the cost is way high, and I think one or two carrier groups might be a better savings than going after retirement or medical benefits which would (a) be dishonorable to those that served and (b) cut into recruiting and reenlistment big time.
#6
I thought this was going to be one of those Panetta, Obummble, Congress setting-the-example by taking a pay cut stories. What the heck was I thinking?
#7
It is very common to pull this sort of thing during budget battles. When the state must cut back it's always schools, firemen and cops that they threaten instead of the number of beaucrats filling the statehouse. When the feds want to cut things they threat the military (or better yet military pensions and housing) instead of cutting out the number of staffers, or god forbid pork projects.
#8
The USN repor wants to cut 9 TICONDEROGAS + 3 WHIDBEY ISLANDS for FYS2013 + 2014 - oer at WAFF, the US Army repor may consider purchasing the GERMAN "PUMA" IFV as FGV to replace the Bradley???
AND THE NEXT QE = "STIMULUS" AMOUNT IN SUPPORT OF OUR DESIRED "1000-FLAG", "Mothership"-centric/happy?, OWG-NWO "GLOBAL TASK FORCE" [OWG/Global Navy] THAT NO AMERICAN = AMERIKAN HAS YET VOTED FOR WILL BE .....???
Lest we fergit, as per FAILED SOLYNDRA = the USDOD was desired to be a major user = buyer of such "green/green tech"technology.
ISLAMABAD: Pakistan on Sunday dismissed an article in a US magazine that called the South Asian nation an "ally from hell" for Washington and raised questions about the safety of its nuclear arsenal and commitment to fighting militancy.
A statement from Pakistan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs termed the cover story of The Atlantic's December 2011 issue "pure fiction, baseless and motivated."
"Lies! All lies!"
"The surfacing of such campaigns is not something new. It is orchestrated by quarters that are inimical to Pakistan," the statement said.
"They're making us look bad!"
Writers Jeffrey Goldberg and Marc Ambinder wrote that Pakistan is "an obvious place" for militants to seek nuclear weapons or materials because of a weak government and infiltration of its security forces by jihadist sympathizers.
Sorta like why Willie Sutton robbed banks...
But Pakistan, the article said, is more concerned about American designs on its nuclear arsenal and goes to great lengths to conceal its weapons.
The United States has spent almost $100 million helping secure Pakistan's nuclear arsenal, and appropriated almost $20 billion in civilian and military aid since the Sept 11, 2001 attacks in a bid to secure Pakistan's allegiance in the US-led war in neighboring Afghanistan.
Anyone think we got our money's worth? Anyone? Bueller?
The article said US officials have grown increasingly disenchanted with Pakistan efforts to root out sympathizers on its territory, particularly after the May 2 raid by American special forces that killed Al-Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden in a town about two hours outside of Islamabad home to the country's premier military academy.
The US officials are just now catching up with the US population...
Since then, Pakistan fears that the Pentagon plans similar raids to forcibly "de-nuclearize" it. The authors, citing unnamed sources, said those fears are valid.
The article details contingency plans involving hundreds of US commandos specially trained in securing weapons of mass destruction who would swoop in and disable or seize Pakistan's nuclear arsenal in the event of the collapse of the state or a jihadist coup.
Of course we have contingency plans. We have plans for everything. The real question is whether the Paks will give us a reason to implement those plans. Looks like a big 'yes' coming down the road.
That fear explains perhaps the most startling allegation: that Pakistani authorities transport assembled nuclear weapons in civilian vans without heavy security, moving in regular traffic to avoid being noticed. This, the authors said, makes Pakistan's nuclear weapons "vulnerable to theft by jihadists," compromising security in a country where numerous militant organizations of various stripes are believed to be headquartered.
Since the jihadists have much better intel and will know when the weapons are being moved, and in which rickshaw...
The Pakistani statement rejected these fears.
"No one should underestimate Pakistan's will and capability to defend its sovereignty, territorial integrity and national interests."
That sounds like Gilani's boilerplate opening sentence. We read that every day in the Pak Daily Times.
It is not just Pakistan's weak institutions that worry the US, the article said. Its powerful military and intelligence agency, the directorate of Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), actively aid militants.
"The Pakistani government has willfully misled the US for more than 20 years about its support for terrorist organizations," wrote Goldberg and Ambinder.
It's interesting that these two authors, about as progressive as you can imagine, would come out with this now. Ambinder is a card-carrying Journolister. I rather thought the progressive narrative was to deflect all scrutiny on Pakistain since the last thing the progressives want is to force Bambi into doing something about the Paks prior to the election.
There's an election coming up. Time for a Wag the Dog move?Or a significant and real deterioration of what passes for stability in Pak?
The US has increased pressure in recent months on Pakistan to act against militant groups in its territory, especially the Haqqani militant network that has launched brazen attacks against US and other targets in Afghanistan.
Washington says the Haqqani network is based in Pakistan's North Waziristan along the border with Afghanistan. The former chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, admiral Mike Mullen, said in September that the Haqqani group is a "veritable arm" of the ISI.
The tensions have complicated the outlook as the Obama administration pushes ahead with plans to draw down troops and hand security control to Afghan forces by the end of 2014.
Posted by: Steve White ||
11/07/2011 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
A proposed effort to extract oil from shale deposits in Israel's Valley of Elah (where David slew Goliath) has the potential to turn tiny Israel into one of the world's largest producers of oil, rivaling Saudi Arabia. According to Dr. Harold Vinegar, Chief Scientist of Israel Energy Initiatives ("IEI"), the company in charge of the project, Israel may possess as much as 250 billion barrels of oil, nearly equaling the 260 billion barrel Saudi reserves.
"This could be a game-changer in the geopolitical balance of power in the Middle East," argued Jack Halpern, head of the The Israel Energy Partnership. "Until now, OPEC oil has funded the Middle East arms race, financed terrorism, enabled Iran to pursue development of a nuclear bomb, and convinced oil purchasing nations in Europe and Asia to support Israel's enemies in the hope that they could then get access to Middle East oil. If Israel were the world's largest producer of oil, instead, all of that would change."
#5
Actually fracking is generally environmentally friendly, only the greens think otherwise. I believe that most oil shale has to be mined and processed. The spoils to be stockpiled to be returned to the spent mine and landscaped. Still environmentally sound if done properly according to the individual situation.
From Wikipedia: "Shale oil extraction is usually performed above ground (ex situ processing) by mining the oil shale and then treating it in processing facilities. Other modern technologies perform the processing underground (on-site or in situ processing) by applying heat and extracting the oil via oil wells."
#7
There are environmentalists in Israel too and they are fighting tooth and nail to prevent any demo project.
Posted by: Lord Garth ||
11/07/2011 15:36 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Golda Meir once said that God has a sense of humor - he found the only place in the Mid East without a drop of oil, and told the Jews that this was the Promised Land, a land of milk and honey. Looks like Meir was wrong.
AMMAN (AFP) -- Jordan's King Abdullah II has pardoned 12 Jordanians described by local press on Friday as Salafists, ...Salafists espouse an austere form of Sunni Islam that seeks a return to practices that were common in the 7th century. Rather than doing that themselves and letting other people alone they insist everybody do as they say and they try to kill everybody who doesn't... at least six of whom were convicted on terrorism charges in 2006.
The king issued a decree on Thursday giving the 12 a special pardon, state-run Petra news agency reported without elaborating.
Independent daily Al-Arab Al-Yawm said Friday the men are Salafists, who espouse an austere form of Sunni Islam that seeks a return to practices that were common in the early days of the faith.
(Ma'an) -- The premier of the Paleostinian government based in Gazoo said Tuesday that he was committed to the safety and freedom of worship of the enclave's Christian minority.
An oddly smaller minority than it used to be...
Ismail Haniyeh ...became Prime Minister after the legislative elections of 2006 which Hamas, always the voice of sweet reason, won. President Mahmoud Abbas dismissed Haniyeh from office on 14 June 2007 at the height of the Fatah-Hamas festivities, but Haniyeh did not acknowledge the decree and continues as the PM of Gazoo while Abbas maintains a separate PM in the West Bank... told Father Hammam Ashzoz, the chargé d'affaires of the Latin Patriarch in Jerusalem, that it is "their right, and our obligation" to ensure that Gazoo's 3,000 Christians are free to practice their religion.
Speaking at the cabinet headquarters with Ashzoz and Father George Hernandez, of the Latin Church in Gazoo, the Hamas leader affirmed the strong bond shared between Paleostinians of both religions. Mohammedans and Christians in Paleostine share "one goal and a common destiny," he said.
Haniyeh congratulated Christians upon the release of Chris Bandak, a Bethlehem-born member of Fatah's armed wing who was released to Gazoo in the Israel-Hamas prisoner swap. He said the resistance insisted on Bandak's freedom in the deal, which demonstrates the strong ties between Mohammedans and Christians working together for Paleostine.
Ashzoz, the chargé d'affaires of the Latin Patriarch, expressed appreciation for the meeting and congratulated Haniyeh on the occasion of the Mohammedan holiday Eid al-Adha, which begins this week.
He thanked Haniyeh for his interest in Jerusalem and his protection of freedom of worship for Christians in Gazoo. He also highlighted the role of the church in serving the needs of Paleostinian citizens.
Haniyeh's remarks came amid an upsurge in sectarianism plaguing neighboring Egypt.
#4
I don't think it's entirely fair, lotp. Every group has it's black sheep. IMO, anyone who remains a Christian under Hamas rule must be assumed to have a profound faith.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has accused Israel and the United States of seeking world support for a military strike on Iran nuclear facilities, ahead of the publication of a report expected to show the regime is making efforts to develop a warhead.
The Iranian president warned against a military attack on Iran and again insisted Tehran's atomic programme was for peaceful purposes only.
"Iran's capabilities are increasing and it is progressing, and for that reason it has been able to compete in the world. Now Israel and the West, particularly America, fear Iran's capabilities and role," Ahmadinejad told Egypt's Al-Akhbar newspaper.
"Therefore they are trying to gather international support for a military operation to stop (Iran's) role. The arrogant should know that Iran will not allow them to take any action against it," he said.
Ahmadinejad added that Washington wanted to "save the Zionist entity, but it will not be able to do so."
"This entity (Israel) can be compared to a kidney transplanted in a body that rejected it," he said. "Yes it will collapse and its end will be near."
#2
My comment today at Blackfive about this: there's several ways Israel could hit Iran, and none are mutually exclusive.
Airstrike. Israel has the F15s and F16s, wild-weasel type support, and tankers for at least several runs across the desert. It would be better if the Saudis and Iraqis granted permission for overflights, at least tacitly. However, Iraq has no air force or air defense network to stop the Israelis, or even warn Iran (if they even wanted to do that), and the Saudi AF/ADN may well be all show and no go. And that's before you trip over the power cord.
Further, in the past the rumor was that Israel could overfly Turkey, and perhaps even use Turkish air bases, for an Iran strike. I bet that's off the table now but you never know.
Missile strikes. The Jericho has the legs. They just need accurate targeting information.
Sub-based missile strikes. Those Dolphin class subs are in the Arabian Sea.
Special forces teams. The Israelis could do this. They've certainly had the incentive and time to put together the support and intel they'd need to insert teams into Iran. Israel has had a certain flair to this over the years (e.g., the hit in Dubai), and getting people into place just means being creative. It's a high-risk maneuver since such teams can be captured, paraded through downtown Tehran, etc., but to hit certain targets, and to illuminate targets for the airstrikes, special forces units might be required.
Native dissident teams. The weakest option but plausible if for no other reason than to make noise in certain ways and locations that become useful to the Israelis.
Making things other than nuclear sites go kaboom. As James notes above, take out a gas refinery or two and the Iranians are in trouble. This might not be wise; the average Iranian might not support the government's push for nuclear weapons but they darned sure want to drive their cars.
So the Israelis have several options, each mutually reinforcing, each giving the Iranian defense generals lots of problems.
Posted by: Steve White ||
11/07/2011 15:29 Comments ||
Top||
#3
Israel apparently has a drone fleet capable of reaching Iran that was reported in 2010. The Eitan can carry a ton of payload and can reach Iran's nuclear facilities
Read more: What Israel's Eitan UAV Unveil Means for Iran - Popular Mechanics
#4
Thanks John, had forgotten about the drones. Yet another way Israel could reach out and touch the Iranians.
Posted by: Steve White ||
11/07/2011 17:39 Comments ||
Top||
#5
This might not be wise; the average Iranian might not support the government's push for nuclear weapons
They do. (2007, pdf) In the survey, 52 percent of Iranians said they favor their country developing nuclear
weapons, with the same percent saying their world would be safer if Tehran acquires
such arms.
also
The poll also showed that despite sentiment for re-establishing ties with the U.S., 58
percent said they support Iran helping finance Shiite militias in neighboring Iraq, some of
which have battled American forces. Two-thirds said they support providing funds to
Muslim groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, which the U.S. and Israel consider terrorist
organizations.
#6
Since Iran has times vowed to retaliate strongly agz the US + Israel for any milstrike from same, sole or in joint, + reloc vital NucProg assets deep underground, IMO Israel might as well mount a mass/large-scale Commando strike [wid suppor Airpower] + PDeniably label it a "LIMITED INVASION".
LR IDAF Airpower can destroy surface targets + near-surface underground levels - the Commandos per se will be the ones to have to physically defeat any Armed Security + then penetrate ASAP AMAP deep into the bottom reaches/spaces of the underground NucPlex, GATHERING INTEL + KILLING, CAPTURING ANY + ALL NUCLEAR TECHNICIANS + SCIENTISTS.
IOW, SUPER "ABBOTTABAD" FOR IRAN, SAVE FOR ALL OF THE US NAVY SEAL TEAMS, ARMY DELTAS, US SPECWAR + ONE OR BOTH AIRBORNE DIVISIONS [82nd, 101st]BEING INVOLVED IN DIRECT ACTION. Prolly also safe to say BRIT + ISRAELI SPECWAR UNITS, + US, ALLIED COVERT INTEL TEAMS.
OTHER > Cold-War era, SOVIET-SIZED DIVISION, ARMY, FRONT COMMANDO-SAPPER FORMATIONS.
A ME WAR, to include Iran-led terror campaigns agz the US + Israeli domestic, international targets, will be all but assured.
AGAIN, WORLD, MILITARY HISTORY > SAYS THE US = US-ALLIED WILL LIKELY HAVE TO FORMALLY INVADE + OCCUPY IRAN.
IRAN EITHER DE FACTO GETS ITS NUKES, OR ELSE IRAN GETS DE FACTO INVADED.
[An Nahar] A crucial IAEA report on Iran's nuclear program due in the next few days -- raised as a possible trigger for war by Israel -- is based on "counterfeit" claims, Iranian Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi said in comments published on Sunday.
The update, expected to be released to ineffective International Atomic Energy Agency members on Tuesday or Wednesday, is believed to allege that Iran did theoretical modeling on nuclear warheads and is developing missiles to carry them, according to diplomats at the UN nuclear watchdog.
"I believe that these documents lack authenticity. But if they insist, they should go ahead and publish. Better to face danger once than be always in danger," several Iranian dailies quoted Salehi as saying.
His comments were made Saturday to media in Tehran during a visit by Burundian Foreign Minister Augustin Nsanze.
"We have said repeatedly that their documents are baseless. For example one can counterfeit money, but it remains counterfeit. These documents are like that," Salehi said.
He added: "Iran's nuclear issue (for the IAEA) is not a technical or a legal issue but entirely a political one. If (the IAEA) dealt with it purely as a technical or legal issue, then it would say everything about the issue was transparent."
Israel is seen as poised to seize on the report as justification for air strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities, according to a storm of Israeli media speculation in the past few days.
Israeli President Shimon Peres warned late Saturday that an attack on Iran was "more and more likely" because of intelligence service fears that "Iran is ready to obtain the nuclear weapon."
The IAEA update does not contain an explicit allegation that Iran's nuclear program -- which Tehran maintains is exclusively for peaceful, civilian purposes -- is being used for military ends.
But one Western diplomat told Agence La Belle France Presse in Vienna that "it will be an extensive body of evidence that will be very hard for Iran to refute as forgery, as they have done in the past."
IAEA head Yukiya Amano said in a September report he was "increasingly concerned" about the "possible military dimension" of Iran's atomic activities, calling information at the agency's disposal "extensive and comprehensive."
Posted by: Fred ||
11/07/2011 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[6 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Iran
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.
Wazoo
Mohmand
TRIPOLI: Some weapons depots in Libya have still not been secured properly, and much has already gone missing from unguarded sites, the top UN envoy in Libya said in an interview Sunday. Preventing more weapons from being smuggled out of country will be difficult, considering the nature of the vast desert nations borders, the envoy, Ian Martin, told The Associated Press.
A Muslim extremist has again dishonored the memory of fallen soldiers by reactivating a heartless campaign on Facebook. As the bodies of three Diggers killed by a rogue Afghan soldier returned home this week, Ibrahim Siddiq-Conlon outraged the grieving families by launching a cruel Facebook page attacking the men.
Long before the world had heard of Osama bin Laden, Carlos the Jackal was known as the world's most wanted terrorist. He once claimed in an interview to have been responsible for more than 1,500 deaths in the name of Palestinian liberation.
Former national cricket captain promises to fight corruption and negotiate with the Taliban in a speech to 100,000 at a rally in Lahore.
