Right Wing Nut House

This is a media story that should be getting a lot more coverage than it has.

An NRO reporter/blogger, W.Thomas Smith, Jr., reported from Lebanon last fall and several of his stories contained gross inaccuracies and what many Lebanese observers and reporters believe to be fabricated vignette’s regarding Hizbullah activities in Beirut as well as his own exploits in getting his stories.

I read most of Smith’s dispatches from Lebanon at the time and thought it odd that this American was able to get around so easily and had apparently fantastic sources who were feeding him colorful little nuggets of information. Compared to Michael Totten, David Kenner, (who also pointed out Smith’s fables among other outrages) and others who have written of their experiences there and how difficult it was to report what was happening in that confusing muddle of politics, religion, and geo-political conflict, Smith’s job seemed effortless by comparison.

I don’t believe I ever linked to any of his dispatches there if only because he really wasn’t giving any new information and I was disinterested in his personal observations in that they seemed rather self-indulgent. I remember at the time thinking “This guy is going to get killed or kidnapped if he’s not careful.” As it turns out, I needn’t have worried.

That’s because Smith embellished his “reporting” with at least two glaring factual inaccuracies or lies if you prefer. On September 25, Smith wrote that Beirut was occupied by “some 200-plus heavily armed Hezbollah militiamen” at a “sprawling tent city.” Then on the 29th, Smith reported that his sources had told him that 4,0000-5,000 Hizbullah militiamen had “”deployed to the Christian areas of Beirut in an unsettling ’show of force.’”

Using the word “unsettling” is a rather large understatement. Such a move by the Shia militia into Christian Beirut would have almost certainly initiated a violent reaction. And while there is indeed a tent city that virtually surrounds the Grand Serail - a symbolic show by Hizbullah who has occupied the square since last December to protest what they see as the illegitimacy of the Lebanese government - the thought that there are “200-plus heavily armed” Hizbullah militiamen would probably come as a shock to the Lebanese army who are currently carefully stationed between Hizbullah and the government building. One journalist described activity at the tent city this way:

“This guy is hilarious. Armed Hezbollah at the Serail? He must be mistaking the Lebanese army at the gates - those 200 in the tents are some middle class Hezbollees - who now come once a week to have a smoke with their friends and get away from their wives.”

According to most of the Lebanese media sources I’ve read, there are rarely more than 500 people camped out there. And while the tent city has severely curtailed economic activity in downtown Beirut, the government is much more concerned about Syrian assassins than they are an armed Hezbullah thrust at the Serail. (Note: For the Glenn Greenwalds of the world, such was not the case last December when only entreaties from Saudi King Abdullah kept several dozen armed Hizbullah gunmen who had blockaded entrances to the building, from storming the Serail and toppling the government.) This is not to say that Hizbullah and their guns present no serious threat to the government’s existence. But there is certainly no immediate threat beyond the normal unease the government feels about 20,000 or so of its citizens in possession of guns and heavy weapons that could easily be turned on them.

There were other questionable tales told by Smith regarding his travels around Lebanon detailed in an email to Huffpo’s Thomas Edsall from Middle East correspondent Michael Prothero:

“In his [Smith's] wildly entertaining postings, he describes kidnap attempts, an armed incursion into Christian East Beirut by 5,000 armed Hezbollah fighters that was missed by every journalist in town, he also notes the presence of 200 armed Hezbollah fighters in downtown Beirut ‘laying siege’ to the prime ministers office, recounts high-speed car chases and ‘armed recon operations’ where he drives around south Beirut taking pictures of Hezbollah installations, while carrying weapons. In a word, this is all insane.”

Clearly, Scott Beauchamp has nothing on Smith when it comes to just making stuff up.

Indeed, according to Edsall, Smith heavily criticized Beauchamp last fall while his Lebanon fables were were fresh on people’s minds. Edsall (and Glen Greenwald) try and make the curious point that this somehow calls into question NRO’s criticisms of Beauchamp or perhaps lessens their impact. I see the hypocrisy but facts are facts, my friends. Beauchamp lied, smearing the military in the process. What difference does it make with regard to the Beauchamp story if Smith got that one correct? Call him out for his hypocrisy but don’t try and use it to somehow defend Beauchamp.

Smith issued his partial mea culpa on Friday, trying to weasel his way out of apologizing and retracting what even he says are stories he simply made up:

In the case of the 4000-5000 Hezbollah troops, Smith wrote:

“I have not been able to independently verify that ‘thousands’ of armed Hezbollah fighters deployed to the Christian areas of Beirut in late September, but my sources continue to insist that it happened….

“In retrospect, however, this is a case where I should have caveated the reporting by saying that I only witnessed a fraction of what happened (from a moving car), with broader details of what I saw ultimately told to me by what I considered then — and still consider to be — reliable sources within the Cedar Revolution movement, as well as insiders within the Lebanese national security apparatus. As we were driving through that part of town, I saw men I identified as Hezbollah deployed at road intersections with radios. I was later told that these were Hezbollah militants deploying to Christian areas of Beirut, and there were four or five thousand of them.”

In the case of the 200 armed Hezbollah militia, Smith wrote:

“The Hezbollah camp in late September — and up until the time I left in mid-October — was huge (’sprawling’). And though the tents were very large and many of them closed, I saw at least two AK-47s there with my own eyes. And this from a moving vehicle on the highway above the camp. And in my way of thinking, if a guy’s got an AK-47, he’s ‘heavily armed.’

“Did I physically see and count 200 men carrying weapons? No. If I mistakenly conveyed that impression to my readers, I apologize. I saw lots of men, lots of them carrying walkie-talkie radios, and a tent city that could have easily housed many more than 200. I also saw weapons, as did others in the vehicle with me. And I was informed by very reliable sources that Hezbollah does indeed store arms inside the tents. And they’ve certainly got the parliamentarians and other government officials spooked and surrounded by layers of security.”

This is a non-retraction retraction. He didn’t see 200 men carrying arms but he apologizes for mistakenly conveying that impression? It wasn’t an “impression.” He reported it as fact - a huge difference. But as I said, weasel words instead of a clear apology and retraction.

NRO Editor Kathryn Jean Lopez also issued an apology which was a not very forthcoming and praised Smith’s other reporting to boot:

Bottom line: NRO strives to bring you reliable analysis and reporting — whether in presenting articles, essays, or blog posts. Smith did commendable work in Lebanon earlier this year, as he does from S.C. where he is based, as he has done from Iraq, where he has been twice. But rereading some of the posts (see “The Tank” for more detail) and after doing a thorough investigation of some of the points made in some of those posts, I’ve come to the conclusion that NRO should have provided readers with more context and caveats in some posts from Lebanon this fall. And so I apologize to you, our readers.

“Context and caveats?” What good are those when your reporter is making stuff up? This is not quite Franklin Foer territory but it’s hardly the kind of reaction we should be seeing from responsible journalists. This is especially true since the reporter himself has disavowed the accuracy of the stories in question. Save the praise for another time and come clean about his mistakes. While you’re at it, Ms. Lopez, you should probably have taken the opportunity to announce that Mr. Smith was no longer employed at the National Review. A self-admitted fabulist has no business working for a magazine with as much integrity and honesty as NR has shown over the last 50+ years.

The excellent critiques of Smith’s made up Lebanon stories by Edsall and conservative blogger Michelle Malkin have done a great service to online reporting by holding our own to as high or higher standards than the mainstream media holds themselves. But this hysterical and dishonest screed written by Glenn Greenwald - where the confirmed sock puppetteer believes that Smith’s fables were more serious a transgression than Beauchamp smearing the military - prove that not only is Greenwald extraordinarily uninformed about Lebanon, but his screaming paranoia about the reasons for Smith’s fables could only be written by someone who has abandoned reason and logic in favor of partisan hackery.

As with all Greenwaldian diatribes, it is impossible to deal with due to the fact that there are so many distortions, false assumptions, straw men, and deceitful conclusions that any complete destruction of his cockeyed stupidities would necessarily be book length. However, allow me the luxury of picking and choosing from Mr. Greenwald’s idiocies to at least try and set the record straight on a few matters.

Greenwald pooh-pooh’s Hizbullah’s threat to the elected majority by writing of “Hezbollah’s alleged armed threat to the Lebanese Government.” There is nothing “alleged” about this threat in the slightest. It drips from every pronouncement made by the opposition regarding their year long seige of the government building in Beirut. There may be only a couple of hundred Hizbullah members camped out at any one time. But as Nasrallah has proved time and time again, he can have 500,000 screaming maniacs in the square facing the Grand Serail in 24 hours.

Some examples of “alleged” threats to the government by the only armed militia in Lebanon:

Hezbollah deputy chief Sheikh Naim Kassem:

“This government will not take Lebanon to the abyss. We have several steps if this government does not respond but I tell them you will not be able to rule Lebanon with an American administration.”

FPM Leader and Hizbullah ally Michel Aoun:

He said the Saniora government “does not deserve to stay in power for one hour more … in a few days we will declare our rejection of this government and we will ask for the formation of a transitional government to organize new elections.”

He threatened that the “barbed wire doest not protect government offices. In the coming days the protest will expand.”

Aoun noted that protesters in Ukraine had stormed parliament building to push for regime change “and no one said that was an illegal move.”

And Aoun again:

Despite some of his allies’ refusal to storm the Grand Serail, the former army general said that “the natural tide can carry the demonstrators to the Grand Serail, which is why they increased the metal barriers.”

“Siniora should not take this as a threat but rather a warning, to him and to all those who support him, that the people will not wait much longer for him to step down. They don’t even need encouragement from the leaders.”

What is the government supposed to think when the opposition has its very own heavily armed, highly trained militia dedicated to achieving power? What is there “alleged” about this threat? Only an apologist for Hizbullah could make such an idiotic statement.

The other point about Greenwald’s writing about this affair is his deceitful references to Smith’s motives for his fabrications; that they are “war-fueling” and, in quoting approvingly from John Cole (the blind leading the ignorant when it comes to Lebanon), spreads the notion that Smith is agitating to get the US involved in a Lebanese civil war:

As Cole notes, while Beauchamp’s stories did nothing other than highlight the bruatlity (sic) of war, Smith “radically overstate[d] a military threat to a key ally, perhaps to agitate for American military involvement.”

Only a paranoid believes the US has any desire or interest in getting militarily involved in a civil war involving Hizbullah. There is not one shred of evidence that it has been contemplated or even discussed beyond a contingency. It simply is not going to happen. To believe it is possible or that Smith was beating the war drums to fight Hizbullah is not evident in either Smith’s writings or any pronouncement from any American official anywhere on earth. It is a totally decietful and gratuitous notion advanced by Greenwald with no basis in fact or reality.

And by the way, it is very difficult to “overstate” the military threat of Hizbullah to the government. While the idea that 4,000 Hizbullah militiamen entering Christian Beirut may be fanciful, the actual threat is extraordinarily serious and is taken that way by not only the Lebanese government but every actor in the region.

Greenwald should stick to his paranoid Bush bashing or perhaps write something else that makes Joe Klein look silly. His hysterical rants about Smith and right wing bloggers with their “war-fueling” items makes him look even more foolish than usual.

UPDATE

Ed Morrissey is considerably more charitable toward Lopez and NRO in his analysis:

Notice that she did not blame the critics for pointing out the error or assume that the criticism was motivated by some sort of conspiracy. She didn’t, in essence, blame the customer for a faulty product. She took quick action to investigate, found obvious shortcomings, and issued an apology and a detailed accounting of the problem.

This is indeed laudatory. However, given that Lopez felt the problem with the stories could have been solved if NRO had supplied caveats and context, Ed’s analysis doesn’t zero in on NRO’s true failings; that Smith exaggerated or made things up and Lopez didn’t acknowledge that fact.

After months of two stepping their way around the issue of Scott Beauchamp’s integrity and the accuracy of his reporting, The New Republic’s editor Franklin Foer issued a 10 page statement in their online edition basically saying that they no longer stand by the what Beauchamp wrote about the US military:

When I last spoke with Beauchamp in early November, he continued to stand by his stories. Unfortunately, the standards of this magazine require more than that. And, in light of the evidence available to us, after months of intensive re-reporting, we cannot be confident that the events in his pieces occurred in exactly the manner that he described them. Without that essential confidence, we cannot stand by these stories.

Part of TNR’s “admission of error” is that they didn’t realize it was an ethical lapse to have to wife of the author fact check his stories:

But there was one avoidable problem with our Beauchamp fact-check. His wife, Reeve, was assigned a large role in checking his third piece. While we believe she acted with good faith and integrity–not just in this instance, but throughout this whole ordeal–there was a clear conflict of interest. At the time, our logic–in hindsight, obviously flawed–was that corresponding with a soldier in Iraq is logistically difficult and Reeve was already routinely speaking with him. It was a mistake–and we’ve imposed new rules to prevent future fact-checking conflicts of interest.

TNR’s “New Rule” to prevent “future fact checking conflicts of interests:”

“If you’re going to fact check your spouses stories, make sure you don’t leave a trail that reveals your relationship that can be followed on the internet.”

There is an element of self-pitying in Foer’s writing. He seems almost dazed by the onslaught that was hurled against him and he is genuinely at a loss as to how things worked out the way they did. He blames bloggers. He blames Beauchamp to some extent. He blames his staff. He blames the war. He blames the military.

But to me, he appears incapable of the kind of introspection that would lay the finger of blame directly and solely where it belongs; on his own, perplexed and bewildered head.

Some may recall my seminal post on the subject which was widely praised from one end of the blogosphere to another for its incredible insight, superior writing, and towering intellectual achievement.

Okay..so your memories aren’t that short. Suffice it to say that the work done by Owens, Ace and Riehl as well as the milbloggers and others to first confront and then debunk Beauchamp’s fables was the “real story” and I was wrong to try and downplay its significance - if only in the context that it mattered little to the war effort at the time.

Meanwhile, what’s to become of Foer? Of The New Republic? I asked that question of Jim Geraghty of NRO a couple of weeks back when I was co-hosting Ed Morrissey’s radio show and he said that a magazine like TNR would live as long as it was underwritten by people who agreed with its politics. Indeed, magazines like National Review (which has been on the financial knife’s edge more than once) and TNR survive because despite the Stephen Glass’s and Scott Beauchamps, the publications enjoy a great deal of respect among the political class.

Clearly, some of that respect has been tarnished as a result of this affair. And if the powers that be at TNR wish to regain some of that respect, they have no choice but to fire Franklin Foer without delay. Every day he is employed by TNR from here on out is a tacit acknowledgment that the magazine doesn’t care if what is published on its pages is true or not. Foer has got to go and the sooner the better.

Michelle Malkin points to this extraordinary email exchange between Foer and Beuachamp where the TNR editor is trying to pin down his writer on exactly where the incident of razzing the wounded, disfigured woman occurred:

tnr: where did you see the crypt keeper? (disfigured woman)

Beauchamp: are you there?

tnr: yes

Beauchamp: the last thing i got was “where did you see the crypt keeper”

tnr: yes

Beauchamp: the dfac on falcon or chow hall, as it IS commonly called

tnr: what about kuwait?

Beauchamp: brb [be right back]

Nine minutes of silence

tnr: you there?

Ten minutes of silence

Beauchamp: ok just did a sworn

statement

tnr: about?

Beauchamp: saying that i wrote the

articles

tnr: ok

Beauchamp: theyre taking away my

laptop

tnr: fuck is this it for communication?

Beauchamp: yeah and im fucked

tnr: they said that?

Beauchamp: because you’re right the crypt keep WAS in Kuwait

FUCK FUCK FUCK

The agony of admission by Beauchamp is wrenching. Since this exchange took place back in August, it once again begs the question of what took Foer and TNR so long to come clean. I don’t think you can dismiss the idea that Foer was hoping the whole thing would blow over and be forgotten. Their excuse that an FOIA request by TNR to get the paperwork on the case from the military was strange because most of what they were asking for, they already had. The entire episode appears to have been one of damage control rather than truth seeking all along.

Bob Owens has his thoughts up at PJ Media:

As editor of The New Republic, Franklin Foer allowed Scott Thomas Beauchamp to publish three stories that were not competently fact-checked. At least one of those that was assigned to his wife to fact-check even though that was a clear conflict of interest. All three of those stories—not just”ShockTroops”— had significant “red flags” in them. These red flags range from the changing of a tire of a vehicle equipped with run-flat tires in “War Bonds,” to several obvious and easily verifiable untrue statements, including the claim of a discovery of a kind of ammunition that do not exist, and absurd evidence for allegations of murder “Dead of Night” that could have been (and were) debunked in less than 30 seconds with a simple Google search.

The bottom line is that the Scott Beauchamp debacle was a test of editorial character for The New Republic under Franklin Foer’s leadership. For over four months, the magazine has answered that challenge by hiding behind anonymous sources, making personal attacks against critics, asserting a a massive conspiracy against them, while covering up conflicting testimony and refusing to answer the hard questions.

And many of those questions were asked by Owens himself who bulldogged this story from the beginning. Also keeping the story alive in those 4 months where Foer was dawdling were Michael Goldfarb of the Weekly Standard Blog whose military sources fed him a stream of leaks from the investigation into Beauchamp and his allegations and several milbloggers who fought to right a wrong - a wrong that besmirched the military and everyone who serves.

Patterico doesn’t think we’ve seen the end of this story. Judging by what Bob Owens had to say, there are plenty of questions both Foer and eventually Beauchamp are going to have to answer. Until those answers are forthcoming, TNR is on the clock as far as the fate of Franklin Foer is concerned.

Before my conservative friends get their panties in a twist about my skepticism and before my liberal friends start piling on because I’m just not being gloomy enough about the prospects for success in Iraq, l think we should all take a deep breath, step back, and look at what is happening there not through our partisan political glasses - rose tinted or otherwise - but with the critical eyes of observers who have been watching closely what has been going on for more than 4 years in that tragic, bloody country.

We are all aware of the the progress that has been made these last few months; the welcome drop in civilian deaths, the Sunni “Awakening,” the extraordinary progress made in rooting out al-Qaeda terrorists, and the curious but gratifying pullback in the south by Muqtada al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army. All of this has combined to create the most important benefit of all in Iraq - the return of hope among the people.

This has been manifested by a return to old neighborhoods by hundreds of thousands of people who abandoned their homes during the worst of the sectarian violence as well as a cautiously optimistic re-opening of business districts previously shuttered due to the violence. It is apparent in many of the interviews with ordinary Iraqis who have voted on the success or failure of our change in strategy with their feet by venturing out and about to sample the nightlife of Baghdad once again.

All but the most unreconstructed liberal (or partisan Democrat) have cheered these events. The reasons for this success vary depending on which side of the political divide you are on. “No one left to kill” say liberals. “It’s the performance of our military,” say conservatives.

Both are right. Both are wrong. And both left out a few details as well.

There are parts of Baghdad that will never see a Sunni Iraqi again just as there are parts that will never see a Shia again. In many neighborhoods, after homeowners were given 20 minutes to pack and told to leave or forfeit their lives (many being executed anyway), Shias and Sunnis moved in to those houses and occupy them to this day. Prime Minister Maliki has a program that pays the squatters to leave if the neighborhood votes to have the original home owner return. But whole neighborhoods were emptied of Sunnis and Shias in Baghdad and there is no doubt that part of the reason for the drop in sectarian violence has been the simple fact that the sects are no longer in close proximity to each other in most of Baghdad.

Our professional military has done more than its fair share as well in helping tamp down the violence. Showing the Iraqis that we have no intention of leaving a neighborhood after it is swept and cleared has given the people confidence to inform against al-Qaeda and the insurgents. This intel has led to information from interrogations that precipitates more raids, more intel, ultimately making the neighborhood much safer.

Our war against al-Qaeda will someday, according to one officer at the Army War College, become a textbook example of rooting out terrorists and insurgents hiding inside a civilian population. The success of this phase of our counterinsurgency plan has shocked even its planners. If the world were fair and the press unbiased, this would easily be the story of the year - the near destruction of al-Qaeda in Iraq. Is it too early to be touting General Petreaus as Time Magazine’s “Man of the Year?”

Then there’s the Sunni “Awakening.” The reason I put that in quotes is because no one is sure - least of all our commanders on the ground who have made this point abundantly clear - just how this “Awakening” will play out.

It pains me to see a note of triumphalism creeping in to some pro-war blogs and columns. I share their enthusiasm for the good news but not their apparent blindness to the dangers of making allies of former enemies - especially enemies whose goals have not changed; America out of Iraq. Some of these Sheiks have truly changed sides and are working with us eagerly on security issues while being open to reconciliation with the Shias - as long as they are treated fairly.

But there are many more tribal leaders who view this marriage of convenience with our military as a lull in their blood feud with the Shias. This is extraordinarily bad news if we can’t differentiate between who our true friends might be and who are future enemies are certain to be. To these Sheiks, no political reconciliation is possible with the government as long as it is made up of Shias like Maliki and his sectarian gang. What they might do if the Iraqi government would be more to their liking is anyone’s guess. But as StrategyPage.com has pointed out many times, many of these former Baathists are nationalists who will never voluntarily give up power to the Shias and despise the Americans for propping up the Maliki government (who they see as little more than a sectarian thug who has murdered thousands of Iraqi Sunnis).

From all that I’ve read both in media here and overseas, it appears to me that an unknown number of these Sheiks and militia leaders - perhaps less than a majority but that would be a guess - will eventually return to their insurgent ways. In short, we will eventually have to deal with a reconstituted insurgency. Hopefully, we aren’t giving them too many arms that would assist them in being any more formidable than they already are.

I hasten to add that this is not my analysis but has been talked about openly among our commanders as well as other observers around the Middle East. To them, it is not a question of if the Sunnis turn but when.

In the south, there is no other way to describe what is going on but a lull in the violence. The coming war between the Mahdi Army of Moqtada al-Sadr and the Badr Organization for ultimate control of most of the population centers has been put on hold by Mookie, probably at the behest of his Iranian sponsors.

In fact, one could say we have achieved a kind of victory over the Iranians as we have forced them into what David Ignatius calls a “tactical retreat:”

[T]he recent security gains reflect the fact that Iran is standing down, for the moment. The Iranian-backed Mehdi Army of Moqtada al-Sadr has sharply curtailed its operations. The shelling of the Green Zone from Iranian-backed militias in Sadr City has stopped. The flow from Iran of deadly roadside bombs appears to have slowed or stopped. And to make it official, the Iranians announced Tuesday that they will resume security discussions in Baghdad with US Ambassador Ryan Crocker.

I suspect the Iranians’ new policy of accommodation is a tactical shift. They still want to exert leverage over a future Iraq, but they have concluded that the best way to do so is to work with US forces - and speed our eventual exit - rather than continue a policy of confrontation. A genuine US-Iranian understanding about stabilizing Iraq would be a very important development. But we should see it for what it is: The Iranians will contain their proxy forces in Iraq because it’s in their interest to do so.

Of course, there is still infiltration by Iranian Revolutionary Guards. They seem to have stopped inciting violence among their cadres as Ignatius points out but there is absolutely no evidence they have left the country.

It seems unlikely that the uneasy peace in the south will remain that way for long. Al-Sadr has been reorganizing his militia while at the same time, reaching out to some unlikely allies in the Sunni and Kurdish communities. He would like to broaden his base, removing the sectarian taint from his militia. So far, he has not had much success but its clear he is seeking allies for when he takes on the Badr Organization.

The Badr Organization is smaller but better trained, and is much more powerful politically, being the military arm of the largest party in Iraq, the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council (formerly the SCIRI). Both militias received various levels of training and assistance from Iran and still receive support from the mullahs there although the Badr Organization has been sidling away from Tehran since the establishment of the government. Their emphasis has been on infiltrating the Iraqi police and army.

Iran is seeking a Shia enclave in southern Iraq and will, according to some observers of Iran, use the Mahdi Army to achieve that goal once the American drawdown is well underway. The leader of SIIC, Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, hates the upstart al-Sadr and will oppose any expansion of his power. Hence, the set up for conflict in the south once al-Sadr gets his act together.

Even what appears to be a permanent reduction in violence by al-Qaeda might be illusory. There is no sign that Syria or Saudi Arabia have much interest in seriously trying to keep their borders secure from terrorist infestation of Iraq. The feeling is apparently because they don’t want them in their countries either. Better they blow themselves up in Baghdad than Riyadh or Damascus.

All this would normally point to exactly the attitude that the Administration has taken relating to the spate of good news coming out of Iraq - cautious optimism.

Not so some commentators and bloggers on the right who have trumpeted the news that we are “winning” in Iraq with all the fervor of a newly baptized convert. The gloating is unseemly by some and is liable to come back and bite them in the butt. We even have Charles Krauthammer comparing what is going on in Iraq with the Inchon Landing during the Korean war and the 1864 turnaround of Union fortunes during the civil war.

That kind of hyperbole is nonsense. We don’t know what the situation is going to be like 6 months from now in Iraq - perhaps not even 6 weeks. There will almost certainly be more spikes in the violence despite the best efforts of the tribes and the US military. Those increases in the body count will not doubt bring equally stupid cries from the left about stupid righties who were “taken in” by the government or some equally nonsensical claptrap.

The situation as it is now in Iraq is just that - the situation now. No more, no less. It would really, really help if the Iraqi government got off its behind and took this extraordinary opportunity that our men and women have bought and paid for with their blood and sweat to get busy with trying to reconcile with those Sunnis willing to join the government. And there are Sunnis out there who wish to reconcile, including the large, diverse National Public Democratic Movement made up of dozens of tribes centered around Ramadi as well as The Iraq Awakening out of Anbar province that enjoys widespread local support among the Sheiks.

What is happening in Iraq now has been referred to by some in the Administration as a “window.” I think they are correct. What must be done is to cement as many of the Sunnis as possible to the fortunes of the government while continuing the fight against al-Qaeda and trying to find a way to neutralize al-Sadr.

How much we accomplish relating to those goals in the next few months will tell the tale about whether the gains we’ve made using our new counterinsurgency strategy, so hard fought and exhilarating though they might be, are to be permanent or not.

The Tale of the Scorpion is an old Native American parable.

A scorpion was walking along the bank of a river, wondering how to get to the other side. Suddenly, he saw a fox. He asked the fox to take him on his back across the river.

The fox said, “No. If I do that, you’ll sting me, and I’ll drown.”

The scorpion assured him, “If I do that, we’ll both drown.”

The fox thought about it and finally agreed. So the scorpion climbed up on his back, and the fox began to swim. But halfway across the river, the scorpion stung him. As poison filled his veins, the fox turned to the scorpion and said, “Why did you do that? Now you’ll drown, too.”

“I couldn’t help it,” said the scorpion. “It’s my nature.”

Amir Taheri (writing to Norman Podhoretz) believes he knows the true nature of the Iranian regime:

What is at issue here is the exact nature of the Khomeinist regime. Is it a nationalistic power pursuing the usual goals of nations? Or is it a messianic power with an eschatological ideology and the pretension to conquer the world on behalf of “The One and Only True Faith”?

Khomeini built a good part of his case against the Shah by claiming that the latter was trying to force Iranians to worship Iran rather than Allah. The theme remains a leitmotif of Khomeinists even today. . . . Those who try to portray this regime as just another opportunistic power with a quixotic tendency do a grave disservice to a proper understanding of the challenge that the world faces.

But this is not new. Stalin, Hitler, Mao, and Pol Pot also had their apologists who saw them as “nationalists” with “legitimate grievances.”

Okay, Sounds believable given the rhetoric we’ve been hearing for 25 years from the regime. But Taheri does not enjoy universal respectability regarding his opinions on Iran. He has been caught at least twice in making false charges about the Iranian government and some scholars accuse him of poorly sourcing his writings.

Even if we were to take Mr. Taheri’s analysis as truth, according to Michael Eisenstadt writing for the Strategic Studies Institute, a respected arm of the US Army War College, the idea that the mullahs are “an irrational, undeterrable state with a high pain threshold” is both “anachronistic and wrong:”

Within the context of a relatively activist foreign policy, Iranian decision makers have generally sought to minimize risk by shunning direct confrontation and by acting through surrogates (such as the Lebanese Hizballah) or by means of stealth (Iranian small boat and mine operations against shipping in the Gulf during the Iran-Iraq War) in order to preserve deniability and create ambiguity about their intentions. Such behavior is evidence of an ability to engage in rational calculation and to accurately assess power relationships.

(”Deter and Contain,” pg. 225)

And herein lies the dilemma for American and western policymakers with regards to Iran and the regime’s desire to possess the ultimate insurance against anyone publishing insulting cartoons of Muhammad ever again. Just who are these guys?

As far as Taheri, I have found his insights into the regime affected by his obvious disgust for what the mullahs have done to his country. That said, his columns and writings in various publications have shown a light in some very dark corners of the Iranian government.

At its highest levels, the mullahracy is riven with factionalism. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei rides herd on at least 3 major centers of power; President Ahmadinejad conservatives, Ayatollah Rafsanjani realists, and Mohammad Khatami reformists. Of these, the most marginalized at the moment are the reformers, some of whom are actually under house arrest, including a couple of prominent clerics.

Rafsanjani, the canny, ex-president is making something of a political comeback after getting tossed from the presidency in 2005 by Khamenei who couldn’t take his gross corruption (Forbes named him one of the richest men in the world). He is now safely ensconced in the Assembly of Experts, elected last December on an anti-Ahmadinejad platform, and maneuvering his way toward the most powerful office in the land- Supreme Leader. Khamenei is rumored to be in poor health (he’s been on death’s door according to some for about 2 years).

To say that Rafsanjani is a “moderate” is ridiculous. He is as fanatical in his hatred of the United States and Israel as President Ahmadinejad. He may be more of a pragmatist, however, in that he certainly has a lot to protect in case of an attack by the US. Regardless, Rafsanjani is also perhaps the most ruthless character in Iranian politics. It is believed that he controls several para-military gangs who carry out murders and assassinations on his orders. Certainly, enough of his enemies have died for there to be questions asked.

He is at war with President Ahmadinejad and the conservatives not over dogma or ideology but because Ahmadinejad has purged the bureaucracy of Rafsanjani (and other long ruling mullahs) cronies who always managed to funnel a little something to their sponsors in the leadership in the way of kickbacks or sweet government contracts. For 25 years, first Khomeini and then Khamenei turned a blind eye to this corruption, realizing that it cemented the loyalty of the mullahs to the Supreme Leader’s throne.

But with the economy in the toilet and the people becoming cynical about the mullahs, Khamenei engineered the election of Ahmadinejad hoping the young fanatic would root out corruption and boost the economy.

It hasn’t worked. Ahmadinejad purged the ministries alright but he replaced competent technocrats with true believers who hadn’t a clue about how a modern state operates. The results were predictable; economic stagnation, higher unemployment, high inflation, and a decrease in oil productivity that would be much more noticeable if prices were any lower.

These then are the factions vying for control of the Iranian state - at odds over personalities, policies, and most importantly, who has the power.

Taheri and Podhoretz may very well be correct in their assessment of the way Ayatollah Khomenie believed more in pan-Islamism than nationalism. But does that still hold true today? Do these squabbling, greedy, kleptocrats really believe in Khomeini’s pan-Islamic vision?

It is impossible to say. And the question is can we afford to misjudge the true nature of the regime? Either way western leaders jump regarding Iran - bombing or deterrence - both choices are bad choices with catastrophe possible no matter what the decision might be.

If the Iranians don’t care about Iran, only Islam, deterrence will not work. And while bombing their infrastructure will set their program back a few years, what they will unleash in retaliation causes nightmares at the Pentagon, the State Department, and in the minds of any rational person.

But if the Iranian regime is not bound by the normal constraints of deterrence, what option do we really have? If they are able to acquire the ability to build a nuclear weapon and intend on using it, prudence dictates we try and prevent that eventuality at all costs.

On the other hand, what if the true nature of the regime is as posited by the Army War College? While the mullah’s worldview may be anachronistic and twisted, they nevertheless may very well respond reasonably to the threat of retaliation by the Israelis or the United States. In this case, they may have the bomb - but possess it only as a guarantor of the regime not as an offensive threat. If we chose to bomb, we would unleash Iranian retaliation when it was not necessary.

I think my rundown above of the factions in Iran shows there are probably both camps at large and are currently in a tug of war. The conservatives, despite poor performance by Ahmadinejad and electoral setbacks are still marginally in control. But Khamenei still has his finger on any nuclear trigger and while he sides with the conservatives on occasion, he has not been reluctant to slap Ahmadinejad publicly and put him in his place - as he did last summer when he had parliament pass a new electoral law that will shave around 14 months off of Ahmadinejad’s term.

The bottom line is that there really is no way of gleaning the true intent of the Iranian regime because of the shifting sands of power that has been the hallmark of the mullahs since Khomeini’s time. The American hostages were pawns in this game back in 1980 while the British sailors taken earlier this year also became hostage to the competition at the highest levels of the regime.

To bomb or not to bomb. There is only one right answer. And I’m glad I’m not going to be the one who has to make the decision.

It’s the Night of the Long Knives in Pakistan as President Pervez Musharraf has declared a State of Emergency in Pakistan.

In so doing, Musharraf has scrapped the constitution and is ruling by military fiat. He has arrested the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, as well as 6 other justices who issued a ruling before being escorted by the army from the judicial building that Musharraf’s power grab was illegal. The four remaining justices have meekly submitted to Musharraf’s will by signing new oaths of loyalty.

The lawyer who led street protests on behalf of the Chief Justice when Musharraf had him tossed off the court last summer (only to have the court reinstate him later), Aitzaz Ahsan, has also been arrested and it is expected that many regime opponents are in danger of being swept up in a massive crackdown.

Ex-Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto was in Dubai visiting her mother when the crackdown began. She has reportedly returned to Pakistan but is sitting in a plane on the tarmac in Karachi awaiting to see if she will be arrested or deported if she steps on Pakistani soil. My prediction is that Musharraf is going for the gold here and she best skedaddle.

Independent television stations are off the air and wireless communications including cell phones have been cut off. A massive amount of force is in the streets with both police and army units out in full force.

No matter what Musharraf says about al-Qaeda and the terrorists getting out of control - despite it being true - the real reason for this crackdown is that the Supreme Court was ready to rule in favor of challenges to his re-election as president. Although Musharraf has named his own successor to the post of Chief of Staff, he never formally resigned.

Now we know why.

Elections scheduled for next January are probably now out of the question. And any deals with the opposition will also probably be impossible. Musharraf has demonstrated - and not for the first time - that he simply can’t be trusted to keep his word.

According to the New York Times, there have been a couple of times over the last few months that US officials have urged Musharraf not to declare the State of Emergency. As recently as 2 days ago, Condi Rice evidently warned him against it. The American Commander in the Middle East William Fallon told Musharraf bluntly that if he declared the State of Emergency, it would put our military aid package to Pakistan in jeopardy.

We currently give Pakistan around $1.5 billion a year in military aid and another billion in economic assistance. With the absolutely pivotal role that Musharraf plays with regard to our Afghanistan mission as well as being on the front line in the war against al-Qaeda, we have to ask ourselves how much of our nose do we want to cut off to spite our face?

The morally satisfying posture to take would be to play the self-abnegation game and strike a dramatic pose by grandiosely declaring Pakistan no longer worthy of our support and cutting Musharraf off from any American aid whatsoever.

Morally satisfying but towering idiocy. Pakistan is on the brink and even if it would satisfy some to withhold aid, now is not the time to weaken the only man standing between chaos and a possible victory by Islamic extremists and a chance to find a road back to sanity.

The left is already blaming Bush (and speculating that the Administration is jealous of Musharraf and will declare their own State of Emergency to hang on to power next year) - despite the fact that the Administration had actually been orchestrating this return to democracy from behind the scenes by backing Bhutto’s return and helping to broker the deal between her and Musharraf.

But this is to be expected. If a mosquito sneezes in Madagascar and a typhoon hits India, it’s Bush’s fault according to these folks.

The opposition parties - both secular democrats and extreme Islamic - will not take this lying down. Expect general strikes, massive demonstrations in the streets, and a probable crackdown.

Meanwhile, Pakistans 70 nuclear weapons are secure - for the moment.

UPDATE: MUSHARRAF SPEAKS

From Dawn:

Chief of Army Staff, General Pervez Musharraf addressed the nation (Saturday) about 1845GMT. President General Pervez Musharraf said in his address that Pakistan was at a dangerous juncture. Extremists, he said had challenged the writ of the government. The country’s unity is in danger without emergency rule, he added. He said terrorism and extremism had reached their limit and his country’s sovereignty was at stake. “Pakistan has reached a dangerous point, and is undergoing an internal crisis. Whatever is happening is because of internal disturbances,” he said in a pre-recorded televised address wearing a Sherwani. “I fear that if timely action is not taken, then God forbid there is a threat to Pakistan’s sovereignty.” He said some media channels had added to uncertainty in the country, but did not specify which. He also accused the courts of setting free 61 men who he said had committed terrorist acts. He said there will be no change in government during the state of emergency; parliament will continue to function. He said that he remained committed to holding parliamentary elections.

A worker at the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating plant outside of Phoenix was being questioned by police after what appeared to be a pipe bomb was found in his truck:

The worker was stopped and detained at the entrance of the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, said U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission spokesman Victor Dricks. Security officials then put the nuclear station on lockdown, prohibiting anyone from entering or leaving the facility.

Authorities described the device as a small capped pipe that contained suspicious residue.

Capt. Paul Chagolla with the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office said sheriff’s officials have rendered the device safe and that investigators were interviewing the worker.

The plant was operating normally and there was no threat to the public, Palo Verde spokesman Jim McDonald said.

Palo Verde is the largest nuclear plant in the US. Prior to the US invasion of Iraq, the plant was considered such a strategic target that National Guard troops were deployed to protect it.

What kind of damage could a small pipe bomb do? No direct threat to the reactor can be imagined. However, damage to specific control systems by someone who knew precisely where to set off a device could conceivably cause some problems. Probably not a meltdown or any release of radiation. But the very act of setting off a device inside a nuclear plant would be statement enough.

The point is, that’s the kind of information that a terrorist would know if an actual attack were planned. Such vulnerabilities would not be easily deduced but could be inferred by knowledgeable confederates.

This may be nothing more than some one with a weird hobby who accidentally happened to leave one of his creations in his truck. Or the guy could be a member of an al-Qaeda sleeper cell, in the US for years, employed at the plant by design, and has now been activated to kill us all.

My thinking tends toward the former. But that should in no way lessen the significance of the event. Our nuke and chemical plants are soft targets and the terrorists know it. They’ve been hardened since 9/11 but has it been enough? Maybe the best thing to come out of this is a re-examination of security at these plants in order to make sure that we’re doing everything we can to protect ourselves.

UPDATE

Malkin is reporting that nearby schools were also in lockdown. Must have been a tense few minutes there after they found the device.

Might do an update if the situation warrants it.

Osama Bin Laden was once again in our gunsights. We had several different methods with which we could have dispatched him. We had an armed drone, a SEAL team, the Air Force had a bomber - and according to Colonel David Hunt, an analyst for Fox News, we didn’t/couldn’t/wouldn’t pull the trigger:

We know, with a 70 percent level of certainty — which is huge in the world of intelligence — that in August of 2007, bin Laden was in a convoy headed south from Tora Bora. We had his butt, on camera, on satellite. We were listening to his conversations. We had the world’s best hunters/killers — Seal Team 6 — nearby. We had the world class Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) coordinating with the CIA and other agencies. We had unmanned drones overhead with missiles on their wings; we had the best Air Force on the planet, begging to drop one on the terrorist. We had him in our sights; we had done it. Nice job again guys — now, pull the damn trigger.

Unbelievably, and in my opinion, criminally, we did not kill Usama bin Laden.

You cannot make this crap up; truth is always stranger and more telling than fiction. Our government, the current administration and yes, our military leaders included, failed to kill bin Laden for no other reason than incompetence.

Very serious charges indeed. Taking Colonel Hunt at his word - or at least the word of his source(s) - it may have been helpful for the Fox News military analyst to give us a hint as to why we didn’t pull the trigger. The Colonel makes a charge of incompetence. Fine - prove it. Or shut the hell up.

Hunt gives us a clue, however, as to what he considers “incompetent:”

We have allowed Pakistan to become a safe haven for Al Qaeda. We have allowed Al Qaeda to reconstitute, partially because of money they (Al Qaeda in Iraq) have been sending to Al Qaeda in Pakistan.

We are in a war with terrorists. We are in a war with countries that support terrorists. We are in a war with people that fly planes into buildings and who never, ever hesitate to pull the trigger when given the chance to kill us. We cannot win and, I will tell you this now, we are losing this war every damn time we fail to take every single opportunity to kill murderers like Usama bin Laden. Less than two months ago, we lost again.

Hunt’s accusations need to be examined for their authenticity, certainly. But before accepting his charges, it might be best to also look at Colonel Hunt’s idea of what exactly constitutes “incompetence.”

The military and Administration are incompetent for “allowing” Pakistan to become a safe haven for al-Qaeda, and “allowing” them to reconstitute? What an ignoramus. The only way al-Qaeda was ever going to be wiped out is if we had received the permission of the Pakistani government to go into the NWFP - the tribal areas where the writ of Pakistani or any other law has never run - and take out al-Qaeda sanctuaries. That permission was not going to be forthcoming from President Musharraf for the simple reason that it was politically untenable for him to give it. The result of our incursions would have been the kind of nationwide unrest that overthrows tyrants and strengthens radicals. In this case, al-Qaeda and Taliban allies could very well have achieved power if we had been so stupid - a prospect that would have included Islamists with their fingers on the trigger of 70 nuclear weapons.

Going in without Musharraf’s permission would have set off a firestorm of criticism around the world. And despite the fact that the left is urging we take this very course, the minute we were to go in, charges of Bush “widening the war” and “Cambodia Redux” would have been heard from most of these very same folks - including Colonel Hunt.

So we were forced to accept an alternative - that Musharraf would go after the remnants of the Taliban and al-Qaeda with his own army. This he attempted to do in 2004. After a 5 month campaign of playing hide and seek in the rugged terrain with the terrorists while fighting many of the tribes who had allied themselves with his enemy, Musharraf was forced to beat a hasty retreat and sign some humiliating “peace” agreements. These treaties gave the Taliban easy access to Afghanistan and allowed al-Qaeda to set up shop safely in the Waziristans while basically kicking the Pakistani army of the area.

Blaming Bush and the military for the internal dynamics of Pakistani politics and how that extremely delicate situation impacts our mission in Afghanistan was something I thought only idiots on the left were stupid enough to do. Evidently not.

Of course, the left is all over this story saying that there is no way in hell that it’s true. After all, the source is Fox News, right?

So everyone, what is the excuse this time? Must be Clinton’s fault I guess and remember, this is post 9/11.

As always, I have a source to back up what I say. That is more than most of the “righties” around here can ever do.

Bu-bu-but that “source” is FOX NEWS! I thought we couldn’t believe anything we hear about the Administration from Fox. Surely there are plenty of lefties out there who will dismiss this story outright because of it’s source, right?

Absolutely astounding. Uh huh… Absolutely astounding. But, yet not at all surprising to hear that BushCo botched another opportunity to kill Osama bin Laden.

Not even a teeny, tiny bit of skepticism? From a network nicknamed “Faux News?”

I’m sorry. For a minute there, I thought Faux News sounded rational.

Oh wait. They did.

Of course, they are completely oblivious to this kind of towering hypocrisy. Totally clueless. They see nothing untoward in condemning Fox News when it reports something they disagree with but accept and comment on things they find agreeable.

And what exactly are they agreeing with? A single sourced story where the correspondent either refuses to divulge or doesn’t know the entire circumstances surrounding the targeting of Bin Laden. Why didn’t we fire? Colonel Hunt chalks it up to “incompetence” without offering a single bit of information to back it up. Not one.

And the lefties are agreeing with him - despite their being totally in the dark, along with the rest of us, as to what criteria Hunt is using to make the charge.

Has there ever been such stupidity, hypocrisy, and benighted callousness toward any honest intellectual standard whatsoever?

Knowing the crew in the White House and Pentagon, it would not surprise me in the slightest if the incompetence charge turned out to be true. But maybe we should have a little evidence before reaching that conclusion?

Or do you want to live you life like an rabid left wing hater who allows ideology and unformed judgements rule their thoughts?

The driver of the yellow Mercedes Benz truck in Beirut that awful day 24 years ago knew precisely where to go. According to intelligence reports, two members of what was then the underground terrorist organization known as Hizbullah had mapped the layout of the Marine barracks so that the suicide bomber could carry out his mission to maximum effect. He knew the Marines pulling sentry duty had pocketed their ammo clips thanks to some ridiculous rules of engagement. And he was aware that there were no barriers protecting the structure so that his truck laden with 12,000 pounds of explosives would only have to crash through ordinary wood and plaster in order to be positioned perfectly so that detonation would have catastrophic effects on the building.

The truck had apparently been prepared with the help of Syrians and Iranians in the Bekaa Valley in Lebanon where several Revolutionary Guard units had been stationed under Syrian protection. An NSA intercept revealed at a trial that convicted the Islamic Republic of Iran of being behind the attack, stated that a message sent from Iranian intelligence headquarters in Tehran toAli-Akbar Mohtashemi, the Iranian ambassador in Damascus and directed the Iranian ambassador to get in touch with Islamic Amal which has since been identified as the military arm of Hizbullah at the time, and instruct him to “take spectacular action” against the Marines.

When the bomb detonated, it may have been the largest non-nuclear explosion in history up to that time (we used the “Daisy Cutter” in Afghanistan which weighs 15,000 lbs). The entire barracks building was lifted off its foundation and when it came down, it collapsed in a heap of cinder blocks, plaster, and dust. A few seconds after the blast, another suicide truck bomber crashed into the French military headquarters detonating a similar device. All told, 241 Americans lost their lives in the blast. Another 58 French paratroopers died in the other attack that day. It was the worst day for the Marines since the battle of Iwo Jima and the worst day for the US military since the first day of the Tet Offensive in Viet Nam.

While it is not a rock solid certainty that Hizbullah, acting on direct orders from Iran, was behind the attacks, the preponderance of evidence certainly points that way. At the time, Hizbullah was in its initial stages of formation, being trained by Revolutionary Guard units who had infiltrated Lebanon through Syria. At first, Hizbullah was not an independent actor in Lebanon, receiving its orders directly from Khomenei’s Iran. The US had just given Sadaam Hussein more than two billion dollars in aid to fight Iran and the thinking is that Khomenei wanted to get back at the US for our support of Iraq. When US forces pulled out the following February, it was simply gravy from the Iranian point of view.

So for 24 years, we have been in an undeclared war with Hizbullah and, by extension, Iran. Or, at least Iran has been at war with us. We have pretended that no such conflict exists under successive US presidents, Republican and Democratic, liberal and conservative. Occasionally, history intervenes and tries to rouse us out of this stupor but so far, to no avail. In 1984, Hizbullah attacked our embassy, killing 5 Americans. In 1985, TWA flight 847 was hijacked by Hizbullah and a Navy diver was savagely beaten to death. They kidnapped and murdered CIA officer William Buckley and Colonel William Higgins, a Marine serving with the UN at the time. (They were kind enough to forward videos of the murders to our government). They fired on oil tankers in the Persian Gulf. They have operated around the world, killing Jews wherever there’s a soft enough target to hit.

To this day, Hizbullah is beholden to Iran, getting all of its funding and weapons as well as its training through the Revolutionary Guards. They receive an estimated $250 million a year - by far and away the largest recipient of Iranian foreign aid. Their fighters are trained in Iran, indoctrinated in Iran, and are more loyal to the “Islamic Revolution” than they are to Lebanon.

And yet, there are those who are serious when they proclaim they don’t want us to “start” a war with Iran.

This is worse than madness. It is deliberate, self deluded suicide not to recognize Iran as deadly enemy of the United States. Bombing and invading is not the answer, although as the last option available, it may come to that. But we should have absolutely no qualms about attempting to undermine the government of Iran and work for regime change - peacefully if at all possible. But ultimately, the only peaceful solution would be if the Iranian people themselves overthrew the corrupt and messianic mullahs who currently run that country.

It was 24 years ago today that Hizbullah, acting under what is believed to be the direct orders of Iran, made their largest and most successful attack against America. Their masters in Tehran have since been challenging us at every turn, testing our resolve and going so far as to assist our enemies in Iraq. The question now isn’t if a showdown will occur but when.

I don’t know if violence can be avoided. I know we must try to do so because the consequences of war with Iran for the entire world would be profoundly dangerous and destabilizing. But the threat Iran poses is intolerable and must be dealt with - one way or another.

UPDATE 10/25:

Reader Mike emails with a correction:

The “Grand Slam” bomb of WWII, weighing 22,000 lbs and dropped from a British Lancaster bomber, was larger.

And for that matter, accidental ammunition explosions of WWI and WWII, in Halifax N.S., Texas, the Bay Area and IIRC, Eniwetok Atoll, each involved several thousand tons of munitions.

I should have mentioned above that the statement about the barracks bomb being the largest explosion ever up to that time was actually from a quote by the trial judge in the suit against the Iranians.

Obviously, he didn’t know what he was talking about - any more than I did.

Thanks to Mike for the correction.

This report from the usually reliable Asia Times online is spectacular news if true. The Pakistani military has declared all out war on the Taliban and al-Qaeda in their sanctuary provinces of North and South Waziristan:

An all-out battle for control of Pakistan’s restive North and South Waziristan is about to commence between the Pakistani military and the Taliban and al-Qaeda adherents who have made these tribal areas their own.

According to a top Pakistani security official who spoke to Asia Times Online on condition of anonymity, the goal this time is to pacify the Waziristans once and for all. All previous military operations - usually spurred by intelligence provided by the Western coalition - have had limited objectives, aimed at specific bases or sanctuaries or blocking the cross-border movement of guerrillas. Now the military is going for broke to break the back of the Taliban and a-Qaeda in Pakistan and reclaim the entire area.

The fighting that erupted two weeks ago, and that has continued with bombing raids against guerrilla bases in North Waziristan - turning thousands of families into refugees and killing more people than any India-Pakistan war in the past 60 years - is but a precursor of the bloodiest battle that is coming.

Lining up against the Pakistani Army will be the Shura (council) of Mujahideen comprising senior al-Qaeda and Taliban commanders, local clerics, and leaders of the fighting clans Wazir and Mehsud (known as the Pakistani Taliban). The shura has long been calling the shots in the Waziristans, imposing sharia law and turning the area into a strategic command and control hub of global Muslim resistance movements, including those operating in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Someone or something lit a fire under President Musharraf in order for him to commit to this kind of action. You might recall it was a little more than a year ago that Musharraf made his pact with the devil, concluding a deal with the Taliban and tribes that essentially gave them free reign to set up shop in South Waziristan. This is after a deal he signed the previous year doing the same thing in North Waziristan.

At the time, Musharraf had not committed his forces to defeat his foes but rather upset their strategic plans for cross border incursions into Afghanistan as well as training and logistics for al-Qaeda fighters headed to Iraq. His efforts failed and he was forced to sign the humiliating agreements with the terrorists.

All this is apparently about to change:

According to the security official, an ultimatum had been delivered to the militants recently during a temporary ceasefire. The army would set a deadline and give safe passage into Afghanistan to all al-Qaeda members and Taliban commanders who had gathered in Waziristan to launch a large-scale post-Ramadan operation in Afghanistan. They, along with wanted tribal warrior leaders, would all leave Pakistan, and never return.

After their departure, under the direct command and surveillance of newly appointed Vice Chief of Army Staff General Ashfaq Parvez Kiani (who will replace President-elect Pervez Musharraf as Chief of Army Staff), fresh troops and paramilitary forces would be sent in to establish bases at all strategic points and disarm the local tribes. The Durand Line (the border between Pakistan and Afghanistan), would be fenced and border controls would be tightened.

The militants rejected the ultimatum.

Won’t the Taliban and al-Qaeda run away to fight another day?

The militants have little option but to stand and fight, rather than slip across the border or melt into the local population. Aside from the sanctuary and succor afforded them in the Waziristans, most of the fighters there are either Waziris, or from other parts of Pakistan, or foreigners. They would be unable to support themselves in Afghanistan, especially as most of the non-Waziris do not speak Pashtu - a fact that also prevents them from disappearing into the Waziristan populace.

Just how important is this coming battle?

This could prove to be the turning point in the war against the Taliban in Afghanistan while setting al-Qaeda’s operations back to where they were in 2003 after the Taliban was defeated. A “qualified” intelligence estimate is that pacification of the Waziristans would reduce the capability of the Afghan resistance by 85% as well as “deliver a serious setback to the Iraqi resistance” who depend on the bases in Waziristan for money, weapons, and logistical support.

In addition, as the most recent National Intelligence Estimate on al-Qaeda shows that much of its command infrastructure had been reconstituted since 2003. If the Pakistani military is successful, that infrastructure will be destroyed along with their bases. And how huge is that?

How serious are the Pakistanis about this coming fight?

The safety of Taliban and al-Qaeda assets in Waziristan is a matter of life and death and, therefore, the militants have devised a forward strategy to target the Pakistani cities of Lahore, Karachi and Islamabad, hoping to break the will of the Pakistani armed forces. The Pakistani military, meanwhile, is trying to break the will of the militants with ongoing bombing raids.

Underscoring the seriousness with which the military is planning for the coming battle, it is reported that Shi’ite soldiers from northern Pakistan are being sent to the Waziristans. In the past, the Pakistani Army has been plagued by desertions of Pashtun and Sunni troops who refuse to fight fellow Pashtuns or Sunnis.

The ultimate question is why now? An American might ask “What took you so long?” but that ignores the consequences of what Musharraf is undertaking with this all out attack. By using his air power and armor, it is likely that civilian deaths will be numerous - something no leader wants to do when you consider the population will already be restive with or without the Taliban in charge. This is the way things have been in the entire Northwest Frontier Province area for 60 years - fierce, independent tribesmen who have resisted control from Islamabad from the beginning. Bombing and shelling will not endear the locals to the government.

Then there’s Musharraf’s internal political problem with considerable support for the Taliban in his intelligence service, the ISI as well as the religious parties who refuse to shut down the madrasses that supply the Taliban with a steady stream of recruits. This all out move against the Taliban will not be popular in many quarters in Pakistan.

Finally, you have to believe that American pressure was at work here. Did we tell Musharraf to clear out the Taliban or we would do it for him? The fact that the Pakistani offensive, which began two weeks ago, broke up the Taliban’s plans for a “post Ramadan offensive” and that it is widely believed that we have lost ground to the terrorists in the last year in Afghanistan could very well have elicited such an ultimatum.

Whatever the reason, Musharraf has evidently decided to commit his army to the destruction of the Taliban. And if he’s successful, it might just turn out to be the most significant battle in the war against Islamic extremism to date.

As all other Presidential campaigns have done, Hillary Clinton’s foreign policy team has written an essay for Foreign Affairs outlining her thoughts and goals for her potential presidency.

I felt that given the fact that it is a good bet at this point that Mrs. Clinton will be putting her thoughts into action come January, 2009, a close look at her ideas and proposals would be of interest to all.

Generally, speaking the essay is typical Democratic party boilerplate with some interesting differences, including the eye-popping inference that a Clinton Administration may be willing to negotiate with al-Qaeda:

Use our military not as the solution to every problem but as one element in a comprehensive strategy. As president, I will never hesitate to use force to protect Americans or to defend our territory and our vital interests. We cannot negotiate with individual terrorists; they must be hunted down and captured or killed.

We can’t negotiate with “individual terrorists” but does that mean we might be willing to sit down with terrorist groups? I hope somebody asks her that question but for the moment, I’ll just put it down to poor writing on the part of whoever penned the piece.

As for the rest, I was surprised at what the left would consider to be her bellicosity toward Iran as well as a realistic view toward China. I would say that her outlook is not quite a 9/10 view of the world but she seems to have one foot in the past when it comes to fighting terrorism. And for all her Bush bashing rhetoric, she appears willing to carry on many Bush policies, despite not giving the President credit for them.

Here are some specifics:

The tragedy of the last six years is that the Bush administration has squandered the respect, trust, and confidence of even our closest allies and friends. At the dawn of the twenty-first century, the United States enjoyed a unique position. Our world leadership was widely accepted and respected, as we strengthened old alliances and built new ones, worked for peace across the globe, advanced nonproliferation, and modernized our military. After 9/11, the world rallied behind the United States as never before, supporting our efforts to remove the Taliban in Afghanistan and go after the al Qaeda leadership. We had a historic opportunity to build a broad global coalition to combat terror, increase the impact of our diplomacy, and create a world with more partners and fewer adversaries.

But we lost that opportunity by refusing to let the UN inspectors finish their work in Iraq and rushing to war instead. Moreover, we diverted vital military and financial resources from the struggle against al Qaeda and the daunting task of building a Muslim democracy in Afghanistan. At the same time, we embarked on an unprecedented course of unilateralism: refusing to pursue ratification of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, abandoning our commitment to nuclear nonproliferation, and turning our backs on the search for peace in the Middle East. Our withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol and refusal to participate in any international effort to deal with the tremendous challenges of climate change further damaged our international standing.

It’s hard to dissect so many mis-statements, falsehoods, and plain old Democratic talking points so I’ll just handle a couple of the more glaring errors.

First, the idea that all was peaches and cream on January 20, 2001 when the first President Clinton left office is so outrageously false as to be beyond belief. We were then as we were on 9/11 and afterwards, widely mistrusted and disliked by a vast majority of the world’s people and governments. The idea that 9/11 changed that is bunk, as I wrote about here.

This persistent myth is convenient politically but historically a sham. It has no basis in fact and has more to do with a desire by the left and the Democratic party to make some ridiculous point about America being loved by the world until George Bush came along.

I might have a few other questions for Hillary just from these first paragraphs.

* Which “new alliances” did the Clinton Administration build?
* Explain how gutting the military modernized it.
* Is it your position that we have more “adversaries” now than we did in 2001? Than 1996? Who are they? When did they move from the “neutral” or “friendly” column on to the “enemy” side of the ledger?
* Is it your position that we do not have a “broad coalition” fighting terrorism today - sharing intel, cooperating with law enforcement agencies around the world and generally working around the clock with literally dozens of countries to keep the US safe?
* Do you remember the Senate refusing to take up the Kyoto agreement during your husband’s presidency? Do you remember why?
* Do you remember the Iraq Regime Change Act of 1998? Or did you sleep through that one too?

Those are for starters. If we all got together and really put our minds to it, I’m sure we could come up with a couple of dozen more questions just from those first two paragraphs.

But that was just from the intro to the essay. Let’s get to the meat and potatoes:

IRAQ

We must withdraw from Iraq in a way that brings our troops home safely, begins to restore stability to the region, and replaces military force with a new diplomatic initiative to engage countries around the world in securing Iraq’s future. To that end, as president, I will convene the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the secretary of defense, and the National Security Council and direct them to draw up a clear, viable plan to bring our troops home, starting within the first 60 days of my administration.

While working to stabilize Iraq as our forces withdraw, I will focus U.S. aid on helping Iraqis, not propping up the Iraqi government. Financial resources will go only where they will be used properly, rather than to government ministries or ministers that hoard, steal, or waste them.

As we leave Iraq militarily, I will replace our military force with an intensive diplomatic initiative in the region. The Bush administration has belatedly begun to engage Iran and Syria in talks about the future of Iraq. This is a step in the right direction, but much more must be done. As president, I will convene a regional stabilization group composed of key allies, other global powers, and all the states bordering Iraq. Working with the newly appointed UN special representative for Iraq, the group will be charged with developing and implementing a strategy for achieving a stable Iraq that provides incentives for Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Turkey to stay out of the civil war.

“While working to stabilize Iraq as our forces withdraw” - a nice trick if you can pull it off. If we could stabilize the damn place while taking our troops out, somehow you have to believe we’d be doing it already.

And why should Iraq’s neighbors Iran and Syria work to “stabilize Iraq’s future” when they’re the ones destabilizing it at the moment? Is it Hillary’s belief that once we start to leave that those two terrorist supporting nations will suddenly cease their interference in Iraq and allow the legitimate Iraqi government some breathing room?

This is realism?

And then there’s the shocking notion that aid will go to the “Iraqi people” and not “prop up” the Iraqi government? What is she, nuts? While corruption is endemic in Iraq (as it is in every government in the region and most of the world) is that a reason to cut Maliki off at the knees? With us gone and the Iraqi government collapsing because a Clinton Administration won’t support them, who in God’s name is going to fill the vacuum?

Madness.

And I don’t hear Hillary or the left up in arms about giving assistance to African dictators who routinely line their pockets and those of their cronies with our foreign aid. If she cared half as much about a sizable portion of the rest of the foreign aid budget going into the Swiss bank accounts of the generals, potentates, and dictators who rule most of the world, you could at least give her credit for not being a towering hypocrite.

The regional conference idea is a good one - something Bush should have embraced years ago. If he had, there’s a chance that pressure from other Arab states could have curtailed Syrian involvement. Iran is a whole different story. The mullahs have their claws firmly gripping a sizable chunk of Iraq thanks to their influence with some powerful forces as well as individuals. I doubt there is much that can be done to lessen their interference in Iraqi affairs.

IRAN

Here, Hillary admits Iran is supplying weapons to our enemies in Iraq, something not too many Democrats have done so I give her credit for abandoning a cherished Democratic talking point. As for the rest of her prescription regarding the mullahs, she mixes tough talk with unrealistic diplomatic goals:

The case in point is Iran. Iran poses a long-term strategic challenge to the United States, our NATO allies, and Israel. It is the country that most practices state-sponsored terrorism, and it uses its surrogates to supply explosives that kill U.S. troops in Iraq. The Bush administration refuses to talk to Iran about its nuclear program, preferring to ignore bad behavior rather than challenge it. Meanwhile, Iran has enhanced its nuclear-enrichment capabilities, armed Iraqi Shiite militias, funneled arms to Hezbollah, and subsidized Hamas, even as the government continues to hurt its own citizens by mismanaging the economy and increasing political and social repression.

As a result, we have lost precious time. Iran must conform to its nonproliferation obligations and must not be permitted to build or acquire nuclear weapons. If Iran does not comply with its own commitments and the will of the international community, all options must remain on the table.

On the other hand, if Iran is in fact willing to end its nuclear weapons program, renounce sponsorship of terrorism, support Middle East peace, and play a constructive role in stabilizing Iraq, the United States should be prepared to offer Iran a carefully calibrated package of incentives. This will let the Iranian people know that our quarrel is not with them but with their government and show the world that the United States is prepared to pursue every diplomatic option.

Talking is fine but what do we discuss? Iran has ostensibly taken their enrichment program off the table so some kind of “Grand Bargain” involving Iraq and Iran’s nuclear program would seem to be nixed for now.

If she believes that her Administration would be able to offer anything to Iran that would make it “willing to end its nuclear weapons program, renounce sponsorship of terrorism, support Middle East peace, and play a constructive role in stabilizing Iraq,” she is dreaming. There are no “calibrated incentives” that would encourage the mullahs to behave like decent citizens of the world. Even without Ahmadinejad in the picture, the nuclear issue won’t be negotiated to our satisfaction. We just don’t have enough to offer the Iranians that would knock their socks off and give them the incentives to make a deal.

If elected, she will have about 2 years to decide whether to attack or live with a nuclear Iran. It will be the hardest decision of her presidency - as it would be for anyone sitting in the Big Chair at that time - and whatever she decides will have severe consequences for American policy.

AFGHANISTAN

The forgotten frontline in the war on terror is Afghanistan, where our military effort must be reinforced. The Taliban cannot be allowed to regain power in Afghanistan; if they return, al Qaeda will return with them. Yet current U.S. policies have actually weakened President Hamid Karzai’s government and allowed the Taliban to retake many areas, especially in the south. A largely unimpeded heroin trade finances the very Taliban fighters and al Qaeda terrorists who are attacking our troops. In addition to engaging in counternarcotics efforts, we must seek to dry up recruiting opportunities for the Taliban by funding crop-substitution programs, a large-scale road-building initiative, institutions that train and prepare Afghans for honest and effective governance, and programs to enable women to play a larger role in society.

We must also strengthen the national and local governments and resolve the problems along Afghanistan’s border. Terrorists are increasingly finding safe havens in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas of Pakistan. Redoubling our efforts with Pakistan would not only help root out terrorist elements there; it would also signal to our NATO partners that the war in Afghanistan and the broader fight against extremism in South Asia are battles that we can and must win. Yet we cannot succeed unless we design a strategy that treats the entire region as an interconnected whole, where crises overlap with one another and the danger of a chain reaction of disasters is real.

Hillary’s heart and head are in the right place regarding Afghanistan but the problem is there is very little to be done about Pakistan and not much militarily that can be accomplished in Afghanistan without a 180 degree change in the attitude of our NATO partners about engaging the enemy (”How many NATO troops do we need to guard the airport?” asked one Canadian general).

The political problems in Afghanistan that prevented us from taking out the opium crop last year, leading directly to a Taliban flush with cash to buy weapons and influence with the tribes need to be solved by President Karzai and the National Assembly. Other questions directly bearing on the Taliban resurgence in the south have to do with the ease with which their fighters can infiltrate across the border with Pakistan.

And there, Hillary is once again dreaming if she thinks there is anything the US can do to help the Pakistani government (which will be even less cooperative with the US once civilian control is restored early next year and we will be dealing with Benazir Bhutto as Prime Minister), especially in the NWFP - the “federally administered tribal areas” - where the writ of Pakistani law has never run in the 60 years of independence. We could “redouble” our efforts, triple them, and then multiply that by a hundred and still come up short. Musharraf can’t control those areas. What makes Hillary think we can?

No word in the essay about how divided Pakistan is about helping us with the people madly opposed to American policy in Afghanistan and the intelligence service ISI supportive of the Taliban. Pakistan is a much tougher nut to crack than simply “redoubling” our efforts.

RUSSIA

Statesmanship is also necessary to engage countries that are not adversaries but that are challenging the United States on many fronts. Russian President Vladimir Putin has thwarted a carefully crafted UN plan that would have put Kosovo on a belated path to independence, attempted to use energy as a political weapon against Russia’s neighbors and beyond, and tested the United States and Europe on a range of nonproliferation and arms reduction issues. Putin has also suppressed many of the freedoms won after the fall of communism, created a new class of oligarchs, and interfered deeply in the internal affairs of former Soviet republics.

It is a mistake, however, to see Russia only as a threat. Putin has used Russia’s energy wealth to expand the Russian economy, so that more ordinary Russians are enjoying a rising standard of living. We need to engage Russia selectively on issues of high national importance, such as thwarting Iran’s nuclear ambitions, securing loose nuclear weapons in Russia and the former Soviet republics, and reaching a diplomatic solution in Kosovo. At the same time, we must make clear that our ability to view Russia as a genuine partner depends on whether Russia chooses to strengthen democracy or return to authoritarianism and regional interference.

First, it is difficult to see how we could have deflected Vladmir Putin from his goal to establish himself as virtual dictator. But having said that, I’m glad to see Hillary not taking the Russian bear for granted and realizing at the same time that there are vital areas where cooperation is desired by both sides. Non proliferation is huge and the Bush Administration should be faulted for its laxity in this regard.

One area of cooperation she didn’t mention was in fighting terrorism. We have worked closely these last few years with Russian internal security to combat the Chechen menace - one of the more active terrorist enclaves in the world. She might want to see about increasing those contacts and firming up some of these relationships that I understand are somewhat informal.

CHINA

Our relationship with China will be the most important bilateral relationship in the world in this century. The United States and China have vastly different values and political systems, yet even though we disagree profoundly on issues ranging from trade to human rights, religious freedom, labor practices, and Tibet, there is much that the United States and China can and must accomplish together. China’s support was important in reaching a deal to disable North Korea’s nuclear facilities. We should build on this framework to establish a Northeast Asian security regime.

I would be interested to hear her thoughts on the possible Chinese thrust at Taiwan. The day may come in the next 8 years where China feels strong enough militarily to take us on in their own waters. Do we abandon Taipei to the tender mercies of their communist cousins? Or do we risk a general war with China to try and save her?

As for the rest, Japan, China, and the US have been the powers that be in Asia for the last 100 years and will be for the next 100. Working together the last quarter century has brought peace to Asia for the first time in a thousand years. A “Northeast Asian Security Regime” is fine as long as it recognizes our current commitments to South Korea and Japan. And I’d love to see a Democrat stand up to the Chinese about their unfair trade policies.

GLOBAL WARMING

This is worrisome:

We must also take threats and turn them into opportunities. The seemingly overwhelming challenge of climate change is a prime example. Far from being a drag on global growth, climate control represents a powerful economic opportunity that can be a driver of growth, jobs, and competitive advantage in the twenty-first century. As president, I will make the fight against global warming a priority. We cannot solve the climate crisis alone, and the rest of the world cannot solve it without us. The United States must reengage in international climate change negotiations and provide the leadership needed to reach a binding global climate agreement. But we must first restore our own credibility on the issue. Rapidly emerging countries, such as China, will not curb their own carbon emissions until the United States has demonstrated a serious commitment to reducing its own through a market-based cap-and-trade approach.

The problem is that the Kyoto protocols were not a “powerful economic opportunity.” Far from it. The protocols would have sucked several hundred billion dollars out of our economy and placed it in the hands of countries who had the offsets for sale. And the goals set for the US - emissions targeted to 1993 levels - could very well have had us spinning into a depression.

I would prefer a more modest approach to curbing emissions involving the only countries that matter - the industrialized nations of the world. We don’t need a Fidel Castro going on for 4 hours telling us how great an environmentalist he is and how evil we are. Kyoto was a scheme to transfer massive amounts of wealth from the rich to the poor countries of the world and was too complex to work anyway (witness Europe’s failure to meet Kyoto targets despite their best efforts). What is needed is an agreement among those nations who are responsible for 95% of the greenhouse emissions on the planet.

GROVELING APOLOGIES…

To build the world we want, we must begin by speaking honestly about the problems we face. We will have to talk about the consequences of our invasion of Iraq for the Iraqi people and others in the region. We will have to talk about Guantánamo and Abu Ghraib. We will also have to take concrete steps to enhance security and spread opportunity throughout the world.

Perhaps we should get her some sack cloth and ashes as an inaugural present. From the sound of the above, she will be knee walking her way around the world apologizing for America being so beastly to everyone else.

Wake me when it’s over.

SUMMARY

Not as bad reading it the second time around. Clearly, Hillary’s inside look at how the presidency operates in a hostile world taught her some valuable lessons. My question is how resistant she is going to be to the siren call of appeasement and surrender of the base in her party? Ironically, for some of her bolder, stronger moves in foreign policy she may have to rely on the rational right in Congress to support her.

I am encouraged by some of what she is thinking and frightened by some other ideas. But taken in total, it is not a foreign policy I could get behind and support with any enthusiasm. Better than Obama’s. Better than any other Democrat’s so far. But far short of what I think is necessary as far as fighting an implacable enemy who, given the odds, will probably hit us again during her presidency.

And then we’ll see, in the crucible of crisis, of what exactly Hillary Clinton is truly made.