Right Wing Nut House

It appears that Congress is about to finally take the lead and clarify the legal status of detainees who have been languishing at Guantanamo and other sites around the world in a kind of legal limbo that has been both a blot on American jurisprudence and an invitation for criticism from the international community:

A bipartisan group of senators reached a compromise yesterday that would dramatically alter U.S. policy for treating captured terrorist suspects by granting them a final recourse to the federal courts but stripping them of some key legal rights.

The compromise links legislation written by Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), which would deny detainees broad access to federal courts, with a new measure authored by Sen. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.) that would grant detainees the right to appeal the verdict of a military tribunal to a federal appeals court. The deal will come to a vote today, and the authors say they are confident it will pass.

The measure will not go far enough to appease liberals who want to treat the foreign terrorists like law abiding American citizens. And it will almost certainly trouble some conservatives who wish that the prisoners be thrown into a black hole to rot. But the compromise will solve the bureaucratic tangle that has existed between the Department of Justice and the Department of Defense who, for different reasons, have wished for such clarifying language.

One potential stumbling block is the insistence by both Senators Graham and Levin on linkage between their bill and a bill introduced by Senator John McCain that prohibits torture:

Graham and Levin indicated they would then demand that House and Senate negotiators link their measure with the effort by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) to clearly ban torture and abuse of terrorism suspects being held in U.S. facilities.

“McCain’s amendment needs to be part of the overall package, because it deals with standardizing interrogation techniques and will reestablish moral high ground for the United States,” Graham said.

McCain’s bill is almost certainly drawn too broadly as evidenced by opposition voiced by Vice President Cheney who wished to exempt the CIA from its provisions. However, if a way can be found to satisfy the Administration’s legitimate concerns while still standardizing interrogation techniques, a significant victory for the rule of law will have been achieved.

It has been a national disgrace that the detainees have been held these past 3 years with their legal status up in the air. The situation was complicated unnecessarily last year when the courts ruled that detainees had a right to a hearing on their status. The resulting flood of motions - both frivolous and serious - became a nightmare for the Justice Department and DoD who had been asking Congress to clarify what rights the detainees had in this unique legal situation. The fact that both the Administration and the Republican Congress took their own sweet time in addressing the issue only gave our international foes an opening in the propaganda war.

The compromise neatly addresses the concerns of DoD in that intelligence gained from interrogations as well as the way certain information on individual terrorists was obtained either through “National Technical Means” (eavesdropping, spy satellites, etc.) or through informants will not be used in open court by activist lawyers seeking to undermine our intelligence capabilities in the War on Terror. The bill will also give the Justice Department some guidance on how to proceed with the appeals process. And incorporating some form of the McCain bill will standardize the the Army Field Manual techniques for interrogating prisoners thus putting the nation on record that it opposes the kind of interrogations that have led to more than 400 investigations by DoD into accusations of abuse with 230 determinations that have resulted in either reprimands or court martials.

All parties involved - the Administration, and the Departments of Justice and Defense - are taking a wait and see attitude toward the bill:

An administration official briefed on the compromise said yesterday that so far, neither the Justice Department nor the Defense Department nor the White House has seen a complete package to support, although there are elements to back.

Neither Congress nor the administration wants a veto fight. That dynamic is pushing the drive for a deal that will satisfy both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue.

If satisfactory language can be found in a compromise on McCain’s bill, the Congress will have made a start toward rectifying a hazy legal situation as well as a stain on America’s honor. There are still issues to resolved including the practice of “rendition” which sends some detainees to countries that practice torture as well as the recent revelations about CIA prisons that are not subject to Congressional oversight. But this bill could become the start of a power sharing arrangement on detainees between the executive and legislative branches of government, something in the interests of the country and the people.

UPDATE

Here’s a fascinating “Tale of Two Cities.” The Captain disagrees with my position on the Senate bill to define detainee rights:

It depends on the manner of the capture of these detainees as to whether they should have access to federal court and how much jurisdiction those courts should be given. Those captured in open battle against American troops, such as in Iraq and Afghanistan, should have none. We do not want to treat battlefield captures as arrests, and have defense attorneys issuing subpoenas to American soldiers for courtroom testimony.

Actually, I think the compromise takes care of the Captain’s concerns. The appeal will come after they have been adjudicated by the military so no courtroom testimony will be forthcoming. Instead, the detainee will have a judge review both his status and sentence - a measure that could protect the innocent as well as American intelligence practices.

Ed also calls it “the best retrieval possible of a bad situation.” I agree although I see it more as a start toward Congressional oversight of the entire detainee situation which is long past due.

Italian TV station RAI News 24 will broadcast an “expose” tonight of the use of phosphorus shells as a weapon when US forces attacked and took the rebel stronghold of Fallujah in Iraq. From A Kos diarist who didn’t bother to link to any original story in English. Here’s a link to an English language news video via Americablog. And this is a story in The Independent giving the one side of the story that is currently out there:

Powerful new evidence emerged yesterday that the United States dropped massive quantities of white phosphorus on the Iraqi city of Fallujah during the attack on the city in November 2004, killing insurgents and civilians with the appalling burns that are the signature of this weapon.

Ever since the assault, which went unreported by any Western journalists, rumours have swirled that the Americans used chemical weapons on the city.

On 10 November last year, the Islam Online website wrote: “US troops are reportedly using chemical weapons and poisonous gas in its large-scale offensive on the Iraqi resistance bastion of Fallujah, a grim reminder of Saddam Hussein’s alleged gassing of the Kurds in 1988.”

The website quoted insurgent sources as saying: “The US occupation troops are gassing resistance fighters and confronting them with internationally banned chemical weapons.”

“Ever since the assault, which went unreported by any Western journalists,…”

You know what? He’s right. There wasn’t a single reporter covering this story. Not one.

Uh huh.

Be that as it may, the government acknowledged using white phosphorus shells for illumination only:

“Some news accounts have claimed that US forces have used ‘outlawed’ phosphorus shells in Fallujah,” the USinfo website said. “Phosphorus shells are not outlawed. US forces have used them very sparingly in Fallujah, for illumination purposes.

“They were fired into the air to illuminate enemy positions at night, not at enemy fighters.”

A “former American soldier” is quoted as saying:

“I heard the order to pay attention because they were going to use white phosphorus on Fallujah. In military jargon it’s known as Willy Pete.

That particular quote doesn’t confirm anything except what the military was saying; that they were going to use white phosphorus on Fallujah. Any more proof? The soldier is identified as ex-Marine Jeff Eglehart. Eglehart identifies himself in the video on the RAI 24 website as “former US military.” While he may in fact be everything he says he is, I can’t recall an ex-Marine identifying himself as anything but a Marine - “ex” or otherwise. The pride those people take in belonging to the Corps lasts a lifetime.

That said, the 2 1/2 minute snippet on RAI’s site shows Mr. Eglehart as the only American military eyewitness. There may be others quoted in the full program.

Also in the video are some shocking scenes of dead bodies so be forewarned: VIDEO CONTAINS GRAPHIC DEPICTIONS OF DEAD BODIES.

Provided by the Studies Centre of Human Rights in Fallujah, dozens of high-quality, colour close-ups show bodies of Fallujah residents, some still in their beds, whose clothes remain largely intact but whose skin has been dissolved or caramelised or turned the consistency of leather by the shells.

A biologist in Fallujah, Mohamad Tareq, interviewed for the film, says: “A rain of fire fell on the city, the people struck by this multi-coloured substance started to burn, we found people dead with strange wounds, the bodies burned but the clothes intact.”

Would a biologist be an expert or even know anything about wounds made by white phosphorus shells? I don’t know about you but that struck me as odd. I mean, couldn’t RAI 24 find a military expert who could have confirmed from the pictures whether or not the wounds were caused by battlefield weapons?

There is also night video of the phosphorus shells exploding a couple of hundred feet off the ground and what appears to be some kind of anti-personnel effect as shards of the shell fall by the dozens, burning even after they hit the ground. I can see where some would conclude that these shards were in fact designed to kill people on the ground. But I can also see where low level explosions of these shells would be desirable in an urban setting. The closer to the ground the illumination, the shorter the shadows caused by buildings on the street. This would make sense for night fighting. What doesn’t make sense is the fact that our troops fighting at night should be equipped with night vision goggles. Any illumination from a white phosphorus shell would temporarily blind them.

Many questions and I’m afraid my expertise is very limited when trying to write about the tactical use of 40mm white phosphorus shells.

There is also a charge that the Marines used a napalm-type shell:

The documentary, entitled Fallujah: the Hidden Massacre, also provides what it claims is clinching evidence that incendiary bombs known as Mark 77, a new, improved form of napalm, was used in the attack on Fallujah, in breach of the UN Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons of 1980, which only allows its use against military targets.

Could a house full of people shooting at you be described as a “military target?”

So far, only lefty bloggers are writing about this with predictable glee. I would hope that some military fellows will post on this today. Watch for updates as the day goes on and I will link to whatever I find.

UPDATE

James Joyner gives some details about the use of WP, linking to the SF Chronicle article:

Some artillery guns fired white phosphorous rounds that create a screen of fire that cannot be extinguished with water. Insurgents reported being attacked with a substance that melted their skin, a reaction consistent with white phosphorous burns. Kamal Hadeethi, a physician at a regional hospital, said, “The corpses of the mujahedeen which we received were burned, and some corpses were melted.”

Joyner also has links to information on the legality of WP. It is, in fact, legal but not against civilians. The fact that civilians were hit was a tragedy. But who was the target? Only those predisposed to believe the worst about the military could believe they would “target” civilians. That would be a waste of munitions to begin with not to mention morally wrong.

One thing is clear; the WP was used for more than “illumination.”

John Cole agrees with me I about the anti-personnel nature of the rounds. He also disabuses those so inclined of the notion that the weapon is “chemical” in nature. It is considered a conventional round.

UPDATE II

Here’s an email I got from chris@lenape.com:

I’m a Marine with combat service from the 1st Persian Gulf War. I was an 1833 AAV (Amtrack) operator in 1st Marine Div. batallion 3/9 who has some direct knowledge of the weapons and tactics described above.

1st White phosphorous or Willy Peet (WP) is a marker used to direct artilery, mortar or tank fire. Trust me you don’t want to be in the area when stuff is employed.

2nd If you are unlucky enough to be in the way of WP it will burn your close and anything else for that matter. It doesn’t carmelize anything it burns the crap out of whatever it touches.

3rd Consider the above. We don’t use WP when our troops are any where near its intended impact zone. Unless we’ve adopted some new tactics, killing our own people, since I got out in 1992.

4th The USMC does not use poison gas. Not only is it a violation of international law but it is a major pain in the ass. Once you’ve dooshed an area with gas you can’t send in troops because even Marines protected by NBC gear would need to decontaminated. Any Marine or Soldier who has any experience with decon knows what a major tedious slow down that is.

5th Marines rely on fire power and close air support to overwhelm the enemy. These two tools best fit the strategy of closing with and destroying the enemy. As stated earlier gas slows you down. Marines move quick they have no time for gas or similar bull s**t.

The RAI piece sounds like a load of bull. Perhaps they should learn a little bit about USMC tactics before they run their cake holes on something they obviously know nothing about.

Semper Fi!

How should terrorists and suspected terrorists be treated once they fall into our hands?

Should Congress have oversight over top secret CIA detention practices?

For those of us on the right who strongly support President Bush and the War on Terror, it has become too easy to dismiss such questions or worse, shove them to the back of our minds and try not to think about the psychic consequences of Americans mistreating, torturing, and even murdering prisoners. In fact, it seems to get easier to ignore the problem the more that September 11, 2001 fades into memory.

And that is what worries me.

The number of prisoners killed while in US custody can only be guessed at. Using data gleaned from a Freedom of Information Act request, the ACLU has released a report that shows that the deaths of 21 inmates held by the US military since the start of the War on Terror could be classified as “homicides” with at least 8 of those deaths attributed directly to violence done to prisoners during or after interrogations:

At least 21 detainees who died while being held in U.S. custody in Iraq and Afghanistan were killed, many during or after interrogations, according to an analysis of Defense Department data by the American Civil Liberties Union (search).

The analysis, released Monday, looked at 44 deaths described in records obtained by the ACLU. Of those, the group characterized 21 as homicides, and said at least eight resulted from abusive techniques by military or intelligence officers, such as strangulation or “blunt force injuries,” as noted in the autopsy reports.

The 44 deaths represent a partial group of the total number of prisoners who have died in U.S. custody overseas; more than 100 have died of natural and violent causes.

The good news is that the military itself is investigating and uncovering these abuses. To date, they have investigated more than 400 cases of abuse resulting in punishment ranging from reprimands to court martials for 230 military personnel.

The bad news is that not all of those responsible are being punished and worse, there has been little done to address the command problems that resulted in lax discipline which led to the abuses in the first place.

In fact, the ACLU points a finger at the system itself as a primary reason for the torture:

“There is no question that U.S. interrogations have resulted in deaths,” said Anthony D. Romero, ACLU’s executive director. “High-ranking officials who knew about the torture and sat on their hands and those who created and endorsed these policies must be held accountable.”

Romero is referring to the ongoing debate in the executive branch over both the status and the treatment of detainees. It is an argument that started literally hours after the attacks on 9/11 and continues to this day. It has involved the best legal minds in the Pentagon, the Department of Justice, the CIA, and the White House. And the parameters of the debate go to the very heart of what kind of country the United States is and how we see ourselves.

At the start of the War on Terror, the White House was at a loss as to how to treat detainees in the Afghan War and other terrorists who were connected to the 9/11 plot who were picked up in other countries like Pakistan. A series of memos since leaked to the press showed the White House groping for a policy that was both humane and legal under international law while at the same time not tying the hands of interrogators whose jobs were to head off what was believed at the time was another, imminent attack on the United States.

The White House eventually decided that the prisoners were not eligible for protection under the Geneva Convention since they were stateless terrorists but at the same time finding that they could be designated “enemy combatants” and subject to indefinite detention as well as certain “enhanced” interrogation techniques. Also, since this was a war without precedent, the President alone should determine what rights these enemy combatants were entitled to.

When you think about it a little, you can see the enormous power we have ceded to the executive branch in this matter. The Supreme Court agreed with many of the Administration’s claims last July although they also ruled that detainees had a right to have their case heard in US courts.

And now, the Administration is seeking to redefine its detention policies:

The Bush administration is embroiled in a sharp internal debate over whether a new set of Defense Department standards for handling terror suspects should adopt language from the Geneva Conventions prohibiting “cruel,” “humiliating” and “degrading” treatment, administration officials say.

Advocates of that approach, who include some Defense and State Department officials and senior military lawyers, contend that moving the military’s detention policies closer to international law would prevent further abuses and build support overseas for the fight against Islamic extremists, officials said.

Their opponents, who include aides to Vice President Dick Cheney and some senior Pentagon officials, have argued strongly that the proposed language is vague, would tie the government’s hands in combating terrorists and still would not satisfy America’s critics, officials said.

Part of the impetus for this change has come about as a result of pressure from Congress to clearly define the legal status of prisoners in US custody. The legal limbo of detainees has been cited as part of the problem with prisoner abuse as well as undisciplined and inexperienced interrogators going beyond the guidelines for questioning prisoners:

Mr. Whitman confirmed that the Pentagon officials were revising four major documents - including the two high-level directives on detention operations and interrogations and the Army interrogations manual - as part of its response to the 12 major investigations and policy reviews that followed the Abu Ghraib abuse scandal.

The four documents “are nearing completion or are either undergoing final editing or are in some stage of final coordination,” Mr. Whitman said. But he would not comment on their contents or on the internal discussions, beyond saying it was important “to allow and encourage a wide variety of views to come to the surface.”

The administration’s policies for the detention, interrogation and prosecution of terrorism suspects have long been a source of friction within the government.

The fact that these issues have not been resolved is, I believe, a national disgrace. I don’t care if the person being interrogated is murdering terrorist, there are just some things that define America and make us different than other countries. And one of those things is a reverence for and an adherence to the rule of law. By not giving these detainees a clearly defined, internationally recognized legal status, we are doing enormous harm to the war effort as well as betraying some of the most fundamental principals that Americans have cherished since our founding.

It is not a question of “rights” for terrorists. It is a question of simple, human decency. And this related story in the Washington Post brings to the fore the most troubling and, to my mind, the most dangerous of all our detention policies; giving the CIA carte blanche to hold, move, and question detainees with absolutely no oversight by Congress and very little direction even from the Administration:

The CIA has been hiding and interrogating some of its most important al Qaeda captives at a Soviet-era compound in Eastern Europe, according to U.S. and foreign officials familiar with the arrangement.

The secret facility is part of a covert prison system set up by the CIA nearly four years ago that at various times has included sites in eight countries, including Thailand, Afghanistan and several democracies in Eastern Europe, as well as a small center at the Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba, according to current and former intelligence officials and diplomats from three continents.

The hidden global internment network is a central element in the CIA’s unconventional war on terrorism. It depends on the cooperation of foreign intelligence services, and on keeping even basic information about the system secret from the public, foreign officials and nearly all members of Congress charged with overseeing the CIA’s covert actions.

The existence and locations of the facilities — referred to as “black sites” in classified White House, CIA, Justice Department and congressional documents — are known to only a handful of officials in the United States and, usually, only to the president and a few top intelligence officers in each host country.

I will be the first to grant the CIA some latitude in their clandestine efforts to protect this country from another terrorist attack. But this kind of activity would seem to demand oversight by at least the full Intelligence Committees in Congress. The Administration has decided otherwise:

The CIA and the White House, citing national security concerns and the value of the program, have dissuaded Congress from demanding that the agency answer questions in open testimony about the conditions under which captives are held. Virtually nothing is known about who is kept in the facilities, what interrogation methods are employed with them, or how decisions are made about whether they should be detained or for how long.

While the Defense Department has produced volumes of public reports and testimony about its detention practices and rules after the abuse scandals at Iraq’s Abu Ghraib prison and at Guantanamo Bay, the CIA has not even acknowledged the existence of its black sites. To do so, say officials familiar with the program, could open the U.S. government to legal challenges, particularly in foreign courts, and increase the risk of political condemnation at home and abroad.

But the revelations of widespread prisoner abuse in Afghanistan and Iraq by the U.S. military — which operates under published rules and transparent oversight of Congress — have increased concern among lawmakers, foreign governments and human rights groups about the opaque CIA system. Those concerns escalated last month, when Vice President Cheney and CIA Director Porter J. Goss asked Congress to exempt CIA employees from legislation already endorsed by 90 senators that would bar cruel and degrading treatment of any prisoner in U.S. custody.

I have no doubt that what goes on at those “black sites” would not stand up well under the light of Congressional oversight. Do you think that torture goes on at those sites? I would say that would be a very good guess considering that both the Vice President and the DCIA have asked that CIA employees be exempt from the law barring the practice.

What is going on here? Since when should a law that bars the deliberate infliction of pain on another human being - again, I don’t care if he is a murdering terrorist - exempt people who are beyond the oversight of Congress in the first place? By adhering to policies like this, aren’t we in danger of becoming the very thing we are fighting against? At what cost to our souls are we trying to save our lives? Does it matter? Does anyone care?

The simple pap and bromides being tossed about by many of my friends on the right regarding the detention policies and torture of prisoners just isn’t cutting it. You can no longer simply say that the thugs deserve whatever they get, or the abuse and torture is isolated and not policy driven, or even blame the press for reporting the incidents in the first place. We simply must face up to what our policies have wrought and try our best to immediately correct them. This does not mean opening the doors and Guantanamo and letting the terrorists run wild. Nor should we simply send them back to their home countries where all too often it has been shown that they receive a slap on the wrist and cut loose, freeing them to plan and execute more terrorist attacks.

But it may involve a more permanent solution that would bring the US courts and the justice system into play. This does not mean they should be granted the constitutional rights of American citizens. But something must be done to legitimize their detention in the eyes of the rest of the world as well as in the minds of those of us who are enormously troubled by the legal limbo we have created for these prisoners. “Let them rot” is not a policy - it is an invitation to disaster both for the soul of America and our efforts in the War on Terror.

UPDATE

John Cole weighs in on the CIA “black sites:”

The only reasons for these facilities are to subvert domestic and foreign law. And no one gives a sh*t.

And it does not makes us safer to have a clandestine service indiscriminately detaining, abusing, and torturing people around the world in secret prisons.

Um…what he said. And if you don’t think this kind of thing threatens civil liberties at home please remember that there is no stricture against the CIA taking someone from the US and “disappearing” them into one of these hell holes.

Not content with redacting portions of the Mehlis report that named Syrian President Assad’s brother in law and other high ranking Syrian nationals as assassins of Lebanese nationalist Rafiq Hariri, the United Nations has also suppressed a report from the Lebanese Medical Examiner in the case that shows a “70% probability” that the driver of the Mitsubishi truck that exploded last February 14 killing Hariri and 21 others was a Palestinian:

BEIRUT: The UN team investigating the assassination of former Premier Rafik Hariri has disregarded a report by the Lebanese medical examiner Fouad Ayoub following a thorough investigation of its content.

Ayoub said a tooth was found belonging to a Palestinian whose remnants were subject to DNA analysis and is now believed to be the suicide bomber who drove the explosives laden Mitsubishi truck to the site of the explosion.

According to his report, these remnants belong to a 23rd corpse at the bomb site.

The bones of the corpse were found by a British diving team off the coast of the St. George Yacht Club, where the explosion occurred.

The remnants were matched with others found 100 meters away from the scene, on the premises of the Riviera Hotel.

Other forensic evidence that would point to a possible Palestinian connection to the assassination was also ignored:

The security sources also indicated the Swiss experts who took samples of explosives from the scene were able to determine the explosive used was C4.

C4 is commonly used in Eastern Europe, a region where the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command is known to have procured explosives in the past.

One of the names in the report not suppressed by the UN was the notorious head of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine - General Command Ahmad Jibreel. The PFLP Commander has been a thorn in the side of Israel for many years and is the author of dozens of terrorist attacks directed against the Jewish state.

Although suicide attacks in Lebanon were prevelant at one time, today they are all but unknown, the preferred method of assassination and terror being the remotely detonated bomb. The occurences of suicide bombings are rare enough that responsibility has usually been traced to factions in sympathy with the Palestinian cause; most notably Hizballah and the Amal Militia:

Modern suicide bombings was introduced by the Shi’ite terrorist organization Hizballah in 1983 in Lebanon, and it was in Lebanon that this modus operandi was refined throughout the 1980’s. During the 1990’s the attacks continued, but declined in frequency, until today, suicide attacks in Lebanon are a rare occurrence. All together, 50 suicide bombings were carried out in Lebanon, half of which were perpetrated by the Hizballah and Amal, and the remainder by secular communist and nationalist organizations, including the Lebanese Communist Party, the Socialist-Nasserist Organization, the Syrian Ba’ath Party, and the P.P.S.

The rise in the political power of Hizballah in Lebanon can be directly correlated with the drop in suicide attacks against other factions in Lebanese society. This presents an enormous problem for the US State Department in that they have named the so-called “Party of God” as a terrorist organization. The fact is that Hizballah political leader Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah is one of the most popular and charismatic politicians in Lebanon. And despite his call for continued attacks agains the Jewish homeland, his influence in the government currently taking shape in Lebanon cannot be ignored. Even though UN Resolution 1559 calls for the disbanding of all militias, Nasrallah has so far refused to cooperate in disarming Hizballah’s military wing which has in the past worked side by side with Syrian intelligence to control the population.

How to disarm Hizballah and mitigate Nasrallah’s influence so that Lebanon doesn’t become a base for terrorist attacks against Israel is perhaps one of the biggest under reported stories in American foreign policy. It will test our resolve in the war against terror as well as prove to the rest of the world whether or not our deeds will match our rhetoric in this war.

And complicating this picture is the UN’s Mehlis report that now brings the issue of direct Syrian interference in the affiairs of the Lebanese state into stark relief. Could the Syrians have been in cahoots with Hizballah in the assassination? Such a revelation would roil the streets of Lebanon and tax the abilities of the new government to deal with such a crisis.

One curious note also via the Daily Star: They originally reported that it was not the UN that suppressed the names of Syrian nationals in the assassination plot but rather the US State Department who asked the names be redacted. I have seen no other media reports that implicate the State Department in the cover-up and the PDF version of the dead tree Daily Star story has been taken off their website.

For the UN to ignore the report from the on-scene pathologist so that they would not have to deal with the implications of Palestinian fingerprints on the assassination of a popular, non-sectarian politician shows to what length that international body will go to in kowtowing to the murderous thugs currently in control of the Palestinian cause.

Here’s the Daily Star’s story on the missing paragraphs from the Mehlis Report.

As Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald readies his indictments against probable targets Lewis I. “Scooter” Libby and Karl Rove, the unfortunate truth is that any criminal proceedings against these or other current and former White House officials will validate the partisan political tactics used by the CIA to undermine the Bush Administration’s case for war.

This was not a case of a faction at the CIA resisting White House blame shifting. It was not a case of “setting the record straight” or “protecting the integrity” of the CIA. It was a case of naked, power politics played out at the highest levels of government as a small, partisan group of CIA analysts and operatives sought, through the use of selected leaking of cherry-picked information to friendly reporters, to influence the Presidential election of 2004.

As this Daily Telegraph article points out, the succession of leaks by CIA officials (or surrogates like Joe Wilson) had one goal in mind; to bring down the Bush Administration:

A powerful “old guard” faction in the Central Intelligence Agency has launched an unprecedented campaign to undermine the Bush administration with a battery of damaging leaks and briefings about Iraq.

The White House is incensed by the increasingly public sniping from some senior intelligence officers who, it believes, are conducting a partisan operation to swing the election on November 2 in favour of John Kerry, the Democratic candidate, and against George W Bush.

Jim Pavitt, a 31-year CIA veteran who retired as a departmental chief in August, said that he cannot recall a time of such “viciousness and vindictiveness” in a battle between the White House and the agency.

Whether Valerie Plame was an “analyst” or an “operative” in the CIA may be relevant to any criminal indictments regarding the leaking of her name. But in the CIA’s war against the Bush Administration, the fact that she worked for a division of the Agency that was doing most of the leaking of cherry-picked reports and analyses showing Saddam not to be a threat should be the focus of the “why” in the scandal.

Joe Wilson was sent by his wife’s superiors to Niger supposedly at the behest of Vice President Cheney, to discover whether or not the Iraqis were trying to buy yellowcake uranium in order to reconstitute their nuclear program. It was the most curious “fact-finding” trip in history. Wilson sat in a hotel while a succession of current and former Niger government officials were paraded before him each solemnly telling him that the charges were false, that the Iraqis had never asked the Niger government to circumvent international restrictions and sell them the uranium.

It was never explained why a group of Iraqi “businessmen” had met with former Nigerien Prime Minister Ibrahim Mayaki in 1999:

The intelligence report indicated that former Nigerien Prime Minister Ibrahim Mayaki was unaware of any contracts that had been signed between Niger and any rogue states for the sale of yellowcake while he was Prime Minister (1997-1999) or Foreign Minister (1996-1997). Mayaki said that if there had been any such contract during his tenure, he would have been aware of it. Mayaki said, however, that in June 1999, [redacted] businessman, approached him and insisted that Mayaki meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss “expanding commercial relations” between Niger and Iraq. The intelligence report said that Mayaki interpreted “expanding commercial relations” to mean that the delegation wanted to discuss uranium yellowcake sales. The intelligence report also said that “although the meeting took place, Mayaki let the matter drop due to the UN sanctions on Iraq.” [page 43]

Maybe the Iraqis were interested in importing cowpeas.?

The Wilson trip stinks to high heaven of a set up. Talk about predetermining the outcome of intelligence! It seems incontestable that the group in the Agency working for the ouster of President Bush knew full well what the result of Joe Wilson’s trip to Niger would be. One pertinent question might be to ask why did they choose to send a retired, minor diplomat to do a job that could have been done by any number of other current State Department or even Agency people whose contacts were as good or better than Mr. Wilson’s?

The answer is that the cabal would have been unable to control someone else’s reporting on the matter of Iraqi attempts to buy uranium. Wilson was the perfect errand boy. He was also to prove over the next several months to be something of a loose cannon and a self-aggrandizing, vainglorious blabbermouth. In this interview with LA Weekly, Wilson admits he was shopping the story of his trip long before either the Nicholas Kristoff piece of May 6, 2003 where the Niger trip is first mentioned in print or Wilson’s own OpEd in the New York Times that led to the outing of his wife:

So I spoke to a number of reporters over the ensuing months. Each time they asked the White House or the State Department about it, they would feign ignorance. I became even more convinced that I was going to have to tell the story myself.

That was probably part of the set-up all along. As we know now, no one at the White House or State Department knew of Mr. Wilson’s trip to Niger or what he found out there.

There are numerous questions associated with the entire Niger caper that will probably never be answered satisfactorily: Who forged the documents used by the British and passed along to the US that indicated Saddam was attempting to purchase the yellowcake in the first place? Why wasn’t Wilson’s report passed on to the Vice President, the man who Wilson ostensibly went to Niger for in the first place? Did Wilson use his contacts with the media to pass along other classified information given to him by his wife that were damaging to the President’s campaign?

When it comes to the CIA and its numerous leakers, it appears that Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald has a blind spot. And because of that, the cabal that worked to defeat the President last November will probably be toasting their success later this week when indictments are handed down.

Authorities in New York who responded to the threat of a terrorist attack against the city’s subway system are being widely criticized as a result of a report that the Iraqi informant who originally gave the information was probably lying through his teeth:

The alleged threat that led to heightened security on New York subways last week may have been a hoax on the part of an Iraqi informant attempting to get money in exchange for information, U.S. intelligence and counterterrorism officials said yesterday.

The informant has since disappeared in Iraq, and the Defense Department has not been able to locate him, city and federal officials said.

U.S. troops in Iraq captured three suspects south of Baghdad who the informant said were involved in the alleged plot.

But none of the suspects, including two who were given polygraph examinations, corroborated the informant’s allegations or appeared to have any connection to a terrorist plot, according to intelligence officials.

The city lifted the alert Monday after the time period identified by the informant passed without incident

Not only was the report probably bogus, but city officials - including Mayor Bloomberg - evidently took the report much more seriously than the federal government:

Department of Homeland Security spokesman Russ Knocke, who called the threat “noncredible” last week, declined to elaborate yesterday.

“The intelligence community has not found any evidence to substantiate the threat information,” Knocke said. The FBI also declined to comment in detail.

The question we should be asking is did the New York authorities act correctly by putting the city on a high state of alert even though the people whose job it is to keep us secure thought there was no reason to be alarmed?

To my mind, this question goes to the very heart of what homeland security should be: How safe can we afford to be?

On the one hand, you have the loony left who believes that every threat is actually part of a deep, dark plot by George Bush to divert attention from one thing or another so that he and his pals can impose a dictatorship on the rest of us. According to this school of thought, the War on Terror is always placed in quotation marks because it actually never existed, that in fact al Qaeda and its offshoots are figments of the Bush Administration’s imagination and that the terrorist fanatics who flew planes into buildings aren’t really a threat.

This September 10 mindset may be emotionally satisfying in that it comforts one to know that since in their heart of hearts the moonbats know George Bush will never line them up against a wall and shoot them, they can live their lives the way we all did prior to 9/11; without the fear of a sudden and horrible death overtaking them on a bright, cloudless day.

The rest of us, on the other hand, must live in the real world. And that is what makes the response by New York City authorities to this threat - even though it was pooh-poohed by Homeland Security bigshots in Washington - illustrative of how all of us are still learning to live with the threat of terror in the homeland.

It’s important to remember when trying to judge officials in New York that this particular threat did not occur in a vacuum. One need only be reminded of the London subway bombings to realize that prudence in the face of threats of this nature can be the only course for elected officials who take their responsibility seriously to keep the citizens of their city safe . It is also well to remember that the level of confidence we all have in federal authorities to judge the relative merits of any terrorist threat is colored by the fact that most of this same crew missed the “big one” on 9/11.

The result is that we are being whipsawed back and forth between overcautiousness and an almost sublime forgetfulness about the consequences of being wrong only once. Thus, homeland security can become a politicized outgrowth of our own projected fears; either government is lying for some ulterior motive or, more ominously, they aren’t telling us the whole story so as not to upset us.

The latter attitude can be found this week especially on conservative blogs as the unfolding story of (depending on your point of view) a troubled young Joel Hinrichs who committed suicide outside the University of Oklahoma stadium while 80,000 fans were enjoying that most American pastimes of watching a college football game or, if you prefer, a jihadist convert looking to become a martyr and take hundreds of infidels with him on his journey to see Allah.

It may in fact turn out that Mr. Hinrichs was simply a depressed college student with delusions of martyrdom. Or, his death may in fact reveal a a terrorist cell in the heartland of America. The fact that the discussion on blogs relates more to why the story isn’t being covered by the MSM says volumes about this Soviet-style mindset that posits the notion that things are being withheld from us because the truth would be too uncomfortable or would reflect badly on Muslims, or even that any revelations regarding Mr. Hinrich’s associations would prove what a lousy job the Homeland Security Department is doing to protect us.

Other incidents in California recently - both at UCLA where a bomb was discovered in the courtyard of an apartment building and the suicide of a student in San Diego are also being bandied about the blogs as something suspiciously like terrorists screwing up before they can hurt the general populace. Again, it is wise and prudent to approach these incidents with that thought uppermost in our minds while at the same time not jumping to conclusions that, in retrospect, would prove alarmist.

The fact is, we’re still feeling our way in this new country. And being the adaptable race we are, I’m sure that a majority of us will eventually find that common sense balance between panic and ennui. But until that day comes, I would hope that we not criticize the authorities for doing the right thing and acting to protect us from threats that could turn out to be acts of terror.

This article originally appears in The American Thinker

There is a school of thought that believes the idea of loyalty to one’s country is a crass, outmoded concept not worthy of consideration by thinking people. Rather, loyalty if given at all, should be reserved for nebulous and ethereal entities like “humanity” or “the family of man.” International socialism has long advocated this global view of loyalty - except, of course, when the old Soviet Union was in trouble for one of its frequent deviations from civilized behavior. It was at this point that Moscow would crack the whip and leftists from Berlin, to London, to Los Angeles would dutifully parrot the party line, excusing the brutes in the Kremlin for all sorts of very unsocialist and inhuman atrocities.

Thankfully, this view of loyalty is not shared by the vast majority of citizens in the United States. Most Americans recognize the importance of loyalty to the government during a time of war when America’s sons and daughters are in harm’s way. This has never been more evident than when looking at how we view the war in Iraq.

According to the latest polls, barely 40% of the country approves of the way that President Bush is conducting the war in Iraq. But when asked if we should pull our troops out before the job of securing the country and helping the Iraqis achieve a stable, democratic government is complete fully two thirds of Americans say no. This slap in the face to the leftist narrative of how the American people see the war in Iraq seems to have been lost on this past weekend’s partygoers in Washington whose speakers continued to insist that the majority of the people opposed the war and wished the troops to come home.

Leave it to the left to never let the truth stand in the way of a good old fashioned Soviet-style propaganda campaign.

True, there are permutations within permutations in the poll numbers. One of the more remarkable tidbits to be found in these figures is the fact that the belief that the war was a “mistake” because no mass stockpiles of WMD were found has hovered near the 50% mark for more than a year. What makes it remarkable is that even though roughly half the nation thinks going into Iraq was an error, a sizable portion of those people also believe we should stay until the job is done.

The left would point to these Americans and call them confused. I think they should be congratulated for their loyalty. What the left sees as stupidity, I see typical American common sense. Most Americans - even those who opposed going to war in the first place - realize the dire consequences of a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq. The destabilization and possible collapse of the Iraqi government would place America in great danger and would be inimical to our national interest. This fact is so obvious that it calls into question why almost all of the speakers at the anti-war rally in Washington on Saturday called for the immediate withdrawal of American troops.

To understand why one need only look a little closer at the motley collection of socialists, anarchists, anti-globalists, pan-Arabists, post modern deconstructionists, one worlders, and racialists who descended on Washington for their moment in the media spotlight. If there’s one thing the tatterdemalion left has become over these last lost years since the fall of the Soviet Union it is publicity deprived. They are absolutely starved for media attention. Even the anarchists can’t have a decent riot that hardly rates a blurb in The Guardian. Part of the problem is the fractured nature of their “coalition.” The only way they could get the kind of numbers necessary to get anyone to pay any attention to them was by inviting everyone in the world who has a grudge against America.

Hence, most of the podium speakers at the rally were not there to solely promote an anti-war agenda but rather each had their own particular anti-American ax to grind. The racialists called for an end to racism. The tribalists called for an end to capitalism. The primitives called for an end to industrialized civilization. The greenies called for an end to everything else. Yes, they all paid lip service to the anti-war message that brought them together in the first place. But their real reason for bringing their followers to Washington was to garner support from the hard-left moneymen like George Soros and leftist PR gurus like David Fenton who is currently managing Cindy Sheehan’s race toward obscurity. A few dollars here and there gleaned from the Smart Set in Washington will at least keep the mimeograph machines going and pay the rent for a few more months.

Not surprisingly, there was very little talk of loyalty. When “patriotism” was brought up, we were continually assured that yes, these were indeed patriotic Americans who only wanted to exercise their right to dissent from government. Of that, I have little doubt. The question isn’t whether they are patriotic Americans, the questions is are they loyal Americans?

The two terms are related but not mutually exclusive. Patriotism is a feeling, a “love or devotion to one’s country.” Loyalty, by definition, is an action word. It is “allegiance to one’s country” or “faithfulness to one’s government.” Many a traitor has come and gone calling themselves “patriots.” Few would agree that they were being loyal.

How does the left get around this little non-sequitur? They huffily point out that they are being loyal to the “idea” of America or “American ideals.” Since these ideals were present at the founding of the nation, it is perhaps gratifying that so many on the left have finally embraced the idea of strict constructionism - at least when it becomes a convenient explanation for their perfidy in giving aid and comfort to an enemy that is shooting at American soldiers overseas.

For that is what the demonstrators in Washington forgot to mention in all their sloganeering and speechifying; the fact that the insurgents and terrorists in Iraq have only one chance to achieve their goal of overthrowing the Iraqi government and gaining power. And that is only if America walks away before the job is done.

They are hoping that history repeats itself and America abandons an ally to its fate as a result of both timid policy makers and domestic opposition to the war. And since this hope is all that the insurgents have to go on (for they can never defeat the US military on the field of battle), leftist opposition to the war can only be judged as disloyalty. They can call themselves patriots if they want. There is no way we can look into their souls and judge their love or hate for the United States. But we can certainly judge their loyalty based on their actions - actions that have the practical affect of encouraging the insurgents in Iraq to up the body count of Americans to test the mettle of our citizenry to stay the course until the job is well and truly done.

As the democratic process in Iraq moves forward in fits and starts and the Iraqi people slowly and cautiously march toward an uncertain future that may yet include sectarian violence and other setbacks in achieving national unity, the need for our troops to stay and assist them in this historic task will remain great. And to sustain our elected leaders in this hard, slogging task with our loyalty will become more and more critical as time goes by. It no doubt is the greatest test of our fealty to the United States government that many of us will ever have. But it will be absolutely necessary for us to win through to total victory and bring our sons and daughters home in triumph.

Who are you going to believe with regard to the story on the Iraq constitution? The Washington Post, AP, or Omar from Iraq the Model who was live blogging the legislative session where the constitution was discussed as well as giving us a blow by blow account of analysis by major players being interviewed on television.

First, the updated Washington Post:

“The chances of bringing Sunni Arabs to the political process are almost lost,” said Salih Mutlak, the most vocal and most publicly unyielding of the Sunnis involved in talks on the constitution. “The Sunni Arabs will suffer a lot, unfortunately. Everybody in Iraq is going to suffer from this.”

And here’s the AP:

A top Sunni negotiator, Saleh al-Mutlaq, told Alhurra Television that all opponents of the constitution will hold a conference to decide their next move. He gave no date.

“Now we will move to a general conference that includes all groups that did not take part in the (Jan. 30) elections to take a decision,” he told the U.S.-funded station.

Al-Mutlaq said earlier the Sunni negotiators would not sign off on the final draft because of objections to provisions that allegedly threaten Iraqi unity — particularly federalism — and fail to affirm the country’s Arab identity. The draft refers to Iraq as an Islamic — but not Arab — country as the Sunnis demanded.

“I think if this constitution passes as it is, it will worsen everything in the country,” he said.

At the same time, al-Mutlaq urged all Iraqis to refrain from violence

Now here’s Omar:

While the draft is still being read, Salih Al-Mutlaq confirmed again that none of the 15 Sunni members of the CDC have signed the draft.

Al-Mutlaq also highlighted the American role in bridging the gap between the different parties involved in the process but he put the blame on the other parties (the Sheat and the Kurds) for focusing on “their narrow partisan and sectarian” interests.

Our only difference we had with the Americans was about setting a rigid timetable for completing the process.
[..]

We’ll be calling all the powers that didn’t participate in the last elections for a conference where we will be declaring our objections on the draft…

Al-Mutlaq also explained that their objections are limited to a few points and that they agree with large parts of constitution and he stressed that they (the Sunni parties) will fully participate in the future phases of the political process.

He also called on the people who are not satisfied with the draft to avoid violence and keep practicing their normal daily activities and express their opinion in peace.

I think I’ll let you, the reader decide about which account is the least biased and most accurate. All I’m doing here is shaking my head in sadness that we live in a time of such peril and are being served by such a bunch of idiots in the mainstream press.

This could be good news. Then again, it may be too late. But in an 11th hour bid to keep the constitutional process alive, the Sunnis have apparently offered a “compromise

The counterproposal came in an afternoon news conference held by Tariq Hashimi, secretary general of the Iraqi Islamic Party, who said he would be meeting with U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad later Saturday.

Hashimi said a plan by Shiites and Kurds to have parliament approve the document Sunday — with or without Sunni concurrence — was too hasty.

“This is unfair,” he said. “They cannot put us in such a corner where either we agree or that’s it. The draft did not contain what we had asked for.”

This “not so fast” ploy is being played out under what has to be intense US pressure on all parties to get together and break the impasse. The President already had called Supreme Council of the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI) leader Abdul Aziz Hakim yesterday and pleaded with him to give more ground to the Sunnis in order to reach a deal. Apparently Hakim grudgingly gave in to the President’s pleas only to have many (not all) of the Sunni negotiators throw the compromises back in his face.

That’s when Hakim decided to up the ante and announced that the draft constitution would be taken before the parliament “as is” and voted on. Since the Shia-Kurd block controls 221 out of 275 seats in parliament and only a simple majority would have been needed for passage, the wily Hakim was giving the Sunnis a stark choice; get on board or be frozen out.

Apparently, Hakim’s gamble has paid off and the Sunnis want back in. And their representatives meeting with American Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad signals that there may be a little more “give” to the Sunnis position than they’ve had previously.

The Sunnis really have little choice. Already hugely unpopular due to their domination during the Saddam years as well as their more recent support of the violent insurgency, any walkout by them could throw the entire country into chaos - with violence directed toward their communities by Shia militias who vastly outnumber the Sunni minority.

The US military is worried enough that they’ve made arrangements to augment the number of troops in case of massive unrest as a result of a failure to reach an agreement on the constitution:

While outwardly declaring optimism over the political process, the US administration appeared to be preparing for its unraveling with urgent plans being drawn up to send more large-scale military reinforcements. The Pentagon had announced that two battalions of the 82nd Airborne, about 1,500 troops, will be deployed. But according to senior American sources, a brigade of some 5,000 will be sent to combat the violent fallout from the constitution crisis.

Those troops were probably earmarked for Iraq anyway in that there was a plan already in place to increase US troop strength in the lead-up to the referendum on the constitution on October 15. And while domestic pressure would increase on the President to get American forces out of Iraq in the event of a full fledged civil war, that eventuality is thankfully becoming more remote.

The two largest Shia militias - Moqtada al Sadr’s Mahdi militia and Hakim’s SCIRI’s Badr Brigade - are rivals for power in the new Iraqi government. But in a twist of irony, al Sadr can’t afford all out war with the Badr Brigades because of the latter’s much larger size and Hakim needs al Sadr and his supporters to make any Iraqi government work. The two are caught in a mutual dance where all out war between them could doom them both.

Would they combine to slaughter the Sunnis? The Sunnis have their own militias (many of which are involved in the insurgency already) and could make any such conflict troublesome for the Shias. The key must be found in the new federalism being proposed by the Shias in the constitution. Sunni leaders are worried that if strong, autonomous states are formed with the Kurds in the North and Shias in the south, any Sunni state will be squeezed out of oil revenue as well as other economic benefits.

Their fears may be justified. That’s why the Sunni compromise may be the key to success. The Sunnis wish to delay debate on any federalism issues for two years. From their point of view, it makes eminently good sense. They want to see how Sunnis will be treated in any new government before they commit to a federalist system. My guess would be that there will be enormous pressure placed on the Shias by the US to accept this compromise. It won’t bring all the Sunnis on board, but it should bring enough that the constitution could claim support among all elements of Iraqi society.

Any way you look at it, the next few hours will be crucial in the life of the new Iraq. In the end, let’s hope they all realize that in order to live together, this constitution will have to be a first step.

Muqtada al Sadr is a name familiar to most Americans who have been following the Iraq war closely. His “Mahdi Militia” has twice foolishly tried to take on the US military and been slaughtered - once in Najaf where Sadr’s chestnuts were pulled out of the fire at the last minute by a sickly Ayatollah al Sistani and again in Baghdad’s impoverished Sadr city where the radical cleric was forced to agree to a cease fire to save what was left of his militia.

Despite those two setbacks, Sadr’s militia has become the sharp end of the stick for his brand of Iraqi nation building. In a story that’s been developing for months and has gone largely unreported in this country (although British newspapers have done a good job in keeping tabs on Sadr’s political ploys) Sadr’s militia has followed the age-old axiom of politics - power abhors a vacuum - and moved into cities and hamlets in southern Iraq where Iraqi government forces have either been too weak or too scared to challenge him. They have introduced the strictest form of Islamic law, segregated the sexes, forced women to wear the burqa, and adopted an Islamic code of justice for local jurisprudence.

In effect, Sadr has been trying to set up an autonomous region in the south. Part of the reason for doing this is that he believes that the largest Shia party in Iraq, the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI) is getting too close for comfort to the Iranian Mullahs. Sadr fears Iranian influence almost as much as he opposes the American occupation. Hence, as a hedge against that influence (and as a way to have more influence himself) his militia has carved out a sizable slice of Iraq where neither the national government or American’s have much sway.

The wrangling over the new constitution has put Sadr into something of a bind. Relegated to a backseat in negotiations with the Sunni’s and Kurds, Sadr has decided to play an extraordinarily dangerous political game. He has actually cast his lot with the Sunni’s in opposing the constitution based on the concept of federalism as defined in the drafts. Sadr evidently believes that by granting too much autonomy to a Shia federal state, the SCIRI will dominate the politics of the state government leaving he and his followers out in the cold.

To assess his influence within the Shia community, al Sadr fomented an armed clash this past Wednesday between his Mahdi militia and the militia backing SCIRI, the Badr Brigade:

The violence erupted after al-Sadr loyalists tried to reopen an old office belonging to the al-Sadrite movement. The attempt to open up an office met with resistance from al-Sadr’s main rival group, the Supreme Council of Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI). SCIRI’s armed wing, the Badr Brigades, and al-Sadr’s Mehdi Army are the only two noteworthy militias among the Iraqi Shia.

Almost everyone in the Shiite political spectrum took serious note of the clash and has been quick to placate al-Sadr. His opposition comes from SCIRI, not the entire Shiite community — and even SCIRI publicly denies involvement in and condemns the attack. Satisfied that he is taken seriously by the more established groups among the Shia, al-Sadr then decided to back off and call for peace and harmony within the community. In other words, al-Sadr generated a mini-crisis to assess his current political status and the future of his movement.

This move also puts al-Sadr closer to the Sunnis, who have accused the Badr Brigades of engaging in violence against their community. Al-Sadr knows that if he is to rise within the ranks of the Shia, resistance will come from SCIRI — which means future clashes between Shiite militias are likely. For now, however, the Shiite movers and shakers have brought things under control.

By fighting with the SCIRI, whose revenge killings against Sunnis for Shia deaths due to the insurgency have been rising in recent months, al Sadr has actually gained some support among important Sunni leaders. In addition, while Sunni’s have taken to the streets to protest provisions in the constitution that outlaw Saddam’s Baath Party, Sadr’s politicos also ordered demonstrations and in an impressive show of political muscle, more than 100,000 al Sadr supporters poured into the streets in several cities on Thursday protesting against US interference in the constitutional process as well as proclaiming opposition to the federalism clauses in the draft document.

So far, Sadr himself has kept his position on the fate of the draft constitution to himself. In a way, he has painted himself into a corner and will have no choice but to oppose it. If the constitution is passed by parliament as is, Sadr will find himself in a quandary. If he supports the constitution, his influence in the Shia community will be reduced significantly. If he opposes it, he’ll be seen as an impediment to progress. What’s more, Sadr’s opposition will likely not take the form of sitting on the sidelines with his militia. Armed conflict with the SCIRI could be in the offing.

In short, al Sadr is a wildcard in the whole constitutional mess. His choices are narrowing the closer the constitution gets to ratification. And despite his militia’s questionable military capabilities, they are fanatical enough to cause a host of problems for both US troops and the SCIRI. Al Sadr will not go quietly into political oblivion.

Is there a way to satisfy the radical cleric while maintaining the integrity of the constitution? Some observers believe that most of what al Sadr is doing can be explained by a desire to be taken seriously by the entire Shia community. They point to Sadr’s religious standing (he’s too young to have the experience and years of religious study to become a respected Shia cleric) as a major cause of his frustrations. Could he be appeased by Ayatollah al Sistani who could elevate his standing as a cleric? It’s possible but not likely. As in all religions there are rules and procedures, not to mention traditions, that must be followed. It’s doubtful that even if Sistani wanted to he could satisfy al Sadr’s desires in this regard.

Could al Sadr’s Mahdi militia join with the Sunni insurgency and make common cause against the coalition? This has been a fear of the US military since Sadr emerged as a player following the US shut down of his inflammatory newspaper Al Hawza. And al Sadr’s flirtation with Sunni support in opposition to the constitution is troubling indeed. However, unless Sadr has gone off the deep end, it’s unlikely not only that he would actually join forces with the unreconstructed Baathists but that the Sunni’s would trust him in the first place.

What is possible is that Sadr would initiate a low level insurgency in the months leading up to the October 15 nationwide vote on ratifying the constitution which would be designed to highlight his political position as well as attempt to weaken support for the SCIRI. This too would be a dangerous game with Sadr running the risk that the Badr Brigades and the US military would think him too troublesome and try to destroy his militia and thus his influence. But it’s also possible that by carrying out attacks on both US military targets and Badr Brigade cadres, his influence would skyrocket among the Shia population.

Muqtada al Sadr presents an enormous problem for both the United States and the new Iraqi government. At the moment, they’re desperately trying to placate him so that his fanatical followers don’t disrupt the constitutional process that’s balanced on a knifes edge. But Sadr has his own balancing act to worry about. Which way the radical cleric goes may determine the future of constitutional government in Iraq.

Information in this article was obtained from Lebanonwire.com, a subscription only mideast news service.