FDD

FDD Media Roundup

Cliff May's recent Scripps Howard column argues for the necessity of breaking the oil industries' monopoly and reducing America's dependence on foreign energy.  Cliff states that this will, "allow us to stop funding both sides in the War Against Terrorism."

Andy McCarthy reviews "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades)," by Robert Spencer on NRO.

FDD Academic Fellows J. Peter Pham & Michael I. Krauss discuss why legally and morally, neither the U.S. nor Europe owes the Palestinians any assistance on Tech Central Station.

Claudia Rosett and George Russell delve into yet another scandal at the U.N. on FOXNews.com.

"The Middle East Link to Africa's Conflicts" (BM)

The World Defense Review has FDD Academic Fellow J. Peter Pham's second entry in his series on Africa and terrorism:

In an earlier commentary in this series, I lamented the fact that, despite clear and substantial evidence of terrorist activities, Sub-Saharan Africa remains largely ignored by both policymakers and scholars when it comes to threat assessment and resource allocation in the global war on terror.

This omission becomes even more egregious when one takes stock of another element in the strategic calculus: that there are direct linkages between radical groups and individuals in the terror wars' main theatre, the Greater Middle East, and the conflicts that have wracked the African continent in recent decades.

The rest is here.

His first piece in the series is here.

Nasrallah Finally Admits Support for Palestinian Terrorists (BM)

From today's AP:

The leader of Hizbullah, Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah, acknowledged giving militant Palestinian factions financial and political support but denied arming them, in an interview published Thursday.

Nasrallah did not name the groups in an extensive interview with the daily As-Safir, but Hizbullah is known to have close ties to Hamas and Islamic Jihad.

"They (the Palestinians) have fighters and expertise. They can produce a missile by logging on to the Internet," Nasrallah said.

"What they need is financial, political and media support. And we do not deny that we help them on those fronts," he said.

It was the first time that the Hizbullah leader, a staunch supporter of the Palestinian cause, publicly acknowledged funding Palestinian terrorist groups, an accusation made by Israeli officials.

Worth noting:  Nasrallah includes "media" in his list of the ways in which Hezbollah supports other terrorists, obviously referring to Hezbollah's al-Manar television and al-Nour radio.  Both were recently named as terrorist organizations by the U.S. Treasury Department, action that FDD's Coalition Against Terrorist Media had long urged.  The Treasury Department specifically cited al-Manar's support for Palestinian terrorists:  "In addition to supporting Hizballah, al Manar has also provided support to other designated Palestinian terrorist organizations, including the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) and al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, notably transferring tens of thousands of dollars for a PIJ-controlled charity."

Just another way in which al-Manar is shows itself to be a terrorist organization masquerading as a television channel.

"War on Terrorism's Forgotten Front" (BM)

Dr. J. Peter Pham is a professor at James Madison University and a 2005-06 FDD Academic Fellow.  He is writing a series of essays on Africa's underreported and underappreciated role in the War on Terror.  Peter knows the topic well.  He is the author of two books on African conflicts and he regularly travels there for field research. 

An excerpt from the first, "The War on Terrorism's Forgotten Front":

It has been a long-standing cliché that Africa is the stepchild of U.S. foreign policy, notwithstanding the modest attention recently received by the extradition of former Liberian president Charles Taylor (himself a figure with rather shady dealings with violent extremists, as a number of mainstream journalists, including The Washington Post's Douglas Farah, have extensively reported) to a United Nations-backed war crimes tribunal.

In the context of the current struggle against transnational terrorism, however, this lack of attention is not only shortsighted, but it undermines potential successes elsewhere. The Bush administration's 2002 National Security Strategy recognized as much when it acknowledged that conditions in sub-Saharan Africa threaten "both a core value of the United States—preserving human dignity—and our strategic priority—combating terror," while the new 2006 National Security Strategy affirmed that "Africa holds growing geo-strategic importance and is a high priority" for America. What is needed, however, is not rhetoric but action: already terrorist networks, forced out elsewhere, have found refuge among Africa's weak or failed states.

The rest, published by the World Defense Review (where FDD's Walid Phares is also a contributor and well worth bookmarking), is here.

We will continue to highlight his writings as they become available.

Comments on the First Anniversary of the Syrian Withdrawal from Lebanon (WP)

When reviewing the events leading to the Syrian redeployment out of Lebanon, and the developments that followed since, one can note the following realities:

1.      It is thanks to the efforts of the Lebanese Diaspora’s lobby and the forces of civil society in Lebanon that Western democracies led by the United States and France, decided to seize the United Nations Security Council and issue UNSCR 1559 asking the Syrian regime to pull its forces out of Lebanon, disarm the militias and promote democracy.

2.      It is thanks to the UNSCR 1559 and the courageous response of the Lebanese masses on March 14, 2005 to the assassination of former Prime Minister Hariri on February 14 and the pro-Syrian demonstration by Hizbollah on March 8, that the Cedars Revolution broke the wall of fear from Syrian repression.

3.      In response to the Cedars Revolution, it is thanks to the strong warnings by US President George Bush and French President Jacques Chirac to the Assad regime in Damascus during the months of March and April 2005 that Syrian forces began to pull out from the country. 

The Syrian pull out came as a result of the combined efforts by the US-led international pressures and the popular uprising of the Cedars Revolution. However let’s note today, one year after the redeployment, that Lebanon is still far from full recovery.

"Troubles" behind the Zarqawi Video? (WP)

Zarqawi's new videotape comes one day after the Sinai's attacks and two days after Bin Laden's "state of the world Jihad" audiotape aired on al Jazeera. Many questions are fusing: Why now and is there a connection between the three events? What is the essence of Abu Mus'ab's message and why is he risking so high? Are there troubles behind the release of the video? In fact there are many levels of analysis and multiple dimensions. Here are some early points of reflection some of which were made on MSNBC this afternoon. Following are notes posted on Counter Terrorism Blog

Think Again (CM)

"A New York rally by the Islamic Thinkers Society outside the Israeli consulate yesterday featured chants of "The mushroom cloud is on its way! The real holocaust is on its way!'

"The demonstration by the Queens-based group was monitored by the Investigative Project on Terrorism whose members noted signs including 'Islam will Dominate' and a picture with an Islamic flag flying over the White House."

More here.

For more notes & comments see this week's e-newsletter.

And the Pulitzer Goes To... (BM)

Not the most deserving candidate, according to today's New York Post:

The Pulitzer Prizes, the Academy Awards of journalism, were announced last week; The Washington Post and The New York Times scored heavily, as always.  What a bore.

What a joke, actually.

Because any journalism award committee that didn't automatically hand top honors to Claudia Rosett, a journalist-in-residence for the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and the columnist who has explained to the world the appalling United Nations' Oil-for-Food scandal, is trafficking in hollow honors.

The rest of the editorial is here.

Breaking: Terror in Egypt (JS)

Breaking News- Three blasts have gone off in the Egyptian resort town on Dahab and reports indicate that the casualty numbers are high.

Of note: Dahab is packed with tourists this week who are celebrating the Coptic Easter holiday.  The Copts have been frequent targets of Islamist attacks and I would suspect they were the main targets here.  No group has yet claimed responsibility, but it is likely that this was an Egyptian based group, possibly affiliated with al-Qaeda. 

The last attack of this type targeted Israeli tourists, but Israelis were not likely the main target this time, as few Israelis are vacationing in Egypt at this time (Israelis were on vacation last week for the Passover holiday).

More as it develops...

Will History be any Guide on Hamas? (BM)

Washington Times editor Joel Himelfarb looks into whether Hamas can moderate:

Thus far, however, there is no indication that Hamas will do any such thing. For example, following the suicide bombing in Tel Aviv one week ago, which killed 9 people, a Hamas spokesman defended the crime as "a legal and natural reaction to the Israeli crimes" and an example of Palestinians' exercising their right of self-defense. Since Hamas won the Jan. 25 PA elections, its Web sites have called for the nuclear annihilation of Israel and featured children's stories glorifying a young girl's step-by-step planning of a suicide terror attack. If Hamas shows no indication that it will moderate its current behavior, what about the longer-term prognosis? Can a revolutionary terrorist organization like Hamas transform itself into a democratic political entity that respects pluralism and the rule of law?

For more on the history of such transformations, the rest is here.

Bin Laden's "State of Jihad" Speech (WP)

One more time Al Jazeera pomotes an Usama Bin Laden speech. After airing portions of the Bin Laden audiotape al Jazeera posted large fragments of the “speech” on its web site. This was the longest version possible we were able to have access to. After careful reading, my assessment of the “piece” got reinforced: This is not just another audiotape or videotape of a renegade in some cave. Regardless of who is the speaker and his whereabouts, the 30 minutes long read statement is a declaration, probably as important as the February 1998 declaration of war against America, the Crusaders and their allies.

This is a “state of Jihad address” by a Terror-leader who projects himself as the supreme leader of all Salafi Jihadists in the world. The document provide guidelines and vision to the followers across the continents: A call for mega-terrorism and a fiery delivery of a bloody war in all directions. Not one single civilization and religion got away from Usama’s grapes of wrath: Muslim moderates, Shiites, Christian Catholics, Protestants and Orthodox; Jews, Hindus, Buddhists and Atheists as well. Europeans, Chinese, Indians, Semites, Africans and others were all deciphered as Kuffars, infidels.

In two decades of Salafi and Khumeini rhetoric monitoring, I haven’t heard or seen a cross-infidel speech as the one aired by al Jazeera on April 23, 2006. There will be lots of ink and mega bites spent on its analysis for months and years to come, but here are the main points. Al Jazeera dubbed them: “The main axis of the speech.”

Read more here.

"A More Serious Threat than the al-Quaeda Network" (BM)

The Wall Street Journal reports today the Bush administration is stepping up its efforts against the Lebanese based terrorist group Hezbollah:

The Bush administration is intensifying efforts to cut off funding to Hezbollah, the Shiite organization the U.S. believes is Iran's principal vehicle for conducting terrorist attacks globally.

The moves come as counterterrorism officials grow concerned that if the standoff between Washington and Tehran over Iran's suspected nuclear-weapons program heightens tension between the two sides, that could fuel terrorist strikes against Western targets in Iraq and Afghanistan and other nations where American forces are active.

Many U.S. intelligence officials say they believe Hezbollah could pose a more serious threat than the al Qaeda terrorist network, because of its structured military command and decades of experience.

Hezbollah, which means "Party of God," is a militia and sociopolitical party based in Lebanon with a global following and infrastructure that could allow it to conduct operations in Europe, Latin America and even the U.S., counterterrorism experts say. They note that Tehran has used Hezbollah as a proxy in its conflict with the U.S., as evidenced by the group's attacks against American and Israeli targets in Saudi Arabia, Lebanon and Argentina over the past three decades.

Washington's focus on Hezbollah "is at a pretty high level now," says Kevin Brock, the deputy director of the U.S. government's National Counterterrorism Center. "There are active investigations" going on against the Islamist organization's global activities, he said.

The rest is here (subscription required).

One element of the strategy discussed briefly in the article is limiting funding to Hezbollah's media properties, including al-Manar television and al-Manar radio.  FDD's Coalition Against Terrorist Media has prevented nearly $2 million worth of advertising on al-Manar, worked closely with administration officials to have al-Manar and al-Nour designated as terrorist organizations, and has been instrumental in removing al-Manar from eight satellites around the world.  More here.

Suicide Bomber in Tel Aviv (CM)

A terrorist took at least nine lives in Tel Aviv on Monday. Sami Abu Zuhri, a Hamas spokesman, defended the attack which appears to have been carried out by Islamic Jihad.

Both Hamas and Islamic Jihad are funded and armed by the Militant Islamist regime in Tehran, designated by the U.S. State Department as a "state sponsor" of terrorism since 1984.

More here and here.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad recently called the very "existence" of Israel an "unrestrained threat" to Islamic countries. He added: "The Zionist regime is a rotten, dried tree that will be eliminated by one storm."

A nuclear storm? More here, here, and here.

The U.N. was set to respond -- not by criticizing Iran for threatening to annihilate a fellow U.N. member, but by criticizing Israel. U.S. Ambassador John Bolton blocked a proposed statement. More here.

More notes & comments are available in this week's e-newsletter.

Islamists and the FBI (CM)

Read what Daniel Pipes has to say about their relationship – their friendship? -- here.

Global Terror Monitor

The latest Global Terrorism Monitor  (formerly the Global Jihad Monitor) is now available.  This week's stories include: Islamic Jihad launching a suicide bombing in Tel Aviv, killing nine civilians; Former Florida professor Sami al-Arian reversing years of denials and pleading guilty to aiding the Palestinian Islamic Jihad terror group; and 41 Taliban members killed in a coalition attack on Taliban hideouts.

Still More on Recruiting Suicide Bombers (ACM)

For anyone interested in the ongoing discussion, I've responded to Stanley Kurtz's apt comments on NRO as follows:

Stanley, you're right, of course. And this goes to a lesson we shouldn't have to keep relearning.

When we were trying the 1993 WTC bombers -- Muslims native of the Middle East who had relocated to the U.S. (and, for the most part, had become radicalized while here) -- a big part of their defense was this bunk about how, in Islam, a Muslim who chooses to live in a non-Muslim country makes an implicit pact to live at peace with, and adhere to, the laws of that country.

This, again, is part of the often bipolar nature of Islamic scripture -- some of which appears very tolerant, and some very threatening.

Two uncomfortable truths we need to come to grips with: (a) much of the threatening stuff actually comes later in time than, and implicitly supersedes, the tolerant verses; and (b) the terrorists, in any event, construe the world's territories as divided into Dar al Islam and Dar al Harb -- the realm of Islam and the realm of war. The latter is everything that is not already an Islamic country -- deemed to be in the state of becoming Islamic, however long it takes and by violent jihad as necessary to effect that end.

More on Iranian Recruitment of Suicide Bombers (ACM)

Over at National Review Online's The Corner, the incomparable Stanley Kurtz offers this insight: "Supposedly, this targets Israel and the United States in Iraq.  We're told that the only case in which a British Muslim suicide bomber would attack within Britain itself would be to try to kill Salman Rushdie [on whom there has been a death fatwa for many years -- ACM].  Despite these supposed restrictions, this pretty clearly serves as a direct threat to Britain in the case of a Western raid on Iran's nuclear facilities.  Take out our bomb, and your Mulsim citizens will bomb you:  '... we believe every Muslim has the potential to turn into a bomb against the West.'"

Stanley also provides a link to the original Guardian story that led to the story I linked to earlier this morning.  It's here.

Andy on the War on Terrorism

FDD's Andy McCarthy comments on Saddam Hussein's strong connection to the war on terrorism and the Sami al-Arian case in NRO here and here.

Iranian Terror Group Seeking Britons Willing to Blow Up Israelis (ACM)

The Jerusalem Post reports today that an Iranian terrorist group, The Committee for the Commemoration of Martyrs of the Global Islamic Campaign, is recruiting Britons for suicide attacks in Israel -- the theory being that there are plenty of radicalized Britons, and it may be easier for those with European passports to enter Israel than would-be attackers from the Middle East.

According to the paper, a spokesman for the group, one Mohammad Samadi, explained:  "All the Jews are targets, whether military or civilian.  It's our land and they are in the wrong place.  It's their duty to pay attention to the safety of their own families and move away from the battlefield."

The full report is here.

James Taranto on the Suicide Bombing in Tel Aviv Today (CM)

"A Palestinian suicide bomber blew himself up outside a fast-food restaurant in a bustling area of Tel Aviv during the Passover holiday Monday, killing eight other people and wounding at least 49 in the deadliest Palestinian attack in more than a year," the Associated Press reports. This is in Tel Aviv, not the disputed territories:

The Palestinians' new Hamas leaders called the attack a legitimate response to Israeli "aggression." Israel said it held Hamas ultimately responsible--even though a different militant group, Islamic Jihad, claimed responsibility--and would respond "as necessary." . . .

Witness Israel Yaakov said the blast killed a woman standing near her husband and children.

"The father was traumatized. He went into shock. He ran to the children to gather them up and the children were screaming, 'Mom! Mom!' and she wasn't answering, she was dead already . . . it's a shocking scene," Yaakov said.

Another witness, 62-year-old Sonya Levy, said she had just finished shopping when the blast occurred.

"I was about to get into my car, and boom! There was an explosion. A bit of human flesh landed on my car and I started to scream," she said.

Are you inclined to sympathize with Israel when you read about something like this? If so, leading scholars say you're wrong. According to a paper by John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago and Stephen Walt of Harvard, "The Palestinian resort to terrorism is wrong but it isn't surprising. The Palestinians believe they have no other way to force Israeli concessions." Furthermore, there is no "compelling moral case for US backing" of Israel.

Last month we dissected the argument by which Mearsheimer and Walt purported to discredit Israel morally. Far from an evenhanded consideration of the facts on both sides of the issue, it turns out to be radically biased. Mearsheimer and Walt admit only evidence depicting the Jewish state as wicked, ignoring both mitigating factors and the evils committed by Israel's adversaries. This, we submitted, is an anti-Semitic argument, for it is constructed in such a way that Israel cannot win, even if the facts are on its side.

As far as we know, neither Mearsheimer nor Walt nor any of their supporters have offered any substantive defense of their moral condemnation of Israel. Our criticism of it appears to stand unrebutted. This is not to say there have not been efforts to defend Mearsheimer and Walt's work. As we noted Tuesday, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette published an op-ed piece by Edward Peck, a former ambassador now affiliated with the California-based Independent Institute (not the Colorado-based Independence Institute), titled "Of Course There Is an Israel Lobby." On Friday David Theroux, head of the Independent Institute, emailed us a response to our item from Peck, which you can read in its entirety here.

Peck's latest response adds little to his Post-Gazette piece. He claims that our criticism, along with that of law professor David Bernstein, further demonstrates the truth of Mearsheimer and Walt's claim that there exists an "Israel Lobby." But this is an evasion. Mearsheimer and Walt's argument can be summarized as follows:

• Premise: "Neither strategic nor moral arguments can account for America's support for Israel."
• Conclusion: "The explanation is the unmatched power of the Israel Lobby."

What is controversial about the Mearsheimer-Walt paper is the premise: that U.S. support for Israel is strategically and morally unjustified. Peck, however, pretends that the argument is something like this:

• Premise: Many Americans are strong supporters of Israel.
• Conclusion: The "Israel Lobby" exists.

Whether this conclusion follows from the premise is a question of semantics; one could dispute whether it makes sense to characterize a journalist who has never lobbied an elected official in his life (i.e., this columnist) as part of a "lobby." But for the sake of argument, let's accept the widest possible definition of the "Israel Lobby": all Americans who strongly support the Jewish state. By that definition, we certainly qualify--and proudly so.

But also by that definition, Peck's version of the Mearsheimer-Walt argument is a truism. In other words, rather than defend the argument they actually made, Peck has recast it as a trivial truth.

Peck claims in his response to us that "those with differing views [from those of the 'Israel Lobby'] encounter highly restricted opportunities to express them in the media"--this, in case you missed it, in a response we have published in full, here. He complains of a lack of "open public discussion," when in fact the Mearsheimer-Walt paper has prompted a great deal of discussion.

If that discussion has been one-sided, it is because Mearsheimer, Walt and their supporters--including Peck--have not, in the face of serious, substantive criticism, defended the claim that support for Israel is strategically and morally unjustified. In our estimation, this is because that claim is indefensible.

Read Taranto (interesting on many issues) on Opinion Journal.

Eljami on Qaddafi (CM)

Our friend Mohamed Eljami on how little the Libyan dictator has changed:

Qadhafi continues to support  terrorism. While he sought Western grace  for ransoming kidnapped hostages in March 2000, the Abu Sayyaf terrorist group then used the $25 million to amplify its terrorism. According to U.S. Pacific Command, "Speedboats used in other kidnappings were allegedly bought with the money, as was  a rocket launcher that killed an army captain in pursuit of the fugitives." On March 23, 2006, Qadhafi feted Hamas political leader Khalid Mishaal in Tripoli. The Libyan strongman promised to fund Hamas, even as Mishaal pledges more terrorism.

Qadhafi likewise continues his subversion in Africa. Today, former Liberian President Charles Taylor awaits trial in the Hague for crimes against humanity for his role in the Sierra Leone civil war. The Special Court for Sierra Leone issued its charges on June 4, 2003. Its indictment is instructive: "Taylor received military training in Libya from representatives of the Government of Mu'ammar al-Qadhafi.

While in Libya the accused met and made common cause with [Sierra Leonean rebel leader] Foday Saybana Sankoh." Qadhafi's facilitation of the meeting contributed to the loss of as many as 75,000 civilians lives in the civil war that ravaged Sierra Leone.

The rest of the piece is here.

Freedom House on Threats Against Moderate Muslims (CM)

Paul Marshall writes:

Jihadists have taken heart from the many confused and appeasing government responses to the violence over the   Danish cartoons and are escalating their offensive. Groups such as "Supporters of God's Messenger" now aim to silence any prominent Muslim who dares to criticize their actions and beliefs and suggest a modern interpretation of Islam.

Appeasement of such groups will not work. If cartoonists rein in their satire, if pundits and politicians carefully guard their language, violent Islamists will accept their victory and move on to demand the next part of their agenda - the silencing or death of those who reject or criticize their program, including, especially,
Muslims.

Now is the time to ensure not only that those on these and similar lists are protected, but that their voices are  heard and amplified. If even Western democracies cannot provide the political space for Muslims to debate these critical questions concerning the meaning of Islam, then all hope of an Islamic reform movement will be lost.

His op-ed is here.

My Scripps Howard column along similar lines is here.

Michael Rubin on Iran (CM)

"The cost of any military strike on Iran would be high, although not as high as the cost of the Islamic Republic gaining nuclear weapons. The Bush administration is paying the price for more than five years without a cogent, coordinated Iran policy. Each passing day limits policy options. Engaging the regime will preserve the problem,   not  eliminate it. Only when the regime is accountable to the Iranian people can there be a peaceful solution. To do this requires targeted sanctions -- freezing assets and travel bans -- on regimes officials, coupled with augmented and expedited investment in independent rather than government-licensed civil society, labor unions and media. It may be too late, but it would be irresponsible not to try."

More here.

The WSJ on Moussaoi (CM)

We wonder how many Americans got the same eerie chill that we did reading the partial transcript yesterday of the final 31 minutes of United Airlines Flight 93 on September 11, 2001. Especially in this holy season of Easter and Passover, it was disturbing to read the hijackers swear fanatic allegiance to another great religion as they squeezed the life out of pleading flight attendants and pointed the jet down to smash in a Pennsylvania field.  ...

The further we move away from 9/11 without another domestic attack, the more tempting it is to believe that awful day was an aberration, to think that we can return to normalcy if we merely leave Iraq and the other Middle Eastern regimes to their own purposes.

But the forces of radical Islam aren't going to leave us alone merely
because we decide that resisting them is too hard. ...

The main political difference in the U.S. today is between those who appreciate that Islamic terrorists represent an existential threat to American life and liberty and are prepared to do what it takes to defeat them, and those who think the threat is overstated and can be ameliorated or appeased. Only yesterday, al Qaeda kingpin Ayman Al  Zawahiri exulted in a videotape posted on the Internet that "the enemy has begun to falter." He's wrong, but the transcript of Flight 93 is a reminder of our fate if we do.

More here.

Churchill on Islamic Fundamentalism (CM)

Tarek Heggy in Egypt sends us the remarks of Winston S. Churchill III speaking at the John Locke Foundation's 16th anniversary dinner in Raleigh, North Carolina:

What has happened to the mighty United States? Is it going soft? Are the elected representatives of the American people ready to surrender to those who threaten their homeland — indeed their civilian population — with death and destruction? I pray that they are not, and I call to mind the words of my grandfather, addressing the Canadian Parliament on New Year's Day 1941, in which — referring to the British nation dwelling around the globe, but it applies equally to our American cousins today — when he declared:

We are a tough and hardy people! We have not travelled across the centuries, across the oceans, across the mountains & across the prairies, because we're made of sugar candy!

In conclusion, I would remind you — and especially the legislators on Capitol Hill — of Winston Churchill's words to the House of Commons on becoming prime minister in May 1940, which applies every bit as much to the situation that confronts us today.

You ask: What is our aim? I can answer in one word. It is victory. Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror. However long or hard the road may be; for without victory there is no survival.

Provided we have the courage to stay the course, I am convinced that we can, in the end, prevail. Any alternative is too terrible to contemplate. There are no quick, easy solutions; on the contrary it will be a long, hard slog. But more leadership is needed from on high and, above all, more guts and determination if we are to see this through to victory.

Let us fight the good fight — and let us fight it together! How pleased my grandfather would be to know that — 40 years on from his death — the Anglo-American alliance is still strong and that British and American soldiers stand shoulder-to-shoulder in Iraq and in Afghanistan, confronting the peril of the hour! Long may we stand together! God bless America!

More here.

Walid Phares: Hirsh's words on al Jazeera..

I was watching "al Ittijah al Muaakes" (The opposite directions) on al jazeera this afternoon addressing Ahmedinijad's declaration of intent to become a new member of the "nuclear club." Among the panelists, M Seymour Hirsh of The New Yorker. He was supposed to explain Washington's position on the issue. Frankly, while I understood what were the positions of the Iranian regime, the Russian Government and the Arab world from the other panelists, I failed to do so while listening to M Hirsh. I wasn't sure if he was objectively explaining US strategies towards or was he strictly interested in expanding his political opinion of the sitting US President..

Son of Iraqi President Offers Views on "Way Forward" (BM)

Writing in Townhall.com, columnist W. Thomas Smith Jr. covers a speech on the future of Iraq sponsored by two of FDD's undergraduate fellows at the University of South Carolina:

Qubad Talabani, son of Iraqi president Jalal Talabani, believes the power of a centralized government in Baghdad should be "lessened," and that more autonomy should be given to the 18 provinces that comprise Iraq. It’s a relatively new concept, the younger Talabani told an audience at the University of South Carolina, last week. It is an idea that will put his country on a governing fast-forward, and one in which Iraq’s neighbors are watching with particular interest, perhaps even concern.

I’ll get to the concerns as expressed by Talabani in a moment. Let’s first consider the idea and the current dynamics in Iraq.

The rest of his excellent column is here.

A Bipartisan Effort in the War on Terror

Mark Dubowitz in today's Wall Street Journal:

Your April 4 editorial "Terror TV" on terrorist media highlights the legal consequences and symbolic importance of the Treasury Department naming the Iranian-funded, Hezbollah-operated al-Manar television and al-Nour radio as Specially Designated Global Terrorist entities. As you note, this is a victory for the good guys against the pernicious influence of the Iranian regime.

It should also be noted that this was an important victory for bipartisan cooperation in the war on terror. Led by Sens. Bill Nelson (D., Fla.) and Gordon Smith (R., Ore.) and Reps. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R., Fla.), Tom Lantos (D., Calif.), Gary Ackerman (D., N.Y.), Mike Pence (R., Ind.) and Robert Wexler (D., Fla.), Congress worked closely with the administration to raise awareness of al-Manar and encourage a strong response.

Washington can be effective only when we stand united against America's enemies. The Treasury designation is a good example.

More information on the impact of the Treasury's decision is here.

U.S. Strategy in Iraq

The Washington Times weighs in on troop levels and the plan for victory:

This much should be clear to sober-minded Iraqis and Americans who are serious about helping them rebuild their country: It will be impossible for U.S. and Coalition forces to achieve victory in Iraq without dealing a decisive blow to the militias, terrorists and other armed groups that have come on the scene since the toppling of Saddam Hussein three years ago. And, given the challenges involved in building credible Iraqi military and police forces, U.S. troops will for the forseeable future remain essential to defeating the Islamofascists who are intent on destroying Iraq.

The rest of the editorial is here.

Dispatches from the Danger Zone: UAE Fact Check (RWC)

Funny, all this talk lately about Dubai and the United Arab Emirates.

I come down on the side of those who thought the issue was beclouded by political demagoguery and simple racism, while real issues about port security have been long ignored by members of congress.

But, something to consider about the UAE –aside from what company is going to run the US terminals -was laid out by Terry Jeffrey in Human Events.

Here is a quick précis of questions and answers worth remembering.

The Pentagon and the War of Ideas (CM)

Michael Ledeen faults the Pentagon "which has behaved quite well on the military battlefield, but abominably in political combat, which is equally important... [T]he Pentagon should fight with the same intensity as their soldiers on the ground, instead of patiently issuing bloodless statements and quietly briefing journalists who have already filed their stories. We have trained the Iraqis to document their actions. We know that lies are only moments away. Yet the Pentagon, over and over again, is simply unable to provide a timely account of events that would make the terrorists play catch-up. Secretary Rumsfeld constantly remarks on his department's inability to communicate effectively with the public, but this is a tribute to a failure of leadership that ends on his own desk. If the people he's chosen to wage this war can't do it effectively, then let him find those who can, or turn his desk over to someone who has better ideas.

"But the media have their own burden to bear in these matters. ...in this war, information is manipulated by our enemies and initial reports are often misleading."

His column is here.

Debating the NSA's terrorist surveillance program (ACM)

The ABA's Standing Committee on Law and National Security has issued its March 2006 National Security Law Report, which features a series of seven short essays debating the NSA's terrorist surveillance program. 

I took the pro side, along with Bryan Boyle (formerly at DOJ and DOD) and Prof. Robert Turner of UVA.  Taking the anti side were Prof. William Banks of Syracuse, Prof. David Cole of Georgetown, and Suzanne Spaulding (formerly of the House and Senate Intelligence Committee staffs).  The debate was coordinated by Prof. Robert Chesney of Wake Forest, and the ABA's Richard Friedman offered closing observations. 

It can be found here.

Danger Zone Available for Download

The April 2nd episode of Danger Zone radio is available for podcast.

This week's lineup is available here.

Surprise, Surprise (CM)

The U.N. Human Rights Commission has been re-named the U.N. Human Rights Council. And that's it -- that's all the "reform" you're going to see.

The U.S. will not run for a seat on the "new" council. The U.S. "will support the Council and we will continue to fund it."

Why?

The U.S. government statement is here.

Update on Fathi Eljahmi (CM)

Our friend Mohamed Eljami, brother of imprisoned Libyan dissident Fathi Eljahmi, writes:

I just received word that Fathi Eljahmi was seen yesterday by his son Mohamed.  According to the report I received "Fathi was so nervous and lost much of his weight." The visit took place under the watch of Libyan security and lasted for 15 minutes.  This was the first time Fathi was seen by a member of his family since the first week of June 2005.

The Libyan regime has treated my brother and his family cruelly.  They lost their business, an arsonist tried to burn down their house, and the entire family is under surveillance.  My family is suffering because Fathi spoke for democracy and justice for the victims of Qadhafi.

Fathi is a trailblazer.  He has consistently appealed for help from the U.S. and publicly thanked President Bush, Senator Biden, the American government and the American people.

I fear that my brother's life is at risk and I want the American government to demand independent access to my brother.

Let me take this opportunity to express my heartfelt gratitude for those who have helped and continue to help.  I remain eternally grateful for your goodwill. I have great faith that America will continue to stand by my brother.

My brother did not only speak for human rights and the rule of law in Libya. He was an advocate for the victims of Lockerbie, UTA and the victims of West Africa’s wars.

The following quotes are taken from a letter to Qadhafi.  The letter  was written on May 16, 1992:

"I think your security is tantamount to the security of the Libyan people and there can be no security for you, without the security of the Libyan people.

"As a citizen, who is calling for change in the economic and social policies, for human rights and free expression and for building institutions based state.  I feel disheartened that my aspiration may in the future come through Great States, while we currently hold the decision to re-arrange the Libyan home.

"The unity of the country and the security of its soil are at risk. Its unity can be torn apart and bloodshed if it starts, no one can predict its outcome.  I am ready to take part in the national reconciliation if accepted from all sides"

Global Jihad Monitor

The latest Global Jihad Monitor is now available.  It features stories including:  The U.S. and Canada cutting ties with the Palestinian government after Hamas formally took control of the Palestinian Authority; An Islamist who claims to have close ties to the leaders of the Iraqi insurgency saying that Abu Musab al- Zarqawi has been replaced as the head of al-Qaeda in Iraq; Australian authorities arresting three men, “seriously disrupting” the plans of a group reportedly making arrangements to carry out a terrorist attack in Australia; and others.

New Satellite Companies Remove Hezbollah's Terrorist Radio

FDD and its Coalition Against Terrorist Media (CATM), congratulates France Telecom’s GlobeCast satellite distributor and the Spanish satellite provider Hispasat for removing Hezbollah’s al-Nour radio from broadcast over three satellites reaching Latin America, Asia and Europe.   

The move followed the designation last week of Hezbollah’s al-Manar television station, al-Nour radio, and the parent company of both, the Lebanese Media Group, as Specially Designated Global Terrorist entities by the U.S. Treasury Department. [Read More]

Teleconferencing With Terror... (CM)

...at Columbia University. Columbia student Chris Kulawik tells the tale. Unlike his ignorant and morally vacuous professors, Chris understands that Qaddafi ” is a man with blood on his hands for the murder of all those aboard the Lockerbie Pan Am flight, a purported bankroller for Black September (among others terrorists groups), a Hamas supporter. The infamous deeds go on. Libya is on the same short list as Cuba, Iran, North Korea, and Syria. While the country made ‘progress’ in renouncing non-conventional weapons, that just makes Qaddafi a victim of Bush policy, not moral enlightenment. If Columbia is gullible enough to host this farce, what’s next? Is Castro to speak on the right of dissidents? The Mullahs on religious tolerance? The Chinese premier on free speech in Tibet? With Columbia, you just don’t—actually, let me stop here. They still might expel me.”

If so, FDD will hire him. His column is here.

The David Duke School of Government at Harvard (CM)

Military historian Eliot A. Cohen on the Walt/Mearsheimer protocals:

Academic papers posted on a Harvard Web site don't normally attract enthusiastic praise from prominent white  supremacists. But John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt's "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy" has won David Duke's endorsement as "a modern Declaration of American Independence" and a vindication of the ex-Klansman's  earlier work, presumably including his pathbreaking book, "Jewish Supremacism." ...

One of Mearsheimer's University of Chicago colleagues has characterized this as "piss-poor, monocausal social  science." It is indeed a wretched piece of scholarship. Israeli citizenship rests "on the principle of blood  kinship," it says, and yet the country has a million non-Jewish citizens who vote. Osama bin Laden's grievance with the United States begins with Israel, it says -- but in fact his 1998 fatwa declaring war against this  country began by denouncing the U.S. presence in Saudi Arabia and the suffering of the people of Iraq. "Other  ethnic lobbies can only dream of having the political muscle" The Lobby has -- news to anyone advocating lifting the embargo on Fidel Castro's Cuba. The Iraq war stemmed from The Lobby's conception of Israel's interest -- yet, oddly, the war attracted the support of anti-Israel intellectuals such as Christopher Hitchens and mainstream publications such as The Economist. America's anti-Iran policy reflects the dictates of The Lobby -- but how to explain Europe's equally strong opposition to Iranian nuclear ambitions? ...

Inept, even kooky academic work, then, but is it anti-Semitic?

The op-ed is here.

Dispatches from the Danger Zone: Col. Khadafy Is Annoyed

Libya feels "cheated" that it will stay on the U.S. State Departments list of state sponsors of terrorism.

Colonel Khadafy is presumably annoyed.

We have been taken advantage of, said the Libyan representative in Washington, and blamed domestic US politics and the furor over the Dubai Ports deal.

Presence on the terrorism list bars a country from getting U.S. arms; controls sales of items with military and civilian applications, limits U.S. financial aid and requires Washington to vote against international loans.

The United States has taken steps toward restoring commercial relations with Libya since Khadafy announced his intention to give up weapons of mass destruction in December two years ago.

But Libya still needs to attract about $30 billion in foreign investment to
boost its oil production capacity. state” came on the heels of a panel discussion and media-show at Columbia University in New York.

Are you Ready for Hizbollah's Preventive Terror? (WP)

In an article titled “Attacking Iran May Trigger Terrorism” in the Washington Post, journalist Dana Priest says “U.S. Experts wary of Military Action over Nuclear Program.” The gist of the piece is clear: If –or when the US- will engage in military activities against the Iranian regime over the nuclear crisis, one has to expect that Tehran would use its assets to respond against US targets in the region and beyond. The article goes on to explain the mechanisms of this equation.

While I certainly agree that Iran will respond to American measures, I believe that the piece follows what the French calls une verite de la palice (a fact so well accepted). In short, of course Tehran will respond; obviously it had already considered, planned and even deployed its assets in that regard; and mais bien sur it will use its own intelligence services, Hizbollah and its other allies. From that angle, the sources the article refers to seem to fall a little bit behind in the strategic analysis, or at least this would be what their quotes seems to show. Priest writes: “Citing prohibitions against discussing classified information, U.S. intelligence officials declined to say whether they have detected preparatory measures, such as increased surveillance, counter-surveillance or message traffic, on the part of Iran's foreign-based intelligence operatives.”

Here again, five years after al Qaida’s 9/11, the talk in America is about “potential Iranian action” against the US and its allies, and the questions are about “detection of preparatory measures, and message –traffic, etc.” While a future Jihad analysis leads directly to a conclusion asserting the inevitability of an Iranian counter-strike, my concern is that Washington is still struggling with its possibility not with its certainty. That a Washington Post article is raising media eye brows just because it is warning about that “possibility,” raises our eye brows about the readiness to the Iran noises of War. In short: we should not allow another 9/11 to surprise us, let alone to even occur. In shorter: The Khumeinists are preparing for it, and that shouldn’t surprise us.

And in this line of thinking, another reality shouldn’t be vague in our minds: If Tehran wants to confront the US and the international community over nuclear power, Hizbollah is its prime weapon of mass terror.

Islam and Empire (CM)

Scholar/author Efraim Karsh’s argues the rhetoric of Militant Islamists “has a millennial warrant, both in doctrine and in fact, and taps into a deep undercurrent that has characterized the political culture of Islam from the beginning. Though tempered and qualified in different places and at different times, the Islamic longing for unfettered suzerainty has never disappeared, and has resurfaced in our own day with a vengeance. It goes by the name of empire….

“As the 14th-century historian and philosopher Abdel Rahman ibn Khaldun wrote, ‘In the Muslim community, the jihad is a religious duty because of the universalism of the Islamic mission and the obligation [to convert] everybody to Islam either by persuasion or by force.’ …

"The last great Muslim empire may have been destroyed and the caliphate left vacant, but the dream of regional and world domination has remained very much alive. Even the ostensibly secular doctrine of pan-Arabism has been effectively Islamic in its ethos, worldview, and imperialist vision. In the words of Nuri Said, longtime prime minister of Iraq and a prominent early champion of this doctrine: ‘Although Arabs are naturally attached to their native land, their nationalism is not confined by boundaries. It is an aspiration to restore the great tolerant civilization of the early caliphate.’…

"If, today, America is reviled in the Muslim world, it is not because of its specific policies but because, as the preeminent world power, it blocks the final realization of this same age-old dream of regaining, in Zawahiri's words, the ‘lost glory’ of the caliphate.”

His provocative essay is here.

Another Step Forward for Democracy in the Middle East

Today marks another step forward towards the goal of a democratic Middle East as Kuwaiti women are allowed to vote for first time.  The full story is here.

FDD Welcomes New Fellows Specializing in Egypt and Lebanon/Syria

The Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) has added two new fellows in support of its growing Democracy Programs: Khairi Abaza, an Egyptian specialist and former Wafd Party official, and Tony Badran, a writer and researcher focused on reform movements in Lebanon and Syria.

“Khairi and Tony are experts in their regions, have great insight into the opportunity for reform in the Middle East, and understand the challenges that must be overcome for liberal democracy to advance,” said FDD Senior Vice President Eleana Gordon.  “They will play key roles in FDD's growing efforts to support democratic movements and reformers throughout the greater Middle East.”

Read more about Tony & Khairi here.

Moussaoui Phase One Verdict (ACM)

The jury verdict this afternoon in the Moussaoui death penalty case is critically important.  It means the most difficult chore for the prosecution -- viz., establishing that Moussaoui is culpable for the slaughter of 9/11 -- has been accomplished.  By succeeding, the government gets to move the case on to phase two, where the question is: should the penalty be death? 

While it is always risky to predict these things, the next phase should be far easier for the government.  It will involve the presentation the government has been preparing for for five years:  a graphic depiction of the horror of the suicide hijacking attacks.

This is a very strange proceeding.  In most capital cases there is a trial phase, where the jury decides guilt, and a sentencing phase, where the jury decides whether to impose death. 

Here, to the contrary, there was no trial, because Moussaoui pled guilty, but that guilty plea did not settle conclusively his culpability for the deaths.  Then, the judge bifurcated the sentencing phase -- so the government would not get to present its strongest evidence unless the court was first satisfied as to Moussaoui's culpability.  The government has made that case -- with no small thanks to Moussaoui's own testimony, which (if his goal was not martyrdom) was an unmitigated disaster for the defense.

Now it is on to the strongest evidence -- testimony from victims and, no doubt, New York and Pentagon officials, regarding the utter devastation of that day.  Against that, Moussaoui will pit whatever mitigating factors he can muster (probably psychological testimony, and pleas from family members that he not be executed).  It is not exactly going out on a limb to predict that Moussaoui is in big trouble in that balancing of equities.

Cloudy Forecast... (CM)

Of Iraq by Reuel Marc Gerecht. The silver lining:

The various, often mutually hostile, Shiite parties, are likely to plow ahead, however fitfully, to some political deal with the Sunnis and the Kurds, who both now know that the Shiites will no longer passively watch their women and children slaughtered and their holy sites desecrated. Sunni and Kurdish fear of Shiite power -- a fickle but growing alliance between Sunni Arabs and Kurds was inevitable -- is politically overdue and healthy for all concerned. This is a tightrope act, but the Sunni Arabs must internalize the fact that they cannot leverage the insurgency into power. If they continue to try, they will only convert Shiite "sheep" (the traditional Arab Sunni view of Arab Shiites) into rampant "lions," unstoppable by even the most revered, peace-promoting divines.

And what is most likely to curtail the violence is the U.S. military -- not political dialogue among the Sunni and Shiite Arabs and Kurds. Dialogue is important -- the all-critical, viscerally anti-U.S. and seriously anti-Shiite Sunni Clerics Association is slowly moving toward reconciliation with a Shiite-led Iraq. But only the U.S. military has the capacity, as recently shown in Tal Afar and brilliantly reported by The New Republic's Lawrence Kaplan, to secure territory against insurgents and holy warriors.

The Wall Street Journal oped is here.

Continuing the Fight (BM)

The Wall Street Journal correctly notes the Treasury Department's designation of al-Manar as a terrorist organization sets the right precedent -- but that the fight against al-Manar and other terrorist-controlled media outlets must continue:

The terrorist designation should also help put pressure on Al-Manar's last remaining satellite carriers. In its heyday, Al-Manar was transmitted via French Telecom's Globecast satellite, and for a while could be seen in the U.S. thanks to Barbados-based Intelsat and Brazil's Hispamar. But a concerted lobbying effort by the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies succeeded in persuading most of the carriers to drop Al-Manar.

Today, only Saudi Arabia's Arabsat and Egypt's Nilesat carry the station, and both governments have rebuffed U.S. entreaties to take it off the air. That may change if either company turns out to be liable to designated-terror penalties. The Bush Administration might also consider a wider range of sanctions, such as barring Arabsat and Nilesat executives from entering the U.S. until Al-Manar is taken off the air.

Al-Manar is hardly the only Arab channel that routinely broadcasts murderously anti-Semitic or anti-American shows. Nor is it likely that simply putting Al-Manar out of business will end terrorist media: The Iranian chapter of Hezbollah has announced its intention to set up a new channel, Khaiber TV. But by taking action against Al-Manar, the Bush Administration has set the right precedent against the worst offender. Let's hope it can enforce it.

The entire piece is here.

Claudia's Coffee Talk (BM)

In her OpinionJournal column, Claudia Rosett catches up with the man at the heart of the UN Oil for Food scandal -- in Cyprus:

Medium or sweet?" asks Benon Sevan. He is inquiring how much sugar I would like in the Turkish coffee he's boiling up for us on his kitchen stove, and I am torn between thanking him for his hospitality and wondering if he might poison the refreshments. For the past three years, we have had a somewhat fraught connection, via a shared interest in the biggest corruption scandal ever to hit the United Nations--he as a star suspect, and I in writing about it. So when, together with a traveling companion, I paid a surprise visit on a recent Sunday afternoon to Mr. Sevan's current home--here in the capital of his native Cyprus--I really had little hope that he would do anything but slam the door on me.

The rest is here.