FDD

"Iraq is the central front in the war against Islamic extremism." (CM)

Sen. Joe Lieberman, who just returned from the Middle East, has a very strong op-ed in The Washington Post today (which is one of NRO's "Hot Links" today). A few key excerpts:

[L]et there be no doubt: If Iraq descends into full-scale civil war, it will be a tremendous battlefield victory for al-Qaeda and Iran. Iraq is the central front in the global and regional war against Islamic extremism...

In Baghdad and Ramadi, I found that it was the American colonels, even more than the generals, who were asking for more troops. In both places these soldiers showed a strong commitment to the cause of stopping the extremists. One colonel followed me out of the meeting with our military leaders in Ramadi and said with great emotion, "Sir, I regret that I did not have the chance to speak in the meeting, but I want you to know on behalf of the soldiers in my unit and myself that we believe in why we are fighting here and we want to finish this fight. We know we can win it."

In nearly four years of war, there have never been sufficient troops dispatched to accomplish our vital mission. The troop surge should be militarily meaningful in size, with a clearly defined mission.

More U.S. forces might not be a guarantee of success in this fight, but they are certainly its prerequisite. Just as the continuing carnage in Baghdad empowers extremists on all sides, establishing security there will open possibilities for compromise and cooperation on the Iraqi political front — possibilities that simply do not exist today because of the fear gripping all sides...

As the hostile regimes in Iran and Syria appreciate — at times, it seems, more keenly than we do — failure in Iraq would be a strategic and moral catastrophe for the United States and its allies. Radical Islamist terrorist groups, both Sunni and Shiite, would reap victories simultaneously symbolic and tangible, as Iraq became a safe haven in which to train and strengthen their foot soldiers and Iran's terrorist agents. Hezbollah and Hamas would be greatly strengthened against their moderate opponents. One moderate Palestinian leader told me that a premature U.S. exit from Iraq would be a victory for Iran and the groups it is supporting in the region. Meanwhile, the tens of thousands of Iraqis who have bravely stood with us in the hope of a democratic future would face the killing fields.

In Iraq today we have a responsibility to do what is strategically and morally right for our nation over the long term — not what appears easier in the short term. The daily scenes of death and destruction are heartbreaking and infuriating. But there is no better strategic and moral alternative for America than standing with the moderate Iraqis until the country is stable and they can take over their security. Rather than engaging in hand-wringing, carping or calls for withdrawal, we must summon the vision, will and courage to take the difficult and decisive steps needed for success and, yes, victory in Iraq. That will greatly advance the cause of moderation and freedom throughout the Middle East and protect our security at home.

Why Europeans and Arabs Are Rooting For The Islamists In Somalia (CM)

Caroline Glick writes:

The Organization of the Islamic Conference has called daily for an Ethiopian pullout from Somalia. So too, the Arab League demands that Ethiopia retreat. With their people on the ground retreating with the ICU [Islamic Courts Union, the Militant Islamist forces], as has been their consistent policy towards Israel, so in Somalia the Arabs and Muslims wish to win at the negotiating table what they cannot achieve on the battlefield.

In this pursuit, they enjoy support from a familiar quarter. Five days before Ethiopia invaded Somalia, the EU attempted to mediate the conflict in a manner that would prolong and legitimize the ICU's control of Somalia...

When word of the Ethiopian invasion got out, [EU mediator Louis] Michel -- like his associates in the EU Secretariat -- moved immediately to condemn Ethiopia. Sunday he said, "I condemn in the strongest terms the escalation of the conflict in Somalia into an all-out war and appeal for all Somali sides to cease immediately all hostilities. I express my deepest concern on the reported involvement of foreign forces in Somalia and urge all external players to refrain immediately from intervening militarily in Somali affairs and provoke further violence."

Last week, as he engaged in his shuttle diplomacy, Michel pointedly did not take a public stand regarding the ICU's declaration of jihad against Ethiopia or its announcement that it would target any UN-peacekeepers that entered the country.

Israelis routinely assume that Europe's pro-jihadist policy towards the Palestinians is a result of anti-Semitism or anger over Israel's military victory in 1967. But the EU's treatment of Ethiopia and the TFG [the secular Transitional Federal Government] indicates that Brussels' hostility towards the Jewish state is part of a much further-reaching policy. Europe's pro-jihad position toward the war in Somalia indicates that its support for jihad is over-arching rather than limited to specific battlegrounds...

[A] tripartite alliance of Iran, the Arab world and Europe upholds the cause of jihad not merely against Israel and the US, but globally...While the Arab dictatorships embrace jihad to safeguard their regimes, the Europeans support the jihadists in the hope that their support will deflect jihadist violence away from them.

More here.

One Thing We Know This Year (That We Pretended Not to Know Since 1973) (AM)

Yasser Arafat orchestrated and ordered the murders of two United States diplomats (as well as one Belgian diplomat) in Sudan in March 1973.

World Net Daily reports that earlier this year the U.S. government finally declassified this memorandum, providing a secret summary report of a raid on the Saudi embassy in Khartoum on March 1, 1973, by operatives of Black September, a militia within Arafat's Fatah faction of the PLO.  (Thanks for the heads up to my friend Bill West, a frequent contributor at the Counterterrorism Blog).

The Saudis were holding a reception for the U.S. Charge d'Affaires, George Curtis Moore, who was departing.  The terrorists kidnapped Moore, U.S. Ambassador Cleo Noel, and the Belgian Charge d'Affaires, Guy Eid, in addition to two other diplomats, a Saudi and a Jordanian. 

Arafat gave the order to kill the the two Americans and the Belgian from Fatah headquarters in Beirut.  The memorandum states:  "The Khartoum operation was planned and carried out with the full knowledge and personal approval of Yasir Arafat."

Interestingly, notwithstanding this information long known to our government, a State Department official as late as 2002 claimed — in an email to a Minneapolis attorney who was insistent that Arafat was behind the Khartoum murders — that "[e]vidence clearly points to the terrorist group Black September as having committed the assassinations of Amb. Noel and George Moore, and though Black September was a part of the Fatah movement, the linkage between Arafat and this group has never been established."   

For those interested in a walk down memory lane, my NRO obituary for Arafat, "The Father of Modern Terrorism," is here.  It includes the infuriating denouement to this episode.  Although the previously classified memo takes pains to point out that "[n]o effort was spared, within the capabilities of the Sudanese Government, to secure the freedom of the hostages[,]" that's not exactly the whole story. 

Arafat — as the memo relates — instructed the eight terrorists to surrender to the Sudanese authorities.  Not included, though, is what happened next.  The Sudanese quickly released two, purporting that the evidence was insufficient.  Then, a trial was held for the remaining six, upon which they were convicted, sentenced to life imprisonment in Sudan, and ... released to the PLO the next day.

Cal Thomas on Karen Hughes

In a recent meeting in her State Department office, Karen Hughes told syndicated columnist Cal Thomas that she recognizes the difference between the Cold War, when “we were trying to get information into largely closed societies whose people were hungry to hear from us,” and today, when "we're competing for attention and credibility in a very crowded communications environment.” Thomas writes:

Mrs. Hughes mentions a group of Saudi clerics who made their first visit to America at the State Department's invitation. She says she had been told their Friday sermons "had been very negative, very anti-American." They visited American synagogues, mosques and churches. Mrs. Hughes says she was told by "our people on the ground" in Saudi Arabia that the clerics now have a "much different and changed view of our country."

Josh Trevino on Somalia, Ethiopia and Media Coverage (CM)

He’s particularly scathing re the media:

In the worldwide fight against Islamism, the number of combat fronts is small: Iraq, Afghanistan, Chechnya, and Somalia on the first tier; and Algeria, the Philippines, and southern Thailand on the second. In that light, the Ethiopian attack upon the Somali Islamists is a profoundly significant story -- of a piece with the signal struggle of our era -- that our media professionals ought to be striving to understand and report upon. Instead, we get recycled narratives and canned agendas, substituting for the hard work of comprehension and communication that appear too far beyond the ken of our correspondent class. The pity is that those who suffer most from it are the objects of our policies that result.

Much more here.

The Urge to Surge (CM)

Keane and Kagan say it will require at least 30,000 combat troops and must last 18 months. “Any other option is likely to fail”

Also:

[R]educing the violence in the Sunni and mixed neighborhoods in Baghdad is the most critical military task the U.S. armed forces face anywhere in the world...The United States faces a dire situation in Iraq because of a history of half-measures. We have always sent "just enough" force to succeed if everything went according to plan. So far nothing has, and there's no reason to believe that it will. Sound military planning doesn't work this way. The only "surge" option that makes sense is both long and large.

More here.

The New York Times on Iran in Iraq (AM)

On Christmas Day, a New York Times dispatch described the apprehension by the U.S. military of Iranian military officials who are supporting the terrorist insurgency in Iraq. The following caught my attention (italics mine):

The two raids, in central Baghdad, have deeply upset Iraqi government officials, who have been making strenuous efforts to engage Iran on matters of security.... It was particularly awkward for the Iraqis that one of the raids took place in the Baghdad compound of Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, one of Iraq’s most powerful Shiite leaders, who traveled to Washington three weeks ago to meet President Bush...A spokesman for Mr. Hakim, who heads a Shiite political party called Sciri, which began as an exile group in Iran that opposed Saddam Hussein, declined to comment.

ME:  Hakim's party is not "called Sciri."  It is, instead, often referred to by the acronym SCIRI. It is actually called the "Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq."  It is an Islamic fundamentalist party which subscribes (like Hezbollah subscribes) to the Iranian model of Ayatollah Khoemeini that government should be controlled by Islamic clerics. Why would the Times not tell its readers that?

Middle East Policy Mistakes Of 2006 (CM)

Bret Stephens has compiled quite a long list. However, he adds that “mistakes, unlike original sin, can also be fixed. Personnel can be replaced, policies can be corrected. Here's looking forward to the corrections.”

Here’s to a New (and Improved) Year.

The Dark Fate of Christians Under Palestinian Rule

The birthplace of Jesus is facing one of the darkest chapters in its history, according to Bethlehem Mayor Victor Batarseh’s just-delivered annual Christmas address, and of course it’s all the fault of the Jews.

FDD Fellows Michael Krauss and Peter Pham discuss the "dark fate" of Christians under Palestinian rule in Frontpage Magazine.

Two interviews on Radio Free Iraq

Find two interviews in Arabic on Radio Free Iraq from Prague. The interviews with FDD Senior Fellow Walid Phares focus on the Baker Hamilton report and on the future of Iraq. Dr Phares state that one would assume that inside Washington there would be a consensus on not allowing Iran and Syria developping radical influences inside Iran. 

Murder of U.S. Airmen at Khobar Towers: Iran Did it (AM)

This is old news to those who followed the 9/11 Commission report and Iran's historic record as the world's number one state sponsor of terrorism — particularly, anti-U.S. terrorism.  (I recently detailed it, here.)  But now, a federal judge has ruled that Iran was responsible for the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing in which 19 American Air Force personnel were killed and 372 wounded. The AP reports:

The Iranian government is partly to blame for a 1996 terrorist attack that killed 19 Americans in Saudi Arabia, a federal judge ruled Friday.  The ruling by U.S. District Judge Royce C. Lamberth allows the families of the victims of the Khobar Towers bombing to seek $254 million in compensation from the conservative Islamic regime in Tehran. 

Though intelligence officials have suspected a link between the Tehran government and the Saudi wing of Hezbollah, which the FBI has accused of carrying out the bombing, Friday's ruling is the first time a branch of the U.S. government has officially blamed Iran for the deaths of Americans in the bombings.  "This court takes note of plaintiffs' courage and steadfastness in pursuing this litigation and their efforts to take action to deter more tragic suffering of innocent Americans at the hands of terrorists," Lamberth wrote. "Their efforts are to be commended."   

Lamberth relied heavily on testimony by former FBI Director Louis Freeh, who investigated the bombings.  Two Iranian government security agencies and senior members of the Iranian government itself provided funding, training and logistical help to terrorists who carried out the attack on a dormitory that housed U.S. Air Force pilots and staff in Saudi Arabia, Freeh testified. 

Lamberth had previously ruled that a survivor of the blast could seek compensation from Iran but Friday's ruling is the first time a court has said Iran was to blame for the deaths. The lawsuit was brought by the families of 17 of the 19 people killed in the attack.

The AP's assertion that this marks the "first time a branch of the U.S. government has officially blamed Iran for the deaths of Americans" at Khobar is not accurate.  The indictment filed by the Justice Department in 2001, though it does not name specific Iranian officials, alleges Iranian direction of, and logistical support for, the attack — and notes that conspirators stated that the purpose of the attack was to strike the United States on behalf of Iran.

Furthermore, just this May, in a speech at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, Under Secretary of State R. Nicholas Burns said (italics mine):

I would also like to say that we as a country cannot forget one of the other major grievances that we have with Iran, and that is the terrorism issue. We do not forget what happened in Beirut to our embassy and to our Marine barracks in 1983, or to Colonel Higgins, who was serving with the UN forces in southern Lebanon in 1985. And we certainly do not forget, and I believe [Ambassador] Dennis [Ross] and I were together that day, what happened at Khobar Towers outside of Dhahran, because we were there just several hours after the blast with Secretary [Warreb] Christopher and saw what happened to over 30 Americans who were killed and to 300 American military officers who ended up in the hospital.

This echoed what State Department Counselor Philip Zelikow had said more forcefully only the week before:

During the 1990s, Iran aided terrorist groups that were targeting Americans, Israelis, and Saudis. Agents of the Iranian government were involved in the attack on the U.S. Air Force barracks at Khobar Towers, in Saudi Arabia, in 1996.

Yet, in the civil litigation brought by bombing victims against Iran, the State Department has actually intervened on Iran's behalf, filing an amicus brief in support of the Islamic Republic's position.

In point of fact, the Iranian role has been known to our government since the 1990s.  The Clinton administration suppressed it because, right after the Khobar bombing, President Clinton threatened to retaliate with a military attack against any nation found to be complicit.  Acknowledging proof of an Iranian role would have required doing something about it. 

By autumn 1999, evidence had emerged that was reliable enough for State Department spokesman James Rubin to state publicly:  "We do have specific information with respect to the involvement of Iranian government officials."  Yet, Clinton contented himself with firing off...a letter, pleading with the mullahs — who, mind you had already spurned a similar request — for help bringing those responsible to justice. 

Reminiscent of the Bush administraton's approach to Iran's nuclear provocations, the Clinton administration, despite its prior rhetoric about dealing fiercely with state sponsorship of terrorism, offered all carrots (normalization of relations and an end to economic sanctions) and no sticks.  Then, as now, the mullahs laughed.

Nigeria's Electoral Intrigue

In today's online edition of The National Interest, FDD Adjunct Fellow Dr. Peter Pham argues that "few countries are as vital to the strategic interests of the United States as Nigeria." However, the West African country’s internal political situation "barely registers on inside-the-Beltway policy discussions."

The Price of Defeat (CM)

Rowan Scarborough reports that the C.I.A. conducted a simulation of how the Iraq war affects the global jihadist movement, and one conclusion was that a U.S. loss "would embolden al Qaeda to expand its ranks of terrorists as well as pick new strategic targets." He adds:

[T]he simulation's key finding appears to bolster Mr. Bush's contention that a U.S. loss in Iraq will have far-reaching ramifications...Al Qaeda has made stopping democracy in Iraq a top priority, according to U.S. military officials. It has recruited hundreds of suicide bombers to come to Iraq and inflict mass casualties to spur a Sunni-Shi'ite Muslim civil war. The group wants to wear down U.S. troops to the point where they will retreat. Al Qaeda's ultimate goal is to turn Iraq and other Middle East countries into hard-line Islamic states, U.S. military officials say...

The CIA-sponsored simulation predicts that al Qaeda will view a U.S. defeat in Iraq as another jihadist victory over a superpower and one that will bring it even more terrorist recruits. "When we did the simulation, the ramifications were enormous," said the source, who asked not to be named. The source said al Qaeda will proclaim, "God has given us a second victory over a superpower.   "Imagine what defeat in Iraq would do," said the source. "Al Qaeda picks new targets after it thinks it's won."

This person expressed unhappiness that the Iraq Study Group, a bipartisan panel led by former Secretary of State James A. Baker III and former Rep. Lee H. Hamilton, devoted less than a page to what a loss in Iraq would mean for global terrorism.

ME: This is a topic I was constantly trying to get the ISG working group to grapple with. I did not succeed. I believe I was accused of spinning "doomsday scenarios" and subscribing to the Domino Theory.

The Danger Zone

Saturday's WMAL show will feature Rep. Tom Tancredo, Republican Congressman representing the 6th District of Colorado; Retired Marine Lt. Col. Bill Cowan, who served three tours of duty in Vietnam; FDD President Cliff May; and Milton R. Copulos, President of the National Defense Council Foundation.

Gerecht on Iraq (CM)

Former CIA operative (and my ally on the Iraq Study Group) Reuel Marc Gerecht argues:

We absolutely cannot afford to have an American effort to pacify Baghdad be seen as a ‘pro-Sunni’ military assault on the capital’s densely populated Shiite ghetto. If the administration first focuses militarily on the Sunni insurgency, as called for in the Keane-Kagan plan — and the press indicates Mr. Bush is taking the two men very seriously — the United States and the Iraqi government would be better able to diminish sectarian violence...No, it won’t be easy — but with American and Iraqi troops all over Baghdad and daily life returning to some normality, the situation will certainly be more manageable than what we confront now. The politics of peaceful Shiite consensus, which is what Grand Ayatollah Sistani has tried to advance since 2003, could again rapidly gain ground.

No progress can be made in Iraq, however, if the Sunni Arabs, who have regrettably embraced the insurgency and holy war in large numbers, are allowed politically to check counterinsurgency operations.

The key for America is the same as it has been for years: to clear and hold the Sunni areas of Baghdad and the so-called Sunni triangle to the north. There will probably be no political solution among the Iraqi factions to save American troops from the bulk of this task. The sooner we start in Baghdad, the better the odds are that the radicalization of the Iraqi Shiites can be halted. As long as this community doesn’t explode into total militia war, Iraq is not lost, and neither is Mr. Bush’s presidency.

More here.

The Iranian Elections (CM)

Michael Ledeen writes that the "Iranian electoral ritual doesn’t tell us what the people want; it tells us what the tyrants have decided."

More here.

Correspondence Course

On Sunday, Dec. 10, the Outlook section of the Washington Post ran a story on the Baker/Hamilton Commission and the debate within the “expert advisory group” over whether President Bush should “reach out to Iran and Syria.”

The Post reported that while the White House has long rejected this approach, “nearly all of the 44 experts who worked on the report supported it. However, two conservative holdouts -- Clifford May, a former Republican National Committee spokesman, and Reuel Marc Gerecht of the American Enterprise Institute -- needed some extra convincing. In a series of e-mails, James Dobbins, a former diplomat and the chief architect of Afghan reconciliation (now at Rand Corp.) made his case...In the end, May was won over but Gerecht was not.”

Read the rest of FDD President Clifford May's response to the Post's claim in his column this week.

Petition Urges Bush Administration to Secure Freedom for Libyan Dissident Fathi Eljahmi

Six U.S. Members of Congress and 37 prominent human rights organizations and NGOs from the United States and around the world have signed a petition urging President Bush and Secretary Rice to “take swift action to secure the freedom of Libyan prisoner of conscience Fathi Eljahmi.”

Fathi Eljahmi is Libya's most outspoken democracy advocate. For the past several years, he has languished in solitary confinement in one of his country’s most notorious prisons and has been denied proper medical care for several life-threatening conditions. According to Human Rights Watch, Mr. Eljahmi may face the death penalty after being charged with meeting a foreign official and “defaming” Libya’s leader Col. Muammar Qaddhafi.

His brother, Mohamed Eljahmi, has written extensively on the need for Libyan reform — and the forces that impede it. Since his brother was dragged away by security services in 2002, Mohamed has fought to have his brother released and to defend dissidents from persecution.

The petition, which was delivered to President Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on Nov. 29, (and to which FDD is one of the signatories) is after the break.

Crisis in Africa

The Foundation for the Defense of Democracies has launched "Crisis in Africa," a new campaign focused on terrorism in the Horn of Africa.

FDD Adjunct Fellow Dr. J. Peter Pham was one of the first to raise the alarm about the militant Islamist threat in Africa and call for a comprehensive national security and diplomatic strategy in response. Dr. Pham and FDD staff and fellows are using research, strategic communications, and consultation with U.S. and international officials to ensure that Africa is no longer the “forgotten front” in the Global War on Terror. 

Time's Man of the Year

This weekend, Time magazine announced that you are it's Man of the Year. In other words, they didn't come up with one. National Review Online asked FDD President Clifford May: “Did Time’s editors cop out? If you were to pick a man or woman of the year who would it be and why?” Here's Cliff's reply:

Naming “Everyone” Man of the Year is not just copping out: It’s jumping the shark. It’s the sort of muddy thinking that impels teachers to say all students are “special.” It’s the basis for what may be Garrison Keillor’s only funny joke: In Lake Woebegone all the children are above average.

As for who should be Man of the Year, I say it’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Remember: The designation does not necessarily go to someone admirable. It goes to the individual who “for better or worse, has most influenced events in the preceding year” and, one presumes, may influence events in the years ahead.

Read the full article here.

Back to Blaming America (JS)

Well, it took a few days of infighting, but Hamas has finally gotten back on message.  Since last week, the primary media message from both Fatah and Hamas officials has been a back and forth blame game aimed at their rival movement.  But today, true to form, Palestinian Prime Minister Ismael Haniya of Hamas returned to the age-old practice of blaming us for all of their problems.  He's right of course; if the American occupation forces would just leave Gaza, surely the gun battles and kidnappings that have plagued the region would stop.  Maybe its time for a Blue-Ribbon Commission to look into that.

Notes & Comments

FDD President Clifford May's weekly Notes & Comments is now available on the FDD website:

HOW TO WIN IN IRAQ: FDD Distinguished Advisor Newt Gingrich sends along a very original outline he received from Capt. Travis Patriquin, a young Marine captain killed last week in Iraq by an IED (Improvised Explosive Device).

Newt writes: "First of all it is a tribute to his dying for his country. Second it is essentially correct and illustrates how much of our failure is to be found in the absolutely false strategy adopted by the CPA (Coalition Provisional Authority) in June 2003. If we do not get large scale change we will not win in Iraq."

Captain Patriquin's observations are conveyed through stick figures and simple language. Among his observations: the importance of having a moustache in Iraq. Highly recommended reading.

Mystery Surfaces Over Apartment of Kofi Annan

As Secretary-General Annan prepares to leave his post at the United Nations, a mystery is surfacing surrounding his apartment on Roosevelt Island, subsidized by New York taxpayers, which is still in use by the family of his brother, Kobina Annan. FDD Journalist-in-Residence Claudia Rosett raises serious questions about the Annan apartment in today's New York Sun.

Meanwhile, Back in the War on Terror...(AM)

Hezbollah is recovering nicely from this summer's jihad on Israel with the help of its sponsors in Iran and Syria. (Thanks for the heads-up to Dan McKivergan of the Weekly Standard's blog.) 

The AP reports (via the NYTimes) that Iran has increased its funding of the terror group that serves as its forward militia by about 100 percent (i.e., up to about $200M per annum); meantime, the porous 233-mile border between Syria and Lebanon provides abundant opportunity for replenishing Hezbollah's supply of arms.  Not only is the terror group consolidating its position in Lebanon and moving to bring down the weak U.S.-backed government in a transparent Syrian coup; it is also using its Bekaa Valley and Beirut camps to provide paramilitary training for Shiite militias from Iraq — who kill U.S. forces and contribute mightily to the sectarian warfare there.  (As I mentioned in this piece, such training mirrors the instruction Hezbollah has been providing for al Qaeda since the early 1990s.)

Kirkpatski! (CM)

Bill Buckley once said of Jeane Kirkpatrick: “She ought to be woven into the flag as the 51st star.” Soviet dissident Andrei Sakharov called her “Kirkpatski,” the name by which she was known in the Gulag, by prisoners of conscience to whom she had given hope.

Jay Nordlinger has an appreciation of the scholar, diplomat, teacher and co-founding director of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies here.

Strange Relations (CM)

Our good friend, Rafael L. Bardají, has a strong piece on Spanish prime minister Luís Rodríguez Zapatero, who has “cultivated a number of strange and dangerous friendships that may have far-reaching international consequences.” It’s here.

Shameless Self-Promotion (CM)

Debra England, a San Francisco-based philanthropy expert, has written an op-ed on holiday “charitable giving” in which she names what she judges the best non-profits in America, those most deserving of donor support. Among them: Sun Valley Adaptive Sports, the leading organization serving the most severely wounded Service members nationwide, and Operation Blessing Relief & Development, an evangelical Christian organization that was “on the ground in Banda Aceh, Indonesia within 24 hours after the Tsunami hit.”

She also writes about the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, saying:

The high-stakes mission of this exceptionally performance-driven organization is in the name. Their team consists of the most competent and professionally skilled set of professionals I have found in any non-profit. FDD's broad range of activities includes shutting down transmission of Hezbollah's TV network across Europe, training women from Afghanistan and Iraq to participate in representative democracy, providing fellowships to study counterterrorism with world-class experts, and supporting the work of Claudia Rosett who exposed the multi-billion dollar U.N. Oil for Food scandal.

OK, it’s shameless of me to post this, but it’s not about me -- it’s about the people assembled at FDD. They deserve the credit. My role is that of any modern employer: to underpay them and mistreat them. Which I pledge to continue to do in the New Year!

The law and terrorist charities (AV)

In this morning's National Review online, I have an article with Howard Anglin, Esq. on a recent judicial decision out of California authored by Judge Audrey Collins that seriously hampers the government's efforts to restrict terrorist financing. Read the article.

To be fair to Judge Collins, her opinion is nothing like the hatchet job performed by Judge Anna Diggs Taylor on the NSA’s terrorist-surveillance program earlier this year. Judge Taylor’s opinion was roundly — and rightly — condemned as poorly reasoned and unworthy of the legal craft by lawyers from across the political spectrum. Judge Collins’s decision, by contrast, is neither overtly partisan nor irrational. With one exception it is a workmanlike application of precedent to fact. Unfortunately, that one exception has catastrophic potential.

...

There is, however, a compelling basis for a government ban on any assistance — even self-described humanitarian aid — to terrorists. Because terrorist organizations are not known as models of corporate transparency, there is no way of knowing whether a terrorist entity’s humanitarian arm is funneling money to its militant one. What is more, the fungible nature of money means that donations to the peaceful arm free up money to be spent by the militant arm.

Lowry on Carter (CM)

Rich Lowry writes:

Jimmy Carter brings a Christian perspective to the Israeli-Palestinian dispute. Unfortunately, it is the same Christian perspective as a drunken Mel Gibson, obsessed with heaping blame on the Jews...

The book marks Carter’s further disgraceful descent from ineffectual president and international do-gooder to apologist for the worst Arab tendencies. “It is imperative,” Carter writes, “that the general Arab community and all significant Palestinian groups make it clear that they will end the suicide bombings and other acts of terrorism when international laws and the ultimate goals of the Roadmap for Peace are accepted by Israel.” In the meantime, presumably, the slaughter of Jews can continue.

Israel can’t be so blithe about the murder of its citizens, which is why it built the security fence. Carter calls it an “imprisonment wall,” but it has been effective in preventing Palestinian terrorists from blowing people to bits — the kind of attacks Carter characterizes as “(unfortunate) for the peace process.” Twice recently, Israel has vacated occupied land, in Southern Lebanon and Gaza, only to see attacks against it launched from those same territories. But Carter always finds a way to point a finger at Israel...

Incredibly, given his media presence, Carter thinks that he is being silenced by shadowy forces. He makes this bizarre claim: “My most troubling experience has been the rejection of my offers to speak, for free, about the book on university campuses with high Jewish enrollment.” Does Carter keep track of which schools have lots of Jews? And who does he think is keeping him from speaking at them?

Just as creepy is a passage in the book about Christians in Galilee who “complained to us that their holy sites and culture were not being respected by Israeli authorities — the same complaint heard by Jesus and his disciples almost 2,000 years earlier.” As New Yorker writer Jeffrey Goldberg notes, “There are, of course, no references to ‘Israeli authorities’ in the Christian Bible. Only a man who sees Israel as a lineal descendent of the Pharisees could write such a sentence.”

What the Palestinians desperately need is a decent government that is genuinely committed to pursuing peace with Israel. By excusing the current degraded state of the Palestinian leadership, Carter is helping only to extend the conflict with Israel and perpetuate Palestinian suffering, not to mention trash his own reputation.

More here. 

"Won Over"?...Right. (AM)

Paul Mirengoff has an excellent post over at Power Line about the ludicrous claim in The Washington Post that, in the course of exchanges between consultants to the Iraq Study Group, James Dobbins "won over" our Cliff May to the notion that the U.S. should negotiate with Iran. 

Saying that we should threaten the mullahs with dire consequences, Cliff's suggestion, is hardly an endorsement of the diplo-dialogue the ISG envisions.  I don't detect a lot of daylight between what Cliff has said and what I've been saying (see here, here, here and here).  By the Post's lights, I guess we also negotiated with Saddam since we threatened him with dire consequences before following through...with dire consequences for Saddam.

"Jihad Versus Education" cover story in HS Today (WP)

Following is the HS Today (Homeland Security Today) cover story "Jihad Versus Education" featuring FDD Senior Fellow Dr Walid Phares.

A tribute to Jeane Kirkpatrick (AV)

I was awakened this morning by a call from a friend informing me that Jeane Kirkpatrick had died. Ambassador Kirkpatrick, until fairly recently, was a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, where I interned last year, and her office was only a few steps away from my bay on the 11^th floor. She later went on to help found the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies.

Jeane would make a point of stopping for a chat every time she passed my bay at AEI, and we had many fascinating conversations about foreign policy, and I was constantly struck by her powerful mind, on which, mercifully, age was not taking its toll.

Being a somewhat bumptious sort, I would try to tease out her views on the issues facing us today—at the time, it was the floundering Iraq mission—and it was clear that her contributions deserved a more public airing. Fortunately, prior to her death, Jeane had finished writing a new book on foreign policy. Though I have not yet had the pleasure to read it (it will be published shortly), I am told by those whose judgment I trust that it is excellent.

I remember one particular conversation with Jeane during which, and this was the Tory in me speaking, I quizzed her about her role in the Falklands crisis, which had received unfavorable reviews in Margaret Thatcher's memoirs Downing Street Years. Jeane displayed her characteristic graciousness, explaining the basis for her skepticism at being too supportive of Britain's pursuit of its territorial claim, while conceding that hindsight showed her fears were too severe.

Jeane explained that she was worried that an embarrassment of the Argentinean government over the Falklands might lead to its replacement by a communist one. Jeane's thinking flowed from the powerful, and powerfully American traditions of the Monroe Doctrine, as well as her own thesis in Dictatorships and Double Standards, which foreign policy thinkers today, especially those specializing in the Middle East, are I think admonished to read. (A link to the original essay is here, and its book form here).

In vivid detail, Jeane explained that hindsight had vindicated Lady Thatcher's decision, not her own. Yet, in this concession, Jeane's graciousness and honor came through, and I came to see that any sensible policymaker in her place would have had the same fears as her, and would probably have come to the same decision: I, with all my sympathies for the Anglosphere and the old order, certainly would have.

Jeane then spoke to me about the profound ambiguity of foreign policy idealism that animated her Dictatorships and Double Standards thesis, subtly calling attention to a particular weakness in my own foreign policy thinking. I would say that if there is one essay that those who are called neoconservatives should read, it is Dictatorships and Double Standards.

Ultimately, difficult policy decisions cannot be entirely based on ex ante normative ideals, but prudential concerns, animated by history. Fortunately, this underscores the need for powerfully smart, and idealistic, statesmen, of which Jeane Kirkpatrick surely was one. Withal, Jeane's contribution to U.S. foreign policy was very significant, and her death is serious and in many ways sad, but she leaves behind many friends, a goodly number of acolytes, and a very, very significant legacy. May she rest in peace.

NRO on the ISG (CM)

[T]he ISG report is an analytic embarrassment. But President Bush can still make political use of it by emphasizing its responsible aspects. The report opposes timetables or deadlines for withdrawal. It warns of a precipitate pullout: “The near-term results would be a significant power vacuum, greater human suffering, regional destabilization, and a threat to the global economy. Al Qaeda would depict our withdrawal as a historic victory. If we leave and Iraq descends into chaos, the long-range consequences could eventually require the United States to return...

Bush should take all of this and run with it. His most important task is to secure Baghdad, which will take more troops. Even the report is open to this idea, noting that the ISG could “support a short-term redeployment or surge of American combat forces to stabilize Baghdad.”...

Nor will it be possible, as recommended by the ISG, to broker an Israeli-Arab peace deal that will make Iraq’s neighbors behave. Realistically, Syria would want immunity from the consequences of its assassination campaign in Lebanon, and perhaps renewed suzerainty over that country. Iran would want a tacit acceptance of its nuclear program. If the ISG thinks Iranian and Syrian cooperation in Iraq is worth this price, it should say so. But it doesn’t, making its diplomatic recommendations utterly unserious.

More here.

McCain on the Iraq Study Group (CM)

Arab-Israeli Peace: The report embraces the idea that peace between Arabs and Israelis - which, the report states, can only be achieved through land for peace - is a necessary element of success in Iraq. All of us desire peace in the region and peace between Arabs and Israelis. But it is impossible to see how such a peace can be achieved so long as Hamas, a terrorist group that rejects a two-state solution and the very existence of Israel, stands at the helm of the Palestinian Authority. We must not push our Israeli ally to make concessions to groups that refuse to recognize its right to exist.

In addition, the linkage the ISG report makes between this issue and the violence in Iraq seems tenuous at best. While I desire peace for Israel in its own right, it is difficult to see how an Arab-Israeli peace process will diminish Sunni-Shia violence in Baghdad or al Qaeda activity in Anbar Province.

Regional conference: The report recommends the establishment of a regional diplomatic conference on Iraq, to include Iran and Syria. We must be both cautious and realistic about what Iranian and Syrian participation is likely to achieve. Our interests in Iraq diverge significantly from those of Damascus and Tehran, and this is unlikely to change under the current regimes. I do not object to reasonable efforts that might modify these countries' behavior in Iraq, but if the price of their cooperation is an easing of pressure on Tehran over its nuclear ambitions, or on Damascus over the Syrian role in Lebanon, then that price is too high.

Troops in Baghdad: I applaud the ISG's endorsement of a surge of American combat forces to stabilize Baghdad. Such a step is long overdue. But the coalition should not characterize such a redeployment as "short-term" or place a timetable on its presence. Our troops should be sent to Baghdad - or anywhere in Iraq - in order to complete a defined mission, not to serve until some predetermined date passes. By placing a limited timeframe on our military commitments, we would only induce Iraqis to side with militias that will stay indefinitely, rather than with the U.S. and Government of Iraq. Such a step would only complicate our considerable difficulties.

More here.

Walid Phares Iraqization is right, but surrendering to fascist regimes is wrong

Washington DC, December 6, 2006. Mideast Newswire

In his first analysis of the the Iraq Study Group recommendations, Mideast expert Walid Phares told three media outlets in the US, Europe, and the Middle East, that "the Iraq Study Group's recommendations resemble a salad bowl.  The document contains some rational suggestions that should have been adopted by the Bush Administration years ago, and also some suicidal ideas that were tested decades ago and failed miserably." Phares, a senior fellow with the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies in Washington, DC and author of Foreign Affairs best seller Future Jihad, was interviewed by Al Muharer al Arabi, Radio Free Iraq, and the Jack Ricardi radio show in the US. "These are only the first reactions to a comprehensive document; there will be a thorough analysis of the report from both American and Middle Eastern perspectives."

Darfur (RWC)

Events in the Darfur region of Sudan continue to spin crazily out of control, cruelty and suffering abound.

The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Louise Arbour said that killings and maimings occur every day.  She called the situation, “horrific” at a meeting in Geneva and said that countries in the Horn of Africa were “in denial” on the subject of genocide.

Franchising Jihad (DW)

Five months ago,  FDD experts Peter Pham and Michael Krauss warned of a dangerous nexus between Iranian revolutionary and geopolitical ambitions, Syrian irredentism, and Hezbollah terrorism north of Israel's borders. In their latest article in TCS Daily, they describe yet another front for Islamist fascism, this time in nominally Christian South America. The full text of the article is below.

HizbAllah’s Offensive in Lebanon: Day Three (WP)

On the third day of HizbAllah’s campaign to takeover the Lebanese Government, more sectors from civil society began to rise. But they weren’t rising with the pro-Iranian militia in as much as they were rising to oppose its move. However on the other hand, it was further noticed that a number of Western media increased their support to Nasrallah’s organization.

From Saturday late night into the early hours of the morning, more incursions by HizbAllah’s elements were signaled inside the traditional Sunni West Beirut. A battle with rocks took place in many streets leaving a number of wounded and one HizbAllah militiaman dead. The Iranian-backed militants staged their “thrusts” into Sunni areas from their launching pad in the “protest” areas in downtown, commonly described as the “coup d’Etat” basis.

HizbAllah’s Offensive in Lebanon: Day Two (WP)

In its second day, HizbAllah’s offensive in Lebanon against the democratically elected Government has maintained pressures on various levels. Following are the main axis of activities:

HizbAllah’s deployment

By mid week end, several thousands of HizbAllah’s members, cadres and officers have settled inside downtown Beirut, surrounding the Prime Minister’s office. The militia erected dozens of tents in a military fashion, with 30 fighters in each tent. Sources from the Lebanese Army described the “deployment” of the tents as a bivouac-maneuvering of about three brigades, “clearly following the Iranian military code,” said the sources. By late Saturday evening early Sunday morning, the Lebanese Army was able to move a number of these tents to the sides opening a path to the Government building.

Walid Phares: HizbAllah's offensive in Lebanon has begun

After serious warnings delivered by HezbAllah secretary general, Hassan Nasrallah since early November, the generalized offensive to bring down the Cedars Revolution-backed Government has begun. As of the early hours of Friday December 1, 2006, thousands of HizbAllah members and pro-Syrian militants took the streets of Beirut, hurdling from all Lebanese areas. The demonstrators started a series of sit-ins around the offices of Prime Minister Fuad Seniora and in other surrounding neighborhoods and public places to “suffocate the cabinet into resignation or collapse” as Lebanese sources said. Following are bullet points to be updated as events will develop: