FDD

The Aqsa Brigades

There is nothing "moderate" about Fatah's Aqsa Brigades, explains FDD's Andrew McCarthy in today's National Review Online.

Energy Policy

FDD's Alykhan Velshi discusses America's dependence on foreign oil in this week's Notes & Comments. He quotes AEI Resident Fellow David Frum -- "someone who truly understands the economics of oil":

If we are concerned that oil comes from the wrong places, we should be developing policies that bring new oil to market from the right places. One way to achieve that would be for the oil-consuming democracies to form a cartel of their own. Aside from third-ranking China, the top 10 oil importers are all democracies. Six of them -- the U.S., Germany, France, Italy, Spain and India --have been targeted victims of Islamic terrorists. Together, these democracies could reshape the world oil market by setting criteria for responsible international behaviour -- and then imposing a tariff (say US$12 a barrel) on any oil exporter that failed to live up to those standards.

(WP) Op Ed in La Razon of Spain: "La predica anti-Irak de la izquierda"

Article by Walid Phares in La Razon of Spain on the US Democratic Party view of the Administration's new plans in Iraq. This is the second article in a two part series on "redirecting Iraq's campaign." The title of the article is "La predica anti-Irak de la Izquierda."Download pen.org_LRA20070129_Y6DMRex4ScWp7bwJK1eR6uIGs8Mjk3D_D028.pdf
 

International Law

FDD's Mario Loyola argues in today's National Review Online that "international law should be a principal weapon in the conservative arsenal." He writes:

Conservatives must expose the liberal monopoly on “international law” for what it is — a way to turn fashion trends in liberal opinion into commandments for the rest of us. But conservatives must go further: They must aim to establish a powerful presence of conservative scholars within the law faculties themselves. There is room for a conservative philosophy of international law — a philosophy based upon respect for democracy, peace, and the obligation of contract.

But there is a problem among conservatives, too, because their thinking on international relations is dominated by “realists” who tend to take a dim view of international law. This is a mistake. A strong balance-of-power foreign policy, which is vital to maintaining peace in those areas of the world where states still challenge the status quo militarily, cannot be constantly struggling against international law and the diplomatic structures it creates.

Iran, Implied Threats, and the Balance of Power (ML)

In today's Jerusalem Post, Barry Rubin makes a point that should be elementary in the strategic analysis of the Iran nuclear crisis:

Do you think that anyone will make peace in the Arab-Israeli conflict if they assume -- no matter how wrong they turn out to be -- that Israel is going to be either erased by Iran's nuclear weapons, or intimidated into massive unilateral concessions? Do you believe the West will dare act effectively on any regional crisis in the face of Iranian opposition? Will Turkey protest firmly about Iranian involvement in Kurdish or Islamist subversion at home?

This is only the beginning of the problems arising from Iranian possession of nuclear weapons: a bolder, extremist Iran; coercion of the local, relatively more moderate states; a boost for terrorist and revolutionary groups with an upsurge of violence, and intimidation of the West.

And that's the optimistic scenario, without anyone actually using weapons of mass destruction.

It's the implied threat of nuclear weapons as counter-deterrent -- the menace that Iran might use them if we respond militarily to any conventional Iranian  aggression -- which will ruin the strategic balance in the Middle East. Those experts who think a nuclear Iran can be contained are looking at the wrong threat -- and they are conspicuously silent on how to contain Iran now.

Iran's move to acquire nuclear breakout capabilities is itself a kind of strategic aggression--because it will leave regional security gravely degraded.  This is why the administration's decision to surge a second U.S. aircraft carrier strike group to the Gulf is such a relief.  It shows that the administration is serious about maintaining the current balance-of-power in the Gulf, even as it continues playing Model U.N. at the Security Council. As Vice President Cheney explains in a Newsweek interview:

When we—as the president did, for example, recently—deploy another aircraft carrier task force to the gulf, that sends a very strong signal to everybody in the region that the United States is here to stay, that we clearly have significant capabilities, and that we are working with friends and allies as well as the international organizations to deal with the Iranian threat.  I'm not going to speculate about security action...But the fact is we are doing what we can to try to resolve issues such as the nuclear question diplomatically through the United Nations, but we've also made it clear that we haven't taken any options off the table.

Those who warn that a military confrontation with Iran would be a disaster should deliver that warning to the state which seems bent on seeking a confrontation -- Iran. 

Russia and the Nuclear Black Market (ML)

Sometimes I marvel at Russia's apparently limitless capacity for causing long-lived problems. Indeed, some of these problems indeed have half-lives in the tens of thousands of years. Here's this pleasant bit of news:

U.S. and Georgian officials told The Associated Press that Georgian authorities, aided by the CIA, set up a sting operation that led to the arrest last year of a Russian citizen who tried to sell a small amount of uranium enriched to about 90 percent U-235, suitable for use in an atomic bomb...

In a 2006 report, the International Atomic Energy Agency said there were 16 confirmed incidents of trafficking in highly enriched uranium or plutonium globally from 1993 to 2005. In seven cases, the nuclear material was thought to originate in Russia or a former Soviet state.

Terror-Free Fuel?

FDD President Clifford May asks why we're funding our enemy's war-effort in his column this week:

In his State of the Union Speech this week, President Bush sounded serious about “diversifying” American’s energy supply, about developing an energy policy that does not leave Americans interminably at the mercy of such regimes as those in Tehran and Caracas. And in Congress, legislation is being introduced that could at least begin to reduce the economic, political and military power of Middle Eastern oil.

Habeas Rights for Alien Combatants? (AM)

For me, at least, Adam White's interesting article in the Weekly Standard about the dispute between Sen. Specter and AG Gonzales about whether the Constitution guarantees habeas corpus (listed in NRO's Web Briefing box of linked articles) misses a crucial point (as, for that matter, do Specter and Gonzales).

The Constitution proscribes the suspension of habeas corpus (except in cases of rebellion or invasion) but does not expressly grant it. As Adam argues, it is indeed a fascinating and unsettled question whether this means habeas corpus is guaranteed (the Specter position) or just that the power to issue the writ cannot be taken away if a legislature empowers courts to grant it in the first place (what White takes to be the apparent Gonzales position).

To me, this academic dispute is relevant only if we are talking about a class of petitioners (such as American citizens) who are entitled to claim the protections of the Constitution. Alien enemy combatants who have no lawful U.S. immigration status, whose only connection to the U.S. is to make war against the American people, who have not set foot inside the U.S., and who are held by the military overseas in wartime, are not entitled to American constitutional protections. 

The Constitution's habeas corpus clause is a limitation on the power of the federal government — but it cannot be invoked by someone from outside our body politic, for those within our body politic are the sole beneficiaries of such limitations.

This becomes obvious when Adam argues, with great force, that Sen. Specter is wrong when he claims the Supreme Court's Rasul case held that the Constitution gave Gitmo detainees constitutional habeas protection. Rasul is a statutory case. It held that Gitmo detainees had a right to habeas under the federal habeas statute, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2241, not the Constitution).  (I've discussed this before, here and here, for example.)

Obviously, if the Constitution granted alien combatants habeas, there would be no reason to rely on a statute (Congress, after all, can always amend a statute — as it did to the habeas statute when it enacted the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 — in response to Rasul).  But the petitioners had no serious argument to that effect because it is well understood (or, at least, it used to be) that constitutional protections do not extend to non-Americans outside the United States.

Londonistan: Policing's Utopia (AM)

This from the Beeb:

The police are considering proposals to share intelligence and information with Muslims before launching anti-terror operations.

The plans, announced by the Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Ian Blair, are part of a wider vision to engage more with British Muslims whose support police need in fighting terrorism.

At a conference on Islamophobia, Sir Ian told his largely Muslim audience that combating the threat of extremism and terrorism was something his officers could not do alone. "It will not be the police and intelligence services that defeat terrorism, it will be communities," he said...

As a measure of their seriousness, the police have just appointed a full-time officer to lead their work on community engagement. Commander Richard Gargini has been in the police service since 1976 and has extensive experience in dealing with high-risk police operations dealing with murder and other serious crime...One of his key tasks, and perhaps a controversial one [uh, yeah], is to develop a policy whereby Muslims will be consulted before an anti-terror raid happens..."What we intend to do is invite selected, influential leaders from the Muslim community to come in and assist us when we are planning and dealing with new information -- this has worked extremely well in the black community and the shootings that have taken place amongst black men," he said.

Reaction from FDD's Clifford May

FDD President Clliford May reacts to the president's State of the Union address in today's National Review Online:

You have to admit: Bush laid out an ambitious agenda for a second-half-of-the-second-term president with abysmal poll numbers facing a Democratic congress that despises him.

His agenda includes turning around the war in Iraq (tough but possible), strengthening the military for the long conflict ahead (absolutely necessary), beginning to work toward a measure of energy security (not to be confused with “energy independence”), and attempting to open negotiations with the Democrats on a host of other issues.

The White House is betting that some Democrats will come along on each of these issues — not out of respect for Bush; not even out of respect for his office, but for self-interest: While in the minority Democrats could be satisfied merely to oppose. Now that they are in the majority, some Democrats may want to show they can do more than carp and criticize from the sidelines. A few may want to demonstrate that they can exercise the power they have been given to actually get something achieved.

State of the Union (CM)

In his State of the Union address tonight, President Bush needs to talk -- in more depth and detail than he has in the past -- about measuring success in Iraq, the consequences should we fail there, and the connections between Iraq and the broader conflict. Also: how we begin, finally, to craft an energy policy that reduces the economic/political/military power of Middle Eastern oil.

Notes & Comments

FDD's Clifford May looks at a recent British television investigation into Saudi-trained preachers. His Notes & Comments are up on the FDD website.

FDD's Center for Law & Counterterrorism -- Inaugural Symposium (AM)

Readers may be interested to know that our Cliff May, president of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, has asked me to head up FDD's new Center for Law & Counterterrorism. 

To launch the CLC, we've put together what promises to be a very interesting symposium on "lawfare" issues.  It will be held Wednesday morning from 8 til 11am at the National Press Club in Washington. Some information about the event and our distinguished panelists is here.

Readers who happen to be in D.C. and wish to attend should RSVP at rsvp@defenddemocracy.org

Mullah Omar Sighted in Pakistan (RWC)

There is new word that Mullah Omar, once head of the Taliban, has been seen hiding in Pakistan.

The Afghan intelligence service says that Omar is living near Quetta, Pakistan, with the assistance of the ISI, the Pakistani Intelligence Service.

This is not surprising. The complexities of who is doing what to whom in Pakistan boggle the mind. Consider the same week Pakistani troops were moving against Taliban members in heavy fighting.

I tried to see Mullah Omar for an interview in October of 2001, soon after the 9/11 attacks and just a few days before the US began heavy bombing of Afghanistan, which, of course, toppled the Taliban. I was in Islamabad and had been given Omar’s cell phone number by a mutual friend. I did go up to Peshawar preparative to going across the border but my timing was bad and it was impossible to cross and too dangerous if I had succeeded.

Venezuela and Iran RWC)

As I keep saying, in Venezuela, Hugo Chavez is moving to socialist authoritarianism and his cozying up to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran is becoming more and more threatening to our national security interests.

This past week the Iranian president went to Latin America to meet with the leftist governments. His first stop was in Caracas to embrace Chavez, Cindy Sheehan’s favorite Latin president.(If you heard Sheehan being interviewed by a friendly and polite Sean Hannity recently you had to walk away believing she was not given a full deck of playing cards.  I had never heard her speak more than a few practiced polemical lines in the past.  Her performance on Hannity’s radio show was pathetic. She came over as dull-normal in brainpower, at best.) 

The next day the President of Iran was hugging the old communist boss, and newly elected Jefe, Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua. Then he was off to the swearing-in of the new Ecuadorian president, a disciple of Chavez named Rafael Correa.

The visit to Chavez in Venezuela was the second time Ahmadinejad has been in Caracas in the last few months.

Chavez called the Iranian president “My brother” and he announced a joint $2 billion dollar program for unspecified “development and projects”.

Chavez is working to minimize and then eliminate any political opposition.

He began a second six-year term saying he plans to forget about another presidential election, and just continue on at the helm, perhaps for the rest of his life.

Chavez’ hero and mentor is Cuban dictator and “President for Life” himself, Fidel Castro, who is 80 years old, and now seems to be dying, as his brother Raoul scrambles to maintain control through the military, over the country and its economy. The fact that Raoul is a notorious transvestite is interfering with his credibility in what is still a sexually rigid society. (Not that there is anything wrong with running around in high heels and a dress as a man!)

Fidel Castro is reportedly dying not from cancer, but from infections related to diverticulitus.  He has had three serious operations, and all of them have failed.

With all the propaganda over the years about Cuba’s “free, excellent medical care” you should note that they had to send a doctor from Spain to take care of Castro –the Cuban doctors were all “free” but apparently not “excellent” enough.  The great irony is that micromanager Castro who runs the country by whatever whim comes to him may have made a grievous error.  The doctors told him they had to perform a colostomy and could cure him with that.  He refused and ordered them to sew up his colon. He didn’t want the bag. Big mistake. Fecal material has permeated his abdomen and is killing him with an infection they can’t stop.

Castro’s boy Chavez has been in office since 1999 and was just re-elected, now maybe for life. 

Venezuela is the fourth-largest oil exporter to the US.

Funny, you’ll remember there was a recall referendum against Chavez a few years ago that was marred by deep irregularities.  But it was “cleared” by the relentlessly meddlesome Jimmy Carter –(one of our worst failed presidents) who “certified” the effort as fair even though the European Union, of all outfits, refused to be an observer because Chavez’ efforts against the referendum were so “anti-democratic.” Now look what we have got staring at us from the South, and I don’t mean Alabama.

Center for Constitutional Rights in New York (RWC)

This week The Washington Post ran a sympathetic story about a Maryland man locked in Guantanamo after being arrested on terrorism charges in Pakistan four years ago.

I say “sympathetic” because the focus was on loving letters the man wrote his Pakistani wife and his family in the US.

The family said it’s motive in supplying the letters to the newspaper was to call attention to the case of 26 year old Majid Khan, who grew up in Owings Mills Maryland, a suburb of Baltimore.

To me the most interesting information in the story had nothing to do with sympathy for the man or his love letters in Urdu to his wife  -- or the misspelled and pathetically moronic letters written to his parents in English. (The man is a 1999 graduate of Owings Mills High School and his lack of erudition says something about him and about Maryland public education.) The most compelling part of the story to me had to do with the charges against him. He is a “high value” detainee and may go to trial this summer.

Majid Khan was captured in Karachi, Pakistan in 2004 by Pakistani intelligence agents. He was transferred from a secret CIA site four months ago to Guantanamo Bay.

Turns out that the government says Khan allegedly took orders from Khalid Shaikh Mohammed –“KSM”, who masterminded the 9/11 attacks with Osama bin Laden.  Khan allegedly agreed to research poisoning US water supplies so as to kill many Americans as possible; to blow up gas stations and to work on an assassination plot against President Musharef of Pakistan, an important US ally.

It turns out that Khan is being represented by the Center for Constitutional Rights in New York, an organization which is invariably described in the popular media as some kind of civil and human rights agency.  It can reasonably claim that but what is seldom, if ever, mentioned is that the Center is ardently leftwing.  That’s certainly their right, and I wouldn’t interfere with it if I could, but it bugs me that every organization or person in America that has the slightest conservative leaning is always labeled as such by the same popular media, in this case The Washington Post, while leftist outfits like CCR are always a benign non-political label. 

The Center was founded by William Kuntzler and Leonard Weinglass, two of the most active America-haters of the 1960’s and 1970’s-men who used the law to push their personal ideologies and to undermine the foundations of America.  I am convinced they both hated their country and that’s what principally drove them.

The Center is in the forefront of the defense of accused terrorists at Guantanamo Bay- and it is naïve, or disingenuous, or both, to believe they are motivated solely by human rights and civil liberty concerns, which is what the media always suggests.  At heart, left-wing politics and “blame America first” plays a large and unacknowledged role.

"KSM" (RWC)

The US Government has set-up a secret “war-room” in Northern Virginia to prepare for the prosecution of Al-Qaeda members being held in captivity by the US.

One of the prisoners is the accused mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, Kalid Shaikh Mohammed,  known as “KSM” to US intelligence officers. (They refer to Osama bin Laden in documents, and verbally, as “OBL”)

The point of the classified war-room is as a focal point for gathering and sorting through cartons and reams of secret intelligence files from various agencies -- NSA, CIA, FBI, DIA, etc. -- that may be useful in prosecutions that have been loosely planned for some years.

Interrogation reports being looked at are about KSM’s admitted role in the Sept. 11 attacks, as well as other horrific crimes like the beheading of reporter Danny Pearl of the Wall St Journal and the interdicted plan to blow up a bridge, gas stations and a commuter railroad line in New York City four years ago.

According to The New York Times, this is one of the first concrete steps taken by the government to press ahead with war crimes trials for the high-ranking terror suspects.

This past summer President Bush said that KSM --and 13 other high-level terrorists --had been flown from secret CIA prisons around the world to Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, where they would be held until trial.

The preparation of cases against the high-value operatives gives the raspberry to critics who had been claiming that al-Qaeda suspects like KSM would never be brought to trial.

Liberal critics have said repeatedly that prosecutions would not be feasible because they would expose to the public supposedly harsh interrogation techniques used by the Central Intelligence Agency.

The federal prosecution team will contain both military and civilian prosecutors, says The New York Times. Apparently no decision has yet been made as to who will lead each prosecution.

The trial of KSM, by far the biggest fish to be yet dropped in a steel bowl, will likely be led by Justice Department lawyers, who would also probably run the trial in a military courtroom in Guantánamo.

KSM’s role in the 9/11 attacks -- he is responsible for the deaths of more than 3,000 people, makes him the centerpiece so far of the government’s effort to bring terrorists to justice.

KSM admitted under interrogation that he was a primary planner of the 9/11 attacks. He told investigators that he was the first to propose that hijacked airliners be used to attack the trade-towers, the Pentagon and the Capitol.  He said he supervised the group of men responsible for the hijackings.

The New York Times said the prosecution of high-value detainees is separate from the long planned trials of lower-level Qaeda figures, which will be held earlier, probably as early as this summer, with the bigger fish to hit the frying pan in 2008.

The early trials of the lesser lights, will not carry the possibility of execution. But the death penalty will surely be sought for senior al-Qaeda terrorists like KSM.

Two prisoners at Guantanamo Bay are believed to have planned the murderous bomb attack on the USS Cole in 2000, which killed 17 US sailors: Abd al-Rahim al Nashiri, the accused mastermind, and Walid bin Attash who worked with him on the attack.

In preparation for the trials, The New York Times said that the US government has been quietly recruiting lawyers from the ranks of experienced terrorism prosecutors, mainly in New York and Virginia. The Times said that the trials will operate by rules modeled after the military justice system.

These were approved in legislation called the Military Commission Act, which was signed into law last year.

The act has been criticized by some Democrats who say it is flawed because it tilts in the “government’s favor.”

Or you could say, if you were someone like me, it tilts in the “American public’s favor” –the People’s Favor, which, in my view of the Global war on Terror, is a pretty good thing.

Kicking Off the Spring 07' Season of U.S. Diplomacy Theater (ML)

The Korea Herald reports that North Korea and the U.S. reached a "certain agreement" (otherwise unspecified) after three days of bilateral talks in Berlin this week.  Not surprisingly, the U.S. denied that any agreement had been reached, but, surprisingly, affirmed that the discussions had been "very useful."  After this brief ouverture, what next? 

Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill, now starting a tour through east Asia, said he expected the next round of Six-Party Talks to start before mid-February. No word on how they had resolved the issue that caused the last round to end abruptly soon after starting -- namely, the U.S. refusal to give in to North Korea's demand (by way of blackmail) that the U.S. lift a freeze of North Korean bank accounts linked to a vast counterfeiting and money-laundering operation. 

Also the U.S. refusal to engage in one-on-one negotiations with North Korea outside the framework of the Six-Party Talks was reaffirmed by Secretary Rice, who assures us that the one-on-one negotiations in Berlin where within the framework of the Six-Party Talks.  What a talent for clarification...

Short story short, the latest drama in U.S. diplomacy theater will combine elements of mystery and slapstick in addition to the usual tragic farce. 

"Future Jihad"

FDD Senior Fellow Walid Phares released the paperback edition of his widely acclaimed book, Future Jihad: Terrorist Strategies Against the West, in November 2006. Today on World Defense Review, you can read key excerpts from the book:

During the year Future Jihad was published in America, significant developments further proved true the conclusions of the initial book. In one single year, before and after its publication a series of declarations by the Jihadists, by international leaders and by intellectuals on all sides of the conflict, signaled that the "War on Terrorism" was after all an all-out confrontation between a worldwide Web of Islamist movements and regimes on the one hand and a dispersed international community, some of which was engaged, while parts of it weren't in this world war, on the other hand.

"Windsurfing to Guantanamo"

In his column this week, FDD President Clifford May discusses Amnesty International and Guantanamo Bay.

The Man Behind U.N. Oil-for Food

Benon Sevan, the mastermind behind the U.N. Oil-for-Food scandal, was recently indicted by federal prosecutors in New York. Charged with conspiring to commit fraud and taking close to $160,000 in bribes, he could face a prison sentence of up to 50 years.

FDD Journalist-in-Residence Claudia Rosett discusses Sevan's indictment -- which she describes as "the single-most-promising United Nations reform effort to date" -- in a fascinating article in today's NRO.

Notes & Comments

You can read the latest Notes & Comments here. Here are a few excerpts:

Iranian agents are aiding and abetting Iraqi terrorists and insurgents: Shia and Sunni alike. The goal: to establish a situation of "managed chaos" in Iraq. The US appears to be, at long last, responding with more then diplomatic entreaties.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Saturday: "I don't think there is a government in the world that would sit by and let the Iranians, in particular, run networks inside Iraq that are building explosive devices of a very high quality, that are being used to kill their soldiers."

D'Souza's "The Enemy at Home" (ML)

In his new book The Enemy at Home, Dinesh D’Souza argues that “the cultural left and its allies in Congress, the media, Hollywood, the nonprofit sector, and the universities are the primary cause of the volcano of anger America that is erupting from the Islamic world." As he was about to launch his book tour, D’Souza took some questions from National Review Online editor Kathryn Lopez.

The interview merits a great deal of debate. D'Souza discounts the fact that "The radical Muslims are against modernity and science and democracy" and goes on to say:

The traditional Muslims are our best bet. Besides, they're not asking us to live like them. They're asking us not to attack their religion, which conservatives do with depressing regularity. They're asking us not to force secularism and separation of church and state on their society, another foolish cause to which some conservatives subscribe.

Here D'Souza misses an absolutely crucial point. 

The "War on Terror" is in a sense the struggle of a post-Enlightenment West against a medievalist Islam.  But in the Islamic world, the "traditionalists" and even "moderates" are just as medievalist as the extremists in some ways.  Pushing for the victory of secularism and separation of church and state in Islamic society, which D'Souza waves away as a foolish habit of ours, is indeed one of the keys to the entire struggle.

The idea that "justice" should have nothing to do with religion, but must come instead from REASON, is a cardinal principle of the Enlightenment, and part of the necessary bedrock upon which the democratic state is founded.  And the idea that "justice" should be enshrined in a secular text of law and a constitution which together trump all other texts (including the Bible and Koran) and all other theories of justice, is equally a cardinal principle of the Enlightenment and of post-Enlightenment societies.  It is a principle which the most conservative and religious Americans share.  And yet in these beliefs we are almost as far apart from many traditional and even moderate strains of Islamic society as we are from the most radical.  Finding self-styled moderate Muslims in Lebanon is easy.  Finding moderate Muslims who proclaim that the Constitution of Lebanon trumps the Koran in cases of conflict is quite a different matter. 

Worse, even though it is true as D'Souza says that radical Islamic scholars are not terribly concerned with "modernity and science" the trouble is that traditionalist Islamic society isn't terribly concerned with those things either.  Thus, Islamic civilization is not merely pre-Enlightenment but even in many ways pre-Renaissance.

Because so few radicals, traditionalists, or moderates in the Islamic world share Renaissance values -- humanism, naturalism, and moral skepticism -- we do not in fact have many real allies among them.  And people who do not embrace Enlightenment values -- secularism, separation of church and state, rule of law, minority rights, and deism instead of theism --  cannot be real democrats.  Friends we may find among them, but not allies--not really.   

Applauding the State Department (AM)

State has permitted its very able counsel, John Bellinger, to blog this week on the invaluable international law site, Opinio Juris.  The arrangement is described here,  and Mr. Bellinger has already provided a very comprehensive and substantive explanation of, for example, why the use of force (indeed, the prosecution of war) is appropriate against al Qaeda under international law, and how the administration views the obligations of the United States under Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions (which got so much attention as a result of last year's Hamdan decision and the subsequent passage of the Military Commissions Act).

Readers may be alarmed — as they should be — by the degree to which modern international law strait-jackets the use of force in self-defense, such that actions that should be commonsense (e.g., making war against an international belligerent capable of projecting power on the scale al Qaeda has) seem to require extensive, factitious justification capable of jumping through numerous legal hoops.  Such are our times, when issues that are not essentially "legal" are nevertheless looked at as if they were legal problems. 

But given that this is the lay of the land, the Opinio Juris posts amply demonstrate that President Bush is not presiding over the cowboy administration of the international media's imagination.  The administration has thoughtful positions — particularly well articulated by Mr. Bellinger — and it would be nice if its officials got out and engaged with critics more often.

Kagan, Troop Numbers, and Generals (ML)

A lot of people get confused about troop numbers because there are always two completely different sets of figures.  When you're talking about the effectiveness of a tactical plan, you need to know how many "combat troops" you will have.  When you are asking whether you have the forces and resources available, you need to know the number of troops & units total — a number that is usually at least twice the number of "combat troops."  So for example if  Kagan's plan calls for sending 30,000 extra "combat troops" to Iraq, the American people would have to know that 60,000 to 80,000 more troops need to go to Iraq, and they need to understand where the forces are coming from.  However, the army's own counter-insurgency manual calls for about 140,000 "combat troops" to quell a city the size of Baghdad. 

This is one aspect of the president's plan that I still don't quite understand. 

Also the chain-of-command issue you worry about worries me as well.  Napoleon used to say, "one bad general is better than two good ones" — his main catchphrase for the vital importance of maintaining unity of command.  I fear that the very concept of a political strategy of "transition" to Iraqi control — as it must be incremental and overlapping — runs counter to the necessity for unity of command.  If so, our troops will continue to feel like ping-pong balls (as many complain now) fighting understrength and with one hand tied behind their back, surge or no surge.

A Much Needed Lesson in Constitutional Law (AM)

Let us give thanks, as usual, to the nonpareil team of David Rivkin & Lee Casey.  Here's an excerpt from their terrific op-ed in The Washington Post this morning that Kathryn already flagged in NRO Hot Links.  It should be required reading for the Democrat majority (in addition to the several Republicans who don't seem to know better) in the new wartime Congress:

To maintain the integrity of this original design, the Supreme Court has long ruled, in such cases as United States v. Klein (1872) and United States v. Lovett (1946), that Congress cannot attach unconstitutional conditions to otherwise proper legislation, including spending bills. As explained by Professor Walter Dellinger — President Bill Clinton's chief constitutional lawyer at the Justice Department — "[b]road as Congress' spending power undoubtedly is, it is clear that Congress may not deploy it to accomplish unconstitutional ends." This includes restricting the president's authority as commander in chief to direct the movement of U.S. armed forces. In that regard, Dellinger quoted Justice Robert Jackson — who said while serving as President Franklin Roosevelt's attorney general: "The President's responsibility as Commander-in-Chief embraces the authority to command and direct the armed forces in their immediate movements and operations, designed to protect the security and effectuate the defense of the United States."

You oppose the war?  Fine.  Then have the courage of your convictions:  Cut off funding and be politically accountable — and live with responsibility for the ensuing disaster that withdrawing while al Qaeda is still on the battlefield would be. 

But if you're not willing to end the fighting — which it is within your power to do — you don't get to micromanage the fighting.  And you should be ashamed of yourselves for passing anti-war, defeatist resolutions that have no effect on the power to prosecute the war and serve only to embolden the enemy while betraying our forces in harm's way.  That, as Bill Kristol has aptly put it, is "a demoralizing and revolting spectacle."

“You have to live as a state within a state ….until you take over.” (CM)

Secret video footage reveals Muslim preachers exhorting followers to prepare for jihad, to hit girls for not wearing the hijab, and to create a 'state within a state'. Many of the preachers are linked to the Wahhabi strain of Islam practised in Saudi Arabia, which funds a number of Britain's leading Islamic institutions.”

Read and watch this.

The Congressional Majority cannot be with Iran and Syria's regimes against Democracy," W Phares to al Hurra and BBC

Senior Fellow and Director of Future Terrorism Project at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies (FDD) Dr Walid Phares, told al Hurra TV that "the US President and his Secretary of State have warned both Iran and Syria not to continue their Terror war against Iraq and Lebanon." He said in an interview Saturday that "Dr Rice's tour in the region, visiting moderate Governments, and the deployment of a strike force in the Gulf area are important indicators." Phares said "the President's speech is clear: The US will not allow the flow of arms and terror to cross borders from Iran and Syria into Iraq, and destroy its young and precarious democracy." In an other interview Sunday to BBC arabic, Phares said, "a core from the current Democrats' majority in Congress has been behind the launching and the voting for the Syria Accountability Act of 2003. This core has endorsed UNSCR 1559 and is very concerned over Iran's nuclear program as well as HizbAllah's Terror network. Hence it would be difficult to imagine that a bipartisan majority in this new Congress is going to endorse the Iranian and Syrian regimes against their peoples and against Iraq and Lebanon's peoples."

La Razon: "Yihadismo online: la nueva amenaza" (WP)

La Razon: "Yihadismo online: la nueva amenaza." The daily Spanish La Razon has published an article by Walid Phares titled "Jihadism online, the new threat." The article summarizes the findings of the US Homeland Security Task Force on Future Terrorism, released last week. Among the findings were the recognition by the Task Force that the greatest threat to the US was Salafi Jihadism, that more attacks can be expected and that online resources serves as a conduit for Terror activities. La Razon is the second largest daily in Spain. Download jan_12.pdf

Don't Accept Defeat

FDD's Clifford May and Andrew McCarthy urge critics to support the president's new strategy or offer a plausible alternative:

Skepticism about the new approach is widespread — and not just among Democrats. There are those who fear Bush is not committing enough troops to get the job done. Others worry that the administration's actions won't match Bush's rhetoric. Some say the plan relies too much on Iraqi officials and forces that have proven unreliable.

There are two logical responses: Propose a better way forward, or candidly call for the United States to accept defeat — without trying to spin that as "redeployment" or some other transparent euphemism....

So scrutinize and criticize, if you must. But then give us a plan to win. Our nation can accept nothing less.

FDD's Newt Gingrich on Iraq

In today's Wall Street Journal, FDD Distinguished Advisor Newt Gingrich weighs in on the situation in Iraq.

The President's New Plan (ML)

What was most encouraging to me in the President's new plan for Iraq was his recognition of the second of these two critical mistakes:

Our past efforts to secure Baghdad failed for two principal reasons: There were not enough Iraqi and American troops to secure neighborhoods that had been cleared of terrorists and insurgents. And there were too many restrictions on the troops we did have.

Those restrictions are the result of our commanders' attempt to find a middle way between two facts that are in conflict: (1) the Iraqi government must establish central authority in Iraq, and (2) the only one capable of establishing central authority in Iraq now is the United States—if anyone is.  The president went on to explain:

In earlier operations, political and sectarian interference prevented Iraqi and American forces from going into neighborhoods that are home to those fueling the sectarian violence. This time, Iraqi and American forces will have a green light to enter those neighborhoods — and Prime Minister Maliki has pledged that political or sectarian interference will not be tolerated.

What this really means is that the president got Maliki to agree that the internal sectarian political dynamics of his own cabinet will not be allowed to constrain security operations.  This seems to me the only way to thread the needle of transition to an Iraqi government that can govern itself, sustain itself, and defend itself.  It will require Maliki to impose political (indeed, constitutional) discipline on his own government — in the sense of forcing his ministers (and their ministries) to be loyal first and foremost to the central government rather than their own communities.  If Maliki can accomplish this, he will go down as a seminal leader in Iraq's history — and our prospects for ultimate success will start to look a whole lot better. 

A Time for Middle East Peace

FDD President Clifford May argues in his latest column:

Resolving the Arab-Israeli conflict would be a wonderful thing. But it’s not happening anytime soon. And it cannot be a predicate for salvaging the vexing situation in Iraq.

Iran and Syria

In his speech to the nation last night, President George W. Bush described the threat posed by Iran and Syria:

Succeeding in Iraq also requires defending its territorial integrity and stabilizing the region in the face of extremist challenges. This begins with addressing Iran and Syria. These two regimes are allowing terrorists and insurgents to use their territory to move in and out of Iraq. Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops. We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We’ll interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria. And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq.

FDD's Andrew McCarthy reacts in today's National Review Online.

NRO Symposium: "Surge Scoring"

On Wednesday night, President George W. Bush addressed the nation about a new Iraq strategy. Did the president say what needed to be said? Will it help? National Review Online asked FDD President Clifford May. Read his reaction and analysis.

Strikes in Somalia

On Sunday, a United States Air Force AC-130 gunship launched a strike against what Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman on Tuesday called “principal al-Qaeda leadership” operating in southern Somalia. The attack marked the first military action in Somalia since 1993, when 18 Americans were killed.

FDD’s Peter Pham discusses what this means for security in the Horn of Africa and for America’s global war on terrorism in today’s National Review Online.

Hamas' Terrorist Media Empire

In a backgrounder released today, FDD's Jonathan Snow analyzes Hamas' global media empire. Here are a few key excerpts:

Since its early days, Hamas has recognized the importance of the media to achieving its goals. It has built up a network of media properties -- including magazines, newspapers, websites, and television and radio stations -- that allows it to spread its hateful propaganda, recruit suicide bombers, incite hatred and violence, raise money, and support terrorist operations.

Hamas is exporting its terrorist media internationally, most recently by signing contracts to broadcast its al-Aqsa television throughout the Middle East, Europe, and North Africa via satellite providers.

Lebanon on the Brink (ML)

Lebanon's Daily Star today reports bad news:

The Hizbullah-led opposition in Lebanon announced the details of "Phase two" of its anti-government campaign on Monday, promising a "progressive escalation" of protests at ministries and public institutions until its demands are met. During a news conference held at the residence of MP Michel Aoun in Rabieh, north of Beirut, ex-Minister Talal Arslan read the statement agreed upon by leading representatives of the opposition.

"The opposition will launch daily protests that will begin on Tuesday and in a progressive manner will extend to all the ministries and public institutions until all our demands are met," the statement said. [...] The opposition had been demanding a national unity government, but on Monday, its leaders called for early parliamentary elections monitored by a "trustworthy national unity government."

"The government has lost its legitimacy," said Arslan. "Just refer back to Article 95 of the Constitution," he said, adding that "toppling the government has become a legitimate [goal]."

Article 95 states that "confessional groups are to be represented in a just and equitable fashion in the formation of the Cabinet." All Shiite ministers have resigned from the Cabinet.

ME: The basic argument of the Hezbollah opposition is that without its participation, the government must fall due to the requirement of Article 95.  But Hezbollah has no constitutional or political monopoly in the representation of Shiites, and in any case they were duly represented "in the formation of the Cabinet."  The critical issue here is that the Hezbollah opposition is pursuing an unconstitutional--indeed anti-constitutional--course on the basis of a dubious interpretation of a constitutional provision that for some reason has not been passed upon by any supreme tribunal in Lebanon. The Siniora government has rejected the opposition's Article 95 theory out of hand. 

Ironically, the opposition conference took place at the house of Michel Aoun, who not twenty years ago fought ferociously (with the support of France) against the Syrians and their Lebanese clients in the last phase of Lebanon's civil war.  The defection of Aoun from the Ceder Revolution forces to the side of Hezbollah is particularly disheartening, for two reasons: First, it is an example of how little stock many moderates and even Christians in that part of the world put in the the rule of law and peaceful democratic process.  Second, his base is small but could put Hezbollah over the top in terms of critical mass.  It certainly makes the embattled government of Prime Minister Siniora seem increasingly isolated and doomed. 

The only thing that is certain in Lebanon now is that things stand to go from bad to a great deal worse. 

Notes & Comments

A United States Air Force gunship carried out a strike Sunday night against several leading Al Qaeda figures in southern Somalia. The Special Forces attack is the first military action in Somalia since 1993, when 18 American soldiers were killed in street fighting in Mogadishu.

FDD's Clifford May discusses Al Qaeda's intentions in Somalia in this week's issue of Notes & Comments.

Gingrich on Biden (CM)

As the new chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Sen. Biden has the power to set the tone for the next two years. He must decide: He can follow the path of Sen. William Fulbright (D-Ark.) who, as chairman of Foreign Relations in the 1960s, focused on the past, opposed the Vietnam War and helped set the stage for an American defeat.

Or he can look to the future and develop a bipartisan consensus about what threatens America and what needs to be done about it.

Sen. Biden can be a very partisan chairman leading a very partisan series of hearings narrowly focused on Iraq and trying to blame President Bush for the world's problems.

Or he can be a leader who focuses on what threatens America and what we need to do to secure safety in an increasingly dangerous world.

More here.

Eliot Cohen and Bing West on the “Surge” (CM)

On the “surge”:

The much-debated "surge" would only modify our current strategy, if Americans continue to focus chiefly on destroying the insurgents in Sunni neighborhoods. Fewer Sunni car bombs will supposedly result in less retaliation by death squads and end the ethnic cleansing. The Shiite population would turn away from militias because they wouldn't need them, given more security by more Americans. Because Mr. Maliki values Mr. Sadr's political support, Sadr City will remain what it is today: a sanctuary for the Mahdi Army militia.

This is a problematic approach. The Sunnis initiated the violence, no doubt about it. But now the Shiite militias are doing the majority of the killing in Baghdad--yet less than 10% of those in prison are Shiites. There are 75 murders a day in Baghdad, and most killers walk free. The militias are gradually succeeding in the ethnic cleansing of much of Baghdad. To persist in this strategy is equivalent to a mayor telling his police chief that the mafia who live on the east side of town cannot be touched. It dooms the chance, however frail, of creating a nonsectarian Iraqi government...

Providing our advisers and battalion commanders with discretionary funds is a sound investment, but is ancillary to establishing security. It's unproven how many 16-year-old foot soldiers will be diverted by low-paying jobs. If you went to a member of the mafia and offered a low-paying job in return for renouncing crime, he would laugh at you. Most of the thugs won't be bought off; extortion and robbery are more lucrative and enjoyable.

President Bush recently agreed with the assessment of the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Peter Pace, that "we're not winning in Iraq . . . but we're not losing." But in counterinsurgency, if you do not win, you lose. What, then, is another option the president can choose?

Instead of a defensive surge strategy satisfying to Mr. Maliki, the president can opt for an offensive, nonsectarian strategy. Its core operational concepts must be neutralizing criminals -- which include the Sunni insurgents, the Shiite death squads and the criminal gangs -- by imprisonment, deterrence, or death; and constructing Iraqi security institutions as free as possible of sectarian taint.

Iraq is now a police war and we need to treat it as such. Former Secretary of State Colin Powell a few weeks ago said, "We should not use our troops as policemen." But that's exactly how they are being used today in Baghdad and are, in fact, used in most counterinsurgencies. Our weakest links are leaving the Mahdi Army off-limits, not selecting Iraqi security leaders and refusing to arrest and incarcerate the criminals (insurgents, death squads and thugs). If the president's new strategy does not aggressively rectify these three defects, then surging more American troops will buy time but not alter a war we are losing because we are not winning...

This is an Iraqi war, and success depends on the creation of a larger Iraqi Army (perhaps twice its current size of under 140,000) and a neutral police force. So we must increase our advisers from 3,500 to 15,000 or more. This is a small-unit police war, with the insurgents hiding and dodging. We do not need 40 or 50 conventional American battalions trained and equipped for full-scale conventional war, if the Iraqi security forces are strengthened by bulked-up American advisory teams. …

We prefer an offensive strategy based on three ironclad principles: take the offense immediately against the death squads in Sadr City, who are now unsettled; arrest and imprison on a scale equal to the horrific situation (or at least equal to New York City!); and insist on a joint say in the appointment of army and police leaders. If the Iraqi government refuses, we should be willing to disengage completely, and soon.

The paradox of American strategy in Iraq is this: President Bush can achieve success only by threatening to do something he is morally opposed to doing--leaving swiftly and risking chaotic civil strife. If the president showed the same iron will toward Mr. Maliki that he does toward Congress and public opinion, Mr. Maliki would blink first.

The only course that will work entails not only the risks of greater casualties, but the risks of walking away from promises unmet and hopes unfulfilled. More money and troops are inputs, not outputs. A new strategy needs benchmarks for success--arrests, imprisonment and the adviser ratings of leaders. Our only hope lies not in American troops but in the development of an Iraqi security force free of militia influence, working for a government that understands the penalty for failure.

The Wall Street Journal editorial page has a different view.

Admiral Fallon at CENTCOM (ML)

In today's New York Post, Ralph Peters writes that the appointment of Fallon to succeed John Abizaid as head of Central Command "baffled many in the media."  It has also baffled many in the Pentagon.  During his stint at Pacific Command, Fallon quickly became known for a soft and accommodating approach to China often at odds with the tougher approach advocated by many in the administration.

Peters thinks that moving an Admiral over to Central Command suggests a shift of focus to Iran, where naval assets will be more strategically critical than they have been in Iraq and Afghanistan.  That would be good news.  But the move could also signal a more conciliatory strategy towards Iran, which would be the opposite of good news. 

Fallon doesn't strike me as a particularly strong or deft "balance of power" strategic thinker.  But the powers that decide these things clearly see him as somebody who will do things Robert Gates's way.  What that way is, exactly, is the thing we are all holding our breath to see. 

The Troop Surge (ML)

Two important pieces out today highlight a concern I've had for some time about the troop surge move, which is that it is more a lowest common denominator of broad consensus than the result of a strategy.  Several folks recently back from Iraq have told me that even the rather small number of troops we have in the country aren't allowed to do half the things they know they should be doing, out of deference to the Iraqi government.  I can understand that this makes people mad but think about it for a second.  It is logically inescapable in the overall strategy of transition to an Iraq that governs itself, that we should now be fighting with one hand tied behind our back, and that -- in the best case scenario -- we shall soon be fighting with two hands tied behind our back.  The reason is that the Iraqi government must succeed in establishing security with its own forces, and this means that it must establish central authority, even if this means subordinating the authority of coalition forces and constraining their freedom of action.  The success of the Iraqi government in this respect is the only real prospect of victory -- I think we all agree on that.  Changing horses in mid-stream is hard enough -- doing it under fire may be virtually impossible here. 

"Clear, hold, and build" may work as counter-insurgency strategy, but I can't imagine that it can be as effective in a counter-terror or counter-death-squad mode.  Terrorists and death squads have a much easier time hiding among the urban population than a guerrilla force, which sooner or later cannot escape the necessity of controlling territory -- or at least be able to openly challenge the territorial control of coalition forces.  It is one of the tragedies of the Iraq conflict that in the counter-insurgency dimension of the war, coalition forces were actually largely  victorious in 2004 and 2005.  But then Al Qaeda came up with its "civil war" strategy, and an effective counter-strategy has thus far eluded us.

In this Wall Street Journal op-ed (req. subs.) Johns Hopkins's Eliot Cohen and former assistant secretary of defense Bing West write:

We prefer an offensive strategy based on three ironclad principles: take the offense immediately against the death squads in Sadr City, who are now unsettled; arrest and imprison on a scale equal to the horrific situation (or at least equal to New York City!); and insist on a joint say in the appointment of army and police leaders. If the Iraqi government refuses, we should be willing to disengage completely, and soon.

It seems to me that this suggestion is a step in the right direction in terms of shifting from counter-insurgency to a more police & intelligence-based concept, and also more properly focuses on the key political dimension.

In the Independent, from the other side of the political spectrum, General Wesley Clark likewise argues that under the current strategic concept, a troop surge is likely to backfire. 

Newt Gingrich Speech - Part Three (RWC)

And, my prediction to you is that either before we lose a city, or if we  are truly stupid, after we lose a city, we will adopt rules of engagement that use every technology we can find to break-up their capacity to use the internet, to break up their capacity to use free speech...to go after people who want to kill us to stop them from recruiting people before they get to reach out and convince young people to destroy their lives while destroying us.

This is a serious problem that will lead to a serious debate about the first amendment, but I think that the national security threat of losing an American city to a nuclear  weapon, or losing several million Americans to a biological attack  is so real that we need to proactively, now, develop the appropriate rules of engagement.

I further think that we should propose a Geneva convention for  fighting terrorism which makes very clear that those who would fight outside the rules of law, those who would use weapons of mass destruction, and those who would target civilians are in fact subject to a totally different set of rules that allow us to protect civilization by defeating barbarism before it gains so much strength that it is truly horrendous.

This is a sober topic, but I think it is a topic we need a national dialogue about, and we need to get ahead of the curve rather than wait until actually we literary lose a city which could literally happen within the next decade if we are unfortunate.

ME: This was met with considerable applause, and it should have been.

Newt Gingrich Speech - Part Two (RWC)

If I come to you tonight and say that there are people on the planet who hate you, and they are 15-25 year old males who are willing to die as long as they get to kill you, I've simply described the warrior culture which has been  true historically for 6 or 7 thousand years.

But, if I come to you and say that there is a (married) couple that hates you so much that they will kill their six month old baby in order to kill you, I am describing a level of ferocity, and a level of savagery beyond anything we have tried to deal with.

What is truly frightening about the British experience is they are arresting British citizens, born in Britain, speaking English, who went to British schools, live in British housing, and have good jobs.

ME: This was culled from a recent speech by Newt Gingrich, and here is where he makes a very important point:

This is a serious long term war, and it will inevitably lead us to want to know what is said in every suspect place in the country, that will lead us to learn how to close down every website that is dangerous, and it will lead us to a very severe approach to people who advocate the killing of Americans and (people who) advocate the use of nuclear or biological weapons.

Searching the Mail (AM)

The latest "imperial presidency" controversy in Washington involves President Bush's statement, in conjunction with signing a postal reform bill, claiming what the New York Daily News breathlessly calls "sweeping new powers to open Americans' mail without a judge's warrant." 

As usual, this turns out to be a tempest in a teapot — notwithstanding the tut-tutting from Senators Susan Collins, Chuck Schumer and Hillary Clinton, as well as NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

To reiterate, the Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches, not warrantless searches.  Consequently, the courts have recognized for years that exigent circumstances justify agents in conducting a search without a judicial warrant. 

Furthermore, the president has inherent authority under Article II of the constitution to conduct warrantless searches for national security purposes — at least when the nation is threatened by a foreign power.  Thus, for example, did Clinton administration Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick quite correctly insist, in 1994 testimony before Congress, that the president maintained the power to conduct warrantless national security searches even though Congress was then expanding FISA (the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act which governs national security wiretaps) to cover physical searches.

There is, as White House spokesman Tony Snow explained, absolutely nothing new about this. 

From a political standpoint, it's certainly worth asking why the White House thought it would be a good idea for the president to issue a signing statement claiming the power to open mail without a warrant in exigent circumstances.  After all, if he has the power he has it, whether he talks about it in a signing statement or not — so all the signing statement has accomplished is a few days of media attacks and maybe some subpoenas from and indignant hearings by the Democratic congress in the coming weeks.  But this is, or at least it should be, much ado about nothing.

Interview with al Muharer: HizbAllah is under direct control fom Iran (WP)

Find an interview with Dr Walid Phares by Pan Arab al Muharer weekly on HizbAllah's current strategies. "This organization, founded, funded and trained by the Pasdarans (Islamic Revolutionary Guards) is controlled directly from Iran. HizbAllah wages wars at the orders of the Mullahs regime. Unlike any other group in Lebanon it claims openely that it is an extension of the Iranian Khomeinist regime." Interview in Arabic here: Download p18-19-11-01-07.pdf

Newt Gingrich Speech - Part One (RWC)

A retired judge sent me a copy of a speech Newt Gingrich gave recently.  It was to a group in New Hampshire. 

The part about terrorism was so compelling and probably so prescient, I thought, I’d like to offer you an excerpt or two:

I want to talk about very briefly about the genuine danger of terrorism, in particular terrorists using weapons of mass destruction and weapons of mass murder, nuclear and biological weapons.

I want to suggest to you that right now we should be impaneling people to look seriously at a level of supervision that we would never dream of if it weren't for the scale of  threat.

Let me give you two examples. When the British this summer arrested people who were planning to blow  up ten airliners in one day, they arrested a couple who were going to use their six month old baby in order to hide the bomb as baby  milk.

Somali Warlords (RWC)

Mogadishu is quickly heading back to the clan-based anarchy that consumed it for the past 15 years – before the radical Islamists seized power.

Last week, The New York Times said bands of armed thugs were running through the market places, shooting at people, smashing things and stealing at will.

Mogadishu has one of the most heavily armed civilian populations in the world and the government is trying to find ways to disarm them. The prime minister has demanded that Somali warlords and their soldiers turn in military-style weapons and has threatened to search homes. 

One of the clans surrendered a pickup truck with an anti-aircraft gun and two dozen of the clan’s young fighters turned over their rifles and small arms.

The Islamists and clan elders had banded together to get rid of the war lords – and then lost public support when they went to war against the transitional government and the Ethiopian soldiers protecting it.

The US Central Command has responsibility for our military interests in Africa and I have tried to stay on top of events in Somalia, the Horn of Africa, and the Sudan for the last couple of years because the continent is so important to the Global War on Terror.

U.N. Pressuring Kenya to Release Terrorists (RWC)

The United Nations said that Kenya had given the boot to at least 600 refugees who had gotten into the country, were caught, and then asked for asylum.

The U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees Antonio Guterres told Agence France Presse that Kenya “has a humanitarian obligation” to let people whose lives are at risk to seek asylum in their country.

The Kenyans say they caught ten Islamic terrorists hiding in a crowd of refugees as they poured across the northern border from Somalia. 

The men were carrying suitcases packed with U.S. dollars, money to be used to finance Somalia’s Islamic movement, now crushed by troops supporting the transitional government.

The Somali Islamists have been harboring Al-Qaeda terrorists, according to U.S. Intelligence and they had put out a general call to the Islamic world for terrorist and warrior recruits. Hundreds had responded but they are now dead, hurt or dispersed.

Islamists on the Run (RWC)

The Islamists who control Somalia are on the run, having retreated in the face of war with primarily Christian Ethiopia.

Somalia’s prime minister in Mogadishu says it appears that the major fighting has ended. Two weeks ago the radical Isl