FDD

Bin Laden and Future Jihad in Europe (WP)

From the World Defense Review:

What is interesting about the latest audio message of Usama Bin Laden, carried by al Jazeera, is its delayed argumentation. Strangely he is trying to convince the Europeans – seven years later – that they are wrong to follow the United States into Afghanistan.

In his speech – regardless of the ritual investigative questions regarding the location, technology and other details – the central issue appears to be his growing concern with the European role in Afghanistan, and, perhaps through it, the potential growth of that role in the fight against the forces of Jihadism worldwide. Indeed as a reader of the Jihadi strategic mind, I feel that the speech writers (Bin Laden himself or his "advisors") are looking ahead in their perception of future European involvement in the so-called War on Terror. And as al Qaeda's war room has showed in the past, they are skilled at anticipating trends.

Don't we remember how in February 2003, a Bin Laden audio called on the Jihad fighters to begin heading to Iraq, "for Baghdad, the second capital of the Caliphate would be falling into the hands of the Kuffar (infidels)," way before the US Marines brought down the Saddam statue in April.

In a sense, this is how I read this new Bin Laden tape: He is asking the Europeans to leave the battlefield of Afghanistan now, because he is projecting that events may push the nations of Europe to expand further their involvement overseas. The hidden message in his speech is by far greater than the words aired on al Jazeera, or even the entire text his followers are claiming the Qatari-funded channel "didn't air." We'll come back later on the al Qaeda/al Jazeera labyrinth. The question now is about the essence of the message.

Al-Qaeda Worldwide (CM)

Sen. Joe Lieberman writes:

[D]efeating al Qaeda in Iraq requires not only that we continue pressing the offensive against its leadership and infrastructure inside the country. We must also aggressively target its links to "global" al Qaeda and close off the routes its foreign fighters are using to get into Iraq.

Recently declassified American intelligence reveals just how much al Qaeda in Iraq is dependent for its survival on the support it receives from the broader, global al Qaeda network, and how most of that support flows into Iraq through one country -- Syria. Al Qaeda in Iraq is sustained by a transnational network of facilitators and human smugglers, who replenish its supply of suicide bombers -- approximately 60 to 80 Islamist extremists, recruited every month from across the Middle East, North Africa and Europe, and sent to meet their al Qaeda handlers in Syria, from where they are taken to Iraq to blow themselves up to kill countless others.

Although small in number, these foreign fighters are a vital strategic asset to al Qaeda in Iraq, providing it with the essential human ammunition it needs to conduct high-visibility, mass-casualty suicide bombings, such as we saw last week in northern Iraq. In fact, the U.S. military estimates that between 80% and 90% of suicide attacks in Iraq are perpetrated by foreign fighters, making them the deadliest weapon in al Qaeda's war arsenal. Without them, al Qaeda in Iraq would be critically, perhaps even fatally, weakened.

More here.

Al-Qaeda in Pakistan (RWC)

General Pervez Musharraf, the strongman of Pakistan, is complaining that US air strikes against al Qaeda, or more specifically publicity about those strikes, is hurting him politically in Pakistan.

He made that complaint to a visiting US senator, a generally annoying publicity hound so I’m not going to mention his name.  President Musharraf said all the talk is “unhelpful”.

A week ago Mr.  Musharraf was talking about imposing martial law, claiming comments, like those recently of Barrack Obama, were causing widespread public unrest.  But the Pakistani president's remarks about martial law upset his countrymen a whole lot more and he backed quickly away.

Staging posts for al Qaeda attacks were crushed recently by artillery fire and helicopter gun-ships.  Ten militants or more were killed.

Al-Qaeda in Pakistan (RWC)

General Pervez Musharraf, the strongman of Pakistan, is complaining that US air strikes against al Qaeda, or more specifically publicity about those strikes, is hurting him politically in Pakistan.

He made that complaint to a visiting US senator, a generally annoying publicity hound so I’m not going to mention his name.  President Musharraf said all the talk is “unhelpful”.

A week ago Mr.  Musharraf was talking about imposing martial law, claiming comments, like those recently of Barrack Obama, were causing widespread public unrest.  But the Pakistani president's remarks about martial law upset his countrymen a whole lot more and he backed quickly away.

Staging posts for al Qaeda attacks were crushed recently by artillery fire and helicopter gun-ships.  Ten militants or more were killed.

Al-Qaeda in Pakistan (CM)

What should the U.S. do about it? David Ignatius writes:

Henry Crumpton, a former CIA officer who was one of the heroes of the agency's campaign to destroy al-Qaeda's haven in Afghanistan in late 2001...served as the State Department's coordinator for counterterrorism. He...argues that the United States must take preventive action but that it should do so carefully, through proxies wherever possible. The right model for a Waziristan campaign is the CIA-led operation in Afghanistan, not the U.S. military invasion of Iraq. Teams of CIA officers and Special Forces soldiers are best suited to work with tribal leaders, providing them weapons and money to fight an al-Qaeda network that has implanted itself brutally in Waziristan through the assassination of more than 100 tribal leaders during the past six years. It would be better to conduct such operations jointly with Pakistan, but if the government of Gen. Pervez Musharraf can't or won't cooperate, the United States should be prepared to go it alone, Crumpton argues.

"The United States has an obligation to defend itself and its citizens," says Crumpton. "We either do it now, or we do it after the next attack."

More here.

Al-Qaeda in Iran (CM)

Eli Lake writes in the NY Sun:

One of two known Al Qaeda leadership councils meets regularly in eastern Iran, where the American intelligence community believes dozens of senior Al Qaeda leaders have reconstituted a good part of the terror conglomerate's senior leadership structure.

That is a consensus judgment from a final working draft of a new National Intelligence Estimate, titled "The Terrorist Threat to the U.S. Homeland," on the organization that attacked the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001. The estimate, which represents the opinion of America's intelligence agencies, is now finished, and unclassified conclusions will be shared today with the public. …

The judgment that Iran has hosted Al Qaeda's senior leadership council is likely to draw some criticism from those outside the government who doubt Iran plays a significant role in bolstering Sunni jihadist terrorism. Iran's Shiite Muslims are considered infidels by the Salafi sect of Sunnis that comprise Al Qaeda.

While there is little disagreement that a branch of Al Qaeda's leadership operates in Iran, the intelligence community diverges on the extent to which the hosting of the senior leaders represents a policy of the regime in Tehran or the rogue actions of Iran's Quds Force, the terrorist support units that report directly to Iran's supreme leader. …

An intelligence official sympathetic to the view that it is a matter of Iranian policy to cooperate with Al Qaeda disputed the CIA and State Department view that the Quds Force is operating as a rogue force. "It is just impossible to believe that what the Quds Force does with Al Qaeda does not represent a decision of the government," the official, who asked not to be identified, said. "It's a bit like saying the directorate of operations for the CIA is not really carrying out U.S. policy."

Some intelligence reporting suggests, the source said, that the current chief of the Quds Force, General Qassem Sulamani, has met with Saad bin Laden, Mr. Adel, and Mr. Abu Ghaith.

The link between Iran and Al Qaeda is not new, in some cases. The bipartisan September 11 commission report, for example, concluded: "There is strong evidence that Iran facilitated the transit of Al Qaeda members into and out of Afghanistan before 9/11, and that some of these were future 9/11 hijackers."

According to the commission, a senior Al Qaeda coordinator, Ramzi bin al-Shibh, said eight of the September 11 hijackers went through Iran on their way to and from Afghanistan.

In 2005, both Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns and the then ambassador at large for counterterrorism, Cofer Black, disclosed that America believes that senior Al Qaeda leaders reside in Iran.

More here.

Gartenstein-Ross on JFK Plot

Senior Fellow Daveed Gartenstein-Ross discusses the JFK terror plot in his most recent Weekly Standard article.

Images of Al-Qaeda Torture (CM)

BRIAN TODD, CNN:  “Wolf, they were found in an al Qaeda safe house during recent raids in and around Baghdad. U.S. Military officials say these images that they just declassified show the true nature of what the Iraqi people are facing and they reinforce in the minds of American military commanders why U.S. Forces are there.

“Torture at the hands of al Qaeda. Victims suspended upside down and whipped, drilled through the hands, suspended from a ceiling and electrocuted. U.S. military officials say these cartoons are part of an al Qaeda training manual complete with how to use a blowtorch on a victim's body.

“These drawings given to CNN by the U.S. military in Iraq were found on a computer captured during recent raids of al Qaeda safe houses.”

GEN. WILLIAM CALDWELL, MNF-I:  “They made it in a cartoon manner so that no matter what your literacy rate or what nationality you are, all you've got to do is look at this picture to understand how to conduct tortures of innocent people.”

TODD:  “Methods like taking a hot iron to the skin, and others too grotesque to show.”

CALDWELL:  “This is the nature of the enemy that the Iraqi people are facing in Iraq.”

Download al_qaeda_torture_2007_05_23.pdf

Al-Qaeda Regrouping (RWC)

An article by Kevin Whitelaw in US News & World report says that al Qaeda’s top leaders, once on the run, have regrouped

U.S. intelligence agencies have completely revised their assessment of al Qaeda the article says.

And they have reached an alarming conclusion: Bin Laden has a safe-haven in Pakistan and he may be stronger than ever.

The shift is dramatic. Two years ago, the head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, described al Qaeda leaders to Congress as battered and isolated.

Now, the DIA says, "Al Qaeda retains the ability to organize complex, mass-casualty attacks and inspire others,"

“Al Qaeda has consistently recovered from losses of senior leadership."

Officials now privately concede they overestimated the damage they had inflicted on al Qaeda's network. revitalized Taliban.

Pakistan has been an American ally against al Qaeda, but U.S. officials are increasingly frustrated by its inability-or unwillingness-to crack down in the tribal regions.

Al-Qaeda Targeting Great Britain (RWC)

Al Qaeda is planning a massive attack in Britain, and maybe in other Western targets.

This from the London Sunday Times, sent to us by our friend Glenmore Trenear Harvey, a former MI 5 agent who lives in London.

The Times quotes a British intelligence report that the attack will be aided by Iranian supporters of al-Qaeda.

The possible attack was compared with "Hiroshima and Nagasaki" and an informant said it would "shake the Roman empire."

The threat is “deadly and enduring” said Scotland Yard’s Peter Clark, commander of the UK’s counter terrorism force. He told Bloomberg News that the Brits have arrested over 1,000 al-Qaeda connected hard-core radical Muslims since 9/11 and about 100 of them are still awaiting trial.

Clark described al-Qaeda in Britain as “incredibly resilient.”

Senior al-Qaeda operatives have been in recent contact with British supporters and they have talked about "a huge explosion," says British sources.

Up to 150 British Muslims are believed to have traveled to Iraq to fight Americans as part of what al-Qaeda calls its own "foreign legion," according to British intelligence sources.

The recent secret report was prepared by "Jay Tac" -- the Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre -- which is at MI5's London headquarters. The London Times says its editors have read a copy.

Al-Qaeda is not yet believed to have acquired a nuclear weapon, though Osama Bin Laden has personally tried. But a number of al-Qaeda plots involving "dirty bombs," conventional explosives surrounding radioactive material, have so far been foiled.

Terrorist Surveillance Program

FDD's Andy McCarthy discusses the N.S.A.'s Terrorist Surveillance Program today on National Review Online.

Andy launched FDD's new Center for Law and Counterterrorism last week at the National Press Club.

CLC Launch (RWC)

The Foundation for the Defense of Democracies (I’m the Vice Chairman) opened a Center for Law & Counter-terrorism the other day. Sounds boring but it’s not going to be.  It will be run by Andy McCarthy, who is that rare being, a lawyer who communicates gracefully with the written word.  He can write! I don’t mean subpoenas ducas tecum and turgid and thickly-reasoned motions like most of these legal folks. He can do that.

I mean he writes prose that hums in its simple declarative sentences and makes point after point with clarity and force.

The man is both lucid and wildly prolific: churning our newspaper and magazine columns by the dozens and more commentary than you could shake your swagger-stick at.

And this is one of the preeminent former federal anti-terrorism prosecutors in the country.

Last week Andy and the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies held a kick-off symposium at the National Press Club in Washington. It ran all morning and I was in the audience. 

They debated questions about the War in Iraq, and the Global War on Terror, and whether this country needs a National Security Court. My take on that is that it does.  And this IS a war, with combatants in civilian clothes, posing as normal citizens, hiding among the populace like the dangerous creeps that they are.

As someone said at the symposium:” Why is it a war?” The answer is,  we have an enemy with motive, with evil intent and enormous resources. We need military means to protect ourselves and our country.

How is this different then fighting the Mafia?  Uh, it is totally different. We don’t send the US Air Force, or remote controlled armed-drones with rockets, to fly over Sicily or parts of New Jersey to take them out, now do we?

Traditional criminal law won’t effectively address the problems of crazed terrorists.

Steward Taylor, the lawyer and writer from the National Journal and Newsweek spoke. He was excellent, smart and nuanced as always

On Global Crisis Watch: "State of Jihad operations worldwide” (WP)

Panel on Global Crisis Watch about "State of Jihad operations worldwide.” The summary of the comments:

1) al Qaeda is attempting to build its "Caliphate" piece by piece from various enclaves around thw world

2) The second generation of al Qaeda within the West and other Democracies is operating mostly on its own.

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.

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.

Walid Phares Media Roundup

In the Front Page Magazine Walid Phares writes about the terrorist assassination of Pierre Gemayel. "The assassination of Lebanese Christian politician Pierre Gemayel this Tuesday has revealed that the Tehran-Damascus axis remains busy with terror activities across the Fertile Crescent." In Washington Times he states:  "Al Qaeda and its advisers around the world want to provoke an "American Madrid." Portraying the United States as a bleeding bull in disarray, the war room projects its wish to see America's will crippled." In HS Today November Issue Walid Phares has a cover story "Education Versus Jihad". In the San Francisco Chronicle Phares was quoted on U.N. investigation of the last year murder of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri and Bashar al-Assad regime in Damascus ."Any indictment of any Syrian official ... any implication of any Syrian intelligence officer will basically lead to indicting morally and politically the regime," Phares said".

Al Qaeda Wants an "American Madrid"(WP)

Published in The Washington Times November 22, 2006

The latest audio by al Qaeda's Iraq commander -- posted 48 hours after the midterm elections -- sends a clear signal to the readers of the jihadi strategic mind: Al Qaeda and its advisers around the world want to provoke an "American Madrid." Portraying the United States as a bleeding bull in disarray, the war room projects its wish to see America's will crippled. The video attempts to do the following:
1. Convince the jihadists that the United States is now defeated in Iraq and beyond. While no reversal of the balance of power has taken place on the ground, the jihadi propaganda machine is linking the shift in domestic politics to a withdrawal from Iraq. It projects the change in Washington as a crumbling of the political process in Baghdad and America's foreign policy. Interestingly, others in the region are also "announcing" the upcoming defeat of America in the war on terror. Hezbollah's Hassan Nasrallah declared: "The Americans are leaving, and their allies will pay the price."

Future Terrorism: Mutant Jihads (WP)

The Journal of International Security Affairs, Fall 2006

The Fall 2006 issue of the Journal of International Security Affairs published my article "Future Terrorism: Mutant Jihads." In this piece I attempted to provide a global assessment of the Jihadi threat five years after September 11, 2001. Following are the short introductory paragraphs:

The strategic decision to carry out 9/11 was made in the early 1990s, almost ten years before the barbaric attacks on New York and Washington took place. The decade-long preparations and the testing of America’s defenses and political tolerance to terrorism that took place before September 11th—were a stage in the much longer modern history of the jihadist movement that produced al-Qaeda and its fellow travelers.
Decades from now, historians will discover that the United States, the West and the international community were being targeted by a global ideological movement which emerged in the 1920s, survived World War II and the Cold War, and carefully chose the timing of its onslaught against democracy. Undoubtedly, the issue that policy planners and government leaders need to address with greatest urgency, and which the American public is most concerned about, is the future shape of the terrorist threat facing the United States and its allies. Yet developments since 2001, both at home and overseas, have shown that terror threats in general—and the jihadi menace in particular— remain at the same time resilient and poorly understood.

The Caliph-Strophic Debate (WP)

October 23, 2006. Published by the History News Network as well as World Defense Review

It seems that the US is having a hard time winning the hearts and minds of Arabs and Muslims, but an equally serious problem can be observed in the intellectual circles of America where some have had a difficulty coming to terms with the terminology of the War of Ideas. If the educated elite of the United States is incapable of identifying the ideology and the strategy of the Jihadists five years after 9/11, we not only have a problem with handling the War in Iraq, but also with the future of American national security as a whole.

Walid Phares in War Stories with Oliver North

War Stories with Oliver North, Fox News Sun., October 15, 2006

FDD Senior Fellow Walid Phares joins Vice President Cheney, Former Director of the CIA and FDD Distinguished Advisor James Woolsey, Bernard Lewis and other experts in the field. In this special report Oliver North explores what every person should know about jihad. In proven "War Stories" tradition, this episode brings historical context to today's events.

To watch the video click on: Part one, Part two, Part three, Part four.

Phares’ Op Ed in al Muharer on Zawahiri, the “Prime Minister” of al Qaeda

On October 13, 2006, the weekly pan Arab al Muharer al Arabi published an Op Ed by FDD Senior Fellow, Dr Walid Phares titled: “Dr Ayman Zawahiri, the Prime Minister of Jihad?” The article analyzes the last speech of the Number two of al Qaeda aired on al Jazeera. Phares sees an increasing trend to position Zawahiri as the chief executive of al Qaeda but also the equivalent of a “Prime Minister” of an international “Jihadi state.” The article discusses the strategic choices of the movement and its mounting attacks against moderate Arabs and Muslims in addition to the traditional incitements against the US, France, Great Britain and Western Democracies, without forgetting India but also Pakistan’s Government. Increasingly, writes Phares, “al Qaeda projects itself as the real and only Islamic power versus the rest of the world with its Muslims and non Muslims alike.   Download al_muharer.pdf

The Continued Misunderstanding of the Salafi Jihad Threat (WP)

Published in the World Defense Review

October 9, 2006.

In an article titled "Al Qaeda finds new partner: Salafist group finds limited success in native Algeria" (The Washington Post, October 5, 2006) by Craig Whitlock, Western sources, including French and American, assert that the Salafist Group for Call and Combat (originally a local Algerian group) has become global by joining with al Qaeda.

While the article is very interesting and informative, the analysis of the International Salafi movement by Western sources and expertise shows a continuous misunderstanding of Jihadism and its strategies. For in the essence of the article there is an assertion that the Algerian Salafists were restricted to fight their Government for "local" reasons, but it was U.S. intervention in the region that "compelled" the Combat Salafists to join al Qaeda worldwide. This assertion and other little informed debates taking place in the U.S. these days are committing an analytical sin: Projecting onto the Jihadists an alien thinking, most likely because of the pressures of American politics.

Hysteria (AV)

Everyone needs to calm down.

Andrew Sullivan, a writer for Time magazine, has endorsed one of the main misconceptions about the anti-terror bill Congress passed last week. Sullivan writes, with characteristic subtlety, that the executive now "has the power to detain anyone in this country at will, designate them an "enemy combatant," and jail them indefinitely."

Umm, no.

First, by "indefinite detention", what Sullivan should have written was, "detention until the end of actual hostilities." This is the relevant legal standard. No doubt, from the vantage of 1942, World War II looked like it would last indefinitely, too, but this did not mean that the law should have defined ex ante an end to actual hostilities.

Second, Sullivan should not have said that the President can order the detention of "anyone in this country." The actual language of the bill is "alien enemy combatant." Whilst the law does give the President wide, though not unreviewable, discretion in determining if someone is an "enemy combatant", the question of whether someone is an "alien" or a "citizen" is one of fact, over which the President has no discretion. A U.S. citizen has habeas corpus rights and can not be detained indefinitely. The language of the bill only limits habeas rights for "alien enemy combatants."

The President cannot, under anti-terror legislation, detain an American citizen indefinitely. For Sullivan to suggest otherwise, as he has, is reckless and feeds into the worst paranoias of the anti-war carrot juice drinkers.

Walid Phares Media Roundup (WP)

Walid Phares on VOA about the worldwide hunt for terrorists. In New York Post comments on Iran and Syria; Ahmadinejad in United Nations; State of affairs in Iraq and other issues.  In Family Security Matters, on U.S. homeland security:is it penetrated and threatened? In the American Chronicle Phares is quoted on the conflict in Darfur. On CTV Canada Phares, talks about the video obtained by Britain's Sunday Times newspaper showing two of the terrorists responsible for the Sept. 11 terror attack laughing and joking together more than 18 months before the attacks. For video click here

Don't underestimate Iran (AV)

Newsweek editor Fareed Zakaria pooh-poohs the Iranian threat in a recent article. The gist of Zakaria's argument is that Iran is a flyspeck compared to Nazi Germany and that we do ourselves no favors by exaggerating the Iranian threat. Zakaria's rejection of the 1938 analogy is misplaced.

Sure, Iran is an economically backwards country that spends a fraction of what the United States does on national defense, and its ability to project force beyond its region is severely limited. The same argument was made a few weeks ago by the indispensable Steve Sailer. It is however just as wrong.

Advances in technology since World War II mean that every banana republic despot can severely alter our way of life if he or she is so inclined. One errant (or not errant) nuke can make much of the United States uninhabitable and bring our economy to its knees. We know that Iran is trying to acquire nuclear technology, we know they have the missiles capable of launching a nuclear warhead, we know they have imperialist ambitions (just look at their conduct in Iraq, Syria and Lebanon), and we know that they want to destroy at least one of their neighbors. Oh, and we know their current president has the eschatology of a madman and that he's crazy enough to pull the trigger.

Zakaria endorses containment of Iran, whatever that means. In the context of a state having the characteristics I described above, containment represents the absence of a strategy. The key difference between now and 1938 isn't that our enemy today is much weaker, but that his weakness is not a barrier to his desire to destroy us.

Somalia's collapse into jihadism (AV)

This week brought yet more troubling news about the Islamist takeover of Somalia. The Union of Islamic Courts, which currently controls the capital of Mogadishu, has adopted a policy of confrontation towards all NGOs and civil society groups.

"[T]he Islamists' head for the social affairs Sheik Fanah also pointed out that NGOs under any name could not hold any meeting or a news conference without the Islamists' knowledge."

This is disastrous for Mogadishu, which is extremely poor and relies on outside assistance to meet its basic needs. As I wrote about during my recent visit to Mogadishu, "Store shelves are completely empty except for Coca Cola products (Somalis need their Fanta Orange!). There are no decent or even half-decent restaurants, there being no tourists or expat workers. All there is to eat, if you're lucky enough to find it, is rice with a splash of watery tomato sauce, which tastes even more foul than it sounds. The streets are empty. There are no big markets." Remember, too, that warlord-induced famines are not new to Somalia.

Somalia also occupies a crucial position in East Africa. It is surrounded by countries most of whose governments are led by Christians or secular-minded leaders. Yet many of these countries have large Muslim populations that are in the process of being radicalized. At the same time, Somalia has access to crucial shipping ports, making it easy for it to serve as a haven for illicit weapons smuggling, as well as being able to hold its landlocked neighbors hostage.

As I explained in June in an article in the Somaliland Times, unless the United States is prepared to support the breakaway statelet of Somaliland - which is democratic and non-sectarian - the situation in Somalia will continue to deteriorate in an anti-American direction. Somaliland can provide the United States with reliable intelligence on developments in Mogadishu, as well as a foothold into the country and is, perhaps, the most poignant manifestation of what the Bush Doctrine was designed to encourage - the spread of liberal democracy to guarantee America's basic security needs.

If pursuing an explicitly pro-Somaliland position is too heady for the Bush administration, then its best hope, at this point, is supporting Ethiopia's efforts in the country, which are largely positive. Ethiopia is working to stabilize and support the democratically-elected transitional government based in Baidao, as well as guarantee its access to ports in North-East Somalia (also known as Puntland).

The situation in Somalia has not reached crisis stage, nor will it, probably, for years to come - but we don't need to search too far into U.S. history to find examples of failed states taken over by Islamist militants who then conspired to harm the United States. Unless someone explains why we should expect Somalia to be an exception to the rule, ignoring its descent into jihadism is an utterly reckless solution.

FDD Media Roundup

Cliff May asks whether Americans are up to the challenge of seeing this war through to the end.

Michael I. Krauss and J. Peter Pham highlight the absurdity of the UN ceasefire to the Israel/Hezbollah conflict.

J. Peter Pham discusses the uncomfortable truth that China is currently building alliances with despots the world over to balance against American power.

On the precipice of Ragnarök? (AV)

Ross Douthat has a characteristically sharp piece in The Wall Street Journal arguing that the dividing line in foreign policy isn't between left and right, hawk and dove, idealist and realist. Nor, for that matter, is it between neoconservatives, democratic globalists, progressive realists, democratic realists, or anything else so neoteric.

Instead, Ross argues that we are divided by history. Some believe that it is 1919, that Bush is Woodrow Wilson, and that we are tying ourselves to a world we don't understand; other believe it's 1938, our enemy is Hitler-esque, and we have to choose between being Churchill or being Chamberlain; still others think it's 1972, that America is exaggerating the threat it faces, and that we are the source of our own problems; still others believe it's 1942 and that, although we didn't want this fight, we are duty-bound to end it. And so on...

It's an interesting thought experiment. Still, the flaws in Ross' methodology are obvious. History doesn't repeat itself, it only appears to to those unfamiliar with its details. Also, why should we confine ourselves to history from the past century? Why not reach further back into our collective experience - say, to the 30 Years' War, which in many ways is a more relevant historical analogy? Indeed, for more reasons that can be explained in a blog post, Ross' analogies obscure more than they clarify.

Ross directs considerable anger at the so-called 1938ers. Several weeks ago, the 1938 glitterati - everyone from Newt Gingrich to Sean Hannity to Bill O'Reilly - said we were fighting World War 3. Not to be outdone, Michael Ledeen and Norman Podhoretz claim we are in the middle of World War 4.

Ross may recoil at this, as will others who think the Bush administration is reenacting Wagner's Götterdämmerung. The sad reality, however, is that all we're doing is taking our enemies at their word.

NSA program hits speed bump, then drives over it (AV)

There is an excellent editorial on NRO rubbishing Judge Anna Diggs Taylor's decision to strike down the NSA surveillance program.

Judge Taylor's opinion is funny rather than sad, because there is a 0% chance that its rationale will be endorsed by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. Judge Taylor, surveying the NSA program, found violations of the First Amendment, the Fourth Amendment, the Separation of Powers, and two federal statutes. If she looked harder, she may very well have found a violation of Roe v Wade, too.

Senator Specter's bill before Congress to, as it were, normalize the NSA wiretap program, will if it is passed, moot the question of whether the program violates FISA, but leave open the question of whether it violates the Constitution. Suffice it to say, for now, that even fierce critics of the NSA program are unwilling to sign up to Judge Taylor's take on that bold claim.

Judge Taylor's opinion is a damp squib; already, her permanent injunction against the NSA program's continued operation has been stayed, so it will, at least for the time being, continue to yield actionable intelligence.

Baghdad Bob in Beirut (AV)

First Reuters, now the Associated Press...

How is Israel faring in its war against Hezbollah? Pretty badly, if the Associated Press is to be believed:

Sunday's deaths brought to 93 the number of Israelis killed, including 45 soldiers, the 12 reservists and 36 civilians. Israel's attacks on Lebanon have killed at least 591 people, including 509 civilians, 29 Lebanese soldiers and 53 Hezbollah guerrillas.

Israeli has suffered greater casualties than Hezbollah? Right...

Frankly, many of those whom the AP calls Lebanese civilians are in fact Hezbollah members; unless, that is, you believe Nasrallah's press releases that Israel is being slaughtered on the battlefield.

Ceasefire proposal - the devil's in the detail (AV)

Dore Gold, Israel's former Ambassador to the United Nations, makes a terrifyingly good point about the proposed ceasefire to the conflict between Israel and Hezbollah that has been embraced by France and the United States. As the New York Sun's Eli Lake reports,

"[T]he draft U.N. resolution sponsored by France and America calls on the establishment of a multinational force under Chapter 7 of the U.N. charter, which deals with grave threats to international peace and security.

As such, the second resolution authorizing the peacekeepers could lead to sanctions or military strikes against Israel should Jerusalem take pre-emptive military action against a Hezbollah militia that the Israel Defense Force is unlikely to be able to disarm by the time the armistice kicks in."

The draft resolution calls for the "immediate cessation by Israel of all offensive military operations." What will happen if the proposed ceasefire fails, the international force sent in is a paper tiger, and Hezbollah begins launching attacks against Israel?

Israel can - again - launch an attack against Hezbollah based on principles of self-defence, but Israel's antagonists will be able to say that Israel is explicitly violating the terms of a UN Security Council resolution. Nothing new there...

What will however be different is that, this time, the resolution will have been passed under Chapter 7 of the UN Charter, which means, in practice, an escalation of the charges against Israel.

Furthermore, since Kofi Annan will be charged with implementing the resolution, and will have an important say in determining whether it is being followed, this proposed resolution may turn out to be yet another cudgel the world uses to bash Israel. A cudgel, I might add, that offers no guarantee of increasing Israel's security.

 

Is international law standing in the way of a ceasefire? (AV)

Professor Eugene Kontorovich has a controversial op/ed in the New York Sun explaining why the latest proposals for a ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah violate international law. He writes:

The most surprising aspect of international proposals for a ceasefire in the Israel-Lebanon conflict is their endorsement of Hezbollah's demand that Israel give it territory, known as the Sheba Farms, in exchange for a end to rocket attacks on Israeli cities...What is certain — and yet entirely neglected in the discussion of the issue — is that the proposal violates bedrock norms of international law. Nations cannot enlarge their borders through the use of aggressive force. There are no exceptions to this non-acquisition principle.

Let's leave to one side the wisdom of ceding territory to a terrorist organization like Hezbollah and deal instead with Kontorovich's seductive claim that it violates international law.

It is certainly true that the UN Charter permits no exceptions to the non-acquisitive principle (this is the practical effect of Article 2(4) and Article 51 of the Charter). Still, Kontorovich is overstating his case with regard to international law generally - unless, that is, he is laboring under the mistaken view that international law is whatever the United Nations and Kofi Annan say it is. It isn't, mercifully.

The truth is, although there is a general presumption against the acquisition of territory as a result of aggression, this is a neoteric doctrine - emerging as it did in the 20th century. In the past, conquest was a legitimate way to acquire territory. Of course, during the 20th century we have understandably moved away from this extreme position, but there is no absolute rule of non-acquisition when aggression is involved.

For example, the rule of uti possidetis - the principle that territory vests to the victorious party - has essentially kept the fragile peace in many African conflicts after initial disputes over post-colonial border. The International Court of Justice recognized something approaching this in its deliberations on the land and maritime border dispute between Nigeria and Cameroon. Recently, this led to a truce and subsequently an agreement between these two countries. International law is better discerned from the way states act and their reasons for so acting rather than universalist-abstractions in the UN Charter.

In many ways, Kontorovich reveals the poverty of international law as a dispute resolution mechanism. Its boundaries are unclear, far too many people make authoritative statements when nuanced ones would be more appropriate, and by focusing too much on ex ante rules, it does not concern itself with creating lasting peace.

So, to answer the question posed in the title - International law isn't standing in the way of a ceasefire, the UN Charter is.

Walid Phares: Saad Bin Laden in Lebanon?

In an MSNBC interview with Tucker Carlson yesterday, I commented on the report by a German publication that Iranian authorities have "released Saad Bin Laden from his house arrest in Iran to be assigned at the Lebanese Syrian borders." My comments, short and analytical, summarize as follow:

War crimes through the looking glass [AV]

Peter Bouckaert, the Emergencies Director at Human Rights Watch, claims in the Guardian newspaper that "our investigations have not found evidence to support Israeli allegations that Hizbullah are intentionally endangering Lebanese civilians by systematically fighting from civilian positions."

Really?

I found this image telling.
As well as this video of Hezbollah launching Katyusha rockets from civilian areas.

Also, it's worth pointing out that, by Human Rights Watch's own definition, "Hezbollah is an organized political Islamist group based in Lebanon, with a military arm and a civilian arm, and is represented in the Lebanese parliament and government." Since Hezbollah is not the same thing as the Lebanese army, any area the group operates out of is by definition a civilian area.

Human Rights Watch, a study in bias [AV]

Human Rights Watch has issues a scathing attack on Israel's conduct in its war with Hezbollah. The tragedy of this report is that, because it is selective, disingenuous and biased, it undermines Human Rights Watch's credibility, and threatens the organization's noble vision of strengthening the international protection of human rights.

The report's executive summary criticizes Israel for its attacks on Lebanese homes. Human Rights Watch calls them "civilian targets." Tragically, this is only half the story, as many of the homes are also used to store missiles. They are, properly understood, dual-use - and are therefore similar to bridges and roads. That does not per se make them lawful targets, but it does mean that in determining whether Israel is committing war crimes by bombing them one needs to look at the totality of the circumstances, including the likelihood that the area as a whole is dual-use. The Human Rights Watch summary gives only a passing treatment to what is, frankly, the heart of the issue.

More problematically, the Human Rights Watch report, at least in its executive summary, does not adequately consider Hezbollah's obligation to to protect civilians from dangers, and that using civilian shields to protect military assets, as Hezbollah does, is itself a war crime. In fact, a previous Human Rights Watch report - one that was far more fair and balanced - does make this point explicitly.

It is truly worrying that from its previous report (which was good) to its current report (which is bad), Human Rights Watch seems to have abandoned the idea that Hezbollah also has obligations to minimize Lebanese civilian casualties, and that because it is a non-state party to the conflict, Hezbollah is also bound by Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions.

Ethiopia moves to stabilize Somalia [AV]

Ethiopia, which realizes that an Islamist takeover of Somalia will seriously harm its coastal access, has always supported the democrats in Somalia. This week has been no exception.

As the world's attention shifted from the Islamists in Mogadishu to the Bombay bombings and now Israel's war with Hezbollah, Ethiopia has realized that it needs to take control of the rapidly deteriorating situation in Somalia.

This is why it is excellent news that Ethiopia has sent troops into Somalia to protect the Somali transitional government in Baidoa from the Islamists in Mogadishu.

A twin strategy of improving links with the northern statelet of Somaliland, and of propping up the democrats in Baidoa, is our best hope for preventing Somalia from falling under Islamist control.

Is Israel's response disproportionate? [AV]

The French government condemned Israel's response to the kidnapping of its soldiers as "a disproportionate act of war."

Disproportionate relative to what?

The French, in calling Israel's response disproportionate, are almost certainly measuring it against the kidnapping of Israeli soldiers. Bad as kidnapping Israeli soldiers is, the French reason, Israel's response is far more severe and, hence, disproportionate.

Except, this is the wrong standard. When speaking of proportionality, we shouldn't measure Israel's response against the initial wrong; instead, we should measure it against what it will take to stop that harm.

It is self-evidently true that if Israel were to kidnap three Hezbollah members - a par excellence proportionate response by French standards - this won't in any way reduce the threat it faces from Hezbollah.

This is why Israel is trying to disable the entire Hezbollah infrastructure in Lebanon, because only this, Israel calculates, will end the threat. This is also why Israel's response is proportionate - measured not just against the threat it faces but against what it will take to end that threat.

Walid Phares: Mumbay's bombings interviews

Walid Phares was on MSNBC today to discuss the Terror attacks in Mumbay (Bombay), India. "Lashkar Taiba is connected to al Qaida, it has networks in Kashmir, and across inside India. These strikes may have been ordered to shift the pressure from Pakistan's borders with Afghanistan to Mumbay, but also in response to al Qaida's calls to "attack the Hindus." MSNBC

The New York Flood Starts in Lebanon? (WP)

More information has transpired about one of the designated participants in the alleged plot, which according to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, was to bomb the Holland Tunnel, connecting New Jersey with Manhattan, with the ostensible goal of flooding the financial district of Manhattan. Details of the plot were published in the New York Daily News.

Sources in Lebanon revealed that a key figure in the plot was a Lebanese national, who had been arrested in Lebanon on April 27, 2007 upon the request of US authorities. His real name is Assem Hammoud, who also used the name of Amir Andalousi. The sources said he is a computer science professor. He is apparently the only Lebanese among the eight suspects, who are from six or seven countries. It is understood that Hammoud was close or part of the Zarqawi group.

Rivkin & Casey on the Supreme Court Decision (CM)

Just as it is symbolically important to prosecute juveniles in a special court system, it is important to treat unlawful combatants as something other than ordinary criminal defendants. Such individuals have not merely deviated from society's norms, they have openly and proudly rejected those norms -- in al Qaeda's case to a  truly savage level. Treating such men as common criminals trivializes the threat they pose, and the actions they take...

[T]he administration should stick to its guns on the fundamental question whether the U.S. is fighting a war  with al Qaeda secure in the knowledge that the Supreme Court has, and continues, to validate the legal basis of this conflict.

More here.

Bin Laden's Iraq and Somalia orders (WP)

In an audiotape aired on al Qaida's "Media production site," As Sahab, Al Qaida's leader Usama Bin Laden issued his expected "guidelines and instructions" to the Jihadists in the region and around the world regarding Iraq and Somalia as well as other issues dealing with the principle of Jihadism. "Expected," because, as I announced earlier Bin Laden is the higher authority in the world war against Democracies, infidels and apostate Muslims, as he defines them. Hence, when major developments take place on the "battlefields" the top leader has to provide with the "policies and strategies to adopt."

Listen to the audio here.

As usual, Bin Laden starts with a call to the Islamic Umma, asserting his leadership, and by reciting a number of Koranic verses. That alone, as I argued provides him with a religious shield to develop his political position in defense of his terror plans. The references to the verses, as long as unchecked and strongly responded to by religious clerics around the world, allows him to place himself in a strong position. In addition, in this latest audio, the no 1 of Terror told his followers that "by defeating your enemy you would profiting from the wortld treasures," a hint at the vast oil revenues Bin Laden is eying for the future.

Complete FBIS Tranlsation of Bin Laden Tape

• This is a 19-minute audio taped message that has a picture of UBL alongside footage of the last Zarqawi video where he is shooting in the desert.

• It was the fourth message purportedly put out this year by bin Laden. All have featured his voice in audiotapes. New video images of him have not appeared since October 2004.

Hamdan v Rumsfeld [AV]

The Supreme Court just issued its opinion in Hamdan v Rumsfeld. We've blogged about the case here. FDD Senior Fellow Andy McCarthy has written extensively on it as well, most recently here.

Although the judgment isn't yet on the Supreme Court website, it should be up in the next few hours. Instant commentaries on the decision can be found on Scotusblog.

Is Iraq the new Philippines? [AV]

History hardly ever repeats itself, it only appears like it does to those unfamiliar with its particulars. Which is why Ross Douthat's comparison of the Iraq war to the occupation of the Philippines is incorrect. Ross writes, at the American Scene:

[S]o far the military conflict that the Iraq War most resembles isn't Vietnam or World War II, but the TR-boosted Spanish-American War - a quick and painless military victory over a second-rate power, driven by a mix of idealism, jingoism, and power politics, that segued into a long and grueling counter-insurgency campaign [in the Philippines].

What gave the Filipino insurgency its popular appeal is notably absent from the Iraqi insurgency. The Filipino insurgents had a degree of popular support based on its claim that Filipinos should govern the Philippines.

The Filipino insurgents had Emilio Aguinaldo, a Filipinio native, to lead them. Which Iraqi is a leader in the jihadist insurgency? The Iraqi insurgents were led by, before he was killed, Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi, a Jordanian. And now they are led by Abu Ayyub al-Masri, an Egyptian. The most hardcore and violent members of the insurgency are foreign jihadists, with no legitimate claim to pan-Iraqi nationalism.

Meanwhile, the United States armed forces are in Iraq today with the consent of the democratically elected government. Furthermore, the goal of the jihadists isn't a return to Iraqi rule, but a continuation of sectarian violence and terror that would extend beyond any U.S. troop withdrawal.

The differences, in this case, are more important than the superficial similarities in Ross' historical analogy. The Iraq war is many things--a replay of the occupation of the Philippines it most assuredly is not.

Taliban Exposes Plans and Concerns (WP)

Al Qaida number two, Dr Ayman Zawahiri issued a new tape calling on the Afghans to "rise against the Infidels (Kuffars) and their agents (the Karzai Government)." Following are few points of analysis and evaluation:

1) Attacking the US for its "killing of innocent Afghans and torture of Muslims."

Zawahiri develops two lines of attacks. One against Karzai by exposing what he calls "the US role in killing Afghan civilians in Kabul, Khust, Urzogan, Helmind, Kunar and Kandahar." The accusation by Zawahiri of these killings comes at a time when Karzai himself is complaining (and has been for a while) about "civilian losses" in the ongoing battles with Taliban and al Qaida fighters. The design by Zawahiri is to corner Karzai with his own words. As shown clearly from al Jazeera’s panels, the strategy of the Jihadi propaganda and policy architects is to corner Karzai with accusations by Taliban and supporters that he is covering up for these losses. The Afghan Government would be walking on fine lines between responding to Zawahiri, as Karzai did, but also criticizing US and allies for their “faulty tactics.” In the mind of the Jihadi architects of politics, attacking Zawahiri won’t have additional effects on anyone, but criticizing one’s allies will have an effect on all parties: The US, Karzai and the Afghani public.

Zarqawi’s Heir (CM)

Fouad Ajami writes:

For the rulers in the saddle in Arab lands, jihadism has been a commodity for export. There has been a covert and subtle understanding with the perpetrators of terror: The order would avert its gaze from them so long as they took their furies beyond their homelands.

Jordan is not unique. The Saudi realm only awakened to the terror when its perpetrators struck within the peninsula itself. This happened in the spring of 2003. All that had transpired before was sanctioned and perhaps admired. Pamphleteers and preachers had praised the zeal of the jihadists, took their brutal deeds as evidence of youth's purity and faith. In the same vein, the Egyptian regime, merciless in the way it deals with challenges to its power at home, has never owned up to the darkness of Egyptian terrorists operating the world over. No one in Egypt has accepted responsibility for Mohammed Atta; nothing has been said in official life about the culture that shaped Ayman al-Zawahiri, who took out on other lands the wrath bred in him by the violent struggle between the Egyptian Islamists and the military autocracy.

It is fitting that the early intelligence has identified Zarqawi's successor as an Egyptian, one Abu Ayyub al-Masri (who goes by another nom de guerre, Abu Hamza al-Muhajer). From Jordan to Egypt: We are still in the darkness of regimes in the orbit of American power. With the torture and murder of two young American soldiers, Kristian Menchaca and Thomas Tucker, who had been kidnapped at a checkpoint south of Baghdad, Zarqawi's successor has sent a grim, cruel reminder that the end of this terrible darkness in the Arab world is not yet at hand.

More here.

Geneva: Unconventional Wisdom (CM)

FDD Senior Fellow Andy McCarthy has a new piece clarifying something widely misunderstood: Under the Geneva conv