Thursday, May 08, 2008  Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb Evolves [J. Peter Pham] Today my weekly “Strategic Interests” column for the World Defense Review takes another look at al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), a group that, amid the vast expanse of the Sahara Desert and the Sahel, is likely to play an increasingly significant role in the overall struggle against extremism. I note that “beyond the Maghreb itself, AQIM has considerable reach to émigré communities in Western Europe” and that the group’s alignment with al-Qaeda not only elevates its status, but gives the latter access to its “extensive networks of cells throughout Western Europe, some of which were involved in raising funds for them through the smuggling of drugs and immigrants, while others provided support for recruitment, training, and other logistical activities.” The article goes on to explore the threat presented by AQIM to countries within the region as well as in Western Europe—especially Spain, which has been singled out by the Islamist terrorists for historical and ideological reasons—and the United States, concluding: The marriage of convenience between Islamist extremists in the Maghreb and the Sahel and the leadership of al-Qaeda does not by itself increase the risk of attack on America and its allies. However, the access that al-Qaeda now gains to North African and European communities and the more universal status which AQIM now acquires does raise the expectations among their constituents that together they will strike more effectively against enemies, both near and far, thus heightening the danger that they will be impelled by internal pressure to mount some sort of an assault. Consequently, the United States needs to continue its modest, but effective, strategic investment in this vast and hitherto largely overlooked geopolitical space.
The full text of my piece, “Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb: An Evolving Challenge in the War on Terror,” is available here. 05/08 10:45 AM Wednesday, May 07, 2008 Bombs, Bullets and... Barns [Steve Schippert] Yet another report from Iraq via John Donovan. This time a Navy officer and a Marine gunnery sergeant team up to assist struggling Iraqi farmers—industrious desert growers who lack not skill, but basic resources.
That’s right, they asked me stay on the General’s staff to do farming. The good news is that I’ve managed to extend myself past sheep and now have visited poultry and fish farms. Its up to the big leagues once I get to see the dairy cows. To help, the Marines gave me a Gunnery Sergeant. A good man typical of the breed. We met and he said “Sir I don’t know why I have this job, I wanted to run convoys but they said since I grew up on a farm in Michigan I had to do agriculture. I didn’t learn anything as a kid, I just did heavy labor, and spent most of time trying to get out of that!” I just smiled and said “Gunny, you and me are going to get along just fine.” We have a great officer/NCO relationship. I think big strategic thoughts and he stands on people’s necks until it happens.
Seriously though I don’t think that I’m missing anything because I don’t have an agricultural degree. The issues here are pretty straightforward. You have to love their working relationship while admiring their adaptability to the task(s) at hand. Bombs, bullets or barns, our forces have to amaze you. OK, so maybe there aren't many barns in Iraq. But there sure are a lot of good military men and women willing to think of such things and devise crafty solutions. Here's hoping they are provided the resources needed. Supplemental, anyone? No rush. Take your time, gentlemen. Resources (and pay) are overrated anyway, right? Imagine if the Senate's payroll were in jeopardy. And whatever would we do if there were no funds for congressional junkets for tea with Bashar Assad? Perspective and priorities, people. Or, perhaps that's exactly what we are witnessing . . . Just a guess. 05/07 03:11 PM 
Dangerous Shipping During a Fight Against Terrorism and Proliferation [J. Peter Pham] In an op-ed published in today’s Washington Times, I raise concerns about Mongolia’s “flag of convenience,” the practice whereby that country—the world’s second largest landlocked country—basically rents out its flag to ship owners who, for whatever reason, either do not want to fly the flag of their own countries or otherwise want to try to evade close scrutiny. After noting that maritime security is a task with which “landlocked Mongolians had, understandably, not a whit of experience, historical or otherwise,” the article goes on to point out that, even more disturbingly, the Mongolian Ship Registry, established by the current President Nambaryn Enkhbayar when he was prime minister five years ago, is run by a company that formerly ran Cambodia’s “flag of convenience” operation before its franchise was revoked for having rented out that country’s banner to drug smugglers and, in one case, a North Korean freighter caught running Scud-type missiles and rocket fuel to Yemen. Furthermore, the owner of the registry management company is also the majority stockholder of another firm that acts as the shipping agent for North Korea. Observing that the Mongolian banner is currently being flown, inter alia, by North Korean, Syrian, and Lebanese vessels (what was that briefing to the congressional intelligence committees about last week?), I conclude: Of particular concern for American lawmakers is the fact Mongolia received an average of $12.8 million in U.S. assistance annually for the last five years in addition to being the beneficiary of a $285 million grant from the American taxpayer-funded Millennium Challenge Corp. Despite receiving millions of dollars from America’s public purse, Mongolia appears to have no problem renting out its flag to weapons proliferators, criminals and other shady figures who endanger the security of the United States and its allies. In the middle of its struggle against terrorism, America needs to be assured that the ships sailing the world’s oceans — waters kept open largely by the efforts of the U.S. Navy — are safe, high-quality vessels meeting commonsense security requirements. We need to know who owns operates and crews the ships — especially if they approach our shores or those of our allies. It should be noted there has been some progress. Last year Mongolia agreed to allow the United States and its partners in the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI) to board and inspect vessels flying its flag if they have a “basis for the suspicion” that something is amiss. But this only marginally lessens the risk. The truth is, in assessing Mongolia’s value as an ally in the global war on terrorism, the country’s modest troop contributions to Iraq and Afghanistan have to be weighed against the threat to our national interests posed by the bargain-basement “flag of convenience” it now hawks. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice should have her regional representative investigate Mongolia's maritime activities and aims — and the State Department’s coordinator for counterterrorism should be asked to certify whether they represent a threat to Americans at home and abroad. In short, a country like Mongolia cannot be allowed to drift into these dangerous waters, least of all on America’s dime.
05/07 12:50 PM White House Responds to Key Myths on Iraq [Steve Schippert] The following document from the White House Office of Public Liaison-Military Affairs is reproduced here in full. It deserves to be. (Iraq Fact Check is a release that the office distributes via e-mail to journalists, MilBloggers, lawmakers and others.) Many, including yours truly, have criticized President Bush and his administration in the past for ineffective public communication on the Iraq War. The note below is an example of effective communications—or at least a starting point. The true measure of its effectiveness will be how well, and how quickly, this information is included in interviews and speeches when the administration is challenged or criticized based on the "myths" cited below.
1. MYTH: The American people are footing the bill for Iraq’s security and reconstruction while Iraqis sit on large windfall oil profits. FACT: The Iraqi government is taking over the funding of reconstruction. In 2008, Iraq’s budget for large-scale reconstruction projects exceeds that proposed by the U.S. by more than 10 to 1, and the U.S. military expects that Iraq will soon cover 100 percent of such expenses. FACT: Iraq's security ministries are now spending more on their security forces than the U.S., and Iraq’s 2008 budget provides for more than 75% of the total annual cost for Iraq’s military and police. FACT: The government of Iraq has committed to footing approximately half the bill for the “Sons of Iraq” community watch program—which was originally 100% U.S.-funded. FACT: Iraq’s Ambassador to the U.S., Samir Sumaida'ie, says that Iraq still has to import gasoline, and argues that “some people are going a little bit too far looking at the Iraqi surplus and the gigantic American deficit and putting two and two together … The windfall from the oil will not cover a fraction of what we need to provide clean water, electricity and the most rudimentary services for our people.”
2. MYTH: “It's no big deal” if Congress fails to pass a war supplemental bill by Memorial Day. FACT: According to Admiral Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff: “We need [the supplemental appropriations bill] very badly before the Memorial Day recess. We stop paying soldiers on the 15th of June and we have precious little flexibility with respect to that … Clearly that creates incredible constraints and difficulties for us.”
3. MYTH: The Iraqi government has not taken advantage of reduced violence by making political progress. FACT: Since September 2007, Iraq's parliament has passed significant legislation dealing with reconciliation and nation building, including: o A pension law o De-Ba’athification reform o An amnesty law o A provincial powers law o Changes to the design of the Iraqi flag to remove Saddam-era additions o A 2008 budget that includes record amounts for capital and security expenditures FACT: Recently passed legislation is already having an effect. For example, the amnesty law passed in February has already led to the release of Iraqis who were under detention for non-serious crimes. FACT: The national government is sharing oil revenues with provinces despite the lack of a framework hydrocarbons and revenue-sharing law.
4. MYTH: The U.S. is negotiating a back-door treaty with Iraq’s government that will tie the hands of future Presidents. FACT: The United Nations authorization under which U.S. military and civilian personnel in Iraq are legally serving will expire on December 31, 2008. U.S. and Iraqi officials are therefore seeking a “strategic framework” that would provide legal protections and establish a long-term relationship between the two countries after that date. FACT: In 2007, Iraq’s leaders asked the U.S. to move to a more normalized bilateral relationship, instead of the special case managed by the U.N. FACT: The framework U.S. and Iraqi officials are now discussing would in no way limit or affect the military and diplomatic options the next President will have under the U.S. Constitution. FACT: Any strategic framework would be similar to the agreement the U.S. now has with Afghanistan and much like the conventional peacetime agreements the U.S. has with dozens of other countries. FACT: It is unclear what would happen to more than 20,000 detainees now under U.S. custody if the U.N. authorization expired on December 31 with no strategic framework in place. FACT: The United States does not seek and will not seek permanent bases in Iraq, and any framework would affirm this principle.
5. MYTH: Iraqis are not defending their country. FACT: As General David Petraeus testified in April, Iraqis are increasingly in the fight, recently incurring losses three times the level of Coalition losses. FACT: Iraqi soldiers, police, and volunteers are securing their nation in increasing numbers. According to General Petraeus, more than 540,000 individuals serve in Iraq’s Security Forces, with more than 133,000 soldiers and police added over the past 16 months. FACT: The military reports that there are now more than 91,000 Sons of Iraq—Shia as well as Sunni—under contract to help Coalition and Iraqi Forces protect neighborhoods and secure infrastructure. FACT: More than 21,000 Sons of Iraq have already been accepted into Police, Army, or government jobs.
6. MYTH: Current spending on the war is historically unprecedented. FACT: Today’s U.S. defense budget accounts for just over four percent of the economy, less than the U.S. commitment at any point during the four decades of the Cold War. FACT: During the Truman and Eisenhower Administrations, the U.S. defense budget rose as high as 13 percent of the total economy. FACT: Even during the Reagan Administration, when the economy expanded significantly, the defense budget accounted for approximately six percent of GDP.
05/07 10:32 AM Tuesday, May 06, 2008 The Rhetorical Cowboy Rides Again [Steve Schippert] Saddle up, OPEC Buster. The foreign-policy debate in this presidential campaign is as embarrassing as it is frustrating. Just take a look at the timeline of rhetoric that led to Monday's "shot laughed at around the world." - August 2007: Obama suggests he'd invade Pakistan.
- November 2007: Hillary declares "The era of cowboy diplomacy is over."
- December 2007: Both candidates condemn "Bush saber-rattling" on Iran.
- April 2008: Hillary vows to "obliterate" Iran if Israel attacked.
As it stands, the combined rhetorical track record already reads with all the consistency of an EKG, even in the above "Cliffs Notes" version. And now, perhaps (though probably not) in recognition of the fact that ExxonMobil is not responsible for current gas prices, Hillary Clinton has declared that she would somehow, someway bust up OPEC. Of course, exactly how she would do this is not offered. (Note 1 to Campaign HQ: Passing US laws making foreign oil cartels illegal does not count as effectual. Please reference "War on Drugs.") "They decide how much oil they're going to produce and what price they're going to put it at. That’s not a market. That’s a monopoly," Clinton said. While the members of OPEC do determine how much oil they will pump, they do not (directly) dictate price. Current demand, current supply, and the perceived futures of both converge to settle that score. (Note 2 to Campaign HQ: On the "monopoly" rhetoric — Ummm, yeah... It's kinda their oil, like it or not. We have our own. Can we please begin to get it now?) Logic Bomb: Rather than address what we can do and what is ours (such as our own undeveloped reserves), Hillary would rather pick a fight with OPEC and try to control what is not ours. Such a fight would net zero desired results and most likely result in even tighter export controls by ticked-off OPEC countries, yielding even higher oil prices. Meanwhile, Obama wants to go "unilateral" on Pakistan. At the same time, without rattling a single saber, Hillary vows to "obliterate" Iran. (President Bush and Vice President Cheney must have all the sabers hoarded and secured in the War Room.) And now Clinton is swearing that she will apply an American wrecking ball to OPEC. And you thought "The era of cowboy diplomacy is over." Silly rabbit, it's a Diplomatic Offensive®. You just can't make this stuff up. Forget the populist gas-tax holiday for the summer; give me a campaign holiday instead. I'd pay not to listen to it. About 18.4¢ per gallon, actually. Probably more if pressed.
05/06 01:39 AM Saturday, May 03, 2008 Distinguished Service [Edward John Craig] The Corner has expressed all of our thanks to Master Sergeant Brendan O'Connor, who was awarded the Distinguished Service Cross this past week at Fort Bragg. In case you're curious about how he earned the citation, the Fayetteville Observer offers the following account:
O’Connor led a quick reaction force June 24, 2006, in Kandahar province’s Panjwai District, described by Special Forces as one of the most hotly contested areas of southern Afghanistan. He maneuvered his force through Taliban positions and crawled alone through enemy machine-gun fire to reach two wounded soldiers, the citation said. He tied a signal cloth to his back to identify himself to aircraft overhead. While under fire, he provided medical care and carried a wounded soldier more than 150 yards across open ground. He climbed over a wall three times under enemy fire to help wounded soldiers seek cover. Then he took over as the operations sergeant and rallied, motivated and led his team. “Thank God for men like Master Sgt. O’Connor,” said Lt. Gen. Robert Wagner, commander of U.S. Army Special Operations Command at Fort Bragg. Maj. Sheffield Ford said after the ceremony that O’Connor picked up Sgt. Joseph Fuerst and carried him over his shoulder and ran while under fire. “Knowing that bullets were coming in all around him, he didn’t hesitate,” Ford said. “He continued to get up and move because he knew he had to get Joe back if he was going to have a chance to try to save him.” Fuerst died, and Staff Sgt. Matthew Binney survived, Ford said. Former Sgt. 1st Class Abram Hernandez received the Silver Star, the Army’s third-highest award for valor, on April 17 on Fort Bragg for his actions in the same battle. Master Sgt. Thomas Maholic was killed in the fighting and received the Silver Star posthumously Nov. 15. During training, Special Forces medics, who have extensive training and upon whom the entire team depends, are told to wait for others to bring the wounded to them, but O’Connor realized the soldiers needed immediate help and the battle was not going to stop, Ford said. Staff Sgt. Charles Lyles said O’Connor paused before going out on the mission to make sure he was taking everything he would need. “The seconds he took to make sure he had everything ready, I believe, made the difference,” Lyles said. Staff Sgt. Brandon Pechette remembers O’Connor being “calm and cool and very intelligently funny while we were there, keeping the morale high, which is very important because we were such a small force against overwhelming odds.” The award came 40 years after O’Connor’s father was killed in Vietnam.
05/03 12:14 PM Thursday, May 01, 2008 Increasing Maritime Attacks off the Horn of Africa [J. Peter Pham] Today my weekly “Strategic Interests” column for the World Defense Review looks at the increasing number of attacks on shipping in the Gulf of Aden and western Indian Ocean waters off the Somali coast. According to the International Maritime Bureau, a total of 31 cases of piracy were recorded in those international waters in 2007. So far in 2008, there have been 23 attacks. Just last weekend, the Socialist government of Spanish Prime Minister José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero paid a reported $1.2 million ransom for the release of a Basque tuna fishing boat, the FV Playa de Bakio, which had been seized along with its 26 crew members—13 Spanish citizens and 13 African nationals—some 217 nautical miles (400 kilometers) off the Somali coast. My essay notes that “Not only are the attacks increasing in frequency, but they have also evolved into more tactically sophisticated operations involving faster attack craft—some purchased with the proceeds of earlier successful attacks—working at ever-greater distances thanks to GPS and other new technologies.” Consequently, I argue for two points: First, safeguarding vital shipping lanes like those near the Horn of Africa requires the commitment of adequate forces to actually conduct maritime security operations (MSO) there . . . Second, there is little point in addressing the challenge of “piracy” off the Somali coast if one is unwilling to confront the lack of legitimate and effective government which is at root of the problem. Thus, until the new local authorities that have arisen since the collapse of the former Somali Democratic Republic can stand on their own, I suggest that “an internationally-sanctioned force should assume a protectorate over the former territorial waters, not only policing them and prosecuting violators of the peace, but also managing marine interests such as fisheries for the nascent polities among the Somali.” The full text of my article, “Pirates of Somalia: The Curse of the Failed State,” is available here. 05/01 05:16 PM Airstrike Takes Out Leader of Somali Terrorist Group [J. Peter Pham] The Associated Press reports that an airstrike overnight on the town of Dusamareeb, some 300 miles north of Mogadishu, killed Adan Hashi Ayro, one of the top commanders of al-Shabaab, the Somali Islamist group that was designated a "foreign terrorist organization" by the U.S. State Department two months ago. Ayro, who was trained by al-Qaeda in Afghanistan before 9/11, was a kinsman of Hassan Dahir Aweys, the chairman of the shura council of the Islamic Courts Union, and was the original al-Shabaab leader in its violent insurgency against the internationally recognized (but otherwise ineffective) Transitional Federal Government of Somalia. My sources indicate that, unlike a previous attempt to take out another Somali terrorist in early March, which came in the form of a missile, the successful action last night was carried out with a JDAM-guided "smart" bomb. For more details on the al-Qaeda-linked group, see my article in World Defense Review on its designation, as well as my piece dealing other high-value terrorists also being sought in the subregion. 05/01 06:42 AM Wednesday, April 30, 2008 At The Improv: IAEA Righteous Indignation [Steve Schippert] I couldn't help but laugh out loud reading the following paragraph in the New York Times on President Bush's decision to keep the nature of the Syrian nuclear facility destroyed by Israel quiet since September. The International Atomic Energy Agency last week criticized the United States for withholding information about the site and Israel for destroying it, saying both actions undermined efforts to verify whether it was a nuclear reactor being built with the assistance of North Korea.
You just can't make stuff like that up unless you've got a gig at The Improv this Friday night. We have learned about IAEA "efforts to verify" the nature of nuclear facilities under recalcitrant regimes. North Korea did the verification for an unwitting IAEA. Iran remains in the process of "verification" fully 5 years after its clandestine program was brought to a yet again unwitting IAEA. This time, we (not the IAEA) have clear photographic (and other) evidence that removes any doubt about the nature of the facility formerly known as the Syrian-North Korean plutonium project. If that's not enough evidence, consider that the IAEA just lodged a louder, more energetic public protest than Syria and North Korea combined have done since September 6, 2007. Applying the basic deductive logic God granted every human being, it is wholly impossible—in historical context—to receive the IAEA's objections with anything other than a hearty laugh. Thank you, Dr. El-Baradei. Just what the doctor ordered in the middle of a long, exhausting week. 04/30 09:05 AM Tuesday, April 29, 2008 Misleading DNC Attack Featuring IED Attack [Gregory S. McNeal] This unbelievable ad by the DNC features two soldiers being attacked by an IED and looping of out-of-context quotes from Senator McCain. The "100 years" refrain of Democrats is really getting tiresome, unless of course they are going to begin advocating withdrawal of forces from Korea, Japan, and Germany. But truth doesn't seem to be their strong suit. I hope voters remember this come November. Hat Tip BlackFive. 04/29 05:27 PM Monday, April 28, 2008 Acknowledging the Limits of NoKor Nuclear Diplomacy [Steve Schippert] Here's something that has been especially troubling to me regarding the previous silence on North Korea's stewardship of the Syrian plutonium project that Israel destroyed last September. The reasons are twofold. When the Israelis first became concerned about the North Koreans' activities in Syria last summer, the Americans were negotiating a delicate deal to persuade Pyongyang to give up its nuclear programme in return for a relaxation of the trade sanctions that have crippled the North Korean economy. Had the Israelis gone public with the intelligence that the North Koreans were actively helping Syria to acquire nuclear technology, it might seriously have undermined Washington's diplomatic efforts. If the Americans want to expose North Korea's links to Damascus, that is their affair. For their part, the Israelis are happy to keep schtum.
This was precisely the thinking in some Washington circles. And it was and is precisely in error. The North Korean initiative to proliferate plutonium production technology and capability by secretly building a facility for Syria "might seriously have undermined Washington's diplomatic efforts," don't you think? At what point are well-intended diplomatic efforts recognized as the extortion tools they are in the eyes of a recalcitrant NoKor regime? For crying out loud, North Korea just attempted to complete a plutonium production plant with zero civilian purpose for a state sponsor of terrorism. Yet somehow, talking about NoKor's actions is more damaging than NoKor's actual actions. How divorced from reality can Washington's thinking be? And how genuine could any deal inked under those circumstances be? This is who we are dealing with, and they're neither mysterious nor nuanced. This is a bona fide Jim Carrey moment straight out of his movie Liar, Liar. A crafty lawyer who is suddenly rendered unable to tell a lie, Carey's character blurts out "Objection, your Honor!" when the other side makes a stinging point. When the judge asks Carey on what grounds he objects, he simply offers a truthful, "Because it's devastating to my case!" Isn't that the case here? 04/28 11:42 AM Friday, April 25, 2008 Peters on "Gates's Grand Slam" [Steve Schippert] Ralph Peters hits one out of the park in describing Secretary of Defense Robert Gates's Grand Slam. Most Americans with a body temperature over 94° know that Gen. David Petraeus has been nominated for promotion to overall theater command at CENTCOM. About a third of this number are aware that Petraeus's No. 2, Lt. Gen. Ray Odierno, is succeeding Petraeus at MNF-I command in Baghdad. But many may not be aware of two more important nominations: That brings us to the third runner across the plate: Gates nominated another combat-tested Iraq vet, Lt. Gen. Peter Chiarelli, to take that job in Odierno's place. Chiarelli was a bright star during some of our darkest nights in Iraq. He'll clean up the Army dugout back at Pentagon Field. Secretary Gates' determination to nominate the most qualified soldiers, rather than yes-men, is stand-up-and-cheer evidence that he's the polar opposite of his failed predecessor, the odious Donald Rumsfeld. But it was the fourth "run" yesterday that really underscored the difference between the two men. What made the SecDef's performance a grand slam was his heartfelt thank-you to Gen. Odierno's wife and family for their sacrifice as Big Ray heads back to Baghdad - after little more than a spring break. An Army saying goes, "You enlist the soldier, but you re-enlist the family." Gates gets it: Every soldier's family, whether a junior enlisted man's or a general's, is a vital part of the team. It's also a great thing to have a SecDef who just tells the truth: Gates noted bluntly yesterday that "Iranians are killing Americans in Iraq." It's now up to Congress to respond to Gates' request that these nominations be approved by Memorial Day.
Oh yes, there is that. But regardless, while less apt to "lay the wood" to Don Rumsfeld, I am in violent agreement with Ralph that watching these four runs stream across the plate in rapid succession is most definitely a "stand-up-and-cheer" moment. Why? Because, as he says in conclusion, "the word was already out to our enemies throughout the Middle East: We're determined to win - and we've got the right men to do it, by God." 04/25 12:01 PM Monday, April 21, 2008 Honor Bound: Inside the Guantanamo Trials [Gregory S. McNeal] I just found out about a great forthcoming book, Honor Bound: Inside the Guantanamo Trials. It highlights the challenges of serving as a JAG (Judge Advocate General) officer in an age of terrorism. Based on the list of reviewers (including our own Tank blogger J. Peter Pham), NRO readers are sure to enjoy it. Here are some quotes from national security and legal notables: “Honor Bound is an engrossing, first-hand account of military justice in an age of terrorism and what it takes to defend liberty as a JAG officer today.” — Edwin Meese, former U.S. Attorney General “This eye-opening inside account must be read by everyone who cares about balancing national security and human dignity.” — Alan M. Dershowitz, Harvard Law School professor and author of Finding Jefferson (Wiley, 2007) A “page-turning eye-opener for me. No American should miss the opportunity—and responsibility—to read it. Bravo!” — Theodore B. Olson, former Solicitor General of the United States, former Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, Department of Justice, and partner at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher “Anyone wishing to understand the upcoming detainee trials will want to read this fine account.” — Professor J. Peter Pham, James Madison University and Director of the Nelson Institute for International and Public Affairs 04/21 10:28 PM Iraq Boom--Not Boon--To European Jihadists [Steve Schippert] The Iraq War has long been feared by Europeans as little more than a training ground for terrorists and potential terrorists in their midst, who will learn their deadly trade in Iraq and then bring it back home. Well, it hasn't quite worked out that way, and, as the International Herald Tribune reports, "Europe's Fears Subside." The logistical challenges and expense of reaching Iraq have been one deterrent, they said, particularly since Syria has made episodic efforts to halt the use of its territory as a transit route. Compared with the thousands of European Muslims who joined the fight in Afghanistan in the 1990s through networks in Britain , the numbers of fighters going to Iraq has been extremely small, according to senior French intelligence officials. Another factor, the officials say, is that European Muslims lacking military training and good Arabic-language skills are neither needed nor welcomed by Iraqi insurgents - unless they are willing to be involved in suicide missions.
And successful suicide bombers don't bring back much experience to Europe. To risk making light of a decidedly "un-light" subject, Iraq has proven more "boom" than boon for the Europeans who sought their jihad on Iraqi sand. The "breeding ground" fears are proving—for Europe—to be less than once feared. But, as is typical, there are two sides to every coin, and the benefit of experience is not exclusively al-Qaeda's for the taking. I concluded this earlier at ThreatsWatch. Insofar as the ‘breeding ground’ argument goes, it must also be considered that it is impossible to have a war zone where combatants do not gain experience. And within that equation, the calculus also applies to our own skillsets, abilities and experience levels. The mental and physical tasks of counterinsurgency and counterterrorism inherent within the Iraq war have made the forces involved - from American to British to Iraqi - incalculably more able to conduct operations. And the knowledge gained (about al-Qaeda in particular) is not locked in the mind of Corporal John Smith in Fallujah, but shared and valuable across the board throughout different agencies - at home and within Iraq. The other side of the coin (pardoning the COIN pun) remains that Iraq has also become a counterterrorism and counterinsurgency proving ground for our own forces, services and agencies, with the experiences paying off in future theaters within this same conflict.
But if one reads, watches or listens to the dominant news outlets, all that can seemingly be heard is our own costs and the enemies' benefits and gains. Somehow, apparently out of a vacuum, al-Qaeda is cornered in Iraq. Consider last week's al-Qaeda propaganda product that America (and of course, President Bush) has suffered defeat in Iraq. Anyone notice that in the days before the release of that message, al-Qaeda deployed a wave of suicide bombers for successful, high-body-count attacks at funerals of Iraqi members of the anti-al-Qaeda Iraqi Awakening movement? This was not an accident. Without the two to three days of high-body-count headlines throughout Western media, the "defeat" propaganda would have been received with some measure of incredulous ridicule. "Not so cornered" was the required international message before release (to say nothing of the more direct intimidation message delivered to the families and surviving members of the now-recalcitrant Awakening movements.) But to date, I have yet to see anyone link the timing of the operations designed for body count with last week's al-Qaeda propaganda wave. I concede that I may have missed it somewhere. But to repeat one of my own favorite phrases, "It ain't rocket science." Taking context into account should be much more prevalent. Perhaps last week's al-Qaeda bombers were holders of one-way tickets from Europe. Perhaps the intent was as much to grab headlines of carnage ahead of planned proclamations of American defeat in Iraq. Perhaps it is too difficult to find potential meanings in a media far more interested in speculating about matters of such import as Vice President Cheney and Haliburton than daring to speculate about the enemy's aims and actions. Instead, they go "boom"—this much we hear about—and Western media then repeats al-Qaeda's claims of American defeat. Think the increasingly media-adept al-Qaeda leadership does not know this? Just asking... 04/21 02:42 PM A Few Good Women [Gregory S. McNeal] BlackFive does a pretty good job deconstructing the New York Times hit piece on Marine recruiting. The piece quotes such reputable sources as Code Pink, which called the Marines' recruiting efforts “just another example of potentially misleading tactics used to sell the war to young people, and especially young women." 04/21 01:21 PM Tangential questions and character relationships [Gregory S. McNeal] This gem is just too good to pass up. Steve Spruiell, writing in Media Blog, points out the hypocrisy of the open-letter writers who declared that character questions in the debate were "tangential." I did a little digging and found this bit from The Nation, which took issue with Vice President Cheney's association with and defense of Scooter Libby (along with every other job Cheney ever held): In the circles in which Cheney has traveled throughout his career, Libby might come off as a paragon of virtue and veracity. That ought not much trouble prosecutors, however. The vice president is his own man, and he plays by his own set of rules. Just as Cheney has never felt constrained by any Constitutional definition of duty to the republic, nor has he ever provided even the slightest indication that he is familiar with the textbook definition of "honesty" – let alone with the notion that an official ought to value that quality in those with whom he chooses to associate.(emphasis mine)
Well, The Nation has provided us a fantastic standard by which to evaluate Obama's questionable relationships. If the Vice President should value honesty in those with whom he associates, then certainly a President Obama—by The Nation's standard—should value similar qualities in those with whom he associates, qualities such as: This isn't my standard, it's the standard of The Nation. That standard doesn't look merely to an official's own values, it rightly cautions public officials to value honesty (and I presume other virtuous qualities) in those with whom one associates. If the associational standard is good enough for Cheney, it's certainly good enough for debate questions directed at Obama. 04/21 10:08 AM Friday, April 18, 2008 Our South Korean Allies [J. Peter Pham] In case you missed it, Sen. John McCain's San Jose Mercury News op-ed yesterday argues that this week's visit by South Korean President Lee Myung-bak is an opportunity to "reaffirm the strong bonds that tie together our great democracies" and, in doing so, to "remember that American security and respect in the world have always depended on our leadership and our steadfast support of freedom on every continent." The presumptive Republican presidential nominee also made the case that "any agreement with North Korea must be reached after full and close consultation with South Korea and Japan, ensuring their legitimate concerns are fully met." He also called for the passage of the trade agreement with our South Korean allies who currently supply the third-largest contingent to the coalition in Iraq. 04/18 09:49 AM Thursday, April 17, 2008 Terrorists Endorse Obama [Gregory S. McNeal] Hamas, on the State Department Designated Foreign Terrorist Organization list, has all but endorsed Senator Obama, and as E.M. Zanotti points out "They like him. They really, really like him . . . Barack Obama is the one that is going to love terrorists the most." This report has the details: During an interview on WABC radio Sunday, top Hamas political adviser Ahmed Yousef said the terrorist group supports Obama’s foreign policy vision. “We don’t mind–actually we like Mr. Obama. We hope he will (win) the election and I do believe he is like John Kennedy, great man with great principle, and he has a vision to change America to make it in a position to lead the world community but not with domination and arrogance,” Yousef said in response to a question about the group’s willingness to meet with either of the Democratic presidential candidates.
Apparently Republicans can't get any love from terrorrists based on the "either of the Democratic" candidates line. Somehow I don't think Senator McCain is feeling dissed. UPDATE: I just noticed this other Hamas tidbit posted by Jim Geraghty over in The Campaign Spot. Obama's church bulletin featured messages from Hamas! 04/17 01:24 PM Recruiting Trends: Theirs and Ours [Steve Schippert] Jules Crittenden, one of my long-time personal favorites, has done an excellent job of assembling and breaking down the available data on both our recruiting trends and those of the terrorists. It's worth the reader's time today to see each, cited and excerpted below. Army of dolts and criminals, or army of opportunity? Some media and DoD articles on the expanding wartime military. We’ll start with NPR’s report on waivers for substandard recruits:
After quoting the NPR Morning Edition item, Jules states something that goes unacknowledged (unknown?) by NPR. And he is spot on. Yeah, well there’s a long tradition of the military creating opportunities for turning people’s lives around. It would be interesting to see a comparative study of recidivism and life achievement rates for high school dropouts with criminal problems who enter the military, as opposed to those who enter the prison system or any kind of social betterment program.
There's much more, so be sure to continue down from there. As to the recruiting trends of the enemy, Jules cites an excellent item from another long-time favorite, Small Wars Journal. Know your enemy. Small Wars Journal and DoD offer up some recent findings, with an eye to combating enemy recruitment. We’ll start at Small Wars Journal with a study of foreign jihadi recruitment trends by Clint Watts, a former US Army Infantry Officer, FBI Special Agent and Executive Officer of the Combating Terrorism Center at West Point, now a private consultant:
I think you'll find Libya's status near the head of the pack in recruitment illuminating. Be sure to read it all. Also of interest regarding the enemy: Concerns Over Terrorist Recruiting in W. Europe Hayden: AQ recruiting 'Western' fighters Selling Terror: Hizballah's Professional Marketing Campaign The Unseen, Unmarketed 'Other Side': Holy Brothel
04/17 12:36 PM Congratulations to The Counterterrorism Blog [Gregory S. McNeal] Andrew Cochran and the great counterterrorism team at The Counterterrorism Blog have had a unique honor bestowed upon them...Al Qaeda has officially announced their hatred for them. I can't think of a better honor than that. Good work guys! 04/17 09:45 AM | 
