Saturday, May 12, 2007

Money, Sex, Power & Oil


Sex, money, spying, coups, . . . is it an Ian Flemming novel? Not this time. It's BP dispensing with business ethics and redefining the term "offshore drilling.":

BP executives working for Lord Browne spent millions of pounds on champagne-fuelled sex parties to help secure lucrative international oil contracts.

The company also worked with MI6 to help bring about changes in foreign governments, according to an astonishing account of life inside the oil giant.

Les Abrahams, who led BP's successful bid for a multi-million-pound deal with one of the former Soviet republics, today claims that Browne . . . presided over an "anything goes" regime of sexual licence, spying and financial sweeteners.

. . . Mr Abrahams tells how he spent £45 million in expenses over just four months of negotiations with Azerbaijan's state oil company.

Armed with a no-limit company credit card, he ordered supplies of champagne and caviar to be flown on company jets into the boomtown capital, Baku, to be consumed at the "sex parties".

The hospitality continued in London, where prostitutes were hired on the BP credit card to entertain visiting Azerbaijanis.

Mr Abrahams, an engineer by training, joined BP in 1991, just as the disintegration of the Soviet Union had triggered a "new gold rush" by oil multi-nationals seeking a share of the 200 billion barrels of oil reserves beneath the Caspian Sea.

While employed by BP, Mr Abrahams says he was persuaded to work for MI6 by John Scarlett, now head of the service but then its head of station in Moscow.

He says he was passing information to Scarlett in faxes and at one-to-one meetings in the Russian capital.

He also claims that BP was working closely with MI6 at the highest levels to help it to win business in the region and influence the political complexion of governments.

Mr Abrahams worked for BP's XFI unit - Exploring Frontiers International - which specialises in opening new markets in often unstable parts of the world.

He said Lord Browne, then BP's head of exploration, allocated a budget of £45 million to cover the first year's costs of the Baku operation.

"The order came from Browne's aides to 'get them anything they want'.

"By 'them', they meant local officials in Azerbaijan," Mr Abrahams said.

"There were 20 or 30 people working on it at BP head office, and we soon had a steady stream of executives coming over as negotiators. We got through the money in just four months - after which it was simply increased without question."

He described a Wild West world in which oil executives with briefcases full of dollars rubbed shoulders with mafia members, prostitutes and fixers and cut their deals in smoke-filled back rooms.

"The BP officials would come out to Baku in groups of five or six, every week," he said.

"Sometimes I would charter an entire Boeing 757 to carry as few as seven staff. Their main base was the hard currency bar of the old Intourist hotel - so named because it accepted only dollars and was only open to foreigners.

"It was full of prostitutes and many of us, including me, used them on a regular basis, although we quickly established they all worked for the KGB.

"If we went back to the rooms, not only were they bugged, but the girls would quiz us closely about what we were doing and where we were going, and reported straight back to their handlers.

"Everywhere was bugged, and all the phones were tapped. One of our executives was recorded saying unflattering things about the president, and his comments were played back to us in a meeting with local state oil company officials.

"We were then told clearly that he was no longer welcome in the country."

Mr Abrahams helped to forge links with the local officials by throwing lavish parties. He said the Azerbaijani girls who worked in the BP office, which occupied a floor of the Sovietskaya hotel, would attend the parties and routinely provide "sexual favours".

They were also presumed to work for the local intelligence services.

"There was one girl, called Natasha, assigned to teach us Russian, but it usually ended up as more that that. She would use the intimate opportunity to ask us questions about what we were up to.

"Caviar and champagne were consumed at the parties, which would start in the bars but inevitably end with the girls in the rooms.

"We had a company American Express card with no name on it which we could use to draw out $10,000 a time to pay for entertaining without ever having to account for it.

"Our local fixer was called 'Zulfie', who would help find girls, drink and occasionally hashish. We always suspected he worked for the KGB, because he was so well connected.

"A lot of the BP men's marriages went wrong. Either they ended up with the local girls, or the wives would find out - often because the girls would ring their home numbers "by accident".

"I don't believe that Browne didn't know everything that was going on. He came out to Baku on five or six occasions."

. . . He said BP applied the same laissez-faire attitude to hospitality when Azerbaijani officials came to the UK during the negotiations.

"I was given a hotline number which connected to a desk in the Foreign Office. It meant visas could be granted instantly for the Azerbaijanis and collected on arrival at the airport, rather than taking the usual several weeks.

"We had bundles of cash to spend on them when they got here, and could again use the corporate card without restraint.

"We would typically have a dinner at which Lord Browne would be present, then he would go home and we would head off to somewhere like the Gaslight Club in Piccadilly - where girls would dance topless and you would get charged £250 for your drink.

"Our guests would usually want girls to go back with afterwards. Sometimes we could persuade the girls in the clubs, but more often we would just phone up an escort agency.

"We could charge them straight to the BP Amex card. But it sometimes became problematic. One group of Khazak Oil officials stripped their hotel rooms in Aberdeen bare, including the sheets and pillowcases, and they would usually clear out the minibars wherever they were staying."

All the entertaining paid off in September 1992 when BP signed a £300 million deal to exploit the Shah Deniz oilfields.

Mr Abrahams says that a key factor in securing the deal was an £8 million payment BP made that year to SOCAR, the state-owned oil company in Azerbaijan, for the right to use a construction yard on the edge of the Caspian Sea.

"It was effectively a sweetener to help to secure the deal - and it worked," he said.

Among the guests at a dinner and ceremony at Baku's Gulistan Palace to celebrate the Shah Deniz deal were Lord Browne and Baroness Thatcher.

Mr Abrahams says he was told to ensure that everything ran smoothly for the event, including meeting Browne's fastidious requirements.

"I had his favourite brand of water, Hildon, and his preferred foods flown out in advance, and I made sure money was paid for police escorts and to circumvent immigration procedures at the airport for Browne and his entourage.

"That evening, he personally handed me a briefcase containing a cheque for $30 million (£15million), to close the deal.

. . . In 1993, Mr Abrahams played host to a group of MPs who visited Baku as guests of BP, including Harold Elletson - then a Tory MP but now an adviser to the Liberal Democrats - and Home Secretary John Reid, a Shadow Defence Minister at the time.

"John flew out in the BP Gulfstream jet," he recalls.

"After dinner, we went drinking in the hard currency bar. He was drinking a lot - this was a year before he gave up for good - and I grew worried as it got closer to the time of the curfew imposed because of the tense political situation at the time.

"I said, 'Come on John, we have to get back to the hotel.' But as we left, he was swaying around and being very noisy.

"I urged him not to draw attention to us because we weren't meant to be still on the streets. But then a van load of police armed with Kalashnikovs pulled up and asked us what we were doing.

"He said, 'I am a British politician...' I urged him to be quiet, but then he said to one of the policemen, 'If you don't take that f***ing Kalashnikov out of my face I'm going to stick it up your f***ing a***.'

"With that, we were arrested and shoved at gunpoint into the back of the van.

"It was only after I persuaded the driver to go to the hotel to speak to the intelligence officer there that they released us. John had only about two hours' sleep, then was up at 5.30am to fly to the nearby war zone of Nagorno Karabakh. He was completely hung over."

Some of Mr Abrahams' most intriguing claims surround the alleged co-operation between BP and the British intelligence services to secure a more pro-Western, pro-business regime in the country.

He says the operation, masterminded by Scarlett in Moscow, contributed to the coup in May 1992 which saw President Ayaz Mutalibov toppled by Abulfaz Elchibey, and then to a second change a year later which saw Haydar Aliyev take power.

Just months after Aliyev was installed, BP signed the so-called 'contract of the century', a £5 billion deal which placed BP at the head of an oil exporting consortium.

John Scarlett, says Mr Abrahams, "approached me very subtly and asked me to help to gather information for him.

"Because my daily route to the construction yard passed the supply routes for Nagorno Karabakh, he asked me to report on troop and weapons movements. And BP's deputy representative in Russia seemed very close to the embassy, too.

"BP supported both coups, both through discreet moves and open political support. Our progress on the oil contracts improved considerably after the coups."

Subsequently released Turkish secret service documents claimed BP had discussed an 'arms for oil' deal with the assistance of MI6, under which the company would use intermediaries to supply weapons to Aliyev's supporters in return for the contract.

When the documents emerged in 2000, BP denied supplying arms - although sources admitted its representatives had "discussed the possibility".

A BP spokesman said last night of Mr Abrahams' claims: "There are some facts in his account that are accurate, but we don't recognise most of it. We regard it as fantasy."

A spokeswoman for John Reid said she had no comment and the Foreign Office said of Mr Abrahams' claims: "We neither confirm nor deny anyone's allegations in relation to intelligence matters."

Read the entire story here.

Read More...

Interview With A Foreign Fighter Of Al Qaeda In Iraq

A jihadi website arranged for a two hour question and answer session with Abu Adam al-Maqdisi, a Palestinian member of Al Qaeda in Iraq. It is a mixture of practical advice for would-be terrorists, a blue print of plans for when America leaves Iraq, and a sprinkling of Baghdad Bob-esque propoganda (We control all of Anbar, etc.). Among other notable points are questions and answers on the bills before Congress. Evidently Harry and company are making the jihadi news. Highlights include:

"There are no specific fixed training camps inside of Iraq. Training is conducted in hidden secret places or in areas that, for obvious reasons, I can’t share them with you...Our most urgent need is for martyrs [suicide volunteers], we need martyrs more than anything else... To those of you who want to join the jihad in Iraq, then I would ask you to be patient and to organize everything before doing so. You should contact the brothers in Iraq before getting there. The whole notion of ‘passionate jihad’ and going to Iraq without having anyone to contact there is useless... so you should plan your departure and journey ahead of time.

"The brothers in Iraq are kept up-to-date about the events happening in Iraq via the various forums on the Internet... In response to the question ‘what is the best way to prepare yourself while in your country before joining the jihad in Iraq’: O’ brother, there are many military courses distributed by various jihadi websites—such as the Al-Hesbah, Al-Ekhlaas, and the Al-Boraq forums."

"The brothers from Algeria, they used to come to Iraq and then return to Algeria. There is coordination between us and them. Once, I met a brother from Tunisia who later died [in Iraq]... Once, I met a brother who was American and his mother was British—and yet in spite of this, he still joined the mujahideen... there are many Moroccan brothers who have joined the Islamic State."

“In regards to the bill in the U.S. Congress for the upcoming withdrawal from Iraq, I would comment that this is a normal response to what is occurring. It is the result of the efforts of your brothers among the mujahideen... our next step... is to establish an Islamic State. We will start by setting free all of the Muslim lands from the oppressor regimes. Of course, we have not forgotten about Palestine, Chechnya, Afghanistan, Andalusia [Spain], the Philippines, and all the other countries… The Islamic State of Iraq is seeking to export the jihad to neighboring countries... The jihad that began in Muslim Afghanistan and then spread to Iraq shall not stop there and will limited by any border... The Islamic State of Iraq will make sure the jihad will not stop until it reaches Jerusalem... We inform the Jews, we inform the lowlife Olmert, and we inform the apostate [Arab] rulers who support them that the jihad is here, Islam is here, and the followers of the Prophet are here."

"I would like to draw your attention to the entity calling itself the Shariah Front for Iraqi Salvation, which is a group that has no impact whatsoever on what is happening in Iraq. It is a group created by the media and serves no purpose whatsoever in Iraq.”
Read the entire transcript here.

(H/T Counterterrorism.org)

Read More...

Tony Blair and the Global War on Terror

In a post below, I took Tony Blair to task for what has all the appearances of a plan to become an apologist for Islam after he leaves office. Bill, a resident of the UK, responded to clarify some facts and noted that Tony Blair was the best spokesman for the war on terror in the West. I agree. As a speaker, he was always far more eloquent in his words and clear in his reasoning then President Bush, whose only true moment of eloquence came with a bullhorn while standing on the ruins of the World Trade Center. Blair's eloquence and logic combined with his deeply held principles made for some memorable speeches that we would do well to remember. Below is a speech from 2006 that Tony Blair gave on the War on Terror:

Over these past nine years, Britain has pursued a markedly different foreign policy. We have been strongly activist, justifying our actions, even if not always successfully, at least as much by reference to values as interests. We have constructed a foreign policy agenda that has sought to link, in values, military action in Kosovo, Sierra Leone, Afghanistan and Iraq with diplomatic action on climate change, world trade, Africa and Palestine. I set out the basis for this in the Chicago speech of 1999 where I called for a doctrine of international community, and again in the speech to the US Congress in July 2003.

The basic thesis is that the defining characteristic of today's world is its interdependence; that whereas the economics of globalisation are well matured, the politics of globalisation are not; and that unless we articulate a common global policy based on common values, we risk chaos threatening our stability, economic and political, through letting extremism, conflict or injustice go unchecked.

The consequence of this thesis is a policy of engagement not isolation; and one that is active not reactive.

Confusingly, its proponents and opponents come from all sides of the political spectrum. So it is apparently a "neo-conservative" ie right wing view, to be ardently in favour of spreading democracy round the world; whilst others on the right take the view that this is dangerous and deluded - the only thing that matters is an immediate view of national interest. Some progressives see intervention as humanitarian and necessary; others take the view that provided dictators don't threaten our citizens directly, what they do with their own, is up to them.

The debate on world trade has thrown all sides into an orgy of political cross-dressing. Protectionist sentiment is rife on the left; on the right, there are calls for "economic patriotism"; meanwhile some voices left and right, are making the case for free trade not just on grounds of commerce but of justice.

The true division in foreign policy today is between: those who want the shop "open", or those who want it "closed"; those who believe that the long-term interests of a country lie in it being out there, engaged, interactive and those who think the short-term pain of such a policy and its decisions, too great. This division has strong echoes in debates not just over foreign policy and trade but also over immigration.

Progressives may implement policy differently from conservatives, but the fault lines are the same.

Where progressive and conservative policy can differ is that progressives are stronger on the challenges of poverty, climate change and trade justice. I have no doubt at all it is impossible to gain support for our values, unless the demand for justice is as strong as the demand for freedom; and the willingness to work in partnership with others is an avowed preference to going it alone, even if that may sometimes be necessary.

I believe we will not ever get real support for the tough action that may well be essential to safeguard our way of life; unless we also attack global poverty and environmental degradation or injustice with equal vigour.

Neither in defending this interventionist policy do I pretend that mistakes have not been made or that major problems do not confront us and there are many areas in which we have not intervened as effectively as I would wish, even if only by political pressure. Sudan, for example; the appalling deterioration in the conditions of the people of Zimbabwe; human rights in Burma; the virtual enslavement of the people of North Korea.

I also acknowledge - and shall at a later time expand on this point - that the state of the MEPP and the stand-off between Israel and Palestine remains a, perhaps the, real, genuine source of anger in the Arab and Muslim world that goes far beyond usual anti-western feeling. The issue of "even handedness" rankles deeply. I will set out later how we should respond to Hamas in a way that acknowledges its democratic mandate but seeks to make progress peacefully.

So this is not an attempt to deflect criticism or ignore the huge challenges which remain; but to set out the thinking behind the foreign policy we have pursued.

Over the next few weeks, I will outline the implication of this agenda in three speeches, including this one. In this, the first, I will describe how I believe we can defeat global terrorism and why I believe victory for democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan is a vital element of doing that. In the second, I shall outline the importance of a broad global alliance to achieve our common goals. In the third, in America, I shall say how the international institutions need radical reform to make them capable of implementing such an agenda, in a strong and effective multilateral way. But throughout all three, I want to stress why this concept of an international community, based on core, shared values, prepared actively to intervene and resolve problems, is an essential pre-condition of our future prosperity and stability.

It is in confronting global terrorism today that the sharpest debate and disagreement is found. Nowhere is the supposed "folly" of the interventionist case so loudly trumpeted as in this case. Here, so it is said, as the third anniversary of the Iraq conflict takes place, is the wreckage of such a world view. Under Saddam Iraq was "stable". Now its stability is in the balance. Ergo, it should never have been done.

This is essentially the product of the conventional view of foreign policy since the fall of the Berlin Wall. This view holds that there is no longer a defining issue in foreign policy. Countries should therefore manage their affairs and relationships according to their narrow national interests. The basic posture represented by this view is: not to provoke, to keep all as settled as it can be and cause no tectonic plates to move. It has its soft face in dealing with issues like global warming or Africa; and reserves its hard face only if directly attacked by another state, which is unlikely. It is a view which sees the world as not without challenge but basically calm, with a few nasty things lurking in deep waters, which it is best to avoid; but no major currents that inevitably threaten its placid surface. It believes the storms have been largely self-created.

This is the majority view of a large part of western opinion, certainly in Europe. According to this opinion, the policy of America since 9/11 has been a gross overreaction; George Bush is as much if not more of a threat to world peace as Osama bin Laden; and what is happening in Iraq, Afghanistan or anywhere else in the Middle East, is an entirely understandable consequence of US/UK imperialism or worse, of just plain stupidity. Leave it all alone or at least treat it with sensitivity and it would all resolve itself in time; "it" never quite being defined, but just generally felt as anything that causes disruption.

This world view - which I would characterise as a doctrine of benign inactivity - sits in the commentator's seat, almost as a matter of principle. It has imposed a paradigm on world events that is extraordinary in its attraction and its scope. As we speak, Iraq is facing a crucial moment in its history: to unify and progress, under a government elected by its people for the first time in half a century; or to descend into sectarian strife, bringing a return to certain misery for millions. In Afghanistan, the same life choice for a nation, is being played out. And in many Arab and Muslim states, similar, though less publicised, struggles for democracy dominate their politics.

The effect of this paradigm is to see each setback in Iraq or Afghanistan, each revolting terrorist barbarity, each reverse for the forces of democracy or advance for the forces of tyranny as merely an illustration of the foolishness of our ever being there; as a reason why Saddam should have been left in place or the Taliban free to continue their alliance with Al Qaida. Those who still justify the interventions are treated with scorn.

Then, when terrorists strike in the nations like Britain or Spain, who supported such action, there is a groundswell of opinion formers keen to say, in effect, that it's hardly surprising - after all, if we do this to "their" countries, is it any wonder they do it to "ours"?

So the statement that Iraq or Afghanistan or Palestine or indeed Chechnya, Kashmir or half a dozen other troublespots is seen by extremists as fertile ground for their recruiting - a statement of the obvious - is elided with the notion that we have "caused" such recruitment or made terrorism worse, a notion that, on any sane analysis, has the most profound implications for democracy.


The easiest line for any politician seeking office in the West today is to attack American policy. A couple of weeks ago as I was addressing young Slovak students, one got up, denouncing US/UK policy in Iraq, fully bought in to the demonisation of the US, utterly oblivious to the fact that without the US and the liberation of his country, he would have been unable to ask such a question, let alone get an answer to it.

There is an interesting debate going on inside government today about how to counter extremism in British communities. Ministers have been advised never to use the term "Islamist extremist". It will give offence. It is true. It will. There are those - perfectly decent-minded people - who say the extremists who commit these acts of terrorism are not true Muslims. And, of course, they are right. They are no more proper Muslims than the Protestant bigot who murders a Catholic in Northern Ireland is a proper Christian. But, unfortunately, he is still a "Protestant" bigot. To say his religion is irrelevant is both completely to misunderstand his motive and to refuse to face up to the strain of extremism within his religion that has given rise to it.

Yet, in respect of radical Islam, the paradigm insists that to say what is true, is to provoke, to show insensitivity, to demonstrate the same qualities of purblind ignorance that leads us to suppose that Muslims view democracy or liberty in the same way we do.

Just as it lets go unchallenged the frequent refrain that it is to be expected that Muslim opinion will react violently to the invasion of Iraq: after all it is a Muslim country. Thus, the attitude is: we understand your sense of grievance; we acknowledge your anger at the invasion of a Muslim country; but to strike back through terrorism is wrong.

It is a posture of weakness, defeatism and most of all, deeply insulting to every Muslim who believes in freedom ie the majority. Instead of challenging the extremism, this attitude panders to it and therefore instead of choking it, feeds its growth.

None of this means, incidentally, that the invasion of Iraq or Afghanistan was right; merely that it is nonsense to suggest it was done because the countries are Muslim.

I recall the video footage of Mohammed Sadiq Khan, the man who was the ringleader of the 7/7 bombers. There he was, complaining about the suppression of Muslims, the wickedness of America and Britain, calling on all fellow Muslims to fight us. And I thought: here is someone, brought up in this country, free to practise his religion, free to speak out, free to vote, with a good standard of living and every chance to raise a family in a decent way of life, talking about "us", the British, when his whole experience of "us" has been the very opposite of the message he is preaching. And in so far as he is angry about Muslims in Iraq or Afghanistan let Iraqi or Afghan Muslims decide whether to be angry or not by ballot.

There was something tragic, terrible but also ridiculous about such a diatribe. He may have been born here. But his ideology wasn't. And that is why it has to be taken on, everywhere.

This terrorism will not be defeated until its ideas, the poison that warps the minds of its adherents, are confronted, head-on, in their essence, at their core. By this I don't mean telling them terrorism is wrong. I mean telling them their attitude to America is absurd; their concept of governance pre-feudal; their positions on women and other faiths, reactionary and regressive; and then since only by Muslims can this be done: standing up for and supporting those within Islam who will tell them all of this but more, namely that the extremist view of Islam is not just theologically backward but completely contrary to the spirit and teaching of the Koran.

But in order to do this, we must reject the thought that somehow we are the authors of our own distress; that if only we altered this decision or that, the extremism would fade away. The only way to win is: to recognise this phenomenon is a global ideology; to see all areas, in which it operates, as linked; and to defeat it by values and ideas set in opposition to those of the terrorists.

The roots of global terrorism and extremism are indeed deep. They reach right down through decades of alienation, victimhood and political oppression in the Arab and Muslim world. Yet this is not and never has been inevitable. The most remarkable thing about reading the Koran - in so far as it can be truly translated from the original Arabic - is to understand how progressive it is. I speak with great diffidence and humility as a member of another faith. I am not qualified to make any judgements. But as an outsider, the Koran strikes me as a reforming book, trying to return Judaism and Christianity to their origins, rather as reformers attempted with the Christian Church centuries later. It is inclusive. It extols science and knowledge and abhors superstition. It is practical and way ahead of its time in attitudes to marriage, women and governance.

Under its guidance, the spread of Islam and its dominance over previously Christian or pagan lands was breathtaking. Over centuries it founded an Empire, leading the world in discovery, art and culture. The standard bearers of tolerance in the early Middle Ages were far more likely to be found in Muslim lands than in Christian.

This is not the place to digress into a history of what subsequently happened. But by the early 20th century, after renaissance, reformation and enlightenment had swept over the Western world, the Muslim and Arab world was uncertain, insecure and on the defensive. Some countries like Turkey went for a muscular move to secularism. Others found themselves caught between colonisation, nascent nationalism, political oppression and religious radicalism. Muslims began to see the sorry state of Muslim countries as symptomatic of the sorry state of Islam. Political radicals became religious radicals and vice versa. Those in power tried to accommodate the resurgent Islamic radicalism by incorporating some of its leaders and some of its ideology. The result was nearly always disastrous. The religious radicalism was made respectable; the political radicalism suppressed and so in the minds of many, the cause of the two came together to symbolise the need for change. So many came to believe that the way of restoring the confidence and stability of Islam was the combination of religious extremism and populist politics.

The true enemies became "the West" and those Islamic leaders who co-operated with them.

The extremism may have started through religious doctrine and thought. But soon, in offshoots of the Muslim brotherhood, supported by Wahabi extremists and taught in some of the Madrassas of the Middle East and Asia, an ideology was born and exported around the world.

The worst terrorist act was 9/11 in New York and Washington DC in 2001, where three thousand people were murdered. But the reality is that many more had already died not just in acts of terrorism against Western interests, but in political insurrection and turmoil round the world. Over 100,000 died in Algeria. In Chechnya and Kashmir political causes that could have been resolved became brutally incapable of resolution under the pressure of terrorism. Today, in well over 30 or 40 countries terrorists are plotting action loosely linked with this ideology. Its roots are not superficial, therefore, they are deep, embedded now in the culture of many nations and capable of an eruption at any time.

The different aspects of this terrorism are linked. The struggle against terrorism in Madrid or London or Paris is the same as the struggle against the terrorist acts of Hezbollah in Lebanon or the PIJ in Palestine or rejectionist groups in Iraq. The murder of the innocent in Beslan is part of the same ideology that takes innocent lives in Saudi Arabia, the Yemen or Libya. And when Iran gives support to such terrorism, it becomes part of the same battle with the same ideology at its heart.

True the conventional view is that, for example, Iran is hostile to Al Qaida and therefore would never support its activities. But as we know from our own history of conflict, under the pressure of battle, alliances shift and change. Fundamentally, for this ideology, we are the enemy.

Which brings me to the fundamental point. "We" is not the West. "We" are as much Muslim as Christian or Jew or Hindu. "We" are those who believe in religious tolerance, openness to others, to democracy, liberty and human rights administered by secular courts.

This is not a clash between civilisations. It is a clash about civilisation. It is the age-old battle between progress and reaction, between those who embrace and see opportunity in the modern world and those who reject its existence; between optimism and hope on the one hand; and pessimism and fear on the other. And in the era of globalisation where nations depend on each other and where our security is held in common or not at all, the outcome of this clash between extremism and progress is utterly determinative of our future here in Britain. We can no more opt out of this struggle than we can opt out of the climate changing around us. Inaction, pushing the responsibility on to America, deluding ourselves that this terrorism is an isolated series of individual incidents rather than a global movement and would go away if only we were more sensitive to its pretensions; this too is a policy. It is just that; it is a policy that is profoundly, fundamentally wrong.

And this is why the position of so much opinion on how to defeat this terrorism and on the continuing struggle in Iraq and Afghanistan and the Middle East is, in my judgement, so mistaken.

It ignores the true significance of the elections in Iraq and Afghanistan. The fact is: given the chance, the people wanted democracy. OK so they voted on religious or regional lines. That's not surprising, given the history. But there's not much doubt what all the main parties in both countries would prefer and it is neither theocratic nor secular dictatorship. The people - despite violence, intimidation, inexperience and often logistical nightmares - voted. Not a few. But in numbers large enough to shame many western democracies. They want Government decided by the people.

And who is trying to stop them? In Iraq, a mixture of foreign Jihadists, former Saddamists and rejectionist insurgents. In Afghanistan, a combination of drug barons, Taliban and Al Qaida.

In each case, US, UK and the forces of many other nations are there to help the indigenous security forces grow, to support the democratic process and to provide some clear bulwark against the terrorism that threatens it. In each case, full UN authority is in place. There was and is a debate about the legality of the original decision to remove Saddam. But since May 2003, the MNF has been in Iraq under a UN resolution and with the authority of the first ever elected Government. In Afghanistan throughout, UN authority has been in place.

In both countries, the armed forces and police service are taking shape so that in time a democratically elected government has, under its control, sufficient power to do the will of the democratic state. In each case again, people die queuing up to join such forces, determined whatever the risk, to be part of a new and different dispensation.

Of course, and wholly wrongly, there are abuses of human rights, mistakes made, things done that should not be done. There always were. But at least this time, someone demands redress; people are free to complain.

So here, in its most pure form, is a struggle between democracy and violence. People look back on the three years since the Iraq conflict; they point to the precarious nature of Iraq today and to those who have died - mainly in terrorist acts - and they say: how can it have been worth it?

But there is a different question to ask: why is it so important to the forces of reaction and violence to halt Iraq in its democratic tracks and tip it into sectarian war? Why do foreign terrorists from Al Qaida and its associates go across the border to kill and maim? Why does Syria not take stronger action to prevent them? Why does Iran meddle so furiously in the stability of Iraq?

Examine the propaganda poured into the minds of Arabs and Muslims. Every abuse at Abu Ghraib is exposed in detail; of course it is unacceptable but it is as if the only absence of due process in that part of the world is in prisons run by the Americans. Every conspiracy theory - from seizing Iraqi oil to imperial domination - is largely dusted down and repeated.

Why? The answer is that the reactionary elements know the importance of victory or defeat in Iraq. Right from the beginning, to them it was obvious. For sure, errors were made on our side. It is arguable that de-Baathification went too quickly and was spread too indiscriminately, especially amongst the armed forces. Though in parenthesis, the real worry, back in 2003 was a humanitarian crisis, which we avoided; and the pressure was all to de-Baathify faster.

But the basic problem from the murder of the United Nations staff in August 2003 onwards was simple: security. The reactionary elements were trying to de-rail both reconstruction and democracy by violence. Power and electricity became problems not through the indolence of either Iraqis or the MNF but through sabotage. People became frightened through terrorism and through criminal gangs, some deliberately released by Saddam.

These were not random acts. They were and are a strategy. When that strategy failed to push the MNF out of Iraq prematurely and failed to stop the voting; they turned to sectarian killing and outrage most notably February's savage and blasphemous destruction of the Shia Shrine at Samarra.

They know that if they can succeed either in Iraq or Afghanistan or indeed in Lebanon or anywhere else wanting to go the democratic route, then the choice of a modern democratic future for the Arab or Muslim world is dealt a potentially mortal blow. Likewise if they fail, and those countries become democracies and make progress and, in the case of Iraq, prosper rapidly as it would; then not merely is that a blow against their whole value system; but it is the most effective message possible against their wretched propaganda about America, the West, the rest of the world.

That to me is the painful irony of what is happening. They have so much clearer a sense of what is at stake. They play our own media with a shrewdness that would be the envy of many a political party. Every act of carnage adds to the death toll. But somehow it serves to indicate our responsibility for disorder, rather than the act of wickedness that causes it. For us, so much of our opinion believes that what was done in Iraq in 2003 was so wrong, that it is reluctant to accept what is plainly right now.

What happens in Iraq or Afghanistan today is not just crucial for the people in those countries or even in those regions; but for our security here and round the world. It is a cause that has none of the debatable nature of the decisions to go for regime change; it is an entirely noble one - to help people in need of our help in pursuit of liberty; and a self-interested one, since in their salvation lies our own security.

Naturally, the debate over the wisdom of the original decisions, especially in respect of Iraq will continue. Opponents will say Iraq was never a threat; there were no WMD; the drug trade in Afghanistan continues. I will point out Iraq was indeed a threat as two regional wars, 14 UN resolutions and the final report of the Iraq Survey Group show; that in the aftermath of the Iraq War we secured major advances on WMD not least the new relationship with Libya and the shutting down of the AQ Khan network; and that it was the Taliban who manipulated the drug trade and in any event housed Al Qaida and its training camps.

But whatever the conclusion to this debate, if there ever is one, the fact is that now, whatever the rights and wrongs of how and why Saddam and the Taliban were removed, there is an obvious, clear and overwhelming reason for supporting the people of those countries in their desire for democracy.

I might point out too that in both countries supporters of the ideology represented by Saddam and Mullah Omar are free to stand in elections and on the rare occasions they dare to do so, don't win many votes.

Across the Arab and Muslim world such a struggle for democracy and liberty continues. One reason I am so passionate about Turkey's membership of the EU is precisely because it enhances the possibility of a good outcome to such a struggle. It should be our task to empower and support those in favour of uniting Islam and democracy, everywhere.

To do this, we must fight the ideas of the extremists, not just their actions; and stand up for and not walk away from those engaged in a life or death battle for freedom. The fact of their courage in doing so should give us courage; their determination should lend us strength; their embrace of democratic values, which do not belong to any race, religion or nation, but are universal, should reinforce our own confidence in those values.

Shortly after Saddam fell, I met in London a woman who after years of exile - and there were 4 million such exiles - had returned to Iraq to participate in modern politics there. A couple of months later, she was assassinated, one of the first to be so. I cannot tell what she would say now. But I do know it would not be: give up. She would not want her sacrifice for her beliefs to be in vain.

Two years later the same ideology killed people on the streets of London, and for the same reason. To stop cultures, faiths and races living in harmony; to deter those who see greater openness to others as a mark of humanity's progress; to disrupt the very thing that makes London special would in time, if allowed to, set Iraq on a course of progress too.

This is, ultimately, a battle about modernity. Some of it can only be conducted and won within Islam itself. But don't let us in our desire not to speak of what we can only imperfectly understand; or our wish not to trespass on sensitive feelings, end up accepting the premise of the very people fighting us.

The extremism is not the true voice of Islam. Neither is that voice necessarily to be found in those who are from one part only of Islamic thought, however assertively that voice makes itself heard. It is, as ever, to be found in the calm, but too often unheard beliefs of the many Muslims, millions of them the world over, including in Europe, who want what we all want: to be ourselves free and for others to be free also; who regard tolerance as a virtue and respect for the faith of others as part of our own faith. That is what this battle is about, within Islam and outside of it; it is a battle of values and progress; and therefore it is one we must win.
Read the entire story here.

(H/T Michelle Malkin)

Read More...

Who Is Fighting The Iraq War & Is It A Civil War

Over at the Daily Standard, Daveed Gerstein-Ross takes a look at the forces that are involved in hostiliities in Iraq. It is an important piece for several reasons, not the least of which is it allows us to begin to analyze the validity of the claim that Iraq is in a state of civil war.

Althogh Gerstein-Ross does not define the relevant terms, it is helpful to have some working definitions before reading his article.

Civil War: FM 100-20 (Military Operations in Low Intensity Conflict) defines a civil war as: A war between factions of the same country [that meets these five criteria]:

1. the contestants must control territory,

2. have a functioning government,

3. enjoy some foreign recognition,

4. have identifiable regular armed forces,

5. and engage in major military operations.”

An insurgency on the other hand is something of a different magnitude. According to the Joint Publication (JP) 1-02, Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms, it is when citizens of a country organize to overthrow the country’s constituted government.
Four elements that "typically encompass an insurgency":

1. cell-networks that maintain secrecy

2. terror used to foster insecurity among the population and drive them to the movement for protection

3. multifaceted attempts to cultivate support in the general population, often by undermining the new regime

4. attacks against the government
Mr. Gerstein-Ross covers the various major elements involved in Iraq today. To give a short summary:

Sunni Nationalist Insrugent Groups: These groups have largely broken apart. Of those that are still viable, the violence for which they are responsible is negligible.

Al Qaeda in Iraq; The single largest threat in Iraq, even though it and its related organizations are under tremendous pressure from the ongoing counterinsurgency operation as well as a revolt by its onetime Sunni hosts. It combines foreign leadership directly linked to the main branch of al Qaeda, foreign jihadis who enter the country and often end up as the suicide bombers responsible for the major attacks and loss of life, but the bulk of the fighters are former members of Saddam Hussein's intelligence agencies and Revolutionary Guards.

The Mahdi Army; Once thought the greatest danger to Iraq's nascent government, support for the Mahdi Army seems to have dwindled enormously. What remains of the Mahdi Army today is a core of about 3,000 Iranian trained, equiped and funded militants.

The Badr Brigade: A militia with about 20,000 members, it has played a dual role in Iraq. It has been a stabilizing force on one hand, attacking both the Sadr militia and the Sunni militants. On the other hand, it played a large role in the sectarian violence after the 2006 bombing of the Mosque of the Golden Dome. It is just unclear at the moment which direction the Badr oranization will eventually follow.

Then there is the foreign element in all of this not otherwise covered above. Private donors in Saudi Arabia finance al Qaeda in Iraq. Syria allows its country to be used a throughway for weapons, cash and people into Iraq, and there is evidence of Syrian intelligence involvment in training insurgents. The largest foreign interference comes from Iran. They have directly involved themselves in sponsoring Shia militias, they are providing the deadly EFP's, and, although not mentioned in this article, we know from other sources of Iran's interference in the political process by bribery and cash donations to favored political organizations.

Do read the whole story here. It would appear from the article that there is no civil war going on in Iraq today, at least by the text book definition. What we are seeing are elements of an insurgency combined with significant foreign involvement on all sides.

Read More...

Friday, May 11, 2007

Tony Blair & Islam: Is He A Cynic Or A Fool?

Tony Blair's legacy as Prime Minister is positive, I think, though much awaits the passage of time and the judgment of history. From this side of the pond, looking solely at his relationship with the United States, I could not have more respect for the man. But all of that is for another post. This post concerns Blair's plans for after he leaves the post of Prime Minister. And either Blair is about to execute an incredibly cynical plan to cash in on the Saudi petrodollars or he is a truly dangerous fool. See this:

BRITISH Prime Minister Tony Blair intends to create a global foundation to foster "greater understanding" between the three "Abrahamic faiths" of Christianity, Judaism and Islam after he leaves Downing Street.

Mr Blair, who will announce his timetable for resignation today, is expected to make the project the main focus of his energies when he leaves office this northern summer.

A member of his tight-knit inner-circle of advisers confirmed yesterday that Mr Blair is looking to "set up some sort of interfaith organisation", saying: "He sees this as where the action is and nobody else is really doing it."

. . . [T]he interfaith project will attempt to foster religious - rather than political - harmony in the Middle East and elsewhere across the world, including Britain, where rising tensions with militant Islam have provided the backdrop to many of the worst moments of his 10 years in office.

Mr Blair, who was enthusiastically reading the Koran even before the September 11, 2001, attacks on the US, said recently: "The tragedy is that as Christians, Jews and Muslims we are all Abrahamic religions. We regard ourselves as children of Abraham but we have fought for so long."

In a speech in 2006 he referred to a woman protesting about the Pope's recent visit to Turkey holding a poster which stated that "Jesus was a prophet but not the son of God". This, he said, was "elevating the placard to an altogether higher plane of theology".

He added: "Most Christians are hugely surprised to be told that the Koran reveres Jesus as a prophet. Many Jews, Muslims and Christians are entirely ignorant of the rich Abrahamic heritage we share in common."

Although aides acknowledge that the new project may face resistance from Muslims who loathe him for his role as an ally to Mr Bush and in the invasion of Iraq, Mr Blair believes that he can appeal to moderate Islam.

. . . Funding for the new organisation is expected to come from wealthy donors in the US and the Arab world, as well as Britain. But advisers insist that preparations are still at an early stage. . . .
Read the entire story here.

The absolute last thing we need is another major organization providing cover for Islam - and this has all the sounds of doing precisely that. What we do need is an international organization that will bring Wahhabi / Salafi Islam into the light of reality and subject it to reasoned criticism. I can assure you, however, funding for such an organization is not going to be forthcoming from wealthy Arab donors in the Middle East. The wealthy Arabs are the Saudis who spend their petrobillions spreading Wahhabi / Salafi Islam. If Mr. Blair will be receiving funding from wealthy Arabs, he will be pocketing money to be nothing more then a useful idiot for the Wahhabis, and a source of suicidal ignorace for the rest of Western civilization.

In the article, Mr. Blair asserts that Islam's classification as an Abrahamic religion is somehow relevant to Western understanding of Islam. That is something that I would expect to see written by a Wahabbi front organizations, such as CAIR in America or the MCB in the UK. Yes, the Koran has some references to Jesus. That is utterly meaningless in the scheme of things. It is like saying that blueberries and daphne berries are similar on the ground that both are berries. True enough, but the daphne berries will kill you if you eat them. If Mr. Blair intends to paint a picture of Islam based on points such as this, he will be doing nothing but contributing to the demise of Western Civilization while cashing in on riyals.

We in the West do not need someone feeding us any more unrealistic pictures that purport to show how peaceful Islam is and how much it is like Christianity. To the extent there are any parallels between Christianity and Wahhabi Salafi Islam, those parallels are limited to the form of Christianity that existed at the turn of the previous millenium. Wahhabi / Salafi Islam, which is rapidly becoming the dominant sect throughtout the Islamic world, is an incredibly racist, triumphalist and brutal religion that clearly has no respect for Judaism or Christianity. Will Mr. Blair be teaching that, as Christians, the Wahhabi's view us as polytheists, and in their school text books, they teach that it is appropriate to kill or enslave such people and take their property? How's that for a bit of reality. It certainly tells you more about Wahhabi Islam then does the point about Islam being an Abrihamic religion. And the BBC documentary Undercover Mosque teaches a lot more also.

If Mr. Blair actually wishes to do something of benefit to the world at large, for those of us in the West, he would develop a foundation dedicated to exposing Wahhabi Islam in all of its ugly reality. And as to the Islamic world, he would use the foundation to support the work of people like Tawfiq Hamid who are highly critical of Wahhabi / Salafi Islam and wish to see it moderate through the process of itjihad.

From the sounds of it, I don't think that I'll hold my breath for that type of foundaton from Mr. Blair. So the only question now, is Blair just a usefull idiot for the radical islamists, or is he greedy cynic with riyals in his eyes?

Read More...

Are Dems Winning the Battle For Surrender?

Robert Tracinski publishes a newsletter available at TIADaily.com to subscribers. I strongly recommend it as he provides a consistently solid analysis of events. His latest is looking at what is now a snowball effect to get us out of Iraq, with unprincipled moderate republicans starting to squirm and Democrats defining what Petraeus must show to establish that the surge is succeeding come September. As I warned here, Democrats are doing all they can to undercut whatever General Petraeus may say, and absent some real leadership from Republicans to recenter the debate or a Lieberman switch to the Republican Party, we probably will withdraw from Iraq commencing in September. This is Tracinski's thorough analysis of the situation, coming to a similar conclusion and asking that we start taking efforts at the grass roots level to get our elected representatives' attention:

Are the Democrats slowly winning the battle for surrender in Iraq?

President Bush recently vetoed the congressional war appropriations bill that would have imposed a timetable for surrender in Iraq by mandating that America begin withdrawing its troops on October 1 of this year. But there are signs that some congressional Republicans may be caving in to a watered-down version of that timeline, setting September 30 as the date on which they will consider joining the Democrats in voting for an American retreat from Iraq.

So the Republicans have succeeded in blocking a bill that would establish a "date certain" for American surrender—but now we face a date uncertain: a date on which Congress may or may not vote for surrender.

The potential break in the will of congressional Republicans is partly overstated by the Democrats as part of their political posturing. A recent Associated Press report, for example, proclaims "Boehner: GOP Support on Iraq Could Waver," yet the story is almost entirely dependent on quotes from boasting Democrats, with only a few quotes from the man to whom the headline attributes Republican wavering: House Majority Leader John Boehner. And the quote from Boehner is taken out of context.

. . . The Los Angeles Times at least gives us that context:
Boehner said he had long backed benchmarks and said they could help the Bush administration assess whether its strategies were working. But he rejected the idea that those benchmarks should be tied to funding.

"I'm for benchmarks that are for success," he said. "I'm not for benchmarks with artificial timelines, yanking funds, trying to ensure that there's failure in Iraq."

Boehner has defined the issue in exactly the right way: the only proper criterion for judging any measure on Iraq is whether it will lead to victory.
. . . But while the top Republican leaders have not broken, there are signs of defection among the habitually appeasing, unprincipled "moderate" Republicans—the type who reflexively swing back toward the left whenever the political influence of the Republican leadership fades. Today's New York Times has a worrying report on a meeting between the "moderates" and President Bush

. . . The most balanced coverage of this story comes from the Washington Post, which reports:
"Many of my Republican colleagues have been promised they will get a straight story on the surge by September," said Sen. Gordon Smith (R-Ore.). "I won't be the only Republican, or one of two Republicans, demanding a change in our disposition of troops in Iraq at that point. That is very clear to me."…

"There is a sense that by September, you've got to see real action on the part of Iraqis," said Sen. Norm Coleman (R-Minn.). "I think everybody knows that, I really do."

"I think a lot of us feel that way," agreed Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine)….
The new House proposal would immediately provide about $43 billion of the $95.5 billion the administration says it needs to keep the war going through Sept. 30. That infusion would come with language establishing benchmarks of success for the Iraqi government, and it is likely to include tougher standards for resting, training, and equipping troops. Binding timelines for troop withdrawals would be dropped to try to win Republican support and avoid a second veto.

The remaining $52.5 billion in the bill would be contingent on a second vote in late July, after the administration's progress report.

Republicans are still fairly united in opposing the July vote for an extension of war funding—but they are starting to agree to the September 30 deadline.

The Republican leadership seems to regard this as a stalling tactic, an attempt to delay a showdown by three to four months in order to buy time for General Petraeus to show progress in Iraq, in the hope that this will make it easier for quailing Republican moderates to support the war and harder for moderate Democrats to oppose it.

The problem is that the left has largely succeeded in rigging the terms of the debate to make it impossible to demonstrate any American success in Iraq. A few days ago, Jack Wakeland described the problem to me this way:

Congressmen on both sides of the isle agree on tacit deadline of Sept. 30. If General Petraeus and President Bush can't prove they're making progress in establishing a stable republic in Iraq, a large body of Republican congressmen say they'll join democrats in pulling the plug.

But on what terms will "progress" in Iraq have to be proved?

Hasn't the left already set false terms of debate in that area, too—asserting absolute disbelief of any assertions of American success in Iraq and Afghanistan as the criterion of rationality? Leftists in the press have created an ersatz "credibility gap" to derail any discussion of Iran's evil meddling and murder in Iraq and, with their condemnation of John McCain's visit to Baghdad, they've begun to assert that any observation by any American that there are any secure or peaceful areas in Iraq are fraudulent. (They actually got McCain to recant his statement on how secure the area was—even though it was a fact Sen. McCain saw with his own eyes.)

The principle for reporting on the war is now: Any success by the Islamist enemies is a real and lasting achievement. Any success by America or by friendly local forces is either a temporary condition or a fake.

How will legitimate claims of progress by Gen. Petreaus be received? How have claims that his work is good already been received? And how will the legitimate claims of President Bush on the imperative to not abandon Iraq be received?

The left is re-writing the rational rules of the cultural-political playing field so they always come out against America's national defense.

For a preview of what we can expect to see on September 30, consider the reception of an Iraqi official reporting to Congress on the state of the conflict in Iraq. The Iraqi of Minister of Defense has been on a trip to Washington attempting to lobby for further support for his nation. According to the New York Times:
In the session with [Democratic Senator Carl] Levin, Mr. Rubaie stressed that Iraq was involved in a historic process to overcome the long legacy of authoritarian rule, and that the early withdrawal of American troops would lead to chaos.

Mr. Levin, for his part, stuck firmly to his position that the United States should begin a partial troop withdrawal in four months.
The story's headline says it all: "Official Takes Case to US, but Skeptics Don't Budge." Expect many more such headlines on and around September 30, all as a rationalization for Democrats to do what they already want to do—force an American retreat from Iraq—and as cover for the timid Republican "moderates" to go along.

Al-Qaeda number two man Ayman al-Zawahiri is already gloating that "the empire of evil is about to end and a new dawn is about break over mankind, [which will be] liberated from the Caesars of the White House and Europe and from the Zionists." He is also telling Iraqis who have sided with America to "look to their fates and their futures" once America withdraws. It is a not-so-subtle threat that has now become a credible threat, thanks to the Democratic Congress, to the Republican "moderates"—and to a mass of irresponsible "swing voters."

All of this is leaving many supporters of the war in a state of despair. Tony Blankley recently noted the emerging consensus over the September 30 deadline and concluded:
Assuming continuing bad news and bad polling in September, enough Republicans may well support the Democrats' inevitable "out by the spring" military appropriation to allow for a successful override of the president's certain veto. Then the president may try to challenge congressional authority in court (perhaps relying on the 1861 Food and Forage Act, if Congress doesn't exempt their cutoff from that law, which permits an army to stay in the field without appropriated monies).

Perhaps the president will win in court. Perhaps things will be seen to be getting much better in Iraq. Perhaps fewer Republicans will cross the aisle, and will instead stick with their commitment to our national security requirements. Perhaps the Democrats will so grossly demonstrate their unfitness for national leadership that they lose electoral credibility (although their growing electoral strength in the face of their already clearly grotesque irresponsibility makes one wonder what more they could do that might, finally, appall the public). But a betting man wouldn't count on it.
But we're not just spectators sitting back and betting on this contest—not when we have such a direct, personal stake in the outcome. And now we know exactly how grim the situation is, exactly how far the Democrats are willing to go in causing the implosion of America's foreign policy, and exactly how much time we have to make a difference.

Mark your calendar for September 30—and do everything you can, until then, to impress upon your leaders and upon your fellow citizens the disastrous consequences of giving Ayman al-Zawahiri his victory in Iraq.
I have said before and will say again: all of our elected leaders who value national security above partisan politics need to start speaking up and taking a stand against the ridiculous memes that the far left Democrats are using to justify retreat and to set the terms of the debate. I have yet to hear one Republican say word one about Jack Murtha's performance on Hardball where he called General Petraeus a liar, among other patently false assertions. There should have been a chorus of people standing at podiums the next day laying down the gauntlet in no uncertain terms. There should be absolute name-calling outrage. But instead, the silence has been deafening. Somebody has to wake up and start vociferously attacking this lying and idiocy or we will be out of Iraq starting in September. And this country will pay the bill for it for God knows how long - but you can rest assured it will make the "blank check" to finish the war look like pocket change.

(H/T Steve Halter)

Read More...

Fred for Firearms

Fred Thompson weighs in on the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms:

If you care about Constitutional law, and everybody should, the big news is that it looks as if the Supreme Court is going to hear a Second Amendment case some time next year. . . .

Our individual right to keep and bear arms, as guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, may finally be confirmed by the high court; but this means that we're going to see increasing pressure on the Supreme Court from anti-gun rights activists who want the Constitution reinterpreted to fit their prejudices. The New York Times has already fired the first broadside.

A few days ago, the Gray Lady published a fascinating account of the case -- fascinating but fundamentally flawed. In it, the central argument about the Second Amendment is pretty accurately described. Specifically, it is between those who see it as an individual right versus those who see it as a collective states' right having more to do with the National Guard than the people.

Unfortunately, the article falsely portrays the individual right argument as some new interpretation held only by a few fringe theorists. The truth is very different, as civil rights attorney and gun law expert Don Kates has pointed out recently.

From the enactment of the Bill of Rights in 1791 until the 20th Century, no one seriously argued that the Second Amendment dealt with anything but an individual right -- along with all other nine original amendments. Kates writes that not one court or commentator denied it was a right of individual gun owners until the last century. . .

. . . Kates writes that, "Over 120 law review articles have addressed the Second Amendment since 1980. The overwhelming majority affirm that it guarantees a right of individual gun owners. That is why the individual right view is called the 'standard model' view by supporters and opponents alike. With virtually no exceptions, the few articles to the contrary have been written by gun control advocates, mostly by people in the pay of the anti-gun lobby."

Kates goes further, writing that "a very substantial proportion" of the articles supporting individual gun rights are by scholars who would have been happy to find evidence that guns could be banned. When guns were outlawed in D.C., crime and murder rates skyrocketed. Still, the sentiment exists and must be countered with facts. All of this highlights why it is so important to appoint judges who understand that their job is to interpret the law, as enacted by will of the people, rather than make it up as they go along.
Read the entire story here. I have always found it curious that, in areas where crime is the highest, such as my old hometown of Baltimore, you often find the loudest cries for gun control. But, in those scenarios, what you are doing is restricting the rights of law abiding citizens. The folks misusing the guns in the first place aren't likely to be deterred by the regulations, nor are they likely going to be unable to get a weapon. While some restrictions on gun ownership certainly need to be in place - such as highlighted in the recent Virginia case where the shooter was diagnosed with significant mental problems - making it so that the average citizen cannot own a weapon is counterintuitive, at least for a conservative. I suppose it does play into the left's paradigm that the average man or woman cannot be trusted. But I disagree.

Read More...

The Coming Battle for Diyala & The Sunni Revolt Against Al Qaeda

Between the counterinsurgency operation in Baghdad and the Sunni revolt in Anbar Province, al Qaeda has largely retreated into Diyala province northeast of Baghdad, where they are preparing for a defense along the lines of that executed by Hezbollah in the fight last year with the Israelis in Lebanon. The situation is hardly static. Sunnis in Diyala are beginning their own revolt against al Qaeda, and they are getting assistance from the Anbar Sunnis. This today from Bill Rogio:

Al Qaeda's campaign of murder and intimidation [in Diyala is] beginning to anger the tribes much as it did in Anbar province. Al Qaeda's establishment of its Islamic State of Iraq, with its capital in Baqubah made the province ripe for a major Coalition operation in the region. . . Today, the speculation has become a reality, as "Arab tribesmen in Baqubah have said they will form a tribal alliance to cleanse the Diyala province of foreign fighters and those of the al-Qaeda terrorist network in Iraq."

"Tribesman Sheikh Wameed al-Jabouri told al-Hayat that a number of tribes had signed a cooperation agreement to undertake this mission and to bring the city back to how 'it used to be,'" notes DPA. "The agreement could be considered "a national charter" that proves their rejection of the actions of the terrorist groups, al-Jabouri said."

. . . Diyala has become the main hub of al Qaeda's operations. Al Qaeda in Iraq made Baqubah the capital of its rump Islamic State of Iraq. Since the inception of the Baghdad Security Plan in mid-February, the security situation, which was deteriorating after U.S. forces pulled back last fall, has markedly worsened. Al Qaeda has prepared fighting positions, supply bases, IED traps, bomb rigged buildings, and training camps in the province.

Over 2,000 hardened al Qaeda fighters fled Baghdad and are operating in Diyala. An American intelligence official and a U.S. military officer informs us that al Qaeda is operating along the lines of Hezbollah's military structure in Lebanon. Recent al Qaeda attacks in the region bear this out. Al Qaeda is organized in small military units with infantry, mortars, anti-tank and anti-aircraft teams, as well as suicide and IED cells and the accompanying logistical nodes. Al Qaeda has been conducting a terror campaign to remove tribal leaders and others who oppose them, while waging a campaign of intimidation designed to cower the local population.

The U.S. and Iraqi security forces have preparing the battlefield in Diyala until the full compliment of U.S. forces are in theater and able to finish securing the Baghdad "belts" - the regions surrounding Baghdad. The Diyala Campaign is only is its opening phase, with U.S. and Iraqi forces conducting raids, search and destroy missions, establishing forward operating bases and logistic nodes in preparation for the full assault sometime early this summer. The establishment of the yet to be named Diyala Salvation Front is a crucial element to establishing local intelligence networks and an auxiliary force to hunt al Qaeda.

The influence of Sheikh Sattar al Rishawi and his Anbar Salvation Council cannot be underestimated in the formation of the anti al Qaeda tribal alliance in Diyala. The Anbar Salvation Council has been operating outside its provincial boundaries and has sent emissaries into Diyala, Salahadin, Niwena and other provinces in an effort to expand his anti al Qaeda Awakening movement nationwide.
Read the entire story here. If there is to be the type of progress needed to sustain operations beyond September, I suspect the operations in Diyala will have to commence in mid to late June and I expect it to be a particularly aggressive and bloody offensive. There are precious few areas left where al Qaeda can fall back in Iraq, and Diyala has the potential to be a decisive operation if the terrorists have no other option then to stand and fight. The chance for a decisive success will drastically increase if, as it seems, the Sunnis in Diyala turn on al Qaeda in Iraq and provide significent intelligence in advance of full scale operations.

And on a final note, the MSM has relatively silent for the past few days on operations in Iraq. That does not mean that we are not conducting operations. To the contrary, it appears that Task Force 145, the special ops folks. have been incredibly busy doing bad things to bad people. And in Baghdad, Iraqi security forces have captured some 86 suspected insurgents and killed one during raids in Baghdad. Read the story here. I posted earlier about the capture to kill ratio as an objective indicator of enemy morale. When you get in the 86 to 1 ratio, it makes me feel fairly sanguine about the real liklihood of success of the counterinsurgency.

Read More...

Thursday, May 10, 2007

Hatfields & McCoys Feud With Revisionist Democrats Asking The Wrong Questions

Steve Chapman has an article posted on Real Clear Politics wherein he tries to legitimize the Democrat's plans for retreat from Iraq by comparing those plans to what he claims were similar Repulican moves to retreat from hostilities in the past. He even manages to work in a "Mission accomplished" cheap shot. For her part, Hillbilly Politics has an excellent point by point refutation, clarifying the history as posited by Mr. Chapman.

I am only writing to add that, if you look at Chapman's article, you'll note he stays away from any assessment of the consequences of retreat from Iraq. Even if Mr. Chapman were correct in his every assertion that today's Democrats are no more craven then Republicans of days past, it is meaningless. The consequences of disengagement, in every instance cited by Mr. Chapman, do not even begin to compare with the consequences of disengagement from Iraq.

The bottom line, you can argue about whether we should have gotten into this war, but that question is wholly academic now. You can beleive Bush lied if you like, but that is a question for partisans. To quit Iraq for that reason would be wholly infantile. It would be making a decision on personal feelings today rather then on any sort of inquiry into the possible and likely consequences of the decision. And for those who give short shrift to the question of consequences, it is worth noting that such a tremendous "failure of imagination" is precisely what the 9-11 Commission identified as being at the heart of our failure to assess the threat of al Qaeda to begin with. The greatest single issue facing us today is the one no Democrat will touch. What are the costs and consequences for leaving Iraq?

Why our MSM does not ask about the consequences of retreating from Iraq with every far left Democrat they interview - and I include, Reid, Pelosi, Murtha, Boxer, Obey, Clinton, Obama and Edwards in that group - is beyond me. They are doing a disservice to the nation. And I find the failure of the conservatives and moderates in Congress to demand that this be the center of debate incomprehensible. They should be asking that question before every microphone they can find on a daily basis.

I guess that I need to add just a bit more, given that Harry Reid declard our military defeated. Our military cannot be defeated on any battlefield in Iraq. I defy anyone to identify an engagement we have lost in Iraq when a platoon or larger element of our soldiers was involved. It hasn't happened.

When Harry Reid claimed our forces defeated, he was making a purely political statement devoid of any military reality. The truth is that defeat will not happen at the hands of radical Islamists on the battlefield. Given support from Congress and the Executive, we will succeed in securing Iraq.

In 2005 and 2006, we pulled our military back into large cantonements so as to minimize our footprints. At the same time, we turned over security to Iraqi forces. The Iraqi forces ultimately proved to be not up to the task. That strategy was a mistake, and the effect of that mistake was magnified exponentially when al Qaeda was able to bomb the Mosque of the Golden Dome.

Such mistakes are common in war. Study WWI, WWII, the Civil War and the Korean War and you will find the early history of those wars riddled with such errors. For example, the failure of Generals in WWI to adapt their strategy to new weapons led to carnage on an unheard of scale. On July 1, 1916, Sir Douglas Haig ordered his men forward in a frontal assult on German lines at the Battle of the Somme. By days end, his strategy had resulted in 57,000 British solders dead, wounded and missing. Over a four month period, his offensive saw British casualties rise to 420,000. Fortunately, most mistakes of strategy are not that costly.

We are following a different strategy in Iraq now. One that is aggressive and maximizes our efforts. The question is not will it work, but how long will it take, and whether Congress will provide the funds and manpower for sufficient time to allow the mission to be completed. Which brings us back full circle to the penultimate question. What will be the consequences of retreat from Iraq?

Read More...

The Ft. Dix Six - Do You CAIR About Terrorism?

The news of the six radical Islamists who planned a murderous raid on Fort Dix has been well publicized. See here. The six planned "to kill and die 'in the name of Allah.'" We got lucky on this one. The group was discovered when they asked a store clerk to copy to DVD a tape showing them praising jihad and shooting weapons.

There are many things that are troubling about this bit of planned mayhem, but on the national scale, the one that takes the cake is this, from CAIR, the Council on American Islamic Relations, in their response to the news about the arrests:

CAIR also requested that media outlets and public officials refrain from linking this case to the faith of Islam.
Let that sink in. CAIR is asking the people of the United States to suspend reality and pretend that Islam, and more particularly the influence of Wahhabi / Salafi Islam, has nothing to do with terrorism. It is outrageous and brazen - but par for the course for CAIR and for a whole host of other Wahhabi / Salafi influenced organizations and people.

It should be self-evident that the quickest way to end up dead is not to understand the nature of your enemy. Indeed, Walid Phares, in his book Future Jihad, blamed the inability of the U.S. and its citizens to identify the real threats of Islamic terrorism before 9-11 on the Wahhabi / Salafi influence.

Wahhabi / Salafi Islam comes from Saudi Arabia, and the Sauds have spent many billions to export their religion. They have engaged in a massive funding of schools, clerics, Middle East studies programs, mosques and lobbying organizations in the West, of which CAIR is one. The public face of these institutions and the teachings from the academic side have been more then a bit deceptive in an effort to make Wahhabi / Salafi Islam palatable to the West.

For example, prior to 9-11, most college and graduate students were being taught in Saudi supported Middle East programs that jihad referred to an inner struggle. That, my friends, is clear deception, and it has cost a lot of American lives.

And how many of these Saudi funded organizations and individuals have claimed that the Islamists hate America because of our foreign policy? That canard hides completely the reality of what motivates the violent extremists. It suggests that if we just cut off all relations with Israel or do this other thing that Islamists want us to do, then there would be peace. The truth is far different.

Their religion is triumphalist. If you study a little, you will find virtually all Wahhabi Salafi clerics justify their attack on American civilians on a litany of sins going back to the Crusades. You won't hear that from CAIR, but there are tons of speeches, letters and broadcasts of these folks on the internet. You can get it directly from the Wahhabi / Salafi horse's mouth without it going through the CAIR spin machine.

Now, I don't begin to claim that all followers of Wahhabi / Salafi Islam are terrorists. But the flip side is that most Sunni terrorists are in fact Wahhabi / Salafi Islamists. How do we separate those who would kill us from those who would not?

There are clearly a few things that we can and should do. One is encourage the "moderate" Muslims to constructively criticize their religion and to try and bring it out of the 7th century and into the 21st century. Two is to get educated and expose Wahhabi / Salafi deceptions wherever we find them. The third thing we must do is to stay vigilant and suspicious. That is true whether your a 7-11 store clerk in New Jersey, or your in a group of people on a plane in Minneapolis.

Between their violent criticism of moderate Muslims, their support for legislation to tie the hands of law enforcement in investigating Muslims, and their constant stream of deceptions, CAIR stands directly opposed to all of these things. There can be no clearer example then their statement in light of the arrest of the Ft. Dix six. CAIR takes no responsibility for their religion giving rise to murder and mayhem. To the contrary, CAIR asks America to pretend its not true.

CAIR wants to make America and the West safe for Wahhabi / Salafi Islam to percolate and grow - much like a cancer. We let them succeed only at peril to our lives and our Western values. And the first step to stopping the threat is to acknowledge that the Fort Dix Six were motivated by Islam to commit murder.

Read More...

Wednesday, May 9, 2007

Mickey The Terrorist Mouse


Mickey: Hello children, do know what time it is?

Palestinian Children: It's Jihad Time!!!!!

Do please read this bit of stomach turning manipulation:

Hamas militants have enlisted the iconic Mickey Mouse to broadcast their message of Islamic dominion and armed resistance to their most impressionable audience — little kids.

A giant black-and-white rodent — named "Farfour," or "butterfly," but unmistakably a Mickey ripoff — does his high-pitched preaching against the U.S. and Israel on a children's show run each Friday on Al-Aqsa TV, a station run by Hamas. The militant group, sworn to Israel's destruction, shares power in the Palestinian government.

"You and I are laying the foundation for a world led by Islamists," Farfour squeaked on a recent episode of the show, which is titled, "Tomorrow's Pioneers."

"We will return the Islamic community to its former greatness, and liberate Jerusalem, God willing, liberate Iraq, God willing, and liberate all the countries of the Muslims invaded by the murderers."

Children call in to the show, many singing Hamas anthems about fighting Israel.

. . . An Israeli organization that monitors Palestinian media, Palestinian Media Watch, said the Mickey Mouse lookalike takes "every opportunity to indoctrinate young viewers with teachings of Islamic supremacy, hatred of Israel and the U.S., and support of 'resistance,' the Palestinian euphemism for terror."

. . . Yehia Moussa, a Hamas leader in the movement's Gaza Strip base, denied inciting children against Jews. "Our problem is not with the Jews. Our problem is with the (Israeli) occupation and the occupiers," Moussa said.

. . . A Gaza-based psychologist said the program proved that the culture of glorifying violence had penetrated Palestinian society.

"It's the fault of both (Israel and the Palestinians)," said Samir Zakkout, from the Gaza Community Mental Health Program. "If Palestinians had peace, children wouldn't learn violence."

Children have been traumatized by bloodshed in the course of Israeli attacks and Palestinian infighting, he said.

"There's been a collapse of values," he said. "If I can kill my enemy, I can kill my brother." . . .
Read the entire story here.

So what's next? How about a Hamas-Disney collaboration on a "Wahhabi Land" theme park? Can't you see the kid's rides:
  • Its a Small and Jew Free World After All


  • Mad Mullah's Tea Party


  • Dhimmi Island Adventures


  • Jihadi Jungle Cruise


  • Adventures of Binnie the Laden


  • Epcot Islamic World Domination Center


  • Barbary Pirates of the Mediterranian


  • Voyage of the Little Burka-Clad Mermaid


  • Tower of Terrorists


  • Snow White's Scary Martrydom Adventure


Yes, kids, you will find all this and more in Wahhabi Land. A perfect blend of wholesome family fun, homicidal mania and genocidal joy.

So much for my attempt at humorous insanity. For the real insanity, I suggest that you read Dr. Sanity's post on how depravity must be carefully taught to be effective. I think this one may in fact be the text book definition of how it is taught.

And for those of you who remember the tune, please do sing along as we say goodbye and close our broadcasting day: M - I - C . . . K - E -Y . . . T-E-R-R-O . . . .

UPDATE: No sooner had I posted this then news comes that Mickey The Terrorist Mouse is gone from the airways. There appeared some initial confusion as to what happened, but it is now known that Mickey has died a martyrs death, lured into a trap by evil and cowardly Zionists with cheese.





With Mickey now literally chasing tail (72 of them) in that unique Islamic orgiastic heaven, Hamas producers immediately huddled to find another star capable of imparting to the children those good jihadi values.

Ayman suggested Minnie the Martyrdom Mouse, but she was rejected as a one trick rodent. One show, she blows herself up in a suicide attack, then you'd have to get a new star anyway. Ali marked her down for a guest appearance during sweeps week.

Then Abdullah suggested Mohammed the Muppet. After Abdullah was beheaded for suggesting an iconic portrayal of the Prophet (Peace be upon him), additional suggestons were taken up.

Ultimately, the Hamas children's programming producers decided to push the envelope and go with an anti-hero type. And with that, ladies, gentlemen - and of course all of you budding young jihadis out there - I give you that latest Hamas children's programming star:


Bushie, the Evil Zionist Infidel Crusader Pig




Read More...

Time Is The Critical Commodity In Iraq

U.S. Commanders in Iraq are seeking time through the spring of next year to keep the surge in place, even as Democrats in Congress seek to end U.S. involvement in Iraq this summer, now proposing a two month package of poison pills. As to the military, the Washington Post reports today:

. . . "The surge needs to go through the beginning of next year for sure," said Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, the day-to-day commander for U.S. military operations in Iraq. The new requirement of up to 15-month tours for active-duty soldiers will allow the troop increase to last until spring, said Odierno, who favors keeping experienced forces in place for now.

"What I am trying to do is to get until April so we can decide whether to keep it going or not," he said in an interview in Baghdad last week. "Are we making progress? If we're not making any progress, we need to change our strategy. If we're making progress, then we need to make a decision on whether we continue to surge."

Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said yesterday's announcement of the upcoming deployments [of 35,000 replacements] "is not a reflection on any decision with respect to the duration of the surge."

As the initial U.S. troop buildup in Baghdad nears its June completion, Odierno and other commanders offered details of how they will execute the military's new Iraq strategy, how they expect insurgents and militias to react, and political factors that will bear upon their success

. . . The main thrust of the military effort in the near term, Odierno said, is to position a critical mass of U.S. and Iraqi troops inside Baghdad to quell the violence that was spiraling out of control late last year. As currently planned, Baghdad will have 25 battalions of U.S. troops and 38 battalions of Iraqi soldiers and police when the increase is complete, he said.

The push to expand the U.S. and Iraqi presence in Baghdad's neighborhoods reflects what U.S. commanders now acknowledge was a mistaken drawdown in 2005 and 2006 of American troops in the capital, leaving Iraqi forces in their place.

. . . Another vital aspect of the strategy to secure Baghdad, commanders said, is to array more forces on the periphery of the capital to block Sunni insurgents and Shiite militiamen from using the outskirts for staging attacks.

"The Baghdad belts or support zones" have "always been the generator of violence in Baghdad," Odierno said. As a result, he plans to allocate about half of the final two incoming brigades in outlying areas.

Because Iraqi forces are concentrated inside the city, fewer are available to go to the outskirts to partner with U.S. troops, who must cover large areas, he said. In western Baghdad's Mansour district, for example, about 3,000 U.S. and Iraqi troops are covering an area with 300,000 people. "That's huge," said Lt. Col. Dale Kuehl, the U.S. commander for the area.

Still, the decision to place U.S. troops in both Baghdad and the outskirts has led to concern among some officers that their forces will be spread too thin. "If we lose Baghdad, it's game over," said one officer. "We need to concentrate forces in Baghdad and be really ruthless in accepting risk elsewhere," he said.

U.S. commanders said they expected Sunni and Shiite fighters to try to counter the Baghdad strategy in part by staging attacks in other regions.

"They will try to do whatever they can in other cities to draw us out of Baghdad" using vehicle bomb attacks, Odierno said. The Sunni extremist group al-Qaeda in Iraq, for example, might try to establish a base where there are fewer U.S. troops, such as the northern city of Mosul, he said. "We are watching that very closely."

Al-Qaeda in Iraq fighters have recently staged attacks in the predominantly Shiite southern cities of Karbala and Najaf, prompting U.S. and Iraqi officials to launch an assessment of whether the Iraqi police and army have the capability they need to protect the Shiite shrines there, as well as in Samarra and Baghdad, Odierno said.

Diyala province, a demographically mixed area between Baghdad and Iran, has already experienced an upsurge in violence following what Odierno said was in influx in recent months of Shiite militiamen from Baghdad and al-Qaeda in Iraq fighters from Anbar province, a Sunni stronghold in the west of the country. The U.S. military had to dispatch an additional battalion to Diyala, and Odierno said he is considering sending another.

In Anbar, meanwhile, violence has dropped dramatically in recent months because of the cooperation of local tribes -- a trend that could allow for a smaller U.S. presence there in the future, Odierno said. "We have less attacks in Anbar than in any other region," he said.

In Baghdad, sectarian killings have fallen dramatically since January, while suicide bombings using vehicles have increased. Overall, attack patterns varied in different parts of Baghdad. For example, in Mansour to the west, extrajudicial killings fell in February only to increase again by April, while other attacks remained on average the same. In the Rasafa district of central Baghdad, weekly attacks went from 88 in January to 25 in February but are now at about 60. . . .
Read the entire story here.

As to the poison pills of the Congress and the push to get a decisive vote to surrender and retreat from Iraq in two months, the Washington Post reports:
A House Democratic proposal introduced yesterday that would give President Bush half of the money he has requested for the war effort, with a vote in July on whether to approve the rest, hinges on progress in meeting political benchmarks that Iraq has thus far found difficult to achieve.

The House measure, which could come to a vote as early as tomorrow, would substantially raise the pressure on Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's government to meet lagging commitments -- including new laws on oil revenue and de-Baathification, constitutional revisions, provincial elections and the demobilization of militias -- that Bush has said are crucial to the success of the U.S. military strategy.

The plan would make about $43 billion of the administration's requested $95.5 billion immediately available to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, train troops from both nations and pay for other military needs. Congress's approval of the rest, intended to last through September, would await Iraqi passage of restructuring laws, or Bush's ability to prove that significant progress had been made. The July vote would mark the first time a mandatory funding cutoff would come before Congress.

Most of the anticipated Iraqi changes are locked in disputes among and within regional and sectarian groups, and some have moved further from agreement in recent weeks. A deadline of next Tuesday for presenting a constitutional revision package to the Iraqi Parliament is likely to be only partially met, Bush administration officials said. A group of oil and gas laws due by the end of the month remains mired in debate.

Administration officials also acknowledge there has been no progress on a de-Baathification law that would permit former members of Saddam Hussein's ruling party -- most of them Sunnis -- greater access to government and security jobs, or toward disarming and demobilizing Shiite militias.

Delays and setbacks in promulgating the restructuring legislation, let alone passing and implementing it, was a major subject at last week's "neighbors conference" on Iraq held in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt. As Iraq's Sunni Arab neighbors sharply questioned the commitment of the Maliki government, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice recognized the slow progress and pleaded for patience and help: "If Iraq fails to achieve these goals of stability and democracy, we will all pay." Most of the Arabs dislike Maliki and consider him a pawn of Iran's Shiite rulers.

The administration has set September as an informal deadline for proving that the increase in U.S. troops and new security strategy are succeeding. But making the funding contingent on votes in the Iraqi parliament sets a much clearer standard for progress than the benchmark of improved security.

. . . In the meantime, "we're not willing to sit by like potted palms doing nothing," Obey told reporters yesterday. He presented the July cutoff plan to the Democratic caucus yesterday, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said it could be brought to the floor as early as tomorrow.

. . . The Senate is not expected to take the same short-term funding approach, but it is likely to make political benchmarks the centerpiece of its own legislation, with consequences if they are not met.

Administration officials, while conceding Iraqi delays, described the Democrats' proposals as dangerous, and even worse than the "redeployment" conditions in the vetoed bill. "Now we're in Excedrin headache No. 1," a State Department official said. "How do you fight a war two months at a time?"

Calling the Democrats' action a "moral hazard," the official said, "Okay, let's pass a law saying no more funding past July 31 if the [oil] package of laws doesn't pass. What do you suppose happens next? If I was sitting in a neighboring country, really looking forward to saying bye-bye to the Americans, you've just shown me a way to do it."

Strong diplomatic pressure is already being applied on the Maliki government, a senior administration official said, and mandating political reforms by a certain date would drive Iraqis further apart. "It allows extremist factions to say that these legislative benchmarks, which were an Iraqi political agenda, is an American agenda," the official said.

"If you say the next two months are make or break, I think I can predict what we'll see," the official said. "We will see a sustained trend of suicide attacks" by al-Qaeda in Iraq and other Sunni extremists, making the Shiite-led government even less willing to move on de-Baathification.

"It's a really harmful approach," the official said. "There is a risk you can push [the Iraqi government] off a cliff."

. . . Iraq's Sunni leaders agreed to the hastily written 2005 constitution, which most saw as favoring the Kurds, only on the condition that it include plans for amendments. A parliamentary committee has been working on the changes for months but is unlikely to finish by next Tuesday's deadline. On Monday, Iraq's top Sunni leader, Vice President Tariq al-Hashimi, told CNN that he would pull his bloc out of the unity government if key amendments are not completed. Kurdish leaders have said they will oppose provisions that diminish their autonomy, and they have objected to proposals in the draft oil package.

"I think they will have made some headway by September," said Nicholas Haysom, who heads the political division of the United Nations Mission for Iraq. "But we would also acknowledge the possibility that the political process may end up being even more divisive" by then.

Read the sad tale here.

Read More...

 

View My Stats