Hydrablog

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/30/AR2007073001641.html
Cheney Disputes Libby Verdict, Voices Support for Gonzales
By Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, July 31, 2007; A02 [bush nsc principals] [veep cheney] [veeps are suppose to be seldom seen and almost never heard] [cheney obviously has re-enginerred the role of veep] [this veep speaks out on libby jury—something he should have never touched while still in office, and gonzo] [normally I would say this shows bad judegment but with Cheney, it may be entirely conscious behavior to affect something not readily apparent] [lots of turf battles ongoing between cheney’s neocons and the Rice-Gates axis] [******]
Vice President Cheney said yesterday that he disagreed with the jury's verdict in the trial of his former chief of staff, [******]who was convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice in the investigation into the Bush administration's leak of the identity of an undercover CIA officer. [apparently the jury system doesn’t work] [*******]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/30/AR2007073001641.html
Cheney Disputes Libby Verdict, Voices Support for Gonzales
By Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, July 31, 2007; A02 [bush nsc principals] [veep cheney] [veeps are suppose to be seldom seen and almost never heard] [cheney obviously has re-enginerred the role of veep] [this veep speaks out on libby jury—something he should have never touched while still in office, and gonzo] [normally I would say this shows bad judegment but with Cheney, it may be entirely conscious behavior to affect something not readily apparent] [lots of turf battles ongoing between cheney’s neocons and the Rice-Gates axis] [******]
Vice President Cheney said yesterday that he disagreed with the jury's verdict in the trial of his former chief of staff, [******]who was convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice in the investigation into the Bush administration's leak of the identity of an undercover CIA officer. [apparently the jury system doesn’t work] [*******]
Cheney's remarks about his former aide, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, appear to conflict with the views of President Bush, who said after the verdict that he "respected" the jury verdict but felt that the 30-month sentence handed to Libby was excessive. [*****]Bush commuted Libby's sentence earlier this month, leaving a fine in place but exempting him from jail time.
Cheney declined to explain his view but said he agreed with Bush's actions: "I thought the president handled it right," he said during an interview with CBS Radio. "I supported his decision." [incredible arrogance] [he pronounces the president’s behavior was appropriate after all] [************]
Cheney also defended embattled Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, saying that Gonzales "has testified truthfully" before Congress and has performed well as head of the Justice Department. [how could cheney possibly now whether AG Gonzales has testified truthfully?] [incredible brass] [***********]
"I'm a big fan of Al's," Cheney said in the radio interview. ". . . I think Al has done a good job under difficult circumstances. The debate between he and the Senate is something they're going to have to resolve. But I think he has testified truthfully." [if I were Gonzo I’d be runnin away from Cheney’s approval] [look what it got Rummy, Libby, others] [********]
Cheney said he does not agree with lawmakers, including Sens. Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) and Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), who say that Gonzales's credibility has been gravely damaged. "I think the key is whether or not he has the confidence of the president, and he clearly does," [*****]Cheney said. [that’s clearly one important matter but he’s also the highest law officer for the US and presumably needs the American people’s confidence as well as Congress’ neither of which he apparently has] [******]
Cheney's remarks about Gonzales come amid growing furor in Congress over the attorney general's candor and after calls by a group of Senate Democrats last week for a perjury investigation.
Much of the uproar centers on Gonzales's characterizations of a warrantless surveillance program run by the National Security Agency. Gonzales has testified that the program publicly described by Bush raised no legal objections, but others have testified that Justice Department lawyers concluded related parts of the program were illegal.
Specter, who was given his first briefing on the NSA program and its history Monday afternoon in an 80-minute meeting with Mike McConnell, the director of national intelligence, [*********]declined to comment afterward.
He instead handed reporters a prepared statement saying that he expects a letter from the administration by noon today about "matters relating to whether Attorney General Gonzales testified accurately that there was no disagreement in the administration about the Terrorist Surveillance Program," which is the administration's name for at least one part of the operation. [***********]
Also yesterday, Deputy Attorney General Paul J. McNulty announced that he had accepted a "leadership role" beginning next week in the Washington office of Baker & McKenzie, an international law firm with many corporate clients. "I'm looking forward to this," McNulty said in an interview. "After 22 years of public service, at this stage of my life, it just couldn't be a better time to go into the private sector."
McNulty played a role in the firing last year of nine U.S. attorneys, which has been another source of controversy for Gonzales. McNulty, who announced he was leaving in May, is one of more than half a dozen senior Justice officials who have quit so far this year.
Staff writer Michael Abramowitz and washingtonpost.com staff writer Paul Kane contributed to this report.
© 2007 The Washington Post Company

Posted by Kent Bolton at 09:22 AM | Permalink

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/31/washington/31prexy.html
July 31, 2007
Bush and Brown Are Allies if Not Buddies
By JIM RUTENBERG [bush administration nsc principals] [president bush] [meeting with pm Gordon brown of uk for first time since he became PM] [special meeting at camp david] [brown’s fairly deft oped yesterday in the WP] [********]
CAMP DAVID, Md., July 30 — On his first official trip to the United States as Britain’s prime minister, Gordon Brown on Monday displayed what can best be described as a resounding — if dispassionate — show of like-minded camaraderie with President Bush. [*************]
The two leaders showed none of the warmth and coziness that Mr. Bush had shared with Mr. Brown’s predecessor, Tony Blair, a closeness that contributed to Mr. Blair’s political tumble at home.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/31/washington/31prexy.html
July 31, 2007
Bush and Brown Are Allies if Not Buddies
By JIM RUTENBERG [bush administration nsc principals] [president bush] [meeting with pm Gordon brown of uk for first time since he became PM] [special meeting at camp david] [brown’s fairly deft oped yesterday in the WP] [********]
CAMP DAVID, Md., July 30 — On his first official trip to the United States as Britain’s prime minister, Gordon Brown on Monday displayed what can best be described as a resounding — if dispassionate — show of like-minded camaraderie with President Bush. [*************]
The two leaders showed none of the warmth and coziness that Mr. Bush had shared with Mr. Brown’s predecessor, Tony Blair, a closeness that contributed to Mr. Blair’s political tumble at home.
But Mr. Brown offered bullish comments on Britain’s relationship with the United States. On Iraq, Mr. Brown said any future British decision to reduce troops and cede control of a sector to the Iraqis “will be made on the military advice of our commanders on the ground.”
Though it was taken by some in the British news media as a signal of Mr. Brown’s independence, it is also a common formulation that President Bush uses in arguing that he will not be driven to withdraw by domestic politics. United States officials have been watching the British presence in Iraq as a gauge of the reliability of the new British leader.
On terrorism, Mr. Brown said, “Let me just stress that we’re in a generation-long battle against terrorism, against Al Qaeda-inspired terrorism, and this is a battle for which we can give no quarter.” [********] Several of Mr. Brown’s ministers have criticized the term “war on terror,” used frequently by Mr. Bush. His new security minister, Sir Alan West, said it “demeans the value of a war.”
On relations between their countries, Mr. Brown said, “It’s a partnership founded and driven forward by our shared values — what Winston Churchill, who was the first British prime minister to visit Camp David, called the joint inheritance of liberty, a belief in opportunity for all, a belief in the dignity of every human being.”
Despite some veiled differences, Mr. Brown stuck closely to a script that included what the Americans took as words of assurance that he had no plans for radical changes in the partnership, dodging several attempts by reporters here to get him to enunciate how his approach to the United States would differ from that of Mr. Blair.
Mr. Brown’s new Foreign Office minister for Asia and Africa, Mark Malloch-Brown, declared recently that the relationship between Mr. Bush and the prime minister would not “be joined at the hip like the Blair-Bush relationship was.” But officials traveling with Mr. Brown described such statements as either taken out of context or unrepresentative of Mr. Brown’s own views.
British analysts said Monday that Mr. Brown’s comments reflected the fact that the two countries share so much at stake in Afghanistan and Iraq, on global trade and with intelligence efforts to combat terrorism that he needs a close relationship with his American counterpart, like most of the recent British prime ministers before him. [********]
His statements on Iraq were perhaps the most important to the Americans. “Our aim, as is the aim of the United States government, is threefold: security for the Iraqi people, political reconciliation, and that the Iraqis have a stake in the future,” [******]Mr. Brown said after his second of two face-to-face meetings with Mr. Bush here.
Mr. Brown said he hoped to continue what he called a “transition to over-watch” functions in Iraq, a reference to a process begun under Mr. Blair of turning over control of the areas where British troops are in charge to Iraqis. British troops in southern Iraq have moved from combat roles to “over-watch” in three of the four provinces where they hold security responsibility.
Mr. Brown left the door open for a withdrawal, if, he said, his commanders thought it was feasible. “We intend to move to over-watch in the fourth province,” around Basra, he said, but he said details would be completed only after Parliament returns this fall.
When Mr. Bush was asked if he had faith in Mr. Brown not to “cut and run” from Iraq, a phrase the president had used to express his trust in Mr. Blair, Mr. Bush said he was sure “that Gordon Brown understands that failure in Iraq would be a disaster for the security of our own countries, that failure in Iraq would embolden extremist movements throughout the Middle East.”
Mr. Brown and Mr. Bush also said they intended to recharge the stalled Doha round of global trade talks and to work together toward a Middle East peace plan and toward a solution of the crisis in Darfur. The second-term president and the new prime minister also vowed to cooperate in toughening sanctions against Iran over its nuclear program, addressing climate change and alleviating poverty and disease in Africa.
But the two did exhibit some nuanced differences when it came to terrorism. Mr. Brown began his remarks by calling Afghanistan “the front line against terrorism.” Mr. Bush regularly calls Iraq “the central front in the war on terror.” [*******] [how about Pakistan where the threat is actually building, plotting, and preparing another attack on the West on scale of 9/11????] [***************]
Asked about the difference, Mr. Brown said, “I think I described Afghanistan as the first line in the battle against the Taliban, and of course the Taliban in Afghanistan is what we are dealing with in the provinces for which we’ve got responsibility, and doing so with some success.”
A spokesman afterward sought to clarify the remarks by saying, “What he meant was Afghanistan was the first line and remains the first line in where we are taking on the Taliban and Al Qaeda.”
Mr. Brown made clear, on the other hand, that he viewed Iraq as a battle against elements including, but not restricted to, Al Qaeda, saying, “In Iraq, you’re dealing with Sunni-Shia violence, you’re dealing with the involvement of Iran, but you’re certainly dealing with a large number of Al Qaeda terrorists.”
Mr. Bush pronounced himself satisfied with Mr. Brown’s position. “There’s no doubt in my mind that he understands the stakes of the struggle,” he said.
Yet there was not anything approaching the chemistry exhibited between Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair, who had developed a familiar, offhand banter over the years, with Mr. Bush calling his counterpart “Blair” and Mr. Blair calling Mr. Bush “George.”
Mr. Brown is more formal, and he stood stiffly next to the more freewheeling Mr. Bush, although they said they had shared stories about their families and what aides said was a mutual love of rugby.
Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

Posted by Kent Bolton at 09:21 AM | Permalink

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/30/AR2007073001914.html
WASHINGTON IN BRIEF
Tuesday, July 31, 2007; A04
Bush Nominee Points to Internal Conflict in Iraq
[bush white house] [nsc principals or deputies—unclear] [replacement for General Peter Pace as CJCS] [admiral Mullen] [preparation to appear before the Senate Armed Services Committee] [is that Levin now?] [110th congress, 1st session] [***********]
Slow progress in Iraq is undermining U.S. credibility and emboldening Iran's regional ambitions, according to President Bush's nominee to head the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
In written answers to prepared questions from the Senate Armed Services Committee, Navy Adm. Michael G. Mullen said there has been only limited headway in achieving reconciliation among Iraq's political factions. [****]His answers were obtained yesterday by the Associated Press.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/30/AR2007073001914.html
WASHINGTON IN BRIEF
Tuesday, July 31, 2007; A04
Bush Nominee Points to Internal Conflict in Iraq
[bush white house] [nsc principals or deputies—unclear] [replacement for General Peter Pace as CJCS] [admiral Mullen] [preparation to appear before the Senate Armed Services Committee] [is that Levin now?] [110th congress, 1st session] [***********]
Slow progress in Iraq is undermining U.S. credibility and emboldening Iran's regional ambitions, according to President Bush's nominee to head the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
In written answers to prepared questions from the Senate Armed Services Committee, Navy Adm. Michael G. Mullen said there has been only limited headway in achieving reconciliation among Iraq's political factions. [****]His answers were obtained yesterday by the Associated Press.
Resolving the internal conflict in Iraq "remains the precondition to an Iraq that can govern, defend and sustain itself," Mullen said.
Mullen sidestepped a question about how he would craft an exit strategy for U.S. forces in Iraq, saying that American interests in Iraq and the Middle East "require a pragmatic, long-term commitment that will be measured in years, not months." [*******]
Now the chief of naval operations, Mullen, 60, was selected to replace Marine Corps Gen. Peter Pace. The committee is scheduled to consider Mullen's nomination today. [*******]
House Seeks Japan's Apology for Sex Slaves
The U.S. House of Representatives called on Japan to apologize for forcing thousands of women into sexual servitude to its soldiers during and before World War II.
On a voice vote, the House approved a nonbinding resolution on the Japanese government's role in forcing up to 200,000 "comfort women" into a wartime brothel program starting in the 1930s.
The vote marked a rare rebuke of the United States' closest ally in Asia. The Japanese Embassy in Washington would not comment on the vote, leaving it to government officials in Tokyo.
-- From News Services
© 2007 The Washington Post Company

Posted by Kent Bolton at 09:20 AM | Permalink

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/30/AR2007073000623.html
Iran Is Critical as U.S. Unveils Arms Sales in the Middle East
By Robin Wright
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, July 31, 2007; A15 [bush white house] [nsc principals on down] [dod and state] [arms sale to Saudis first reported on weekend] [pushback inevitable] [now phase two where administration attempts to role out its justifications like a political campaign] [bush administration mo] [putting onus on Iran is smart politically though as few in congress in any position to disagree, especially if this means administration will not unleash another harebrained “pre-emptive” attack] [********] [ditto]
SHANNON, Ireland, July 30 -- The United States and Iran exchanged tough accusations on Monday as the Bush administration unveiled a huge package of arms sales to Saudi Arabia and five other Gulf countries expected to total at least $20 billion, as well as separate 10-year agreements for $43 billion in military aid to Israel and Egypt.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/30/AR2007073000623.html
Iran Is Critical as U.S. Unveils Arms Sales in the Middle East
By Robin Wright
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, July 31, 2007; A15 [bush white house] [nsc principals on down] [dod and state] [arms sale to Saudis first reported on weekend] [pushback inevitable] [now phase two where administration attempts to role out its justifications like a political campaign] [bush administration mo] [putting onus on Iran is smart politically though as few in congress in any position to disagree, especially if this means administration will not unleash another harebrained “pre-emptive” attack] [********] [ditto]
SHANNON, Ireland, July 30 -- The United States and Iran exchanged tough accusations on Monday as the Bush administration unveiled a huge package of arms sales to Saudi Arabia and five other Gulf countries expected to total at least $20 billion, as well as separate 10-year agreements for $43 billion in military aid to Israel and Egypt.
Less than a week after the second round of the new U.S.-Iran dialogue, Tehran charged that the U.S. plan to sell sophisticated weapons to the six Arab states will only further destabilize the volatile region.
U.S. policy "is creating fear and concerns in the countries of the region and trying to harm the good relations between these countries," Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini told reporters in Tehran. "What the Persian Gulf region needs is security, stability, peace, prosperity and economic development."
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates left for the Middle East on Monday to discuss details of the arms sales as well as efforts to stabilize Iraq and generate progress in the Palestinian-Israeli peace process. [********]
"For the secretary of state and the secretary of defense to travel together to any region, including the Middle East, at a minimum is very rare, if not unprecedented," Gates said en route to Egypt. "I think that it is a statement first of all of the importance of this region in terms of U.S. vital interests and the importance we attach to reassuring our friends out here of our staying power." [*************]
Rice dismissed Tehran's concerns and countered that Iran's meddling and influence are behind growing insecurity in the Middle East.
"There isn't a doubt that Iran constitutes the single most important single-country strategic challenge to the United States and to the kind of the Middle East that we want to see," Rice told reporters traveling with her en route to a refueling stop in Ireland.
America's top diplomat blasted Iran for "support for terrorism that is a threat to the democratic forces in Lebanon, support for the most radical forces in the Palestinian territories . . . or support for Shiite militias and the transfer of technologies that are endangering the lives of our soldiers and endangering a free Iraq." [************]
U.S. officials said that Iran is not the only reason behind the new packages of weapons sales and military aid, but Tehran was the constant undercurrent in briefings by U.S. officials in Washington and on the road.
“Iran has worried everybody in the region. It supports everything that the rest of the world is trying to defend against,” R. Nicholas Burns, undersecretary of state for political affairs, said in a telephone briefing.
Burns said that Washington had tried to “open the door” to Iran in two rounds of talks involving the top U.S. and Iranian envoys in Baghdad, and through negotiations led by the European Union on Iran’s nuclear program. “And we’ve been rebuffed by Iran,” he said.
Rice and Gates will meet Arab leaders in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt, and Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, over the next two days to discuss the new packages. Rice insisted that the Bush administration has not imposed demands on its allies in exchange for the arms and aid deals.
“This isn’t an issue of quid pro quo,” Rice told reporters. “We are working with these states to fight back extremism.” [***********]
But in Washington, Burns acknowledged that the United States has some expectations. "Given the fact that Iraq is the number one American foreign policy interest globally, we would want our friends in the region to be supportive not only of what the United States is doing in Iraq, but of the Iraqi government itself," he said.
Washington has only a notional list of the weapons sought by allies and has not provided specifics. But Saudi Arabia is expected to receive upgrades to its warplanes, new naval vessels and Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAMs), which turn standard bombs into "smart" precision-guided bombs, U.S. officials say. Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Bahrain and Oman are expected to make smaller purchases.
The $20 billion figure is seen as a "floor," and more assistance could be forthcoming, a senior defense official said, but requests that ultimately must go to Congress have not been finalized.
To shore up two other allies in the region, the Bush administration plans to wrap up new military assistance agreements providing $30 billion in aid to Israel and $13 billion to Egypt over 10 years, the State Department announced.
In contrast to past objections over large arms sales to Arab countries, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said that his government will have no objections to the arms sales to Arab governments. [************]
"We understand the need of the United States to support the Arab moderate states, and there is a need for a united front between the U.S. and us regarding Iran," Olmert said at a weekly cabinet meeting on Sunday.
Key Democrats, including House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Tom Lantos (D-Calif.), are already voicing reservations about the arms package.
Rice said that consultations had already begun on Capitol Hill. "I'm certain that we can convince Congress first of all that we know how to maintain our obligations in terms of accountability for the security packages. We know how to be aware of and responsive to everyone's concerns that there not be any shift in the military balance between the parties in the region," Rice said, referring to concerns that Arab nations would endanger Israel's security.
Staff writer Josh White, traveling with Gates, contributed to this report.
© 2007 The Washington Post Company

Posted by Kent Bolton at 09:20 AM | Permalink

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/31/world/europe/31weapons.html
July 31, 2007
U.S. Arms Plan for Mideast Aims to Counter Iranian Power
By MARK MAZZETTI and HELENE COOPER [bush white house] [nsc principals on down] [dod and state] [arms sale to Saudis first reported on weekend] [pushback inevitable] [now phase two where administration attempts to role out its justifications like a political campaign] [bush administration mo] [putting onus on Iran is smart politically though as few in congress in any position to disagree, especially if this means administration will not unleash another harebrained “pre-emptive” attack] [********]
WASHINGTON, July 30 — The Bush administration said Monday that its plan to provide billions of dollars in advanced weapons to Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Israel over the next 10 years was intended in part to serve as a bulwark against Iran’s growing influence in the Middle East. [******]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/31/world/europe/31weapons.html
July 31, 2007
U.S. Arms Plan for Mideast Aims to Counter Iranian Power
By MARK MAZZETTI and HELENE COOPER [bush white house] [nsc principals on down] [dod and state] [arms sale to Saudis first reported on weekend] [pushback inevitable] [now phase two where administration attempts to role out its justifications like a political campaign] [bush administration mo] [putting onus on Iran is smart politically though as few in congress in any position to disagree, especially if this means administration will not unleash another harebrained “pre-emptive” attack] [********]
WASHINGTON, July 30 — The Bush administration said Monday that its plan to provide billions of dollars in advanced weapons to Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Israel over the next 10 years was intended in part to serve as a bulwark against Iran’s growing influence in the Middle East. [******]
The White House plan must overcome opposition from lawmakers who are skeptical that the weapons will have any effect in blunting Iran’s nuclear ambitions, and who worry that a flood of new weapons could ignite a tinderbox in the region.
In closed briefings last week on Capitol Hill, participants in the sessions said, some lawmakers had asked pointed questions about why the White House was using the Iranian threat to justify the arms sales. They expressed doubt that the new weaponry, which includes satellite-guided bombs, missiles and new naval vessels, could deter Iran from proceeding with its nuclear program.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice announced the plans on Monday before she left for the Middle East to meet with officials from Egypt, Jordan and the Persian Gulf states, though details of the planned weapons sales were first reported over the weekend. Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates also left Monday for a visit to the region. [*********]
The final package will be formally presented for Congressional approval in September, and for now many influential lawmakers appear to have adopted a wait-and-see approach. Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr., Democrat of Delaware, and Representative Tom Lantos, Democrat of California, who lead the Congressional committees that will consider the proposal, indicated Monday that they would reserve judgment on the merits of the plan until September.
But signaling a possible battle between the White House and Congress, Mr. Lantos said lawmakers wanted assurances that the weapons package “include only defensive systems,” not weaponry that could be used by Arab states to attack Israel’s military.
Ms. Rice took pains to dispute the notion that the Bush administration was trying to buy Saudi cooperation on American policy initiatives in Iraq and Israel in exchange for the military package. Three times during a briefing with reporters aboard her plane en route to the Middle East, she said no quid pro quo was involved in the arms sale.
“We are working with these states to give a chance to the forces of moderation and reform,” she said on an overnight flight before a refueling stop in Shannon, Ireland.
Ms. Rice’s deputies and other administration officials have voiced complaints that Saudi Arabia is financing opponents of the Iraqi prime minister, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, and that the Saudis have been rejecting American pleas to be friendlier to the Maliki government. But Ms. Rice chose to strike a positive note in advance of her scheduled meeting on Tuesday night with King Abdullah in Jidda, Saudi Arabia, instead blaming Iran and Syria for trouble in Iraq.
“It’s very interesting that the Saudis, on the border issue with Iraq, have been very active on the entry of terrorists trying to cross into Iraq from Saudi Arabia,” she said. That was one reason, she said, that militants often entered through Syria. [talk about bobbing and weaving and ducking reality] [********]
Mr. Gates told reporters traveling with him that the trip with Ms. Rice was meant to convey “the importance we attach to reassuring our friends out here of our staying power.” [*********]
A senior Defense Department official on Mr. Gates’s plane said Mr. Gates also planned to encourage Saudi Arabia to enforce international sanctions meant to punish Iran for its nuclear activities. [***********]
R. Nicholas Burns, under secretary of state for political affairs, said Monday that a majority of the weapons systems intended for the Gulf states were defensive.
But some defense experts said any battle between Congress and the White House over the definition of “defensive” versus “offensive” weapons systems might be futile because the terms can be malleable.
“There is no bright-line distinction,” said John Pike, a weapons expert at GlobalSecurity.org, a research group. “They would be talking about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.”
The Bush administration plan already appears to have the blessing of Israel’s government, which has historically opposed American weapons sales to Saudi Arabia. On Sunday, the Israeli prime minister, Ehud Olmert, said at a cabinet meeting that Israelis “understand the need of the United States to support the Arab moderate states, and there is a need for a united front between the U.S. and us regarding Iran.” [that’s quite a change from the past] [*******]
Administration officials said that the nations receiving weapons under the plan had all voiced growing concern about Iran’s quest for a nuclear weapon and its financial support for terrorism, and that the new weaponry would counterbalance Iran’s regional ambitions.
Mr. Burns said that under the plan American military aid for Israel would increase to $3 billion annually over 10 years, from $2.4 billion now. Mr. Burns said Egypt, another crucial Sunni Arab country under pressure from Washington to embrace Iraq’s Shiite-led government, would receive a total of $13 billion.
But Mr. Burns declined to provide specifics about the packages intended for Saudi Arabia and other Gulf nations, saying those details were still being hammered out.
In the past, Israel has successfully lobbied the United States against selling AIM-9X missiles, used on jet fighters for aerial combat, to countries like Egypt out of fear that they could shift the military balance in the Middle East. A Congressional aide familiar with details of the Bush administration plans said AIM-9X missiles were part of the package planned for Egypt.
Mark Mazzetti reported from Washington, and Helene Cooper from Washington and Shannon, Ireland.
Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

Posted by Kent Bolton at 09:18 AM | Permalink

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/30/AR2007073001271.html
Sept. 10 in Waziristan
What Will Be Done About al-Qaeda's Camps?
By David Ignatius
Tuesday, July 31, 2007; A19 [oped] [what the US should do in Pakistan?] [*****]
The National Intelligence Estimate released July 17 put the problem plainly enough: Al-Qaeda has "regenerated key elements of its Homeland attack capability" using a new haven in the lawless frontier area of northwest Pakistan known as Waziristan. [****]
The question is: What is the United States going to do about it?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/30/AR2007073001271.html
Sept. 10 in Waziristan
What Will Be Done About al-Qaeda's Camps?
By David Ignatius
Tuesday, July 31, 2007; A19 [oped] [what the US should do in Pakistan?] [*****]
The National Intelligence Estimate released July 17 put the problem plainly enough: Al-Qaeda has "regenerated key elements of its Homeland attack capability" using a new haven in the lawless frontier area of northwest Pakistan known as Waziristan. [****]
The question is: What is the United States going to do about it?
For those who might have forgotten in the six years since Sept. 11, 2001, what a reconstituted al-Qaeda could do, the intelligence analysts explained that the terrorist group has "the goal of producing mass casualties, visually dramatic destruction, significant economic aftershocks and/or fear among the U.S. population." The analysts noted that al-Qaeda continues to seek biological, radiological and nuclear weapons "and would not hesitate to use them." [***********]
Perhaps it is human nature not to see threats clearly until a disaster happens -- even if it's the second time around. How else to explain the limited public response to this clear and emphatic warning? Maybe the Bush administration has cried wolf about terrorism so often that people have stopped believing anything the government says. Or that the whole subject is now obscured by the choking fog of Iraq, [******]as in the president's mind-numbing formulation of the threat: "They are al-Qaeda . . . in . . . Iraq."
But the question remains: What should the United States do about al-Qaeda's new haven in Pakistan, from which it may already be plotting attacks that could kill thousands of Americans? It is Sept. 10, metaphorically, with a little increment of time still remaining. We can see "the looming tower," to borrow the title of Lawrence Wright's fine book. But how do we stop the airplanes? [********]
The Bush administration will attack "actionable targets anywhere in the world, putting aside whether it was Pakistan or anyplace else," warned Frances Fragos Townsend, the White House homeland security adviser. That drew the predictable indignant response from the Pakistani government, which doesn't want to go after the al-Qaeda cells in Waziristan but doesn't want anyone else to do it, either.
So again, what should the United States do? The lesson of Sept. 11 is that it's necessary to act decisively. But the lesson of Iraq is that unwise actions can make the terrorism problem worse. Which course is right? [***********]
The best answer I've heard comes from Henry Crumpton, a former CIA officer who was one of the heroes of the agency's campaign to destroy al-Qaeda's haven in Afghanistan in late 2001. After retiring from the CIA in 2005, he served as the State Department's coordinator for counterterrorism. He resigned from State in February and is now a fellow at the EastWest Institute and a private consultant.
Crumpton argues that the United States must take preventive action but that it should do so carefully, through proxies wherever possible. The right model for a Waziristan campaign is the CIA-led operation in Afghanistan, [********] not the U.S. military invasion of Iraq. Teams of CIA officers and Special Forces soldiers are best suited to work with tribal leaders, providing them weapons and money to fight an al-Qaeda network that has implanted itself brutally in Waziristan through the assassination of more than 100 tribal leaders during the past six years. [******]It would be better to conduct such operations jointly with Pakistan, but if the government of Gen. Pervez Musharraf can't or won't cooperate, the United States should be prepared to go it alone, Crumpton argues. [I argued for this right after 9/11] [morally questionable but practicable] [
"The United States has an obligation to defend itself and its citizens," says Crumpton. "We either do it now, or we do it after the next attack." [******]
Crumpton proposed a detailed plan last year for rolling up these sanctuaries, which he called the Regional Strategic Initiative. It would combine economic assistance and paramilitary operations in a broad counterinsurgency campaign. In Waziristan, U.S. and Pakistani operatives would give tribal warlords guns and money, to be sure, but they would coordinate this covert action with economic aid to help tribal leaders operate their local stone quarries more efficiently, say, or install windmills and solar panels to generate electricity for their remote mountain villages. [*******]
Intervening in another Muslim country is risky, to put it mildly. That's why a successful counterinsurgency program would need Pakistani support and why its economic and social development components would be critical. The concept should be President John F. Kennedy's "Alliance for Progress" to counter radicalism in Latin America, rather than "Operation Iraqi Freedom."
The United States can begin to take action now against al-Qaeda's new haven. Or we can wait, and hope that we don't get hit again. The biggest danger in waiting is that if retaliation proves necessary later, it could be ill-planned and heavy-handed -- precisely what got us in trouble in Iraq. [*********]
The writer is co-host ofPostGlobal, an online discussion of international issues. His e-mail address isdavidignatius@washpost.com.
© 2007 The Washington Post Company

Posted by Kent Bolton at 09:17 AM | Permalink

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/31/opinion/31thompson.html
July 31, 2007
Op-Ed Contributor
A War Best Served Cold
By NICHOLAS THOMPSON [oped] [lessons from George Kennan’s containment] [applied to today’s –iraq] [********]
SIXTY years ago this month, writing under the byline of X, George Kennan supposedly laid out America’s cold war foreign policy. Kennan’s essay is often said to be the most influential article in the history of this country’s foreign policy, but neither Harry Truman, nor any president after him, actually followed X’s recommendations. “Containment,” the word the essay introduced, was applied in a bellicose way that Kennan didn’t intend.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/31/opinion/31thompson.html
July 31, 2007
Op-Ed Contributor
A War Best Served Cold
By NICHOLAS THOMPSON [oped] [lessons from George Kennan’s containment] [applied to today’s –iraq] [********]
SIXTY years ago this month, writing under the byline of X, George Kennan supposedly laid out America’s cold war foreign policy. Kennan’s essay is often said to be the most influential article in the history of this country’s foreign policy, but neither Harry Truman, nor any president after him, actually followed X’s recommendations. “Containment,” the word the essay introduced, was applied in a bellicose way that Kennan didn’t intend.
But while Truman dodged X’s advice, George W. Bush should follow it. Kennan was wrong about how we would win the cold war, but right about how to fight the war on terrorism. [*******]
In the July 1947 issue of Foreign Affairs, Kennan, who was then the State Department’s policy planning chief, gave American strategy a name, but not much else. He argued that we didn’t have to actively defeat the Soviet Union, only outlast it. Communism held inside itself “the seeds of its own decay.” The United States should refrain from provoking Moscow, whether through confrontation or histrionics. Patience would lead to success.
The article’s influence was grounded in a misunderstanding. Kennan didn’t make clear whether he intended containment to be primarily a political or military strategy. Despite the article’s ambiguity, everyone assumed the latter. [******] The most important columnist of the time, Walter Lippmann, wrote a series of consecutive critical essays about the X article — later collected in a book that coined a phrase with its title, “The Cold War” — declaring that containment was a military doctrine and a bad one at that.
But in a letter to Lippmann that Kennan never mailed (most likely because his boss, Secretary of State George Marshall, had chastened him for causing a ruckus), Kennan explained that he didn’t mean containment with guns. He didn’t want American armed forces to intervene in countries where the Soviets were mucking around but hadn’t gained control, like Greece, Iran and Turkey. [***********]
The Soviets are making “first and foremost a political attack,” Kennan wrote. “Their spearheads are the local communists. And the counter-weapon that can beat them is the vigor and soundness of political life in the victim countries.” [ideas] [*****]
American policy makers viewed containment in military terms. We soon built up our forces to defend Western Europe, created NATO and engaged in a huge arms race. Eventually containment would mean soldiers in Vietnam and thousands of nuclear weapons pointed at the Soviet Union.
Kennan opposed every one of these actions. Long called the man who defined our cold war policies, Kennan was probably containment’s most consistent, and persistent, critic. He spent decades denying paternity of the doctrine everyone credited him with creating.
Today we face vastly different challenges from those the nation confronted right after World War II. Our enemy is dispersed; there’s a constant threat of suicide attacks; nuclear weapons can be hidden in suitcases instead of dropped from airplanes. Still, when it comes to overarching strategy, Kennan’s desired but never executed policy from 60 years ago offers profound wisdom for today. [**********]
Kennan’s insight was that a long-term, complex struggle wasn’t best judged in terms of winning or losing. Communism wasn’t something we could immediately conquer. The same holds true for Al Qaeda, a movement that, like Soviet communism, offers its subjects oppression and poverty. [******]Time is on our side — particularly if we act in a way that doesn’t inflame our enemies’ pride and anger and win them new recruits.
Kennan’s insistence on a political strategy, rather than a military one, makes more sense now than it did when he published his essay. Applied today, that advice would entail spending more time and money building up our Muslim allies. The Center for Strategic and International Studies reports that only about $900 million of the $10 billion we’ve given Pakistan since 2002 has gone to health, education and democracy promotion. Most of the rest has gone to the military. [******] The Bush administration has recently taken steps to change this ratio. But Kennan, one of the authors of the Marshall Plan, would have wanted the numbers to be closer to the reverse.
A 21st-century rendering of X’s vision of containment would involve the closing of the Guantánamo Bay detention camp, an unambiguous renunciation of torture and an abandonment of the notion that our legal and moral norms don’t apply to the current struggle. Kennan believed we gave our opponents a propaganda victory [*****]each time we acted in a manner unfitting of our ideals.
“To avoid destruction,” Kennan concluded the X article, “the United States need only measure up to its own best traditions and prove itself worthy of preservation as a great nation.”
We can’t know for sure how his recommended, wholly political version of containment would have fared in the cold war. But we do know that a militant foreign policy didn’t lead to nuclear war and did, eventually, help bring about the collapse of Soviet communism. We also know that a strong offensive policy has yet to succeed against Al Qaeda.
Kennan died two years ago at the age of 101. One of his last public statements was a critique, in 2002, of the looming Iraq invasion. [******] War, he said, was too unpredictable, and this one wasn’t worth it. As he wrote to Lippmann six decades ago, “Let us find health and vigor and hope, and the diseased portion of the earth will fall behind of its own doing. For that we need no aggressive strategic plans, no provocation of military hostilities, no showdowns.”
Nicholas Thompson, a senior editor at Wired magazine, is writing a book about George Kennan.
Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

Posted by Kent Bolton at 09:16 AM | Permalink

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/30/AR2007073001849.html
Congo's Sexual Violence Goes 'Far Beyond Rape'
Tuesday, July 31, 2007; A15
Congo's Sexual Violence Goes 'Far Beyond Rape'
[congo] [incredible reports of sexual slavery and UN complicity] [*******]
GENEVA -- Atrocities in Congo's volatile province of South Kivu extend "far beyond rape" and include sexual slavery, forced incest and cannibalism, a U.N. human rights expert said Monday.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/30/AR2007073001849.html
Congo's Sexual Violence Goes 'Far Beyond Rape'
Tuesday, July 31, 2007; A15
Congo's Sexual Violence Goes 'Far Beyond Rape'
[congo] [incredible reports of sexual slavery and UN complicity] [*******]
GENEVA -- Atrocities in Congo's volatile province of South Kivu extend "far beyond rape" and include sexual slavery, forced incest and cannibalism, a U.N. human rights expert said Monday.
Yakin Erturk called the situation the worst she has seen in four years as the special investigator for violence against women. Sexual violence in Congo is "rampant," she said, blaming rebel groups, the armed forces and national police. [********]
"These acts amount to war crimes and, in some cases, crimes against humanity," Erturk said.
Rebel groups that fled to Congo after taking part in the Rwandan genocide of the 1990s have committed many of the abuses, she said.
EUROPE
• MOSCOW -- Russian prosecutors have asked a Moscow court to issue an arrest warrant for businessman Boris Berezovsky in connection with a new criminal case, authorities said. The Kremlin has been stepping up efforts to discredit Berezovsky, an outspoken critic of President Vladimir Putin who has been granted political asylum by Britain.
ASIA
• BEIJING -- North Korea has cooperated fully with U.N. nuclear experts who were monitoring the shutdown and sealing of the country's sole plutonium-producing reactor, [******] the team's leader said Tuesday.
• BEIJING -- Water levels were set to peak Tuesday at China's huge Three Gorges Dam as another 27 deaths were reported from flooding and landslides, New China News Agency said. Heavy rains also closed Beijing's airport, stranding almost 10,000 passengers Monday night,
• DHAKA, Bangladesh -- Bangladesh's High Court suspended former prime minister Sheikh Hasina's extortion trial and ordered her released on bail, her attorney said.
Hasina, who led the government from 1996 to 2001, was arrested July 16 on charges of extorting $441,000.
• BEIJING -- The Chengdu Research Base of Giant Panda Breeding has come up with a dung-for-profit scheme that turns waste from pandas into odor-free souvenirs, including photo frames, bookmarks and Olympic-themed statues of the animals, state media said.
-- From News Services
© 2007 The Washington Post Company

Posted by Kent Bolton at 09:15 AM | Permalink

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/31/world/middleeast/31mideast.html
July 31, 2007
Israel to Let Some Palestinians From Iraq Live in West Bank
By ISABEL KERSHNER [Israel-Palestine] [former Palestine] [refugees from the –iraq war where a sizable population of Palestinians have gathered] [now through odd quirk of fate, Bush administration’s decision to invade –Iraq (March 2003), and events in former Palestine, Palestinians refugees returning] [***********]
JERUSALEM, July 30 — A number of Palestinians who have fled war-torn Iraq will be allowed to come to live in the West Bank, Israeli officials said Monday, presenting the decision as the latest in a series of gestures meant to bolster the moderate Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas. [****]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/31/world/middleeast/31mideast.html
July 31, 2007
Israel to Let Some Palestinians From Iraq Live in West Bank
By ISABEL KERSHNER [Israel-Palestine] [former Palestine] [refugees from the –iraq war where a sizable population of Palestinians have gathered] [now through odd quirk of fate, Bush administration’s decision to invade –Iraq (March 2003), and events in former Palestine, Palestinians refugees returning] [***********]
JERUSALEM, July 30 — A number of Palestinians who have fled war-torn Iraq will be allowed to come to live in the West Bank, Israeli officials said Monday, presenting the decision as the latest in a series of gestures meant to bolster the moderate Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas. [****]
At the same time, the officials emphasized that the terms of entry will be devised to avoid setting any precedent regarding other Palestinian refugees of the 1948 Arab-Israeli war and their descendants and their longstanding claim of a right of return.
The Palestinians from Iraq would be allowed to enter under “certain conditions” and under the rubric of “family reunification,” [****]said Zehavit Ben Hillel, a Foreign Ministry spokeswoman.
The Palestinians fleeing Iraq are not registered as refugees with the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, the body that deals with a majority of the Palestinian refugees and their descendants. The returnees would not be listed as refugees once they are in the West Bank, but would be granted permanent residency in the Palestinian territory, Ms. Ben Hillel said.
Israeli officials are not saying exactly how many Palestinians from Iraq would be allowed into the West Bank; a report in the daily newspaper Haaretz put the number at 41. [******] [hardly significant] It is unclear how many are seeking to enter.
Mr. Abbas and his Western-backed caretaker government have been working to consolidate their power in the West Bank since the Islamic militant group Hamas took over the Gaza Strip six weeks ago. But Israel maintains overall security control in the West Bank and governs the border crossings from Jordan, which the Palestinians will have to pass through.
The request to allow Palestinians fleeing Iraq to enter Israel was made two and a half years ago by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. It was rejected then on political and security grounds, according to the Haaretz report. The Israeli Foreign Ministry confirmed the details of the report.
The recent approval was timed to help shore up Mr. Abbas, Israeli officials said.
The Palestinian information minister, Riad Malki, welcomed the Israeli decision. “We demand the entry for all Palestinians from Iraq because of the dangers they live under,” he told The Associated Press, adding, “This is a great accomplishment, and symbolic.” [********]
A request for a number of Palestinians from Iraq to join relatives in Gaza was turned down by Israel “because a terror organization is in charge there,” Ms. Ben Hillel said, referring to Hamas.
Other Israeli gestures to Mr. Abbas have included the release by Israel of withheld tax money and the early release of 255 Palestinian prisoners from Israeli jails. Although they represented only a fraction of the more than 10,000 Palestinian prisoners [*****]still being held, Mr. Abbas greeted them with great fanfare.
As part of the peace efforts in the mid-1990s, Israel agreed to an annual quota of Palestinians eligible to return to the Palestinian territories under a family reunification program. The number was set at 2,000 cases a year, or up to 6,000 individuals. But the program was suspended with the outbreak of the second intifada in 2000.
About 34,000 Palestinians lived in Iraq before the American-led invasion in 2003. According to Mr. Malki, about 18,000 have fled the violence there. [******] Many have been living in refugee camps on the Iraq-Syria border, and some have entered Jordan.
Also on Monday, Mr. Abbas began a visit to Russia to seek support for his administration. The Russian foreign minister, Sergey V. Lavrov, told reporters that Russia considers Mr. Abbas “the lawful leader of the entire Palestinian people.”
But Mr. Lavrov also called for a dialogue between Mr. Abbas’s Fatah movement and its rival, Hamas. Russia has maintained its own contacts with the Islamic group: Reuters reported that Mr. Lavrov spoke by telephone last week with Khaled Meshal, the Damascus-based political chief of Hamas. Mr. Abbas was scheduled to meet with President Vladimir V. Putin on Tuesday.
Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

Posted by Kent Bolton at 09:14 AM | Permalink

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/31/world/asia/31nato.html
July 31, 2007
NATO Tries to Cut Afghan Civilian Deaths
By REUTERS [Afghanistan] [hydra] [insurgency] [followup] [the 2007 offensive and mixed messages] [on the one hand, NATO seemed to anticipate and stymied Taliban and al Qaeda fighters on several fronts] [on other, hydra proving resilent and arguably more popular than they should be given their history] [the long-festering problem of NATO troops and collateral damage dones by tactics of airstrikes] [*******]
BRUSSELS, July 30 (Reuters) — NATO plans more restrained tactics in its war against Taliban guerrillas, including smaller bomb loads on aircraft, [****]in an effort to cut civilian casualties, the alliance’s head said in an interview published Monday.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/31/world/asia/31nato.html
July 31, 2007
NATO Tries to Cut Afghan Civilian Deaths
By REUTERS [Afghanistan] [hydra] [insurgency] [followup] [the 2007 offensive and mixed messages] [on the one hand, NATO seemed to anticipate and stymied Taliban and al Qaeda fighters on several fronts] [on other, hydra proving resilent and arguably more popular than they should be given their history] [the long-festering problem of NATO troops and collateral damage dones by tactics of airstrikes] [*******]
BRUSSELS, July 30 (Reuters) — NATO plans more restrained tactics in its war against Taliban guerrillas, including smaller bomb loads on aircraft, [****]in an effort to cut civilian casualties, the alliance’s head said in an interview published Monday.
The Financial Times said Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, NATO’s secretary general, acknowledged that mounting Afghan civilian casualties had hurt support for NATO, and said that commanders had ordered troops to hold off on attacks in some situations where civilians were at risk.
“We realize that if we cannot neutralize our enemy today without harming civilians, our enemy will give us the opportunity tomorrow,” he said. “If that means going after the Taliban not on Wednesday but on Thursday, we will get him then.” [*****]
More than 330 civilians have been killed here in operations involving foreign troops this year, said Afghan officials and Western aid workers.
Hamid Karzai, the president of Afghanistan, has warned that the casualties could damage support for the foreign forces in his country.
The Financial Times also quoted NATO officials as saying that the alliance would increasingly leave house-to-house searches to the Afghan Army to avoid confrontations.
Violence has surged in Afghanistan in the past 18 months, the bloodiest period since American-led troops overthrew the Taliban government in 2001.
Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

Posted by Kent Bolton at 09:13 AM | Permalink

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/31/world/asia/31cnd-hostage.html
July 31, 2007
Afghan Police Find Body of 2nd South Korean
By CHOE SANG-HUN [Afghanistan] [hydra] [insurgency] [followup] [the 2007 offensive and mixed messages] [on the one hand, NATO seemed to anticipate and stymied Taliban and al Qaeda fighters on several fronts] [on other, hydra proving resilent and arguably more popular than they should be given their history] [Korean hostages who are Christian—followup] [*******]
SEOUL, July 31 — Shocked by the killing of a second South Korean hostage in Afghanistan and weary of the 13-day-old crisis, South Korea today urged the United States and Afghan governments to show ”flexibility” over Taliban demands to exchange the remaining 21 Christian aid workers from South Korea [*****] for imprisoned militants.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/31/world/asia/31cnd-hostage.html
July 31, 2007
Afghan Police Find Body of 2nd South Korean
By CHOE SANG-HUN [Afghanistan] [hydra] [insurgency] [followup] [the 2007 offensive and mixed messages] [on the one hand, NATO seemed to anticipate and stymied Taliban and al Qaeda fighters on several fronts] [on other, hydra proving resilent and arguably more popular than they should be given their history] [Korean hostages who are Christian—followup] [*******]
SEOUL, July 31 — Shocked by the killing of a second South Korean hostage in Afghanistan and weary of the 13-day-old crisis, South Korea today urged the United States and Afghan governments to show ”flexibility” over Taliban demands to exchange the remaining 21 Christian aid workers from South Korea [*****] for imprisoned militants.
The government appeal — coupled with a growing frustration among South Koreans over what they perceive as a lack of cooperation from the United States in resolving the crisis — came hours after the Afghan police found the bullet-ridden body of a second South Korean hostage slain by the Taliban. [*******]
A purported Taliban spokesman said the man was killed on Monday because the Afghan government had not released the Taliban prisoners. The South Korean government identified the victim as Shim Sung Min, a 29-year-old former information technology worker.
”The government is well aware of how the international community deals with these kinds of abduction cases,” Cheon Ho Seon, a spokesman for President Roh Moo Hyun of South Korea, said in a statement today. “But it also believes that it would be worthwhile to use flexibility in the cause of saving the precious lives of those still in captivity, and is appealing to the international community to do so.” [*******]
Ever since the Taliban kidnapped the 23 South Korean aid workers on July 19, Mr. Roh’s government has been caught between two uncompromising forces. The Taliban has been insisting on a hostage-and-prisoner swap, while the American-backed Afghan government counters that bowing to the militants’ demands will only lead to more kidnappings. [***********]
“We shouldn’t encourage kidnapping by actually accepting their demands,” Humayun Hamidzada, a spokesman for Afghan President Hamid Karzai, told reporters today, according to Reuters.
Qari Yousef Ahmadi, who describes himself as a Taliban spokesman, said that the militants would kill more hostages if the Afghanistan government does not release prisoners by noon on Wednesday. [******]
“It might be a man or a woman,” he told The Associated Press. “It might be one. It might be two, four. It might be all of them.” He said the Taliban had killed the second South Korean hostage because “the Kabul and Korean governments are lying and cheating.” [*************]
“We cannot contain our anger at this merciless killing and strongly condemn this,” said Cho Hee Yong, a spokesman for the South Korean foreign ministry.
But the South Korean government also expressed frustration over the deadlock in negotiations. The Taliban “demand is not within the power of the Korean government because it doesn’t have any effective means to influence decisions of the Afghan government,” said Mr. Cheon, the presidential spokesman.
“The Korean government strongly condemns and urges an immediate end to these heinous acts of killing innocent people in order to press for demands that it can’t meet,” he said.
Grief, anger and a growing sense of helplessness gripped South Koreans today after the government confirmed that the body of the bespectacled man dumped on a clover field beside a road in southern Afghanistan was that of Mr. Shim, who had volunteered for a South Korean church group’s aid mission to the war-torn country.
The body of the group’s leader, Bae Hyung Kyu, who had also been shot to death, was found last Wednesday.
“We appeal for support from the people of the United States and around the world for resolving this crisis as early as possible,” [******]Kim Kyong Ja, the mother of one of the South Korean captives, said today, reading a statement from the family while grieving relatives standing behind her fought back tears.
“Especially, the families want the United States to disregard political interests and give more active support to save the 21 innocent lives,” she said. “We sustain ourselves through this ordeal anxiety with a belief that they can return home alive,” she said. “So please help us.”
Mr. Shim’s father, Shim Chin Pyo, told reporters of his son: “He had a good heart and did a lot of volunteer work. My son also wanted to help the poor and disabled.”
The Taliban kidnapped the 23 South Koreans, most of whom are women and in their 20s and 30s, while they were on a bus traveling from Kabul to the southern city of Kandahar on July 19. [**********]
They were the largest group of foreign hostages taken prisoner in Afghanistan since the American-led invasion in 2001.
The South Korean appeal for flexibility came ahead of a meeting scheduled for Sunday between Mr. Karzai and President Bush at Camp David.
Mr. Karzai was severely criticized by the United States and European governments after he approved a deal in March in which five Taliban fighters were freed in exchange for the release of an Italian journalist. He called the trade a one-time deal.
Paik Jin Hyun, an associate dean at the Graduate School of International Studies of Seoul National University, said that if the hostage crisis did not conclude satisfactorily, anti-American groups in South Korea might use it to promote anti-American sentiments in the country.
Today, the People’s Solidarity for Participatory Democracy, a major civic group based in Seoul, issued a statement accusing Washington of watching the hostage crisis “as if it were a fire across the river.”
“As everyone knows, the Taliban’s demand is something the U.S. government can help resolve, not the Afghan or South Korean government,” it said. “The South Korean government, citing its alliance with the United States, dispatched troops for the U.S. war against terrorism,” it added. “Now why can’t it use the spirit of the alliance to help persuade the U.S. administration and save its own people?” [********]
Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

Posted by Kent Bolton at 09:12 AM | Permalink

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/31/world/middleeast/31oxfam.html
July 31, 2007
Oxfam Reports Growing Humanitarian Crisis in Iraq
By DAMIEN CAVE [-ir] [hydra] [insurgency] [bush administration’s “surge option” or “new way forward” underway] [some positive indicators of improvement] [nevertheless, violence while surge unfolds] [pentagon’s recent status report—pretty awful but also predictable] [followup] [chaos increases] [more violence] [4 million refugees, 2 million internally displaced!] [basic human needs unmet while parliament vacations] [*****]
AMMAN, Jordan, July 30 — Poverty, hunger and public health continue to worsen in Iraq, according to a report released Monday by Oxfam International, which says that more aid is needed from abroad and calls on the Iraqi government to decentralize the distribution of food and medical supplies.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/31/world/middleeast/31oxfam.html
July 31, 2007
Oxfam Reports Growing Humanitarian Crisis in Iraq
By DAMIEN CAVE [-ir] [hydra] [insurgency] [bush administration’s “surge option” or “new way forward” underway] [some positive indicators of improvement] [nevertheless, violence while surge unfolds] [pentagon’s recent status report—pretty awful but also predictable] [followup] [chaos increases] [more violence] [4 million refugees, 2 million internally displaced!] [basic human needs unmet while parliament vacations] [*****]
AMMAN, Jordan, July 30 — Poverty, hunger and public health continue to worsen in Iraq, according to a report released Monday by Oxfam International, which says that more aid is needed from abroad and calls on the Iraqi government to decentralize the distribution of food and medical supplies.
The report, based on a compendium of research from the United Nations, the Iraqi government and nonprofit organizations Oxfam works with or finances, offers little original data. But it provides one of the most comprehensive pictures to date of the human crisis within Iraq and what it describes as a slow-motion response from Iraq’s government, the United States, the United Nations and the European Union.
The report states that roughly four million Iraqis, many of them children, are in dire need of food aid; that 70 percent of the country lacks access to adequate water supplies, up from 50 percent in 2003; and that 90 percent of the country’s hospitals lack basic medical and surgical supplies. [************]
One survey cited in the report, completed in May by the Iraqi Ministry of Planning, found that 43 percent of Iraqis live in “absolute poverty,” earning less than $1 a day. [*****]
Unemployment and hunger are particularly acute among the estimated two million people displaced internally from their homes by violence, many of whom are jobless, homeless and largely left on their own.
“The government of Iraq, international donors and the United Nations system have been focused on reconstruction, development and building political institutions, and have overlooked the harsh daily struggle for survival now faced by many,” the report says.
The solutions proposed by Oxfam, an international aid organization that opposed the 2003 American invasion and helps groups in Iraq from an office in Amman, focus on both Iraqi policy and international financing. [********]
The report — which also includes contributions from the NGO Coordination Committee in Iraq, a network of Iraqi and international aid agencies — calls on Iraq to expand and decentralize its distribution of food rations and emergency cash payments to widows. NGO refers to nongovernmental organizations.
Medical and other aid supplies kept in seven Baghdad warehouses should be distributed to the provinces and managed by local authorities rather than the inefficient central government, the report said.
Citing the policies of aid organizations that will not accept money from countries involved in Iraq’s conflict, Oxfam also called on countries without troops in Iraq to send more money for aid. [******]According to the report, cuts in financing and the challenge of providing assistance in an insecure environment have limited what both the United Nations and its partners can do for Iraqis. The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, for example, used to work with 20 partners in Iraq; it now has only 11, [********]the report says.
Oxfam’s analysis offers no suggestions on how to root out the corruption that has hobbled the Iraqi government and international aid efforts in the past, nor does it address the links between criminal militias and Iraqi government agencies, like the Ministry of Health, which is run by the political party loyal to the Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr.
It also presents its statistics as hard facts, without acknowledging the wide margin of error that typically accompanies social research in a war zone. Rather, the report focuses almost exclusively on the need for more money and better distributed aid. [*******]
Joost Hiltermann, deputy program director for the Middle East and North Africa at the International Crisis Group, an organization of experts on conflicts, said that at this point in Iraq, the focus is justified. Corruption, he said, is beyond the purview of groups like Oxfam and the lack of organized aid needs to be immediately addressed.
“The priority,” he said, “is to get aid going regardless of such problems.”
Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

Posted by Kent Bolton at 09:11 AM | Permalink

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/31/world/middleeast/31iraq.html
July 31, 2007
Despite Appeals, Iraqi Legislators Take Break
By STEPHEN FARRELL [-ir] [hydra] [insurgency] [bush administration’s “surge option” or “new way forward” underway] [some positive indicators of improvement] [nevertheless, violence while surge unfolds] [pentagon’s recent status report—pretty awful but also predictable] [followup] [chaos increases] [more violence] [as threatened-promised, the parliament begins its month-long break a week before the US congress does same] [timing, given yesterday’s oped by Pollack and O’Hanlon, is bad] [*****]
BAGHDAD, July 30 — Iraq’s Parliament headed into a monthlong summer recess on Monday, halting work despite calls from the United States and the prime minister for lawmakers to shorten their break to push through important legislation. [*****]
The decision to take off the month of August almost surely eliminates hopes that the 275-member Council of Representatives will pass laws sought by American officials as evidence that the country is making progress toward stability.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/31/world/middleeast/31iraq.html
July 31, 2007
Despite Appeals, Iraqi Legislators Take Break
By STEPHEN FARRELL [-ir] [hydra] [insurgency] [bush administration’s “surge option” or “new way forward” underway] [some positive indicators of improvement] [nevertheless, violence while surge unfolds] [pentagon’s recent status report—pretty awful but also predictable] [followup] [chaos increases] [more violence] [as threatened-promised, the parliament begins its month-long break a week before the US congress does same] [timing, given yesterday’s oped by Pollack and O’Hanlon, is bad] [*****]
BAGHDAD, July 30 — Iraq’s Parliament headed into a monthlong summer recess on Monday, halting work despite calls from the United States and the prime minister for lawmakers to shorten their break to push through important legislation. [*****]
The decision to take off the month of August almost surely eliminates hopes that the 275-member Council of Representatives will pass laws sought by American officials as evidence that the country is making progress toward stability.
The United States was hoping for movement on measures meant to reduce sectarian strife. One would divide revenue from Iraq’s vast oil wealth equitably among the country’s factions; another would promote reconciliation with Iraq’s once-ruling Sunni minority by allowing some former members of the Baath Party of Saddam Hussein back into senior jobs.
President Bush has been among those who have pressed the prime minister, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, to ask lawmakers to take a shorter vacation, according to the president’s aides. [that’s rich coming from a president who takes more vacation than any in recent memory] [*****] And critics of the Iraqi government have noted that while Parliament is in recess, American and Iraqi troops will continue fighting and patrolling the streets despite the 120-degree summer temperatures.
However, Iraqi representatives defended the decision to take off until Sept. 4, saying they had already cut their scheduled two-month summer break in half and extended their work weeks from three to six days.
Their scheduled return is less than two weeks before Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker and Gen. David H. Petraeus, the commander of United States forces in Iraq, are to submit a report on benchmarks [*****]set by Congress to measure Iraq’s political progress. There is widespread pessimism that feuding politicians will thrash out such complex issues before the report to Congress, which is considered crucial to maintaining support for the war.
Some politicians have bridled at the pressure from Washington, while Ambassador Crocker cautioned that the American and Iraqi political systems have different expectations of progress, “and the Washington clock is running a lot faster than the Baghdad clock is.” [*********]
But political analysts said two of the most crucial pieces of legislation relevant to Congressional benchmarks — the proposed oil law and the one on former Baathists — have not even been sent to Parliament for debate, because of a deadlock within the ruling coalition’s main parties.
Shatha al-Mussawi, a lawmaker from the Shiite-led coalition, said there was no reason for Parliament to remain in session because it has nothing to vote on.
“All the work on the laws is up to the political blocs, and that means all the negotiations and debates take place in closed rooms, not in the Parliament,” she said.
“It doesn’t matter if we extend or do not extend the session,” she added. “We already did extend it one month, and what happened in that month? We never approved any law except one. The issue is not the time. The issue is that there has been no political compromise or agreement about these laws, especially about de-Baathification and oil revenues.”
Heated exchanges between Prime Minister Maliki’s office and members of the largest Sunni Arab bloc, Tawafiq, also threaten to render the whole timetable for voting academic.
Some fear that if the Sunnis carry out their threat to withdraw from the government later this week, any legislation would become meaningless without their consent.
An American Embassy spokesman in Baghdad pointed out that Parliament had passed 60 pieces of legislation on important subjects like oil refineries and military justice.
“We understand that the government and political leaders will remain actively engaged in trying to reach agreement on some sticking points, so that the legislation can be submitted to the Council of Representatives and passed when it reconvenes,” [****]he said.
Abdul Razzaq al-Saiedi and Qais Mizher contributed reporting.
Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

Posted by Kent Bolton at 09:10 AM | Permalink

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/31/world/middleeast/31briefs-Rafsanjani.html
July 31, 2007
World Briefing | Middle East
Iran: Cleric’s Death Opens Way for Rafsanjani
By NAZILA FATHI [Iran] [general] [domestic politics that will affect Iranian foreign policy in unforeseen ways] [Rafsanjani wealthy “moderate,” only relative to other mullahs, who’s been implicated in things as long ago as Iran-Contra] [a surviver] [probably leads at least one camp inside theocracy] [followup] [**********]
Ayatollah Ali Meshkini, [*****]the 86-year-old chairman of the powerful Assembly of Experts, [***]died of lung disease in a Tehran hospital, Iranian news media reported. His replacement is likely to be Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, left, the more moderate former president who lost the presidential race to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in 2005. [*****]Mr. Rafsanjani is the assembly’s vice chairman, having been chosen in December elections in which Mr. Ahmadinejad’s supporters fared surprisingly poorly. [******] The powers of the directly elected, 86-member clerical board include choosing, monitoring and, if it deems necessary, removing the supreme leader, currently Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. [******]The Mehr News Agency said the assembly would leave the vote to replace Ayatollah Meshkini, who led it for 25 years, until its regular meeting next month.
Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/31/world/middleeast/31briefs-Rafsanjani.html
July 31, 2007
World Briefing | Middle East
Iran: Cleric’s Death Opens Way for Rafsanjani
By NAZILA FATHI [Iran] [general] [domestic politics that will affect Iranian foreign policy in unforeseen ways] [Rafsanjani wealthy “moderate,” only relative to other mullahs, who’s been implicated in things as long ago as Iran-Contra] [a surviver] [probably leads at least one camp inside theocracy] [followup] [**********]
Ayatollah Ali Meshkini, [*****]the 86-year-old chairman of the powerful Assembly of Experts, [***]died of lung disease in a Tehran hospital, Iranian news media reported. His replacement is likely to be Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, left, the more moderate former president who lost the presidential race to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in 2005. [*****]Mr. Rafsanjani is the assembly’s vice chairman, having been chosen in December elections in which Mr. Ahmadinejad’s supporters fared surprisingly poorly. [******] The powers of the directly elected, 86-member clerical board include choosing, monitoring and, if it deems necessary, removing the supreme leader, currently Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. [******]The Mehr News Agency said the assembly would leave the vote to replace Ayatollah Meshkini, who led it for 25 years, until its regular meeting next month.
Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

Posted by Kent Bolton at 09:09 AM | Permalink

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/30/AR2007073001709.html
Pakistani Premier 'Disappointed' by U.S. Pressure
By Griff Witte
Washington Post Foreign Service
Tuesday, July 31, 2007; A12 [Pakistan] [south asia] [followup from past weeks] [Pakistan as the new Afghanistan] [musharraf’s dangerous gambit] [attempting to balance US-West gsave against placating his traditional Pashtun, Deobandi, jihadis constituency] [Pakistan’s military and intelligence services fully infiltrated bt latter] [alqaeda’s home-turf central] [hydra] [a tipping point may have been reached in past week or two] [the infamous truce that Musharraf made with tribal leaders—on again, off again] [US rather bold public statements about reserved rights to hot pursuit among others, starting to rankle and scare Musharraf policymakers] [see today’s societal where Ignasus argues for pre-emption] [********]
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan, July 30 -- Pakistan will do what it takes to eliminate extremists operating in the country for its own sake, not because of rising pressure [*****]from the United States, according to Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/30/AR2007073001709.html
Pakistani Premier 'Disappointed' by U.S. Pressure
By Griff Witte
Washington Post Foreign Service
Tuesday, July 31, 2007; A12 [Pakistan] [south asia] [followup from past weeks] [Pakistan as the new Afghanistan] [musharraf’s dangerous gambit] [attempting to balance US-West gsave against placating his traditional Pashtun, Deobandi, jihadis constituency] [Pakistan’s military and intelligence services fully infiltrated bt latter] [alqaeda’s home-turf central] [hydra] [a tipping point may have been reached in past week or two] [the infamous truce that Musharraf made with tribal leaders—on again, off again] [US rather bold public statements about reserved rights to hot pursuit among others, starting to rankle and scare Musharraf policymakers] [see today’s societal where Ignasus argues for pre-emption] [********]
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan, July 30 -- Pakistan will do what it takes to eliminate extremists operating in the country for its own sake, not because of rising pressure [*****]from the United States, according to Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz.
Aziz said in an interview this week that efforts to force Pakistan to do more are unnecessary and that the government was "disappointed" by U.S. legislation that ties aid for Pakistan to its performance fighting terrorism. [*****] The legislation, which officials expect President Bush to sign, is part of a major bill passed last week aimed at implementing many recommendations of the Sept. 11 commission. [*********]
The possible new restrictions on aid come as there are growing doubts in Washington that Pakistan's government is willing to take painful steps to eliminate alleged havens for al-Qaeda and Taliban fighters [******]in the country's northwestern tribal areas.
American officials have said recently that the United States reserves the right to carry out unilateral military strikes in Pakistan, which has received more than $10 billion in U.S. aid since 2001. That contention has inflamed relations [****]between the two countries. Officials in Islamabad have criticized it as counterproductive because it reinforces a sense among Pakistanis that their government acts at U.S. behest.
Following a wave of extremist attacks in recent weeks that have killed nearly 200 people in Pakistan, Aziz said the government has its own reasons for tackling rising militancy.
"This is a country where both the president and prime minister have been victims of terrorist attacks," Aziz said. "We don't need to be told every day that we should do this. We are committed ourselves."
Aziz survived a suicide bomber's assassination attempt in the summer of 2004. The attack killed Aziz's driver and eight others. President Pervez Musharraf has survived several assassination attempts since he came to power in a bloodless coup in 1999. [*****]
Aziz, a former top-ranking Citibank executive with no track record in politics, became prime minister three years ago after first serving as Musharraf's finance minister. Since then, he has run the government's day-to-day affairs, though Musharraf, a general who also heads the military, remains the ultimate authority in Pakistan.
Aziz is widely credited with turning around the nation's economy, which had been moribund but now produces strong annual growth.
He could soon be out of a job, however.
Musharraf on Friday traveled to the United Arab Emirates to meet with his strongest rival, exiled former prime minister Benazir Bhutto, about the possibility of a power-sharing arrangement. Musharraf's standing has been battered this year by an increasingly violent insurgency, as well as a burgeoning pro-democracy movement. He needs allies before upcoming elections, and Bhutto could provide crucial support to allow him to continue in office. [******]
Bhutto, meanwhile, needs a guarantee that she can return to the country without facing criminal charges relating to alleged corruption. She has said she wants to serve a third term as prime minister.
Aziz said it would be "unfair" for anyone to determine who will lead Pakistan before a vote.
"The office of the president and the prime minister are a result of elections," Aziz said. "It is for the people of Pakistan to decide who their leadership ought to be."
Pakistan, a nuclear power of 160 million people, is scheduled to hold elections in coming months. [****]Musharraf has been criticized by democracy advocates over his plan to win election for another five years as president from the current parliament, which is at the end of its term.
Aziz said that he is "absolutely" sure Musharraf will win a new term and that it is unlikely parliamentary elections will be held before that happens.
© 2007 The Washington Post Company

Posted by Kent Bolton at 09:08 AM | Permalink

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/29/AR2007072900973.html
Bush and Counterfactual Confidence
By Shankar Vedantam
Monday, July 30, 2007; A03 [president Bush] [how does he handle the pressures?] [he may actually be oblivious?] [similar questions raised in govt today about AG Gonzalez] [perhaps they are two peas from same pod and that’s why they get on so famously?] [**********]
In the face of mounting public and political opposition to the war in Iraq, recent reports from the White House suggest that President Bush remains serenely confident. [******]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/29/AR2007072900973.html
Bush and Counterfactual Confidence
By Shankar Vedantam
Monday, July 30, 2007; A03 [president Bush] [how does he handle the pressures?] [he may actually be oblivious?] [similar questions raised in govt today about AG Gonzalez] [perhaps they are two peas from same pod and that’s why they get on so famously?] [**********]
In the face of mounting public and political opposition to the war in Iraq, recent reports from the White House suggest that President Bush remains serenely confident. [******]
Bush's confidants report that the president believes he will be vindicated by history. He keeps Churchill and Lincoln close at hand. No matter how tough the situation in Iraq, Bush remains confident about his decision to go to war because he believes that things would have been much worse otherwise. [***********]
"Obviously, it was a difficult decision for me to make -- to send our brave troops, along with coalition troops, into Iraq," Bush said at a recent press briefing about the Iraq situation, where he faced a barrage of questions about flagging support for the war. "I firmly believe the world is better off without Saddam Hussein in power."
Bush's argument is based on something known as a counterfactual. [*****] In his mind, the president has run an alternate view of history -- one that imagines Saddam Hussein still in power -- and has come to the conclusion that deposing the Iraqi leader was better. [counterfactuals are unseful analystic tools but can never be proved or anything close to it] [if one is using them with certitude to justify one’s particularly provocative choices in history, one is in trouble] [*************]
Bush is not alone in using counterfactual thinking. Coming up with what-if scenarios is how people make sense of the world. When we make a financial decision that turns out poorly, we imagine going back in time and not investing in that stock or buying that house. That scenario looks rosier -- it is an upward counterfactual. But let us say we make a good financial decision. When we imagine not buying that stock or that house, we contrast the money we have made with the money we might have lost had we not made the investment -- producing a downward counterfactual.
But what is dangerous about counterfactuals is that while they may seem reasonable, they easily become a way for us to confirm what we already feel. [*******]Bush might not conclude that the war was the right decision because he has reached for a downward counterfactual; he might have reached for a downward counterfactual because he feels the war in Iraq is right.
The basic problem with counterfactual reasoning is there is no way to test your theory. [*******] Bush can't actually go back in time and not invade Iraq and see whether things would actually be worse than they are now. Because the arrow of time runs in only one direction, counterfactuals cannot be disproved. (Indeed, this may be why they are so attractive in political reasoning.)
Philip Tetlock, a professor of organizational behavior and political science at the University of California, has found that the careless use of counterfactuals is one reason politicians and experts are often wrong in their predictions. [*************]
"History does not give us control groups," he said. With counterfactuals, "the control groups are all being run in the imaginations of the analysts."
Tetlock's large study found that politicians and pundits were rarely better than non-experts in predicting the course of historical events. But he found that experts who were more cautious about using counterfactuals -- who explicitly reminded themselves that they were coming up with scenarios that could not be verified -- were more accurate on average than those who used counterfactuals blithely.
In his book "Expert Political Judgment: How Good Is It? How Can We Know?" Tetlock divided experts into groups that he called foxes and hedgehogs. [*****] Both groups used counterfactuals, but the foxes used them warily whereas the hedgehogs used them confidently. Not surprisingly, hedgehogs tended to be far more partisan than foxes.
"How much restraint do you exercise on your counterfactual imagination?" asked Tetlock. "If you allow your partisan imagination to dominate completely, that is a danger sign in how you think about the future. If you exercise restraint, you are willing to acknowledge dissonant possibilities."
Until recently, the Bush administration's Iraq plans have been mostly the work of hedgehogs. The pragmatic recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, led by James Baker and Lee Hamilton, however, are quite clearly the work of foxes. [*******]
Bush's heroes, Lincoln and Churchill, offer a study in contrasts. Lincoln leaned toward fox, Churchill toward hedgehog. Lincoln was open to dissent, even within his own Cabinet, and was alert to nuance. Churchill allowed few doubts. Each man was perfectly designed for his historical moment.
Churchill's single-mindedness helped Britain overcome the existential threat of Nazi Germany during the darkest days of the Battle of Britain. But his stubbornness also blinded him to his mistakes. If Churchill was far ahead of the curve in recognizing the menace of Hitler, he was far behind the curve in recognizing that Britain's colonial empire was headed for history's dustbin. [************]
Tetlock's study is not about proving that foxes were better than hedgehogs or the other way around. Rather, it is about the consequences of different styles of thinking. Tetlock did find, for example, that when they make the right calls, hedgehogs are far more likely than foxes to be spectacularly right.
Unfortunately, hedgehogs are also far more likely than foxes to be spectacularly wrong. [*********]
© 2007 The Washington Post Company

Posted by Kent Bolton at 09:59 AM | Permalink

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/world/europe/30cnd-weapons.html
July 30, 2007
Before Mideast Trip, Rice Outlines Arms Package
By HELENE COOPER [bush white house] [nsc principals] [state department] [sec state condi rice heading to middle east] [among other stops, Saudi where the $20 billion arms package bound to be topic 1] [first reported 2 days ago] [appears payoff for Saudi acquiescence even though Saudis have not been playing well with the US of late] [*******]
WASHINGTON, July 30 — The Bush administration said today that it will ask Congress to approve an arms sales package for Saudi Arabia and its neighbors that could eventually total $20 billion, at a time when the United States is leaning heavily on its Sunni Arab allies to play a more constructive role in Iraq.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/world/europe/30cnd-weapons.html
July 30, 2007
Before Mideast Trip, Rice Outlines Arms Package
By HELENE COOPER [bush white house] [nsc principals] [state department] [sec state condi rice heading to middle east] [among other stops, Saudi where the $20 billion arms package bound to be topic 1] [first reported 2 days ago] [appears payoff for Saudi acquiescence even though Saudis have not been playing well with the US of late] [*******]
WASHINGTON, July 30 — The Bush administration said today that it will ask Congress to approve an arms sales package for Saudi Arabia and its neighbors that could eventually total $20 billion, at a time when the United States is leaning heavily on its Sunni Arab allies to play a more constructive role in Iraq.
The package, announced by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice just before she headed to the Middle East to meet with officials from Egypt, Jordan, and the Gulf States, also includes a sweetener meant to block Israeli opposition to the deal.
“We will move soon to conclude a new ten-year military assistance agreement with Israel,” Ms. Rice said. “This agreement will provide a total of $30 billion to ensure Israel’s ability to defend itself.” [133% of the Saudi deal] [*****]
The proposed package of advanced weaponry for Saudi Arabia, which includes improved satellite-guided bombs, upgrades for its fighter jets and new naval vessels, had made Israel and some of its supporters in Congress nervous. Indeed, even before the administration had announced the package, two Congressmen, Anthony D. Weiner and Jerrold Nadler, both Democrats of New York, held a news conference outside the Saudi Consulate in Manhattan to announce a legislative proposal to block the planned arms sale.
Administration officials said they are also working on a new ten-year, $13 billion military assistance agreement for Egypt, another crucial Sunni Arab [*****]country under pressure from Washington to embrace Iraq’s Shiite-led government.
Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

Posted by Kent Bolton at 09:58 AM | Permalink

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/29/AR2007072901219.html
The Cost of 'Enduring' in Iraq
By Walter Pincus
Monday, July 30, 2007; A13 [bush white house] [bush white house] [us congress] [110th congress, 1st session] [dems in control and puhsing the Iraq war exit] [the issue of permanent military bases in -iraq] [obviously a sensitive issue for US-iraqi relations as insurgents and jihadis say that’s the US design] [on other hand, forbidding makes salvaging even a little nearly impossible] [followup] [*******]
The House passed a bill on Wednesday barring the Defense Department from building any military installation or base that could serve as a permanent station for U.S. forces in Iraq.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/29/AR2007072901219.html
The Cost of 'Enduring' in Iraq
By Walter Pincus
Monday, July 30, 2007; A13 [bush white house] [bush white house] [us congress] [110th congress, 1st session] [dems in control and puhsing the Iraq war exit] [the issue of permanent military bases in -iraq] [obviously a sensitive issue for US-iraqi relations as insurgents and jihadis say that’s the US design] [on other hand, forbidding makes salvaging even a little nearly impossible] [followup] [*******]
The House passed a bill on Wednesday barring the Defense Department from building any military installation or base that could serve as a permanent station for U.S. forces in Iraq.
Similar prohibitions are already on the books, and their practical effect has been to "limit the use of concrete structures and emphasize building of relocatable units" as a way to show that U.S. facilities in Iraq are not "permanent," according to a recent study by the Congressional Research Service.
So, what exactly is the Defense Department building in Iraq with the billions in military construction dollars it has received over the past five years? Congress approved $1.7 billion for military construction in Iraq and Afghanistan in 2007, according to CRS, but offered no breakdown of how the money was spent.
The House and Senate appropriations committees have finished work on the fiscal 2008 military construction bills and have put out their relevant reports. In congressional testimony in April, Keith E. Eastin, Army assistant secretary for installations and environment, said that the $738.8 million budget request was "for 33 critical construction projects for Iraq and Afghanistan," including airfield and operational support facilities, along with roads and fuel handling and storage units. [*******]
The House report says the Pentagon "intends to continue the buildup of infrastructure in Persian Gulf nations, while establishing 'enduring' locations for U.S. forces in Afghanistan and Djibouti" -- whatever "enduring" means.[******] But no Iraq construction is detailed. And a CRS report this month lists a total of $2 billion approved for Iraq and Afghanistan military construction in the fiscal 2004, 2005 and 2006 budgets -- but again no details.
Piecemeal hints on Iraq construction projects abound, [******]however.
Balad Air Base, [******]about 50 miles north of Baghdad, houses not just the major U.S. Air Force operations in Iraq but also the biggest logistical support center in the country. To carry out its functions, there are at least 25,000 U.S. troops stationed there. [*****] A recent Associated Press story from the base quoted an officer describing the facility as "the busiest aerial port" in the Defense Department. Almost 16 square miles in size and surrounded by another 12 square miles of security perimeter, it has two hardened cement runways over 11,000 feet in length. "The weaker of Balad's two 11,000-foot runways was reinforced -- for five to seven years' more hard use," [*******]the AP reported last week.
Camp Anaconda, [********]the residential part of the Balad complex, was described by The Washington Post's Thomas E. Ricks last year as "a small American town smack in the middle of the most hostile part of Iraq." It has neighborhoods for servicemen and others for thousands of civilian workers along with movie theaters, fast-food courts and an Olympic-size swimming pool.
Gen. John P. Abizaid, then commander of U.S. Central Command, told the House Armed Services Committee in March 2004 that "we are making Balad Airfield our primary hub in the region, and the idea of doing that is because we need to have the Baghdad International Airport revert to civilian control." [******]Balad Airfield is one of five operating U.S. air bases inside Iraq.
How much has been spent on Balad and Anaconda? Two years ago, CRS identified $200 million -- but more has gone in since, including a new air traffic control center.
Juan Cole, a University of Michigan professor who closely follows the Arab press, noted last week that the pan-Arab newspaper al-Hayat carried a story reporting that Iraqis don't take seriously the legislation barring permanent U.S. bases in Iraq. "Members of [the Iraqi] parliament say that they see these enormous hardened bases being built," the newspaper reported, "which is practical proof to the contrary." [**************]
National security and intelligence reporter Walter Pincus pores over the speeches, reports, transcripts and other documents that flood Washington and every week uncovers the fine print that rarely makes headlines -- but should. If you have any items that fit the bill, please send them tofineprint@washpost.com.
© 2007 The Washington Post Company

Posted by Kent Bolton at 09:57 AM | Permalink

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/29/AR2007072901327.html
Gonzales's Truthfulness Long Disputed
Claims of Misstatements to Shield Bush Stretch Back a Decade
By Dan Eggen and Amy Goldstein
Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, July 30, 2007; A01 [bush nsc principals] [somewhat obscure stuff on AG Gonzales and firing of US attorneys] [the important connection is the nsa warrant-less spy program] [incredible meeting in march 2004? Where then white house attorney Gonzales and Andy Card went to GWU hospital where then AG Ashcroft under sedation and in ICU] [acting AG Commey there and white house brought a paper for Ashcroft to sign overruling Commey!] [incredibly bizarre but gets better because now AG Gonzales appears to have repeatedly lied about the late-night visit and its purpose] [yesterday we learned that the controversy may have been about data mining rather than warrant-less spying per se!] [though I double checked and data mining was already associated with the program following the USA Today and Barton Gellman pieces which WH never denied and even implicity addressed] [followup] [**]
When Alberto R. Gonzales was asked during his January 2005 confirmation hearing whether the Bush administration would ever allow wiretapping of U.S. citizens without warrants, he initially dismissed the query as a "hypothetical situation."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/29/AR2007072901327.html
Gonzales's Truthfulness Long Disputed
Claims of Misstatements to Shield Bush Stretch Back a Decade
By Dan Eggen and Amy Goldstein
Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, July 30, 2007; A01 [bush nsc principals] [somewhat obscure stuff on AG Gonzales and firing of US attorneys] [the important connection is the nsa warrant-less spy program] [incredible meeting in march 2004? Where then white house attorney Gonzales and Andy Card went to GWU hospital where then AG Ashcroft under sedation and in ICU] [acting AG Commey there and white house brought a paper for Ashcroft to sign overruling Commey!] [incredibly bizarre but gets better because now AG Gonzales appears to have repeatedly lied about the late-night visit and its purpose] [yesterday we learned that the controversy may have been about data mining rather than warrant-less spying per se!] [though I double checked and data mining was already associated with the program following the USA Today and Barton Gellman pieces which WH never denied and even implicity addressed] [followup] [**]
When Alberto R. Gonzales was asked during his January 2005 confirmation hearing whether the Bush administration would ever allow wiretapping of U.S. citizens without warrants, he initially dismissed the query as a "hypothetical situation."
But when Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) pressed him further, Gonzales declared: "It is not the policy or the agenda of this president to authorize actions that would be in contravention of our criminal statutes." [********] [in fact it was]
By then, however, the government had been conducting a secret wiretapping program for more than three years without court oversight, possibly in conflict with federal intelligence laws. Gonzales had personally defended the effort in fierce internal debates. Feingold later called his testimony that day "misleading and deeply troubling." [*****]
The accusation that Gonzales has been deceptive in his public remarks has erupted this summer into a full-blown political crisis for the Bush administration, as the beleaguered attorney general struggles repeatedly to explain to Congress the removal of a batch of U.S. attorneys, the wiretapping program and other actions. [******]
In each case, Gonzales has appeared to lawmakers to be shielding uncomfortable facts about the Bush administration's conduct on sensitive matters. [*****]A series of misstatements and omissions has come to define his tenure at the helm of the Justice Department and is the central reason that lawmakers in both parties have been trying for months to push him out of his job.
Yet controversy over Gonzales's candor about George W. Bush's conduct or policies has actually dogged him for more than a decade, since he worked for Bush in Texas.
Whether Gonzales has deliberately told untruths or is merely hampered by his memory has been the subject of intense debate among members of Congress, legal scholars and others who have watched him over the years. Some regard his verbal difficulties as a strategic ploy on behalf of a president to whom he owes his career; others see a public official overwhelmed by the magnitude of his responsibilities. [********]
Administration officials say Gonzales's enemies are distorting his words for political gain. The Justice Department has portrayed the criticism as unavoidable and a matter of routine misunderstanding, provoked by the attorney general's presence at a "friction point between the executive branch and Congress when it comes to national security policy," as spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said Friday.
Gonzales told senators earlier this year that allegations that he had been untruthful "have been personally very painful to me." But Gonzales's critics on and off Capitol Hill say he has had trouble with the truth for more than a decade, pointing to a controversy over Gonzales's account of why Bush was excused from jury duty in 1996 while serving as the governor of Texas. [********************]
Sen. Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.), who joined other Democrats last week in calling for an inquiry into possible perjury by Gonzales, said Friday that "most public servants -- Democratic or Republican, conservative, moderate or liberal -- seem to want to try to tell the truth. . . . With Gonzales, whatever answer fits he will tell, whether it's true or not. It almost seems pathological." [*************]
Over the past 2 1/2 years, lawmakers have accused Gonzales of dissembling on many topics, including civil liberties abuses under the USA Patriot Act and his role in reviewing aggressive interrogation tactics. [******] After a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in February 2006, Gonzales sent the panel a six-page, single-spaced letter to "clarify" six major points of testimony, including his erroneous claim that the Justice Department had never undertaken a legal analysis of domestic wiretapping.
But scrutiny of Gonzales increased dramatically this year as a result of Democrats' aggressive investigations into the Justice Department's firings of nine U.S. attorneys in 2006. Gonzales has particularly come under fire for his shifting explanations of his role in the dismissals and for his statements that he could not recall a host of details about the firings.
At a Senate hearing in April, for example, Gonzales said more than 60 times that he could not recall events or facts related to the firings, including a final, high-level meeting in his office at which the dismissal plan was formally approved. [**********]
Democrats and some experts on the use of language say that Gonzales's gaffes are too numerous and consistent to be chalked up to misunderstandings. In most instances, his answers, or his refusals to answer, have served to obscure events that would be damaging to the administration, Gonzales or Bush.
One example involves the Terrorist Surveillance Program, [called TSPs] [****] which allowed the National Security Agency to monitor telephone calls between the United States and overseas in which one party had been tied to al-Qaeda. Gonzales has testified repeatedly that there was never "serious disagreement" among administration officials about the program and that an unusual visit by Gonzales to the hospital bed of then-Attorney General John D. Ashcroft was focused on "other intelligence activities." [apparently technically suggesting that data mining using what the TSPs collect is distinct from the TSPs themselves] [but administration’s own words in favor of PATRIOT had bush saying everything requires warrants including taps and searches of properpty!] [data mining represents problems for unreasonable searches—it’s purely inductive] [*******]
But FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III testified last week that the NSA program was the subject of a fierce debate within the administration and was the issue under discussion during the hospital visit.
Gonzales and his aides say the differing accounts boil down to a dispute over terminology: Gonzales was referring only to the surveillance program in the precise form that was confirmed publicly by Bush. [**********]
A news account yesterday said that the legal wrangling was about an effort to mine databases for sensitive information, which was linked to the NSA program but not acknowledged by Bush. [*******]That suggests that Gonzales's description might have been technically accurate. [it was a huge story in 2006 when USA Tday broke it] [the administration complained about leaks and neglected to bat it down!] [********]
But others privy to details of the surveillance activities -- including several lawmakers and Mueller -- have suggested that they were all part of a single NSA program. Gonzales's critics say his distinction was a lawyerly one that stretched the bounds of the truth.
"He's a slippery fellow, and I think so intentionally," said Richard L. Schott, a professor at the University of Texas's Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs. "He's trying to keep the president's secrets and to be a team player, even if it means prevaricating or forgetting convenient things."
"This almost subconscious bond of loyalty" between the attorney general and the president "may be driving a lot of this," said Schott, who has studied relations between the executive and legislative branches of government and the role of psychology in political behavior. "It's obvious that Gonzales owes Bush his career. Part of his behavior comes from this gratitude and extreme loyalty to Bush."
Bill Minutaglio, a University of Texas journalism professor and author of biographies of Gonzales and Bush, said Gonzales kept an "extremely, extremely low profile" in the three jobs Bush gave him in the Texas government -- general counsel, secretary of state and judge on the Supreme Court -- and had little practice before he came to Washington at responding publicly to stiff scrutiny. "The grilling he's enduring right now is beyond anything he had ever experienced in his life. He was ill prepared for it," [*******]Minutaglio said.
Gonzales has irritated congressional Democrats, and a few Republicans, by saying that he is responsible for decisions made within the Justice Department but distancing himself from the process that led to the prosecutor firings. At the April hearing, he said a dozen times that he accepted responsibility. But he also has told Congress that he did not know who placed the names of prosecutors on the firing list, [which is simply inconceivable unless he’s tacitly admitting that the WH routinely did such things] [******] and he has pinned much of the responsibility on his outgoing deputy, Paul J. McNulty, who has said he was only marginally involved.
Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) told Gonzales at the hearing that much of his testimony was "a stretch," and Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) said he was "taken aback" by Gonzales's memory lapses. Last week, Sen. Arlen Specter (Pa.), the Judiciary Committee's senior Republican, warned Gonzales to review his remarks, saying: "I do not find your testimony credible, candidly."
Deborah Tannen, a professor of linguistics at Georgetown University who has written about the confrontational character of dialogue in public life, said Gonzales's responses to grilling by lawmakers are an extreme example of a rhetorical style that many politicians adopt when they get into trouble. Although accepting responsibility, she said, they "very explicitly stop short of, 'I made a mistake. I'm at fault.' " [***********]
Stephen Gillers, a professor of legal ethics at the New York University School of Law, said that Gonzales's strengths "may lie elsewhere, but they are not in management."
"The idea that nine U.S. attorneys could be fired and the head of the department is only casually in the loop -- it is preposterous that a manager would let that happen." Gillers also said he thinks that Gonzales has exacerbated his problems because "when the inconsistencies are pointed out, he refuses to back down," adding: "He is digging himself deeper and deeper into a hole."
Questions about Gonzales's willingness to shade the truth on Bush's behalf came to prominence in the 1996 episode in which Bush was excused from Texas jury duty in a drunken-driving case. [*****] Bush was then the state's governor, and Gonzales was his general counsel. If Bush had served, he probably would have had to disclose his own drunken-driving conviction in Maine two decades earlier. [***********]
The judge, prosecutor and defense attorney involved in the case have said that Gonzales met with the judge and argued that jury service would pose a potential conflict of interest for Bush, who could be asked to pardon the defendant. Gonzales has disputed that account. He made no mention of meeting with the judge in a written statement submitted to the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Research editor Alice Crites contributed to this report.
© 2007 The Washington Post Company

Posted by Kent Bolton at 09:56 AM | Permalink

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/world/europe/30brown.html
July 30, 2007
British Prime Minister Holds Talks With Bush
By JIM RUTENBERG and SARAH LYALL [bush administration nsc principals] [president bush] [meeting with pm Gordon brown of uk for first time since he became PM] [special meeting at camp david] [brown’s fairly deft oped today in the WP] [********]
WASHINGTON, July 29 — President Bush, whose relationship with Tony Blair when he was prime minister of Britain was unparalleled in closeness and reliability, on Sunday night began two days of meetings with Mr. Blair’s successor, Gordon Brown.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/world/europe/30brown.html
July 30, 2007
British Prime Minister Holds Talks With Bush
By JIM RUTENBERG and SARAH LYALL [bush administration nsc principals] [president bush] [meeting with pm Gordon brown of uk for first time since he became PM] [special meeting at camp david] [brown’s fairly deft oped today in the WP] [********]
WASHINGTON, July 29 — President Bush, whose relationship with Tony Blair when he was prime minister of Britain was unparalleled in closeness and reliability, on Sunday night began two days of meetings with Mr. Blair’s successor, Gordon Brown.
The selection of Mr. Brown, who took office in late June, has injected a dose of unpredictability into Mr. Bush’s most important trans-Atlantic partnership. [*****]
The meetings, the first of Mr. Brown’s tenure as prime minister, hold challenges for both men.
Mr. Bush heads into the new relationship as a lame duck. Mr. Brown enters it at the very start of his term, facing demands at home that may redefine what many considered a supplicant relationship with the United States under Mr. Blair.
Headlines out of London have predicted a new era of distance from the United States, first and foremost in terms of Iraq policy — a forecast that has not gone unnoticed at the White House or among diplomats in Washington. [******]
They have also taken note of statements from some officials in Mr. Brown’s government — most notably by a Foreign Office minister, Mark Malloch-Brown, suggesting that the new prime minister will not be anywhere near as close to Mr. Bush as Mr. Blair was.
The former prime minister was mocked as Mr. Bush’s “poodle” by voters increasingly dismayed by the war and by what they regarded as American arrogance and heavy-handedness in foreign policy.[********]
But in interviews last week, American officials referred to the news out of Britain as “white noise,” saying that they had taken heart in Mr. Brown’s statements that he still considered the United States a prime partner.
“Look at what he said on BBC Radio,” said Gordon D. Johndroe, a spokesman for the National Security Council, referring to an interview this month in which Mr. Brown pointed to Mr. Bush’s relationship with Mr. Blair in positive terms. [********]
“I will continue to work, as Tony Blair did, very closely with the American administration,” Mr. Brown said in the interview. “We will not allow people to separate us from the United States in dealing with the common challenges that we face around the world.”
Mr. Johndroe said the start of British troop withdrawals from Basra, which has fed into the predictions of a shift in the relationship, had been expected for some time. [******]
Before leaving for the United States, Mr. Brown was unequivocal in his support for the alliance, saying it was Britain’s “single most important bilateral relationship.”
“Because of the values we share, the relationship with the United States is not only strong but can become stronger in the years ahead,” he said in a statement released by Downing Street. “We know that we cannot solve any of the world’s major problems without the active engagement of the U.S.” [*********]
United States officials say Mr. Bush and Mr. Brown, who met in person on various occasions before he became prime minister, had already begun to speak regularly by video conference.
Mr. Johndroe said that the men dined alone on Sunday night and that they had a one-on-one breakfast meeting scheduled for Monday.
The idea, Mr. Johndroe said, was that “the two leaders can just get down to direct discussions,” though their meeting Monday morning will be followed by a session with aides, including Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.
Mr. Johndroe said the two would lay out their positions on the major topics confronting their nations, what he termed an “exchange of views” on topics like Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, the crisis in Darfur and the status of Kosovo.
American officials seemed encouraged that Mr. Brown traveled to Camp David, a trip they had feared he would cancel after recent widespread flooding in parts of Britain. [*****]As of a few days ago, American officials were still uncertain he would come.
While Mr. Brown evidently deemed it politically safe to make the trip, the domestic ramifications of his relationship with Mr. Bush would seem likely to remain delicate for some time.
Mr. Blair’s unwillingness to criticize the United States and his unwavering commitment to the Iraq war proved the most unpopular aspect of his leadership. “Under Tony Blair, the relationship was so subordinate as to appear subservient,” the leader of the opposition Liberal Democrats, Sir Menzies Campbell, said recently. “Britain needs to be America’s candid friend, not its client.” [**********]
In a newspaper interview this month, Mr. Malloch-Brown, who served until recently as deputy secretary general at the United Nations, said, “It is very unlikely that the Brown-Bush relationship is going to go through the baptism of fire and therefore be joined at the hip like the Blair-Bush relationship was.”
“You need to build coalitions that are lateral, which go beyond the bilateral blinkers of the normal partners,” he told the Daily Telegraph, speaking of reaching out to other leaders in Europe, India and China.
Jim Rutenberg reported from Washington, and Sarah Lyall from London.
Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

Posted by Kent Bolton at 09:55 AM | Permalink

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/29/AR2007072900859.html
Bush's Turkish Gamble
By Robert D. Novak
Monday, July 30, 2007; A15 [oped] [forget Iran] [according to Novak Bush administration has plans ot help Turks on Turk-Iraq border with US special forces] [pretty wild and interesting] [***********]
The morass in Iraq and deepening difficulties in Afghanistan have not deterred the Bush administration from taking on a dangerous and questionable new secret operation. [*****] High-level U.S. officials are working with their Turkish counterparts on a joint military operation to suppress Kurdish guerrillas and capture their leaders. Through covert activity, their goal is to forestall Turkey from invading Iraq. [sounds plausible] [covert so US could plausibly deny to –Iraqi Kurds that they were part of it?] [however, when it leaks like this, obviously, plausible deniability is only a fiction] [******]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/29/AR2007072900859.html
Bush's Turkish Gamble
By Robert D. Novak
Monday, July 30, 2007; A15 [oped] [forget Iran] [according to Novak Bush administration has plans ot help Turks on Turk-Iraq border with US special forces] [pretty wild and interesting] [***********]
The morass in Iraq and deepening difficulties in Afghanistan have not deterred the Bush administration from taking on a dangerous and questionable new secret operation. [*****] High-level U.S. officials are working with their Turkish counterparts on a joint military operation to suppress Kurdish guerrillas and capture their leaders. Through covert activity, their goal is to forestall Turkey from invading Iraq. [sounds plausible] [covert so US could plausibly deny to –Iraqi Kurds that they were part of it?] [however, when it leaks like this, obviously, plausible deniability is only a fiction] [******]
While detailed operational plans are necessarily concealed, the broad outlines have been presented to select members of Congress as required by law. U.S. Special Forces are to work with the Turkish army to suppress the Kurds' guerrilla campaign. [******]The Bush administration is trying to prevent another front from opening in Iraq, which would have disastrous consequences. But this gamble risks major exposure and failure.
The Turkish initiative reflects the temperament and personality of George W. Bush. Even faithful congressional supporters of his Iraq policy have been stunned by the president's upbeat mood, which makes him appear oblivious to the loss of his political base. [*******] Despite the failing effort to impose a military solution in Iraq, he is willing to try imposing arms -- though clandestinely -- on Turkey's ancient problems with its Kurdish minority, who comprise one-fifth of the country's population. [**************]
The development of an autonomous Kurdish entity inside Iraq, resulting from the decline and fall of Saddam Hussein, has alarmed the Turkish government. That led to Ankara's refusal to allow U.S. combat troops to enter Iraq through Turkey, an eleventh-hour complication for the 2003 invasion. As the Kurds' political power grew inside Iraq, the Turkish government became steadily more uneasy about the centuries-old project of a Kurdistan spreading across international boundaries -- and chewing up big pieces of Turkey.
The dormant Turkish Kurd guerrilla fighters of the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) came to life. By June, the Turkish government was demonstrating its concern by lobbing artillery shells across the border. Ankara began protesting, to both Washington and Baghdad, that the PKK was using northern Iraq as a base for guerrilla operations. On July 11, in Washington, Turkish Ambassador Nabi Sensoy became the first Turkish official to assert publicly that Iraqi Kurds have claims on Turkish territory. [*******]On July 20, just two days before his successful reelection, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan threatened a military incursion into Iraq against the Kurds. [*******]Last Wednesday, Murat Karayilan, head of the PKK political council, predicted that "the Turkish Army will attack southern Kurdistan." [********]
Turkey has a well-trained, well-equipped army of 250,000 near the border, facing some 4,000 PKK fighters hiding in the mountains of northern Iraq. But significant cross-border operations surely would bring to the PKK's side the military forces of the Kurdistan Regional Government, the best U.S. ally in Iraq. What is Washington to do in the dilemma of two friends battling each other on an unwanted new front in Iraq?
The surprising answer was given in secret briefings on Capitol Hill last week by Eric S. Edelman, a former aide to Vice President Cheney who is now undersecretary of defense for policy. [isn’t this the guy who slapped down senator Clinton?] [*****] Edelman, a Foreign Service officer who once was U.S. ambassador to Turkey, revealed to lawmakers plans for a covert operation of U.S. Special Forces to help the Turks neutralize the PKK. They would behead the guerrilla organization by helping Turkey get rid of PKK leaders that they have targeted for years. [******************]
Edelman's listeners were stunned. Wasn't this risky? He responded that he was sure of success, adding that the U.S. role could be concealed and always would be denied. Even if all this is true, some of the briefed lawmakers left wondering whether this was a wise policy for handling the beleaguered Kurds, who had been betrayed so often by the U.S. government in years past. [*************]
The plan shows that hard experience has not dissuaded President Bush from attempting difficult ventures employing the use of force. On the contrary, two of the most intrepid supporters of the Iraq intervention -- John McCain and Lindsey Graham-- were surprised by Bush during a recent meeting with him. When they shared their impressions with colleagues, they commented on how unconcerned the president seemed. That may explain his willingness to embark on such a questionable venture against the Kurds. [********]
© 2007 Creators Syndicate Inc.
© 2007 The Washington Post Company

Posted by Kent Bolton at 09:54 AM | Permalink

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/29/AR2007072900862.html
Partnership for the Ages
By Gordon Brown
Monday, July 30, 2007; A15 [oped] [PM Gordon Brown] [on Anglo-American “special relationship”] [he arrive yesterday whereupon he met President Bush at Camp David] [************]
Within a few weeks of becoming prime minister of Great Britain, I have come to the United States to affirm the historic partnership of shared purpose that unites our two countries. [********]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/29/AR2007072900862.html
Partnership for the Ages
By Gordon Brown
Monday, July 30, 2007; A15 [oped] [PM Gordon Brown] [on Anglo-American “special relationship”] [he arrive yesterday whereupon he met President Bush at Camp David] [************]
Within a few weeks of becoming prime minister of Great Britain, I have come to the United States to affirm the historic partnership of shared purpose that unites our two countries. [********]
Outside observers may think of even great alliances only in narrow, 19th-century terms: treaties of convenience driven forward by nothing more than mutual needs and current interests.
Yet I believe our Atlantic partnership is rooted in something far more fundamental and lasting than common interests or even common history: It is anchored in shared ideals that have for two centuries linked the destinies of our two countries. Winston Churchill spoke of what he called "the joint inheritance" of Britain and America. But he was thinking of more than just the dates, places and institutions of our shared historical experience. The joint inheritance he wrote of was a shared belief in what he called "the great principles of 'freedom and the rights of man.' " [********] Values that started with the British idea of liberty -- from our bill of rights to English common law -- found their most famous expression in the American Declaration of Independence. It led President Ronald Reagan to say that for someone going from Britain to America or from America to Britain it is like "a moment of kinship and homecoming."
It is because ours is a partnership of purpose founded on values that it has lasted.
And when today, at my meeting with President Bush, I speak of a joint inheritance not just of shared history but shared values founded on a shared destiny, I mean the idea that everyone is created equal, that all faiths should be free to express their beliefs, that arts and culture should celebrate diversity, that government should be open and accountable, that there should be opportunity for all men and all women. [********]
It is these ideas that bind us and give us strength to work together to face down every challenge ahead -- from the danger of nuclear proliferation, global poverty and climate change to, today, the biggest single and immediate challenge the world has to defeat: global terrorism that is hostile and hateful to all the values we share. [**********]
This partnership of purpose matters now more than ever. For if in the last century we fought together to save the very idea of freedom from the totalitarian threat, in this generation we defend together the ideal of freedom against the terrorist threat.
In this century, it has fallen to America to take center stage. And let me acknowledge the debt the world owes to the United States for its leadership in this struggle.
America has shown by the resilience and bravery of its people from Sept. 11, 2001, to this day that while buildings can be destroyed, values are indestructible; that while lives may be ended, the belief in liberty never dies; and that while hearts may be broken, the faith in a better future is unbreakable.
Since Sept. 11, al-Qaeda has killed thousands of people in 19 countries, irrespective of faith. In Britain there have been 15 attempts at terrorist outrages. Last week, I reported to Parliament that our security services are tracking around 30 potential plots, including potential suicide bombers, involving up to 2,000 people. [*******]
It is our shared task to expose terrorism for what it is -- not a cause but a crime. A crime against humanity. [*********]
All of us must be vigilant in our determination to prevent attacks and defeat the forces of terrorism. And it is the values we share that make us best placed to succeed. For to achieve this we must mobilize all methods of diplomacy, all means of intelligence, all tools of law and policing, and all the bravery of our security and military forces as we isolate terrorist extremists from the peaceful majority.
So today the struggles of the 21st century are the battles that engage military might which we have been fighting together in Iraq and Afghanistan and through NATO -- and they are also the battles of ideas.
We should remember that during the Cold War, the united front against Soviet communism involved deterrence through large arsenals of weapons and a cultural effort also on an unprecedented scale, deploying what Roosevelt called the "arsenal of democracy." [************]
Foundations, trusts, civil society and civic organizations -- links and exchanges between schools, universities, museums, institutes, churches, trade unions, sports clubs, societies -- were all engaged. Those in newspapers, journals, cultural institutions, the arts and literature sought to expose the difference between moderation and violent extremism.
So now, as then, the way ahead is to support all communities in developing a strong identity resistant to violent extremists trying to recruit vulnerable young people. We must undercut the terrorists' so-called "single narrative" and defeat their ideas. At home and abroad we must back mainstream and moderate voices and reformers, emphasizing the shared values that exist across faiths and communities. We must expose the contrast between great objectives to tackle global poverty and honor human dignity, and the evils of terrorists who would bomb and maim people irrespective of faith, indifferent to the very existence of human life.
And just as we are united in tackling global terrorism, so we are united in our belief that globalization should be seen as an opportunity and not simply a threat. [*****]This is why I know that by working together we can restart the Doha round of world trade talks to the benefit of the whole world economy. And our shared outrage at injustice means we cannot stand by and watch the humanitarian crisis in Darfur without taking action to speed up the deployment of U.N.-African Union troops, call for an immediate cease-fire and, following America's lead, impose sanctions if necessary.
Separated -- yes -- by an ocean, we are still united by the streams of history and the strengths of our ideals. Standing together on this foundation we will prevail in the greatest struggles of our times. [poeverty, terrorism, . . . ] [******]
The writer is prime minister of Britain.
© 2007 The Washington Post Company

Posted by Kent Bolton at 09:53 AM | Permalink

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/opinion/30pollack.html
July 30, 2007
Op-Ed Contributor
A War We Just Might Win
By MICHAEL E. O’HANLON and KENNETH M. POLLACK
Washington [oped] [insider pundits on –iraq] [O’Hanlon not usually a source of particularly novel thinking—here, however, he is taking an unpopular but seemingly wise tack] [hold on until spring 08] [*******]
VIEWED from Iraq, where we just spent eight days meeting with American and Iraqi military and civilian personnel, the political debate in Washington is surreal. The Bush administration has over four years lost essentially all credibility. Yet now the administration’s critics, in part as a result, seem unaware of the significant changes taking place. [*********]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/opinion/30pollack.html
July 30, 2007
Op-Ed Contributor
A War We Just Might Win
By MICHAEL E. O’HANLON and KENNETH M. POLLACK
Washington [oped] [insider pundits on –iraq] [O’Hanlon not usually a source of particularly novel thinking—here, however, he is taking an unpopular but seemingly wise tack] [hold on until spring 08] [*******]
VIEWED from Iraq, where we just spent eight days meeting with American and Iraqi military and civilian personnel, the political debate in Washington is surreal. The Bush administration has over four years lost essentially all credibility. Yet now the administration’s critics, in part as a result, seem unaware of the significant changes taking place. [*********]
Here is the most important thing Americans need to understand: We are finally getting somewhere in Iraq, at least in military terms. As two analysts who have harshly criticized the Bush administration’s miserable handling of Iraq, we were surprised by the gains we saw and the potential to produce not necessarily “victory” but a sustainable stability that both we and the Iraqis could live with. [************]
After the furnace-like heat, the first thing you notice when you land in Baghdad is the morale of our troops. In previous trips to Iraq we often found American troops angry and frustrated — many sensed they had the wrong strategy, were using the wrong tactics and were risking their lives in pursuit of an approach that could not work.
Today, morale is high. [*****]The soldiers and marines told us they feel that they now have a superb commander in Gen. David Petraeus; they are confident in his strategy, they see real results, and they feel now they have the numbers needed to make a real difference.
Everywhere, Army and Marine units were focused on securing the Iraqi population, working with Iraqi security units, creating new political and economic arrangements at the local level and providing basic services — electricity, fuel, clean water and sanitation — to the people. Yet in each place, operations had been appropriately tailored to the specific needs of the community. As a result, civilian fatality rates are down roughly a third since the surge began — though they remain very high, underscoring how much more still needs to be done.
In Ramadi, for example, we talked with an outstanding Marine captain whose company was living in harmony in a complex with a (largely Sunni) Iraqi police company and a (largely Shiite) Iraqi Army unit. He and his men had built an Arab-style living room, [a la CORDs in Vietnam] [***] where he met with the local Sunni sheiks — all formerly allies of Al Qaeda and other jihadist groups — who were now competing to secure his friendship.
In Baghdad’s Ghazaliya neighborhood, which has seen some of the worst sectarian combat, we walked a street slowly coming back to life with stores and shoppers. The Sunni residents were unhappy with the nearby police checkpoint, where Shiite officers reportedly abused them, but they seemed genuinely happy with the American soldiers and a mostly Kurdish Iraqi Army company patrolling the street. The local Sunni militia even had agreed to confine itself to its compound once the Americans and Iraqi units arrived.
We traveled to the northern cities of Tal Afar and Mosul. This is an ethnically rich area, with large numbers of Sunni Arabs, Kurds and Turkmens. American troop levels in both cities now number only in the hundreds because the Iraqis have stepped up to the plate. [*****] Reliable police officers man the checkpoints in the cities, while Iraqi Army troops cover the countryside. A local mayor told us his greatest fear was an overly rapid American departure from Iraq. All across the country, the dependability of Iraqi security forces over the long term remains a major question mark.
But for now, things look much better than before. [***]American advisers told us that many of the corrupt and sectarian Iraqi commanders who once infested the force have been removed. [******]The American high command assesses that more than three-quarters of the Iraqi Army battalion commanders in Baghdad are now reliable partners (at least for as long as American forces remain in Iraq).
In addition, far more Iraqi units are well integrated in terms of ethnicity and religion. The Iraqi Army’s highly effective Third Infantry Division started out as overwhelmingly Kurdish in 2005. Today, it is 45 percent Shiite, 28 percent Kurdish, and 27 percent Sunni Arab.
In the past, few Iraqi units could do more than provide a few “jundis” (soldiers) to put a thin Iraqi face on largely American operations. Today, in only a few sectors did we find American commanders complaining that their Iraqi formations were useless — something that was the rule, not the exception, on a previous trip to Iraq in late 2005.
The additional American military formations brought in as part of the surge, General Petraeus’s determination to hold areas until they are truly secure before redeploying units, and the increasing competence of the Iraqis has had another critical effect: no more whack-a-mole, [****]with insurgents popping back up after the Americans leave. [*********]
In war, sometimes it’s important to pick the right adversary, and in Iraq we seem to have done so. A major factor in the sudden change in American fortunes has been the outpouring of popular animus against Al Qaeda and other Salafist groups, as well as (to a lesser extent) against Moktada al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army. [*******]
These groups have tried to impose Shariah law, brutalized average Iraqis to keep them in line, killed important local leaders and seized young women to marry off to their loyalists. The result has been that in the last six months Iraqis have begun to turn on the extremists and turn to the Americans for security and help. The most important and best-known example of this is in Anbar Province, which in less than six months has gone from the worst part of Iraq to the best (outside the Kurdish areas). Today the Sunni sheiks there are close to crippling Al Qaeda and its Salafist allies. Just a few months ago, American marines were fighting for every yard of Ramadi; last week we strolled down its streets without body armor. [*******]
Another surprise was how well the coalition’s new Embedded Provincial Reconstruction Teams are working. [******]Wherever we found a fully staffed team, we also found local Iraqi leaders and businessmen cooperating with it to revive the local economy and build new political structures. Although much more needs to be done to create jobs, a new emphasis on microloans and small-scale projects was having some success where the previous aid programs often built white elephants.
In some places where we have failed to provide the civilian manpower to fill out the reconstruction teams, the surge has still allowed the military to fashion its own advisory groups from battalion, brigade and division staffs. We talked to dozens of military officers who before the war had known little about governance or business but were now ably immersing themselves in projects to provide the average Iraqi with a decent life.
Outside Baghdad, one of the biggest factors in the progress so far has been the efforts to decentralize power to the provinces and local governments. But more must be done. For example, the Iraqi National Police, which are controlled by the Interior Ministry, remain mostly a disaster. In response, many towns and neighborhoods are standing up local police forces, which generally prove more effective, less corrupt and less sectarian. The coalition has to force the warlords in Baghdad to allow the creation of neutral security forces beyond their control.
In the end, the situation in Iraq remains grave. In particular, we still face huge hurdles on the political front. Iraqi politicians of all stripes continue to dawdle and maneuver for position against one another when major steps towards reconciliation — or at least accommodation — are needed. This cannot continue indefinitely. Otherwise, once we begin to downsize, important communities may not feel committed to the status quo, and Iraqi security forces may splinter along ethnic and religious lines. [*****]
How much longer should American troops keep fighting and dying to build a new Iraq while Iraqi leaders fail to do their part? And how much longer can we wear down our forces in this mission? These haunting questions underscore the reality that the surge cannot go on forever. But there is enough good happening on the battlefields of Iraq today that Congress should plan on sustaining the effort at least into 2008.[****] [that’s certainly a safe date] [it’s the de facto date after which withdrawals will begin almost no matter what else happens] [***********]
Michael E. O’Hanlon is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. Kenneth M. Pollack is the director of research at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at Brookings.
Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

Posted by Kent Bolton at 09:52 AM | Permalink

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/world/asia/30cnd-japan.html
July 30, 2007
Japan’s Leader Resists Calls to Resign
By NORIMITSU ONISHI [Japan] [NEAsia] [modernity and remilitarization] [PM Shinzo Abe and his Liberal Democratic Party took a beating][Japan ethos] [use psci 350] [use ir text] [************]
TOKYO, July 30 — Prime Minister Shinzo Abe resisted calls today to resign after a devastating defeat in Sunday’s election for the upper house of Parliament, insisting that Japanese voters still supported his policies.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/world/asia/30cnd-japan.html
July 30, 2007
Japan’s Leader Resists Calls to Resign
By NORIMITSU ONISHI [Japan] [NEAsia] [modernity and remilitarization] [PM Shinzo Abe and his Liberal Democratic Party took a beating][Japan ethos] [use psci 350] [use ir text] [************]
TOKYO, July 30 — Prime Minister Shinzo Abe resisted calls today to resign after a devastating defeat in Sunday’s election for the upper house of Parliament, insisting that Japanese voters still supported his policies.
Mr. Abe rejected the urging of opposition politicians, newspaper editorials and even members of his own Liberal Democratic Party that he step down in keeping with a practice followed by past prime ministers. He attributed his party’s loss to public anger over scandals and a record-keeping problem related to national pensions, and not to a rejection of his administration’s overall policies. [*********]
“I can’t run away at this point,” Mr. Abe said. “The situation will become very severe, but even in this kind of situation, we can’t afford a political vacuum.”
But in an indication of how the loss may force him to shift his priorities to survive, Mr. Abe spent most of a 30-minute news conference talking about the kind of economic and everyday issues close to voters’ hearts. He avoided mentioning North Korea, Japan’s military, transforming Japan into “a beautiful country” and other leitmotivs of his nationalist agenda.
Tellingly, he never brought up the issue he has long upheld as the most important of his administration — the revision of the pacifist Constitution — until a reporter asked him about it toward the end of the news conference. He said he wanted to engage voters in a “wide and deep discussion” about the Constitution. [***********]
Benefiting from the anger against Mr. Abe’s party, the main opposition Democratic Party seized control of the upper house for the first time, [*******]and will be able to direct, delay and block legislation.
Yukio Hatoyama, the Democratic Party’s secretary general, said that voters had emphatically stated that they lack confidence in Mr. Abe’s administration.
“If the prime minister tries to stay despite the people’s judgment, the Democratic Party will have to take some kind of action,” Mr. Hatoyama said, indicating that the party would force a dissolution of the lower house and a general election. [******]
Three of Japan’s five national newspapers also wrote that Mr. Abe had lost the popular mandate. The Asahi urged Mr. Abe to step down, reporting that 56 percent of respondents in exit polls said they wanted him to do so. The Nikkei and Mainichi said he should dissolve the lower house and call a general election.
Several heavyweight lawmakers in Mr. Abe’s party were also quoted in newspapers saying that he should quit.
“Prime Minister Abe should resign,” Shigeru Ishiba, a former head of the defense ministry, said in an article in the Yomiuri Newspaper whose content was confirmed by his office. “Otherwise, the Liberal Democratic Party is finished.”
In 1998, then Prime Minister Ryutaro Hashimoto resigned after winning only 44 out of 126 seats in an upper house election; in 1989, Prime Minister Sousuke Uno stepped down after winning only 36 seats out of 126, the lowest number ever recorded. On Sunday, Mr. Abe won only 37 out of 121 seats. [************]
In Monday’s news conference, Mr. Abe ruled out dissolving the lower house, which selects prime ministers. But he said that he would reshuffle his cabinet, though he did not give a date.
A factor working in Mr. Abe’s favor is that the Liberal Democrats have no obvious successor capable of leading the party to a general election, which has to be called by September 2009. [****]The candidate mentioned most often, Taro Aso, the foreign minister, has the habit of committing verbal gaffes, most recently when he made a joke at the expense of people with Alzheimer’s disease.
Masaki Taniguchi, an associate professor at the University of Tokyo’s Graduate School of Policy, said it was unlikely that Mr. Abe would be forced to resign immediately.
“If it becomes clear that the Liberal Democratic Party can’t compete in the next general election with Abe, a change of leader might become necessary,” Mr. Taniguchi said.
To avoid becoming a lame duck, Mr. Abe will have to change his agenda in parliament, Mr. Taniguchi said, adding, “If he insists on sticking to ideological issues, like revising the Constitution and education, the Parliament will degenerate into a stalemate, and there might be a move to get rid of Abe.”
But Mr. Abe still retained the support of many Liberal Democrats, including those in Shikoku, the smallest of Japan’s four main islands and once a party stronghold. In this election, Mr. Abe’s party lost all four seats up for grabs there.
Masuki Motoki, the secretary general of the party’s chapter in Kochi prefecture, acknowledged that many people may feel that Mr. Abe is disregarding popular will by refusing to resign.
“Even though 37 seats is a number that should lead to a resignation, and he understands that, he made his intention clear,” Mr. Motoki said. “The situation will become difficult, but I think he should do his utmost to move forward for the people and the country. And if he fails, then I think it’ll lead to dissolving the lower house.”
Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

Posted by Kent Bolton at 09:51 AM | Permalink

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/29/AR2007072901089.html
Egypt Finding Fewer Gaza Smuggling Tunnels
Hamas Steps Up Border Patrols, Seeking to Assert Order in Palestinian Territory
By Ellen Knickmeyer
Washington Post Foreign Service
Monday, July 30, 2007; A11 [former Palestine] [Gaza or Hamastan] [border crossings with Egypt that are integral to supplies] [Egypt and Israel closed them when Hamas attempted to slaughter Fatah] [Israeli have been attempting to get basic goods through one of theirs while Hamas has mortored it] [followup] [************]
RAFAH, Egypt, July 29 -- Egyptian border guards have found about 75 percent fewer tunnels from the Gaza Strip since Hamas took control there, an indication of the radical Islamic group's broad success in reducing the smuggling of weapons and other contraband, [******]a top Egyptian border official said Sunday. [it could be an indication that they have taken to smuggling basic goods rather than weapons] [******]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/29/AR2007072901089.html
Egypt Finding Fewer Gaza Smuggling Tunnels
Hamas Steps Up Border Patrols, Seeking to Assert Order in Palestinian Territory
By Ellen Knickmeyer
Washington Post Foreign Service
Monday, July 30, 2007; A11 [former Palestine] [Gaza or Hamastan] [border crossings with Egypt that are integral to supplies] [Egypt and Israel closed them when Hamas attempted to slaughter Fatah] [Israeli have been attempting to get basic goods through one of theirs while Hamas has mortored it] [followup] [************]
RAFAH, Egypt, July 29 -- Egyptian border guards have found about 75 percent fewer tunnels from the Gaza Strip since Hamas took control there, an indication of the radical Islamic group's broad success in reducing the smuggling of weapons and other contraband, [******]a top Egyptian border official said Sunday. [it could be an indication that they have taken to smuggling basic goods rather than weapons] [******]
Hamas forces, which took over Gaza six weeks ago, now operate new outposts and watchtowers under the Palestinian flag along the nine-mile border between the Palestinian territory and Egypt's [******]Sinai Peninsula.
Palestinian border guards, identified by Egyptian and U.S. officials as Hamas fighters, have shed the ski masks that Hamas fighters usually wear. They have adopted military-style short haircuts and wear dark T-shirts, changes that symbolize the group's efforts to transform itself into a security force capable of bringing order to the rougher of the two Palestinian territories. [******]
"They want to show in front of the world that they are nice, that they are in control," [*****] Egyptian army Col. Amr Mamdouh said.
Hamas forces routed fighters of the rival Fatah faction from Gaza in the second week of June, shredding a Palestinian power-sharing government. The takeover left Fatah in charge only of Palestinian-administered portions of the West Bank.
Egypt, the United States and most other countries except Iran have pledged their support of Fatah's West Bank administration, calling it the sole legitimate Palestinian government. [******]Egyptian border officials say they have no contact or coordination with their Hamas counterparts.
Since the takeover, Egypt and Israel have closed entryways into Gaza for all but essential humanitarian goods. [*****]Israel has long complained that Gaza's border with Egypt is a prime transit point for weapons, drugs, other black-market goods and illegal immigrants. Much of the smuggling takes place through tunnels -- some longer than a half-mile -- between Gaza and Sinai.
In the first days after the fighting ended in Gaza, Palestinian forces deserted their side of the frontier, leaving Palestinian boys free to fly kites in the wasteland between the concrete walls of the Palestinian boundary and the barbed wire of Egypt's frontier. But on Sunday, Hamas forces had posts in the border zone with tents, portable toilets and jeeps.
About 40 Hamas fighters guard the Palestinian side of the border with Egypt, [*****]officials said.
A 2005 accord that guided Israel's withdrawal from the Gaza-Egypt border limits Egypt to a total of 750 army border guards along the frontier. Egyptian police also patrol the 129-mile Egypt-Israel border. [******]
Mamdouh on Sunday pointed out smuggling tunnels discovered by Egyptian forces in the past year, including one emerging from under the kitchen sink of a farmhouse in a closely guarded stretch of the border.
Ten days ago, Mamdouh said, Egyptian border guards found a branch of the same tunnel next door, its opening covered by metal and dirt in a corner of a chicken yard.
Before the Hamas takeover, Egyptian border guards found on average four tunnels a week from Gaza, Mamdouh said. They have found a total of six tunnels since then, he said, adding that smuggling from Gaza has decreased overall.
Israel complains that Egypt is not doing enough to seal its border with Gaza. The U.S. House of Representatives has proposed cutting $200 million in annual military aid to Egypt unless the country improves border security and meets other conditions.
Egyptian border guards insisted that they have been diligent in the nearly two years since Israel withdrew from the Gaza border zone. They say they have discovered 138 tunnels and confiscated weaponry including 161,066 rounds of ammunition, thousands of pounds of TNT and two suicide belts. [since summer 2005] [****]
"We've made a very big effort here in the border," Mamdouh said.
To do a better job, he said, Egypt needs more intelligence information, sophisticated surveillance systems and more border guards than currently allowed, he said.
Egypt and Israel on Sunday allowed about 100 Gaza residents, most of them women, to leave Sinai through an Israeli border crossing. Israeli and Egyptian officials said they intend to allow passage for about 500 more in coming days. [****]
More than 4,000 Palestinians have been stranded in Sinai since Egypt closed the Rafah crossing. They include dozens of Palestinian men, who on Sunday were washing their clothes and bathing on the grounds of the area's main airport. Asked about their conditions, one of the men said, "They're good." Egyptian security officials shepherded the men inside the closed airport terminal and refused to let them speak further.
© 2007 The Washington Post Company

Posted by Kent Bolton at 09:50 AM | Permalink

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/29/AR2007072901117.html
Afghan President Calls Kidnappings 'Shameful'
Monday, July 30, 2007; A12
Afghan President Calls Kidnappings 'Shameful'
[Afghanistan] [hydra] [insurgency] [followup] [the 2007 offensive and mixed messages] [on the one hand, NATO seemed to anticipate and stymied Taliban and al Qaeda fighters on several fronts] [on other, hydra proving resilent and arguably more popular than they should be given their history] [Korean hostages who are Christian—followup] [*******]
KABUL -- Afghan President Hamid Karzai on Sunday called the kidnapping of 23 South Koreans by the Taliban "shameful," noting in his first statement on the incident that abducting women in particular is un-Islamic.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/29/AR2007072901117.html
Afghan President Calls Kidnappings 'Shameful'
Monday, July 30, 2007; A12
Afghan President Calls Kidnappings 'Shameful'
[Afghanistan] [hydra] [insurgency] [followup] [the 2007 offensive and mixed messages] [on the one hand, NATO seemed to anticipate and stymied Taliban and al Qaeda fighters on several fronts] [on other, hydra proving resilent and arguably more popular than they should be given their history] [Korean hostages who are Christian—followup] [*******]
KABUL -- Afghan President Hamid Karzai on Sunday called the kidnapping of 23 South Koreans by the Taliban "shameful," noting in his first statement on the incident that abducting women in particular is un-Islamic.
A purported Taliban spokesman shrugged off the remarks and set a new deadline, saying one or all of the 22 remaining captives could be killed if the government didn't release 23 militant prisoners by Monday. Several deadlines have passed without killings.
The church members were kidnapped July 19 while traveling by bus on the Kabul-Kandahar highway. The Taliban shot and killed a male hostage last week. The 22 others include 18 women.
Afghanistan's national council of clerics said the prophet Muhammad, the founder of Islam, taught that no one has the right to kill women.
ASIA
• BEIJING -- China has banned a conference in August that would have brought together 50 Chinese and foreign experts and activists to discuss how to press the legal rights of people with HIV/AIDS, an organizer said of the meeting planned by Asia Catalyst group, based in New York.
• BEIJING-- Fierce storms and hail have killed at least 17 people in China, pushing to nearly 700 the deaths this summer in floods, landslides and other natural disasters, according to state media.
AFRICA
• MOGADISHU, Somalia -- Gun battles and grenade attacks killed two soldiers and two civilians in Mogadishu, [***]witnesses said. The government is struggling to contain a violent insurgency in the capital.
THE AMERICAS
• MEXICO CITY -- Mexico City's prison system has begun allowing gay conjugal visits, agreeing to a recommendation by the country's National Human Rights Commission, the commission said.
Despite opposition from conservatives and religious groups, the city's leftist government has taken controversial stands in recent months on social issues such as abortion, gay marriage and prostitution.
-- From News Services
© 2007 The Washington Post Company

Posted by Kent Bolton at 09:49 AM | Permalink

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/world/asia/30afghan.html
July 30, 2007
Citing Islam, Afghans Urge Taliban to Free 22 Captives
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS [Afghanistan] [hydra] [insurgency] [followup] [the 2007 offensive and mixed messages] [on the one hand, NATO seemed to anticipate and stymied Taliban and al Qaeda fighters on several fronts] [on other, hydra proving resilent and arguably more popular than they should be given their history] [Korean hostages who are Christian—followup] [*******]
KABUL, Afghanistan, July 29 (AP) — Afghanistan’s top political and religious leaders invoked Afghan and Islamic traditions of chivalry and hospitality [****]on Sunday in an effort to shame the Taliban into releasing 18 South Korean women being held captive.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/world/asia/30afghan.html
July 30, 2007
Citing Islam, Afghans Urge Taliban to Free 22 Captives
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS [Afghanistan] [hydra] [insurgency] [followup] [the 2007 offensive and mixed messages] [on the one hand, NATO seemed to anticipate and stymied Taliban and al Qaeda fighters on several fronts] [on other, hydra proving resilent and arguably more popular than they should be given their history] [Korean hostages who are Christian—followup] [*******]
KABUL, Afghanistan, July 29 (AP) — Afghanistan’s top political and religious leaders invoked Afghan and Islamic traditions of chivalry and hospitality [****]on Sunday in an effort to shame the Taliban into releasing 18 South Korean women being held captive.
A Taliban spokesman who claimed to speak for the kidnappers shrugged off the demands and instead set a new deadline, saying the militants could kill one or all of the 22 captives if the government did not release 23 Taliban prisoners by Monday. [****]Several other deadlines have passed without the captives being killed, though a leader of the group was shot and killed Wednesday.
Afghan officials, meanwhile, reported no progress in talks with tribal elders to secure the hostages’ freedom. [*****]
In his first comments since the 23 Koreans were abducted on July 19, President Hamid Karzai criticized the Taliban’s kidnapping of “foreign guests,” especially women, as contrary to the tenets of Islam and national traditions. [*********]
“The perpetration of this heinous act on our soil is in total contempt of our Islamic and Afghan values,” Mr. Karzai [******]told a South Korean envoy during a meeting at the presidential palace, according to a statement from his office.
Echoing Mr. Karzai’s words, Afghanistan’s national council of clerics said the Prophet Muhammad, the founder of Islam, taught that no one had the right to kill women.
“Even in the history of Afghanistan, in all its combat and fighting, Afghans respected women, children and elders,” the council said. “The killing of women is against Islam, against the Afghan culture, and they shouldn’t do it.”
A former Taliban commander and current lawmaker who had joined the negotiations, Abdul Salaam Rocketi, said the government’s policy was that the “women should be released first.”
But the Taliban spokesman, Qari Yousuf Ahmadi, instead invoked the religious tenet of “an eye for an eye,” contending that Western forces were holding Afghan women at bases in Bagram and Kandahar and that the Taliban could do the same.[***] He said the Taliban could detain and kill “women, men or children.”
“It might be a man or a woman,” he said by telephone from an unknown location. “We may kill one, we may kill two, we may kill one of each, two of each, four of each.” He added, “Or we may kill all of them at once.”
Mr. Ahmadi said that the militant group had given government officials a list of 23 insurgent prisoners it wanted released and that if they were not freed by midday Monday, hostages would be killed.
Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

Posted by Kent Bolton at 09:48 AM | Permalink

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/29/AR2007072900269.html
Jubilant Iraqis Savor Their Soccer Triumph
1-0 Win Over Saudi Arabia for Long-Sought Championship 'Ended Our Suffering for a While'
By Megan Greenwell
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, July 30, 2007; A10 [-ir] [hydra] [insurgency] [bush administration’s “surge option” or “new way forward” underway] [some positive indicators of improvement] [nevertheless, violence while surge unfolds] [pentagon’s recent status report—pretty awful but also predictable] [followup] [chaos increases] [more violence] [yesterday’s announcement that –Iraq beat Saudi for Asia champ of soccer—a brief moment of national unity] [*****]
BAGHDAD, July 29 -- It took a beautiful arching corner kick and a textbook-perfect header to bring unadulterated joy to millions of people across this war-ravaged country.
As the soccer ball sailed into the far corner of the net off the head of Younis Mahmoud, the Iraqi national team's 24-year-old captain, a collective shout rose from every corner of Baghdad.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/29/AR2007072900269.html
Jubilant Iraqis Savor Their Soccer Triumph
1-0 Win Over Saudi Arabia for Long-Sought Championship 'Ended Our Suffering for a While'
By Megan Greenwell
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, July 30, 2007; A10 [-ir] [hydra] [insurgency] [bush administration’s “surge option” or “new way forward” underway] [some positive indicators of improvement] [nevertheless, violence while surge unfolds] [pentagon’s recent status report—pretty awful but also predictable] [followup] [chaos increases] [more violence] [yesterday’s announcement that –Iraq beat Saudi for Asia champ of soccer—a brief moment of national unity] [*****]
BAGHDAD, July 29 -- It took a beautiful arching corner kick and a textbook-perfect header to bring unadulterated joy to millions of people across this war-ravaged country.
As the soccer ball sailed into the far corner of the net off the head of Younis Mahmoud, the Iraqi national team's 24-year-old captain, a collective shout rose from every corner of Baghdad.
When the final whistle blew 22 minutes later, signaling a 1-0 win over Saudi Arabia and Iraq's first-ever Asian Cup championship, the sound swelled again, even louder than before. It was a moment of joy, but also of release -- from 51 years of futility on the soccer field and more than four years of war at home. [********]
"This team brought glory to Iraq and ended our suffering for a while," said Omar Hassan, 29, who danced in the streets waving an Iraqi flag after the televised match, which was played in Jakarta, Indonesia. "Today we are proud to be Iraqis because they made Iraq a winner."
Echoing a common theme among the tens of thousands of revelers who poured into Baghdad's streets, Hassan said the soccer players should be role models for Iraqis because they surmounted the sectarian divisions that have plagued the rest of the country. Mahmoud, a Sunni Turkmen, scored the winning goal off an assist from Hawar Mohammed, a Kurd, while Shiite goalkeeper Noor Sabri Abbas earned his fourth straight shutout. [***********]
"The satisfaction is doubled when you can get this cup and you bring happiness for a country, not just a team," said Jorvan Vieira, the team's Brazilian coach. "It's more important than anything."
Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki promised each member of the team $10,000 before the championship game kicked off, and President Jalal Talabani pledged another $10,000 to each player -- and $20,000 to Mahmoud -- after the win.
"You have given lessons with your manly performance on how to defeat and defy the impossible until you triumph," [yikes] [a little testosterone heavy] [***] Maliki told the team in a written statement.
After Iraq beat South Korea in a dramatic semifinal game Wednesday, the Iraqis faced a formidable opponent in Saudi Arabia -- the team with the most wins in Asian Cup history. Since the quadrennial tournament began in 1956, Saudi Arabia has won three times, most recently in 1996. Iraq's previous best finish, fourth place out of six teams, came in 1976.
Most people had little reason to believe that 2007 would bring Iraq's first championship. Entering the tournament, which was held a year early, the team's odds of winning were listed at 50-1. Three players learned during the two-week event that relatives had been killed by violence back home. Mahmoud, the captain and star striker, nearly missed the team's first game when he was detained for 12 hours in the Bangkok airport.
Yet from the start of the game, the underdog Iraqis were the dominant team. They outshot Saudi Arabia 12-4 and were usually one step quicker to the ball.
"This is not an achievement for the Iraqis, this is a miracle for the Iraqis," said a broadcaster on the Dubai Sports Channel. [*********]
Several fans agreed that the win was a miracle, but insisted they knew all along that Iraq would triumph. Baghdad resident Laila Abid said she was upset when her husband predicted that Saudi Arabia would tie the score.
"He said, 'They will get a goal now,' and I was really angry with him, so I hit him with my slipper," Abid said. "Iraq won by a gift from God."
After the game, Abid and her husband joined the celebration in the streets, passing out chocolate.
The post-game festivities in Baghdad lasted well into the night, with vendors handing out free ice cream and water and young men shooting weapons into the air and hugging strangers. Despite multiple warnings from the military and government not to engage in celebratory gunfire, shots rang out for more than an hour.
Several casualties were reported as a result of stray bullets, but an emergency security operation in Baghdad prevented a repeat of the violence after the semifinal game. Vehicles were prohibited on all city streets from game time until Monday morning to minimize the chance of car bomb attacks, which killed 50 people after the South Korea game.
The day of celebration was not completely devoid of politics. After the match, Mahmoud said he would not return to Iraq and called for a U.S. withdrawal. "I want America to go out," he said. "Today, tomorrow, or the day after tomorrow, but out." [*******]
In Irbil, a city in a semiautonomous Kurdish region in northern Iraq, Kurds mixed freely with Arabs displaced from other parts of the country despite the ongoing tensions between the groups. Though Kurds have often sought to disassociate themselves from the turmoil in the rest of Iraq, thousands chanted "Iraq! Glorious Baghdad!" in the streets after the game.
Many Irbil residents carried small Iraqi flags, which were confiscated by police because of a law against displaying anything but the Kurdistan flag. Instead, revelers waved white handkerchiefs.
"We are all one today, with one heart for Iraq and against terrorism," said Mahmoud Fadhil, a displaced Baghdad resident who now lives in Irbil. "Look, over here there are Sunnis, Shiites, Kurds, Christians, all of them with one heart today."
Fans across the country acknowledged that a soccer game could not solve the deep problems facing Iraq and that violence between Sunnis and Shiites would return all too soon. But none of that mattered.
For one night, at least, Iraq had something to celebrate.
Special correspondents Saad al-Izzi in Baghdad, Saad Sarhan in Najaf and other Washington Post staff in Iraq contributed to this report.
© 2007 The Washington Post Company

Posted by Kent Bolton at 09:47 AM | Permalink

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/world/asia/30australia.html
July 30, 2007
With Terrorism Charges Dropped, Return of Doctor Is Celebrated
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS [India] [doctor incarcerated in Australia for SIM card in London-Glasgow attacks] [held then released with an apology from Australia govt] [followup] [back in India, a hero] [apparently truly not involved] [***********]
BANGALORE, India, July 29 (AP) — Mobbed by television cameramen, journalists and supporters, a 27-year-old doctor flew home to a hero’s welcome Sunday in southern India after terrorism charges against him were dropped in Australia and he was freed. [******]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/world/asia/30australia.html
July 30, 2007
With Terrorism Charges Dropped, Return of Doctor Is Celebrated
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS [India] [doctor incarcerated in Australia for SIM card in London-Glasgow attacks] [held then released with an apology from Australia govt] [followup] [back in India, a hero] [apparently truly not involved] [***********]
BANGALORE, India, July 29 (AP) — Mobbed by television cameramen, journalists and supporters, a 27-year-old doctor flew home to a hero’s welcome Sunday in southern India after terrorism charges against him were dropped in Australia and he was freed. [******]
Looking relaxed and smiling, the doctor, Mohammed Haneef, was whisked from the airport to his family’s home, where a celebratory feast was being held, after flying from Brisbane, Australia, earlier in the day. Dr. Haneef’s jailing had aroused waves of sympathy in his native India. [****] [??]
“What can give a mother more happiness?” said Qurrath-Ul-Ain. “My child is free and he is coming home.” She spoke as she passed around sweets to cousins and neighbors at her home, which was decked out with strings of jasmine flowers, balloons and streamers.
In an emotional television interview earlier, Dr. Haneef said he had no knowledge of involvement by relatives of his who have been accused of playing a role in a failed terrorist attack in Britain last month. He said he would not have kept quiet if he had. [*****]
Dr. Haneef was arrested July 2 at an airport in Brisbane as he was about to fly to India to see his wife and newborn daughter — just days after his second cousins in Britain were arrested in a failed terrorist plot.
Dr. Haneef was released Friday after Australia’s chief prosecutor, Damian Bugg, said there was no evidence to support the charge that he provided reckless support to a terrorist organization. Dr. Haneef had given his cellphone SIM card to his cousin Sabeel Ahmed — who is now accused in one of the June bomb plots — when he left Britain for Australia a year ago.
In a paid interview broadcast Sunday on the Nine Network in Australia, Dr. Haneef said supporting a terrorist organization was against his nature. [*****]
Appearing close to tears, he said if he had suspected that his relatives — Sabeel and Kafeel Ahmed — were planning bombings in Britain, he would not have kept it to himself.
“I would have let the parents know first, who are the main sufferers now,” Dr. Haneef said. “I really feel for them.” [************]
Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

Posted by Kent Bolton at 09:46 AM | Permalink

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/world/asia/30cnd-phil.html
Report Finds Big Toll From Philippines Insurgency
By CARLOS H. CONDE
Published: July 30, 2007 [Philippines] [SEA] [ASEAN] [long-term insurgency by Islamists] [hydra in recent years] [Moro liberation, Jemaah Islamiya, Abu Sayyaf] [followup] [**************]
MANILA, July 31 — More than 1,700 civilians have been killed or injured in bombings and other attacks by Islamic extremists in the Philippines since 2000, [**] according to a new report by Human Rights Watch. The toll, including more than 400 dead, [****]is the highest of any Southeast Asian nation, the group estimated.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/world/asia/30cnd-phil.html
Report Finds Big Toll From Philippines Insurgency
By CARLOS H. CONDE
Published: July 30, 2007 [Philippines] [SEA] [ASEAN] [long-term insurgency by Islamists] [hydra in recent years] [Moro liberation, Jemaah Islamiya, Abu Sayyaf] [followup] [**************]
MANILA, July 31 — More than 1,700 civilians have been killed or injured in bombings and other attacks by Islamic extremists in the Philippines since 2000, [**] according to a new report by Human Rights Watch. The toll, including more than 400 dead, [****]is the highest of any Southeast Asian nation, the group estimated.
The attacks, which include the bombing of a passenger ship off Manila Bay in February 2004 [****]in which 116 people were killed, underscored the need for Manila to do more to combat terrorism, said the group, which is based in New York. The attack on the ship was the second-deadliest single incident in the region, after the coordinated bombings in Bali in October 2002. [*******] [author should clarify that Bali is Indonesia not Philippines] [********] [and operationalize regions: SEA?]
“Extremist armed groups have spread terror among civilians in the Philippines,” said John Sifton, an expert on terrorism at Human Rights Watch, in a statement that accompanied the release of the report, entitled “Lives Destroyed: Attacks on Civilians in the Philippines.” The report may be viewed online at hrw.org/reports/2007/philippines0707/.
“They have bombed buses carrying workers, food markets where people were shopping, airports where relatives were waiting for loved ones, and ferry boats carrying families,” Mr. Sifton said in the statement, adding that extremist groups were also responsible for kidnappings and murders of civilians.
Human Rights Watch took special notice of the Abu Sayyaf group and the Rajah Solaiman Movement, [*(***]two extremist groups that have claimed responsibility for most of the attacks in the country.
Though more people have been killed or injured since 2000 in terrorist attacks in the Philippines than in Indonesia, Morocco, Spain, Turkey or Britain, the report said, “the scale of the violence, however, has not received widespread attention outside the region.” [***********]
Public buses and public places like markets and waiting sheds for commuters have been common targets, mainly in Mindanao, the largest island in the southern Philippines, which is also racked by Islamic separatism and a communist insurgency, [******]the report found.
Abu Sayyaf is notorious for kidnapping and beheading people. [****] The Rajah Solaiman Movement [****]is made up of Filipino Christians who converted to Islam and who, according to the Philippine authorities, have linked up with both Abu Sayyaf and Jemaah Islamiyah, [*******]a terrorist network with roots in Indonesia.
Human Rights Watch criticized the government in Manila for failing to prosecute suspects in these attacks. While many have been arrested since 2000, it said, only “very few have been successfully brought to trial, and prosecutions in some cases have been delayed for more than four years.”
The report contained interviews with several survivors of terror attacks, speaking about how their lives had been changed by terrorism.
“She wanted to be a lawyer or a journalist,” said Ritzelle Paculba, whose daughter Clynn died in the bombing of the passenger ship. “My husband is hurting now. He struggled a lot when she died.”
There was no immediate reaction from the government to the report. President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo has asserted in the past that her administration’s campaign against terrorism has met with success.
An earlier version of this article mistakenly said that more than 1,700 Filipino civilians had been killed; that figure is actually f0r people injured or killed. [*****]
Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/30/world/asia/30australia.html
July 30, 2007
With Terrorism Charges Dropped, Return of Doctor Is Celebrated
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS [India] [doctor incarcerated in Australia for SIM card in London-Glasgow attacks] [held then released with an apology from Australia govt] [followup] [back in India, a hero] [apparently truly not involved] [***********]
BANGALORE, India, July 29 (AP) — Mobbed by television cameramen, journalists and supporters, a 27-year-old doctor flew home to a hero’s welcome Sunday in southern India after terrorism charges against him were dropped in Australia and he was freed. [******]
Looking relaxed and smiling, the doctor, Mohammed Haneef, was whisked from the airport to his family’s home, where a celebratory feast was being held, after flying from Brisbane, Australia, earlier in the day. Dr. Haneef’s jailing had aroused waves of sympathy in his native India. [****] [??]
“What can give a mother more happiness?” said Qurrath-Ul-Ain. “My child is free and he is coming home.” She spoke as she passed around sweets to cousins and neighbors at her home, which was decked out with strings of jasmine flowers, balloons and streamers.
In an emotional television interview earlier, Dr. Haneef said he had no knowledge of involvement by relatives of his who have been accused of playing a role in a failed terrorist attack in Britain last month. He said he would not have kept quiet if he had. [*****]
Dr. Haneef was arrested July 2 at an airport in Brisbane as he was about to fly to India to see his wife and newborn daughter — just days after his second cousins in Britain were arrested in a failed terrorist plot.
Dr. Haneef was released Friday after Australia’s chief prosecutor, Damian Bugg, said there was no evidence to support the charge that he provided reckless support to a terrorist organization. Dr. Haneef had given his cellphone SIM card to his cousin Sabeel Ahmed — who is now accused in one of the June bomb plots — when he left Britain for Australia a year ago.
In a paid interview broadcast Sunday on the Nine Network in Australia, Dr. Haneef said supporting a terrorist organization was against his nature. [*****]
Appearing close to tears, he said if he had suspected that his relatives — Sabeel and Kafeel Ahmed — were planning bombings in Britain, he would not have kept it to himself.
“I would have let the parents know first, who are the main sufferers now,” Dr. Haneef said. “I really feel for them.” [************]
Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

Posted by Kent Bolton at 09:45 AM | Permalink

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/29/weekinreview/29cooper.html
July 29, 2007
Political Equations
Iraq Math: From One, Make Three
By HELENE COOPER
WASHINGTON [societal too as function of presidential-election cycle] [senator biden] [blowhard in senate who, despite his big mouth, actually is quite thoughtful on USFP] [he’s been arguing for a trifold division of –iraq for a year or more when he and Les Gelb first proposed it] [it’s sort of happening anyway, allaying some of the criticisms] [followup] [is he adutioning for sec state?] [********]
IS Joe Biden auditioning to be the next secretary of state?

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/29/weekinreview/29cooper.html
July 29, 2007
Political Equations
Iraq Math: From One, Make Three
By HELENE COOPER
WASHINGTON [societal too as function of presidential-election cycle] [senator biden] [blowhard in senate who, despite his big mouth, actually is quite thoughtful on USFP] [he’s been arguing for a trifold division of –iraq for a year or more when he and Les Gelb first proposed it] [it’s sort of happening anyway, allaying some of the criticisms] [followup] [is he adutioning for sec state?] [********]
IS Joe Biden auditioning to be the next secretary of state?
For the record, he says no. Actually, he said, “Hell, no,” during an interview last week. But the thought isn’t as far-fetched as it might seem, even though his poll numbers remain in the cellar among the Democratic presidential hopefuls.
What he does have, that the other Democratic candidates don’t, is a coherent proposal for dealing with the debacle in Iraq that is increasingly picking up steam. Foreign policy analysts, Capitol Hill politicians and even officials in the Bush administration have started sounding positive notes.
“The truth is, we could end up close to the Biden-Gelb proposal,” a senior administration official said, referring to the partition plan that Mr. Biden, along with Leslie Gelb, the former president of the Council on Foreign Relations, presented more than a year ago in an Op-Ed article in The New York Times. [********]
“Are we there yet?” the official added. “No.”
But not “Hell, no.”
Mr. Biden’s so-called soft-partition plan — a variation of the blueprint dividing up Bosnia in 1995 — calls for dividing Iraq into three semi-autonomous regions, held together by a central government. There would be a loose Kurdistan, a loose Shiastan and a loose Sunnistan, all under a big, if weak, Iraq umbrella. [************]
“The idea, as in Bosnia, is to maintain a united Iraq by decentralizing it, giving each ethno-religious group — Kurd, Sunni Arab and Shiite Arab — room to run its own affairs, while leaving the central government in charge of common interests,” Mr. Biden and Mr. Gelb wrote in their Op-Ed on May 1, 2006. “We could drive this in place with irresistible sweeteners for the Sunnis to join in, a plan designed by the military for withdrawing and redeploying American forces, and a regional nonaggression pact.”
The proposal acknowledges forthrightly what a growing number of Middle East experts say is plain as day: Iraqi Shiites and Sunnis are not moving toward reconciliation; they still haven’t managed to get an oil law passed, and de facto ethnic cleansing is under way as Sunnis flee largely Shiite neighborhoods and towns, and vice versa. [********]
The plan was dumped on when it came out last year. “Partitioning Iraq: No Starter” was the headline on a column by George Hishmeh in Gulf News, a daily newspaper that specializes in the Middle East. Mr. Hishmeh, a former writer for the United States Information Agency, pointed out a common complaint about the partition idea, that the very word “partition” has a bad ring to Arab ears given that a United Nations partition plan paved the way for the creation of the State of Israel.
Foreign policy analysts also pointed out that breaking up Iraq could cause bloodletting (as if that isn’t happening now) in Iraq’s urban areas. While Sunnis predominate in the western part of the country, Kurds in the north, and Shiites in the south, Iraq’s cities are not as homogeneous. Baghdad, Kirkuk and Mosul don’t have clear geographical lines separating the main groups. [bigger concern is the same one some of America’s founders had if states were too autonomous: provide target-rich environment for meddling from Britian and others] [*****************]
Or at least they didn’t. The reality is, Iraq’s cities have become far more homogeneous recently as terrified residents have fled areas where their ethnic group doesn’t predominate. The neighborhoods around the edges of Baghdad have already experienced a lot of ethnic cleansing.
Officially, Bush administration officials maintain that they share President Bush’s hopes that increased American troop strength in Baghdad will tamp down the violence and create political space for Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds to reach a political solution. But testimony and interviews this month about conditions in Iraq indicated that the administration is already making de facto moves towards partition.
The State Department, in particular, has stressed a proposal to build up provincial reconstruction teams out in the Iraqi provinces, with the goal of strengthening local tribal leaders. That, in itself, points toward greater decentralization in Iraq.
By way of caution, experts say a successful partition of Iraq would hardly be easy, involving careful consultation with Iraq’s neighbors, including the feuding regional behemoths Iran and Saudi Arabia, not to mention tiptoeing around Turkey’s nationalist sensibilities on the Kurdish question. Mr. Biden, who said he believed that one way or the other, the United States would find itself in the role of trying to mediate a soft partition, recently went up to the United Nations in New York to chat about his idea with officials from the permanent members of the Security Council, and to try to enlist the help of the United Nations. He said he got a good response.
“One said to me, ‘What took you guys so long?’ ”Mr. Biden said. “We’re going to get there either by our action or by our inaction; what we need to do is to manage this transition.” [**************]
Hmmm. Coming up with a proposal on American foreign policy? Going up to the United Nations to try to sell it? Trying to get America’s allies on board? If this president thing doesn’t work out, that wouldn’t be bad experience for someone who did want to become secretary of state.
Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

Posted by Kent Bolton at 10:06 AM | Permalink

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/28/AR2007072801172.html
House Members Say They Will Try to Block Arms Sales to Saudis
By Robin Wright
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, July 29, 2007; A06 [bush white house] [nsc principals on down] [dod and state] [arms sale to Saudis first reported yesterday] [pushback inevitable] [********]
The Bush administration's plan to sell $20 billion in advanced weaponry to Saudi Arabia and five other Persian Gulf countries is running into congressional opposition and criticism from human rights and arms control groups.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/28/AR2007072801172.html
House Members Say They Will Try to Block Arms Sales to Saudis
By Robin Wright
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, July 29, 2007; A06 [bush white house] [nsc principals on down] [dod and state] [arms sale to Saudis first reported yesterday] [pushback inevitable] [********]
The Bush administration's plan to sell $20 billion in advanced weaponry to Saudi Arabia and five other Persian Gulf countries is running into congressional opposition and criticism from human rights and arms control groups.
Members of Congress vowed yesterday to oppose any deal to Saudi Arabia on grounds that the kingdom has been unhelpful in Iraq and unreliable at fighting terrorism. King Abdullah has called the U.S. military presence in Iraq an "illegitimate occupation," [******] and the Saudis have been either unable or unwilling to stop suicide bombers who have ended up in Iraq, congressional sources say.
Human rights groups warned that new U.S. arms meant to contain Iran's rising influence could backfire, allowing President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to rally greater support for his hard-line faction in the run-up to parliamentary elections next spring.
And arms control groups said Bush's strategy would accelerate an already-dangerous trend that could increase tensions rather than generate a greater sense of security.
The administration plans to sell advanced satellite-guided bombs, fighter aircraft upgrades and new naval vessels to six Gulf Cooperation Council countries, including Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Bahrain and Oman, U.S. officials say.
U.S. officials acknowledged that congressional reaction has been mixed but cautioned that details of a broader arms package -- including $30 billion in military aid to Israel and $13 billion to Egypt over the next 10 years -- have yet to be released. "As we move forward, we will work very closely with Congress, as well as our friends and allies in the region,"[*****] State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said.
But Tom Lantos (D-Calif.), chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, who was briefed on the deal Tuesday, said he had several reservations. "This is not a sale at Macy's that you go in and buy a bunch of stuff. There are a complex set of relationships behind it, and while it's very desirable to have the Saudis and others recognize that Iran is an existential threat, there is also a degree of responsibility that they have to show on broader U.S. foreign policy interests," he said in an interview.
In the context of the arms deals, Lantos said the oil-rich countries should use windfall profits from high oil prices to cover the expenses of Iraqi refugees who have flooded Jordan. Saudi Arabia should not try to re-broker reconciliation between Palestinian moderates and militants, he added, and Qatar should look at the television network al-Jazeera's role in the region.
Reps. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) and Robert Wexler (D-Fla.) said yesterday that they will introduce a joint resolution of disapproval to block the deals when Congress is formally notified. They have seven Democratic co-sponsors.
In an interview, Weiner said any arms proposal would find broad bipartisan opposition on the Hill. "The reputation of the Saudis has taken quite a beating since 9/11, and despite the fact that the administration has done everything to portray them as part of the moderate Arab world, members of Congress of both parties are increasingly skeptical."
Under the Arms Export Control Act of 1976, Congress must approve major arms sales. In 1986, the threat of a joint resolution of disapproval played a role in persuading the Reagan administration to cut back an arms package to Saudi Arabia.
Eliot L. Engel (D-N.Y.), a senior member of the House Foreign Relations committee who was also briefed last week, said a pivotal issue will be whether Israel maintains the "qualitative military edge" in the region.
Arms experts called for a serious debate on the quality and quantity of weapons going to the Gulf states. "This administration does not have an arms sales policy, except to sell, sell, sell," said Daryl G. Kimball of the Arms Control Association. "That approach in the Middle East can be like throwing gasoline on a brush fire."
Human Rights Watch said the arms deals would undermine long-term U.S. goals in the Middle East. "This will reduce pressure on Egypt and the Arab states to reform their politics. It's another case of trying to purchase stability at the expense of liberty," [******]said Washington director Tom Malinowski.
© 2007 The Washington Post Company

Posted by Kent Bolton at 10:05 AM | Permalink

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/28/AR2007072801401.html
Data Mining Figured In Dispute Over NSA
Report Links Program to Gonzales Uproar
By Dan Eggen and Joby Warrick
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, July 29, 2007; A04 [bush nsc principals] [somewhat obscure stuff on AG Gonzales and firing of US attorneys] [the important connection is the nsa warrant-less spy program] [incredible meeting in march 2004? Where then white house attorney Gonzales and Andy Card went to GWU hospital where then AG Ashcroft under sedation and in ICU] [acting AG Commey there and white house brought a paper for Ashcroft to sign overruling Commey!] [incredibly bizarre but gets better because now AG Gonzales appears to have repeatedly lied about the late-night visit and its purpose] [now we learn that the controversy may have been about data mining rather than warrant-less spying per se!] [may get AG Gonzales technically off hook?] [curiouser] [followup] [**] [use psci 355] [ditto]
A fierce dispute within the Bush administration in early 2004 over a National Security Agency warrantless surveillance program was related to concerns about the NSA's searches of huge computer databases, the New York Times reported today.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/28/AR2007072801401.html
Data Mining Figured In Dispute Over NSA
Report Links Program to Gonzales Uproar
By Dan Eggen and Joby Warrick
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, July 29, 2007; A04 [bush nsc principals] [somewhat obscure stuff on AG Gonzales and firing of US attorneys] [the important connection is the nsa warrant-less spy program] [incredible meeting in march 2004? Where then white house attorney Gonzales and Andy Card went to GWU hospital where then AG Ashcroft under sedation and in ICU] [acting AG Commey there and white house brought a paper for Ashcroft to sign overruling Commey!] [incredibly bizarre but gets better because now AG Gonzales appears to have repeatedly lied about the late-night visit and its purpose] [now we learn that the controversy may have been about data mining rather than warrant-less spying per se!] [may get AG Gonzales technically off hook?] [curiouser] [followup] [**] [use psci 355] [ditto]
A fierce dispute within the Bush administration in early 2004 over a National Security Agency warrantless surveillance program was related to concerns about the NSA's searches of huge computer databases, the New York Times reported today.
The agency's data mining was also linked to a dramatic chain of events in March 2004, including threats of resignation from senior Justice Department officials and an unusual nighttime visit by White House aides to the hospital bedside of then-Attorney General John D. Ashcroft, [*****]the Times reported, citing current and former officials briefed on the program.
Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, one of the aides who went to the hospital, was questioned closely about that episode during a contentious Senate hearing on Tuesday. Gonzales characterized the internal debate as centering on "other intelligence activities" than the NSA's warrantless surveillance program, whose existence President Bush confirmed in December 2005.
FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III contradicted Gonzales, his boss, two days later, testifying before the House Judiciary Committee that the disagreement involved "an NSA program that has been much discussed."
Although the NSA's data mining efforts have been reported previously, neither Bush nor his aides have publicly confirmed that, in connection with the surveillance program, [I think Bush may have when he said if data mining it would require warrant] [**********] [check] the agency had combed through phone and e-mail records in search of suspicious activity. [In June Barton Gellman said as much as data mining] [it was out there from the USA story on and the White House danced around it even carefully playing on it. Bush said something like when you hear tapped, possessions searched, . . . requires a warrant] [possessions or property searched is dangerously close to what data mining does] [**************]
Nor have officials publicly discussed what prompted the legal dispute between the White House and the Justice Department.
The report of a data mining component to the dispute suggests that Gonzales's testimony could be correct. A group of Senate Democrats, including two who have been privy to classified briefings about the NSA program, called last week for a special prosecutor to consider perjury charges against Gonzales.
The report also provides further evidence that the NSA surveillance operation was far more extensive than has been acknowledged by the Bush administration, which has consistently sought to describe the program in narrow terms and to emphasize that the effort was legal.
The White House, the Justice Department and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence declined to comment last night. Calls placed to the NSA, which collected and analyzed the data, were not returned.
The warrantless surveillance program, which was authorized by presidential order after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, was first revealed publicly by the Times in December 2005. Bush confirmed aspects of the program at that time, defining it as monitoring communications between the United States and overseas in which one party was suspected of ties to al-Qaeda.
The Washington Post reported in February 2006 that the NSA targets were identified through data mining efforts and that thousands of Americans had been monitored. USA Today later reported that the government had the help of telecommunications companies in collecting millions of phone records. [********] [first reports]
The practice of sifting through mountains of privately collected data on phone calls and Internet communications raises legal issues. Although the contents of calls and e-mails are protected, courts have ruled that "metadata" -- basic records of calls and e-mails kept by phone companies -- are not.
Some privacy advocates contend that the Bush administration should disclose how it has used metadata and explain the legal justifications. [is metadata contained in one’s email one’s property?] [*************]
"The administration is creating unbelievable amounts of distrust and confusion by not coming forward and giving us its interpretation of the law," James Dempsey, policy director for the Washington-based Center for Democracy and Technology, said yesterday. "Instead, it is dribbling out bits of information and partial justification. It's a crazy way to run a war on terror."
Dempsey noted that Bush is pressing Congress for changes in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which governs clandestine spying in the United States. Bush voiced that call again yesterday in his weekly radio address.
"The administration is asking Congress to make changes in FISA law without first coming clean on what they've been doing for the last five years," Dempsey said.
One source familiar with the NSA program said yesterday that there were widespread concerns inside the intelligence community in 2003 and 2004 over how much Internet and telephone data mining could occur, as well as about the NSA's direct intercepts of communications without court approval. [**********]
In March 2004, James B. Comey, who was acting attorney general, warned the White House that the Justice Department could not certify the legality of the intelligence activities at issue. That prompted Gonzales, the White House counsel at the time, to accompany then-White House Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card Jr. to Ashcroft's bedside, seeking his approval of the program. Ashcroft rebuffed the two men. Comey testified about the episode to the Senate earlier this year.
Staff writer John Solomon contributed to this report.
© 2007 The Washington Post Company

Posted by Kent Bolton at 10:05 AM | Permalink

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/29/washington/29nsa.html
July 29, 2007
Mining of Data Prompted Fight Over Spying
By SCOTT SHANE and DAVID JOHNSTON [bush nsc principals] [somewhat obscure stuff on AG Gonzales and firing of US attorneys] [the important connection is the nsa warrant-less spy program] [incredible meeting in march 2004? Where then white house attorney Gonzales and Andy Card went to GWU hospital where then AG Ashcroft under sedation and in ICU] [acting AG Commey there and white house brought a paper for Ashcroft to sign overruling Commey!] [incredibly bizarre but gets better because now AG Gonzales appears to have repeatedly lied about the late-night visit and its purpose] [now we learn that the controversy may have been about data mining rather than warrant-less spying per se!] [may get AG Gonzales technically off hook?] [curiouser] [followup] [**] [use psci 355]
WASHINGTON, July 28 — A 2004 dispute over the National Security Agency’s secret surveillance program that led top Justice Department officials to threaten resignation involved computer searches through massive electronic databases, [*****]according to current and former officials briefed on the program.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/29/washington/29nsa.html
July 29, 2007
Mining of Data Prompted Fight Over Spying
By SCOTT SHANE and DAVID JOHNSTON [bush nsc principals] [somewhat obscure stuff on AG Gonzales and firing of US attorneys] [the important connection is the nsa warrant-less spy program] [incredible meeting in march 2004? Where then white house attorney Gonzales and Andy Card went to GWU hospital where then AG Ashcroft under sedation and in ICU] [acting AG Commey there and white house brought a paper for Ashcroft to sign overruling Commey!] [incredibly bizarre but gets better because now AG Gonzales appears to have repeatedly lied about the late-night visit and its purpose] [now we learn that the controversy may have been about data mining rather than warrant-less spying per se!] [may get AG Gonzales technically off hook?] [curiouser] [followup] [**] [use psci 355]
WASHINGTON, July 28 — A 2004 dispute over the National Security Agency’s secret surveillance program that led top Justice Department officials to threaten resignation involved computer searches through massive electronic databases, [*****]according to current and former officials briefed on the program.
It is not known precisely why searching the databases, or data mining, raised such a furious legal debate. But such databases contain records of the phone calls and e-mail messages of millions of Americans, and their examination by the government would raise privacy issues.
The N.S.A.’s data mining has previously been reported. But the disclosure that concerns about it figured in the March 2004 debate helps to clarify the clash this week between Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales and senators who accused him of misleading Congress and called for a perjury investigation. [*********]
The confrontation in 2004 led to a showdown in the hospital room of then Attorney General John Ashcroft, where Mr. Gonzales, the White House counsel at the time, and Andrew H. Card Jr., then the White House chief of staff, tried to get the ailing Mr. Ashcroft to reauthorize the N.S.A. program. [are they saying the confrontation over data mining only???] [too vague] [trying to scoop others without all the details] [*******]
Mr. Gonzales insisted before the Senate this week that the 2004 dispute did not involve the Terrorist Surveillance Program “confirmed” by President Bush, who has acknowledged eavesdropping without warrants but has never acknowledged the data mining.
If the dispute chiefly involved data mining, rather than eavesdropping, Mr. Gonzales’ defenders may maintain that his narrowly crafted answers, while legalistic, were technically correct. [***********]
But members of the Senate Intelligence Committee, who have been briefed on the program, called the testimony deceptive.
“I’ve had the opportunity to review the classified matters at issue here, and I believe that his testimony was misleading at best,” said Senator Russ Feingold, Democrat of Wisconsin, joining three other Democrats in calling Thursday for a perjury investigation of Mr. Gonzales.
“This has gone on long enough,” Mr. Feingold said. “It is time for a special counsel to investigate whether criminal charges should be brought.”
The senators’ comments, along with those of other members of Congress briefed on the program, suggested that they considered the eavesdropping and data mining so closely tied that they were part of a single program. [****]Both activities, which ordinarily require warrants, were started without court approval as the Bush administration intensified counterterrorism efforts soon after the Sept. 11 attacks. [***********]
A half-dozen officials and former officials interviewed for this article would speak only on the condition of anonymity, in part because unauthorized disclosures about the classified program are already the subject of a criminal investigation. Some of the officials said the 2004 dispute involved other issues in addition to the data mining, but would not provide details. They would not say whether the differences were over how the databases were searched or how the resulting information was used. [********]
Nor would they explain what modifications to the surveillance program President Bush authorized to head off the threatened resignations by Justice Department officials.
An agency spokesman declined to comment on the data mining issue but referred a reporter to a statement issued earlier that Mr. Gonzales had testified truthfully.
The Justice Department announced in January that eavesdropping without warrants under the Terrorist Surveillance Program had been halted, and that a special intelligence court was again overseeing the wiretapping. [*******]The N.S.A., the nation’s largest intelligence agency, generally eavesdrops on communications in foreign countries. Since the 1978 passage of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, known as FISA, any eavesdropping to gather intelligence on American soil has required a warrant from the special court.
In addition, court approval is required for the N.S.A. to search the databases of telephone calls or e-mail records, usually compiled by American phone and Internet companies and including phone numbers or e-mail addresses, as well as dates, times and duration of calls and messages. Sometimes called metadata, such databases do not include the content of the calls and e-mail messages — the actual words spoken or written.
Government examination of the records, which allows intelligence analysts to trace relationships between callers and identify possible terrorist cells, is considered less intrusive than actual eavesdropping. But the N.S.A.’s eavesdropping targeted international calls and e-mail messages of people inside the United States, while the databases contain primarily domestic records. The conflict in 2004 appears to have turned on differing interpretations of the president’s power to bypass the FISA law and obtain access to the records. [**************]
President Bush has asserted that both his constitutional powers as commander in chief and the authorization for the use of military force passed by Congress after the Sept. 11 attacks gave him legal justification for skirting the warrant requirement. Critics have called the surveillance illegal because it does not comply with the FISA law.
The first known assertion by administration officials that there had been no serious disagreement within the government about the legality of the N.S.A. program came in talks with New York Times editors in 2004. In an effort to persuade the editors not to disclose the eavesdropping program, senior officials repeatedly cited the lack of dissent as evidence of the program’s lawfulness. [********]
In December 2005, [******] [broke the story then WP and USA Today amplified] [latter noted world’s largest database] [****] The Times published articles describing the program, the data mining and the internal legal debate. The newspaper reported that the N.S.A. had combed large volumes of telephone and Internet traffic in search of patterns that might point to terrorism suspects.
Civil liberties groups, Congressional Democrats and some Republicans reacted to the disclosures with outrage, accusing the administration of operating an illegal surveillance program inside the United States. The uproar grew when USA Today reported in May 2006 more details of the N.S.A.’s acquisition from telephone companies of the phone call databases. In response to the articles, Mr. Bush confirmed the eavesdropping, saying it was limited to communications in and out of the United States involving people suspected of ties to Al Qaeda. He did not, however, confirm the data mining, nor has any other official done so publicly.
Mr. Gonzales defended the surveillance in an appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee in February 2006, saying there had been no internal dispute about its legality. He told the senators: “There has not been any serious disagreement about the program that the president has confirmed. There have been disagreements about other matters regarding operations, which I cannot get into.” [**************]
By limiting his remarks to “the program the president has confirmed,” [*****]Mr. Gonzales skirted any acknowledgment of the heated arguments over the data mining. He said the Justice Department had issued a legal analysis justifying the eavesdropping program. [president never confirmed a debate over data mining] [though I do remember the president saying if data mining it would require a warrant!!!!!!!] [check]
Mr. Bush and other officials also have repeatedly cited Justice Department reviews as evidence of their care in overseeing the program, never mentioning the bitter conflict that unfolded behind the scenes.
Mr. Gonzales’s 2006 testimony went unchallenged publicly until May of this year, when James B. Comey, the former deputy attorney general, described the March 2004 confrontation to the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Mr. Comey had refused to sign a reauthorization for the N.S.A. program when he was standing in for Mr. Ashcroft, who was hospitalized for gall bladder surgery. [*****] [if accurate, the NSA program could be signed off as one thing so there’s no distinction between the data mining and spying parts] [******]
Mr. Comey described an intense fight that prompted the top leaders of the Justice Department to consider resigning in protest. Mr. Gonzales and Mr. Card visited the bedside of Mr. Ashcroft, who was in pain and under sedation, to seek his signature on the reauthorization.
Mr. Ashcroft refused to do so. Mr. Comey testified that he thought the White House officials were trying to take advantage of a sick man.
On Tuesday, to respond to Mr. Comey’s account, Mr. Gonzales testified in a Senate appearance that he went to the hospital only after meeting with Congressional leaders about the impending deadline for the reauthorization. He said the consensus was that the program should go on, so he felt he had no choice but to seek Mr. Ashcroft’s approval.
At the hearing, Mr. Gonzales faced harsh questioning about why he had not previously acknowledged the 2004 standoff. In response, he asserted once again that there had not been disagreements about the surveillance program, insisting that the dispute involved “other intelligence activities.”
After the hearing, Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont and chairman of the Judiciary Committee, sent Mr. Gonzales a transcript of his testimony with pointed instructions — to “correct, clarify or supplement your answers so that, consistent with your oath, they are the whole truth.”
Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

Posted by Kent Bolton at 10:04 AM | Permalink

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/27/AR2007072702126.html
Answering to No One
By Walter F. Mondale
Sunday, July 29, 2007; B07 [oped] [former veep Mondale] [on current veep Cheney] [unflattering] [big shock] [**********]
The Post's recent series on Dick Cheney's vice presidency certainly got my attention. Having held that office myself over a quarter-century ago, I have more than a passing interest in its evolution from the backwater of American politics to the second most powerful position in our government. Almost all of that evolution, under presidents and vice presidents of both parties, has been positive -- until now. Under George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, it has gone seriously off track.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/27/AR2007072702126.html
Answering to No One
By Walter F. Mondale
Sunday, July 29, 2007; B07 [oped] [former veep Mondale] [on current veep Cheney] [unflattering] [big shock] [**********]
The Post's recent series on Dick Cheney's vice presidency certainly got my attention. Having held that office myself over a quarter-century ago, I have more than a passing interest in its evolution from the backwater of American politics to the second most powerful position in our government. Almost all of that evolution, under presidents and vice presidents of both parties, has been positive -- until now. Under George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, it has gone seriously off track.
The Founders created the vice presidency as a constitutional afterthought, solely to provide a president-in-reserve should the need arise. The only duty they specified was that the vice president should preside over the Senate. [*****]The office languished in obscurity and irrelevance for more than 150 years until Richard Nixon saw it as a platform from which to seek the Republican presidential nomination in 1960. That worked, and the office has been an effective launching pad for aspiring candidates since.
But it wasn't until Jimmy Carter assumed the presidency that the vice presidency took on a substantive role. [****]Carter saw the office as an underused asset and set out to make the most of it. He gave me an office in the West Wing, unimpeded access to him and to the flow of information, and specific assignments at home and abroad. He asked me, as the only other nationally elected official, to be his adviser and partner on a range of issues.
Our relationship depended on trust, mutual respect and an acknowledgement that there was only one agenda to be served -- the president's. [*****]Every Monday the two of us met privately for lunch; we could, and did, talk candidly about virtually anything. By the end of four years we had completed the "executivization" of the vice presidency, ending two centuries of confusion, derision and irrelevance surrounding the office.
Subsequent administrations followed this pattern. George H.W. Bush, Dan Quayle and Al Gore built their vice presidencies after this model, allowing for their different interests, experiences and capabilities as well as the needs of the presidents they served.
This all changed in 2001, and especially after Sept. 11, when Cheney set out to create a largely independent power center in the office of the vice president. His was an unprecedented attempt not only to shape administration policy but, alarmingly, to limit the policy options sent to the president. [*******]It is essential that a president know all the relevant facts and viable options before making decisions, yet Cheney has discarded the "honest broker" role he played as President Gerald Ford's chief of staff.
Through his vast government experience, through the friends he had been able to place in key positions and through his considerable political skills, he has been increasingly able to determine the answers to questions put to the president -- because he has been able to determine the questions. It was Cheney who persuaded President Bush to sign an order that denied access to any court by foreign terrorism suspects and Cheney who determined that the Geneva Conventions did not apply to enemy combatants captured in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Rather than subject his views to an established (and rational) vetting process, his practice has been to trust only his immediate staff before taking ideas directly to the president. Many of the ideas that Bush has subsequently bought into have proved offensive to the values of the Constitution and have been embarrassingly overturned by the courts. [**********]
The corollary to Cheney's zealous embrace of secrecy is his near total aversion to the notion of accountability. [*******]I've never seen a former member of the House of Representatives demonstrate such contempt for Congress -- even when it was controlled by his own party. His insistence on invoking executive privilege to block virtually every congressional request for information has been stupefying -- it's almost as if he denies the legitimacy of an equal branch of government. Nor does he exhibit much respect for public opinion, which amounts to indifference toward being held accountable by the people who elected him.
Whatever authority a vice president has is derived from the president under whom he serves. There are no powers inherent in the office; they must be delegated by the president. Somehow, not only has Cheney been given vast authority by President Bush -- including, apparently, the entire intelligence portfolio -- but he also pursues his own agenda. The real question is why the president allows this to happen. [********]
Three decades ago we lived through another painful example of a White House exceeding its authority, lying to the American people, breaking the law and shrouding everything it did in secrecy. Watergate wrenched the country, and our constitutional system, like nothing before. We spent years trying to identify and absorb the lessons of this great excess. But here we are again.
Since the Carter administration left office, we have been criticized for many things. Yet I remain enormously proud of what we did in those four years, especially that we told the truth, obeyed the law and kept the peace.
The writer was vice president of the United States from 1977 to 1981.
© 2007 The Washington Post Company

Posted by Kent Bolton at 10:03 AM | Permalink

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/27/AR2007072702121.html
It's How We Pull Back
By David Ignatius
Sunday, July 29, 2007; B07 [oped] [david I has resisted withdrawal as has T Friedman] [and they have each taken some heat] [the inevitable slide toward the inevitable withdrawal?] [**************]
Try to imagine what was running through the mind of Hassan Kazemi Qomi, Iran's ambassador to Baghdad, as he sat across the negotiating table from his American counterpart, Ryan Crocker, last week. While the U.S. diplomat delivered his stern warning against Iranian meddling in Iraq, Qomi must have wondered: Why should I listen to this guy? Congress is going to start pulling U.S. troops out soon, no matter what he says. [*************]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/27/AR2007072702121.html
It's How We Pull Back
By David Ignatius
Sunday, July 29, 2007; B07 [oped] [david I has resisted withdrawal as has T Friedman] [and they have each taken some heat] [the inevitable slide toward the inevitable withdrawal?] [**************]
Try to imagine what was running through the mind of Hassan Kazemi Qomi, Iran's ambassador to Baghdad, as he sat across the negotiating table from his American counterpart, Ryan Crocker, last week. While the U.S. diplomat delivered his stern warning against Iranian meddling in Iraq, Qomi must have wondered: Why should I listen to this guy? Congress is going to start pulling U.S. troops out soon, no matter what he says. [*************]
That's the difficulty for Crocker and Gen. David Petraeus as they try to manage a stable transition in Iraq while Congress chants ever more loudly: "Troops out! Troops out!" It's hard for anyone to take American power seriously when prominent members of Congress are declaring the war already lost. [true but this was inevitable when bush began saying just wait until the surge has had a chance] [he conceded that withdrawal was inevitable unless . . .] [*******]
This is a moment when America would be better served by a parliamentary system. The Bush administration would have lost a vote of "no confidence" after November's congressional elections, and the Democrats would now have responsibility for overseeing the tricky process of extracting American forces from Iraq without doing even more damage. Iraq would be the country's war again, rather than George Bush's.
But we go to war with the democracy we've got, with all its intrinsic impatience. That's a lesson retired Air Force Gen. Chuck Boyd tried to impart to a group of newly minted brigadier generals last week. America has never won a war that lasted more than four years, he reminded them, with the exception of the Revolutionary War, when we were the insurgents and it was Britain that tired of the faraway struggle. [***********]
Future military planners will have to recognize that American democracy, in which political mandates must be renewed in two-year increments, makes us uniquely unsuited to fight protracted counterinsurgency wars. [so presidents who take the US into such circumstances deserve lots of scrutiny] [******]Petraeus likes to observe that it takes, on average, at least nine years to prevail in such a war. If that measure is correct, Petraeus must know there is little chance that a frustrated and angry American public will grant him enough time for success. So the question is: How to extricate ourselves in a way that minimizes the damage to the United States, its allies and Iraq?
A good start would be for Washington partisans to take deep breaths and lower the volume, so that the process of talking and fighting that must accompany a gradual U.S. withdrawal can work. Some members of Congress argue that pressure for an American troop withdrawal will persuade the Iraqis to put aside their sectarian agendas, but the opposite is more likely to be true.
Try for a moment to put yourself in the place of the Iraqi Shiite warlord Moqtada al-Sadr. The American representatives in Baghdad, Crocker and Petraeus, keep calling on him to disarm his Mahdi Army militia and defuse Iraq's sectarian war. But Sadr can read the stories coming out of Washington. He sees the daily clamor for American troops to come home, and he knows that in the brutal reality of Iraq, this is the time to stockpile weapons for his militia, not disband it.
Even the good news that people have been touting in Iraq -- the new willingness of Sunni tribal leaders in Anbar province to ally with the United States against al-Qaeda -- is in part a warm-up for the civil war that's coming. The Sunni leaders are working with the Americans so that they, too, can stockpile arms for the coming conflict. We are, in effect, arming both sides for this sectarian battle. And not for the first time, either -- recall U.S. military support to both Iraq and Iran during their brutal war in the 1980s.
Extricating the United States safely from Iraq will be difficult under the best of circumstances. But it will be impossible if the necessary bargaining takes place against a backdrop of continual congressional demands for a faster withdrawal. In that situation, the Qomis and Sadrs will take the admonitions from Crocker and Petraeus as just so much hot air -- and a bad situation will get even worse. Why should they listen to us today if we will be gone tomorrow?
The most sensible comment I heard on Iraq in the past week came from one of the Democratic presidential candidates -- indeed, from the one with the strongest antiwar credentials, Sen. Barack Obama: "I think we can be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in." [***********]
Obama is right, and so, for that matter, is President Bush when he says much the same thing. The United States is on its way out of Iraq eventually, but it matters powerfully how we disengage -- most of all to Democrats, who at this point seem likely to inherit the responsibility for America's security 18 months from now. [*******]
The writer is co-host ofPostGlobal, an online discussion of international issues. His e-mail address isdavidignatius@washpost.com.
© 2007 The Washington Post Company

Posted by Kent Bolton at 10:02 AM | Permalink

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/27/AR2007072702123.html
Political Cover for Whom?
By Peter W. Rodman
Sunday, July 29, 2007; B07 [oped] [former Nixon aid] [on bush administration] [is it worse than Watergate as John Dean claims?] [*********]
President Bush is facing some painful choices on Iraq. As he weighs the high strategic stakes in the Middle East and the high political stakes at home, history may provide some relevant lessons.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/27/AR2007072702123.html
Political Cover for Whom?
By Peter W. Rodman
Sunday, July 29, 2007; B07 [oped] [former Nixon aid] [on bush administration] [is it worse than Watergate as John Dean claims?] [*********]
President Bush is facing some painful choices on Iraq. As he weighs the high strategic stakes in the Middle East and the high political stakes at home, history may provide some relevant lessons.
Since the Iraq Study Group issued its report in December, Bush has been urged from many quarters to seek a bipartisan bargain with Congress. This, the theory goes, will give him political cover for the strategic as well as political risks that disengagement may entail. But Bush should be wary: The promised political cover may not materialize. If he begins a disengagement against his better judgment and that of his commanders, and the result accelerates the destabilization of Iraq and the Middle East, the names of James Baker, Lee Hamilton, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi will be relegated to footnotes. [******] History's bumper sticker will record that George W. Bush pulled the plug. It will be his legacy alone. [rightly so] [he blundered in] [if the US must blunder out doesn’t he derserve a good deal of blaim?] [what if the US continued te Bush blunder until 2010 the withdrew with bad results?] [wouldn’t bush still be recroded as the principal architect of the blunder?] [***]The president may prefer, instead, that the historical record be unambiguous about who forced an unwise decision.
Public opinion, of course, can change. In 1973, 1974 and 1975, Congress undoubtedly felt it was reflecting the country's disillusionment with the Vietnam War, and it forced a disengagement over the Nixon administration's strong objection. Yet military historians are coming to a consensus that by the end of 1972, there was a much-improved balance of forces in Vietnam, reflected in the 1973 Paris agreement, and that Congress subsequently pulled the props out from under that balance of forces [*****]-- dooming Indochina to a bloodbath. This is now a widely accepted narrative of the endgame in Vietnam, and it has haunted the Democrats for a generation. [not all of us] [first, the blood bath was over hyped] [it occurred in Cambodia but little in Viet nam] [not to downplay the thousands sent to reeducation camps!] [*****]
Today, Congress, too, faces a pivotal choice on Iraq. The moment that Congress enacts a law constricting the president's freedom of action in Iraq, it buys a considerable share of responsibility for the war's outcome. Will tomorrow's narrative be that the strategic military situation in Iraq was starting to improve in 2007 but Congress pulled the plug anyway -- emboldening Islamist extremists throughout the region and demoralizing all our friends? If so, perhaps it's not President Bush who needs political cover from his opponents but they who want political cover from him.
The huge strategic stakes in the Middle East argue for resisting calls for any U.S. withdrawal not warranted by conditions in Iraq. The irony is that whoever is elected president next year -- from whichever party -- will come to understand this better than anyone.
From this perspective, Bush owes it to his successor to achieve the maximum possible stabilization of Iraq so that his successor will have the maximum options. The successor can pull the plug immediately and blame it all on Bush; go all-out to win; or begin a controlled disengagement, as Richard Nixon decided to do when he inherited the Vietnam War in 1969. [*******]Conversely, if Bush himself begins a process of unraveling, his successor will inherit a range of choices far worse than what the country faces now. [incredibly cynical and the same problem that existed with Viet Nam—in leaving successors chances and shaped spaced, no mentione of how many more Americans die needlessly; how many more Iraqis are slaughtered, something the US is responsible for since it unleashed it; how many more billions spent?] [***]
Those running for president, especially, would be well advised, amid the excitement of the campaign, to reflect on what will be required of the winner. Potentially the most destabilizing new factor in the world in the coming period is the fear of American weakness. All the hyperventilation about American hubris and unilateralism is a tired cliche; it never had much validity anyway. The real problem is that the pressures pushing us to accept defeat in Iraq are already profoundly unnerving to allies in the Middle East, and elsewhere, who rely on the United States to help ensure their security in the face of continuing dangers. If we let ourselves be driven out of Iraq, what the world will seek most from the next president will not be some great demonstration of humility and self-abasement -- that is, to be the "un-Bush" -- but rather for reassurance that the United States is still strong, capable of acting decisively and committed to the security of its friends. Given our domestic debate, to provide this reassurance will be an uphill battle in the best of circumstances. It will be even more difficult if President Bush succumbs to all the pressures on him to do the wrong thing in Iraq.
The writer, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, served most recently as assistant secretary of defense for international security affairs.
© 2007 The Washington Post Company

Posted by Kent Bolton at 10:01 AM | Permalink

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/28/AR2007072800999.html
Bet on India
The Bush administration presses forward with a nuclear agreement -- and hopes for a strategic partnership.
Sunday, July 29, 2007; B06 [editorial] [bush admininstration’s initiative on India] [while some problems, I generally support it as it rewards India for being responsible nuclear power] [something it’s done since 1970s] [**********]
IN LARGE PART, modern U.S. nuclear nonproliferation policy began with India. India received U.S. aid under the "Atoms for Peace" program of the early Cold War era -- only to lose its U.S. fuel supply because India, which had refused to sign the 1968 nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), exploded a nuclear "device" in 1974. [*****]Decades of U.S. noncooperation with India's civilian atomic energy program were intended to teach India, and the world, a lesson: You will not prosper if you go nuclear outside the system of international safeguards.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/28/AR2007072800999.html
Bet on India
The Bush administration presses forward with a nuclear agreement -- and hopes for a strategic partnership.
Sunday, July 29, 2007; B06 [editorial] [bush admininstration’s initiative on India] [while some problems, I generally support it as it rewards India for being responsible nuclear power] [something it’s done since 1970s] [**********]
IN LARGE PART, modern U.S. nuclear nonproliferation policy began with India. India received U.S. aid under the "Atoms for Peace" program of the early Cold War era -- only to lose its U.S. fuel supply because India, which had refused to sign the 1968 nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), exploded a nuclear "device" in 1974. [*****]Decades of U.S. noncooperation with India's civilian atomic energy program were intended to teach India, and the world, a lesson: You will not prosper if you go nuclear outside the system of international safeguards.
Friday marked another step toward the end of that policy -- also with India. The Bush administration and New Delhi announced the principles by which the United States will resume sales of civilian nuclear fuel and technology to India, as promised by President Bush in July 2005.[***] The fine print of the agreement, which must still be approved by the 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group and by Congress, has not yet been released. But the big picture is clear: The administration is betting that the benefits to the United States and the world of a "strategic partnership" with India outweigh the risks of a giant exception to the old rules of the nonproliferation game. [***********]
There are good reasons to make the bet. India is a booming democracy of more than 1 billion people, clearly destined to play a growing role on the world stage. It can help the United States as a trading partner and as a strategic counterweight to China and Islamic extremists. If India uses more nuclear energy, it will emit less greenhouse gas. Perhaps most important, India has developed its own nuclear arsenal without selling materials or know-how to other potentially dangerous states. [*********]This is more than can be said for Pakistan, home of the notorious A.Q. Khan nuclear network.
You can call this a double standard, as some of the agreement's critics do: one set of rules for countries we like, another for those we don't. Or you can call it realism: The agreement provides for more international supervision of India's nuclear fuel cycle than there would be without it. [*****]For example, it allows India to reprocess atomic fuel but at a new facility under International Atomic Energy Agency supervision, to protect against its diversion into weapons. The case for admitting India to the nuclear club is based on the plausible notion that the political character of a nuclear-armed state can be as important, or more important, than its signature on the NPT. [****] North Korea, a Stalinist dictatorship, went nuclear while a member of the NPT; the Islamic Republic of Iran appears headed down the same road. Yet India's democratic system and its manifest interest in joining the global free-market economy suggest that it will behave responsibly.
Or so it must be hoped. The few details of the agreement released Friday suggest that it is very favorable to India indeed, while skating close to the edge of U.S. law. [****]For example, the United States committed to helping India accumulate a nuclear fuel stockpile, thus insulating New Delhi against the threat, provided for by U.S. law, of a supply cutoff in the unlikely event that India resumes weapons testing. Congress is also asking appropriate questions about India's military-to-military contacts with Iran and about New Delhi's stubborn habit of attending meetings of "non-aligned" countries at which Cuba, Venezuela and others bash the United States. [******] [who cares?] [since when did Cuba or Venezuela become relevant in the post 9/11 world?] [****]As Congress considers this deal, India might well focus on what it can do to show that it, too, thinks of the new strategic partnership with Washington as a two-way street.
© 2007 The Washington Post Company

Posted by Kent Bolton at 10:00 AM | Permalink

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/29/opinion/29sun2.html
July 29, 2007
Editorial
Saudis Going South on Iraq
[editorial] [US-Saudi relations] [recent news that it’s on the rocks with the Saudis working at cross purposes] [yesterday’s report that Bush administration was seeking to buy their loyalty through a huge arms program] [********]
The Bush administration and Saudi Arabia’s ruling family have a lot in common, including oil, shared rivals like Iran and a penchant for denial that has allowed both to overlook the Saudis’ enabling role in the Sept. 11 attacks. But their recent wrangling over Iraq cannot be denied or papered over with proposals for a big new arms sale. And if these differences are not tackled, there is an increased likelihood that the war’s chaos will spread far beyond Iraq’s borders. [*******]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/29/opinion/29sun2.html
July 29, 2007
Editorial
Saudis Going South on Iraq
[editorial] [US-Saudi relations] [recent news that it’s on the rocks with the Saudis working at cross purposes] [yesterday’s report that Bush administration was seeking to buy their loyalty through a huge arms program] [********]
The Bush administration and Saudi Arabia’s ruling family have a lot in common, including oil, shared rivals like Iran and a penchant for denial that has allowed both to overlook the Saudis’ enabling role in the Sept. 11 attacks. But their recent wrangling over Iraq cannot be denied or papered over with proposals for a big new arms sale. And if these differences are not tackled, there is an increased likelihood that the war’s chaos will spread far beyond Iraq’s borders. [*******]
While Washington hasn’t protested publicly, Riyadh is pouring money into Sunni opposition groups and letting Saudis cross the border to join Sunni insurgents fighting the American-backed, Shiite-led government. [******]Washington estimates that nearly half of the 60 to 80 foreign fighters entering Iraq each month come from Saudi Arabia. [monthly between 30 and 40 foreign fighters head for –Iraq from Saudi] [******]
So far, neither Washington nor Riyadh is spending any time thinking about containing the chaos that will follow the inevitable American withdrawal. The only good news is that President Bush is sending Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary Robert Gates to Saudi Arabia for what we hope will be a frank discussion.
A failed Iraqi state with Saudi Islamists holed up in Al Qaeda sanctuaries in its western deserts is clearly not in the interests of the Saudi monarchy.[***] But for Ms. Rice and Mr. Gates to have any chance of changing Saudi policies, they will have to go beyond the administration’s usual mix of bullying and denial and address legitimate Saudi concerns.
One such concern is Iran, which is bankrolling and training Shiite militias, building a power base in Shiite areas of Iraq and drawing the prime minister, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, into its orbit. Iran’s expanding influence poses a major threat to Saudi Arabia. [****]
After years of mistaken American policy in Iraq, that threat cannot simply be conjured or blustered away. Whether the Saudis like it or not, and whether Mr. Bush likes it or not, Washington needs to face up to these issues, sit down with Tehran and work out mutually acceptable solutions to these issues that the Saudis can live with as well. [*******]
Another concern is the plight of Iraq’s Sunni minority under a sectarian Shiite government in league with vindictive Shiite militias. Saudi Arabia and Iraqi Sunnis have to get used to the idea of Shiite majority power. But the Saudis cannot be expected to sit still while the Iraqi Sunnis are driven from their homes, denied decent jobs and treated as second-class citizens by the Iraqi government. [*********]
If Washington wants Saudi backing for the Maliki government, Mr. Maliki must earn it by ending sectarianism in the security forces, reforming discriminatory anti-Baathist restrictions and pushing through an equitable oil revenue law.
It is past time for President Bush to acknowledge that the United States has no realistic chance of winning a military victory in Iraq, and that it needs to be urgently preparing to manage the consequences of an American withdrawal. That will require working cooperatively with all of Iraq’s neighbors, including Iran and Syria. [******]Compared with those, Saudi Arabia should be easy.
Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

Posted by Kent Bolton at 10:00 AM | Permalink

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/29/us/29evangelical.html
July 29, 2007
Coalition of Evangelicals Voices Support for Palestinian State
By LAURIE GOODSTEIN [SIGs] [religious] [evangeleicals for Palestine] [unusual as most evangelical groups tend to be for Israel per biblical injunctions] [********]
In recent years, conservative evangelicals who claim a Biblical mandate to protect Israel have built a bulwark of support for the Jewish nation — sending donations, denouncing its critics and urging it not to evacuate settlements or forfeit territory. [can you imagine if some religious group say Shinto sent money to the US and attempted to thwart certain domestic policies and foster others?] [********]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/29/us/29evangelical.html
July 29, 2007
Coalition of Evangelicals Voices Support for Palestinian State
By LAURIE GOODSTEIN [SIGs] [religious] [evangeleicals for Palestine] [unusual as most evangelical groups tend to be for Israel per biblical injunctions] [********]
In recent years, conservative evangelicals who claim a Biblical mandate to protect Israel have built a bulwark of support for the Jewish nation — sending donations, denouncing its critics and urging it not to evacuate settlements or forfeit territory. [can you imagine if some religious group say Shinto sent money to the US and attempted to thwart certain domestic policies and foster others?] [********]
Now more than 30 evangelical leaders are stepping forward to say these efforts have given the wrong impression about the stance of many, if not most, American evangelicals.
On Friday, these leaders sent a letter to President Bush saying that both Israelis and Palestinians have “legitimate rights stretching back for millennia to the lands of Israel/Palestine,” and that they support the creation of a Palestinian state “that includes the vast majority of the West Bank.” [*******]
They say that being a friend to Jews and to Israel “does not mean withholding criticism when it is warranted.” The letter adds, “Both Israelis and Palestinians have committed violence and injustice against each other.” [**********]
The letter is signed by 34 evangelical leaders, many of whom lead denominations, Christian charities, ministry organizations, seminaries and universities.
They include Gary M. Benedict, president of The Christian and Missionary Alliance, a denomination of 2,000 churches; Richard J. Mouw, president of Fuller Theological Seminary; Gordon MacDonald, chairman of World Relief; Richard E. Stearns, president of World Vision; David Neff, editor of Christianity Today; and Berten A. Waggoner, national director and president of The Vineyard USA, an association of 630 churches in the United States.
“This group is in no way anti-Israel, and we make it very clear we’re committed to the security of Israel,” said Ronald J. Sider, president of Evangelicals for Social Action, which often takes liberal positions on issues. “But we want a solution that is viable. Obviously there would have to be compromises.”
They are clearly aiming their message not just at President Bush, but at the Muslim world and policy makers in the State Department. [********]
Mr. Sider said he and three other evangelical leaders got the idea for the letter in February at the U.S.-Islamic World Forum in Doha, Qatar, where they met Muslim and American diplomats who were shocked to discover the existence of American evangelicals who favored a Palestinian state. [*****]Mr. Sider says they will translate the letter into Arabic and distribute it in the Middle East and Europe.
“We think it’s crucial that the Muslim world realize that there are evangelical Christians in the U.S. in large numbers that want a fair solution,” [*****]Mr. Sider said.
In the last year and half, liberal and moderate evangelicals have initiated two other efforts that demonstrated fissures in the evangelical movement. Last year, they parted with the conservative flank by campaigning against climate change and global warming. This year, they denounced the use of torture in the fight against terrorism. Some of the participants in those campaigns also signed this letter.
The Rev. Joel C. Hunter, senior pastor of Northland Church in Longwood, Fla., said, “There is a part of the evangelical family which is what I call Christian Zionists, who are just so staunchly pro-Israel that Israel and their side can do no wrong, and it’s almost anti-Biblical to criticize Israel for anything. But there are many more evangelicals who are really open and seek justice for both parties.”
The loudest and best-organized voices in the evangelical movement have been sending a very different message: that the Palestinians have no legitimate claim to the land. [*******]
The Rev. John Hagee, who founded Christians United for Israel, was informed of the letter and read most of it. He responded: “Bible-believing evangelicals will scoff at that message.
“Christians United for Israel is opposed to America pressuring Israel to give up more land to anyone for any reason. What has the policy of appeasement ever produced for Israel that was beneficial?” Mr. Hagee said.
“God gave to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob a covenant in the Book of Genesis for the land of Israel that is eternal and unbreakable, and that covenant is still intact,” he said. “The Palestinian people have never owned the land of Israel, never existed as an autonomous society. There is no Palestinian language. There is no Palestinian currency. And to say that Palestinians have a right to that land historically is an historical fraud.”
Christians United for Israel held a conference with 4,500 attendees in Washington this month, and Mr. Hagee sends e-mail action alerts on Israel every Monday to 55,000 pastors and leaders.
There is a crucial theological difference between Mr. Hagee’s views on Israel and those expressed by the letter writers, said Timothy P. Weber, a church historian, former seminary president and the author of “On the Road to Armageddon: How Evangelicals Became Israel’s Best Friend.”
Mr. Hagee and others are dispensationalists, Mr. Weber said, who interpret the Bible as predicting that in order for Christ to return, the Jews must gather in Israel, the third temple must be built in Jerusalem and the Battle of Armageddon must be fought. [******]
Mr. Weber said, “The dispensationalists have parlayed what is a distinctly minority position theologically within evangelicalism into a major political voice.”
Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

Posted by Kent Bolton at 09:59 AM | Permalink

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/29/world/middleeast/29iraq.html
July 29, 2007
General Training Iraqis Cites Problem of Sectarian Loyalty
By STEPHEN FARRELL [-ir] [hydra] [insurgency] [bush administration’s “surge option” or “new way forward” underway] [some positive indicators of improvement] [nevertheless, violence while surge unfolds] [pentagon’s recent status report—pretty awful but also predictable] [followup] [chaos increases] [more violence] [*****]
BAGHDAD, July 28 — The new American general in charge of training and equipping Iraq’s security forces said the hardest challenge was finding good leaders free of sectarian loyalties.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/29/world/middleeast/29iraq.html
July 29, 2007
General Training Iraqis Cites Problem of Sectarian Loyalty
By STEPHEN FARRELL [-ir] [hydra] [insurgency] [bush administration’s “surge option” or “new way forward” underway] [some positive indicators of improvement] [nevertheless, violence while surge unfolds] [pentagon’s recent status report—pretty awful but also predictable] [followup] [chaos increases] [more violence] [*****]
BAGHDAD, July 28 — The new American general in charge of training and equipping Iraq’s security forces said the hardest challenge was finding good leaders free of sectarian loyalties.
“You can’t grow a force this fast and have the right number of qualified leaders,” Lt. Gen. James M. Dubik told The Associated Press on Saturday. “You can’t do it. This is a problem now, and it will be a problem for a good number of years.”
General Dubik said nonsectarianism was “much harder” to instill than teaching soldiers how to fight.
The Iraqi police on Saturday more than doubled the estimated death toll of a truck bombing on Thursday in the central Baghdad district of Karrada, to around 60 from 25. Two days after the explosion, rescuers were still searching for human remains in the rubble of a dozen apartments and houses that were destroyed or badly damaged by the blast.
Nearby, relatives of missing people watched miserably as Iraqi security forces removed the debris. Funeral corteges passed, with mourners carrying coffins and chanting.
Insurgents dressed as women attacked an Iraqi Army checkpoint near the northern town of Kirkuk on Saturday, killing three soldiers and wounding one, said Col. Sadr al-Din Abdullah, an Iraqi Army commander. [***********]
The governor of Kirkuk announced a three-hour curfew before the Asia Cup soccer final on Sunday between Iraq and Saudi Arabia, as security forces across the country prepared to tighten security, fearing that insurgents would attack celebrating crowds.
Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

Posted by Kent Bolton at 09:58 AM | Permalink

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/29/world/middleeast/29basra.html
July 29, 2007
British Pullback in Iraq Presages Hurdles for U.S.
By STEPHEN FARRELL [-ir] [hydra] [insurgency] [bush administration’s “surge option” or “new way forward” underway] [some positive indicators of improvement] [nevertheless, violence while surge unfolds] [pentagon’s recent status report—pretty awful but also predictable] [followup] [chaos increases] [more violence] [eve of PM Gordon Brown’s first visit to US—Camp David no less—Brits signal changes?] [*****]
BASRA, Iraq — As American troop levels are peaking in Baghdad, British force levels are heading in the opposite direction as the troops prepare to withdraw completely from the city center of Basra, [*****]300 miles to the south.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/29/world/middleeast/29basra.html
July 29, 2007
British Pullback in Iraq Presages Hurdles for U.S.
By STEPHEN FARRELL [-ir] [hydra] [insurgency] [bush administration’s “surge option” or “new way forward” underway] [some positive indicators of improvement] [nevertheless, violence while surge unfolds] [pentagon’s recent status report—pretty awful but also predictable] [followup] [chaos increases] [more violence] [eve of PM Gordon Brown’s first visit to US—Camp David no less—Brits signal changes?] [*****]
BASRA, Iraq — As American troop levels are peaking in Baghdad, British force levels are heading in the opposite direction as the troops prepare to withdraw completely from the city center of Basra, [*****]300 miles to the south.
The British intend to pull back to an airport headquarters miles out of town, a symbolic move widely taken by Iraqis as the beginning of the end of the British military presence in southern Iraq.
The scaling down by America’s largest coalition partner foreshadows many of the political and military challenges certain to face American commanders when their troops begin withdrawing. [******]
Skepticism is widespread in Basra, as in Baghdad, about whether Iraqi forces are ready to take over. The British and the Americans will have to assuage the fears of Iraqis that they are being abandoned to gunmen and religious extremists. [******]And each is likely to face intensified attacks from propaganda-conscious enemies trying to claim credit for driving out the Westerners. [********]
As the British prepare for the withdrawal from the city center — and the wider transition of handing over Basra Province to Iraqi security forces during the coming months — Brig. James Bashall, commander of the First Mechanized Brigade, concedes that his men will almost certainly “get a lot of indirect fire as we go backward.” [***********]
It is no coincidence that he is reading up on Britain’s withdrawal from its former crown colony Aden in what is now Yemen, and lessons from other theaters, with the American experience in Vietnam as the “obvious parallel.”
Rear Adm. Mark I. Fox, an American military spokesman in Baghdad, parried any suggestion that Basra was a model for the Americans.
“I think that our focus right now is on the operations that we are conducting,” he said. “Certainly that’s the thing that is in front of us right now, and I wouldn’t characterize us as necessarily peeking over the shoulders of somebody else to see how they are doing it.”
The British commanders studiously avoid talk of dates for the same reason American commanders are resisting such pressure in Congress — they fear it would embolden insurgents. [******]But it has escaped no one’s notice that Britain’s new prime minister, Gordon Brown, could score political points by withdrawing from an unpopular war.
The British pullback, and British commanders’ talk of moving toward “overwatch,” and intervening “in a limited sense” if requested by the Iraqis, is viewed with dismay by many Iraqis in the city.
Mustapha Wali, a 49-year-old teacher, was blunt. “If they withdraw, we will live in a jungle, like the early days,” he said. “The parties control the government, and the aim of officials is to fill their pockets with money, millions of dollars inside their pockets and nothing to the city.” [*******] [and if they don’t they live in the current jungle] [makes decisions difficult]
The educated and secular middle classes fear that the Iraqi security forces — particularly the police — are hopelessly infiltrated by the extremist Shiite militias and Iranian-backed Islamist parties competing, [*****]often murderously, for control of Basra’s huge oil wealth.
Basra, an overwhelmingly Shiite port city controlling Iraq’s gateway to the Persian Gulf, is much less affected by the Sunni-Shiite sectarian violence plaguing Baghdad. But, as a June 25 report by the International Crisis Group concluded, it is virtually controlled by Shiite militias.
Since the 2003 invasion, the British-led coalition forces have adopted a far less aggressive and interventionist stance than American troops have farther north. Some contend that this was the only realistic approach, with far fewer troops at their disposal and a more benign environment.
But critics accuse the British of simply allowing the Shiite militias free rein to carry out their intolerant Islamist agenda, which involved killing merchants who sell alcohol, driving out Christians and infiltrating state institutions and the security forces.
“The British are very patient — they didn’t know how to deal with the militias,” said a 50-year-old Assyrian Christian who would identify herself only as Mrs. Mansour. “Some people think it would be better if the Americans came instead of the British. They would be harder on the militias.”
The report by the International Crisis Group, a nonprofit organization that seeks to prevent or resolve deadly conflicts, concedes that a recent British-led crackdown was a “qualified success” in reducing criminality, political assassinations and sectarian killings, yet nevertheless concludes that Basra “is an example of what to avoid.” [*****]
It said the British had been driven into “increasingly secluded compounds,” a result, the report said, that was viewed by Basra’s residents and militia as an “ignominious defeat.”
British and Iraqi leaders point out that although there have been problems with intimidation and infiltration, particularly of the Iraqi police, Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki has appointed new police and army commanders in recent months to take charge of the city. And the officials say there are encouraging signs.
But certainly a city that was once relatively safe for British troops is no longer.
Where they once patrolled in soft hats and open-topped vehicles, soldiers now move in heavily armored vehicles and are regularly attacked with mortar shells, rocket-propelled grenades and roadside bombs.
This year is already the most deadly since 2003 for British forces in Iraq, with 36 killed as of Saturday. [*****]Sixty-one rockets and mortar shells rained down on the palace in one day last week, a record high.
In such an environment, say British commanders, removing the troops from the city center takes away a “magnet” for attacks, and deprives the Mahdi Army, led by Moktada al-Sadr, and other Iranian-backed militias of a cause to justify their continued violence. Instead there will be a transition to control by Iraqis.
When the withdrawal from the palace is complete, there will be 5,000 British soldiers here, 500 fewer than before.
Although American commanders are sure to watch the British pullout closely, there are distinct differences between the military situations in the north and south.
“Basra is a totally different environment from what the Americans are facing,” said a British official in Basra. “The problem here is gangsterism, not violent sectarianism. And a foreign military is not the right tool for closing down a mafia.” [*******]
“A Baghdad-style surge would be 100 percent counterproductive,” he added.
Nevertheless, everyone expects attacks to intensify, and soldiers have cautionary tales for American generals looking ahead to an eventual drawing down of troop levels.
On May 25,[****] Basra’s small Permanent Joint Coordination Center — a joint British-Iraqi base in the city’s center — came under sustained attack by militias enraged by the killing of a senior Mahdi Army commander that day.
The lesson drawn by soldiers inside was that the militias had carefully watched the reduced British troop movements around the city, noticed where they were no longer patrolling and prepared accordingly.
Cpl. Daniel Jennings, 26, said the Mahdi Army appeared to have stockpiled rocket-propelled grenades and machine guns in advance.
“What they did was very well planned,” he said. “They knew they could pre-dump weapons and ammo. They knew that if they hid R.P.G.’s under a bridge or a gun under a tree it wasn’t going to be found.”
During one army patrol in a village overlooked by the palace’s watchtowers, built during the Saddam Hussein era, residents were confused to find themselves in the cross-fire between the Mahdi Army and the British.
Picking from his car shrapnel from what appeared to be an errant rocket fired at the palace, Mohammed, 20, said he was angry at the militias for using the villagers’ houses as cover to fire, but also at the British for firing back and damaging the homes.
“We are caught in the middle,” he said.” At the start the American and British forces came and the situation was much better, but now it is beginning to get worse.”
Another Iraqi youth, when asked what the Iraqi police were doing about roadside bombs intended for British troops, said, “The police are the ones who are doing it.”
In Basra itself one 26-year-old Mahdi Army fighter was unequivocal about what he wanted. “I hope to see them withdraw today, before tomorrow,” he said.
But for most, it is an issue heavily shaded in gray.
“Some people are asking, ‘Are we any longer part of the solution, or part of the problem?’ ” said Capt. Toby Skinner, 26, of the Fourth Battalion, the Rifles Regiment, in Basra. “An Iraqi told me: ‘You stay here for three years you will be our friend. You stay for four years, you will be our enemy.’ ”
Riyadh, a 22-year-old Iraqi and Basra native who is an interpreter for the British, expressed little confidence that the Iraqi Army was ready to take over from his paymasters, and none at all in the Iraqi police.
“Right now the militias are busy concentrating on getting the British Army out of Iraq,” he said. “After that is done they will turn on the people and try to control them in a very difficult way.” [*********]
“They will kill people who don’t do what they want,” he added. “There will be no punishment by courts; they kill people on the streets.”
But he acknowledged that if British troops stayed they would be sucked into further deadly confrontations with militias using civilians as cover, leading to inevitable innocent casualties and more hostility.
“If they leave, the militias will eventually fall apart,” he said. “There will be no reason to join them because they will not be fighting the British Army.”
This is what the British hope, but cannot guarantee, will happen.
At Basra Palace, the rocket attacks at all hours of the day and night have led soldiers to christen it, with characteristic dark humor, “probably the worst palace in the world.”
Despite the rocket-shredded roof and garden labyrinth of head-high sandbags, morale remains high. However, some soldiers question their continued presence in the city center.
“I don’t see the point,” shrugged Trooper Charles Culshaw, 21, an armored vehicle driver. “ We are training the Iraqi Army and doing a couple of bits and pieces that are useful, but I don’t think it’s worth it, to be honest with you.”
“All we are doing now is resupplying ourselves,” he said. “It’s going round in circles. People are getting killed for us to resupply ourselves, and if we weren’t resupplying ourselves, people wouldn’t be getting killed.”
Unsurprisingly, Lt. Col. Patrick Sanders, commander of the Fourth Battalion, the Rifles Regiment, has a different view.
“If that were true and that were all we were doing, then I would be saying the same thing, but it’s not,” he said, pointing to recent battles in which the British had killed at least 100 insurgents.
But while such raids will continue against wanted men, a speedy transition to a Basra run by Iraqis is the game in this town.
“I think that the route is one of reconciliation, and that means taking some risk,” Lieutenant Colonel Sanders said. “The other option is that we do what has been done in the past and what is being done elsewhere, which is to thrash around killing people by the dozen because they are attacking us. But I’m not sure that is constructive.” [********]
Mudhafer al-Husaini contributed reporting from Baghdad.
Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

Posted by Kent Bolton at 09:57 AM | Permalink

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/28/AR2007072801402.html
New British Leader's Tightrope With Bush: Be Close Yet Apart
By Michael Abramowitz and Mary Jordan
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, July 29, 2007; A04 [UK] [EU] [London] [PM Gordon Brown arrives for first meeting with President Bush since Brown became PM] [USFP] [US-Anglo relations] [special relationship] [US image in Britain has taken a beating since 2003—iraq war and mismanagement; Britain’s willingness to follow US down; US betrayal in terms of extraordinary renditions, black sites, enemy combatants and gitmo] [followup] [Britains generally preferred Clinton who was far less unilateral] [********]
Gordon Brown faces a quandary as he arrives at Camp David tonight for his first sit-down with President Bush as Britain's prime minister: How does he distance himself from a U.S. president who helped sink the popularity of Brown's predecessor but preserve a political relationship that is essential to Britain's future? [just so] [***]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/28/AR2007072801402.html
New British Leader's Tightrope With Bush: Be Close Yet Apart
By Michael Abramowitz and Mary Jordan
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, July 29, 2007; A04 [UK] [EU] [London] [PM Gordon Brown arrives for first meeting with President Bush since Brown became PM] [USFP] [US-Anglo relations] [special relationship] [US image in Britain has taken a beating since 2003—iraq war and mismanagement; Britain’s willingness to follow US down; US betrayal in terms of extraordinary renditions, black sites, enemy combatants and gitmo] [followup] [Britains generally preferred Clinton who was far less unilateral] [********]
Gordon Brown faces a quandary as he arrives at Camp David tonight for his first sit-down with President Bush as Britain's prime minister: How does he distance himself from a U.S. president who helped sink the popularity of Brown's predecessor but preserve a political relationship that is essential to Britain's future? [just so] [***]
The expectation on both sides of the Atlantic is that Brown will try to carve out an independent line on at least one of the big issues facing the two nations, [****]whether Iraq, Iran, global warming or terrorism.
Brown needs to "show he is his own man, that he is not the president's poodle," said Peter Kellner, a British political analyst. "George Bush is not popular in Britain."
The "poodle" epithet long followed Tony Blair, whom Brown succeeded a month ago. "The overwhelming reason Blair was unpopular at the end of his term was because he was considered too close to the United States, and he paid a big domestic price for that," [*****] said Philip H. Gordon, a former White House expert on Europe. "It would be unimaginable if his successor did not take some steps to turn the page."
Both the White House and Downing Street are stressing that little has been disturbed in the "special relationship" between the United States and Britain -- which has long magnified British global influence -- since the elevation of Brown, who as chancellor of the exchequer for the past decade focused on the economy while Blair managed foreign affairs. [*****]
Although friction may lie ahead on such issues as Iran's nuclear program or the environment, U.S. officials appear confident that there will be no sudden departures from Brown on the key issues -- especially on keeping Britain's remaining 5,500 troops in Iraq.
The prime minister has moved to tamp down speculation that he is ready to break with Bush. That was fueled by some of his early appointments, including that of Mark Malloch Brown, a former top U.N. official who has been critical of U.S. neoconservatives [*****] and recently remarked that Washington and London would no longer "be joined at the hip." Brown also held meetings with Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany and President Nicolas Sarkozy of France, reviving talk that his foreign policy will tilt more to Europe than the United States.
But Brown has followed up with comments emphasizing that he will work very closely with the U.S. administration. "We will not allow people to separate us from the United States of America in dealing with the common challenges that we face around the world," the prime minister recently told BBC Radio.
Officials in both governments said that this week's summit meeting will focus on building a rapport between the two leaders, aided by the bucolic setting of the mountaintop retreat where Bush entertains his closest foreign allies. [*****]The two leaders will dine without staff members this evening, to be followed tomorrow by breakfast, lunch, meetings and a news conference. There's no word on whether Bush will mention Brown's toothpaste preference, as he famously did at the "Colgate Summit" at Camp David when the U.S. president first sat down with Blair in 2001.
"This will mainly be a reassurance thing," said British author and political analyst Peter Riddell. "They want to knock down any suggestion that there is distance between them. Yes, they are different people, but they are fundamentally on the same wavelength."
This is not to say that there could not be disagreements -- for instance, on Afghanistan, where the two sides have differed in recent months on the proper approach for cracking down on narcotics production, a big obstacle to stabilizing that country.
The two leaders will also share their thinking on Iraq. After contributing about 40,000 soldiers for the 2003 invasion, the British have reduced their presence to about 5,500 troops in the vicinity of Basra, [see below in today’s external] [****] in the south. The light British touch in Basra was originally seen as something of a success, but security has dramatically deteriorated in recent months, with increased fighting among Shiite militias, according to military analysts.
"The assessments that I have been seeing say they have essentially been defeated, have withdrawn from the streets and are pretty much isolated in a garrison near the airport," said Stephen D. Biddle, a military analyst with the Council on Foreign Relations who recently traveled to Iraq. "The British are not providing much in terms of population security in Basra."
But even if a British pullout would not be significant militarily, it would pack a symbolic punch. Many analysts and U.S. officials anticipate that Brown will hold off on any decision until Bush announces what the U.S. strategy will be after a September report from Gen. David H. Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker. [*****]
John O'Sullivan, a British political commentator at the conservative-leaning Hudson Institute, said he believes the British public is mostly angry about Blair and past mistakes on Iraq, and will cut the new prime minister some slack on the British presence there. "The argument over the war tends to focus around the past and not around current policy. I don't think this will be a major issue," he said.
And John R. Bolton, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations from 2005 to 2006, said it is too early to tell whether Brown will move Britain closer to continental Europe.
"Blair and [President Bill] Clinton had an outstanding personal relationship, and many people said Bush and Blair would not get along the same way, and yet they did," Bolton said. "I don't read a lot into remarks being made and confusion in Brown's new government. . . . What it really boils down to is actions, and that remains to be seen."
Jordan reported from London.
© 2007 The Washington Post Company

Posted by Kent Bolton at 09:56 AM | Permalink

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/29/world/africa/29libya.html
July 29, 2007
Libya Faults Bulgarian Pardon of Medical Workers
By MATTHEW BRUNWASSER [Libya] [northern Africa; Maghreb; horn; broader middle east] [democratization] [odd case wherein health workers infected Libyans] [followup from July 24] [*************]
SOFIA, Bulgaria, July 28 — Calling the action a betrayal, Libya on Saturday denounced a decision by Bulgaria’s president to pardon six medical workers who had been given life sentences in Libya before they were released from the country this week. [****]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/29/world/africa/29libya.html
July 29, 2007
Libya Faults Bulgarian Pardon of Medical Workers
By MATTHEW BRUNWASSER [Libya] [northern Africa; Maghreb; horn; broader middle east] [democratization] [odd case wherein health workers infected Libyans] [followup from July 24] [*************]
SOFIA, Bulgaria, July 28 — Calling the action a betrayal, Libya on Saturday denounced a decision by Bulgaria’s president to pardon six medical workers who had been given life sentences in Libya before they were released from the country this week. [****]
Libya’s foreign minister, Abdelrahman Shalgham, said at a news conference in Tripoli that the workers should have been detained upon their arrival in Bulgaria on Tuesday and not freed in a “celebratory and illegal manner,” Agence France-Presse reported.
The medics, five Bulgarian nurses and a Palestinian doctor, had been sentenced to death twice in Libya after being convicted of intentionally infecting more than 400 Libyan children with H.I.V., the virus that causes AIDS — a charge that AIDS experts have dismissed as baseless. They were held for eight and a half years before their sentence was commuted this month to life in prison after the families of the children each received $1 million.
The commutation paved the way for their transfer to Bulgaria because, under the terms of a 1984 agreement between Libya and Bulgaria, citizens of one country convicted of crimes in the other can serve sentences in their own nation. The Palestinian doctor was granted Bulgarian citizenship this year. [*******]
It was widely expected that Bulgaria would free the medical workers on their return, but Libyan leaders suggested Saturday that they had expected them to serve their time.
“We followed the procedure — it is Bulgaria that betrayed us,” Prime Minister Baghdadi Mahmudi said at the news conference, Agence France-Presse reported.
Libya has sent fellow Arab League members a memorandum calling for the group to adopt a common stand on the dispute, officials there said, the news agency said.
In Sofia, Bulgaria’s capital, Kamen Mihov, the prosecutor in charge of the International Legal Assistance Department, said that the pardon of the medics was “absolutely legal and proper” under Bulgarian law and the 1984 accord. Mr. Mihov said the agreement provides that after a prisoner is transferred home, the prisoner becomes subject to the laws of that country.
Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

Posted by Kent Bolton at 09:55 AM | Permalink

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/28/AR2007072800269.html
Pakistan's Musharraf, Rival Discuss Sharing Power
By Griff Witte
Washington Post Foreign Service
Sunday, July 29, 2007; A16 [Pakistan] [south asia] [followup from past weeks] [Pakistan as the new Afghanistan] [musharraf’s dangerous gambit] [attempting to balance US-West gsave against placating his traditional Pashtun, Deobandi, jihadis constituency] [Pakistan’s military and intelligence services fully infiltrated bt latter] [alqaeda’s home-turf central] [hydra] [a tipping point may have been reached in past week or two] [the infamous truce that Musharraf made with tribal leaders—on again, off again] [Bhutto and Musharraf apparently have been negotiation in UAE] [********]
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan, July 28 -- Pakistan's president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, and former prime minister Benazir Bhutto appeared to draw closer to an improbable alliance Saturday, with a top Musharraf adviser confirming that the two had met and pronouncing the exchange "very successful." [*********]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/28/AR2007072800269.html
Pakistan's Musharraf, Rival Discuss Sharing Power
By Griff Witte
Washington Post Foreign Service
Sunday, July 29, 2007; A16 [Pakistan] [south asia] [followup from past weeks] [Pakistan as the new Afghanistan] [musharraf’s dangerous gambit] [attempting to balance US-West gsave against placating his traditional Pashtun, Deobandi, jihadis constituency] [Pakistan’s military and intelligence services fully infiltrated bt latter] [alqaeda’s home-turf central] [hydra] [a tipping point may have been reached in past week or two] [the infamous truce that Musharraf made with tribal leaders—on again, off again] [Bhutto and Musharraf apparently have been negotiation in UAE] [********]
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan, July 28 -- Pakistan's president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, and former prime minister Benazir Bhutto appeared to draw closer to an improbable alliance Saturday, with a top Musharraf adviser confirming that the two had met and pronouncing the exchange "very successful." [*********]
The Pakistani news media reported the meeting Friday, but the government denied it at the time. On Saturday, however, federal minister Sheikh Rashid said the usually bitter rivals had held discussions in the United Arab Emirates aimed at creating a power-sharing arrangement. [******]Representatives for Bhutto, who has been living in exile since 1999 and leads the country's largest opposition party, would not confirm the meeting for the record but also would not deny it.
Musharraf has been struggling in recent months with vigorous challenges to his eight-year rule. They have come both from Islamic extremists waging a violent insurgency as well as from moderate forces looking to oust the president and end military rule through upcoming elections.
With his popularity in decline, Musharraf badly needs allies. Bhutto needs a way back into the country without facing criminal charges relating to alleged corruption. She has said she wants to return for a third term as prime minister, even though that is now barred by the Pakistani constitution. [********]
While the two leaders have vastly different visions for Pakistan, both are regarded as moderates. An alliance would probably be welcomed by the United States and other Western powers that are hoping that moderate forces can unite to battle rising militancy in Pakistan. [*********]
"The country is in a serious crisis," Rashid said in an interview on Pakistan's Dawn News television station. "So we have to move fast, and we have to move to national consensus."
Negotiations have been reported for months, but a face-to-face meeting indicates they have reached an advanced stage.
The pace of the talks may have been hastened by a court ruling this month that reinstated Pakistan's chief justice, whom Musharraf had tried to oust. The court is expected to hear challenges to Musharraf's plans for staying in office, which had included getting elected to a new term by a parliament set to expire, and keeping his job as army chief. Bhutto has said she will not consider a deal unless Musharraf agrees to shed his uniform, and that is believed to be a sticking point in the negotiations.
The talks carry considerable risk for both leaders. Each heads a party whose members may revolt at the prospect of an agreement, and it is unclear how a Musharraf-Bhutto government would function given the bad blood between them. [******]
State Information Minister Tariq Azim Khan said Saturday that any arrangement would have to be approved by the ruling party, which Musharraf and his allies created after he took power in 1999. Many party leaders deeply mistrust Bhutto.
“Obviously, there’s a lot of resentment within the ruling party,” Khan said.
A spokesman for an anti-Musharraf party that had previously been aligned with Bhutto ridiculed her Saturday for giving Musharraf a potential way out of his predicament.
“She has betrayed the cause of democracy,” said Ahsan Iqbal, information secretary for the Pakistan Muslim League, whose leader, former prime minister Nawaz Sharif, is also in exile. “Musharraf has lost all legitimacy, and he must resign.” [*****]
A Bhutto spokesman said negotiations between the two camps continue. "Both sides are still examining how to move forward," Wajid Shamsul Hasan said. "There is hope still, but time is running out."
Bhutto and Musharraf have together been the signature forces in Pakistani politics over the past two decades. They share an ill-disguised contempt for one another and seem to relish presenting themselves as everything the other is not. [*******]
Bhutto, who comes from a wealthy family and graduated from Radcliffe and Oxford, served two terms as prime minister in the late 1980s and '90s. As leader of the left-leaning Pakistan People's Party for more than a quarter-century, she has railed against the dangers of military rule. Her father, who was also prime minister, was executed by a military regime, and she frequently refers to Musharraf as a "military dictator."
Musharraf is a lifelong army man, who rose from a middle-class background to lead Pakistan's most influential institution. While he was commanding the army in 1999, the military staged a coup, and Musharraf took power. He has called Bhutto's tenure leading the country "sham democracy" and accused her of rampant corruption.
© 2007 The Washington Post Company

Posted by Kent Bolton at 09:54 AM | Permalink

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/28/us/28list.html
July 28, 2007
Names of the Dead
[3,636] [KIA] [*****]
The Department of Defense has identified 3,636 [KIA] [*****]American service members who have died since the start of the Iraq war. It confirmed the death of the following American yesterday: . . . .
Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/28/us/28list.html
July 28, 2007
Names of the Dead
[3,636] [KIA] [*****]
The Department of Defense has identified 3,636 [KIA] [*****]American service members who have died since the start of the Iraq war. It confirmed the death of the following American yesterday: . . . .
Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

Posted by Kent Bolton at 10:27 AM | Permalink

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/28/washington/28home.html
July 28, 2007
Antiterrorism Bill Passes House by Wide Margin
By DAVID STOUT [reassertive 110th Congress, 1st session] [bush white house] [Dems campaigned on promise to enact the 43 or so recommendations of the 9/11 Commission—the ones not already enacted] [for many reasons they have failed to act decisively] [now they finally strike some deals allowing most of it for a vote] [GOP concerns were compromised] [followup] [*****]
WASHINGTON, July 27 — The House overwhelmingly passed antiterrorism legislation on Friday, sending to President Bush a measure intended to tighten security on air and sea cargo and allocate federal money where the threat of attack is deemed greatest.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/28/washington/28home.html
July 28, 2007
Antiterrorism Bill Passes House by Wide Margin
By DAVID STOUT [reassertive 110th Congress, 1st session] [bush white house] [Dems campaigned on promise to enact the 43 or so recommendations of the 9/11 Commission—the ones not already enacted] [for many reasons they have failed to act decisively] [now they finally strike some deals allowing most of it for a vote] [GOP concerns were compromised] [followup] [*****]
WASHINGTON, July 27 — The House overwhelmingly passed antiterrorism legislation on Friday, sending to President Bush a measure intended to tighten security on air and sea cargo and allocate federal money where the threat of attack is deemed greatest.
The 371-to-40 vote in the House came a day after the Senate approved the legislation 85 to 8. [*******]Mr. Bush will sign the bill now that his reservations about it have been addressed, said a White House spokesman, Scott Stanzel. [white house had indicated it might have some problems] [now apparently it will be signed forthwith] [perhaps next week] [*********]
The House passage enabled members of both parties to claim victory, in the name of national security and common sense. Democrats had been eager to gain passage before the August recess to avoid being tagged as a do-nothing Congress.
“The American people will be safer,” Representative Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland, the Democratic majority leader, said before the vote.
A crucial provision in the bill will change the way antiterrorism grants from the Department of Homeland Security are distributed to the states. It will cut in half the guaranteed minimum grant to each state, which was $3.8 million this year, and allow department officials to distribute money in discretionary grants where the threat and consequences of a terrorist attack are judged to be highest. [just common sense but state and district pork-barrel politics involved] [******]
In past years, officials from populous states considered likely to be terrorist targets, like New York, complained that less populous states got grants that were too big. Now, Mr. Hoyer said, the government will ask, “Where are we most vulnerable?”
Intended to meet the recommendations of the commission that investigated the Sept. 11 attacks, the bill also requires that within three years all cargo carried by passenger jets be checked. (The word “screened” is used instead of “inspected” because shippers who are specially certified will be allowed do their own pre-airport inspecting and sealing.)
The bill also sets a five-year goal of screening all cargo ships leaving foreign ports for the United States, to safeguard against smuggled nuclear or radiological weapons. But it allows the Department of Homeland Security to postpone the requirement in two-year increments for various reasons. [*******]
To gain Republican support, Democrats dropped some provisions that had drawn Mr. Bush’s veto threat, including one that would have required that airport security scanners be given collective-bargaining rights like most other federal workers.
Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, the Republican leader, said Republicans were especially pleased that they had won inclusion of language to protect Americans who report potential terrorist activity from “frivolous lawsuits.”
That section was inspired by an episode last year in Minneapolis, where six Muslim men were removed from a Phoenix-bound US Airways flight after their praying and chanting in Arabic alarmed passengers. The Muslims, imams about to fly home after a conference of religious clerics in Minneapolis, later sued the airline and the passengers who complained. [flying mullah provision as some have called it derisively] [*****]
Mr. Boehner said the bill would preclude similar suits. “In this era of radical jihadist terror,” he said, “the bravery and vigilance of individual Americans is critical to our security.” [************]
Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

Posted by Kent Bolton at 10:26 AM | Permalink

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/27/AR2007072702370.html
With Gonzales Under Fire, FBI Violation Gains Notice
Senator Says '04 Case Adds to Concerns About Candor
By John Solomon
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, July 28, 2007; A03 [bush white house] [reassertive 110th Congress, 1st session] [tussle over mostly domestic matter of firing US attorneys] [however, it has intersection with USFP] [the important connection is the nsa warrant-less spy program] [incredible meeting in march 2004? Where then white house attorney Gonzales and Andy Card went to GWU hospital where then AG Ashcroft under sedation and in ICU] [acting AG Commey there and white house brought a paper for Ashcroft to sign overruling Commey!] [incredibly bizarre but gets better because now AG Gonzales appears to have repeatedly lied about the latre-night visit and its purpose] [meantime, FBI reported it one or more of its agents abused national security letters!!!!] [lost in the shouting] [*****]
Two weeks before President Bush won reelection in 2004, the FBI sent a rare report to its overseers: One of its agents had engaged in a willful and intentional violation of a law by improperly collecting financial records during a national security investigation. [*****]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/27/AR2007072702370.html
With Gonzales Under Fire, FBI Violation Gains Notice
Senator Says '04 Case Adds to Concerns About Candor
By John Solomon
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, July 28, 2007; A03 [bush white house] [reassertive 110th Congress, 1st session] [tussle over mostly domestic matter of firing US attorneys] [however, it has intersection with USFP] [the important connection is the nsa warrant-less spy program] [incredible meeting in march 2004? Where then white house attorney Gonzales and Andy Card went to GWU hospital where then AG Ashcroft under sedation and in ICU] [acting AG Commey there and white house brought a paper for Ashcroft to sign overruling Commey!] [incredibly bizarre but gets better because now AG Gonzales appears to have repeatedly lied about the latre-night visit and its purpose] [meantime, FBI reported it one or more of its agents abused national security letters!!!!] [lost in the shouting] [*****]
Two weeks before President Bush won reelection in 2004, the FBI sent a rare report to its overseers: One of its agents had engaged in a willful and intentional violation of a law by improperly collecting financial records during a national security investigation. [*****]
The FBI concluded that the actions of the rookie agent amounted to "intelligence activities that . . . may be unlawful or contrary to executive order or presidential directive," according to a declassified memo from Oct. 21, 2004.
The incident was deemed serious enough for the bureau to notify both the President's Intelligence Oversight Board and the Justice Department, and to consider punishing the agent. [*********] [former, if I recall correctly, is part of the PFIAB] [*********]
The violation was the only one after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks that the FBI has specifically flagged as intentional. But it has attracted fresh attention because Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales testified six months later that no "verified case of civil liberties abuse" had occurred since the USA Patriot Act was enacted.
Gonzales told senators this week that his use of the word "abuse" was meant to narrowly refer only to intentional violations. "My view and the views of other leadership in the department is, in fact, when we're talking about abuses of the Patriot Act, we're talking about intentional, deliberate misuse of the Patriot Act," he testified Tuesday in explaining his 2005 remarks.
Gonzales was not the attorney general in October 2004, when Justice Department officials were informed about the FBI agent's intentional violation. But Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) said yesterday that the existence of the notification has added to concerns that Gonzales has not been fully candid in his testimony.
"Oversight by Congress to minimize abuse of government's power relies on full and honest answers from government officials," particularly with regard to Patriot Act matters, Leahy said in a statement. "Time and again this Attorney General has not met that obligation."
The issue of what Gonzales knew of FBI violations and when arose this month, when The Washington Post reported that the FBI had sent him at least half a dozen reports of legal or procedural violations before he gave his 2005 testimony. [*********]
In total, the FBI has told the White House and the Justice Department about a few hundred instances since 2001 in which its agents violated procedures or laws designed to protect the civil liberties and privacy of Americans.[****] Most of the problems involved paperwork mistakes, the inadvertent collection of phone data for the wrong person or the collection of data past a legal deadline, officials have said.
Officials said the 2004 violation stands out because it is the sole occasion on which the FBI itself concluded that an agent intentionally violated safeguards on the use of national security letters, investigative tools that allow agents to gather phone, computer or bank records without court approval or a grand jury subpoena.
When the use of the letters was expanded by the Patriot Act, Congress decided that the tools could be used to gather the full credit reports of Americans in investigations related only to terrorism. In addition, agents seeking financial records are required to obtain the written approval of a senior supervisor with special authority for national security letters.
In the October 2004 case, the bureau concluded that a young agent acted on her own in gathering financial records without the approval of a high-ranking official, violating both bureau policy and the Right to Financial Privacy Act. [******]The act blocks bank records from being accessed by government agencies without proper legal authority.
"In this instance the conduct . . . was wilful and intentional even though she did not realize that she had acted in contravention of the RFPA and Bureau policy," the October 2004 report said. "It should also be noted that SA [name redacted] was at the time a probationary agent."
"This matter has been referred to the FBI's Office of Professional Responsibility for such actions as may be appropriate," FBI Deputy Counsel Julie Thomas wrote to the presidential board charged with civilian oversight of the legality of U.S. intelligence activities. The bureau said yesterday that the agent was subsequently disciplined.
Details of what the investigation involved and which documents were gathered were redacted from the copy of the memo that the bureau released publicly.
"The fact that the FBI considers this intentional and willful behavior speaks volumes," said Marcia Hofmann, a lawyer at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which helped win the release this summer of FBI documents related to national security letters. "This is not a situation where a civil liberty group is putting that label on the conduct. It is the FBI itself, and I think the attorney general should have taken that very seriously." [*******]
The Justice Department said it stands by what Gonzales said in his initial testimony. "The Justice Department has routinely provided Congress with reports of intelligence collection mistakes and errors, and thus the Attorney General's testimony could not fairly be understood as a representation that such mistakes had not occurred since the passage of the Patriot Act," spokesman Dean Boyd said in a statement.
White House press secretary Tony Snow, responding to calls from some lawmakers for Gonzales to step down, reaffirmed yesterday that Bush still supports him. Although some lawmakers have said Gonzales misled them in testimony about another matter -- the administration's warrantless surveillance program -- Snow said Gonzales testified truthfully about that and "tried to be very accurate.
A White House spokeswoman, Dana Perino, accused Democrats of being on a "crusade" to destroy the attorney general.
Meanwhile, an internal Justice Department inquiry is looking into whether anyone involved in past abuses of national security letters or related tools called "exigent circumstances" letters should be held criminally or administratively liable. [*********]
Its Office of Professional Responsibility is reviewing whether lawyers in the FBI's national security law office -- who are responsible for ensuring that agents comply with the law -- failed to perform their job.
© 2007 The Washington Post Company

Posted by Kent Bolton at 10:25 AM | Permalink

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/28/world/asia/28india.html
July 28, 2007
News Analysis
In Its Nuclear Deal With India, Washington Appears to Make More Concessions
By SOMINI SENGUPTA [bush nsc principals] [improving US-India relations] [must always be viewed through prisim of US-Pakistani relations and what’s happening in Pakistan at a given time] [deal seeks to reward India for being a “responsible” nuclear power despite never signing NPT] [gives India waivers] [good reasons have been argued on either side] [it’s a tough call] [gala] [***********] [ditto]
NEW DELHI, July 27 — After a year of negotiations, India and the United States on Friday announced completion of a civilian nuclear accord, which Indian officials hailed as preserving India’s national security interests and as a testament to its emerging strategic importance to the United States.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/28/world/asia/28india.html
July 28, 2007
News Analysis
In Its Nuclear Deal With India, Washington Appears to Make More Concessions
By SOMINI SENGUPTA [bush nsc principals] [improving US-India relations] [must always be viewed through prisim of US-Pakistani relations and what’s happening in Pakistan at a given time] [deal seeks to reward India for being a “responsible” nuclear power despite never signing NPT] [gives India waivers] [good reasons have been argued on either side] [it’s a tough call] [gala] [***********] [ditto]
NEW DELHI, July 27 — After a year of negotiations, India and the United States on Friday announced completion of a civilian nuclear accord, which Indian officials hailed as preserving India’s national security interests and as a testament to its emerging strategic importance to the United States.
The Indian national security adviser, M. K. Narayanan, called it “a touchstone of a transformed bilateral relationship between India and the United States.”
In Washington, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice called the agreement a “historic milestone” that would enhance relations with India.
The agreement, which was forged during five rounds of negotiations, requires India to separate its civilian nuclear power reactors and open them to international inspections.
But in the end it was the United States that appeared to make more concessions. India stuck fast to its demand to be able to reprocess spent fuel from the reactors on the civilian side, which had raised concerns in Washington about opportunities to produce weapons-grade plutonium for India’s military arsenal.
The final agreement will allow India to carry out the reprocessing but requires it to develop a new facility dedicated to that purpose and subject to International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards.
It also allows India to develop “a strategic reserve of nuclear fuel” in case of a disruption of fuel supply, according to the Indian foreign ministry. Under American law, the United States would have to cut fuel supply in the event of another Indian nuclear test; the final agreement does not spell out what would happen in such an eventuality.
“We’ve got a very good deal, which we believe will meet the requirements of both countries,” Mr. Narayanan said at a news conference here Friday evening.
For their part, Bush administration officials largely sidestepped questions about why they decided to carve a large exception to President Bush’s declaration three years ago that no additional countries should be manufacturing nuclear fuel.
They argued that India — one of three countries that have refused to sign the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, along with Israel and Pakistan — has never posed a proliferation risk, and would use its new fuel solely for peaceful purposes, at a safeguarded facility.
But in other cases, most notably that of Iran, the United States has rejected building such facilities, even if international inspectors are resident there. While India has committed to using American-produced fuel for only civilian reactors, outside experts have noted that a result will be to free up other sources of fuel for its weapons.
“At the very least, the Bush administration should not make it easier for New Delhi to resume nuclear testing and to produce fissile material for nuclear weapons,” said Michael Krepon, co-founder of the Washington-based Henry L. Stimson Center.
Some critics of the deal, led by Representative Edward J. Markey of Massachusetts, a Democrat, have vowed to try to defeat it. But it appears unlikely that they will muster the votes, especially in an election year when Indian-Americans are courted by both parties.
The accord allayed the two sticking points that Indian critics of the deal — including, most important, its scientific community — had held up as offending to national sovereignty.
Sitting beside Mr. Narayanan at the news conference was the last holdout on the deal, the Indian Atomic Energy Commission chairman, Anil Kakodkar, who went as far as to call it “a satisfactory thing.”
Mr. Narayanan said Mr. Kakodkar’s blessings would help to blunt political criticism of the deal. Neither the opposition Bharatiya Janata Party nor the government’s leftist allies, who have balked at India’s friendlier relations with the United States, commented Friday night.
The left has said it would make an assessment after reviewing the full text of the agreement, which has not been made public. Government negotiators took pains to point out that India’s fast-breeder reactor would remain outside the safeguards.
The agreement bears on far more than nuclear matters. It potentially smoothes over abiding Indian distrust of American intentions ever since New Delhi conducted its first nuclear test more than 30 years ago. India has been a nuclear renegade ever since. By refusing to sign the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, India has been ineligible to buy nuclear technology, including fuel.
“The deal was always about the relationship,” said C. Raja Mohan, a professor of international relations at Nanyang Technological University in Singapore and a proponent of both deal and relationship. “That was rooted in the idea that India is rising and cooperation with India would be good for the United States.”
Indian analysts argued that the agreement could speed broader strategic cooperation, unlocking the door on nuclear commerce and potentially other defense deals for American firms. In a news release, the U.S.-India Business Council said the expansion of India’s civilian nuclear energy program would generate $150 billion in commercial opportunities over the next 30 years.
“This opens up a huge gamut of possibilities for strategic cooperation, but more importantly, it positions the U.S.-India bilateral relationship on a very, very firm footing,” said Amitabh Mattoo, a former member of the Task Force on Global Strategic Development, which advised the prime minister, Manmohan Singh, on international issues, including India-U.S. relations.
“The United States has taken a view that a democratic, pluralistic, secular growing India is in its national interest and that most of the time there will be a convergence of interests,” he added. “Sometimes there won’t. It’s worth investing in India rather than alienating India.”
Convergence of interests is likely to be tested soon on what to do about Iran. India has pressed ahead on negotiations for a natural gas pipeline from Iran through Pakistan to Iran. The United States has repeatedly hectored India against it.
In an editorial Thursday, The Hindustan Times credited the government for creating what it called an “audacious” accord. “India will be the only country that gets to retain and pursue its nuclear weapons programme while getting the benefits of nuclear collaboration on an equal footing with other countries,” the newspaper wrote.
India will next have to negotiate separate deals with the Nuclear Suppliers Group and the atomic energy agency. Mr. Narayanan told reporters here this evening that Indian negotiators would seek an “unconditional, clean” agreement from the Nuclear Suppliers Group. The United States Congress would then have to render a final vote on the deal.
Indian officials have insisted that civilian nuclear cooperation would have no impact on the balance of power in the region, referring to Pakistan’s concerns about the potential growth of India’s nuclear arsenal.
“We are not using it as an excuse to enhance our strategic fuel capabilities,” Mr. Narayanan told reporters Friday evening.
David E. Sanger contributed reporting from Washington.
Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

Posted by Kent Bolton at 10:23 AM | Permalink

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/27/AR2007072702360.html
U.S. and India Finalize Controversial Nuclear Trade Pact
By Robin Wright and Emily Wax
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, July 28, 2007; A14 [bush nsc principals] [improving US-India relations] [must always be viewed through prisim of US-Pakistani relations and what’s happening in Pakistan at a given time] [deal seeks to reward India for being a “responsible” nuclear power despite never signing NPT] [gives India waivers] [good reasons have been argued on either side] [it’s a tough call] [followup] [gala] [***********]
After two years of controversial negotiations, the United States and India yesterday announced a deal on peaceful nuclear cooperation that allows trade in nuclear reactors, technology and fuel, permits India to reprocess nuclear fuel and opens the way for the United States to become a "reliable" supplier for India's energy program. [******]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/27/AR2007072702360.html
U.S. and India Finalize Controversial Nuclear Trade Pact
By Robin Wright and Emily Wax
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, July 28, 2007; A14 [bush nsc principals] [improving US-India relations] [must always be viewed through prisim of US-Pakistani relations and what’s happening in Pakistan at a given time] [deal seeks to reward India for being a “responsible” nuclear power despite never signing NPT] [gives India waivers] [good reasons have been argued on either side] [it’s a tough call] [followup] [gala] [***********]
After two years of controversial negotiations, the United States and India yesterday announced a deal on peaceful nuclear cooperation that allows trade in nuclear reactors, technology and fuel, permits India to reprocess nuclear fuel and opens the way for the United States to become a "reliable" supplier for India's energy program. [******]
"This is perhaps the single most important initiative that India and the United States have agreed to in the 60 years of our relationship," [*****] [no doubt] [it’s almost the only initiative] said R. Nicholas Burns, undersecretary of state for political affairs, in announcing the deal. It is also a boost to an administration struggling with diplomatic initiatives in the Middle East, Africa, Russia and other parts of the world.
The deal could foster greater strategic cooperation between the two nations and open up markets for U.S. energy and defense industries. The so-called 123 agreement still faces significant hurdles, however, notably in Congress, which must approve the accord. Critics say the deal sets a bad example because India will win access to U.S. technology without complying with the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which allows cooperation on nuclear energy only when countries pledge not to develop nuclear weapons.
"This deal is a complete capitulation on existing U.S. laws . . ." said Joseph Cirincione, a nonproliferation expert with the Center for American Progress. "It helps India reprocess fuel from a reactor to produce plutonium, which could be used in bombs, and it dilutes strict conditions that Congress had placed on aid should India test a nuclear weapon again. It's not exactly a green light for expanding India's nuclear weapons program, but it's at least a yellow." [**************]
The deal includes cooperation on civil nuclear research and development, allows India to reprocess nuclear fuel at a new national facility that will operate under International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) safeguards and approves India's right to create a strategic fuel reserve.
"Civil nuclear cooperation between the United States and India will offer enormous strategic and economic benefits to both countries, including enhanced energy security, a more environmentally friendly energy source, greater economic opportunities and more robust nonproliferation efforts," Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Indian External Affairs Minister Shri Pranab Mukherjee said in a statement.
President Bush said the deal reflects the deepening partnership with India and pledged to work with Congress on ratification.
Daryl G. Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association, refuted U.S. claims that the deal will bring India into the nuclear mainstream. "We're giving India rights and privileges not afforded other nonnuclear states, and we're not holding India to the same standards expected of a nuclear weapons state," he said.
A senior administration official familiar with negotiations conceded that the United States cannot guarantee that India will refrain from testing a nuclear weapon but said that New Delhi would pay a very high price if it did. "The whole system is stacked against testing. The American president would have the right to ask for return of any technology. That's a huge penalty to pay. India would also have to think about the reaction from the Europeans and other suppliers of nuclear technology."
Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) charged that the White House has abandoned its own long-standing position. "In the past, the president has said, correctly, that reprocessing and enrichment are not necessary for the peaceful use of nuclear energy. But now he has apparently reversed course and decided to allow India to reprocess all U.S.-origin fuel." Markey, co-chairman of the House's Bipartisan Task Force on Nonproliferation, was one of 23 members of the House who wrote the White House Wednesday warning that any deal with India could not circumvent U.S. laws.
Rep. Howard L. Berman (D-Calif.), a senior member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said he and several lawmakers were "disturbed" by the deal. "We have said, 'You're not going to get anything if you resume nuclear testing.' But now we're making an agreement that India will get a fuel supply even if it resumes testing." [******]
In New Delhi, government officials have consistently said that they will not knuckle under to U.S. efforts to curtail India's nuclear arsenal. Nearly every week, newspapers run fiery editorials about the country's need to defend its national interests, often pointing toward neighboring Pakistan, also a nuclear power.
India's tough stance during negotiations reflects its growing confidence in world affairs, a contrast from the days it was among the world's poorest and most politically marginalized countries. [*******]"Let India keep its bombs," newspaper headlines have declared.
The nuclear deal was approved by India's cabinet Wednesday, but the country's biggest political parties have refused to endorse the agreement in parliament until they read the fine print, which so far has not been publicly disclosed.
"We assure everyone there is nothing to stop India from carrying out further nuclear tests," M.K. Narayanan, India's national security adviser, said on Indian television. "Our right to test did not come into this at all. And that's key."
The nuclear deal is being widely portrayed on the subcontinent as yet another step in warming relations between the United States and India, once a staunch ally of Russia during the last decades of the Cold War and an economic backwater. [******]Before the pact can come to a vote in Congress, however, India must reach agreement with the IAEA on inspections and safeguards and win approval from the 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group. [************]
Wax reported from New Delhi.
© 2007 The Washington Post Company

Posted by Kent Bolton at 10:22 AM | Permalink

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/27/AR2007072702454.html
U.S. Plans New Arms Sales to Gulf Allies
$20 Billion Deal Includes Weapons For Saudi Arabia
By Robin Wright
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, July 28, 2007; A01 [bush nsc principals] [the relationship between the GOP under Bushes and the Saudis] [in recent days newspaper stories on deteriorating US-Saudi relations] [Saudis acquiescing at scores of Saudis heading to –iraq monthly] [Saudis fostering a new unified front between Fatah and Hamas, constrary to the Quartet and others] [Saudis supporting Sunni Iraqis and think al-Maliki is a dead letter] [how to smooth over relations?] [send them large arms shipments] [***********]
The Bush administration will announce next week a series of arms deals worth at least $20 billion to Saudi Arabia and five other oil-rich Persian Gulf states as well as new 10-year military aid packages to Israel and Egypt, a move to shore up allies in the Middle East and counter Iran's rising influence, U.S. officials said yesterday.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/27/AR2007072702454.html
U.S. Plans New Arms Sales to Gulf Allies
$20 Billion Deal Includes Weapons For Saudi Arabia
By Robin Wright
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, July 28, 2007; A01 [bush nsc principals] [the relationship between the GOP under Bushes and the Saudis] [in recent days newspaper stories on deteriorating US-Saudi relations] [Saudis acquiescing at scores of Saudis heading to –iraq monthly] [Saudis fostering a new unified front between Fatah and Hamas, constrary to the Quartet and others] [Saudis supporting Sunni Iraqis and think al-Maliki is a dead letter] [how to smooth over relations?] [send them large arms shipments] [***********]
The Bush administration will announce next week a series of arms deals worth at least $20 billion to Saudi Arabia and five other oil-rich Persian Gulf states as well as new 10-year military aid packages to Israel and Egypt, a move to shore up allies in the Middle East and counter Iran's rising influence, U.S. officials said yesterday.
The arms deals, which include the sales of a variety of sophisticated weaponry, would be the largest negotiated by this administration. The military assistance agreements would provide $30 billion in new U.S. aid to Israel and $13 billion to Egypt over 10 years, the officials said. Both figures represent significant increases in military support.
U.S. officials said the arms sales to Saudi Arabia are expected to include air-to-air missiles as well as Joint Direct Attack Munitions, which turn standard bombs into "smart" precision-guided bombs. Most, but not all, of the arms sales to the six Gulf Cooperation Council countries -- Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain and Oman -- will be defensive, the officials said.
U.S. officials said the common goal of the military aid packages and arms sales is to strengthen pro-Western countries against Iran at a time when the hard-line regime seeks to extend its power in the region.
"This is a big development, because it's part of a larger regional strategy and the maintenance of a strong U.S. presence in the region. We're paying attention to the needs of our allies and what everyone in the region believes is a flexing of muscles by a more aggressive Iran. One way to deal with that is to make our allies and friends strong," said a senior administration official involved in the negotiations.
The arms deals have quietly been under discussion for months despite U.S. disappointment over Saudi Arabia's failure to support the Iraqi government and to bring that country's Sunni Muslims into the reconciliation process. [hence the strategic leaks recently of Saudis mischief] [***********]
The administration's plans will be announced Monday in advance of trips next week to the Middle East by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, and are expected to be on their agenda in Egypt and Saudi Arabia. The administration has a notional list of arms to sell to the Gulf states, but there are no final agreements on quantities and specific models, U.S. officials said.
State Department and Pentagon officials started briefing key members of Congress about their intentions over the past week, U.S. officials said. The initial reception has been positive, said officials involved in those briefings. They acknowledged, however, that some parts of the deal are supported more than others. Arms sales to Gulf countries have often been controversial.
The administration hopes to provide a full rundown this fall for congressional approval.
"We want to convince Congress to continue our tradition of military sales to all six" states, the senior administration official said. "We've been helping Gulf Arabs for years, and that needs to continue."
Sunni regimes in the Gulf region have felt particularly vulnerable since the election of a pro-Iranian Shiite government in neighboring Iraq last year. "There's a sense here and in the region of the need to build up defenses against Iranian encroachment," said a U.S. official familiar with the deals.
The aid packages to Israel and Egypt are further along. A U.S.-Israel agreement, to replace a 10-year arrangement that expires this year, has been under discussion since February, U.S. officials said. The new U.S. package will include strictly military aid and would expand the U.S. contribution 25 percent over the current $2.4 billion per year; economic assistance has been discontinued now that Israel is considered a developed economy, U.S. officials said.
President Bush said last month, after meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, that he was strongly committed to a new 10-year agreement that would increase U.S. assistance "to meet the new threats and challenges [Israel] faces." Washington has long promised to help Israel sustain a so-called "qualitative military edge" over other major powers in the region.
Rice is expected to announce Monday that, after her Middle East trip, Undersecretary of State R. Nicholas Burns will finalize the agreements with Israel and Egypt.
Research editor Alice Crites contributed to this report.
© 2007 The Washington Post Company

Posted by Kent Bolton at 10:21 AM | Permalink

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/28/washington/28weapons.html
July 28, 2007
U.S. Set to Offer Huge Arms Deal to Saudi Arabia
By DAVID S. CLOUD [bush nsc principals] [the relationship between the GOP under Bushes and the Saudis] [in recent days newspaper stories on deteriorating US-Saudi relations] [Saudis acquiescing at scores of Saudis heading to –iraq monthly] [Saudis fostering a new unified front between Fatah and Hamas, constrary to the Quartet and others] [Saudis supporting Sunni Iraqis and think al-Maliki is a dead letter] [how to smooth over relations?] [send them large arms shipments] [***********]
WASHINGTON, July 27 — The Bush administration is preparing to ask Congress to approve an arms sale package for Saudi Arabia and its neighbors that is expected to eventually total $20 billion at a time when some United States officials contend that the Saudis are playing a counterproductive role in Iraq. [now one can see why the leaks have led to recent revealations] [efforts to pre-empt this deal that must have been in pipeline for many months] [*********]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/28/washington/28weapons.html
July 28, 2007
U.S. Set to Offer Huge Arms Deal to Saudi Arabia
By DAVID S. CLOUD [bush nsc principals] [the relationship between the GOP under Bushes and the Saudis] [in recent days newspaper stories on deteriorating US-Saudi relations] [Saudis acquiescing at scores of Saudis heading to –iraq monthly] [Saudis fostering a new unified front between Fatah and Hamas, constrary to the Quartet and others] [Saudis supporting Sunni Iraqis and think al-Maliki is a dead letter] [how to smooth over relations?] [send them large arms shipments] [***********]
WASHINGTON, July 27 — The Bush administration is preparing to ask Congress to approve an arms sale package for Saudi Arabia and its neighbors that is expected to eventually total $20 billion at a time when some United States officials contend that the Saudis are playing a counterproductive role in Iraq. [now one can see why the leaks have led to recent revealations] [efforts to pre-empt this deal that must have been in pipeline for many months] [*********]
The proposed package of advanced weaponry for Saudi Arabia, which includes advanced satellite-guided bombs, upgrades to its fighters and new naval vessels, has made Israel and some of its supporters in Congress nervous. Senior officials who described the package on Friday said they believed that the administration had resolved those concerns, in part by promising Israel $30.4 billion in military aid over the next decade, a significant increase over what Israel has received in the past 10 years. [*********]
But administration officials remained concerned that the size of the package and the advanced weaponry it contains, as well as broader concerns about Saudi Arabia’s role in Iraq, could prompt Saudi critics in Congress to oppose the package when Congress is formally notified about the deal this fall.
In talks about the package, the administration has not sought specific assurances from Saudi Arabia that it would be more supportive of the American effort in Iraq as a condition of receiving the arms package, the officials said.
The officials said the plan to bolster the militaries of Persian Gulf countries is part of an American strategy to contain the growing power of Iran in the region and to demonstrate that, no matter what happens in Iraq, Washington remains committed to its longtime Arab allies. [********]Officials from the State Department and the Pentagon agreed to outline the terms of the deal after some details emerged from closed briefings this week on Capitol Hill.
The officials said Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, who are to make a joint visit to Saudi Arabia next week, still intended to use the trip to press the Saudis to do more to help Iraq’s Shiite-dominated government. [******]
“The role of the Sunni Arab neighbors is to send a positive, affirmative message to moderates in Iraq in government that the neighbors are with you,” a senior State Department official told reporters in a conference call on Friday. More specifically, the official said, the United States wants the gulf states to make clear to Sunnis engaged in violence in Iraq that such actions are “killing your future.”
In addition to promising an increase in American military aid to Israel, the Pentagon is seeking to ease Israel’s concerns over the proposed weapons sales to Saudi Arabia by asking the Saudis to accept restrictions on the range, size and location of the satellite-guided bombs, including a commitment not to store the weapons at air bases close to Israeli territory, the officials said.
The package and the possible steps to allay Israel’s concerns were described to Congress this week, in an effort by the administration to test the reaction on Capitol Hill before entering into final negotiations on the package with Saudi officials. The Saudis had requested that Congress be told about the planned sale, the officials said, in an effort to avoid the kind of bruising fight on Capitol Hill that occurred in the 1980s over proposed arms sales to the kingdom. [*********]
In his visit with King Abdullah and other Saudi officials next week, Mr. Gates plans to describe “what the administration is willing to go forward with” in the arms package and “what we would recommend to the Hill and others,” according to a senior Pentagon official, who conducted a background briefing on the upcoming trip with reporters on Friday.
The official added that Mr. Gates would also reassure the Saudis that “regardless of what happens in the near term in Iraq that our commitment in the region remains firm, remains steadfast and that, in fact, we are looking to enhance and develop it.” [*******]
The $20 billion price tag on the package is more than double what officials originally estimated when details became public this spring. Even the higher figure is a rough estimate that could fluctuate depending on the final package, which would be carried out over a number of years, officials said.
Worried about the impression that the United States was starting an arms race in the region, State and Defense Department officials stressed that the arms deal was being proposed largely in response to improvements in Iran’s military capabilities and to counter the threat posed by its nuclear program, which the Bush administration contends is aimed at building nuclear weapons. [**********]
Along with Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates are likely to receive equipment and weaponry [*****]from the arms sales under consideration, officials said. In general, the United States is interested in upgrading the countries’ air and missile defense systems, improving their navies and making modest improvements in their air forces, administration officials said, though not all the packages would be the same.
Ms. Rice is expected to announce Monday that the administration will open formal discussions with each country about the proposed packages, in hopes of reaching agreements by the fall.
Along with the announcement of formal talks with Persian Gulf allies on the arms package, Ms. Rice is planning to outline the new agreement to provide military aid to Israel, as well as a similar accord with Egypt.
The $30.4 billion being promised to Israel is $9.1 billion more than Israel has received over the past decade, an increase of nearly 43 percent.
A senior administration official said the sizable increase was a result of Israel’s need to replace equipment expended in its war against Hezbollah in Lebanon last summer, as well as to maintain its advantage in advanced weaponry as other countries in the region modernize their forces. [***********]
In defending the proposed sale to Saudi Arabia and other gulf states, the officials noted that the Saudis and several of the other countries were in talks with suppliers other than the United States. If the packages offered to them by the United States are blocked or come with too many conditions, the officials said, the Persian Gulf countries could turn elsewhere for similar equipment, reducing American influence in the region.
The United States has made few, if any, sales of satellite-guided munitions to Arab countries in the past, though Israel has received them since the mid-1990s as part of a United States policy of ensuring that Israel has a military edge over its regional rivals.
Israeli officials have made specific requests aimed at eliminating concerns that satellite-guided bombs sold to the Saudis could be used against its territory, administration officials said.
Their major concern is not a full-scale Saudi attack, but the possibility that a rogue pilot armed with one of the bombs could attack on his own or that the Saudi government could one day be overthrown and the weapons could fall into the hands of a more radical regime, [******]officials said.
Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

Posted by Kent Bolton at 10:20 AM | Permalink

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/27/AR2007072702221.html
Agency Seeks Greater Surveillance Power Overseas
By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, July 28, 2007; A04 [bush administration] [intelligence community] [ODNI-DNI] [director McConnel asking for broader power] [may be a indicator that he’s doing what Negroponte unwilling to take heat for doing] [namely, trying to take advantage of situation to build powerful bureaucracy at dod’s expense—at least largely at dod’s expense] [followup] [use nsc] [use psci 355; 455] [**]
Citing a "period of heightened threat" [*****]to the U.S. homeland, Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell asked Congress to "act immediately" to make changes in current law to permit the interception of messages between terrorist targets overseas, which he said now requires burdensome court orders. [************]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/27/AR2007072702221.html
Agency Seeks Greater Surveillance Power Overseas
By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, July 28, 2007; A04 [bush administration] [intelligence community] [ODNI-DNI] [director McConnel asking for broader power] [may be a indicator that he’s doing what Negroponte unwilling to take heat for doing] [namely, trying to take advantage of situation to build powerful bureaucracy at dod’s expense—at least largely at dod’s expense] [followup] [use nsc] [use psci 355; 455] [**]
Citing a "period of heightened threat" [*****]to the U.S. homeland, Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell asked Congress to "act immediately" to make changes in current law to permit the interception of messages between terrorist targets overseas, which he said now requires burdensome court orders. [************]
In a July 25 letter made public yesterday, McConnell told the chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Rep. Silvestre Reyes (D-Tex.), that he hopes Congress "will be able to act immediately . . . to provide the legislative changes needed to protect the nation in this period of heightened threat." [***********] [I take this quite seriously] [critics will say it’s the Bush administration attempting to gin up hysteria] [clearly, they take every opportunity] [however, mcconnel is a professional whose time does not conincide with Bush] [he’ll have to answer to the next president] [*********]
At issue is a package of changes that the Bush administration wants in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to facilitate the continuation of its terrorist surveillance program. Congress has delayed amending the program pending further study.
Stepping up the pressure on lawmakers after the recently released terrorist threat assessment, McConnell said that "clarifications are urgently needed" in the law to enable the use of "our capabilities to collect foreign intelligence about foreign targets overseas without requirements imposed by an out-of-date FISA statute." [and everyone more or less knows that he’s essentially correct] [debate about what needs to be changed but little debate that FISA is antiquated] [*******]
He added, "As the head of our nation's intelligence community, I am obligated to provide warning of threats of terrorist activity, and I have deep concern about the current threat situation." [wow] [this is serious] [**********]
The underlying question hinges on modern technology: When communications between one foreign-located source and another foreign-located source travel through a U.S.-located terminal or switch, can they be intercepted without a warrant?
The matter came up briefly Wednesday at a House hearing on the recent National Intelligence Estimate on the al-Qaeda threat to the United States. Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-Mich.), the ranking Republican on the intelligence panel, referred to "information that we're trying to get when foreign terrorists are communicating in foreign locations."
Hoekstra said: "We have a known intelligence problem. We face a heightened terrorist risk. We have a simple fix to address one of the major FISA problems." He called on the Democrats to resolve the issue before the summer recess.
Rep. John F. Tierney (D-Mass.), another committee member, responded that the intelligence panel had held open and closed hearings. He said he believes that the act "already allows for foreign-to-foreign communications to be intercepted" but that the administration "has chosen to say that it wants a warrant nonetheless."
At the hearing, Reyes said that "there are some options we are looking at" to give McConnell what he deems necessary. "We're working very quickly and very importantly in a structured way to get to that," [********]Reyes said.
© 2007 The Washington Post Company

Posted by Kent Bolton at 10:19 AM | Permalink

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/26/AR2007072601262.html
Two Votes Over Tokyo
By Christopher Griffin
Special to Washingtonpost.com
Saturday, July 28, 2007; 12:00 AM [oped] [japan] [upcoming events of significance] [still revising WW II history] [***********]
In the next few days, two votes on two continents could bring a wave of change to Japan. Tomorrow in Tokyo an upper-house election of the Japanese Diet will decide the fate of Prime Minister Shinzo Abe; too great a loss could topple his cabinet. And next week in Washington, the U.S. House of Representatives will vote on Resolution 121, which calls for the Japanese government to accept full responsibility and apologize for the abuse of sex slaves during World War II.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/26/AR2007072601262.html
Two Votes Over Tokyo
By Christopher Griffin
Special to Washingtonpost.com
Saturday, July 28, 2007; 12:00 AM [oped] [japan] [upcoming events of significance] [still revising WW II history] [***********]
In the next few days, two votes on two continents could bring a wave of change to Japan. Tomorrow in Tokyo an upper-house election of the Japanese Diet will decide the fate of Prime Minister Shinzo Abe; too great a loss could topple his cabinet. And next week in Washington, the U.S. House of Representatives will vote on Resolution 121, which calls for the Japanese government to accept full responsibility and apologize for the abuse of sex slaves during World War II.
The outcome of Sunday's election is not much in doubt: Abe and his Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) are set to take a thumping. Abe is widely viewed in Japan as uninterested in managing his government, focusing instead on Japan's aspirations to become a "beautiful country." [*****]But Abe's grandiose rhetoric only confuses the public, and a series of scandals culminating in the suicide of a cabinet minister have not helped his popularity.
Even a significant defeat on Sunday, however, may not lead to any major change -- because this election will not affect the balance in the all-important lower house. Upper-house elections provide the electorate with a convenient way to chastise the ruling party without overthrowing it. In such a case, the party would maintain control even if it changes its leadership.
The main question about Sunday's election is whether Abe will be forced to resign as prime minister. Such an outcome is plausible, if unlikely, and could stall recent efforts at bilateral cooperation with the United States on such issues as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Abe has made these issues central to his agenda as prime minister, and no potential successor is as committed to so close a relationship with Washington.
A vote against the LDP, however, is not a vote against the U.S.-Japan alliance. While many within the opposition party leadership may be skeptical of Abe's ambitions, they have chosen to focus the their campaign on such social issues as pension reform. So a defeat for Abe does not necessarily mean a repudiation of his agenda of constitutional reform and a stronger defense. And while Abe has made a stronger alliance a priority, both parties seek a healthy relationship with the United States.
While Tokyo prepares for its election, Japanese leaders will also be watching the upcoming vote on H.R. 121, a "sense of Congress" resolution calling on Japan to apologize for its wartime system of sexual slavery. [*****]As a sentiment, the resolution is laudable -- Japan's wartime activities were in fact atrocious, and Japan's inability to address such historical legacies is a genuine liability for the alliance. As politics, however, the resolution is less than ideal; the timing of its passage has already raised concerns in Tokyo as to the long-term health of bilateral relations.
First introduced by Rep. Mike Honda (D-CA), the resolution was the topic of hearings on Feb. 15, two days after a an agreement among negotiatiors on the North Korean issue pushed aside Japan's concerns about some two dozen Japanese who were abducted by North Korean agents in the 1970s and 1980s. Claiming that the agreement leaves the lives of Japanese citizens in peril, Tokyo has shown little patience for lectures on its own human rights record. Japan's ambassador in Washington has warned that passage of the resolution would have "lasting and harmful effects" on the relationship.
The resolution shows that history remains relevant to diplomacy. Getting history right will also be a necessary step if Japan is to play a productive role in Asia. From the Korean Peninsula to Southeast Asia, Japan faces obstacles incurred by its failure to resolve historical disputes, allowing countries such as China to use history as a tool for rallying regional opposition to Tokyo.
Washington and Tokyo face a full agenda. Such issues as the resolution and North Korea are increasingly characterized by contention rather than coordination, and these quarrels hamper progress on such vital issues as missile defense and regional economic cooperation. As the two sides look beyond the current contretemps, Congress can show that it takes the relationship with Japan seriously by working to strengthen the partnership between two of the world's most important democracies.
Christopher Griffin is a research fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.
© 2007 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive

Posted by Kent Bolton at 10:18 AM | Permalink

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/27/AR2007072701713.html
What Use Were All The Wars?
By Mona Eltahawy
Saturday, July 28, 2007; A19 [oped] [middle east and war in modern times] [since 1948] [********]
VELEN, Germany -- If turning 40 isn't challenging enough, try preparing for this milestone when you're as old as one of the worst defeats Arab armies ever suffered at Israeli hands. Wars mark time and generations in the Middle East, so it's difficult not to take the humiliation personally. [********]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/27/AR2007072701713.html
What Use Were All The Wars?
By Mona Eltahawy
Saturday, July 28, 2007; A19 [oped] [middle east and war in modern times] [since 1948] [********]
VELEN, Germany -- If turning 40 isn't challenging enough, try preparing for this milestone when you're as old as one of the worst defeats Arab armies ever suffered at Israeli hands. Wars mark time and generations in the Middle East, so it's difficult not to take the humiliation personally. [********]
My birth at the end of July 1967 makes me a child of the naksa, or setback, [*****]as the Arab defeat during the June 1967 war is euphemistically known in Arabic. There was no Summer of Love for us in 1967. We Children of the Naksa were born not only on the cusp of loss but also of the kind of disillusionment that whets the appetite of religious zealots. [********]
My parents' generation grew up high on the Arab nationalism that Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser brandished in the 1950s. By 1967, humiliation was decisively stepping into pride's large, empty shoes.
As the region marks the 40th anniversary of the Arab-Israeli war, it's been a relief to be watching from another country, one where the stain of wars and defeat have marked several generations. But no relief or distance can silence this question: Is this what we fought all those wars with Israel for? [*********]
My country, Egypt, fought four wars against Israel between 1948, when the Jewish state was created, and 1979, when Egypt became the first Arab country to sign a peace treaty with Israel. Two of my uncles were rocket engineers during the 1973 war, the last conflict between the two countries.
Watching the Palestinians' whiplash descent into civil war in Gaza this summer, it is difficult not to question the past. Israel's occupation of Palestinian land has caused no end of misery, poverty and frustration for the Palestinians. It has even scarred the Israeli people's conscience. But occupation doesn't explain the reckless and often corrupt leadership that seems to be the curse of the Palestinians. [*************]
You might think society would have evolved differently in the two countries that have peace treaties with Israel -- Egypt and Jordan -- or that their treaties have rendered conflict out of the question. Think again.
Has Egypt or Jordan logged better records on human rights or political freedoms because of those treaties? Has development or progress taken the place of war? Ask the thousands of political prisoners and the silenced dissidents of both countries.
Egypt has been at peace with Israel for 28 years. For the past 25 years, we have had the same president, who has never visited Israel -- just the tip of the iceberg known as the "cold peace" between the two countries, which Egyptian officials usually blame on negative public opinion of Israel's occupation of Palestinian land. [*******]
We have subsumed so much into the Palestinian cause, channeling efforts that should have gone into development into a near obsession with Palestine, for little apparent good. Egypt boasts that it can talk to both the Israelis and the Palestinians, but even that has done little for its influence in halting intra-Palestinian fighting in Gaza. [******]
I visited Israel for the first time in September 1997. Soon after, I moved to Jerusalem as a correspondent for Reuters. I wanted to see things for myself and not have to rely on the "official" narrative given by our media. [********]
To this day I remain under the suspicion of my country's security services. When I returned to Egypt after my year in Israel, a state security officer -- whose nom de guerre was Omar Sharif -- held up a thick file that he said was full of orders to have me followed and my phone tapped.
My generation, sadly, might be lost to defeat and humiliation. If so, the best gift we can offer those coming behind us is clear advice: Don't walk in our footsteps, and know that the best way you can help Palestinians is to help your own countries. [****]
The Arab leaders of the 1967 era are gone, replaced in Jordan and Syria by their sons; preparations for a similar handover are underway in Egypt. The Palestinians are led by the dangerously impotent combination of a weak president and a prime minister who is a religious zealot. [*************]
And still there is no Palestine.
Why has time stood still for the Arab world? The Syrian town of Quneitra is exactly as it was when it was destroyed after the 1967 war with Israel, untouched so that we never forget. Yet how many German cities, almost leveled during World War II, have been rebuilt and are thriving again? [*************]
The 1967 war was one of the many conflicts with Israel that bookend our ages. Looking around the Arab world today, we must ask: What were they all for? It's time to move on. [*********]
Mona Eltahawyis an Egyptian commentator. Her e-mail address isinfo@monaeltahawy.com.
© 2007 The Washington Post Company

Posted by Kent Bolton at 10:17 AM | Permalink

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/27/AR2007072701947.html
Kosovo Redux
Independence for the Serbian province is inevitable, but Russia hopes to make it a crisis for the West.
Saturday, July 28, 2007; A18 [editorial] [kosovo’s independence] [stalled in UN where Russians are resisiting—protecting their serb brethren who comprise 15% or fewer of Kosovars] [*******]
A YEAR AGO this week we published an editorial noting that most people inside and outside of Serbia expected the province of Kosovo -- where the United States led a military intervention eight years ago -- to become an independent state, possibly by the end of 2006. Instead, this week, the United States, four of its NATO allies and Russia met in Vienna to launch a new round of negotiations to determine Kosovo's future -- that is, the same question whose answer was generally acknowledged a year ago. Why the potentially dangerous paralysis over the most volatile piece of Europe? The cause is partly the familiar intransigence of Serbian politicians, who decline to publicly accept a partition that they -- and most of their voters -- know is inevitable.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/27/AR2007072701947.html
Kosovo Redux
Independence for the Serbian province is inevitable, but Russia hopes to make it a crisis for the West.
Saturday, July 28, 2007; A18 [editorial] [kosovo’s independence] [stalled in UN where Russians are resisiting—protecting their serb brethren who comprise 15% or fewer of Kosovars] [*******]
A YEAR AGO this week we published an editorial noting that most people inside and outside of Serbia expected the province of Kosovo -- where the United States led a military intervention eight years ago -- to become an independent state, possibly by the end of 2006. Instead, this week, the United States, four of its NATO allies and Russia met in Vienna to launch a new round of negotiations to determine Kosovo's future -- that is, the same question whose answer was generally acknowledged a year ago. Why the potentially dangerous paralysis over the most volatile piece of Europe? The cause is partly the familiar intransigence of Serbian politicians, who decline to publicly accept a partition that they -- and most of their voters -- know is inevitable.
The main cause of the delay, however, is Russian President Vladimir Putin, who has made Kosovo part of his aggressive campaign to reassert Russia's clout in Europe and portray his regime as a counter to the United States. [*****]Mr. Putin's ambassador at the United Nations last week made clear that he would veto a resolution that would have implemented a U.N. mediator's plan to put Kosovo on a path to independence, with oversight by the European Union and with elaborate guarantees for the 10 percent of its population that is Serb. [only 10%] [******]
Russia's public position is that it will oppose any solution for Kosovo that is not accepted by Serbia. This cynical stance has the aim of locking Serbia's leaders into their intransigence, isolating the Balkan country from the European Union -- which has offered it the prospect of membership -- and making the former heart of Communist Yugoslavia dependent on Moscow. Mr. Putin also hopes to split the European Union, which is divided about what to do about Kosovo in the absence of a U.N. resolution, and to prove that he can thwart the United States, which has been the principal defender of Kosovo's Muslim and ethnic Albanian majority.
To its credit, the Bush administration has refused to be cowed by the Russian tactics. Instead, officials have made clear that the new negotiations will be limited to 120 days and that regardless of their result the United States will seek recognition of an independent Kosovo. This will require not suasion over Mr. Putin but careful diplomacy with European governments, which must be persuaded to recognize Kosovo without a U.N. resolution. Britain, France and probably Germany can be counted on; the harder work lies with such nations as Cyprus, Greece, Spain, Romania and Slovakia, some of which worry about possible separatist claims in their own countries.
The consequences of a Western failure to recognize an independent Kosovo this year could be severe. Violence could easily erupt in the tense province, as it has several times since 1999. And Mr. Putin could conclude that belligerent obstructionism is a winning strategy for Russia, [******]in Europe and elsewhere. Though besieged with other foreign policy problems, the Bush administration needs to invest in the tough diplomacy needed to ensure that those outcomes are avoided.
© 2007 The Washington Post Company

Posted by Kent Bolton at 10:16 AM | Permalink

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/28/world/europe/28briefs-sub.html
July 28, 2007
World Briefing | Europe
Russia: Blast on Nuclear Sub; No Leak
By ANDREW E. KRAMER [Russia] [former USSR] [Russia is currently awash in petro dollars] [not merely its “Near Abroad” but traditional Cold War issues] [missile defense in Poland and Czech Republic] [Putin’s image as traditional strong Russian leader, albeit undemocratic] [normative controls in former Marxist state] [smarting over the history of the Cold War’s conclusion] [use psci 350] [use ir text] [Russia ethos] [**********]
A Russian nuclear submarine was damaged from an explosion caused by pressurized air while undergoing repairs at the Severodvinsk shipyard on the White Sea, [*****]the Russian news media reported. The authorities termed the accident minor and said no radiation had leaked. Russia has a history of accidents involving its nuclear submarine fleet, including an explosion onboard the Kursk in 2000 [*****]that sank the ship and killed 118 sailors. [expect horrors to trickle out over next weeks and months] [*****]
Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/28/world/europe/28briefs-sub.html
July 28, 2007
World Briefing | Europe
Russia: Blast on Nuclear Sub; No Leak
By ANDREW E. KRAMER [Russia] [former USSR] [Russia is currently awash in petro dollars] [not merely its “Near Abroad” but traditional Cold War issues] [missile defense in Poland and Czech Republic] [Putin’s image as traditional strong Russian leader, albeit undemocratic] [normative controls in former Marxist state] [smarting over the history of the Cold War’s conclusion] [use psci 350] [use ir text] [Russia ethos] [**********]
A Russian nuclear submarine was damaged from an explosion caused by pressurized air while undergoing repairs at the Severodvinsk shipyard on the White Sea, [*****]the Russian news media reported. The authorities termed the accident minor and said no radiation had leaked. Russia has a history of accidents involving its nuclear submarine fleet, including an explosion onboard the Kursk in 2000 [*****]that sank the ship and killed 118 sailors. [expect horrors to trickle out over next weeks and months] [*****]
Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

Posted by Kent Bolton at 10:15 AM | Permalink

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/27/AR2007072702405.html
WORLD IN BRIEF
Saturday, July 28, 2007; A20
Gorbachev Says U.S. to Blame For World's Biggest Problems
[Russia] [former USSR] [Russia is currently awash in petro dollars] [not merely its “Near Abroad” but traditional Cold War issues] [missile defense in Poland and Czech Republic] [Putin’s image as traditional strong Russian leader, albeit undemocratic] [normative controls in former Marxist state] [smarting over the history of the Cold War’s conclusion] [use psci 350] [use ir text] [Russia ethos] [**********]
MOSCOW -- Former president Mikhail Gorbachev said Friday that the fall of the Soviet Union, which he helped bring about, ushered in an era of U.S. imperialism responsible for many of the world's gravest problems.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/27/AR2007072702405.html
WORLD IN BRIEF
Saturday, July 28, 2007; A20
Gorbachev Says U.S. to Blame For World's Biggest Problems
[Russia] [former USSR] [Russia is currently awash in petro dollars] [not merely its “Near Abroad” but traditional Cold War issues] [missile defense in Poland and Czech Republic] [Putin’s image as traditional strong Russian leader, albeit undemocratic] [normative controls in former Marxist state] [smarting over the history of the Cold War’s conclusion] [use psci 350] [use ir text] [Russia ethos] [**********]
MOSCOW -- Former president Mikhail Gorbachev said Friday that the fall of the Soviet Union, which he helped bring about, ushered in an era of U.S. imperialism responsible for many of the world's gravest problems.
Gorbachev is lauded in the West for introducing democratic reforms but is widely despised in Russia for paving the way to the economic free-for-all of the 1990s, which brought fabulous wealth for a well-connected few while plunging much of the country into poverty.
He has since became a supporter of President Vladimir Putin's assertive foreign policy and resistance to American power, but his criticism of the United States on Friday was especially harsh.
"The Americans want so much to be the winners. The fact that they are sick with this illness, this winner's complex, is the main reason why everything in the world is so confused and so complicated," he said at a packed news conference.
EUROPE
• SARAJEVO, Bosnia-- Forensic experts exhumed 131 bodies of victims of the 1995 Srebrenica massacre found in a mass grave in eastern Bosnia, officials said.
Murat Hurtic, who led the forensic team, said the victims were Muslims killed after Bosnian Serb troops overran the eastern town of Srebrenica in 1995. The systematic execution of as many as 8,000 men was the worst massacre in Europe since World War II.
• VIENNA -- Kazakhstan and Georgia are among countries imposing excessive restrictions on how people use the Internet, according to a report from the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, which warns that such regulations are chilling freedom of expression.
THE MIDDLE EAST
• RAMALLAH, West Bank -- The government of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas has dropped the phrase "armed resistance" from its platform, a minister said, in a further break from Hamas Islamic extremists in control of Gaza.
ASIA AND THE PACIFIC
• BRISBANE, Australia -- An Indian doctor was freed after Australia's chief prosecutor said a charge linking him to failed bombings in Britain was a mistake.
Mohammed Haneef, 27, was released from prison in Brisbane more than three weeks after he was arrested at an airport as he was about to fly to India. He had been charged with recklessly supporting terrorism by providing a relative in Britain with his cellphone SIM card.
• GAUHATI, India -- Bhutan's prime minister and six members of his cabinet have resigned to make way for next year's first parliamentary elections in the Buddhist kingdom and its transition to democracy, the official news media said.
AFRICA
• MOGADISHU, Somalia -- Two separate explosions killed at least five civilians in the Somali capital, witnesses said, where the government is struggling to contain a lethal insurgency. Mogadishu has seen little peace since the Council of Islamic Courts was driven out in December by Ethiopian troops supporting the country's fragile government.
-- From News Services
© 2007 The Washington Post Company

Posted by Kent Bolton at 10:14 AM | Permalink

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/28/world/europe/28briefs-gorbachev.html
July 28, 2007
World Briefing | Europe
Russia: Gorbachev Faults U.S. ‘Winner Complex’
By ANDREW E. KRAMER [Russia] [former USSR] [Russia is currently awash in petro dollars] [not merely its “Near Abroad” but traditional Cold War issues] [missile defense in Poland and Czech Republic] [Putin’s image as traditional strong Russian leader, albeit undemocratic] [normative controls in former Marxist state] [smarting over the history of the Cold War’s conclusion] [use psci 350] [use ir text] [Russia ethos] [**********]
Mikhail S. Gorbachev, the last Soviet leader, accused the United States of having a “winner complex” after the end of the cold war, which, he said, led to recklessness in international relations, the Interfax news agency reported. “The U.S. is always anxious to win,” Mr. Gorbachev told a news conference in Moscow. “The fact that they suffer this disorder, the winner complex, is the main reason why things are so complicated in the world.” He criticized the “current U.S. administration” for trying to build a new empire in the world and said other countries would not accept that arrangement. He said that claims of victory after the cold war led the United States to feel its hands were untied in world affairs. [****]“We all lost the cold war,” he said, “and we all benefited from its end.”
Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/28/world/europe/28briefs-gorbachev.html
July 28, 2007
World Briefing | Europe
Russia: Gorbachev Faults U.S. ‘Winner Complex’
By ANDREW E. KRAMER [Russia] [former USSR] [Russia is currently awash in petro dollars] [not merely its “Near Abroad” but traditional Cold War issues] [missile defense in Poland and Czech Republic] [Putin’s image as traditional strong Russian leader, albeit undemocratic] [normative controls in former Marxist state] [smarting over the history of the Cold War’s conclusion] [use psci 350] [use ir text] [Russia ethos] [**********]
Mikhail S. Gorbachev, the last Soviet leader, accused the United States of having a “winner complex” after the end of the cold war, which, he said, led to recklessness in international relations, the Interfax news agency reported. “The U.S. is always anxious to win,” Mr. Gorbachev told a news conference in Moscow. “The fact that they suffer this disorder, the winner complex, is the main reason why things are so complicated in the world.” He criticized the “current U.S. administration” for trying to build a new empire in the world and said other countries would not accept that arrangement. He said that claims of victory after the cold war led the United States to feel its hands were untied in world affairs. [****]“We all lost the cold war,” he said, “and we all benefited from its end.”
Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

Posted by Kent Bolton at 10:13 AM | Permalink

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/28/world/middleeast/28cnd-mideast.html
July 28, 2007
Stranded Palestinians May Begin Leaving Egypt
By STEVEN ERLANGER [former Palestine] [hamastan] [former Gaza] [Egypt] [Palestinians caught in the middle of nowhere] [followup] [********]
JERUSALEM, July 28 — For seven weeks now, up to 6,000 Palestinians trying to return to their homes in the Gaza Strip have been stranded in Egypt, objects of a political struggle between the Palestinian factions of Hamas and Fatah involving both Israel and Egypt. [***********]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/28/world/middleeast/28cnd-mideast.html
July 28, 2007
Stranded Palestinians May Begin Leaving Egypt
By STEVEN ERLANGER [former Palestine] [hamastan] [former Gaza] [Egypt] [Palestinians caught in the middle of nowhere] [followup] [********]
JERUSALEM, July 28 — For seven weeks now, up to 6,000 Palestinians trying to return to their homes in the Gaza Strip have been stranded in Egypt, objects of a political struggle between the Palestinian factions of Hamas and Fatah involving both Israel and Egypt. [***********]
But there finally appears to be a deal, opposed by Hamas, to let them return, beginning with about 100 on Sunday, with more to follow during the week, Palestinian, Egyptian and Israeli officials said today.
The Palestinians, some of whom had gone to Egypt or elsewhere for medical care or schooling, have been stuck in the Egyptian border town of Rafah or nearby El-Arish because the border crossing between Egypt and Gaza has been shut [******]since June 9. Several hundred, with little money, have been living in harsher conditions in the desert, cared for by various international aid agencies.
The Rafah border crossing, like the separate Karni crossing for goods between Israel and Gaza, was shut because of the fierce fighting in June between Fatah and Hamas. After the Hamas rout of Fatah and takeover of Gaza, these main crossings for people, in Rafah’s case, and goods, in Karni’s, have been kept shut by Egypt and Israel in order to isolate Hamas.
The closure has had the quiet support of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas of Fatah, who fired the Hamas government and installed a new one in the West Bank led by an independent economist, Salam Fayyad, whose authority Hamas refuses to recognize.
Hamas has insisted that Egypt and Israel abide by a crossings agreement negotiated by the Bush administration and reopen both Rafah and Karni. Hamas has said that it will not allow Kerem Shalom, a border crossing into Gaza on Israeli territory but where Gaza, Egypt and Israel meet, to be used for people, because Israel will control who may enter or exit from Gaza. [***********]
But that’s exactly how Israel wants it, because Hamas and its officials have been able to bring in millions of dollars with them unchecked through the Rafah crossing, even though it was monitored by European Union officials and by Israelis watching on a video link.
The plight of the stranded Palestinians may now finally be resolved, but not the larger issue. According to Riad Maliki, speaking today for the Fayyad government in Ramallah, Israel will approve the names of those entering Gaza on lists prepared by the Palestinians. Those stranded will cross from Egypt into Israel at the Al Oja cargo crossing south of Rafah, Egyptian officials said today, then be bused to Israel’s Erez crossing with Gaza.
About 100 on a list of 627 people approved by Israel will cross on Sunday and the rest of the list on Monday, the Egyptians said, with more to follow.
Ashraf al-Ajrami, minister for prisoners affairs in Ramallah, said today: “Due to the absence of Palestinian security forces at Rafah crossing, and amid Egyptian, Israeli and European refusals to reopen the crossing, we agreed with the Israelis to let the people cross at an Israeli crossing.”
Hamas denounced the deal, since it bypasses Rafah. A Hamas spokesman in Gaza, Sami Abu Zuhri, said: “There is only the Rafah border crossing. The use of any other border crossing increases Israeli control over the Gaza Strip.”
Hamas has fired mortars on Kerem Shalom to try to prevent its use, and may try to do the same toward Erez. [*******]
In an indication of Fatah’s lack of interest in opening Gaza for ordinary passage of goods and people, thereby easing pressure on Hamas, Palestinian Authority representatives at the United Nations have been working to block a Security Council presidential statement criticizing the “humanitarian situation” in Gaza and calling for the Gaza crossings to be opened immediately, according to the Haaretz newspaper. United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and the head of the United Nations agency dealing with Palestinian refugees, Karen AbuZayd, have both publicly called for Karni to be opened. [*******] [unreal]
Qatar, which is considered close to Hamas, drafted the statement, which is non-binding but requires consensus among the council’s members.
Gazans have been unable to export a single item since Karni was shut on July 12, though Israel has allowed vital imports. Israeli officials insist that they have only security concerns about Karni, but also say they will not deal with Hamas. A Foreign Ministry spokesman, Mark Regev, said that Israel is open to “creative solutions,” including the use of a private Turkish company to operate the Gazan side of Karni, as Palestinian businessmen have suggested. But both Israel and Mr. Abbas insist that Hamas must have no control over the crossing at all, which Hamas rejects.
Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

Posted by Kent Bolton at 10:12 AM | Permalink

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/28/world/middleeast/28mideast.html
July 28, 2007
In Gesture to Fatah, Israeli Official Pushes West Bank Pullback
By STEVEN ERLANGER [Israel] [Israeli-Palestinian relations] [Israel and the Qaurtet have cast their lots with Fatah and Abbas] [probably a bad idea but it’s now done] [here Israel throws another lifeline to President Abbas] [perhaps just enough rope with which to hang himself] [followup] [***********]
JERUSALEM, July 27 — Israel’s cautious dance with the non-Hamas Palestinian government in the West Bank continued Friday, with a senior member of the Israeli government advocating partial withdrawal of Israeli troops and settlers from the West Bank and the prospect this weekend, officials said, of an initial pullback of Israeli forces from the quiet town of Jericho. [*****]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/28/world/middleeast/28mideast.html
July 28, 2007
In Gesture to Fatah, Israeli Official Pushes West Bank Pullback
By STEVEN ERLANGER [Israel] [Israeli-Palestinian relations] [Israel and the Qaurtet have cast their lots with Fatah and Abbas] [probably a bad idea but it’s now done] [here Israel throws another lifeline to President Abbas] [perhaps just enough rope with which to hang himself] [followup] [***********]
JERUSALEM, July 27 — Israel’s cautious dance with the non-Hamas Palestinian government in the West Bank continued Friday, with a senior member of the Israeli government advocating partial withdrawal of Israeli troops and settlers from the West Bank and the prospect this weekend, officials said, of an initial pullback of Israeli forces from the quiet town of Jericho. [*****]
Haim Ramon, a deputy prime minister close to Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, told Israel Radio that Israel should move quickly to negotiate the principles of a peace deal and to withdraw from “most” of the occupied West Bank. He told foreign diplomats this week that he favored a withdrawal from 70 percent of the West Bank.
Mr. Olmert was elected on a platform of unilateral Israeli withdrawal from about 90 percent of the West Bank, roughly to the security barrier Israel has built, but not including the three large Israeli settlement blocs inside the barrier. [******]
Mr. Ramon’s proposal is short of that, but represents a renewal of the idea of an Israeli withdrawal that had seemed to be off the table. Still, in opinion polls, nearly 60 percent of Israelis responding now say that the 2005 withdrawal from Gaza was a mistake, compared with the more than two-thirds who supported it at the time.
“I believe right now we have a partner” in the non-Hamas Palestinian leadership, Mr. Ramon said. “I don’t know for how long, so we must move quickly.”
The Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, and his Fatah movement seem badly shaken by their defeat in Gaza by Hamas. The loss has concentrated minds on both sides, with Israel and Fatah both wanting to prevent a similar outcome in the West Bank. [*****]
To isolate the radical Hamas in Gaza and support Fatah, Israel, the United States and the European Union have thrown their support — and money — toward a new Palestinian government led by a Western-educated, independent economist, Salam Fayyad. Like Mr. Abbas, Mr. Fayyad favors nonviolence and negotiation to achieve a Palestinian state alongside Israel. Mr. Abbas says he hopes to do so within a year. [*******]
The Palestinian world is divided, however. And there are pressures from Saudi Arabia in particular for Fatah and Hamas to come together again in another unity government. [***] [Saudi and US at odds] [see today’s govt for how the administration finesses it] [******] Mr. Ramon’s doubts and his sense of urgency reflect a general Israeli uncertainty over the future of Fatah and Mr. Abbas.
Part of the effort to support him is in security. Israel, its troops and its counterterrorism agency have renewed security cooperation with Palestinian Authority forces in the West Bank, now that Hamas is no longer in charge of the government.
Now Israel is going to try again to reduce its footprint in the West Bank by handing over quiet areas and big cities to Palestinian Authority forces, to which Israel has agreed to give 1,000 automatic rifles. In 2000, before the second intifada, Palestinian forces had controlled large areas of the West Bank. Israel recaptured the area in 2002 in an effort to stop suicide bombings.
Israel then built the separation barrier for the same reason, although Palestinians and some Israelis contend that the route of the barrier has political as well as security considerations, and the International Court of Justice has ruled in a nonbinding opinion that the route is illegal where it enters the West Bank.
Israel has previously pulled back from cities recaptured in 2002, after former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon met with Mr. Abbas in February 2005. Israel handed back Jericho and Tulkarm to Palestinian forces but soon took them back again, charging that Mr. Abbas’s men were not suppressing terrorism. An agreement to hand back Ramallah, Bethlehem and Qalqilya never materialized. [*******]
Mr. Abbas is said to want Qalqilya back now, but Israeli officials say no, because the town borders Israel and Hamas is strong there.
In an interview on Thursday with Reuters, Mr. Abbas said that he would not run for a second term and that he would decree a change in legislative elections to remove voting for candidates from constituencies. Such a move, which should be made by the legislature, would favor Fatah and damage Hamas, which handily won the constituency part of the January 2006 election but beat Fatah by only 2.5 percentage points in the party vote. [****]Nearly a third of legislators are in Israeli jails on charges of belonging to Hamas. Hamas boycotts the sessions to prevent a quorum so that it is not outvoted by Fatah.
Mr. Abbas said he would order early elections soon but he would not name a date; Hamas says it will not allow early elections. Legislative elections are scheduled for January 2010.
On Friday, Mr. Abbas said that based on the findings of an inquiry, about 60 Fatah officers and leaders would be punished for their responsibility in the loss of Gaza. Some have already resigned.
Also on Friday, the Israeli Army suspended a six-member platoon for shooting a Palestinian without justification on a patrol near Hebron. [*****]The soldiers did not give him first aid or report the shooting, which occurred when they commandeered a Palestinian taxi and tied up the driver. When a Palestinian approached the car, he was shot in the neck. The soldiers then lied about what happened, the army said.
Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

Posted by Kent Bolton at 10:11 AM | Permalink

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/28/world/asia/28afghan.html
July 28, 2007
Health Problems Among Korean Hostages as Negotiations Continue
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS [Afghanistan] [hydra] [insurgency] [followup] [the 2007 offensive and mixed messages] [on the one hand, NATO seemed to anticipate and stymied Taliban and al Qaeda fighters on several fronts] [on other, hydra proving resilent and arguably more popular than they should be given their history] [Korean hostages who are Christian—followup] [*******]
KABUL, Afghanistan, July 27 (AP) — A man claiming to speak for the Taliban warned Friday that some of the 22 South Koreans being held hostage in Afghanistan were in bad health, hours after the kidnappers’ latest deadline passed. [*****]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/28/world/asia/28afghan.html
July 28, 2007
Health Problems Among Korean Hostages as Negotiations Continue
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS [Afghanistan] [hydra] [insurgency] [followup] [the 2007 offensive and mixed messages] [on the one hand, NATO seemed to anticipate and stymied Taliban and al Qaeda fighters on several fronts] [on other, hydra proving resilent and arguably more popular than they should be given their history] [Korean hostages who are Christian—followup] [*******]
KABUL, Afghanistan, July 27 (AP) — A man claiming to speak for the Taliban warned Friday that some of the 22 South Koreans being held hostage in Afghanistan were in bad health, hours after the kidnappers’ latest deadline passed. [*****]
Qari Yousuf Ahmadi, who said he spoke for the kidnappers, told The Associated Press by telephone that the group still insisted on exchanging Taliban prisoners for the captives, who could be killed if the demand was not met. Mr. Ahmadi spoke several hours after the most recent deadline set by the Taliban, but said the militia had not set a new one.
Some of the South Koreans were “not in good condition,” Mr. Ahmadi said. “I don’t know if the weather is not good for them, or our food. The women hostages are crying. The men and women are worried about their future.” [*******]
One hostage, Bae Hyung-kyu, 42, was found dead of multiple gunshot wounds on Wednesday in the Qarabagh district of Ghazni Province, where the hostages were being held.
Local tribal elders and clerics continued telephone negotiations and were struggling with conflicting demands from the captors, who said alternately that they wanted ransom and the release of Taliban prisoners.
“There are still a lot of problems among them,” said Khwaja Mohammad Sidiqi, the Qarabagh police chief. “One says, ‘Let’s exchange them for my relative,’ the others say, ‘Let’s release the women,’ and yet another wants a deal for money.”
Mr. Ahmadi disputed that characterization. “The Taliban are not asking for money,” he said. “We just want to exchange our prisoners for Korean hostages. When they release the Taliban, we will release the hostages.”
It remained unclear how many or which militants the Taliban wanted freed.
Meanwhile, a South Korean presidential envoy arrived for talks with President Hamid Karzai and other top officials, and Afghan officials said they remained upbeat about the chances of freeing the hostages without further bloodshed.
“We hope we will have a good result, but I don’t know if they will be released today,” said Shirin Mangal, a spokesman for the governor of Ghazni Province. “I don’t think they will be.”
In Seoul, a Foreign Ministry official, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the matter’s sensitivity, said that the captives were still believed to be safe and that officials were trying to get medicine and other items delivered to them. [******]
Mr. Ahmadi said the hostages were being held in small groups in various locations and were being fed bread, yogurt and rice.
“What should happen is that these people should be released, unconditionally, immediately and unharmed, back to South Korean authorities, so they can return back to their families,” said Sean McCormack, the State Department spokesman.
The South Koreans, including 18 women, were kidnapped while traveling by bus on the Kabul-Kandahar highway, Afghanistan’s main thoroughfare.
Their church said that the captives were not involved in any missionary work in Afghanistan and that they had provided only medical and other volunteer aid. It said it would suspend some of its work there.
In southern Helmand Province, meanwhile, as many as 50 suspected militants and 28 civilians were killed when international and Afghan troops clashed with Taliban insurgents and called in airstrikes, [****]said Abdul Manaf Khan, the Gereshk district chief.
Mr. Khan identified the foreign troops as NATO forces, but NATO’s International Security Assistance Force said it did not have any information about the fighting.
Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

Posted by Kent Bolton at 10:10 AM | Permalink

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/28/world/middleeast/28ice.html
July 28, 2007
Strife and Ice, Staples of Life, Overlap in Iraq
By STEPHEN FARRELL [-ir] [hydra] [insurgency] [bush administration’s “surge option” or “new way forward” underway] [some positive indicators of improvement] [nevertheless, violence while surge unfolds] [pentagon’s recent status report—pretty awful but also predictable] [followup] [chaos increases] [more violence] [*****]
BAGHDAD, July 27 — Each day before the midsummer sun rises high enough to bake blood on concrete, Baghdad’s underclass lines up outside Dickensian ice factories.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/28/world/middleeast/28ice.html
July 28, 2007
Strife and Ice, Staples of Life, Overlap in Iraq
By STEPHEN FARRELL [-ir] [hydra] [insurgency] [bush administration’s “surge option” or “new way forward” underway] [some positive indicators of improvement] [nevertheless, violence while surge unfolds] [pentagon’s recent status report—pretty awful but also predictable] [followup] [chaos increases] [more violence] [*****]
BAGHDAD, July 27 — Each day before the midsummer sun rises high enough to bake blood on concrete, Baghdad’s underclass lines up outside Dickensian ice factories.
With electricity reaching most homes for just a couple of hours each day, the poor hand over soiled brown dinars for what has become a symbol of Iraq’s steady descent into a more primitive era and its broken covenant with leaders, domestic and foreign.
In a capital that was once the seat of the Islamic Caliphate and a center of Arab worldliness, ice is now a currency of last resort for the poor, subject to sectarian horrors and gangland rules. [******]
In Shiite-majority Topchi, ice makers say that Moktada al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army issued a diktat on the first day of summer ordering vendors to set a price ceiling of 4,000 dinars ($3) per 55-pound block of ice, 30 percent less than they charge in areas outside Mahdi Army control.
Everyone complied, delivering an instant subsidy to the veiled women and poor laborers who are the radical Shiite cleric’s natural constituency. The same price is enforced in his other power bases, like Sadr City.
Some suppliers are horrified. “They are trying to improve their image, and gain favor,” a merchant grumbled, as a sickle-wielding colleague chopped the hollow crystalline blocks in half for black-robed women to cram into shopping bags. “But it won’t do much good, we all know what the Mahdi Army are.”
Wearied by four years of chaos, others support the move to reimpose order, any order.
“There is nothing better than law and order,” said Omar Suleiman, another factory manager. “In the days of Saddam Hussein, the government used to control the price of ice. Now there is no control, except where the militias are doing it.”
Shiites are not alone in manipulating supply to suit their own sectarian agendas.
At one plant, situated under a highway overpass in Topchi, all four delivery drivers quit last year after warnings that sectarian gangs would kill them if they continued to drive across the invisible but all-too-real lines dividing Baghdad’s Sunni and Shiite neighborhoods.
Customers in one suburb cautioned them that takfiris — fanatical Sunni extremists — had decreed their frozen product un-Islamic.
“In Ghazaliya, it is forbidden to sell ice because the takfiris said, ‘The Prophet Muhammad had no ice in his time,’ ” said Khatan Kareem, a manager at the factory where the drivers worked, shaking his head at the absurdity. [takfiris are those who accuse; a premise of contemporary jihadis who have no particular religious justification for their actions] [************]
Many of Baghdad’s ice plants are museum pieces. In one, the industrial compressor was manufactured in India in 1960. Another’s was built by L. Sterne & Co. in Glasgow more than half a century ago.
Hussam Muhammad, whose family owns the equipment in the business where Mr. Kareem works, never imagined that the dilapidated factory, built in 1952 when Iraq was still a monarchy, would survive into the post-Saddam Hussein era.
“In 2003, I thought the ice business would be finished because everyone would have electricity and refrigerators once the Americans arrived,” Mr. Muhammad said as he scuttled from fan belt to ice-blistered piping trying to keep the plant limping along. “The fish sellers and meat stores who used to buy from us are gone, closed because of the security situation. Now it is the poor people who come because they don’t have money to pay for generators to keep their food and drinks cold.”
Baghdad’s sectarian compartmentalization of ice is as rigid for customers as for deliverymen.
Such is the fear of the gunmen that at the factory under the overpass, only the immediate neighbors can safely reach its grimy doors.
“People used to come here from Sunni areas, Taji, Amiriya and Jamiya to buy ice because they had no ice factories in their areas,” Mr. Kareem said. “But the Sunnis cannot reach this area now, and I am the same. I am Shia, and I cannot go to Yarmouk.”
The thought is particularly rankling to Mr. Kareem because until three months ago he lived in Yarmouk, a Sunni neighborhood, and enjoyed a secure government job, until an Iraqi Army raid uncovered a Shiite icon on his wall.
“They beat me up, burnt my house and forced me out of the area,” he said, squatting amid the nauseating smell of ammonium that permeates all ice factories. “I now live in my relatives’ kitchen. And I work here.”
His depression reflects the frustration of the Iraqi middle class, which prided itself on being one of the most educated in the Arab world, but now sees itself falling further behind its regional rivals and back onto the technology of its grandfathers. [*****]
In wealthier districts consumer goods are stacked high on shelves, for the “haves” who can afford to buy black-market electricity from private generator owners.
But millions of “have-nots” cannot afford this luxury, and many of those generator owners have now been killed or driven away by militias intent on securing their lucrative assets.
Ice, ostensibly the least political of commodities, requires only water, electricity and a few chemicals.
But in Baghdad’s current state of polarized violence, no business is an island. Raw materials must pass the checkpoints and gunmen, with their arbitrary rules and instant punishments, as must customers, suppliers, staff and the finished product.
The ice factories — cash cows in the peak summer season — have not escaped the gunmen’s notice.
In the Sunni enclave of Adhamiya, newly walled off from its Shiite neighbors to halt cross-community slaughter, Taha Khaleel complained that his drivers and mechanics were at the mercy of the Shiite-dominated Iraqi Army checkpoint that controls the gate.
“It depends on their mood,” he said. “This causes problems for us in the continuity of fuel supplies. The drivers are more reluctant to come to us now because of that, and because of the insults they face.”
A kidnapped factory owner in Taji was released only after he surrendered his car. At the Qutub Ice Factory in Baghdad, the owner has already fled Iraq after receiving a death threat, and employees say most of its middle-class customers have also gone.
Not so fortunate are the poor buyers in a street market the Salaam neighborhood, where wooden ice shacks have sprung up in recent months, despite the adjacent sewage and piles of rotting garbage.
Alarmed by tales of disease, many buyers now drop sterilization pills into the frozen blocks. If they are lucky, the stores will have ice from Sulaimaniya or Erbil, Kurdish cities where it is made from clean mountain water. If unlucky, the impure Baghdad product, with its distinctive yellow sheen.
“I never used to buy ice in Saddam’s regime, because I could use my refrigerator. But nowadays I have to because there is no electricity, and we need cold water,” said Muhammad Abbadi, 52, the owner of a clothing store. “Ice is the only source, even if it is dirty. Both my girls fell sick with typhoid two weeks ago.”
Reporting was contributed by Khalid W. Hassan, Ahmad Fadam, Wisam A. Habeeb, Karim Hilmi and Mudhafer Al-Husaini. Mr. Hassan was killed July 13.
Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

Posted by Kent Bolton at 10:09 AM | Permalink

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/28/world/middleeast/28reconstruct.html
July 28, 2007
As U.S. Rebuilds, Iraq Won’t Act on Finished Work
By JAMES GLANZ [-ir] [hydra] [insurgency] [bush administration’s “surge option” or “new way forward” underway] [some positive indicators of improvement] [nevertheless, violence while surge unfolds] [pentagon’s recent status report—pretty awful but also predictable] [followup] [chaos increases] [more violence] [*****]
Iraq’s national government is refusing to take possession of thousands of American-financed reconstruction projects, forcing the United States either to hand them over to local Iraqis, who often lack the proper training and resources to keep the projects running, or commit new money to an effort that has already consumed billions of taxpayer dollars.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/28/world/middleeast/28reconstruct.html
July 28, 2007
As U.S. Rebuilds, Iraq Won’t Act on Finished Work
By JAMES GLANZ [-ir] [hydra] [insurgency] [bush administration’s “surge option” or “new way forward” underway] [some positive indicators of improvement] [nevertheless, violence while surge unfolds] [pentagon’s recent status report—pretty awful but also predictable] [followup] [chaos increases] [more violence] [*****]
Iraq’s national government is refusing to take possession of thousands of American-financed reconstruction projects, forcing the United States either to hand them over to local Iraqis, who often lack the proper training and resources to keep the projects running, or commit new money to an effort that has already consumed billions of taxpayer dollars.
The conclusions, detailed in a report released Friday by the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, a federal oversight agency, include the finding that of 2,797 completed projects costing $5.8 billion, Iraq’s national government had, by the spring of this year, accepted only 435 projects valued at $501 million. Few transfers to Iraqi national government control have taken place since the current Iraqi government, which is frequently criticized for inaction on matters relating to the American intervention, took office in 2006.
The United States often promotes the number of rebuilding projects, like power plants and hospitals, that have been completed in Iraq, citing them as signs of progress in a nation otherwise fraught with violence and political stalemate. But closer examination by the inspector general’s office, headed by Stuart W. Bowen Jr., has found that a number of individual projects are crumbling, abandoned or otherwise inoperative only months after the United States declared that they had been successfully completed. The United States always intended to hand over projects to the Iraqi government when they were completed.
Although Mr. Bowen’s latest report is primarily a financial overview, he said in an interview that it raised serious questions on whether the problems his inspectors had found were much more widespread in the reconstruction program. [****]
The process of transferring projects to Iraq “worked for a while,” Mr. Bowen said. But then the new government took over and installed its finance minister, Bayan Jabr, who has been a continuing center of controversy in his various government posts and is formally in charge of the transfers.
“After Mr. Jabr took over, that process ceased to function,” [*****]Mr. Bowen said.
In fact, in the first two quarters of 2007, Mr. Bowen said, his inspectors found significant problems in all but 2 of the 12 projects they examined after the United States declared those projects completed.
In one of the most recent cases, a $90 million project to overhaul two giant turbines at the Dora power plant in Baghdad failed after completion because employees at the plant did not know how to operate the turbines properly and the wrong fuel was used. The additional power is critically needed in Baghdad, where residents often have only a few hours of electricity a day.
Because the Iraqi government will not formally accept projects like the refurbished turbines, the United States is “finding someone at the local level to handle the project, handing them the keys and saying, ‘Operate and maintain it,’ ” another official in the inspector general’s office said.
If the pace of the American rebuilding program is a guide, those problems could quickly accelerate: So far, the United States has declared that $5.8 billion in American taxpayer-financed projects have been completed, but most of the rest of the projects within a $21 billion rebuilding program that Mr. Bowen examined in the report are expected to be finished by the end of this year. Some of that money is also being used to train and equip Iraqi security forces rather than finance construction projects.
The report was released too late in the day to contact Mr. Jabr, who is part of a Shiite alliance in charge of the government. In his previous position as interior minister, he was accused of running Shiite death squads out of the ministry. In his current position he has developed a reputation as being slow to release budget money to Iraqi government entities, which would have to run the new projects at substantial expense. [*******]
He is sometimes suspected of seeking to use his position to undermine the government of Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, who is also a Shiite but answers to a different faction within the alliance. In interviews, Mr. Jabr has rejected those accusations and says he strongly supports the government.
American researchers who have followed the reconstruction said Mr. Bowen’s report raised serious new doubts about the program. Rick Barton, co-director of the postconflict reconstruction project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a research institute in Washington, said the lack of interest on the part of the Iraqis was the latest demonstration that they were not involved enough in its planning stages. “It sort of confirms that you really need pre-agreement on the projects you are attempting,” Mr. Barton said, “or you end up with these kinds of problems at the tail end, where people don’t know much about the program and they haven’t bought into it.”
Mr. Barton said that the episode was probably inevitable given that the elected Iraqi government operated mainly within the fortified Green Zone in Baghdad and had little capability of managing thousands of new projects around the country. He said that this was the most likely explanation — rather than any ill will on Mr. Jabr’s part. But Mr. Barton said the findings indicated that the United States should put some of the remaining money in the program into “sustainment,” the term for running the projects, rather than continuing to build when there might be no one to run the projects.
“To build something and not have these issues resolved from top to bottom is unfathomable,” said William L. Nash, a retired general who is a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and an expert on Middle East reconstruction. “The management of the reconstruction program for Iraq has been a near-total disaster from the beginning.” [********]
The report says that of the 2,797 projects declared completed, besides the 435 projects formally accepted by Iraq’s central government, 1,141 have been transferred to local Iraqi authorities. American government entities in charge of those projects include the United States Army Corps of Engineers, the American-led multinational forces in Iraq, the United States Embassy and the United States Agency for International Development. In letters attached to Mr. Bowen’s report, several of those entities largely concurred with many of Mr. Bowen’s findings and said that new agreements were being hammered out with the Iraqi government to smooth the transfers.
A spokesman for the development agency, David Snider, said in a statement that work now being undertaken by the agency “helps address the concerns” raised in the report. Mr. Snider said that the agency was seeking to formalize an agreement with the Iraqi government that would protect the American investment there.
The agency “usually secures these commitments from recipient governments before the initiation of a project,” Mr. Snider said. But in the case of Iraq, he said, the American rebuilding effort “began before the current Iraqi government was established.”
Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

Posted by Kent Bolton at 10:08 AM | Permalink

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/27/AR2007072702566.html
U.S. Widens Push to Use Armed Iraqi Residents
Irregulars to Patrol Own Neighborhoods
By Ann Scott Tyson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, July 28, 2007; A01 [-ir] [hydra] [insurgency] [bush administration’s “surge option” or “new way forward” underway] [some positive indicators of improvement] [nevertheless, violence while surge unfolds] [pentagon’s recent status report—pretty awful but also predictable] [followup] [chaos increases] [more violence] [more on US commanders on the groung making decisions based on short-term expediency] [the consequences could be significant] [US must determine what it wants: Shiite democracy or Sunni protection] [*****]
BAGHDAD, July 27 -- The U.S. military in Iraq is expanding its efforts to recruit and fund armed Sunni residents as local protection forces in order to improve security and promote reconciliation at the neighborhood level, according to senior U.S. commanders.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/27/AR2007072702566.html
U.S. Widens Push to Use Armed Iraqi Residents
Irregulars to Patrol Own Neighborhoods
By Ann Scott Tyson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, July 28, 2007; A01 [-ir] [hydra] [insurgency] [bush administration’s “surge option” or “new way forward” underway] [some positive indicators of improvement] [nevertheless, violence while surge unfolds] [pentagon’s recent status report—pretty awful but also predictable] [followup] [chaos increases] [more violence] [more on US commanders on the groung making decisions based on short-term expediency] [the consequences could be significant] [US must determine what it wants: Shiite democracy or Sunni protection] [*****]
BAGHDAD, July 27 -- The U.S. military in Iraq is expanding its efforts to recruit and fund armed Sunni residents as local protection forces in order to improve security and promote reconciliation at the neighborhood level, according to senior U.S. commanders.
Within the past month, the U.S. military command in charge of day-to-day operations in Iraq ordered subordinate units to step up creation of the local forces, authorizing commanders to pay the fighters with U.S. emergency funds, reward payments and other monies. [*******]
The initiative, which extends to all Iraqis, represents at least a temporary departure from the established U.S. policy of building formally trained security forces under the control of the Iraqi government. It also provokes fears within the Shiite-led government that the new Sunni groups will use their arms against it, [*******]commanders said. [no matter how benign the reasoning may be, it amounts to little more than divide and conquer of colonial powers historically] [********]
The goal is to put the new, irregular forces in place quickly -- hiring them on contracts and providing them with uniforms without waiting for access to lengthy police and army training programs.
In the long term, commanders say, the goal is to incorporate the units into the Iraqi security forces. The initiative arises out of efforts underway by some U.S. military units to enlist forces from local tribes as well as insurgent groups in different neighborhoods, most of which have been predominantly Sunni.
The top U.S. commander in Iraq, Gen. David H. Petraeus, called the development of the grass-roots forces the most significant trend in Iraq "of the last four months or so" and one that could help propel slow-moving efforts at national reconciliation among Iraq's main religious sects and ethnic groups. [******]
"This is a very, very important component of reconciliation because it's happening from the bottom up," he said in an interview Friday. "The bottom-up piece is much farther along than any of us would have anticipated a few months back. It's become the focus of a great deal of effort, as there is a sense that this can bear a lot of fruit."
U.S. commanders acknowledge that there is a risk that the Iraqi government will refuse to hire some or all of the local force members and will instead use the names of the Sunni recruits as target lists.
"What the government is afraid of, and we understand that, is they don't want another armed militia of some sort. So what we're looking for is sort of an interim measure . . . to take advantage of these groups," said Brig. Gen. James Campbell, deputy U.S. commander for Baghdad, where he said 18,000 more police officers and 30 police stations are needed.
And while local residents are often the best choice for securing their own streets, the risk exists that they will overstep their bounds in Baghdad's densely populated, mixed sectarian districts, Petraeus said. "You have to make sure that the neighborhood watch doesn't end up watching someone else's neighborhood."
Over a luncheon of chicken and rice in Baghdad's Rasheed district this week, Col. Ricky D. Gibbs, the U.S. commander in the area, met with half a dozen influential Sunni leaders to discuss forming neighborhood protection groups, as well as to share intelligence.
A local Sunni leader, a bespectacled man in a red striped shirt, leaned across the table and handed Gibbs a list of 250 names of Sunni residents willing to serve in a local force.
"They will clear the neighborhood of anyone who belongs to al-Qaeda or JAM [a Shiite militia] or even carries a bullet," the man said. "We want you, sir, to give us the green light. They are ready."
"You have the green light," Gibbs answered. "But they have to follow the rules. You can't just shoot anybody. No vengeance . . . But the bad guys -- I don't care. Go get them." [********] [********] [good god!]
Gibbs, commander of the 4th Brigade, 1st Infantry Division, estimates that he needs up to 6,000 new police officers and 18 more police stations in Rasheed. "I am looking for a group of loyal Iraqis who will carry weapons and go after the same people we want," he said in an interview. "We will teach them U.S. rules of engagement and tell them to capture them, not kill them," he said. He said some of the men coming forward may have worked with insurgents in the past in order to survive.
The U.S. military will use its funds to "jump-start" the local forces in stages, U.S. officers said. Initially, the military will pay local residents who call in successful tips that turn up roadside bombs or weapons, or lead to the capture of insurgents. Next, it will identify residents for the security forces, vet their names and take their fingerprints, and require them to take an oath of loyalty to the government. Finally, it will train them in weapons usage and American "rules of engagement" and "put them on a key location" to provide security, Gibbs said.
Yet in districts such as Rasheed, where tensions run high between Shiite-dominated National Police forces, Shiite militias and residents of Sunni enclaves, some U.S. commanders say extreme caution will be required in introducing the armed neighborhood protection groups.
A chief concern for U.S. troops will be how to prevent intentional or accidental conflicts between the groups, said Lt. Col. George A. Glaze, commander of 1st Battalion, 18th Infantry Regiment, who oversees the Sadiyah neighborhood where the 250 Sunnis volunteered. "I see the firefight on the street corner" between Iraqi police and local forces, he said, "and I have to pick a side?" [*********]
More than one influential Sunni in Rasheed indicated they had ambitions beyond securing their immediate neighborhood. "Our first priority is to go after al-Qaeda. Then we can support the Americans in fighting Jaish al-Mahdi," said one Sunni leader, referring to the Shiite militia that operates in the district. The Sunni leaders at the meeting requested anonymity for fear they would be targeted. [*****]
Lt. Gen. Aboud Qanbar, the Iraqi commander overseeing the five-month-old U.S.-Iraqi security plan, has given only verbal approval for Iraqi security forces to allow the new armed groups to operate unhindered in specific areas that he has visited, such as Abu Ghraib and Mansour, said Campbell, who escorted the Iraqi general to the areas.
A major obstacle is the lack of written orders recognizing the groups from the Interior and Defense ministries and the prime minister's office, he said.
Moreover, despite U.S. urging, the Interior Ministry has failed to approve the hiring of the neighborhood forces as full-fledged police officers, including more than 2,000 recently recruited from Abu Ghraib.
"The government of Iraq has to make some tough decisions. If they don't do this, we will lose out on a huge opportunity," Campbell said.
Two months ago, Petraeus created a "strategic engagement" committee, headed by a two-star British general, that oversees the outreach to grass-roots security groups and works with Iraqi government ministries to advance the process.
Some U.S. officers were not optimistic that the Iraqi government would ever put the local Sunni forces on the payroll. "Wild success is these guys being integrated into honest-to-God, badge-holding cops. That would be a magnificent sign," [*****]said one U.S. military officer in Baghdad. More likely, he said, the American military will "contract them as little Iraqi Blackwaters to guard their neighborhoods," he said, referring to a private U.S. security contractor. The worst outcome is that the forces will be actively targeted by the Iraqi government, he said.
Targeting the Sunni recruits would be easy for the government after their names are provided for vetting, Campbell said. "What we have to make sure is they don't take those names and turn around and say, 'Hey, this is our targeting list.' We're very cognizant of that."
In the Sunni enclave of Doura in east Rasheed, where sewage water floods the streets and electricity wires hang in disrepair, residents asked about their security problems offered that they believed a local force would best serve the neighborhood, long one of the most contested insurgent strongholds in Baghdad but now relatively calm after recent U.S. military operations.
"The best solution is the people who live here, who know the neighborhood, who know the bad people, they protect it," Ahmed Ali Hussein, a traffic police officer, said as he sat sweating in stifling 120-degree heat in his Doura home. But, he added, "we need some support from American forces like weapons, money, salary."
© 2007 The Washington Post Company

Posted by Kent Bolton at 10:08 AM | Permalink

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/28/world/middleeast/28iraq.html
July 28, 2007
Americans Call In Airstrike in Clash With Shiite Militia
By STEPHEN FARRELL [-ir] [hydra] [insurgency] [bush administration’s “surge option” or “new way forward” underway] [some positive indicators of improvement] [nevertheless, violence while surge unfolds] [pentagon’s recent status report—pretty awful but also predictable] [followup] [chaos increases] [more violence] [US troops tangling with Mahdi militia] [*****]
BAGHDAD, Saturday, July 28 — American Special Forces battled Mahdi Army militiamen in Karbala on Friday, calling in a deadly helicopter airstrike during a rare operation in one of the country’s holiest Shiite cities. [karbala] [isn’t sistani there?] [*****]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/28/world/middleeast/28iraq.html
July 28, 2007
Americans Call In Airstrike in Clash With Shiite Militia
By STEPHEN FARRELL [-ir] [hydra] [insurgency] [bush administration’s “surge option” or “new way forward” underway] [some positive indicators of improvement] [nevertheless, violence while surge unfolds] [pentagon’s recent status report—pretty awful but also predictable] [followup] [chaos increases] [more violence] [US troops tangling with Mahdi militia] [*****]
BAGHDAD, Saturday, July 28 — American Special Forces battled Mahdi Army militiamen in Karbala on Friday, calling in a deadly helicopter airstrike during a rare operation in one of the country’s holiest Shiite cities. [karbala] [isn’t sistani there?] [*****]
The United States military said the predawn raid in Karbala captured what the Americans described as a high-level “rogue” member of the Mahdi Army, the militia of the Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr, and killed 17 other militants.
Iraqi hospital officials, however, accused the Americans of killing nine civilians and wounding 26 others in the operation, which occurred in Al Askari district in western Karbala, 50 miles south of Baghdad.
Mahdi Army officials said that American and Iraqi forces arrived by air and that the battle lasted from 1:30 a.m. until 4 a.m. Karbala’s governor and city council members immediately denounced the strike, saying it was carried out without advance consultation; they allege that the Americans have previously agreed to notify them before raids on the sacred city.
The American military said the raiding party killed five insurgents, then was forced to call in the air attack after coming under heavy fire from small-caliber weapons, machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades as it tried to leave the city.
The military also said Mahdi Army fighters had “fired on a helicopter assisting the team in the operation” into the poor neighborhood, which is a Sadrist stronghold.
An American military statement said the airstrikes killed about a dozen insurgents. The statement disputed the allegation that civilians had been killed, saying, “No Iraqi civilians were present in the area while the strike was performed,” [*****]without disclosing how the military confirmed that.
The American military said the Special Forces involved in the raid had been sent in as “advisers” to the Iraqi troops they accompanied. [*******]
Iraqis in Karbala later identified the detained men as a local Mahdi Army leader and two of his assistants.
The military said the leader they captured had commanded a rogue Mahdi Army “assassination cell” of more than 100 members and had “allegedly commanded attacks against coalition forces using improvised explosive devices, explosively formed penetrators and mortars.” Explosively formed penetrators are a type of bomb that can pierce thick armor.
The military also accused the captured leader of having assassinated Iraqi civilians and two Iraqi government officials. The United States military usually uses the term “rogue” to denote splinter elements of the Mahdi Army they believe are motivated more by criminal activities or Iranian influence than loyalty to Mr. Sadr.
Iraqi officials said clashes broke out later at nearby Al Hussein General Hospital between Mahdi Army fighters and a joint Iraqi Army and police patrol. Witnesses said the fighting at the hospital began around 7 a.m. when Mahdi Army gunmen tried to recover people wounded in the earlier fighting to stop them being arrested by American forces. They fought with Iraqi security forces at the police post inside the hospital, [******]witnesses said.
Hours later at Friday Prayer in Karbala, Sheik Abdul Hadi al-Muhammadawi, head of the Sadr office in the city, condemned the American-led raid, as did a Sadrist preacher in nearby Kufa, who demanded the release of all Sadrist “prisoners and detainees arrested by the American forces.” However, Sheik Abdul cautioned his audience not to fight Iraqi soldiers and policemen. “They are our brothers,” he told the congregation. “First and last, the Americans are our enemy.” [*******]
Farther north, allied troops said they captured four members of an arms-smuggling cell, which they said was backed by Iran, in the village of Qasarin in troubled Diyala Province.
“The captured terrorists are suspected of facilitating the transport of weapons and personnel from Iran into Iraq,” said a statement from the American military. It said the “captured terrorists are also believed to have facilitated the flow of deadly” explosively formed penetrators into Iraq from Iran, and said the weapons were to be used against coalition forces.
Iraqi police found seven unidentified bodies in Baghdad Friday. [***]
Early on Saturday, the United States military reported that a baby girl was recently found in a Baghdad garbage bin. Insurgents had killed her mother and uncle, the military said.
Americans said the Iraqi National Police found the girl on July 25 in Saidiya, a lawless area in southwest Baghdad where many bodies have been found in recent weeks.
She was evacuated to a military combat support hospital for treatment, and two of her siblings were found and placed with an uncle.
Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

Posted by Kent Bolton at 10:07 AM | Permalink

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/28/world/europe/28rendition.html
July 28, 2007
British Report Criticizes U.S. Treatment of Terror Suspects
By RAYMOND BONNER and JANE PERLEZ [UK] [London] [EU] [US-Anglo relations] [“extraordinary renditions”] [recurrent theme: US treatement of POWs or what US calls “enemy combatants”] [America’s closest ally criticizing US for improper behavior] [ironic as UK has no written constitution laws that allow relatively long incarceration without charges—I think 28 days] [US has no such allowanced but has acted as if it does] [effective suspension of habeus] [followup] [*********]
LONDON, July 27 — On the eve of the first visit to Washington by the new British prime minister, Gordon Brown, a report by a high-level parliamentary committee sharply criticized the Bush administration’s practice of seizing terrorism suspects for interrogation in other countries, and found that in one case the Americans showed a lack of concern for the position of the British, their closest ally. [famous bush administration unilaterialism] [******]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/28/world/europe/28rendition.html
July 28, 2007
British Report Criticizes U.S. Treatment of Terror Suspects
By RAYMOND BONNER and JANE PERLEZ [UK] [London] [EU] [US-Anglo relations] [“extraordinary renditions”] [recurrent theme: US treatement of POWs or what US calls “enemy combatants”] [America’s closest ally criticizing US for improper behavior] [ironic as UK has no written constitution laws that allow relatively long incarceration without charges—I think 28 days] [US has no such allowanced but has acted as if it does] [effective suspension of habeus] [followup] [*********]
LONDON, July 27 — On the eve of the first visit to Washington by the new British prime minister, Gordon Brown, a report by a high-level parliamentary committee sharply criticized the Bush administration’s practice of seizing terrorism suspects for interrogation in other countries, and found that in one case the Americans showed a lack of concern for the position of the British, their closest ally. [famous bush administration unilaterialism] [******]
The practice, known as rendition, [*****]presented “some ethical dilemmas” for the British and led them to conclude that they had different approaches from the Americans, the report by the Intelligence and Security Committee said.
One British official told the panel that he had not believed the early reports of American torture against terrorism suspects in mid-2003. But after the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison emerged, the British government was “fully aware of the risk of mistreatment associated with any operations that may result in U.S. custody of detainees,” [******]the report found.
“When you are talking about sharing secret intelligence, we still trust them, but we have a better recognition that their standards, their approaches, are different, and therefore we still have to work with them, but we work with them in a rather different fashion,” [*****]an official of one of the security services told the committee in March, the report said. The report did not identify the official, nor did it mention what that “different fashion” of collaboration was.
The report became public as Mr. Brown is to meet President Bush at Camp David on Sunday. [*****]At a news conference this week, Mr. Brown said he wanted to be a steward of the close American-British alliance. But he has also indicated he wants to set a different tone from that of his predecessor, Tony Blair, who maintained a personal bond with the American president. By scheduling a visit to the United Nations on Monday immediately after Camp David, Mr. Brown was already showing a little distance, an official in London said.
An American official said the meeting at Camp David would be “soup to nuts.” Iraq and Afghanistan will be high on the agenda, he said.
On the positive side, the parliamentary report found that some of the information the Americans obtained during interrogations of suspected members of Al Qaeda and passed to the British helped thwart some terrorist attacks in Britain.
Britain pulled out of some planned covert operations with the Central Intelligence Agency, including a major one in 2005, when it was unable to obtain assurances that the actions would not result in rendition and inhumane treatment, [***]the report said. Parts of the report dealing with these operations were redacted. When asked about the report, David Johnson, the deputy chief of mission at the American Embassy in London, said, “We have in all cases with respect to those issues operated with full respect of the sovereignty of our partners and allies.”
The Intelligence and Security Committee Report on Rendition was completed and sent to Mr. Brown during his first days in office in late June. On Wednesday, he sent it to Parliament and it became a public document. (The report is available at www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/intelligence.)
The report looks at America’s rendition policy and the degree to which the British and intelligence agencies cooperated with it.[***] It examines in more depth the case of Jamil el-Banna and Bisher al-Rawi. The two were arrested by the C.I.A. in Gambia, in 2002, on the basis of information provided by the British intelligence service, even though the British said clearly that they should not be arrested. [****] “The case shows a lack of regard, on the part of the U.S., for U.K. concerns,” the committee said.
After the two men were taken to Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, the British government did not push for their release. Both men were longtime British residents, but they were not British citizens, and therefore, the government said, it had no obligation to help them. [****]
Mr. Rawi was released this year. Mr. Banna has been cleared for release by the Pentagon but remains at Guantánamo because the British will not allow him to return to Britain. The government says he should be sent to his native Jordan.
The report criticizes the British intelligence agencies for not having obtained assurances from the United States that detainees would be treated humanely, and for being slow to recognize that the rendition policy had changed since the Clinton administration. [****]At that time, criminal suspects seized abroad were either brought to the United States for trial, or taken to a country where they were wanted on criminal charges. Under Mr. Bush, suspects seized abroad have been taken to third countries, not for trial, but for interrogation, raising the possibility of torture.
British intelligence agencies began having concerns about the rendition program and the use of C.I.A. prisons in mid-2003, following the case of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks. He had been seized in Pakistan, and was being held by the C.I.A. at an unknown location. There were news reports that he was being subjected to “waterboarding,” which involves putting a person under water, blindfolded, and making him think he is going to drown.
At first, the British did not believe that torture was being employed. “It never crossed my mind,” a senior British intelligence official, who is not identified in the report, told the committee. “We are talking about the Americans, our closest ally. This now, with hindsight, may look naïve, but all I can say is that is what we thought at the time.”
The concerns of the British intelligence agencies grew in early 2004, the report said, after the reports of the abuses at Abu Ghraib. The British intelligence agencies then began to seek “assurances on humane treatment” [****]for any operation that might result in rendition.
The committee said it had “strong concerns” about a planned operation in early 2005. The operation had been approved by the British cabinet, but “subject to assurances on humane treatment and a time limit on detention,” [*****]according to the report.
When these were not forthcoming, the operation was dropped, the report said. It is not clear whether the operation was dropped completely, or only the British participation. [***]
Mark Mazzetti contributed reporting from Washington.
Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

Posted by Kent Bolton at 10:06 AM | Permalink

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/27/AR2007072700675.html
Riot Erupts at Pakistan Mosque; Blast Kills 13 Nearby
By Griff Witte
Washington Post Foreign Service
Saturday, July 28, 2007; A12 [Pakistan] [south asia] [followup from past weeks] [Pakistan as the new Afghanistan] [musharraf’s dangerous gambit] [attempting to balance US-West gsave against placating his traditional Pashtun, Deobandi, jihadis constituency] [Pakistan’s military and intelligence services fully infiltrated bt latter] [alqaeda’s home-turf central] [hydra] [a tipping point may have been reached in past week or two] [the infamous truce that Musharraf made with tribal leaders—on again, off again] [little doubt the Taliban have refuge in Pakistan and at best are tolerated by military-intelligence] [possibly new round of violence at red mosque] [********] [ditto]
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan, July 27 -- Radical students on Friday again commandeered Islamabad's Red Mosque, [****]a site that has become a symbol for the instability surging through this country. Hours later, a suicide bomber killed 13 people in a market down the street from the mosque. [*****]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/27/AR2007072700675.html
Riot Erupts at Pakistan Mosque; Blast Kills 13 Nearby
By Griff Witte
Washington Post Foreign Service
Saturday, July 28, 2007; A12 [Pakistan] [south asia] [followup from past weeks] [Pakistan as the new Afghanistan] [musharraf’s dangerous gambit] [attempting to balance US-West gsave against placating his traditional Pashtun, Deobandi, jihadis constituency] [Pakistan’s military and intelligence services fully infiltrated bt latter] [alqaeda’s home-turf central] [hydra] [a tipping point may have been reached in past week or two] [the infamous truce that Musharraf made with tribal leaders—on again, off again] [little doubt the Taliban have refuge in Pakistan and at best are tolerated by military-intelligence] [possibly new round of violence at red mosque] [********] [ditto]
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan, July 27 -- Radical students on Friday again commandeered Islamabad's Red Mosque, [****]a site that has become a symbol for the instability surging through this country. Hours later, a suicide bomber killed 13 people in a market down the street from the mosque. [*****]
The events underscored the broad forces challenging Pakistan's president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, a crucial U.S. ally on counterterrorism. While he is trying to quell a growing insurgency from Islamic extremists, he is also attempting to fend off a vigorous campaign from moderates to end his eight-year rule in upcoming elections.
Seeking a political solution, Musharraf reportedly met abroad on Friday with his most influential rival, exiled former prime minister Benazir Bhutto. [****]
At the mosque, security forces retook control late Friday afternoon, but scenes of police firing tear gas and protesters calling for jihad opened fresh wounds in a city still reeling from the nine-day siege that claimed more than 100 lives this month. The bombing, meanwhile, added to a series of attacks that have terrorized the country in recent weeks.
"The security situation here is getting worse every day," said 22-year-old student Bilal Hassan as he surveyed the damage at the market. "You expect this in the remote areas, but not in our capital."
Reports of a meeting in the United Arab Emirates between Musharraf and Bhutto were officially rejected as false, [****]though political sources said privately that negotiations on a power-sharing agreement were advancing. While there is mutual contempt between Musharraf and Bhutto, Musharraf badly needs allies, and Bhutto has stated her intent to return to Pakistan for a third term as prime minister. Since both are regarded as moderates, they could conceivably form a pact to battle rising militancy.
The Red Mosque has embodied Musharraf's problems with extremism. For much of the year, its pro-Taliban clerics waged a vigilante anti-vice campaign and promised an Islamic revolution in Pakistan. On July 10, commandos raided the compound, leaving a deputy cleric and dozens of armed followers dead.
The mosque was then closed while the government made extensive repairs and demolished an adjacent madrassa, or religious school. The government also repainted the building a soft yellow in a bid to erase memories of its bloody past.
The mosque is Islamabad's oldest. Just blocks from the president's house, it is a fixture in the heart of the normally sleepy capital. Its reopening Friday was supposed to signal a new era of calm, but instead sowed more chaos. [****]
A government-appointed cleric was preparing to give his Friday sermon when a group of radical students blocked him and forced his exit. They then demanded the return of the mosque's former cleric, Maulana Abdul Aziz, who was arrested July 4 while trying to flee the compound while wearing a burqa.
Hundreds soon gathered on the streets to cheer as young men climbed onto the mosque's roof, chanting extremist slogans. Armed with cans of paint, the men soon began to turn the building red and spray graffiti on its walls. "Revolution will come through the blood of the martyrs," read one crimson inscription. The men also hung the Red Mosque's old signature black flags from the building's minarets.
The protesters received support from at least one top political leader. "Maulana Abdul Aziz is still the prayer leader of the mosque," said Liaqat Baloch, deputy chief of a coalition of hard-line religious parties. "Musharraf is a killer of the constitution. He's a killer of male and female students. The entire world will see him hang."
Security forces eventually moved in with armored personnel carriers and fired tear-gas canisters to disperse the crowd. As riot police surged toward the mosque, the crowd responded by swinging sticks and throwing rocks.
During a lull in the fighting, protesters began searching through the debris of the madrassa. Many emerged crying, holding scraps of letters written by students or bits of clothing. While the government has said civilian casualties during the commando raid were minimal, rumors persist that hundreds of women and children were killed.
"What happened to these people was bad," said one man, who clutched a bit of blood-tinged concrete. "It was an act of cruelty."
As he spoke, a man in plain clothes -- apparently a security official -- grabbed him by the waist and hustled him away.
At the same moment, around 5:15 p.m., a blast reverberated through the area as the suicide bomber detonated his charge at Aabpara Market, several hundred yards from the mosque. The bomber appeared to target police officers who were gathered outside the market as part of a security buildup. [****]
Helmets blasted with holes and bloody khaki uniforms littered the ground around several shops destroyed in the explosion. Most of the dead were police; officers were also among the 61 wounded.
The explosion instantly gutted an entire row of shops and sent body parts flying into a parking lot across the street.
"It shook everything," said Abdul Jabar, 22, who was sleeping nearby at the time.
Ikram Khan, 27, had just purchased a bottle of shampoo from one of the shops. As he walked away, he heard and felt an explosion behind him. "A big flame shot out," he said. "Then I started running."
Security officials had already been on high alert when the bomber struck, and police later said they had had information that a bomber might strike in the market area. Officials said they would investigate whether the bomber had collaborated with the protesters at the mosque.
"It could have been a plan to create unrest at the mosque, and then cause maximum casualties among security officers," said the state information minister, Tariq Azim Khan.
Analysts said the fact that the bomber was able to get so close to a large group of police officers under supposedly tight security conditions indicated a major lapse.
"I'm really very concerned," said retired Lt. Gen. Talat Masood, a security analyst. "If the law and order agencies aren't better able to control the situation, it could mean we're drifting toward anarchy." [******]
Special correspondent Shahzad Khurram contributed to this report.
© 2007 The Washington Post Company

Posted by Kent Bolton at 10:05 AM | Permalink

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/28/world/asia/28pakistan.html
July 28, 2007
Suicide Attack and Protests Over Red Mosque Reopening
By SALMAN MASOOD and DAVID ROHDE [Pakistan] [south asia] [followup from past weeks] [Pakistan as the new Afghanistan] [musharraf’s dangerous gambit] [attempting to balance US-West gsave against placating his traditional Pashtun, Deobandi, jihadis constituency] [Pakistan’s military and intelligence services fully infiltrated bt latter] [alqaeda’s home-turf central] [hydra] [a tipping point may have been reached in past week or two] [the infamous truce that Musharraf made with tribal leaders—on again, off again] [little doubt the Taliban have refuge in Pakistan and at best are tolerated by military-intelligence] [possibly new round of violence at red mosque] [********]
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan, July 27 — A suicide bomber killed at least 13 people here in the capital on Friday as hundreds of angry protesters clashed with the police when the government tried to reopen for prayers [****]a militant mosque that was the scene of a violent siege this month.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/28/world/asia/28pakistan.html
July 28, 2007
Suicide Attack and Protests Over Red Mosque Reopening
By SALMAN MASOOD and DAVID ROHDE [Pakistan] [south asia] [followup from past weeks] [Pakistan as the new Afghanistan] [musharraf’s dangerous gambit] [attempting to balance US-West gsave against placating his traditional Pashtun, Deobandi, jihadis constituency] [Pakistan’s military and intelligence services fully infiltrated bt latter] [alqaeda’s home-turf central] [hydra] [a tipping point may have been reached in past week or two] [the infamous truce that Musharraf made with tribal leaders—on again, off again] [little doubt the Taliban have refuge in Pakistan and at best are tolerated by military-intelligence] [possibly new round of violence at red mosque] [********]
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan, July 27 — A suicide bomber killed at least 13 people here in the capital on Friday as hundreds of angry protesters clashed with the police when the government tried to reopen for prayers [****]a militant mosque that was the scene of a violent siege this month.
The suicide attack took place in a crowded marketplace as protesters, many of them former students of the Red Mosque’s religious schools, held up blood-stained rubble and shawls shredded with bullet holes from the eight-day siege. They demanded that Maulana Abdul Aziz, one of the clerics who led the standoff and was arrested trying to flee in a burqa, be brought back to lead Friday Prayer.
After students tried to reoccupy the mosque on Friday, the police detained dozens and fired tear gas. By evening, officials announced that the mosque would be closed indefinitely.
The clashes came amid reports that Pakistan’s president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, had met secretly on Friday with the nation’s main opposition leader, Benazir Bhutto, in the United Arab Emirates. [*******]
A presidential spokesman, Maj. Gen. Rashi Qureshi, denied the reports on Pakistani television, calling them “completely baseless,” according to Agence France-Presse. But a former official close to Ms. Bhutto, who did not want to be identified, confirmed the meeting, saying it took place in Abu Dhabi.
The former official described the encounter as “cordial” and said both leaders had agreed on the need to work together as moderates to counter rising attacks by hard-line Islamists in Pakistan.
General Musharraf offered to allow Ms. Bhutto, who lives in self-imposed exile in London and Dubai, to return to Pakistan and contest elections for prime minister, the former official said. But General Musharraf said he would continue to serve as both Pakistan’s president and chief of the army. [******]
Ms. Bhutto objected to his holding both positions, according to the former official, but more meetings between their aides are expected. “The uniform is the problem,” the former official said, adding: “From his point of view, staying in uniform is the key to him staying in control of the levers of power. The civilians know that and are not going to accept that.”
The meeting added to speculation that Ms. Bhutto could return to politics in Pakistan as early as September. It was also an indicator of the relief General Musharraf is seeking from the pressures increasingly besieging him, from prodemocracy demonstrators to radical Islamists, who have carried out a rising number of attacks and were further antagonized by the Red Mosque siege.
There were no immediate claims of responsibility for the suicide attack on Friday, though there was speculation that it was another in a series of retaliatory strikes that have killed more than 100 people. [*******]
Javed Iqbal Cheema, a spokesman for the Interior Ministry, said the suicide bomber on Friday had apparently sought to kill the security forces. Seven police officers were killed and 14 wounded, he said, according to the state-run news agency. Six civilians were killed and 47 wounded, he said.
The explosion shook nearby buildings and was heard miles away.
“Everything seemed to tumble down after a deafening blast,” said Muhammad Daud, who owns a pharmacy. “I crawled out of the debris and saw pieces of flesh all around.”
The trouble began around 12:30 p.m. when angry protesters chanting slogans in support of Abdur Rashid Ghazi, [******]a religious leader killed during the mosque assault, barred a government-appointed cleric from leading the prayers.
The government cleric, Maulana Ashfaq, was forced out of the mosque and said that he would never return.
The seminary students then occupied the mosque as police officers retreated and fired tear gas. Dozens of protesters climbed to the rooftop and chanted jihadist slogans. Hundreds of people rummaged through the rubble left from the siege at the mosque compound and an adjacent public library.
Asma Mazhar, 15, dressed head to toe in a black burqa, stood barefoot amid the rubble. It is a sign of respect, she said. “This is sacred land,” she said. Ms. Mazhar said she had been studying at the seminary for five years. On July 10, the last day of the siege, she surrendered with 28 other women.
One bearded young man, who did not want to be identified, held pieces of rubble from the siege. “These are fragrant with the blood of the martyrs,” [****]he said. More than 100 people were killed in the Red Mosque siege, the government says.
By 6 p.m., the security forces had regained control of the mosque. Chaudhry Mohammad Ali, the deputy commissioner of Islamabad, said dozens of seminary students were arrested. “There is no occupation,” he said with relief.
Salman Masood reported from Islamabad, and David Rohde from New York.
Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

Posted by Kent Bolton at 10:04 AM | Permalink

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/27/world/asia/27cnd-india.html
July 27, 2007
U.S. Announces Nuclear Exception for India
By DAVID E. SANGER [bush white house] [nsc principals, deputies, and lower] [bureaucracy involved] [the USFP deal under the administration with India] [I can see merits in the decision although it’s been the source of controversy and doubtless complicated USFP vis-à-vis others, especially Pakistan] [followp] [***********]
WASHINGTON, July 27 — Three years after President Bush urged global rules to stop additional nations from making nuclear fuel, the State Department today announced that the administration is carving out an exception for India, [******]in a last-ditch effort to seal a civilian nuclear deal between the countries.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/27/world/asia/27cnd-india.html
July 27, 2007
U.S. Announces Nuclear Exception for India
By DAVID E. SANGER [bush white house] [nsc principals, deputies, and lower] [bureaucracy involved] [the USFP deal under the administration with India] [I can see merits in the decision although it’s been the source of controversy and doubtless complicated USFP vis-à-vis others, especially Pakistan] [followp] [***********]
WASHINGTON, July 27 — Three years after President Bush urged global rules to stop additional nations from making nuclear fuel, the State Department today announced that the administration is carving out an exception for India, [******]in a last-ditch effort to seal a civilian nuclear deal between the countries.
“The United States and India have reached a historic milestone in their strategic partnership by completing negotiations on the bilateral agreement for peaceful nuclear cooperation,” the department said in a statement.
The announcement follows more than a year of negotiations intended to keep an unusual arrangement between the countries from being defeated in New Delhi.
Until the overall deal was approved by Congress last year, the United States was prohibited by federal law from selling civilian nuclear technology to India because it has refused to sign the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. The legislation passed by Congress allows the United States to sell both commercial nuclear technology and fuel to India, but would require a cutoff in nuclear assistance if India again tests a nuclear weapon. Indias Parliament balked at the deal, with many politicians there complaining that the requirements infringed on Indias sovereignty.
Under the deal, which was described on Thursday by senior American officials, Mr. Bush has agreed to go beyond the terms of the deal that Congress approved, promising to help India build a nuclear fuel repository and find alternative sources of nuclear fuel in the event of an American cutoff, skirting some of the provisions of the law. [*******]
In February 2004, [*****]President Bush, in a major speech outlining new nuclear policies to prevent proliferation, declared that “enrichment and reprocessing are not necessary for nations seeking to harness nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.” He won the cooperation of allies for a temporary suspension of new facilities to make fuel, but allies that include Canada and Australia have also expressed interest in uranium enrichment.
The problem is a delicate one for the administration, because this month American officials are working at the United Nations Security Council to win approval of harsher economic sanctions against Iran for trying to enrich uranium. India is already a nuclear weapons state and has refused to sign the treaty; Iran, a signer of the treaty, does not yet have nuclear weapons.
But in an interview Thursday, R. Nicholas Burns, the under secretary of state for political affairs, who negotiated the deal, said, “Iran in no way, shape or form would merit similar treatment because Iran is a nuclear outlaw state.”
He noted that Iran hid its nuclear activities for many years from international inspectors, and that it still had not answered most of their questions about evidence that could suggest it was seeking weapons.
Because India never signed the treaty, it too was considered a nuclear outlaw for decades. But Mr. Bush, eager to place relations with India on a new footing, waived many of the restrictions in order to sign the initial deal. It was heavily supported by Indian-Americans and American nuclear equipment companies, which see a huge potential market for their reactors and expertise. [and with good reasons] [******]
Representative Edward J. Markey, a Massachusetts Democrat who opposed the initial deal and said he would try to defeat the new arrangement, said Thursday, “If you make an exception for India, we will be preaching from a barstool to the rest of the world.”
Though India would be prohibited from using the fuel it purchases from the United States for nuclear weapons, the ability to reprocess the fuel means Indias other supplies would be freed up to expand its arsenal.
“It creates a double standard,” Mr. Markey said. “One set of rules for countries we like, another for countries we don’t.” [yes it does] [though that’s hardly stopped USFP previously] [******]
Robert J. Einhorn, a scholar at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said that in “the first phase of negotiations with India, the administration made concessions that put the country on par with countries that have signed” the Nonproliferation Treaty. (Israel and Pakistan are the only other countries that have refused to sign it, and North Korea quit the treaty four years ago.)
“Now we’ve gone beyond that, and given India something that we don’t give to Russia and China.”
In general, advocates of a far-stronger relationship between India and the United States have favored the nuclear cooperation deal, and it passed through Congress fairly easily. But those arguing that the administration has not made good on its promises to clamp down on the trade in nuclear fuel argue that Mr. Bush could be setting a precedent that will undercut his nonproliferation initiative.
Mr. Burns said he disagreed because “this agreement is so very much in our national interest.”
“It will further our nonproliferation efforts globally” by gradually bringing India into the nuclear fold, he said.
Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

Posted by Kent Bolton at 09:50 AM | Permalink

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/27/AR2007072700005.html
FBI Chief Disputes Gonzales On Spying
Mueller Describes Internal Debate
By Dan Eggen and Paul Kane
Washington Post Staff Writer and Washingtonpost.com Staff Writer
Friday, July 27, 2007; A01 [bush nsc principals] [somewhat obscure stuff on AG Ganzales and firing of US attorneys] [the important connection is the nsa warrant-less spy program] [incredible meeting in march 2004? Where then white house attorney Gonzales and Andy Card went to GWU hospital where then AG Ashcroft under sedation and in ICU] [acting AG Commey there and white house brought a paper for Ashcroft to sign overruling Commey!] [incredibly bizarre but gets better because now AG Gonzales appears to have repeatedly lied about the latre-night visit and its purpose] [followup] [**]
FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III yesterday contradicted the sworn testimony of his boss, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, by telling Congress that a prominent warrantless surveillance program was the subject of a dramatic legal debate within the Bush administration.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/27/AR2007072700005.html
FBI Chief Disputes Gonzales On Spying
Mueller Describes Internal Debate
By Dan Eggen and Paul Kane
Washington Post Staff Writer and Washingtonpost.com Staff Writer
Friday, July 27, 2007; A01 [bush nsc principals] [somewhat obscure stuff on AG Ganzales and firing of US attorneys] [the important connection is the nsa warrant-less spy program] [incredible meeting in march 2004? Where then white house attorney Gonzales and Andy Card went to GWU hospital where then AG Ashcroft under sedation and in ICU] [acting AG Commey there and white house brought a paper for Ashcroft to sign overruling Commey!] [incredibly bizarre but gets better because now AG Gonzales appears to have repeatedly lied about the latre-night visit and its purpose] [followup] [**]
FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III yesterday contradicted the sworn testimony of his boss, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, by telling Congress that a prominent warrantless surveillance program was the subject of a dramatic legal debate within the Bush administration.
Mueller's testimony appears to mark the first public confirmation from a Bush administration official that the National Security Agency's Terrorist Surveillance Program was at issue in an unusual nighttime visit by Gonzales to the hospital bedside of then-Attorney General John D. Ashcroft, who was under sedation and recovering from surgery. [****]
Mueller's remarks to the House Judiciary Committee differed from testimony earlier in the week from Gonzales, who told a Senate panel that a legal disagreement aired at the hospital did not concern the NSA program. [*****]Details of the program, kept secret for four years, were confirmed by President Bush in December 2005, provoking wide controversy on Capitol Hill.
"The discussion was on a national -- an NSA program that has been much discussed, yes," Mueller said in response to a question from Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Tex.). Mueller told another lawmaker that he had serious reservations about the warrantless wiretapping program.
His testimony presents a new problem for the beleaguered attorney general, whose credibility has come under attack from Democrats and some Republicans. They say Gonzales deceived them on a number of issues, including the NSA program and events surrounding the firing last year of nine U.S. attorneys.
"He tells the half-truth, the partial truth and anything but the truth," said Sen. Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.), as he and three other Democrats on the Judiciary Committee asked the Justice Department yesterday to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate whether Gonzales lied to Congress about the NSA program.
Complicating the administration's predicament, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) yesterday issued subpoenas to White House adviser Karl Rove and a deputy, demanding their testimony by Thursday as part of the panel's long-running investigation into the prosecutor firings and the alleged politicization of Justice Department career personnel jobs. The White House has refused such requests, prompting House lawmakers to move toward criminal contempt citations against a former Bush legal counsel and his current chief of staff.
Justice Department spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said in a statement that Gonzales's testimony and statements about the NSA program have been accurate, but that "confusion is inevitable when complicated classified activities are discussed in a public forum."
Gonzales is under fire in particular for his testimony in February 2006 that there had been no "serious disagreement" about the NSA wiretapping program. Gonzales and his aides have since said that he was referring to the monitoring of international communications confirmed by Bush and not to other, undisclosed "intelligence activities" [pretty hard to believe] [******]that attracted controversy within the administration.
"The disagreement that occurred in March 2004 [******]concerned the legal basis for intelligence activities that have not been publicly disclosed and that remain highly classified," Roehrkasse said.
Other officials, including Mueller and several Democratic lawmakers who were briefed on the NSA's activities, have said that the surveillance, or some part of it, was at the heart of the dispute.
Mueller declined at the hearing to discuss Gonzales's statements on the topic. "I really can't comment on what Judge Gonzales was thinking or saying," he said. "I can tell you what I understood at the time."
Mueller's testimony is particularly striking in light of his opposition to Gonzales's view of the matter at issue during the 2004 legal dispute. Then-Acting Attorney General James B. Comey sought Mueller's help in ensuring that an FBI security detail did not evict Comey from Ashcroft's hospital room during the visit by Gonzales, then White House counsel, and Andrew H. Card Jr., then the White House chief of staff. [***************]
Mueller was not present during the hospital visit but testified yesterday that Ashcroft briefed him on the conversation. He repeatedly said he agreed with Comey's version of events, which included testimony that Mueller, Ashcroft, Comey and others were prepared to quit if the program went ahead without changes to render it legal.
Bush agreed to make the changes after he met with Mueller and discussed the objections Mueller shared with Comey, according to Comey's account. Mueller conveyed that promise to Comey. [************]
Signaling that Democrats intend to keep pursuing the issue, House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) wrote to Mueller after yesterday's hearing, requesting notes about the 2004 hospital incident. Mueller testified that he kept records because the episode was "out of the ordinary."
FBI officials declined to comment.
The request by four senators to appoint a special prosecutor was sent to Solicitor General Paul D. Clement. He has taken charge of matters relating to the U.S. attorney firings and related controversies because Gonzales and numerous other aides are recused.
Leahy also raised the possibility this week of asking Justice Inspector General Glenn A. Fine to open a perjury investigation of Gonzales if the attorney general declines to correct testimony that Leahy considers inaccurate.
Besides demanding Rove's testimony on the attorney firings, Leahy sent a subpoena to J. Scott Jennings, the White House's deputy political director. Rove and Jennings appear in Justice Department e-mails discussing steps in the plan to fire the prosecutors.
Research editor Alice Crites contributed to this report.
© 2007 The Washington Post Company

Posted by Kent Bolton at 09:49 AM | Permalink

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/27/us/27gitmo.html
July 27, 2007
Critic and Ex-Boss Testify on Guantánamo Hearings
By WILLIAM GLABERSON [bush white house] [pentagon and dod civilian leadersh] [gitmo] [due process and “enemy combatants] [former lawyer there who was presente in special piece in the last week or two—from Orange county] [yesterday, pushback by the pentagon with a report on how bad the detainees potentially are] [process of leaks, counterleaks, well-placed stories, countered by other well-placed stories] [*********]
WASHINGTON, July 26 — The military insider whose criticism of hearings for detainees at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, has become a centerpiece of the debate over the tribunals told Congress on Thursday that the hearings were arbitrary and sometimes relied on “garbage” evidence and that decisions in the proceedings were influenced by commanders.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/27/us/27gitmo.html
July 27, 2007
Critic and Ex-Boss Testify on Guantánamo Hearings
By WILLIAM GLABERSON [bush white house] [pentagon and dod civilian leadersh] [gitmo] [due process and “enemy combatants] [former lawyer there who was presente in special piece in the last week or two—from Orange county] [yesterday, pushback by the pentagon with a report on how bad the detainees potentially are] [process of leaks, counterleaks, well-placed stories, countered by other well-placed stories] [*********]
WASHINGTON, July 26 — The military insider whose criticism of hearings for detainees at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, has become a centerpiece of the debate over the tribunals told Congress on Thursday that the hearings were arbitrary and sometimes relied on “garbage” evidence and that decisions in the proceedings were influenced by commanders.
“What I expected and what occurred were two entirely different things,” the officer, Lt. Col. Stephen E. Abraham of the Army Reserve, said in testimony before the House Armed Services Committee.
“What I expected to see was a fundamentally fair process,” Colonel Abraham added.
The colonel’s account, made public in a court filing last month, has put the Pentagon on the defensive because he is the first participant in the largely secret process to criticize it publicly. [*********]
Colonel Abraham has become something of a celebrity among administration critics who have attacked the hearings as unfair. Some Democrats on the Congressional panel called him a brave man and thanked him, while some Republicans were hostile and suggested that he had little expertise to offer. [*******]
The hearings he has described are the military panels — combatant status review tribunals — that determine whether Guantánamo detainees are properly held as enemy combatants. Detainees are not permitted to have lawyers and cannot see most of the evidence against them.
Also testifying Thursday, Colonel Abraham’s former commander in charge of the hearings defended them as fair and a “very robust process.”
The former commander, Rear Adm. James M. McGarrah, now retired from the Navy, said that while Colonel Abraham is a lawyer and a military intelligence officer, most of his six-month assignment with the hearings unit, the Office for the Administrative Review of the Detention of Enemy Combatants, was spent “helping us build the database” for the hearings. [*******]
“While he had a personal involvement, his view was of a very narrow piece of the process,” Admiral McGarrah said. “We had dozens of people working on information collection.” [in other words, he couldn’t possibly know, say the admiral] [smear campaign?] [****]
Colonel Abraham was a liaison to intelligence agencies and was a member of one hearing panel. He also worked on the unit’s database, which he has described as a depository for much of the evidence against detainees. He told the panel that in his database work he saw thousands of documents that were used as evidence in more than 300 of the 558 hearings conducted in 2004 and 2005.
The hearing on Thursday was part of an effort by Democrats to press for legislation giving detainees access to federal district courts in habeas corpus proceedings to challenge their detentions. Congress has twice passed legislation to bar the courts from hearing such cases, and the Supreme Court said last month that it would consider what could be the definitive appeal on the subject.
The drive for new legislation focuses in large part on critics’ contentions that the hearings are unfair. The administration argues that the hearings give detainees more rights than have ever been accorded wartime detainees.
After years of battles, the debate has become formulaic, and each side’s moves predictable. The hearing began with the Republicans introducing into the record a report prepared at the Pentagon’s request by a West Point study group that describes the detainees as far more dangerous than is often understood.
The Democrats then introduced a rebuttal by a group from Seton Hall University Law School, who last year wrote a report describing the detainees in less frightening terms.
But Colonel Abraham was the star witness. Spirited and enthusiastic, he interrupted members of the panel and at one point told the committee chairman, Representative Ike Skelton, Democrat of Missouri, that he had not properly framed a question.
He said he had raised frequent concerns about the fairness of the process, but that “a quick result was preferred over a probing inquiry.”
In the tribunal hearing he took part in, he testified, the three panel members all agreed that the military did not have evidence against the detainee. “Not only I, but the other members of the panel said, ‘This is garbage,’ ” Colonel Abraham said.
Some committee members were unmoved. Representative John Kline, a Minnesota Republican who is a former marine, questioned Colonel Abraham about how much work he had done on the hearings. “We are looking at you for information about this entire process, but you served on one panel,” Mr. Kline said. “This is not the depth and breadth of experience we ought to be looking at.” [************]
Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

Posted by Kent Bolton at 09:48 AM | Permalink

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/27/washington/27cong.html
July 27, 2007
Senate Passes Bill Based on 9/11 Panel Proposals
By CARL HULSE [bush white house] [us congress] [110th congress, 1st session] [dems in control and puhsing the Iraq war exit] [dems elected on, among other things, enacting full 9/11 commission recommendations] [6-plus months after seizing power, some activity along those lines] [interesting reasons for obstacles from GOP] [followup to yesterday] [*******]
WASHINGTON, July 26 — The Senate approved antiterrorism legislation late Thursday that grew out of the recommendations of the bipartisan Sept. 11 commission after voting overwhelmingly for a measure allocating $40 billion for domestic security in the coming year.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/27/washington/27cong.html
July 27, 2007
Senate Passes Bill Based on 9/11 Panel Proposals
By CARL HULSE [bush white house] [us congress] [110th congress, 1st session] [dems in control and puhsing the Iraq war exit] [dems elected on, among other things, enacting full 9/11 commission recommendations] [6-plus months after seizing power, some activity along those lines] [interesting reasons for obstacles from GOP] [followup to yesterday] [*******]
WASHINGTON, July 26 — The Senate approved antiterrorism legislation late Thursday that grew out of the recommendations of the bipartisan Sept. 11 commission after voting overwhelmingly for a measure allocating $40 billion for domestic security in the coming year.
Approval of the antiterrorism bill, which passed 85 to 8,[****] put Democrats within reach of one of their central legislative goals. Party leaders hope the victory helps put to rest talk of a do-nothing Congress before lawmakers begin an August break. The House was expected to pass it the measure and send it to President Bush as early as Friday.
“I believe this bill will greatly enhance the security of the American people, protecting them from natural disaster and also, God forbid, from terrorist attack,” said Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, an independent from Connecticut who was one of the chief authors of the bill. [**********]
Defying the White House, Republican senators led an effort to add $3 billion for border security to the homeland security spending bill and suggested they would join an effort to override any veto by President Bush, who has threatened to reject bills that exceed his spending goals. The measure was approved 89 to 4.
“On the issue of border security,” said the Republican leader, Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, “Senate Republicans have not been pleased with the administration’s progress, and are not particularly reluctant to have a vigorous discussion with the administration about the appropriateness of adequately funding border security.”
Democrats made enacting the remaining recommendations of the Sept. 11 Commission a major campaign theme last year, saying the Bush administration had refused to follow through on some of the proposals even though the commission said they would better secure the nation against the threat of terrorism.
The measure put new requirements in place for screening air and sea cargo. In a compromise with Republicans and the administration, Democrats agreed to extend the deadline for inspecting all seaport cargo if ports are unable to comply. [*****]
The legislation changes the way the homeland security agency distributes antiterrorism grants, putting more emphasis on the risk faced by a community.
The legislation also created a $3.3 billion program intended to help communities improve the ability of different emergency agencies to communicate in an attack or catastrophe. Communication breakdowns were a major problem after the Sept. 11 attacks and Hurricane Katrina, Mr. Lieberman said.
Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

Posted by Kent Bolton at 09:47 AM | Permalink

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/27/world/middleeast/27saudi.html
July 27, 2007
Saudis’ Role in Iraq Frustrates U.S. Officials
By HELENE COOPER
This article was reported by Helene Cooper, Mark Mazzetti and Jim Rutenberg, and written by Ms. Cooper. [bush nsc principals] [former bush administration links with Saudis—not always helpful] [entangled as if in lilliputin, the Saudi tail is wagging the US dog] [***************]
WASHINGTON, July 26 — During a high-level meeting in Riyadh in January, Saudi officials confronted a top American envoy with documents that seemed to suggest that Iraq’s prime minister could not be trusted. [*******] [he probably can’t]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/27/world/middleeast/27saudi.html
July 27, 2007
Saudis’ Role in Iraq Frustrates U.S. Officials
By HELENE COOPER
This article was reported by Helene Cooper, Mark Mazzetti and Jim Rutenberg, and written by Ms. Cooper. [bush nsc principals] [former bush administration links with Saudis—not always helpful] [entangled as if in lilliputin, the Saudi tail is wagging the US dog] [***************]
WASHINGTON, July 26 — During a high-level meeting in Riyadh in January, Saudi officials confronted a top American envoy with documents that seemed to suggest that Iraq’s prime minister could not be trusted. [*******] [he probably can’t]
One purported to be an early alert from the prime minister, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, to the radical Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr warning him to lie low during the coming American troop increase, which was aimed in part at Mr. Sadr’s militia. Another document purported to offer proof that Mr. Maliki was an agent of Iran.
The American envoy, Zalmay Khalilzad, immediately protested to King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, contending that the documents were forged. But, said administration officials who provided an account of the exchange, the Saudis remained skeptical, adding to the deep rift between America’s most powerful Sunni Arab ally, Saudi Arabia, and its Shiite-run neighbor, Iraq. [***********]
Now, Bush administration officials are voicing increasing anger at what they say has been Saudi Arabia’s counterproductive role in the Iraq war. They say that beyond regarding Mr. Maliki as an Iranian agent, the Saudis have offered financial support to Sunni groups in Iraq. [****]Of an estimated 60 to 80 foreign fighters who enter Iraq each month, American military and intelligence officials say that nearly half are coming from Saudi Arabia and that the Saudis have not done enough to stem the flow. [old Saudi game of acquiescence when it seems to suit their purposes] [but they always get bitten so it’s hard to understand why they repeatedly try to mount the jihadis tiger thinking they can dismount at their convenience] [*******]
One senior administration official says he has seen evidence that Saudi Arabia is providing financial support to opponents of Mr. Maliki. He declined to say whether that support was going to Sunni insurgents because, he said, “That would get into disagreements over who is an insurgent and who is not.”
Senior Bush administration officials said the American concerns would be raised next week when Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates make a rare joint visit to Jidda, Saudi Arabia. [************]
Officials in Washington have long resisted blaming Saudi Arabia for the chaos and sectarian strife in Iraq, choosing instead to pin blame on Iran and Syria. Even now, military officials rarely talk publicly about the role of Saudi fighters among the insurgents in Iraq.
The accounts of American concerns came from interviews with several senior administration officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they believed that openly criticizing Saudi Arabia would further alienate the Saudi royal family at a time when the United States is still trying to enlist Saudi support for Mr. Maliki [*******] and the Iraqi government, and for other American foreign policy goals in the Middle East, including an Arab-Israeli peace plan.
In agreeing to interviews in advance of the joint trip to Saudi Arabia, the officials were nevertheless clearly intent on sending a pointed signal to a top American ally. They expressed deep frustration that more private American appeals to the Saudis had failed to produce a change in course.
The American officials said they had no doubt that the documents shown to Mr. Khalilzad were forgeries, though the Saudis said they had obtained them from sources in Iraq. “Maliki wouldn’t be stupid enough to put that on a piece of paper,” one senior Bush administration official said. He said Mr. Maliki later assured American officials that the documents were forgeries.
The Bush administration’s frustration with the Saudi government has increased in recent months because it appears that Saudi Arabia has stepped up efforts to undermine the Maliki government and to pursue a different course in Iraq from what the administration has charted. [******]Saudi Arabia has also stymied a number of other American foreign policy initiatives, including a hoped-for Saudi embrace of Israel.
Of course, the Saudi government has hardly masked its intention to prop up Sunni groups in Iraq and has for the past two years explicitly told senior Bush administration officials of the need to counterbalance the influence Iran has there. [*******]Last fall, King Abdullah warned Vice President Dick Cheney that Saudi Arabia might provide financial backing to Iraqi Sunnis in any war against Iraq’s Shiites if the United States pulled its troops out of Iraq, American and Arab diplomats said.
Several officials interviewed for this article said they believed that Saudi Arabia’s direct support to Sunni tribesmen increased this year as the Saudis lost faith in the Maliki government and felt they must bolster Sunni groups in the eventuality of a widespread civil war.
Saudi Arabia months ago made a pitch to enlist other Persian Gulf countries to take a direct role in supporting Sunni tribal groups in Iraq, said one former American ambassador with close ties to officials in the Middle East. The former ambassador, Edward W. Gnehm, who has served in Kuwait and Jordan, said that during a recent trip to the region he was told that Saudi Arabia had pressed other members of the Gulf Cooperation Council — which includes Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Bahrain and Oman — to give financial support to Sunnis in Iraq. The Saudis made this effort last December, Mr. Gnehm said.
The closest the administration has come to public criticism was an Op-Ed page article about Iraq in The New York Times last week by Mr. Khalilzad, now the United States ambassador to the United Nations. “Several of Iraq’s neighbors — not only Syria and Iran but also some friends of the United States — are pursuing destabilizing policies,” [****] [I remember that oped] [***] Mr. Khalilzad wrote. Administration officials said Mr. Khalilzad was referring specifically to Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. [********]
Ms. Rice and Mr. Gates, as well as Mr. Cheney and Stephen J. Hadley, the national security adviser, have in recent months pressed their Arab counterparts to do more to encourage Iraq’s Sunni leaders to support Mr. Maliki, senior administration officials said.
“This message certainly has been made very clear in Riyadh and Abu Dhabi,” a senior administration official said. “But there is a deep reserve directed both at the person of the Maliki government but more broadly at the concept” that Iraq’s Shiites are “surrogates of Iran.” Saudi Arabia has grown increasingly concerned about the rising influence of Iran in the region.
A spokesman at the Saudi Embassy in Washington did not return telephone calls on Thursday. But one adviser to the royal family said that Saudi officials were aware of the American accusations. “As you know by now, we in Saudi Arabia have been active in having a united Arab front to, first, avoid further inter-Arab conflict, and at the same time building consensus to move toward a peace settlement between the Arabs and Israel,” he said. “How others judge our motives is their problem.” [***********]
Even as American frustration at Saudi Arabia grows, American military officials are still cautious about publicly detailing the extent of the flow of foreign fighters going to Iraq from Saudi Arabia. [*******]Earlier this month, for instance, Brig. Gen. Kevin Bergner, the top American military spokesman in Iraq, detailed the odyssey of a foreign fighter recently captured in Ramadi.
In his public account, General Bergner told reporters that the man had arrived in Syria on a chartered bus, was smuggled into Iraq by a Syrian facilitator, and was given instructions to carry out a suicide truck bombing on a bridge in Ramadi. He did not identify the man’s nationality, but American officials in Iraq say he was a Saudi. [******]
The American officials in Iraq also say that the majority of suicide bombers in Iraq are from Saudi Arabia and that about 40 percent of all foreign fighters are Saudi. [*****] Officials said that while most of the foreign fighters came to Iraq to become suicide bombers, others arrived as bomb makers, snipers, logisticians and financiers.
American military and intelligence officials have been critical of Saudi efforts to stanch the flow of fighters into Iraq, although they stress that the Saudi government does not endorse the idea of fighters from Saudi Arabia going to Iraq.
On the contrary, they said, Saudi Arabia is concerned that these young men could acquire insurgency training in Iraq and then return home to carry out attacks in Saudi Arabia — similar to the Saudis who turned against their homeland after fighting in Afghanistan in the 1980s.
The Bush administration’s relationship with Saudi Arabia has deteriorated steadily since the United States invasion of Iraq, culminating in April when, bitingly, King Abdullah, during a speech before Arab heads of state in Riyadh, condemned the American invasion of Iraq as “an illegal foreign occupation.”
A month before that, King Abdullah effectively torpedoed a high-profile meeting between Israelis and Palestinians, planned by Ms. Rice, by brokering a power-sharing agreement between the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, and the militant Islamist group Hamas that did not require Hamas to recognize Israel.[*****] While that agreement eventually fell apart, the Bush administration, on both occasions, was caught off guard and became infuriated. [********]
But Saudi officials have not been too happy with President Bush, either, and the plummeting of America’s image in the Muslim world has led King Abdullah to strive to set a more independent course.
The administration “thinks the Saudis are no longer behaving the role of the good vassal,” said Steve Clemons, senior fellow and director of the American Strategy Program at the New America Foundation. The Saudis, in turn, “see weakness, they see a void, and they’re going to fill the void and call their own shots.”
Richard A. Oppel Jr. contributed reporting from Baghdad.
Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

Posted by Kent Bolton at 09:46 AM | Permalink

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/26/AR2007072601845.html
How to Manage Assad
By Jon B. Alterman
Friday, July 27, 2007; A21 [oped] [Syria] [bush administration strategy not to talk or to talk only to reward] [versus talk as a matter of US interest] [context: candidate obama last week answere youtube debate question seemingly too eager to talk to rogue regimes] [*****]
The Bush administration thinks Syrian President Bashar al-Assad is bluffing. Its policy of cutting off most contacts with the Syrian government and tightening the screws of sanctions is meant to signal that the United States has superior strength and a superior will. [******]At some point, the reasoning goes, the Syrians will realize that resistance is futile, and they will give up the charade of virulent opposition to U.S. policy in the Middle East. [*****]But a visit to Damascus early this month that included an hour-long discussion with Assad left me unconvinced that his regime can be scared straight.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/26/AR2007072601845.html
How to Manage Assad
By Jon B. Alterman
Friday, July 27, 2007; A21 [oped] [Syria] [bush administration strategy not to talk or to talk only to reward] [versus talk as a matter of US interest] [context: candidate obama last week answere youtube debate question seemingly too eager to talk to rogue regimes] [*****]
The Bush administration thinks Syrian President Bashar al-Assad is bluffing. Its policy of cutting off most contacts with the Syrian government and tightening the screws of sanctions is meant to signal that the United States has superior strength and a superior will. [******]At some point, the reasoning goes, the Syrians will realize that resistance is futile, and they will give up the charade of virulent opposition to U.S. policy in the Middle East. [*****]But a visit to Damascus early this month that included an hour-long discussion with Assad left me unconvinced that his regime can be scared straight.
The Syrian government may overestimate its centrality to Middle East politics and its diplomatic weight, but it knows how to stay in power. The rest of the Middle East has been swept up by discussions of social and political change, economic development and foreign direct investment; Syria's leaders are preoccupied with security and stability. Rather than opening up, they are hunkering down. Six weeks after Assad won reelection with 97.6 percent of the vote, flattering portraits with adoring messages still festooned most billboards and large flat spaces in Damascus. This authoritarian government is not searching for a new playbook. [*********]
For all of Assad's power, though, he does not wield it in ways familiar to Western audiences. Syrians believe that Assad has inherited his father's distrust of the written word and relies on verbal instructions to subordinates. Lacking a common frame of reference, bureaucracies often work at cross-purposes or wander aimlessly.
Assad now speaks fluent English -- in contrast to a discussion we had three years ago -- and he exhibits other signs of cosmopolitanism. For example, he distinguishes Syria's "important" issues from its "urgent" ones -- one of the "Seven Habits of Highly Effective People," a friend of his assured me. Assad's father drove Western diplomats to distraction with marathon meetings and drawn-out negotiations; the son puts a more professional gloss on things, but he seems content to wait out the Bush administration and resume building a bilateral relationship with the United States in 2009. [*****]In our meeting, Assad took pains to sound accommodating on Lebanese sovereignty and forward-leaning on negotiations with Israel -- which he referred to by name. Only Iraq looms as a major strategic threat in his calculus.
The American policy is to give Syria plenty of distance: There is no U.S. ambassador in Damascus, and American diplomats are barred from regular contacts with their Syrian counterparts. Syrians are standoffish as well. Journalists in Damascus whisper that a fear of appearing like supplicants keeps not only Syrian officials from visiting Washington but unofficial envoys as well. [*******]
While Syrian officials often talk about their centrality to "finding solutions" in the Middle East, the government's record as a regional spoiler is far more impressive. Still, Syrian cooperation is worth seeking for at least three reasons.
First, despite all of their differences, the U.S. and Syrian governments share a variety of interests. Neither wants to see Iraq descend into chaos or break up, and neither wants an ascendant jihadist movement in the Middle East. Alliances have been founded on more slender reeds.
Second, there is little evidence to suggest that a cornered Syria is a more pliable Syria. The pervasive security apparatus, robust patronage system and utter lack of political alternatives suggest the Syrian government can remain in power indefinitely. [****]The United States is not about to invade Syria, and while U.S. pressure can reduce Syrian economic growth, a quick look around Damascus makes clear that economic growth is not the government's highest priority. [if it can out wait the bushies, bush policy vis-à-vis Syria a failure for administration by definition] [may be good for US but if bushies cannot take credit, it’s bad for them] [*******]
Third, the cost of engaging with Syria is time and jet fuel -- and little else. The United States and Syria could -- and should -- embark on a series of parallel (if initially uncoordinated) efforts to pursue common interests. Over time, trust could be built to expand joint pursuit of shared goals. If it doesn't work, the United States can walk away without harm to its pride or prestige.
Indeed, it is the apparent fear of failure among U.S. officials that is hardest to understand. A few months ago, a senior American official told me that the United States was reluctant to talk with Syria because we know the Syrians would seek unacceptable U.S. concessions in Lebanon. How do we know that? Why could we not say no?
The problem comes down to this: The Bush administration is seeking to "fix" relations with Syria, and all it sees is bluster and defiance coming out of Damascus. The prospects are indeed poor. But if the U.S. strategy were instead to "manage" Syrian actions with the confidence that comes from overwhelming U.S. strength, the possibilities would be broad. The United States is a strong power, and it should act like one. [********]
The writer directs the Middle East program at theCenter for Strategic and International Studies.
© 2007 The Washington Post Company

Posted by Kent Bolton at 09:45 AM | Permalink

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/26/AR2007072601146.html
Time to Reset the Doomsday Clock?
By Ioannis Saratsis
Special to washingtonpost.com
Friday, July 27, 2007; 12:00 AM [oped] [the old doomsday clock during the Cold War that was usually somewhere between 1100 and straight up] [a need to reactivate?] [gala] [***]
Last month a group of international experts met in Moscow to discuss the successes and failures of past nonproliferation efforts.Tension was thick over America's perceived unilateral nuclear foreign policy, and the Russian criticism was especially harsh. [******]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/26/AR2007072601146.html
Time to Reset the Doomsday Clock?
By Ioannis Saratsis
Special to washingtonpost.com
Friday, July 27, 2007; 12:00 AM [oped] [the old doomsday clock during the Cold War that was usually somewhere between 1100 and straight up] [a need to reactivate?] [gala] [***]
Last month a group of international experts met in Moscow to discuss the successes and failures of past nonproliferation efforts.Tension was thick over America's perceived unilateral nuclear foreign policy, and the Russian criticism was especially harsh. [******]
The day after the NATO-sponsored conference ended, Russian President Vladimir Putin visited President Bush at his family home in Maine, aiming to calm relations between the two nuclear powers over the proposed ballistic missile defense (BMD) system in Eastern Europe. Putin's proposal that the control of such a missile defense system be put under the NATO-Russia council -- elevating U.S.-Russian relations to a "genuine strategic partnership" -- led the world to believe that strained relations between the two had been substantially reduced.
A couple of days after the meeting, however, Sergei Ivanov, Russia's deputy prime minister and the man expected to replace Putin in 2008, threatened to point Russia's nuclear missiles toward Europe if Putin's counteroffers were not accepted. [******]While this threat is not new, it added to the growing antagonistic rhetoric emanating from Russia.
On the one hand, Putin claims to want to work with the United States and Europe on security issues. On the other hand, his actual policies could lead to a nuclear escalation not seen since the end of the Cold War. Just last week Putin asserted his independence from the West by threatening Russia's suspension of its participation in the Conventional Forces in Europe treaty, which, since its inception in 1990, has limited conventional military strength on both sides of the old Iron Curtain.
Under Putin, Russia can no longer be seen as a constructive partner in the nuclear arms-control game. In fact, many at the conference said that Russia no longer shapes its nuclear and foreign policy around the premise of a nuclear-free world. Instead, the anti-Western sentiment whipped up by Putin and his government over the proposed BMD placement in Poland and the Czech Republic has been complemented by a show of force, if you will, with the successful test of the new Iskander MIRV, toted as the ultimate "BMD Buster." [***********]
Yet the "threat" that the BMD system poses to Russia is not about a threat to its nuclear deterrent forces; rather, it is a threat to Russia's strategic interests. Despite his 'positive' proposals and desire to create a "genuine strategic partnership" with the United States, Putin's actions in recent years convey an entirely different message. It is, in the end, the difference between a threat to "strategic deterrent forces" and "strategic national interests" that dictates Russian foreign and nuclear policy in the future, with the former used as an excuse to promote the latter. [********]
As my colleague Andrei Piontkovsky has pointed out, Putin's rhetoric is part of an "overall anti-Western propaganda campaign conducted with incredible intensity." The goal, he argues, is for Russia to get back into Central Europe. [use ir text] [****]
Russia, however, is not solely to blame for the current frosty relations. With America's attention focused on Iran and Iraq, nonproliferation initiatives have taken a backseat. The perception of America's unilateral foreign policy does not lend itself to negotiations; as President Bush said, either you are with us or against us. Even America's intention to modernize its considerable nuclear arsenal, rather than decommission it, is seen as hypocritical. [*******]
With Russia and the U.S. playing a dangerous nuclear game of one-upmanship, hope for nonproliferation based upon the compliance and support of cooperating nations is diminishing. A nuclear expansion is on the horizon, despite the best efforts of nonproliferation programs such as the Proliferation Security Initiative, which seeks to prevent illegal transfers of nuclear weapons and materials. [*****]Given the political nature of nonproliferation and current strains between the two largest nuclear powers, flashback doomsday scenarios could be around the corner.
Ioannis Saratsis is a research associate at the Hudson Institute and was co-director of the NATO workshop on nonproliferation in Moscow.
© 2007 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive

Posted by Kent Bolton at 09:44 AM | Permalink

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/26/AR2007072602115.html
A Timely Victory in Turkey
Recep Tayyip Erdogan shows that democracy and moderate Islam can be a good mix.
Friday, July 27, 2007; A20 [editorial] [Turkey] [Erdogan’s mega victory and what it portends for islam and democrarcy] [*******]
THE CAUSES of Middle East democracy and moderate Islam should get a badly needed boost from last weekend's parliamentary elections in Turkey. The ruling Justice and Development Party, or AK Party, [****]which is led by the religious, liberal and pro-Western Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, won a convincing victory, dealing a rebuff not only to leftist and nationalist opponents but also to the Turkish military. [******]The militantly secular army effectively forced the election by threatening to intervene in the political system in April; the election results showed that Turks do not share the army's fear of the AK Party and that they rejected its meddling.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/26/AR2007072602115.html
A Timely Victory in Turkey
Recep Tayyip Erdogan shows that democracy and moderate Islam can be a good mix.
Friday, July 27, 2007; A20 [editorial] [Turkey] [Erdogan’s mega victory and what it portends for islam and democrarcy] [*******]
THE CAUSES of Middle East democracy and moderate Islam should get a badly needed boost from last weekend's parliamentary elections in Turkey. The ruling Justice and Development Party, or AK Party, [****]which is led by the religious, liberal and pro-Western Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, won a convincing victory, dealing a rebuff not only to leftist and nationalist opponents but also to the Turkish military. [******]The militantly secular army effectively forced the election by threatening to intervene in the political system in April; the election results showed that Turks do not share the army's fear of the AK Party and that they rejected its meddling.
Turkey is different from its Arab neighbors, including Iraq. But the success of the AK Party both in government and at the polls is demonstrating that political parties grounded in Islam can not only thrive within a democratic political system but also help to strengthen it. [*****]Mr. Erdogan, like many Turks from the country's sprawling interior, is a devout Muslim, but he has made no move during five years in office to Islamicize Turkish government or curb the rights of secular Turks. On the contrary, he has pushed through liberalizing reforms, including greater rights for women; presided over an economic boom driven by foreign trade and investment; and pressed for Turkish entry into the European Union.
With parliament due to elect a new president this year, Mr. Erdogan characteristically sought to avoid antagonizing his opponents and the military by refraining from seeking the office himself. Instead, he nominated his capable foreign minister, Abdullah Gul, [*****] another pro-Western moderate. The army nevertheless responded by posting a threatening message on its Web site; this "e-coup," as Turks called it, was followed by a parliamentary impasse over the election.
Though vindicated by the resulting election, Mr. Erdogan can best follow up on his success with more restraint. He has already suggested that he will look for a compromise candidate for the presidency. But he will also have to hold back the hardliners in the military and new parliament who will be pressing for a Turkish military intervention in northern Iraq. [*****]Turks need still more economic reforms, foreign investment and integration with Europe, something that can happen only if the country's leaders avoid succumbing either to nationalist or Islamist agendas. If Mr. Erdogan can steer that tricky course, he will benefit not only his country but also the troubled region around it.
© 2007 The Washington Post Company

Posted by Kent Bolton at 09:43 AM | Permalink

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/27/opinion/27fri2.html
Editorial
Seeking the Truth About Pat Tillman
Published: July 27, 2007
[editorial] [tillman coverup getting curiouser and curiouser] [did white house actually instruct?] [why is 3 star general who is retired being dragged back into limelight and demoted?] [rumors of fragging—not friendly fire, though not discussed here] [*******]
The Pentagon indicated yesterday that several high-ranking officers will soon be punished for misleading investigators probing the 2004 death of Cpl. Pat Tillman, the Army Ranger who became an icon in the administration’s war on terror but who was later found to have been killed by friendly fire. While this could provide a measure of accountability, it should not stop Representative Henry A. Waxman from pursuing his dogged efforts to get to the bottom of this convoluted and troubling case.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/27/opinion/27fri2.html
Editorial
Seeking the Truth About Pat Tillman
Published: July 27, 2007
[editorial] [tillman coverup getting curiouser and curiouser] [did white house actually instruct?] [why is 3 star general who is retired being dragged back into limelight and demoted?] [rumors of fragging—not friendly fire, though not discussed here] [*******]
The Pentagon indicated yesterday that several high-ranking officers will soon be punished for misleading investigators probing the 2004 death of Cpl. Pat Tillman, the Army Ranger who became an icon in the administration’s war on terror but who was later found to have been killed by friendly fire. While this could provide a measure of accountability, it should not stop Representative Henry A. Waxman from pursuing his dogged efforts to get to the bottom of this convoluted and troubling case.
Corporal Tillman, who walked away from a lucrative football contract to enlist in the Army after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, was killed in Afghanistan on April 22, 2004, in a hail of fire from fellow Rangers who mistakenly believed that his small group was an enemy force.
That Corporal Tillman was killed by friendly fire appears to have be known to his fellow soldiers within a day of the incident, if not sooner. But at some point in the first few days another story was concocted asserting that he had died from enemy fire as he heroically tried to help the unit that shot him. [*****]The truth did not emerge — and was not conveyed to his family — until more than a month had gone by and a well-publicized and widely televised memorial service had taken place.
Mr. Waxman, who runs the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, is asking three basic questions: Who initiated the phony story? How far up the chain of command did the deception go? And what did the White House know? [******]
Mr. Waxman has reviewed more than a thousand pages that the White House, with some reluctance, has provided his staff for private review. He now wants some of these documents made available to the full committee, but since the written record seems to shed little light on what the White House was or was not being told, he has also asked four former members of the White House staff to testify. Among them is them Scott McClellan, a former press secretary.
There are at least two possible outcomes here. One is that the White House was part of the deception, which would be bad for the White House. Another is that the White House did not learn the truth any sooner than the public or the Tillman family, which would be very bad for the Pentagon. [******]Mr. Waxman should continue his quest, and the White house must be responsive. [sic.] [note: the piece did not have the NYT logo line]

Posted by Kent Bolton at 09:42 AM | Permalink

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/27/world/europe/27chechnya.html
July 27, 2007
Russia Ordered to Pay Relatives of 11 Chechens Killed by Troops
By MICHAEL SCHWIRTZ [EU] [Euro Court of Human Rights] [on Russia] [former USSR] [Chechnya] [one of the many rampages of Russian troops through Chechnya] [Russia being called on it] [won’t much like being called on it and will like even less that an EU entity doing the calling] [plays into Russia’s victimhood] [use psci 350] [use ir text] [***********]
MOSCOW, July 26 — The European Court of Human Rights issued an unusually harsh rebuke of the Russian government on Thursday, suggesting that its failure to prosecute soldiers responsible for a massacre of civilians in Chechnya [*****]showed indifference to the crime.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/27/world/europe/27chechnya.html
July 27, 2007
Russia Ordered to Pay Relatives of 11 Chechens Killed by Troops
By MICHAEL SCHWIRTZ [EU] [Euro Court of Human Rights] [on Russia] [former USSR] [Chechnya] [one of the many rampages of Russian troops through Chechnya] [Russia being called on it] [won’t much like being called on it and will like even less that an EU entity doing the calling] [plays into Russia’s victimhood] [use psci 350] [use ir text] [***********]
MOSCOW, July 26 — The European Court of Human Rights issued an unusually harsh rebuke of the Russian government on Thursday, suggesting that its failure to prosecute soldiers responsible for a massacre of civilians in Chechnya [*****]showed indifference to the crime.
The court ordered Russia to pay damages of nearly $200,000 to five family members of 11 residents killed on Feb. 5, 2000, when contract soldiers from the St. Petersburg special police force unit rampaged through Novye Aldi, a bombed-out neighborhood in Chechnya’s capital, Grozny.
Russia has failed to find those responsible for the deaths, and no explanation about the circumstances surrounding the killings has been forthcoming, the court said in a statement published on its Web site.
“The astonishing ineffectiveness of the prosecuting authorities in this case can only be qualified as acquiescence in the events,” the court said.
A spokesman from Russia’s prosecutor general’s office, reached by telephone, declined to comment.
The massacre of at least 50 civilians in one day in Novye Aldi came after several days of bombardment by Russian artillery and airstrikes. Witnesses at the time said Russian contract troops had killed women and elderly men and set fire to houses before carting off villagers’ belongings in their armored personnel carriers. [******]
Human rights groups maintain that through the course of the two wars in Chechnya, beginning in 1994 and 1999, Russian soldiers kidnapped, tortured and killed hundreds of civilians, largely with impunity.
Frustrated by the Russian authorities’ inaction, many relatives of those who were killed have appealed to the European Court of Human Rights to redress their grievances.
Russian citizens, mostly from the Caucasus, appeal to the court more often than the citizens of any other country. The 22,150 Russian cases currently pending make up 22.6 percent of the court’s total. [how do they have standing?] [simply by virtue of being European?] [******]
The court has often ruled against Russia, provoking accusations by government officials that its decisions are overly politicized and biased.
In a landmark case last July, the court found Russia guilty of violating the right to life of a Chechen man who disappeared in February 2000.
In the Novye Aldi massacre, the court accused Russia of botching its investigation, despite the wide availability of evidence.
“The killings had been committed in broad daylight, and a large number of witnesses, including some of the applicants, had seen the perpetrators face to face,” the court said.
It also said that bullets and cartridges had been collected, some with traceable serial numbers.
“Despite all that,” the court said, “and notwithstanding the domestic and international public outcry caused by the cold-blooded execution of more than 50 civilians, almost six years after the tragic events in Novye Aldi no meaningful result whatsoever had been achieved in the task of identifying and prosecuting the individuals who had committed the crimes.” [*******]
Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

Posted by Kent Bolton at 09:41 AM | Permalink

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/27/world/middleeast/27mideast.html
July 27, 2007
Abbas Aide Resigns in Wake of Fatah Rout in Gaza
By ISABEL KERSHNER [former Palestine] [Hamastan] [Fatah muscle man in Hamastan who was responsible for Hamas’ victory there over Fatah] [followup] [*******]
JERUSALEM, July 26 — Muhammad Dahlan, [****] the former strongman of Gaza who was among those blamed for Fatah’s stinging military defeat there last month, resigned Thursday as national security adviser to the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas. [************]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/27/world/middleeast/27mideast.html
July 27, 2007
Abbas Aide Resigns in Wake of Fatah Rout in Gaza
By ISABEL KERSHNER [former Palestine] [Hamastan] [Fatah muscle man in Hamastan who was responsible for Hamas’ victory there over Fatah] [followup] [*******]
JERUSALEM, July 26 — Muhammad Dahlan, [****] the former strongman of Gaza who was among those blamed for Fatah’s stinging military defeat there last month, resigned Thursday as national security adviser to the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas. [************]
The resignation was little more than a formality, because Mr. Abbas issued a decree dissolving his national security council immediately after the Hamas takeover of Gaza five weeks ago.
An official in Mr. Abbas’s office, speaking on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak for attribution, said that he did not understand why Mr. Dahlan sent the letter of resignation now, but that the president accepted it anyway. [*****]
Many in Fatah have blamed Mr. Dahlan for the rapid collapse of their forces in Gaza in the face of a Hamas offensive that lasted less than a week. Neither he nor most of the other senior security commanders of the Fatah-dominated Palestinian Authority security forces were in Gaza during the fighting, leading to charges that their men had been abandoned in the field. [*********]
Mr. Dahlan was recuperating from knee surgery abroad at the time. He returned to Ramallah, the Fatah headquarters in the West Bank, but is somewhere in the Balkans for more treatment, said the official in the president’s office.
In a statement sent to reporters, Mr. Dahlan cited his “long absence” and health problems as reasons for his resignation. But many Palestinians saw it as an acceptance of responsibility for the rout in Gaza.
“It was the right thing to do,” said Sufyan Abu Zayda, a former Fatah official.
While out of favor in Fatah, Mr. Dahlan is even more despised by Hamas, the militant Islamic group. As the chief of the Palestinian Authority’s Preventive Security apparatus in Gaza, he led a crackdown on Hamas in 1996. [*******]The fall of the Preventive Security headquarters, where some Hamas militants said they had been tortured, was a defining moment for Hamas in Gaza. After the battle victory, Mr. Dahlan’s grand home was looted and vandalized.
Mr. Dahlan had risen meteorically from humble beginnings in a Gaza refugee camp, first making his mark as a student leader in the 1980s. Israel and the United States had come to trust him, and some saw him as a potential successor to Mr. Abbas. [well that shows how desparate the entire process is: a potential successor who was responsible for reign of terror that made Hamas stronger!] [*********]
Mr. Abbas appointed Mr. Dahlan as his national security adviser soon after the formation of the Hamas-Fatah unity government in March, enraging Hamas. Mr. Dahlan was said to be building a Fatah Executive Force in Gaza to rival the Hamas militia, also known as the Executive Force, that had been set up to rival the Fatah-dominated official forces.
Mr. Abu Zayda indicated that he did not see Mr. Dahlan’s resignation as a sign of recovery in Fatah or the beginning of reform. “I have stopped hoping or even dreaming about reform,” he said. “There are people in Fatah who want to take the movement with them to the cemetery.”
In Gaza on Thursday, at least four Palestinian militants were killed in clashes with Israeli forces. Islamic Jihad said that three of its men had been killed in an Israeli airstrike as they traveled by car. It said one was Omar al-Khatib, a senior Islamic Jihad commander.
Israeli security officials said that Mr. Khatib and his deputy, who was also killed, had been firing rockets and mortar shells at Israel.
A Palestinian militant was killed in a morning strike from the air. An army spokeswoman said he had been spotted aiming a rocket-propelled grenade at Israeli forces on a search-and-arrest operation in the south of the Gaza Strip. Palestinian medics said he had belonged to Hamas.
A 20-year-old Palestinian man died after an Israeli soldier hit him with a baton at a checkpoint near Bethlehem. The army spokeswoman said that the man had drawn a knife and that a soldier hit him after another soldier fell in a scuffle.
Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

Posted by Kent Bolton at 09:40 AM | Permalink

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/26/AR2007072600349.html
Blast Kills at Least 25 in Long-Secure Baghdad Neighborhood
U.S. Commander Links Shelling of Green Zone to Training in Iran
By Megan Greenwell
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, July 27, 2007; A15 [-ir] [hydra] [insurgency] [bush administration’s “surge option” or “new way forward” underway] [some positive indicators of improvement] [nevertheless, violence while surge unfolds] [pentagon’s recent status report—pretty awful but also predictable] [followup] [chaos increases] [more violence] [*****] [ditto]
BAGHDAD, July 26 -- A car bomb tore through a crowded market in central Baghdad on Thursday evening, killing at least 25 people and injuring 110, police said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/26/AR2007072600349.html
Blast Kills at Least 25 in Long-Secure Baghdad Neighborhood
U.S. Commander Links Shelling of Green Zone to Training in Iran
By Megan Greenwell
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, July 27, 2007; A15 [-ir] [hydra] [insurgency] [bush administration’s “surge option” or “new way forward” underway] [some positive indicators of improvement] [nevertheless, violence while surge unfolds] [pentagon’s recent status report—pretty awful but also predictable] [followup] [chaos increases] [more violence] [*****] [ditto]
BAGHDAD, July 26 -- A car bomb tore through a crowded market in central Baghdad on Thursday evening, killing at least 25 people and injuring 110, police said.
A cloud of black smoke rose over much of the city after the explosion, which set a three-story apartment building on fire. Police said many of the victims were women shopping for food or clothing.
The explosion was the latest in a string of car bombs in Karrada, a largely Shiite district long considered one of Baghdad's safest neighborhoods. More than 50 people have been killed in seven car bomb attacks in the neighborhood this month. There was no significant violence in Karrada in June, police records show.
Since the war began, Karrada had been one of the few places in Baghdad to have escaped intense sectarian violence. Sunnis and Shiites driven out of other areas of the capital flocked to the neighborhood, willing to pay higher rents for the prospect of safety.
A sprawling set of streets with dozens of produce stalls, clothing stores and restaurants, Karrada is especially known for its jewelry stores, selling products from cheap costume bracelets to gold rings. Thursday afternoons are one of the busiest times in Karrada, as people finish their shopping before the midday curfew Friday, the Muslim holy day.
The sudden wave of attacks jarred many Baghdad residents, who had come to regard Karrada as a place where they could spend a leisurely few hours with relatively little fear. Police said they will increase patrols around the area, especially after the Iraqi soccer team plays in its first Asian Cup championship Sunday.
"I used to feel comfortable and secure when I went to Karrada," said Shaymaa Hassan, 24. "I liked to shop for clothes and shoes there. Now I don't go unless I have to."
Also Thursday, the second-ranking U.S. commander in Iraq reiterated accusations that Iran is supporting Iraqi militias, telling reporters that insurgents are being trained in Iran to improve their skills in attacking U.S. and other targets in Iraq.
"In the last three months we have seen a significant improvement in the capability of mortarmen and rocketeers to provide accurate fire into the Green Zone and other places," said Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, operational commander of U.S. forces in Iraq. The Green Zone is the fortified district that includes Iraqi government buildings and the U.S. Embassy. "We think this is directly related to training conducted inside Iran." [*****]
Iran denies that its operatives are providing money, weapons or training to Iraqi insurgents. [*****]Critics have said U.S. officials have provided no concrete evidence linking such support to Iran's leadership.
Odierno's comments came two days after the U.S. and Iranian ambassadors to Baghdad met to discuss the security situation. The two countries agreed to set up a security committee with Iraq but remained at odds over whether Iran is supporting insurgent groups. [**********]
Odierno also said that he has seen some encouraging results from the increased level of U.S. troops in Iraq, including a decrease in the number of military casualties in July, but added that it is too early to tell whether a five-month-old strategy to improve security is effective.
Through Thursday, 66 American troops had died in Iraq this month, the lowest figure since August 2006, according to iCasualties.org, an independent Web site that tracks military deaths. There were 101 U.S. troops killed in June, the group's figures show.
"We've started to see a slow but gradual reduction in casualties, and it continues in July," Odierno told reporters. "It's an initial positive sign, but I would argue we need a bit more time to make an assessment whether it's a true trend."
Six of the troops killed this month died in three incidents this week, the military announced Thursday. Three Marines and a sailor were killed in combat in Diyala province east of Baghdad on Tuesday, and a soldier died after a gun battle in Baghdad on Wednesday. Another Marine died Sunday in a noncombat incident, the military said.
Seven Iraqis were killed Thursday by a car bomb in the northern city of Kirkuk, police said. A roadside bomb killed five Iraqi police officers between Hilla and Diwaniyah, south of Baghdad.
Special correspondents Dalya Hassan and Saad al-Izzi in Baghdad and staff researcher Robert E. Thomason in Washington contributed to this report.
© 2007 The Washington Post Company

Posted by Kent Bolton at 09:39 AM | Permalink

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/27/world/middleeast/27iraq.html
July 27, 2007
Bomb Kills 25 in Baghdad After U.S. Cites Security Success
By STEPHEN FARRELL [-ir] [hydra] [insurgency] [bush administration’s “surge option” or “new way forward” underway] [some positive indicators of improvement] [nevertheless, violence while surge unfolds] [pentagon’s recent status report—pretty awful but also predictable] [followup] [chaos increases] [more violence] [*****]
BAGHDAD, July 26 — A car bomb killed 25 people in a Shiite area of the city during the evening rush hour on Thursday, wounding dozens of shoppers,[*****] destroying stores and leaving a pall of smoke hanging over the center of the city.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/27/world/middleeast/27iraq.html
July 27, 2007
Bomb Kills 25 in Baghdad After U.S. Cites Security Success
By STEPHEN FARRELL [-ir] [hydra] [insurgency] [bush administration’s “surge option” or “new way forward” underway] [some positive indicators of improvement] [nevertheless, violence while surge unfolds] [pentagon’s recent status report—pretty awful but also predictable] [followup] [chaos increases] [more violence] [*****]
BAGHDAD, July 26 — A car bomb killed 25 people in a Shiite area of the city during the evening rush hour on Thursday, wounding dozens of shoppers,[*****] destroying stores and leaving a pall of smoke hanging over the center of the city.
The attack occurred hours after Lt. Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, the second-ranking American commander in Iraq, claimed “significant success” for recent security operations in Baghdad and Diyala Province. [******]
General Odierno, who runs day-to-day military operations in Iraq, also accused Iran of being involved in recent deadly attacks on Baghdad’s high-security Green Zone, which is regularly hit by rocket and mortar fire from across the Tigris River.
“We have seen in the last three months a significant improvement in the capability of mortarmen and rocketeers to provide accurate fire into the Green Zone and other places,” he said in Baghdad.
“We think this is directly related to training that was conducted in Iran,” he said. “So we continue to go after these networks with the Iraqi security forces. This is not done independently by U.S. or coalition forces. This is done in conjunction with Iraqi security forces. And we continue to attack those networks, and we will continue to do so” [*****] [as well they must] [but must be careful in terms of hot pursuits and the like] [US doesn not need another war] [********] until the weapons are stopped.
On July 10, a barrage killed three people in the Green Zone and wounded 18. The United States has repeatedly accused Iran of arming, supporting and training militias in Iraq. Iran has consistently denied the accusations.
General Odierno said that American casualties in Iraq had declined recently, after a peak in May. But he said he could not yet judge the significance of the drop.
“It is an initial positive sign, but I would argue I need a bit more time to make an assessment of whether it is a true trend or not,” he said.
The American military on Thursday announced five more American deaths in Diyala and Baghdad.
In the car bombing, in the Karada area of Baghdad, nine cars were destroyed and a three-story building was set on fire, the police said. It was the deadliest of several attacks on Thursday.
In Kirkuk, a northern city, a car exploded near a restaurant, killing at least six civilians and wounding 25, said Brig. Gen. Sarhat Qadir, of the police.
A suicide bomber also killed seven people, most of them policemen, at the gate of a police station west of Mosul, said Brig. Gen. Muhammad al-Waqaa, of the police.
Bombers also attacked Mosul’s main soccer stadium, in what appeared to be a warning to the people who celebrated the Iraqi soccer team’s victory on Wednesday in the semifinals of the Asian Cup. No one was in the stands. A room used by broadcasters, journalists and officials was damaged.
An Iraqi employee of The New York Times contributed reporting from Mosul.
Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

Posted by Kent Bolton at 09:38 AM | Permalink

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/27/world/middleeast/27refugees.html
July 27, 2007
Meeting on Aiding 2 Million Iraqi Refugees Highlights Divisions
By HASSAN M. FATTAH [Jordan] [-ir] [hydra] [insurgency] [bush administration’s “surge option” or “new way forward” underway] [predictable refugee crisis that apparently was not planned for, like so much else] [Syria then Jordan have borne the brunt] [*****]
AMMAN, Jordan, July 26 — Diplomats and other delegates met here on Thursday to try to find ways to resolve the plight of more than two million Iraqi refugees estimated to be in Jordan, Syria and elsewhere in the Middle East, [*****]but they stopped short of proposing any concrete solutions.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/27/world/middleeast/27refugees.html
July 27, 2007
Meeting on Aiding 2 Million Iraqi Refugees Highlights Divisions
By HASSAN M. FATTAH [Jordan] [-ir] [hydra] [insurgency] [bush administration’s “surge option” or “new way forward” underway] [predictable refugee crisis that apparently was not planned for, like so much else] [Syria then Jordan have borne the brunt] [*****]
AMMAN, Jordan, July 26 — Diplomats and other delegates met here on Thursday to try to find ways to resolve the plight of more than two million Iraqi refugees estimated to be in Jordan, Syria and elsewhere in the Middle East, [*****]but they stopped short of proposing any concrete solutions.
The meeting, a follow-up to a conference of Iraq’s neighbors and donor states in May in Sharm el Sheikh, Egypt, was intended to help develop a strategy for settling the growing refugee crisis. But it served only to underscore the divided interests of host states that are seeking aid to cover the cost of having the refugees, and those of Iraq and donor states, which are seeking a long-term solution to the escalating crisis. [********]
“I personally would not consider this a successful meeting,” said Mohammad Hamoud, an Iraqi deputy foreign minister and one of the leaders of Thursday’s meeting. “It was an exhibition of the problems we face, but did little in the way of proposing solutions.” He also accused host states of treating the refugees harshly, subjecting them to long waits at the border, only to be refused entry in many cases. He asked the host states to ease restrictions on the refugees.
About 750,000 refugees now live in Jordan, and 1.5 million live in Syria, most growing destitute and facing a cooler welcome from their hosts. Under Jordanian and Syrian laws, the Iraqis are considered guests living there on visas, and are not eligible for the same protections and benefits as other refugees. Humanitarian and aid groups have been limited in the kinds of support and help they can offer the refugees.
The Bush administration is coming under increased pressure from Congress and its international allies to come up with a response to the Iraqi refugee problem. But so far, most of the American efforts, both from Congress and the administration, have focused on trying to find a way to help Iraqis whose lives might be in danger because they worked with or aided the United States in Iraq.
Democrats, led by Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, have been pushing legislation to increase the number of Iraqi employees of the American government allowed to take refuge in the United States.
“Many Iraqis have been working with our armed forces, our diplomatic mission and our reconstruction teams in Iraq and have performed valiantly, and their lives are at risk,” Mr. Kennedy said in a statement on Monday. “America has a special obligation to keep faith with the Iraqis who now have a bull’s-eye on their back because of their association with our government.”
Administration officials say they are addressing the issues by trying to reduce violence in Iraq, by providing money — $150 million this year — for Iraqi refugee assistance and by increasing the number of Iraqi refugees who can be resettled in the United States.
Earlier this month, Ryan C. Crocker, the United States ambassador to Iraq, sent a cable to Washington pressing the Bush administration to grant immigrant visas to all Iraqis employed by the American government. [****]Administration officials said that Mr. Crocker’s sentiments were echoed throughout the State Department, but conceded that there remained a gap between words and action on the issue.
In Amman, Thursday’s meeting included delegates from Iraq, Syria, Egypt, the Arab League and United Nations relief organizations, as well as representatives of the United States, the European Union, Turkey, Iran, Russia and Japan, [*****]which attended as observers. While the stated focus was on developing an economic, security and infrastructural strategy for dealing with the refugees, aid was the central focus of most of the discussions.
“What people are here for, and what they really want to hear about, is money,” said a delegate from an international aid group.
Mukheimar Abu-Jamous, secretary general of Jordan’s Interior Ministry, pleaded for greater international support, and said the influx of refugees had exposed his country to untold security challenges.
“The prevailing security situation in Iraq that prompted this influx of refugees to Jordan has amounted to increased security challenges in our country,” he said. “Our security bill has peaked.”
The human rights group Amnesty International warned Wednesday that the flow of refugees from Iraq was “threatening a humanitarian crisis that could engulf the region unless concerted international action is taken now.” [********]
Jordan has grown increasingly concerned that Iraq’s sectarian tensions may spill over to its soil, and it fears that growing destitution among the refugees could lead to increased crime. Jordanian delegates at the meeting estimated that Jordan would need more than $1 billion in aid to cover the infrastructural and security costs of taking in the Iraqis. Syria estimated its cost for doing the same at more than $250 million. [*******]
Mr. Hamoud, the deputy foreign minister, said Iraq had promised to increase an earlier pledge of $25 million in aid for the refugees. “They have been asking crazy numbers that we cannot deliver,” he said of the host states. “We can promise to help the refugees, but we cannot be made responsible for rebuilding other countries’ infrastructure.”
The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees estimates that 50,000 people continue to flee Iraq every month, mostly to neighboring Jordan and Syria. An additional two million Iraqis are believed to be displaced within Iraq, many taking refuge in the Kurdish north, which has largely been spared violence.
“The response of the international community must go beyond accepting token numbers of refugees from Iraq — their assistance must constitute a significant part of the solution to this terrible crisis,” Malcolm Smart, head of Amnesty International’s Middle East and North Africa Program, told The Associated Press on Wednesday.
The group called on the United States, the European Union and other developed countries to provide resettlement programs for refugees.
Helene Cooper contributed reporting from Washington.
Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

Posted by Kent Bolton at 09:37 AM | Permalink

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/world/AP-Australia-Britain-Terrorism.html
July 27, 2007
Australia Drops Charge in Bomb Plots
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 6:28 a.m. ET [Australia] [UK] [London] [coverage where evidence was cited but too little to charge] [then next day, charged] [building pressure] [followup to July 17] [context: 7-29-07 and 7-3-07, London and Glasgow respectively] [hydra] [followup to recent activities in UK and linkages to both India and Australia] [*****]
BRISBANE, Australia (AP) -- An Indian doctor was freed from custody after Australia's chief prosecutor said Friday that a charge linking him to failed terrorist bombings in Britain was a mistake. [*******]

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/world/AP-Australia-Britain-Terrorism.html
July 27, 2007
Australia Drops Charge in Bomb Plots
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 6:28 a.m. ET [Australia] [UK] [London] [coverage where evidence was cited but too little to charge] [then next day, charged] [building pressure] [followup to July 17] [context: 7-29-07 and 7-3-07, London and Glasgow respectively] [hydra] [followup to recent activities in UK and linkages to both India and Australia] [*****]
BRISBANE, Australia (AP) -- An Indian doctor was freed from custody after Australia's chief prosecutor said Friday that a charge linking him to failed terrorist bombings in Britain was a mistake. [*******]
Prosecutors withdrew the charge against Mohamed Haneef in the Brisbane Magistrates Court after a review of the evidence by the federal Director of Public Prosecutions Damian Bugg found that his office should never have recommended it. [*****]
''Mistakes are embarrassing. You're embarrassed if you do something wrong,'' Bugg told reporters in Canberra. ''I'm disappointed that it's happened and I will first thing next week try and obtain a better understanding of how it came about.''
The government responded by saying Haneef, 27, would be freed from custody while Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews considers whether he will change his decision to revoke the doctor's visa.
Haneef was released from prison in the eastern city of Brisbane. His lawyer Peter Russo would not say where Haneef planned to live while the government reviewed whether to reinstate his visa.
Andrews said Haneef was free to stay where he liked as long as he reported daily to a government official.
His wife, Firdaus Arshiya, told reporters in Bangalore, India, that she hoped her husband would fly home within days.
''I'm happy he's been proved innocent,'' she said.
E. Ahmed, India's junior foreign minister, said India would support Haneef's request for a bridging visa so that he could leave Australia on his own accord, rather than be deported.
Haneef has been in custody since July 2, when he was arrested at Brisbane International Airport as he was about to fly to India. [*******]
Haneef had been charged with providing reckless support to a terrorist organization because he gave his mobile phone SIM card to his second cousin, Sabeel Ahmed, in July last year. He had faced up to 15 years in prison if convicted. [********]
Bugg said there was insufficient evidence to prove the charge, describing the mistake as ''upsetting.''
British police have charged Ahmed, 26, with withholding information that could prevent an act of terrorism. His brother, Kafeel Ahmed, is believed to have set himself ablaze after crashing into Glasgow Airport and remains in a Scottish hospital with critical burns.
In Brisbane, prosecutor Alan MacSporran said authorities had erred in telling the court that Haneef's SIM card had been discovered inside the vehicle used to attack the Glasgow airport. The card was found in the possession of Sabeel Ahmed in Liverpool, more than 185 miles from the attack scene.
A second error related to claims that Haneef had lived with the Ahmed brothers in Liverpool before he moved to Australia from Britain last year. The trio had only spent time together in Britain.
Haneef has denied knowing anything about the British bomb plot, and told police he only gave his SIM card to his cousin so he could take advantage of extra minutes left on the account.
He told police he was rushing to India to join his family because his daughter had been born a few days earlier by emergency Caesarean section.
A court ordered Haneef's release on bail last week, but Andrews kept him in prison by canceling his visa on character grounds, based on information provided by the federal police.
Haneef is due to appeal that decision in court on Aug. 8. If his appeal fails, Haneef could be deported to India, an outcome he opposes. [********]
Associated Press Writer Rod McGuirk in Canberra, Australia contributed to this report.
Copyright 2007 The Associated Press

Posted by Kent Bolton at 09:36 AM | Permalink

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/27/world/africa/27somalia.html
July 27, 2007
A U.N. Report on Somalia Accuses Eritrea of Adding to the Chaos
By JEFFREY GETTLEMAN [Somalia] [Africa] [horn; Maghreb; broader middle east] [islamist and jihadis both challenged the transitional government back by the US and UN—West generally] [both islamist and transitional jockeying for power over past couple of years] [2006 forward, activities increased] [Kenya, Ethiopia, and US involved once islamists-jihadis began destroying transitional govt’s limited writ] [if Ethiopia involved, you can bet Eritrea attempting to thwart them] [followup] [*******]
NAIROBI, Kenya, July 26 — Eritrea has covertly shipped “huge quantities of arms,” possibly including suicide bomb belts and missiles that can shoot down planes, [*******]to insurgents in Somalia in an effort to torpedo Somalia’s fledgling government, a new United Nations report says.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/27/world/africa/27somalia.html
July 27, 2007
A U.N. Report on Somalia Accuses Eritrea of Adding to the Chaos
By JEFFREY GETTLEMAN [Somalia] [Africa] [horn; Maghreb; broader middle east] [islamist and jihadis both challenged the transitional government back by the US and UN—West generally] [both islamist and transitional jockeying for power over past couple of years] [2006 forward, activities increased] [Kenya, Ethiopia, and US involved once islamists-jihadis began destroying transitional govt’s limited writ] [if Ethiopia involved, you can bet Eritrea attempting to thwart them] [followup] [*******]
NAIROBI, Kenya, July 26 — Eritrea has covertly shipped “huge quantities of arms,” possibly including suicide bomb belts and missiles that can shoot down planes, [*******]to insurgents in Somalia in an effort to torpedo Somalia’s fledgling government, a new United Nations report says.
According to the report, delivered to the Security Council last Friday, United Nations monitors tracked a cargo jet that made at least 13 flights from Eritrea into Somalia to unload fighters and weapons. [******]
The Eritrean government denied all accusations and accused the arms monitors of being “misused and abused by some countries who have created quagmire in Somalia.”
The report comes at a crucial time for Somalia, which is still steeped in chaos, awash in arms and struggling to establish a permanent government. Many people fear that the country could become the new battleground between Ethiopia and Eritrea, [*****]neighboring nations that fought a costly border war in the late 1990s. Thousands of Ethiopian troops rearranged the power dynamic in Somalia late last year, ousting an Islamic movement that had controlled considerable territory and helping to install in Mogadishu, Somalia’s capital, a Western-backed transitional government that had limited influence inside the country.
Since then, Ethiopian troops have been facing an insurgency in Somalia that appears to be a mix of clan militias, disgruntled businessmen and remnants of the Islamist forces.
The United Nations report accused the Ethiopian military of using white phosphorous bombs to kill 15 insurgents and 35 civilians in Mogadishu in April; residents said the bombs literally melted people. [******]
The Ethiopian government denied this and called the accusation “baseless,” though United Nation monitors provided bomb scene photographs and evidence from soil samples indicating that the soil at the impact area had 117 times the normal amount of phosphorous.
The report also detailed a large suicide attack on an Ethiopian Army base near Mogadishu in March that killed 63 soldiers and wounded 50, making it one of the deadliest single strikes in Somalia [******]in recent memory but one that had been significantly played down at the time.
Over all, the report painted a picture of the conflict in Somalia that was much more intense and grim than most outsiders knew. [******]But some Somalia analysts were cautious. A previous United Nations arms report on Somalia, issued in November, had made some claims — including one that said 700 Somali jihadists traveled to Lebanon to fight alongside Hezbollah — that were roundly dismissed as inaccurate.
The recommendations at the end of the most recent report had familiar United Nations prescriptions for Somalia: more police officers, better disarmament and establishing a viable government. Transitional leaders are holding a reconciliation conference in Mogadishu, and this week, government officials invited Islamist leaders. Several have replied that they are not interested in coming. [*****]
Warren Hoge contributed reporting from the United Nations.
Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

Posted by Kent Bolton at 09:35 AM | Permalink

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/world/AP-Pakistan-Mosque.html
July 27, 2007
New Violence at Reopened Pakistan Mosque
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 10:26 a.m. ET [Pakistan] [south asia] [followup from past weeks] [Pakistan as the new Afghanistan] [musharraf’s dangerous gambit] [attempting to balance US-West gsave against placating his traditional Pashtun, Deobandi, jihadis constituency] [Pakistan’s military and intelligence services fully infiltrated bt latter] [alqaeda’s home-turf central] [hydra] [a tipping point may have been reached in past week or two] [the infamous truce that Musharraf made with tribal leaders—on again, off again] [little doubt the Taliban have refuge in Pakistan and at best are tolerated by military-intelligence] [possibly new round of violence at red mosque] [********]
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan (AP) -- A suspected suicide bomber killed 11 people at a hotel near Islamabad's Red Mosque on Friday [********] [was he Pakistani or foreign fighter?] [***] as the government reopened the religious complex for the first time since a bloody army raid to oust Islamic militants from the site.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/world/AP-Pakistan-Mosque.html
July 27, 2007
New Violence at Reopened Pakistan Mosque
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 10:26 a.m. ET [Pakistan] [south asia] [followup from past weeks] [Pakistan as the new Afghanistan] [musharraf’s dangerous gambit] [attempting to balance US-West gsave against placating his traditional Pashtun, Deobandi, jihadis constituency] [Pakistan’s military and intelligence services fully infiltrated bt latter] [alqaeda’s home-turf central] [hydra] [a tipping point may have been reached in past week or two] [the infamous truce that Musharraf made with tribal leaders—on again, off again] [little doubt the Taliban have refuge in Pakistan and at best are tolerated by military-intelligence] [possibly new round of violence at red mosque] [********]
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan (AP) -- A suspected suicide bomber killed 11 people at a hotel near Islamabad's Red Mosque on Friday [********] [was he Pakistani or foreign fighter?] [***] as the government reopened the religious complex for the first time since a bloody army raid to oust Islamic militants from the site.
Hundreds of students clashed with security forces outside the mosque, denouncing President Gen. Pervez Musharraf and demanding the return of a pro-Taliban cleric who was detained during the siege earlier this month. [******]
The bomb struck the Muzaffar Hotel, in a downtown market area about a quarter mile from the mosque. Local television showed victims -- many of them bleeding or badly burned, with their clothing in tatters -- being carried from the wreckage to waiting ambulances.
Amir Mehmood, a witness, said he saw blood, body parts, and shreds of a Punjab police uniform inside the hotel.
Senior Interior Ministry official Javed Iqbal Cheema said 11 people were killed, including seven police, and 43 were wounded.
Kamal Shah, another top Interior Ministry official, said initial reports suggested it was a suicide attack targeting police.
There was no claim of responsibility, but Islamic militants will be suspected in what is the latest in a series of attacks in Pakistan since the July 10 [*****]army raid at the mosque left at least 102 people dead.
The bombing came soon after police fired tear gas to disperse hundreds of protesters who called for hard-line cleric Abdul Aziz lead the prayers at the mosque.
The demonstrators threw stones at an armored personnel carrier and dozens of police in riot gear on a road outside the mosque. After the demonstrators disregarded calls to disperse peacefully, police fired tear gas, scattering the crowd.
‘’Musharraf is a dog! He is worse than a dog! He should resign!’’ students shouted.
Over mosque loudspeakers, protesters vowed to ‘’take revenge for the blood of martyrs.’’ [********]
They forced a government-appointed cleric assigned to lead prayers to retreat, and a cleric from a seminary associated with the mosque eventually led the prayers.
Some of the students lingered over the ruins of a neighboring girls' seminary that was demolished by authorities this week. Militants had used the seminary to resist government forces involved in the siege.
Friday's reopening was meant to help cool anger over the siege, which triggered a flare-up in militant attacks on security forces across Pakistan. Public skepticism still runs high over the government's accounting of how many people died in the siege, with many still claiming a large number of children and religious students were among the dead. The government says the overwhelming majority were militants. [******]
The mosque's clerics had used thousands of its students in an aggressive campaign to impose Taliban-style Islamic law in the capital. The campaign, which included kidnapping alleged Chinese prostitutes and threatening suicide attacks to defend the fortified mosque, raised concern about the spread of Islamic extremism in Pakistan.
Militants holed up in the mosque compound for a week before government troops launched their assault, leaving it pocked with bullet holes and damaged by explosions.
Friday's crowd shouted support for the mosque's former deputy cleric, Abdul Rashid Ghazi, who led the siege until he was shot and killed by security forces after refusing to surrender. Ghazi was the public face of a vigilante, Islamic anti-vice campaign that had challenged the government's writ in the Pakistani capital.
''Ghazi, your blood will lead to a revolution,'' the protesters chanted. [*****]
Police stood by on the street outside the mosque, but did not enter the courtyard where the demonstration was taking place.
Islamabad commissioner Khalid Pervez said police forces did not want to go inside the mosque in case it led to a clash with protesters, but maintained the situation was under control. He said the reaction of Aziz's supporters was understandable and predicted things would calm down.
In a speech at the mosque's main entrance, Liaqat Baloch, [*****]deputy leader of a coalition of hard-line religious parties, the Mutahida Majlis-e-Amal, [****] condemned Musharraf as a ''killer'' and declared there would be an Islamic revolution in Pakistan.
''Maulana Abdul Aziz is still the prayer leader of the mosque. The blood of martyrs will bear fruit. This struggle will reach its destination of an Islamic revolution. Musharraf is a killer of the constitution. He's a killer of male and female students. The entire world will see him hang,'' Baloch said.
Pakistan's Geo television showed scenes of pandemonium inside the mosque, with dozens of young men in traditional Islamic clothing and prayers caps shouting angrily and punching the air with their hands.
Officials were pushed and shoved by men in the crowd. One man picked up shoes left outside the mosque door and hurled them at news crews recording the scene.
Wahajat Aziz, a government worker who was among the protesters, said officials were too hasty in reopening the mosque.
''They brought an imam that people had opposed in the past,'' he said. ''This created tension in the environment. People's emotions have not cooled down yet.''
Security was tightened in Islamabad ahead of the mosque's reopening, with extra police taking up posts around the city and airport-style metal detectors put in place at the mosque entrance used to screen worshippers for weapons.
In the southwestern city of Quetta, meanwhile, gunmen opened fire on the vehicle of the official spokesman for a provincial government in Pakistan on the border with Afghanistan, killing him, [*****]police said.
Raziq Bugti, spokesman and special adviser to the chief minister of Baluchistan province, died at the scene after unknown assailants fired a barrage of shots as he drove past a school in Quetta, said Javid Ahmed, a local police officer.
The attackers fled, Ahmed said.
Baluchistan has experienced scores of attacks on military and government targets, most blamed on ethnic Baluch tribesmen and nationalist groups who are demanding the central government grant more royalties [****]and control over resources, such as natural gas, extracted from the province.
The region has also been used by Taliban militants to launch attacks across the border on Afghan and foreign troops. Local officials have denied that al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden and Taliban chief Mullah Omar are hiding in Baluchistan. [******]
Musharraf has angrily rejected claims by Afghan President Hamid Karzai that Omar was living in Quetta, insisting that the Taliban leader was in Afghanistan's neighboring Kandahar province.
Copyright 2007 The Associated Press

Posted by Kent Bolton at 09:35 AM | Permalink

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/26/washington/26medical.html
July 26, 2007
Bush Panel Seeks Upgrade in Military Care
By JIM RUTENBERG and DAVID S. CLOUD [bush white house] [dole-shalala veteran’s health panel] [dod civilian and pentagon policymakers] [the veteran’s administration] [woeful state of health care for America’s vets] [the walter reed debacle] [playing catch up with, what else, a blue-ribbon panel] [*******]
WASHINGTON, July 25 — A presidential panel on military and veterans health care released a report Wednesday concluding that the system was insufficient for the demands of two modern wars and called for improvements, including far-reaching changes in the way the government determines the disability status and benefits of injured soldiers and veterans.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/26/washington/26medical.html
July 26, 2007
Bush Panel Seeks Upgrade in Military Care
By JIM RUTENBERG and DAVID S. CLOUD [bush white house] [dole-shalala veteran’s health panel] [dod civilian and pentagon policymakers] [the veteran’s administration] [woeful state of health care for America’s vets] [the walter reed debacle] [playing catch up with, what else, a blue-ribbon panel] [*******]
WASHINGTON, July 25 — A presidential panel on military and veterans health care released a report Wednesday concluding that the system was insufficient for the demands of two modern wars and called for improvements, including far-reaching changes in the way the government determines the disability status and benefits of injured soldiers and veterans.
The bipartisan commission made 35 recommendations that included expanded and improved treatment of traumatic brain injuries and the type of post-traumatic stress disorders that overwhelmed public mental health facilities during the Vietnam era but remain stigmatized to this day. [********]
President Bush told reporters at the White House late Wednesday that he had directed Robert M. Gates, the defense secretary, and Jim Nicholson, secretary of veterans affairs, “to take them seriously, and to implement them, so that we can say with certainty that any soldier who has been hurt will get the best possible care and treatment that this government can offer.”
The commission said fully carrying out its recommendations would cost $500 million a year for the time being, and $1 billion annually years from now as the current crop of fresh veterans and active military members ages and new personnel is in place. [******]
The report was spurred by a series of embarrassing news reports about the substandard treatment returning soldiers received at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, which for years had been held up by politicians, including the president, as providing unparalleled care to American troops. [*************]
Mr. Bush named the nine-member President’s Commission on Care for America’s Returning Wounded Warriors in March, with Bob Dole, the former Republican Senate leader, and Donna E. Shalala, the former Clinton administration health and human services secretary, as its leaders.
The commission’s report went beyond just the problems at Walter Reed. It proposed fixes for longstanding concerns about disparities in treatment and benefits at Department of Defense facilities, for active-duty military personnel and the Department of Veterans Affairs facilities, which treat the retired. It also recommended cutting the red tape that frustrates military families.
“This is a major overhaul and a simplification and a rationalization of the disability system in this country for our veterans,” Ms. Shalala told reporters Wednesday.
The report also focused on treatment, calling for more aggressive attention to potential brain trauma caused by roadside bombs.
Even as it called for change, the report avoided harsh assessment of the administration’s handling of the military and veterans health care systems. Rather, it portrayed many of the problems it was seeking to fix as resulting from advances in modern medicine that have allowed soldiers to survive injuries that would have killed them in previous wars.
“While numerous aspects of U.S. medical care are excellent, problems in coordination and continuity of care are common,” the report said. “Our overall health system is oriented to acute care, not long-term rehabilitation.”
And, it acknowledged, “Many of the concerns already are being addressed by Congress and in the two departments.”
Indeed, the panel’s recommendations came on the same day the Senate approved several related measures. The chamber approved a 3.5 percent pay raise for military personnel and the creation of programs to improve the oversight of injured service members as they move through the system, and to improve the treatment of brain injuries and stress disorders.
The most far-reaching of the commission’s recommendations involve restructuring the Defense Department’s disability and compensation system, which has provoked complaints from many military personnel. Currently, injured service members go through an elaborate process to assess whether their conditions are serious enough to prevent them from returning to duty. [**************]
If they are unfit, Defense Department doctors assign patients a rating that determines what level of benefits they receive.
After retiring, a service member can choose whether to receive benefits from Veterans Affairs or the Defense Department, evaluating which package is better — a choice that would be eliminated under the new recommendations.
When the commission met in April, Col. Allan Glass of the Army talked about the case of a sergeant with 18 years of active duty to illustrate the disparity in disability ratings.
Colonel Glass said the sergeant was found to have stomach cancer that had spread to his lymph nodes and underwent surgery at Walter Reed. The colonel said the Army’s physical evaluation board said the soldier was unfit for service but gave him a disability rating of zero percent. The Army reopened the case at the behest of the soldier’s senator and changed his rating to 4o percent. Yet when Colonel Glass spoke in April, he said the soldier had still not received a final disability rating from Veterans Affairs.
The commission report on Wednesday called for a change in the system that would leave the Defense Department responsible for determining if a service member is fit for duty, but transfer the responsibility for determining disability ratings and compensation to the V.A.
Ms. Shalala said the shift could provide savings by reducing the bureaucracy, though she said the savings had not been calculated, and were not accounted for in the plan’s overall price. And carrying out that recommendation, the report acknowledged, would require Congress to pass legislation.
The commission also recommended creating a “recovery plan” for seriously injured military personnel and assigning one coordinator for each patient and their family to help them navigate the process of recovering and returning to duty or retiring from active service.
Patients are now assigned case managers, but the commission said it found that patients “typically have several case managers, each concerned with a different component of their care.”
In addition, the report said, patients complained that some managers “did not understand” how to treat people with traumatic brain injuries, a condition that can affect soldiers injured in roadside bomb attacks.
When 35,000 apparently healthy returnees from Iraq and Afghanistan were screened, 10 to 20 percent “had apparently experienced a mild T.B.I. during deployment,” the report noted, using the military abbreviation for traumatic brain injury.
Soldiers and their families complained in the wake of the Walter Reed revelations — first disclosed in The Washington Post — about delays in receiving benefits and treatment because of delays in sharing data between the Defense Department and the V.A.
Democrats noted that the administration had not embraced previous reports and their recommendations, including the recent Iraq Study Group report and those of the commission that investigated the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.
But Mr. Bush has spent his presidency pledging support for the troops, and reports of problems in their care has exposed political and policy vulnerabilities that the Democrats have seized upon. [************]
After a brief run Wednesday on the White House South Lawn with two veterans who were using prostheses, Mr. Bush said: “The spirit of that report is, any time we have somebody hurt, they deserve the best possible care, and their family needs strong support. We’ve provided that in many cases, but to the extent we haven’t, we’re going to adjust.”
(Aides said the jog, with one veteran who lost both legs in Afghanistan and one who lost a leg in Iraq, had been scheduled earlier, independent of the report’s release.)
Asked if she thought Mr. Bush would follow through on his pledge, Ms. Shalala said, “Senator Dole and I are going to keep an eye on him.”
Jacqueline Palank contributed reporting.
Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

Posted by Kent Bolton at 10:10 AM | Permalink

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/26/world/middleeast/26reconstruct.html
July 26, 2007
Bechtel Meets Goals on Fewer Than Half of Its Iraq Rebuilding Projects, U.S. Study Finds
By JAMES GLANZ [bush administration] [obscure inspector general for Iraq reconstruction] [minor bureaucracy with apparent power] [auditing Bechtel and other huge war-profit companies] [********]
One of the largest American contractors working in Iraq, Bechtel National, met its original objectives on fewer than half of the projects it received as part of a $1.8 billion reconstruction contract, while most of the rest were canceled, reduced in scope or never completed as designed, [****]federal investigators have found in a report released yesterday.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/26/world/middleeast/26reconstruct.html
July 26, 2007
Bechtel Meets Goals on Fewer Than Half of Its Iraq Rebuilding Projects, U.S. Study Finds
By JAMES GLANZ [bush administration] [obscure inspector general for Iraq reconstruction] [minor bureaucracy with apparent power] [auditing Bechtel and other huge war-profit companies] [********]
One of the largest American contractors working in Iraq, Bechtel National, met its original objectives on fewer than half of the projects it received as part of a $1.8 billion reconstruction contract, while most of the rest were canceled, reduced in scope or never completed as designed, [****]federal investigators have found in a report released yesterday.
But the report, by the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction, an independent agency, places a large share of the blame for the failures on the government overseers at the United States Agency for International Development who administered the contract. The aid agency assigned just two people in Iraq to oversee the giant contract, which included some 24 major projects and 150 subcontractors and stipulated that all invoices be approved or denied in just 10 days. [***]
The report is the first of a planned series of audits of Western contractors that have received large slices of the roughly $40 billion in American taxpayer money that has been spent on the troubled program to rebuild Iraq. Previous audits have looked at individual projects but never the performance across Iraq of a single contractor.
Stuart W. Bowen Jr., who heads the special inspector general’s office, said the United States government clearly shared responsibility with the company for the project failures.
“I would say there’s fault on both sides,” Mr. Bowen said in an interview yesterday. He added that neither the aid agency nor the United States Army Corps of Engineers, which also oversaw aspects of the contract, ever came close to filling all their staff positions in Iraq.
“This isn’t so much an indictment of Bechtel as it is a criticism of the system,” said Stephen Ellis, a vice president at Taxpayers for Common Sense in Washington. “Those two individuals overseeing over a billion dollars in contracting — it seems to me they may deserve a medal, but they shouldn’t have had to do that,” [*****]Mr. Ellis said.
While the new audit is a sometimes scathing look at landfills that were never dug, fiber-optic networks never completed and sewage treatment facilities that never worked as designed, there is also praise for the work Bechtel did complete, including the installation of two huge electrical generators at the Baghdad South Power Plant and the rehabilitation of a sewer system in the Zafaraniya section of the capital.
“It’s actually quite positive, looking at it from a Bechtel perspective, in a lot of cases,” said Bill Shoaf, program director for the company’s Iraq infrastructure program. Although only 10 of the 24 job orders met their original objectives, Mr. Shoaf said, “Conditions change and priorities change and customers want change.”
Bechtel was one of the first American contractors working in Iraq after the invasion, and it received an early reconstruction contract worth about $1 billion in April 2003. Later that year, Congress approved a much larger reconstruction program, worth $18.3 billion, to rebuild Iraq’s water, sanitation, electrical, oil, transportation and telecommunications sectors. In January 2004, the company received a contract for $1.8 billion of the rebuilding project to carry out some of that work.
But by April of 2004, the main Iraq insurgency had broken out, greatly complicating reconstruction efforts. And at the same time, American government agencies overseeing the effort struggled to fill staff positions. The aid agency filled only 170 of 251 authorized positions in Iraq, the inspector general’s report says, while the Army Corps filled just 18 of 37 positions it had created to support the agency in the country.
Adding further turmoil to the program was the decision by the United States to shift billions of dollars from reconstruction to arming and training Iraqi security forces, causing dozens of projects to be cut back or canceled. Even on the projects that survived, contractors like Bechtel subcontracted much of the work to companies that in turn subcontracted parts of the work to other companies, and so on, making oversight of progress in a dangerous, war-torn country nightmarish at times.
The inspector general’s report is careful to point out that even under these conditions, Bechtel was successful on a number of projects, and a few — including a $22 million water plant — actually came in at under the expected cost. “In other instances, however,” the report says, “millions of dollars were spent and requirements were not met, reduced or clearly established.” [*************]
Among the work that failed was a huge project to add desperately needed electrical output to the Musayyib power plant, south of Baghdad. Originally budgeted at $23 million, the project ran into problems with American subcontractors, [*******]the Iraqi Electricity Ministry and deteriorating local security. Finally, only $6.6 million was paid out before the project ended, and even then, the report says, there is no clear indication of whether anything actually improved at the plant.
“Thus, it is difficult to establish the value of the product received for the $6.6 million cost of this job order,” the report says.
Perhaps even more telling was a Baghdad landfill project originally budgeted at $14 million but never dug, even after $4 million had been spent on the project. Highly trumpeted by the American authorities in Iraq, the project was to be something entirely new for a country never known for the quality of its sanitation facilities. The report says in dry language that the project was canceled after three sites were considered and rejected “because of land ownership issues and security concerns.”
Mr. Shoaf, of Bechtel, said the history of the project was considerably more colorful. The first site considered was near Abu Ghraib, an area that turned out to be a cauldron of insurgent activity, in addition to containing a notorious prison. The site also happened to be riddled with unexploded military ordnance and was abandoned, Mr. Shoaf said.
Work began on a second site on the outskirts of Baghdad, but the local Iraqi governing council ordered that the landfill be moved elsewhere, he said. Finally, the project turned to a third Baghdad site where, as it happened, the water table was too high for a landfill to be excavated.
So, Mr. Shoaf said, the project was dropped and the equipment that had been purchased was turned over to the Iraqi government. By that time, according to the inspector general’s report, $4 million had been spent.
Army Major Faces Bribery Charges
An Army major is facing federal charges that in 2005 he accepted millions of dollars in bribes from contractors doing business with the Pentagon in Iraq and Kuwait.
The Justice Department said yesterday that the major, John Cockerham, 41, of San Antonio, either awarded or controlled the contracts. He has been charged with bribery, money laundering and conspiracy.
He and his wife, Melissa, were charged Sunday. His sister Carolyn Blake, 44, of Sunnyvale, Tex., was charged Tuesday. His wife and his sister were charged with conspiracy.
Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

Posted by Kent Bolton at 10:09 AM | Permalink

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/25/AR2007072501996.html
House Bill Bars Permanent Bases in Iraq
Thursday, July 26, 2007; A14 [110th congress] [bush white house] [nsc principals] [dod civilian and pentagon policymakers-implemetors] [the report due back from patreus to the president thence to congress] [110th congress] [the increasingly unpopular –iraq war] [the issue of whether the US intends to keep bases in –iraq in perpituity] [many Arabs think the US is, and they are probably right] [however, that does not mean that’s why the US invaded] [congress attempting to allay fears but in doing so, making it impossible for the US to salvage anything from its costly intervention] [quite paradoxical] [*******] [ditto]
The House overwhelmingly approved legislation yesterday that would bar the establishment of permanent military bases in Iraq and the use of federal dollars to exercise control over Iraqi oil resources.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/25/AR2007072501996.html
House Bill Bars Permanent Bases in Iraq
Thursday, July 26, 2007; A14 [110th congress] [bush white house] [nsc principals] [dod civilian and pentagon policymakers-implemetors] [the report due back from patreus to the president thence to congress] [110th congress] [the increasingly unpopular –iraq war] [the issue of whether the US intends to keep bases in –iraq in perpituity] [many Arabs think the US is, and they are probably right] [however, that does not mean that’s why the US invaded] [congress attempting to allay fears but in doing so, making it impossible for the US to salvage anything from its costly intervention] [quite paradoxical] [*******] [ditto]
The House overwhelmingly approved legislation yesterday that would bar the establishment of permanent military bases in Iraq and the use of federal dollars to exercise control over Iraqi oil resources.
The measure, passed 399 to 24, was part of a barrage of Iraq bills scheduled for this month and designed to raise pressure on Republicans to break with President Bush on the war.
Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.), who chairs the House Appropriations subcommittee on defense, said that next week he will offer an amendment to the annual defense spending bill demanding that troop withdrawals begin this fall. The amendment would not set a final date for the withdrawal of troops, a change from past Democratic efforts that Murtha predicted will attract Republicans.
"The Democratic Congress will go on record -- every day, if necessary -- to register a judgment in opposition to the course of action that the president is taking in Iraq," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said.
House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (Ohio) decried the bases bill as a "meaningless stunt" before he and 171 other Republicans voted for it. No Democrats opposed the measure.
-- Jonathan Weisman
© 2007 The Washington Post Company

Posted by Kent Bolton at 10:08 AM | Permalink

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/26/washington/26cong.html
July 26, 2007
House Resolution Rejects Permanent Bases in Iraq
By CARL HULSE [110th congress] [bush white house] [nsc principals] [dod civilian and pentagon policymakers-implemetors] [the report due back from patreus to the president thence to congress] [110th congress] [the increasingly unpopular –iraq war] [the issue of whether the US intends to keep bases in –iraq in perpituity] [many Arabs think the US is, and they are probably right] [however, that does not mean that’s why the US invaded] [congress attempting to ally fears but in doing so, making it impossible for the US to salvage anything from its costly intervention] [quite paradoxical] [*******]
WASHINGTON, July 25 — The House voted overwhelmingly on Wednesday to bar permanent United States military installations in Iraq as lawmakers readied for yet another clash over a Democratic demand to withdraw combat troops from the conflict.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/26/washington/26cong.html
July 26, 2007
House Resolution Rejects Permanent Bases in Iraq
By CARL HULSE [110th congress] [bush white house] [nsc principals] [dod civilian and pentagon policymakers-implemetors] [the report due back from patreus to the president thence to congress] [110th congress] [the increasingly unpopular –iraq war] [the issue of whether the US intends to keep bases in –iraq in perpituity] [many Arabs think the US is, and they are probably right] [however, that does not mean that’s why the US invaded] [congress attempting to ally fears but in doing so, making it impossible for the US to salvage anything from its costly intervention] [quite paradoxical] [*******]
WASHINGTON, July 25 — The House voted overwhelmingly on Wednesday to bar permanent United States military installations in Iraq as lawmakers readied for yet another clash over a Democratic demand to withdraw combat troops from the conflict.
By a vote of 399 to 24, the House adopted a resolution that would limit federal spending intended “to establish any military installation or base for the purpose of providing for the permanent stationing of United States Armed Forces in Iraq or to exercise United States economic control of the oil resources of Iraq.” [the rationale is understandable but it really preclude the US salvaging the slightest bit from the costly –iraq war] [**********]
Democrats said the measure, the latest in a series of politically tinged war votes, was needed to make it clear that America had no plan for a permanent military presence in Iraq — a fear they said was fueling some attacks on American troops and building the insurgent resistance.
“We must soundly reject the vision of an open-ended occupation as bad policy that undermines the safety of our troops and recognize it for what it is: another recruiting poster for terrorists,” said Representative Barbara Lee, Democrat of California and an author of the proposal.
House Republicans offered little resistance, saying the plan essentially reflected current law and Bush administration policy. But they criticized Democrats for what they said was meaningless legislation since the administration had not called for permanent bases. [**********]
“The bill brought to the floor by the majority today represents yet another political stunt, and an intellectually dishonest one at that, because the United States has never proposed establishing a permanent base in Iraq or anywhere else,” said Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, the Republican leader. All of the plan’s opponents were Republicans.
The vote came as Representative John P. Murtha of Pennsylvania, chairman of the subcommittee that sets Pentagon spending and a leading Democratic critic of the war, indicated he would try, as early as next week, to add a new withdrawal plan to the annual military spending bill.
Under Mr. Murtha’s draft proposal, President Bush would be required to present Congress with a classified plan for bringing regional stability in the Middle East and within 60 days begin “an immediate and orderly redeployment of U.S. armed forces from Iraq.”
The withdrawal would begin with troops that have been there longer than a year. The proposal, which also calls for an estimate of the American presence in the region for the next five years, does not set a deadline for removing the troops, though Mr. Murtha estimated it would take more than a year.
Mr. Murtha predicted that the central showdown over the withdrawal plan would come in September, after the Congressional recess. He said he had indications that more Republicans and some in the military might be ready at that time to rally behind his latest proposal.
“When you get to September, this is history, this is when we are going to have a real confrontation with the president,” Mr. Murtha told reporters. “I see signals that things are going to get worked out.”
But House Republicans were likely for now to oppose Mr. Murtha’s plan as a misguided Congressional infringement on the president’s powers as commander in chief. And many Democrats prefer an end-date for the withdrawal.
Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, the House speaker, said lawmakers should expect repeated votes on Iraq policy, and she criticized Mr. Bush for citing, in a speech on Tuesday, Al Qaeda as the chief reason for keeping troops there.
“Just when you think you have seen it all, just when you think you have heard it all, the president mentioned Al Qaeda nearly 100 times to justify his course of action in Iraq,” said Ms. Pelosi, who said Democrats were prepared to vote every day on Iraq policy if necessary.
In the Senate, where lawmakers have put off their dispute over Iraq for now, senior members resurrected popular parts of a Pentagon policy measure that stalled last week in the stalemate over the Democratic push for a withdrawal timetable.
In a bipartisan decision, the Senate approved provisions intended to bring improvements in active-duty and veterans health care and provide a 3.5 percent military pay raise as of Oct. 1. The remaining elements are not expected to resurface in the Senate until September.
Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

Posted by Kent Bolton at 10:06 AM | Permalink

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/25/AR2007072502093.html
Administration Urges Full Warhead Funding
Old Weapons May Need Testing, It Warns
By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, July 26, 2007; A09 [bush administration] [nukes] [modernized warhead] [maintenance of nuclear deterrence] [110th congress] [[also beefing up with bunker-buster technology] [constroversial because the US seeks to hold the line on NPT] [appears to be working at cross purposes here] [followup] [gala] [***********]
The Bush administration has told Congress that delays in funding for a new generation of nuclear weapons may require a return to underground testing to ensure that older warheads remain reliable.
The administration included the warning in a four-page statement on nuclear weapons signed by the secretaries of energy, defense and state and sent to Congress this week. [******] The document defended the so-called Reliable Replacement Warhead program, [********]the funding for which is contained in fiscal 2008 authorization and appropriations bills still before Congress.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/25/AR2007072502093.html
Administration Urges Full Warhead Funding
Old Weapons May Need Testing, It Warns
By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, July 26, 2007; A09 [bush administration] [nukes] [modernized warhead] [maintenance of nuclear deterrence] [110th congress] [[also beefing up with bunker-buster technology] [constroversial because the US seeks to hold the line on NPT] [appears to be working at cross purposes here] [followup] [gala] [***********]
The Bush administration has told Congress that delays in funding for a new generation of nuclear weapons may require a return to underground testing to ensure that older warheads remain reliable.
The administration included the warning in a four-page statement on nuclear weapons signed by the secretaries of energy, defense and state and sent to Congress this week. [******] The document defended the so-called Reliable Replacement Warhead program, [********]the funding for which is contained in fiscal 2008 authorization and appropriations bills still before Congress.
In their statement, the secretaries said, "Delays on RRW . . . raise the prospect of having to return to underground nuclear testing to certify existing weapons."
The White House had sought $82 million for the program and hoped to have Congress vote next year on proceeding with production of new warheads that could be deployed by 2012.
However, House and Senate committees have reduced the $82 million to prevent a congressional vote next year on the production phase. The committees have also included proposals in the bills for year-long studies that would lay out a detailed strategic nuclear weapons policy before Congress moves ahead with the warhead program. [**********]
The administration's statement, "National Security and Nuclear Weapons: Maintaining Deterrence in the 21st Century," said that a more detailed justification for the warhead program would follow. [***********]
The secretaries also said that the administration intended to achieve "an effective strategic deterrent at the lowest level of nuclear weapons consistent with our national security and our commitments and obligations to allies." They pointed to President Bush's directive that the number of operational deployed weapons will drop from about 6,000 to between 1,700 and 2,200 by 2012 -- a level set by the agreement Bush signed with Russian President Vladimir Putin in 2002. [**************]
The administration justified the RRW program as necessary to provide a safe and secure warhead for the next 25 years to replace weapons built for the Cold War era. The statement criticized the current lifetime extension program -- begun during the Clinton administration -- as requiring an excessive number of stockpiled warheads to make certain the country had enough for a deployed operational force of 1,700 to 2,200.
"We are committed to maintaining the nuclear weapons stockpile, but as our Cold War-era weapons age, this becomes more and more difficult and very costly," Energy Secretary Samuel W. Bodman said yesterday. "This document clearly lays out the best actions we can take in the face of an uncertain future."
Sen. Pete V. Domenici (R-N.M.), a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee and an advocate of the new warhead program, said yesterday: "I remain hopeful that Congress will fund the feasibility study of the Reliable Replacement Warhead, because it offers the best opportunity to transition from the large and highly specialized Cold War stockpile to a smaller, more secure and lower-cost deterrent in the future."
Stephen Young, a senior analyst with the Union of Concerned Scientists, described the secretaries' statement as "an almost desperate plea for support for the program, which provides nothing that would justify Congress funding it."
© 2007 The Washington Post Company

Posted by Kent Bolton at 10:05 AM | Permalink

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/26/washington/26gitmo.html
July 26, 2007
Pentagon Study Sees Threat in Guantánamo Detainees
By WILLIAM GLABERSON [bush white house] [pentagon and civilian dod] [recent controversies over gitmo and the administration’s claim that it wants to close it] [however, the house I think voted not to allow any of the detainees to be moved to the US] [here the pentagon pushes back with a report demonstrating that some bad guys remain] [odd inasmuch as prejudging is not suppose to occur but, . . .] [*******]
WASHINGTON, July 25 — Accelerating the public relations battle over terrorism suspects held at Guantánamo Bay, a new study of detainees in 2004 and 2005 requested by the Pentagon argues that many were a proven threat to United States forces. [******]They included fighters of Al Qaeda, veterans of terrorism training camps and men who had experience with explosives, sniper rifles and rocket-propelled grenades, it said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/26/washington/26gitmo.html
July 26, 2007
Pentagon Study Sees Threat in Guantánamo Detainees
By WILLIAM GLABERSON [bush white house] [pentagon and civilian dod] [recent controversies over gitmo and the administration’s claim that it wants to close it] [however, the house I think voted not to allow any of the detainees to be moved to the US] [here the pentagon pushes back with a report demonstrating that some bad guys remain] [odd inasmuch as prejudging is not suppose to occur but, . . .] [*******]
WASHINGTON, July 25 — Accelerating the public relations battle over terrorism suspects held at Guantánamo Bay, a new study of detainees in 2004 and 2005 requested by the Pentagon argues that many were a proven threat to United States forces. [******]They included fighters of Al Qaeda, veterans of terrorism training camps and men who had experience with explosives, sniper rifles and rocket-propelled grenades, it said.
The report, by a terrorism study center at West Point, is essentially a rebuttal by the military of growing assertions by advocates for detainees that the American naval station at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, is filled with hapless innocents and low-level cooks and other support personnel who pose no real threat. [*****************]
It paints a chilling portrait of the detainees, [*******] asserting that publicly available information indicates that 73 percent of them were a “demonstrated threat” to American or coalition forces. In all, it says, 95 percent were at the least a “potential threat,” [******] including detainees who had played a supporting role in terrorist groups or had expressed a commitment to pursuing violent jihadist goals. The study is based on information from detainees’ hearings in 2004 and 2005.
The authors made clear that one of their goals was to affect public attitudes. They said the report should “enhance our collective understanding of the threats facing the United States, its allies and its interests and how we respond to them.” [*******]
Pentagon officials have been saying since the spring that they planned a major public relations response in what has become a heated war of perceptions over the situation at Guantánamo. The report indicates it may be the centerpiece of that effort.
With about 360 detainees still held at Guantánamo, the struggle to shape perceptions has become a central focus for the Bush administration and for advocates of the detainees. In the courts and Congress as well as in internal administration debates, some officials have argued that the detainees are far more dangerous than they are portrayed in the news media and in arguments by their advocates. [**************]
The report is an analysis of previously released military summaries of the unclassified evidence used in 516 of the military’s hearings that determine whether detainees are properly held as enemy combatants. It was written at the request of the Pentagon by the Combating Terrorism Center at the United States Military Academy at West Point, a teaching and research center that describes itself as “actively involved in supporting the global war on terror.”
The report says it is an analysis of the same data as a February 2006 report that has become a major irritation to military officials because it has become the foundation for assertions that harmless men are imprisoned at Guantánamo under extreme conditions. The 2006 report was by Seton Hall University School of Law and two lawyers who represent detainees, Mark P. Denbeaux, a law professor there, and his son and law partner, Joshua W. Denbeaux.
The Seton Hall report concluded that only 8 percent of the detainees had been characterized by the military as Qaeda fighters and that 55 percent had not been determined to have committed any hostile acts against the United States. [********]
Both reports are based on partial descriptions of the military’s evidence against detainees. The summaries are the descriptions of unclassified evidence given detainees at the start of the military hearings that rule on whether they are properly held as enemy combatants.
Most of the hearings, combatant status review tribunals, were conducted in a six-month period beginning in the fall of 2004. [***************]
The Seton Hall report has drawn wide attention, including in Congress, because it was one of the first comprehensive studies of Pentagon information on the detainees. “The reality is that a very large fraction of the detainees seem to be at most a ragtag collection of ‘support’ personnel for low-level foot soldiers,” Professor Denbeaux told the Senate in April.
In an interview on Wednesday, Professor Denbeaux said the new report massaged the information to draw conclusions that would be helpful to the Pentagon. “It appears to be a self-serving attempt to put a different slant on the information they presented as the truth in 2004,” [*********]he said.
The new report, released in time for administration testimony on Guantánamo in Congress on Thursday, includes a critique of the Seton Hall report, asserting that it drew speculative conclusions and ignored the context of some military information on detainees.
Lt. Col. Joseph H. Felter, the director of the Combating Terrorism Center and a West Point faculty member, said the new report was an independent evaluation conducted without Pentagon supervision.
Colonel Felter acknowledged, however, that military officials had indicated they wanted to contest the Seton Hall report.
“They had been getting a lot of inquiries related to this previous study,” he said. “They had a lot of concerns with the conclusions, but they did not have another study.” [****]
Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

Posted by Kent Bolton at 10:04 AM | Permalink

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/26/washington/26brfs-SENTENCEINTE_BRF.html
July 26, 2007
Sentence in Terrorism Training Case
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS [bush administration] [doj] [federal prosecutors and federal courts] [sentence in cabbi case] [***********]
A Washington, D.C., cab driver who admitted he had attended training camps in Pakistan was sentenced to 15 years in prison. The man, Mahmud Faruq Brent, had pleaded guilty in April to conspiring to help a terrorist organization, the Pakistani group Lashkar-e-Taiba. Hassen Ibn Abdellah, a defense lawyer, called his client a family man who might have been “naïve, young, impressionable” when he went to the camp in 2002. Mr. Brent was arrested in August 2005 in a case that also ensnared a Florida doctor, Rafiq Abdus Sabir; a New York musician, Tarik Shah; and a New York bookstore owner, Abdulrahman Farhane.
Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/26/washington/26brfs-SENTENCEINTE_BRF.html
July 26, 2007
Sentence in Terrorism Training Case
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS [bush administration] [doj] [federal prosecutors and federal courts] [sentence in cabbi case] [***********]
A Washington, D.C., cab driver who admitted he had attended training camps in Pakistan was sentenced to 15 years in prison. The man, Mahmud Faruq Brent, had pleaded guilty in April to conspiring to help a terrorist organization, the Pakistani group Lashkar-e-Taiba. Hassen Ibn Abdellah, a defense lawyer, called his client a family man who might have been “naïve, young, impressionable” when he went to the camp in 2002. Mr. Brent was arrested in August 2005 in a case that also ensnared a Florida doctor, Rafiq Abdus Sabir; a New York musician, Tarik Shah; and a New York bookstore owner, Abdulrahman Farhane.
Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

Posted by Kent Bolton at 10:03 AM | Permalink

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/26/washington/26home.html
July 26, 2007
Revised Antiterrorism Bill Moves Closer to Approval
By ERIC LIPTON [bush white house] [us congress] [110th congress, 1st session] [dems in control and puhsing the Iraq war exit] [dems elected on, among other things, enacting full 9/11 commission recommendations] [6-plus months after seizing power, some activity along those lines] [interesting reasons for obstacles from GOP] [*******]
WASHINGTON, July 25 — Congress is moving toward approval of antiterrorism legislation that would require a greater share of Homeland Security grants to be based on risk, instead of a political formula, and seeks to tighten security of cargo carried on ships and passenger planes. [*********]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/26/washington/26home.html
July 26, 2007
Revised Antiterrorism Bill Moves Closer to Approval
By ERIC LIPTON [bush white house] [us congress] [110th congress, 1st session] [dems in control and puhsing the Iraq war exit] [dems elected on, among other things, enacting full 9/11 commission recommendations] [6-plus months after seizing power, some activity along those lines] [interesting reasons for obstacles from GOP] [*******]
WASHINGTON, July 25 — Congress is moving toward approval of antiterrorism legislation that would require a greater share of Homeland Security grants to be based on risk, instead of a political formula, and seeks to tighten security of cargo carried on ships and passenger planes. [*********]
But Democrats, to ensure passage of the measure, agreed to compromises that diluted some provisions in the legislation, prompting concerns over the effectiveness of some of the promised security enhancements.
The compromises were necessary because of a veto threat from President Bush and opposition by Republican members in Congress. The bill, expected to come up for final votes in the House and Senate in the next week, cleared the House in January and the Senate in March but has been stalled until recently.
Republicans have claimed that some of the initiatives being pushed by Democrats, such as a requirement that all ship containers headed to the United States from foreign ports be checked for nuclear threats, were impractical and would disrupt global trade. [*******] [probably true but also short of doing it the US is terribly vulnerable to dirty bomb on cargos container] [*******]
Democrats, struggling to win final passage for at least a few pieces of legislation before the summer recess, agreed to the changes, which will allow them to claim a victory.
“To get a bill passed is an art of compromise,” Representative Bennie Thompson, Democrat of Mississippi and chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security, said in an interview Wednesday. “But I don’t think we weakened our systems of protection in the process.”
The so-called 9/11 commission bill would make a major change in the way grants from the Department of Homeland Security are distributed to states. It would cut in half the guaranteed minimum grant, which this year was $3.8 million, that each state would receive, allowing Homeland Security officials to distribute more money in discretionary grants to states where the threat and consequences of a terror strike are deemed greatest. [************]
The change in the grant formula moves in the direction advocated by the Sept. 11 commission, whose recommendations were the inspiration for this bill. Still, the minimum amount of grant money set aside for small population states like Wyoming, West Virginia and Montana is 50 percent higher than what the House first proposed when the bill was introduced in January. In past years, officials from some more populous states that were considered likely terrorist targets, like New York, complained that small or rural states collected outsize grants.
Democrats also agreed to drop a provision that would have required airport security screeners be given collective bargaining rights like most other federal workers, giving them more power to object to work hours or assignments. [***********]The measure had elicited a veto threat from President Bush.
And Democrats agreed to a Republican request that broad legal coverage be offered to people who report suspicious activity. The measure was inspired by an incident last year in Minneapolis, [******]where six Muslim men were removed from a flight after a passenger complaint, an action that provoked a lawsuit against the passenger.
Some of the most significant compromises necessary to win passage involved cargo screening. For more than two years, Democrats have sought to mandate that all cargo carried by passenger airplanes be inspected for explosives and that ship cargo containers bound for the United States from foreign ports be scanned for nuclear or radiological weapons. [******************]
The bill still requires that within three years all cargo carried by passenger jets be checked, but the legislation now says it must be “screened” instead of “inspected.” [*********]
That could mean that as much as 60 percent of air cargo could be exempt from a mandatory physical inspection at airports, under a new program to be called Certified Shipper, said Homeland Security officials who participated in the negotiations.
Companies that participate in the Certified Shipper program would still have to follow security rules, including conducting their own package inspections and putting special tamperproof seals on containers. But packages handled by these companies, which will probably represent the bulk of the air cargo industry, would generally be exempt from mandated electronic, canine or other physical inspections at the airport.
Representative Edward J. Markey, Democrat of Massachusetts and one of the leading advocates for air cargo inspections, said he was pleased with the outcome of the bill and did not consider it weaker than his original goal.
“It is a significant increase in the level of security,” Mr. Markey said.
But a program similar to Certified Shipper that is used by Customs and Border Patrol for ship cargo has frequently been criticized. Auditors have found that companies in this program are sometimes permitted to move their goods more quickly even though there is insufficient proof that they have a robust security system in place.
Meanwhile, the provision to require screening for all ship cargo sets a five-year deadline for the system to be in place globally.
But the measure gives the Department of Homeland Security the power to postpone the requirement in two-year increments if a port cannot meet the deadline for several reasons, including a screening system that is ineffective, has too many false alarms or slows the flow of cargo, as well as a port that simply does not have room to install the equipment. [heck of a lot of ifs] [*********]
Mr. Thompson, the Democratic chairman, acknowledged that the power to waive the requirement weakened the mandate but said Democrats had no choice.
After negotiators for both parties reached agreement Wednesday, Republican leaders in the House claimed part of the credit. “Republicans One-Up House Democrats, Claim Victory on Key 9/11 Protection Against Terrorist Activity,” they said in a news release, a nearly certain sign that after months of negotiating, the bill will probably pass with bipartisan support when it comes up for a final vote by the end of next week.
Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

Posted by Kent Bolton at 10:02 AM | Permalink

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/25/AR2007072502014.html
That September Report on Iraq? It's Not the Only One.
By Robin Wright
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, July 26, 2007; A19 [bush administration] [nsc principals] [-iraq war planning, or lack thereof] [upcoming Patraeus report in September] [recent efforts to lower expectations and perhaps even kill parts] [moreover, when some momentum built for round two of Baker-Hamilton, the white house killed it] [however, a GAO report will not be so easy to spin] [***************]
The White House may have killed attempts to revive the much-heralded Iraq Study Group, but the Bush administration will still face a tough, independent evaluation of the progress in Iraq -- from one of its own agencies. [*********]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/25/AR2007072502014.html
That September Report on Iraq? It's Not the Only One.
By Robin Wright
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, July 26, 2007; A19 [bush administration] [nsc principals] [-iraq war planning, or lack thereof] [upcoming Patraeus report in September] [recent efforts to lower expectations and perhaps even kill parts] [moreover, when some momentum built for round two of Baker-Hamilton, the white house killed it] [however, a GAO report will not be so easy to spin] [***************]
The White House may have killed attempts to revive the much-heralded Iraq Study Group, but the Bush administration will still face a tough, independent evaluation of the progress in Iraq -- from one of its own agencies. [*********]
In a little-noticed addition to legislation requiring the July and September assessments on Iraq from the White House, Congress mandated a third report from the agency that has quietly done the most work to track the missteps, miscalculations, misspent funds and shortfalls of both the United States and Iraq since the 2003 invasion: the Government Accountability Office. [GAO report] [********]
The GAO's international affairs team has had far more experience in Iraq than the study group led by former secretary of state James A. Baker III and former congressman Lee Hamilton (D-Ind.) or any of the other independent panels that have weighed in on Iraq. Indeed, the study group consulted the GAO team in preparing its report. Over the past four years, the GAO has issued 91 reports on Iraq, on topics including the mismanagement of Iraq's oil industry and problems in its new army.
The GAO team is back in Iraq this week doing research to make its own assessment of the 18 benchmarks covered by the administration's reports.
The 15-person team includes an array of specialists, lawyers, economists, foreign policy experts and statisticians. Most have been working on Iraq since June 2003, when the first GAO reports were mandated. They work on a day-to-day basis with the departments of State and Defense, but the GAO makes independent assessments. [********]
The GAO report is due Sept. 1 [******]-- two weeks before the administration's document. So it may set a standard that makes it harder for the administration to attach caveats to its answers, as outside analysts say it did in the July report.
The administration's assessments are more nuanced, with grading based on whether Iraq is making "satisfactory progress" or "unsatisfactory progress" on the 18 political, military and economic benchmarks. The GAO is mandated to give a more straightforward "yes" or "no" on whether the benchmarks have been achieved, said Joseph A. Christoff, director of the GAO's International Affairs and Trade Team, which will write the report.
Christoff anticipates blunt critiques in the GAO report, based on benchmarks his team has long been monitoring as part of its oversight of Iraq.
On Iraq's military, for example, the administration's July report said Iraq is making "satisfactory progress" on providing three brigades for the new U.S.-led Baghdad security plan.
But Christoff said the GAO is probing deeper. "For us, it's not just an issue of showing up, but showing up with equipment and logistical support so they can move on their own, and then being effective," he said.
The Iraqi military has serious shortcomings, including, according to a Pentagon report, a no-show rate of one-third to one-half on any given day, Christoff said. "Celebrating 360,000 trained and equipped forces says nothing about their loyalty or effectiveness," [*******]he said.
On Iraqi politics, a pending law to equitably distribute Iraq's oil income has come to symbolize attempts to address the needs of all ethnic and sectarian communities. The July report acknowledges that the Iraqi government has made "unsatisfactory progress" in passing legislation but says it is too early to tell what will be enacted and rejects any revision of U.S. plans or strategy.
Christoff questions whether that conclusion is giving the Iraqis the benefit of the doubt. Only one of four pieces of legislation required on Iraq's oil sector is now before the parliament, and it addresses only who will be responsible for distributing oil, not how revenue will be shared among the communities, he said. A second bill on revenue-sharing is being debated in the cabinet. But two other basic laws -- on creating a national oil company and restructuring the oil ministry -- have not been drafted, [******]he said.
"So much has to be done that it will be difficult to meet this benchmark, even by September," Christoff said.
On Iraq's economy, the July report said Baghdad is progressing satisfactorily in allocating $10 billion for development to its ministries and provinces, much of it for electricity and oil industry infrastructure. But Christoff is again skeptical. "If the past is any indication, it will also be very difficult to meet this benchmark," he said.
The need for development in the two sectors is critical. The oil-rich country last year spent $2.6 billion to import gasoline, diesel fuel for electricity and kerosene for cooking, because it cannot refine enough oil, Christoff said. Also, U.S. officials acknowledge, Iraq managed to allocate only about a quarter of the $10 billion in development funds during the first six months of 2007 -- much of which has not been spent.
"When you look at what is needed and what the goals are, there's a huge gap," Christoff said. And the gap between the administration's and the GAO's assessments on these central issues is likely to be reflected in other benchmarks, he said.
The GAO team is due back Aug. 4, after which it will begin writing its report.
© 2007 The Washington Post Company

Posted by Kent Bolton at 10:00 AM | Permalink

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/25/AR2007072501776.html
Strike by U.S. in Pakistan Is an Option, Officials Say
By Walter Pincus and Joby Warrick
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, July 26, 2007; A16 [bush nsc principals and deputies levels] [followup] [Pakistan as the new Afghanistan] [how useful is Musharraf?] [what are the alternatives to propping Musharraf up?] [strategizing outloud may be an exercise in saber rattling or may be substantive] [it’s probably more than a little disconcerting to Musharraf] [*********]
Top Pentagon and State Department officials said yesterday that U.S. Special Forces would enter Pakistan if they had specific intelligence about an impending terrorist strike against the United States, [******] [preemption again?] despite warnings from the Pakistani government that it would not accept U.S. troops operating independently inside its borders.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/25/AR2007072501776.html
Strike by U.S. in Pakistan Is an Option, Officials Say
By Walter Pincus and Joby Warrick
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, July 26, 2007; A16 [bush nsc principals and deputies levels] [followup] [Pakistan as the new Afghanistan] [how useful is Musharraf?] [what are the alternatives to propping Musharraf up?] [strategizing outloud may be an exercise in saber rattling or may be substantive] [it’s probably more than a little disconcerting to Musharraf] [*********]
Top Pentagon and State Department officials said yesterday that U.S. Special Forces would enter Pakistan if they had specific intelligence about an impending terrorist strike against the United States, [******] [preemption again?] despite warnings from the Pakistani government that it would not accept U.S. troops operating independently inside its borders.
The statements were the clearest assertion yet of the Bush administration's willingness to act unilaterally inside tribal areas in northwestern Pakistan where al-Qaeda's top commanders are believed to have taken refuge. But the officials also voiced strong support for President Pervez Musharraf, who they said has repeatedly backed U.S. anti-terrorism efforts in the region at great political cost. [can they have it both ways?] [*******]
"If there were information or opportunity to strike a blow to protect the American people," U.S. forces would act immediately, Peter Verga, the acting assistant secretary of defense for international security, said during an unusual joint session held by the House's Armed Services Committee and Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
At a separate Senate hearing, R. Nicholas Burns, the State Department's undersecretary for political affairs, suggested that a unilateral strike would be a last resort.
"Given the primacy of the fight against al-Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, if we have in the future certainty of knowledge, then of course the United States would always have the option of taking action on its own," Burns said during questioning before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. "But we prefer to work with the Pakistani forces, and we, in most situations -- nearly every situation -- do work with them."
The statements were prompted by lawmakers' questions about an intelligence assessment released last week that concluded that a resurgent al-Qaeda was using a rugged, largely autonomous tribal area of northwestern Pakistan as a sanctuary for planning attacks against the United States.
Previous assessments had said only that al-Qaeda leaders were operating in the frontier area between Afghanistan and Pakistan. The new assessment suggested that Pakistan had not been effective in combating the terrorist group and its allies. [************]
At a news conference last week, Frances Fragos Townsend, the homeland security adviser, said the administration would pursue "actionable targets anywhere in the world, putting aside whether it was Pakistan or anyplace else." Those remarks prompted a strong reaction from Pakistan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, [********]which warned that a U.S. military strike would be "irresponsible and dangerous," as well as deeply resented throughout the country.
"We have stated in the clearest terms that any attack inside our territory would be unacceptable," the ministry said in a formal statement released Tuesday in Islamabad.
Officials at both hearings said Pakistan remains a strong ally in the war against al-Qaeda. James R. Clapper Jr., the Pentagon's top intelligence official, said the Musharraf government is not "doing 100 percent of everything we might like," but he added, "I think they are doing what they can, given the constraints." [***********]
New efforts by Pakistan to rout al-Qaeda out of its haven "are only in the first week or so of implementation," Clapper said, "and so, at this point, it is much too early to try to provide an assessment of the impact of these latest Pakistani moves." [hum] [sort of giving Musharraf a deadline more or less] [precisely what the administration says US must not do to al-Maliki for it would tell his enemies too much] [*************]
Staff writer Karen DeYoung contributed to this report.
© 2007 The Washington Post Company

Posted by Kent Bolton at 09:59 AM | Permalink

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/25/AR2007072501881.html
War Crimes and the White House
The Dishonor in a Tortured New 'Interpretation' of the Geneva Conventions
By P.X. Kelley and Robert F. Turner
Thursday, July 26, 2007; A21 [oped] [the executive order the president bush signed last week that left open types of interrogation that seem beyond the pale and may be counterproductive for america’s troops] [***********]
One of us was appointed commandant of the Marine Corps by President Ronald Reagan; the other served as a lawyer in the Reagan White House and has vigorously defended the constitutionality of warrantless National Security Agency wiretaps, presidential signing statements and many other controversial aspects of the war on terrorism. But we cannot in good conscience defend a decision that we believe has compromised our national honor and that may well promote the commission of war crimes by Americans and place at risk the welfare of captured American military forces for generations to come. [ouch!] [****************]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/25/AR2007072501881.html
War Crimes and the White House
The Dishonor in a Tortured New 'Interpretation' of the Geneva Conventions
By P.X. Kelley and Robert F. Turner
Thursday, July 26, 2007; A21 [oped] [the executive order the president bush signed last week that left open types of interrogation that seem beyond the pale and may be counterproductive for america’s troops] [***********]
One of us was appointed commandant of the Marine Corps by President Ronald Reagan; the other served as a lawyer in the Reagan White House and has vigorously defended the constitutionality of warrantless National Security Agency wiretaps, presidential signing statements and many other controversial aspects of the war on terrorism. But we cannot in good conscience defend a decision that we believe has compromised our national honor and that may well promote the commission of war crimes by Americans and place at risk the welfare of captured American military forces for generations to come. [ouch!] [****************]
The Supreme Court held in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld last summer that all detainees captured in the war on terrorism are protected by Common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions, [*******]which prescribes minimum standards of treatment for all persons who are no longer taking an active part in an armed conflict not of an international character. It provides that "in all circumstances" detainees are to be "treated humanely."
This is not just about avoiding "torture." The article expressly prohibits "at any time and in any place whatsoever" any acts of "violence to life and person" or "outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment." [*******]
Last Friday, the White House issued an executive order attempting to "interpret" Common Article 3 with respect to a controversial CIA interrogation program. The order declares that the CIA program "fully complies with the obligations of the United States under Common Article 3," provided that its interrogation techniques do not violate existing federal statutes (prohibiting such things as torture, mutilation or maiming) and do not constitute "willful and outrageous acts of personal abuse done for the purpose of humiliating or degrading the individual in a manner so serious that any reasonable person, considering the circumstances, would deem the acts to be beyond the bounds of human decency." [*************************]
In other words, as long as the intent of the abuse is to gather intelligence or to prevent future attacks, and the abuse is not "done for the purpose of humiliating or degrading the individual" -- even if that is an inevitable consequence -- the president has given the CIA carte blanche to engage in "willful and outrageous acts of personal abuse." [that certainly appears to be the result of the language] [************]
It is firmly established in international law that treaties are to be interpreted in "good faith" in accordance with the ordinary meaning of their words and in light of their purpose. It is clear to us that the language in the executive order cannot even arguably be reconciled with America's clear duty under Common Article 3 to treat all detainees humanely and to avoid any acts of violence against their person.
In April of 1793, Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson wrote to President George Washington that nations were to interpret treaty obligations for themselves but that "the tribunal of our consciences remains, and that also of the opinion of the world." He added that "as we respect these, we must see that in judging ourselves we have honestly done the part of impartial and rigorous judges."
To date in the war on terrorism, including the victims of the Sept. 11 attacks and all U.S. military personnel killed in action in Afghanistan and Iraq, America's losses total about 2 percent of the forces we lost in World War II and less than 7 percent of those killed in Vietnam. Yet we did not find it necessary to compromise our honor or abandon our commitment to the rule of law to defeat Nazi Germany or imperial Japan, or to resist communist aggression in Indochina. On the contrary, in Vietnam -- where we both proudly served twice -- America voluntarily extended the protections of the full Geneva Convention on prisoners of war to Viet Cong guerrillas who, like al-Qaeda, did not even arguably qualify for such protections. [*****************]
The Geneva Conventions provide important protections to our own military forces when we send them into harm's way. Our troops deserve those protections, and we betray their interests when we gratuitously "interpret" key provisions of the conventions in a manner likely to undermine their effectiveness. [******]Policymakers should also keep in mind that violations of Common Article 3 are "war crimes" for which everyone involved -- potentially up to and including the president of the United States -- may be tried in any of the other 193 countries that are parties to the conventions.
In a letter to President James Madison in March 1809, Jefferson observed: "It has a great effect on the opinion of our people and the world to have the moral right on our side." Our leaders must never lose sight of that wisdom.
Retired Gen. P.X. Kelley served as commandant of the Marine Corps from 1983 to 1987. Robert F. Turner is co-founder of the University of Virginia's Center for National Security Law and a former chair of the American Bar Association's Standing Committee on Law and National Security.
© 2007 The Washington Post Company

Posted by Kent Bolton at 09:58 AM | Permalink

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/26/opinion/26thu2.html
July 26, 2007
Editorial
The Wounds Outlast the War
[editorial] [veteran’s affaris] [the dole-shalala committee reported out yesterday] [see today’s govt] [***********]
There is no more urgent task than improving medical care for wounded veterans, whose shameful neglect is yet another failure of the shockingly mismanaged Iraq war. The warriors bear scars from physical and psychological trauma and a chaotic government bureaucracy.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/26/opinion/26thu2.html
July 26, 2007
Editorial
The Wounds Outlast the War
[editorial] [veteran’s affaris] [the dole-shalala committee reported out yesterday] [see today’s govt] [***********]
There is no more urgent task than improving medical care for wounded veterans, whose shameful neglect is yet another failure of the shockingly mismanaged Iraq war. The warriors bear scars from physical and psychological trauma and a chaotic government bureaucracy.
A presidential commission hurriedly created in the wake of scandalous accounts of mistreated and forgotten veterans yesterday issued a series of sensible recommendations for repairing the damage, including a major overhaul of the way disability pay is awarded and providing more support for family members who must shoulder the long-term burden of caring for their wounded loved ones.
Making all the required improvements, the commission’s report said, would require “a sense of urgency and strong leadership.” Unfortunately, there is no sign that the White House either grasps the urgency or is prepared to provide that leadership. All the more reason for Congress to force reform on the president.
There, at least, has been some progress. Yesterday, the Senate approved measures that would fix the capricious way disability benefits are awarded, raise the treatment priority for those suffering brain injury and post-traumatic stress disorder and boost severance pay for veterans struggling to restore their civilian lives. Final legislation should be galvanized by the commission’s report — particularly its emphatic call for the Pentagon and the Department of Veterans Affairs to reform and mesh their disastrous record-keeping systems. The disconnect has stranded legions of troubled veterans, without treatment or hope.
The commission did not blame the White House for its gross shortchanging of veterans’ care. But the panel pointedly noted executive action could solve most of the problems.
No one knows better than war-scarred veterans that blue-ribbon findings and Washington promises have a way of barely denting the twin Pentagon and V.A. monoliths. True leadership is required to force necessary change. A public increasingly jaded about the damages from this war should demand the commander in chief face up to the sufferings of his returning troops.
Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

Posted by Kent Bolton at 09:57 AM | Permalink

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/world/AP-Cuba-Revolution-Day.html
July 26, 2007
Cuba Looks Back Without Fidel Castro
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 9:37 a.m. ET [Cuba] [more on Cuba in a post-Fidel era] [readying itself a little more each day as Fidel appears unable to make a come back] [**********]
CAMAGUEY, Cuba (AP) -- Interim leader Raul Castro led tens of thousands of loyalists in celebrations marking the launch of Cuba's revolution Thursday, filling in for his ailing brother, Fidel, as his provisional government took on further airs of permanence.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/world/AP-Cuba-Revolution-Day.html
July 26, 2007
Cuba Looks Back Without Fidel Castro
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 9:37 a.m. ET [Cuba] [more on Cuba in a post-Fidel era] [readying itself a little more each day as Fidel appears unable to make a come back] [**********]
CAMAGUEY, Cuba (AP) -- Interim leader Raul Castro led tens of thousands of loyalists in celebrations marking the launch of Cuba's revolution Thursday, filling in for his ailing brother, Fidel, as his provisional government took on further airs of permanence.
Cuba's 76-year-old acting president and defense minister arrived for the Revolution Day festivities in Camaguey, a provincial capital of narrow colonial streets southeast of Havana. He was to address the crowd later in the day.
Fidel, who turns 81 next month, has for decades given hours-long speeches to mark Cuba's top holiday. Last year, he addressed crowds in two separate cities on Revolution Day.
But he has not been seen in public since, apparently still too sick to appear in person after announcing July 31, 2006, that emergency intestinal surgery was forcing him to step aside in favor of Raul. [*********]
He has begun penning essays dubbed ''Reflections of the Commander in Chief'' every few days, but appears to be in little hurry to return to power. [**********]
As the sun rose over Camaguey, about 100,000 people filled a plaza of red-tile paths and green grass flanked by towering palm trees. Red and black flags symbolizing the July 26 holiday hung from ever floor of an apartment building nearby.
Many people wore red T-shirts and waved miniature Cuban flags over their heads during the ceremony. ''Viva Fidel! Viva Raul!'' they screamed, in that order. Speaker after speaker spoke about Fidel, celebrating his life, repeating that he was attending the celebration in spirit and wishing him well.
But it was hard to find much disappointment that the elder Castro failed to show up.
''Raul converses well with the people and that gives us a special lift,'' said Gilberto Guerrero, a retired 74-year-old sugar cane worker. ''There's so much happening in the world, but Raul speaks directly to the people of Cuba.''
''I am certain Fidel is recovering but there's no problem because we have Raul,'' said Candida Alvarez, a 76-year-old retiree who hung a string of paper red, white and blue Cuban flags from the front door of her wooden home near Camaguey's historic center.
Alvarez, who works with neighborhood communist officials to mediate disputes between residents, said ''Fidel will always be the boss, but now Raul is the boss too.''
''He's been there for a year and has gained popularity, earned the warmth of the people,'' she said.
Raul Castro has said he's not fond of long speeches and is seen as a pragmatist. He has said in past official interviews and public appearances that he would be willing to discuss improving relations with Washington, whose 45-year-old embargo prohibits U.S. tourists form visiting the island and chokes off almost all trade between both countries. [*******]
''We know that what Raul says will be the guide for our revolutionary direction,'' said Jesus Garcia, president of Camaguey's provincial assembly. ''What he says is up to him, but they will be important reflections and we will be ready and listening closely.''
Fireworks marking Revolution Day shook much of Camaguey on Wednesday evening and local Revolutionary Defense Committees organized late-night parties.
Cuban flags and black-and-red flags symbolizing the July 26 Movement that launched the revolution were plastered on almost everything stationary, hanging in store windows and fluttering from the crumbling balconies of pastel-colored houses.
Cuba's third-largest city and the capital of a cattle-producing province of the same name, Camaguey is hosting the yearly ceremony that marks the July 26, 1953, attack by both Castros and a ragtag rebel band on the Moncada army barracks in the eastern city of Santiago.
The uprising quickly degenerated into a disaster and many rebels were shot dead during the chaotic fighting or captured and killed a short time later by government forces. But it became a rallying cry for a subsequent revolutionary movement that gained new strength and eventually toppled dictator Fulgencio Batista in January 1959.
Copyright 2007 The Associated Press

Posted by Kent Bolton at 09:53 AM | Permalink

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/26/world/europe/26Russia.html
July 26, 2007
Russia to Increase Military Might and Spy Efforts
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS [Russia] [former USSR] [Russia is currently awash in petro dollars] [not merely its “Near Abroad” but traditional Cold War issues] [missile defense in Poland and Czech Republic] [Putin’s image as traditional strong Russian leader, albeit undemocratic] [normative controls in former Marxist state] [foreign affairs piece that would have been targeted to a particular constituency] [the fracas with the UK over poison] [use psci 350] [use ir text] [Russia ethos] [**********]
MOSCOW, July 25 (AP) — President Vladimir V. Putin said Wednesday that he intended to strengthen Russia’s military capacity and to step up spying abroad in response to plans by the United States to build missile defense sites and deploy troops in Central Europe. [********]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/26/world/europe/26Russia.html
July 26, 2007
Russia to Increase Military Might and Spy Efforts
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS [Russia] [former USSR] [Russia is currently awash in petro dollars] [not merely its “Near Abroad” but traditional Cold War issues] [missile defense in Poland and Czech Republic] [Putin’s image as traditional strong Russian leader, albeit undemocratic] [normative controls in former Marxist state] [foreign affairs piece that would have been targeted to a particular constituency] [the fracas with the UK over poison] [use psci 350] [use ir text] [Russia ethos] [**********]
MOSCOW, July 25 (AP) — President Vladimir V. Putin said Wednesday that he intended to strengthen Russia’s military capacity and to step up spying abroad in response to plans by the United States to build missile defense sites and deploy troops in Central Europe. [********]
“The situation in the world and internal political interests require the Foreign Intelligence Service to permanently increase its capabilities, primarily in the field of information and analytical support for the country’s leadership,” Mr. Putin said at a meeting with senior military and security officers in remarks that were posted on the Kremlin’s Web site.
The Foreign Intelligence Service is a successor agency to the K.G.B.
Mr. Putin did not identify what nations would be the targets of the expanded effort, but officials in the United States and Britain said recently that Russia had intensified its spying in those countries. [************]
Russia’s relations with the United States and other Western nations have grown increasingly acrimonious amid Western concerns that Russia is edging away from democracy and Kremlin suspicions about the West’s intentions. [*******]
Mr. Putin said that American plans to base sites for a missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic posed a security challenge for Russia. The United States says the facilities are necessary to protect the United States and Europe from missiles that could be launched by Iran or other states.
Mr. Putin has proposed that the United States use a Soviet-built radar base in Azerbaijan for missile defense. American officials have said that the site in Azerbaijan was less useful because it is too close to Iran to intercept missiles fired from there.
On Wednesday, Mr. Putin said the United States was stonewalling. “Alternative ways of protection from hypothetical missile threats which we proposed have been left unanswered,” he said.
“All-round strengthening of our military forces is one of our indisputable priorities,” Mr. Putin said, promising to continue equipping the military with new weapons.
Mr. Putin also criticized the United States and other NATO members for failing to ratify an amended version of the 1990 Conventional Forces in Europe treaty, which limits the deployment of tanks, aircraft and other heavy nonnuclear weapons around the Continent. [*********]
Earlier this month, Mr. Putin suspended Russia’s participation in the treaty and threatened to withdraw from it completely if NATO nations did not ratify its amended version, which was signed in 1999, to reflect changes since the Soviet collapse.
NATO members have refused to do that until Russia withdraws its troops from the former Soviet republics of Moldova and Georgia. [*******]
Mr. Putin said that the old version of the treaty counted arsenals of former Soviet satellites and republics [******]that are now NATO members as part of the Soviet bloc. In particular, it counted weapons in Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania as part of what was the Soviet Baltic Military District. [*********] [well, he’s correct on that]
Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

Posted by Kent Bolton at 09:52 AM | Permalink

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/25/AR2007072502360.html
In Divided Hebron, a Shared Despair
Palestinians and Jewish Settlers in West Bank City Struggle for Existence
By Scott Wilson
Washington Post Foreign Service
Thursday, July 26, 2007; A01 [Israel-Palestine] [former Palestine] [West Bank in Fatahstine] [meanwhile, Arab league members Jordan and Egypt attempting to create some momentum] [Jewish extremists in Hebron—fueling the fire] [***********]
HEBRON, West Bank -- The barrier Israel is constructing in the largely rural West Bank is effectively separating Arab from Jew along much of its 456-mile length. But the broader project of disentangling the two peoples in the absence of a peace agreement is failing in urban areas such as Hebron, where the most radical elements of Islamic and Jewish nationalism are gaining strength.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/25/AR2007072502360.html
In Divided Hebron, a Shared Despair
Palestinians and Jewish Settlers in West Bank City Struggle for Existence
By Scott Wilson
Washington Post Foreign Service
Thursday, July 26, 2007; A01 [Israel-Palestine] [former Palestine] [West Bank in Fatahstine] [meanwhile, Arab league members Jordan and Egypt attempting to create some momentum] [Jewish extremists in Hebron—fueling the fire] [***********]
HEBRON, West Bank -- The barrier Israel is constructing in the largely rural West Bank is effectively separating Arab from Jew along much of its 456-mile length. But the broader project of disentangling the two peoples in the absence of a peace agreement is failing in urban areas such as Hebron, where the most radical elements of Islamic and Jewish nationalism are gaining strength.
Within Hebron, the separation is enforced not only by Israeli barriers but also by military checkpoints and curfews intended to protect the roughly 700 Jewish settlers living within the city's most historic and religiously important areas. Securing the small Jewish minority has a potent impact on the lives of the city's 150,000 Arabs, who voted last year to fill all nine of the district's parliamentary seats with candidates from the armed Islamic movement Hamas. [***************]
This city, set among prolific vineyards, was among the first destinations for Jewish settlers following the 1967 Middle East war, when the Israeli military occupied the West Bank. Fired by a four-millennia-old religious claim to Hebron, the settler enterprise here is among the most ideologically determined in the territories. Its expansionist goals clash with Palestinian secular and Islamic armed movements, whose own nationalist passions helped turn Hebron into one of the most violent venues of the Palestinian uprisings.
In recent months, the Israeli army has helped the Hebron settlers expand eastward to a hilltop home near the settlement of Kiryat Arba, a large step in their plan to connect the two areas. [******]An international observer mission here, established after 1996 accords that left part of the city under Israeli military control and placed the other under the Palestinian Authority, reports sharply rising violence between Israeli settlers and Palestinians. [********]
"There is no future for Arabs and Jews together in Hebron," said Noam Federman, 37, a settler from Beit Hadassah in the Israeli-controlled city center here. "And Hebron has always been a Jewish city."
Jamal Maraga's Palestinian fabrics shop sits along an alley in Hebron's casbah, lit by shafts of sunlight that filter through bricks, bottles and trash suspended in fencing laced over the walkway. The Jewish settlement of Avraham Avinu is housed in a multistory building that towers overhead.
International observers here say the settlers regularly toss debris and dirty water into the Arab market below, now largely shuttered in a city where unemployment stands at 60 percent. Asked whether Arabs and Jews can share Hebron, Maraga, his hair and beard a gray fuzz, looked up at the chain-link canopy.
"Impossible," he said.
Proximity and Violence
Just before noon on a recent day, Azmi Shuyukhi, the graying leader of the Palestinian Popular Committees, a civil-resistance organization, approached an Israeli military checkpoint. Behind him trailed a small group of men and boys, who at Shuyukhi's instruction were attempting to defy the enforced division of their city that has virtually emptied its most important historic, religious and commercial areas of Palestinians.
The post bars Palestinians from entering Shuhada Street, a once-thriving commercial strip closed by the Israeli military more than a decade ago to protect the two Jewish settlements and a yeshiva along its route. The U.S. Agency for International Development spent $2 million in 1997 to renovate the street as part of an Israeli-Palestinian agreement to reopen it for Palestinians. But Israel has since refused to do so.
The order to close the road was one of several that began the separation process here in 1994 after an Israeli from Kiryat Arba, Baruch Goldstein, killed 29 Palestinians praying in the Ibrahimi Mosque just past the end of Shuhada Street. The site is sacred to Muslims and Jews, who believe Abraham, Isaac and other biblical figures are buried in grottos beneath it.
According to the Temporary International Presence in Hebron, the unarmed observer mission, there are 100 Israeli-constructed fences, gates, concrete barriers and military checkpoints within the roughly one-square-mile historic center. The area included the Jewish Quarter until 1929, when Arabs killed more than 60 Jews living there. The survivors fled.
Hemmed in and harassed, the Palestinians are fleeing today. Nearly half the homes in and around the Israeli-controlled Old City of Hebron have been vacated, the Israeli human rights group B'Tselem recently reported. The group also said that more than three-quarters of the Palestinian shops and restaurants in the casbah and adjacent commercial districts have been shuttered, many by military order. [*********]
Shuyukhi's band had failed to make it past the checkpoint for 15 consecutive weeks. But this day, the soldiers waved them into the Israeli-controlled area. After several moments of bewilderment, Shuyukhi started down the empty street -- shops closed, no cars, men and boys with Palestinian flags following behind.
As they approached Beit Hadassah, a Jewish settlement of about 30 families, army jeeps roared up. Soldiers in helmets and body armor, joined by a few Israeli police officers, ordered Shuyukhi's group to lower the Palestinian national flag they carried and turn back.
"We will not take it down," Shuyukhi shouted. "The Ibrahimi Mosque is ours, not theirs."
Suddenly, an older settler rushed from the entrance of Beit Hadassah, clutching a walkie-talkie in one hand.
"Grab the flag, grab the flag," he shouted in American-accented Hebrew.
A policeman blocked him. But the man spun from his grip and, like a determined running back, plowed toward the Palestinians.
"Go take care of the Arabs, the criminals," he shouted at the police, who led him struggling away.
Mats Lignell, a former Swedish soldier with the observer mission in Hebron, watched the scene before heading to a raised path across Shuhada Street, which his mission financed so Palestinian students could reach their Cordoba School without passing near Beit Hadassah.
The 50-yard walkway took months to complete because each night the bricks were uprooted. It opened this year.
During the three-month period ending Jan. 31, the observer group received 35 complaints of settler violence and harassment, ranging from beatings to throwing debris. Over the next three months, 71 cases were reported.
"The pattern you see is that you have settlement and then violence around it," Lignell said. "And you see this project inching forward."
A Chain of Settlements
On a recent morning, a dozen toddlers zipped around Avraham Avinu's shady courtyard, where in 2001 a Palestinian sniper's bullet killed 10-month-old Shalhevet Pas. A nearby market, once the main Palestinian clearinghouse for vegetables, has been named for her by the settlers who control it.
The Jewish settlement is separated -- by a wall, razor wire and a worldview -- from Hebron's casbah and its Palestinian patrons, who have watched anxiously as the settlement project recently swelled beyond the city center under the protection of Israel's military, whose strategic goals frequently coincide with the settlers'. [*********]
"The town is divided, it is deserted, and in many ways like a prison for us," said Khaled Osaily, Hebron's appointed mayor from the secular Fatah movement. Most of the more than 1,800 closed Palestinian businesses in the Old City area shut down since the second Palestinian uprising began in the fall of 2000.
David Wilder, originally from New Jersey, is the spokesman for the Hebron settlers. He largely dismissed public relations until Goldstein opened fire. The government of Yitzhak Rabin considered evacuating the settlers but instead imposed the military curfews and closures on the Palestinians.
Wilder, who like many settlers here wears a pistol on his hip, does not agree with what he calls the Israeli military's "concept of using walls as a means of security, of building barriers and saying, 'Now you are safe.'
"The problem here is not so much that people can't make a living; it's a political one," Wilder said. "The Arabs want a presence here. If they have it, they own it, de facto. And if not, they don't."
On a hilltop less than a mile's trip along streets secured by Israeli soldiers sits a four-story house, which a group of settlers occupied the evening of March 19. Lignell and his observer team arrived less than an hour later. By then, dozens of soldiers had surrounded the home to protect its new residents.
Kiryat Arba, a settlement of about 7,000 people, sits just across a narrow valley. Wilder, 53, said the property represents a key link in the chain the settlers are trying to establish between the urban settlements of Hebron and Kiryat Arba. His daughter's family is one of 15 moving into the house. [**********]
Wilder said the settlers bought the home for $700,000, some of it donated by American supporters. But Israel’s Civil Administration, the military government in the occupied territories, contends that the settlers did not arrange for the permits Israelis need to buy and move into property in the West Bank.
“These people think they can do what they want and then we will have to adopt their decision,” said Shlomo Dror, spokesman for Israel’s Coordinator of Activities in the Territories. “This is not the case.” [the Israeli govt must stop acquiescing to such nonsense that is counterproductive to Israel’s future] [keep religion out of it] [***********]
As a military court considers their appeal, the settlers are renovating the building. New plaster walls partition off a series of family apartments, their doors still sawed-out holes covered by hanging blankets. Soldiers wander the airy halls.
The house overlooks the main roads leading from Kiryat Arba to the downtown settlements and the Tomb of the Patriarchs, the caves beneath the Ibrahimi Mosque. The army used to set up a temporary post at the house on the Jewish Sabbath. Now, having set up a more permanent rooftop position, the army supports the settlers' right to stay.
"This building will show us whether there is a right for a Jew to buy a house in Hebron," said Baruch Marzel, a Hebron settler who has established a 70-student yeshiva in the home. "Or will Hebron be the only place in the world a Jew is not allowed to do so?"
'After All That . . .'
Mohammed al-Jabari looks out from his home, across a courtyard of grapevines and olive trees, to the army post on the roof of the settlers' new acquisition. On this day, he is waiting for a funeral, vivid evidence that separating Jews and Arabs here does not guarantee security for either.
"We don't know the people who come and go from there," said Jabari, 22, a bespectacled middle school chemistry teacher. "We try to stay inside now as much as possible."
A few hours later, in the adjacent cemetery, dozens of men gathered beneath cypresses and pines to escape the sun. Yehiya al-Jabari, a 67-year-old shepherd from Hebron and a distant relative of the teacher's, would soon be buried.
About 1 a.m. that day, Israeli soldiers had entered Yehiya al-Jabari's home looking for his 18-year-old son, Saleh. Seeing the soldiers come in, the men and women of the family accosted them. One tried to snatch a soldier's gun, Israeli military officials said, and the officer opened fire.
One shot struck Jabari's wife, Fatmeh, in the neck. The next hit Yehiya, who also dropped to the floor. An Israeli medic administered CPR to Fatmeh, reviving her, but Yehiya died in his living room.
"After all that, they said, 'Where's Saleh?' " recalled Sami al-Jabari, Yehiya's brother, who witnessed the scene.
Men and boys bore Yehiya's wooden stretcher up the hill, pausing to allow mourners to kiss his face. Some held Hamas flags, and the angry chants celebrating martyrdom carried down to the soldiers at the settlers' new home. Then, after tipping the body into the dry ground, the men wandered back down the hill into the divided city.
© 2007 The Washington Post Company

Posted by Kent Bolton at 09:51 AM | Permalink

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/26/world/middleeast/26mideast.html
July 26, 2007
Arab Envoys and Israelis Meet to Talk Mideast Peace
By ISABEL KERSHNER [Israel-Palestine] [former Palestine] [Arab league members Jordan and Egypt attempting to create some momentum] [***********]
JERUSALEM, July 25 — The foreign ministers of Egypt and Jordan held joint meetings with Israeli leaders here on Wednesday, their first as envoys of the Arab League.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/26/world/middleeast/26mideast.html
July 26, 2007
Arab Envoys and Israelis Meet to Talk Mideast Peace
By ISABEL KERSHNER [Israel-Palestine] [former Palestine] [Arab league members Jordan and Egypt attempting to create some momentum] [***********]
JERUSALEM, July 25 — The foreign ministers of Egypt and Jordan held joint meetings with Israeli leaders here on Wednesday, their first as envoys of the Arab League.
While Egypt and Jordan already have peace treaties with Israel, most countries in the 22-member group do not.
Israeli officials hailed the visit as “historic” while the Arab officials spoke of a “historic opportunity” for an Israeli-Palestinian peace, to be followed by a wider peace between Israel and the Arab world. [*******]
“We are extending a hand of peace on behalf of the whole region to you,” said Abdelelah al-Khatib, the foreign minister of Jordan.
The prime minister of Israel, Ehud Olmert, declared that he had “begun a most serious effort” to prepare for negotiations with the Palestinian Authority on the main issues leading to the creation of a Palestinian state.
But while the Egyptian foreign minister, Ahmed Aboul Gheit, said that the available opportunity had a “limited time span,” Mr. Olmert emphasized that there were “no exact timetables.” The talk of peace glossed over the fact that the Palestinians themselves are in deep crisis, with the West Bank governed by the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, and his Western-backed government, and the Gaza Strip controlled by the Islamic militant group Hamas.
The Arab League made clear that the Jerusalem meetings did not represent a normalization of relations between the group and Israel, according to Al Jazeera. [********]
The League envoys came to Israel to promote the Arab peace initiative, a proposal for Israel to withdraw to its pre-1967 boundaries, to allow the establishment of an independent Palestinian state, and to arrive at a “just and agreed” solution for the Palestinian refugees. [*******]In return, Israel would gain the full recognition of, and normal relations with, the Arab world.
Israel rejected the proposal when it was first adopted by the Arab League in 2002, [******]at the height of the violence of the second Intifada. The Arab League reaffirmed the initiative last March. Israeli officials have since said that it contains positive elements while expressing reservations about some clauses, particularly regarding Palestinian refugees.
Mr. Khatib and Mr. Aboul Gheit met with Mr. Olmert; Israel’s foreign minister, Tzipi Livni; President Shimon Peres; and Benjamin Netanyahu, the Likud party leader.
At a joint news conference here, Mr. Aboul Gheit said that he and Mr. Khatib had heard “many positive responses” from Ms. Livni. They said they would be reporting back their findings, and maybe presenting some ideas, to an Arab League ministerial meeting on Monday.
All sides emphasized that the details of any agreement would have to be reached by the Israelis and the Palestinians themselves.
Ms. Livni said the idea was “to advance a bilateral Israeli-Palestinian process and to see how the Arab world can support it.”
Palestinian negotiators have suffered in the past from a lack of support from the Arab world that would help them make the necessary concessions for a deal with Israel. For many Israelis, the promise of full normalization with the Arab world makes the idea of concessions on their part more palatable. [********]Both Ms. Livni and her Arab counterparts pointed to a wide consensus among the Israeli public in favor of an Israeli-Palestinian peace based on the two-state solution.
But the reality today is that a sizable portion of the future Palestinian state — the Gaza Strip — is in the hands of Hamas, which rejects the notion of a final peace and agreed-upon borders with Israel.
“This visit comes at the wrong time,” said Yitzhak Reiter, a professor of Middle Eastern history at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. “There is no clear and legitimate partner on the Palestinian side,” he said, referring to the constitutional crisis afflicting the Palestinian system since Hamas’s violent takeover of Gaza last month.
Member states of the Arab League differ among themselves over how to deal with Hamas. [*****]
The Jordanian foreign minister expressed “full support” for Mr. Abbas and his government as a “legitimate partner to engage in negotiations with Israel.” But Egypt is known to favor a quick return to dialogue between Mr. Abbas’s Fatah party and Hamas — a development Israel would inevitably oppose. [*******]
In his West Bank stronghold of Ramallah, Mr. Abbas announced on Wednesday that he was close to calling early parliamentary elections.
Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

Posted by Kent Bolton at 09:50 AM | Permalink

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/25/AR2007072501745.html
Taliban Kills South Korean Hostage, 1 of 23
Group Vows More Deaths If Demands Are Not Met
By Griff Witte
Washington Post Foreign Service
Thursday, July 26, 2007; A14 [Afghanistan] [hydra] [insurgency] [followup] [the 2007 offensive and mixed messages] [on the one hand, NATO seemed to anticipate and stymied Taliban and al Qaeda fighters on several fronts] [on other, hydra proving resilent and arguably more popular than they should be given their history] [Korean hostages who are Christian and their captures surrounded by Afghani troops] [*******] [ditto]
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan, July 26 -- The Taliban said Wednesday that it had executed a South Korean hostage, one of 23 held by the group since last week, and threatened to kill more hostages if its demands were not met.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/25/AR2007072501745.html
Taliban Kills South Korean Hostage, 1 of 23
Group Vows More Deaths If Demands Are Not Met
By Griff Witte
Washington Post Foreign Service
Thursday, July 26, 2007; A14 [Afghanistan] [hydra] [insurgency] [followup] [the 2007 offensive and mixed messages] [on the one hand, NATO seemed to anticipate and stymied Taliban and al Qaeda fighters on several fronts] [on other, hydra proving resilent and arguably more popular than they should be given their history] [Korean hostages who are Christian and their captures surrounded by Afghani troops] [*******] [ditto]
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan, July 26 -- The Taliban said Wednesday that it had executed a South Korean hostage, one of 23 held by the group since last week, and threatened to kill more hostages if its demands were not met.
A Taliban official said that negotiations were continuing and that the hostage killed Wednesday was selected because he was ill and unable to walk. [****] [would have been a good one to release] [*****]
[The Reuters news service, reporting from Seoul, said South Korea had identified the victim as Bae Hyung Kyu, 42, a Christian pastor who was the leader of the group. His bullet-riddled body was found near where the group was abducted.]
The Taliban official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, denied reports in which Western officials were quoted as saying eight hostages had been freed Wednesday. He said a recorded statement by one of the hostages, most of whom are women, would be released soon.
The South Koreans are the largest group of foreign hostages taken in Afghanistan since the Taliban was ousted from power during the U.S.-led invasion in late 2001. Members of a church based outside Seoul, they had been traveling between the capital, Kabul, and the restive southern city of Kandahar when their bus was overtaken in the central province of Ghazni. South Korean officials have said the church members were doing aid work and were not missionaries.
The kidnapping appears to fit a pattern in which the Taliban targets people from countries that are on the fence about their commitment to the mission in Afghanistan. [******] South Korea has 200 noncombat health care workers and engineers in the country who are due to leave by year's end. The Taliban also wants its prisoners freed.
Of two Germans also kidnapped last week, one died in custody and one is believed to be still held by the Taliban.
In the spring, the Taliban kidnapped an Italian journalist and traded him for the release of five imprisoned Taliban members. The Afghan government was criticized and vowed not to make such a deal again.
Elsewhere in Afghanistan on Wednesday and Thursday, the U.S.-led coalition reported that more than 70 insurgents were killed after they attempted to ambush patrols led by Afghan soldiers in Kandahar [******]and Helmand provinces. NATO forces reported that one of their troops had been killed by a rocket-propelled grenade in the east. The soldier's nationality was not identified.
U.S. Army Maj. Gen. David Rodriguez told reporters Wednesday that cross-border attacks from Pakistan into Afghanistan last month were double the number recorded in June 2006 and that there had been an approximately 50 percent rise in the influx of foreign fighters during the same period. [*******]But he also said attacks have declined in recent weeks as the Pakistani army battles extremist fighters on its side of the border.
Special correspondent Imtiaz Ali in Peshawar, Pakistan, contributed to this report.
© 2007 The Washington Post Company

Posted by Kent Bolton at 09:49 AM | Permalink

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/26/world/asia/26cnd-afghan.html
July 26, 2007
Talks Resume After Hostage Is Killed by Taliban
By CARLOTTA GALL and JON ELSEN [Afghanistan] [hydra] [insurgency] [followup] [the 2007 offensive and mixed messages] [on the one hand, NATO seemed to anticipate and stymied Taliban and al Qaeda fighters on several fronts] [on other, hydra proving resilent and arguably more popular than they should be given their history] [Korean hostages who are Christian and their captures surrounded by Afghani troops] [*******]
KABUL, Afghanistan, July 26 — The remaining 22 South Korean hostages being held by the Taliban were said to still be alive this morning, after a deadline set by their captors passed last night.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/26/world/asia/26cnd-afghan.html
July 26, 2007
Talks Resume After Hostage Is Killed by Taliban
By CARLOTTA GALL and JON ELSEN [Afghanistan] [hydra] [insurgency] [followup] [the 2007 offensive and mixed messages] [on the one hand, NATO seemed to anticipate and stymied Taliban and al Qaeda fighters on several fronts] [on other, hydra proving resilent and arguably more popular than they should be given their history] [Korean hostages who are Christian and their captures surrounded by Afghani troops] [*******]
KABUL, Afghanistan, July 26 — The remaining 22 South Korean hostages being held by the Taliban were said to still be alive this morning, after a deadline set by their captors passed last night.
A senior South Korean official — Baek Jong-Chum, the chief national security adviser to President Roh Moo-Hyun — is on his way to Kabul to coordinate efforts with the Afghan government, news services reported. [******]
“We resumed the negotiations this morning and there are a lot of efforts going on, but so far we have not reached any final conclusion,” Waheedullah Mujadeddi, an Afghan official involved in the talks, said today. “The Taliban says they are alive, and that’s why we resumed the negotiations.” [shouldn’t have broken negotiations as now it looks like the best way to get attention is killing more hostages] [*********]
Shirin Mangal, a spokesman for the governor of Ghazni province south of Kabul, where the hostages are being held, confirmed that talks were continuing. The Taliban originally kidnapped 23 South Koreans; one was shot dead on Wednesday after the Taliban complained that the Afghan government had not responded positively to its demands. The victim’s body was taken to a United States military base in Ghazni Province, Mr. Mujadeddi said on Wednesday..
He said he expected eight hostages to be released Wednesday evening, but it did not happen. He confirmed that one had been killed.
“I can confirm one of the hostages was very sick and there was no doctor or medicine, and the Taliban shot him,” [******]Mr. Mujadeddi said. He said he had learned the news directly from the group holding the hostages.
The South Koreans are members of a Protestant church group who were on a 10-day relief mission; most are women in their 20s and 30s, and some are nurses and teachers. They were abducted last Thursday while traveling on a public bus on the main highway from the capital, Kabul, to the southern city of Kandahar.
A Taliban spokesman, Qari Yousuf Ahmadi, who claims to speak for the kidnappers, said that a hostage was killed because the government had not agreed to an initial release of eight Taliban prisoners in exchange for eight Koreans. The militant group’s full demands include the release of more prisoners and the withdrawal of the 200 South Korean troops now serving with the NATO-led coalition in Afghanistan.
“They do not pay attention and did not give a positive response,” Mr. Ahmadi said of the government in Kabul, “so that’s why we killed one Korean hostage.” The killing was done in midafternoon, he said, in a desert area in the district of Qarabagh near the main highway.
The Associated Press, citing KBS, the South Korean public broadcasting network, reported from Kabul that the slain hostage was a 42-year-old pastor, Bae Hyung-kyu.
His death at the hands of kidnappers follows that of a German engineer in Wardak province, near Kabul. Another German and four Afghans are still being held by those kidnappers. [***********]
The Taliban and other insurgents have often sought to abduct or kill foreign civilians to deter reconstruction and aid projects in Afghanistan and undermine the government. [*****]As a result, few foreigners travel on the highway from Kabul to Kandahar.
Under a new South Korean law that took effect Tuesday, a citizen of the country who travels to Afghanistan, Iraq or Somalia without the government’s permission can be jailed and fined, news agencies reported.
Carlotta Gall reported from Kabul, Afghanistan, and Jon Elsen from New York. Abdul Waheed Wafa contributed reporting from Kabul.
Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

Posted by Kent Bolton at 09:48 AM | Permalink

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/25/AR2007072501053.html
Sunni Bloc in Iraq Threatens Boycott
Move Further Weakens Maliki; Violence Follows Soccer Win
By Megan Greenwell
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, July 26, 2007; A14 [-ir] [hydra] [insurgency] [bush administration’s “surge option” or “new way forward” underway] [some positive indicators of improvement] [nevertheless, violence while surge unfolds] [pentagon’s recent status report—pretty awful but also predictable] [followup] [chaos increases] [at this rate of say 12 bodies per day, that well exceeds US casualties in Viet Nam even during worst times] [it really is a stunningly high level of violence with multiple hundreds each month] [more violence] [*****]
BAGHDAD, July 25 -- Iraq's largest Sunni political group will end all participation in the national government next week unless the prime minister complies with a lengthy list of demands, the group announced Wednesday.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/25/AR2007072501053.html
Sunni Bloc in Iraq Threatens Boycott
Move Further Weakens Maliki; Violence Follows Soccer Win
By Megan Greenwell
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, July 26, 2007; A14 [-ir] [hydra] [insurgency] [bush administration’s “surge option” or “new way forward” underway] [some positive indicators of improvement] [nevertheless, violence while surge unfolds] [pentagon’s recent status report—pretty awful but also predictable] [followup] [chaos increases] [at this rate of say 12 bodies per day, that well exceeds US casualties in Viet Nam even during worst times] [it really is a stunningly high level of violence with multiple hundreds each month] [more violence] [*****]
BAGHDAD, July 25 -- Iraq's largest Sunni political group will end all participation in the national government next week unless the prime minister complies with a lengthy list of demands, the group announced Wednesday.
The announcement by the Iraqi Accordance Front dealt another blow to Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, whose desire to create a cohesive administration has been crippled by tensions between rival Shiite groups and a sense of alienation among Sunnis. The government also has failed to pass several pieces of legislation that the Bush administration considers essential to promote national reconciliation.
The threatened political boycott is also a setback for President Bush, who is expecting a progress report by Sept. 15 from Gen. David H. Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq. The disunity within the Iraqi government and the dwindling chance of significant legislative action before the parliament's month-long August recess decrease the likelihood of a positive assessment of conditions in Iraq at a time when congressional support for a continued military presence is waning.
The announcement came a few hours before national jubilation over the Iraqi soccer team's semifinal win in the Asian Cup turned violent in Baghdad, where bombings and celebratory gunfire killed at least 55 people.
The Accordance Front's six cabinet members have not attended meetings since June 29, when they withdrew because of criminal accusations against the culture minister and frustrations with the majority Shiites. The group's other cabinet members are the deputy prime minister for security, the ministers of defense, planning and higher education, and the minister of state for women's affairs.
"After one more week, we'll give the prime minister a chance to show us and the elected people a real direction for improvement or we will leave altogether," said Alaa Maki, a senior member of the Accordance Front who serves in the parliament.
The group is demanding the release of thousands of detainees it says are unjustly imprisoned, the removal of all militia members from the Iraqi police force and the return of displaced families to their homes. The Sunnis are also seeking a greater role in security matters and further investigation into mass kidnappings and bombings of Sunni shrines.
Representatives of the Accordance Front said their complaints are driven by a sense that Maliki's government has not demonstrated enough of a commitment to solving the problems of ordinary Iraqis.
"All we want from him is simple decisions to show the Iraqi people that he will help them, but we don't see that at all," Maki said.
Sadiq al-Rikabi, an adviser to Maliki, said the Accordance Front's decision to pull out rather than to address its concerns within the government was irresponsible. He dismissed the notion that the Sunnis were marginalized within the government, saying Accordance Front members had a voice in every national decision.
"The Iraqi people would like to see the politicians stand strongly together to push forward and make real progress," Rikabi said. "And yet all we hear from them are threats."
Rikabi said that several of the grievances listed by the Accordance Front are out of the government's hands but that Maliki and other cabinet members are willing to continue discussions with the group.
Various blocs -- Sunni and Shiite -- have at times boycotted the cabinet and parliament, citing various complaints with Maliki's government.
At a match in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, Iraq's soccer team won in dramatic fashion Wednesday, beating South Korea 4-3 on penalty kicks after a 0-0 tie to earn its first-ever trip to the Asian Cup final. Iraq will play Saudi Arabia on Sunday.
Immediately after the game, tens of thousands of people rushed into the streets, firing weapons into the air despite military warnings not to shoot. The celebrations began peacefully, but two car bombs left at least 50 revelers dead while five others were killed by the celebratory gunfire.
The first bomb exploded near a popular ice cream parlor in the Mansour neighborhood of western Baghdad, killing at least 30 people and injuring 80. About 30 minutes later, another car bomb detonated in a crowd of cheering fans in the Ghadeer neighborhood on the east side of the city, killing at least 20 and injuring 65 others.
In an attempt to minimize violence, police closed bridges and blocked traffic into Karrada, the largely Shiite district downtown that became the center of the celebration. Still, the streets were choked with crowds of shirtless young men, chanting, singing, waving Iraqi flags and shooting off firecrackers.
As a U.S. convoy passed, the crowds surged toward the Humvees, making obscene gestures and screaming at the soldiers. Near one of the city's few remaining liquor stores, gangs of young men fought each other in the streets, and the sound of gunfire echoed between the buildings.
Staff writer Steve Fainaru and special correspondents Saad al-Izzi and Dalya Hassan contributed to this report.
© 2007 The Washington Post Company

Posted by Kent Bolton at 09:47 AM | Permalink

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/26/world/middleeast/26baghdad.html
July 26, 2007
18 Bodies Found in Baghdad
By THE NEW YORK TIMES [-ir] [hydra] [insurgency] [bush administration’s “surge option” or “new way forward” underway] [some positive indicators of improvement] [nevertheless, violence while surge unfolds] [pentagon’s recent status report—pretty awful but also predictable] [followup] [chaos increases] [at this rate of say 12 bodies per day, that well exceeds US casualties in Viet Nam even during worst times] [it really is a stunningly high level of violence with multiple hundreds each month] [more violence] [*****]
BAGHDAD, July 25 — The Iraqi police found 18 unidentified corpses in Baghdad on Wednesday, according to an Interior Ministry official. They were apparently the latest victims in the country’s sectarian warfare.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/26/world/middleeast/26baghdad.html
July 26, 2007
18 Bodies Found in Baghdad
By THE NEW YORK TIMES [-ir] [hydra] [insurgency] [bush administration’s “surge option” or “new way forward” underway] [some positive indicators of improvement] [nevertheless, violence while surge unfolds] [pentagon’s recent status report—pretty awful but also predictable] [followup] [chaos increases] [at this rate of say 12 bodies per day, that well exceeds US casualties in Viet Nam even during worst times] [it really is a stunningly high level of violence with multiple hundreds each month] [more violence] [*****]
BAGHDAD, July 25 — The Iraqi police found 18 unidentified corpses in Baghdad on Wednesday, according to an Interior Ministry official. They were apparently the latest victims in the country’s sectarian warfare.
Also on Wednesday, the American military announced that a soldier from the 13th Sustainment Command (Expeditionary), a logistics unit, died on Tuesday from “a non-battle-related cause.” The death brought to 61 the number of United States military personnel to die in Iraq in July, according to icasualties.org, an independent Web site.
Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/26/world/middleeast/26iraq.html
July 26, 2007
Soccer Victory Lifts Iraqis; Bombs Kill 50
By RICHARD A. OPPEL Jr. and QAIS MIZHER [-ir] [hydra] [insurgency] [bush administration’s “surge option” or “new way forward” underway] [some positive indicators of improvement] [nevertheless, violence while surge unfolds] [pentagon’s recent status report—pretty awful but also predictable] [followup] [chaos increases] [at this rate of say 12 bodies per day, that well exceeds US casualties in Viet Nam even during worst times] [it really is a stunningly high level of violence with multiple hundreds each month] [more violence] [*****]
BAGHDAD, July 25 — It took an errant kick bouncing off a goalpost half a world away for Iraq to feel, however briefly, like a nation again. A divided, violent one, yes — but a nation nonetheless.
As the Iraqi national soccer team eked out a 4-3 shootout victory over South Korea on Wednesday, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis poured into the streets in a paroxysm of good feeling and unity not seen in years.
It was more rapture than celebration, a singular release of the sort of emotion that has fueled so much rage and fear and paranoia. But this evening, at least at first, it seemed diverted into nonstop car-horn bliss; spontaneous parades clogged streets from Erbil to Karbala, from Basra to Mosul, from Ramadi to Baghdad.
Then, just as suddenly, the moment passed in places, and the fractured Iraq re-emerged. As throngs of people danced and shouted in Baghdad, insurgents took quick advantage of the unguarded revelry. Two suicide car bombs ripped through cheering crowds in Mansour, on the western side of Baghdad, and in Ghadir, on the city’s eastern side. Together they killed at least 50 people and wounded 135 more, according to an Interior Ministry official.
Another dark underbelly resurfaced: The police in the capital said they arrested several men who had used the cover of the crowds and the fusillades of celebratory gunfire to shoot and kill several people against whom they apparently harbored old vendettas. At least one bullet-ridden body was seen being carried near Sadoon Street in central Baghdad.
But in most of the country there was a spontaneous, unifying elation, as Iraqi television channels broadcast raw images of the celebration for hours. One anchor on a channel closely allied with the Dawa Party of Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki summed up the sudden torrent of happiness: “The Iraqi players with this win have done what the Iraqi politicians have failed to do all these years for national unity,” he said.
If the explosions after the game laid bare the violence that terrorizes the country, political developments before the match underscored the government’s paralysis.
The main Sunni Arab political bloc, the Iraqi Consensus Front, said it would pull out of the cabinet permanently in a week unless the Shiite-dominated government of Mr. Maliki agreed to various demands, including the release of Sunni detainees who had not been charged with crimes and the prompt disarmament of militias. It was the latest blow to American hopes that Shiites could reconcile with Sunnis, who say they feel persecuted and disenfranchised.
Only a few days ago, the Sunni bloc’s legislators returned to the Iraqi Parliament after a five-week boycott. The bloc’s six ministers were already shunning cabinet meetings to protest the handling of a case in which one of them was charged with masterminding the attempted assassination of another politician. Now, the ministers are threatening to quit the government altogether.
One senior Sunni leader, Adnan Dulaimi, said Sunnis believed that they had reached a “dead end” with the Maliki government. “The government is supporting several militias, and it made a big mistake when it merged many militiamen into the police and army,” he said, citing increased militia attacks in neighborhoods like Ghazaliya, Saydiya and Baya.
Yet on most Iraqi streets those worries were overtaken by the excitement of the victory over South Korea. [****]In the Kurdish city of Erbil, some revelers dropped their longstanding insistence on flying only the Kurdish flag to wave the Iraqi standard instead. [******] One family that joined an impromptu parade yanked their car’s windshield wipers upright and affixed two miniature Iraqi flags, which fluttered as the wipers moved back and forth.
In Basra, Iraqi commandos in chocolate-chip-colored uniforms hopped up and down in the back of trucks and waved their Kalashnikov rifles overhead. Two men wearing dishdashas made from stitched-together Iraqi flags danced atop a pickup truck.
In Ramadi, dozens of cars swarmed the Jazeera neighborhood as passengers leaned out of windows to wave the Iraqi flag and chant “Iraq! Iraq!”
In the Karada neighborhood of Baghdad people ripped notebook paper into makeshift confetti and tossed it into the air, and painted their faces the red, white, black and green of the Iraqi flag. They sprayed passing cars with foam, and drivers did not object.
On a busy thoroughfare near the Tigris River in downtown Baghdad, Qassim Mahmoud, a 30-year-old traffic officer, let a mob of teenagers commandeer his patrol car.
“This is the real mentality of the Iraqi people and they always prove themselves during the hard times,” he said.
The street scenes followed dramatic events on the field during the semifinals of the Asian Cup soccer competition in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
The Iraqi team battled the South Koreans to a scoreless tie after 90 minutes of regulation play and 30 minutes of extra time. Then came the penalty-kick shootout, where each team gets five shots on goal.
With the Koreans leading the shootout 3-2, Iraq’s Haider Abdul Amir kicked the ball toward the Korean goalkeeper, who let it slip through his hands. Thinking it had been blocked, the Korean players began to rush forward before realizing the Iraqi had scored. The Korean goalkeeper, kneeling on the ground, arched backward in agony.
The next Korean player lined up for his shot and punched the ball toward the left side of the goal. But the Iraqi team’s star goalkeeper, Noor Sabri, swatted the ball to the left of the goalpost. He leapt up and pumped his fist in the air.
The next Iraqi player, Ahmed Manajid, shot his ball into the net. Then the fifth and final Korean player lined up for his shot. He kicked the ball into the right goalpost, and it bounced back onto the field, sealing the Iraqi victory.
The young Iraqi players rushed the goal and mobbed Mr. Sabri, the wiry, long-haired and bearded goalkeeper from Baghdad. The Iraqi coach, Jorvan Vieira, a Brazilian, walked off alone, apparently overcome by emotion, [******]pushing a television camera away.
The Iraqi team faces Saudi Arabia on Sunday in the final Asian Cup match in Jakarta, Indonesia. [*********]
Reporting was contributed by Ali Adeeb, Mudhafer al-Husaini and Marko Georgiev from Baghdad, and Iraqi employees of The New York Times from Ramadi, Basra, Mosul and Karbala.
Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

Posted by Kent Bolton at 09:46 AM | Permalink

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/26/world/middleeast/26briefs-nuclear.html
July 26, 2007
World Briefing | Middle East
Iran: Russia Delays Nuclear Plant to 2008
By SOPHIA KISHKOVSKY [Iran] [wmd] [nukes] [Russia-built power plant that Russians now will not complete until 2008] [interesting given all the recent re-assertion of national sovereignty by Putin’s govt] [may demonstrate that Russia to is reluctant to have nukes on their border with iran, particularly with a nutty pres ahmadeinjad] [*****]
Russia will not complete the nuclear power plant it is building for Iran until late next year, a year behind schedule, the official Russian news agency RIA Novosti reported, quoting the director of a subcontracting company of the state nuclear power company Atomstroyexport. The director, Ivan Istomin of Energoprogress, said suppliers had “lost faith” in the Bushehr power plant, Iran’s first nuclear power plant, because of payment disputes with Iran.[****] The United States and other Western countries have repeatedly objected to Russia’s involvement in the plant, warning that Iran could apply the technology to nuclear weapons. In recent months, Russia has displayed its own wariness. [********]
Copyright 2007 The New York Times Compan

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/26/world/middleeast/26briefs-nuclear.html
July 26, 2007
World Briefing | Middle East
Iran: Russia Delays Nuclear Plant to 2008
By SOPHIA KISHKOVSKY [Iran] [wmd] [nukes] [Russia-built power plant that Russians now will not complete until 2008] [interesting given all the recent re-assertion of national sovereignty by Putin’s govt] [may demonstrate that Russia to is reluctant to have nukes on their border with iran, particularly with a nutty pres ahmadeinjad] [*****]
Russia will not complete the nuclear power plant it is building for Iran until late next year, a year behind schedule, the official Russian news agency RIA Novosti reported, quoting the director of a subcontracting company of the state nuclear power company Atomstroyexport. The director, Ivan Istomin of Energoprogress, said suppliers had “lost faith” in the Bushehr power plant, Iran’s first nuclear power plant, because of payment disputes with Iran.[****] The United States and other Western countries have repeatedly objected to Russia’s involvement in the plant, warning that Iran could apply the technology to nuclear weapons. In recent months, Russia has displayed its own wariness. [********]
Copyright 2007 The New York Times Compan

Posted by Kent Bolton at 09:45 AM | Permalink

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/25/AR2007072501630.html
Brown Seeks Tougher Anti-Terrorism Laws
By Kevin Sullivan
Washington Post Foreign Service
Thursday, July 26, 2007; A16 [UK] [London] [EU] [followup 7-29-07 and 7-3-07, London and Glasgow respectively] [hydra] [PM Gordon Brown now in charge as former PM Blair now envoy for Qaurtet to Middle East] [how much daylight between Brown and Blair on hydra?] [*****] [ditto]
LONDON, July 25 -- British Prime Minister Gordon Brown on Wednesday proposed allowing police to detain suspected terrorists for up to 56 days without charge, reviving a highly controversial issue that led to a dramatic parliamentary defeat for his predecessor, Tony Blair.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/25/AR2007072501630.html
Brown Seeks Tougher Anti-Terrorism Laws
By Kevin Sullivan
Washington Post Foreign Service
Thursday, July 26, 2007; A16 [UK] [London] [EU] [followup 7-29-07 and 7-3-07, London and Glasgow respectively] [hydra] [PM Gordon Brown now in charge as former PM Blair now envoy for Qaurtet to Middle East] [how much daylight between Brown and Blair on hydra?] [*****] [ditto]
LONDON, July 25 -- British Prime Minister Gordon Brown on Wednesday proposed allowing police to detain suspected terrorists for up to 56 days without charge, reviving a highly controversial issue that led to a dramatic parliamentary defeat for his predecessor, Tony Blair.
The plan, which would double the current 28-day detention limit, was part of a wide-ranging set of proposals that Brown announced in the House of Commons, his first major package of security and anti-terrorism legislation since taking office last month. He said the legislation would be formally introduced in Parliament in the fall.
Following attacks on London's public transit system in July 2005 in which four suicide bombers killed 52 passengers and injured about 700, Blair proposed extensive changes to anti-terrorism laws, including a bid to increase the time police are allowed to hold suspected terrorists without charge from 14 to 90 days. [after 7/7/2005] [****]
Critics, including many from within Blair's Labor Party, said the measure ignored suspects' civil rights. Despite Blair's passionate backing, Parliament resoundingly rejected the proposal in November 2005 and approved an increase to only 28 days.
On Wednesday, Brown said he believed there was "a growing weight of opinion" that the limit needed to be increased, although he ruled out seeking 90 days. [****]He offered several options for legislators to consider over the summer recess, all of which would require extensive judicial and legislative review. Under current law, a judge must reauthorize any detention without charge every seven days, up to the maximum of 28.
Brown said Britain needed tougher laws to "confront a generation-long challenge to defeat al-Qaeda-inspired terrorist violence." He said that there had been 15 attempted terrorist plots in Britain since 2001 and that security services were currently monitoring 2,000 individuals involved in about 30 known plots. [******]This year alone, by his account, 30 people have been convicted in Britain in nine cases brought under anti-terrorism laws. Many of the plots involved investigations across several continents and "huge quantities" of evidence to be analyzed by police, he said. [currently monitoring 2,000 individual involved in some 30 known plots] [jibes relatively well with MI-5 leader some time back] [********]
Amnesty International said in a statement that Brown's proposals amounted to "internment" and "an assault on human rights and freedoms." The group said Britain "appears to have forgotten the lesson of Northern Ireland in the '70s," when the imposition of internment without charge fueled anti-British sentiment among the province's Catholic minority that lasted a generation.
Brown's proposals, Amnesty said, "will further alienate affected communities, leading people to mistrust the authorities and make them less likely to want to cooperate with the police." [********]
Paul Cornish, head of the International Security Program at Chatham House, a research institute in London, said Brown's proposals were "very significant" because he was "trying to get us to a sensible place and away from an obsession with numbers."
"Blair's 90 days was too stark," Cornish said. "Brown is trying to find a flexible way out of the deadlock." Cornish said Brown appeared to be trying to balance concerns over rising extremist violence in Britain with the needs of security forces.
Brown said nine foreign nationals had recently been deported on security grounds and 21 were awaiting deportation. He added that 176 people had been prevented from entering Britain for "glorifying terrorism," [******]a criminal offense created after the 2005 attacks, or because of other security concerns. About 4,000 foreign prisoners in British jails were likely to be deported this year, he said.
Brown also proposed increased use of biometric visas for visitors and biometric ID cards for foreigners living in Britain. He suggested creating a unified border security agency, incorporating functions now performed by agencies that handle customs, immigration and visa issues. He said that would create a "highly visible uniformed presence" at British ports and borders. [how will this work with other EU countries?] [******]
Special correspondent Karla Adam contributed to this report.
© 2007 The Washington Post Company

Posted by Kent Bolton at 09:44 AM | Permalink

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/26/world/europe/26britain.html
July 26, 2007
British Leader Seeks New Terrorism Laws
By JANE PERLEZ [UK] [London] [EU] [followup 7-29-07 and 7-3-07, London and Glasgow respectively] [hydra] [PM Gordon Brown now in charge as former PM Blair now envoy for Qaurtet to Middle East] [how much daylight between Brown and Blair on hydra?] [*****]
LONDON, July 25 — Taking an early firm stand on terrorism, Prime Minister Gordon Brown told Parliament on Wednesday that his government would establish a highly visible border police force that would patrol airports and seaports, [*****]a proposal that the opposition Conservatives have long supported.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/26/world/europe/26britain.html
July 26, 2007
British Leader Seeks New Terrorism Laws
By JANE PERLEZ [UK] [London] [EU] [followup 7-29-07 and 7-3-07, London and Glasgow respectively] [hydra] [PM Gordon Brown now in charge as former PM Blair now envoy for Qaurtet to Middle East] [how much daylight between Brown and Blair on hydra?] [*****]
LONDON, July 25 — Taking an early firm stand on terrorism, Prime Minister Gordon Brown told Parliament on Wednesday that his government would establish a highly visible border police force that would patrol airports and seaports, [*****]a proposal that the opposition Conservatives have long supported.
In a wide-ranging package of anti-terrorism measures that stressed security over winning the hearts of Britain’s Muslim population, [****]Mr. Brown said he wanted to extend the period that terrorism suspects could be held for questioning without charge.
In the longer run, he said, Britain would require all visa applicants to have “biometric” screening after March 2008.
A screening system, to be introduced as soon as possible, he said, would enable border officials to check passports of people entering and leaving Britain in real time against a database. [*******]
“Our country — and all countries — have to confront a generation-long challenge to defeat Al Qaeda-inspired terror violence,” [*****]Mr. Brown said in the House of Commons. He said there had been 15 efforts to attack Britain since Sept. 11, 2001. [*****] Some of the government’s proposals, in particular the extension of time for questioning suspects held without charge to 56 days from 28 days, had been discussed as possibilities before the Wednesday speech. [since 9/11, 15 different plot against UK only two of which worked, 7/7 and 7/21] [***********]0
But the plan for the border patrol police, which would combine immigration and customs officers, came as a surprise. It appeared intended to show that Mr. Brown meant business in reinforcing Britain’s security measures and that he, a member of the Labor Party, was willing to include something from Conservative Party policy.
The Conservative Party spokesman on security, David Davis, in an op-ed article in The Daily Telegraph on Wednesday criticized Labor for what he called its plans to introduce new laws rather than carry out current antiterrorism measures more effectively.
The Conservatives proposed a border police force five years ago. The new border patrol, Mr. Brown said, will be fully in place “very soon,” [*******]after a report is delivered to the government about how to coordinate the various services that will make up the force. But visitors to Britain will start seeing the new patrols next month, he said.
Longer periods for interrogation of terrorism suspects is a hot-button issue in Britain, where some people believe such measures recall the policy of internment by the British security forces against the Irish Republican Army and its sympathizers. [******]
In explaining his decision to call for a longer period of detention for terrorism suspects held without charge, Mr. Brown said that in the past year six suspects had been held for 27 days or the maximum 28 days.
Three of those suspects were charged in connection with the plot last year to bring down trans-Atlantic airliners heading for the United States. [August 10, 2006] [*****] Three others were released.
The complexities of terrorist plots, which often involve multiple identities and the need for investigators to look at thousands of phone records and analyze computer hard drives, justified an extension to 56 days, [******]Mr. Brown said. The airline plot involved 200 cellphones, 400 computers and 8,000 CDs, DVDs and discs, which together contained 6,000 gigabytes of data, he told Parliament.
Civil liberties groups, defense lawyers and British Muslim organizations oppose the extension of time for questioning, on the grounds that it would seriously erode individual rights.
“Twenty-eight days is already too long,” said Louise Christian, a senior partner in Christian Khan, a law firm that specializes in defending terrorism suspects. “It should never have gone to 14. It used to be 7 days.”
She accused the British police, whose main lobbying organization has called for indefinite detention for questioning of terrorism suspects, of being “allowed to play an undemocratic lobbying role.”
Figures released by the Home Office recently showed that between Sept. 11, 2001, and March of this year, 1,228 people were arrested on suspicion of terrorism offenses. Of those, 669 were released without charge. [almost 55%] [******]
The data also showed that only 241 had been charged with offenses under terrorism legislation. [19.6% or fewer than one in 5] [*****]0
In outlining his plans for the longer period for questioning, Mr. Brown also said that he would consider an extension of the detention period to as long as 90 days, but that he preferred the period he was proposing.
Mr. Brown also said his government had set aside $144 million, for local councils to set up programs to teach citizenship skills and English to Muslim clerics, many of whom come from Pakistan to take those positions.
The prime minister said that the government would finance a BBC Arabic-language channel. Similarly, he said the government would finance an editorially independent Persian-language station for Iranians.
Failed terrorist attacks in London and Glasgow marred Mr. Brown’s first days in office as prime minister.
Seven people living in Britain were detained for questioning in those failed bombings. Three were charged, three others were released, and one man remains hospitalized with severe burns from the failed attack.
Ariana Green contributed reporting.
Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

Posted by Kent Bolton at 09:43 AM | Permalink

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/24/AR2007072402479.html
FBI Seeks To Pay Telecoms For Data
$5 Million a Year Sought for Firms To Keep Databases
By Ellen Nakashima
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, July 25, 2007; A07 [bush administration] [doj] [fbi] [intelligence community reforms since IRTPA] [this will probably be constroversial] [though all one would have to do is require warrant to go back and check given people] [************]
The FBI wants to pay the major telecommunications companies to retain their customers' Internet and phone call information for at least two years for the agency's use in counterterrorism investigations and is asking Congress for $5 million a year to defray the cost, according to FBI officials and budget documents.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/24/AR2007072402479.html
FBI Seeks To Pay Telecoms For Data
$5 Million a Year Sought for Firms To Keep Databases
By Ellen Nakashima
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, July 25, 2007; A07 [bush administration] [doj] [fbi] [intelligence community reforms since IRTPA] [this will probably be constroversial] [though all one would have to do is require warrant to go back and check given people] [************]
The FBI wants to pay the major telecommunications companies to retain their customers' Internet and phone call information for at least two years for the agency's use in counterterrorism investigations and is asking Congress for $5 million a year to defray the cost, according to FBI officials and budget documents.
The FBI would not have direct access to the records. It would need to present a subpoena or an administrative warrant, known as a national security letter, to obtain the information that the companies would keep in a database, officials said.
"We have never asked for the ability to have direct access to or to 'data mine' telephone company databases," said John Miller, the FBI's assistant director for public affairs. "The budget request simply seeks to absorb the cost to the service provider of developing an efficient electronic system for them to retain and deliver the information after it is legally requested." [***********]
The proposal has raised concerns by civil libertarians who point to telecom companies' alleged involvement in the government's domestic surveillance program and to a recent Justice Department inspector general's report on FBI abuse of national security letters. [******]In one case, a senior FBI official signed the letters without including the required proof that they were linked to FBI counterterrorism or espionage investigations.
The report also disclosed that the bureau was issuing "exigent letters," telling telephone companies that the bureau needed information immediately and would follow up with subpoenas later. [hum; sounds suspect] [****]In many cases, agents did not follow up. Moreover, Inspector General Glenn A. Fine found, there was no legal basis to compel the disclosure of information using such letters.
The proposal "is circumventing the law by paying companies to do something the FBI couldn't do itself legally," said Michael German, American Civil Liberties Union policy counsel on national security. "Going around the Fourth Amendment by paying private companies to hoard our phone records is outrageous."
Mark J. Zwillinger, a Washington lawyer who represents Internet service providers, said companies have no "business reason" to keep the data. Moreover, he said he did not think telecom companies "are in the business of becoming the investigative arm for the government, keeping data just so the government can get access to it. That's really what the government is asking for: 'Keep data on hundreds of millions of users just in case we need to get data for 15 individuals.' "
Last year, according to industry sources, U.S. Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales and FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III urged telecom providers to keep subscriber information and network data for two years. Legislation is pending in Congress that would require companies to keep the data. What type and for how long would be up to the attorney general.
The administration is also attempting to win immunity for telecom companies from criminal and civil liability for any role in the surveillance program.
Telecoms have been providing data legally to the government and then charging for it, said a government official not authorized to speak publicly about the matter and who spoke on condition of anonymity. The cost is about $1.8 million a year since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the official said.
The idea now, the official said, is to have the telecom companies create and maintain databases of phone and Internet records so that when they receive a subpoena or national security letter, they can deliver the information expeditiously in electronic form.
Zwillinger, an Internet and data protection expert with Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal and a former federal prosecutor, said that merely retaining the records creates "a very attractive trove" of data that can be subpoenaed by other entities, such as lawyers in divorce proceedings or other civil litigation.
The FBI's proposal to pay companies for the records was reported previously by ABC News.
Staff researcher Karl Evanzz contributed to this report.
© 2007 The Washington Post Company

Posted by Kent Bolton at 09:12 AM | Permalink

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/24/AR2007072402273.html
Case Against Islamic Charity Opens
Now-Shuttered Organization Funneled Money to Militants, Prosecutors Say
By Robert Barnes
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, July 25, 2007; A06 [bush administration] [doj under gonzo] [prosecuting the Holy Land Foundation] [some think it’s a front for Hamas] [followup] [*********]
Federal prosecutors opened their case yesterday against what was once the nation's largest Islamic charity, arguing in a Dallas courtroom that the organization funneled at least $12 million to Palestinian militants.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/24/AR2007072402273.html
Case Against Islamic Charity Opens
Now-Shuttered Organization Funneled Money to Militants, Prosecutors Say
By Robert Barnes
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, July 25, 2007; A06 [bush administration] [doj under gonzo] [prosecuting the Holy Land Foundation] [some think it’s a front for Hamas] [followup] [*********]
Federal prosecutors opened their case yesterday against what was once the nation's largest Islamic charity, arguing in a Dallas courtroom that the organization funneled at least $12 million to Palestinian militants.
The Texas-based Holy Land Foundation was shut down by President Bush three months after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. It is accused of knowing that the money it sent to charities in the Middle East benefited Hamas, the militant Palestinian group officially designated as a terrorist organization by the U.S. government. Administration officials say the trial is an important battle in the fight to cut off funding to terrorists.
But the case is also drawing intense scrutiny in the American Muslim community because of a listing of 300 individuals and groups named in the indictment as unindicted co-conspirators, including established organizations such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations.
Parvez Ahmed, chairman of CAIR's national board, called the unusual list a "broad smear" and added, "We're being accused of something, but what we're being accused of, I don't know."
Prosecutors told jurors yesterday that the foundation and five organizers -- all but one are U.S. citizens -- sent at least $12 million to "zakat" committees controlled by Hamas. Zakat is a required form of the charitable giving that is one of the pillars of Islam. [******
The indictment charges that the foundation in part directed the money to take care of the families of suicide bombers, an action to "effectively reward past, and encourage future, suicide bombings and terrorist activities."
Assistant U.S. Attorney James Jacks said the 14-year investigation of the group revealed defendants phoning one another to describe Hamas suicide bombing attacks as "beautiful operations." He said the foundation and defendants shared Hamas's goal of the destruction of Israel. [*******]One of the men participated in a skit at a fundraiser that purported to show a Palestinian killing an Israeli, he said.
The organization's leaders lied about their real purpose "because to tell the truth would reveal what they were all about -- the destruction of the state of Israel and replacing it with a Palestinian Islamic state," Jacks said, the Associated Press reported.
But defense attorney Nancy Hollander said the foundation and the men on trial did nothing more than contribute money to charities, none of which are marked as terrorist organizations by the U.S. government.
"Holy Land had nothing to do with politics," said Hollander, the AP reported. "Its focus was on children in need." Hollander represents Shukri Abu Baker, who is on trial along with Mohammed El-Mezain, Mufid Abdulqader, Ghassan Elashi and Abdulraham Odeh.
Prosecutors have told the court it will take at least three months to present the complicated case. It relies on a mountain of documents, years of intercepted phone conversations, information from Israeli intelligence agencies and disputed transcripts that contain conversations translated from Arabic to Hebrew to English. [I would think there’d be chain-of-custody issues ‘o plenty] [***********]
Judge A. Joe Fish has said he will allow two Israeli agents to testify in a closed courtroom with their identities concealed.
"It's an extremely important case for the government to win," said Dennis M. Lormel, a former Justice Department official who created the FBI's Terrorist Financing Operations Section. But he added that it is also "a very complex case, and a difficult case to bring."
The government has had mixed success in such prosecutions. A jury in Illinois acquitted a defendant accused of funneling money to militants overseas, and a Florida college professor who had long been a target of federal prosecutors was found not guilty of terrorism-related charges.
But a Georgia imam pleaded guilty last fall to supporting Hamas with donations passed through the Holy Land Foundation; Mohamed Shorbagi is on the witness list in the Dallas case. And one of the Holy Land defendants has already been convicted on separate charges of supplying computers to Syria and Libya.
Even without convictions, Lormel said, the government's actions have had a "chilling effect" on the kind of contributions that he believes are going to aid Hamas and others. "In the long run, the government has taken major steps in stopping the flow of money to terrorists," he said.
Lormel said he could not speculate on prosecutors' reasons for the list of unindicted co-conspirators and acknowledged that it has resulted in accusations that "the Islamic community is being picked on." But he said Muslim leaders do a "disservice" to their community to not acknowledge the Holy Land Foundation's ties to Hamas.
Muneer Fareed, secretary general of the Islamic Society of North America, said his organization's inclusion on the list of 300 unindicted co-conspirators is "perplexing and somewhat disappointing" and said it harms the goal of ensuring that charitable giving goes to the right organizations.
"How do we build trust and work with law enforcement when there is this cloud hanging over our heads?" he asked.
CAIR's Ahmed added, "What is the crime?" He said the foundation's contributions "went to charities -- all approved charities -- and at least one of them has received aid from the U.S. government."
The ACLU and some nonprofit organizations have objected to what they called in a June letter "the Department of Treasury's continued unfounded allegation that charities are a 'significant source of alleged terrorist activities.' "
But the Bush administration moved yesterday against two other charities -- the Martyrs Foundation and Goodwill Charitable Organization of Dearborn, Mich. -- for allegedly providing support to the terrorist group Hezbollah.
"We will not allow organizations that support terrorism to raise money in the United States," said Stuart Levey, the Treasury Department's undersecretary for terrorism and financial intelligence.
Research editor Alice Crites contributed to this report.
© 2007 The Washington Post Company

Posted by Kent Bolton at 09:11 AM | Permalink

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/25/washington/25maliki.html
July 25, 2007
Bush and Iraqi: Frequent Talks, Limited Results
By JIM RUTENBERG and ALISSA J. RUBIN [bush nsc principals] [president bush] [al-Maliki leadership in Baghdad] [ironic how much bush has staked on this guy and how much bush’s own star is tethered to him] [***************]
WASHINGTON, July 24 — Once every two weeks, sometimes more often, President Bush gathers with the vice president and the national security adviser in the newly refurbished White House Situation Room and peers, electronically, into the eyes of the man to whom his legacy is so inextricably linked: Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki of Iraq. [**********] [where’s bush’s war czar?]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/25/washington/25maliki.html
July 25, 2007
Bush and Iraqi: Frequent Talks, Limited Results
By JIM RUTENBERG and ALISSA J. RUBIN [bush nsc principals] [president bush] [al-Maliki leadership in Baghdad] [ironic how much bush has staked on this guy and how much bush’s own star is tethered to him] [***************]
WASHINGTON, July 24 — Once every two weeks, sometimes more often, President Bush gathers with the vice president and the national security adviser in the newly refurbished White House Situation Room and peers, electronically, into the eyes of the man to whom his legacy is so inextricably linked: Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki of Iraq. [**********] [where’s bush’s war czar?]
In sessions usually lasting more than an hour, Mr. Bush, a committed Christian of Texas by way of privileged schooling in New England, and Mr. Maliki, an Iraqi Shiite by way of political exile in Iran and Syria, talk about leadership and democracy, troop deployments and their own domestic challenges.
Sometimes, said an official who has sat in on the meetings, they talk about their faith in God.
“They talk about the challenges they face being leaders,” said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity in order to discuss private conversations. “They, of course, also share a faith in God.”
The official declined to elaborate on the extent of their religious discussions, but said, “It is an issue that comes up between two men who are believers in difficult times, who are being challenged.”
In the sessions, Mr. Bush views Mr. Maliki’s crisp image on a wall of plasma screens. Aides say the sessions are crucial to Mr. Bush’s attempts to help Mr. Maliki through his troubled tenure. The meetings are also typical of the type of personal diplomacy Mr. Bush has practiced throughout his presidency, exemplified by the way he warmed to President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia — misguidedly, in the view of some policy analysts — after Mr. Putin showed him a cross he wears that his mother gave him.
So far, the sessions with Mr. Maliki appear to have pointed up the limits of the personal approach, with questions persisting about Mr. Maliki’s ability — and desire — to strike the hard deals that could ultimately bring political reconciliation to his violently fractured country. [***********]
In Mr. Maliki, Mr. Bush has a partner who is neither known for great political skills nor for showing any real desire to move against the interests of his Shiite supporters, who still harbor deep suspicions of their Sunni Arab compatriots. In the sessions, aides say, Mr. Bush has tried to play many simultaneous roles — friend, counselor and ally, but also guide, instructor and even enforcer — as the United States has tried to hold Mr. Maliki to his commitments.
In recent months, White House officials say, Mr. Bush has spoken more frequently with Mr. Maliki than just about any other foreign leader besides those of Britain and Germany.
Administration officials say the sessions have given Mr. Bush a forum to persuade Mr. Maliki to make more of a public show of being a leader to all Iraqis, not just his fellow Shiites. It was in the teleconferences, aides said, that Mr. Bush prevailed upon Mr. Maliki to implore his colleagues in Parliament to reduce their planned two-month vacation this summer, though their grudging concession to take just one month has not done much to quiet criticism.
The White House also believes that Mr. Maliki has made good on pledges to commit three new Iraqi brigades to Baghdad, the official said, and has given American and Iraqi forces more leeway to go after Shiite militias, though the official acknowledged that Shiite security officials sometimes block their pursuit.
John R. Bolton, the former United States ambassador to the United Nations, cautioned against relying too much on a single Iraqi leader. “It’s not a question of faith in one person at this point,” he said. “The issue for the Iraqis is whether they’re going to find a way to live together.”
Despite Mr. Bush’s perception that he knows Mr. Maliki, he has sometimes appeared to misread the Iraqi leader and the political world in which he operates. Mr. Maliki may agree with Mr. Bush on the steps that need to be taken in Iraq to achieve stability, such as bringing more ex-Baathists back into government. But if he is perceived as going too far in accommodating former Baathists loyal to Saddam Hussein, he could splinter his already divided Shiite base of support.
Shiites put their faith in Mr. Maliki because of his own history as a staunch anti-Baathist. Mr. Maliki comes from a political party, Dawa, that for decades operated clandestinely to avoid torture or death at the hands of Mr. Hussein.
“With that kind of background it’s hard to move to the broader political stage and be open in your dealings and be inclusive,” said an American official in Baghdad who agreed to speak about Mr. Maliki only on condition of anonymity.
Mr. Maliki fled Iraq in 1979 after being sentenced to death for his political affiliation. When the Hussein government fell, Mr. Maliki became a leader on the commission to purge Baath Party members from government — efforts now deemed to have gone too far. And he opposed early efforts to bring some of them back.
Critics of Mr. Maliki in the Bush administration say that the Iraqi leader’s history shows he is more capable, and less hapless, than he may want to show. Detractors can point to his Shiite allegiance as evidence that he is simply telling Mr. Bush what he wants to hear just to keep American troops in place for the time being.
Last fall Stephen J. Hadley, the national security adviser, wrote in an internal White House memo, “We returned from Iraq convinced we need to determine if Prime Minister Maliki is both willing and able to rise above the sectarian agendas being promoted by others.” [************]
Aides say that Mr. Bush has used the videoconferences to discuss those doubts, and steps that can be taken to allay them, with Mr. Maliki.
“There was a lot of that discussion about the importance for Maliki to show not only to the communities in Iraq but to all of his neighbors that while it was a Shiite-led government, it was a government for all Iraqis,” a senior administration official familiar with the meetings said.
President Bush’s first point, the official said, was, “ ‘You need to do this to be a leader for all of Iraq,’ but secondly, ‘As you do this, it will also send a message to the region which will help you with your Sunni neighbors but, quite frankly, it will help me here at home.’ ”
Mr. Bush has said that he has seen signs of improvement. Describing his regular contact with Mr. Maliki , Mr. Bush said in April, “I’ve watched a man begun to grow in office,” adding, “I look to see whether or not he has courage to make the difficult decisions necessary to achieve peace. I’m looking to see whether or not he has got the capacity to reach out and help unify this country.”
Jim Rutenberg reported from Washington, and Alissa J. Rubin from Baghdad.
Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

Posted by Kent Bolton at 09:10 AM | Permalink

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/24/AR2007072400852.html
Al-Qaeda in Iraq Is Part Of Network, Bush Says
By Michael A. Fletcher
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, July 25, 2007; A06 [bush nsc principals] [president bush] [conflating alqaeda and AQI] [some of it defies reason but other parts are could be useful] [bush’s credibility is so low, however, that it’s hard to know how it will play] [my guess is not well until the US is hit again] [if that happens this summer, the administration can salvage a lot I should think] [***************] [ditto]
CHARLESTON, S.C., July 24 -- President Bush argued anew Tuesday that the Sunni insurgent group known as al-Qaeda in Iraq is an integral part of the larger al-Qaeda terrorist network, as he attempted to rebut critics who say the war in Iraq has distracted the United States from a broader struggle against Islamic extremism.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/24/AR2007072400852.html
Al-Qaeda in Iraq Is Part Of Network, Bush Says
By Michael A. Fletcher
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, July 25, 2007; A06 [bush nsc principals] [president bush] [conflating alqaeda and AQI] [some of it defies reason but other parts are could be useful] [bush’s credibility is so low, however, that it’s hard to know how it will play] [my guess is not well until the US is hit again] [if that happens this summer, the administration can salvage a lot I should think] [***************] [ditto]
CHARLESTON, S.C., July 24 -- President Bush argued anew Tuesday that the Sunni insurgent group known as al-Qaeda in Iraq is an integral part of the larger al-Qaeda terrorist network, as he attempted to rebut critics who say the war in Iraq has distracted the United States from a broader struggle against Islamic extremism.
With public support for the war steadily declining, Bush told an audience of military personnel at an Air Force base here that many foreigners, including top lieutenants to Osama bin Laden, lead the Iraqi group. Some of them, he added, trained with the organization at its terrorist camps in Afghanistan or otherwise have deep ties with the network.
"Some will tell you al-Qaeda in Iraq isn't really al-Qaeda -- and not really a threat to America," Bush said. "Well, that's like watching a man walk into a bank with a mask and a gun, and saying he's probably just there to cash a check. We are fighting bin Laden's al-Qaeda in Iraq."
Critics of the Bush administration's policy in Iraq -- including former intelligence officials, lawmakers and regional experts -- have said that al-Qaeda in Iraq grew up in response to the U.S. occupation and that loyalists of the group represent just a small percentage of the insurgent forces battling U.S. and Iraqi forces. Moreover, al-Qaeda as a whole represents an ideology for extremists as much as it does a functioning organization, some intelligence analysts have said.
But Bush called the Iraqi organization an "alliance of killers" and repeated earlier assertions that a military withdrawal would allow Iraq to be used as a base from which to strike the U.S. homeland.
"Those who justify withdrawing our troops from Iraq by denying the threat of al-Qaeda in Iraq and its ties to Osama bin Laden ignore the clear consequences of such a retreat," Bush said. "If we were to follow their advice, it would be dangerous for the world -- and disastrous for America."
Bush made his remarks as his administration is pressing for more time to see whether the recent increase of troops in Iraq can stabilize the country, even as the public and lawmakers grow increasingly weary of the war and Bush's handling of it. A Washington Post-ABC News poll released this week found that most Americans view Bush as too rigid in his support of the war.
U.S. intelligence officials, in a declassified report on al-Qaeda released last week, described al-Qaeda in Iraq as an "affiliate" of the larger terrorist network, which has reestablished a haven in Pakistan.
But the report did not say that the Iraqi group had taken orders from the network; instead, it said that the larger network "will probably seek to leverage the contacts and capabilities" of the Iraqi group and use its association with the group to "energize the broader Sunni extremist community" for fundraising and recruiting.
That conclusion prompted Democrats and others to say that al-Qaeda is not running the war, but is instead benefiting from it, and thus that the conflict has increased the terrorist threat rather than diminished it.
"The masterminds who want to harm this country are in Pakistan while our troops are in Iraq. It doesn't get much simpler than that," said Rand Beers, a former National Security Council aide who is president of the National Security Network, an advocacy group.
Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) similarly said Bush's handling of the war has intensified the terrorist threat. "The National Intelligence Estimate contradicted what the president said today and made it clear that al-Qaeda is stronger because of our massive military presence in Iraq," he said Tuesday.
Although aides said that Bush had declassified sensitive information to make his case, most of the details he used have long been in the public domain. He said that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the Jordanian who formed al-Qaeda in Iraq, pledged allegiance to bin Laden in 2004. After U.S. forces killed Zarqawi in June 2006, he was replaced by an Egyptian known as Abu Ayyub al-Masri, who Bush said has "deep and long-standing ties" to al-Qaeda's senior leadership.
Bush said bin Laden sent "a terrorist leader named Abd al-Hadi al-Iraqi" to help Masri, but he was captured and sent to the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The arrest and Guantanamo Bay transfer was announced in April, after intelligence sources said Hadi had been captured in Turkey by the Turkish military. At the time, the Pentagon identified Hadi as a former member of the Iraqi military and a trusted bin Laden lieutenant who was expert in guerrilla operations.
In May, a known al-Qaeda official said in an Arab television interview that Hadi had been sent to Iraq by bin Laden more than a year earlier, when Zarqawi was still alive. At the time, intercepted communications between bin Laden deputy Ayman al-Zawahiri and Zarqawi indicated al-Qaeda unhappiness with the Iraqi organization and its inability to control Zarqawi.
Bush also added that another terrorist leader recently captured in Iraq, whom he identified only as Mashhadani, had told U.S. interrogators that the Iraqi organization there went to "extraordinary lengths to promote the fiction" that it was not run by foreigners tied to the central al-Qaeda network. Khalid al-Mashhadani's capture was announced in a news conference last week by U.S. forces in Baghdad.
Staff writers Walter Pincus and Karen DeYoung contributed to this report from Washington.
© 2007 The Washington Post Company

Posted by Kent Bolton at 09:09 AM | Permalink

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/25/washington/25prexy.html
July 25, 2007
President Links Qaeda of Iraq to Qaeda of 9/11
By JIM RUTENBERG and MARK MAZZETTI [bush nsc principals] [president bush] [conflating alqaeda and AQI] [some of it defies reason but other parts are could be useful] [bush’s credibility is so low, however, that it’s hard to know how it will play] [my guess is not well until the US is hit again] [if that happens this summer, the administration can salvage a lot I should think] [***************]
CHARLESTON, S.C., July 24 — President Bush sought anew on Tuesday to draw connections between the Iraqi group Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia and the terrorist network responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks, and he sharply criticized those who contend that the groups are independent of each other.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/25/washington/25prexy.html
July 25, 2007
President Links Qaeda of Iraq to Qaeda of 9/11
By JIM RUTENBERG and MARK MAZZETTI [bush nsc principals] [president bush] [conflating alqaeda and AQI] [some of it defies reason but other parts are could be useful] [bush’s credibility is so low, however, that it’s hard to know how it will play] [my guess is not well until the US is hit again] [if that happens this summer, the administration can salvage a lot I should think] [***************]
CHARLESTON, S.C., July 24 — President Bush sought anew on Tuesday to draw connections between the Iraqi group Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia and the terrorist network responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks, and he sharply criticized those who contend that the groups are independent of each other.
At a time when Mr. Bush is trying to beat back calls for withdrawal from Iraq, the speech at Charleston Air Force Base reflected concern at the White House over criticism that he is focusing on the wrong terrorist threat.
Mr. Bush chose to speak in the city where Democrats held their nationally televised presidential debate on Monday, a forum at which the question was not whether to stay in Iraq but how to go about leaving.
“The facts are that Al Qaeda terrorists killed Americans on 9/11, they’re fighting us in Iraq and across the world and they are plotting to kill Americans here at home again,” Mr. Bush told a contingent of military personnel here. “Those who justify withdrawing our troops from Iraq by denying the threat of Al Qaeda in Iraq and its ties to Osama bin Laden ignore the clear consequences of such a retreat.”
Kevin Sullivan, the White House communications director, said the speech was devised as a “surge of facts” meant to rebut critics who say Mr. Bush is trying to rebuild support for the war by linking the Iraq group and the one led by Mr. bin Laden. [*******]
But Democratic lawmakers accused Mr. Bush of overstating those ties to provide a basis for continuing the American presence in Iraq. The Senate majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, said Mr. Bush was “trying to justify claims that have long ago been proven to be misleading.” [speaking of someone with little credibility] [****]
The Iraqi group is a homegrown Sunni Arab extremist group with some foreign operatives that has claimed a loose affiliation to Mr. bin Laden’s network, although the precise links are unclear.
In his speech, Mr. Bush did not try to debunk the fact — repeated by Mr. Reid — that Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia did not exist until after the United States invasion in 2003 and has flourished since.
His comments also reflected a subtle shift from his recent flat assertion that, “The same folks that are bombing innocent people in Iraq were the ones who attacked us in America on Sept. 11.”
The overall thrust of the speech was that the administration believes that Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia has enough connections to Mr. bin Laden’s group to be considered the same threat, that its ultimate goal is to strike America and that to think otherwise is “like watching a man walk into a bank with a mask and a gun and saying he’s probably just there to cash a check.” [************]
Mr. Bush referred throughout his speech to what his aides said was newly declassified intelligence in his effort to link Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia and the central Qaeda leadership that is believed to be operating from the Pakistan-Afghanistan border region. [*********]Although the aides said the intelligence was declassified, White House and intelligence officials declined to provide any detail on the reports Mr. Bush cited.
In stark terms, Mr. Bush laid out a case that Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia had taken its cues from the central Qaeda leadership, and that it had been led by foreigners who have sworn allegiance to Mr. bin Laden.
Mr. Bush acknowledged that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the Jordanian founder of the Iraq group, at first was not part of Al Qaeda. But, he said, “our intelligence community reports he had long-standing relations with senior Al Qaeda leaders, that he had met with Osama bin Laden and his chief deputy, Zawahri,” referring to Ayman al-Zawahri.
Mr. Bush acknowledged differences between Mr. Zarqawi and Mr. Zawahri over strategy.
But he recounted Mr. Zarqawi’s pledge of allegiance to Mr. bin Laden in 2004 and promise to “follow his orders in jihad” and how Mr. bin Laden “instructed terrorists in Iraq to ‘listen to him and obey him.’ ”
Mr. Bush quoted from what aides said was a previously classified intelligence assessment, saying, “The Zarqawi-bin Laden merger gave Al Qaeda in Iraq quote, ‘prestige among potential recruits and financiers.’ ” He added, “The merger also gave Al Qaeda’s senior leadership ‘a foothold in Iraq to extend its geographic presence.’ ” [almost certainly true—though it’s hard to judge how much purchase that foothold has today with Sunnis turning on AQI] [the administration needs to make this case is clear unambiguous way] [*********]
Officials agree that the membership of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia is mostly Iraqi but insist that it is foreign-led. Mr. Bush noted that Abu Ayyub al-Masri, an Egyptian, had led the group since United States forces killed Mr. Zarqawi in June 2006.
He listed several other foreigners in the Qaeda in Mesopotamia leadership structure, including a Syrian who he said was the Qaeda emir in Baghdad, a Saudi he said was its spiritual adviser, an Egyptian he said had met with Mr. bin Laden, and a Tunisian who helps manage the foreign fighters in Iraq.
Mr. Bush cited information of the foreign leadership structure gleaned from the recent capture of Khalid al-Mashadani, an Iraqi terrorist leader whom American officials say linked Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia and Al Qaeda’s leaders in Pakistan.
Last week, the top American military spokesman in Iraq, Brig. Gen. Kevin Bergner, said Mr. Mashadani funneled information from Mr. bin Laden’s network to Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia about strategic direction and provided other guidance.
Yet General Bergner said at the time that he could not point to specific attacks in Iraq directed by Mr. bin Laden’s group.
Some administration officials have been more conservative in their assessments of any ability and desire that Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia might have to carry out attacks here.
“When you look at how they are arraying their capabilities, those capabilities are being focused on the conflict in Iraq at this time,” Edward M. Gistaro, one of the principal authors of a recent National Intelligence Estimate on terrorist threats to the United States, said last week.
Jim Rutenberg reported from Charleston, and Mark Mazzetti from Washington. Richard A. Oppel Jr. contributed reporting from Baghdad.
Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

Posted by Kent Bolton at 09:08 AM | Permalink

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070724-3.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
July 24, 2007
President Bush Discusses War on Terror in South Carolina
Charleston Air Force Base
Charleston, South Carolina

11:50 A.M. EDT [bush nsc principals] [president bush] [conflating alqaeda and AQI] [some of it defies reason but other parts are could be useful] [bush’s credibility is so low, however, that it’s hard to know how it will play] [my guess is not well until the US is hit again] [if that happens this summer, the administration can salvage a lot I should think] [***************]
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you all. Please be seated. Thank you, Colonel. Thanks for the hospitality and kind introduction. I'm proud to be with the men and women of the Air Force, the Navy, the Marines, the Army and the Coast Guard. Thanks for serving. Thanks for wearing the uniform of the United States of America.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070724-3.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
July 24, 2007
President Bush Discusses War on Terror in South Carolina
Charleston Air Force Base
Charleston, South Carolina

11:50 A.M. EDT [bush nsc principals] [president bush] [conflating alqaeda and AQI] [some of it defies reason but other parts are could be useful] [bush’s credibility is so low, however, that it’s hard to know how it will play] [my guess is not well until the US is hit again] [if that happens this summer, the administration can salvage a lot I should think] [***************]
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you all. Please be seated. Thank you, Colonel. Thanks for the hospitality and kind introduction. I'm proud to be with the men and women of the Air Force, the Navy, the Marines, the Army and the Coast Guard. Thanks for serving. Thanks for wearing the uniform of the United States of America.
I'm proud to be back here in the great state of South Carolina. I'm proud to be with some of the Palmetto State's finest citizens. I'm glad to be eating lunch with you. The food is pretty good, Colonel. (Laughter.) I always like a good barbecue.
I also am proud to be with the military families. You know, our troops are obviously engaged in a tough struggle, tough fight, a fight that I think is noble and necessary for our peace. And so are our families. Our military families endure the separations. They worry about their loved ones. They pray for safe return. By carrying out these burdens, our military families are serving the United States of America, and this country is grateful to America's military families. (Applause.)
I appreciate Colonel Millander leading the 437th Airlift Wing here at the Charleston Airbase. Thank you for the tour. Nice big airplanes carrying a lot of cargo. And it's good to see the amazing operations that take place here to keep our troops supplied.
I'm honored here to be with Deb, as well. That's Red's wife. I call him Red; you call him Colonel. He did a smart thing; he married a woman from Texas. (Applause.) So did I. (Laughter.) And Laura sends her very best to you all.
I'm proud to be here with Mark Bauknight -- Colonel Bauknight -- Acting Commander of they're 315th Airlift Wing, and his wife Leslie.
I am traveling today with one of the true stalwarts of freedom, a man who understands the stakes of the war we're in, and a man who strongly supports the military in accomplishing the mission that we've sent you to do, and that's Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina.[*****] (Applause.)
This base is represented by Congressman Henry Brown, of South Carolina. (Applause.) He understands what I understand; when we have somebody in harm's way, that person deserves the full support of the Congress and the President. And you'll have the full support of the President of the United States during this war against these radicals and extremists.
I appreciate the Lieutenant Governor of this state, Andre Bauer. Thanks for coming, Governor. I'm proud to be here with the Speaker of the House of Representatives for South Carolina, State Representative Bobby Harrell. Mr. Speaker, thanks for coming.
We've got some mayors with us, and I appreciate the mayors being here today: Mayor Riley, Mayor Hallman, Mayor Summey. I'm honored that you all would take time out of your busy schedule to come by and pay tribute to these men and women who serve our nation so ably.
I'm proud to be with Chairman Tim Scott of the Charleston County Council. I'm proud to be with other state and local officials. And I'm really glad to be with you all. Thank you for your courage.
Since the attacks of September the 11th, 2001,[******] the Airmen of Team Charleston have deployed across the globe in support in the war on terror. During the liberation of Afghanistan, air crews from Team Charleston flew hundreds of sorties to transport troops and deliver supplies, and help the liberation of 25 million people.
Team Charleston is playing a crucial role in Iraq. Every day C-17s lift off from Charleston carrying tons of vital supplies for our troops on the front lines. Your efforts are saving lives and you're bringing security to this country. Every member of Team Charleston can take pride in a great record of accomplishment. And America is grateful for your courage in the cause of freedom. And your courage is needed.
Nearly six years after the 9/11 attacks, America remains a nation at war. The terrorist network that attacked us that day is determined to strike our country again, and we must do everything in our power to stop them. A key lesson of September the 11th is that the best way to protect America is to go on the offense, to fight the terrorists overseas so we don't have to face them here at home. [*********]And that is exactly what our men and women in uniform are doing across the world.
The key theater in this global war is Iraq. [******]Our troops are serving bravely in that country. They're opposing ruthless enemies, and no enemy is more ruthless in Iraq than al Qaeda. They send suicide bombers into crowded markets; they behead innocent captives and they murder American troops. They want to bring down Iraq's democracy so they can use that nation as a terrorist safe haven for attacks against our country. So our troops are standing strong with nearly 12 million Iraqis who voted for a future of peace, and they so for the security of Iraq and the safety of American citizens.
There's a debate in Washington about Iraq, and nothing wrong with a healthy debate. There's also a debate about al Qaeda's role in Iraq. [****] Some say that Iraq is not part of the broader war on terror. They complain when I say that the al Qaeda terrorists we face in Iraq are part of the same enemy that attacked us on September the 11th, 2001. They claim that the organization called al Qaeda in Iraq is an Iraqi phenomenon, that it's independent of Osama bin Laden and that it's not interested in attacking America. [not quite] [anyone who reads knows some of AQI has foreign leaders as well as –iraqi leaders] [lately, reports of tensions between them] [******]
That would be news to Osama bin Laden. He's proclaimed that the "third world war is raging in Iraq." Osama bin Laden says, "The war is for you or for us to win. If we win it, it means your defeat and disgrace forever." I say that there will be a big defeat in Iraq and it will be the defeat of al Qaeda. (Applause.) [amazing] [OBL was banished from Bush’s language for a couple of years and very recently he’s begun talking about OBL again] [*******]
Today I will consider the arguments of those who say that al Qaeda and al Qaeda in Iraq are separate entities. I will explain why they are both part of the same terrorist network -- and why they are dangerous to our country. [*************]
A good place to start is with some basic facts: Al Qaeda in Iraq was founded by a Jordanian terrorist, not an Iraqi. [*****] His name was Abu Musab al Zarqawi. Before 9/11, he ran a terrorist camp in Afghanistan. He was not yet a member of al Qaida, but our intelligence community reports that he had longstanding relations with senior al Qaida leaders, that he had met with Osama bin Laden and his chief deputy, Zawahiri.
In 2001, coalition forces destroyed Zarqawi's Afghan training camp, and he fled the country and he went to Iraq, where he set up operations with terrorist associates long before the arrival of coalition forces. In the violence and instability following Saddam's fall, Zarqawi was able to expand dramatically the size, scope, and lethality of his operation. In 2004, Zarqawi and his terrorist group formally joined al Qaida, pledged allegiance to Osama bin Laden, and he promised to "follow his orders in jihad." [********]
Soon after, bin Laden publicly declared that Zarqawi was the "Prince of Al Qaida in Iraq" -- and instructed terrorists in Iraq to "listen to him and obey him." It's hard to argue that al Qaida in Iraq is separate from bin Laden's al Qaida, when the leader of al Qaida in Iraq took an oath of allegiance to Osama bin Laden. [very selective info] [it’s true as far as it goes but it avoids the tensions between Zawahiri and Zarqawi] [former rebuked latter for wrong tactics] [clearly, Zarqawi made his own rules and used his relationship with alqaeda when it served him but not when it didn’t] [bush does a disservice by simplifying so much] [******]
According to our intelligence community, the Zarqawi-bin Laden merger gave al Qaida in Iraq -- quote -- "prestige among potential recruits and financiers." The merger also gave al Qaida's senior leadership -- quote -- "a foothold in Iraq to extend its geographic presence ... to plot external operations ... and to tout the centrality of the jihad in Iraq to solicit direct monetary support elsewhere." [******]The merger between al Qaida and its Iraqi affiliate is an alliance of killers -- and that is why the finest military in the world is on their trail. [all more or less true] [***]
Zarqawi was killed by U.S. forces in June 2006. He was replaced by another foreigner -- an Egyptian named Abu Ayyub al-Masri. His ties to the al Qaida senior leadership are deep and longstanding. He has collaborated with Zawahiri for more than two decades. And before 9/11, he spent time with al Qaida in Afghanistan where he taught classes indoctrinating others in al Qaida's radical ideology. [*******] [but AQI has other leaders who are –iraqis and bush knows this yet conveniently neglects to mention it] [*********]
After Abu Ayyub took over al Qaida's Iraqi operations last year, Osama bin Laden sent a terrorist leader named Abd al-Hadi al Iraqi to help him. According to our intelligence community, this man was a senior advisor to bin Laden, who served as his top commander in Afghanistan. [*******]Abd al-Hadi never made it to Iraq. He was captured, and was recently transferred to the U.S. Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay. The fact that bin Laden risked sending one of his most valued commanders to Iraq shows the importance he places on success of al Qaida's Iraqi operations. [********] [silly] [it depends why he was sent] [was he sent to reel in al-Masri?] [was he sent to fix a relationship that was out of OBL’s control?] [*******]
According to our intelligence community, many of [****]al Qaida in Iraq's other senior leaders are also foreign terrorists. They include a Syrian who is al Qaida in Iraq's emir in Baghdad, a Saudi who is al Qaida in Iraq's top spiritual and legal advisor, an Egyptian who fought in Afghanistan in the 1990s and who has met with Osama bin Laden, a Tunisian who we believe plays a key role in managing foreign fighters. Last month in Iraq, we killed a senior al Qaida facilitator named Mehmet Yilmaz, a Turkish national who fought with al Qaida in Afghanistan, and met with September the 11th mastermind Khalid Shaikh Muhammad, and other senior al Qaida leaders.
A few weeks ago, we captured a senior al Qaida in Iraq leader named Mashadani. Now, this terrorist is an Iraqi. In fact, he was the highest ranking Iraqi in the organization. Here's what he said, here's what he told us: The foreign leaders of Al Qaida in Iraq went to extraordinary lengths to promote the fiction that al Qaida in Iraq is an Iraqi-led operation. [******]He says al Qaida even created a figurehead whom they named Omar al-Baghdadi. The purpose was to make Iraqi fighters believe they were following the orders of an Iraqi instead of a foreigner. Yet once in custody, Mashadani revealed that al-Baghdadi is only an actor. He confirmed our intelligence that foreigners are at the top echelons of al Qaida in Iraq -- they are the leaders -- and that foreign leaders make most of the operational decisions, not Iraqis. [probably true as reported in the NYTs recently] [************]
Foreign terrorists also account for most of the suicide bombings in Iraq. [true but it’s unclear what that means] [one things it means is that –iraqis may not be willing to die for the cause] [*******]Our military estimates that between 80 and 90 percent of suicide attacks in Iraq are carried out by foreign-born al Qaida terrorists. [*******]It's true that today most of al Qaida in Iraq's rank and file fighters and some of its leadership are Iraqi. But to focus exclusively on this single fact is to ignore the larger truth: Al Qaida in Iraq is a group founded by foreign terrorists, led largely by foreign terrorists, and loyal to a foreign terrorist leader -- Osama bin Laden. [******] [wow—does he believe his own spin?] They know they're al Qaida. The Iraqi people know they are al Qaida. People across the Muslim world know they are al Qaida. And there's a good reason they are called al Qaida in Iraq: They are al Qaida ... in ... Iraq.
Some also assert that al Qaida in Iraq is a separate organization because al Qaida's central command lacks full operational control over it. This argument reveals a lack of understanding. Here is how al Qaida's global terrorist network actually operates. Al Qaida and its affiliate organizations are a loose network of terrorist groups that are united by a common ideology and shared objectives, and have differing levels of collaboration with the al Qaida senior leadership. In some cases, these groups have formally merged into al Qaida and take what is called a "bayaat" -- a pledge of loyalty to Osama bin Laden. In other cases, organizations are not formally merged with al Qaida, but collaborate closely with al Qaida leaders to plot attacks and advance their shared ideology. In still other cases, there are small cells of terrorists that are not part of al Qaida or any other broader terrorist group, but maintain contact with al Qaida leaders and are inspired by its ideology to conduct attacks.
Our intelligence community assesses that al Qaida in Iraq falls into the first of these categories. They are a full member of the al Qaida terrorist network. The al Qaida leadership provides strategic guidance to their Iraqi operatives. Even so, there have been disagreements -- important disagreements -- between the leaders, Osama bin Laden and their Iraqi counterparts, including Zawahiri's criticism of Zarqawi's relentless attacks on the Shia. But our intelligence community reports that al Qaida's senior leaders generally defer to their Iraqi-based commanders when it comes to internal operations, because distance and security concerns preclude day-to-day command authority.
Our intelligence community concludes that -- quote -- "Al Qaida and its regional node in Iraq are united in their overarching strategy." [**********] And they say that al Qaida senior leaders and their operatives in Iraq -- quote -- "see al Qaida in Iraq as part of al Qaida's decentralized chain of command, not as a separate group."
Here's the bottom line: Al Qaida in Iraq is run by foreign leaders loyal to Osama bin Laden. Like bin Laden, they are cold-blooded killers who murder the innocent to achieve al Qaida's political objectives. Yet despite all the evidence, some will tell you that al Qaida in Iraq is not really al Qaida -- and not really a threat to America. Well, that's like watching a man walk into a bank with a mask and a gun, and saying he's probably just there to cash a check.
You might wonder why some in Washington insist on making this distinction about the enemy in Iraq. It's because they know that if they can convince America we're not fighting bin Laden's al Qaida there, they can paint the battle in Iraq as a distraction from the real war on terror. [********] [?] If we're not fighting bin Laden's al Qaida, they can argue that our nation can pull out of Iraq and not undermine our efforts in the war on terror. The problem they have is with the facts. We are fighting bin Laden's al Qaida in Iraq; Iraq is central to the war on terror; and against this enemy, America can accept nothing less than complete victory. (Applause.)
There are others who accept that al Qaida is operating in Iraq, but say its role is overstated. Al Qaida is one of the several Sunni jihadist groups in Iraq. But our intelligence community believes that al Qaida is the most dangerous of these Sunni jihadist groups for several reasons: First, more than any other group, al Qaida is behind most of the spectacular, high-casualty attacks that you see on your TV screens. [***********] [non seq.]
Second, these al Qaida attacks are designed to accelerate sectarian violence, by attacking Shia in hopes of sparking reprisal attacks that inspire Sunnis to join al Qaida's cause.
Third, al Qaida is the only jihadist group in Iraq with stated ambitions to make the country a base for attacks outside Iraq. For example, al Qaida in Iraq dispatched terrorists who bombed a wedding reception in Jordan. In another case, they sent operatives to Jordan where they attempted to launch a rocket attack on U.S. Navy ships in the Red Sea.
And most important for the people who wonder if the fight in Iraq is worth it, al Qaida in Iraq shares Osama bin Laden's goal of making Iraq a base for its radical Islamic empire, and using it as a safe haven for attacks on America. [*****]That is why our intelligence community reports -- and I quote -- "compared with [other leading Sunni jihadist groups], al Qaida in Iraq stands out for its extremism, unmatched operational strength, foreign leadership, and determination to take the jihad beyond Iraq's borders." [when he first used this line clearly I thought it was his most effective case] [now he’s used it again] [if they can show that alqaeda has plans for –iraq to move alqaeda closer to the “near enemy” I think they can make a good case for US troops in some configuration] [*********]
Our top commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus, has said that al Qaida is "public enemy number one" in Iraq. Fellow citizens, these people have sworn allegiance to the man who ordered the death of nearly 3,000 people on our soil. Al Qaida is public enemy number one for the Iraqi people; al Qaida is public enemy number one for the American people. And that is why, for the security of our country, we will stay on the hunt, we'll deny them safe haven, and we will defeat them where they have made their stand. (Applause.)
Some note that al Qaida in Iraq did not exist until the U.S. invasion -- and argue that it is a problem of our own making. The argument follows the flawed logic that terrorism is caused by American actions. Iraq is not the reason that the terrorists are at war with us. We were not in Iraq when the terrorists bombed the World Trade Center in 1993. [******]We were not in Iraq when they attacked our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. We were not in Iraq when they attacked the USS Cole in 2000. And we were not in Iraq on September the 11th, 2001.
Our action to remove Saddam Hussein did not start the terrorist violence -- and America withdrawal from Iraq would not end it. The al Qaida terrorists now blowing themselves up in Iraq are dedicated extremists who have made killing the innocent the calling of their lives. They are part of a network that has murdered men, women, and children in London and Madrid; slaughtered fellow Muslims in Istanbul and Casablanca, Riyadh, Jakarta, and elsewhere around the world. If we were not fighting these al Qaida extremists and terrorists in Iraq, they would not be leading productive lives of service and charity. Most would be trying to kill Americans and other civilians elsewhere -- in Afghanistan, or other foreign capitals, or on the streets of our own cities.
Al Qaida is in Iraq -- and they're there for a reason. And surrendering the future of Iraq to al Qaida would be a disaster for our country. We know their intentions. Hear the words of al Qaida's top commander in Iraq when he issued an audio statement in which he said he will not rest until he has attacked our nation's capital. [*******]If we were to cede Iraq to men like this, we would leave them free to operate from a safe haven which they could use to launch new attacks on our country. And al Qaida would gain prestige amongst the extremists across the Muslim world as the terrorist network that faced down America and forced us into retreat.
If we were to allow this to happen, sectarian violence in Iraq could increase dramatically, raising the prospect of mass casualties. Fighting could engulf the entire region in chaos, and we would soon face a Middle East dominated by Islamic extremists who would pursue nuclear weapons, and use their control of oil for economic blackmail or to fund new attacks on our nation.
We've already seen how al Qaida used a failed state thousands of miles from our shores to bring death and destruction to the streets of our cities -- and we must not allow them to do so again. So, however difficult the fight is in Iraq, we must win it. And we can win it. [**********]
Less than a year ago, Anbar Province was al Qaida's base in Iraq and was written off by many as lost. Since then, U.S. and Iraqi forces have teamed with Sunni sheiks who have turned against al Qaida. Hundreds have been killed or captured. Terrorists have been driven from most of the population centers. Our troops are now working to replicate the success in Anbar in other parts of the country. Our brave men and women are taking risks, and they're showing courage, and we're making progress.
For the security of our citizens, and the peace of the world, we must give General Petraeus and his troops the time and resources they need, so they can defeat al Qaida in Iraq. (Applause.)
Thanks for letting me come by today. I've explained the connection between al Qaida and its Iraqi affiliate. I presented intelligence that clearly establishes this connection. The facts are that al Qaida terrorists killed Americans on 9/11, they're fighting us in Iraq and across the world, and they are plotting to kill Americans here at home again. Those who justify withdrawing our troops from Iraq by denying the threat of al Qaida in Iraq and its ties to Osama bin Laden ignore the clear consequences of such a retreat. If we were to follow their advice, it would be dangerous for the world -- and disastrous for America. We will defeat al Qaida in Iraq.
In this effort, we're counting on the brave men and women represented in this room. Every man and woman who serves at this base and around the world is playing a vital role in this war on terror. With your selfless spirit and devotion to duty, we will confront this mortal threat to our country -- and we're going to prevail.
I have confidence in our country, and I have faith in our cause, because I know the character of the men and women gathered before me. I thank you for your patriotism; I thank you for your courage. You're living up to your motto: "one family, one mission, one fight." Thank you for all you do. God bless your families. God bless America. (Applause.)
END 12:19 P.M. EDT

Posted by Kent Bolton at 09:07 AM | Permalink

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/24/AR2007072401965.html
A Return to Abuse
President Bush authorizes secret -- and harsh -- interrogation methods for the CIA.
Wednesday, July 25, 2007; A14 [editorial] [pow abuse] [*****]
FOR MOST of the past two years, a CIA interrogation program that once subjected foreign detainees to abuses that most of the world regards as torture has been inactive. During much of that time, al-Qaeda militants have been held in secret CIA prisons, but the agency stopped using techniques such as simulated drowning, sleep deprivation and painful stress positions because of congressional legislation banning "cruel, inhuman and degrading" treatment and a subsequent Supreme Court decision applying certain protections of the Geneva Conventions to all detainees. [***********]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/24/AR2007072401965.html
A Return to Abuse
President Bush authorizes secret -- and harsh -- interrogation methods for the CIA.
Wednesday, July 25, 2007; A14 [editorial] [pow abuse] [*****]
FOR MOST of the past two years, a CIA interrogation program that once subjected foreign detainees to abuses that most of the world regards as torture has been inactive. During much of that time, al-Qaeda militants have been held in secret CIA prisons, but the agency stopped using techniques such as simulated drowning, sleep deprivation and painful stress positions because of congressional legislation banning "cruel, inhuman and degrading" treatment and a subsequent Supreme Court decision applying certain protections of the Geneva Conventions to all detainees. [***********]
Last week, after a prolonged debate among his advisers, President Bush issued an executive order that nominally reaffirms that CIA detainees will be covered by Geneva's Common Article 3 and thus be protected from torture or "humiliating and degrading" treatment. But the result may be the return by the CIA to methods that most people, including most of the world's democracies, regard as improper and illegal under international law [*******]-- and to a new threat to Americans captured by hostile governments.
The turnabout comes because of Mr. Bush's success in winning Congress's election-eve approval last year of legislation governing the detention and trial of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere abroad. The bill gave the president the authority to determine how the United States will interpret the Geneva protections. [*****] The Defense Department -- where most uniformed officers have long opposed the Bush administration's "enhanced" interrogation techniques -- had already adopted and made public a code of conduct for military interrogators that has won praise from human rights advocates, in part because it expressly bans a number of abusive practices.
Mr. Bush's order authorizes the CIA to adopt a separate and secret set of methods. In theory, the agency's methods will also conform to Geneva; in practice, administration lawyers, who have used loopholes and far-fetched reasoning to justify torture in the past, will have the leeway to justify abuses again. While Mr. Bush's order outlaws sexual humiliation and denigration of religion, and administration officials privately say simulated drowning, or "waterboarding," is now out of bounds, the presidential order is silent about sleep deprivation, stress positions and other methods used by the CIA in the past.
Administration officials argue -- without offering evidence -- that harsh methods are needed to gain intelligence from hardened al-Qaeda operatives. In fact, studies of interrogations and the military's experience show the opposite -- that torture does not produce reliable information. Officials also claim that the CIA's methods, unlike the Army's interrogation manual, must be kept secret so that detainees will not know what they might face. [********]Yet any abusive technique that U.S. interrogators use is likely to become publicly known, as was the case with waterboarding. When that happens, hostile governments will acquire a valuable weapon: cruel treatment they will be able to use on captured Americans, treatment that they will claim conforms to the Geneva Conventions -- on the authority of Mr. Bush.
© 2007 The Washington Post Company

Posted by Kent Bolton at 09:06 AM | Permalink

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/25/opinion/25weds1.html
July 25, 2007
Editorial
No Exit Strategy
[editorial] [I remember discussing this with my students in 2002] [before invasion but when it appeared inevitable] [if the goal was ridding the world of evil as bush said] [there was no possible exit strategy or endgame] [********]
The American people have only one question left about Iraq: What is President Bush’s plan for a timely and responsible exit? That is the essential precondition for salvaging broader American interests in the Middle East and for waging a more effective fight against Al Qaeda in its base areas in Pakistan and Afghanistan. And it is exactly the question that Mr. Bush, his top generals and his diplomats so stubbornly and damagingly refuse to answer.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/25/opinion/25weds1.html
July 25, 2007
Editorial
No Exit Strategy
[editorial] [I remember discussing this with my students in 2002] [before invasion but when it appeared inevitable] [if the goal was ridding the world of evil as bush said] [there was no possible exit strategy or endgame] [********]
The American people have only one question left about Iraq: What is President Bush’s plan for a timely and responsible exit? That is the essential precondition for salvaging broader American interests in the Middle East and for waging a more effective fight against Al Qaeda in its base areas in Pakistan and Afghanistan. And it is exactly the question that Mr. Bush, his top generals and his diplomats so stubbornly and damagingly refuse to answer.
Yesterday provided two more frustrating and shameful examples of this denial. One was a new war plan drawn up by America’s top military commander and top diplomat in Baghdad that will keep American troops fighting in Iraq at least until 2009. The other was yet one more speech by President Bush that claimed that Iraq was the do-or-die front in the war on terrorism — rather than a rallying point for extremists and a never-ending drain on the resources America needs to fight that fight. [*******]
The war plan drawn up by Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker simply assumes that a large-scale United States military presence in Iraq will continue for at least two more years.
So much for Mr. Bush’s soothing incantations about a relatively short-term “surge” of additional troops. The plan ignores the fact that the volunteer Army cannot sustain a prolonged escalation without grievous losses in quality, readiness and morale. Even more unrealistically, the plan assumes that with two more years of an American blank check, Iraqi politicians will somehow decide to take responsibility for their political future — something they’ve refused to do for the last four years.
General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker may feel they have little choice but to project the administration’s flawed policies to their logical, or illogical, conclusions. Mr. Bush does have a choice and a clear obligation to re-evaluate strategy when everything, but his own illusions, tells him that it is failing. Instead, he spoke yesterday as if the latest National Intelligence Estimate had not found Al Qaeda’s top leadership regrouped and resurgent in its old strongholds along the Pakistani-Afghan frontier.[*****] Or as if the latest bleak assessment of the Iraqi government’s political and economic failures had never been issued.
Mr. Bush proposed no realistic new plan for more effectively fighting Al Qaeda in its heartland or for exiting from the tragic misadventure in Iraq. Instead he offered the familiar, simplistic and misleading arguments that he used to drag the country into this disastrous war to start.
Prolonging the war for another two years will not bring victory. It will mean more lives lost, more damage to America’s international standing and fewer resources to fight the real fight against terrorists. If Mr. Bush’s advisers can’t tell him that, Congress will have to — with a veto-proof majority.
Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

Posted by Kent Bolton at 09:04 AM | Permalink

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/24/AR2007072402263.html
Disfavor for Bush Hits Rare Heights
In Modern Era, Only Nixon Scored Worse, And Only Truman Was Down for So Long
By Peter Baker
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, July 25, 2007; A03 [societal] [public opinion] [pollind data] [confirmed what everyone intuitively knows] [bush is incredibly unpopular] [the -Iraq war drag] [*******]
President Bush is a competitive guy. But this is one contest he would rather lose. With 18 months left in office, he is in the running for most unpopular president in the history of modern polling.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/24/AR2007072402263.html
Disfavor for Bush Hits Rare Heights
In Modern Era, Only Nixon Scored Worse, And Only Truman Was Down for So Long
By Peter Baker
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, July 25, 2007; A03 [societal] [public opinion] [pollind data] [confirmed what everyone intuitively knows] [bush is incredibly unpopular] [the -Iraq war drag] [*******]
President Bush is a competitive guy. But this is one contest he would rather lose. With 18 months left in office, he is in the running for most unpopular president in the history of modern polling.
The latest Washington Post-ABC News survey shows that 65 percent of Americans disapprove of Bush's job performance, matching his all-time low. [*****]In polls conducted by The Post or Gallup going back to 1938, only once has a president exceeded that level of public animosity -- and that was Richard M. Nixon, who hit 66 percent four days before he resigned.
The historic depth of Bush's public standing has whipsawed his White House, sapped his clout, drained his advisers, encouraged his enemies and jeopardized his legacy. Around the White House, aides make gallows-humor jokes about how they can alienate their remaining supporters -- at least those aides not heading for the door. Outside the White House, many former aides privately express anger and bitterness at their erstwhile colleagues, Bush and the fate of his presidency. [******]
Bush has been so down for so long that some advisers maintain it no longer bothers them much. It can even, they say, be liberating. Seeking the best interpretation for the president's predicament, they argue that Bush can do what he thinks is right without regard to political cost, pointing to decisions to send more U.S. troops to Iraq and to commute the sentence of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Cheney's former chief of staff.
But the president's unpopularity has left the White House to play mostly defense for the remainder of his term. With his immigration overhaul proposal dead, Bush's principal legislative hopes are to save his No Child Left Behind education program and to fend off attempts to force him to change course in Iraq. The emerging strategy is to play off a Congress that is also deeply unpopular and to look strong by vetoing spending bills.
The president's low public standing has paralleled the disenchantment with the Iraq war, but some analysts said it goes beyond that, reflecting a broader unease with Bush's policies in a variety of areas. [*******]"It isn't just the Iraq war," said Shirley Anne Warshaw, a presidential scholar at Gettysburg College. "It's everything."
Some analysts believe that even many war supporters deserted him because of his plan to open the door to legal status for illegal immigrants. "You can do an unpopular war or you can do an unpopular immigration policy," said David Frum, a former Bush speechwriter. "Not both." [************]
Yet Bush's political troubles seem to go beyond particular policies. Many presidents over the past 70 years have faced greater or more immediate crises without falling as far in the public mind -- Vietnam claimed far more American lives than Iraq, the Iranian hostage crisis made the United States look impotent, race riots and desegregation tore the country apart, the oil embargo forced drivers to wait for hours to fill up, the Soviets seemed to threaten the nation's survival. [*****]
"It's astonishing," said Pat Caddell, who was President Jimmy Carter's pollster. "It's hard to look at the situation today and say the country is absolutely 15 miles down in the hole. The economy's not that bad -- for some people it is, but not overall. Iraq is terribly handled, but it's not Vietnam; we're not losing 250 people a week. . . . We don't have that immediate crisis, yet the anxiety about the future is palpable. And the feeling about him is he's irrelevant to that. I think they've basically given up on him."
That may stem in part from the changing nature of society. [*****]When Caddell's boss was president, there were three major broadcast networks. Today cable news, talk radio and the Internet have made information far more available, while providing easy outlets for rage and polarization. Public disapproval of Bush is not only broad but deep; 52 percent of Americans "strongly" disapprove of his performance and 28 percent describe themselves as "angry."
"A lot of the commentary that comes out of the Internet world is very harsh," said Frank J. Donatelli, White House political director for Ronald Reagan. "That has a tendency to reinforce people's opinions and harden people's opinions."
Carter and Reagan at their worst moments did not face a public as hostile as the one confronting Bush. Lyndon B. Johnson at the height of Vietnam had the disapproval of 52 percent of the public. Franklin D. Roosevelt, Dwight D. Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy and Gerald R. Ford never had disapproval ratings reach 50 percent.
Nixon [*****]remains the most unpopular modern president, though barely. His disapproval rating reached 66 percent on Aug. 5, 1974, four days before he resigned amid Watergate. [****] Harry S. Truman reached Bush's current disapproval rating of 65 percent in February 1952 amid the unpopular Korean War. [*****]George H.W. Bush came close before losing his bid for reelection in 1992, with 64 percent disapproval.
The current president, though, has endured bad numbers longer than Nixon or his father did and longer than anyone other than Truman. [*******]His disapproval rating has topped 50 percent for more than two years. And though Truman hit 65 percent once, Bush has hit that high three times in the past 14 months.
Bush advisers clutch at Truman as if he were a political life preserver. If Bush has experienced a similar collapse in public support while in office, they hope he will enjoy the same post-presidential reassessment that has made Truman look far better today than in his time. A 2004 poll by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner found that 58 percent of Americans viewed Truman favorably.
And the president's team takes solace in the fact that the public holds Congress in low esteem, too. More than half disapproved of Congress generally, and Democrats in particular, in the latest Post-ABC survey, though their ratings were still better than Bush's.
The deep antipathy to Bush has fueled grass-roots support for impeachment. Democrats have resolved not to do that, remembering the division when a Republican Congress impeached Bill Clinton in 1998 for perjury and obstruction of justice to cover up his affair with Monica S. Lewinsky. [******]His public support, though, never fell as far as Bush's. Clinton's worst disapproval rating, 51 percent, came during his first term, and he soared to his highest approval rating days after the Lewinsky scandal broke.
As much as Bush advisers dismiss polls, their predecessors in the White House said public rejection invariably drags down the whole institution. "It colors everything you can do," Donatelli said. "Psychologically, it wears on you."
Caddell describes a White House down in the polls in one word: "Awful." "People start going through the motions," he added. "The energy is gone." [********]
Assistant polling director Jennifer Agiesta contributed to this report.
© 2007 The Washington Post Company

Posted by Kent Bolton at 09:03 AM | Permalink

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/25/world/africa/25poll.html
July 25, 2007
Africans Are Wary but Hopeful, Poll Shows
By LYDIA POLGREEN and MARJORIE CONNELLY [Africa] [global survey of public opinion in sub Sahara Africa] [interesting results] [********] [use psci 350] [use ir text]
DAKAR, Senegal, July 24 — Despite a thicket of troubles, from deadly illnesses like AIDS and malaria to corrupt politicians and deep-seated poverty, a plurality of Africans say they are better off today than they were five years ago and are optimistic about their future and that of the next generation, [*****]according to a poll conducted in 10 sub-Saharan countries by The New York Times and the Pew Global Attitudes Project.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/25/world/africa/25poll.html
July 25, 2007
Africans Are Wary but Hopeful, Poll Shows
By LYDIA POLGREEN and MARJORIE CONNELLY [Africa] [global survey of public opinion in sub Sahara Africa] [interesting results] [********] [use psci 350] [use ir text]
DAKAR, Senegal, July 24 — Despite a thicket of troubles, from deadly illnesses like AIDS and malaria to corrupt politicians and deep-seated poverty, a plurality of Africans say they are better off today than they were five years ago and are optimistic about their future and that of the next generation, [*****]according to a poll conducted in 10 sub-Saharan countries by The New York Times and the Pew Global Attitudes Project.
The results offer an unusual and complex portrait of a continent in flux — a snapshot of 10 modern African states as they struggle to build accountable governments, manage violent conflict and turn their natural resources into wealth for the population. [***]
It found that in the main, Africans are satisfied with their national governments, and a majority of respondents in 7 of the 10 countries said their economic situation was at least somewhat good. [*****]But many said they faced a wide array of difficult and sometimes life-threatening problems, from illegal drug trafficking to political corruption, from the lack of clean water to inadequate schools for their children, from ethnic and political violence to deadly disease.
Face-to-face interviews were conducted in April and May with 8,471 adults in Ethiopia, Ghana, Ivory Coast, Kenya, Mali, Nigeria, Senegal, South Africa, Tanzania and Uganda. The survey sampled nationwide adult populations, except in South Africa, where the sample was completely urban, and Ivory Coast, where it was disproportionately urban and tended to be in areas sympathetic to the government. The margins of sampling error were plus or minus either three or four percentage points. [*****]
The results showed that the struggle for democracy and good governing in Africa is more like a patchwork of gains and setbacks than a steady tide of progress across a continent that has suffered some of the worst instances of misrule. [******]While all of the countries polled are nominally democracies, half of them have suffered serious rollbacks of multiparty representational government in recent years. A majority in each country said corrupt political leaders were a big problem.
The most recent elections in Ethiopia and Uganda were marred by violence and the exclusion of major candidates, and failed to meet international standards of fairness; they were considerable setbacks for two countries that a decade ago were seen as rising examples of Africa’s democratic future.
Electoral trouble has even tinged Senegal, often seen as a beacon in the volatile West African region because it has never had a coup and has a long tradition of democracy. This year, opposition parties boycotted legislative elections there over accusations of election fraud.
In Nigeria, [*****]Africa’s most populous nation and top oil producer, the poll results reflect frustration with the way elections are carried out — 67 percent of Nigerians said that their presidential election was not conducted fairly. Presidential and local elections in April were so badly marred by fraud and violence that the European Union called them not credible. Asked if they were generally satisfied or dissatisfied with the way things were going in their country, 87 percent of those interviewed for the survey said they were dissatisfied. Yet Nigerians were the most optimistic of all the nations surveyed — 69 percent said they expected that children growing up in Nigeria would be better off than people today. [*****]
“It expresses a huge challenge for democracy in Africa,” said Peter M. Lewis, director of African Studies at Johns Hopkins University and an author of the Afrobarometer, a public opinion survey of African attitudes. “We have seen significant strides for democratic liberty and practices in the last 10 or 15 years. It is also a fact that in most of their countries, average citizens have not seen a significant improvement in their material circumstances and their living condition.”
The economic data in the poll give a mixed picture. A plurality of respondents said that their financial situation had improved in the last five years, with the exception of Ivory Coast, Tanzania and Uganda. [***]Many African economies are growing rapidly as prices for oil, iron ore, copper and timber have risen in recent years — overall gross domestic product growth in Africa last year was 5.7 percent and some countries, like Nigeria, Africa’s largest oil producer, have seen much higher growth.
But more resource wealth has not necessarily led to broad prosperity. Of the respondents in Nigeria, 82 percent said average people were not benefiting from the country’s oil wealth.
Salimata Mbengue, a 21-year-old shopkeeper in Ngor, a village at the edge of Dakar, said that she had high hopes for the future of her business but was very worried about the current economic situation of her family.
“I have five brothers, and only two are employed,” she said, sitting outside the small convenience store where she sells sodas, candy, biscuits and cartons of milk. “Our parents are retired, and we have to support them. I am hopeful, but it is very hard to get ahead here.”
The spread of infectious diseases like AIDS is seen as a very big problem by a large majority of the respondents in every country polled. More than half of the 40 million people infected with H.I.V. live in sub-Saharan Africa, according to the United Nations, and Africa accounted for 65 percent of new infections in 2006. [*******]
Yet few respondents in all the countries polled said they had been tested for H.I.V., ranging from 4 percent in Ghana to 27 percent in Kenya and Ethiopia. Still, a considerable majority of respondents in each country were either willing to be tested, or already had been.
Other health concerns weighed heavily on most respondents. Getting access to clean drinking water was seen as a big problem for a majority in all 10 countries, ranging from 86 percent in Ethiopia to 58 percent in urban South Africa. About half or more in eight countries said that they had been unable to pay for medical care.
But hunger seemed less of a problem — a majority of respondents in all but Uganda, Kenya and Tanzania said that they had enough money to buy food their family needed.
Large majorities said poor-quality schools were a major problem, and many respondents said it was harder to provide an education for their children than to get food for them.
The poll also measured African attitudes to the United States and found that on the whole, 8 of the 10 countries surveyed said they viewed it as a dependable ally. They showed little of the anti-American sentiment that has dominated polls of public opinion in recent years, but some countries had negative views of American culture — 82 percent of Tanzanians, two-thirds of Senegalese and about half of the Ghanaians, Malians and Kenyans surveyed.
Oumar Diallo, a 27-year-old unemployed plumber in Dakar, said that his Muslim faith made him uneasy with some aspects of American culture. “For us Muslims, we have certain values and ways of conducting ourselves that is different than America,” he said. “America is hard towards Muslims.”
Lydia Polgreen reported from Dakar, and Marjorie Connelly from New York.
Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

Posted by Kent Bolton at 09:02 AM | Permalink

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/25/world/middleeast/25cnd-israel.html
July 25, 2007
Arab League Delegation Visits Israel
By ISABEL KERSHNER and GRAHAM BOWLEY [Israel] [Israeli-Arab League relations] [apparently trying to reward Israel for recent flexibility?] [*******]
JERUSALEM, July 25 — The foreign ministers of Egypt and Jordan made a historic visit to Israel today to promote the Arab League’s peace initiative, the first time a delegation from the league has been sent to Israel. [***********]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/25/world/middleeast/25cnd-israel.html
July 25, 2007
Arab League Delegation Visits Israel
By ISABEL KERSHNER and GRAHAM BOWLEY [Israel] [Israeli-Arab League relations] [apparently trying to reward Israel for recent flexibility?] [*******]
JERUSALEM, July 25 — The foreign ministers of Egypt and Jordan made a historic visit to Israel today to promote the Arab League’s peace initiative, the first time a delegation from the league has been sent to Israel. [***********]
The two foreign ministers met with Israeli leaders including the country’s president, Shimon Peres, and its foreign minister, Tzipi Livni. They were due to hold discussions with Prime Minister Ehud Olmert later today.
The league’s initiative would grant Israel full recognition and normal relations with its Arab neighbors in return for withdrawing to its 1967 borders and accepting the creation of an independent Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital. [*******]
It also calls for “an agreed, just solution” to the issue of Palestinian refugees. The initiative was begun by Saudi Arabia and endorsed by the Arab League in 2002.
“We are extending a hand of peace on behalf of the whole region to you, and we hope that we will be able to create the momentum needed to resume fruitful and productive negotiations” [*****]among Israel, Palestinians, and the rest of the Arab world, the Jordanian foreign minister, Abdul-Ilah al-Khatib, said at a news conference with Mr. Peres, The Associated Press reported.
The Egyptian foreign minister, Ahmed Aboul Gheit, said he hoped Israel would respond positively to the proposal.
Egypt and Jordan are the only two Arab countries that have signed peace treaties with Israel. They have served as an official diplomatic bridge between Israel and the other Arab nations.
Israel was cool to the Arab initiative when it was first put forth in 2002, but more recently it has yielded to pressure from the United States to discuss the plan. The United States, in turn, was responding to pressure from Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia. [******]
Even so, Israeli officials say they have many reservations about the proposal, though they have not completely shut the door on it.
Analysts say the visit comes at an awkward time. The armed takeover of Gaza by Hamas, the more radical of the two main Palestinian factions, has left no clear negotiating partner on the Palestinian side.
The Arab League delegation arrived the day after the former British prime minister Tony Blair made his first visit to Jerusalem as the special envoy of the so-called quartet of Middle East peacemakers, the United Nations, the European Union, Russia and the United States. [******]
The delegation also met today with Benjamin Netanyahu, the leader of the Likud opposition. Israeli news reports quoted Mr. Netanyahu as saying he rejected the Arab initiative and told the envoys that he does not believe withdrawals are a basis for peace, instead emphasizing closer economic co-operation.
Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

Posted by Kent Bolton at 09:00 AM | Permalink

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/24/AR2007072400215.html
U.S., Iran To Continue Talks Despite Differences
American Envoy in Iraq Presses Insurgent Issue
By Megan Greenwell
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, July 25, 2007; A08 [Iran-US talks, round 2] [amid] [-ir] [hydra] [insurgency] [bush administration’s “surge option” or “new way forward” underway] [some positive indicators of improvement] [nevertheless, violence while surge unfolds] [followup] [*****] [ditto]
BAGHDAD, July 24 -- The United States and Iran will continue discussions about security in Iraq despite U.S. accusations that Iran is supporting an increasing number of insurgent attacks in Iraq, the U.S. ambassador in Baghdad said Tuesday.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/24/AR2007072400215.html
U.S., Iran To Continue Talks Despite Differences
American Envoy in Iraq Presses Insurgent Issue
By Megan Greenwell
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, July 25, 2007; A08 [Iran-US talks, round 2] [amid] [-ir] [hydra] [insurgency] [bush administration’s “surge option” or “new way forward” underway] [some positive indicators of improvement] [nevertheless, violence while surge unfolds] [followup] [*****] [ditto]
BAGHDAD, July 24 -- The United States and Iran will continue discussions about security in Iraq despite U.S. accusations that Iran is supporting an increasing number of insurgent attacks in Iraq, the U.S. ambassador in Baghdad said Tuesday.
Representatives from the United States, Iran and Iraq will form a committee to examine possible ways to reverse Iraq's deteriorating security situation, U.S. Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker told reporters after a seven-hour meeting with Iranian officials that he characterized as "a difficult discussion." The meeting between Crocker and Hassan Kazemi Qomi, Iran's ambassador to Baghdad, was the second since May 28, when the two countries held formal, direct talks for the first time since 1979.
But Crocker reiterated U.S. accusations that Iran is supporting insurgents in Iraq, saying that talks will not move forward unless Iranian operatives stop providing weapons and guidance to extremist groups. Iran denies any involvement with Iraqi insurgents.
"I was as clear as I could be with the Iranians: This discussion has to be measured in results, not in principles or promises," Crocker said. "Thus far, the results on the ground are not encouraging."
Qomi maintained that Iran has no connection to insurgent groups, Crocker said, adding that the U.S. government "has no question" about the connection between the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps and Shiite militias. Critics have pressed Crocker and other American officials for conclusive evidence of such ties, a request the ambassador dismissed Tuesday. [******]
"This is not something we're trying to or we need to prove in a court of law," Crocker said, adding that insurgents captured by American troops have told investigators they are backed by Iran.
Tensions between the United States and Iran have been further fueled by accusations that each country is improperly detaining several people. [****]The United States wants Iran to release four Iranian Americans who have been imprisoned or prevented from leaving the country. Iran is demanding the release of five Iranians in U.S. custody in Iraq. The American military has said the five are members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard's elite al-Quds Force, but Iranian officials have said they are diplomats who entered Iraq legally.
Crocker said the friction between the countries' diplomats led to several "heated exchanges," notably when he suggested Iran supports terrorist groups throughout the Middle East, including Hezbollah and Hamas. "I would not describe this as a shouting match throughout, but again we were real clear on where our problems with their behavior were," he said.
The talks began a few hours after a car bomb south of Baghdad killed at least 26 people and injured more than 70, police said. The bomb detonated in front of a maternity hospital in Hilla, a mainly Shiite town about 60 miles south of Baghdad, Hilla police spokesman Muthana Ahmed said.
Audei Hamadi, who sells produce in an outdoor market down the block from the hospital, said he was knocked unconscious by the blast and woke up to see his fruit stand destroyed.
"The first things that I saw were darkness, smoke and dust," Hamadi said. "I saw people, fruit and everything fly from the explosion. When I woke up I saw kids, women and men burned as well as the shops, cars and stalls."
Ahmed said the hospital was closed for several hours to clean the rubble from delivery rooms. Most of the hospital's windows were blown out by the force of the blast, he said.
Taxi driver Qasim Abdul Sadda said the explosion left him hospitalized with severe burns and destroyed his car.
"People were flying in the air and many cars were burned," Abdul Sadda said.
Ahmed said he expected the death toll to rise because some people had critical injuries. Police said several of the victims were children whose bodies were burned beyond recognition.
A day after a series of car bombs killed 17 people in Baghdad, there was relatively little violence in the capital. Two police officers were killed when gunmen stormed their patrol in the northern part of the city, while two civilians died after Katyusha rocket shells landed on their homes in the Saydiya neighborhood of southern Baghdad, police said.
A police spokesman said 24 bodies were found in various neighborhoods of the city. The victims had been tortured and shot in the head, he said.
Staff writer Karen DeYoung in Washington and special correspondents Saad Sarhan in Najaf and Dalya Hassan in Baghdad contributed to this report.
© 2007 The Washington Post Company

Posted by Kent Bolton at 08:59 AM | Permalink

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/25/world/middleeast/25iraq.html
July 25, 2007
U.S. and Iran Trade Blame in Second Round of Iraq Talks
By STEPHEN FARRELL [Iran-US talks, round 2] [amid] [-ir] [hydra] [insurgency] [bush administration’s “surge option” or “new way forward” underway] [some positive indicators of improvement] [nevertheless, violence while surge unfolds] [followup] [*****]
BAGHDAD, July 24 — A second round of talks between American and Iranian diplomats produced scant evidence of progress or common ground on Tuesday, with each side emerging to blame the other for hindering progress on security in Iraq. [*******]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/25/world/middleeast/25iraq.html
July 25, 2007
U.S. and Iran Trade Blame in Second Round of Iraq Talks
By STEPHEN FARRELL [Iran-US talks, round 2] [amid] [-ir] [hydra] [insurgency] [bush administration’s “surge option” or “new way forward” underway] [some positive indicators of improvement] [nevertheless, violence while surge unfolds] [followup] [*****]
BAGHDAD, July 24 — A second round of talks between American and Iranian diplomats produced scant evidence of progress or common ground on Tuesday, with each side emerging to blame the other for hindering progress on security in Iraq. [*******]
Ryan C. Crocker, the American ambassador to Iraq, reiterated accusations that Iran was providing weapons and training for Shiite militias to attack American-led forces in Iraq, while his Iranian counterpart, Hassan Kazemi-Qumi, countered that Iraqis were “victimized by terror and the presence of foreign forces” [******]in their country.
The talks at the Iraqi prime minister’s office in Baghdad’s fortified Green Zone took place as a suicide bomber killed an estimated 26 people in Hilla, a Shiite town 60 miles south of Baghdad, blowing up his tow truck outside a maternity hospital.
With little prospect of a breakthrough, the talks are nevertheless deemed significant by the Iraqi government, which has repeatedly urged the Iranians and the Americans not to allow their differences to further destabilize the situation in Iraq. [******]
Mr. Crocker characterized the talks as “full and frank.” He said the two sides had discussed the formation of a security subcommittee to talk about support for handling militias, Al Qaeda and border security. [******] [militia, borders, alqaeda]
He was also blunt in his assessment that the situation had actually worsened since the two sides’ first meeting on May 28, with “an escalation, not a de-escalation” of Iranian-backed attacks on American and Iraqi forces.
“The fact is, as we made very clear at today’s talks, that over the roughly two months since our last meetings, we have actually seen militia-related activity that can be attributed to Iranian support go up, and not down,” Mr. Crocker said. “So I was as clear as I could be with the Iranians that this effort, this discussion, has to be measured in results, not in principles or promises, and that thus far, the results on the ground are not encouraging.”
The Iranians, Mr. Crocker says, have maintained their position that they had “absolutely nothing to do with” the attacks. [******]
Clearly frustrated after hours of talks whose “actual concrete result can be distilled into a discussion of some few minutes,” Mr. Crocker nevertheless said the United States would pursue further talks “as long as we think it has some prospect of leading to better results on the ground.”
Mr. Kazemi-Qumi, speaking after the meeting, insisted that Iran was helping Iraq deal with its security difficulties.
He raised the case of five Iranians detained by American forces in the northern Iraqi town of Erbil in January. Iran says they are diplomats, while the United States says they are linked to the elite Iranian Quds Force, [******]which is suspected of providing arms and training to Iraqi militias.
The Iraqi government has consistently called for their early release, saying that although the detainees were not official diplomats, they were known to the Kurdish authorities where they were detained, and that they were turning their liaison office into a consulate, which would have given them diplomatic immunity. [**********]
Mr. Kazemi-Qumi said he had also demanded the release of Iranian citizens who were illegally detained on entering Iraq.
“They acknowledged making mistakes,” he said, referring to the Americans, “and this is a step forward in itself and it’s now up to the Americans to rectify their mistakes.” [*****]
Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki of Iraq opened the day’s talks, saying, “We are hoping that you support stability in Iraq, an Iraq that doesn’t interfere in the affairs of others nor want anyone to meddle in its own affairs.”
Hoshyar Zebari, the Iraqi foreign minister, who presided over the talks, said officials would meet as early as Wednesday to establish the structure and mechanism of the proposed security committee.
In Hilla, the police said that the truck bomber struck at 9 a.m. in the Bab al-Mashhad district while it was packed with shoppers and commuters during the morning rush.
Hospital officials said that nearly 70 people were also wounded in the blast, and that at least one of the estimated 26 killed worked at the nearby maternity hospital. Its patients were moved by ambulances to two nearby hospitals because many of the ceilings had collapsed.
Farther north, in a Shiite area of eastern Baghdad, demonstrators marched in protest of an American and Iraqi blockade of the Husseiniya neighborhood.
Protesters chanted anti-American slogans and burned an American flag as they demanded that American forces remove the barricades and allow vehicle access to the area. [*******]
The American military said that militants there had set up dirt mounds to prevent soldiers and their vehicles from entering, and that in response the soldiers had closed off the neighborhood since Saturday to keep more militants from entering.
Access to the sealed area is restricted to emergency vehicles, but donkey carts and pedestrians were allowed past, the latter to reach hospitals and commercial vendors south of Husseiniya, said Lt. Col. John Drago, the commander of the American unit in the area.
“Every day we do this we are inconveniencing the population, and that is not what we want,” Colonel Drago said. “We want to help the population. However, the Shiite extremists do not seem to care about the population. What is going on in Husseiniya has got to stop.”
Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

Posted by Kent Bolton at 08:58 AM | Permalink

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/25/world/asia/25pakistan.html
July 25, 2007
Taliban Leader Is Said to Evade Capture by Blowing Himself Up
By SALMAN MASOOD [Pakistan] [south asia] [followup from past weeks] [Pakistan as the new Afghanistan] [musharraf’s dangerous gambit] [attempting to balance US-West gsave against placating his traditional Pashtun, Deobandi, jihadis constituency] [Pakistan’s military and intelligence services fully infiltrated bt latter] [alqaeda’s home-turf central] [hydra] [a tipping point may have been reached in past week or two] [the infamous truce that Musharraf made with tribal leaders—on again, off again] [little doubt the Taliban have refuge in Pakistan and at best are tolerated by military-intelligence] [********] [ditto]
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan, July 24 — A senior Taliban commander and former inmate of the United States detention center at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, blew himself up Tuesday rather than surrender to Pakistani government forces, [**]a spokesman for Pakistan’s Interior Ministry said Tuesday. The commander, Abdullah Mehsud, [***]died as Pakistani forces raided his hide-out in the town of Zhob in southwestern Baluchistan Province, said the spokesman, Javed Iqbal Cheema. [******]He died as Washington has increased pressure on the Pakistani president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, to crack down on armed extremist groups operating in the region.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/25/world/asia/25pakistan.html
July 25, 2007
Taliban Leader Is Said to Evade Capture by Blowing Himself Up
By SALMAN MASOOD [Pakistan] [south asia] [followup from past weeks] [Pakistan as the new Afghanistan] [musharraf’s dangerous gambit] [attempting to balance US-West gsave against placating his traditional Pashtun, Deobandi, jihadis constituency] [Pakistan’s military and intelligence services fully infiltrated bt latter] [alqaeda’s home-turf central] [hydra] [a tipping point may have been reached in past week or two] [the infamous truce that Musharraf made with tribal leaders—on again, off again] [little doubt the Taliban have refuge in Pakistan and at best are tolerated by military-intelligence] [********] [ditto]
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan, July 24 — A senior Taliban commander and former inmate of the United States detention center at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, blew himself up Tuesday rather than surrender to Pakistani government forces, [**]a spokesman for Pakistan’s Interior Ministry said Tuesday. The commander, Abdullah Mehsud, [***]died as Pakistani forces raided his hide-out in the town of Zhob in southwestern Baluchistan Province, said the spokesman, Javed Iqbal Cheema. [******]He died as Washington has increased pressure on the Pakistani president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, to crack down on armed extremist groups operating in the region.
In December 2001, Mr. Mehsud was captured in northern Afghanistan by Afghan forces allied to the United States. He was subsequently held at Guantánamo Bay until March 2004, when he was released. [*******]
Upon his return to the region, he took up arms again and soon became the Taliban commander of South Waziristan, a tribal area near the border with Afghanistan. [******]
Mr. Mehsud, who lost a leg fighting in Afghanistan in the 1990s, was suspected of being the mastermind behind the kidnapping of two Chinese engineers working on a hydroelectric dam in South Waziristan in 2004. One engineer was later killed and the other was freed in a raid by government troops.
In 2005, General Musharraf announced that Mr. Mehsud had probably been killed in a military attack in the tribal areas. This time, Mr. Cheema, who leads the counterterrorist National Crisis Management Cell, said, “We are 200 percent sure he is dead.”
Mr. Cheema described Mr. Mehsud as a “supporter of Al Qaeda” but gave no details.
The announcement of his death followed suggestions from Washington that it might consider military action in the tribal areas where United States intelligence reports said Al Qaeda maintains a haven. The Pakistani government rejects that assertion. [*****]
Meanwhile, a council of tribal elders, known as a jirga, has abandoned for now its efforts to revive a broken truce between the Pakistani government and militants in the region, according to a member of the council. [******]
The militants want the government to pull back the troops that it recently deployed in the area; the government says it cannot withdraw troops until the militants agree to abide by the truce.
“The bottom line is that the jirga has dispersed without reaching any final conclusion, because both sides are refusing to show any flexibility,” said one member of the 45-member council, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of fear for his safety.
Ismail Khan contributed reporting from Peshawar, Pakistan.
Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

Posted by Kent Bolton at 08:57 AM | Permalink

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/24/AR2007072400469.html
Taliban Leader Once Held by U.S. Dies in Pakistan Raid
By Griff Witte
Washington Post Foreign Service
Wednesday, July 25, 2007; A01 [Pakistan] [south asia] [followup from past weeks] [Pakistan as the new Afghanistan] [musharraf’s dangerous gambit] [attempting to balance US-West gsave against placating his traditional Pashtun, Deobandi, jihadis constituency] [Pakistan’s military and intelligence services fully infiltrated bt latter] [alqaeda’s home-turf central] [hydra] [a tipping point may have been reached in past week or two] [the infamous truce that Musharraf made with tribal leaders—on again, off again] [little doubt the Taliban have refuge in Pakistan and at best are tolerated by military-intelligence] [**]
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan, July 24 -- A top Taliban commander who became one of Pakistan's most wanted men after his release from U.S. detention at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, died Tuesday as security forces raided his hideout, [***]officials here said.
Abdullah Mehsud [****]had earned a fearsome reputation by orchestrating repeated attacks and kidnappings. Intelligence agencies regarded him as a key figure in an insurgency that has recently been gathering intensity on both sides of the Afghanistan-Pakistan border.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/24/AR2007072400469.html
Taliban Leader Once Held by U.S. Dies in Pakistan Raid
By Griff Witte
Washington Post Foreign Service
Wednesday, July 25, 2007; A01 [Pakistan] [south asia] [followup from past weeks] [Pakistan as the new Afghanistan] [musharraf’s dangerous gambit] [attempting to balance US-West gsave against placating his traditional Pashtun, Deobandi, jihadis constituency] [Pakistan’s military and intelligence services fully infiltrated bt latter] [alqaeda’s home-turf central] [hydra] [a tipping point may have been reached in past week or two] [the infamous truce that Musharraf made with tribal leaders—on again, off again] [little doubt the Taliban have refuge in Pakistan and at best are tolerated by military-intelligence] [**]
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan, July 24 -- A top Taliban commander who became one of Pakistan's most wanted men after his release from U.S. detention at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, died Tuesday as security forces raided his hideout, [***]officials here said.
Abdullah Mehsud [****]had earned a fearsome reputation by orchestrating repeated attacks and kidnappings. Intelligence agencies regarded him as a key figure in an insurgency that has recently been gathering intensity on both sides of the Afghanistan-Pakistan border.
Pakistani officials said Mehsud blew himself up with a grenade early Tuesday rather than surrender as security forces closed in on his hideout in Zhob, a town in Baluchistan province about 30 miles from the Afghan border. [****]The town is also near Waziristan, a tribal area where the Pakistani military has been clashing with extremist fighters.
Mehsud is one of seven former Guantanamo detainees publicly identified by U.S. Defense Department officials as having returned to the fight following their release. [******] Defense officials have said that as many as 23 other freed men, whom they have not identified, have taken up arms again. Mehsud was among a small group the officials suspect took an influential role after leaving the facility.
"This is a big blow to the Pakistani Taliban," said Brig. Javed Iqbal Cheema, an Interior Ministry spokesman. "He was one of the most important commanders that the Taliban had in Waziristan."
Other security sources, however, said that Mehsud's effectiveness had been limited in recent years because he was being closely pursued by authorities, and that he was mistrusted by rival commanders.
"He was in close contact with Taliban commanders in southern Afghanistan, but strangely he had severed contacts with the leaders of his own tribe in Waziristan," [*****]one Pakistani intelligence official said.
Mehsud's death follows a rise in violence in Pakistan and growing U.S. pressure on the president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, to produce evidence that he is cracking down on militancy in an area where al-Qaeda is believed to be active. [*****]
A controversial cease-fire with tribal militants in North Waziristan collapsed last week, and since then, they have carried out a wave of deadly strikes that have claimed about 180 lives. In recent days, the army has been fighting back, and a military buildup in the region continued Tuesday.
Residents of North Waziristan reported heavy shelling in the area late Tuesday as last-ditch efforts to revive the deal apparently failed. Early Wednesday, eight people died and 35 were injured when rockets, allegedly launched by insurgents, slammed into a civilian area in the northwestern town of Bannu, police said.
Mehsud, who was believed to be about 31, fought alongside the Taliban in the 1990s as it battled the group known as the Northern Alliance for supremacy in Afghanistan.
Mehsud was captured in northern Afghanistan in late 2001, after the U.S. invasion in October that year. Following 25 months in the U.S. detention center at Guantanamo Bay, he was released in March 2004, according to the Defense Department. He apparently succeeded in concealing his identity while there. Following his release, the Defense Department said it had determined he had been associated with the Taliban since his teenage years and had been described as an "al-Qaeda-linked facilitator." [*****]
After his release, Mehsud reportedly bragged that he had convinced the Americans he was Afghan, not Pakistani. [***]
Almost as soon as he got out, the one-legged fighter -- he lost the other to a land mine -- resumed waging war. In Afghanistan, he helped coordinate operations against U.S.-led forces, and in Pakistan he took on the national army. The baby-faced commander, who was reputed to have ties to al-Qaeda, gave frequent interviews to journalists in the Waziristan area. He was known for riding through the region's rough terrain on camel or horseback.
Pakistani officials put an $84,000 bounty on his head after his followers kidnapped two Chinese engineers in October 2004. One engineer died during a rescue operation; the other survived.
Retired Maj. Ikram Sehgal, now a security analyst, said Mehsud's boldness and his unwillingness to negotiate made him a popular leader among radical fighters. "This is a major development," Sehgal said. "Abdullah Mehsud was a youthful leader who was totally intransigent. So he was someone around whom a lot of people had gathered." [*******]
But another former high-ranking officer said those same qualities earned him enemies among fellow Taliban commanders and limited his influence. "He was an educated man. But at the same time he was also very emotional, impatient and unreliable," said retired Brig. Mehmood Shah, who recently left the government after years in jobs focusing on tribal area issues.
Analysts agreed that Mehsud's death would hurt the Taliban in the short term. But the group has a diffuse organizational structure and others are likely to move in quickly to replace him. A commander who outranked Abdullah Mehsud, Baitullah Mehsud, [********] remains at large. The two are members of the same clan. [*******]
Pakistan's intelligence agencies used a tip to track Abdullah Mehsud's movements over the past several days, according to Cheema, the Interior Ministry spokesman. Early Tuesday, paramilitary forces surrounded a private residence in Zhob that belonged to a local leader of a hard-line religious party.
Maulan Habibur Rehman, Zhob's mayor, said the security forces cordoned off the area, raided the compound and used tear gas to force the occupants out. Three suspected Taliban members were captured during the operation.
Cheema said the raid had been "a solo operation" for which the United States provided no support.
The Pakistani government has been trying in recent days to distance itself from the United States, as American officials decline to rule out the possibility of carrying out counterterrorism operations on Pakistani soil. [*****]Such moves would be deeply unpopular in Pakistan, where anti-Americanism is on the rise.
Staff writer Josh White in Washington and special correspondents Kamran Khan in Karachi, Pakistan, and Imtiaz Ali in Peshawar, Pakistan, contributed to this report.
© 2007 The Washington Post Company

Posted by Kent Bolton at 08:57 AM | Permalink

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070720.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
July 20, 2007
President Bush Discusses Global War on Terror, Thanks Troops
Rose Garden

10:42 A.M. EDT
THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. Thank you all for coming. I'm joined by veterans and military families who are here to express support for our troops and their mission in Iraq, and I want to thank you all for being here today. [who isn’t in support of the troops?] [is this suppose to suggest that his opponents cannot be supportive of US troops?] [*******]

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070720.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
July 20, 2007
President Bush Discusses Global War on Terror, Thanks Troops
Rose Garden

10:42 A.M. EDT
THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. Thank you all for coming. I'm joined by veterans and military families who are here to express support for our troops and their mission in Iraq, and I want to thank you all for being here today. [who isn’t in support of the troops?] [is this suppose to suggest that his opponents cannot be supportive of US troops?] [*******]
We've just finished a really good meeting. In our discussions, these folks had a message that all of us in Washington need to hear: It is time to rise above partisanship, stand behind our troops in the field, and give them everything they need to succeed. [*********]
In February, I submitted to Congress a Defense Department spending bill for the upcoming fiscal year that will provide funds to upgrade our equipment for our troops in Iraq and provides a pay raise for our military -- it's a comprehensive spending request that Congress has failed to act on. [********] [GOP talking points include if congress is opposed, cut off funding] [now, screaming about it] [of course, that’s the point] [****] Instead, the Democratic leaders chose to have a political debate on a precipitous withdrawal of our troops from Iraq. The House and Senate are now scheduled to leave for their August recess before passing a bill to support our troops and their missions. Even members of Congress who no longer support our effort in Iraq should at least be able to provide an increase in pay for our troops fighting there.
When Congress returns after Labor Day, there will be less than one month before the fiscal year ends and current funds for Defense Department operations run out. Congress still has an opportunity to do right by our men and women in uniform -- and our national security. So today I call on Congress to take action and get this vital piece of legislation to me to sign -- on budget and on time.
I also ask Congress to give our troops time to carry out our new strategy in Iraq. [****]Like all wars, the fight in Iraq has had frustrating setbacks. It has also had important successes. We've seen dramatic turnarounds in places such as Anbar province, which was once thought lost to the enemy. Just this week, our military forces announced the capture of one of al Qaeda's top Iraqi leaders. He helped to form what al Qaeda calls the Islamic State in Iraq, in an attempt to replicate what the Taliban had created in Afghanistan. Today that leader is under arrest, and his followers are under siege. [*******]
These successes demonstrate the gains our troops are making in Iraq, and the importance of giving our military the time they need to give their new strategy a chance to work.
Earlier this year, the Senate seemed to share that view. They confirmed General David Petraeus as commander of our forces without a single dissenting vote. And now, barely a month after his strategy became fully operational, many of those same senators are saying that that strategy has failed.
Our nation deserves a serious debate about Iraq, because the outcome of this conflict will have enormous consequences for our country. Failure in Iraq would allow terrorists to operate from a safe haven with access to the world's third largest oil reserves. Failure in Iraq would increase the probability that at some later date, American troops would have to return to Iraq to confront an enemy more dangerous and more entrenched. Failure in Iraq would send an unmistakable signal to America's enemies that our country can be bullied into retreat. [******]
America's involvement in Iraq does not have to end this way. A free and stable Iraq is still in reach. It has the potential to transform the Middle East and bring us closer to the day when radical regimes are replaced by peaceful allies, when terrorists have fewer places to train and operate, and when moms and dads in the Arab world see a future of hope for their children.
One of the folks with us today is an Air Force Reservist named Eric Egland. Here's what he said, he said, "We live in the world's oldest democracy and have been blessed with the strength to protect our freedoms and to help others who seek the same."
This has always been America's mission, and today that mission is being carried out by brave men and women who have stepped forward to keep our country secure. I thank them and I thank their families for the sacrifices they're making. And I thank you all for supporting them.
Thank you very much.
END 10:46 A.M. EDT

Posted by Kent Bolton at 09:43 AM | Permalink

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/24/us/24padilla.html
July 24, 2007
Defense at Padilla Trial Raises a Dispute Over Translations
By CARMEN GENTILE [bush white house] [federal courts] [padilla trial underway for several weeks] [followup] [*******]
MIAMI, July 23 — Defense lawyers at the terrorism trial of Jose Padilla on Monday challenged the accuracy of some translations and interpretations used by prosecutors. [*****]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/24/us/24padilla.html
July 24, 2007
Defense at Padilla Trial Raises a Dispute Over Translations
By CARMEN GENTILE [bush white house] [federal courts] [padilla trial underway for several weeks] [followup] [*******]
MIAMI, July 23 — Defense lawyers at the terrorism trial of Jose Padilla on Monday challenged the accuracy of some translations and interpretations used by prosecutors. [*****]
In the first day of defense testimony, lawyers argued that some expressions used by terror suspects in conversations wiretapped by the F.B.I. were not code words for waging jihad, or holy war, but rather were common Arabic euphemisms for activities like collecting donations for Muslim orphans overseas. [*******]
A professional Arabic translator, Kamal Yunis, told a defense lawyer, Jeanne Baker, that the surreptitiously recorded remarks made by her client, Adham Hassoun, also a terror suspect, were not about buying arms or supporting jihad, as translators and F.B.I. agents had testified for the prosecution, but were references to fund-raising for children whose parents were killed in conflicts like those in Kosovo, Lebanon and Somalia.
Mr. Yunis said that a phone call in 1997 with a Lebanese religious leader in which Mr. Hassoun expressed a desire “to send you two eggplants” was an expression understood by both men to mean $2,000 in donations for Muslim children abroad. Translators had testified for the prosecution that the eggplants were rocket-propelled grenades [*****] bought with Muslims’ donations.
Mr. Hassoun’s references to “football” were another way to say someone was “kicked around,” Mr. Yunis testified, contradicting translations by prosecution experts who said football referred to jihad.
Mr. Hassoun and another defendant, Kifah Jayyousi, were heard using those and other unusual expressions in thousands of hours of calls collected by the Federal Bureau of Investigation over nearly 10 years. [*******]
The three men are accused of providing money, equipment and other support to terrorist organizations abroad. A prosecutor, Russell Killinger, questioned Mr. Yunis’s credentials. He began translating professionally in 1996 and has a translation company in Orlando, Fla.
Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

Posted by Kent Bolton at 08:53 AM | Permalink

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/24/washington/24diplo.html
July 24, 2007
U.S. Officials Admit Delays in Issuing Visas to Iraqis
By HELENE COOPER [bush administration] [state department] [embassy] [visas for –iraqis who have worked for the US or coalition] [vulnerable as traitors] [*******]
WASHINGTON, July 23 — Bush administration officials said Monday that they were trying to help Iraqis working for the American Embassy in Iraq to immigrate to the United States, but they also conceded that a gap remained between American words and actions on the issue.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/24/washington/24diplo.html
July 24, 2007
U.S. Officials Admit Delays in Issuing Visas to Iraqis
By HELENE COOPER [bush administration] [state department] [embassy] [visas for –iraqis who have worked for the US or coalition] [vulnerable as traitors] [*******]
WASHINGTON, July 23 — Bush administration officials said Monday that they were trying to help Iraqis working for the American Embassy in Iraq to immigrate to the United States, but they also conceded that a gap remained between American words and actions on the issue.
Efforts to assist Iraqis who work for the embassy have vaulted to the top of an informal State Department priority list at a time when the United States is struggling to respond to the ever growing number of refugees seeking to flee sectarian fighting. Many of those employees run the risk of being the targets of various militias because of their association with the American government.
As of June 30, the United States had admitted 69 locally employed Iraqis on “special immigrant visa” status this year, with 93 more cases pending, State Department officials said. But that status, as defined by Congress, can be applied only to interpreters and translators, which excludes a range of Iraqis, from drivers to soldiers.
State Department officials said they were working with Congress and the Homeland Security Department to accelerate the processing of immigrant visas and grant refugee status to the American Embassy’s local employees in Iraq. As first reported Sunday in The Washington Post, Ryan C. Crocker, the United States ambassador to Iraq, sent a cable to Washington on July 9 pressing the administration to issue immigrant visas to all Iraqis employed by the American government. [*******]
Administration officials said that Mr. Crocker’s sentiments were widely shared in the State Department, and that the administration had been working with Congress and the Department of Homeland Security to try to work through the backlog of immigration requests. “Everybody has the same concern here,” said Sean McCormack, the State Department spokesman. “They want to take care of the people with whom they work on a daily basis — those of whom might feel under threat.” [*******]
A senior administration official said, though, that “sometimes in government, as in any large organization, there is a lag between intent and the output of a program.”
Employees not eligible for the special immigrant visas have been left to try to get to the United States through a “refugee” category. The office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has referred 8,295 Iraqis who were locally employed by Americans to the United States for processing, but as of Monday, the Department of Homeland Security had interviewed only 2,368 of them, administration officials said.
“The tie-up is Homeland Security and vetting,” said James Zogby, [******] head of the Arab-American Institute. “They’re arguing that working for the U.S. is one thing, trusting them over here is another.”
Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, has introduced a bill that would establish an immigrant visa program for all Iraqis who have worked for the United States government, including the military, for at least a year.
In a statement on Monday, Senator Kennedy said that divisions in the Senate over the war in Iraq “shouldn’t obscure the fact that all of us on both sides of the aisle agree that America owes an immense debt of gratitude to these Iraqis, and we have a special responsibility to help them.
“They’ve supported our effort, saved American lives and are clearly at great risk because of it.”
The effort to allow more Iraqi employees to resettle in the United States is symptomatic of a larger problem of Iraqi refugees that experts expect to get worse in the months to come. The United Nations estimates that some two million Iraqis have left for Syria, Jordan and other neighboring countries; 60,000 more flee Iraq every month. [**********]
Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

Posted by Kent Bolton at 08:51 AM | Permalink

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/24/world/middleeast/24military.html
July 24, 2007
U.S. Is Seen in Iraq Until at Least ’09
By MICHAEL R. GORDON [bush administration] [pentagon; civilian dod] [contingency planning for –iraq] [the American command in Baghdad as solo actor?] [******]
BAGHDAD, July 23 — While Washington is mired in political debate over the future of Iraq, the American command here has prepared a detailed plan that foresees a significant American role for the next two years. [*******]
The classified plan, which represents the coordinated strategy of the top American commander and the American ambassador, calls for restoring security in local areas, including Baghdad, by the summer of 2008. “Sustainable security” is to be established on a nationwide basis by the summer of 2009, according to American officials familiar with the document.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/24/world/middleeast/24military.html
July 24, 2007
U.S. Is Seen in Iraq Until at Least ’09
By MICHAEL R. GORDON [bush administration] [pentagon; civilian dod] [contingency planning for –iraq] [the American command in Baghdad as solo actor?] [******]
BAGHDAD, July 23 — While Washington is mired in political debate over the future of Iraq, the American command here has prepared a detailed plan that foresees a significant American role for the next two years. [*******]
The classified plan, which represents the coordinated strategy of the top American commander and the American ambassador, calls for restoring security in local areas, including Baghdad, by the summer of 2008. “Sustainable security” is to be established on a nationwide basis by the summer of 2009, according to American officials familiar with the document.
The detailed document, known as the Joint Campaign Plan, is an elaboration of the new strategy President Bush signaled in January when he decided to send five additional American combat brigades and other units to Iraq. That signaled a shift from the previous strategy, which emphasized transferring to Iraqis the responsibility for safeguarding their security.
That new approach put a premium on protecting the Iraqi population in Baghdad, on the theory that improved security would provide Iraqi political leaders with the breathing space they needed to try political reconciliation.
The latest plan, which covers a two-year period, does not explicitly address troop levels or withdrawal schedules. It anticipates a decline in American forces as the “surge” in troops runs its course later this year or in early 2008. But it nonetheless assumes continued American involvement to train soldiers, act as partners with Iraqi forces and fight terrorist groups in Iraq, [******]American officials said.
The goals in the document appear ambitious, given the immensity of the challenge of dealing with die-hard Sunni insurgents, renegade Shiite militias, Iraqi leaders who have made only fitful progress toward political reconciliation, as well as Iranian and Syrian neighbors who have not hesitated to interfere in Iraq’s affairs. [*****]And the White House’s interim assessment of progress, issued n July 12, is mixed.
But at a time when critics at home are defining patience in terms of weeks, the strategy may run into the expectations of many lawmakers for an early end to the American mission here.
The plan, developed by Gen. David H. Petraeus, the senior American commander, and Ryan C. Crocker, the American ambassador, has been briefed to Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates and Adm. William J. Fallon, the head of the Central Command. It is expected to be formally issued to officials here this week.
The plan envisions two phases. The “near-term” goal is to achieve “localized security” in Baghdad and other areas no later than June 2008. It envisions encouraging political accommodations at the local level, including with former insurgents, while pressing Iraq’s leaders to make headway on their program of national reconciliation.
The “intermediate” goal is to stitch together such local arrangements to establish a broader sense of security on a nationwide basis no later than June 2009.
“The coalition, in partnership with the government of Iraq, employs integrated political, security, economic and diplomatic means, to help the people of Iraq achieve sustainable security by the summer of 2009,” [******]a summary of the campaign plan states.
Military officials here have been careful not to guarantee success, and recognized they may need to revise the plan if some assumptions were not met.
“The idea behind the surge was to bring stability and security to the Iraqi people, primarily in Baghdad because it is the political heart of the country, and by so doing give the Iraqis the time and space needed to come to grips with the tough issues they face and enable reconciliation to take place,” said Col. Peter Mansoor, the executive officer to General Petraeus.
“If eventually the Iraqi government and the various sects and groups do not come to some sort of agreement on how to share power, on how to divide resources and on how to reconcile and stop the violence, then the assumption on which the surge strategy was based is invalid, and we would have to re-look the strategy,” Colonel Mansoor added.
General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker will provide an assessment in September on trends in Iraq and whether the strategy is viable or needs to be changed.
The previous plan, developed by Gen. George W. Casey Jr., who served as General Petraeus’s predecessor before being appointed as chief of staff of the Army, was aimed at prompting the Iraqis to take more responsibility for security by reducing American forces.
That approach faltered when the Iraqi security forces showed themselves unprepared to carry out their expanded duties, and sectarian killings soared.
In contrast, the new approach reflects the counterinsurgency precept that protection of the population is best way to isolate insurgents, encourage political accommodations and gain intelligence on numerous threats. A core assumption of the plan is that American troops cannot impose a military solution, but that the United States can use force to create the conditions in which political reconciliation is possible. [*********]
To develop the plan, General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker assembled a Joint Strategic Assessment Team, which sought to define the conflict and outline the elements of a new strategy. It included officers like Col. H. R. McMaster, the field commander who carried out the successful “clear, hold and build” operation in Tal Afar and who wrote a critical account of the Joint Chiefs of Staff role during the Vietnam War; Col. John R. Martin, who teaches at the Army War College and was a West Point classmate of General Petraeus; and David Kilcullen, an Australian counterinsurgency expert who has a degree in anthropology.
State Department officials, including Robert Ford, an Arab expert and the American ambassador to Algeria, were also involved. So were a British officer and experts outside government like Stephen D. Biddle, a military expert at the Council on Foreign Relations.
The team determined that Iraq was in a “communal struggle for power,” in the words of one senior officer who participated in the effort. Adding to the problem, the new Iraqi government was struggling to unite its disparate factions [******]and to develop the capability to deliver basic services and provide security.
Extremists were fueling the violence, as were nations like Iran, which they concluded was arming and equipping Shiite militant groups, and Syria, which was allowing suicide bombers to cross into Iraq.
Like the Baker-Hamilton commission, which issued its report last year, the team believed that political, military and economic efforts were needed, including diplomatic discussions with Iran, officials said. There were different views about how aggressive to be in pressing for the removal of overtly sectarian officials, and several officials said that theme was toned down somewhat in the final plan.
The plan itself was written by the Joint Campaign Redesign Team, an allusion to the fact that the plan inherited from General Casey was being reworked. Much of the redesign has already been put into effect, including the decision to move troops out of large bases and to act as partners more fully with the Iraqi security forces.
The overarching goal, an American official said, is to advance political accommodation and avoid undercutting the authority of the Iraqi prime minister, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki. While the plan seeks to achieve stability, several officials said it anticipates that less will be accomplished in terms of national reconciliation by the end of 2009 than did the plan developed by General Casey.
The plan also emphasizes encouraging political accommodation at the local level. The command has established a team to oversee efforts to reach out to former insurgents and tribal leaders. It is dubbed the Force Strategic Engagement Cell, and is overseen by a British general. In the terminology of the plan, the aim is to identify potentially “reconcilable” groups and encourage them to move away from violence.
However, groups like Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, a Sunni Arab extremist group that American intelligence officials say has foreign leadership, and cells backed by Iran are seen as implacable foes.
“You are not out there trying to defeat your enemies wholesale,” said one military official who is knowledgeable about the plan. “You are out there trying to draw them into a negotiated power-sharing agreement where they decide to quit fighting you. They don’t decide that their conflict is over. The reasons for conflict remain, but they quit trying to address it through violence. In the end, we hope that that alliance of convenience to fight with Al Qaeda becomes a connection to the central government as well.”
The hope is that sufficient progress might be made at the local level to encourage accommodation at the national level, and vice versa. The plan also calls for efforts to encourage the rule of law, such as the establishment of secure zones in Baghdad and other cities to promote criminal trials and process detainee cases.
To help measure progress in tamping down civil strife, Col. William Rapp, a senior aide to General Petraeus, oversaw an effort to develop a standardized measure of sectarian violence. One result was a method that went beyond the attacks noted in American military reports and which incorporated Iraqi data.
“We are going to try a dozen different things,” said one senior officer. “Maybe one of them will flatline. One of them will do this much. One of them will do this much more. After a while, we believe there is chance you will head into success. I am not saying that we are absolutely headed for success.” [*******]
Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

Posted by Kent Bolton at 08:50 AM | Permalink

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/24/opinion/24benjamin.html
July 24, 2007
Op-Ed Contributor
A War the Pentagon Can’t Win
By DANIEL BENJAMIN and STEVEN SIMON [oped] [the authors of age of sacred terror on gsave] [********]
AS the National Intelligence Estimate issued last week confirms, a terrorist haven has emerged in Pakistan’s tribal belt. And as recent revelations about an aborted 2005 operation in the region demonstrate, our Defense Department is chronically unable to conduct the sort of missions that would disrupt terrorist activity there and in similarly ungoverned places.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/24/opinion/24benjamin.html
July 24, 2007
Op-Ed Contributor
A War the Pentagon Can’t Win
By DANIEL BENJAMIN and STEVEN SIMON [oped] [the authors of age of sacred terror on gsave] [********]
AS the National Intelligence Estimate issued last week confirms, a terrorist haven has emerged in Pakistan’s tribal belt. And as recent revelations about an aborted 2005 operation in the region demonstrate, our Defense Department is chronically unable to conduct the sort of missions that would disrupt terrorist activity there and in similarly ungoverned places.
These are perhaps the most important kind of counterterrorism missions. Because the Pentagon has shown that it cannot carry them out, the Central Intelligence Agency should be given the chance to perform them. [********]
The story of the scrubbed 2005 operation illustrates why the Pentagon is incapable of doing what needs to be done. [******]The preparations for the mission to capture or kill Al Qaeda’s No. 2 leader, Ayman al-Zawahri, appear to have unfolded like others before it. Intelligence was received about a high-level Qaeda meeting. A small snatch or kill operation was to be carried out by Special Operations. But military brass added large numbers of troops to conduct additional intelligence, force protection, communications and extraction work. [******]
At that point, as one senior intelligence official told this newspaper, “The whole thing turned into the invasion of Pakistan,” and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld pulled the plug.
To those of us who worked in counterterrorism in the 1990s, this sequence of events feels like the movie “Groundhog Day.” Similar decision-making led to the failure to mount critical operations on at least three occasions during the Clinton administration. The most notable was the effort to get the Pentagon to conduct a ground operation against the Qaeda leadership in Afghanistan beginning in late 1998. [*****]
The Clinton White House repeatedly requested options involving ground forces that could hunt and destroy terrorists in Afghanistan. Repeatedly, senior military officials declared such a mission “would be Desert One,” referring to the disastrous 1980 effort to free American hostages in Iran. When the Pentagon finally delivered a plan, the deployment envisioned would have been sufficient to take and hold Kabul but not to surprise and pin down a handful of terrorists.
But the Zawahri stand-down is even more telling. It occurred four years into the global war on terrorism, when the basic questions about the nature of the Qaeda threat had been settled and the nation, in the oft-intoned phrase of the Bush administration, was said to be always “on the offensive.” Moreover, it happened on the watch of Donald Rumsfeld, the most dominating secretary of defense in memory, who overruled military planners routinely as he micromanaged the deployment to Iraq. [******]Perhaps his attention was focused on the growing mess in that country, but even Mr. Rumsfeld, who viewed special forces as the keystone of a transformed 21st-century American military, could not keep on track a mission that would have stunned Al Qaeda. [**********]
Highly mobile, highly lethal counterterrorism operations are clearly possible. Israel scored victories with raids in Entebbe, Uganda; Tunis; and Beirut, Lebanon, in the 1970s and 1980s. Other countries, like Germany, have carried out similar operations, like the Mogadishu raid of 1977 that freed passengers on a Lufthansa plane hijacked to Somalia by the Baader-Meinhof gang. An operation in Pakistan’s tribal areas — setting aside the issue of whether this could politically upend President Pervez Musharraf — would be extremely difficult. But it is hard to believe it is impossible. [*********]
Since the Desert One debacle, the United States has poured vast resources into its special forces. The Special Operations Command budget has nearly doubled since 2001, and it is expected to grow 150 percent over five years. The command includes more than 50,000 troops, the equivalent of three or four infantry divisions. The best of them — Delta Force and the Navy Seals — have developed into highly skilled unconventional forces.
Yet fear of failure and casualties has meant they are seldom, if ever, deployed for such counterterrorism operations. In theory, the best place in the government for small-scale missions to be planned and executed is the Pentagon, because snatch or kill teams should be plugged into a larger military support team. The reality, unfortunately, is that they can’t be plugged in without being bogged down. [********]
Senior officers, trained to understand the American way of war to mean overwhelming force and superior firepower, view special ops outside a war zone as something to be avoided at all cost. This has been true even in lower-risk efforts to capture war criminals in the Balkans. The record demonstrates that our military is simply incapable of adapting its culture to embrace such operations. The Pentagon should just stop planning for missions it won’t launch. [********]
While the C.I.A. doesn’t have an unblemished record, its counterterrorism operations have shown more promise than the Pentagon’s. [****] [beyond that, the Pentagon can scarcely deny plausibly some action—its fingerprints are all over it] [****] The agency has already had some successes operating in ungoverned spaces. In the first reported attack in such a region, a C.I.A.-operated Predator drone launched a missile that killed a Qaeda lieutenant in Yemen in 2002. Since then the Predator has been used to strike Al Qaeda at least eight times, although with limited success. At least initially, the trigger in these attacks was pulled by C.I.A. operatives, not soldiers.
The record of a small, vulnerable C.I.A. paramilitary force in Afghanistan in 2001 was more impressive. The group’s audacious reconnaissance work and direction of local warlords in action against the Taliban provided the most significant battlefield success of the post-9/11 period. Without this risky, cold-start intervention, the American troops that followed the agency into Afghanistan would have gone in blind and worried more about their flanks than about Al Qaeda.
The agency’s history of ill-conceived covert political operations from the 1950s through the 1970s may cause some to worry. That agency, however, no longer exists. [***] Congressional hearings and legislation, as well as fear of casualties, have given the clandestine service its own case of risk aversion, though it seems less severe than the Pentagon’s.
We have failed in Pakistan, and are failing in Iraq, to achieve a primary aim of our counterterrorism policy: preventing Al Qaeda from acquiring safe havens. Our military has shown itself to be a poor instrument for fighting terrorism, and there are now thousands of jihadists who weren’t in Iraq at the time of the 2003 invasion. [*****]When the inevitable American drawdown occurs, we will need a way to keep the terrorists off balance in Iraq and to disrupt the conveyor belt that is already moving fighters to places like Lebanon, North Africa and Europe. [*******]
With new leadership at both the C.I.A. and the Defense Department, the Bush administration has a chance to fix this problem. The missing ingredient for success with the most important kind of counterterrorism missions is not courage or technical capacity — our uniformed personnel are unsurpassed — but organizational culture. With a small fraction of the resources that Pentagon has for special operations, the C.I.A. could develop the paramilitary capacity we profoundly need.
Daniel Benjamin, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, and Steven Simon, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, were members of the National Security Council staff from 1994 to 1999.
Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

Posted by Kent Bolton at 08:49 AM | Permalink

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/24/opinion/24tue2.html
July 24, 2007
Editorial
Democracy Affirmed
[editorial] [turkey’s election this past Sunday in which PM Erdogan’s Party won] [******]
The impressive re-election victory scored by Turkey’s conservative Muslim ruling party is a tribute to the growing maturity of that country’s politics and an inspiration for the cause of democracy in the broader Muslim world.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/24/opinion/24tue2.html
July 24, 2007
Editorial
Democracy Affirmed
[editorial] [turkey’s election this past Sunday in which PM Erdogan’s Party won] [******]
The impressive re-election victory scored by Turkey’s conservative Muslim ruling party is a tribute to the growing maturity of that country’s politics and an inspiration for the cause of democracy in the broader Muslim world.
Voters rightly rejected the claim asserted by the traditional military-secular establishment that there is any fundamental incompatibility between democracy and Islam. Instead, they rewarded a party that has given the country its most competent and successful government in recent decades. That is exactly how democracy is supposed to work.
Since the Justice and Development Party [*****](known by its Turkish initials, AK [*****]) came to power almost five years ago, its market-oriented policies have promoted strong economic growth and helped bring runaway inflation back under control. In its pursuit of European Union membership, AK has also pushed through a series of legal reforms that have expanded human rights and brought Turkish law closer to European standards.
Those reforms have stalled in the face of opposition from generals and civilian nationalists and discouraging signals from the E.U. about Turkish membership. The Kurdish minority is still subject to discriminatory legal restrictions. So is the ruling party’s main constituency, observant Muslims.
The AK should use its huge victory to reinvigorate the drive for reforms, and not just for its Muslim supporters. But it still must be careful not to provoke a military leadership that sees itself as the guardian of secular nationalism and has been less than scrupulous about respecting electoral democracy. [******]The AK, in contrast, has broadened its support by moving away from its original, narrowly Islamic roots. It is still a visibly Muslim party, but it is also a visibly democratic and tolerant party.
Turkey’s generals should heed the voters. Washington should continue to press Turkey’s case for E.U. membership. The example of a successful Muslim democracy can be a powerful weapon in the war of ideas against Islamic terrorism. [*****]
Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

Posted by Kent Bolton at 08:48 AM | Permalink

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/23/AR2007072301143.html
Poll Finds Democrats Favored On War
But Bush, Congress Both Get Low Ratings on Iraq
By Jon Cohen and Dan Balz
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, July 24, 2007; A01 [public opinion] [polling data] [on the –iraq war] [trends on –iraq?] [momentum against war and fatalism with respect to spring 08 latest date] [********]
Most Americans see President Bush as intransigent on Iraq and prefer that the Democratic-controlled Congress make decisions about a possible withdrawal of U.S. forces, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.
As the president and Congress spar over war policy, both receive negative marks from the public for their handling of the situation in Iraq. But by a large margin, Americans trust Democrats rather than the president to find a solution to a conflict that remains enormously unpopular. And more than six in 10 in the new poll said Congress should have the final say on when to bring the troops home.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/23/AR2007072301143.html
Poll Finds Democrats Favored On War
But Bush, Congress Both Get Low Ratings on Iraq
By Jon Cohen and Dan Balz
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, July 24, 2007; A01 [public opinion] [polling data] [on the –iraq war] [trends on –iraq?] [momentum against war and fatalism with respect to spring 08 latest date] [********]
Most Americans see President Bush as intransigent on Iraq and prefer that the Democratic-controlled Congress make decisions about a possible withdrawal of U.S. forces, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.
As the president and Congress spar over war policy, both receive negative marks from the public for their handling of the situation in Iraq. But by a large margin, Americans trust Democrats rather than the president to find a solution to a conflict that remains enormously unpopular. And more than six in 10 in the new poll said Congress should have the final say on when to bring the troops home.
The president has steadfastly asserted his power as commander in chief to make decisions about the war, but his posture is now viewed by majorities of Democrats, independents and even Republicans as too inflexible. Asked whether Bush is willing enough to change policies on Iraq, nearly eight in 10 Americans said no.
Since December, the percentage seeing Bush as too rigid has increased 12 points, with the most significant change among Republicans. Just after the 2006 midterm elections and the release of the 79-point plan from the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, 55 percent of Republicans thought Bush was willing enough to change course in Iraq; in this poll, 55 percent of Republicans said he is not.
Bush's overall approval rating equals its all-time low in Post-ABC News polls at 33 percent, with 65 percent disapproving. Fifty-two percent said they "strongly" disapprove of his job performance, the highest figure of his presidency and more than three times the 16 percent who strongly approve.
Three-quarters of Republicans approve of the way he is handling his job, but just one in 10 Democrats and three in 10 independents give him positive marks.
The war has been the single biggest drag on the president's approval ratings.
Thirty-one percent give him positive marks on handling the situation in Iraq, which is near his career low on the issue. The last time a majority approved of the president's handling of the war was in January 2004.
Even among those Americans who said they had served or had a close friend or relative who served in Iraq, 38 percent approve of Bush's handling of the conflict.
At the same time, Congress fares little better with the public on the war. Just 35 percent said they approve of the way congressional Democrats are handling the situation in Iraq, with 63 percent disapproving. Two-thirds of independents give the Democrats negative marks on the war.
The latest poll was conducted July 18 to 21 among a random sample of 1,125 adults, just after Senate Democrats failed to pass legislation that would set a timetable for the start of troop withdrawals from the war zone. The results have a three-percentage-point margin of sampling error.
Overall approval of Congress stands at 37 percent in the new poll, with the 60 percent disapproval rating equal to public dissatisfaction with the Republican-controlled Congress late last year. Congress's approval rating has declined over the past three months because self-identified Democrats have soured in their assessment. [******]
Congressional Democrats still receive higher marks than their Republican counterparts for their performance, but independents give both parties equally negative reviews.
But when it comes to judging the president versus congressional Democrats on the issue of Iraq, the public stands with Congress. Fifty-five percent said they trust congressional Democrats on the war, compared with 32 percent who said they trust Bush. (Eleven percent of all respondents and 17 percent of independents said they trust "neither." [***]) And by 2 to 1, Americans said Congress, rather than the president, should make the final decision about when to withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq. Nearly three in 10 Republicans side with Congress over the president on this question.
Many would like Congress to assert itself on Iraq, and about half of poll respondents said congressional Democrats have done "too little" to get Bush to change his war policy. Democrats are especially eager for more action from their party's lawmakers: 61 percent of Democrats and 69 percent of liberal Democrats said not enough has been done to prod Bush on the issue.
The central challenge for legislators from both parties is that the deep schism in Congress over Iraq war policy mirrors a wide partisan divide on many questions about the situation there.
Overall attitudes about the conflict continue to be decidedly negative, with more than six in 10 saying that given the costs, the war was not worth fighting. Most Democrats and independents in the poll said the war was not worth fighting, but most Republicans continue to say it has been worth the costs.
And the broad disagreements between partisans are not isolated to previous decisions.
A narrow majority -- 55 percent -- support legislation that would set a deadline of next spring for the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq, but while that measure is backed by 72 percent of Democrats and six in 10 independents, only a quarter of Republicans are on board.
A Senate effort to append such a timeline to a defense authorization bill failed to get the requisite 60 votes in the Senate; it was defeated 52 to 47.
There is also no agreement across party lines on the timing of U.S. troop withdrawals. About six in 10 said forces should be withdrawn to avoid further casualties, even if civil order is not restored, and 56 percent want to decrease the forces in Iraq. Both figures are at new highs, but few Republicans agree with either position.
Even among Democrats, there is no consensus about the timing of any troop withdrawal. While three-quarters want to decrease the number of troops in Iraq, only a third advocate a complete, immediate withdrawal. There is even less support for that option among independents (15 percent) and Republicans (6 percent).
There is, however, more universal, bipartisan backing for several other proposals that have been floated, including changing the strategic mission from direct combat to training and support, instituting new rules on troop rest time, and reducing aid to the Iraqi government if it fails to meet certain benchmarks. Majorities across party lines support each of these potential policy shifts.
Few are confident that the Iraqi government has the ability to meet its commitments to restore civil order. But again partisan views diverge: 55 percent of Republicans are at least somewhat confident that the Iraqis will meet their benchmarks, an outlook shared by about three in 10 Democrats and independents.
And as for the new U.S. efforts to restore security in Iraq, most in the poll said the "surge" has not made much difference, and nearly two-thirds said that the additional troops will not improve the situation over the next few months.
This broad pessimism provides an early read that the public may not be as willing as some in Congress to suspend judgment about the strategy until Gen. David H. Petraeus, the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, [******]delivers his much-anticipated assessment in mid-September.
Polling analyst Jennifer Agiesta contributed to this report.
© 2007 The Washington Post Company

Posted by Kent Bolton at 08:47 AM | Permalink

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/24/us/24poll.html
July 24, 2007
Support for Initial Invasion Has Risen, Poll Shows
By MEGAN THEE [public opinion] [polling data] [on the –iraq war] [interesting reversal of trend against –iraq?] [especially given the momentum against war and fatalism with respect to spring 08 latest date] [********]
Americans’ support for the initial invasion of Iraq has risen somewhat as the White House has continued to ask the public to reserve judgment about the war until at least the fall. [***]In a New York Times/CBS News poll conducted over the weekend, 42 percent of Americans said that looking back, taking military action in Iraq was the right thing to do, while 51 percent said the United States should have stayed out of Iraq. [*****]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/24/us/24poll.html
July 24, 2007
Support for Initial Invasion Has Risen, Poll Shows
By MEGAN THEE [public opinion] [polling data] [on the –iraq war] [interesting reversal of trend against –iraq?] [especially given the momentum against war and fatalism with respect to spring 08 latest date] [********]
Americans’ support for the initial invasion of Iraq has risen somewhat as the White House has continued to ask the public to reserve judgment about the war until at least the fall. [***]In a New York Times/CBS News poll conducted over the weekend, 42 percent of Americans said that looking back, taking military action in Iraq was the right thing to do, while 51 percent said the United States should have stayed out of Iraq. [*****]
But two-thirds of those polled said the United States should reduce its forces in Iraq, or remove them altogether. [****] Support for the invasion had been at an all-time low in May, when only 35 percent of Americans said the invasion of Iraq was the right thing and 61 percent said the United States should have stayed out. [***]The latest poll made clear that a two-thirds majority of Americans continue to say the war is going badly.
However, the number of people who say the war is going “very badly” has fallen from 45 percent earlier in July to a current reading of 35 percent, and of those who say it is going well, 29 percent now describe it as “somewhat well” compared with 23 percent just last week.
Many of those who said the invasion was correct made it clear, however, that they are no longer convinced the United States should remain there.
“At the time that we went into Iraq, we had just come out of 9/11. The nation was in shock, frightened,” Sally Fisher of Garden City, Mich., said in a follow-up interview after the poll was conducted. “Looking back, I still think we should have gone in. Should we have stayed as long as we did? No.”
The nationwide telephone poll was conducted Friday through Sunday with 889 adults. The margin of sampling error for all adults is plus or minus three percentage points and larger for subgroups.
The poll’s findings are in line with those of one conducted last week by The New York Times and CBS News. Although both polls show a similar rise in overall support for the invasion, there was no change in measures like Mr. Bush’s handling of the war or how well the increase in troops is working, making it difficult to discern what the public may be reacting to. [*******]
At the end of a week that included a contentious Senate debate leading to an all-night session, Americans have a low opinion of Congress. Six in 10 Americans disapprove of the job Congress is doing in general. When asked specifically about their opinions of how the Democrats and Republicans in Congress are handling the war, disapproval ratings are similar — 65 percent disapprove of the Republicans’ handling of Iraq and 59 percent disapprove of the Democrats’.
“If Congress isn’t ready to really go over there with enough force to change things now we might as well get out,” said Shawn Taylor of Hardin, Mont. “Either push the envelope and make it happen or leave it alone.”
The modest gains in support for the invasion of Iraq come at a time when Bush administration and top military commanders have called attention to what they say are signs of progress, and have urged patience pending a report due this fall from the top American commander in Iraq. The administration has also issued new warnings about heightened terrorist activity.
A majority of Americans say that in the long run, the United States will be safer from terrorism if it stays out of the affairs of countries in the Middle East. But there is a sharp party divide on the issue — 73 percent of Democrats, 60 percent of independents and 28 percent of Republicans agree. [******]
Americans are divided over whether the Bush administration’s discussion of terrorism reflects a genuine concern or is a political tool. Half of those polled say the administration talks about the threat of terrorism to gain a political advantage; 39 percent say it is a genuine issue.
News about Iraq has captured Americans’ attention recently, with two-thirds of respondents reporting that they have paid “a lot” or “some” attention to news about the war in Iraq over the last few weeks. [****]
Complete results and methodology are available at nytimes.com/polls.
Marina Stefan contributed reporting.
Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

Posted by Kent Bolton at 08:46 AM | Permalink

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/23/AR2007072301597.html
Russia Calls Evidence in Poison Case Inadequate
Official Slams British Extradition Request
By Peter Finn
Washington Post Foreign Service
Tuesday, July 24, 2007; A11 [Russia] [former USSR] [Russia is currently awash in petro dollars] [not merely its “Near Abroad” but traditional Cold War issues] [missile defense in Poland and Czech Republic] [Putin’s image as traditional strong Russian leader, albeit undemocratic] [normative controls in former Marxist state] [foreign affairs piece that would have been targeted to a particular constituency] [the fracas with the UK over poison] [use psci 350] [use ir text] [Russia ethos] [**********]
MOSCOW, July 23 -- A British legal request for the extradition of murder suspect Andrei Lugovoy was based on a flawed, politicized investigation, a senior Russian prosecutor said Monday.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/23/AR2007072301597.html
Russia Calls Evidence in Poison Case Inadequate
Official Slams British Extradition Request
By Peter Finn
Washington Post Foreign Service
Tuesday, July 24, 2007; A11 [Russia] [former USSR] [Russia is currently awash in petro dollars] [not merely its “Near Abroad” but traditional Cold War issues] [missile defense in Poland and Czech Republic] [Putin’s image as traditional strong Russian leader, albeit undemocratic] [normative controls in former Marxist state] [foreign affairs piece that would have been targeted to a particular constituency] [the fracas with the UK over poison] [use psci 350] [use ir text] [Russia ethos] [**********]
MOSCOW, July 23 -- A British legal request for the extradition of murder suspect Andrei Lugovoy was based on a flawed, politicized investigation, a senior Russian prosecutor said Monday.
"There is no evidence in the materials provided by Britain that there was an objective investigation" of the murder case by Scotland Yard, Russian Deputy Prosecutor General Alexander Zvyagintsev told reporters here. "The Russian side has more grounds to doubt the objectivity of the British justice system."
Russia this month formally rejected Britain's request that it extradite Lugovoy, a former KGB officer, who is accused of using the radioactive substance polonium-210 to kill Alexander Litvinenko, a former Russian internal security agent and critic of President Vladimir Putin, in London in November. Litvinenko, who fled Russia in 2000, was a British citizen at the time of his death.
Britain expelled four Russian diplomats last week, a move that Russia matched as the two countries engaged in a tit-for-tat diplomatic war that has soured bilateral relations and threatens to deepen Russia's growing estrangement from the West.
In the continuing war of words between Moscow and London over the case, Zvyagintsev heaped scorn on Britain's investigation and its expulsion of the diplomats. That move was "plainly groundless, inappropriate, unjustified and lies exclusively in a political framework," he said.
Russia contends that its constitution bars the extradition of its citizens. Zvyagintsev said Monday that even without such a rule, the evidence Britain provided would have fallen far short. British officials, however, say there is constitutional leeway.
"Russia's constitution, like those of other states, is clearly capable of interpretation in the light of circumstances," British Ambassador Anthony Brenton said in an interview published Monday in the Kommersant newspaper. He said Britain was asking Russia "to work with us creatively to find a way around this impediment, given the serious and unprecedented nature of this murder. Such cooperation has not been forthcoming."
Brenton took a jab at the Russian system by pointing to apparent violations of the constitution in other spheres.
The constitution, he said, "states that economic activities aimed at monopolization are prohibited (Article 34); that people have the right to choose freely their place of residence in Russia, including in Moscow (Article 27); and that Duma deputies cannot engage in paid work (Article 97)." The Duma is the lower house of parliament.
Brenton also rejected Russian suggestions that a criminal trial could be held in Moscow. "Both the U.N. and the E.U. have stated publicly their concern that the law in Russia is applied selectively," he said.
British officials have said they will seek Lugovoy's arrest if he leaves Russia for any third country. But the suspect said in an interview on Echo Moskvy radio Saturday that he is quite content to travel only inside Russia and to spend time in Moscow, where "there is much more to do . . . than in London and Paris combined."
"I continue to travel," Lugovoy said. "In May, I was hunting and fishing on the Taymyr Peninsula. In September, we are preparing a major trip to Sakhalin. I like to be outdoors and live in tents." The Taymyr Peninsula is in Russia's far north, and Sakhalin is a large Russian island in the North Pacific.
Britain has not released the evidence it assembled to build a case against Lugovoy. Nor have officials said how much material was forwarded to Moscow to press the extradition claim. It is unclear, for example, if isotope analysis in Britain has established the original source of the polonium used to kill Litvinenko.
The vast majority of the world's polonium comes from a government-controlled nuclear complex in central Russia. [****]
According to Andrei Maiorov, deputy head of the department for high-profile cases in the Russian prosecutor's office, the origin has not been established. "Research into this is continuing, but we must keep it under wraps, unfortunately."
Lugovoy and a Russian colleague, Dmitry Kovtun, met with Litvinenko in the Pine Bar of London's Millennium Hotel on Nov. 1, and Litvinenko reportedly drank tea laced with polonium. Lugovoy and Kovtun also left telltale traces of polonium in other locations in London and on some, but not all, planes that the two traveled on in October and November last year, according to British officials.
Russian prosecutors said they were unconvinced that either man was the source of the polonium or even where or when Litvinenko was poisoned. They said that Lugovoy and Kovtun, both of whom were later treated in Moscow for exposure to polonium, should be considered victims and witnesses in the case. [******]
"Litvinenko may have been the original source for the poisoning of Kovtun and Lugovoy," Maiorov said.
He said one lead being checked by Russian investigators is a claim that Litvinenko handed Lugovoy a cellphone SIM card that was later found to be contaminated with polonium.
"Not only Litvinenko, but also Kovtun and Lugovoy, were victims of polonium-210," he said. "However, the British investigators have not assessed that fact."
© 2007 The Washington Post Company

Posted by Kent Bolton at 08:45 AM | Permalink

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/24/world/europe/24russia.html
July 24, 2007
No Basis for Trial in Poisoning, Russians Say
By MICHAEL SCHWIRTZ [Russia] [former USSR] [Russia is currently awash in petro dollars] [not merely its “Near Abroad” but traditional Cold War issues] [missile defense in Poland and Czech Republic] [Putin’s image as traditional strong Russian leader, albeit undemocratic] [normative controls in former Marxist state] [foreign affairs piece that would have been targeted to a particular constituency] [the fracas with the UK over poison] [use psci 350] [use ir text] [Russia ethos] [**********]
MOSCOW, July 23 — Russian prosecutors said Monday that they saw no basis to prosecute anyone for the killing of the former K.G.B. officer Alexander V. Litvinenko.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/24/world/europe/24russia.html
July 24, 2007
No Basis for Trial in Poisoning, Russians Say
By MICHAEL SCHWIRTZ [Russia] [former USSR] [Russia is currently awash in petro dollars] [not merely its “Near Abroad” but traditional Cold War issues] [missile defense in Poland and Czech Republic] [Putin’s image as traditional strong Russian leader, albeit undemocratic] [normative controls in former Marxist state] [foreign affairs piece that would have been targeted to a particular constituency] [the fracas with the UK over poison] [use psci 350] [use ir text] [Russia ethos] [**********]
MOSCOW, July 23 — Russian prosecutors said Monday that they saw no basis to prosecute anyone for the killing of the former K.G.B. officer Alexander V. Litvinenko.
They suggested at a news conference here that he might already have been poisoned with the radioactive polonium-210 that eventually killed him before he met in London last fall with two Russian businessmen, one of whom Britain considers a prime suspect in the case.
“We are considering a possibility that Litvinenko, having been poisoned initially, later contaminated Kovtun and Lugovoi with polonium,” said Andrei F. Mayorov, deputy director of the prosecutor general’s serious crimes unit. [****]He was referring to Dmitri V. Kovtun and Andrei K. Lugovoi, two Russian businessmen who met with Mr. Litvinenko the night he was believed to have been poisoned.
“Either they were contaminated by Litvinenko, or from a poisonous substance,” he said. “They both were victims of poisoning.”
The British prosecutors consider Mr. Lugovoi the prime suspect in the killing and have demanded his extradition. The Russians called him a witness, and Mr. Kovtun an inadvertent victim.
“Currently, we have no basis to prosecute anyone for murder, including Andrei Lugovoi,” Mr. Mayorov said.
Mr. Mayorov accused the British of selectively applying evidence in the case to serve a political agenda.
He said British detectives had failed to explain why traces of polonium-210 did not appear in places where Mr. Lugovoi and Mr. Kovtun had been before meeting with Mr. Litvinenko, [*****] like on a plane that brought them to London.
Mr. Mayorov’s colleague Aleksandr G. Zvyagintsev, the deputy prosecutor general, said evidence sent to Russia by British investigators was “wholly insufficient not only for extradition, but for the initiation of a criminal investigation of Lugovoi according to Russian law.”
“Even if the Russian Constitution had allowed for the extradition of citizens, the materials and evidence produced by the British side would have been insufficient,” he said.
The two officials said Russia would continue to investigate the killing with or without British cooperation, though they gave few details about the investigation.
Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

Posted by Kent Bolton at 08:44 AM | Permalink

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/24/world/middleeast/24briefs-hezbollah.html
July 24, 2007
World Briefing | Middle East
Lebanon: Hezbollah Can Strike Tel Aviv, Leader Says
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS [Lebanon] [followup to July 13] [middle east] [battle lines between Shiite sponsored largely by Iran and less so Syria versus Sunnis sponsored largely by Jordan, Saudi, Egypt] [also Lebanon’s Christians] [recall Lebanon orgiginally a Christian enclave] [Hassan’s Hezbollah versus recent Sunni interlopers] [here an exiled British Islamist finds comfort and less stridency—not clear why?] [*********]
The leader of Hezbollah, Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, said his militia’s rockets could reach all of Israel, including Tel Aviv. [*****]Mr. Nasrallah has previously said that the group could have fired on Tel Aviv in its war with Israel last summer. In an interview with the satellite TV network Al Jazeera, he said the war did not diminish Hezbollah’s capacity. “We could absolutely reach any corner and any point in occupied Palestine,” he said, using Hezbollah’s term for Israel. [****]An Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman, Mark Regev, called Hezbollah’s rearmament “a direct and grave violation” of the Security Council resolution that ended the war. [**********]
Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/24/world/middleeast/24briefs-hezbollah.html
July 24, 2007
World Briefing | Middle East
Lebanon: Hezbollah Can Strike Tel Aviv, Leader Says
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS [Lebanon] [followup to July 13] [middle east] [battle lines between Shiite sponsored largely by Iran and less so Syria versus Sunnis sponsored largely by Jordan, Saudi, Egypt] [also Lebanon’s Christians] [recall Lebanon orgiginally a Christian enclave] [Hassan’s Hezbollah versus recent Sunni interlopers] [here an exiled British Islamist finds comfort and less stridency—not clear why?] [*********]
The leader of Hezbollah, Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, said his militia’s rockets could reach all of Israel, including Tel Aviv. [*****]Mr. Nasrallah has previously said that the group could have fired on Tel Aviv in its war with Israel last summer. In an interview with the satellite TV network Al Jazeera, he said the war did not diminish Hezbollah’s capacity. “We could absolutely reach any corner and any point in occupied Palestine,” he said, using Hezbollah’s term for Israel. [****]An Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman, Mark Regev, called Hezbollah’s rearmament “a direct and grave violation” of the Security Council resolution that ended the war. [**********]
Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

Posted by Kent Bolton at 08:42 AM | Permalink

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/24/world/asia/24afghan.html
July 24, 2007
Confusion Pervades Afghanistan Hostage Ordeals
By BARRY BEARAK [Afghanistan] [hydra] [insurgency] [followup] [the 2007 offensive and mixed messages] [on the one hand, NATO seemed to anticipate and stymied Taliban and al Qaeda fighters on several fronts] [on other, hydra proving resilent and arguably more popular than they should be given their history] [Korean hostages who are Christian and their captures surrounded by Afghani troops] [*******]
KABUL, Afghanistan, July 23 — In two continuing hostage situations, this much seems relatively sure: Last Wednesday, the Taliban kidnapped two German engineers and five of their Afghan colleagues. A day later, the insurgents seized 23 other captives, this time South Koreans on a church-sponsored relief mission, mostly women in their 20s and 30s. [******]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/24/world/asia/24afghan.html
July 24, 2007
Confusion Pervades Afghanistan Hostage Ordeals
By BARRY BEARAK [Afghanistan] [hydra] [insurgency] [followup] [the 2007 offensive and mixed messages] [on the one hand, NATO seemed to anticipate and stymied Taliban and al Qaeda fighters on several fronts] [on other, hydra proving resilent and arguably more popular than they should be given their history] [Korean hostages who are Christian and their captures surrounded by Afghani troops] [*******]
KABUL, Afghanistan, July 23 — In two continuing hostage situations, this much seems relatively sure: Last Wednesday, the Taliban kidnapped two German engineers and five of their Afghan colleagues. A day later, the insurgents seized 23 other captives, this time South Koreans on a church-sponsored relief mission, mostly women in their 20s and 30s. [******]
Beyond that, little seems certain except that in traditional Afghan fashion, tribal elders have become involved as go-betweens in trying to broker a solution.
On Monday, Qari Yousuf Ahmadi, who has claimed to be speaking for the Taliban throughout the ordeal, said another day’s reprieve had been given to the South Koreans as negotiations continued for their release. By his account, the Taliban are now demanding freedom for all Taliban prisoners being held in Ghazni Province, where the Koreans were abducted, as well as the withdrawal of South Korea’s 210 soldiers in Afghanistan. [******]
But Mr. Ahmadi may be a spokesman who is not fully informed — or perhaps not even partly informed. Or he may be dispensing intentional lies.
On Saturday, he announced that the two Germans had been fatally shot along with their Afghan colleagues. He even gave precise times for when the executions occurred. But on Monday he took most of it back, saying that only one German was dead and that all the Afghans were alive, [****] including a man who escaped.
This newer version sounded similar to what the Afghan government has been asserting all along: that only one hostage was dead, a German who died of a heart attack.
“No, we did shoot the German,” Mr. Ahmadi insisted on Monday when his credibility was questioned. “And the other German’s situation is very bad. He has diabetes, and the German government should come forward to meet our demands.”
As reported by Mr. Ahmadi, those demands keep changing as well. He said that 10 Taliban prisoners must be freed immediately, and that all 3,000 German soldiers in Afghanistan must be withdrawn, an ultimatum that Berlin has emphatically rejected.
Whatever the demands, negotiations are taking place persistently, if not necessarily productively. “Lots of talks are going on,” said Ali Shah Ahmadzai, the police chief of Ghazni, south of Kabul. “The elders of Qarabagh District are the mediators. The problem is the Taliban side doesn’t have a single viewpoint or a person to make a decision.”
These days, “Taliban” is something of a catchall term for loosely affiliated insurgents without a singular command structure. Often, the Afghan government favors the phrase “enemies of the state.” [*******]
Khial Muhammad Hussaini, a member of Parliament from Ghazni, said he was in Qarabagh, a district in his province, to participate in talks to free the Koreans. “Government officials told me the Taliban will accept me to talk to them directly,” he said. “I called the Taliban to set up a meeting, and they didn’t show up. Then they told me to meet with the tribal elders.”
He said independent phone conversations were also going on between the Taliban and representatives of the South Korean and Afghan governments.
“It’s a very confusing situation,” Mr. Hussaini said.
Abdul Waheed Wafa contributed reporting from Kabul, and Taimoor Shah from Helmand Province.
Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

Posted by Kent Bolton at 08:41 AM | Permalink

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/23/AR2007072300156.html
17 Killed In Blasts Across Baghdad
U.S. Says Security Plan Is Succeeding
By Megan Greenwell
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, July 24, 2007; A10 [-ir] [hydra] [insurgency] [bush administration’s “surge option” or “new way forward” underway] [some positive indicators of improvement] [nevertheless, violence while surge unfolds] [pentagon’s recent status report—pretty awful but also predictable] [followup] [chaos increases] [Sunni block returns to parliament] [more violence] [*****]
BAGHDAD, July 23 -- A string of car bomb attacks left at least 17 people dead in Baghdad on Monday, many of them civilians killed by three blasts in one of the city's busiest neighborhoods. Police said 21 people died in other violent incidents across the country.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/23/AR2007072300156.html
17 Killed In Blasts Across Baghdad
U.S. Says Security Plan Is Succeeding
By Megan Greenwell
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, July 24, 2007; A10 [-ir] [hydra] [insurgency] [bush administration’s “surge option” or “new way forward” underway] [some positive indicators of improvement] [nevertheless, violence while surge unfolds] [pentagon’s recent status report—pretty awful but also predictable] [followup] [chaos increases] [Sunni block returns to parliament] [more violence] [*****]
BAGHDAD, July 23 -- A string of car bomb attacks left at least 17 people dead in Baghdad on Monday, many of them civilians killed by three blasts in one of the city's busiest neighborhoods. Police said 21 people died in other violent incidents across the country.
The violence occurred as the U.S. military continues to cite the success of the Baghdad security plan, which was launched in February when the first of nearly 30,000 additional American troops arrived in Iraq. Rear Adm. Mark I. Fox, the security plan's chief spokesman, said Sunday that the overall level of violence in the capital has been on a steady decline.
The first two bombs detonated nearly simultaneously just down the street from each other in Baghdad's Karrada neighborhood. One targeted an Iraqi police patrol, the other an outdoor market where women browsed aisles of fruit and vegetables. Three police officers and six civilians were killed, and 14 people were injured, police said.
A short time later, a third car bomb exploded in a city plaza less than a mile away, killing three people in an attack that police speculated was linked to the first two. Two of the dead were police officers passing by, authorities said.
As American soldiers sorted through the rubble left by the blasts, a fourth car bomb detonated next to the U.S.-controlled Green Zone just across the Tigris River. The blast killed an additional four people, some of whom were eating lunch at a popular kebab restaurant near the line of cars approaching a checkpoint to enter the heavily fortified compound.
A fifth blast, caused by a minibus packed with explosives, killed one person in the eastern part of the city, police said.
More than 25 people have been killed by car bombs in Karrada in the last two weeks despite the U.S. military's ramped-up security efforts across the capital. Attacks in Karrada are particularly troubling because of its location in the center of the city and its prominence as a shopping district generally considered to be one of Baghdad's safest neighborhoods.
Fox told reporters Sunday that the military is undertaking a "massive effort" to rebuild infrastructure and increase security in commercial districts of Baghdad such as Karrada and nearby Abu Nuwas Street.
"There's a feeling of momentum, of initiative here," he said. "There's definitely a feeling from a security point of view that all of these efforts are beginning to gain traction."
The number of mass-casualty bombings in the capital has declined since the additional troops arrived, according to U.S. military statistics, but smaller-scale violence has persisted. Police found 17 unidentified bodies, considered a key indicator of sectarian violence, in different areas of the capital Monday.
No group asserted responsibility for Monday's bombings.
The sectarian violence is to be one topic of discussion at a meeting Tuesday between the U.S. and Iranian ambassadors to Iraq. The U.S. military has accused Iranian operatives of arming insurgent groups, which Iran denies.
The two countries agreed over the weekend to meet to discuss the deteriorating security situation in Iraq. Tensions between Washington and Tehran have intensified over their respective roles in Iraq since a May 28 meeting.
Also on Monday, gunmen ambushed a convoy of commercial trucks near the Iranian border, killing five people and kidnapping three others, police said. A roadside bomb near another part of the border, in southern Diyala province, killed five Iraqi soldiers, according to police. And at least 11 other people died in smaller incidents.
Four U.S. troops were killed over the weekend, the U.S. military announced Monday. Three were killed by roadside bombs in Baghdad, south of the capital and in Samarra on Saturday and Sunday, while another was killed in combat in Anbar province, to the west of the city, a news release said.
Special correspondents Dalya Hassan and Saad al-Izzi in Baghdad and Saad Sarhan in Najaf contributed to this report.
© 2007 The Washington Post Company

Posted by Kent Bolton at 08:40 AM | Permalink

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/24/world/middleeast/24iraq.html
July 24, 2007
Car Bombs Kill 12 People in One of Baghdad’s Safer Neighborhoods
By RICHARD A. OPPEL Jr. and QAIS MIZHER [-ir] [hydra] [insurgency] [bush administration’s “surge option” or “new way forward” underway] [some positive indicators of improvement] [nevertheless, violence while surge unfolds] [pentagon’s recent status report—pretty awful but also predictable] [followup] [chaos increases] [Sunni block returns to parliament] [more violence] [*****]
BAGHDAD, July 23 — Car bombs ripped through what is normally one of Baghdad’s least dangerous neighborhoods on Monday morning, killing at least 12 [******] people and wounding 38. Iraqi authorities said most of the victims were people shopping at busy streetside markets.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/24/world/middleeast/24iraq.html
July 24, 2007
Car Bombs Kill 12 People in One of Baghdad’s Safer Neighborhoods
By RICHARD A. OPPEL Jr. and QAIS MIZHER [-ir] [hydra] [insurgency] [bush administration’s “surge option” or “new way forward” underway] [some positive indicators of improvement] [nevertheless, violence while surge unfolds] [pentagon’s recent status report—pretty awful but also predictable] [followup] [chaos increases] [Sunni block returns to parliament] [more violence] [*****]
BAGHDAD, July 23 — Car bombs ripped through what is normally one of Baghdad’s least dangerous neighborhoods on Monday morning, killing at least 12 [******] people and wounding 38. Iraqi authorities said most of the victims were people shopping at busy streetside markets.
The bombs struck Karrada, a largely Shiite neighborhood [****]where rents have increased in the past two years as Iraqis who can afford it have fled there from more dangerous areas of Baghdad.
The attacks appeared coordinated and broke the relative calm that sometimes prevails in the bustling area just across the Tigris River from the Green Zone, seat of the Iraqi government and the American Embassy.
The first bomb exploded in a parked car at 10:30 a.m. “It was like the earth was moving under my feet as an earthquake struck,” said Abu Ahmad, 35, a shopowner, who said the bomb sent pieces of glass shooting like shrapnel through his store. “Thanks to God I’m still alive.”
The next bomb detonated 15 minutes later in a car parked near a government building that handles identification cards. The bomb tore a large hole in the pavement and scorched nine cars.
Abid Ali Majeed, 75, a shopowner, complained that the killers should never have been allowed so close to a populated area. “I blame the police on patrol nearby,” he said. “How could they let the car park in such a place?”
As the violence unfolded in Karrada, residents of Hussainiya, on the outskirts of northern Baghdad, said American forces had imposed a vehicle ban and tightened a cordon that has left them without access to food. Hussainiya, a large Shiite district, has a major presence of Mahdi Army militiamen.
The district has been under siege, residents said, since a bloody skirmish Friday night and Saturday morning in which American aircraft attacked houses and killed as many as 18 people from several families. An Iraqi Interior Ministry official put the death toll at 15. American officials dispute those accounts and say troops used rockets and a bomb to kill six people in buildings where gunmen had taken shelter after firing on American troops.
On Monday, Hussainiya residents who fear that a big battle is looming fled the area, said one resident, Hikmat al-Azzawi, in a telephone interview. Iraqi forces were warning residents to stay inside, he said.
“The Iraqi police are telling people, ‘Don’t sleep on your roofs for your own safety, to protect yourself from bullets,’ ” he said. Many Iraqis sleep on roofs in the summer to avoid hotter temperatures in their homes.
Mr. Azzawi said American forces had banned food trucks from Hussainiya but had told residents the trucks could park just outside the district, where residents could walk to them.
A statement from the American military command in Baghdad said Iraqi vendors could take food “south of Hussainiya” and that “civilians are authorized to walk to these vendors to buy food. Donkey carts may be used, but no vehicle movement is authorized. The Coalition is also allowing civilians that need medical aid to walk to the Hamid Shaub Hospital for free treatment.”
Four American servicemen were reported killed over the weekend in central Iraq and in Anbar Province, bringing to 57 the number of American troops killed in July, according to Icasualties.org, which tracks American deaths.
The military released few details. It said one marine was killed Saturday in Anbar. Also Saturday, a soldier was killed by a roadside bomb in Baghdad and another, from the 13th Sustainment Command (Expeditionary), died when a bomb exploded near his Humvee south of Samarra. That attack wounded two other soldiers. On Sunday, a soldier from Task Force Marne, which is deployed south of Baghdad, was killed.
Other attacks struck Baghdad on Monday. A car bomb exploded near a popular kebab restaurant close to the Green Zone, killing four people and wounding six. A bomb in central Baghdad killed two people and wounded six.
Two Iraqi guards who worked for the Oil Ministry were killed in a drive-by shooting in Baghdad. And the Iraqi police found 24 corpses around the capital on Monday. Many bore signs of torture or had been shot execution-style.
Near Ramadi, where Sunni tribal leaders have worked with the American military to drive out Sunni extremists and reduce attacks, a male suicide bomber in women’s clothes approached an Iraqi police station and asked about a relative who he said had been detained. [*****]Then, as his bag was being searched, he blew himself up, killing one policeman and wounding three, the local police said.
Ali Adeeb contributed reporting from Baghdad, and a New York Times employee from Ramadi.
Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

Posted by Kent Bolton at 08:39 AM | Permalink

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/24/world/europe/24cnd-Bulgaria.html
July 24, 2007
Libya Frees Foreign Medical Workers in H.I.V. Case
By MATTHEW BRUNWASSER [Libya] [northern Africa; Maghreb; horn; broader middle east] [democratization] [odd case wherein health workers infected Libyans] [followup] [*************]
SOFIA, Bulgaria, July 24 — After more than eight years in jail in Libya, five Bulgarian nurses and a Palestinian doctor stepped off the French presidential plane here in Bulgaria’s capital early this morning [*****]where they were greeted by crying relatives and Bulgaria’s top officials.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/24/world/europe/24cnd-Bulgaria.html
July 24, 2007
Libya Frees Foreign Medical Workers in H.I.V. Case
By MATTHEW BRUNWASSER [Libya] [northern Africa; Maghreb; horn; broader middle east] [democratization] [odd case wherein health workers infected Libyans] [followup] [*************]
SOFIA, Bulgaria, July 24 — After more than eight years in jail in Libya, five Bulgarian nurses and a Palestinian doctor stepped off the French presidential plane here in Bulgaria’s capital early this morning [*****]where they were greeted by crying relatives and Bulgaria’s top officials.
They were accompanied by the European Union’s foreign affairs commissioner, Benita Ferrero-Waldner, and the wife of France’s president, Cécilia Sarkozy, who had helped secure their release and had flown with the medical workers from Libya.
In a press conference at the airport terminal, standing in front of the nurses, Bulgarian foreign minister, Ivailo Kalfin, said that the Bulgarian president, Georgi Parvanov, had pardoned the medical workers, thus ending all their legal liabilities, to the emotional applause of the waiting crowd.
“I waited so long for this moment,” one of the nurses, Snezhana Dimitrova, said on being reunited with her family, the Associated Press reported.
The release completes a rapprochement with Libya, which not long ago was largely shunned in the world community. A turning point came when it publicly abandoned a program to develop weapons of mass destruction and made payments to the families of the people who died in the 1988 Lockerbie bombing. [*****] That led to Washington restoring diplomatic ties.
Libya’s foreign minister said that Libya and the European Union agreed to develop a “full partnership” after the release of the medical workers, with the Europeans promising help for Libyan hospitals and infrastructure.
In Brussels, the European Commission president, Jose Manuel Barroso, said today the European Union would now move to normalize trade and political ties with Libya.
“We hope to go on further normalizing our relations with Libya, our relations with Libya were in a large extent blocked by the non-settlement of this medics issue,” Mr. Barroso told reporters.
The medical workers’ plight began in 1999 when they were charged with intentionally infecting 400 Libyan children with H.I.V., the virus that causes AIDS, at the Benghazi Children’s Hospital where they worked in Benghazi, Libya’s second largest city.
The Libyan leader, Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, said that the nurses had acted on the orders of the Central Intelligence Agency and Israel’s intelligence agency, the Mossad, and that their actions were part of a plot to destabilize the Libyan state. [******]
The release comes at the end of eight years of imprisonment, alleged torture to extract confessions, three trials, and two separate death sentences. Bulgaria consistently said the medical workers were not guilty.
It follows the dramatic intervention by Mrs. Sarkozy, the French president’s wife, [******]whose direct diplomatic initiative to free the medical workers over recent weeks has rattled other European Union officials in Brussels and even officials in the French foreign ministry.
The deal for the medical workers’ release included measures to improve the medical care of children with AIDS in Libya, the French presidential palace said, without giving details.
Following the release today, the French president said he would travel to Libya on Wednesday “to help Libya rejoin the international community.” He said neither France nor the European Union paid any money to Libya for the medical workers’ release.
Both Mr. Sarkozy and his wife, Cecilia, will visit Bulgaria in September, the office of the Bulgarian president said.
Libya agreed to release the medical workers only after the families of the infected children accepted about $1 million each last week in exchange for dropping their demands for the medical workers to be executed.
Under Libya’s legal code, which follows Islamic law, the families had the right to grant clemency in return for “blood money.” They had demanded $10 million for each child infected, the same amount that Libya agreed to pay each of the families of the 270 people killed in the Lockerbie bombing. [******]
The families received the $1 million payments after Bulgaria agreed to forgive Libya’s cold-war-era foreign debt, freeing the cash that was paid as compensation.
Colonel Qaddafi’s son, Seif al Islam, [****]who heads a foundation which directed negotiations between the families and the Libyan state, said that Libya provided the money, following the agreement to forgive the debt. [*******]
He said Slovakia, Croatia and the Czech Republic had also contributed by forgiving Libyan debt, making up the more than $400 million that was transferred to the families, although these countries deny the claim.
After the families of the infected children received the payments, Libya’s highest judicial council last week commuted the medical workers’ death sentences to life in prison.
That opened the way for the medical workers to be sent to Bulgaria, where they could be pardoned under a 1984 prisoner exchange agreement.
Bulgaria has a bilateral agreement with Libya that provides for citizens of one country convicted of crimes in the other to serve their sentences at home.
In June, Bulgaria granted the Palestinian doctor citizenship to make him eligible for transfer under the agreement.
”Welcome home and may there be no more big causes in the future which we need to call on our partners to help us with,” said Mr. Kalfin, the Bulgarian foreign minister, who thanked public opinion in Bulgaria and Europe, the media, and Bulgaria’s European partners for helping win the release.
Ms. Ferrero-Waldner said the release of the medical workers by Libya would improve that country’s relations with the European Union. “This decision will open the way for a new and enhanced relationship between the E.U. and Libya and reinforce our ties with the Mediterranean region and the whole of Africa,” she said.
The Libyan foreign minister, Abdul-Rahman Shalqam, told reporters in Tripoli that an agreement signed between Libya and the European Union calls for “the preparation of a full partnership” between the two countries. [*******]
He said the European Union could start to include Libya in regional trade and aid ties with other Mediterranean countries.
The medical workers and their families spoke of their relief following their release.
“I don’t want to look back, I want to look forward,” Zlatko Georgiev, a Bulgarian doctor who was also caught up in the confrontation, told reporters. He served four years in Libya, then was released but not permitted to leave Libya. He returned today with the nurses and Palestinian doctor.
“I feel wonderful, I’m happy,” said Marian Georgiev, the son of Zdravko Georgiev, one of the detained medical workers, and stepson of Kristyana Vulcheva, the nurse who was named as ringleader of the alleged conspiracy to infect the children.
He said the first thing he and his family did after leaving the airport was to visit Mr. Georgiev’s elderly parents in Sofia.
He spoke to a reporter on the phone from the presidential residence in Sofia, where he said the families were due to stay for several days “for all kinds of medical tests.” He said: “Normal life is never going to return. That which they took away from us will never come back.”
He said: "I know the French helped us a lot, and the European Union as a whole. Libya treated us like hostages. Unfortunately, Bulgaria is a small and weak country."
Gathered outside the airport gate to witness the workers’ homecoming was a small crowd of well-wishers who shouted “welcome” and “victory,” and waved flags and banners as the nurses left in vans after the press conference.
“We still feel that Bulgaria is still partly under the Iron Curtain, so this is a diplomatic victory which will let us have a little more confidence in our future,” said Nartsislav Nikolov, 40, who works in international leasing.
Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

Posted by Kent Bolton at 08:38 AM | Permalink

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/24/world/europe/24turkey.html
July 24, 2007
Hard-Line Gain in Turkish Vote Poses Challenge to Governing Party
By SABRINA TAVERNISE [Turkey] [followup] [in recent weeks Turkey has amassed tens of thousands of troops, on Turkey’s –iraqi border] [coercieve diplomacy] [Turkey’s domestic politics with Muslim PM and leading party and resistance from secular military and elites] [the upcoming elections resulted from clash of the two over past few months] [PM Erdogan’s party, who are Islamists, won big time] [not unexpected as the secular elite are associated with old, corrupt past] [whereas Islamists have been moderate and achieved success] [***********]
ISTANBUL, July 23 — The election on Sunday in Turkey gave a substantial victory in Parliament to the governing Muslim pro-Western party, which promised more moderation and prosperity. But on the margins, more hard-line sentiments surfaced, posing a potential obstacle to this country’s progress. [******]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/24/world/europe/24turkey.html
July 24, 2007
Hard-Line Gain in Turkish Vote Poses Challenge to Governing Party
By SABRINA TAVERNISE [Turkey] [followup] [in recent weeks Turkey has amassed tens of thousands of troops, on Turkey’s –iraqi border] [coercieve diplomacy] [Turkey’s domestic politics with Muslim PM and leading party and resistance from secular military and elites] [the upcoming elections resulted from clash of the two over past few months] [PM Erdogan’s party, who are Islamists, won big time] [not unexpected as the secular elite are associated with old, corrupt past] [whereas Islamists have been moderate and achieved success] [***********]
ISTANBUL, July 23 — The election on Sunday in Turkey gave a substantial victory in Parliament to the governing Muslim pro-Western party, which promised more moderation and prosperity. But on the margins, more hard-line sentiments surfaced, posing a potential obstacle to this country’s progress. [******]
The Nationalist Action Party, which appeals to voters on the far right, who fiercely defend the integrity of Turkey’s borders, received 14 percent of the vote, [***]enough to enter Parliament after failing in the past election.
The party plays on fears, which reach back to the fall of the Ottoman Empire, that Western powers seek to carve up the country. It gained momentum in recent months when militant Kurdish separatists stepped up killings of Turkish soldiers in the country’s southeast. [****]The recent surge in foreign investment into Turkey’s growing economy is also cause for alarm among its supporters.
“Our country is about to be broken into pieces, and we need to prevent it,” said a textile worker, wearing a button-down black shirt in the style of Italian Fascists often worn by hard-line nationalists here. “There are three things — my country, my flag, my prayer. I can’t let anyone touch any of them.”
The killings of an Armenian journalist and of three Christian evangelists this year were both nationalist-driven crimes. At the same time, the election swept at least 23 Kurdish candidates into Parliament, a significant victory for Kurds, nearly a fifth of Turkey’s population. They have not been represented on a national level in more than a decade, since a deputy was ejected from Parliament when she spoke Kurdish during a swearing-in ceremony.
The Kurds could not be further apart from the nationalists, and many Turks said they could not imagine how the two groups would sit in the same room, never mind hold negotiations. [******]
This is especially the case because many of the Kurdish politicians openly admire the Kurdish separatist Abdullah Ocalan, who led the militant Kurdistan Worker’s Party in a violent fight against the Turkish Army for years and who is now in a Turkish prison.
For the nationalists, Mr. Ocalan is Turkey’s top terrorist enemy. The central gimmick in the nationalists’ campaign platform was holding up a rope in a mock fight over who would get the honor of hanging him.
Despite the Kurds’ open support of Mr. Ocalan, the Kurdish deputies could be an important group for Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, whose Justice and Development Party received about 340 of 550 seats. Together they could come close to the 367 required [*****] [two thirds] to make constitutional amendments.
Kurds ran as independents to bypass a 10 percent hurdle to get into Parliament, resulting in the largest number of independent candidates in Turkish history.
Ferhat Kentel, a sociologist at Bilgi University who recently conducted a study on Turkish nationalism for the Turkish Economic and Social Studies Foundation, found that extreme nationalists are bewildered by the recent changes and unable to find a footing in the economy.
He said the nationalist party, once in Parliament, might overcome its sense of being lost and unrepresented. “Violence is the tool of the weakest political actors,” he said. “You resort to violence when you have no more words left.”
At a polling station in a nationalist neighborhood on the outskirts of Istanbul, a thin young man, a member of the nationalist party, spoke in an intense, emphatic tone on Sunday of his excitement for the party’s expected success. “Now we have pens,” he said, pulling one from his pocket and jabbing it in the air.
The Kurds may be experiencing a similar relief.
In a poor Kurdish neighborhood in Istanbul on Monday, men playing cards in a teashop agreed that the new Kurdish candidates would give voice to Kurdish woes.
“At least it’s a start,” said a man with a worried face who gave only his first name, Nurullah. “I’m more hopeful the conflict will be debated in Parliament.”
Sebnem Arsu contributed reporting from Istanbul and Ankara.
Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

Posted by Kent Bolton at 08:37 AM | Permalink

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/24/world/africa/24briefs-somalia.html
July 24, 2007
World Briefing | Africa
Somalia: 10,000 Flee Fighting in Capital
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS [Somalia] [Africa] [horn; Maghreb; broader middle east] [islamist and jihadis both challenged the transitional government back by the US and UN—West generally] [both islamist and transitional jockeying for power over past couple of years] [2006 forward, activities increased] [Kenya, Ethiopia, and US involved once islamists-jihadis began destroying transitional govt’s limited writ] [followup] [*******]
About 10,000 people fled Mogadishu last week alone, and the exodus continues, the United Nations said. Since Ethiopian forces drove out an Islamist government in December, the city has been plagued by roadside bombs, attacks on government installations, assassination attempts and gun battles [***]that often catch civilians in the cross-fire. About a fifth of the city’s two million residents fled in the spring. “It is really a horrible place to be,” said one resident, Said Dahir Haji Igal. “I have no option but to flee for the safety of my children.”
Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/24/world/africa/24briefs-somalia.html
July 24, 2007
World Briefing | Africa
Somalia: 10,000 Flee Fighting in Capital
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS [Somalia] [Africa] [horn; Maghreb; broader middle east] [islamist and jihadis both challenged the transitional government back by the US and UN—West generally] [both islamist and transitional jockeying for power over past couple of years] [2006 forward, activities increased] [Kenya, Ethiopia, and US involved once islamists-jihadis began destroying transitional govt’s limited writ] [followup] [*******]
About 10,000 people fled Mogadishu last week alone, and the exodus continues, the United Nations said. Since Ethiopian forces drove out an Islamist government in December, the city has been plagued by roadside bombs, attacks on government installations, assassination attempts and gun battles [***]that often catch civilians in the cross-fire. About a fifth of the city’s two million residents fled in the spring. “It is really a horrible place to be,” said one resident, Said Dahir Haji Igal. “I have no option but to flee for the safety of my children.”
Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

Posted by Kent Bolton at 08:36 AM | Permalink

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/24/world/asia/24madrasa.html
July 24, 2007
Red Mosque Fueled Islamic Fire in Young Women
By SOMINI SENGUPTA [Pakistan] [south asia] [followup from past weeks] [Pakistan as the new Afghanistan] [musharraf’s dangerous gambit] [attempting to balance US-West gsave against placating his traditional Pashtun, Deobandi, jihadis constituency] [Pakistan’s military and intelligence services fully infiltrated bt latter] [alqaeda’s home-turf central] [hydra] [a tipping point may have been reached in past week or two] [the infamous truce that Musharraf made with tribal leaders—on again, off again] [daily violence building toward something?] [opposition reactivated] [****]
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan, July 23 — Hameeda Sarfraz, 19, lively eyes sparkling out of a black burqa, was describing the boons of the afterlife.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/24/world/asia/24madrasa.html
July 24, 2007
Red Mosque Fueled Islamic Fire in Young Women
By SOMINI SENGUPTA [Pakistan] [south asia] [followup from past weeks] [Pakistan as the new Afghanistan] [musharraf’s dangerous gambit] [attempting to balance US-West gsave against placating his traditional Pashtun, Deobandi, jihadis constituency] [Pakistan’s military and intelligence services fully infiltrated bt latter] [alqaeda’s home-turf central] [hydra] [a tipping point may have been reached in past week or two] [the infamous truce that Musharraf made with tribal leaders—on again, off again] [daily violence building toward something?] [opposition reactivated] [****]
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan, July 23 — Hameeda Sarfraz, 19, lively eyes sparkling out of a black burqa, was describing the boons of the afterlife.
“In heaven you get everything without hardship,” explained Miss Sarfraz, daughter of a bus driver. “In heaven, if a martyr feels hungry, food appears, the best quality food, and you won’t even know where it came from.” [wow] [******]
Miss Sarfraz, an alumna of the now bullet-ridden Jamia Hafsa Islamic school for girls, says she deeply regrets missing her chance to be a martyr. She fled through the back door of the school on July 3, just hours after a gun battle began between Pakistani special forces and militants holed up in the neighboring Red Mosque, the parent institution of Jamia Hafsa.
Sentiments like hers are the fruits of a radical Islam that has blossomed in this country [****]— not just in the lawless tribal areas that American intelligence officials described as an enduring sanctuary for Al Qaeda, but here in its capital, in a mosque-and-school compound that until recently enjoyed the blessings of the state. [*******]
She presents a portrait of adolescent passion that one might find anywhere, except that she is a Pakistani girl from a poor rural family, whose members are less devout than she, and her passion is directed against the government of the president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf. Some of Jamia Hafsa’s alumnae say they still wish to die in the cause of militant Islam. [*******]
During the siege, the Pakistani military maintained that women and children had been held hostage by hard-core fighters inside the compound, but Miss Sarfraz and several others interviewed said they were free to stay or go, and some held out until near the end. The bodies of six women were recovered at battle’s end.
“I was studying there six years,” said Shahnaz Akhtar, 20, another former student who held out until the next-to-last day of the siege. “I was so attached to it. I couldn’t leave just because a dictator started bombing it. I feel more at home there than I do at home.”
Shortly before the siege began, female students had come out of the school, draped in black burqas, waving bamboo sticks and taunting troops stationed nearby. The Pakistani news media dubbed them “chicks with sticks.”
Miss Sarfraz came home two weeks ago, out of that caldron of radical Islamist fervor, Islamabad, back to the prosaic chores of a young woman in the Pakistani countryside. Home is a village perched on green terraced hills, a little more than 50 miles from the capital.
“I miss Jamia,” she continued. “My contact with books is gone. At home the only thing for me to do is take care of my parents. I clean the house. I cook.”
She and others came back with a mission to reform their families and their communities, cajoling their mothers and sisters to hide themselves in black burqas. They say they have lost interest in the pleasures of this life, though some, like Miss Akhtar, have yet to give up on pleasures like painting their toenails in dark red. They express an obsession with the afterlife. [*********]
They say they would like to see a thousand Jamia Hafsa schools bloom across the nation. Miss Sarfraz has already begun classes at home for the children in her village.
There are, indeed, already some 12,000 religious schools, called madrasas, with about one million students across Pakistan. Some, though not all, embrace militancy.
The families of these returning girls appear to be less hard-line about their faith than their daughters. They say they sent their sisters and daughters to Jamia Hafsa because it was free and safe, and enjoyed a good reputation for providing religious education.
Miss Akhtar’s family, for instance, sent her there six years ago, after she completed eighth grade and expressed a desire to further her education. Her village still has no high school for girls; the nearest one is a one-and-a-half mile walk away.
Miss Akhtar studied the Koran; the Hadith, or sayings of the Prophet Muhammad; and Islamic law. She learned of the virtues of martyrdom. “I prayed to God I would play a role in jihad,” [********]she said.
She learned to justify suicide bombings as a weapon that could be employed in the event of a battle between what she called “true believers” and “infidels.”
Would Islam allow suicide bombing inside Pakistan, an Islamic nation? She said it was possible, and then hesitated when pressed. She said she was not a qualified Islamic scholar.
The battle for the Red Mosque compound began in earnest in January when a group of Jamia Hafsa students, spurred by reports that the government planned to demolish some illegally constructed mosques and seminaries in Islamabad, including Jamia Hafsa, occupied an adjacent public library. [********]
Early that morning, Miss Akhtar recounted, the girls, armed with cane batons, pushed open the library’s back door and awakened the caretakers who were sleeping on the floor with cries of “God is great.” They threw the keys to the library onto the floor, and fled. Ms. Akhtar giggled as she described the events, and then said she had not been part of it.
In the coming months, the students, along with their counterparts from the boy’s school, Jamia Farida, abducted three Pakistani women accused of running a brothel. Then they kidnapped six Chinese masseuses working in what they also said was a brothel; they released them the next day, but it paved the way for the final confrontation.