« December 2009 | Main | February 2010 »

January 31, 2010

No sanctions for Bush lawyers who approved waterboarding, report will say

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/30/AR2010013001411.html
No sanctions for Bush lawyers who approved waterboarding, report will say
By Carrie Johnson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, January 31, 2010; A06 [Obama White House] [111th congress, 2nd session] [inherited President W. Bush TSPs and illegal enemy combatants and “enhanced-interrogation techniques” and in fairness to Bush, Obama has scarcely changed course] [AG Holder’s difficult choices on a variety of potentially criminal issues remaining from the last gang] [followup] [more evidence that the Obama folks are not settling scores (predictable)] [use psci 355, 455] [continuity] [*]
Bush administration lawyers who paved the way for sleep deprivation and waterboarding of terrorism suspects exercised poor judgment but will not be referred to authorities for possible sanctions, according to a forthcoming ethics report, a legal source confirmed. [*]
The work of John C. Yoo and Jay S. Bybee, officials in the Bush Justice Department's Office of

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/30/AR2010013001411.html
No sanctions for Bush lawyers who approved waterboarding, report will say
By Carrie Johnson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, January 31, 2010; A06 [Obama White House] [111th congress, 2nd session] [inherited President W. Bush TSPs and illegal enemy combatants and “enhanced-interrogation techniques” and in fairness to Bush, Obama has scarcely changed course] [AG Holder’s difficult choices on a variety of potentially criminal issues remaining from the last gang] [followup] [more evidence that the Obama folks are not settling scores (predictable)] [use psci 355, 455] [continuity] [*]
Bush administration lawyers who paved the way for sleep deprivation and waterboarding of terrorism suspects exercised poor judgment but will not be referred to authorities for possible sanctions, according to a forthcoming ethics report, a legal source confirmed. [*]
The work of John C. Yoo and Jay S. Bybee, officials in the Bush Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, provided the basis for controversial interrogation strategies that critics likened to torture in the years after al-Qaeda's 2001 terrorist strikes on American soil. The men and their OLC colleague, Steven G. Bradbury, became focal points of anger from Senate Democrats and civil liberties groups because their memos essentially insulated CIA interrogators and contractors from legal consequences for their roles in harsh questioning.
The reasoning, set out in a series of secret memos only months after Sept. 11, 2001, prompted a multi-year investigation by the department's Office of Professional Responsibility, which reviews the ethics of Justice lawyers. The legal source was not authorized to discuss the report's conclusions and described them on the condition of anonymity.
A draft report prepared at the end of the Bush years recommended that Yoo, now a law professor at the University of California at Berkeley, and Bybee, now a federal appeals court judge in Nevada, be referred to state disciplinary authorities for sanctions that could have included the revocation of their licenses to practice. [I think it was Bybee who was former BYU student?] [*]
But then-Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey and Deputy Attorney General Mark R. Filip blasted the analysis in the draft and sent it back to the ethics office for more work. Meanwhile, the five-year statute of limitations on Yoo's alleged conduct expired, raising doubts about whether a disciplinary referral would have had any bite. The draft report did not recommend Bradbury face sanctions, three sources told The Washington Post last year.
Upon taking office in 2009, Obama's Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. assigned the hot-potato project to his new leader of the professional responsibility office, veteran D.C. prosecutor Mary Patrice Brown. Brown took months to carefully review and revise the lengthy report, and her conclusions eventually went to a senior career lawyer in the department, according to a source with knowledge of the process.
The source said the decision to stop short of disciplinary recommendations for Yoo and Bybee fell to David Margolis, who has spent more than three decades at the center of some of the most sensitive issues at the Justice Department. Margolis's decision was first reported by Newsweek's Web site.
Representatives for Bybee and Bradbury declined to comment Saturday, as did a Justice Department spokeswoman. Miguel Estrada, an attorney for Yoo, said he had not seen the findings and thus could not remark on them.
The conclusion is likely to unsettle interest groups that have sought a reckoning for lawyers who made possible brutal interrogation, warrantless wiretapping and other Bush counterterrorism strategies. [these groups tend to want some payback but the administration cannot afford to be that reckless] [*] It could have the strongest effect on Bybee, a sitting judge whose allies had established a legal defense fund in the event that he had to fend off a lengthy state discipline and impeachment fight. © 2010 The Washington Post Co

Site for Terror Trial Isn’t Its Only Obstacle

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/31/us/31trial.html
January 31, 2010
Site for Terror Trial Isn’t Its Only Obstacle
By SCOTT SHANE [obama white house] [residual issues from President Bush’s tenure] [gsave] [federal judiciary] [America’s guests at gitmo] [gitmo detainees] [I’m a bit disappointed but certainly not surprised] [as I noted yesterday, I think this is mistake since Manhattan has the expertise] [use psci 355, 455, 469] [ones the administration conceded certain concerns, flood of others was inevitable!] [*]
For much of President Obama’s first year in office, his national security team worked to devise a secure plan to send dozens of Yemeni detainees held at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba — the largest single group at the prison camp — home to Yemen, perhaps to a rehabilitation program.
Then came the Christmas Day airliner bombing attempt, which was planned in Yemen, and the president put all transfers there on hold. [with due respect, it was already on hold as the administration slowly realized all the complications] [*]
Since November, the administration had been preparing to move the highest-profile

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/31/us/31trial.html
January 31, 2010
Site for Terror Trial Isn’t Its Only Obstacle
By SCOTT SHANE [obama white house] [residual issues from President Bush’s tenure] [gsave] [federal judiciary] [America’s guests at gitmo] [gitmo detainees] [I’m a bit disappointed but certainly not surprised] [as I noted yesterday, I think this is mistake since Manhattan has the expertise] [use psci 355, 455, 469] [ones the administration conceded certain concerns, flood of others was inevitable!] [*]
For much of President Obama’s first year in office, his national security team worked to devise a secure plan to send dozens of Yemeni detainees held at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba — the largest single group at the prison camp — home to Yemen, perhaps to a rehabilitation program.
Then came the Christmas Day airliner bombing attempt, which was planned in Yemen, and the president put all transfers there on hold. [with due respect, it was already on hold as the administration slowly realized all the complications] [*]
Since November, the administration had been preparing to move the highest-profile Guantánamo prisoners — Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and four accomplices accused of plotting the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks — to Manhattan for a federal criminal trial. [but now the admin has caved to concerns of venue in Manhattan] [see yesterday] [*]
But overwhelming opposition from New York politicians concerned about costs, disruptions and security now has the Justice Department scrambling to come up with a Plan B, even as Congress threatens to block money to pay for a criminal 9/11 trial altogether. That could force the administration to revive the very option that the president and Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. had rejected: military commissions at Guantánamo for the 9/11 plotters.
For a president who campaigned on a promise to close Guantánamo, and who just missed a self-imposed one-year deadline to get the job done, the meltdown of a potential Manhattan 9/11 trial is the latest measure of the stubborn complexity of his national security inheritance.
“It’s obviously proven a lot more difficult than a lot of us expected to close Guantánamo,” said Sarah E. Mendelson of the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, who has studied the issue intensively. She called the turnaround of Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg and other New York officials “disappointing” and the costly security plan they proposed for Manhattan excessive, given the major Al Qaeda trials held there in the past with far less disruptive procedures. [disappointing but not surprising] [*]
“We need to develop a greater resiliency in this country on security issues,” she said. “The administration needs to remind the American public that we have convicted 195 international terrorists in federal courts since 2001.”
For some who have always advocated military commissions for the 9/11 plotters, the demise of the Manhattan plan simply proved their point. “It just shows what a dumb idea it was in the first place,” said Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, in an interview Thursday. [I don’t think it was dumb] [it’s the only place the US has effectively prosecuted jihadis] [otherwise, we simply warehouse them] [*]
Mr. Graham plans to reintroduce legislation in a few days to block criminal trials for the 9/11 suspects altogether. A similar bill is already pending in the House. Two Democratic senators, Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas and Jim Webb of Virginia, joined several Republican colleagues last week in coming out against criminal trials for the Qaeda plotters, raising opponents’ hopes that Congress could make the hunt for a new 9/11 courthouse moot.
“The attacks of 9/11 were acts of war, and those who planned and carried out those attacks are war criminals,” the group of six senators wrote in a letter to the attorney general. They said that any American venue for a trial would become a terrorist target, and that military commissions were the proper way to bring terrorists to justice. [I agree that they are war criminals] [but they are also common criminals who destroyed NY and Washington] [they need to be put on trial and Manhattan was the place with experience with said trials] [*]
But administration officials note that 348 international and domestic terrorists are being held in federal prisons after they were convicted in civilian criminal trials. By contrast, in the eight years since the Bush administration first set up military commissions, only three Guantánamo detainees have been convicted, in part because of legal challenges to the tribunals. Two of the three received modest sentences and are now free. [this is what tribunals have produced] [and he neglected to mention the supreme court remanding things back to lower courts to get things right and congress having to rewrite legislation to pass constitutional muster] [*]
Mr. Obama last week restated his commitment to criminal 9/11 trials, and the Justice Department is looking at alternative sites, including some on military bases or at prison complexes. Federal venue rules provide for wide leeway in choosing a location, requiring only “a plausible connection” between the crime and the district, said Stephen I. Vladeck, a law professor at American University.
For a murder charge, federal law requires a trial venue tied to “the place where the injury was inflicted, or the poison administered or other means employed which caused the death.” Mr. Vladeck said that might arguably extend beyond the sites where the hijacked airliners crashed — New York, Pennsylvania and Virginia — to Massachusetts and New Jersey, where two of the jets took off.
For a terrorism conspiracy charge, the list of possible venues could grow still longer to include states where the hijackers lived and plotted, among them California, Maryland and Florida.
The most experienced terrorism prosecutors are in New York’s Southern District, which includes Manhattan, the Bronx and six counties north of the city. The next most experienced are in the Eastern District of Virginia, outside Washington, which also meets the jurisdictional requirements. There are numerous military installations in both districts, though most lack adequate facilities to host a trial. [*]
The same factors that created resistance to a high-profile 9/11 trial in New York City could block one elsewhere. But in Newburgh, N.Y., population 28,000 — which has drawn some attention because of its location in the Southern District and its Air National Guard base — Mayor Nicholas Valentine was undeterred by Mayor Bloomberg’s doubts and stepped forward on Friday to volunteer his city as a venue for the trial. [spounds like a possibility] [*]
“The city of Newburgh is a poor place,” Mr. Valentine said in an interview with Fox News, “and we could really use the economic stimulus that a federal program like this could bring.”
Copyright 2010 The New York Times Co

U.S. Speeding Up Missile Defenses in Persian Gulf

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/31/world/middleeast/31missile.html
January 31, 2010
U.S. Speeding Up Missile Defenses in Persian Gulf
By DAVID E. SANGER and ERIC SCHMITT [Obama white house] [Conress, 111th, 2nd session] [NSC and bureaucracy] [defense, Pentagon, others] [Iran’s actions cause US to adjust] [in late September (?) obama admini announced it was moving different direction with SA-3 missiles based on ships (see February 2008 when Navy shot wounded China satellite down with about same)] [followup] [use psci355] [cross govt] [*]
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration is accelerating the deployment of new defenses against possible Iranian missile attacks in the Persian Gulf, placing special ships off the Iranian coast and antimissile systems in at least four Arab countries, [interesting] [probably mostly a deterrent and showing flag, but who knows what else?] [*] according to administration and military officials. [should help calms some regional nerves over Iran] [beyond Israel, Sunni “Crescent”] [*]
The deployments come at a critical turning point in President Obama’s dealings with Iran.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/31/world/middleeast/31missile.html
January 31, 2010
U.S. Speeding Up Missile Defenses in Persian Gulf
By DAVID E. SANGER and ERIC SCHMITT [Obama white house] [Conress, 111th, 2nd session] [NSC and bureaucracy] [defense, Pentagon, others] [Iran’s actions cause US to adjust] [in late September (?) obama admini announced it was moving different direction with SA-3 missiles based on ships (see February 2008 when Navy shot wounded China satellite down with about same)] [followup] [use psci355] [cross govt] [*]
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration is accelerating the deployment of new defenses against possible Iranian missile attacks in the Persian Gulf, placing special ships off the Iranian coast and antimissile systems in at least four Arab countries, [interesting] [probably mostly a deterrent and showing flag, but who knows what else?] [*] according to administration and military officials. [should help calms some regional nerves over Iran] [beyond Israel, Sunni “Crescent”] [*]
The deployments come at a critical turning point in President Obama’s dealings with Iran. After months of unsuccessful diplomatic outreach, the administration is trying to win broad international consensus for sanctions against the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps, which Western nations say control a covert nuclear arms program.
Mr. Obama spoke of the shift in his State of the Union address, warning of “consequences” if Iran continued to defy United Nations demands to stop manufacturing nuclear fuel. And Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton publicly warned China on Friday that its opposition to sanctions was shortsighted.
The news that the United States is deploying antimissile defenses — including a rare public discussion of them by Gen. David H. Petraeus — appears to be part of a coordinated administration strategy to increase pressure on Iran. [public diplomacy] [*]
The deployments are also partly intended to counter the impression that Iran is fast becoming the most powerful military force in the Middle East, to forestall any Iranian escalation of its confrontation with the West if new sanctions are imposed. In addition, the administration is trying to show Israel that there is no immediate need for military strikes against Iranian nuclear and missile facilities, according to administration officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity. [all those and to calm Sunni regimes: Jordan, Egypt, Saudi] [*]
By highlighting the defensive nature of the buildup, the administration was hoping to avoid a sharp response from Tehran.
Military officials said that the countries that accepted the defense systems were Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Kuwait. They said the Kuwaitis had agreed to take the defensive weapons to supplement older, less capable models it has had for years. Saudi Arabia and Israel have long had similar equipment of their own.
General Petraeus has declined to say who was taking the American equipment, probably because many countries in the gulf region are hesitant to be publicly identified as accepting American military aid and the troops that come with it. In fact, the names of countries where the antimissile systems are deployed are classified, but many of them are an open secret.
The general spoke about the deployments at a conference at the Institute for the Study of War here on Jan. 22, saying that “Iran is clearly seen as a very serious threat by those on the other side of the gulf front.”
General Petraeus said that the acceleration of defensive systems — which began when President George W. Bush was in office — included “eight Patriot missile batteries, two in each of four countries.” Patriot missiles are capable of shooting down short-range offensive missiles.
He also described a first line of defense: He said the United States was now keeping Aegis cruisers on patrol in the Persian Gulf at all times. Those cruisers are equipped with advanced radar and antimissile systems designed to intercept medium-range missiles. Those systems would not be useful against Iran’s long-range missile, the Shahab 3, but intelligence agencies believe that it will be years before Iran can solve the problems of placing a nuclear warhead atop that missile.
Iran contends that it is not trying to develop nuclear weapons, and that its program is for energy production. The White House declined to comment on the deployments.
But administration officials who spoke on the condition of anonymity said the moves have several aims. “Our first goal is to deter the Iranians,” said one senior administration official. “A second is to reassure the Arab states, so they don’t feel they have to go nuclear themselves. But there is certainly an element of calming the Israelis as well.”
As Iran’s nuclear program proceeds — more slowly, American intelligence officials say, than the United States had once thought — Israel has hinted at various times that it might take military action against the country’s military facilities unless it is convinced that Mr. Obama and Western allies are succeeding in stopping the program. [and it may though most has been bravado, I suspect] [*]
Mr. Obama’s national security adviser, Gen. James L. Jones, took an unannounced trip to Israel this month, partly to take the temperature of the Israeli government and to review both economic and covert programs now under way against the Iranian program, according to officials familiar with the meeting. [already reported] [*]
American officials argue that the willingness of Arab states to take the American emplacements, which usually come with a small deployment of American soldiers to operate, maintain and protect the equipment, illustrates the region’s growing unease about Iran’s ambitions and abilities.
Gulf countries are also taking steps of their own to harden their defenses. Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates have bought more than $15 billion in American arms in the past two years, including missile defense systems. The United States is helping support a plan by Saudi Arabia to triple the size, to 30,000 people, of a Saudi force that protects the kingdom’s ports, oil facilities and water-desalinization plants, a senior military officer said. The Washington Post reported both steps on its Web site on Saturday.
One senior military officer said that General Petraeus had started talking openly about the Patriot deployments about a month ago, when it became increasingly clear that international efforts toward imposing sanctions against Iran faced hurdles, and the administration’s efforts to engage Iran were being rebuffed by the Tehran government. In October, the two countries reached an agreement in principle to move a significant portion of Iran’s nuclear fuel out of the country, but Iran backed away from the deal.
In discussing the Patriots and missile-shooting ships, General Petraeus’s main message has been to reassure allies in the gulf that the United States is committed to helping defend the region, said the military officer, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the delicate nature of the topic. But the general’s remarks were also a pointed reminder to the Iranians of American resolve, the officer said.
Copyright 2010 The New York Times Co

Obama admnistration takes several wrong paths in dealing with terrorism

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/29/AR2010012903954.html
Obama admnistration takes several wrong paths in dealing with terrorism
By Michael V. Hayden
Sunday, January 31, 2010; A21 [oped] [former deputy DNI and then CIA director] [Bush administration followed Negroponte] [on Obama administration’s mistakes] [interesting piece] [use psci 469] [*]
In the war on terrorism, this country faces an enemy whose theory of warfare ends the hard-won distinction in modern thought between combatant and noncombatant. In doing that for which we have created government -- ensuring life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness -- how can we be adequately aggressive to ensure the first value, without unduly threatening the other two? This is hard. And people don't have to be lazy or stupid to get it wrong. [agreed] [*]
We got it wrong in Detroit on Christmas Day. We allowed an enemy combatant the protections of our Constitution before we had adequately interrogated him. Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/29/AR2010012903954.html
Obama admnistration takes several wrong paths in dealing with terrorism
By Michael V. Hayden
Sunday, January 31, 2010; A21 [oped] [former deputy DNI and then CIA director] [Bush administration followed Negroponte] [on Obama administration’s mistakes] [interesting piece] [use psci 469] [*]
In the war on terrorism, this country faces an enemy whose theory of warfare ends the hard-won distinction in modern thought between combatant and noncombatant. In doing that for which we have created government -- ensuring life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness -- how can we be adequately aggressive to ensure the first value, without unduly threatening the other two? This is hard. And people don't have to be lazy or stupid to get it wrong. [agreed] [*]
We got it wrong in Detroit on Christmas Day. We allowed an enemy combatant the protections of our Constitution before we had adequately interrogated him. Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab is not "an isolated extremist." He is the tip of the spear of a complex al-Qaeda plot to kill Americans in our homeland. [he may be right but from my reading they interrogated him for 9 hours during which time he was chatty] [only then when FBI wanted clean interrogation team for court evidence did they mirandize] [I don’t know that it was too soon and my guess in that Hayden doesn’t either] [more his opinion than anything] [but interesting] [*]
In the 50 minutes the FBI had to question him, agents reportedly got actionable intelligence. Good. But were there any experts on al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula in the room (other than Abdulmutallab)? Was there anyone intimately familiar with any National Security Agency raw traffic to, from or about the captured terrorist? Did they have a list or photos of suspected recruits? [it was NCTC experts where fusion-interagency expertise exists, as Hayden well knows?] [*]
When questioning its detainees, the CIA routinely turns the information provided over to its experts for verification and recommendations for follow-up. The responses of these experts -- "Press him more on this, he knows the details" or "First time we've heard that" -- helps set up more detailed questioning.
None of that happened in Detroit. In fact, we ensured that it wouldn't. After the first session, the FBI Mirandized Abdulmutallab and -- to preserve a potential prosecution -- sent in a "clean team" of agents who could have no knowledge of what Abdulmutallab had provided before he was given his constitutional warnings. As has been widely reported, Abdulmutallab then exercised his right to remain silent. [I don’t know why he’s making the argument] [presumably he has friends on “inside” who think the FBI screwed up but from public records that appears to have happened many hours after interrogations?] [*]
In retrospect, the inadvisability of this approach seems self-evident. Perhaps it didn't appear that way on Dec. 25 because we have, over the past year, become acclimated to certain patterns of thought.
Two days after his inauguration, President Obama issued an executive order that limited all interrogations by the U.S. government to the techniques authorized in the Army Field Manual. The CIA had not seen the final draft of the order, let alone been allowed to comment, before it was issued. I thought that odd since the order was less a legal document -- there was no claim that the manual exhausted the universe of lawful techniques -- than a policy one: These particular lawful techniques would be all that the country would need, at least for now. [I think it was close call but I happen to think it was the right decision] [the Army field manual has been the standard for some time including most of Bush admin] [only in 2002-03 did Bush admin deviate] [recall McCain’s push for same?] [p*]
A similar drama unfolded in April over the release of Justice Department memos that had authorized the CIA interrogation program. CIA Director Leon Panetta and several of his predecessors opposed public release of the memos in response to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit on the only legitimate grounds for such a stand: that the documents were legitimately still classified and their release would gravely harm national security. On this policy -- not legal -- question, the president sided with his attorney general rather than his CIA chief. [sounds like a simple policy disagreement and I admit much of it is judgement call] [I’m not uncomfortable with the decisions] [that is, incidently how the US system works] [only if there’s extenuating circumstances does the US consider going outside of rule of law] [and I agree some cases still exist where that’s necessary but they should be rare] [e.g., US has lots of circumstantial evidence of jihadism but detainee has denied—the US cannot simply let go in lieu of proper charges to return to battle field] [*]
In August, seemingly again in contradiction to the president's policy of not looking backward and over the objections of the CIA, Justice pushed to release the CIA inspector general's report on the interrogation program. Then Justice decided to reopen investigations of CIA officers that had been concluded by career prosecutors years ago, even though Panetta and seven of his predecessors said that doing so would be unfair, unwarranted and harmful to the agency's current mission. [I thought they targeted it to only the highest level and I thought it was fine] [moreover, as we’ve seen they have essentially said there’s nothing beyond administration penalty for them] [*]
In November, Justice announced that it intended to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and several others in civilian courts for the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. The White House made clear that this was a Justice Department decision, which is odd because the decision was not legally compelled (other detainees are to be tried by military commissions) and the reasons given for making it (military trials could serve as a recruitment tool for al-Qaeda, harm relations with allies, etc.) were not legal but political. [no it was not odd] [the supreme court had twice sent the executive shots across the bow on tribunals] [and that was not a “liberal” supreme court] [thought it’s his right to employ selective information, it suggests political interests (and doubtless genuine policy differences)] [**]
Even tough government organizations, such as those in the intelligence community, figure out pretty quickly what their political masters think is not acceptable behavior. The executive order that confined interrogations to the Army Field Manual also launched a task force to investigate whether those techniques were sufficient for national needs. Few observers believed that the group would recommend changes, and to date, no techniques have been added to the manual.
Intelligence officers need to know that someone has their back. After the Justice memos were released in April, CIA officers began to ask whether the people doing things that were currently authorized would be dragged through this kind of public knothole in five years. [perhaps for weeks but it soon became clear from both AG and Obama that they were not going after people to settle scores] [on the contrary: they were going to give wide berth] [nobody in CIA is worried today and to suggest they are is, selective] [*] No one could guarantee that they would not.
Some may celebrate that the current Justice Department's perspective on the war on terrorism has become markedly more dominant in the past year. We should probably understand the implications of that before we break out the champagne. [fair enough] [*] That apparently no one recommended on Christmas Day that Abdulmutallab be handled, at least for a time, as an enemy combatant should be concerning. That our director of national intelligence, Denny Blair, bravely said as much during congressional testimony this month is cause for hope. [the implications include, that’s the US system and has been for decades if not much longer] [it worked during the intense CW with all sorts of spy intrigues and attempts to sabatoge US] [it will work, more or less, now] [*]
Actually, Blair suggested that the High Value Detainee Interrogation Group (HIG), announced by the administration in August, should have been called in. A government spokesman later pointed out that the group does not yet exist. [I agree with Hayden on this] [they should have put it in place and created some protocols as the attacks are contuining] [but I see it as bureaucratic inertia more than ideology (though some ideology too)] [what Hayden and fellow travelers fail to appreciate, in my view as a foreign policy analysts, is the incredible continuity between Bush and Obama (for that matter between Clinton and Bush) in USFP] [role] [*]
There's a final oddity. In August, the government unveiled the HIG for questioning al-Qaeda and announced that the FBI would begin questioning CIA officers about the alleged abuses in the 2004 inspector general's report. They are apparently still getting organized for the al-Qaeda interrogations. But the interrogations of CIA personnel are well underway.
The writer was director of the CIA from 2006 to 2009. © 2010 The Washington Post Co [he was also principal deputy to DNI Negroponte at the beginning of DNI and ODNI and former NSA director] [*]

It Happened in Our Backyard

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/31/opinion/31sun2.html
January 31, 2010
Editorial
It Happened in Our Backyard
[editorial] [federal courts and gitmo 7] [problems as things progress] [NYTimes jumps in again] [use psci 469] [*]
We sympathized with the concerns about security and inconvenience raised by the Justice Department’s plan to try Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the self-described 9/11 mastermind, at a federal courthouse in downtown Manhattan, a short walk from ground zero.
But caving in to political pressure and agreeing to move the trial, as The Times reported the Obama administration has decided to do, was the wrong move. [*]New York was the right place for this trial. This is where the attack occurred, and New Yorkers should have been proud to see justice done here. The United States District Court in Manhattan has a long, successful record of trying terrorists, including the ones responsible for the 1993 World Trade

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/31/opinion/31sun2.html
January 31, 2010
Editorial
It Happened in Our Backyard
[editorial] [federal courts and gitmo 7] [problems as things progress] [NYTimes jumps in again] [use psci 469] [*]
We sympathized with the concerns about security and inconvenience raised by the Justice Department’s plan to try Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the self-described 9/11 mastermind, at a federal courthouse in downtown Manhattan, a short walk from ground zero.
But caving in to political pressure and agreeing to move the trial, as The Times reported the Obama administration has decided to do, was the wrong move. [*]New York was the right place for this trial. This is where the attack occurred, and New Yorkers should have been proud to see justice done here. The United States District Court in Manhattan has a long, successful record of trying terrorists, including the ones responsible for the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. [the souther district court in Manhattan is the repository of expertise, as I noted in previous comments on same] [*]
President Obama was right to move Mr. Mohammed and four other high-profile terrorism suspects out of the jurisdiction of military tribunals. President George W. Bush’s decision to hold prisoners outside the law and then attempt to try them in rigged military courts was legally wrong, and hugely damaging to American values and this country’s global image.
Mayor Michael Bloomberg first supported the president’s decision to hold the trial in New York, but reversed field after looking at the costs of what could be a very long process. Local business leaders protested, as did politicians with a variety of motives — none really sound and some profoundly cynical.
Mr. Obama should have worked with the mayor to develop a security plan, one that limited local disruption. The federal government should have paid any additional cost. It will have to do that wherever the trial is held.
The trial must remain within the federal court system. Mr. Obama should not put it in a makeshift court on a military base and definitely should not give in to demands from the right to return Mr. Mohammed (and the four other prisoners) to the tribunals.
Trying mass murderers in a criminal court is not “soft on terrorism.” The federal courts have tried, convicted and imprisoned many terrorists. The tribunals have not held a single trial, and may never have one that Americans can be proud of.
For some Republicans, this is really about keeping Guantánamo open. Others just want to block whatever Mr. Obama wants. Representative Peter King, Republican of New York, has a particularly insidious bill that would obstruct justice by stopping the government from spending money on federal court trials for terrorists.
Dianne Feinstein, the California Democrat who heads the Senate Intelligence Committee, warned that holding the trial in New York “would only heighten media and public attention.” That one baffled us. This trial would draw attention if it were held atop Pikes Peak. And isn’t the idea of a public trial a bedrock principle of American justice?
Holding the trial in New York would be inconvenient. Democracy makes demands on its citizens. It is inconvenient to serve on a jury, too. This was just not-in-my-backyard-ism. Nearly 10 years after 9/11, it is sad if this country cannot freely conduct its business in Lower Manhattan.
Copyright 2010 The New York Times Co

Tough choices follow in wake of invasive species

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/30/AR2010013000939.html
Tough choices follow in wake of invasive species
By Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, January 31, 2010; A07 [US and elsewhere] [global] [global scientific community, such as it exists] [global climate change] [global commons] [invasive species] [use psci 350] [use ir text] [*]
Which is worse? Closing two locks on a waterway that's used to ship millions of dollars' worth of goods from the Great Lakes to the Mississippi basin? Or allowing a voracious Asian carp to deplete the food supply of native fish sustaining a Midwestern fishing industry that nets $7 billion a year?
And how do you put a price tag on the damage caused by the Burmese python and other constrictor snakes that are strangling the precious ecology of the Everglades?
Invasive species, long the cause of environmental hand-wringing, have been raising more unwelcome questions recently, as the expense of eliminating them is weighed against the

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/30/AR2010013000939.html
Tough choices follow in wake of invasive species
By Juliet Eilperin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, January 31, 2010; A07 [US and elsewhere] [global] [global scientific community, such as it exists] [global climate change] [global commons] [invasive species] [use psci 350] [use ir text] [*]
Which is worse? Closing two locks on a waterway that's used to ship millions of dollars' worth of goods from the Great Lakes to the Mississippi basin? Or allowing a voracious Asian carp to deplete the food supply of native fish sustaining a Midwestern fishing industry that nets $7 billion a year?
And how do you put a price tag on the damage caused by the Burmese python and other constrictor snakes that are strangling the precious ecology of the Everglades?
Invasive species, long the cause of environmental hand-wringing, have been raising more unwelcome questions recently, as the expense of eliminating them is weighed against the mounting liability of leaving them be.
Those questions became more urgent Tuesday when a team of scientists led by the University of Notre Dame disclosed that silver carp dominating stretches of the Mississippi River and its tributaries had infiltrated Lake Michigan. The federal government had spent $22 million on electric barriers in the Chicago Sanitary and Ship Canal to keep carp out, but it clearly wasn't enough. An additional $33 million is going into the effort next year.
A coalition of six Great Lakes states and the Canadian province of Ontario sought a preliminary injunction from the Supreme Court to shut down two major locks immediately on the grounds that an Asian carp invasion would cause "irreparable harm." The court declined to grant the injunction this month, but it will accept briefs next month on the broader question of whether to close them at all.
Army Corps of Engineers officials say it's too early to shut down the locks. They are focused on building a third electrical barrier to provide yet another obstacle to Asian carp infiltrating Lake Michigan. "It's not a silver bullet, but it's a good tool to impede the movement of the silver and bighead carp," said Col. Vincent Quarles, commander of the Army Corps' Chicago District.
But the barriers are not surefire, and experts say it's difficult to say how many Asian carp would have to make it through to establish a viable population.
Southern catfish farmers began importing silver and bighead carp from China in the 1970s to eat up algae in their ponds. Some carp escaped during flooding, and now the fish so thoroughly dominate the Illinois River that communities have annual fishing tournaments targeting them.
U.S. officials have been fighting invasive species for many years, but efforts have intensified in recent years as the impact has become clear. For instance, zebra and quagga mussels that were once restricted to the Great Lakes have moved west, clogging systems at critical dams.
In the D.C. area, state and federal officials have been waging war against the snakehead, a voracious fish that infiltrated the Potomac River and occupies 70 river miles downstream from Great Falls. Scientists first detected the fish in 2004. Now thousands swim there, posing a threat to such native species as the American shad and alewife herring.
Interior Secretary Ken Salazar announced last week that he would ban the importation and interstate trade of the Burmese python and eight other large constrictor snakes that threaten the Everglades. And he recently instructed his staff to review how Interior can better combat exotic plants and animals.
"It sometimes takes dramatic evidence to bring public attention to something that's been a problem for some time," said Tom Strickland, Interior's assistant secretary for fish and wildlife and parks.
Although the impact of these invasions can take years to become clear, researchers estimate that nationwide they cause environmental losses and damages of nearly $120 billion a year. Silver and bighead carp have enormous appetites and consume vast amounts of food that native fish depend on, and Fish and Wildlife Service senior biologist Art Roybal calls pythons "all-terrain eating machines" that have been swallowing imperiled wading birds and the nearly extinct Key Largo wood rat.
Sam Hamilton, director of the Fish and Wildlife Service, called exotic species "probably the single greatest threat in our country to our native wildlife." But despite the growing concern, some say the United States is just beginning to come to terms with a formidable environmental foe.
"It seems to me we are in denial," said Lindsay Chadderton, aquatic invasive species director for the Nature Conservancy's Great Lakes Project and one of the researchers who found the Asian carp's genetic fingerprint in Lake Michigan. "By the time we understand the severity of the problem, it's too late. Prevention is the only cost-effective way of dealing with this."
The dispute has spurred competing economic analyses. Illinois, which uses the canal system to move wastewater as well as to ship a slew of commercial goods, argued in its recent Supreme Court brief that closing locks would "have a devastating effect" on the region's economy and hamper boat rescue operations. And the American Waterways Operators, the trade association for the nation's tugboat, towboat and barge industry, estimates that closing the Mississippi locks to Lake Michigan would cost suppliers tens of millions of dollars and perhaps thousands of jobs.
Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox, who has led the legal battle to close the locks, said those numbers look modest compared with the potential collapse of the Great Lakes' $7 billion annual fishery. In his Supreme Court brief, he noted that the Army Corps stated in a report, "The prevention of an interbasin transfer of bighead and silver carp from the Illinois River to Lake Michigan is paramount in avoiding ecologic and economic disaster."
Nancy Sutley, chair of the White House Council on Environmental Quality, and several senior Obama administration officials will meet with Michigan Gov. Jennifer M. Granholm (D), Wisconsin Gov. Jim Doyle (D) and Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn (D) on Feb. 8 to attempt to broker a resolution to the Asian carp dispute.
"Keeping the numbers low is key," said Phil Moy, a fisheries and invasive species specialist at the University of Wisconsin Sea Grant Institute. He said such steps as electrical barriers buy time, "but it's not the end-all solution. We've got to move towards this ecological or hydrological separation."
For Michiganders focused on the fish encroaching on their turf, the response couldn't come soon enough. "Everywhere I go in Michigan, everyone talks about it," said Cox (R), who is now crisscrossing the state in his bid for governor. "It's on the minds and lips of everyone here, more so than health care, more so than anything else going on, outside of the economy. I thought it was the issue of the week. It's become the issue of the month."
Staff researcher Madonna Lebling contributed to this report. © 2010 The Washington Post Co

China Leading Global Race to Make Clean Energy

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/31/business/energy-environment/31renew.html
January 31, 2010
China Leading Global Race to Make Clean Energy
By KEITH BRADSHER [China] [PRC] [China’s apparent response to China’s views on climate change?] [they are jumping ahead of US and others on green technology] [followup] [iirespective of specific views on global warming, this alone should be enough to get the US into the game] [follwup] [*]
TIANJIN, China — China vaulted past competitors in Denmark, Germany, Spain and the United States last year to become the world’s largest maker of wind turbines, and is poised to expand even further this year.
China has also leapfrogged the West in the last two years to emerge as the world’s largest manufacturer of solar panels. And the country is pushing equally hard to build nuclear

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/31/business/energy-environment/31renew.html
January 31, 2010
China Leading Global Race to Make Clean Energy
By KEITH BRADSHER [China] [PRC] [China’s apparent response to China’s views on climate change?] [they are jumping ahead of US and others on green technology] [followup] [iirespective of specific views on global warming, this alone should be enough to get the US into the game] [follwup] [*]
TIANJIN, China — China vaulted past competitors in Denmark, Germany, Spain and the United States last year to become the world’s largest maker of wind turbines, and is poised to expand even further this year.
China has also leapfrogged the West in the last two years to emerge as the world’s largest manufacturer of solar panels. And the country is pushing equally hard to build nuclear reactors and the most efficient types of coal power plants.
These efforts to dominate renewable energy technologies raise the prospect that the West may someday trade its dependence on oil from the Mideast for a reliance on solar panels, wind turbines and other gear manufactured in China.
“Most of the energy equipment will carry a brass plate, ‘Made in China,’ ” said K. K. Chan, the chief executive of Nature Elements Capital, a private equity fund in Beijing that focuses on renewable energy.
President Obama, in his State of the Union speech last week, sounded an alarm that the United States was falling behind other countries, especially China, on energy. “I do not accept a future where the jobs and industries of tomorrow take root beyond our borders — and I know you don’t either,” he told Congress.
The United States and other countries are offering incentives to develop their own renewable energy industries, and Mr. Obama called for redoubling American efforts. Yet many Western and Chinese executives expect China to prevail in the energy-technology race.
Multinational corporations are responding to the rapid growth of China’s market by building big, state-of-the-art factories in China. Vestas of Denmark has just erected the world’s biggest wind turbine manufacturing complex here in northeastern China, and transferred the technology to build the latest electronic controls and generators.
“You have to move fast with the market,” said Jens Tommerup, the president of Vestas China. “Nobody has ever seen such fast development in a wind market.”
Renewable energy industries here are adding jobs rapidly, reaching 1.12 million in 2008 and climbing by 100,000 a year, according to the government-backed Chinese Renewable Energy Industries Association.
Yet renewable energy may be doing more for China’s economy than for the environment. Total power generation in China is on track to pass the United States in 2012 — and most of the added capacity will still be from coal.
China intends for wind, solar and biomass energy to represent 8 percent of its electricity generation capacity by 2020. That compares with less than 4 percent now in China and the United States. Coal will still represent two-thirds of China’s capacity in 2020, and nuclear and hydropower most of the rest.
As China seeks to dominate energy-equipment exports, it has the advantage of being the world’s largest market for power equipment. The government spends heavily to upgrade the electricity grid, committing $45 billion in 2009 alone. State-owned banks provide generous financing.
China’s top leaders are intensely focused on energy policy: on Wednesday, the government announced the creation of a National Energy Commission composed of cabinet ministers as a “superministry” led by Prime Minister Wen Jiabao himself.
Regulators have set mandates for power generation companies to use more renewable energy. Generous subsidies for consumers to install their own solar panels or solar water heaters have produced flurries of activity on rooftops across China.
China’s biggest advantage may be its domestic demand for electricity, rising 15 percent a year. To meet demand in the coming decade, according to statistics from the International Energy Agency, China will need to add nearly nine times as much electricity generation capacity as the United States will.
So while Americans are used to thinking of themselves as having the world’s largest market in many industries, China’s market for power equipment dwarfs that of the United States, even though the American market is more mature. That means Chinese producers enjoy enormous efficiencies from large-scale production.
In the United States, power companies frequently face a choice between buying renewable energy equipment or continuing to operate fossil-fuel-fired power plants that have already been built and paid for. In China, power companies have to buy lots of new equipment anyway, and alternative energy, particularly wind and nuclear, is increasingly priced competitively.
Interest rates as low as 2 percent for bank loans — the result of a savings rate of 40 percent and a government policy of steering loans to renewable energy — have also made a big difference.
As in many other industries, China’s low labor costs are an advantage in energy. Although Chinese wages have risen sharply in the last five years, Vestas still pays assembly line workers here only $4,100 a year.
China’s commitment to renewable energy is expensive. Although costs are falling steeply through mass production, wind energy is still 20 to 40 percent more expensive than coal-fired power. Solar power is still at least twice as expensive as coal.
The Chinese government charges a renewable energy fee to all electricity users. The fee increases residential electricity bills by 0.25 percent to 0.4 percent. For industrial users of electricity, the fee doubled in November to roughly 0.8 percent of the electricity bill.
The fee revenue goes to companies that operate the electricity grid, to make up the cost difference between renewable energy and coal-fired power.
Renewable energy fees are not yet high enough to affect China’s competitiveness even in energy-intensive industries, said the chairman of a Chinese industrial company, who asked not to be identified because of the political sensitivity of electricity rates in China.
Grid operators are unhappy. They are reimbursed for the extra cost of buying renewable energy instead of coal-fired power, but not for the formidable cost of building power lines to wind turbines and other renewable energy producers, many of them in remote, windswept areas. Transmission losses are high for sending power over long distances to cities, and nearly a third of China’s wind turbines are not yet connected to the national grid.
Most of these turbines were built only in the last year, however, and grid construction has not caught up. Under legislation passed by the Chinese legislature on Dec. 26, a grid operator that does not connect a renewable energy operation to the grid must pay that operation twice the value of the electricity that cannot be distributed.
With prices tumbling, China’s wind and solar industries are increasingly looking to sell equipment abroad — and facing complaints by Western companies that they have unfair advantages. When a Chinese company reached a deal in November to supply turbines for a big wind farm in Texas, there were calls in Congress to halt federal spending on imported equipment.
“Every country, including the United States and in Europe, wants a low cost of renewable energy,” said Ma Lingjuan, deputy managing director of China’s renewable energy association. “Now China has reached that level, but it gets criticized by the rest of the world.”
Copyright 2010 The New York Times Co

U.S. Deal With Taiwan Has China Retaliating

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/31/world/asia/31china.html
January 31, 2010
U.S. Deal With Taiwan Has China Retaliating
By KEITH BRADSHER [China] [PRC] [China’s response to recent Obama administration decision of demarche over China’s hacking] [US-Sino relations] [complex relationship that SecState Clinton is now trying to manage] [followup] [difficult to know whether this is China’s CYA or bottom line?] [followup] [Taiwan dilemma for US?] [China typically overreacting to defenseive armaments] [*]
HONG KONG — The Chinese government announced late Saturday an unusually broad series of retaliatory measures in response to the latest United States arms sales to Taiwan, including sanctions against American companies that supply the weapon systems for the arms sales.
The Foreign Ministry announced in a pair of statements from Beijing that some military

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/31/world/asia/31china.html
January 31, 2010
U.S. Deal With Taiwan Has China Retaliating
By KEITH BRADSHER [China] [PRC] [China’s response to recent Obama administration decision of demarche over China’s hacking] [US-Sino relations] [complex relationship that SecState Clinton is now trying to manage] [followup] [difficult to know whether this is China’s CYA or bottom line?] [followup] [Taiwan dilemma for US?] [China typically overreacting to defenseive armaments] [*]
HONG KONG — The Chinese government announced late Saturday an unusually broad series of retaliatory measures in response to the latest United States arms sales to Taiwan, including sanctions against American companies that supply the weapon systems for the arms sales.
The Foreign Ministry announced in a pair of statements from Beijing that some military exchange programs between the United States and China would be canceled in addition to the commercial sanctions. Furthermore, a vice foreign minister, He Yafei, has called in Jon M. Huntsman Jr., the United States ambassador to China, to protest the sales.
The American decision to sell more weapons to Taiwan “constitutes a gross intervention into China’s internal affairs, seriously endangers China’s national security and harms China’s peaceful reunification efforts,” Mr. He said in the ministry’s statement.
The Obama administration notified Congress on Friday of its plans to proceed with five arms sales transactions with Taiwan worth a total of $6.4 billion. The arms deals include 60 Black Hawk helicopters, Patriot interceptor missiles, advanced Harpoon missiles that can be used against land or ship targets and two refurbished minesweepers.
China has regarded Taiwan as a breakaway province ever since the Communists prevailed in 1949 in China’s civil war and the Nationalists retreated to Taiwan. The United States has been supplying Taiwan with arms under the Taiwan Relations Act, which Congress approved in 1979 and which mandates that the United States supply weapons that Taiwan could use to fend off an attack by mainland Chinese forces.
Canceling military discussions and calling in the American ambassador have been two standard Chinese measures in response to previous American arms sales to Taiwan. But the announcement of restrictions on the Chinese operations of American companies involved in the arms sales represents an unusual twist, said James C. Mulvenon, the director of the Center for Intelligence Research and Analysis, a defense analysis firm in Washington. [*]
The Foreign Ministry’s statement that mentioned the commercial sanctions was vague, providing no details on the restrictions that would be imposed on these companies’ business dealings in China or even what companies would be involved.
“We regret that the Chinese side has curtailed military-to-military and other exchanges” Geoff Morrell, the Pentagon press secretary, said, according to Reuters. “We also regret Chinese action against U.S. firms transferring defensive articles to Taiwan.”
The United States has occasionally imposed bans on exports to the United States by Chinese companies that have violated international agreements on weapons proliferation, most notably penalizing Chinese companies involved in alleged surreptitious shipments of medium-range missiles to Pakistan.
But China is going a step further in moving to penalize American companies engaged in commercial arms transactions that are publicly announced and do not violate international nonproliferation pacts, Mr. Mulvenon said.
The World Trade Organization generally prohibits the imposition of import restrictions as political maneuvers. But the body’s rules include a broad exception for national security that the Chinese could cite if the United States tried to challenge them.
China has also never joined the W.T.O. side agreement on government procurement. So China could bar the American companies from selling to the government without fear of W.T.O. review.
Copyright 2010 The New York Times Co

Political Uncertainty Grips a Russian Republic

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/31/world/europe/31dagestan.html
January 31, 2010
Political Uncertainty Grips a Russian Republic
By ELLEN BARRY [Dagestan] [Russia-Dagestan relations] [Russia’s “Near Abroad”] [former USSR] [trans-Caucasus region] [followup] [here and round central asia a fair bit of jihadis activities] [hydra] [*]
MAKHACHKALA, Russia — Last week here in the capital of the southern republic of Dagestan, the wind whipped uncollected garbage in every direction and tens of thousands of citizens lost heat, electricity and water.
The traffic police, fearful of another suicide bombing, sealed off the neighborhood before holding their routine troop reviews. The vice speaker of Dagestan’s parliament narrowly escaped an attack with automatic weapon fire from a passing car. [*]
In other words, nothing out of the ordinary.
Pressure has been rising steadily in Dagestan, where clan wars intersect with a growing

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/31/world/europe/31dagestan.html
January 31, 2010
Political Uncertainty Grips a Russian Republic
By ELLEN BARRY [Dagestan] [Russia-Dagestan relations] [Russia’s “Near Abroad”] [former USSR] [trans-Caucasus region] [followup] [here and round central asia a fair bit of jihadis activities] [hydra] [*]
MAKHACHKALA, Russia — Last week here in the capital of the southern republic of Dagestan, the wind whipped uncollected garbage in every direction and tens of thousands of citizens lost heat, electricity and water.
The traffic police, fearful of another suicide bombing, sealed off the neighborhood before holding their routine troop reviews. The vice speaker of Dagestan’s parliament narrowly escaped an attack with automatic weapon fire from a passing car. [*]
In other words, nothing out of the ordinary.
Pressure has been rising steadily in Dagestan, where clan wars intersect with a growing Islamic fundamentalism and a deepening sense of public alienation. All those threats factor into a question the Kremlin has to answer in the coming days: Who, in the labyrinth of Dagestani politics, will bring peace if he is named president? [*]
Ten years ago, Vladimir V. Putin, then Russia’s president, cemented his hold on Russian politics by showing he could bring the Caucasus to heel. The mechanism was force; after a second war against Chechnya’s separatists, he installed a strongman, Ramzan A. Kadyrov, as president and granted him the power to crush internal opposition. But a year of rising violence in the region has made it clear that Moscow’s control is more tenuous than it seemed. [*]
Nowhere is this more obvious than in Dagestan, where militants have stepped up their attacks while clan groupings have fought, sometimes murderously, over the republic’s resources. [*]
“With Chechnya, the main headache is a strong leader who is not controllable, but at least he is in charge,” said Pavel K. Baev, a senior researcher at the International Peace Research Institute, which is based in Oslo. “In Dagestan, the problem is that there is a loss of control that is moving toward violence of another kind, which is stronger and stronger, and spiced with Islamic fundamentalism.”
“There is no other kind of order,” Mr. Baev said. “Only the fundamentalists can present themselves as honest men.”
Dagestan, one of the most heavily subsidized of Russia’s regions, should be able to support itself. It has oil and gas reserves, like neighboring Azerbaijan, and once lucrative vineyards and fisheries. The sandy coastline itself, stretching 250 miles along the Caspian Sea, should be a moneymaker in a beach-starved colossus like Russia.
But the beaches around Makhachkala (pronounced ma-HACH-ka-la), a city of 466,000, offer a primer in what has gone wrong. Tycoons have chopped up much of the coast for private mansions, and local residents complain that the public beaches that remain are too dirty and ill kept to enjoy. As for tourists, Makhachkala’s mayor, Said D. Amirov — who now uses a wheelchair as a result of an assassination attempt — put it this way: “You can’t develop tourism when you have a murder every day.”
There has always been competition for power in Dagestan, which is cobbled together out of more than 30 ethnic groups, but with the Soviet collapse it turned violent. [*]The first time an official was assassinated, in 1992, people were so outraged that thousands demonstrated to demand that the killers be punished. Over the next decade, though, killings of officials, religious leaders, lawyers, journalists and police officers became commonplace.
In a republic of 2.5 million people — roughly the population of Brooklyn — armored cars and bodyguards have become so standard that Magomed-Rasul M. Omarov did a double take recently when he noticed the agriculture minister walking down the street without a security detail. It was a sight he had not seen for years.
“He looks like a white crow,” said Mr. Omarov, who works as press secretary for the mufti of Dagestan, whose deputy died from a gunshot to the head last May.
“People have no hope in law enforcement or in other protection or in justice anymore,” he said. “If one case was brought to justice, you could say there was some hope.”
It falls to Dmitri A. Medvedev, Russia’s president, to try to calm the waters. [*]The first term of Dagestan’s president, Mukhu G. Aliyev, ends on Feb. 20. At the time of his appointment, Mr. Aliyev raised great hopes in a populace furious over corruption; a longtime Communist Party figure, he was known for steadfastly refusing bribes and lived, famously, in a modest three-room apartment.
But four years later, Mr. Aliyev’s critics say he has been too weak to control the factions beneath him. [*]It is clear that the calm of his early presidency is gone. Three hundred people died in violent attacks in Dagestan in 2009 — more than in either the nearby republics of Ingushetia or Chechnya — and the number of attacks were more than double the 2008 figure, according to statistics compiled by the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
“Everybody understands that his time is ending,” said Marko Shakhbanov, editor in chief of Novoye Delo, a newspaper that has been critical of Mr. Aliyev’s government. “He is a good person, but a good person is not a profession.”
Mr. Medvedev could reappoint Mr. Aliyev, 69, or choose a new face like Magomed I. Abdullayev, 48, a deputy prime minister who, like Mr. Medvedev, studied and lectured at the law department of St. Petersburg University. Uncertainty over the question has gripped Makhachkala since mid-November, and some complain that it fueled a spike in violence in December and January.
Mr. Medvedev “is making decisions on several governors, but this is one of the most complicated of all,” Mr. Baev, the researcher, said. “In Moscow, they cannot pay much attention to the fact that it’s destabilizing, it’s eroding, it’s getting worse. They don’t know what to do.”
The stakes are great, he said, because public disgust over corruption is driving young people to embrace fundamentalism.
Zaipul S. Osmanov, who works in a Makhachkala employment center, said he has watched in bafflement as his neighbor’s sons — children he has known since they were born — disappeared into “the forest,” as people here refer to underground militant networks. The oldest disappeared for a year. Mr. Osmanov heard he was studying abroad, and when he returned, “the second brother was infected.”
The first was killed in July, and his brother in October — Mr. Osmanov did not know how, but he said he assumed that they were killed in a suicide operation or a police raid. His neighbor has two surviving sons, still in their teens, but Mr. Osmanov expects to hear the same news about them before too long.
“I don’t think they have a way to retreat,” he said. “There is no way back from the forest.”[when men go off to join the insurgents, the metaphor is to the forest] [*]
Copyright 2010 The New York Times Co

North Korean Arms Shipment Said to Be for Iran

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/31/world/asia/31korea.html
January 31, 2010
North Korean Arms Shipment Said to Be for Iran
By REUTERS [DPRK] [North Korea] [US and 6-way talks] [SPRK-US relations] [I’m not sure most Americans understand how hair-trigger things are in peninsula?] [the slow but perhaps inexorable process toward substantive talks?] [missiles to Iran for hard currency?] [followup] [*]
UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) — A shipment of weapons from North Korea seized by Thai authorities last month were headed for Iran, according to a confidential report the Thai government sent to a United Nations Security Council committee. [*]
Thai authorities seized more than 35 tons of arms from a plane they said had come from North Korea, and arrested its five crew members after an emergency landing in Bangkok in

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/31/world/asia/31korea.html
January 31, 2010
North Korean Arms Shipment Said to Be for Iran
By REUTERS [DPRK] [North Korea] [US and 6-way talks] [SPRK-US relations] [I’m not sure most Americans understand how hair-trigger things are in peninsula?] [the slow but perhaps inexorable process toward substantive talks?] [missiles to Iran for hard currency?] [followup] [*]
UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) — A shipment of weapons from North Korea seized by Thai authorities last month were headed for Iran, according to a confidential report the Thai government sent to a United Nations Security Council committee. [*]
Thai authorities seized more than 35 tons of arms from a plane they said had come from North Korea, and arrested its five crew members after an emergency landing in Bangkok in December.
The report to the Council’s North Korea sanctions committee, seen by Reuters on Saturday, said the shipment included rockets, fuses, rocket launchers and rocket-propelled grenades.
Copyright 2010 The New York Times Co

A Look at America’s New Hope: The Afghan Tribes

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/31/weekinreview/13rohde.html
January 29, 2010
A Look at America’s New Hope: The Afghan Tribes
By RUHULLAH KHAPALWAK and DAVID ROHDE [Afghanistan] [hydra] [began in Afghanistan, but moved to Pakistan] [AfPak] [2009’s substantial pickup in Taliban and other insurgencies] [spring offensive turned into major effort throughout year] [now winter snows are slowing down in typical yearly fashion] [by time snow begins to melt, most of the “surge” will be in place] [use psci 469] [the recent report of Pashtun tribals flipping to US side a la Sunni Awakening (Iraq)] [followup] [*]
For three decades now, Communism, civil war and Islamic fundamentalism have laid siege to Afghanistan’s tribes. In many ways, Afghanistan’s tribal structure is arguably the weakest it has been in the country’s history.
Nonetheless, American civilian and military leaders are turning to some of these tribes as

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/31/weekinreview/13rohde.html
January 29, 2010
A Look at America’s New Hope: The Afghan Tribes
By RUHULLAH KHAPALWAK and DAVID ROHDE [Afghanistan] [hydra] [began in Afghanistan, but moved to Pakistan] [AfPak] [2009’s substantial pickup in Taliban and other insurgencies] [spring offensive turned into major effort throughout year] [now winter snows are slowing down in typical yearly fashion] [by time snow begins to melt, most of the “surge” will be in place] [use psci 469] [the recent report of Pashtun tribals flipping to US side a la Sunni Awakening (Iraq)] [followup] [*]
For three decades now, Communism, civil war and Islamic fundamentalism have laid siege to Afghanistan’s tribes. In many ways, Afghanistan’s tribal structure is arguably the weakest it has been in the country’s history.
Nonetheless, American civilian and military leaders are turning to some of these tribes as potentially their best hope for success against the resurgent Taliban after being frustrated by the weak central leadership of President Hamid Karzai. [*]
Tribes have existed for millennia in the area that is present-day Afghanistan. They emerged over centuries in various sections of the country, taking form along extended kinship lines. Led by councils of elders, tribes provided their members with protection, financial support, a means to resolve disputes, and punishment of those who had committed crimes or broken tribal codes of conduct.
For Pashtuns, the country’s largest ethnic group and the Taliban’s primary source of support, tribes are particularly important. Successfully turning Pashtun tribes against the Taliban — or perhaps families or sub-tribes if they deal with the government on their own — could deliver a serious blow to the insurgency and potentially create a means of stabilizing the long-suffering country.
Some Afghans, though, warn that the tribal system is not a panacea and fear that the United States is adopting a quick-fix approach that will not create long-term stability. They see the tribes as inherently anachronistic, sexist and corrupt — a system that further undermines the already extraordinarily difficult task of creating multiethnic, merit-based national institutions. They warn that the country would be thrown into the hands of myriad tribal militias that the central government could never control.
Last week, the importance of the tribes to American strategy became clear when the leaders of the Shinwari tribe in eastern Afghanistan agreed to work with the government and forbid cooperation with the Taliban. The pact was announced as a major first step for the American effort to win over the tribes.
It was not the first time outsiders have turned to Afghanistan’s tribes as allies and surrogates. The British, who fought Russia for control of the region in the 19th century, brought with them a practice of enlisting local leaders. After the British departed, Afghan kings in Kabul relied on the tribal structure to maintain stability and order in remote areas. [*]
But then came Communism in the mid-1970s, which viewed tribes as archaic obstacles to social progress and, most important, as a potential threat to party leaders’ hold on power. Hundreds of tribal elders were taken from their homes and killed in a series of brutal crackdowns.
At the same time, the United States, backed by the Saudi and Pakistani governments, unleashed its own assault on Afghanistan’s tribes. American-backed Wahhabi fundamentalism created hundreds of thousands of young mujahadeen “holy warriors” to attack Soviet troops in Afghanistan. Religiously indoctrinated and flush with American cash, these young Afghan fighters viewed Muslim clerics and mujahadeen commanders — not tribal elders — as their true leaders.
Once the Soviets left — and in turn the Americans — mujahadeen commanders turned on each other and the Taliban emerged as a force that, though repressive, at least provided law and order. The Taliban emphasized Islam as the organizing principle for society and government, not tribes. Across the country, little-known Muslim clerics ran government ministries, provinces and cities. Tribal elders were again ignored.
Since being toppled in 2001, the Taliban have mercilessly targeted tribal elders who support the Karzai government, apparently viewing them as one of their greatest potential rivals. At the same time, President Karzai’s weak government has struggled to protect and strengthen tribal elders, hundreds of whom have been killed in assassinations and bomb attacks.
One hallmark of the American agreement with the Shinwari tribe is that $1 million in American development aid will go directly to Shinwari elders. The money will bypass Karzai government officials, whom Shinwari elders dismiss as corrupt and ineffective. [so do many American advisers] [bypassing was inevitable eventually] [*]
Here is a rough picture of Afghanistan’s traditional tribal structure and its leading tribes, as well as a description of how a reinvigorated tribal system — in theory — should work.

Missile Strikes Kill 15 in Pakistani Tribal Region, Officials Say

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/31/world/asia/31pstan.html
January 31, 2010
Missile Strikes Kill 15 in Pakistani Tribal Region, Officials Say
By PIR ZUBAIR SHAH [Pakistan as central hub in AfPak wheel] [AfPak] [even as US commits much money and support to Pakistan’s govt] [mounting evidence that some of the more important insitutions in said govt—military and ISI—are fickle friends at best] [use psci 469] [another UAV attack] [use psci 469] [*]
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — Three missiles believed to have been fired from American drones killed 15 militants in North Waziristan late Friday night, Pakistani security officials said Saturday. The target of the strike was a compound in the Mamad Khel area of North Waziristan, the officials said.
Four Arab and two ethnic Uzbek fighters were killed, along with local militants, [with all the caveats from past comments in mind, at least it was foreign fighters] [*] a security official

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/31/world/asia/31pstan.html
January 31, 2010
Missile Strikes Kill 15 in Pakistani Tribal Region, Officials Say
By PIR ZUBAIR SHAH [Pakistan as central hub in AfPak wheel] [AfPak] [even as US commits much money and support to Pakistan’s govt] [mounting evidence that some of the more important insitutions in said govt—military and ISI—are fickle friends at best] [use psci 469] [another UAV attack] [use psci 469] [*]
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — Three missiles believed to have been fired from American drones killed 15 militants in North Waziristan late Friday night, Pakistani security officials said Saturday. The target of the strike was a compound in the Mamad Khel area of North Waziristan, the officials said.
Four Arab and two ethnic Uzbek fighters were killed, along with local militants, [with all the caveats from past comments in mind, at least it was foreign fighters] [*] a security official said. Four militants were wounded.
Drone attacks in the region have increased significantly since the Dec. 30 suicide bombing attack at a C.I.A. base in Khost, Afghanistan, which borders Pakistan’s North Waziristan region. Seven Americans and a Jordanian were killed in that attack.
American officials say North Waziristan is the main haven for militants from Al Qaeda and for the Afghan Taliban leader Sirajuddin Haqqani. [*]He is closely allied with the leader of the Pakistani Taliban, Hakimullah Mehsud, who claimed responsibility for the Khost bombing.
Drone attacks are controversial in Pakistan, whose officials argue publicly that the attacks violate their sovereignty. Privately those officials do not oppose the strikes, which many United States officials say have been effective in weakening the Taliban and Al Qaeda by killing many of their senior leaders.
Separately, at least 16 people were killed Saturday and dozens wounded in a suicide attack on a checkpoint in the main market of Khar, the capital of the Bajaur tribal area, according to local residents and Pakistani news reports.
Copyright 2010 The New York Times Co

The Jihadist Next Door

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/31/magazine/31Jihadist-t.html
January 31, 2010
The Jihadist Next Door
By ANDREA ELLIOTT [global jihadis] [AfPak?] [global jihadi phenomenon and recruitment] [who is vulnerable to al Qaeda’s and others’ recruitment?] [we’ve previously seen 2nd and 3rd generation immigrants from Europe and thought Europe’s general lack of assimilation likely responsible?] [now, we are seeing multiple cases in US where immigrants tend to be much more assimilated] [wjy?] [use psci 469] [cross in societal] [*]
ON A WARM, cloudy day in the fall of 1999, the town of Daphne, Ala., stirred to life. The high-school band came pounding down Main Street, past the post office and the library and Christ the King Church. Trumpeters in gold-tasseled coats tipped their horns to the sky, heralding the arrival of teenage demigods. The star quarterback and his teammates came first in the parade, followed by the homecoming queen and her court. Behind them, on a float bearing leaders of the student government, a giddy mop-haired kid tossed candy to the crowd.
Omar Hammami had every right to flash his magnetic smile. He had just been elected

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/31/magazine/31Jihadist-t.html
January 31, 2010
The Jihadist Next Door
By ANDREA ELLIOTT [global jihadis] [AfPak?] [global jihadi phenomenon and recruitment] [who is vulnerable to al Qaeda’s and others’ recruitment?] [we’ve previously seen 2nd and 3rd generation immigrants from Europe and thought Europe’s general lack of assimilation likely responsible?] [now, we are seeing multiple cases in US where immigrants tend to be much more assimilated] [wjy?] [use psci 469] [cross in societal] [*]
ON A WARM, cloudy day in the fall of 1999, the town of Daphne, Ala., stirred to life. The high-school band came pounding down Main Street, past the post office and the library and Christ the King Church. Trumpeters in gold-tasseled coats tipped their horns to the sky, heralding the arrival of teenage demigods. The star quarterback and his teammates came first in the parade, followed by the homecoming queen and her court. Behind them, on a float bearing leaders of the student government, a giddy mop-haired kid tossed candy to the crowd.
Omar Hammami had every right to flash his magnetic smile. He had just been elected president of his sophomore class. He was dating a luminous blonde, one of the most sought-after girls in school. He was a star in the gifted-student program, with visions of becoming a surgeon. For a 15-year-old, he had remarkable charisma. [in short, he was the personification of assimilation in the US] [*]
Despite the name he acquired from his father, an immigrant from Syria, Hammami was every bit as Alabaman as his mother, a warm, plain-spoken woman who sprinkles her conversation with blandishments like “sugar” and “darlin’.” Brought up a Southern Baptist, Omar went to Bible camp as a boy and sang “Away in a Manger” on Christmas Eve. As a teenager, his passions veered between Shakespeare and Kurt Cobain, soccer and Nintendo. In the thick of his adolescence, he was fearless, raucously funny, rebellious, contrarian. “It felt cool just to be with him,” his best friend at the time, Trey Gunter, said recently. “You knew he was going to be a leader.” [*]
A decade later, Hammami has fulfilled that promise in the most unimaginable way. Some 8,500 miles from Alabama, on the eastern edge of Africa, he has become a key figure in one of the world’s most ruthless Islamist insurgencies. [*]That guerrilla army, known as the Shabab, is fighting to overthrow the fragile American-backed Somali government. [another kid to Somalia] [only this one has no ties to Somalia] [mother a southerner and his father was Syrian immigrant!] [*] The rebels are known for beheading political enemies, chopping off the hands of thieves and stoning women accused of adultery. With help from Al Qaeda, they have managed to turn Somalia into an ever more popular destination for jihadis from around the world.
More than 20 of those fighters have come from the United States, many of them young Somali-Americans from a gritty part of Minneapolis. But it is Hammami who has put a contemporary face on the Shabab’s medieval tactics. In a recent propaganda video viewed by thousands on YouTube, he is shown leading a platoon of gun-toting rebels as a soundtrack of jihadi rap plays in the background. [*]
He is identified by his nom de guerre, Abu Mansoor Al-Amriki, [*]“the American,” and speaks to the camera with a cool, almost eerie confidence. “We’re waiting for the enemy to come,” Hammami whispers, a smile crossing his face. Later he vows, “We’re going to kill all of them.”
In the three years since Hammami made his way to Somalia, his ascent into the Shabab’s leadership has put him in a class of his own, according to United States law-enforcement and intelligence officials. [*]While other American terror suspects have drawn greater publicity, Hammami exercises a more powerful role, commanding guerrilla forces in the field, organizing attacks and plotting strategy with Qaeda operatives, the officials said. He has also emerged as something of a jihadist icon, starring in a recruitment campaign that has helped draw hundreds of foreign fighters to Somalia. [*]“To have an American citizen that has risen to this kind of a rank in a terrorist organization ¬— we have not seen that before,” a senior American law-enforcement official said earlier this month.
Not long ago, the threat of American-bred terrorists seemed a distant one. [actually, Adam Gadahn is top propagandist for al Qaeda central] [but rare] [*] Law-enforcement officials theorized that Muslims in the United States — by comparison with many of their European counterparts — were upwardly mobile, socially integrated and therefore less susceptible to radicalization. Perhaps the greatest proof of this came with the absence of domestic terrorist attacks following 9/11, a period that has brought Europe devastating homegrown hits in Madrid and London. [at least that was the conventional wisdom] [*]
America is now at a watershed. In the last year, at least two dozen men in the United States have been charged with terrorism-related offenses. They include Najibullah Zazi, the Afghan immigrant driver in Denver who authorities say was conspiring to carry out a domestic attack; David Coleman Headley, a Pakistani-American from Chicago who is suspected of helping plan the 2008 attacks in Mumbai; and the five young men from Virginia who, authorities say, sought training in Pakistan to fight American soldiers in Afghanistan. [**]
These cases have sent intelligence analysts scurrying for answers. The American suspects come from different backgrounds and socioeconomic strata, but they share much in common with Europe’s militants: they tend to be highly motivated, even gifted people who were reared in the West with one foot in the Muslim world. Others may see them as rigid or zealous, but they envision themselves as deeply principled, possessing what Robert Pape, a professor at the University of Chicago, calls “an altruism gone wildly wrong.” [*]While their religious piety varies, they are most often bonded by a politically driven anger that has deepened as America’s war against terrorism endures its ninth year.
The presence of Western troops in Afghanistan and Iraq has brought those conflicts closer for many Muslims in America. Through satellite television and the Internet, the distance between here and there — between Fort Hood, Tex., and Yemen, between Daphne, Ala., and Somalia — has narrowed. For Omar Hammami, the war in Iraq provided a critical spark as he turned toward militancy.
In an e-mail message in December, Hammami responded to questions, submitted to him through an intermediary, about his personal evolution and political views. “We espouse the same creed and methodology of Al Qaeda,” he wrote. Of Osama bin Laden, he said, “All of us are ready and willing to obey his commands.” Did Hammami, like bin Laden, consider America a legitimate target for attack? “It’s quite obvious that I believe America is a target,” he wrote. [difficult to fathom?] [*]
OMAR HAMMAMI’S SISTER, Dena, is a petite 28-year-old woman with silky brown hair and a graceful manner. She lives with her husband and their baby daughter in an airy house overlooking a small American city, which she asked that I not identify for their protection. The walls are decorated with Dena’s whimsical paintings, which draw inspiration from Kandinsky. Wind chimes dangle over the front porch, by a sign that reads, “Hippies use side door.”
One morning in September, she was sitting in her kitchen when she opened her laptop, logged on to Facebook and saw a message that read, “Rolling farting leotard.” Her heart began to race.
Years earlier, Dena had put a note in her little brother’s school binder, trying to crack him up. She told him to picture a fat girl in a leotard, rolling across the floor and passing gas. It had become one of their many inside jokes. Now, she realized, it was her brother’s way of reaching out from Somalia, of saying, “It’s really me.” He had created a fictitious Facebook profile, listing his alma maters as Stanford and Harvard. [*]
“Things are pretty good,” he wrote. He and his new Somali wife (“the wifey,” he called her) had a baby girl. “Sometimes marriage is up,” he wrote. “Sometimes it’s down. The lifestyle is not exactly normal for most.”
Hammami wouldn’t say where he was, but he urged Dena not to worry about him. He was prepared to meet death, he said. “I don’t do anything too dangerous except once every month or so,” he added. “It’s all in God’s hands.” [*]
Hammami’s life in Somalia appears to be more precarious than he let on. He spends much of his time shuttling between villages in southern Somalia, where many of the Shabab’s camps are based, according to Somali intelligence officials. In addition to his role as a military tactician, they said, Hammami helps guide the Shabab’s recruitment strategy and management of money — exercising surprising power after landing in Somalia as a 22-year-old rookie. The Somali government is seeking increased American aid to fight the Shabab and may have reason to play up the threat of foreigners like Hammami. [*]But they were adamant about his role. “This guy is dangerous,” says Abdullahi Mohamed Ali, the Somali minister of national security. “He’s a threat to the region. I want him to be eliminated.”
When Hammami engages in combat, he makes an impression on other militants, said a former Shabab commander, Sheikh Mohamed Sheikh Abdullahi Sheikh Mohamed. “He doesn’t blink in the face of the enemy,” said Mohamed, who recalled four battles in 2008 and 2009 in which he and Hammami took part. In combat, Hammami used a sharpshooter’s rifle, firing calmly and with precision, said Mohamed, who spoke to me by telephone this month from a government compound in Mogadishu after defecting to the government’s side. Somali officials said they were keeping him there for his protection.
Until recently, the few visible images of American jihadis were of young men on the margins: John Walker Lindh, a Californian loner who wandered into Afghanistan to join the Taliban; or Adam Gadahn, now a Qaeda spokesman, [*]who grew up home-schooled on a goat farm and channeled his teenage energies into death-metal music. If Omar Hammami followed his own compass, others followed him. Years later, more than one of his classmates compared him to the incongruous high-school hero of the 1986 film “Ferris Bueller’s Day Off.”
Hammami’s journey from a Bible Belt town in America to terrorist training camps in Somalia was pieced together from interviews with his parents, sister, best friends and law-enforcement officials, as well as hours of home videos and passages from his e-mail messages, journal entries and hundreds of his postings on an Internet forum. If anything has remained a constant in Hammami’s life, it is his striving for another place and purpose, which flickered in a poem he wrote when he was 12:
“My reality is a bore. I wish, I want, I need the wall to fall and the monster to let me pass, the leash to snap, the chains to break. . . .
“I’ve got a taste of glory, the ticket, but where is my train?” [*]
DAPHNE SITS ALONG Alabama’s serene Mobile Bay, just north of the Gulf of Mexico. The town seems stopped in time. Colonial-style cottages and gazebos dot the bluffs. The wide, blacktopped streets are shaded by pecan trees and Southern maples. At dusk, the tide slaps the docks as fishermen loll, casting silhouettes against a golden sky.
Shafik Hammami was searching for a quiet American town when he left Syria in 1972. He was reared in Damascus, the oldest of nine children whose father ran an import-export business. [his father’s biography] [*] Shafik wanted to study medicine and heard that small colleges in less-populated parts of the United States were best suited for immigrants, “so you don’t get lost in the shuffle,” he told me recently. By chance, a translator working in Damascus handed him a brochure for Faulkner State Community College in Bay Minette, not far from Daphne. He looked no farther.
At Faulkner, Shafik, then 20, stuck close to the handful of other Middle Eastern students, part of a wave of Arab immigrants who were ushered into the United States by looser immigration laws. With wavy black hair and halting English, he stood out in a place that was historically suspicious of outsiders. One evening, while driving through nearby Mobile, he came upon a group of men wearing white cones on their heads and asking for money, his first brush with the Ku Klux Klan.
But Alabama’s conservative Christian culture agreed with him. Most of the women he encountered didn’t drink or smoke. Those were the first things he liked about Debra Hadley, a perky high-school senior he met through friends. The daughter of a butcher, she had rosy cheeks and a fluttering laugh and rarely missed a Sunday service. Soon Debra and Shafik were engaged.
It did not violate Shafik’s Muslim faith to marry a Christian. Debra got her mother’s blessing after promising never to convert to Islam. They had a church wedding, followed by a Muslim ceremony in the reception hall. They each wondered if, eventually, the other might cede ground.
By the time Omar was born eight years later, his parents and sister had moved into a ranch house in Daphne, a town of 19,000 where cotton fields have given way to subdivisions with names like Plantation Hills. Shafik had become a civil engineer and was working at the Department of Transportation. Debra taught elementary school.
The first years of Omar’s life followed the cues of his mother’s Southern upbringing. Freckled and blond, he answered to Omie. He spent summer afternoons on his grandparents’ farm in nearby Perdido, shelling peas and eating watermelon on the porch. He lost himself in “Tom Sawyer.” His uncles taught him to hunt deer.
On Sundays, Omar, Dena and their mother settled into the wooden pews of Perdido Baptist Church, a tiny congregation whose preacher warned of hellfire and damnation. At first, Shafik had no idea. Debra told the kids to keep their churchgoing a secret. They also attended Bible camp in the summers (Omar won $10 for rattling off the names of all the books of the Old Testament). When he was 6, he voluntarily walked to the front of the church to be baptized. “I believed it; I wanted it,” he later told his friend Trey Gunter.
Shafik tried to teach his children Arabic and later Islam, but the lessons held little resonance. Syria remained a distant backdrop amid the Fourth of July fireworks, Halloween costumes and shrimp gumbo of their American youth. Omar had gone from calling his father Babba — Arabic for “father” — to Bubba. Still, the Hammami home remained culturally Muslim. They left their shoes at the door. Koranic inscriptions decorated the walls. Pork was forbidden. “It was like two different schools of thought under one roof,” Dena says. “Thunder and lightning.” [*]
The children learned to adapt. So did their parents. In one of the family’s home videos, shot on Oct. 8, 1992, Shafik points the camera at a cake. “Today is Debra’s birthday,” he says in a Syrian accent that has acquired an Alabaman lilt. “We’re fixin’ to celebrate her birthday in a few minutes.” In the next shot, Debra stands by the cake, smiling brightly, as a Lebanese love ballad echoes through the house. Eight-year-old Omar licks frosting off the candles as his mother opens presents. She lifts a bottle of perfume to her nose.
“That’s worth getting old for, ain’t it?” Debra says with a laugh.
“I reckon,” Shafik answers from behind the camera.
A smirk crosses Omar’s face as he repeats, mockingly, “Ah reckin.”
That trademark smirk — the same one that would later appear in the Shabab’s propaganda — hinted early at Hammami’s delight in causing trouble. He was exceedingly smart but easily bored and short-tempered, once turning over his desk in second grade. His teachers tired of his endless questions. “He had a big mind in a small-minded place,” [*]Dena says.
Hammami finally found a kindred soul in middle school. Kathleen Hirsch, his teacher in the gifted-student program, was a quirky Jewish woman who wore Ugg boots before they became popular and drove a bottle green Jaguar convertible. She turned her classroom into a salon, replacing the desks with sofas, brewing coffee and filling the shelves with Dylan Thomas and Gertrude Stein. She taught Hammami to “think outside of the box,” he later wrote.
He began to read voraciously, losing himself in “The Catcher in the Rye” and “1984” and even the dictionary. A natural debater, he was fiercely competitive, chiding himself for finishing second in a countywide speech contest. “He went over and over every minute detail, continually asking me what he had done wrong: How was his posture? Eye contact?” Hirsch, who taught Hammami for six years, recalled in a recent e-mail message. “He hated to lose.”
She found him introspective for his age; a seeker of weighty subjects. In a journal he kept at school, Hammami wrote: “I don’t believe war should exist. It doesn’t have a point.” In a later entry, on April 13, 1996, he described the Oklahoma bombing as “stupid,” adding, “I wish violence would vanish clear from the earth.”
LOOKING BACK ON their childhood, Dena remembers a pestering little brother who followed her like a shadow. She wore hemp necklaces and Birkenstocks and thought nothing of cutting class. Hammami, who idolized her, soon followed her lead, getting high on marijuana and mushrooms by eighth grade, friends recalled.
Shafik was always a strict father (he once washed out his son’s mouth with detergent, causing him to throw up). But as the kids entered adolescence, Shafik became consumed with trying to keep his daughter on what he saw as a respectable path. He forbade her from talking on the phone unsupervised. He ruled out prom and even insisted that she wear leggings during soccer practice to avoid exposing her legs.
Dena did her best to flout the rules, with her brother as her ready accomplice. He helped her trade phone calls with boys and sneak out of the house. She and Omar shared the intimacy of twins; each was the other’s witness to an upbringing that only they could understand.
Finally, when she turned 16, Dena decided she could no longer bear her father’s rules. She hugged her brother tightly as she left.
“Sorry I can’t take you with me,” she told him.
She moved in with a friend’s family and returned only years later, to visit. The episode forced Hammami, he later wrote, “to think for myself and make my own way.”
That fall, Hammami claimed his place as one of the more popular kids at Daphne High School. The jocks found him funny; the nerds, literary; the skateboarders, alluringly rebellious. Though he was short and rail thin, girls were drawn by his cocky bravado. He soon won over Lauren Stevenson, one of the most beautiful girls in school. “He could just command people with his energy,” she says.
Yet for all of his social triumph, Hammami was consumed with a profound internal conflict. He didn’t know whether to be Muslim or Christian. On rare trips to Damascus when they were little, Omar and Dena were warned by relatives that they would go to hell if they weren’t Muslim, [*]Dena recalled. In Perdido, their mother’s family insisted that hell was reserved for non-Christians.
When he was 12, Hammami wrote in his journal, “Sometimes I get confused because the Bible says one thing and our textbooks and Darwin say another.” He had a hard time understanding how God could have a son. That same year, his father began urging him to study Islam.
Shafik had experienced his own religious renewal after drifting from his practice during college. There were no mosques in Daphne (the Chamber of Commerce lists 43 churches). But in nearby Mobile, the University of South Alabama had given rise to a small Muslim community of Palestinian, Pakistani and Egyptian professionals. By the time Omar was in high school, his father had become an active member of a growing mosque, the Islamic Society of Mobile, and helped found the area’s first Islamic school.
A trip to Damascus the summer before Hammami’s sophomore year would make a lasting impression on him. He loved the order of things: how his aunts waited on him, how his male cousins shared a “cohesiveness of brotherhood,” Stevenson, his high-school girlfriend, recalled. In photos of the trip, Hammami had traded in his khakis and polo shirts for a long cotton tunic and a prayer cap. A family video shows him bowing to Mecca in prayer one evening.
When he got back to Daphne, Hammami remained conflicted. One night before he went to sleep, he turned to God for guidance. “Slowly I started to incline toward Islam,” he later wrote to his sister, “and my heart became tranquil.” [*]
But Hammami’s conversion was neither smooth nor straightforward. He was the president of his sophomore class. He treasured his Friday-night routine — the football game, the meal at Waffle House and the marathon session of GoldenEye on Nintendo. He would smoke a cigarette and then feel guilty. He was smitten with Stevenson yet stopped holding her hand. Soon Hammami began taking off on Fridays to attend his father’s mosque. He finally got permission to pray at school, kneeling opposite a cinder-block wall in the library as students stole wide-eyed glances.
NO ONE WAS more struck by Hammami’s transformation than his mother.
On a recent morning, Debra skipped about her sun-filled kitchen fixing a plate of grits. A chatty woman with lively brown eyes, she was well into her third cup of coffee. In the next room, an oak table was permanently set for dinner, a nod to her Southern upbringing. The cranberry walls of her tidy neo-Colonial were free of Christian relics and family photographs, in keeping with Muslim tradition.
Debra learned to walk a fine line when it came to religion. But Christianity remained the compass of her life. She called Shafik’s mosque “his church” and the Koran “his bible.” She wasn’t going to let her son defect without a fight. “Where are the verses about love in your bible?” she prodded him. They “argued and argued and argued,” she recalled. “Then he said, ‘That’s enough.’ ”
Like his mother, Hammami was stubborn. When he became convinced of something, he turned to convincing others. At Daphne High, he managed to persuade a handful of students, including his girlfriend, to explore Islam — a striking development at a school where Christian teenagers routinely gathered at the flagpole for prayer.
“He would say, ‘So if Jesus is God, who does he pray to?’ ” recalled his friend Bernie Culveyhouse. “And if you said, ‘God,’ he’d say, ‘Doesn’t that make Jesus a narcissist?’ ”
Culveyhouse soon converted. Stevenson decided it was not for her, and Hammami broke it off. His other friendships were already strained when, one afternoon in 2000, the subject in class turned to Osama bin Laden. Then a relatively obscure terrorist, bin Laden had claimed responsibility for the 1998 bombings of the United States Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. One boy in the class suggested that bin Laden should be shot dead.
“What if I said that about Billy Graham?” Hammami demanded.
“Billy Graham is a peaceable preacher,” the boy, a Christian, recalled saying. “Osama bin Laden is a terrorist.”
“One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter,” Hammami replied.
By his junior year, Hammami had become a spectacle. He made a point of praying by the flagpole outside school yet refused to say the Pledge of Allegiance, friends recalled. In class, he swore at Hirsch, his longtime teacher, assailing her for being Jewish. That spring, in another class, Hammami tried to choke a student who interrupted him as he was reciting the Koran, students recalled. Hammami was promptly suspended. With high grades and an A.C.T. score in the 93rd percentile, he skipped his senior year and enrolled at the University of South Alabama. There, he no longer prayed alone. He could walk to the mosque from campus, and he soon took over as president of the fledgling Muslim Student Association.
Soon after, the hijackers struck on 9/11, and local reporters began calling Hammami for comment. Publicly, he struck a measured tone, telling the school paper, “It’s difficult to believe a Muslim could have done this.” But he was caught off guard by the attacks and felt insufficiently knowledgeable about Islam, friends recalled. He set out to deepen his study and soon fell under the influence of Tony Salvatore Sylvester, a 35-year-old convert and preacher who was new in town.
Sylvester wore a thin blond beard and was missing his two front teeth. Brought up Catholic in the rural town of Doylestown, Pa., he found Islam in his early 20s while working as a jazz-fusion guitarist in Philadelphia. He had come to Mobile with his wife and six children, hoping to land a job at the Islamic school. By then, he was considered a prominent voice in the American Salafi movement.
SALAF, IN ARABIC, means “ancestors.” Followers of the movement, who are sometimes likened to Calvinist Protestants, advocate a strict return to the fundamentals of Islam. To purge their practice of modern influences, they try to emulate the founders of the faith [fell in with Salafi sect] [*]— the contemporaries of the Prophet Muhammad and the two generations that came after his death in A.D. 632. Young Salafis, for example, often dress in sandals and robes like those thought to have been worn in seventh-century Arabia.
The Salafist interpretation of Islamic doctrine tends to be literal and originalist. “They remind me a lot of Scalia in their approach to texts,” says Bernard Haykel, a professor at Princeton University. The movement is most prevalent in the Arabian Peninsula, Egypt and Jordan but has also won adherents in the West among second- and third-generation Muslim immigrants who are seeking a more authentic Islam than that of their assimilative parents.
In the United States, the trend can be traced to a handful of Middle Eastern scholars who began preaching in the 1980s, gaining a small but vocal following in places like Arlington, Tex., and Syracuse, N.Y. Their teachings spread among prison converts and found footholds in Philadelphia and Detroit, where in the 1990s Tony Sylvester managed what was then the headquarters of a leading Salafi organization, the Quran and Sunnah Society.
Several of Sylvester’s students said in interviews that he subscribed to a nonviolent school, one that represented the majority of American Salafis. They tend to believe that Muslims should remain politically disengaged and take up arms only when called to duty in a Muslim-governed country; anything else represents rebellion against the government, which violates Islamic law.
But the Salafi movement also has its share of revolutionaries — the so-called Salafi jihadis (including Osama bin Laden), who argue that rebellion is permissible. Some members of Sylvester’s original circle broke with the group over the issue of rebellion, including Ali Al-Timimi, who was convicted in 2005 on terrorism-related charges in what is sometimes known as the Virginia paintball case.
Hammami plunged headlong into Salafism, mastering its nuances and lexicon. The movement gave him a new sense of brotherhood and discipline. But it was, above all, “an excuse to disobey his father,” recalls Joseph Stewart, a Muslim convert who became close to Hammami. [*]
Shafik Hammami was by then the president of the Mobile mosque. In many ways, he embodied the Muslim-American mainstream. He held a comfortable job and wore a suit and tie to work. His son, meanwhile, began striding around campus in a scarlet red turban and a thobe, the ankle-length gown used by gulf Arabs. He spent his free time with a group of white Salafi converts whom immigrant Muslims at the mosque dismissed as “the Dixies.” The circle included Stewart, a burly 29-year-old who had started a carpet-cleaning business, and Bernie Culveyhouse, Omar’s friend from Daphne High.
A towering, lanky boy with sky blue eyes, Culveyhouse met Hammami playing basketball in fourth grade. He was brought up by a single mother who drank heavily and fashioned herself a “Harley honey,” disappearing into the night dressed head to toe in black leather. By the time Culveyhouse came to Islam, he was fighting marijuana and Ecstasy habits and failing out of school.
Everyone in the group took a new name. Culveyhouse chose Suhayb. Stewart called himself Yusuf. Hammami sometimes went by Abu Hafs, one of the venerated companions of the prophet. They distanced themselves from the mosque, meeting weekly with Sylvester to parse theology and questions of moral conduct.
Hammami soon began denouncing the militant Islamists he once defended. He came to believe that Muslims were suffering because they had lost their religion, Culveyhouse and Stewart recall. The solution, Hammami now argued, was not to take up arms but to engage in a spiritual jihad, practicing the faith with greater devotion. He and his friends ordered their lives around a strict code: they could not look at women, listen to music, be photographed or sleep with their backsides facing Mecca.
No one in the group was more dogmatic than Hammami. He insisted on eating with his bare right hand, as the prophet had, and wearing his pants above the ankle, a popular look among Salafis. Shafik found some of his son’s new convictions theologically debatable. The conflict between them, which had been simmering for some time, blew open when Omar refused to pose for a family photograph in April 2002. Shafik ordered him to move out.
In a town where 9/11 had prompted a thick canopy of American flags, Omar devoted himself to da’wah, the practice of spreading the Islamic faith. His style was to provoke inquiry. He strolled through Wal-Mart and Arby’s in his robe, hoping to attract questions from strangers. He drove a red Honda Civic with a sign on the back that read: “As Muslims we believe in one God. We don’t worship rocks, trees or men.”
More often than not, he and his fellow converts were met with disbelief.
“Everybody looked at us as if we were Satan,” Culveyhouse recalls.
One afternoon, a group of young men in a pickup truck approached Hammami and Culveyhouse near a pier south of Daphne, where they sometimes read the Koran.
“This is the stick I have for boys who wear dresses,” one of the men warned them, waving a miniature baseball bat.
In a flash, Hammami reached into his car and grabbed the broken-off handle of a wooden shovel, Culveyhouse recalls.
“And this is the stick I have for faggots,” he shot back.
Throughout his religious transformation, Hammami kept much of his former self intact. Some nights, he and Culveyhouse darted around the mosque in their robes, sparring with invisible light sabers in homage to “Star Wars.” He continued to run red lights and rack up speeding tickets, refusing to rise for a judge in traffic court.
Above all, he remained close to his sister, Dena, who was dating a dreadlocked Deadhead (she later married him barefoot, wearing a crown of daisies). When Dena and Omar spent time together — he in his tunic, she in her “Jesus sandals” — they seemed blind to their differences, reverting to their sibling code of inside jokes and silly songs. “I wanted to keep how we always were,” she says.
But aside from his sister and mother, Hammami had nothing to do with women. Much of the time, he and his friends were tormented by sexual frustrations, two of them recall. Hammami would stare at a woman on the street and then chastise himself for hours, [I swear this is common om jthadis I’ve studied, from Qutb to 9/11 ringleader] [*] Stewart says. He surfed Islamic Internet forums in search of a wife. His father promised to help him marry a Syrian woman provided that Hammami completed his degree in computer studies. But in December 2002, he dropped out of college, saying that he could no longer bear to be in the company of women.
Over the next few years, Hammami, Culveyhouse and the other Mobile Salafis traveled around the country attending Islamic conferences. With Sylvester, they opened a small Muslim bookstore in Mobile, opposite a storage lot. Hammami worked to master Arabic and talked of becoming an Islamic scholar. In the meantime, he had to earn a living, and few jobs meshed with his piety. He loaded trucks, cleaned carpets and sold light bulbs.
For a time, Hammami and Culveyhouse took inventory at Wal-Mart. Their boss, an ex-Marine, tolerated their odd look (they tucked their pants into their socks), but he was frustrated by their demands: they refused to touch alcohol, pork, Christmas cards and even dolls. The boss finally assigned them to the women’s clothing section.
“I looked at Omar and said, ‘Man, we can’t do anything in life, can we?’ ” Culveyhouse recalls. They quit that day. Soon after, Culveyhouse left for the bustling Muslim crossroads of Toronto, where he had found a wife. The following year, Hammami joined him, hoping to do the same.
HAMMAMI FOUND TORONTO — with its labyrinth of mosques, Islamic bookstores and halal grocers — enthralling. He took an apartment near Culveyhouse in the western part of the city and found a job delivering milk to Somali housewives. Living in Canada, Hammami began to see his country through a new lens. The war in Iraq was deeply unpopular at the mosques and coffee shops he frequented. Being an American invited a stream of questions and commentary for which Hammami felt unprepared, Culveyhouse recalled.
For years, Hammami had tuned out current events, dismissing politics as dunya — a worldly distraction from his Islamic practice. One afternoon in April, he and Culveyhouse dropped by an Islamic bookstore. The owner, an Afghan, told them to “pray for the people of Fallujah.” Months earlier, the U.S. military had invaded the Iraqi city, an insurgency stronghold, for the second time.
“What’s going on?” Hammami said.
Over the next few months, Hammami became consumed with events in Iraq and Afghanistan. He began subscribing to conspiracy theories about 9/11, Dena and Culveyhouse recall. He soon found himself rethinking his nonmilitant Salafi stance.
“I was finding it difficult to reconcile between having Americans attacking my brothers, at home and abroad, while I was supposed to remain completely neutral, without getting involved,” he wrote in the December e-mail message responding to questions posed to him through an intermediary.
Hammami concluded that his Salafi mentors had been “hiding many parts of the religion that have a direct relationship to jihad and politics,” he wrote. He began searching for guidance on the Internet, Culveyhouse says, discovering a documentary about the life of Amir Khattab, a legendary jihadist who fought in Chechnya. The documentary traces Khattab’s evolution as a promising Saudi student who gave up a life that “any young man would desire” to embrace a higher purpose. Hammami was mesmerized, Culveyhouse recalls. [*]
“Once you’ve made that step, it’s a gateway,” Culveyhouse says. “Once you’ve legitimized the jihad in Chechnya, you’re compelled to legitimize the jihad in other places as well.”
Back then, Hammami and Culveyhouse talked about jihad in the way that star football players at Daphne High School dreamed about the N.F.L. The idea remained romantic and hypothetical. Hammami assured friends, for instance, that he would go to Syria to fight if the United States ever invaded.
But action required the right set of circumstances. Hammami remained unimpressed by most of the militant Islamist groups he studied: he still disapproved of how Al Qaeda attacked civilians, and he saw the insurgency in Iraq as too secular, Culveyhouse said. Only a “pure jihad” ¬— one that was carried out in defense of Muslim land with the purpose of creating an Islamic state — met Hammami’s standard.
Besides, Hammami had more pressing matters at hand. He was desperate to marry. Culveyhouse arranged an introduction to his Somali sister-in-law, Sadiyo Mohamed Abdille. A tall, wisecracking 19-year-old who wore skinny jeans and played basketball, Sadiyo grew up in Toronto with Culveyhouse’s wife, Ayan, after their family fled Somalia’s internecine violence. Hammami found her amusing and eager to learn more about Islam, Ayan recalled. Within a matter of weeks, he persuaded her to socialize with only women and to wear the abaya, a cloaklike garment. In March 2005, just two months after their first meeting, they married in a small, spartan ceremony.
With limited prospects in Toronto, Hammami and Culveyhouse talked quixotically of making hijra — migration — to a Muslim land. Culveyhouse proposed Egypt, where they could study Islam at the revered Al-Azhar University in Cairo. In September, Hammami and his pregnant wife boarded an airplane with Culveyhouse’s family, including his formerly Harley-riding mother, who had also converted to Islam.
The two families settled in Alexandria, Egypt, which they found disappointingly secular. When the applications to Al-Azhar fell through, Culveyhouse and his family returned to the United States. “I didn’t want to continue down this fool’s path,” he says. Hammami felt betrayed, Culveyhouse recalls, and they drifted apart.
Alone with his young wife and newborn daughter, Hammami seemed overwhelmed, Dena recalls. He found freelance work translating Islamic texts into English but had trouble supporting his family. In the December e-mail message, he wrote that he was yearning to live in a country “where Shariah was being implemented completely.”
In April 2006, Hammami joined an online discussion forum called Islamic Networking. Using the alias “al-Mizzi,” a relative recalls, Hammami began communicating with the administrator of the forum, an American convert who also happened to live in Egypt. The convert, Daniel Maldonado, was a 27-year-old from New Hampshire who moved there with his wife and children the previous year.
Hammami and Maldonado soon met in person, relatives recall, and began venturing into poor neighborhoods to attend underground mosques. That summer, Hammami wrote to two Muslim friends, saying he had met “a pious brother” and was planning “a trip.” He seemed to be communicating in code.
“Our family members to the south need doctors,” he told the friends, who described the exchanges only on the condition of anonymity.
When Hammami discussed Chechnya with them years earlier, “doctor” was their word for “those who make jihad,” one friend says. By the “south,” Hammami seemed to be referring to Somalia; he had been sending them news articles about the remarkable events unfolding there.
A BOOMERANG-SHAPED country on the Horn of Africa, Somalia had been consumed by a catastrophic civil war since 1991. What was not destroyed by famine and drought was plundered by warlords and pirates. Amid the chaos, an Islamist movement gave rise to an insurgency that took control of Mogadishu in June 2006. The insurgents — known as the Islamic Courts Union — promised a new unity under the banner of Islam and brought an unfamiliar peace to the streets of the capital.
Officials in Washington found the developments troubling. The group’s military wing — the Shabab, which means “youth” in Arabic — was said to be sheltering foreign Al Qaeda operatives. They were calling for a jihad against neighboring Ethiopia, a predominantly Christian country and longtime enemy. Ethiopian troops gathered at the border, threatening an invasion with backing from the United States. News of the conflict quickly spread in jihadist chat rooms, as bin Laden called upon Muslims to join in Somalia’s fight.
From Egypt, Hammami followed the events closely. He was convinced that “jihad had become an obligation upon me,” he wrote in his December e-mail message. He wanted to help his “captive brothers and sisters” while helping himself “obtain the highest rank available” as a Muslim. (Jihadists believe that the greatest rewards in the afterlife are granted to them.) On their Internet forum, Hammami and Maldonado made impassioned pleas for action without directly referring to Somalia.
“Where is the desire to do something amazing?” Hammami wrote on Aug. 7, 2006. “Where is the urge to get up and change yourself — not to mention the world and other issues further off?”
“Stop sticking to the earth,” he continued, “and let your soul fly!”
Secretly, Maldonado and Hammami began planning to leave for Somalia, according to a written statement Maldonado later provided to U.S. investigators. On the morning of Nov. 6, Hammami woke his mother, who was visiting from Alabama, and kissed her on the cheek. He told her that he was going to Dubai for a few days to look for a job. “I love you,” he said.
Several days later, he called his apartment in Alexandria and told his wife, Sadiyo, that he was in fact in Somalia. Sadiyo, who agreed to answer my questions through her sister Ayan, found the story odd. Hammami told her that he traveled to Somalia because he wanted to meet her relatives. Indeed he was staying with Sadiyo’s grandmother in Mogadishu. Yet he seemed in no rush to leave. In other phone calls, he told Sadiyo and his parents that he was stranded because someone stole his passport.
Shafik and Debra scrambled to help their son, contacting the F.B.I. in Mobile, a local congressman and the State Department. They were told nothing could be done because the United States did not have diplomatic relations with Somalia. They tried to arrange for Hammami to cross the border, into Kenya or Djibouti, where a new passport could be issued.
Soon after, thousands of Ethiopian troops invaded Somalia and swiftly gained control of Mogadishu. Leaders of the Islamic Courts Union fled the country, while their military wing, the Shabab, retreated to the south and mounted a new rebellion aimed at driving the Ethiopians out. Without a word to his family, Hammami vanished. It is not clear who connected him to the Shabab, but in the December e-mail message, he wrote, “I made it my goal to find those guys should I make it to Somalia,” adding that he “signed up for training.” Meanwhile, his friend Maldonado, who had also enlisted with the Shabab, was picked up by a multinational counterterrorism team along the Somalia-Kenya border. He has since been convicted in the United States for receiving training from a foreign terrorist organization and is serving a 10-year sentence.
Over the next few months, Mogadishu descended into a hellish war zone. That May, Hammami suddenly reappeared at the grandmother’s apartment, asking for a phone number to reach his wife, who had moved back to Toronto. Over the phone, Hammami told Sadiyo that he was still trying to leave Somalia, Ayan said. A month later, he called with a different story. He wanted his wife and daughter to join him.
“He was saying: ‘It’s so wonderful. There’s going to be an Islamic state,’ ” Ayan recalled Sadiyo telling her. “He was making it this utopia of happiness.”
THE PROMISE OF an Islamic state, and by extension a caliphate, or Islamic world order, has long been the anthem of the global jihadist movement. It is central to the ideology of Al Qaeda, which has allied itself with smaller militant groups as its financing and core leadership have come under assault. [**]
Al Qaeda offers these groups a powerful brand; the groups offer Al Qaeda an expanded platform. Yet the exact nature and significance of Al Qaeda’s connection to the Shabab remain unclear. The majority of the Shabab’s fighters are Somalis, many of whom were drawn to the movement by nationalist fervor (including some of the first Somali-American recruits). A smaller contingent of foreign fighters — young men like Hammami — joined as part of the global jihad. Rookie recruits from the United States and Europe would seem to offer little but cannon fodder to their battle-hardened Somali counterparts. But Westerners bring the Shabab prestige and possible financing from abroad. They also bring their passports — with which they could conceivably return to cities like Sydney, New York or London to carry out attacks.
When Hammami joined the Shabab in late 2006, he had no known military training. Like other foreign fighters, he quickly fell ill, probably with malaria, he told Dena in e-mail messages and phone calls. He started reaching out to her the following summer, after his wife in Toronto asked for a divorce. He never disclosed what he was doing, but he seemed to have little power: he had to ask permission to make phone calls, he told Dena.
But over time, Hammami caught the attention of his superiors. He brought an unusual skill set: he was articulate, computer savvy, well organized and fluent in Arabic. “He has that charisma,” says an American law-enforcement official. Hammami came to be seen as an asset by two Qaeda-linked militants, the official said: Fazul Abdullah Mohammed and Saleh Ali Saleh Nabhan.
Mohammed, who is also known as Haroun Fazul, is believed to be Al Qaeda’s longtime chief in East Africa. A native of the Comoros Islands off Mozambique, he is accused of organizing the 1998 bombings of American Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania that left more than 200 dead. He also is wanted for the bombing of an Israeli-owned hotel and the unsuccessful attempt to shoot down an Israeli charter jet in Mombasa, Kenya. Nabhan, a Kenyan of Yemeni descent, was also suspected in both attacks. He was killed in Somalia last September in a daylight raid by a helicopter-borne team of American Special Operations troops.
In October 2007 — less than a year after Hammami landed in Somalia — he made his public debut as Abu Mansoor Al-Amriki. In an interview with Al Jazeera, he stared confidently into the camera, a thin, green scarf concealing half of his face. “Oh, Muslims of America, take into consideration the situation in Somalia,” he began in English. “After 15 years of chaos and oppressive rule by the American-backed warlords, your brothers stood up and established peace and justice in this land.”
Over the next two years, Hammami’s stature in the Shabab continued to rise as the group launched suicide attacks and ruled in fear. Where its rebels held sway, they carried out public floggings, amputations and beheadings in the name of Shariah, alienating many. Hammami gave no indication that he was troubled by such punishments. “Human rights,” he said in an audio recording released by the Shabab last July, is “the Western form of democracy which cannot be reconciled with Islam.”
By the summer of 2008, Hammami was leading military strikes in the field — including a deadly ambush on Ethiopian troops that the Shabab captured on the video now popular on YouTube, American law-enforcement officials say. Among the fighters in the ambush were several of the Somali-Americans from Minneapolis, officials said, including Shirwa Ahmed, an aloof 26-year-old college dropout. Three months after the ambush, on Oct. 28, Ahmed blew himself up in northern Somalia, becoming the first known American suicide bomber. Senior American and Somali intelligence officials say that Hammami helped organize that attack — along with four others the same day that together left more than 20 dead.
The Shabab continued to lose support after Ethiopia withdrew from Somalia last January, and a new president — Sheik Sharif Ahmed, a former leader of the Islamist insurgency — began paving the way for a democratic Islamic state. Around that time, Hammami called Dena with a stunning announcement. “In the next video, I’m going to show my face,” he said. “It makes more of a statement if my face is uncovered.”
The 31-minute video, released by the Shabab last March, is a veritable homage to Hammami. He is shown running in slow motion, a line of fighters behind him, as a jihadist rap song plays in the background. He reads to them from the Koran, moving in and out of Arabic while stroking his beard. He then lectures them in English, with what struck his old friend Bernie Culveyhouse as an “E.S.L. accent.”
“The only reason we’re staying here,” Hammami tells the recruits, “away from our families, away from the cities, away from — you know — ice, candy bars, all these other things, is because we’re waiting to meet with the enemy.”
BACK IN DAPHNE, Debra Hammami stared at the video in shock.
She had long known that her son was “in the wrong hands.” Since Shafik first went to the F.B.I. in 2006, he had spent countless hours answering their questions.
But it was something else to see Omar on her laptop. She studied his face, replaying the same images again and again, trying to decode his mental and physical state. His cheeks were gaunt; his eyes, glassy. “He looks like a homeless person,” said Debra, whose husband first spotted the video while searching a Somali Web site for news of his son.
Emotions in the Hammami house had run like a fickle stream, from anger to grief to dread. Shafik talked about his son the way a parent talks about a child lost to a cult. Terrorism, he says, “goes against everything I taught him.”
Bernie Culveyhouse was also at a loss. He said he could understand the logic of defending Muslim land from invaders. But it was beyond him how Hammami had come to align himself with a group that attacks civilians and supports Al Qaeda. Both he and Joseph Stewart remained Muslim but not Salafi. They had “grown up,” as they put it. They were back in school, pursuing professional degrees. Like the Hammamis, they kept quiet about the F.B.I.’s investigation, but they assumed it was only a matter of time before the case became public.
The new Shabab video generated a burst of public speculation about the identity of the mysterious American. Hammami’s high-school girlfriend, Lauren Stevenson, caught a glimpse of the video on the news in April and instantly recognized him, watching aghast. He seemed like a shell of the guy who took her to homecoming, a boutonniere pinned to his lapel. “When you look in his eyes, it’s just dead,” she says.
The story finally broke on Sept. 4, with Fox News reporting that Hammami had been charged with terrorism offenses in a sealed federal indictment. Reporters descended on the Hammamis’ home and Shafik’s mosque. The local newspaper swiftly identified Shafik as a government employee. “Waterboard him!” one reader demanded on the paper’s Web site.
Shafik and Debra did their best to keep a low profile. One afternoon in October, they sat opposite each other in their living room, picking at a silver tray of dates and baklava. Their two religions, the ocean between them, had offered the same salve: the belief in God’s preordained plan. “You take solace in knowing that it’s in God’s hands,” said Shafik, sunken in his armchair, as Debra nodded. “And there is nothing you could have done to change it.”
DENA SEES OMAR in her dreams.
“Sometimes he is emaciated and about to die,” she said one recent afternoon, as her 19-month-old daughter toddled about the house. “Sometimes he is coming back to hang out with me.”
The last three years have also been something of a surreal dream. Dena has come to expect the sudden rap of F.B.I. agents at her door. She suspects that her phone is tapped. She is used to feeling exposed and, at the same time, walled off. “The fact that my brother is a terrorist — it’s not something you can talk to anyone about,” she said.
Ultimately, she said, “you can either accept him or disown him. Those are the choices.” Dena chose to stay in touch, as much as she abhors violence. She found news accounts of the Shabab deeply disturbing. On Oct. 27, 2008, Shabab militiamen dragged Aisha Ibrahim Duhulow, a 13-year-old rape victim accused of adultery, into a stadium filled with spectators and stoned her to death, according to Amnesty International.
Sometimes months would pass with no word from Hammami. When he reached out through Facebook in early September, he told Dena that he hoped his infamy would prompt people to ask, “How did this guy become that?”
“They can’t blame it on poverty or any of that stuff,” he continued. “They will have to realize that it’s an ideology and it’s a way of life that makes people change. They will also have to realize that their political agendas need to be fixed.”
Dena tried to temper her reply.
“I think it’s admirable to stand up for what you believe in, but it gets hairy when you affect the lives of others,” she wrote.
Hammami responded that he understood how strange it might seem to “fight for beliefs,” especially as he had once been a liberal (under the influence, he wrote, of the teacher he still referred to as “Mrs. Hirsch”). But he had come to the realization that “we don’t live in a utopian society.”
“When I came here I saw that firsthand,” he wrote. “There are villages that live in a constant state of war between rival tribes. There are roads that people cannot pass except with fear of being robbed or raped.”
He and his fellow fighters, he wrote, are helping those people. “Regardless of what the media says,” he added, “we do not kill innocents.”
Throughout the exchange, Hammami seemed to slide back and forth between the boy from Daphne and the jihadi propagandist. He asked his sister for news about his grandmother in Perdido (“Maw Maw,” he called her) and signed off “later tater” and “I love you.”
They soon lost contact again. These days, his family and friends wonder what will become of him.
“There is no out,” Dena said. “He’s in too deep.”
On Dec. 3, a suicide bomber disguised as a woman blew himself up at a graduation ceremony for medical students in Mogadishu, killing nearly two dozen people, including three Somali government officials. Somali and American authorities said the attack was carried out by the Shabab. That same month, Hammami seemed more taken by his cause than ever. “I have become a Somali you could say,” he wrote in the December e-mail message. “I hear bullets, I dodge mortars, I hear nasheeds” — Islamic songs — “and play soccer. Sometimes I live in the bush with camels, sometimes I live the five-star life. Sometimes I walk for miles in the terrible heat with no water, sometimes I ride in extremely slick cars. Sometimes I’m chased by the enemy, sometimes I chase him!”
“I have hatred, I have love,” he went on. “It’s the best life on earth!”
Andrea Elliott is a reporter for The New York Times. She won the 2007 Pulitzer Prize for feature writing for a series of articles about an imam in Brooklyn.
Abdi Aynte contributed reporting to this story from Washington D.C.
Copyright 2010 The New York Times Co

January 30, 2010

Draft Defense Department budget avoids weapons cuts, adds aircraft

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/29/AR2010012904235.html
Draft Defense Department budget avoids weapons cuts, adds aircraft
By Greg Jaffe and Craig Whitlock
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, January 30, 2010; A02 [Obama white house] [bureaucracy and white house politicos] [defense department, Pentagon, Army and other services] [the annual angst over budget] [*]
The Obama administration's 2011 defense budget avoids the controversial weapons cuts of last year, according to a draft copy, and continues to shift modest amounts of money to weapons programs such as helicopters, unmanned planes and Special Operations units [*] that are in heavy use Afghanistan and Iraq.
The more than $700 billion budget will be released Monday with a congressionally mandated review of defense spending. That review calls on the Pentagon to focus more attention on wars in which enemy forces hide among the populace and use roadside bombs and hit-and-run ambushes to attack U.S. troops. The Quadrennial Defense review also predicts a

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/29/AR2010012904235.html
Draft Defense Department budget avoids weapons cuts, adds aircraft
By Greg Jaffe and Craig Whitlock
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, January 30, 2010; A02 [Obama white house] [bureaucracy and white house politicos] [defense department, Pentagon, Army and other services] [the annual angst over budget] [*]
The Obama administration's 2011 defense budget avoids the controversial weapons cuts of last year, according to a draft copy, and continues to shift modest amounts of money to weapons programs such as helicopters, unmanned planes and Special Operations units [*] that are in heavy use Afghanistan and Iraq.
The more than $700 billion budget will be released Monday with a congressionally mandated review of defense spending. That review calls on the Pentagon to focus more attention on wars in which enemy forces hide among the populace and use roadside bombs and hit-and-run ambushes to attack U.S. troops. The Quadrennial Defense review also predicts a future dominated by "hybrid" wars, [*]in which traditional states will fight more like guerrillas and insurgents will arm themselves with increasingly sophisticated technology, such as antitank weapons and missiles.
The bold pronouncements in the review, however, won't drive big changes in the Pentagon budget, which is dominated by massive weapons programs with powerful constituencies in Congress and the defense industry.
"I think the review gets the diagnosis right on the big external challenges facing the Defense Department, but at the end of the day, the preexisting mismatch between the strategy and the [budget] program still exists," said Jim Thomas, who played a key role in writing the last quadrennial review and is now a vice president at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments.
Despite the language about new threats, a December draft of the quadrennial review doesn't mention the F-35 fighter jet program, which remains one of the largest and most expensive programs in the history of the military [but it’s to be used by virtually all brances so it sounds like the sort of thinking necessary] [much preferable to sexy raptors that were paired back] [*] and has been in development for more than a decade.
Although Obama has proposed a three-year freeze on federal spending, he has exempted the Pentagon from these limits, allowing an increase of about 2 percent when the costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are stripped out of the budget. In addition to the more than $700 billion budget, the president will also ask for about $33 billion to pay for the surge of about 30,000 troops into Afghanistan. [*]
Much of the new spending in the 2011 budget will be directed to weapons programs in heavy use in Afghanistan. The budget calls on the Air Force to double the number of MQ-9 Reapers, which are unmanned planes that can carry precision bombs, over the next several years. The extra planes will allow the Air Force to increase from about 37 to 65 [*]the number of long-range, unmanned surveillance aircraft that it can keep airborne during combat missions.
The Army and Marine Corps will get almost $10 billion for helicopters, which have been essential to moving troops across Afghanistan and have been in short supply since the beginning of the war in 2001. The budget also calls for increasing spending for Special Operations forces by about 6 percent, to $6.3 billion. Those forces have played a central role in places such as Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen, where they have trained indigenous counterterrorism troops. [*]
The Pentagon's quadrennial review will formally scrap its past construct for determining the size of the force, which held that the military should be able to fight two major regional conflicts simultaneously. The review argues that the Pentagon today faces a much broader array of potential threats, including terrorism, stabilization missions and guerrilla wars, and acknowledges that in the near term, the demands of Iraq and Afghanistan will play the major role in determining the size of the U.S. military. [new thinking is needed] [the 2 or 2.5 or 1 major to hold, while another flexible, so forth, made some sense during CW, today the “hybrid” and failed state wars appear to be the future] [**]
In contrast with last year, when Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates eliminated or curtailed several expensive conventional weapons programs, including the F-22 fighter jet, the new budget includes no major weapons cancellations and is likely to draw plaudits from the defense industry. For years defense industry executives have predicted that spending would be curtailed. [*]
"You have to wonder whether the tough year is ever going to come," said Loren Thompson, chief operating officer of the Lexington Institute, a defense think tank. [well I agree in a sense] [but my recollection is Thompson was among the first to call for new spending after 9/11] [that hasn’t changed much; where is the administration supposed to cut when the US in in AfPak and Iraq and facing nearly unprecedented threats from multiple directions on the homeland?] [*]
The lack of big weapons cuts is causing some outcry from congressional Democrats. "I don't think that we have to protect military contractors. And I want to make that distinction very clearly," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Ca.). "I do not think the entire defense budget should be exempted." © 2010 The Washington Post Co

U.S. Drops Plan for a 9/11 Trial in New York City

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/30/nyregion/30trial.html
January 30, 2010
U.S. Drops Plan for a 9/11 Trial in New York City
By SCOTT SHANE and BENJAMIN WEISER [obama white house] [residual issues from President Bush’s tenure] [gsave] [federal judiciary] [America’s guests at gitmo] [gitmo detainees] [I’m a bit disappointed but certainly not surprised] [as I noted yesterday, I think this is mistake since Manhattan has the expertise] [use psci 355, 455, 469] [on the practical side, Commissioner Kelly recently made clear he thought trials in Manhattan created too many risks and I’m sensitive to that? Kelly is not a politician out for Obama’s hide but serious guy on frontlines] [*]
The Obama administration on Friday gave up on its plan to try the Sept. 11 plotters in Lower Manhattan, bowing to almost unanimous pressure from New York officials and business leaders to move the terrorism trial elsewhere. [*]
“I think I can acknowledge the obvious,” an administration official said. “We’re considering

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/30/nyregion/30trial.html
January 30, 2010
U.S. Drops Plan for a 9/11 Trial in New York City
By SCOTT SHANE and BENJAMIN WEISER [obama white house] [residual issues from President Bush’s tenure] [gsave] [federal judiciary] [America’s guests at gitmo] [gitmo detainees] [I’m a bit disappointed but certainly not surprised] [as I noted yesterday, I think this is mistake since Manhattan has the expertise] [use psci 355, 455, 469] [on the practical side, Commissioner Kelly recently made clear he thought trials in Manhattan created too many risks and I’m sensitive to that? Kelly is not a politician out for Obama’s hide but serious guy on frontlines] [*]
The Obama administration on Friday gave up on its plan to try the Sept. 11 plotters in Lower Manhattan, bowing to almost unanimous pressure from New York officials and business leaders to move the terrorism trial elsewhere. [*]
“I think I can acknowledge the obvious,” an administration official said. “We’re considering other options.”
The reversal on whether to try the alleged 9/11 terrorists blocks from the former World Trade Center site seemed to come suddenly this week, after Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg abandoned his strong support for the plan and said the cost and disruption would be too great.
But behind the brave face that many New Yorkers had put on for weeks, resistance had been gathering steam. [*]
After a dinner in New York on Dec. 14, Steven Spinola, president of the Real Estate Board of New York, pulled aside David Axelrod, President Obama’s closest adviser, to convey an urgent plea: move the 9/11 trial out of Manhattan.
More recently, in a series of presentations to business leaders, local elected officials and community representatives of Chinatown, Police Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly laid out his plan for securing the trial: blanketing a swath of Lower Manhattan with police checkpoints, vehicle searches, rooftop snipers and canine patrols.
“They were not received well,” said one city official.
And on Tuesday, in a meeting Mr. Bloomberg had with at least two dozen federal judges on the eighth floor of their Manhattan courthouse, one judge raised the question of security. The mayor, according to several people present, said he was sure the courthouse could be made safe, but that it would be costly and difficult. [Bloomberg a politican but far from political hack] [so his caution was likely genuine] [*]
The next day, the mayor, who back in November had hailed the idea of trying Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and four other accused Sept. 11 plotters in the heart of downtown Manhattan, made clear he’d changed his mind. [*]
The Obama administration official said the decision to back out of plans for a New York trial had broad support but had not yet been made public.
Jason Post, a spokesman for Mr. Bloomberg, said Friday night that the mayor would have no comment until the Obama administration had made an official announcement of its intentions.
Told of the administration’s decision, a spokesman for Mr. Kelly said, “We were not aware of that.”
But the spokesman, Paul J. Browne, said of Mr. Kelly: “He is of the mind that such a decision would give us some breathing room, but that New York has to remain vigilant because it remains at the top of the terrorist target list.” [*]
“It is obvious that they can't have the trials in New York,” said Senator Charles E. Schumer, New York's Democratic senior senator.
Mr. Bloomberg’s remarks on Wednesday set off a stampede of New York City officials, most of them Democrats well-disposed toward President Obama, who suddenly declared that a civilian trial for the 9/11 suspects was a great idea — as long as it didn’t happen in their city. [I hate to see the administration cave but these NY policticans were clearly worried about NY security as one critical factor] [*]
By Friday, Justice Department officials were studying other locations, focusing especially on military bases and prison complexes, and no obvious new choice had emerged.
The story of how prominent New York officials seemed to have so quickly moved from a kind of “bring it on” bravado to an “anywhere but here” involves many factors, including a new anxiety about terrorism after the attempted airliner bombing on Christmas Day.
Ultimately, it appears, New York officials could not tolerate ceding much of the city to a set of trials that could last for years.
“The administration is in a tricky political and legal position,” Julie Menin, a lawyer who is chairwoman of the 50-member Community Board 1 that represents Lower Manhattan, including the federal courthouse and ground zero, said of President Obama and his Justice Department. “But it means shutting down our financial district. It could cost $1 billion. It’s absolutely crazy.”
Ms. Menin said the turning point for her came when she heard Mr. Kelly’s security plan and cost estimates: hundreds of millions of dollars a year. “It was an absolute game-changer,” she said. She wrote a Jan. 17 op-ed article for The New York Times proposing moving the trial to Governors Island off Manhattan; that idea did not catch hold, but the article escalated the outcry against a Manhattan trial.
When the Justice Department announced in November its plans to try Mr. Mohammed and four alleged accomplices blocks from where the World Trade Center stood, Mr. Bloomberg hailed the location as not only workable but as a powerful symbol. [*]
“It is fitting that 9/11 suspects face justice near the World Trade Center site where so many New Yorkers were murdered,” the mayor said at the time. The federal courthouse had hosted major terror trials previously, he noted, and the police were more than up to the security challenge.
And so it is possible that the reversal will call into question the calibrated effort of Mr. Obama and his attorney general, Eric H. Holder Jr., to bring the handling of suspected terrorists out of the realm of military emergency and into the halls of civilian justice.
If the message to Al Qaeda and its supporters in November was that New York City was able, even eager, to bring justice to those who plotted mass murder, the message of January is far less confident. [*]
“This will be one more stroke for Al Qaeda’s propaganda,” said Bruce Hoffman, a terrorism expert at Georgetown University.
The breakdown of support for the trials in New York might have actually been assisted by the way New York officials were first notified by the Obama administration.
Mr. Holder called Mr. Bloomberg and Gov. David A. Paterson only a few hours before his public announcement on Nov. 13; and Mr. Kelly got a similar call that morning from Preet Bharara, the United States attorney in Manhattan, whose office had been picked to prosecute the cases.
But by the time those calls were made, the decision had already been reported in the news media, which was how Mr. Bloomberg learned about it, according to mayoral aides.
One senior Bloomberg official, speaking on condition of anonymity so as not to antagonize the White House, said: “When Holder was making the decision he didn’t call Ray Kelly and say, ‘What do you think?’ He didn’t call the mayor and say, ‘What would your position be?’ They didn’t reach out until it got out there.”
Soon, though, New York real estate executives were raising concerns with the Obama administration, according to Mr. Spinola, president of the Real Estate Board of New York.
Mr. Spinola said he had received calls and e-mail messages from the board’s members. Residential real estate brokers were “going berserk,” as he put it, worried that they would no longer be able to sell apartments downtown.
Commercial brokers feared they would not be able to lease office space.
On Nov. 20, the Friday before Thanksgiving, the real estate executive William C. Rudin held a meeting at his office to talk about issues with Jim Messina, a deputy White House chief of staff, according to Mr. Spinola.
The meeting was not on the topic of the trials, but the executives pressed their case anyway.
Mr. Spinola said that he told Mr. Messina, “I hope that the White House was going to put a ton of money into it.”
A turning point came when Mr. Kelly spoke before a large business crowd at a New York Police Foundation breakfast on Jan. 13.
After addressing the year’s highlights in crime reduction, he turned to the 9/11 trials, offering a presentation that was direct and graphic.
“Whatever the merits of holding the trial in Lower Manhattan,” he said, “it will certainly raise the level of threat.” He said that “securing this area and the entire city for the duration of this event promises to be an extremely demanding undertaking.”
He offered a detailed account of his department’s security plan, with inner and outer perimeters, unannounced vehicle checkpoints, countersniper teams on rooftops, and hazardous-materials and bomb squad personnel ready to respond. And he cited the hundreds of millions it would cost to protect the city.
“The entire audience issued a collective gasp when it became clear that this was an event that could go on for years,” said one guest, Kathryn S. Wylde, president and chief executive of the Partnership for New York City.
The unhappiness grew. During the Real Estate Board of New York’s annual gala, held on Jan. 21, Mr. Bloomberg dropped by, and Bloomberg officials said they got “an earful on that” from real estate executives, all of whom were angry about the plan.
A week later, his public opinion had changed, and so, it seems, had the ultimate destination of the trials.
Jet Diverted in Scare
WASHINGTON (AP) — A Continental Airlines jet flying from Newark, N.J., to Bogota was diverted to Jacksonville, [*]Fla., on Friday over concerns that a passenger was on the government’s watch list of suspected terrorists banned from commercial flights. It turned out to be a case of mistaken identity. [*]
The passenger — one of 75 — was cleared by the F.B.I. and permitted to continue on the flight to Colombia, the Transportation Security Administration said.
Reporting was contributed by Al Baker, David W. Chen, Christine Haughney and William K. Rashbaum.
Copyright 2010 The New York Times Co

New Teams Connect Dots of Terror Plots

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/30/us/30intel.html
January 30, 2010
New Teams Connect Dots of Terror Plots
By ERIC SCHMITT [Obama white house] [gsave] [Obama’s president-NSC-policymaking model] [SecDef Gates in SAsia] [and NSC principal] [NSC policymakers, congressional oversight, and bureaucratic implementation] [new info on NCTC] [use psci 355, 455, 469] [slowly bulking up with occasional scares (and eventually genuine crises?) causing spurts of activity that appear useful] [*]
WASHINGTON — The nation’s main counterterrorism center is creating new teams of specialists to pursue clues of emerging terrorist plots as part of a rapid buildup that will sharply increase its analyst corps, perhaps by hundreds [**] of people over the next year, intelligence officials said Friday.
The action by the National Counterterrorism Center is one of the furthest reaching by the government so far to address the failings of several federal agencies in the case of a 23-year-old Nigerian man charged with boarding a Detroit-bound airliner on Christmas Day with explosives sewn into his underwear.
A White House review this month found that no one in the government’s vast intelligence

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/30/us/30intel.html
January 30, 2010
New Teams Connect Dots of Terror Plots
By ERIC SCHMITT [Obama white house] [gsave] [Obama’s president-NSC-policymaking model] [SecDef Gates in SAsia] [and NSC principal] [NSC policymakers, congressional oversight, and bureaucratic implementation] [new info on NCTC] [use psci 355, 455, 469] [slowly bulking up with occasional scares (and eventually genuine crises?) causing spurts of activity that appear useful] [*]
WASHINGTON — The nation’s main counterterrorism center is creating new teams of specialists to pursue clues of emerging terrorist plots as part of a rapid buildup that will sharply increase its analyst corps, perhaps by hundreds [**] of people over the next year, intelligence officials said Friday.
The action by the National Counterterrorism Center is one of the furthest reaching by the government so far to address the failings of several federal agencies in the case of a 23-year-old Nigerian man charged with boarding a Detroit-bound airliner on Christmas Day with explosives sewn into his underwear.
A White House review this month found that no one in the government’s vast intelligence

The key to dealing with Iran: Press ties with opposition

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/29/AR2010012904225.html
The key to dealing with Iran: Press ties with opposition
Saturday, January 30, 2010; A14 [editorial] [c.f., today’s Times one on Iran] [Iran and USFP and Obama’s outreach, so on] [use psci 355, 455] [*]
PRESIDENT OBAMA promised last year that if Iran did not respond to offers of high-level "engagement" with the United States and negotiations on its nuclear program, he would seek international support for "crippling" sanctions against the regime. Tehran did not respond, and true to its word, the administration has been engaged in a vigorous-looking diplomatic effort this month to win agreement on a new resolution by the U.N. Security Council. From the outside, the results of its talks this far with China and Russia, the keys to such a vote, have looked mixed at best: China, in particular, has been public about its recalcitrance. Yet administration officials continue to express optimism that they will be able to bring tough new sanctions to bear. [what else?] [has to keep moving forward while hoping China comes around?] [*]
We hope that's the case. Yet any new measures are likely to take months to approve and

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/29/AR2010012904225.html
The key to dealing with Iran: Press ties with opposition
Saturday, January 30, 2010; A14 [editorial] [c.f., today’s Times one on Iran] [Iran and USFP and Obama’s outreach, so on] [use psci 355, 455] [*]
PRESIDENT OBAMA promised last year that if Iran did not respond to offers of high-level "engagement" with the United States and negotiations on its nuclear program, he would seek international support for "crippling" sanctions against the regime. Tehran did not respond, and true to its word, the administration has been engaged in a vigorous-looking diplomatic effort this month to win agreement on a new resolution by the U.N. Security Council. From the outside, the results of its talks this far with China and Russia, the keys to such a vote, have looked mixed at best: China, in particular, has been public about its recalcitrance. Yet administration officials continue to express optimism that they will be able to bring tough new sanctions to bear. [what else?] [has to keep moving forward while hoping China comes around?] [*]
We hope that's the case. Yet any new measures are likely to take months to approve and implement, and Iran has shrugged off the three previous Security Council sanctions resolutions. In the meantime, the administration is still dodging a larger question: whether Mr. Obama's two-track strategy needs to be overhauled in light of the unprecedented and increasingly radical opposition the Islamic regime is facing from its own people. [*]
Many experts outside the administration, and many in Congress, think it does. The hardline clique that has emerged around Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, they say, has lost legitimacy, and in any case is composed of those elements most opposed to accord with the West. The best chance of preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear capacity lies in a victory by the opposition -- and so it follows that the Obama administration's strategy should be aimed at bolstering the self-styled "green movement" rather than striking deals with the Khamenei regime.
To his credit, Mr. Obama has spoken out with increasing forcefulness against the regime's crackdown on the opposition, and many of the sanctions the administration is promoting center on the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, which is both the sponsor of the nuclear program and the backbone of Mr. Khamenei's remaining support. But the president's advisers say he is sticking to a regime-centered approach. Mr. Obama's offer of engagement and recognition of the Islamic republic, they contend, helped produce the domestic political crisis; so more offers of accord could create still more pressure. [will only know over some time] [*]
The problem with this strategy is that it keeps the administration focused on the least likely scenario for success -- a deal with the current regime -- instead of the more likely one, which is an opposition victory. It could cause the administration to take steps that undermine the green movement, such as conducting more negotiations with the government, while failing to do that which could tip the balance of power to the opposition. The latter would include more support for independent broadcasting into the country, and funding for groups that can help the opposition circumvent Iran's Internet firewall. Mr. Obama himself might make a difference by speaking out more forcefully and more often in support of Iranians' right to free speech, free assembly and justice for those who have been killed or imprisoned. [NYTs was content with Obama’s approach so far while Post far less so] [*]
The regime professes unconcern about another round of sanctions -- perhaps with some reason. But it does not hide its terror and paranoia about the possibility that the United States would help to sponsor a popular "color revolution." If the object of sanctions is to punish the regime and force it to make concessions, why not begin to do what it fears most? © 2010 The Washington Post Co

Americans in Iraq: occupiers no longer

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/29/AR2010012903272.html
Americans in Iraq: occupiers no longer
By David Tafuri
Saturday, January 30, 2010; 12:00 AM [oped] [former Bush admin state department guy] [interesting viewpoint on US in –ir presently] [he makes an interesting point and I think fewer Iraqis see US as occupier or one to damage Islam as matter of policy than year or two ago] [use psci 355, 455, 469] [*]
Getting stuck outside the gate to the Green Zone in an un-armored vehicle would have meant being a sitting duck three years ago. But when it happened to me last month, it didn't feel so harrowing. In fact, the young Iraqi soldier who stopped us provided jokes and bottles of water as we waited for U.S. officials. It was a sea change in attitude, demonstrating a comfort with Americans that did not exist when I lived in Baghdad from 2006 to 2007. [partly because the US has lived with SOFA signed by Bush in 2008] [per SOFA it withdrew from cities back to garrisons] [and it’s in process of honoring 2011 deadline] [this has created some goodwill] [and also, Bush’s “surge” arguably worked] [*]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/29/AR2010012903272.html
Americans in Iraq: occupiers no longer
By David Tafuri
Saturday, January 30, 2010; 12:00 AM [oped] [former Bush admin state department guy] [interesting viewpoint on US in –ir presently] [he makes an interesting point and I think fewer Iraqis see US as occupier or one to damage Islam as matter of policy than year or two ago] [use psci 355, 455, 469] [*]
Getting stuck outside the gate to the Green Zone in an un-armored vehicle would have meant being a sitting duck three years ago. But when it happened to me last month, it didn't feel so harrowing. In fact, the young Iraqi soldier who stopped us provided jokes and bottles of water as we waited for U.S. officials. It was a sea change in attitude, demonstrating a comfort with Americans that did not exist when I lived in Baghdad from 2006 to 2007. [partly because the US has lived with SOFA signed by Bush in 2008] [per SOFA it withdrew from cities back to garrisons] [and it’s in process of honoring 2011 deadline] [this has created some goodwill] [and also, Bush’s “surge” arguably worked] [*]
Despite this week's hotel bombings that appeared to target foreigners, we are finally getting it right, and it shows. Both American soldiers and the businessmen who now operate in Iraq have adapted to Iraqi culture in a way that has helped decrease violence, improve the partnership and set Iraq on a path toward stability.
Iraqis, like many Arabs, hope for a couple of basic things in their dealings with foreigners: economic opportunity and respect for them and their unique cultural and religious traditions. [pretty simple on one level] [but with Middle East media and its penchant for conspiracies, gets messed up in hurry] [*] The planners of the invasion and reconstruction in Iraq ignored both. When America arrived in March 2003, we moved into Saddam Hussein's palaces, inhabited the country's places of worship and encouraged our male soldiers to search Iraqi women. We dismissed the rank-and-file soldiers and police who depended on the state for their paychecks, shuttered state-owned industries that employed many non-military males and offered Iraqis no alternative for making a living. We also searched Iraqi homes with bomb sniffing dogs, even though dogs are considered inappropriate for homes in the Middle East. [some of which was military necessity but counterproductive to overall goals] [*]
A crucial turning point, one Iraqi said, came when American soldiers stopped manning checkpoints around the city and started letting Iraqis do it. [*]"Before, the Americans were occupiers who we thought would never leave," he told me. "Now, they are invited guests."
Or consider a successful American security and logistics firm I visited in Baghdad. This is not one of the security firms in the news, but one that is thriving, even as the need for them decreases. The manager boasted about how many Iraqis they had made into millionaires by sourcing their needs with local Iraqi firms and hiring and promoting Iraqis within their company -- a far cry from a few years ago, when similar firms would have touted the missions they had completed without losing an American client, or how many armored vehicles they owned. And it has lots of pets -- all of them rabbits and cats. It might sound silly, but it matters.
To be clear, Iraq still faces major hurdles, including the national elections set for March. There will also be periodic setbacks, such as the four truck bombs that went off in Baghdad and killed more than 100 people when I was there recently. A return to the violence of a few years ago is possible. [and the Sunni groups will continue to present potential problems for foreseeable future as they covet a return to status not justified by their numbers] [only over time will they learn that it’s not going to happen] [*]
But as the U.S. has begun to treat Iraq more like a sovereign nation that is, despite setbacks, on a path toward stability and security, there is a growing recognition within Iraq that America could be a friend and ally. [agreed] [*] Already, when you meet Kurds in northern Iraq, the first thing they tell you is how thankful they are to America for protecting them from Saddam, and, later, removing him. Perhaps one day when you meet Iraqi Arabs, they, too, will thank America -- especially if you start by admitting we made mistakes when we began the reconstruction.
David Tafuri is a partner at Patton Boggs LLP. He was the State Department rule of law coordinator at the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad from 2006 to 2007. © 2010 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interacti

Iran, After the Deadline

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/30/opinion/30sat1.html
January 30, 2010
Editorial
Iran, After the Deadline
[editorial] [times discusses the role of China in Iran sanctions] [but it’s become more complex due to Taiwan arms deal that is causing China heartburn] [China appears to be leaning toward a deal that would cause US to alter decades of foreign policy positions vis-v-vis Taiwan] [use psci 355, 455] [**]
Iran has again proved to be a master at playing for time. Six months after a new diplomatic overture from Washington and its partners, Tehran has shown no interest in resolving the dispute over its nuclear program. It is time for President Obama and other leaders to ratchet up the pressure with tougher sanctions.
Mr. Obama, who offered a new relationship with Iran, gave its government until the end of

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/30/opinion/30sat1.html
January 30, 2010
Editorial
Iran, After the Deadline
[editorial] [times discusses the role of China in Iran sanctions] [but it’s become more complex due to Taiwan arms deal that is causing China heartburn] [China appears to be leaning toward a deal that would cause US to alter decades of foreign policy positions vis-v-vis Taiwan] [use psci 355, 455] [**]
Iran has again proved to be a master at playing for time. Six months after a new diplomatic overture from Washington and its partners, Tehran has shown no interest in resolving the dispute over its nuclear program. It is time for President Obama and other leaders to ratchet up the pressure with tougher sanctions.
Mr. Obama, who offered a new relationship with Iran, gave its government until the end of 2009 to come to the table. In his State of the Union address this week, he warned Iran’s leaders that they face “growing consequences” if they continue to ignore their obligations.
Four years after the United Nations Security Council first demanded that Iran stop enriching uranium (usable for nuclear fuel or a bomb), Tehran has thousands of centrifuges spinning. Washington plans to soon circulate a new sanctions resolution — the fourth in four years. [*]
Britain, France and Germany share Mr. Obama’s concerns. Russia and China — which have veto power on the Security Council and strong economic ties with Iran — have previously insisted on watering down penalties. That has made the Council look feckless and made it far too easy for Iran to press ahead. On Friday, we were glad to see Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton publicly warn China, [actually, I thought it was necessary too though I usually favor such warnings in diplomatic channels] [*]which seems especially intractable, that it faces diplomatic isolation if it fails to back new sanctions.
Last fall, after Iran was caught hiding another illicit enrichment plant, the major powers offered Tehran a reasonable interim deal: open all of its nuclear facilities to international inspectors and send most of its stock of low-enriched uranium abroad to be turned into fuel for a research reactor. That wouldn’t have solved the problem, but it would have bought more time for negotiations. [agreed; it was partial solution to buy time] [*] A midlevel Iranian diplomat seemed to agree, but then higher-ups said no. Nothing has changed since.
This is a delicate time in Iran. Last June’s fraudulent presidential election sparked fierce political protests and a brutal government crackdown — including political executions. New United Nations sanctions must be deftly targeted to inflict maximum damage on the levers of repression — especially the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, which also runs the nuclear program — without imposing additional suffering on the Iranians. That circle must somehow be squared. And the door must remain open to negotiations.
If the Security Council does not act quickly, then the United States and Europe must apply more pressure on their own. [I more or less agree; the problemis when such mini actions are taken others fill void as China and others would surely do] [*] The Senate on Thursday approved a bill that would punish companies for exporting gasoline to Iran or helping Iran expand its own petroleum refining capability. The House already had passed a similar version. That may be necessary at some point, but right now we are concerned that this approach will hurt too many Iranians outside the government.
Some experts say the government is so weakened that the United States should withdraw its offer to improve relations and focus solely on regime change. No one has put forward a compelling plan for achieving that, but military action would be a disaster. As we saw in Iraq, talk of regime change can be an unpredictable and dangerous game. [Robert Kagan recently called for “regime change” as archived in societal recently] [but the US is deployed in two major theaters: AfPak and Iraq] [it can scarcely afford to occupy Iran without extreme duress and airstrikes wouldn’t take out all of Iran nuclear infrastructure] [so a real challenge] [*]
Iran is already, predictably, claiming that the homegrown opposition is a tool of the West. That is absurd. President Obama needs to speak out more strongly on behalf of Iranians who are peacefully seeking change. But the United States and its partners also must be very conscious of the fierce pride and independence of the Iranian people. Squaring that circle will be extremely hard, but it must be done. Meanwhile, the centrifuges keep spinning.
Copyright 2010 The New York Times Co

China Warns of Sanctions in Fallout Over Taiwan

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/31/world/asia/31china.html
January 31, 2010
China Warns of Sanctions in Fallout Over Taiwan
By REUTERS [China] [PRC] [China’s response to recent Obama administration decision of demarche over China’s hacking] [US-Sino relations] [complex relationship that SecState Clinton is now trying to manage] [followup] [difficult to know whether this is China’s CYA or bottom line?] [*]
BEIJING (Reuters) — China threatened to impose sanctions on American arms contractors and cut cooperation with Washington unless it cancels a $6.4 billion arms sale to Taiwan, [*]in an unprecedented move signaling Beijing’s growing global power. [dilemma for USFP!] [*]
China on Saturday bitterly denounced the Obama administration’s announcement a day

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/31/world/asia/31china.html
January 31, 2010
China Warns of Sanctions in Fallout Over Taiwan
By REUTERS [China] [PRC] [China’s response to recent Obama administration decision of demarche over China’s hacking] [US-Sino relations] [complex relationship that SecState Clinton is now trying to manage] [followup] [difficult to know whether this is China’s CYA or bottom line?] [*]
BEIJING (Reuters) — China threatened to impose sanctions on American arms contractors and cut cooperation with Washington unless it cancels a $6.4 billion arms sale to Taiwan, [*]in an unprecedented move signaling Beijing’s growing global power. [dilemma for USFP!] [*]
China on Saturday bitterly denounced the Obama administration’s announcement a day earlier that it wanted to sell the package of weapons to Taiwan, the self-ruled island that Beijing views as an illegitimate breakaway state.
The dispute deepens the rifts between Beijing and Washington, already at odds over trade, currency, Tibet and the Internet.
Beijing said it would formally sanction American companies that sold arms to Taiwan, a break with past practice. Previously, China’s commercial reprisals have been informal. [interesting position since China typically loaths sanctions?] [*]
“The United States will shoulder responsibility for the serious repercussions if it does not immediately reverse the mistaken decision to sell weapons to Taiwan,” Chinese Vice Foreign Minister He Yafei told the United States ambassador to China Jon Huntsman in comments reported on the Foreign Ministry’s Web site.
The dispute threatens to spill over into broader international diplomacy. Washington has sought China’s backing in pressuring Iran and North Korea, and is also preparing for a world summit on nuclear weapons in April. [DPRK and Iran] [US is hoping to get China to acquiesce on santions against Iran in P5] [probably backing off on Taiwan armaments would do the trick but at what cost???] [*]
“It will be unavoidable that cooperation between China and the United States over important international and regional issues will also be affected,” the Chinese foreign ministry said, without specifying any of those issues.
China’s defense ministry said military exchanges would be put on hold, and Beijing postponed vice ministerial-level talks on strategic security, arms control and non-proliferation.
“I think the price the United States pays will be heavier than the U.S. may have anticipated,” said Liu Jiangyong, professor of international security at Beijing’s Tsinghua University. [*]
“The U.S. view that arms sales to Taiwan are just a momentary squall could be out-of-date,” he said. “Now longer-term cooperation could also be damaged.” [since Nixon and Shaghai communiqué the US has reserved the right to arm Taiwan for “defensive” purposes so it’s a big deal] [*]
The Obama administration told the . Congress on Friday of the proposed sales, which include Black Hawk helicopters, Patriot “Advanced Capability-3” anti-missile missiles and two refurbished Osprey-class mine-hunting ships.
The Black Hawk, a tactical transport helicopter, is built by Sikorsky Aircraft, a unit of United Technologies. The Patriot missile is built by the Lockheed Martin Corporation, and the Raytheon Company is the system integrator.
“China will also impose corresponding sanctions on U.S. companies that engage in weapons sales to Taiwan,” the foreign ministry said, without naming any firms.
Copyright 2010 The New York Times Co

Clinton Warns China on Iran Sanctions

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/30/world/asia/30diplo.html
January 30, 2010
Clinton Warns China on Iran Sanctions
By MARK LANDLER [Iran] [SecState Clinton after donner’s conference in London] [confluence of June elections with Iran’s apparent drive for nuke weapon] [US gave Iran till end of last year and they passed] [now US is trying to impose new focused sanctions and question is whether China and/or Russia will thwart?] [cross in govt] [followup] [use psci 355, 455] [*]
PARIS — Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton warned China on Friday that it would face economic insecurity and diplomatic isolation if it did not sign on to tough new sanctions against Iran for its nuclear program, seeking to raise the pressure on Beijing to fall in line with an American-led campaign. [the US only needs China to abstain] [I think it’s doable][*]
Speaking to students at the École Militaire, the prestigious French war college, Mrs. Clinton

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/30/world/asia/30diplo.html
January 30, 2010
Clinton Warns China on Iran Sanctions
By MARK LANDLER [Iran] [SecState Clinton after donner’s conference in London] [confluence of June elections with Iran’s apparent drive for nuke weapon] [US gave Iran till end of last year and they passed] [now US is trying to impose new focused sanctions and question is whether China and/or Russia will thwart?] [cross in govt] [followup] [use psci 355, 455] [*]
PARIS — Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton warned China on Friday that it would face economic insecurity and diplomatic isolation if it did not sign on to tough new sanctions against Iran for its nuclear program, seeking to raise the pressure on Beijing to fall in line with an American-led campaign. [the US only needs China to abstain] [I think it’s doable][*]
Speaking to students at the École Militaire, the prestigious French war college, Mrs. Clinton said, “China will be under a lot of pressure to recognize the destabilizing effect that a nuclear-armed Iran would have” in the Persian Gulf, “from which they receive a significant percentage of their oil supply.”
With Russia increasingly frustrated by Iran’s recalcitrance, China has emerged as perhaps the lone holdout to a new United Nations resolution that would focus sweeping financial and economic sanctions on Iran’s leadership, including a possible ban on sales of technology to its energy sector. [*]
Mrs. Clinton — in a flurry of meetings this week in Europe, including one with the Chinese foreign minister — has tried to build momentum for new measures against Iran. Britain, France and Germany back the effort, and Russia, which has often blocked previous efforts, now seems ready to act.
Only China, which imports crude oil from Iran and has large investments in Iran’s oil and gas sector, has said it would prefer to continue negotiating with the Iranian government. [but has made its case less truculently than usual?] [perhaps it’s prepared to[*] With a veto in the United Nations Security Council, it could block a move to impose more sanctions.
“We understand that right now, that is something that seems counterproductive to you, sanction a country from which you get so much of the natural resources your growing economy needs,” Mrs. Clinton said, referring to the Chinese, in comments after a speech on European security. “But think about the longer-term implications.” [*]
American officials have been making this argument privately to the Chinese for weeks, as the United States tries to win them over for new sanctions. But this is the first time Mrs. Clinton has publicly made the link between China’s energy security and the alarm over Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
In case Beijing missed the urgency of her appeal, Mrs. Clinton remarked that a nuclear-armed Iran would risk setting off an arms race in the Persian Gulf, and that it could provoke a military strike from Israel, which she said would regard a nuclear Iran as an “existential threat.”
Tensions between China and the United States have flared recently over a range of issues, most notably Internet freedom and Google’s announcement that its systems had been hacked by sources in mainland China. Unprompted, Mrs. Clinton alluded to another source of friction: President Obama’s plan to meet with the Dalai Lama, whom Beijing condemns as a subversive.
China, she said, should not allow such irritants to derail its otherwise “positive, comprehensive” relationship with the United States.
Mrs. Clinton was in London and Paris this week for meetings on Afghanistan and Yemen, and for her security speech. But jitters about Iran and its nuclear ambitions have shadowed her at every stop.
In London, Mrs. Clinton brought along specialists on sanctions from the Treasury Department to talk to Chinese officials about technical issues, like how the Iranian government transfers money to banks in Asia to avoid restrictions on its transactions in Western banks. [*]
Mrs. Clinton met Thursday with the Chinese foreign minister, Yang Jiechi, who was attending the Afghanistan conference. A senior administration official said Mr. Yang listened to the American arguments but reiterated his government’s preference to stick with negotiations.
International patience with Iran has frayed, particularly since Iranian authorities backed out of a deal to ship a significant portion of their lightly enriched uranium to France or Russia to be further enriched for medical purposes.
Frustration with Iran is also mounting on Capitol Hill, where the Senate passed its own sanctions bill on Thursday. Mrs. Clinton said the administration would focus on obtaining a United Nations resolution, though she said the Senate’s legislation could end up being “complementary.” [USFP] [*]
As part of the effort to broaden and toughen sanctions, the Obama administration is expected to push to add financial institutions to the blacklist of those helping Iran’s nuclear program.
The focus of these sanctions, Mrs. Clinton has said, would be on Iran’s leadership, particularly members of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps. Many in the corps also played a role in cracking down on the enduring protests after Iran’s disputed presidential election in June.
Mrs. Clinton, who met the French president Nicolas Sarkozy, earlier in the day, said she applauded his “leadership on this issue.” [*]
Her address on European security, the main reason for her stop in Paris, was meant to answer recent Russian proposals to revamp security arrangements on the continent, including major arms treaties.
The United States, Mrs. Clinton said, opposed negotiating new security treaties, saying that would be time-consuming and cumbersome. Instead, she said she wanted to strengthen existing institutions.
“The United States and Russia will not always agree,” she said. “Our interests will not always overlap. But when we disagree, we will seek constructive ways to discuss and manage our differences.”
Copyright 2010 The New York Times Co

Israel Defends Its Inquiry Into Gaza War

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/30/world/middleeast/30israel.html
January 30, 2010
Israel Defends Its Inquiry Into Gaza War
By ISABEL KERSHNER [Israel] [domestic politics intersects foreign policy] [Israel now prepared to respond formally to Goldstone report from last fall] [Israel to rebut it in UN] [followup] [not clear whether this is hardening of position or prelude to something interesting?] [followup] [c.f. yesterday] [Israel sends explanation to Gen Sec Ban Ki-moon] [*]
JERUSALEM — Israel sent a letter to the United Nations secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, on Friday, defending the credibility of its internal military investigation into the Israeli Army’s conduct during last winter’s Gaza war.
The 40-page document was the first official Israeli response to a harshly critical United Nations study called the Goldstone report and formed part of Israel’s effort to stave off

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/30/world/middleeast/30israel.html
January 30, 2010
Israel Defends Its Inquiry Into Gaza War
By ISABEL KERSHNER [Israel] [domestic politics intersects foreign policy] [Israel now prepared to respond formally to Goldstone report from last fall] [Israel to rebut it in UN] [followup] [not clear whether this is hardening of position or prelude to something interesting?] [followup] [c.f. yesterday] [Israel sends explanation to Gen Sec Ban Ki-moon] [*]
JERUSALEM — Israel sent a letter to the United Nations secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, on Friday, defending the credibility of its internal military investigation into the Israeli Army’s conduct during last winter’s Gaza war.
The 40-page document was the first official Israeli response to a harshly critical United Nations study called the Goldstone report and formed part of Israel’s effort to stave off accusations of war crimes.
But the document did not address the possibility of an independent, nonmilitary commission of inquiry, as called for by the United Nations report into the war and by many concerned parties in Israel and abroad. [*]
A copy released by the Israeli Foreign Ministry late Friday outlined the findings so far of various kinds of military investigations into several episodes. Among the conclusions, Israel stated that “the strategies adopted by Hamas, and in particular its systematic entrenchment in the heart of civilian areas, created profound operational dilemmas.” The document also declared that in complex combat situations, errors of judgment, even with tragic results, did not necessarily mean that war crimes had occurred. [while many don’t buy it I think it’s more or less accurate] [when Israel targets as matter of policy it’s not especially coy about it] [Gaza was plagued with problems from beginning] [IDF got frustrated with Hezbollah’s tactics and successes and stuff happened] [that’s somewhat different than Israel deciding a priori to slaughter civilians] [*]
The Israeli government has been considering the establishment of some kind of judicial investigative committee. While some prominent Israelis favor one, others have been opposed, including the defense minister, Ehud Barak. “All of the soldiers and officers whom we sent into battle need to know,” Mr. Barak said Friday, “that the State of Israel stands behind them, also the day after.”
The report, which was published in September, accused mainly Israel, but also Hamas, which controls Gaza, of possible war crimes during the three-week war. It was researched and written by a fact-finding mission created by the Human Rights Council and led by the respected international jurist Richard J. Goldstone, a South African judge and veteran war crimes prosecutor. In November, the General Assembly endorsed the Goldstone report and asked the secretary general to report back by Feb. 5 on Israeli and Palestinian progress in investigating their respective roles in the war. [history of Goldstone report] [*]
Among other things, the report accused Israel of deliberate attacks against the civilian population of Gaza and of willful destruction of civilian infrastructure, a violation of international law. [and while Israel fully knew civilians would get killed, that’s somewhat different than targeting civilians] [*]
Up to 1,400 Gazans were killed, including hundreds of civilians. Israel rejected the Goldstone report as biased.
The Palestinian ambassador to the United Nations, Riyad Mansour, said that the Palestinian government had delivered a letter to the secretary general saying it had established a special commission that would review the accusations raised in the Goldstone report and carry out whatever investigations the commission deemed necessary.
The report accused Hamas of firing rockets into Israel from Gaza, and Hamas said separately that it had responded to the United Nations demands for an investigation by calling Israeli civilian deaths a “mistake.”
The report called for “appropriate investigations that are independent and in conformity with international standards” into what it called “serious violations” of international law.
If no good-faith, independent investigations were under way within six months, the report recommended, the Security Council should refer the Gaza case to the International Criminal Court. [and I think investigation should occur but not forced on] [and it’s important to blame Hamas for using civilians as shield and the other things they did which Goldstone was too casual about, in my view] [*]
Many in Israel argue that the military investigation is not enough. Israel’s attorney general, Menachem Mazuz, said Israel was at risk of “Serbianization,” even though he considered the Goldstone report biased.
“Therefore, I believe that Israel has a clear interest in conducting a serious, expert examination that will deal with the report and produce an opposing report,” Mr. Mazuz said in an interview published Friday in the newspaper Haaretz.
Neil MacFarquhar contributed reporting from the United Nations.
Copyright 2010 The New York Times Co

Hamas Official Murdered in Dubai Hotel

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/30/world/middleeast/30dubai.html
January 30, 2010
Hamas Official Murdered in Dubai Hotel
By ROBERT F. WORTH and ISABEL KERSHNER [UAE] [Dubai] [wild west] [Hamas guest murdered in intrigue whose outlines are still unclear?]
SANA, Yemen — The Palestinian militant group Hamas said Friday that one of its senior officials was murdered in a Dubai hotel room last week. Hamas accused Israel of the killing and vowed to retaliate. [as matter of course] [and while plausible could also be Palestinian competitors or other?] [*]
The official, Mahmoud al-Mabhouh, 50, lived in Syria and was a founder of Hamas’s military wing, which has carried out hundreds of deadly attacks against Israel since the 1980s, [makes it plausible that Mossad or other killed him?] [*] Hamas officials said. Informed Israeli experts said he was also a liaison between Hamas and Iran for weapons smuggling operations into Gaza. He had survived several previous assassination attempts, relatives said,

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/30/world/middleeast/30dubai.html
January 30, 2010
Hamas Official Murdered in Dubai Hotel
By ROBERT F. WORTH and ISABEL KERSHNER [UAE] [Dubai] [wild west] [Hamas guest murdered in intrigue whose outlines are still unclear?]
SANA, Yemen — The Palestinian militant group Hamas said Friday that one of its senior officials was murdered in a Dubai hotel room last week. Hamas accused Israel of the killing and vowed to retaliate. [as matter of course] [and while plausible could also be Palestinian competitors or other?] [*]
The official, Mahmoud al-Mabhouh, 50, lived in Syria and was a founder of Hamas’s military wing, which has carried out hundreds of deadly attacks against Israel since the 1980s, [makes it plausible that Mossad or other killed him?] [*] Hamas officials said. Informed Israeli experts said he was also a liaison between Hamas and Iran for weapons smuggling operations into Gaza. He had survived several previous assassination attempts, relatives said, including one three months ago that left him in a coma for 24 hours. [*]
The Dubai police issued a statement saying that Mr. Mabhouh was killed hours after arriving in the city on Jan. 19 by a “professional criminal gang” that left Dubai before the body was discovered. The killers had been tracking him since before his arrival in Dubai, and most of them traveled on European passports, [?] [sophistication suggest Mossad but others have sophisticated covers and cutouts and the tools of tradecraft] [*]the statement said.
There were conflicting reports about how Mr. Mabhouh was killed, with some relatives saying Hamas officials told them he was electrocuted and others saying he suffocated or was poisoned. Osama Hamdan, a Hamas spokesman in Lebanon, said, “We will not talk about the details until we have put all the pieces of the puzzle together.”
Israeli officials declined to comment.
Assassinations are rare in Dubai, a polyglot business hub on the Persian Gulf where deposed foreign leaders sometimes sought shelter. But that began to change last year after a former Chechen rebel was shot dead in an underground Dubai parking lot. “The myth that Dubai is the eye of the storm, and no one will touch it because everyone has an interest, is being blown apart,” said Christopher Davidson, the author of two books on the United Arab Emirates, to which Dubai belongs. [relatively new phenom in Dubai] [*]
Mr. Mabhouh is said to have organized the capture and killing of two Israeli soldiers during a Palestinian uprising in the 1980s. [*]He was imprisoned several times by Israel.
Hamas has ruled Gaza since 2006, but its political leaders are also based in Damascus, Syria. There have been a number of attempts on the lives of Hamas members. Last month two Hamas officials were killed in a mysterious explosion in southern Beirut, near the headquarters of Hezbollah. In 1997, Khaled Meshaal, the leader of the group’s Damascus politburo, survived an Israeli assassination attempt in Amman, Jordan. [since Hamas is Sunni and Hezbollah Shi’a it’s conceivable that their competition was behind it though little record of the two attacking each other?] [*]
Mr. Mabhouh was buried in Al Yarmouk, a Palestinian camp, near the Syrian capital, on Friday afternoon. Television images showed large crowds of Palestinians in attendance, as pallbearers carried his coffin, draped in a green Hamas flag.
Hamas officials visited the Mabhouh family home in the Jabaliya refugee camp in northern Gaza and vowed to avenge his death. Ismail Haniya, the leader of the Hamas government in Gaza, kissed Mr. Mabhouh’s father on the forehead and described his son as a hero. Another Hamas leader, Khalil al-Hayya, told reporters that Mr. Mabhouh was “not the first one the Mossad’s hand has reached.” [*]
“We reserve our right to respond to this crime in a suitable time and place,” Mr. Hayya said. But, he added, “We in Hamas emphasize that our battlefield is the land of Palestine and our battle with the enemy is in Palestine,” and not on foreign soil.
Mohammed Abdel Raouf al-Mabhouh, the brother of Mahmoud, said in an interview that he had last seen his brother in May 1989.
Mahmoud al-Mabhouh escaped Gaza without telling his family where he was going. Mohammed said he had not been back in Gaza since, but that his wife and children had visited there in 2007.
On Jan. 20, according to Mohammed, Mahmoud’s wife called from Syria to say that Mahmoud had been found dead in his hotel room in Dubai, hours after his arrival there.
Robert F. Worth reported from Sana, and Isabel Kershner from Jerusalem. Fares Akram contributed reporting from Gaza.
Copyright 2010 The New York Times Co

Marines Invest in Local Afghan Projects

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/30/world/asia/30helmand.html
January 30, 2010
Marines Invest in Local Afghan Projects
By C. J. CHIVERS [Afghanistan] [hydra] [began in Afghanistan, but moved to Pakistan] [AfPak] [2009’s substantial pickup in Taliban and other insurgencies] [spring offensive turned into major effort throughout year] [now winter snows are slowing down in typical yearly fashion] [by time snow begins to melt, most of the “surge” will be in place] [use psci 469] [followup on Eikenberry’s November bombshells just before President Obama made AfPak “surge” decision] [US Marines taking time to do it right with locals] [*]
BOGRABAD, Afghanistan — Abdul Salam, an elder in this impoverished Afghan village, rose to meet the approaching Marines and Navy corpsman. Behind him, his mosque had a new concrete floor and two windows. Last month, before the Marines paid him to refurbish it,

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/30/world/asia/30helmand.html
January 30, 2010
Marines Invest in Local Afghan Projects
By C. J. CHIVERS [Afghanistan] [hydra] [began in Afghanistan, but moved to Pakistan] [AfPak] [2009’s substantial pickup in Taliban and other insurgencies] [spring offensive turned into major effort throughout year] [now winter snows are slowing down in typical yearly fashion] [by time snow begins to melt, most of the “surge” will be in place] [use psci 469] [followup on Eikenberry’s November bombshells just before President Obama made AfPak “surge” decision] [US Marines taking time to do it right with locals] [*]
BOGRABAD, Afghanistan — Abdul Salam, an elder in this impoverished Afghan village, rose to meet the approaching Marines and Navy corpsman. Behind him, his mosque had a new concrete floor and two windows. Last month, before the Marines paid him to refurbish it, the mosque was windowless and had a dirt floor. [smart] [*]
The Marines’ investment, $1,200 to pay for building materials and labor, was part of an outreach effort intended to reduce violence in Helmand Province.
Following the emphasis on a more assertive counterinsurgency approach mandated last year by Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the commander of American forces in Afghanistan, here on some of the country’s most dangerous ground, infantry units are using this winter to try a soft touch. [*]
In the province’s lower Nawa District, many conventional missions for now are a low priority. Airstrikes and high-explosive artillery fire are in disfavor. Even mortar fire is rare.
Instead, in places where it is able, the infantry is sending patrols to enter into development contracts with local men. The ambition is to use local labor to build bridges over canals, shore up irrigation systems, repair water gates or small dams and, in the most determined contest of influence against the Taliban, renovate mosques. [*]
The effort rests on a simple premise: to fight the Taliban, money may be more effective than guns. “We’re trying to buy a little peace,” [*]said Capt. Paul D. Stubbs, commanding officer of Company W, First Battalion, Third Marines, which operates in this area.
Eight Marine-financed mosque projects are in the works in Company W’s area, including the one with Abdul Salam. A dozen more are on a list of anticipated projects. “Mosques are the big thing right now,” said Petty Officer Third Class Mark H. Funk, during a work inspection at Abdul Salam’s house of worship. [*]
On the same patrol, the petty officer checked three bridges in varying stages of completion, looked in on a canal-dredging project and sought the owner of a small shop to offer him a microloan. In all, the company has spent $50,000 on 20 projects since early December, and committed another $50,000. It anticipates spending $200,000 on as many as 75 projects by late spring. [field commanders have discretionary funds, a relatively new instrument that makes big differences] [*]
The Marines have few illusions about what they are doing. They offer a part-time-jobs program to engage in a tug of war for loyalty, hoping to pull some local men toward neutrality before warm weather returns and fighting most likely intensifies.
The program is not flawless. The Marines assume that the Taliban skim a fraction of the money. They have watched one elder, Abdul Majid, cheat them. They gave him wheat seeds and fertilizer to distribute to farmers to plant instead of poppies, the predominant crop here. Abdul Majid sold the sacks in the bazaar. [*]
Then he denied it. “I did not sell that wheat,” he told Petty Officer Funk on Wednesday. “If I did, cut off my hand.”
He held out his arm dramatically. The Marines appeared frustrated with the performance, but said they were inclined to give him a second chance. Abdul Majid also has a mosque. They want to restore it, for reasons beyond appeasing Abdul Majid.
Helmand Province is far from secure. It remains a Taliban stronghold. Many areas have a limited American presence, and where Marines are working, the insurgents are watching. An ambush, a suicide attack or a hidden bomb is a constant risk. [*]
Even near the Marines’ main outpost in lower Nawa, Combat Outpost Sullivan, the insurgents are quietly bold.
The Taliban have threatened local people who have worked with the Americans. And last fall, they lured two community council members to a meeting at which a leading Taliban member pledged to reconcile with the government. At the meeting, both council members were killed. [from US perspective this is not bad as it will help turn tribals toward US largesse] [see recent external where tribal Pashtun group agreed to flip!] [*]
To counter the insurgents, Captain Stubbs has at his disposal a full suite of infantry arms. Artillery, attack aircraft and helicopter gunships are on call. So far he has focused on other tools. “Our best weapon system is money,” [it comes down to offering a simple alternative to Taliban; Afghanistan is poor and central govt cannot on its own but US and other alliance parterns can make this happen] [*]he said.
Counterinsurgency theory rests in part on a basic formula. [securing major population centers then what we used to call pacification or in today’s argot “provincial reconstruction”] [**] The forces opposing the insurgents must first clear an area to provide security, then hold the area, and then try to improve living conditions.
Advocates of counterinsurgency tactics call this the inkblot approach: services and infrastructure spread from small areas outward, like an ink stain spreading across a fabric. For First Battalion, Third Marines, the engagement work of Company W is intended to show to local Afghans that working with the Americans can benefit rural areas.
“We’re trying to expand the blot effect,” said Maj. Rudy Quiles, the civil affairs officer for the battalion. “Our primary mission was to spread the gains to outlying areas.” [*]
The lower Nawa District appears to be partly cleared, allowing attempts at development. But the true state of the insurgency is unknown, and the question of whether development will work in the longer term here remains unanswerable.
In recent months, the area where Company W patrols has not had intensive fighting. The Marines caution that the decline in violence does not necessarily signal success.
The Taliban’s fighters may be focused on other districts, or concentrated in Marja, a nearby population center where the American and Afghan governments have no presence. The decreased pace of fighting may also reflect a winter lull, a pattern common in many contested areas.
Company W’s officers said that whatever the reason for the decline in fighting in their area, it provides opportunity. While the cool weather holds, the Marines can focus on entering into contracts with local men, simultaneously seeking allies and improving their intelligence picture in the event fighting resumes.
On Thursday, a forward air controller, Capt. Nicholas L. Majka, arrived at the outpost with a briefcase full of Afghan currency, the equivalent of $25,000. [contingency funds in commander’s discretion] [they’re audited to there shouldn’t be too much fraud and the like] [*]
It was payday for contractors. Money for each project is disbursed in phases — first to buy building materials, then as work proceeds and laborers need to be paid. A final payment is made after the job is completed.
Captain Majka is a pilot and was trained to direct airstrikes. He said in areas where it is possible to meet with local elders, distributing money was more cost-effective than dropping precision-guided munitions. [counterinsurgency vs. typical kinetic ops] [*]
The fight is not just against armed insurgents, he said, but also against the messages they spread. “When we started to look at the intelligence reports and the interviews with detainees, one of the things we kept hearing was that ‘the Marines are here to usurp our religion,’ ” [exactly] [*]Captain Majka said.
Once the Marines understood the Taliban’s message, he added, “We made mosque refurbishment a large part of our campaign.” [counter’s Talib and al Qaeda on multiple levels including US out to convert to Christianity] [*]
Copyright 2010 The New York Times Co

Four Afghan Soldiers Die in Mix-Up

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/01/30/world/AP-AS-Afghanistan.html
January 30, 2010
Four Afghan Soldiers Die in Mix-Up
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 10:52 a.m. ET [Afghanistan] [hydra] [began in Afghanistan, but moved to Pakistan] [AfPak] [2009’s substantial pickup in Taliban and other insurgencies] [spring offensive turned into major effort throughout year] [now winter snows are slowing down in typical yearly fashion] [by time snow begins to melt, most of the “surge” will be in place] [use psci 469] [followup on Eikenberry’s November bombshells just before President Obama made AfPak “surge” decision] [screwup?] [*]
KABUL (AP) -- A joint U.S.-Afghan force clashed with Afghan troops manning a snow-covered outpost and called in an airstrike early Saturday, killing four Afghan soldiers, U.S. and Afghan officials said. Both sides called the clash a case of mistaken identity.

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/01/30/world/AP-AS-Afghanistan.html
January 30, 2010
Four Afghan Soldiers Die in Mix-Up
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 10:52 a.m. ET [Afghanistan] [hydra] [began in Afghanistan, but moved to Pakistan] [AfPak] [2009’s substantial pickup in Taliban and other insurgencies] [spring offensive turned into major effort throughout year] [now winter snows are slowing down in typical yearly fashion] [by time snow begins to melt, most of the “surge” will be in place] [use psci 469] [followup on Eikenberry’s November bombshells just before President Obama made AfPak “surge” decision] [screwup?] [*]
KABUL (AP) -- A joint U.S.-Afghan force clashed with Afghan troops manning a snow-covered outpost and called in an airstrike early Saturday, killing four Afghan soldiers, U.S. and Afghan officials said. Both sides called the clash a case of mistaken identity.
Afghanistan's Defense Ministry condemned the killings in the eastern Wardak province and demanded punishment for those responsible. NATO called the deaths ''regrettable'' and announced an investigation.
The deaths are likely to strain relations between NATO and Afghan forces at a time both are calling for a closer partnership in the fight against the Taliban.
Underscoring those tensions, an Afghan interpreter killed two U.S. service members Friday at a combat outpost elsewhere in Wardak province, a NATO official said.
A U.S. soldier then killed the interpreter, the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity because he wasn't authorized to release the information. It wasn't clear why the interpreter had opened fire on the Americans.
Both attacks occurred in the Sayed Abad district, but the official said they did not appear to be linked. First reports indicated three Americans were killed but NATO officials said one of the dead was an Afghan.
Saturday's fighting began about 3 a.m., when a joint U.S.-Afghan force traded fire with another Afghan unit manning the outpost, which the army said had been established 18 months ago to guard the highway. International troops then called in an airstrike, killing the four Afghans, NATO and the Afghan ministry said.
The NATO official confirmed they were Americans, and Afghan officials they were Special Forces working with Afghan commandos.
Associated Press Television News footage of the aftermath showed American armored vehicles on the highway, about a half mile (a kilometer) from the hilltop outpost. The snow outside the fortified compound was blackened by the airstrike.
''Besides expressing heartfelt condolences to the families of the martyrs, the Afghan Defense Ministry is condemning this incident,'' the Afghan statement said, adding a delegation had been sent to the area to investigate. ''After the investigation is completed, the Defense Ministry wants to bring those responsible to justice.'' [*]
Provincial officials said the fighting was due to a misunderstanding as the joint force returned from an operation. Provincial spokesman Shahidullah Shahid said seven Afghan soldiers also had been wounded.
NATO said the Afghans began shooting first and the joint force returned fire before calling in the airstrike.
''We work extremely hard to coordinate and synchronize our operations,'' NATO spokesman Brig Gen. Eric Tremblay said.
It was believed to be the first fatal friendly fire incident since November, when eight Afghans -- four soldiers, three policemen and an interpreter -- were killed during close combat amid a search for a missing U.S. paratrooper.[*]
Afghanistan's Defense Ministry said at the time that the deaths had been caused by ''an air attack by NATO forces'' during the fighting.
Saturday's incident followed the deaths Friday of two U.S. service members and one U.S. employee who were killed in eastern Afghanistan. In a statement announcing the deaths, NATO did not specify the circumstances or give further details pending an investigation.
That suggested the deaths may not have been due to hostile fire.
Also Saturday, NATO said its troops opened fire on a taxi the day before as it sped toward a patrol, ignoring warning shots. Two civilians were killed and one was wounded in the shooting, which occurred in the Muqor district of Ghazni province.
U.S. soldiers shot and killed an Afghan imam Thursday when his car approached a convoy on the eastern outskirts of Kabul.
Elsewhere, joint NATO-Afghan forces came under attack in the northwestern province of Badghis at about 1 a.m. Saturday (2030 GMT Friday; 3:30 p.m. EDT Friday), prompting a gunbattle and an airstrike that killed eight militants, including a group leader, deputy provincial police chief Abdul Jabar Khan said.
------
Associated Press writer Rahim Faiez contributed to this report.
Copyright 2010 The Associated Pre

Taliban Bombers Attack Afghan Provincial Capital

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/30/world/asia/30afghan.html
January 30, 2010
Taliban Bombers Attack Afghan Provincial Capital
By ROD NORDLAND [Afghanistan] [hydra] [began in Afghanistan, but moved to Pakistan] [AfPak] [2009’s substantial pickup in Taliban and other insurgencies] [spring offensive turned into major effort throughout year] [now winter snows are slowing down in typical yearly fashion] [by time snow begins to melt, most of the “surge” will be in place] [use psci 469] [followup on Eikenberry’s November bombshells just before President Obama made AfPak “surge” decision] [reports from Kabul continue to paint gloomy picture of Karzai’s regime] [*]
KABUL, Afghanistan — Once again Taliban insurgents staged a surprise attack on official targets, using a squad of heavily armed suicide bombers, and again they failed to achieve their declared goals. [but they are active] [when insurgents aren’t losing they’re winning whereas when the govt and alliance is not winning it’s losing] [*]
The latest attack came Friday in Lashkar Gah, the capital of Helmand Province, and both

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/30/world/asia/30afghan.html
January 30, 2010
Taliban Bombers Attack Afghan Provincial Capital
By ROD NORDLAND [Afghanistan] [hydra] [began in Afghanistan, but moved to Pakistan] [AfPak] [2009’s substantial pickup in Taliban and other insurgencies] [spring offensive turned into major effort throughout year] [now winter snows are slowing down in typical yearly fashion] [by time snow begins to melt, most of the “surge” will be in place] [use psci 469] [followup on Eikenberry’s November bombshells just before President Obama made AfPak “surge” decision] [reports from Kabul continue to paint gloomy picture of Karzai’s regime] [*]
KABUL, Afghanistan — Once again Taliban insurgents staged a surprise attack on official targets, using a squad of heavily armed suicide bombers, and again they failed to achieve their declared goals. [but they are active] [when insurgents aren’t losing they’re winning whereas when the govt and alliance is not winning it’s losing] [*]
The latest attack came Friday in Lashkar Gah, the capital of Helmand Province, and both tactics and outcome mirrored the Jan. 18 assault on ministry buildings in downtown Kabul.
In the Helmand attack, as in Kabul, more of the attackers died than of the defending security forces or civilians. After an afternoon-long fight, six suicide attackers were dead, but only one civilian had been killed, according to Lt. Col. Almas Khan of the Afghan National Army. No Afghan soldiers or police officers were killed; three were wounded. NATO forces were involved in a supporting role and reported no casualties. [*]
Similarly, on Jan. 18, what the Taliban claimed were 20 suicide bombers, but turned out to be far fewer, assaulted government buildings in an attack that lasted all morning and paralyzed the capital for most of the day. In the end, seven attackers died, while three members of the Afghan security forces and two civilians were killed.
Both cases were what military officials call complex attacks, meaning they involved several modes of fighting. The attackers wore suicide vests but also carried automatic weapons and grenades and seemed determined to inflict as much damage as possible before blowing themselves up. They also used surprise and subterfuge to carry out both attacks; in Kabul, one suicide bomber tried to reach government buildings by using a vehicle freshly painted as an ambulance. [*]
In Helmand on Friday many of the attackers dressed in Afghan Army and police uniforms, [*] according to officials and witnesses. A news release from NATO’s International Security Assistance Force described the attack as aimed at the Sharwali Barracks of the Afghan Army in Lashkar Gah, a city of 200,000. It began, the statement said, with a pair of rockets fired toward the barracks from the desert outside the city.
Then the attackers entered a marketplace overlooking the barracks and climbed to the roof of the building, according to a witness, Ghafoor Jan, 33, who transports goods to the market on a donkey cart. “The gunmen went to the roof of the market and started firing,” he said. “But when the helicopters came, they went to the next floor below and shot from the windows, their heads popping in and out of the windows.”
A spokesman for the Taliban, Qari Yousef Ahmadi, said the attack had been carried out by seven suicide bombers who were aiming at the offices of the United Nations, the governor’s building and the nearby Bost Hotel. [*]
No one was reported wounded or killed at those places, however.
The governor’s building is adjacent to the barracks. The only heavily damaged building was the market that the insurgents first entered.
Colonel Khan said six suicide bombers had carried out the attack; only two of them managed to detonate their vests, while the other four were killed by security forces, he said. The fighting lasted from 10 a.m. until 6 p.m. before the last attacker was subdued, he said. He said Afghan Army and police officers, supported by NATO helicopters, had carried out the defense.
In other news, the NATO security force reported that two American servicemen and an American government employee were killed Friday, without giving any further details.
Taimoor Shah contributed reporting from Kandahar, Afghanistan, and an employee of The New York Times from Helmand Province.
Copyright 2010 The New York Times Co

Islamic Insurgents Attack Troops in the Somali Capital

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/30/world/africa/30somalia.html
January 30, 2010
Islamic Insurgents Attack Troops in the Somali Capital
By MOHAMMED IBRAHIM [Somalia] [the chaos in Somalia] [East Africa; south of Horn] [relatively stable state until 2007-2008 when wheels came off] [looked somewhat like a state toying with failed-state status] [failed state: clans and other configurations that fill power void] [followup] [pretty sizable battles between as Shabab and?] [use psci 469] [*]
MOGADISHU, Somalia — Islamic insurgents who control much of rural Somalia launched an early-morning attack on international peacekeepers and government soldiers in this battered capital on Friday, trading fire for hours in a street battle.
Reports that 14 people had been killed and 35 wounded could not be independently verified. Medical officials said most of the casualties had been civilians whose houses were hit by mortar fire. Some of the fire appeared to have come from African Union

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/30/world/africa/30somalia.html
January 30, 2010
Islamic Insurgents Attack Troops in the Somali Capital
By MOHAMMED IBRAHIM [Somalia] [the chaos in Somalia] [East Africa; south of Horn] [relatively stable state until 2007-2008 when wheels came off] [looked somewhat like a state toying with failed-state status] [failed state: clans and other configurations that fill power void] [followup] [pretty sizable battles between as Shabab and?] [use psci 469] [*]
MOGADISHU, Somalia — Islamic insurgents who control much of rural Somalia launched an early-morning attack on international peacekeepers and government soldiers in this battered capital on Friday, trading fire for hours in a street battle.
Reports that 14 people had been killed and 35 wounded could not be independently verified. Medical officials said most of the casualties had been civilians whose houses were hit by mortar fire. Some of the fire appeared to have come from African Union peacekeepers and government troops.
Ali Musa, head of a volunteer ambulance service in the capital, said those victims included a mother and her two children who died in the shelling.
The attack came as the transitional government prepared to mark its first anniversary with a parade, poetry readings and celebrations at Villa Somalia, the presidential palace. It was not clear whether the assault was timed to coincide with the anniversary festivities, but the attack offered another reminder of the government’s weakening grip on security.
The militants began their attack about 2 a.m. Friday. Residents, jolted awake by mortar blasts, cowered in their homes or fled for sturdier concrete structures as explosions and gunshots echoed through the north and south ends of Mogadishu for hours.
Residents described it as the most serious fighting in months. “I thought I was dreaming when I heard the sound of the artillery,” said Asha Abdulle, a mother of four.
Militants from the rebel group Shabab and an allied group, Hizbul Islam, claimed responsibility in a statement, saying that they had assaulted “the strongholds of the enemies of Allah.”
The Shabab, some branches of which have ties to Al Qaeda, have seized control of much of southern Somalia and have carried out suicide bombings and frontal attacks against Somali officials and peacekeeping troops as they seek to unseat the country’s fragile government.
A police spokesman, Col. Abdullahi Barisse, said that government forces had pushed back the rebels. He declined to say whether any government troops had been hurt or killed. The Shabab said that two of their fighters had been killed.
The United States and other Western countries are trying to support the moderate Islamic government of the president, Sheik Sharif Sheik Ahmed, fearful that Somalia could become the next haven for Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups. But Mr. Ahmed’s year-old government controls only a few city blocks in an impoverished nation plagued by drought, famine and years of fighting between warlords and rival Islamic factions.
In addition to attacks on government forces, militants have launched mortar assaults on the country’s main airport and bombed a college graduation ceremony, and fighters lurk just a few hundred yards outside the walls of the presidential palace.
Western powers have spent millions of dollars on weapons and training for the Somali defense forces, but rampant defections and military victories by Shabab rebels and their allies — who control some two-thirds of the country — have sharply limited the Somali government’s power, and displaced hundreds of thousands of Somali civilians.
Copyright 2010 The New York Times Co

January 29, 2010

War Plan for Karzai: Reach Out to Taliban

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/29/world/asia/29diplo.html
January 29, 2010
War Plan for Karzai: Reach Out to Taliban
By MARK LANDLER and ALISSA J. RUBIN [UK] [scheduled “support-donner summit”] [London] [Afghanistan] [hydra] [began in Afghanistan, but moved to Pakistan] [AfPak] [yesterday’s was first coverage of London summit] [note: posted on archive but separated so not yet included in monthly archive on this Mac] [followup] [more on Karzai—and in past few days flurry of info on NATO-alliance-Afghan-US plans on peeling off reconcilables] [use psci 469] [*]
LONDON — Afghanistan’s president declared Thursday that reaching out to the Taliban’s leadership would be a centerpiece of his plan to end the eight-year-old war in his country, setting in motion a risky diplomatic gambit that could aggravate frictions with the United States. [it could but I don’t expect much as US has begun moving same direction, if incrementally] [*]
A 65-nation conference here intended to muster money and support for an Afghan war

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/29/world/asia/29diplo.html
January 29, 2010
War Plan for Karzai: Reach Out to Taliban
By MARK LANDLER and ALISSA J. RUBIN [UK] [scheduled “support-donner summit”] [London] [Afghanistan] [hydra] [began in Afghanistan, but moved to Pakistan] [AfPak] [yesterday’s was first coverage of London summit] [note: posted on archive but separated so not yet included in monthly archive on this Mac] [followup] [more on Karzai—and in past few days flurry of info on NATO-alliance-Afghan-US plans on peeling off reconcilables] [use psci 469] [*]
LONDON — Afghanistan’s president declared Thursday that reaching out to the Taliban’s leadership would be a centerpiece of his plan to end the eight-year-old war in his country, setting in motion a risky diplomatic gambit that could aggravate frictions with the United States. [it could but I don’t expect much as US has begun moving same direction, if incrementally] [*]
A 65-nation conference here intended to muster money and support for an Afghan war strategy instead exposed divisions between the Afghan government and its allies over the timetable for drawing down foreign forces and whether and how to reconcile with the leaders of the Taliban insurgency. [*]
“We must reach out to all of our countrymen, especially our disenchanted brothers,” President Hamid Karzai said. In the coming weeks, he said, he will invite Taliban leaders to a tribal assembly to try to persuade them to lay down their weapons and support the government.
Mr. Karzai’s proposal went much further than the strategy preferred by many American officials, who favor luring back low- and midlevel Taliban fighters. The Obama administration is in the middle of a spirited debate over the implications of negotiating with top Taliban leaders who sheltered Osama bin Laden and still have ties to Al Qaeda. [in yesterday’s separate doc file as well as archived, was documented Pashtun tribal group agreeing with Pentagon to fight against al Qaeda] [slowly but surely?] [remarkably similar to Bush admininstration in months after “surge” in –ir began with same upsides and downsides] [*]
American officials pointedly did not talk about “reconciliation” on Thursday, and they were caught off guard by Mr. Karzai’s plans for a tribal peace conference. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton did not endorse Mr. Karzai’s strategy, though she voiced sympathy for his ultimate goal. [I doubt they were caught off guard?] [the extent may have surprised a little but not the direction] [*]
“You don’t make peace with your friends,” Mrs. Clinton said after the meeting, which reflected a growing urgency to wind down the West’s military involvement. “You have to be willing to engage with your enemies if you expect to create a situation that ends an insurgency.” [*]
Still, the Afghan government’s ambitious plan to lure back the Taliban — foot soldiers and commanders — faces equally probing questions at home. Across Afghan society, there are grave doubts about how the Taliban could be brought into the fold.
Dangling jobs and money before the Taliban could breed resentment among other poor Afghans who have little to show for their loyalty to the government. And it could deepen ethnic divisions with minorities like the Tajiks and Hazaras, who fought the Taliban for 15 years. They may see the rewards as an unfair windfall for the Pashtuns, who make up most of the Taliban’s recruits. [nearly the same dilemma as in –ir where Sunni minority who have lorded over Shi’s majority for decades was seemingly rewarded] [it simply will look bad to certain constituents] [however, in both instances, US president took risk after theater commander recommended (Patraeus for Bush and McChrystal for Obama)] [*]
Among former Taliban members who have taken part in previous government reconciliation programs, there is deep skepticism that a new program will be any better than earlier versions, which left them impoverished, jobless and at risk of being attacked by their former comrades. [*]
“Everyone understands that this ‘reconciliation’ process is just a name because they leave us in the lurch,” said Mullah Abdul Majed, a former Taliban commander who laid down his weapons in 2008 only to find himself abandoned by the government he had hoped to join.
Mullah Majed’s story illustrates the pitfalls. After laying down their weapons, he and 12 of his fellow fighters were each given about $140 and promised housing. When they returned to their home province, Kandahar, they found no money, no housing, no jobs and no protection from Taliban reprisals. [*]
“The Taliban are warning us that ‘If you remain loyal to the government, we will kill you,’ ” he said. “So we can’t go outside the city to work. Last year one of our friends was killed by Taliban, and one was injured.” [*]
Mullah Majed and a friend, who also signed up for the previous reconciliation program, are on the verge of returning to the Taliban because they cannot find work to provide for their families, [that’s worse than if it had never been offered?] [*] the mullah said.
This time, with the NATO forces backing the plan, it will be easier to ensure that the fighters are not arrested, Afghan officials said. “There has to be proper protection for them,” [*]said Shaida Mohammed Abdali, the Afghan deputy national security adviser. “There has to be amnesty, a guarantee for them that once they are reconciled, they can have a life like all others.”
The London conference was intended to help cure some of those problems. It raised $140 million for a fund intended to ease the reintegration of Taliban fighters. Some $500 million was pledged in all, but it is unclear whether all that money will materialize. [*]
Mrs. Clinton praised Japan for giving $50 million to the fund, but she said the United States had no immediate plans to follow. The Treasury Department would have to approve such financing, because it classifies the Taliban as a terrorist organization.
The Pentagon is authorized to use its funds for that purpose: American military commanders, for example, agreed to steer $1 million in development projects to a large Pashtun tribe in eastern Afghanistan in return for its pledge to back the government and battle the Taliban. [*]
A senior American official said that Taliban members who took part in the peace conference should disavow ties to Al Qaeda, but whether top Taliban leaders can be persuaded to jettison their longtime Qaeda allies remains uncertain. Mr. Karzai laid down no such conditions, and the traditions governing such a meeting, known as a jirga, give him wide latitude about whom to invite. [*]
For their part, the Taliban leaders have rejected talk of an olive branch, saying their fighters will not be influenced by financial inducements and will not join talks until foreign forces leave Afghanistan. American officials said that was evidence of the Taliban’s insecurity.
This week, the United Nations removed the names of five Taliban members from its blacklist [*]— a move considered important because it would allow them to travel to take part in negotiations. [it would be difficult for the administration to openly support same so they likely looked the other way, as it were] [*] Mr. Karzai said he wanted to see more names taken off the list.
He also asked for help from King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, whose country has longstanding ties to elements of the Taliban, to help broker negotiations. And he appealed to Pakistan, where many Taliban leaders have sought haven in the rugged region bordering Afghanistan. Iran was invited to the meeting but did not attend. [*]
While the differences over reconciling with the Taliban dominated the meeting, that was not the only divide. Even before it began, Mr. Karzai opened another chasm with his allies, once again raising the prospect of a far more drawn-out foreign troop presence before Afghans would be able to assume full responsibility for their own security. [**]
It could take 5 to 10 years for Afghan forces to take over from the American-led coalition, he told the BBC in an interview, and even longer to end his country’s dependence on financial aid to sustain its military.
That is far longer than President Obama’s goal to begin drawing down American forces by the summer of 2011. [the usual finesse] [“to begin” leaves much flexibility] [while Obama may actually believe he’ll be able to begin phased withdrawals, he’ll find it harder in reality] [same happened to Bush] [it’s fairly typical] [*] Other Western leaders, too, have been pushing for a tighter timetable. Prime Minister Gordon Brown of Britain noted that targets had been set for the total Afghan Army and police strength to rise above 300,000 by October 2011. Allied commanders have said that could take three years or more. [*]
Mark Landler reported from London, and Alissa J. Rubin from Kabul, Afghanistan. Taimoor Shah contributed reporting from Kandahar, Afghanistan.
Copyright 2010 The New York Times Co

Bin Laden Rebukes U.S. on Climate Change

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/30/world/middleeast/30binladen.html
January 30, 2010
Bin Laden Rebukes U.S. on Climate Change
By JACK HEALY [AfPak?] [suddenly, bin Laden is ubiquitous again] [also, man trained in engineering, suddenly is expert on climatology?] [he simply enjoys heaping invective on US-West] [really only archived as somewhat interesting twist] [I doubt Islam will take its ques on climate change from bin Laden?] [use psci 350] [use ir text] [c.f., today’s external for modulation of climate-change message from science “community,” insofar as that can be said to exist] [same m.o as past where audio tape disseminated via al Jazeera] [*]
Osama bin Laden, the leader of Al Qaeda, blamed the United States and developed countries for not halting climate change and said that the global economy should immediately abandon its reliance on the American dollar, [*]according to an audiotape released Friday by the broadcaster Al Jazeera.
“Talk about climate change is not an ideological luxury but a reality,” Mr. bin Laden was quoted as saying in a report on Al Jazeera’s English-language Web site. “All of the

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/30/world/middleeast/30binladen.html
January 30, 2010
Bin Laden Rebukes U.S. on Climate Change
By JACK HEALY [AfPak?] [suddenly, bin Laden is ubiquitous again] [also, man trained in engineering, suddenly is expert on climatology?] [he simply enjoys heaping invective on US-West] [really only archived as somewhat interesting twist] [I doubt Islam will take its ques on climate change from bin Laden?] [use psci 350] [use ir text] [c.f., today’s external for modulation of climate-change message from science “community,” insofar as that can be said to exist] [same m.o as past where audio tape disseminated via al Jazeera] [*]
Osama bin Laden, the leader of Al Qaeda, blamed the United States and developed countries for not halting climate change and said that the global economy should immediately abandon its reliance on the American dollar, [*]according to an audiotape released Friday by the broadcaster Al Jazeera.
“Talk about climate change is not an ideological luxury but a reality,” Mr. bin Laden was quoted as saying in a report on Al Jazeera’s English-language Web site. “All of the industrialized countries, especially the big ones, bear responsibility for the global warming crisis.”
The authenticity of the tape could not be immediately confirmed, and Al Jazeera, which is based in Qatar, did not say how it had obtained the message.
But if substantiated, it would be Mr. bin Laden’s second public message within a week. On Sunday, Al Jazeera broadcast a one-minute tape in which Mr. bin Laden hailed the Christmas Day attempt to bring down a plane over Detroit and warned of more attacks against the United States. [if al Qaeda central had supported Xmas plot he’s almost certainly be gloating so it again appears it was al Qaeda of Arabian Penisula and not transferred infrastructure?] [*]Mr. bin Laden, who is believed to be hiding in Pakistan near the Afghanistan border and has issued several other audiotaped anti-West invectives, had not put one out in four months before the one about the Detroit attempted bombing.
In the message broadcast on Friday, Mr. bin Laden veered away from his traditional vows to inflict death and destruction on the United States, and instead discussed climate change, globalization and monetary policy in a message that he said was directed to “the whole world.” [frankly, I don’t care a whit what he has to say about climate change] [I have as much science expertise as bin Laden and I admit it’s not nearly enough to make sweeping generalizations about same] [*]
He called for a worldwide boycott of American goods and the dollar. He faulted the United States for failing to sign the Kyoto Protocol, which sought to curb global warming by restricting greenhouse gas emissions. And he offered a word of praise for Noam Chomsky, the American linguist and liberal political activist. [even as “out there” as Chomsky usually is, I doubt Chomsky is pleased with OBL citing props for him?] [whatever else one wishes to say about Chomsky, he’s genuinely a nice man as I experienced back in graduate school][*]
“Noam Chomsky was correct when he compared the U.S. policies to those of the Mafia,” Al Jazeera quoted Mr. bin Laden as saying. “They are the true terrorists and therefore we should refrain from dealing in the U.S. dollar and should try to get rid of this currency as early as possible.” [he needs help with his message] [in past he’s boasted about if the US calls it terrorism it must be right, etc] [now he says US the real terrorist] [no continuity suggest amateurish propaganda operation?] [*]
Bank and government officials in China, Russia and elsewhere have previously floated the idea of abandoning the dollar as the world’s reserve currency, replacing it with a basket of other currencies and commodities such as gold. But Mr. bin Laden’s aim in turning away from the dollar were to inflict harm on the American economy. [*]
“I am certain that such actions will have grave repercussions and huge impact,” he was quoted as saying.
Copyright 2010 The New York Times Co

January 28, 2010

Illinois: Plea in Terrorism Case

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/28/us/28brfs-PLEAINTERROR_BRF.html
January 28, 2010
National Briefing | Midwest
Illinois: Plea in Terrorism Case
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS [Obama white house] [gsave] [Obama’s NSC team: president-NSC-policymaking model] [the case of the jihadi in Midwest, Illinois] [followup] [he was picked up for one thing then subsequently federal authorities determined he had connections to Mumbai in 2008] [*]
A Chicago man pleaded not guilty to federal charges of helping scout out the Indian city of Mumbai before the 2008 terrorist attack there that left 166 people dead. The man, 49-year-old David C. Headley, an American formerly named Daood Gilani, also pleaded not guilty to charges of plotting to attack a Danish newspaper because it published cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad. Prosecutors say Mr. Headley

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/28/us/28brfs-PLEAINTERROR_BRF.html
January 28, 2010
National Briefing | Midwest
Illinois: Plea in Terrorism Case
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS [Obama white house] [gsave] [Obama’s NSC team: president-NSC-policymaking model] [the case of the jihadi in Midwest, Illinois] [followup] [he was picked up for one thing then subsequently federal authorities determined he had connections to Mumbai in 2008] [*]
A Chicago man pleaded not guilty to federal charges of helping scout out the Indian city of Mumbai before the 2008 terrorist attack there that left 166 people dead. The man, 49-year-old David C. Headley, an American formerly named Daood Gilani, also pleaded not guilty to charges of plotting to attack a Danish newspaper because it published cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad. Prosecutors say Mr. Headley conspired with the Pakistan-based militant group Lashkar-e-Taiba to conduct surveillance on potential targets in Mumbai. [*]His co-defendant, Tahawwur Hussain Rana, a Chicago businessman, pleaded not guilty on Monday.
Copyright 2010 The New York Times Co

Remarks by the President in State of the Union Address

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-state-union-address
The White House
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
January 27, 2010
Remarks by the President in State of the Union Address
U.S. Capitol
9:11 P.M. EST [Obama white house] [gsave] [Obama’s NSC team: president-NSC-policymaking model] [president’s state-of-the-union speech] [NSC and bureaucracy: policymaking and policy implementation] [continuity in USFP] [use psci 355, 455, 469] [followup] [*]
THE PRESIDENT: Madam Speaker, Vice President Biden, members of Congress, distinguished guests, and fellow Americans:
Our Constitution declares that from time to time, the President shall give to Congress information about the state of our union. For 220 years, our leaders have fulfilled this duty. They've done so during periods of prosperity and tranquility. And they've done so in the midst of war and depression; at moments of great strife and great struggle.
It's tempting to look back on these moments and assume that our progress was

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-state-union-address
The White House
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
January 27, 2010
Remarks by the President in State of the Union Address
U.S. Capitol
9:11 P.M. EST [Obama white house] [gsave] [Obama’s NSC team: president-NSC-policymaking model] [president’s state-of-the-union speech] [NSC and bureaucracy: policymaking and policy implementation] [continuity in USFP] [use psci 355, 455, 469] [followup] [*]
THE PRESIDENT: Madam Speaker, Vice President Biden, members of Congress, distinguished guests, and fellow Americans:
Our Constitution declares that from time to time, the President shall give to Congress information about the state of our union. For 220 years, our leaders have fulfilled this duty. They've done so during periods of prosperity and tranquility. And they've done so in the midst of war and depression; at moments of great strife and great struggle.
It's tempting to look back on these moments and assume that our progress was inevitable -– that America was always destined to succeed. But when the Union was turned back at Bull Run, and the Allies first landed at Omaha Beach, victory was very much in doubt. When the market crashed on Black Tuesday, and civil rights marchers were beaten on Bloody Sunday, the future was anything but certain. These were the times that tested the courage of our convictions, and the strength of our union. And despite all our divisions and disagreements, our hesitations and our fears, America prevailed because we chose to move forward as one nation, as one people.
Again, we are tested. And again, we must answer history's call.
One year ago, I took office amid two wars, an economy rocked by a severe recession, a financial system on the verge of collapse, and a government deeply in debt. Experts from across the political spectrum warned that if we did not act, we might face a second depression. So we acted -– immediately and aggressively. And one year later, the worst of the storm has passed.
But the devastation remains. One in 10 Americans still cannot find work. Many businesses have shuttered. Home values have declined. Small towns and rural communities have been hit especially hard. And for those who'd already known poverty, life has become that much harder.
This recession has also compounded the burdens that America's families have been dealing with for decades –- the burden of working harder and longer for less; of being unable to save enough to retire or help kids with college.
So I know the anxieties that are out there right now. They're not new. These struggles are the reason I ran for President. These struggles are what I've witnessed for years in places like Elkhart, Indiana; Galesburg, Illinois. I hear about them in the letters that I read each night. The toughest to read are those written by children -– asking why they have to move from their home, asking when their mom or dad will be able to go back to work.
For these Americans and so many others, change has not come fast enough. Some are frustrated; some are angry. They don't understand why it seems like bad behavior on Wall Street is rewarded, but hard work on Main Street isn't; or why Washington has been unable or unwilling to solve any of our problems. They're tired of the partisanship and the shouting and the pettiness. They know we can't afford it. Not now.
So we face big and difficult challenges. And what the American people hope -– what they deserve -– is for all of us, Democrats and Republicans, to work through our differences; to overcome the numbing weight of our politics. For while the people who sent us here have different backgrounds, different stories, different beliefs, the anxieties they face are the same. The aspirations they hold are shared: a job that pays the bills; a chance to get ahead; most of all, the ability to give their children a better life.
You know what else they share? They share a stubborn resilience in the face of adversity. After one of the most difficult years in our history, they remain busy building cars and teaching kids, starting businesses and going back to school. They're coaching Little League and helping their neighbors. One woman wrote to me and said, "We are strained but hopeful, struggling but encouraged."
It's because of this spirit -– this great decency and great strength -– that I have never been more hopeful about America's future than I am tonight. (Applause.) Despite our hardships, our union is strong. We do not give up. We do not quit. We do not allow fear or division to break our spirit. In this new decade, it's time the American people get a government that matches their decency; that embodies their strength. (Applause.)
And tonight, tonight I'd like to talk about how together we can deliver on that promise.
It begins with our economy.
Our most urgent task upon taking office was to shore up the same banks that helped cause this crisis. It was not easy to do. And if there's one thing that has unified Democrats and Republicans, and everybody in between, it's that we all hated the bank bailout. I hated it -- (applause.) I hated it. You hated it. It was about as popular as a root canal. (Laughter.)
But when I ran for President, I promised I wouldn't just do what was popular -– I would do what was necessary. And if we had allowed the meltdown of the financial system, unemployment might be double what it is today. More businesses would certainly have closed. More homes would have surely been lost.
So I supported the last administration's efforts to create the financial rescue program. And when we took that program over, we made it more transparent and more accountable. And as a result, the markets are now stabilized, and we've recovered most of the money we spent on the banks. (Applause.) Most but not all.
To recover the rest, I've proposed a fee on the biggest banks. (Applause.) Now, I know Wall Street isn't keen on this idea. But if these firms can afford to hand out big bonuses again, they can afford a modest fee to pay back the taxpayers who rescued them in their time of need. (Applause.)
Now, as we stabilized the financial system, we also took steps to get our economy growing again, save as many jobs as possible, and help Americans who had become unemployed.
That's why we extended or increased unemployment benefits for more than 18 million Americans; made health insurance 65 percent cheaper for families who get their coverage through COBRA; and passed 25 different tax cuts.
Now, let me repeat: We cut taxes. We cut taxes for 95 percent of working families. (Applause.) We cut taxes for small businesses. We cut taxes for first-time homebuyers. We cut taxes for parents trying to care for their children. We cut taxes for 8 million Americans paying for college. (Applause.)
I thought I'd get some applause on that one. (Laughter and applause.)
As a result, millions of Americans had more to spend on gas and food and other necessities, all of which helped businesses keep more workers. And we haven't raised income taxes by a single dime on a single person. Not a single dime. (Applause.)
Because of the steps we took, there are about two million Americans working right now who would otherwise be unemployed. (Applause.) Two hundred thousand work in construction and clean energy; 300,000 are teachers and other education workers. Tens of thousands are cops, firefighters, correctional officers, first responders. (Applause.) And we're on track to add another one and a half million jobs to this total by the end of the year.
The plan that has made all of this possible, from the tax cuts to the jobs, is the Recovery Act. (Applause.) That's right -– the Recovery Act, also known as the stimulus bill. (Applause.) Economists on the left and the right say this bill has helped save jobs and avert disaster. But you don't have to take their word for it. Talk to the small business in Phoenix that will triple its workforce because of the Recovery Act. Talk to the window manufacturer in Philadelphia who said he used to be skeptical about the Recovery Act, until he had to add two more work shifts just because of the business it created. Talk to the single teacher raising two kids who was told by her principal in the last week of school that because of the Recovery Act, she wouldn't be laid off after all.
There are stories like this all across America. And after two years of recession, the economy is growing again. Retirement funds have started to gain back some of their value. Businesses are beginning to invest again, and slowly some are starting to hire again.
But I realize that for every success story, there are other stories, of men and women who wake up with the anguish of not knowing where their next paycheck will come from; who send out resumes week after week and hear nothing in response. That is why jobs must be our number-one focus in 2010, and that's why I'm calling for a new jobs bill tonight. (Applause.)
Now, the true engine of job creation in this country will always be America's businesses. (Applause.) But government can create the conditions necessary for businesses to expand and hire more workers.
We should start where most new jobs do –- in small businesses, companies that begin when -- (applause) -- companies that begin when an entrepreneur -- when an entrepreneur takes a chance on a dream, or a worker decides it's time she became her own boss. Through sheer grit and determination, these companies have weathered the recession and they're ready to grow. But when you talk to small businessowners in places like Allentown, Pennsylvania, or Elyria, Ohio, you find out that even though banks on Wall Street are lending again, they're mostly lending to bigger companies. Financing remains difficult for small businessowners across the country, even those that are making a profit.
So tonight, I'm proposing that we take $30 billion of the money Wall Street banks have repaid and use it to help community banks give small businesses the credit they need to stay afloat. (Applause.) I'm also proposing a new small business tax credit
-– one that will go to over one million small businesses who hire new workers or raise wages. (Applause.) While we're at it, let's also eliminate all capital gains taxes on small business investment, and provide a tax incentive for all large businesses and all small businesses to invest in new plants and equipment. (Applause.)
Next, we can put Americans to work today building the infrastructure of tomorrow. (Applause.) From the first railroads to the Interstate Highway System, our nation has always been built to compete. There's no reason Europe or China should have the fastest trains, or the new factories that manufacture clean energy products.
Tomorrow, I'll visit Tampa, Florida, where workers will soon break ground on a new high-speed railroad funded by the Recovery Act. (Applause.) There are projects like that all across this country that will create jobs and help move our nation's goods, services, and information. (Applause.)
We should put more Americans to work building clean energy facilities -- (applause) -- and give rebates to Americans who make their homes more energy-efficient, which supports clean energy jobs. (Applause.) And to encourage these and other businesses to stay within our borders, it is time to finally slash the tax breaks for companies that ship our jobs overseas, and give those tax breaks to companies that create jobs right here in the United States of America. (Applause.)
Now, the House has passed a jobs bill that includes some of these steps. (Applause.) As the first order of business this year, I urge the Senate to do the same, and I know they will. (Applause.) They will. (Applause.) People are out of work. They're hurting. They need our help. And I want a jobs bill on my desk without delay. (Applause.)
But the truth is, these steps won't make up for the seven million jobs that we've lost over the last two years. The only way to move to full employment is to lay a new foundation for long-term economic growth, and finally address the problems that America's families have confronted for years.
We can't afford another so-called economic "expansion" like the one from the last decade –- what some call the "lost decade" -– where jobs grew more slowly than during any prior expansion; where the income of the average American household declined while the cost of health care and tuition reached record highs; where prosperity was built on a housing bubble and financial speculation.
From the day I took office, I've been told that addressing our larger challenges is too ambitious; such an effort would be too contentious. I've been told that our political system is too gridlocked, and that we should just put things on hold for a while.
For those who make these claims, I have one simple question: How long should we wait? How long should America put its future on hold? (Applause.)
You see, Washington has been telling us to wait for decades, even as the problems have grown worse. Meanwhile, China is not waiting to revamp its economy. Germany is not waiting. India is not waiting. These nations -- they're not standing still. These nations aren't playing for second place. They're putting more emphasis on math and science. They're rebuilding their infrastructure. They're making serious investments in clean energy because they want those jobs. Well, I do not accept second place for the United States of America. (Applause.) [mixes domestic and international] [seems ot be trying to get ahead of the populist sentiment such as teaparty?] [*]
As hard as it may be, as uncomfortable and contentious as the debates may become, it's time to get serious about fixing the problems that are hampering our growth.
Now, one place to start is serious financial reform. Look, I am not interested in punishing banks. I'm interested in protecting our economy. A strong, healthy financial market makes it possible for businesses to access credit and create new jobs. It channels the savings of families into investments that raise incomes. But that can only happen if we guard against the same recklessness that nearly brought down our entire economy.
We need to make sure consumers and middle-class families have the information they need to make financial decisions. (Applause.) We can't allow financial institutions, including those that take your deposits, to take risks that threaten the whole economy.
Now, the House has already passed financial reform with many of these changes. (Applause.) And the lobbyists are trying to kill it. But we cannot let them win this fight. (Applause.) And if the bill that ends up on my desk does not meet the test of real reform, I will send it back until we get it right. We've got to get it right. (Applause.)
Next, we need to encourage American innovation. Last year, we made the largest investment in basic research funding in history -– (applause) -- an investment that could lead to the world's cheapest solar cells or treatment that kills cancer cells but leaves healthy ones untouched. And no area is more ripe for such innovation than energy. You can see the results of last year's investments in clean energy -– in the North Carolina company that will create 1,200 jobs nationwide helping to make advanced batteries; or in the California business that will put a thousand people to work making solar panels.
But to create more of these clean energy jobs, we need more production, more efficiency, more incentives. And that means building a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants in this country. (Applause.) It means making tough decisions about opening new offshore areas for oil and gas development. (Applause.) It means continued investment in advanced biofuels and clean coal technologies. (Applause.) And, yes, it means passing a comprehensive energy and climate bill with incentives that will finally make clean energy the profitable kind of energy in America. (Applause.)
I am grateful to the House for passing such a bill last year. (Applause.) And this year I'm eager to help advance the bipartisan effort in the Senate. (Applause.)
I know there have been questions about whether we can afford such changes in a tough economy. I know that there are those who disagree with the overwhelming scientific evidence on climate change. But here's the thing -- even if you doubt the evidence, providing incentives for energy-efficiency and clean energy are the right thing to do for our future -– because the nation that leads the clean energy economy will be the nation that leads the global economy. And America must be that nation. (Applause.)
Third, we need to export more of our goods. [*] (Applause.) Because the more products we make and sell to other countries, the more jobs we support right here in America. (Applause.) So tonight, we set a new goal: We will double our exports over the next five years, an increase that will support two million jobs in America. (Applause.) To help meet this goal, we're launching a National Export Initiative that will help farmers and small businesses increase their exports, and reform export controls consistent with national security. (Applause.) [*]
We have to seek new markets aggressively, just as our competitors are. If America sits on the sidelines while other nations sign trade deals, we will lose the chance to create jobs on our shores. (Applause.) But realizing those benefits also means enforcing those agreements so our trading partners play by the rules. (Applause.) And that's why we'll continue to shape a Doha trade agreement that opens global markets, and why we will strengthen our trade relations in Asia and with key partners like South Korea and Panama and Colombia. (Applause.)
Fourth, we need to invest in the skills and education of our people. (Applause.)
Now, this year, we've broken through the stalemate between left and right by launching a national competition to improve our schools. And the idea here is simple: Instead of rewarding failure, we only reward success. Instead of funding the status quo, we only invest in reform -- reform that raises student achievement; inspires students to excel in math and science; and turns around failing schools that steal the future of too many young Americans, from rural communities to the inner city. In the 21st century, the best anti-poverty program around is a world-class education. (Applause.) And in this country, the success of our children cannot depend more on where they live than on their potential.
When we renew the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, we will work with Congress to expand these reforms to all 50 states. Still, in this economy, a high school diploma no longer guarantees a good job. That's why I urge the Senate to follow the House and pass a bill that will revitalize our community colleges, which are a career pathway to the children of so many working families. (Applause.)
To make college more affordable, this bill will finally end the unwarranted taxpayer subsidies that go to banks for student loans. (Applause.) Instead, let's take that money and give families a $10,000 tax credit for four years of college and increase Pell Grants. (Applause.) And let's tell another one million students that when they graduate, they will be required to pay only 10 percent of their income on student loans, and all of their debt will be forgiven after 20 years –- and forgiven after 10 years if they choose a career in public service, because in the United States of America, no one should go broke because they chose to go to college. (Applause.)
And by the way, it's time for colleges and universities to get serious about cutting their own costs -– (applause) -- because they, too, have a responsibility to help solve this problem.
Now, the price of college tuition is just one of the burdens facing the middle class. That's why last year I asked Vice President Biden to chair a task force on middle-class families. That's why we're nearly doubling the child care tax credit, and making it easier to save for retirement by giving access to every worker a retirement account and expanding the tax credit for those who start a nest egg. That's why we're working to lift the value of a family's single largest investment –- their home. The steps we took last year to shore up the housing market have allowed millions of Americans to take out new loans and save an average of $1,500 on mortgage payments.
This year, we will step up refinancing so that homeowners can move into more affordable mortgages. (Applause.) And it is precisely to relieve the burden on middle-class families that we still need health insurance reform. (Applause.) Yes, we do. (Applause.)
Now, let's clear a few things up. (Laughter.) I didn't choose to tackle this issue to get some legislative victory under my belt. And by now it should be fairly obvious that I didn't take on health care because it was good politics. (Laughter.) I took on health care because of the stories I've heard from Americans with preexisting conditions whose lives depend on getting coverage; patients who've been denied coverage; families –- even those with insurance -– who are just one illness away from financial ruin.
After nearly a century of trying -- Democratic administrations, Republican administrations -- we are closer than ever to bringing more security to the lives of so many Americans. The approach we've taken would protect every American from the worst practices of the insurance industry. It would give small businesses and uninsured Americans a chance to choose an affordable health care plan in a competitive market. It would require every insurance plan to cover preventive care.
And by the way, I want to acknowledge our First Lady, Michelle Obama, who this year is creating a national movement to tackle the epidemic of childhood obesity and make kids healthier. (Applause.) Thank you. She gets embarrassed. (Laughter.)
Our approach would preserve the right of Americans who have insurance to keep their doctor and their plan. It would reduce costs and premiums for millions of families and businesses. And according to the Congressional Budget Office -– the independent organization that both parties have cited as the official scorekeeper for Congress –- our approach would bring down the deficit by as much as $1 trillion over the next two decades. (Applause.)
Still, this is a complex issue, and the longer it was debated, the more skeptical people became. I take my share of the blame for not explaining it more clearly to the American people. And I know that with all the lobbying and horse-trading, the process left most Americans wondering, "What's in it for me?"
But I also know this problem is not going away. By the time I'm finished speaking tonight, more Americans will have lost their health insurance. Millions will lose it this year. Our deficit will grow. Premiums will go up. Patients will be denied the care they need. Small business owners will continue to drop coverage altogether. I will not walk away from these Americans, and neither should the people in this chamber. (Applause.)
So, as temperatures cool, I want everyone to take another look at the plan we've proposed. There's a reason why many doctors, nurses, and health care experts who know our system best consider this approach a vast improvement over the status quo. But if anyone from either party has a better approach that will bring down premiums, bring down the deficit, cover the uninsured, strengthen Medicare for seniors, and stop insurance company abuses, let me know. (Applause.) Let me know. Let me know. (Applause.) I'm eager to see it.
Here's what I ask Congress, though: Don't walk away from reform. Not now. Not when we are so close. Let us find a way to come together and finish the job for the American people. (Applause.) Let's get it done. Let's get it done. (Applause.)
Now, even as health care reform would reduce our deficit, it's not enough to dig us out of a massive fiscal hole in which we find ourselves. It's a challenge that makes all others that much harder to solve, and one that's been subject to a lot of political posturing. So let me start the discussion of government spending by setting the record straight.
At the beginning of the last decade, the year 2000, America had a budget surplus of over $200 billion. (Applause.) By the time I took office, we had a one-year deficit of over $1 trillion and projected deficits of $8 trillion over the next decade. Most of this was the result of not paying for two wars, two tax cuts, and an expensive prescription drug program. On top of that, the effects of the recession put a $3 trillion hole in our budget. All this was before I walked in the door. (Laughter and applause.) [trying to say the runaway spending isn’t particularly his fault] [*]
Now -- just stating the facts. Now, if we had taken office in ordinary times, I would have liked nothing more than to start bringing down the deficit. But we took office amid a crisis. And our efforts to prevent a second depression have added another $1 trillion to our national debt. That, too, is a fact.
I'm absolutely convinced that was the right thing to do. But families across the country are tightening their belts and making tough decisions. The federal government should do the same. (Applause.) So tonight, I'm proposing specific steps to pay for the trillion dollars that it took to rescue the economy last year.
Starting in 2011, we are prepared to freeze government spending for three years. (Applause.) Spending related to our national security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security will not be affected. But all other discretionary government programs will. Like any cash-strapped family, we will work within a budget to invest in what we need and sacrifice what we don't. And if I have to enforce this discipline by veto, I will. (Applause.)
We will continue to go through the budget, line by line, page by page, to eliminate programs that we can't afford and don't work. We've already identified $20 billion in savings for next year. To help working families, we'll extend our middle-class tax cuts. But at a time of record deficits, we will not continue tax cuts for oil companies, for investment fund managers, and for those making over $250,000 a year. We just can't afford it. (Applause.)
Now, even after paying for what we spent on my watch, we'll still face the massive deficit we had when I took office. More importantly, the cost of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security will continue to skyrocket. That's why I've called for a bipartisan fiscal commission, modeled on a proposal by Republican Judd Gregg and Democrat Kent Conrad. (Applause.) This can't be one of those Washington gimmicks that lets us pretend we solved a problem. The commission will have to provide a specific set of solutions by a certain deadline.
Now, yesterday, the Senate blocked a bill that would have created this commission. So I'll issue an executive order that will allow us to go forward, because I refuse to pass this problem on to another generation of Americans. (Applause.) And when the vote comes tomorrow, the Senate should restore the pay-as-you-go law that was a big reason for why we had record surpluses in the 1990s. (Applause.)
Now, I know that some in my own party will argue that we can't address the deficit or freeze government spending when so many are still hurting. And I agree -- which is why this freeze won't take effect until next year -- (laughter) -- when the economy is stronger. That's how budgeting works. (Laughter and applause.) But understand –- understand if we don't take meaningful steps to rein in our debt, it could damage our markets, increase the cost of borrowing, and jeopardize our recovery -– all of which would have an even worse effect on our job growth and family incomes.
From some on the right, I expect we'll hear a different argument -– that if we just make fewer investments in our people, extend tax cuts including those for the wealthier Americans, eliminate more regulations, maintain the status quo on health care, our deficits will go away. The problem is that's what we did for eight years. (Applause.) That's what helped us into this crisis. It's what helped lead to these deficits. We can't do it again.
Rather than fight the same tired battles that have dominated Washington for decades, it's time to try something new. Let's invest in our people without leaving them a mountain of debt. Let's meet our responsibility to the citizens who sent us here. Let's try common sense. (Laughter.) A novel concept.
To do that, we have to recognize that we face more than a deficit of dollars right now. We face a deficit of trust -– deep and corrosive doubts about how Washington works that have been growing for years. To close that credibility gap we have to take action on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue -- to end the outsized influence of lobbyists; to do our work openly; to give our people the government they deserve. (Applause.)
That's what I came to Washington to do. That's why -– for the first time in history –- my administration posts on our White House visitors online. That's why we've excluded lobbyists from policymaking jobs, or seats on federal boards and commissions.
But we can't stop there. It's time to require lobbyists to disclose each contact they make on behalf of a client with my administration or with Congress. It's time to put strict limits on the contributions that lobbyists give to candidates for federal office.
With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests –- including foreign corporations –- to spend without limit in our elections. (Applause.) I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. (Applause.) They should be decided by the American people. And I'd urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to correct some of these problems.
I'm also calling on Congress to continue down the path of earmark reform. Applause.) Democrats and Republicans. (Applause.) Democrats and Republicans. You've trimmed some of this spending, you've embraced some meaningful change. But restoring the public trust demands more. For example, some members of Congress post some earmark requests online. (Applause.) Tonight, I'm calling on Congress to publish all earmark requests on a single Web site before there's a vote, so that the American people can see how their money is being spent. (Applause.)
Of course, none of these reforms will even happen if we don't also reform how we work with one another. Now, I'm not naïve. I never thought that the mere fact of my election would usher in peace and harmony -- (laughter) -- and some post-partisan era. I knew that both parties have fed divisions that are deeply entrenched. And on some issues, there are simply philosophical differences that will always cause us to part ways. These disagreements, about the role of government in our lives, about our national priorities and our national security, they've been taking place for over 200 years. They're the very essence of our democracy.
But what frustrates the American people is a Washington where every day is Election Day. We can't wage a perpetual campaign where the only goal is to see who can get the most embarrassing headlines about the other side -– a belief that if you lose, I win. Neither party should delay or obstruct every single bill just because they can. The confirmation of -- (applause) -- I'm speaking to both parties now. The confirmation of well-qualified public servants shouldn't be held hostage to the pet projects or grudges of a few individual senators. (Applause.)
Washington may think that saying anything about the other side, no matter how false, no matter how malicious, is just part of the game. But it's precisely such politics that has stopped either party from helping the American people. Worse yet, it's sowing further division among our citizens, further distrust in our government.
So, no, I will not give up on trying to change the tone of our politics. I know it's an election year. And after last week, it's clear that campaign fever has come even earlier than usual. But we still need to govern.
To Democrats, I would remind you that we still have the largest majority in decades, and the people expect us to solve problems, not run for the hills. (Applause.) And if the Republican leadership is going to insist that 60 votes in the Senate are required to do any business at all in this town -- a supermajority -- then the responsibility to govern is now yours as well. (Applause.) Just saying no to everything may be good short-term politics, but it's not leadership. We were sent here to serve our citizens, not our ambitions. (Applause.) So let's show the American people that we can do it together. (Applause.)
This week, I'll be addressing a meeting of the House Republicans. I'd like to begin monthly meetings with both Democratic and Republican leadership. I know you can't wait. (Laughter.)
[Now begins nat’l security section] [*]Throughout our history, no issue has united this country more than our security. Sadly, some of the unity we felt after 9/11 has dissipated. We can argue all we want about who's to blame for this, but I'm not interested in re-litigating the past. I know that all of us love this country. All of us are committed to its defense. So let's put aside the schoolyard taunts about who's tough. Let's reject the false choice between protecting our people and upholding our values. Let's leave behind the fear and division, and do what it takes to defend our nation and forge a more hopeful future -- for America and for the world. (Applause.)
That's the work we began last year. Since the day I took office, we've renewed our focus on the terrorists who threaten our nation. We've made substantial investments in our homeland security and disrupted plots that threatened to take American lives. We are filling unacceptable gaps revealed by the failed Christmas attack, with better airline security and swifter action on our intelligence. We've prohibited torture and strengthened partnerships from the Pacific to South Asia to the Arabian Peninsula. And in the last year, hundreds of al Qaeda's fighters and affiliates, including many senior leaders, have been captured or killed -- far more than in 2008.
And in Afghanistan, we're increasing our troops and training Afghan security forces so they can begin to take the lead in July of 2011, and our troops can begin to come home. (Applause.) [*] We will reward good governance, work to reduce corruption, and support the rights of all Afghans -- men and women alike. (Applause.) We're joined by allies and partners who have increased their own commitments, and who will come together tomorrow in London to reaffirm our common purpose. There will be difficult days ahead. But I am absolutely confident we will succeed. [*]
As we take the fight to al Qaeda, we are responsibly leaving Iraq to its people. As a candidate, I promised that I would end this war, and that is what I am doing as President. We will have all of our combat troops out of Iraq by the end of this August. (Applause.) We will support the Iraqi government -- we will support the Iraqi government as they hold elections, and we will continue to partner with the Iraqi people to promote regional peace and prosperity. But make no mistake: This war is ending, and all of our troops are coming home. (Applause.) [when he says combat troops out he’s playing games with semantics a bit] [they will call the combat troops residuals or some other term of art] [but, the important thing is that the SOFA was signed by previous president so Obama has not changed anything but rhetoric] [*]
Tonight, all of our men and women in uniform -- in Iraq, in Afghanistan, and around the world –- they have to know that we -- that they have our respect, our gratitude, our full support. And just as they must have the resources they need in war, we all have a responsibility to support them when they come home. (Applause.) That's why we made the largest increase in investments for veterans in decades -- last year. (Applause.) That's why we're building a 21st century VA. And that's why Michelle has joined with Jill Biden to forge a national commitment to support military families. (Applause.)
Now, even as we prosecute two wars, we're also confronting perhaps the greatest danger to the American people -– the threat of nuclear weapons. I've embraced the vision of John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan through a strategy that reverses the spread of these weapons and seeks a world without them. To reduce our stockpiles and launchers, while ensuring our deterrent, the United States and Russia are completing negotiations on the farthest-reaching arms control treaty in nearly two decades. (Applause.) And at April's Nuclear Security Summit, we will bring 44 nations together here in Washington, D.C. behind a clear goal: securing all vulnerable nuclear materials around the world in four years, so that they never fall into the hands of terrorists. (Applause.)
Now, these diplomatic efforts have also strengthened our hand in dealing with those nations that insist on violating international agreements in pursuit of nuclear weapons. [*] That's why North Korea now faces increased isolation, and stronger sanctions –- sanctions that are being vigorously enforced. That's why the international community is more united, and the Islamic Republic of Iran is more isolated. And as Iran's leaders continue to ignore their obligations, there should be no doubt: They, too, will face growing consequences. That is a promise. (Applause.)
That's the leadership that we are providing –- engagement that advances the common security and prosperity of all people. We're working through the G20 to sustain a lasting global recovery. We're working with Muslim communities around the world to promote science and education and innovation. We have gone from a bystander to a leader in the fight against climate change. We're helping developing countries to feed themselves, and continuing the fight against HIV/AIDS. And we are launching a new initiative that will give us the capacity to respond faster and more effectively to bioterrorism or an infectious disease -– a plan that will counter threats at home and strengthen public health abroad.
As we have for over 60 years, America takes these actions because our destiny is connected to those beyond our shores. But we also do it because it is right. That's why, as we meet here tonight, over 10,000 Americans are working with many nations to help the people of Haiti recover and rebuild. [*] (Applause.) That's why we stand with the girl who yearns to go to school in Afghanistan; why we support the human rights of the women marching through the streets of Iran; why we advocate for the young man denied a job by corruption in Guinea. For America must always stand on the side of freedom and human dignity. (Applause.) Always. (Applause.)
Abroad, America's greatest source of strength has always been our ideals. [American ethos] [*]The same is true at home. We find unity in our incredible diversity, drawing on the promise enshrined in our Constitution: the notion that we're all created equal; that no matter who you are or what you look like, if you abide by the law you should be protected by it; if you adhere to our common values you should be treated no different than anyone else.
We must continually renew this promise. My administration has a Civil Rights Division that is once again prosecuting civil rights violations and employment discrimination. (Applause.) We finally strengthened our laws to protect against crimes driven by hate. (Applause.) This year, I will work with Congress and our military to finally repeal the law that denies gay Americans the right to serve the country they love because of who they are. (Applause.) It's the right thing to do. (Applause.)
We're going to crack down on violations of equal pay laws -– so that women get equal pay for an equal day's work. (Applause.) And we should continue the work of fixing our broken immigration system -– to secure our borders and enforce our laws, and ensure that everyone who plays by the rules can contribute to our economy and enrich our nation. (Applause.)
In the end, it's our ideals, our values that built America -- values that allowed us to forge a nation made up of immigrants from every corner of the globe; values that drive our citizens still. [*]Every day, Americans meet their responsibilities to their families and their employers. Time and again, they lend a hand to their neighbors and give back to their country. They take pride in their labor, and are generous in spirit. These aren't Republican values or Democratic values that they're living by; business values or labor values. They're American values.
Unfortunately, too many of our citizens have lost faith that our biggest institutions -– our corporations, our media, and, yes, our government –- still reflect these same values. Each of these institutions are full of honorable men and women doing important work that helps our country prosper. But each time a CEO rewards himself for failure, or a banker puts the rest of us at risk for his own selfish gain, people's doubts grow. Each time lobbyists game the system or politicians tear each other down instead of lifting this country up, we lose faith. The more that TV pundits reduce serious debates to silly arguments, big issues into sound bites, our citizens turn away.
No wonder there's so much cynicism out there. No wonder there's so much disappointment.
I campaigned on the promise of change –- change we can believe in, the slogan went. And right now, I know there are many Americans who aren't sure if they still believe we can change –- or that I can deliver it.
But remember this –- I never suggested that change would be easy, or that I could do it alone. Democracy in a nation of 300 million people can be noisy and messy and complicated. And when you try to do big things and make big changes, it stirs passions and controversy. That's just how it is.
Those of us in public office can respond to this reality by playing it safe and avoid telling hard truths and pointing fingers. We can do what's necessary to keep our poll numbers high, and get through the next election instead of doing what's best for the next generation.
But I also know this: If people had made that decision 50 years ago, or 100 years ago, or 200 years ago, we wouldn't be here tonight. The only reason we are here is because generations of Americans were unafraid to do what was hard; to do what was needed even when success was uncertain; to do what it took to keep the dream of this nation alive for their children and their grandchildren.
Our administration has had some political setbacks this year, and some of them were deserved. But I wake up every day knowing that they are nothing compared to the setbacks that families all across this country have faced this year. And what keeps me going -– what keeps me fighting -– is that despite all these setbacks, that spirit of determination and optimism, that fundamental decency that has always been at the core of the American people, that lives on.
It lives on in the struggling small business owner who wrote to me of his company, "None of us," he said, "…are willing to consider, even slightly, that we might fail."
It lives on in the woman who said that even though she and her neighbors have felt the pain of recession, "We are strong. We are resilient. We are American."
It lives on in the 8-year-old boy in Louisiana, who just sent me his allowance and asked if I would give it to the people of Haiti.
And it lives on in all the Americans who've dropped everything to go someplace they've never been and pull people they've never known from the rubble, prompting chants of "U.S.A.! U.S.A.! U.S.A!" when another life was saved. [*]
The spirit that has sustained this nation for more than two centuries lives on in you, its people. We have finished a difficult year. We have come through a difficult decade. But a new year has come. A new decade stretches before us. We don't quit. I don't quit. (Applause.) Let's seize this moment -- to start anew, to carry the dream forward, and to strengthen our union once more. (Applause.)
Thank you. God bless you. And God bless the United States of America. (Applause.) END 10:20 P.M. EST

Advocates of Climate Bill Scale Down Their Goals

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/27/science/earth/27climate.html
January 27, 2010
Advocates of Climate Bill Scale Down Their Goals
By JOHN M. BRODER and CLIFFORD KRAUSS [obama white house] [congress] [bipartisan group on climate change, Graham, Lieberman, Kerry] [*]
WASHINGTON — As they watch President Obama’s ambitious health care plan crumble, the advocates of a comprehensive bill to combat global warming are turning their sights to a more modest package of climate and energy measures that they believe has a better chance of clearing Congress this year.
Their preferred approach, a cap-and-trade system to curb emissions of climate-changing gases, already faced a difficult road in a bruised and divided Senate. Its prospects grew dimmer after the special election in Massachusetts last week was won by Scott Brown, a Republican who repudiated the federal cap-and-trade proposal in his campaign.
Republicans, industry executives and some Democrats have already written cap and

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/27/science/earth/27climate.html
January 27, 2010
Advocates of Climate Bill Scale Down Their Goals
By JOHN M. BRODER and CLIFFORD KRAUSS [obama white house] [congress] [bipartisan group on climate change, Graham, Lieberman, Kerry] [*]
WASHINGTON — As they watch President Obama’s ambitious health care plan crumble, the advocates of a comprehensive bill to combat global warming are turning their sights to a more modest package of climate and energy measures that they believe has a better chance of clearing Congress this year.
Their preferred approach, a cap-and-trade system to curb emissions of climate-changing gases, already faced a difficult road in a bruised and divided Senate. Its prospects grew dimmer after the special election in Massachusetts last week was won by Scott Brown, a Republican who repudiated the federal cap-and-trade proposal in his campaign.
Republicans, industry executives and some Democrats have already written cap and trade’s obituary, at least for this year. And even some of the system’s most ardent supporters now say they must scale back their ambitions and focus on job-creating energy projects and energy efficiency measures if they are to have any hope of dealing with climate change in this Congress.
“Realistically, the cap-and-trade bills in the House and the Senate are going nowhere,” said Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, who is trying to fashion a bipartisan package of climate and energy measures. “They’re not business-friendly enough, and they don’t lead to meaningful energy independence.”
Mr. Graham said the public was demanding that any energy legislation from Washington focus on creating jobs, whether by drilling for offshore oil or building wind turbines.
“What is dead is some massive cap-and-trade system that regulates carbon in a fashion that drives up energy costs,” he said.
Mr. Graham’s opinion matters because he has been the only Republican willing to work with Democratic senators on some form of climate change legislation. He said that the price of attracting Republican and business support was to use the legislation to provide incentives for building nuclear power plants, stepped-up domestic oil and gas exploration and subsidies for reducing carbon dioxide emissions from coal.
White House officials continue to insist on a broad approach to climate and energy, including a cap-and-trade system for carbon emissions that encompasses the entire economy. They are also pressing forward with Environmental Protection Agency regulation of emissions of heat-trapping gases over the virtually unanimous opposition of Republicans in the House and Senate.
“There continues to be very strong support among a range of legislators for comprehensive climate legislation that includes cap and trade,” Gary Guzy, the deputy director of the White House Council on Environmental Quality, said at a conference last week.
Another White House official, who insisted on anonymity to avoid overshadowing the State of the Union address, said President Obama would restate his commitment to a bill that addresses global warming along with measures to increase energy efficiency and clean-energy technology.
The official said the White House would support legislation that provided incentives for oil and gas drilling and for construction of nuclear plants, as well as provisions that helped industries that use a lot of energy and were vulnerable to foreign competitors.
But the president will also insist that any legislation also contain some form of cap on emissions of heat-trapping gases to make good on his pledge to reduce global warming pollution by 17 percent over 2005 levels by 2020.
“At the end of the day, any and all ideas are on the table because the clock is ticking,” the official said.
Senator John Kerry, the Massachusetts Democrat who is working with Mr. Graham and Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, independent of Connecticut, to try to knit together a global warming and energy measure, said this week that the political climate in Washington was already harsh and had worsened with the special election in his home state. Mr. Kerry said he had held talks with the White House, business leaders and fellow senators in hopes of finding an approach to climate and energy issues that can win enough votes for passage.
“I can’t tell you whether it will happen this year or not,” Mr. Kerry said. “But it’s going to happen. It is inevitable that the United States will deal with climate and energy. The sooner you do it, the cheaper it is.”
Some leaders in the energy industry were almost gleeful in pronouncing cap and trade dead for the year. They see an opportunity to win support from Congress for their businesses and to delay indefinitely the costs of reducing pollution from heat-trapping gases.
“Reality is hitting, and the reality is the American people are interested in jobs, not extreme legislation,” said Larry Nichols, chief executive of Devon Energy and chairman of the American Petroleum Institute. “Because of the shift in raw political power, there now has to be compromise.”
A bill that has the support of Senator Harry Reid, the Democratic leader, and some senior Congressional Republicans, would offer tax incentives to bus and truck fleets to switch to natural gas, a fuel that emits less carbon dioxide than diesel. Some energy industry leaders are also looking for additional money for so-called clean-coal research and energy efficiency measures for buildings.
Two senators, Maria Cantwell of Washington, a Democrat, and Susan Collins of Maine, a Republican, have proposed a system known as “cap and dividend” under which power plants, steel mills, refineries and other major carbon emitters would have to pay for permits to pollute, with all of the money being rebated to consumers to cover the higher costs of energy and manufactured goods.
Another option, but one largely opposed by most businesses, is regulation by the E.P.A. Mr. Obama has repeatedly said that he would much prefer a market-based cap-and-trade system to top-down mandates from the E.P.A.
The partisan gridlock that hobbled health care overhaul could be repeated if the administration and Democratic leaders try to ram through a sweeping measure to rein in carbon emissions and remake the nation’s energy economy, said Paul Bledsoe of the National Commission on Energy Policy, a bipartisan advisory group.
“If cap and trade becomes a political anathema,” Mr. Bledsoe said, “the consequences are very broad. If it is seen as divisive or politically suicidal, it could be discredited as the vehicle for dealing with climate change for the foreseeable future.”
John M. Broder reported from Washington, and Clifford Krauss from Houston.
Copyright 2010 The New York Times Co[

U.S. Wrestling With Olive Branch for Taliban

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/27/world/asia/27diplo.html
January 27, 2010
U.S. Wrestling With Olive Branch for Taliban
By MARK LANDLER and HELENE COOPER [Obama white house] [gsave] [Obama’s NSC team: president-NSC-policymaking model] [NSC and bureaucracy] [AfPak] [use psci 469] [cross in external] [striking how similar Obama’s approach to Taliban is to Bush’s with Sunni insurgents in –ir] [*]
WASHINGTON — As the Obama administration pours 30,000 additional troops into Afghanistan, it has begun grappling with the next great dilemma of this long war: whether to reconcile with the men who sheltered Osama bin Laden and who still have close ties to Al Qaeda.
The Afghan president, Hamid Karzai, has said he wants to reach out to the leaders of

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/27/world/asia/27diplo.html
January 27, 2010
U.S. Wrestling With Olive Branch for Taliban
By MARK LANDLER and HELENE COOPER [Obama white house] [gsave] [Obama’s NSC team: president-NSC-policymaking model] [NSC and bureaucracy] [AfPak] [use psci 469] [cross in external] [striking how similar Obama’s approach to Taliban is to Bush’s with Sunni insurgents in –ir] [*]
WASHINGTON — As the Obama administration pours 30,000 additional troops into Afghanistan, it has begun grappling with the next great dilemma of this long war: whether to reconcile with the men who sheltered Osama bin Laden and who still have close ties to Al Qaeda.
The Afghan president, Hamid Karzai, has said he wants to reach out to the leaders of the Taliban, and administration officials acknowledge privately that they are considering the idea. But they warn that the plan is rife with political risk at home and could jeopardize a widely backed effort to lure lower-ranking, more amenable Taliban fighters back into Afghan society.
The debate, still in its early stages, could shape the next phase of America’s engagement in Afghanistan, officials said, and is every bit as complicated as the decision on whether to commit more soldiers, not least because it rekindles memories of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.
On Thursday, donor countries, led by the United States, Britain and Japan, are expected to commit $100 million a year to an Afghan fund for reintegrating the foot soldiers of the Taliban with jobs, cash and other inducements. But the allies are less sanguine about dealing with the Taliban’s high command, particularly its leader, Mullah Muhammad Omar, and other “hard core” Taliban elements which, the administration bluntly declared last March, were “not reconcilable.”
One question is how likely these people are to be enticed by the inducements, given the gains the Taliban have made. Some American officials suggest the debate is premature, saying the Taliban have to be depleted through drone strikes and ground combat before they would return to the bargaining table.
The pros and cons of dealing with the Taliban will loom large at the conference in London this week, where Mr. Karzai is scheduled to present his plan for lower-level reintegration.
While Mullah Omar remains off limits for the United States, the administration’s openness to reconciling with other Taliban leaders has grown since last year, officials say, because of its recognition that the war is not going to be won purely on the battlefield. [McChrystal has apparently determined a segment can be picked off and he’s convinced Obama to go for it?] [*]
“Today, people agree that part of the solution for Afghanistan is going to include an accommodation with the Taliban, even above low- and middle-level fighters,” said an administration official, speaking on the condition of anonymity because he was discussing internal deliberations.
Still, any grand bargain is bound to be messy, he said, with the Taliban most likely to demand government jobs or control of large areas of territory in Afghanistan’s south, where it now rules by fear. What the United States would be willing to tolerate has become a hot issue inside the administration.
Already, the Pentagon has expressed skepticism about coming to terms with high-ranking Taliban figures anytime soon.
“It’s our view that until the Taliban leadership sees a change in the momentum and begins to see that they are not going to win, the likelihood of significant reconciliation at senior levels is not terribly great,” Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said last week in India.
At the same time, the senior American commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, said recently that he could eventually envision a role for some Taliban officials in Afghanistan’s political establishment. [*]
Other senior officials, like Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., are said to be more open to reaching out, because they believe it will help shorten the military engagement in Afghanistan. The special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, Richard C. Holbrooke, is also said by officials to be privately receptive, although he expressed doubts in an interview.
“It’s very unclear on which basis you can have reconciliation with the Taliban leadership when they are still allied with Al Qaeda and pursue policies that would create permanent instability in Afghanistan and the region,” Mr. Holbrooke said.
Part of the problem is that the process could set off unpredictable forces. Some contend it could split the leadership of the Taliban, swelling the ranks of subordinates who accept the Afghan government’s offer to lay down their arms. [it has downside, not question] [it could still blow up in –ir to this day] [and probably even shakier in AfPak] [*] But skeptics argue that it could embolden the Taliban, by making their leaders think they have the upper hand against the Afghan government.
“The more there is talk of negotiation, the more the Taliban view it as a sign of weakness,” said Vanda Felbab-Brown, an expert on Afghanistan at the Brookings Institution. “How do you make sure the reconciliation process does not embolden the Taliban to go on the march?”
Reconciliation has a troubled history in Afghanistan. In December 2007, Mr. Karzai expelled two Western officials for unauthorized contacts with the Taliban. [*]The United Nations said the talks were with tribal elders, though one of the officials, Michael Semple, an Irishman who worked for the European Union, has written extensively since then about the value of negotiating with the Taliban.
There are also inklings of a new openness on the part of Mullah Omar. Last September, he stirred some controversy in the extremist world with a public statement suggesting that he put the goal of retaking power in Afghanistan ahead of the global jihad favored by Al Qaeda.
Some analysts saw this as a sign of a rift between the two groups and a hint that Mullah Omar might be open to talks. The Taliban, he said, “want to play our role in peace and stability of the region.”
In London, Mr. Karzai is expected to provide details about reaching out to lower-level Taliban members. One question is whether he will ask the United Nations to remove Mullah Omar’s name from a “blacklist,” which freezes bank accounts and prohibits travel for those on it. [*]
The blacklist is important because the government cannot negotiate with Taliban members whose names are on it. A United Nations Security Council committee said Tuesday that it had removed five senior Taliban from the list, Reuters reported.
For now, American military officials said, the focus will remain on lower-level street fighters.
The hope is that in the next few months, the 30,000 additional American troops will start to make a dent in the Taliban’s offensive. Even then, American officials said, any reconciliation would require the Taliban leaders to renounce violence.
“That’s a pretty high bar for the Taliban leadership to clear,” said Brian Katulis, of the Center for American Progress, a liberal advocacy group with ties to the Obama administration.
Scott Shane contributed reporting.
Copyright 2010 The New York Times Co

U.S. military teams, intelligence deeply involved in aiding Yemen on strikes

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/26/AR2010012604239.html
U.S. military teams, intelligence deeply involved in aiding Yemen on strikes
By Dana Priest
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, January 27, 2010; A01 [Obama White House] [residual from Presidents Bush and predecessors] [both NSC and bureaucratic levels] [here, new info on what happened the day he was taken into custody?] [followup] [Xmas Day plot that was thwarted] [it’s increasingly difficult to get a fix on this lad and whom he worked with in Yemen?] [now appears it was al Qaeda of Arabian Peninsula] [Priest breaking news] [use psci 469] [*]
U.S. military teams and intelligence agencies are deeply involved in secret joint operations with Yemeni troops who in the past six weeks have killed scores of people, among them six of 15 top leaders of a regional al-Qaeda affiliate, [*]according to senior administration officials.
The operations, approved by President Obama and begun six weeks ago, involve several dozen troops from the U.S. military's clandestine Joint Special Operations

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/26/AR2010012604239.html
U.S. military teams, intelligence deeply involved in aiding Yemen on strikes
By Dana Priest
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, January 27, 2010; A01 [Obama White House] [residual from Presidents Bush and predecessors] [both NSC and bureaucratic levels] [here, new info on what happened the day he was taken into custody?] [followup] [Xmas Day plot that was thwarted] [it’s increasingly difficult to get a fix on this lad and whom he worked with in Yemen?] [now appears it was al Qaeda of Arabian Peninsula] [Priest breaking news] [use psci 469] [*]
U.S. military teams and intelligence agencies are deeply involved in secret joint operations with Yemeni troops who in the past six weeks have killed scores of people, among them six of 15 top leaders of a regional al-Qaeda affiliate, [*]according to senior administration officials.
The operations, approved by President Obama and begun six weeks ago, involve several dozen troops from the U.S. military's clandestine Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC), whose main mission is tracking and killing suspected terrorists. [*]The American advisers do not take part in raids in Yemen, but help plan missions, develop tactics and provide weapons and munitions. Highly sensitive intelligence is being shared with the Yemeni forces, including electronic and video surveillance, as well as three-dimensional terrain maps and detailed analysis of the al-Qaeda network.
As part of the operations, Obama approved a Dec. 24 strike against a compound where a U.S. citizen, Anwar al-Aulaqi, was thought to be meeting with other regional al-Qaeda leaders. [the day before the plot was thwarted!] [*]Although he was not the focus of the strike and was not killed, he has since been added to a shortlist of U.S. citizens specifically targeted for killing or capture by the JSOC, military officials said. The officials, like others interviewed for this article, spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the operations.
The broad outlines of the U.S. involvement in Yemen have come to light in the past month, but the extent and nature of the operations have not been previously reported. The far-reaching U.S. role could prove politically challenging for Yemen's president, Ali Abdullah Saleh, [*]who must balance his desire for American support against the possibility of a backlash by tribal, political and religious groups whose members resent what they see as U.S. interference in Yemen.
The collaboration with Yemen provides the starkest illustration to date of the Obama administration's efforts to ramp up counterterrorism operations, including in areas outside the Iraq and Afghanistan war zones.
"We are very pleased with the direction this is going," a senior administration official said of the cooperation with Yemen.
Obama has ordered a dramatic increase in the pace of CIA drone-launched missile strikes into Pakistan in an effort to kill al-Qaeda and Taliban members in the ungoverned tribal areas along the Afghan border. There have been more such strikes in the first year of Obama's administration than in the last three years under President George W. Bush, according to a military officer who tracks the attacks.
Obama also has sent U.S. military forces briefly into Somalia as part of an operation to kill Saleh Ali Nabhan, a Kenyan sought in the 2002 bombing of an Israeli-owned resort in Kenya.
Republican lawmakers and former vice president Richard B. Cheney have sought to characterize the new president as soft on terrorism after he banned the harsh interrogation methods permitted under Bush and announced his intention to close the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
Obama has rejected those two elements of Bush's counterterrorism program, but he has embraced the notion that the most effective way to kill or capture members of al-Qaeda and its affiliates is to work closely with foreign partners, including those that have feeble democracies, shoddy human rights records and weak accountability over the vast sums of money Washington is giving them to win their continued participation in these efforts.
In the case of Yemen, a steady stream of high-ranking officials has visited Saleh, including the rarely seen JSOC commander, Vice Adm. William H. McRaven; White House counterterrorism adviser John O. Brennan; and Gen. David H. Petraeus, head of U.S. Central Command.
A Yemeni official briefed on security matters said Tuesday that the two countries maintained a "steadfast cooperation in combating AQAP, but there are clear limits to the U.S. involvement on the ground. Information sharing has been a key in carrying out recent successful counterterrorism operations." AQAP is the abbreviation for al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, the affiliate operating in Yemen.
In a newly built joint operations center, the American advisers are acting as intermediaries between the Yemeni forces and hundreds of U.S. military and intelligence officers working in Washington, Virginia and Tampa and at Fort Meade, Md., to collect, analyze and route intelligence.
The combined efforts have resulted in more than two dozen ground raids and airstrikes. Military and intelligence officials suspect there are several hundred members of AQAP, a group that has historical links to the main al-Qaeda organization but that is thought to operate independently.
The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen, told a Navy War College class in early January that the United States had "no plans" to send ground troops to Yemen and that he had been concerned about the growing al-Qaeda presence there "for a long time now."
"We have worked hard to try to improve our relationships and training, education and war-fighting support," Mullen said. "And, yet, we still have a long way to go."
Saleh has faced pressure not only from the United States but also his country's main financial backers, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, to gain better control over its lawless northern border. In August, Saleh asked U.S. officials to begin a more in-depth conversation over how the two countries might work together, according to administration officials. The current operation evolved from those talks.
"President Saleh was serious about going after al-Qaeda and wasn't going to resist our encouragement," the senior official said.
The Obama administration's deepening of bilateral intelligence relations builds on ties forged during George J. Tenet's tenure as CIA director.
Shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, Tenet coaxed Saleh into a partnership that would give the CIA and U.S. military units the means to attack terrorist training camps and al-Qaeda targets. Saleh agreed, in part, because he believed that his country, the ancestral home of Osama bin Laden, was next on the U.S. invasion list, according to an adviser to the Yemeni president.
Tenet provided Saleh's forces with helicopters, eavesdropping equipment and 100 Army Special Forces members to train an antiterrorism unit. He also won Saleh's approval to fly Predator drones armed with Hellfire missiles over the country. In November 2002, a CIA missile strike killed six al-Qaeda operatives driving through the desert. The target was Abu Ali al-Harithi, organizer of the 2000 attack on the USS Cole. Killed with him was a U.S. citizen, Kamal Derwish, who the CIA knew was in the car.
Word that the CIA had purposefully killed Derwish drew attention to the unconventional nature of the new conflict and to the secret legal deliberations over whether killing a U.S. citizen was legal and ethical.
After the Sept. 11 attacks, Bush gave the CIA, and later the military, authority to kill U.S. citizens abroad if strong evidence existed that an American was involved in organizing or carrying out terrorist actions against the United States or U.S. interests, military and intelligence officials said. The evidence has to meet a certain, defined threshold. The person, for instance, has to pose "a continuing and imminent threat to U.S. persons and interests," said one former intelligence official.
The Obama administration has adopted the same stance. If a U.S. citizen joins al-Qaeda, "it doesn't really change anything from the standpoint of whether we can target them," a senior administration official said. "They are then part of the enemy."
Both the CIA and the JSOC maintain lists of individuals, called "High Value Targets" and "High Value Individuals," whom they seek to kill or capture. The JSOC list includes three Americans, including Aulaqi, whose name was added late last year. As of several months ago, the CIA list included three U.S. citizens, and an intelligence official said that Aulaqi's name has now been added.
Intelligence officials say the New Mexico-born imam also has been linked to the Army psychiatrist who is accused of killing 12 soldiers and a civilian at Fort Hood, Tex., although his communications with Maj. Nidal M. Hasan were largely academic in nature. Authorities say that Aulaqi is the most important native, English-speaking al-Qaeda figure and that he was in contact with the Nigerian accused of attempting to bomb a U.S. airliner on Christmas Day.
Yemeni Foreign Minister Abubaker al-Qirbi said in Washington last week that his government's present goal is to persuade Aulaqi to surrender so he can face local criminal charges stemming from his contacts with the Fort Hood suspect. Aulaqi is being tracked by the country's security forces, the minister added, and is now thought to be in the southern province of Shabwa.
Staff writer R. Jeffrey Smith and staff researcher Julie Tate contributed to this report. © 2010 The Washington Post Co

The Second Year

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/28/opinion/28thu1.html
January 28, 2010
Editorial
The Second Year
[editorial] [times struggling with Obama’s continuity with his predecessor] [its editorial board doesn’t understand continuity in USFP] [sort of funny to read them stuggle to make distinctions between Bush and Obama that are little more than rhetoric] [use psci 355, 455, 469] [*]
The union is in a state of deep and justifiable anxiety about jobs and mortgages and two long, bloody wars. President Obama did not create these problems, and none could be solved in one year. But 2009 offered powerful and, at times, bruising lessons for a new president struggling to fulfill the seismic promise of his election.
Mr. Obama used his first State of the Union address to show the country what he has learned and how he intends to govern in the next three years.
He was right to make the creation of jobs and the reform of the far too vulnerable

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/28/opinion/28thu1.html
January 28, 2010
Editorial
The Second Year
[editorial] [times struggling with Obama’s continuity with his predecessor] [its editorial board doesn’t understand continuity in USFP] [sort of funny to read them stuggle to make distinctions between Bush and Obama that are little more than rhetoric] [use psci 355, 455, 469] [*]
The union is in a state of deep and justifiable anxiety about jobs and mortgages and two long, bloody wars. President Obama did not create these problems, and none could be solved in one year. But 2009 offered powerful and, at times, bruising lessons for a new president struggling to fulfill the seismic promise of his election.
Mr. Obama used his first State of the Union address to show the country what he has learned and how he intends to govern in the next three years.
He was right to make the creation of jobs and the reform of the far too vulnerable financial system his top priorities. And Mr. Obama made it clear that he would not be cowed by Washington’s venomous politics, his own mistakes, or the Massachusetts election into giving up on health care reform. It was a relief to see him challenge the Senate’s Republicans for their obstruction and his party for tending to “run for the hills” rather than wield the power of its majority.
Watching Mr. Obama, we were also reminded of the world’s relief that he is very much not George W. Bush. He is managing the necessary exit from Iraq. His decision to send more troops to Afghanistan was courageous and sound. On Wednesday, he rejected “the false choice” between security and the rule of law. [funny] [*]
At home, Mr. Obama won an economic recovery bill that was too small but staved off an even deeper recession. He raised fuel standards for cars and appointed Sonia Sotomayor to a Supreme Court that had been drifting dangerously rightward. That is good, but not enough, and the president acknowledged that before Congress and the nation on Wednesday night.
Like Mr. Obama, we, too, would like to see bipartisan cooperation. But all too often Mr. Obama has underestimated the Republicans’ determination to block anything he proposed. When the economy was imploding only three Republican senators voted for the absolutely essential stimulus bill; none agreed to back health care reform or even vote to end a filibuster.
So it was good to see him get tougher and clearer about going forward. If the Republicans want to continue to block bills that the country wants and needs, he should let them filibuster so the public can take notice. We would have liked to have heard a more forceful demand — rather than a polite invitation — for the Republicans to either support his health care reform plan or produce their own plan, one that provides real security for all Americans and has a real chance to reduce costs.
After their taxpayer-financed bailout, Mr. Obama was right to call for additional taxes on the big banks. (And he should support the drive in the House to tax bankers’ obscene bonuses.)
On Wednesday, Mr. Obama said he would veto any financial regulatory reform bill that was not strong enough and warned that lobbyists in the Senate were weakening the version passed by the House. To our minds, the House bill was not good enough — creating a weak consumer protection agency and leaving loopholes in derivatives regulation. We hope Mr. Obama quickly spells out his bottom line for the reform package.
Mr. Obama acknowledged Americans’ anxiety about the deficit, and he was right to announce that he would create a bipartisan panel to come up with ideas to address it now that Senate Republicans have rejected the idea without a vote. But the first priority must be creating more jobs and helping more Americans with their mortgages.
The private sector seems unlikely to propel a self-sustaining recovery any time soon. That means more stimulus spending, not less, much more than the $154 billion jobs bill the House has passed. Mr. Obama offered some additional ideas, lending money to small businesses and giving them incentives for capital investments. The country will need to hear a lot more about that and how he plans to keep Americans in their homes.
We respect Mr. Obama’s deliberative nature. But too often in the last year he lingered on the sidelines, allowing his opponents to define and distort the issues and, sometimes, him — as happened last year in the health care debate.
His speech Wednesday was a reminder that he is a gifted orator, able to inspire with grand vision and the simple truth frankly spoken. It was a long time coming. [little on foreign policy] [two probable reasons] [1) Obama discussed US security in economic terms more than most; thus, section on national security was relatively short by Bush standards] [2) times editors struggling with continuity] [**]
Copyright 2010 The New York Times Co

How Obama can reverse Iran's dangerous course

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/26/AR2010012602122.html
How Obama can reverse Iran's dangerous course
By Robert Kagan
Wednesday, January 27, 2010; A19 [oped] [Kagan, columnist] [neocon on Iran] [good piece] [*]
President Obama has a once-in-a-generation opportunity over the next few months to help make the world a dramatically safer place. It's not by negotiating an arms deal with Russia, or strengthening the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, or by making that elusive climate-change deal with the Chinese, worthy though those initiatives may be. [*]It is by helping the Iranian people achieve a new form of government. Given the role that the Islamic theocracy in Tehran has played in leading and sponsoring anti-democratic, anti-liberal and anti-Western fanaticism for the past three decades, the toppling or even substantial reform of that regime would be second only to the collapse of the Soviet Union in its ideological and geopolitical ramifications. [still calling for toppling?] [rather dangerous but?] [*]
Imagine an Iran whose educated, inventive and highly cultured people were allowed

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/26/AR2010012602122.html
How Obama can reverse Iran's dangerous course
By Robert Kagan
Wednesday, January 27, 2010; A19 [oped] [Kagan, columnist] [neocon on Iran] [good piece] [*]
President Obama has a once-in-a-generation opportunity over the next few months to help make the world a dramatically safer place. It's not by negotiating an arms deal with Russia, or strengthening the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, or by making that elusive climate-change deal with the Chinese, worthy though those initiatives may be. [*]It is by helping the Iranian people achieve a new form of government. Given the role that the Islamic theocracy in Tehran has played in leading and sponsoring anti-democratic, anti-liberal and anti-Western fanaticism for the past three decades, the toppling or even substantial reform of that regime would be second only to the collapse of the Soviet Union in its ideological and geopolitical ramifications. [still calling for toppling?] [rather dangerous but?] [*]
Imagine an Iran whose educated, inventive and highly cultured people were allowed to flourish, fully enmeshed in the global economy and society. Imagine the effect on the Muslim world and the greater Middle East of a modernizing, prosperous Iran that held regular, free and fair elections. Those who have long advocated a "grand bargain" were right to talk about the immense global benefits if Iran could be integrated into the international order. Their big mistake was thinking such a bargain could be had with benighted and virulently anti-Western leaders. But the bargain would be grand if the present government could go the way of the Brezhnevs and Ligachevs.
Regime change is more important than any deal the Obama administration might strike with Iran's present government on its nuclear program. Even if Tehran were to accept the offer made last year to export some of its low-enriched uranium, this would be a modest step down a long, uncertain road. Such a minor concession is not worth abandoning the push for real change.
It would be similarly tragic if Israel damaged the likelihood of political change by carrying out an airstrike against Iran's nuclear facilities in the coming year. That would provide a huge boost to the Tehran regime just when it is on the ropes -- and for what? The uncertain prospect of setting back the nuclear program for a couple of years?
Regime change in Tehran is the best nonproliferation policy. [*]Even if the next Iranian government refused to give up the weapons program, its need for Western economic assistance and its desire for reintegration into the global economy and international order would at least cause it to slow today's mad rush to completion and be much more open to diplomatic discussion. A new government might shelve the program for a while, or abandon it altogether. Other nations have done so. In any event, an Iran not run by radicals with millennial visions would be a much less frightening prospect, even with a nuclear weapon.
The clinching argument is pragmatic. What is more likely: that Iran's present leadership will agree to give up its nuclear program or that these leaders will be toppled? A year ago, the answer seemed obvious. There was little sign the Iranian people would ever rise up and demand change, no matter what the United States and other democratic nations did to help them. If the prospects for a deal on Tehran's nuclear program seemed remote, the prospects for regime change were even more remote.
These probabilities have shifted since June 12. Now the odds of regime change are higher than the odds the present regime will ever agree to give up its nuclear program. With tougher sanctions, public support from Obama and other Western leaders, and programs to provide information and better communications to reformers, the possibility for change in Iran may never be better. As Richard Haass wrote recently, "Even a realist should recognize that it's an opportunity not to be missed."
Does Obama recognize it? So far, the administration has been slow to shift in response to events in Iran. It has proceeded as if the political upheaval had only marginal significance, and the real prize remains some deal with Tehran. The president has been cautious to a fault. Even as Iranian opposition leaders ask him to take their side, and Iran experts such as Karim Sadjadpour and Ray Takeyh call for more active efforts on behalf of Iran's reformists, Obama has said and done little.
The president needs to realize that this is his "tear down this wall" moment. And that it is fleeting. Iran's leaders are rushing to obtain a nuclear weapon in part because they believe that possessing the bomb will strengthen their hand domestically as well as internationally. They're probably right. Moreover, Israel's patience will not be infinite. If too much time passes without change in Iran, Israel may feel compelled to attack, no more how questionable the likelihood of success and how grave the fallout.
Were the Iranian regime to fall on Obama's watch, however, and were he to play some visible role in helping, his place in history as a transformational world leader would be secure. Thirty years ago, the Iranian Revolution triumphed, aided by the incompetence of top Carter administration officials, some of whom, to this day, call for normalization with the Ayatollah Khomeini's brutal successors. Obama has a chance to reverse their strategic and ideological debacle. But he cannot wait too long.
Robert Kagan, a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, writes a monthly column for The Post. © 2010 The Washington Post Co

Malaysia: Pig Heads Are Left at Mosques

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/28/world/asia/28diplo.html
January 28, 2010
World Briefing | Asia
Malaysia: Pig Heads Are Left at Mosques
By SETH MYDANS [Malaysia] [SEA] [Islam in SEA is normally pretty moderate version of Islam] [for some reason, there seems to be a bit more generalized fundamentalism in Malaysia than other SEA nation-states] [followup] [looks as though someone is trying to stir troubles between Muslim majority and religious minorities there?] [followup] [use psci 469] [*]
Worshipers at two mosques found the severed heads of pigs when they arrived for morning prayers on Wednesday, according to the police. Pigs are considered unclean by Muslims. [pigs are considered unclean by everyone] [Muslims and Jews have injunctions against pork] [*] The incident followed vandalism and arson at 11

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/28/world/asia/28diplo.html
January 28, 2010
World Briefing | Asia
Malaysia: Pig Heads Are Left at Mosques
By SETH MYDANS [Malaysia] [SEA] [Islam in SEA is normally pretty moderate version of Islam] [for some reason, there seems to be a bit more generalized fundamentalism in Malaysia than other SEA nation-states] [followup] [looks as though someone is trying to stir troubles between Muslim majority and religious minorities there?] [followup] [use psci 469] [*]
Worshipers at two mosques found the severed heads of pigs when they arrived for morning prayers on Wednesday, according to the police. Pigs are considered unclean by Muslims. [pigs are considered unclean by everyone] [Muslims and Jews have injunctions against pork] [*] The incident followed vandalism and arson at 11 Christian churches this month and appeared to be part of a continuing dispute over the use of the word Allah by Christians to designate God in the Malay-language [*]Bible.
Copyright 2010 The New York Times Co

Russia and Belarus Sign Oil Supply Agreement

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/28/world/europe/28briefs-Russiabrf.html
January 28, 2010
World Briefing | Europe
Russia and Belarus Sign Oil Supply Agreement
By BLOOMBERG [Russia] [former USSR] [Vlad and his proclivities represent a lot of Russians who don’t care for the way the world has changed since 1991] [in new assertive Russia] [Russia ethos] [Russia brings Belarus back into line?] [use psci350] [use ir text] [followup] [Russia’s relations with its “Near Abroad”] [*]
Russia and Belarus reached an oil supply agreement in Moscow on Wednesday, ending the threat of disruptions in European deliveries that arose when a previous deal lapsed at the end of last year. Russia announced that the two sides had signed

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/28/world/europe/28briefs-Russiabrf.html
January 28, 2010
World Briefing | Europe
Russia and Belarus Sign Oil Supply Agreement
By BLOOMBERG [Russia] [former USSR] [Vlad and his proclivities represent a lot of Russians who don’t care for the way the world has changed since 1991] [in new assertive Russia] [Russia ethos] [Russia brings Belarus back into line?] [use psci350] [use ir text] [followup] [Russia’s relations with its “Near Abroad”] [*]
Russia and Belarus reached an oil supply agreement in Moscow on Wednesday, ending the threat of disruptions in European deliveries that arose when a previous deal lapsed at the end of last year. Russia announced that the two sides had signed documents that covered the sale of Russian oil to Belarus and the piping of Russian oil through Belarus for other European customers.
Copyright 2010 The New York Times Co

Gaza: Hamas Says It Could Restart Talks With Fatah

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/28/world/middleeast/28briefs-Gazabrf.html
January 28, 2010
World Briefing | Middle East
Gaza: Hamas Says It Could Restart Talks With Fatah
By REUTERS [Palestine] [across Palestinians] [domestic politics intersects foreign policy] [followup] [tension between PA (who control West Bank hence its nickname as Fatahstine) versus Hamas who control Gaza hence its nickname as Hamastan!] [PA and Hamas possibly moving toward negotiations?] [followup] [*]
The Islamist group Hamas group indicated a new readiness on Wednesday to resume Egyptian-sponsored reconciliation talks with its secular rival Fatah. Egypt has become openly frustrated with what it views as Hamas’s stubborn resistance to

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/28/world/middleeast/28briefs-Gazabrf.html
January 28, 2010
World Briefing | Middle East
Gaza: Hamas Says It Could Restart Talks With Fatah
By REUTERS [Palestine] [across Palestinians] [domestic politics intersects foreign policy] [followup] [tension between PA (who control West Bank hence its nickname as Fatahstine) versus Hamas who control Gaza hence its nickname as Hamastan!] [PA and Hamas possibly moving toward negotiations?] [followup] [*]
The Islamist group Hamas group indicated a new readiness on Wednesday to resume Egyptian-sponsored reconciliation talks with its secular rival Fatah. Egypt has become openly frustrated with what it views as Hamas’s stubborn resistance to a pact that would mend the worst rift in decades in the Palestinian independence movement.
Copyright 2010 The New York Times Co

Iran Continues Focus on Outside Provocateurs, Now Blaming Germany

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/28/world/middleeast/28iran.html
January 28, 2010
Iran Continues Focus on Outside Provocateurs, Now Blaming Germany
By MICHAEL SLACKMAN and NICHOLAS KULISH [Iran] [confluence of June elections with Iran’s apparent drive for nuke weapon] [the intense internal dynamics of the various factions and Iran’s nuclear-enrichment processes-plants] [Tehran’s intense factionalism] [thugocracy makes vague threats against West—this time Germany?] [*]
CAIRO — Iranian officials continued to cast blame for the nation’s recent political crisis on foreign interference on Wednesday, focusing their ire for the first time on Germany, one of the country’s closest trading partners, with an accusation that its diplomats and intelligence agents helped organize protests at the end of December. [*]
The accusations followed stronger statements against Iran’s nuclear program by

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/28/world/middleeast/28iran.html
January 28, 2010
Iran Continues Focus on Outside Provocateurs, Now Blaming Germany
By MICHAEL SLACKMAN and NICHOLAS KULISH [Iran] [confluence of June elections with Iran’s apparent drive for nuke weapon] [the intense internal dynamics of the various factions and Iran’s nuclear-enrichment processes-plants] [Tehran’s intense factionalism] [thugocracy makes vague threats against West—this time Germany?] [*]
CAIRO — Iranian officials continued to cast blame for the nation’s recent political crisis on foreign interference on Wednesday, focusing their ire for the first time on Germany, one of the country’s closest trading partners, with an accusation that its diplomats and intelligence agents helped organize protests at the end of December. [*]
The accusations followed stronger statements against Iran’s nuclear program by German officials, including Chancellor Angela Merkel, who raised the scpecter [sic. [*] of new international sanctions against Iran, and an announcement on Tuesday by the Munich-based engineering giant Siemens that it would seek no new business there.
“There is a long tradition of economic cooperation between Germany and Iran,” Mrs. Merkel said Tuesday at a news conference with the Israeli president, Shimon Peres, at the conclusion of his four-day visit. “But we believe it is only effective if you try to introduce international sanctions on as broad a base as possible.”
The accusations also coincided with a round of meetings between Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and foreign ministers from Russia, Indonesia and Turkey over Iran’s nuclear program.
Iranian news reports on Wednesday said that an official with Iran’s intelligence ministry told reporters in Tehran that two German intelligence agents — “Yogi” and “Ingo” — were part of a German team that helped recruit young people to join protests that turned violent during a normally somber Shiite holiday, Ashura. [it’s possible but I’ve rarely heard much about Germany’s involvement?] [German intel, BND?] [*]
“Individuals who were arrested on Ashura were from various groups, one of which was linked with the German intelligence services and was being led by German diplomats,” said the unnamed intelligence official, according to the semi-official ILNA news service.
The official told reporters that the protests were organized abroad and cited what he evidence to support his contention: a Facebook page in support of Mir Hussein Moussavi, an opposition leader, run by Iranian expatriates living in Germany; “incitement” from BBC Farsi and Voice of America; invitations from the People’s Mujaheeen, an exile group Iran considers a terrorist organization; and the fact that many arrested protesters were from outside Tehran.
But some details of the Iranian account were a matter of confusion; several Iranian new agencies reported that German diplomats had been arrested, while others said only that German diplomats had been involved. One report said that it was an aide to Mr. Moussavi who was arrested.
Those that reported the German arrests — including state television — did not say if the diplomats were still in custody, while other news agencies reported that the authorities only arrested an aide to Mir Hussein Moussavi, a principal opposition leader.
“Two individuals from among Germany’s diplomats participated in Ashura Day unrest, and they had Green symbols alongside themselves, and they were distributing even these Green symbols, including T-shirts, to this group of boys and girls,” was how the ILNA semi-official news agency reported the accusation. The MEHR and ISNA semi-official news agencies reported the arrests, while English-language Press TV did not.
The challenge of following events in Iran has grown more complicated since the disputed presidential election last year set of enduring unrest. The government continues to limit foreign access and independent reporting and to penalize local news organizations that offer what the state deems critical reports.
For its part, the German government denied that its agents played any role in the protests, or that its diplomats were arrested. “We reject these accusations in every possible form,” Germany’s Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle, told reporters in Berlin on Wednesday.
But Andreas Peschke, a spokesman for the German Foreign Ministry, appeared to leave open the possibility that German nationals might have been arrested, telling a news conference in Berlin, “No German diplomats were arrested on December 27th last year.” [*]
The German news service dpa reported that two German police officers who worked at the embassy but did not have diplomatic status had been arrested, but a spokesman for the German Interior Ministry in Berlin said that such reports were “rumors and nothing more.”
Whatever the details, it was clear that the Iranian leadership continues to blame its political unrest on an international conspiracy of foreign governments and expatriate Iranians seeking to topple the government. Iran experts said that the leader of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, in particular, believe that the West is trying to mastermind a revolution. [it’s US foreign policy, basically] [the US spends $60 million on such programs through state and black budget through Pentagon?!?] [*]
The Iranian intelligence official, in his statement to reporters, said that a group of expatriates function as liaisons between foreign governments and the opposition inside Iran. They include, he said, a former minister of culture, Atollah Mohajerani, and a prominent cleric, Mohsen Kadivar, both now living in the United States.
“Anti-Islamic Revolution agents, networks backed by Western intelligence services” and those who seek to promote “sedition” in the country planned the Ashura protests, ISNA quoted the official as saying .
From the start of Iran’s eight-month-old political crisis, the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and his allies in the military and intelligence services have blamed foreign governments for attempting to organize and promote the kind of soft revolutions that brought down governments in Eastern Europe. Until now, Iran had focused its accusations on the United States, Britain and Israel.
Germany is one of Iran’s biggest and most important trading partners, but Berlin has been trying to curtail business with Iran as part of the increase in international pressure to stop Iran’s nuclear program.
At the time of the Ashura demonstrations, Mrs. Merkel condemned the violence as being “a result of the unacceptable actions of the security forces.”
At the news conference on Tuesday Mrs. Merkel said that the international community had shown “great patience” with Iran, but that “the time has come for us to discuss sanctions also on the international level.”
On Wednesday, Mrs. Clinton, in London for conferences on Yemen and Afghanistan, tried to jump-start the global effort to press Iran on its nuclear program. She also planned to meet Thursday with the foreign minister of China, which has been reluctant to consider fresh sanctions against Tehran.
The chief executive of Siemens, Peter Löscher, told shareholders on Tuesday that the company’s board had decided last October to stop seeking new contracts with Iran by mid-2010.
“Iran sees itself, so to speak, confronted with the developments on the German side, from Siemens and especially by the clear statements from Merkel during the visit by Peres on harder sanctions,” said Konstantin Kosten, an expert on Iran at the German Council on Foreign Relations in Berlin.
On Monday, Iranian officials summoned the Swiss ambassador, who represents American interests in Iran, and to complain about American involvement in the recent assassination of Masoud Ali Mohammadi, though according to his friends and his writings, he supported the reform movement — not the hard-line leadership. Iran also implicated Israel and Britain in the killing.
In a speech on Tuesday, Ayatollah Khamenei said that the protesters would fail because they are “dependent on the enemy.”
“America has spent $45 million in fighting the Islamic system through diplomacy, sanctions, the deployment of spies, hiring mercenaries, and other methods, but has not reached a single positive result,” he said.
Michael Slackman reported from Cairo and Nicholas Kulish from Berlin. Reporting contributed by Mark Landler in London and Judy Dempsey in Berlin.
Copyright 2010 The New York Times Co

As Nations Meet, Clinton Urges Yemen to Prove Itself Worthy of Aid

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/28/world/asia/28diplo.html
January 28, 2010
As Nations Meet, Clinton Urges Yemen to Prove Itself Worthy of Aid
By MARK LANDLER [Yemen] [the partial move of al Qaeda infrastructure in spring 2009] [apparently, it has now become operational] [US has maintained small footprint during Obama’s tenure] [use psci 469] [makes Yemen—along with proximity—inviting to global jihadis] [clearly demands attention that both Yemen authority and US (though largely quietly) are giving] [followup] [*]
LONDON — Senior officials from the United States and 19 other countries gathered here on Wednesday to declare themselves friends of Yemen. But Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton administered a dose of tough love, saying Yemen, an impoverished Arab nation, must earn increased foreign aid by rooting out corruption, settling internal strife and protecting the rights of girls and young women. [she’s actually been quite good thus far] [*]
Mrs. Clinton, at a major conference focused on the growing terrorist threat from

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/28/world/asia/28diplo.html
January 28, 2010
As Nations Meet, Clinton Urges Yemen to Prove Itself Worthy of Aid
By MARK LANDLER [Yemen] [the partial move of al Qaeda infrastructure in spring 2009] [apparently, it has now become operational] [US has maintained small footprint during Obama’s tenure] [use psci 469] [makes Yemen—along with proximity—inviting to global jihadis] [clearly demands attention that both Yemen authority and US (though largely quietly) are giving] [followup] [*]
LONDON — Senior officials from the United States and 19 other countries gathered here on Wednesday to declare themselves friends of Yemen. But Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton administered a dose of tough love, saying Yemen, an impoverished Arab nation, must earn increased foreign aid by rooting out corruption, settling internal strife and protecting the rights of girls and young women. [she’s actually been quite good thus far] [*]
Mrs. Clinton, at a major conference focused on the growing terrorist threat from Yemen, said the United States would bolster nonmilitary assistance to the country, but urged it to accept economic remedies proposed by the International Monetary Fund and to enact its own 10-point reform plan. [*]
“I personally believe that now is the moment for the Yemeni government to really step up and do what it has said it will do,” Mrs. Clinton said after the conference, during which she delivered the same challenging message to Yemen’s prime minister, Ali Mohammed Mujawar.
“You can’t just continue to make promises in the face of very tough challenges like the ones Yemen is facing without being expected to actually manage and resolve some of those problems,” she said. [good for her] [*]
The two-hour conference, organized by the British government, underscored Yemen’s status as the latest hot spot in the global struggle against Islamic terrorism. [*]But Mrs. Clinton’s hard-edged message enlivened a meeting that otherwise seemed likely to generate polite messages of support, since the British had ruled out asking for financial donations from countries.
A much larger group of countries will meet on Thursday to talk about security and economic aid for Afghanistan, in the aftermath of the Obama administration’s decision to deploy 30,000 more troops there. [*]
In a sign of how large both countries loom at the White House, President Obama asked Mrs. Clinton to fly to London, even though doing so meant missing his State of the Union address Wednesday night. [*]
While Iran is not on the agenda in London, it has shadowed Mrs. Clinton’s travels here. She tried to add momentum to a global effort to pressure Iran on its nuclear program, meeting with Russia’s foreign minister on Wednesday and scheduling a meeting with China’s foreign minister on Thursday. [if she could get a little cooperation or at least acquiescence from those two it would be incredible] [*]
China has been publicly reluctant to consider new sanctions against Tehran, but Mrs. Clinton insisted that it was not putting up roadblocks. She said the United States would share information with Beijing to win its support.
“I don’t think there is a mind to change,” she said. “I think there is an openness and awareness.”
Britain’s prime minister, Gordon Brown, organized the Yemen conference after the failed Dec. 25 plot to blow up a Northwest Airlines jet bound for Detroit from Amsterdam. Investigators have said the suspect in the bombing attempt, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, told them he had received training and equipment in Yemen.
The Obama administration has given Yemen intelligence and firepower in recent weeks for attacks on suspected training camps of Al Qaeda, according to American officials. But Mrs. Clinton stressed the need to extend aid beyond counterterrorism to development and governing.
She said she had been struck by the Yemeni government’s presentation, in which officials cited what they called “appalling indicators” — a growing population, dwindling oil reserves, water shortages and political instability as the government battles Houthi insurgents in the north and secessionists in the south. [the situation is really dire and nobody is talking about it] [*]
“I saw something today that is rare to see anywhere, and that is a report by a government that was brutally honest about the problems it faces,” she said.
Still, Mrs. Clinton said Yemen would have to persuade donors that it would use aid money wisely. In 2006, a donors’ conference raised $5.2 billion for the country, but less than a third of that was delivered because of fears that the money would be misused or siphoned off by corruption.
Mrs. Clinton also criticized Yemen for rescinding a law that would have set 17 as the minimum age at which a girl could legally be married. In rural areas of the country, the average age for marriage is 12 to 13. [I’m not sure the US is going to be terribly effective at cultural stuff such as this] [though like some of the appauling habits in AfPak, probably doesn’t hurt to get US concerns on the record] [*]
Yemen’s foreign minister, Abu Bakr al-Qirbi, welcomed Mrs. Clinton’s offer of support and largely sidestepped her criticisms. He said Yemen would renew its push for political reforms — an on-again-off-again process that has frustrated American officials for years. “The challenges we are facing now cannot be faced unless we implement this agenda of reform,” he said.
On Wednesday evening, Mrs. Clinton met the Afghan president, Hamid Karzai. At Thursday’s conference, he is expected to announce his government’s plan for reintegrating lower- and mid-level Taliban fighters into Afghan society to officials from more than 60 countries.
The question is whether Mr. Karzai will confront the issue of reaching out to the Taliban’s leaders — an idea that has gained attention with recent comments by the top American commander in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, who said he could eventually envision a role for some Taliban officials in Afghanistan’s political establishment. [Obama has had a good relation with the military which has been nice to see] [I remember how much a tough relation plagued the Clinton admin when he was pres] [remember he’d avoided Vietnam (as had Cheney, Wolfowitz, , Feith, et al.) and had also said some unflattering things] [*]
The United Nations recently agreed to Mr. Karzai’s request that it remove the names of five Taliban members from its blacklist — a step that would be necessary for the government to begin talks with most Taliban leaders.
American officials have tried to keep the focus on the foot soldiers of the Taliban, though officials conceded that they were starting to think about which senior Taliban figures would be acceptable, and which would not.
“There is one clear red line, and that is Al Qaeda,” said Richard C. Holbrooke, the administration’s special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, referring to Taliban leaders with links to terrorists.
Copyright 2010 The New York Times Co

NATO and Kazakhstan Reach Transit Pact for Afghanistan

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/28/world/asia/28nato.html
January 28, 2010
NATO and Kazakhstan Reach Transit Pact for Afghanistan
By MICHAEL SCHWIRTZ [Afghanistan] [and environs] [former Soviet Republic of Kazakhstan signs deal with NATO] [use psci 469] [followup] [*]
MOSCOW — NATO and Kazakhstan completed an agreement Wednesday that will permit NATO allies to ship cargo through Kazakh territory to Afghanistan, providing an important alternative to vulnerable routes elsewhere.
Kazakhstan was the final holdout in the so-called northern supply line, which will allow cargo to pass overland from Europe to NATO troops in Afghanistan. Russia, Ukraine and Uzbekistan have signed similar agreements. [might be the payback Obama was looking for from Kremlin for his announcement on missile defense couple months ago?] [*]
“This allows supplies for our forces to start moving from Europe to Afghanistan, beginning in the coming days, complementing the very important transit route through Pakistan,” NATO’s secretary general, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, said in a

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/28/world/asia/28nato.html
January 28, 2010
NATO and Kazakhstan Reach Transit Pact for Afghanistan
By MICHAEL SCHWIRTZ [Afghanistan] [and environs] [former Soviet Republic of Kazakhstan signs deal with NATO] [use psci 469] [followup] [*]
MOSCOW — NATO and Kazakhstan completed an agreement Wednesday that will permit NATO allies to ship cargo through Kazakh territory to Afghanistan, providing an important alternative to vulnerable routes elsewhere.
Kazakhstan was the final holdout in the so-called northern supply line, which will allow cargo to pass overland from Europe to NATO troops in Afghanistan. Russia, Ukraine and Uzbekistan have signed similar agreements. [might be the payback Obama was looking for from Kremlin for his announcement on missile defense couple months ago?] [*]
“This allows supplies for our forces to start moving from Europe to Afghanistan, beginning in the coming days, complementing the very important transit route through Pakistan,” NATO’s secretary general, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, said in a statement in Brussels.
The American-led NATO coalition has been seeking to reduce its reliance on supply routes through the Khyber Pass in Pakistan, where attacks by the Taliban have been frequent.
The accord with Kazakhstan will allow NATO forces to ship only nonlethal cargo by rail through the country’s territory. The cargo will then pass through Uzbekistan into Afghanistan, where the coalition is fighting a growing Taliban insurgency.
The agreement comes as NATO allies prepare to meet Thursday with representatives from Afghanistan and its neighbors in London. The conference, hosted by Prime Minister Gordon Brown of Britain and President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan, will seek to map out strategies for continued international involvement in the war in Afghanistan.
NATO and the United States have been pushing Central Asian countries near Afghanistan to become more involved in the war effort. Last year, the Obama administration persuaded Kazakhstan’s neighbor, Kyrgyzstan, to reverse a decision to close a United States military base that is an important transit hub and refueling stop for troops en route to Afghanistan.
The alliance has also been working with Russia to open up more supply routes. The United States signed an agreement with Russia last summer to allow flights of troops and weapons through Russian airspace to Afghanistan, though bureaucratic wrangling has so far prevented all but a few shipments.
Russian and NATO military officials met on Tuesday in Brussels to further discuss Russian involvement in Afghanistan, among other issues. It was the first formal meeting between military officials from both sides since diplomatic relations broke down after Russia’s war with Georgia in August 2008.
In Washington, the White House welcomed the agreement, calling it “another signal of the commitment of the government of Kazakhstan to support” the international effort in Afghanistan. [*]
The separate American agreement with Russia permitting overflights of soldiers and weapons has had a slow start but is beginning to ramp up, American officials said.
Six months after President Obama and President Dimitri A. Medvedev sealed the agreement, an administration official said 12 flights have passed through Russian airspace and eight are planned in coming days. The Russians have cleared all flights except one, a chartered commercial carrier with hazardous material on board, [*] the official said.
Peter Baker contributed reporting from Washington.
Copyright 2010 The New York Times Co

Afghan Tribe, Vowing to Fight Taliban, to Get U.S. Aid in Return

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/28/world/asia/28tribe.html
January 28, 2010
Afghan Tribe, Vowing to Fight Taliban, to Get U.S. Aid in Return
By DEXTER FILKINS [Afghanistan] [hydra] [began in Afghanistan, but moved to Pakistan] [AfPak] [2009’s substantial pickup in Taliban and other insurgencies] [spring offensive turned into major effort throughout year] [now winter snows are slowing down in typical yearly fashion] [by time snow begins to melt, most of the “surge” will be in place] [use psci 469] [was this timed with Obama’s speech last night?][reports from Kabul continue to paint gloomy picture of Karzai’s regime] [cross in govt] [*]
JALALABAD, Afghanistan — The leaders of one of the largest Pashtun tribes in a Taliban stronghold said Wednesday that they had agreed to support the American-backed government, battle insurgents and burn down the home of any Afghan who harbored Taliban guerrillas. [wow; I’m a little surprised] [but bravo for Obama’s folks] [like Bush team that preceded them, they cut a deal with key insurgents?] [*]
Elders from the Shinwari tribe, which represents about 400,000 people in eastern

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/28/world/asia/28tribe.html
January 28, 2010
Afghan Tribe, Vowing to Fight Taliban, to Get U.S. Aid in Return
By DEXTER FILKINS [Afghanistan] [hydra] [began in Afghanistan, but moved to Pakistan] [AfPak] [2009’s substantial pickup in Taliban and other insurgencies] [spring offensive turned into major effort throughout year] [now winter snows are slowing down in typical yearly fashion] [by time snow begins to melt, most of the “surge” will be in place] [use psci 469] [was this timed with Obama’s speech last night?][reports from Kabul continue to paint gloomy picture of Karzai’s regime] [cross in govt] [*]
JALALABAD, Afghanistan — The leaders of one of the largest Pashtun tribes in a Taliban stronghold said Wednesday that they had agreed to support the American-backed government, battle insurgents and burn down the home of any Afghan who harbored Taliban guerrillas. [wow; I’m a little surprised] [but bravo for Obama’s folks] [like Bush team that preceded them, they cut a deal with key insurgents?] [*]
Elders from the Shinwari tribe, which represents about 400,000 people in eastern Afghanistan, also pledged to send at least one military-age male in each family to the Afghan Army or the police in the event of a Taliban attack.
In exchange for their support, American commanders agreed to channel $1 million in development projects directly to the tribal leaders and bypass the local Afghan government, which is widely seen as corrupt. [in fairness, as with Bush, it appears to have come from Pentagone] [for Bush it was Patraeus] [for Obama it is McChrystal] [*]
“The Taliban have been trying to destroy our tribe, and they are taking money from us, and they are taking our sons to fight,” said Malik Niaz, a Shinwari elder. “If they defy us now, we will defeat them.” [*]
The pact appears to be the first in which an entire Pashtun tribe has declared war on Taliban insurgents. [similar to what Bush’s team did in –ir!] [*]
But the agreement, though promising, is fragile at best. Afghan loyalties are historically fluid, and in the past the government has been unable to prevent Taliban retaliation. [*]The agreement may also be hard to replicate, since it arose from a specific local dispute and economic tensions with the Taliban.
While the Shinwaris are now united against the Taliban, if payments from the Americans falter or animosities flare with the Afghan government, the tribe could switch back just as quickly.
Moreover, it is not clear that the elders, whatever their intentions, will be able to command the loyalties of their own members. After 30 years of incessant warfare, many of the traditional societal networks in this country have been weakened or destroyed. [*]
In many places, the Taliban are stronger than the tribes themselves.
Indeed, in the past, Taliban gunmen have killed or threatened tribal leaders who defied them, and the American military and the Afghan government have largely been unable to protect them.
Many of the Shinwari elders said Wednesday that they had already received death threats. The brother of one elder, a district governor, has already been killed. [if they didn’t it would be pretty suspicious] [*]
The pact is but one plank of a carrot-and-stick strategy toward the Taliban as the United States pours more troops into Afghanistan in the hopes of inflicting setbacks that might make the Taliban more willing to negotiate. While the Americans are rewarding tribes who confront the Taliban, on Thursday the Afghan government is unveiling its latest plan to woo back both Taliban foot soldiers and their leaders.
That plan hopes to compensate for past failures that were underfinanced, lacked the buy-in of allies and did not prevent revenge killings.
The new plan has two tracks: to reintegrate Taliban fighters into Afghan society and to allow Taliban leaders to play a political role in Afghanistan, a far more politically charged idea.
The Karzai government wants countries attending an international conference in London on Thursday to back its plan and agree to finance it — at least initially.
In exchange for laying down arms and agreeing to abide by the Afghan Constitution, Taliban fighters would be guaranteed jobs and an enforceable amnesty. [*]
The pact with the Shinwari tribe would complement the reconciliation effort. It echoes a similar phenomenon that unfolded in the Iraq war beginning in late 2006, which ultimately contributed to a substantial drop in violence there. In Iraq, tribal leaders from the country’s Sunni minority rebelled against Al Qaeda of Mesopotamia and joined forces with the Americans. The phenomenon was known as the Sunni Awakening.
But no one expects to be able to duplicate the scale of the Iraq effort, because in many parts of Afghanistan the Taliban have not only intimidated or killed local tribal leaders but insinuated themselves into the very fabric of the hierarchies of the tribes.
By contrast, in this part of Afghanistan tribal loyalties are strong and the tension between the Shinwaris and the Taliban longstanding. The conflict came to a head last July, when two Shinwari elders — Mr. Niaz and Malik Usman — insisted that a local Taliban commander named Kona stay away from a group of Afghan engineers who were building a dike in their valley. When Kona’s men kidnapped two of the engineers, the Shinwari elders decided they had had enough. [*]
In a confrontation that followed, members from the two Shinwari subtribes killed a senior Taliban commander who had come from Pakistan and chased Kona back across the border. After that, Mr. Niaz and Mr. Usman set up a local militia to keep the Taliban out of the valley, called Momand. [*]
“The whole tribe was with me,” Mr. Niaz said in an interview in November. “The Taliban came to kill me, and instead we killed them.”
The dispute also had an economic element. Many Shinwaris make their livings by smuggling across the nearby Pakistani border. According to some tribal members, the Taliban had tried to take over the Shinwaris’ business and its smuggling routes.
The dispute caught the attention of American Special Forces units, who descended into the Momand Valley on helicopters and offered help to the local Shinwaris. The Americans gave them ammunition and food, [*]they said. [sounds like a lot of the initiative came fro special forces?]
On Wednesday, Mr. Niaz and Mr. Usman said the Special Forces teams had not visited them in many weeks. Nevertheless, they said, they decided to call in the help of the rest of the tribe.
For their part, the regular American Army forces in Jalalabad said they were startled by the Shinwaris’ decision. At a tribal council meeting — called a shura — held last week, 50 Shinwari elders decided to declare that the entire tribe would oppose the Taliban.
“The shura proclaims that the Shinwari tribe stands unified against all insurgent groups, specifically the Taliban,” the agreement stated.
Among other things, the tribal elders declared harsh penalties against Taliban sympathizers, including huge fines and expulsion from the area.
“The shura authorizes the burning of residences of those found harboring the Taliban,” the proclamation said.
But the Shinwari elders did not merely declare their opposition to the Taliban. Although they declared their allegiance to the Afghan government, they directed at it a nearly equal measure of fury, condemning “all the corruption and illegal activities that threaten the Afghan people.”
“We are doing this for ourselves, and ourselves only,” said Hajji Kafta, one of the elders. “We have absolutely no faith in the Afghan government to do anything for us. We don’t trust them at all.”
Sensing opportunity — and wanting the agreement to stick — the American officers decided to bypass the government entirely and pledge $1 million in development aid directly to the Shinwari elders. [these are the special funds that military commanders have for flexibility] [demonstrates again that it can really help] [*]That method of financing — directly to the shuras — mirrors that of the National Solidarity Program, which has gained much admiration here for the efficient way it has dispensed development aid.
The agreement, struck during a hastily arranged tribal council meeting last week, was reaffirmed Wednesday at a gathering of the Shinwari elders, Afghan officials and American commanders in Jalalabad, the capital of Nangarhar Province. The pact was signed by 50 Shinwari elders, some of whom stamped their thumbs on the document because they cannot read.
Col. Randy George, the senior American officer in the area, said he was encouraged by the recent events. But he was not declaring victory.
“You’ve got to start somewhere,” he said.
Alissa J. Rubin and Sangar Rahimi contributed reporting.

Geopolitics: A Swiss Afghanistan and Russian NATO

http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/27/futures-aswiss-afghanistan-russian-nato-israeli-arab-league/
The New York Times Blogs
DealBook
Edited by Andrew Ross Sorking
January 27, 2010, 7:56 am
Geopolitics: A Swiss Afghanistan and Russian NATO
[Switzerland] [Davos] [annual gathering of global elites] [punditocracy summit] [face time and other unsavory customs] [nevertheless, if interested in world politics, Davos must be watched as some of the people who’ll speak are global policymakers] [use psci 355, 455] [world politics as Davos] [use ir text] [*]
Once John Chipman, the director general of the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies, had baptized the session on Rethinking Security in the 21st Century an open brainstorm — “where people are allowed to say provocative things” — the floodgates were open. For one and a half hours in the Davos bubble, well-worn diplomatic slogans were replaced with, well, provocative ideas.

http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/27/futures-aswiss-afghanistan-russian-nato-israeli-arab-league/
The New York Times Blogs
DealBook
Edited by Andrew Ross Sorking
January 27, 2010, 7:56 am
Geopolitics: A Swiss Afghanistan and Russian NATO
[Switzerland] [Davos] [annual gathering of global elites] [punditocracy summit] [face time and other unsavory customs] [nevertheless, if interested in world politics, Davos must be watched as some of the people who’ll speak are global policymakers] [use psci 355, 455] [world politics as Davos] [use ir text] [*]
Once John Chipman, the director general of the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies, had baptized the session on Rethinking Security in the 21st Century an open brainstorm — “where people are allowed to say provocative things” — the floodgates were open. For one and a half hours in the Davos bubble, well-worn diplomatic slogans were replaced with, well, provocative ideas.
Lilia Shevtsova, a senior analyst at the Carnegie Moscow Center, said that if the West wanted to make it harder for Russia to feed anti-western propaganda to its people, it would only have to offer it membership in NATO. In fact, she said, “they should have invited Russia into NATO in the early 1990s,” suggesting that current tensions with Ukraine and Georgia might have been avoided altogether.
The solution to the mess in Afghanistan, according to Abdullah Abdullah, the country’s former foreign minister and ex-presidential candidate, was not sending more troops, but binning the constitution and turning Afghanistan into a highly decentralized, federal country — a bit like Switzerland.
“Can you imagine an official sitting in Bern thinking about every detail of national policy?” he asked. The current Kabul-centric approach was doomed to failure in a tribal culture like his own, Mr. Abdullah said: “A highly centralized system doesn’t work.”
Mr. Chipman himself floated the question of diplomatic “shock therapy” in the Palestinian-Israeli standoff. Should European countries unilaterally recognize a Palestinian state to jolt the peace process back into action? And should the Arab League battle a perceived clash of civilizations by making Israel, with its substantial Arab population, a member?
Amre Moussa, the Arab League’s secretary general was in the room. But even in an open brainstorm he looked a little unsettled by this idea. “We’ll talk later,” he said, “when the Palestinian issue is solved.”
Certainly food for thought. Unfortunately few members of the international business and political elite will get to chew over it: About 80 percent of the room was empty as attendees headed for simultaneous panels focused on the economic and financial questions of the day.
Tellingly, according to a poll CNBC conducted among its viewers and released in Davos on Wednesday, only 9% of respondents believed the geopolitical concerns were a priority for governments today.
– Katrin Bennhold
Copyright 2010 The New York Times Company

North Korea Keeps Hiding, and Fascinating

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/27/books/27book.html
January 27, 2010
Books of The Times
North Korea Keeps Hiding, and Fascinating
By DWIGHT GARNER
Skip to next paragraph
NOTHING TO ENVY
Ordinary Lives in North Korea
By Barbara Demick
Illustrated. 314 pages. Spiegel & Grau. $26.
THE HIDDEN PEOPLE OF NORTH KOREA
Everyday Life in the Hermit Kingdom
By Ralph Hassig and Kongdan Oh
Illustrated. 300 pages. Rowman & Littlefield. $39.95.
THE CLEANEST RACE
How North Koreans See Themselves — and Why It Matters
By B. R. Myers
Illustrated. 200 pages. Melville House. $24.95. [DPRK] [North Korea] [US and 6-way talks] [SPRK-US relations] [I’m not sure most Americans understand how hair-trigger things are in peninsula?] [the slow but perhaps inexorable process toward substantive talks?] [Boswoth has replaced Hill for the Obama administration] [book review] [followup] [*]
Computers are rare in North Korea, and the Internet, for most of its citizens, is little more than a whispered rumor. It’s probable, in fact, that only one person surfs the Web in North Korea without someone monitoring every click: Kim Jong-il, that

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/27/books/27book.html
January 27, 2010
Books of The Times
North Korea Keeps Hiding, and Fascinating
By DWIGHT GARNER
Skip to next paragraph
NOTHING TO ENVY
Ordinary Lives in North Korea
By Barbara Demick
Illustrated. 314 pages. Spiegel & Grau. $26.
THE HIDDEN PEOPLE OF NORTH KOREA
Everyday Life in the Hermit Kingdom
By Ralph Hassig and Kongdan Oh
Illustrated. 300 pages. Rowman & Littlefield. $39.95.
THE CLEANEST RACE
How North Koreans See Themselves — and Why It Matters
By B. R. Myers
Illustrated. 200 pages. Melville House. $24.95. [DPRK] [North Korea] [US and 6-way talks] [SPRK-US relations] [I’m not sure most Americans understand how hair-trigger things are in peninsula?] [the slow but perhaps inexorable process toward substantive talks?] [Boswoth has replaced Hill for the Obama administration] [book review] [followup] [*]
Computers are rare in North Korea, and the Internet, for most of its citizens, is little more than a whispered rumor. It’s probable, in fact, that only one person surfs the Web in North Korea without someone monitoring every click: Kim Jong-il, that authoritarian regime’s supreme leader.
When he’s online, and not lurking on sites devoted to his obsessions (movies, fancy food, young women, nuclear weapons), Mr. Kim must sometimes see what his country looks like, to the rest of the world, in those haunting satellite photographs of the Far East at night.
You’ve probably seen them. The countries near North Korea — Japan, South Korea, China — are ablaze with splotches and pinpricks of light, with beaming civilization. But North Korea, a country nearly the size of England, home to some 23 million people, is a black hole, an ocean of dark. Barbara Demick, a foreign correspondent for The Los Angeles Times, begins her excellent new book, “Nothing to Envy: Ordinary Lives in North Korea,” by poring over these satellite images. She’s shocked by them, and moved. “North Korea is not an undeveloped country,” she observes. “It is a country that has fallen out of the developed world.”
“Nothing to Envy” is one of three provocative new books about North Korea, from writers who are committed to parsing the slivers of light that escape this enigmatic and often baffling place. The others are “The Hidden People of North Korea,” by Ralph Hassig and Kongdan Oh, and “The Cleanest Race,” by B. R. Myers.
North Korea is not an easy country to observe. Few foreign journalists are allowed in, and then only with official minders and strictly limited itineraries. To get a sense of how ordinary citizens live, writers must rely primarily on the accounts of defectors.
If we have trouble seeing North Koreans plainly, they cannot see us at all. Telephone use is severely restricted. (Even the telephone book is a classified document marked “secret.”) Postal service is spotty. There is essentially no e-mail. Television and radios receive only approved channels. The country’s citizens are force-fed a steady, numbing diet of state propaganda devoted to sustaining the personality cult of Kim Jong-il and savaging all things American.
How are North Koreans taught to think about us? Well, here’s one indication. Children learn a ditty called “Shoot the Yankee Bastards” in music class. One verse goes:
Our enemies are the American bastards
Who are trying to take over our beautiful fatherland.
With guns that I make with my own hands
I will shoot them. BANG, BANG, BANG.
(The truly poignant words here are “with my own hands.”)
Ms. Demick’s book is a lovely work of narrative nonfiction, one that follows the lives of six ordinary North Koreans, including a female doctor, a pair of star-crossed lovers, a factory worker and an orphan. It’s a book that offers extensive evidence of the author’s deep knowledge of this country while keeping its sights firmly on individual stories and human details.
The people Ms. Demick observes lived, before their defections, in northeastern North Korea, far from the country’s tidy, Potemkin village-like capital, Pyongyang. The existences she describes sound brutal: there is often not enough food; citizens work long days that can be followed by hours of ideological training at night; spying on one’s neighbors is a national pastime; a nonpatriotic comment, especially an anti-Kim Jong-il wisecrack, can have you sent to a gulag for life, if not executed.
Ms. Demick writes especially well about the difficult lives of those who do manage to defect. Not only are they bewildered by life outside of North Korea, and have to be taught to do things like use an A.T.M., but they also live with deep shame and guilt, knowing that relatives left behind have probably been sent to prison as punishment for their escape.
Mr. Hassig and Ms. Oh’s book, “The Hidden People of North Korea: Everyday Life in the Hermit Kingdom,” is wonkier than Ms. Demick’s and less reader-friendly, but it covers more ground. The authors are married (Ms. Oh’s parents were North Koreans who fled to South Korea); he is an independent consultant specializing in North Korean affairs, and she is on the research staff of the Institute for Defense Analysis in Alexandria, Va.
Their book is based on more than 200 interviews with defectors, and it paints a picture of a restless populace, increasingly dubious about the official propaganda. “It would be a gross exaggeration to say that the people support Kim Jong-il,” they write. “Rather, it does not occur to them to oppose him.” North Koreans are too busy trying to survive, and too preoccupied by the tensions of the supposed mighty conflict with America, to be able to think about much else.
Mr. Hassig and Ms. Oh’s portrait of Mr. Kim’s hyper-sybaritic lifestyle is detailed and devastating. He may look like a man of the people, they write, with his tan slacks, zippered jackets and stout build that make him resemble Jackie Gleason as Ralph Kramden in “The Honeymooners.” But they chronicle his obsession with the latest electronics, the “pleasure teams” of girls he keeps handy, the Bordeaux wine he has flown in. While many of his people starve, they write, Mr. Kim “is such a connoisseur that, according to his former chef, every grain of rice destined for his dinner table is inspected for quality and shape.”
The authors are aware that Mr. Kim’s anti-American paranoia isn’t baseless. The leader of a different country in George W. Bush’s “axis of evil,” they note, was captured and later hanged.
Mr. Hassig and Ms. Oh’s book concludes with pointed policy recommendations. They think it is nearly hopeless to negotiate with Mr. Kim and suspect that “nonproliferation agreements with the regime will simply encourage it to brandish new threats in the future.” Instead of fixating on Korea’s weapons, the authors suggest bypassing the regime and reaching out to North Korea’s people, who sorely need humanitarian aid and “a new way of thinking about their government and their society.”
Mr. Myers, the author of “The Cleanest Race: How North Koreans See Themselves — and Why It Matters,” is a contributing editor to The Atlantic and famously the author of “A Reader’s Manifesto,” a controversial and humorless broadside against the literary writers (Annie Proulx and Cormac McCarthy among them) whom he finds pretentious or obscure. Mr. Myers directs the international studies department at Dongseo University in South Korea.
He is a crisp, pushy writer who is at his best when on the attack, and his often counterintuitive new book attempts a psychological profile of Kim Jong-il and his regime. Mr. Myers has pored through mountains of North Korean propaganda — from nightly news reports and newspapers to war movies, comics, wall posters and dictionaries — and he argues that the West is misreading the country’s core beliefs.
He explains that North Korea’s dominant worldview is “far removed” from the Communism, Confucianism and official “show-window” ideologies that Westerners analyze. Instead, he argues, this worldview “can be summarized in a single sentence: The Korean people are too pure-blooded, and therefore too virtuous, to survive in this evil world without a great parental leader.” His North Korea is guided by a “paranoid, race-based nationalism.”
Mr. Myers’s arguments are too wily and complex to be neatly summarized here, but he includes a fascinating analysis of Mr. Kim’s depiction as an essentially — and crucially — feminine military leader. His regime presents North Korea more as a motherland than a fatherland, Mr. Myers writes, and he cites official slogans about Mr. Kim like “We Cannot Live Away From His Breast.” The lack of a patriarchal authority figure, he says, “may also have helped the regime preserve stability by depriving people of a target to rebel against.”
Mr. Myers also cautions against the idea that the West can persuade North Korea to shed its nuclear weapons. Mr. Kim “cannot disarm and hope to stay in power,” he writes. At the same time, he notes, “blue jeans will not bring down this dictatorship.” Any signs of serious unrest, he observes, will encourage Mr. Kim to raise the level of the tension with the West, and possibly do something rash with his nuclear arsenal.
Kim Jong-il reportedly suffered a stroke in 2008 and has looked frail during his recent, and increasingly rare, public appearances. While the world speculates about his successor, almost certainly to be one of his sons, one of the lessons of these books is not to remove our eyes from the blinkered lives of the average North Korean.
“The Kim regime essentially holds its people hostage,” Mr. Hassig and Ms. Oh write, and they are dismayed to note that “the United States is much more interested in the hostage taker’s weapons of mass destruction than in the fate of his hostages.”
North Koreans sometimes joke, Ms. Demick writes in “Nothing to Envy,” that they live like “frogs in the well.” It’s a line that sends you back to study those satellite images, and to contemplate those who dwell under Mr. Kim’s inky moral darkness.
Copyright 2010 The New York Times Co

Latest Bombings Add New Layer of Anxiety and Suspicion in Baghdad

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/27/world/middleeast/27iraq.html
January 27, 2010
Latest Bombings Add New Layer of Anxiety and Suspicion in Baghdad
By ANTHONY SHADID [-ir] [hydra] [insurgency] [renewed sectarian tensions and fault lines] [success of “surge”] [as well as it worked, the issue still looms regarding how the Awakening to be situated in government in future?] [followup] [opposition desperate due to increasing institutionalization of regime] [they seem desperate to disrupt the momentum that’s established itself?] [followup] [*]
BAGHDAD — The sounds echoed Tuesday through Investigations Square, mundane in their familiarity and poignant in their anguish. Glass shattered by a suicide bombing sounded like tinny chimes as vendors swept their sidewalks. Condolences in Arabic were murmured in the numbed aftermath of chaos. Down the street, dominoes clacked as Ali Hassan played on a table, perched before a store shorn of its facade.
“What else can I do?” he asked. “Where else should I go?”
For a second day, Baghdad was hit by a bombing, this time at a forensics office of the

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/27/world/middleeast/27iraq.html
January 27, 2010
Latest Bombings Add New Layer of Anxiety and Suspicion in Baghdad
By ANTHONY SHADID [-ir] [hydra] [insurgency] [renewed sectarian tensions and fault lines] [success of “surge”] [as well as it worked, the issue still looms regarding how the Awakening to be situated in government in future?] [followup] [opposition desperate due to increasing institutionalization of regime] [they seem desperate to disrupt the momentum that’s established itself?] [followup] [*]
BAGHDAD — The sounds echoed Tuesday through Investigations Square, mundane in their familiarity and poignant in their anguish. Glass shattered by a suicide bombing sounded like tinny chimes as vendors swept their sidewalks. Condolences in Arabic were murmured in the numbed aftermath of chaos. Down the street, dominoes clacked as Ali Hassan played on a table, perched before a store shorn of its facade.
“What else can I do?” he asked. “Where else should I go?”
For a second day, Baghdad was hit by a bombing, this time at a forensics office of the Interior Ministry. Officials put the toll at 17 dead, although no one really knows how many died. The attack followed a devastating series of bombings on Monday that wrecked landmark hotels catering to foreigners, killing dozens and demonstrating the tenacity of insurgents in striking when and where they have wanted for the past six months. [*]
These days, as Iraq prepares for elections on March 7 and the United States readies for a withdrawal of tens of thousands of combat troops by the end of August, people here brace for more of the same. [*]
And so in a city where anxiety has long been the state of mind, Baghdad seems especially anxious now, sometimes with a hint of the surreal. The bombings have intersected with crises that themselves have converged across a kinetic landscape, propelled by suspicion, conspiracy and fear. “Min waraha?” the question often goes in Baghdad.
It means, “Who’s behind it?”
“Complicated,” explained Ali Jamal, as he walked to work at a car dealership, past the checkpoints that blocked the road and past the detritus of the bomb that carved a crater 10 feet across, leaving a tattered Investigations Square even more disheveled.
Behind him, police officers inspected the crumpled chassis of incinerated cars and pulled at the rubble that piled like a snowdrift at the office’s demolished entrance. Before him, traffic was sparse in streets that are usually snarled at any hour of the day.
He listed the suspects, as if answering by rote. Perhaps it was revenge for the execution on Monday of Ali Hassan al-Majid, the lieutenant of former President Saddam Hussein known as Chemical Ali. The insurgents who carried out Monday’s bombings, killing 41 people, might have been responsible, too. Then again, he added, the attacks could have been the work of political parties contesting the elections, foreigners or shadowy religious zealots. [*]
“People can blame anyone,” he said. “There are going to be hard days ahead.”
To the rest of the world, Iraq is sometimes defined as a linear procession of events. In that narrative, the country prepares for elections, which will underscore the resilience of Iraq’s democracy. That resilience will permit the American military to withdraw, making way for Iraq’s security forces to vanquish the remnants of the insurgency.
Missing, though, is a sense of how unpredictable and tenuous the place is, often defined less by progress and more by the gulf of perceptions between a version of events offered by a coterie of politicians, party leaders and security officials and a disenchanted, suspicious public that seems these days more inclined to question than to believe. [*]
“Politicians have failed to deliver anything concrete to their people,” said Qassim Daoud, a lawmaker and candidate. “And no one knows what to expect from them anymore.”
Iraq’s political class is mired in a dispute over the disqualification of hundreds of candidates for promoting Mr. Hussein’s Baath Party. Sunni Muslims have cried foul, calling it score-settling before the voting. Religious Shiite parties have defended the ban as adherence to law, even if that law is sometimes maddeningly ambiguous. The Americans have insisted that the matter is for Iraqis to decide, even as they help shepherd the process.
“We’re on this like a rug,” an American official said.
Around Investigations Square, none of those statements seemed to be taken at face value. While distrust is nothing new here, the cynicism was especially pronounced.
“As soon as the campaign started, the bombs began,” said Qassim Muhammad, sitting on the curb in front of his wrecked shop. “It’s between them — the parties and the seats of power. Does a carpenter set off a bomb? A plumber? The poor? No, it’s all them.”
A half-hour after Mr. Muhammad spoke, a policeman detained for letting the car bomb pass through his checkpoint tried to escape. He ran down a barricaded street a short distance from the bombing. Shouting police officers chased him, and he ran faster.
Shots were fired by armed men, in plain clothes, guarding the office of a political party. He was caught and taken into custody, but not before he was slapped, then beaten in the street by a burly officer twice his size.
“Look at the people in the street,” the suspect cried. “You’re beating me in front of them.”
“Curse you and curse the people in the street,” the officer shouted back.
The army here is often praised, occasionally with a suggestion of the unexpected, the police far less so.
At the scene of the bombing on Monday, residents confronted police officers with anger. Some ignored them. Others argued with them. A few evinced the weariness of resignation.
“No one cares about you,” one survivor yelled at another who was complaining to the police that the bomb at the Babylon Hotel had wrecked his car, essentially his sole possession. “You’re just like the millions of others who have already been killed.”
Most drivers feel that they can talk their way through a checkpoint. Demands for inspection sometimes prompt invective from drivers. Many make jokes about the effectiveness of hand-held bomb detectors deployed at checkpoints. Despite calls for an investigation, the Interior Ministry has yet to withdraw them.
“A magic wand,” the Iraqi edition of Asharq al-Awsat, a regional newspaper, called them on Tuesday. [*]
The newspaper admitted that the devices did not detect explosives, but tongue in cheek, said they were thought to detect “perfume and fillings in teeth.”
There was a long-winded statement on television, featuring detained insurgents and their confessions. In the statement, Maj. Gen. Qassim Atta, an Iraqi Army spokesman, boasted that security forces had recently disrupted 21 “terrorist networks.” He insisted that many of the networks’ men were now in custody. He promised actions against “the remaining cowardly terrorist cells.”
He spoke Monday, and a few hours later the three hotels were wrecked.
Sa’ad al-Izzi, Duraid Adnan and Riyadh Mohammed contributed reporting.
Copyright 2010 The New York Times Co

January 26, 2010

In Digital Combat, U.S. Finds No Easy Deterrent

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/26/world/26cyber.html
January 26, 2010
Cyberwar
In Digital Combat, U.S. Finds No Easy Deterrent
By JOHN MARKOFF, DAVID E. SANGER and THOM SHANKER [Obama white house] [111th congress, 2nd session] [bureaucracy] [America’s vast IC] [dod, Pentagon] [cyber warfare] [cyber security] [USFP] [followup] [use psci 355, 455] [discuss: reponses are based on deterrence] [when deterrence becomes problematic?] [not definitive proof of state actors and/or not state actor but transnational?] [*]
This article was reported by John Markoff, David E. Sanger and Thom Shanker, and written by Mr. Sanger.
WASHINGTON — On a Monday morning earlier this month, top Pentagon leaders gathered to simulate how they would respond to a sophisticated cyberattack aimed at paralyzing the nation’s power grids, its communications systems or its financial networks.
The results were dispiriting. [*]The enemy had all the advantages: stealth, anonymity and unpredictability. No one could pinpoint the country from which the attack came, so there

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/26/world/26cyber.html
January 26, 2010
Cyberwar
In Digital Combat, U.S. Finds No Easy Deterrent
By JOHN MARKOFF, DAVID E. SANGER and THOM SHANKER [Obama white house] [111th congress, 2nd session] [bureaucracy] [America’s vast IC] [dod, Pentagon] [cyber warfare] [cyber security] [USFP] [followup] [use psci 355, 455] [discuss: reponses are based on deterrence] [when deterrence becomes problematic?] [not definitive proof of state actors and/or not state actor but transnational?] [*]
This article was reported by John Markoff, David E. Sanger and Thom Shanker, and written by Mr. Sanger.
WASHINGTON — On a Monday morning earlier this month, top Pentagon leaders gathered to simulate how they would respond to a sophisticated cyberattack aimed at paralyzing the nation’s power grids, its communications systems or its financial networks.
The results were dispiriting. [*]The enemy had all the advantages: stealth, anonymity and unpredictability. No one could pinpoint the country from which the attack came, so there was no effective way to deter further damage by threatening retaliation. What’s more, the military commanders noted that they even lacked the legal authority to respond — especially because it was never clear if the attack was an act of vandalism, an attempt at commercial theft or a state-sponsored effort to cripple the United States, perhaps as a prelude to a conventional war. [*]
What some participants in the simulation knew — and others did not — was that a version of their nightmare had just played out in real life, not at the Pentagon where they were meeting, but in the far less formal war rooms at Google Inc. Computers at Google and more than 30 other companies had been penetrated, and Google’s software engineers quickly tracked the source of the attack to seven servers in Taiwan, [China reportedly used Taiwan, probably with some glee involved!] [followup] [**] with footprints back to the Chinese mainland.
After that, the trail disappeared into a cloud of angry Chinese government denials, and then an ugly exchange of accusations between Washington and Beijing. That continued Monday, with Chinese assertions that critics were trying to “denigrate China” and that the United States was pursuing “hegemonic domination” in cyberspace. [and the first ever demarch on same, at least as far as has been reported] [*]
These recent events demonstrate how quickly the nation’s escalating cyberbattles have outpaced the rush to find a deterrent, something equivalent to the cold-war-era strategy of threatening nuclear retaliation.
So far, despite millions of dollars spent on studies, that quest has failed. Last week, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton made the most comprehensive effort yet to warn potential adversaries that cyberattacks would not be ignored, drawing on the language of nuclear deterrence.
“States, terrorists and those who would act as their proxies must know that the United States will protect our networks,” she declared in a speech on Thursday that drew an angry response from Beijing. “Those who disrupt the free flow of information in our society or any other pose a threat to our economy, our government and our civil society.” [*]
But Mrs. Clinton did not say how the United States would respond, beyond suggesting that countries that knowingly permit cyberattacks to be launched from their territories would suffer damage to their reputations, and could be frozen out of the global economy.
There is, in fact, an intense debate inside and outside the government about what the United States can credibly threaten. One alternative could be a diplomatic démarche, or formal protest, like the one the State Department said was forthcoming, but was still not delivered, [I thought it had been delivered] [*] in the Google case. Economic retaliation and criminal prosecution are also possibilities.
Inside the National Security Agency, which secretly scours overseas computer networks, [NSA, and its role?] [*] officials have debated whether evidence of an imminent cyberattack on the United States would justify a pre-emptive American cyberattack — something the president would have to authorize. In an extreme case, like evidence that an adversary was about to launch an attack intended to shut down power stations across America, some officials argue that the right response might be a military strike. [everybody has understood that a military strike might someday result but I cannot remember anyone from govt actually saying it before!] [*]
“We are now in the phase that we found ourselves in during the early 1950s, after the Soviets got the bomb,” said Joseph Nye, a professor at the Kennedy School at Harvard. “It won’t have the same shape as nuclear deterrence, but what you heard Secretary Clinton doing was beginning to explain that we can create some high costs for attackers.” [analogy to early CW when Soviets stole the necessary info to catch up with US on bomb] [*]
Fighting Shadows
When the Pentagon summoned its top regional commanders from around the globe for meetings and a dinner with President Obama on Jan. 11, the war game prepared for them had nothing to do with Afghanistan, Iraq or Yemen. Instead, it was the simulated cyberattack — a battle unlike any they had engaged in. [this is news] [**]
Participants in the war game emerged with a worrisome realization. Because the Internet has blurred the line between military and civilian targets, an adversary can cripple a country — say, freeze its credit markets — without ever taking aim at a government installation or a military network, meaning that the Defense Department’s advanced capabilities may not be brought to bear short of a presidential order. [logical question: will the congress create something akin to the NSC for today’s context?] [*]
“The fact of the matter,” said one senior intelligence official, “is that unless Google had told us about the attack on it and other companies, we probably never would have seen it. When you think about that, it’s really scary.” [*]
William J. Lynn III, the deputy defense secretary, who oversaw the simulation, said in an interview after the exercise that America’s concepts for protecting computer networks reminded him of one of defensive warfare’s great failures, the Maginot Line of pre-World War II France. [good god] [much of this has long been implicit but now they are making it explicit] [*]
Mr. Lynn, one of the Pentagon’s top strategists for computer network operations, argues that the billions spent on defensive shields surrounding America’s banks, businesses and military installations provide a similarly illusory sense of security. [*]
“A fortress mentality will not work in cyber,” he said. “We cannot retreat behind a Maginot Line of firewalls. We must also keep maneuvering. If we stand still for a minute, our adversaries will overtake us.”
The Pentagon simulation and the nearly simultaneous real-world attacks on Google and more than 30 other companies show that those firewalls are falling fast. [*]But if it is obvious that the government cannot afford to do nothing about such breaches, it is also clear that the old principles of retaliation — you bomb Los Angeles, we’ll destroy Moscow — just do not translate. [new thinking is imperative and it’s likely to get awkward as new thinking begins to cirulate and move from conceptual to operational] [*]
“We are looking beyond just the pure military might as the solution to every deterrence problem,” said Gen. Kevin P. Chilton, in charge of the military’s Strategic Command, which defends military computer networks. “There are other elements of national power that can be brought to bear. You could deter a country with some economic moves, for example.”
But first you would have to figure out who was behind the attack. [*]
Even Google’s engineers could not track, with absolute certainty, the attackers who appeared to be trying to steal their source code and, perhaps, insert a “Trojan horse” — a backdoor entryway to attack — in Google’s search engines. [**]Chinese officials have denied their government was involved, and said nothing about American demands that it investigate. China’s denials, American officials say, are one reason that President Obama has said nothing in public about the attacks — a notable silence, given that he has made cybersecurity a central part of national security strategy. [it may be China called his bluff] [remember early in Bush admin the spyplance incident] [China has made a habit out of testing new presidents in recent years] [*]
“You have to be quite careful about attributions and accusations,” said a senior administration official deeply involved in dealing with the Chinese incident with Google. The official was authorized by the Obama administration to talk about its strategy, with the condition that he would not be named.
“It’s the nature of these attacks that the forensics are difficult,” the official added. “The perpetrator can mask their involvement, or disguise it as another country’s.” Those are known as “false flag” [*]attacks, and American officials worry about being fooled by a dissident group, or a criminal gang, into retaliating against the wrong country. [as such things become more transnational, flags won’t do] [*]
Nonetheless, the White House said in a statement that “deterrence has been a fundamental part of the administration’s cybersecurity efforts from the start,” citing work in the past year to protect networks and “international engagement to influence the behavior of potential adversaries.”
Left unsaid is whether the Obama administration has decided whether it would ever threaten retaliatory cyberattacks or military attacks after a major cyberattack on American targets. [*] The senior administration official provided by the White House, asked about Mr. Obama’s thinking on the issue, said: “Like most operational things like this, the less said, the better.” But he added, “there are authorities to deal with these attacks residing in many places, and ultimately, of course, with the president.” [*]
Others are less convinced. “The U.S. is widely recognized to have pre-eminent offensive cybercapabilities, but it obtains little or no deterrent effect from this,” said James A. Lewis, director of the Center for Strategic and International Studies program on technology and public policy. [*]
In its final years, the Bush administration started a highly classified effort, led by Melissa Hathaway, to build the foundations of a national cyberdeterrence strategy. “We didn’t even come close,” she said in a recent interview. [*]Her hope had been to recreate Project Solarium, which President Dwight D. Eisenhower began in the sunroom of the White House in 1953, to come up with new ways of thinking about the nuclear threats then facing the country. “There was a lot of good work done, but it lacked the rigor of the original Solarium Project. They didn’t produce what you need to do decision making.” [brutally frank about their lack of progress] [but understandably problemtatic] [*]
Ms. Hathaway was asked to stay on to run Mr. Obama’s early review. Yet when the unclassified version of its report was published in the spring, there was little mention of deterrence. She left the administration when she was not chosen as the White House cybersecurity coordinator. After a delay of seven months, that post is now filled: Howard A. Schmidt, [Hathaway left unhappy and Howard Schmidt has succeded her] [*] a veteran computer specialist, reported for work last week, just as the government was sorting through the lessons of the Google attack and calculating its chances of halting a more serious one in the future. [*]
Government-Corporate Divide
In nuclear deterrence, both the Americans and the Soviets knew it was all or nothing: the Cuban missile crisis was resolved out of fear of catastrophic escalation. But in cyberattacks, the damage can range from the minor to the catastrophic, from slowing computer searches to bringing down a country’s cellphone networks, neutralizing its spy satellites, or crashing its electrical grid or its air traffic control systems. It is difficult to know if small attacks could escalate into bigger ones. [*]
So part of the problem is to calibrate a response to the severity of the attack.
The government has responded to the escalating cyberattacks by ordering up new strategies and a new United States Cyber Command. The office of Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates — whose unclassified e-mail system was hacked in 2007 — is developing a “framework document” that would describe the threat and potential responses, and perhaps the beginnings of a deterrence strategy to parallel the one used in the nuclear world. [perhaps one of the last big things he’ll do as secdef?] [*]
The new Cyber Command, if approved by Congress, would be run by Lt. Gen. Keith B. Alexander, head of the National Security Agency. [listen for anything on gen. Keith B. Alexander (currently head of NSA) or new Cyber Command awaiting congressional action] [*]Since the agency spies on the computer systems of foreign governments and terrorist groups, General Alexander would, in effect, be in charge of both finding and, if so ordered, neutralizing cyberattacks in the making. [see http://www.nsa.gov/about/leadership/bio_alexander.shtml for biography] [also see NSA picture wiki linked to it http://www.nsa.gov/about/_images/pg_hi_res/alexander.jpg] [*]
But many in the military, led by General Chilton of the Strategic Command and Gen. James E. Cartwright, the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have been urging the United States to think more broadly about ways to deter attacks by threatening a country’s economic well-being or its reputation. [*]
Mrs. Clinton went down that road in her speech on Thursday, describing how a country that cracked down on Internet freedom or harbored groups that conduct cyberattacks could be ostracized. But though sanctions might work against a small country, few companies are likely to shun a market the size of China, or Russia, because they disapprove of how those governments control cyberspace or use cyberweapons.
That is what makes the Google-China standoff so fascinating. Google broke the silence that usually surrounds cyberattacks; most American banks or companies do not want to admit their computer systems were pierced. Google has said it will stop censoring searches conducted by Chinese, even if that means being thrown out of China. The threat alone is an attempt at deterrence: Google’s executives are essentially betting that Beijing will back down, lift censorship of searches and crack down on the torrent of cyberattacks that pour out of China every day. [*]If not, millions of young Chinese will be deprived of the Google search engine, and be left to the ones controlled by the Chinese government.
An Obama administration official who has been dealing with the Chinese mused recently, “You could argue that Google came up with a potential deterrent for the Chinese before we did.” [see http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=54890 for recent pentagon news on Cyber Command] [and http://www.informationweek.com/news/government/security/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=222301567&cid=RSSfeed_IWK_News for Cyber Command’s taking shape] [**]
Copyright 2010 The New York Times Co

Report says Al-Qaeda still aims to use weapons of mass destruction against U.S.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/25/AR2010012502598.html
Report says Al-Qaeda still aims to use weapons of mass destruction against U.S.
By Joby Warrick
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, January 26, 2010; A02 [Harvard] [former CIA leader] [so more societal than govt] [but Harvard is unique in that it’s a pipeline to policymaking circles in US] [cross in societal] [use psci 355, 455, 469] [they are still busy persuing WMD for US-West!] [*]
When al-Qaeda's No. 2 leader, Ayman al-Zawahiri, called off a planned chemical attack on New York's subway system in 2003, he offered a chilling explanation: The plot to unleash poison gas on New Yorkers was being dropped for "something better," Zawahiri said in a message intercepted by U.S. eavesdroppers. [*]
The meaning of Zawahiri's cryptic threat remains unclear more than six years later, [I well remember it: it sent a chill through me] [*] but a new report warns that al-Qaeda has not abandoned its goal of attacking the United States with a chemical, biological or even nuclear weapon.
The report, by a former senior CIA official who led the agency's hunt for weapons of mass

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/25/AR2010012502598.html
Report says Al-Qaeda still aims to use weapons of mass destruction against U.S.
By Joby Warrick
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, January 26, 2010; A02 [Harvard] [former CIA leader] [so more societal than govt] [but Harvard is unique in that it’s a pipeline to policymaking circles in US] [cross in societal] [use psci 355, 455, 469] [they are still busy persuing WMD for US-West!] [*]
When al-Qaeda's No. 2 leader, Ayman al-Zawahiri, called off a planned chemical attack on New York's subway system in 2003, he offered a chilling explanation: The plot to unleash poison gas on New Yorkers was being dropped for "something better," Zawahiri said in a message intercepted by U.S. eavesdroppers. [*]
The meaning of Zawahiri's cryptic threat remains unclear more than six years later, [I well remember it: it sent a chill through me] [*] but a new report warns that al-Qaeda has not abandoned its goal of attacking the United States with a chemical, biological or even nuclear weapon.
The report, by a former senior CIA official who led the agency's hunt for weapons of mass destruction, portrays al-Qaeda's leaders as determined and patient, willing to wait for years to acquire the kind of weapons that could inflict widespread casualties. [*]
The former official, Rolf Mowatt-Larssen, draws on his knowledge of classified case files to argue that al-Qaeda has been far more sophisticated in its pursuit of weapons of mass destruction than is commonly believed, pursuing parallel paths to acquiring weapons and forging alliances with groups that can offer resources and expertise. [and multiple attempts of buying materials from syndicated crime in former USSR!] [*]
"If Osama bin Laden and his lieutenants had been interested in . . . small-scale attacks, there is little doubt they could have done so now," Mowatt-Larssen writes in a report released Monday by the Harvard Kennedy School of Government's Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs. [*]
The report comes as a panel on weapons of mass destruction appointed by Congress prepares to release a new assessment of the federal government's preparedness for such an attack. The review by the bipartisan Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation and Terrorism is particularly critical of the Obama administration's actions so far in hardening the country's defenses against bioterrorism, [their World at Risk report I used in last time I taught psci 469?] [*]according to two former government officials who have seen drafts of the report.
The commission's initial report in December 2008 warned that a terrorist attack using weapons of mass destruction was likely by 2013.
Mowatt-Larssen, a 23-year CIA veteran, led the agency's internal task force on al-Qaeda and weapons of mass destruction after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and later was named director of intelligence and counterintelligence for the Energy Department. [when Bush was president he moved from CIA to head energy’s intelligence] [**]His report warns that bin Laden's threat to attack the West with weapons of mass destruction is not "empty rhetoric" but a top strategic goal for an organization that seeks the economic ruin of the United States and its allies to hasten the overthrow of pro-Western governments in the Islamic world. [one can be sure, they haven’t forgot about it!] [*]
He cites patterns in al-Qaeda's 15-year pursuit of weapons of mass destruction that reflect a deliberateness and sophistication in assembling the needed expertise and equipment. [*]He describes how Zawahiri hired two scientists -- a Pakistani microbiologist sympathetic to al-Qaeda and a Malaysian army captain trained in the United States -- to work separately on efforts to build a biological weapons lab and acquire deadly strains of anthrax bacteria. Al-Qaeda achieved both goals before September 2001 but apparently had not successfully weaponized the anthrax spores when the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan forced the scientists to flee, [*]Mowatt-Larssen said.
"This was far from run-of-the-mill terrorism," he said in an interview. "The program was highly compartmentalized, at the highest level of the organization. It was methodical, and it was professional." [*]
Mowatt-Larssen said he has seen no evidence linking al-Qaeda's program with the anthrax attacks on U.S. politicians and news outlets in 2001. Zawahiri's plan was aimed at mass casualties and "not just trying to scare people with a few letters," he said. [as in past, al Qaeda tends to go big or not go at all] [*]
Evidence from al-Qaeda documents and interrogations suggests that terrorists leaders had settled on anthrax as the weapon of choice and believed that the tools for a major biological attack were within their grasp, [*]the former CIA official said. Al-Qaeda remained interested in nuclear weapons as well but understood that the odds of success were much longer. [that’s partly why I so fear dirty-bomb scenario I’ve shared w/ students] [*]
"They realized they needed a lucky break," Mowatt-Larssen said. "That meant buying or stealing fissile material or acquiring a stolen bomb."
Bush administration officials feared that bin Laden was close to obtaining nuclear weapons in 2003 after U.S. spies picked up a cryptic message by a Saudi affiliate of al-Qaeda referring to plans to obtain three stolen Russian nuclear devices. The intercepts prompted the U.S. and Saudi governments to go on alert and later led to an aggressive Saudi crackdown that resulted in the arrest or killing of dozens of suspected al-Qaeda associates. [this is not exactly new but presented in different light] [*]
After that, terrorists' chatter about a possible nuclear acquisition halted abruptly, but U.S. officials were never certain whether the plot was dismantled or simply pushed deeper underground.
"The crackdown was so successful," Mowatt-Larssen said, "that intelligence about the program basically dried up." © 2010 The Washington Post Co

Pakistan’s Rebuff Over New Offensives Rankles U.S.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/25/world/asia/25waziristan.html
January 25, 2010
Pakistan’s Rebuff Over New Offensives Rankles U.S.
By ERIC SCHMITT and DAVID E. SANGER [Obama white house] [gsave] [Obama’s NSC team: president-NSC-policymaking model] [NSC and bureaucracy] [Pakistan’s refusal to start another offensive and the results in Obama land?] [use psci 469] [cross in external] [*]
WASHINGTON — The Pakistani Army’s announcement last week that it planned no new offensive against militants for as long as a year has deeply frustrated senior American military officers, and chipped away at one of the cornerstones of President Obama’s strategy to reverse the Taliban’s gains in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
When Mr. Obama announced his decision in December to send 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan, he and his aides made clear that the chances of success hinged significantly on Pakistan’s willingness to eliminate militants’ havens in its territory, including in the tribal

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/25/world/asia/25waziristan.html
January 25, 2010
Pakistan’s Rebuff Over New Offensives Rankles U.S.
By ERIC SCHMITT and DAVID E. SANGER [Obama white house] [gsave] [Obama’s NSC team: president-NSC-policymaking model] [NSC and bureaucracy] [Pakistan’s refusal to start another offensive and the results in Obama land?] [use psci 469] [cross in external] [*]
WASHINGTON — The Pakistani Army’s announcement last week that it planned no new offensive against militants for as long as a year has deeply frustrated senior American military officers, and chipped away at one of the cornerstones of President Obama’s strategy to reverse the Taliban’s gains in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
When Mr. Obama announced his decision in December to send 30,000 additional troops to Afghanistan, he and his aides made clear that the chances of success hinged significantly on Pakistan’s willingness to eliminate militants’ havens in its territory, including in the tribal region of North Waziristan. United States officials described the American and NATO surge of troops as a hammer, but they said it required a Pakistani anvil on the other side of the border to prevent the Taliban from retreating to the mountains.
Now that strategy appears imperiled by Pakistan’s latest statement. On Thursday, soon after Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates arrived on a two-day trip to the country, the Pakistani Army’s chief spokesman, Maj. Gen. Athar Abbas, rebuffed American pressure to step up attacks in North Waziristan. That area is the main base of operations for the Haqqani network, which stages operations against American and Afghan forces in Afghanistan. It is believed to be responsible for many of the attacks on Kabul, including a devastating assault early last week near the presidential palace. [*]
Fighters from Al Qaeda and the Pakistani Taliban have also been concentrated in North Waziristan, including many who were driven out of their positions in South Waziristan by recent Pakistani Army operations.
“This has become the center,” a senior administration official said, speaking anonymously because he was not authorized to discuss American strategy publicly.
American officials said they had not been surprised by the Pakistani announcement. Since the last two years of the Bush administration, the United States has been arguing for a far more active Pakistani military presence in North Waziristan. But some said they had been surprised that the rebuff was issued while Mr. Gates was in the country, rather than after he left.
General Abbas told reporters it could be 6 to 12 months before the army consolidated its current operations and began any new offensive. Some American officials think it could be longer.
The critical question is how much the Pakistani decision will undercut Mr. Obama’s strategy. During a speech at West Point on Dec. 1, he said his administration would reassess the plan at the end of 2010, after all the troops deployed as part of the increase were in place. But if the Pakistani position does not change, the operations on Pakistan’s side of the border will not have begun by the time Mr. Obama has made his assessment.
Mr. Obama made no public demands on Islamabad when he announced the troop increase at West Point, but he said he was acting “with the full recognition that our success in Afghanistan is inextricably linked to our partnership with Pakistan.” He quickly added: “We need a strategy that works on both sides of the border.” [*]
Mr. Obama praised the Pakistani Army for waging an offensive in Swat and South Waziristan, where the Pakistani Taliban were taking aim at the country’s fragile government. He promised to work with the Pakistanis to strengthen their ability to combat the militants, but he said the United States had “made it clear that we cannot tolerate a safe haven for terrorists whose location is known and whose intentions are clear.”
Pakistani officials have not refused to go after Qaeda or Taliban fighters in North Waziristan. But they have made it clear that their forces are too tied up now to conduct new, larger operations on Washington’s schedule.
As a practical matter, American officials said, Pakistan’s inability or reluctance to open a new front in North Waziristan will increase the reliance on missile strikes from drones operated by the C.I.A. to disrupt attacks aimed at Afghanistan. [*]
American officials said that Pakistani military leaders had never promised a specific timetable for beginning a new offensive, but that announcing a delay of as much as 12 months could aid the militants’ planning and morale on both sides of the border.
“It’s disappointing, but not entirely surprising,” said a senior Defense Department official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to avoid jeopardizing his ties with Pakistani counterparts.
Mr. Gates and other American officials sought to put the best face on the situation last week, saying that the Pakistani Army was stretched thin from its previous offensives against militants. [*]
“Pakistani leadership will make its own decisions about what the best timing for their military operations is, about when they are ready to do something or whether they are going to do it at all,” Mr. Gates told Pakistani journalists on Friday, the day after General Abbas’s comments.
“The way I like to express it is, we’re in this car together, but the Pakistanis are in the driver’s seat and have their foot on the accelerator,” Mr. Gates said. “And that’s just fine with me.”
Gen. David H. Petraeus, the head of the military’s Central Command, said at a conference in Washington on Friday that American officials must be mindful of the limitations facing Pakistan’s military.
General Petraeus said that the Pakistani leaders would need to negotiate agreements with local tribal leaders to hold the gains that the Pakistani military has achieved in places like Swat and South Waziristan. But he emphasized that any deals must be more resilient than previous pacts in the tribal areas, which fell apart and allowed the militants to regain control.
Senior American officers in the region said that cooperation with their Pakistani counterparts had improved in recent months.
NATO military leaders, for instance, recently provided a detailed briefing on the campaign in Afghanistan to Gen. Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, the Pakistani army chief of staff, a senior American officer said. Pakistani officers reciprocated last week with a briefing for NATO officers on their campaign plans, the American officer said.
7 Bodies Found With Warnings
PESHAWAR, Pakistan — The bodies of seven people accused by the Taliban of spying for the United States were found in North Waziristan [*]on Sunday, officials and residents said.
Notes attached to the bullet-ridden bodies accused the victims of working with the United States as it carries out a wave of drone strikes in the region, and warned that anyone else who did so would meet the same end. [interesting that the injunction against beheading from Mullah Omar seems to hold?] [*]
Drone attacks in the region have increased significantly since the bombing of a C.I.A. base in Khost, Afghanistan, that killed seven Americans on Dec. 30.
Elisabeth Bumiller contributed reporting from Islamabad, Pakistan.
Copyright 2010 The New York Times Co

India's model of reflective patriotism

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/25/AR2010012502831.html
India's model of reflective patriotism
By Anne Applebaum
Tuesday, January 26, 2010; A15
JAIPUR, INDIA [oped] [columnist] [on India] [Indian patriotism] [rising Asia powers] [of China and India, she says India’s model is less chauvinistic, in so many words] [use China ethos, India ethos] [use psci 350] [ir text] [*]
The Amber Fort is the same, the pink buildings still glow in the early-morning sun, the hawkers seem unchanged and so do the elephants. But almost everything else is different. The last time I was in Jaipur, India's capitalist revolution had not yet begun and most of the tourists were scruffy foreigners wearing backpacks. Now, they are just as likely to be well-coiffed, neatly dressed -- and Indian. Across the fortress courtyard, elegant Delhi couples swathed in cashmere listen politely to their guides, while middle-class ladies in saris shuffle past their French and Japanese counterparts, waving digital cameras. [*]
Tourism is a luxury, one that is now available to millions of Indians thanks to two decades of growth, open markets and global trade. It is also a sign of the times. People become curious about their own country when they are proud of it. They pay to hear the history of their landmarks when they are no longer pining to go abroad. Indian tourists are part of a

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/25/AR2010012502831.html
India's model of reflective patriotism
By Anne Applebaum
Tuesday, January 26, 2010; A15
JAIPUR, INDIA [oped] [columnist] [on India] [Indian patriotism] [rising Asia powers] [of China and India, she says India’s model is less chauvinistic, in so many words] [use China ethos, India ethos] [use psci 350] [ir text] [*]
The Amber Fort is the same, the pink buildings still glow in the early-morning sun, the hawkers seem unchanged and so do the elephants. But almost everything else is different. The last time I was in Jaipur, India's capitalist revolution had not yet begun and most of the tourists were scruffy foreigners wearing backpacks. Now, they are just as likely to be well-coiffed, neatly dressed -- and Indian. Across the fortress courtyard, elegant Delhi couples swathed in cashmere listen politely to their guides, while middle-class ladies in saris shuffle past their French and Japanese counterparts, waving digital cameras. [*]
Tourism is a luxury, one that is now available to millions of Indians thanks to two decades of growth, open markets and global trade. It is also a sign of the times. People become curious about their own country when they are proud of it. They pay to hear the history of their landmarks when they are no longer pining to go abroad. Indian tourists are part of a larger phenomenon: All around the world, rising prosperity and rising patriotism go hand in hand. But what sort of patriotism is India's going to be? [not surprising] [the same happened in US during late 19th and during 20th century?] [*]
In India's general vicinity, there are many models on offer. Chinese leaders, expressing a self-confidence born of export wealth, [Chinese patriotism] [*] frequently convey their patriotism using nationalist rhetoric. They treat all internal criticism as treason, declare themselves impervious to world opinion and demonstrate their power by snubbing President Obama at a climate summit. Russian patriotism, [*] meanwhile, often takes on a neo-imperialist tinge. Russian leaders, expressing a self-confidence born of oil wealth, indulge in saber-rattling and sometimes physical attacks on their neighbors. Indeed, the conjunction of Russia's invasion of Georgia with the Beijing Olympics in the summer of 2008 was instructive: Two new models of national self-confidence were on display that week, along with two ways of expressing it. [*]
Indian patriotism [*]could develop in either direction. Saber-rattling is not exactly unheard of here, and nationalist sentiment has appeared in unexpected places. Newspaper headlines this week featured the national cricket league's recent refusal to draft Pakistani players, a decision widely attributed to politics and prejudice. Resistance to internal criticism and even the repression of dissidents are not unknown here either, especially in the poorer provinces. Indian editor Tarun Tejpal can list several such incidents off the top of his head: His energetic magazine, Tehelka, has reported on police officers who rape female travelers with impunity in one particularly violent region of the country, as well as on local laws that violate rights guaranteed in the national constitution. This reporting, he says, has had no political impact.
I heard Tejpal make these points down the road from the Amber Fort, at this year's Jaipur Literature Festival. From a large stage in a crowded room, he declared that India's new elite had been "bought off" with consumer goods and had slid into political complacency as a result; India's newly wealthy had ignored the continued suffering of the poor and, in particular, the ongoing violations of human rights. [partly true] [*] He made these points passionately, and many heads nodded. The crowd -- packed with the newly wealthy and newly elite -- rewarded him with hearty applause.
This was, in other words, a patriotic audience: Not nationalistic, not imperialist, not aggressive but, rather, self-critical, focused on what is still wrong as well as what has gone right. [*]I don't want to make too much of a single session at a single festival, but it was clear that no one was intimidated by being there, no one was afraid to say anything out loud. It's that sort of patriotism, so hard to find in China and Russia, that gives India its lively novelists, its open public culture, its energetic film industry. That sort of patriotism, if it can be encouraged and maintained, will keep Indian politics diverse and democratic over time -- even if its economy stops growing. [*]
It's also that kind of patriotism that makes tourists like me feel so energized by a brief visit. Like economic cycles, political trends come and go. At the moment, democracy is out, authoritarianism is in, and it is fashionable in many parts of Asia to claim that rapid economic growth requires censorship and central political control. India presents a real alternative to that model. [*]I know that many Indians would violently disagree with that assessment -- and that makes me more optimistic still.
applebaumletters@washpost.com © 2010 The Washington Post Co

Still Waiting at the T.S.A.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/25/opinion/25mon3.html
January 25, 2010
Editorial
Still Waiting at the T.S.A.
Wanted: a smart, honest, tough-minded administrator to head up the Transportation Security Administration — before the country faces another terrorist threat.
Erroll Southers, the White House’s nominee for the job, threw in the towel last week, after failing to tell Congress the truth about a worrying incident in his past. He was right to withdraw. But the post has now stood vacant for a year. And the White House and Congress, which are also culpable in the delay, need to agree quickly on a strong leader and get him or her into place. [*]
The administration was at fault for waiting until September to nominate Mr. Southers, a respected, apolitical police and homeland security professional. And Senator Jim DeMint was egregiously at fault in blocking the nominee’s progress with a partisan, red-herring warning that the Obama administration was intent on unionizing airport security workers. [*]
Mr. Southers did not help his or the country’s cause when he misled a Senate hearing about

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/25/opinion/25mon3.html
January 25, 2010
Editorial
Still Waiting at the T.S.A.
Wanted: a smart, honest, tough-minded administrator to head up the Transportation Security Administration — before the country faces another terrorist threat.
Erroll Southers, the White House’s nominee for the job, threw in the towel last week, after failing to tell Congress the truth about a worrying incident in his past. He was right to withdraw. But the post has now stood vacant for a year. And the White House and Congress, which are also culpable in the delay, need to agree quickly on a strong leader and get him or her into place. [*]
The administration was at fault for waiting until September to nominate Mr. Southers, a respected, apolitical police and homeland security professional. And Senator Jim DeMint was egregiously at fault in blocking the nominee’s progress with a partisan, red-herring warning that the Obama administration was intent on unionizing airport security workers. [*]
Mr. Southers did not help his or the country’s cause when he misled a Senate hearing about an incident 20 years ago: he was censured for accessing a police database without authorization to check on his estranged wife’s companion. Initially, he testified that he asked a colleague to check. When this was challenged, he confirmed he had twice gone into the database himself. [*]
While the Senate committee members accepted his explanation that this was an inadvertent memory lapse and approved the nomination, other Republicans did not. Administration officials said the discrepancies weren’t known until they were reported in The Washington Post in November.
Mr. Southers’s story is another costly example of the need for rigorous vetting of nominees and a reminder that people who aspire to public trust must tell the truth to be worthy of that trust. “Rigorous” cannot be an excuse for bureaucratic foot-dragging or self-serving politicking. The country needs a strong T.S.A. chief now.
Copyright 2010 The New York Times Co

The Ozone Hole Is Mending. Now for the ‘But.’

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/26/science/earth/26ozone.html
January 26, 2010
The Ozone Hole Is Mending. Now for the ‘But.’
By SINDYA N. BHANOO [UK] [global scientific community, such as it exists] [global climate change] [global commons] [latest fracas over data and interpretations] [UK prof presents paper wherein he argued improving ozone hole hastened warming?] [damned if you do, damned if you don’t?] [use psci 350] [use ir text] [*]
That the hole in Earth’s ozone layer is slowly mending is considered a big victory for environmental policy makers. But in a new report, scientists say there is a downside: its repair may contribute to global warming.
It turns out that the hole led to the formation of moist, brighter-than-usual clouds that

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/26/science/earth/26ozone.html
January 26, 2010
The Ozone Hole Is Mending. Now for the ‘But.’
By SINDYA N. BHANOO [UK] [global scientific community, such as it exists] [global climate change] [global commons] [latest fracas over data and interpretations] [UK prof presents paper wherein he argued improving ozone hole hastened warming?] [damned if you do, damned if you don’t?] [use psci 350] [use ir text] [*]
That the hole in Earth’s ozone layer is slowly mending is considered a big victory for environmental policy makers. But in a new report, scientists say there is a downside: its repair may contribute to global warming.
It turns out that the hole led to the formation of moist, brighter-than-usual clouds that shielded the Antarctic region from the warming induced by greenhouse gas emissions over the last two decades, scientists write in Wednesday’s issue of Geophysical Research Letters. [*]
“The recovery of the hole will reverse that,” said Ken Carslaw, a professor of atmospheric science at the University of Leeds and a co-author of the paper. “Essentially, it will accelerate warming in certain parts of the Southern Hemisphere.” [*]
The hole in the layer, discovered above Antarctica in the mid-1980s, caused wide alarm because ozone plays a crucial role in protecting life on Earth from harmful ultraviolet radiation.
The hole was largely attributed to the human use of chlorofluorocarbons, chemical compounds found in refrigerants and aerosol cans that dissipate ozone. Under an international protocol adopted in 1987, many countries phased out the compounds, helping the ozone to start reconstituting itself over the Antarctic. [it demonstrates one thing for sure: the complex interconnections between different parts is not well understood by science yet] [science tends to see monocausal or bicausal responses and those tend to be rife with unintended consequences] [*]
For their research, the authors of the new study relied on meteorological data recorded between 1980 and 2000, including global wind speeds recorded by the European Center for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts.
The data show that the hole in the ozone layer generated high-speed winds that caused sea salt to be swept up into the atmosphere to form moist clouds. The clouds reflect more of the sun’s powerful rays and help fend off warming in the Antarctic atmosphere, the scientists write. [*]
The sea spray influx resulted in an increase in cloud droplet concentration of about 46 percent in some regions of the Southern Hemisphere, Dr. Carslaw said.
But Judith Perlwitz, a University of Colorado professor and a research scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, said that although the paper’s data were sound, she questioned the conclusions. [*]
Even as the ozone layer recovers, greenhouse gas emissions are expected to expand, she said. She predicted that the rise in temperatures would cause wind speeds to increase over time and have the same cloud-forming effect that the ozone hole now has.
“The question is whether the wind is really going to slow down, and that I doubt,” she said.
“The future is not just determined by the recovery of the ozone hole,” she said. “We’re also increasing our use of greenhouse gases, which increases the speed of the winds all year long.” [*]
Dr. Perlwitz also pointed out that the ozone hole was not expected to fully recover to pre-1980 levels until at least 2060, according to the World Meteorological Organization’s most recent report on the issue.
Copyright 2010 The New York Times Co

Russia: Mayor Vows to Stop Gay Parade

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/26/world/europe/26briefs-Russia.html
January 26, 2010
World Briefing | Europe
Russia: Mayor Vows to Stop Gay Parade
By CLIFFORD J. LEVY [Russia] [former USSR] [Vlad and his proclivities represent a lot of Russians who don’t care for the way the world has changed since 1991] [in new assertive Russia] [Russia ethos] [a history of dissidents in Russia that dates back to Soviet empire and before] [use psci350] [use ir text] [followup] [Moscow mayor—in Russian domestic politics a Moscow mayor may be quite powerful] [*]
Moscow’s mayor, Yuri M. Luzhkov, an outspoken opponent of gay rights groups, vowed Monday to again prevent a gay parade in the city. Mr. Luzhkov referred to gay parades as “satanic,” [*]the Interfax news agency reported. Members of gay groups have tried to march in Moscow in recent years, only to be detained or dispersed. “We haven’t permitted such a

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/26/world/europe/26briefs-Russia.html
January 26, 2010
World Briefing | Europe
Russia: Mayor Vows to Stop Gay Parade
By CLIFFORD J. LEVY [Russia] [former USSR] [Vlad and his proclivities represent a lot of Russians who don’t care for the way the world has changed since 1991] [in new assertive Russia] [Russia ethos] [a history of dissidents in Russia that dates back to Soviet empire and before] [use psci350] [use ir text] [followup] [Moscow mayor—in Russian domestic politics a Moscow mayor may be quite powerful] [*]
Moscow’s mayor, Yuri M. Luzhkov, an outspoken opponent of gay rights groups, vowed Monday to again prevent a gay parade in the city. Mr. Luzhkov referred to gay parades as “satanic,” [*]the Interfax news agency reported. Members of gay groups have tried to march in Moscow in recent years, only to be detained or dispersed. “We haven’t permitted such a parade and we won’t permit it in the future,” said Mr. Luzhkov, above. “It’s high time that we stop propagating nonsense discussions about human rights, and bring to bear on them the full force and justice of the law.” [*]Gay rights groups said they would press ahead with plans for a parade in May.
Copyright 2010 The New York Times Co

French Panel Advises Steps to Ban Muslim Veil

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/27/world/europe/27france.html
January 27, 2010
French Panel Advises Steps to Ban Muslim Veil
By MATTHEW SALTMARSH [France] [Paris] [EU3] [immigration, generally, and Europe’s responses?] [throughout much of Europe debates about Islam rage and cause problems from immigration to historic colonialism to …] [followup] [govt appears prepared to take another fairly drastic, though only in its symbolism, step to forestall clash of civlizations?] [use psci 469] [*]
PARIS — A French parliamentary panel recommended on Tuesday moves to curb the wearing of Muslim veils in certain public facilities and suggested that lawmakers should pass a resolution condemning the garments. But it stopped short of pressing for a total ban. [*]
A report from the panel said that lawmakers were unable to unanimously agree to an outright ban “at this stage,” even though many favored one. [I personally see the burka (at least and perhaps others) as stifling to women] [why must a women humble herself while man needn’t?] [but the idea that a govt would ban them in inconcievalbe in US] [in France, however, laïcité makes such a thing possible?] [*]
The report, however, called for legislation to ban the covering of the face in public services.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/27/world/europe/27france.html
January 27, 2010
French Panel Advises Steps to Ban Muslim Veil
By MATTHEW SALTMARSH [France] [Paris] [EU3] [immigration, generally, and Europe’s responses?] [throughout much of Europe debates about Islam rage and cause problems from immigration to historic colonialism to …] [followup] [govt appears prepared to take another fairly drastic, though only in its symbolism, step to forestall clash of civlizations?] [use psci 469] [*]
PARIS — A French parliamentary panel recommended on Tuesday moves to curb the wearing of Muslim veils in certain public facilities and suggested that lawmakers should pass a resolution condemning the garments. But it stopped short of pressing for a total ban. [*]
A report from the panel said that lawmakers were unable to unanimously agree to an outright ban “at this stage,” even though many favored one. [I personally see the burka (at least and perhaps others) as stifling to women] [why must a women humble herself while man needn’t?] [but the idea that a govt would ban them in inconcievalbe in US] [in France, however, laïcité makes such a thing possible?] [*]
The report, however, called for legislation to ban the covering of the face in public services.
Presenting the report, members of the panel suggested that this could include hospitals, public transport, schools, post offices and even banks — areas where identification is important. [*]
Instead of recommending a total ban of the veil, the report from the 32-member panel, which crossed party lines, said the Council of State, a body which provides the executive with legal advice and acts as a court of last resort, should examine whether legislation should be introduced.
Lionnel Luca, a lawmaker from the governing center-right party and a member of the panel, said the report was a “missed opportunity.”
“We’ll study the issue, we’ll have a resolution — that’s all great,” he said after the release of the 280-page document. “But what we really need is a clear text that outlaws the burqa.”
“We need to go further and we need the political will. At the moment I don’t see that,” he said. [*]
The opposition Socialist Party boycotted the panel’s vote on the report because the issue had become embroiled in a simultaneous debate on national identity initiated by President Nicolas Sarkozy. Mr. Luca said only 14 members of the commission voted — eight for and six against. [paradox: a govt telling its people they must do thus and so in order to preclude women being exploited?] [in other words govt forces woman not to be exploited, a form of exploitation?] [*]
The report was the culmination of an inquiry into the wearing of all-enveloping burqas, a full-length garment with a grill over the eyes, that began after President Sarkozy said in June that the burqa was “not welcome” on French territory. Mr. Sarkozy called for a resolution by lawmakers condemning veils, to be followed by a debate on legislation.
The panel’s findings were also directed at the niqab, which leaves the eyes uncovered.
Critics of the veils have described them as a tool of extremism, a hindrance to women’s rights and an affront to France’s cherished secularity.
But the debate raised concerns about the constitutionality of state mandates on dress and the possibility of aggravating tensions among France’s Muslims, many of whom feel alienated and excluded from social and economic progress.
“I don’t think an ideology should be fought through constraining measures but through ideas,” Mohammed Moussaoui, the head of a national coalition of Muslim organizations, told The Associated Press on Monday. “It’s very difficult to talk about the liberation of women through a law that constrains.” [he said it better than I] [*]
He said, however, that it was legitimate to ask women to remove their veils in all “public services” like post offices and schools “where identification is necessary.”
In 2004, the government banned head scarves and other signs of religious affiliation in public schools in France.
France has largest Muslim population in Western Europe — the majority with roots in North Africa — estimated at between five and six million. But fewer than 2,000 women wear the full veil in France, according to the Interior Ministry. France would become the first European country to adopt legislation on restricting the full veil. [sounds like a pretty small problem, n’est-ce pas?] [*]
The center-right Danish prime minister, Lars Loekke Rasmussen, said last week that his government was also considering restricting the burqa and niqab. And in November, Swiss voters supported a referendum to ban the building of minarets on mosques. [*]
The leader of Mr. Sarkozy’s rightist grouping in Parliament, Jean-Francois Copé, has already presented a draft bill that would make it illegal, for reasons of security, for anyone to cover their faces in public. Violators would face fines, according to the draft, which is not due to be debated until after regional elections in March.
A previous version of this article misspelled the first name of a French lawmaker. His name is Lionnel Luca, not Lionel.
Copyright 2010 The New York Times Co

As China Rises, Economic Conflict With West Rises Too

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/27/business/global/27yuan.html
January 27, 2010
Davos 2010
As China Rises, Economic Conflict With West Rises Too
By KATRIN BENNHOLD [Switzerland] [Davos] [annual gathering of global elites] [punditocracy summit] [face time and other unsavory customs] [nevertheless, if interested in world politics, Davos must be watched as some of the people who’ll speak are global policymakers] [use psci 355, 455] [here China makes serious move to raise its profile, likely with a plan to have same at US’s cost?] [China’s coming out party (its debutante ball)?] [use psci 350] [use ir text] [*]
DAVOS, SWITZERLAND — As recently as 2008, when China was still an emerging economy eager to put its best foot forward for Western consumers, it lifted censorship on several Web sites before the Beijing Olympics. At the same time, it responded to entreaties from U.S. and European politicians, allowing its currency to appreciate against the dollar.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/27/business/global/27yuan.html
January 27, 2010
Davos 2010
As China Rises, Economic Conflict With West Rises Too
By KATRIN BENNHOLD [Switzerland] [Davos] [annual gathering of global elites] [punditocracy summit] [face time and other unsavory customs] [nevertheless, if interested in world politics, Davos must be watched as some of the people who’ll speak are global policymakers] [use psci 355, 455] [here China makes serious move to raise its profile, likely with a plan to have same at US’s cost?] [China’s coming out party (its debutante ball)?] [use psci 350] [use ir text] [*]
DAVOS, SWITZERLAND — As recently as 2008, when China was still an emerging economy eager to put its best foot forward for Western consumers, it lifted censorship on several Web sites before the Beijing Olympics. At the same time, it responded to entreaties from U.S. and European politicians, allowing its currency to appreciate against the dollar.
China is no longer emerging. It has emerged — sooner and more assertively than had been expected before the wrenching global financial crisis, which badly damaged all the established industrial powers, from the United States to Europe and Japan. [*]
These days, the renminbi is frozen at an undervalued level, and Internet controls are stricter than ever — even as Google, one of America’s most prominent companies, threatens to leave.
The severe recession has fast-forwarded history, catapulting an unprepared world into a period of uneasy cohabitation between the United States, the No. 1 economy, and its eventual successor.
“China is the West’s greatest hope and greatest fear,” said Kristin Forbes, a former member of the White House Council of Economic Advisers [she’s right] [*]and one of hundreds of top officials and executives flocking to this winter resort for the annual World Economic Forum, which is taking place Wednesday through Sunday.
“No one was quite ready for how fast China has emerged,” said Ms. Forbes, a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. “Now everyone is trying to understand what sort of China they will be dealing with.” [*]
For the first time, economists point to Chinese spending — not the U.S. consumer — as the key to a global recovery. [it’s finally become so big, so behemoth, its spending patterns affect the global economy like only US used to do] [**] China’s gross domestic product could overtake that of the United States within a decade, one report predicted this month, while others speculated about when the renminbi might start to challenge the dollar as the world’s reserve currency.
And as developing countries everywhere look for a recipe for faster growth and greater stability than that offered by the now-tattered “Washington consensus” of open markets, floating currencies and free elections, there is growing talk about a “Beijing consensus.”
China’s rise will be on prominent display in Davos this week, with the biggest Chinese delegation in the World Economic Forum’s history. The local Chinese restaurant has been fully booked since early January. The 54 Chinese officials and executives — including the presidents of the country’s sovereign wealth fund and export-import bank — were expected not only to rub shoulders here but also, as one put it bluntly, to “go shopping.” [to all the govts that have complained about the US for 50 years, remember the aphorism: be careful what you wish for!] [you now have it] [*]
When the United States was snapping at the heels of the British empire, the global hegemon of the early 20th century, the situation caused plenty of friction, even though both countries spoke the same language, shared similar cultures and were liberal democracies.
China, in contrast, is a Confucian- Communist-capitalist hybrid under the umbrella of a one-party state that has so far resisted giving greater political freedom to a growing middle class. Now its ascendancy is about to set off what many officials and experts see as a backlash on both sides of the Pacific.
“It’s not surprising that China’s remarkable economic rise would be unsettling to some,” said Pascal Lamy, the director general of the World Trade Organization.
So far, the backlash against China has been largely rhetorical. Stephen Roach, the Asia chairman of Morgan Stanley, counts 45 anti-China legislative measures introduced in the U.S. Congress between 2005 and 2007. None passed.
That could change, as tricky midterm elections loom in the United States and politicians there and in Europe become more outspoken in blaming China’s currency peg to the dollar, which gives its industries a competitive edge, for rising joblessness at home. [*]
Some targeted tariffs have been imposed in recent months. Washington has penalized imports of Chinese tires and coated paper products. Both the United States and the European Union are restricting Chinese steel.
But none of those measures go as far as climate change proposals in France and the United States, which call for border taxes on products from countries — China in particular — that do not accept higher costs for carbon emissions in producing energy and making goods. [China and global climate change] [*] If “the U.S. opts for friction,” Mr. Roach said, “the Chinese can be expected to respond in kind.”
China has its own version of political jockeying. Several foreign companies already complain that doing business in China has become more difficult. Lured until a few years ago by tax rates less than half of those applying to Chinese companies, executives now cite an increase in red tape and a growing number of “buy China” mandates from government procurement offices.
The standoff with Google has illustrated the difficulties foreign business faces in China. It has also starkly raised the question of who will have the upper hand in future negotiations.
“The operating environment is tougher than ever for Western companies,” said James McGregor, head of the government relations committee of the American Chamber of Commerce in China. “But unlike Google, most Western companies also need China more than ever.”
China is the biggest recipient of foreign direct investment in the world: 450 of the Fortune 500 companies have business presences there, and many of those still reeling at home are doing brisk business in China. “G.M. is hurting anywhere else, but here things are quite profitable,” [*] [GM, I read once, kept Buick rather than Pontiac when it restructured soley because Buicks were popular in China whereas Pontiacs only in US!!!] [*] Mr. McGregor said.
Business interests in China could make it harder for Western politicians to lash out. “It’s a situation the U.S. was in for a long time,” said Ms. Forbes, the M.I.T. professor. “Many people didn’t like U.S. policy, but you had to be in the U.S. market.”
If business executives are looking to China for its low manufacturing costs and sizable market, political leaders are studying a state perceived to have found a recipe for lifting millions out of poverty with fast growth, even if that means a stiff measure of domestic repression. “You hear more and more people talking about a Beijing consensus,” Ms. Forbes said.
But what exactly is the Beijing consensus? Some see it as a form of economic management with greater government involvement that is on the rise across the world. Others interpret it to mean more strictly controlled capital markets, which have made a re-appearance even in previously open countries like Brazil. Policy makers in Malaysia and Dubai focus on replicating China’s special economic zones, which afford generous terms to foreign investors in manageable geographic areas.
Some suggest that China’s lack of democracy is an advantage in making unpopular but necessary changes. “It is more challenging for democratic systems because every day they come under public pressure and every short period they have to go back to the polls,” said Victor Chu, chairman of First Eastern Investment Group in Hong Kong, the largest direct investment firm in China. “China is lucky to have the ability to make long-term strategic decisions and then execute them clinically.” [*]
With China’s rising clout, the West has less leverage over Beijing. When China was seeking to join the World Trade Organization a decade ago, it accepted compromises to U.S. and European demands. At climate talks last month in Copenhagen, however, China blocked a comprehensive deal and refused to go beyond its earlier promises. [welcome to the Asia century] [*]Portrayed as a deal breaker in the Western media, at home it was celebrated as the country that stopped the West from imposing its terms on developing countries, Mr. Chu said.
Western diplomats complain about the way Beijing is dragging its feet more than Moscow on sanctions on Iran’s nuclear program and is propping up unsavory regimes across the world in its hunt for the natural resources to power its growth.
Some say Chinese officials are using their country’s $2.4 trillion in foreign currency reserves as a bargaining chip, knowing that any hint of reducing those reserves would rattle currency markets.
“As China is emerging on the global stage with unprecedented power and influence,” said David Shambaugh, a professor of political science and international affairs at George Washington University who is in China as a Fulbright scholar, “it is not proving to be the global partner the United States and E.U. seek.”
In the world of power politics, that is not particularly surprising. Like many Western countries, China will act only when it is in its interest.
Mr. Chu of First Eastern Investment said he expected China to resume a gradual appreciation of the renminbi later this year, not because Washington was lobbying for it but because signs of inflationary pressure and bubbles in the Chinese credit and housing markets were mounting. This month, the Chinese authorities raised interest rates and moved to curtail bank loans.
Kenneth Rogoff, an economics professor at Harvard University who just spent two weeks in China, warns that the country will face its share of economic troubles in the years ahead. But that will not change the underlying trend, he said.
While China remains much poorer than the advanced industrial powers of the West on a per-capita basis, its rapid growth should enable it to pass Japan this year as the world’s second-largest economy.
A new report by PriceWaterhouseCoopers predicts that China could overtake the United States as the largest economy as early as 2020. In 2003, Goldman Sachs made waves by suggesting that the Chinese G.D.P. might match that of the United States by 2041. Five years later, the forecast was revised to 2027.
According to Mr. Rogoff, over the next four decades or so, the Chinese renminbi will gradually come to rival the dollar as the world’s leading reserve currency, making China’s response to its increasingly central role in the global economy critical.
The risk, Mr. Shambaugh of George Washington University said, is that “the world will be asking more and more of China but getting less and less in return.”
Copyright 2010

Blast Hits Central Baghdad as Attacks Accelerate

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/27/world/middleeast/27iraq.html
January 27, 2010
Blast Hits Central Baghdad as Attacks Accelerate
By JOHN LELAND and ANTHONY SHADID [-ir] [hydra] [insurgency] [renewed sectarian tensions and fault lines] [success of “surge”] [as well as it worked, the issue still looms regarding how the Awakening to be situated in government in future?] [followup] [opposition desperate due to increasing institutionalization of regime] [they seem desperate to disrupt the momentum that’s established itself?] [followup] [*]
BAGHDAD — A day after bombs rocked three hotels in central Baghdad, another suicide bomber detonated explosives Tuesday outside the forensics department of the Interior Ministry. A source at the ministry said the bomb killed 17 and injured 80.
The attack on the forensics department, which is separate from the Interior Ministry’s main offices, was aimed at one of the more exposed government buildings here. A police source said the bomb exploded on a traffic circle near a security checkpoint on Al Taharyiat Square. Many of those feared killed or wounded were police officers. [*]
The timing of the attack generated fears that the insurgents were accelerating their salvos

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/27/world/middleeast/27iraq.html
January 27, 2010
Blast Hits Central Baghdad as Attacks Accelerate
By JOHN LELAND and ANTHONY SHADID [-ir] [hydra] [insurgency] [renewed sectarian tensions and fault lines] [success of “surge”] [as well as it worked, the issue still looms regarding how the Awakening to be situated in government in future?] [followup] [opposition desperate due to increasing institutionalization of regime] [they seem desperate to disrupt the momentum that’s established itself?] [followup] [*]
BAGHDAD — A day after bombs rocked three hotels in central Baghdad, another suicide bomber detonated explosives Tuesday outside the forensics department of the Interior Ministry. A source at the ministry said the bomb killed 17 and injured 80.
The attack on the forensics department, which is separate from the Interior Ministry’s main offices, was aimed at one of the more exposed government buildings here. A police source said the bomb exploded on a traffic circle near a security checkpoint on Al Taharyiat Square. Many of those feared killed or wounded were police officers. [*]
The timing of the attack generated fears that the insurgents were accelerating their salvos against touchstones of Iraq’s political and civic life, undermining faith in the government’s ability to preserve security. [just weeks before elections] [*] The previous attacks were followed by lulls of up to two months, which American generals attributed to diminishing capacity on the part of the insurgents.
The bombing set cars ablaze and sprayed glass through the assortment of nearby restaurants and shops, wounding several people, according to news reports, and rescuers picked through the rubble of the damaged forensics department building, looking for anyone buried in the blast.
“I’ve heard many explosions in the past, but nothing like this,” Hassan al-Saidi, a mechanic who works near the site of the attack, told Reuters.
Monday’s bombings, which killed 36 people and wounded 71, echoed large-scale attacks on government buildings in August, October and December, raising fears of more violence as Iraq heads toward national elections March 7.
Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki has staked his reputation on his ability to protect citizens, and Iraqi and American officials believe the attacks are intended to undermine faith in Mr. Maliki’s government.
Gen. Ray Odierno, the commander of American forces in Iraq, said it was significant that Monday’s blasts appeared to be smaller than the previous attacks, adding that joint efforts between Iraqi and American security forces, particularly shared intelligence, had hampered terrorists’ ability to operate. [*]The general said the attacks were now limited to a small number of experienced, sophisticated and driven terrorists relying on hired suicide bombers to carry out their plans.
In the three coordinated attacks on Monday, bombs unleashed minutes apart wrecked landmark Baghdad hotels catering to foreigners, wilting a tattered sense of security and underscoring the uncertainty of the political landscape weeks before parliamentary elections.
The targets on Monday were hotels that served foreign journalists and expatriate businessmen, and they were soon to house observers of the March 7 parliamentary elections, [*]suggesting that the attack was aimed as much at shaping opinions abroad of the government’s durability as it was aimed at wreaking destruction.
At least two of the attacks Monday used two cars acting in tandem: the first car opening fire on the security checkpoint, clearing the path for a second car carrying a suicide bomb. This is a new tactic that has come to the attention of American intelligence forces in the last month, General Odierno said.
Also on Monday, gunmen shot and killed the secretary of the Baghdad Provincial Council, Kamiran Ibrahim, along with his wife, Jawan, in the southern neighborhood of Baya. The shootings, which occurred on the neighborhood’s main commercial street, followed a recent escalation of attack on members of the council.
Sa’ad al-Izzi, Duraid Adnan and Riyadh Mohammed contributed reporting.
Copyright 2010 The New York Times Co

Britain, Japan to help reintegrate Taliban foot soldiers

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/25/AR2010012503761.html
Britain, Japan to help reintegrate Taliban foot soldiers
By Karen DeYoung
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, January 26, 2010; A07 [UK] [Japan] [see yesterday’s UN on same] [Afghanistan] [hydra] [began in Afghanistan, but moved to Pakistan] [AfPak] [2009’s substantial pickup in Taliban and other insurgencies] [spring offensive turned into major effort throughout year] [now winter snows are slowing down in typical yearly fashion] [by time snow begins to melt, most of the “surge” will be in place] [use psci 469] [UN & alliance partners making demonstrable move on reconciliation] [perhaps we’ll see if 10,000 or so can be peeled off as done in –ir] [*]
Britain and Japan have agreed to head an international fund, expected to total up to $500 million over the next five years, as part of a broad plan to help lure Taliban fighters away from the insurgency with the promise of jobs, protection against retaliation, and the removal of their names from lists of U.S. and NATO targets. [*]
Establishment of the fund will be announced Thursday at a high-level international conference on Afghanistan in London, according to U.S. and British officials.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/25/AR2010012503761.html
Britain, Japan to help reintegrate Taliban foot soldiers
By Karen DeYoung
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, January 26, 2010; A07 [UK] [Japan] [see yesterday’s UN on same] [Afghanistan] [hydra] [began in Afghanistan, but moved to Pakistan] [AfPak] [2009’s substantial pickup in Taliban and other insurgencies] [spring offensive turned into major effort throughout year] [now winter snows are slowing down in typical yearly fashion] [by time snow begins to melt, most of the “surge” will be in place] [use psci 469] [UN & alliance partners making demonstrable move on reconciliation] [perhaps we’ll see if 10,000 or so can be peeled off as done in –ir] [*]
Britain and Japan have agreed to head an international fund, expected to total up to $500 million over the next five years, as part of a broad plan to help lure Taliban fighters away from the insurgency with the promise of jobs, protection against retaliation, and the removal of their names from lists of U.S. and NATO targets. [*]
Establishment of the fund will be announced Thursday at a high-level international conference on Afghanistan in London, according to U.S. and British officials. Representatives from nearly 70 nations, including Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, will attend.
The fund will help support a proposal by Afghan President Hamid Karzai, to be announced at the conference, to begin the reintegration of low-level fighters. Karzai will also outline his strategy for reconciliation with amenable insurgent leaders. [*]
Reintegration is a key component of the Afghanistan strategy President Obama outlined last fall. U.S. officials have said that they believe that up to 80 percent of Taliban foot soldiers are fighting for money and because of local grievances rather than in support of an ideology. [*] Earlier reintegration efforts have failed, officials have said, because of poor planning, inadequate security and insufficient financial support. [mostly previous attempts were in fits and starts] [*]
Japan is expected to provide the largest contribution to the new fund, out of a $5 billion aid commitment made in November. Britain and the United States also plan to make sizable contributions, officials said.
The administration is looking to the one-day conference for policy commitments in support of Obama's new strategy -- including his deployment of more than 30,000 additional U.S. troops -- from governments whose backing has often been tentative in the face of widespread opposition from their publics. Although several other nations, including Britain, have promised to send more forces, early commitments of up to 7,000 troops include some who had been previously scheduled to be rotated into Afghanistan. Both Germany and France have resisted calls to send more troops, and Canada and the Netherlands have set dates for the withdrawal of their combat forces. [the alliance such as it exists] [*]
Karzai is also expected to present the conference with new economic development proposals and plans to stem the corruption that plagues his government.
U.N. diplomats said Monday that Secretary General Ban Ki-moon plans to announce at the conference the appointment of a new U.N. special envoy to Afghanistan to play a leading role in overseeing often-overlapping and uncoordinated development [*]efforts by the United States and NATO. The current envoy, Norwegian diplomat Kai Eide, is scheduled to depart Afghanistan in March. The leading candidate to replace him, U.S. and allied officials said, is Sweden's Stephan de Mistura, a career U.N. diplomat who previously served as head of the U.N. mission in Iraq.
Most attention in the lead-up to the conference, however, has focused on the reintegration and reconciliation plans. Until recently, Obama's administration, like George W. Bush's, had expressed interest in the reintegration of low-level Taliban fighters while resisting suggestions that senior insurgent leaders could be wooed toward reconciliation with the Afghan government. [mostly for domestic political reasons] [both Bush and Obama ultimately realized they had to try to flip reconcilables] [but raised questions at home] [*]
More recently, however, U.S. officials have said that anyone, with few exceptions, who agrees to lay down arms and respect the Afghan constitution can potentially be reconciled. When Eide suggested last month that the United Nations reconsider some of the names on its "blacklist" of terrorists, Richard C. Holbrooke, the administration's special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, said he was not opposed.
In an interview Monday with MSNBC, Holbrooke said he saw no reason to take senior Taliban leaders such as Mohammad Omar off the list. "But we can revisit that list," he said. "Some of the people on it are dead. Some probably are innocent. We ought to reexamine it."[sounds as though Holbrooke preparing ground for eventual movement] [*]
But with insurgent forces inflicting heavy losses on U.S., NATO and Afghan troops, and leaders of the Taliban and several related groups showing little inclination to negotiate, U.S. and international efforts have focused on the reintegration of lower-level insurgents.
"The people out there we are talking about are not the ideological leaders," Holbrooke said. "And isn't it a lot better to invite them off the battlefield through a program of jobs, land, integration, than it is to have to try to kill every one of them?" [as I’ve commented here many times, insurgents vesus jihadis] [virtually no committed jihadi will reconcile but nobody expects that] [the hope is that a third or more are jihadi of convenience] [and an alternative might peel them away] [*]
Although some Afghanistan experts have called U.S. assessments of Taliban foot soldiers naive, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the head of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan, has called reintegration a key component of U.S. counterinsurgency strategy. [*]
In guidance to commanders in October, McChrystal instructed them to open dialogues to "determine local grievances and reasons for fighting" and then try to address them; establish assimilation plans with sympathetic community leaders; and use military funds to create "employment opportunities" for willing insurgents.
"Do not offer any rewards or promises of immunity or amnesty" from Afghan government prosecution, the guidance said, "but consider placing the individual(s) on a restricted target list pending determination of reliability." [*]
In an interview with the Financial Times published Monday, McChrystal said that "a political solution to all conflicts is the inevitable outcome" and that "reintegration of fighters can take a lot of the energy out of the current levels of the insurgency." [*]
In the meantime, McChrystal said, he expects a rough year ahead. "I think what the insurgents are going to do this year is keep the violence as high as they can," he said. "They have got to create the perception that Afghanistan's on fire. They have to create the perception that the government of Afghanistan and coalition partners can't deal with it, that it's getting to the point geographically and intensiveness that we can't do it."
McChrystal said he anticipated increased Taliban use of roadside and suicide bombs that will further alienate the population, while increased coalition forces continue to defeat the insurgents in direct military engagements.
"I think in a year, they could look pretty desperate," he said.
Staff writer Greg Jaffe contributed to this report. © 2010 The Washington Post Co

U.S. Envoy’s Cables Show Concerns on Afghan Plans

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/26/world/asia/26strategy.html
January 26, 2010
U.S. Envoy’s Cables Show Concerns on Afghan Plans
By ERIC SCHMITT [Afghanistan] [hydra] [began in Afghanistan, but moved to Pakistan] [AfPak] [2009’s substantial pickup in Taliban and other insurgencies] [spring offensive turned into major effort throughout year] [now winter snows are slowing down in typical yearly fashion] [by time snow begins to melt, most of the “surge” will be in place] [use psci 469] [followup on Eikenberry’s November bombshells just before President Obama made AfPak “surge” decision] [reports from Kabul continue to paint gloomy picture of Karzai’s regime] [*]
WASHINGTON — The United States ambassador in Kabul warned his superiors here in November that President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan “is not an adequate strategic partner” and “continues to shun responsibility for any sovereign burden,” [*]according to a classified cable that offers a much bleaker accounting of the risks of sending additional American troops to Afghanistan than was previously known. [*]
The broad outlines of two cables from the ambassador, Karl W. Eikenberry, [*]became public within days after he sent them, and they were portrayed as having been the source

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/26/world/asia/26strategy.html
January 26, 2010
U.S. Envoy’s Cables Show Concerns on Afghan Plans
By ERIC SCHMITT [Afghanistan] [hydra] [began in Afghanistan, but moved to Pakistan] [AfPak] [2009’s substantial pickup in Taliban and other insurgencies] [spring offensive turned into major effort throughout year] [now winter snows are slowing down in typical yearly fashion] [by time snow begins to melt, most of the “surge” will be in place] [use psci 469] [followup on Eikenberry’s November bombshells just before President Obama made AfPak “surge” decision] [reports from Kabul continue to paint gloomy picture of Karzai’s regime] [*]
WASHINGTON — The United States ambassador in Kabul warned his superiors here in November that President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan “is not an adequate strategic partner” and “continues to shun responsibility for any sovereign burden,” [*]according to a classified cable that offers a much bleaker accounting of the risks of sending additional American troops to Afghanistan than was previously known. [*]
The broad outlines of two cables from the ambassador, Karl W. Eikenberry, [*]became public within days after he sent them, and they were portrayed as having been the source of significant discussion in the White House, heightening tensions between diplomats and senior military officers, who supported an increase of 30,000 American troops. [back in November just before Obama made “surge” decision] [*]
But the full cables, obtained by The New York Times, show for the first time just how strongly the current ambassador felt about the leadership of the Afghan government, the state of its military and the chances that a troop buildup would actually hurt the war effort by making the Karzai government too dependent on the United States. [*]
The cables — one four pages, the other three — also represent a detailed rebuttal to the counterinsurgency strategy offered by Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the top American and NATO commander in Afghanistan, who had argued that a rapid infusion of fresh troops was essential to avoid failure in the country. [there’s little point now rearguing it] [Obama heard form all sides and made his decision] [the “surge” is underway] [I worried at the time that Karzai might not be worth the risk but that’s now moot] [*]
They show that Mr. Eikenberry, a retired Army lieutenant general who once was the top American commander in Afghanistan, repeatedly cautioned that deploying sizable American reinforcements would result in “astronomical costs” — tens of billions of dollars — and would only deepen the dependence of the Afghan government on the United States. [exactly as some of us predicted at the time] [I even made references to Diem, early 1960s] [*]
“Sending additional forces will delay the day when Afghans will take over, and make it difficult, if not impossible, to bring our people home on a reasonable timetable,” he wrote Nov. 6. “An increased U.S. and foreign role in security and governance will increase Afghan dependence, at least in the short-term.”
Without offering details, Mr. Eikenberry has said in public hearings since then that his concerns have been dealt with, and that he supported the White House’s troop increase plan.
But it is not clear what might have changed about his assessment of President Karzai as a reliable partner, and the strong language of the cables may increase tensions between the ambassador and the Karzai government, [*]especially as world leaders meet in London on Thursday to discuss a much-debated Afghan plan to reintegrate Taliban fighters. [frankly, it appears these acts are being undertaken out of dread an worry, not realistic hope of success] [*] It also coincides with a strong effort by the administration to mend ties with Mr. Karzai.
An American official provided a copy of the cables to The Times after a reporter requested them. The official said it was important for the historical record that Mr. Eikenberry’s detailed assessments be made public, given that they were among the most important documents produced during the debate that led to the troop buildup.
On Nov. 6, Mr. Eikenberry wrote: “President Karzai is not an adequate strategic partner. The proposed counterinsurgency strategy assumes an Afghan political leadership that is both able to take responsibility and to exert sovereignty in the furtherance of our goal — a secure, peaceful, minimally self-sufficient Afghanistan hardened against transnational terrorist groups. [quoted Nov Eikenberry memo] [*]
“Yet Karzai continues to shun responsibility for any sovereign burden, whether defense, governance or development. He and much of his circle do not want the U.S. to leave and are only too happy to see us invest further,” Mr. Eikenberry wrote. “They assume we covet their territory for a never-ending ‘war on terror’ and for military bases to use against surrounding powers.”
He continued, “Beyond Karzai himself, there is no political ruling class that provides an overarching national identity that transcends local affiliations and provides reliable partnership.” [*]
In a second cable, dated Nov. 9, he expressed new concerns: “In a PBS interview on November 7, Karzai sounded bizarrely cautionary notes about his willingness to address governance and corruption. This tracks with his record of inaction or grudging compliance in this area.” [*]
On Monday, Mr. Eikenberry declined through an embassy spokeswoman, Caitlin M. Hayden, to comment on the cables and his views on Mr. Karzai. She said by e-mail, “We stand by what we provided during the review process, which got us to the clear strategy we’re now implementing, that the ambassador unequivocally supports.”
In his memos, Mr. Eikenberry raised other concerns. He said he had serious doubts about the ability of the Afghan police and military forces to take over security duties in the country by 2013. [in short, Obama’s shortened timeframe cannot work?] [*] “The Army’s high attrition and low recruitment rates for Pashtuns in the south are crippling,” he wrote. “Simply keeping the force at current levels requires tens of thousands of new recruits every year to replace attrition losses and battlefield casualties.”
The ambassador, who left the military last April to become Mr. Obama’s emissary, also complained about an inadequate civilian counterpart organization to the NATO military command in Afghanistan. Nearly three months later, he is still expressing concerns about too few civilian experts in Afghanistan. [apparently, he’s dissatisfied with state’s counter “surge” of civlians to run provincial reconstruction teams?] [*]
He also noted worries that the success of Mr. Obama’s Afghanistan policy hinged on Pakistani forces’ eliminating militants’ havens in the mountainous region near the Afghan border.
“Pakistan will remain the single greatest source of Afghan instability so long as the border sanctuaries remain,” he wrote. “Until this sanctuary problem is fully addressed, the gains from sending additional forces may be fleeting.” [**]
“As we contemplate greatly expanding our presence in Afghanistan, the better answer to our difficulties could well be to further ratchet up our engagement in Pakistan,” he wrote without elaboration. [implicitly, backing Veep Biden’s counter-terror vs. Obama’s counterinsurgency plan] [**]
On Nov. 9, he repeatedly warned against rushing into a large deployment of more American forces without further study.
He urged that the White House appoint a bipartisan panel of “civilian and military experts to examine the Afghanistan-Pakistan strategy” and provide recommendations by the end of 2009. The recommendation, which would have extended a White House-led policy review of many months, was not accepted.
Mr. Eikenberry suggested sending a relatively small force to train Afghan security forces and protect some population centers, and to condition more troops on the Afghans’ meeting objectives, like committing to taking full responsibility for national defense by a specific date.
And while General McChrystal warned of failure if additional troops were not deployed, Mr. Eikenberry concluded by cautioning of competing risks “that we will become more deeply engaged here with no way to extricate ourselves, short of allowing the country to descend again into lawlessness and chaos.” [nothing new; mostly just jolting in frankness] [*]
Copyright 2010 The New York Times Co

Bomber Strikes Near U.S. Base in Afghanistan

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/27/world/asia/27afghan.html
January 27, 2010
Bomber Strikes Near U.S. Base in Afghanistan
By ROD NORDLAND and ABDUL WAHEED WAFA [Afghanistan] [hydra] [began in Afghanistan, but moved to Pakistan] [AfPak] [2009’s substantial pickup in Taliban and other insurgencies] [spring offensive turned into major effort throughout year] [now winter snows are slowing down in typical yearly fashion] [by time snow begins to melt, most of the “surge” will be in place] [use psci 469] [more evidence that this season, no winter slowdown?] [*]
KABUL, Afghanistan — A Taliban suicide bomber wounded eight American soldiers in Kabul Tuesday afternoon in what appeared to be an attack on their convoy during the evening rush hour [*]just outside the gates of a United States military base, Camp Phoenix. At least eight civilians were wounded as well, but there were no confirmed reports of fatalities. [*]
The Taliban immediately said it had carried out the attack, and a spokesmen for the

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/27/world/asia/27afghan.html
January 27, 2010
Bomber Strikes Near U.S. Base in Afghanistan
By ROD NORDLAND and ABDUL WAHEED WAFA [Afghanistan] [hydra] [began in Afghanistan, but moved to Pakistan] [AfPak] [2009’s substantial pickup in Taliban and other insurgencies] [spring offensive turned into major effort throughout year] [now winter snows are slowing down in typical yearly fashion] [by time snow begins to melt, most of the “surge” will be in place] [use psci 469] [more evidence that this season, no winter slowdown?] [*]
KABUL, Afghanistan — A Taliban suicide bomber wounded eight American soldiers in Kabul Tuesday afternoon in what appeared to be an attack on their convoy during the evening rush hour [*]just outside the gates of a United States military base, Camp Phoenix. At least eight civilians were wounded as well, but there were no confirmed reports of fatalities. [*]
The Taliban immediately said it had carried out the attack, and a spokesmen for the insurgents, Zabihullah Mujahid, claimed in a telephone interview that the bomber succeeded in "killing and wounding" 10 American soldiers and destroying three military vehicles. [*]
Asked about that claim, an American military spokeswoman, Air Force Master Sgt. Sabrina D. Foster, said that a statement would be issued soon but that in the meantime she could confirm only eight United States personnel with minor wounds. Agence France-Presse reported that the Kabul police chief, Abdul Rahman, said that three American military interpreters were among the wounded. [*]
The suicide bomber approached the main gate of Camp Phoenix, located on the busy Jalalabad Road, a highway in the eastern part of the capital, about 4:45 p.m., and detonated the explosives in his Toyota minivan. [must have been pretty big bomb?] [*]
Sayed Abdul Ghafar, head of the criminal investigation division of the Kabul police, said the explosion destroyed 11 civilian vehicles in the immediate area, and wounded eight civilians, mostly day laborers who at that time would normally be heading out of the base at the end of the workday. All were in stable condition, said an Interior Ministry spokesman, Zemary Bashary.
"The target of the suicide attacker seemed to be foreign forces, but we couldn’t see any American vehicle damaged there because the road was blocked by American forces," Mr. Ghafar said. "We don’t know exactly the casualties among the foreign forces." [*]
The American forces blocked off the area, closing the highway to all traffic. "They won’t even let the Afghan National Police near it," said an Afghan policeman about 300 yards from the camp gates.
It was the first suicide bombing in the capital since Jan. 18, militants detonated at least four suicide bombs and battled against Afghan commandos 50 yards from the gates of the presidential palace, an attack aimed at unnerving the Afghan capital. The attack was repulsed, but not before three security forces and two civilians were killed. [*]
On Monday night, four police officers were killed at a checkpoint outside a government office in Lashkar Gah, the capital of Helmand Province in southern Afghanistan, officials said.
Dawoud Ahmadi, a provincial spokesman, described the attacker as someone who had been a guest at the police post a few hours earlier, and after leaving, he returned to kill the officers, escaping with their weapons and vehicle. Mr. Ahmadi said authorities believed the attacker had ties to the Taliban. The location was less than 300 yards from the governor’s office in the provincial capital.
Taliban militants frequently carry out ambushes on Afghan police posts throughout the country, and particularly in Helmand.
More American and NATO personnel have been killed in Helmand than in any other Afghan province, and some of the additional 30,000 United States troops being sent to the country are expected to be deployed there.
Taimoor Shah contributed reporting from Kandahar and an employee of The New York Times from Helmand Province.
Copyright 2010 The New York Times Co

Ethiopian Airliner Crashes Near Beirut

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/25/world/middleeast/25crash.html
January 25, 2010
Ethiopian Airliner Crashes Near Beirut
By DERRICK HENRY and MICHELINE MAYNARD [Lebanon] [chronological placemarker] [as yet, no indication anything other than accidental plane crash] [*]
An Ethiopian Airlines plane crashed into the Mediterranean Sea on Monday morning shortly after it took off from Beirut International Airport in stormy weather. Officials said that 82 passengers and 8 crew members were on board.
“The flight lost contact with Lebanese air traffic controllers shortly after takeoff,” said Wogayehu Terefe, a spokeswoman for Ethiopian Airlines. She added that a rescue crew was headed to the crash site to see if anyone had survived.
Of the 90 people aboard the flight, more than half - 51 people - were Lebanese nationals. The airline also said that 23 passengers were Ethiopian. Two British nationals were also listed as passengers, and the remaining six passengers were Turkish, French, Russian,

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/25/world/middleeast/25crash.html
January 25, 2010
Ethiopian Airliner Crashes Near Beirut
By DERRICK HENRY and MICHELINE MAYNARD [Lebanon] [chronological placemarker] [as yet, no indication anything other than accidental plane crash] [*]
An Ethiopian Airlines plane crashed into the Mediterranean Sea on Monday morning shortly after it took off from Beirut International Airport in stormy weather. Officials said that 82 passengers and 8 crew members were on board.
“The flight lost contact with Lebanese air traffic controllers shortly after takeoff,” said Wogayehu Terefe, a spokeswoman for Ethiopian Airlines. She added that a rescue crew was headed to the crash site to see if anyone had survived.
Of the 90 people aboard the flight, more than half - 51 people - were Lebanese nationals. The airline also said that 23 passengers were Ethiopian. Two British nationals were also listed as passengers, and the remaining six passengers were Turkish, French, Russian, Canadian, Syrian and Iraqi nationals, the airline said. The eight crew members were Ethiopian.
The plane that crashed, Ethiopian Airlines Flight 409, was a Boeing 737 that had been scheduled to take off at 2:10 a.m., according to the company’s Web site, but it actually left at 2:35. The 1,730-mile flight to Addis Ababa, Ethiopia’s capital, was scheduled to take 4 hours and 40 minutes.
Although African airlines in general have a shaky safety record, Ethiopian Airlines has a relatively good history. In a 1996 hijacking, however, one of its planes ran out of fuel and crashed into the sea.
In September 1988, an Ethiopian Airlines 737 crashed shortly after takeoff in Bahar Dar, Ethiopia, after it struck a flock of pigeons. One engine was lost immediately and the second lost power when the plane returned to the airport, where it made a crash landing. Of 105 on board, 31 were killed, according to AirSafe.com.
Reuters reported that shortly after the plane took off from Beirut International Airport early Monday morning, some residents on the coast saw a plane on fire crashing.
Flight safety records indicate that there has not been a crash involving Beirut International Airport since 1987.
The Boeing 737 is one of the most widely used planes in the world, and while it has a fine overall safety record, it has been involved in a few crashes in Europe and Africa in recent years.
There have been questions about the plane’s rudders, notably in a 1994 crash near Pittsburgh in which a plane inexplicably fell out of the sky from about 6,000 feet.
The most recent incident involving a Boeing 737 took place in February 2009, when a Turkish Airlines jet en route from Istanbul crashed about a mile short of the runway in Amsterdam. Nine people, including both pilots were killed, but 123 others survived.
Copyright 2010 The New York Times Co

Netanyahu Says Some Settlements to Stay in Israel

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/25/world/middleeast/25mideast.html
January 25, 2010
Netanyahu Says Some Settlements to Stay in Israel
By ISABEL KERSHNER [Israeli-Palestinian conflict] [Dec 2008 Gaza campaign] [Israelis obliterated much of what was in their way] [followup] [alas, it included 1300 Gazans (many if not most noncombatants?), NGOs’ and UN’s infrastructure in Gaza] [Israel has now settled] [Israel’s mix of domestic and foreign policy] [*]
JERUSALEM — Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel said Sunday that several Jewish settlement blocs in the West Bank would always remain part of Israel, a comment that upset the Palestinians even as the Obama administration’s Middle East envoy was trying to coax them back into peace talks. [*]
Although Israel has long insisted on maintaining a permanent hold over certain groups of settlements, including those Mr. Netanyahu referred to Sunday, his remarks struck a jarring note on a day when the American envoy, George J. Mitchell, shuttled between Israeli and

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/25/world/middleeast/25mideast.html
January 25, 2010
Netanyahu Says Some Settlements to Stay in Israel
By ISABEL KERSHNER [Israeli-Palestinian conflict] [Dec 2008 Gaza campaign] [Israelis obliterated much of what was in their way] [followup] [alas, it included 1300 Gazans (many if not most noncombatants?), NGOs’ and UN’s infrastructure in Gaza] [Israel has now settled] [Israel’s mix of domestic and foreign policy] [*]
JERUSALEM — Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel said Sunday that several Jewish settlement blocs in the West Bank would always remain part of Israel, a comment that upset the Palestinians even as the Obama administration’s Middle East envoy was trying to coax them back into peace talks. [*]
Although Israel has long insisted on maintaining a permanent hold over certain groups of settlements, including those Mr. Netanyahu referred to Sunday, his remarks struck a jarring note on a day when the American envoy, George J. Mitchell, shuttled between Israeli and Palestinian leaders on a so-far unsuccessful mission to restart negotiations that have been stalled for over a year. [appears Bibi is trying to skuttle?] [*]
Mr. Netanyahu took the opportunity of the approaching holiday of Tu Bishvat, a Jewish arbor day, to reaffirm Israel’s claim to the Etzion bloc of settlements just south of Jerusalem. “Our message is clear,” he said during a tree-planting ceremony there. “We are planting here, we will stay here, we will build here. This place will be an inseparable part of the State of Israel for eternity.”
The Etzion settlements were settled by Jews before the Israeli state was established in 1948. The area became part of the West Bank under Jordanian control after the 1948 war, and the settlements were destroyed. Some settlers returned there immediately after Israel captured the territory from Jordan in the 1967 war, and the settlements were rebuilt. [*]
Earlier, in remarks before the weekly cabinet meeting in Jerusalem, Mr. Netanyahu said he would also plant saplings in Maale Adumim and Ariel, two large settlement-cities that Israel also intends to keep.
He also said that Mr. Mitchell, with whom he had just met, presented what he described as “some interesting ideas” for resuming the diplomatic process with the Palestinians.
“We are very much interested in doing so, and I expressed my hope that these ideas bring this about,” Mr. Netanyahu said. [but perhaps he’s throwing a bone to settlers before a big move?] [*]
But Nabil Abu Rudaineh, a spokesman for the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, who met with Mr. Mitchell in Jordan on Sunday, said that it was “premature to talk about a real breakthrough,” according to the official Palestinian news agency, WAFA.
Mr. Abu Rudaineh added that Mr. Abbas had reassured Mr. Mitchell of his commitment to peace.
But the spokesman also condemned Mr. Netanyahu’s tree-planting as “an unacceptable act that destroys all the efforts being exerted” by Mr. Mitchell, The Associated Press reported.
The Palestinians claim all of the West Bank, as well as Gaza and East Jerusalem, for a future Palestinian state, although they have expressed readiness for minor border adjustments in return for commensurate swaps of land.
Mr. Netanyahu has offered to begin peace talks without preconditions, and in a gesture to get the Palestinians to agree, in November he announced a halt to all new residential construction in the West Bank settlements for 10 months. The move infuriated Jewish settlers, but the Palestinians dismissed the moratorium as insufficient because it allowed for the completion of about 2,500 homes already under construction and because it did not include East Jerusalem. They continue to insist on a total Israeli freeze before resuming talks. [*]
Speaking to foreign reporters in Jerusalem last week, Mr. Netanyahu said that the Palestinian leaders had “climbed up a tree” and “they like it up there.”
Palestinian officials contend that in addition to continuing to build in the settlements, Mr. Netanyahu is trying to dictate the outcome of talks before they begin. Mr. Netanyahu has already stipulated that he will only entertain the idea of a demilitarized Palestinian state with limits on its sovereign powers.
In the session with the foreign reporters on the eve of Mr. Mitchell’s visit here, Mr. Netanyahu said that the threat of rocket smuggling into the Palestinian territories would require Israel to maintain a presence “on the eastern side of a prospective Palestinian state,” meaning along the border with Jordan. [what was once called Cisjordan, using the Latin for on west side of river!] [*]
The chief Palestinian negotiator, Saeb Erekat, responded that “the only remaining obstacle to negotiations” was “the conditions Mr. Netanyahu continues to impose.”
The Israeli demands, he added, erode “any foundation of hope for the two-state solution.”
Copyright 2010 The New York Times Co

3 Coordinated Bomb Attacks Hit Hotels in Baghdad

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/26/world/middleeast/26iraq.html
January 26, 2010
3 Coordinated Bomb Attacks Hit Hotels in Baghdad
By ANTHONY SHADID and JOHN LELAND [-ir] [hydra] [insurgency] [renewed sectarian tensions and fault lines] [success of “surge”] [as well as it worked, the issue still looms regarding how the Awakening to be situated in government in future?] [followup] [opposition desperate due to increasing institutionalization of regime] [seems like more reflexive violence to disrupt the small momentum of recent] [followup] [*]
BAGHDAD — In a coordinated attack as devastating as it was ruthlessly efficient, three bombs unleashed minutes apart Monday wrecked landmark Baghdad hotels catering to foreigners, wilting a tattered sense of security and underscoring the uncertainty of the political landscape weeks before parliamentary elections.
The bombings, cutting through snarled traffic at rush hour and shearing off a façade of one hotel, seemed to be the latest chapter of a campaign that began in August and that has

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/26/world/middleeast/26iraq.html
January 26, 2010
3 Coordinated Bomb Attacks Hit Hotels in Baghdad
By ANTHONY SHADID and JOHN LELAND [-ir] [hydra] [insurgency] [renewed sectarian tensions and fault lines] [success of “surge”] [as well as it worked, the issue still looms regarding how the Awakening to be situated in government in future?] [followup] [opposition desperate due to increasing institutionalization of regime] [seems like more reflexive violence to disrupt the small momentum of recent] [followup] [*]
BAGHDAD — In a coordinated attack as devastating as it was ruthlessly efficient, three bombs unleashed minutes apart Monday wrecked landmark Baghdad hotels catering to foreigners, wilting a tattered sense of security and underscoring the uncertainty of the political landscape weeks before parliamentary elections.
The bombings, cutting through snarled traffic at rush hour and shearing off a façade of one hotel, seemed to be the latest chapter of a campaign that began in August and that has hewn to a relentlessly political logic. With similar attacks in August, October and December, insurgents have sought to wreck pillars of Baghdad’s government and civic life, proving that the government and its security forces are unable to preserve the state’s fledgling authority.
The targets Monday served foreign journalists and expatriate businessmen, and were soon to house observers of the March 7 election, suggesting that the attack was aimed as much at shaping opinions abroad of the government’s durability as it was in reaping destruction.
The Ministry of Interior said that 36 people had been killed and 71 wounded.
“The attackers wanted to send a message to the world,” said Hazim al-Nuaimi, a political analyst here. “The message is that Iraq can’t provide security for foreigners.”
In streets strewn with broken glass, where the scent of shorn eucalyptus trees mixed with the stench of charred flesh, some survivors rued a sense of the inevitable. In the past attacks — wrecking ministries, government offices, a courthouse, colleges and a bank — the blasts have thundered across the capital, only to be followed by weeks of relative calm. With the passage of each peaceful day, they said, time for a recurrence seemed to be growing short.
“We had been expecting more,” said Abbas Salman, gazing at a street where rescue workers carried severed legs and arms through crowds of stunned onlookers.
The three bombs exploded within 10 minutes of each other during afternoon rush hour. The first struck the Ishtar Sheraton at 3:28 p.m., followed three minutes later by the Babylon Hotel and then, at 3:37, the Hamra Hotel. The Hamra and Sheraton are home to much of the capital’s foreign press corps. The Washington Post reported that three of its staff members were wounded by flying glass, though the injuries were not life threatening.
The blasts shook the city and shattered windows miles away. In neighborhoods near the hotels, which are within a mile or so of each other, residents spilled into the streets wailing, as plumes of dust, smoke and debris wafted across the skyline. Staccato bursts of gunfire echoed through the streets, as security forces tried to cordon off the bombing scenes, some of them draped in the banners and flags of a major Shiite Muslim commemoration this week.
“By God, move!” one officer shouted. “Are you staring at people’s disasters?”
Residents often answered with their own anger, in a striking sign of the lack of respect the security forces, particularly the police, are often shown in the capital.
“We have the right to complain!” one survivor shouted at a policeman.
Since last summer, the army and Interior Ministry forces have assumed sole responsibility for security after the withdrawal of American combat troops from the cities last summer. At checkpoints punctuating virtually every street, intersection and bridge, nearly all of them deploy a bomb-detecting device that Britain has banned for export on grounds that it is useless.
Iraqi officials have said they would begin an investigating into why the government paid at least $85 million to the British company, ATSC Ltd., for at least 800 of the bomb detectors, called ADE 651s. But the Interior Ministry has yet to withdraw the device from duty, and some officials have continued to defend its effectiveness.
“Checkpoints, security precautions, these devices?” asked Abbas Mohammed, 45, an air conditioner repairman standing outside the Babylon Hotel. “What are they doing? How can these cars get through the checkpoints? How can all these explosives pass?”
The explosives came at a precarious time. The capital’s political class is mired in a dispute over the disqualification of hundreds of candidates for promoting the Baath Party of former President Saddam Hussein. Despite calls for compromise and warnings by the United States and United Nations officials that barring the candidates threatens the credibility of the vote, Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki has taken a hard line. The prime minister faces a competitive campaign against a rival Shiite Muslim alliance, which has proven eager to question his anti-Baathist credentials as well as his claims of restoring a semblance of security.
American officials have warned that violence will almost assuredly escalate before the vote, and survivors at the bombing offered as many suspects as motives — from Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, a homegrown terrorist group, acting with Baathists, to Mr. Maliki’s rivals. Mr. Maliki himself has blamed Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia and the Baathists for the previous attacks, though American military officials have consistently maintained that Al Qaeda acted alone.
“The parties have already started fighting over the seats of power,” said Heidar Abbas, 42, a pharmacist. “Who’s responsible? It’s the parties themselves.”
The highest toll, 16 dead and 33 wounded, was reported at the Hamra Hotel, situated in a densely populated but fortified neighborhood. At the hotel, a day laborer who gave his name as Abu Haider said he saw men in a car exchange gunshots at a checkpoint outside the compound, then watched a second car speed through.
“It was just seconds before the explosion,” he said.
The bomb left a crater about 12 feet wide and 6 feet deep about 50 feet from the hotel. It destroyed the house in front of the hotel, where rescue workers pulled bodies from the rubble. A woman who gave her name as Um Riyadh emerged from the ruined hulk of a house across the street from the Hamra, blood on her head and face.
“We lost the house,” she said, crying. “We lost everything. Why should I stay in Iraq? I’m going to leave. There’s no other solution.”
Eleven people were killed and 26 wounded at the Sheraton, which is no longer affiliated with the hotel chain and shares a street with the Palestine Hotel. The bomb there, which left a crater six feet deep, toppled a row of 20 30-foot blast walls like dominoes. Trees were split as if they were matchsticks.
At the Babylon, officials said nine people were killed and 12 wounded. Blood was smeared on the hood of two cars, and rescue workers hurried to cover corpses with whatever they could find — cardboard, a tattered, soiled blanket and a sheet of plastic. Onlookers gathered around what they said was the corpse of the attacker, a bloodied torso still attached to wires, the watch on his wrist still keeping time.
Saad al-Izzi, Duraid Adnan, and Riyadh Mohammed contributed reporting.
Copyright 2010 The New York Times Co

U.N. Seeks to Drop Some Taliban From Terror List

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/25/world/asia/25taliban.html
January 25, 2010
U.N. Seeks to Drop Some Taliban From Terror List
By DEXTER FILKINS [UN] [Afghanistan] [hydra] [began in Afghanistan, but moved to Pakistan] [AfPak] [2009’s substantial pickup in Taliban and other insurgencies] [spring offensive turned into major effort throughout year] [now winter snows are slowing down in typical yearly fashion] [by time snow begins to melt, most of the “surge” will be in place] [use psci 469] [UN to drop certain Talib sanctions?] [*]
KABUL, Afghanistan — The leader of the United Nations mission here called on Afghan officials to seek the removal of at least some senior Taliban leaders from the United Nations’ list of terrorists, as a first step toward opening direct negotiations with the insurgent group.
In an interview, Kai Eide, the United Nations special representative, also implored the American military to speed its review of the roughly 750 detainees in its military prisons here — another principal grievance of Taliban leaders. Until recently, the Americans were holding those prisoners at a makeshift detention center at Bagram [*]Air Base and refusing to release their names.
Together, Mr. Eide said he hoped that the two steps would eventually open the way to face-

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/25/world/asia/25taliban.html
January 25, 2010
U.N. Seeks to Drop Some Taliban From Terror List
By DEXTER FILKINS [UN] [Afghanistan] [hydra] [began in Afghanistan, but moved to Pakistan] [AfPak] [2009’s substantial pickup in Taliban and other insurgencies] [spring offensive turned into major effort throughout year] [now winter snows are slowing down in typical yearly fashion] [by time snow begins to melt, most of the “surge” will be in place] [use psci 469] [UN to drop certain Talib sanctions?] [*]
KABUL, Afghanistan — The leader of the United Nations mission here called on Afghan officials to seek the removal of at least some senior Taliban leaders from the United Nations’ list of terrorists, as a first step toward opening direct negotiations with the insurgent group.
In an interview, Kai Eide, the United Nations special representative, also implored the American military to speed its review of the roughly 750 detainees in its military prisons here — another principal grievance of Taliban leaders. Until recently, the Americans were holding those prisoners at a makeshift detention center at Bagram [*]Air Base and refusing to release their names.
Together, Mr. Eide said he hoped that the two steps would eventually open the way to face-to-face talks between Afghan officials and Taliban leaders, many of whom are hiding in Pakistan. The two sides have been at an impasse for years over almost every fundamental issue, including the issue of talking itself. [*]
“If you want relevant results, then you have to talk to the relevant person in authority,” Mr. Eide said. “I think the time has come to do it.”
In recent days, Afghan and American officials have signaled their willingness to take some steps that might ultimately lead to direct negotiations, including striking the names of some Taliban leaders from the terrorist list, [pretty similar to Bush’s decision to talk to Sunni insurgents for purposes of “surge”] [*]as Mr. Eide is suggesting.
The remarks by Mr. Eide were the latest in a series of Afghan and Western efforts to engage the Taliban movement with diplomatic and political means, even as a new American-led military effort was under way here.
American, Afghan and NATO leaders are also preparing to start an ambitious program to persuade rank-and-file Taliban fighters to give up in exchange for schooling and jobs. That plan, expected to cost hundreds of millions of dollars, will be the focus of an international conference this week in London.
The plan aims at the bottom of the Taliban hierarchy — the foot soldiers who are widely perceived as mostly poor, illiterate, and susceptible to promises of money and jobs. In 2007 and 2008, a similar effort unfolded in Iraq, where some 30,000 members of the country’s Sunni minority — many of them former insurgents — were put on the American payroll. Partly as a result, violence there plummeted.
Mr. Eide, who will leave his post in March, said that such efforts at reintegration would be useful but not enough. While some rank-and-file Taliban soldiers might be fighting for economic reasons, he said, the motives of most were more complex. The Taliban’s leaders exert more control over the foot soldiers than they are given credit for, he said.
“I don’t believe it’s as simple as saying that these are people who are unemployed, and if we find them employment they will go our way,” Mr. Eide said. “Reintegration by itself is not enough.”
In the past, talks between the Afghan government and the insurgents have foundered on a few core issues. Afghan leaders have demanded that the Taliban forswear violence and their association with Al Qaeda before talks can begin. For their part, the Taliban have demanded that the Americans and other foreign forces leave the country first. [*]
But some Taliban leaders have indicated that they might be willing to engage in some sort of discussions if their names were stricken from the United Nations’ so-called “black list.” [*] The list contains the names of 144 Taliban leaders, including Mullah Mohammad Omar, the movement’s leader, as well as 257 from Al Qaeda. Under United Nations Resolution 1267, governments are obliged to freeze the bank accounts of those on the list and to prevent them from traveling. [*]
Some Taliban leaders say the black list prevents them from entering into negotiations — if they show their face, they say, they would be arrested.
“This would allow the Taliban to appear in public,” said Arsalan Rahmani, a former deputy minister with the Taliban who now lives in the Afghan capital, Kabul. “It would allow the possibility of starting negotiations in a third country.”
Mr. Eide said he did not believe that senior Taliban leaders like Mullah Omar should be removed from the list. It was Mullah Omar, after all, who provided sanctuary to Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda, which launched the Sept. 11 attacks. [I suspect anybody who thinks such removal of names would move Omar is fooling himself] [*]
But some second-tier Taliban should be taken from the list, he said. Those leaders are not necessarily associated with terrorist acts but might be able to speak for the movement, he said, and might be willing to reciprocate a good-will gesture.
The request to strike any Taliban names from the United Nations list would have to made by the Afghan government. In the past, Afghan officials have indicated that they might be willing to take some names off — even that of Mullah Omar. But they have kept details and their ultimate intentions under wraps.
Last week, the American envoy to the region signaled some willingness to allow the names of some Taliban to be taken off the list as long as they are not senior commanders responsible for atrocities or associated with Al Qaeda.
“A lot of the names don’t mean much to me,” Richard C. Holbrooke, the Obama administration’s special envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan, said last week in Kabul. “Some of the people on the list are dead, some shouldn’t be on the list and some are among the most dangerous people in the world.
“I would be all in favor of looking at the list on a case-by-case basis to see if there are people on the list who are on the list by mistake and should be removed, or in fact are dead,” he said.
Mr. Holbrooke showed no willingness to ease up on the leaders of the insurgency, including Mullah Omar and Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, the leader of the Islamic Party, a group fighting the government and the Americans. “I can’t imagine what would justify such an action at this time,” he said, “and I don’t know anyone who is suggesting that.”
As for the Taliban prisoners, American officials say that they imposed a more rigorous review process several months ago, and that they are examining the case of each detainee. This month, after years of keeping the names of detainees secret, the American military released the names of 645 detainees being held in the main detention center outside of Kabul.
Since September, when the new review process was imposed, the Americans have reviewed the cases of 576 detainees, and 66 of those have been released, Col. Stephen Clutter, a United States military spokesman, said. A review of all 645 detainees will be completed by the end of March, he added. Mr. Eide said he hoped it would go further.
“There needs to be a more comprehensive review of the list that has now been published,” Mr. Eide said.
Still, for all of that, it wasn’t clear Sunday just how the Taliban would respond — or if it would at all.
“I don’t know what they will do,” Mr. Rahmani said.
Sangar Rahmi contributed reporting.
Copyright 2010 The New York Times Co

Christmas Bombing Try Is Hailed by bin Laden

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/25/world/25binladen.html
January 25, 2010
Christmas Bombing Try Is Hailed by bin Laden
By ERIC SCHMITT and SCOTT SHANE [Pakistan?] [Pakistan as central hub in AfPak wheel] [AfPak] [even as US commits much money and support to Pakistan’s govt] [mounting evidence that some of the more important insitutions in said govt—military and ISI—are fickle friends at best] [use psci 469] [presumably, from the tribal belt of AfPak, bin Laden praises the Xmas day plot] [previoius audio tape late Sept] [*]
WASHINGTON — Osama bin Laden, the leader of Al Qaeda, spoke publicly for the first time about the botched Christmas Day airliner bombing, praising the attempt — but not explicitly taking responsibility for it — in an audiotape broadcast Sunday that was aimed personally at President Obama. [*]
Mr. bin Laden said that the bombing attempt was a heroic act meant to recall the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks in New York and Washington. He warned that more strikes against the United

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/25/world/25binladen.html
January 25, 2010
Christmas Bombing Try Is Hailed by bin Laden
By ERIC SCHMITT and SCOTT SHANE [Pakistan?] [Pakistan as central hub in AfPak wheel] [AfPak] [even as US commits much money and support to Pakistan’s govt] [mounting evidence that some of the more important insitutions in said govt—military and ISI—are fickle friends at best] [use psci 469] [presumably, from the tribal belt of AfPak, bin Laden praises the Xmas day plot] [previoius audio tape late Sept] [*]
WASHINGTON — Osama bin Laden, the leader of Al Qaeda, spoke publicly for the first time about the botched Christmas Day airliner bombing, praising the attempt — but not explicitly taking responsibility for it — in an audiotape broadcast Sunday that was aimed personally at President Obama. [*]
Mr. bin Laden said that the bombing attempt was a heroic act meant to recall the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks in New York and Washington. He warned that more strikes against the United States were looming because of American support for what he called Israel’s repression of the Palestinians, [*]one of Mr. bin Laden’s recurring themes in his occasional audiotaped anti-West invectives.
“America will never dream of security unless we will have it in reality in Palestine,” Mr. bin Laden said. “God willing, our raids on you will continue as long as your support to the Israelis will continue.” [*]
Mr. bin Laden said his statement was “from Osama to Obama.” [*]
The one-minute recording, broadcast by Al Jazeera’s Arabic news channel, was the first time Mr. bin Laden, who is believed to be hiding in Pakistan near the Afghanistan border, had issued an audiotape in four months. [*]
White House officials said they could not immediately authenticate the recording, but did not dispute that the voice was Mr. bin Laden’s. David Axelrod, a White House senior adviser, told CNN’s “State of the Union” that whatever the source, the message “contains the same hollow justification for the mass slaughter of innocents.” [*]
It was not clear why Mr. bin Laden waited nearly a month to say anything about the Dec. 25 bombing attempt on Northwest Flight 253 from Amsterdam to Detroit, [*] [because he must take multiple precautions with passing info., I hope] [cutouts, etc?] [*]which was carried out by a passenger who sought to detonate explosives sewn into his underwear but was overpowered by other passengers. Federal investigators have said the suspect, a 23-year-old Nigerian, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, received training and the explosives in Yemen.
“The message delivered to you through the plane of the heroic warrior Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was a confirmation of the previous messages sent by the heroes” of Sept. 11, Mr. bin Laden said.
American and Yemeni intelligence analysts said that they believed the veracity of a statement issued Dec. 28 by Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, the affiliate based in Yemen, claiming responsibility for the attack. [*]
Experts on Al Qaeda said Sunday that Mr. bin Laden’s statement did not change that assessment, since it did not explicitly claim that he or his closest associates in Pakistan played a role in planning or directing the Christmas attack. [*] [I’m almost certain he would have claimed it if he was somehow responsible] [thus, it appears it was al Qaeda of Arabian Peninsula] [*]
“If you read it carefully, it’s not really a claim of responsibility,” said Steven N. Simon, senior fellow for Middle Eastern affairs at the Council on Foreign Relations. “He endorses the attack. He valorizes it. He says, ‘You’re going to get more of the same.’ ” [but unlike 9/11 where he nearly gloated, he made no effort to suggest he knew in advance] [**]
Indeed, American intelligence officials have expressed concern that the Yemeni group may have trained other suicide bombers, and Britain last week increased its terrorism threat level in advance of a conference this week in London on aid to Yemen organized by the British government. [*]
The increasing terrorist threat from Yemen prompted Mr. Obama to decide to send Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton to the conference, even though that meant that Mrs. Clinton would miss Mr. Obama’s first State of the Union address, a senior administration official said.
“Prudence dictates we should assume Northwest Flight 253 was a test run for a campaign of attacks,” [*]said Bruce O. Riedel, a former Central Intelligence Agency officer now at the Brookings Institution, a research organization. “We are putting more pressure on Al Qaeda, and it plans to hit back in Afghanistan and at home.”
Mr. Simon said Mr. bin Laden’s statement, which was very brief by Mr. bin Laden’s standards, did not suggest that he was merely belatedly claiming responsibility for an attack perceived as at least partly successful, since it penetrated airport security measures that have been greatly enhanced since the 2001 attacks. [*]
Rather, he said, it vividly illustrated the way Al Qaeda had become a franchise, with branches of varying size and strength in Yemen and Saudi Arabia, North Africa, Southeast Asia and elsewhere.
“A franchise, just like McDonald’s, is supposed to create mutual benefits,” Mr. Simon said. “The benefit for bin Laden is he gets to associate himself with this attack. The benefit for the regional group is it gets to use the Al Qaeda name for fund-raising and recruiting.” [franchise metaphor] [*]
In the case of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, the franchise relationship may be particularly close, since its current leader, Nasser al-Wuhayshi, once served as Mr. bin Laden’s personal secretary.
Analysts offered varying interpretations of Mr. bin Laden’s decision to highlight American support for Israel, as opposed to the wars in Afghanistan or Iraq or other grievances, [I’d be willing to bet one motive was to rally mass segement of Arabs-Muslims] [*] as a motive for attacks. Some said the Qaeda leader was simply focusing on an issue with broad popular resonance across the Muslim world. [that would be my guess][*]Mr. Simon said the remarks might reflect Mr. bin Laden’s longstanding desire to create a Palestinian branch of Al Qaeda, a decade-long project that has so far made little progress.
Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, said on CBS News’s “Face the Nation” that the recording showed that Mr. bin Laden was “still a motivating force for jihadists, Islamist extremists throughout the world.”
He added, “And so we have to stay after him.”
The last audiotape attributed to Mr. bin Laden was issued Sept. 25. It urged European nations to withdraw their troops from Afghanistan, with a veiled threat of reprisals and an allusion to past bombings in Madrid and London. [*]
The last bin Laden tape directed at the United States was issued Sept. 13, two days after the eighth anniversary of the attacks in New York and Washington. That tape advised how the conflict between Al Qaeda and the United States might come to a close. [*]
Mark Landler contributed reporting.
Copyright 2010 The New York Times Co

January 24, 2010

Gates Sees Fallout From Troubled Ties With Pakistan

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/24/world/asia/24military.html
January 24, 2010
Pentagon Memo
Gates Sees Fallout From Troubled Ties With Pakistan
By ELISABETH BUMILLER [Obama white house] [SecDef Gates, while on trip to SAsia] [it’s often interesting reading his words carefully] [as former official in IC, he doesn’t let much slip] [thus, one must listen more carefully] [cross in external, govt] [*]
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — Nobody else in the Obama administration has been mired in Pakistan for as long as Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates. So on a trip here this past week to try to soothe the country’s growing rancor toward the United States, he served as a punching bag tested over a quarter-century. [*]
“Are you with us or against us?” a senior military officer demanded of Mr. Gates at Pakistan’s National Defense University, according to a Pentagon official who recounted the remark made during a closed-door session after Mr. Gates gave a speech at the school on Friday. Mr. Gates, who could hardly miss that the officer was mimicking former President George W. Bush’s warning to nations harboring militants, simply replied, “Of course we’re with you.” [I admire him] [he knew he was going to be trashed when he left for Islamabad] [he knew that US action from long ago (when he was in IC) during Reagan and Bush41 were going to follow him] [*]
That was the essence of Mr. Gates’s message over two days to the Pakistanis, who are angry

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/24/world/asia/24military.html
January 24, 2010
Pentagon Memo
Gates Sees Fallout From Troubled Ties With Pakistan
By ELISABETH BUMILLER [Obama white house] [SecDef Gates, while on trip to SAsia] [it’s often interesting reading his words carefully] [as former official in IC, he doesn’t let much slip] [thus, one must listen more carefully] [cross in external, govt] [*]
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — Nobody else in the Obama administration has been mired in Pakistan for as long as Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates. So on a trip here this past week to try to soothe the country’s growing rancor toward the United States, he served as a punching bag tested over a quarter-century. [*]
“Are you with us or against us?” a senior military officer demanded of Mr. Gates at Pakistan’s National Defense University, according to a Pentagon official who recounted the remark made during a closed-door session after Mr. Gates gave a speech at the school on Friday. Mr. Gates, who could hardly miss that the officer was mimicking former President George W. Bush’s warning to nations harboring militants, simply replied, “Of course we’re with you.” [I admire him] [he knew he was going to be trashed when he left for Islamabad] [he knew that US action from long ago (when he was in IC) during Reagan and Bush41 were going to follow him] [*]
That was the essence of Mr. Gates’s message over two days to the Pakistanis, who are angry about the Central Intelligence Agency’s surge in missile strikes from drone aircraft on militants in Pakistan’s tribal areas, among other grievances, and showed no signs of feeling any love. [*]
The trip, Mr. Gates’s first to Pakistan in three years, proved that dysfunctional relationships span multiple administrations and that the history of American foreign policy is full of unintended consequences. [also, explains complex interweaved external-role-govt inputs that result in continuity in USFP!] [*]
As the No. 2 official at the C.I.A. in the 1980s, Mr. Gates helped channel Reagan-era covert aid and weapons through Pakistan’s spy agency to the American allies at the time: Islamic fundamentalists fighting the Russians in Afghanistan. [*]Many of those fundamentalists regrouped as the Taliban, who gave sanctuary to Al Qaeda before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and now threaten Pakistan.
In meetings on Thursday, Pakistani leaders repeatedly asked Mr. Gates to give them their own armed drones to go after the militants, not just a dozen smaller, unarmed ones that Mr. Gates announced as gifts meant to placate Pakistan and induce its cooperation. [at least 2 quick reasons the US is reluctant] [must protect source and methods and drones have capabilities the Pakistanis might reverse engineer (they did it with western nukes!)] [they might use capabilities in ways counter to US interests at some point; to wit, against India!] [**]
Pakistani journalists asked Mr. Gates if the United States had plans to take over Pakistan’s nuclear weapons (Mr. Gates said no) and whether the United States would expand the drone strikes farther south into Baluchistan, as is under discussion. Mr. Gates did not answer.
At the same time, the Pakistani Army’s chief spokesman told American reporters at the army headquarters in Rawalpindi on Thursday that the military had no immediate plans to launch an offensive against extremists in the tribal region of North Waziristan, as American officials have repeatedly urged.
And the spokesman, Maj. Gen Athar Abbas, rejected Mr. Gates’s assertion that Al Qaeda had links to militant groups on Pakistan’s border. Asked why the United States would have such a view, the spokesman, General Abbas, curtly replied, “Ask the United States.” [they have some lgetimate grievances] [but so does the US about them] [so, don’t get too exercised about a few sharp words—not worth it] [*]
General Abbas’s comments, made only hours after Mr. Gates arrived in Islamabad, were an affront to an American ally that gave Pakistan $3 billion in military aid last year. [I agree and my initial response was mild irritation with Pakistanis] [but truth is, it’s in US interest so it’s worth a small affront now and them] [*] But American officials, trying to put a positive face on the general’s remarks and laying out what they described as military reality, said that the Pakistani Army was stretched thin from offensives against militants in the Swat Valley and South Waziristan and probably did not have the troops.
“They don’t have the ability to go into North Waziristan at the moment,” an American military official in Pakistan told reporters. “Now, they may be able to generate the ability. They could certainly accept risk in certain places and relocate some of their forces, but obviously that then creates a potential hole elsewhere that could suffer from Taliban re-encroachment.”
Mr. Gates’s advisers cast him as a good cop on a mission to encourage the Pakistanis rather than berate them. And he was characteristically low-key [Gates, individual idosyncracy] [*] during most his visit here, including during a session with Pakistani journalists on Friday morning at the home of the American ambassador to Pakistan, Anne W. Patterson.
But Mr. Gates perked up when he was brought some coffee, and he soon began to push back against General Abbas. [he’ll wisely take it to a point, then] [*] American officials say that the real reason Pakistanis distinguish between the groups is that they are reluctant to go after those that they see as a future proxy against Indian interests in Afghanistan when the Americans leave. India is Pakistan’s archrival in the region.
“Dividing these individual extremist groups into individual pockets if you will is in my view a mistaken way to look at the challenge we all face,” Mr. Gates said, then ticked off the collection on the border.
“Al Qaeda, the Taliban in Afghanistan, Tariki Taliban in Pakistan, Lashkar-e-Taiba, the Haqqani network — this is a syndicate of terrorists that work together,” he said. “And when one succeeds they all benefit, and they share ideas, they share planning. They don’t operationally coordinate their activities, as best I can tell. But they are in very close contact. They take inspiration from one another, they take ideas from one another.” [and while I agree, the truth is the US has made such convenient distinctions in past when it suited US interests] [thus, one ought not to be too surprised when Pakistan does same] [*]
Mr. Gates, who repeatedly told the Pakistanis that he regretted their country’s “trust deficit” with the United States and that Americans had made a grave mistake in abandoning Pakistan after the Russians left Afghanistan, promised the military officers that the United States would do better. [proably role] [*]
His final message delivered, he relaxed on the 14-hour trip home by watching “Seven Days in May,” the cold war-era film about an attempted military coup in the United States.
Copyright 2010 The New York Times Co

Details of arrest of bombing suspect disclosed

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/23/AR2010012302678.html
Details of arrest of bombing suspect disclosed
By Devlin Barrett
Sunday, January 24, 2010; A03 [Obama White House] [residual from Presidents Bush and predecessors] [both NSC and bureaucratic levels] [here, new info on what happened the day he was taken into custody?] [followup] [Xmas Day plot that was thwarted] [it’s increasingly difficult to get a fix on this lad and whom he worked with in Yemen?] [I still don’t know if affiliate (al Qaeda of Arabian Pen.) or some of al Qaeda central’s moved infrastructure from spring?] [watch and wait] [use psci 469] [*]
Badly burned and bleeding, the suspect in the attempted bombing of the Christmas Day flight to Detroit tried one last gambit as he was led away: He said there was another bomb hidden on board, [persistent as hell?] [*]officials said.
It wasn't true, federal agents learned after a tense search. But the Nigerian suspect's threat began hours of conversations that are now the subject of fierce political debate over the right way to handle terrorism suspects. [now, yesterday’s claim (govt or societal?) that administration may have messed up becomes a little clearer] [it suggested it was hasty, ill-concieved decision] [it may have been wrong?] [*]
In interviews, U.S. officials described for the first time the details of Umar Farouk

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/23/AR2010012302678.html
Details of arrest of bombing suspect disclosed
By Devlin Barrett
Sunday, January 24, 2010; A03 [Obama White House] [residual from Presidents Bush and predecessors] [both NSC and bureaucratic levels] [here, new info on what happened the day he was taken into custody?] [followup] [Xmas Day plot that was thwarted] [it’s increasingly difficult to get a fix on this lad and whom he worked with in Yemen?] [I still don’t know if affiliate (al Qaeda of Arabian Pen.) or some of al Qaeda central’s moved infrastructure from spring?] [watch and wait] [use psci 469] [*]
Badly burned and bleeding, the suspect in the attempted bombing of the Christmas Day flight to Detroit tried one last gambit as he was led away: He said there was another bomb hidden on board, [persistent as hell?] [*]officials said.
It wasn't true, federal agents learned after a tense search. But the Nigerian suspect's threat began hours of conversations that are now the subject of fierce political debate over the right way to handle terrorism suspects. [now, yesterday’s claim (govt or societal?) that administration may have messed up becomes a little clearer] [it suggested it was hasty, ill-concieved decision] [it may have been wrong?] [*]
In interviews, U.S. officials described for the first time the details of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab's arrest Dec. 25 at Detroit Metro Airport and the decisions that were made about how to interrogate him.
Captured after a bomb hidden in his underwear ignited but did not explode, Abdulmutallab initially spoke freely and provided valuable intelligence, officials said. Federal agents repeatedly interviewed him or heard him speak to others. When they read him his legal rights nearly 10 hours after the incident, he went silent. [by law they had to read him his rights whether he’s going to be sent through system or military tribunal] [I’m not sure why folks continually suggest military tribunals forgo rights and procedure because everything I’ve read on military tribunals suggests they also do a versio of mirandizing suspects?] [*]
Since the attempted bombing, several prominent lawmakers have argued he should have been placed immediately in military custody. The nation's top intelligence official said he should have been questioned by a special group of terrorism investigators, rather than by the FBI agents who responded to the scene. [and he may be right but it’s still unclear] [but one thing is clear, we can now infer that yesterday’s “source” was top IC official(s)] [*]
The Justice Department has said those who argue the case should have been handled differently were silent when the Bush administration successfully prosecuted dozens of terrorists in federal court.
The officials who described the events said on-scene investigators never discussed turning Abdulmutallab over to military authorities. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to disclose details of the investigation. [does this leaker have ax to grind?] [perhaps not but (s)he has reason for leaking] [qui bono] [*]
According to the officials, after being restrained and stripped bare by fellow passengers and by crew members, Abdulmutallab was handed over to U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers and local police. The officers decided that Abdulmutallab needed immediate medical attention, and an ambulance crew took him to the burn unit at the University of Michigan Medical Center. [so far so good] [perhaps someone at this point from high in IC-NSC-white house should have intervened to say we want him interrogated by thus and so?] [*]
Along the way, the officials said, Abdulmutallab repeatedly made incriminating statements to the Customs officers guarding him. He told them he had acted alone on the plane and had been trying to take down the aircraft, [unclear whether different source of same one representing facts second hand?] [*]they said.
Abdulmutallab arrived at the hospital just before 2 p.m. Still under guard, he told a doctor treating him that he had tried to trigger the explosive, the sources said.
FBI agents from the Detroit bureau arrived at the hospital around 2:15 p.m., and were briefed by the Customs agents and officers as Abdulmutallab received medical treatment. Shortly after 3:30 p.m., FBI agents began interviewing the suspect in his hospital room, joined by a Customs officer and an Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent. [arguably, this is where special team of interrogators should have involved themselves?] [but remember the wall between FBI IC and FBI law enforcement] [*]
The suspect spoke openly, said one official, talking in detail about what he'd done and the planning that went into the attack. Other counterterrorism officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said it was during this questioning that he admitted he had been trained and instructed in the plot by al-Qaeda operatives in Yemen. [this clearly should have triggered something but unclear what?] [however, at this point it’s probably reasonable to suspect his value was at least as high in terms of intelligence source as symbolic prosecution by justice?] [**]
The interview lasted about 50 minutes. Before they began questioning Abdulmutallab, the FBI agents decided not to give him his Miranda warning providing his right to remain silent. [there’s some reason to think others beside FBI should have intervened here?] [but I don’t know what has been put in place?] [is there interagency team for complex cases?] [**]
Although the Miranda warning, based on a 1966 U.S. Supreme Court ruling, is a bedrock principle of the U.S. justice system, there is a major exception that could apply in Abdulmutallab's case. Investigators are allowed to question a suspect without providing a Miranda warning if they are trying to end a threat to public safety. [it appears the author is referring to “exigent” circumstances] [that strikes me as a stretch here] [*]
In a future trial in a federal court, prosecutors would probably seek to justify Abdulmutallab's questioning without a Miranda warning by arguing that the FBI agents needed to know quickly if there were other planes with bombs headed for the United States. The Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and other plots have shown al-Qaeda's penchant for synchronized attacks in multiple locations. [had there been others, the administration’s dumb luck (call it serendipity) would have failed] [*]
Abdulmutallab's interview ended when he was given medication and investigators decided it would be better to let the effects of the drugs wear off before pressing him further. He would not be questioned again for more than five hours. [*]By that point, officials said, FBI bosses in Washington had decided a new interrogation team was needed. [frankly, it doesn’t sound like they screwed up more than margins] [*]They made that move in case the lack of a Miranda warning or the suspect's medical condition at the time of the earlier conversations posed legal problems later on for prosecutors. [they also had concluded, it all likelihood, that a chain of events was not underway] [I mean, come on] [*]
Based on the instructions from Washington, the second interview was conducted by different FBI agents and others with the local joint terrorism task force. Such a move is not unusual in cases in which investigators or prosecutors want to protect themselves from challenges to evidence or statements. [it could have come in earlier but we’re talking about a matter of few hours from what I understand] [I don’t see it as big deal] [*]
By bringing in a "clean team" of investigators to talk to the suspect, federal officials aimed to ensure that Abdulmutallab's statements would still be admissible if not giving him his Miranda warning led a judge to rule out the use of his first admissions. [*]
Even if Abdulmutallab's statements are ruled out as evidence, they still provided valuable intelligence for U.S. counterterrorism officials to pursue, officials said.
In the end, though, the "clean team" of interrogators did not prod more revelations from the suspect. Having rested and received more extensive medical treatment, Abdulmutallab was told of his right to remain silent and his right to have an attorney. [if they hadn’t, it’s almost certain the evidence would have been rule tainted] [*]
He remained silent.
-- Associated Press © 2010 The Washington Post Co

The Case for a Climate Bill

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/24/opinion/24sun1.html
January 24, 2010
Editorial
The Case for a Climate Bill
[editorial] [why Obama and Congress must pass reasonable attempt to stop the bleeding vis-à-vis climate change] [forget the scientific community’s various intrigues] [all but the most obtuse (and many for political reasons only) understand something with serious repercussions is occurring] [intrigues are mere sideshows] [use psci 350] [use ir text][*]
The conventional wisdom is that the chances of Congress passing a bill that puts both a cap and a price on greenhouse gases are somewhere between terrible and nil. President Obama can start to prove the conventional wisdom wrong by making a full-throated case for a climate bill in his State of the Union speech this week. [appears the NYTs editorial board trying to buck up Obama?] [*]
Washington has been forecasting the likely death of a climate bill with renewed certainty

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/24/opinion/24sun1.html
January 24, 2010
Editorial
The Case for a Climate Bill
[editorial] [why Obama and Congress must pass reasonable attempt to stop the bleeding vis-à-vis climate change] [forget the scientific community’s various intrigues] [all but the most obtuse (and many for political reasons only) understand something with serious repercussions is occurring] [intrigues are mere sideshows] [use psci 350] [use ir text][*]
The conventional wisdom is that the chances of Congress passing a bill that puts both a cap and a price on greenhouse gases are somewhere between terrible and nil. President Obama can start to prove the conventional wisdom wrong by making a full-throated case for a climate bill in his State of the Union speech this week. [appears the NYTs editorial board trying to buck up Obama?] [*]
Washington has been forecasting the likely death of a climate bill with renewed certainty since Massachusetts elected a Republican senator who promised to block pretty much anything Mr. Obama wants. But even before then we were hearing two reasons why a bill could not pass: The Senate won’t have any strength left when it finishes with health care, and the nation cannot afford a bill that implies an increase in energy prices.
The first reason is defeatist, the second greatly exaggerated. The climate change bills pending in the Senate would not begin to bite for several years, when the recession should be over. The cost to households, according to the Congressional Budget Office, would be small. A good program would create more jobs than it cost. [but only if the US created beaucoup incentives to undertake green-technology revolution!] [*]
The list of reasons to pass a climate bill, on the other hand, is long and persuasive.
Start with timing. The long-term trend in greenhouse gas emissions is up (the decade ending in 2009 was the warmest on record), and the sooner emissions decline, the better. The bill passed by the House last year calls for emissions in 2020 to be 17 percent lower than they were in 2005. This is the bare minimum required to give the industrialized world a fighting chance of achieving an 80 percent reduction by midcentury, which most mainstream scientists think will be necessary to avert the worst consequences of global warming. [*]
Then there is the race for markets. China is moving aggressively to create jobs in the clean-energy industry. Beijing not only plans to generate 15 percent of its energy from renewable sources by 2020, but hopes to become the world’s leading exporter of clean energy technologies. Five years ago, it had no presence at all in the wind manufacturing industry; today it has 70 manufacturers. [and India is only slightly behind] [the US risks being last!] [*]It is rapidly becoming a world leader in solar power, with one-third of the world’s manufacturing capacity.
Finally there’s the question of credibility: Mr. Obama said in Copenhagen that the United States would meet at least the House’s 17 percent target. Success in the Senate is essential to delivering on that pledge. Failure would undo many of the good things he achieved in Copenhagen, and it would give reluctant powers like China an excuse to duck their pledges.
The jobs argument should impress the Senate. Yet many Democrats as well as Republicans seem willing to settle for what would be the third energy bill in five years — loans for nuclear power, mandates for renewable energy, new standards for energy efficiency. These are all useful steps. But the only sure way to unlock the investments required to transform the way the country produces and delivers energy is to put a price on carbon. [*]
Some senators understand that. John Kerry, Joseph Lieberman and Lindsey Graham are trying to forge a bill with a price on emissions as its core and enough other bells and whistles to attract the necessary filibuster-proof 60 votes. They will need help. Mr. Obama is the best person to provide it. [*] [interesting and eclectic group of bipartisan senators] [that alone suggest the US ought to be worried about climate change] [*]
Copyright 2010 The New York Times Co

U.N. climate panel chief: Error shouldn't derail global warming efforts in India

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/23/AR2010012302399.html
U.N. climate panel chief: Error shouldn't derail global warming efforts in India
By Rama Lakshmi
Sunday, January 24, 2010; A14 [UN] [India] [Delhi] [global climate change] [global commons] [latest fracas over data and interpretations] [still, in India where the Himilay ice provides the Ganges and other crucil water supply, they’re understandably concerned about future] [use psci 350] [use ir text] [*]
NEW DELHI -- For many Indians, the most powerful and urgent reason to battle global warming arose from a report warning that the Himalayan glaciers could melt away by 2035. [*]
But that prediction was an error, the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which authored the report, said Wednesday.
Speaking publicly on the issue for the first time Saturday, Rajendra K. Pachauri, chairman of the Nobel Prize-winning panel, said the mistake occurred because rigorous procedures for scientific review were not followed. He promised a more robust research system in the future. [*]
But he said the blunder should not detract from a sense of urgency over the need for action on

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/23/AR2010012302399.html
U.N. climate panel chief: Error shouldn't derail global warming efforts in India
By Rama Lakshmi
Sunday, January 24, 2010; A14 [UN] [India] [Delhi] [global climate change] [global commons] [latest fracas over data and interpretations] [still, in India where the Himilay ice provides the Ganges and other crucil water supply, they’re understandably concerned about future] [use psci 350] [use ir text] [*]
NEW DELHI -- For many Indians, the most powerful and urgent reason to battle global warming arose from a report warning that the Himalayan glaciers could melt away by 2035. [*]
But that prediction was an error, the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which authored the report, said Wednesday.
Speaking publicly on the issue for the first time Saturday, Rajendra K. Pachauri, chairman of the Nobel Prize-winning panel, said the mistake occurred because rigorous procedures for scientific review were not followed. He promised a more robust research system in the future. [*]
But he said the blunder should not detract from a sense of urgency over the need for action on a crisis that threatens the entire planet. "I hope that people around the world are not going to be distracted by this error. Climate change is not only limited to what will happen to the Himalayan glaciers," [*]he said.
Admission of the mistake comes weeks after the release of e-mails apparently stolen from the panel's scientists ahead of the global climate summit in Copenhagen in December. The e-mails hinted at a deliberate suppression of data from researchers with opposing views. Critics say the flawed report is further proof that climate change concerns are overblown.
Facing a bevy of hostile questions, Pachauri conceded that the mistake might embolden groups that do not believe in global warming. But he dismissed them as advocates of vested interests that benefit from the use of heat-trapping fossil fuels.
"There will always be a body of people who will deny it till they are blue in the face," [*]Pachauri said. "These people are only concerned about continuing with their wasteful and terribly profligate lifestyles."
The mistake was brought to light last week by a Canadian professor of geography and glaciers, Graham Cogley, who pointed out the lack of scientific data backing the glacier melt claim. [*]
With its rapid industrialization and population of more than 1 billion, India is the world's fifth-largest emitter of greenhouse gases. The country has long, populous coastlines, and it is in a region that is among the most vulnerable to the impact of climate change, battling lower farm production, droughts and floods. [Bangladesh even more vulnerable in ways] [*]
India's environment minister, Jairam Ramesh, told reporters in the western city of Ahmedabad on Wednesday that the panel's claims were "alarmist." But he said that "the conditions of the glaciers are very vulnerable and most of them are melting," according to the Indian Express newspaper. [see NASA’s conclusion last week in govt!] [*]
Ramesh released an Indian study in November asserting that not all glaciers were melting and that some were even advancing. He is setting up an institute to help build India's capacity to study the subject.
Pachauri said Saturday that there is insufficient research on the Himalayan glaciers, and that the climate panel's Nobel Prize funds will be used to create a cadre of scientists in developing nations to study local climate impact.
Many Indians have expressed shock at the developments.
"In my work, we do not second-guess assessments made by a panel of 2,500 scientists," said Lavanya Rajamani, a lawyer who works on climate change treaties with the Center for Policy Research in New Delhi. "This has somewhat damaged the cause in popular imagination, but I hope this does not make people question the credibility of the entire science of climate change." © 2010 The Washington Post Co

More Than 150,000 Have Been Buried, Haiti Says

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/24/world/americas/24bodies.html
January 24, 2010
More Than 150,000 Have Been Buried, Haiti Says
By DAMIEN CAVE [Haiti] [always miserable Haiti experiences even more misery] [numbers beginning to settle in: 150 k probably still wildy inaccurate but soon some sense will come of it all?] [US now air dropped supplies due to ruined infrastructure] [followup] [misery compounds misery] [that some efforts originate from DR, demonstrates how much crushing poverty played role] [*]
PORT-AU-PRINCE, Haiti — Haiti’s government provided a preliminary assessment of the earthquake’s body count on Saturday, putting it at more than 150,000, and declared that the search for survivors trapped in the rubble would soon be coming to an end.
Marie-Laurence Jocelyn Lassegue, Haiti’s culture and communications minister, said that

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/24/world/americas/24bodies.html
January 24, 2010
More Than 150,000 Have Been Buried, Haiti Says
By DAMIEN CAVE [Haiti] [always miserable Haiti experiences even more misery] [numbers beginning to settle in: 150 k probably still wildy inaccurate but soon some sense will come of it all?] [US now air dropped supplies due to ruined infrastructure] [followup] [misery compounds misery] [that some efforts originate from DR, demonstrates how much crushing poverty played role] [*]
PORT-AU-PRINCE, Haiti — Haiti’s government provided a preliminary assessment of the earthquake’s body count on Saturday, putting it at more than 150,000, and declared that the search for survivors trapped in the rubble would soon be coming to an end.
Marie-Laurence Jocelyn Lassegue, Haiti’s culture and communications minister, said that 150,000 bodies from the streets had been collected and buried in the past 11 days.
She also said that there were at least 250,000 people homeless and that 200,000 residents of Port-au-Prince and its outskirts had moved to the provinces since the earthquake hit. [*]
It was unclear, however, how the government arrived at these numbers — especially the number of victims buried. The figure grew over the course of the day from 111,000 to 120,000 to 150,000 without detailed explanation. [still, sounds like it will top 100,000] [**]
Ms. Lassegue, in an interview under a mango tree at the police station that now serves as government headquarters, said the 150,000 bodies was a count of “what we have taken and disposed of,” not including family burials or bodies still trapped in the collapsed buildings.
As recently as Wednesday, that government estimate was put at 75,000 bodies. But most Haitian and international officials here have agreed that official efforts are better focused on helping the living than counting the dead.
In interviews, government workers collecting the bodies on the streets have said that they were not counting, and at many of the mass graves outside the city where the bodies have dumped, no government officials could be found.
Jacques Adler Jean-Pierre, one of Ms. Lassegue’s aides under the tree, said nonetheless that someone had been keeping track.
“It may have looked like no one was counting,” he said, “but someone was supposed to.”
The figure for those who have left the city seemed more solid. Mr. Jean-Pierre said this was a compilation of what local governments from outside Port-au-Prince had reported.
The number of homeless appears to be in flux. Haiti’s Directorate for Civil Protection estimated last week that one million people had been displaced by the quake on Jan. 12. Recent estimates from the International Organization for Migration show that 370,000 people are living in “improvised shelter,” outside largely in camps without access to water, sanitation or food.
Laurent M. Dubois, a history professor at Duke University who specializes in Haiti, said that the government — which struggled to compile comprehensive data even before the earthquake — appeared to be geared toward showing people that it was seriously trying to gauge the disaster’s impact and challenges. [*]
“What they are probably getting are conflicting reports from people who are imagining things different,” Professor Dubois said. “They must be guessing to some extent.”
Rescues, however, have been easier to count. The numbers are smaller, and the moments more joyful. As of Saturday morning, international rescue teams had pulled 132 people alive from the rubble.
Then in the afternoon came another. A team of mostly French rescuers pulled a 24-year-old cashier, Richmond Exantos, from a collapsed hotel and pharmacy downtown around 4:30. A crowd of Haitians and rescuers cheered as he emerged, without visible injuries. Soon, though, there will be no more of these miracles.
The government said Saturday that rescue teams could continue to search if they know of survivors, but that, realistically, it was unlikely that anyone else would be found alive.
Michel Legros, a cousin of an owner of the building where Mr. Exantos was found, said this was a mistake. He had stationed people at the building since the quake, listening for signs of life. Saturday was the first day anyone heard anything — the sound of soft tapping. “I think they should keep looking,” Mr. Legros said. “Because if Richmond is alive, maybe there are more.”
Ginger Thompson contributed reporting.
Correction: January 24, 2010
An earlier version of this article misspelled the given name of a cousin of the owner of the building where Richmond Exantos was found. He is Michel Legros, not Michelle.
Copyright 2010 The New York Times Co

Anti-Chávez Channel Is Taken Down

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/01/24/world/AP-LT-Venezuela-Media.html
January 24, 2010
Anti-Chávez Channel Is Taken Down
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 10:14 a.m. ET [Venezuela] [Ven-Russian relations] [Russia] [former USSR] [Russia ethos?] [use psci350] [use ir text] [Chavez continues to self destruct—at best, terribly boorish and hamfisted] [instead of consider why media is after him, he continues to move toward near total authoritarian rule] [*]
CARACAS, Venezuela (AP) -- A cable television channel critical of President Hugo Chavez was yanked from the airwaves early Sunday for defying new regulations requiring it to televise the socialist leader's speeches. [imagine how that’d play in US or Europe?] [*]
Venezuelan cable television providers stopped transmitting Radio Caracas Television, an anti-Chavez channel known as RCTV, because it did not broadcast Chavez's speech Saturday to a rally of political supporters.
''They must comply with the law, and they cannot have a single channel that violates

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/01/24/world/AP-LT-Venezuela-Media.html
January 24, 2010
Anti-Chávez Channel Is Taken Down
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 10:14 a.m. ET [Venezuela] [Ven-Russian relations] [Russia] [former USSR] [Russia ethos?] [use psci350] [use ir text] [Chavez continues to self destruct—at best, terribly boorish and hamfisted] [instead of consider why media is after him, he continues to move toward near total authoritarian rule] [*]
CARACAS, Venezuela (AP) -- A cable television channel critical of President Hugo Chavez was yanked from the airwaves early Sunday for defying new regulations requiring it to televise the socialist leader's speeches. [imagine how that’d play in US or Europe?] [*]
Venezuelan cable television providers stopped transmitting Radio Caracas Television, an anti-Chavez channel known as RCTV, because it did not broadcast Chavez's speech Saturday to a rally of political supporters.
''They must comply with the law, and they cannot have a single channel that violates Venezuelan laws as part of their programming,'' Diosdado Cabello, director of Venezuela's state-run telecommunications agency, said Saturday.
The agency ''doesn't have any authority to give the cable service providers this order,'' RCTV said in a statement. ''The government is inappropriately pressuring them to make decisions beyond their responsibilities.'' [*]
The new broadcasting laws were approved last month by the telecommunications agency.
The move, decried by the U.S. embassy, journalism groups and viewers, comes as Chavez is confronting domestic problems, including a recession, soaring inflation and electricity shortages. He already is campaigning against an emboldened opposition to keep control of the National Assembly in September elections. [*]
In Caracas neighborhoods, Chavez opponents leaned out apartment windows to bang on pots and pans. Others shouted epithets and drivers joined in, honking car horns.
''They want to silence RCTV's voice,'' said Miguel Angel Rodriguez, the channel's most popular talk show host. ''But they won't be able to because RCTV is embedded in the hearts of all Venezuelans.'' [*]
Roger Santodomingo, the national journalists' association secretary-general, called it a violation of human rights, freedom of speech and democratic norms. The U.S. Embassy also saw cause for concern.
''Access to information is a cornerstone of democracy and provides a foundation for global progress. By restricting yet again the Venezuelan people's access to RCTV broadcasts, the Venezuelan government continues to erode this cornerstone,'' U.S. Embassy spokeswoman Robin Holzhauer said.
RCTV switched to cable and satellite television in 2007 after the government refused to renew its over-the-air license, accusing the station of plotting against Chavez and supporting a failed 2002 coup. [*]
The state-run Bolivarian News Agency said the suspension involved a total of four stations, which can still return to the air if they decide to comply with the new regulations.
Cabello said there were other violations committed by cable channels, include failing to warn viewers of sexual and violent content and broadcasting more than two hours of soap operas during the afternoon, which should be mostly dedicated to children programming.
Government figures say about 37 percent of Venezuelan homes received cable television in 2008. But some private companies say their research shows about six out of every 10 households have subscription TV service.
In August, Chavez's government forced 32 radio stations and two small TV stations off the air, saying some owners had failed to renew their broadcast licenses, while other licenses were no longer valid because they had been granted long ago to owners who are now dead. [pretty transparent effort to quite dissent] [*]
----
Associated Press Writer Ian James contributed to this report.
Copyright 2010 The Associated P

TV Refugees From Moscow

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/24/weekinreview/24levy.html
January 22, 2010
TV Refugees From Moscow
By CLIFFORD J. LEVY [Ukraine] [former USSR] [Russia’s “Near Abroad” which is what Russians call their former Soviet Republics] [in new assertive Russia] [use psci350] [use ir text] [followup] [Ukraine’s continued turmoil in domestic politics and same being pulled between West (NATO, EU) and East (Russian Federation, etc)] [especially since 2008-09 global economic meltdown] [followup] [Russian refugee hiding out in Ukraine taking shots at Kremlin—interesting and perhaps typical of tension between Russia and its “Near Abroad”] [*]
KIEV, Ukraine — In the final weeks of Ukraine’s presidential campaign, all the candidates have wanted to appear on Savik Shuster’s political talk show. Denied an invitation, one even threatened to carry out a swashbuckling raid on Mr. Shuster’s television studio in Kiev

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/24/weekinreview/24levy.html
January 22, 2010
TV Refugees From Moscow
By CLIFFORD J. LEVY [Ukraine] [former USSR] [Russia’s “Near Abroad” which is what Russians call their former Soviet Republics] [in new assertive Russia] [use psci350] [use ir text] [followup] [Ukraine’s continued turmoil in domestic politics and same being pulled between West (NATO, EU) and East (Russian Federation, etc)] [especially since 2008-09 global economic meltdown] [followup] [Russian refugee hiding out in Ukraine taking shots at Kremlin—interesting and perhaps typical of tension between Russia and its “Near Abroad”] [*]
KIEV, Ukraine — In the final weeks of Ukraine’s presidential campaign, all the candidates have wanted to appear on Savik Shuster’s political talk show. Denied an invitation, one even threatened to carry out a swashbuckling raid on Mr. Shuster’s television studio in Kiev to force a very impromptu live debate with a rival.
It has been a bit like the old days — back in Moscow.
Mr. Shuster is a refugee from Vladimir V. Putin’s Russia. As the television news has been whitewashed there, some big-mouthed journalists like Mr. Shuster have decamped for neighboring Ukraine, where the political and media climate is far more lively and diverse and just plain interesting. (Can you imagine the steely Mr. Putin chasing after a journalist, demanding to be interviewed?)
The split between the two countries has become increasingly evident since the Orange Revolution of 2004 put Ukraine on a path toward a more European-style government, in contrast to the autocratic regimes in much of the rest of the former Soviet Union. [*]
Mr. Shuster left Moscow after his program, “Freedom of Speech,” was canceled. His supposed sins: he asked tart questions that cast doubt on the authorities and sought guests who had displeased them. He did, in other words, what journalists tend to do.
“Television there now is like in Soviet times,” he said. “I see more and more conformism. You are not allowed to invite people who have different positions and can debate those positions. So today in Russia, you can’t do a real talk show.” [*]
Another newcomer in Kiev, Yevgeny Kiselyov, who was a pioneering television journalist in Moscow in the 1990s, said self-censorship was pervasive in Russia. “There are all kinds of don’ts,” he said. “All kinds of black lists that are never on paper. But every producer, every editor knows them by heart.”
With competing hit political talk shows, these two immigrants have unexpectedly become media kingmakers in the Ukrainian presidential election, which is heading to a Feb. 7 runoff. It is to be decided between Viktor F. Yanukovich, the loser in the Orange Revolution, and Prime Minister Yulia V. Tymoshenko, one of its heroes.
They were the top finishers in the election last Sunday, and the fact that no one knows who will win is a telling sign that Ukraine is not like most post-Soviet countries.
Both candidates have regularly been on the programs of Mr. Shuster (who resembles a college professor) and Mr. Kiselyov (more the typical anchorman).
Interviewing Mr. Yanukovich this month, Mr. Shuster went after a big vulnerability: a perception that he might be a Putin pawn. “They say that you will agree to turn over the government to the Kremlin — is that the case?” he asked. [*]
Ms. Tymoshenko was the candidate who almost barged into Mr. Shuster’s studio. She had clamored for a debate with Mr. Yanukovich in December, but he refused, so she let it be known she might ambush him. In the end, she didn’t.
Mr. Shuster has been in Kiev since 2005, and Mr. Kiselyov since 2008. They thrive in part because Ukraine and Russia are Slavic siblings with interwoven cultures. While Ukrainian is the national language, Russian, which is relatively similar, is widely spoken, and many people speak both. [*]
Given the post-Soviet landscape, it is easy to glamorize the media in Ukraine, just as it is with recollections of Russian television, pre-Putin. The truth — in today’s Kiev as in Moscow back then — is messier. [*]
Ukraine’s stations are largely controlled by oligarchs who often use them to settle scores and blatantly support candidates. The same thing occurred in Russia.
European election monitors in Ukraine have called most television news coverage slanted. Some journalists are believed to give politicians favorable coverage in exchange for bribes.
Still, the government does not exert wide-ranging control over television news content, as in Moscow.
Roman Golovenko, a lawyer who monitors the media, says that television news has generally improved since the Orange Revolution, though it has a long way to go.
Mr. Shuster and Mr. Kiselyov said that because of their stature, they had avoided pressure from their channels’ owners.
An obvious question is, why have Ukraine and Russia diverged? Ukraine seems more pluralistic, in part because of a geographic divide that makes it harder to dominate the country. Ukrainian speakers in the west look toward Europe, and Russian speakers in the east and south are more loyal to Moscow.
Both men said they were not sure that the Ukrainian experiment in democracy would turn out well. The public is tired of political bickering and upheaval, and corruption is as entrenched here as in Russia. The Orange Revolution has lost its luster. Maybe the next president will tighten the government’s grip over the media. [*]
“It’s not my joke, but I like it,” Mr. Kiselyov said. “The difference between Russian politics and Ukrainian politics is the difference between a cemetery and a madhouse.” [*]
Even so, Mr. Kiselyov said Ukrainians had become accustomed to their freedoms and were not likely to turn back. “Most politicians, even in the West, don’t like the media,” he said. “When Western leaders were criticizing Putin for his handling of the media, deep in the hearts, they were thinking, ‘I wish I could do the same.’ But Ukrainian political culture has changed dramatically since the Orange Revolution. In Ukraine now, they are playing by different rules.”[*]

Okinawa Town Elects Mayor Who Opposes U.S. Base

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/01/24/world/AP-AS-Japan-Okinawa-Election.html
January 24, 2010
Okinawa Town Elects Mayor Who Opposes U.S. Base
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 11:31 a.m. ET [Japan] [Tokyo] [use ir text] [followup] [Democratic Party (as opposed to Liberal Democratic Party) has vacillated between notions of doing things considerably different including relations with US to “hey US (wink, nod) don’t fret because we too know how important the relationship is”] [followup] [the drama continues] [use psci 350?] [a mayor who’s against the move of US base!] [stay tuned!] [*]
TOKYO (AP) -- The future of an American military base and the balance of U.S.-Japan relations were thrown into further question Sunday as voters in a small city far from Tokyo elected a mayor opposed to the base.
Residents of the Okinawan city of Nago chose challenger Susumu Inamine -- who

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2010/01/24/world/AP-AS-Japan-Okinawa-Election.html
January 24, 2010
Okinawa Town Elects Mayor Who Opposes U.S. Base
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 11:31 a.m. ET [Japan] [Tokyo] [use ir text] [followup] [Democratic Party (as opposed to Liberal Democratic Party) has vacillated between notions of doing things considerably different including relations with US to “hey US (wink, nod) don’t fret because we too know how important the relationship is”] [followup] [the drama continues] [use psci 350?] [a mayor who’s against the move of US base!] [stay tuned!] [*]
TOKYO (AP) -- The future of an American military base and the balance of U.S.-Japan relations were thrown into further question Sunday as voters in a small city far from Tokyo elected a mayor opposed to the base.
Residents of the Okinawan city of Nago chose challenger Susumu Inamine -- who campaigned against any expansion of U.S. military presence in the area -- over incumbent Yoshikazu Shimabukuro.
Nago is where Washington and Tokyo agreed in 2006 to move the Futenma U.S. Marine airfield from a more crowded part of the southern Japanese island. The deal was part of a broader realignment of American troops forged after a helicopter from the base crashed into a nearby university.
Japan's new government -- led by a party that was in the opposition when the deal was inked -- is reconsidering the agreement, an about-face that has strained ties between the two allies.
Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama has postponed a decision on Futenma until May. Seen as a litmus test of local sentiment, Sunday's election result could play a pivotal role in his verdict.
More than half of some 47,000 American troops stationed in Japan are in Okinawa, where many residents complain about noise, pollution and crime linked to the bases.
Nago's 60,000 residents are increasingly opposed to hosting a new base, which would likely require bulldozing beaches near an existing Marine facility. The issue has sparked intense protests and dominated debate between the two mayoral candidates.
Turnout in the election was high, with nearly 77 percent of the city's 45,000 registered voters casting ballots. Inamine won with 52.3 percent of the vote, according to the city's election office.
Shimabukuro, Nago's outgoing mayor, supports the base for the jobs and investment it would bring to the area about 900 miles (1450 kilometers) from Tokyo. But he made little mention of that this weekend, arguing instead that the city should not dictate such national decisions and highlighting his achievements as mayor.
His challenger staunchly opposed the base and ran with the support of the ruling Democratic Party of Japan.
After securing victory, Inamine celebrated with jubilant supporters gathered at his office.
''I fought this campaign vowing to resist the base,'' he said. ''I intend to keep that promise as we move forward.''
The Futenma facility, home to about 2,000 Marines, is one of the corps' largest facilities in the Pacific. The United States insists the base must stay somewhere in Okinawa so that the Marine units remain cohesive. But some Japanese politicians have suggested moving the facility off the island altogether -- or even out of the country.
Under a security pact signed in 1960, U.S. armed forces are allowed broad use of Japanese land and facilities. In return, the U.S. is obliged to respond to attacks on Japan and protect the country under its nuclear umbrella.
Copyright 2010 The Associated P

Israel Poised to Challenge a U.N. Report on Gaza

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/24/world/middleeast/24goldstone.html
January 24, 2010
Israel Poised to Challenge a U.N. Report on Gaza
By ETHAN BRONNER [Israel] [domestic politics intersects foreign policy] [Israel now prepared to respond formally to Goldstone report from last fall] [Israel to rebut it in UN] [followup] [*]
TEL AVIV — The Israeli military is completing a rebuttal to a United Nations report accusing it of grave violations of international and humanitarian law in its Gaza invasion a year ago.[*] [Dec 2008 into Jan 2009] Its central aim is to dispel the report’s harsh conclusion — that the death of noncombatants and destruction of civilian infrastructure were part of an official plan to terrorize the Palestinian population. [they did terrorize Gazans but my sense was it was out of desperation-frustration more than their plan going in?] [*]
The United Nations report, by a committee led by Richard Goldstone, an esteemed South

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/24/world/middleeast/24goldstone.html
January 24, 2010
Israel Poised to Challenge a U.N. Report on Gaza
By ETHAN BRONNER [Israel] [domestic politics intersects foreign policy] [Israel now prepared to respond formally to Goldstone report from last fall] [Israel to rebut it in UN] [followup] [*]
TEL AVIV — The Israeli military is completing a rebuttal to a United Nations report accusing it of grave violations of international and humanitarian law in its Gaza invasion a year ago.[*] [Dec 2008 into Jan 2009] Its central aim is to dispel the report’s harsh conclusion — that the death of noncombatants and destruction of civilian infrastructure were part of an official plan to terrorize the Palestinian population. [they did terrorize Gazans but my sense was it was out of desperation-frustration more than their plan going in?] [*]
The United Nations report, by a committee led by Richard Goldstone, an esteemed South African judge, was published in late September and called on Israel to carry out an independent investigation of its conduct of the three-week war.
Israel, which had refused to cooperate with the investigation, at first dismissed the report as unworthy of attention. But the government quickly found that the world took it quite seriously and found itself accused of premeditated war crimes. It now considers fighting that charge a priority. [Israel tends to be self critical and it formed commissions that found some of the acts wrong—just not that they planned it?] [*]
“We face three major strategic challenges,” [*]Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said recently. “The Iranian nuclear program, rockets aimed at our civilians and Goldstone.”
The rebuttal will be given to United Nations officials in the coming weeks and its contents will remain under wraps until then. But officers involved in writing the report gave some details. [though I have no problem with Goldstone, his report should have said more about Hamas and others targeting Israeli civilians] [it’s not okay to accuse side and not the other when there was lots of info on Hamas “crimes” against humanity] [*]
One concerned the destruction of Gaza’s sole flour mill. The Goldstone report asserts that the Bader flour mill “was hit by an airstrike, possibly by an F-16.” The Israeli investigators say they have photographic proof that this is false, that the mill was accidentally hit by artillery in the course of a firefight with Hamas militiamen. [frankly, who knows?] [but Israel had admitted some major cockups before Goldstone; since it has more or less denied what it earlier accepted] [*]
The dispute is significant since the United Nations report asserts that “the destruction of the mill was carried out for the purpose of denying sustenance to the civilian population,” an explicit war crime.
A second finding concerned the destruction of a wastewater plant, leading to an enormous outflow of raw sewage. The Goldstone report contended that it was hit by a powerful Israeli missile in a strike that was “deliberate and premeditated.” [*]The Israelis say they had nothing to do with that plant’s collapse and suggest that it may have been the result of Hamas explosives.
The two cases, along with the destruction of chicken coops, water wells, a cement plant and some 4,000 homes, are crucial building blocks in the Goldstone case that Israel set out to eliminate infrastructure so as to cause intense civilian suffering.
The report stated that “the destruction of food supply installations, water sanitation systems, concrete factories and residential houses was the result of a deliberate and systematic policy by the Israeli armed forces.” It added that Israel waged “a deliberately disproportionate attack designed to punish, humiliate and terrorize a civilian population, radically diminish its local economic capacity both to work and to provide for itself, and to force upon it an ever increasing sense of dependency and vulnerability.” [yes and no] [these things are fairly subjective] [had Goldstone tempored-balanced his conclusions (judgement calls really) with some wrath directed at Hamas, it would have been far more acceptable] [**]
Maj. Gen. Avichai Mandelblit, the Israeli military advocate general, said in an interview that those assertions went beyond anything of which others had accused Israel.
“I have read every report, from Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, the Arab League,” he said at his desk in the military’s Tel Aviv headquarters. “We ourselves set up investigations into 140 complaints. It is when you read these other reports and complaints that you realize how truly vicious the Goldstone report is. He made it look like we set out to go after the economic infrastructure and civilians, that it was intentional. It’s a vicious lie.” [I don’t think it was vicious lie but a judgement] [but I can understand some Israelis reacting thusly] [as I noted at the time, Hamas is substate actor and the Goldstone report (common in international law, which explicity focuses on states!) did not know quite how to deal with non-state actors, apparently] [*]
Another senior military official who spoke on the condition of anonymity following regular military practice, said that neither the military command structure nor the government wanted to invade Gaza in December 2008, but felt that the continual rocket attacks by Hamas on Israeli civilians forced their hand. The war, he said, followed the least aggressive of three contemplated routes — conquer Gaza and occupy it again as was done in the West Bank in 2002, retake Hamas’s weapons supply routes and hold them to dry out the organization’s arsenal, or attack the Hamas military and state infrastructure and leave. It was the third that occurred. [more or less accurate] [*]
That invasion killed some 1,400 Palestinians and destroyed a great deal of property, including buildings like the parliament’s offices that have no military function. There were accusations of inappropriate weapons use. All that led many human rights advocates, both foreign and Israeli, to accuse Israel of violating international norms.
So in November, Brig. Gen. Yuval Halamish, a former intelligence commander, led an investigation that involved scores of interviews of Israeli soldiers and Palestinian witnesses as well as reviewing military videotape and photographs. He submitted his findings to General Mandelblit, [self scrutiny I mentioned above] [I followed it in Harretz and it was pretty intense] [I’ve seen no similar scrutiny by Hamas or Palestinians] [*]who is independent of the command structure but who wears a uniform, offered legal advice on targets before the operation and is widely seen as an insider.
The military investigation is expected to argue that while errors were made, Israel is not guilty of any serious crimes. It will argue that the rules of war need to be adapted to the kind of asymmetric warfare Israel increasingly faces: fighting a popular militia that intentionally mixes with the civilian population.
Mr. Netanyahu and his government have not decided whether to submit the findings to independent scrutiny, as the Goldstone report specifies. They may do so in a partial way — by asking a group of nonmilitary Israeli jurists to examine the rebuttal but without power to recall witnesses, an approach favored by the military and those close to it. [I suppose it depends on what Israel hopes to accomplish?] [*]
Others say there must be an independent, nonmilitary investigation.
“Israel owes it to its own citizens and soldiers, as well as to the victims, to carry out an independent investigation,” said Moshe Halbertal, a professor of Jewish philosophy at Hebrew University and a co-author of the military’s code of ethics. [that would probably be best] [independent commission comprised of experts, including some former military?] [*]
Mr. Halbertal said that he was concerned about persistent reports during the Gaza operation that commanders had a “no risk” policy for their soldiers, which led to the unnecessary destruction of property and the shooting of civilians who were feared dangerous. [*]
This is also the view of the organization Breaking the Silence, a group of military reservists who have given testimony about receiving orders in the war to shoot or destroy in ways that violated ethical standards and the military’s own code. [*]
General Halamish said in an interview that the army chose not to attack many leaders of Hamas because they lived among children and the elderly. He added that during the operation, Israel withheld fire for three hours a day so food and other aid supplies could be brought into Gaza. During those hours, he said, a quarter of the shooting from Hamas took place. Hamas also ambushed the civilian supply trucks.
While many here think that the Goldstone report failed to expose of the practices of Hamas, they are more concerned about their own army’s conduct. Still, virtually no one in Israel, including the leaders of Breaking the Silence and the human rights group B’Tselem, thinks that the Goldstone accusation of an assault on civilians is correct.
“I do not accept the Goldstone conclusion of a systematic attack on civilian infrastructure,” said Yael Stein, research director of B’Tselem. “It is not convincing. But every incident and every policy has to be checked by an independent body because the military cannot check itself. They need to explain why so many people were killed.” [that’s more or less where I am with the matter] [*]
Copyright 2010 The New York Times Co

Biden Says U.S. Will Appeal Blackwater Case Dismissal

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/24/world/middleeast/24iraq.html
January 24, 2010
Biden Says U.S. Will Appeal Blackwater Case Dismissal
By ANTHONY SHADID [-ir] [hydra] [insurgency] [renewed sectarian tensions and fault lines] [success of “surge”] [as well as it worked, the issue still looms regarding how the Awakening to be situated in government in future?] [followup] [opposition desperate due to increasing institutionalization of regime] [more fallout from Shi’a state’s attempt to ban what appears to be sectarian opposition; Veep Biden responds to last week’s Blackwater ruling!] [followup] [*]
BAGHDAD — Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. promised Iraqi leaders on Saturday that the United States would appeal the dismissal of manslaughter charges against five Blackwater Worldwide security contractors involved in a deadly shooting here that has inflamed anti-American tensions. [I have mixe feelings] [blackwater has done some awful stuff and

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/24/world/middleeast/24iraq.html
January 24, 2010
Biden Says U.S. Will Appeal Blackwater Case Dismissal
By ANTHONY SHADID [-ir] [hydra] [insurgency] [renewed sectarian tensions and fault lines] [success of “surge”] [as well as it worked, the issue still looms regarding how the Awakening to be situated in government in future?] [followup] [opposition desperate due to increasing institutionalization of regime] [more fallout from Shi’a state’s attempt to ban what appears to be sectarian opposition; Veep Biden responds to last week’s Blackwater ruling!] [followup] [*]
BAGHDAD — Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. promised Iraqi leaders on Saturday that the United States would appeal the dismissal of manslaughter charges against five Blackwater Worldwide security contractors involved in a deadly shooting here that has inflamed anti-American tensions. [I have mixe feelings] [blackwater has done some awful stuff and exploited both US and Iraqi govts] [but these guys were not the head of the company and that’s who the US should persue] [**]
Mr. Biden, tasked by the Obama administration to oversee policy in Iraq, made the statement after a day of meetings with Iraqi leaders that dealt, in part, with a political crisis that has erupted over the March 7 parliamentary elections. American officials view the vote, a barometer of the durability of Iraq’s political system, as a crucial date in American plans to withdraw tens of thousands of combat troops from Iraq by the end of August.
The vice president expressed his “personal regret” for the Blackwater shooting in 2007, in which contractors guarding American diplomats opened fire in a crowded Baghdad traffic circle, killing 17 people, including women and children. [it was major screwup] [but worse, Mr. Prince (CEO of company now renamed Xe) created the culture of mercenary who did not have to live by rules as the rest of us do] [*]
“A dismissal is not an acquittal,” he said after meeting President Jalal Talabani.
Investigators had concluded that the guards fired indiscriminately on unarmed civilians in an unprovoked and unjustified attack. The guards contended that they had been ambushed by insurgents and fired in self-defense.
In December, in a decision that was a blow to the Justice Department and unleashed anger and disbelief in Iraq, a federal judge threw out the five guards’ indictment on manslaughter charges, citing misuse of their statements that violated their constitutional rights. The judge’s scathing and detailed ruling was expected to make any appeal difficult. [*]
“This is great news,” Abdel-Amir Jihan, who was wounded in the shooting, said after hearing of Mr. Biden’s announcement. “The court was not fair to us. We felt great injustice when we heard the verdict. It was not right to drop the charges against them.”
Mr. Biden was scheduled to leave Saturday evening after a 24-hour visit that involved meetings with most of the pivotal players in the election crisis. That dispute erupted this month after a government commission barred more than 500 candidates, accusing them of supporting Saddam Hussein’s Baath Party. While some leaders have insisted that the disqualifications adhered to Iraqi law, many Sunni Muslims have seen them as score-settling by religious Shiite parties who suffered under Baath Party rule, and American officials have worried that the move could impair the vote’s legitimacy.
American officials have warned Iraqi leaders to avoid a process that, in the words of Mr. Biden’s national security adviser, Antony J. Blinken, [this may be first time I’ve read his name?] [check] [use psci 355, 455] [*]“lacks transparency and fairness and credibility.” [*]But as expected, there was no breakthrough in the meetings, and Mr. Biden, who spent the day shuttling between meetings, stressed that the United States would not impose a solution.
“I want to make clear I am not here to resolve that issue,” he said. “I am confident that Iraq’s leaders are seized with this issue and are working for a final, just solution.”
Before his meeting with Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, though, Mr. Biden alluded to how frequently American mediation — especially his own, over the course of three trips here since he became vice president — has been necessary. He jokingly told Mr. Maliki: “I’ve come to apply for citizenship. I’ve been here enough.”
The crisis has proved intractable in part because of its very nature: a legal process with obvious and sweeping political effects, seized on by Iraqi leaders with competing interests.
In Mr. Biden’s meeting with Mr. Maliki, officials said, the prime minister insisted that the disqualifications were simply a legal issue. But Mr. Maliki’s critics have accused him of politicizing the issue as much as anyone, and in a speech on Friday, he took an especially hard line, saying that the barring of candidates in itself did not go far enough.
And while many of the most senior Iraqi officials have warned the United States against interference in Iraq’s affairs, others — especially many of the Sunni politicians who were barred from running — have sought American intervention.
American officials have said that, despite the current political crisis, they do not foresee any delay in this August’s withdrawal of the main body of American combat troops.
A notable step in that process happened Saturday when the Marine Corps handed over security duties in Anbar Province, once a cradle of the insurgency, to United States Army soldiers. The move formally ended the seven-year-long Marine presence in Iraq, in effect signaling the end of heavy combat operations.
As many as 25,000 Marines were once in the country, and the remaining few thousand are expected to leave within weeks.
Copyright 2010 The New York Times Co

British Man Held for Fraud in Iraq Bomb Detectors

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/24/world/europe/24scanner.html
January 24, 2010
British Man Held for Fraud in Iraq Bomb Detectors
By RIYADH MOHAMMED and ROD NORDLAND [-ir] [hydra] [insurgency] [renewed sectarian tensions and fault lines] [success of “surge”] [as well as it worked, the issue still looms regarding how the Awakening to be situated in government in future?] [followup] [opposition desperate due to increasing institutionalization of regime] [UK company apparently sold detection devices that are quackery to Iraqis?] [followup] [*]
BAGHDAD — The director of a British company that supplies bomb detectors to Iraq has been arrested on fraud charges, and the export of the devices has been banned, British government officials confirmed Saturday.
Iraqi officials reacted with fury to the news, noting a series of horrific bombings in the past six months despite the widespread use of the bomb detectors at hundreds of checkpoints in

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/24/world/europe/24scanner.html
January 24, 2010
British Man Held for Fraud in Iraq Bomb Detectors
By RIYADH MOHAMMED and ROD NORDLAND [-ir] [hydra] [insurgency] [renewed sectarian tensions and fault lines] [success of “surge”] [as well as it worked, the issue still looms regarding how the Awakening to be situated in government in future?] [followup] [opposition desperate due to increasing institutionalization of regime] [UK company apparently sold detection devices that are quackery to Iraqis?] [followup] [*]
BAGHDAD — The director of a British company that supplies bomb detectors to Iraq has been arrested on fraud charges, and the export of the devices has been banned, British government officials confirmed Saturday.
Iraqi officials reacted with fury to the news, noting a series of horrific bombings in the past six months despite the widespread use of the bomb detectors at hundreds of checkpoints in the capital. [I can remember a couple months ago when US official said the things were wortheless and demonstrated so it’s not like the Iraqis didn’t have fair warning!] [*]
“This company not only caused grave and massive losses of funds, but it has caused grave and massive losses of the lives of innocent Iraqi civilians, by the hundreds and thousands, from attacks that we thought we were immune to because we have this device,” said Ammar Tuma, a member of the Iraqi Parliament’s Security and Defense Committee.
But the Ministry of the Interior has not withdrawn the device from duty, and police officers continue to use them. [incredible] [*]
Iraqi officials said they would begin an investigation into why their government paid at least $85 million to the British company, ATSC Ltd., for at least 800 of the bomb detectors, called ADE 651s.
The British Embassy offered to cooperate with any Iraqi government investigation.
The New York Times first reported official doubts about the device in November, citing American military officials and technical experts who said the ADE 651 was useless, despite widespread reliance on it in Iraq.
The ADE 651 is a hand-held wand with no batteries or internal electronic components, ostensibly powered by the static electricity of the user, who needs to walk in place to charge it. The only moving part is what looks like a radio antenna on a swivel, which swings to point toward the presence of weapons or explosives. [I remember it] [it’s ridiculous and anybody who believed ti could work must not have ever taken a course in science] [*]
“We are conducting a criminal investigation and as part of that a 53-year-old man has been arrested on suspicion of fraud by misrepresentation,” a spokesman for the Avon and Somerset Police in England said, without giving the suspect’s name in line with police policy. The suspect was released on bail, the spokesman said.
“The force became aware of the existence of a piece of equipment around which there has been many concerns and in the interests of public safety launched its investigation,” the police spokesman said.
The suspect’s identity was widely reported in the British press as Jim McCormick, managing director of ATSC Ltd., which operates out of a converted dairy in rural Somerset County, England. [*]News reports described Mr. McCormick as a former British police officer from Merseyside.
Contacted by telephone, Mr. McCormick refused to comment on the charges or the case against him, but he insisted that ATSC would remain in business. “Our company is still fully operational,” he said.
A statement issued by the British Department for Business, Innovation and Skills said it was banning export of the ADE 651 and similar devices to Iraq and Afghanistan.
“Tests have shown that the technology used in the ADE 651 and similar devices is not suitable for bomb detection,” the department said. “We acted urgently to put in place export restrictions which will come into force next week.” The statement said the department could ban export to those countries because British troops there could be put at risk by the device’s use. ATSC claims to have sold the device to 20 countries, all in the developing world.
The Supreme Board of Audit in Iraq announced it would investigate the procurement of the ADE 651, according to the board’s leader, Abdul Basit Turki. The investigation will focus on officials who previously assured auditors the device was technically sound, he said.
Maj. Gen. Jihad al-Jabiri, who is in charge of procuring the devices for the Ministry of Interior, could not be reached for comment.
In Baghdad on Saturday, the devices were still very much in use. “I didn’t believe in this device in the first place,” said a police officer at a checkpoint in central Baghdad, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to the media. “I was forced to use it by my superiors and I am still forced to do so.” [US military simply laughs at use fo the things] [*]
Another checkpoint officer said he blamed corrupt officials for bringing the ADE 651 in. “Our government is to be blamed for all the thousands of innocent spirits who were lost since these devices have been used in Iraq,” he said.
An associate of ATSC, who spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of retaliation, said the devices were manufactured at a cost of $250 each by suppliers in Britain and Romania. “Everyone at ATSC knew there was nothing inside the ADE 651,” he said.
The Iraqi government, according to its auditors, paid $40,000 to $60,000 for each device, although it determined that ATSC was marketing the device for $16,000. The additional money was said to have been for training, spare parts and commissions.
The Times of London quoted Mr. McCormick in November as saying that the device’s technology was similar to that of dowsing or divining rods used to find water. “We have been dealing with doubters for 10 years,” he said. “One of the problems we have is that the machine does look primitive. We are working on a new model that has flashing lights.”
Shortly after the arrest on Friday, the BBC reported that it had arranged a lab test of the device and found that its bomb-detection component was an electronic merchandise tag of the sort used to prevent shoplifting.
ATSC’s brochures claim the ADE 651 can detect minute traces of explosives, drugs or even human remains at distances of up to 6 miles by air, or three-fifths of a mile by land. Scientific trials of similar devices have shown that they are no more accurate than a coin toss. [it detects everthing] [gee, ya think that’s a tipoff?] [*]
Riyadh Mohammed reported from Baghdad, and Rod Nordland from Kabul, Afghanistan.
Copyright 2010 The New York Times Co

Afghanistan Postpones Elections for Parliament

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/25/world/asia/25afghan.html
January 25, 2010
Afghanistan Postpones Elections for Parliament
By ALISSA J. RUBIN [Afghanistan] [hydra] [began in Afghanistan, but moved to Pakistan] [AfPak] [2009’s substantial pickup in Taliban and other insurgencies] [spring offensive turned into major effort throughout year] [now winter snows are slowing down in typical yearly fashion] [by time snow begins to melt, most of the “surge” will be in place] [use psci 469] [more political stalemate in Kabul] [*]
KABUL, Afghanistan — Afghanistan’s Independent Election Commission announced on Sunday that it was postponing the country’s parliamentary elections to Sept. 18, [*]The Associated Press reported. The postponement will likely please the international organizations and Western governments that have pressed Afghanistan to delay the vote until it reforms its election process.
The commissioner of the Independent Election Commission, Fazel Ahmad Manawi, said at a

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/25/world/asia/25afghan.html
January 25, 2010
Afghanistan Postpones Elections for Parliament
By ALISSA J. RUBIN [Afghanistan] [hydra] [began in Afghanistan, but moved to Pakistan] [AfPak] [2009’s substantial pickup in Taliban and other insurgencies] [spring offensive turned into major effort throughout year] [now winter snows are slowing down in typical yearly fashion] [by time snow begins to melt, most of the “surge” will be in place] [use psci 469] [more political stalemate in Kabul] [*]
KABUL, Afghanistan — Afghanistan’s Independent Election Commission announced on Sunday that it was postponing the country’s parliamentary elections to Sept. 18, [*]The Associated Press reported. The postponement will likely please the international organizations and Western governments that have pressed Afghanistan to delay the vote until it reforms its election process.
The commissioner of the Independent Election Commission, Fazel Ahmad Manawi, said at a news conference in Kabul that the elections had to be postponed because of a shortfall in financing from the international community, The A.P. reported. Mr. Manawi also blamed security concerns and logistical challenges.
The elections, constitutionally required every four years, had been scheduled to be held on May 22. [*]
Worried about the potential for a repetition of the massive voting irregularities that undermined the credibility of last year’s presidential vote, the international community has urged the government of President Hamid Karzai to delay the parliamentary elections until there are comprehensive changes in the election law and in the administrative aspects of the election process, including the creation of a complete voter roll. [*]
In the first round of the presidential election held last August, more than one million votes for Mr. Karzai were thrown out as possibly fraudulent, forcing him into a runoff with his closest competitor, Abdullah Abdullah. Although Mr. Abdullah ultimately withdrew and Mr. Karzai was given a second term, a number of Afghans question the president’s legitimacy.
Under the current law, the president appoints the chairman of the Independent Election Commission, which runs the elections. That arrangement has led to charges of bias in the institution that oversees the voting.
The lack of voter rolls is another problem. In last summer’s election people bought multiple voter cards on the black market and cast more than one vote in some areas. Elsewhere, there was outright ballot-box stuffing. It would take months to legislate and put in place changes to avoid those problems, according to election experts. [*]
The Afghan government had been reluctant to push back the parliamentary election date because the postponement of the presidential elections was believed to be one of the flaws in the presidential election process.
When the parliamentary elections are held, voters will choose 249 members of the lower house of the Afghan Parliament to five-year terms. [*]
Copyright 2010 The New York Times Co

Two U.S. Soldiers Are Among 17 Afghan Deaths

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/24/world/asia/24afghan.html
January 24, 2010
Two U.S. Soldiers Are Among 17 Afghan Deaths
By ROD NORDLAND and SANGAR RAHIMI [Afghanistan] [hydra] [began in Afghanistan, but moved to Pakistan] [AfPak] [2009’s substantial pickup in Taliban and other insurgencies] [spring offensive turned into major effort throughout year] [now winter snows are slowing down in typical yearly fashion] [by time snow begins to melt, most of the “surge” will be in place] [use psci 469] [more US troops and locals, KIA!] [*]
KABUL, Afghanistan — At least 17 people died in four separate episodes in Afghanistan on Saturday, while a police chief was kidnapped and a provincial governor narrowly escaped assassination. [*]
Three women and a young boy were killed when a taxi crammed with at least eight passengers tried to run an illegal Taliban checkpoint in Paktika Province, in the east, and the militants riddled the car with bullets.
Four Afghan soldiers guarding the governor of Wardak Province, just west of Kabul, were

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/24/world/asia/24afghan.html
January 24, 2010
Two U.S. Soldiers Are Among 17 Afghan Deaths
By ROD NORDLAND and SANGAR RAHIMI [Afghanistan] [hydra] [began in Afghanistan, but moved to Pakistan] [AfPak] [2009’s substantial pickup in Taliban and other insurgencies] [spring offensive turned into major effort throughout year] [now winter snows are slowing down in typical yearly fashion] [by time snow begins to melt, most of the “surge” will be in place] [use psci 469] [more US troops and locals, KIA!] [*]
KABUL, Afghanistan — At least 17 people died in four separate episodes in Afghanistan on Saturday, while a police chief was kidnapped and a provincial governor narrowly escaped assassination. [*]
Three women and a young boy were killed when a taxi crammed with at least eight passengers tried to run an illegal Taliban checkpoint in Paktika Province, in the east, and the militants riddled the car with bullets.
Four Afghan soldiers guarding the governor of Wardak Province, just west of Kabul, were killed when the Taliban set off a hidden bomb as he traveled to a school building inspection; the governor was unharmed.
Two American soldiers were killed by an improvised explosive device in southern Afghanistan, according to a press release from the international military command here.
And seven Afghans were killed in the remote village of Qulum Balaq in Faryab Province, in northern Afghanistan, when they tried to excavate an old bomb dropped by an aircraft many years ago, according to a statement from the Interior Ministry. One person was wounded.
In addition, the police chief of Sheigal district in Kunar Province, Jamatullah Khan, and two of his officers were kidnapped while patrolling just after midnight on Saturday close to the border with Pakistan. Gen. Khalilullah Ziayee, the provincial police chief, said they were abducted “by the enemies of peace and stability in the country,” the government’s catch-all term for insurgents. [*]
“We don’t have any information about him yet,” General Ziayee said, speaking of the police chief. He added that a search was under way.
The Taliban and common criminals often kidnap officials for ransom.
The taxicab shooting occurred as the driver was trying to take his passengers to get medical care at a nearby military base run by international forces. In addition to the three women and a boy of 5 or 6 who were killed, three other passengers were wounded, according to Mukhles Afghan, a spokesman for the provincial governor in Paktika.
The attempted assassination of the governor of Wardak, Mohammad Halim Fediyee, occurred during a trip that had been announced, leaving his convoy vulnerable.
“We were aware of the planned attack and we had already defused two bombs planted on our way,” said Shahedullah Shahed, a spokesman for the governor who was traveling with him.
He said a Taliban local commander named Ahmadullah and another fighter had planted a new bomb just before the convoy crossed a culvert, detonating it under the first armored vehicle in the convoy. The blast killed four soldiers in the vehicle. [*]
Mr. Shahed said other soldiers managed to capture the two Taliban members as they tried to flee. “This trip was an announced trip, and everybody was waiting for the governor to help them solve their problems,” Mr. Shahed said. “Hundreds of tribal elders and local people were waiting to see the governor.”
An Afghan employee of The New York Times in Khost Province contributed reporting.
Copyright 2010 The New York Times Co

The Taliban Doesn’t Seem Ready to Talk

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/24/weekinreview/24filkins.html
The Taliban Doesn’t Seem Ready to Talk
By DEXTER FILKINS [Afghanistan] [hydra] [began in Afghanistan, but moved to Pakistan] [AfPak] [2009’s substantial pickup in Taliban and other insurgencies] [spring offensive turned into major effort throughout year] [now winter snows are slowing down in typical yearly fashion] [by time snow begins to melt, most of the “surge” will be in place] [use psci 469] [SecDef Gates on SAsia junket; c.f. today’s invidual (yesterdat;s got moved to govt)] [*]
KABUL, Afghanistan — The last time somebody tried to make a deal with the Taliban to end the war in Afghanistan, he didn’t get far.
It was the summer of 2008. King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia asked an intermediary to carry a personal request to Mullah Mohammed Omar, [*]the Taliban leader, according to a diplomat in Kabul with knowledge of the negotiations.
The Saudi king asked Mr. Omar for a signed letter disavowing Al Qaeda, whose leaders, Osama bin Laden and Ayman Al-Zawahiri, are believed to be living in Pakistan under the Taliban’s protection. [*]
“The Taliban never came — and they never brought the letter,” said the diplomat, who

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/24/weekinreview/24filkins.html
The Taliban Doesn’t Seem Ready to Talk
By DEXTER FILKINS [Afghanistan] [hydra] [began in Afghanistan, but moved to Pakistan] [AfPak] [2009’s substantial pickup in Taliban and other insurgencies] [spring offensive turned into major effort throughout year] [now winter snows are slowing down in typical yearly fashion] [by time snow begins to melt, most of the “surge” will be in place] [use psci 469] [SecDef Gates on SAsia junket; c.f. today’s invidual (yesterdat;s got moved to govt)] [*]
KABUL, Afghanistan — The last time somebody tried to make a deal with the Taliban to end the war in Afghanistan, he didn’t get far.
It was the summer of 2008. King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia asked an intermediary to carry a personal request to Mullah Mohammed Omar, [*]the Taliban leader, according to a diplomat in Kabul with knowledge of the negotiations.
The Saudi king asked Mr. Omar for a signed letter disavowing Al Qaeda, whose leaders, Osama bin Laden and Ayman Al-Zawahiri, are believed to be living in Pakistan under the Taliban’s protection. [*]
“The Taliban never came — and they never brought the letter,” said the diplomat, who spoke on condition of anonymity. A former Taliban leader, Arsalan Rahmani, confirmed the diplomat’s account. [*] [humiliated king Abdullah]
Given a history like this, it wasn’t surprising that Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, on a visit to India last week, all but ruled out ever cutting a deal with the Taliban’s leaders. [*]
“It’s our view that until the Taliban leadership sees a change in the momentum and begins to see that they are not going to win,” Mr. Gates said, “the likelihood of significant reconciliation at senior levels is not terribly great.” [to think Mullah Omar is reconcilable strikes me as defying years of actions and behavior?] [he lost Afghan and returned to the mountains to defy the US after 9/11 over same issue—why’d he do it now?] [*]
Well, maybe — and maybe not. This month, the idea of negotiating directly with Taliban leaders surfaced again. In an interview with Tolo television, a private Afghan channel, a spokesman for President Hamid Karzai said the Afghan leader would “probably” ask the United Nations to remove Mr. Omar’s name from a so-called “black list,” [there may be some advantage to this but I don’t know what?] [*] which freezes bank accounts and prohibits travel for those on it.
Striking his name from the black list is believed to be one of the principal preconditions that Mr. Omar has set for agreeing to talk. [*]
A few days later, the president’s spokesman, Waheed Omer, backed away from his earlier remarks. “This matter won’t be discussed at the London conference,” [*]he said, referring to international talks scheduled to start on Thursday.
But in the world of diplomacy, that is not the same thing as saying Mullah Omar’s fate will not be discussed at all. [*]
For weeks, reports have swirled around the capital of back-channel discussions between the Afghan government and the leadership council known as the Quetta Shura, so called for its supposed base in Quetta, Pakistan. [*]
Many of the reports are unconfirmed. But they have ranged from the one about the “black list” to others, including a deal that would give the Taliban a share of power and allow President Karzai to remain in his job. [I cannot imagine that would be anything more than short-term expediency] [Taliban would set about undermining Karzai] [*]
“We have been passing a lot of messages,” said Abdul Salam Zaeef, a former Taliban ambassador who now lives in Kabul. He is one of the principal conduits for getting notes to the Taliban leadership.
That the two sides are talking — about talking — is not really surprising. For all the fighting and dying going on in Afghanistan, American and Afghan leaders believe that they cannot shoot their way to peace. [*]“You can kill Taliban forever because they are not a finite number,” said Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the commander of American and NATO forces here. [when I said tactical advantage above, this is what I meant] [symbolism might be enough to peel off reconcilables (not Omar himself)] [*]
The only way to peace, the Afghan and American officials believe, is through a political settlement — that is, some arrangement for sharing power — that all sides can live with. [*]This is undoubtedly what Mr. Gates meant when he said, on the same trip to Pakistan, that the Taliban were part of the “political fabric” of Afghanistan.
The Taliban and the Afghan government have passed messages before, and to good effect. [history of talking with Talibs] [*] Taliban “shadow governors,” the administrators of the Taliban’s government in the parts of Afghanistan it controls, have offered to travel to the outskirts of Kabul to meet diplomats. “No one would recognize them,” the diplomat in Kabul said.
Last year, Mr. Rahmani, then a deputy education minister in the Taliban government, sent a message to the Taliban asking whether it would allow Unicef workers to administer polio vaccinations in villages across the country. Mr. Rahmani said he wrote the note on a piece of paper and gave it to a messenger in Kabul, who carried it to the shura in Quetta. Mr. Rahmani got his answer — the Taliban promised to back off — and the inoculations went forward. [*]
“I never use a cellphone,” Mr. Rahmani said. “Just paper.” In the past, the discussions about whether to negotiate have foundered over two issues. On one hand, Afghan and American leaders insist that the Taliban accept the Afghan constitution; in effect, that it stop fighting and break with Al Qaeda. For their part, the Taliban have insisted that the Americans withdraw, or set a timetable for withdrawal, before talks can begin. [there’s already a sort of time table] [in Obama’s speech he gave the “surge” limited time to work] [?] [*]
At least theoretically, these two goals are not irreconcilable; President Obama has already announced that he plans to begin to bring the number of American troops down from their peak of about 100,000 in mid-2011. [exactly] [*]
But the real problem, as Mr. Gates suggested, isn’t in the diplomatic parlors; it’s on the battlefield. The Taliban are fighting more vigorously than at any time since 2001. American soldiers and Marines are dying faster than ever — twice the number were killed in 2009 as in 2008. Mr. Karzai, after the epic fraud committed last August to ensure his re-election, appears paralyzed in his dealings with the Afghan parliament. [*]
Under those circumstances, what incentive does the Taliban have to strike a deal? By all indications — as Mr. Gates said — they believe they are winning. [in insurgency, if the insurgents aren’t losing, they are winning] [similarly, if the govt isn’t winning, it’s losing] [*]
Which brings us back to the battlefield. If the Taliban’s leaders can’t be persuaded to quit, perhaps individual groups of fighters can be. [*]
This idea is at the heart of the new Afghan-American plan to coax Taliban fighters away from the fighting. The pillar of the plan is $1 billion to pay for jobs, education and protection for fighters who turn themselves in. Afghan officials have already compiled lists of Taliban commanders, many of whom lead small groups of fighters. [*]
The dispatch of 30,000 additional American troops that President Obama recently ordered is intended for just this purpose: to squeeze the Taliban units on the ground and force them to consider giving up.
Mr. Karzai’s government plans to raise at least some of the $1 billion when he flies to London for the international conference this week.
There are serious doubts about the ability of Afghan leaders to carry out such a plan — Mr. Karzai, after all, has not even managed to persuade Parliament to approve his entire cabinet.
But the plan has certainly captured the Taliban’s attention. After last week’s attack on the Central Bank in downtown Kabul, which left five people dead and 38 wounded, the Taliban’s leaders wanted everyone to know that their foot soldiers weren’t reconciling with anyone. [but that also demonstrates the strategy worried the Talib] [*]
“Nobody from the Taliban side is ready to make any kind of deal,” Zabihullah Mujahid, a spokesman for the Taliban, said in an interview. “The world community and the international forces are trying to buy the Taliban, and that is why we are showing that we are not for sale.”
It’s just possible that in Mr. Mujahid’s voice there was a note of worry. [**]

January 23, 2010

Names of the Dead

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/23/us/23list.html
January 23, 2010
Names of the Dead
[952 KIA] [AfPak] [-ir it’s at 4374] [http://icasualties.org/ ] [all in, some 5500 soon][*]
The Department of Defense has identified 952 American service members who have died as a part of the Afghan war and related operations. It confirmed the deaths of the following Americans this week: …
Copyright 2010 The New York Times Co

[full article above the jump] [*]

Simulators Prepare Soldiers for Explosions of War

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/23/us/23simulator.html
January 23, 2010
Simulators Prepare Soldiers for Explosions of War
By JAMES DAO [Obama white house] [bureaucracy] [defense department, Pentagon, Army and other services] [increasingy use of game-like simulators] [farily intuitive when the US has generations of tomorrow’s officers and troops who grow up on steady diets of video games] [*]
FORT EUSTIS, Va. — A Humvee bumps along a dirt road fringed by mountains, their snowy peaks glinting in the sun. Rifle shots crackle from a rocky bluff, signaling a Taliban ambush. Suddenly an explosion rocks the vehicle, tossing it from side to side before it bounces to an uneasy stop, smoke billowing into the cab.
This is a roadside bombing, Hollywood style. But this is no film set. The Humvee is part of an elaborate simulator that prepares soldiers for one of the most hazardous jobs in Afghanistan today — driving.
Training to defend against the Taliban’s most lethal weapon, the improvised explosive device, or I.E.D., can feel a bit like taking a ride at Disney World these days. Or watching a 3-

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/23/us/23simulator.html
January 23, 2010
Simulators Prepare Soldiers for Explosions of War
By JAMES DAO [Obama white house] [bureaucracy] [defense department, Pentagon, Army and other services] [increasingy use of game-like simulators] [farily intuitive when the US has generations of tomorrow’s officers and troops who grow up on steady diets of video games] [*]
FORT EUSTIS, Va. — A Humvee bumps along a dirt road fringed by mountains, their snowy peaks glinting in the sun. Rifle shots crackle from a rocky bluff, signaling a Taliban ambush. Suddenly an explosion rocks the vehicle, tossing it from side to side before it bounces to an uneasy stop, smoke billowing into the cab.
This is a roadside bombing, Hollywood style. But this is no film set. The Humvee is part of an elaborate simulator that prepares soldiers for one of the most hazardous jobs in Afghanistan today — driving.
Training to defend against the Taliban’s most lethal weapon, the improvised explosive device, or I.E.D., can feel a bit like taking a ride at Disney World these days. Or watching a 3-D movie. Or playing an interactive computer game. [*]
The simulator is just one example of how the Pentagon is trying to harness the high-tech wizardry of the entertainment industry to counter the low-tech bombs, which have killed more American troops in Afghanistan over the last two years than gunfire. [*]
Known as I.E.D. Battle Drill, [*]the system uses amusement-ride hydraulics that can make passengers feel as if they are hitting potholes or buried mines. Screens surrounding the vehicle on three sides display Afghan-like terrain in high-definition video sharp enough to discern rocks on the roadside and leaves on the scrubby bushes.
“This is better than anything I can recreate in the field,” said Maj. Michael Dolge, a Fort Eustis trainer who experienced several bombs attacks in Iraq and Afghanistan. “I think my gunner would have had some unpleasant memories if he rode in it.”
The simulator is just one of several game playing or virtual-reality devices the Defense Department has hustled into operation as I.E.D. casualties have risen. [*]
At Fort Bragg, N.C., and Camp Pendleton, [*]Calif., soldiers and Marines have begun training on a program created by the Institute for Creative Technologies at the University of Southern California that uses fictional video narratives and a multiplayer computer game.
In one video, an insurgent played by an actor demonstrates how I.E.D.’s are built, planted and detonated; in another, an American soldier describes how his team responded to a bomb attack. The session finishes with a 15-minute interactive computer game in which one team tries to avoid getting blown up by the other. [*]
In another application of gaming technology, Defense Department programmers working in a strip mall near Fort Monroe, Va., have taken daily intelligence reports, surveillance data and satellite images from Iraq and Afghanistan to produce computer-generated simulations of the latest I.E.D. tactics and technology. [*]
The high-quality graphics, which can depict Blackhawk helicopters or sandal-shod insurgents, are generated by a commercially available war-gaming software called Virtual Battle Space 2. Completed simulations are then e-mailed to commanders and intelligence officers around the world. [*]
Mark Covey, who oversees the simulations unit, said many officers were initially skeptical about his simulations until someone compared an insurgent video posted on the Internet to one of his productions depicting the same attack. They were virtually identical. [they likely grow up watching many of the same video games?] [*]
The counter-I.E.D. systems are just one part of a broader trend by the military to use virtual reality, 3-D technology and computer game software to train deploying troops and treat combat-scarred veterans.
The firm that helped convert an actor into the creature Gollum in the “Lord of the Rings” trilogy, Motion Reality, has created a 3-D virtual reality training program that simulates small-unit combat missions. [*]
Therapists at several military and veterans hospitals are also using a system known as Virtual Iraq to treat post-traumatic stress disorder. The system, based on a computer game called Full Spectrum Warrior, helps patients to re-imagine, with the help of virtual reality goggles and headphones, the sights and sounds of combat experiences as a way of grappling with trauma.
The effectiveness of the new technology is still being studied. But some critics warn that computer games and virtual reality systems used for training are only as effective as their software, meaning that programs that underestimate the creativity of the enemy may leave even the best-trained troops with a false sense of mastery. [garbage in, garbage out] [but that’s true for all training] [*]
But advocates say the new training systems can be easily updated to reflect changing realities on the ground. And they point to other advantages, including that most systems can be transported to the war front.
Trainers say that the I.E.D. Battle Drill’s greatest benefit may be in teaching soldiers to stay alert for unusual details in the landscape that might signal buried bombs or impending ambushes. Those clues could be as obvious as a speeding truck or as subtle as a pile of rocks. Crews that spot those clues and respond are rewarded by moving onto more complex scenarios. [*]Those who do not get blown up.
“The best way to defeat an I.E.D is to find it,” said Master Sgt. David Richardson, a veteran of Afghanistan and Iraq who now trains soldiers at Fort Eustis.
Getting blown up is also instructive, trainers say, because it gives soldiers a taste of disorientation that might help them recover faster from a real attack. [*]
“The first reaction is to freeze,” said Gary Carlberg, training chief for the Joint IED Defeat Organization, or Jieddo, a Pentagon agency. “But if I can build up your threshold through one or two explosions, you won’t freeze and become a target.” [*]
The simulator grew out of the kind of alliance between the military and the entertainment industry that has become more common since 9/11.
At the behest of Jieddo, Richard Lindheim, a former film studio executive and past director of the Institute for Creative Technologies, recruited a team of experts. Cinematographers invented a high-definition camera capable of seamless 360-degree shots. A veteran sitcom writer plotted the training scenarios. Gaming programmers built those scenarios into videos. And a company that has created rides for Universal Studios and Disney manufactured the equipment.
Mr. Carlberg said: “We’re not going to armor ourselves out of this problem. But if we can, we take the most valuable, flexible resource we have, the human being, and maximize it, that will make a significant difference.” [I just hope somebody is also studying the repercussions of advanced reflexes once they return to the world?] [see the Valley of Elag, for example?] [*]
Andrew W. Lehren contributed reporting from New York.
Copyright 2010 The New York Times Co

Defense Department official sentenced in spy case

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/22/AR2010012204637.html
Defense Department official sentenced in spy case
Saturday, January 23, 2010; A02
DEFENSE DEPT.
Official sentenced to 3 years in spy case
[Obama white house] [bureaucracy] [the always painful realization that the US has spies among us] [China appears to have been the paymaster as it often has in past decade plus] [*]
A Defense Department official convicted on espionage-related charges was sentenced Friday to three years in prison.
James W. Fondren Jr., 62, was convicted in September in U.S. District Court in Alexandria of unlawful communication of classified information by a government employee and lying to the FBI. He was accused of giving classified Defense Department documents to a Chinese government agent, including a report on Chinese military power.
Fondren worked at the Pentagon and until February 2008 was deputy director for the

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/22/AR2010012204637.html
Defense Department official sentenced in spy case
Saturday, January 23, 2010; A02
DEFENSE DEPT.
Official sentenced to 3 years in spy case
[Obama white house] [bureaucracy] [the always painful realization that the US has spies among us] [China appears to have been the paymaster as it often has in past decade plus] [*]
A Defense Department official convicted on espionage-related charges was sentenced Friday to three years in prison.
James W. Fondren Jr., 62, was convicted in September in U.S. District Court in Alexandria of unlawful communication of classified information by a government employee and lying to the FBI. He was accused of giving classified Defense Department documents to a Chinese government agent, including a report on Chinese military power.
Fondren worked at the Pentagon and until February 2008 was deputy director for the Washington Liaison Office of the U.S. Pacific Command.
-- Jerry Markon
JUSTICE DEPT.
ACLU sues to obtain ethics reports
The American Civil Liberties Union sued the Justice Department on Friday to obtain internal ethics reports about lawyers who produced Bush administration-era memos authorizing aggressive interrogation methods. [?], [*]
The department's Office of Professional Responsibility produced the reports while examining possible ethics violations by the memos' authors, Steven Bradbury, John Yoo and Jay Bybee, the ACLU said. All were lawyers in the department's influential Office of Legal Counsel at the time.
The ACLU said in a news release that the public should be told whether the lawyers violated ethics rules in crafting the controversial memos. The Justice Department didn't immediately respond to a request for comment. [*]
-- Del Quentin Wilber
Human error cited in helicopter crash: Human error is to blame for the crash of a Black Hawk helicopter on a Colorado mountain that killed all four crew members in August, the Army said Friday. An investigation found that the helicopter didn't have enough power for the high-altitude landing it was attempting near the summit of 14,421-foot Mount Massive during a training mission. The crew's flight plan didn't take into account the helicopter's performance limits, investigators said.
Civil unions advance: The Hawaii Senate approved same-sex civil unions Friday, sending the measure to the House. The 18 to 7 vote signaled that the Senate's Democratic majority has enough votes to override a possible veto from Republican Gov. Linda Lingle.
California evacuees return: Hundreds of evacuees were allowed Friday to return to their foothill homes as Southern California's week of lightning, vicious downpours and tornadoes dissipated into thunderstorms. The homes had faced possible debris flows from a 250-square-mile area of the San Gabriel Mountains, northeast of Los Angeles, burned bare last summer by wildfire.
-- From news services © 2010 The Washington Post Co

C.I.A. Deaths Prompt Surge in U.S. Drone Strikes

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/23/world/asia/23drone.html
January 23, 2010
C.I.A. Deaths Prompt Surge in U.S. Drone Strikes
By SCOTT SHANE and ERIC SCHMITT [Obama white house] [gsave] [Obama’s NSC team: president-NSC-policymaking model] [NSC and bureaucracy] [NSC and defense, state] [state lays out plan for non kinetic] [note: SecDef Gates in SAsia to meet with army chief Kayani and ISI chief Pasha, as well as Indian counterparts] [I noted yesterday the recent increase: particularly, end of year!!!] [use psci 469] [*]
WASHINGTON — Since the suicide bombing that took the lives of seven Americans in Afghanistan on Dec. 30, the Central Intelligence Agency has struck back against militants in Pakistan with the most intensive series of missile strikes from drone aircraft since the covert program began. [I’m sure that’s part of it] [but the tempo had already increased?] [*]
Beginning the day after the attack on a C.I.A. base in Khost, Afghanistan, the agency has carried out 11 strikes that have killed about 90 people suspected of being militants, [okay, granted, it’s hard to avoid the conclusion the attack on CIA upset the agency] [it also

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/23/world/asia/23drone.html
January 23, 2010
C.I.A. Deaths Prompt Surge in U.S. Drone Strikes
By SCOTT SHANE and ERIC SCHMITT [Obama white house] [gsave] [Obama’s NSC team: president-NSC-policymaking model] [NSC and bureaucracy] [NSC and defense, state] [state lays out plan for non kinetic] [note: SecDef Gates in SAsia to meet with army chief Kayani and ISI chief Pasha, as well as Indian counterparts] [I noted yesterday the recent increase: particularly, end of year!!!] [use psci 469] [*]
WASHINGTON — Since the suicide bombing that took the lives of seven Americans in Afghanistan on Dec. 30, the Central Intelligence Agency has struck back against militants in Pakistan with the most intensive series of missile strikes from drone aircraft since the covert program began. [I’m sure that’s part of it] [but the tempo had already increased?] [*]
Beginning the day after the attack on a C.I.A. base in Khost, Afghanistan, the agency has carried out 11 strikes that have killed about 90 people suspected of being militants, [okay, granted, it’s hard to avoid the conclusion the attack on CIA upset the agency] [it also goes to my observation last year that Obama may have allowed decionmaking level to burror deeper into bowels of bureaucracy!?!] [*] according to Pakistani news reports, which make almost no mention of civilian casualties. The assault has included strikes on a mud fortress in North Waziristan on Jan. 6 that killed 17 people and a volley of missiles on a compound in South Waziristan last Sunday that killed at least 20. [*]
“For the C.I.A., there is certainly an element of wanting to show that they can hit back,” said Bill Roggio, editor of The Long War Journal, an online publication that tracks the C.I.A.’s drone campaign. Mr. Roggio, as well as Pakistani and American intelligence officials, said many of the recent strikes had focused on the Pakistani Taliban and its leader, Hakimullah Mehsud, who claimed responsibility for the Khost bombing. [*]
The Khost attack cost the agency dearly, taking the lives of the most experienced analysts of Al Qaeda whose intelligence helped guide the drone attacks. Yet the agency has responded by redoubling its assault. Drone strikes have come roughly every other day this month, up from about once a week last year and the most furious pace since the drone campaign began in earnest in the summer of 2008. [*]
Pakistan’s announcement on Thursday that its army would delay any new offensives against militants in North Waziristan for 6 to 12 months is likely to increase American reliance on the drone strikes, administration and counterterrorism officials said. By next year, the C.I.A. is expected to more than double its fleet of the latest Reaper aircraft — bigger, faster and more heavily armed than the older Predators — to 14 from 6, [are they not easier to spot?] [*] an Obama administration official said.
Even before the Khost attack, White House officials had made it clear to Dennis C. Blair, the director of national intelligence, and Leon E. Panetta, the C.I.A. director, that they expected significant results from the drone strikes in reducing the threat from Al Qaeda and the Pakistani Taliban, [exactly] [another datum possibly suggesting diffuse decisionmaking level?] [*] according to an administration official and a former senior C.I.A. official with close ties to the White House.
These concerns only heightened after the attempted Dec. 25 bombing of a Detroit-bound airliner. While that plot involved a Nigerian man sent by a Qaeda offshoot in Yemen, [while news commonly reports that, it’s unclear whether was offshoot or some of al Qaeda’s moved infrastructure] [*] intelligence officials say they believe that Al Qaeda’s top leaders in Pakistan have called on affiliates to carry out attacks against the West. “There’s huge pressure from the White House on Blair and Panetta,” [at a time when we know they aren’t working and playing well w/ each other] [*] said the former C.I.A. official, who spoke on condition of anonymity out of concern about angering the White House. “The feeling is, the clock is ticking.” [*] [more evidence of diffused decsion locus?]
After the Khost bombing, intelligence officials vowed that they would retaliate. One angry senior American intelligence official said the C.I.A. would “avenge” the Khost attack. “Some very bad people will eventually have a very bad day,” the official said at the time, speaking on the condition he not be identified describing a classified program.
Today, officials deny that vengeance is driving the increased attacks, though one called the drone strikes “the purest form of self-defense.” [*]
Officials point to other factors. For one, Pakistan recently dropped restrictions on the drone program it had requested last fall to accompany a ground offensive against militants in South Waziristan. And tips on the whereabouts of extremists ebb and flow unpredictably. [while things may well be coincidental, much of it’s caused by Jordanian physician attack] [*]
A C.I.A. spokesman, Paul Gimigliano, declined to comment on the drone strikes. But he said, “The agency’s counterterrorism operations — lawful, aggressive, precise and effective — continue without pause.”
The strikes, carried out from a secret base in Pakistan and controlled by satellite link from C.I.A. headquarters in Virginia, have been expanded by President Obama and praised by both parties in Congress as a potent weapon against terrorism that puts no American lives at risk. That calculation must be revised in light of the Khost bombing, which revealed the critical presence of C.I.A. officers in dangerous territory to direct the strikes.
Some legal scholars have questioned the legitimacy under international law of killings by a civilian agency in a country where the United States is not officially at war. This month, the American Civil Liberties Union filed a request under the Freedom of Information Act for government documents revealing procedures for approving targets and legal justifications for the killings.
Critics have contended that collateral civilian deaths are too high a price to pay. [I guess I’m one who has questioned whether the cost makes sense but for other reasons slightly] [and while I don’t mind being characterized as critic, I have ot exactly criticized but wondered if it makes sense?] [*] Pakistani officials have periodically denounced the strikes as a violation of their nation’s sovereignty, even as they have provided a launching base for the drones.
The increase in drone attacks has caused panic among rank-and-file militants, particularly in North Waziristan, where some now avoid using private vehicles, according to Pakistani intelligence and security officials. Fewer foreign extremists are now in Miram Shah, [sort of belies their eagerness to be martyrs?] [*]North Waziristan’s capital, which was previously awash with them, said local tribesmen and security officials. [the US ought to design public diplomacy—aka propaganda—campaign to highlight how seldom top leaders actually wish to be martyrs?] [they convince young, vulnerable Muslims to do it but rarely endanger themsevels] [**]
Despite the consensus in Washington behind the drone program, some experts are dissenters. John Arquilla, a professor of defense analysis at the Naval Postgraduate School who frequently advises the military, said, “The more the drone campaign works, the more it fails — as increased attacks only make the Pakistanis angrier at the collateral damage and sustained violation of their sovereignty.” [that’s largely what my argument has been, though I have never concluded definitively whether or not the price is too high or the yield too low] [I have simply noted how few al Qaeda leaders have been among the causualties; there were a couple last year but their names were not marquee] [*]
If the United States expands the drone strikes beyond the lawless tribal areas to neighboring Baluchistan, as is under discussion, the backlash “might even spark a social revolution in Pakistan,” Mr. Arquilla said. [**]
So far the reaction in Pakistan to the increased drone strikes has been muted. Last week, Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani of Pakistan told Richard C. Holbrooke, the administration’s senior diplomat for Afghanistan and Pakistan, that the drones undermined the larger war effort. But the issue was not at the top of the agenda as it was a year ago. [*]
Hasan Askari Rizvi, a military analyst in Lahore, said public opposition had been declining because the campaign was viewed as a success. Yet one Pakistani general, who supports the drone strikes as a tactic for keeping militants off balance, questioned the long-term impact. [*]
“Has the situation stabilized in the past two years?” asked the general, speaking on condition of anonymity. “Are the tribal areas more stable?” Yes, he said, Baitullah Mehsud, founder of the Pakistani Taliban, was killed by a missile last August. “But he’s been replaced and the number of fighters is increasing,” the general said. [*]
Sabrina Tavernise contributed reporting from Islamabad, Pakistan, and Ismail Khan from Peshawar.
Copyright 2010 The New York Times Company

Analysis: To Gates, Taliban a 'cancer' but part of Afghan 'political fabric'

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/22/AR2010012204395.html
Analysis: To Gates, Taliban a 'cancer' but part of Afghan 'political fabric'
By Craig Whitlock
Washington Post Foreign Service
Saturday, January 23, 2010; A06 [Obama white house] [gsave] [Obama’s president-NSC-policymaking model] [SecDef Gates in SAsia] [and NSC principal] [NSC policymakers, congressional oversight, and bureaucratic implementation] [cross in role] [use psci 355, 455, 469] [see today’s external for companion news from NYTs] [*]
ISLAMABAD, PAKISTAN -- On his first trip here in three years, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates had a hard time making up his mind about the Taliban.
During a series of speeches and interviews, Gates lumped all Taliban factions into the same category, calling them a "scourge" and a "cancer" that colludes with al-Qaeda and other extremist groups along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. He urged Pakistani leaders to show no mercy to Taliban militias operating in their territory, even ones the country has

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/22/AR2010012204395.html
Analysis: To Gates, Taliban a 'cancer' but part of Afghan 'political fabric'
By Craig Whitlock
Washington Post Foreign Service
Saturday, January 23, 2010; A06 [Obama white house] [gsave] [Obama’s president-NSC-policymaking model] [SecDef Gates in SAsia] [and NSC principal] [NSC policymakers, congressional oversight, and bureaucratic implementation] [cross in role] [use psci 355, 455, 469] [see today’s external for companion news from NYTs] [*]
ISLAMABAD, PAKISTAN -- On his first trip here in three years, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates had a hard time making up his mind about the Taliban.
During a series of speeches and interviews, Gates lumped all Taliban factions into the same category, calling them a "scourge" and a "cancer" that colludes with al-Qaeda and other extremist groups along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. He urged Pakistani leaders to show no mercy to Taliban militias operating in their territory, even ones the country has long regarded as helpful to its interests.
"You can't say one's good and one's not good," he told Pakistan's Express TV. "They're all insidious, and safe havens for all of them need to be eliminated." [*]
But Gates repeatedly said the Taliban is around to stay. He said cutting a deal with some Taliban commanders is the only way to bring a stable government and lasting peace to Afghanistan. [*]
“Political reconciliation ultimately has to be a part of settling the conflict,” he told journalists Friday at the U.S. Embassy in Islamabad. “The Taliban,” he added, “we recognize are part of the political fabric of Afghanistan at this point.”
Gates’s remarks on the Taliban were met with skepticism during his two-day visit.
Pakistan’s chief military spokesman, Maj. Gen. Athar Abbas, told reporters traveling with Gates that it was wrong for the Pentagon chief to lump all groups affiliated with the Taliban under the same banner. Some are fighting for different causes, he said, and pose different threats. “The answer can’t be in black and white.” [*]
Despite U.S. prodding, Abbas also said the Pakistani army had no imminent plans to crack down on Taliban leaders hiding in the border city of Quetta or the tribal area of North Waziristan. He said that the army is embroiled in other counterinsurgency operations and that Pakistani public opinion does not support an expansion of the fight.
Imtiaz Gul, chairman of the Center for Research and Security Studies in Islamabad, said Gates’s comments about the Taliban were unlikely to persuade many Pakistani listeners.
“Herein lies this contradiction and duplicity on the part of U.S. policy,” he said. “Are they a cancer or part of the political fabric? You can’t apply this principle selectively.” [*]
He said that after years of cultivating Islamist groups, Pakistan's military leadership had soured on many of them. But he said Pakistan draws a clear distinction between Taliban fighters who cross the border to fight U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan and those fueling a rebellion at home. [**]
"We shouldn't simplify things the way Mr. Gates tries to put it. Yes, there are connections between these different groups, but they have different motivations," Gul said. "There is a minimum common denominator that binds them together, and that's anti-Americanism."
Gates said the purpose of his trip was to reassure Pakistan's civilian and military leaders about the United States' long-term commitment to the region after a decade of neglect in the 1990s. [*]
In a speech to Pakistani military officers, he said the United States had "largely abandoned Afghanistan" after the Soviet Union ended its occupation in 1989. He also said severing defense ties with Pakistan in the early 1990s, prompted by Islamabad's nuclear testing program, "was a grave strategic mistake."
Gates also said some of the Taliban warlords the United States is pressing Pakistan to crack down on are the same ones whom the CIA and Pakistani intelligence backed against the Soviets in the 1980s, when Gates was deputy director of the agency. [I’ve noted same many times recently, though not of Gates in particular] [rather, I’ve noted that Pakistanis correctly note that US policymakers have been in bed in similar ways with similar characters] [**]
"Frankly, we all had links with various groups that are now a problem for us today," he said in the Pakistani TV interview. "And some have maintained those links longer than others." © 2010 The Washington Post Co

Did the Obama administration blow an opportunity in the Flight 253 case?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/22/AR2010012204349.html
Did the Obama administration blow an opportunity in the Flight 253 case?
Saturday, January 23, 2010; A12 [editorial] [I’ve commented many times already] [it was largely dumb luck] [the plot was disrupted, mostly out of luck] [when such plots get through, often out of luck] [affirmation here?] [use psci 355, 455, 469] [*]
UMAR FAROUK Abdulmutallab was nabbed in Detroit on board Northwest Flight 253 after trying unsuccessfully to ignite explosives sewn into his underwear. The Obama administration had three options: It could charge him in federal court. It could detain him as an enemy belligerent. Or it could hold him for prolonged questioning and later indict him, ensuring that nothing Mr. Abdulmutallab said during questioning was used against

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/22/AR2010012204349.html
Did the Obama administration blow an opportunity in the Flight 253 case?
Saturday, January 23, 2010; A12 [editorial] [I’ve commented many times already] [it was largely dumb luck] [the plot was disrupted, mostly out of luck] [when such plots get through, often out of luck] [affirmation here?] [use psci 355, 455, 469] [*]
UMAR FAROUK Abdulmutallab was nabbed in Detroit on board Northwest Flight 253 after trying unsuccessfully to ignite explosives sewn into his underwear. The Obama administration had three options: It could charge him in federal court. It could detain him as an enemy belligerent. Or it could hold him for prolonged questioning and later indict him, ensuring that nothing Mr. Abdulmutallab said during questioning was used against him in court. [*]
It is now clear that the administration did not give serious thought to anything but Door No. 1. This was myopic, irresponsible and potentially dangerous. [*]
Whether to charge terrorism suspects or hold and interrogate them is a judgment call. We originally supported the administration's decision in the Abdulmutallab case, assuming that it had been made after due consideration. [*]But the decision to try Mr. Abdulmutallab turns out to have resulted not from a deliberative process but as a knee-jerk default to a crime-and-punishment model. [frankly, they seem to be attempting to get in front of something?] [I simply don’t know enough to decide if it was reactive or proactive?] [what do Post editors know that I don’t?] [*]
In testimony Wednesday before the Senate Homeland Security Committee, Director of National Intelligence Dennis C. Blair, Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano, and Michael Leiter, director of the National Counterterrorism Center, all said they were not asked to weigh in on how best to deal with Mr. Abdulmutallab. [true, but hearings are more Kubuki Theater than enlightened interrogation?] [*] Some intelligence officials, including personnel from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, were included in briefings by the Justice Department before Mr. Abdulmutallab was charged. These sessions did provide an opportunity for those attending to debate the merits of detention vs. prosecution. According to sources with knowledge of the discussions, no one questioned the approach or raised the possibility of taking more time to question the suspect. [*] [?]This makes the administration's approach even more worrisome than it would have been had intelligence personnel been cut out of the process altogether. [if accurate, it may well be troubling?] [*]
The fight against an unconventional enemy such as al-Qaeda cannot be waged exclusively or effectively through any single approach. Just as it would be a mistake to view all terrorist acts as law enforcement challenges, so would it be unwise to deal with all such incidents as acts of war. All paths must be seriously considered before a determination is made. [argument is simple and clear] [all resources must be used] [US cannot afford to rely soley on law-enforcement any more than it can rely soley on US-at-war models!] [implicit argument: Bush relied too much on latter while Obama is presently relying too much on former] [**]
The administration claims Mr. Abdulmutallab provided valuable information -- and probably exhausted his knowledge of al-Qaeda operations -- before he clammed up. This was immediately after he was read his Miranda rights and provided with a court-appointed lawyer. The truth is, we may never know whether the administration made the right call or whether it squandered a valuable opportunity. [that’s certainly true] [I cannot help but get sense the Post just did CYA move?] [*]© 2010 The Washington Post Co

A Good Fight

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/23/opinion/23sat3.html
January 23, 2010
Editorial
A Good Fight
[editorial] [the recent US-Sino fracas over internet freedom and hacking] [use psci 355, 455] [*]
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton picked the right battle this week, calling for an end to Internet censorship and naming governments that suppress the free flow of information — including China, Iran, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Vietnam, Tunisia and Uzbekistan. [*]
Her speech, at the Newseum in Washington, had pointed echoes of the cold war, including a warning that “a new information curtain is descending across much of the world.” Anyone who finds that overheated should remember how hard Iran’s government worked to shut down the Web during last summer’s bloody, pro-democracy protests — and the power of the images and words that managed to get through. [CW or even Churchillean?] [*]
Mrs. Clinton also placed the Obama administration squarely on the side of Google in its

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/23/opinion/23sat3.html
January 23, 2010
Editorial
A Good Fight
[editorial] [the recent US-Sino fracas over internet freedom and hacking] [use psci 355, 455] [*]
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton picked the right battle this week, calling for an end to Internet censorship and naming governments that suppress the free flow of information — including China, Iran, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Vietnam, Tunisia and Uzbekistan. [*]
Her speech, at the Newseum in Washington, had pointed echoes of the cold war, including a warning that “a new information curtain is descending across much of the world.” Anyone who finds that overheated should remember how hard Iran’s government worked to shut down the Web during last summer’s bloody, pro-democracy protests — and the power of the images and words that managed to get through. [CW or even Churchillean?] [*]
Mrs. Clinton also placed the Obama administration squarely on the side of Google in its fight with China over Internet censorship and cyberattacks. She called on the Chinese government to conduct a thorough and transparent review of Google’s accusations that Gmail accounts used by Chinese human rights activists had been hacked into from the mainland. And she called on other American companies to challenge “foreign governments’ demands for censorship and surveillance.”
It will take more than just a tough speech to change China’s policies, and more than a tough speech to change the policies of far too many companies that enable Beijing and other repressive governments when they accept censorship as a normal price of doing business.
But there is no doubt that Chinese authorities — which had hoped to play down the fight with Google — are listening and getting nervous. [key was google’s decision no to take it any longer] [once google decided to fight it, US followed] [relatively rare case of SIGs making USFP] [my Vietnamese friends often think it’s common but it’s uncommon] [*]
On Friday, the day after the speech, a spokesman for China’s Foreign Ministry called on the United States “to stop using the so-called Internet freedom question to level baseless accusations.” The spokesman also insisted that “the Chinese Internet is open.” The Chinese people know better. So should China’s government.
Copyright 2010 The New York Times C

Pakista Hesitates, Again

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/23/opinion/23sat1.html
January 23, 2010
Editorial
Pakista Hesitates, Again
[editorial] [Pakistan’s credibility as an ally?] [it’s somewhat moot now as Obama made the call to “surge” in AfPak] [thus, the US is stuck to some extent w/ what it has] [see today’s external and individual for SecDef Gates’ comments] [use psci 355, 455, 469][*]
For years, Pakistan’s leaders denied that extremists — in Pakistan and neighboring Afghanistan — posed a mortal threat to their country. After the Pakistani Taliban got within 60 miles of Islamabad last April they decided that they had no choice but to fight

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/23/opinion/23sat1.html
January 23, 2010
Editorial
Pakista Hesitates, Again
[editorial] [Pakistan’s credibility as an ally?] [it’s somewhat moot now as Obama made the call to “surge” in AfPak] [thus, the US is stuck to some extent w/ what it has] [see today’s external and individual for SecDef Gates’ comments] [use psci 355, 455, 469][*]
For years, Pakistan’s leaders denied that extremists — in Pakistan and neighboring Afghanistan — posed a mortal threat to their country. After the Pakistani Taliban got within 60 miles of Islamabad last April they decided that they had no choice but to fight back. They were right. Unfortunately, their understanding of self-interest seems to stop at a border that the Taliban certainly does not respect. [sadly and counterproductively (is that an adverb?), it’s not so much lack of understanding as it is problematic thinking] [Pakistan continues to see everything through prism of India-Pakistani relations] [they hedge all their bets] [they play with jihadis groups whose principal target is India-Kashmir] [they seem to think when said allies broader target list to include Pakistan and allies, that ISI-army can control them] [time and again, that’s proved a bad thing ot presume] [whether it’s strategic depth (Afghan for retreat against India) or Kashmiri insurgent groups, same problem] [**]
During his visit to Pakistan this week, Defense Secretary Robert Gates pressed Pakistan’s military leaders to open a new front against Afghan militants using Pakistani territory to stage attacks into Afghanistan — and was promptly rebuffed.
Displaying an alarming denial about the nature and urgency of the threat, an Army spokesman said there would be no offensive in the tribal region of North Waziristan — where the Afghan Taliban are based — for at least six months and perhaps as long as 12 months. Given the speed and virulence with which the extremists have spread their hatred and violence in the past year, that’s too long to wait. [*]
To its credit, Pakistan’s Army has mounted big offensives against Pakistani Taliban factions in the Swat Valley and South Waziristan and paid a steep price: losing 2,000 soldiers in battle. [*] [agreed] It may need some time to solidify these gains and prepare a new assault. But that is almost certainly not the real reason behind the delay.
Pakistan’s Army and spy service helped create the Afghan Taliban, and even now they see the group as a proxy force to limit India’s influence in Afghanistan once the Americans leave. That is truly playing with fire. [I’ve made same observation, even using the same metaphor many times in this archive] [*]
Pakistan’s failure to pressure both Taliban groups could doom President Obama’s military and political offensive in Afghanistan — or force him to make good on his threat to go after militants in the Pakistan border region if Islamabad does not. [exactly right] [check my comments in runnup to Dec 1 “surge” announcment where I fretted time and again about same] [*]This is not just America’s fight. As Mr. Gates warned this week, extremist groups on the border are interconnected and determined to destabilize the entire region.
Pakistan cannot afford to give the Afghan Taliban a pass, and Washington must make sure that Islamabad faces up to that reality. Mr. Gates tried to nudge Pakistan when he spoke publicly about how Islamabad cannot “ignore one part of this cancer and pretend it won’t have some impact closer to home.” We hope he was firmer in private. [I’m certain he was but to what effect?] [*]
Mr. Gates and other officials are working hard to persuade Islamabad that the United States will not repeat past mistakes and abandon Pakistan as it did after the Soviets withdrew 20 years ago. [*]
The Obama administration’s decision this week to grant Pakistan’s longstanding request for aerial spy drones (unarmed, at Washington’s insistence) should help bridge the “trust deficit.” [*]Washington must also do more to help lessen tensions between Pakistan and India. That may be the best chance of persuading Islamabad that it can and must focus more of its troops and attention on fighting all of the Taliban.
Copyright 2010 The New York Times Co

Obstacles to Recovery in Haiti May Prove Daunting Beyond Other Disasters

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/23/world/americas/23haiti.html
January 23, 2010
Obstacles to Recovery in Haiti May Prove Daunting Beyond Other Disasters
By RAY RIVERA [Haiti] [always miserable Haiti experiences even more misery] [terrible earthquake with latest Red Cross estimate of 50,000] [US now air dropped supplies due to ruined infrastructure] [followup] [misery compounds misery] [that some efforts originate from DR, demonstrates how much crushing poverty played role] [*]
PORT-AU-PRINCE, Haiti — The relief effort in Haiti could end up being the most difficult, faith-testing recovery from a modern disaster, perhaps even exceeding that from the 2004 Asian tsunami, according to United Nation officials and aid groups with experience in large-

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/23/world/americas/23haiti.html
January 23, 2010
Obstacles to Recovery in Haiti May Prove Daunting Beyond Other Disasters
By RAY RIVERA [Haiti] [always miserable Haiti experiences even more misery] [terrible earthquake with latest Red Cross estimate of 50,000] [US now air dropped supplies due to ruined infrastructure] [followup] [misery compounds misery] [that some efforts originate from DR, demonstrates how much crushing poverty played role] [*]
PORT-AU-PRINCE, Haiti — The relief effort in Haiti could end up being the most difficult, faith-testing recovery from a modern disaster, perhaps even exceeding that from the 2004 Asian tsunami, according to United Nation officials and aid groups with experience in large-scale catastrophes.
Haiti, already the poorest nation in the Western Hemisphere, was barely showing signs of recovery from the 2008 hurricane season when the earthquake flattened its capital, Port-au-Prince, crippling the country’s already weakened transportation and service delivery network.
Local aid groups that would normally help guide international efforts were damaged themselves, while the United Nations lost at least 70 staff members, and 146 more remain unaccounted for.
“You’re talking about a country that pre-earthquake had limited resources and capability, and what resources it did have were concentrated in the capital,” said Kim Bolduc, who is coordinating the relief effort for the United Nations. “This context helps explain why this emergency is probably the most complex in history, more than the tsunami, more than the Pakistan earthquake” of 2005.
The difficulties have confounded aid workers across the country, even those who have dealt with some of world’s worst disasters in recent years. At a first aid tent in the middle of a soccer field where hundreds of people are now living in Jacmel, a coastal city that was among the worst-hit, a French doctor threw his hands in the air.
“I am very, very surprised,” the doctor, François Sarda, a volunteer with Aides Actions Internationales Pompiers, said of the three days it took the aid group to get in and the chaos he found when he finally arrived. The group was forced to fly to Santo Domingo in the Dominican Republic and take a boat from there. “At least in the tsunami we had some infrastructure,” he said.
To help manage the chaos, the United Nations and the United States signed a two-page memorandum of understanding on Friday to formalize their roles and end the tensions that flared earlier in the week. The United Nations had complained about the American military’s handling of flights at the airport here, saying critical deliveries of food from the World Food Program were being unnecessarily delayed.
Under the memorandum, Haiti maintains overall control of the aid and rescue efforts, though the United Nations is in charge of coordinating the work. But the memorandum does not put American soldiers or other personnel under United Nations command. The Americans remain focused on delivering aid, while the United Nations handles peacekeeping.
Still, the United States is known for throwing its considerable weight around in international aid efforts, so it is unclear if the new agreement will solve the earlier problems.
Doctors Without Borders has complained about the American military’s running of the airport. The group has landed some planes, but has had others diverted, forcing it to truck in supplies from the Dominican Republic, according to Marie-Noëlle Rodrigue, deputy director for operations for Doctors Without Borders in Paris.
“It’s a very confusing situation and difficult to understand,” Ms. Rodrigue said. Jason Cone, a spokesman in New York, said much of the confusion involved who was coordinating matters. He said airport access had improved in recent days through direct contact with the Pentagon and the United States Agency for International Development.
Maj. Nathan Miller, with the Air Force’s 23rd Special Tactics Squadron, said that the military was not playing favorites, and that military planes now arrived during off-peak night hours to make more room for international aid flights.
The challenges faced by some Haitian organizations are confounding. Danièle Magloire, a senior director of Fokal, a Haitian human rights organization, began working from an empty room in a friend’s apartment building after her own home and office were damaged. The room still lacks electricity and water, like most buildings in the city. Residents of the neighborhood whose homes were destroyed camp outside on the street.
“We cannot possibly make it alone in the struggle to rebuild,” Ms. Magloire said. “The United Nations, with its immense bureaucracy, cannot make it alone. We need all the help we can get, and we know that it must come from the United States at this critical moment.”
Despite the troubles, the recovery effort is finding better footing by the day. Though rescuers are still hoping to defy the dwindling chances of finding anyone alive in the mountains of rubble 10 days after the earthquake, aid workers are shifting their focus to delivering shelter, water and medical care to hundreds of thousands of injured, hungry and displaced Haitians. They are racing against the approach of the rainy season, which aid groups fear could unleash disease.
United Nations officials said Friday that most surviving supermarkets would reopen next week, and that cellphone service should be fully restored by Saturday, with 40 banks also reopening. Lines for gasoline have also eased, with officials reporting that 30 percent of the city’s gas stations were now operational and that there was no longer a shortage of gasoline.
But problems persist bringing in diesel fuel, hobbling efforts to gear up aid distribution, Edmond Mulet, the chief United Nations official in Haiti, said in a videoconference with reporters.
Although enough food is on hand to reach many more people, only 100,000 received such aid on Thursday because of a lack of trucks and fuel, he said.
“We have the food to be distributed,” he said. “We just don’t have the vehicles.”
The United Nations needs to bring in 10,000 gallons of diesel per day from the Dominican Republic just to keep water trucks circulating, Mr. Mulet said.
Ms. Bolduc is coordinating the humanitarian efforts, but how many aid groups are now roaming the country is anybody’s guess, she said. About 375 have registered with her office, but she says she believes that there are many more that have found their own way into the country and are providing relief.
American rescue teams were among the first to experience the knot of troubles. Usually, when they set down in a country after a natural disaster, the local government has already identified buildings where there are known survivors so they can race to the scene. But here, without government input, they had to drive through the city themselves, making snap assessments about where survivors were likely to be found.
They had trouble getting their equipment; its arrival at the airport was delayed for several days. Then they faced a shortage of vehicles, gas and drivers at the United States Embassy.
“We have zero infrastructure here,” said Louie Fernandez, one of 80 rescuers from Miami-Dade County in Florida. “What are you supposed to do?”
Despite the monumental obstacles that must be overcome, Ms. Bolduc said, “It’s not mission impossible, if all the players work together.”
Reporting was contributed by Damien Cave and Simon Romero from Port-au-Prince, Neil MacFarquhar from the United Nations, and Doreen Carvajal from Paris.
Copyright 2010 The New York Times C

Boat Carrying 124 Refugees Lands on Corsica

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/23/world/europe/23corsica.html
January 23, 2010
Boat Carrying 124 Refugees Lands on Corsica
By STEVEN ERLANGER [France] [?] [Mediteranean regions & ilands] [just west of Italy] [Corsica] [reputed home of criminal syndicates, etc] [Euro’s substantial and varied immigration challenges] [another boatload of refugees] [BTW, when did boatload become collection noun?] [followup] [summer 2006 experience?] [use psci 350?] [*]
PARIS — A boatload of 124 refugees, many of them apparently Kurds from Syria, was discovered Friday morning on a beach in southern Corsica, the local police said. It was the first time that illegal immigrants were able to land on the island, a part of France, and they were put there sometime Thursday night or even before, presumably by smugglers, the police said.
Such landings are common on Italian islands well to the south but are rare for France. The group — which includes 38 children (9 of them nursing), 5 pregnant women and a disabled person — was transferred by authorities to a gymnasium in the nearby town of Bonifacio, [*] where the migrants were fed and were examined by doctors and the Red Cross, according

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/23/world/europe/23corsica.html
January 23, 2010
Boat Carrying 124 Refugees Lands on Corsica
By STEVEN ERLANGER [France] [?] [Mediteranean regions & ilands] [just west of Italy] [Corsica] [reputed home of criminal syndicates, etc] [Euro’s substantial and varied immigration challenges] [another boatload of refugees] [BTW, when did boatload become collection noun?] [followup] [summer 2006 experience?] [use psci 350?] [*]
PARIS — A boatload of 124 refugees, many of them apparently Kurds from Syria, was discovered Friday morning on a beach in southern Corsica, the local police said. It was the first time that illegal immigrants were able to land on the island, a part of France, and they were put there sometime Thursday night or even before, presumably by smugglers, the police said.
Such landings are common on Italian islands well to the south but are rare for France. The group — which includes 38 children (9 of them nursing), 5 pregnant women and a disabled person — was transferred by authorities to a gymnasium in the nearby town of Bonifacio, [*] where the migrants were fed and were examined by doctors and the Red Cross, according to the local police prefecture. Local authorities also provided clothes, toys and cigarettes, while beds were provided from a local air base.
Interpreters were sent to talk to the refugees, who were without papers. The police said the trip apparently began in Tunisia. [*]
The French minister for immigration, Éric Besson, said in a statement that some of the migrants identified themselves as Kurds from Syria, where they are often discriminated against, and that others were from North Africa. He told reporters that a suspicious boat had since been spotted in international waters and that it was to be stopped by Italian authorities. [*]
Jean-Jacques Casalot, a police officer, told French television, “We were obviously quite surprised to see these Kurds reach Corsica, because generally they appear on the Italian coast.”
Helicopters and ships were patrolling near the island in cooperation with Italian authorities to look for other trafficking vessels or groups of refugees.
Mr. Besson urged that European Union ministers meet soon to discuss the flow of illegal immigrants and how to better control borders and coasts, including joint maritime patrols. France and Italy want uniform rules for migrants, but some countries in the union have different legal positions on immigration and refugee status.
“We cannot let the Mediterranean fall into the hands of human traffickers,” Mr. Besson said. [*]
In February 2001, more than 900 Kurds landed on France’s Côte d’Azur when a people-trafficking ship washed ashore. [*]
Copyright 2010 The New York Times Co

Local Vote Could Decide Japan Base Issue

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/23/world/asia/23japan.html
January 23, 2010
Local Vote Could Decide Japan Base Issue
By MARTIN FACKLER [Japan] [Tokyo] [use ir text] [followup] [Democratic Party (as opposed to Liberal Democratic Party) has vacillated between notions of doing things considerably different including relations with US to “hey US (wink, nod) don’t fret because we too know how important the relationship is”] [followup] [the drama continues] [use psci 350?] [*]
TOKYO — Few Americans have ever heard of Yoshikazu Shimabukuro or Susumu Inamine, or even the tiny Okinawan city of Nago, where the two men are candidates in a heated race for mayor.
But this seemingly minor election could, in an indirect way, have major consequences for the United States’ ties with Japan, Washington’s most important Asian ally. Depending on the outcome, political experts say, the vote on Sunday could widen a diplomatic rift with Japan,

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/23/world/asia/23japan.html
January 23, 2010
Local Vote Could Decide Japan Base Issue
By MARTIN FACKLER [Japan] [Tokyo] [use ir text] [followup] [Democratic Party (as opposed to Liberal Democratic Party) has vacillated between notions of doing things considerably different including relations with US to “hey US (wink, nod) don’t fret because we too know how important the relationship is”] [followup] [the drama continues] [use psci 350?] [*]
TOKYO — Few Americans have ever heard of Yoshikazu Shimabukuro or Susumu Inamine, or even the tiny Okinawan city of Nago, where the two men are candidates in a heated race for mayor.
But this seemingly minor election could, in an indirect way, have major consequences for the United States’ ties with Japan, Washington’s most important Asian ally. Depending on the outcome, political experts say, the vote on Sunday could widen a diplomatic rift with Japan, and possibly even add to pressure to reduce the 50,000 American military personnel stationed in the country. [*]
Nago is where the United States and Japan agreed four years ago to relocate a busy Marine helicopter base in a controversial deal that took a decade to complete — largely because it was so hard to find a community that was willing to accept the Americans. [*]
Now Nago, a city of 60,000, may be about to reconsider its acceptance of the base, with its runways built on landfill in pristine turquoise waters near Henoko, a sleepy fishing village administered by Nago. The question of whether to reject the 2006 deal has emerged as the dominant issue in Sunday’s vote, which pits the pro-base incumbent, Mr. Shimabukuro, 63, against Mr. Inamine, 64, the chairman of the city’s education board, who opposes the base.
In Tokyo, the election is being closely watched as a crucial referendum on the 2006 deal that could sway the new prime minister, Yukio Hatoyama, who has yet to state clearly whether he supports or opposes the plan. Mr. Hatoyama has raised the ire of the Obama administration by putting off the relocation issue until May, when he will decide whether to support it or name a new site for the base.
Mr. Hatoyama is caught between the demands from Washington that he honor the agreement and domestic pressure to make good on his campaign promises to review the deal. But Mr. Hatoyama has said he will heed voters on Okinawa, who overwhelmingly backed his party in last summer’s historic national election, which ended the half-century leadership of the Liberal Democrats. Sunday’s election in Nago is widely seen as an important barometer of public opinion on the island. [*]
An equally large problem, political experts say, is the fact that Nago was the only community that Tokyo could persuade to take the base, the sprawling Marine Corps Air Station Futenma, now situated in the middle of a crowded Okinawan city, Ginowan. Losing Nago as an option leaves few realistic alternatives, analysts say. These could include merging the Marine base with a nearby Air Force base, or moving it off Okinawa altogether, most likely to Guam — options that have been resisted by Washington.
“If Mr. Inamine wins, it becomes very hard to do the current plan,” said Takashi Kawakami, a professor specializing in security issues at Takushoku University in Tokyo. “It will feed calls for moving the base out of Okinawa or out of Japan.” [keep ear open for results] [*]
In Nago, current popular acceptance of the base stands on a fragile consensus that it will bring much-needed jobs and investment. But last summer’s election victory by Mr. Hatoyama’s Democrats stirred up hopes for a reduction in the military burden for Okinawa, the southern island where many of the American military personnel in Japan are located.
A group of antiwar and environmental protesters has erected a large tent on the beach at Henoko to stage a continuing sit-in against the planned base, which they say would destroy one of the last habitats of the endangered dugong, a large sea mammal related to the manatee.
These sentiments have helped give Mr. Inamine, the anti-base challenger, a slight lead in recent polls by local newspapers. Another factor, revealed in interviews late last year with Nago residents, is a growing irritation with the constant delays in construction, and the stress this has caused their community.
“The base has divided our community, and even families have been split,” said Shoji Gishitomi, 35, a fisherman in Henoko. “We want to get this past us, one way or the other.”
Indeed, political experts and local residents agree that Mr. Hatoyama’s decision to delay action on the base, apparently made out of a desire to find a solution to please both Washington and Okinawa, may end up only angering both.
“The United States doesn’t know if it can trust Hatoyama or not,” said Hiroshi Ashitomi, one of the protesters staging the sit-in in Henoko, “and neither do we Okinawans.”
Copyright 2010 The New York Times Co

China Rebuffs Clinton on Internet Warning

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/23/world/asia/23diplo.html
January 23, 2010
China Rebuffs Clinton on Internet Warning
By EDWARD WONG [China] [PRC] [China’s response to recent Obama administration decision of demarche over China’s putative hacking] [US-Sino relations] [China is exceptionally sensitive about what it perceives as great-power meddling; stickler for protection of its own sovereignty] [China ethos] [use psci 350] [use ir text] [hopefully, Obama admin will take opportunity to remind China that hacking US computers also “harms” ties?] [followup] [c.f., today’s societal where NYTs editorial] [*]
BEIJING — The Chinese Foreign Ministry lashed out Friday against criticism of China in a speech on Internet censorship made by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, calling on the United States government “to respect the truth and to stop using the so-called Internet freedom question to level baseless accusations.” [*]
Ma Zhaoxu, a Foreign Ministry spokesman, said in a written statement posted Friday

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/23/world/asia/23diplo.html
January 23, 2010
China Rebuffs Clinton on Internet Warning
By EDWARD WONG [China] [PRC] [China’s response to recent Obama administration decision of demarche over China’s putative hacking] [US-Sino relations] [China is exceptionally sensitive about what it perceives as great-power meddling; stickler for protection of its own sovereignty] [China ethos] [use psci 350] [use ir text] [hopefully, Obama admin will take opportunity to remind China that hacking US computers also “harms” ties?] [followup] [c.f., today’s societal where NYTs editorial] [*]
BEIJING — The Chinese Foreign Ministry lashed out Friday against criticism of China in a speech on Internet censorship made by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, calling on the United States government “to respect the truth and to stop using the so-called Internet freedom question to level baseless accusations.” [*]
Ma Zhaoxu, a Foreign Ministry spokesman, said in a written statement posted Friday afternoon on the ministry’s Web site that the criticism leveled by Mrs. Clinton on Thursday was “harmful to Sino-American relations.”
“The Chinese Internet is open,” he said.
The statement by the Foreign Ministry, along with a scathing editorial in the English-language edition of The Global Times, a populist, patriotic newspaper, signaled that China was ready to wrestle politically with the United States in the debate over Internet censorship. [not uncommon for China to lash out at almost any criticism] [sensitivity to questions of Han chavinism or challenges to Party’s control of China’s sovereignty is exceptionally high] [*]
President Obama promised last year to start a more conciliatory era in United States-China relations, pushing human rights issues to the background, but the new criticism of China’s Internet censorship and rising tensions over currency valuation and Taiwan arms sales indicate that animus could flare in the months ahead.
Mrs. Clinton’s sweeping speech with its cold war undertones — likening the information curtain to the Iron Curtain — criticized several countries by name, including China, for Internet censorship. It was the first speech in which a top administration official offered a vision for making Internet freedom an integral part of foreign policy. [I think a line of sorts needed to be drawn] [now it has beebn] [*]
The debate over Internet censorship was brought to the fore in China last week when Google announced it might shut down its Chinese-language search engine, Google.cn, and curtail its other operations in mainland China if Chinese officials did not back down from requiring Google to censor search results.
Until now, the Chinese government had been trying to frame the dispute with Google as a commercial matter, perhaps because officials want to avoid having the dispute become a referendum on Internet censorship policies among Chinese liberals and foreign companies operating in China. On Thursday, He Yafei, a vice foreign minister, had said the Google dispute should not be “over-interpreted” or linked to the bilateral relationship with the United States, according to Xinhua, the official state news agency. [*]
But in the aftermath of Mrs. Clinton’s speech, that attitude could be changing. Mrs. Clinton pointedly said that “a new information curtain is descending across much of the world” and identified China as one of a handful of countries that had stepped up Internet censorship in the past year. [*](Starting in late 2008, the Chinese government shut down thousands of Web sites under the pretext of an antipornography campaign.) She also praised American companies such as Google that are “making the issue of Internet and information freedom a greater consideration in their business decisions.”
The State Department had invited at least two prominent Chinese bloggers to travel to Washington for Mrs. Clinton’s speech, and on Friday the United States Embassy here invited bloggers, mostly liberals, to attend a briefing on Internet issues. [I’m not sure that’s necessary?] [usually, the US can draw line then move on with little response to China’s initial overreaction] [that’s worked for couple decades, at least since Tiananmin Sq.] [*]
A White House spokesman, Bill Burton, said Friday that “all we are looking for from China are some answers.”
In its editorial, the English-language edition of The Global Times said Mrs. Clinton “had raised the stakes in Washington’s clash with Beijing over Internet freedom.”
The American demand for an unfettered Internet was a form of “information imperialism,” [evertying the US does is imperialism in China’s press] [*] the newspaper said, because less developed nations cannot possibly compete with Western countries in the arena of information flow.
“The U.S. campaign for uncensored and free flow of information on an unrestricted Internet is a disguised attempt to impose its values on other cultures in the name of democracy,” [*] the newspaper said, adding that the “U.S. government’s ideological imposition is unacceptable and, for that reason, will not be allowed to succeed.”
Articles on the Chinese-language Web site of The Global Times asserted that the United States employs the Internet as a weapon to achieve worldwide hegemony.
One big question is whether ordinary Chinese will, to any large degree, accept China’s arguments justifying Internet censorship. Although urban, middle-class Chinese often support government policies on sovereignty issues such as Tibet or Taiwan, they generally deride media censorship. That feeling is especially pronounced among those who call themselves netizens. China has the most Internet users of any country, some 384 million by official count, but also the most complex system of Internet censorship, nicknamed the Great Firewall.
Except in the western region of Xinjiang, which is only starting to restore Internet access after cutting service off entirely after ethnic riots in July, canny netizens across China use software to get over the Great Firewall while chafing at the controls. [*]
Jonathan Ansfield and Xiyun Yang contributed reporting.
Copyright 2010 The New York Times Co

Study Points to Disease as Main Killer in Darfur

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/23/world/africa/23darfur.html
January 23, 2010
Study Points to Disease as Main Killer in Darfur
By DONALD G. McNEIL Jr. [Sudan] [Middle East proper, though also Horn of Africa] [northern Africa] [proximity to Arabian peninsula and Islamic Maghreb] [after relatively substantial respite, fighting between southern insurgency and Khartoum-backed forces again] [thinktank study argues disease more than violence?] [NGO conducted but US and UK paid for same] [*]
With violence in Darfur in an extended lull, a new study assessing dozens of mortality estimates for the six years of fighting there has concluded that about 300,000 people died, but that disease, rather than violence, killed at least 80 percent of them.
That was not true at first, the study said. Violence, it said, was the main cause in 2004, the year after the rebellion in the Darfur region of western Sudan began, setting off a brutal

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/23/world/africa/23darfur.html
January 23, 2010
Study Points to Disease as Main Killer in Darfur
By DONALD G. McNEIL Jr. [Sudan] [Middle East proper, though also Horn of Africa] [northern Africa] [proximity to Arabian peninsula and Islamic Maghreb] [after relatively substantial respite, fighting between southern insurgency and Khartoum-backed forces again] [thinktank study argues disease more than violence?] [NGO conducted but US and UK paid for same] [*]
With violence in Darfur in an extended lull, a new study assessing dozens of mortality estimates for the six years of fighting there has concluded that about 300,000 people died, but that disease, rather than violence, killed at least 80 percent of them.
That was not true at first, the study said. Violence, it said, was the main cause in 2004, the year after the rebellion in the Darfur region of western Sudan began, setting off a brutal repression by janjaweed militias burning down villages and government jets flying bombing runs. [*]
But far more people fled before the marauders than were hacked or shot to death by them, and 2.7 million ended up in camps for displaced people. While some fell prey to bandits who waylaid them as they fetched water and wood, far more died of diarrhea spread by filthy water, pneumonia picked up in swirls of desert dust and fire smoke, malaria carried into their tents by mosquitoes and other maladies from years of rough living.
The new study was done by researchers at the Center for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters at the Catholic University of Louvain in Brussels, paid for by the State Department and the British Department for International Development, and published Friday by the medical journal The Lancet. [*]
The researchers assessed 107 previous mortality estimates, picked 63 that met their accuracy criteria and combined them.
Darfur is so vast, and the fighting lasted so long, that the mortality experts could never just count bodies and extrapolate, a common technique for battlefield deaths. Instead, their estimates relied on family interviews about when and how various members died, with comparisons to death rates in other parts of Sudan, which even in peacetime has high infant mortality rates. [*]
A statistical expert said the new study’s conclusions seemed sound. “What they did seems reasonable to me,” said Donald A. Berry, head of the division of quantitative sciences at the University of Texas cancer center. The researchers’ midpoint was 300,000, from a range between 180,000 and 460,000, “and that sort of hangs together as a reasonable conclusion to the story,” he said. [*]
Over the years, regular arguments have erupted over how many were dying in Darfur. In 2006, a panel of 12 experts convened by the Government Accountability Office in Washington concluded that the most reliable of several early estimates was 131,000 “excess deaths” as of mid-2005. [*](That estimate was also done by the Brussels center that did this Lancet study.)
In 2007, the Save Darfur Coalition took out advertisements saying “400,000 innocent men, women and children have been killed.” It was accused of exaggerating the atrocities of the Khartoum government by doubling more widely accepted estimates, and the British advertising authority ordered the group to amend the advertisements to present the death toll as opinion rather than fact. [*]
Violence and disease have waxed and waned. For example, in late 2006, the government resumed bombing and rebel groups began fighting among themselves. World Food Program handouts were cut in half when money ran out that year. Also, the government has periodically expelled humanitarian agencies, a move that would probably increase disease deaths.
Copyright 2010 The New York Times Co

Canada, U.S. beef up security for the winter Olympic Games in Vancouver

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/22/AR2010012204634.html
Canada, U.S. beef up security for the winter Olympic Games in Vancouver
By Spencer S. Hsu
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, January 23, 2010; A02 [Canada] [NAmerica] [unrest some months ago in montreal] [before that, Canada’s participation in US renditions early after 9/11] [before that, Afghanistan] [followup] [amid all [preceding noise, Canada and US fret over Olympic threats!] [use psci469b] [recent Greece Olyimpics I expected an attack; that al Qaeda &/or affiliate didn’t mostly meant they couldn’t] [cross in govt] [but 2009 has seen increase tempo???] [*]
As Canada braces for a nearly $1 billion effort to secure next month's Winter Olympics in Vancouver, B.C., American eyes also will be scanning the land, sky and seas from south of the border, 30 miles away. [target is just too tempting for jihadis to pass up unless they simply cannot effect same?] [*]
Numerous ships and planes, hundreds of Coast Guard, police and military personnel, and

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/22/AR2010012204634.html
Canada, U.S. beef up security for the winter Olympic Games in Vancouver
By Spencer S. Hsu
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, January 23, 2010; A02 [Canada] [NAmerica] [unrest some months ago in montreal] [before that, Canada’s participation in US renditions early after 9/11] [before that, Afghanistan] [followup] [amid all [preceding noise, Canada and US fret over Olympic threats!] [use psci469b] [recent Greece Olyimpics I expected an attack; that al Qaeda &/or affiliate didn’t mostly meant they couldn’t] [cross in govt] [but 2009 has seen increase tempo???] [*]
As Canada braces for a nearly $1 billion effort to secure next month's Winter Olympics in Vancouver, B.C., American eyes also will be scanning the land, sky and seas from south of the border, 30 miles away. [target is just too tempting for jihadis to pass up unless they simply cannot effect same?] [*]
Numerous ships and planes, hundreds of Coast Guard, police and military personnel, and several U.S. diplomatic and border security teams will be at work when the Olympic cauldron is lighted at Vancouver's B.C. Place, watching for threats ranging from terrorism to a major oil spills. [US has increased UAVs on border too] [*]
U.S. officials say their security presence for the Games will be understated and in support of Canadian forces, but the Games, which begin Feb. 12, will nevertheless mark the largest-ever test [*]of North American security coordination for a major border event.
"In terms of hosting the Games, they are Canada's Games," said Rep. Rick Larsen (D-Wash.), co-chairman of a Washington state Olympics task force. "But the fact of the matter is security of the Games has to extend beyond the Canadian border; it's not just going to start and end at the 49th parallel. We have to take care of things on our side."[*]
Olympic security has been a concern since 11 Israeli athletes and coaches were killed in Munich in 1972, and two people died in a bomb blast in Atlanta in 1996. Radicals fired three rockets at a Tokyo airport days before the Nagano, Japan, 1998 Games, [*]and Italian authorities cited several credible threats before the winter 2006 event in Turin. [*]
Vancouver poses unique challenges. In December 1999, so-called Millennium bomber Ahmed Ressam was caught entering the United States on a ferry from Vancouver Island, bound for Los Angeles with a truckload of explosives. [history, including Millenium 1999] [*] Vancouver, with a population of 2.1 million, is also the largest city to host a Winter Olympics, the first seaside Canadian city to do so and the first Games since waterborne terrorists staged a commando-style raid on Mumbai in November 2008. [*]
The area also is home to four ports -- including Canada's largest -- major oil and energy installations and links that sustain $600 billion in annual United States-Canada trade. [I suppose the question is why Canada bid for Olympics there?] [*]
At least six Coast Guard cutters, from 87-foot patrol boats to 378-foot ocean-worthy vessels, will conduct coastal surveillance and port security operations along nearly 1,000 miles of U.S. shoreline off the Georgia Strait, which connects Vancouver to the Pacific Ocean, officials said.
A Coast Guard emergency interdiction team, three Navy frigates and an A-6 Intruder all-weather surveillance aircraft, among others, will be available to watch vessels on or under the water. [*]
On the ground, U.S. staffing at four border checkpoints has been boosted 20 percent over the past 18 months to accommodate the predicted, summer-like flow of up to 45,000 cars a day, twice the amount [*]of regular winter traffic. State Department diplomatic security teams will protect athletes, while U.S. and Canadian authorities will check travelers against watch lists at the Vancouver and Seattle-Tacoma airports and border crossings.
As usual, Canadian and U.S. partners in the North American air defense system will be at the ready, with F-16 fighters at nearby McChord Air Force Base and personnel on duty at the U.S. military's Northern Command's Western Air Defense Sector. [much good it did on 9/11?] [*]
U.S. Transportation Security Administration officers will help Canadian counterparts secure two restricted flight zones over Vancouver and Whistler, B.C., totaling 4,000 square miles.
"It's certainly a multidimensional operation by sea, land and air that takes full advantage of strong cross-border relationships," said Canadian Forces Maj. Dan Thomas, a spokesman for Operation Podium, the military's contribution to the security effort.
Royal Canadian Mounted Police -- the lead agency behind a Canadian security operation that will include 15,000 troops, police and contract personnel -- has said the threat level for the Games is low. [based on what?] [*]In October, U.S. federal law enforcement and domestic security officials issued an advisory about No2010.com, an anti-globalization group that has described arson and vandalism as a part of its anti-Olympics resistance.
Nevertheless, the Canadians appear to be taking few risks. At $900 million, the security budget has grown five-fold from their initial estimate. Canadian taxpayers have contributed another $580 million for construction, and the non-government-funded operations budget for the Games is $1.8 billion. [*] [they’re saying one thing but prepping for another?]
Plans call for housing 4,000 security personnel aboard three cruise ships in Vancouver Harbor. At least five naval vessels will monitor a dizzying mix of ferries, seaplanes, container ships, helicopters and yachts, officials said. [*]
U.S. officials are wary of touting their role, which is expected to cost more than the $16 million spent for Turin, but far less than the $400 million spent for the 2002 Salt Lake City Games. [*]
Canada is "always a little bit nervous or edgy about Americans becoming too involved in something that's really a Canadian event . . . and the Americans recognize that Canadians are sensitive about this stuff," [*]said Donald Alper, director of the Border Policy Research Institute at Western Washington University in Bellingham.
Still, the United States has committed $4.5 million to build an Olympic Coordination Center in Bellingham, and has used the 2010 Olympics to test other projects, including maritime security technology. [*]
The upcoming Games spurred a $75 million expansion of the Peace Arch border crossing, widening Interstate 5 by two lanes and doubling to 40 the number of secondary inspection lanes on the third busiest U.S.-Canada crossing. Washington State has introduced more secure driver's licenses that serve as a North American passport, used by 140,000 people, whose radio tags can be read by machines at border checkpoints. © 2010 The Washington Post Co

Israel: U.N. Is Paid for Damage in Gaza

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/23/world/middleeast/23briefs-israel.html
January 23, 2010
World Briefing | Europe
Israel: U.N. Is Paid for Damage in Gaza
By NEIL MacFARQUHAR [Israeli-Palestinian conflict] [Dec 2008 Gaza campaign] [Israelis obliterated much of what was in their way] [followup] [alas, it included 1300 Gazans (many if not most noncombatants?), NGOs’ and UN’s infrastructure in Gaza] [Israel has now settled] [many Americans would likely be angry if they knew that the US just paid off UN for acts Israel took against US will?!? Boggles the mind a bit?] [*]
Israel paid the United Nations $10.5 million in compensation for damage to United Nations facilities in the Gaza Strip during the three-week Israeli assault on the territory last winter, said Martin Nesirky, the spokesman for the secretary general. Israel did not accept legal responsibility for the seven events covered by the agreement with the United Nations, the

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/23/world/middleeast/23briefs-israel.html
January 23, 2010
World Briefing | Europe
Israel: U.N. Is Paid for Damage in Gaza
By NEIL MacFARQUHAR [Israeli-Palestinian conflict] [Dec 2008 Gaza campaign] [Israelis obliterated much of what was in their way] [followup] [alas, it included 1300 Gazans (many if not most noncombatants?), NGOs’ and UN’s infrastructure in Gaza] [Israel has now settled] [many Americans would likely be angry if they knew that the US just paid off UN for acts Israel took against US will?!? Boggles the mind a bit?] [*]
Israel paid the United Nations $10.5 million in compensation for damage to United Nations facilities in the Gaza Strip during the three-week Israeli assault on the territory last winter, said Martin Nesirky, the spokesman for the secretary general. Israel did not accept legal responsibility for the seven events covered by the agreement with the United Nations, the spokesman said. “The money will not itself repair the buildings and facilities damaged,” said Mr. Nesirky, noting that cement and other building materials cannot get through Israel’s blockade of the territory.
Copyright 2010 The New York Times Co

West Bank: Envoy Urges Palestinians to Resume Negotiations With Israelis

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/23/world/middleeast/23briefs-Westbank.html
January 23, 2010
World Briefing | Middle East
West Bank: Envoy Urges Palestinians to Resume Negotiations With Israelis
By REUTERS [Israeli-Palestinian conflict] [West Bank (aka Fatahstine)] [perpetual tit-for-tat violence] [it takes small accretion to start a new round?] [Mitchell attempts to get negotiations started again] [followup] [cross in govt] [*]
The United States envoy George J. Mitchell told Palestinian leaders on Friday that they had to resume talks with Israel if they wanted American help to achieve a peace treaty that would end Israeli occupation and create a Palestinian state, [*]said the chief Palestinian negotiator, Saeb Erekat. “We do not share a common point of view on this issue,” [I think PA is making stand on Obama’s request to Israelis on settlements] [probably a mistake] [*]said Mr.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/23/world/middleeast/23briefs-Westbank.html
January 23, 2010
World Briefing | Middle East
West Bank: Envoy Urges Palestinians to Resume Negotiations With Israelis
By REUTERS [Israeli-Palestinian conflict] [West Bank (aka Fatahstine)] [perpetual tit-for-tat violence] [it takes small accretion to start a new round?] [Mitchell attempts to get negotiations started again] [followup] [cross in govt] [*]
The United States envoy George J. Mitchell told Palestinian leaders on Friday that they had to resume talks with Israel if they wanted American help to achieve a peace treaty that would end Israeli occupation and create a Palestinian state, [*]said the chief Palestinian negotiator, Saeb Erekat. “We do not share a common point of view on this issue,” [I think PA is making stand on Obama’s request to Israelis on settlements] [probably a mistake] [*]said Mr. Erekat, left, blaming the Israeli government’s refusal to freeze Jewish settlements around Jerusalem for the deadlock. [they can blame Israel for deadlock] [or they can use opportunities for negotiations] [but can’t do both effectively?] [*]“We want the resumption of negotiations. We are not obstructing negotiations.” Mr. Mitchell left the meeting without comment.
Copyright 2010 The New York Times C

Hezbollah's relocation of rocket sites to Lebanon's interior poses wider threat

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/22/AR2010012204494.html
Hezbollah's relocation of rocket sites to Lebanon's interior poses wider threat
By Howard Schneider
Washington Post Foreign Service
Saturday, January 23, 2010; A06 [Lebanon] [Israeli- Palestinian conflict] [Hezbollah (they have controlled south for sometime) poses strategic threat to Israel] [Hezbollah is Shi’a transnational (mostly in Lebanon) with strong links to Tehran—more or less controlled through Tehran] [Mr. Hariri seems a clever prime minister, rather like his father (look where that got his father!)] [but has tendency to be too clever by at least half] [the system seems stalemated] [why has Hezbollah moved some infrastructure—vital to both summer 06 and Dec 08 wars—into Bekaa?] [Syria traditionally controlled Bekaa?] [*]
BEIRUT -- Hezbollah has dispersed its long-range-rocket sites deep into northern Lebanon and the Bekaa Valley, a move that analysts say threatens to broaden any future conflict between the Islamist movement and Israel into a war between the two countries. [*]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/22/AR2010012204494.html
Hezbollah's relocation of rocket sites to Lebanon's interior poses wider threat
By Howard Schneider
Washington Post Foreign Service
Saturday, January 23, 2010; A06 [Lebanon] [Israeli- Palestinian conflict] [Hezbollah (they have controlled south for sometime) poses strategic threat to Israel] [Hezbollah is Shi’a transnational (mostly in Lebanon) with strong links to Tehran—more or less controlled through Tehran] [Mr. Hariri seems a clever prime minister, rather like his father (look where that got his father!)] [but has tendency to be too clever by at least half] [the system seems stalemated] [why has Hezbollah moved some infrastructure—vital to both summer 06 and Dec 08 wars—into Bekaa?] [Syria traditionally controlled Bekaa?] [*]
BEIRUT -- Hezbollah has dispersed its long-range-rocket sites deep into northern Lebanon and the Bekaa Valley, a move that analysts say threatens to broaden any future conflict between the Islamist movement and Israel into a war between the two countries. [*]
More than 10,000 U.N. troops now patrol traditional Hezbollah territory in southern Lebanon along the Israeli border, and several thousand Lebanese armed forces personnel also have moved into the area. A cross-border raid by Hezbollah guerrillas in summer 2006 triggered a month-long war that prompted the United Nations to deploy its force as part of a cease-fire. [*]
The United Nations is confident that the dense presence of its troops in the comparatively small area is helping lower the risk of conflict and minimizing Hezbollah's ability to move weapons across southern Lebanon, but analysts in Lebanon and Israel say the U.N. mission is almost beside the point.
Hezbollah's redeployment and rearmament indicate that its next clash with Israel is unlikely to focus on the border, instead moving farther into Lebanon and challenging both the military and the government. [challenge to Hairiri’s writ again?] [*] The situation is important for U.S. efforts in the region, whether aimed at curbing the influence of Hezbollah's patrons in Iran or at persuading Syria to moderate its stance toward Israel and its neighbors.
Hezbollah "learned their lesson" in 2006, when vital intelligence enabled the Israel Defense Forces to destroy the group's long-range launch sites in the first days of the conflict, said reserve Gen. Aharon Zeevi Farkash, a former head of IDF intelligence. In effect, he said, "the 'border' is now the Litani River," with Hezbollah's rocket sites possibly extending north of Beirut.
In a December briefing, Brig. Gen. Aviv Kochavi, the IDF head of operations, said some Hezbollah rockets now have a range of more than 150 miles -- making Tel Aviv reachable from as far away as Beirut. [*]The Islamist group has talked openly of its efforts to rebuild, and Israel estimates that Hezbollah has about 40,000 projectiles, most of them shorter-range rockets and mortar shells. [all it would take is 1-2 succesfull rockets in Tel Aviv to throw Levant into major chaos] [*]
The group "has been fortifying lots of different areas," said Judith Palmer Harik, a Hezbollah scholar in Beirut. With U.N. and Lebanese forces "packed along the border," she said, "we are looking at a much more expanded battle in all senses of the word."
Just a matter of time?
The border has been relatively quiet since the 2006 war, a fact that officials with the U.N. [*] Interim Force in Lebanon attribute at least partly to the 400 or so patrols they send out each day to search for weapons stores and prevent border violations.
Armored U.N. vehicles sit at the entrance to southern Lebanon, alongside Lebanese army and intelligence checkpoints; blue-flagged U.N. troops occupy mountaintop posts that Hezbollah used as firing sites in 2006.
"We are covering every square inch," said Maj. S.K. Misra, a spokesman for the battalion of India's 3/11 Gurkha Rifles corps that patrols southeastern Lebanon. "It's impossible for anything to move."
At the same time, debate is raging in political and military circles between those who argue that the damage to each side in 2006 has created a sort of respectful deterrence between Israel and Hezbollah and those who say it is only a matter of time before violence erupts again. [both are true concomitantly] [paradoxical but accurate] [Hezbollah knows that hitting Tel Aviv would create enormous pressure for IDF to finish job with Hezbollah] [and that latter would create enormous pressue in Arab world to punish Israel severely] [so some deterrence] [but another conflagration is inevitable] [*]
Hezbollah lost hundreds of fighters in the conflict and was put on the defensive in Lebanon, where some questioned whether the group's vow to continue "resistance" against Israel was worth letting an unregulated paramilitary organization effectively make decisions about war and peace. [*] [the horse left the barn]
With Iran backing and supplying Hezbollah and the United States backing and supplying Israel, "the battlefield is Lebanon," said Marwan Hamadeh, a Lebanese member of parliament and supporter of a government coalition that is trying to curb Hezbollah's arms and limit Syrian and Iranian influence in the country. "This is where the Iranian missiles sit, and this is where the Israeli air force can reach." [paradoxically, Iran’s role may prevent Arab world rushing in to save Hezbollah if-when big one breaks out?] [*]
Israel, meanwhile, lost more than 100 troops and uncharacteristically large numbers of tanks, helicopters and other equipment -- prompting it to rewrite its war doctrine and adjust its perception of Hezbollah's militia. Military analysts now see Hezbollah not as primarily a guerrilla force but as an organization that practices "hybrid war," mixing classic guerrilla tactics with the strategy, equipment and capability of a standing army. [it really has morphed into a strange, new hybrid] [I don’t think anyone really knows what the implications are] [*]
In a 2008 report for the U.S. Army War College's Strategic Studies Institute, analysts Stephen D. Biddle and Jeffrey A. Friedman concluded that Hezbollah had performed more effectively in 2006 than any of the Arab armies from Egypt, Syria or Jordan that had fought conventional wars with Israel over the years, and better in some ways than the Iraqi army in its two wars with the United States. [I read parts of it] [I think I found it at West Point’s counterterror center?] [*]
A wider struggle
In Beirut, politicians and analysts agree that the group has only grown stronger since 2006. [*] As they hear Hezbollah's secretary general, Hasan Nasrallah, speak of a conflict that will "change the face of the region," many assume that the IDF will not allow the organization to rearm, recruit and train much longer before striking. [*]
In Israel, Hezbollah is seen as part of a wider struggle for regional influence between Iran and U.S.-allied moderate Arab states, given the group's ties to Iran and Syria and arms supplies assumed to run through both countries.
There is no reason the current calm cannot continue, said retired Maj. Gen. Giora Eiland, a former Israeli national security adviser who is now a senior researcher at Tel Aviv University's Institute for National Security Studies. [there’s a reason the current calm cannot continue forever: no precedent] [*]
But if a conflict does break out, "Israel will not contain that war against Hezbollah," Eiland said. "We cannot." [*]
Given Hezbollah's capabilities, he said, "the only way to deter the other side and prevent the next round -- or if it happens, to win -- is to have a military confrontation with the state of Lebanon." [hence the first paradox noted supra] [*]© 2010 The Washington Post Co

Biden to Meet Iraq Leaders Amid Candidate Dispute

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/23/world/middleeast/23iraq.html
January 23, 2010
Biden to Meet Iraq Leaders Amid Candidate Dispute
By ANTHONY SHADID [-ir] [hydra] [insurgency] [renewed sectarian tensions and fault lines] [success of “surge”] [as well as it worked, the issue still looms regarding how the Awakening to be situated in government in future?] [followup] [opposition desperate due to increasing institutionalization of regime] [more fallout from Shi’a state’s attempt to ban what appears to be sectarian opposition; Veep Biden joins fray?] [followup] [*]
BAGHDAD — Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. arrived Friday in a visit that underlined an enduring reality of Iraq under the Obama administration: As the United States prepares to withdraw, an Iraqi political system tailored to crisis and brinkmanship has repeatedly necessitated United States intervention to propel the political process forward. [scheduled to

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/23/world/middleeast/23iraq.html
January 23, 2010
Biden to Meet Iraq Leaders Amid Candidate Dispute
By ANTHONY SHADID [-ir] [hydra] [insurgency] [renewed sectarian tensions and fault lines] [success of “surge”] [as well as it worked, the issue still looms regarding how the Awakening to be situated in government in future?] [followup] [opposition desperate due to increasing institutionalization of regime] [more fallout from Shi’a state’s attempt to ban what appears to be sectarian opposition; Veep Biden joins fray?] [followup] [*]
BAGHDAD — Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. arrived Friday in a visit that underlined an enduring reality of Iraq under the Obama administration: As the United States prepares to withdraw, an Iraqi political system tailored to crisis and brinkmanship has repeatedly necessitated United States intervention to propel the political process forward. [scheduled to withdraw troops after March elections; incremental withdrawals with final Dec 31, 2011] [note: Bush signed SOFA with said dates] [Obama is implementing] [*]
The visit was Mr. Biden’s third as vice president and came amid a dispute over the disqualifications of hundreds of candidates for promoting the Baath Party of former President Saddam Hussein. [*] [US knows very well how it will be perceived in Sunni circles]
American officials have feared the disqualifications could impair the credibility of the March 7 parliamentary elections, a vote seen as a landmark in American plans to pull out combat troops by the end of August.
“I think the American role here is still needed,” said Qassim Daoud, a lawmaker and candidate for the Iraqi National Alliance, one of the leading Shiite Muslim slates. “They are mediators, and mediators that we’ve worked with for seven years.” [it hasn’t worked very effectively but it has worked some] [*]
Mr. Biden’s visit was expected to last about 24 hours. On Saturday, he planned to meet with many of the country’s senior leaders, including Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, President Jalal Talabani and Ayad al-Sammarai, the Parliament speaker, all of them pivotal figures in the dispute, which has aggravated sectarian tensions in Iraq.
Mr. Biden’s national security adviser, Antony J. Blinken, played down the vice president’s role in reaching a solution. He said Mr. Biden believed that Iraqi officials would manage to find a compromise. But in a briefing after Mr. Biden’s arrival, Mr. Blinken made clear the potential problems if the disqualifications, as handed down, proceeded.
“The only concern we’ve expressed is not on the goal but on the process,” [*]he said at the United States Embassy. “If the process by which they pursued the disqualification of candidates is perceived to lack transparency and fairness and credibility, it will cast doubt on the election, and these elections are so pivotal and important for Iraq’s future.” [credit for diplo skills & persistency] [*]
Despite Mr. Blinken’s contention, lawmakers and Mr. Talabani have said that negotiations have centered on an idea proposed by Mr. Biden himself. That proposal has been iterated in various forms over the past week. The idea is that disqualified candidates would appeal the verdict, but still be allowed to take part in the election. If they lost their appeals after the vote, they would then lose their seats. [*]
In one proposal, lawmakers said, an appeals court would immediately bar about 216 of the more than 500 disqualified candidates, for having membership in the Baath Party or security forces under Mr. Hussein. The rest would take part in the election, with their appeals decided after the vote. [if accurate, then timeline becomes paramount] [when, before elections commission disqualifies; when before elections will appeal be adjudicated?] [*]
“They will be asked to sign a pledge that they’ll give up their seats if they’re found guilty after the elections,” said Hadi al-Ameri, a senior Shiite lawmaker and candidate.
But problems remain, not least the necessity that many of Iraq’s religious Shiite leaders see in taking the toughest of positions against suspected Baathists, who still enjoy some support in predominantly Sunni Arab regions.
A pitched political battle is expected between Mr. Maliki’s State of the Law Coalition and the Iraqi National Alliance, led by the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq and followers of Moktada al-Sadr, a radical Shiite cleric. [as far as I know, al Sadr is still hunkered down in Tehran?!?] [*] In that struggle, as each coalition appeals to the core Shiite constituency in southern Iraq, sectarian credentials will prove important. Mr. Maliki will have to fend off charges that he is somehow soft on Baathists, making any compromise on his part a dangerous political concession. [*] [credit to “surge” for decreasing militia activity] [at least Shi’a militia] [*]
One lawmaker said the issue had become so politicized as to amount to “Baathophobia,” and in a speech Friday, Mr. Maliki took an even harder line against a compromise. It came a day after his followers were thought to have organized anti-Baathist demonstrations Thursday in the southern cities of Najaf, Karbala and Basra.
He described the disqualifications “as not enough.” “There is no return to the past,” he told a meeting of Shiite tribal leaders. “What will prevent them from returning to political life is your will. You should not let them come back through the ballots.” [*] [credit where due to Bush; but this is where things could still go south quickly] [Shi’a resolve; Sunni sense of entitlement; so forth] [*]
Time poses a challenge, as well. Days tend to turn into weeks in Iraqi attempts to wrangle a political deal that satisfies everyone, and electoral officials say they need to have a final list of candidates by month’s end to print the 26 million ballots that will eventually be distributed to 50,000 polling stations inside the country and abroad. [*]
“We have a very short time and I don’t know if they can solve it in this short of time,” said Mahmoud Othman, a Kurdish lawmaker.
Perhaps more worrisome, though, are the practicalities of delaying the crisis until after the election. Appeals for disqualifications could take 90 days to be resolved, delaying the certification of the election results and the seating of a new Parliament.
Throughout this crisis, many Iraqi officials have seemed willing to let the process move forward, while American and United Nations officials have pressed for a resolution, fearing that the disqualifications could disenfranchise Sunni voters, whose consent remains crucial for any hope of national reconciliation. That has left the disqualified candidates, some of them deeply opposed to the United States-led invasion and occupation, appealing to the Americans for an answer.
“At one time, these people were dead set against the Americans,” said Mr. Othman, the Kurdish lawmaker. “This time, they hope they will bring a solution.” [*]
Nada Bakri contributed reporting.
Copyright 2010 The New York Times Co

Gates Says Taliban Must Take Legitimate Afghan Role

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/23/world/asia/23gates.html
January 23, 2010
Gates Says Taliban Must Take Legitimate Afghan Role
By ELISABETH BUMILLER [Afghanistan] [hydra] [began in Afghanistan, but moved to Pakistan] [AfPak] [2009’s substantial pickup in Taliban and other insurgencies] [spring offensive turned into major effort throughout year] [now winter snows are slowing down in typical yearly fashion] [by time snow begins to melt, most of the “surge” will be in place] [use psci 469] [SecDef Gates on SAsia junket; c.f. today’s invidual] [*]
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — The United States recognizes that the Taliban are now part of the political fabric of Afghanistan, [*]Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said here on Friday, but the group must be prepared to play a legitimate role before it can reconcile with the Afghan government. [difficult balance but he’s preparing domestic audience for eventual reconciliation with some Taliban] [*]
That means, Mr. Gates said, that the Taliban must participate in elections, not oppose education and not assassinate local officials. [that seems rather obvious] [*]
“The question is whether the Taliban at some point in this process are ready to help

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/23/world/asia/23gates.html
January 23, 2010
Gates Says Taliban Must Take Legitimate Afghan Role
By ELISABETH BUMILLER [Afghanistan] [hydra] [began in Afghanistan, but moved to Pakistan] [AfPak] [2009’s substantial pickup in Taliban and other insurgencies] [spring offensive turned into major effort throughout year] [now winter snows are slowing down in typical yearly fashion] [by time snow begins to melt, most of the “surge” will be in place] [use psci 469] [SecDef Gates on SAsia junket; c.f. today’s invidual] [*]
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — The United States recognizes that the Taliban are now part of the political fabric of Afghanistan, [*]Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said here on Friday, but the group must be prepared to play a legitimate role before it can reconcile with the Afghan government. [difficult balance but he’s preparing domestic audience for eventual reconciliation with some Taliban] [*]
That means, Mr. Gates said, that the Taliban must participate in elections, not oppose education and not assassinate local officials. [that seems rather obvious] [*]
“The question is whether the Taliban at some point in this process are ready to help build a 21st-century Afghanistan or whether they still just want to kill people,” [seems little simplistic but it’s what things reduce to, ultimately] [*]Mr. Gates said.
The defense secretary made his remarks in an interview with Pakistani journalists at the home of the American ambassador to Pakistan, Anne W. Patterson. Mr. Gates was on the second day of a two-day visit to the country. [*]
American officials have given qualified support to a proposed Afghan initiative to provide jobs, security and social benefits to Taliban followers who defect. Mr. Gates has said there could be a surge of such followers willing to be integrated into Afghan society, but he has voiced skepticism about whether the Taliban leadership is ready to work peacefully with the Afghan government. [Post piece in today’s individual makes him sound a vacillator] [I too have gone back and forth] [the issue is when Islamisim crosses line into jihadism and it’s far from bright line] [thus, some to-ing and fro-ing is inevitable?] [worth debating in class?] [*]
“The question is, what do the Taliban want to make out of Afghanistan?” Mr. Gates told the journalists. “When they tried before, we saw what they wanted to make, and it was a desert, culturally and in every other way.”
Later on Friday, Mr. Gates told a group of senior Pakistani military officers that the Pakistani Army had to reshape and adapt itself to fighting insurgencies, much as he said the American military had after years of war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Mr. Gates implicitly said that the real threat to Pakistan was the collection of militant groups on the border with Afghanistan and not its archrival in the region, India. [if Pakistan doesn’t stop another attack on India (provided it could have), things could get exceptionally dicey] [this game Pakistan plays is playing w/ fire as I’ve noted repeatedly!] [*]
“Fighting along the Afghan border and in the tribal areas has required dramatically different skill sets and equipment than preparing for a potential conventional conflict with another country’s army,” Mr. Gates said in remarks at Pakistan’s National Defense University, the country’s main scholarly institution for the military. [*]
In a question-and-answer session afterward, which was closed to the news media, one officer made the argument to Mr. Gates that Pakistan’s problems with militants on its border were the fault of the United States, [this may anger Americans but there’s some reality here] [the US too has used Islamists when it suited US] [as the line is unclear, invariably the US has supported jihadis!] [1980s-1990s, Dems & Republicans] [**]according to the Pentagon press secretary, Geoff Morrell. In the nine-year-old war in Afghanistan, the American military has driven Islamic extremists across the border into Pakistan and as a result, according to Mr. Morrell, the tone of the officer’s question to Mr. Gates was “Hey, we’re in this mess because of you.” [*]
Mr. Gates “took great exception,” [*]Mr. Morrell said, and responded that the situation in Afghanistan was unsustainable after the withdrawal of the Russians [indeed it was] [recall peace divident among others] [*] from the country in 1989 and that Al Qaeda’s goal was to destabilize the democratic institutions in the entire region. [indeed it is to hasten re-establishment of Caliphate!!!] [*]“The notion that you could somehow be immune from them or not a target of this grand plan of theirs is just not realistic,” Mr. Morrell quoted Mr. Gates as saying.
In his formal remarks, Mr. Gates had acknowledged the current “trust deficit” [at best; and has since Reagan admin] [*] between Pakistan and the United States, and said it had tainted Pakistan’s perception of the United States.
“So let me say, definitively,” Mr. Gates said, “that the United States does not covet a single inch of Pakistani soil, we seek no military bases here and we have no desire to control Pakistan’s nuclear weapons.” [*]
Copyright 2010 The New York Times Co

Afghanistan: U.S. Drone Strike Kills 15

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/23/world/asia/23briefs-Afghan.html
January 23, 2010
World Briefing | Asia
Afghanistan: U.S. Drone Strike Kills 15
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS [Afghanistan] [hydra] [began in Afghanistan, but moved to Pakistan] [AfPak] [2009’s substantial pickup in Taliban and other insurgencies] [spring offensive turned into major effort throughout year] [now winter snows are slowing down in typical yearly fashion] [by time snow begins to melt, most of the “surge” will be in place] [use psci 469] [another UAV strike in Afghan’s tribal belt?] [both Pakistan’s strikes (conducted soley by CIA) and Afghan ones (could be either CIA or military?) increased since Xmas day plot thwarted] [*]
An Islamic extremist organization said Friday that 15 of its members were killed in an American missile strike in Afghanistan, the SITE Intelligence Group reported. [great website

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/23/world/asia/23briefs-Afghan.html
January 23, 2010
World Briefing | Asia
Afghanistan: U.S. Drone Strike Kills 15
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS [Afghanistan] [hydra] [began in Afghanistan, but moved to Pakistan] [AfPak] [2009’s substantial pickup in Taliban and other insurgencies] [spring offensive turned into major effort throughout year] [now winter snows are slowing down in typical yearly fashion] [by time snow begins to melt, most of the “surge” will be in place] [use psci 469] [another UAV strike in Afghan’s tribal belt?] [both Pakistan’s strikes (conducted soley by CIA) and Afghan ones (could be either CIA or military?) increased since Xmas day plot thwarted] [*]
An Islamic extremist organization said Friday that 15 of its members were killed in an American missile strike in Afghanistan, the SITE Intelligence Group reported. [great website for quick check but paid membership required for access to reports or SITE’s typically excellent translations] [*] SITE quoted a Web posting by the organization, the Turkistan Islamic Party, as saying that 13 Uighurs and 2 Turks were killed Tuesday [*]by a missile fired by a United States drone aircraft in Afghanistan, but it did not say where. [note: this is why I’ve not called for total release of Uighurs from gitmo (elsewhere?)] [apparently, some are jihadis while others simply Islamist while others simply Muslims sick of Han (Chinese) chauvinism] [*]
Copyright 2010 The New York Times Co

Turkey Arrests 120 With Suspected Qaeda Ties

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/23/world/europe/23turkey.html
January 23, 2010
Turkey Arrests 120 With Suspected Qaeda Ties
By SEBNEM ARSU [Turkey] [Syria] [middle east] [jihadis inside Turkey?] [Turkey pivotal to many peace talks that take place in region] [nearly simultaneous efforts to stop secular and sectarian plots; could it overwhelm Turkey’s capacity?] [use psci 469] [followup] [*]
ISTANBUL — More than 120 people suspected of ties to Al Qaeda, including some who were alleged to be senior members of the terrorist group’s Turkish branch, were arrested in raids across the country on Friday morning, [*]the semiofficial Anatolian news agency reported.
Security forces also seized a cache of weapons, explosives, medical equipment and fake identity cards and passports in the raids, which occurred in 16 Turkish cities. [based on past observation, large number almost certain to be Islamist (not jihadis) who caught up in same webs] [many will undoubtedly be released] [but some will prove more nefarious] [watch for final tally] [*]
A report in the newspaper Zaman said some of the suspects had been planning an attack on the Kabul regional command center of the NATO-led security mission in Afghanistan. [*]Turkish forces took over the center’s rotating command in November.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/23/world/europe/23turkey.html
January 23, 2010
Turkey Arrests 120 With Suspected Qaeda Ties
By SEBNEM ARSU [Turkey] [Syria] [middle east] [jihadis inside Turkey?] [Turkey pivotal to many peace talks that take place in region] [nearly simultaneous efforts to stop secular and sectarian plots; could it overwhelm Turkey’s capacity?] [use psci 469] [followup] [*]
ISTANBUL — More than 120 people suspected of ties to Al Qaeda, including some who were alleged to be senior members of the terrorist group’s Turkish branch, were arrested in raids across the country on Friday morning, [*]the semiofficial Anatolian news agency reported.
Security forces also seized a cache of weapons, explosives, medical equipment and fake identity cards and passports in the raids, which occurred in 16 Turkish cities. [based on past observation, large number almost certain to be Islamist (not jihadis) who caught up in same webs] [many will undoubtedly be released] [but some will prove more nefarious] [watch for final tally] [*]
A report in the newspaper Zaman said some of the suspects had been planning an attack on the Kabul regional command center of the NATO-led security mission in Afghanistan. [*]Turkish forces took over the center’s rotating command in November.
The report in Zaman said the suspects had also been planning to attack targets in Turkey.
A week ago, Turkish authorities detained more than 25 people suspected of terrorist links in Ankara, [*] [confirmation] the capital, and Adana, a southern town. Information obtained from those arrests led to Friday’s raids, news reports said.
The Anatolian news agency said people suspected of leading Al Qaeda’s Turkish branch were among those detained. [*]Turkish news reports identified one such suspect as Serdal Erbasi, also known as Abu Zehr, [father of Zehr?] [*] and said he had formed a cell in Ankara. [*] [note: in Arabic “Abu” is often used as “father of” whereas “Ibn” sometimes spelled “Ibin” used as “son of”] [*]
Turkey, a predominantly Muslim nation of more than 70 million people, has fought for years against extremists, including Kurdish separatist militants, leftists, right-wing nationalists and Islamic militants. [yes, my note on simultaneous insurgencies] [*]
In 2003, a group linked to Al Qaeda carried out a series of deadly attacks that stunned the country. [*]Suicide bombers drove four trucks laden with explosives into two synagogues, the British Consulate and a bank, killing more than 60 people and wounding hundreds. [*]Dozens of people were convicted in connection with the bombings. [I have it archived but not on hydrablog] [*]
In 2008, three gunmen suspected of ties to Al Qaeda fired on the United States Consulate in Istanbul, killing three police officers. [*]The assailants were killed.
Copyright 2010 The New York Times Co

Britain: Terrorist Threat Level Raised

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/23/world/europe/23briefs-Britain.html
January 23, 2010
World Briefing | Europe
Britain: Terrorist Threat Level Raised
By JOHN F. BURNS [UK] [London] [EU3] [UK’s relatively radical Muslim groups who call for imposition of Sharia in UK] [effectively exploit the West’s tolerance of free speech and so forth] [that, of course, is their right and what many of us admire about Western values] [in UK it has become a significant struggle] [since 2005 attacks, the struggle between traditional UK, mainline Muslim groups, and radicals has been pretty constant] [followup] [use psci 469] [appeared prudent response to Xmas plot 2 days ago now appears independent intel on jihadis attacking UK?] [*]
Britain’s intelligence services [MI-5] [what is often wrongly referred to MI-6 is actually SAS, operational cells] [not much inside UK] [*] raised the threat level of a terrorist attack from “substantial” to “severe” on Friday. [*]The rating, the fourth highest of five levels, means an attack is considered to be highly likely. [*]Home Secretary Alan Johnson said

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/23/world/europe/23briefs-Britain.html
January 23, 2010
World Briefing | Europe
Britain: Terrorist Threat Level Raised
By JOHN F. BURNS [UK] [London] [EU3] [UK’s relatively radical Muslim groups who call for imposition of Sharia in UK] [effectively exploit the West’s tolerance of free speech and so forth] [that, of course, is their right and what many of us admire about Western values] [in UK it has become a significant struggle] [since 2005 attacks, the struggle between traditional UK, mainline Muslim groups, and radicals has been pretty constant] [followup] [use psci 469] [appeared prudent response to Xmas plot 2 days ago now appears independent intel on jihadis attacking UK?] [*]
Britain’s intelligence services [MI-5] [what is often wrongly referred to MI-6 is actually SAS, operational cells] [not much inside UK] [*] raised the threat level of a terrorist attack from “substantial” to “severe” on Friday. [*]The rating, the fourth highest of five levels, means an attack is considered to be highly likely. [*]Home Secretary Alan Johnson said there was no intelligence to suggest that an attack was imminent. “All I would say to the public is we need to be vigilant,” he said. [clearly, there’s intel of something so he’s parsing his words?] [*]
Copyright 2010 The New York Times Co

January 22, 2010

Past Decade Warmest on Record, NASA Data Shows

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/science/earth/22warming.html
January 22, 2010
Past Decade Warmest on Record, NASA Data Shows
By JOHN M. BRODER [Obama white house] [111th congress, 1st session] [President Obama and his administration’s views on global climate change] [global climate change] [global commons] [use psci350, 355, 390-5] [bureaucracy] [NASA] [followup] [*]
WASHINGTON — The decade ending in 2009 was the warmest on record, new surface temperature figures released Thursday by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration show.
The agency also found that 2009 was the second warmest year since 1880, when modern temperature measurement began. The warmest year was 2005. The other hottest recorded years have all occurred since 1998, NASA said.
James E. Hansen, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, said that global

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/science/earth/22warming.html
January 22, 2010
Past Decade Warmest on Record, NASA Data Shows
By JOHN M. BRODER [Obama white house] [111th congress, 1st session] [President Obama and his administration’s views on global climate change] [global climate change] [global commons] [use psci350, 355, 390-5] [bureaucracy] [NASA] [followup] [*]
WASHINGTON — The decade ending in 2009 was the warmest on record, new surface temperature figures released Thursday by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration show.
The agency also found that 2009 was the second warmest year since 1880, when modern temperature measurement began. The warmest year was 2005. The other hottest recorded years have all occurred since 1998, NASA said.
James E. Hansen, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, said that global temperatures varied because of changes in ocean heating and cooling cycles. “When we average temperature over 5 or 10 years to minimize that variability,” said Dr. Hansen, one of the world’s leading climatologists, “we find global warming is continuing unabated.”
A separate preliminary analysis from the National Climatic Data Center, a unit of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, found that 2009 tied with 2006 as the fifth warmest year on record, based on measurements taken on land and at sea. The data center report, published earlier this week, also cited the years 2000 to 2009 as the warmest decade ever measured. The new temperature figures provide evidence in the scientific discussion of global warming but are not likely to be the last word on whether the planet’s temperature is on a consistent upward path.
Dr. Hansen, who has been an outspoken figure in the climate debate for years, has often been attacked by skeptics of global warming for what they charge is selective use of temperature data. The question of whether the planet is heating and how quickly was at the heart of the so-called “climategate” controversy that arose last fall when hundreds of e-mail messages from the climate study unit at the University of East Anglia in England were released without authorization.
Critics seized on the messages as evidence that, in their view, climate scientists were manipulating data and colluding to keep contrary opinion out of scientific journals. But climate scientists and political leaders affirmed what they called a broad-based consensus that the planet was growing warmer, and on a consistent basis, although with measurable year-to-year variations.
The NASA data released Thursday showed an upward temperature trend of about 0.36 degrees Fahrenheit (0.2 degrees Celsius) per decade over the past 30 years. Average global temperatures have risen by about 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit (0.8 degrees Celsius) since 1880.
“That’s the important number to keep in mind,” said Gavin Schmidt, a climatologist at Goddard. “The difference between the second and sixth warmest years is trivial because the known uncertainty in the temperature measurement is larger than some of the differences between the warmest years.”
Policy makers at the United Nations climate change summit conference in Copenhagen last month agreed on a goal of trying to keep the rise in average global temperatures to 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit, or 2 degrees Celsius, to try to forestall the worst effects of global warming.
Earlier versions of this article referred incorrectly to the National Climatic Data Center. It is a part of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Copyright 2010 The New York Times Co

Detainees Will Still Be Held, but Not Tried, Official Says

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/us/22gitmo.html
January 22, 2010
Detainees Will Still Be Held, but Not Tried, Official Says
By CHARLIE SAVAGE [obama white house] [residual issues from President Bush’s tenure] [gsave] [federal judiciary] [America’s guests at gitmo] [gitmo detainees] [I’m a bit disappointed but certainly not surprised] [debate: what to do with alleged jihadis picked up on battlefield?] [lots of complications such as bounty hunters and not always picked up on battlefield] [while Obama has not claimed unitary executive plenary power, his actions are essentially same as were Bush’s] [and Buch claimed unitary executive] [use psci 355, 455, 469] [*]
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration has decided to continue to imprison without trials nearly 50 detainees at the Guantánamo Bay military prison in Cuba because a high-level task force has concluded that they are too difficult to prosecute but too dangerous to release, [frankly, it’s a tough call] [if a couple were released and say deported, and say they later

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/us/22gitmo.html
January 22, 2010
Detainees Will Still Be Held, but Not Tried, Official Says
By CHARLIE SAVAGE [obama white house] [residual issues from President Bush’s tenure] [gsave] [federal judiciary] [America’s guests at gitmo] [gitmo detainees] [I’m a bit disappointed but certainly not surprised] [debate: what to do with alleged jihadis picked up on battlefield?] [lots of complications such as bounty hunters and not always picked up on battlefield] [while Obama has not claimed unitary executive plenary power, his actions are essentially same as were Bush’s] [and Buch claimed unitary executive] [use psci 355, 455, 469] [*]
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration has decided to continue to imprison without trials nearly 50 detainees at the Guantánamo Bay military prison in Cuba because a high-level task force has concluded that they are too difficult to prosecute but too dangerous to release, [frankly, it’s a tough call] [if a couple were released and say deported, and say they later killed American troops … the anguish would be horrible for commander in chief and others?] [but in rule-of-law system, how do you ignore laws?] [I suppose if it’s determined they are special cases, then some special provisions are reasonable?] [*] an administration official said on Thursday. [look for liberal-progressives to howl] [*]
However, the administration has decided that nearly 40 other detainees should be prosecuted for terrorism or related war crimes. And the remaining prisoners, about 110 men, should be repatriated or transferred to other countries for possible release, [positive: they are moving forward and processing others] [lookk for conservatives, neoconservatives, and liberals to howl] [often, that’s a sign of pretty reasonable decision?] [*] the official said, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak about the numbers.
There are just under 200 detainees left at the detention center.
President Obama established the task force shortly after his inauguration last year as part of his administration’s effort to deal with the detainee issues left behind by the Bush administration. It was facing a deadline of Friday to complete its work. [*]
For the past year, national-security and law-enforcement officials under the direction of Matthew G. Olsen, a Justice Department lawyer, have been pulling together scattered files for each detainee at Guantánamo. They evaluated any evidence against each man, the perceived threat he might pose if released, and the possibility of successfully prosecuting him. [*] [some coverage at the time but then went dark]
The group made recommendations that were then evaluated by senior administration officials, led by Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr.
But the determination about which category to put each detainee in leaves other questions unanswered. For example, of the roughly 110 detainees who are set to be transferred to other countries, about 30 are Yemenis, [which is especially untimely] [*] the official said. The administration recently halted transfers to Yemen in the wake of the attempted bombing of an airplane bound for Detroit on Christmas — a plot believed to have been developed by an affiliate of Al Qaeda based in Yemen.
In addition, Mr. Holder is charged with deciding whether the prisoners who are to be prosecuted should face a civilian trial or a military commission. In November, he announced that five detainees would face a military commission and five others — including Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the self-described mastermind of the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 — would be prosecuted in federal court. [*]
Copyright 2010 The New York Times Co

Man Claims Terror Ties in Little Rock Shooting

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/us/22littlerock.html
January 22, 2010
Man Claims Terror Ties in Little Rock Shooting
By JAMES DAO [Obama white house] [gsave] [Obama’s NSC team: president-NSC-policymaking model] [here bureaucracy implements as bureaucracy tends to do--bureaucratically] [IC and justice] [the case of the fellow who shoot at recruitment center several months ago?] [cross in societal, external(?)] [apparently claims of jihadi influence?] [if accurate, a raft of lone-wolf cases?] [use psci 355, 455, 469?] [*]
MEMPHIS — A Tennessee man accused of killing a soldier outside a Little Rock, Ark., military recruiting station last year has asked a judge to change his plea to guilty, claiming for the first time that he is affiliated with a Yemen-based affiliate of Al Qaeda. [is he claiming it because the Nigerian involved in Xmas day plot got intense media coverage???] [*]
In a letter to the judge presiding over his case, the accused killer, Abdulhakim Muhammad,

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/us/22littlerock.html
January 22, 2010
Man Claims Terror Ties in Little Rock Shooting
By JAMES DAO [Obama white house] [gsave] [Obama’s NSC team: president-NSC-policymaking model] [here bureaucracy implements as bureaucracy tends to do--bureaucratically] [IC and justice] [the case of the fellow who shoot at recruitment center several months ago?] [cross in societal, external(?)] [apparently claims of jihadi influence?] [if accurate, a raft of lone-wolf cases?] [use psci 355, 455, 469?] [*]
MEMPHIS — A Tennessee man accused of killing a soldier outside a Little Rock, Ark., military recruiting station last year has asked a judge to change his plea to guilty, claiming for the first time that he is affiliated with a Yemen-based affiliate of Al Qaeda. [is he claiming it because the Nigerian involved in Xmas day plot got intense media coverage???] [*]
In a letter to the judge presiding over his case, the accused killer, Abdulhakim Muhammad, calls himself a soldier in Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula and calls the shooting “a Jihadi Attack” in retribution for the killing of Muslims by American troops. [smell test?] [when did it become retribtution?] [*]
“I wasn’t insane or post traumatic nor was I forced to do this Act,” Mr. Muhammad said in a two-page, hand-printed note in pencil. The attack, which he said did not go as planned, was “justified according to Islamic Laws and the Islamic Religion. Jihad — to fight those who wage war on Islam and Muslims.” [I know only what I’ve read but his intellect seem suspect: Islamic laws, plural and general?] [seems more ex post facto, opportunist than anything?] [*]
It remains unclear whether Mr. Muhammad really has ties to Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, which President Obama has said is behind the attempted Christmas Day bombing of an American plane by a Nigerian man.
But if evidence emerges that his claim is true, it will give the June 1, 2009, shooting in Little Rock new significance at a time when Yemen is being more closely scrutinized as a source of terrorist plots against the United States. [*]
Mr. Muhammad, 24, a Muslim convert from Memphis, spent about 16 months in Yemen starting in the fall of 2007, ostensibly teaching English and learning Arabic. During that time, he married a woman from south Yemen. But he was also imprisoned for several months because he overstayed his visa and was holding a fraudulent Somali passport, [*]the Yemen government said.
Under pressure from the United States government, Yemen deported Mr. Muhammad in late January 2009. But just four months after his return, Mr. Muhammad used a semiautomatic rifle to gun down two soldiers [*]— Pvt. William A. Long and Pvt. Quinton Ezeagwula — while they were standing outside a military recruiting station in Little Rock, killing Private Long and wounding Private Ezeagwula.
After the shooting, Mr. Muhammad pleaded not guilty, but also took responsibility for the shootings in interviews with The Associated Press. But he did not acknowledge being part of an extremist group and some terrorism experts came to view him as a self-radicalized, lone actor. [*]
In his letter to Herb Wright Jr., a Pulaski County circuit judge, Mr. Muhammad calls himself a member of “Abu Basir’s Army,” an apparent reference to Naser Abdel-Karim al-Wahishi, the Yemen group’s leader, who also goes by the name Abu Basir. [father of Basir?] [*]
Mr. Muhammad’s father, Melvin Bledsoe, a Memphis businessman, said that while he believes his son may have been radicalized in Yemen, he doubts whether he has serious ties to the Qaeda affiliate.
He suggested that Mr. Muhammad might be trying to link himself to Al Qaeda because he believes it will lead to his execution and make him a martyr. Mr. Bledsoe added that he considers his son “unable to process” reality, describing him as “brainwashed.” [*]
“I think a lot of this is make-believe,” Mr. Bledsoe said in an interview.
A spokesman for the F.B.I. declined to comment about Mr. Muhammad, citing an order against public statements in the case by Judge Wright.
Mr. Muhammad’s lawyer, Claiborne Ferguson, said his client had not discussed changing his plea to guilty before he wrote the letter, which is dated Jan. 12. He said the prosecutor would have to agree before the judge would consider the request.
Mr. Muhammad is charged with capital murder, attempted capital murder and 10 counts of unlawful discharge of a firearm. Prosecutors have said they will seek the death penalty on the capital murder charge.
John M. DiPippa, dean of the Bowen School of Law at the University of Arkansas, Little Rock, said a judge could only accept a guilty plea in a capital case if he determines that the defendant is mentally competent and not under duress. Mr. Muhammad is in the process of being evaluated by a psychologist, [*]his father said.
Mr. DiPippa said the prosecutor would also have to waive the death penalty, something he may be unwilling to do. Mr. DiPippa added that “the only way it would make sense” for a defendant to plead guilty in a capital case “is to avoid the death penalty.”
In an interview, the prosecutor, Larry Jegley, said it was highly unlikely that he would waive the death penalty, adding, “We’re on” for a trial.
Even before the Christmas Day bombing attempt, Yemen had come under closer scrutiny by American officials, because the soldier charged in the Fort Hood shootings, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, exchanged e-mail messages with a radical cleric in Yemen, Anwar al-Awlaki.
This week, a report by the Democratic staff of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee asserted that as many as 36 American Muslims who were prisoners have moved to Yemen in recent months, ostensibly to study Arabic, and that several of them may have linked up with Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. [but let’s be careful not to jump to unwarranted conclusions in the heat of emotional chaos] [*]
Steve Barnes contributed reporting from Little Rock, Ark.
Copyright 2010 The New York Times Co

Cuba's imprisonment of an American is a rebuke to Obama

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/21/AR2010012104505.html
Cuba's imprisonment of an American is a rebuke to Obama
Friday, January 22, 2010; A20 [editorial] [on another round of crackdowns in Cuba] [makes normalization problematic] [*]
A FRIEND of Alan P. Gross, the veteran development consultant from Potomac who has been jailed without charge in Cuba, says that Mr. Gross's mistake may have been "not seeing anything wrong with what he was doing." If so, we can sympathize. Mr. Gross was in Cuba to help several Jewish community groups gain access to the Internet, so that they could use sites such as Wikipedia and communicate with each other and with Jewish organizations abroad, according to his employer, Bethesda-based Development Alternatives Inc., and other sources familiar with his work. He reportedly supplied the groups with laptops and satellite equipment for Internet connections.
For this the 60-year-old contractor was arrested Dec. 4 and has been held ever since by

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/21/AR2010012104505.html
Cuba's imprisonment of an American is a rebuke to Obama
Friday, January 22, 2010; A20 [editorial] [on another round of crackdowns in Cuba] [makes normalization problematic] [*]
A FRIEND of Alan P. Gross, the veteran development consultant from Potomac who has been jailed without charge in Cuba, says that Mr. Gross's mistake may have been "not seeing anything wrong with what he was doing." If so, we can sympathize. Mr. Gross was in Cuba to help several Jewish community groups gain access to the Internet, so that they could use sites such as Wikipedia and communicate with each other and with Jewish organizations abroad, according to his employer, Bethesda-based Development Alternatives Inc., and other sources familiar with his work. He reportedly supplied the groups with laptops and satellite equipment for Internet connections.
For this the 60-year-old contractor was arrested Dec. 4 and has been held ever since by Cuba's communist regime, which has accused him of conducting an espionage operation. Only in the ancient, crumbling regime of the Castro brothers could this ridiculous charge be leveled. That's because Cuba is virtually alone, even among authoritarian countries, in trying to prevent most of its population from using the Internet even for nonpolitical purposes. [*]
A State Department democracy program has tried to help Cubans join the 21st century by distributing laptops and cellphones and providing satellite Internet connections. Mr. Gross, who has worked in more than 50 countries during the past 25 years, was assisting with this effort. Yet for this, Cuban National Assembly President Ricardo Alarcón, another of the regime's dinosaurs, connected Mr. Gross to "agents, torturers and spies that are contracted as part of the privatization of war," adding "this is a man who was contracted to do work for American intelligence services."
It's worth noting that Mr. Gross's arrest came just two weeks after President Obama responded by e-mail to questions from Cuba's renowned blogger, Yoani Sánchez. Mr. Obama praised Ms. Sánchez for her efforts to "empower fellow Cubans to express themselves through the use of technology." He also said that he was waiting for some kind of reciprocation for the several conciliatory gestures he has made to the Castro regime, including an easing of travel restrictions.
Havana's answer has been the arrest and continued imprisonment of Mr. Gross. For the Obama administration, the message is crystal-clear: Fidel and Raúl Castro have no interest in easing repression or in improving relations with the United States. For Congress, which is considering legislation authorizing another liberalization of travel restrictions, the correct response is also obvious: Cuba should be told that no action will be considered while Mr. Gross remains in prison. [I think it’s far more complex] [but yes, the result is difficulty in normalizing from US perspective] [*]© 2010 The Washington Post Co

Sunnis and Iraq’s Election

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/opinion/22fri2.html
January 22, 2010
Editorial
Sunnis and Iraq’s Election
[editorial] [another look at recent decision in Iraq to ban certain Sunni] [perceived by some as anti-Sunni acts under legitimacy of governance] [but the committee is pretty secretive?] [*]
We had hoped that the March 7 parliamentary elections would prove the growing maturity of Iraq’s fragile democracy and set the country on a stable path as American combat troops get ready for this summer’s planned withdrawal. Instead, the process unfolding is disgracefully unfair and roiling dangerous sectarian tensions.
Iraq’s Accountability and Justice Commission unleashed an electoral hand grenade this month

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/opinion/22fri2.html
January 22, 2010
Editorial
Sunnis and Iraq’s Election
[editorial] [another look at recent decision in Iraq to ban certain Sunni] [perceived by some as anti-Sunni acts under legitimacy of governance] [but the committee is pretty secretive?] [*]
We had hoped that the March 7 parliamentary elections would prove the growing maturity of Iraq’s fragile democracy and set the country on a stable path as American combat troops get ready for this summer’s planned withdrawal. Instead, the process unfolding is disgracefully unfair and roiling dangerous sectarian tensions.
Iraq’s Accountability and Justice Commission unleashed an electoral hand grenade this month when it disqualified some 500 (out of 6,500) candidates — many of them prominent Sunni Muslims — because of alleged ties to the Baath Party of Saddam Hussein. [*]Among those ordered off the ballot: Defense Minister Abdul-Kader Jassem al-Obeidi and Saleh al-Mutlaq, one of Iraq’s most influential Sunni politicians. The decision was ratified last week by Iraq’s electoral commission.
Sunnis are understandably furious. After boycotting or battling the Shiite-dominated governments for much of the last seven years, Sunni leaders have been struggling to find a constructive new role.
The worst of Mr. Hussein’s henchmen should be held accountable for past repression. But there is little doubt that many if not most of the disqualifications are politically motivated and intended to disenfranchise Sunnis. [*]Although Mr. Mutlaq openly solicits support from Mr. Hussein’s admirers, he was permitted to run for Parliament in 2005. And Mr. Obeidi has performed competently — and loyally — as defense minister.
The accountability commission is the successor to the destructive de-Baathification commission that sought to keep anyone with ties to Mr. Hussein out of government. Its chief, Ali Faisal al-Lami, is hardly an impartial judge. He is a candidate on the slate led by the Shiite leader Ahmed Chalabi, a relentlessly ambitious force in Iraqi politics who lured the Bush administration into the 2003 invasion [Chalabi was on pentagon payroll before and after invasion to tune of $3-400 k monthly!] [*] and wants to be prime minister.
Both the accountability and the election commissions are part of Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki’s government, and he issued a statement supporting their decisions. But American officials say Mr. Chalabi is the main manipulator. Mr. Chalabi’s absurd charge that the United States wants to return the Baath Party to power is typical of his divisive and destructive brand of politics.
There are other reasons to fault the process. Many Iraqis rightly question the legality of both commissions and their procedures, including a disturbing lack of transparency about who was disqualified and why. The ability to ban candidates is a serious authority that must be exercised openly, judiciously and rarely.
The Obama administration needs to keep pressing Iraqis to find a compromise that would allow the fullest list of candidates, including Mr. Mutlaq and Mr. Obeidi, to run. It still has leverage over Baghdad — including billions in aid and the ability to fulfill or deny the Iraqi government’s desire to purchase sophisticated weapons like F-16s. It must use that leverage. Iraqis have learned to play hardball politics. That is far better than fighting in the streets. But it should mean besting adversaries at the ballot box — not denying them the chance to run. If Sunnis are arbitrarily excluded, the entire election will be compromised. Even worse, the Sunnis may conclude, once again, that there is no role for them in Iraqi politics. That would be a disaster.
Copyright 2010 The New York Times Co

Angola Moves to Make President Stronger

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/world/africa/22angola.html
January 22, 2010
Angola Moves to Make President Stronger
By CELIA W. DUGGER [Angola] [Southern, western Africa] [Africa, sub sharan] [parliament approaves new constitution that further institutionalizes the already well ensconced dos Santos] [*]
JOHANNESBURG — Angola’s Parliament approved a new Constitution on Thursday that will further concentrate power in the hands of President José Eduardo dos Santos, who for the past 30 years has governed a nation that is rich in oil and diamonds, but whose people are mostly poor.
Under the new Constitution, Mr. dos Santos, 67, will not have to be directly voted into office by the populace. Instead, the president will be selected by the victorious party in parliamentary elections. [*]
Mr. dos Santos’s party, the governing Popular Movement for the Liberation of Angola,

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/world/africa/22angola.html
January 22, 2010
Angola Moves to Make President Stronger
By CELIA W. DUGGER [Angola] [Southern, western Africa] [Africa, sub sharan] [parliament approaves new constitution that further institutionalizes the already well ensconced dos Santos] [*]
JOHANNESBURG — Angola’s Parliament approved a new Constitution on Thursday that will further concentrate power in the hands of President José Eduardo dos Santos, who for the past 30 years has governed a nation that is rich in oil and diamonds, but whose people are mostly poor.
Under the new Constitution, Mr. dos Santos, 67, will not have to be directly voted into office by the populace. Instead, the president will be selected by the victorious party in parliamentary elections. [*]
Mr. dos Santos’s party, the governing Popular Movement for the Liberation of Angola, known as the M.P.L.A., dominates Parliament and controls the state media and a lode of oil-fueled patronage. The party won more than 80 percent of the vote in 2008 from a public relieved that decades of war were over and that a measure of political stability prevailed.
The next round of parliamentary elections is due in 2012, and the new Constitution, which is expected to win the required approval of the Constitutional Court, allows Mr. dos Santos to serve two more five-year terms. It also authorizes him to select a vice president.
Mihaela Webba, a law professor at Methodist University in Luanda, the capital, said Mr. dos Santos now appointed the vice president and controlled the electoral machinery and the selection of all the party’s parliamentary candidates, “so the accountability in this situation is nonexistent.”
“Now the president controls everything,” Professor Webba said. [*]
Some political analysts speculated that the M.P.L.A. decided to do away with direct presidential elections because of concerns that Mr. dos Santos would win a smaller share of the votes than his party did in 2008, weakening his authority.
“Personally, I think it would have been good if Parliament had been strengthened and it was a less presidential system,” said Markus Weimer, a research fellow at the Royal Institute of International Affairs in London, a nonprofit research group. [agreed] [*]
“When you have a strong Parliament, there are more checks and balances, and it maybe instills a culture of building bridges rather than single-handedly deciding things,” Mr. Weimer said.
Angola, which emerged from 27 years of civil war in 2002, had its first elections in 16 years in 2008. In the peaceful, if flawed, contest, the main opposition party, the National Union for the Total Independence of Angola, or Unita, which was the M.P.L.A.’s enemy in wartime, was thoroughly routed.
On her visit to Angola last year, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton praised the 2008 elections, but also encouraged the country to hold presidential elections and investigate human rights abuses, while emphasizing the need for improved government.
Angola has an international reputation as a country plagued by staggering amounts of high-level graft. Pope Benedict XVI said on his visit to the country last March that Angola and Africa needed “to excise corruption.”
Copyright 2010 The New York Times Co

China Says U.S. Internet Accusations Harm Ties

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/23/world/asia/23diplo.html
January 23, 2010
China Says U.S. Internet Accusations Harm Ties
By EDWARD WONG [China] [PRC] [China’s response to recent Obama administration decision of demarche over China’s putative hacking] [US-Sino relations] [followup] [China is exceptionally sensitive about what it perceives as great-power meddling; stickler for protection of its own sovereignty] [China ethos] [use psci 350] [use ir text] [hopefully, Obama admin will take opportunity to remind China that hacking US computers also “harms” ties?] [*]
BEIJING — The Chinese Foreign Ministry lashed out Friday against a speech on Internet censorship made the previous day by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, calling on the United States government “to respect the truth and to stop using the so-called Internet freedom question to level baseless accusations.” [non-denial denial] [*]
Ma Zhaoxu, a Foreign Ministry spokesman, said in a written statement posted Friday

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/23/world/asia/23diplo.html
January 23, 2010
China Says U.S. Internet Accusations Harm Ties
By EDWARD WONG [China] [PRC] [China’s response to recent Obama administration decision of demarche over China’s putative hacking] [US-Sino relations] [followup] [China is exceptionally sensitive about what it perceives as great-power meddling; stickler for protection of its own sovereignty] [China ethos] [use psci 350] [use ir text] [hopefully, Obama admin will take opportunity to remind China that hacking US computers also “harms” ties?] [*]
BEIJING — The Chinese Foreign Ministry lashed out Friday against a speech on Internet censorship made the previous day by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, calling on the United States government “to respect the truth and to stop using the so-called Internet freedom question to level baseless accusations.” [non-denial denial] [*]
Ma Zhaoxu, a Foreign Ministry spokesman, said in a written statement posted Friday afternoon on the ministry’s Web site that the criticism leveled by Mrs. Clinton was “harmful to Sino-American relations.”
“The Chinese Internet is open,” he said.
The statement by the Foreign Ministry, along with a scathing editorial in the English-language edition of The Global Times, a populist, patriotic newspaper, signaled that China was ready to wrestle politically with the United States in the debate over Internet censorship.
President Obama promised last year to start a more conciliatory era in United States-China relations, pushing human rights issues to the background, but the new criticism of China’s Internet censorship and rising tensions over currency valuation and Taiwan arms sales indicate that animus could flare in the months ahead.
The debate over Internet censorship was brought to the fore in China last week when Google announced it might shut down its Chinese-language search engine, Google.cn, and curtail its other operations in mainland China if Chinese officials did not back down from requiring Google to censor search results.
Until now, the Chinese government had been trying to frame the dispute with Google as a commercial matter, perhaps because officials want to avoid having the dispute become a referendum on Internet censorship policies among Chinese liberals and foreign companies operating in China. [*] [rubbicon crossed?] On Thursday, He Yafei, a vice foreign minister, said the Google dispute should not be “over-interpreted” or linked to the bilateral relationship with the United States, according to Xinhua, the official state news agency.
In the aftermath of Mrs. Clinton’s speech, that attitude could be changing. Mrs. Clinton pointedly said that “a new information curtain is descending across much of the world” and identified China as one of a handful of countries that had stepped up Internet censorship in the past year. [*](Starting in late 2008, the Chinese government shut down thousands of Web sites under the pretext of an antipornography campaign.) She also praised American companies such as Google that are “making the issue of Internet and information freedom a greater consideration in their business decisions.”
The State Department had invited at least two prominent Chinese bloggers to travel to Washington as a show of support for Mrs. Clinton, and on Friday the United States Embassy here invited bloggers, mostly liberals, to attend a briefing. [why exactly?] [that strikes me as unnecessarily provocative?] [*]
Her speech was the first one by a senior American official that put forward Internet freedom as a plank of American foreign policy. With its cold war undertones — likening the information curtain to the Iron Curtain — it was almost certain to inflame opinion in China and other countries she identified.
In its editorial, the English-language edition of Global Times said Mrs. Clinton “had raised the stakes in Washington’s clash with Beijing over Internet freedom.”
The American demand for an unfettered Internet was a form of “information imperialism,” the newspaper said, because less developed nations cannot possibly compete with Western countries in the arena of information flow. [common to see charges of neo imperialism bandied about when China’s senstitivities upset] [*]
“The U.S. campaign for uncensored and free flow of information on an unrestricted Internet is a disguised attempt to impose its values on other cultures in the name of democracy,” the newspaper said, adding that the “U.S. government’s ideological imposition is unacceptable and, for that reason, will not be allowed to succeed.”
Articles on the Chinese-language Web site of The Global Times asserted that the United States employs the Internet as a weapon to achieve worldwide hegemony. [that may be a result but it’s hardly the case that the internet is prominent tool of USFP] [*]
One big question is whether ordinary Chinese will, to any large degree, accept China’s arguments justifying Internet censorship. Unlike government policies on sovereignty issues such as Tibet or Taiwan, media censorship is often derided by urban, middle-class Chinese, especially those who call themselves netizens. China has the most Internet users of any country, some 384 million by official count, but also the most complex system of Internet censorship, nicknamed the Great Firewall.
Except in the western region of Xinjiang, which is only starting to restore Internet access after cutting service off entirely after ethnic riots in July, canny netizens across China use software to get over the Great Firewall while chafing at the controls. [*]
Jonathan Ansfield and Xiyun Yang contributed reporting.
Copyright 2010 The New York Times Co

Poland to Deploy U.S. Missiles Near Russia

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/world/europe/22poland.html
January 22, 2010
Poland to Deploy U.S. Missiles Near Russia
By JUDY DEMPSEY [Poland] [former Warsaw Pact member] [Poland-Russia relations] [recall, after months of haggling with US on missile defense, as soon as Russia-Georgia fracas broke out, the Pols couldn’t sign the agreement fast enough] [missile “defense” on russia’s doorstep was provocative] [in late September (?) obama admini announced it was moving different direction with SA-3 missiles based on ships] [followup] [US-Poland relations since announcment] [*]
BERLIN — Three months after the United States announced a reformulated missile-defense plan for Poland, the Polish defense minister has announced that American surface-to-air missiles will be deployed near Russian soil. [*]
The minister, Bogdan Klich, said Wednesday that an undisclosed number of missiles would be deployed in the vicinity of Morag, in northern Poland, just 35 miles from the Russian

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/world/europe/22poland.html
January 22, 2010
Poland to Deploy U.S. Missiles Near Russia
By JUDY DEMPSEY [Poland] [former Warsaw Pact member] [Poland-Russia relations] [recall, after months of haggling with US on missile defense, as soon as Russia-Georgia fracas broke out, the Pols couldn’t sign the agreement fast enough] [missile “defense” on russia’s doorstep was provocative] [in late September (?) obama admini announced it was moving different direction with SA-3 missiles based on ships] [followup] [US-Poland relations since announcment] [*]
BERLIN — Three months after the United States announced a reformulated missile-defense plan for Poland, the Polish defense minister has announced that American surface-to-air missiles will be deployed near Russian soil. [*]
The minister, Bogdan Klich, said Wednesday that an undisclosed number of missiles would be deployed in the vicinity of Morag, in northern Poland, just 35 miles from the Russian enclave of Kaliningrad. He said the missiles could arrive as soon as late March or early April. [Kaliningrad is a particularly unique piece of land wedged between Baltic states and Poland] [historic reasons] [I wanted to get there when we traveled in Russia in 2008 but was unable to make it happen] [*]
He said the decision to base the missiles near Morag, and not Warsaw, had no political or strategic significance. “The only reason was the good infrastructure,” Mr. Klich said.
The United States had promised the missiles to Poland in October, after President Obama had scrapped a missile-defense system proposed by President George W. Bush.
Morag is already home to a Polish military base. Mr. Klich said it could easily be adapted to the needs of the new missile battery and the American soldiers who would be based in Poland once the missiles were sent there.
While the placement of the missiles so close to Russia could be seen as provocative, Russia denied a report that it planned to increase the arsenal of its Baltic Fleet in response to Poland’s announcement. [*]
“No changes are planned in the combat components of the Baltic Fleet in connection with the deployment of U.S. Patriot missiles close to the border with Russia,” the Defense Ministry said Thursday in a statement carried by news agencies.
The Russian news agency RIA Novosti had earlier quoted an official in the Baltic Fleet as saying that Russia would increase the fleet’s weaponry in response to the Polish announcement.
Copyright 2010 The New York Times Co

Entrenched Monarchy Thwarts Aspirations for Modernity

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/world/middleeast/22uae.html
January 22, 2010
Dubai Memo
Entrenched Monarchy Thwarts Aspirations for Modernity
By MICHAEL SLACKMAN [Dubai] [UAE] [Gulf] [emirates and their unique version of Arab culture and relgion] [US has many troops in vicinity with major base leased there] [democratization and modernity] [global economic meltdown and its effects in pushing traditional culture to forground] [followup] [*]
CAIRO — In the heady days of the Dubai gold rush, when real estate sold and resold even before a shovel hit the ground, the ambitious emirate was hailed as the model of Middle Eastern modernity, a boomtown that built an effective, efficient and accessible form of government.
Then the crash came and revealed how paper-thin that image was, political and financial analysts said. That realization, not just in Dubai but also in Abu Dhabi, the oil-rich capital of

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/world/middleeast/22uae.html
January 22, 2010
Dubai Memo
Entrenched Monarchy Thwarts Aspirations for Modernity
By MICHAEL SLACKMAN [Dubai] [UAE] [Gulf] [emirates and their unique version of Arab culture and relgion] [US has many troops in vicinity with major base leased there] [democratization and modernity] [global economic meltdown and its effects in pushing traditional culture to forground] [followup] [*]
CAIRO — In the heady days of the Dubai gold rush, when real estate sold and resold even before a shovel hit the ground, the ambitious emirate was hailed as the model of Middle Eastern modernity, a boomtown that built an effective, efficient and accessible form of government.
Then the crash came and revealed how paper-thin that image was, political and financial analysts said. That realization, not just in Dubai but also in Abu Dhabi, the oil-rich capital of the United Arab Emirates, has cast a harsh light on an opaque, top-down decision-making process, not just in business but in matters of crime and punishment as well, [*]political and financial analysts said.
The financial crisis and now two criminal cases that have generated critical headlines in other countries have demonstrated that the emirates remain an absolute monarchy, where institutions are far less important than royalty and where the law is particularly capricious — applied differently based on social standing, religion and nationality, political experts and human rights advocates said. [*]
“I think what we learned here the last four months is that the government, at least on a political level, is still very undeveloped,” said a financial analyst based in Dubai who asked not to be identified to avoid compromising his ability to work in the emirates. “It’s very difficult to read or interpret or understand what is going on. The institutions have not shaped up to people’s expectations.”
The most recent of the criminal cases occurred Dec. 31, when a British tourist, a Muslim, reported to the police that she was raped in a public bathroom of a luxury hotel in Dubai. Instead of being consoled, she and her fiancé, who had gone with her to report the attack, were arrested and charged with having illegal sex because they were not yet married, and with drinking alcohol in an unauthorized location.
“Scandal Under Arab Law,” said a headline in The Sun, a British tabloid.
Then, in another case that had already provoked widespread outrage, a court acquitted a member of Abu Dhabi’s royal family, Sheik Issa bin Zayed al-Nahayan, of charges of torturing an Afghan merchant. In May, ABC News broadcast portions of a 45-minute video that showed Sheik Issa beating the man with a whip, a cattle prod and a wooden plank with a protruding nail, and firing bullets at him before driving over his legs with a sport utility vehicle.
The case went to trial under pressure from the international community, including the United States Congress, which had threatened to hold up approval of a deal that would allow the emirates to receive advanced civilian nuclear technology. The controversy eased when the emirates arrested Sheik Issa and agreed to put him on trial. The nuclear deal was signed in December. [*]
While international human rights groups expected a conviction, residents of the emirates did not. Sheik Issa’s brother, Sheik Khalifa bin Zayed al-Nahayan, is the emir of Abu Dhabi and the president of the United Arab Emirates.
The local residents proved prescient.
On Jan. 10, the judge in the case said that Sheik Issa had “diminished liability” because he had been on prescription drugs when he took the man to his farm, shoved sand in his face and mouth, pulled his pants down and beat him. The sheik was set free.
“This reminds us we are dealing with a ruling monarchy,” said Christopher Davidson, a senior lecturer at the University of Durham in England who has written several books about the emirates. “We are dealing with the deification of this one branch of the ruling family. Any son of the family is a god.”
The acquittal was especially troubling, human rights groups said, because the court sentenced to prison three others seen in the video aiding Sheik Issa. It also handed out five-year prison sentences (in absentia) to the two men who made and distributed the video, saying they were guilty of meddling with the sheik’s medication and recording and distributing an unauthorized video. [*]The men, who live in the United States, have denied the charges.
“If the U.A.E. thinks that it is going to address the international outrage with a hush-hush trial that acquits him, they are in for a big surprise,” said Sarah Leah Whitson, director of the Middle East and North Africa division of Human Rights Watch. “There is going to be a great deal of focus on what is wrong with the U.A.E. justice system and what is wrong with impunity in the U.A.E. itself.”
A spokesman for Abu Dhabi said the ruling family had no comment on the court case.
The case of the British tourist added fuel to the fire that was already burning through the emirates’ image in the West. It was reported widely in the British news media, stoking outrage.
The couple had traveled to Dubai to celebrate New Year’s Eve. The woman was 23, Muslim and of Pakistani descent, the man 44. No other details of their identities have been made public.
The woman told the police that she was raped by a Syrian waiter who worked in the hotel. When she and her fiancé went to the Jebel Ali police department the next day to report the attack, they found themselves being questioned about their own relationship and arrested. [some new info that’s troubling] [*]
They were put in a holding cell, charged and released on bail. Their passports were taken, and they are being forced to remain in the emirates pending the outcome of an investigation. The National, a daily newspaper based in Abu Dhabi, reported that the police now doubt a rape occurred at all. They say hotel security video supports the suspect’s contention that he did not enter the bathroom after the woman.
“This sort of a prosecution, as a response to a claim of rape, besides striking me as grossly unfair and cruel, also is indicative of the arbitrary way in which the U.A.E. enforces its laws,” Ms. Whitson said.
Mr. Davidson, the university lecturer, said the decision to charge the couple also illustrated an old truth about Dubai’s social structure: that there were different rules for different nationalities and religions, especially on questions of morality. The woman and her fiancé probably received that treatment because she was Muslim, [*]he said.
During the boom years, Mr. Davidson said, Westerners in particular could normally violate morality laws without fear of arrest, and prostitution was widespread, though there were exceptions. In one such case, a British couple was arrested and faced prison after having sex on a beach, but only after ignoring an earlier warning to stop. They were eventually deported, after receiving suspended three-month sentences. Lt. Col. Abdul Qadir Al Bannai, director of the Jebel Ali police station, when reached by telephone said that he had no time to speak about the couple in the rape case. But in an interview published recently in Gulf News, a newspaper in the emirates, he defended his department’s actions, saying: “Our rules are clear in the U.A.E.; illegal drinking and sexual intercourse is considered an offense, so a case was filed against the couple as well. But we didn’t ignore the rape report.” He told the newspaper that the Syrian accused of rape was in custody now.
The couple faces up to six years in prison if the case is brought to trial and they are convicted.
“It’s awful,” Mr. Davidson said, “but it’s extremely predictable.”
Mona El-Naggar contributed reporting from Dubai.
Copyright 2010 The New York Times Co

Kenya: Confusion Over Whereabouts of Radical Cleric

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/world/africa/22briefs-Kenya.html
January 22, 2010
World Briefing | Africa
Kenya: Confusion Over Whereabouts of Radical Cleric
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS [Kenya] [significant spillover from Somalia (sometimes Ethiopia, Sudan, … as well)] [this guy apparently from Jamaica?] [use psci469b] [useful to learn more about recruitment?] [followup] [where’d he go?] [*]
Government officials made contradictory statements on Thursday about whether a radical Muslim cleric had left the country. Kenyan authorities had detained the Jamaican-born cleric, Abdullah al-Faisal, who served four years in a British jail for inciting murder and stirring racial hatred, and were trying to deport him. In response to a lawsuit, the High Court ordered the government to produce Mr. Faisal in court on Thursday and state its reasons for holding him. A document filed by prosecutors said Mr. Faisal was trying to recruit Kenyan youths to fight for Al Shabab, an Islamist insurgency in Somalia. [Arabic for the “youth”] [*]But at the hearing, a prosecutor said Mr. Faisal had left the country. An official

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/world/africa/22briefs-Kenya.html
January 22, 2010
World Briefing | Africa
Kenya: Confusion Over Whereabouts of Radical Cleric
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS [Kenya] [significant spillover from Somalia (sometimes Ethiopia, Sudan, … as well)] [this guy apparently from Jamaica?] [use psci469b] [useful to learn more about recruitment?] [followup] [where’d he go?] [*]
Government officials made contradictory statements on Thursday about whether a radical Muslim cleric had left the country. Kenyan authorities had detained the Jamaican-born cleric, Abdullah al-Faisal, who served four years in a British jail for inciting murder and stirring racial hatred, and were trying to deport him. In response to a lawsuit, the High Court ordered the government to produce Mr. Faisal in court on Thursday and state its reasons for holding him. A document filed by prosecutors said Mr. Faisal was trying to recruit Kenyan youths to fight for Al Shabab, an Islamist insurgency in Somalia. [Arabic for the “youth”] [*]But at the hearing, a prosecutor said Mr. Faisal had left the country. An official confirmed that he was on a plane that was scheduled to refuel in Moscow before going on to Jamaica. But hours later, Immigration Minister Otieno Kajwang said that Mr. Faisal was still in the country.
Copyright 2010 The New York Times Co

Nigeria: Army Ordered to Quell Sectarian Clashes

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/world/africa/22briefs-Nigeria.html
January 22, 2010
World Briefing | Africa
Nigeria: Army Ordered to Quell Sectarian Clashes
By REUTERS [Nigeria] [Africa] [western, equatorial] [despite lush, verdant areas] [one or two mishaps and Nigeria is nearly in freefall in terms of producing enough food to feed its 140 million peoples] [it’s a messy confection as so many colonial nation-states are but it’s got most defects in spades: lack of infrastructure; north-eastern boundary that follows river system; drought conditions; ethnicities that truly hate each other; and more][Nigeria is far from unique in terms of sectarian violence] [Malaysia, Philippines, Egypt and others occasionally; Iraq & Pakistan nearly annual (Xmas)] [followup] [army to quell][*]
Vice President Goodluck Jonathan ordered the army on Thursday to take over security in the central city of Jos to prevent further clashes between Christians and Muslims, which killed

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/world/africa/22briefs-Nigeria.html
January 22, 2010
World Briefing | Africa
Nigeria: Army Ordered to Quell Sectarian Clashes
By REUTERS [Nigeria] [Africa] [western, equatorial] [despite lush, verdant areas] [one or two mishaps and Nigeria is nearly in freefall in terms of producing enough food to feed its 140 million peoples] [it’s a messy confection as so many colonial nation-states are but it’s got most defects in spades: lack of infrastructure; north-eastern boundary that follows river system; drought conditions; ethnicities that truly hate each other; and more][Nigeria is far from unique in terms of sectarian violence] [Malaysia, Philippines, Egypt and others occasionally; Iraq & Pakistan nearly annual (Xmas)] [followup] [army to quell][*]
Vice President Goodluck Jonathan ordered the army on Thursday to take over security in the central city of Jos to prevent further clashes between Christians and Muslims, which killed more than 460 people this week. [*]Mr. Jonathan, left, has been empowered by a federal court to perform executive duties in the absence of President Umaru Yar’Adua, who has been in a hospital in Saudi Arabia for two months. “Let me assure all that the federal government is on top of the situation and that the crisis is being brought under control,” Mr. Jonathan said in a televised address.
Copyright 2010 The New York Times Co

For Israelis, Mixed Feelings on Aid Effort

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/world/middleeast/22israel.html
January 22, 2010
For Israelis, Mixed Feelings on Aid Effort
By ETHAN BRONNER [Israel] [domestic politics intersects foreign policy] [Israeli authorities sanction and American journalist whom Israelis believe uses anti Israel rhetoric?] [that’s Israel’s sovereign right of course but may be counterproductive] [followup] [*]
JERUSALEM — The editorial cartoon in Thursday’s mass-circulation Israeli newspaper Yediot Aharonot showed American soldiers digging among the ruins of Haiti. From within the rubble, a voice calls out, “Would you mind checking to see if the Israelis are available?”
A week ago, ahead of most countries, Israel sent scores of doctors and other professionals to Haiti. Years of dealing with terrorist attacks combined with an advanced medical technology sector have made Israel one of the most nimble countries in disaster relief — a factor that Western television news correspondents have highlighted. [as one who was hospitalized in Israel, I can attest they have excellent health care] [*]
But Israelis have been watching with a range of emotions, as if the Haitian relief effort were

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/world/middleeast/22israel.html
January 22, 2010
For Israelis, Mixed Feelings on Aid Effort
By ETHAN BRONNER [Israel] [domestic politics intersects foreign policy] [Israeli authorities sanction and American journalist whom Israelis believe uses anti Israel rhetoric?] [that’s Israel’s sovereign right of course but may be counterproductive] [followup] [*]
JERUSALEM — The editorial cartoon in Thursday’s mass-circulation Israeli newspaper Yediot Aharonot showed American soldiers digging among the ruins of Haiti. From within the rubble, a voice calls out, “Would you mind checking to see if the Israelis are available?”
A week ago, ahead of most countries, Israel sent scores of doctors and other professionals to Haiti. Years of dealing with terrorist attacks combined with an advanced medical technology sector have made Israel one of the most nimble countries in disaster relief — a factor that Western television news correspondents have highlighted. [as one who was hospitalized in Israel, I can attest they have excellent health care] [*]
But Israelis have been watching with a range of emotions, as if the Haitian relief effort were a Rorschach test through which the nation examines itself. The left has complained that there is no reason to travel thousands of miles to help those in need — Gaza is an hour away. The right has argued that those who accuse Israel of inhumanity should take note of its selfless efforts and achievements in Haiti. [not terribly dissimilar to debates in US] [*]
The government has been trying to figure out how to make the most of the relatively rare positive news coverage, especially after the severe criticism it has faced over its Gaza offensive a year ago.
“Israelis are caught in a great confusion over themselves,” noted Uri Dromi, a commentator who used to be a government spokesman. “There is such a gap between what we can do in so many fields and the failure we feel trapped in with the Palestinians. There’s nostalgia for the time when we were the darlings of the world, and the Haiti relief effort allows us to remember that feeling and say, you see we are not as bad as you think.”
“Now They Love Us,” was the headline Wednesday on the column of Eitan Haber, a close aide to Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin in the 1990s and a Yediot columnist. “In another month or two, nobody will remember the good deeds” of Israeli soldiers, he wrote. “The very same countries and very same leaders who are currently lauding the State of Israel will order their representatives to vote against it at the United Nations, proceed to condemn I.D.F. operations in Gaza, and again slam its foreign minister.”
Israeli journalists flew into Haiti with relief teams. And while the contours of the catastrophe have been well described, inherent in the coverage is the question of what Israel’s performance says about it and its place in the world.
Much noted has been the absence of rich and powerful Persian Gulf countries in the relief effort, a point made here when the 2004 tsunami hit large parts of Asia and Israeli relief teams swung into action there as well.
Many commentators argued that the work in Haiti was a reflection of a central Jewish value. Michael Freund, a columnist in The Jerusalem Post, wrote on Thursday, “Though a vast gulf separates Israel from Haiti, with more than 10,500 kilometers of ocean lying between us, the Jewish people demonstrated that their extended hand can bridge any gap and traverse any chasm when it comes to saving lives.” [*]
But on the same page, another commentator, Larry Derfner, argued that while Israel’s field hospital in Haiti is a reflection of something deep in the nation’s character, “so is everything that’s summed up in the name of ‘Gaza.’ ” He wrote: “It’s the Haiti side of Israel that makes the Gaza side so inexpressibly tragic. And more and more, the Haiti part of the national character has been dwarfed by the Gaza part.” [*]
Early in the week, Akiva Eldar, a leftist commentator and reporter with the newspaper Haaretz, made a similar point: “The remarkable identification with the victims of the terrible tragedy in distant Haiti only underscores the indifference to the ongoing suffering of the people of Gaza.” [*]
Copyright 2010 The New York Times Co

Diplomatic Hand Extended: Furor May Erupt if Shaken

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/world/middleeast/22handshake.html
January 22, 2010
Diplomatic Hand Extended: Furor May Erupt if Shaken
By ROBERT F. WORTH [Israel] [Iran] [Yemen?] [more utter nonsense from Iranian media and thugocracy vis-à-vis Israel] [followup] [in Iran, de rigeur is lambasting Israel for virtually ever heinous crime one might imagine?] [*]
SANA, Yemen — Iran angrily denied reports on Thursday that its tourism minister shook hands with his Israeli counterpart at a reception in Spain, [*]which would have violated Iran’s strict anti-Israeli policies.
An adviser to Stas Misezhnikov, the Israeli tourism minister, said the two ministers shook hands at a reception on Wednesday hosted by the king and queen of Spain. Only ministers and ambassadors were present at the meeting, said the adviser, Amnon Liebermann.
The Cultural Heritage, Handicrafts and Tourism Organization, which serves as Iran’s tourism

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/world/middleeast/22handshake.html
January 22, 2010
Diplomatic Hand Extended: Furor May Erupt if Shaken
By ROBERT F. WORTH [Israel] [Iran] [Yemen?] [more utter nonsense from Iranian media and thugocracy vis-à-vis Israel] [followup] [in Iran, de rigeur is lambasting Israel for virtually ever heinous crime one might imagine?] [*]
SANA, Yemen — Iran angrily denied reports on Thursday that its tourism minister shook hands with his Israeli counterpart at a reception in Spain, [*]which would have violated Iran’s strict anti-Israeli policies.
An adviser to Stas Misezhnikov, the Israeli tourism minister, said the two ministers shook hands at a reception on Wednesday hosted by the king and queen of Spain. Only ministers and ambassadors were present at the meeting, said the adviser, Amnon Liebermann.
The Cultural Heritage, Handicrafts and Tourism Organization, which serves as Iran’s tourism ministry, issued a statement on Thursday dismissing that claim as an “ugly and false rumor,” adding that Iranian officials “never encountered Israeli officials in any form.” [incredible when a report that ministers shook hands is ugly] [*]The statement added that Iran considered “the permanent struggle against this international pariah its divine duty.”
The Iranian denial was reported by at least two of Iran’s semiofficial news agencies. In the statement, the tourism ministry also accused the BBC of helping to spread the report of the handshake, and it threatened legal action against any newspaper that repeated it.
The report was first published Wednesday on Ynet, the Web site of the popular Israeli newspaper Yediot Aharonot, which also said that the Iranian minister had invited Mr. Misezhnikov to visit the Iranian cities of Shiraz and Isfahan.
Iran broke ties with Israel after the 1979 revolution, and vitriolic attacks on Israel are a standard feature of its official pronouncements. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran has called for Israel to be wiped off the map. [his words are invariably full of nonsense so it’s not especially surprising he made an inflammatory comment or two on Israel] [it’s mostly for domestic consumption] [*]
Iranian officials take pains to avoid contact with Israelis, and even Iranian athletes avoid face-to-face contact with Israeli competitors. Those accused of breaching the rules are pilloried in Iran.
The current Iranian tourism minister, Hamid Baghaei, replaced Esfandiar Rahim Mashaei, who was heavily criticized last summer for having said that Iran was “friends with the Israeli people.” Mr. Mashaei was forced to withdraw as a top deputy to Mr. Ahmadinejad and now serves as his chief of staff.
Isabel Kershner contributed reporting from Jerusalem.
Copyright 2010 The New York Times Co

U.S. ambassador puts brakes on plan to utilize Afghan militias against Taliban

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/21/AR2010012101926.html
U.S. ambassador puts brakes on plan to utilize Afghan militias against Taliban
By Greg Jaffe and Rajiv Chandrasekaran
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, January 22, 2010; A08 [Afghanistan] [hydra] [began in Afghanistan, but moved to Pakistan] [AfPak] [2009’s substantial pickup in Taliban and other insurgencies] [spring offensive turned into major effort throughout year] [now winter snows are slowing down in typical yearly fashion] [by time snow begins to melt, most of the “surge” will be in place] [use psci 469] [Amb. Eikenberry (former general) puts kabbosh on militia plan?] [*]
The U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan and senior Afghan officials have resisted moving forward with a bold and potentially risky initiative to support local militias in Afghanistan that are willing to defend their villages against insurgents, according to U.S. officials.
Their concerns have slowed the implementation of a key effort to provide security in places where there are relatively few NATO forces or Afghan police and Army units. U.S. military

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/21/AR2010012101926.html
U.S. ambassador puts brakes on plan to utilize Afghan militias against Taliban
By Greg Jaffe and Rajiv Chandrasekaran
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, January 22, 2010; A08 [Afghanistan] [hydra] [began in Afghanistan, but moved to Pakistan] [AfPak] [2009’s substantial pickup in Taliban and other insurgencies] [spring offensive turned into major effort throughout year] [now winter snows are slowing down in typical yearly fashion] [by time snow begins to melt, most of the “surge” will be in place] [use psci 469] [Amb. Eikenberry (former general) puts kabbosh on militia plan?] [*]
The U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan and senior Afghan officials have resisted moving forward with a bold and potentially risky initiative to support local militias in Afghanistan that are willing to defend their villages against insurgents, according to U.S. officials.
Their concerns have slowed the implementation of a key effort to provide security in places where there are relatively few NATO forces or Afghan police and Army units. U.S. military officials had wanted to get the initiative -- developed under the leadership of Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the top commander in Afghanistan -- off to a quick start this year. [I sure hope this isn’t residual petty stuff from Nov.!?] [some issues as president prepared to make his “surge” decision?] [which is sort of what the troops did in Iraq with some success] [*]
The plan was to take advantage of the emergence of informal village security forces that were taking up arms against outside insurgents. The hope was that the new program could yield thousands of new security forces relatively fast, bridging the gap until more army and police forces could be trained. But before the initiative can be implemented on a broader scale, Ambassador Karl W. Eikenberry must approve the release of more money for it.
Eikenberry's unease about the program as it was structured by the military also reflects a broader difference of opinion at the highest levels of the U.S. military and diplomatic headquarters in Kabul about new approaches to combating the Taliban insurgency. [it it’s just growing pains, that’s one thing] [if it’s petty payback, that’s another?] [*]While military commanders are eager to experiment with decentralized grass-roots initiatives that work around the ponderous Afghan bureaucracy in Kabul, civilian officials think it is more important to wait until they have the central government's support, something they regard as essential to sustaining the programs. [both have points] [this begs for compromise, such as pilot programs to test concept?] [*]
U.S. Embassy and Afghan officials are working to modify the program, called Local Defense Initiatives, to ensure that the Afghan government plays a more central role in how it is run. "We are committed to doing this right, and that means taking the time for the Afghan government and people to decide on whether and how to move ahead," said Philip Kosnett, the U.S. Embassy's political-military counselor in Kabul.
The disagreement about how to move forward with the local security program comes at a time when McChrystal and Eikenberry, who served as the top U.S. military commander in Afghanistan, are under intense pressure to show fast results to take advantage of the 30,000 U.S. troops that will arrive in the country this year. By July 2011, President Obama has said, military commanders will begin sending some of those forces home. [*]
Afghan officials and Eikenberry have also expressed concern that unless there is a detailed plan to connect these village security forces to Ministry of Interior oversight, they could fuel the rise of warlords [he’s right as it has in past] [compromise?] [*] and undermine the already fragile government in Kabul. Another worry is that the local tribal leaders could manipulate U.S. officers who do not understand politics and tribal grievances in a particular area, U.S. officials said.
"Our level of intelligence is so lacking," said an adviser to the U.S. Embassy in Afghanistan. "We could be supporting people whose interests are not what we think they are." [that’s potentially a problem] [c.f. comment I made in Iraq pieces on “surge” in 2008 (& 2007) about short-term expediency leading to potential trouble down road between Sunni-Shi’a] [*] Eikenberry has argued that without Afghan government support, the program could be quickly disbanded if one of the village security forces is turned by the Taliban or gets into a dispute with government security forces.
"It's a two-edged sword," Richard C. Holbrooke, the Obama administration's special envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan, said in an interview. "One person's community defense initiative can be another person's warlord militia."
Military officials said it is important to take advantage of the colder winter months when violence drops to begin training village forces. "If you delay until March, you lose a lot," said a military official in Kabul.
The military is moving forward with the initiative on a smaller scale, using money that the embassy does not control. "No one is frustrated. We just want to get going," [traditionally the ambassador is el jefe; this might cause friction?] [*]the official said.
The Afghan village program has drawn comparisons to the Sons of Iraq effort, [*]in which Sunni tribal forces consisting of more than 100,000 Iraqis -- many of them former insurgents -- were paid to police their villages. That effort, which was widely viewed as essential to blunting a runaway insurgency, was started without seeking permission from Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who initially voiced strong objections to the program. [and while that program was incredibly successful, it’s worth thinking about the potential consequences] [to this day, some Sunni who rallied to US side during “surge” feel a sense of entitlement that’s counterproductive] [what they get in democratic society is roughly equal to their census in same] [they comprise perhaps 35%] [*] Although some members of the Sons of Iraq have been absorbed into the army and police forces, Sunni leaders have accused Maliki of reneging on commitments made by U.S. commanders when the program was started and trying to dismantle the program. [sensitive issues are raised when pentagon uses locals] [it may be worth it but who’s looking down the road?] [are any of these militia Tajik, Uzbek, etc.?] [*]
The Afghan village security initiative differs significantly from the Sons of Iraq effort, which involved U.S. military personnel training, arming and paying Sunni tribesmen to defend their communities against al-Qaeda-affiliated extremists.
In Afghanistan, the military does not intend to arm or pay members of the local security groups. Afghanistan, military officials note, is already awash in weapons. Compensation will be in the form of money for development projects in areas where the groups operate. Although Afghanistan's interior minister has expressed a desire to pay recruits, the United States plans to channel development projects to villages that sign up for the security effort. Village militias will also receive radios to call for assistance from nearby U.S. or Afghan forces and receive training from Special Forces troops.
Military officials also said that to prevent warlordism, the groups will be under the authority of a local shura -- a council of tribal elders -- not a single tribal chief. U.S. military officials, meanwhile, have said that they are committed to a bottom-up approach to security and economic development, which recognizes that many Afghans consider the corrupt central government part of the problem and a threat to local tribal power structures. [warlordism a huge problem in AfPak tribal belts and has been for decades] [*]
"The community level will be decisive -- and that support is entirely up for grabs," Col. Christopher D. Kolenda, an adviser to McChrystal, wrote in the current issue of Joint Force Quarterly.
Staff writers Karen DeYoung in Washington and Keith B. Richburg in Kabul contributed to this report. © 2010 The Washington Post Co

Loyalties of Those Killed in Afghan Raid Remain Unclear

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/world/asia/22afghan.html
January 22, 2010
Loyalties of Those Killed in Afghan Raid Remain Unclear
By DEXTER FILKINS [Afghanistan] [hydra] [began in Afghanistan, but moved to Pakistan] [AfPak] [2009’s substantial pickup in Taliban and other insurgencies] [spring offensive turned into major effort throughout year] [now winter snows are slowing down in typical yearly fashion] [by time snow begins to melt, most of the “surge” will be in place] [use psci 469] [next to offensive tactical bombing, these commado raids have become biggest sore spot as noncombatants often are killed] [followup] [*]
KABUL, Afghanistan — A group of American and Afghan soldiers swooped into a village in a Taliban-heavy district early Thursday, fired their guns and came away. And in a scene repeated often here, one side cried murder and the other side claimed success. [*]
Late in the day, this much was clear: Just after midnight, a team of American and Afghan soldiers carried out an operation to detain a Taliban commander named Qari Faizullah in a

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/world/asia/22afghan.html
January 22, 2010
Loyalties of Those Killed in Afghan Raid Remain Unclear
By DEXTER FILKINS [Afghanistan] [hydra] [began in Afghanistan, but moved to Pakistan] [AfPak] [2009’s substantial pickup in Taliban and other insurgencies] [spring offensive turned into major effort throughout year] [now winter snows are slowing down in typical yearly fashion] [by time snow begins to melt, most of the “surge” will be in place] [use psci 469] [next t