Hydrablog

One Drone Victim’s Trail From Raleigh to Pakistan

2013-05-23T16:34:41Z

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/23/us/one-drone-victims-trail-from-raleigh-to-pakistan.html
May 22, 2013
One Drone Victim’s Trail From Raleigh to Pakistan
By SCOTT SHANE and ERIC SCHMITT [Obama White House] [113th congress, 1st session] [U.S counterterrorism strategy that was published in June 2011] [both NSC principals (special subgroup for covert action) and bureaucracy] [GSAVE] [LWOT] [considerable continuity between W. Bush and Obama] [followup] [these are the kinds of concerns critics and even people inside government have raised: that the UAVs are making more enemies that solving] [use psci 355-455, 463] [cross in external] [*]
WASHINGTON — When Jude Kenan Mohammad was about 18 and living in Raleigh, N.C., according to people who knew him, he came under the influence of an older man, Daniel Patrick Boyd, who taught him a violent, radical version of Islam.
Mr. Boyd would be charged in 2009 and eventually imprisoned as the ringleader of a group of North Carolina residents who had vowed to carry out a violent jihad both in the United States and overseas. Mr. Mohammad was also charged, but by then, partly at the direction of Mr. Boyd, he had traveled to Pakistan, where he had joined a group of militants in that country’s tribal area.
On Wednesday, the United States government officially acknowledged for the first time what had long been rumored among his friends in Raleigh: that Mr. Mohammad was killed in a C.I.A. drone strike on a compound in South Waziristan, Pakistan, on Nov. 16, 2011. He was 23.

]]> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/23/us/one-drone-victims-trail-from-raleigh-to-pakistan.html
May 22, 2013
One Drone Victim’s Trail From Raleigh to Pakistan
By SCOTT SHANE and ERIC SCHMITT [Obama White House] [113th congress, 1st session] [U.S counterterrorism strategy that was published in June 2011] [both NSC principals (special subgroup for covert action) and bureaucracy] [GSAVE] [LWOT] [considerable continuity between W. Bush and Obama] [followup] [these are the kinds of concerns critics and even people inside government have raised: that the UAVs are making more enemies that solving] [use psci 355-455, 463] [cross in external] [*]
WASHINGTON — When Jude Kenan Mohammad was about 18 and living in Raleigh, N.C., according to people who knew him, he came under the influence of an older man, Daniel Patrick Boyd, who taught him a violent, radical version of Islam.
Mr. Boyd would be charged in 2009 and eventually imprisoned as the ringleader of a group of North Carolina residents who had vowed to carry out a violent jihad both in the United States and overseas. Mr. Mohammad was also charged, but by then, partly at the direction of Mr. Boyd, he had traveled to Pakistan, where he had joined a group of militants in that country’s tribal area.
On Wednesday, the United States government officially acknowledged for the first time what had long been rumored among his friends in Raleigh: that Mr. Mohammad was killed in a C.I.A. drone strike on a compound in South Waziristan, Pakistan, on Nov. 16, 2011. He was 23.
He was one of at least four Americans to have been killed in “counterterrorism operations,” Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. said in a letter sent on Wednesday to Senator Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, chairman of the Judiciary Committee.
Only one of those killed, the radical Yemeni-American cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, was deliberately targeted, Mr. Holder said. The others were killed in strikes that did not specifically target them, he said, including Samir Khan, another young man from Raleigh who had joined the Qaeda branch in Yemen and was killed with Mr. Awlaki; Mr. Awlaki’s 16-year-old son, Abdulrahman, killed two weeks later; and Mr. Mohammad.
American officials said on Wednesday that Mr. Mohammad had been killed with about 12 other insurgents in what the C.I.A. calls a “signature strike,” an attack based on patterns of activity, such as men toting arms in an area controlled by extremist groups. Such strikes have prompted the sharpest divisions inside the Obama administration, with some officials questioning whether killing unidentified fighters is legally justified or worth the local backlash.
After the strike, the family friend said, Mr. Mohammad’s wife, whom he had met and married after moving to Pakistan, called his mother in North Carolina to say he had been killed.
Reflecting the covert nature of the drone program in Pakistan, the F.B.I. had left Mr. Mohammad’s name on its wanted list after his death. An F.B.I. spokesman, Kathleen Wright, said on Wednesday that it would be removed.
While Mr. Mohammad was not directly targeted, he had come under increasing scrutiny by American counterterrorism officials, who said he was involved in recruiting militants for Al Qaeda and the Pakistani Taliban, as well as making videos on YouTube to incite violence against the United States.
“He had risen to the top of the U.S. deck,” said Seth G. Jones, a senior political scientist at the RAND Corporation and former adviser to the military’s Special Operations Command. Mr. Jones said that while in Pakistan, Mr. Mohammad had made contact with five young Virginia men who disappeared from their homes around Thanksgiving in 2009 and turned up seeking to join militant groups. Instead they were arrested and remain in Pakistani custody.
A family friend, who asked not to be named because she did not want to offend Mr. Mohammad’s family, called him “a good kid, but a follower.” His Pakistani father, Taj Mohammad, met his mother, Elena, an American who converted from Catholicism to Islam, in New York in the early 1980s. They lived in Pakistan for several years, but in the late 1990s, Elena moved back to the United States with their son.
Jude Mohammad dropped out of high school but later earned his high school equivalency certificate and attended Wake Technical Community College. He was “a regular around the mosque” in Raleigh and often volunteered in the mosque kitchen to help prepare communal meals, the friend said.
“He’d put food on the back of his bike and ride a couple of miles to deliver groceries to the homebound,” she said.
Later, after dropping out of school, he used drugs and described himself as “lost,” the friend said. “He was looking for a father figure.”
After meeting Mr. Boyd, a convert to Islam who called himself Saifullah, he came to see going overseas to fight as a way to purify himself.
Mr. Boyd, who had trained in terrorist camps in Pakistan and Afghanistan from 1989 to 1992, was later banned from the mosque in Raleigh as a troublemaker. In September 2009, he was indicted with his two sons, Mr. Mohammad and four other men for conspiring to plot terrorist acts at home and abroad.
Among other things, Mr. Boyd was accused of carrying out “reconnaissance” of the Marine base at Quantico, Va., and plotting to stage attacks on service members there.
While he was a fugitive in Pakistan, Mr. Mohammad would sometimes call his American friends and family, especially on Muslim holidays, staying on the phone just long enough to offer a greeting for fear of having the call traced.
The calls stopped after November 2011, the friend said, and the reports of his death began to circulate through Raleigh’s Muslim community.

Obama, in a Shift, to Limit Targets of Drone Strikes

2013-05-23T16:33:40Z

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/23/us/us-acknowledges-killing-4-americans-in-drone-strikes.html
May 22, 2013
Obama, in a Shift, to Limit Targets of Drone Strikes
By CHARLIE SAVAGE and PETER BAKER [Obama White House] [113th congress, 1st session] [U.S counterterrorism strategy that was published in June 2011] [both NSC principals (special subgroup for covert action) and bureaucracy] [GSAVE] [LWOT] [considerable continuity between W. Bush and Obama] [followup] [first in Obama’s State of the Union Speech (or 2nd Inaugural) and in National Defense University (tomorrow but already widely reported)speech the administration has signaled that they are rethinking the UAVs, which have escalated considerably and caused some grumbling from various corners of American politics] [use psci 355-455, 463] [followup] [this “shift” was presaged in Scott Wilson’s piece yesterday on an ongoing debate inside the administration] [*]
WASHINGTON — President Obama plans to open a new phase in the nation’s long struggle with terrorism on Thursday by restricting the use of unmanned drone strikes that have been at the heart of his national security strategy and shifting control of them away from the C.I.A. to the military. [that’s a great idea] [I’m a little surprised given the gusto with which Brennan—now at CIA—has increased these kinds of attacks] [but I think it’s overdue] [*]
In his first major speech on counterterrorism of his second term, Mr. Obama hopes to refocus the epic conflict that has defined American priorities since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and even foresees an unspecified day when the so-called war on terror might all but end, according to people briefed on White House plans.
As part of the shift in approach, the administration on Wednesday formally acknowledged for the first time that it had killed four American citizens in drone strikes outside the battlefields of Afghanistan and Iraq, arguing that its actions were justified by the danger to the United States. Mr. Obama approved providing new information to Congress and the public about the rules governing his attacks on Al Qaeda and its allies. [*]

]]> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/23/us/us-acknowledges-killing-4-americans-in-drone-strikes.html
May 22, 2013
Obama, in a Shift, to Limit Targets of Drone Strikes
By CHARLIE SAVAGE and PETER BAKER [Obama White House] [113th congress, 1st session] [U.S counterterrorism strategy that was published in June 2011] [both NSC principals (special subgroup for covert action) and bureaucracy] [GSAVE] [LWOT] [considerable continuity between W. Bush and Obama] [followup] [first in Obama’s State of the Union Speech (or 2nd Inaugural) and in National Defense University (tomorrow but already widely reported)speech the administration has signaled that they are rethinking the UAVs, which have escalated considerably and caused some grumbling from various corners of American politics] [use psci 355-455, 463] [followup] [this “shift” was presaged in Scott Wilson’s piece yesterday on an ongoing debate inside the administration] [*]
WASHINGTON — President Obama plans to open a new phase in the nation’s long struggle with terrorism on Thursday by restricting the use of unmanned drone strikes that have been at the heart of his national security strategy and shifting control of them away from the C.I.A. to the military. [that’s a great idea] [I’m a little surprised given the gusto with which Brennan—now at CIA—has increased these kinds of attacks] [but I think it’s overdue] [*]
In his first major speech on counterterrorism of his second term, Mr. Obama hopes to refocus the epic conflict that has defined American priorities since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and even foresees an unspecified day when the so-called war on terror might all but end, according to people briefed on White House plans.
As part of the shift in approach, the administration on Wednesday formally acknowledged for the first time that it had killed four American citizens in drone strikes outside the battlefields of Afghanistan and Iraq, arguing that its actions were justified by the danger to the United States. Mr. Obama approved providing new information to Congress and the public about the rules governing his attacks on Al Qaeda and its allies. [*]
A new classified policy guidance signed by Mr. Obama will sharply curtail the instances when unmanned aircraft can be used to attack in places that are not overt war zones, [*]countries like Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia. The rules will impose the same standard for strikes on foreign enemies now used only for American citizens deemed to be terrorists. [*]
Lethal force will be used only against targets who pose “a continuing, imminent threat to Americans” and cannot feasibly be captured, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. said in a letter to Congress, suggesting that threats to a partner like Afghanistan or Yemen alone would not be enough to justify being targeted.
The standard could signal an end to “signature strikes,” or attacks on groups of unknown men based only on their presumed status as members of Al Qaeda or some other enemy group — an approach that administration critics say has resulted in many civilian casualties. In effect, this appears to be a step away from the less restricted use of force allowed in war zones and toward the more limited use of force for self-defense allowed outside of armed conflict.
In the speech he will give on Thursday at the National Defense University, Mr. Obama will also renew his long-stalled effort to close the prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. Officials said they would make a fresh push to transfer detainees to home countries and lift the ban on sending some back to Yemen. The president plans to reappoint a high-level State Department official to oversee the effort to reduce the prison population. [*]
The combined actions constitute a pivot point for a president who came to office highly critical of his predecessor, George W. Bush, yet who preserved and in some cases expanded on some of the counterterrorism policies he inherited. Much as Mr. Bush did in 2006 when he acknowledged and emptied secret overseas C.I.A. prisons, Mr. Obama appears intent on countering criticism of his most controversial policies by reorienting them to meet changing conditions.
In his speech, Mr. Obama is expected to reject the notion of a perpetual war with terrorists, envisioning a day when Al Qaeda has been so incapacitated that wartime authority will end. However, because he is also institutionalizing procedures for drone strikes, it does not appear that he thinks that day has come. A Pentagon official suggested last week that the current conflict could continue for 10 to 20 years.
Yet even as he moves the counterterrorism effort to a next stage, Mr. Obama plans to offer a robust defense of a continued role for targeted killings, a policy he has generally addressed only in passing or in interviews rather than in a comprehensive speech. A White House official said he “will discuss why the use of drone strikes is necessary, legal and just, while addressing the various issues raised by our use of targeted action.”
While Mr. Obama may not explicitly announce the shift in drones from the Central Intelligence Agency in his speech, since the agency’s operations remain formally classified, the change underscores a desire by the president and his advisers to balance them with other legal and diplomatic tools. The C.I.A., which has overseen the drone war in the tribal areas of Pakistan and elsewhere, will generally cede its role to the military after a six-month transition period as forces draw down in Afghanistan, officials said. [**]
Drone strikes have already been decreasing in the past few years as targets have been killed and opposition has grown. John O. Brennan, the new C.I.A. director, has been eager to shift the agency more toward espionage, intelligence gathering and analysis and away from the paramilitary mission it has adopted since Sept. 11. [I’m a bit surprised—that’s counter to bureaucratic behavior—but it’s a welcomed change] [if the U.S. is going to wage war, the military should be doing it, not the CIA] [*]
Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island, a top Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, said that after more than a decade of war it was time to “rebalance” the missions of the Pentagon and C.I.A. “The policy is intended to refocus the activities of the intelligence community to collection, which is crucial,” he said.
But Mr. Obama’s moves may provoke criticism from some Republicans who say a law enforcement approach underestimates the continuing threat from terrorism. An aide to Representative Howard P. McKeon of California, chairman of the Armed Services Committee, said his boss would insist on “concrete answers” about what Mr. Obama planned to do with “terrorists who are too dangerous to be released” from Guantánamo.
In his letter to Congressional leaders, Mr. Holder confirmed that the administration had deliberately killed Anwar al-Awlaki, a radical Muslim cleric who died in a drone strike in September 2011 in Yemen. Mr. Holder also wrote that United States forces had killed three other Americans who “were not specifically targeted.”
The American involvement in Mr. Awlaki’s death has been widely reported, but the administration until now had refused to confirm it. Likewise, Mr. Holder confirmed the government’s role in the deaths of Samir Khan, who was killed in the same strike, and Mr. Awlaki’s son, Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, who died in another strike. The letter disclosed the death of a fourth American named Jude Kenan Mohammad but gave no further details.
Mr. Holder defended the actions, saying they were consistent with American law and taken only after careful consideration. “Based on generations-old legal principles and Supreme Court decisions handed down during World War II, as well as during the current conflict, it is clear and logical that United States citizenship alone does not make such individuals immune from being targeted,” he wrote.
Critics were not assuaged. “The Obama administration continues to claim authority to kill virtually anyone anywhere in the world under the ‘global battlefield’ legal theory and a radical redefinition of the concept of imminence,” said Zeke Johnson of Amnesty International. “President Obama should reject these concepts in his speech tomorrow and commit to upholding human rights, not just in word but in deed.” [that doesn’t sound like what he’s claiming any longer] [it sounds like he’s saying only where the U.S. is at war—where the military is already engaged] [*]
The lifting of the veil of official secrecy over the Awlaki killing could have broad legal ramifications. The Justice Department on Wednesday afternoon dropped an effort to throw out a California lawsuit seeking documents related to the killing, while a judge here ordered the government to address the disclosure in a wrongful-death lawsuit brought by Mr. Awlaki’s family.
Mr. Holder, in a speech at Northwestern law school last year, laid out the administration’s basic legal thinking that it could target American citizens deemed to be operational terrorists who pose an “imminent threat of violent attack” and where capture is not feasible.
Mr. Holder’s letter expanded the rationale for the killing of Mr. Awlaki. Mr. Holder said Mr. Awlaki not only had “planned” the attempted bombing of a Detroit-bound airliner on Dec. 25, 2009, a claim that has been widely discussed in court documents and elsewhere, but had also “played a key role” in an October 2010 plot to blow up cargo planes bound for the United States, including taking “part in the development and testing” of the bombs. He added that Mr. Awlaki had also been involved in “the planning of numerous other plots.”
“The decision to target Anwar al-Awlaki was lawful, it was considered, and it was just,” Mr. Holder said.

Sweden: Riots Continue in Immigrant Neighborhoods

2013-05-23T16:32:35Z

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/23/world/europe/sweden-riots-continue-in-immigrant-neighborhoods.html
May 22, 2013
Sweden: Riots Continue in Immigrant Neighborhoods
By REUTERS [Sweden] [Stockholm] [Europe] [anti Islam or anti Muslim sentiment, past few years here] [most jihadis stuff has been in England, France, some in Germany] [last couple years some smaller things in Nordic nations] [use psci 350, 463] [followup, Feb 26, 2011] [the only thing I’ll say about it is this: while I haven’t spent any great time in Sweeden, I have visited it and travelled through it and this sort of frustration morphing into violence strikes me as wholly out of character with most Swedes] [*]
Hundreds of young people burned cars and attacked police officers this week in three nights of riots in immigrant neighborhoods of Stockholm, Sweden’s capital. On Tuesday night, a police station in the Jakobsberg area in northwest Stockholm was attacked, two schools were damaged and an arts center was set ablaze, despite a call for calm from Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt. The riots appear to have been started by the police killing of a 69-year-old man wielding a machete in Husby this month, which prompted accusations of police brutality. The riots spread from Husby to other poor parts of Stockholm suburbs.

]]> [full piece may be found above the jump] [*]

Cameron Says Britain ‘Resolute’ After Attack

2013-05-23T16:31:49Z

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/24/world/europe/london-attack.html
May 23, 2013
Cameron Says Britain ‘Resolute’ After Attack
By JOHN F. BURNS and ALAN COWELL [UK] [London] [EU3] [it’s back?] [more 3rd-generation jihadis possibly] [I only caught 1 minute of this last night on CNN and it looked off to me—that is, it look more like mental illness than true jihadism but it’s hard to tell] [just before Olympics in 2012 some arrests made] [the peak years were 2004-2008] [in past few years quieted down somewhat, at least seemingly] [if this proves to have any connection with the Tribal areas back in Pakistan, than I’d consider reclassifying?] [England has large South Asia émigré populations] [followup] [use psci 355-455, 463] [followup, Mar 15, 2013] [whatever it was-is, the Brtish PM is maintaining his stiff upper lip!] [*]
LONDON — A day after an attack on an off-duty British soldier by two knife-wielding assailants, Prime Minister David Cameron said on Thursday that Britain would be “absolutely resolute” in confronting terrorism and that extremist assaults would “only bring us together.”
Mr. Cameron was speaking after leading the emergency Cobra committee, a group of cabinet ministers and high-level security officials that oversees the operations of police and security agencies during high security alerts.
The attack raised new fears of terrorism when the soldier, walking near a military barracks in south London, was rammed by a car and then hacked to death. One of the men shouted “Allahu akbar,” or “God is great,” during the attack, government officials said.

]]> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/24/world/europe/london-attack.html
May 23, 2013
Cameron Says Britain ‘Resolute’ After Attack
By JOHN F. BURNS and ALAN COWELL [UK] [London] [EU3] [it’s back?] [more 3rd-generation jihadis possibly] [I only caught 1 minute of this last night on CNN and it looked off to me—that is, it look more like mental illness than true jihadism but it’s hard to tell] [just before Olympics in 2012 some arrests made] [the peak years were 2004-2008] [in past few years quieted down somewhat, at least seemingly] [if this proves to have any connection with the Tribal areas back in Pakistan, than I’d consider reclassifying?] [England has large South Asia émigré populations] [followup] [use psci 355-455, 463] [followup, Mar 15, 2013] [whatever it was-is, the Brtish PM is maintaining his stiff upper lip!] [*]
LONDON — A day after an attack on an off-duty British soldier by two knife-wielding assailants, Prime Minister David Cameron said on Thursday that Britain would be “absolutely resolute” in confronting terrorism and that extremist assaults would “only bring us together.”
Mr. Cameron was speaking after leading the emergency Cobra committee, a group of cabinet ministers and high-level security officials that oversees the operations of police and security agencies during high security alerts.
The attack raised new fears of terrorism when the soldier, walking near a military barracks in south London, was rammed by a car and then hacked to death. One of the men shouted “Allahu akbar,” or “God is great,” during the attack, government officials said.
Police officers shot and wounded the suspects.
The British police said on Thursday that the victim, whose body was left in a road as one of his attackers gave an impromtpu interview to a passer-by, was a soldier. He was not identified by name. The police in Lincolnshire, 150 miles north of London, also said that a house had been searched in the town of Saxilby.
After the attack, the wounded suspects were taken to separate hospitals under police guard, one in serious condition.
“The people who did this were trying to divide us,” Mr. Cameron told reporters outside his office and official residence at 10 Downing Street. “They should know something like this will only bring us together and make us stronger.”
“This country will be absolutely resolute in its stand against violent extremism and terror. We will never give in to terror or terrorism in any of its forms,” he said.
“This view is shared by every community in our country. This was not just an attack on Britain and on the British way of life; it was also a betrayal of Islam and of the Muslim communities who give so much to our country.
“There is nothing in Islam that justifies this truly dreadful act,” he said, urging Britons to respond to the attack by going about their normal lives.
A statement on Thursday from the Defense Ministry said “a number of additional security measures had been put in place,” but it did not provide details.
Mr. Cameron was traveling in Europe when the attack took place..
“There are strong indications that it is a terrorist incident,” Mr. Cameron said. He interrupted his European tour to return to London on Wednesday night.
ITV News showed a video taken with a cellphone at the scene in Woolwich in which a man who appeared to be in his 20s or early 30s holds a cleaver in one of his bloodied hands. He offers what seems to be a political message before the police arrive.
“I apologize that women had to see this today, but in our lands women have to see the same thing,” he says. “You people will never be safe. Remove your governments! They don’t care about you.”
He then refers to what appears to be a motive for the attack, saying it was carried out “because of what’s going on in our own countries.”
Mayor Boris Johnson of London rejected the argument, saying it was wrong to link the killing with British foreign policy or the actions of Britain’s military, which has been closely allied with the United States in Afghanistan and Iraq. [?][*]
“The fault lies wholly and exclusively in the warped and deluded mindset of the people who did it,” he said.
The BBC reported Wednesday night that British security officials had identified at least one of the two suspects as having family origins in Nigeria. British media reports on Thursday said the men were not apparently linked to the Boko Haram militants in Nigeria, who are believed to have ties to Al Qaeda.
Organizations representing Britain’s 2.5 million Muslims were quick to condemn the attack. “No cause justifies this murder,” the Muslim Council of Britain said in a statement on behalf of the network of mosques, schools and charities it represents. It described the killing in Woolwich as “a barbaric act that has no basis in Islam,” and added that the “vast majority of British Muslims acknowledge the armed forces for the work they do.”
The assault took place near a busy junction a short walk from the London headquarters of the Royal Artillery, a unit that has deployed soldiers, including tank units, to Iraq and Afghanistan. A primary school is nearby and witnesses said some of those who had seen the attack were parents and children returning home.
A small blue car — apparently the vehicle used to ram the victim — appeared to have hit a telephone pole after mounting the sidewalk. Photographs and television footage from the scene showed extensive damage to the car’s hood and windshield.
Witnesses said two men had gotten out and attacked the prone victim with large bladed weapons. Some said the men had beheaded him.
A number said the victim was wearing a T-shirt labeled with the words Help for Heroes, the name of a charity that supports some of the thousands of British military personnel who have returned wounded from Afghanistan and Iraq and the families of the more than 600 servicemen and women who have been killed in those conflicts.
A man who said he had seen the entire attack told the BBC that the assailants had lingered at the scene, talking to passers-by about what they had done.
Some witnesses said a man had leapt from an unmarked car and aimed a handgun at the assailants, shouting to pedestrians to clear the area.
The witness who said he had seen the attack said a policewoman with a handgun fired at the two suspects after one of them rushed toward a group of police officers.
Britain has suffered more than any other country in northern Europe from Islamic terrorist plots in recent years, and it has worked assiduously to prevent more. Security officials have said that at any given time they are tracking hundreds of young men in extremist networks.
But small-scale attacks can be hard to detect. The SITE Intelligence Group, which monitors jihadi Web sites, distributed a posting from one on Wednesday after the London killing. Dating from July 2011, the message on Shumukh al-Islam, a militant Web site that has been linked to Al Qaeda, urges followers to mount “lone-wolf operations” that might include beheadings. [*]
John F. Burns reported from London and Alan Cowell from Paris. Stephen Castle contributed reporting from London.

‘Barbaric Attack’ in London Prompts Meeting on Terror

2013-05-23T16:30:57Z

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/23/world/europe/london-attacks.html
May 22, 2013
‘Barbaric Attack’ in London Prompts Meeting on Terror
By JOHN F. BURNS [UK] [London] [EU3] [it’s back?] [more 3rd-generation jihadis possibly] [I only caught 1 minute of this last night on CNN and it looked off to me—that is, it look more like mental illness than true jihadism but it’s hard to tell] [just before Olympics in 2012 some arrests made] [the peak years were 2004-2008] [in past few years quieted down somewhat, at least seemingly] [if this proves to have any connection with the Tribal areas back in Pakistan, than I’d consider reclassifying?] [England has large South Asia émigré populations] [followup] [use psci 355-455, 463] [followup, Mar 15, 2013] [*]
LONDON — In an attack that raised new fears of terrorism in Britain, a man walking near a military barracks in south London on Wednesday was rammed by a car and then hacked to death by two knife-wielding assailants, according to witness accounts carried by British news media. [this sounds more like Fort Hood?] [*]
British officials did not identify the victim, but the French president, François Hollande, referred to him as “a soldier” in expressing France’s sympathy to the visiting British prime minister, David Cameron. Mr. Cameron had been en route to Paris from Brussels when the attack took place.
Two suspects were shot and wounded by the police, officials said, and were in separate hospitals under police guard, one in serious condition. One of the men shouted “Allahu

]]> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/23/world/europe/london-attacks.html
May 22, 2013
‘Barbaric Attack’ in London Prompts Meeting on Terror
By JOHN F. BURNS [UK] [London] [EU3] [it’s back?] [more 3rd-generation jihadis possibly] [I only caught 1 minute of this last night on CNN and it looked off to me—that is, it look more like mental illness than true jihadism but it’s hard to tell] [just before Olympics in 2012 some arrests made] [the peak years were 2004-2008] [in past few years quieted down somewhat, at least seemingly] [if this proves to have any connection with the Tribal areas back in Pakistan, than I’d consider reclassifying?] [England has large South Asia émigré populations] [followup] [use psci 355-455, 463] [followup, Mar 15, 2013] [*]
LONDON — In an attack that raised new fears of terrorism in Britain, a man walking near a military barracks in south London on Wednesday was rammed by a car and then hacked to death by two knife-wielding assailants, according to witness accounts carried by British news media. [this sounds more like Fort Hood?] [*]
British officials did not identify the victim, but the French president, François Hollande, referred to him as “a soldier” in expressing France’s sympathy to the visiting British prime minister, David Cameron. Mr. Cameron had been en route to Paris from Brussels when the attack took place.
Two suspects were shot and wounded by the police, officials said, and were in separate hospitals under police guard, one in serious condition. One of the men shouted “Allahu akbar,” or “God is great,” as the attack proceeded, government officials said. [*]
Mr. Cameron, at a news conference at the Élysée Palace in Paris, said the killing was “an appalling murder” and “absolutely sickening.”
“There are strong indications that it is a terrorist incident,” Mr. Cameron said. He interrupted his European tour to return to London on Wednesday night.
ITV News showed a video taken with a cellphone at the scene in Woolwich in which a man who appears to be in his 20s or early 30s holds a cleaver in one of his bloodied hands. He offers what seems to be a political message before the police arrive.
“I apologize that women had to see this today, but in our lands women have to see the same thing,” he says. “You people will never be safe. Remove your governments! They don’t care about you.” [these ravings sound fairly well related to jihadis] [but the guy looked sub-Saharan African—what lands was he raving about?] [*]
He then refers to what appears to be a motive for the attack, saying it was carried out “because of what’s going on in our own countries.”
The BBC reported Wednesday night that British security officials had identified at least one of the two men as having family origins in Nigeria.
Organizations representing Britain’s 2.5 million Muslims were quick to condemn the attack. “No cause justifies this murder,” the Muslim Council of Britain said in a statement on behalf of the network of mosques, schools and charities it represents. It described the killing in Woolwich as “a barbaric act that has no basis in Islam,” and added that the “vast majority of British Muslims acknowledge the armed forces for the work they do.”
The assault took place near a heavily trafficked junction a short walk from the London headquarters of the Royal Artillery, a unit that has deployed soldiers, including tank units, to Iraq and Afghanistan. A primary school is nearby, and witnesses said some of those who had seen the attack were parents and children returning home.
A small blue car — apparently the vehicle used to ram the victim — appeared to have hit a telephone pole after mounting the sidewalk. Photographs and TV footage from the scene showed extensive damage to the car’s hood and windshield.
Witnesses said two men had gotten out and attacked the prone victim with large bladed weapons. Some said the men had beheaded him.
A number said the victim was wearing a T-shirt labeled with the words Help for Heroes, the name of a charity that supports some of the thousands of British military personnel who have returned wounded from Afghanistan and Iraq, and to the families of the more than 600 servicemen and women who have been killed in those conflicts. [?][*]
A man who said he had seen the entire attack told the BBC that the assailants had lingered at the scene, talking to passers-by about what they had done.
Some witnesses said a man had leapt from an unmarked car and aimed a handgun at the assailants, shouting to pedestrians to clear the area.
The witness who said he had seen the full attack said a policewoman with a handgun fired on the two suspects after one of them rushed toward a group of police officers.
Britain has suffered more than any other country in Northern Europe from Islamic terrorist plots in recent years, and it has worked assiduously to prevent more. Security officials have said that at any given time they are tracking hundreds of young men in extremist networks.
But small-scale attacks can be hard to detect. The SITE Intelligence Group, which monitors jihadi Web sites, distributed a posting from one on Wednesday after the London killing. Dating from July 2011, the message on Shumukh al-Islam, a militant Web site that has been linked to Al Qaeda, urges followers to mount “lone-wolf operations” that might include beheadings.
With Mr. Cameron in France on Wednesday, the home secretary, Theresa May, called an emergency meeting of the Cobra committee, a group of cabinet ministers and high-level security officials that oversees the operations of police and security agencies at times of high security alerts. Officials said the group had ordered a tightening of security around all military barracks in London.
Stephen Castle contributed reporting.

North Korean Envoy Visits Beijing Amid Concerns About U.S.-Chinese Relations

2013-05-23T16:30:01Z

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/23/world/asia/north-korean-leader-sends-envoy-to-china.html
May 22, 2013
North Korean Envoy Visits Beijing Amid Concerns About U.S.-Chinese Relations
By JANE PERLEZ and CHOE SANG-HUN [China] [PRC] [NEAsia] [DPRK] [North Korea] [Sino-DPRK relationship dating back well into the Cold War] [months of tensions recently appeared to have run their course] [and China seemed to side against DPRK, something quite rare] [now this?] [use psci 350, 355-455] [followup] [having returned a fishing boat and crew seized by DPRK earlier this month, a high-level delgation from Pyongyang has now arrived in China] [as is often the case, China’s seemingly infinite patience has paid off again] [China willing lets DPRK huff and puff for it knows the pariah regime must sooner or later return to its benefactor asking for help] [*]
BEIJING — A senior North Korean military official’s visit here Wednesday appears to have been organized on short notice, and was probably prompted by North Korea’s concerns about a planned meeting between President Xi Jinping of China and President Obama, analysts said. [it looks as if the new leadership has played it well—President Xi demonstrated just enough pique to worry DPRK] [*]
Vice Marshal Choe Ryong-hae, a member of the inner circle of the North Korean leader, Kim Jong-un, arrived in Beijing two days after the United States and China announced that Mr. Obama and Mr. Xi would meet in California early next month.
Vice Marshal Choe, 63, who is the political overseer of the North Korean military, met with

]]> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/23/world/asia/north-korean-leader-sends-envoy-to-china.html
May 22, 2013
North Korean Envoy Visits Beijing Amid Concerns About U.S.-Chinese Relations
By JANE PERLEZ and CHOE SANG-HUN [China] [PRC] [NEAsia] [DPRK] [North Korea] [Sino-DPRK relationship dating back well into the Cold War] [months of tensions recently appeared to have run their course] [and China seemed to side against DPRK, something quite rare] [now this?] [use psci 350, 355-455] [followup] [having returned a fishing boat and crew seized by DPRK earlier this month, a high-level delgation from Pyongyang has now arrived in China] [as is often the case, China’s seemingly infinite patience has paid off again] [China willing lets DPRK huff and puff for it knows the pariah regime must sooner or later return to its benefactor asking for help] [*]
BEIJING — A senior North Korean military official’s visit here Wednesday appears to have been organized on short notice, and was probably prompted by North Korea’s concerns about a planned meeting between President Xi Jinping of China and President Obama, analysts said. [it looks as if the new leadership has played it well—President Xi demonstrated just enough pique to worry DPRK] [*]
Vice Marshal Choe Ryong-hae, a member of the inner circle of the North Korean leader, Kim Jong-un, arrived in Beijing two days after the United States and China announced that Mr. Obama and Mr. Xi would meet in California early next month.
Vice Marshal Choe, 63, who is the political overseer of the North Korean military, met with Wang Jiarui, the head of the international department of the Central Committee of the Communist Party. The vice marshal, sent by Mr. Kim as a special envoy, received only modest coverage in the Chinese state news media.
The Chinese government has shown irritation with Mr. Kim, who is regarded as a far less reliable ally than his father, Kim Jong-il, particularly after he defied Beijing to order a nuclear test in February and the launching of a three-stage rocket in December.
Since then, North Korea has repeatedly requested invitations for a high-level visit to Beijing but has been rebuffed, Chinese experts on North Korea said Wednesday. That Mr. Xi and Mr. Obama are to hold talks June 7-8, in which North Korea is certain to be a topic, must have increased the demands from officials in Pyongyang, the North’s capital, for an audience in Beijing, the experts said. [**]
“The North’s provocations backfired and have pushed China and the U.S. closer together, resulting in more frequent high-level exchanges between the two countries,” Zhang Liangui, an analyst at the Communist Party School, was quoted as saying in The Global Times newspaper. “So it is trying a new way to sabotage Sino-U.S. ties.”
In sending Vice Marshal Choe, Kim Jong-un was hoping to get “China’s understanding and support” but was unlikely to achieve it, said Cai Jian, deputy director of the Center for Korean Studies at Fudan University in Shanghai.
“Following the nuclear test, North Korea repeatedly asked to send a special envoy to China to explain, but the Chinese government always turned it down,” Mr. Cai said.
It was not clear whether Vice Marshal Choe would meet with President Xi, but Mr. Cai said he believed that the chances “are not very great.”
At the Chinese Foreign Ministry’s daily briefing, a spokesman, Hong Lei, repeated the standard line that China seeks “peace and stability” on the Korean Peninsula and a return to talks aimed at denuclearizing the peninsula. [it’s easy not to gloat when one has so openly and clearly won] [*]
The North Korean envoy was probably looking for an invitation for Mr. Kim to visit China, the experts said. But given the young leader’s erratic behavior — including firing six short-range projectiles into the waters off North Korea’s east coast since Saturday — the Chinese may choose not to reward him.
China voted for sanctions at the United Nations after the nuclear test in February, and this month the state-run Bank of China went along with a request from the United States to suspend all transactions with North Korea’s Foreign Trade Bank, a financier of the country’s nuclear program.
Adding extra pressure on Pyongyang was the visit to Washington this month by the South Korean president, Park Geun-hye, who pledged to remain firm against North Korea’s provocations.
President Park, who speaks Chinese and spoke warmly of President Xi in Washington, is expected to visit China next month.
Vice Marshal Choe is the most senior North Korean official to visit China since Mr. Kim came to power in December 2011.
The vice marshal is an important figure in the firmament around the new leader, in part because he is close to the new leader’s aunt, Kim Kyong-hui, and his uncle, Jang Song-taek, said Evans J. R. Revere, a former specialist on North Korea at the State Department.
Vice Marshal Choe also holds three senior positions: a member of the National Defense Commission, member of the Politburo Presidium of the Korean Workers’ Party and vice chairman of the Central Military Commission of the party.
The Chinese have been unnerved by a series of changes at the top of the North Korean military as Mr. Kim tries to consolidate his power. [leaks like these have been ubiquitous with the new leadeship] [*]
“I do think the Chinese are uncomfortable with all the musical chairs of defense personnel under Kim Jong-un and their lack of knowledge about them,” said Victor D. Cha, who ran North Korea policy at the National Security Council during the presidency of George W. Bush.
Mr. Kim made yet another military change on the eve of Vice Marshal Choe’s departure.
Hyon Yong-chol, who was in charge of the military’s field operations as chief of its general staff, was replaced by Gen. Kim Kyok-sik, North Korea’s state-run news media reported Wednesday. General Kim was dismissed as minister of the People’s Armed Forces this month, and his unexpected return to a more powerful position is bound to rattle nerves in the region.
South Korean officials suggested that General Kim, 74, a hard-liner, commanded units responsible for attacks in 2010 that killed 50 South Koreans.
Jane Perlez reported from Beijing, and Choe Sang-hun from Seoul, South Korea. Bree Feng contributed reporting from Beijing.
This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:
Correction: May 22, 2013
An earlier version of this article misidentified the location of President Obama’s planned meeting with President Xi Jinping of China. It will be held in California, not Washington.

Support for Kerry’s Mideast Peace Efforts on Eve of Visit

2013-05-23T16:29:11Z

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/23/world/middleeast/kerry-may-make-bid-to-restart-mideast-peace-talks.html
May 22, 2013
Support for Kerry’s Mideast Peace Efforts on Eve of Visit
By ISABEL KERSHNER [Israeli media] [Israel] [domestic politics which has the potential to affect foreign policy down the road] [Israeli-Arab conflicts, from the past wars (especially, 1967 and 1973) to today’s Arab Revolutions and repercussions to Israeli-Palestinian conflict] [Israel-Syria civil war] [Syria and Iran because Iran is understandably an obsession in Israel] [Israeli leaders and Israelis are becoming increasingly worried that Israel is being pulled into Syria’s malestrom] [amid all this tumult SecState Kerry is expected (if the PA can be believed) to make another attempt at kick starting the stalled Israeli-Palestinian peace process (such as anything remains of of it)] [followup] [cross in govt] [*]
JERUSALEM — While Palestinian officials say they expect Secretary of State John Kerry to present a proposal for restarting Israeli-Palestinian peace talks by early June, they add that there appear to be few tangible signs of progress.
Still, with Mr. Kerry set to arrive here on Thursday — his fourth visit to Israel and the West Bank in eight weeks — Israeli and Palestinian officials were at least quick to express their mutual support for his efforts while maintaining discretion about the details of his talks. A senior Israeli official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the continuing diplomacy, said Mr. Kerry had gone beyond listening and was discussing specific ideas about how to get back to negotiations.

]]> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/23/world/middleeast/kerry-may-make-bid-to-restart-mideast-peace-talks.html
May 22, 2013
Support for Kerry’s Mideast Peace Efforts on Eve of Visit
By ISABEL KERSHNER [Israeli media] [Israel] [domestic politics which has the potential to affect foreign policy down the road] [Israeli-Arab conflicts, from the past wars (especially, 1967 and 1973) to today’s Arab Revolutions and repercussions to Israeli-Palestinian conflict] [Israel-Syria civil war] [Syria and Iran because Iran is understandably an obsession in Israel] [Israeli leaders and Israelis are becoming increasingly worried that Israel is being pulled into Syria’s malestrom] [amid all this tumult SecState Kerry is expected (if the PA can be believed) to make another attempt at kick starting the stalled Israeli-Palestinian peace process (such as anything remains of of it)] [followup] [cross in govt] [*]
JERUSALEM — While Palestinian officials say they expect Secretary of State John Kerry to present a proposal for restarting Israeli-Palestinian peace talks by early June, they add that there appear to be few tangible signs of progress.
Still, with Mr. Kerry set to arrive here on Thursday — his fourth visit to Israel and the West Bank in eight weeks — Israeli and Palestinian officials were at least quick to express their mutual support for his efforts while maintaining discretion about the details of his talks. A senior Israeli official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the continuing diplomacy, said Mr. Kerry had gone beyond listening and was discussing specific ideas about how to get back to negotiations.
“Are we there yet? I’m afraid not,” the official said, “but we might be very close.”
A Palestinian official, also speaking on the condition of anonymity in accordance with diplomatic protocol, said there were still no indications that Israel was prepared to meet the requirements that the Palestinians had insisted on to resume the long-stalled talks.
“I would prefer to say I am hopeful, even though I have nothing to base that hope on,” he said. But he added: “We are not in a mood of confrontation. We are fully engaged. Of course we want to negotiate.”
Since becoming secretary of state, Mr. Kerry has worked to jump-start the peace process, embracing a seemingly intractable issue. Mr. Kerry has maintained close contact with the sides since his last visit, speaking every couple of days by phone with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, according to the Israeli official. Saeb Erekat, the chief Palestinian negotiator, has said he and Mahmoud Abbas, the president of the Palestinian Authority, have been speaking with Mr. Kerry by phone almost weekly. [*]
Outwardly, however, Israeli-Palestinian relations remain dogged by familiar issues of contention.
One is Israel’s continued settlement construction in the West Bank and the Palestinian refusal to return to talks as building goes on. The new Israeli government that was formed in March has refrained in recent weeks from issuing bids for construction or from announcing major new projects.
But the authorities did approve plans this month for 296 new homes in a West Bank settlement that were part of an agreement reached in 2012 with the settlers, after 30 families were evacuated by court order from five buildings that had been illegally constructed on private Palestinian land. The Israeli government also submitted a response to a Supreme Court petition by Peace Now, an anti-settlement advocacy group, in which the government declared its intention to legalize retroactively four settler outposts that were built without permission. [*]
Hanan Ashrawi, an executive committee member of the Palestine Liberation Organization, told the official Voice of Palestine radio on Wednesday, “The Israeli activities are closing the door on implementing the two-state solution; it is as if Israel is trying to make Kerry’s mission impossible.” [of course, she and others have said that for 20 years] [*]
The Israelis had expressed a hope that Palestinian leaders would tone down their hostile statements against Israel. But Mr. Erekat, the chief Palestinian negotiator, told the United Nations committee on rights of the Palestinian people in New York on Monday that he could sum up the situation in the West Bank and East Jerusalem in one word: “Apartheid,” he said, according to Reuters. “Worse than that which existed in South Africa.” The Israeli official said those remarks “were not good for the atmosphere.”
In another sign of discord this week, Israel called off a rare visit to Jerusalem by an expert team from Unesco, the United Nations cultural agency, after Israel accused Palestinian officials of politicizing the issue in statements to the news media.
After his meetings in Jerusalem and Ramallah, Mr. Kerry is to attend a conference of the World Economic Forum on Sunday in Jordan, where top Israeli and Palestinian business leaders plan to present a statement pressing their governments to quickly return to negotiations toward a two-state solution.
The statement comes after a year of secret meetings led by Yossi Vardi, one of the founding fathers of Israel’s high-tech industry, and Munib Masri, the billionaire chairman of the Palestine Development and Investment Company. Some 300 moguls are expected to sign on.
Mr. Vardi and Mr. Masri declined to discuss the initiative, called Breaking the Impasse, which has been kept secret largely because of pressure from the Palestinian side, in which any meetings with Israelis are denounced in some circles as normalization. “I don’t think there’s been a group like this before,” said one person familiar with the initiative, speaking on the condition of anonymity because of the secrecy surrounding the group. “It’s not made up of your usual peaceniks, and it’s not made up of politicians.”
Besides Mr. Kerry, King Abdullah of Jordan, President Shimon Peres of Israel and Mr. Abbas are all scheduled to appear at the session where the initiative is to be presented, and some here have suggested there is a possibility the four will also meet to discuss the peace process.
Jodi Rudoren contributed reporting.

Israel Finding Itself Drawn Into Syria’s Turmoil

2013-05-23T16:28:04Z

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/23/world/middleeast/israel-is-drawn-into-syrias-turmoil.html
May 22, 2013
Israel Finding Itself Drawn Into Syria’s Turmoil
By JODI RUDOREN [Israeli media] [Israel] [domestic politics which has the potential to affect foreign policy down the road] [Israeli-Arab conflicts, from the past wars (especially, 1967 and 1973) to today’s Arab Revolutions and repercussions to Israeli-Palestinian conflict] [Israel-Syria civil war] [Syria and Iran because Iran is understandably an obsession in Israel] [Israeli leaders and Israelis are becoming increasingly worried that Israel is being pulled into Syria’s malestrom] [I shouldn’t be surprised: Israel has bombed arms shipments moving inside of Syria—all reported to be headed to Hezbollah (Lebanon) at least three major times] [for Israel to do and not think it is being pulled in seems sort of naïve] [followup] [*]
JERUSALEM — For more than two years, Israeli leaders have insisted they had no intention of intervening in the civil war raging in neighboring Syria, but they vowed to stop sophisticated weapons from being transferred to Hezbollah, the Lebanese militia group, and to respond to intentional fire into their territory.
Now, having followed through with a pair of airstrikes on weapons shipments this month and, on Tuesday, the destruction of a Syrian Army position, Israelis are asking what their options are, as if they feel it has become impossible to avoid deeper involvement. [I think you are supposed to ask that before you send the sorties into Syria!?] [*]

]]> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/23/world/middleeast/israel-is-drawn-into-syrias-turmoil.html
May 22, 2013
Israel Finding Itself Drawn Into Syria’s Turmoil
By JODI RUDOREN [Israeli media] [Israel] [domestic politics which has the potential to affect foreign policy down the road] [Israeli-Arab conflicts, from the past wars (especially, 1967 and 1973) to today’s Arab Revolutions and repercussions to Israeli-Palestinian conflict] [Israel-Syria civil war] [Syria and Iran because Iran is understandably an obsession in Israel] [Israeli leaders and Israelis are becoming increasingly worried that Israel is being pulled into Syria’s malestrom] [I shouldn’t be surprised: Israel has bombed arms shipments moving inside of Syria—all reported to be headed to Hezbollah (Lebanon) at least three major times] [for Israel to do and not think it is being pulled in seems sort of naïve] [followup] [*]
JERUSALEM — For more than two years, Israeli leaders have insisted they had no intention of intervening in the civil war raging in neighboring Syria, but they vowed to stop sophisticated weapons from being transferred to Hezbollah, the Lebanese militia group, and to respond to intentional fire into their territory.
Now, having followed through with a pair of airstrikes on weapons shipments this month and, on Tuesday, the destruction of a Syrian Army position, Israelis are asking what their options are, as if they feel it has become impossible to avoid deeper involvement. [I think you are supposed to ask that before you send the sorties into Syria!?] [*]
Already, the language has grown more heated on both sides, with Syrian officials declaring they are prepared for a major confrontation with Israel — and Israel’s military chief warning of dire consequences.
“Clearly, a policy that functions successfully for more than two years for Israel, that policy is not working because Syria, Iran, Hezbollah and Russia have all upped the ante,” said Itamar Rabinovich, Israel’s former chief negotiator with Syria, mentioning that Russia continues to send advanced weaponry despite American and Israeli protests. “They created new rules of the game that Israel needs to figure out. It’s a policy in formation; the answers are not definitive.”
Several senior government officials, as well as half a dozen experts on Syria and the Israeli military, said on Wednesday that there was no new policy in Jerusalem, but there was a growing awareness that continuation of the current policy was likely to yield different results. [?][*]
The next time Israel strikes a weapons convoy, they say, President Bashar al-Assad of Syria is much more likely to retaliate, given the recent statements from Damascus. That could lead to further Israeli reaction, and a spiraling escalation.
“I think we’re being very measured and very cautious in a very volatile situation,” one Israeli official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the matter publicly. Another, speaking under similar restrictions, said, “Up until now there is no change,” hinting that there could be one any day — or any minute.
Israel and Syria remain in a technical state of war, but have maintained a wary calm along the 43-mile cease-fire line between the two countries since it was established in 1973. Tuesday was the first time Syria acknowledged it had intentionally attacked an Israeli target, a military vehicle. Officials said the jeep had crossed into its territory near the Golan Heights, something Israel vehemently denied.
Analysts on Wednesday dismissed the possibility of Israel’s establishing a new buffer zone on the Syrian side of the line, and not just because doing so would be seen as a major incursion into Syrian territory. [to say little of a more obvious concern: it would subject Israel to attacks from Syrians, some of whom Israel has been helping, albeit it indirectly] [in short, not only would al Assad’s forces take opportunities but so too would Hezbollah, Iranian Quds, and even Nursa and other Sunni fighters taking on al Assad] [it’s a lose-lose situation] [*]
Two rivers that are close to the line in the southern Golan Heights create geographical challenges, they said, and in other areas there are several key Syrian Army positions.
“A buffer zone doesn’t work there,” said Ehud Yaari, an Israel-based fellow for the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. “If you would try to create a buffer zone, it immediately gets you into proximity and friction with main Syrian military forces and camps.”
Another idea being discussed here is Israel’s establishing a sort of proxy force inside Syria, by arming or otherwise supporting residents of villages close to the cease-fire line, perhaps led by the Druse, a minority sect in Syria that also has some 20,000 members living in Israeli-controlled territory.
Several Israelis who follow Syria closely said Israeli security forces had already been quietly working with villagers who support neither the government nor the rebels, supplying moderate humanitarian aid and maintaining intense intelligence activity.
But they said any notion of arming such villagers was far off if not far-fetched, noting that the main Druse leadership in Syria has so far stayed steadfastly out of the conflict.
“Much, much premature,” Mr. Rabinovich, who is now vice chairman of the Institute for National Security Studies, said of a proxy force. “This is what you do if the state collapses and you have to deal with anarchy on the border. We’re not there yet.”
But while those ideas have been discounted, there is little consensus about what Israel might do next. Most here agree that the landscape has shifted, if only because of the newly heated threats from all sides. “The Syrians are tying their own hands with their own tongues,” Mr. Yaari said.
For Mr. Assad, engagement with Israel could distract attention from his massacre of his own people and win him support at home and across the Arab world. On the other hand, Mr. Assad would be risking severe retaliation by Israel that could devastate his military, possibly shifting the balance of power in his fight against the rebels. [*]
For Israel, deeper involvement in the Syrian conflict could lead to an unwanted result: hastening the fall of the Assad government, leaving areas close to the cease-fire line in the hands of radical jihadi groups.
It could also have dire diplomatic consequences for Israel’s complicated relationship with Russia. And many here believe Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu wants to conserve his military resources and public support for the continuing possibility of an attack on the Iranian nuclear program.
“Whenever we tried in the past to influence the internal problems of a neighboring country, the results were very poor,” said Giora Eiland, a former Israeli national security adviser, citing Israel’s gambit in South Lebanon in 1982, which led to a two-decade occupation and the creation of Hezbollah. “Sometimes there is a tension between two things. First is the situation that might affect your important interest, and second is your inability to do something in order to change it. Sometimes the only thing you can do is to do nothing.”

Egypt’s President Announces Release of 7 Officers Abducted in Sinai

2013-05-23T16:27:06Z

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/23/world/middleeast/egypt-kidnapped-security-officers.html
May 22, 2013
Egypt’s President Announces Release of 7 Officers Abducted in Sinai
By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK [Egypt] [MENA] [Middle East] [MENA] [charges that Egypt under President Morsi is rather like Egypt under Mubarak?] [Egypt continues to struggle with what its future holds?] [protests against Morsi’s govt have occurred regularly since the anniversary of the revolution (Feb 2011)] [followup, May 20] [President Morsi’s gambit to send a show of force into Sinai may hav paid off?] [use psci 355-455, 463] [yesterday’s piece regarding the release of the kidnapped officers appears to have been accurate] [President Morsi takes the credit—imagine my surprise!] [*]
CAIRO — President Mohamed Morsi on Wednesday announced the release of seven Egyptian security officers who had been kidnapped nearly a week ago in the lawless Sinai Desert, ending days of mounting anxiety over the government’s apparent inability to secure even its own soldiers and the police in the area. [*]
The persistent lawlessness of Sinai since the Egyptian revolution has become an international concern because the region borders Israel and the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip, and this week a strike by police officers angry about the kidnapping had closed police stations and border crossings around the area. The crisis recalled an attack on a Sinai

]]> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/23/world/middleeast/egypt-kidnapped-security-officers.html
May 22, 2013
Egypt’s President Announces Release of 7 Officers Abducted in Sinai
By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK [Egypt] [MENA] [Middle East] [MENA] [charges that Egypt under President Morsi is rather like Egypt under Mubarak?] [Egypt continues to struggle with what its future holds?] [protests against Morsi’s govt have occurred regularly since the anniversary of the revolution (Feb 2011)] [followup, May 20] [President Morsi’s gambit to send a show of force into Sinai may hav paid off?] [use psci 355-455, 463] [yesterday’s piece regarding the release of the kidnapped officers appears to have been accurate] [President Morsi takes the credit—imagine my surprise!] [*]
CAIRO — President Mohamed Morsi on Wednesday announced the release of seven Egyptian security officers who had been kidnapped nearly a week ago in the lawless Sinai Desert, ending days of mounting anxiety over the government’s apparent inability to secure even its own soldiers and the police in the area. [*]
The persistent lawlessness of Sinai since the Egyptian revolution has become an international concern because the region borders Israel and the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip, and this week a strike by police officers angry about the kidnapping had closed police stations and border crossings around the area. The crisis recalled an attack on a Sinai military checkpoint in August that resulted in the deaths of 16 soldiers, humiliated the Egyptian military and helped compel the generals who had ruled Egypt to hand full power to the first civilian president, Mr. Morsi. [*]
The president’s announcement, however, shed no light on the identity of the abductors or the explanation for the release. There was no mention of any arrests or punishment for the kidnapping. The captives — one soldier and six police officers — were left in a remote stretch of desert and retrieved by a military helicopter.
Mr. Morsi vowed in a brief speech that “the criminals responsible for such incidents must be held accountable. There’s no backing down in that.” He added: “Those who have rights must get them, but the law rules everywhere.” [*]
But at times he sounded almost plaintive, pleading with the residents of Sinai to disarm. “I call on everybody in Sinai who has weapons to give up their weapons,” Mr. Morsi said. “The homeland is bigger than all of us, and weapons should only be with the authorities, with the men of the armed forces and the Ministry of Interior.”
He also pledged to uphold public security and asked anyone with grievances to express them peacefully.
In the last three days, the Egyptian Army has deployed dozens of tanks and hundreds of soldiers into the area, and the president and the generals hinted at heavy retaliation if they found the kidnappers. But at other times Mr. Morsi had suggested that he hoped to resolve the matter without confrontation. A statement by his office the day of the abduction promised vigilance “in protecting the souls of all, be they the kidnapped or the kidnappers.”[I haven’t seen a peep from Israel so they must not be overly exercised about the potential violation of Camp David Accords?] [*]
On Wednesday, Mr. Morsi thanked the military and intelligence staff for their work to free the captives, but he also praised “the tribes of Sinai” and “the honorable people of Sinai” for collaborating with the government forces to obtain the release. The Egyptian government may have worked through influential leaders of Sinai clans to persuade the kidnappers to release the officers — something that would be typical for the region.
“The military intelligence cooperated with the sheiks of the Sinai’s tribes since the beginning of the kidnapping, since the first hours of the kidnapping,” a military spokesman, Col. Ahmed Mohamed Ali, clarified at a later news conference. But the threat of military action still played a role, he suggested, saying the forces deployed “were not joking around.”
The sole demand of the kidnappers was the release of friends or relatives who had been jailed for years for two attacks in Sinai. One was the bombing of a hotel in the resort town of Taba in 2004, which killed 34 people, and the other was an attack on a police station in the town of El Arish in 2011 that killed one police officer, one soldier and three others.
Human rights groups urged the government to use restraint, partly because the kidnappers’ grievance might be considered a legitimate question of postrevolutionary transitional justice. Several Egyptian human rights groups noted in a statement this week that the prisoners in question had been sentenced by special state security courts operating without due process under the 30-year state of emergency imposed by former President Hosni Mubarak. The courts relied on evidence obtained through torture and other illegal means, and the prisoners’ supporters had petitioned peacefully through official channels for months to appeal the convictions.
But the pressure on Mr. Morsi and the top generals to free the kidnapped officers grew increasingly acute after suggestions that the captors had also used torture against the officers. In an online video that appeared Sunday, seven men blindfolded with their hands behind their heads said they had been tortured, and they begged Mr. Morsi to release those imprisoned for the earlier Sinai attacks.
“We implore you as fast as possible to release the political prisoners from Sinai as fast as possible because we can’t take any more, any torture,” one captive said.
Mayy El Sheikh contributed reporting.

U.S. Fears the Fighting in Syria Might Spill Over Into Lebanon, Kerry Says

2013-05-23T16:26:18Z

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/23/world/middleeast/us-fears-syria-fighting-might-spill-into-lebanon.html
May 22, 2013
U.S. Fears the Fighting in Syria Might Spill Over Into Lebanon, Kerry Says
By MICHAEL R. GORDON and MARK LANDLER [Jordan] [Amman] [MENA] [SecState Kerry has been in region trying to create support for another stab at a Syria peace conference] [shortly after becoming Obama’s second-term secstate, Kerry arm twisted his counterpart in Russia, which got this movement under way] [since, Kerry has been to region multiple times] [most recently, he dropped in on Gulf Cooperation Council then hastened to Jordan to meet King Abdullah] [I don’t see much reason to hope this attempt will be any different than past unsuccessful attempgs but the idea is it doesn’t hurt to test interest and commitments for same] [cross in govt] [use psci 355-455, 463] [the past few days have seen a number of indications (and articles detailing them) of serious spillover and its consequences in Lebanon] [that appears to be the theme in similarly vulnerable Jordan] [*]
AMMAN, Jordan — Secretary of State John Kerry said Wednesday that the United States was increasingly concerned that the escalating fighting in Syria might slip across the border with Lebanon and destabilize that country.
“We’re deeply concerned about this spilling over into Lebanon,” said Mr. Kerry, who came to Jordan to attend an 11-country meeting on the deteriorating situation in Syria.
Lebanon, Mr. Kerry added pointedly, is “at risk.” [*]

]]> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/23/world/middleeast/us-fears-syria-fighting-might-spill-into-lebanon.html
May 22, 2013
U.S. Fears the Fighting in Syria Might Spill Over Into Lebanon, Kerry Says
By MICHAEL R. GORDON and MARK LANDLER [Jordan] [Amman] [MENA] [SecState Kerry has been in region trying to create support for another stab at a Syria peace conference] [shortly after becoming Obama’s second-term secstate, Kerry arm twisted his counterpart in Russia, which got this movement under way] [since, Kerry has been to region multiple times] [most recently, he dropped in on Gulf Cooperation Council then hastened to Jordan to meet King Abdullah] [I don’t see much reason to hope this attempt will be any different than past unsuccessful attempgs but the idea is it doesn’t hurt to test interest and commitments for same] [cross in govt] [use psci 355-455, 463] [the past few days have seen a number of indications (and articles detailing them) of serious spillover and its consequences in Lebanon] [that appears to be the theme in similarly vulnerable Jordan] [*]
AMMAN, Jordan — Secretary of State John Kerry said Wednesday that the United States was increasingly concerned that the escalating fighting in Syria might slip across the border with Lebanon and destabilize that country.
“We’re deeply concerned about this spilling over into Lebanon,” said Mr. Kerry, who came to Jordan to attend an 11-country meeting on the deteriorating situation in Syria.
Lebanon, Mr. Kerry added pointedly, is “at risk.” [*]
The decision by Hezbollah, the Lebanese militia and Iranian ally, to join the battle for the strategic city of Qusayr in Syria, and the prospect that the Syrian rebels might respond by carrying the fight to Hezbollah operatives in Lebanon, has alarmed the Obama administration. [*]
Mr. Kerry said that several thousand Hezbollah members were operating in Syria. Members of Iran’s paramilitary Quds force and Iraqi Shiite militia members, some of whom have been encouraged by Iran to fight in support of the government of Bashar al-Assad, are also in Syria, other American officials said, who like several other United States officials quoted spoke on the condition of anonymity. [*]
The White House has been increasingly concerned that the fierce fighting in Qusayr and the sectarian violence in the northern Lebanese city of Tripoli will lead to a wider regional conflict.
President Obama called the president of Lebanon, Michel Suleiman, on Monday to urge the Lebanese armed forces to prevent the flow of Hezbollah fighters and weapons across the border into Syria. But Mr. Suleiman, a Christian, has little influence over Hezbollah and its fighters. [*]
“We don’t want to see any escalation or spread of this war to Lebanon,” said a senior Obama administration official. “Lebanon is facing enough challenges with nearly 500,000 official refugees and nearly one million Syrians in a country of four million. The last thing it needs is sectarian violence in Lebanon itself.”
Americans officials have also conveyed their worries to the Supreme Military Council or S.M.C., the military wing of the Syrian opposition that is led by Gen. Salim Idris, and urged it not to chase fighters across the border into Lebanon. [*]
“We will continue to urge them not to get involved in Lebanon, but the pressures are there, and even beyond the S.M.C. itself, there are Sunnis and Syrians who might not abide by that,” the senior administration official said.
He added that the United States might condition its promise of increased nonlethal aid to the rebels on their willingness not to strike in Lebanon.
While the United States may have leverage with General Idris, it has no ability to control some jihadists — like the Nusra Front, which is also fighting Syrian government forces. [quite the contrary, the U.S. is rightly worried its efforts might hasten a result whereby the jihadists have opportunity to come out victorious] [*]
A senior State Department official in Amman said that Syrian opposition commanders in the Homs area had reported that arms and other military supplies had been making their way to Hezbollah operatives in Syria from Lebanon’s Bekaa area.
“We have said that we need to keep Lebanon out of this and we need to find ways to stop the flow coming out of Lebanon,” the State Department official told reporters here, reprising the United States message to the Syrian opposition.
General Idris grew up in a village near Qusayr, making the battle there a personal matter.
“They are invaders. They are dogs acting like beasts,” he said in an interview, referring bitterly to the Hezbollah fighters. “I swear to god, Hassan Nasrallah will pay the price,” General Idris added, referring to the Hezbollah leader.
But General Idris also asserted that the rebels did not want to impinge on Lebanon’s sovereignty.
The concern over Lebanon was just one issue at the meeting here that brought together foreign ministers and leading members of the Syrian opposition.
The main point of the meeting was to set the stage for an expected international conference in Geneva next month that is intended to facilitate negotiations between the Assad government and the Syrian opposition over the possible establishment of a transitional government.
A number of outstanding issues remain, including who in the Syrian opposition might be willing attend and Iran’s role in any future diplomatic discussions. [to say the least] [*]
The planning for the Geneva meeting also comes as the Assad government has been making gains on the battlefield and the leverage of the United States and its partners to induce Mr. Assad to vacate his post appears to have declined.
“Yeah, he’s made a few gains in the last days,” Mr. Kerry said during his news conference, referring to Mr. Assad. “But this has gone up and down in a seesaw.”
Mr. Kerry asserted that any progress the Syrian government had made in the war would prove to be ephemeral. He warned that the United States and its partners were prepared to increase support for the Syrian opposition if Mr. Assad refused to negotiate an end to his rule and agree to the establishment of a transitional government.
If Mr. Assad is not prepared to negotiate in “good faith,” Mr. Kerry said, “we will also talk about our continued support and growing support for the opposition in order to permit them to continue to be able to fight for the freedom of their country.” [no indication ever that he’s been willing to negotiate at all] [*]
It remains unclear whether that warning will register with Mr. Assad. It took two months for the United States to send the food rations and medical kits to the opposition that it promised in late February. And the Obama administration has not yet sent the additional nonlethal aid to the opposition that Mr. Kerry said in late April would be forthcoming.
At the same time, Russia has been providing the Assad government with arms, as has Iran, according to American officials.
At the 11-country meeting, General Idris briefed the delegates on the military situation. George Sabra, the acting head of the Syrian opposition, also attended. The Syrian opposition is in the process of picking new leaders and that has slowed its decisions on who from its ranks might attend the Geneva session.
A communiqué issued at the end of the meeting in Amman stressed the need for political negotiations at the Geneva meeting and promised “additional support” to the armed wing of the opposition. It also called for the immediate withdrawal of Hezbollah fighters, and fighters from Iran and other foreign countries.
Michael R. Gordon reported from Amman, and Mark Landler from Washington. Anne Barnard and Hwaida Saad contributed reporting from Beirut, Lebanon.

Iran Is Seen Advancing Nuclear Bid

2013-05-23T16:25:31Z

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/23/world/middleeast/irans-nuclear-program-is-seen-making-progress-in-iaea-report.html
May 22, 2013
Iran Is Seen Advancing Nuclear Bid
By DAVID E. SANGER and WILLIAM J. BROAD [Iran] [Iran’s illicit nuclear activities] [UN, IAEA] [in November 2011 the IAEA reported Iran’s illicit activities as enriching uranium above the 20% purity necessary for medical isotopes as well as IAEA’s suspicions that Iran had research warhead for nuclear weapon] [the IAEA report that was scooped in an Israeli newspaper a couple days ago is now available] [unsurprisingly, itfinds Iran has increased its capacity to enrich, despite sanctions and the various rounds of talks that have led nowhere (at least seemingly)] [followup] [*]
International nuclear inspectors reported on Wednesday that Iran had increased its nuclear production while negotiations with the West dragged on [*]this spring, but the new information suggested that Tehran had not gone past the “red line” that Israel’s leaders have declared could incite military action. [tends to suggest the conventional wisdom about Iran planning to get close to the redline the stop, leaving Iran in position of being able to achieve a bomb in a matter of months if necessary] [*]
In its last report before Iranian elections next month, the International Atomic Energy Agency said Iran had made progress across the board in its nuclear program, enriching more uranium and installing hundreds of next-generation centrifuges that could speed enrichment.
Obama administration officials acknowledged in interviews and public testimony last week that such equipment could significantly reduce the “break out” time required for Iran to

]]> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/23/world/middleeast/irans-nuclear-program-is-seen-making-progress-in-iaea-report.html
May 22, 2013
Iran Is Seen Advancing Nuclear Bid
By DAVID E. SANGER and WILLIAM J. BROAD [Iran] [Iran’s illicit nuclear activities] [UN, IAEA] [in November 2011 the IAEA reported Iran’s illicit activities as enriching uranium above the 20% purity necessary for medical isotopes as well as IAEA’s suspicions that Iran had research warhead for nuclear weapon] [the IAEA report that was scooped in an Israeli newspaper a couple days ago is now available] [unsurprisingly, itfinds Iran has increased its capacity to enrich, despite sanctions and the various rounds of talks that have led nowhere (at least seemingly)] [followup] [*]
International nuclear inspectors reported on Wednesday that Iran had increased its nuclear production while negotiations with the West dragged on [*]this spring, but the new information suggested that Tehran had not gone past the “red line” that Israel’s leaders have declared could incite military action. [tends to suggest the conventional wisdom about Iran planning to get close to the redline the stop, leaving Iran in position of being able to achieve a bomb in a matter of months if necessary] [*]
In its last report before Iranian elections next month, the International Atomic Energy Agency said Iran had made progress across the board in its nuclear program, enriching more uranium and installing hundreds of next-generation centrifuges that could speed enrichment.
Obama administration officials acknowledged in interviews and public testimony last week that such equipment could significantly reduce the “break out” time required for Iran to produce a crude nuclear device. But they said that despite the new equipment, they remained confident that the United States and Israel would have enough time to act to halt the production of a weapon if Iran decided to build one. [*]
“We think we’d have a number of months,” a senior Israeli military official said in an interview recently. “And that’s just barely enough.”
The report appeared at a moment of hiatus in diplomacy with Iran. Early hopes for progress toward a negotiated solution collapsed in a set of talks with the United States, Russia, China, Germany, Britain and France. But the Obama administration decided not to let that collapse cause a diplomatic crisis or new threats of military action.
“It’s not the right time,” one senior administration official said last week. “There is still time for negotiation, even if the window is closing.”
Wendy R. Sherman, the under secretary of state for political affairs, told Congress last week that she believed the United States would re-engage with Iran after the elections, for which presidential candidates who might challenge the authority of the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, were disqualified on Tuesday. [*]
Although the report is written in the dry, numerical accounting of nuclear inspectors, it lays out an ever-increasing rate of uranium production over the last quarter. Over just those three months, it said, Iran increased its total stock of low-enriched uranium by almost 8 percent, to nearly 10 tons.
The report also gives details that point to an emerging production strategy by the Iranians.
The first element is a stepped-up pace for enriching uranium 235, the fuel for reactors that can also, with additional enrichment, be used for weapons. The current pace demonstrates clearly that whatever setbacks Iran suffered from cyberattack on its facilities, part of a covert program by the United States and Israel, its efforts appear to have recovered.
The second element appears to be a move to take most of the fuel that Iran is enriching to 20 percent purity — most of the way to bomb grade — and convert it from a gas to a metal oxide. Iran says that is the first step for fabricating reactor fuel.
But it also has slowed the moment when Iran will cross the line set by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel last year at the United Nations — enough medium-enriched fuel to produce a bomb. Mr. Netanyahu has indicated that he does not expect Israel’s decision point on taking military action to come until fall or winter. [let’s face it: Netanyahu has changed his assessment as has fitted political exigencies—and often] [*]
The third element of the strategy involves speeding ahead with another potential route to a bomb: producing plutonium. The energy agency’s report indicated that Iran was making significant progress at its Arak complex, where it has built a heavy-water facility and is expected to have a reactor running by the end of next year. The plutonium from that reactor could also provide fuel. [seems a waste of resources but like DPRK it appears they want two routes in case one is forstalled] [*]
The report said the Iranians, since the agency’s last quarterly report in February, had added 1,395 total centrifuges and centrifuge casings to the country’s atomic complex in the desert at Natanz, bringing the total number of machines at the main fuel manufacturing plant to 14,244.
Centrifuges spin extraordinarily fast to accumulate the rare form of uranium that can fuel nuclear reactors or bombs.
For the West, the new centrifuges of greatest concern are IR-2s, short for Iranian second generation. They are roughly four times more powerful than the aging model that Iran has relied on for years, and promise to greatly expand the nation’s capacity to enrich uranium.
Still, the report said Iran had yet to start using any of the advanced units, now totaling 689 at the main Natanz plant, for uranium enrichment.

Afghanistan’s Karzai Says ‘No Circumstances’ Allow Him to Seek Another Term

2013-05-23T16:24:37Z

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/23/world/asia/afghanistan-karzai.html
May 22, 2013
Afghanistan’s Karzai Says ‘No Circumstances’ Allow Him to Seek Another Term
By GARDINER HARRIS and MATTHEW ROSENBERG [Afghanistan] [AfPak] [use psci 350, 355-455, 463] [in late Nov-early Dec Pakistan released some Taliban who are needed for reconciliation inside Afghanistan (improving relations with Karzai govt)] [two important deadlines now loom large in Afghanistan’s future: end of 2013 when all the Obama increases since taking office are to redeploy out of Afghanistan, leaving almost exactly the number of troops as when Obama took office] [second deadline is the end of 2014 when foreign combat troops are to withdraw] [followup] [while I don’t trust Karzai any father than the U.S. may bribe him, he apparently is saying explicity he shall not run for a third term, something not allowed under Afghan’s constitution] [*]
NEW DELHI — Seeking to dispel widespread rumors that he will find a way to cling to power beyond the end of his second term next year, President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan said Wednesday that there was “no circumstance that will allow me to stay as president.”[*]
“And there are two reasons for that,” he said. “One is I’m exhausted. Really, totally exhausted, and I would like to be retired. And second, why would I ruin my legacy by staying on and taking an opportunity away from Afghanistan to become an institutionalized democracy?”
Elections are scheduled for April, and American and European officials say privately that

]]> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/23/world/asia/afghanistan-karzai.html
May 22, 2013
Afghanistan’s Karzai Says ‘No Circumstances’ Allow Him to Seek Another Term
By GARDINER HARRIS and MATTHEW ROSENBERG [Afghanistan] [AfPak] [use psci 350, 355-455, 463] [in late Nov-early Dec Pakistan released some Taliban who are needed for reconciliation inside Afghanistan (improving relations with Karzai govt)] [two important deadlines now loom large in Afghanistan’s future: end of 2013 when all the Obama increases since taking office are to redeploy out of Afghanistan, leaving almost exactly the number of troops as when Obama took office] [second deadline is the end of 2014 when foreign combat troops are to withdraw] [followup] [while I don’t trust Karzai any father than the U.S. may bribe him, he apparently is saying explicity he shall not run for a third term, something not allowed under Afghan’s constitution] [*]
NEW DELHI — Seeking to dispel widespread rumors that he will find a way to cling to power beyond the end of his second term next year, President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan said Wednesday that there was “no circumstance that will allow me to stay as president.”[*]
“And there are two reasons for that,” he said. “One is I’m exhausted. Really, totally exhausted, and I would like to be retired. And second, why would I ruin my legacy by staying on and taking an opportunity away from Afghanistan to become an institutionalized democracy?”
Elections are scheduled for April, and American and European officials say privately that billions of dollars of aid on which Afghanistan depends will be jeopardized if the vote does not go ahead.
That message has been conveyed to Mr. Karzai, the officials have said, and the Afghan leader has repeatedly sought to dispel talk that he will try to find a way to stay on beyond his constitutionally mandated two five-year terms.
But the rumors have persisted, fueled in part by the reticence of possible contenders to declare their interest in running.
To do so, Afghan politicians and analysts say, would be to acknowledge that Mr. Karzai is a lame duck. With government power highly centralized in the presidency — the president appoints everyone from ministers to district governors, for instance — few top officials are willing to risk angering Mr. Karzai by openly campaigning to fill his job.
Mr. Karzai said he had come to New Delhi with a “wish list” that he hoped India would fill. He and others in his party refused to specify what was on the list. India provides training to Afghan forces, although that training is done entirely in India. [*]
India could provide small arms that are made in India, but those weapons are generally not highly regarded. India has to buy from abroad most of the weapons that Afghanistan might want.
Mr. Karzai’s trip to India was overshadowed by that of the Chinese prime minister, Li Keqiang, who left New Delhi on Tuesday just as Mr. Karzai was ushered in to see Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. [*]The two visits, along with the leadership change this month in Pakistan, made for an unusually active week in top-level South Asian political jockeying.
Afghanistan’s outreach to India has long been a source of intense concern in Pakistan, but Mr. Karzai said Wednesday that he needed permission from no one to conduct diplomacy. “Afghanistan is a sovereign country, and like all sovereigns, it has the right to choose its friends,” he said. “But our relations with India will not be at the cost of Pakistan or a cause for worry for Pakistan.”
Mr. Karzai said he welcomed the election of Nawaz Sharif as president in Pakistan, saying he had dined with Mr. Sharif last year in Islamabad. “I found him very much inclined to better relations with India,” Mr. Karzai said. “I found him aware of the dangers of terrorism.”
Mr. Karzai dismissed widespread concerns that his government was deeply corrupt and that members of his family had been among the worst offenders. Most corruption, he said, results from the contracting practices of foreign countries, “especially on the part of the United States.” [of course: that’s where the money is] [that does not change any of the stink from Afghanis grabbing fists full (including Karzai’s own family)] [*]
The worst corruption centered for years on private security companies, which he finally banned, he said. Beyond that, those who criticize Afghan corruption mostly do so for political reasons, said Mr. Karzai, who late last month acknowledged that the Central Intelligence Agency had for more than a decade financed a presidential slush fund used to buy the support of warlords, lawmakers and other powerful Afghans. [*]
“If Denmark criticizes corruption in Afghanistan, I will see it as meant to improve things,” he said. “But if the United States does it, I will simply laugh at it.” [that’s the problem] [nothing that happens is Afghan’s fault—it’s all America’s] [a larger nation of ingrates is difficult to envisage] [*]
Mr. Karzai dismissed the idea that Afghanistan might turn as violent and chaotic as Iraq after most foreign troops leave in 2014. “Iraq is a very unfortunate situation,” he said. “We are pained to see the way Iraq is suffering. I can tell you with a strong measure of confidence that Afghanistan will not see that.”
The reason, he said, is that Afghanistan has never suffered the sort of sectarian violence that Iraq has experienced.
The peace process is continuing but can be successful only with the participation of Pakistan, he said, adding: “Pakistan has influence over the Taliban because they have residence there, to put it mildly.” [*]
Gardiner Harris reported from New Delhi, and Matthew Rosenberg from Kabul, Afghanistan.

13 Pakistani Police Officers Killed in Blast in Restive Region

2013-05-23T16:23:26Z

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/24/world/asia/pakistan-blast.html
May 23, 2013
13 Pakistani Police Officers Killed in Blast in Restive Region
By SALMAN MASOOD [Pakistan] [AfPak] [hub of the al Qaeda and Taliban activity in AfPak] [and of al Qaeda globally] [use psci 350, 355-455, 463] [under Obama administration, Bush’s policy of drones (sticks) and carrots( $) has increased to Zardari] [Pakistan is really where U.S. interests converge: nukes, India-Pakistan, and GSAVE] [followup] [the violence in Pakistan—including TTP attacks and various ethnic attacks—have increased all spring, almost in parallel to spring offensive in Afghanistan] [here another government (police stations) target appears to be the object of an attack, this one in Quetta] [Quetta is major city in Baluchistan that borders on southern edge of former NWFPs, the tribal belt] [*]
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — At least 13 police officers were killed on Thursday morning when a powerful remote-controlled bomb ripped through a police truck in southwestern Pakistan, officials said. At least 17 others were injured.
The attack, which took place shortly after 8 a.m. on the outer edges of Quetta, the provincial capital of southwestern Baluchistan Province, killed members of the rapid-response force of the Baluchistan Constabulary, a reserve police unit. Their truck was headed to a government building when a roadside bomb, believed to contain at least 200 pounds of explosives, went off, according to police officials. [*]
The police and law enforcement authorities cordoned off the site after the attack as the

]]> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/24/world/asia/pakistan-blast.html
May 23, 2013
13 Pakistani Police Officers Killed in Blast in Restive Region
By SALMAN MASOOD [Pakistan] [AfPak] [hub of the al Qaeda and Taliban activity in AfPak] [and of al Qaeda globally] [use psci 350, 355-455, 463] [under Obama administration, Bush’s policy of drones (sticks) and carrots( $) has increased to Zardari] [Pakistan is really where U.S. interests converge: nukes, India-Pakistan, and GSAVE] [followup] [the violence in Pakistan—including TTP attacks and various ethnic attacks—have increased all spring, almost in parallel to spring offensive in Afghanistan] [here another government (police stations) target appears to be the object of an attack, this one in Quetta] [Quetta is major city in Baluchistan that borders on southern edge of former NWFPs, the tribal belt] [*]
ISLAMABAD, Pakistan — At least 13 police officers were killed on Thursday morning when a powerful remote-controlled bomb ripped through a police truck in southwestern Pakistan, officials said. At least 17 others were injured.
The attack, which took place shortly after 8 a.m. on the outer edges of Quetta, the provincial capital of southwestern Baluchistan Province, killed members of the rapid-response force of the Baluchistan Constabulary, a reserve police unit. Their truck was headed to a government building when a roadside bomb, believed to contain at least 200 pounds of explosives, went off, according to police officials. [*]
The police and law enforcement authorities cordoned off the site after the attack as the injured were ferried to Civil Hospital for treatment. Local television news networks broadcast images of a mangled and charred truck, with the wreckage of a rickshaw strewn nearby.
There was no immediate claim of responsibility. Baluchistan, a restive, violence-racked province bordering Afghanistan and Iran, has witnessed sectarian and nationalist separatist violence, posing a daunting challenge to the government and law enforcement officials. [could be anything from the local insurgency—which is a separatist movement to tribal violence spilling over to almost anything else] [*]
A separatist insurgency led by Baluch nationalists has simmered for decades in the province. The nationalists demand greater autonomy and a larger share of revenue from the province’s mineral-rich resources.
In the city of Quetta, Shiites belonging to the Hazara ethnic group have been ruthlessly attacked by Lashkar-e-Jhangvi, a Sunni militant group with strong links to the Taliban and Al Qaeda. [why would they attack police station?] [*]
Earlier this month, Mushtaq Sukhera, the inspector general of the Baluchistan police, escaped an assassination attempt when a suicide bomber detonated his explosives-laden minivan just outside the residence of the police chief. Mr. Sukhera was not hurt but five people were killed and 50 others, including 27 police officers, were injured. Lashkar-e-Jhangvi claimed responsibility for the attack.

A Hezbollah turning point in Qusair?

2013-05-22T17:08:45Z

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/Opinion/Columnist/2013/May-22/217921-a-hezbollah-turning-point-in-qusair.ashx#axzz2U0v1If8I
The Daily Star
[Accessed 5/22/13 9:01:42 AM] [*]
A Hezbollah turning point in Qusair?
By Rami G. Khouri [Lebanese media] [on Syria’s civil war and recent Hezbollah overtures regarding same] [interesting perspective, from Lebanon on how Hezbollah’s recent statements and disclosures are affecting things in Lebanon] [Hezbollah’s Nasralla said that Hezbollah would not allow al Assad to go down to Sunni Salafi jihadis] [also, U.S. intelligence has leaked that a couple hundred Quds from Iran have moved into the fray] [so lots of information the past few days] [use psci 350, 355-455, 463] [*]
The most fascinating aspect of the war in Syria this month – and perhaps also the most significant in terms of long-term regional geopolitics – is the direct involvement of Hezbollah, the powerful Lebanese Shiite party and resistance group that is closely allied to Iran and Syria.[*] The significance of Hezbollah’s participation in the battle for the Syrian town of Qusair comprises several distinct elements – its reputation as a fighting force, its political wisdom, its perception among Lebanese, its independence from Iran, and its standing in the region and globally as it identifies more closely with the Syrian regime that has been increasingly isolated and sanctioned.[*]
Together, these factors make this a potential turning point for the organization whose history since its establishment in the early 1980s has been one of the most remarkable achievements in modern Arab political life. It can be credibly argued that Hezbollah is the single most successful political party or organization in modern Arab history, given its many accomplishments: It has

]]> http://www.dailystar.com.lb/Opinion/Columnist/2013/May-22/217921-a-hezbollah-turning-point-in-qusair.ashx#axzz2U0v1If8I
The Daily Star
[Accessed 5/22/13 9:01:42 AM] [*]
A Hezbollah turning point in Qusair?
By Rami G. Khouri [Lebanese media] [on Syria’s civil war and recent Hezbollah overtures regarding same] [interesting perspective, from Lebanon on how Hezbollah’s recent statements and disclosures are affecting things in Lebanon] [Hezbollah’s Nasralla said that Hezbollah would not allow al Assad to go down to Sunni Salafi jihadis] [also, U.S. intelligence has leaked that a couple hundred Quds from Iran have moved into the fray] [so lots of information the past few days] [use psci 350, 355-455, 463] [*]
The most fascinating aspect of the war in Syria this month – and perhaps also the most significant in terms of long-term regional geopolitics – is the direct involvement of Hezbollah, the powerful Lebanese Shiite party and resistance group that is closely allied to Iran and Syria.[*] The significance of Hezbollah’s participation in the battle for the Syrian town of Qusair comprises several distinct elements – its reputation as a fighting force, its political wisdom, its perception among Lebanese, its independence from Iran, and its standing in the region and globally as it identifies more closely with the Syrian regime that has been increasingly isolated and sanctioned.[*]
Together, these factors make this a potential turning point for the organization whose history since its establishment in the early 1980s has been one of the most remarkable achievements in modern Arab political life. It can be credibly argued that Hezbollah is the single most successful political party or organization in modern Arab history, given its many accomplishments: It has transformed Lebanese Shiites from a downtrodden and subjugated community to the most powerful single group in Lebanon; it has forced Israel to end its occupation of southern Lebanon, and it has helped shape a regional “resistance and deterrence front” with Syria and Iran that defines many regional policies and confrontations. [indeed] [*]
These achievements have been countered by its single biggest weakness to date, which is inherent in all such resistance or revolutionary movements: difficulty in making the transition from liberation hero to governance maestro. The multiple strengths that have defined Hezbollah’s many successes in community empowerment and military resistance – secrecy, external support from Syria and Iran, anchorage in a powerful form of theocratic nationalism, independence from state controls or public accountability – have all proven to be weaknesses in its slow and imprecise move into the political arena in Lebanon.
Since driving Israel out of Lebanon in 2000, fighting a major war against Israel in 2006, and asserting its military supremacy in Beirut in May 2008, Hezbollah has repeatedly shown it is far more proficient at military resistance against its foes than at political engagement with domestic compatriots.
Based on its history, Hezbollah will not much care if Lebanese and Arabs criticize it for fighting alongside President Bashar Assad’s regime and buttressing Iranian strategic interests in the region. It does what it feels it must to carry out its mission, which it sees as protecting Lebanon from foreign predators, resisting the regional hegemonic threats of Arab or Western parties, and achieving these goals by assisting its allies, most importantly Syria and Iran, and forever ending the humiliation and mistreatment of Lebanese Shiites.
Fighting inside Syria alongside the Assad regime will exacerbate all the pressures and constraints that Hezbollah already feels. More Lebanese will criticize it for dragging Lebanon into the Syrian war and fostering greater internal fighting in Lebanon among pro- and anti-Assad groups. Many Lebanese say Qusair exposes Hezbollah as a puppet of Iran, as many had always charged. Some of the party’s own supporters may grumble about why dozens of able young Lebanese men are dying in a battle for a small provincial town in Syria. Many foreign countries will seek new ways to pressure, sanction and isolate Hezbollah, and public opinion around the Arab-Islamic world will become more critical and hostile, seeing Hezbollah as mainly as a militia beyond state authority that responds more to Iranian commands than to Arab-Lebanese popular sentiments. [*]
The bigger threat emanating from this episode is that by asserting dramatically its ability and willingness to fight wherever, whenever and whomever it wishes, Hezbollah could add to existing forces that threaten to fracture the integrity of the Lebanese state. This could force it to assume a greater role in running the entire country – something it has always said it does not seek. [*]
Should the Syrian war and Hezbollah’s role there lead to all this, it would also vastly increase the likelihood of massive internal Lebanese strife between pro- and anti-Hezbollah groups, pitting Sunnis and Shiites against each other, while also inviting another major war with Israel, or possibly participation in an American-Israeli-Iranian-Syrian war.[*]
The battle for Qusair is only the haphazard spark within the larger Syrian war that could ignite this fire. The real causes of this combustible condition of the Arab region are the dysfunctional nature of modern Arab states and governments, the ascendancy of police states and military regimes, [how about the bloodfeud between Sunni and Shi’a historically?] [*] the repercussions of the century-long conflict between Zionism and Arabism, and the fact that the Middle East is a proxy battleground for regional and foreign powers.
We will find out in the coming years if Hezbollah is merely another symptom of these problems, as its critics say, or the first credible and historical antidote to Arab-Islamic weakness, complacency, subjugation and vulnerability, as its supporters say.
Rami G. Khouri is published twice weekly by THE DAILY STAR. He can be followed on Twitter @RamiKhouri.

Petraeus’s role in drafting Benghazi talking points raises questions

2013-05-22T16:50:41Z

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/petraeuss-role-in-drafting-benghazi-talking-points-raises-questions/2013/05/21/db19f352-c165-11e2-ab60-67bba7be7813_story.html
Petraeus’s role in drafting Benghazi talking points raises questions
By Scott Wilson and Karen DeYoung, Published: May 21 [Obama White House] [113th congress, 1st session] [bureaucracy: America’s intelligence community (IC) but specifically the CIA] [the recent “scandal” over Benghazi] [I haven’t seen anything particularly scandalous but it’s made political hay] [but this is interesting: what appeared little more than a turf battle between state and CIA traces back to former CIA director Petraeus] [cross in individual (though might be role?)] [use psci 355-455] [Wilson and DeYoung (two national security reporters) provide an interesting tick tock of events] [*]
The controversy over the Obama administration’s response to the Benghazi attack last year began at a meeting over coffee on Capitol Hill three days after the assault.
It was at this informal session with the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence that the ranking Democrat asked David H. Petraeus, who was CIA director at the time, to ensure that committee members did not inadvertently disclose classified information when talking to the news media about the attack. [*]
“We had some new members on the committee, and we knew the press would be very aggressive on this, so we didn’t want any of them to make mistakes,” Rep. C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger (Md.) said last week of his request in an account supported by Republican participants. “We didn’t want to jeopardize sources and methods, and we didn’t want to tip off the bad guys. That’s all.” [*]
What Petraeus decided to do with that request is the pivotal moment in the controversy

]]> http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/petraeuss-role-in-drafting-benghazi-talking-points-raises-questions/2013/05/21/db19f352-c165-11e2-ab60-67bba7be7813_story.html
Petraeus’s role in drafting Benghazi talking points raises questions
By Scott Wilson and Karen DeYoung, Published: May 21 [Obama White House] [113th congress, 1st session] [bureaucracy: America’s intelligence community (IC) but specifically the CIA] [the recent “scandal” over Benghazi] [I haven’t seen anything particularly scandalous but it’s made political hay] [but this is interesting: what appeared little more than a turf battle between state and CIA traces back to former CIA director Petraeus] [cross in individual (though might be role?)] [use psci 355-455] [Wilson and DeYoung (two national security reporters) provide an interesting tick tock of events] [*]
The controversy over the Obama administration’s response to the Benghazi attack last year began at a meeting over coffee on Capitol Hill three days after the assault.
It was at this informal session with the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence that the ranking Democrat asked David H. Petraeus, who was CIA director at the time, to ensure that committee members did not inadvertently disclose classified information when talking to the news media about the attack. [*]
“We had some new members on the committee, and we knew the press would be very aggressive on this, so we didn’t want any of them to make mistakes,” Rep. C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger (Md.) said last week of his request in an account supported by Republican participants. “We didn’t want to jeopardize sources and methods, and we didn’t want to tip off the bad guys. That’s all.” [*]
What Petraeus decided to do with that request is the pivotal moment in the controversy over the administration’s Benghazi talking points. It was from his initial input that all else flowed, resulting in 48 hours of intensive editing that congressional Republicans cite as evidence of a White House coverup.
A close reading of recently released government e-mails that were sent during the editing process, and interviews with senior officials from several government agencies, reveal Petraeus’s early role and ambitions in going well beyond the committee’s request, apparently to produce a set of talking points favorable to his image and his agency.
The information Petraeus ordered up when he returned to his Langley office that morning included far more than the minimalist version that Ruppersberger had requested. [*]It included early classified intelligence assessments of who might be responsible for the attack and an account of prior CIA warnings — information that put Petraeus at odds with the State Department, the FBI and senior officials within his own agency.
The only government entity that did not object to the detailed talking points produced with Petraeus’s input was the White House, which played the role of mediator in the bureaucratic fight that at various points included the CIA’s top lawyer and the agency’s deputy director expressing opposition to what the director wanted.[*]
“What [committee members] were looking for was the lowest common denominator,” said a senior administration official, one of several who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the editing process. “That’s not what the agency originally produced.”
Petraeus did not respond to e-mailed requests to clarify questions surrounding his role in drafting and reviewing the talking points. He resigned as CIA director in November after details of an extramarital affair became public.
The attack
At 9:42 p.m. Sept. 11, 2012, as violent anti-American demonstrations unfolded across the Middle East and North Africa over an anti-Islam video made in the United States, a group of armed men attacked the U.S. diplomatic compound in the eastern Libyan city of Benghazi, killing Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans.
Recriminations in Washington began within hours. But it was not until a month later that it became clear that the CIA, rather than the State Department, maintained the most significant presence in Benghazi.
Near the diplomatic outpost was a CIA installation where about two dozen intelligence and security personnel were based. Their mission was to track weapons shipments out of the country and to identify the numerous militias operating in Benghazi.
Security at this annex was the responsibility of the CIA, not the State Department. But because the annex operated under diplomatic cover, its existence as an intelligence facility was classified.
The State Department and the White House became the primary focus of the public criticism.
The debate within the CIA
After Petraeus’s morning coffee on Sept. 14, the CIA’s Office of Terrorism Analysis sent an internal agency e-mail with the subject line: “FLASH coordination — white paper for HPSCI,” referring to the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
The committee “has asked for unclassified points immediately that they can use in talking to the media,” the e-mail said.
Then, shifting into the first person, the office’s director, who had accompanied Petraeus to the coffee, wrote, “I have been asked to provide a bit on responsibility,” including “warnings we gave to Cairo prior to the demonstration, as well as material on warnings we issued prior to 9/11 anniversary.” [*]
Included was a six-point draft that began, “We believe based on currently available information that the attacks in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired” by anti-American demonstrations elsewhere “and evolved” into assaults against “the U.S. consulate and subsequently its annex.”
It followed with a reference to previous attacks against foreign interests in Benghazi and a mention of Ansar al-Sharia, a terrorist organization with links to al-Qaeda. That information, put in at Petraeus’s request, would become the chief source of tension between the agency, the State Department and the FBI.
Fifteen minutes after that
e-mail, the CIA’s Office of Congressional Affairs sent its own internal message, with the subject line: “Due-Outs from HPSCI coffee.”
The first item for the committee was a “white paper” on media guidance — the talking points that would emerge a few hours later.
In addition, the e-mail listed two items “For DCIA,” a reference to Petraeus. That request included “Cable(s) to [redacted] warning of protests linked to the film and response” and “cable(s) to stations on 9/11 security.”
Republicans would later contend that the CIA had wanted to tell the truth about what unfolded that day but that the State Department, with White House support, removed the information for political reasons amid a heated presidential campaign.
But the e-mails reveal that the initial talking points also generated tension and confusion within the CIA, as officials sought to understand how Petraeus’s requests squared with what the committee had asked for.
Stephen W. Preston, the CIA’s general counsel, was among those most concerned with the first draft.
In an internal agency e-mail at 4:24 p.m. that Friday, he acknowledged that “there is a hurry to get this out.” The talking points should not “conflict with express instructions” from the National Security Council, the FBI and the Justice Department, he wrote, and that “in light of the criminal investigation, we are not to generate statements with assessments as to who did this.”
Although Ansar al-Sharia had quickly backed off an initial assertion of responsibility for the Benghazi attack, the group did not deny that some of its members were involved.
But its likely involvement was a classified matter, senior administration officials said, and the FBI had objected to including the information in the talking points on the grounds that doing so would undermine its investigation of the attack.
“I am copying the CIA front office,” Preston wrote, referring to Petraeus’s department, “who may be more familiar with those instructions and the tasking arising from the HPSCI coffee.”
Less than an hour later, the agency sent the talking points, which had been strengthened to include repeated CIA security warnings, to the White House and other agencies for review. The reference to Ansar remained in the draft, as did a line particularly beneficial to the CIA.
“The Agency has produced numerous pieces on the threat of extremists linked to al-Qaeda in Benghazi and eastern Libya,” the fifth talking point began.[*]
At 6:21 p.m., then-National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor e-mailed the CIA Office of Public Affairs saying that Principal Deputy National Security Adviser Denis McDonough, who has since become the White House chief of staff, had asked that “highlighted portions” of the draft be “coordinated with the State Department in the event that they get inquiries.”
The highlights indicated that McDonough’s main concern was the information about the prior CIA warnings to U.S. diplomatic missions in North Africa — information that was included at Petraeus’s request.
State Department balks
At 7:39 p.m. Friday, Victoria Nuland, then the State Department’s chief spokesperson,
e-mailed deputy national security adviser Benjamin J. Rhodes; Jake Sullivan, director of policy planning at State; Shawn Turner, a spokesman for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence; and others. She expressed “serious concerns” about including Ansar and mentioning “warnings” in the talking points. [*]
Nuland said the mention of the warnings “could be abused by members to beat the State Department for not paying attention to Agency warnings.”
Rhodes responded, “We need to resolve this in a way that respects all of the relevant equities, particularly the investigation,” and suggested that the issue be resolved the next morning during a previously scheduled meeting of the national security deputies.
“We’ve tried to work the draft talking points for HPSCI through the coordination process but have run into major problems,” the CIA’s Office of Public Affairs wrote to Petraeus at 9:52 p.m. Sept. 14. “The White House cleared quickly, but State has major concerns.”
Early the next morning, CIA Deputy Director Mike Morell, informed of the State Department’s concerns, took his own editing pencil to the talking points.
He agreed with Nuland that the warnings about other protests in the region were irrelevant to the committee request, senior administration officials said, and that any mention of Ansar could expose classified information.
At 9:45 a.m. Saturday, Morell sent out his edited version of the talking points, pared down to three bullet points. A few minutes later, the terrorism analysis director, who had written the original version after attending the coffee with Petraeus, responded.
“They are fine with me. But, pretty sure HPSCI won’t like them,” the official wrote, signing off with a smiley-face emoticon.
A little more than two hours later, an e-mail to Morell from Petraeus’s front office staff expressed concern about what was happening to the talking points.
“Before going to the committee, may I please ask you to send these to the Director?” the front office wrote. “He needs to know in advance what is going to the Hill in his name, even if it is going with the force of the full interagency coordination.”
Morell responded with concern about whether Petraeus would approve the document, even after other agencies had signed off.
“Please run the points by the Director, then get them to
HPSCI,” he wrote soon after. “I spoke to the Director earlier about State’s deep concerns about mentioning the warnings and the other work done on this, but you will want to reemphasize in your note to DCIA.”
Morell was right to be worried.
In an e-mail sent two hours later to Morell and others inside the agency, Petraeus wrote, “No mention of the cable to Cairo, either? Frankly, I’d just as soon not use this, then. . . [National Security Council] call, to be sure; however, this is certainly not what Vice Chairman Ruppersberger was hoping to get for unclas use.”
Asked about Petraeus’s warning, Ruppersberger said, “I’m not sure what he meant. I had no expectations.” © The Washington Post Co